Comments on: An alcopops-fueled election?

By: Simon Copland

Simon Copland — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:29:58 +0000

I don’t the government is going to use Alcopops as a double dissolution election trigger. If the elections in WA, NT and QLD tought the Labor Party anything it’s that people don’t like early elections that are based around stupid reasons, which is what alcopops is. I think Labor is re-introducing this legislation with the possibility of it as a trigger to try to pressure Fielding and the Libs to pass it in turn re-enforcing their own power within the Senate. Forcing either of these two to vote for this legislation under the threat of a DD would be a big win for Labor and I think that is what they are aiming for.

By: Oz

Oz — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 11:15:11 +0000

I don’t think alcopops, if used as a trigger, would actually play a big role in the campaign.

The idea is too say “We are facing Senate obstruction, the Opposition is blocking our attempts to deal with the financial crisis as well as blocking parts of the budget – the latest attempt being an important health measure applauded by health and advocacy groups”.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:56:41 +0000

I’m inclined to think that it’d be an unwise move by Rudd to an alcopops trigger, if he so pushed for it, to use it as any more than a threat.

Promising to raise the cost of people’s booze is not an issue that’s going to win you votes, and if the moral panic around young women drinkers couldn’t even sway Steve Fielding, it obviously ain’t going down too well out there in the public, and would be more likely to just look petty and erratic. He’d still win, of course, but I have a feeling he’d be more likely to lose seats rather than gain ‘em.

By: jh

jh — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:52:25 +0000

But the legislation has to be EXACTLY the same as was previously entered for it to count, right? It sounds like that’s a bigger issue than the 3 months thing. I could be wrong, though…