Election 2010

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Dont you hate those bureaucratic Italian cars?

Yes indeed. I'd much rather have a legislated Ferrari or Lancia thank you very much.

 

[barbarian]

So Katter sides with the Coalition, while it seems the other 2 are going with Labor. So its 76-74 to Labor, with Gillard as PM. I reckon that is the right outcome, but I think this is just the start of the game here. The next 3 months will be very interesting indeed.

 

[Scotty]

Right outcome for who?

Not for the voting public of Australia, who had gave a much higher primary vote to the Coalition. Not to the two independents constituents, who indicated overwhelmingly that they would prefer a conservative government. Not for our chosen democratic system which gave seats in favour of the coalition 73 to 72.

I suspect that Katter confirmed to the other two yesterday he was going Coalition, and Windsor also wanted to go that way, but couldn't get Oakeshott to change and therefore rolled so he could be part of government rather than ensuring another election. Good on Katter for sticking to what he believed rather than just rolling over so he could be part of the government.

 

[Scotty]

Of course Katter is also smart enough to know that being in government will mean one of two things for the independents:

1. They have to work their arses off to analyse each bill as it comes across their desk or
2. They no longer remain truly independents and end up towing the Labor party line

It also means they risk their own seats at the next election.

 

[TheRiddler]

@Scotty, whilst you raise a number of valid points, I can not bring myself to agree with a coalition (yes, thats right, they are already two separate parties so how about we split their primary vote down to their individual parties and see where the primary results lie) that was behind such atrocities as children overboard, Mohammed Haneef, the invasion of Iraq, that led a campaign with out-and-out redneck policies, that continues to have dinosaurs such as Brownyn Bishop as part of its leadership team, thinks that Big Joe would make the best Treasurer, believes that the school prefect (AKA Chris Pyne) should be the leader of the house, that Peter Dutton (who didnt even think he could retain his own electorate and was happy to try and run off and find a safer seat) should run our health system.

Yes, I know that Labor have their own significant problems and personnel issues but am hopeful that most of these can be overcome in a proper alliance. Maybe I am the eternal optimist but supporting Gordon, the Tahs and the Wobblies has taught me to believe in miracles.

 

[barbarian]

Right outcome for who?

Not for the voting public of Australia, who had gave a much higher primary vote to the Coalition. Not to the two independents constituents, who indicated overwhelmingly that they would prefer a conservative government. Not for our chosen democratic system which gave seats in favour of the coalition 73 to 72.

That is a bit misleading. Tony Crook said all along he would sit in the crossbenches, and so shouldnt be counted in the coalition. That makes it 72-72. The primary vote can be contrasted with the two-party preferred vote which went to Labor. As for the constituencies of the independents, the best interests of the nation as a whole outweigh those of North Queensland or country NSW. That is how the indies have approached it, and rightly so.

In an election as close as this one, I am not unhappy to see the incumbents returned. I think it will provide the most stable government. I am far from thrilled, and I think much like Ricky Ponting in the late 90s, the Coalition will be much better for the loss and come back a stronger party. It also gives Abbott the opportunity to clean house a little, and return Turnbull to the front bench.

 

[barbarian]

And the other two independents side with... Labor. Citing the NBN as the main reason.

 

[Scotty]

That is a bit misleading. Tony Crook said all along he would sit in the crossbenches, and so shouldnt be counted in the coalition. That makes it 72-72. The primary vote can be contrasted with the two-party preferred vote which went to Labor. As for the constituencies of the independents, the best interests of the nation as a whole outweigh those of North Queensland or country NSW. That is how the indies have approached it, and rightly so.

In an election as close as this one, I am not unhappy to see the incumbents returned. I think it will provide the most stable government. I am far from thrilled, and I think much like Ricky Ponting in the late 90s, the Coalition will be much better for the loss and come back a stronger party. It also gives Abbott the opportunity to clean house a little, and return Turnbull to the front bench.

Fair point about the number of seats, but I disagree with the points about the primary vote (my god Labor's was only just over a third) being balanced out by two party preferred, particularly when many don't understand that merely voting as per the Greens how to vote is essentially voting for Labor (and they would not have got in if they hadn't made the preference deal with the Greens).

And if you think they have put the best interests of the nation ahead of the local seats (which they are meant to represent), then why do you suppose they have cited the NBN as a major reason?

 

[Scotty]

So we now have a government who:

Lost 1 in 5 seats from the previous election
Were the first since 1931 to lose their majority after one term
Only won just over 1 in every 3 primary votes
Have to deal with the Greens, a left independent and two right independents to get anything done

And a leader who:

Knifed her predecessor to get the position
Promised the world and a full term to some independents to form a minority government
Is a major part of the reason for the poor performance of the government in the previous term
Is left leaning with essentially having Bob Brown as a defacto deputy

 

[Scotty]

In regards to 'stable' government, many peoples memories are a little short, aren't they? Don't you recall that the Labor party had a different leader at the last election? How stable can a government be when it can knife its own leader?

Just listening to Peter Beattie on ABC radio, and even he seemed to have some serious doubts about the stability of this government. Basically said if Gillard falters the government will fail. Or if the Greens make trouble the government will also fail. Not much stability here:

Labors various factions
Green (far left)
Wilkie (left)
Windsor (right)
Oakeshott (right)

I'm sure it will be all smooth sailing.

 

[barbarian]

No-one ever said it was going to be smooth sailing. With Abbott at the helm it would still be very turbulent, especially with a hostile senate. This will be an interesting time, and I dont think anyone can accurately predict what will happen.

And sorry but I am so sick of the talk of 'knifing' Kevin Rudd. He wasn't an effective PM, and was summarily booted by his own party. What is wrong with that? The government was better for it. I am no massive Labor fan but they did the right thing.

 

[Aussie D]

I don't mind it as I don't think the government will last 3 years and both Windsor (retirement) and Oakeshott will be voted out. Wilkie will be lucky to hold on to Denison as (reportedly) a lot of Tasmanians are angry he turned down the Coalitio's offer to rebuild Hobart hospital. The part that worries me is Treasuries' role in this as if the reports are to be believed they have been less than independent.

 

[I like to watch]

And sorry but I am so sick of the talk of 'knifing' Kevin Rudd. He wasn't an effective PM, and was summarily booted by his own party. What is wrong with that? The government was better for it. I am no massive Labor fan but they did the right thing.

Exactly, but a pity a few of other senior members didn't go with him, it wasn't a one man show.

 

[barbarian]

Exactly, but a pity a few of other senior members didn't go with him, it wasn't a one man show.

But the problem was it WAS a one-man show. He insisted on doing everything himself, and completely ignored his cabinet. Yes there was the so-called 'gang of four', but their power was created by Rudd. And that gang was arguably the governments three most efficient ministers- Tanner, Gillard and Swan.

 

[Scotty]

I'm sick of this talk about a 'hostile' senate meaning a government isn't stable. This is traditionally what we have had in Australian politics, and it has invariably lead to the best results, just compare Howard's first two terms to his third to see this.

The point about Rudd is that Labor supporters can not lay claim to stability in government when the don't even have stability in their own leadership. I disliked him as PM, but he didn't make up the whole poor performance of the Labor government. Gillard was a massive part of that as well, and we didn't really get the chance to see if she was any better than Rudd at being a leader. Afterall, Rudd looked extremely good at the start of his term. The gang of four has been broken up, losing Rudd probably a good thing, but losing Tanner is no doubt a bad thing.

 

[TheRiddler]

Personally I am very excited about the coming months and hope that it will bring about the reforms and developments that have been talked about over recent days. If parliamentary process can be reformed, country Australia get a decent representation, the Henry Tax Review given the proper review it deserves, the mining tax reassessed and due input and consideration given to all viewpoints, that will be fantastic. Even in her victory speech, Julia stated that she needs to build on her relationship with Warren Truss and the Nationals - surely that has to be a step in the right direction (or the first attempted wedge of the new term)

I think what will be just as interesting is how the Libs cope with this and how they act as an opposition. Will they genuinely be committed to this parliamentary reform process and contribute to the development of the country appropriately or will they act as spoiled children, throw hand grenades around everywhere and do whatever they can to disrupt. Unfortunately I have a suspicion which direction they will take.

 

[barbarian]

I'm sick of this talk about a 'hostile' senate meaning a government isn't stable. This is traditionally what we have had in Australian politics, and it has invariably lead to the best results, just compare Howard's first two terms to his third to see this.

You have defeated yourself with your own logic though. If having to contend with multiple viewpoints inveriably leads to the best results, then why are you so worried about Labor teaming up with the independents?

As for Rudd, yes he wasn't wholly responsible, but he should take the majority of blame. His autocratic nature was leading the goverment badly astray. And as you can't sack the whole cabinet, I think it was fair he was given the boot.

 

[Scotty]

You have defeated yourself with your own logic though. If having to contend with multiple viewpoints inveriably leads to the best results, then why are you so worried about Labor teaming up with the independents?

As for Rudd, yes he wasn't wholly responsible, but he should take the majority of blame. His autocratic nature was leading the goverment badly astray. And as you can't sack the whole cabinet, I think it was fair he was given the boot.

There is quite a large difference between working through a policy and bill in the lower house and the workings of the senate. I haven't defeated my own point at all which was that a Labor minority government is not inherently more stable than a Coalition minority government just because the Greens have the balance in the senate. The fact is that the government, which is meant to work together as a single entity (more or less) is now made up by such a dichotomy of views and values that it is likely to be less stable than a Coalition minority who have to battle with the senate a bit.

Windsor basically gave away the reasons when he was pushed, implying his definition of stability was also longevity of government, and that if he went with the Coalition, it was possible they would have a DD trigger, call and election and then win it. He was essentially saying 'I want to be part of government as long as possible, and I think I have more chance with Labor in doing that'. Stability should not only refer to longevity, but also effectiveness of a government to function, and only time will tell if that is possible with this 'rainbow' alliance.

 

[Scotty]

Personally I am very excited about the coming months and hope that it will bring about the reforms and developments that have been talked about over recent days. If parliamentary process can be reformed, country Australia get a decent representation, the Henry Tax Review given the proper review it deserves, the mining tax reassessed and due input and consideration given to all viewpoints, that will be fantastic. Even in her victory speech, Julia stated that she needs to build on her relationship with Warren Truss and the Nationals - surely that has to be a step in the right direction (or the first attempted wedge of the new term)

Has Julia promised to give the Henry tax review another look and to reassess the mining tax? I must have missed that when I was in Greece?

 

[Scotty]

Possibly the biggest winner in all this is Bob Brown. He still has very little responsibility for his actions, but now holds the largest power of any minor party leader in the history of this country.