Canning – Australia 2025

1. @ Yoh An
   Whitlam may split into two seats if parliament is expanded. one safe Labor one Safe Lib Werriwa is a problem for Labor and i think having bad candidates is one problem. Labor should do what they did in Lyons and put a stronger candidate.
   Pearce, Bullwimkle and Moore should first gains for Coaliton as the WA vote in unstainable

2. https://www.9news.com.au/national/peter-dutton-claims-andrew-hastie-went-on-strike-during-failed-election-campaign/114d6c9b-9e21-46e6-b0f9-bdcda30f0b00
   Dutton has attacked Hastie and blamed him for the election loss. This is the moderates dream to see two right flank members fight.

3. I hope it doesn’t become a race to the bottom on the Liberal benches. Hastie, stirring the pot too quickly, could backfire on him. If he topples Ley in this manner this early, he will stir up resentment, and it will be a long three years. The latest Newspoll has ON on 11%.

4. Yea it wasn’t Andrew Hasties fault. It was the poor liberal campaign the half decent labor campaign, liberal policies or lack thereof, trump, vote buying. I mean 20% off your he’s debt? Who wouldn’t sell their vote for a few grand?

5. Craig intend he will wait until the new year. Provably after Australia Day which he will use as a rallying call to his supporters. Ley will be gone by Anzac Day

6. Probably need to sort it out by the time the next budget is laid out. The budget came in better than expected so they might try for a surplus again for 2026.

   Some of the friction may be due to Hastie’s desire for an economic portfolio. Sarah Henderson has not been saying nice things lately.

   The Liberals didn’t lose because of vote buying – Dutton offered $1200 for no apparent reason. Whether you like it or not, at least the HEC’s debt reduction is tied to something.

   Dutton lost because Labor appeared more reasonable compared to Dutton’s campaign, which was inconsistent. Trump certainly didn’t help, but it could have been dealt with. Canada was exposed to Trump much more than Australia. He didn’t have to run around looking like Trump-Lite. Hastie phoned in a defense offering as if no one would notice. Dutton’s fumbling on the budget question made it appear as though they were against tax cuts.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7KVWCi_so

   I couldn’t come up with a better summary of the election than watching this exchange between Shorten and Pyne.

7. The only thing the HECS debt is tied to is Albo wanting to get reflected. They were basically offers 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of $ for people to vote for them.

8. It’s a bit rich of Peter Dutton to be blaming Andrew Hastie. Frankly, Peter Dutton and Angus Taylor’s lack of policy development – and Jane Hume sticking both feet in her mouth. As leader , the responsibility has to sheet home to him.

9. Peter Dutton can blame only one person. And that’s Peter Dutton. As the leader its his failure. Andrew Hastie did not cause the coalition to lose seats and for labor to win94 seats.

10. Hastie managed a 5% swing to him despite taking in labor voting territory. Dutton got an 6% swing against him

11. @ John
    You were supporting Dutton until recently and said he will become PM in 2028 in a landslide.

12. Dutton went down with the ship that’s why he is on the outside looking in now. That said, these comments were taken from the party dissection of the election results not some random interview he gave to a talking head somewhere. I would be mildly curious as to whom and why an internal party discussion was aired like dirty laundry. I don’t know if it’s normal process for such things to see the light of day.

    The old expression “Success has many fathers failure is an orphan.” You win as a team you lose as a team. Likewise Labor didn’t win just because of Albo. He was underwater in approval but Dutton’s just tanked starting around February.

    I think Redistributed made a good point about policy development. I think they were expecting the voters to come to them. It was almost as if they were waiting for the apple to fall from the tree and then finding out the apple was on a different tree.

    Hastie is smart enough to figure things out ahead of time and he could probably do a pretty good Question Time. However even the most well laid out plan can go bad if you miss the target. Dutton also lost in part because he made a lot of knee jerk reactions on the campaign trail to the right that he has to walk back or got saddled with an unnecessary label. If I had to give a figure it would be 1/3 lack of policy, 1/3 poor campaigning by Dutton in part due to lack of policy, and 1/3 Albo ran a cautious campaign that didn’t piss of anyone. So the undecideds broke hard to Labor probably out of the devil you know vs the devil you don’t know.

13. @ John

    I’d have to say although I don’t comment often, I’ve seen this longstanding view/line that you’ve been pushing about Labor ‘buying votes’ and with all due respect offering a policy to the public is not vote buying. And should such a policy as 20% off HECS be vote buying, how is that any different from either or any political party promising quite literally anything. A new hospital? An upgraded motorway? Tax relief? (Which the Coalition up until the last election at least was the major proponent of, although for some reason did not support Labor’s tax relief changes). All of those policies and more by any party could, by your logic, be considered vote-buying. The same way young people ‘selling their vote to Labor for a few grand’ is a ‘quality of life improvement’ for those students who get to keep more of their money (because we know uni students are generally worse off financially due to a lack of qualification) is no different, by your logic, of any party offering the aforementioned new hospital. Those such projects still cost money, still lure voters to vote 1 for a party, and still deliver ‘quality of life improvements’ to the affected individuals. Offering a policy is fundamentally not vote buying, and in regards to that particular policy I’d argue it is actually more beneficial than your beloved Coalition’s usual line of tax reliefs as HECS relief is in a way more means tested because it is being delivered to a cohort of individuals who are broadly worse off than the median Australian because of their age and lack of experience. Need I remind you the disproportionate benefit that those Stage 3 tax cuts propelled by Morrison were going to supply voters in the top tax bracket? By your logic this thankfully lessened tax cut was undoubtedly vote-buying because it promised a sector of the population a benefit that, in your own words about Albo’s HECS relief ‘was basically offers 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of $ for people to vote for them.’

14. Yea that was until he made a meal of the 2025 election and lost in a landslide. And his own seat. Dutton is gone he’s not coming back.

    @Bajoc they basically giving people 1000s of $s to vote, for them. This isn’t a policy to benfit everyone this a policy targeted at.people who took a loan from the taxpayers to fund their education and now Albo you know what don’t worry about it if you vote for me il just waive you debt. By 20% this is different a hospital is for everyone and will be there long after hes gone. It’s not a policy to be fit anyone but Albo.

15. @craig there was abvious concern over trump as well that played a role. Albo and labor made sure trump was on the ballot and that him and Dutton were on the same ticket.

    @nimaln yes and I also stated that Dutton and the libs screwed themselves of that i can see why noone voted for them. I was so disappointed I was glad I chose to go to the UK that weekend. Didn’t even bother to watch the coverage. I checked the score to see how bad it was but that was it. Dutton gone and it’s his own fault. I don’t want Ley leading the party. Hastie was my choice in the leadership ballot but he didnt stand. I didnt want either Ley or Taylor.

    Anyone who thinks Hastie would do worse is not being legit. Could he really do worse then Duttons performance during the campaign? If Dutton couldn’t lose Berowra or La Trobe i don’t see how Hastie would. The libs performance was their worst since they founded. They still managed swings in seats like Monash, Ballarat Solomon Brand, Goldstein Casey and Bullwinkel. Hastie also got a healthy swing. They also nearly lost Fremantle, Bean and Calwell. And couldn’t win back Fowler. This suggests people were voting against the libs not for labor in most cases. Yes labor policies were also about vote buying but the majority of the damage came from the liberals doing it to themselves with Trump not making things easier.

    I reckon Hastie can reverse their fortunes by forcing Labor into a minority in 2028. A win is probably now not possible until 2031.

16. @ John
    The result in Solomon and Bendigo was pleasing for Libs i will concede that. I think Monash (McMillan) is now a Blue Ribbon Liberal seat and no longer a swing seat. I expected Libs to do well in Casey as it is a very Anglo tradie seat where Dutton will play well. Libs cannot win Fremantle/Bean, Fowler or Calwell and any independent who wins either Fremantle or Bean will always support a Labor minority government. Ballarat maybe a target seat once Catherine King retires. WA was inflated in 2022 due to covid so there was room for it to swing to Libs which in part explains Bullinweinkle, Canning and Pearce. I think 3 easiset pick up in 2028 will be Bullwinkle, Moore and Pearce for this reason and irrespective of who is the leader.I say good result in Goldstein is due to Israel but if net Zero is abandoned many non-Jews will swing to Teal and that seat will be lost. Berowra is well educated and quite diverse so may fall if party goes further to right. La Trobe is a seat which is rapidly urbanising and the growth of South Asians will hurt Libs. Hastie should be fine in Lindsay and Longman as the are more Anglo seats.

17. Nimalan while true it’s another seat labor must spend resources to defend. They would also have lost Will’s if it were not for the coalition poor performance. They’re on track to lose Fraser in the future too. They will probably face problems in Watson and Blaxland. Their idea to target outer suburban blue collar labor seats did work to an extent. Blunting the swings that occurred elsewhere.the only sae t they have an issue in is sa in the medium term. Qld and Tasmania have demonstrated that they are still liberal leaning states, winter thought he could ride federal labors wave and unseat the govt that went horribly wrong and backfired. The next test will be the vic and nsw state elections. You can usually tell which way an election is gonna go by how many mps jump ship. The loss of a number of libs gives them a chance at renewal and to get some new blood in. A few mps are getting to that age where retirement is probably gonna be a good option at the next election i reckon at least 12 will retire.

18. @ John
    A few points
    1. Wills will remain a problem in 2028 even if there is a ceasefire in Gaza as Peter Khalil is not well liked and many would prefer a Progressive Laboor MP to a right wing Labor MP
    2. However, as Labor as gained Melbourne from Greens. Wills can be lost worse case in 2028. Sarah Witty is more progressive than Khalil and has a better chance of being relected in 2028.
    3. Fraser-only became a ALP V GRN seat in 2025 unlike Melbourne-2007, Batman/Cooper-2010, Wills-2013 i still think there is sometime before Greens can win it without Lib preferences. It is less gentified, Daniel Mulino is more of a social conservative and that is why he maybe loosing some voters to Greens around Footscary. Fraser had a much lower vote for the Voice than Wills, Cooper.
    4. Labor is fine in Cooper until Ged Kearney retires.
    5. I dont think MVM independents will win Blaxland or Watson even if things get worse in the Middle East for the simple reason Libs can never preference them ahead of Labor.
    6. It is possible that Dai Le may one day back a minority Liberal government and possible Joseph Youhana if he wins Calwell.

19. It’s because of the controversy surrounding there posts and opinions on Gaza. A less divisive ind Muslim candidates similar to Caldwell would likely get lib preferences thus causing problems from Burke and Clare. Western Sydney is similar the western Melbourne in that it has been taken for granted for years. They also face a threat from Frank Carbone and Dai Les party who were gonnaa put up candidates but failed to do so

20. @ John
    Joseph Youhana is Christian not Muslim and he prays to to the same God that Moira Deeming and i am guessing yourself does so off course the Libs well preference him. I am not sure why a Pro-Israel Muslim candidate will do well in Blaxland or Watson. If Tu Le was the candidate in 2022 Dai Le would not have been elected so it was special circumstances that unless repeated i dont see a Clare or Burke under threat even if they Anglo MPs in Non-Anglo seats.

21. Youhana wasn’t the only candidate. Besides the candidates in Watson were controversial a non votes candidate with more moderate views could win over liberal preferences

22. @Bajoc, as John has pointed out, your argument does not stand scrutiny. HECS debt forgiveness was clearly targeted at a demographic the ALP wanted to keep onside, rather than let those young voters drift to the Greens. It provided a quarantined benefit to those individuals. Public spending on transport infrastructure or health services provides a benefit to all comers and provides wider benefit across the community.

    You claim that Uni students are worse off due to lack of qualifications but neglect to mention they go into debt for a reason – improved employability prospects and average higher earnings over their career. If they choose a dud degree course that is their problem. Apprentice tradesmen are worse off due to lack of qualifications but they struggle by on apprentice wages for 3 or 4 years as they know the pay off will come if they complete the apprenticeship. Low wage earners and the unskilled get nothing out the ALP HECS policy.

    And if you check your history, you will see that lower wage earners got tax cuts in the Stage 1 and 2 tax cuts and the ALP agreed to the stage 3 cuts in Opposition and then changed it in Government.

23. Agree Huxley and John, the HECS waiver policy was definitely targeted at a certain demographic unlike other progressive policies like 50 cent public transport fares (Queensland) that provided greater benefits for the wider community.

24. It’s just like immigration policies albo doesn’t care because they won’t be living in his neighbourhood

25. The rules around negative gearing were also targeted at a certain demographic — people who already own multiple properties — and provided no benefit to anyone outside that group. If we’re going to call the HECS policy “vote-buying,” then by the same logic we should roundly criticise the Coalition’s negative-gearing and capital-gains tax arrangements too.

    Alternatively, we can just acknowledge that all parties design policies that appeal to parts of the electorate they hope will vote for them.

26. But anyone can take advantage of the negative gearing laws. The hecs reduction is a one off and doesn’t apply to past or future loans it was a bribe. Negative gearing is designed to boost investment in housing.

27. If negative gearing was genuinely about “boosting investment in housing,” then it’s been one of the least effective policies in Australian history. Housing supply hasn’t kept pace with demand for decades, yet property prices and investor portfolios have never looked healthier.

    And while “anyone” can technically take advantage of it, in reality only a small proportion of Australians can afford a second property.

    If the HECS reduction was a bribe, then so was every tax incentive, fuel rebate, and first-home buyer grant ever introduced. You can’t call it bribery only when the party you don’t like does it.

28. No but they aren’t reducing the debts of ordinary Australians. I mean if the govt said I’m pay you $6000 to vote for me would that be ok? This is money these people owe to the Australian people but the govt simply said hey vote for us and well just say you don’t owe it anymore.

29. If the government literally offered people $6,000 to vote for them, that would indeed be a bribe. But that’s not what happened here. The HECS change applied automatically to every outstanding student loan, regardless of how people voted.

    Those loans aren’t “owed to the Australian people” in the same way as private debt. They’re an income-contingent tax liability, managed through the ATO and designed to rise and fall with government policy. The government adjusts repayment thresholds and indexation rates all the time.

    By contrast, negative gearing, capital gains tax discounts, and dividend imputation are targeted giveaways, but you never hear anyone call those “bribes.” If forgiving a bit of student debt is corruption, then half the tax code is too.

30. So effectively they gave $x to everyone owing a debt

31. If you waived $6000+ In front of them Of course they’re gonna sell out and vote for you. You’d have to be stupid not to. But vote buying was probably about 10-15% of the campaign they didn’t win the election off that but got a boost. The real damage came from the liberals themselves and Donald Trump.

32. Hastie might’ve rocked the boat a bit too early. Presumably Taylor is still the front runner from the hard right faction but he’s made less noise since the leadership ballot. People might give Ley the benefit of the doubt. She’s still quite new in the job.

    The Liberal Party should be undergoing an electoral review and of the party apparatus and membership. I heard that the Liberals did an electoral review in 2022, like Labor did, but ignored the lessons.

    Having a female leader does not necessarily mean appeal to women like how having a millennial leader wouldn’t guarantee appeal to millennials. It’s more than just the leader – it’s the brand, the membership base and the suite of policies. Having appeal to women is important still. I believe the concern with women leaving the Liberals is a talking point because professional uni-educated women, including “doctors’ wives”, used to vote Liberal en masse. However, not only are there more female uni graduates than male uni graduates, the demographic has shifted politically to Labor, Greens and teals.

    I think the party should do a review of policies including contentious ones like defence, net zero, energy policy and immigration. Hastie could then have a chance to voice dissent once the policies are formulated.

33. For a party that calls itself the “superior economic managers,” it’s remarkable how little grasp some of its supporters have of basic economics.

    If John owes me $20, and I say, “That’s alright, you only owe me $16 now,” I haven’t transferred $4 into John’s wallet. I’ve simply reduced the amount he owes.

    That’s exactly what the 20% HECS reduction was — a reduction in debt, not a cash payment. For the average student with a HECS debt, they might be able to repay the total debt a year sooner. Far from the $6000 electoral bribe that some are flinging around here.

34. That isn’t accurate in the slightest. I don’t owe you $20 I owe your employer, in this case the Australian taxpayers aka the Australian people $20. But, an elected board member your saying you will reduce my debt by 20% if I expect you at the AGM. Your effectively reducing the debt owed to someone else to get elected. If albo and the labor party were the lenders then it would be that.

35. Taxpayers aren’t a collection agency and the government isn’t their “board.”

    HECS debts are owed to the Commonwealth, which manages them through legislation. Taxpayers don’t hold individual claims on those balances any more than they hold shares in Centrelink payments or defence spending.

    When the government adjusts HECS terms, it’s not “writing off money owed to someone else to get elected.” It’s exercising fiscal policy, exactly the same way any government adjusts tax rates, pensions, or fuel rebates.

36. It’s the same thing as a bribe. Your basically saying il pay off 20% of you $30000 loan with $6000 from the govt that goes to the govt. Whether it’s cash or debt reduction your getting $x off a debt that you legally owe simply for voting one way. Tax policies hospital’s and whatever are permanent policies that will be in place until they are changed. This is a one off sugar hit simply to sway votes in one direction. If I were to take out a loan for university today I wouldn’t get the benefits. If I were on the CBA board and offered 20% off home loans to people who voted for me as CEO am I bribing the shareholders? I mean who’s not gonna vote for that? I’m effectively saying I’m gonna use the banks money in this case the Governments money to pay off your loans. That’s bribery np matter how you cut it. How about if I give my local policticains 20% of sales from a housing development if they vote how I want them too on approving the estate? Is it not bribing if I agree to take 20% off all of their debts they owe on their $4.3 million cliffside mansions instead Regardless of how they vote indivually just as long as I get the result i want?

37. Yes but those are directly related to voting outcome.

38. John — the difference you’re missing is conditionality.

    If a candidate or party offered you personally $6,000 in return for your vote, that would be bribery and a criminal offence. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

    The 20% HECS change was universal and applied to everyone with a HELP debt; it wasn’t contingent on how any individual voted. That’s the legally important difference.

    Yes, it’s a political decision and a one-off policy that benefits a particular demographic. Critics can (and should) argue about fairness and intergenerational equity. But calling a universal legislative change “a bribe” is lunacy.

39. Yes and I’m saying what if I offered a group of politicians $800000 off their mortgages regardless of how any individual voted?

40. Sure some may disagree out of principle but I reckon I’d get the result i wanted.

41. Is it therefore ok for Moira deeming to offer John pesutto and his backers 20% off the money he owes on the condition she gets preselected?

42. John, your examples involve private individuals offering personal benefits to other private individuals to obtain a specific decision. That’s bribery, and it’s rightly illegal.

    Governments operate differently. They legislate policies that apply to entire classes of people regardless of how any individual votes. That’s public finance, not private inducement.

    If the 20 % HECS reduction had applied only to people who voted Labor, you’d be correct. It would be a criminal offence under Section 326 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. But because it applied automatically to everyone with a HELP debt, it’s just policy, no different in principle from changing tax brackets or fuel rebates

43. So basically it’s only legal because the government does it. If anyone else did it its bribery.Just like tax is only legal because the government says it’s the law. If anyone else did it it’s extortion. Just like before it was a criminal offence it was OK for employers to steal from their employees Just as long as they paid up when they got caught. But if the employee stole from their employer they’d get sacked and probably go to jail. And be forced to repay the money.

44. You’re doing the philosophical equivalent of shaking a vending machine.

    Your post boils down to: “If the government does something, it’s legal; therefore everything the government does is only legal because the government says so.” Which is… yes, John. That’s literally how law works.

    You’ve accidentally rediscovered sovereignty. The idea that governments, by definition, have the authority to make laws that apply to citizens—but that citizens don’t get to unilaterally declare their own versions of those laws.

Comments are closed.