SA Footy

The two big questions are when will it be held, and who will win it?

On the first question, full term for the current government could see an election as late as 2014, but with the tenuous one seat majority of the government an election earlier than that is certainly a possibility. Here is the current bookies market for the election date:

On or Before 31st Dec 2011 $2.65
1st Jan 2012 to 30th Jun 2012 $3.25
1st Jul 2012 to 31st Dec 2012 $7.00
1st Jan 2013 to 30th Jun 2013 $12.00
1st Jul 2013 to 31st Dec 2013 $2.65
Anytime in 2014 $51.00

On the second question it seems almost certain that the Coalition will win it, although as we know anything can happen in politics particularly if the election is two and a half years away. Here is the current bookies market for the election winner:

COALITION $1.35
LABOR PARTY $3.15

Labor will have had two terms by the time the next election rolls around, although in recent years governments have gone over two terms into three and four its the exception rather than the rule, not every time but a number of times people are sick of either flavour of government and vote the opposite one in because the blame the first one for everything irrespective of whether it relates to the world economy or whatever.

The only thing that keeps oppositions from winning when the incumbents are clearly doing all they can to lose it, is appearing weak and not being any different to the current government. As much as the rusted on left may dislike Abbott and his various positions that he takes, he is neither a weak leader nor a carbon copy of the ALP. Whether the whole "Mad Monk" tag and his Catholicism is enough to turn voters against him remains to be seem. If he were with the Assemblies of God it would, but Catholics both represent a major slice of the population in Australia and are also seen by many not even remotely in the same light as some of the other church groups getting around.

TAB styled polls are rarely wrong as they lose their own money if they are, yet as you say, two years is a very long time and Abbott and Turnbull could quite easily come to a split during that time if given enough rope for it!

A lot of Catholics vote Labor too, Sojourner. As do many of the happy clappers who dont vote for Family First.

I think Julia will hang on as long as she can - but if the right moment surfaces for her in 2013, she will rush to an election as quick as she can. Eg, if Julie Bishop suddenly became Opposition leader; or if some sort of world or domestic turmoil erupted wherein voters historically prefer to settle on incumbency of governments.

Squawk, the Prime Minister has a deal with the Independents not to go to an early election.

redandblack wrote:Squawk, the Prime Minister has a deal with the Independents not to go to an early election.

I wouldn't expect that would stop her if she thought the odds were good for a win and not needing the other groups support any more.

Yes, that's true, but I think she would respect the agreement, unless the Indies agreed?

Just wondering - if Labor wanted to jump to an election but the independants didn't - can they then form an alliance with the Coalition that would enable a change of government without an election?

I can't see this govt in it's current form surviving to 2014.

The coalition will give everything to force an early election which is certainly going to be averted at all costs by Labor, Windsor and Oakeshott will be wiped from the map so they wouldn't be keen and the Greens would also take a hit.

Add the fact that IMHO, neither side deserves to govern in their current form then it makes the next 3 years a time for despair

Is it too much to ask for some emphasis on good policy development from all political beasts rather than the current populist rubbish that belongs to the realm of reality TV?

fish wrote:Just wondering - if Labor wanted to jump to an election but the independants didn't - can they then form an alliance with the Coalition that would enable a change of government without an election?

dedja wrote:

fish wrote:Just wondering - if Labor wanted to jump to an election but the independants didn't - can they then form an alliance with the Coalition that would enable a change of government without an election?

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but, in theory, could the independents switch sides, and support a vote of no confidence in the existing government?
Would this allow the opposition leader to go to the governor-general with the support necessary to form a stable government?

I don't think it is likely to happen, because I expect the independents would anticipate losing their own seats, and thus wouldn't do it even if it were best for the country...

Yes, that can certainly happen ... unsure of the likelihood though in the current climate!

Yes, that could happen, Psyber.

It's a fact, though, that conservatives have a problem acknowledging the legitimacy of Labor governments.

After 23 years of Liberal/CP governemnts, Whitlam comfortably won the 1972 election. He was forced to another election in 1974. Despite winning that election, he was forced to another election the following year, after several conventions were broken by Liberal State Premiers.

Now we have conservatives not being able to accept another properly elected government, which has passed over 170 bills, with none defeated. If the Indies had supported Abbott, we wouldn't have heard any of this 'illegitimate' nonsense.

The 'born to rule' mentality is a worry, aided and abetted by News Ltd.

Think Bill Shorten would just go and have a quite word with the Governer and it would all be sorted out pretty quickly!

Oakshitt and Windsor would likely go to over to the Libs if pushed in that situation as both of them are likely stuffed at the next election, Wilkie and Bandt however would be pretty unlikely to do so considering one is a Green who will never under any circumstances support the Liberal party and the other is popular in his electorate and likely to be re elected fairly easilly unless he decides he wants a go at a Senate spot.

Sojourner, I hope the 'Oakshitt' was a typo, because otherwise it's just juvenile stuff that I'd expect from some others, not you.

Nobody was against Oakeshott and Windsor until they didn't back Abbott. They then suddenly became unacceptable to the conservatives.

Hi R&B

I confess that I once saw that particular spelling on the Australian comments forum and found it funny and used it accordingly, agreed though that its pretty juvenile, but its only to try and lighten up the discussion mate!

Pretty sure that I heard that from the previous term that Oakeshott and Windsor had been largely voting with the ALP, perhaps the main mistake of the Lib/Nat party was to have not put a much stronger candidate in those seats to contest them, clearly they will be this time around, rumour has is that Windsor may get to have a go at facing Barnaby Joyce which may prove an interesting battle if true!

No worries, mate

Sojourner wrote:Oakeshott and Windsor would likely go to over to the Libs if pushed in that situation...

Of course the Convoy of Sore Losers would be dead against that.

Or would they?

redandblack wrote:Yes, that could happen, Psyber.

It's a fact, though, that conservatives have a problem acknowledging the legitimacy of Labor governments.

After 23 years of Liberal/CP governemnts, Whitlam comfortably won the 1972 election. He was forced to another election in 1974. Despite winning that election, he was forced to another election the following year, after several conventions were broken by Liberal State Premiers.

Now we have conservatives not being able to accept another properly elected government, which has passed over 170 bills, with none defeated. If the Indies had supported Abbott, we wouldn't have heard any of this 'illegitimate' nonsense.

The 'born to rule' mentality is a worry, aided and abetted by News Ltd.

I'm not sure you have the details, or perhaps the interpretation, of those events quite right.

I voted for Gough in 1972 and my recall was that he went for the early election in 1974 because the polls were looking good and he wanted to secure the next term while the going was good.
I approved of the move at the time, and voted for him again.

By 1975 I was glad to be given the opportunity to change my vote by any means that would hold up under the constitution.
At the time, I was horrified by the loans affair and the shambles the government was becoming.
I wasn't a member of any political party back then, but I gave out Liberal how to vote cards at a booth in Findon.
I'd never even considered giving out how to vote cards for anyone before..

I don't think so, Psyber.

My recollection is that Snedden threatened to use his Senate numbers to block supply, so Whitlam called a double dissolution rather than being forced to just a Reps election.

If I'm right, it was the beginning of a trend by the conservatives to think an election result where they lose is somehow invalid.

You may be right R&B - we may have just noticed different aspects of what was going on at the time.
I wasn't very political back then and favoured independents, or issue candidates like "Better Education".
Voting for Gough was the first time I'd given any major party my first preference.