Australia General Discussion

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Talk about anything to do with Australian politics right here.

[Democratic Hawk]

Can be expect something of an ideological struggle for the 'heart and soul' of the Liberal Party in the race to appoint a successor to John Howard? Out of interest, who elects the Leader?

Dave

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I think we've done this before.... how about trying to assign an Australian party first-preference to US states:

(Based on a gambling web site, I calculated that Virginia was the largest anti-gambling state...so I gave that to Xenophon)

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Out of interest, who elects the Leader?

Dave

The Liberal Party caucus will elect who succeed John Howard as leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party either later this week or next week. Speaking of the Libs leadership race it's heating up! We now have three candidates, former Environment Minister and merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull, former Health Minister Tony Abbott and former Defence Minister Brendon Nelson.

At the moment the favourite is Malcolm Turnbull is the shortprice favourite at $1.10 according to the TAB. Brendon Nelson is the second favourite at around $4.00.

[Platypus]

1. I like Turnbull, and if he becomes leader and there is a struggle for the heart of the liberals I will be very happy-he is very much a man I could support. Considering the right are in opposition in every parliament in the country, it is obvious that reform MUST be undertaken, and a Georgiou-Turnbull-Payne type of Liberal party would be one I could easily vote for.

2. whoever becomes leader will never be Prime Minister

ergo,

3. I hope Nelson becomes leader. Not as reactionary as Abbott, meaning the restyructuring and realignment of the party won't be too right-wing, but not someone I want as PM. Give him the leadership, let him ,lose, and then have Turnbull challenge in 2011 would be the ideal for me.

[London Man]

hughento, what's the Australian equivalent of a P45?

[Platypus]

The dole?

[London Man]

As in the form you get when you leave a job.

Does Australia have any SNL like shows? Have any of them done a sketch with Howard at the Unemployment Office?

[Platypus]

As far as I know, there is no popular term for any documentation you get when you get the sack.

We have Rove Live, which airs on Sunday night, but it's finished for the year-we're moving into non-ratings period.

The Chaser is the one to watch though-wednesday night on the ABC. Its a very high quality-in its mode, anyway-satire show. Probably available for online streaming, and def. worth watching this week considering the election. They probably wouldnt do something like an unemployment sketch, more something to do with gardening at Kirribilli or something.

[afleitch]

As in the form you get when you leave a job.

Does Australia have any SNL like shows? Have any of them done a sketch with Howard at the Unemployment Office?

If it was the UK, Rory Bremner would wheel out Howard every couple of months A bit like Michael Howard actually.

[Hashemite]

I think we've done this before.... how about trying to assign an Australian party first-preference to US states:

(Based on a gambling web site, I calculated that Virginia was the largest anti-gambling state...so I gave that to Xenophon)

Would minor parties actually win states (I highly doubt Xenophon would win a state)

[Platypus]

I think we've done this before.... how about trying to assign an Australian party first-preference to US states:

(Based on a gambling web site, I calculated that Virginia was the largest anti-gambling state...so I gave that to Xenophon)

Would minor parties actually win states (I highly doubt Xenophon would win a state)

It'd be possible only in exceptional circumstances=kinda lie Jesse Ventura. I'd be more likely to give him New Hampshire than any other state, buyt even then it is highly unlikely.

My guess would be:

ALP
WA, OR, CA, NV, AZ, NM, MN, AR, LA, TN, WV, DC, MD, DE, IL, MI, NY, RI, MA, VT
LIB
FL, GA, VA, NJ, PA, OH, CT, NH, ME
NAT
ID, MT, WY, UT, CO, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD, ND, IA, MO, MS, AL, SC, NC, KY, IN, WI

[Sibboleth]

Would probably look nothing like maps of recent U.S elections (slight exaggeration), especially this election.

I'll post a couple of demographicy stuff and so on shortly.

[Democratic Hawk]

Lib backbencher calls for endorsement of Labor's IR laws

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/28/2103079.htm?site=elections/federal/2007

A federal Liberal backbencher has urged his Senate colleagues to let Labor's industrial relations (IR) laws through the Upper House because he says it will expose the harm they will do to the economy ...

Seemingly, the Liberals are resorting to UK Conservative-type doom-and-gloom cynicism re-Labor already

Dave

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Would probably look nothing like maps of recent U.S elections (slight exaggeration), especially this election.

I'll post a couple of demographicy stuff and so on shortly.

Taking a guess at 2007:

(I'm having problems putting a map into my post so I'll write by hand)

Coalition:
Liberal - Washington, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Indiana, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
National - Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina.

ALP: Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, New York, Massachuttes and Rhode Island.

[Colin]

Gully your map would look like this:



Red: Labor
Blue: Liberal
Green: National

This would be the map that Hugh thought would be likely:

[Verily]

I'm not sure why the assumption seems to be that the Nationals are strong in the most conservative states. My impression of the Nationals is not as more conservative than the Liberals, just more rural. They'd probably win some of the Plains and Mountains (The Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) and be nonexistent elsewhere, except Alaska and Montana (though I agree with Gully on those being ALP). I suppose Hugh takes a similar view of this but expands where he thinks is rural enough for the Nationals to be competitive.

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

I'm not sure why the assumption seems to be that the Nationals are strong in the most conservative states. My impression of the Nationals is not as more conservative than the Liberals, just more rural. They'd probably win some of the Plains and Mountains (The Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) and be nonexistent elsewhere, except Alaska and Montana (though I agree with Gully on those being ALP). I suppose Hugh takes a similar view of this but expands where he thinks is rural enough for the Nationals to be competitive.

Yes; but for this election they have pretty been confined to the very conservative areas; though I toyed with the idea of them being competitive in Kentucky.

Still, The south really doesn't fit into the Australian System. (Does it fit into any system?)

[Colin]

I'm not sure why the assumption seems to be that the Nationals are strong in the most conservative states. My impression of the Nationals is not as more conservative than the Liberals, just more rural. They'd probably win some of the Plains and Mountains (The Dakotas, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Idaho) and be nonexistent elsewhere, except Alaska and Montana (though I agree with Gully on those being ALP). I suppose Hugh takes a similar view of this but expands where he thinks is rural enough for the Nationals to be competitive.

Still, The south really doesn't fit into the Australian System. (Does it fit into any system?)

Well I've always thought they had some similarities to Quebecois, culturally different from the rest of the country, feelings of being "repressed" by those federal government types, failed rebellion, etc. Politically they were quite close until the the Quiet Revolution, just exchange the Catholic Church for the Southern Baptists.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Tony Abbott has dropped out of the Liberal Party Leadership race, just this afternoon. It's now a two-horse race between Malcolm Turnbull and Brendon Nelson. Most people are predicting a Turnbull win with Andrew Robb to be his likely Deputy.

[Platypus]

I reckon it will be close. I'd kinda like the moderate-ish Nelson to win, lose in 2010, and hand over to Turnbull.

[Secretary Polnut]

A senior Lib friend tells me Tunbull will win the leadership by between 10 and 20 votes - the anti-Turnbull forces are gathered behind Nelson now. It's known in most political circles that Turnbull and Abbott LOATHE each other.

The extremism of the IR reforms were Howard's doing - it was his life's ambition... and look what it did. Now both Nelson and Turnbull would support overturning them in the Senate.

Deputy will be interesting. I'm being told Robb will get the numbers suprisingly easily, then Bishop second and Pyne given a pat on the back.

The great Liberal civil war is at hand - the moderates are blaming the right for their electoral failures now at a national level. I personally think they have a point, the right control almost every state/territory branch - and are responsible for the policy platform. Although moderates like Pyne, Bishop (Julie), Turnbull, Nelson (he's not a 'conservative'), Hockey should have put more pressure.

[Platypus]

Should Baillieu be sent to Canberra, do you think? Imagine a Turnbull/Baillieu leadership team

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Should Baillieu be sent to Canberra, do you think? Imagine a Turnbull/Baillieu leadership team

You think Ted Baillieu's a good match for Malcolm, why not Robert Doyle. Didn't he have some success when he was leader of the Victorian Liberal Party

[Platypus]

Well, it's Brendan Nelson with Julie Bishop. Not a bad combo, really; i'm listening to their news conference now. They will probably lose in 2010, and then Turnbull might get a chance for 2013.