Election 2010

[Blue]

You could well be right Baldric. I'm actually in favour of legislative gridlock and situations such as this, because it gives the pollies less opportunities to do damage to the rest of the electorate! That is a cynical view, I will admit. The real worry for the MP (Moana Pasifika)'s is that we proles may not notice if parliament isn't sitting!

Actually seems quite good with no real government. Less damage can be done.

 

[Ruggo]

We are moving forward with real action.

 

[Scotty]

Ok, I'm back from Greece. I see we still have some form of 'election' going on, but now it appears to be more of job interview for Tony and JOOOlia. Looks like Labor has the upper hand at the moment, and it is pointing their way, however there is still a chance of another election happening.

Someone told me that Bryce is the mother in law of a certain Labor power broker (is it Arbib?). How can we end up with the situation of a quite possibly biased (whether intentional or not) governer general? I am correct in saying that it was Rudd that put her name forth, aren't I?

 

[Nusadan]

Bryce's son in law is Bruce Shorten...

 

[Scotty]

Here is a question:

Suppose that two of the three independants give their support to Labor, meaning that Labor form a government with 76-74. Then suppose that one of these independants either quits or something happens to him during the government term, ensuring a bi-election is required. It is likely or at least probably that that seat would then go to either a National or Liberal candidate due to the historic and current coalition support in that seat. It then ends up with 75-75.

What is the process then? Would Labor continue to govern on incumbency, or would another election be triggered?

 

[DPK]

I'm predicting this. Labor get the slimmest of margins, Abbot stands up before Gillard can say g'day in the first parliament and offers a motion of no confidence and we'll be voting again in no time.

Don't forget, Australia can effectively function in it's current state until the appropriation bills expire next July.

 

[Scotty]

Bryce's son in law is Bruce Shorten...

Ah yes Shorten. I knew it was one of 'those' ones!

Doesn't seem right, does it?

Anyone read this story:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ves-independents/story-e6frgd0x-1225914501944

 

[Scotty]

I'm predicting this. Labor get the slimmest of margins, Abbot stands up before Gillard can say g'day in the first parliament and offers a motion of no confidence and we'll be voting again in no time.

Don't forget, Australia can effectively function in it's current state until the appropriation bills expire next July.

How would a vote of no confidence be upheld though?

 

[DPK]

Someone crosses the floor.

 

[Scotty]

Obviously, but who are you predicting would do so? Certainly not the independants or greens, who would possibly guarantee they aren't any part of the government by forcing another election.

 

[Nusadan]

When it first looked like it was going to be a hung one, there was a poll in these 3 seats held by independents where the voters wanted the independents to align themselves to the Liberals/Nationals by a clear margin...

These independents should listen to their electorate...

 

[Moses]

Here is a question:

Suppose that two of the three independants give their support to Labor, meaning that Labor form a government with 76-74. Then suppose that one of these independants either quits or something happens to him during the government term, ensuring a bi-election is required. It is likely or at least probably that that seat would then go to either a National or Liberal candidate due to the historic and current coalition support in that seat. It then ends up with 75-75.

What is the process then? Would Labor continue to govern on incumbency, or would another election be triggered?

One labor representative would have to be speaker and get no vote, so it'd be 75-74. If anyone is sick, on leave, or has a conscience (less likely with Labor) then bills will be defeated.

 

[Rothschild]

Here is a question:
Suppose that two of the three independants give their support to Labor, meaning that Labor form a government with 76-74. Then suppose that one of these independants either quits or something happens to him during the government term, ensuring a bi-election is required. It is likely or at least probably that that seat would then go to either a National or Liberal candidate due to the historic and current coalition support in that seat. It then ends up with 75-75.
What is the process then? Would Labor continue to govern on incumbency, or would another election be triggered?

A government can only govern with the confidence of the electorate so if there is an inability for a 'government' to properly govern the PM may call another election or there are powers vested in the GG under the constitution to parogue parliament and call an election.

 

[Ruggo]

These three all sighted stable government as the first priority. The coalition wont achieve this now that Labor has the senete tied up and currently a seat behind in the house. The intersesting part is that the new senete don't form until July next year so both potential Governments would have to face a hostile senate. This now most likely opens the door for a series of double dissolusion triggers and a chance to go back to the polls with a full vote on both houses.

This is only one mans opinion but personally I would like to see Labor retained in Government but the very tight leash they will be on will be a good thing. A reform aqgenda but with tighter control over the national wallet.

 

[stoff]

I actually think the double dissolution option is the best one at the moment. It will give people a chance to have a real think about who and what they are voting for. I can see the greens going backwards and one of the major parties being able to rule outright, with independent support in the senate. As it stands now, I can't see either side actually being able to get anything through both houses.

 

[Moses]

I suspect these independents touted the virtues of stable government as a sound bite for their electorates.

You can have stable government without control of the senate, it's really quite rare to control both houses. Is being able to vote your budget through the lower house what is required for "stable" government? I don't see how an organisation who were led by Mark Latham just a few years ago could be stable...

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Taking a step back and thinking about this, there are a couple of issues in play..

1, The electorates of the three rural independents are pretty conservative, with a -8.7% swing against Labor in Katter's seat, -2.8% in Windsor's and -18.5% in Oakeshott's. That is pretty damning by itself. This is the same situation we had over here in the west in our last election with a significant swing against Labor, but not quite enough for the Lib's to win government. The NP leader briefly flirted with the ALP before eventually siding with their traditional conservative allies (but not before winning some pork for the bush). If the independents were to go with the ALP, I would expect a serious backlash against them in their electorates, just like would have happened against the Nationals here. Tony Crook (who defeated Wilson Tuckey) ought to remember that too.

2, At least a couple of the independents are against the mining tax, but are considering the very party who introduced it. That doesn't quite compute with me. You either want it or you don't!

3, Gillard, quite understandably is doing everything humanly possible to cling to power. The problem is, people who are desperate tend to make deals that they later regret. I think she will rue the day she got into bed with the Greens. A green controlled Senate and a conservative controlled house wouldn't actually be too bad, as it would be a check on Abbot's powers and prevent a return to things like work choices or any wacky socially conservative legislation. And because the Greens can't introduce legislation from the upper house, it puts a brake on anything crazy they might cook up too.

I would be amazed if the current parliament were to last the full term. All it would take would be one false move from the government (whoever they are) and we end up with a double dissolution.

Right now I think Abbot is in the box seat, whether he wins or not. If he wins government, their legislative program would be pretty modest and there wouldn't be anything contentious (he wouldn't dare in the first term). If Gillard wins, he gets to sit on the side line and watch the whole catastrophe unfold if the ALP make even one false move.

 

[Lindommer]

...double dissolution option is the best one at the moment. ... I can see the Greens going backwards and one of the major parties being able to rule outright, with independent support in the senate.

The Greens won't go backwards in a double dissolution. It's easier for minor parties (or independents) to get up in the Senate at a double dissolution as the quota's smaller than in a half senate election. Future governments of any hue should presume they won't have control of the Senate, historically it's very rare. And when it does happen, as it did for Howard after the 2004 election, the lack of senatorial discipline or scrutiny lets the government make silly mistakes, such as Howard ramming WorkChoices through. The delicious historical irony about this episode is Howard achieved control of the Senate through the election of the Family First senator, Steven Fielding, at the 2004 election. Fielding got up on a woeful first preference vote of 0.08% but a bizarre preference flow saw him pip the Greens candidate. A forensic examination of the outcome revealed the ALP made a mistake when they lodged their preference allocations. One could argue the seeds of Howard's demise were sown in 2004 and he didn't have a chance at the 2007 election.

It would be wise for Gillard and Abbott to consider the possible future ramifications of their actions when they negotiate with the three country independents.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Agreed. I consider it to be a feature, not a bug, that Senate and Reps majorities are rarely in favour of one party or another. It preserves the value of the Senate being a house of review and is an important check on the power of the sitting government.

 

[Rothschild]

You can't simply pull a double dissolution because you can't get your bills through the lower house.
A DD results from bills, having being approved by the lower house being twice rejected over three months by the senate and then the GG may dissolve both houses of parliament.
What would occur if the government had the cumulative numbers is for a joint sitting of the parliament to get contentios bills through but that is rare.