It's 10 years today since...

[Cubby]

No, no constitutional amendments. Unlike America, we actually respect ours

Howard introduced a bill into parliament banning gay marriage....

....but anyway, it passed with the support of both parties, which was pretty irritating, but hey.

I don't understand, the bill passed, so marriage is banned, so how is that any better than a constitutional amendment?

I'll have a go at disecting your post.

The Coalition is the 'natural' government of Australia. The ALP wins when they screw up, more or less; for an ALP government to last it has to govern pretty much from the center. Of course, our center-right, which is where the political power lies, is centrist in America.

Thats interesting, just like the Liberals are the natural gov't in Canada. That explains a lot now, and how Howard has held on for so long.

RE: OCtober election. Up until a week before the election, the ALP was leading in the polls. On the day, it was neck and neck. The results? A massive coalition victory with control of the Senate (a rare occurance in Australia). The mortgage belt is probably the biggest factor, but Latham wasn't really the kind of guy you'd want runing the country. Better then Howard? At the time, I thought so; on reflection....he's pretty nuts. There was an incident at a radio station where Latham had just been interviewed and was coming our of the room just as Howard was entering it for his interview, and latham gave him a very...vigourous handshake. Basically, about half the undecideds determined at that moment he was insane. Then there was a kerfuffle about logging in Tasmania, where the Timberworker's union actually supported Howard, which is basically very very unusual, because the ALP is very closely linked with the unions.

I looked up the handshake incident, thats funny stuff http://www.gaiaguys.net/Latham.Howard.04.jpg

A similar thing happened during Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate Race. In the middle of a debate, her opponent (Rick Lazio) left his podium and went right up to her and demanded that she sign some pledge, it went over badly and Hillary got a boost in the polls b/c his actions were seen as threatening, especially to a woman candidate.

The ALP has an agreement within the party that once the party room has come to a decision, all members must vote the same way-party discipline is very, very strong in Australia. Anyway, this forced a Lesbian senator from South Australia, Penny Wong, to vote for the bill; if she didn't she would have been expelled from the ALP, more or less. This was not popular within the party or those in the electorate who actually gave a shi'ite about the issue. The ALp lost quite a few votes to the Greens from Gay and lesian voters-although it still got preferences. Many felt it should have been a 'conscience' vote, where each member got to judge on their own opinion, but anyway, it passed with the support of both parties, which was pretty irritating, but hey. The ACT has civil unions, and iirc, South Australia is working on them. Tasmania either has passed or will soon pass a civil unions bill as well; and recognises internationally-accured civil unions. Victoria is exploring the possibility, and so is Western Australia. No news in NSW or Queensland.

No offense but I can't believe that Australia and Canada allow that type of voting in Parliament. What about regional differences? An ALP rep. from downtown Sydney (or Melbourne ) has to vote exactly the same as one from rural WA (assuming there was one)? That wouldn't work at all in America, regional differences are too big.

[Platypus]

No, no constitutional amendments. Unlike America, we actually respect ours

Howard introduced a bill into parliament banning gay marriage....

....but anyway, it passed with the support of both parties, which was pretty irritating, but hey.

I don't understand, the bill passed, so marriage is banned, so how is that any better than a constitutional amendment?

Because, a), it can be repealed; and b)the door is still open for states to pass civil union laws that are recognised.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thats interesting, just like the Liberals are the natural gov't in Canada. That explains a lot now, and how Howard has held on for so long.

RE: OCtober election. Up until a week before the election, the ALP was leading in the polls. On the day, it was neck and neck. The results? A massive coalition victory with control of the Senate (a rare occurance in Australia). The mortgage belt is probably the biggest factor, but Latham wasn't really the kind of guy you'd want runing the country. Better then Howard? At the time, I thought so; on reflection....he's pretty nuts. There was an incident at a radio station where Latham had just been interviewed and was coming our of the room just as Howard was entering it for his interview, and latham gave him a very...vigourous handshake. Basically, about half the undecideds determined at that moment he was insane. Then there was a kerfuffle about logging in Tasmania, where the Timberworker's union actually supported Howard, which is basically very very unusual, because the ALP is very closely linked with the unions.

I looked up the handshake incident, thats funny stuff http://www.gaiaguys.net/Latham.Howard.04.jpg

A similar thing happened during Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate Race. In the middle of a debate, her opponent (Rick Lazio) left his podium and went right up to her and demanded that she sign some pledge, it went over badly and Hillary got a boost in the polls b/c his actions were seen as threatening, especially to a woman candidate.[/quote]

Yeah, Latham was a bit too gruff.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No offense but I can't believe that Australia and Canada allow that type of voting in Parliament. What about regional differences? An ALP rep. from downtown Sydney (or Melbourne ) has to vote exactly the same as one from rural WA (assuming there was one)? That wouldn't work at all in America, regional differences are too big.
[/quote]

Well, people vote for the parties here, as much if not more then for the local members. This is necessary in a westminster system like Australia's. It's a shame, but it also brings stability...sometimes

Basically, the members of the ALP can be as individual as they like in the party room, but then they vote as a black. Considering everyone votes for an individual for a seat, who is listed with a political party (unless they are an independent) it's not that unreasonable-they present their own views, and if the party supports them, great. If not, the voter might not get what the individual member they elected wants, but they still get what the party they elected wants.

Al would explain better.

[Cubby]

Well, people vote for the parties here, as much if not more then for the local members. This is necessary in a westminster system like Australia's. It's a shame, but it also brings stability...sometimes

Basically, the members of the ALP can be as individual as they like in the party room, but then they vote as a black. Considering everyone votes for an individual for a seat, who is listed with a political party (unless they are an independent) it's not that unreasonable-they present their own views, and if the party supports them, great. If not, the voter might not get what the individual member they elected wants, but they still get what the party they elected wants.

Al would explain better.

I assume you mean vote as a block. Maybe that was a freudian slip

Actually your system would have its advantages b/c at each election there would be more seat turnover, since people couldn't say, "Well the (Coalition, ALP, etc.) suck, but my MP is okay, which is what they do here, thats why we have such awful rates of incumbency.

[Platypus]

Well, people vote for the parties here, as much if not more then for the local members. This is necessary in a westminster system like Australia's. It's a shame, but it also brings stability...sometimes

Basically, the members of the ALP can be as individual as they like in the party room, but then they vote as a black. Considering everyone votes for an individual for a seat, who is listed with a political party (unless they are an independent) it's not that unreasonable-they present their own views, and if the party supports them, great. If not, the voter might not get what the individual member they elected wants, but they still get what the party they elected wants.

Al would explain better.

I assume you mean vote as a block. Maybe that was a freudian slip

Actually your system would have its advantages b/c at each election there would be more seat turnover, since people couldn't say, "Well the (Coalition, ALP, etc.) suck, but my MP is okay, which is what they do here, thats why we have such awful rates of incumbency.

No, people still say that, as much as in America, maybe even more.

The problem you have is gerrymandering.

[Cubby]

Well, people vote for the parties here, as much if not more then for the local members. This is necessary in a westminster system like Australia's. It's a shame, but it also brings stability...sometimes

Basically, the members of the ALP can be as individual as they like in the party room, but then they vote as a black. Considering everyone votes for an individual for a seat, who is listed with a political party (unless they are an independent) it's not that unreasonable-they present their own views, and if the party supports them, great. If not, the voter might not get what the individual member they elected wants, but they still get what the party they elected wants.

Al would explain better.

I assume you mean vote as a block. Maybe that was a freudian slip

Actually your system would have its advantages b/c at each election there would be more seat turnover, since people couldn't say, "Well the (Coalition, ALP, etc.) suck, but my MP is okay, which is what they do here, thats why we have such awful rates of incumbency.

No, people still say that, as much as in America, maybe even more.

The problem you have is gerrymandering.

Boy you can say that again. I worry that gerrymandering will limit some of the gains we could make this November.