Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Australia's Election

ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 7:40:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Does anyone outside Australia care/have any thoughts?

America's elections make big news over here and I try to at least vaguely follow the UK's.
Plus you have the weekly government overthrows in third world and developing nations.

So I was curious if anyone out there cares about the lunatics that we call politicians in Australia and if anyone has any objective views
These are not the droids you're looking for.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 8:27:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 7:40:14 PM, ObiWan wrote:
Does anyone outside Australia care/have any thoughts?

America's elections make big news over here and I try to at least vaguely follow the UK's.
Plus you have the weekly government overthrows in third world and developing nations.

So I was curious if anyone out there cares about the lunatics that we call politicians in Australia and if anyone has any objective views

Hah! Seconded
Anybody else care about what happens down here?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 9:07:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Even though she was Labor, I always liked Julia Gillard. She seemed like a cool gal.

Not really an election comment, but an Australian politics comment, I guess.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 10:38:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 9:07:00 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Even though she was Labor, I always liked Julia Gillard. She seemed like a cool gal.

Not really an election comment, but an Australian politics comment, I guess.

I liked first Kevin Rudd better than Julia Gillard, but Julia better than second Kevin Rudd. Although both are preferably to Tony Abbott in terms of leadership (not party)
These are not the droids you're looking for.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2013 11:53:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, care to enlighten the masses about this wonderful, stupendous topic called the Australian election?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 12:56:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2013 11:53:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, care to enlighten the masses about this wonderful, stupendous topic called the Australian election?

Basically we can either vote for Tony Abbott and the liberal party, who are anti-gay marriage, anti-asylum seekers, anti-carbon tax, want to increase parental leave and have pretty solid views on the economy and on jobs. Personally as a political party I'm not the biggest fan of their social platform and I really don't like Tony Abbott. The liberals have formed a coalition with the National Party, who is essentially their rural equivalent.

The party currently in power is the Australian Labor Party, lead by Kevin Rudd. They are pro-gay, plan on dumping their own carbon tax is re-elected and are generally more left wing than the Libs. The biggest challenge facing them is trust. Since first gaining power in 2007, they have changed leader (and hence changed the prime minister) from Kevin, to Julia Gillard and then back to Kevin, prompting questions on whether or not they can be trusted.

There is also the Greens, probably the 3rd largest party, who have a tentative alliance with Labor, the Palmer United Party and Katter's Australia Party amount others. Or you can vote for an independent MP, although preferential voting will ensure that your votes usually find their way to either Labor or Liberal
These are not the droids you're looking for.
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 1:57:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here in the UK, the only paper I've really seen covering it has been The Guardian, but they're REALLY interested in it. Disproportionately so...
I'm back (ish).
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 2:43:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/28/2013 12:56:44 AM, ObiWan wrote:
At 8/26/2013 11:53:26 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
So, care to enlighten the masses about this wonderful, stupendous topic called the Australian election?

Basically we can either vote for Tony Abbott and the liberal party, who are anti-gay marriage, anti-asylum seekers, anti-carbon tax, want to increase parental leave and have pretty solid views on the economy and on jobs. Personally as a political party I'm not the biggest fan of their social platform and I really don't like Tony Abbott. The liberals have formed a coalition with the National Party, who is essentially their rural equivalent.

The party currently in power is the Australian Labor Party, lead by Kevin Rudd. They are pro-gay, plan on dumping their own carbon tax is re-elected and are generally more left wing than the Libs. The biggest challenge facing them is trust. Since first gaining power in 2007, they have changed leader (and hence changed the prime minister) from Kevin, to Julia Gillard and then back to Kevin, prompting questions on whether or not they can be trusted.

There is also the Greens, probably the 3rd largest party, who have a tentative alliance with Labor, the Palmer United Party and Katter's Australia Party amount others. Or you can vote for an independent MP, although preferential voting will ensure that your votes usually find their way to either Labor or Liberal

Just thought I would clear up a couple of minor issues here. Labour is far from pro-gay. Kevin Rudd supports gay marriage and has said that there will be conscience vote on the issue within 100 days of government if labour wins the election. Labour's official policy is no policy, they will allow their members to vote either way depending on individual preference (changed from their previous policy against). I believe there are large blocks of each within the party itself. Also the carbon tax will not be dumped by labour on entering office, not really, they plan on switching to an ETS (which while cheaper in the short term, still puts a price on carbon that ends up in government coffers) early, which if you remember, was the plan all along for both parties before the previous election. On the asylum seeker issue, neither party is pro or anti. They both have different plans on how to deal with the problem (they both recognise that it is a problem). Labour's big win at the moment appears to be their education plan, which aims to restructure funding for the education system in collaboration with the states to fix some serious problems.

The alliance between the Greens and Labour is shaky at best, I would call it a grudging respect for each other's social policy and environmental objectives. They disagree on practical implementation (and just about everything else). Both major parties would like to keep the Greens out of the Lower House, where they obtained their first seat ever in the last election. The independents are leaving the lower house also, either to start their own parties (Bob Katter I'm looking at you) or retire. Well that's not technically true, Bob could still win his old seat back I suppose.

Running in the senate are more candidates than I've ever seen before (why doesn't anyone ever talk about the senate election) from something like 50 different parties. Most, like the Sex Party, Shooters and Fishers and the Climate Skeptics are running on particular issues rather than a broad policy base. Family first is our ultra-conservative family values party. Most of the seats will likely go to the two major parties with maybe 6-10 greens seats. There is a sitting DLP senator as well but his seat is not up for reelection this time. The Australian Democrats used to be a significant force in the senate, but this role seems to have been taken up by the Greens after they lost all their seats in 2008.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 2:44:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/28/2013 1:57:12 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
Here in the UK, the only paper I've really seen covering it has been The Guardian, but they're REALLY interested in it. Disproportionately so...

Probably because they just launched their Australian division.
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 3:37:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/28/2013 2:43:35 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
They are pro-gay

Small point, not really. Gillard when when elected and approached with the question deferred to 'social heritage' bs as an excuse for not pushing legislation to legalise it. That is, conservative Christian history in politics, the same that gave rise to a range of obnoxious Australian racist policies, was her defence.

As for Rudd, it's hard to tell. It's a very easy thing for him to say because he knows he isn't going to win the election by all polling accounts, and he knows putting into place a conscience vote on the matter will be denied by the Liberal party anyway (admitted by Abbott). So it's safe, it will result in absolutely nothing, and it makes him look a little less like the douche he tends to. Also it's been largely dropped by Rudd (publicly) since there was a decent backlash from the bogan working class, the traditional Labor power base.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 4:17:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/28/2013 3:37:07 AM, Fractals wrote:
At 8/28/2013 2:43:35 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
They are pro-gay

Small point, not really. Gillard when when elected and approached with the question deferred to 'social heritage' bs as an excuse for not pushing legislation to legalise it. That is, conservative Christian history in politics, the same that gave rise to a range of obnoxious Australian racist policies, was her defence.

As for Rudd, it's hard to tell. It's a very easy thing for him to say because he knows he isn't going to win the election by all polling accounts, and he knows putting into place a conscience vote on the matter will be denied by the Liberal party anyway (admitted by Abbott). So it's safe, it will result in absolutely nothing, and it makes him look a little less like the douche he tends to. Also it's been largely dropped by Rudd (publicly) since there was a decent backlash from the bogan working class, the traditional Labor power base.
Firstly, if you are going to quote factual inaccuracies, I would appreciate you attribute them to the right person, that was the inaccuracy I was correcting.
Secondly, while you are correct that Rudd coming out for gay marriage doesn't really mean anything, I doubt very much that it was dropped publicly because of the backlash from the working class (which I agree did happen). It was dropped because it was never a part of his platform. Every time he has been asked about it he has said I am personally for it, and will allow a conscience vote but I'm not campaigning for it and never will. If anything, he has gotten more vocal on the issue, saying now that he will guarantee a conscience vote in the first 100 days of office. Considering that they only just had a vote on it and it was rejected, I doubt very much that he would be doing that if he had simply dropped the issue.
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 4:58:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Apologies for the in accuracy, Kevin has openly stated that he is for legalising gay marriage and I assumed the statement corresponded to the parties overall views. Our political system is such that Kevin himself can not just make gay marriage legal, it must be passed by the house and a conscience vote would probably be the most likely way of getting it to happen.

The alliance between Labor and the greens, or what remains after the deals reached during elections hung parliament seems to me to be the 'lesser of two evils' option for the greens. They side with Labor because they don't want to side with the coalition
These are not the droids you're looking for.
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:12:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/28/2013 4:58:33 AM, ObiWan wrote:
The alliance between Labor and the greens, or what remains after the deals reached during elections hung parliament seems to me to be the 'lesser of two evils' option for the greens. They side with Labor because they don't want to side with the coalition

The Greens get way more from the deal (and did with Gillard) than Labor who needed the Greens mainly as a means to shore up numbers in the upper house. That and the huge payout/bribe/incentive to QLD farmers, traditional stalwarts of the Coalition.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 5:45:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/28/2013 4:58:33 AM, ObiWan wrote:
Apologies for the in accuracy, Kevin has openly stated that he is for legalising gay marriage and I assumed the statement corresponded to the parties overall views. Our political system is such that Kevin himself can not just make gay marriage legal, it must be passed by the house and a conscience vote would probably be the most likely way of getting it to happen.

The alliance between Labor and the greens, or what remains after the deals reached during elections hung parliament seems to me to be the 'lesser of two evils' option for the greens. They side with Labor because they don't want to side with the coalition
No problems, a lot of people appear to be confused on that one. Even if there were a conscience vote on both sides of the house I think it is unlikely that the marriage equality act would pass (at least not the next time, maybe the time after that). But as the LNP doesn't seem likely to allow one any time soon I think it could easily be a two or three term wait until it gets a real shot at passing. That being said, I don't think marriage equality is the primary issue for this election, that would have to be as you say, trust issues with the ALP, the economy, asylum seekers, education and the carbon tax. Both sides like to claim they know the economy better, both sides claim their asylum seeker policy is better, the ALP probably have it on education, but nobody likes the carbon tax much, and those people who really really care about it, will probably be voting Greens anyway. I very much liked the Greens take on community energy projects, most sensible thing I've heard them say in a while.

One other thing to note, the Palmer United Party (soon to be renamed Building Australia Party) managed to get someone running in each of the 150 Lower House electoral seats. Not a bad feat if you ask me. I doubt they will be particularly successful, but then, it only takes 1 or 2. Good ol' Clive is saying all the right things, but I doubt anyone really trusts the guy to run the country, still he's making a good show of it. His platform seems to be 'vote for me because I'm not one of the other two clowns'. I almost hope he gets a seat or two just so we can see what he is really about.
orangemayhem
Posts: 333
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 12:33:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/28/2013 2:44:26 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 8/28/2013 1:57:12 AM, orangemayhem wrote:
Here in the UK, the only paper I've really seen covering it has been The Guardian, but they're REALLY interested in it. Disproportionately so...

Probably because they just launched their Australian division.

Ah, that would explain it.
I'm back (ish).
ObiWan
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2013 11:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

One other thing to note, the Palmer United Party (soon to be renamed Building Australia Party) managed to get someone running in each of the 150 Lower House electoral seats. Not a bad feat if you ask me. I doubt they will be particularly successful, but then, it only takes 1 or 2. Good ol' Clive is saying all the right things, but I doubt anyone really trusts the guy to run the country, still he's making a good show of it. His platform seems to be 'vote for me because I'm not one of the other two clowns'. I almost hope he gets a seat or two just so we can see what he is really about.

That's pretty impressive. I'd like to see what happens if they win a seat. I think Katter has a shot at winning his seat but the rest of his party is going to struggle.
These are not the droids you're looking for.