Aussies LXIV - Invasion Day Edition

[The Marquis de Leech]

*Points and laughs at Campbell Newman.*

Honestly: going from 78 out of 89 seats to actually losing the following election... on the face of it, you'd think he was an ALP plant.

[Jeor]

He was always going to suffer a backlash (there's hardly any way you could improve on his last election result) but he royally screwed up the term he had in office. With such a huge majority and that much power, he had to do well because there was no excuse for not being able to govern.

[Horza]

This man is an Australian Senator. He shares the balance of power. His views must be sought, and preferences taken into consideration, by all who seek legislative change in this great Commonwealth.

[Stubby]

This man is an Australian Senator. He shares the balance of power. His views must be sought, and preferences taken into consideration, by all who seek legislative change in this great Commonwealth.

For fuck's sake. We just got rid if one fuckwit.

[karaddin]

I'm definitely with Antony Green on the reform on the Senate voting system. I don't have an issue with idiots getting in when people deliberately vote for them, but the preference deal bullshit where votes follow what the parties say is resulting in absurd outcomes.

[sh_wulff]

Yeah, mixed proportional representation is the way to go ( IMVHO).

[arya_underfoot]

This man is an Australian Senator. He shares the balance of power. His views must be sought, and preferences taken into consideration, by all who seek legislative change in this great Commonwealth.

Sadly, he isn't even the worst Senator who snuck in at the last election.

[The Winged Shadow]

It's the new Australian Dream*; to become a troll Polly.

In some ways I kind of like it, in that they don't really have an agenda or party line to tow, so they end up kinda flopping around between two major party policies. Sometimes they even make some reasonable choices!

*Now that buying a house is relatively out of reach for most youngins.

[Stubby]

There has been a transformer explosion at Westfield Galleria. One person is dead and about a dozen injured.

News story

:(

[sh_wulff]

I wonder if Abbott will be Humpty Dumpty?

[brook]

It looks like Abbott is gone but I have nfi who will stand up to take it. All the potential candidates are awful in their own way and nobody seems to actually have support.

[Arkhangel]

Abbott is an awful PM and an embarrassment to the country on the world stage, but I think it would be a genuinely bad thing for Australia if he gets rolled. That would be three consecutive terms that a sitting PM has been dumped by their own party, and it sets a bad precedent for Australia's political stability. Much as I can't stand Abbott, I think it would be in the long-term best interests of the country not to roll another national leader.

[The Winged Shadow]

But if he doesn't get rolled, you send the message that you are willing to put up with his bullshit. I say keep em rolling until they get the message. The country will do just fine while the leadership changes over, as has been the case the last 2 times. Potential embarrassment isn't a good enough reason to keep a terrible PM.

Heads will roll until morale improves! :P

[Arkhangel]

But if he doesn't get rolled, you send the message that you are willing to put up with his bullshit. I say keep em rolling until they get the message. The country will do just fine while the leadership changes over, as has been the case the last 2 times. Potential embarrassment isn't a good enough reason to keep a terrible PM.

Heads will roll until morale improves! :P

No, we don't. We, as in the public of Australia, have no say at all in whether he is rolled; his rolling doesn't send any message at all from us. That's what elections are for. If he's rolled, the only message it sends is from the internal factions of the Liberal party.

Keeping him on is a potential guaranteed embarrassment, but having yet another prime minister removed by his own party is bad for national political stability.

[Stubby]

My question is this:

If the backbenchers are so worried about their seats as a result of the Qld election, why have they sat by and mindlessly voted along party lines for issues contravening election promises? For a party that seems to pride itself on 'family values' and morals they sure are a bunch dishonest pricks.

Of course, Abbott is the head bullshitter, but none of this current lot care about integrity.

[arya_underfoot]

I have to say it's entertaining watching the liberals tear themselves apart whilst claiming that they don't want to emulate the last labor government. They are doing exactly the same thing, but are telling themselves that if they don't dispose of Abbott, somehow it will all work out okay. I'd like to see this play out a bit longer just for a laugh. Though on the other hand, after all the trouble she caused Gillard, I wouldn't mind Bishop being a taught a practical lesson about sexism and misogyny if she were to be elevated to PM.

[The Winged Shadow]

No, we don't. We, as in the public of Australia, have no say at all in whether he is rolled; his rolling doesn't send any message at all from us. That's what elections are for. If he's rolled, the only message it sends is from the internal factions of the Liberal party.

Keeping him on is a potential guaranteed embarrassment, but having yet another prime minister removed by his own party is bad for national political stability.

While we don't get to vote, the polls are certainly a (form of) voice of the Australian public. And the polls certainly send a message, just not as directly as voting. Although I admit that its not necessarily a good thing that polls seem to have such power in our political system. That's not to say internal politics don't play a part in ousting leaders.

Given the potential damage Abbott's government can do/trying to do to so many of our system (Medicare, Uni/Education/Research, Welfare etc), why should political stability take priority? Also, what does political instability look like from your point of view?

[karaddin]

I have to say it's entertaining watching the liberals tear themselves apart whilst claiming that they don't want to emulate the last labor government. They are doing exactly the same thing, but are telling themselves that if they don't dispose of Abbott, somehow it will all work out okay. I'd like to see this play out a bit longer just for a laugh. Though on the other hand, after all the trouble she caused Gillard, I wouldn't mind Bishop being a taught a practical lesson about sexism and misogyny if she were to be elevated to PM.

Bishop is a Liberal, the lesson she is going to learn is that it doesn't matter how good she is or how clearly she should be the leader, she's in a partner full of men that won't follow a woman and she won't get the job.

Abbott has proven utterly incompetent in addition to being the most dishonest PM we've had, I think he has to go and sooner than we can get rid of him in an election. He has shown he can't learn anything, all he does is bluster and threaten and continue to try hammer the same thing through. He also fairly openly puts internal party politics ahead of the good of the country, positioning his senior ministers where he best thinks it will undermine their ability to challenge him with no thought for what actually serves the country, and undermining his own government when he gets an opportunity to make them look bad. He is only interested in his own personal power in partnership with a rather extreme ideology.

The problem is the only competent alternatives are Turnbull and maybe Bishop, both of whom are so unacceptable to the party.

[Arkhangel]

Given the potential damage Abbott's government can do/trying to do to so many of our system (Medicare, Uni/Education/Research, Welfare etc), why should political stability take priority? Also, what does political instability look like from your point of view?

If I thought getting rid of Abbott as leader would stop any of that from happening, I would be totally behind it. As it is, though, changing the leader doesn't mean changing the government and doesn't mean changing the policies. It achieves little, except as a distraction and an excuse. Political instability, in this context, looks like the Gillard years in which so much time and attention and energy was wasted on political intrigues and point-scoring rather than on actually governing the country. Who wants more of that?

[karaddin]

I'd also like to make the point that the LNP keep trying to liken it to Gillard ousting Rudd, but that was sudden and quick and took everyone by surprise. This is an awful lot more like when Rudd got back into power, on the back of a very long sustained popularity issue with the PM and a media interested in keeping the issue alive.