Aussie Election
 

O.K.
Looks like we screwed up.
Ignore anything our Government says for the next 3 years while we sort this mess out.

:(

Hmmm - Seems like an unhappy Liberal voter.

For the rest of the worldwide readers, we have just held a federal (country wide) election for members of parliment and on the results so far we have turfed out the Liberal/Conservative Government of the last 11 years and installed a Labor government.

Whats more interesting is that not only did the Prime Minister's party lose the election, it is quite likely the PM has lost his own seat to a journalist. Very humiliating.

Could this be Bush's fault? ;)

Mothy, so could I assume the Labor party is left of center? Glenn

Australia has been held hostage for eleven and half long years by a deceitful and obnoxious conservative government (sound familiar?), led by a supposedly intelligent man who counts George W. Bush as a close friend.

Well that hellish reign is officially over; the Howard government is history. This country can now finally get on with business, presided over by a forward-thinking Labor government that will pull Australian troops out of Iraq, sign the Kyoto Protocol and repeal draconian industrial relations legislation.

Australia is now cleansed. The future is bright.

Damn this feels good!

to bad y'all couldn't elect the Crocodile Hunter
it would have been better

the CH in the Middle East on a visit to the troops

*Crikey!! look at this vicious sheila, she nearly tagged me with that IIIEEEED!!!
WHAAAT A BEEEEYAAAUTY!*

Its always Bush's fault. Course after a few years of liberal govt its always the conservatives job to clean the mess up! :)

If you are dumb enough really believe the crap you posted, you deserve it when they take your cars, you unemployment goes sky from and the prices of everything goes through the roof. But of course you will have the state to wipe your ass while you have your head burried in the sand. :rolleyes:

I was just going to shoot a message to my friend in Perth. I'm sure she will be happy. She loathed Howard with a passion.

Good on ya!

Matt: Lotsa luck with that. Tell us how it works out.

Socialism has worked so well everywhere else it has been tried:rolleyes:

Yes - thats about it, traditional just left of centre.

In Australia the main parties tend to win government by by taking the middle ground. Labor Party did it years ago (1980's) when Bob Hawke became PM. Liberals couldn't budge them till they changed PM to Paul Keating and he moved the party to the left. Libs then took over the middle ground and won office 11 years ago.

For most of that 11 yrs they have stayed close to the middle except in the last 3 yr period where they have moved strongly to the right, allowing Labor back to the middle ground. One of the biggest changes was to bring in massive changes to the work/employment laws which may well have been good for the economy but were quite unpopular due to the impact on job security.

Climate change and the Environment were also a big issue in voters minds and the Liberals were seen as not taking it seriously until it emerged as a major election issue.

Whats interesting is that the new Minister for the Environment is quite likely to be Peter Garrett - former lead singer of rock band Midnight Oil.

Tim

A run a business so the change of government does'nt suit me, but too bad, head down, bum up, get over it, it's still better than living in the Middle East.

Our new PM, Kevin Rudd, claims to be a social and economic conservative -- sort of in the mould of Tony Blair.

I don't think it's at all rational for conservative Australians to expect the economic sky to fall in based on the Rudd government's (disclosed) economic policies. If it does during Rudd's reign, it will be the direct result of the U.S. economy going into recession, which looks more likely by the day.

Very true. But Oz is odd to me as far as economics go. I've heard it's as closely tied to Asia - being part of Asia (right?) as it is to the U.S.

Just to clarify Aussie politics for the Americans....the "Liberal Party" is our conservative party, and essentially opposes everything that would be considered "liberal" in the U.S.. The "Australian Labour Party" (the ALP) is the main Left / centre left / liberal (in the U.S. sense) party. The "Australian Democrats" were the far left party and were wiped out in the election--they will rapidly die a natural death. Traditionally, Australia has only been able to sustain 1 minor party, and that role is now taken by the "Greens" who are best described as global warming fundamentalists / wackos: example, their official policy regarding Australia's HUGE coal export industry is that it be closed within 3 years. They have also expressed doubt regarding the official version of 9/11. The Greens may end up with the balance of power in our upper house, the Senate. Should be an entertaining 3 years.

Australia has had 13 years of continuous economic growth, 11 under Howard. Plus currently we have the lowest unemployment in 33 years. So no-one under 29 has experienced adult life under a Federal Labour government, or a less than booming economy. Consensus seems to be reasons for change were industrial relations, climate change concerns and the age of the Howard government. Iraq war (which Howard supported) probably did not change many votes--those most firmly against it were have never supported Howard anyway. Australia's long run of economic success has encouraged people to think it's an inevitable part of the landscape, so it's safe to change government.

We shall see.
Like I said, an entertaining 3 years lie ahead.

The "balance of power" in the Senate has always been an interesting thing in Australia. The Australian Senate is modelled on the US Senate - state representatives forming a house of review. In recent times (say the past 25 years) there have been very few times when the same party has held both the lower and upper house majority. In the 70's with Labor under Whitlam they lost the Senate mojority when Qld appointed a Lib/National to replace a Labor Senator who had died.

Fraser controlled both houses but Hawke/Keeting never had Senate control. Neither did the Liberals under Howard until the last term.

By not having the same party running both houses there was a reasonable level of control over some of the more radical ideas and policies. Its what kept both Hawke and Howard in the centre. In more recent times Howard gained control of both houses and then pushed through an agenda of more right wing policies such as "work choices". Moving off the centre line allowed Labor to jump in the middle again.

So we are now back to a Labor Governmant with a Liberal controlled Senate which will change to a Senate with the Greens holding the balance of power once the newly elected take up their positions (from memory it does not happen straight away). Given the Greens preferences were directed to Labor, I wonder what the price will be?

I wonder if the US Senate has ever been in a position where neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have the numbers in the Senate and have needed the support of independants or other parties to pass legislation?

One difference betwen USA and Australia is that in Australia voting is compusory - you are not allowed to sit on the fence or leave it to someone else. One thing is certain - it does not matter who you voted for, you still end up being represented by a politician.

Dewolf is right. We are blessed in this country to have the rights to make the choices we do - there are many other countries where it would only be a dream.

Tim

Upper house
 

Guys,

My understanding is that come July, 2 independents shall hold the balance of power, 1 or both of which are Family First Party.

The ALP in government will be an incremental Government; if they are blocked in the Upper House as I think they shall be we could in theory be doing this all again in 2 years' time.

And yes - anyone under the age of 30 has no knowledge of times past and damage done; idealogy is a wonderful existence...'nuf said.

I've always found this feature of Australian politics interesting. You get fined if you don't vote, right?

How much is the fine?

So your voter turnout is much higher - but isn't the result a less informed vote? I mean, there must be a lot of people who have no idea who to vote for - but who just go and tick any box on the ballot just to avoid the fine.

So even though the vote is more broadly based - and therefore arguably more democratic - you have this completely random factor of votes cast just to avoid the fine.

What do you Aussies think about that?