The Australian politics thread

[Matt79]

If only the National party had stood up for those agrarian electorates rather than betraying their natural base by joining with the Liberals in smashing them down for 12 years, they probably would have voted for the party rather than the independents. [/Mad Katter]

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by howardj

AEC moles report the following:

Hasluck - Libs lead by 734 (50.5%)
Brisbane - Libs lead by 490 (50.4%)
Corangimite - ALP lead by 571 (50.3%)

More worried about Brisbane than Hasluck at this point.

Long way to go though; will ebb and flow over the coming days.

Antony Green - "First batch of postal votes in Brisbane and the LNP lead narrows to 382 votes"

[Burgey]

If only the National party had stood up for those agrarian electorates rather than betraying their natural base by joining with the Liberals in smashing them down for 12 years, they probably would have voted for the party rather than the independents. [/Mad Katter]

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Agree with Howie. Labor's other big problem was that they didn't run on their record. They got spooked everytime something they did drew fire and backed off. There would have had to be some good delivery to overcome the ETS failure and knifing Rudd but they could have done it IMO. The country avoided a global recession on their watch ffs! Now the Los would argue that was despite the ALP or due to Howard's work but the basic premise of "we were in charge when a crisis hit and we got the country through largely unscathed" is a pretty simple bloody line that should have been front and centre ad nauseum.

Still don't see how what happened to Rudd and what happened to Nelson and Turnbull were so different to be honest (apart from the proximity to an election). To be allowed to talk up Liberal 'stability' as a party after that was simply amazing.

Am surprised Labor let the Libs talk so much rubbish without coming back at them hard (Labor undoubtedly did some crap talking of their own too). The Libs got a lot of free shots that should've been countered.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Still don't see how what happened to Rudd and what happened to Nelson and Turnbull were so different to be honest. To be allowed to talk up Liberal 'stability' as a party after that was simply amazing.

Am surprised Labor let the Libs talk so much rubbish without coming back at them hard (Labor undoubtedly did some crap talking of their own too). The Libs got a lot of free shots that should've been countered.

Really? You honestly can't see the difference between a party elected leader getting knifed and a nationally elected leader getting knifed?

It's all about the principles of accountable government.

[Jono]

Hang on.

You can't talk about principles of accountable government in a text book style, and then use the term 'nationally elected leader', which may be the reality of the situation of how Australian politics currently works, but is not what happens in theory as to how our Parliament is formed.

In theory all you do is elect an MP. And we're seeing now more than ever how that MP's personal views may play a role, as the independents are showing.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

Really? You honestly can't see the difference between a party elected leader getting knifed and a nationally elected leader getting knifed?

It's all about the principles of accountable government.

Or the principles of exploiting people's woeful understanding of what they actually voted for. It's not a presidential system.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Burgey

If only the National party had stood up for those agrarian electorates rather than betraying their natural base by joining with the Liberals in smashing them down for 12 years, they probably would have voted for the party rather than the independents. [/Mad Katter]

Very intelligent and amusing post Burgey

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Jono

Hang on.

You can't talk about principles of accountable government in a text book style, and then use the term 'nationally elected leader', which may be the reality of the situation of how Australian politics currently works, but is not what happens in theory as to how our Parliament is formed.

In theory all you do is elect an MP. And we're seeing now more than ever how that MP's personal views may play a role, as the independents are showing.

So what exactly is your point? Are you saying accountable government does not or should not exist? Or are you simply arguing for the sake of it?

The reality is that politics work in this country by voting for a member, but in reality people are voting for a party who is lead by a leader, and they know that.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Or the principles of exploiting people's woeful understanding of what they actually voted for. It's not a presidential system.

Are you living in a fairy land? There's only so much a local member can do. At the end of the day, elections are about leadership of government.

[Matt79]

They're not actually.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Matt79

They're not actually.

Well, they are. They're voting for a local member who is under the constraints of what their leader is willing to give them.

You may take the Australian public for fools, but overall they're not.

[Burgey]

John Howard used to say that he would remain PM as long as the people or the Liberal Party said he could.

Of course, in 2007 when his cabinet said he no longer had their confidence, he told them to gagf.

All that saved him was Costello's caraway seed for a heart.

If the conservative side of politics held the view you're espousing Murphy, then there wouldn't have been a back-of-a-dinner-coaster deal such as that between Howard and Costello, which Howard reneged on, according to Costello anyway.

[benchmark00]

Originally Posted by Burgey

John Howard used to say that he would remain PM as long as the people or the Liberal Party said he could.

Of course, in 2007 when his caninet said he no longer had their confidence, he told them to gagf.

All that saved him was Costello's caraway seed for a heart.

So this proves that:

Costello - Has integrity.
Gillard - Does not.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by benchmark00

So this proves that:

Costello - Has integrity.
Gillard - Does not.

My edit crossed this post of yours.

Then why dod Costello do a deal with Howard to take over mid-term? You know, without telling the people first?

Amswer, because the PM is the leader of the party that has the lower house majority. If the party wants to replace the leader, he or she is no longer the PM.

It's a novel approach to government that's only just being tried out now, called the Westminster system.