Australian Politics (1 Viewer)

[whatashotbyseve]

Yes and no. Rudd's safe theory was not adequately countered by the Libs. If they had replaced Howard with Costello, who knows what would have happened? Same scenario, different situation. I have no doubt the Liberals will be elected in NSW barring a miracle but surely they would hope it was off their own bat as opposed to merely not being Labor.

 

[Lentern]

Yes and no. Rudd's safe theory was not adequately countered by the Libs. If they had replaced Howard with Costello, who knows what would have happened? Same scenario, different situation. I have no doubt the Liberals will be elected in NSW barring a miracle but surely they would hope it was off their own bat as opposed to merely not being Labor.

Well opinion polls the erratic things that they are tended to have Costello marginally if at all prefered to Howard whilst Rudd was head and shoulders above them so whilst in hindsight there would be nothing to lose by changing to Costello I think we both doubt he could have pulled the miracle off.

As for NSW liberals if they wanted to be a government by choice not default they needed to win about eight years ago. A 16 year old government is a finished government bar some extraordinary opposition blunders (electing Peter Debnam as leader would qualify as one of those). Like Howard and Hawke the next liberal premier of NSW is destined to win a drovers dog election. Like Howard and Hawke that is not to say he won't have a long, memorable premiership.

 

[wixxy2348]

What is Climate Change?
And why does reading about it make me see this?!

 

[Iron]

Haha love this survivor Vic minister

Q: Bernie (something) has called you a super-dill for walking by yourself and without a tracking device

A: Well Bernie could bring a tracking-device, but people have got to want to find you

 

[Garygaz]

Imo this is what is going to happen. Labor will continue to slump in the polls, there will be minor front bench reshuffles and a few new faces to try and keep some faith in the NSW government. Then about 6-8 months pre-election Rees will receive a leadership challenge from a 'young, up and coming' leader who will promise to improve state education, spend big on public transport, health and all that jazz. Sure this means more debt, but the average New South Wale-ian will love it and eat it up. This new leader (possibly female, which would add more momentum) will then pit them self as the crusader in shining armor who will revolustionize politics and rid NSW of corruption forever.

Liberals will try to run a smear campaign saying, you've seen it all before, but this new, charismatic leader will take everyone by surprise and turn around the polls. Liberals will trip over themselves thinking 'How the Fu- did this happen', leading to a Labor 5% win at the election.

/rinse and repeat four years later after it all fails again. Humans are stoopid.

 

[Tangent]

Imo this is what is going to happen. Labor will continue to slump in the polls, there will be minor front bench reshuffles and a few new faces to try and keep some faith in the NSW government. Then about 6-8 months pre-election Rees will receive a leadership challenge from a 'young, up and coming' leader who will promise to improve state education, spend big on public transport, health and all that jazz. Sure this means more debt, but the average New South Wale-ian will love it and eat it up. This new leader (possibly female, which would add more momentum) will then pit them self as the crusader in shining armor who will revolustionize politics and rid NSW of corruption forever.

Liberals will try to run a smear campaign saying, you've seen it all before, but this new, charismatic leader will take everyone by surprise and turn around the polls. Liberals will trip over themselves thinking 'How the Fu- did this happen', leading to a Labor 5% win at the election.

/rinse and repeat four years later after it all fails again. Humans are stoopid.

The question is, is labor that smart?

 

[kokodamonkey]

The question is, is labor that smart?

Yes they are. real question is are constituents that dumb, and the answer is yes they are... just look at labor pre + post 2007 state election..

 

[КГБ]

you vote labor or liberal you're a fucking retard.

 

[kokodamonkey]

why what a smart comment. Rather than directly have a say in who runs your country, vote for someone else and let them preference your vote to who decides who wins.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

why what a smart comment. Rather than directly have a say in who runs your country, vote for someone else and let them preference your vote to who decides who wins.

Actually, third parties hold the balance of power in Australia on the federal level.

And, logically, for said parties to become powers in their own right alongside Labour and Liberal, one needs to first vote for them. Your point is thin.

 

[kokodamonkey]

Actually, third parties DONT hold the balance of power in Australia on the federal level... there is no third party holding seats in the house of reps to my knowledge. apart from the odd independent.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Actually, third parties DONT hold the balance of power in Australia on the federal level... there is no third party holding seats in the house of reps to my knowledge. apart from the odd independent.

Balance of power is held by the Senate in Australia, not the House.

So, yeah, you're wrong.

 

[JonathanM]

Your point is thin.

 

[kokodamonkey]

Balance of power is held by the Senate in Australia, not the House.

So, yeah, you're wrong.

my arguement was about who forms government. if you read my posts... so i am right.. the house of reps determines who forms the government.

 

[Enteebee]

didn't read this all, but anyone who said the senate determines the executive government needs to retake some introductory politics ^_____________^

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

my arguement was about who forms government. if you read my posts... so i am right.. the house of reps determines who forms the government.

No it fucking wasn't. Your argument was exactly this, in response to the opinion that both Labour and Liberal suck:

why what a smart comment. Rather than directly have a say in who runs your country, vote for someone else and let them preference your vote to who decides who wins.

Now, clearly, since independents hold the balance of power, one most certainly DOES have a say in who runs one's country. Moreover, if one votes for a third party, but preferences Labour or Liberal, then again, by the definition of how preferences work, one is clearly still having a say in who runs their country, rather than having their vote discarded (compared to, say, America, or Canada - in Canada the Conservatives are in power with 40% of the vote because the other 60% centrist/left parties have no ability to preference - ludicrous)

didn't read this all, but anyone who said the senate determines the executive government needs to retake some introductory politics ^_____________^

Actually, nobody mentioned that originally. Kokoda is just bringing it up now as a diversion as his original claim was unsound.

 

[Lentern]

my arguement was about who forms government. if you read my posts... so i am right.. the house of reps determines who forms the government.

Like on November 11th 1975.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Like on November 11th 1975.

Hahahahaha.

 

[Lentern]

Hahahahaha.

It was a bit of a joke yes but consider for a moment whether the government is still at the mercy of the senate? I understand it is now more difficult to block a supply bill then but imagine if the Greens senatros and the coalition got together and perhaps over the governments "missmanagement of this carbon emmisions trading scheme strategy" decided to reject every bill that the house sent up there? Presumably the deadlock would eventuall be resolved by a government being forced to disolve both houses against its will. That was the case with Whitlam as well the difference was simply that Whitlam was trailling in the polls and Rudd isn't. However even if the Greens and the coalition played such hard ball I'd still be confident that the ALP would not win a majority in the senate.

What would happen then? If the opposition senators held strong then the deadlock would not end until either the ALP won the senate or a lost its majority in the house. Don't understimate the senate.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

It was a bit of a joke yes but consider for a moment whether the government is still at the mercy of the senate? I understand it is now more difficult to block a supply bill then but imagine if the Greens senatros and the coalition got together and perhaps over the governments "missmanagement of this carbon emmisions trading scheme strategy" decided to reject every bill that the house sent up there? Presumably the deadlock would eventuall be resolved by a government being forced to disolve both houses against its will. That was the case with Whitlam as well the difference was simply that Whitlam was trailling in the polls and Rudd isn't. However even if the Greens and the coalition played such hard ball I'd still be confident that the ALP would not win a majority in the senate.

What would happen then? If the opposition senators held strong then the deadlock would not end until either the ALP won the senate or a lost its majority in the house. Don't understimate the senate.

I wasn't laughing at you. I was laughing because your example, while a bit out there, was a good one.