2010 Federal Election

[noco]

Agree, Sails. Certainly the three Independents are hugely enjoying themselves, even getting quite silly with their ideas e.g. Oakshott today suggesting he might "get cheeky" and put up the idea that Cabinet should be mixed from all parties. He seemed to think it might be just hunkey dory for an Abbott government to have Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister, as just one example.

If this is an example of how their thinking is going to play, heaven help us all.

Initially, I thought the result might be a vote for a greater level of democracy, but now it seems more likely it will reflect the grandstanding and egoism of a few, with the nation the poorer.


That's quite true. You have to wonder if these people had instead voted properly a number of the seats currently in doubt may have been clearly decided. Hope these people will think more clearly next time.

They probably followed the Jesus Christ super star (aka Mark Latham) and posted a blank ballot paper.

 

[sails]

Agree, Sails. Certainly the three Independents are hugely enjoying themselves, even getting quite silly with their ideas e.g. Oakshott today suggesting he might "get cheeky" and put up the idea that Cabinet should be mixed from all parties. He seemed to think it might be just hunkey dory for an Abbott government to have Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister, as just one example.

If this is an example of how their thinking is going to play, heaven help us all.

Initially, I thought the result might be a vote for a greater level of democracy, but now it seems more likely it will reflect the grandstanding and egoism of a few, with the nation the poorer...

Julia, I agree the independents are becoming increasingly cheeky with their new celebrity status. I really thought they would have used their experience somewhat more astutely. Oh well...

Maybe neither side of government will want them - but then that would certainly mean another election with JG droning on and on again...

If there is another election so soon, I wonder how many people would actually change their vote?

 

[ghotib]

The informal vote had a bigger national swing than the coalition..

Do you know how that's determined? The swings for Liberal, Liberal National of Qld, Nationals, and Country Liberals total +1.42, which is close enough to the informal +1.69 that it's not a major concern. Only I'm not sure if adding them together is the way to work out the swing?

The other reason I'm not unduly concerned about the Informal vote is that it seems to vary greatly from seat to seat, and be markedly higher in very safe seats with no strong third choice. The NSW seat of Blaxland is an outstanding example: 14.2% Informal with a swing of +5.31%, which is higher than the swing against Labor. That suggests to me that it's a deliberate vote in favour of Anyone Else, which further suggests that Someone Else might well have a go next time and at least one of the major parties might actually pay some attention. Good tactical voting.

I think this a fabulous result for the nation. The parties actually have no constitutional role at all, and it's long past time they were reminded that we own the Parliament by right of citizenship, not party membership.

Ghoti (Antony Green is My Hero)

 

[sails]

Sails, Tony Abbott cannot form government without the three independents and Tony Crook ( the National who knocked off Tuckey). All four have massive grudges against the Coalition.

If he gives in to the demands of these opportunists and forms a government on their terms it will have a very short life.

I would prefer the Coalition to stay in opposition and let Julia Gillard cope with these grandstanding buffoons. At least it would retain the moral high ground.

Calliope, I'm not sure either how the Coalition will go with the three independents. I have mixed feelings on this. Maybe it is better that the voting public have a taste of JG as leader. She went to the polls in indecent haste, IMO without proving herself first.

Fortunately, it's not up to me to decide...lol

 

[noco]

More evidence of turmoil in the Labor Party. They just can't help themselves from blaming each other for things going wrong.
How can they possibly offer a stable Government?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-bid-for-power/story-fn59niix-1225909632518

 

[Mofra]

More evidence of turmoil in the Labor Party. They just can't help themselves from blaming each other for things going wrong.
How can they possibly offer a stable Government?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-bid-for-power/story-fn59niix-1225909632518

Worrying signs - neither side can offer a stable govenrment if Labour can't, as the Coalition would be a lame duck government with the Greens holding the balance of power in the senate. We'd be back to the polls fairly shortly if that occurred.

This is the reason JG can talk about holding true to her principles - she knows any change to the mining tax or NBN would be voted down by the Greens anyway.

 

[Logique]

Hang on, three points here:

- The Greens won't have the Senate balance of power until July 2011. That's a long time in politics.

- The ALP as predicted, have already begun to tear themselves apart. There will be further fallout when NSW state Labor are shown the door in the March 2011 election. Surely the worst government ever in NSW.

- The conservative independents are playing a flaky shell game with the Australian public, and a dangerous one for themselves.
Their electorate percentage of Labor voters are:
Windsor - 8%
Oakeshot - 13%
Katter -20%

They will come to heel, after they've had their 15 minutes.

 

[wayneL]

Worrying signs - neither side can offer a stable govenrment if Labour can't, as the Coalition would be a lame duck government with the Greens holding the balance of power in the senate. We'd be back to the polls fairly shortly if that occurred.

There have been many governments with a hostile senate in the past.

Why do you think we have the complicated GST arrangements we have now? because of the Aust Dem comrades holding balance of power in the Senate.

It might not be comfortable for the Libs (if they cobble together a gu'mint), but it is a non-sequitur to suggest they would be unable to offer stable government because the Labor Marxist cannot.

Not saying they can or cannot, just that it does not necessarily follow.

 

[Bushman]

Surely the worst government ever in NSW.

I would say the worst state government ever (in my life time, anyway). Maybe only Cain/Kirner come close in terms of ineptitude, Bourke in terms of the whiff of corruption.

The problem for Gillard is that it has become fashionable for Qld/NSW state labour to blame the 'disease' of Labour party machinations to save their own careers. Snipers abound in that nest of factional vipers.

The independents are most definitely enjoying their 15 minutes of fame at the moment. Labor would be strange bedfellows given rural Australia is a conservative constituency. My money is on Abbott if its stays 73-all.

If Labor form government, then say good-bye to the surplus as they will need to fund big spending campaigns to keep the Greens/'agrarian socialists' happy. Factionalism will keep eroding party unity and it will all end in a Liberal landslide. Gillard is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't IMO and Abbott might be best served to give Labor the chance to destroy itself completely.

 

[Bolle]

Couldn't agree more. Best thing for everyone is ALP 'wins' this round, in order to then sensationally and spectacularly lose the war. Hopefully very quickly, which should be easy enough for them, they are barely holding together as it is. They remind me of the Blues Brothers' car, at the end of the movie, holding together just long enough to get to the door, then spontaneously dismantling into a pile of scrap metal at the precise moment that their usefulness has been exhausted.

Would be far more interesting all round if Labour would just split into its factions and form an alliance of two parties - at least then they could stop fighting and start negotiating, and we could see their true colours. As it is, with gag orders everywhere, it's fairly hard to see whom is still talking to whom.

I'm not Tony's biggest fan, so I my ideal outcome would be that JG forms an unstable govt, ploughs roughly along for a few months, stuffs up a few more times, watches Labour party implode... and meanwhile LIBS replace Tony with, say, Joe... and win by landslide later this year.

(And the Greens make enough trouble in that short time for people to recognise that they aren't any kind of saviours.)

my

 

[Logique]

Abbott might be best served to give Labor the chance to destroy itself completely.

I do not support this theory. We do not need a Labor government in power once the Greens senate balance of power kicks in next year, having a combined flakiness contest.

They will do too much damage in the meantime, starting with maxing out the national credit card in a desperate bid to shore up their support.

There are echoes of 1975 about all of this, I do think it will eventually break in a landslide to one side or another. But we must not allow Labor to pull the strings from government in the volatile times to come.

 

[Mofra]

There have been many governments with a hostile senate in the past.

Why do you think we have the complicated GST arrangements we have now? because of the Aust Dem comrades holding balance of power in the Senate.

It might not be comfortable for the Libs (if they cobble together a gu'mint), but it is a non-sequitur to suggest they would be unable to offer stable government because the Labor Marxist cannot.

Not saying they can or cannot, just that it does not necessarily follow.

The difference in political idealogues between the Dems/Libs at the time does not reflect the gulf between the Greens and the current Liberal party.

On major policy issues such as Healthcare, Tax, Broadband, Water & the environment they are miles apart.

Not sure I can agree with anything less right wing than the libs being automatically labelled Marxist either, but each to their own.

 

[Mofra]

- The Greens won't have the Senate balance of power until July 2011. That's a long time in politics.

True, but the actual number of sitting days in parliament is quite low in the meantime the Libs wont hold sway in the upper house either.

 

[Happy]

Being able to run deficit or being able to promise anything without scrutiny until next election does not look like good recipe for Government.

Unfortunately democracy in theory allows even Sex Party to run the Government should they secure majority.

 

[drsmith]

Listening to today's National Press Meeting with the 3 independents and Adam Bandt,

Bob Katter was quiet emotional in relation to a carbon tax and a RSPT. I can't see him and Adan Bandt agreeing on too much.

Adan Bandt confirmed the Greens still support the original RSPT, however Tony windsor does not. Tony does support support a resources profit tax but in the context of reforming state royalties. Adan Bandt also confirmed a shoot first approach to introducing a carbon tax.

Neither side I suspect will want Bob Katter (stability ?). This makes it akward for the Coalition with 73 seats. Labor could do it with 72 seats, Adan Bandt (Green), Andrew Wilkie and the two national independents. For the latter two though, it would be a massive risk as the bed they are in would include both Labor and the Greens.

I suspect we will be back to the polls soon if one of the major parties can't secure 74 seats.

 

[Julia]

Hang on, three points here:

- The Greens won't have the Senate balance of power until July 2011. That's a long time in politics.

Sure is, and given the inevitable volatility with any of the possible permutations that can form government, there will be plenty of opportunity for disaster before the Greens have their longed for supremacy.

- The conservative independents are playing a flaky shell game with the Australian public, and a dangerous one for themselves.
Their electorate percentage of Labor voters are:
Windsor - 8%
Oakeshot - 13%
Katter -20%

They will come to heel, after they've had their 15 minutes.

You're probably right. But they're sure as hell milking the publicity for all they're worth at present. The more I hear them, especially the loony Katter, the less faith I have in any sort of control they will exert.

I do not support this theory. We do not need a Labor government in power once the Greens senate balance of power kicks in next year, having a combined flakiness contest.

They will do too much damage in the meantime, starting with maxing out the national credit card in a desperate bid to shore up their support.

Agree absolutely. Labor need to go away and do their blood letting in private, not take their internal frustrations and anger out on the country.

Listening to today's National Press Meeting with the 3 independents and Adam Bandt,

Bob Katter was quiet emotional in relation to a carbon tax and a RSPT. I can't see him and Adan Bandt agreeing on too much.

Adan Bandt confirmed the Greens still support the original RSPT, however Tony windsor does not. Tony does support support a resources profit tax but in the context of reforming state royalties. Adan Bandt also confirmed a shoot first approach to introducing a carbon tax.

Neither side I suspect will want Bob Katter (stability ?). This makes it akward for the Coalition with 73 seats. Labor could do it with 72 seats, Adan Bandt (Green), Andrew Wilkie and the two national independents. For the latter two though, it would be a massive risk as the bed they are in would include both Labor and the Greens.

I suspect we will be back to the polls soon if one of the major parties can't secure 74 seats.

Good summary. It's becoming increasingly more difficult to see any sort of stable alliance happening.

 

[Julia]

The following extract from an article by David Penberthy of "The Punch" seems right on the money.

Both Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor are level-headed men, decent and competent politicians, and would do a better job inside Cabinet than many of the people either side could serve up.

But even so, should we risk sidelining or subjugating the interests of voters in 150 electorates to a trio of men representing just three electorates?

And when the third MP in this triumvirate is Bob Katter, it becomes a more troubling proposition, as his rhetoric over the past few days has been framed around a totally unjustified sense of betrayal where he’s accusing city people of callous indifference to the plight of rural communities.

Both Windsor and Oakeshott have said that they will not use the whip-hand they now enjoy through an accident of democracy to extort benefits for their electorates at the expense of the nation. Their track record in politics, firstly at the NSW state level in the 1990s and now at the federal level, suggests that they can be taken at their word.

It matters less what they say than what the major parties do in order to attract their support. Things are so desperate on the Labor and Coalition side that all sorts of inducements will be thrown around.

Oakeshott has displayed an infectious brand of optimism by proposing “a new politics” and has made some compelling points about how so much important parliamentary committee work, and the thoughtful proposals from major policy exercises such as Ken Henry’s tax review, are often crushed by machine politics and poll-driven short term political expediency. But his proposal for some kind of government of national unity, possibly with ministers drawn from across the parties, is totally unworkable, although it did at least give us all a laugh at hearing Tony Abbott talking up the prospect of “a kinder gentler polity”.

But the biggest problem is Katter. The former Howard Government minister has made it clear that it’s his explicit intention to massively redirect the efforts and energy of Canberra towards rural Queensland and, presumably, the rest of the bush.

He bases this on a very hostile and unfounded sense of persecution. This old-school agrarian socialist appears blissfully ignorant of the billions that are spent on rural assistance, on adjustment packages for industry sectors such as sugar or dairy which have been affected by liberalised trade arrangements or competition policy. He even makes the fanciful and baseless claim that city people and the city media doesn’t care about issues such as rural suicide, ignoring the fact that when the drought was at its worst city people gave millions through the media-led Farmhand campaign to reach out to rural communities, aside what they do already through their taxes.

He also epitomises the unrealistic rural conviction that it’s the job of government not only to support good businesses, but to underwrite businesses which are plainly unviable. No-one whose small business goes south in the city gets any government assistance; yet the Katter view of the world is that if you choose out of a sense of tradition or familial loyalty to grow things in a place which has always been marginal, the state should save you from your own misfortune or lack of sense.

Katter made it clear in his statement on Sunday that he wants to massively shift the focus of Canberra. He said it’s “not payback time but pay-up time”, suggesting that in this overwhelmingly coastal, city-dwelling nation of ours that the suburbs have had it too good for too long.

He’s mused about how it’s no longer even legal to “boil the billy” in this country, suggesting a warped sense of what constitutes our national identity, with putting jumbucks in the tucker bag no doubt next on the politically correct list of forbidden activities.

His stroppy remarks on 3AW made plain how his sense of persecution would determine which party he supported, on the basis of what they’d do for his seat.

I’ve made my position perfectly clear 400 times, so for the 400th time i said if it’s up to me personally, as far as I’m personally concerned, I would give the gong to whoever gives us the right to survive. We haven’t enjoyed that right for 25 years. All we’ve ever seen is our businesses going down, down, down, our farmers just collapsing completely…these are not just figures plucked out of the air, concepts plucked out of the air, I can give you the actual figures, that’s why I’m carrying this briefcase around with me everywhere, i can give you the actual figures. No you listen to me because we have had it up to here with the media, you people have given a run to every single idea known to man, except us. And we got to a stage under successive governments where every four days a farmer in Australia was committing suicide. Did you ever give us a run? No. Now that we’ve got a bit of power you’ll be listening to us, my friend, not dictating to us. I just got 74-75 % of the vote, right? I think there’s a bit of trust there. And I’ve lived with them all my life with my daddy and my granddaddy before that and I would like to think I know a little bit of what’s going on there.

In this election 85 per cent of the country voted for either of the two major parties. Rather than reflecting the will of the majority we now risk government by the few, flimsy and unsustainable government where the interests and appetites of three men who represent 300,000 people will inordinately influence the lives of 21 million. The fact that one of these men is waging some fanciful war in his own mind on the big cities of Australia is reason enough to go straight back to the polls.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles...nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

 

[Mofra]

The following extract from an article by David Penberthy of "The Punch" seems right on the money.

Rather prescient article, especially in his portrayal of Katter - Katter spoke out against free trade in his NPC address today. Basically, it seemed like Katter read the article then set about to prove Penberthy correct on every point today.

 

[Calliope]

Neither side I suspect will want Bob Katter (stability ?). This makes it akward for the Coalition with 73 seats. Labor could do it with 72 seats, Adan Bandt (Green), Andrew Wilkie and the two national independents. For the latter two though, it would be a massive risk as the bed they are in would include both Labor and the Greens.

I think you are right on the money Doc. Oakeshott and Windsor would be a better fit with the Labor/Green coalition than with the conservatives, that's why Abbott is trying to position himself as a small "l" liberal (caring etc). The problem for these two is that their electorates might force them in the opposite direction.

Katter of course fits nowhere. Maybe a nuthouse

 

[wayneL]

Not sure I can agree with anything less right wing than the libs being automatically labelled Marxist either, but each to their own.

The Labor Party is not overtly Marxist, but this is the Fabian way, the end game has always been the same.