apx 50/50 TPP polling for tweedle dee/dum

The recipe for a hung parliament.

So where will the alliances fall this time.

Will Abbott get in bed with Katter
Will Rudd go down on Clive
Will Greens be the King Makers


Whats your call on this hung parliament about to be voted in.

My bet is that Abbott will just scrape though and have six mths of doing nothing while a hung hostile parliament gives him a taste of his theory of the opposition opposing everything.
Abbott will just win but he will only last 6 mths when he calls a DD and gets booted out

adelcrow wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 6:32pm:

hung hostile parliament gives him a taste of his theory of the opposition opposing everything.

You think that would be a good thing for the country?

Why do I get the suspicion you hate Abbott so much you'd see the country fail just to spite him?

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 6:27pm:

apx 50/50 TPP polling for tweedle dee/dum The recipe for a hung parliament. So where will the alliances fall this time. Will Abbott get in bed with Katter Will Rudd go down on Clive Will Greens be the King Makers Whats your call on this hung parliament about to be voted in.

Palmer will win nothing.
Abbott picks up both retiring independents seats..

Greens will maybe stay as they are at best. They've lost a lot of charisma replacing Brown with a nobody.

The election can be won by either.  Labor or Liberal.  It will be a lot closer than what people think.  One hopes the Greens hold the balance of power in the senate, no matter who is prime minister Rudd or Abbott.   :)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 6:40pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:32pm: hung hostile parliament gives him a taste of his theory of the opposition opposing everything. You think that would be a good thing for the country? Why do I get the suspicion you hate Abbott so much you'd see the country fail just to spite him?

You seem to think the coalitions last three years have even good. ::)

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:40pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:32pm: hung hostile parliament gives him a taste of his theory of the opposition opposing everything. You think that would be a good thing for the country? Why do I get the suspicion you hate Abbott so much you'd see the country fail just to spite him? You seem to think the coalitions last three years have even good. ::)

What do you base that on?
I've said the last 3 years have been a Fking shambles of a Government.
I've also said I don't think Abbott would be a good PM and have always wanted Turnbull.

None of those opinions of mine have changed in 3 years.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:11pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:08pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:40pm: adelcrow wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:32pm: hung hostile parliament gives him a taste of his theory of the opposition opposing everything. You think that would be a good thing for the country? Why do I get the suspicion you hate Abbott so much you'd see the country fail just to spite him? You seem to think the coalitions last three years have even good. ::) What do you base that on? I've said the last 3 years have been a Fking shambles of a Government. I've also said I don't think Abbott would be a good PM and have always wanted Turnbull. None of those opinions of mine have changed in 3 years.

You must be getting confused, what with trying to keep track of Australia, England, South Africa and the  USA ... no wonder you think it has been a shambles

It has been a shambles.

Debt increased 334%.
Not a single surplus.
Tax increased on the middle incomes.
Benefits cut - including to single mothers.
Now a fast tanking economy and continued job losses.

Yep, Fking shambles.

But you're objective right John?
Not like you'll definitely vote Labor eh?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:19pm:

It has been a shambles. Debt increased 334%. Not a single surplus. Tax increased on the middle incomes. Benefits cut - including to single mothers. Now a fast tanking economy and continued job losses. Yep, Fking shambles. But you're objective right John? Not like you'll definitely vote Labor eh?

I'd be willing to bet you haven't voted labor federally (in Australia) since they first let you vote.

Anyone objective would look at that debt and understand that we would most likely be in a similar debt position regardless of labor or liberal, and even worse, if we had taken up the liberal option, we would most likely be in recession .... but you're objective right dopey?

How objective are you?

Did you vote ALP last time? Going to vote ALP this time?

At least be honest.

Uhhhhhh don't think the Libs would have let in 46,000 bludgers, just a 12 billion dollar thought John.

Just like to know where all those hundreds of billions of dollars Labor is borrowing is going, other than illegal bludgers of course.

red baron wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:28pm:

Uhhhhhh don't think the Libs would have let in 46,000 bludgers, just a 12 billion dollar thought John. Just like to know where all those hundreds of billions of dollars Labor is borrowing is going, other than illegal bludgers of course.

why Red? DO you honestly believe the deficit has all gone to Asylum seekers? They ought to lock you up in detention if you are that crazy.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:26pm:

How objective are you? Did you vote ALP last time? Going to vote ALP this time? At least be honest.

Are you dam stupid or are you just plain stupid? I've told you many times that I consider myself a labor man ... don't try this 'at least be honest' crap with me, you wouldn't know what honest is ....

by the way, do you think I didn't notice that you avoided responding to my comment about you voting labor???  ... before you question anyone else's honesty, at least have the decency to be honest with yourself.

I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)!

So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 6:42pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 6:27pm: apx 50/50 TPP polling for tweedle dee/dum The recipe for a hung parliament. So where will the alliances fall this time. Will Abbott get in bed with Katter Will Rudd go down on Clive Will Greens be the King Makers Whats your call on this hung parliament about to be voted in. Palmer will win nothing. agreed in fact he could lose a lot of.money Abbott picks up both retiring independents seats.. probably.. I think the people in the independent seats wont be fooled by rudd Greens will maybe stay as they are at best. They've lost a lot of charisma replacing Brown with a nobody.

I really thought they would lose.. but now we have the PNG plot..I think that could go in greens favor..an awful lot of people dont like it..rumors are abound here rudd will announce the election tomorrow..there is going to be a protest tomorrow regarding PNG.....an uprising..oh gawd!

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime?

in effect, no one. From the time an election is called government goes into a holding pattern until a winner is declared.

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:39pm:

I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime?

unfortunately we have what we call independen ts.. they are people who can run for govt without being part of a party..in the last election. 4 independents got seat in govt.. the two major parties. were hung.. meaning neither had enough seats to run the govt.. so both parties had to do deals.. make offers to the independents to get their votes...1 independent went with the Libs.. the other 3 went Labor... so labor under Julia Gillard became the govt..

it isnt the best as you can imagine..so we at least I am hoping it doesnt happen again...

it gives far too much POWER to minorities..

if its unworkable we should I believe have another election..we shouldnt have people who only get over the line with preferences telling the govt what they can and cant do..

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:26pm: How objective are you? Did you vote ALP last time? Going to vote ALP this time? At least be honest. Are you dam stupid or are you just plain stupid? I've told you many times that I consider myself a labor man ... don't try this 'at least be honest' crap with me, you wouldn't know what honest is .... by the way, do you think I didn't notice that you avoided responding to my comment about you voting labor???  ... before you question anyone else's honesty, at least have the decency to be honest with yourself.

So a description of "a Labor man" means you won't vote anyone else, don't vote on policy and are basically a cheerleader rather than basing around policies....

Never understood such people.

cods wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:52pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? unfortunately we have what we call independen ts.. they are people who can run for govt without being part of a party..in the last election. 4 independents got seat in govt.. the two major parties. were hung.. meaning neither had enough seats to run the govt.. so both parties had to do deals.. make offers to the independents to get their votes...1 independent went with the Libs.. the other 3 went Labor... so labor under Julia Gillard became the govt.. it isnt the best as you can imagine..so we at least I am hoping it doesnt happen again... it gives far too much POWER to minorities.. if its unworkable we should I believe have another election..we shouldnt have people who only get over the line with preferences telling the govt what they can and cant do..

Wrong cods, the conservatives have had to have coalition for seventy odd years, so the TWO MAJOR PARTIES DID NOT HANG or HUNG, the conservatives, even with a coalition could not form a government.

cods wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:52pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? unfortunately we have what we call independen ts.. they are people who can run for govt without being part of a party..in the last election. 4 independents got seat in govt.. the two major parties. were hung.. meaning neither had enough seats to run the govt.. so both parties had to do deals.. make offers to the independents to get their votes...1 independent went with the Libs.. the other 3 went Labor... so labor under Julia Gillard became the govt.. it isnt the best as you can imagine..so we at least I am hoping it doesnt happen again...

Actually, the system is EXACTLY the same for our House of Representatives.  Theoretically, its entirely possible that the same could happen here although highly unlikely.  After an election and the new Congress is sworn in, all members vote for the Speaker who effectively runs the House.  The Speaker is 3rd in line to the Presidency -- both parties vote for their leader (usually the majority and minority leaders) to be the Speaker.  Whoever has the most seats wins; however, it's entirely possible that there could be a tie with the possibility of one or more independents to "woo" to one side or the other.  However, that's not likely!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:35pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:26pm: How objective are you? Did you vote ALP last time? Going to vote ALP this time? At least be honest. Are you dam stupid or are you just plain stupid? I've told you many times that I consider myself a labor man ... don't try this 'at least be honest' crap with me, you wouldn't know what honest is .... by the way, do you think I didn't notice that you avoided responding to my comment about you voting labor???  ... before you question anyone else's honesty, at least have the decency to be honest with yourself. So a description of "a Labor man" means you won't vote anyone else, don't vote on policy and are basically a cheerleader rather than basing around policies.... Never understood such people.

And I've voted for 5 different parties or Independents in my time.

It's called voting based on analysis of policy. Some of us have that ability rather than being a lemming.

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 7:51pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? in effect, no one. From the time an election is called government goes into a holding pattern until a winner is declared.

you are wrong.  Parliament is closed down but executive power remains with the prime minister and cabinet until a new PM and cabinet are appointed. Howard was still PM the day after the election n he lost.  The convention of course is that post election, the PM (or premier) makes no decisions but it is only a convention.  technically, an election is simply to choose anew parliament which itelsef chooses a new executive (PM and ministers)

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:01pm:

cods wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:52pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? unfortunately we have what we call independen ts.. they are people who can run for govt without being part of a party..in the last election. 4 independents got seat in govt.. the two major parties. were hung.. meaning neither had enough seats to run the govt.. so both parties had to do deals.. make offers to the independents to get their votes...1 independent went with the Libs.. the other 3 went Labor... so labor under Julia Gillard became the govt.. it isnt the best as you can imagine..so we at least I am hoping it doesnt happen again... Actually, the system is EXACTLY the same for our House of Representatives.  Theoretically, its entirely possible that the same could happen here although highly unlikely.  After an election and the new Congress is sworn in, all members vote for the Speaker who effectively runs the House.  The Speaker is 3rd in line to the Presidency -- both parties vote for their leader (usually the majority and minority leaders) to be the Speaker.  Whoever has the most seats wins; however, it's entirely possible that there could be a tie with the possibility of one or more independents to "woo" to one side or the other.  However, that's not likely!

The US is one more party than north korea isn't it?

Dem / Rep

Texas, thats more a republican state?

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:14pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:01pm: cods wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:52pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? unfortunately we have what we call independen ts.. they are people who can run for govt without being part of a party..in the last election. 4 independents got seat in govt.. the two major parties. were hung.. meaning neither had enough seats to run the govt.. so both parties had to do deals.. make offers to the independents to get their votes...1 independent went with the Libs.. the other 3 went Labor... so labor under Julia Gillard became the govt.. it isnt the best as you can imagine..so we at least I am hoping it doesnt happen again... Actually, the system is EXACTLY the same for our House of Representatives.  Theoretically, its entirely possible that the same could happen here although highly unlikely.  After an election and the new Congress is sworn in, all members vote for the Speaker who effectively runs the House.  The Speaker is 3rd in line to the Presidency -- both parties vote for their leader (usually the majority and minority leaders) to be the Speaker.  Whoever has the most seats wins; however, it's entirely possible that there could be a tie with the possibility of one or more independents to "woo" to one side or the other.  However, that's not likely! The US is one more party than north korea isn't it? Dem / Rep

lol, unfortunately!


Quote:

Texas, thats more a republican state?

Very much so although demographic shifts suggest it could possibly reach battleground state status within the next 10-15 years.

There wont be a hung parliament, Rudd will get a clear majority.

So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others.

Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have?

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:24pm:

So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have?

Why would it be hard to imagine the GREENS entering into an agreement with the Liberals? If you know anything about our politics you would know both major parties are centre right yet the GREEENS have an agreement to back supply with Labor, and that's all it is. There is no formal coalition, unlike the Liberal party, Labor can and does rule in its own right, with just independents or the GREENS in the last election guaranteeing supply. You do know what guaranteeing supply means don't you?
Why would a Texan won't to read let alone post on an aussie political forum? Go on humour me.

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:24pm:

So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have?

I'm tempted to begin with...."Howdy, Tex."
But I will behave myself and refrain from doing so....

You ask why the Greens would want to align themselves With the Libs...
Damn good question, and one I am trying to get an answer to myself in another thread.
Without much success, I might add.

:)

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:24pm:

So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have?

The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment.

Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre.

Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created.

Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP
Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs

Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party.

Australia is currently a right wing country heading right.

If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre.

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:31pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? Why would it be hard to imagine the GREENS entering into an agreement with the Liberals? If you know anything about our politics you would know both major parties are centre right yet the GREEENS have an agreement to back supply with Labor, and that's all it is. There is no formal coalition, unlike the Liberal party, Labor can and does rule in its own right, with just independents or the GREENS in the last election guaranteeing supply. You do know what guaranteeing supply means don't you? Why would a Texan won't to read let alone post on an aussie political forum? Go on humour me.

Manners, skip....
The bloke says he is trying to learn ....

:)

skippy. wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:31pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? Why would it be hard to imagine the GREENS entering into an agreement with the Liberals? If you know anything about our politics you would know both major parties are centre right yet the GREEENS have an agreement to back supply with Labor, and that's all it is. There is no formal coalition, unlike the Liberal party, Labor can and does rule in its own right, with just independents or the GREENS in the last election guaranteeing supply. You do know what guaranteeing supply means don't you? Why would a Texan won't to read let alone post on an aussie political forum? Go on humour me.

I don't know anything at all about your politics -- that's why I'm here.

I'm a Texan on an Aussie political forum; because, I've been studying American politics since I was ten.  I'm a political consultant, and I've been working on campaigns for a very long time.  My passion is both history and politics -- I hold dual degrees in both with a history focus on early-American political theory and a political science degree with a focus on political philosophy and constitutional theory.  In short -- I love politics.

I'm on this forum because I've become interested in the domestic politics of other countries, and I want to learn.  :shrug:  I realized I know very little about Aussie politics, so this is one of my ways of rectifying that situation.

I certainly come in peace -- I'm just trying to learn and share any of my knowledge to anyone who asks.

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:37pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? Why would it be hard to imagine the GREENS entering into an agreement with the Liberals? If you know anything about our politics you would know both major parties are centre right yet the GREEENS have an agreement to back supply with Labor, and that's all it is. There is no formal coalition, unlike the Liberal party, Labor can and does rule in its own right, with just independents or the GREENS in the last election guaranteeing supply. You do know what guaranteeing supply means don't you? Why would a Texan won't to read let alone post on an aussie political forum? Go on humour me. I don't know anything at all about your politics -- that's why I'm here. I'm a Texan on an Aussie political forum; because, I've been studying American politics since I was ten.  I'm a political consultant, and I've been working on campaigns for a very long time.  My passion is both history and politics -- I hold dual degrees in both with a history focus on early-American political history and a political science degree with a focus on political philosophy and constitutional theory.  In short -- I love politics. I'm on this forum because I've become interested in the domestic politics of other countries, and I want to learn.  :shrug:  I realized I know very little about Aussie politics, so this is one of my ways of rectifying that situation. I certainly come in peace -- I'm just trying to learn and share any of my knowledge to anyone who asks.

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:24pm:

So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have?

It would be hard to imagine the Greens  entering a coalition with the Liberal Party as it is at the moment - since John Howard it has become a home for lunatic conservatives like Cory Bernardi and Tony Abbott.

A Liberal Party that actually stood for what the Liberal Party originally stood for - the Liberal Party of Menzies, Gorton and Fraser - say, led by someone like Malcolm Turnbull could easily form a coalition with the Greens.

Hopefully, one day,  the nutbags like Minchin, Bernardi, Abbott, Mirabella, etc etc etc will disappear up Sarah Palin's arsehole and a real Liberal Party may re-emerge

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:36pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre.

Interesting!  This actually astonishes me.  I had no idea that Australia was shifting to the right.  Can you give me any obvious reasons as to why this happening? 

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:34pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? I'm tempted to begin with...."Howdy, Tex." But I will behave myself and refrain from doing so.... You ask why the Greens would want to align themselves With the Libs... Damn good question, and one I am trying to get an answer to myself in another thread. Without much success, I might add. :)

If Greens can manipulate the situation where the moderates in the Liberal Party gain control I think that would be a great outcome.
Think in some areas Greens could work with them.

Moderates Liberals are compassionate and decent people.
Could Labor work with the likes of Malcolm Turnbull?

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:36pm:

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre.

You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party....

;)

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:37pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? Why would it be hard to imagine the GREENS entering into an agreement with the Liberals? If you know anything about our politics you would know both major parties are centre right yet the GREEENS have an agreement to back supply with Labor, and that's all it is. There is no formal coalition, unlike the Liberal party, Labor can and does rule in its own right, with just independents or the GREENS in the last election guaranteeing supply. You do know what guaranteeing supply means don't you? Why would a Texan won't to read let alone post on an aussie political forum? Go on humour me. I don't know anything at all about your politics -- that's why I'm here. I'm a Texan on an Aussie political forum; because, I've been studying American politics since I was ten.  I'm a political consultant, and I've been working on campaigns for a very long time.  My passion is both history and politics -- I hold dual degrees in both with a history focus on early-American political theory and a political science degree with a focus on political philosophy and constitutional theory.  In short -- I love politics. I'm on this forum because I've become interested in the domestic politics of other countries, and I want to learn.  :shrug:  I realized I know very little about Aussie politics, so this is one of my ways of rectifying that situation. I certainly come in peace -- I'm just trying to learn and share any of my knowledge to anyone who asks.

Good on you.

Happy to answer any questions you have.

Although I have one to start with:

You wrote:
I hold dual degrees in both with a history focus on early-American political theory and a political science degree with a focus on political philosophy and constitutional theory. 

WTF is "political science"!?!?!?  I frikking hate that term

WTF is scientific about politics?

Stupidest expression I have ever heard in my life.  Like someone referring to  "economic science"..  Or "social science".

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:41pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:34pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? I'm tempted to begin with...."Howdy, Tex." But I will behave myself and refrain from doing so.... You ask why the Greens would want to align themselves With the Libs... Damn good question, and one I am trying to get an answer to myself in another thread. Without much success, I might add. :) If Greens can manipulate the situation where the moderates in the Liberal Party gain control I think that would be a great outcome. Think in some areas Greens could work with them. Moderates Liberals are compassionate and decent people. Could Labor work with the likes of Malcolm Turnbull?

Again, this is very interesting.  Setting aside the policy issues involved -- it's most interesting purely from an electoral standpoint.  If there is a power struggle within the Liberty Party (the same is happening within our Republican Party) and the Green Party is banking on the moderate wing winning out then supporting the moderates in their leadership bid would create leverage and possibly move the Liberal party toward the center or even center-left. 

The ideological poles of our two major parties shifted once before, so it certainly wouldn't be unheard of for a political party to completely shift ideological poles.  Is that a distinct possibility?

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:37pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? Why would it be hard to imagine the GREENS entering into an agreement with the Liberals? If you know anything about our politics you would know both major parties are centre right yet the GREEENS have an agreement to back supply with Labor, and that's all it is. There is no formal coalition, unlike the Liberal party, Labor can and does rule in its own right, with just independents or the GREENS in the last election guaranteeing supply. You do know what guaranteeing supply means don't you? Why would a Texan won't to read let alone post on an aussie political forum? Go on humour me. I don't know anything at all about your politics -- that's why I'm here. I'm a Texan on an Aussie political forum; because, I've been studying American politics since I was ten.  I'm a political consultant, and I've been working on campaigns for a very long time.  My passion is both history and politics -- I hold dual degrees in both with a history focus on early-American political theory and a political science degree with a focus on political philosophy and constitutional theory.  In short -- I love politics. I'm on this forum because I've become interested in the domestic politics of other countries, and I want to learn.  :shrug:  I realized I know very little about Aussie politics, so this is one of my ways of rectifying that situation. I certainly come in peace -- I'm just trying to learn and share any of my knowledge to anyone who asks.

SLOL.....
You've just left everyone on here for dead.....

Love it!!

;D ;D ;D

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:41pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. Interesting!  This actually astonishes me.  I had no idea that Australia was shifting to the right.  Can you give me any obvious reasons as to why this happening?

No.  Not really.

An easy, shallow answer is that we are blindly copying the USA, and our "right" is copying tea-party strategies (which they are)

Buggered if I know why people are falling for it though.

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:41pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. Interesting!  This actually astonishes me.  I had no idea that Australia was shifting to the right.  Can you give me any obvious reasons as to why this happening?

Xenophobia and a wealthy nation who has turned mean spirited.
I personally think it's due to the population make up. A lot of baby boomers ageing and so thinking smaller.
May have to wait until a large chunk of this older group go to god, or a major issue occurring to bring Australia back toward centre.

There again if Greens and others can assist the moderates in the Libs it will start to force Lab to revalue their own lack of principles and so force a change earlier.

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:45pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:41pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:34pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? I'm tempted to begin with...."Howdy, Tex." But I will behave myself and refrain from doing so.... You ask why the Greens would want to align themselves With the Libs... Damn good question, and one I am trying to get an answer to myself in another thread. Without much success, I might add. :) If Greens can manipulate the situation where the moderates in the Liberal Party gain control I think that would be a great outcome. Think in some areas Greens could work with them. Moderates Liberals are compassionate and decent people. Could Labor work with the likes of Malcolm Turnbull? Again, this is very interesting.  Setting aside the policy issues involved -- it's most interesting purely from an electoral standpoint.  If there is a power struggle within the Liberty Party (the same is happening within our Republican Party) and the Green Party is banking on the moderate wing winning out then supporting the moderates in their leadership bid would create leverage and possibly move the Liberal party toward the center or even center-left.  The ideological poles of our two major parties shifted once before, so it certainly wouldn't be unheard of for a political party to completely shift ideological poles.  Is that a distinct possibility?

Hard to see at this point - but yes - I think it is a distinct possibility.

Nice idea - I think only an outsider could have come up with it - it is just so crazy it could actually be right.

Good to get your perspective.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Happy to answer any questions you have. Although I have one to start with: You wrote: I hold dual degrees in both with a history focus on early-American political theory and a political science degree with a focus on political philosophy and constitutional theory.  WTF is "political science"!?!?!?  I frikking hate that term WTF is scientific about politics? Stupidest expression I have ever heard in my life.  Like someone referring to  "economic science"..  Or "social science".

I completely agree.  In fact, I think political science should be treated as a branch of sociology but alas...

To answer your question, it boils down to political "scientists" wanting to quantify the political process.  I hate it.  Fundamentally, politics is about human nature and I don't believe you can quantify human nature.  Politics is art not math.  Political scientists seem to always be in search of that elusive formula of polling data and demographic information that wil allow them to predict the future as if they were gazing into a crystal ball.  It's nonsense.

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:42pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party.... ;)

And Labor's left faction ... are they being led right so to make the party more electable in the short term.

Rhetorical, more than a question.

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:41pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:34pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? I'm tempted to begin with...."Howdy, Tex." But I will behave myself and refrain from doing so.... You ask why the Greens would want to align themselves With the Libs... Damn good question, and one I am trying to get an answer to myself in another thread. Without much success, I might add. :) If Greens can manipulate the situation where the moderates in the Liberal Party gain control I think that would be a great outcome. Think in some areas Greens could work with them. Moderates Liberals are compassionate and decent people. Could Labor work with the likes of Malcolm Turnbull?

Sure, green, but I'm inclined to think that's a pretty big 'IF'.

Regarding Turnbull, I think we were, and that's why he got shafted.

While the "Old, Faceless Men" of the Libs are calling the shots, decent men, like Turnbull, don't stand a chance.
Having said that, I have noticed a slight shift in Turnbull's attitude over the past year;
Not as relaxed and open as he used to be.
Even moreso with Hockey.
I used to regard Joe as a good bloke; Now I wouldn't p!ss on him if he was on fire.....

:)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:51pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? in effect, no one. From the time an election is called government goes into a holding pattern until a winner is declared. you are wrong.  Parliament is closed down but executive power remains with the prime minister and cabinet until a new PM and cabinet are appointed. Howard was still PM the day after the election n he lost.  The convention of course is that post election, the PM (or premier) makes no decisions but it is only a convention.  technically, an election is simply to choose anew parliament which itelsef chooses a new executive (PM and ministers)

IN EFFECT Learn to read you dam idiot. 

No major decisions or actions are taken apart from minor mundane housekeeping duties to keep everything ticking over.

FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:37pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:31pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? Why would it be hard to imagine the GREENS entering into an agreement with the Liberals? If you know anything about our politics you would know both major parties are centre right yet the GREEENS have an agreement to back supply with Labor, and that's all it is. There is no formal coalition, unlike the Liberal party, Labor can and does rule in its own right, with just independents or the GREENS in the last election guaranteeing supply. You do know what guaranteeing supply means don't you? Why would a Texan won't to read let alone post on an aussie political forum? Go on humour me. I don't know anything at all about your politics -- that's why I'm here. I'm a Texan on an Aussie political forum; because, I've been studying American politics since I was ten.  I'm a political consultant, and I've been working on campaigns for a very long time.  My passion is both history and politics -- I hold dual degrees in both with a history focus on early-American political theory and a political science degree with a focus on political philosophy and constitutional theory.  In short -- I love politics. I'm on this forum because I've become interested in the domestic politics of other countries, and I want to learn.  :shrug:  I realized I know very little about Aussie politics, so this is one of my ways of rectifying that situation. I certainly come in peace -- I'm just trying to learn and share any of my knowledge to anyone who asks.

Welcome.

I'm just the man to help you learn. ;)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:35pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:26pm: How objective are you? Did you vote ALP last time? Going to vote ALP this time? At least be honest. Are you dam stupid or are you just plain stupid? I've told you many times that I consider myself a labor man ... don't try this 'at least be honest' crap with me, you wouldn't know what honest is .... by the way, do you think I didn't notice that you avoided responding to my comment about you voting labor???  ... before you question anyone else's honesty, at least have the decency to be honest with yourself. So a description of "a Labor man" means you won't vote anyone else, don't vote on policy and are basically a cheerleader rather than basing around policies.... Never understood such people. And I've voted for 5 different parties or Independents in my time. It's called voting based on analysis of policy. Some of us have that ability rather than being a lemming.

Nice try retard ... the question was how many times have you voted labor in an Australian Federal Election ... come on Andrei, surely someone who has a degree like you can understand such a simple question?

(I don't give a rats what you voted for in England.)

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:42pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party.... ;) And Labor's left faction ... are they being led right so to make the party more electable in the short term. Rhetorical, more than a question.

Point taken, but would you rather a centre to moderate-right, or a far-right nut-job party running the show?

:)

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 9:06pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:51pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:42pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party.... ;) And Labor's left faction ... are they being led right so to make the party more electable in the short term. Rhetorical, more than a question. Point taken, but would you rather a centre to moderate-right, or a far-right nut-job party running the show? :)

Kevin Rudd on asylum policy is on the far right.

Who would have thought he'd lurch further right than Tony Abbott and who'd have thought so many alleged Labor people would follow.

What price morality in the 21st century?

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 9:06pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:51pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:42pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party.... ;) And Labor's left faction ... are they being led right so to make the party more electable in the short term. Rhetorical, more than a question. Point taken, but would you rather a centre to moderate-right, or a far-right nut-job party running the show? :)

A left wing party
i.e Greens.

either in majority or in alliance/coalition with others who share some of our values.

In between we will work with whatever the voter's elect.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 9:16pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 9:06pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:51pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:42pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party.... ;) And Labor's left faction ... are they being led right so to make the party more electable in the short term. Rhetorical, more than a question. Point taken, but would you rather a centre to moderate-right, or a far-right nut-job party running the show? :) Kevin Rudd on asylum policy is on the far right. Who would have thought he'd lurch further right than Tony Abbott and who'd have thought so many alleged Labor people would follow. What price morality in the 21st century?

are you running Andrei?

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 9:20pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 9:06pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:51pm: Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:42pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party.... ;) And Labor's left faction ... are they being led right so to make the party more electable in the short term. Rhetorical, more than a question. Point taken, but would you rather a centre to moderate-right, or a far-right nut-job party running the show? :) A left wing party i.e Greens. either in majority or in alliance/coalition with others who share some of our values. In between we will work with whatever the voter's elect.

LOL......
Yeah!!
Should have thought that out before hitting the Post button.....

;)

Andrei the only assumption one can make from your refusal to answer the question is that you have Never voted labor in a federal election ..... tell me again about rusted on voters you dam hypocrite!

____ wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Lobo wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:42pm: ____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party.... ;) And Labor's left faction ... are they being led right so to make the party more electable in the short term. Rhetorical, more than a question.

Labors left is left of Labors right but not left of centre.

Lobo wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:42pm:

____ wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:36pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:24pm: So your minor parties trend left/right...it's hard for me to imagine your Green Party entering a coalition with the Liberal Party (hard to get used to your center-right party being referred to as 'Liberal').  What do they have to gain?  Presumably they're being promised a portion of their party's agenda becomes part of the government's agenda which is something both Liberal and Labor could promise....so why would they ever enter into a coalition with the Liberal party?  I use the Greens as an example, but I'm sure there are others. Does everything hinge on the independents?  How many of them do you have? The Libs are roughly 50/50 small l moderate liberals and conservatives. A battle is going on within the party which is under control at the moment. Lab was a centre left which is now right of centre. Since the Libs looked like getting a landslide, splinter parties were created. Katter KAP // Clive Palmer's PUP Then we have Nats who are in coalition with the Libs Then we have the Greens, the only left wing party. Australia is currently a right wing country heading right. If The small L Libs get control of their party, Australian politics will move more centre. You forgot to mention that the "small l's" allowed themselves to be bullied into electing a nut-job to run their party....

The small l's in the Liberals are almost extinct, there are so few left that they have no say at all.

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2013 at 8:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:10pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:51pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? in effect, no one. From the time an election is called government goes into a holding pattern until a winner is declared. you are wrong.  Parliament is closed down but executive power remains with the prime minister and cabinet until a new PM and cabinet are appointed. Howard was still PM the day after the election n he lost.  The convention of course is that post election, the PM (or premier) makes no decisions but it is only a convention.  technically, an election is simply to choose anew parliament which itelsef chooses a new executive (PM and ministers) IN EFFECT Learn to read you dam idiot.  No major decisions or actions are taken apart from minor mundane housekeeping duties to keep everything ticking over.

you clearly don't know much about politics and the constitution which is why I wrote it.  it is not well known that the PM isn't thrown out after losing an election. He remains PM until relinquishing his commission and advising he GG to ask the other leader to form govt and become PM.  This happens some days AFTER the election.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 1:08pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 8:10pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:51pm: FrostedTex wrote on Jul 21st, 2013 at 7:39pm: I'm trying to follow along here, so my deep apologies if I clearly have no clue what the hell is going on (which I don't)! So, if your Parliament is split 50/50 then is it simply a mad scramble to see which of the two major parties can put together a coalition government?  Who governs in the meantime? in effect, no one. From the time an election is called government goes into a holding pattern until a winner is declared. you are wrong.  Parliament is closed down but executive power remains with the prime minister and cabinet until a new PM and cabinet are appointed. Howard was still PM the day after the election n he lost.  The convention of course is that post election, the PM (or premier) makes no decisions but it is only a convention.  technically, an election is simply to choose anew parliament which itelsef chooses a new executive (PM and ministers) IN EFFECT Learn to read you dam idiot.  No major decisions or actions are taken apart from minor mundane housekeeping duties to keep everything ticking over. you clearly don't know much about politics and the constitution which is why I wrote it.  it is not well known that the PM isn't thrown out after losing an election. He remains PM until relinquishing his commission and advising he GG to ask the other leader to form govt and become PM.  This happens some days AFTER the election.

keep digging that hole dopey

There will effectivley be a hung parlaiment if Abbott wins anyway as he wont have control of the upper house, not even remotley.

Good luck pulling a DD on the Australian people, they dont like pollies as it is, let alone pollies who want to make them vote again because they cant get along.

Abbott can whitewash labor next election but they wont get control of the senate so good luck scrapping a carbon tax and mining tax with the greens still holding the balance.

Verge wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 3:37pm:

There will effectivley be a hung parlaiment if Abbott wins anyway as he wont have control of the upper house, not even remotley. Good luck pulling a DD on the Australian people, they dont like pollies as it is, let alone pollies who want to make them vote again because they cant get along. Abbott can whitewash labor next election but they wont get control of the senate so good luck scrapping a carbon tax and mining tax with the greens still holding the balance.

you mean like the vast majority of governments in Australia?  Very few have had control of the senate and rely on negotiation for passage of their bills.  How do you think Gillard got bills thru the senate?  It largely wasn't as a result of Green support since they voted against almost everything.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 3:37pm: There will effectivley be a hung parlaiment if Abbott wins anyway as he wont have control of the upper house, not even remotley. Good luck pulling a DD on the Australian people, they dont like pollies as it is, let alone pollies who want to make them vote again because they cant get along. Abbott can whitewash labor next election but they wont get control of the senate so good luck scrapping a carbon tax and mining tax with the greens still holding the balance. you mean like the vast majority of governments in Australia?  Very few have had control of the senate and rely on negotiation for passage of their bills.  How do you think Gillard got bills thru the senate?  It largely wasn't as a result of Green support since they voted against almost everything.

So Liberals voted in the Carbon Tax.
Someones been sniffing the solvents again.

Abbott is going into an election offering himself up on a platter as a lame duck.

____ wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 6:52pm: Verge wrote on Jul 22nd, 2013 at 3:37pm: There will effectivley be a hung parlaiment if Abbott wins anyway as he wont have control of the upper house, not even remotley. Good luck pulling a DD on the Australian people, they dont like pollies as it is, let alone pollies who want to make them vote again because they cant get along. Abbott can whitewash labor next election but they wont get control of the senate so good luck scrapping a carbon tax and mining tax with the greens still holding the balance. you mean like the vast majority of governments in Australia?  Very few have had control of the senate and rely on negotiation for passage of their bills.  How do you think Gillard got bills thru the senate?  It largely wasn't as a result of Green support since they voted against almost everything. So Liberals voted in the Carbon Tax. Someones been sniffing the solvents again. Abbott is going into an election offering himself up on a platter as a lame duck.

you can be such a buffoon.  the Greens supported very little of Gillards legislation and she needed Abbotts support to pass them.  The CT and Mining Tax were two notable exceptions.  The complexities of English language and its explicit and implicit meanings does seem to elud you most of the time.