I assume that Australian politics are similar to Canadian and UK politics in that party leadership has become presidentialised and elections are very leader-centric. If my assumptions are right, I find that Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are going to have an easy time winning the next election. I know little about Shorten other than he was a lawyer and union organiser prior to entering politics and was the Labour minister in the Gillard/Rudd government. Unlike our PM, who was elected for his surname, good looks and the fact that he was not the incumbent, Shorten does seem like he would make a credible minister, he just strikes me as an ideologue with no personality and therefore unelectable,\ like Corbyn in the UK. Admittedly, my opinion has been shaped slightly by the Chaser, Shorten seems out of his depth. That being said, ALP does seem to be leading. What is accounting for his success?
Good question. I think we need to compare Shorten with Abbott and Turnbull. Abbott was severely disliked and up against him Bill seemed a decent enough bloke but a bit wishy-washy. Now we have Turnbull who appears to have gone against his own personal principles and has been snagged by the dominant rightists in his party. But that puts a lie to the presidential approach of itself. If Turnbull were a president he could tell the right to get stuffed. But since the PM in Australia - as in Canada - is a creation of the party and not the people, he or she has no original moral authority, it's bestowed by the party and it can be removed by the party. Bill against Turnbull looks like an ordinary bloke like the rest of us which may get Labor over the line. And I know you're up with Aus politics but for anyone else from the Great White Frozen North - ALP = Liberals (Grits); Liberals=Conservatives; National Party a bit like Social Credit in Sask and MB; Greens=NDP (all rough approximations)
The ALP is a political party entirely designed to protect the Union movement, and as such they target the lower socioeconomic populations to leverage socialist-esk policy initiates of strong welfare and big government to maintain a voter base. Since most Union members are likely in that population. The ALP then try to garner support from the other parts of the population by labelling the other main political party as a heartless pro-business entity. But in reality, its about protecting the Unions by getting into power and staying in. Only a couple of years ago you needed to be a Union member to even be in the ALP party, so all its representatives used to be Union people - either Union staff or lawyers before moving into politics to serve the Unions. As such they have no real business experience of any useful measure. A bit of IR at best. And it's actually the ALP which support big multinational's, because the Union's can generate more profit from them then small local business. So the other political party is often trying to cement its role in supporting small business (which gives the ALP the angle to label them pro-business). So Shorten is a product of immigrant UK parents who were Unionists, father being a waterside worker - which is a rather militant Union. He has trained his whole life to serve the Union movement being involved in politics and Union management. He is the most charming, non-offensive Union exec the ALP think they can sell to the people. Remembering most of the Union management are borderline criminal thugs. They like to have a soft face to distance themselves from the aggressive tactics of some of the Union's. Like Kevin Rudd before him, the ALP choose whomever is likely to win the election on wider popularity, and then focus their campaign around class warfare and associated economic fear mongering and all the other nice things which political campaigns have become. Unlike Japan and the US, which saw their Union movements grow into the Yakuza and the Mob respectively, and who were smart enough to crack down on Unionism, Australia still lets them get away with bloody murder in terms of industrial relations. I am not anti-Union, I am just anti-militancy. Union's do have a small role but I do not think they should be afforded the special protections above corporations nor have such representation within politics. Some Union's here have been linked to organized crime on occasion, but since the Union movement has been so integral to our political system since the late 1800's they are able to reduce that and maintain the legality of their structures and operations for the most part. It's only the nature of their activities which see's them occasionally overlap with the intimidation, extortion of OMCG's, and of course a raft of unethical but legal practises in the workplace. Most recently we had a Union hold 2x two hour 'meetings' every day, for weeks at a major construction site, to force negotiations on an agreement to their demands. The ALP ensures protection to the Union to act this way, its the main role of the ALP. That is how Shortern grew up, that is what he worked for, that is what he is, that is what they do.
LOL, no that is what the ALP would have you believe. Both major parties are conservative in their conduct, but within that they tend to differ in economic direction by; ALP = Progressive unionist, socialist LNP = Progressive democrats, capitalist Greens = Progressive environmentalists, popularist
No major political party has done anything constructive for the Australian population since the Snowy Mountains scheme. They are all parasites.
Please oh wise one, enlighten us with your wisdom. Please give one example of a major project like the Snowy Mountains scheme any current political party has created for the Australian people?
Superannuation and Medicare Not infrastructure projects but revolutionary reforms that we take for granted today.
Project? You said constructive. Now you're once again moving the goal posts. Anything constructive doesn't only mean infrastructure.
Didn't surprise me that you couldn't connect the dots. Trying to move the goal posts yourself to include other things besides infrastructure, because you know political parties have built nothing major for the Australian people since the Snowy Mountains Scheme. You are as transparent as a piece of glass.
Two basic social reforms in about sixty years is all you and those scum-bag politician have to offer. Nicely done, and proves my point.
And commenting about these scum bag politicians on the internet does what? Maybe if you hate the system so much you do something about it instead of crying about it like a spoilt child
Bill Shorten..... You mean "boy scout bill"... Can you imagine him in conference with Obama, or Putin, or Cameron... He'd look and sound like a little kid who'd just written a hundred lines.... "I must not pretend to be a politician...I must not pretend to be a politician...." Seriously, though, did anyone see them parading through the streets of disaster during the week in their Armani suits, with Millionaire Mal and his silver spoon hanging out his @rse...with their chauffeur driven cars waiting in the background.... Mal and Bill...what a duo...both walking along trying to blend in with the humans.... And then, Mal says, almost with glee in his voice..."this is the time you see the real spirit of Australians, all helping each other in a time of need".... Mal...the idea is to show a little sincerity...if not, a lot of sincerity when you speak to people who have just been flooded out...you cant just hug them and say.."that's the spirit"... The mood I'd imagine would be sombre and distressing, but here's Mal, with a smile on his face, encouraging everyone to work together to help each other..... Would have been more sincere, Mal and Bill if you trotted down in jeans joggers and T shirts, rather than the Amarni suits....and maybe leave the chauffeur driven cars behind.... Millionaire Mal, the banker from private school, born with a silver spoon in his @rse, and Boy Scout Bill.......our leaders....two of the nations finest........god help up..........
When you are faced with the majority of a dumbarse population, who would rather watch TV cooking shows, and adults playing children's games, rather than educate themselves about their own political system. Then how do you propose changing the system?
They are the reasons why people have the last chance to vote for Pauline Hanson, or other independents before its too late. Australia doesn't have much time left. Baird is selling NSW like its being auctioned on ebay.
When you closely examine the Australian intellect with other populations around the world, the majority of Australians really are intellectually backward. Every three years like clockwork, these stupid people come out fighting each other about who’s political party has been more successful than the other persons political party. Not once have they developed any independent thought, and examined what their political party/candidate or established Government has achieved during a specific time for Australia and the Australian people. These stupid people have not considered how many promises politicians have been broken, and how many lies and deceptions have occurred. In their crazy world. All that seems to matter, is validating a few points over the other persons political party. Again, they never truly want to investigate what their own political party has actually accomplished for the betterment of human society. If I use tax revenue and wealth generation as an example. Besides the Snowy Mountains Scheme. Nothing has been built for the Australian people to generate tax and wealth since 1974.
One of the finest examples of ignorance was the "I voted for Rudd not Gillard/Abbott not Turnbull". Put that together with the idiots who thought that Turnbull could reverse the proclivities of the ruling conservatives in the Liberal Party. We don't have a presidential system where the president, popularly elected, carries some moral, if not de jure authority. The PM is always a product of and a captive of his or her own party. Even Thatcher wasn't immune.
Australia is one of the few countries that don't have tight restrictions on donations to parties and candidates by foreigners. Just sayin'
Political donation laws in Australia are pathetic and your statement, if true (I assume it is true) would only make the laws more pathetic. For example, Woodside donated over $100,000 to both major parties. I would consider that a conflict of interest at best and outright vote buying at worst.
It's actually insane that both Australia and New Zealand allow foreign donations. My source is http://www.idea.int/political-finance/question.cfm?field=246®ion=53
It seems that we are worse than New Zealand as they actually have a limit. I won't be holding my breath for any changes though as the current system likely benefits the two major parties.
Turnbull was on the left of the Liberal Party - he supported an ETS on climate change. In order to get into power, he had to do a deal with the right of his party not to push this sort of thing. He is therefore beholden to this wing of his party. People don't like this - it shows that he's willing to change his mind for purely political reasons. Therefore, the support of the opposition increases. [hr][hr] Also, party affiliation always determines most votes. People strongly dislike Shorten, but there are a lot of ALP voters who hate the Coalition more.
