Merged Australian Politics / Australian election

Also...

I know conservative Dutton was trying to put on a show of distancing himself from Trump without actually distancing himself from Trump, but it does seem quite clear the Trump anti-Midas touch happened in Australia just like in Canada. The conservative opposition leader lost his own seat, while the centre-left PM romped away for the win.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes, but it's morning-paper time in America right now. I checked a few others. MSNBC doesn't appear to be mentioning it. The Washington Post has it below the fold. The New York Times has it, but it's well down the page.
Click to expand...
Also indicative of the importance of Australia to most USAians.
 
It looks very much like Labor will hold every seat in Melbourne. For those unaware, this is a city of 5.5 million, or 20% of the Australian population. It was the birthplace of the Liberal Party and its traditional stronghold. There were times decades ago when Labor struggled to hold a couple of seats. I never dreamt I would see a day like this.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yes, but it's morning-paper time in America right now. I checked a few others. MSNBC doesn't appear to be mentioning it. The Washington Post has it below the fold. The New York Times has it, but it's well down the page.
Click to expand...
AP doesn't have it, but it's the second top story on Reuters.

Albanese claims Australia election victory, riding anti-Trump wave -
 
This morning, the ABC radio news was saying that the Greens are currently at risk of losing all four of their lower house seats.

The Teals and other independents have a chance of increasing their seats.

1746310730486.png
 
I'm surprised the Greens have done so badly. But maybe people think they don't need them because Labor is pro-environment.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I'm surprised the Greens have done so badly. But maybe people think they don't need them because Labor is pro-environment.
Click to expand...

I'm not really in touch with many other Greens voters, but the few I know were pretty disappointed with them over Israel/Palestine.

I may have talked about this before, but there is a risk to a party being seen as a 'single-issue party'.

If the party tries to expand its horizons above the primary issue, it can cop flack from its supporters because it is being seen as weakening its focus on their reason for being there.

On an issue like Israel/Palestine its also possible for members to be offended like this:

"The party didn't fight hard enough for Palestine!"

or:

"Why is the party supporting the terrorists? Even the UN recognises that they're terrorists!"

It looked like a poisoned wedge issue to me.

Even if you have a good handle on how your members feel about an issue (not always guaranteed) you'd want pretty good polling of your voters before risking something like that.
 
A pleasing result. Labor far exceeded pre poll expectations by winning an increased majority in the House of Representatives and Peter Dutton lost his seat of Dickson.

More importantly, they did not end up with a majority in the Senate (so there is still a check on their power). However, it looks like Labor has still managed to gain 3 Senate seats at the expense of the coalition. This means that they only need the support of the Greens instead of Greens and other independents this time.

In his victory speech, Anthony Albanese forgot to give thanks to the man who made it all possible - Donald Trump.
 
novaphile said:
Oh that's interesting.

My expectation is that the Teals will do poorly this time around.
Click to expand...

psionl0 said:
Are you expecting Labor/LNP to increase the number of seats they hold at the expense of other parties? The polls/betting don't say that at all.
Click to expand...

novaphile said:
Yes, that's my expectation.

My instinct is that minor parties, and affiliations of independents, get an initial wave of success, but then struggle to build on that success.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a breakdown of the different independents yet, but it is fair to say that I was wrong about the Teals doing badly this time around.
They did better than I was expecting.

However, I did better at the second prediction. I should have been clearer that I expected Labor to do better at the expense of everyone else though.
 
novaphile said:
However, I did better at the second prediction. I should have been clearer that I expected Labor to do better at the expense of everyone else though.
Click to expand...
Not really. The question was about "Labor/LNP" (ie Labor AND Liberals). It was asking if the major parties would win back seats from the smaller parties. That didn't happen. But Labor definitely won seats at the expense of the Liberals (which was always on the cards).
 
psionl0 said:
<snip>

In his victory speech, Anthony Albanese forgot to give thanks to the man who made it all possible - Donald Trump.
Click to expand...
It was not Donald Trump who handed Labor a victory. It was the people who tried to imitate him. They should have known the Trump's policies were not popular in Australia.
 
rjh01 said:
It was not Donald Trump who handed Labor a victory. It was the people who tried to imitate him. They should have known the Trump's policies were not popular in Australia.
Click to expand...
A few loose cannons shouting MAGA slogans certainly didn't help Dutton's cause (no matter how quickly they were silenced).

But it is Trump who is ultimately responsible for right wing parties all over the world losing elections that they were previously a shoe-in to win. No matter how they tried to distance themselves from him, they couldn't quite shake the Trump stench.
 
psionl0 said:
They are still likely to retain their 11 seats (and the balance of power) in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Yes. It’s pleasing that Labor does not have to negotiate with anyone else in the Senate, I hope they Greens acknowledge that Labor has a massive mandate and will not keep behaving the way they have been in the Senate.
 
Orphia Nay said:
AP doesn't have it, but it's the second top story on Reuters.

Albanese claims Australia election victory, riding anti-Trump wave -
Click to expand...
NOW, AP has Australia's election as their second top story.

apnews.com

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wins a second 3-year term

Anthony Albanese told his supporters in a victory speech in Sydney: “Australians have chosen to face global challenges the Australian way, looking after each other while building for the future.”
apnews.com apnews.com
 
lionking said:
I hope they Greens acknowledge that Labor has a massive mandate and will not keep behaving the way they have been in the Senate.
Click to expand...
The government has a "massive mandate" only when it has a majority on both houses of Parliament. Had the House of Representatives used PR then we would have a minority government.

The greens have clearly been given a mandate to keep the government in check.
 
psionl0 said:
The government has a "massive mandate" only when it has a majority on both houses of Parliament. Had the House of Representatives used PR then we would have a minority government.

The greens have clearly been given a mandate to keep the government in check.
Click to expand...
I do not agree. The Senate is not a representative body, only the House is. The scale of Labor’s victory should be taken into consideration by the Greens. And I suspect they will. I’m certain that a pig headed reaction to block everything by the Greens will not bring them more support.
 
lionking said:
I do not agree. The Senate is not a representative body, only the House is. The scale of Labor’s victory should be taken into consideration by the Greens. And I suspect they will. I’m certain that a pig headed reaction to block everything by the Greens will not bring them more support.
Click to expand...
Nope. Apart from supply bills, the Senate has constitutionally the same powers as the House of Representatives. The only reason why Labor has a majority is because the HoR consists of single member electorates. But the fact remains that Labor got less than 35% of the primary vote. Under a PR system, it would scarcely have gotten more than 50 seats and would have had to rely on the Greens/Teals to form government. So it is not representative of the voters' will at all.

Note that I am not saying that single member electorates is a bad thing. It is good for a government to have a strong working majority in the lower house but it needs to be counterbalanced by an upper house that is elected using PR. That is how states like WA and Victoria do it.
 
Last edited:
I think this is one of the few instances where the phrase, “you get the government you deserve”, can actually be used as a compliment.
 
psionl0 said:
Nope. Apart from supply bills, the Senate has constitutionally the same powers as the House of Representatives. The only reason why Labor has a majority is because the HoR consists of single member electorates. But the fact remains that Labor got less than 35% of the primary vote. Under a PR system, it would scarcely have gotten more than 50 seats and would have had to rely on the Greens/Teals to form government. So it is not representative of the voters' will at all.

Note that I am not saying that single member electorates is a bad thing. It is good for a government to have a strong working majority in the lower house but it needs to be counterbalanced by an upper house that is elected using PR. That is how states like WA and Victoria do it.
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you are even mentioning PR in the House.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Are you good Australian citizens?
Replies
2
Views
951
DanishDynamite
DanishDynamite
D
Answer - Australian constitutional quiz
Replies
0
Views
861
Drooper
D
S
Even more North Carolina election-rigging
Replies
17
Views
1K
shanek
S
M
Hypocrisy in Science
2
Replies
71
Views
4K
BillyJoe
B
R
2nd Amendment, On Trial in Supreme Court
Replies
3
Views
2K
BobK
B

Back
Top Bottom