Australia General Discussion

[You kip if you want to...]

If you think that's possible then you don't really understand Australia.

Is the Australian two-party system as engrained as the American one?  Or is Australia just too conservative a country to make the Greens an opposition party? 

The voting system doesn't work that way. Preferencing, remember? While they have serious psephostructural issues getting unseated as un des deux is pure fantasy.

Wouldn't a preferential system make it easier for them (since people don't have to worry about vote-splitting)?  I mean, people who'd voted Labor in the past could just make the Greens their first-preference vote and Labor their second, and if enough people would do that, their primary vote could surpass Labor's in a lot of electorates (in theory).  Or is the Australian system more complex than that? 

It's still not a proportional system and unless the Aussies start conducting their party politics like the French, what you're suggesting wouldn't quite work.

And plus, the Greens are and always will be a niche party, it's in the name. And, from what I gather, their record in the Senate 2010-2013 hasn't been incredible? The carbon tax fiasco has been engineered by the Greens, from what I gather, although i've probably been listening to Tony Abbott too much to come to that conclusion.

[You kip if you want to...]

Well, not having a proportional system didn't stop the NDP from overtaking the Liberals in Canada. 

The relationship between the Liberals and the NDP in Canada is nothing like the ALP and the Greens. Nothing.

And again, Canada has FPTP which causes wave elections all the time in Canada. AV, which Australia has, is inherently designed to maintain a two-party system. The fact that their election results are given as "two-party preferred" says enough as it is.

[You kip if you want to...]

Queensland at a stretch, largely because it hasn't been as clearly two-party as the rest of the nation. It is now, but you see the right wing in QLD fracture a lot and it will fracture again, whether through disintegration of the LNP or rising new challengers like BKAP or PHON back in the 90s.

NSW saw a few minor parties do surprisingly well, but a massive swing to the opposition away from the government doesn't really count as volatility when compared to Canada.

Swings in Canada and Australia make UK elections seem so predictable.

[You kip if you want to...]

It's more that Australian Labor is basically left-in-that-it-isn't-as-right-wing-as-the-liberals.

I highly doubt anyone will replace Gillard before the next election, and if it were to be anyone it would need to be an old face like Crean.

Post election, Shorten is a possibility, although I wouldn't be surprised if they put up a bit of an unknown, and allowed them to build a brand new identity as Labor leader, untainted by the Gillard government. If they're at 60-65 seats post election, which seems about likely, someone along the lines of Andrew Laming, Jason Clare, at a stretch Mark Dreyfus.

Dude, Laming's a Liberal.

I meant Andrew Leigh, oops.

Yaayy!  I'm a big fan of his.  A true unabashed social democrat who isn't a slave to either faction.  Hope he becomes Labor leader and fixes up the party (both structurally and ideologically) and becomes PM. 

Very smart man too - he's basically the Antony Green/Nate Silver/etc. of parliament.

If that's the case, guys like that have no business running the show, just pulling the strings come election time. Like a Peter Mandelson or a David Axelrod. They're just more effective that way.

[You kip if you want to...]

The Aus Parliament's so much more funny than ours.

[You kip if you want to...]

Our politicians don't really come across with any sincerity even in their rowdy confrontations

That's because there are more rules governing what they can and can't say (and how they can and can't say it). So, generally, the rowdier, the less sincere - in appearance, at least. Or is sincere the right word? John Smith called the Commons an intimate theatre, after all.

Flippant moments of sincerity are not necessarily 'good'. "Calm down dear" what quite the genuine, unscripted moment after all.

[You kip if you want to...]

What has he done to lose it? Or was it always going to be difficult to hold?

It's a naturally ALP seat, albeit with a Greens bent.

He won, largely, due to a protest vote against the ALP - much like Andrew Wilkie. My money is that both of those seats 'go home' next year. Six months ago, the Greens polling in Melbourne was very solid, but as the ALP's prospects rose nationally, and the ALP at the state-level got a lead against the Lib Government, his prospects have slid dramatically... having said that, there was a big swing against the Greens here in the ACT and we're among the most Green-friendly cities. I think the Greens hit their high watermark in 2010... at the expense of the ALP.

IF and it's a huge IF, the Liberals direct preferences to Bandt he 'could' win. But I would doubt it.

I don't see why Coalition voters would anyway if he's just another vote for PM Gillard in the House.

[You kip if you want to...]

Not forgetting that Roxon's personal style is VERY similar to Rudd... except occasionally, Rudd smiled. Hugh's point is there, how you treat your staff is a good indication of your personal style. Gillard is very good to her staff and even the departmental people like her, Roxon was someone NOBODY wanted to deal with.

She's competent, tough and smart... but she's not a leader.

The issue about the polling is important... I don't deny there's been a slip, but in the quarterly Newspoll, which came out on 29 December (more respondents, longer time period) the Government is still behind where they were in August 2010. BUT, they've increased their primary vote in Queensland by 10% in 6-months, have a solid lead in Victoria and are level-pegging or behind everywhere else.

The one thing I'll warn the Abbott -fanciers about (why anyone would be is beyond me) is this, in 2001 and 2004, at this stage in the game, Howard was behind by the same margins, or worse than Gillard is now... election years tends to be the most prone to wild-swings and inaccuracies. So, consider the polls, but be mindful not to put too much stock in them. In 2004, the last week's polling has the ALP ahead 51-49, except one... which was far too friendly to the Coalition 54-46... and the result? Coalition 53-47...

I swear the ALP was at like 54% as well when Gillard called it in 2010. Only reason it was close was because the ALP ran such a dire campaign (And the Coalition's was quite good).

[You kip if you want to...]

What a lovely narrative that'd be for them to go into the election with.

[You kip if you want to...]

But... but... but...

Mr. Abbott told me it was only the meanies in Labor who stabbed leaders in the back during their first term just because the polls didn't look nice. Oh Tony .

I thought the Liberal party could never do this.

[You kip if you want to...]

First post-spill poll from Victoria has Dan Andrews ahead on preferred Premier.

[You kip if you want to...]

If the Coalition wins federally, Victoria will fall to the ALP again and the ALP will do well in SA in 2014 and the cycle resets.

[You kip if you want to...]

Newspoll is interesting ...

Gillard regains preferred PM title, the ALP primary is up to 34% and the Coalitions down to 44% for a 52-48% TPP.

Too far out of line with the rest. I'd wait to see if the rest of the firms show such a move.

I don't see Rudd being worth +13% either... I hate these what if polls.

[You kip if you want to...]

Yeah, it didn't work spectacularly in 2010 either. I do hope we haven't all forgotten that train wreck of a campaign from the ALP.

[You kip if you want to...]

Apparently there is to be a Labor caucus meeting at 4pm?

''It would be silly to tell people watching your program that there is nothing going on,''

Comment from Joel Fitzgibbon a short time ago...

As if, for something major?

[You kip if you want to...]

Oh Australia.

Wasn't it earlier in the day when they got rid of Rudd? I think I remember it being before midnight UK time...

[You kip if you want to...]

How long before the Coalition bring back their Kevin O'Lemon crap?

[You kip if you want to...]

Has Rudd aged as much in 2 years as the shadowy media splashes make it look like?

[You kip if you want to...]

The thought of Britain with a leadership culture like Australia. Cameron, Clegg and Miliband wouldn't stand a chance.

[You kip if you want to...]

Shows what the last 3 years have done to KRudd, someone who I used to respect. He's a gutless bottler. If she did actually have 58 MPs, everyone knows she could hardly limp on with that.

Well done to the PM, nerves of steal. Just seen the "hit me with your best shot" clip from QT and everything about her looked/sounded like someone who was convinced she'd be gone.

[You kip if you want to...]

How weak is the Prime Minister of Australia as a post? It seems very small compared to the UK for example...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21863630?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcworld&buffer_share=6a416&utm_source=buffer

That shows some of the glaring differences between Aus and the UK in terms of the strength of party leaders.

[You kip if you want to...]

How weak is the Prime Minister of Australia as a post? It seems very small compared to the UK for example...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21863630?ocid=socialflow_twitter_bbcworld&buffer_share=6a416&utm_source=buffer

That shows some of the glaring differences between Aus and the UK in terms of the strength of party leaders.

I only skimmed through that article, but it looks like it ignores the actual structural reason for why such coups are common here: A party leadership election can be called at any time for any reason, and it can all be resolved within a few hours.  Changing party leaders in the UK is a lengthier process, is it not?  I don't recall either Cameron or Miliband taking over mere hours after their respective predecessors announced that they were stepping down.

Yeah, the UK relies more on the wider party memberships (and union membership, in Labour's case) in their leadership elections these day than the parliamentary members. Internal elections can end up being fairly pricey as well. Of course, this hasn't always been the case and before the 60s, the Tories especially had "faceless men" picking the leader.

If fact, for Labour, from what I know, any hypothetical coup is near impossible because of how strict the rules are and there's quite a lot of focus on the role of conference as well. It'd be impossible for the party to knife a leader without it being a complete, drawn-out PR disaster. I don't think the Tories could have another Thatcher situation on their hands now either since they include the wider membership in their elections now.

If we did it the Australian way, Ed Miliband wouldn't have been elected leader in the first place, Cameron would've been thrown out last summer and Clegg wouldn't have made it far into 2011. Just look at Gordon Brown, he had loads've cabinet members walk out and 'pull a Crean' and tell him to go and he still limped on (mainly because David Miliband was always to guy who 'pulled a Rudd' and got spooked at the last minute).

[You kip if you want to...]

If the ALP can't creep up to 48-49 by election day against Tony Abbott, then they're barely fit to call themselves a political party at all.

[You kip if you want to...]

Victorian Labor back in front with Newspoll.

41 (-2) - 38 (+3) - 13 (+1) to the Coalition, making for 51-49 to the ALP on 2PP.

Napthine approval - 53 (nc)/31 (+5)
Andrews approval - 38 (+3)/32 (-2)

Preferred Premier 47/25 to Napthine (-2/-1).

[You kip if you want to...]

Tony Abbott is the Minister for Women....


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/tony-abbott-womens-minister-portfolio

We'll have all seen it, but it's always nice to rewatch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOPsxpMzYw4