h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm sitting here listening to the radio news and thinking how silly journalists can be.

The situation is that PM Julia Gillard is widely expected to call an election soon, for the House of Representatives and half the Senate. To do this, the PM has to visit the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, and ask for writs to be issued for an election on either 21 or 28 August. As Ms Bryce is due to travel to France later today, speculation that an election will be called this morning has reached fever pitch. Political journos are positively drooling; one can almost hear the effluvia land on the microphone.

The upshot of all this speculation is that the press are watching the PM like hawks, or possibly vultures. One report was all about the fact that she had left her house in Melbourne... Gosh, what if she's just going shopping? They're speculating that she's on her way to Canberra. There's a media scrum waiting outside Yarralumla (the GG's official residence) and there will probably be one at Canberra Airport too. The news programmes are about 90% election speculation and 10% sport results.

The joke's on the media scrum at Yarralumla; at 8:30am, it's -3C out there, with a heavy frost. *snigger*

The more I hear of this rubbish, the more I wish we had fixed parliamentary terms here. We'd be rid of all this speculation and we'd know how long any given government would last. This would make my job a lot easier; if an election's called, we go into 'caretaker mode' and can't make any actual decisions or amend policies.

Anyway. GliiardWatch continues. A breathless hack just said something about the PM being expected to land in Canberra (presumably on a plane, not under her own steam) sometime after 9am. As most times are after 9am today, I suspect there's some truth in this.

So let's see what happens...

I'm about to go to bed. Given the speed your politics has moved at lately, you'll probably be a republic when I wake up.

Do you think she should call an election? I think if she's gonna do it, she should do it properly and come and ask Liz 2 in person. That'd confound the journos.

I didn't realise you don't have fixed terms. What normally happens? Why is she calling an election now?

If she did that, we'd definitely end up as a republic...

We're more or less a republic anyway. The main role of Liz 2 in this country is to give us someone to put on the coins. And the $5 note, but that picture must be about 40 years old.

There have been no further sightings of the Red-Crested Gillard as yet.

Kea, the PM has to call an election (for the House and half the Senate) no later than some obscure date a set length of time after the first sitting date of the current Parliament. The timing is up to the PM, except that it can't be before some other date, and if the PM goes reasonably early then there's the option of a full House and full Senate election (known as a double dissolution). But a DD election is only possible if the Senate has previously rejected a Government bill twice.

I hope that helps.

Seriously, I'll try to find some sensible information on the subject and post a link.

As for the radio - the usual host is saying that he's been watching the TV and the PM has left her house 28 times, she's landed at Canberra 8 times, and the poor Governor-General must be fully awake as there are helicopters circling Yarralumla. This is all too silly for words. I'm enjoying it immensely.

Kea, try this link: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/07/possible-federal-election-date.html Antony Green is my favourite election analyst person and he's usually quite lucid.

Breaking News: The PM has landed at the RAAF base at the airport. Gosh.

More Breaking News: Julia will see Quentin at 10:30 and will hold a press conference at noon. The only unknown detail is the actual date of the election.

I'm going out at 10:30. This being such a politically aware town, I'm expecting most shops will have the TV on in a corner so I'll be able to keep track of things anyway.

And the radio's just gone to Special Election Coverage, which is blindingly stupid as it's only 9:10 and there's nothing to report on - except that the ABC's correspondent has let a breathless nation know that there's frost on the lawn at Yarralumla and a mob of kangaroos grazing. Exciting stuff.

Ah, it's OK, they've switched back to the Saturday morning gardening show instead.

Won't the frost make gardening more difficult?

Yes, but only until it melts. (Though, personally, I don't plan to do any gardening until September.)

Back to Iago's question, which I needed to think about:

Yes, I think the PM should call an election. First, it's due sometime this year anyway, and the longer she waits the more it looks like she's somehow insecure and reluctant to take the plunge. The longer the uncertainty goes on, the closer day-to-day government will get to paralysis. Second, by going to the polls and ideally winning, she silences an Opposition which is trying to portray her as somehow illegitimate - which is a load of crap; she's a genuine PM, whatever the circumstances in which she got the job. The deposition of Rudd was a little brutal for poor Kevin, but it was entirely legitimate and constitutional. Third, I'd like to see her trounce the Leader of the Opposition, a man who merits the label 'despicable'.

That being said, I'm by no means convinced that Julia will win.

And I forgot to post this useful link, from the Election Gnome again:

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/07/ruddgillard-government-serves-record-first-term.html

She's not really going all that early.

News is coming in of a victory for Sky TV. They've apparently been broadcasting a static shot of the streetscape and the gates at Yarralumla while they wait for the PM to come. All they've managed to capture so far is a chap with a big moustache who stopped somewhere in shot to blow his nose. Another success story for 24-hour news coverage.

I guess your PM has learned from the mistake Gordon Brown made over here: he could have called an election shortly after he took over. He might have lost, but he might have won. Had he lost it would have only been by a small margin.

Instead, he dithered and lingered and was generally seen as a disaster. Good to see Gillard has decided to avoid that.

What are the Liberals polls like? Last I heard they were still at historic lows, and it was only Rudd's unpopularity (though that was a surprise to me) dragging down Labour and making it a close fight. Is that completely wrong?

Is the maximum period between elections over there 4 years? I thought it'd be five like over here. Kea I also though that all PMs in Westminster democracies had the prerogative to call the election when it suited them.

Finally, the middle of winter seems like a bad time for an election: aren't elections supposed to be a springtime or autumn pursuit.

The Liberals polls are still bad, over all, so they'll be looking to fight this seat-by-seat. They're definitely targeting particular Labor marginals. Yes, it was only poor old Kevin's unpopularity that made Tony 'The Mad Monk' Abbott look electable. (Kevin's unpopularity was down to a dictatorial streak and an inability to consult and/or delegate. Those sorts of things play very badly in an egalitarian, anti-authoritarian electorate.)

The standard parliamentary term here is three years. Those of us who think about this sort of thing believe that this is too short. Four years (fixed) would be better. Five years would never be agreed by the population at large; any change to the system would only be possible with constitutional amendment, which would require a referendum. As a rule, referendums here fail. A change to the constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote by the whole country, as well as carrying two-thirds of the states by a two-thirds majority in each. Australia will never vote to allow some clown *five* guaranteed years in the top job. Four years would be a stretch for some.

It is unusual to have a Winter election, but by the time the vote comes around we'll only be 10 days from the official start of Spring. Also, don't forget that half the country (geographically, if not by population) is subtropical or tropical and doesn't really have Winter as such. Also, the weather doesn't increase or decrease voter turnout when voting's compulsory.

The BBC is reporting that we're having a 'snap election'. It's hardly a 'snap election' if we've all been anticipating it for the last four months. The BBC needs to stop sending complete idiots, cretins and fools here as correspondents. Please don't believe anything they say or write; they just don't *get* this place.

There, I'm glad that's off my chest.

I don't understand why she called it early? I suppose her political strategists understand this better than me, but to me it seems like she's going to lose. So many people are still grumpy about the whole change of leadership thing, in a couple of months it would have been forgotten. Even one of my insanely left-wing friends (all my friends are left-wing, lol, but this guy is even more liberal than me) is so upset about what's happened has said he's going to vote Liberal (well, vote Greens but preference Liberal which is the same) which just horrified me. Every poll I've seen online has Abbott ahead. I do not understand it, he's crazy, I could understand if it it were Turnbull or somebody but Abbott?? In the newspaper today it said Gillard was just ahead on polls which really surprised me because of the general vibe I'm picking up.

I heard they've put the internet filter on the backburner but I hope they shelve it internet filter permanently or at least pretend to because that's the thing I know people are most upset about, especially from my generation.

I don't know much about politics but I'm terrified for this election because a few of Abbott's policies will impact directly upon my job opportunities and things like that, not to mention his views are backwards and misogynistic.

Niwt!

Gillard isn't actually going all that early. Hardly any governments go the full three years; Howard's last one did, but that's because he knew he was going to be tarred and feathered (as indeed happened - what a joyous day that was! )

The change of leadership shouldn't be an issue. It's happened before. Keating knifed Hawke; Howard and Peacock knifed each other a couple of times; Howards also sank the boot into Downer. Abbott sank Turnbull, after Turnbull knocked off Nelson... And they're only the instances I can remember offhand. Neither of the major parties can claim the high moral ground.

That internet filter garbage always was going to antagonise the younger half of the electorate, especially first and second-time voters. Labor has handled this very badly indeed. The not-quite-young bit of the electorate - people like me - have clearer memories of the last Liberal government, which means we're more likely to vote Labor. (Note to overseas readers: the Liberal party is actually highly conservative. People with genuine liberal views vote Labor. Don't try to rationalise this.)

A protest vote on the internet filter issue wouldn't have much of an effect in an ACT electorate; both lower house seats are safe(ish) Labor.

It's a bit early to be sure which way this election's going to go, but yes, I'm nervous. The prospect of that misogynist racist homophobe exercising his lack of understanding of economics makes me feel quite unwell. (Iago - Tony Abbott is sort of like John Howard on amphetamines, but without Howard's deep-seated sense of social justice. )

As for the polls: historically, the most reliable ones are the ones done by this mob. http://www.roymorgan.com.au/ They currently have Labor on 54.5% of the two-party-preferred vote. This is encouraging.

I guess it's not the earliness that's a worry then, just that it's so close to the leadership challenge. I know it happens a lot and Labor had it back when they were in the opposition and Liberal last year, but people care so much more this time because Labor's in power and it's actually the Prime Minister changing. Which is how the Westminster system works, but people seem to be into the American idea of voting for a Prime Minister, so they're angry.

Interesting point about older people remembering from the past Liberal and wanting to vote Labor - like I said all my friends are Green/Labor people, and obviously all their parents. I'm in a little bubble but lately it's been burst by talking to some younger people and people from theh country who moved here who have decided for reasons I still haven't figured out that Liberal is the way to go. It's weird.

I'm incredibly nervous about it. Maybe I should dig up your email address and have a rant because posting it in public would be a bit TMI. Anyway, you've reassured me a little bit *breathes deeply* one of my lecturers predicted a Liberal win today which didn't make me happy.

I don't personally recall the last time the Liberals ditched a Prime Minister, but it has happened; sometime before Gough Whitlam took over, the Libs stuck the knife in John Gorton (an honourable gentleman*) and replaced him with Billy McMahon (an idiot with a glamourous wife). I was a baby at the time.

Country people tend to vote Liberal/National, no matter what. It's because the Nats have fed them this big lie about Labor being anti-farmer. They also believe that Labor are in fact communists. Yeah, right. And they tend to think we're being overrun with illegal immigrants. We're not.

By all means use my email address if it will help. Neither the 'public' nor the private one has changed.

This lecturer who's touting a victory for the Agrarian Fascist Alliance - sorry, I mean the Lib/Nat Coalition - what subject do they lecture in?



*When the leadership spill happened in the Liberal party room, the vote was split equally between Gorton and McMahon. Gorton had the casting vote. He voted against himself.

Eh up Ivan, what's the latest? I'm having election withdrawal symptoms and there hasn't been much news over here.