Australian Federal Election 2025. (AKA thank you President Trump)

[bigfield]

Unfortunately for Spud, the Trump brand went past its Use By date around March.

The LNP didn't have enough time to pivot away from Temu Trump.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It is interesting to contrast whet is happening in Australia with what is happening in USA.
We have Labor, a centre or centre-left party, and the LNP (a coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party, who are mainly the same).
Like the Republican Party in the USA the Liberal Party (which is a conservative party, centre-right) has been drifting more to the right, but this election, with massive losses for the Liberals, has given them a huge shake-up, and there are many calls in the party to move back to the centre.
Of course the Republican Party even before Trump was more to the right than the Liberal Party, and now are extreme right.

There is currently nothing in sight that shows that USA will experience any return to centrism. The only way this happens is a large part of the conservative portion of the population actually notices the harm Trump is doing and/or they are hurt badly themselves and/or things get much worse under Trump. The last option is very likely, and then maybe even "blind" Americans will open their eyes and see what has happened.
However realistically there are two options, both proceeding from the certainty that things will get much worse in America and for Americans.
The first is Americans wake up and reject the Republican Party and return to centrism. The second is that Americans surrender to the new horrific reality and do what they are told, so much for land of freedom.

 

[BH]

I am US citizen and Donald Trump and his gang of thugs give me the arse when I think of them. I got to use a good British expression I always wanted to use.

The problem with Americans is that the smart people can still be stupid. One may specialize and excel in one field but be totally ignorant about all other fields or how the world in general works and understand how ultimately everything intertwines. Typical American naively believes they are in a bubble and what they do does not affect others or others them, then, of course until something happens and they are forced by reality to learn.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It is interesting to contrast whet is happening in Australia with what is happening in USA.
We have Labor, a centre or centre-left party, and the LNP (a coalition of the Liberal Party and the National Party, who are mainly the same).
Like the Republican Party in the USA the Liberal Party (which is a conservative party, centre-right) has been drifting more to the right, but this election, with massive losses for the Liberals, has given them a huge shake-up, and there are many calls in the party to move back to the centre.
Of course the Republican Party even before Trump was more to the right than the Liberal Party, and now are extreme right.

There is currently nothing in sight that shows that USA will experience any return to centrism. The only way this happens is a large part of the conservative portion of the population actually notices the harm Trump is doing and/or they are hurt badly themselves and/or things get much worse under Trump. The last option is very likely, and then maybe even "blind" Americans will open their eyes and see what has happened.
However realistically there are two options, both proceeding from the certainty that things will get much worse in America and for Americans.
The first is Americans wake up and reject the Republican Party and return to centrism. The second is that Americans surrender to the new horrific reality and do what they are told, so much for land of freedom.

Or it could also be that corporate America won’t want recourse to the law to mean fealty to Trump and the contributions dry up.

But we sure aren’t going to learn our lesson by watching Australia. How is “ the Liberal Party” losing going to be interpreted by MAGA? Y’all gotta be assbackwards in everything, don’tcha?

 

[bilby]

I am US citizen and Donald Trump and his gang of thugs give me the arse when I think of them. I got to use a good British expression I always wanted to use.

I don't like to burst your bubble, but "giving someone the arse" isn't a British expression.

It is an Australian expression, but doesn't mean what you seem to think. Peter Dutton got the arse on Saturday.

The closest phrase in meaning to what you seem to be looking for is "give me the shits" in Australia, or "annoy the crap out of me" in both England and Australia.

 

[James Brown]

I don't like to burst your bubble

I rather think you enjoy bursting people's bubbles.

You've burst mine a time or two, and usually for the better.

 

[BH]

lol

 

[Tigers!]

Bandt lost his seat. Some good news that.

 

[Patooka]

I am US citizen and Donald Trump and his gang of thugs give me the arse when I think of them. I got to use a good British expression I always wanted to use.

I don't like to burst your bubble, but "giving someone the arse" isn't a British expression.

It is an Australian expression, but doesn't mean what you seem to think. Peter Dutton got the arse on Saturday.

The closest phrase in meaning to what you seem to be looking for is "give me the shits" in Australia, or "annoy the crap out of me" in both England and Australia.

Or "you shit me to tears".



Best part of the song;

I'd like to shove your head into a barb wire fence
But you'd probably tell me all about it

 

[gmbteach]

Bandt lost his seat. Some good news that.

The greens ‘might’ end up with one seat….

 

[bilby]

Bandt lost his seat. Some good news that.

The greens ‘might’ end up with one seat….

Ryan is a very good example of the power of Instant Runoff Voting. Here is the first preference count so far:



In a traditional "First Past the Post" election, Maggie Forrest would be a clear winner. But in this race, she has no chance at all; The seat will go to whoever comes second, after the minor candidate preferences are distributed. Jim Hacker Rebecca Hack is 560 votes behind Elizabeth Watson-Brown, but there are about 7,000 votes there for minor parties, mostly far right, whose voters likely put Green last, and Labor seventh (or vice-versa).

My guess (which is as good as anybody's) is that this will be enough to push Hack into second place with three candidates still remaining, and if so, the Green preferences will put her ahead of Forrest; If Watson-Brown clings on to second after allocation of minor candidate preferences, then she will win on the back of Labor preferences.

The winner will be whomever comes second. Because despite the almost even split between the 57% of people who voted either Labor or Green, those 57% are (mostly) united in opposing the LNP candidate.

 

[Tigers!]

Bandt lost his seat. Some good news that.

The greens ‘might’ end up with one seat….

Ryan is a very good example of the power of Instant Runoff Voting. Here is the first preference count so far:

View attachment 50473

In a traditional "First Past the Post" election, Maggie Forrest would be a clear winner. But in this race, she has no chance at all; The seat will go to whoever comes second, after the minor candidate preferences are distributed. Jim Hacker Rebecca Hack is 560 votes behind Elizabeth Watson-Brown, but there are about 7,000 votes there for minor parties, mostly far right, whose voters likely put Green last, and Labor seventh (or vice-versa).

My guess (which is as good as anybody's) is that this will be enough to push Hack into second place with three candidates still remaining, and if so, the Green preferences will put her ahead of Forrest; If Watson-Brown clings on to second after allocation of minor candidate preferences, then she will win on the back of Labor preferences.

The winner will be whomever comes second. Because despite the almost even split between the 57% of people who voted either Labor or Green, those 57% are (mostly) united in opposing the LNP candidate.

That depends Bilby on how you want to slice it and dice it
63.4% opposed the Greens
64% opposed Labour
63% opposed the 'left' i.e. Green/Lab.
So who really won?

Nobody got a majority. The instant run-off allows for a quick result but in so many of our seats they cannot claim the mythical mandate as few get an absolute majority.
That's why our parliaments usually get a majority of seats with a minority of votes.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Bandt lost his seat. Some good news that.

The greens ‘might’ end up with one seat….

Ryan is a very good example of the power of Instant Runoff Voting. Here is the first preference count so far:

View attachment 50473

In a traditional "First Past the Post" election, Maggie Forrest would be a clear winner. But in this race, she has no chance at all; The seat will go to whoever comes second, after the minor candidate preferences are distributed. Jim Hacker Rebecca Hack is 560 votes behind Elizabeth Watson-Brown, but there are about 7,000 votes there for minor parties, mostly far right, whose voters likely put Green last, and Labor seventh (or vice-versa).

My guess (which is as good as anybody's) is that this will be enough to push Hack into second place with three candidates still remaining, and if so, the Green preferences will put her ahead of Forrest; If Watson-Brown clings on to second after allocation of minor candidate preferences, then she will win on the back of Labor preferences.

The winner will be whomever comes second. Because despite the almost even split between the 57% of people who voted either Labor or Green, those 57% are (mostly) united in opposing the LNP candidate.

That depends Bilby on how you want to slice it and dice it
63.4% opposed the Greens
64% opposed Labour
63% opposed the 'left' i.e. Green/Lab.
So who really won?

Nobody got a majority. The instant run-off allows for a quick result but in so many of our seats they cannot claim the mythical mandate as few get an absolute majority.
That's why our parliaments usually get a majority of seats with a minority of votes.

Your maths is as wonky as hell. It is well known that anti-LNP voters will, given the choice, choose between the Labor candidate and the Greens candidate. If there was only a Labor candidate, no Greens candidate, opposing the Libs candidate, then most of those Greens votes would go as first preferences to the Labor candidate, meaning that they would have over 50% of the primary vote and automatically win.
You , like others I have seen commenting elsewhere, do not understand the preferential voting system. A distributed vote is as valid as a primary vote. Therefore the winning candidate will always have a majority vote.

 

[gmbteach]

Bandt lost his seat. Some good news that.

The greens ‘might’ end up with one seat….

Ryan is a very good example of the power of Instant Runoff Voting. Here is the first preference count so far:

View attachment 50473

In a traditional "First Past the Post" election, Maggie Forrest would be a clear winner. But in this race, she has no chance at all; The seat will go to whoever comes second, after the minor candidate preferences are distributed. Jim Hacker Rebecca Hack is 560 votes behind Elizabeth Watson-Brown, but there are about 7,000 votes there for minor parties, mostly far right, whose voters likely put Green last, and Labor seventh (or vice-versa).

My guess (which is as good as anybody's) is that this will be enough to push Hack into second place with three candidates still remaining, and if so, the Green preferences will put her ahead of Forrest; If Watson-Brown clings on to second after allocation of minor candidate preferences, then she will win on the back of Labor preferences.

The winner will be whomever comes second. Because despite the almost even split between the 57% of people who voted either Labor or Green, those 57% are (mostly) united in opposing the LNP candidate.

That depends Bilby on how you want to slice it and dice it
63.4% opposed the Greens
64% opposed Labour
63% opposed the 'left' i.e. Green/Lab.
So who really won?

Nobody got a majority. The instant run-off allows for a quick result but in so many of our seats they cannot claim the mythical mandate as few get an absolute majority.
That's why our parliaments usually get a majority of seats with a minority of votes.

Your maths is as wonky as hell. It is well known that anti-LNP voters will, given the choice, choose between the Labor candidate and the Greens candidate. If there was only a Labor candidate, no Greens candidate, opposing the Libs candidate, then most of those Greens votes would go as first preferences to the Labor candidate, meaning that they would have over 50% of the primary vote and automatically win.
You , like others I have seen commenting elsewhere, do not understand the preferential voting system. A distributed vote is as valid as a primary vote. Therefore the winning candidate will always have a majority vote.

Hey, at least only 2.9% of the votes of everyone in that electorate were invalid. By my reckoning 97.1% (give or take a few slackers who will cop a fine) voted!

 

[bilby]

Well, we needn't worry about the 43 Coalition MPs who were supposed to form the opposition to Labor's 93 seat government, because the coalition just spectacularly imploded, leaving a 28 seat Liberal opposition, and 15 National MPs who will be sharing an entertainingly impotent and fractious cross bench with the Green MP (singular), and the dozen other independents (mostly teal Claytons Liberals).

It seems unlikely that either the Libs or the Nats will attempt to fight the next election without kissing and making up, not least because both parties know that to do so would be to hand the Labor Party government almost without a fight. But it's going to be very entertaining to watch them bicker, and there's always the prospect that they won't be able to get their shit together...

Not a good day to be an Australian conservative.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05...coalition-split-mean-for-parliament/105315154

Two lower house seats remain in doubt:

Bradfield in NSW, once the Liberal Party's safest seat, has the Independent leading by just 45 votes (out of 112,413 counted), and will likely go to a recount.

Calwell in Victoria is a total mess, and the AEC has abandoned indicative preferences due to an ongoing inability to predict who will be the top two candidates. The result will remain in doubt until a full distribution of preferences can be completed, which will take about another ten days (this full distribution is required in every seat to determine the official result, but the indicative count usually effectively predicts the winner).

There are 13 candidates in Calwell, and of these only 5 polled more than 10% of the first preferences on votes cast. The exact flow of preferences on the other 8 candidates' first preference papers will decide the result (also above 10% are the 10,618 ballots that have currently been declared as informal. A recount, which automatically includes a review of the formal/informal decision for each ballot paper, is almost certain).