Australia 2007

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Liberal in the historic sense indicates a belief in the individual and a distrust of government intervention in the economy as being likelier to benefit the moneyed classes than the common folk.  Just because here in the United States it got perverted into a substitute for "democratic socialist" because of our monomania about socialism doesn't mean that perversion should be taken as the norm.

[Platypus]

Liberal in the historic sense indicates a belief in the individual and a distrust of government intervention in the economy as being likelier to benefit the moneyed classes than the common folk.  Just because here in the United States it got perverted into a substitute for "democratic socialist" because of our monomania about socialism doesn't mean that perversion should be taken as the norm.

That said, you could hardly say the libs were in favour of social freedoms, and their workplaces legislation is rather heavy-handed.

Coincidentally, Stephen Harper's speech was good, although he did get very, very involved in our elections for a foreign leader-he basically said 'Vote Liberal or starve!'

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Isn't the very term Liberal Party something of a misnomer?

Dave

Ironically the Liberal Party was more liberal when it was founded in 1944 than it is now.

[Hatman 🍁]

Isn't the very term Liberal Party something of a misnomer?

Kind of like in Canada

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Liberal Party is only called that as a tribute to Alfred Deakin; the name has nothing to do with ideology.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Liberal Party is only called that as a tribute to Alfred Deakin; the name has nothing to do with ideology.

Yes and no. The Liberal party was definitely based on a foundation of economic liberalism - free enterprise etc etc. Mind you it was under Menzies in the 50s' that the Australian welfare state really was established.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The Liberal Party is only called that as a tribute to Alfred Deakin; the name has nothing to do with ideology.

Yes and no. The Liberal party was definitely based on a foundation of economic liberalism - free enterprise etc etc. Mind you it was under Menzies in the 50s' that the Australian welfare state really was established.

The Liberal party was from it's very start under Menzies a rather Protectionist party.. there has really been nothing Liberal about it.

Oh, and I'm rooting for the Mega-ALP landslide obviously. Though I hope the Democrats and Greens can hang on.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Liberal party was definitely based on a foundation of economic liberalism - free enterprise etc etc. Mind you it was under Menzies in the 50s' that the Australian welfare state really was established.

True enough; though (or so thinketh I) they wouldn't have called themselves the Liberal Party were it not for the Deakin legacy (if that's the right way of phrasing it).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Liberal Party is only called that as a tribute to Alfred Deakin; the name has nothing to do with ideology.

Yes and no. The Liberal party was definitely based on a foundation of economic liberalism - free enterprise etc etc. Mind you it was under Menzies in the 50s' that the Australian welfare state really was established.

The Liberal party was from it's very start under Menzies a rather Protectionist party.. there has really been nothing Liberal about it.

Oh, and I'm rooting for the Mega-ALP landslide obviously. Though I hope the Democrats and Greens can hang on.

Bascially for the ALP to win - assuming a national relatively uniform swing - there would need to be a 4.5% swing. If the polls were to pan out as they seem to be with a 57/8-43/2% margin it would be the biggest landslide in Australian history. But I would be shocked if the results are close to that. My feeling is it will be a 54/46 result. Gives the ALP a majority silghtly smaller than the coalition's present 16

As for the Democrats - their hard left shift under Stott-Despoja put them in competition with the greens - who have far better far-left credentials. So made themselves irrelevant. I would say the Australian Democrats are in their death throes. The Greens will have a decent election - but Labor will do well out of the Green vote.

[Verily]

The Liberal Party is only called that as a tribute to Alfred Deakin; the name has nothing to do with ideology.

Yes and no. The Liberal party was definitely based on a foundation of economic liberalism - free enterprise etc etc. Mind you it was under Menzies in the 50s' that the Australian welfare state really was established.

The Liberal party was from it's very start under Menzies a rather Protectionist party.. there has really been nothing Liberal about it.

Oh, and I'm rooting for the Mega-ALP landslide obviously. Though I hope the Democrats and Greens can hang on.

Sadly, the Democrats are almost certainly doomed, but the Greens will probably have a good election, maybe gaining a couple of new Senate seats.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Given that Howard will likely call the election on Friday or Saturday this week - I'm going to Question time tomorrow and Thursday to see what might be Howard's last performance in Parliament.

[Platypus]

I'll also be there tomorrow, actually.

Coincidentally, Labor won both the Victorian by-elections, but the Greens did get over 40% of the TPP vote-and the Democrats got over 5% of the first preferences-in Albert Park. In fact, the booth I voted in was won by the Green TPP-Middle Park-by a few dozen votes, but only 600 or so people voted in that booth, and it's probably also a more Liberal-friendly booth than any other in the district bar Southbank.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I got tied up - so won't be in today, but hopefully will be there on Thursday.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well Julia Gillard suggested a "pity bounce*" was coming for Howard - and according to the Newspoll out tomorrow it has;

Last NP TPP - LAB 59 COA 41

This NP TPP - LAB 55 COA 45.

My personal feeling is that Labor must not start crowing - their eagerness to get the campaign started, the faux campaign launch, demanding Howard call the election makes them look cocky IMHO.

I think we need to see if this 8% turnaround in a fortnight is actually the new norm, or an outlier. Howard is still down by 6 in Bennelong.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

He better bloody-well call the thing today or tomorrow... I'm getting sick of the faux campaign.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

He better bloody-well call the thing today or tomorrow... I'm getting sick of the faux campaign.

Me too Polnut. This faux campaign is sure pissing me off.

Did you hear that Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer is rumored to quit Federal politics and have a crack at State politics in South Australia. Accoring to 3AW (yes 3AW with Neil Mitchell) Downer is the lead the South Australian Liberal Party in 2010 and try and regain the Premiership off incumbent Mike Rann. I honestly think that rumor is total bulls**t, but it's funny.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/calculator/

Something to play around with.

I factored in a state by state swing

NSW - 4.5%
VIC - 3.4%
QLD - 7.1%
WA - 2.3%
TAS - 2.7%
SA - 4.6%
ACT - 2.1%
NT - 3.3%

Which gives a result of
Labor 79 seats
Coalition 69 seats
Other 2 seats

Basically gives Labor a tiny majority.

[Platypus]

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/calculator/

Something to play around with.

I factored in a state by state swing

NSW - 4.5%
VIC - 3.4%
QLD - 7.1%
WA - 2.3%
TAS - 2.7%
SA - 4.6%
ACT - 2.1%
NT - 3.3%

Which gives a result of
Labor 79 seats
Coalition 69 seats
Other 2 seats

Basically gives Labor a tiny majority.

...but in Australia, especially with the ALP, the size of the majority means pretty much nothing...until the next election.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/calculator/

Something to play around with.

I factored in a state by state swing

NSW - 4.5%
VIC - 3.4%
QLD - 7.1%
WA - 2.3%
TAS - 2.7%
SA - 4.6%
ACT - 2.1%
NT - 3.3%

Which gives a result of
Labor 79 seats
Coalition 69 seats
Other 2 seats

Basically gives Labor a tiny majority.

...but in Australia, especially with the ALP, the size of the majority means pretty much nothing...until the next election.

Yes and no. In working practice, a majority's a majority. But a first term government with a small majority will likely act differently to one with a large one.

[Verily]

Those seem like awfully low swings given the polls we've been a seeing. 55-45, which has been on the low end of Labor leads, gives the ALP 92 seats to the Coalition's 56.

[Hash]

Those seem like awfully low swings given the polls we've been a seeing. 55-45, which has been on the low end of Labor leads, gives the ALP 92 seats to the Coalition's 56.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

In 1975 there was a 7.1% to the coaltion which gave them a gain of 30 seats, that was a 56/44% election, but in 1969 Labor got a 7% swing to them and it only delivered 18 seats, so where the swings occur is important. Personally, in spite of what people think of Howard, I find it difficult to believe that he will get that kind of drubbing.

a) he closes in elections - always does

b) The state by state swing will be important. Areas like the ACT which already has 2 very safe ALP seats is not going to have as big a swing as QLD or SA.

7.1% swing in QLD swings 5 seats
2.8% swing in TAS gives Labor back of all five seats there
4.5% in NSW gives them 7 seats
2.3% in WA is another 3

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If Howard's hoping for some substantial bounce... he's got problems.

The latest galaxy poll came out this morning.

The results are consistent with pretty much every other poll showing a 56-44 race.

Some of the numbers,

Who Is a Better Team to Lead the Nation?

Howard/Costello - 41%
Rudd/Gillard - 46%
Uncommitted - 13%

Do You Agree with Government claims Mr Rudd was superficial and lacking policy substance?

Yes - 38%
No - 50%
Uncommitted - 12%

Do You Believe That Mr Howard is Out of Touch and Driven By Self-Interest?

Yes - 49%
No - 42%
Uncommitted - 9%

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's coming.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I heard from a friend that Howard was set to call it last weekend, but he got some nasty internal polling... basically the only things that were going right for him.... started to go bad.

A lot of Liberals are angry that Howard is delaying this - and it is delay. If he's waiting for poll numbers to improve... he's never going to go.


John... it's time.