PDA

View Full Version : How many more elections will Labor win?



Kevin Bonham
28-04-2009, 08:30 PM
Here is your opportunity to play crystal-ball gazer and predict how many times Labor will be re-elected federally before it is defeated, splits, or otherwise ceases to be in command. In one, five, ten or twenty years we may be able to sit back and laugh about how wrong we were.

Basil
28-04-2009, 08:35 PM
In one, five, ten or twenty years we may be able to sit back and laugh about how wrong we were.
And may your God have mercy on what's left ;)

ER
28-04-2009, 08:46 PM
I voted for two terms mainly because I believe that the majority of Labour voters are younger than their respective opposition counter-parts and therefore will give the Govt extra time to fulfill their goals.
That's given to the tendency of younger voters to maintain their will for political change more than the more mature voters!

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2009, 01:41 AM
The past history of Australian governments in this regard is that up until Billy Hughes ratted it was very rare for governments to go beyond one term without collapsing or losing. Then we have:

Nationalist (Hughes/Bruce): formed government between elections, returned five times
Labor (Scullin): elected but never returned
UAP/Country (Lyons/Page/Menzies/Fadden): elected, returned three times then collapsed mid-term
Labor (Curtin/Forde/Chifley): formed between elections, returned twice
Liberal/Country (Menzies/Holt/McEwen/Gorton/MacMahon): elected, returned eight times
Labor (Whitlam): elected, returned once, sacked by Governor-General
Liberal (Fraser): installed by Governor-General, elected, returned twice
Labor (Hawke/Keating): elected, returned four times
Liberal (Howard): elected, returned three times.

Given that Scullin was a victim of circumstance and Whitlam was unorthodox to say the least, it seems the normal pattern is for governments to be returned at least twice and sometimes more often.

Reasons why this one might last a long time include the strength of Labor's current position which may be partly down to the alternative being in an abject mess, and the apparent general trend towards Labor over time in Australian politics.

I'm not sure it will stay like that too long though. I also suspect that Labor's current economic actions with regards the GFC could be placing limits on its long-term shelf-life.

I've gone (without much confidence) for 3, which gives the Libs another go around 2018. :lol:

Trent Parker
29-04-2009, 03:07 AM
voted for 2 but i think libs have a chance at next election if costello reinstated as leader of opposition

Basil
29-04-2009, 08:43 AM
Is it possible to have the wording changed to
"tossed out for incompetence" please? Or perhaps
"sent back to the land of knob-twiddling fantasies where they can't do much damage"? Or perhaps simply
"returned to the opposition benches where they can inanely recreate high resonance phrases such as 'working Australians' and 'fair-go for everyone'"?

ER
29-04-2009, 09:11 AM
If I used this kind of terminology you 'd be the first to call me a "lefty" followed by the other mob who 'd brand me as a exteme right wing! So :P

Capablanca-Fan
29-04-2009, 11:39 AM
I voted for two terms mainly because I believe that the majority of Labour voters are younger than their respective opposition counter-parts and therefore will give the Govt extra time to fulfill their goals.
That's given to the tendency of younger voters to maintain their will for political change more than the more mature voters!
Yet younger voters are more likely to lose their jobs. If the Opposition actually decides to oppose, they could point out that even the leftist cartel, the OECD, pointed out that repealing Howard's Work Choices would result in job losses. They could also remind them that KRudd and his leading ministers promised the creation (NB, TonyD! ;)) of 75,000 new jobs but just landed us in more debt.

Peter Costello, who is actually opposing, warns Enjoy Mr Rudd's largesse now — it'll hurt later (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/enjoy-mr-rudds-largesse-now--itll-hurt-later-20090428-am3h.html?page=1):


A typical family of mum, dad and two children would by now have received two $1000 bonuses — one for each of the children — and $900 if dad’s income was below $80,000. That’s $2900 since October last year: enough to get a pretty nice home entertainment system.

And there’s no repayment? Well, actually, the Government borrowed this money so it will have to make the interest payments to the lenders. And since it gets all its money from taxpayers, it’s the taxpayers who will foot the interest bill. In the next two years the Government will increase net debt from zero (the position it inherited in 2007) to about $200 billion. In round figures, that’s $10,000 for each of our citizens and $40,000 for our family of four. At today’s low interest rates, that’s a bill of about $2000 a year for our typical family…

Today’s one-off payments of $2900 are going to look feeble compensation against an interest bill that could last for 10 or 20 years.

Kevin Bonham
29-04-2009, 04:19 PM
The bailout is something the opposition actually should oppose on, even if it hurts them in the short term. It should be about positioning themselves to say "we told you so" a number of years down the track.

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2009, 12:39 AM
The bailout is something the opposition actually should oppose on, even if it hurts them in the short term. It should be about positioning themselves to say "we told you so" a number of years down the track.
Same with Work Choices and GloBULL Warm-mongering. They need to show voters that they are still a choice not an echo. Otherwise they risk repeating the experience of the Dem-Lite GOP who were a Congressional minority for 4 decades.

Davidflude
30-04-2009, 07:00 AM
The coalition are making nearly as bad a fist of opposition as Labour did under Kim.

The process is called rebuilding. Take a look at what Hawthorn and Carlton Football clubs have done.

The President of the Hawthorn Football club is perfect to rebuild the libs.

So Jeff for Canberra.

Basil
30-04-2009, 07:05 AM
So Jeff for Canberra.
Jeff Vader?

Desmond
30-04-2009, 08:36 AM
Same with Work Choices and GloBULL Warm-mongering. They need to show voters that they are still a choice not an echo.I'm not so sure about this. Opposition that is contrary to everything come across as doing that for its own sake.

Capablanca-Fan
30-04-2009, 09:38 AM
I'm not so sure about this. Opposition that is contrary to everything come across as doing that for its own sake.
Agreed. But I was talking about Libs sticking to their guns with traditional Coalition policies not rolling over and dying. Opposing sensible Labour policies that don't necessarily conflict with Coalition long-term policy would be crass.

In QLD, the Coalition rightly didn't oppose Labor's criminalization of drink spiking and now throwing rocks off bridges onto roads.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2013, 03:30 AM
*bump*

With the outcome of the current election apparently a foregone conclusion, Chesschatbet bumps this old poll in the interests of general amusement and pays out to Captain Underpants, Jono, Rincewind, road runner, and Spiny Norman.

Garrett
30-08-2013, 07:57 AM
That's generous.

I'd be inclined to award the win to nobody.

Labour hardly won in 2010, and neither did they lose (as per first option).

Desmond
30-08-2013, 10:35 AM
That's generous.

I'd be inclined to award the win to nobody.

Labour hardly won in 2010, and neither did they lose (as per first option).
They were returned though.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2013, 11:48 AM
Forming government and providing the Prime Minister after the election is the usual definition of "winning" the election, even if it's in minority. Indeed some parties that first won office in minority at state level have gone on to govern stably and successfully in that term and to then win majorities at the next.