Home > Oz Politics > And they’re off!

And they’re off!

October 14th, 2007

Well, the endless phoney war is finally over, and the election is on for 24 November. Feel free to contribute predictions, appeals for the party or candidate of your choice or general jaded commentary

Categories: Oz Politics Tags:
  1. 2 tanners
    October 14th, 2007 at 14:16 | #1

    It’s about time!!

  2. October 14th, 2007 at 16:08 | #2

    It’s disappointing (but somehow predictable) that none of the major newspapers’ election sites say anywhere “for god’s sake get yourself enrolled NOW if you aren’t on the rolls”.

  3. Dylwah
    October 14th, 2007 at 16:57 | #3

    Who would have thunk it, he actually called the election before he absolutly had ta.

    ALP to win with 54% tpp, the nats to hold their seats give or take 2, the greens to poll very well in blue ribbon lib seats, esp Goldstein and there to be an large leakage of green prefs to the libs for a change.

    Wheeeeee
    Dylwah

  4. Peter Evans
    October 14th, 2007 at 17:31 | #4

    Right, turn off your televisions for the next six weeks! A monumentally boring campaign of negativity and vindictiveness awaits. The Chaser take will be all I think i can stomach. Hopefully they’ll do an election night coverage too.

    I give the Liberal party four more years to exist in it’s current form before it splits into the uglies and moderates. After it fails to regain any ground in 2010 and it’s funding dries right up – there being no patronage to farm out. The ALP can occupy the centre for a generation, easily.

  5. October 14th, 2007 at 21:37 | #5

    I’ll be on the senate ticket in NSW under LDP. I’ve already done a few radio interviews and hopefully a piece on gay marriage that I wrote for ABC online should get publised by them early this week.

    Agree or disagree with the LDP I think you should still consider giving your primary vote in the senate to a minor party (ie one currently unrepresented).

    http://www.ldp.org.au

  6. October 15th, 2007 at 06:32 | #6

    I’m hoping for Rudd, so as to finally end this ten year depression of conservative government. I predict people dancing in the streets when/if he gets in.

  7. Crispin Bennett
    October 15th, 2007 at 06:56 | #7

    My hope: Labor/Rudd, win a small House majority. As many minor parties as possible represented in the Senate.

    My prediction: Howard will pull off a fake or exaggerated ‘security’ scare (given that Andrews’ playing of the race card hasn’t really done the job). Australians will go for it, with Howard as ‘war president’, and return him with a reduced House majority.

  8. 2 tanners
    October 15th, 2007 at 07:14 | #8

    The concept of betting on election results as a predictor is well known. As a proxy for this proxy, http://www.inklingmarkets.com gives you $5000 of funny money to bet on the market of your choice. I have set up a betting market there so that you can make a prediction of the 2 party preferred vote for Labor. You can either buy the stoc (which raises the predicted final outcome) or sell (short) it which lowers the final predicted outcome. As market maker, I can’t trade but I was more interested in watching anyway. Starting prediction is a 55% 2PP vote.

  9. mugwump
    October 15th, 2007 at 08:34 | #9

    Terje, I’d vote for you if I could. Is the LDP fielding candidates in SA? I’ll be lodging a postal vote.

    I predict Rudd will promise everything but deliver nothing.

    All I can say is I am glad I left Australia. The prospect of 3-9 years of rule by the party of thuggery and underachievement makes me ill.

  10. October 15th, 2007 at 08:34 | #10

    Checked out the LDP link. Why don’t they have the bottle to call themselves the Libertarian party?

    All the candidates appear to be white European males except for one lonely woman, probably wheeled in in a panic when someone pointed out how homogenous the lineup was.

    And the firearms thing is a real turnoff.

  11. gordon
    October 15th, 2007 at 08:53 | #11

    I read in the newspaper this morning that the Libs don’t want “the worm” to be shown live during debates. Unfair! Vote 1 Worm!

  12. swio
    October 15th, 2007 at 08:58 | #12

    Good on you Terje. I don’t often agree with your opinions but certainly respect them and I’ll happily preference the LDP well above the major parties.

    Good luck.

  13. Merri Creak
    October 15th, 2007 at 09:52 | #13

    Rudd by ten seats. This would represent a halving of the current 2pp opinion poll average. Denis Shanahan will report it as a campaigning triumph for JWH. Don’t hold out great hopes for KR, but if he’s the price, I’ll pay it gladly!

  14. October 15th, 2007 at 11:39 | #14

    it’s kind of sweet, to see so many hopeful voices at the prospect of the left wing of the laboral party getting in. we truly live in hope.

    to be fair, kevin did go on record: no nuclear power. if you must have a choice of hagar or attila, that’s a vote swinger.

  15. mugwump
    October 15th, 2007 at 12:58 | #15

    al loomis, do you know how much high-grade nuclear waste is generated to supply you with your power needs for a year?

    Approximately one cubic centimeter.

    A million people: One cubic meter.

    8 billion people consuming power at current first-world living standards (probably peak energy for humanity): A cube approximately 20 meters on each side.

    So to meet the entire energy needs of the planet with nuclear, we need to find space to dispose of a cube 20m on each side annually.Sounds like by far the best way forwards for humanity. Vote 1 Reality. Vote 1 John Howard.

  16. 2 tanners
    October 15th, 2007 at 14:32 | #16

    One entertaining sight has been the Oz editorial staff taking on the task of reinventing Howard, after the man himself tried but fell at the jump each time.

  17. gerard
    October 15th, 2007 at 14:58 | #17

    “I’m hoping for Rudd, so as to finally end this ten year depression of conservative government.”

    Rudd is the real conservative in this election.

  18. Sam
    October 15th, 2007 at 15:08 | #18

    Not sure if anyone here knows much about Krugman’s strategic trade theory*, but I’ve been having a bit of a think about what this sort of thinking might have to say about the economics of Australia opting to go for nuclear power in a big way (environmental pros/cons aside).

    My understanding (assumption) is that the global nuclear power plant industry is already well monopolised by the French and the US. Furthermore, because of the huge fixed costs involved (e.g. capital, technological capabilities) there are large and effective barriers to entry in place (at least large enough to deter an internationally competitive Australian start-up). If this is the case, then it might be useful to consider the opportunity cost of supporting an industry where Australia is never going to be internationally competitive at the expense of the non-nuclear energy industry where we seem to be much more competitive (e.g. low-emissions coal, solar, wave). Of course this view needs to be balanced against the different cost of power generation under different regimes (e.g. nuclear vs. wind/wave etc) over the medium to long term so as to try and approximate the influence of this decision on the competitiveness of the whole economy.

    I am not arguing that nuclear wouldn’t have a role to play between 0-15% of baseload or something similar, but surely this sort of thinking would seem to suggest that trying to use nuclear Ziggy style might not make all that much strategic sense…especially when one factors in issues such as proliferation, terrorism etc etc. What do people think?

    *Please note that I am well aware of Krugman’s own criticism of strategic trade theory and that by free trade advocates (I am lookin at you Terje), I am just using the STT to start thinking about the broader industrial dynamics caused by the introduction of a nuclear power industry.

  19. gerard
    October 15th, 2007 at 15:28 | #19

    more L plate ads! How pathetic – talk about stale. At least Latham’s name begins with L. Trying to stick an L plate on Rudd and Swan is just lame-o

  20. gerard
    October 15th, 2007 at 15:42 | #20

    Coward only wants one debate, at the beginning of the campaign, on Pay-TV, with no worm! Gosh, what a wimp!

  21. mugwump
    October 15th, 2007 at 16:40 | #21

    Sam, the US plays less of a role in Nuclear power these days, having not built a plant for many years, The Japanese are big players.

    Australia should probably buy the plant technology from overseas, but set itself up as the world’s waste reprocessing/disposal center. The latter are easier and more profitable. We’ll essentially get to triple dip: sell the Uranium, reprocess the intermediate waste, and then dispose of the final waste. We can charge a small fortune for every step. OPEC will be green with envy: they only get to sell the oil. And we’ll guarantee US military protection without having to pay our dues in pesky wars that we don’t care about (eg Iraq).

    That’s what I call a strategic trade decision.

  22. Sam
    October 15th, 2007 at 17:28 | #22

    haha good point mugwump!

  23. Sam
    October 16th, 2007 at 09:14 | #23

    hmmm but mugwump just because we go for the mining/reprocessing/storage trifecta doesn’t mean that we necessarily have to opt to generate Ziggy-level amounts of power via nuclear. Thus we’re still faced with the strategic choice about whether to invest in a nuclear power plant- which takes us back to my previous analysis. ie. maybe we’d be better off to specialise in areas where we’re internationally competitive (e.g. nuclear trifecta, solar) and reduce the extend of nuclear power to a more marginal level so it doesn’t crowd out investment in non-nuclear energy sources (e.g. low-emissions coal, wave, hydrogen etc.)?

  24. mugwump
    October 16th, 2007 at 10:18 | #24

    Right. We can carry on merrily burning coal if we feel like it. In fact, it might be easier to sell the trifecta to the NIMBYs than to sell a nuclear power plant; after all, the reprocessing and disposal could/should take place in the middle of the desert somewhere, whereas a power plant has to be reasonably close to a population center.

    An existing uranium mine might be the ideal place: you can dump the waste back down the empty holes and ship the reprocessed waste back out along with the processed uranium from the mine.

Comments are closed.