I'm betting on Ground Hog Day.....
Australias next Prime Minister
- Thread starter Graingrower
- Start date
I'm betting on Ground Hog Day.....
I'm looking foward too question time this afternoon,if you have nothing to hide then why does not Miss Gillard just be up front with the Australian T ax Paying public,because what a lot of people don't understand all the problem from Miss Gilllards new laws will only hit future budgets over the next few years ,,when current short-sighted offcials are themselves comfortably in retirement on the tax payers money..
If you look back 38 years ago, I reckon we are at about the same position in the cycle. The similarities are almost uncanny.
In 1974 we had ;
This is exactly what we have right now in 2012. 7 out of 7 - identical scenarios.
In 1974, the Qld state went to an election, where Labor took a huge thumping and Sir Joh cemented his strangehold on Qld. We saw that in 2012.
In 1974, the WA state went to an election, and Labor's Tonkin got thrown out and replaced with the Liberal's Sir Charles Court. We're just about to see what happens in March next year at the WA state level.
The following year, we had a federal election, where there was wholesale changeout. At that time, the Parliament had 127 seats....so you needed 64 to form Govt.
Before the election, Labor held 66 seats and the coalition had 61....pretty close, like it is now. There was a total of 30 seats that changed parties, such that after the election, Labor held only 36 seats and the coalition held 91 seats. Huge difference.
Don't be surprised if 2013 delivers exactly the same electoral results as a proportion as 1975 did.
As to the original question - who is going to be the next PM - whoever gains the support of the majority of the Parliamentary Party room from the Party who gains the most seats in the lower house.
The public have little say in the matter, as was amply demonstrated when Gillard rolled Rudd....or when Nelson was appointed, or when Turnbull rolled Nelson, or when Abbott rolled Turnbull. The public are not involved when it comes to appointing the Leader.
If you want to be involved - join up and become a member !!
In 1974 we had ;
- an extremely unpopular, incompetent Labor Federal Govt in power.
- Coalition State Govts running the show in { NSW / Vic / Qld & WA }
- Labor State Govts running the show in SA and Tas.
This is exactly what we have right now in 2012. 7 out of 7 - identical scenarios.
In 1974, the Qld state went to an election, where Labor took a huge thumping and Sir Joh cemented his strangehold on Qld. We saw that in 2012.
In 1974, the WA state went to an election, and Labor's Tonkin got thrown out and replaced with the Liberal's Sir Charles Court. We're just about to see what happens in March next year at the WA state level.
The following year, we had a federal election, where there was wholesale changeout. At that time, the Parliament had 127 seats....so you needed 64 to form Govt.
Before the election, Labor held 66 seats and the coalition had 61....pretty close, like it is now. There was a total of 30 seats that changed parties, such that after the election, Labor held only 36 seats and the coalition held 91 seats. Huge difference.
Don't be surprised if 2013 delivers exactly the same electoral results as a proportion as 1975 did.
As to the original question - who is going to be the next PM - whoever gains the support of the majority of the Parliamentary Party room from the Party who gains the most seats in the lower house.
The public have little say in the matter, as was amply demonstrated when Gillard rolled Rudd....or when Nelson was appointed, or when Turnbull rolled Nelson, or when Abbott rolled Turnbull. The public are not involved when it comes to appointing the Leader.
If you want to be involved - join up and become a member !!
Last edited:
Ground Hog Day indeed....
I tend to agree with Waleed Aly's article. Lets hope all parties raise the bar in 2013, however my spider senses tell me more of the same is to come.
Joshua Frydenberg. Watch this space.
Yep.
It's just tedious and pathetic now.
Both sides are just becoming more of an embarrassment.
People who say 'oh both sides are this and that' are those who rent in inner-city suburbs and vote Greens. Oh wait, he works at the ABC and lectures at Monash. As they say, nuff said.
But they are both being pathetic. It's a simple statement.
The Libs had a real chance to completely destroy her and it was more than a bit squandered. The politics of negativity didn't work for Romney and they are beginning to weaken for Abbott. Strong, workable, policy rather than the current schoolyard behaviour would see a much stronger party, and would give a lot of people a lot more confidence considering they will be leading the country after the next election. And those kind of actions would see the polls being a lot more decisive.
Labor are just in complete disarray. Nothing more really needs to be said.
Those that are desperately trying to find positives about how their chosen team, sorry political party, are performing, are just contributing to the continuing dumbing down of political discourse in the country. I don't think there is anything wrong with expecting at least some level of maturity out of politics. Not much. But at least above the level currently being shown.
This will be a slow burn. That is how Watergate worked and I suspect the same thing will happen here. The parallels are uncanny (even Nixon had a 'slush fund' that was part of the scandal).
As for 'leadership' - this government is a shambles because there is no strong numbers on their side. Gillard's lies and deceit to maintain power are just extraordinary. This comes from her side, and her alone. Abbott is doing his job, running an Opposition to get into power. You cannot implement policy in Opposition, so you have to get into power.
I actually do not mind a strong ALP government because at least they are able to make decisions for what (they) think is right for the country. I just don't like minority interests trying to dictate how the other 85% of people run their lives.
He declared on radio a month or two back that his job was to hold the government to account and present a viable alternative. He's doing neither - question time after question time is used up on what the PM might or might not have done 20 years whilst government policy goes unquestioned. And just sitting on his hands whilst JB asks the questions is pathetic.
I would have to laugh though if JG was to be forced out of office and Kevin Rudd called and won a snap election. Surely any intelligent Libs should see her as their greatest asset (just as TA is to Labor), the person they want to be taking on next time round.
It's tactics, Tony. It's just like anything else, it is never so simple.
Julie Bishop is from WA where the alleged fraud occurred, and hence she is the one most familiar with the rules and regulations concerning the case. Abbott has never practised law and he is from NSW. I'm sure the other tactical side of it is that Julie Bishop is a woman so JG is unable to play the 'gender card' against her.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-30/rudd-spent-340000-on-foreign-travel/4400230
Big Kev seems to be spending up in a big way,or is his goal to be ready to fly in with a new crew for mid 2013..
Big Kev seems to be spending up in a big way,or is his goal to be ready to fly in with a new crew for mid 2013..
Agree 100%. Waleed's article was spot on.
I'd prefer to judge his article on what he actually wrote, rather than where he works...
Hang on there a minute.
Romney negative and Obama not...???
I'd suggest the other way round and the fact Obama ran on racial and class platforms put forward well in this read.
Dont be so quick to make those assumptions about who ran negative and who didnt.
It's just as negative coming from both sides and the same goes here in Australia. Labour and the US Democrats are doing the same thing, putting down success and breeding hatred of those who do well and expecting them to share more of this wealth in an unsustainable way, so much so that these so called "wealthy meanies" are actually closing up shop and refusing to be brought down in class warfare like conditions.
Big govt does not work. Obama wants to be your big brother and look after you, watch out for you, make sure you get everything you deserve, even though you dont want to do much in return.
This mantra of "It's not fair, they are rich...nasty wealthy people, they should pay more."
Even though they already do... go figure.
The Republicans ran many a imigrant and negro-american candidates around the US, yet Obama would have you believe Romney was racist...???
Come....ON !!
Think before making such statements about Romney being negative & Obama not ...what a croc!
Same goes here in Australian politics. Both sides play that game not just one.
PS: One of the last things Obama said in his final speech before the election was " Vote for revenge".
Revenge for what exactly...? Revenge is not a positive word in my book.
'Going negative' usually means negatively attacking your opponent. I agree Obama did as much, if not more than Romney, partially because Romney gave Obama so much ammunition. Was Romney the moderate who brought health care legislation to Mass., or the conservative who opposed Obamacare? Was he pro-life or pro-choice? We still don't know.
Labour and the US Democrats are doing the same thing, putting down success and breeding hatred of those who do well and expecting them to share more of this wealth in an unsustainable way
Breeding hatred? I don't think so. Democrats wanted to end the Bush tax cuts, which Bush himself only intended to be for a short time. Is that now hating the rich? Is that where we are now?
Big govt does not work. Obama wants to be your big brother and look after you, watch out for you, make sure you get everything you deserve
Such emotive language. I'd argue the conservatives who make up the majority of the GOP are more intrusive in people's lives. What you can and can't watch / listen to / play on your Xbox, as well as the biggie of a woman's right to choose.
What they don't like to regulate is corporate behaviour and the financial system.
And we all saw how that turned out.
Labour and the US Democrats are doing the same thing, putting down success and breeding hatred of those who do well and expecting them to share more of this wealth in an unsustainable way
Breeding hatred? I don't think so. Democrats wanted to end the Bush tax cuts, which Bush himself only intended to be for a short time. Is that now hating the rich? Is that where we are now?
Big govt does not work. Obama wants to be your big brother and look after you, watch out for you, make sure you get everything you deserve
Such emotive language. I'd argue the conservatives who make up the majority of the GOP are more intrusive in people's lives. What you can and can't watch / listen to / play on your Xbox, as well as the biggie of a woman's right to choose.
What they don't like to regulate is corporate behaviour and the financial system.
And we all saw how that turned out.
This always devolves down into the mud.
To my mind, every adult in Australia has a fairly simply choice.
They have all previously experienced 12 years of Govt under the coalition.
They have all now experienced 5 years of Govt under Labor.
You simply need to decide which regime was best for you and/or the country as a whole and vote accordingly.....there's no need to go into all of the grubby stuff.
Vote for what worked best for you.
To my mind, every adult in Australia has a fairly simply choice.
They have all previously experienced 12 years of Govt under the coalition.
They have all now experienced 5 years of Govt under Labor.
You simply need to decide which regime was best for you and/or the country as a whole and vote accordingly.....there's no need to go into all of the grubby stuff.
Vote for what worked best for you.
Voters these days rely on Government welfare and its going to be interesting to see what happens in the next election.
The ALP have promised way to much but will voters be sucked in .I think they will.I think a lot of voters are getting conditioned to the Nanny State mentality. This is not just happening in this country and who knows what democracy will be like in 50 years time
As for Gillard and Abbott the good news is one will go after the next election
The ALP have promised way to much but will voters be sucked in .I think they will.I think a lot of voters are getting conditioned to the Nanny State mentality. This is not just happening in this country and who knows what democracy will be like in 50 years time
As for Gillard and Abbott the good news is one will go after the next election
On a personal level, in my day to day life, I could discern no difference between the two so it's fairly impossible to vote for what worked best for me. I'll guess I'll have to vote for what's best for my country. How quaint (and just a wee bit presumptuous).
Similar threads
