[colliric]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/former-labor-leader-kim-beazley-told-us-labor-is-doomed/story-e6frf7jo-1226438958015

As Wikileaks has proven, this isn't exactly abnormal for the US to be made aware of the state of the Labor party and it's prospects. Hillary Clinton was apparently aware of the previous labor leadership change before Kevin Rudd himself was(Kim naturally told her Rudd was gone)!

Good on Kim for telling them the truth, you don't put the political spin on the inventors of it, they'd see right through it.

I know this is about 24 hours late this thread, but I mulled over it before posting it up.

Now I remember why I voted for the Party way back in the day... they had a great leader, and it was always hard to pick between him(voting also for the local MP, who I liked at the time, and still do... but I've moved unfortunatly) and Howard.

Beazley was optimistic at saying 30, but I think that must have been his "best case scenario" and he probably indicated it would be the maximum. As in he probably told them Labor could only win 30 seats "at best".

[AVT]

A honest assessment at this point, he did also say there is quite a long time to the next election and anything can happen.

[Daktoria]

30 seats? C'mon. That's an exaggeration if there ever was one. He has to be trying to pull someone's leg, right?

[colliric]

30 seats? C'mon. That's an exaggeration if there ever was one. He has to be trying to pull someone's leg, right?

You don't know Kim.... he usually gives his best pramatic assesment of the situation, and allows you to interpret that how you will. Basically he's saying they're fucked.... and 30 seats is probably the most they'll win.

[Daktoria]

Is there something to this aside from the mining tax and health service union investigation?

[colliric]

Is there something to this aside from the mining tax and health service union investigation?

The big elephant in the room called the Carbon Tax(And the related Lies), the whole Ashby-Slipper affair(which is now even worse given the developments yesterday), The Greens(and their "we play our way or we're taking the ball and running home" approach to politics), the independants(although admittedly The Greens have stolen their thunder when it comes to destroying the Government's ability to govern)....

Actually the Greens are the biggest problem for Labor in general, hence the real vitriol and outright hatred that came out during Labor's first bipartisan(as in both Federally and on the State level) chance to distance themselves from the extreme left-wing nuts... the Melbourne by-election.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Hillary Clinton was apparently aware of the previous labor leadership change before Kevin Rudd himself was(Kim naturally told her Rudd was gone)!

I didn't see that in that Hun report.
But that's hardly surprising, Rudd took the leadership from Big Kim and he still smarts about that. So if he indeed told Hillary back in 2010 who was either guessing (based on some pretty obvious insider information), or one of his former loyal MP’s told him when Gillard started making moves against Rudd. Hardly Wikileaks likening stuff.

30 seats? C'mon. That's an exaggeration if there ever was one. He has to be trying to pull someone's leg, right?

Yes it is an exaggeration for Federal Labor. Though perhaps not too much of an exaggeration given the drubbings that NSW and QLD state ALP parties got a recent elections. QLD ALP has 7 seats of a 89 seat parliament (8% of seats), NSW ALP has 20 from 135 seats (14% of seats). So 30 of 150 (20% of seats) is not out of the realm of possibility. Granted it would take a uniform swing across the whole country, which is unlikely as the swing away from Labor will be less in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and ACT than QLD and NSW. And that is if dislike for State ALP parties translates into Federal ALP.

Actually the Greens are the biggest problem for Labor in general

You’ve been telling us that Greens are a spent force and already in decline. If this is the case how are they the biggest problem for Labor? Which is it?

[colliric]

You’ve been telling us that Greens are a spent force and already in decline. If this is the case how are they the biggest problem for Labor? Which is it?

Because they're dragging Labor down with them kicking and screaming, and are the main reason the Government has struggled to get some of it's more important policies through(Offshore processing) while forcing Labor to railroad others(Carbon Tax).

They also stole Lindsay Tanner's old seat with a dodgy preference deal with the party that most people would rightly view as the Greens actual ideological enemy(The Liberals!). Of cause the Libs would do anything to get government on that occassion, so setting up the Greens for a win was risky but understandable. Labor didn't feel hurt by the Liberals on that occassion, but the Greens appeared to be taking the role of Labor's Judas/Brutus(probably more the latter with the whole "stabbed me in the back" feeling).

[Salohcin]

Queensland and NSW results (in terms of seat count) were exaggerated however as the Labor party had been in power for a long period of time and had been gerrymandering seat in their favour; a process that has the disadvantage of increasing the number of seats that will change hands in a landslide as it reduces the number of truly safe seats in favour of creating a larger of favourable seats.

The other thing to note is that Abbott is far better at communicating and playing the media machine. If I witness a long exchange better Gillard and Abbott then Gillard comes off favourably. However in a sound bites Abbott comes of favourably whereas Gillard sounds like a nagging teacher.

The big elephant in the room called the Carbon Tax(And the related Lies), the whole Ashby-Slipper affair(which is now even worse given the developments yesterday), The Greens(and their "we play our way or we're taking the ball and running home" approach to politics), the independants(although admittedly The Greens have stolen their thunder when it comes to destroying the Government's ability to govern)....

Actually the Greens are the biggest problem for Labor in general, hence the real vitriol and outright hatred that came out during Labor's first bipartisan(as in both Federally and on the State level) chance to distance themselves from the extreme left-wing nuts... the Melbourne by-election.

Let's go in order:
1. Carbon tax + Lie: I think this is big only because of the lie. The fact the carbon tax will cease to exist after a couple of years (regardless of government) means from a pure policy POV it isn't a big deal. However the fact Gillard lied and Abbott played the media game well makes this a big point.
2. The greens: I wouldn't rate them as big as you say. Pretty much every government has had to deal with senate opposition at some stage. The split lower house makes it harder for labor as they cannot make the kind of concessions to the greens that would only piss off country seats (which they wouldn't win anyway)as they also have to keep the 2 country independents happy.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Queensland and NSW results (in terms of seat count) were exaggerated however as the Labor party had been in power for a long period of time and had been gerrymandering seat in their favour;

That's just total bullcrap. There is no gerrymandering in Australian electoral zone distribution as neither political part has a say. Roughly speaking electorates are determined by the Australian Electoral Commission or the state equivalent for state electoral boundaries.

[Salohcin]

That's just total bullcrap. There is no gerrymandering in Australian electoral zone distribution as neither political part has a say. Roughly speaking electorates are determined by the Australian Electoral Commission or the state equivalent for state electoral boundaries.

I was sure I had read a article that the 2 party preferred was only 58% (still a landslide) and that the extreme number of seats lost was due to gerrymandering of the seat distribution. I found the result indicated a much bigger loss 62.8% to Liberals. So maybe I am just imaging it (or read a convincing BS article soon after the election).

Most redistributing Australia is indeed done by "independent" bodies. However taken from Antony Green's election blog:

Australian boundaries may be drawn by independent authorities, but there can still be room in the process for political advantage. Parties always use the language of 'community of interest' to cloak submissions based on achieving political advantage.

Of course it might just be coincidence that despite getting a worse result than QLD Labor, NSW Labor has significantly more seats left (proportionally and numerically). But I never put it past politicians of any flavor to twist the rules to their advantage, and either way Labor are still screwed come the next Federal election.