Atlas Forum

General Politics => International General Discussion => Topic started by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 24, 2007, 11:15:34 pm



Title: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 24, 2007, 11:15:34 pm
Talk about anything to do with Australian politics right here.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Democratic Hawk on November 25, 2007, 08:56:01 pm
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


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 25, 2007, 11:28:25 pm
I think we've done this before.... how about trying to assign an Australian party first-preference to US states:
(http://www.idpt.com/atlas/usaus1.gif)
(Based on a gambling web site, I calculated that Virginia was the largest anti-gambling state...so I gave that to Xenophon)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 26, 2007, 02:37:33 am
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 26, 2007, 07:40:58 am
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 26, 2007, 07:42:21 am
hughento, what's the Australian equivalent of a P45?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 26, 2007, 08:06:08 am
The dole?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 26, 2007, 08:15:57 am
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?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 26, 2007, 08:20:30 am
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 26, 2007, 08:28:30 am
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.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on November 27, 2007, 11:09:46 am
I think we've done this before.... how about trying to assign an Australian party first-preference to US states:
(http://www.idpt.com/atlas/usaus1.gif)
(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)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 27, 2007, 11:46:56 am
I think we've done this before.... how about trying to assign an Australian party first-preference to US states:
(http://www.idpt.com/atlas/usaus1.gif)
(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


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 27, 2007, 12:04:35 pm
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Democratic Hawk on November 27, 2007, 12:57:00 pm
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


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on November 27, 2007, 03:58:28 pm
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Colin on November 27, 2007, 04:11:01 pm
Gully your map would look like this:

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2000&ev_c=0&pv_p=0&ev_p=0&AL=3;9;5&AK=1;3;5&AZ=2;8;5&AR=1;6;5&CA=1;54;5&CO=2;8;5&CT=2;8;5&DE=2;3;5&DC=1;3;8&FL=2;25;4&GA=1;13;5&HI=1;4;5&ID=3;4;6&IL=1;22;5&IN=2;12;5&IA=1;7;4&KS=2;6;5&KY=1;8;5&LA=1;9;5&MD=1;10;5&MA=1;12;5&MI=1;18;5&MN=1;10;4&MS=3;7;5&MO=1;11;5&MT=1;3;5&NV=1;4;4&NH=2;4;4&NJ=2;15;5&NM=1;5;4&NY=1;33;6&NC=2;14;5&ND=2;3;6&OH=1;21;4&OK=2;8;6&OR=1;7;4&PA=1;23;5&RI=1;4;6&SC=3;8;5&SD=3;3;6&TN=1;11;5&TX=3;32;5&UT=2;5;6&VT=2;3;5&VA=2;13;5&WA=2;11;5&WV=1;5;5&WI=1;11;4&WY=3;3;6&ME=2;2;4&ME1=2;1;5&ME2=2;1;4&NE=3;2;6&NE1=3;1;5&NE2=3;1;5&NE3=3;1;7)

Red: Labor
Blue: Liberal
Green: National

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

(http://uselectionatlas.org/TOOLS/genusmap.php?year=2000&ev_c=0&pv_p=0&ev_p=0&AL=3;9;5&AK=2;3;5&AZ=1;8;5&AR=1;6;5&CA=1;54;5&CO=3;8;5&CT=2;8;5&DE=1;3;5&DC=1;3;8&FL=2;25;4&GA=2;13;5&HI=1;4;5&ID=3;4;6&IL=1;22;5&IN=3;12;5&IA=3;7;4&KS=3;6;5&KY=3;8;5&LA=1;9;5&MD=1;10;5&MA=1;12;5&MI=1;18;5&MN=1;10;4&MS=3;7;5&MO=3;11;5&MT=3;3;5&NV=1;4;4&NH=2;4;4&NJ=2;15;5&NM=1;5;4&NY=1;33;6&NC=3;14;5&ND=3;3;6&OH=2;21;4&OK=3;8;6&OR=1;7;4&PA=2;23;5&RI=1;4;6&SC=3;8;5&SD=3;3;6&TN=1;11;5&TX=3;32;5&UT=3;5;6&VT=1;3;5&VA=2;13;5&WA=1;11;5&WV=1;5;5&WI=3;11;4&WY=3;3;6&ME=2;2;4&ME1=2;1;5&ME2=2;1;4&NE=3;2;6&NE1=3;1;5&NE2=3;1;5&NE3=3;1;7)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Verily on November 27, 2007, 04:49:01 pm
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on November 27, 2007, 04:52:39 pm
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?)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Colin on November 27, 2007, 05:07:42 pm
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 28, 2007, 03:54:48 am
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 28, 2007, 05:37:27 am
I reckon it will be close. I'd kinda like the moderate-ish Nelson to win, lose in 2010, and hand over to Turnbull.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 28, 2007, 05:55:17 am
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 28, 2007, 09:57:21 am
Should Baillieu be sent to Canberra, do you think? Imagine a Turnbull/Baillieu leadership team ;)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 28, 2007, 03:17:06 pm
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 ;)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 28, 2007, 11:17:17 pm
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.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 29, 2007, 12:42:24 am
I'm really really surprised - I think it's a combination of anti-Turnbull and feeding Nelson to the wolves kinda thing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 29, 2007, 12:54:03 am
I think you're right, but I also think a large amount of Nelson's support is a pro-Howard thing-those who were locked-on Howard supporters seem to have gone significantly to Nelson.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 29, 2007, 02:51:21 am
They will probably lose in 2010, and then Turnbull might get a chance for 2013.

I concur with the statements of Hugh. But when will Abbott or Turnbull challenge Nelson for the leadership? Six months? 2 years? Who knows.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 29, 2007, 03:02:43 am
After 2010.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on November 30, 2007, 05:05:38 am
Yesterday Kevin Rudd announced his Cabinet. I thought the Rudd Cabinet would have been a good one, considering he would be selecting it. I have been proven wrong.

He has kept Peter Garrett as Environment Minister, made Julia Gillard take on the responsibilities of being Education Minister as well as the important Industrial Relations portfolio and the worse mistake he made was selecting Stephen Smith to be the Foreign Minister. You think the new Opposition Leader and former Defence Minister was weak and ineffective wait until you see him in action. Brendon Nelson eat your heart out.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 02, 2007, 04:15:54 am
Kevin Michael Rudd and his Cabinet will be officially sworn in as the new Government of Australia tomorrow, by the Governor-General Michael Jeffrey. It will be one day shy of the first anniversary of Kevin Rudd taking control of the Federal ALP, after he defeated Kim Beazley for the Leadership 49-39.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on December 04, 2007, 04:00:38 am
Even though Kevin Rudd has only been Prime Minister of Australia for one day, he is thumping Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson in the polls. Nelson's opponent for the Liberal leadership, Malcolm Turnbull is also thumping Nelson too, with voters saying he's twice as popular than Nelson. Here's the results, from the Australian Poll conducted on the weekend.

Prefered Prime Minister:
Kevin Rudd (ALP)          61%
Brendan Nelson (LIB)   14%

Who should lead the Liberal Party?
Malcolm Turnbull        34%
Brendan Nelson         18%

Some interesting times lie ahead for the leadership of Brendan Nelson. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on December 17, 2007, 11:08:14 am
so, two weeks of the Rudd government. Opinions?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on January 10, 2008, 02:46:08 pm
EL BUMPO


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on March 10, 2008, 10:00:01 am
Time to reserrect this thread:

Here's an article in The Australian on The Nationals.


Quote
Nats swamped by a demographic tide



George Megalogenis and Sarah Elks | March 11, 2008

IT may already be too late to save the Nationals. The 87-year-old party is in long-term decline as two separate population shifts undermine its traditional voter heartlands in the bush and in the Queensland and NSW sunbelts.

Labor is rising in its place on the coast as interstate migration swamps the locals who have been wedded to the Nationals for generations. And the Liberal Party and independents are encroaching inland as people move from rural communities to country towns where the Nationals are less favoured.

The population pincer means that the Nationals are in danger either way - whether they merge with the Liberals or remain as a separate entity.

Nationals leader Warren Truss would understand the problems facing his party better than most - his once-ultra-safe electorate of Wide Bay has seen its margin fall by more than half since 1996, from 18.5 per cent to 8.5 per cent at the last election.

The southeast Queensland seat has traditionally been dominated by conservative rural voters farming the land around Gympie and Maryborough.

But now the fastest-growing part of the electorate is in the south, where the Sunshine Coast's urban sprawl is expanding northward.

Cooroy small business owner Tex Pipke describes himself as a "dedicated conservative" who voted for the Liberal Party when he was in a Liberal electorate but backed Mr Truss last year, as there was no Liberal candidate.

Now a great supporter of Mr Truss, he believes the idea of a merger is well worth investigating. "Better now than one year before the election," said Mr Pipke, owner of Town and Country Home Rentals.

"It is worth exploring, but with a view to bring life back into the party in a way to resonate with voters and attract young voters, which obviously they didn't do at the last election."

The Nationals are the only party to go backwards in the lower house in each of the past four federal elections.

Half the 18 seats they held in 1996 have been lost over the period, while just one seat has been clawed back from the independents, leaving a total of 10 members last year.

The risk of merging with the Liberals is that Labor and independents might sweep up a further five seats at the next election, based on an analysis by The Australian. This would leave a lower house rump of five.

Former national leader John Anderson is heading a review of the party which sources suggest will make or break the push for a merger. Liberal party leader Brendan Nelson has risked his reputation on a merger.

But yesterday Dr Nelson said he would not commit himself until the Anderson report was released. "I am waiting, as is Warren Truss, for John Anderson's review to come forward," the Opposition Leader told ABC radio.

The Nationals are at their lowest ebb in the post-war era.

In their Country Party heyday in the 1960s, under the leadership of John "Black Jack" McEwen, they routinely claimed 20 or more seats in a much smaller federal parliament.

The high-water mark was 23seats out of 127 in 1975. As recently as 1984, the Nationals held 21 of the 184 seats in that parliament.

However, senior Nationals believe the demographic tide has been turning against them since the 1970s.

Tim Fischer was the last Nationals leader to take the party forward, winning two seats in 1993 and two more in 1996. But the party numbers have been falling ever since; from 18 to 16seats in 1998; to 13 in 2001; then 12 in 2004 and 10 last year.

Labor has won five sunbelt seats from the Nationals - Page and Richmond on the NSW north coast and the central Queensland trio of Dawson, Flynn and Capricornia.

Another four inland seats have also fallen - two to the Liberals and two to independents.

The Nationals have offset these loses with the solitary gain of the NSW seat of Calare, which was formerly held by the late independent Peter Andren. In modern politics, death can come quickly. Just ask the Australian Democrats, who went from seven senators in 1996 to none last year.

The Nationals are vulnerable in as many as five seats.

Labor would be eyeing Queensland's Hinkler and NSW's Cowper, which have margins of less than 2 per cent, and the Victorian seats of Gippsland, where the sitting member Peter McGuaran is rumoured to be craving a life after politics.

Another two seats may be in danger to independents - former leader Mark Vaile's NSW seat of Lyne and Mr Truss's Wide Bay.

Wide Bay constituent John Cochrane, 53, is a longtime Nationals member who owns and operates one of Queensland's biggest dairy farms at Kandanga, south of Gympie. Mr Cochrane thinks a merger is a good idea but said he was worried that on some issues the voice of rural Australia would not be heard. "I would like to think that if we had a merger, it would be the responsibility of more people to look after the voice of rural industries," he said.

"But maybe I am concerned (some issues) won't be addressed. Still, I can't see any point in two conservative bodies opposing each other at the ballot box."

Reader of political science at the University of Queensland Paul Reynolds said the idea that rural voices would be lost if the Nationals merged with the Liberal Party was a furphy.

"There's no reason why rural conservative opinions can't be heard within the construct of a united party," he said. "It has happened in New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada."


1. How long till the Nationals lose their last seat? Or will they survive?

2. How long does Brendan Nelson have left as Liberal leader?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on March 10, 2008, 10:03:59 am
Graphic with the article:

(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/080311nats.jpg)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Verily on March 10, 2008, 10:13:54 am
Not surprising at all. The Nationals are doomed by political tides even if not demographic ones; whenever a Nationals MP retires, the Liberals often put up a candidate as well, and more often than not the Liberals take the seat. There's little loyalty to the Nationals as a party over the Liberals.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 12, 2008, 09:05:41 am
The Nationals will survive in one form or another. Once the Liberals return to being a liberal-democratic conservative party (this is Australia...), then the Nationals will still find a large number of voters backing their agrarian populism. I can't see Mallee going Liberal under Howard, certainly not under Nelson and definately not under Turnbull.

Maybe a more defined right wing, but not a swallowing of the nationals by the Liberals.

As to Nelson's leadership, he'll stay for a while yet. I'd give him until at least next year, probably the next election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 12, 2008, 09:11:21 am
Worth pointing out that the demographic changes that cost them Dawson are rather different to the demographic changes that killed them in the touristy parts of Queensland and which are continuing to kill them in coastal NSW. Would also question the inclusion of Capricornia on the list; historically that's a Labor seat. The concern for the Nationals isn't that they can't hold seats gained in Coalition landslides, but that they can't even hold onto their old fiefdoms half the time.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 12, 2008, 09:49:13 am
Worth pointing out that the demographic changes that cost them Dawson are rather different to the demographic changes that killed them in the touristy parts of Queensland and which are continuing to kill them in coastal NSW. Would also question the inclusion of Capricornia on the list; historically that's a Labor seat. The concern for the Nationals isn't that they can't hold seats gained in Coalition landslides, but that they can't even hold onto their NSW fiefdoms half the time.

More realistic, I think.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 12, 2008, 10:15:01 am
Worth pointing out that the demographic changes that cost them Dawson are rather different to the demographic changes that killed them in the touristy parts of Queensland and which are continuing to kill them in coastal NSW. Would also question the inclusion of Capricornia on the list; historically that's a Labor seat. The concern for the Nationals isn't that they can't hold seats gained in Coalition landslides, but that they can't even hold onto their NSW fiefdoms half the time.

More realistic, I think.

But Hyperbole Is Fun And Murray* is in Victoria**

*lost over a decade ago though and nothing else has gone since, so yeah, the bleeding there seems to have stopped.
**"The Works Are Closed But The Ballot Box Is Open" (I think it was ballot box, may have been polling station or just polls. Can't remember), on Labour posters in 1929. This, everyone, is how deeply sad I am.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on March 14, 2008, 04:53:42 am
There's almost certain to be by-elections some time in the next few months in Higgins, Mayo, Lyne and Gippsland. In 2007, they all were won by margins of 11-17 points in 2PP, but with Rudd's honeymoon being what it is, the Coalition could lose all four of them. If that happened the House composition would be Labor 87, Liberal 53, Nationals 8.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 16, 2008, 11:29:36 am
I don't know much about Lyne, but of the other three:

Higgins:

Almost instantly dismissable. That said, there was the Ryan by-election, but that was against an unpopular government rather than in favour of a popular one. I'd say it's pretty safe for the Liberals.

Mayo:

Liberal. Possibly with a greatly reduced margin, but they should hold this. It's wheatbelt, german belt south australia; not happy hunting grounds for Labor pre-Rudd and not now either.

Gippsland:

The one to watch. The farmers will go overwhelmingly for the Nationals, especially those in the highlands, who still hate the ALP; but the major centers should go Labor, especially in the LaTrobe Valley. Expect ALP majorities in Traralgon and Morwell, with the Nats winning all the farms south of the valley. Bairnsdale and Sale should be interesting; Sale will probably go slightly towards the National (but it could be tight) and Bairnsdale (and the Lakes area in general) should lean quite a bit to the National although without a McGauran that might change towards the ALP. The result will hinge on the loggers and to some extent the far eastern towns on the coast, both of which would need to go to the Nationals with 55%+ to give them a win. Nationals ahead but could be won by the ALP if KRudd stays popular.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 16, 2008, 11:36:20 am
Lyne is solid Nats country.

Higgins will be much closer than with Costello running in November, I think all should slightly favour the incumbent party - but Higgins is the one that has the best chance of changing hands. But there will be significantly reduced margins.

On Nelson, at present Rudd's honeymoon remains strong and Turnbull is not stupid. He's hoping that Nelson is weak enough by the end of the sitting year - but also that Rudd's gloss has worn off.

It's all about the timing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on March 17, 2008, 03:30:56 am
also that Rudd's gloss has worn off.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rudd's gloss begins to wear off when his Government releases their first budget when Parliament resumes. However I highly doubt it. Even if the Budget is perceived as a bad one by some, the ALP will still have a commanding lead in the polls over the lackluster Liberals. This is reminding me of 1994 all over again (even though I was only 1). Hehe.




Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on March 17, 2008, 08:58:35 am
New Newspoll (brackets compared with poll from fortnight ago)

if election were held today:

Labor: 47 (-4)
Coalition: 35 (+4)
Greens: 11 (+1)

2PP: Labor 59 (-4), Coalition 41 (+4)

Preferred PM:

Rudd: 70 (-3)
Nelson: 10 (+3)


7% of Labor voters said they'd be more likely to vote for a merged Liberal/National party, 4% of Liberal voters said they'd be less likely to vote for it.


Poll MoE: 3%

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23393201-2702,00.html (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23393201-2702,00.html)



Honeymoon starting to wear off? I guess they could hardly keep those numbers up.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 17, 2008, 11:49:33 am
Yay for Nelson! Into double-digits.

This is still an amazing honeymoon.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on March 17, 2008, 03:19:31 pm
Yay for Nelson! Into double-digits.

Did I just hear correctly? That's politically incorrect!

I wonder why the Coalition's support has gone up 4 points. Now it wouldn't just be about Rudd's plans to remove funds to carers and not leaving them in the lurch. I can't think of anything that the Libs have done right since the last poll.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 17, 2008, 09:30:12 pm
Yay for Nelson! Into double-digits.

Did I just hear correctly? That's politically incorrect!

I wonder why the Coalition's support has gone up 4 points. Now it wouldn't just be about Rudd's plans to remove funds to carers and not leaving them in the lurch. I can't think of anything that the Libs have done right since the last poll.

or sarcasm... take it as you will

A 63-37 split is utterly anormal, chances are many were angry with Nelson that day - hence both the 7% and that monstrous deficit. The 59-41 is likely more close to reality.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on March 18, 2008, 07:10:16 am
I never understand why they do polls so little time after the election of a majority government.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on March 18, 2008, 10:42:17 pm
I never understand why they do polls so little time after the election of a majority government.

Nobody understands that young Skywalker. I wonder how big Prime Minister Rudd's ego is now. I'd say it's bigger than when he won in a Ruddslide. Damn Channel 7 and Kochie.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on March 24, 2008, 05:14:51 pm
EL BUMPO GRANDE


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 26, 2008, 09:45:25 pm
Now the Rudd show goes global.

- US, UK, China and the NATO Summit in Lithuania.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on March 26, 2008, 10:06:15 pm
I hope that the Australian media won't go nuts about Julia Gillard this time when Rudd's on his 17 day trip bonanza. It was terrible when the Australian media would not shut up about her because she was acting Prime Minister, when Rudd went to visit East Timor (I believe).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 26, 2008, 10:19:47 pm
I hope that the Australian media won't go nuts about Julia Gillard this time when Rudd's on his 17 day trip bonanza. It was terrible when the Australian media would not shut up about her because she was acting Prime Minister, when Rudd went to visit East Timor (I believe).

The novelty's worn off - it'll only be if something "big" happens.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on March 26, 2008, 10:31:33 pm
I hope that the Australian media won't go nuts about Julia Gillard this time when Rudd's on his 17 day trip bonanza. It was terrible when the Australian media would not shut up about her because she was acting Prime Minister, when Rudd went to visit East Timor (I believe).

The novelty's worn off - it'll only be if something "big" happens.

I wouldn't be surprised if something big does happen. Has the Rudd Government introduced their new Industrial Relations Reform bill to Parliament yet? The only time I have heard Parliament mention the Governments new IR Reform bill was when Gillard would not shut up about Howard Government IR propoganda, which included mousepads ect. Though I have to admit that was quite amusing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on April 08, 2008, 01:20:14 am
New Newspoll results: It's still 59-41 to Labor on 2PP, same as it was three weeks ago.

 The Preferred PM:

Rudd: 73% (+3)
Nelson: 9% (-1)

Oh dear. getting quite embarrasing for the Libs now. This is despite a fair bit of negative coverage for Rudd recently.

http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0402%20Fed%208-4-08.pdf (http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/0402%20Fed%208-4-08.pdf)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 08, 2008, 01:25:44 am
The Preferred PM:

Rudd: 73% (+3)
Nelson: 9% (-1)

Poor Brendan. He's now back under 9% as preferred Prime Minister, should I be surprised? No. He's a terrible leader of the Liberal Party. Anybody who was leading the Libs at this time would be performing like Nelson in the Polls, though maybe slightly better.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on April 08, 2008, 06:54:51 am
The Preferred PM:

Rudd: 73% (+3)
Nelson: 9% (-1)

Poor Brendan. He's now back under 9% as preferred Prime Minister, should I be surprised? No. He's a terrible leader of the Liberal Party. Anybody who was leading the Libs at this time would be performing like Nelson in the Polls, though maybe slightly better.

There could be a Bayrou-surge for him :P

Jumping from 9% to 23% in a month.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 08, 2008, 11:12:44 pm
Whoever was leader following November's election was going to get mauled in the polls.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 10, 2008, 04:34:04 am
Absolutely, which is why I was and continue to be glad that Turnbull lost.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 10, 2008, 07:04:18 pm
And it's why we've got to stick with Nelson for a while - replacing him is only going to burn another potential leader with bad polls and make them unelectable in the future.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 11, 2008, 03:54:44 am
Absolutely, which is why I was and continue to be glad that Turnbull lost.

Looking back on it, it is good that Malcolm lost. Looks like the Nelson/Bishop team will be here to stay until the 2010 General. And I thought Downer/Costello was a bad mix for the Libs.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 11, 2008, 10:54:43 pm
Nelson to Fight for the Leadership (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/12/2215072.htm?section=australia)

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says he is determined to remain at the helm of the Liberal Party.

There has been increasing speculation about his leadership, which has been marked by poor opinion poll results.

There are reports of rising backbench discontent with his performance and a renewed push by treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull to unseat him.

Dr Nelson, in Melbourne for today's meeting of the Victorian Liberal Party, says he is here to stay.

"I am very determined and I will keep fighting and speaking up for everyday Australians, I assure you I'm going nowhere," he said.

He says he believes he can lead the party to an election victory.

"I've had people underestimating me for 20 years and it seems nothing has changed," Dr Nelson said.

He has been backed publicly by former deputy Liberal leader Peter Costello who says there is no backbench push against Dr Nelson.

"Not as far as I'm aware, I thought he put in a very good performance," Mr Costello said.



Sooner than I thought. Only time will tell if Turnbull does launch a challenge against Dr. Nelson. Either way it will be disastrous for the Liberal Party.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on April 12, 2008, 06:31:05 am
He's like Stephane Dion.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 12, 2008, 05:23:40 pm
The Howard era has made the Liberals a joke.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 12, 2008, 05:25:30 pm
He's like Stephane Dion.

Except Nelson is worse than Dion. I'm sure Stephane Dion does not get 9% in the polls as preferred Prime Minister, that's if in Canada they do have those sorts of polls.




Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 12, 2008, 05:30:49 pm
He's like Stephane Dion.

Except Nelson is worse than Dion. I'm sure Stephane Dion does not get 9% in the polls as preferred Prime Minister, that's if in Canada they do have those sorts of polls.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls

Dion's pulling pretty average, at 30%ish.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 12, 2008, 05:34:27 pm
He's like Stephane Dion.

Except Nelson is worse than Dion. I'm sure Stephane Dion does not get 9% in the polls as preferred Prime Minister, that's if in Canada they do have those sorts of polls.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls

Dion's pulling pretty average, at 30%ish.

Thanks Xahar. Well there you go Brendan Nelson is worse than Stephane Dion. I wonder how long until Turnbull goes for the leadership? This will be worse than Peacock-Howard in the 1980's, nobody who takes over the Party will be able to swing 2.4% to win back Government.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on April 12, 2008, 06:22:12 pm
He's like Stephane Dion.

Except Nelson is worse than Dion. I'm sure Stephane Dion does not get 9% in the polls as preferred Prime Minister, that's if in Canada they do have those sorts of polls.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Canadian_federal_election#Opinion_polls

Dion's pulling pretty average, at 30%ish.

I wouldn't compare the polling numbers of the Liberals to Dion's numbers. Anti-Harper folks (like me, for instance) may dislike Dion but support the Libs as an alternative (except I support the real opposition, the Greenies). Dion is 25% in the last leadership poll (quite high for him IIRC), and his favourables are disastrous.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 12, 2008, 07:05:51 pm
So, the Labor government is likely to last until at least 2013 or 2016?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 13, 2008, 05:09:12 am
So, the Labor government is likely to last until at least 2013 or 2016?

They'll win the next election, which will almost certainly be held in 2010; terms are of a maximum of three and a bit years.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 16, 2008, 07:33:33 pm
I heard Andrew Robb speak on the weekend. That man is a future PM.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 17, 2008, 07:09:51 am
I disagree.


BTW, we'll have a female G-G in September.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 17, 2008, 07:12:53 am
I saw that. As a Queenslander (living in Melbourne), I am impressed with her. She did a good job as Governor back home, and I think she'll do a good job as G-G.

Andrew Robb spoke very well, he clearly enunciated where the party's at and where it needs to go and I think he would make a good leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 18, 2008, 11:13:36 pm
I heard Andrew Robb speak on the weekend. That man is a future PM.

Robb has a better chance at becoming Prime Minister than Brendan Nelson that's for sure, hell Tony Abbot has a better chance than Brendan :P.

The 2020 summit began today, thoughts?



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 23, 2008, 01:53:24 am
Nothing more than a PR stunt.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 23, 2008, 05:04:56 pm
Nothing more than a PR stunt.

My thoughts exactly Smid. I don't think anything came out of the Summit, despite that we revisited some of the same ideas in previous years, like an Australian Republic.

Does anybody know how much the 2020 Summit cost? I cannot find figures for it anywhere :(.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 23, 2008, 09:15:48 pm
I'll see if I can dig up some figures on it for you. Will get back to you on it.

Saw a mate on the coverage the other night.

He told me the other day that he was flying up to Canberra for a conference... I didn't realise he was going to THAT conference...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 24, 2008, 12:20:54 am
I don't think it was a complete waste of time, but I dont think anything significant will come out of it.

The Republic will pop up now every few years - chances are it won't gain traction until HM dies.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 24, 2008, 05:50:27 am
Haven't found anything yet about the cost - I'm expanding my search on Monday (calling up a couple of other mates in MP/Senate offices to see if they know).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 25, 2008, 11:47:19 am
Haven't found anything yet about the cost - I'm expanding my search on Monday (calling up a couple of other mates in MP/Senate offices to see if they know).

One thing that's v.clear, coming from friends in MPs offices is how much you are in the dark in opposition.

I think any accusations of wasteful spending from the Libs may backfire.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on April 25, 2008, 06:07:17 pm
I think any accusations of wasteful spending from the Libs may backfire.

Oh it will backfire, anything the Liberal Party does from now until the next Election Day will backfire, even if they replace Brendan Nelson with Malcolm.

We're getting even closer to Budget Night! Bets that despite the Rudd Government stuffing it up thanks to Wayne Swan and Lindsay Tanner's fabulous monetary skills, they won't slide in the polls. Even if they do it won't be much.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 28, 2008, 05:02:39 am
It's bloody cold up here.

Anyhoo, I liked the idea of volunteering your HECS/CSP debt away.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on May 15, 2008, 08:59:27 pm
BUMP

Nelson fuels Budget Brawl (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23707248-5013871,00.html)

BRENDAN Nelson has vowed a Coalition government would slash fuel excise by 5c a litre and lift education standards by raising "embarrassingly low" entry requirements for teacher training courses.

And the Opposition Leader has also promised to reduce qualifying periods for capital gains tax exemptions for business owners planning retirement, to improve incentives for the small business sector.

Dr Nelson outlined the plans last night in his formal response to the Rudd Government's first budget, delivered by Wayne Swan on Tuesday and featuring $46.7billion in income tax cuts as well as tax increases on luxury cars and pre-mixed alcoholic drinks.

Dr Nelson savaged the economic blueprint as a fraud on the community that would increase taxes, put pressure on inflation and attack aspiration.

Dr Nelson said the Government had also ignored pensioners and retirees and masked its tax on so-called alcopop drinks as a health measure when it was, in fact, a $3.1billion tax grab. But the Treasurer, strenuously defending his budget, sought to inflame Liberal Party leadership tensions by attacking Opposition Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull as "a pretend leader" who was trying to undermine his leader. Dr Nelson narrowly won the Liberal Party leadership from Mr Turnbull after Kevin Rudd won the November election. The former general practitioner has since struggled in opinion polls and attempted to use last night's speech to establish his policy credentials and bury speculation over his future as leader. In an impassioned speech in front of a gallery of supporters, Dr Nelson said Australians had elected Labor last year expecting it would keep its promise of new leadership, lower prices for fuel and groceries, and job security.

Instead, he said, the budget did nothing on prices of fuel and food and simply increased taxes for alcohol, cars and computer software, despite weeks of warnings from Mr Swan about the need to fight inflation.

"This is old Labor returning to haunt the Australian economic landscape," Dr Nelson said.

"This is an old-fashioned, high-taxing, high-spending Labor budget that seeks to punish those it does not like and discourage aspiration."

He said Labor put "spin ahead of substance", in contrast to the Coalition, which was able to make decisions. To underline the claim, Dr Nelson said Labor's move to deal with petrol prices now frequently above $1.50 a litre - appointing a petrol commissioner - was meaningless and that a Coalition government would act by spending $1.8billion to cut the 38.14c-a-litre excise on petrol by 5c. "By lowering the price of petrol and the cost of transporting goods, this 13 per cent reduction in petrol excise will also have a modest, but measurable, downward impact on inflation," Dr Nelson said.

The excise on petrol and diesel has been unchanged since February 2001, when John Howard scrapped six-monthly rises to reflect the rate of inflation.

Family First leader Steve Fielding, who for two years has been calling for a cut in fuel tax, said last night he was glad the Coalition agreed with him but that it should have acted when it was in government.

Assistant Treasurer Chris Bowen last night refused to say whether the Government would cut the fuel excise if its Fuelwatch scheme did not work to bring petrol prices down. But he said he expected the tax review being carried out by Treasury secretary Ken Henry to examine the fuel excise. It will also review the double taxation effect of applying the GST to petrol at the bowser, where it already carries the excise.

Insisting Labor was hammering aspiration, Dr Nelson said last night he would reduce from 15 years to five years the qualifying period for a waiver on capital gains tax on the sale of businesses by people about to retire.

And he attacked university teacher training departments as mediocre, promising to lift qualification scores for teacher training, boost teacher pay levels and require universities to appoint proven high-performing teachers as tutors. "All trainee teachers will be taught how to teach children using proven techniques including phonic-based instruction," Dr Nelson said. "They must also be taught and assessed in basic sciences, mathematics, English and history.

Dr Nelson said the Opposition would use its numbers in the Senate to oppose the higher taxes on pre-mixed drinks, known as alcopops, because it doubted Labor's claim that they were at the centre of a major binge-drinking crisis, particularly among teenage girls.

He said the Government's own National Drug Strategy Household Survey had found binge drinking among young women had declined since 2001. "This is nothing more than a tax binge falsely presented to Australians as something that it is not," Dr Nelson said. "We will oppose it."

The real answer to alcohol abuse was education, prevention and policing - not a massive increase in tax - and the Coalition would convene a summit of experts to discuss the issue.

Although Dr Nelson's office said on Wednesday night the alcopop tax was the only budget measure it was likely to attempt to block in the Senate, he last night added Labor's plan to lift the threshold at which people without private health insurance need to pay an extra Medicare surcharge worth 1 per cent of their income.

While Labor has insisted the threshold of $50,000 for singles and $100,000 for families was too low and proposes to lift it to $100,000 and $150,000, Dr Nelson said the move would encourage people to dump their insurance, leading to higher premiums.

He also said the Coalition would oppose Labor moves to tighten income tests for applicants for the Commonwealth Seniors health card.

Mr Bowen accused Dr Nelson of throwing money around like "confetti at a wedding". "The Australian people understand economic credibility," he said. "They understand that tonight Dr Nelson and Mr Turnbull threw around their money but didn't put forward one savings plan."



I must admit, I was quite surprised by Nelson's rebutal to the budget last night. For the first time in his ailing leadership, I saw Nelson passionatly rip into the Rudd Government about the taxation of "Alcohopops" (pre-mixed drinks) and the current teaching crisis.

I was also surprised to learn that Nelson can actually be funny. One point during his speech, Nelson said something along the lines of "We won't have another Summit, we won't have another Treaty (or something similar) in regard to Binge Drinking. Then he actually said, we'll block parts of the Budget in the Senate prior to the ALP taking control in June! Now that was the funniest part of his speech last night :P.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 15, 2008, 09:34:50 pm
The 'alcopops' (never heard that name until Krudd came along) thing is silly, both by the gov't and the Liberal rebuttal. Focus on pensioners or something...not the fact that Yellow is more alcoholic and will have less tax. Seriously...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on May 15, 2008, 09:38:02 pm
Focus on pensioners or something...not the fact that Yellow is more alcoholic and will have less tax. Seriously...

Speaking of Pensioners Hugh, today at Flinders Street Station, a group of pensioners did what those taxi drivers did a few weeks back, took off their clothes protesting against their mistreatment by the Rudd Government's Budget. Apparently, a 69 year old man, did a striptease in the intersection between Swanston and Flinders Street.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 15, 2008, 09:39:20 pm
:)

Wish I could've been there...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on May 15, 2008, 09:42:21 pm
Wish I could've been there...

Same here. My Gran was contemplating whether or not she was going to go, but she decided against it. Thanks to a damned cold, which is also keeping me from school today.

I can imagine the front page of the Herald Sun after this occuring today. "I STILL LOVE WAYNE" oh wait, that's exactly what the Herald Sun will have as their major headline tomorrow ;).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Ebowed on May 19, 2008, 10:28:41 pm
Any thoughts on Rudd's war on binge drinking?

I find it depressing that the government appears to think that the dangers of binge drinking will be reduced by encouraging young people to buy larger quantities of straight spirits.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on May 20, 2008, 04:03:00 am
There are no easy solutions and binge drinking certainly has some very negative impacts on health and societal issues. I obviously am no fan of the Rudd Government, but I think that steps need to be taken and at least they're not shying away from the issue and making an effort. The big problem has been that the price of RTDs has gone up because of the tax increases, making it cheaper to buy straight spirits and mixers - resulting in young drinkers at house parties making their own drinks (and the risk that these drinks may contain a higher alcohol content than RTDs. Obviously this is an unintended consequence, and the government should look at other steps as opposed to a simple taxation of alcohol. I think I've recently seen some comment from MPs on my side of the fence who've suggested that instead of increasing the tax on RTDs, perhaps there should be a maximum alcohol concentration that is lower than presently. Indeed, I think I saw a mention - and this particular mention may have actually been from a political commentator whose free daily newsletter I subscribe to - that RTDs should contain a concentration of alcohol similar to beer. Obviously that couldn't prevent people from adding additional alcohol to their drinks, but I think we need to do something and this might just help...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 20, 2008, 03:18:57 pm
What, 8% Vodka? That's just silly.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on May 20, 2008, 04:51:30 pm
Rudd's War on Binge Drinking is not going to work, nor is Brendan Nelson's proposed forum on the matter.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on May 27, 2008, 04:44:46 pm
Move over Binge Drinking, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has another problem to deal with. Petrol Prices. How could such an idiot promise to cut petrol prices, when it is out of his control to do so? Well finally, thanks to this latest news event, most of the Australian people have finally caught onto this. The "Honeymoon" is now over :).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on May 28, 2008, 09:01:09 am
Yeah, the Herald Sun today reported that petrol prices in Perth are regularly higher than in Sydney and Melbourne - and that seems to be the advice of PMC, the Industry Dept and the Energy Department.

Don't know if it will finally end the honeymoon, but it might start to work.

I once heard it said that you campaign in poetry, but govern in prose... that the job of running the government is never as elegant as you make it sound before winning (and hence why the Greens can say whatever they want whenever they want).

Rudd made lots of nice soft poetic noises about interest rates, grocery bills and fuel prices for his beloved "working families" before the election... now he's running into the tough job of actually doing something about it. That old "end the blame game" and "the buck stops with me" might come back to haunt him (or then again, perhaps it won't).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on May 28, 2008, 02:52:43 pm
Petrol prices is a worldwide crisis. Australia, France, Canada etc.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on May 28, 2008, 04:50:06 pm
Petrol prices is a worldwide crisis. Australia, France, Canada etc.

Try telling that to Kevin Rudd, the man who believed that even though the current Petrol Crisis is that of a worldwide one, he could cut petrol prices.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on May 28, 2008, 06:25:39 pm
Petrol prices is a worldwide crisis. Australia, France, Canada etc.

Try telling that to Kevin Rudd, the man who believed that even though the current Petrol Crisis is that of a worldwide one, he could cut petrol prices.

Furthermore, they were just as much a worldwide problem when Rudd was in Opposition, attacking the then-Government on petrol price pain and promising that if he were elected, he'd do something about it. His problem is not that he can't do anything about petrol prices, it's that he promised he would do something about them.

Mind you, I must admire his slight-of-hand of trying to deflect the tax-on-petrol debate from the excise on fuel to the GST on the excise on fuel... When the Opposition Leader said that fuel excise should be cut by 5c per litre, he said that the GST on fuel excise should be cut. That would work out at about a 4c per litre decrease in price - one full cent less (particularly when you consider the cut of 0.5c the GST would be cut because of the 5c cut of excise suggested by the Opposition). But even though he's promising less, the real beauty of his plan is that the Federal Government receives fuel excise, whereas the State Governments receive all of the money from the GST (Federal Treasury doesn't even deduct a collection fee). So he's promising tax cuts that wouldn't affect his budget at all, only state budgets (and from what I saw yesterday, that would put a $1 billion hole in the Victorian state budget alone).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Iosif is a COTHO on June 02, 2008, 10:19:36 am
This is one of the hilarious articles I've read recently in the increasingly shrill anti-Rudd The Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23801059-601,00.html (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23801059-601,00.html)


Quote
KEVIN Rudd has personally borne the brunt of public anger over rising petrol prices, slumping to his lowest approval since becoming Prime Minister on the widespread belief he has broken an election promise.

Tapping into discontent over petrol prices since last month's budget, Brendan Nelson is in his best position against Mr Rudd as preferred prime minister, although the Liberal leader and the Coalition still trail badly.

According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken last weekend exclusively for The Australian, Mr Rudd's standing as preferred prime minister dropped from 70 to 66 per cent - his lowest rating since he was elected. The Opposition Leader's support rose from 12 to his highest rating of 17 per cent.

On primary votes, support for the Coalition was unchanged on 37 per cent, while Labor was at its lowest since the November election at 46 per cent, compared with 47 per cent two weeks ago.

On a two-party preferred basis, based on preference flows at the last election, support for the major parties was unchanged at 43 per cent for the Coalition and 57 per cent for Labor.

But in the past two weeks, voter satisfaction with Mr Rudd hit a new low for him of 56 per cent - a seven-point drop in the fortnight - as dissatisfaction hit a new high of 30 per cent.

Mr Rudd's credibility on petrol prices and his vow to keep all his election promises was set back after most people decided he had promised during the election campaign last year to keep petrol prices lower.

According to the Newspoll survey, more people think Mr Rudd did "make an election promise to keep petrol prices lower", with 51per cent saying he did and 23per cent saying he did not.

The Opposition has accused Mr Rudd of failing to keep an election promise over lower petrol prices, but the Government has responded by saying the Prime Minister never offered a guarantee to keep petrol prices lower.

Coalition supporters, at 68 per cent, are the group most convinced Mr Rudd promised to keep prices lower, while Labor voters, at 43 per cent, are the group least convinced he made a promise. The young and the old and those earning less than $30,000 were the most convinced Mr Rudd had made an election promise.

Support for the Government and Coalition on who was more capable of keeping petrol prices lower was evenly split at 20 per cent each, with 44 per cent of people thinking neither was capable of keeping prices lower.

The Newspoll surveys were taken after both the Coalition and Labor were embarrassed by revelations of internal splits over petrol price policies.
Two weeks ago, Dr Nelson's policy of cutting the 31.8c-a-litre petrol excise by 5c a litre was described as "bad policy" by the Coalition's Treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull.

Last week leaked cabinet documents showed Labor's FuelWatch was strongly opposed by Resources Minister Martin Ferguson and the four top federal departments, including Mr Rudd's department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.

On Friday, Mr Rudd predicted he'd "take a whacking in the polls" because of the leaks over the Government's petrol policies. Yesterday, Mr Rudd continued to defend his FuelWatch proposal and accuse the Coalition of economic irresponsibility by proposing to cut the fuel excise.

Satisfaction with Mr Rudd went through a 14-point change, with satisfaction dropping seven points in the past two weeks and dissatisfaction rising seven.

Satisfaction with Dr Nelson was also virtually unchanged on 36 per cent and dissatisfaction on 40 per cent.

Mr Rudd has challenged Dr Nelson not to use the Senate to block the FuelWatch program and accused him of siding with "big oil". "Dr Nelson has a simple choice here. He can either back a cosy arrangement between the major oil companies, or, back the interests of motorists and consumers who are struggling to balance the family budget," Mr Rudd said.

"The Labor Government stands behind motorists and consumers, the Liberal Opposition is standing behind the major oil companies."

Mr Rudd said Dr Nelson had a clear choice in parliament: "He can kill FuelWatch, he can kill it stone dead if he votes against it. That's his option."

you hear that!

He's slumped from 70% approval to 66% approval!! He must resign now!

And i love it how they bury down the article that the 2PP poll results are unchanged at 57 Labor, 43 Coalition. This really is a serious crisis for Labor alright.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on June 02, 2008, 07:16:01 pm
Ah, more of the "low numbers mean the head of state resigns" crap. Except that in France they say it when approval is 30%, saying it when it's 66% is hilarious.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 02, 2008, 08:19:58 pm
Kevin Rudd will be in power for 9 years at least.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 04, 2008, 02:39:08 am
Kevin Rudd will be in power for 9 years at least.

Please, don't...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 05, 2008, 05:17:14 am
Nelson actually looks to be gaining some confidence in his role now.

Rudd's honeymoon (albeit extended) will end... they always do.

Keep in mind the 16 seat majority rely on a lot of tiny margins... many in QLD. A friend of mine worked out that to change government the Libs need to gain 10,000 votes in those seats. It's certainly doable.

Rudd promised so much during the campaign... but he's not able to deliver.... it's starting to piss people off. It's either high-profile commissions or events that really do nothing, or economic/social policy (except Indig. policy) that's not that different to Howard. In spite of what people said and the Labor policy, people didn't vote for Rudd to be Howard, they voted for him to be different.

Here in the ACT - the sense of dissatisfaction with Rudd is palpable - his extreme demands on the public service (trying to live up to his "constant activity=work ethic"), going back on his promise to respect the ACT's right to create civil unions.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 05, 2008, 05:23:44 am
Government always results in frustration. No one should ever be surprised by that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 06, 2008, 12:45:44 pm
True, although the ALP wasn't elected as a government; it was elected as Kevin07. This is the first time we've really had a president, much moreso than under even Howard. Now, people realise that Kevin07 was never really possible, and they've very disenchanted with Kevin08. Still, we can live in hope of Turnbull10 or Gillard14.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on June 10, 2008, 07:32:03 pm
Nelson actually looks to be gaining some confidence in his role now.

Rudd's honeymoon (albeit extended) will end... they always do.

Keep in mind the 16 seat majority rely on a lot of tiny margins... many in QLD. A friend of mine worked out that to change government the Libs need to gain 10,000 votes in those seats. It's certainly doable.

Rudd promised so much during the campaign... but he's not able to deliver.... it's starting to piss people off. It's either high-profile commissions or events that really do nothing, or economic/social policy (except Indig. policy) that's not that different to Howard. In spite of what people said and the Labor policy, people didn't vote for Rudd to be Howard, they voted for him to be different.

Here in the ACT - the sense of dissatisfaction with Rudd is palpable - his extreme demands on the public service (trying to live up to his "constant activity=work ethic"), going back on his promise to respect the ACT's right to create civil unions.

Furthermore, in Queensland, there was a certain parochial support for Rudd. I went back to campaign there in the final week and the voting booths all had Labor signs saying (and I can't remember the words verbatim, but they were to the tune of) "Now's our chance to vote for a Queenslander for PM". While that didn't cost us the election, it certainly would have given Labor a bounce in some of the Queensland seats they picked up. Rudd being a Queenslander will probably continue to assist him, but as the novelty of a Queensland PM wears off (and before Rudd, the last Queensland PM was Frank Forde for 8 days in 1945, before him Arthur Fadden for a couple of months in 1941 - both of whom became PM by virtue of being Deputy PM at the time of the resignation or death of the PM, the only Queenslander to have led a federal party to an election and subsequently elected PM prior to Rudd was Andrew Fisher, last elected in 1914), it will have less of an impact.

The impact of Rudd in Queensland can be seen in the statewide 2PP result - since Menzies winning government in 1949 (the earliest figures I could find on the AEC website) 2007 was only the third time Labor won the 2PP in Queensland - and 1990 was probably more to do with the ill-fated "Joh for PM" push. Rudd's hometown advantage can't be underestimated - although even with this, Labor still only achieved 50.44% of the 2PP which was lower than all other states and territories except for Western Australia and 2.26% lower than their national 2PP result of 52.7%. (Sources: http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseTppByState-13745.htm and http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/Australian_Electoral_History/House_of_Representative_1949_Present.htm ). So Queensland's probably already at or near its high-water mark for Labor.

Even with Labor's strong result nationally, I understand that Rudd's 16-seat majority is the smallest first-term Government majority since Federation (although I'm guessing that's in percentage terms of representation in the House - as Hawke doubled the number of seats prior to the 1984 election). Given that governments tend to get unpopular/more unpopular over time, Rudd doesn't have a much tighter margin as might be indicated by the 2PP results.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on June 13, 2008, 02:35:59 am
Rudd lets Japan off the Hook (http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-lets-japan-off-hook-20080612-2pnx.html)

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has effectively conceded defeat on his plan to stop Japanese whaling, declaring after talks in Tokyo that Australia and Japan have agreed to disagree on the issue.

The long-awaited talks between Mr Rudd and his Japanese counterpart, Yasuo Fukuda, concluded yesterday with both leaders saying the Japan-Australia relationship was too important to be disrupted by their disagreement over whaling.

Mr Rudd later insisted that Labor's policy had not changed from last year, when he demanded that the Howard government take Japan to the International Court and pledged that Labor would do so.

But he made it clear yesterday that Labor now had no plans to take Japan to court and would instead pursue its complaints through normal diplomatic channels and through its campaign to reform the International Whaling Commission.

"Prime Minister Fukuda and I have agreed that you can have disagreements between friends," Mr Rudd said, with Mr Fukuda at his side. "This disagreement should not undermine in any way the strong relations between our two countries … we will be working diplomatically for the period ahead."

This means, in effect, that after Labor's election campaign pledge to haul Japan before the International Court, and after the Government spent $1 million sending a Customs vessel to follow the Japanese whaling fleet last summer to collect video evidence, Australia's policy on whaling is now back where it started.

Mr Rudd immediately came under attack from anti-whaling groups and the Opposition, which said it was not good enough to "agree to disagree" and called on the Government to announce its long-delayed special envoy on whaling.

Last summer the Japanese killed 551 minke whales, the most abundant whale species. This was well short of its target of 850 minkes and 100 larger whales. Ecologist and former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has argued that Australia should not oppose the minke kill, saying it frees up food in the oceans for the larger, endangered whales

Mr Fukuda was keen to talk about the whaling issue, raising it in private discussions over lunch as well as in formal talks. But the Australian side saw no shift in his stance, and in his public statement he emphasised that diplomacy had triumphed.

"We agreed to engage in further discussion, so that differences on this issue will not underline good bilateral relations," he said.

The talks took place amid political turmoil in Japan, after Mr Fukuda was censured by the Opposition-controlled Upper House for making people over 75 meet more of their medical costs. But Mr Fukuda took two hours off his domestic troubles for an hour of official talks followed by lunch with Mr Rudd.

Importantly, he gave support to Mr Rudd's initiative to try to tighten the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by setting up an international commission co-chaired by former foreign minister Gareth Evans and holding an international conference to discuss how the treaty can be made more effective.

In a communique, the two leaders did not mention whaling.

But they emphasised the strengths of the bilateral relationship, which has been questioned after the sharp dispute over whaling and after the Rudd Government's decision to pull out of talks between the US, Japan, India and Australia - which China saw as aimed against it. Instead, the leaders agreed to strengthen bilateral and trilateral defence co-operation.

Responding to Mr Rudd's retreat on whaling, Greenpeace Australia Pacific chief executive Steve Shallhorn said it was time to move on the appointment of a whaling envoy "because regular diplomatic channels are clearly not working".

Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said the failure to announce the appointment sent a message to Japan that Labor was only interested in the whaling issue for domestic purposes.

He also said the Government's election promise to take Japan to the International Court "was always a fraud".



Prime Minister Rudd has also taken this opportunity to backflip on his "Education Revolution" policy which would see Year 9-12 students like myself receive a free laptop computer. According to Education Minister Julia Gillard the plan isn't even likely to start in 2013, some five years after it was proposed this supposed Revolution would begin.

But despite all of the above and with the Rudd Government's blunders of late, such as the leakings of the Fuelwatch scheme, which was even criticised by my own member of Parliament, Martin Ferguson, who happens to be Energy and Resources Minister, Kevin Rudd's Labor Government will be re-elected in 2010.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on June 20, 2008, 01:22:34 am
I said before the election that the only thing Rudd stands for is getting elected and that he will say whatever it takes to achieve that outcome. Unfortunately, it appears that's exactly the case - he said plenty to get people to vote for him, but now is delivering very little of what he promised.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 20, 2008, 05:03:56 am
I'm getting angier and angier and more disappointed in Rudd by the day.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 29, 2008, 02:50:20 pm
Honeymoon's Over, says the Age, following a 7.2% swing to the Nats in Gippsland.

Lib/Nats to win in 2010? :p


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on June 29, 2008, 04:47:54 pm
Lib/Nats to win in 2010? :p

With Brendan Nelson at the helm? I think YES :P. Although the Gippsland by-election officially finishes Kevin Rudd's honeymoon period as Australia's 26th Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd will sadly be re-elected for a second term in 2010. Sure Petrol Prices, the Housing Crisis, etc have all played a major part in the National's 7% swing in Gippsland and will continue to be on the minds of Australian voters for some years to come, and most likely be on their minds in 2010 but Rudd will weave his magic, as seen in last years election and thus win. However I can see the Rudd Government losing a maximum of 3-5 seats thus reducing their majority.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on June 29, 2008, 07:07:34 pm
Before we predict the defeat of Rudd in 2010, what was turnout like in Gippsland?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 29, 2008, 09:14:14 pm
A little above average at 97%


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Verily on June 29, 2008, 09:32:39 pm
A little above average at 97%

I had to pinch myself before I remembered that we were talking about Australia.

Most likely, the Gippsland result was voters voting for the Nats because they didn't see any reason to do otherwise. Unlike in a general election, this vote wasn't going to affect who formed the next government. I suppose the Nats should just breathe a sigh of relief that it was they and not the Liberals who made it to the 2PP.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 29, 2008, 09:49:25 pm
It's still a 6.7% swing away from the ALP in a seat they still lost quite handily in Nov.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on July 04, 2008, 06:35:43 am
Before 2007, the last PM to lose his seat was Bruce. He lost it on the back of IR legislation he introduced. Most people stop drawing the parallels there...

But the following PM, Scullin, was hit shortly after by economic turmoil that started offshore - a stock market crash, followed by the Great Depression...

Scullin was a one term PM...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on July 04, 2008, 06:51:56 am
Thanks to the Great Depression in October 1929, the Australian Labor Party lost one of their bright hopes for the future, Treasurer Joe Lyons who was lured by the prospect of heading the United Australia Party. The UAP was then new conservative political party which consisted of former Nationalists and members of the Country Party, ranging from Billy Hughes, John Latham to Earle Page. The United Australia Party led by the popular Lyons was consequently elected at the 1931 General Election over incumbent Prime Minister James Scullin and his Labor Government. The 1931 General Election proved to be a significant one as it was the first to see both leaders of a Roman Catholic background.

Smid, what do you hope to achieve from this? Will Polnut and Hugh help contribute in our ventures to inform other members of the forum about Australian political history? I don't want to be the only one rambling about General Election's in the 1930's :P.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on July 04, 2008, 09:07:25 pm
That was my hope... not to try to say that Rudd will be a one-termer because Scullin was and various other things seem to be going similarly - like you, I was trying to stimulate some Australian Political History there. It's interesting to read over.

I don't mind Lyons. His was the largest family to occupy the Lodge - 15 children if I remember correctly... He was also one of six Australian PMs to have not been elected from a seat in NSW or Victoria (Lyons was Tasmanian). His wife, Edith Lyons, was the first woman elected to Parliament (however Dame Anabelle Rankin from Queensland was the first female Government Minister. Both were conservatives.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 05, 2008, 01:32:45 am
Yes. Without middle-class housewives, the Australian political scene would be very, very different.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on July 28, 2008, 11:22:03 pm
BUMP

Newspoll: Voters want Costello to lead the Liberal Party (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24093599-2702,00.html)

Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Dennis Shanahan, Political editor | July 29, 2008
PETER Costello is overwhelmingly the first choice among voters to lead the Liberal Party, as Brendan Nelson stakes his leadership on trying to delay the Rudd Government's carbon emissions trading scheme.

The Opposition Leader is in a tight political position as he forms a new Coalition policy on climate change, is accused of being "gutless" and of using the emissions trading scheme as a tool of Liberal leadership jostling.

The latest Newspoll survey shows Mr Costello, the former treasurer who has sat on the back bench since the Coalition lost the election, emerging as the popular favourite to be Liberal leader - doubling his support since December. It also confirms the Government's dominance over the Opposition, with Labor leading the Coalition on a two-party-preferred basis by 57 per cent to 43 per cent.

As Mr Costello decides whether to resign or stay in politics and possibly lead the Liberal Party, Dr Nelson has less than half the former treasurer's support among voters. According to the survey, taken exclusively for The Australian last weekend, Mr Costello has 41 per cent support compared with Dr Nelson's 18 per cent.

Dr Nelson also trailed the Opposition's Treasury spokesman, Malcolm Turnbull, who received 24 per cent as preferred Liberal leader. In December last year as the Liberals contemplated a new leader to replace John Howard, support was shared among five candidates, Mr Costello, Dr Nelson, Mr Turnbull, Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop.

The December Newspoll survey showed Mr Turnbull on 25per cent, Mr Costello on 23 per cent, Dr Nelson on 15 per cent, Ms Bishop on 13 per cent and Mr Abbott on 6 per cent. With Ms Bishop and Mr Abbott removed from the latest poll, all of the public support appears to have shifted to Mr Costello as speculation has swirled about his future.

Many Liberal MPs believe Mr Costello should stay in parliament and become Liberal leader, while others are convinced he intends to leave politics once he has finished writing his biography, due to be published in October.

Mr Costello was on holiday with his family yesterday and is not expected to return until after the Liberal Party meeting on Wednesday to discuss the climate change policy.

In the Newspoll, Mr Costello's strengths were among Coalition voters - with 53 per cent preferring the former treasurer - men and those over 50 while Dr Nelson's were among women and those over 50. Mr Turnbull's highest support was among ALP voters.

But when asked if Mr Costello's leadership would make a difference in the way they voted, 57 per cent said it would make no difference. Twenty-three per cent of those surveyed said Mr Costello's leadership would make them more likely to vote for the Coalition and 15 per cent said it would make them less likely to vote for the Coalition.

Voters were overwhelmingly of the view, 65 per cent, that Mr Costello should stay in parliament until at least the next election. Three former Coalition ministers have already resigned from parliament, forcing by-elections, and there have been government calls for Mr Costello to resign and hold a by-election for his Victorian seat of Higgins at the same time.

Kevin Rudd also kept his 50-plus percentage point lead over Dr Nelson as preferred prime minister in the weeks after the release of the Government's green paper advocating an emissions trading scheme, which could push electricity and gas prices by 16 and nine per cent.

Mr Rudd had 66 per cent support as preferred prime minister compared with Dr Nelson's 14per cent.

Wayne Swan attacked Dr Nelson's position yesterday as being "gutless", saying an ETS had "become the tool of various forces in the (Liberal) party room in their jostling for the leadership".

"This is too important an issue for Australia to be subject to that sort of treatment in the Liberal Party but that's the stage they've got to, because they are simply incapable of facing up to the long-term challenges that are essential to our future prosperity," the Treasurer said.

"We certainly will not shirk our responsibility to deal with the really tough and hard decisions of the future, which we are required to make if we are going to protect future prosperity. Dealing with dangerous climate change, and not dealing with it, has a very substantial cost," Mr Swan said.



Although it would be a spectacle so see Costello and Rudd duel in Parliament Housequestion time when you've got nothing else to do on a weekday afternoon, I cannot forsee Costello launching a bid for the Liberal Party leadership anytime soon. Costello had his chance to finally become leader of the Liberal Party upon the Government's defeat in November 2007, but his time has gone. Brendan Nelson, yes Brendan Nelson, will stay on as leader of the Liberal Party until the next Election due in 2010, eventhough Nelson has been lacklustre as leader of the Opposition.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on July 28, 2008, 11:59:32 pm
Costello would be a fantastic leader!

What's the source? The Australian?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on July 29, 2008, 12:16:40 am
What's the source? The Australian?

It is indeed The Australian Smid, one of my favourite Australian newspapers, though The Age is my personal favourite. It has the right balance between stimulating political discussion and articles, not to mention excellent football journalists ;).

Costello would be a fantastic leader!

Costello would be better than Nelson for sure. Primarily because he would offer more enjoyable Parliamentary Debates between himself, Kevin Rudd and quite possibly Treasurer Wayne Swan. Not to mention he could always mock Environment Minister Peter Garrett by dancing similar to him in his Midnight Oil days. I'd like to see Brendan do that. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on July 30, 2008, 07:10:46 pm
Quote from: The Australian Newspaper
KEVIN Rudd has fallen from his peak of record popularity, with an increasing number of voters since the election seeing him as out of touch and arrogant.

The Prime Minister is still overwhelmingly viewed as strong and decisive, likeable, caring and having a vision for Australia.

But the latest Newspoll survey of leadership abilities reveals that in the past five months he has suffered a big fall in the percentage of Australians who consider him in touch with voters and a big rise in the percentage who consider him arrogant - a key criticism he made of John Howard before the election.

The Newspoll shows Brendan Nelson has pegged back Mr Rudd on leadership traits, including his ability to handle health, education, the economy and overall trustworthiness.

But as the Opposition Leader comes under increasing pressure on climate change, Mr Rudd still holds double-digit leads over Dr Nelson in most key areas. And the Prime Minister's biggest lead - 53 percentage points - is on managing the environment.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that Liberal MPs were "engaged in short-term politics, which have got more to do with their own internal party debates than the long-term interests of Australia".

According to the Newspoll, conducted exclusively for The Australian last weekend, Dr Nelson has improved in every area and Mr Rudd's position has fallen from his popularity peaks after the election.

The improvements in specific personality traits - such as being likeable and in touch with voters - run counter to the general Newspoll surveys that show Dr Nelson flatlining against Mr Rudd as preferred prime minister by 14 per cent to 66 per cent.

Support for Mr Rudd's ability to handle the environment has fallen from 74 per cent at the beginning of March - before the release of the Garnaut report and the Government's green paper on emissions trading - to 67 per cent last weekend.

Dr Nelson's standing lifted from a record low of 9 per cent in March to 14 per cent, leaving Mr Rudd with a 53-point lead on the key issue of climate change.

In the past two days, Dr Nelson's position on an emissions trading scheme has sapped his support within the Liberal partyroom and exposed him to government accusations of weak leadership and vacillation.

The Liberal leader's relative position on managing health, education and the economy has lifted strongly, with the gap on health and Medicare down by 22points - the largest movement - and on education down 14 points. On education, Dr Nelson is now in the same position to Mr Rudd as John Howard was before the election last year. Mr Rudd's "education revolution", with tax breaks for education expenses, was the centrepiece of Labor's election campaign.

Mr Rudd has maintained clear dominance over Dr Nelson on the economy - 55 per cent to 23per cent - despite rising inflation and interest rates. The gap between the two on managing the economy is down 15 points since March after a nine-point fall for Mr Rudd and a six-point rise for Dr Nelson.

Before the election, Mr Howard held almost a two-to-one advantage over Mr Rudd on economic management.

On more personal issues, such as caring for people, being in touch with voters and being arrogant, Mr Rudd's support fell from record highs while Dr Nelson improved his position in every category from a low base.

Before the election, Mr Rudd was seen as only half as arrogant as Mr Howard. In March, he was seen as much less arrogant than Dr Nelson, only 33 per cent considering him arrogant against Dr Nelson's 48per cent. Last weekend, Mr Rudd's arrogance rating rose 10 points to 43 per cent, while Dr Nelson's fell six points to 42 per cent.

Mr Rudd's perception as being in touch with voters took a heavy hit, falling 13 points to 73per cent, while Dr Nelson's rose five points to 44 per cent.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24104901-601,00.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on August 03, 2008, 01:47:02 am
Government Attacks Costello as Leadership Speculation Mounts (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/03/2322501.htm?section=justin)

The Federal Government is continuing to attack the record of former treasurer Peter Costello, as speculation increases about him taking over the Liberal leadership.

Brendan Nelson's leadership has come under renewed pressure over the past few weeks following his handling of the Coalition's climate change policy.

It has been reported Mr Costello is waiting to be drafted to the leadership to avoid a tussle between Dr Nelson and Opposition treasury spokesman Malcolm Turnbull.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told Channel Nine the question the Liberal Party faces is one of policy, not personality.

"Look at the three big policy challenges we're wrestling with at the moment," he said.

"On the economy, the Liberal Party left us with interest rates the second highest in the developed world, inflation at a 16-year high and 10 successive interest rate increases and beyond that, on climate change, 12 years of neglect and denial, and the only thing they believed in, WorkChoices."

Mr Rudd dismissed suggestions that, given the economic circumstances, Mr Costello would make for a formidable opponent.

"The key question on the future of the country is are you fair dinkum about long-term economic leadership and what we've inherited from 12 years of Costello as treasurer are the facts and figures I ran through before, including the second highest interest rates in the world," he said.

"Together with his being part and parcel of a government that was engaged in climate change denial and WorkChoices and Mr Costello, among the others, was wanting to take WorkChoices even further, so on that score I've got to say it is quite clear cut that the Liberals, whoever their leader is, have a real policy problem with their direction for the nation's future, because of the legacy they left us in the past."

Trade Minister Simon Crean has told Channel Ten he is not sure Mr Costello is the answer to the Opposition's leadership problems.

"This is a guy that whenever he's been wooed he's never consented and whenever he's chased he's never succeeded," he said.

"He's also the treasurer that has had a manic obsession in terms of pursuing an agenda that really cost the previous government a lot in the last election - WorkChoices."

NELSON STILL CONFIDENT

Yesterday Dr Nelson said he was confident he still had the backing of senior Liberals.

He said he had no plans to talk to Peter Costello about his intentions when he returns from holidays.

Former prime minister John Howard yesterday offered his support to Dr Nelson as party leader, saying it is a tough, unrelenting job in opposition.

"There is no harder job than being leader of an opposition, it's tough, it's unrelenting. You have my total goodwill, my total support," he said.

Speaking at the New South Wales Liberal Council meeting in Sydney yesterday, Dr Nelson said it was up to the former treasurer to decide his future.

"Peter Costello has earned the right to make the decision about his future with his own family in the best interests of both them and the people of Higgins," Dr Nelson said.

"As I've said privately and publicly, I would be very happy for Peter Costello to stay on in the Parliament.

"If he chooses to do so he will immediately be on the frontbench, but that's his choice, that's his decision, he'll make it in due course and in good time."



It appears that I have spoken too soon about Brendan Nelson's embattled leadership of the Liberal Party. As everyday passes it seems that former Treasurer Peter Costello is mounting a leadership challenge against Nelson. You know it's big when it's being talked about alot in the Australian media at the moment. However the Australian media did so when there was a yet another potential Costello challenge for the Liberal Leadership in 2006 and in 2007, but that moment never came. So with such leadership challenges in the world of Australian politics you never know.

In typical Costello fashion, Costello has not taken the plunge as of yet and it has been rumoured that Costello is waiting for a "Draft Costello" movement to declare his candidature. It shall be an interesting few weeks, though I have a feeling that Nelson will stay on as leader until the next Election. Costello's too weak declare his candidacy and knowing Costello he probably won't challenge Nelson at all.

Off the topic of Peter Costello, I saw Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner this morning. However, my Mum wouldn't allow me to talk to him, probably because I would have vigorously attacked and him, and you might be surprised, it has nothing to do with his politics. Tanner has been the member for Melbourne since 1993. It took eleven years for my Gran and myself to see him on television, another three years to hear him speak and another year to see him in person. Damned Australian politicians or any that never come to your electorate. You can thank safe seats for that ;).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on August 03, 2008, 08:51:19 am
"On the economy, the Liberal Party left us with interest rates the second highest in the developed world, inflation at a 16-year high and 10 successive interest rate increases and beyond that, on climate change, 12 years of neglect and denial, and the only thing they believed in, WorkChoices."

Mr Rudd dismissed suggestions that, given the economic circumstances, Mr Costello would make for a formidable opponent.

"The key question on the future of the country is are you fair dinkum about long-term economic leadership and what we've inherited from 12 years of Costello as treasurer are the facts and figures I ran through before, including the second highest interest rates in the world," he said.

Rudd knows more about spin than governance... When Costello ceased being Treasurer, Labor had the enviable position of no government debt, a future fund to pay off future public sector pension liabilities and interest rates that were still lower than they were when Costello became Treasurer. Furthermore, Costello paid off $96 billion of Government debt which was racked up by the previous government - even after they sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank. And interest rates have been pushed up by the State Labor Governments that have been spending hand over fist and running up huge levels of debt. Rudd and Swan can't go ducking responsibility (although they probably will) on our current economic woes - under Costello's stewardship, Australia weathered the worst drought in history (that played havoc with our agricultural sector), the Asian economic crisis of 1998, the US recession of 2000, the global turndown in tourism following 9/11... no, if the Australian economy in Costello's hands could weather all of that, there is no excuse for Rudd and Swan to be doing so atrociously now. Costello was named Treasurer of the Year three years running by The Economist.

Trade Minister Simon Crean has told Channel Ten he is not sure Mr Costello is the answer to the Opposition's leadership problems.

"This is a guy that whenever he's been wooed he's never consented and whenever he's chased he's never succeeded," he said.

This coming from the only Labor Opposition Leader in history to not face the electorate as leader??? Simon Crean was a born loser who not only never succeeded, but was stood down before he was able to lead the ALP to electoral oblivion.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 11, 2008, 01:44:15 am
Costello Reveals He Won't Be Leader (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/costello-reveals-he-wont-be-leader/1269351.aspx)

Quote from: The Canberra Times
The leadership of the Liberal Party becomes a two-horse race from today after the withdrawal of long-time contender Peter Costello.
The former treasurer touted for a decade as the natural successor to former prime minister John Howard has declared he will not be contesting the leadership.

Revelations that Mr Costello is leaving the main game of Australian politics open the way for Malcolm Turnbull, an MP only since the 2004 election, to marshal his forces against Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson, who has fared poorly in opinion polls since winning the job.

The Costello decision comes only hours after Dr Nelson declared he would not step aside for the Howard government treasurer.

Mr Costello, the longest-serving treasurer in Australian history, had been seen as a Liberal leader since the early days of the Howard Government but, as his memoirs to be issued next week will make clear, he never challenged Mr Howard for the job because he feared splitting the party.

When Mr Howard led the Liberals to defeat at last year's election, Mr Costello shocked supporters by not immediately taking the top job, which would have made him Opposition Leader.

Dr Nelson became leader, winning a contest from Malcolm Turnbull by only three votes..

With Mr Costello pulling out, Dr Nelson is expected to face a challenge from Mr Turnbull by Christmas.

Mr Costello's decision was revealed in an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, which begins a series of extracts from The Costello Memoirs today.

Speculation that Mr Costello would succeed Mr Howard has been one of the longest-running stories in Australian politics.

When Mr Howard announced not long after the 2001 election that he would consider his position before his 64th birthday (in mid-2003), he set off an escalating push by Costello supporters.

When Mr Howard declared he would stay on and contest the 2004 election, an emotional Mr Costello declared it was ''not the happiest day of my life''.

In mid-2006, it was revealed that another Howard minister, Ian McLachlan, kept records of an agreement under which Mr Howard had pledged to hand the leadership to Mr Costello before the end of the Liberal Government's second term.

This set off a flurry of activity pushing for a change at the top, which Mr Howard soon ended when he declared his intention to go to the 2007 election as prime minister.



After all the months and speculation of former Treasurer Peter Costello challenging incumbent leader of the Liberal Party Brendan Nelson, Nelson's ailing leadership is safe for yet another day. And one would assume with Costello's decision that he will quickly exit the political arena, however he will not, at least for another six months or so. Why? Because of The Costello Memoirs which, according to Melbourne's The Age are the most anticipated Australian political memoirs of the decade. Thus, in my mind Peter Costello wants to finish his career in Canberra with a bang and piss off a lot of people along the way. Should be an interesting read and a quite humorous one as well, or so I think.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 11, 2008, 01:50:24 am
I'm looking forward to getting it and seeing if he'll autograph it for me.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 11, 2008, 02:01:17 am
I'm looking forward to getting it and seeing if he'll autograph it for me.

I'll probably end up buying his Memoirs myself due to their much anticipated status. It shall be interesting to read Costello's remarks about last year's election, especially Caucus' attempts to remove Howard from the Prime Ministership upon the conclusion of the APEC Summit back in September 2007.

Anyway, Smid I assume you have connects to Costello himself or with a friend of a friend? You know, I would always like my copy signed ;D


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 11, 2008, 06:46:39 am
I'm titty ing your mother! (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24328741-5017894,00.html) 
Now that's how you have a sex scandal!  You cats are nuts down under!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 11, 2008, 09:09:39 am
I'm titty ing your mother! (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24328741-5017894,00.html) 
Now that's how you have a sex scandal!  You cats are nuts down under!

NSW Labor is imploding. A Premier who has only been in Parliament 18 months, a Treasurer who failed his university commerce degree and this. The problem is the nepotism and branch stacking that has allowed people without talent to get elected in safe seats and to then reach the front bench without experience. They are making a mockery of their own party.

Of course, the NSW Labor Government has been failing for longer than just this - their train system is in crisis, their roads are in crisis, their hospitals are in crisis... their debt level is going through the roof (while they appoint a uni dropout as Treasurer).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 13, 2008, 12:20:38 am
I'm titty ing your mother! (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24328741-5017894,00.html) 
Now that's how you have a sex scandal!  You cats are nuts down under!

And he's still denying he performed sex acts on a fellow Minister on Budget Night. And that Minister, who happened to be Noreen Hay who happens to look like this (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200802/r228565_909977.jpg). Who would have thought that Budget Night could turn from a sophisticated event into a sex romp, even with the most unattractive parliamentarians. Only in New South Wales.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 13, 2008, 12:28:30 am
MY EYES!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on September 13, 2008, 12:33:32 am
NSW is indeed screwed up. It's glorious. Melbourne will reign supreme once more!

Anyway. Crean is one of a handful of parliamentarians I trul;y respect, but yes he is a bit dull. He would have lost, but hey...so did Latham.

Anyway...did you see the game last night Conor? Hmmn? Dreaming really is all you can do.  ;)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 13, 2008, 01:29:06 am
I'll see if I can get ahold of the Costello book.

And WTF NSW?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 13, 2008, 02:51:15 am
NSW is indeed screwed up. It's glorious. Melbourne will reign supreme once more!

TAKE THAT NEW SOUTH WALES! Compared to the situation in New South Wales at the present, the Brumby Government looks competant compared to the former Iemma Government and the incumbent Rees Government. Isn't he lucky they have fixed four year terms and that the last election in New South Wales was held in March 2007.

Anyway...did you see the game last night Conor? Hmmn? Dreaming really is all you can do.  ;)

Indeed it is Hugh, indeed it is, and believe me I think I will be dreaming for the next couple of years. Judging from our performance last night I believe that we're heading into a redevelopment phase, one which no AFL team can avoid. To you're boys credit Hugh they played very well last night, primarily because you have our former coach Rodney Eade as your coach. Hehe. I bid you good luck against Geelong next Friday night and you will need it. Shame it was such a beautiful night, we had excellent seats and yet we lost :( At least it was to my second favourite team ;D


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 14, 2008, 08:55:09 am
WA Government falls:

National Party supports Liberals, as did one independent on election night, and the independent (ex-ALP) Member for Kalgoorlie had previously announced he'd support whoever the Nats decide to support. Two independents supported Labor, leaving it a 30-29 minority Government in favour of the Liberals.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 14, 2008, 02:14:06 pm
So the Liberals are finally back in power.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 15, 2008, 10:12:32 am
Federal Liberal Leadership Challenge - Turnbull to challenge Nelson for Leadership tomorrow morning

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24350023-421,00.html

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/631309/nelson-safe-as-leader-says-his-deputy


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 15, 2008, 04:39:14 pm
Damn it Smid you beat me to it :(

It should be interesting how the Liberal Caucus votes this morning to decide whether they keep ailing leader Brendan Nelson or select Shadow Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the struggling Federal Liberal Party. Although I would like Turnbull to defeat Nelson at the ballot this morning, I suspect that Nelson will do vice versa defeat Turnbull. However saying all of the above if anyone should lead the Liberal Party at this point in time it should be Peter Costello, he's the only one that could win the next election for them, despite being closely linked to the Howard Government. Hehe.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 15, 2008, 06:34:22 pm
Turnbull elected Leader:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24353407-601,00.html

Related links on right-hand side.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Dan the Roman on September 15, 2008, 09:19:25 pm
Good for the Liberals. They now have a semi-viable leader. I think this may be a waste of Turnbull's talents though. The Liberals will lose the next election almost no matter what so the benefit of losing 53-47 rather than 55-45 is undermined from the fact that they will use up one of their brightest stars doing so. Not to mention a Liberal defeat will now allow the Howardites to go "I told you so".


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 16, 2008, 12:26:39 am
Why would Turnbull? The Liberals aren't going to win in 2010, probably not in 2013.

In other news, the Nats are at the point of no return. If they don't break with the Liberals now, they will become the Liberals.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on September 16, 2008, 12:42:23 am
Well, as we've been saying for months, Nelson was the fall guy. Unfortunately he spilled before he fell.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 16, 2008, 01:28:47 am
Why would Turnbull?

Because Turnbull was the only other candidate for the Liberal Party leadership who's name was not Brendan Nelson and nobody else, a part from Malcolm Turnbull and Brendan Nelson wanted the Liberal Party leadership. And guess who the Liberal Party selected out of those two options.

The Liberals aren't going to win in 2010, probably not in 2013

Its fair to say that the Rudd Government, despite their falling popularity amongst the electorate will win reelection in 2010, presumably against a Liberal Party led by Malcolm Turnbull. However I do expect there to be a swing against the Labor Government. We must remember the Liberal Party does only need a 2.9% swing towards them in the 2010 election to regain control in Canberra.

As for your comments regarding 2013 Xahar, I think if the Labor Government led by either incumbent PM Kevin Rudd or by present day Deputy PM Julia Gillard becomes drastically unpopular amongst the electorate that the Liberals have a decent shot at regaining control in Canberra. Anywho its too early to predict whether or not the Liberal Party have a chance at winning to 2013 election. We must remember it is five years away.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 16, 2008, 01:30:56 am
Also remember, Kevin Rudd has the smallest first-term government majority in Australian history.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 17, 2008, 06:48:40 am
Goverments are always vulnerable in the first term.

Rudd's got the smallest majority, but also so many of them are on tiny margins.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 17, 2008, 08:43:37 am
Goverments are always vulnerable in the first term.

Rudd's got the smallest majority, but also so many of them are on tiny margins.


And there were some very large swings in Queensland, where the hometown novelty (first Queensland PM since 1944(?) Forde) obviously helped things. If the novelty wears off between now and then, and/or if he fails to live up to expectations, there may be a significant swing back against him. I think I've mentioned previously in this thread, but on election day, ever polling booth had an ALP sign saying "Now's our chance for a Queensland PM" - that certainly had an affect and I think it's very possible that the novelty will wear off. Of course, it might not, but then again, there are some slimmish margins up there...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 18, 2008, 07:08:13 pm
New WA Ministry:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24368855-5013945,00.html

Qld Lib/Nat merger still making news:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24368845-5013871,00.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 21, 2008, 08:41:29 pm
Latest Newspoll:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24381569-601,00.html

Turnbull to announce Shadow Ministry today:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24381588-2702,00.html

Rudd leaves on eighth overseas trip in nine months:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24382955-601,00.html

Turnbull Shadow Ministry Press Release:
http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=1654

Shadow Ministry List:
http://www.liberal.org.au/documents/CoaShadMinList.pdf


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 22, 2008, 05:34:11 am
Although I like Malcolm Turnbull and hopes he defeats Kevin Rudd's Labor Party at the next election he has sure made some shocking cabinet decisions today.

Whilst I did predict that Turnbull would select Deputy Leader Julie Bishop to become Shadow Treasurer today, Bishop was selected purely based on tokenism. The same applies for when Bishop was elected as Deputy Leader of the Federal Liberal Party last November. Bishop is by far no means an excellent parliamentarian, nor can she conduct an interview properly thus I have some doubts, in fact a lot of them regarding Turnbull's selection to make her Shadow Treasurer. Not to mention there were far superior choices Turnbull could have made to select as Shadow Treasurer, Andrew Robb anyone?

Whilst on the topic of Andrew Robb I have no idea why he was replaced by Helen Coonan in the Foreign Affairs portfolio. Robb, for someone who had only briefly served as a minister in the Howard Government in 2007 was doing quite well in his Foreign Affairs portfolio and I thought deserved to remain in his position, if not Foreign Affairs then the Treasury. Likewise with Bishop in the Treasury, I have a lot of doubts regarding Coonan in the Foreign Affairs portfolio.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 22, 2008, 06:01:40 am
He wants performers.

Although I don't think Coonan was a wise choice. Bishop can tear new ones, re-stitch and tear again - Robb is a wuss.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 22, 2008, 08:49:44 am
Although I like Malcolm Turnbull and hopes he defeats Kevin Rudd's Labor Party at the next election he has sure made some shocking cabinet decisions today.

Whilst I did predict that Turnbull would select Deputy Leader Julie Bishop to become Shadow Treasurer today, Bishop was selected purely based on tokenism. The same applies for when Bishop was elected as Deputy Leader of the Federal Liberal Party last November. Bishop is by far no means an excellent parliamentarian, nor can she conduct an interview properly thus I have some doubts, in fact a lot of them regarding Turnbull's selection to make her Shadow Treasurer. Not to mention there were far superior choices Turnbull could have made to select as Shadow Treasurer, Andrew Robb anyone?

From what I read today, Andrew Robb expressed an interest in the Treasury portfolio. While Leaders in the Liberal Party are able to select their own Ministry team and allocate portfolios, the Deputy Leader is entitled to select their own portfolio. Julie Bishop chose the Treasury and that's all there is to it.

I still think Andrew Robb's under-rated. I'm glad to see Senator Ronaldson's still in the Ministry. Also keep an eye out for Senator Scott Ryan, who delivered his maiden speech last week - he is a rising up-and-comer who is exceptionally intelligent and will certainly be going places in the long run.

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds160908.pdf (page 40).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on September 22, 2008, 11:43:58 pm
I can't help it, I love Senator Coonan. I once predicted she'd be our first female PM, and even though she is a senator, it might just happen.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 23, 2008, 12:23:32 am
I can't help it, I love Senator Coonan.

Really? That was something that I didn't expect. Although I believe that despite her extensive ministerial experience she will faulter in her new position as Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, she is much more tolerable than Julie Bishop or the infamous Bronwyn Bishop.

I once predicted she'd be our first female PM, and even though she is a senator, it might just happen.

If any female politician is to become Australia's first female Prime Minister than it would have to be Julia Gillard and she's in the prime position too: Deputy Prime Minister. Hugh, I doubt we will ever see another Senator become Prime Minister of Australia. It was a mere fluke that John Gorton, who as we know was a current member of the Senate at the time, became Prime Minister in January 1968 all due to John McEwen's dislike of William McMahon. And Helen Coonan doing a Gorton in the near future I doubt it very much so.

On another matter Hugh sorry to see your boys lose to Geelong last Friday night. However, I'm glad to see Adam Cooney come home with the Brownlow Medal :). This coming from the man who wanted the crowd's favourite Richmond's Matthew Richardson to claim the coveted prize.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 23, 2008, 12:28:15 am
I can't help it, I love Senator Coonan.

Really? That was something that I didn't expect. Although I believe that despite her extensive ministerial experience she will faulter in her new position as Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, she is much more tolerable than Julie Bishop or the infamous Bronwyn Bishop.

I once predicted she'd be our first female PM, and even though she is a senator, it might just happen.

If any female politician is to become Australia's first female Prime Minister than it would have to be Julia Gillard and she's in the prime position too: Deputy Prime Minister. Hugh, I doubt we will ever see another Senator become Prime Minister of Australia. It was a mere fluke that John Gorton, who as we know was a current member of the Senate at the time, became Prime Minister in January 1968 all due to John McEwen's dislike of William McMahon. And Helen Coonan doing a Gorton in the near future I doubt it very much so.

On another matter Hugh sorry to see your boys lose to Geelong last Friday night. However, I'm glad to see Adam Cooney come home with the Brownlow Medal :). This coming from the man who wanted the crowd's favourite Richmond's Matthew Richardson to claim the coveted prize.

Agree with all you've said about Gorton and the odds that this will be repeated. Of course, once he was PM, Gorton moved to the Reps, contesting the by-election triggered by Holt's disappearance. Of course, Bronwyn Bishop also made the move from Senate to House of Reps, in the thought that she might become leader and subsequently PM.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 23, 2008, 12:33:04 am
Of course, Bronwyn Bishop also made the move from Senate to House of Reps, in the thought that she might become leader and subsequently PM.

Ah yes, who can forget back in 1994 when Hewson's leadership was on the rocks and Bishop was considered the odds on favourite to replace Hewson at the helm. But once a spill was called by Hewson in May 1994 she didn't run for the vacant position and ultimatly it went to Alexander Downer, who lasted a mere nine months. Compared to Brendan Nelson, Alexander Downer could have won in 1996 had he survived :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 23, 2008, 11:16:51 pm
I knew Julie Bishop would be a terrible selection for the Treasury portfolio and now, only two days after being appointed to the position she has done a "Wayne Swan".

Jule Bishop Gets Official Interest Rate Figure Wrong (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24389134-601,00.html)

Quote from: The Australian
Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Samantha Maiden, Online political editor | September 23, 2008
JULIE BISHOP has stumbled in her second day as the Opposition's top economic spokesperson, getting the Reserve Bank's official interest rate wrong.

Labor has targeted Ms Bishop as a blue-blood lawyer from the top end of town in pearls. But the Rudd government is expected to soft pedal on Ms Bishop's first gaffe today, mindful that a similar error for a Labor frontbencher is a near certainty.

The deputy Liberal leader was asked on Perth radio last night to name the current rate, pausing for a moment before naming the wrong figure.

“Ah seven I'm just trying to think is it 7.25? I'll have to go check that one,” she said.

She was close - the interest rate was 7.25 per cent until the RBA cut interest rates earlier this month. That cut was the first since December 2001, after the RBA increased interest rates 12 times between May 2002 to March 2008.

Ms Bishop is also in good company, during last year's election campaign former prime minister John Howard had a similar stumble, failing to identify the correct figure on Channel Nine's A Current Affair.

The gaffe came as Malcolm Turnbull attacked Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan.

“As for the treasurer, he is clearly robotic,” Mr Turnbull said.

“He has clearly got a cheat sheet in front of him that says he has got to accuse the opposition of vandalising the budget.

“If all else fails, he goes red in the face and accuses me of being economically irresponsible.”

He also defended the appointment of little known WA Liberal MP Michael Keenan, one of his key numbers men in the mining state, to the industrial relations portfolio.

"Michael Keenan is 36 and he is taking on Julia Gillard. When I was 32 I took on Margaret Thatcher, so I don't think age is any disqualification,” Mr Turnbull said.

In 1986, Mr Turnbull defended former MI5 spy Peter Wright in his battle with the British government, which tried to ban his book, Spycatcher.

Another high-profile winner from this week's reshuffle, Opposition manager of business in the Senate and foreign affairs spokeswoman Helen Coonan, was also accused of a hiccup in the Senate yesterday when she introduced legislation to lift the single-aged pension but did not have an MP organised to speak to the motion.

Despite Greens Senator Bob Brown's claims that this was an error, Senator Coonan's office said today he was wrong because when introducing legislation in the Senate a seconder is not required.

The bill passed the Senate with the support of the Greens, Independent Senator Nick Xenophon and Family First's Steve Fielding, increasing pressure on the Rudd government to act now to increase pensions.

But the legislation is set to fail in the House of Representatives, where Labor has a clear majority.

Once again on the matter of Julie Bishop and the Treasury portfolio, her own staff members have admitted taking the rap over a plagiarism row, which was brought to attention during her first speech to the Parliament in the Treasury position where elements of her speech sounded similar to an article in the Wall Street Journal. For more on that story, click here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24391138-5013871,00.html).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on September 25, 2008, 10:55:23 pm
Hurrah! Minchin is Opposition Leader in the Senate! :D


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 26, 2008, 05:14:23 am
I'm not sure what's more amusing. Kevin Rudd claiming to have entered a gentlemen's club whilst on a foreign policy excursion to New York in 2006 or new Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull claiming to have used marijuana. I personally find the latter to be more so believable.

Turnbull Hailed As 'Refreshingly Honest' (http://news.theage.com.au/national/turnbull-hailed-as-refreshingly-honest-20080925-4o7m.html)

Quote from: The Age
Cannabis experts have praised federal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull for his "refreshingly honest" admission that he smoked dope in the past.

The Liberal leader, in a primetime television interview Thursday night, acknowledged smoking cannabis adding it was a mistake and should be discouraged in young Australians.

Professor Jan Copeland, director of the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre in Sydney, said the response was credible, responsible and not typical of politicians.

"I'm just sending him an email now congratulating him on his refreshingly honest, straightforward and well-informed response," Prof Copeland said.

"I think we've had some pretty unedifying responses to this question in the past from politicians that have not been seen as particularly credible ... but he was honest."

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan and Environment Minister Peter Garrett have also admitted smoking cannabis in their university days, while opposition frontbencher Tony Abbott has said he has had a "half-hearted puff".

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has not commented on his use.

In an interview on ABC Television's Q&A program, Mr Turnbull said people of his generation had not known the severe consequences of smoking marijuana.

"I think now with what we know about marijuana, I think it is a very serious drug, and it is a drug that we should strongly discourage everybody, be they young or old, but obviously particularly young people, from using," he said.

Prof Copeland she said hoped the message would help to further lower the nation's rates of cannabis use, particularly among males in their teens and 20s.

Statistics show that 750,000 Australians use cannabis weekly and 300,000 use it daily. One in eight teenagers have smoked it in the past year.

Rates have been consistently falling for more than a decade, but it is still the nation's most common illicit drug.

In more serious news, were going to buy more than $4 billion dollars worth of American mortgages, despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd telling the Australian press that were quote "light years away from the financial troubles in the US". For more on that story click here (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aiq6KjGPa5Wc&refer=home).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 26, 2008, 05:18:15 am
I think it's also interesting that Rudd's decided to take the opportunity to tell the US Congress that they should approve the bailout... because in a presidential election year, of course Congress is going to do what the Australian PM suggests.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on September 29, 2008, 08:26:39 pm
Rudd Urges the United States to Pass Bailout Plan (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/rudd-urges-us-to-pass-bailout/1321221.aspx)

Quote from: The Canberra Times
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the Australian financial system is well-equipped to handle the fallout from the US Congress rejecting a Wall Street bailout.

The local share market shed more than five per cent in its first 30 minutes of trading after Congress' action sent markets across the world into a tailspin.

The US House of Representatives overnight rejected a $US700 billion ($A879.78 billion) bailout plan put together by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and leading politicians from both sides of Congress.

Mr Rudd said the fundamentals of the national financial system remained sound.

"The circumstances of the Australian financial system and the Australian banking system are fundamentally different (from the US)," Mr Rudd told reporters.

"The government has spoken this morning with the Australian regulators, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority, we are advised that the developments overnight in the United States do not affect the fundamental stability of the Australian banking system.

"These events don't change the fundamental strength of the banking system, but of course these developments do prolong the liquidity problems we have been experiencing for some time."

Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan said the credit crunch would put more pressure on local borrowing.

"What we have seen in recent weeks is a very big spike in borrowing costs internationally and that will certainly have an impact on domestic institutions - there is not doubt about that," Mr Swan said.

"I am not going to speculate about what the Reserve Bank (of Australia) will do next week, but we do know when borrowing costs go down rates should follow.

"But, of course, the reverse also happens, when borrowing costs are pushed up and, particularly pushed up sharply, then that has consequences as well."

The Reserve Bank board will deliberate on the official interest rate next Tuesday in Sydney.

However, Mr Swan said the nation does have high commodity prices and a high budget surplus to "suit the times".

"We have put in place the best possible settings to cope with the fallout of these international circumstances."

Mr Rudd said he is backing US President George W Bush's second attempt to get the bailout passed.

"I strongly support US President Bush's leadership," he said.

Mr Bush had pleaded with Congress to pass the bill but was ignored by members of his own Republican Party who grouped together to block the bailout.

"The consequences for the failure of this measure are significant for the US financial system and more broadly," Mr Rudd said.

"The roll on implications for the global economy are significant."

Mr Rudd this morning spoke to Australia's ambassador in Washington Dennis Richardson and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown about the crisis.

"Representations will be made at multiple levels," Mr Rudd said.

A fresh bailout plan is expected to be put before Congress on Thursday following a public holiday.

Kevin Rudd has said numerous times throughout the last two weeks that Australia can avert an economic crisis. Today, even though the House of Representatives in the United States has rejected the Bailout Plan, which Kevin Rudd urged President Bush to pass, Rudd continues to sing this repetitive tune. If you ask anyone who does not live in the aristocratic parts of the country, nine times out of ten they'll say that we cannot escape the coming crisis nor do they support the Bailout (most notably my Father, does he get pissed!). I guess Rudd, like many of us will have to wait and see, but I doubt he'll be right.

Anywho, Kevin Rudd has finally bitten the bullet by committing to support paid maternity leave, thus leaving the United States as the only developed country not to have such leave. However, he has only committed to 18 weeks. For more on that story click here (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24418877-601,00.html).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 29, 2008, 03:28:39 am
BUMP

And I thought the Australian public were beginning to dislike Kevin Rudd, obviously not. According to an article in The Age (http://news.theage.com.au/national/pms-popularity-soars-on-back-of-crisis-20081027-59ul.html) on October 27 (yes two days late, oh my, call 3AW!!) Kevin Rudd is experiencing his highest levels of popularity since taking office on December 3, 2007. I think this (http://au.video.yahoo.com/watch/3691510/10159845) carefully planned television stunt, seen on Channel Seven nearly two weeks ago helped in his quest to seek higher popularity numbers.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on October 29, 2008, 07:01:10 am
Hurrah! Minchin is Opposition Leader in the Senate! :D

Gporter's secret idol!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Robespierre's Jaw on October 29, 2008, 03:37:29 pm
Hurrah! Minchin is Opposition Leader in the Senate! :D

Gporter's secret idol!

Indeed, Senator Minchin is Garrison's political idol. Take that Ronald Reagan!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on December 07, 2008, 08:20:10 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24766867-29277,00.html

Australia to have a new (or does "new" imply there's an "old" one?) political tv channel. A-Span, modelled on C-Span.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 08, 2008, 01:03:43 am
What a terrible name.

I hope they have an online feed.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on December 08, 2008, 01:20:59 am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24766867-29277,00.html

Australia to have a new (or does "new" imply there's an "old" one?) political tv channel. A-Span, modelled on C-Span.

C doesn't mean Congress or United States. That means Cable. They can't translate the C in A.

Australia-Satellite Public Affairs Network?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Meeker on December 08, 2008, 01:23:10 am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24766867-29277,00.html

Australia to have a new (or does "new" imply there's an "old" one?) political tv channel. A-Span, modelled on C-Span.

C doesn't mean Congress or United States. That means Cable. They can't translate the C in A.

Australia-Satellite Public Affairs Network?

And even if it did mean Congress then they should've called it "P-SPAN".


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on December 08, 2008, 01:26:11 am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24766867-29277,00.html

Australia to have a new (or does "new" imply there's an "old" one?) political tv channel. A-Span, modelled on C-Span.

C doesn't mean Congress or United States. That means Cable. They can't translate the C in A.

Australia-Satellite Public Affairs Network?

And even if it did mean Congress then they should've called it "P-SPAN".

True. Why not APN?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on December 08, 2008, 01:58:40 am
Yeah - I have no idea where they got the name. It's pretty suckful.

There is an Australian Parliamentary Network for Federal Parliament, that also webcasts (at least it webcasts on the parliamentary intranet). It has different channels - one is the House of Reps, one is the Senate, one is the Main Committee, and then there are different channels for each of the Committee Rooms so you can watch the various Committees in action if you require a cure for insomnia. I think they webcast via the www.aph.gov.au site. I know you can get HoR and Senate through there.

The Victorian and Queensland Parliaments have webcasting of their sittings (other states may as well, but I can't say that definitively). Victoria only webcasts audio, however (so it will be interesting to see if this leads them to upgrade to visual - I think the link said that they would, but I can't remember now). Queensland always used to just do it audio, but I think they've upgraded to visual as well, although I'm not 100% certain on that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on December 08, 2008, 07:55:03 am
CPAC=fail.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on December 08, 2008, 05:57:47 pm
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24766867-29277,00.html

Australia to have a new (or does "new" imply there's an "old" one?) political tv channel. A-Span, modelled on C-Span.

C doesn't mean Congress or United States. That means Cable. They can't translate the C in A.

Australia-Satellite Public Affairs Network?

Apparently: Australian Subscription Public Affairs Network.

What a terrible name.

I hope they have an online feed.

Apparently they will.

They will commence broadcast with Obama's Inauguration Speech, will broadcast "Federal Parliament, including Committee hearings, speeches, conferences and events such as Anzac Day. It will also broadcast Question Time from the Victorian, NSW and Queensland Parliaments, and cover New Zealand and British Parliaments."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771760-662,00.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on December 08, 2008, 06:02:01 pm
Hooray! I like this. :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Joe Republic on January 06, 2012, 03:37:22 am
This thread bump is brought to you courtesy of Bob Hawke:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5mBShX9fdU


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 06, 2012, 11:35:49 am
Beat that, Reagan.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 06, 2012, 11:53:18 am
This might sound incredibly stupid, but this increased my opinion of the ALP significantly.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Joe Republic on January 26, 2012, 05:30:30 pm
Transport Secretary Anthony Albanese is apparently a fan of the works of Aaron Sorkin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Mjhz899C8L0


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2012, 07:37:00 am
Rumbles from pretty accurate sources that both Gillard and Rudd supporters are counting numbers for a potential leadership challenge.

Considering Parliament returns next week ... it'll be pretty interesting.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2012, 06:36:55 pm
New poll out shows that while the Coalition has lost 3% primary vote since the Christmas recess, the ALP primary remains at 30%. Two-party preferred sits at 54-46 Coalition... a total wipeout.

Gillard lost ground to Abbott as preferred PM and now only has a 3% lead.

Senior ALP Ministers are leaking to the press that any Rudd challenge would see them resign and force an immediate election. Which means a lot of people are taking things a lot more seriously than in the past.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 30, 2012, 06:41:52 pm
Senior ALP Ministers are leaking to the press that any Rudd challenge would see them resign and force an immediate election. Which means a lot of people are taking things a lot more seriously than in the past.

Call an immediate election because they hope to take advantage of any bounce, or resign to stop Kev'.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2012, 07:14:07 pm
Senior ALP Ministers are leaking to the press that any Rudd challenge would see them resign and force an immediate election. Which means a lot of people are taking things a lot more seriously than in the past.

Call an immediate election because they hope to take advantage of any bounce, or resign to stop Kev'.

If one ALP member were to resign, Rudd couldn't command a working majority in the House - he'd be forced to call an election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 30, 2012, 07:15:38 pm
Senior ALP Ministers are leaking to the press that any Rudd challenge would see them resign and force an immediate election. Which means a lot of people are taking things a lot more seriously than in the past.

Call an immediate election because they hope to take advantage of any bounce, or resign to stop Kev'.

If one ALP member were to resign, Rudd couldn't command a working majority in the House - he'd be forced to call an election.

Oh, I just thought you meant resign from cabinet.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 30, 2012, 07:20:59 pm
I thought Gillard was the one overthrowing Rudd? Or was that last year?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2012, 07:24:23 pm
I thought Gillard was the one overthrowing Rudd? Or was that last year?

Unfortunately a primary vote unable to scrape its way past 34% at best is making them increasingly nervous.

Gillard just isn't breaking through.

http://inside.org.au/labors-six-almost-fatal-mistakes/ - very good article on the ALP's largely self-inflicted problems.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2012, 09:15:28 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-31/crean-takes-swipe-at-kevin-rudd/3802526

And now it gets very... very personal.

Simon Crean is probably Gillard's closest political ally..


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 30, 2012, 09:30:32 pm
Link to the threatened resignations and NSW Right stuff?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2012, 09:42:15 pm
I've only heard those issues in passing.

Will do some digging.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2012, 08:05:09 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/national/pms-hold-on-job-slipping-say-backers-20120201-1qtim.html

More evidence that this is real...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Beet on February 01, 2012, 08:11:45 pm
I know next to nothing about Australian politics, but it's just sad that we can't get a popular center-left government anywhere in the 'Western' world. Stephen Harper's claim to fame is Canada's economy stability, but Australia is doing even better than Canada...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2012, 08:16:07 pm
I know next to nothing about Australian politics, but it's just sad that we can't get a popular center-left government anywhere in the 'Western' world. Stephen Harper's claim to fame is Canada's economy stability, but Australia is doing even better than Canada...

if you read this...

http://inside.org.au/labors-six-almost-fatal-mistakes/

It pretty clearly outlines the failures of the Government to sell its own successes.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on February 01, 2012, 08:29:39 pm
I know next to nothing about Australian politics, but it's just sad that we can't get a popular center-left government anywhere in the 'Western' world. Stephen Harper's claim to fame is Canada's economy stability, but Australia is doing even better than Canada...

Canada's economic stability is because of the Liberals, not because of Harper, actually. Harper is just being a liar (again).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 02, 2012, 11:37:40 pm
I know next to nothing about Australian politics, but it's just sad that we can't get a popular center-left government anywhere in the 'Western' world. Stephen Harper's claim to fame is Canada's economy stability, but Australia is doing even better than Canada...
Basically, Gillard has communication problems and leaves people cold.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 03, 2012, 12:59:28 am
Remember the days when the ALP were at 60-40? :(


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 04, 2012, 08:21:54 am
Remember the days when the ALP were at 60-40? :(

Unfortunately the ALP lost their nerve and the Opposition got a VERY effective leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 04, 2012, 08:33:21 am
Abbott as PM will be hilarious, particularly having to do stuff rather than saying 'no' just because the Labor party suggested it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 04, 2012, 08:36:10 am
Abbott as PM will be hilarious, particularly having to do stuff rather than saying 'no' just because the Labor party suggested it.

Abbott is the Lib's Achilles Heel - he's the reason they almost won in 2010... (technically they did win more seats...) but he's also the reason they didn't win outright.

As long as he's leader, I wouldn't count on a Lib win - whatever the polls say.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on February 04, 2012, 12:55:03 pm
So what would happen if an election were held?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 04, 2012, 06:34:36 pm
The ALP is truely screwed no matter who's the leader. Kev' is less childish than Julia (and, by definition, Abbott), but a leadership spill to take revenge for a previous leadership spill (which is what it is, let's be frank) would ruin any image of credibility for Rudd.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 05, 2012, 12:32:26 am
The ALP is truely screwed no matter who's the leader. Kev' is less childish than Julia (and, by definition, Abbott), but a leadership spill to take revenge for a previous leadership spill (which is what it is, let's be frank) would ruin any image of credibility for Rudd.

Um... no. Rudd is childish, prickly, ill-mannered ...

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Gillards-mapping-a-route-but-will-probably-still-be-routed/

http://www.news.com.au/national/tony-abbot-prepares-for-leadership-showdown/story-e6frfkvr-1226263028640

The party shafted Rudd, not because of the polls, but because they've always hated him, but kept him on for as long as he was popular.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 05, 2012, 02:45:45 am
The closer people are to Rudd, the worse he looks. That's why his caucus colleagues rolled him, as Polnut notes.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2012, 10:19:57 am
Essentially Rudd is a prick.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 05, 2012, 03:37:45 pm
Essentially Rudd is a prick.

Pretty much, yes.

New polling might give Gillard some cause for calm...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-06/nielsen-poll-sees-gillard-overtake-abbott/3812718


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 09, 2012, 03:45:12 pm
TFFT


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 09, 2012, 11:15:08 pm
Two questions:

1) Who would challenge Abbott for the leadership?

2) Where can I find a color coded map of the Australian House?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 10, 2012, 07:11:56 pm
1) Only Turnbull

John Hewson (Lib leader 1990-1994, also Abbott's former boss and NO great fan) said that as long as Gillard remains PM - Abbott remains relatively secure, which is true.

There's an Australian map thread here somewhere. But I'm sure a-googling would give you what you seek.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 10, 2012, 07:47:17 pm
Two questions:

1) Who would challenge Abbott for the leadership?

2) Where can I find a color coded map of the Australian House?

International Elections board. Homely just started a "New Australian Maps" thread a couple of weeks ago. Al did a few maps after the election in the thread on the election. They're probably all in the International Elections gallery.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 10, 2012, 08:04:47 pm
Once again, thanks guys. I would like to learn more about the Australian political system, so I'll probably stick around.

Buy your best estimation, who will be the next PM. Is Abbott that bad that he cant win the premiership?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 10, 2012, 08:32:17 pm
It's difficult to say...

I think if Rudd regains the leadership (which is about a 50/50 chance), I think Rudd would win the next election if Abbott were leader.

But Turnbull could beat either Gillard or Rudd.

There's a number, more on the ALP-side with opportunities, but each with their own shortcomings.

1. Stephen Smith, Defence Minister - very smart, stable... but a touch boring

2. Greg Combet, Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Minister - again, smart and a very able Minister - but the Union background could be a problem

3. Penny Wong, Finance Minister - would need to shift to the House... probably the single-most impressive Minister in Cabinet... slight problem with being openly gay...

I think Bill Shorten, a oft-mentioned option is far too green.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 10, 2012, 09:27:09 pm
Interesting.

If the federal election were held tomorrow, which party would win?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 10, 2012, 10:08:22 pm
Interesting.

If the federal election were held tomorrow, which party would win?

The Coalition - but it would be closer than the polls suggest


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 10, 2012, 11:07:29 pm
I think that many of the people who prefer Turnbull over Abbott would not vote for the Coalition regardless of who is the leader or are Liberal moderates who are likewise not swinging voters. I think that compared to Abbott, Turnbull would increase the margin in inner-suburban safe Liberal seats and decrease the margin in inner-suburban safe Labor seats. Abbott has the greater ability to win the outer-suburban swing seats.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 11, 2012, 12:01:59 am
I disagree - polls showed that in the 6-7 marginal seats that decided the election Abbott was what prevented a clear Coalition majority in 2010.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 13, 2012, 07:12:30 am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-13/gillard-prepared-for-rudd-knifing-weeks-before-spill/3827726

...and this might go down as one of the most spectacular own-goals in Australian political history.

One thing that saved Gillard's reputation after the Rudd removal was the idea that she had no choice, and was forced to take the job.

But the when faced with allegations that she and her backers had been talking about a leadership coup a full fortnight before it happened, with the US State Department being more well-informed than most Government backbenchers (the Australian Ambassador was called in for a meeting with Secretary Clinton). The worst allegation was that staff in her personal office had been writing a leadership take-over speech over that same previous two-week period. When asked in the interview for the program, if she knew that those staff members were writing that speech... she didn't deny she had knowledge.

This with the new Newspoll suggesting the TPP has slipped-back to 55-45 and Abbott surged past Gillard.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2012, 03:49:15 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-used-polling-to-trigger-coup-20120214-1t49l.html

This just gets worse for her...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2012, 04:14:54 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-used-polling-to-trigger-coup-20120214-1t49l.html

This just gets worse for her...

Argh, why is the PM such a joke!? Even Gordon Brown held knifing Blair better than this.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2012, 04:31:16 pm
If Gillard had come clean at the beginning that she had been "working to ensure that any change was as smooth as possible" and" undertaking this was not an easy decision, but I had been considering my position for some time, although it was not until today that I made the final decision to address this particular issue head-on"... it would have been different.

She tried to claim that she only decided on the day to challenge and there was the perception she wasn't actively involved in any campaign to remove Rudd... the BIG problem for Gillard is that it feeds into the idea that she's scheming and dishonest... if this isn't the death-blow for her. I don't know what is.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2012, 04:52:53 pm
OK, so she's a competent political assassin. It doesn't change Lab's flatlining.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2012, 04:58:19 pm
OK, so she's a competent political assassin. It doesn't change Lab's flatlining.

Um, if an assassin gets so easily caught then they aren't that competent.

The ALP is in a critical-condition, they're rapidly turning into the NSW ALP, basically everything they touched turned to merde.

They need a circuit-breaker and need one now. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2012, 05:54:04 pm
Repeal those taxes, repeal cap and trade. Until then, Abbott should not interfere with Lab's serene Controlled Flight Into Terrain.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2012, 06:06:21 pm
Repeal those taxes, repeal cap and trade. Until then, Abbott should not interfere with Lab's serene Controlled Flight Into Terrain.

No, without them the Budget won't hit a surplus until the end of the decade.

They aren't reasons fundamentally, the mining tax is very popular, the carbon tax is on shakier ground, but that's more based on the situation that brought it about, rather than the tax itself (apart from the rampant misinformation and fear campaign)

The ALP's problems are based on
1) the perception that the Government is based on expedience (scrapping the CPRS in April 2010 was the beginning of the end for Rudd)

2) Gillard's ascension to PM was fundamentally tainted as it was seen as undemocratic...

3) The carbon-tax "lie", Gillard saying that she wouldn't bring about a carbon tax ... then she did... I don't think it was an active lie, I think she wouldn't have done it if it weren't a minority government.

4) It basically built the idea that Gillard was untrustworthy and that the Government doesn't really stand for much...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 14, 2012, 06:25:32 pm
Snipping a bit (and trying not to remove context):

the carbon tax is on shakier ground, but that's more based on the situation that brought it about, rather than the tax itself (apart from the rampant misinformation and fear campaign)

3) The carbon-tax "lie", Gillard saying that she wouldn't bring about a carbon tax ... then she did... I don't think it was an active lie, I think she wouldn't have done it if it weren't a minority government.

4) It basically built the idea that Gillard was untrustworthy and that the Government doesn't really stand for much...


I think that pretty much sums up the Government's unpopularity. I personally don't like the tax but I'll keep those opinions out of it and try to be objective... I think that the reason the Government and the Prime Minister is unpopular is not because of the tax per se, but rather because of the way it was brought in - after she'd specifically ruled it out during the election campaign.

I think people are more willing to forgive a government, particularly a minority government, for failing to act - especially on election commitments, rather than for acting on what they said they wouldn't do. There was plenty of legislation during the Howard era that was blocked by the Senate, (and 2004 was the first government majority in the Senate in what? 25 years?) so I think people are fairly used to governments not having a complete free rein - and probably somewhat expect the government to be curtailed from some of their plans. Sort of a "well, we tried, but they wouldn't let it through - give us a mandate at this next election/end the uncertainty and we'll do it."

During the formation of government negotiations with the Greens, I think the Prime Minister was in a stronger position than I think she thought. The Greens were never going to throw their support behind a Tony Abbott led government, and I think she could have stared them down on that without concessions like the Carbon Tax. Even if they ended up backing the Coalition, while Labor would have lost the short-term battle, they would have been better off in the long-run... a Coalition minority Government propped up by the Greens would never have lasted full-term and Labor would comfortably win back Melbourne and get a decent buffer in Sydney and Grayndler, and the Greens would have taken a hammering in their Senate vote - most of which would probably ended up back with Labor.

Anyway, just my thoughts on it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2012, 06:33:48 pm
I think Rudd's biggest mistake was not going for a double-dissolution in February 2010. He had the opportunity before Abbott got his footing to basically take the moral high-ground on climate change... but he, like many if I'm honest, expected Abbott to implode and would be an easy win later in the year.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on February 14, 2012, 06:42:59 pm
I think Rudd's biggest mistake was not going for a double-dissolution in February 2010. He had the opportunity before Abbott got his footing to basically take the moral high-ground on climate change... but he, like many if I'm honest, expected Abbott to implode and would be an easy win later in the year.

So it was kind of Rudd's Jim Callaghan/Gordon Brown moment?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2012, 06:47:24 pm
I think Rudd's biggest mistake was not going for a double-dissolution in February 2010. He had the opportunity before Abbott got his footing to basically take the moral high-ground on climate change... but he, like many if I'm honest, expected Abbott to implode and would be an easy win later in the year.

So it was kind of Rudd's Jim Callaghan/Gordon Brown moment?

And the carbon tax was Julia's Clegg moment?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 14, 2012, 09:56:58 pm
Does Australian House of Representatives have a vote of no confidence rule? And if so, how likely would it occur on this situation.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2012, 10:04:12 pm
Does Australian House of Representatives have a vote of no confidence rule? And if so, how likely would it occur on this situation.

All Westminster countries do. Right now they would need all the independents to break with Labor and vote against the government on a matter of confidence like the budget or a specialized non-confidence motion (NCM). For now, apart from Willkie (who's withdrawn his support for the government), the independents show no sign of moving.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2012, 10:09:54 pm
Does Australian House of Representatives have a vote of no confidence rule? And if so, how likely would it occur on this situation.

Assuming it's similar to the UK, the Leader of the Opposition (probably him anyway) would table a motion of no confidence, the House would then debate the motion - a speech from Gillard, a speech from Abbott. Then, should have the House vote that they've lost confidence, Julia would go and see the Governor-general to offer her government's resignation and either ask for a new election or tell the GG to ask Tony to form a government (without an election, a bit like what Lib-NDP-BQ were planning in Canada when Harper got another minority in 2008).

Or, if the budget wasn't passed, it'd count as a vote of no confidence.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 14, 2012, 10:10:52 pm
This  (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2011/12/08/australian-exceptionalism/all-comments/#comments) shows how bad Labor is in the sh**t. Basically economic growth has been way higher than most/all 1st world countries. Our taxes are lower than any 1st world countries bar the basket case we call the USA....we have the 2nd highest living standards in the world.....yet Labor are still behind up 8-10 points. Jesus wept.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2012, 10:14:08 pm
Re economy: You could say the same about Major's Tories in '97.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2012, 10:32:07 pm
Re economy: You could say the same about Major's Tories in '97.

The Tories presided over two recessions and services had been ravaged and neglected. That's the stuff the electorate notices, but let's stay on topic.

Julia's embarrassing, but hardly John Major embarrassing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 14, 2012, 11:06:14 pm
What does Laborious do now? Does Gillard run out the clock until the next federal election, or will she be eased out by fellow ALP MP's?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 14, 2012, 11:31:52 pm
the independents show no sign of moving.

Oakeshott has re-iterated his warning that his deal was with the Prime Minister, not the Labor Government (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/rudd-draws-close-to-challenging-gillard-as-labor-mps-warn/story-fn7x8me2-1226271290087?from=public_rss).

Quote
UPDATE: INDEPENDENT MP Rob Oakeshott has repeated his warning that all bets are off if the federal Labor party changes leader.

Mr Oakeshott said he was too busy to be overly concerned about growing Labor leadership speculation.
 
"I'm in about 10 dogfights at the moment and that's not one of them, that's for the Labor party," he told ABC Radio.
 
He had a meeting with Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday but they did not discuss her leadership woes.
 
Mr Oakeshott's deal to support the Gillard minority government is with the Prime Minister personally and her predecessor Kevin Rudd has not specifically sounded him out for support.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 15, 2012, 12:39:06 am
What does Laborious do now? Does Gillard run out the clock until the next federal election, or will she be eased out by fellow ALP MP's?

That's the question... there are 3 questions the ALP needs to answer

1. Is this recoverable? regardless of who is leading...

2. Is our hatred of Rudd able to be put aside to manage our disappointment in Gillard?

3. Is there a credible alternative to either Rudd or Gillard?

I think the answers are probably...

1. It is, but this needs to be addressed quickly, or it will become terminal... it's very close

2. I would say Gillard has at least half of the caucus now, Rudd has probably 20% and 30% don't want Gillard, but equally don't want Rudd.

3. There are plausible options... but many of them are not palatable...

My feeling is that a challenge will come, it's in the ALP's interest to not have this instability carry-on into the post-Budget period (mid-May onwards).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 15, 2012, 02:34:24 am
Bringing back Rudd isn't seriously being considered, is it?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 15, 2012, 06:39:55 am
What does Laborious do now? Does Gillard run out the clock until the next federal election, or will she be eased out by fellow ALP MP's?
Not sure. What I think will happen....

1. Rudd challenges Gillard.
2. Gillard manages to swat him by because he's hated by the Labor Caucus, but she is weakened in the process.
3. Gillard still doesn't get a surge in the polls.
4. Labor eventually realises that Gillard can't win the next election.
5. They move towards a compromise candidate, probably Swan or Smith.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 15, 2012, 06:41:15 am
Re economy: You could say the same about Major's Tories in '97.
The Tories had also been in power for 18 years, whereas Labor's only been in power for 4.

Besides, we've never had any "Black Tuesday" moments.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 15, 2012, 07:02:54 am
What does Laborious do now? Does Gillard run out the clock until the next federal election, or will she be eased out by fellow ALP MP's?
Not sure. What I think will happen....

1. Rudd challenges Gillard.
2. Gillard manages to swat him by because he's hated by the Labor Caucus, but she is weakened in the process.
3. Gillard still doesn't get a surge in the polls.
4. Labor eventually realises that Gillard can't win the next election.
5. They move towards a compromise candidate, probably Swan or Smith.

This destabilisation cannot continue, a spill needs to happen by May... or they risk a NSW-like wipeout.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 15, 2012, 10:00:08 am
Crean, ploise. Now.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 15, 2012, 12:49:01 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 15, 2012, 01:03:59 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?

How does the rank and file feel about Rudd?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 15, 2012, 01:08:28 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?

How does the rank and file feel about Rudd?

I've no idea and that's really not the point.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 15, 2012, 03:59:32 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?

How does the rank and file feel about Rudd?

I've no idea and that's really not the point.

Personally, i've always found the Australian way of selecting party leaders to be very strange.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 15, 2012, 04:50:10 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?

How does the rank and file feel about Rudd?
Talking about the Caucus or everyday Labor members?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 15, 2012, 04:51:29 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?

How does the rank and file feel about Rudd?

I've no idea and that's really not the point.

Personally, i've always found the Australian way of selecting party leaders to be very strange.

Pretty sure Labor are considering reforming it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 15, 2012, 05:33:44 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?

How does the rank and file feel about Rudd?

I've no idea and that's really not the point.

Personally, i've always found the Australian way of selecting party leaders to be very strange.

Pretty sure Labor are considering reforming it.

They're talking about primaries... which to be fair doesn't exactly fill me with glee.

Rudd's popularity grows the further from Canberra you get. Those of us here 'in the bubble' know what he's really like, hence why the idea of a Rudd return terrifies both the ALP leadership and the Public Service in equal measure.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 15, 2012, 05:35:47 pm
What is Rudd's great sin?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 15, 2012, 05:47:32 pm
Perhaps now would be the time to consider democratising the leadership process somewhat?

I suspect the people who run the Labor Party wouldn't like that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 15, 2012, 05:52:04 pm
What is Rudd's great sin?

He's non-collaborative (ie Ministers often only know of a decision in their portfolio once it's announced) - this is especially bad in the ALP, where the caucus is meant to a filtering process. The other ALP-specific sin is that he's not aligned with one of the factions - which means no one trusts him. But for the public at-large (and those of us in Canberra) - he's very ill-mannered, in private every 3rd word is f*** (or some variation), and his government was marked by a lot of activity, policy made up on the fly and no real pay off.  


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 15, 2012, 06:00:40 pm
What is Rudd's great sin?

He's non-collaborative (ie Ministers often only know of a decision in their portfolio once it's announced) - this is especially bad in the ALP, where the caucus is meant to a filtering process. The other ALP-specific sin is that he's not aligned with one of the factions - which means no one trusts him. But for the public at-large (and those of us in Canberra) - he's very ill-mannered, in private every 3rd word is f*** (or some variation), and his government was marked by a lot of activity, policy made up on the fly and no real pay off.  

Didn't he screw over Peter Garrett by making him take the fall for something he ordered Garrett's ministry to do over Garrett's head or something? Some kind of harebrained insulation scheme that ended up killing people?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 15, 2012, 06:06:56 pm
What is Rudd's great sin?

He's non-collaborative (ie Ministers often only know of a decision in their portfolio once it's announced) - this is especially bad in the ALP, where the caucus is meant to a filtering process. The other ALP-specific sin is that he's not aligned with one of the factions - which means no one trusts him. But for the public at-large (and those of us in Canberra) - he's very ill-mannered, in private every 3rd word is f*** (or some variation), and his government was marked by a lot of activity, policy made up on the fly and no real pay off.  

Didn't he screw over Peter Garrett by making him take the fall for something he ordered Garrett's ministry to do over Garrett's head or something? Some kind of harebrained insulation scheme that ended up killing people?

Yes, the Insulation Scheme was the dark-side of the generally effective 2009 stimulus package. This is probably the worst example of Rudd saying "oh, I've issued a press release saying your department will do x, make sure it works".

When I was in the public service Garrett was my Minister and he was otherwise a very capable and effective Minister. But Rudd handed him a poison chalice. When unskilled workers were trying to make money out of the billions going out, people died.

So Garrett had the energy-efficiency portfolio taken away and given to Penny Wong.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 15, 2012, 06:29:34 pm
How's Garrett doing at Education, out of curiosity? I remember being distinctly upset on his behalf because of how unfair it seemed and because of how I knew of his music career from when my mother used to play his cassette tapes in the car when I was little.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 15, 2012, 06:48:15 pm
How's Garrett doing at Education, out of curiosity? I remember being distinctly upset on his behalf because of how unfair it seemed and because of how I knew of his music career from when my mother used to play his cassette tapes in the car when I was little.

The problem is no one really took him seriously. But people forget he's got a law degree, he's very bright and a hard worker. I wrote a speech for him back in May 2010... and he barely changed a word.

He's not doing a bad job, and considering this government he's not being talked about which probably means he's doing fine.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 15, 2012, 08:38:10 pm
What is Rudd's great sin?

He's non-collaborative (ie Ministers often only know of a decision in their portfolio once it's announced) - this is especially bad in the ALP, where the caucus is meant to a filtering process. The other ALP-specific sin is that he's not aligned with one of the factions - which means no one trusts him. But for the public at-large (and those of us in Canberra) - he's very ill-mannered, in private every 3rd word is f*** (or some variation), and his government was marked by a lot of activity, policy made up on the fly and no real pay off.  

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01374/Brown-Rudd_1374671c.jpg)

I though KRudd was meant to be insanely popular for like two years after his election. What happened?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 16, 2012, 12:32:46 am
What is Rudd's great sin?

He's non-collaborative (ie Ministers often only know of a decision in their portfolio once it's announced) - this is especially bad in the ALP, where the caucus is meant to a filtering process. The other ALP-specific sin is that he's not aligned with one of the factions - which means no one trusts him. But for the public at-large (and those of us in Canberra) - he's very ill-mannered, in private every 3rd word is f*** (or some variation), and his government was marked by a lot of activity, policy made up on the fly and no real pay off.  

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01374/Brown-Rudd_1374671c.jpg)

I though KRudd was meant to be insanely popular for like two years after his election. What happened?

Well he's still quite popular with general electorate. The ALP Caucus always could not stand him - the only reason he lasted so long was because his polling was awesome.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: redcommander on February 16, 2012, 02:02:17 am
So is an ALP loss pretty much a done deal now?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 16, 2012, 03:56:15 am
So is an ALP loss pretty much a done deal now?

If things stay like this... yes. But there's plenty that could change.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 16, 2012, 10:37:06 am
Right now their numbers are either level with or slightly lower than what they were in 1996. So yes, they've flatlined. In French we call it an ecrasement.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 16, 2012, 04:15:20 pm
Right now their numbers are either level with or slightly lower than what they were in 1996. So yes, they've flatlined. In French we call it an ecrasement.

Since there's still 18months before the next likely election... a lot can happen.

If the alternative wasn't Tony Abbott... I'd be all for turfing this Government out... not for what it's done (because I think that's been OK), but because on so many other things it's directionless and gutless.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 16, 2012, 11:14:10 pm
Is the next election in 2013?

If that's the case, maybe Gillard, or at least ALP, can ride this storm.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 17, 2012, 07:12:15 am
Is the next election in 2013?

If that's the case, maybe Gillard, or at least ALP, can ride this storm.
Yes, but there may be an election before that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 17, 2012, 07:42:58 am
Yeah, we have a maximum end date but no fixed terms.

(At a federal level - some states and councils have fixed terms).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 17, 2012, 08:26:57 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/war-looms-as-pms-loyalists-turn-on-rudd-20120217-1teic.html

Cabinet Ministers are now circling around Gillard to try to protect her...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 17, 2012, 09:55:20 pm
Everyone's waiting for Queensland aren't they? So the Coalition should throw everything they have into winning state government.

Will the next steps start only if Lab looses Queensland or could it also start if they lose in all but name? Say, a minority or sharply reduced majority.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 17, 2012, 10:47:25 pm
Is the next election in 2013?

If that's the case, maybe Gillard, or at least ALP, can ride this storm.
Yes, but there may be an election before that.

How would there be an election before that? Would independents have to break away from the Gillard government?

Otherwise, I would think Labor would take all possible precautions to avoid an election before the next scheduled one.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 17, 2012, 10:51:05 pm
All the independents would have to break away. They will ride it out to the statutory limit, as all flatlined governments do.

I just checked Wiki: LNP leads 58-42 in Queensland. If those numbers hold Lab loses Queensland for the first time in a generation. Second backroomer condition is the federal budget... what are they looking for in there?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 18, 2012, 01:51:31 am
Is the next election in 2013?

If that's the case, maybe Gillard, or at least ALP, can ride this storm.
Yes, but there may be an election before that.

How would there be an election before that? Would independents have to break away from the Gillard government?

Otherwise, I would think Labor would take all possible precautions to avoid an election before the next scheduled one.

The Independents have stressed that their agreements are not with the Government but with Gillard herself.

One of the biggest disincentives against a successful challenge would be that all of those agreements would need to be re-negotiated and the risk of front-bench resignations ie... an immediate election that could end in an ALP blood-bath.

HOWEVER... there are some key problems.

* Oakeshott and Wilkie are almost guaranteed to lose their seats... it's rumoured that Windsor will retire... so it's not in their interest for an election to be called.

* There's a reason why Abbott has stopped lobbying the Independents and wanting an election... he knows he can't do anything without an majority in his own right, and he would want a friendlier Senate.

So I wonder, if push came to shove... how much of a risk there is of the Independents not siding with Rudd.

Labor is likely to lose the QLD election, probably by a substantial number... which will be a catalyst for change, although there is nothing new, QLD Labor is just reverting to the position they were in before the floods a year ago.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 18, 2012, 04:45:52 am
Rudd probably wouldn't lose Windsor, as you note, and there's a good chance he'd pick up Katter. That said, if Rudd brought on a leadership ballot, a third challenger could emerge.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 18, 2012, 06:21:45 am
wrt to an early election, if the Craig Thomson scandal blows up any further, he might have to resign, and I'd favour the Liberals to pick up his seat in a by-election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 18, 2012, 08:15:03 am
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-row-gets-dirty-20120218-1tg9j.html

Wonder how this got out....


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 18, 2012, 02:48:28 pm
Everyone's waiting for Queensland aren't they? So the Coalition should throw everything they have into winning state government.
Not if they think Gillard limping on is even better than a coup. In that case, they should try to lose in Queensland. ;D


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 18, 2012, 04:02:34 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-row-gets-dirty-20120218-1tg9j.html

Wonder how this got out....

Definately his Gordon Brown "bigoted woman" moment.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 18, 2012, 06:14:24 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-row-gets-dirty-20120218-1tg9j.html

Wonder how this got out....

Definately his Gordon Brown "bigoted woman" moment.

This is much closer to the real Rudd


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 18, 2012, 07:14:29 pm
OK, so he drops a few F-bombs. What national leader doesn't in private? If he'd made a racist remark about the Chinese maybe this would be a BFD. He didn't, so what's the big deal here?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 18, 2012, 08:03:45 pm
OK, so he drops a few F-bombs. What national leader doesn't in private? If he'd made a racist remark about the Chinese maybe this would be a BFD. He didn't, so what's the big deal here?

It basically supports that he's ill-mannered and doesn't know how to behave appropriately.

I don't care that he swears in private, I know I do, but there's a reason this got leaked... and it's as much about the ALP caucus than the public... "just remember... this is when he's frustrated... remember what he's like when he's genuinely angry?"



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2012, 08:30:00 pm
And this, comrades, is why I will never become a politician.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on February 18, 2012, 09:56:17 pm
Can someone explain to me the factional differences between the Labor Right and Left?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 18, 2012, 10:24:54 pm
Can someone explain to me the factional differences between the Labor Right and Left?

They're more blurred than they used to be.

Labor right = old school Labour values, but evolved over the last 30 years to be about the market, while at the same time focusing on protections for working people. Social justice is very important, but with a tendency to be focused on the alleviation of poverty... doesn't like to get entangled in issues like gay rights, environmentalism, worked hard against abortion until the mid 1980s.

Labor left = basically, less interested in the market, and with time for more clearly identified left-wing social issues.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on February 18, 2012, 10:40:48 pm
Can someone explain to me the factional differences between the Labor Right and Left?

They're more blurred than they used to be.

Labor right = old school Labour values, but evolved over the last 30 years to be about the market, while at the same time focusing on protections for working people. Social justice is very important, but with a tendency to be focused on the alleviation of poverty... doesn't like to get entangled in issues like gay rights, environmentalism, worked hard against abortion until the mid 1980s.

Labor left = basically, less interested in the market, and with time for more clearly identified left-wing social issues.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Labor right has a history of affiliation with Catholicism as well while the Labor left was more secular? Everything I've read says that the differences between the two aren't ideological but based off of discreet patronage. Is this true?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 18, 2012, 10:42:11 pm
Can someone explain to me the factional differences between the Labor Right and Left?

They're more blurred than they used to be.

Labor right = old school Labour values, but evolved over the last 30 years to be about the market, while at the same time focusing on protections for working people. Social justice is very important, but with a tendency to be focused on the alleviation of poverty... doesn't like to get entangled in issues like gay rights, environmentalism, worked hard against abortion until the mid 1980s.

Labor left = basically, less interested in the market, and with time for more clearly identified left-wing social issues.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Labor right has a history of affiliation with Catholicism as well while the Labor left was more secular? Everything I've read says that the differences between the two aren't ideological but based off of discreet patronage. Is this true?

As I said, that was more true 20 years ago, but more blurred now.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2012, 01:11:16 am
I just had a discussion with a friend who is very knowledgeable on this who tells me that it's about an 80% chance that Gillard will call a leadership spill next Monday (27 January).

He also thinks the Caucus numbers work out like this

103 total...
Rudd: 37
Gillard: 50
Wavering: 16

The Rudd video was definitely leaked for the sake of the Caucus... the story being given by Gillard backers is even more telling. They now saying Rudd left the video in his office when he dumped, it ended up in the hands of someone in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This indicates the story they're trying to tell, a) Rudd is not only rude and bad-tempered but careless and b) the Public Service, especially the department is terrified of getting Kevin 24/7 back...

It's so appallingly transparent... and probably does more to hurt Gillard.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on February 19, 2012, 02:35:49 am
If Abbott wasn't heading the opposition, I'd want this dysfunctional party to fall from power asap. They need to reform themselves in a massive way so that the next time they're in control they can actually achieve significant policy changes without nattering like kids and having rampant factional problems. And I thought Democrats were aimless...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 19, 2012, 02:54:33 am
Who is Wavering? Is he a current minister?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2012, 03:24:42 am
Who is Wavering? Is he a current minister?

:P - let's call them undecided.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 19, 2012, 03:42:05 am
If Abbott wasn't heading the opposition, I'd want this dysfunctional party to fall from power asap. They need to reform themselves in a massive way so that the next time they're in control they can actually achieve significant policy changes without nattering like kids and having rampant factional problems. And I thought Democrats were aimless...

The ALP is essentially our Democratic Party, and it's just as competent.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 19, 2012, 04:02:53 am
Who is Wavering? Is he a current minister?

:P - let's call them undecided.

Oh. I'll lacking sleep I think.
So, it's looks like Democratic Party in US, or Liberals in recent years in Canada.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 19, 2012, 10:02:04 am
If the margin is too close then she'll be even further damaged, like Thatcher would've been had she won the second ballot in 1990. Then again, both of them are completely radioactive... so it doesn't matter much either way.

No complicated rules like UK Tories in '90, right? 50+1 = WIN, PERIOD?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 19, 2012, 12:40:20 pm
If Gillard calls a spill tomorrow, naturally she'll win.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 19, 2012, 01:10:02 pm
Quote
Queensland Premier Anna Bligh appeared to back a spill, saying: "Get on with it. Fix it."

Surely the premier's hoping for KRudd to get back to the Lodge, it can only help her own prospects of reelection.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on February 19, 2012, 01:14:43 pm
If Abbott wasn't heading the opposition, I'd want this dysfunctional party to fall from power asap. They need to reform themselves in a massive way so that the next time they're in control they can actually achieve significant policy changes without nattering like kids and having rampant factional problems. And I thought Democrats were aimless...

The ALP is essentially our Democratic Party, and it's just as competent.

It's more disappointing to see this from a nominally "socialist"/"progressive" party though.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 19, 2012, 03:53:30 pm
Get this over with now rather than dragging on till June.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2012, 04:07:47 pm
If the margin is too close then she'll be even further damaged, like Thatcher would've been had she won the second ballot in 1990. Then again, both of them are completely radioactive... so it doesn't matter much either way.

No complicated rules like UK Tories in '90, right? 50+1 = WIN, PERIOD?

Yup, as long as you win most votes.

If Gillard calls a spill tomorrow, naturally she'll win.

There can't be a spill today because Parliament isn't sitting and Rudd is in Mexico, the US, the UK and somewhere else this week, lol.

Parliament sits next week, which is why 27-28 February are the earliest options.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2012, 06:25:14 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-20/crean-calls-for-end-to-leadership-tussle/3839504

And Crean is the hatchet-man.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 19, 2012, 06:34:31 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-20/crean-calls-for-end-to-leadership-tussle/3839504

And Crean is the hatchet-man.

He's right. End this now. If Gillard wants a quick reset, she should prorogue and prepare a gimmicky Throne Speech for the reopening. Even gimmicks are better than what they're discussing right now from a Lab perspective.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 19, 2012, 06:52:07 pm
Polnit, do you work for any MPs or Senators? You seem to have the inside scoop.

Boy, I envy you.

By the way, I just got a sample of The Cabinet Maker, by Nicole Johnston. The book is about the political journey of an ALP MP, who is trying to salvage his career after losing a leadership battle. Fascinating.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2012, 08:17:03 pm
Polnit, do you work for any MPs or Senators? You seem to have the inside scoop.

Boy, I envy you.

By the way, I just got a sample of The Cabinet Maker, by Nicole Johnston. The book is about the political journey of an ALP MP, who is trying to salvage his career after losing a leadership battle. Fascinating.

If I were in that deep... I'd probably wouldn't be talking about it.

Canberra is just a small town and everyone talks.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 19, 2012, 09:51:07 pm
Polnit, do you work for any MPs or Senators? You seem to have the inside scoop.

Boy, I envy you.

By the way, I just got a sample of The Cabinet Maker, by Nicole Johnston. The book is about the political journey of an ALP MP, who is trying to salvage his career after losing a leadership battle. Fascinating.

If I were in that deep... I'd probably wouldn't be talking about it.

Canberra is just a small town and everyone talks.

Visiting Canberra is my bucket list.

I heard Canberra is relatively small, at least compared to Washington.

By the way, what separates ALP and Greens ideologically? Is it merely focus, or is it a "Old Left, New Left" situation?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2012, 10:54:47 pm
Polnit, do you work for any MPs or Senators? You seem to have the inside scoop.

Boy, I envy you.

By the way, I just got a sample of The Cabinet Maker, by Nicole Johnston. The book is about the political journey of an ALP MP, who is trying to salvage his career after losing a leadership battle. Fascinating.

If I were in that deep... I'd probably wouldn't be talking about it.

Canberra is just a small town and everyone talks.

Visiting Canberra is my bucket list.

I heard Canberra is relatively small, at least compared to Washington.

By the way, what separates ALP and Greens ideologically? Is it merely focus, or is it a "Old Left, New Left" situation?

It's geographically quite large, but small population spread over a large area.

The Greens have a bit of an internal rift going on between pure environmentalists and the far-left wing. The differences are that they are a lot more overtly left-wing on economics, support  drug legalisation and everything must be done on a basis of environmental sustainability.

The ALP is more of a mix, but generally less left-wing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 19, 2012, 11:26:10 pm
Polnit, do you work for any MPs or Senators? You seem to have the inside scoop.

Boy, I envy you.

By the way, I just got a sample of The Cabinet Maker, by Nicole Johnston. The book is about the political journey of an ALP MP, who is trying to salvage his career after losing a leadership battle. Fascinating.

If I were in that deep... I'd probably wouldn't be talking about it.

Canberra is just a small town and everyone talks.

Visiting Canberra is my bucket list.

I heard Canberra is relatively small, at least compared to Washington.

By the way, what separates ALP and Greens ideologically? Is it merely focus, or is it a "Old Left, New Left" situation?

It's geographically quite large, but small population spread over a large area.

The Greens have a bit of an internal rift going on between pure environmentalists and the far-left wing. The differences are that they are a lot more overtly left-wing on economics, support  drug legalisation and everything must be done on a basis of environmental sustainability.

The ALP is more of a mix, but generally less left-wing.

I presume you are ALP. Why? I would like to see why certain Australians vote the way they do.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2012, 11:59:33 pm
I support the ALP because of no other options.

I vote Green first preference, but make the ALP #2. Before the Liberals went off the deep-end, I could have supported them, unfortunately the right took over compassionate social policy was replaced with wedge politics and over-liberalisation of the workplace.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 20, 2012, 12:15:49 am
Sorry to hear that.

By the way, congratulations on winning the Presidency.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 21, 2012, 10:12:11 am
Basically, I miss Kim Beazley.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 21, 2012, 04:30:11 pm
Laurie Oakes presents: Simon Crean as compromise candidate.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 21, 2012, 04:41:06 pm
A failed leader as a compromise between two failed leaders? That would almost as much an epic failure as replacing Gillard with Rudd.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 21, 2012, 05:06:53 pm
Can Labor hold on at this point?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 21, 2012, 05:30:44 pm
Laurie Oakes presents: Simon Crean as compromise candidate.

Crean would just be put up as a sacrificial lamb.

Can Labor hold on at this point?

I still argue the condition is not terminal. It's getting extremely close to it, but there's perhaps 18 months before the next election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 21, 2012, 05:34:35 pm
Catapulting someone into the Prime Ministry as a 'sacrificial lamb' strikes me as an absolutely terrible idea on pretty much every level.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 21, 2012, 05:37:48 pm
but there's perhaps 18 months before the next election.

According to Antony Green, the earliest date for an ordinary full house and half senate non-DD election is August next year.

What Crean lacks in charisma he makes up for in gravitas and seriousness (a bit like Howard, really).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 21, 2012, 05:42:33 pm
Catapulting someone into the Prime Ministry as a 'sacrificial lamb' strikes me as an absolutely terrible idea on pretty much every level.

I concur.

Could anyone explain this to me:

The Liberals are howling over the proposed carbon tax which Gillard apparently promised would not happen
 What would have pushed Gillard into supporting the tax now.

Also, isn't there a sitcom satirising here relationship with here significant other?



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 21, 2012, 05:49:30 pm
Also, isn't there a sitcom satirising here relationship with here significant other?


The sitcom was decidedly unfunny. The only thing going for it was the lead character's close resemblance to the Prime Minister - she'd previously done skits impersonating the PM on other shows which were shorter... the humour just couldn't last the distance of a full show dedicated to pretty much the one joke. The first episode wasn't horrendous, the portrayal of the independents were pretty good.

The Hollowmen was a far superior production by the ABC.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 21, 2012, 06:50:28 pm
Also, isn't there a sitcom satirising here relationship with here significant other?


The sitcom was decidedly unfunny. The only thing going for it was the lead character's close resemblance to the Prime Minister - she'd previously done skits impersonating the PM on other shows which were shorter... the humour just couldn't last the distance of a full show dedicated to pretty much the one joke. The first episode wasn't horrendous, the portrayal of the independents were pretty good.

The Hollowmen was a far superior production by the ABC.

I didn't hate At Home With Julia... if I'm honest. I was expecting an utter train-wreck, so my expectations were very low.

The Hollowmen is AWESOME!

Catapulting someone into the Prime Ministry as a 'sacrificial lamb' strikes me as an absolutely terrible idea on pretty much every level.

I concur.

Could anyone explain this to me:

The Liberals are howling over the proposed carbon tax which Gillard apparently promised would not happen
 What would have pushed Gillard into supporting the tax now.


This is a trap that Gillard laid for herself.

She had a policy that would lead to and emissions trading scheme, but she was STUPID in the extreme to make a declarative statement during an election campaign.

I personally don't believe she was lying, when she said "there will be no carbon tax under any Government I lead"... I think she meant it. However, the consequences of minority government forced her hand to make a deal to put A price on carbon. My gut is she was told the ETS conversion would be too complex, having a carbon price in place before a full ETS would get the support of both the Greens and the Independents.

.... it should also be noted that Tony Abbott supported a carbon tax in 2009 as an alternative the Rudd CPRS ETS... which shows he's about opposing whatever the Government is doing. Considering the desperation Abbott was displaying to get the Independents after the 2010 election... I would guarantee there would be a true market mechanism on carbon... as opposed to the government paying the polluters to not do it (the Coalition's policy).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 21, 2012, 07:09:34 pm
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/why-is-this-man-so-popular-and-how-long-can-it-last/


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 21, 2012, 11:33:54 pm
Can I ask a cultural question?

In the United States, it is not unusual for a child to answer, if asked about what he wants to be when he grows up, that he wants to be president. Even with our general cynicism of politics, there are many past and present politicians we idolize.

Do children in Australia, maybe you for example, Polnut, ever aspire to become Prime Minister. To put it another way, is aspiring to political leadership, such as the premiership, something encouraged among Australia's young people?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 21, 2012, 11:36:11 pm
As a Canuck I'm getting flashbacks to when Paul Martin was fired a decade ago. Not that the outcome will be the same, since Rudd controls neither machinery nor anything approaching a majority of caucus...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2012, 12:16:51 am
Can I ask a cultural question?

In the United States, it is not unusual for a child to answer, if asked about what he wants to be when he grows up, that he wants to be president. Even with our general cynicism of politics, there are many past and present politicians we idolize.

Do children in Australia, maybe you for example, Polnut, ever aspire to become Prime Minister. To put it another way, is aspiring to political leadership, such as the premiership, something encouraged among Australia's young people?

No... well it's not "normal".

I did... but I wasn't normal.

We certainly don't put politicians on any kind of pedestal, doesn't mean we don't appreciate or like them... a few PMs have been genuinely liked, like Bob Hawke, even Rudd for a time - others are respected like Howard, Menzies, Curtin... but most happen to be the standard barer of the policies that have the most support.

We don't 'fetishise' the Premiership.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2012, 01:50:17 am
With Kevin Rudd's resignation today and many of his comments... I would say it's almost certain he will challenge for the leadership on Monday/Tuesday next week.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2012, 04:30:36 am
Gillard will tomorrow announce a leadership spill on Monday morning.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2012, 05:03:58 am
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/labor-colleagues-sick-of-rudd-swan-20120222-1to9i.html

Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeesus Wayne.

This could backfire.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 22, 2012, 05:08:39 am
What interests me is the poll on the bottom. Internet poll and all, but 82% think Rudd is doing the right thing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2012, 05:10:43 am
Which is the problem... the public like him... but don't know him - his colleagues know him, and hate him.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on February 22, 2012, 05:16:38 am
Well, I wish Gillard luck. This prick has no business being anywhere near the premiership.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 22, 2012, 05:36:11 am
Which is the problem... the public like him... but don't know him - his colleagues know him, and hate him.

The closer people get to him, the less they like him. I handed out HTV cards at the Woodridge by-election opposite him when he was a first term backbencher and found him to be an odious t***. Don't know if the word to fill the blank is allowable or not.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Ebowed on February 22, 2012, 05:55:58 am
Which is the problem... the public like him... but don't know him - his colleagues know him, and hate him.

I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but I've got a friend whose mother worked for him and he was allegedly a highly abusive, profane, and unsympathetic boss.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2012, 06:02:31 am
Which is the problem... the public like him... but don't know him - his colleagues know him, and hate him.

I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but I've got a friend whose mother worked for him and he was allegedly a highly abusive, profane, and unsympathetic boss.

It's fine when the anecdotal evidence matches up with a TON of it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 22, 2012, 07:17:58 am
Which is the problem... the public like him... but don't know him - his colleagues know him, and hate him.

The closer people get to him, the less they like him. I handed out HTV cards at the Woodridge by-election opposite him when he was a first term backbencher and found him to be an odious t***. Don't know if the word to fill the blank is allowable or not.

Pretty sure that 'twat' is fine here.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 22, 2012, 11:52:16 am
I've also got anecdotal evidence, so to type, of Rudd being a twat and Gillard being a nice enough woman.

FWIW, Nicola Roxon is apparently the only cabinet minister more odious than Rudd.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 22, 2012, 12:05:51 pm
anyone know where I can find a breakdown of the support for Rudd or Gillard?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 22, 2012, 02:04:12 pm
anyone know where I can find a breakdown of the support for Rudd or Gillard?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2012/02/23/gillard-vs-rudd-the-re-match/


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 22, 2012, 06:17:25 pm
Which is the problem... the public like him... but don't know him - his colleagues know him, and hate him.

The closer people get to him, the less they like him. I handed out HTV cards at the Woodridge by-election opposite him when he was a first term backbencher and found him to be an odious t***. Don't know if the word to fill the blank is allowable or not.

Pretty sure that 'twat' is fine here.

I'd been thinking "turd" but "twat" works just fine.

When I spent a few hours across a footpath from him, I found him an odious turd and an obnoxious twat.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 22, 2012, 07:20:55 pm
Will Rudd challenge again once he loses?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 22, 2012, 07:25:45 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE9FDKxMXTw

Jules officially calls for a ballot.

Just wondering what my own Labour Party'd be like if we had the Australian system of electing a leader. We'd be a massive mess. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 22, 2012, 07:36:57 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE9FDKxMXTw

Jules officially calls for a ballot.

Just wondering what my own Labour Party'd be like if we had the Australian system of electing a leader. We'd be a massive mess. :P

Someone else would have won your last contest.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 22, 2012, 07:55:10 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE9FDKxMXTw

Jules officially calls for a ballot.

Just wondering what my own Labour Party'd be like if we had the Australian system of electing a leader. We'd be a massive mess. :P

Someone else would have won your last contest.

Yup. Even if Ed still won, it would've lasted all of five minutes. Gordon Brown would've became PM in like 2003-04, as agreed.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 22, 2012, 10:22:01 pm
Which is the problem... the public like him... but don't know him - his colleagues know him, and hate him.

The closer people get to him, the less they like him. I handed out HTV cards at the Woodridge by-election opposite him when he was a first term backbencher and found him to be an odious t***. Don't know if the word to fill the blank is allowable or not.

Pretty sure that 'twat' is fine here.

Only American profanity is censored.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 22, 2012, 11:06:05 pm
What would happen to he government if Rudd defeats Gillard? Since the independents have a special agreement with Gillard, and not the ALP, would that force an election?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 22, 2012, 11:15:20 pm
What would happen to he government if Rudd defeats Gillard? Since the independents have a special agreement with Gillard, and not the ALP, would that force an election?

No, because they have other reasons not to force dissolution. Such as losing their seats. More generally, there would be a Cabinet shuffle if Rudd won- but regardless of who wins it doesn't change the flatlined trajectory.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2012, 11:44:58 pm
What would happen to he government if Rudd defeats Gillard? Since the independents have a special agreement with Gillard, and not the ALP, would that force an election?

No, because they have other reasons not to force dissolution. Such as losing their seats. More generally, there would be a Cabinet shuffle if Rudd won- but regardless of who wins it doesn't change the flatlined trajectory.

I only partially agree... I think Rudd will push the primary vote up and there are opportunities for circuit-breakers.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Joe Republic on February 23, 2012, 12:42:59 am
Are there 'wings' of the party that Rudd and Gillard represent in this feud?  Or is it purely a clash of personalities?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Barnes on February 23, 2012, 01:17:20 am
Are there 'wings' of the party that Rudd and Gillard represent in this feud?  Or is it purely a clash of personalities?

I've always thought of Gillard being on the Labor right, which doesn't translate to her being "right-wing" of course.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 23, 2012, 01:44:27 am
Gillard is a member of the Victorian ALP left. Part of Rudd's problem was that he's not a member of a faction, so it means he has no natural base of support.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Barnes on February 23, 2012, 01:51:09 am
Gillard is a member of the Victorian ALP left. Part of Rudd's problem was that he's not a member of a faction, so it means he has no natural base of support.

I actually didn't know that about Gillard, thanks Polnut. 

So, what do you make then of this (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/say-werent-you-left-wing/story-e6frg6zo-1225887103691) stuff? This is basically where I was getting my right-wing idea from.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on February 23, 2012, 01:53:55 am
I'm under the impression that the factional wings of the party matter rather less than they used to. Is there any basis to that?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Barnes on February 23, 2012, 01:56:58 am
I'm under the impression that the factional wings of the party matter rather less than they used to. Is there any basis to that?

I would agree to that (as far as a Georgian's knowledge goes ;D).  I just read somewhere that the divisions in the ALP are more "more organisational than ideological."

I wonder if there's any merit to that?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on February 23, 2012, 02:17:51 am
I suggested that Kevin Rudd was a prick on reddit and was met with angry responses from Australians (one called me a c_nt). I don't understand how this guy is inspiring. He comes off as an accountant or a low-level bureaucratic official.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 23, 2012, 02:20:52 am
I'm under the impression that the factional wings of the party matter rather less than they used to. Is there any basis to that?

Bruce Hawker was asked about this just this morning (if my memory serves me correct). The question was in the context of Rudd mounting a second challenge if unsuccessful in a first challenge and how there could be a big change in the result from first challenge to second challenge if a factional heavy changed sides and brought, for example, 15 MPs with him, and he was saying that factional heavyweights no longer carry that sort of influence. They might bring some MPs with them, but they wouldn't bring every MP who supposedly answers to them. He was saying many backbenchers are more independent/individual than used to be the case, even from a decade or two ago.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 23, 2012, 02:23:09 am
As I said previously, the factional divides used to be far more stark - there are some basic differences (for example, Gillard is the only member of the left faction opposed (publicly) to gay marriage. The right have a stronger alligience to the Union movement (but there are left-faction members from a union background).

But in day-to-day practice it's largely an tool of organisation.

I suggested that Kevin Rudd was a prick on reddit and was met with angry responses from Australians (one called me a c_nt). I don't understand how this guy is inspiring. He comes off as an accountant or a low-level bureaucratic official.

Rudd was an effective campaigner in 2007. The thing is the further away from Rudd you are, the better your view is. Those of us in 'the bubble' knew years ago how unpleasant he could be and that was the real reason he was removed.

Because the coup leaders didn't explain that properly, there are still people who don't understand why he was removed... and believe he was hardly done by.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: ⚑ Comrade Corbyn for PM ⚑ on February 23, 2012, 12:57:17 pm
I suppose the fact that everyone seems pretty unanimous on Rudd being a cunt settles it, but having read the article Barnes quoted above, it's difficult to feel too sorry for Gillard either, given it paints her ousting of him as hardly one of a team player, and her supposed policy differentiation groundless (was it?).

(Yes I realise this isn't the Gillard vs Rudd thread, but it's the Australian discussion thread, and my views for answering that question lay in this thread)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 23, 2012, 02:56:47 pm
I think that represents something about the nature of the ALP.

Much like UK Labour and the US Democrats, it's often hard to find what many in Europe and people who consider themselves left-wing, actual left-wing policies. Even those like Gillard who are of the left when they come into power, believe they need to shift to the right faction to be taken seriously by the public.

As I said previously, the connection of pro-union = left.... is not the universal case in the ALP.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 23, 2012, 03:12:52 pm
This isn't ideology (even Chretien/Martin had some ideological contrast, speaking as a Canuck) but pure personality. Dunno if Hawke-Keating was similar.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 23, 2012, 04:06:08 pm
This isn't ideology (even Chretien/Martin had some ideological contrast, speaking as a Canuck) but pure personality. Dunno if Hawke-Keating was similar.

Hawke/Keating was certainly a positive working relationship early on... but when Hawke decided to contest the 1990 election (which the ALP *just* won), Keating used that as a weapon against Hawke and also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirribilli_Agreement_of_1988... then it became about pure bitterness and personality.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 06:11:48 am
Last Newspoll before the leadership ballot.

Preferred Prime Minister
Gillard: 36% - down 1%
Abbott: 38% - down 2%

Approval rating
Gillard: 26% - down 6%
Abbott: 31% - down 5%

... so the basic message is that the Australian people don't like either option... however...

Primary vote

ALP: 35% - up 3%
Coalition: 45% - down 1%

Two-party preferred

ALP: 47% - up 2%
Coalition: 53% - down 2%


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Barnes on February 26, 2012, 03:14:16 pm
Seems to me that Australians prefer whomever isn't in power at the moment.  Is that actually the case over there, guys?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 26, 2012, 03:39:46 pm
I believe the Newspoll also had Rudd as preferred PM over Abbott by about 53-34. Going from memory here off the tv news five minutes back, so I could be wrong.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on February 26, 2012, 04:25:16 pm
Were Rudd to return to power, I don't know how that would help the ALP's chances in the next election


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 04:29:45 pm
Were Rudd to return to power, I don't know how that would help the ALP's chances in the next election


I'll repost what I posted in the Gillard thread.

Sounds awfully like the Hillary 2012ers. Once you put their idols back in the domestic arena everyone shortly remembers why said idols were exiled from it to begin with.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 04:52:33 pm
Were Rudd to return to power, I don't know how that would help the ALP's chances in the next election


As I wrote on my facebook in response to a question.

The ALP are in this position due to one reason, and one reason alone.

They underestimated Tony Abbott.

That led to:
a) Rudd not going for a double-dissolution in February 2010 (despite having 2 triggers), before Abbott was able to gain traction;

b) By scrapping the CPRS, under pressure from both internal and external forces, it removed the moral centre of the Government and showed that Rudd had no faith in his policy... a gift to Abbott;

c) Because they didn't address Abbott's lies and misdirection and did not provide a strong contrast to him, the Government ceded the battle ground to the coalition. Instead of standing up for Labor values they allowed Abbott to dictate the terms, and the Greens to suck up their primary vote.

Assuming the Prime Minister wins the ballot, as everyone is expecting, it's time to roll up the sleeves and bury Tony Abbott, and show him as the negative demagogue he is. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 04:56:32 pm
The only thing the ALP will bury (I would argue, has buried) is themselves.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 04:59:15 pm
The only thing the ALP will bury (I would argue, has buried) is themselves.

The thing to consider, in history, even recent history, Governments have come back from worse positions than this.

These declarations about the end of the ALP are vastly overstated.

But how they react over the next 3-4 months will determine their future.

The coalition has several key weaknesses, the key being Tony Abbott himself.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 26, 2012, 04:59:31 pm
As someone who doesn't know much about Aus political history, why is today's ALP situation any different to Keating in 1993 or Howard in 2004's situation? Being unpopular and down in the polls, but winning in the end.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 05:08:33 pm
Neither of them had open civil wars in their parties for one. Just as crucially, their policies were either liked or tolerated by the electorate, they were highly skilled at both strategy and tactics and had incompetent opponents. Keating had the added bonus of charisma. No one wants a party to govern that can't govern itself.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 05:14:12 pm
Lol... when you had the Liberals ripping each other to shreds in the last months of 2009, no one... NO ONE thought the Libs would get themselves in place to help bring down an elected PM, and almost win the election less than a year later.

The focus turns to beating an opposition, hence why I think what happens over the next 3-4 months will be what matters.

The ALP certainly have the ability to continue to self-destruct, but they equally have the ability to pull themselves together and win.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 05:20:55 pm
Can they recover? Sure. But not if they continue on their present course, and they show no signs of changing it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 26, 2012, 05:25:53 pm
Apparently, no mobile phones are allowed into caucus this morning. How naive.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 05:30:23 pm
Apparently, no mobile phones are allowed into caucus this morning. How naive.

It isn't like the result will shock anyone...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Trounce-'em Theresa on February 26, 2012, 05:33:39 pm
Is there any hope of a Coalition leadership spill in the remotely foreseeable future or is the Australian right up Abbott Creek without a paddle for the remainder of this Parliament?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 05:36:36 pm
Is there any hope of a Coalition leadership spill in the remotely foreseeable future or is the Australian right up Abbott Creek without a paddle for the remainder of this Parliament?

At the rate things are going? Not a chance.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 05:45:52 pm
Is there any hope of a Coalition leadership spill in the remotely foreseeable future or is the Australian right up Abbott Creek without a paddle for the remainder of this Parliament?

At the rate things are going? Not a chance.

I agree, if this continues, Abbott is untouchable.

But if the ALP are able to gain momentum by finally presenting a contrast to Abbott... and if he's seen as the Achilles Heel he is, then the internal divides in the Coalition will become exposed. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 06:01:49 pm
Interesting commentary on Sky News.

The average size of victory in successful Labor leadership challenges since 1982 has been 7 votes, even Rudd only won in 2006 49-39.

Gillard's expected margin, up to 44 votes, would be the largest margin in a leadership spill.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 06:02:45 pm
If she thumps him that bad, then forget about any possibility of a second challenge.

Here's a live feed which works for non-Aussies.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/?WT.svl=wrapper


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 06:50:38 pm
Gillard wins: 73 - 29


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 26, 2012, 06:50:54 pm
73-29.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 06:54:43 pm
Plus que sa change...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: redcommander on February 26, 2012, 06:56:25 pm
Epic fail for Rudd.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 26, 2012, 07:01:04 pm
Maybe now Labor can start the recovery effort before the election. I can't see Rudd being truly quietened, but at least this should stop the media speculation a little bit.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 07:04:05 pm
Maybe now Labor can start the recovery effort before the election. I can't see Rudd being truly quietened, but at least this should stop the media speculation a little bit.

I think it will shut up a lot of people both within the party and in the journalistic class, not all, but this size of victory is just too big for many journalists to bother spending as much time on it as they have.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: tpfkaw on February 26, 2012, 07:08:35 pm
Rudd clearly jumped the gun on this one; he should've waited until after Gillard's (presumptive) defeat and resignation before launching his bid.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 07:13:09 pm
Rudd clearly jumped the gun on this one; he should've waited until after Gillard's (presumptive) defeat and resignation before launching his bid.

Yes and no.

Rudd clearly completely underestimated how much his colleagues feared his return.

A lot of this comes down to a different style of leadership when in a party. The Liberal Party is about hierarchy, what the leader wants, the leader usually gets (unless you're a very wet Lib, a la Turnbull), so they have a very presidential style.

The ALP, despite having very strong leaders, Whitlam, Hawke, Keating etc etc the ALP has always been about the caucus... Gillard's asset and also her flaw is that she demonstrates the capacity for compromise and negotiation that Rudd clearly lacked, but Rudd's strong personal leadership doesn't work within the ALP (although it is popular with the public), especially when you think you can lead a party just because you're personally popular.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 07:14:40 pm
Reports of a re-count... sigh.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 26, 2012, 07:16:48 pm
This Liberal Party mixing up their metaphors.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Cj6w83yueM


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 26, 2012, 07:18:52 pm
Caucus is everything. Rudd's an ass, and everything else aside, why have an ass as leader when you can have someone who at least goes through the motions, maybe even genuinely cares, about your opinions and feelings? Just from the average backbencher's POV.


Recount? Dunno why... not like the result will change.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 26, 2012, 07:19:07 pm
Confirmed: Gillard - 71-31! My prediction was right!!!!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 26, 2012, 09:10:09 pm
Can Rudd now fyck off and retire quietly?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 27, 2012, 12:18:23 am
Rumour that Senator Mark Arbib has resigned as Senator and Minister (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/mark-arbib-resigns-as-minister-report/story-e6frf7kf-1226283012721)

Bit odd... I was of the impression he backed the successful candidate.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 27, 2012, 12:42:13 am
Leaving to promote healing and renewal.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 27, 2012, 10:15:29 am
No more Arbib? Excellent.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 12, 2012, 04:36:45 pm
First post-spill Newspoll... a mix of news.

Primary
ALP: 31% down 4%
Coalition: 43% down 2%
Greens: 12% up 1%

TPP:
ALP: 47% - steady
Coalition: 53% - steady


Preferred PM
Gillard: 39% up 2%
Abbott: 37% down 1%

Satisfaction
Gillard: 28% up 2%
Abbott: 32% up 1%

Dissatisfaction
Gillard: 62% down 2%
Abbott: 58% up 1%


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 12, 2012, 04:49:29 pm
That's within a point of 1996's results. Cool.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 28, 2012, 03:53:54 am
Ongoing problems for the federal government (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/pm-faces-defeat-in-house-as-labor-abstentions-loom/story-fndckad0-1226341179450).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 28, 2012, 11:22:16 am
That's not a matter of confidence, though still embarrassing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 28, 2012, 08:23:38 pm
And looks like Craig Thompson is going to "quit" the caucus and sit as an independent, so reports the Daily Telegraph.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 28, 2012, 08:24:28 pm
And looks like Craig Thompson is going to "quit" the caucus and sit as an independent, so reports the Daily Telegraph.

Has Tony Abbott demanded a General Election over this yet?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on April 28, 2012, 08:27:17 pm
And looks like Craig Thompson is going to "quit" the caucus and sit as an independent, so reports the Daily Telegraph.

Has Tony Abbott demanded a General Election over this yet?

I remember when Cameron demanded a general election every other week during the Brown Government. Of course, Miliband can't do that because of the fixed terms bill.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 28, 2012, 08:43:34 pm
And looks like Craig Thompson is going to "quit" the caucus and sit as an independent, so reports the Daily Telegraph.

Has Tony Abbott demanded a General Election over this yet?

I remember when Cameron demanded a general election every other week during the Brown Government. Of course, Miliband can't do that because of the fixed terms bill.

A variation of the old "noun, verb, 9/11".

A noun-A verb-A demand for a General Election. The extent of Tony Abbott's rhetoric.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 30, 2012, 07:39:32 pm
Latest poll... and it's UGLY

Primary
ALP: 27% (-2)
Coalition: 51% (+3)
Greens: 11% (-1)

TPP
ALP: 41% (-3)
Coalition: 59% (+3)

Preferred PM
Gillard: 36% (-2)
Abbot: 41% (nc)


What is clear to me is this, the Government has not been able to combine the public dislike of Abbott to the vote his party receives. Which is a reverse of the way it usually works. The Coalition is a far more hierarchical party, generally if the leader is unpopular, the party goes down. Which represents a HUGE failure of the Government.

The Government is putting its faith in a) the benefits of the carbon price (ie getting more back than you're going to pay out) and confidence in the economy...

However, the hatchet job the Coalition have done to denigrate the most stable economy in the Industrialised world is quite remarkable.

This is being combined with the tactic employed by the NSW and QLD Oppositions before their landslides. Small target, attack the Government, but don't put policies that will put the focus on you... and it works.

The Government has ONE shot, and one shot only...
1. do not get rid of the PM - it reeks of desperation, and likely just sacrifices a potential future leader
2. Focus on Abbott - you cannot win this by being completely positive - people are starting to switch off - give them a reason to listen to you
3. You have a BRILLIANT record to run on, but seem unable to capitalise on it. FIRE your PR people and get new people in, now.
4. Create a circuit-breaker... it's what saved Howard in 2001 when he was facing certain doom... force the Libs to take a position on a high-profile issue...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 30, 2012, 10:01:16 pm
Mayday, GQ, 5-alarm fire, whatever metaphor you want to use.

Green's swingometer doesn't swing that far, but 57/43 translates to 109-38-3.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on May 15, 2012, 03:30:12 pm
It seems altogether likely that we may see an election in Australia this year.

Because of the crisis the Gillard government is facing, it seems that Abbott is the prime beneficiary, since he may ne elected PM by simply not being Gillard.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on May 15, 2012, 03:39:36 pm
No, Gillard will let the clock run out.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on May 15, 2012, 03:58:00 pm
No, Gillard will let the clock run out.

That supposes the independents don't bail out on her.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on May 15, 2012, 03:59:34 pm
No, Gillard will let the clock run out.

That supposes the independents don't bail out on her.

And lose their seats a year earlier than scheduled? I think not.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 16, 2012, 12:59:34 am
Latest Newspoll... slight Budget bounce for ALP

Primary
ALP: 30% (+3)
Coalition: 45% (-6)
Greens: 12% (+1)

TPP
ALP: 45% (+4)
Coalition: 55% (-4)

Preferred PM
Gillard: 36% (NC)
Abbott: 40% (-1)

It's not in Gillard's nor the Independent's interests to have an election... which, even if Gillard goes down without one... Abbott would certainly want immediately.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 28, 2012, 09:08:06 pm
New newspoll, continued 'positive' trend for the Government... Abbott's personal numbers drop to 2009 lows...

Primary
ALP: 32% (+2)
Coalition: 46% (+1)
Greens: 12% (NC)

TPP
ALP: 46% (+1)
Coalition: 54% (-1)

Preferred PM
Gillard: 40% (+4)
Abbott: 37% (-3)

Satisfaction
Gillard: 30% (+3)
Abbott: 31% (-3)

Dissatisfaction
Gillard: 60% (-3)
Abbott: 60% (+4)


So... brief analysis...

Abbott's attacks on Craig Thomson appeared to have back-fired, amplifying the Coalition's biggest single weakness, Tony Abbott's aggressive style.

So in the last month
Primary
ALP: +5
Coalition: -5

TPP
ALP: +5
Coalition: -5

Preferred PM
Gillard: +4
Abbott: -4


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 28, 2012, 09:12:47 pm
IF (the worker visa thing this week may have a negative impact next fortnight) the government can get to 34-35% and get the coalition down to maybe 42-43%... this becomes a horse-race for the first time since the election...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 30, 2012, 06:57:45 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-31/gillard-faces-down-mining-bosses/4043276

This is certainly one of Gillard's biggest policy pluses... it's one of her genuinely popular issues... she needs to drive it home and put Abbott on the wrong side...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 31, 2012, 07:10:22 am
The simple truth is that if Labor knew how to sell, they'd be way ahead.

Our hopes will probably rest with the Thomson scenario.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 31, 2012, 08:39:02 am
Here's the text of her speech, which I found quite good:

Quote
Julia Gillards address to the Minerals Industry Parliamentary Dinner:

Now, I know you’re not all in love with the language of “spreading the benefits of the boom”.

I know everyone here works hard, competes in a tough global environment; you take big risks and you earn the big rewards.

You build something.

Australians don’t begrudge hard work and we admire your success.

But I know this too: they work pretty hard in car factories and at panel beaters’ and in police stations and hospitals too.

And here’s the rub.

You don’t own the minerals. I don’t own the minerals.

Governments only sell you the right to mine the resource.

A resource we hold in trust for a sovereign people.

They own it and they deserve their share.

I think we’ve been crystal clear since the Budget.

We want growth and then we want the benefits of growth to spread to all.

There’s been a fair bit of talk recently about whether Labor wants to make the pie bigger or slice the pie up differently.

Well, here’s the answer. Since we came to office:

Euro area: economy shrank, one point six per cent.

Japan: economy shrank, one point seven per cent.

United States: economy grew, one point three per cent.

Australia: economy grew, eight point eight per cent.

At the end of it all, the short-term arguments come and go – the facts endure.

Our economy is the envy of the world.

Our mining industry is the envy of the world.

There’s nowhere in the world you’d be better off investing.

And there’s nowhere in the world where mining has a stronger future.

And this is Australia, and it has a Labor Government.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 12, 2012, 05:52:53 pm
New newspoll, Coalition's primary vote drops a little, ALP stalls... but Gillard's personal numbers improving, now 4% ahead of Abbott and with lower dissatisfaction and higher satisfaction than Abbott for the first time since Feb/March.

Primary
ALP: 31% (-1)
Coalition: 44% (-2)
Greens: 14% (+2)

TPP
ALP: 46% (NC)
Coalition: 54% (NC)

Preferred PM
Gillard: 42% (+2)
Abbott: 38% (+1)

Satisfaction
Gillard: 32% (+2)
Abbott: 32% (+1)

Dissatisfaction
Gillard: 58% (-2)
Abbott: 59% (-1)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 21, 2012, 06:45:45 am
Another 75-150 people have drowned in an ayslum boat sinking north of Christmas Island.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on June 22, 2012, 09:42:05 am
Queensland sucks;

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/newman-kowtowing-to-rightwingers-cope-20120622-20rmi.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 30, 2012, 08:29:38 am
Prime Minister? Really!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osID-_Zi-1I


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on June 30, 2012, 08:38:42 am
That's a couple of months old, isn't it? :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 30, 2012, 10:46:41 am
Yay! :)

(only kidding, in case you think I'm a real dumass)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Franzl on June 30, 2012, 10:49:18 am
Yay! :)

(only kidding, in case you think I'm a real dumass)

Not at all. Just wonder what makes you care so little about fellow human beings.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 30, 2012, 10:50:24 am
Yay! :)

(only kidding, in case you think I'm a real dumass)

Not at all. Just wonder what makes you care so little about fellow human beings.

Ah, I'm not that bad. Surely? :(


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: hawkeye59 on June 30, 2012, 10:57:21 am
Yay! :)

(only kidding, in case you think I'm a real dumass)

Not at all. Just wonder what makes you care so little about fellow human beings.

Ah, I'm not that bad. Surely? :(
Yes you are, Verwoerd, based on that comment.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 30, 2012, 11:04:10 am
Yay! :)

(only kidding, in case you think I'm a real dumass)

Not at all. Just wonder what makes you care so little about fellow human beings.

Ah, I'm not that bad. Surely? :(
Yes you are, Verwoerd, based on that comment.

Hey you can call me Hendrik (kidding)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 30, 2012, 11:06:25 am
The whole debate is really muddled. It is inhumane not to accept for processing those who seek asylum here, but it's also inhumane to not be doing what we can to discourage people from getting on these boats, roughly 5% of which sink. I don't have the solution, but the Greens can't compromise, the coalition play the worst kind of dogwhistling on the whole issue, and Labor's plan it an ineffective bitza mess. As much as I xan't believe I'm typing this, the only plan I've heard in the last few days even worth considering is, gulp, Clive Palmer's.

That said, at the very least, the govt is setting up an independent investigative group for finding solutions to the issue, headed by former ADF chief Angus Houston, so maybe they'll have a plan worth reviewinf, he's also struck me as a non-reactionary conservative, a small group in Australia, but a group that has had some remarkable, real sucesses in government and policy.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 30, 2012, 11:09:02 am
Also, if that post was a dash rambling, sorry, its two am here.

Also, because I'm obliged to say this in any circumstance where asylum boats and the leader of the opposition are mentioned...my god Tony Abbott is a count.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 02, 2012, 05:46:30 am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-02/emerson-sings-no-whyalla-wipe-out/4105246


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on July 02, 2012, 07:49:41 pm
Yeah, you have to wonder how he ever became a Cabinet Minister (actually, we all know the answer to that one... *wink*).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on July 02, 2012, 08:08:30 pm
Yeah, you have to wonder how he ever became a Cabinet Minister (actually, we all know the answer to that one... *wink*).

He's been heliated, right? Or is he always that much of a freakin clown?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 02, 2012, 08:30:51 pm
Yeah, you have to wonder how he ever became a Cabinet Minister (actually, we all know the answer to that one... *wink*).

Just looked at his wikipedia page. As if he dated Julia!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on July 02, 2012, 09:17:37 pm
Yeah, you have to wonder how he ever became a Cabinet Minister (actually, we all know the answer to that one... *wink*).

Just looked at his wikipedia page. As if he dated Julia!

No? (http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2006/s1586140.htm)

Quote from: Prime Minister Gillard
JULIA GILLARD: My relationship with Craig Emerson was a very important one to me. Being involved with a colleague has got its down side in the sense that drawing the line between what's work and what's not work becomes increasingly blurred. Craig and I were staying together at a hotel and I'd managed to forget to pack my contact lens holder. So I was just storing the contact lenses at the bottom of a glass, which wasn't exactly the smartest thing in the world to do. Er, so...in the bathroom, this glass with the contact lenses and a bit of solution in them. So, you know, during the course of the night, Craig gets up and thinking it's water, grabs the glass and drinks it. So I was wandering around National Conference blind for the next morning. I did have to give the Health Policy Report at the podium not basically able to see my notes or see the audience. Craig and I lived in different states in very demanding positions. And in the hurly-burly of the Labor world, ultimately it was just too difficult. I'm not involved in a relationship now, and you know, your, sort of, your life history rolls on.
[/url]


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 03, 2012, 01:06:33 am
It was awful, but he's a better trade minister than his shadow would be, by a mile.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on July 09, 2012, 07:30:24 am
The Carbon Tax has claimed another victim...

 http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/  (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/)



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 09, 2012, 08:51:42 am
The Carbon Tax has claimed another victim...

 http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/  (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/)



Looks kinda like you saw a more balanced story elsewhere and then hunted down a source that most closely aligned with your views. Good to know the Sunshine Coast Daily didn't disappoint.

For a somewhat more balanced version, here's the take by the (still right-wing) Courier Mail:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/death-costs-wont-rise-under-carbon-tax-the-federal-government-has-promised/story-e6freon6-1226421669761


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on July 09, 2012, 10:18:41 am
The Carbon Tax has claimed another victim...

 http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/  (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/)



Looks kinda like you saw a more balanced story elsewhere and then hunted down a source that most closely aligned with your views. Good to know the Sunshine Coast Daily didn't disappoint.

For a somewhat more balanced version, here's the take by the (still right-wing) Courier Mail:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/death-costs-wont-rise-under-carbon-tax-the-federal-government-has-promised/story-e6freon6-1226421669761

I assure you, I am quite ignorant of what is right or left in terms of Australian media. He only paper I know is the Australian, which is a Murdoch's outfit.

Anyway, I think he story is rather silly. I just posted it because of he weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the law.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on July 10, 2012, 02:13:00 am
The Carbon Tax has claimed another victim...

 http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/  (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/)



Looks kinda like you saw a more balanced story elsewhere and then hunted down a source that most closely aligned with your views. Good to know the Sunshine Coast Daily didn't disappoint.

For a somewhat more balanced version, here's the take by the (still right-wing) Courier Mail:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/death-costs-wont-rise-under-carbon-tax-the-federal-government-has-promised/story-e6freon6-1226421669761

I assure you, I am quite ignorant of what is right or left in terms of Australian media. He only paper I know is the Australian, which is a Murdoch's outfit.

Anyway, I think he story is rather silly. I just posted it because of he weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the law.

Right: Murdoch media (Telegraph, Australian)
Center: Fairfax media (might move right once Rinehart takes over)
Left: ABC/SBS

Generally.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 10, 2012, 04:21:53 am
I'd make an argument that the ABC is broadly anti-government, whoever the government may be. Which in the Australian context, is a leftish position.

That said, ABC viewers/listeners are most certainly left wing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on July 10, 2012, 06:30:10 am
The guy with glasses who hosts the election coverage on ABC....(his name?)....didn't he used to work for Gough Whitlam?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 10, 2012, 08:15:53 pm
Kerry O'Brien? aka Red Kerry? Broadly agreed by the left and right to be one of the best political journalists in Australian history.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on July 12, 2012, 10:07:39 am
The Carbon Tax has claimed another victim...

 http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/  (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2012/07/09/carbon-tax-funeral-impact-unknown/)



Looks kinda like you saw a more balanced story elsewhere and then hunted down a source that most closely aligned with your views. Good to know the Sunshine Coast Daily didn't disappoint.

For a somewhat more balanced version, here's the take by the (still right-wing) Courier Mail:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/death-costs-wont-rise-under-carbon-tax-the-federal-government-has-promised/story-e6freon6-1226421669761

I assure you, I am quite ignorant of what is right or left in terms of Australian media. He only paper I know is the Australian, which is a Murdoch's outfit.

Anyway, I think he story is rather silly. I just posted it because of he weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the law.

Right: Murdoch media (Telegraph, Australian)
Center: Fairfax media (might move right once Rinehart takes over)
Left: ABC/SBS

Generally.

Much abliged.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 15, 2012, 06:08:56 pm
http://newmatilda.com/2012/07/13/nsw-rights-american-playbook


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 26, 2012, 12:52:29 pm
Here's the new campaign for Tourism Australia. I reckon it's perfect, which makes a nice change from some of the old ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pOVfJwBd5s


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 29, 2012, 06:56:25 pm
I agree, one of the best in years.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on July 29, 2012, 08:07:20 pm
Wasn't Tourism Australia the company that made the "Where the bloody hell are you?" ads?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on August 15, 2012, 10:24:05 am
If I may ask a question, who do you think would succeed Gillard as leader of the Labor Party? Would Rudd make another attempt at the leadership?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 15, 2012, 10:31:26 am
Shorten I'm guessing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on August 15, 2012, 10:38:01 am
If I may ask a question, who do you think would succeed Gillard as leader of the Labor Party? Would Rudd make another attempt at the leadership?

The favorite is Employment Minister Bill Shorten, often hailed as Labor's "next great hope". However, considering that Labor will likely spend at least six years in opposition after 2013, I think he may not take the leadership.

Kevin Rudd's frontbench hopes are probably finished if Labor loses the next election. He is widely loathed in caucus and without their jobs at risk, the remaining Labor MPs would almost certainly not vote for him.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 15, 2012, 03:41:58 pm
If I may ask a question, who do you think would succeed Gillard as leader of the Labor Party? Would Rudd make another attempt at the leadership?

The favorite is Employment Minister Bill Shorten, often hailed as Labor's "next great hope". However, considering that Labor will likely spend at least six years in opposition after 2013, I think he may not take the leadership.

Kevin Rudd's frontbench hopes are probably finished if Labor loses the next election. He is widely loathed in caucus and without their jobs at risk, the remaining Labor MPs would almost certainly not vote for him.
If this is the ALP's "next great hope," then it's in pretty dire straights. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLwCyn1nOP0&feature=youtube_gdata_player (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLwCyn1nOP0&feature=youtube_gdata_player)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 15, 2012, 04:31:25 pm
Peter: Don't forget the bakery hissy fit. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 15, 2012, 04:36:03 pm
Peter: Don't forget the bakery hissy fit. :P
I didn't hear about that.  What happened?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 15, 2012, 04:45:44 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYqRB63Yh-4



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 15, 2012, 05:57:43 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYqRB63Yh-4


Un...believable.  To think he's Labor's best hope.  Depressing (for me anyway.  Not for you :P)  What about Greg Combet, is he considered a viable future leader? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on August 15, 2012, 08:56:48 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYqRB63Yh-4


Un...believable.  To think he's Labor's best hope.  Depressing (for me anyway.  Not for you :P)  What about Greg Combet, is he considered a viable future leader? 

He's from the left, which probably doesn't help his cause (my understanding is that NSW right almost always dominates caucus). He is apparently very smart, though, and has a thorough understanding of his portfolio - I heard this from someone on my side who has met with him in a professional capacity.

Shorten was always very good with the media while he was a union boss, although he's dropped all the balls since being elected. I used to fear a Shorten leadership, back when Howard was still PM, now I think he'd almost be a second coming of Mark Latham. His media management during the Beaconsfield mine collapse was particularly impressive - I think he'd been preselected at that point, but had not yet been elected... this was when he was at his most fearsome, in my opinion. I was reading he's a favourite of NSW Right, still, but that they don't want to burn him up by having him lead Labor to an election loss, when they could install him following the election.

Rudd is drastically unpopular, and the attacks by Wayne Swan, et al during the last leadership bid were designed to be used in Liberal ads if he were to become PM... thereby making him untouchable. He's popular with the electorate, and desperate backbenchers can do desperate things, particularly when looking at a forced retirement at the next election, so it's impossible to rule him out, but they'll probably not go to him because of the clips that could be run in Liberal ads of him being savaged by those senior Labor figures.

There has been a bit of talk around Simon Crean. He's boring (in a good, "doesn't spook the horses" kind of way), and is probably perceived as a bit of an elder statesman.

I read a very good article the other week that Swan could get it as a person who wouldn't win the next election, but might "save the furniture." It said that he wasn't seeking the leadership, but might take it if the Prime Minister was challenged. It was saying the office, staff and driver for life might convince him that being PM for a year or half a year leading up to an election loss may be a good... swan song... if you excuse the pun.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 15, 2012, 09:19:38 pm
I like the Latham comparison. Still doubt that they're changing leaders before the election though.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 15, 2012, 09:21:42 pm
Well, being from the left didn't stop Gillard.  Then again, it was the right who installed her.  But is Combet from the soft left or more left of the left type?  And how about Nicola Roxon, is she seen as a potential future ALP leader?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on August 16, 2012, 07:59:58 am
Wayne Swan would lose just as badly or worse than Gillard. If I'm correct, many often see him a laughingstock, and he'd be the first prime minister to never win an election since Billy McMahon (not to mention he'd likely lose his own seat). He'd probably be remembered as a joke in the history books. Then again, "the office, staff and driver for life" might convince Swanny to to do it anyway.

I agree with RogueBeaver though. I think Gillard will still be in place to lose the next election.

What do people here think of Defence Minister Stephen Smith? I keep on hearing him mentioned as a "saving the furniture" guy in the media, but does he actually have anything different to offer?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 16, 2012, 08:07:59 am
All the Swan reports say he'd only do it in a Heseltine scenario- if a nuisance candidate went first.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on August 16, 2012, 08:19:42 am
Wayne Swan would lose just as badly or worse than Gillard. If I'm correct, many often see him a laughingstock, and he'd be the first prime minister to never win an election since Billy McMahon (not to mention he'd likely lose his own seat). He'd probably be remembered as a joke in the history books. Then again, "the office, staff and driver for life" might convince Swanny to to do it anyway.

I agree with RogueBeaver though. I think Gillard will still be in place to lose the next election.

What do people here think of Defence Minister Stephen Smith? I keep on hearing him mentioned as a "saving the furniture" guy in the media, but does he actually have anything different to offer?

Not particularly, but he is safe and probably has backing of both wings of the party.

The heir apparent is without a doubt Shorten. Unfortunately Smid is right about the Right controlling the party's leadership.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 16, 2012, 12:55:32 pm
Wayne Swan would lose just as badly or worse than Gillard. If I'm correct, many often see him a laughingstock, and he'd be the first prime minister to never win an election since Billy McMahon (not to mention he'd likely lose his own seat). He'd probably be remembered as a joke in the history books. Then again, "the office, staff and driver for life" might convince Swanny to to do it anyway.

I agree with RogueBeaver though. I think Gillard will still be in place to lose the next election.

What do people here think of Defence Minister Stephen Smith? I keep on hearing him mentioned as a "saving the furniture" guy in the media, but does he actually have anything different to offer?

Not particularly, but he is safe and probably has backing of both wings of the party.

The heir apparent is without a doubt Shorten. Unfortunately Smid is right about the Right controlling the party's leadership.
That sucks.  Would the left have a shot at it if most of the MP's who loose their seats in 2013 are from the right?  'Cause it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) like the majority of MP's who are at risk of loosing their seats are from the right. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on August 17, 2012, 02:08:40 am
That sucks.  Would the left have a shot at it if most of the MP's who loose their seats in 2013 are from the right?  'Cause it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) like the majority of MP's who are at risk of loosing their seats are from the right. 

I think that the map will look somewhere between current and 2004 results (when the election was fought on interest rates, and given that mortgage repayments = cost of living, is not dissimilar to "the carbon tax raises the cost of living"). Basically, outer suburban areas are more likely to swing than inner-city seats. I don't know enough about which backbencher is in which faction to be able to comment further.

Current:
(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_17_08_12_1_52_51.png)

2004:
(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/2482_17_08_12_1_47_03.png)

Bigger versions in the gallery.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 17, 2012, 10:38:26 am
So the potential Labor leaders after Gillard looses to Abbot are:
A socially (and fiscally) conservative weirdo who seems like a porky pine (Swan)
A guy with the personality of a piece of cardboard (Smith)
An old guy who's already had a go leading the party (Crean)
A guy who's so loyal to his leader that he'll threaten a baker who's out of the thing that she wants and will unconditionally agree with her, and would likely demand the same loyalty from his front bench (Shorten)
An uncharismatic, though intelligent, nerd who was also instrumental in the implementation of the carbon tax (Combet)
Two nice folks from the left of the left who I like but are unelectable (Albanese and Plibersek)
If these are the ALP's next generation of leadership, then I would only be partially surprised if the ALP bleeds support to both sides until Australia has a Canada 2011-style re-alignment-of-the-left election within the next decade.  


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 17, 2012, 11:29:37 am
If you think that's possible then you don't really understand Australia.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 17, 2012, 11:30:59 am
Anyways, I think Shorten counts as the PoMo candidate in any potential leadership spill.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 17, 2012, 11:34:53 am
We have to wait and see who's left in caucus first...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 17, 2012, 11:47:59 am
If you think that's possible then you don't really understand Australia.
Is the Australian two-party system as engrained as the American one?  Or is Australia just too conservative a country to make the Greens an opposition party? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 17, 2012, 12:00:58 pm
If you think that's possible then you don't really understand Australia.
Is the Australian two-party system as engrained as the American one?  Or is Australia just too conservative a country to make the Greens an opposition party? 

It's more that the ALP's base (or, more accurately, bases) has no reason to desert it and would have nowhere to go if (for whatever reason) that were to happen. The Greens certainly offer very little to such people. That's without considering the importance of the political traditions represented by the ALP to a surprisingly wide range of things within Australian society; they're grandfathered in. A few bad federal elections (if that's what does end up happening) won't change that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 17, 2012, 12:01:16 pm
If you think that's possible then you don't really understand Australia.
Is the Australian two-party system as engrained as the American one?  Or is Australia just too conservative a country to make the Greens an opposition party? 

The voting system doesn't work that way. Preferencing, remember? While they have serious psephostructural issues getting unseated as un des deux is pure fantasy.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 17, 2012, 12:07:28 pm
The Labor Party is certainly more similar to our Democratic Party than any other political party in the world is.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 17, 2012, 12:30:27 pm
If you think that's possible then you don't really understand Australia.
Is the Australian two-party system as engrained as the American one?  Or is Australia just too conservative a country to make the Greens an opposition party? 

The voting system doesn't work that way. Preferencing, remember? While they have serious psephostructural issues getting unseated as un des deux is pure fantasy.
Wouldn't a preferential system make it easier for them (since people don't have to worry about vote-splitting)?  I mean, people who'd voted Labor in the past could just make the Greens their first-preference vote and Labor their second, and if enough people would do that, their primary vote could surpass Labor's in a lot of electorates (in theory).  Or is the Australian system more complex than that? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 17, 2012, 01:41:02 pm
The Labor Party is certainly more similar to our Democratic Party than any other political party in the world is.
Wow.  I take it Australia's a really conservative country, then?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on August 17, 2012, 04:50:08 pm
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 17, 2012, 04:52:03 pm
If you think that's possible then you don't really understand Australia.
Is the Australian two-party system as engrained as the American one?  Or is Australia just too conservative a country to make the Greens an opposition party? 

The voting system doesn't work that way. Preferencing, remember? While they have serious psephostructural issues getting unseated as un des deux is pure fantasy.
Wouldn't a preferential system make it easier for them (since people don't have to worry about vote-splitting)?  I mean, people who'd voted Labor in the past could just make the Greens their first-preference vote and Labor their second, and if enough people would do that, their primary vote could surpass Labor's in a lot of electorates (in theory).  Or is the Australian system more complex than that? 

It's still not a proportional system and unless the Aussies start conducting their party politics like the French, what you're suggesting wouldn't quite work.

And plus, the Greens are and always will be a niche party, it's in the name. And, from what I gather, their record in the Senate 2010-2013 hasn't been incredible? The carbon tax fiasco has been engineered by the Greens, from what I gather, although i've probably been listening to Tony Abbott too much to come to that conclusion.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 17, 2012, 07:50:38 pm
Well, not having a proportional system didn't stop the NDP from overtaking the Liberals in Canada.  And is there any chance of Andrew Leigh becoming Labor leader after the election, or does the fact that he isn't a member of either faction make it impossible?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 17, 2012, 08:11:39 pm
Well, not having a proportional system didn't stop the NDP from overtaking the Liberals in Canada. 

The relationship between the Liberals and the NDP in Canada is nothing like the ALP and the Greens. Nothing.

And again, Canada has FPTP which causes wave elections all the time in Canada. AV, which Australia has, is inherently designed to maintain a two-party system. The fact that their election results are given as "two-party preferred" says enough as it is.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 17, 2012, 08:50:40 pm
Well, not having a proportional system didn't stop the NDP from overtaking the Liberals in Canada. 

The relationship between the Liberals and the NDP in Canada is nothing like the ALP and the Greens. Nothing.

And again, Canada has FPTP which causes wave elections all the time in Canada. AV, which Australia has, is inherently designed to maintain a two-party system. The fact that their election results are given as "two-party preferred" says enough as it is.
Nothing?  The ALP is a centrist party (was once center-left, but as of the 1980's no longer is) which is currently are a minority government.  The Greens are a more left-wing party.  Even though they also need the independents, the ALP government (at least partially) relies on the Greens for survival, and is quite unpopular.  Surely that must sound something like the relationship between the Liberals and the NDP between 2004 and 2006, even though the Greens are unlikely to pull the plug on the government the way the NDP did.  And if the Greens' primary vote surpasses the ALP's, wouldn't the 2PP vote just change from Coalition vs. Labor to Coalition vs. Greens? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on August 17, 2012, 08:52:40 pm
Wayne Swan would lose just as badly or worse than Gillard. If I'm correct, many often see him a laughingstock, and he'd be the first prime minister to never win an election since Billy McMahon (not to mention he'd likely lose his own seat). He'd probably be remembered as a joke in the history books. Then again, "the office, staff and driver for life" might convince Swanny to to do it anyway.

I agree with RogueBeaver though. I think Gillard will still be in place to lose the next election.

What do people here think of Defence Minister Stephen Smith? I keep on hearing him mentioned as a "saving the furniture" guy in the media, but does he actually have anything different to offer?

Not particularly, but he is safe and probably has backing of both wings of the party.

The heir apparent is without a doubt Shorten. Unfortunately Smid is right about the Right controlling the party's leadership.
That sucks.  Would the left have a shot at it if most of the MP's who loose their seats in 2013 are from the right?  'Cause it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) like the majority of MP's who are at risk of loosing their seats are from the right. 

Not sure if that's true or not - ideology doesn't play a big of a role as it does America.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on August 17, 2012, 08:53:44 pm
We have to wait and see who's left in caucus first...

tbh most of the big names are in safe seats.

Generally, you'd see more local sort of MPs in marginal seats.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on August 17, 2012, 08:54:36 pm
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.

Dude, Laming's a Liberal.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 17, 2012, 08:55:32 pm
It isn't happening.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on August 17, 2012, 09:05:40 pm
The Labor Party is certainly more similar to our Democratic Party than any other political party in the world is.
Wow.  I take it Australia's a really conservative country, then?

Not entirely, but the problem is that there are some really conservative unions backing the ALP, plus there isn't any real middle party, merely a left party.

It's still more conservative than most other countries.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on August 17, 2012, 10:10:37 pm
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.

Dude, Laming's a Liberal.

I meant Andrew Leigh, oops.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on August 18, 2012, 12:26:10 am
The Greens won't pass Labor in primary vote for a long time, if at all. They may achieve that in some individual seats - that's how they won their NSW state seat, but it's quite uncommon. They've passed the Liberal vote in a few inner-city seats, but then they need Liberal preferences to win those seats. Of course, they got them in Melbourne, but sentiment in the Liberal Party is different now and they won't be getting them again any time soon, I would suspect.

Green support is concentrated in a few areas, which makes it harder for them to win enough seats to achieve what the NDP accomplished in Canada.

Preferential voting may advantage them with allowing people to vote for them without wasting their vote, but the real benefit compared to other countries is the Senate, where PR allows them to win seats, which gives them publicity, which gains them votes.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 18, 2012, 12:55:45 am
Also, the Canadian electorate is incredibly volatile; the Australian electorate is not so much.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on August 18, 2012, 03:03:52 am
Also, the Canadian electorate is incredibly volatile; the Australian electorate is not so much.

Queensland and NSW to deny.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on August 18, 2012, 06:00:16 am
Queensland at a stretch, largely because it hasn't been as clearly two-party as the rest of the nation. It is now, but you see the right wing in QLD fracture a lot and it will fracture again, whether through disintegration of the LNP or rising new challengers like BKAP or PHON back in the 90s.

NSW saw a few minor parties do surprisingly well, but a massive swing to the opposition away from the government doesn't really count as volatility when compared to Canada.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 18, 2012, 08:13:31 am
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.

Dude, Laming's a Liberal.

I meant Andrew Leigh, oops.
Yaayy!  I'm a big fan of his.  A true unabashed social democrat who isn't a slave to either faction.  Hope he becomes Labor leader and fixes up the party (both structurally and ideologically) and becomes PM. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 18, 2012, 03:19:08 pm
Queensland at a stretch, largely because it hasn't been as clearly two-party as the rest of the nation. It is now, but you see the right wing in QLD fracture a lot and it will fracture again, whether through disintegration of the LNP or rising new challengers like BKAP or PHON back in the 90s.

NSW saw a few minor parties do surprisingly well, but a massive swing to the opposition away from the government doesn't really count as volatility when compared to Canada.

Swings in Canada and Australia make UK elections seem so predictable.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on August 18, 2012, 09:05:04 pm
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.

Dude, Laming's a Liberal.

I meant Andrew Leigh, oops.
Yaayy!  I'm a big fan of his.  A true unabashed social democrat who isn't a slave to either faction.  Hope he becomes Labor leader and fixes up the party (both structurally and ideologically) and becomes PM. 

Very smart man too - he's basically the Antony Green/Nate Silver/etc. of parliament.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 18, 2012, 09:21:06 pm
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.

Dude, Laming's a Liberal.

I meant Andrew Leigh, oops.
Yaayy!  I'm a big fan of his.  A true unabashed social democrat who isn't a slave to either faction.  Hope he becomes Labor leader and fixes up the party (both structurally and ideologically) and becomes PM. 

Very smart man too - he's basically the Antony Green/Nate Silver/etc. of parliament.

If that's the case, guys like that have no business running the show, just pulling the strings come election time. Like a Peter Mandelson or a David Axelrod. They're just more effective that way.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 19, 2012, 12:07:34 am
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.

Dude, Laming's a Liberal.

I meant Andrew Leigh, oops.
Yaayy!  I'm a big fan of his.  A true unabashed social democrat who isn't a slave to either faction.  Hope he becomes Labor leader and fixes up the party (both structurally and ideologically) and becomes PM. 

Very smart man too - he's basically the Antony Green/Nate Silver/etc. of parliament.

If that's the case, guys like that have no business running the show, just pulling the strings come election time. Like a Peter Mandelson or a David Axelrod. They're just more effective that way.
Well, he's also very charismatic.  I suppose you could say he's both a head and a heart as well.  I'm guessing he's seen as far more ideologically in line with the Left faction than with the right?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on August 28, 2012, 08:52:27 pm
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government.

Shorten has obviously had a few gaffes of late - eating humble pie, and not knowing what he supports, but I didn't think either were enough to stop him from becoming Leader. However... after yesterday's gaffe, I don't think he can ever become leader.

Quote
EMPLOYMENT Minister Bill Shorten ruled out any immediate increase to the $13,000 a year Newstart allowance yesterday, despite declaring he finds it "hard to make ends meet" on his much larger salary of about $330,000.
(Source (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/bill-shorten-is-doing-it-tough-on-330000/story-fndo1uez-1226459374378))

For our international readers, Newstart allowance is the government/brand name for unemployment welfare payments. Specifically, here is Minister Shorten's quote from the same article:

Quote
I think it would be very difficult to live on $249 (a week). I've got a young family, I find it hard enough to make ends meet currently and I've got a job.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on August 28, 2012, 09:20:54 pm
You were right about the "next Latham" thing Smid. Now all we need is him getting physical or profane on camera.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on September 03, 2012, 03:39:34 pm
It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government.

Shorten has obviously had a few gaffes of late - eating humble pie, and not knowing what he supports, but I didn't think either were enough to stop him from becoming Leader. However... after yesterday's gaffe, I don't think he can ever become leader.
THANK GOD! 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 04, 2012, 04:41:36 pm
We'll see if caucus shares our view of Shorten. They already had one Latham and don't need another. However as a Coalition fan I sure hope they pick him- it would be an increased majority in Abbott's second term.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on September 29, 2012, 11:28:41 am
If Gillard loses the election in 2016 Roxon will be Labor leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 29, 2012, 08:31:04 pm
Alan Jones trolls Gillard.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/14996717/gillards-father-died-of-shame-alan-jones/


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 29, 2012, 08:41:09 pm
Alan Jones trolls Gillard.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/14996717/gillards-father-died-of-shame-alan-jones/

It was absolutely disgusting...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on September 30, 2012, 08:54:34 am
If Gillard loses the election in 2016 Roxon will be Labor leader.

Highly improbable, and from a personal viewpoint, highly undesirable.

------

Re: Jones. Not a surprise he's a tosser, just a surprise the media have decided to make a scandal out of this. Why not any of the last 327 disgusting things he's said in the last few years?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 30, 2012, 10:34:17 am
If Gillard loses the election in 2016 Roxon will be Labor leader.

Trust me anyone who has to deal with her personally will not want that...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on October 01, 2012, 07:23:36 am
If Gillard loses the election in 2016 Roxon will be Labor leader.

Highly improbable, and from a personal viewpoint, highly undesirable.

------

Re: Jones. Not a surprise he's a tosser, just a surprise the media have decided to make a scandal out of this. Why not any of the last 327 disgusting things he's said in the last few years?
Well it's about time they did....


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on October 01, 2012, 10:25:01 pm
If Gillard loses the election in 2016 Roxon will be Labor leader.

Trust me anyone who has to deal with her personally will not want that...

Really, people I know who've worked with her quite like her.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 06, 2012, 04:14:03 pm
Slipper claims conspiracy?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9589923/Australian-parliament-speaker-Peter-Slipper-claims-political-conspiracy.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vosem on October 06, 2012, 04:20:37 pm
So, I don't follow Australian politics much, so forgive my ignorance, but...has there been a swing towards the ALP recently?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 06, 2012, 04:31:06 pm
A few weeks ago there was a 50-50 poll but no polls have been published since then. Abbott's still favoured but he can't get complacent.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on October 08, 2012, 06:06:30 am
Abbott's not favored Gillard's smashing him in who's a better leader and more likeable.

And 2 Party polling shows Labor and Liberals tied, so Labor support is growing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 08, 2012, 06:33:10 am
The state of it is basically this: Nobody likes the government, but when they have to choose between a labor government or a Tony Abbott Prime Ministership, they're splitting down the middle.

The question is, who is more likely to make themselves more attractive: Labor as a whole, or Abbott?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 09, 2012, 04:13:30 am
Slipper resigns  (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-09/peter-slipper-resigns-as-speaker/4303966?WT.svl=news0)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 09, 2012, 04:42:04 am
Embarrassingly, given his lewd text messages, the Prime Minister and Attorney-General who believe that Tony Abbott has a problem with women, somewhat hypocritically supported him to remain as Speaker today.

I won't copy any of his texts here, but a google search of "peter slipper salty" will turn up results for anyone who wants to assess for themselves the content of his messages.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 09, 2012, 05:15:57 am
I've never seen my facebook wall so full of blind people. The left are completely ignoring the texts but all posting about Gillard's absolutely stunning parliamentary performance, the right are all ignoring the fact that Abbott got reamed in parliament and focussing on what a horrible, horrible man Slipper is.

So even though the guy Gillard was indirectly supporting is filth of the kind that the left hates, and even though Slipper represented the coalition for something like 20 years, everyone got what they wanted from today.

As for me... as much as I hate Abbott and was pretty much cheering on the PM word for word, I think the resignation makes the day a slight win for the opposition.

...although probably more accurately, everyone lost except the hacks.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 09, 2012, 05:17:46 am
Gillard in parliament, btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0

Worth a watch.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on October 09, 2012, 03:38:11 pm
It's worth noting that the Coalition has preselected Slipper since 1983...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 09, 2012, 03:41:39 pm
I'm with hugh. The perv Slipper is a Coalitionist who was selected by Lab as Speaker. No one will get a spin edge here except in the minds of Oz's Politicos and Mondales.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Lief 🐋 on October 09, 2012, 03:47:51 pm
Gillard in parliament, btw:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0

Worth a watch.

That's so awesome.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 09, 2012, 05:18:46 pm
What's hilarious is watching Abbott's face during this...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 09, 2012, 05:33:32 pm
I've said many things in private about Slipper, that I won't repeat here, but we shouldn't have preselected him - and this is not a recent conclusion on my part and relates to other personality traits.

I think Labor's support for him yesterday revealed poor political judgement, as did the pursuit of Abbott for supposed sexism over the past few weeks. The Attorney-General had to have seen Slipper's texts, would have to have known there would be calls for Slipper to resign as Speaker, must have realised that the government would back Slipper in order to defend its numbers in the house, and yet thought it a good idea to create a double standard by attacking Abbott for misogyny. There is no way they could attack the way they did, and defend Slipper, without seeing up a hypocritical double standard, which I think is blatantly obvious, and why it demonstrates such poor political judgement. When you know you're going to be having to defend on a particular issue, it's stupid to deliberately raise the profile of that issue in advance.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 10, 2012, 12:47:40 am
Here's a sample of roughly half the comments people made when sharing that video from amongst my facebook friends.

Sham: sh**t got real!
Chai: The Prime Minister delivered an amazing speech, in light of Abbott trying to position himself a feminist, going onto quote some of the misogynistic things Abbott has said about the PM and all women. "The Leader of the Opposition should think seriously about the role of women in public life and Australian society; because we are entitled to a better standard than this" (pointing at Abbott). *applauds*

Raveena: The best thing I've ever seen.

Olivia: AMAZING.

Tully: The Prime Minister.

Ana:  keen for the inevitable blundering attempt at justification.

Shane: Good watching :)

Katie: I'm not pretending to be an expert in politics, but I do know that this is the best 15mins of viewing I have seen in a very long time. Julia Gillard, if you can speak with this conviction and passion all the time then we would have on our hands one very powerful leader. Very inspired. (PS, Tony Abbott what are you even doing in parliament, seriously)

Ben: Like a boss.

Sarah: Finally Gillard calls out Abbott as a misogynist. Please, Australia, do not elect Abbott at the next election!

Harry: First good speech I've heard Gillard present yet! Come on Julia, keep turning your words in support of women's rights into action! Lead through example!

Danielle: badass!

Danni: The best ever.

-----

About half.

Seems to be really, really enthusing the left.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 10, 2012, 06:32:25 am
The Aus Parliament's so much more funny than ours.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 10, 2012, 07:08:25 am
Shame that while rightly slamming misogyny she hasn't made the connection that the same misogynistic attitudes prevail in anti-equal marriage circles which she herself seems to dalliance with.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 10, 2012, 07:34:58 am
While I think she's venting a bit of the hurt over the Alan Jones comments, I think she DESPERATELY needs to get the left back on side after the SSM votes and the asylum-seeker changes... they've been wanting a full-throated personal attack on Abbott... I don't doubt that she genuinely feels this, but she's not going to express such high levels of personal rancour without considering the consequences...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: ⚑ Comrade Corbyn for PM ⚑ on October 10, 2012, 11:32:51 am
The Aus Parliament's so much more funny than ours.

Really? I thought it looked a much more serious affair. Our politicians don't really come across with any sincerity even in their rowdy confrontations, whilst Gillard looked convincing in her recounting of how the Liberals had campaigned against her, including Abbott, and how genuinely disgusted by it she was - obviously the vile dead father comments added much to the credibility of it (she even looked upset for the following comments after the 10min mark). Either way, if Abbott and Liberals went into parliament thinking they were going to make hay with that, they certainly made the mistake of their life. Abbott sat their looking like a scolded child.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: 🍁 Hatman on October 10, 2012, 11:48:42 am
That video is all over my facebook feed... from Canadians


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: ⚑ Comrade Corbyn for PM ⚑ on October 10, 2012, 12:17:32 pm
As you'd expect with our Commonwealth bonds! ;)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 10, 2012, 01:32:28 pm
Our politicians don't really come across with any sincerity even in their rowdy confrontations

That's because there are more rules governing what they can and can't say (and how they can and can't say it). So, generally, the rowdier, the less sincere - in appearance, at least. Or is sincere the right word? John Smith called the Commons an intimate theatre, after all.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 10, 2012, 03:54:53 pm
Our politicians don't really come across with any sincerity even in their rowdy confrontations

That's because there are more rules governing what they can and can't say (and how they can and can't say it). So, generally, the rowdier, the less sincere - in appearance, at least. Or is sincere the right word? John Smith called the Commons an intimate theatre, after all.

Flippant moments of sincerity are not necessarily 'good'. "Calm down dear" what quite the genuine, unscripted moment after all.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on October 11, 2012, 06:39:04 am
That video is all over my facebook feed... from Canadians

Same thing from my NDP friends.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on October 12, 2012, 07:40:30 pm
My God, that was great.  Gillard finally has shown she has guts.  Maybe she'll back gay marriage next?  Nah, I shouldn't get too hopeful. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 12, 2012, 09:36:42 pm
Doesn't change their CFIT trajectory, but I would slightly differ from Peter in that I think she's more resilient than gutsy. Admirable trait.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 17, 2012, 02:14:36 am
All the usual caveats for internal polls and constituency polls (and for that matter, why if ReachTel conducing Liberal internal polls, not Crosby-Textor?). I view these with some degree of scepticism - although they'd be roughly in line with the 2004 election results (and although I suspect that the election will somewhat resemble that election), and although the Labor state government may be something of a millstone around federal Labor's neck, the past couple of Newspolls which have broken down to state level have shown the government strong in South Australia.

 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/liberals-buoyed-by-federal-poll-results/story-e6frea83-1226497373986


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 17, 2012, 07:28:06 am
Are there any burning state issues which are helping or harming either party? Also agreed on the 2004 outcome overall.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 18, 2012, 10:48:12 am
First ballot now complete in the vote to get on to the UNSC. Finalnd should win through very comfortably, and we're slightly favoured for the second spot against Luxembourg, but it's apparently very close. Should all have finished ages ago, now 2:45am and still no result.

A decisive result could take days, but the counting each round shouldn't.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 18, 2012, 11:13:33 am
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES

Woo! 140 votes!

Finland comes last :/


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 18, 2012, 11:22:45 am
Congrats guys. :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on October 18, 2012, 05:29:33 pm
Are there any burning state issues which are helping or harming either party? Also agreed on the 2004 outcome overall.

Some of the Liberal governments are going all austerity on us, but other than that not really.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on October 18, 2012, 09:38:09 pm
Congrats guys. :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 26, 2012, 07:17:41 am
McKew stirs up 2010 with her memoir.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-26/old-labor-wounds-reopened-in-mckew-memoir/4336110


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 28, 2012, 03:13:26 pm
Newspoll

Primary vote
ALP: 36% (+3)
Coalition: 41% (-4)
Greens: 10% (NC)

TPP
ALP: 50% (+3)
Coalition: 50% (-3)

Preferred PM
Gillard: 45% (+2)
Abbott: 34% (+1)

Satisfaction
Gillard: 34% (-1)
Abbott: 30% (-3)

Dissatisfaction
Gillard: 51% (-1)
Abbott: 58% (-3)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 28, 2012, 03:28:07 pm
Abbott could be in trouble soon, no?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 28, 2012, 03:40:20 pm
Abbott could be in trouble soon, no?

If Abbott hasn't rebounded within the next few months, there will be TREMENDOUS internal pressure...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 28, 2012, 03:41:25 pm
Especially as this is self-inflicted to a very considerable degree...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 28, 2012, 03:49:27 pm
Especially as this is self-inflicted to a very considerable degree...

Abbott's combination of small-target policy strategy and strong negativity works when people aren't happy with the Government... but considering public perceptions of the PM and the Government are improving... he needs to turn to policy and in a positive fashion as quickly as possible if he still wants to be leader by the election.

The ALP could spook the Coalition into action by sounding like they're going to an election in March/April... which is the earliest was can expect an election, although, the earliest a normal election could be called is August 3.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 28, 2012, 04:13:48 pm
The polls seem to be rather bouncy depending on whether they're conducted early or later in the month, at least recently. If this trend continues and dare I say, Lab takes the lead then Abbott will be in deep trouble. So I'll wait a bit before worrying. Agreed w/Polnut and CS. However worst-case, who'd replace Abbott? Can't replace someone with no one. Nelson and Turnbull faceplanted as leader already, so  guess that leaves Hockey?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 28, 2012, 04:59:04 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-22/gillard-surges-ahead-as-preferred-pm-in-nielsen-poll/4325840

This marries relatively well with this poll from a week ago...

Primary vote
ALP: 34% (NC)
Coalition: 43% (-2)
Greens: 10%

TPP
ALP: 48% (+2)
Coalition: 52% (-2)
... that's a 12% shift to the ALP since June...

However, that is based on 2010 preference flows...

The Essential something or other had the same 48-52 result, based on 2010 preferences, but asked deeper about preferences and found the ALP picked up another point to 49-51..

Approval
Gillard: 47%
Abbott: 37%

Disapproval
Gillard: 48%
Abbott: 60%

Preferred PM
Gillard: 50 (+7)
Abbott: 40 (NC)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on October 30, 2012, 06:38:56 am
ER still has it at 54-46, but their methodology is weird.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 30, 2012, 07:00:12 am
ER still has it at 54-46, but their methodology is weird.

That's true, I heard it on the radio in the car... it was all part of the poll discussion, so I probably got the discussion confused.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 10, 2012, 05:26:22 pm
Rinehart's family drama continues.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/rinehart-dispute-to-kick-into-new-year-20121107-28yid.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on November 10, 2012, 09:06:25 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-22/gillard-surges-ahead-as-preferred-pm-in-nielsen-poll/4325840

This marries relatively well with this poll from a week ago...

Primary vote
ALP: 34% (NC)
Coalition: 43% (-2)
Greens: 10%

TPP
ALP: 48% (+2)
Coalition: 52% (-2)
... that's a 12% shift to the ALP since June...

However, that is based on 2010 preference flows...

The Essential something or other had the same 48-52 result, based on 2010 preferences, but asked deeper about preferences and found the ALP picked up another point to 49-51..

Approval
Gillard: 47%
Abbott: 37%

Disapproval
Gillard: 48%
Abbott: 60%

Preferred PM
Gillard: 50 (+7)
Abbott: 40 (NC)

If Julia Gillard is re-elected as Prime Minister next year, would it be safe to conclude that Australians would have accepted the carbon tax, thereby rendering it no longer an issue?  


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 10, 2012, 09:08:18 pm
Even if Abbott wins he can't repeal it or the mining taxes without 39 Senate seats, which he might never get. Certainly not at this election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on November 15, 2012, 02:51:47 am
The polls seem to be rather bouncy depending on whether they're conducted early or later in the month, at least recently. If this trend continues and dare I say, Lab takes the lead then Abbott will be in deep trouble. So I'll wait a bit before worrying. Agreed w/Polnut and CS. However worst-case, who'd replace Abbott? Can't replace someone with no one. Nelson and Turnbull faceplanted as leader already, so  guess that leaves Hockey?

Nelson resigned from the house in 2009, so he's not coming back, and although he's more popular than Abbott. I can't see Turnbull coming back, considering that unlike John Howard, how who did come back as Liberal leader in 1995, Turnbull never led the Liberals to an election.

So if the Liberals are to change leader before the next election, which isn't too likely in my opinion, I can see Hockey becoming leader.

Even if Abbott wins he can't repeal it or the mining taxes without 39 Senate seats, which he might never get. Certainly not at this election.

Sadly, I think you're on the money here, RogueBeaver. Unless the Coalition wins 38 and does a deal with the DLP or Nick Xenophon.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 18, 2012, 05:52:34 pm
So.... new Nielsen poll on the carbon price.

Support: 39% (+6 since CP was introduced)

Oppose: 56% (-6 since 1 July)

Are you?:
Better off: 3% (no change)
Worse off: 38% (-13% since 1 July)
No difference: 59%

Not surprisingly, the numbers for repeal and retention mirror the support/oppose numbers exactly.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 18, 2012, 06:49:29 pm
Same poll has the Coalition at 53/47 and  Abbott's personals down to -24. Plus a couple of rebuffed attempts with star candidates recently.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on November 18, 2012, 06:53:29 pm
PM Gillard would be wise to call the election at the latest possible date (Nov 30, 2013).  Her fate is tied to the carbon tax -when it breaches 50% approvals sometime next year, she'll be good to go. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 18, 2012, 07:01:13 pm
I think if Gillard goes ANY later than say late-September... it'll look like she's waiting until the last reasonable chance... which is a terrible look - see Howard in 2007.

I think the role of the carbon tax is being a little overstated, will it play a role? sure. But will it play the central role the Coalition hoped 6 months ago? No. I doubt you'll get to the point of having 50%+ approval of carbon price, more than likely, it'll go into a coin-toss kind of situation, with support/oppose fighting each other in the mid-late 40s. Which, if you combine that with a parallel drop in support for repeal AND people continuing to not feel any real impact at all... does negate its political weight quite a bit... but certainly not potent enough for the Coalition to run a campaign on.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 18, 2012, 11:22:40 pm
No political gain and no means of repealing it in the first term. (Could they cut the rates substantially as a first step?) This defensive policy crouch is quite unhealthy to say the least.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 18, 2012, 11:48:09 pm
No political gain and no means of repealing it in the first term. (Could they cut the rates substantially as a first step?) This defensive policy crouch is quite unhealthy to say the least.

The issue is trying to scale back the investments and buying back credits, let alone deciding to reduce the value outside of the Aust/EU market, when that comes on line in 2015... will be VERY expensive and it will be messy.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 26, 2012, 12:29:38 am
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/impressive-gillard-attack-narrows-target-for-critics-20121126-2a30p.html

It seems that whenever the Coalition tries to make this an issue, it's provides another opportunity for Gillard to be at her best.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 26, 2012, 12:34:01 am
Has any leader as unpopular as Abbott ever managed to win a federal election? Keating was in the 30s in 1993 and Peacock won the popular vote in 1990 while in the 20s IIRC.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 26, 2012, 12:52:55 am
Has any leader as unpopular as Abbott ever managed to win a federal election? Keating was in the 30s in 1993 and Peacock won the popular vote in 1990 while in the 20s IIRC.

Which is why I think the preferred PM number will be important here, especially when combined with the clear personal unpopularity he... enjoys?



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on December 06, 2012, 01:06:09 pm
Gillard has called it...

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15567685/gillard-declares-its-the-end-of-the-world/ (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/15567685/gillard-declares-its-the-end-of-the-world/)

If you need me, I'll be in my bunker. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 17, 2012, 12:54:21 pm
This is what happens when you throw anything remotely controversial overboard and run on anti-incumbency/Generic Party. Since Abbott has nothing to say on policy, he's stuck with this sort of stuff.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/attack-dog-methods-bite-coalition-leader-20121216-2bhkp.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on December 17, 2012, 05:08:29 pm
The poll at the bottom of that article is craaaazy.

"Is Tony Abbott a liability for the coalition?"

Yes: 98%
No: 2%

...so, I assume that means there's a very low sample size, right?

124,980 voters.

I'm not aware of any concerted facebook campaign, and I probably would be if one existed, to skew this poll.

Obviously it's not scientific, but it's definitely not good.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 17, 2012, 08:06:28 pm
This is what happens when you throw anything remotely controversial overboard and run on anti-incumbency/Generic Party. Since Abbott has nothing to say on policy, he's stuck with this sort of stuff.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/attack-dog-methods-bite-coalition-leader-20121216-2bhkp.html

But that's the whole point of Abbott... he's an attack-dog, he's an ideologue who wants to win... but, while he's a bright guy, he doesn't have a policy brain.

He became leader in 2009 by ripping down his own leader from the inside, and did the same to a Prime Minister by playing on fears and being unrelentingly negative... without promising a policy beyond "we'll undo what you don't like" - Abbott became leader and was an effective opposition leader because he was a negative and aggressive figure.

The 'small target' strategy worked for the Coalition in NSW, VIC and QLD... focus on the unpopular incumbent government, focus on them, and avoid releasing ANY policy that could distract the public. The problem is, the Carbon Price was meant to be their golden ticket... but with its power weakening by the month... and the government, and the PM in particular, less on the nose... they need to seriously adjust the tactic. The problem being, very few people actually buy it when they try.

Gillard was as unpopular as the party was six months ago, Abbott is now markedly more unpopular than the party... that isn't a helpful place to be in a party like the Liberal Party, where personal leadership is such a massive element.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 17, 2012, 08:27:29 pm
Truth be told I think Abbott is more of a values pol than anything. But it goes beyond him... as I said, the Coalition lost their policy nerve 5 years ago and show no sign of getting it back under anyone currently floated for leadership. I hope Howard has made his views known privately about this.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 17, 2012, 10:09:31 pm
Truth be told I think Abbott is more of a values pol than anything. But it goes beyond him... as I said, the Coalition lost their policy nerve 5 years ago and show no sign of getting it back under anyone currently floated for leadership. I hope Howard has made his views known privately about this.

Yes and no... remember, he was privately personally opposed to WorkChoices and backed it all the way as Minister. Abbott isn't a values politician, such as in the US, he's much more pragmatic than that, he's against abortion, but knows it's a political untouchable ... so won't talk about it. Abbott is at his heart a political scrapper, and it doesn't really matter what it's about, he'll do whatever it takes to bring down the opposition and win the fight. Which, is a valuable role as a head-kicker, but you can't be a head-kicker and seen positively by the Australian public...

If you go back to the beginning of the party in 1945, look at the leaders and what that means for the party overall. The most successful leaders; Menzies, Holt (pre-drowning obviously), Fraser and Howard re-made the party in their image and had an idea of where the party was going, even BEFORE they became PM. Then look at the unsuccessful leaders, even those who were PM, Gorton, McMahon, Peacock, Downer, Nelson, Turnbull and also why Costello never happened... because they need to lead from the front, Abbott has a strategy, which could still be successful, but it will be more to do with the Government, than any kind of Abbott policy framework... because it doesn't exist.

The Liberals knew the Abbott would be a huge risk, hence why he only won the leadership by a vote, against a leader that was unpopular and mistrusted by many. It was a successful experiment for a while, but I know for a fact, a lot of people inside the Coalition are saying "we probably lost 2010 because of unease over Abbott, do you think they're going to give MORE votes to us now?"... Winning an election IN SPITE of the leader is a tough, tough ask.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 18, 2012, 12:35:44 am
I meant in the sense of principles but no policies. As for leadership, the choice was between a risk and a proven failure. There's a mold but none of the current leadership cadre fits it... will have to wait for the next generation.

Abbott will win but as I said a victory by default. Since he can't repeal in his first term, he'll have to try back doors and balancing the budget. Otherwise just running Labor's machine.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 18, 2012, 07:05:13 am
I wouldn't bet large amounts on Abbott winning just yet... a year-six months ago, I'd have been there with you. But not now.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 19, 2012, 10:41:31 pm
Wayne Swan FINALLY dumped the pledge for a Budget surplus. When everyone, including international economists, political commentators AND international credit agencies, like S&P said the Budget cuts required to achieve it are more likely to hinder growth and development.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-20/swan-dumps-surplus-pledge/4438508

It was totally unnecessary and undermined the Government for the last 3 years.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Barnes on December 19, 2012, 11:24:35 pm
What's the likelihood that Adam Bandt actually keeps his seat in the next election?  I would assume it's not very high, but you never know...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on December 20, 2012, 12:09:25 am
What's the likelihood that Adam Bandt actually keeps his seat in the next election?  I would assume it's not very high, but you never know...
Depends on preferences really.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: ⚑ Comrade Corbyn for PM ⚑ on December 20, 2012, 12:14:34 am
What has he done to lose it? Or was it always going to be difficult to hold?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 20, 2012, 12:48:28 am
What has he done to lose it? Or was it always going to be difficult to hold?

It's a naturally ALP seat, albeit with a Greens bent.

He won, largely, due to a protest vote against the ALP - much like Andrew Wilkie. My money is that both of those seats 'go home' next year. Six months ago, the Greens polling in Melbourne was very solid, but as the ALP's prospects rose nationally, and the ALP at the state-level got a lead against the Lib Government, his prospects have slid dramatically... having said that, there was a big swing against the Greens here in the ACT and we're among the most Green-friendly cities. I think the Greens hit their high watermark in 2010... at the expense of the ALP.

IF and it's a huge IF, the Liberals direct preferences to Bandt he 'could' win. But I would doubt it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on December 20, 2012, 08:45:23 am
Yeah, not to mention he's a whiny bitch.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 20, 2012, 12:41:44 pm
What has he done to lose it? Or was it always going to be difficult to hold?

It's a naturally ALP seat, albeit with a Greens bent.

He won, largely, due to a protest vote against the ALP - much like Andrew Wilkie. My money is that both of those seats 'go home' next year. Six months ago, the Greens polling in Melbourne was very solid, but as the ALP's prospects rose nationally, and the ALP at the state-level got a lead against the Lib Government, his prospects have slid dramatically... having said that, there was a big swing against the Greens here in the ACT and we're among the most Green-friendly cities. I think the Greens hit their high watermark in 2010... at the expense of the ALP.

IF and it's a huge IF, the Liberals direct preferences to Bandt he 'could' win. But I would doubt it.

I don't see why Coalition voters would anyway if he's just another vote for PM Gillard in the House.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 20, 2012, 03:01:15 pm
Well that was how he won, a big drop in ALP primary vote and strong Liberal preferences. The Libs would MUCH rather a Green the PM needs to negotiate with over an ALP vote who won't challenge anything.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on January 11, 2013, 12:42:06 am
Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/07/poll-bludger-pencil-in-september-for-the-federal-election/) is predicting that the upcoming federal election (the deadline is Nov 30) will occur in September.

Thoughts?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on January 11, 2013, 03:21:46 am
Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/07/poll-bludger-pencil-in-september-for-the-federal-election/) is predicting that the upcoming federal election (the deadline is Nov 30) will occur in September.

Thoughts?

Not the weekend of the grand final of AFL our NRL. Antony Green has an article on it, too.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 11, 2013, 07:40:33 am
Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/07/poll-bludger-pencil-in-september-for-the-federal-election/) is predicting that the upcoming federal election (the deadline is Nov 30) will occur in September.

Thoughts?

Think October is more likely.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 12, 2013, 06:31:25 pm
In Australia, there are a number of periods that are traditionally avoided for elections. Primarily because they know it will piss people off.
* Any time between mid-December and early February (Christmas, people going on holiday)
* The weekends of the AFL/NRL finals (late Sept-Early Oct)
* Easter (basically any long weekend)

My bet is, she pulls the trigger at the end of the Budget session for a late August poll or mid-October. Regardless, she cant be seen to be leaving it to the last moment, which was probably the last nail in Howard's coffin in 2007.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 12, 2013, 08:18:34 pm
If current polls hold up she might play for time- not to win, but for triage and succession purposes.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 12, 2013, 08:52:43 pm
If it gets to September and it hasn't been called, there will a horrid narrative. In fact, once the 3rd anniversary passes on 21 August the pressure will be on.

I say she has to call it by August, or else the story will be 'Gillard afraid of election' which is what happened to Howard.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 12, 2013, 09:24:16 pm
Narrative's pretty bad already (:P), but agreed on August.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 13, 2013, 12:29:52 am
Narrative's pretty bad already (:P), but agreed on August.

Frankly... it's the best it's been in two years...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 13, 2013, 12:35:22 am
Last Newspoll was 54-46... back to where things started. If Labor loses cleanly (but no QLD wipeout with Rudd and Swan losing), then who do you think would take the leadership?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 13, 2013, 01:05:42 am
Terror mode: Nicola Roxon

Bad mode: Bill Shorten, Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Wayne Swan

OK mode: Simon Crean, Tanya Plibersek

------

My thoughts would be Crean in a caretaker mode situation, and then Roxon. If it's a hung parliament, Gillard may stay on even if the ALP doesn't form government.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Dereich on January 13, 2013, 02:55:59 am
Terror mode: Nicola Roxon

Bad mode: Bill Shorten, Stephen Smith, Greg Combet, Wayne Swan

OK mode: Simon Crean, Tanya Plibersek

------

My thoughts would be Crean in a caretaker mode situation, and then Roxon. If it's a hung parliament, Gillard may stay on even if the ALP doesn't form government.

Why would Roxon be so bad?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on January 13, 2013, 09:39:09 am
Roxon is by far one of the best leaders we'd have, she's effective and incredibly smart - we'd be lucky to have her as our PM. Listening to her speak if amazing, and if Gillard wins next election but Swan loses she'd be a great deputy which their is a high chance that, that could happen.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 13, 2013, 10:49:11 am
...said no-one, ever.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on January 13, 2013, 11:27:59 am
...said no-one, ever.

Besides you're obvious disdain for her left views, what is wrong with her?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 13, 2013, 12:17:51 pm
Of the realistic candidates I'd say Shorten should be the one Coalitionists hope for, given how gaffeomatic he is. (Which is why I doubt he'd get it, particularly after the "ministerial salary isn't high enough" thing) I know Combet was a major player in the WC war, but otherwise what's he like in terms of skills and ideology? Smith- heard mixed things about him. Swan strikes me as a hardnosed e-rat but he's the Tax Guy, closely tied to Gillard and publicly nuked Rudd last year. Plus his seat is far from safe.

What about the faceless men- specifically the House ones? What's their skillset or ideological leaning? Just curious if any of those younger guys might be interested in stepping from the shadows and becoming king rather than powerbroker.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 13, 2013, 01:32:04 pm
...said no-one, ever.

Besides you're obvious disdain for her left views, what is wrong with her?

It's not actually her leftism, it's her populism that grates, followed by the fact that she would lead Labor to a bollocksing against even Abbott, and finished off with the way she treats her staff.

Then the leftovers are the fact that she's an ideologue but without a cause I can believe in, and her lack of appeal skyrockets.

---------

Honestly though, I can see her becoming leader, but I can't see her becoming PM. I'd say that's a good thing, except it would mean Labor losing to a PM Tony Abbott, and there is absolutely no excuse if Abbott gets in for it not being a one-term government.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 13, 2013, 04:55:46 pm
Not forgetting that Roxon's personal style is VERY similar to Rudd... except occasionally, Rudd smiled. Hugh's point is there, how you treat your staff is a good indication of your personal style. Gillard is very good to her staff and even the departmental people like her, Roxon was someone NOBODY wanted to deal with.

She's competent, tough and smart... but she's not a leader.

The issue about the polling is important... I don't deny there's been a slip, but in the quarterly Newspoll, which came out on 29 December (more respondents, longer time period) the Government is still behind where they were in August 2010. BUT, they've increased their primary vote in Queensland by 10% in 6-months, have a solid lead in Victoria and are level-pegging or behind everywhere else.

The one thing I'll warn the Abbott -fanciers about (why anyone would be is beyond me) is this, in 2001 and 2004, at this stage in the game, Howard was behind by the same margins, or worse than Gillard is now... election years tends to be the most prone to wild-swings and inaccuracies. So, consider the polls, but be mindful not to put too much stock in them. In 2004, the last week's polling has the ALP ahead 51-49, except one... which was far too friendly to the Coalition 54-46... and the result? Coalition 53-47...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 13, 2013, 05:15:58 pm
Didn't hear about that particular Newspoll, but nor do I think Abbott will have a 1996-style victory.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 13, 2013, 05:41:47 pm
Not forgetting that Roxon's personal style is VERY similar to Rudd... except occasionally, Rudd smiled. Hugh's point is there, how you treat your staff is a good indication of your personal style. Gillard is very good to her staff and even the departmental people like her, Roxon was someone NOBODY wanted to deal with.

She's competent, tough and smart... but she's not a leader.

The issue about the polling is important... I don't deny there's been a slip, but in the quarterly Newspoll, which came out on 29 December (more respondents, longer time period) the Government is still behind where they were in August 2010. BUT, they've increased their primary vote in Queensland by 10% in 6-months, have a solid lead in Victoria and are level-pegging or behind everywhere else.

The one thing I'll warn the Abbott -fanciers about (why anyone would be is beyond me) is this, in 2001 and 2004, at this stage in the game, Howard was behind by the same margins, or worse than Gillard is now... election years tends to be the most prone to wild-swings and inaccuracies. So, consider the polls, but be mindful not to put too much stock in them. In 2004, the last week's polling has the ALP ahead 51-49, except one... which was far too friendly to the Coalition 54-46... and the result? Coalition 53-47...

I swear the ALP was at like 54% as well when Gillard called it in 2010. Only reason it was close was because the ALP ran such a dire campaign (And the Coalition's was quite good).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on January 13, 2013, 05:42:07 pm
Is everyone looking foward to the Lib wipeout in Victoria?

I am.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 13, 2013, 06:06:50 pm
Is everyone looking foward to the Lib wipeout in Victoria?

I am.
Unconvinced. There's still nearly two years to go.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 13, 2013, 09:25:53 pm
At state level? I don't even think they're likely to lose, let alone be wiped out.

At federal level?

There is no excuse for Labor not aiming to win at least 3 seats off the coalition in Victoria at the federal election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on January 13, 2013, 10:29:37 pm
They're down by 10% state wide, people here are over Ted and Victoria has traditionally been one of Labor's stronger states. Ted isn't going to win another term.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 14, 2013, 06:58:04 am
First Newspoll of 2013... all my caveats on election-year polling understood?

Primary vote
ALP: 38% (+6)
Coalition: 43% (-2)
Greens: 9% (-2)

TPP
ALP: 49% (+3)
Coalition: 51% (-3)

Preferred PM
Gillard: 45% (+2)
Abbott: 33%

Satisfaction
Gillard: 38% (+2)
Abbott: 29% (+1)

Dissatisfaction
Gillard: 49% (-3)
Abbott: 58% (-1)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 14, 2013, 09:25:09 pm
They're down by 10% state wide, people here are over Ted and Victoria has traditionally been one of Labor's stronger states. Ted isn't going to win another term.

Victoria is traditionally one of Labor's worst states, actually; the last decade was much more the exception rather than the rule. The difference is that our right wing is most state's center, and our left has always been divided one way or another, but still, Victoria is not a Labor state necessarily.

As for if he'll win, basically Labor are making themselves the smallest target possible in hope of wining on a protest vote. As they only need to win one or two seats, it's a smart strategy. But it isn't guaranteed to win, and it certainly isn't likely to be with a 10% gap at the end of the day.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on January 15, 2013, 01:54:42 am
Libs have barely had power in Victoria since the 80's.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 15, 2013, 02:57:51 am
Libs have barely had power in Victoria since the 80's.

....1992-1999


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 15, 2013, 05:49:02 am
...and 2010-2013 and counting.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 16, 2013, 08:25:05 am
Huh? I don't see this going well if Downer does jump in. When was the last time a big federal name successfully transitioned to state politics?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/alexander-downer-close-to-making-call-to-lead-south-australian-liberals/story-e6frgczx-1226555452184


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 16, 2013, 05:17:33 pm
I would've thought Downer was yesterday's news. Obviously not.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Benj on January 16, 2013, 11:57:13 pm
John Howard has a pro-gun control Op-Ed in the NY Times today. Thought someone here might find that interesting. Also reflects how poorly other countries understand American politics, though (not that that's unique to the US or anything).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?hp


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2013, 01:28:19 am
He had something very similar published in around August last year, btw.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 17, 2013, 08:30:49 am
Yeah, Howard's been on the record on that subject numerous times during his travels in the States. And he knows perfectly well how the politics work out. Needless to say I'm happy he's still politically engaged even if I disagree with him on this particular issue.

Back to Draft Downer: SA and federal Liberals are keen on this.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/17/anyone-but-isobel-downers-comeback-might-have-legs/


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 17, 2013, 05:49:04 pm
Howard was right on guns, and the evidence showed it worked.

Simple as that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 17, 2013, 08:35:23 pm
Yeah, guns are one of the few issues where Howard was right on IMO.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on January 21, 2013, 03:46:55 pm
Australia does have some curious minor parties.  Here's one,

http://www.sexparty.org.au/

and its Mission Statement:

Quote
The Australian Sex Party is a political response to the sexual needs of Australia in the 21st century. It is an attempt to restore the balance between sexual privacy and sexual publicity that has been severely distorted by morals campaigners and prudish politicians.

Tolerance of sexual free speech and sexual expression is one of the main hallmarks of free and democratic nations. Intolerance of these qualities is one of the hallmarks of autocracies, dictatorships and theocracies.

The vast majority of Australians are relaxed and tolerant of a broad spectrum of sexual expression but state and federal governments have increasingly ignored this demographic and pursued policies and legislation that have restricted sexual free speech and expression – often under threat of large fines and even jail sentences.

The Sex Party is fed up with wowserism in Australian parliaments. It is frustrated by the lip service paid to gender equality and sexual identity by the major parties when real and meaningful law reform stalls on factionalism and behind the scenes handshakes with religious leaders.

The Party has registered with the Australian Electoral Commission and has signaled its intention to field candidates at all levels of government over the coming years.

What's 'wowserism'?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on January 21, 2013, 06:52:24 pm
Here is a bit of a dictionary of Australian words (http://andc.anu.edu.au/australian-words/meanings-origins?field_alphabet_value=281) (link goes through to "W" for "Wowser").

Also recently listed is The Pirate Party (http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/pirate.htm)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 21, 2013, 09:27:43 pm
Australia does have some curious minor parties.  Here's one,

http://www.sexparty.org.au/

and its Mission Statement:

Quote
The Australian Sex Party is a political response to the sexual needs of Australia in the 21st century. It is an attempt to restore the balance between sexual privacy and sexual publicity that has been severely distorted by morals campaigners and prudish politicians.

Tolerance of sexual free speech and sexual expression is one of the main hallmarks of free and democratic nations. Intolerance of these qualities is one of the hallmarks of autocracies, dictatorships and theocracies.

The vast majority of Australians are relaxed and tolerant of a broad spectrum of sexual expression but state and federal governments have increasingly ignored this demographic and pursued policies and legislation that have restricted sexual free speech and expression – often under threat of large fines and even jail sentences.

The Sex Party is fed up with wowserism in Australian parliaments. It is frustrated by the lip service paid to gender equality and sexual identity by the major parties when real and meaningful law reform stalls on factionalism and behind the scenes handshakes with religious leaders.

The Party has registered with the Australian Electoral Commission and has signaled its intention to field candidates at all levels of government over the coming years.

What's 'wowserism'?

The Sex Party got preferences from me before the Christian Democrats did...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 22, 2013, 03:59:24 am
And before the CEC for me.

-

Social mode:
Smid: replying to your PM now.
Polnut: Up for a couple of drinks tomorrow night?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 22, 2013, 07:04:29 am
Redmond wants Downer to publicly clarify his position. I for one don't believe he'll make the jump until it happens. Shades of Costello's '08 tease IMO. Door opens a crack then is bolted shut.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/isobel-redmond-urges-downer-to-clear-up-leadership-speculation/story-fndo1z0b-1226559516211


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 22, 2013, 08:20:54 pm
And before the CEC for me.

-

Social mode:
Smid: replying to your PM now.
Polnut: Up for a couple of drinks tomorrow night?

Didn't see that... sorry. Um, I might be able to do something this (late) afternoon/evening, but I've got dinner plans.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 22, 2013, 11:16:06 pm
And before the CEC for me.

-

Social mode:
Smid: replying to your PM now.
Polnut: Up for a couple of drinks tomorrow night?

Didn't see that... sorry. Um, I might be able to do something this (late) afternoon/evening, but I've got dinner plans.

I'm staying with a friend in Evatt, so as long as it's somewhere driveable/with parking, I'm happy. Free from now until about 7 also. Maybe Lyneham? Not sure where is good and has airco :p


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 22, 2013, 11:23:06 pm
And before the CEC for me.

-

Social mode:
Smid: replying to your PM now.
Polnut: Up for a couple of drinks tomorrow night?

Didn't see that... sorry. Um, I might be able to do something this (late) afternoon/evening, but I've got dinner plans.

I'm staying with a friend in Evatt, so as long as it's somewhere driveable/with parking, I'm happy. Free from now until about 7 also. Maybe Lyneham? Not sure where is good and has airco :p

CRAP! A work thing has happened, so I can't do today...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 22, 2013, 11:31:22 pm
OK, lt me know if you're around on the weekend, I'm not sure if my friend's BBQ is saturday or Monday for Australia day, but I should be free on both at some point as well as Sunday, but I'm busy tomorrow and friday.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 23, 2013, 05:50:13 pm
Well, I'm Sydney this weekend. But I'll be having Tuesday off.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 23, 2013, 08:20:42 pm
Sorry to interrupt, but this NT preselection seems to be blowing up in Gillard's face.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/they-dont-know-me-peris-fights-back/story-fndor8bb-1226560425173


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 23, 2013, 10:12:17 pm
Sorry to interrupt, but this NT preselection seems to be blowing up in Gillard's face.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/they-dont-know-me-peris-fights-back/story-fndor8bb-1226560425173

I think it's a big deal for the media... time will tell if it will filter down.

Personally, I don't think it was the best move.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on January 24, 2013, 01:28:27 am
According to SA mining minister new oil discovery could make Australia self sufficient.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 24, 2013, 05:59:28 am
I think there's a chance some smoke being blown...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 29, 2013, 09:30:12 pm
So September 25. Surprised she's calling it this early, a nine month campaign, yay.....


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2013, 09:38:05 pm
So September 25. Surprised she's calling it this early, a nine month campaign, yay.....

14 September...

It's actually a brilliant move...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 29, 2013, 09:42:06 pm
So September 25. Surprised she's calling it this early, a nine month campaign, yay.....

14 September...

It's actually a brilliant move...

How?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2013, 09:45:21 pm
So September 25. Surprised she's calling it this early, a nine month campaign, yay.....

14 September...

It's actually a brilliant move...

How?

Gillard knows Abbott's policy bank is pretty bare and his costings simply don't add up... seriously, look at what little we know... they don't.

It forces Abbott into a policy and costings war LONG before he's ready for it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 29, 2013, 09:51:29 pm
Abbott's major policy, so far as I can tell, is Balance & Repeal. Is there anything else of note?

On another note, Swan's silly Republisquirrel.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2013, 09:59:06 pm
Abbott's major policy, so far as I can tell, is Balance & Repeal. Is there anything else of note?

On another note, Swan's silly Republisquirrel.

That's the problem... Abbott needed the carbon tax to end the world for it to still be potent 2 years down the track... and it really isn't.

Basic question, if you're going to balance things... what is getting cut to do it? How do you keep the carbon compensation and pension increases... without the carbon pricing revenue? Abbott's been avoiding answering these kinds of questions for months, because he doesn't know the answer.

He knows the carbon price is here to stay, especially with the deal made with the EU, it's going to cost a lot more to repeal it, than to keep it. He can't say that and win...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 29, 2013, 10:06:36 pm
If we're talking '96 style cuts then Abbott and this bunch certainly aren't the ones to do that. Another way might be slowly cutting the rate. But I'm not one for pessimism, even if it'll take a long time one shouldn't give up.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2013, 10:09:45 pm
If we're talking '96 style cuts then Abbott and this bunch certainly aren't the ones to do that. Another way might be slowly cutting the rate. But I'm not one for pessimism, even if it'll take a long time one shouldn't give up.

You've got too much faith in Abbott. He's got a long history of saying what he needs.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 30, 2013, 03:32:36 am
Neutrally, I HATE this. With bias, I'm neutral :D


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: PUT YOUR POM POMS DOWN on January 30, 2013, 06:52:40 am
Neutrally, I HATE this. With bias, I'm neutral :D

But why? I was very excited for this news. It will be great fun. Then again, ask me again in 8 months. I'm extremely curious as to how Abbott would eliminate the carbon tax AND the mining tax AND the NBN but balance the budget and pay for all of the carrots on his stick. Great fun.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 30, 2013, 08:54:44 pm
Isobel Redmond has resigned the SA Lib leadership, half her caucus wants to replace her. Downer still not interested and reconfirmed that today. Never thought he was in the first place.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 30, 2013, 10:17:59 pm
Thomson arrested, oodles of fraud charges.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/craig-thomson-arrested/4493722


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on January 30, 2013, 10:59:15 pm
Not only has Redmond resigned, Thomson has been arrested. It seems I've missed a lot. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 30, 2013, 11:02:01 pm
Just happened in the past few hours. Thomson should be interesting... paging Paul Kelly. ;)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on January 31, 2013, 05:43:56 am
So too cut costs and balance the budget it's pretty obvious Abbot will be reckless, I mean were a day in already and he wants to cut the Schoolkids bonus which unlike so many other schemes is actually serves a purpose and helps countless parents - so much for working for the middle class.

And ing Craig Thompson, like why can't he just admit it!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2013, 09:30:03 am
Two unexpected departures... Senator Chris Evans will be resigning from Cabinet tomorrow and the Senate in two months AND it's breaking that the Attorney-General may also be resigning from Cabinet and also will not seek re-election in September.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on February 01, 2013, 09:48:34 am
Roxon resigning is a major loss for Labor and Australia.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on February 01, 2013, 04:27:24 pm
Roxon resigning is a major loss for Labor and Australia.

Why?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2013, 04:30:51 pm
Roxon resigning is a major loss for Labor and Australia.

Why?

I don't think so... but that's just me.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on February 01, 2013, 07:12:17 pm
Roxon resigning is a major loss for Labor and Australia.

Why?

She's incredibly smart.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on February 01, 2013, 07:55:13 pm
Roxon resigning is a major loss for Labor and Australia.

Why?

She's incredibly smart.

Can you do any better than that?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2013, 08:14:05 pm
Roxon resigning is a major loss for Labor and Australia.

Why?

I don't think so... but that's just me.

And me.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on February 01, 2013, 08:36:01 pm

And me, but I'm not Australian. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 01, 2013, 08:39:44 pm
She's rather granola-ish, amirite?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2013, 10:11:33 pm
She's rather granola-ish, amirite?

Oh God, yes, she's of the left... but not rampantly so...

I'm not a fan of her because she's personally quite unpleasant.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 01, 2013, 10:23:59 pm
Isn't Roxon a member of the Right?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2013, 10:30:30 pm
Isn't Roxon a member of the Right?

Actually, you're right.

She has quite left-wing views, but in many ways, she's old-school labor, albeit with a left-social bent.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 06, 2013, 08:53:08 pm
Trish Crossin fires back at Gillard, says she was unfairly dismissed and not even given a patronage post. Dunno why Gillardites would switch: isn't like Rudd is particularly huggable either, as they all know.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/im-offering-you-nothing-julia-gillards-response-to-dumped-senator-trish-crossin/story-fndo4gtr-1226572146614


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on February 06, 2013, 10:28:09 pm
How exactly was this move supposed to benefit Labor? If the intent was to save Warren Snowdon by pandering to Aboriginal peoples by having one of their own (who doesn't even primarily live in the Northern Territory according to a few sources) on the ticket, it doesn't seem to be working out to well.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 06, 2013, 10:40:30 pm
No idea. Another person damaged by the mess is Peris, since Crossin alleges that Gillard did this for less-than-pure reasons. ALP takes a hit all-around.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 06, 2013, 10:42:31 pm
It wasn't wise... it's a judgement call.

God help me for saying this... sigh...

I agree with Alan Jones. He was interviewed last night and said "if she wanted Peris in the Senate so badly, why not move her to WA, where she knew Chris Evans was going to stand down a year ago"... it's hard not to agree with the logic.

As for Snowdon, a friend is an adviser in his office and I don't know if he lives in Alice full time... he seems to spend an awful lot of time there.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 13, 2013, 11:54:02 pm
Rumbles about a challenge against Gillard in March...


A friend of mine this morning told me that Simon Crean, a BIG supporter of Gillard had dinner with Rudd and other Rudd backers last night. I then saw this was in a news story this afternoon.

Also other friends in Labor MP offices tell me that there are certainly 'informal discussions' going on.

I think they know March is their last chance...


EDIT: same people tell me Gillard's lost a lot of support since last February. She'd win a leadership ballot, but it would be too close and wound fatally wound her AND them.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2013, 01:37:35 pm
I'll believe that a challenge happens when I see it. If no challenge in March then they'll wait till post-election, depending on whether Rudd and/or Swan lose their seats.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2013, 01:42:38 pm
What a lovely narrative that'd be for them to go into the election with.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2013, 01:54:31 pm
"We aren't sure who we want as leader: depends who has better poll numbers on a given day." :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2013, 05:57:28 pm
"We aren't sure who we want as leader: depends who has better poll numbers on a given day." :P

Well, the numbers at the moment internally aren't as universally bad as the public polling, I'm told. But they're down where it matters.

What I think would be the preferred situation is for Gillard to know a challenge is coming, but knowing that she'd win it by a margin that is so tight that her position would be untenable. Knowing that it would cripple the party electorally, she'd step down voluntarily so to avoid said blood-bath.

But because there is a core of the parliamentary party who can't stand Rudd, the likelihood of this scenario happening without similar levels of damage is small.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2013, 06:24:13 pm
You really think Rudd's numbers would hold once the shine wears off and everyone remembers why he was ousted to begin with? Plus the optics of restoring an overthrown leader, one who's already been publicly nuked (*coughSwancough*) by some of his party's most influential people? I certainly don't think so. Ads go up, numbers go down, yet again people start pining for a switch. Gillard has to take the bullet, like Howard in 2007.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on February 14, 2013, 06:26:43 pm
What's the fate of the carbon tax in the event the Liberal-led coalition under Abbott regain power?  I presume they will at least try to repeal it -will they succeed?  What's the likelihood? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on February 14, 2013, 06:29:48 pm
They can't repeal it de jure without Senate control, which would take a couple of cycles if ever. What he could do is gradually reduce the rate with corresponding cuts to compensate- de facto repeal. Doubt that happens though.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 14, 2013, 06:35:37 pm
You really think Rudd's numbers would hold once the shine wears off and everyone remembers why he was ousted to begin with? Plus the optics of restoring an overthrown leader, one who's already been publicly nuked (*coughSwancough*) by some of his party's most influential people? I certainly don't think so. Ads go up, numbers go down, yet again people start pining for a switch. Gillard has to take the bullet, like Howard in 2007.

You're not thinking the way the Australian people thought of him. He was still relatively popular when he was dumped AND people see him as a wronged man, they don't see the revelations from a year ago as a bad thing for Rudd. Despite him being an ill-mannered, micromanaging prick. If there's one thing Australians can't stand, it's when they see someone being treated (as they see it) unfairly. Do I think that'll hold until an election... honestly? Yes. That's if any transition is handled well.

Which I doubt will happen, because I don't think there's the balls to challenge Gillard right now, and their window is closing.

What's the fate of the carbon tax in the event the Liberal-led coalition under Abbott regain power?  I presume they will at least try to repeal it -will they succeed?  What's the likelihood?  

Virtually none. They'll still have a largely unfriendly Senate, I don't see them gaining enough seats to even allow the 2014 Senate make up to help them. Plus the costs of undoing the carbon pricing scheme and back-pedaling out of the deal with the EU are very high.

I'll make a potentially bold prediction, if Abbott wins, he'll tinker with the carbon price, but he won't get rid of it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 14, 2013, 08:31:44 pm
Rudd won't come back. If Gillard doesn't face the election, and she will, the replacement might be someone who brings Rudd back in to a position of power, but the leadership is just too much. My guess is that a neutral party would be selected, with Rudd taking Foreign Affairs, and then once they lose he retakes the leadership.

Who the neutral party would be... Crean seems to be positioning himself for it, but I'd suspect they'd go with Smith. Snore. But snore is better than Abbott :p


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 15, 2013, 08:43:24 pm
Independent Senator Nick Xenophon has been detained as a security risk at the Kuala Lumpur airport, before he was due to meet with opposition leaders.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 19, 2013, 12:25:45 am
Welll....

Christine Milne decided to announce that the official alliance between the ALP and the Greens (the Watermelon Coalition) is effectively over.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-19/milne-says-labor-has-reneged-on-agreement/4527252

They'll continue to guarantee supply... but this just puts a lot more pressure on Gillard. It doesn't actually make a lot practical difference... but the optics are terrible.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 03, 2013, 12:26:24 am
I spoke to a friend in the ALP whom I trust and the mood in the party is truly terrible. Not only is it terrible, but there is a total sense of resignation to their fate. Basically, their view is that people have stopped listening.

But as Malcolm Turnbull said on Q&A this week, 'the hatred of Rudd is strong than their sense of political survival'...



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 03, 2013, 01:49:12 am
Meh, I'm hoping they and the Greens are wiped out.

I'd love to see a true Socialist party rise from the ashes with no alliegiance to anyone.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 03, 2013, 03:57:09 am
Thankfully that'll never fly in Australia... And I have a hard enough time liking anyone enough to vote for.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 03, 2013, 08:50:22 am
If they want to look on the bright side, what they've done will probably remain untouched and they won't be forced immediately onto the policy defensive like when Howard came at them like a freight train with WRA, waterfront reform and the early Budgets. But yeah, otherwise pretty terrible.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 03, 2013, 12:09:58 pm
A recent poll has shown that Labor will lose both Blaxland and Chifley, which are safe seats held by margins of over over 12/13%. I wonder if this massive swing extends to Eastern Sydney and electorates such as Kingsford Smith (held by Peter Garrett).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 03, 2013, 12:14:33 pm
Where? Last Newspoll had 55-45. If true... that's not 1996, more like 1975/7. Still no way to flip the Senate this cycle.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 03, 2013, 12:15:38 pm
A recent poll has shown that Labor will lose both Blaxland and Chifley, which are safe seats held by margins of over over 12/13%. I wonder if this massive swing extends to Eastern Sydney and electorates such as Kingsford Smith (held by Peter Garrett).

Could you give a link to the poll in question?

And hasn't single electorate polling in Australia been not trustworthy in the past? If so, these results seem quite suspect, unless redistribution somehow made these seats significantly more marginal for the Labor Party.

As for Kingsford Smith, it sits on a margin of only about 5%, so perhaps it wouldn't be that stunning were it to go Liberal later this year.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 03, 2013, 12:49:43 pm
The poll was conducted by Fairfax/ReachTEL and surveyed 2550 voters over 4 western sydney electorates.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 03, 2013, 12:50:36 pm
Both McMahon and Werriwa were also polled (and are lost to the Liberals)
http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/wipeout-in-the-west-voters-want-rudd-20130301-2fbru.html

Another poll was conducted in Wayne Swan's seat of Lilley in Queensland.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/swan-will-lose-seat-without-rudd-as-labor-leader-poll-finds-20130303-2fe27.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 03, 2013, 01:55:59 pm
I'm not surprised that Wayne Swan's on track to lose his seat at the current rate, but these results will have to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. I could take these results to be much more valid had Fairfax/ReachTEL polled them straight up, instead of asking hypotheticals "With Gillard as PM" or "With Rudd as PM". That's almost certainly skewing these results.

For example, in Chifley, the results with Gillard show the Libs at 54% of 2PP, while with Rudd, they drop to 42%.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 03, 2013, 03:31:14 pm
I think a LOT of this comes down to Western Sydney being VERY different to what it was 15 years ago. Personally, Garrett's seat is a lot safer (it goes in a uniform swing, but the swing won't be uniform) than a couple of those Western Sydney seats.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 05, 2013, 10:14:42 am
Seat-by-seat polling is bad, but it's also bad polling in general. Still, the sample sizes are sufficient.


Basically, Labor will lose three to five seats in Sydney, the question becomes where they can find them to make up. I can't see it unless they do better in QLD and Vctoria than they're doing, and neither is likely.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 06, 2013, 03:45:42 am
TED IS GONE!! :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 06, 2013, 03:54:20 am
TED IS GONE!! :)

Who'd a thunk that at the end of today Terry Mills is still Chief Minister in the NT and Ted Baillieu is gone?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 06, 2013, 11:45:32 am
But... but... but...

Mr. Abbott told me it was only the meanies in Labor who stabbed leaders in the back during their first term just because the polls didn't look nice. Oh Tony ::).

I thought the Liberal party could never do this.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 07, 2013, 04:32:25 pm
Howard for Yarralumla? I'd think age and the precedent of appointing an ex-PM would kill this idea.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/push-among-libs-to-pick-howard-for-yarralumla/story-e6frgd0x-1226589465804


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on March 07, 2013, 04:51:32 pm
Meh, I'm hoping they and the Greens are wiped out.

I'd love to see a true Socialist party rise from the ashes with no alliegiance to anyone.
So that Labour forms a coalition with Liberals like it happens in Germany?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 08, 2013, 12:31:20 pm
The Western Australia Election is tomorrow (or today if you are in Australia ;) ). The Liberals under Barnett are expected to win a landslide victory.
A poll today from Newspoll for The Australian shows that the Liberals/Nats are leading Labor 2PP 59.5% to 40.5%, which will allow Labor to lose around half its seats.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 08, 2013, 07:46:12 pm
First post-spill poll from Victoria has Dan Andrews ahead on preferred Premier.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 08, 2013, 08:24:21 pm
The Western Australia Election is tomorrow (or today if you are in Australia ;) ). The Liberals under Barnett are expected to win a landslide victory.
A poll today from Newspoll for The Australian shows that the Liberals/Nats are leading Labor 2PP 59.5% to 40.5%, which will allow Labor to lose around half its seats.

Actually most predictions don't predict too much change.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on March 09, 2013, 12:10:28 pm
That was a bigger-than-expected victory for the Liberals in Western Australia (http://www.news.com.au/national-news/western-australia/wa-leaders-hit-the-road-on-election-eve/story-fndo4e3y-1226593243304) -does anyone think they can replicate it in South Australian elections next year?  


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 09, 2013, 12:11:20 pm
The Western Australia Election is tomorrow (or today if you are in Australia ;) ). The Liberals under Barnett are expected to win a landslide victory.
A poll today from Newspoll for The Australian shows that the Liberals/Nats are leading Labor 2PP 59.5% to 40.5%, which will allow Labor to lose around half its seats.

Actually most predictions don't predict too much change.
And you're wrong.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 09, 2013, 08:40:59 pm
Obvious sarcasm...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 09, 2013, 11:18:58 pm
That was a bigger-than-expected victory for the Liberals in Western Australia (http://www.news.com.au/national-news/western-australia/wa-leaders-hit-the-road-on-election-eve/story-fndo4e3y-1226593243304) -does anyone think they can replicate it in South Australian elections next year?  
Probably, though IIRC they aren't as on the nose there as they were in NSW & Queensland.

I fear for the GE. Might even be worse than 75/77, let alone 96.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 09, 2013, 11:22:36 pm
If the current polls hold it would be late '70s all over again, question is whether they do. I think Labor claws back a bit and we're back to '96 or '04 assuming the trajectory doesn't change.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 10, 2013, 02:41:01 am
Labor will lose about 12 seats federally is it continues the way it's going.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 10, 2013, 04:53:44 am
My view is (assuming things don't change) they'll lose 6-10 seats.

This government needs a circuit-breaker. Now, were I not sure that Abbott would be a terrible PM (and leading a Government without a positive agenda of their own), I would be willing for the end of this self-flagellating government.

I'm almost the point where I'm praying (and not being a religious man) for Turnbull to roll Abbott and put all questions of the result away. At least that's a leader I could deal with relatively happily.

Melodramatic? Yes.

But this will be an important couple of weeks...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 10, 2013, 05:01:54 am
Labor will lose about 12 seats federally is it continues the way it's going.

And you agreed with the notion that there would not be much change in the Western Australian Election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 10, 2013, 05:08:23 am
Labor will lose about 12 seats federally is it continues the way it's going.

And you agreed with the notion that there would not be much change in the Western Australian Election.

While I think a change to Rudd could change the direction they're heading in... but for how long? Who knows?

I think it's the ALP brand that's the problem...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 10, 2013, 07:57:30 am
The ALP brand also held all state and territories and the federal government not that long ago.

The branding isn't the issue, it's just that the Libs have woken up to what people want in their state governments, and Labor had been in for too long. The federal party obviously contributed to these recent results, but in the leftish states, labor is still competitive or ahead in the polls at state/territory level.

Not sure what my point is other than that Labor is far from dead. Greens might be dying, though.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 10, 2013, 08:00:36 am
Labor will lose about 12 seats federally is it continues the way it's going.

And you agreed with the notion that there would not be much change in the Western Australian Election.

While I think a change to Rudd could change the direction they're heading in... but for how long? Who knows?

I think it's the ALP brand that's the problem...

Galaxy poll today would support your position - the PM outpolled Rudd as preferred Labor leader, although I think she was outpolled by a combined "Shorten or Combet"


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 10, 2013, 09:09:30 am
The ALP brand also held all state and territories and the federal government not that long ago.

The branding isn't the issue, it's just that the Libs have woken up to what people want in their state governments, and Labor had been in for too long. The federal party obviously contributed to these recent results, but in the leftish states, labor is still competitive or ahead in the polls at state/territory level.

Not sure what my point is other than that Labor is far from dead. Greens might be dying, though.

I'm not saying that the ALP is dead... because it's not. Buuuuttt... while there might be some areas where they're doing well, the ACT and VIC for example, the ALP brand is damaged in a lot of places, especially those places where seats need to be won. Look at QLD or NSW... let alone what just happened in WA.

However, the size of the swings against the Greens in the ACT (where they should have a natural foothold) and in WA tells you that more than likely, as I've been arguing  for ages... 2010 was their high water-mark.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 10, 2013, 09:24:18 am
Probably all it is is Australian voters being less reflexively pro-incumbent than they used to be. Something that also contributed to the disastrous string (upon string) of Coalition performances in state elections not all that long ago. Probably also some long-serving (and often, if we're being entirely honest, less than competent) state ALP governments have hurt the party's reputation in general, but there's no reason to believe that will have lasting consequences federally. If the Coalition do win later this year (God forbid, etc) they'll find themselves in a non-brilliant situation pretty quickly as well.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 10, 2013, 09:31:39 am
Labor shouldn't get too down. Remember the 1996, 2004 and 2007 elections and the triumphalist punditry that emerged after each. Stuff like this.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/09/1097261866624.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 10, 2013, 09:39:01 am
If the Coalition wins federally, Victoria will fall to the ALP again and the ALP will do well in SA in 2014 and the cycle resets.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 10, 2013, 08:13:41 pm
Also you must note, WA is not anything like the rest of the country atm.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on March 10, 2013, 10:04:40 pm
Also you must note, WA is not anything like the rest of the country atm.

What makes Western Australia so different from, say, South Australia?  Especially once they start fully exploiting their own fossil fuels (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/major-oil-discovery-in-outback-sa/4481982) for export? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on March 10, 2013, 10:19:11 pm
Also you must note, WA is not anything like the rest of the country atm.

What makes Western Australia so different from, say, South Australia?  Especially once they start fully exploiting their own fossil fuels (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/major-oil-discovery-in-outback-sa/4481982) for export?  

Well, for starters, look at the "per capita" numbers in this table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_states_and_territories_by_gross_state_product

EDIT: Actually, it's kind of funny how in Australia, per capita GDP is positively correlated with the state voting for the more conservative party, while in the USA, it's negatively correlated with the state voting for the more conservative party.

Of course, as Andrew Gelman would tell you, while the poor states vote Republican in the USA, it's actually the richer people in those poor states who are the ones backing Republicans.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 11, 2013, 11:19:53 am
If the Coalition wins federally, Victoria will fall to the ALP again and the ALP will do well in SA in 2014 and the cycle resets.

It's much too early to predict the state-by-state results if the House of Representatives falls to the Coalition this September, but I have to disagree with you on SA. My understanding is that there is some extreme Labor fatigue there after over a decade of ALP rule and they're likely headed for a defeat, if not a blowout. In the event they do hold on, I'd say they head for a NSW-style massacre in 2018.

As for Victoria, I'd say there's a 50-50 chance it switches back, but it's unclear what effect the replacement of Ted Baillieu with Denis Naphstone will have at this point.


Judging from the trajectories of the most recent statewide elections anyway, I'd say Gillard's in fo a '96 style defeat, although I could envision a narrower loss if the ssituation becomes more like it was late last year in terms of the electoral landscape.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 11, 2013, 03:27:27 pm
Newspoll is interesting ...

Gillard regains preferred PM title, the ALP primary is up to 34% and the Coalitions down to 44% for a 52-48% TPP.

However... the NP also shows a return to Rudd would shift the ALP primary to 47 and drop the Coalition to 39%


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 11, 2013, 03:38:35 pm
Newspoll is interesting ...

Gillard regains preferred PM title, the ALP primary is up to 34% and the Coalitions down to 44% for a 52-48% TPP.

Too far out of line with the rest. I'd wait to see if the rest of the firms show such a move.

I don't see Rudd being worth +13% either... I hate these what if polls.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 11, 2013, 03:47:57 pm
Same here. We'll see fluctuations like that till polling day.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 11, 2013, 04:15:47 pm
Well yes, all with my caveat on election year polling.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 11, 2013, 04:20:54 pm
When's the budget due again? Last I heard nothing major was expected from it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 11, 2013, 04:40:50 pm
14 May - it's difficult to tell if there will be some kind of election-year goodies. I'm expecting something small. There will probably be something to flesh out an existing policy or announcement, which is the usual tactic when money is tight.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 11, 2013, 11:28:07 pm
Newspoll is interesting ...

Gillard regains preferred PM title, the ALP primary is up to 34% and the Coalitions down to 44% for a 52-48% TPP.

However... the NP also shows a return to Rudd would shift the ALP primary to 47 and drop the Coalition to 39%

Yeah, the part with Rudd seems questionable. Did they release TPP figures for that scenario?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 12, 2013, 02:54:02 am
Newspoll is interesting ...

Gillard regains preferred PM title, the ALP primary is up to 34% and the Coalitions down to 44% for a 52-48% TPP.

However... the NP also shows a return to Rudd would shift the ALP primary to 47 and drop the Coalition to 39%

Yeah, the part with Rudd seems questionable. Did they release TPP figures for that scenario?

56-44...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 12, 2013, 02:58:56 am
I really doubt than going from Gillard to Rudd would make Labor go from 48 to 56. It's a major change, which is doubtful.

Still, it should give hope to Labor, as voters don't seem to be in love with the Coalition, far from it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 12, 2013, 04:48:15 am
The Coalition's support really has little to do with them... and they know it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 12, 2013, 06:50:59 pm
The Coalition's support really has little to do with them... and they know it.

This has traditionally been true in Australian politics at both state and federal levels. It's the old saying that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on March 12, 2013, 07:02:04 pm
The Coalition's support really has little to do with them... and they know it.

This has traditionally been true in Australian politics at both state and federal levels. It's the old saying that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

Isn't that pretty much the case everywhere in the world?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 12, 2013, 07:40:31 pm
The Coalition's support really has little to do with them... and they know it.

This has traditionally been true in Australian politics at both state and federal levels. It's the old saying that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

Isn't that pretty much the case everywhere in the world?


Quite probably. I'm just making the point that the issue raised by Max and Polnut is far from being unique.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 12, 2013, 07:41:04 pm
The Coalition's support really has little to do with them... and they know it.

This has traditionally been true in Australian politics at both state and federal levels. It's the old saying that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.

Of course, but there are plenty of examples in recent Australian history where Governments were terribly unpopular BUT oppositions didn't present a palatable plan and lost elections they had no right to lose, 1993/2004...

While governments tend to lose elections, rather than oppositions win them, there is a rule about incumbency, people are inherently conservative and need to be made comfortable about a change. Which is the potential trap I see for the Coalition. The small-target strategy that worked in NSW/QLD I doubt will be working at the Federal level.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 13, 2013, 05:06:40 pm
Antony Green says there is a path to partial Senate control. Enough for repeal, not much else.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/03/could-western-australia-deliver-the-coalition-control-of-the-senate.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 13, 2013, 05:25:40 pm
Antony Green says there is a path to partial Senate control. Enough for repeal, not much else.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/03/could-western-australia-deliver-the-coalition-control-of-the-senate.html

The Australian also ran a similar story yesterday (behind a pay wall). I think Labor or the Greens are probably pushing the line and the journalists have picked it up (not saying it isn't true - I actually haven't looked at the numbers, but I respect Antony Green and would take his analysis at face value). The story certainly does the Coalition no favours, however. It sends the message to Labor supporters "we're done and can't win, but don't protest vote against us because you'll give the Liberals too much power. In fact, there's no need to protest vote against us, because we're going to lose anyway."


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 13, 2013, 08:33:46 pm
Also, congrats to the Laborites here for 1993 @ 20. Without that there wouldn't have been a PM Howard. ;)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 13, 2013, 09:12:17 pm
As someone who knows a bit about how the carbon price works... I will bet money, even if they could repeal it, they won't.

It'll cost too much to undo and more than likely they'll ACCELERATE the ETS union with the EU, which will push down the price.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 14, 2013, 05:52:40 pm
I wouldn't be surprised.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 15, 2013, 05:34:57 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BiQxIP0-FQ

Should be our national anthem.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 15, 2013, 06:17:16 am
Eeeww. EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWW. No please.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 15, 2013, 07:15:14 am
Please, anything (save God Save the Queen) is better than what we have at the moment.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 15, 2013, 07:38:52 pm
Please, anything (save God Save the Queen) is better than what we have at the moment.

You have no idea how much I hate Waltzing Matilda... I'll happily bring back God Save the Queen over that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 15, 2013, 09:42:26 pm
Please, anything (save God Save the Queen) is better than what we have at the moment.

You have no idea how much I hate Waltzing Matilda... I'll happily bring back God Save the Queen over that.

Please go die.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 16, 2013, 12:58:15 am
Please, anything (save God Save the Queen) is better than what we have at the moment.

You have no idea how much I hate Waltzing Matilda... I'll happily bring back God Save the Queen over that.

Please go die.

Wow, my hyperbole was out hyperbole'd


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 16, 2013, 04:10:54 am
Please, anything (save God Save the Queen) is better than what we have at the moment.

You have no idea how much I hate Waltzing Matilda... I'll happily bring back God Save the Queen over that.

Please go die.

Wow, my hyperbole was out hyperbole'd

I wasn't being hyperbolic.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 16, 2013, 06:04:23 am
So we should have skippy the bush kangaroo as out anthem. Great.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 16, 2013, 09:04:39 am
So we should have skippy the bush kangaroo as out anthem. Great.

Something written by The Whitlams would no doubt fit the bill for some.

Our national anthem, like everyone else's is based on the dominant story of our history... our development into nationhood was quite tame and evolutionary compared to many - so we've got a sedate and pretty tame song. I mean, Waltzing Matilda is about a sodding sheep thief who commits suicide. What about We Are Australian? Which I see having enough of a message to suit the job.

Mind you, getting my knickers in a twist about symbolism is not my thing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist on March 16, 2013, 09:51:38 am
So we should have skippy the bush kangaroo as out anthem. Great.

Something written by The Whitlams would no doubt fit the bill for some.

I'd think something written by The Wiggles would be more appropriate. >:D


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 16, 2013, 07:14:11 pm
OK, so tune of Waltzing Matilda, lyrics of I Still Call Australia Home mixed with We Are Australian? :p


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 17, 2013, 07:50:11 am
Leaks are saying Newspoll last week was a blip. Nielsen Poll will be steady on 56-44 with Gillard falling further behind Abbott as preferred PM and Rudd as preferred ALP leader by 2:1 (although Gillard has a small lead when only ALP voters are asked, the gutting of Gillard's numbers is coming from LNP voters (for context, they have Shorten on 24% and Gillard on 12%...))


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 18, 2013, 04:25:18 am
So who will replace Gillard as leader?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 18, 2013, 06:10:36 am
If Gillard goes or is challenged, then I think it has to be Rudd... I can't think of anyone else who could cut through in this time and, at the same time, can't be tied to everything this Government has done.

Smith is too boring, Shorten is too green and tied to Gillard (despite his attempts to suggest otherwise) and is known as a faceless man, Crean is past it, Carr is in the Senate... Swan, just no... Plibersek? no... so that leaves someone like Combet or perhaps someone like Clare as a dark-horse.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 18, 2013, 06:23:46 am
Green's new calculator is out.  56-44 is 99-46 on a uniform swing.

Gillard isn't going, and switching is one way for 2 leaders to share a bullet. As if Howard had suddenly punted the football into Costello's lap in spring '07...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2013/calculator/


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 18, 2013, 09:39:08 am
Yeah, it didn't work spectacularly in 2010 either. I do hope we haven't all forgotten that train wreck of a campaign from the ALP.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 18, 2013, 06:03:01 pm
What about after the election?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 18, 2013, 09:56:19 pm
If Gillard goes or is challenged, then I think it has to be Rudd... I can't think of anyone else who could cut through in this time and, at the same time, can't be tied to everything this Government has done.

Smith is too boring, Shorten is too green and tied to Gillard (despite his attempts to suggest otherwise) and is known as a faceless man, Crean is past it, Carr is in the Senate... Swan, just no... Plibersek? no... so that leaves someone like Combet or perhaps someone like Clare as a dark-horse.

Combet is too closely tied to the Carbon Tax.

I disagree with you on one of the other ones you've declined, but that would just be my opinion.

I think that if anyone wanted to take over, they would have to be someone who was not concerned with leaving a legacy, because they would likely expect to have about six months in the job to leave their mark, and not likely to become PM again after that. They'd really want to be someone who was willing to have their name in the history books as a PM, but barely a footnote beyond that. They might be willing to do it as a favour to the party, to save the furniture, so to speak, and probably hope that they could turn things around - but would need to be realistic about their chances and realise that they'd likely only be holding the job this year, so not harbouring long-term ambitions.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 18, 2013, 10:26:08 pm
Smid, based on that... I think I know who you might be suggesting of those I've dismissed.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 03:26:07 pm
Long Rinehart profile from the New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/03/25/130325fa_fact_finnegan?currentPage=all


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 08:00:46 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/many-shades-of-grey-in-art-of-denial-of-spills-and-other-ills-20130319-2gdni.html

Very good article about this leadership "stuff"


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 19, 2013, 08:18:02 pm
Apparently there is to be a Labor caucus meeting at 4pm?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 08:21:04 pm
I`ll believe it when I see it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 08:22:24 pm
Apparently there is to be a Labor caucus meeting at 4pm?

''It would be silly to tell people watching your program that there is nothing going on,''

Comment from Joel Fitzgibbon a short time ago...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 19, 2013, 08:28:27 pm
Apparently there is to be a Labor caucus meeting at 4pm?

''It would be silly to tell people watching your program that there is nothing going on,''

Comment from Joel Fitzgibbon a short time ago...

As if, for something major?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 08:29:13 pm
Yeah, it didn't work spectacularly in 2010 either. I do hope we haven't all forgotten that train wreck of a campaign from the ALP.

Keep in mind... the ALP had 55-45 lead at the start of the campaign... the horrendous campaign brought them down.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 19, 2013, 08:30:30 pm
Apparently there is to be a Labor caucus meeting at 4pm?

''It would be silly to tell people watching your program that there is nothing going on,''

Comment from Joel Fitzgibbon a short time ago...

A senior Rudd backer... will be interesting to see if that means there won't be another third candidate rise up through the middle.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 08:30:54 pm
When does caucus normally meet? It could just be a yellow light... but isn't this how 2010 went down? Is there a TV feed we non-Aussies could watch?

On a related note, who are the best #auspol reporters to follow on Twitter? Ones who actually Tweet that is. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 08:36:15 pm
Apparently there is to be a Labor caucus meeting at 4pm?

''It would be silly to tell people watching your program that there is nothing going on,''

Comment from Joel Fitzgibbon a short time ago...

A senior Rudd backer... will be interesting to see if that means there won't be another third candidate rise up through the middle.

He said something... cryptic in the same comments "there will not be an extraordinary meeting of the caucus about leadership"... but he also said numbers for a challenge are not being counted.

So it's all a bit strange...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 19, 2013, 08:41:35 pm
...but he also said numbers for a challenge are not being counted.

Perhaps a deal has been done and so there is no need to count? Bit of a pedantic interpretation, but he could be saying it like that to sort of hose down speculation while still being technically correct?

Could be something else entirely, of course.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 08:44:20 pm
Yeah - my immediate gut reaction is that nothing will happen.

But I was the person 2 days before the 2010 move who said "surely they wouldn't be that stupid", when a friend in the loop told me rumbles were getting deafening.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 08:45:29 pm
Is the Carr leak a coincidence? The news that "this has to be settled by Thursday?" These things take a few days minimum if done half-competently.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 08:48:14 pm
Obviously "this has to be settled by Thursday" means it has to be settled before Parliament rises for their autumn recess. It'll be the last sitting day before the Budget session in mid-May.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 08:59:09 pm
Nothing on Twitter yet.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 09:12:38 pm
I'd advise not to get too excited - IF there is a meeting, the likely reason for two caucus meetings in a row is due to either a pep talk or a bollocking.

Having another caucus meeting is odd, but considering how shaky the MPs are... it's not shocking.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 19, 2013, 09:22:46 pm
End of Juliar?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 09:30:50 pm
Heh, who knows. I think it would be monumentally stupid, but if they're in full-blown panic mode...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 19, 2013, 09:50:54 pm
Simon Crean please.

I supported Gillard taking over from before it was a real possibility, and I'm glad she did. I've supported her fully, until about yesterday. But the last week has shifted my view, to the point where now the number one concern has to be stopping an Abbott win, and particularly an Abbott win with huge numbers. I don't know who can do that, but I now think it can't be Gillard, and that's a shame.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 10:00:52 pm
Oakes reported that Ruddites are pinging, but they won't try moving till Friday earliest.

http://www.coastalleader.com.au/story/1376500/gillards-silver-lining-rudd-a-no-go-for-regional-australia/?cs=2452


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 10:11:37 pm
Simon Crean please.

I supported Gillard taking over from before it was a real possibility, and I'm glad she did. I've supported her fully, until about yesterday. But the last week has shifted my view, to the point where now the number one concern has to be stopping an Abbott win, and particularly an Abbott win with huge numbers. I don't know who can do that, but I now think it can't be Gillard, and that's a shame.

Crean? why not just keep Gillard on rather than the "oh, we're ready to go, just got the old boy on to steady the ship before we go down"...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 19, 2013, 10:14:59 pm
But, but, DO SOMETHING. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 19, 2013, 10:32:14 pm
I think Crean is a neutral figure. He would be the most effective at putting the attention firmly on Tony Abbott, which is the only way the government can win. There's nobody on the labor side who wouldn't be seen as a desperation move, so if you're going to do it, choose someone who can't be criticised for lack of experience or knowledge. With Crean, the message could work that he was a safe pair of hands for Australia, was a skilled politician, but was more importantly a skilled and highly knowledgeable governor. Contrast a perhaps dull but unquestionably capable Crean with Abbott, and Labor can win.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 10:37:03 pm
Crean is not that capable... he was a chaotic opposition leader and from dealing with his office and with him personally now... it doesn't strike me as a good move.





Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 19, 2013, 10:42:39 pm
Chaotic as opposition leader how? He was certainly dull, but he also started the process of reforming the ALP, something that needed to happen and couldn't have under someone like Latham or Rudd.

I'm partly supporting him because he went to both my primary school and high school, to be honest, but he also has a very strong history ofdoing what is best for the party, including most relevantly stepping down from the leadership at a point that his colleagues wouldn't have forced him to.

I suppose that you will have butted heads with him and his staff in your job, so fair enough... but is he as bad as most ministers? And would he be worse than Abbott? :p


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 10:54:12 pm
Chaotic as opposition leader how? He was certainly dull, but he also started the process of reforming the ALP, something that needed to happen and couldn't have under someone like Latham or Rudd.

I'm partly supporting him because he went to both my primary school and high school, to be honest, but he also has a very strong history ofdoing what is best for the party, including most relevantly stepping down from the leadership at a point that his colleagues wouldn't have forced him to.

I suppose that you will have butted heads with him and his staff in your job, so fair enough... but is he as bad as most ministers? And would he be worse than Abbott? :p

I had a feeling it was a parochial thing.

His office is certainly in the bottom 25% when it comes to effectiveness and efficiency... his advisers are among THE WORST I've ever come across.

I don't have a strong objection to him... as a person... but I do worry about his ability to drive an agenda. Slow and steady won't win this race... he needs to change things.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 19, 2013, 11:43:23 pm
The rumour of a 4pm caucus meeting was allegedly spread from Coalition sources... it is not happening.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 07:11:50 am
Internals might be hidden again.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/sa-poll-showed-rudd-was-rebounding-before-2010-coup/story-e6frfkp9-1226601984968


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 07:42:12 am
Im on record as saying Rudd was going to win in 2010. His removal had the polling as window-dressing, it was the power-broker's hatred. They smelled weakness and went for the kill.

Now, Rudd was a nightmare as PM, but his caucus never liked, let alone loved him... ever.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:58:42 am
Rudd still sticking to the draft line, but didn't Gillard do the same in 2010? Just waiting for the numbers to appear. The real problem is policy and I haven't heard disagreement from Rudd on the taxes, media laws or anything else. Same as 2010.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/kevin-rudd-resisting-pressure-to-move-on-leadership/story-fn59niix-1226602044671


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 04:38:10 pm
No... Gillard flat out denied it (she famously said the weekend before that she was more likely to play for her favourite AFL team before becoming PM). The lack of a 'The Prime Minister has my full support and while I appreciate the enthusiasm from some about a change of leadership, Julia Gillard should and will lead us to the election" tells us Rudd wants the leadership handed to him.

Rudd's mining tax was a lot tougher and actually would have gotten the revenue predicted, during the leadership scuffle of a year ago, Rudd's position on carbon pricing was to move to the ETS faster (which is what the Libs will do any way)... plus the Libs are talking less and less about the carbon price, they know its not the killer issue it was a year ago, plus it opens them up to questioning they really don't want.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 05:00:40 pm
Gillard being assured she has 55 votes "minimum." But everyone agrees the margin is dwindling. If Rudd wants it he'll have to break a factional dam or 2. No luck on that thus far. Then the media stuff will go down tomorrow.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/16410795/pm-has-numbers-to-beat-rudd/?cmp=twitter

As for taxes, that leaves the revenueless mining one.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 05:18:46 pm
But as I've said before a challenge where the sitting PM barely has a majority of the caucus is virtually the same as losing one.

ANY chance for a political comeback, save for external crises (see 2001) would be vapourised. Look at both Hawke and Thatcher, anything beyond an emphatic mandate means they'll have to go, if not then, then soon.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 05:26:43 pm
I don't disagree with you on that. But her chance will be vapourized in September anyways. As for 2001... on the Coalition side? From what I understand Costello was never remotely close. Feel free to correct me of course. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 05:41:02 pm
No no, not that situation. Were it not for Tampa and 9/11 then the Coalition more than likely would have lost that election, and badly.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 06:05:33 pm
Simon Crean was VERY honest in his media conference that just ended.

Basically he said the media games and deliberate destabilisation needs to stop and threw his lot in with Gillard.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 06:20:29 pm
Simon Crean was VERY honest in his media conference that just ended.

Basically he said the media games and deliberate destabilisation needs to stop and threw his lot in with Gillard.

But his position has always been that he supports the incumbent. Hardly news.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 06:22:00 pm
Simon Crean was VERY honest in his media conference that just ended.

Basically he said the media games and deliberate destabilisation needs to stop and threw his lot in with Gillard.

But his position has always been that he supports the incumbent. Hardly news.

Interestingly, when asked why he isn't being considered in the mix... his answer "I don't have the numbers"...

It is very strange for such a senior minister to not only discuss internal matters but go after their colleagues in public.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 06:48:34 pm
There's a different story circulating about Crean: to quote Sir John A. Macdonald, he may be a "loose fish." Back Rudd, bring some key Gillardites over in exchange for Deep?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/simon-crean-may-back-kevin-rudd-in-leadership-spill/story-e6freuy9-1226602015161


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 20, 2013, 08:17:50 pm
Crean really is the focal point here, but he won't jump to Rudd. He hates Rudd more than most, and would only do it if he thought it was the only way for Labor to win, not for him to become DPM. That said, he wouldn't say no to being the new Treasurer, I suspect.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 20, 2013, 08:20:40 pm
Crean really is the focal point here, but he won't jump to Rudd. He hates Rudd more than most, and would only do it if he thought it was the only way for Labor to win, not for him to become DPM. That said, he wouldn't say no to being the new Treasurer, I suspect.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 08:54:48 pm
Crean holding a presser in a few minutes.

Media bills are dead.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-dumps-media-reform-package/story-fn59niix-1226602222708


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 09:05:01 pm
Crean calling for a ballot, all leadership positions being declared vacant. Said he'd run for deputy leader. Said the deadlock has to be broken. Rudd has to put his hand up. Not a personal decision. Told Gillard he'd do it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 09:06:23 pm
Something had to give... it's surprising HOW it happened, but not shocking that it has.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 09:16:43 pm
Supporting Rudd. Won't seek the Treasury but rather keep his current post. Not running as part of a joint ticket.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 09:23:41 pm
Dastyari told NSW Right to unite against Gillard? Lights out, right?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 09:29:53 pm
Gillard's firewall is the VIC membership, Crean's move has cracked it.

The Right faction installed her... and they might bring her down.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on March 20, 2013, 09:35:25 pm
ABC's giving live updates on the most recent developments on their blog:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-21/4586250


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 09:36:43 pm
Albanese defecting too. She'll be at Yarralumla very soon.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 09:43:34 pm
I just drove past the Lodge, the protective services car is outside - which means she's there. Somewhat unusual.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 09:47:33 pm
AWU still saying that they expect Gillard to hold on. She's meeting with Swan right now. And didn't at least one Indy say that without Gillard the pact was over? Which means dissolution.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 09:51:30 pm
Not surprised this is happening, but still it's pretty huge.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 09:54:15 pm
Some backbenchers have already signed a caucus petition.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 09:57:30 pm
It has to be a spill now, no?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 09:58:30 pm
Craig Emerson, Anthony Albanese and Stephen Smith in Gillard's office apparently.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 10:00:03 pm
Julia has emerged flanked by Wayne Swan, Jenny Macklin, Tanya Plibersek and Craig Emerson for Question Time.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 20, 2013, 10:02:10 pm
There will be a ballot for the leadership and deputy leadership of the Labor Party at 4:30, Gillard has announced at Question Time.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:02:36 pm
Marles also joining in. Smith and Shorten walking with Albanese. Have they gone too?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 20, 2013, 10:06:48 pm
Oh Australia.

Wasn't it earlier in the day when they got rid of Rudd? I think I remember it being before midnight UK time...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:07:07 pm
But Rudd hasn't put his name forward yet with 90 minutes to go.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 20, 2013, 10:10:09 pm
Abbott has called a no confidence motion.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 20, 2013, 10:11:16 pm
How long before the Coalition bring back their Kevin O'Lemon crap?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 10:12:06 pm
Oh Australia.

Wasn't it earlier in the day when they got rid of Rudd? I think I remember it being before midnight UK time...
Spill was called that day when Rudd was knifed 10pm AEST.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 20, 2013, 10:12:53 pm
How long before the Coalition bring back their Kevin O'Lemon crap?

I got it in my inbox yesterday.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 10:17:41 pm
STFU Tone.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 20, 2013, 10:18:11 pm
So Gillard is gone, for sure, but is Rudd really going to be the replacement?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:19:24 pm
So Gillard is gone, for sure, but is Rudd really going to be the replacement?

He hasn't nominated yet.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 20, 2013, 10:20:46 pm
Has Rudd aged as much in 2 years as the shadowy media splashes make it look like?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 20, 2013, 10:21:57 pm
He hasn't nominated, but he will.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:26:38 pm
Gillard not even answering the question, just taunting the Coalition.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 20, 2013, 10:30:02 pm
The thought of Britain with a leadership culture like Australia. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband wouldn't stand a chance.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 20, 2013, 10:32:38 pm
Gillard not even answering the question, just taunting the Coalition.

It could be said that the Coalition just went on for a vicious fifteen minute taunt against Gillard instead of simply asking a question, too. Both sides are at fault here for their behavior, but then again it's just political theatre.

It's getting much too personal for my taste as well.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:36:52 pm
Both were bonfiring a bunch of strawmen. Dividing now.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 10:37:32 pm
It was a disgusting display from Julie Bishop....


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on March 20, 2013, 10:37:42 pm
Bookies now strongly favor Rudd over Gillard on odds of winning the leadership ballot (might be different by the time you read this, since events are moving fast):

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics?LeftNav


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:41:33 pm
What exactly is he waiting for, and how much longer will nominations remain open?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:42:39 pm
Motion failed.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 20, 2013, 10:46:27 pm
Motion failed.

73 for the motion, 71 against. They needed 76 for it to pass.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:49:15 pm
AFR said latest Gillard numbers were 58. Rumours are that Rudd won't move, dunno if that's true.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 10:54:55 pm
Bookies now strongly favor Rudd over Gillard on odds of winning the leadership ballot (might be different by the time you read this, since events are moving fast):

http://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/politics?LeftNav

What were the odds like in 2012?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 10:58:29 pm
Crean's been sacked. Elliott backing Rudd.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 11:01:29 pm
Crean's been sacked. Elliott backing Rudd.

Has that been confirmed?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 20, 2013, 11:04:17 pm
The fascinating thing about Australia is how clear it is that the people whose titles would suggest that they have the power don't actually have the power. It's more true in Australia than any other Western democracy, I think.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:07:23 pm
Polnut: From Grauniad liveblog. But yeah, when a senior minister publicly calls for a coup they can't really expect to stay on with the incumbent. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 20, 2013, 11:07:53 pm
Crean is fundamentally a party man. I think he's taken the fall to give Gillard a unanimous win.

(Dreamland?)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 20, 2013, 11:09:09 pm
I randomly wake up, decide to check the news and this happens. Australia is very Austrian.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:09:22 pm
Confirmed from Crean's office.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:13:36 pm
Swan reconfirms his Gillard support.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 11:14:02 pm
Interesting. Sounds like it might be as tight as Latham/Beazley.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:17:59 pm
ABC also saying too close to call.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 20, 2013, 11:19:56 pm
I'm pretty sure last time pundits thought Gillard would survive. So this is interesting. I'll say Rudd as I reckon that undecideds will probably go for the challenger.

But don't take my word for it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 20, 2013, 11:22:02 pm
With seventy minutes to go, Rudd still hasn't declared and there's chatter he may not even run, so RogueBeaver may have had a point earlier...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:23:53 pm
Too much damage. So if Rudd doesn't run, what happens?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:34:12 pm
Rudd set for a narrow win?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-calls-leadership-ballot-after-simon-crean-demands-spill/story-e6freuy9-1226602015161


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 20, 2013, 11:36:50 pm
Any Rudd win will be probably narrow... but Gillard needs to win relatively comfortably...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:41:22 pm
ABC reporting that 20 MPs are in Rudd's office now urging him to run.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 20, 2013, 11:48:19 pm
Laura Smyth supporting Rudd.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 20, 2013, 11:55:08 pm
If you haven't seen what Antony Green has to say (video) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-21/early-election-a-possibility-green/4586882), you absolutely need to. To make it quick, he points out that an early election would necessitate a separate half-Senate election next year, since not enough time has elapsed since the last Senate election. He notes that half-Senate elections have historically been disastrous for the ruling government, so the Liberals would not be particularly keen on one happening next year; as a result, they might not attempt to bring the government down even if they have the numbers to do it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Dereich on March 21, 2013, 12:20:11 am
Rudd isn't running.

Got to break it before an Australian :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 21, 2013, 12:23:39 am
I think I already broke it an hour ago, but yeah, Rudd's not standing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 21, 2013, 12:53:52 am
Well what happens next?

I don't think this is the end of it. I still reckon that this might just be the beginning.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 21, 2013, 12:54:33 am
Gillard and Swan elected as Leader and Deputy Leader unopposed. All that's changed is that now Simon Crean is on the backbench for the first time in his 22-year parliamentary career.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 21, 2013, 12:58:10 am
Does how things went is good or bad for Labor?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 21, 2013, 01:08:45 am
Peter Hartcher just made a very important point... all of those people who stuck their neck out on Rudd's behalf and worked for him, to not even try for a ballot... it probably wrecks his credibility.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 21, 2013, 06:19:09 am
Shows what the last 3 years have done to KRudd, someone who I used to respect. He's a gutless bottler. If she did actually have 58 MPs, everyone knows she could hardly limp on with that.

Well done to the PM, nerves of steal. Just seen the "hit me with your best shot" clip from QT and everything about her looked/sounded like someone who was convinced she'd be gone.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 21, 2013, 06:55:43 am
She called Rudd's bluff... she knew he didn't have the majority... I'm told that Rudd never got above 45-46... but that numbers dropped BACK after Gillard's Question Time performance.

My view was that a very tight Gillard win would have been as bad as a loss... her position would have been untenable and she would have had to have gone. By Simon Crean's suicide move and Gillard's quick thinking, she forced the situation to head and made sure her numbers did not have to be tested.

It days like today that I love Gillard... others... eh



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 21, 2013, 07:43:24 am
My favorite Gillard moments are obviously her speech that one day some actress will win an Oscar for, I love her little comments like the way she walked into caucus today smiling and saying hi to the press as if she knew how it'd go down, I loved her Press Conference's when people were accusing he of being corrupt, I love how she pretended the world was going to end I just love Julia's personality obviously she's had problems dealing with sh**tting MP's and some things she's done really hasn't helped but it's hard for me not to love her.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 21, 2013, 07:45:36 am
It is interesting that the Australian standard of living has so far outstripped the American.. something near double now I think.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 21, 2013, 08:06:43 am
She has a spine, unlike other people in caucus.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 21, 2013, 08:50:46 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-ends-speculation-of-another-tilt-20130322-2gjn6.html

Rudd makes it as clear as possible...

Quote
''Furthermore, Mr Rudd wishes to make 100 per cent clear to all members of the parliamentary Labor Party, including his own supporters, that there are no circumstances under which he will return to the Labor Party leadership in the future.''



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 21, 2013, 08:56:02 pm
Pfff, and people call Pauline Marois the Concrete Lady.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 21, 2013, 09:08:47 pm
Plenty of casualties, and Grattan writes Rudd's political obituary.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/22/politics/gillards-near-impossible-labour



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 21, 2013, 09:19:15 pm
As I mentioned, I find it strange the Coalition is trying to call again for an early election... you'd think if they were so sure Gillard was political dead-woman walking... you'd want to keep her on for as long as possible.

I don't think they want to risk a more secure and stable Gillard being able to get traction... There's no way a no-confidence motion passes... so the election will be in September, and you get the feeling the Coalition doesn't want that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 21, 2013, 09:24:47 pm
Abbott's been calling for an election since the last one. Nothing new there. Budget session will be the last sitting of this Parliament, right?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on March 21, 2013, 09:50:17 pm
As I mentioned, I find it strange the Coalition is trying to call again for an early election... you'd think if they were so sure Gillard was political dead-woman walking... you'd want to keep her on for as long as possible.

I don't think they want to risk a more secure and stable Gillard being able to get traction... There's no way a no-confidence motion passes... so the election will be in September, and you get the feeling the Coalition doesn't want that.

They want an election now because they'll win if it's held now.  They'll probably win if it's held in September too, but there's at least a chance that something happens between now and then that changes voters' minds.  So why take that risk, if they can avoid it?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 21, 2013, 10:05:19 pm
Abbott's been calling for an election since the last one. Nothing new there. Budget session will be the last sitting of this Parliament, right?

Actually, Abbott has been remarkably quiet on the new election. I haven't heard him say it for months... yes, Morden is right, it's about avoiding any possible come back. I'm beginning to change my view that they're doomed. I still think they're significant underdogs... much weirder things have happened.

I believe the last sitting day would be 27 June.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 21, 2013, 10:41:09 pm
How weak is the Prime Minister of Australia as a post? It seems very small compared to the UK for example...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 21, 2013, 10:48:58 pm
How weak is the Prime Minister of Australia as a post? It seems very small compared to the UK for example...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21863630?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcworld&buffer_share=6a416&utm_source=buffer

That shows some of the glaring differences between Aus and the UK in terms of the strength of party leaders.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 21, 2013, 11:07:55 pm
Ish, it depends on the leader and the party and the times. Howard was much more in control than Blair, for example.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on March 21, 2013, 11:08:12 pm
How weak is the Prime Minister of Australia as a post? It seems very small compared to the UK for example...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21863630?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcworld&buffer_share=6a416&utm_source=buffer

That shows some of the glaring differences between Aus and the UK in terms of the strength of party leaders.

I only skimmed through that article, but it looks like it ignores the actual structural reason for why such coups are common here: A party leadership election can be called at any time for any reason, and it can all be resolved within a few hours.  Changing party leaders in the UK is a lengthier process, is it not?  I don't recall either Cameron or Miliband taking over mere hours after their respective predecessors announced that they were stepping down.

I can only imagine the drama that would have been unfolding for the last several years between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama if the US had something like the system in Australia.  Bob Woodward surely would have been able to get at least two books out of it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 21, 2013, 11:35:07 pm
How weak is the Prime Minister of Australia as a post? It seems very small compared to the UK for example...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21863630?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcworld&buffer_share=6a416&utm_source=buffer

That shows some of the glaring differences between Aus and the UK in terms of the strength of party leaders.

I only skimmed through that article, but it looks like it ignores the actual structural reason for why such coups are common here: A party leadership election can be called at any time for any reason, and it can all be resolved within a few hours.  Changing party leaders in the UK is a lengthier process, is it not?  I don't recall either Cameron or Miliband taking over mere hours after their respective predecessors announced that they were stepping down.


Yeah, the UK relies more on the wider party memberships (and union membership, in Labour's case) in their leadership elections these day than the parliamentary members. Internal elections can end up being fairly pricey as well. Of course, this hasn't always been the case and before the 60s, the Tories especially had "faceless men" picking the leader.

If fact, for Labour, from what I know, any hypothetical coup is near impossible because of how strict the rules are and there's quite a lot of focus on the role of conference as well. It'd be impossible for the party to knife a leader without it being a complete, drawn-out PR disaster. I don't think the Tories could have another Thatcher situation on their hands now either since they include the wider membership in their elections now.

If we did it the Australian way, Ed Miliband wouldn't have been elected leader in the first place, Cameron would've been thrown out last summer and Clegg wouldn't have made it far into 2011. Just look at Gordon Brown, he had loads've cabinet members walk out and 'pull a Crean' and tell him to go and he still limped on (mainly because David Miliband was always to guy who 'pulled a Rudd' and got spooked at the last minute).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 22, 2013, 07:23:47 am
Labour moved away from having the PLP elect the Leader in the early 1980s (this was actually the main trigger for the subsequent creation of the SDP) and moved to an electoral college (which was further democratised in the 1990s with the introduction of OMOV in the Affiliates section: previously this section had been decided by block voting)1 but even before then you didn't have leadership challenges every five seconds. Gaitskell was pointlessly challenged a couple of times in the early sixties (Once by Wilson, once by Tony Greenwood), but these were essentially embarrassments that the Left accidentally backed themselves into forcing and were foregone conclusions.2 You basically never had a situation in which a vulnerable leader was actually challenged. The only time an incumbent Leader has been beaten was in 1922 when MacDonald defeated Clynes: but that doesn't really count as 1922 was the first 'proper' leadership election. And since 1988 (when Benn pointlessly challenged Kinnock and stupidly said that he would do so every year) it has been very hard to launch a formal challenge against a sitting leader.

Which isn't the same as saying leaders don't get forced out. Ask Blair about that.

But, basically, it's as much a question of party culture(s) as the system used.

1. As in, the General Secretary of the General & United Transport Society (or whatever) cast the votes of all his 384,938 members for them and on their behalf. The system - still used at the various Conferences - has its roots in 19th century Chapel culture.

2. And would have been under any system.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 22, 2013, 06:28:04 pm
An ex-Rudd speechwriter nails it: he's a micromanaging asshole's micromanaging asshole. Basically a little man in a big job.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/beyond-the-kinginexile-20130322-2gl70.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 24, 2013, 01:50:24 pm
Gillard blasts a certain foghorn and gets Hanson's visa policy endorsement, plus a potential Hanson candidacy, as a result. Let's see her explain this one when immigration comes up in the GE debates.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/visa-campaign-exposes-hypocrisy-in-pms-office-20130317-2g8m0.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 24, 2013, 02:07:44 pm
Pauline Hanson?
That Pauline?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 24, 2013, 02:24:04 pm
Pauline Hanson?
That Pauline?

Yes. Sept. 14 can't come soon enough.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 24, 2013, 04:49:53 pm
Gillard blasts a certain foghorn and gets Hanson's visa policy endorsement, plus a potential Hanson candidacy, as a result. Let's see her explain this one when immigration comes up in the GE debates.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/visa-campaign-exposes-hypocrisy-in-pms-office-20130317-2g8m0.html

There will only be one debate... and Abbott can't really attack this.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 24, 2013, 05:32:24 pm
Cabinet shuffle incoming.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/rudd-backer-anthony-albanese-set-for-promotion-in-labor-reshuffle/story-fnhqeu0x-1226605194922


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 24, 2013, 07:35:20 pm
Do we have any idea about the other choices? I read somewhere that Jason Clare may receive a higher-ranking ministership than his current portfolio, and Gai Brodtmann and Andrew Leigh may be taken from the backbench.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 24, 2013, 08:32:56 pm
Here's the full list. Albanese to Regional Development while keeping the House leadership, Gray to Natural Resources, Leigh as Gillard's PS, Combet to Climate Change, Dreyfus to Public Service and McLucas to Human Services.

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/julia-gillard-to-reveal-labor-ministry-reshuffle/story-fncynjr2-1226605337345



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 24, 2013, 09:24:00 pm
Well Combet was already Climate Change, in fact, the single biggest change is the merging of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency with elements from another department, to become the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 24, 2013, 09:36:56 pm
Is she going to be having seasonal shuffles or what? Something like the 6th time in less than 3 years. On the Coalition side, I hope there's some econodry talent lurking on the backbench thatt can be found. If not, then start recruiting. (Dare I say pull a Kroger) Can never have a deep enough bench.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on March 24, 2013, 09:45:17 pm
What are the chances of Tony Abbott becoming the next Prime Minister? I remember some time back that Gillard had lambasted him for being a misogynist and his party fell in the polls...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 24, 2013, 09:48:16 pm
What are the chances of Tony Abbott becoming the next Prime Minister? I remember some time back that Gillard had lambasted him for being a misogynist and his party fell in the polls...

He will almost certainly be the next Prime Minister barring a complete reversal of political fortunes.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 24, 2013, 11:43:42 pm
DIICCEE. Not a mouthful at all.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 25, 2013, 12:17:16 am
Gillard blasts a certain foghorn and gets Hanson's visa policy endorsement, plus a potential Hanson candidacy, as a result. Let's see her explain this one when immigration comes up in the GE debates.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/visa-campaign-exposes-hypocrisy-in-pms-office-20130317-2g8m0.html
Won't change a lot of votes. I don't see people switching to Abbott because they dislike Julia on immigration.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 25, 2013, 01:06:10 am
What are the chances of Tony Abbott becoming the next Prime Minister? I remember some time back that Gillard had lambasted him for being a misogynist and his party fell in the polls...

He will almost certainly be the next Prime Minister barring a complete reversal of political fortunes.

I would say it's a 80% chance he's PM on September 15... but he's only as strong as Gillard is weak. If Gillard somehow manages to regain some position, watching her press conference today... if we see that Gillard mixed with the Gillard from last Thursday... things could change.

I'm not saying this as someone who wants Gillard to win, although I do. People need to understand that Abbott's position is not an endorsement of HIM, but about issues with Gillard and the Government. Plus Abbott is not popular, and I don't see that changing... so that's the opening.

More playing devil's advocate than anything else, but just warning against making assumptions about Australian politics in an election year.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 25, 2013, 07:06:11 am
Newspoll out: 58/42 2PP, 50/30/13 primary, 29/64 disapproval for Gillard and 40/52 for Abbott.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 25, 2013, 07:07:36 am
Disheartening.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 25, 2013, 07:16:30 am
Crean shouldn't have been so quick on the trigger finger. Abbott also leads PPM 43/35. Not that this will be the final result, but plugging it into Green's calculator translates to 108/37.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 25, 2013, 07:28:43 am
Crean shouldn't have been so quick on the trigger finger. Abbott also leads PPM 43/35. Not that this will be the final result, but plugging it into Green's calculator translates to 108/37.

I think over the break Labor will definitely improve in the polls, but I'm confident they'll lose the election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 25, 2013, 07:31:07 am
I mean, if this poll wasn't a train-wreck, I'm pretty sure everyone would wonder what was wrong with Newspoll.

The one thing you could be certain of was that this poll, after 2 pretty terrible weeks, was going to be as terrible.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 25, 2013, 07:52:56 am
The last 2PP was 56/44, not a huge difference. Mildly surprised that primary didn't go south of 30, but since things won't get worse than this it probably won't. Either way quite a few ALP MPs will have to start making retirement plans.

From my perspective, this will be a relatively hollow victory for the Coalition. Neither their leader nor policies give me any reason for enthusiasm and they'll piss away an entire governing cycle.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 25, 2013, 07:37:56 pm
Does anyone have an idea how the half-Senate elections would shape up with numbers like this? I'm guessing it might mean an outright or workable Coalition majority in the Upper House in the unlikely event they hold.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 25, 2013, 07:47:44 pm
Workable or outright Senate majority I'd guess.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 25, 2013, 08:15:54 pm
A Senate majority is unlikely - I'm pretty sure 2004 was the first time since 1979 - and it only happened at the 2004 election only after good election results for the Coalition in 2001 (where the Coalition was able to get 3 Senators elected from each state and one from each territory) and 2004 (where the Coalition was able to get 3 Senators elected from each state - and four from Queensland and one from each territory). In 2010, the Coalition failed to win half the Senate vacancies - only winning two Senators in Tasmania and Victoria. In order for the Coalition to have half the Senate seats - remembering that you need more than half to be able to legislate (since it only takes half to be able to block legislation/motions) - the Coalition would need to win four Senate seats in two states, plus three in the remainder, plus one from each territory - and that's just to end up with half the Chamber... they'd need to win four Senate seats in three states to obtain a majority.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 25, 2013, 09:36:57 pm
Virtually no chance of a Senate Majority... the nature of PR makes it very difficult.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 27, 2013, 05:00:32 pm
Bill Kelty is rather unhappy with the government.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/labor-members-walk-away/story-fn59nqgy-1226608136650


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 27, 2013, 05:28:28 pm
Bill Kelty is rather unhappy with the government.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/labor-members-walk-away/story-fn59nqgy-1226608136650

Kelty is a bit like Richardson... has-beens with a need for attention.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 27, 2013, 05:37:54 pm
In other news, Gillard specifically endorsed Prince Charles as the next Commonwealth head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21952895


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 27, 2013, 05:41:12 pm
In other news, Gillard specifically endorsed Prince Charles as the next Commonwealth head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21952895

Well... that's not too surprising...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 28, 2013, 01:41:33 am
PVO: Liberals are pursuing a decapitation strategy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/libs-mission-off-with-their-heads/story-e6frg6z6-1226607965345


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on March 28, 2013, 04:22:01 pm
PVO: Liberals are pursuing a decapitation strategy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/libs-mission-off-with-their-heads/story-e6frg6z6-1226607965345

Some of those targets seem pretty far-fetched to me- I seriously doubt Jason Clare will lose Blaxland, etc., but Labor will definitely lose some talent this election.

Also, it looks like Liberal Senator Gary Humphries has officially been ousted for pre-selection by ACT Opposition Leader Zed Seselja in this year's election. The Greens are hopeful they can knock off the Liberals here and gain the seat.

Link (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/abbott-disappointed-in-humphries-loss-20130328-2gw66.html)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 29, 2013, 08:10:14 pm
More interesting fare from PVO, unfortunately paywalled. Anyone have access? Anyhoo, they're about retirement planning and how neither leader measures to HK and Howard.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/election-win-is-gillards-only-chance-at-salvation/story-fn53lw5p-1226609072780

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/mps-preparing-for-life-after-landslide-defeat/story-fn53lw5p-1226609194286


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 31, 2013, 06:25:45 pm
PVO reporting on Twitter that another Gillard minister is expected to *resign* from Cabinet. And the bloodletting continues.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on April 01, 2013, 01:50:24 am
Martin Ferguson supposedly just joined Twitter, if it's him it's quite hilarious.

https://twitter.com/MFergusonMP


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 02, 2013, 07:51:21 am
Martin Ferguson supposedly just joined Twitter, if it's him it's quite hilarious.

https://twitter.com/MFergusonMP

There are quite a lot of fake politicians on twitter.

My favourite was fake steve fielding, but there are others worth checking out.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 08, 2013, 08:13:28 am
Newspoll

Primary
ALP: 32% (+2)
Coalition: 48% (-2)
Greens: 11% (+1)

TPP
ALP: 45% (+3)
Coalition: 55% (-3)

Abbott remains preferred PM... not sure about the numbers.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 08, 2013, 10:06:28 pm
Still on track, and Gillard dropped her super "idea."


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 08, 2013, 10:09:03 pm
Newspoll

Primary
ALP: 32% (+2)
Coalition: 48% (-2)
Greens: 11% (+1)

TPP
ALP: 45% (+3)
Coalition: 55% (-3)

Abbott remains preferred PM... not sure about the numbers.

All within margin of error from previous poll, but I think this one is closer to reality than it was.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 08, 2013, 10:15:36 pm
Expect that to hit 52-4 before long, since I doubt voters really want to give Abbott a late '70s mandate.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 09, 2013, 01:12:40 am
Newspoll

Primary
ALP: 32% (+2)
Coalition: 48% (-2)
Greens: 11% (+1)

TPP
ALP: 45% (+3)
Coalition: 55% (-3)

Abbott remains preferred PM... not sure about the numbers.

All within margin of error from previous poll, but I think this one is closer to reality than it was.

58-42 was was probably as bad as it will get. I expect a tightening, simply by virtue of the fact it's an election year and polling (rarely) stays the same.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 09, 2013, 03:27:35 pm
If the ALP can't creep up to 48-49 by election day against Tony Abbott, then they're barely fit to call themselves a political party at all.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 14, 2013, 07:43:24 am
New Nielsen: 57/43, 49/29.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 14, 2013, 10:49:40 pm
Bit weird... but eh. The polls will be strange all year.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 14, 2013, 11:10:50 pm
Horrible :p


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 20, 2013, 02:40:32 pm
Fraser is still a troll.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/fraser-ready-to-counsel-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226624771510


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 20, 2013, 06:41:55 pm
Yeah, the last Liberal Prime Minister who actually governed in the spirit of the party ... Abbott could learn a hell of a lot.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 24, 2013, 02:42:15 pm
ANZAC Day today, so a salute to you guys from another part of the Commonwealth.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 25, 2013, 04:33:08 pm
Cheers Canada :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 08, 2013, 08:45:08 pm
Brilliant employment report... over 50,000 jobs created in April, participation rate up and unemployment down to 5.5%...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on May 09, 2013, 12:42:14 am
Brilliant employment report... over 50,000 jobs created in April, participation rate up and unemployment down to 5.5%...


Sorry to disappoint but that still won't help relieve Labor's woes


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 09, 2013, 12:48:00 am
Yes. If this election was actually fought on the economy, Liberals would have Hockey or Turnbull as their leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 09, 2013, 02:08:16 am
Yes. If this election was actually fought on the economy, Liberals would have Hockey or Turnbull as their leader.

If you should give a top three on the issues that are going to decide this election, what would they be?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 09, 2013, 03:58:57 am
Brilliant employment report... over 50,000 jobs created in April, participation rate up and unemployment down to 5.5%...


Sorry to disappoint but that still won't help relieve Labor's woes

Lol... it's amusing you think I think it would make a whiff of difference.

After watching the Lib IR announcement today... I said "he's just won the election".

Polls will tighten, but I don't see how Gillard can pull this out... people have just stopped listening, it's as simple as that.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 09, 2013, 05:12:50 am
Yes. If this election was actually fought on the economy, Liberals would have Hockey or Turnbull as their leader.

If you should give a top three on the issues that are going to decide the electio, what would they be?
It's very hard to say. What I can say are the issues that are hurting Labor:

- poor leadership. Swan works hard but he isn't a natural politician, and Gillard seems to lack an emotional touch. If Rudd were still there Labor would be in a better state.
- certain elements of the media are somewhat misogynist.
- Labor struggles to govern. They're perceived as being in the pocket of the Greens and independents.
- Carbon tax and its scare campaign. Most people are still somewhat worried about their hip pocket
- Lingering scare of corruption on their heads, from the Thomson, Slipper and Obeid scandals.
- Rudd is still there, the media is always talking about him returning and it's somewhat destabilising to the party.

Ironically on an issues + economy based election Labor would be comfortable favourites IMO.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 09, 2013, 05:25:41 am
Honestly, I think the issues are about perception...

I agree on 'leadership', Gillard isn't seen a strong leader (plus she still is seen as a liar and disloyal)... which will hurt, but the second is perceptions on personal economic security. Funnily, I think the carbon price is an increasingly weak element of this. Despite ALL evidence to the contrary.... people seem to think the economy is weak.

To me, it'll be about leadership and the perceived economy.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 09, 2013, 08:32:35 pm
This was discussed in a thread on the IE board, but who is most likely to become the next leader of the ALP after the probable defeat in September?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 11, 2013, 08:50:09 am
Peter Slipper joins Clive Palmer's United Australia Party, which allows it to officially register, and then gets unanimously expelled.

Queensland ::)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: PUT YOUR POM POMS DOWN on May 14, 2013, 08:54:21 pm
The 2013-14 budget was announced yesterday. Lots of people disappointed, the opposition is calling the plan to get back into surplus next year a farce. Am I the only one who doesn't care about the deficit that much?

Still, plenty of cuts to satisfy if that's your priority, plus new taxes. Didn't see that coming.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: PUT YOUR POM POMS DOWN on May 14, 2013, 08:56:05 pm
http://m.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/cornered-labor-chooses-brave-way-out-20130514-2jklb.html

Interesting theories.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on May 14, 2013, 08:59:14 pm
New taxes as part of that new bipartisan Medicare thing, amirite? Abbott will have to choose between repealing one or both taxes- I suspect he pushes hard on mining-, a faster balance schedule and his own entitlement hobbyhorse. Plus the baby bonus was axed, kudos to Gillard/Swan for that. Libs added plenty of entitlements last time they were in office, and as we say in French, "sa suffit."


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 14, 2013, 09:57:16 pm
New taxes as part of that new bipartisan Medicare thing, amirite? Abbott will have to choose between repealing one or both taxes- I suspect he pushes hard on mining-, a faster balance schedule and his own entitlement hobbyhorse. Plus the baby bonus was axed, kudos to Gillard/Swan for that. Libs added plenty of entitlements last time they were in office, and as we say in French, "sa suffit."

Too many entitlements for people who didn't need them. I don't care what Howard and Costello say, these are MASSIVE drains on the economy, it's fine to have these massive handouts (which is what they are) when the revenue is streaming in... but when revenue slows down (which it will regardless of who is in power) there are consequences on the bottom line if you keep them.

The surplus won't come until 2016-17... but I think people need to consider this... they've found over $300b in savings since 08 and there have been revenue write-downs of $170b ... and they're less than $20b short of a surplus... it's actually pretty fricking remarkable.

There have been some errors, namely weakening the mining tax to the extent that they did ($6 billion in tax credits against it, which is why it's bring in f*%( all).



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on May 14, 2013, 10:03:08 pm
New taxes as part of that new bipartisan Medicare thing, amirite? Abbott will have to choose between repealing one or both taxes- I suspect he pushes hard on mining-, a faster balance schedule and his own entitlement hobbyhorse. Plus the baby bonus was axed, kudos to Gillard/Swan for that. Libs added plenty of entitlements last time they were in office, and as we say in French, "sa suffit."

Too many entitlements for people who didn't need them. I don't care what Howard and Costello say, these are MASSIVE drains on the economy, it's fine to have these massive handouts (which is what they are) when the revenue is streaming in... but when revenue slows down (which it will regardless of who is in power) there are consequences on the bottom line if you keep them.

The surplus won't come until 2016-17... but I think people need to consider this... they've found over $300b in savings since 08 and there have been revenue write-downs of $170b ... and they're less than $20b short of a surplus... it's actually pretty fricking remarkable.

There have been some errors, namely weakening the mining tax to the extent that they did ($6 billion in tax credits against it, which is why it's bring in f*%( all).



I'm a bit speechless. We're in total agreement on an economic issue, that is the entitlements. :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 14, 2013, 10:16:35 pm
New taxes as part of that new bipartisan Medicare thing, amirite? Abbott will have to choose between repealing one or both taxes- I suspect he pushes hard on mining-, a faster balance schedule and his own entitlement hobbyhorse. Plus the baby bonus was axed, kudos to Gillard/Swan for that. Libs added plenty of entitlements last time they were in office, and as we say in French, "sa suffit."

Too many entitlements for people who didn't need them. I don't care what Howard and Costello say, these are MASSIVE drains on the economy, it's fine to have these massive handouts (which is what they are) when the revenue is streaming in... but when revenue slows down (which it will regardless of who is in power) there are consequences on the bottom line if you keep them.

The surplus won't come until 2016-17... but I think people need to consider this... they've found over $300b in savings since 08 and there have been revenue write-downs of $170b ... and they're less than $20b short of a surplus... it's actually pretty fricking remarkable.

There have been some errors, namely weakening the mining tax to the extent that they did ($6 billion in tax credits against it, which is why it's bring in f*%( all).



I'm a bit speechless. We're in total agreement on an economic issue, that is the entitlements. :P

Well, I support making sure the unemployed and those who need help get it. But I don't support forking out $5000 for someone who has a child or to make sure people with plenty of money to pay for their kids private school uniforms or laptops ...

There was a woman who asked the PM a question about "why her family wasn't getting anything under the carbon price" - she would have had a household income well over $150k per year... this is the entitlement mentality we need to throw off, not support for people who need it. Sometimes, in a society, you pay more than you're going to get back.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on May 20, 2013, 05:29:10 pm
Rudd now supports SSM, (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-supports-same-sex-marriage/story-e6frg6n6-1226647194403) I crossposted this in the election thread.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 20, 2013, 06:56:43 pm
Rudd now supports SSM, (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-supports-same-sex-marriage/story-e6frg6n6-1226647194403) I crossposted this in the election thread.

He's in the process of a press conference in Brisbane as I write.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on May 24, 2013, 09:33:07 pm
By-election in the NSW state electorate of Northern Tablelands today, will be interesting to see who wins. Northern Tablelands covers much of the same territory as the federal seat of New England.

While state and federal politics are very different, there's no doubt the result here tonight will give some indication of whether Windsor will hold on come September...

Also, R.I.P. Hazel Hawke, the former wife of former PM Bob Hawke passed away from Alzheimer's complications on Thursday. She will be missed, and although I don't agree with the Hawkes and Mr. Hawke's government, Mrs. Hawke was never afraid to make a stand, and that I can appreciate.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 24, 2013, 11:44:37 pm
Actually, considering this is an open election with a lot of candidates and without Tony Windsor's deep personal vote and Barnaby's profile being thrown into the mix... I would be very hesitant to put too much weight on the results.

It's not that they're not useful at all... but there are a lot of elements in this that are unrelated to the Federal Election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on May 25, 2013, 12:17:44 am
Actually, considering this is an open election with a lot of candidates and without Tony Windsor's deep personal vote and Barnaby's profile being thrown into the mix... I would be very hesitant to put too much weight on the results.

It's not that they're not useful at all... but there are a lot of elements in this that are unrelated to the Federal Election.

Very true, it will be interesting to see who wins this very open race! Only a few hours to go now...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on May 25, 2013, 04:46:59 am
With nearly 3/4 of the booths in, Northern Tablelands is a National gain. As Polnut said, without the presence of Windsor and Joyce, you can't take too much from this and apply it to what may happen in New England come September, although the Nationals doing well everywhere, even in Armidale, a university town. does say something.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 25, 2013, 06:27:28 am
It's an impressive result, especially considering the NAT is what? 25? (he looks about 17... but I think he's mid-20s)

But the only thing I would say people should be thinking about - this is a natural NAT area - the ALP hasn't done well there in generations. They will instinctively vote NAT when there isn't a strong local Independent, and they have now.

The other thing in relation to Armidale, MOST Uni students who live away from home tend to keep their electoral enrolment at their family home. So yes, the NATs did better than normal - but it's not an electorate full of "lefty Uni types".


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on May 25, 2013, 06:49:39 am
If the Nats were to gain an additional seat and get to 20 could they potentially have the power to challenge Labor to become official opposition in the highly unlikely event that they desert the Libs?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on May 25, 2013, 07:11:39 am
It's an impressive result, especially considering the NAT is what? 25? (he looks about 17... but I think he's mid-20s)

But the only thing I would say people should be thinking about - this is a natural NAT area - the ALP hasn't done well there in generations. They will instinctively vote NAT when there isn't a strong local Independent, and they have now.

The other thing in relation to Armidale, MOST Uni students who live away from home tend to keep their electoral enrolment at their family home. So yes, the NATs did better than normal - but it's not an electorate full of "lefty Uni types".

He's only 25? Good to see someone from my generation in Parliament from the Nationals! I figured this was a natural National electorate, although Labor did win Northern Tablelands in both 1981 and 1984 if I'm not mistaken. However, those elections, especially 1981, were good elections for the Labor party.

If the Nats were to gain an additional seat and get to 20 could they potentially have the power to challenge Labor to become official opposition in the highly unlikely event that they desert the Libs?

They could in theory, but considering the NSW Coalition is unlikely to collapse any time soon, this wouldn't happen.

As Antony Green and Polnut have pointed out, this was not a contest for New England, and Windsor's main support base is Tamworth, which did not vote tonight.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 30, 2013, 08:38:12 am
Kevin Rudd is putting his Canberra home on the market - good luck with that considering the Abbottocalypse has already sent home prices down and killed the market.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on May 30, 2013, 12:23:21 pm
My question is who becomes opposition leader?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 30, 2013, 12:47:53 pm
My question is who becomes opposition leader?

I think it'll be someone incredibly dull, such as Stephen Smith perhaps (if he keeps his seat).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 30, 2013, 11:15:18 pm
Swan if he keeps the seat.

Otherwise? Smith makes sense.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on June 02, 2013, 06:29:46 pm
Turnbull and Swan are informally floating republic proposals. (http://theconversation.com/turnbull-and-swan-turn-attention-back-to-republic-14806) Not that I think Round 2 will be happening anytime soon.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on June 02, 2013, 06:36:34 pm
It always ends up happening on royal anniversaries... since today is the 60th anniversary of the Queen's coronation, I expected it.

It's funny, the support for the Monarchy is strongest in the old and the young. I can't imagine any Republican option having a prayer until the Queen's death, even then... the moment was the late 90s and the Republican side screwed themselves.

Reading the comments, they seemed to be 40+ leftists saying "cut the apron strings" and everyone else saying... "why?"

15-20 years time, give me a yell...



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: PUT YOUR POM POMS DOWN on June 26, 2013, 07:10:44 am
Julia just got Julia'd, and a slew of MP's have announced they won't run for re-election. I hope the debate changes drastically now, I'm so tired of hearing about this.. though I'm eating it up at the moment. If it were just my speculation in play, people would have even less confidence in Labour. Still would take them over Mr. Rabbit


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on June 26, 2013, 07:19:59 am
The once and future PM will have a winter job. Switch leaders based on polls (or at least that's the reason Shorten gave) whose own authors said were based on a fantasy scenario.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: PUT YOUR POM POMS DOWN on June 26, 2013, 07:25:54 am
Winning the upcoming election, or at least dampening the blow, was always a fantasy scenario. Might as well shoot for the stars. Personally I was hoping for some rogue third candidate to contest and win. That would have been exciting.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on June 26, 2013, 08:06:31 am
Abbott the only leader brave enough to take questions. Abbott = real leader, real solutions.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on June 26, 2013, 08:39:17 am
The ALP continues to be a massive embarrassment and piece of fail, though I'd still take KRudd over that slimy reactionary.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: ⚑ Comrade Corbyn for PM ⚑ on June 26, 2013, 03:09:09 pm
Yeah, even the clowns in Labor still piss all over Abbott from an astronomical height.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on June 26, 2013, 03:57:37 pm
I'll still take the one which isn't a crazy fundamentalist.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on June 26, 2013, 03:58:48 pm
Election will be moved up to August as expected, we don't know when yet. Dissolution in a couple of weeks.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on June 27, 2013, 03:12:06 am
So after the bloodbath of resignations in the Cabinet, who is the current favorite to succeed Rudd as ALP leader if the party still loses badly in the election?  I presume folks like Combet still might come back and contest the leadership in three months?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on June 27, 2013, 04:30:11 am
My guess would be that Crean would be a player, but it looks like 2013 hasn't really been good for him, particularly now that he's lost the Deputy Leader election (and by a wider margin than Gillard's loss).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on June 27, 2013, 06:04:04 am
Is Wayne Swan retiring from politics altogether and not contesting his seat again?  I've heard contradictory things today.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 27, 2013, 06:24:43 am
Abbott the only leader brave enough to take questions. Abbott = real leader, real solutions.

Shame he can't actually ask them on matters of importance.

Milne did too, btw.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 27, 2013, 06:26:26 am
Is Wayne Swan retiring from politics altogether and not contesting his seat again?  I've heard contradictory things today.


He's said he's contesting his seat, but will not be on the frontbench under Rudd.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on June 27, 2013, 02:42:09 pm
I never thought I'd feel so sorry for Gillard, but suddenly I do.  It was an extremely slimy thing to do, stabbing Gillard in the back after she restored humility and gentility to the party's leadership (by all accounts, she treated her cabinet far better than Rudd did), and now they've stabbed her because they want to lose by a smaller margin.  Slimebuckets. 

And while I'm on a rant: Gillard, despite all her faults, has been a far better PM than Rudd was.  Australians have no idea how lucky they are to have an economy as healthy as the one they have compared to the rest of the world.  And while I'm not one to use the "bigotry" card easily, it's obvious that if Gillard were a man, her poll numbers would be far higher, probably higher than Rudd's. 

*Deep breaths, deep breaths*


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on June 27, 2013, 02:56:08 pm
We'l probably agree to disagree, but gender isn't why Labor's in extremis. Leadership- live and die by the sword. She knifed Rudd and he knifed her back. That said, I agree that dumping her for the reason you mentioned is total BS.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on June 27, 2013, 03:18:57 pm
Okay, let me rephrase what I said.  Gillard's government is a trainwreck, no doubt about it.  But considering that basically every government in the world right now is a trainwreck, hers is actually probably the most minor one.  And the Aussie economy is a miracle compared to others in the world right now.  She at least deserves a bit of credit for that.  And even if she were a man, I'm still certain that she'd be behind Tony Abbott in the polls.  But she'd have better numbers than Rudd does.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on June 27, 2013, 04:01:50 pm
Rather tearjerking thing to watch.
http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/your-father-would-be-proud-rob-oakeshott-tells-julia-gillard/story-fnhqeu0x-1226670902348 (http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/your-father-would-be-proud-rob-oakeshott-tells-julia-gillard/story-fnhqeu0x-1226670902348)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on June 27, 2013, 07:45:58 pm
Rudd will announce his new Cabinet in a couple of hours. No word on when they'll be sworn in. Here's an interesting read from Carney on Gillard's premiership. (http://theconversation.com/the-political-tragedy-of-julia-gillard-15588)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on June 29, 2013, 06:21:33 am
Greg Combet is retiring from politics altogether:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1783804/Greg-Combet-to-retire-from-politics

With all the retirements from anti-Rudd MPs, does Rudd actually stand a good chance of hanging on as ALP leader after the likely Coalition win in the election?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on July 01, 2013, 02:32:01 pm
With all the retirements from anti-Rudd MPs, does Rudd actually stand a good chance of hanging on as ALP leader after the likely Coalition win in the election?

Hopefully not.  The only reason they returned him to power was to mitigate the scale of their defeat.  They couldn't stand working under him before, and unless he actually has changed, they'll be eager to get rid of him once he's served his purpose of saving some of the furniture.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on July 01, 2013, 02:44:16 pm
Rudd will quit as leader when he loses.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 01, 2013, 07:22:53 pm
I think Rudd will have to stay on for a year or 18 months after a loss. Especially since I expect a very narrow Coalition victory and the Greens keeping the BoP in the Senate now, they can't change horses that soon.

I think Rudd can legitimately hold on after a small loss, considering what the expected outcome was a week ago.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on July 02, 2013, 03:43:23 am
What if Labor actually *wins* the election?  I assume that Abbott is then toast as Liberal leader?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 02, 2013, 04:48:04 am
I'd say so.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on July 02, 2013, 10:36:33 am
Greg Combet is retiring from politics altogether:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1783804/Greg-Combet-to-retire-from-politics
Quite sad to hear.  He was one of my favorite members of the cabinet.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on July 02, 2013, 10:48:37 am
At least it's nice to see that Rudd's cabinet seems markedly more left-wing than Gillard's.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on July 02, 2013, 11:31:27 am
I don't care who wins the election, if Sophie Mirabella lost, I'd be happy forever.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 04, 2013, 06:14:57 am
What if Labor actually *wins* the election?  I assume that Abbott is then toast as Liberal leader?


Without question, he'll step down on the night.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on July 05, 2013, 07:29:28 pm
I don't care who wins the election, if Sophie Mirabella lost, I'd be happy forever.
No chance.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 08, 2013, 10:20:03 pm
If Labor were to win 76 seats and Abbott did step down, who might replace him?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on July 08, 2013, 10:36:09 pm
If Labor were to win 76 seats and Abbott did step down, who might replace him?

I would guess Joe Hockey or Malcolm Turnbull.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 08, 2013, 10:46:56 pm
If Labor were to win 76 seats and Abbott did step down, who might replace him?

I would guess Joe Hockey or Malcolm Turnbull.


It's difficult to tell... but yeah, I'd say they're the top chances, it still wouldn't shock me to see Julie Bishop have a crack after being deputy to three leaders in a row.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on July 08, 2013, 10:49:36 pm
Depends who is in the caucus. I think there's a solid 40% of the Liberals who would prefer anyone to Turnbull, about the same number who support him, and then the rest would support him if no other strong candidate was put forward - and Hockey isn't strong enough.

The problem is, I don't see anyone other than those two and maybe at a stretch Julie Bishop being real possibilities.

I'd say Abbott stays on if it's hung, but is challenged by Turnbull. If he loses and it's close, Bishop or Hockey take over; if he loses and it's a big loss, Turnbull has another crack.

All based on basically nothing though :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 08, 2013, 10:59:42 pm
I really don't see Abbott staying on unless he forms government...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: ⚑ Comrade Corbyn for PM ⚑ on July 08, 2013, 11:17:50 pm
At least it's nice to see that Rudd's cabinet seems markedly more left-wing than Gillard's.

This surprises me - that's not the feeling I was getting from Rudd's leadership at all? He seemed firmly on the Blairite centrist vote - not the left's man.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 08, 2013, 11:24:53 pm
At least it's nice to see that Rudd's cabinet seems markedly more left-wing than Gillard's.

This surprises me - that's not the feeling I was getting from Rudd's leadership at all? He seemed firmly on the Blairite centrist vote - not the left's man.

To be fair, it was the left that was loyal to him in 2010...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on September 14, 2013, 04:02:14 am
Incoming Foreign Minister Julie Bishop cutting back on travel expenses:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bishop-cancels-first-class-tickets-to-new-york-20130913-2tq8p.html

All I can say is YES!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on September 16, 2013, 01:10:10 am
Here's Abbott's new ministry:

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development - Warren Truss

Treasurer - Joe Hockey

Foreign Minister - Julie Bishop

Employment, Minister assisting the Prime Minister on the Public Service - Eric Abetz

Attorney-General, Arts - George Brandis

Finance - Mathias Cormann

Communications - Malcolm Turnbull

Indigenous Affairs - Nigel Scullion

Industry - Ian Macfarlane

Social Services - Kevin Andrews

Small Business - Bruce Billson

Trade and Investment - Andrew Robb

Health, Sport - Peter Dutton

Education - Christopher Pyne

Agriculture - Barnaby Joyce

Defence - David Johnston

Immigration and Border Protection - Scott Morrison

Environment - Greg Hunt

Disabilities and Aged Care - Mitch Fifield

Human Services - Marise Payne

Assistant Minister for Health - Fiona Nash

Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as well as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women - Michaelia Cash

Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister - Josh Frydenberg

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications - Paul Fletcher

Chief Whip - Phillip Ruddock

Speaker - Bronwyn Bishop


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on September 16, 2013, 05:27:47 am
Yeah Tony Abbott isn't a misogynist .


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on September 16, 2013, 06:38:12 am
Yeah Tony Abbott isn't a misogynist .

Um, there are four women in the ministry, five including the Speaker. I think Mr. Abbott chose his ministry on merit, not on filling any quotas. And would a misogynist really choose a female as deputy party leader?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on September 16, 2013, 08:00:52 am
hmmm dont exactly think kevin andrews is qualified but whatevvs..


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Joe Republic on September 16, 2013, 09:08:30 am
Nobody for Science.  Can't say anybody should be surprised, really.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 16, 2013, 11:57:23 am
That's more Nats than women, right?

And would a misogynist really choose a female as deputy party leader?

Of course.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 16, 2013, 07:50:27 pm
AEC hopes to declare Indi by Thursday, but that's just a formality. (http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/1781393/cathy-home-but-its-not-official-update/?cs=53)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist on September 16, 2013, 09:56:58 pm
That's more Nats than women, right?

And would a misogynist really choose a female as deputy party leader?

Of course.

Appointing a female deputy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Beckett) doesn't matter at all if she has no chance of becoming more than a placeholder until the party selects the next male leader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29_leadership_election,_1994) if something unexpected should happen to the leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 16, 2013, 11:35:46 pm
Incoming Foreign Minister Julie Bishop cutting back on travel expenses:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bishop-cancels-first-class-tickets-to-new-york-20130913-2tq8p.html

All I can say is YES!

Gotta love those meaningless 'gestures' - reduction from First to Business probably lowers the cost from about $10k to $8k... it's good for the cheap seats through - hence their victory.

And Bishop will NEVER be leader ... if it was about merit and effectiveness - why isn't Kelly O'Dwyer at least a Parli Sec? You're telling me there wasn't ANY female talent in the junior pool worthy of elevation to Cabinet? Give me a break.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on September 17, 2013, 07:21:26 am
Incoming Foreign Minister Julie Bishop cutting back on travel expenses:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bishop-cancels-first-class-tickets-to-new-york-20130913-2tq8p.html

All I can say is YES!

Gotta love those meaningless 'gestures' - reduction from First to Business probably lowers the cost from about $10k to $8k... it's good for the cheap seats through - hence their victory.

And Bishop will NEVER be leader ... if it was about merit and effectiveness - why isn't Kelly O'Dwyer at least a Parli Sec? You're telling me there wasn't ANY female talent in the junior pool worthy of elevation to Cabinet? Give me a break.



I was surprised O'Dwyer wasn't promoted, she ought to be, it was probably more about her faction (O'Dwyer being a wet, and this is coming from a dry) than her gender. While I do approve the cut from First to Business Class, they should have gone one step further to Economy Class.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 17, 2013, 05:19:03 pm
Victorian Labor back in front with Newspoll.

41 (-2) - 38 (+3) - 13 (+1) to the Coalition, making for 51-49 to the ALP on 2PP.

Napthine approval - 53 (nc)/31 (+5)
Andrews approval - 38 (+3)/32 (-2)

Preferred Premier 47/25 to Napthine (-2/-1).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 17, 2013, 07:45:07 pm
Tony Abbott is now Australia's 28th Prime Minister. 8) Rest of the Cabinet will be sworn in starting about 15 min from now, and Mirabella has just conceded.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 17, 2013, 08:31:58 pm
Tony Abbott is now Australia's 28th Prime Minister. 8) Rest of the Cabinet will be sworn in starting about 15 min from now, and Mirabella has just conceded.

One nugget of good news in that pile.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on September 17, 2013, 09:11:02 pm
Abbott didn't choose Julie Bishop as his deputy, she was the deputy under Turnbull and when the Turnbull coup happened it was agreed that she would hold the deputy's position unchallenged to placate the Western Australians, who were sick of all the leader options being from the suburbs of Sydney.

Abbott-Turnbull-Nelson-Howard all having essentially neighbouring seats is not unnoticed within the party. Add in Hockey and the trend is even clearer - Bennelong, North Sydney, Bradfield, Warringah, Wentworth.

All we need now is for Labor to go with Albanese and Plibersek and Sydney's dominance will be absolute :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 17, 2013, 09:21:04 pm
Abbott didn't choose Julie Bishop as his deputy, she was the deputy under Turnbull and when the Turnbull coup happened it was agreed that she would hold the deputy's position unchallenged to placate the Western Australians, who were sick of all the leader options being from the suburbs of Sydney.

Abbott-Turnbull-Nelson-Howard all having essentially neighbouring seats is not unnoticed within the party. Add in Hockey and the trend is even clearer - Bennelong, North Sydney, Bradfield, Warringah, Wentworth.

All we need now is for Labor to go with Albanese and Plibersek and Sydney's dominance will be absolute :P

Huzzah!!!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 17, 2013, 09:26:59 pm
I'm just pleased that Bishop's a capable econodry, especially on IR (though that'll have to wait for the next Coalition cycle). Hopefully more young econodry stars emerge in the Abbott era. One can never have a deep enough leadership bench so far as I'm concerned.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 17, 2013, 09:33:58 pm
I'm just pleased that Bishop's a capable econodry, especially on IR (though that'll have to wait for the next Coalition cycle). Hopefully more young econodry stars emerge in the Abbott era. One can never have a deep enough leadership bench so far as I'm concerned.

and I look forward to another fight on IR with the econodries...  :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 17, 2013, 09:46:47 pm
Alas, that's eons away. For now all focus will be on BEEB: boats, economy, energy, budget.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mr. Morden on September 17, 2013, 09:47:54 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but what is an "econodry"?  I tried googling "Julie Bishop econodry", but all it gave me were links to Atlas posts by RogueBeaver.  :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 17, 2013, 09:52:10 pm
Someone who's economically dry, or fiscally conservative.

On a more solemn note, Keating's eulogy for the Unknown Soldier will be cast in bronze at the War Memorial. (http://www.news.com.au/national-news/paul-keating8217s-1993-eulogy-for-unknown-australian-soldier-will-be-cast-in-bronze-at-war-memorial/story-fncynjr2-1226721184564#ixzz2fCzrGNhc)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on September 17, 2013, 11:25:24 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but what is an "econodry"?  I tried googling "Julie Bishop econodry", but all it gave me were links to Atlas posts by RogueBeaver.  :P


To add to what RogueBeaver said, the opposite of a dry is, predictably, a wet. The terms first came in use in 1980s Britain, coined by the late, great Margaret Thatcher herself to refer to the division in the UK Conservative Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wets_and_dries

The terms are used to a lesser degree in Australia and Canada, and probably New Zealand as well.

Someone who's economically dry, or fiscally conservative.

On a more solemn note, Keating's eulogy for the Unknown Soldier will be cast in bronze at the War Memorial. (http://www.news.com.au/national-news/paul-keating8217s-1993-eulogy-for-unknown-australian-soldier-will-be-cast-in-bronze-at-war-memorial/story-fncynjr2-1226721184564#ixzz2fCzrGNhc)

While Paul Keating isn't one of my favourite PMs, that speech is easily one of the best I've read from an Australian PM.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist on September 18, 2013, 01:00:50 am
Forgive my ignorance, but what is an "econodry"?  I tried googling "Julie Bishop econodry", but all it gave me were links to Atlas posts by RogueBeaver.  :P


Econ-O-Dry is a line of coin operated laundry dryers, usually found pained with Econ-O-Wash coin operated washing machines.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on September 18, 2013, 04:31:08 am
Tony Abbott is the Minister for Women....


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/tony-abbott-womens-minister-portfolio


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 18, 2013, 05:06:28 am
And this just gets better...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on September 18, 2013, 05:11:34 am
Forgive my ignorance, but what is an "econodry"?  I tried googling "Julie Bishop econodry", but all it gave me were links to Atlas posts by RogueBeaver.  :P


An hardliner. A left-winger could say they are dry because all compassion dried up and became paws for expanding neoliberalism and destroy the social net, but it would be a bit exagerated.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 18, 2013, 06:15:28 pm
ACT is moving to enact SSM by year's end (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/gay-marriage-by-end-of-year-in-act/story-fn3dxiwe-1226722526483), Macklin backs Albo (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/macklin-backs-albanese-in-leaders-ballot/story-fn3dxiwe-1226722526138), Gillard and the history wars. (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-gillard-will-win-the-history-wars-20130918-2tzor.html#ixzz2fHvi6E2g)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 18, 2013, 06:34:49 pm
Tony Abbott is the Minister for Women....


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/tony-abbott-womens-minister-portfolio

We'll have all seen it, but it's always nice to rewatch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOPsxpMzYw4


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 18, 2013, 08:34:00 pm
Another unsurprising vote for Shorten: Howes.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on September 18, 2013, 08:45:06 pm
Forgive my ignorance, but what is an "econodry"?  I tried googling "Julie Bishop econodry", but all it gave me were links to Atlas posts by RogueBeaver.  :P


An hardliner. A left-winger could say they are dry because all compassion dried up and became paws for expanding neoliberalism and destroy the social net, but it would be a bit exagerated.

When maxQue write "an hardliner" I picture Jean Chretien saying it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 18, 2013, 08:49:19 pm
Speaking of Howes, am I the only one who finds it amusing that a key player in Rudd's overthrow claims he won't run for that NSW Senate seat because of potential divisiveness?  (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/union-chief-paul-howes-abandons-bid-for-possible-senate-vacancy/story-fn59niix-1226722672466?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C%29#mm-breached) He's still got plenty of time, especially if the House is his real goal.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on September 21, 2013, 09:55:17 am
By-election in the NSW state seat of Miranda on October 19. Obviously Labor won't win, bit it will be interesting to see the swing, particularly as incumbent member Annesley wants to return to NRL administration. (http://"http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2013/09/20/miranda-by-election-october-19/")


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 21, 2013, 10:47:23 am
The swings in Sydney in 2011 were totally hysterical, that seat is nowhere near a natural 20%+ seat. It'll come down to how much anti-Labor venom remains. If there's still a bit, the swing could be -4-7% but I can see -10%+ pretty easily.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 21, 2013, 11:01:56 am
Natural Liberal area and all that, but it was a Labor seat from 1999 until the Great Electoral Awfulness.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 21, 2013, 08:36:19 pm
Yes, I always found it "interesting" (not really the right word) that a seat that was a Liberal gain from Labor had roughly the same margin as Malvern, the safest Victorian Liberal seat (which is a commentary on the NSW margin/swing, not a statement that Victorian Liberals only have marginal seats, for those who are unfamiliar with the seats in question).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on September 24, 2013, 07:29:32 pm
Polling apparently showing not much of a bump for team Liberal. Is this normal?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 25, 2013, 05:16:20 pm
The polling is somewhat strange - it's unusual for no honeymoon bump to appear, let alone slides backwards. Plus, the Essential preferred PM numbers are shocking for a new PM, +5 against Shorten and +6 against Albanese - with Abbott below 40%.

Frankly, anyone who can objectively say they've gotten off to a good start is a bit delusional.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 25, 2013, 07:57:42 pm
Since we all need a good laugh, here's Latham's latest screed.  (http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/why_anthony_albanese_shouldn_lead_JkHeipvxG2cRwCwzDD1GDJ) Turn off the irony meters before reading, as usual. :P A lot of it is his usual themes, but also manages to call Albo an intellectual lightweight with little policy depth, shady associations and a narrow-minded urban leftist.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 26, 2013, 02:24:38 am
Considering how popular Albo is with the party membership ... he'd be well-advised to keep his mouth shut. Frankly I found the whole 'Shorten is the natural heir to Hawke/Keating' stuff I'm hearing from an increasingly unnerved right faction to be utter-utter drivel.

I'm not going to lie, I've been more impressed with him over the past fortnight than I ever have ... but I still don't see either a fighter or a leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on September 28, 2013, 08:17:16 pm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/jostling-over-senate-seat-yet-to-be-vacated/4978714

What does everyone think about the upcoming casual vacancy that will come with Bob Carr's resignation as Senator for NSW?

It appears that former MPs Deb O'Neill (Robertson) and Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro) will put their hands up for the position. Peter Van Onselen says a deal has already been made to put O'Neill into the seat to fill Labor's affirmative action quotas, but he believes Kelly, who would have become Defence Minister if Labor had held power, would be a far better bargain for the ALP in the long-run.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on September 29, 2013, 03:37:53 am
I'm extremely happy that Deb O'Neill will fill the casual vacancy, which is wholly necessary considering that Ursula Stephens lost her seat.
But more importantly, I highly commend Paul Howes for recognising that his liberal views on SSM are divisive within the party and his faction, and thus I support his decision to not contest the vacancy. There would also have been other PR issues with a union boss being parachuted into a senate seat as this would probably not have gone down well with the public.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 29, 2013, 04:43:09 am
I would have MUCH preferred Kelly.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on September 29, 2013, 08:24:50 am
I would have MUCH preferred Kelly.



If he opposed SSM he would have had a better chance.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 29, 2013, 10:16:09 am
Don't know enough to judge. As for Howes, there were many other reasons besides SSM (I'm guessing the ALP will move his way on that issue within a few years) for why he didn't force the issue. I'm more curious to see if he eventually enters the Reps.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on September 29, 2013, 03:33:53 pm
Don't know enough to judge. As for Howes, there were many other reasons besides SSM (I'm guessing the ALP will move his way on that issue within a few years) for why he didn't force the issue. I'm more curious to see if he eventually enters the Reps.

I hope he doesn't make it in... :P

Is there any place where we can find how the ALP Parliamentary Caucus is breaking down for the upcoming ballot?

Here's my count-

Confirmed Shorten (20)

1.   Bill Shorten, MP for Maribyrnong, VIC
2.   Sam Dastyari, Senator for NSW
3.   Stephen Conroy, Senator VIC
4.   Glenn Sterle, Senator for WA
5.   Don Farrell, Senator for SA
6.   Catryna Bilyk, Senator for TAS
7.   Helen Polley, Senator for TAS
8.   Laurie Ferguson, MP for Werriwa, NSW
9.   Ed Husic, MP for Chifley, NSW
10.   Anthony Byrne, MP for Holt, VIC
11.   Mark Dreyfus, MP for Isaacs, VIC
12.   David Feeney, MP for Batman, VIC
13.   Richard Marles, MP for Corio, VIC
14.   Rob Mitchell, MP for McEwen, VIC
15.   Tim Watts, MP for Gellibrand, VIC
16.   Jim Chalmers, MP for Rankin, QLD
17.   Shayne Neumann, MP for Blair, QLD
18.   Bernie Ripoll, MP for Oxley, QLD
19.   Kate Ellis, MP for Adelaide, SA
20.   Warren Snowdon, MP for Lingiari, NT

Albanese (18)

1.   Anthony Albanese, MP for Grayndler, NSW
2.   Doug Cameron, Senator for NSW
3.   Louise Pratt, Senator for WA
4.   Penny Wong, Senator for SA
5.   Carol Brown, Senator for TAS
6.   Lisa Singh, Senator TAS
7.   Lin Thorp, Senator TAS
8.   Anne Urquhart, Senator TAS
9.   Sharon Claydon, MP for Newcastle, NSW
10.   Pat Conroy, MP for Charlton, NSW
11.   Jill Hall, MP for Shortland, NSW
12.   Tanya Plibersek, MP for Sydney, NSW
13.   Jenny Macklin, MP for Jagajaga, VIC
14.   Graham Perrett, MP for Moreton, QLD
15.   Alannah MacTiernan, MP for Perth, WA
16.   Mark Butler, MP for Port Adelaide, SA
17.   Julie Collins, MP for Franklin, TAS
18.   Andrew Leigh, MP for Fraser, ACT

Unconfirmed (48)

1.   Bob Carr, Senator NSW
2.   John Faulkner, Senator NSW
3.   Ursula Stephens, Senator NSW
4.   Kim Carr, Senator VIC
5.   Jacinta Collins, Senator VIC
6.   Gavin Marshall, Senator VIC
7.   Mehmet Tillem, Senator VIC
8.   Mark Furner, Senator QLD
9.   John Hogg, Senator QLD
10.   Joe Ludwig, Senator QLD
11.   Jan McLucas, Senator QLD
12.   Claire Moore, Senator QLD
13.   Mark Bishop, Senator WA
14.   Sue Lines, Senator WA
15.   Alex Gallacher, Senator SA
16.   Anne McEwen, Senator SA
17.   Kate Lundy, Senator ACT
18.   Nova Peris, Senator NT
19.   Sharon Bird, MP for Cunningham, NSW
20.   Chris Bowen, MP for McMahon, NSW
21.   Tony Burke, MP for Watson, NSW
22.   Jason Clare, MP for Blaxland, NSW
23.   Justine Elliot, MP for Richmond, NSW
24.   Joel Fitzgibbon, MP for Hunter, NSW
25.   Chris Hayes, MP for Fowler, NSW
26.   Stephen Jones, MP for Throsby, NSW
27.   Julie Owens, MP for Parramatta, NSW
28.   Michelle Rowland, MP for Greenway, NSW
29.   Matt Thistlethwaite, MP for Kingsford Smith, NSW
30.   Anna Burke, MP for Chisholm, VIC
31.   Lisa Chesters, MP for Bendigo, VIC
32.   Michael Danby, MP for Melbourne Ports, VIC
33.   Andrew Giles, MP for Scullin, VIC
34.   Alan Griffin, MP for Bruce, VIC
35.   Catherine King, MP for Ballarat, VIC
36.   Brendan O’Connor, MP for Gorton, VIC
37.   Clare O’Neil, MP for Hotham, VIC
38.   Joanne Ryan, MP for Lalor, VIC
39.   Kelvin Thompson, MP for Wills, VIC
40.   Maria Vamvakinou, MP for Calwell, VIC
41.   Kevin Rudd, MP for Griffith, QLD
42.   Wayne Swan, MP for Lilley, QLD
43.   Gary Gray, MP for Brand, WA
44.   Melissa Parke, MP for Fremantle, WA
45.   Nick Champion, MP for Wakefield, SA
46.   Amanda Rishworth, MP for Kingston, SA
47.   Tony Zappia, MP for Makin, SA
48.   Gai Brodtmann, MP for Canberra, ACT


If anyone has corrections/changes to make to the count, I'd love to have them. I complied this list in just under an hour, so obviously it may have mistakes (as well as being devoid of local knowledge).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 29, 2013, 04:23:15 pm
I think you can put Senator Conroy in the Shorten camp. He made comments in an interview a couple of weeks ago, I think I commented on them higher up the thread.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on September 29, 2013, 04:44:47 pm
I think you can put Senator Conroy in the Shorten camp. He made comments in an interview a couple of weeks ago, I think I commented on them higher up the thread.

Done! Another issue is what to do with MPs/Senators like Rudd, who won't announce their preference in public, but will almost certainly vote one way. Probably best to err on the side of caution.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on September 29, 2013, 05:19:50 pm
I think you can put Senator Conroy in the Shorten camp. He made comments in an interview a couple of weeks ago, I think I commented on them higher up the thread.

Done! Another issue is what to do with MPs/Senators like Rudd, who won't announce their preference in public, but will almost certainly vote one way. Probably best to err on the side of caution.

Perhaps a "likely" column, or "unconfirmed" column?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 29, 2013, 05:28:43 pm
I've heard Shorten has a lead among the caucus, with about 15 genuinely undecided.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 29, 2013, 05:34:23 pm
Remind me how the balloting works again?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 29, 2013, 05:53:13 pm
Remind me how the balloting works again?

Weighted vote of 40% for caucus, 40% for members, 20% for the unions.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 29, 2013, 05:58:40 pm
So Albo's popular with members, Shorten with caucus. What about the unions?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 29, 2013, 06:57:03 pm
It's 50/50 - it doesn't follow the UK model.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on September 29, 2013, 07:09:45 pm
It's 50/50 - it doesn't follow the UK model.

What's 50/50? Caucus/membership or union support for the candidates?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 29, 2013, 07:11:49 pm
It's 50/50 - it doesn't follow the UK model.

What's 50/50? Caucus/membership or union support for the candidates?

50% caucus - 50% membership


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 30, 2013, 03:35:29 am
Julia Gillard live interview now on ABC 24 - geo-block taken off.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on September 30, 2013, 05:05:32 am
Now this is the Julia Gillard I told everyone about - ugh - I despair for this country.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 01, 2013, 08:00:29 am
I would have MUCH preferred Kelly.



If he opposed SSM he would have had a better chance.

Oh sorry, I missed this... oh do be quiet. The degree to which is this NOT a deal-breaker cannot be overestimated. Please return to whatever hovel you reside in and await the rapture etc etc... you're getting really tiresome.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 01, 2013, 08:07:48 am
So... just some polling we've seen so far.

Morgan
LNP: 52.5%
ALP: 47.5%

Essential (23 Sept)
LNP: 51%
ALP: 49%

Preferred PM (Albanese)
Abbott: 37%
Albanese: 31%

Preferred PM (Shorten)
Abbott: 37%
Shorten: 32%

Essential (1 October)
LNP: 52%
ALP: 48%



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 01, 2013, 09:16:10 am
Can't read the whole article (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gay-marriage-needs-binding-vote-says-union-leader-paul-howes/story-fn59niix-1226731186848?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C%29#), but Howes will argue for a rules change in favour of a binding SSM vote. In non-SSM news, Rinehart is withdrawing from the court dispute with her kids. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/gina-rinehart-exits-bitter-family-row-over-trust/story-e6frg8zx-1226731190448?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C%29)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 03, 2013, 07:56:31 pm
Howes on domestic policy, with super-infrastructure linkage as his big theme. (http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/labor_privatisation_solution_to_qTeoEy8gvYUp26PQtZt5IM)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on October 07, 2013, 06:44:30 am
I'm just so angry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8ZFyt7M7NUc


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 10, 2013, 12:14:23 am
So... rumbles I've heard is that Shorten has won the Caucus vote by 49-37 - so 57-43%, which is actually at the lower end of what I was expecting.

That means that Albanese would need to get somewhere around 59% of the membership vote to win. I believe Albo's grasp had slipped from about 60-63% to somewhere around 57-59%... I think this is going to be razor, razor thin. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 10, 2013, 01:37:35 am
So... rumbles I've heard is that Shorten has won the Caucus vote by 49-37 - so 57-43%, which is actually at the lower end of what I was expecting.

That means that Albanese would need to get somewhere around 59% of the membership vote to win. I believe Albo's grasp had slipped from about 60-63% to somewhere around 57-59%... I think this is going to be razor, razor thin. 

Interesting. You tend to have good sources in the Caucus, so my assumption is it's accurate - how confident are you in your sources on this information?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 10, 2013, 01:42:27 am
Are they the same sources who said Labor was going to have a net gain of seats in Queensland?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 10, 2013, 01:54:23 am
Are they the same sources who said Labor was going to have a net gain of seats in Queensland?

Considering my final prediction was that they'd lose seats in QLD... at a few points in time, they looked as if they would, not sure why you're being so snippy. Plus consider that in seats like Brisbane, the LNP performance exceeded their and ALP expectations and lots of variables, like assuming a stronger performance of the KAP in FNQ.

So... rumbles I've heard is that Shorten has won the Caucus vote by 49-37 - so 57-43%, which is actually at the lower end of what I was expecting.

That means that Albanese would need to get somewhere around 59% of the membership vote to win. I believe Albo's grasp had slipped from about 60-63% to somewhere around 57-59%... I think this is going to be razor, razor thin.  

Interesting. You tend to have good sources in the Caucus, so my assumption is it's accurate - how confident are you in your sources on this information?

I'm confident that they have a good finger on the pulse, they've also clued in me in a few important things over the years, which have proven accurate. So, while these aren't people in the room, so the numbers could be a touch rubbery, I'm very confident of the fact that Shorten has cleanly won the caucus vote and that Albo needs near 60% of rank and file to win.

This isn't hand over my first-born if I'm wrong stuff, this is politics, but I'm not far from it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 10, 2013, 01:56:41 am
Are they the same sources who said Labor was going to have a net gain of seats in Queensland?

From Wikipedia, these are the relevant definitions:

Quote
Source (journalism): A person, publication or publicating and publishing or other record or document that gives information.

Quote
Seer: A clairvoyant, prophet, oracle, or diviner.

There is a fairly obvious difference between speculation about election results before a poll, and knowledge of the numbers of a leadership ballot that has already taken place.

Sources prior to the election may have been able to provide observations of the allocation of campaign resources, and Polnut may have made assumptions based on the analysis of that allocation, however I don't think anyone told him decisively that Labor would be gaining seats in Queensland. Predicted, perhaps, but not stated it to be actual.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 11, 2013, 08:38:46 pm
Latham voted for Shorten but thinks Albo will win. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/latham-tips-albanese-to-win-labor-leadership-ballot/story-fn59niix-1226738779247?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C%29)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 12, 2013, 12:13:59 am
My gut is that Shorten just falls over the line - I'd prefer Albanese, but I'm not sure how he gets 60% of the rank and file.

My gut reaction is 51-49 Shorten... but I certainly can see Albo winning, but he's going to have to exceed most people's expectations. I do worry head is overriding heart on this... lol


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 12, 2013, 10:33:51 pm
Bill Shorten has won, 64% of caucus and just over 40% of membership, 52-48% win.

So my numbers were a touch rubbery... but there were a lot of people double-dealing apparently.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 12, 2013, 10:39:58 pm
Fantastic.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 12, 2013, 11:02:43 pm
Congrats Tony.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 12, 2013, 11:11:14 pm
Congrats Tony.

That attitude is how we are guaranteed to lose in 2016.

My preference was for Albanese and I think Shorten is a risk, but ... I started to waver when I was about to fill out my ballot - Shorten genuinely impressed me over the last 2 weeks and frankly Albanese was disappointing me in that he was talking about strategy, which is fine, but barely touching policy.

The job now is to grow up, accept the result and work like buggery to bring the creep and his c-grade team down.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 12, 2013, 11:24:09 pm
Congrats Tony.

That attitude is how we are guaranteed to lose in 2016.

My preference was for Albanese and I think Shorten is a risk, but ... I started to waver when I was about to fill out my ballot - Shorten genuinely impressed me over the last 2 weeks and frankly Albanese was disappointing me in that he was talking about strategy, which is fine, but barely touching policy.

The job now is to grow up, accept the result and work like buggery to bring the creep and his c-grade team down.

The bigger worry I have is not the fact that Shorten's now leader, but how he ascended to the position in some sort of factional stoush... That said, you're right that the party needs to unite behind him to give the strongest performance against Abbott in 2016.

Also, here is my final guess for how the caucus vote went down (with 100% margin of error). Feel free to make corrections/suggested changes.

Shorten (55)

1.   Bill Shorten, MP for Maribyrnong, VIC
2.   Bob Carr, Senator NSW
3.   Sam Dastyari, Senator for NSW
4.   Ursula Stephens, Senator NSW
5.   Jacinta Collins, Senator VIC
6.   Stephen Conroy, Senator VIC
7.   Mehmet Tillem, Senator VIC
8.   Glenn Sterle, Senator for WA
9.   Mark Bishop, Senator WA
10.   Don Farrell, Senator for SA
11.   Alex Gallacher, Senator SA
12.   Catryna Bilyk, Senator for TAS
13.   Helen Polley, Senator for TAS
14.   Mark Furner, Senator QLD
15.   John Hogg, Senator QLD
16.   Joe Ludwig, Senator QLD
17.   Kate Lundy, Senator ACT
18.   Nova Peris, Senator NT
19.   Laurie Ferguson, MP for Werriwa, NSW
20.   Sharon Bird, MP for Cunningham, NSW
21.   Chris Bowen, MP for McMahon, NSW
22.   Tony Burke, MP for Watson, NSW
23.   Jason Clare, MP for Blaxland, NSW
24.   Joel Fitzgibbon, MP for Hunter, NSW
25.   Chris Hayes, MP for Fowler, NSW
26.   Julie Owens, MP for Parramatta, NSW
27.   Michelle Rowland, MP for Greenway, NSW
28.   Matt Thistlethwaite, MP for Kingsford Smith, NSW
29.   Ed Husic, MP for Chifley, NSW
30.   Anthony Byrne, MP for Holt, VIC
31.   Mark Dreyfus, MP for Isaacs, VIC
32.   David Feeney, MP for Batman, VIC
33.   Richard Marles, MP for Corio, VIC
34.   Rob Mitchell, MP for McEwen, VIC
35.   Anna Burke, MP for Chisholm, VIC
36.   Lisa Chesters, MP for Bendigo, VIC
37.   Michael Danby, MP for Melbourne Ports, VIC
38.   Jim Chalmers, MP for Rankin, QLD
39.   Shayne Neumann, MP for Blair, QLD
40.   Bernie Ripoll, MP for Oxley, QLD
41.   Kate Ellis, MP for Adelaide, SA
42.   Warren Snowdon, MP for Lingiari, NT
43.   Andrew Giles, MP for Scullin, VIC
44.   Brendan O’Connor, MP for Gorton, VIC
45.   Clare O’Neil, MP for Hotham, VIC
46.   Alan Griffin, MP for Bruce, VIC
47.   Joanne Ryan, MP for Lalor, VIC
48.   Kelvin Thompson, MP for Wills, VIC
49.   Maria Vamvakinou, MP for Calwell, VIC
50.   Tim Watts, MP for Gellibrand, VIC
51.   Wayne Swan, MP for Lilley, QLD
52.   Gary Gray, MP for Brand, WA
53.   Nick Champion, MP for Wakefield, SA
54.   Amanda Rishworth, MP for Kingston, SA
55.   Gai Brodtmann, MP for Canberra, ACT



Albanese (31)

1.   Anthony Albanese, MP for Grayndler, NSW
2.   Doug Cameron, Senator for NSW
3.   John Faulkner, Senator NSW
4.   Kim Carr, Senator VIC
5.   Gavin Marshall, Senator VIC
6.   Louise Pratt, Senator for WA
7.   Sue Lines, Senator WA
8.   Penny Wong, Senator for SA
9.   Anne McEwen, Senator SA
10.   Carol Brown, Senator for TAS
11.   Lisa Singh, Senator TAS
12.   Lin Thorp, Senator TAS
13.   Anne Urquhart, Senator TAS
14.   Jan McLucas, Senator QLD
15.   Claire Moore, Senator QLD
16.   Sharon Claydon, MP for Newcastle, NSW
17.   Pat Conroy, MP for Charlton, NSW
18.   Jill Hall, MP for Shortland, NSW
19.   Tanya Plibersek, MP for Sydney, NSW
20.   Justine Elliot, MP for Richmond, NSW
21.   Stephen Jones, MP for Throsby, NSW
22.   Jenny Macklin, MP for Jagajaga, VIC
23.   Catherine King, MP for Ballarat, VIC
24.   Graham Perrett, MP for Moreton, QLD
25.   Kevin Rudd, MP for Griffith, QLD
26.   Alannah MacTiernan, MP for Perth, WA
27.   Melissa Parke, MP for Fremantle, WA
28.   Mark Butler, MP for Port Adelaide, SA
29.   Julie Collins, MP for Franklin, TAS
30.   Andrew Leigh, MP for Fraser, ACT
31.   Tony Zappia, MP for Makin, SA


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 13, 2013, 02:04:42 pm
Very happy at the result. Not quite so happy that it looks as if Tanya Plibersek will be deputy leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 13, 2013, 02:37:06 pm
While you cannot avoid factional goings on, it's believed that the reason why Shorten did so well in caucus was down to the Victorian left shifting from Albanese.

For me, the silver lining in Plibersek as deputy :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 13, 2013, 03:17:14 pm
btw Polnut I think it's time to dump your sources; they are either bad or simply lying to you.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 13, 2013, 04:16:27 pm
Not really - the media reported that a lot of people were giving assurances to both sides, which explains what I said at the time were rubbery (but indicative) figures. According to media here, Albanese thought he was going to win - which means he also thought the caucus numbers were along the same lines.

These are the same sources who told me the exact margin of the Feb 2012 challenge, who told me the Rudd did not have the numbers to challenge Gillard in March when people like Richardson said he would and would win. Also, up until the last 2.5 weeks it looked like the ALP would have a net gain of seats in QLD... so I know it gives you some perverse thrill to try to undermine a progressive ...I'll keep them on thanks very much.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 13, 2013, 05:39:53 pm
The Victorian Left switched to Shorten? Does that include people like Senator Carr?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 13, 2013, 05:44:17 pm
Speaking of Sen. Carr... though this was a 1-cycle story at the time.  (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/gillard-driven-over-by-carr-on-israel/story-fn59nm2j-1226738620634)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on October 13, 2013, 06:30:26 pm
Fantastic.

Was trying to post about Shorten becoming Labor leader last night, but the forum wasn't working for me :S

I was expecting an Albanese victory though, considering his support amongst the Labor grassroots.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 13, 2013, 07:18:40 pm
Fantastic.

Was trying to post about Shorten becoming Labor leader last night, but the forum wasn't working for me :S

I was expecting an Albanese victory though, considering his support amongst the Labor grassroots.

I think the interesting story is that Shorten did much better across both elements than expected. It's clear that a number of people that Albanese thought were in his corner backed Shorten in the end. Plus, Albanese's support among the grass roots was weaker than it was when the race started. Albo probably had close to 65% support, and Shorten did chip away through pretty strong and policy-focused debate and public performances.

When I was talking to other party members, I was interested by a number of natural Shorten supporters leaning Albo, but more interesting (and perhaps more surprising) were the people who I saw as natural Albo backers moving towards Shorten, when asked why they said "I love Albo, but all he's talking about is strategy... Shorten is presenting alternative ideas" When I saw these people, I moved from being sure Albo could overcome the caucus, to being sure Shorten would win in a squeaker.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 13, 2013, 07:30:29 pm
Frontbench is set. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/old-guard-set-to-dominate-alp-frontbench/story-fn59niix-1226739487644?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C%29)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 13, 2013, 07:40:01 pm
Frontbench is set. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/old-guard-set-to-dominate-alp-frontbench/story-fn59niix-1226739487644?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheAustralianNewsNDM+%28The+Australian+%7C+News+%7C%29)

One downside of the return to the elected front-bench, is that people like Conroy etc can elbow out up and coming talent, when this is the IDEAL time to build them up.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 13, 2013, 08:52:25 pm
Plibersek elected deputy leader as expected and Wong re-elected Senate leader.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 14, 2013, 01:51:04 am
I'm surprised that Don Farrell got a ministry position even though he is due to leave the senate in just a few months; I assume next summer he'll be replaced by someone like Chris Ketter or Joe Bullock.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 14, 2013, 09:09:09 am
Here's the full list

Quote
Leader - Bill Shorten
Deputy Leader - Tanya Plibersek
Leader in the Senate - Penny Wong
Deputy Leader in the Senate - Stephen Conroy
Anthony Albanese
Sharon Bird
Chris Bowen
Tony Burke
Mark Butler
Kim Carr
Jason Clare
Julie Collins
Mark Dreyfus
Kate Ellis
Don Farrell
David Feeney
Joel Fitzgibbon
Gary Gray
Doug Cameron
Catherine King
Andrew Leigh
Jenny Macklin
Richard Marles
Jan McLucas
Claire Moore
Shayne Neumann
Brendan O'Connor
Melissa Parke
Bernie Ripoll
Michelle Rowland


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bill-shortens-new-labor-shadow-ministry-20131014-2vi3f.html#ixzz2hhmwsLKC

At this point, it's probably time for people like Conroy and Farrell to step aside, but what up-and-comers do the forum ALPers think missed out on the Ministry?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 14, 2013, 05:22:09 pm
The biggest joke, by FAR is Farrell... he'll be out of the Senate in July.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 14, 2013, 06:57:17 pm
For some reason Chris Kenny thinks Labor will roll over on the carbon tax... not that it matters because Abbott will have the numbers next year anyways. (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/chriskenny/index.php/theaustralian/comments/why_bill_shorten_must_terminate_the_carbon_tax/)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 14, 2013, 08:11:53 pm
For some reason Chris Kenny thinks Labor will roll over on the carbon tax... not that it matters because Abbott will have the numbers next year anyways. (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/chriskenny/index.php/theaustralian/comments/why_bill_shorten_must_terminate_the_carbon_tax/)

Lol... are you seeing the deal Palmer wants Abbott to make over it? Don't count chickens.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 14, 2013, 08:21:16 pm
For some reason Chris Kenny thinks Labor will roll over on the carbon tax... not that it matters because Abbott will have the numbers next year anyways. (http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/chriskenny/index.php/theaustralian/comments/why_bill_shorten_must_terminate_the_carbon_tax/)

Lol... are you seeing the deal Palmer wants Abbott to make over it? Don't count chickens.

Do tell about the deal. Given how egomaniacal Palmer is, who knows what his conditions might be next year. At any rate I'd collect the DD triggers as a backup plan.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 15, 2013, 04:46:59 pm
Tell us how you really feel, Mrs McKew: she calls Rudd's policies "idiotic" with a "perverse and cruel" immigration policy that she "couldn't stomach", and he was "off his game" in the campaign. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/kevin-rudd-trashed-as-maxine-mckew-mauls-her-maker/story-fn59niix-1226740602333#)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 15, 2013, 06:23:25 pm
More McKew. (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-rudd-protege-maxine-mckew-turns-on-her-former-mentor-20131016-2vlh4.html)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 15, 2013, 06:39:15 pm
More McKew. (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-rudd-protege-maxine-mckew-turns-on-her-former-mentor-20131016-2vlh4.html)

There's a lot of this I agree with - the populism on foreign investment was waffle, and a lot of it and don't get me started on the Northern Australia zone... they were rightly called thought bubbles.

Now, in hindsight... well not quite hindsight, but nearly, it was clear picking Beattie was a BAD move. Initially, the reports from both ALP and LNP were that the ALP would win Forde... but the issue was they were already in a position to win it BEFORE Beattie was picked and it took a fortnight, maybe a bit less, for irritation to filter through the electorate and to have a lot of the worst elements of Labor and Rudd come to the fore.

Bot overall, she was right ... for someone who had 3 years to figure out a strategy of what to do ... he certainly seemed perpetually lost, in search of a narrative.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on October 16, 2013, 01:39:31 am
LNP trying to privatise HECS.

WTF?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 16, 2013, 02:12:58 am
Selling off the debt ... It's a bad idea. It's a cheap move, simply taking the debts off the ledger.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 16, 2013, 04:29:09 am
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-16/nicola-roxon-kevin-rudd-bastard-james-button-memorial-lecture/5027030

Roxon tears Rudd a new one...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on October 17, 2013, 06:53:55 pm
Miranda state by-election in NSW tomorrow... who do you think will win?

I think the Liberals will hold, although there will be a large swing, given that Barry Collier is running for Labor again.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 17, 2013, 06:58:47 pm
Miranda state by-election in NSW tomorrow... who do you think will win?

I think the Liberals will hold, although there will be a large swing, given that Barry Collier is running for Labor again.

Libs will hold, the margin is too large, massively over-inflated of course, but still too large.

There was a leaked internal poll suggesting the ALP ahead 54-46... but it's internal polling and the Libs are CLEARLY trying to play the expectations game... I think Libs win by the reverse of that poll 54-46...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on October 17, 2013, 07:14:21 pm
I'll say Liberals 57/43. It's surprising Collier held on to the district for so long, so I can't see him returning while O'Farrell's still reasonably popular.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 17, 2013, 10:03:05 pm
Miranda state by-election in NSW tomorrow... who do you think will win?

I think the Liberals will hold, although there will be a large swing, given that Barry Collier is running for Labor again.

Libs will hold, the margin is too large, massively over-inflated of course, but still too large.

There was a leaked internal poll suggesting the ALP ahead 54-46... but it's internal polling and the Libs are CLEARLY trying to play the expectations game... I think Libs win by the reverse of that poll 54-46...

Not going to try to guess who will win, but the margin is less than the swing at the last election (ie, the seat changed hands at the last election)...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 17, 2013, 11:44:45 pm
Isn't Miranda a 21% Lib margin?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 17, 2013, 11:51:26 pm
Isn't Miranda a 21% Lib margin?

Something like that. Just looked up my figures for 2007, and I may have entered them incorrectly in my spreadsheet, but looks like it was 50.76% Labor.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 18, 2013, 12:03:24 am
Isn't Miranda a 21% Lib margin?

Something like that. Just looked up my figures for 2007, and I may have entered them incorrectly in my spreadsheet, but looks like it was 50.76% Labor.

Yeah, it was 0.8% Labor before 2011, with a near 22% swing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 19, 2013, 03:35:21 am
So far the swing in Miranda is HUGE (somewhere around 27% 2PP)... but it must be said, that the booths are for naturally ALP leaning areas around Miranda, Kirrawee and Sutherland.

But Collier is just shy of 50% on first preferences.

NOPE: It's sitting at just over 28%... but expected to settle at 27%... this must be some kind of record against a) a first-term Government b) swinging 21% in 2011 then swinging back 27%,...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 19, 2013, 04:23:16 am
So the polls were right! I think I like Barry Collier.
Bob Carr is resigning on Monday apparently.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on October 19, 2013, 05:02:50 am
Whoa! I know Barry Collier was (and will be again, by the looks of things), a popular member, but the swing in Miranda tonight was massive!

May this be a lesson to politicians of all colours who want to pull a "Screw you guys, I'm going home!", to quote Eric Cartman from TV's South Park, on their constituents.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 19, 2013, 05:30:19 am
In my mind, this is a combination of a) a massively disproportionate swing in 2011 b) a sense that O’Farrell, while not having done much bad… hasn’t really don’t much at all c) the anti-ALP venom has now largely been purged d) a fairly well-known former member being in the mix e)... the member bailing on the electorate... oh and an increasingly hated Liberal Council... so yeah, perfect storm really.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 19, 2013, 05:39:20 am
I think points D, E and the Lib Council are most important in this case- didn't the same poll that foresaw this result also show O'Farrell and his govt. with a massive approval rate and strong lead over Robertson?
I also think that the result of this by-election has virtually killed the opportunity to remove & replace Robertson.
Polnut, what's your opinion of the opposition leader?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 19, 2013, 05:40:01 am
Non-entity...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on October 19, 2013, 07:29:03 am
Wow. Just wow.

Labor to somehow win? :P

(In all honesty they won't do better than 30-40 seats....but at the very least they'll make up some ground, which I feared wouldn't be significant for a while there)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 19, 2013, 07:43:01 am
It's like Al said during the federal election - look at the swing patterns from the last election, then figure out the natural equilibrium - that seat was NEVER a Lib +21 seat, it's also not a +10 ALP seat - the swing not only re-established the natural equilibrium but also with the added elements of a by-election with a popular former member adding premiums.

The ALP cannot win the 2015 election - but the swings back across Sydney will be large, only because the swings in 2011 were hysterically large.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on October 19, 2013, 08:55:41 am
It's like Al said during the federal election - look at the swing patterns from the last election, then figure out the natural equilibrium - that seat was NEVER a Lib +21 seat, it's also not a +10 ALP seat - the swing not only re-established the natural equilibrium but also with the added elements of a by-election with a popular former member adding premiums.

The ALP cannot win the 2015 election - but the swings back across Sydney will be large, only because the swings in 2011 were hysterically large.

Do you think Miranda will stay red in 2015, now that Collier has won it back? It was a LIB +6.78 seat at the last election, and was Liberal in '84 and '95.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 19, 2013, 10:04:44 am
When's the next NSW state Newspoll coming out? We can get a clearer picture then. It won't surprise me if Collier retires again.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on October 19, 2013, 11:27:19 am
When's the next NSW state Newspoll coming out? We can get a clearer picture then. It won't surprise me if Collier retires again.

The last NSW Newspoll was for the period covering April-June 2013, they may have skipped the July-September 2013 poll because of the federal election, so we may have to wait for the October-December poll to come out.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 19, 2013, 06:46:23 pm
Does anyone know how the areas Miranda covers voted in the federal election last month? I know it's in the safe seat of Cook, which gave 66.5% of its TCP to now-Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, so I'm assuming that they went solidly Liberal. This seems like it could be a reverse version of the 2010 Penrith/Lindsay situation, although I'm not sure how the areas making up Penrith voted in the general election that year.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 19, 2013, 06:53:58 pm
It's the less Liberal half of Cook, but is still solidly Liberal (would last have been certainly been Labor in 1983, may have done so - just about - in 1993. After that, non). I think we have to see this as a classic perfect storm mid-term by-election freak result, but also that the fact that such a result is possible is extremely significant.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 19, 2013, 07:45:35 pm
It's like Al said during the federal election - look at the swing patterns from the last election, then figure out the natural equilibrium - that seat was NEVER a Lib +21 seat, it's also not a +10 ALP seat - the swing not only re-established the natural equilibrium but also with the added elements of a by-election with a popular former member adding premiums.

The ALP cannot win the 2015 election - but the swings back across Sydney will be large, only because the swings in 2011 were hysterically large.

Do you think Miranda will stay red in 2015, now that Collier has won it back? It was a LIB +6.78 seat at the last election, and was Liberal in '84 and '95.

Honestly? Yes.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 19, 2013, 08:03:29 pm
It's like Al said during the federal election - look at the swing patterns from the last election, then figure out the natural equilibrium - that seat was NEVER a Lib +21 seat, it's also not a +10 ALP seat - the swing not only re-established the natural equilibrium but also with the added elements of a by-election with a popular former member adding premiums.

The ALP cannot win the 2015 election - but the swings back across Sydney will be large, only because the swings in 2011 were hysterically large.

Do you think Miranda will stay red in 2015, now that Collier has won it back? It was a LIB +6.78 seat at the last election, and was Liberal in '84 and '95.

Honestly? Yes.

Even taking into account the boundary changes??


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 19, 2013, 08:18:45 pm
It's like Al said during the federal election - look at the swing patterns from the last election, then figure out the natural equilibrium - that seat was NEVER a Lib +21 seat, it's also not a +10 ALP seat - the swing not only re-established the natural equilibrium but also with the added elements of a by-election with a popular former member adding premiums.

The ALP cannot win the 2015 election - but the swings back across Sydney will be large, only because the swings in 2011 were hysterically large.

Do you think Miranda will stay red in 2015, now that Collier has won it back? It was a LIB +6.78 seat at the last election, and was Liberal in '84 and '95.

Honestly? Yes.

Even taking into account the boundary changes??

It won't be easy and I hate prognosticating 18 months out ... but my view, all things being equal is that the ALP will hold it. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on October 20, 2013, 10:54:28 am
Alexander Downer has just been unanimously elected as head of the South Australian Liberal Party (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/downer-elected-sa-liberal-party-president/story-fni0xqi3-1226742922972).

How much of a difference does this make in how or whether the Liberals will take over the South Australian parliament next March? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 20, 2013, 11:16:28 am
Alexander Downer has just been unanimously elected as head of the South Australian Liberal Party (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/downer-elected-sa-liberal-party-president/story-fni0xqi3-1226742922972).

How much of a difference does this make in how or whether the Liberals will take over the South Australian parliament next March? 
Most voters won't know or care who the Head of their state Liberal Party is, so it won't make any difference.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 20, 2013, 06:01:34 pm
Alexander Downer has just been unanimously elected as head of the South Australian Liberal Party (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/downer-elected-sa-liberal-party-president/story-fni0xqi3-1226742922972).

How much of a difference does this make in how or whether the Liberals will take over the South Australian parliament next March? 

No more, no less.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 22, 2013, 09:57:45 pm
It's been fairly quiet, but the ACT has passed a law that will allow for same sex marriage, although it first must survive a Commonwealth government challenge to the law's legitimacy:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/love-is-in-the-air-and-the-capital-is-open-for-business-20131022-2vzlo.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 24, 2013, 07:07:38 pm
Tony Eggleton profile. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/a-man-for-libs-to-lean-on/story-e6frg6z6-1226746271124)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 26, 2013, 10:38:03 am
Tasmanian ALP MHA calls for Premier Lara Giddings to be replaced by Economic Development Minister David O'Byrne before next year's election. The Premier, O'Byrne, and the ALP's coalition partners, the Greens, have dismissed these concerns in public. (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/19558581/labor-mp-brenton-best-calls-for-premier-lara-giddings-to-be-replaced-by-david-obyrne/)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 26, 2013, 10:45:49 am
That election will not be pleasant.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on October 26, 2013, 11:55:07 pm
It's going to be uuuuuugly


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 27, 2013, 04:17:11 am
It's a shame Tasmania doesn't use FPTP or the election would be even more exciting to watch.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 27, 2013, 10:52:57 am
If Tasmania used FPTP the coming Liberal landslide wouldn't be happening because Labor would not be in bed with the hated Greens.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on October 28, 2013, 06:28:54 pm
First Newspoll released since the election.

Primary Vote (bracketted number represents election result):

Coalition 47% (45.6%)
Labor      31% (33.3%)
Greens    10% (8.7%)
Others     12% (12.4%)

Two Party Preferred:
Coalition 56% (53.5%) vs Labor 44% (46.5%)



In other news, Tasmanian Labor is contemplating dumping the Greens Ministers once the Parliament goes into recess, as they won't be sitting again prior to the writs being issued for the election, but other members of caucus are apparently warning that it may be viewed by voters as a cynical attempt to swing votes, or as an addmission of the coalition agreement being a mistake.



Also, Australian soldiers are leaving Afghanistan. The Prime Minister took the Opposition Leader with him when he went to address troops, which is the first time both a PM and Opposition Leader have been on the same trip to Afghanistan.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on October 28, 2013, 06:34:43 pm
Totally desperate re Tas. Wonder when the ALP will learn to stay away from the Greens, since they won't prop up the Coalition anyways.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on October 28, 2013, 09:59:09 pm
I don't know the dynamics of the five Tasmanian electorates well at all, but would it be correct to say that the anti-Green sentiment is far higher in the three northern divisions (Bass, Braddon, and Lyons) than Franklin or Denison? If so, what might be the reason for that?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 28, 2013, 10:09:09 pm
The specific issue at the moment is that forestry peace deal nonsense. It's the north of the state that is most dependent on the timber industry.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 29, 2013, 04:51:50 am
Mike Kelly has withdrawn from the Labor Senate vacancy contest following Carr's resignation.
 
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/mike-kelly-withdraws-from-senate-race-20131029-2wdcb.html



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on October 30, 2013, 04:15:12 am
And Deb O'Neill has now been selected by the NSW Labor Admin. Committee  to fill the double senate vacancy.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/deborah-oneill-selected-by-labor-to-fill-bob-carrs-senate-seat-20131030-2wh7y.html

That's another vote for traditional marriage in the Senate, and Labor caucus :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 01, 2013, 09:43:01 am
While O'Neill is better than I expected, Kelly would've been a worthy replacement.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 01, 2013, 05:29:03 pm
I got asked if I was interested in a job with Jacinta Collins, my immediate reaction was 'God no! (She's hifly in a (bad) dress!!!)'...

If O'Neill doesn't have to worry  about a marginal seat which skews old and bogan - she doesn't need to be so timid on social issues.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on November 01, 2013, 05:36:31 pm
I got asked if I was interested in a job with Jacinta Collins, my immediate reaction was 'God no! (She's hifly in a (bad) dress!!!)'...

OMG literally?!?! If I was offered that I would be so ecstatic you wouldn't believe it. We're basically ideological twins.

I'm so jealous. What sort of job were you offered with her?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 01, 2013, 05:47:42 pm
Indeed - but I also said there are LNPers from QLD and WA that I'd work for before her.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on November 01, 2013, 05:48:37 pm
Indeed - but I also said there are LNPers from QLD and WA that I'd work for before her.

Blasphemy!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 01, 2013, 05:50:12 pm
Policy adviser


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on November 01, 2013, 06:00:16 pm
Policy adviser

Yeh you guys probably wouldn't have seen eye to eye.
Are you also a member of a local ALP branch?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 01, 2013, 06:21:27 pm
Policy adviser

Yeh you guys probably wouldn't have seen eye to eye.
Are you also a member of a local ALP branch?

I am


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 03, 2013, 06:10:08 pm
Rudd considered staying on as leader and threatened to resign if his rules changes weren't approved. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-04/kevin-rudd-considered-staying-on-labor-leader-bruce-hawker-says/5066798)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on November 12, 2013, 03:27:57 am
New Newspoll...53/47.

Not the greatest start from Team Abbott it seems.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on November 12, 2013, 10:55:34 pm
Does anyone known when he will have two party counts for the eleven "non-traditional" electorates available to the general public?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on November 13, 2013, 04:34:09 am
Kevin Rudd is retiring from Parliament, can't say I'll miss him:

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=924213&vId=


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on November 14, 2013, 02:58:18 am
Same-Sex Marriage has been defeated 21-19 in the NSW Legislative Council with the help of Labor MPs.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/same-sex-marriage-bill-narrowly-fails-in-nsw-upper-house/story-fn59niix-1226759868692


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 14, 2013, 07:02:44 am
Yes, never denied my party didn't have it's fair share of backward types...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 18, 2013, 03:48:53 pm
Costello is still sniping at Howard, while offering his usual policy critique and saying Rudd/Gillard could be among the worst-ever PMs. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/hard-to-decide-whether-kevin-rudd-or-julia-gillard-did-more-damage/story-fni0ffsx-1226762804156) I find it rather ironic that he's complaining about a leadership Battle of the Bands. Pot, kettle, etc.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 18, 2013, 04:29:04 pm
Anyone read SMH on Lab's trainwreck? (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/hard-to-decide-whether-kevin-rudd-or-julia-gillard-did-more-damage/story-fni0ffsx-1226762804156)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on November 19, 2013, 04:48:28 pm
Indonesia about to cut ties with Australia, has anything like this happened before?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 20, 2013, 03:20:56 am
They're not cutting ties... they're suspending operational support on asylum-seekers and not proceeding with a military exercise in Darwin.

There is a lot of butthurt and political opportunism going on... everyone 'knows' that we spy on each other, but it's hurt Indonesian pride to have it known. Plus it helps with internal political consumption to suggest the relationship is rocky and it put Abbott et al on the back foot when it comes to future negotiations.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on November 23, 2013, 11:36:12 am
Bryce came out in favour of a republic and SSM, and both leaders defended her right to express said opinion.  (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/23/tony-abbott-quentin-bryce-right-republic)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 24, 2013, 07:43:09 am
The first Nielsen poll

TPP

Coalition: 48%
ALP: 52%

Primary vote

Coalition: 41%
ALP: 37%
Greens: 11%

Preferred PM

Abbott: 49%
Shorten: 41%

Approval

Abbott: 47%
Shorten: 51%

Disapproval

Abbott: 46%
Shorten: 30%


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on November 24, 2013, 05:58:18 pm
I tend to feel that Nielsen give too optimistic numbers to the Opposition from experience...but wowee.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 24, 2013, 05:59:34 pm
I tend to feel that Nielsen give too optimistic numbers to the Opposition from experience...but wowee.

I just LOVE seeing those headlines... "Poll shock: people turn on Abbott"


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 24, 2013, 06:32:31 pm
There is genuine buyer's remorse in Australia, I think. I very much doubt it's a pro-Labor result, after all they did lose the election far more than the coalition won it, but I think the average voters - I call them Cranbourne man and Cranbourne woman, named after an outer suburb of Melbourne that used to be a town - have discovered that the Calition isn't the solution to all the perceived ills of the government under Labor, and furthermore brings it's own particular problems.

The bsiness with Indonesia possibly hurts, and if it does so it's remarkably unfair on Abbott, after all the Labor party would respond the same and it all happened under Rudd. That said, Labor didn't contest the election promising idiotic policies to be implemented on Indonesian soil without the consent of the Indonesian government.

I doubt the other major issue that Labor tried to push in opposition has had a huge amount of bite either - the lack of women in senior roles - due largely to the fact that a sizeable whack of people for whom that is a major concern would be unlikely to vote for Abbott of all people anyway.

The most interesting number for me is the total collapse of the 'other'. I'm not a polling geek, but my memory suggests that 'other' tends to rise significantly following an election and stays high until voter's minds are focussed by an election campaign. Instead, the figure has essentially halved compared to the election result, which I think may be a sign that Palmer's on the nose with his voters as much as with the rest of the country?

All in all it means very little. The Libs are never going to turf Abbott over poll numbers. The only real take-away for me is that I have gone from expecting Griffith to fall to the coalition in the by-election quite handsomely to somewhere about 50-50.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 24, 2013, 06:37:02 pm
As an aside, my main beef with the government isn't the handling of the Indonesian situation at all, it's this tosser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdvp8emWwqY


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on November 24, 2013, 06:51:20 pm
The most interesting number for me is the total collapse of the 'other'. I'm not a polling geek, but my memory suggests that 'other' tends to rise significantly following an election and stays high until voter's minds are focussed by an election campaign. Instead, the figure has essentially halved compared to the election result, which I think may be a sign that Palmer's on the nose with his voters as much as with the rest of the country?

All in all it means very little. The Libs are never going to turf Abbott over poll numbers. The only real take-away for me is that I have gone from expecting Griffith to fall to the coalition in the by-election quite handsomely to somewhere about 50-50.

I only caught the topline numbers on the news this morning, and haven't looked at the finer detail yet. I tend to trust Nielson (my general assumption is if you get recent polls from Newspoll, Nielson and Galaxy, the real number is probably somewhere in the middle - and if two agree and one is off, the one that's off probably has a bad sample), so I'll assume this is correct, unless the next Newspoll disagrees, in which case I'll assume it's somewhere in the middle, unless there's a bounce in the next Nielson.

Having not seen the "others" poll number, I'll agree with your analysis of this figure and agree with it at face value. I may be wrong, but I also recall that "others" tend to over-poll/under-perform at the election. Same goes for the Greens, but to a lesser extent. Nationals tend to be the reverse, and I don't know why - perhaps voters in incumbent-held seats say "Liberal" when asked for their primary vote intention as a quick response, but given the Coalition Agreement, there is no Liberal candidate on election day? Anyway, I'm not sure of the reason for it, but the "others" always seem to be polling a good few percent - probably 5% above election results, Greens are often about 2% higher than election results, and Nationals about 2-3% below election results. I sort of make those assumptions in my head when looking at the numbers for myself.

I think "others" in the polls are people expressing an attitude of "a pox on both your houses" - a real protest vote of people who will end up voting one way or another on election day, but in the meantime are not prepared to support any of the parties individually reported (Liberal/Labor/Greens/Nationals). If that number has collapsed in this poll, I agree you're probably right - it's people who are looking at Clive Palmer and thinking "what an idiot" and not wanting to sound like they're supporting him. I think such people thought he was a bit of a joke before the election - he made plenty of outlandish comments and stunts during the campaign - but had rather written him off as a safe place to park a non-vote/protest vote (you can vote for Palmer as an alternative to voting informally, because he's not going to get up). Now that he's been elected, people are less willing to support him.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 24, 2013, 08:02:11 pm
Yeah, 2013 was actually a strong protest vote than 2010 - it just so happens that the protest vote went from the Greens to the PUP etc. I mean, the ALP primary dropped 4.5% and the LNP only got 1.5% of it... that tells you a lot about the electorate.

The 'others' number was bound to drop after the election.

If anything, the pretty anemic response to the new Government is even stronger evidence of an anti-ALP electorate in September, rather than pro-LNP, and even strong LNP supporters I know are actually pretty horrified by how badly this lot is handling things.

And for Abbott to yet crack 50% PPM in ANY poll and in this one to have Shorten in the 40s as well, is frankly, diabolical at this point in a new term. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on November 24, 2013, 08:15:18 pm
"And for Abbott to yet crack 50% PPM in ANY poll"

indeed. I expect him to barely creep over in newspoll, but his election was never an endorsement of Abbott nearly as much as a rejection of Labor.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on November 25, 2013, 03:24:02 pm
Newspoll

TPP
Coalition: 52% (-1)
ALP: 48% (+1)

PV
Coalition: 43% (-2)
ALP: 35% (+3)
Greens: 10% (-2)

Satisfaction
Abbott: 42% (-3)
Shorten: 39% (+2)

Dissatisfaction
Abbott: 42% (+4)
Shorten: 27% (+3)

Preferred PM
Abbott: 44% (-2)
Shorten: 33% (+3)

.... yet another pretty dull poll and pretty disappointing for the LNP, they're ahead... but eh


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on December 03, 2013, 04:32:08 pm
Question for you Aussies:

Do you guys fill out your entire ballot or does it look more like:

[3] LNP
[1] Greens
[] Family First
[2] Labor
[] Katter's Australian
[] Palmer United

?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on December 03, 2013, 05:57:32 pm
Question for you Aussies:

Do you guys fill out your entire ballot or does it look more like:

[3] LNP
[1] Greens
[] Family First
[2] Labor
[] Katter's Australian
[] Palmer United

?

The short answer is no, that would be an informal ballot at a federal election.

It would also be an informal ballot in Victorian state elections, however would be formal in Queensland and NSW state elections, which operate under Optional Preferential Voting (OPV) rules. I can't answer about the other states.

Federal rules allow one box to remain blank, so long as all other boxes have been consecutively numbered, starting with a "1" (the blank box being assumed to be the voter's final preference). In that case, a blank box doesn't act as a "wild card" though - it can't be used to substitute any missing number, only the final missing number.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on December 03, 2013, 11:10:52 pm
Question for you Aussies:

Do you guys fill out your entire ballot or does it look more like:

[3] LNP
[1] Greens
[] Family First
[2] Labor
[] Katter's Australian
[] Palmer United

?

The short answer is no, that would be an informal ballot at a federal election.

It would also be an informal ballot in Victorian state elections, however would be formal in Queensland and NSW state elections, which operate under Optional Preferential Voting (OPV) rules. I can't answer about the other states.

Federal rules allow one box to remain blank, so long as all other boxes have been consecutively numbered, starting with a "1" (the blank box being assumed to be the voter's final preference). In that case, a blank box doesn't act as a "wild card" though - it can't be used to substitute any missing number, only the final missing number.

Coming from Western Australia myself, I can confirm you have to number all the boxes in our state elections, like you do in South Australia and the Northern Territory as well.

In the ACT, where they use proportional representation, the minimum number of preferences equals the number of vacancies in the electorate, either 5 or 7. Same in Tasmania, except all their seats return 5 members.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on December 04, 2013, 01:47:52 pm
Got it. Thanks guys


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on December 04, 2013, 08:10:40 pm
Got it. Thanks guys

No problem :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on December 04, 2013, 08:55:55 pm
I might also add further - the final box, although allowed to be blank, cannot have anything else in it... it either has to be blank, or have the final number in it. In the example you gave of 6 candidates: the boxes can be consecutively numbered 1-6, or consecutively numbered 1-5 and one box blank, but they cannot be numbered "1,2,3,5,6,blank" (4 is missing), nor could they be "1,2,3,4,5,99" nor "1,2,3,4,5, :( " (note, that frowny face is deliberate in this example).

Those final three examples there are all informal in federal elections, if my memory serves me correct (for OPV elections, the first one would be formal for the first three preferences, and the second and third examples would be formal for the first five preferences and therefore remain in the count at every step).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 09, 2013, 12:41:03 pm
Newspoll

Primary vote
LNP: 40% (-3)
ALP: 38% (+3)
GRN: 9% (-1)

TPP
LNP: 48% (-4)
ALP: 52% (+4)

Approval
Abbott: 40% (-2)
Shorten: 44% (+5)

Disapproval
Abbott: 45% (+3)
Shorten: 27% (NC)

Preferred PM
Abbott: 41% (-3)
Shorten: 34% (+1)


The terrible run of polls and again the PPM number is getting worse...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on December 10, 2013, 04:40:09 am
Abbott will never have a better poll than this one.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on December 10, 2013, 04:54:47 am
Only taken 3 months for the bottom to fall off Abbott.

At least for Rudd it took like 30.

lol


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on December 10, 2013, 07:12:53 am
The Libs still may win the Griffith by election, especially if the union-backed Social Conservative whom I like is preselected for Labor. The selection is next weekend.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on December 10, 2013, 07:40:29 am
You really only have one note, and while I have no automatic problem with that note, after hearing it without variation 568 times I'm finally putting you on ignore. Largely because the way you play the note is designed to cause a reaction, and I don't want to react to you.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on December 10, 2013, 09:00:37 am
Ok


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on December 11, 2013, 09:28:21 pm
Gay marriage laws in ACT overturned.

I can understand the reasoning, even though I disagree with it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 12, 2013, 03:37:52 am
Gay marriage laws in ACT overturned.

I can understand the reasoning, even though I disagree with it.

Exactly, this was a non-starter. It's not a decision as to the merits of marriage equality, but about the Constitutionally valid mechanism.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 12, 2013, 11:19:07 am
So how long until there's a spill?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 13, 2013, 01:37:51 pm
So how long until there's a spill?

The numbers would need to be a lot worse, for a lot longer before that's an option


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on December 13, 2013, 05:19:04 pm
Indeed. Particularly after everything that happened with Rudd and Gillard, the Liberals would need to be in catastrophic poo to turf Abbott.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on December 13, 2013, 07:11:57 pm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/row-puts-kevins-seat-up-for-grabs/story-fn59niix-1226782853184# (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/row-puts-kevins-seat-up-for-grabs/story-fn59niix-1226782853184#)

The article is paywalled, but the result of the Labor preselection vote for Kevin Rudd's seat of Queensland is expected to be announced within the next day. The big news is that the Labor Unity's members in the division have virtually all abandoned the right-wing candidate Jeremy de Lore against the wishes of higher-ups in their faction. This might give the left-affiliated candidate, Terri Butler, a slight edge, although we'll know soon enough.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on December 13, 2013, 07:19:06 pm
How many Labor Unity faction members can there be in that seat? It's a tiny faction. Labor Forum usually rules the roost.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on December 14, 2013, 02:37:34 am
Terri Butler has won the preselection.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 16, 2013, 02:12:20 pm
If anyone can give me the heads up on when Fred Nile will start procreating with his 55 year old wife, let me know.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on December 16, 2013, 09:18:08 pm
Hockey's dumped the promise of a budget surplus.

Umma.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 16, 2013, 09:40:42 pm
Hockey's dumped the promise of a budget surplus.

Someone in the ALP offices will be trawling youtube for something as clear cut as this from Tony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5pzSvSCUZo


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on December 17, 2013, 01:39:57 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxq__3z9zGM


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on December 25, 2013, 08:17:52 pm
Abbott is expected to appoint General Peter Cosgrove to replace the outgoing Governor-General Quentin Bryce.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/general-peter-cosgrove-to-replace-quentin-bryce-as-governorgeneral-report-20131226-2zx2d.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on December 25, 2013, 08:44:55 pm
Awesome.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on December 26, 2013, 06:48:27 am
Inevitable. Better than it being Howard, for sure. Codgrove isn't as godlike as some claim, but he is a good man and will perform the role admirably.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on December 27, 2013, 03:42:17 pm
Western Australia State Newspoll


2PP

Liberal/National- 51% (-6)
Labor- 49% (+6)

Colin Barnett Ratings

Approve- 34% (-17)
Disapprove- 54% (+18)

Mark McGowan Ratings

Approve- 51% (+2)
Disapprove- 22% (-7)

Preferred Premier

Colin Barnett- 37% (-15)
Mark McGowan- 43% (+12)



This election is more than three years away, so we shouldn't read too much into those numbers, but the federal section is telling, and should worry the Liberals as the Western Australia half-Senate election approaches.

Western Australia Federal Newspoll

Primary Vote

Liberal- 41% (-10)
Labor- 36% (+7)

2PP

Liberal- 50% (-8)
Labor- 50% (+8)

What has Barnett done to become so unpopular?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on December 27, 2013, 07:27:47 pm
He's been around for 5 years, so it's natural he's starting to sour.

Though wrt unpopular decisions I have NFI.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on December 28, 2013, 05:12:31 am
Abbot is a major issue.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 28, 2013, 06:02:17 am
With the Gillard/Rudd mess done away with, Abbott is returning to his natural position, a liability.

Cosgrove is a harmless choice, meh.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 28, 2013, 11:57:35 am
Wouldn't be shocked if the ALP holds on in SA.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on December 29, 2013, 01:05:55 am
Wouldn't be shocked if the ALP holds on in SA.
The momentum is moving our way, no doubt. The Liberals can thank Abbott for this.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on December 29, 2013, 03:46:10 am
The momentum is certainly with the ALP, while the Libs still have a comfortable lead, Jay Wetherill's popularity cannot be underestimated as a secret weapon come campaign season.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on January 28, 2014, 06:46:13 am
Peter Cosgrove has been named Australia's next Governor-General, due to take over from Quentin Bryce in March. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/next-governorgeneral-peter-cosgrove-will-keep-out-of-politics/story-fn59niix-1226812021298)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 28, 2014, 06:02:00 pm
Peter Cosgrove has been named Australia's next Governor-General, due to take over from Quentin Bryce in March. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/next-governorgeneral-peter-cosgrove-will-keep-out-of-politics/story-fn59niix-1226812021298)

He's a solid traditional Tory, he'll do as he's told.

I did have a chat with a pretty senior military guy who served under Cosgrove in East Timor... let's just say the feedback was not glowing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 28, 2014, 06:09:40 pm
We are yet to get a Newspoll or Nielsen this year... so we only have Essential, Morgan and ReachTel...

But the long story short is that the Abbott Government has received the worst recorded polling for a first-term Government, ever.

They're tied at 50-50 at the glacial Essential, the ALP is up 53-47 on ReachTel (whom I'm still deeply, deeply, wary of) and the ALP is up 52.5-47.5 on Morgan, thanks to men starting to move behind the ALP.

According to PollBludger, which actually turned out to be very accurate at the 2013 election... this is the current polling state of play.

Primary
Coalition: 39.3% (-6.3% on the election)
ALP: 38.1% (+4.7)
The Greens: 10.2% (+1.7)

TPP
Coalition: 47.5% (-6%)
ALP: 52.5% (+6)

How that plays out in seats - the state-level data is pretty bad, with massive swings in QLD, WA and VIC.

Coalition: 63 (-27)
ALP: 82 (+27)
Others: 5 (NC)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 29, 2014, 05:58:01 am
Now Abbott's having a go at the ABC.

When he's going to learn that he's no longer in Opposition and doesn't need to be so tribal?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2014, 07:05:35 pm
 Turnbull swipes at Abbott over ABC attack.
 (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-defends-abc-after-tony-abbotts-attack-20140129-31n5z.html)



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on January 29, 2014, 07:59:06 pm
PM Tony Abbott is perhaps the best weapon that Labor could use in their arsenal to stay in power in South Australia and Tasmania. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 29, 2014, 08:09:23 pm
PM Tony Abbott is perhaps the best weapon that Labor could use in their arsenal to stay in power in South Australia and Tasmania. 

The only thing that can save the ALP in Tasmania (not from a loss, because that's a forgone conclusion, but from humiliation) is the voting system that's used, which basically ensures majorities are very hard to come by and large majorities are next to impossible.

SA is a different story, however.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 30, 2014, 12:40:46 am
The ALP can win in SA, but Tasmania would require an act of God (not joking here. If there was a major natural disaster, AND Giddings responded to it perfectly, it would be the only way Labor could scrape a victory.)

I actually kind of think that Labor ultimately WILL win in SA. Based on nothing but gut.

----------

The ABC is, as is entirely appropriate for the national broadcaster, biased against the government. But it's biased against EVERY government. If Abbott happens to spew more bullsh**t than Rudd (hard to imagine, but true) he'll get more negative coverage through ABC radio, tv etc.

The ABC is the *last* news organisation in Australia that should support the government of the day on anything. It needs to be the most cynical, most piercing, and most suspicious of government plans of all media outlets, or else there is no point having an independent national broadcaster.

There is a bias in it's viewership, towards the left, but this is largely because the left in Australia is slightly more likely to be interested in the Art and Culture shows that the ABC presents, is significantly more likely to be highly educated, and more interested in the in depth analytical news offerings of the ABC, and by and large, the ABC doesn't engage in right wing fearmongering unlike other media outlets.

The ABC does have some limitations that make me cringe with their assosiation with the left, though. Because it is the national broadcaster and has a responisibilty to always lean towards the inclusive, the ABC's discussion about immigration issues is always skewed towards the left. I happen to agree with the views more or less, but having shows like 'dumb, drunk and racist' does nothing to help anyone, on any side. But there are crummy shows like that that encourage inclusivity, as the ABC is required to do, but never anything that discusses valid, non-reactionary concerns bout immigration and asylum seeking.

Plenty of other examples, that's just the most overt. of course, it's hard to criticise the ABC too much for being clearly on the left on that issue when the way the right frames their arguments - that could actually be good and calm, reasonable and right ones - is so overwhelmingly underwhelming when they try to be positive, but is almost always negative, fear-focused populist-bordering-on-racist crap.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 30, 2014, 08:48:32 pm
Abbott want to reject asylum claims on the basis of swearing. Which is just about as Australian an action as it is possible to perform.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10606381/Tony-Abbott-threatens-to-deport-asylum-seekers-who-swear.html

Like, we knew we were electing a prick, but FFS.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on January 30, 2014, 10:16:43 pm
And Morrison insists they can turn back boats, even if it means going into Indonesian waters, apparently you protect your sovereignty by violating someone else's? These f***ing people.

I knew they'd be bad, but they're so much worse than I expected.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 30, 2014, 10:32:03 pm
I remember reading an article by Peter Van Oselen a few years back, that warned of the dangers of winning elections before learning the lessons of defeat. I guess that applies for this government a lot.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 31, 2014, 12:17:07 am
I think they're trying to do every horrible thing possible this week:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/abbot-point-dredging-dumping-permitted-within-great-barrier-reef-waters-20140131-31rxn.html


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: TTS1996 on February 01, 2014, 05:23:51 pm
Not all Australians are going to consider the PM, I quote, "a prick", for making noises about wanting to deport asylum seekers.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 01, 2014, 07:01:01 pm
Not all Australians are going to consider the PM, I quote, "a prick", for making noises about wanting to deport asylum seekers.

No they won't... but to me, it's a recognition that the internal polling is as bad as the public stuff and they're basically back in campaign mode.

* Bash asylum seekers
* threaten those commie-pinko-poofo-ABC
* keep talking about a Budget emergency (when they're borrowing more than Labor did)



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 09, 2014, 02:52:12 am
Bad day for fires back home. Three parts of my family have evacuated, another is preparing to do so, should things get messier. They're in between Benalla and Yarrawonga so no major concern just yet, but definitely not a comfortable position either cos there's only one road in and out. Largely farmland at least.

Others all down in Gippsland - one more a case of being unable to get home from Inverloch due to closed roads, the other two both headed in to Traralgon for safety. One if the houses isn't at huge risk, but they have a young baby. The other is just on the other side of the ridge from an ongoing fire so the wind change has helped them, but still within a couple of kms of the fire front.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 09, 2014, 04:51:57 am
Fire about to hit the Tarra Bulga NP, which is at the southern tip of the valley my cousin lives in. Highly unlikely to get to his place overnight if at all, but definitely possible, and more possible than the fires on the other side of the hill, even though they're much closer.

All in all, it seems like most people - especially in that area, which was hit on Back Saturday, but throughout the state - are both more tolerant of road closures and more willing to leave their houses early than they were in 2009.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist on February 09, 2014, 02:55:22 pm
Fire about to hit the Tarra Bulga NP, which is at the southern tip of the valley my cousin lives in. Highly unlikely to get to his place overnight if at all, but definitely possible, and more possible than the fires on the other side of the hill, even though they're much closer.

All in all, it seems like most people - especially in that area, which was hit on Back Saturday, but throughout the state - are both more tolerant of road closures and more willing to leave their houses early than they were in 2009.

Well you know what they say.  Once burned, twice shy.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 10, 2014, 05:47:06 pm
All in all, it seems like most people - especially in that area, which was hit on Back Saturday, but throughout the state - are both more tolerant of road closures and more willing to leave their houses early than they were in 2009.

This is good. As they emphasise in the literature (http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/fm_files/attachments/plan_and_prepare/frk/prepare-for-bushfire.pdf), leaving early is the safest option.

I have four close friends on the fireline today. One was flown into East Gippsland last night and is on a five-day deployment, the other three left this morning on a one-day deployment to Morwell.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 10, 2014, 07:54:43 pm
Firstly, the fires: Fortunately, things are settling down compared to their peak, but still very serious. I hope that your mates will be OK.

Secondly, I'm not sure if you're able to engage on the car issue, but my thoughts...

I've been really conflicted about government support for car manufacturing for a long time, but watching Kim Carr and Bill Shorten right now, I'm convinced.

As it happens, I drive an Australian made car, and it was a factor in my choice. I fully intended to always drive Aussie made cars, because they're good cars, and good value, and good for our country, and therefore good for me.

The callousness of Abbott after Ford, Holden, and now Toyota have pulled out has been unsurprisingly disgusting. The issue is more complex than simply numbers on a piece of paper, and it seems only Labor gives a sh**t - and they genuinely give a sh**t. They're not playing politics, they're furious, they're passionate, and they're advocating for the people who need them. It's something that's too rare in politics.

---------------------------------

As an aside, I think the ALP is playing politics in one particularly potent way. The federal government is very light on Victorians in senior positions, and at this press conference, it's a wall of Victorians. The new newspoll is out, with The Australian (kind of ridiculously) making the story about Shorten losing support in terms of job approval numbers. The real story is that the Coalition has managed to already become an unpopular government, and that Abbott is unequivocally an unpopular PM.

Another quick thing that is a bit eye opening. In the Griffith by-election, almost all the ALP campaign material had a picture of Abbott on it, and almost none of the LNP's did.

The Libs can't turf Abbott after the stink they made about the ousting of KRudd, but they also won't ever be a popular government with him as leader.

Lastly, I am curious about how the coalition can possibly justify their reaction to the SPC issue. I'm not a huge fan of Stone, but I do admit that she's gained some respect for me for being prepared to stand up for her electorate. I'm waiting for Napthine to absolutely rip the throat out of the federal government, but it won't happen... but quite frankly, if he wants to win the election later in the year, his best bet (and the Victorian coalition in general) is to clearly differentiate their 'brand' from Abbott and co.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 10, 2014, 08:25:48 pm
Yeah, I can't talk about much of that, but especially not the automotive manufacturing side of things, as you understand.

Cheers for my mates, they'll be right: well trained, well drilled; conditions today don't seem too bad from what I can tell (not much wind from what I can see, but I'm at my desk, a couple of hundred km from them). Your cousins in the CFA, how are they doing? Thoughts and prayers for your family up country.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 10, 2014, 08:27:35 pm
Re: Griffith, there's a chance that Butler could outperform Rudd on postals ... if the trend from the second batch continues.


On the car industry, I agree - I've been conflicted about the effectiveness of essentially keeping this industry going. But the reality is that there is tens of thousands of jobs being affected by this.

The fact that there is no idea as to transitional assistance... a lot of those jobs come from areas that have a very narrow set of employers and it's all very well and good for Abbott to talk about them being 'liberated' (which disgusted me btw) but free to do what? Sign up with Centrelink? Risk losing their homes? When you gut the community's life-blood you gut the community, full stop. And then Abbott and Hockey try to blame the workers, when even Toyota says that wage demands had nothing to do with their decision... lying creeps.

Like you Hugh, on a number of fronts... and you know me well enough that I don't devote a lot of time to passion over this stuff... this Government makes me ashamed and I'm disgusted with them. I've decided to become more active in my party because it's the only way I can do anything to stop the damage.

It really makes me long for the days of Howard and Costello, it really does.

And as always, while the Government makes my stomach turn, the CFA makes me proud and they're all doing a great job.


Oh and on the Newspoll, the PM is still at -5 net satisfaction AND is at 41% PPM with Shorten at 33%... I mean, this is also unprecedented in polling history and the story is 'Shorten's honeymoon over' - well at least Shorten got a honeymoon.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 11, 2014, 06:03:03 am
Yeah, I can't talk about much of that, but especially not the automotive manufacturing side of things, as you understand.

Cheers for my mates, they'll be right: well trained, well drilled; conditions today don't seem too bad from what I can tell (not much wind from what I can see, but I'm at my desk, a couple of hundred km from them). Your cousins in the CFA, how are they doing? Thoughts and prayers for your family up country.

Hen has left the CFA for this summer because of the baby. I think he intends on returning during the year ahead. I haven't heard anything about Rob and Lize in regards to CFA work, although I suspect Lize was involved. She does radio operation I think. If she was in any danger, I'd've heard about it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 11, 2014, 06:54:40 am
Looks like Gillard has her next steps set out:

http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2014/02/gillard-champion-global-education?utm_source=Pro+Bono+Australia+-+email+updates&utm_campaign=57f656a985-news_11_22_11_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_5ee68172fb-57f656a985-146723490


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 11, 2014, 07:04:15 am
I think if we'd been through the same three years she had, I'm so pleased for her.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 16, 2014, 03:55:33 pm
Now Nielsen has the Coalition up 52/48.

wat.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 16, 2014, 08:25:49 pm
Now Nielsen has the Coalition up 52/48.

wat.

And Abbott still can't crack 50% as PPM and remains in negative approval lol

What is interesting to me, is that unlike Essential, Morgan and Newspoll, while all of them show a fall in the Shorten approval - the drop in the ALP primary vote has not gone to the Coalition overall, whereas in Nielsen 75% of the lost ALP primary has gone to the Coalition... we need another month of polling to get a better idea.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 16, 2014, 10:25:26 pm
I wonder why Shorten's approval is in free fall. AFAIK he hasn't made any major missteps for his approval to fall by that much.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 16, 2014, 10:33:46 pm
I wonder why Shorten's approval is in free fall. AFAIK he hasn't made any major missteps for his approval to fall by that much.

A lot of it, was driven by Coalition own-goals in the first few months.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 17, 2014, 12:02:48 am
I wonder why Shorten's approval is in free fall. AFAIK he hasn't made any major missteps for his approval to fall by that much.

There is a certain observable pro-Government bias in January/early-February polls, and I think also July/early-August polls, too. This was the case throughout the previous Government, but also through the Howard years. Seems to correlate with parliamentary recess, when Oppositions don't get the benefit of Question Time, plus plenty of MPs go away, so fewer media interviews... I think Governments tend to do better when politics isn't in the news.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on February 20, 2014, 05:45:33 pm
Any predictions for the Redcliffe byelection?

I'm going with an LNP win with 51% of the 2PP.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 21, 2014, 02:15:32 am
Lol

ALP 54-46


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on February 21, 2014, 01:08:18 pm
With God's blessing, Yvette D'Ath will win this (and comfortably)!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 21, 2014, 05:32:34 pm
With God's blessing, Yvette D'Ath will win this (and comfortably)!

If the ALP can't win this seat back, regardless of the candidate, they might as well give up.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 21, 2014, 06:21:29 pm
With God's blessing, Yvette D'Ath will win this (and comfortably)!

If the ALP can't win this seat back, regardless of the candidate, they might as well give up.

Wel, it's because of GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on February 21, 2014, 06:34:42 pm
With God's blessing, Yvette D'Ath will win this (and comfortably)!

If the ALP can't win this seat back, regardless of the candidate, they might as well give up.

Wel, it's because of GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE!

The Labor candidate does not support gay marriage :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Franzl on February 21, 2014, 06:37:32 pm
With God's blessing, Yvette D'Ath will win this (and comfortably)!

If the ALP can't win this seat back, regardless of the candidate, they might as well give up.

Wel, it's because of GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE, GAY MARRIAGE!

The Labor candidate does not support gay marriage :)

I pretty much figured that when seeing your rather enthusiastic support. It doesn't take long to get to know a broken record, after all.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 21, 2014, 06:53:33 pm
D'ath voted one way in 2012 as did all QLD MPs ... not her personal views.

But as a QLD state MP how she votes means sod-all in the grand scheme of things on this issue


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on February 21, 2014, 07:34:16 pm
55-45 ALP. This is in the bag.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on February 22, 2014, 03:19:45 am
D'ath voted one way in 2012 as did all QLD MPs ... not her personal views

Where on earth do you get your information from?!? I've asked you this before as you really do come up with pretty outlandish statements. Firstly, not all 8 QLD Labor MPs in the last parliament voted against gay marriage (because it was a conscience vote) and another two came out personally in favour just before the election. However, D'Ath has never personally expressed support for gay marriage.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 22, 2014, 07:24:23 am
D'ath voted one way in 2012 as did all QLD MPs ... not her personal views

Where on earth do you get your information from?!? I've asked you this before as you really do come up with pretty outlandish statements. Firstly, not all 8 QLD Labor MPs in the last parliament voted against gay marriage (because it was a conscience vote) and another two came out personally in favour just before the election. However, D'Ath has never personally expressed support for gay marriage.

'Outlandish' perhaps a bit outlandish from your perspective to make calls on people who are  actually here.

On this topic, D'ath never said it was her opinion, she was reflecting electorate's input - check the record.

I'd love to know the backstory on this whole issue... I truly would.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 24, 2014, 05:55:59 pm
So some more polling and some ... interesting results

Morgan

Primary
LNP: 41% (+0.5)
ALP: 35.5% (-1.5)
GRN: 10.5% (NC)

TPP
ALP: 50.5%
LNP: 49.5%

It should be noted that half of the Morgan sample came from the weekend before last.

Now, here is where it gets interesting... Newspoll, which was taken this weekend.

Primary
LNP: 39% (-2)
ALP: 39% (+4)
GRN: 10% (-2)

TPP
ALP: 54% (+3)
LNP: 46% (-3)

Approval
Abbott: 36% (-4)
Shorten: 35% (NC)

Disapproval
Abbott: 52% (+7)
Shorten: 39% (+4)

Preferred PM
Abbott: 38% (-3)
Shorten: 37% (+4)

This could be a rouge sample... although, I'd have expected Shorten's ratings to have spiked if it was a strong ALP-bias in it. I think the timing of this one is interesting, unlike Morgan, the Newspoll was from last weekend, the Budget rumours are spooking people something severe, changes to Medicare, the Aged-Pension... and honestly, I do think the death of the asylum-seeker on Manus has done some damage too. While we might be accused (sometimes rightly) of being xenophobic, the fact that someone was beaten to death in our care...

But long story short, this Government won last September in a near-landslide... and this is the position they're in. I wonder how strong the stomach will be to make the ugly choices in the Budget they seem determined to make.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on February 27, 2014, 10:28:54 pm
WA is going back to the polls on the 5th of April for the half-Senate election. (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/21747926/date-set-for-new-senate-election/)

Hard to tell, although barring another "preference lottery", as some would call it, I except the traditional 3-3 left/right balance as the result. Might update my prediction with more detail closer to the date.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 28, 2014, 08:43:24 pm
Nielsen polling out with some expected and outright whacky results.

State Governments

VIC - ALP 53-47, this is pretty much where most people think this race is.

But ... NSW - ALP 51-49, that's a massive and inexplicable swing to the ALP. While I don't buy that the O'Farrell Government is in THAT much trouble, I do wonder what kind of impact Abbott et al is having on these state level numbers.

Considering the SA/TAS dynamics, they're not the best indicators at the moment.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on February 28, 2014, 09:22:22 pm
Nielsen polling out with some expected and outright whacky results.

State Governments

VIC - ALP 53-47, this is pretty much where most people think this race is.

But ... NSW - ALP 51-49, that's a massive and inexplicable swing to the ALP. While I don't buy that the O'Farrell Government is in THAT much trouble, I do wonder what kind of impact Abbott et al is having on these state level numbers.

Considering the SA/TAS dynamics, they're not the best indicators at the moment.

I don't think the O'Farrell government has done anything controversial lately, but then again, given the corruption enquiries into 3 of the Central Coast state members...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on February 28, 2014, 11:06:30 pm
Nielsen polling out with some expected and outright whacky results.

State Governments

VIC - ALP 53-47, this is pretty much where most people think this race is.

But ... NSW - ALP 51-49, that's a massive and inexplicable swing to the ALP. While I don't buy that the O'Farrell Government is in THAT much trouble, I do wonder what kind of impact Abbott et al is having on these state level numbers.

Considering the SA/TAS dynamics, they're not the best indicators at the moment.

I don't think the O'Farrell government has done anything controversial lately, but then again, given the corruption enquiries into 3 of the Central Coast state members...

That's the thing, even taking my partisan hat off... I can't really point to anything the O'Farrell Government has actually done? They've been the ultimate small-target Government, they sacked a lot of people, found a billion dollars.... what else?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 28, 2014, 11:10:14 pm
Nielsen polling out with some expected and outright whacky results.

State Governments

VIC - ALP 53-47, this is pretty much where most people think this race is.

But ... NSW - ALP 51-49, that's a massive and inexplicable swing to the ALP. While I don't buy that the O'Farrell Government is in THAT much trouble, I do wonder what kind of impact Abbott et al is having on these state level numbers.

Considering the SA/TAS dynamics, they're not the best indicators at the moment.

I don't think the O'Farrell government has done anything controversial lately, but then again, given the corruption enquiries into 3 of the Central Coast state members...

That's the thing, even taking my partisan hat off... I can't really point to anything the O'Farrell Government has actually done? They've been the ultimate small-target Government, they sacked a lot of people, found a billion dollars.... what else?

Exactly though. After the walking disaster that was the last few years of NSW Labour, why would voters already be ready to give them another chance? Surely a first time O'Farrell government's task is to just hold themselves together and make themselves look even half competent compared to the last government.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 01, 2014, 06:46:37 pm
Yeah am not buying it. Pretty sure they're ed in Victoria though.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 01, 2014, 06:49:04 pm
I suppose ICAC and drinking laws wouldn't help, but a 28 point swing? Really?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 01, 2014, 06:56:05 pm
lol


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 01, 2014, 08:14:01 pm
I suppose ICAC and drinking laws wouldn't help, but a 28 point swing? Really?

I have seen a swing of that mangnitude in Quebec, but, it's Quebec. It shouldn't be used to forecast or explain or compare to anywhere else.

Still, I think it's may be a sign than 10 years + governments aren't happening anymore in Australia.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 02, 2014, 12:10:47 pm
Has to be remembered also that Labor is the natural party of government in NSW for reasons other than tradition...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 03, 2014, 01:12:24 am
Well Newspoll says 58/42 Liberal, so it looks like that Nielsen poll was an outlier.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 03, 2014, 04:52:19 am
I can't believe Daniel Andrews is going to be the Victorian Premier. Ugh.

The Libs don't deserve to be re-elected, but neither does Labor, especially under Andrews. I don't know how I plan to vote yet, I think it comes down to the Liberals to be honest. If they get their sh**t together, they get my vote. Not holding my breath for that to happen, though, if the Metro Rail project and the Hazelwood response is any indication.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 03, 2014, 06:49:16 am
Well Newspoll says 58/42 Liberal, so it looks like that Nielsen poll was an outlier.

Well, the Newspoll was taken over two months... so I think they're both wrong :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on March 03, 2014, 07:01:40 am
I can't believe Daniel Andrews is going to be the Victorian Premier. Ugh.

The Libs don't deserve to be re-elected, but neither does Labor, especially under Andrews. I don't know how I plan to vote yet, I think it comes down to the Liberals to be honest. If they get their sh**t together, they get my vote. Not holding my breath for that to happen, though, if the Metro Rail project and the Hazelwood response is any indication.

Really? What's he done that's been so horrible? I actually like the sound of some of the ideas he's proposing.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 03, 2014, 11:40:18 pm
The way he's politicised the Morwell situation is a recent issue, but in short, he's an ideological hack.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on March 16, 2014, 11:18:43 pm
Just got this in my letterbox from the Palmer United Party:

(http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/GALLERY/9472_16_03_14_11_17_58.jpeg)

I got a similar DVD in the mail last year for the general election too. Haven't watched this one yet, but I did watch last year's DVD.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 17, 2014, 12:41:55 am
Last year, I met my local Palmer candidate at the railway station and told him how disappointed I was that I hadn't received the DVD and he promised to try to get me one. He failed to deliver. If you're not going to keep it, I think the National Library has a collection of election-related materials.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 17, 2014, 05:50:12 pm
Last year, I met my local Palmer candidate at the railway station and told him how disappointed I was that I hadn't received the DVD and he promised to try to get me one. He failed to deliver. If you're not going to keep it, I think the National Library has a collection of election-related materials.

I didn't get one either! Granted, considering this was the result at my local booth (http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-17496-8836.htm)...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on March 18, 2014, 03:40:29 am
Last year, I met my local Palmer candidate at the railway station and told him how disappointed I was that I hadn't received the DVD and he promised to try to get me one. He failed to deliver. If you're not going to keep it, I think the National Library has a collection of election-related materials.

I didn't get one either! Granted, considering this was the result at my local booth (http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/HousePollingPlaceFirstPrefs-17496-8836.htm)...

At least PUP beat the crazies (Rise Up) at your booth Polnut!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mordecai on March 18, 2014, 12:33:05 pm
I remember getting one in the mail last year but I threw it away. If I get another I'll probably keep it just for a souvenir.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on March 23, 2014, 07:40:21 pm
Howes quits AWU and the ALP executive.  (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/paul-howes-expected-to-quit-union-and-labors-national-executive)Admittedly I haven't been following for 6 months, but is there some sort of backstory here?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on March 24, 2014, 01:27:08 am
Howes quits AWU and the ALP executive.  (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/24/paul-howes-expected-to-quit-union-and-labors-national-executive)Admittedly I haven't been following for 6 months, but is there some sort of backstory here?

I'm not entirely sure myself, although I'm sure him missing out on Carr's old Senate seat would be part of the reason.

In other news, Clive Palmer and the Palmer United Party haven't paid a $5300 debt (http://palmerunited.com/2013/07/calamari-and-chips-with-clive-palmer/) to a northern NSW club. The club hosted a calamari and chips night for the party. (http://palmerunited.com/2013/07/calamari-and-chips-with-clive-palmer/)

I swear, Palmer is getting crazier and more imbecilic every day...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 24, 2014, 02:02:08 am
I believe... what I've read and what I've heard on the grapevine is that Howes wants to be free of both bodies to be an advocate for specific causes and views that he expects blow-back for, namely a formal separation of the party from the union movement.

On that issue, I can't believe he's only just over 18 months older than me... I expected him to be closer to 40.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 26, 2014, 06:46:31 pm
So... the Government continues to dive to depths of horrible even I didn't think possible.

* Abbott (without Cabinet or Party Room consultation or approval) has decided to re-instate the ranks of Knight and Dame of the Order of Australia. Something the Hawke Government removed in 1986 and John Howard in 11 years refused to touch. In fact, John Howard made a comment today that he disagrees with the decision and sees it as "slightly anachronistic" and said he would refuse a Knighthood if offered... that's correct, John Howard is more in touch with modern Australia than Tony Abbott.

* The Institute of Public Affairs wishlist of horrid continues to be ticked off, with the Attorney General presenting a watering down of the Racial Discrimination Act. He argued in Parliament that people have the "right to be bigots" and have removed specific wording including the terms "offend, insult and humiliate" they left "intimidate" and added "vilify" ... so essentially only the worst examples of public racial discrimination where someone felt physically threatened was referred to in an abusive manner would be considered for prosecution. And this was a watered down version of a more extreme change that Brandis took to Cabinet.

* The actively partisan way in which the Speaker has been doing her job has been raising the ire of even the most loyal Coalition supporter. Even PVO has been highly critical suggesting that she needs to pull her head in and display even a veneer of impartiality (which is all you ever really expect from the Speaker) or she needs to go.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 26, 2014, 11:31:18 pm
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-march-27-2014-20140327-35jl9.html

Very entertaining day in Question Time (as it's the final one until the Budget session starts on 13 May. Motion of no confidence moved against Bronwyn Bishop as Speaker (thanks be to GOD!)... but it obviously did not work (although, I'd love to know what the vote would have been if it had been a private ballot)....


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 27, 2014, 01:53:16 am
Also, I don't think it had been mentioned that Joe de Bruyn will be stepping down as Secretary of the SDA this year, and from the ALP National Executive next year.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 27, 2014, 03:10:27 am
Also, I don't think it had been mentioned that Joe de Bruyn will be stepping down as Secretary of the SDA this year, and from the ALP National Executive next year.
:D


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2014, 04:23:28 am
I wanna be a Sir one day.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 27, 2014, 05:50:27 am
Also, I don't think it had been mentioned that Joe de Bruyn will be stepping down as Secretary of the SDA this year, and from the ALP National Executive next year.
:D

He will be replaced by someone just as socially conservative don't you worry :)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on March 27, 2014, 06:27:41 am
Also, I don't think it had been mentioned that Joe de Bruyn will be stepping down as Secretary of the SDA this year, and from the ALP National Executive next year.
:D

He will be replaced by someone just as socially conservative don't you worry :)

Just depends on whether the successor will try to force the conference to bend to his will as vile Joe did and fixate on single issues that don't relate to his remit.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on April 01, 2014, 12:23:42 pm
So... the Government continues to dive to depths of horrible even I didn't think possible.

* Abbott (without Cabinet or Party Room consultant I on or approval) has decided to re-instate the ranks of Knight and Dame of the Order of Australia. Something the Hawke Government removed in 1986 and John Howard in 11 years refused to touch. In fact, John Howard made a comment today that he disagrees with the decision and sees it as "slightly anachronistic" and said he would refuse a Knighthood if offered... that's correct, John Howard is more in touch with modern Australia than Tony Abbott.

How supremely excellent!


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mordecai on April 01, 2014, 01:27:26 pm
So... the Government continues to dive to depths of horrible even I didn't think possible.

* Abbott (without Cabinet or Party Room consultation or approval) has decided to re-instate the ranks of Knight and Dame of the Order of Australia. Something the Hawke Government removed in 1986 and John Howard in 11 years refused to touch. In fact, John Howard made a comment today that he disagrees with the decision and sees it as "slightly anachronistic" and said he would refuse a Knighthood if offered... that's correct, John Howard is more in touch with modern Australia than Tony Abbott.

* The Institute of Public Affairs wishlist of horrid continues to be ticked off, with the Attorney General presenting a watering down of the Racial Discrimination Act. He argued in Parliament that people have the "right to be bigots" and have removed specific wording including the terms "offend, insult and humiliate" they left "intimidate" and added "vilify" ... so essentially only the worst examples of public racial discrimination where someone felt physically threatened was referred to in an abusive manner would be considered for prosecution. And this was a watered down version of a more extreme change that Brandis took to Cabinet.

* The actively partisan way in which the Speaker has been doing her job has been raising the ire of even the most loyal Coalition supporter. Even PVO has been highly critical suggesting that she needs to pull her head in and display even a veneer of impartiality (which is all you ever really expect from the Speaker) or she needs to go.

I remember thinking how awful the next three years were going to be on election night last year, but I severely underestimated their capacity to be nasty just for the sake of it. Paul Keating was dead right, Tony Abbott really is the poor man's John Howard. No policy ambition whatsoever.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 02, 2014, 10:50:31 pm
So Lab's leading WA Senate candidate has a criminal record for assault. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/senate-hopeful-joe-bullock-has-record-for-assault/story-fn59niix-1226872826519#) If a background check was done, why no veto?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on April 03, 2014, 02:25:43 am
So Lab's leading WA Senate candidate has a criminal record for assault. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/senate-hopeful-joe-bullock-has-record-for-assault/story-fn59niix-1226872826519#) If a background check was done, why no veto?

Because he is a good union leader and he deserves the seat. Also remember that the SDA is like the largest donor to the party. This isn't the only time that candidates have been found to have a criminal record (one of Labor's successful candidates in SA last month also had a criminal record for assaulting a police officer) but it's not a major incident and it has no relevance whatsoever in how he will perform in the senate.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 03, 2014, 07:25:59 pm
So Lab's leading WA Senate candidate has a criminal record for assault. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/senate-hopeful-joe-bullock-has-record-for-assault/story-fn59niix-1226872826519#) If a background check was done, why no veto?

um (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Latham)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mordecai on April 04, 2014, 11:12:24 am
So Lab's leading WA Senate candidate has a criminal record for assault. (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/senate-hopeful-joe-bullock-has-record-for-assault/story-fn59niix-1226872826519#) If a background check was done, why no veto?

He's a union boss. Uggh. Still voting 1 Labor.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 13, 2014, 09:42:14 pm
Some very interesting polling and news stories.

Nielsen Poll

Primary vote
LNP: 40% (-4)
ALP: 34% (-1)
GRN: 17% (+5) ... that's a record level of support for the Greens.

TPP
LNP: 48% (-3)
ALP: 52% (+3)


Approval
Abbott: 43%
Shorten: 43%

Disapproval
Abbott: 50%
Shorten: 41%

Preferred PM
Abbott: 45% (-3)
Shorten: 44% (+4)

Do you support the re-introduction of Knight and Damehoods?
Support: 35%
Not Support: 50%

Do people have a right to be bigots?
Yes: 34%
No: 59%

Should it be lawful for someone to insult, offend or humiliate someone based on race or ethnicity?
Lawful: 9%
Unlawful: 88%

... pretty bloody awful polling position, especially if you consider the Commission of Audit and the Budget of Evil is getting closer, and while people want the Government to do something about the Budget, they don't want it to affect them...


....

Interesting news out of the continuing WA Senate count... Louise Pratt is leading Joe Bullock on the below-the-line count, which Antony Green has described as "unheard of". It should be noted that in that Nielsen poll (but with a massive MoE) - the Greens are out-polling Labor in primary vote. But even considering the MoE that's been read by almost EVERYONE as a reaction to the Joe Bullock's comments and the personal campaign FOR Pratt that emerged.

Even members of the right are arguing that the presence of the hard-core social conservative union voices are risking seats being lost to the Greens (such as Freemantle) and they risk losing the urban progressive vote to the Greens. Which of course is news to some people's ears around here, but considering how important that vote is in most ALP seats and the Libs are pretty well targeting the bigoted/xenophobic vote... it's a recipe for disaster.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 14, 2014, 02:01:20 am
Former independent Senator Brian Harradine has passed away (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/former-independent-tasmanian-senator-brian-harradine-dies-aged-79/story-fn59niix-1226883874876#)

Quote from: The Australian
BRIAN Harradine, Australia’s longest-serving Parliamentary independent, who used his position in the balance of power of in the senate to help pass the Howard government’s Wik legislation on indigenous land title but opposed the GST, has died in Tasmania.

The former independent Tasmanian senator died this afternoon surrounded by family members.

A family spokesman said Harradine, 79, died after a long illness.

“Brian Harradine was a great politician of the old school who connected with people from all walks of life,’’ he said.

Harradine, a trade union executive who was expelled from the ALP as part of the infighting over communism in the 1950s, was elected as an independent senator in 1975 and served in the Senate for 29 years before retiring in 2005.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 15, 2014, 07:19:47 pm
Don't know the backstory, but holy crap: O'Farrell's resigned after being caught lying to a corruption inquiry. (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barry-ofarrell-resigns-after-being-caught-out-over-bottle-of-wine-20140416-36qpg.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 15, 2014, 07:30:05 pm
The NSW ALP will win the next election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 15, 2014, 07:38:22 pm
Don't know the backstory, but holy crap: O'Farrell's resigned after being caught lying to a corruption inquiry. (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barry-ofarrell-resigns-after-being-caught-out-over-bottle-of-wine-20140416-36qpg.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)

It's shocking... he's a genuinely good guy.

Basically a dodgy character sent him a $3000 bottle of wine that he said last night he 'had no recollection of'.

Then they found a thank you note hand-written by the Premier... so yeah.


...this means, after Colin Barnett, Katy Gallagher (Chief Minister of the ACT), who's been in office for just under 3 years, is the longest-serving head of Government in Australia. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on April 15, 2014, 08:15:06 pm
Don't know the backstory, but holy crap: O'Farrell's resigned after being caught lying to a corruption inquiry. (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barry-ofarrell-resigns-after-being-caught-out-over-bottle-of-wine-20140416-36qpg.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)

It's shocking... he's a genuinely good guy.

Basically a dodgy character sent him a $3000 bottle of wine that he said last night he 'had no recollection of'.

Then they found a thank you note hand-written by the Premier... so yeah.


...this means, after Colin Barnett, Katy Gallagher (Chief Minister of the ACT), who's been in office for just under 3 years, is the longest-serving head of Government in Australia. 

Honestly, why lie about these sorts of things? On another note, who's going to be the next Premier? Will be interesting to see if O'Farrell resigns his Parliamentary seat too.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 15, 2014, 08:20:51 pm
Don't know the backstory, but holy crap: O'Farrell's resigned after being caught lying to a corruption inquiry. (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/barry-ofarrell-resigns-after-being-caught-out-over-bottle-of-wine-20140416-36qpg.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)

It's shocking... he's a genuinely good guy.

Basically a dodgy character sent him a $3000 bottle of wine that he said last night he 'had no recollection of'.

Then they found a thank you note hand-written by the Premier... so yeah.


...this means, after Colin Barnett, Katy Gallagher (Chief Minister of the ACT), who's been in office for just under 3 years, is the longest-serving head of Government in Australia. 

Honestly, why lie about these sorts of things? On another note, who's going to be the next Premier? Will be interesting to see if O'Farrell resigns his Parliamentary seat too.

My gut says Mike Baird... but Gladys Berejiklian is another option.

It's less than a year until the election, I'd be surprised if he didn't wait and just not stand.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on April 15, 2014, 08:58:05 pm
What are the repercussions for this? Will there be any?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 15, 2014, 09:03:08 pm
Quentin Dempster put it pretty well, "with this and Sinodinos ... they've wiped out 5 years of good will" - they'll suffer some political damage for this, no question. This is despite the efforts of Sky News and PVO to say 'this is about a bottle of wine?! and ICAC is rubbish". The reality is that this is potentially about perjury.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 15, 2014, 09:07:44 pm
If he's charged with perjury... what are potential sentences?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 15, 2014, 09:12:55 pm
If he's charged with perjury... what are potential sentences?

Jail... massive fines. I doubt it will go that far, but the fact is there is a serious failure of the smell-test on this one.



Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 15, 2014, 09:34:09 pm
I suspect this was a genuine mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate lie, however lying under oath is lying under oath, and that's what's brought him down - not that he accepted a bottle of wine. I suspect he won't have the book thrown at him, perhaps a plea bargain, or even if not, a not especially heavy sentence.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on April 15, 2014, 11:29:05 pm
I suspect this was a genuine mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate lie, however lying under oath is lying under oath, and that's what's brought him down - not that he accepted a bottle of wine. I suspect he won't have the book thrown at him, perhaps a plea bargain, or even if not, a not especially heavy sentence.

I hope it was a genuine mistake too. As you said though, lying under oath is lying under oath.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 16, 2014, 12:21:34 am
I suspect this was a genuine mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate lie, however lying under oath is lying under oath, and that's what's brought him down - not that he accepted a bottle of wine. I suspect he won't have the book thrown at him, perhaps a plea bargain, or even if not, a not especially heavy sentence.

I hope it was a genuine mistake too. As you said though, lying under oath is lying under oath.

Again... I'm conflicted. The general view is... how the hell do you forget receiving a bottle of Grange, let alone one that is that rare and valuable AND writing a thank you note, to someone that you're in fairy regular contact with?

That's the part that bothers me... it just makes so little sense. Plus, if he was unsure... why make such a strong and clear denial? 'I'm not 100% sure, please let me check records so I can be accurate in my testimony' - the media wouldn't like it... but it at least would be accurate. The look of horror on his face when the phone record was produced last night ... was special.

So, part of me thinks he either genuinely forgot (which I find odd and little disturbing) or he oversold his denial thinking he could get away with it.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on April 16, 2014, 12:59:07 am
Not only is it a weird thing to lie over, it doesn't feel like it's resignation material. Very good chance that this isn't the end of it. Could just be the beginning.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: BaconBacon96 on April 16, 2014, 01:01:31 am
Holy crap that was unexpected. Plus I heard he was meant to meet the British royals today, but didn't in the end. Wow.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 16, 2014, 01:51:13 am
Not only is it a weird thing to lie over, it doesn't feel like it's resignation material. Very good chance that this isn't the end of it. Could just be the beginning.

I do understand... when you've spent the last what? 5-7 years running around saying "they're corrupt, we are (and most importantly I am) clean..." The scent, the whiff of something off, was going to kill his brand.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Çråbçæk on April 16, 2014, 03:01:29 am
Not only is it a weird thing to lie over, it doesn't feel like it's resignation material. Very good chance that this isn't the end of it. Could just be the beginning.

I do understand... when you've spent the last what? 5-7 years running around saying "they're corrupt, we are (and most importantly I am) clean..." The scent, the whiff of something off, was going to kill his brand.

To be fair, it is New South Wales. Isn't that considered the Illinois of Australian politics?

Also, wow. Does any federal or state leader last more than a term in Australian politics? They get replaced like poor quality lightbulbs.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on April 16, 2014, 03:18:15 am
Not only is it a weird thing to lie over, it doesn't feel like it's resignation material. Very good chance that this isn't the end of it. Could just be the beginning.

I do understand... when you've spent the last what? 5-7 years running around saying "they're corrupt, we are (and most importantly I am) clean..." The scent, the whiff of something off, was going to kill his brand.

To be fair, it is New South Wales. Isn't that considered the Illinois of Australian politics?

Also, wow. Does any federal or state leader last more than a term in Australian politics? They get replaced like poor quality lightbulbs.
Pretty much, yeah. Can't think of the last government who wasn't involved in corruption. McKell's?

Barnett is in his second full term ftr.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 16, 2014, 01:18:56 pm
To be fair, it is New South Wales. Isn't that considered the Illinois of Australian politics?

No, because political life in NSW has been fundamentally corrupt for longer than Illinois has even existed :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 16, 2014, 05:53:34 pm
The Liberal party meeting has been moved to this afternoon. They apparently want an unopposed election.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 16, 2014, 06:05:36 pm
Reports that Baird will be the next Premier.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 16, 2014, 08:14:48 pm
Reports that Baird will be the next Premier.

Yep, he and Berejiklian apparently met last night and this morning and decided that (despite her probably having slightly more support) and close leadership ballot was not in the interests of the party.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 16, 2014, 08:21:24 pm
I suspect this was a genuine mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate lie, however lying under oath is lying under oath, and that's what's brought him down - not that he accepted a bottle of wine. I suspect he won't have the book thrown at him, perhaps a plea bargain, or even if not, a not especially heavy sentence.

I hope it was a genuine mistake too. As you said though, lying under oath is lying under oath.

Again... I'm conflicted. The general view is... how the hell do you forget receiving a bottle of Grange, let alone one that is that rare and valuable AND writing a thank you note, to someone that you're in fairy regular contact with?

That's the part that bothers me... it just makes so little sense. Plus, if he was unsure... why make such a strong and clear denial? 'I'm not 100% sure, please let me check records so I can be accurate in my testimony' - the media wouldn't like it... but it at least would be accurate. The look of horror on his face when the phone record was produced last night ... was special.

So, part of me thinks he either genuinely forgot (which I find odd and little disturbing) or he oversold his denial thinking he could get away with it.

I agree with almost all of this (I think it can make a bit more sense, and that there may be a reason he felt he didn't need to check records before responding, but I'll come back to that). I have also heard the look on his face was something to behold - but I think it was due to a high level of stress at realising he'd completely painted himself into a corner with strong denials that have turned out to be untrue. I still think it was mistake, rather than malicious, but regardless, he realised he'd made very strong denials and evidence has come out that they are untrue. I can understand a look of horror.

Not only is it a weird thing to lie over, it doesn't feel like it's resignation material. Very good chance that this isn't the end of it. Could just be the beginning.

I do understand... when you've spent the last what? 5-7 years running around saying "they're corrupt, we are (and most importantly I am) clean..." The scent, the whiff of something off, was going to kill his brand.

I also agree with both points raised here, well, minus the "not the end/just the beginning" bit. I think Polnut absolutely hits the nail on the head, that he has made such a stand on integrity, made it his number one issue, he really needed to put his money where his mouth is when confronted with lying under oath.


I suspect he forgot because delegations from all over bring gifts to meetings with Ministers, Premiers, Prime Ministers, even meetings with backbenchers. They do receive a fair number of gifts, and I don't think it completely unreasonable to forget it - we found a bottle of wine in our wine rack on the weekend, which was very clearly a gift, and I have absolutely no idea from whom I received it nor when (Grange, I'd probably remember, but then again, perhaps Grange isn't as big a deal to someone who has reached the top of state politics). Anyway, this is the reason we have a Register of Members' Interests in all Parliaments across Australia - to avoid gifts being used as bribes, it's harder to do that if you have to declare gifts.

Members do forget (occasionally) to enter something into the Register. They normally add it on at a later date, when they realise, and make a very brief statement to Parliament in which they apologise for the error. It's no big deal to occasionally forget to add something, at least, not if you remember to add it later.

Given that he received it as a "congratulatory gift" following the election, it doesn't strike me as odd to think he received probably a fair number of gifts and notes and the like at about that time, plus all the briefings to get him up to speed on forming government - that transitional period is very busy. I can completely understand why he may have forgotten receiving it.

I think he felt he could make such a strong statement, both to ICAC and to the media, because he checked his Pecuniary Interests forms beforehand - he was called to give evidence, not just for the sake of giving evidence, but because a previous witness testified that he'd sent this bottle of wine. I think that as soon as that witness's testimony was given, someone in the Premier's Office would have been checking the Register for that item, and not finding it. The Premier would have been fully briefed that it doesn't appear on the Register, and he would have prepared specifically for that question prior to giving evidence. Remember: the question didn't just pop up at a media conference, or when a journalist asked to follow up a lead - he wouldn't have needed to say "I'll go and check my records" because he would already have done so. His failure here doesn't relate to not giving a tentative answer when he should have, the failure is in the record keeping.


I am most likely biased, and I do have a tendency to trust people and take them at their word - or at the very least, look for a way in which they aren't deliberately being untruthful, but maybe through a misunderstanding or through miscommunication may be attempting to be honest but mistakingly giving a false answer. I try to over-ride my biases when it comes to MPs caught out on issues in their personal lives (as opposed to policy - and I consider bribery and corruption a personal flaw, not a policy flaw) by trying to objectively ask myself how I'd respond if the MP was on the opposite side - if a criticism is levelled at a Liberal MP, I ask myself if I'd be defending their actions if they were a Labor MP, and if it's a Labor MP, I ask myself if I'd be criticising them if they were a Liberal. I may not actively criticise a Liberal/defend a Labor MP publicly, or here on the Forum, but I certainly would in private with close friends (and the absence of recording devices!!!). Indeed, there was a Labor MP criticised for something in the past twelve months, where I refused to comment on the allegations because I believed the MP's version of events, and in private I did comment on them because when people asked me what I thought, I thought it important to voice my opinion that I thought the MP was being a bit hard-done-by (for reference, I don't think anyone on here would even remember the MP/incident, it was in the paper for about a day or two before it died down).

Anyway, that said, I may be biased in this, but I honestly think O'Farrell has done nothing maliciously wrong. I certainly don't believe he acted corruptly: there is nothing wrong with accepting a bottle of wine, even a $3,000 bottle of wine (assuming it is declared). There is also nothing wrong with honestly forgetting to declare it (though there are very important reasons why it needs to be declared, especially when it's received from someone so caught up in corruption allegations - I don't think it's resign-worthy, though). I think he honestly had forgotten that he'd received the wine, that he checked to make sure, that he felt he could make these statements under oath and again to the media. I think that the mention of the phonecall and his look of horror was not that he'd failed to bury the evidence, but that moment when the penny dropped that obviously he had received it and that he was now in the position where his entire career was unravelling before his eyes. I feel terribly and utterly sorry for the man and I empathise with that punch to the guts he must have been feeling.

Having therefore lied under oath, even if unintentionally, although I think he may have been able to weather the storm (at a greatly reduced popularity in the polls), he really had to resign. I think most people would have tried going on, but I think O'Farrell knew the horrible decision he had to make and I think he followed his conscience and felt it was the only way he could maintain at least part of his integrity.

If further evidence comes out that he had, in fact, acted corruptly, I reserve my right to change my opinion of O'Farrell, but I honestly believe he did the right, honourable and noble thing in resigning, and that he did so at great personal cost, and I think that demonstrates the importance he places in his own integrity.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 16, 2014, 08:29:55 pm
Reports that Baird will be the next Premier.

Yep, he and Berejiklian apparently met last night and this morning and decided that (despite her probably having slightly more support) and close leadership ballot was not in the interests of the party.

Update: Joint statement released - Baird to run for Leader and Berejiklian to run for Deputy.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 16, 2014, 08:38:53 pm
I suspect this was a genuine mistake on his part, rather than a deliberate lie, however lying under oath is lying under oath, and that's what's brought him down - not that he accepted a bottle of wine. I suspect he won't have the book thrown at him, perhaps a plea bargain, or even if not, a not especially heavy sentence.

I hope it was a genuine mistake too. As you said though, lying under oath is lying under oath.

Again... I'm conflicted. The general view is... how the hell do you forget receiving a bottle of Grange, let alone one that is that rare and valuable AND writing a thank you note, to someone that you're in fairy regular contact with?

That's the part that bothers me... it just makes so little sense. Plus, if he was unsure... why make such a strong and clear denial? 'I'm not 100% sure, please let me check records so I can be accurate in my testimony' - the media wouldn't like it... but it at least would be accurate. The look of horror on his face when the phone record was produced last night ... was special.

So, part of me thinks he either genuinely forgot (which I find odd and little disturbing) or he oversold his denial thinking he could get away with it.

I agree with almost all of this (I think it can make a bit more sense, and that there may be a reason he felt he didn't need to check records before responding, but I'll come back to that). I have also heard the look on his face was something to behold - but I think it was due to a high level of stress at realising he'd completely painted himself into a corner with strong denials that have turned out to be untrue. I still think it was mistake, rather than malicious, but regardless, he realised he'd made very strong denials and evidence has come out that they are untrue. I can understand a look of horror.

Not only is it a weird thing to lie over, it doesn't feel like it's resignation material. Very good chance that this isn't the end of it. Could just be the beginning.

I do understand... when you've spent the last what? 5-7 years running around saying "they're corrupt, we are (and most importantly I am) clean..." The scent, the whiff of something off, was going to kill his brand.

I also agree with both points raised here, well, minus the "not the end/just the beginning" bit. I think Polnut absolutely hits the nail on the head, that he has made such a stand on integrity, made it his number one issue, he really needed to put his money where his mouth is when confronted with lying under oath.


I suspect he forgot because delegations from all over bring gifts to meetings with Ministers, Premiers, Prime Ministers, even meetings with backbenchers. They do receive a fair number of gifts, and I don't think it completely unreasonable to forget it - we found a bottle of wine in our wine rack on the weekend, which was very clearly a gift, and I have absolutely no idea from whom I received it nor when (Grange, I'd probably remember, but then again, perhaps Grange isn't as big a deal to someone who has reached the top of state politics). Anyway, this is the reason we have a Register of Members' Interests in all Parliaments across Australia - to avoid gifts being used as bribes, it's harder to do that if you have to declare gifts.

Members do forget (occasionally) to enter something into the Register. They normally add it on at a later date, when they realise, and make a very brief statement to Parliament in which they apologise for the error. It's no big deal to occasionally forget to add something, at least, not if you remember to add it later.

Given that he received it as a "congratulatory gift" following the election, it doesn't strike me as odd to think he received probably a fair number of gifts and notes and the like at about that time, plus all the briefings to get him up to speed on forming government - that transitional period is very busy. I can completely understand why he may have forgotten receiving it.

I think he felt he could make such a strong statement, both to ICAC and to the media, because he checked his Pecuniary Interests forms beforehand - he was called to give evidence, not just for the sake of giving evidence, but because a previous witness testified that he'd sent this bottle of wine. I think that as soon as that witness's testimony was given, someone in the Premier's Office would have been checking the Register for that item, and not finding it. The Premier would have been fully briefed that it doesn't appear on the Register, and he would have prepared specifically for that question prior to giving evidence. Remember: the question didn't just pop up at a media conference, or when a journalist asked to follow up a lead - he wouldn't have needed to say "I'll go and check my records" because he would already have done so. His failure here doesn't relate to not giving a tentative answer when he should have, the failure is in the record keeping.


I am most likely biased, and I do have a tendency to trust people and take them at their word - or at the very least, look for a way in which they aren't deliberately being untruthful, but maybe through a misunderstanding or through miscommunication may be attempting to be honest but mistakingly giving a false answer. I try to over-ride my biases when it comes to MPs caught out on issues in their personal lives (as opposed to policy - and I consider bribery and corruption a personal flaw, not a policy flaw) by trying to objectively ask myself how I'd respond if the MP was on the opposite side - if a criticism is levelled at a Liberal MP, I ask myself if I'd be defending their actions if they were a Labor MP, and if it's a Labor MP, I ask myself if I'd be criticising them if they were a Liberal. I may not actively criticise a Liberal/defend a Labor MP publicly, or here on the Forum, but I certainly would in private with close friends (and the absence of recording devices!!!). Indeed, there was a Labor MP criticised for something in the past twelve months, where I refused to comment on the allegations because I believed the MP's version of events, and in private I did comment on them because when people asked me what I thought, I thought it important to voice my opinion that I thought the MP was being a bit hard-done-by (for reference, I don't think anyone on here would even remember the MP/incident, it was in the paper for about a day or two before it died down).

Anyway, that said, I may be biased in this, but I honestly think O'Farrell has done nothing maliciously wrong. I certainly don't believe he acted corruptly: there is nothing wrong with accepting a bottle of wine, even a $3,000 bottle of wine (assuming it is declared). There is also nothing wrong with honestly forgetting to declare it (though there are very important reasons why it needs to be declared, especially when it's received from someone so caught up in corruption allegations - I don't think it's resign-worthy, though). I think he honestly had forgotten that he'd received the wine, that he checked to make sure, that he felt he could make these statements under oath and again to the media. I think that the mention of the phonecall and his look of horror was not that he'd failed to bury the evidence, but that moment when the penny dropped that obviously he had received it and that he was now in the position where his entire career was unravelling before his eyes. I feel terribly and utterly sorry for the man and I empathise with that punch to the guts he must have been feeling.

Having therefore lied under oath, even if unintentionally, although I think he may have been able to weather the storm (at a greatly reduced popularity in the polls), he really had to resign. I think most people would have tried going on, but I think O'Farrell knew the horrible decision he had to make and I think he followed his conscience and felt it was the only way he could maintain at least part of his integrity.

If further evidence comes out that he had, in fact, acted corruptly, I reserve my right to change my opinion of O'Farrell, but I honestly believe he did the right, honourable and noble thing in resigning, and that he did so at great personal cost, and I think that demonstrates the importance he places in his own integrity.

FTR - I pretty much agree with this (even though it started with you agreeing with me ;)) - I certainly see nothing malicious in this at all, at least not the degree of maliciousness you'd normally expect.

It's possible he didn't remember, but his biggest single mistake was to make a clear statement that it didn't happen - because both require you to KNOW for sure.

I'm no expert in O'Farrell, he's the cousin of a friend of mine and I've met him a few times, he's a genuinely nice guy and normally very politically skilled. However, my view is that instead of saying his didn't remember, he said it never happened, trying to make the issue go away - again, because he KNEW the consequences of anything vaguely to do with corruption being anywhere near him - so he overshot the mark and brought it all down on himself.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 16, 2014, 11:37:12 pm
And the right of the NSW Libs are furious about the deal between Baird and Berejiklian for the leadership... since they're both moderates.

Will be interesting to see if there's a right-wing ticket that runs purely out of spite.

Edit: Baird and Berejiklian elected unopposed


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: BaconBacon96 on April 17, 2014, 04:32:23 pm
Actually, Baird is a member of the right-wing faction. He's also a social conservative and devout Christian.

You maybe confusing him with his moderate father, Bruce Baird.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on April 17, 2014, 07:00:53 pm
Actually, Baird is a member of the right-wing faction. He's also a social conservative and devout Christian.

You maybe confusing him with his moderate father, Bruce Baird.
All the media seems to suggest that he's in the Left....

You are correct that he is a SoCon, though.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 17, 2014, 09:26:28 pm
Actually, Baird is a member of the right-wing faction. He's also a social conservative and devout Christian.

You maybe confusing him with his moderate father, Bruce Baird.
All the media seems to suggest that he's in the Left....

You are correct that he is a SoCon, though.


Actually, he's still considered to be part of the moderate wing, which says a lot. He certainly has some strong conservative credentials.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on April 20, 2014, 12:44:24 am
With the election in Victoria scheduled (for now) in November, how is it looking?  Will the Liberals there hold on, or will Labor be able to regain power? 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 20, 2014, 01:20:31 am
With the election in Victoria scheduled (for now) in November, how is it looking?  Will the Liberals there hold on, or will Labor be able to regain power? 

It's been a while since the Libs have led in the polls. I believe the Government will lose, but to me, it'll come down to who has the better marginal seat campaign.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 20, 2014, 02:31:42 am
Last poll having Liberals leading was in June 2013.

However, the Labor has an issue with retiring MLAs. Labor has 8, Coalition has 6.
5 of the retiring Labor MLAs are in marginal seats (Oakleigh, Macedon, Ripon, Essendon and Geelong), the three safe ones being Yuroke, Pascoe Vale and Dandenong. All coalition seats with retiring MLAs are safe or ultra-safe (Bulleen, Kew and Bass for the Liberals, Lowan, Shepparton and Benalla for the Nationals).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on April 20, 2014, 03:14:45 am
Labor may have effectively already lost Macedon by parachuting in an outsider left wing candidate who doesn't have any support in the local branches (90% of local members signed a petition against her and sent it off to the admin. committee) and they're refusing to campaign for her.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 20, 2014, 04:06:40 am
Labor may have effectively already lost Macedon by parachuting in an outsider left wing candidate who doesn't have any support in the local branches (90% of local members signed a petition against her and sent it off to the admin. committee) and they're refusing to campaign for her.

The issue isn't than the candidate is left-wing. It's than the left and right factions divide the seats between them and the candidate than the local branch selected belongs is opposed to factions. So, both factions opposed it. It's more a pro-factions/pro-members fight.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on April 20, 2014, 04:15:00 am
Labor may have effectively already lost Macedon by parachuting in an outsider left wing candidate who doesn't have any support in the local branches (90% of local members signed a petition against her and sent it off to the admin. committee) and they're refusing to campaign for her.

The issue isn't than the candidate is left-wing. It's than the left and right factions divide the seats between them and the candidate than the local branch selected belongs is opposed to factions. So, both factions opposed it. It's more a pro-factions/pro-members fight.

Christian Zahra (who has 90% support in local branches) is a right faction member. The seat is assigned to the left faction, which meant the admin committee imposed a left wing candidate on the locals who has no support, and they've made a massive public fuss over it. Thomas is the woman to lose the seat.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 20, 2014, 04:24:01 am
Labor may have effectively already lost Macedon by parachuting in an outsider left wing candidate who doesn't have any support in the local branches (90% of local members signed a petition against her and sent it off to the admin. committee) and they're refusing to campaign for her.

The issue isn't than the candidate is left-wing. It's than the left and right factions divide the seats between them and the candidate than the local branch selected belongs is opposed to factions. So, both factions opposed it. It's more a pro-factions/pro-members fight.

Christian Zahra (who has 90% support in local branches) is a right faction member. The seat is assigned to the left faction, which meant the admin committee imposed a left wing candidate on the locals who has no support, and they've made a massive public fuss over it. Thomas is the woman to lose the seat.

I'm aware, but the right-wing faction leaders aren't supporting Zahra either (it would endanger the division pact and I don't think they want someone they can't control as MLA. Even if he is a member of the right faction, his willingness to challenge the decisions of the factions is making him much less interesting for the right faction. Both factions want easily controllable members and Zahra isn't).

The initial issue was left vs. right, but it's not anymore. It's central factions vs. local branches, now. But we agree than this will do a great disservice to Thomas, sure. And, honestly, it's a good thing. Errors like that are the only way to erode the power of the factions.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on April 20, 2014, 06:39:05 am
Labor has another big problem which is that the redistribution has been incredibly unfavourable to them. A total of 5 current Labor seats have been made notionally Liberal for this election, making their job even harder.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 20, 2014, 06:52:17 am
Neville Wran has died at 87 after a long illness. RIP.  (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/neville-wran-dead-aged-87-20140420-36ywh.html) :(


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 20, 2014, 07:06:28 am
It won't be easy ...


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 20, 2014, 09:20:32 am
I can't say much about Victorian politics, those who know me know my reasons. 

Won't say much about Labor's candidate in Macedon, but there is an excellent Liberal candidate there.

Redistribution isn't as cut and dried as Hifly suggests. Benefits the government in some areas and the opposition in others. Overall, reasonably balanced.

I could elaborate further but not in writing and not on a public forum.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 21, 2014, 06:31:16 am
Well... it appears the Government's 'Direct Action' climate policy is in deep, deep trouble. Palmer (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clive-palmer-says-hopeless-direct-action-plan-dead-without-pup-support-20140421-zqxee.html) is making it clear that his Senators will not vote for the policy (which might be one of the few things I agree with Palmer on... it's a RIDICULOUS policy), the Greens and the ALP will not support it... so, the Coalition are in a tough spot on this.

If they're seen to walk away from the issue by trying to get enough of the cross-benchers to get rid of the Carbon Price, but not replace it with anything... it will be a terrible political look. One of the things that is interesting about climate change policy, people might not like to have to put out themselves to deal with it (because they're ... well, yeah) but they really don't like nothing being done about it. Plus it will be seen as pretty big defeat.

Hunt and Abbott better start working on alternatives, put a real plan on the table and try to work with the Opposition ... PUP is going to be a disaster on this area among others.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 23, 2014, 11:09:38 pm
While there's more to this than meets the eye, what meets the eye is pretty damn awful:

(https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10297632_685894318112471_7920988581550180647_n.jpg)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 24, 2014, 05:50:35 am
They're just... awful


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 24, 2014, 05:59:17 am
Abbott joins the Lizard club.  (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/prime-minister-tony-abbott-breaches-royal-protocol-with-an-arm-round-prince-william-20140424-zqz2g.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 24, 2014, 06:37:07 am
Abbott joins the Lizard club.  (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/prime-minister-tony-abbott-breaches-royal-protocol-with-an-arm-round-prince-william-20140424-zqz2g.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)

He was very handsy with the Duchess at Manly... I'm pretty sure she shot him a look of "thanks, it's pretty obvious that I'm meant to be heading down the stairs everyone else has walked down"


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 28, 2014, 08:02:17 pm
One of the new Government's measures to return the Budget to surplus... a deficit 'levy' ie a 4 year 1% tax increase on those earning $80k and 2% for those on $180k+... although in the Australian context, $80k isn't exactly considered high-income.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/deficit-tax-to-cost-earners-on-80000-an-extra-800-a-year-reports-20140428-zr0zk.html

Can you imagine the squealing that would have come from this lot when they were in opposition to a tax-increase to pay down the deficit? Also a bit rich considering the rubbery figures the Govt is using as well as their increasing the deficit over the forward estimates by $68 billion.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on April 28, 2014, 08:10:36 pm
Somehow I'm neither surprised nor happy.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist on April 28, 2014, 08:37:43 pm
At least they aren't proposing to solve the deficit with a tax cut as some here would do.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on April 28, 2014, 08:58:42 pm
At least they aren't proposing to solve the deficit with a tax cut as some here would do.

Granted, but it's taken until like... the last few weeks for the Government to acknowledge that there is as big an issue with revenue (if not a bigger one) than spending. Because they've been outright lying about the nature of our public spending... saying it's exploding, when its not - saying our pension system is unsustainable, when studies show it to be the most stable and sustainable in the world... the issue is revenue.

But as Joe Hockey (ie about beat John Howard as the worst Treasurer we've ever had) continues to ignore - had revenues from 2006-7 been maintained, we'd have a Budget surplus. But the combination of the GFC (which conservatives all of the world seem to forget ever happened), the increased value over than time of the Australian dollar and the instability of our trading partners... Government revenues have dropped.

Bottom-line, there is no Budget emergency we could make fewer drastic changes, keep the cuts the former Government put in place, and they could claim credit for a track to surplus and start paying down the debt in 4-6 years.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 03, 2014, 06:23:49 am
This coming week is shaping up to be among the worst for this Government so far... stay tuned.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Talleyrand on May 04, 2014, 09:24:09 pm
ReachTel has Labor on 54% of the TPP, with a 40% primary vote to 39% for the Coalition (the lowest its been in several years, I presume?).


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 05, 2014, 01:34:53 am
Morgan is out with a 55-45... and Newspoll tonight. Considering how bizarre NP can be - I expect a tie :P


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 05, 2014, 09:30:33 am
Too tired to do everything - Newspoll has it 53-47 ALP with the Coalition primary crashing by 5% and Abbott's lead over Shorten now within the MoE (2%) and Abbott's satisfaction rating the worst since he became PM net -20.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: AUDIT THE AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT! on May 05, 2014, 10:05:31 pm
Former treasurer Costello on the deficit tax - I agree with him - it's a stupid idea. (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/costello_axe_the_deficit_tax/)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 05, 2014, 11:40:39 pm
My basic question on the deficit tax... since the Government says as it's temporary, it's not really a tax, that they're going to take back everything that was said about the carbon price.

The Government has done was pretty much every first-term government has done - misread their 'mandate' and overreached. I get it "we won, that means we can do what we want!!" ... but unless you start asking yourselves WHY you won, then you're likely to fall flat on your face. The Government is in a really terrible spot, you do it and get killed, you don't and you get accused of being afraid and not serious in your proclamations.

The clear fact that the Government has only led in 10% of published polls since the election and that Abbott got no honeymoon at all, none tells me told me that the 2013 electorate wanted rid of the ALP and their inability to behave like grown ups - not that this was an endorsement of the Liberal policy agenda.

Howard was lucky to survive 2008 and used every trick in the book and huge amounts of cash to hold on in 2001 and 2004... and some external good luck.

I said to an LNP friend last night - this feels very much like 2011, a prime minister people were wary of, but gave a chance to despite misgivings - then pulls a stunt that re enforces people's fundamental concerns. This is about trust... the problem is, once people have turned off you, it's really hard to get them back.

Abbott hasn't got the political skill, political capital or cash to throw around. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Çråbçæk on May 06, 2014, 01:05:53 am
Is their a chance Malcolm Turnbull could be leading the Liberals into the next election? Especially if Abbott can't force through the Carbon Tax repeal in the new parliament.

It seems that for a third time consecutively in Australia a Prime Minister will be traumatically damaged over a botched tax introduction.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 06, 2014, 02:43:41 am
Is their a chance Malcolm Turnbull could be leading the Liberals into the next election? Especially if Abbott can't force through the Carbon Tax repeal in the new parliament.

It seems that for a third time consecutively in Australia a Prime Minister will be traumatically damaged over a botched tax introduction.
It's possible, but I doubt the right will be so willing to go along with Turnbull. Think Abbott is in huge trouble though.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mordecai on May 06, 2014, 03:40:02 am
Is their a chance Malcolm Turnbull could be leading the Liberals into the next election? Especially if Abbott can't force through the Carbon Tax repeal in the new parliament.

It seems that for a third time consecutively in Australia a Prime Minister will be traumatically damaged over a botched tax introduction.

I'm salivating at the thought but I don't think so. It would invite some really unflattering comparisons to Rudd-Gillard and probably damage their credibility more than if they just stuck by Abbott.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on May 06, 2014, 05:22:57 am
 I HATE Dennis Napthine.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 06, 2014, 12:10:19 pm
...and I hate Daniel Andrews.

Vic budget is as cynical election yearish as they get, but that's no different from any state government of any colour anywhere.

The budget doesn't make me get any closer to voting for them, but Daniel Andrews being an absolute sh**t of a human being in the media since it definitely does Labor no favours.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 06, 2014, 07:30:15 pm
Is their a chance Malcolm Turnbull could be leading the Liberals into the next election? Especially if Abbott can't force through the Carbon Tax repeal in the new parliament.

It seems that for a third time consecutively in Australia a Prime Minister will be traumatically damaged over a botched tax introduction.

I'm salivating at the thought but I don't think so. It would invite some really unflattering comparisons to Rudd-Gillard and probably damage their credibility more than if they just stuck by Abbott.

The funny thing is, I'm seeing Abbott more and more like Rudd. Basically, there's not a huge personal base of loyalty. They were loyal to him because his strategy put them close to Government, then into Government.

But if things consistently go wrong, I can see that support evaporating.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on May 08, 2014, 10:07:41 pm
WTF is wrong with these folks?  (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/union-apologises-for-tony-abbott-nazi-portrayal-20140509-zr7f1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 08, 2014, 10:34:16 pm
WTF is wrong with these folks?  (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/union-apologises-for-tony-abbott-nazi-portrayal-20140509-zr7f1.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nc&eid=socialn%3Atwi-13omn1677-edtrl-other%3Annn-17%2F02%2F2014-edtrs_socialshare-all-nnn-nnn-vars-o%26sa%3DD%26usg%3DALhdy28zsr6qiq)

Morons, apologising is good - but should never have happened.

On probably one of the worst gut-punches from the Coalition's base - corporate confidence in the Government collapses (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-08/company-directors-starting-to-lose-faith-in-government/5439272) since election. They cite unnecessary austerity measures putting pressure on household and corporate spending.

Economists also expect a 'wave' of unemployment triggered by cuts in public spending. 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 08, 2014, 10:57:37 pm
Making stupid images in not confined to Unions, the Liberal Party is pretty good at it too:

(http://i.imgur.com/m4t8CZZ.jpg)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mordecai on May 08, 2014, 11:27:47 pm
Is their a chance Malcolm Turnbull could be leading the Liberals into the next election? Especially if Abbott can't force through the Carbon Tax repeal in the new parliament.

It seems that for a third time consecutively in Australia a Prime Minister will be traumatically damaged over a botched tax introduction.

I'm salivating at the thought but I don't think so. It would invite some really unflattering comparisons to Rudd-Gillard and probably damage their credibility more than if they just stuck by Abbott.

The funny thing is, I'm seeing Abbott more and more like Rudd. Basically, there's not a huge personal base of loyalty. They were loyal to him because his strategy put them close to Government, then into Government.

But if things consistently go wrong, I can see that support evaporating.

That is a pretty funny parallel. I'm not that fond of Rudd, but at least he had ideas and the GFC to excuse his incompetence whereas Abbott is just completely reactionary and wants to raze everything to the ground.

On probably one of the worst gut-punches from the Coalition's base - corporate confidence in the Government collapses (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-08/company-directors-starting-to-lose-faith-in-government/5439272) since election. They cite unnecessary austerity measures putting pressure on household and corporate spending.

Economists also expect a 'wave' of unemployment triggered by cuts in public spending. 

It's pretty amazing, don't you think, this dichotomy between Labor being excellent economic managers and the Liberals just being totally ideological and incompetent.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Smid on May 09, 2014, 12:52:53 am
No time to elaborate, but Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters makes excellent recommendations regarding Senate voting: Optional Preferential, including for Above-the-Line voting. See Antony Green's blog for details.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Citizen Hats on May 09, 2014, 12:54:36 am
Is their a chance Malcolm Turnbull could be leading the Liberals into the next election? Especially if Abbott can't force through the Carbon Tax repeal in the new parliament.

It seems that for a third time consecutively in Australia a Prime Minister will be traumatically damaged over a botched tax introduction.

I'm salivating at the thought but I don't think so. It would invite some really unflattering comparisons to Rudd-Gillard and probably damage their credibility more than if they just stuck by Abbott.

The funny thing is, I'm seeing Abbott more and more like Rudd. Basically, there's not a huge personal base of loyalty. They were loyal to him because his strategy put them close to Government, then into Government.

But if things consistently go wrong, I can see that support evaporating.

That is a pretty funny parallel. I'm not that fond of Rudd, but at least he had ideas and the GFC to excuse his incompetence whereas Abbott is just completely reactionary and wants to raze everything to the ground.

On probably one of the worst gut-punches from the Coalition's base - corporate confidence in the Government collapses (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-08/company-directors-starting-to-lose-faith-in-government/5439272) since election. They cite unnecessary austerity measures putting pressure on household and corporate spending.

Economists also expect a 'wave' of unemployment triggered by cuts in public spending. 

It's pretty amazing, don't you think, this dichotomy between Labor being excellent economic managers and the Liberals just being totally ideological and incompetent.

The Economist endorsed them for a reason


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 09, 2014, 02:27:15 am
A new Morgan poll has 88% of consumers (including 72% of Liberals) and 77% of businesses saying they do not feel the Budget will benefit them.

It seems the feeling, outside of economic dry land, is that the Government is massively overreaching and is risking everything on this Budget.

My friend, an economist who is generally favourable to Liberal ideas just said to me "this lot could give us our first recession in 23 years... something the GFC couldn't do"


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 09, 2014, 05:24:48 am
No time to elaborate, but Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters makes excellent recommendations regarding Senate voting: Optional Preferential, including for Above-the-Line voting. See Antony Green's blog for details.

Excellent is one reaction :P

In a proportional system, preferences should be exhausted just as much as in a single member constituency I reckon.

My own preference for change is to fill out every box above or every box below, although it would significantly raise spoiled ballots in the short term.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 09, 2014, 06:44:56 am
New ReachTEL national poll to be released tomorrow - has the ALP up 54-46 with the ALP primary at 40 and the Coalition on 38.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 09, 2014, 10:36:31 pm
Coalition tanking.

Will this government only last one-term?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 09, 2014, 10:37:19 pm
Majority support for the deficit levy?

Eh??????


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 09, 2014, 11:52:49 pm
Majority support for the deficit levy?

Eh??????

It's the way the question is phrased.

It's asking basically, do you support the wealthy paying more. The higher-end deficit tax is popular. The killer element though is that a plurality say that the Government instituting it would make them less likely to vote for the Coalition.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on May 10, 2014, 07:50:42 am
About 2 thirds of voters oppose raising the pension.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 12, 2014, 09:40:28 pm
Essential Poll out today

Primary
LNP: 40%
ALP: 39%
GRN: 9%

TPP
LNP: 48%
ALP: 52%

Approval
Abbott: 35%
Shorten: 35%

Disapproval
Abbott: 55%
Shorten: 37%

Preferred PM
Abbott: 36%
Shorten: 37%


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Çråbçæk on May 12, 2014, 10:08:01 pm
How would you balance Australia's budget?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/may/09/budget-cuts-revenue-interactive (http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/may/09/budget-cuts-revenue-interactive)


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 12, 2014, 11:32:11 pm
How would you balance Australia's budget?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/may/09/budget-cuts-revenue-interactive (http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/may/09/budget-cuts-revenue-interactive)

You have saved:
$166b
And reduced the forecast deficit to:
-$62.3b


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 13, 2014, 05:07:10 am
Yay, universal healthcare is dead. How many young libs are rubbing one out right now at that?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 13, 2014, 06:04:09 am
Stolen from a friend on facebook:

"So, who are the winners and losers in this budget?

Winners: Um... well, maybe medical researchers, at least those who aren't part of the CSIRO?

Losers: Everyone, but particularly anyone under 30, anyone over 46, anyone with children, anyone who occasionally gets sick, anyone who is chronically ill, anyone in rural and regional Australia, anyone overseas, anyone who accesses the ABC in Australia or abroad, anyone who genuinely requires the pension to live, anyone who works in the Public service, anyone who benefits from the public service, anyone earning a 'higher' wage of $80,000 or more (unless they have a baby), anyone who wants to get a tertiary qualification, anyone who is of an indigenous or immigrant background, anyone who seeks asylum in Australia from repression and peril, anyone who lives in any local council in Australia, and, to share the pain, members of parliament whose pay is frozen (not by the government itself, though).

Which would be vaguely defensible if we had a bloated budget and an economy in crisis, but we simply do not have either. Surpluses are a good thing, sure, but is it worth it in this circumstance? Not even close."


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 13, 2014, 06:38:09 am
I was in lock-up feeling sick as I was reading it all.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 13, 2014, 08:25:33 am
I've decided I'm joining the ALP. They're useless, and I treasure my independence, but quite frankly I *have* to do something to ease my feeling of being entirely powerless in the face of this truly unbelievably bad government.

I'm not a lover of Labor at any level, and there are plenty of reasons not to join them, but quite frankly Tony Abbott and company are breaking my country and while I doubt Labor is actually a fix for anything I really can't think of any way I can engage without doing so.

Amusingly enough, I'm pretty much set on not voting for Labor in the state election, and I certainly won't be campaigning for them after joining up, but even though I personally think that state politics is at least as important as federal politics, the crumminess of the state ALP is absolutely nothing compared to the horror that is the federal coalition.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Hash on May 13, 2014, 08:53:25 am
Wow, this appears to be an horrendous budget. I suppose we know what to expect when Abbott's Ontarian twin becomes Premier.

Ugh, the right continues to be horrible.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on May 13, 2014, 09:03:18 am
This budget is a ing mess. Not only is the deficit doubling, they're cutting and destroying some of our best policy. I mean they're actually cutting so much and they're still spending more than what Rudd would have.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 13, 2014, 09:15:12 am
I've yet to see anyone but the Gerald Sun attempting to defend it, and even they didn't try too hard.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 13, 2014, 09:24:00 am
When virtually the only group happy is the Business Council and the Chamber of Commerce (despite the possible economic shocks for their members by the policies being pursued) ... it tells you a lot. Pissing everybody off is bot a sign of a job well done,  it's a sign you've pissed everyone off.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mordecai on May 13, 2014, 12:20:59 pm
How would you balance Australia's budget?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/may/09/budget-cuts-revenue-interactive (http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2014/may/09/budget-cuts-revenue-interactive)

$5.90b - Don't raise defence spending
+ $5.40b - Cut fighter jet purchase
+ $4.00b - Tax private trusts
+ $9.10b - Keep carbon price, scrap direct action
+ $8.80b - Scrap proposed paid parental leave scheme
+ $8.00b - Pharmaceuticals spending reform
+ $74.60b - Broaden the GST
= $116b savings, $11.9b forecast surplus

Didn't want to broaden the GST but I did it to get over the line and so I wouldn't have to cut anything else. If I had to do anything else I would go with fuel price indexation and halve diesel fuel rebates. The debt levy (lol) might have been ok if it was only on people making over $180,000 instead of starting at $80,000.

I was in lock-up feeling sick as I was reading it all.

I was watching Joe Hockey's interview on television and felt the bile rising into my throat as soon as Oakes asked him about dancing to Best Day of My Life in his office. This and the cigar-smoking thing is basically a caricature of conservatism come to life.

I've decided I'm joining the ALP. They're useless, and I treasure my independence, but quite frankly I *have* to do something to ease my feeling of being entirely powerless in the face of this truly unbelievably bad government.

I'm not a lover of Labor at any level, and there are plenty of reasons not to join them, but quite frankly Tony Abbott and company are breaking my country and while I doubt Labor is actually a fix for anything I really can't think of any way I can engage without doing so.

Amusingly enough, I'm pretty much set on not voting for Labor in the state election, and I certainly won't be campaigning for them after joining up, but even though I personally think that state politics is at least as important as federal politics, the crumminess of the state ALP is absolutely nothing compared to the horror that is the federal coalition.

Is it the political faction in-fighting you hate about the ALP? Overall, their policies actually seem pretty good to me.

Edit:

At least they aren't proposing to solve the deficit with a tax cut as some here would do.

Granted, but it's taken until like... the last few weeks for the Government to acknowledge that there is as big an issue with revenue (if not a bigger one) than spending. Because they've been outright lying about the nature of our public spending... saying it's exploding, when its not - saying our pension system is unsustainable, when studies show it to be the most stable and sustainable in the world... the issue is revenue.

But as Joe Hockey (ie about beat John Howard as the worst Treasurer we've ever had) continues to ignore - had revenues from 2006-7 been maintained, we'd have a Budget surplus. But the combination of the GFC (which conservatives all of the world seem to forget ever happened), the increased value over than time of the Australian dollar and the instability of our trading partners... Government revenues have dropped.

Bottom-line, there is no Budget emergency we could make fewer drastic changes, keep the cuts the former Government put in place, and they could claim credit for a track to surplus and start paying down the debt in 4-6 years.

And don't forget they keep talking about the "Labor debt", incurred as a result of trying to keep our economy above water. I mean for goodness sake Labor only had government right before the sh*t hit the fan and right after the crisis ended. I really hate when I talk to people and they say both sides are the same or that Rudd and Gillard did a terrible job. Or criticism of the carbon tax and the mining tax. Uggh.

And there's the possibility the Coalition could needlessly cause a contraction with the budget cuts and tax hikes and drag us right into recession. If that does happen they will probably blame that on Labor too and the idiots will believe it because they didn't have "surplus".


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 13, 2014, 08:26:57 pm
A pensioner gave Abbott a piece of her mind (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/federal-budget/i-have-never-heard-such-rubbish-in-all-my-life-pensioner-has-a-go-at-tony-abbott-over-age-pension-changes-20140514-zrbvr.html)... his response? Well... take a look.

If anything, this Government's tone-deaf approach to the Budget has made the public perceptions even worse. Hockey and Cormann smoking cigars, a leak that Hockey was dancing with his wife before the speech to 'This Will Be the Best Day of My Life' and his family potentially breaking rules about the proper use and management of the Coat of Arms...

Frankly, his behaviour tells me even more than I already knew about Hockey/Cormann - this was an ideologically-driven wet-dream disguised as a Budget. It doesn't really address the structural deficits, it attacks everything the Liberals have fought against since the 70s - universal healthcare, access to University based on merit, thinking people on welfare are just 'lazy'... etc etc.

It's f'ing disgusting and I'm even more ashamed of this Government than I was before.

Oh and it's a VERY clear back-door method for calls into increase the GST and throw the blame on the states.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: PUT YOUR POM POMS DOWN on May 13, 2014, 08:47:06 pm
Thanks for needlessly making my life and millions of other peoples lives harder, Liberals.

Seriously, this is completely irresponsible governance. This is not "we are all in this together," this is mildly inconveniencing some higher income earners and leaving the rest of us to rot. This is making it harder for anyone at the bottom to even get an opportunity to attempt at climbing. Reprehensible.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 14, 2014, 03:46:44 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9PnBnb6ASQ


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 15, 2014, 12:47:52 am
Considering the way Labor (as well as pretty much everyone else) has been eviscerating this Budget and the Government, the Budget reply speech tonight (which I'll be in the gallery for) should be a real barn-burner.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 15, 2014, 01:02:43 am
Can we already stick a fork in the Coalition?


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 15, 2014, 01:22:09 am
Can we already stick a fork in the Coalition?

There's still more than two years. My primary issue is whether or not Abbott will descend into what I call the 'Gillard spiral' - where the public stop listening to you and don't trust you. It's also what killed Rudd, when he pulled back on the ETS and refused to call a double-dissolution over it (which he would have won in early 2010) ... he lost the moral authority to govern in the people's eyes. Gillard's authority slowly trickled away and Abbott is certainly risking that fate.

It's clear he's following the Howard model and risking unpopularity early and clawing it back for the election. The problem is, Howard was still in his honeymoon (Abbott never got one), the polling leading with a still weak opposition leader (see below) and there was a sense that he did some good things despite the pain... (the public response to this Budget has been vicious). Plus, Abbott doesn't even possess 1/5 of John Howard's innate political skill.

The interesting thing to consider is that Tony Abbott only got consistently ahead of Gillard as preferred PM in the last 3 months of her tenure. The Essential Poll (which psephologists don't like because of its stability and lack of response to sudden changes) has Shorten ahead as preferred PM. Plus there's going to be a SLEW of polls early next week, Morgan/Essential/Nielsen/Newspoll... 


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 15, 2014, 02:21:00 am
Can we already stick a fork in the Coalition?
Still two and a half years, and their majority is pretty damn big. But the signs aren't great, the deficit levy definitely smells like Abbott's carbon tax.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 15, 2014, 05:37:04 am
Fantastic speech by Shorten - found myself clapping and joining the standing ovation. Most entertaining part - watching how irritated Bronny was at the clapping and how angry Joe was in general.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Solopop on May 15, 2014, 05:56:53 am
I'm pretty sure Pyne called him a c___. If you listen it doesn't sound like grub at all.


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 15, 2014, 11:01:37 am
Re-watching Shorten now, very very good speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrxAlX6aOy8


Title: Re: Australia General Discussion
Post by: Mordecai on May 15, 2014, 01:41:22 pm