2025 Federal Election: A Pox o' Both Your Houses

Who will you be voting for?

  • Abstain and cop the fine

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Labor

    Votes: 46 41.8%

  • Liberal-National Coalition

    Votes: 9 8.2%

  • Greens

    Votes: 24 21.8%

  • A new age marketing colour called Teal

    Votes: 6 5.5%

  • Independent

    Votes: 12 10.9%

  • I haven't decided yet

    Votes: 9 8.2%

  • DONKEY

    Votes: 3 2.7%
  • Total voters
    110

Remove this Banner Ad

Johnny Bananas said:
The ALP should put out an ad like this:

(Poker table at a casino, camera is in first person perspective of a man playing. The dealer has five cards laid out, three upturned featuring solar panels and two face down.)

Voiceover: The whole world is moving to renewable energy...

(The man looks down at the two cards in his hand, both of which have nuclear symbols.)

Voiceover: ...But Peter Dutton thinks he knows better than everyone else. He wants to go nuclear.

(The man puts down his cards and grabs his entire pile of chips.)

Voiceover: In fact, he wants to bet the house on it. 600 billion dollars of your money.

(The figure $600 billion appears briefly on the screen.)

(The man looks to his side where a woman in tears is grabbing his shoulder.)

Woman: Please darling, don't do it, don't gamble away our future!

(The man looks back over to his hands, moves all his chips to the middle of the table and says "all in".)

Voiceover: But this reckless gamble won't end well for us. It'll increase the average electricity bill by $606 for households and $1182 for small businesses.

(The dealer upturns the last two cards, one of which shows a house, below which is a red arrow pointing up and the text +$606, the other of which shows a shop, below which is a red arrow pointing up and the text +$1182.)

(The dealer takes all the chips. Suddenly, the lights in the casino flicker, then go out, leaving a black screen.)

Voiceover: And if there are any delays at all, we risk running out of power and not being able to keep the lights on.

(White text appears on the black screen)

Voiceover: If Dutton wins, you lose.

(Authorisation)
Click to expand...
That's actually fantastic
 
Sphynx said:
70% of the population earns $500k and reduces it down to $80k?

It's not possible in current lending laws.
Click to expand...
It is for 50% out of that 70% of people whose partners make $350k per annum.

What % of negatively geared properties aren't owned by two people (or the trust thereof).

For example, all the partners of Parliamentarians who work part-time are individuals who negatively gear, in partnership with their spouse. All of those partners are negatively gearing individuals.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Johnny Bananas said:
The ALP should put out an ad like this:

(Poker table at a casino, camera is in first person perspective of a man playing. The dealer has five cards laid out, three upturned featuring solar panels and two face down.)

Voiceover: The whole world is moving to renewable energy...

(The man looks down at the two cards in his hand, both of which have nuclear symbols.)

Voiceover: ...But Peter Dutton thinks he knows better than everyone else. He wants to go nuclear.

(The man puts down his cards and grabs his entire pile of chips.)

Voiceover: In fact, he wants to bet the house on it. 600 billion dollars of your money.

(The figure $600 billion appears briefly on the screen.)

(The man looks to his side where a woman in tears is grabbing his shoulder.)

Woman: Please darling, don't do it, don't gamble away our future!

(The man looks back over to his hands, moves all his chips to the middle of the table and says "all in".)

Voiceover: But this reckless gamble won't end well for us. It'll increase the average electricity bill by $606 for households and $1182 for small businesses.

(The dealer upturns the last two cards, one of which shows a house, below which is a red arrow pointing up and the text +$606, the other of which shows a shop, below which is a red arrow pointing up and the text +$1182.)

(The dealer takes all the chips. Suddenly, the lights in the casino flicker, then go out, leaving a black screen.)

Voiceover: And if there are any delays at all, we risk running out of power and not being able to keep the lights on.

(White text appears on the black screen)

Voiceover: If Dutton wins, you lose.

(Authorisation)
Click to expand...
Brilliant..
 
Johnny Bananas said:
The ALP should put out an ad like this:

(Poker table at a casino, camera is in first person perspective of a man playing. The dealer has five cards laid out, three upturned featuring solar panels and two face down.)

Voiceover: The whole world is moving to renewable energy...

(The man looks down at the two cards in his hand, both of which have nuclear symbols.)

Voiceover: ...But Peter Dutton thinks he knows better than everyone else. He wants to go nuclear.

(The man puts down his cards and grabs his entire pile of chips.)

Voiceover: In fact, he wants to bet the house on it. 600 billion dollars of your money.

(The figure $600 billion appears briefly on the screen.)

(The man looks to his side where a woman in tears is grabbing his shoulder.)

Woman: Please darling, don't do it, don't gamble away our future!

(The man looks back over to his hands, moves all his chips to the middle of the table and says "all in".)

Voiceover: But this reckless gamble won't end well for us. It'll increase the average electricity bill by $606 for households and $1182 for small businesses.

(The dealer upturns the last two cards, one of which shows a house, below which is a red arrow pointing up and the text +$606, the other of which shows a shop, below which is a red arrow pointing up and the text +$1182.)

(The dealer takes all the chips. Suddenly, the lights in the casino flicker, then go out, leaving a black screen.)

Voiceover: And if there are any delays at all, we risk running out of power and not being able to keep the lights on.

(White text appears on the black screen)

Voiceover: If Dutton wins, you lose.

(Authorisation)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they have to put a disclaimer, what with it being a gambling ad?
 
Gough said:
I'm sure you'd be happy with three more years of Labor government if you can't see a difference between the two parties.
Click to expand...
I can tolerate 3 more years of Labor.

It's better than the bullying aggressive firebrand hardliners that the Liberal coalition or trumpet of the patriot's or one nation party has on the table
 
On the shop front in Wagga...

Responding to the images and saying they are offensive is not curtailing free speech, it's engaging in it.

Suggesting the images should be illegal or passing laws to make them illegal is curtailing free speech.

Criticism of speech is not an attack on free speech.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Barrybran said:
It would be nice if there was a viable third option to Labor/LNP though. I don't think much changes until we take this option seriously.
Click to expand...

I'd personally rather 3,4,5,6 options tbh.

The viable third option already exists (not that I'm a supporter of them).

The Greens had 12% of the primary vote in this country at the last election

United Australia Party (again, not a supporter) has a similar primary vote to the Greens did in the 2000's.

Considering some polls has the ALP down to as low as 25% a month or so ago, and around 29-30% of the primary vote now translates to around a 50/50 split in the two party preferred system in polling.... The Greens potentially receiving half the primary vote of the ALP this election but potentially having 5-10% of the seats is just flawed in so many ways.

Losing the primary vote to your main competitor by 3% (ALP vs LNP in 2022) should never translate to a 22 seat majority in Government.

If the ALP want to make deals with the Greens and others, they should be doing it from within the legislative chamber with accountability, not within election legislation framework with far less accountability like our preferences system.

We are now at the point the preferential election system is becoming seriously broken because of the rise of the teals, independents and increased support of the greens.

The Greens should have far greater leverage within current government than they do. As should the far right parties like One Nation and UAP. This is representative of our current population, if people don't like that, bad luck.

Now under this scenario, the ALP + Greens + Left Independents would still hold balance of power over the LNP, ON, UAP + right Independents, but the ALP would hold a much lower proportion of that power and if they were to develop policy and pass legislation would have to bow to proportional ideas representative of the voting public. Likewise the LNP. You would likely see the dissolution of the LNP as it current is also. As it would make much more sense for the National Party to self represent in this format.

A split like this would probably see an explosion in a far right party separate from the Liberal Party and more legitimate than the UAP or ON and the traditional Liberal Party probably almost ceases to exist in a way, or just becomes a minor center right party.

Plenty of the population vote ALP or LNP simply because they know they are the only ones who will be able to wield power, most of our voting is not completely reflective of our societies political position. There's likely a much bigger proportion of far right and an even bigger block of the left and greens makeup who simply vote ALP or LNP because they know voting elsewhere is almost useless.

There would be far more cross bench involvement to work together on things.

Electoral reform towards a proportionality system is really required imo.

It might bog down progress in a way, but it's going to make government much more streamlined, much more accountable, much more consistent election on election. You won't have the all-or-nothing we currently have, with governments coming in and reversing and revoking policy and essentially bringing us back to square one and wasting money continually.

The legislative make up would evolve naturally if that is the way the country is leaning. Rather than just in/out and being so disjointed.

The resulting government would likely be counter productive to some of my own personal political positions, but we are a democracy.

Now the problem with this suggestion is a catch 22, in that it is dictated completely by current electoral legislation, of which you are going to need to hold government within the current system, or at least hold huge leverage within it, in the current system, before being able to change it. Neither of which the ALP or the LNP will ever do, as they will likely lose their grip on power from that point on.

The Greens are probably the only hope in that respect, but would likely need another 5-10% increase in the primary vote to be in that position.

The Greens should campaign harder on it and explain it to the average Australian better, this is something they should try and actually work in conjunction with Independents, Teals, ON/UAP (even with the differing political opinions).

Can you imagine a joint political advertising campaign from the Greens, ON and UAP and how much cut through that would have?
 
Last edited:
The Punter said:
On the shop front in Wagga...

Responding to the images and saying they are offensive is not curtailing free speech, it's engaging in it.

Suggesting the images should be illegal or passing laws to make them illegal is curtailing free speech.

Criticism of speech is not an attack on free speech.
Click to expand...

What are your thoughts on newscorp doing front page nazi photoshops of labor, then whining about the Wagga images?
 
Ghost Patrol said:
What are your thoughts on newscorp doing front page nazi photoshops of labor, then whining about the Wagga images?
Click to expand...

I'll answer the question that was put to me.

Most Daily Telegraph front pages are awful, and nothing would be missed from the national discourse if they disappeared.

Also, they couldn't make Hogan's Heroes today.
 
Freomaniac said:
I can tolerate 3 more years of Labor.

It's better than the bullying aggressive firebrand hardliners that the Liberal coalition or trumpet of the patriot's or one nation party has on the table
Click to expand...
I think that sums up what should be Albo's strategy. You may not like me much, but do you really want to risk a mean-spirited man who won't tell you what he will cut until after the election?
 
Sphynx said:
I'd personally rather 3,4,5,6 options tbh.

The viable third option already exists (not that I'm a supporter of them).

The Greens had 12% of the primary vote in this country at the last election

United Australia Party (again, not a supporter) has a similar primary vote to the Greens did in the 2000's.

Considering some polls has the ALP down to as low as 25% a month or so ago, and around 29-30% of the primary vote now translates to around a 50/50 split in the two party preferred system in polling.... The Greens potentially receiving half the primary vote of the ALP this election but potentially having 5-10% of the seats is just flawed in so many ways.

Losing the primary vote to your main competitor by 3% (ALP vs LNP in 2022) should never translate to a 22 seat majority in Government.

If the ALP want to make deals with the Greens and others, they should be doing it from within the legislative chamber with accountability, not within election legislation framework with far less accountability like our preferences system.

We are now at the point the preferential election system is becoming seriously broken because of the rise of the teals, independents and increased support of the greens.

The Greens should have far greater leverage within current government than they do. As should the far right parties like One Nation and UAP. This is representative of our current population, if people don't like that, bad luck.

Now under this scenario, the ALP + Greens + Left Independents would still hold balance of power over the LNP, ON, UAP + right Independents, but the ALP would hold a much lower proportion of that power and if they were to develop policy and pass legislation would have to bow to proportional ideas representative of the voting public. Likewise the LNP. You would likely see the dissolution of the LNP as it current is also. As it would make much more sense for the National Party to self represent in this format.

A split like this would probably see an explosion in a far right party separate from the Liberal Party and more legitimate than the UAP or ON and the traditional Liberal Party probably almost ceases to exist in a way, or just becomes a minor center right party.

Plenty of the population vote ALP or LNP simply because they know they are the only ones who will be able to wield power, most of our voting is not completely reflective of our societies political position. There's likely a much bigger proportion of far right and an even bigger block of the left and greens makeup who simply vote ALP or LNP because they know voting elsewhere is almost useless.

There would be far more cross bench involvement to work together on things.

Electoral reform towards a proportionality system is really required imo.

It might bog down progress in a way, but it's going to make government much more streamlined, much more accountable, much more consistent election on election. You won't have the all-or-nothing we currently have, with governments coming in and reversing and revoking policy and essentially bringing us back to square one and wasting money continually.

The legislative make up would evolve naturally if that is the way the country is leaning. Rather than just in/out and being so disjointed.

The resulting government would likely be counter productive to some of my own personal political positions, but we are a democracy.

Now the problem with this suggestion is a catch 22, in that it is dictated completely by current electoral legislation, of which you are going to need to hold government within the current system, or at least hold huge leverage within it, in the current system, before being able to change it. Neither of which the ALP or the LNP will ever do, as they will likely lose their grip on power from that point on.

The Greens are probably the only hope in that respect, but would likely need another 5-10% increase in the primary vote to be in that position.

The Greens should campaign harder on it and explain it to the average Australian better, this is something they should try and actually work in conjunction with Independents, Teals, ON/UAP (even with the differing political opinions).

Can you imagine a joint political advertising campaign from the Greens, ON and UAP and how much cut through that would have?
Click to expand...
The answer is in the Senate.

It's pretty rare that a party can get legislation passed without cross-bench Senate support.

The translation of the sinking of the 1st preferences for the major parties has been that they continue to rely on independent support.

The Greens are pretty steadily strong and will enjoy a preference boost again this election.

This election, it's likely the Libs will lose Senate seats in Qld, Vic and maybe WA and the ACT, if seats go more the way of 2022 than 2019. I'm hoping for more Pococks and fewer Linda Reynolds.

If we didn't have this check/balance, I would have the same problem with preferential voting, but we have the proportional representation in the Senate.
 
Saint said:
The answer is in the Senate.

It's pretty rare that a party can get legislation passed without cross-bench Senate support.

The translation of the sinking of the 1st preferences for the major parties has been that they continue to rely on independent support.

The Greens are pretty steadily strong and will enjoy a preference boost again this election.

This election, it's likely the Libs will lose Senate seats in Qld, Vic and maybe WA and the ACT, if seats go more the way of 2022 than 2019. I'm hoping for more Pococks and fewer Linda Reynolds.

If we didn't have this check/balance, I would have the same problem with preferential voting, but we have the proportional representation in the Senate.
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at poling.

But I thought initial commentary was that VIC was seeing a big swing to the LNP from the ALP for the first time in many elections. Part of that is state level dissatisfaction with Allen.

Would have thought that would be translated in Senate gains, rather than losses..
 
Sphynx said:
I haven't looked at poling.

But I thought initial commentary was that VIC was seeing a big swing to the LNP from the ALP for the first time in many elections. Part of that is state level dissatisfaction with Allen.

Would have thought that would be translated in Senate gains, rather than losses..
Click to expand...

The actual state by elections show swings away. But not to the libs by much
The decider is which of the libs and labour get put lower in preference
Interesting that the voters I saw being interviewed on TV in state by elections were giving federal responsibility reasons for their vote
 

2025 Federal Election: A Pox o' Both Your Houses


Write your reply...

Similar threads

PonsfordMagpie
  • Poll
BigFooty Poll (Australian Federal Election)
Replies
11
Views
823
Mofra
Mofra
E
Election 2025 - Here We Go Again
Replies
2
Views
178
Not Important
N
J
Debate for Australia, and the next election.2025.
Replies
4
Views
290
kickazz
kickazz
peetoo
Teals and independent candidates in 2025 fed election
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
276
Views
11K
JoondalupJ
J
S
January 26th 2025
67 68 69 70 71
Replies
2K
Views
36K
schneebly111
S
Todman
Qld Queensland State Election 2024
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
304
Views
13K
DaRick
DaRick
Seeds
Take your hand off my kids ipads
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
379
Views
10K
Chief
Chief
Back
Top