Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Labour only went back to Rudd because of his popularity with the voters.

Popularity relative to Gillard

So in a roundabout way, it was always Abbott vs Shorten.

I don't think a single voter anywhere considered Shorten for one second when deciding whether to vote for Rudd or Abbott. I'd be surprised if half even knew who Shorten was.

Heh, remember when it was Albanese or Shorten, and that Albanese actually won the poll among the rank and file members? That dude has been almost completely forgotten about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If people didn't love the NT News before now...

 insaniak wrote:
Because, once upon a time, the Greens actualy mattered.

Not so much these days...

Fair enough. Point conceded.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Hell, I've always voted ... Green...

Then why vote at all?

Because sometimes it's not worth voting and it's not worth the $20 either.

 sebster wrote:

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Labour only went back to Rudd because of his popularity with the voters.

Popularity relative to Gillard

They were constantly compared against each other polling for peoples preferred labour leader, and popularity compared to Abbott. Gillard was miles behind while Rudd was alot closer.

So in a roundabout way, it was always Abbott vs Shorten.

I don't think a single voter anywhere considered Shorten for one second when deciding whether to vote for Rudd or Abbott. I'd be surprised if half even knew who Shorten was.

Heh, remember when it was Albanese or Shorten, and that Albanese actually won the poll among the rank and file members? That dude has been almost completely forgotten about.

It doesnt matter who the voters considered or knew about. The leader is ultimately decided by the party and they wouldnt hesitate to dispose of Rudd if he got them past Abbott. The party was never going to let Rudd lead it after an election.

Dropbear Victim wrote:
They were constantly compared against each other polling for peoples preferred labour leader, and popularity compared to Abbott. Gillard was miles behind while Rudd was alot closer

That's what I said. Popularity relative to Gillard.

It doesnt matter who the voters considered or knew about. The leader is ultimately decided by the party and they wouldnt hesitate to dispose of Rudd if he got them past Abbott. The party was never going to let Rudd lead it after an election.

Maybe, as long as a leader is believed to be able to win the next election the party will almost always put up with them, no matter how disliked they are. Rudd's first term is a good example - he was hated by the party but they tolerated him, until his polling dropped to the point where it looked like he wouldn't win an election, and then they moved on him.

Anyhow, I just don't think there's much value in talking about Abbott having kept hypothetical future leaders out of the party.

You guys get fined for not voting!!! WTF

Not voting is just as much a part of democracy as voting.

Earlier, I compared Australia to a banana republic, now you're entering North Korean Territory!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You guys get fined for not voting!!! WTF

Theoretically. It's somewhat sporadically applied.

Well you can "not vote" by showing up, drawing a dick on your ballot and leaving. You just have to put in a piece of paper and get the name ticked off. I personally don't, I dislike the donkey vote because then you are just going "I don't care, but you can be damned sure I'll complain about X after", but in seats that are super safe for one party or the other I can see why some people just figure "what's the point?"

abbot is more than useless. Hes an egoist idiot who, honestly, cant tell sustainability from his breakfast. Not that they are similar in any way. He didnt even deserve to make it into government. And even me, a skaven player, is astounded at how much treachery he indulged in. His lies convinced god knows how many aussies to vote for someone who shouldnt have got into that position in the first place.

#putyouronionsout




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You guys get fined for not voting!!! WTF

Not voting is just as much a part of democracy as voting.

Earlier, I compared Australia to a banana republic, now you're entering North Korean Territory!

Actually Australia was one of the first countries to implement the secret ballot, so you can thank us for championing a fair voting system. Its your civic duty to vote - regardless of who it is you actually vote for (or donkey vote for as has been so aptly described by motyak)

Here's a slightly OT question but it's still about Australian politics.

When Queen Elizabeth dies, what will Australia do?

Will you guys stick with monarchy, or make the switch to a republic?

What's the view on this? I've been led to believe that the general mood in Australia is to stick with the monarchy, but once Elizabeth dies, it's a clean break for you guys.

Imagine a future scenario of President Abbott

There's a staunch Replublic movement that would love to get things happening sooner rather than later... But for the most part, Australians just don't care enough to do anything about the status quo. We're effectively independant anyway... The fact that some foreigner is technically our head of state has absolutely zero impact on day to day life, so aside from something to argue about over drinks, it's a non-issue, really.

I don't think it will be Liz's passing specifically that triggers our eventual separation (although that may well be the visible trigger) but simply someone who cares enough to push the issue winding up in a position where they can get things rolling.

Edit.... It probably would have happened last time they ran a referendum on it, but the monarchists managed to shoehorn into the referendum question the idea that the head of state should be elected by parliament rather than by the people, and the people really didn't like that idea.

I want it to stay monarchy at least as long as I'm alive. Am I a die hard royalist? No. They are just almost guaranteed to make an absolute hash of the separation and establishment of a republic, so I'd rather not have to watch/put up with/experience that.

So yeah, roll on the next king/queen until I'm done here, then Australia can do whatever it wants.

the thirteenth praetorian wrote:
Hes an egoist idiot who...

Compared to Rudd? Compared to Turncoat?

You must be mad...

the thirteenth praetorian wrote:
He didnt even deserve to make it into government.

He was the leader of the party that won the election. There's no 'deserving' aspect to it. That's how elections in Oz work.

 insaniak wrote:
There's a staunch Replublic movement that would love to get things happening sooner rather than later... But for the most part, Australians just don't care enough to do anything about the status quo. We're effectively independant anyway... The fact that some foreigner is technically our head of state has absolutely zero impact on day to day life, so aside from something to argue about over drinks, it's a non-issue, really.

I don't think it will be Liz's passing specifically that triggers our eventual separation (although that may well be the visible trigger) but simply someone who cares enough to push the issue winding up in a position where they can get things rolling.

Edit.... It probably would have happened last time they ran a referendum on it, but the monarchists managed to shoehorn into the referendum question the idea that the head of state should be elected by parliament rather than by the people, and the people really didn't like that idea.

Are you not worried about a repeat of the 1975 constitutional crisis?

On a separate note, your neighbours, New Zealand, look set to change their flag, and are most likely to ditch monarchy as well, when Queen Elizabeth dies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
I want it to stay monarchy at least as long as I'm alive. Am I a die hard royalist? No. They are just almost guaranteed to make an absolute hash of the separation and establishment of a republic, so I'd rather not have to watch/put up with/experience that.

So yeah, roll on the next king/queen until I'm done here, then Australia can do whatever it wants.

I'm a republican myself, here in the UK, and I want to break away from the UK (Scottish independence) so we fell the pain of our Australian brethren

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

the thirteenth praetorian wrote:
Hes an egoist idiot who...

Compared to Rudd? Compared to Turncoat?

You must be mad...

When you've got three rotten apples, it's not really worth agruing which one is more rotten.

 motyak wrote:
Well you can "not vote" by showing up, drawing a dick on your ballot and leaving.

It's as if the heavens have opened and given me an option for the 2016 Presidential Elections.

"Who is the most qualified? Trump or Clinton?"

'My balls."

"... I hate talking to you."

So do we think PM Turnbull will be any good for you guys down under?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Here's a slightly OT question but it's still about Australian politics.

When Queen Elizabeth dies, what will Australia do?

Will you guys stick with monarchy, or make the switch to a republic?

What's the view on this? I've been led to believe that the general mood in Australia is to stick with the monarchy, but once Elizabeth dies, it's a clean break for you guys.

I don't like the idea of the monarchy, but Queen Elizabeth is quite inoffensive in that regard. Prince Harry is fifth in line to the throne, and after his comments in support of conscription I sorely hope we become a republic before he gets there.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
So do we think PM Turnbull will be any good for you guys down under?

I don't know much about him, but I think he will be. He'd really have to work at it to be worse than Abbott.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Are you not worried...

Not really. Australian, remember?

... about a repeat of the 1975 constitutional crisis?

Unlikely to happen. That was a very specific set of events that had a fairly massive fallout, and was both political and social suicide for the Governor General of the time. There is little chance of a Governor General trying the same thing today... and even if they did, the fact that the GG is the Queen's representative is sort of secondary to their role in the government machine, since they're still an Australian, chosen for office by Australian parliament (while technically approved by the Queen, that's just a rubber stamp).

On a separate note, your neighbours, New Zealand, look set to change their flag, and are most likely to ditch monarchy as well, when Queen Elizabeth dies.

I have a suspicion that changing their flag is just because they're sick of it being confused for ours...

 angelofvengeance wrote:
So do we think PM Turnbull will be any good for you guys down under?

I can't see any possible way that he can do a worse job than Abbott, which is good enough for now. If he does turn out to be rubbish, well, we're only a year away from an election...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
According to media reports, Turnbull will be Australia's 5th prime minister in the last 5 years.

That's banana republic territory. Didn't expect the Australians to go down that road.

You just wait until the everyday Australians get fed up of it. It'll be like they've gone Mad, driving forwards at Maximum speed towards revolution. They'll be so Furious. It'll be a completely different Road to what anybody expected.

It sure sounds like that would be an event that would need to be Immortalised. Not your average Joe gets to see it.

 sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If people didn't love the NT News before now...

I call shenanigans: that can't be a real NT News front page: there's no mention of crocodiles.

I think the only other politician who was PM for less time was Harold Holt.

And he had an excuse.

No, there were a few others.... And the record is 8 days






Although to be fair, Holt is the only one of those others that Australians under the age of 60 or so would have even heard of...

 motyak wrote:
Well you can "not vote" by showing up, drawing a dick on your ballot and leaving.

Yep. You have to turn up, but you don't have to vote, you can just spoil your ballot.

I've thought for a long time there should be a clear 'I'm casting no vote' option on the ballot, so we can seperate how many people are rejecting all the parties, and how many people just can't write the numbers 1 to 6 in little boxes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Edit.... It probably would have happened last time they ran a referendum on it, but the monarchists managed to shoehorn into the referendum question the idea that the head of state should be elected by parliament rather than by the people, and the people really didn't like that idea.

Not quite. Any constitutional referendum in Australia is actually required to specifically state what the new section will state. So Howard couldn't have just asked 'do you want to be a republic?' He actually had to state exactly how the head of state would be determined in the proposed republic.

Ultimately this means that while the vote for a republic is split, with a large number of voters believing in becoming a republic, but rejecting the specific model proposed. But that's fine, really, the system working as it should. Better to continue to let things default to an acceptable status quo than ask people to vote for vague support of an unknown reform.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He was the leader of the party that won the election. There's no 'deserving' aspect to it. That's how elections in Oz work.

No, it isn't how it works. If you genuinely were unaware of how parliamentary democracy in Australia works, then the events of the other night should have taught that isn't how it works. Or when Rudd replaced Gillard, or before that when Gillard replaced Rudd.

The party in government has the power to choose it's Prime Minister, and it can do this at any time, in accordance with the rules the party itself establishes for deciding its leader. That's how democracy works in Australia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Although to be fair, Holt is the only one of those others that Australians under the age of 60 or so would have even heard of...

I think most people who knew of Holt would have heard of Billy McMahon, but I might be wrong.

Apparently if Abbott had lasted four more days he would have been eligible for an extra 20k in his pension.

 sebster wrote:
Not quite. Any constitutional referendum in Australia is actually required to specifically state what the new section will state. So Howard couldn't have just asked 'do you want to be a republic?' He actually had to state exactly how the head of state would be determined in the proposed republic.

Sure. But the scuttlebutt at the time was that the 'elected by parliament' model was chosen in part because Howard wanted the referendum to fail, and knew that a chunk of the Republican movement would vote against it.


May be just conspiracy theorising, of course, but Howard made no secret at the time of the fact that the referendum was purely happening to fulfil an election promise and that he had no personal interest in constitutional change.

 insaniak wrote:
Sure. But the scuttlebutt at the time was that the 'elected by parliament' model was chosen in part because Howard wanted the referendum to fail, and knew that a chunk of the Republican movement would vote against it.


May be just conspiracy theorising, of course, but Howard made no secret at the time of the fact that the referendum was purely happening to fulfil an election promise and that he had no personal interest in constitutional change.

Sure, and Howard should have kept his own thoughts on the matter secret. Public figures were expected to give comment, but the guy who was formally responsible for proposing the change really needed to keep his mouth shut.

But on the actual proposal I think he acted properly. I mean, if he'd instead put up a proposal that the head of state was decided by popular election, he would have been criticised for tanking the reform by making it too radical a change (I would have voted against that, for instance). I think people wish there had just been a question in general, but constitutionally that wasn't possible.

Unfortunately, Turnbull seems to have made agreements not to change most of the extremely awful policies, so it seems like the only difference in the short term is going to be that he's a better speaker. I'm still vaguely hopeful that he'll spur the ALP into having a tiny bit of spine, but... it's a dim hope.

 chromedog wrote:
I think the only other politician who was PM for less time was Harold Holt.

And he had an excuse.

Which was?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway, I'm glad we're shining a light into Australian politics. You guys are happy to stick your noses into UK and US politics. The tables are turned

One thing I've learned, your politicians are just as bad as ours.