• There'll barely be a Labor Party left after the election
    53 replies, posted
[img]http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/03/14/1226021/222884-barry-o-039-farrell-amp-kristina-keneally.jpg[/img] If the poll is correct, the Coalition is likely to win 70 seats, with Greens and independents likely to account for the remaining nine seats. Picture: Craig Greenhill Source: [url]http://www.news.com.au/national/therell-barely-be-a-labor-party-left-after-the-election/story-e6frfkvr-1226027785741[/url] [release] * Poll shows Labor to suffer crushing defeat * Likely to win just 14 of 93 lower house seats * Size of O'Farrell victory causing concern Federally NSW Labor is set to suffer its worst electoral defeat in over one hundred years according to the latest Galaxy poll published by The Daily Telegraph. The poll puts Labor's primary vote at 22 per cent and the Barry O'Farrell-led Coalition at 51 per cent, meaning if it is correct Labor is likely to win just 14 of 93 lower house seats in tomorrow's state election. The Coalition will be expected to win 70 seats, with Greens and independents taking the remaining nine, in what would be a best-ever primary vote for the Coalition. On a two-party preferred basis, the Coalition was up two points, leading 66 to 34 while Barry O'Farrell led Kristina Keneally by 53 to 33 per cent as preferred premier. To achieve party status Labor must win at least 10 seats in the Legislative Assembly - a feat which, according to the poll, it will only just achieve. And the expected size of the O'Farrell victory is already causing some concerns in federal politics. The federal Government hopes the incoming NSW premier will be kept in line on national health reform by other Liberal state leaders. Mr O'Farrell has threatened to rip up the NSW part of the $20 billion deal negotiated by state and federal governments in early February. Federal sources said it was hoped premiers Ted Baillieu of Victoria and Colin Barnett of Western Australia will convince their new colleague that the deal was a bonus to the states nationally. O'Farrell has said he will not rubber stamp any agreement made by Labor Premier Kristina Keneally if it "compromises patient care or leaves NSW in a worse financial position''. Senior federal Labor figures are preparing for a change of government in NSW and are writing off a Labor return to state government for two terms - that's eight years. The Government led by Premier Keneally will be reduced to from 19 to 25 MPs, the sources told news.com.au. At the 2007 election Labor won government with 52 seats. The election tomorrow(SATURDAY) will end 16 years of Labor in power in the state. Federal Labor and Coalition sources expect to see a pounding of state independent MPs who are colleagues of federal independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott colleagues. The Nationals are hoping that state voters will punish Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor for backing a Labor minority government by evicting their state counterparts. The most likely election victim is Peter Besseling in Port Macquarie, which is within Mr Oakeshott's seat of Lyne. The other is Tamworth, held by Peter Draper, within Mr Windsor's federal seat of New England.[/release]
[QUOTE] To achieve party status Labor must win at least 10 seats in the Legislative Assembly - [B]a feat which, according to the poll, it will only just achieve.[/B] [/QUOTE] So close. :sigh:
Your government is so stupid the Queen could veto any law she wants how could you have such a ass-backwards government such as a monarchy in the 21st Century?
[QUOTE=Explosions;28785402]Your government is so stupid the Queen could veto any law she wants how could you have such a ass-backwards government such as a monarchy in the 21st Century?[/QUOTE] congratulations you don't know shit about politics
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;28785432]congratulations you don't know shit about politics[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? I know enough to know that monarchies are ass-backwards and they are all tyrannical dictatorships, like England. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a monarchist. Get in the 21st Century.
[QUOTE=Explosions;28785468]What are you talking about? I know enough to know that monarchies are ass-backwards and they are all tyrannical dictatorships, like England. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with a monarchist. Get in the 21st Century.[/QUOTE] Queen approves laws. Has no real power. If she doesn't approve laws, we essentially boot her out. She and her family get to live a nice lifestyle in return. The Monarchy is part of British traditions and culture, she does not make our decisions for us and she does not form or represent our government. Shut up. [b]Edit:[/b] Oh wait, 'tyrannical dictatorships, like England'? Either you're stupid or trolling.
[QUOTE=XSarcYX;28785515]Queen approves laws. Has no real power. If she doesn't approve laws, we essentially boot her out. She and her family get to live a nice lifestyle in return. The Monarchy is part of British traditions and culture, she does not make our decisions for us and she does not form or represent our government. Shut up.[/QUOTE] But wait you just said if she doesn't approve them then she gets kicked out so that means that she does have to approve them hence England is a tyrannical dictatorship ruled by a monarch. Get a real country. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Country bashing" - GunFox))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Explosions;28785569]But wait you just said if she doesn't approve them then she gets kicked out so that means that she does have to approve them hence England is a tyrannical dictatorship ruled by a monarch. Get a real country.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure you're trolling, but just to clear this up for those that have missed the point as terribly as you: Parliament comes up with Acts (Laws) which go through a long, drawn out process to become active laws in the country, one of the final parts of this process is 'Royal Ascension' where the Queen gives her signature on the document saying the law's been passed. If she doesn't sign the Act, doesn't matter anyway, we'll get it approved without her. Law in England is run in a modern way but with traditional elements (Wigs, cloaks, the Queen etc.) though it is by no means behind any other '21st century country' The point is the Queen has no effective power and therefore has no ruling seat. There is no dictatorship.
[QUOTE=Explosions;28785569]But wait you just said if she doesn't approve them then she gets kicked out so that means that she does have to approve them hence England is a tyrannical dictatorship ruled by a monarch. Get a real country.[/QUOTE] that's like saying but wait you just said he doesn't do his job then he gets fired that means he does have to do his job so he can keep his job no matter what you're totally disregarding the fact that if average joe don't do his job his ass gets fired
You all know this is about the Australian Labor Party, right? Just putting that out there
[QUOTE=Explosions;28785569]But wait you just said if she doesn't approve them then she gets kicked out so that means that she does have to approve them hence England is a tyrannical dictatorship ruled by a monarch. Get a real country.[/QUOTE] Oh jesus fuck how retarded can you be! Ever heard of the English civil war? Glorious revolution? The gradual decline of monarchy as parliament grew from middle ages onwards? The last monarchs who ever held any sort of power was in the 1800s.
Good, less socialist scum to deal with.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;28786011]Oh jesus fuck how retarded can you be! Ever heard of the English civil war? Glorious revolution? The gradual decline of monarchy as parliament grew from middle ages onwards? The last monarchs who ever held any sort of power was in the 1800s.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.airbornegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/troll-face-funny.png[/img]
[QUOTE=XSarcYX;28785756]Pretty sure you're trolling, but just to clear this up for those that have missed the point as terribly as you: Parliament comes up with Acts (Laws) which go through a long, drawn out process to become active laws in the country, one of the final parts of this process is 'Royal Ascension' where the Queen gives her signature on the document saying the law's been passed. If she doesn't sign the Act, doesn't matter anyway, we'll get it approved without her. Law in England is run in a modern way but with traditional elements (Wigs, cloaks, the Queen etc.) though it is by no means behind any other '21st century country' The point is the Queen has no effective power and therefore has no ruling seat. There is no dictatorship.[/QUOTE] Remember, cool guys don't look at explosions.
[QUOTE=Explosions;28785569]But wait you just said if she doesn't approve them then she gets kicked out so that means that she does have to approve them hence England is a tyrannical dictatorship ruled by a monarch. Get a real country.[/QUOTE] I was going to respond with a proper response, then I saw who made the post.
If UKIP doesn't get in we're ok.
Funny accusing Australia of living under a tyrannical monarchy, the only time a Monarch (or his or her representative) has used their power here was in sacking a prime minister who run the country into the ground. Also it's funny to know that Australia is more democratic than the "spreader of peace and democracy" itself - The United States. Refer to [url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index[/url]
Snip.
Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What're the two parties like?
[QUOTE=Noth;28785807]You all know this is about the Australian Labor Party, right? Just putting that out there[/QUOTE] You should seriously put the country in the title.
Woulda thought OP's avatar woulda gave it away.
good job labor party
[QUOTE=O'10er;28787940]Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What're the two parties like?[/QUOTE] We don't really know what the liberals will be like, but state Labor here were a bunch of totally corrupt fuckwits. Quality leadership like shutting themselves down to dodge an inquiry and selling off state assets to fund the gigantic mess they got the state into. I couldn't believe they got in last time tbh.
british labour also needs to go if you ask me
I take it that the British Labour Party is nothing what I assume it to be, correct?
[QUOTE=thisispain;28789929]british labour also needs to go if you ask me[/QUOTE] And replace them with what? They are the best of 3 evils.
[QUOTE=Kingy_why;28789987]And replace them with what? They are the best of 3 evils.[/QUOTE] hopefully with a party not consisting of wankers that would be nice
I guess that's what happens when you have an American running an Australian state. Regardless, I really doubt that the Liberal Party's actions at federal level are helping their state's counterpart's cause.
Green's ftw.
Meh, it's only NSW... Hopefully it just stays in NSW.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.