Australian Elections 2013

[Forster Keys]

Well. I like labour. Here is my two cents.

If you haven't pieced it together yet, Australia votes for "Parties" as our representatives to government, instead of a 'president'. You'd think it'd be more efficient at doing things for the people and improve the country further, but really it just makes our capitol a lot more noisier.

During this election, it'll be Rudd v. Abbott.
To summarize the two...
Imagine Kevin Rudd as an allegory of Steve Jobs, just infused with more politics. Rudd was kicked out and replaced by Prime Minister Gillard, who was kicked out and replaced with Rudd again right before the announcement of the date of the federal elections and as Gillard was growing dangerously unpopular which risked the possibility of labour getting elected again during the elections. As you can imagine, the switch back to Rudd was a popular move throughout the country and deeply angered Tony Abbott. I myself thought it was a shady move by labour, and I'm a supporter!

Imagine Tony Abbott as that one shady character who stands in the shadows of a tree, only ever emerging to start a conversation with you, and when you reply, he slaps you with a wad of money and empty promises that cannot seriously be true, because its simply unfeasible... at least for long periods of time.

No, I don't hate mothers who get maternity leave, I think that you shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broke.

It's the Labor Party. Early last century they were inspired by US spelling reform to rename themselves without the 'u'.

King O'Malley was a Prohibitionist too.

[Blouman Empire]

It's the Labor Party. Early last century they were inspired by US spelling reform to rename themselves without the 'u'.

King O'Malley was a Prohibitionist too.[/quote]

Now they just want to make it harder for us to drink rather then ban it outright.

[Forster Keys]

Now they just want to make it harder for us to drink rather then ban it outright.

Typical Labor.

[New Chalcedon]

Now they just want to make it harder for us to drink rather then ban it outright.

Typical Labor.

He's still in the Guinness Book of Records for that, you know. 2 1/2 Imperial pints of beer in 11 seconds flat.

[Forster Keys]

Typical Labor.

He's still in the Guinness Book of Records for that, you know. 2 1/2 Imperial pints of beer in 11 seconds flat.

A real Australian legend.

[Socialist EU]

Well. I like labour. Here is my two cents.

If you haven't pieced it together yet, Australia votes for "Parties" as our representatives to government, instead of a 'president'. You'd think it'd be more efficient at doing things for the people and improve the country further, but really it just makes our capitol a lot more noisier.

During this election, it'll be Rudd v. Abbott.
To summarize the two...
Imagine Kevin Rudd as an allegory of Steve Jobs, just infused with more politics. Rudd was kicked out and replaced by Prime Minister Gillard, who was kicked out and replaced with Rudd again right before the announcement of the date of the federal elections and as Gillard was growing dangerously unpopular which risked the possibility of labour getting elected again during the elections. As you can imagine, the switch back to Rudd was a popular move throughout the country and deeply angered Tony Abbott. I myself thought it was a shady move by labour, and I'm a supporter!

Imagine Tony Abbott as that one shady character who stands in the shadows of a tree, only ever emerging to start a conversation with you, and when you reply, he slaps you with a wad of money and empty promises that cannot seriously be true, because its simply unfeasible... at least for long periods of time.

No, I don't hate mothers who get maternity leave, I think that you shouldn't try to fix something that isn't broke.

It's the Australian Labor Party, or just Labor. Early last century they were inspired by US spelling reform to rename themselves without the 'u'.

It's sort of good actually, because if they represented only the interests of the working class (and specifically the Unionized working class) they wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected.

So its better to have a right-wing Labor government? Surely it would be better to transform the ALP into an instrument of working class advance and international socialism. By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

[AiliailiA]

It's the Australian Labor Party, or just Labor. Early last century they were inspired by US spelling reform to rename themselves without the 'u'.

It's sort of good actually, because if they represented only the interests of the working class (and specifically the Unionized working class) they wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected.

So its better to have a right-wing Labor government? Surely it would be better to transform the ALP into an instrument of working class advance and international socialism. By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

Two terms is what it got them. Not enough for you?

[Socialist EU]

So its better to have a right-wing Labor government? Surely it would be better to transform the ALP into an instrument of working class advance and international socialism. By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

Two terms is what it got them. Not enough for you?

What I'm saying is that they've only recently moved significantly to the right and its clearly not helping them right now. And let me ask you this question, is two terms enough for you then? Why bother voting ALP? The point is, each Labour administration is to the right of the previous one, each Liberal National coalition government is to the right of the of the previous one,(much as it is here in Britain - between conservatives and Labour) how would you suggest that trend is broken?

[New Chalcedon]

So its better to have a right-wing Labor government? Surely it would be better to transform the ALP into an instrument of working class advance and international socialism. By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

Two terms is what it got them. Not enough for you?

Labor ran as a centrist, technocratic party in 2007 and 2010, not trying to out-Liberal the Liberals.

[Yaltabaoth]

Pff, the only "humans" in Australia are the Kiwis
Though as you point out, we can't vote. Which I think explains the dismalness of Australian politics.

On that note, did y'all know that an Australian living and working in NZ, and paying taxes to the NZ Govt, for one year is eligible to enrol for, and vote in, NZ elections, but a Kiwi living and working in Australia, for any period, and paying taxes to the Aus Govt, has to acquire a permanent visa to get voting rights?

(First half of post is not serious. Second half is.)

There's a lot of things that Kiwi's can't do in Australia that Australians can do in New Zealand.
Are you seriously just figuring this out? <3
It's like... we playfully hate them, when they really hate our guts.

Oh, it's not news to me.
I thought it might be news to other posters though, thus the "did y'all know" part.

They are rubbing in the fact that New Zealanders are moving to Australia in large numbers, and using the hard economic times in New Zealand as an excuse to tighten the borders. If I wanted to live in Australia and obtain citizenship, and voting rights, then I would be better off on my US passport than on my New Zealand. I could pass the Australian citizenship test easily, and it would only mean living a year or so more in Australia. But the question is, do I really want to be Australian, and the answer really is 'probably not'.

A direct comparison of numbers doesn't take population size into account.

So, that said, I just went looking for stats to compare what proportion of the Australian population was Kiwi (around 2.3% in 2006) - with the reverse, but damned if I could find any solid numbers for Aussies in NZ.
(Somebody will now embarrass me by producing said numbers with ease, no doubt.)

And like you, I wouldn't give up my NZ citizenship to become Australian either. Similar we may be, the same we are not.
I'd still really like a vote to go with all those taxes they're happy to collect from me though.

[New Chalcedon]

So, that said, I just went looking for stats to compare what proportion of the Australian population was Kiwi (around 2.3% in 2006) - with the reverse, but damned if I could find any solid numbers for Aussies in NZ.
(Somebody will now embarrass me by producing said numbers with ease, no doubt.)

Ask and it shall be given unto you: Per DFAT, 65,000 Australians live in New Zealand as of 2012. The 2012 Kiwi-Australian number in DFAT is roughly the same as the Wiki article you cited - 647,000 vs. 648,000.

Now, NZ's population is....all the way up to 4.4 million? Wow, you're all growed up now!

More seriously, 1.4% of New Zealand taxpayers are in fact Australians.

[Australasia]

I hope that the ALP will be able to win this election, it will be horrifying if Tony Abbot got anywhere near the Prime Minister-ship.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Two terms is what it got them. Not enough for you?

Labor ran as a centrist, technocratic party in 2007 and 2010, not trying to out-Liberal the Liberals.

Labor didn't really run as anything in 2010. They just ran. And somehow got votes.

[Vitaphone Racing]

It's the Australian Labor Party, or just Labor. Early last century they were inspired by US spelling reform to rename themselves without the 'u'.

It's sort of good actually, because if they represented only the interests of the working class (and specifically the Unionized working class) they wouldn't stand a chance of getting elected.

So its better to have a right-wing Labor government?

Labor isn't right wing and never will be. They might not be as progressive as they used to be, but they certainly aren't right wing. The entire Labor party is dominated by ex-union officials.

Surely it would be better to transform the ALP into an instrument of working class advance and international socialism.

Jesus no. We already have those parties and they get no votes. I really don't want to completely hand power over to the centre-right coalition in Australia. Why do you want to do this? Why do you think this is a good idea?

By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

Believe me, the shittyness of Labor has nothing to do with the fact they're chasing the phantom right.

[Socialist EU]

Two terms is what it got them. Not enough for you?

Labor ran as a centrist, technocratic party in 2007 and 2010, not trying to out-Liberal the Liberals.

I'm sure, just like our three terms of Labour government, more authoritarian laws were introduced in the last few years. And the next ALP admin has a get tough on 'illegals' approach, no not moving to the right at all, not trying to out neo-liberal the liberals at all.

[Socialist EU]

Labor ran as a centrist, technocratic party in 2007 and 2010, not trying to out-Liberal the Liberals.

Labor didn't really run as anything in 2010. They just ran. And somehow got votes.

Of course, keep in mind, it's also what they do whilst in government, frankly, they deserve to lose.

Labor isn't right wing and never will be.They might are not be as progressive as they used to be, but they certainly aren't right wing. The entire Labor party is dominated by ex-union officials.

Fixed, and to clarify, the keys words you used are not as progressive, what I meant was, not that they are now a centre-right bourgeois liberal, national or conservative party, but that they're a right-wing version of what they were and what they were a few decades ago in particular. *

I really don't want to completely hand power over to the centre-right coalition in Australia. Why do you want to do this? Why do you think this is a good idea?

I don't see how handing over an ALP moving to the right helps either, 'lesser evilism' is still evil. If Labor wins they will just be a bit nicer about cuts, that's hardly anything to be happy about, why would you want that? That would lead to more demoralisation for the Australian working class, if anything its the ALP handing power to the centre-right coalition. Tactically, it would be better to support individual anti-cuts Labor candidates, conditional/critical support in other words.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Right - Labor Unity is a right-wing faction within the ALP, similar to our right-wing faction - progress in Britain's Labour party.

[Socialist EU]

I hope that the ALP will be able to win this election, it will be horrifying if Tony Abbot got anywhere near the Prime Minister-ship.

Not necessarily, I'd expect an upturn in protests, strikes and opposition to austerity.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Labor didn't really run as anything in 2010. They just ran. And somehow got votes.

Of course, keep in mind, it's also what they do whilst in government, frankly, they deserve to lose.

I'd agree with you in any other election. This year, nobody deserves to win.

Labor isn't right wing and never will be.They might are not be as progressive as they used to be, but they certainly aren't right wing. The entire Labor party is dominated by ex-union officials.

Fixed, and to clarify, the keys words you used are not as progressive, what I meant was, not that they are now a centre-right bourgeois liberal, national or conservative party, but that they're a right-wing version of what they were and what they were a few decades ago in particular. *

I still don't really agree with you here. Maybe we can just say they've shifted a little towards the right on the political spectrum and leave it at that.

I really don't want to completely hand power over to the centre-right coalition in Australia. Why do you want to do this? Why do you think this is a good idea?

I don't see how handing over an ALP moving to the right helps either, 'lesser evilism' is still evil. If Labor wins they will just be a bit nicer about cuts, that's hardly anything to be happy about, why would you want that? That would lead to more demoralisation for the Australian working class, if anything its the ALP handing power to the centre-right coalition. Tactically, it would be better to support individual anti-cuts Labor candidates, conditional/critical support in other words. [/quote]
And when we are forced to choose between lesser evilism and evilism, I'm going to choose lesser evilism all the time. There aren't any other options to consider as a genuine alternative to the current major parties nor would I feel comfortable about the lesser parties gaining leadership of this country considering their stances and policies. We don't have a choice of which Labor candidates we can support, that isn't how Aus politics works. We all live in a certain electorate, we vote for a candidate to lead our electorate; this candidate has some connection to a major political party. The party with the most electorates controlled wins the election. We don't even get to vote for the PM we want, the party we elect gets to decide who that is.

I'm not going to be up in arms if the coalition wins because they aren't really that conservative (even though our PM would be a massive twat) but I really don't want to hand them three years of total domination of the cabinet. And that's what would happen if the ALP decided to do something balls out crazy and become socialist over night.

[Blouman Empire]

By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

Polls, schmolls the ALP are still on track to win this election. Anyone who thinks they are out of the race even when Gillard was leader rely to much on the media.

[Blouman Empire]

Now they just want to make it harder for us to drink rather then ban it outright.

Typical Labor.

Yes, yes doesn't mean the current crop are anything like him. Fuck we saw the current PM raise the price of bourbon and cokes as soon as he win the 2007 election.

[Blouman Empire]

Labor ran as a centrist, technocratic party in 2007 and 2010, not trying to out-Liberal the Liberals.

Labor didn't really run as anything in 2010. They just ran. And somehow got votes.

Many reasons, they were the incumbent party, after all governments aren't voted in the are voted out. Not to mention the Australian public tend to give the ALP a second chance while they give the Liberal Party no chances (e.g 1993 and 2007). Though personally I think this election they will be given their second chance and then turfed at the next one. Also remember the Coalition won more seats then Labor did but thanks to left leaning members and a couple disgruntled ex-Nationals they were able to form government.

[Toronina]

I would support greens, but they are still like early days labour, a minority party, though they can win a election for Labour

[Australasia]

By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

Polls, schmolls the ALP are still on track to win this election. Anyone who thinks they are out of the race even when Gillard was leader rely to much on the media.

Agreed. The Murdoch media are really laying it on. If one wants non-partisan and proper analysis in Australia, its best to watch/listen to public tv/radio (e.g. ABC).

All things taken into consideration, the ALP is indeed on track to win the election, but it is on a knife edge. The Coalition is likely to lose so as long as mad Abbot stays as their leader.

[New Chalcedon]

Labor didn't really run as anything in 2010. They just ran. And somehow got votes.

Many reasons, they were the incumbent party, after all governments aren't voted in the are voted out. Not to mention the Australian public tend to give the ALP a second chance while they give the Liberal Party no chances (e.g 1993 and 2007).

Um, what?

Keating actually did the impossible in 1993: people didn't vote for Labor (the government), they voted against the Liberals (the challengers). This was largely due to the shambolic campaign run by Hewson, and his utter inability to give simple answers to (at least superficially) simple questions, such as "how will your proposed GST affect the cost of a birthday cake?" Basically, Keating maneuvered Hewson into losing his credibility as an alternative PM.

As for 2007, I may remind you that that Howard was angling for a fifth term, despite the monumental unpopularity of WorkChoices and constant leadership dissension within his own ranks, not a second.

Frankly, Howard is lucky that 9/11 and the Tampa Incident happened just weeks before the 2001 election - his second as Prime Minister. Kim Beazley, who'd plan to run Labor as the humanitarian alternative to the Liberal incumbents, was forced to backtrack and instead try to out-compete the Liberals on "tougher than thou" policies regarding border control and the like. Beazley being who he is (a basically decent guy more interested in "what works", rather than ideology), that didn't work out all that well.

Though personally I think this election they will be given their second chance and then turfed at the next one.

I honestly don't believe they'll win this election. KRudd as leader will "save the furniture" (read: he'll bleed 5-10 seats to the Liberals, giving Abbott between 80 and 85 seats, rather than going down in flames a la Keating 1996), but nothing in the polling I've seen indicates a Labor win.

Perhaps you're privy to some info I'm not?

Also remember the Coalition won more seats then Labor did

Incorrect. After the 2010 election, the House of Representatives looked like this:

ALP-72
Coalition-72

Out of the remaining six seats, here's how they broke down (blue indicates an independent who supported Abbott, red one who supported Gillard):

Bob Katter (IND-Kennedy), Tony Crook (IND/NAT-O'Connor), Tony Windsor (IND-New England), Rob Oakeshott (IND-Lyne), Andrew Wilkie (IND-Denison) and Adam Bandt (GRN-Melbourne).

As to why Crook isn't correctly counted as part of the Coalition, that's because the WA Nationals and Liberals aren't in coalition. The Nationals being a federated party, WA National MPs aren't automatically coalition members - indeed, the WA Nationals campaigned on the idea that WA Nationals wouldn't take their marching orders from (Australian Nationals leader) Warren Truss. Hence Crook's designation of "Independent National".

Adam Bandt is, of course, a member of the Green Party, and hence entirely unlikely to support any Coalition government.

but thanks to left leaning members and a couple disgruntled ex-Nationals they were able to form government.

Neither Tony Windsor nor Rob Oakeshott won election to their seats (New England and Lyne, respectively) as Nationals - ever. They won election and re-election as Independent MPs, and as such were not, and are not, morally or ethically bound to support a given party's leader as PM. In fact, Windsor won the seat of New England by running against and defeating a sitting Coalition MP, back in 2001!

What's more, neither of them are what I'd call "left-leaning" - Tony Windsor's a conservative who left the Nationals in 1991, supported the Greiner minority government in the wake of the 1991 election which saw a hung Parliament and only withdrew his support for Greiner after he was found to have engaged in corrupt behaviour. He supports relaxation of gun control, reintroduction of the death penalty (subject to referendum) and is generally moderately conservative.

Rob Oakeshott was a National - until 2002 - but left the party because he was in fundamental disagreement with the NSW Nationals (who've drifted further to the Right every election, win or lose), won re-election as an Independent in 2003 and 2007, then won election as an Independent to the Federal Parliament in 2008 after Mark Vaile (NAT-Lyne) resigned his seat. He, much like Windsor, is generally moderately conservative, being much more like the old-fashioned Nationals of a generation ago (live-and-let-live social policies, combined with a healthy dose of government spending in rural Australia) than today's Nationals are.

What's more, both Oakeshott and Windsor were open to supporting a Coalition government....led by anyone but Tony Abbott, who in his role as Howard's bovver-boy had alienated Windsor and appalled Oakeshott.

The myth you're peddling - that Abbott was naturally "entitled" to form government because of.....some reason I've never been able to figure out....is supported by neither the rules (which stipulate that the only majority that matters is on the floor of the House, or else Howard would have been a one-term PM) or the reality (in which the Coalition and Labor won equal numbers of seats, and none of the Independents who supported Gillard were in any way bound to support Abbott).

[New Chalcedon]

By the way, if you've looked at the polls recently, the ALP looks set to lose the election, so much for chasing this phantom right for votes! In other words, moving right isn't helping them at all.

Polls, schmolls the ALP are still on track to win this election. Anyone who thinks they are out of the race even when Gillard was leader rely to much on the media.

The Republican Party thought that the polls didn't mean anything either, last year, and that, despite polls showing a bleak state-by-state picture for the GOP, they'd win on Election Night.

Remind me: how'd that work out for President Romney?