The Australian politics thread

[Burgey]

When Possums attack:

Let the Great Unhinging begin – Pollytics

[howardj]

I think the article rests on the premise that the other side of politics, in contrast to the Right, is gracious in defeat. Many people at the time said that Howard didn't really win in 1998, and that Bush didn't win in 2000. To make out that the Left is gracious in defeat and are above accusations of illegitimacy, and the real hoot that the media is pro-Coalition is laughable.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by social

Oakshott almost made a believe of me in the first 14 minutes f his speech but the revelation that he did in fact take the 30 pieces of silver in the form of a ministerial position will rightfully **** him in most people's eyes

Windsor has no credibility - he lives in a coal mining area, made millions from selling the family farm to a coal miner and is now in bed with a party that wants to abolish coal mining. Unfortunately for the Libs, his hate for the Nats overrode logic (e.g. the NBN was my most important issue - yeah, let's give the biggest infrastructure project in the country's history to a mob that cant arrange the installation of a few pink batts without killing someone)

Katter's a nut but at least he does what he thinks is right for his electorate unlike the other 2

Anyway, the country's now well and truly ****ed for a few years (forget the headline figures that almost entirely down to miners who benefit very few, how many people do you know that are doing just OK?) so they're the least of the country's problems

Still looking for an answer to the question I asked several pages back...do people honestly think Abbott and Shrek would do a better job? Wasn't the glimpse we got of Joe 'organising' the economy enough?

[Spark]

The pink batts thing is possibly the most trivial major issue ever. At all. I'm sorry, but to say that a government is incompetent because of that is clutching at the thinnest of straws.

I think the article rests on the premise that the other side of politics, in contrast to the Right, is gracious in defeat. Many people at the time said that Howard didn't really win in 1998, and that Bush didn't win in 2000.

Bush is different because there was strong evidence that he didn't actually win - i.e. he did not, in fact, win the most votes in Florida, Gore did. Of course this is all speculation and Bush was eventually delcared the winner but you can't really draw parallels - there, there was a legitimate concern about the veracity of the result, whilst Howard 1998 was just some bitter people having issues with the fact that representative democracy is not a direct democracy and that the majority of the popular vote is totally meaningless in itself.

and the real hoot that the media is pro-Coalition is laughable.

That is true.

[howardj]

At least Labor's two biggest campaign batons - Workchoices and policy costings - won't be issues at the next election, courtesy of the Green senate and the Parliamentary Budget Office respectively.

[pasag]

Agree with Social. Walked outside to gunfire and explosions, it's pretty hectic out there.

[howardj]

I'd wee my pants in laughter if Oak**** got electrocuted by the NBN cabling or something- causing a bi-election.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Spark

Bush is different because there was strong evidence that he didn't actually win - i.e. he did not, in fact, win the most votes in Florida, Gore did. Of course this is all speculation and Bush was eventually delcared the winner but you can't really draw parallels - there, there was a legitimate concern about the veracity of the result, whilst Howard 1998 was just some bitter people having issues with the fact that representative democracy is not a direct democracy and that the majority of the popular vote is totally meaningless in itself.

And good on them for having a chop at Howard and Bush over their political (as distinct from their legal/constitutionas) legitimacy at the time. They would have politically negligent not to question it. The idea that the loser has to lie down, be gracious, and take it up the arse for the next three years is madness.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by pasag

Agree with Social. Walked outside to gunfire and explosions, it's pretty hectic out there.

Social's posts remind me so much of the South Park episode after Obama was elected. People hanging themselves and what not haha

[Spark]

Originally Posted by howardj

And good on them for having a chop at Howard and Bush over their political (as distinct from their legal/constitutionas) legitimacy at the time. They would have politically negligent not to question it. The idea that the loser has to lie down, be gracious, and take it up the arse for the next three years is madness.

No that's not what I meant. There was an argument that within the rules of the system Bush had not, in fact, won. So yes the challenge to him was a legal/constitutional one. There was no argument that Howard had won within the rules of the system, it was just a notion of "fairness" that doesn't really enter into the rules. Again - because we don't have a direct democracy.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Still looking for an answer to the question I asked several pages back...do people honestly think Abbot and Shrek would do a better job? Wasn't the glimpse we got of Joe 'organising' the economy enough?

Indeed.

Two things cost the Coalition with their post-election negotiations...

Abbott's inability to know what broadband is ( ) and Hockey's inability to count ( )

[Jono]

Originally Posted by howardj

And good on them for having a chop at Howard and Bush over their political (as distinct from their legal/constitutionas) legitimacy at the time. They would have politically negligent not to question it. The idea that the loser has to lie down, be gracious, and take it up the arse for the next three years is madness.

But when your own candidate could have only been elected the same way (as is the case in the 2010 election) its madness to not understand why you look silly whinging about it.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Spark

No that's not what I meant. There was an argument that within the rules of the system Bush had not, in fact, won. So yes the challenge to him was a legal/constitutional one. There was no argument that Howard had won within the rules of the system, it was just a notion of "fairness" that doesn't really enter into the rules. Again - because we don't have a direct democracy.

America 2000 was such great memories.

Personal anecdote -

Had finished Uni at the end of October, wasn't due to start in the workforce until February - and this election just went on for days and days. The word 'chad' became mainstream.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Jono

But when your own candidate could have only been elected the same way (as is the case in the 2010 election) its madness to not understand why you look silly whinging about it.

here we again.

Not whinging about it, just making the perfectly self-evident point that she has yet to win election outright. A point that Labor would have made had Abbott won. It's 'madness' not to acknowledge that, and why you 'look silly' pretending otherwise.

[Spark]

Originally Posted by howardj

America 2000 was such great memories.

Personal anecdote -

Had finished Uni at the end of October, wasn't due to start in the workforce until February - and this election just went on for days and days. The word 'chad' became mainstream.

Frankly the hilarities of the year are peanuts compared to what's going on now... and what's coming up.