Australia's government loses by-elections, denting re-election prospects

[rooster59]

Australia's government loses by-elections, denting re-election prospects

By Colin Packham

 

FILE PHOTO: Australia's Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and German Chancellor Angela Merkel (not pictured) address the media following their talks in Berlin, Germany, April 23, 2018. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch/File Photo

 

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's ruling coalition government failed to win any of the five by-elections held this weekend, defeats widely seen as an indication that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces an uphill challenge to secure re-election.

 

In what was coined "Super Saturday", voters in five seats went to the polls after a handful of opposition lawmakers were forced from office after falling foul of the country's constitution that bans politicians from elected office if they are dual citizens.

 

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) early on Sunday said the five seats were all won by the opposition, dealing a blow to Turnbull, who is under pressure to demonstrate a viable pathway for re-election at the next federal election in less than eight months.

 

Experts said Turnbull needed a strong showing in Longman, in the state of Queensland, to show he could win favour with conservative voters, many of whom have not taken to the prime minister, a social liberal who made his fortune in banking before entering politics.

 

Despite Australia's powerful right-wing party One Nation encouraging its supporters to vote for Turnbull's candidate, the opposition Labor Party retained the seat. The AEC said Labor retained the seat with a bigger majority than it had secured in 2016.

 

Turnbull also faces continued strife with his legislative agenda. The prime minister, who has a parliamentary majority of just one, has seen policy frequently influenced by his conservative backbench.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-07-29

[geriatrickid]

Sitting governments rarely win byelections. No biggie. 

[car720]

One bozo taking over from another bozo.  Neither will make life better for Australians as long as the only word they learned on their mummy's teat was the word Revenue.

[Cats4ever]

One Nation powerful? It is influential in some areas, and if the the stars align its preferences can decide a seat or two.

As for the results, governments rarely win by elections, it is a chance for people to protest.

[rosst]

As a usual Labor voter, I would vote for Turdbull because of his stance on border security, cannot trust Labor on this. 

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Sitting governments rarely win byelections. No biggie. 

 

5 hours ago, Cats4ever said:

One Nation powerful? It is influential in some areas, and if the the stars align its preferences can decide a seat or two.

As for the results, governments rarely win by elections, it is a chance for people to protest.

Your assertions are nearly 100 percent false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_by-elections

[seajae]

5 hours ago, Cats4ever said:

One Nation powerful? It is influential in some areas, and if the the stars align its preferences can decide a seat or two.

As for the results, governments rarely win by elections, it is a chance for people to protest.

libs didnt win but we did, GO CATS

[kwilco]

11 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Sitting governments rarely win byelections. No biggie. 

No it is a biggie......... mid term defeats are not but this only months before a G.E.

One of the bset things about Aussie politics is that the electorate get skick of governments pretty quick these days....thus preventing any <deleted> from staying too long....I think they learned from Howard.

 

[geriatrickid]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

Your assertions are nearly 100 percent false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_by-elections

Silly boy, you proved our statements.  The point being that incumbent  governments never win per se,  and at best  get a status quo with the net results being a loss of seats. 

Take a  look at the results.

 

2007-2013: Labour Government; No wins for Labour. 3 Liberal holds, I national to Independent flip and 1 National hold.

1996-2007: Liberal Government: Held 2, lost 1 , Labour held 4, lost 1 to the Greens. This means there was a cumulative loss to the sitting government.

1991-1996: Labour Government: Labour lost 2, held 3, Liberals held 5. This means a cumulative loss of seats to the sitting government.

 

Perhaps you are having problems understanding the concept of  elections?

In some socialist utopias, they have their elections  efficiently arranged.

[bristolboy]

Just now, geriatrickid said:

Silly boy, you proved our statements.  The point being that incumbent  governments never win per se,  and at best  get a status quo with the net results being a loss of seats. 

Take a  look at the results.

 

2007-2013: Labour Government; No wins for Labour. 3 Liberal holds, I national to Independent flip and 1 National hold.

1996-2007: Liberal Government: Held 2, lost 1 , Labour held 4, lost 1 to the Greens. This means there was a cumulative loss to the sitting government.

1991-1996: Labour Government: Labour lost 2, held 3, Liberals held 5. This means a cumulative loss of seats to the sitting government.

 

Perhaps you are having problems understanding the concept of  elections?

In some socialist utopias, they have their elections  efficiently arranged.

But this was about by elections. Unless by elections are only held for seats by the parties not in power, the numbers clearly show that in the vast majority of cases the incumbent retains the seat.

[geriatrickid]

11 minutes ago, kwilco said:

No it is a biggie......... mid term defeats are not but this only months before a G.E.

One of the bset things about Aussie politics is that the electorate get skick of governments pretty quick these days....thus preventing any <deleted> from staying too long....I think they learned from Howard.

 

The results that I see  show that the incumbent political party held the contested seat. These were safe seats for Labour weren't they? Unless these were actually Liberal seats and I havemissed aomething. ?

 

[geriatrickid]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But this was about by elections. Unless by elections are only held for seats by the parties not in power, the numbers clearly show that in the vast majority of cases the incumbent retains the seat.

Cumulative losses. No net gains. Equals negative result and an excuse for the political back stabbing & jostling to  start ala Rudd & Gillard & Abbott etc.

[thaibeachlovers]

They should have kept Abbott. Turnbull is too weak to win, IMO.

[NumbNut]

^^^

Turnbull is too weak? Not that I give a toss either way regarding conservative politics, but the only thing Abbott is going to win is the Wooden Spoon.

 

The Aussie electorate saw in his first stint that he's only effective as an opposition leader. Given the top gig he went missing in action.  

 

Just too many negatives with 'Dr. No' and not enough positives

 

[car720]

18 hours ago, rosst said:

As a usual Labor voter, I would vote for Turdbull because of his stance on border security, cannot trust Labor on this. 

stay with labour.  Dutton is so close to Mao Zedong it is not funny.

[thaibeachlovers]

52 minutes ago, car720 said:

stay with labour.  Dutton is so close to Mao Zedong it is not funny.

???????

Are you saying Dutton wants to murder millions of his own citizens?

[TPI]

12 hours ago, geriatrickid said:

Silly boy, you proved our statements.  The point being that incumbent  governments never win per se,  and at best  get a status quo with the net results being a loss of seats. 

Take a  look at the results.

 

2007-2013: Labour Government; No wins for Labour. 3 Liberal holds, I national to Independent flip and 1 National hold.

1996-2007: Liberal Government: Held 2, lost 1 , Labour held 4, lost 1 to the Greens. This means there was a cumulative loss to the sitting government.

1991-1996: Labour Government: Labour lost 2, held 3, Liberals held 5. This means a cumulative loss of seats to the sitting government.

 

Perhaps you are having problems understanding the concept of  elections?

In some socialist utopias, they have their elections  efficiently arranged.

In Oz, elections are only to change the guard, basically they are only trough feeders, in only to do the 11 years and get the pension...pretty sad really!

Edited July 30, 2018 by TPI

[car720]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

???????

Are you saying Dutton wants to murder millions of his own citizens?

If he gets his new super intelligence agency running then he will write his own ticket.  Though luckily it looks like he might be losing his seat.

[Cats4ever]

20 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Your assertions are nearly 100 percent false.

What only 99 % correct.