The Australian politics/election/whatever thread

brydie76

Viva Las Clarksonistas!
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
3,052
Location
Australia
Car(s)
2012 Suzuki Swift Sport/Aprilia Sportcity 200
Ok, starting this because (long story short) Australia could have their first ever female PM today. Looks like Rudd is being kicked out by the clan who supported him. Figured this could also serve as an election thread as we've got a big Federal one coming up later this year and NSW has a slaughterhouse coming up next year.

News links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10393918.stm

http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...nd-on-leadership/story-e6frfllr-1225883463895

http://www.news.com.au/features/fed...-dump-kevin-rudd/story-e6frfllr-1225883474357

Discuss.
 
Last edited:
The only thing I care about in Oz politics is the camps. That's it. Apart from that, I'll only be able to contribute humor and satire about typical Australian stereotypes (present company excluded, obviously) to this thread.

That said. A sheala for PM would be something new.
 
And that's my exact problem, people were calling into the radio station saying how great it would be to have a female prime minister... (that and dopes that called in saying that they voted for Kev, despite the fact our system doesn't work like that)

Why? what makes a women more qualified? if the shoe was on the other foot would it be the same?

Julia Gillard is a union cronie who also played a large role in all of things Kev is being blamed for.


I just hope this doesn't give the greens a whole heap of votes, if you read their policies they're just damn scary
 
I'm just calling it a big day in history, not a good or bad one necessarily. I don't really care who leads the party (and I'm more than willing to give them a change regardless of past record), I just want Krudd out.

Gillard is currently set to get 74 our of the 112 votes, according to Sky News. 57 is needed for a majority and to win the leadership from memory. There are a few diehard Rudd supprters coming out of the owodwork and threatening to quit if (and most likely when) he loses.

4 minutes until the vote. Don't think there will be an eleventh hour standing down from Rudd now....

(just on a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing Combet in one of the top roles/as a future leader. Yes, he's also a union cronie, but he's also my local area MP and hasn't done a bad job at all around here. Nice guy too)
 
Last edited:
Is she the best PERSON for the job? If yes good, if only getting it for being a woman then oops. I think that Rudd seems to have upset lots of people. Good luck OZ any way.
 
I'm just calling it a big day in history, not a good or bad one necessarily. I don't really care who leads the party (and I'm more than willing to give them a change regardless of past record), I just want Krudd out.

Gillard is currently set to get 74 our of the 112 votes, according to Sky News. 57 is needed for a majority and to win the leadership from memory. There are a few diehard Rudd supprters coming out of the owodwork and threatening to quit if (and most likely when) he loses.

4 minutes until the vote. Don't think there will be an eleventh hour standing down from Rudd now....

(just on a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing Combet in one of the top roles/as a future leader. Yes, he's also a union cronie, but he's also my local area MP and hasn't done a bad job at all around here. Nice guy too)

I guess it depends how you view the unions, Liberals have big business and Labor has unions (which are also really big business)
 
Is she the best PERSON for the job? If yes good, if only getting it for being a woman then oops. I think that Rudd seems to have upset lots of people. Good luck OZ any way.

I think she is the best person for the job at the moment. Nobody else in the party is anywhere near as ready (IMO) to step up to the plate and take on the task that she may be about to.

I guess it depends how you view the unions, Liberals have big business and Labor has unions (which are also really big business)

Given my personal circumstances, I really should supprt big business, but I really don't support either (depends on the circumstances). I've had good and bad experiences with both big business and the unions as a person and my perception of both of them falls somewhere in between "they are fine" and "they are hopeless".
 
I don't give a rats ass wether a leader is a man or a woman. As long as the individual is qualified, that's what I care about. It wasn't her sex that made Maggie one of the Great prime ministers of the United Kingdom (even if she was a pain in the bum, probably insane and so old fashioned it beggers belief, she is one of the Great PMs), if you know what I mean.

But one question. What do the average ozzie think about the camps?
 
Well, I got that wrong. KRudd stood down at the last minute, Gillard elected unopposed.

I respect him for that, he did the best thing for his party by recognising the fight was over and avoiding a ptoentially reputation-damaging bloodbath.
 
But one question. What do the average ozzie think about the camps?

I don't believe in what unions have become and to be honest I think that they yield more than big business do by far


Also, Wayne Swan for deputy....
 
I hope people realize Gillard taking charge isn't going to change a damn thing. She's a fuckwit, just like Rudd.
 
I hope people realize Gillard taking charge isn't going to change a damn thing. She's a fuckwit, just like Rudd.

Pretty much, half the shit was her portfolio anyway

I can't get over Wayne Swan as deputy....
 
I was referring to the camps with illegal immigrants.
 
I hope people realize Gillard taking charge isn't going to change a damn thing. She's a fuckwit, just like Rudd.

Like I've said, I think we need to give her a chance as a population. She's been deputy PM all this time and as such has had to appear to be a Rudd clone to give a show of solidarity and unity. She may turn out to be quite different, good or bad.

And worst case scenario, people are only stuck with her for an absolute maximum of 10 months. Although, I do think the alternative is much worse in my opinion....

And on nomix's question, I have said before that our system needs to be fixed, preferrably by speeding up the current system (I am ok with detention to some extent, but it needs to be quick and children must not be detained in the current conditions that exist). Of course, this means that more resources need to be put into the system, but that ain't going to happen.
On the level of restrictions, I don't want complete free passage (we obviously do need a level of screening), but I don't want a giant barbed wire fence with snipers every 100m either. There needs to be a happy medium, and I think we are only a bit off.

EDIT: oh yeah, press conference from Gillard at 11am. And House of Reps has been suspended until futher notice (i.e. when they get Gillard and Swan sworn in)
 
Last edited:
I guess I just think it's a sign of indifference and inhumanity to indiscriminatly put people beind fences. It's just a little.. wrong in my vocabulary.
 
I guess I just think it's a sign of indifference and inhumanity to indiscriminatly put people beind fences. It's just a little.. wrong in my vocabulary.

I do understand that completely (and on a base level am against it), but the alternative is to allow free passage of all asylum seekers into Australian communities. As others have said before, you run the real risk of quite a few nutjobs getting in and no real tracking system (to not only ensure they don't do anything wrong, but to also ensure they receive support, both financially and emotionally), which is completely undesireable and would end up with the potential of other groups (eg extremist groups) exploiting the system. At least this way we can screen and help these people out. I would like to see the detention centres improved as afar as facilities go, but- as I said above- on government is going to do that because it's not a popular area for spending to go to.
 
I guess I just think it's a sign of indifference and inhumanity to indiscriminatly put people beind fences. It's just a little.. wrong in my vocabulary.

It's not indiscriminate, they're illegal immigrants trying to jump the queue.
 
Is there a single world leader out there at the moment who's doing a good job and putting through every single promise they made? Like others, I don't think this will change much, at the end of the day, nobody's perfect and eventually it just boils down to who can keep the peace for the longest.
 
Last edited:
It's not indiscriminate, they're illegal immigrants trying to jump the queue.

They are indiscriminatly putting illegal immigrants into detention centre's.
 
Top