Kim Beazely, the useless election user gets the job.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-26 10:36pm

Good old Kim, the Liberal parties favourite person (after Simon Crean of course) is about to be elected unopposed to the role of Leader of the Opposition by the caucaus.

At this point, 6 more years of Liberal governance are all but certain. But lets look at the real problems:

Mark Latham, who hadn't been the worst fuck up they've had in the past few years for leader, was most likely sold-out by one of Beazely's supporters in order to get him off the job.

The two other contenders bowed out saying that they didn't have the votes in caucaus to get through - I DON'T FUCKING CARE - at least try, or are you going to say at the next Federal election, well actually, we know we're not going to win, so the Liberals can have all our seats.

And Kim Beazely? THE MAN HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE ELECTION FOR THE PARTY THAT IS POSSIBLE! And now he's gotten the job again, un-opposed!

Welcome the ALP - the worlds worst opposition party.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2005-01-26 10:49pm

If Howard resigns and puts Costello (Or some other Liberal) in the next election, could Beazley beat him?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2005-01-26 10:52pm

Sounds like Australia is headed to what Canada was like during the '90s: After the Progressive Conservatives were utterly destroyed in the '93 election, the opposition was too weak, fragmented and/or stupid to prevent the Liberals from being guaranteed every sucessive election, and thus the Liberals could practically do whatever the fuck they wanted short of breaking the law and still rest secure that they'd win the next election.

Hell, they managed to maintain a majority in parliament after the 2000 election despite getting only 38% of the popular vote: If it wasn't for the 2003 sponsorship scandal, they probably would have won an even bigger majority last year, rather than the tenuous minority they had to settle for...

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2005-01-26 11:27pm

If Howard resigns and puts Costello (Or some other Liberal) in the next election, could Beazley beat him?

Don't you mean if Howard dies and Costello (Or some other Liberal) becomes PM?

Howard's not gong to retire.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-26 11:33pm

Yup. Howard dying in office (probably by Costello's hand when he gets sick of waiting) is HOPEFULLY going to lead to compulsorary retirement ages for political figures.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2005-01-26 11:35pm

Maybe, but that will be after Howard dies.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-27 01:11am

My respect for the ALP plummeted, not that it was that high to begin with.

Labor wanted someone 'dependable', someone the voters trusted; they chose BEAZLEY?!?! This is the fat fucker who lost two elections, in a row. He got fired from his job by other Labor power brokers for being a stupid leader, then they put him back in charge? I'm glad I don't vote Labor.

And this incident doesn't look to kind on Rudd or Gillard. The latter had no shot at all, but the former should have at least tried to make a stab at it. But like a pussy he would rather fall on his sword - AGAIN - than make a shot for it. I can't help but feel this will make him look unpopular with the people.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-01-27 01:48am

I don't blame Rudd or Gillard for not challenging when their evidence suggests they don't have the numbers. After Beazele fucks it up again, maybe then they will have the numbers.

God, why did they have to reelect Beazely. The ALP needs some new blood and fresh faces, and Kim isn't it. At least Latham had a tough guy / larrikin image going for him.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-27 03:39am

mr friendly guy wrote:I don't blame Rudd or Gillard for not challenging when their evidence suggests they don't have the numbers. After Beazely fucks it up again, maybe then they will have the numbers.

There really is no choice, after Beazley costs the ALP the next election (unless some SERIOUS shit happens by the Coalition, and it would have to be pretty bad, as the Coalition is enjoying the highest approval rates in years, as well as increasing their majority in the Houses of Parliament), Rudd will look like a godsend. It's too bad he's an idiot, but that's par for the course of ALP politicians.

Hell... any politician, really.

God, why did they have to reelect Beazely. The ALP needs some new blood and fresh faces, and Kim isn't it. At least Latham had a tough guy / larrikin image going for him.

Eh, i don't really care. It remains to be seen how this will turn out.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-01-27 06:38am

mr friendly guy wrote:I don't blame Rudd or Gillard for not challenging when their evidence suggests they don't have the numbers. After Beazele fucks it up again, maybe then they will have the numbers.

God, why did they have to reelect Beazely. The ALP needs some new blood and fresh faces, and Kim isn't it. At least Latham had a tough guy / larrikin image going for him.

Problem is that Latham tossed that image out the window when he got the job.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-01-27 06:46am

Ma Deuce wrote:Sounds like Australia is headed to what Canada was like during the '90s: After the Progressive Conservatives were utterly destroyed in the '93 election, the opposition was too weak, fragmented and/or stupid to prevent the Liberals from being guaranteed every sucessive election, and thus the Liberals could practically do whatever the fuck they wanted short of breaking the law and still rest secure that they'd win the next election.

Our Constitution is a structuralist one. There are very few restrictions on what they can pass in as law socially. But they cant touch how they are elected or various state powers without going to the people, or that the Governer General can sack the government at almost any time.

It is hard to break the law when you can change practically every aspect of it.

Hell, they managed to maintain a majority in parliament after the 2000 election despite getting only 38% of the popular vote: If it wasn't for the 2003 sponsorship scandal, they probably would have won an even bigger majority last year, rather than the tenuous minority they had to settle for...

This isnt even posible in Australia without constitutional changes. A Constitutional change requires 75% of the population and 100% of the states to support it. Out of the ~150 constitution referendums(the only legal avenue to change the Constitution) in just over 200 years, about 3 have passed.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-01-27 06:51am

We need a new party. The welfare-check toting Labour is useless, the Nationals are a joke, the Liberals are... not very. So obviously we need to start a new party. A proper one, with a REASONABLE platform, unlike the Dems and Greens and the Christian Nazi parties.

Not that you CAN, realistically. Democracy WHAT? Course AUians don't just vote the same way every time! They know the issues... :rolls:

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2005-01-27 07:46am

weemadando wrote:Good old Kim, the Liberal parties favourite person (after Simon Crean of course) is about to be elected unopposed to the role of Leader of the Opposition by the caucaus.

At this point, 6 more years of Liberal governance are all but certain. But lets look at the real problems:

Mark Latham, who hadn't been the worst fuck up they've had in the past few years for leader, was most likely sold-out by one of Beazely's supporters in order to get him off the job.

The two other contenders bowed out saying that they didn't have the votes in caucaus to get through - I DON'T FUCKING CARE - at least try, or are you going to say at the next Federal election, well actually, we know we're not going to win, so the Liberals can have all our seats.

And Kim Beazely? THE MAN HAS LOST EVERY SINGLE ELECTION FOR THE PARTY THAT IS POSSIBLE! And now he's gotten the job again, un-opposed!

Welcome the ALP - the worlds worst opposition party.

Well in contrast, Howard lost how many positions? He was the Treasure then lost that. Then he lost that. Made a few failed leadership challanges. It was only after they lost in 93 to Keating that he fainly ascended to the leadership. And in 96 Labour of course got DRUBBED, Keating didn't know when to leave.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-01-27 08:38am

Federal Labour needs Victoria's sex God to run;

You will worship the Bracks, you will love the Bracks!

I made my feelings on Labour's weakness' clear in the other thread we had.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-27 05:32pm

Steve Bracks? *groan*

I want Jeff Kennet back.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2005-01-28 09:41am

Chris OFarrell wrote:Well in contrast, Howard lost how many positions? He was the Treasure then lost that. Then he lost that. Made a few failed leadership challanges. It was only after they lost in 93 to Keating that he fainly ascended to the leadership. And in 96 Labour of course got DRUBBED, Keating didn't know when to leave.

Yeah, but Beazley's not Howard. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Howard died and then clawed his way out of his coffin at his funeral so he could run for Prime Minister again.

I heard Beazley on the 7:30 report this evening, comparing himself to Howard, and I just thought "you're never going to get anywhere doing that, Kim. You're not Howard, don't pretend to be him." I guess part of the problem is that Howard's the dominant force in Australian politics and Labor seems to have forgotten how to define their leaders independently from him.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-01-28 09:51am

Astute observation. Labor has been reacting for years, never going on the offensive, because Howard is that effective as a politician and a charismatic leader that he can blow any one the ALP puts forward out of the water. Even when it was clear he won, it was also clear the Labor ministers are still fracturous. And the other thought that occurs, Beazley can't inspire a lame horse to jump if you gave him the chance, and he's had several.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-01-30 08:42am

Stark wrote:We need a new party. The welfare-check toting Labour is useless, the Nationals are a joke, the Liberals are... not very. So obviously we need to start a new party. A proper one, with a REASONABLE platform, unlike the Dems and Greens and the Christian Nazi parties.

Lets not forget Pauline "lets print more money" Hanson's One Nation party which effectively disowned her.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Kim Beazely, the useless election user gets the job.

Kim Beazely, the useless election user gets the job.

Re: Kim Beazely, the useless election user gets the job.

Re: Kim Beazely, the useless election user gets the job.