The parties running include:

quote:

---

The presence of Australian troops in Iraq is expected to dominate the polls.

Mr Latham has announced he will withdraw the 800-strong Australian contingent from its role supporting US forces in Iraq, if he wins the vote.

---

Mark Latham is pretty outspoken, even for Australia:

quote:

---

"Howard is an arse-licker. He went over there, kissed some bums, and got patted on the head."
- description of Prime Minister John Howard's trip to the United States.

"There they are, a conga line of suckholes on the conservative side of politics."
- on Coalition support for the war in Iraq.

"Bush himself is the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory."
- on US President George W Bush.

---

Just as a sidenote, if Labour does win we can look forward to another referendum on the monarchy within a year- this time a two step referendum (first do you want a republic, then what kind of republic) so it's much more likely to pass than the last attempt. Labour hopes to make Australia a republic by 2007.

[ 30 August 2004: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Do you suppose that if the NDP had supplanted the Liberals in Canada in the 60s, by now the NDp would basically be a Canadian carbon copy of the Australian labour Party?

---

quote:

---

Maybe. I like to think the NDP wouldn't have descended into homophobic pandering like the ALP's campaign against same-sex marriage, but who knows?

---

I don't think its fair to say that the ALP has a "campaign" against same sex marriage. My impression is that (not that I condone this) the ALP has been caught in a trap similar to the Democrats in the US.

Australia (and the US for that matter) is much less socially liberal than Canada. I Canada it is an ADVANTAGE politically to support same sex marriage. In the US and Australian it is the reverse.

The Liberals in Australia (who are actually the Conservatives) purposely forced a vote on the issue to try to force the ALP to take an unpopular position on the eve of the election. Kinda like the GOP forcing a vote on the "Defence of Marrigae Act" on the eve of the `1996 presidential election.

The ALP didn't take the bait and for the most part vote with the government. I condemn them for that, but its not fair to say that they "campaigned" for it. If the ALP were in power and controlled the agenda in Australia, they would never have introduced anti-SSM bills.

The ALP also appears to be calling for more humane detention camps for refugees, while keeping the walls up on immigration.

The ALP is also the party that presided over Australian support for vicious military dictatorships in Southeast Asia, all for the profit of Australian oil corporations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
. . . you can have the best of both worlds - cast a protest vote for the Left without risking any vote splitting that might reelected John Howard.

---

Better yet would be if you could cast a vote for the Greens or whoever that would actually count, and elect MPs of your first choice in proportion to the popular vote, rather than give a blank cheque to Labour.

In 2001 the preferential votes put Howard in sole control.

Results of the 2001 election:

First Preference vote %, final preference vote, seat %
Liberal-National 43.0%, 51.0%, 54.7%
One Nation(Pauline Hanson) 4.3%, 0%
Democrats (centrist liberals) 5.4%, 0%
Labour 37.8%, 49.0%, 43.3%
Greens 5.0%, 0%
Other 3.7%, 2.0%

[ 01 September 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The Greens and Democrats etc... in Australia have pitiful showings in comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But a lot of Independent candidates seem to win in Australia . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by candle:
I wonder how much affect Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil, a well known environmentalist and ALP candidate, will have on the vote of the "Greenies"

---

quote:

---

How exactly does the Australian ballot work. On the night of the Canadian election, I was having dinner with an Australian friend and she said that you might vote for an independent or Greenie and that they might swap it to the ALP. Also, I was reading an article about the current Aussie election and the Coalition Environment Minister said it would not negotiate "preferences" with the Greens, rather that is what " Graham Richardson, Mark Latham , and Peter Garrett do"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by candle:
she said that you might vote for an independent or Greenie and that they might swap it to the ALP.

---

For Senate seats, amazingly, that's correct. Under the unique Australian Senate version of the almost unique STV system, over 95% of voters decline to actually use the "Single Transferable Vote" in its full transferable glory (as used in Ireland.) Instead of ranking all the 69 or so candidates for the six Senate seats from the state, over 95% of voters simply vote "above the line" for their party of choice.

quote:

---

those voters who voted "above the line" had their second preferences automatically allocated. All parties lodge a copy of their How-to-Vote Card with the Electoral Commission, and the Commission follows this card in allocating the preferences of those who vote "above the line."

---

Labor leader Mark Latham secured a much-needed boost in his election campaign last night, winning a televised leaders' debate dominated by global terrorism, health, tax relief, economic management and leadership.

The hand-picked studio audience of 90 swinging voters awarded the debate to Mr Latham, 67 per cent to 33 per cent.

Neither man claimed victory last night. ...

They're both anti-Bush and anti-Beijing (i.e. pro-logic and pro-human rights) and very left-wing on most issues.

Labour supports bad trade agreements with the USA and is homophobic, so it's not much better than Liberal.

If I were Australian, I'd rank the parties as follows on my AV ballot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NDP Newbie:
Vote Green.

They're both anti-Bush and anti-Beijing (i.e. pro-logic and pro-human rights) and very left-wing on most issues.

Labour supports bad trade agreements with the USA and is homophobic, so it's not much better than Liberal.

If I were Australian, I'd rank the parties as follows on my AV ballot:

1. Green (Only great choice)
2. Democrats (They may wimp out too often, but they're not bad on the issues.)
3. One Nation (Worst party in Australia, but I'd rank them 3rd out of spite for Liberal-Nationa and Labour.)
4. Labour (Could be worse...)
5. Liberal-National (I'd rather support the GOP.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
The nice thng in Australia is that you can feel free to register a protest vote without risking splitting votes and reelecting John Howard because they have preferential voting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
But no one is forced to vote according to these How to Vote cards that the parties distribute in Australia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
I have to disagree with placing One Nation ahead of Labour and the Liberals in Australia. One Nation is an openly racist party. I think that the best statement that can be made against it is to rank it dead last behind EVERYONE else.

---

I know that, but I'd still do it as hyperbolic display of contempt towards Labour.

In the 1974 election, Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam won a second term, but failed to secure a majority in the Senate. Late in 1975, after the government had been racked by scandals and after the death of a Labor senator, the Liberal opposition leader, Malcolm Fraser, decided the time was opportune to force new elections, when ALP fortunes were low and the Liberals had temporary control of the Senate. He directed his senators to block passage of the budget, which lead to a constitutional crisis. Whitlam refused to either resign or call new elections, reasoning that the government could operate for several months without a budget before the cash would run out, and that several of the Liberal senators would waver before then.

The recently appointed Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, was a lawyer (and later judge) by training who had a rather expansive view of the use of royal reserve powers. Kerr was also a former Labor party member, but unbeknownest to Whitlam (who had appointed him) his views had shifted radically to the right during the 60's.
Kerr decided that he had the right to dismiss Whitlam for failure to obtain supply (whereas the ALP's view was that the GG could not act until the country was actually bankrupt.), and when Whitlam approached Kerr and asked for a partial dissolution of the Senate to settle the issue, Kerr refused and informed him that he was dismissed as Prime Minister. This was done with no warning given, to avoid the threat of Whitlam asking the Queen to replace Kerr as GG (which would have been his legal right). Kerr then appointed Fraser Prime Minister, having discussed the move beforehand with the opposition leader. Finally, Fraser immediately asked for (and received) a dissolution, to trump Whitlam who was racing back to the House of Representatives that afternoon to pass a non-confidence motion in Fraser's government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
Maybe. I like to think the NDP wouldn't have descended into homophobic pandering like the ALP's campaign against same-sex marriage, but who knows?

---

Considering our Liberal party didn't, I doubt a stronger NDP would have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

Considering our Liberal party didn't, I doubt a stronger NDP would have.

They also likely wouldn't have been any more proactive than the Liberal party was either.

---

That and support for equal marriage in Canada is at 57%, the same level of support found in San Francisco.

I'd say we can peg NDP support for it at 90 - 95%, Bloc support at about 80%, Liberal support not much over half, and Tory support at 20 - 25%.

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: NDP Newbie ]