Aussie election commentary.

pellaeons_scion · Post by **pellaeons_scion** » 2004-10-09 10:48am

Awesome...Three more years of the Gnome. All my hopes and dreams have been fulfilled.

I cannot believe it. Im hoping that when I wake up tomorrow it will all be a bad dream..

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-09 10:52am

Gandalf wrote:
Stofsk wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote: Wahhhhh! I am not happy.
Why? You don't live here.
They're practically our 7th state.

But Oz is practically our 51st state with the re-election of Howard.
Does that make New Zealand a US county?

One important difference between Howard and Bush is that Bush is busy sucking Mexican illegal immigrant cock while Howard deports his illegal immigrants.

If it wasn't for his firearm stances, I'd elect Howard as President of the US instead of Bush or Kerry.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-10-09 11:07am

So........... its official huh? Anyone wanna hazard a guess why they won?

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-10-09 11:12am

Glocksman wrote:If it wasn't for his firearm stances, I'd elect Howard as President of the US instead of Bush or Kerry.

If it won him votes Howard would probably be pro-gun, but at the time it was move to catch a massive popularity wave by doing something about a shooting and the lack of American's obsesion over firearms.

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-09 11:13am

PainRack wrote:So........... its official huh? Anyone wanna hazard a guess why they won?

The main reason Johnny won? Because even the MOST MILITANT unions (like the CFMEU) abandoned Labor who had sold out to the greens and conservationist values and voted for the right wing oppressors of the working class, the Liberal party.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-10-09 11:23am

Australian gun control isn't so bad. If you have a large property to shoot on, you can get a rifle hunting lisence with just a police clearance, and to do pistol shooting, the restrictions bascially state that you have to be actively shooting in a club (I think you have to do about 3 shoots a year to keep your license) and there are certain restrictions you have on what kinds of guns you can buy and how many in the first few years of holding your license.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-10-09 11:45am

It's bad from the POV of an American who lives in a state where the police are required by law to issue handgun concealed carry permits if you have a clean record and aren't crazy, and you don't need a permit at all if you don't intend to carry the gun in public.

But then again, we're approaching the issue from two radically different cultural and legal traditions.

Anyways. for the Howard supporters, congrats.
For the Labor supporters, better luck next time.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-10-09 12:09pm

From what I've heard, it's more liberal than the UK's gun control laws.

On-topic, I have no idea why the Liberal's one. I can't pinpoint any one issue. Personally, I was quite surprised that they gained seats. I thought that Labor would make small gains, though not enough to give them government.

From what I gathered, though, Labor lost the logging vote in Tasmaina because of its decision to try and bag the green vote (which did get them several electorates that I noticed) and lost the defence force vote because they basically said "we're going to put a lot of you out of a job." and they had a huge swing in melbourne because of the Bracks government's decision to build a tollway (and because the Federal government did it's best to stop the tollway), although I believe that the greens votes kept those seats for them.

And they may have won Adelaide because Kate Ellis is hot. I'm certain that given how close Adelaide, is, the people who are voting for her because of that are significant enough to possibly push her over the line. Not that Trish Worth is going to concede defeat for the next week anyway.

What's even more interesting is the possibility of Family First holding the balance of power in the senate, meaning there's a possibility that the coalition will have a good hold on both houses (depending on what FF's extended policies end up looking like). If FF does decide to effectively form a coalition with the coalition government, then things might get very interesting in the next three years.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-09 12:24pm

"Interesting" as in 'chinese curse' type interesting?

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-10-09 12:38pm

I have no idea what kind of interesting it is. It depends on what Family First tries to push for, and whether or not they just turn into Howard's bitches. They do have a coalition preference - when watching the election, I pretty much added the green vote to Labor's primary vote and the Family First vote to the Liberal's primary vote, and that seemed to get about the right two party preferred vote.

Who has any idea what will happen if Howard can get any bill he wants through parliament with minimal opposition? If Family First cooperates with the coalition, it could be a time of great change, though whether that's good or not only time will tell.

Personally I prefer FF having the balance of power in the senate (I think) than having an the coalition with an absolute majority. At least then some discussion will take place.

But then again, discussion did lead to what I like to call the "Democrats GST"...

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-10-09 07:42pm

Think about this, guys... do you know anyone who voted Liberal? I know *ONE* guy, and he's an IDIOT who voted because of Howard 'keep interest rates down' plaques, if you can believe that. And yet bajillions of people voted for him. So I guess the country wanted to say 'great work Johnny, carry on!'. Bah. But with a choice between fricking Labour and fricking Liberal, we were screwed from the start.

But hey, the ballot was hilarious. The Fishing party? The SOCIALISTS? Comedy gold.

And what IS with the Libs being so cozy with the Family First National Nazi Party anyway?

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-10 12:04am

Stark wrote:Think about this, guys... do you know anyone who voted Liberal?

I did.

I know *ONE* guy, and he's an IDIOT who voted because of Howard 'keep interest rates down' plaques, if you can believe that.

Why is that idiotic? Or, why is he an idiot for voting on that basis?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-10 12:08am

Why did so many people vote for those "Family First" assholes?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-10-10 12:18am

Darth Wong wrote:Why did so many people vote for those "Family First" assholes?

Because it would seem many have grown weary of the two main parties. And at first glance, "Family First" may seem like guys who aren't assholes.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-10 12:22am

Darth Wong wrote:Why did so many people vote for those "Family First" assholes?

New Kid on the block, so to speak. One Nation got some good votes when it first came into being, and IIRC it won three seats, while in comparison Family First looks set to win a single seat in the Senate and maybe the House of Representatives.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2004-10-10 12:23am

Stark wrote:Think about this, guys... do you know anyone who voted Liberal? I know *ONE* guy, and he's an IDIOT who voted because of Howard 'keep interest rates down' plaques, if you can believe that.

Both my step-father and myself voted Liberals, and my mother is a Labor voter... But quite frankly, her stated reasons for voting against Howard seems even more ridiculous than that guy of yours (that she doesn't "like" Howard

).
Anyway, as Lusankya has already mentioned, in Melbourne quite a number of people are rather ticked off by Bracksey's Tollway. Which is exactly the kind of thing that was needed to cement that edge gained by redraw boundaries over at McMillan.

And what IS with the Libs being so cozy with the Family First National Nazi Party anyway?

If you don't read the fine-prints and take it at face value, Family First would seem like a pausible alternative for Christian voters. After all, you don't hear about them offering our worst criminals hundreds of thousands of dollars when they leave jail when they're still middle-aged... *looks over at the Greens*.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-10 12:28am

Lord of the Farce wrote:If you don't read the fine-prints and take it at face value, Family First would seem like a pausible alternative for Christian voters. After all, you don't hear about them offering our worst criminals hundreds of thousands of dollars when they leave jail when they're still middle-aged... *looks over at the Greens*.

Family First wants to force all ISPs upon threat of prosecution to censor the Internet and pass the resulting costs onto consumers! That alone makes them psychopaths.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-10 12:36am

Darth Wong wrote:Family First wants to force all ISPs upon threat of prosecution to censor the Internet and pass the resulting costs onto consumers! That alone makes them psychopaths.

I agree completely, their policies - especially that one - are dumb, and piss me off. Unfortunately, they're a relative unknown in the political landscape, and some people have grown dissatisfied with the other, entrenched and established parties - the ALP had virtually NO swings for them, while the Democrats had people abandoning them (largely because Bartlett made a preference deal with FF, which many felt was a betrayal of the Democrats ideals). At the same time, the Greens had an increase in support, which is a shame because I dislike them.

Fortunately, the media doesn't appear to like Family First, and remind everyone that they're a Church-based group. One can hope that this ammunition will increase, if FF make arses of themselves in the next few years. I hope they lose support, but only time will tell.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-10-10 12:39am

Think about this, guys... do you know anyone who voted Liberal?

I voted Liberal. I've already discussed the reasons for it, so I'm not going to rehash it now.

And I hope you're not suggesting that something fishy went on. Given that every candidade is allowed to have scrutineers watching the counting, I doubt that any "mistakes" occured in that department.

Why did so many people vote for those "Family First" assholes?

I imagine some people voted for them because they're not the Liberals, they're not Labor, they're not the Democrats, they're not One Nation and they're not the Greens.

And what IS with the Libs being so cozy with the Family First National Nazi Party anyway?

Preferences. The Labor party got into bed with the Greens for the same reason.

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2004-10-10 01:15am

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord of the Farce wrote:If you don't read the fine-prints and take it at face value, Family First would seem like a pausible alternative for Christian voters. After all, you don't hear about them offering our worst criminals hundreds of thousands of dollars when they leave jail when they're still middle-aged... *looks over at the Greens*.
Family First wants to force all ISPs upon threat of prosecution to censor the Internet and pass the resulting costs onto consumers! That alone makes them psychopaths.

You've forgot to mention the fact that they have stated in writing that they would be quite happy to see all but the biggest 30 ISPs closed down (I wonder where the money trail leads

).

The problem is that like in so many other things, quite a lot of people will only read what they want to read, and conveniently ignore nagging little distractions (like reality) to the duty of "protect the children!".

Post by **weemadando** » 2004-10-10 03:49am

Hell, I'm MUCH happier with Howard as PM, Latham would likely have been an international relations disaster the likes of which not seen since Gareth Evans and the "puppy joke".

Not because he's a bad politician, but because his policies would have resulted in us being REAMED all over the place in trade talks, diplomatic exchanges... The dollar probably would have gone through the fucking floor.

Now I would like a Labor gov't, but not at the cost that it would have been had Mark "I've made lots of promises" Latham come into power.

But here's one for you betting folk, will we hear "Non-core promises" again in the next 3 years?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-10 02:28pm

Stofsk wrote:Think about this, guys... do you know anyone who voted Liberal?

"How did he win? Nobody I know voted for him!" That phrase (or something similar) has been uttered after many elections...

There were people who said the same thing when Nixon and later Reagan were re-elected...

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-10 02:30pm

Damn. Messed up the quote tags again.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-10 03:39pm

Ma Deuce wrote:Damn. Messed up the quote tags again.

I'll say. *shakes fist emphatically*

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2004-10-11 12:15am

Ah. I found the Howard quote that I really liked in his acceptance speech.

You face that great moment of electoral judgment and electoral truth. We are happy, we are joyful that the verdict has been given by the Australian people, but never forget the fact that governments are elected to govern not only for the people who voted for them, but also for the people who voted against them.

I just think it's a great quote (my bold, obviously)