NationStates Jolt Archive

People of Australia, for whom will you be voting (giving your first preferences too) for this year (possibly November) when a federal election is called?

What if one isn't allowed to vote in Australia?

Don't tell me they have the stupid bipartisan thingy in Australia too? *dismayed*

I thought Aussies were more intelligent than British and Americans... >_>

Don't tell me they have the stupid bipartisan thingy in Australia too? *dismayed*
We don't.

The thing is that the other parties usually only really have a chance to get into the upper house, the senate. That's where they actually matter. In parliament, where the government sits only two parties really have a chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_political_parties

We don't.

*hugs you* Bless you.

As for the Wikipedia article, I'll read it some time when it's not "so late it's early" and I'm not up with a nasty case of stomach flu. >_<

Well the Senate can veto legislation from the lower house, the majority group in the lower house (house of reps) forms the government, and their leader becomes the prime minister, he appoints ministers to every government department (health,defense etc), while the opposition in the lower house forms 'shadow' ministers that have opposite policy from their counterpart (shadow health minister, opposition leader etc). The senate can bring down a government if it wants to blocking supply bills (people cant be paid), it was originally made as the 'states house' but disciplined political parties in the senate have assured party politics always overrides the representatives electorate. So for example in australian politics some random guy off the street who gets elected to parliament can become head of the defense force, or health, you dont require any experience, a bit different from the US system.

Don't tell me they have the stupid bipartisan thingy in Australia too? *dismayed*

I thought Aussies were more intelligent than British and Americans... >_>

Don't you technically have three parties? Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Conservatives.

No, don't get me wrong, we have quite a few political parties, but liberal and labor are the traditional big party opponents, we have lots of other minor parties/interest groups and indepedent candidates, too many to list in the poll, thus the Other.

Goodbye Johnny Howard! :p

What if one isn't allowed to vote in Australia?

Become a citizen then. That's what I did in order to vote.

Don't you technically have three parties? Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Conservatives.

Not exactly, no.

The Labour party is (nominally) left wing.
The Liberal party is right wing.
These are the two major parties.

The National party, which almost always forms a coalition with the Liberal party, is also right wing, but has a stronger focus on farmers & rural electorates.
The Democrats are a centrist party, but their representation has dwindled to almost nothing over the last decade.
The Greens are very left wing & have grown in influence as the Democrats have waned.


I'll be voting Green.

Yeah the Greens are expected to have alot of swing in the results of the elections, even if Howard is re-elected (quite unlikely) they will most likely hold a swing vote, or if Labor is in Rudd might be pulled to the left on many issues in order to get to votes up on key policies. As Boony said, the Dems are practically dead these days, and the left has been taken by the greens and certain labor members. Rudd is trying to portray himself as a centrist with left leanings (even though most of his base are far-left unionists), and will most likely ride out the election on popular issues of discontent against the government, Iraq, american/business cronyism, etc etc.

I bet the coalition won't mention the "WorkChoices" during the election.

I bet the coalition won't mention the "WorkChoices" during the election.

It's not called Work Choices anymore didn't you here? It's called the Industrial Relations Changes or something, the government finally realised how much that name had become associated with unfairness.

I bet the coalition won't mention the "WorkChoices" during the election.

No, they've offically announced that they've dropped the WorkChoices name. It was in the news about a week ago. The website has been re-named, the call centre workers aren't allowed to call it WorkChoices anymore, etc.

It's not called Work Choices anymore didn't you here? It's called the Industrial Relations Changes or something, the government finally realised how much that name had become associated with unfairness.

Might as well call it "Legal Slavery" :p

Might as well call it "Legal Slavery" :p

The Federal Government's WorkChoices legislation also delivers the type of master and servant conditions that gave rise to the chartist movement, the union movement, in its original form in the first place. It is proving to be a source of great rejuvenation within the labour movement. Earlier the Hon. Greg Donnelly showed us a copy of the master and servant Act. Australians understand the master and servant Act. They know it is simple and straightforward. There is a boss and there is a worker. There is a master and there is a servant. The boss has the right of hire and fire and he has all the power. A worker's only bargaining power comes from being able to have organised labour and to bargain collectively. - The Hon. IAN WEST

Already done.

What if one isn't allowed to vote in Australia?

Then you enjoy the thrill of not voting, along with about 5-10% of the rest of Australia's population.

I unfortunately have to go against my principles and vote labor, as I live in a very marginal seat. (I would normally vote for a minor party)

Go Labor!

Go Labor!

Go me!

Wait, I'm not running for any federal seats...

Go me anyway!

I unfortunately have to go against my principles and vote labor, as I live in a very marginal seat. (I would normally vote for a minor party)

Why not vote Green 1 and Labor 2? I doubt the Greens will be chopped off the ticket before Labor.

Yeah the Greens are expected to have alot of swing in the results of the elections, even if Howard is re-elected (quite unlikely)...

I recall hearing "quite unlikely" in 1998, 2001 and 2004. I'd put the odds of a Labor victory at between 50 and 60% (similar to the betting markets). Thats more like "too close to call" rather than "quite unlikely."

The 2001 battle taught us that six months is a long time.

I recall hearing "quite unlikely" in 1998, 2001 and 2004. I'd put the odds of a Labor victory at between 50 and 60% (similar to the betting markets). Thats more like "too close to call" rather than "quite unlikely."

The 2001 battle taught us that six months is a long time.

If Howard wins I will be a saddened by the apathy of the public.

Please tell me the options are more expansive than Labour or Liberal?

Please tell me the options are more expansive than Labour or Liberal?
Just the Greens and Family First. :rolleyes:

Despite being an American citizen (and minor) I plan to vote for each of them several times.

I recall hearing "quite unlikely" in 1998, 2001 and 2004. I'd put the odds of a Labor victory at between 50 and 60% (similar to the betting markets). Thats more like "too close to call" rather than "quite unlikely."

The 2001 battle taught us that six months is a long time.

Yes but the polls in 98,01&04 were never even close to how bad they are now on all issues, the last time the polls were so bad was just before Howard himself was elected over Keating.

Liberal (fiscal conservative - with a few religious nuts)
Labor (centre-left/left)
Greens (far left environmental)
Family First (far right religious nuts)

Yes but the polls in 98,01&04 were never even close to how bad they are now on all issues, the last time the polls were so bad was just before Howard himself was elected over Keating.

2001 things were probably just as bad for Howard at this point in the cycle. Then the wild card of Tampa was played. 01 is the best comparison in my mind.

Rudd has a clear lead, but two factors will affect that: wild cards and the economy.

2001 was a wild card year; I can't imagine another wild card happening. The Howard government has jumped on a lot of "problems" since 2001. Tampa won't be making a return visit and JI isn't looking as healthy as it was in 04.

The economy has historically played a massive role in elections. Economics doesn't tend to affect any poll but the final one. In 2001, we were facing recession, which was hurting the government. Now unemployment is the lowest in a generation and so is underemployment. Inflation and interest is low. Its a big ask to throw out a government under these circumstances; dare I say unprecedented.

If Howard wins I will be a saddened by the apathy of the public.

If Howard wins again, then we truly do deserve to be arse-raped by climate change & WorkChoices.

I am not an Australian, but if I was, I'd vote for a party that John Howard was NOT a member of, so probably Labor or Green.

It must be almost as embarrassing to have a leader who's such a brown-noser for Bush as it is to actually have Bush himself as our leader.

I am not an Australian, but if I was, I'd vote for a party that John Howard was NOT a member of, so probably Labor or Green.

It must be almost as embarrassing to have a leader who's such a brown-noser for Bush as it is to actually have Bush himself as our leader.

Yes, yes it is.

Despite being an American citizen (and minor) I plan to vote for each of them several times.

Oh no, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican.

For some reason I have to write something else.

For some reason I have to write something else.

lol. I can't remember much about it, but a few years back wasn't there something kinda like this in Brisbane. Might just have been voting-stacking or something, not that I know what it is. Ring any bells?

If Howard wins again, then we truly do deserve to be arse-raped by climate change & WorkChoices.

Haven't they changed the name to get rid of a lot of the negative feeling about workchoices?

If labor got in do you think they would continue the centralisation of federal powers (which also includes taking power from the states and giving it to the federal level)?

2001 they were probably just as bad at this point in the cycle. Then the wild card of Tampa was played. 01 is the best comparison in my mind.

Who wins the election has two factors in my mind.
Rudd has a clear lead, but two factors will affect that: wild cards and the economy.

2001 was a wild card year; I can't imagine another wild card happening. The Howard government has jumped on a lot of "problems" since 2001. Tampa won't be making a return visit and JI isn't looking as healthy as it was in 04.

The economy has historically played a massive role in elections. Economics doesn't tend to affect any poll but the final one. In 2001, we were facing recession, which was hurting the government. Now unemployment is the lowest in a generation and so is underemployment. Inflation and interest is low. Its a big ask to throw out a government under these circumstances; dare I say unprecedented.

All Labor really has to do is throw adverts at Howard about Iraq lies, AWB scandal, corporate cronyism, anti-american feelings etc etc, he can also let the unions runs negative campaigns.

All Labor really has to do is throw adverts at Howard about Iraq lies, AWB scandal, corporate cronyism, anti-american feelings etc etc, he can also let the unions runs negative campaigns.

That would be electoral suicide; especially an attempt to appeal to anti-american feelings. Anti-American is very strong in Australia, within a very limited group of people. Lets not forget ANZUS is one of Rudd's "three pillars" of foreign policy. Pointing to Howard as a US-ophile points to what everyone knows, and might remind everyone that Rudd is a Chinaphile.

Ads on Iraq would be patronising, AWB is boring, and corporate cronyism would just highlight concerns Labor is going to far to the left. Also with AWB, the chief charge is that key ministers didn't properly check their emails...the same charge against Rudd in the false dawn matter. I suppose the ALP could argue a difference between core and non-core emails...

What Labor (or at least Ms Gillard) needs to do is make a proper apology to the Lilac City Motor Inn. The campaign against WorkChoices has become a crusade; and targetting innocent small businesses does not look good.

Positive ads with new policy messages and attack ads with new dirt will be more effective than patronising people with the past.

I concede that the campaign you suggest will sure up the vote of Mr A. Prime and many other of the true believers; but it would probably cost Labor the election.

If the current government gets back into power, it's going to turn the Northern Territory into the Nuclear Territory where we'll be selling Uranium to other nations and it comes back as waste to us - and they keep the enriched bombing making material.

What if one isn't allowed to vote in Australia?

<illegal>
Offer to vote on behalf of some loser who'd rather stay on the couch. You just need their name and address.
</illegal>

Don't tell me they have the stupid bipartisan thingy in Australia too? *dismayed*

I thought Aussies were more intelligent than British and Americans... >_>

Sadly, no. Perhaps by a few IQ points from genetic diversity, but ... Aussies who travel overseas and Aussies who use the internet are neither a fair sample of the populace.

I unfortunately have to go against my principles and vote labor, as I live in a very marginal seat. (I would normally vote for a minor party)

That's the beauty of preferences. If the vote is very close, your first preference is still noted on the tally but once your preferred candidate is eliminated your second preference holds just as much weight as the first. If your seat really is marginal, it will go to preferences.

So you can vote "Shooter's Party" or whatever your first preference is (only joking!) and if it goes to preferences, your second if it's for one of the two main contenders, will count.

I ALWAYS vote one of the no-hope candidates before Labor on this basis, to show my dissatisfaction with them without throwing away my vote. I don't understand so well how the Senate works, so I just vote the party I want.

That would be electoral suicide; especially an attempt to appeal to anti-american feelings. Anti-American is very strong in Australia, within a very limited group of people.
*...*

Very true, and those are mostly voters who would never vote Liberal. They'll vote Green perhaps, but Latham showed the danger of trying to win those votes.

Note to Kevin Rudd: DO NOT go for a walk in the forest with Bob Brown. That guy could talk a tree out of the ground.

The rest of your anaylsis is excellent too, I won't hog the replies.

Haven't they changed the name to get rid of a lot of the negative feeling about workchoices?

If labor got in do you think they would continue the centralisation of federal powers (which also includes taking power from the states and giving it to the federal level)?

Not even that, but Howard has centralised power beyond the federal GOVERNMENT and has continually made the position as PM more and more powerful. How about the 10 billion dollar water plan his department created without even consulting the cabinent or even the Department of the Environment and Water Resources. He also purchased those fighter planes that everybody else told him not to. For someone who calls himself a conservative he certainly doesn't give a fuck about distribution of power.

lol. I can't remember much about it, but a few years back wasn't there something kinda like this in Brisbane. Might just have been voting-stacking or something, not that I know what it is. Ring any bells?

You're probably thinking of the gerry-mandering in Queensland under Sir Joh Bjelkje-Petersen, who was premier for a generation without ever winning the popular vote. In fact, the Nationals used to have a majority in their own right with a primary vote of about 25%.

It wasn't done by letting the dead vote, however. It was done by creatively drawing lines on the electoral map so all the city dwellers, who voted Labor or Liberal (there was no coalition in Queensland at the time), were lumped together in a handful of seats despite making up half the population, whereas country seats (which were often very creatively shaped, sometimes not even connected) were drawn about the place to maximise the number of seats the National Party could win. It meant that regional Queensland was significantly over-represented compared to their city dwelling compatriots.

A Labor Party campaign slogan went back in the 80s, in protest of Sir Joh's gerry-mander:

"Fair go! Sheep shouldn't vote!"

let us hope we can kick johnie out.... his head is so far up bush's ass that he doesn't know what is going on in his own country...

kick him out and all the seppo's with him i say :upyours:

You're probably thinking of the gerry-mandering in Queensland under Sir Joh Bjelkje-Petersen, who was premier for a generation without ever winning the popular vote. In fact, the Nationals used to have a majority in their own right with a primary vote of about 25%.

It wasn't done by letting the dead vote, however. It was done by creatively drawing lines on the electoral map so all the city dwellers, who voted Labor or Liberal (there was no coalition in Queensland at the time), were lumped together in a handful of seats despite making up half the population, whereas country seats (which were often very creatively shaped, sometimes not even connected) were drawn about the place to maximise the number of seats the National Party could win. It meant that regional Queensland was significantly over-represented compared to their city dwelling compatriots.

A Labor Party campaign slogan went back in the 80s, in protest of Sir Joh's gerry-mander:

"Fair go! Sheep shouldn't vote!"

Nah, I'm thinking more recent and just in Brisbane. No idea if it was federal, state or even a council election. Never mind.

But yeah, I'm quite familiar with that bastard Joh. Looking at the results of the 1972 election, I don't know whether to laugh or cry:

Labor got 46.7
Libs got 22.2
Country got 20.0

lol... :(

Nah, I'm thinking more recent and just in Brisbane. No idea if it was federal, state or even a council election. Never mind.

But yeah, I'm quite familiar with that bastard Joh. Looking at the results of the 1972 election, I don't know whether to laugh or cry:

Labor got 46.7
Libs got 22.2
Country got 20.0

lol... :(

Ah, but justice was served in the end.
"Joh for Canberra"

Petty did this lovely cartoon of Joh riding a sheep with "Canberra or Bust" on a sign or something ... wish I could find it.


I think it was "Fair go! Sheep don't vote!" but I'd forgotten it until I heard it just now. Google knows nothing, so kudos to Pantocratoria for introducing that gem to the 'net.

EDIT: Another factoid drifts back from those horrible times. It wasn't just the shape of the gerrymandered electorates, the CP seats had fewer voters too ... sometimes half that of a city electorate.

i live in Queensland and the Economy is Booming All around Australia, i will be voting Librals, Family First.....and dont forget pauline hansens new party, United Australia


you may all scream at me now...but i am right winged...as you can tell lol

This might jog someone's memory. Bruce Petty, take it away ...

http://www.abwac.org.au/membersearch/Petty-edit.jpg

i live in Queensland and the Economy is Booming All around Australia, i will be voting Librals, Family First.....and dont forget pauline hansens new party, United Australia


you may all scream at me now...but i am right winged...as you can tell lol

I'm not screaming at you. I will try not to laugh too hard when your chosen candidates turn up on game shows after they are soundly trounced at the polls.

EDIT: For anyone who doesn't know Pauline Hanson, her best shot at power was a party called One Nation. Her judgement in choosing a slogan coined by Hitler ("Ein Reich") is confirmed by what would appear to be an open invitation to United supporters to come over and riot for the cause. :D

I'm a reluctant labor supporter at best, its a party of party hacks and radical unionists. And thats not the party for me, by any stretch of imagination.
Once i may have been a Liberal supporter but Howard firmly crushed any modicum of a chance I would have ever had of voting liberal. Family First should go to hell (:)), the democrats are a bunch of tossers and the Greens... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.

So... Prime Minister Kevin Rudd... could be worse.

Vote Labour!

So... Prime Minister Kevin Rudd... could be worse.

Let me guess what could be worse:

Prime Minister Costello, wait, Prime Minister Abbot.

Much worse.

This might jog someone's memory. Bruce Petty, take it away ...

http://www.abwac.org.au/membersearch/Petty-edit.jpg

Is that supposed to be Latham?

Let me guess what could be worse:

Prime Minister Costello, wait, Prime Minister Abbot.

Much worse.

Yes, precisely.

Ah, but justice was served in the end.
"Joh for Canberra"

Justice...along with the destruction of the Queensland Libs and keeping the Liberals out of power nationally for nearly another decade. I wish justice wasn't so expensive...

"Sir" Joh should have gone to jail in my books. Perjury and corruption (corruption or severe ignorance) are serious offenses, ignoring the fact he was a hillbilly dictator.

i live in Queensland and the Economy is Booming All around Australia, i will be voting Librals, Family First.....and dont forget pauline hansens new party, United Australia


you may all scream at me now...but i am right winged...as you can tell lol

Are you even old enough to vote?

If the current government gets back into power, it's going to turn the Northern Territory into the Nuclear Territory where we'll be selling Uranium to other nations and it comes back as waste to us - and they keep the enriched bombing making material.

If we have a civilian nuclear industry we more than likely will progress on clandestine fission weapon r&d.

Not even that, but Howard has centralised power beyond the federal GOVERNMENT and has continually made the position as PM more and more powerful. How about the 10 billion dollar water plan his department created without even consulting the cabinent or even the Department of the Environment and Water Resources. He also purchased those fighter planes that everybody else told him not to. For someone who calls himself a conservative he certainly doesn't give a fuck about distribution of power.

Yeah, that centralisation bit is crap too.

At least Victoria seems to be holding out... until the Howard finds a way to use the situation to withdraw GST revenue.

Planes of both stop gap measure and the original intended ones aren't that great for what we need.

Vote Labour!

Nice sentiment, but you'd have to write it in.
We don't have a Labour Party ... they changed their name to "The Australian Labor Party" quite some time ago ... 1912 according to wiki.

I mean that's silly, but it's nothing compared to the eventual crow-eating of the Liberal Party of Australia. The name was coined by our second-longest serving PM, Menzies. Since Howard became the longest-serving, I'd say it's up to him to choose the new name. Americans might think the party are liberal, which apparently means "eats babies while defecating on the Bible" so they'll never get re-elected.

"The Tory Party" has a nice ring to it ... :D

If we have a civilian nuclear industry we more than likely will progress on clandestine fission weapon r&d.
*...*

Shh! It's supposed to be clandestine, remember?

i live in Queensland and the Economy is Booming All around Australia, i will be voting Librals, Family First.....and dont forget pauline hansens new party, United Australia


you may all scream at me now...but i am right winged...as you can tell lol

not her again

United Australia Party: "I don't like it"

Nice sentiment, but you'd have to write it in.
We don't have a Labour Party ... they changed their name to "The Australian Labor Party" quite some time ago ... 1912 according to wiki.

I mean that's silly, but it's nothing compared to the eventual crow-eating of the Liberal Party of Australia. The name was coined by our second-longest serving PM, Menzies. Since Howard became the longest-serving, I'd say it's up to him to choose the new name. Americans might think the party are liberal, which apparently means "eats babies while defecating on the Bible" so they'll never get re-elected.

"The Tory Party" has a nice ring to it ... :D

It was Labor because of the experiment of changing the language to remove 'u' in 'our words right?

Bleh, Tories suck.

Shh! It's supposed to be clandestine, remember?

Damn, I have to go now; Some very nice ASIO people accidently heard my statement. I might see you all s.. What are you doing with that needle? No, I am not committing sedition! What is that? A tase.. *buzzing noise*

......

Nice sentiment, but you'd have to write it in.
We don't have a Labour Party ... they changed their name to "The Australian Labor Party" quite some time ago ... 1912 according to wiki.

I mean that's silly, but it's nothing compared to the eventual crow-eating of the Liberal Party of Australia. The name was coined by our second-longest serving PM, Menzies. Since Howard became the longest-serving, I'd say it's up to him to choose the new name. Americans might think the party are liberal, which apparently means "eats babies while defecating on the Bible" so they'll never get re-elected.

"The Tory Party" has a nice ring to it ... :D

*cough cough*

Howard won't contest for reelection to PM. He'll obviously contest for his seat, but the very night before the race officially starts, he'll step down and someone else will be put forward.
My money's on Turnbull.
Costello's the obvious choice, but the whole point of the tactic is to catch Labour and the public off guard and so choosing Costello as the party leader reduces the effect. Turnbull, is a pitbull, a pitbull who lies very well. He's been moving close to the golden seat for years now and would probably split the party if Costello moves to become PM.
Don't think something like this has happened? Its what got Hawke in government all those years ago.

I'm also looking forward to Family First's usual antics. I guess this year it won't be burning homosexual people at the stake. Also did Jodi Moore get elected as one of Queensland's Senators?

Justice...along with the destruction of the Queensland Libs and keeping the Liberals out of power nationally for nearly another decade. I wish justice wasn't so expensive...

Justice is always expensive ... anyway.
Nationally, we had the Fraser government for years, so the "Liberals out of power" thing is just wrong. The constitutional crisis of '75 sprung from Joh breaking with tradition and appointing a Senator of his own choosing (Mal Colston, a scumbag in his own right) and the whole affair was very edgy, with a lot of dubious constitutional decisions on both sides.

I think it's fair to say that Joh had influence way beyond the delegated authority of Queenslanders and wounded Australian democracy in a way it has still not recovered from.

"Sir" Joh should have gone to jail in my books. Perjury and corruption (corruption or severe ignorance) are serious offenses, ignoring the fact he was a hillbilly dictator.

Ignorance my arse. He was corrupt, and corrupting.

I still "worry about that" now, you bastard Joh. May you rot in hell.

*cough cough*

Uh, I forgot Hawke ... right?

Howard won't contest for reelection to PM. He'll obviously contest for his seat, but the very night before the race officially starts, he'll step down and someone else will be put forward.
My money's on Turnbull.
Costello's the obvious choice, but the whole point of the tactic is to catch Labour and the public off guard and so choosing Costello as the party leader reduces the effect. Turnbull, is a pitbull, a pitbull who lies very well. He's been moving close to the golden seat for years now and would probably split the party if Costello moves to become PM.
Don't think something like this has happened? Its what got Hawke in government all those years ago.

I'm also looking forward to Family First's usual antics. I guess this year it won't be burning homosexual people at the stake. Also did Jodi Moore get elected as one of Queensland's Senators?

This deserves an answer if anyone has the time.

(Keating too was unelectable when he got the leadership -- I say it's Costello.)

Uh, I forgot Hawke ... right?

Menzies>Howard>Hawke

People whose name contain an M are inherently superior.

Menzies>Howard>Hawke

People whose name contain an M are inherently superior.

"Nobel Homos" ... I think not. Thanks for the suggestion tho :upyours:

If the current government gets back into power, it's going to turn the Northern Territory into the Nuclear Territory where we'll be selling Uranium to other nations and it comes back as waste to us - and they keep the enriched bombing making material.

Australia already sells Uranium to other countries, and it doesn't come back because most countries that use nuclear power have methods of disposal and storage in their own country.

Australia already sells Uranium to other countries, and it doesn't come back because most countries that use nuclear power have methods of disposal and storage in their own country.

There is no permanant storage facillities for the waste; Most are made to last about 30 years. There is a push for Australia to house a permanant storage facillity (millennium).

Why not vote Green 1 and Labor 2? I doubt the Greens will be chopped off the ticket before Labor.

That's the beauty of preferences. If the vote is very close, your first preference is still noted on the tally but once your preferred candidate is eliminated your second preference holds just as much weight as the first. If your seat really is marginal, it will go to preferences.

So you can vote "Shooter's Party" or whatever your first preference is (only joking!) and if it goes to preferences, your second if it's for one of the two main contenders, will count.

I ALWAYS vote one of the no-hope candidates before Labor on this basis, to show my dissatisfaction with them without throwing away my vote. I don't understand so well how the Senate works, so I just vote the party I want.

I should have clarified that I meant parties; I plan to vote as Farmina said, but I would usually vote for Labor and Liberals last (unless there's a truly detestable party such as Family First on the ballot)

We don't.

The thing is that the other parties usually only really have a chance to get into the upper house, the senate. That's where they actually matter. In parliament, where the government sits only two parties really have a chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_political_parties

uh, senate is the upper house of parliament..... what you have called "parliament" is the house of representatives, or lower house.
:)

anyway. the polls are 59 41. and they said in january if john howard wanted to throw kevin rudd off his game, he would call a mid-year election.:p


anyway. the government is always one of two two groups: labor, or the coalition (nationals+liberals)

Australia already sells Uranium to other countries, and it doesn't come back because most countries that use nuclear power have methods of disposal and storage in their own country.

There's a push to turn the NT into a international dumping ground for waste because the place is so empty. Yes we could make money out of it, and the NT does have Uranium mines selling weapons grade materials.

The NT is a perfect place politically due to low number of votes you can lose and the federal government has a lot more power over territories than the states. The federal government can basically do what they want, including turning the NT into a dumping ground for everyone's waste.

There's a push to turn the NT into a international dumping ground for waste because the place is so empty. Yes we could make money out of it, and the NT does have Uranium mines selling weapons grade materials.

Thats not true, they sell uranium ore (yellowcake) we currently only have one nuclear facillity and I don't think we have any industrial enrichment facillities.

The NT is a perfect place politically due to low number of votes you can lose and the federal government has a lot more power over territories than the states. The federal government can basically do what they want, including turning the NT into a dumping ground for everyone's waste.

Which is why the NT should become a state soon.

Thats not true, they sell uranium ore (yellowcake) we currently only have one nuclear facillity and I don't think we have any industrial enrichment facillities..

True, we sell the yellowcake and you need nuke reactor to convert to weapons grade. Did you know the material used to destroy Nagasaki was refined from material from the NT?

Which is why the NT should become a state soon.

Well, maybe. There's push but it's not going anywhere.

True, we sell the yellowcake and you need nuke reactor to convert to weapons grade. Did you know the material used to destroy Nagasaki was refined from material from the NT?

I didn't know that about the nuclear weapons but I do know that if you want weapons grade uranium you need to use a specific mechanism for isotope seperation to gain the useful fission form of uranium (235). A reactor could be used to produce weapons grade plutonium though, provided you can isolate the isotope of plutonium wanted...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Well, maybe. There's push but it's not going anywhere.

Yeah, thats a problem.

Howard won't contest for reelection to PM. He'll obviously contest for his seat, but the very night before the race officially starts, he'll step down and someone else will be put forward.
My money's on Turnbull.
Costello's the obvious choice, but the whole point of the tactic is to catch Labour and the public off guard and so choosing Costello as the party leader reduces the effect. Turnbull, is a pitbull, a pitbull who lies very well. He's been moving close to the golden seat for years now and would probably split the party if Costello moves to become PM.
Don't think something like this has happened? Its what got Hawke in government all those years ago.

I'm also looking forward to Family First's usual antics. I guess this year it won't be burning homosexual people at the stake. Also did Jodi Moore get elected as one of Queensland's Senators?

Turnbull? I can certainly see him leading the Libs/Coalition in ten years maybe, but after all their harping about Rudd's inexperience, it would be suicidal for them to replace Howard with Turnbull, who was only elected in 2004. His name has an L in it, too, which would just add to these woes.

Turnbull? I can certainly see him leading the Libs/Coalition in ten years maybe, but after all their harping about Rudd's inexperience, it would be suicidal for them to replace Howard with Turnbull, who was only elected in 2004. His name has an L in it, too, which would just add to these woes.

turnbull will be the next Liberal prime minister. John Howard will contest the election, and if he wins, costello wont become leader.
costello has smirked and been coy about the leadership too much, everyone sees him as a loser.

turnbull is the same as rudd. only he chose the Liberals.
he actually was thinking about Labor.

he actually was thinking about Labor.
I have my doubts they would have wanted him...

I hope he'll become PM soon. It'll be a bit of a surprise for some. :p

*hint: try and find some links about his views on taxation

Actually, both Brendan Nelson and Peter Costello are former Labor people.

I have my doubts they would have wanted him...

I hope he'll become PM soon. It'll be a bit of a surprise for some. :p

*hint: try and find some links about his views on taxation

I wouldn't be the only person who thought Turnbull fucked up the push for a Republic? Spearheading that fiasco has made his face ugly to many ....

*hint: try and find some links about his views on taxation

Meh, too tired to google. But found this on wiki:

Since his election Turnbull has made a series of speeches on economic matters, particularly taxation, which some commentators have seen as implied criticisms of the policies of the Treasurer, Peter Costello, although Turnbull denies this.

Care to elaborate?

I believe I watched the first one of these discussions (Turnbull on tax):
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1356821.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1395040.htm

In Soviet Russia, Turnbull's economics googles YOU !

I like a running joke as much as the next joker ...

Justice is always expensive ... anyway.
Nationally, we had the Fraser government for years, so the "Liberals out of power" thing is just wrong. The constitutional crisis of '75 sprung from Joh breaking with tradition and appointing a Senator of his own choosing (Mal Colston, a scumbag in his own right) and the whole affair was very edgy, with a lot of dubious constitutional decisions on both sides.

I was refering to the devastating affect of "Joh for Canberra" in 87, which went a long way to preventing a Howard victory in 1987; thus delaying a Liberal return to power till 1996. That's nearly a decade later.

In Soviet Russia, Crappy federal government dislikes YOU!

Hmmm, if you remove the soviet part it actually sounds pretty accurate.

Goodbye Johnny Howard! :p

If Howard wins I will be a saddened by the apathy of the public.

If Howard wins I'll go ballistic.

I know the electorate have the attention span of a gnat, but surely no one can forget this time what a snivvelling, lying, mean spirited little git he's been since the moment he grasped the reins.

As for that arrogant, smug grinning gerbel he has for a deputy.....pshaw!!!

Despite the figures (lookin' good only because the government has redefined the way statistics are treated), we are economically worse off than we were 11 years ago, the morale of the nation is at an all time low, the chances of someone owning their own home is 47% lower than 10 years ago and less likely than during the great depression in the 1920s (this was on tonights ABC news) we are facing an environmental crisis the likes of which we never really believed would happen in our lifetime, and our international credibility (despite, or maybe because of, Howards continual arse kissing in Washington) is somewhere below a hole in the ground.

And let's not forget that Mr "there'll never be a GST in my time" heralded his first term by assisting in an appalling corporate attack on our stevedoring workers.

So good-riddance and don't come back. No doubt your tory mates will make sure you get your knighthood and a nice cushy embassy job somewhere near your first best friend 'baby' Bush.:sniper:

I was refering to the devastating affect of "Joh for Canberra" in 87, which went a long way to preventing a Howard victory in 1987; thus delaying a Liberal return to power till 1996. That's nearly a decade later.

Yeah, I forgot the timing, thought Joh for PM was earlier than that.

Hawke had a lot of momentum, I don't think you can just blame Joh. Fraser was damn unpopular, and Howard didn't exactly ooze charisma. Hawke would have beaten him anyway I think.

I am bound for glory! Wormers of the world, un-- :sniper:

I'm not screaming at you. I will try not to laugh too hard when your chosen candidates turn up on game shows after they are soundly trounced at the polls.

EDIT: For anyone who doesn't know Pauline Hanson, her best shot at power was a party called One Nation. Her judgement in choosing a slogan coined by Hitler ("Ein Reich") is confirmed by what would appear to be an open invitation to United supporters to come over and riot for the cause. :D

I have a feeling it is more likely that she was ripping off the name of the "One Nation" economic and infrastructure policy of the Keating Government pursued until 1996. It was one of the few popular things the Keating Government was doing by the time it got voted out, and had significant political capital invested in it, a part of which Hanson probably intended to co-opt with the name of her party. Remember that One Nation initially took almost as many votes from Labor as it did from the tories - I'm sure that the name helped capture dissatisfied regional Labor voters.

Yeah, I forgot the timing, thought Joh for PM was earlier than that.

Hawke had a lot of momentum, I don't think you can just blame Joh. Fraser was damn unpopular, and Howard didn't exactly ooze charisma. Hawke would have beaten him anyway I think.

Fraser lost in 1983, I don't think he was particularly relevant to the 1987 election except in that the chronic economic incompetence of his government still hung like a lodestone around the neck of his former Treasurer and then-Opposition Leader, John Howard.

Hooray for 1987!