before anyone says anything YES this isnt about US politics (which means if im lucky i will get 2 posts in this thread and mine will be one of them), YES the librals are the right wing party and YES i know this does happen to an extent to labor too (hope i got all the usuals out of the way) What is it with the Libs (and national party too) when they are in oposition, they seem to compleatly implode. They turn from a coherant goverment (with alot of policy i dont surport but at least they are coherant and united for the most part) to a group of squabling children who cant agree if the sun will come up in the east, west, north, south or will just apear in the middle of the sky. Now this DOES happen to Labor as well but they seem to be alot better at dealing with oposition than the libs are. I will admit oposition (and the oposition leader especially) is one of the crappiest and thankless jobs in the country. Especially in Queensland where you dont even have an upper house to block legislation (where as in the other parliments the parties have to get along to an extent in order for ANY legislation to pass). However its still a job and if they ever expect to get "promoted" they have to act like a party and show they have an ability to actually goven. For example At the federal level we have had 2 oposition leaders since Rudd became PM and they are already talking about terfing turnbul from the job infavor of joe hockey (what is it about the Teasures job?). Further more they dont seem to be able to make a coherant argument from sunrise to sunset because they keep changing there mind and each of the shadow minsters keeps comming out and contradicting eachother At the SA state level we are one year out from an election and again we have a new oposition leader (4 in 4 years from memory) and even when the goverment screws up they dont seem to be able to do anything about it because they keep screwing themselves, through there own mestakes or infighting. I know rudd came in one year before the election but i belive that Mr Ed could have won the last federal election against howard just as he could have against Bush (if he had been able to run again) and Blair (hence why he ran away before the shit hit the fanPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Then there is the stupidity at both levels. With in a week or so of eachother BOTH came out with egg on there faces for trying to use forged emails against the goverment. The SA scandle (nicknamed "dodgygate"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) was the oposition leader claiming that the Premier openly of coruption involving the church of scientology (which was a stupid claim to begin with but he didnt even bother to check the acuracy of the infomation). Then Turnbul got up in federal parliment and made the exact same blunder (further compounded by one of his sentors claiming the infomation came from a news report which wasnt published until 2 days AFTER he atacked the PM over itPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). Now i know the resorces avilable to opositions are pitiful compared to whats at the goverments disposal but these are compleate and utter fuck ups which should never have happened. Though im pleased to see that labor has a very strong chance of winning the next state election (because that will mean we will get a new Royal Adelaide Hospital insted of a stupid, unnessary sports stadium) we do actually need a coherant oposition for our system to work. This is most ovious at the federal level where about the only thing the oposition seems able to agree on is that its voting "no" no matter what the Bill before the house is (even if its to turn on the lights it seems at the moment)
because the parties were modeled after the english ones, ie there USED to be a conservitive party, the labor party and a libral party however the conservitives and the libs merged to take on labor and in the end the only "liberal" thing which remained was the namePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
libral in the sense of libatearian? or left wing? because labor is and always has been a left wing party and hasnt drifted to the right like the UK labor party did (or not as far anyway)
IIRC, the name reflects their economic stance more than their social stance. Plus by US standards the both the Liberal and Labour parties are centrist.
As in the term? That seemed self explanatory to me, if not: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centrist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrism Or the idea that the two biggest Australian political parties are close to the middle of the the US's Liberal/Conservative spectrum? That seems to be a fairly common position, and while I'm not an expert on the topic I beleive that one who was would be likely to agree.
Indeed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wasn't aware there were large parties in the US called Liberal and Labour so I wasn't sure how you assumed we were talking about the US.
I think that after 12 years in power, they have to get used to being a minority, It's the same with the republican party in the United States. Continued power makes you lazy, In my memory, when labour won, it's usually either been by a narrow margin or a landslide.. Also, I reckon that the ads, and the attack, and the fact that labour has managed to distance itself from it's main weakness of the economy, indicates that the liberal party has run out of ammunition, and will now grab onto anything to keep them afloat. but hey, I'm just the common citizen.. What would I know/vote for..
Challenger78 at the federal level that makes sense but not at a state level. The labor party has been in power in all states and territories from memory for almost as long (if not longer in some cases) as the Libs were at the federal level. I mean look at Queensland, bells said (in a thread about the queensland elections) that she was prepared to vote lib for the first time ever (because Betties successor was just so bad) yet from memory she STILL didnt because the lib leader was even WORSE. In general you would expect the libs to be taking control in all the states currently because of the length of time that labor has been in power (god i hope labor can hold of defeat for one more term in SA, we NEED a new hospital god damit) yet they STILL seem compleatly incopitant. To be honest im not sure whats going on in the other states except for SA and partially victoria (i still have alot of family there) and we are 2 states where labor seems to be very popular even concidering how long they have been in power (Steve Bracks was a VERY popular person and Mike Rann is one of the most popular Premier's in the country) but it just seems to be a trend. From what i rember of Labor while Kennet was in power they were alot more united than the libs have been and at the federal level the infighting amongst labor was minimal EXCEPT for the period where Latham was leader (and that was for good reason, that guy was a fruitloop)
especially concidering the first LINE of the operning posts STATES "THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE US". God damit, wasnt it buffalo complaining all the threads here are US centric? um no there not, by AUSTRALIAN standed they are both center (libs slightly right of center, labor slightly left) but by US standeds they would both be FAR left both economically AND socially. For instance nither party thinks the goverment should not regulate buiness, they both surport statiory bodies like the ACCC (Australian Compertition and Consumer Commisssion and the Trade Practices Act), the various non gov Obudmen (Tellicomunications, Finantial services ect), ASIC (Australian Securites and Investment Commission), The minimum wage ect (on labor laws, the libs WERE far right until shown in the last election what the australian people will do to a party who puts our job securtiy at risk like that, fire themPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Socially both parties (FINALLY) surport medicare, emergency assistance both here and overseas, public hospitals (one side more than the other sadly), public schools ect. In the case of the libs there political idelology maybe US right but they arnt that stupid (for the most part) to think that Australia will surport a far right shift compleatly away from the wealfare state. The fastest way to lose goverment is to try to abolish medicare (as liberal goverments found in the past) and now it seems that also holds true for workers rights (though belting that through the heads of people like wilson tucky seem to be an impossable task)
In Australia, people now have to refer "small-'L' liberal" when they mean mean the opposite of conservative, and "big-'L' Liberal" when they are talking about the Liberal Party of Australia (which is the more conservative of the two major parties). Both the Australian Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party are essentially centrist parties. In many ways there is not too much to split them. The main thing is that the Liberal Party has traditionally supported business owners rather than workers, and the Labor Party has supported workers' unions and the like. However, over time both parties have had to shift towards the centre to try to win votes from the other side.
Silly Aussies- Left is Right, and Right is Left when you're standing upside-down. I don't mean to look down on you, but please get oriented.
Silly northern-hemispherians (not a word, but it should be!) with all your backwards seasons and whatnot. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Interesting. Seems that power has an asymptote, So at the state level, we've had labour governments for a while now.. Not that NSW is benefiting ,We've had more screw ups.. as usual. Anywho, I don't think Latham was a fruitloop. I think he wasn't as centrist enough.
