Australia has a change of Government

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:23 am

They are still counting votes but the Prime Minister, John Howard, has conceded defeat for his Liberal Government after 11 years in office. He may even lose his own electoral seat. The new Prime Minister of Australia will be Mr Kevin Rudd, leader of the Australian Labour Party.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:47 am

Do you see this as good or bad?

Chezzie · Post by **Chezzie** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:24 am

Will Australians on a whole be happy with this outcome AussiePam?

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 6:13 am

The new guy says he will finally sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, but what about the Bali one??? Do you think he will really remove Australian combat troops from Afganistan? I don't follow Australian politics much, but this seems to be a quite interesting and large change, its a bit reminiscent of New Labour's rise in 1997 and Tony Blair.

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:48 am

I for one am over the moon we have a change of Government. Its a pity though there was no talk of getting rid of the baby bonus, Should be interesting to see the the outcome, but I think Kevin Rudd will do a good job.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:34 pm

Always very hard to tell how election ideas, ideals and promises will turn out in the cold light of day when they need to become specifics. My many years of working in politics, for both sides, has probably made me way too much of a cynic. But, on the general feeling. I'd say Australia obviously felt the Howard Government was tired, and that after eleven years, it was time for a change. Rudd is younger, personable, and seems to have a Plan.

Australia is experiencing a time of great prosperity right now, so the incoming Prime Minister is well placed to lead us, as he puts it, into the future. I expect some industrial relations changes (not sweeping changes), some revamping of the education and hospital systems (odd that, as education and helath here are State matters), some change in emphasis in foreign policy - though Mr Rudd was very careful to confirm our good relations with our Allies and Friends, like the USA and UK (I think he said Europe there). I don't know if this will translate into troop withdrawal. The Greens, the environmentalist party, polled well, though some issues high up on their list - like the Tasmanian paper mill - are at varience with Labour Party policies. So will we sign those treaties? Sorry, I don't know.

For myself, as a whole, I'm cautiously optimistic.

:sneaky:

Kathy Ellen · Post by **Kathy Ellen** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:40 pm

Good luck to your new government to my Aussie friends....may it bring good changes. We have one more year of George::rolleyes::mad:

Hello Pam......:-6

minks · Post by **minks** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:47 pm

political change is always gradual and time consuming. I hope this change proves to be a good on in the end. I spose only time will tell.

Good points GallyB.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 3:11 pm

The Liberal and Labour parties, in Australia, do not translate into American style Republican and Democrat. I know very little about the Canadian system. The Liberal party used once to be the party of the well-off and the Labour party used to be the party of the working man. Nowadays, both have moved towards the centre and both parties contain odd bedfellows. For instance. many upwardly mobile professionals vote Labour on environmentalist and "humanitarian" type grounds. Many workers now own property and vote Liberal for better economic management and also, for what they have up till recently, seen as stronger management of external threats and immigration issues. This is of course a very big simplification... I just put it here to show the blurring of traditional political positions.

How much leeway either major party has to make major change in Australia is also interesting. We have a Constitution. We have powerful, non elected monetary institutions. We have law courts and we have multinationals.

However, I think there will be a different feel. The incoming Prime Minister recognised this. And for better or worse, here we now are. I'm going to the gym.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:48 am

Galbally;724505 wrote: The new guy says he will finally sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, but what about the Bali one??? Do you think he will really remove Australian combat troops from Afganistan? I don't follow Australian politics much, but this seems to be a quite interesting and large change, its a bit reminiscent of New Labour's rise in 1997 and Tony Blair.

Look where that has led us. Hopefully it won't turn out as badly for the aussies. None of our main parties are saying they will withdraw troops. Would be a vote winner here I suspect.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 6:33 pm

AussiePam;724888 wrote: The Liberal and Labour parties, in Australia, do not translate into American style Republican and Democrat. I know very little about the Canadian system. The Liberal party used once to be the party of the well-off and the Labour party used to be the party of the working man. Nowadays, both have moved towards the centre and both parties contain odd bedfellows. For instance. many upwardly mobile professionals vote Labour on environmentalist and "humanitarian" type grounds. Many workers now own property and vote Liberal for better economic management and also, for what they have up till recently, seen as stronger management of external threats and immigration issues. This is of course a very big simplification... I just put it here to show the blurring of traditional political positions.

How much leeway either major party has to make major change in Australia is also interesting. We have a Constitution. We have powerful, non elected monetary institutions. We have law courts and we have multinationals.

However, I think there will be a different feel. The incoming Prime Minister recognised this. And for better or worse, here we now are. I'm going to the gym.

I didn't notice, did Howard keep his seat?

kayleneaussie · Post by **kayleneaussie** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:17 pm

probably will, but they are still counting

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:43 pm

I think in one sense he hopes he doesn't keep his seat. He's not going to be sitting around on the opposition back benches for three years, so he'll hafta resign, which means a By-Election. With the majority the Labour party has won by, one more seat won't make much difference to the numbers.

The Liberals are shedding, one way or another, all the old leaders, as is the National Party. Interesting.

One of the policies I greatly blamed the outgoing Prime Minister for was personally scuppering the Referendum on Australia becoming a Republic - that is ditching having foreign royalts as our head of State. The current frontrunner for the position of Liberal Oppostion Leader is Malcolm Turnbull who in fact led the movement for a Republic.

I'm not sure what the Labour Party policy is on that.

Santanico · Post by **Santanico** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:22 pm

AussiePam;726246 wrote: I think in one sense he hopes he doesn't keep his seat. He's not going to be sitting around on the opposition back benches for three years, so he'll hafta resign, which means a By-Election. With the majority the Labour party has won by, one more seat won't make much difference to the numbers.

The Liberals are shedding, one way or another, all the old leaders, as is the National Party. Interesting.

One of the policies I greatly blamed the outgoing Prime Minister for was personally scuppering the Referendum on Australia becoming a Republic - that is ditching having foreign royalts as our head of State. The current frontrunner for the position of Liberal Oppostion Leader is Malcolm Turnbull who in fact led the movement for a Republic.

I'm not sure what the Labour Party policy is on that.

I have to agree with you Pam, I think he actually chucked this election to a certain extent. I honestly think the major thing that lost this election for him was telling us he was retiring and putting Peter Costello in charge. He could have said nothing and he probably would've been PM for another term, but no-one wants whingy Pete to be our PM. You just have to look at his reaction after the election to see what a bad loser he is!

I'm cautiously optimistic about the change, hopefully Kevin won't throw our trust in him back in our faces.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:31 pm

Santanico;726282 wrote: I have to agree with you Pam, I think he actually chucked this election to a certain extent. I honestly think the major thing that lost this election for him was telling us he was retiring and putting Peter Costello in charge. He could have said nothing and he probably would've been PM for another term, but no-one wants whingy Pete to be our PM. You just have to look at his reaction after the election to see what a bad loser he is!

I'm cautiously optimistic about the change, hopefully Kevin won't throw our trust in him back in our faces.

I think that's a very fair assessment, Santanico, and reflects my own feelings. The Howard Government was tired, to put it kindly, and showed every sign of running out of puff. I've never supported any one party blindly and totally. I hope the incoming Government will avoid excesses, proceed slowly and responsibly, and govern for all Australians. I hope the outgoing government will look carefully at its leadership and its policies and renew itself and go forward (after the probably necessary initial bloodbath).

Australia needs a good government, good opposition and no government so entrenched and so secure that it gets smug or lazy.

Santanico · Post by **Santanico** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:36 pm

AussiePam;726290 wrote:

Australia needs a good government, good opposition and no government so entrenched and so secure that it gets smug or lazy.

Could not have said it better myself!!

Ever thought about going into politics yourself? :p

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:52 am

Grin. Santanico - I worked in it for quite a few years, for both sides. It cured me of any illusions.

:sneaky:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:49 am

AussiePam;726246 wrote: I think in one sense he hopes he doesn't keep his seat. He's not going to be sitting around on the opposition back benches for three years, so he'll hafta resign, which means a By-Election. With the majority the Labour party has won by, one more seat won't make much difference to the numbers.

The Liberals are shedding, one way or another, all the old leaders, as is the National Party. Interesting.

One of the policies I greatly blamed the outgoing Prime Minister for was personally scuppering the Referendum on Australia becoming a Republic - that is ditching having foreign royalts as our head of State. The current frontrunner for the position of Liberal Oppostion Leader is Malcolm Turnbull who in fact led the movement for a Republic.

I'm not sure what the Labour Party policy is on that.

If they had had a referendum how do you think it would have gone?

On the home front i find the most fun way to annoy BNP members is to agree with their immigration policies and suggest they start with the queen and her immigrant greek husband. Admittedly the conversation does tend to go downhill rather rapidly.

AussiePam · Post by **AussiePam** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:04 pm

GMC - the position of the Royal Family within the UK (is Scotland in the UK? grin) is a very different question to the question of whether the Queen of England should be Head of State of Australia and Head of our Armed Forces. My country does of course have strong historical ties to England, but both by population, geography, modern thinking and culture - we're now very far removed from those early days.

I think most Australians respect the Queen, whoever she is - we mostly ignore her. Equally, I think most Australians don't respect Prince Charles and would find it a lot harder to ignore him, whoever he is, if he ever became King of Australia. :-5

The Referendum on the Republic cost vast amounts of money. The time was right. The people of Australia clearly were in favour of ending that embarrassing anomaly - Mr Howard, the Prime Minister is a monarchist, and managed the referendum in such a way that it split the republic supporters. Divide and conquer. He made it all controversial. Changing the Australian Constitution is almost impossible on anything even a teeensy weensy bit controversial. And this vote was consequently lost. The divisive question was not whether we should ditch the foreign royals but what or who we should have to replace them.