PDA

View Full Version : is the coalition deliberately tanking.



Davidflude
23-10-2007, 06:12 PM
this year Carlton managed to lose eleven games on the trot so as to get the best draft choice.

Has the coalition figured that things are going to get nasty over the next three years. With Australia owing vast amounts overseas and the US heading for a depression with a vengeance things could get very ugly. So are the coalition running dead?

Spend every penny and some more and hope that Rudd matches the promises.
Captain Smirk can have a great time blaming the Labour Party for the consequences of his being asleep at the wheel. Then after one term in opposition and cleaning out the coalition dead wood they can sweep back into office.

This approach was used in New Zealand in 1957.

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2007, 06:16 PM
Well, if KRudd wants to say "me too" to all the Coalition's policies ...

Interesting that he is running a Presidential campaign. He doesn't dare let the 70% of union hacks in his lineup tell Australians what they really plan, until after the election.

Basil
23-10-2007, 06:17 PM
I think not, David, What do you think?

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2007, 08:23 PM
Captain Smirk can have a great time blaming the Labour Party for the consequences of his being asleep at the wheel. Then after one term in opposition and cleaning out the coalition dead wood they can sweep back into office.

The problem with tanking is, to paraphrase one of Kurt Vonnegut's characters, anyone can call a time out but no one can say how long the time out will be.
Parties that decide they'll give power to some lame opposition and win it back next time have a nasty habit of being out of office longer than they expected.

It's sometimes argued that the GOP tanked in 1992 expecting that Clinton would be a flop and they could take back the White House in 1996. Didn't happen, and so nearly didn't happen in 2000 either.

Capablanca-Fan
23-10-2007, 09:20 PM
This is also a problem with unhappy supporters of the incumbent party voting for the other lot to "teach the incumbents a lesson" or "send a message" or other such crap. The problem is, the message is ambiguous. Maybe it is "be more like the other lot", given that the other lot won!

It is crass to vote against someone because you're unhappy with 50% of their actions, if this vote results in the other lot implementing 80% that you're unhappy with (drumroll USA 2006 election ...).

Kevin Bonham
23-10-2007, 10:18 PM
It is crass to vote against someone because you're unhappy with 50% of their actions, if this vote results in the other lot implementing 80% that you're unhappy with (drumroll USA 2006 election ...).

I'd love to model the long-term strategy payoffs involved in deliberately voting for the opposition even if you think it will be worse, every time the government falls below a certain standard.

Of course for it to work it has to be assumed that people with interests in a wide range of issues are doing it; if only some issues motivate people to do it there's a risk the losing government will be confused by the feedback.

These days it's usually not too hard to work out why governments win or lose elections after the event.

Axiom
23-10-2007, 10:37 PM
like a pin ball flipped from flipper to flipper

Aaron Guthrie
23-10-2007, 11:05 PM
like a pin ball flipped from flipper to flipperIndeed, it does take great skill to do that without losing the ball.

Axiom
23-10-2007, 11:11 PM
Indeed, it does take great skill to do that without losing the ball.
Yes, just ask the globalist bankers !

CameronD
23-10-2007, 11:43 PM
I dont think so in regards to John Howard as an avalache defeat would be the end of his dream "work choices" employment system. I think work choices is the main reason he hasn't retired as he wants to protect his infant ideal.

Davidflude
23-10-2007, 11:52 PM
I dont think so in regards to John Howard as an avalache defeat would be the end of his dream "work choices" employment system. I think work choices is the main reason he hasn't retired as he wants to protect his infant ideal.

I heard that Hyacinthe went ballistic and would not let him retire.

Capablanca-Fan
02-11-2007, 08:15 AM
Amazing that the Howard-haters claim that Howard's policies are so nasty, but will vote for Chairman Rudd who has copied 22 of his major ones (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22688620-661,00.html)! Howard as de facto Labor leader: who'd have thought? :P

Axiom
02-11-2007, 09:31 AM
Amazing that the Howard-haters claim that Howard's policies are so nasty, but will vote for Chairman Rudd who has copied 22 of his major ones (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22688620-661,00.html)! Howard as de facto Labor leader: who'd have thought? :P
yes they're almost interchangeable...........how curious. ;)