Australian politics - Perpetual Thread.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
D

Dac

Ars Legatus Legionis
12,495
Subscriptor
  • #1
    EDIT: Was: Ruling Australian political party in Big Trouble (Gillard ousted, Rudd back in power)
    EDIT: updated subject line for thread.

    Updated subject into Australian Politics - Perpetual Thread.

    (no soapbox for me, no sirree)

    Australian Broadcasting Commission (and every other media agency in Australia) is reporting that the major party in the current Coalition government, headed by Julia Gillard, has had an in-party stoush, and has embarked upon a formal vote this afternoon (my timeline).

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-21/l ... is/4586250

    Prime Minister Julia Gillard has called a spill of all Labor's leadership positions for 4:30pm today.
    Click to expand...

    The leadership debacle has been going on ever since Kevin Rudd was ousted as Prime Minister a few years ago. The media beat-up comes along every few months; this time there is something going to happen.

    It doesn't bode well for Julia Gillard - so many people dislike her, it's chic to lay down the blame at her feet for Labor's current political strife.

    Public political In-fighting of this kind is never a good sign.

    Australia was due to have a federal election in September. If this leadership spill usurps the prime-minister, there is likely to be an election much much sooner.

    Going on all the Polling data, the Liberals (insert "boo hiss" here, think American Republican party) will storm home in any election, even though their leader (Abbott, exactly) is a colossal fuckwit. Interesting times.

    If the Liberals do get in power, expect huge turmoil and crisis, as they rip and slash at 'government overspending' and cut back on public service whilst giving (more) tax breaks to the corporations. </soapbox, sorry>

    Edit: modified subject, since another spill has been announced (June 26th 2013)

    Edit: Gillard ousted by a leadership spill, subject update only.
     
    W

    WhiteKnight

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    16,937
    Subscriptor
  • #3
    People who compare Australian to US politics oughta shampoo my crotch.

    No matter how retarded the Labor party gets the election won't be earlier than September, unfortunately. I'm counting the days until they are unceremoniously fucked right off.

    ps. Gillards committee-recommended glasses don't make her look more intelligent.


    What the hell is a Stoush?
    Click to expand...
    <Boxes hawkbox on the beak>
     
    D

    Dac

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    12,495
    Subscriptor
  • #4
    WhiteKnight":2llxmfpx said:
    People who compare Australian to US politics oughta shampoo my crotch.
    Click to expand...

    The greater Ars audience would understand a Democrat/Republican demarcation, but they may confuse 'Liberal' party with 'liberal' attitudes -- Democrats are usually painted with the pejorative 'liberal' term, and so the general Ars readership might easily equate/confuse Liberal Party values with Democratic party values.

    That's the chasm I'm trying to highlight, rather than a direct policy comparison between Liberal Party and Republican Party.

    What shampoo do you use? I can acquire some hydroflouric acid for the purpose of shampooing your crotch, should you elect to be in Canberra in the forseeable future. :)

    No matter how retarded the Labor party gets the election won't be earlier than September, unfortunately.
    Click to expand...

    Gillard could go to the Governer General, declare that there was no confidence in her leadership within the party and that the party was unable to confirm a new leader, and an election could be on the cards within six weeks.

    Look at what happened in 1975. It's not impossible for the sitting government to be disbanded by the GG.

    ps. Gillards committee-recommended glasses don't make her look more intelligent.
    Click to expand...

    Government by looks? :scared:

    I guess then that you're turned on by Abbott's figure when he's in his speedos? :p

    EDIT: add pic

    368040-tony-abbott-and-those-speedos.jpg
     
    ScruffyNerf

    ScruffyNerf

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    8,552
    Subscriptor
  • #8
    What, you want to see an older skinny bloke in 80's era speedos?

    pass.

    -

    I hate Gillard, and most of the current Labor politicians, with few exceptions. I've generally voted liberal, but can't in good conscience with Abbott at the helm there. I'd rather Turnbull there than him.

    Crean's decent, but damaged, Rudd's narcissic tendencies are worthy of a US-Style presidential contender, Gillard just has no credibility. If the current talking heads all get decapitated, the most likely person to slime their way in would be Bill Shorten... UGH.

    I doubt that the people that I'd prefer in leadership positions for labor would ever get there... I'd suggest Stephen Smith, with Greg Combet as a deputy.
     
    N

    NotContinuum

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    24,809
    Subscriptor
  • #9
    This could, potentially, be one of the big problems with the parliamentary system. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you vote for your local ministers, and then the leader of what ever party has the most seats (and can create a unity government) becomes Head of Government. In this way, you vote for you who think best represents you locally, even if you don't like the leader of that party, or you vote for the party who's leader you do like. You don't actually vote for your Head of Government, unlike in the US where the Legislature and the Executive are kept separate. Of course, the Parliamentary system can be more flexible than the US system.
     
    N

    NavyGothic

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,995
    Subscriptor
  • #11
    This could, potentially, be one of the big problems with the parliamentary system. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you vote for your local ministers, and then the leader of what ever party has the most seats (and can create a unity government) becomes Head of Government.
    Click to expand...

    It's a difference from republic governments, but I don't think I'd describe it as a problem per se.

    Keep in mind that the executive doesn't exist as a separate branch from the legislature; the Prime Minister's power comes from leadership of her party, not from independent executive authority. The official executive branch is the Queen and Governer-General, ceremonial roles. Obama can exercise considerable power without the support of his party (though of course it would have long-term consequences); Gillard cannot.

    Given that the power of the PM comes from the support of their party, I think it's entirely reasonable that the party determines who the PM is.

    Not that it makes Labor's squabbling any less pathetic in this case :rolleyes:
     
    W

    WhiteKnight

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    16,937
    Subscriptor
  • #12
    NotContinuum":3cv23ng2 said:
    This could, potentially, be one of the big problems with the parliamentary system. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you vote for your local ministers, and then the leader of what ever party has the most seats (and can create a unity government) becomes Head of Government. In this way, you vote for you who think best represents you locally, even if you don't like the leader of that party, or you vote for the party who's leader you do like. You don't actually vote for your Head of Government, unlike in the US where the Legislature and the Executive are kept separate. Of course, the Parliamentary system can be more flexible than the US system.
    Click to expand...
    Basically, but in reality people are voting for the party they want. The leader of the party is known before the election, so it's not really any different for voting for the leader you want.

    We also have state elections separate to federal elections, so the local politics and issues come more into play there.
     
    ScruffyNerf

    ScruffyNerf

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    8,552
    Subscriptor
  • #13
    FreeRadical*":15bsvyw0 said:
    If Abbott likes to swim he shouldn't be Prime Minister. Australian Prime Ministers tend to disappear while swimming.

    How much of this is manufactured by Rupert Murdoch's press? I hear they have the most power over elected governments in Australia.
    Click to expand...

    Wow. Never thought that I'd see a Harold Holt reference here of all places.

    Not that much anymore... certainly not this time around. Seems to be more the loose cannons over at the ABC and Fairfax press this time around.

    Although, as the Gillard Governement (via everyone's favourite asshole, Conroy) was planning to put bills in parliament essentially removing the freedom of the press (forcing them to comply with a government controlled Ombudsman to determine 'public interest'), I'm not surprised that the media are biting back.
     
    W

    WhiteKnight

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    16,937
    Subscriptor
  • #15
    ScruffyNerf":jso08pvy said:
    Wow. Never thought that I'd see a Harold Holt reference here of all places.
    Click to expand...
    Yanks know all about Holt, they kidnapped him by submarine after all. ;)

    Dac":jso08pvy said:
    Apparently its all over bar the shouting.

    Julia Gillard as pm, still.
    Click to expand...
    Are you surprised? Who would want that job when they are going to be slaughtered in September?

    If Labor has any sense at all they'll wait until the heads have finished rolling after the election, clean up the mess, put Gillard, Swan, Wong, Albanese and Conroy in a sea container and drop them in the ocean, send Rudd to an embassy somewhere where no-one needs to hear him speak, and bring in Smith and Crean as leader and deputy. Then in about 10 years the people of Australia might consider giving them another shot. :p
     
    D

    Dac

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    12,495
    Subscriptor
  • #16
    WhiteKnight":1cn2vwxd said:
    Dac":1cn2vwxd said:
    Julia Gillard as pm, still.
    Click to expand...
    Are you surprised?
    Click to expand...

    I yam.

    Many Labor party MPs very vocal in their support of <not Gillard> in their tweets this arvo. Many. I didn't think Rudd would stand up again, and I'm pleased he didn't, because that would have been certain doom for Labor's election chances in September.

    "me me me" follows:

    I'd cite my political views, but they're mostly in the "I dislike politicians, voting only encourages the bastards" camp; I don't trust Labor, Liberals, Greens, or any other shade of political party in Australia. I actually voted for the Pirate Party in the last ACT Election :), not for a donkey vote, per se,but because the single-issue of the Pirate Party (sustainable copyright) was an important one, compared to all the braying of the local government politicians.

    It was wise of Australia to impose compulsory voting. I'm so cheesed off with the politics, I only vote because they'll fine me in court if I don't!

    Back when ACT first got Local Government, I declined to vote in the local elections (as I was in South Australia that week); a few months later, I was taken to court by the Australian Electoral commission. No charge was held up tho, it was just a waste of my time and everyone else who was hauled up.
     
    RojBlake

    RojBlake

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    48,117
    Subscriptor
  • #17
    ScruffyNerf":3lycvq24 said:
    FreeRadical*":3lycvq24 said:
    If Abbott likes to swim he shouldn't be Prime Minister. Australian Prime Ministers tend to disappear while swimming.

    How much of this is manufactured by Rupert Murdoch's press? I hear they have the most power over elected governments in Australia.
    Click to expand...
    Wow. Never thought that I'd see a Harold Holt reference here of all places.
    Click to expand...
    Would've been even more impressive if it'd been a Harold Holt reference via the Harold Bishop homage. ;)

    In all linguistic seriousness though, I too am intrigued to know what "stoush" means. And also "spill" in this context. Anyone care to help me out?
     
    N

    NavyGothic

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,995
    Subscriptor
  • #19
    hux":3vv97acc said:
    In all linguistic seriousness though, I too am intrigued to know what "stoush" means. And also "spill" in this context. Anyone care to help me out?
    Click to expand...
    A stoush is a good beer when you've already had too many good beers. A spill is a tragedy that befalls a good beer when you've had waaay too many good beers.
     
    W

    WhiteKnight

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    16,937
    Subscriptor
  • #20
    hux":vyn2gkw0 said:
    Would've been even more impressive if it'd been a Harold Holt reference via the Harold Bishop homage. ;)

    In all linguistic seriousness though, I too am intrigued to know what "stoush" means. And also "spill" in this context. Anyone care to help me out?
    Click to expand...
    As my punch to hawkbox's nose was supposed to imply a "stoush" is a fight. It's usually used in the metaphorical sense.

    A "leadership spill" is where a party vote is called and anyone who wants to be leader or deputy leader puts their hand up. The person who calls for the spill is usually either doing it on behalf of someone who wants to be leader and has the numbers to do it (this is how Gillard became PM), or as apparently in this case, to silence those mumbling that they should have a new leader and causing uncertainty.

    No-one put their hand up this time.
     
    Jables

    Jables

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    7,478
    Subscriptor++
  • #22
    NavyGothic":2xssj52v said:
    Keep in mind that the executive doesn't exist as a separate branch from the legislature; the Prime Minister's power comes from leadership of her party, not from independent executive authority. The official executive branch is the Queen and Governer-General, ceremonial roles.
    Click to expand...

    I would posit that the Prime Minister's power derives from maintaining the confidence of the House, but that's me being pedantic :p
     
    Klockwerk

    Klockwerk

    Ars Praefectus
    3,493
    Subscriptor
  • #28
    WhiteKnight":fbe9dtet said:
    ScruffyNerf":fbe9dtet said:
    Wow. Never thought that I'd see a Harold Holt reference here of all places.
    Click to expand...
    Yanks know all about Holt, they kidnapped him by submarine after all. ;)
    Click to expand...

    ^Citation required. Everyone (except you, it seems) knows it was a Red Chinese submarine that he swam to, willingly.
     
    H

    hawkbox

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    13,914
    Subscriptor
  • #33
    Dac":1yy6wrij said:
    I'd rather gnaw off my own ankle than deliberately post in The Soap Box.

    But since it's Friday, I get a Mulligan, right?

    Oh yeah, as I post this, it's Friday in Australia, and I get to have a nice weekend whilst you guys are still trying to work out what the fuck common words (from Australia) mean in Standard Amurrican ...
    Click to expand...

    Oi! You git! I'm Canadian Eh!
     
    Rudi

    Rudi

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,912
    Subscriptor++
  • #34
    The problem with the Australian political system (IMO) is that voting is compulsory (at least you have to turn up to get your name crossed off) and that media ownership is highly concentrated (News Ltd owns 70% +)therefore no matter how uninformed one is you still vote.

    We get constant reporting on polls and leadership struggles and not much about policy. The polling IMO is flawed because it's conducted by telephone and they won't call mobile phones, that excludes a lot of young people who don't have land lines.
     
    N

    NavyGothic

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    9,995
    Subscriptor
  • #35
    Rudi":1ft18sj0 said:
    The polling IMO is flawed because it's conducted by telephone and they won't call mobile phones, that excludes a lot of young people who don't have land lines.
    Click to expand...
    Unless I'm mistaken, Newspoll weights their polls in a similar manner to US pollsters.

    They have a much easier job because compulsory voting eliminates the "likely voter" shenanigans, and they generally show good results. They usually don't poll for individual seats, so they can simplify preferences to 2PP with high accuracy. I can't remember any state or federal elections in recent years where the actual result has fallen outside Newspoll's margin of error for the 2PP.
     
    Rudi

    Rudi

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    11,912
    Subscriptor++
  • #36
    Fair enough NavyGothic but my point remains about the polling leading the news since the last election, they are based on an election being held today which it isn't ie I wonder how accurate the polls are six months out, are they even relevant? Isn't there more important, more relevant stories about politics that the media could be telling us about, informing us even?
     
    ScruffyNerf

    ScruffyNerf

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    8,552
    Subscriptor
  • #37
    Rudi":1ao88jf0 said:
    Fair enough NavyGothic but my point remains about the polling leading the news since the last election, they are based on an election being held today which it isn't ie I wonder how accurate the polls are six months out, are they even relevant? Isn't there more important, more relevant stories about politics that the media could be telling us about, informing us even?
    Click to expand...

    Whilst I'm highly cynical about polls, at this point in time I think that they are nothing more than the whip on the government of the day's collective backs.

    Is it any wonder media are predicting the downfall of the government, when the government had until very recently, legislation pending that would gag and censor the same media?
     
    D

    Dac

    Ars Legatus Legionis
    12,495
    Subscriptor
  • #38
    ScruffyNerf":3dygk846 said:
    Rudi":3dygk846 said:
    Fair enough NavyGothic but my point remains about the polling leading the news since the last election, they are based on an election being held today which it isn't ie I wonder how accurate the polls are six months out, are they even relevant? Isn't there more important, more relevant stories about politics that the media could be telling us about, informing us even?
    Click to expand...

    Whilst I'm highly cynical about polls, at this point in time I think that they are nothing more than the whip on the government of the day's collective backs.
    Click to expand...

    Polls are an artifact of 'modern' media. They are both a stick to lean on, and a stick to beat people's collective backs. The bottom line is that they represent society's viewpoint at one moment in time, in a world where Polls are weekly affairs, not a once-in-six-months anomalous 'Vox Pop' which carried some vim and perhaps surprise. Polls are pedestrian. The political stripe of Australia is such that there is an almost exact 50/50 split in public support -on the average- between the two major political parties. The electoral favours go one way one year, and (perhaps) the other way the next election. Many people make careers out of charting the chaos of political upheaval.

    The political quagmire is rooted in naysaying, backbiting, bitching, kvetching, powerful lobbies, factions, and a large dose of personal greed. Promising parties come, and then inevitably blow up over some all too human peccadillo or seven. The competition within politics is constantly high, with ever shifting boundaries, and long term movements towards the left, right or middle.

    There is nothing much between the Labor party and the Liberal party. They both have politicians who lie, bare-faced, totally without qualms or trepidation. "We will do X, we will scrap Y, they will do Z and you will HATE IT, vote US not THEM".

    A pox on both their houses.
     
    G

    Gulielmus

    Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
    6,391
    Subscriptor
  • #39
    The political quagmire is rooted in naysaying, backbiting, bitching, kvetching, powerful lobbies, factions, and a large dose of personal greed. Promising parties come, and then inevitably blow up over some all too human peccadillo or seven. The competition within politics is constantly high, with ever shifting boundaries, and long term movements towards the left, right or middle.
    Click to expand...
    As an outside observer, I would also add the ability to actually communicate to that list. Australian politicians generally seem to have perfectly the art — common to most politicians in democracies — of using the maximum number of words to say nothing at all. Which is something coming from an American.

    Also, as an outside observer, this is why Kevin Rudd is so entertaining. He's particularly bad at even communicating nothing at all, tripping over his words to the point where he just spouts a load of gibberish that means less than nothing.

    I wish you all the best of luck.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply