Australian Federal Election Today

Originally posted by mulberryblueshimmer
I think Latham would have won had this election been held a year or so later. He hasnt had enough time in office to fully prove himself. IMHO he's trying too hard to be like Gough Whitlam and John Curtin ............... we havent seen the real Latham yet.

The real Latham = thug. It's amazing he managed to keep it together for 10 months in front of the cameras although he did have a few whinges. The man hust is not leadership material and I doubt he even has the brains, he is a thug.

Originally posted by StationsCreation
Defeceit after defeceit, scandal. I mean you only need to look at the last 3 years of labour. Beazley stepped down, Crean stood up, Crean sucked so Beazley challenged, Beazley lost, Crean still sucked so Latham took the reins.

This is ridiculous. Leadership challenges are part and parcel of opposition. Prior to Howard winning in '96, Liberal went through a very similar process, which in fact they'd been going through since 1983, perhaps even earlier - not only a struggle for leadership, but ideology. But just looking at the nineties, first the Liberals had Hewson, who was capable but unobtrusive and had designs that were just too grand for people to accept. After the '93 election - the unloseable election - Hewson was tossed aside for Alexander Downer who, just like Simon Crean, was a total non-event. They finally settled on Howard as the last choice for the second time (the first in 1985), and went on to win the election by not standing in the way of popular hatred for Paul Keating.

And scandal. Howard's reign has been full of it, but much of it has taken place out of sight, both in the sense of media coverage (Liberal has a large, influential section of the media on side, whereas the preceding government didn't), and in the sense of taking place overseas, in the middle of the ocean or outback, in the halls of parliament and to people with very little or no political voice.

Originally posted by Grimnebulin
They finally settled on Howard as the last choice for the second time (the first in 1985), and went on to win the election by not standing in the way of popular hatred for Paul Keating.

I would say it had more to do with Labors destruction of the economy than personal hatred for Keating - many Australians loved him for his arrogance until the 17-18-19% interest rates. You cannot deny what the Liberals economic management from 96 to now.

I would not argue that from the one with the feline avatar.

Howard is physically reminiscent of National's Jim Bolger in NZ, who was rolled by Jenny Shipley who became the first female PM of NZ, who was ousted by i-n-c-u-m-b-e-n-t Labour's (note the "u" which does not appear in the Australian Labor Party) Helen Clark who became the first female elected PM of NZ, then rolled by Don Brash, who looks like a more stoatlike version of weasel John Howard. Brash is about to be rolled. It happens everywhere.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I would not argue that from the one with the feline avatar.

Howard is physically reminiscent of National's Jim Bolger in NZ, who was rolled by Jenny Shipley who became the first female PM of NZ, who was ousted by i-n-c-u-m-b-e-n-t Labour's (note the "u" which does not appear in the Australian Labor Party) Helen Clark who became the first female elected PM of NZ, then rolled by Don Brash, who looks like a more stoatlike version of weasel John Howard. Brash is about to be rolled. It happens everywhere.

WOW, once again your knowlege astounds me, an itellectual giant
Maybe you should be the Labor ( no 'u' :lol strategist, I'm sure it would help.

Originally posted by mad scientist

Originally posted by Grimnebulin
They finally settled on Howard as the last choice for the second time (the first in 1985), and went on to win the election by not standing in the way of popular hatred for Paul Keating.

I would say it had more to do with Labors destruction of the economy than personal hatred for Keating - many Australians loved him for his arrogance until the 17-18-19% interest rates. You cannot deny what the Liberals economic management from 96 to now.

Priceless. Labor opened up the economy, something the Liberals are benefitting very nicely from these days. But, I said nothing about personal hatred for Paul Keating for his arrogance, percieved elitism or social views (all of which certainly did contribute to his unpopularity), I just said Paul Keating, who happened to hold a lot of responsibility for these economic policies which resulted (inevitably - a Liberal party introducing neo-liberal reforms would've had the same result) in high interest rates.



[edit on 11/10/04 by Grimnebulin]

Originally posted by Grimnebulin

Originally posted by StationsCreation
Defeceit after defeceit, scandal. I mean you only need to look at the last 3 years of labour. Beazley stepped down, Crean stood up, Crean sucked so Beazley challenged, Beazley lost, Crean still sucked so Latham took the reins.

This is ridiculous. Leadership challenges are part and parcel of opposition. Prior to Howard winning in '96, Liberal went through a very similar process, which in fact they'd been going through since 1983, perhaps even earlier - not only a struggle for leadership, but ideology. But just looking at the nineties, first the Liberals had Hewson, who was capable but unobtrusive and had designs that were just too grand for people to accept. After the '93 election - the unloseable election - Hewson was tossed aside for Alexander Downer who, just like Simon Crean, was a total non-event. They finally settled on Howard as the last choice for the second time (the first in 1985), and went on to win the election by not standing in the way of popular hatred for Paul Keating.

My point was, which you left out in my quote, was that Labour was not ready to run the nation.
The same went for the Liberals in the 80's and early 90's, as you stated, their leadership was divided and uncertain, the public saw it and they didn't win governement.
Labours leadership in the past few years hasn't given the Australian public much confidence, and the same thing has happened to them which had happened to the Libs in the 80's.

Periodic interjection/reminder.

ALP = Australian Labor Party, with roots in the Australian labour movement (note the youse).

Liberal Party = arch-conservative, racist, crony capitalist thugs of ill repute, giving small "l" liberals a bad name everywhere, currently governing in coalition with the National Party, that used to be the Country Party.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Periodic interjection/reminder.

ALP = Australian Labor Party, with roots in the Australian labour movement (note the youse).

Liberal Party = arch-conservative, racist, crony capitalist thugs of ill repute, giving small "l" liberals a bad name everywhere, currently governing in coalition with the National Party, that used to be the Country Party.

the point of the post being ?

Luckily the Australian poeple could see through labors BS.

1. To make you laugh.

2. To invite you to consider whether you truly are one of the "poeple".

3. To inform others of the roots of the respective parties, as the term "Liberal" is a misnomer while "Labor" is an Americanized spelling.

4. To quash your argument completely, and say to you that it is apathetic and fearful voters buying into the i-n-c-u-m-b-e-n-t adminsitration's terror campaign, where there is no greater terror than an increase in mortgage repayments. The Australian middle classes have been dumbed down very nicely indeed and sucked in.

My point was, which you left out in my quote, was that Labour was not ready to run the nation.
The same went for the Liberals in the 80's and early 90's, as you stated, their leadership was divided and uncertain, the public saw it and they didn't win governement.
Labours leadership in the past few years hasn't given the Australian public much confidence, and the same thing has happened to them which had happened to the Libs in the 80's.

Labor had a comparitive run in to this election as the Liberals did in '96. It wasn't leadership and unity per se that affected the outcome, but the relative experience as politicians Latham and Howard have had. Howard made the right decisions in '96 (unlike Hewson the election prior)...this time Latham was out-manoeuvered. He really hasn't handled leadership as well as he might have - he might have pulled the party together, but he actually went missing for a few months earlier this year. He had the cards, he just played the wrong hand (personally, I don't think he's capable of playing the right one).

So I don't think the election was decided on any percieved instability of the Labor party. That's in the past, and if past matters were going to determine anything, the Libs would have been booted out on the basis of their outrageous dishonesty and the Iraq war.

I could agree that Labor weren't/aren't ready to run the nation due to Latham's leadership, but that'd give the Liberals too much credit. They aren't fit to run the nation. They fell into government and maintain it on the basis of lies and fear.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

4. To quash your argument completely, and say to you that it is apathetic and fearful voters buying into the i-n-c-u-m-b-e-n-t adminsitration's terror campaign, where there is no greater terror than an increase in mortgage repayments. The Australian middle classes have been dumbed down very nicely indeed and sucked in.

Typically, labor didn't lose it's someone elses fault. Well, you can write what you want for it makes absolutely no difference anymore, the choice has been made. Now I can get on with making more money and enjoying life.
I have to laugh at your arrogance, maybe it is you who has been dumbed down by labor, why else would you support them ?

Originally posted by Grimnebulin

I could agree that Labor weren't/aren't ready to run the nation due to Latham's leadership, but that'd give the Liberals too much credit. They aren't fit to run the nation. They fell into government and maintain it on the basis of lies and fear.

I think it had more to do with labors inate ability to stuff up the economy without even trying. People remember what happened in the 80's and early 90's. So please get off your high horse - labors economic credentials are extremely poor.

- labors economic credentials are extremely poor.

I agree. And Liberal social/foreign/environmental/administration policy is extremely poor. It's just a matter of priorities.

[edit on 13/10/04 by Grimnebulin]

So I don't think the election was decided on any percieved instability of the Labor party. That's in the past, and if past matters were going to determine anything, the Libs would have been booted out on the basis of their outrageous dishonesty and the Iraq war.

Or maybe not. Starting to think I give Australians too much credit.

Originally posted by Grimnebulin

- labors economic credentials are extremely poor.

I agree. And Liberal social/foreign/environmental/administration policy is extremely poor. It's just a matter of priorities.

[edit on 13/10/04 by Grimnebulin]

and labors' social/foreign/environmental/administration policy is good ? Come on, we both know how poor labor is in all areas.

well, not sure what all the fuss is about, I not only got my wish that the Howard Govt be re-elected, but also that finally they'd get balance of power in the senate. Finally they can actually govern & do something positive like give us those superannuation levy cuts we've been promised for 2 years now. Why anyone would want Latham in there as the Prime Minister has got me tossed, he's was the biggest fake act I've ever seen!!! How can you go from one minute being a thug beating up taxi drivers, to suddenly being almost angelic? Not possible....especially in politics. I was preparing to slash my wrists if Labor got in, but it only took 90 minutes to see that the silent MAJORITY had finally thier chance to be heard again.

Just waiting now for Parliament to start up again before Xmas & I'm predicting the return of the colorful Keating language......this time by Latham. Yep, we'll be hearing plenty of "scumbags" in question time, that's for sure, because leopards don't change their spots & we're about to see the old Latham back in action......uglier & more vulgar & agressive than ever.

Originally posted by Figjam

Just waiting now for Parliament to start up again before Xmas & I'm predicting the return of the colorful Keating language......this time by Latham. Yep, we'll be hearing plenty of "scumbags" in question time, that's for sure, because leopards don't change their spots & we're about to see the old Latham back in action......uglier & more vulgar & agressive than ever.

Yes, it was all he could do to keep it together for the last 10 months. It's only a matter of time before he reverts to his old self. It shows just how sad die hard labor supporters are, if they see Latham as their messiah.

hey hey hey... Carr 's Labor has totally stuffed NSW and you guys want them to do the same on a national level.

Labor - no thanks.

Labor - Liberal, not much of a choice.

I'm going to stop using the name Liberal for discussing Howard's party and use Conservatives instead. There is nothing liberal about them. They are very much the counterpart of the US conservatives only they see their citizens as criminals waiting to happen.