PDA

View Full Version : When do you think the federal election will be held?



eclectic
13-09-2007, 10:58 PM
yet another poll ... yada yada

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2007, 01:55 PM
I've gone with 3 Nov firstly as that's just before a possible rates rise and secondly as it would annoy me enormously if he called it for that date, since it clashes with a tournament in Burnie, and as an election junkie I would find it very difficult to choose between chess and watching the election.

EGOR
14-09-2007, 01:57 PM
... and as an election junkie I would find it very difficult to choose between chess and watching the election.
:lol: :lol:

Davidflude
14-09-2007, 03:21 PM
I've gone with 3 Nov firstly as that's just before a possible rates rise and secondly as it would annoy me enormously if he called it for that date, since it clashes with a tournament in Burnie, and as an election junkie I would find it very difficult to choose between chess and watching the election.

Only a government of drongos would call an election to clash with the Melbourne Cup Carnival. I suppose that makes it very likely to be the date.

The whisper that I have heard is late November to early December. my source also tipped the demons for the flag so is not terribly reliable.

Davidflude
14-09-2007, 03:25 PM
I think that it is time for Australia to have fixed terms for the Federal Parliament.
Ideally it should take place between the end of the football season and the start of the cricket. that woiuld give the media something to write about.


Furthermore I think that nobody should be allowed more than two terms as Prime Minister.

Garvinator
14-09-2007, 09:06 PM
Eclectic,

I take it that Jan 19 is the latest that the election can be called?

Garvinator
14-09-2007, 09:07 PM
I think that it is time for Australia to have fixed terms for the Federal Parliament.
Ideally it should take place between the end of the football season and the start of the cricket. that woiuld give the media something to write about.


Furthermore I think that nobody should be allowed more than two terms as Prime Minister.
I agree with the fixed terms part, but I dont have a problem with how many terms a PM can serve. If the 'will of the people' want to vote the party in, so be it.

Southpaw Jim
14-09-2007, 09:23 PM
I take it that Jan 19 is the latest that the election can be called?

Correctamundo :)

I tipped Nov 3 too. I think October is too soon, and anything else risks an interest rate hike, not to mention electoral anger at dragging things out.

Of course, if Howard gets rolled in the next week (eg after Tuesday's Newspoll) then the Libs'd have an excuse to drag it out till early December :eek:

Garvinator
14-09-2007, 09:36 PM
Correctamundo :)

I tipped Nov 3 too. I think October is too soon, and anything else risks an interest rate hike, not to mention electoral anger at dragging things out.

Of course, if Howard gets rolled in the next week (eg after Tuesday's Newspoll) then the Libs'd have an excuse to drag it out till early December :eek:
I dont think it will be Nov 3 because of the Melbourne Cup Carnival.

Kevin Bonham
14-09-2007, 10:25 PM
I take it that Jan 19 is the latest that the election can be called?

There was an article in Crikey some time back pointing out he could theoretically exploit some rort and hang on through most of next year, at least until probably forced to the polls by a court challenge against it, so long as he doesn't need Parliament to sit for any reason during that time. Though he wouldn't actually do that, as the outrage when the election finally came would probably reduce the Libs to about one seat.

Kevin Bonham
24-09-2007, 10:56 PM
I recant my vote above as with the stuff going on in markets overseas making an interest rate rise highly unlikely, he can pick whatever date in Nov or early Dec he feels like. Haven't been keeping up with the news these last few days as to any further rumours.

Garvinator
02-10-2007, 10:02 AM
I think John Howard should call the election now for early December. That would seem his best chance. Of course he wont call the election now as it means he cant pork barrel any new spending initiatives :whistle:

pax
02-10-2007, 10:37 AM
I think John Howard should call the election now for early December. That would seem his best chance. Of course he wont call the election now as it means he cant pork barrel any new spending initiatives :whistle:

That would be an extraordinarily long campaign. The long pseudo-campaign is bad enough, I don't know if I could take a proper campaign that long..

Southpaw Jim
02-10-2007, 11:10 AM
AFAIK it would also be the longest term of government ever, exceeding Billy McMahon's record in '72(?). IIRC, Billy wasn't kindly repaid for making the electorate wait so long...

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 12:14 PM
AFAIK it would also be the longest term of government ever, exceeding Billy McMahon's record in '72(?). IIRC, Billy wasn't kindly repaid for making the electorate wait so long...
And remember what happened the Aussie electorate that time, when they were silly enough to think "it's time" ... Yet the grossly incompetent Whitlam is still a Labor hero.

eclectic
02-10-2007, 03:31 PM
And remember what happened the Aussie electorate that time, when they were silly enough to think "it's time" ... Yet the grossly incompetent Whitlam is still a Labor hero.

if silly then i guess they were twice as silly at the '74 double dissolution election heh

:rolleyes:

Southpaw Jim
02-10-2007, 03:51 PM
And remember what happened the Aussie electorate that time, when they were silly enough to think "it's time" ... Yet the grossly incompetent Whitlam is still a Labor hero.
At least Whitlam had some vision, unlike the grossly populist and divisive Howard :hand: :P

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 04:11 PM
At least Whitlam had some vision, unlike the grossly populist and divisive Howard :hand: :P
Vision? So what, if it was just the deluded vision of the anointed (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/anointed.php)? But it's typical of Lefties to care more about visions than about reality, more about intentions and goals than incentives and consequences. He wrecked the country, and also his own party's chance for government for many elections (and gave us the moronic Fraser who lasted so long just because he was the anti-Whitlam).

And what on earth does "divisive" mean? Since at every election, approx half vote for the Coalition and the other half vote for Labor, the country IS divided! Furthermore, Rudd is largely responsible for the SEQ drought because he canned the Wolfdene Dam for populist reasons, although experts advised that we would need it (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21002760-7583,00.html). I hope enough of us in SEQ have long memories.

pax
02-10-2007, 04:16 PM
First Al Gore invented the internet, and now Kevin Rudd caused the drought! Good one Jono :lol: :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 04:28 PM
First Al Gore invented the internet, and now Kevin Rudd caused the drought! Good one Jono :lol: :lol:
More lefty asinity. No, KRudd canned a measure that would have considerably alleviated the drought.

Davidflude
02-10-2007, 04:37 PM
"But it's typical of Lefties to care more about visions than about reality,"

like

"I will never ever introduce a GST"

"What sort of people throw their children overboard"

"You can be Prime Minister after the election Peter"

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

Davidflude
02-10-2007, 04:39 PM
Rumours of election to be announced today. Only 7.25 hours to go.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 04:47 PM
"But it's typical of Lefties to care more about visions than about reality,"
Allegedly false statements are not 'visions'.


like

"I will never ever introduce a GST"
And JH kept that promise for that term, then fought the next election explicitly on the GST.


"What sort of people throw their children overboard"
Yeah, because we all know that the threat is stronger than its execution.


"You can be Prime Minister after the election Peter"
Apocryphal


"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
As KRudd agreed!


“There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction,” KRudd on Lateline, 24 August 2002

Along with most intelligence agencies, many US Dems (http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp) including the Klintons ... Furthermore, KRudd supported JH on Iraq originally (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22228212-5013650,00.html).

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2007, 04:57 PM
And what on earth does "divisive" mean? Since at every election, approx half vote for the Coalition and the other half vote for Labor, the country IS divided!

Yes, but it's always like that (more or less). "Divisive" refers to strength of support and opposition, particularly opposition. Both Howard and Keating were more divisive than Hawke in this sense, for instance, but in Keating's case it was through economic incompetence whereas in Howard's case it is deliberate.


And remember what happened the Aussie electorate that time, when they were silly enough to think "it's time" ... Yet the grossly incompetent Whitlam is still a Labor hero.

And it was time. Even though Whitlam's government was a mess, the country needed a shake-up after 23 years of increasingly decrepit Coalition rule.

My grandad is still trying to find the Country Party on the ballot paper and even he reckons McMahon was the worst prime minister Australia ever had, far worse than Whitlam.


AFAIK it would also be the longest term of government ever, exceeding Billy McMahon's record in '72(?). IIRC, Billy wasn't kindly repaid for making the electorate wait so long...

Yes and no. McMahon lost (which was virtually universally expected) but the margin in the end was a lot smaller than some people thought it would be.

[quote=Eurotrash]

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Yes, but it's always like that (more or less). "Divisive" refers to strength of support and opposition, particularly opposition. Both Howard and Keating were more divisive than Hawke in this sense, for instance, but in Keating's case it was through economic incompetence whereas in Howard's case it is deliberate.
How do you mean?


And it was time.
Time is irrelevant. If the Coalition rule were decrepit, one year would be "time", and if it were highly competent, then 23 years would not be long enough.


Even though Whitlam's government was a mess, the country needed a shake-up after 23 years of increasingly decrepit Coalition rule.
Again, a vote should be between the available alternatives. There is no point giving one government a "shake-up" if it means a still worse government. That was the problem with self-indulgent conservatives in Yankeeland giving the GOP a shake-up last election, resulting in a congress that was less conservative (i.e. worse from their point of view).


My grandad is still trying to find the Country Party on the ballot paper and even he reckons McMahon was the worst prime minister Australia ever had, far worse than Whitlam.
What did McMahon do that was so bad?

pax
02-10-2007, 05:14 PM
And JH kept that promise for that term, then fought the next election explicitly on the GST.

That's not the point. The point was that he deliberately lied about the GST because it was politically expedient at the time. He knew perfectly well that introducing a GST from opposition was a ridiculous thing to try to do, and that it only made sense to do it from incumbency. But at the time of the quote, Howard was trying to get elected and GSTs were on the nose, so he had no problem lying through his teeth.

JOHN HOWARD: There's no way that GST will ever be part of our policy.
REPORTER: Never ever?
JOHN HOWARD: Never ever. It's dead. It was killed by the voters in the last election.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 05:38 PM
That's not the point. The point was that he deliberately lied about the GST because it was politically expedient at the time.
Deliberately lied? Come off it. He was nothing like the cynical Keating, who knew a GST was good, and wanted it, but then used anti-GST against Hewson.


He knew perfectly well that introducing a GST from opposition was a ridiculous thing to try to do, and that it only made sense to do it from incumbency.
And when he realized that a GST was sensible, he put it to the electorate!

It would be crass to maintain a policy in perpetuity when situations change. Would you have preferred to maintain the convoluted system of excise taxes? Any problems now are due to State Labor governments maintaining their own crass little taxes, although they were supposed to get rid of them in return for all the GST revenue pouring in.

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2007, 06:44 PM
How do you mean?

I mean that while there were some who hated Keating for his personality or his political attitudes, he was most hated for the tax cuts he promised then couldn't deliver and his harsh economic medicine in the form of "the recession we had to have". Dissatisfaction was mainly with his performance rather than his aims. But with Howard it is generally his whole ideological orientation that generates hatred.


Time is irrelevant. If the Coalition rule were decrepit, one year would be "time", and if it were highly competent, then 23 years would not be long enough.

I disagree. It is rare for governments to remain innovative after they have been re-elected many times; they tend to become stuck in their ways (I would also argue that by the end of Keating's time most of his government was not disposed towards innovation.)


Again, a vote should be between the available alternatives. There is no point giving one government a "shake-up" if it means a still worse government. That was the problem with self-indulgent conservatives in Yankeeland giving the GOP a shake-up last election, resulting in a congress that was less conservative (i.e. worse from their point of view).

I don't think this is straightforward strategically. In the short term kicking out a government that falls below a certain standard even if you think the opposition will be worse is counterproductive. But in the long term it may be advantageous because it discourages governments from falling below that standard. Of course this depends on whether they realise you are doing it. But I think these days governments realise voters are doing it across a range of issues.


What did McMahon do that was so bad?

I'm no expert on that time, although it was around his time the economy started to go pearshape (eg high inflation) after such a solid run for decades. A lot of his bad reputation in Australian political history may have been to do with the poor, some would say ridiculous, way he came across when attempting to portray ideas, and with the fact that his party was a total rabble at the time (in no small part because of his willingness to overthrow Gorton.)

pax
02-10-2007, 08:31 PM
Deliberately lied? Come off it. He was nothing like the cynical Keating, who knew a GST was good, and wanted it, but then used anti-GST against Hewson.

Come off it, it was exactly the same approach. They both used a convenient anti-GST line to get elected. The difference was that Howard lied about his future intention. If Keating had got re-elected and then introduced a GST, that would have been just as bad.



And when he realized that a GST was sensible, he put it to the electorate!

Oh come on, he wanted a GST all along. What, you think he had some sort of road to Damascus moment in the space of about two years?



It would be crass to maintain a policy in perpetuity when situations change. Would you have preferred to maintain the convoluted system of excise taxes?

I'm saying it would be nice if politicians of all political persuasions didn't use phrases like "I'll never ever do that", when they know them to be false.

Basil
02-10-2007, 08:59 PM
The difference was that Howard lied about his future intention.
Hang on. Didn't Howard go the polls looking for a GST mandate?

I'm certain he said "No GST" for an election and was subsequently elected. THEN, prior to the next election he said "OK peepz, I think it's a good idea to have a GST - I'm bringing in a GST if you re-elect me." And he was given a mandate for exactly that.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Basil
02-10-2007, 09:02 PM
I'm saying it would be nice if politicians of all political persuasions didn't use phrases like "I'll never ever do that", when they know them to be false.
True enough. Like when Rudd said "I WILL NOT NOMINATE A FRONT BENCH UNTIL WE ARE ELECTED". And then nominated the front bench the following day!!! :doh:

It is true that there is no future in this part of the debate because both sides have fallen foul. "No child will live in poverty etc." :doh:

We've got crims, low-lifes and so forth on both sides - a few paedophiles I think too. No point reducing ourselves to identifying each other's teams losers.

Desmond
02-10-2007, 10:08 PM
Hang on. Didn't Howard go the polls looking for a GST mandate?

I'm certain he said "No GST" for an election and was subsequently elected. THEN, prior to the next election he said "OK peepz, I think it's a good idea to have a GST - I'm bringing in a GST if you re-elect me." And he was given a mandate for exactly that.

Tell me I'm wrong.It wasn't a referendum where you can simply say he was voted in because everyone wanted to pay a GST. It was an election where a myriad of issues guides voters' pencils.

eclectic
02-10-2007, 10:13 PM
It wasn't a referendum where you can simply say he was voted in because everyone wanted to pay a GST. It was an election where a myriad of issues guides voters' pencils.

interesting aside here

why are pencils used at election polling booths?

you'd think something more permanent would be used to prevent unscrupulous alterations or erasures

Basil
02-10-2007, 10:23 PM
It wasn't a referendum where you can simply say he was voted in because everyone wanted to pay a GST. It was an election where a myriad of issues guides voters' pencils.
Ok. That's accurate. But he did say what he was going to do before-hand. Just trying to stop the urban myth that he lied and misled people. Fair enough?

pax
02-10-2007, 10:31 PM
Ok. That's accurate. But he did say what he was going to do before-hand. Just trying to stop the urban myth that he lied and misled people. Fair enough?

It's not an urban myth that he lied - that much is absolutely true.

I actually have no problem with the subsequent introduction of the GST, given that he was upfront about it prior to the election.

The problem lies in the fact that he used a politically convenient line ("never ever" etc) to answer a hard question, when he knew it to be false - and he did it in order to win an election. I don't buy Jono's Road to Damascus explanation. Howard felt he had to distance himself as far as possible from the GST even though he knew he would reintroduce it if the opportunity arose.

Southpaw Jim
02-10-2007, 10:36 PM
Looks like the Libs are making a habit of kicking own goals - Hockey and Costello opening themselves to defamation suits by denigrating the findings of a peer reviewed study on AWA working conditions :lol:

Kevin Bonham
02-10-2007, 10:39 PM
Looks like the Libs are making a habit of kicking own goals - Hockey and Costello opening themselves to defamation suits by denigrating the findings of a peer reviewed study on AWA working conditions :lol:

Costello getting sued for defo instead of suing (as he did to Bob Ellis) would be amusing.

Not that I had any problem with Costello suing Ellis, but Abbott joining in the fun was quite another story.

Aaron Guthrie
02-10-2007, 10:40 PM
Costello getting sued for defo instead of suing (as he did to Bob Ellis) would be amusing.

Not that I had any problem with Costello suing Ellis, but Abbott joining in the fun was quite another story.Come now, Abbott and Costello in a joint suit? Fun for the whole family.

Basil
02-10-2007, 10:46 PM
The problem lies in the fact that he used a politically convenient line ("never ever" etc) to answer a hard question, when he knew it to be false - and he did it in order to win an election.
OK. So you find him politically culpable? I must say had a Labor pollie done exactly that, I wouldn't mind in the slightest - honest.

Capablanca-Fan
02-10-2007, 11:18 PM
I mean that while there were some who hated Keating for his personality or his political attitudes, he was most hated for the tax cuts he promised then couldn't deliver and his harsh economic medicine in the form of "the recession we had to have". Dissatisfaction was mainly with his performance rather than his aims. But with Howard it is generally his whole ideological orientation that generates hatred.
That's the fault of those with Howard Derangement Syndrome. Actually it's explained by Thomas Sowell's analysis of the mindset of the Anointed. They are so convinced of their own righteousness that anyone who disagrees is not just wrong but evil.


I'm no expert on that time, although it was around his time the economy started to go pearshape (eg high inflation) after such a solid run for decades. A lot of his bad reputation in Australian political history may have been to do with the poor, some would say ridiculous, way he came across when attempting to portray ideas, and with the fact that his party was a total rabble at the time (in no small part because of his willingness to overthrow Gorton.)
Yet here, it's hard to claim that the Aussie economy is going pearshape, since there is low inflation, low unemployment and still quite low interest rates. And JH is hardly out of ideas, and I have a lot more confidence in his team than in Rudd's assorted lefties and union hacks.

pax
03-10-2007, 06:32 AM
OK. So you find him politically culpable? I must say had a Labor pollie done exactly that, I wouldn't mind in the slightest - honest.

Look, realistically I know that they all do it. Howard certainly lies when it's convenient, Rudd almost certainly has too (does anyone seriously believe he never saw any naked ladies at Scores?).. It just makes it rather difficult to believe anything any of them say at election time.

pax
03-10-2007, 06:37 AM
Kevin Andrews says no more African refugees until next year, and maybe not even then. What an appalling way to kowtow to the Hansonite crowd.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22522338-2,00.html

Garvinator
03-10-2007, 11:42 AM
:hmm: I didnt re post in this thread to start a debate about policies. This thread is supposed to be about When do you think the federal election will be held? NOT who to vote for and why.

All these posts are off topic and should be moved to another thread.

Aaron Guthrie
03-10-2007, 12:04 PM
:hmm: I didnt re post in this thread to start a debate about policies. This thread is supposed to be about When do you think the federal election will be held? NOT who to vote for and why.

All these posts are off topic and should be moved to another thread.Seem about as on topic as the replies the politicians make in question time.

eclectic
03-10-2007, 12:08 PM
Seem about as on topic as the replies the politicians make in question time.

touché

Davidflude
03-10-2007, 04:20 PM
government advertising cancelled as from next Monday

Southpaw Jim
03-10-2007, 04:28 PM
Where did you hear this David?

Garvinator
14-10-2007, 02:51 AM
Nov 24 is seeming to be the commentators tip. Not happy. I tipped Dec 8. Maybe Johnny will go for the long campaign ;)

Desmond
14-10-2007, 09:18 AM
Well, he's lived off the fat of the land for this long, why call the election earlier than necessary? It's basically a resignation for his job to call it.

Garvinator
14-10-2007, 12:11 PM
The date of the election is November 24. Congratulations to Boris and CameronD.