I completely missed it. Who won?
Timing for the next Fed. election
- Thread starter Dazz
- Start date
I completely missed it. Who won?
Agree unless there is a major change in the polls.
Well that is untrue...Turnbull was dumped because he had a stupid policy which the Coalition party room could not support, plus he was unpopular (despite how everyone now claims they love him).
The ALP panicked when they dumped Rudd because all they care about is polling and the polls indicated that the public were angry at him. However, Howard was even less popular than Rudd ever was and he was kept as leader. So it comes down to the party, not necessarily what is popular or not with the electorate.
Back on topic, I can't see an early election being called unless something dramatic happens.
With the polls the way they are, it makes no sense to go early.
Even thought he numbers have reduced, due to Slippery resigning his post, this matches the original situation when Harry was speaker.
Late October / early November for me.
With the polls the way they are, it makes no sense to go early.
Even thought he numbers have reduced, due to Slippery resigning his post, this matches the original situation when Harry was speaker.
Late October / early November for me.
Definately with the numbers as they now stand, a real possibility something dramatic could happen.
Perhaps I'm reading between the lines too much, but I've got a feeling things could get much worse for Labor - ?? even more damning union stuff emerges that implicates Gillard and other key Labor figures (rumblings, silence and other strange/desperate things happening there).
Perhaps I'm reading between the lines too much, but I've got a feeling things could get much worse for Labor - ?? even more damning union stuff emerges that implicates Gillard and other key Labor figures (rumblings, silence and other strange/desperate things happening there).
re
Yeah, I agree that the election would be around either pre May - if Swan cannot get a surplus, or dragging out to Late Oct / early Nov as Labor taking their time to take the shine off Abbott's armour.
Look at the end of day, I dont see much difference between either party. Yes, may be we have a cut of few $$$ there, or an increase of funding here. But the basic principle will remain the same:
- There will always be social welfare, and its not going to dramatically change.
- There will always be some sort of middle class welfare as well.
- There will always be a basic medicare system in Australia.
- Private schools are always going to be better than public no matter what people do.
I just hope that we get someone with a vision for the future, not just some short term political gains.
Yeah, I agree that the election would be around either pre May - if Swan cannot get a surplus, or dragging out to Late Oct / early Nov as Labor taking their time to take the shine off Abbott's armour.
Look at the end of day, I dont see much difference between either party. Yes, may be we have a cut of few $$$ there, or an increase of funding here. But the basic principle will remain the same:
- There will always be social welfare, and its not going to dramatically change.
- There will always be some sort of middle class welfare as well.
- There will always be a basic medicare system in Australia.
- Private schools are always going to be better than public no matter what people do.
I just hope that we get someone with a vision for the future, not just some short term political gains.
Both parties largely agree on those issues anyway and I don't see why they shouldn't. The difference lies between competent and incompetent management of the other salient issues in this country.
Agreed - but "dramatic" in this instance could be as mundane as someone going to the toilet and missing a vote....not a good way to bring down a Govt.
Probably a good move by Labor shuffling the Foreign Affairs Minister responsibilities to the Senate with Bob Carr, which allows him to roam the world stage without having to zip back everytime there is a vote.
Agreed.
Not quite dan. There have been a few extra movements since Aug 2010.
Initially the lower house looked like this ;
Labor Party......72.....71 on the floor with Harry in the Speaker's chair
Liberal Party.....44
LNQ................21
Nationals...........6
CLP..................1........(collectively 72 coalition)
WA National.......1
Greens..............1
Independents.....4
Total...............150
Now we've got ;
Labor Party......71.....70 on the floor with Anna in the Speaker's chair
Liberal Party.....43
LNQ................21
Nationals...........6
CLP..................1........(collectively 71 coalition)
WA National.......1
Greens..............1
Independents.....6
Total...............150
The nett changes effectively since the start are ;
- Anna Burke has replaced Harry Jenkins (no change to numbers)
- Craig Thomson has been kicked out of the Labor Party....but votes with Labor (no change)
- Peter Slipper has been kicked out of the Liberal Party.....and so far has sided with Labor (the only change)
The sum total therefore is simply Labor has been strengthened by Slipper's choices......the 95,000 people living in the Federal electorate of Fischer up in Qld must be seething.....having elected a Liberal Party candidate who now votes alongside Labor.
The same could also be said for the conservative farmers in the seat of O'Connor here in WA, where the WA National member regularly supports the Govt. This is staggering behaviour ?? There seems to be a lot of bad blood swilling around all of the National Party relationships....especially those former members of the Party.
Of course, the same could be said for those independents in Lyne and New England
Yep - agreed.
Amen to that.
Pickering should not be dismissed just because the PM doesn't like him. Anyone with an interest in politics should read him.
He is putting in a lot of hours reading a lot of information which is being supplied to him by people who care and who know where the skeletons are. He is careful what he publishes because he doesn't have a news network to back him and he uses a self-admitted melodramatic style but he is shaming the MSM into taking an interest in this topic.
Paul Zanetti explains this well here:
http://pickeringpost.com/article/chewing-off-your-own-leg/388
You're not wrong there, and Gillard knows it too - why she doesn't bring him to the publics attention, like she is happy to do with everyone else she sees as a threat.
I had a bit of a laugh, considering the accusation came from a female supremacist who leads an openly misandrist political party.
Almost made me want to vote. Almost.
Hmmm, I don't know. I'd like to see some corroboration, otherwise all we have are Larry's extrapolations and opinions. And based on some of the stuff he's done in the past, I wouldn't trust him to get this right.
It's not as though he's Woodward or Bernstein...
I'm not sure what you would need to see before you accepted that there are problems. Michael Smith has certainly presented more than enough to raise alarm.
There is an awful lot of solid evidence including copies of documents being presented by them both.
But it is not my wish to spoil this good thread with politics, all I suggested is that people read and see what is being presented. Even if she were accused of an axe murder a no-confidence vote would still fail. Self interest rules. [back on topic]
There is an awful lot of solid evidence including copies of documents being presented by them both.
But it is not my wish to spoil this good thread with politics, all I suggested is that people read and see what is being presented. Even if she were accused of an axe murder a no-confidence vote would still fail. Self interest rules. [back on topic]
I thought everyone except the young socialist female demographic fell for her and the handbag brigades antics
.Gillard is no misadrist, nor does she think Abbot has a problem with women.
It was nothing but a stunt, and if anything it proves females can be as aggressive and ruthless as any man - as you've pointed out before.
Rather than derail this thread, I've opened another you may wish to contribute to.It's fact when you agree with it though, whether or not there is any evidence involved
