The Don's party Election night thread

[AngryAnt]

Looks increasingly likely that John Howard will lose Bennelong now as well - only the second time since Federation that the incumbent PM has lost his seat. This is despite promising $20 million in porkbarrels for his own electorate - Maxine McKew only offered a new childcare centre and still got a 6% swing.

For the Liberals, the humiliation is nearly complete.

 

[AngryAnt]

I cannot believe it, well I can, but Abbott is putting his hand up.

Given his pathetic performance during the election, he should be in the corner right now keeping his trap shut. The only person who did more damage was that twit Jackie Kelly, but thankfully she retired.

Sounds like Lexy is going to give it a miss, making noises about "been there, done that" and mustering up the energy. If its a three horse race between Turnbull, Nelson, and Abbott, you would have to think Turnbull at this stage (ignoring factional issues, which unfortunately you cannot ignore .

Abbot is unelectable, Nelson would be a strange choice. That leaves Turnbull - very intelligent, good with money and socially progressive. Also a republican - could we finally get a referendum on the Republic with bi-partisan support?

 

[Tigers of Old]

costello is gonna walk after this term. wont go for the leadrship.

Born loser.
if he was any good he would have challenged Howard hard for the leadership some time back.

 

[jb03]

Abbott could not possibly become the leader. Would turn a guaranteed 2 term stint for Labor to 4. Possibly no politician is as universally disliked.

 

[AngryAnt]

Abbott could not possibly become the leader. Would turn a guaranteed 2 term stint for Labor to 4. Possibly no politician is as universally disliked.

It's a pity we'll never see the much anticipated "Abbott and Costello" leadership team.

 

[Tiger74]

Another one bites the dust.....Mark Vaile, head of the Nats and former Deputy PM has resigned. Australian says its between Truss and MacGauran for the role now. I'd be picking the latter, never did warm to Truss personally.

The white anting has already started, Deanne Kelly mouthing off about being too out of step with rural requirements (i.e. we are not Liberal puppets). She has a point, but its bad enough when you have Barnaby whining outside partyroom doors, you don't need to start a conga line.

 

[mld]

The party thread keeps getting a bit grizzly. How about we lighten the mood with a political quiz.

Here is my result, pretty much what I was expecting.

 

[Rosy]

My result

I didn't give it too much deep thought though and would probably get a different result each time I took the test. Seems I'm pretty middle of the road. Wonder what Livers would make of that? :hihi

 

[The Mighty Wozman]

Looks increasingly likely that John Howard will lose Bennelong now as well - only the second time since Federation that the incumbent PM has lost his seat. This is despite promising $20 million in porkbarrels for his own electorate - Maxine McKew only offered a new childcare centre and still got a 6% swing.

For the Liberals, the humiliation is nearly complete.

it is indeed, it is indeed.... Gee, Saturday was a day for the heart and soul: Tigers bagging Cotchin AND Rance, while having the pleasure of watching Howard fawn in defeat.

Never thought I would see the day, but ambition got poor ole Mr Sheen - should have reliquished the reigns a while ago. :clap :clap :clap

 

[TigerForce]

The Coalition lost for a few reasons but Workchoices was one of the major ones. Only the West supported the Coalition and workchoices - the resources boom means that miners and the like can earn big pay cheques and can make AWAs work for them. They'll still be able to do this under Rudd as the threshold is 100K and over. Everywhere else there is a recognition that for young people and less highly paid people AWAs are a great way for a boss to screw over a worker.

People also recognise that there is still a role for unions - the scaremongering by the liberals did not work as people know that the militancy of the 1970s and before are gone. Scaremongering on unions didn't work - if anything it demonstrated the backwards looking nature of the Coalition. We still see it on this forum - "the country and business will collapse because the unions will run the country". Didn't happen under Hawke or Keating and won't happen now. The people who push these ideas are those who don't understand the present or the future.

This victory for Labor was unprecedented. Even in a deregulated economy - banks, labour market, financial system (largely deregulated by Hawke and Keating - another fact conveniently left out by the Coalition propagandists) that benefitted from the mining resources boom and the strong world economy, the voters rejected the "sit tight and do nothing approach" of the Coalition. No new ideas - just "Labor can't be trusted with the economy".

They deserved to lose - and the Australian public told them so loudly on Saturday.

Good post Adam Ant.

 

[Six Pack]

we had dancing and we had eating and drinking. me and rosy had a twirl and me and ss tone had some beers and embraced.

now it's all gone and all we got is analysis :'(

 

[jb03]

The party thread keeps getting a bit grizzly. How about we lighten the mood with a political quiz.

Here is my result, pretty much what I was expecting.

Good fun, thanks mld.

Though not sure how one aligns with Democrats, wouldn't know what they stand for these days.

 

[Liverpool]

Well no, not if it means workers don't have the right to collectively bargain. Collective bargaining has always worked much better for less well-paid workers. Higher paid professionals tend to need unions less. Regardless, you would deny collective bargaining to everyone in the interests of "fairness".

Even under Workchoices though, you could still collectively bargain at the 'worker level', Antman.
What was illegal was the 'pattern bargaining' where you have an agreement across an entire industry....and funnily enough, this is still supposed to be illegal under Rudd's workplace reforms....however the unions, such as the CFMEU, are pretty adamant on this that this type of bargaining should stay.
This could be part of a showdown that will test the mettle of the new government.

It's bullshyte and the public saw through it. Deal with it. When John Howard was treasurer under Fraser he did nothing positive and interest rates hit 22% - we never hear about that from you though. You can keep harping on about ancient history all you want - just like the Liberals did - it won't do you any good. And by the way - most of the public support the nurses and teachers. I can't remember the last brewery strike to be honest.

Personally, I don't need to deal with anything.....the whole country will have to deal with it now.
I'm sure everyone loves the nurses and the teachers, but you have to be realistic with some of the demands and can't price yourself out of a market altogether.
Look at manufacturing.....yes, it would be great if a bloke on a scaffold earns $150,000 per year by unions striking and winning this type of pay for their members. Great. Fantastic. Money for everyone.
And how long would the business last by handing out this type of money to their workers?
Two seconds.
We have seen (and continue to see) manufacturing here in Australia disappear off our shores, hence the need for something like WorkChoices to try and control things.
I read posts from yourself and Remote....and I'm sure both of you mean well by wanting workers to get money and rights and all that...but we are in a global market here...and if wages skyrocket,, then businesses will move offshore....unemployment will rise...interest rates will rise...and we are then in trouble.
It is why I hope I'm terribly wrong and that Rudd IS the 'economic conservative' he proclaims.

Here's a challenge for you - come up with two significant economic reforms that Costello/Howard came up with besides the GST and Workchoices.

* Future Fund
* Just clever economic management.....using asset sales to retire the debt Keating had racked up. Keating used asset sales to spend instead of paying off the debt he had incurred.

Exactly the same small target strategy adopted by John Howard in 1996 in case you have forgotten. As I said, Workchoices and no new ideas killed this government, that and Howard's wedge politics came back and bit him on the arse.

Now a challenge for you:
Tell me what policies Howard copied Keating on?
I know Rudd has copied 22 of Howard's policies.....I posted them on the 'talking politics' thread a while ago, but more than happy to post them again if anyone disbelives me.

On the states - ask yourself why there are now no Liberal governments in Australia - and if the states are so badly run why did we elect a Federal Labor government?

I think many of the Libs (including them federally now) have lost a lot of leadership.
For example, Bracks would have had a bigger run for his money here last election if Bailleau wasn't so new in the job and people really didn't know who he was....so they stuck with the 'devil they knew'. Plus they don't have as much flamboyancy anymore with delivering policies.
They might be sound and very good for the country....but they don't have the slogans, the hi-fiving kids, and the 'razza-matazz' that the ALP use to woo young voters.
I think the ALP running all states and nationally, in a few cases, is down to the Libs not having the people/leadership to put up a good challenge. Simple as that.
Plus like I said yesterday...it does go in a cycle....we'll have Rudd for 4 years and probably another 4 years after that, and then after that...no matter how good (or bad) the country is going, the Coaltion will get back up there again.
It's like a footy team turning over players....you might trade a reasonable player for a draft pick who is inexperienced...you might get a gun, or you might get a dud. We'll see whether Rudd is a dud or not over the journey, won't we?

 

[Tiger74]

I think many of the Libs (including them federally now) have lost a lot of leadership.
For example, Bracks would have had a bigger run for his money here last election if Bailleau wasn't so new in the job and people really didn't know who he was....so they stuck with the 'devil they knew'. Plus they don't have as much flamboyancy anymore with delivering policies.
They might be sound and very good for the country....but they don't have the slogans, the hi-fiving kids, and the 'razza-matazz' that the ALP use to woo young voters.
I think the ALP running all states and nationally, in a few cases, is down to the Libs not having the people/leadership to put up a good challenge. Simple as that.
Plus like I said yesterday...it does go in a cycle....we'll have Rudd for 4 years and probably another 4 years after that, and then after that...no matter how good (or bad) the country is going, the Coaltion will get back up there again.
It's like a footy team turning over players....you might trade a reasonable player for a draft pick who is inexperienced...you might get a gun, or you might get a dud. We'll see whether Rudd is a dud or not over the journey, won't we?

You cannot blame lack of transitional leadership on the ALP Liv. IN Victoria, everything was Kennett, so when he left the vaccuum was enormous. No-one had been groomed to take over. For Fed Libs, that was Costello, but that bombed because of his own reasons (beyond party control to be fair).

ALP had the same thing post 80's. Victoria went from Cain to......Kirner :rofl. Brumby was then not ready, and it was only by Bracks they had their sh!t together (combined with reform fatigue, but timing is everything in politics).

On chasing the younger voters, historically the ALP has done this better. The exception was Howard, he actually punched above his weight on young voters. They considered him a dork, but he appealed to their aspirational dreams.

 

[Liverpool]

My result

I didn't give it too much deep thought though and would probably get a different result each time I took the test. Seems I'm pretty middle of the road. Wonder what Livers would make of that? :hihi

I thought that I would be centre-right.
Not too far off the mark:

http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/fun/politics-test/?id=5c3c955bb5c019883f58bc09bc0a139c

 

[ssstone]

You cannot blame lack of transitional leadership on the ALP Liv. IN Victoria, everything was Kennett, so when he left the vaccuum was enormous. No-one had been groomed to take over. For Fed Libs, that was Costello, but that bombed because of his own reasons (beyond party control to be fair).

ALP had the same thing post 80's. Victoria went from Cain to......Kirner :rofl. Brumby was then not ready, and it was only by Bracks they had their sh!t together (combined with reform fatigue, but timing is everything in politics).

On chasing the younger voters, historically the ALP has done this better. The exception was Howard, he actually punched above his weight on young voters. They considered him a dork, but he appealed to their aspirational dreams.

i disagree on bracks "having his *smile* together" the media gave that moron too much latitude cause he was "green" noone thought himey would get close enough for 3 INDEPENDANTS TO PUT HIM IN POWER.remember t74 it ws ingham,davies and russell that inflicted bracks on us.3 PEOPLE DECIDED OUR FATE.

 

[Six Pack]

thats how it goes ss tone. a handful of votes in a handful of seats can decide the election.

 

[Tiger74]

i disagree on bracks "having his sh!t together" the media gave that moron too much latitude cause he was "green" noone thought himey would get close enough for 3 INDEPENDANTS TO PUT HIM IN POWER.remember t74 it ws ingham,davies and russell that inflicted bracks on us.3 PEOPLE DECIDED OUR FATE.

Actually no, those 3 seats only have power when combined with enough others to gain a 50%+ share.

Democracy is when a majority combine to say "we want this". Be it by primary, coalition, or loose support, a majority has the right to rule in a democracy.

 

[Liverpool]

You cannot blame lack of transitional leadership on the ALP Liv. IN Victoria, everything was Kennett, so when he left the vaccuum was enormous. No-one had been groomed to take over. For Fed Libs, that was Costello, but that bombed because of his own reasons (beyond party control to be fair).
ALP had the same thing post 80's. Victoria went from Cain to......Kirner :rofl. Brumby was then not ready, and it was only by Bracks they had their sh!t together (combined with reform fatigue, but timing is everything in politics).
On chasing the younger voters, historically the ALP has done this better. The exception was Howard, he actually punched above his weight on young voters. They considered him a dork, but he appealed to their aspirational dreams.

I'm not blaming the ALP at all for the Libs lack of transitional leadership.....I'm blaming the Libs themselves.
Kennett's era was that he and his government had the economic smarts of the Libs, but the 'hollywood' feel that the ALP are good at portraying....that is something that the Libs miss now, and a small reason towards why Howard lost the election.
It is something the ALP have been good at.
I guess a simple comparison would be the nerds (Libs) at school being good at maths and no good at sports and socialising......and the 'jocks' (ALP) being good at sport, mixing with people, etc...but useless at maths and science.
Kennett blended a bit of both....Rudd is trying to bottle a bit of both.

If you get down to the bare bones of it....Howard didn't do anything majorly wrong.
I still haven't heard from anyone where WorkChoices as affected THEM. And some of the stories I have heard about problems at a workplace have turned out to be nothing to do with WorkChoices.
The ALP/Unions jumped on this big time and got people in such a state, that any time there was a problem at work it was "Bloody Johnny and his workplace reforms!"...when in reality, it was nothing to do with WorkChoices and simply a boss doing something illegal under the banner of that it was the new legislation.
Apart from this, there wasn't much else that was so far out of the ordinary that people wanted him out desperately.
People just wanted a change. Full stop.

 

[ssstone]

Actually no, those 3 seats only have power when combined with enough others to gain a 50%+ share.

Democracy is when a majority combine to say "we want this". Be it by primary, coalition, or loose support, a majority has the right to rule in a democracy.

it was a
'hung election" and the "3" gave the knob his crown,

thats how it goes ss tone. a handful of votes in a handful of seats can decide the election.

3 people is a little bit differant to a handfull of votes