PDA

View Full Version : Federal Election 2010 [Labor Minority Government Elected]



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 07:42 PM
Looking poor for Labor at the moment since from the 76 seats in which they were favourites, they have clearly lost one, trail in five, and are only ahead in one Coalition fave. So they are in the worse end of hung parliament terrain at present.

Excitingly, my own seat, Denison, looks at the moment like going to the Independent Andrew Wilkie at the expense of the clueless hacks in Labor who have taken it for granted. The ABC are yet to wake up to this fact!

Basil
21-08-2010, 08:44 PM
Hawke hasn't called it yet, but I am. The useless, tit-pitiful, commercial clue-free zone, cash-dumping, ideological, vacuous, wide-eyed, clowns have dragged their sorry, wet-arse bums across the line :D

As I said, JAK, I have some news for you - and it's all bad!

Kevin Bonham
21-08-2010, 09:52 PM
I'll call it. The winner is .............................









Boris!

Kevin Bonham
22-08-2010, 03:00 AM
There are a few seats in doubt as usual but at the moment it looks like we're looking at 73-72-5 either way as quite a likely outcome. However one of the Coalition's wins could be a WA National who will sit as an independent unless the entirity of WA is smothered in mining royalty pork so it might even end up being effectively 72-72-6.

The boilover here in Denison has been quite sensational. I never thought Wilkie would catch on to such an extent across the whole electorate.

Very much in the balance as the last few seats are decided since 73-72-5 to the Coalition (assuming they can rope in the WA Nat) is almost certainly a Coalition minority government while 73-72-5 to Labor (whatever the WA Nat does) is probably a Labor minority government.

It's a year for hung parliaments. :lol:

ER
22-08-2010, 07:42 AM
...
The boilover here in Denison has been quite sensational. I never thought Wilkie would catch on to such an extent across the whole electorate.
Well...

...As I write, it remains unclear whether independent Andrew Wilkie will win a seat in Denison at the expense of the Liberals, but there is no doubt he has done much better than most observers, including me, expected....
And don't forget he has a military background too! :P

Desmond
22-08-2010, 08:21 AM
I'll call it. The winner is .............................

Boris!
Yay!

Rincewind
22-08-2010, 11:44 AM
The results from my electorate were interesting-ish.

Liberal held seat. On primaries there was a -6.4% swing from ALP (25.1% of primaries) and -4% swing from the incumbent (46.4). Most of those votes went to the Greens who polled 17.2% of primary votes +6%.

After the dust of primaries settled (which didn't take long) we had a comfortable 57.7% hold by Liberal which is a swing of +0.6% towards Liberal.

The upshot is that if every Green preference went ALP then every other preference ended up with the Liberals. Minors include 2 independents, Family First, Democrats and Climate Sceptics. Although I voted at one of the largest polling stations in my electorate, I avoided the paper wasters out the front so I have no idea of booth presence or how the minors were directing preferences.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-08-2010, 12:25 PM
Q. Who is a psephologist?
A. Someone who explains after the election why people voted contrary to his prediction before the election.

Kevin,
You were not off the mark, actually. Nevertheless, after you wake up, please explain what happened.:lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
22-08-2010, 12:26 PM
Some commentator on TV yesterday:
Sex party must be satisfied with hung parliament.

Kevin Bonham
22-08-2010, 01:35 PM
Kevin,
You were not off the mark, actually.

Actually my pre-election projections were not that good, out by five or six seats by the look of it. But I don't claim to be all that good at projecting federal elections anyway.


Nevertheless, after you wake up, please explain what happened.:lol:

Normally if a government is in big danger there is a crucial late swing to it as the really hardcore undecided voters stick with what they know and vote for the government. Normally a government that's polling 51s and 52s in the final weeks of the campaign wins rather easily.

But this wasn't normal - the swing on the day was about a point to the Opposition - and it looks like all the government's odd behaviour of the past few months (rolling their leader, putting in a new one who then behaves in the same way, then announces she's going to be different but isn't and so on) just confused undecided voters to the point the government lost the incumbency advantage.

After all, the incumbency advantage is usually that undecided voters stick with what they know and avoid risk, but in this case the government has stuffed up its branding so badly that nobody knows what they are or which side the risk really lies on.

Oepty
22-08-2010, 01:47 PM
Kevin,
You were not off the mark, actually. Nevertheless, after you wake up, please explain what happened.:lol:

It is more complicated than this answer but I think, unusaully, the fact state issues had a large impact in Queensland and New South Wales. Labor walked straight into the negatives of these governments and lay there to be repeatedly bashed around the head by them, by dumping Kevin Rudd without a good reason given to the public and promising the train line in Sydney. Also I think the Labor had a message that it did not sell at all well. That was low unemployment, low interest rates, no recession. On the recession they needed to somehow make it more real in the campaign. The leaks in the second week of the campaign hurt Labor badly as well.
Tony Abbott ran a much much better campaign than I and most people thought possible. I was in the camp that he was unelectable, but he, even if he does not quite become Prime Minister has totally proven that wrong. I also can't help but think Tony Abbotts 36 hour straight campaign had some impact but no idea how much. I can't see anything else, except perhaps the negative campaign biting, why there would be a late swing to the coalition.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
22-08-2010, 02:49 PM
The nationwide 2PP is now being reported as 50.7:49.3 Labor's favour.

Spiny Norman
22-08-2010, 05:24 PM
The ABC this afternoon is still reporting it as 49.7:50.3 in the Libs favour.

Desmond
22-08-2010, 05:45 PM
In my own electorate, Petrie (http://abc.com.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/petr.htm), it looks like Darth Yvette (LAB) is holding her seat. D'Ath took Petrie from Gambaro (Lib) in 2007, who was returned to parliament in a different seat.

Anyway it looks like the promised train line to Redcliffe might have to wait for another day.

Kevin Bonham
22-08-2010, 05:49 PM
The ABC this afternoon is still reporting it as 49.7:50.3 in the Libs favour.

Yes, there are various versions being reported and it will be some time before the 2PP in the Independent-won seats is added in. It may well end up being very close to 50:50.

Denison (my electorate) is a classic and it could be 2 weeks before we know if Andrew Wilkie is up or not. To win he needs to do all these things:

* Stay ahead of the Green after the addition of postals and the exclusion of the Socialist Alliance candidate.
* Overtake the Liberal on Green preferences.
* Overtake Labor on Lib preferences.

The unknown is exactly how strongly the Liberal HTV card flows, which is crucial to the last stage.

Garvinator
23-08-2010, 02:24 PM
Anyway it looks like the promised train line to Redcliffe might have to wait for another day.Now there is a shocker ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
23-08-2010, 02:28 PM
Rumours (most likely unfounded) are that Abbott might offer Rudd a speaker position. I doubt it's likely, even if it happens Rudd will refuse.
But given Rudd's narcissism, he will definitely be tempted!

Goughfather
23-08-2010, 02:51 PM
Rumours (most likely unfounded) are that Abbott might offer Rudd a speaker position. I doubt it's likely, even if it happens Rudd will refuse.
But given Rudd's narcissism, he will definitely be tempted!

And given Abbott's preference of pragmatism and self-advancement over principle and policy, he will definitely be tempted to make the offer.

Rincewind
23-08-2010, 02:56 PM
Rumours (most likely unfounded) are that Abbott might offer Rudd a speaker position. I doubt it's likely, even if it happens Rudd will refuse.
But given Rudd's narcissism, he will definitely be tempted!

I don't think it is a rumour but the fanciful idea of Andrew Bolt. The job of the Speaker of the House of Reps has a key role in moderating debate which usually involves asking this or that member for where ever to behave themselves. In any case, the Speaker is normally a member of the government's party and if Abbott had control the the house I don't see why he would want to make Rudd the Speaker. I guess it gives nominally one less vote to the left but in case of a deadlock he gets that vote back and so it would only be really useful if everyone was present in parliament and after shoring up independents the parliament was still hung at 75-all - and in that circumstance I doubt the GG would allow Abbott or Gillard to form government.

Desmond
23-08-2010, 03:51 PM
Now there is a shocker ;)
Yeah I know. My dad reckons they have offered it just about every election for the last 30 years. :lol:

pappubahry
23-08-2010, 03:52 PM
Denison (my electorate) is a classic and it could be 2 weeks before we know if Andrew Wilkie is up or not.
I'm in moderation at the Poll Bludger because I've never commented there before. Earlier today I set up a similar (but more primitive) version of the sort of regression that sykesie is talking about - I used only the ALP primary% to predict the ALP TCP%. Then you plug in the ALP's primary vote percentage for the electorate as a whole and see what you get.

This method became stable VERY quickly - after two booths it was predicting a Wilkie win by 51.3-48.7, and is currently at 50.8-49.2 to Wilkie. The furthest away it's got so far is 52.4-47.6, just after the Battery Point booth.

pax
23-08-2010, 04:45 PM
Some commentator on TV yesterday:
Sex party must be satisfied with hung parliament.
But does it hang left or right?

pax
23-08-2010, 04:49 PM
My electorate (Hasluck) could well be the decider in which party is able to form a Government. Not only that, but since I voted early and absent, my own vote probably has not been tallied and could be part of the hundred or so that swing it one way or the other. Current margin: 394 with 75% counted.

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2010, 06:13 PM
I'm in moderation at the Poll Bludger because I've never commented there before. Earlier today I set up a similar (but more primitive) version of the sort of regression that sykesie is talking about - I used only the ALP primary% to predict the ALP TCP%. Then you plug in the ALP's primary vote percentage for the electorate as a whole and see what you get.

This method became stable VERY quickly - after two booths it was predicting a Wilkie win by 51.3-48.7, and is currently at 50.8-49.2 to Wilkie. The furthest away it's got so far is 52.4-47.6, just after the Battery Point booth.

Thanks very much for that, hope they clear you out of moderation quickly!

It's looking like Wilkie will lead the 2CP based on the votes there at the moment, this is coming from a lot of different methods. The question is going to be how much he can lead by and whether it will save him from the usual pattern that independents struggle a bit on postals.


I guess it gives nominally one less vote to the left but in case of a deadlock he gets that vote back and so it would only be really useful if everyone was present in parliament and after shoring up independents the parliament was still hung at 75-all - and in that circumstance I doubt the GG would allow Abbott or Gillard to form government.

Correct. There are a lot of precedents for tied parliaments; Tasmania had one for many years in the mid-20th C. In a tied parliament the existing government generally remains in office until it resigns or is defeated in a motion of no confidence.

Rincewind
23-08-2010, 07:21 PM
Correct. There are a lot of precedents for tied parliaments; Tasmania had one for many years in the mid-20th C. In a tied parliament the existing government generally remains in office until it resigns or is defeated in a motion of no confidence.

It is going to be an interesting few years assuming government is formed. Going back to the 40s we have the Menzies-Fadden-Curtin parliament and if similar events unfold we have have at least three different prime ministers from two different sides of politics over the next three years.

Even apart from independents crossing the floor, another thing to watch will be by-elections which could easily change the balance allowing a no confidence motion to pass.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-08-2010, 07:34 PM
I heard on the news that postals in Boothby go to Labor almost 60-40. If it's true, it could give Boothby to ALP. Is it true?

Denis_Jessop
23-08-2010, 08:17 PM
Back in the 60s, 70s or thereabouts, the Tasmanian State Labor government lasted for many years and several elections on the basis of its having 15 of the 30 seats, the LP 14 and the one independent holding the Speakership. Plus ça change...

DJ

Oepty
23-08-2010, 08:26 PM
I heard on the news that postals in Boothby go to Labor almost 60-40. If it's true, it could give Boothby to ALP. Is it true?

Last time the prepoll, postal and absent votes favoured Liberal's Southcott over Labor's Cornes. Postals 56.5% to 43.5%.
Details http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-13745-182.htm

Looking at the results from this election, absentee votes, not postal votes, counted have favoured Annabel Digance at just under 60% - 40%, but it is a small number, 847 formal votes.
Scott

EDIT: There was just over 6000 formal absentee votes last time.

Garvinator
23-08-2010, 08:33 PM
Last time the prepoll, postal and absent votes favoured Liberal's Southcott over Labor's Cornes. Postals 56.5% to 43.5%.
If I recall everything said about Cornes from the last election, then anything analysis involving Cornes should be disregarded for this election :P

Garvinator
23-08-2010, 08:35 PM
Yeah I know. My dad reckons they have offered it just about every election for the last 30 years. :lol:It is worse than that. Land was set aside for the rail line from Petrie to Kippa Ring in 1895 and it has remained set aside ever since.

Oepty
23-08-2010, 08:46 PM
If I recall everything said about Cornes from the last election, then anything analysis involving Cornes should be disregarded for this election :P

Maybe you are right, she was a bit of a disaster (not all her fault, she was thrown to the wolves by the Labor party), but she still managed to get a swing towards her, although alot less than the rest of the state.
Scott

Oepty
23-08-2010, 08:50 PM
I have now looked at 2004 results and Southcott did 8% better in Postal votes than he did in ordinary votes, 62% to 38%. Absentee and Pre-poll were better than ordinary votes as well.
Scott

Basil
23-08-2010, 09:34 PM
Plus ça change...

DJ
If it were my government, you'd be Minister for Cultural Affairs in a heartbeat, Denis.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-08-2010, 10:23 PM
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/08/22/1225908/438380-mark-knight-cartoon.jpg

Kevin Bonham
23-08-2010, 11:43 PM
Wilkie has almost caught Jackson in the two-candidate thingy they are doing now, and will catch him when they are finished it and lead by a substantial amount. His 2CP will probably be 51.something. Then he has to stay in front on postals, and also stay ahead of the others.

Denis_Jessop
24-08-2010, 12:05 AM
Wilkie has almost caught Jackson in the two-candidate thingy they are doing now, and will catch him when they are finished it and lead by a substantial amount. His 2CP will probably be 51.something. Then he has to stay in front on postals, and also stay ahead of the others.

But the Electoral Commission's summary of sets won etc (updated half an hour ago) gives Denison to Labor, not even counting it as doubtful. I'm not sure quite what that means.

DJ

PS I see that the ABC on the same figures is also predicting a Labor win.

Rincewind
24-08-2010, 12:19 AM
But the Electoral Commission's summary of sets won etc (updated half an hour ago) gives Denison to Labor, not even counting it as doubtful. I'm not sure quite what that means.

DJ

ABC is also showing it as ALP "retain" and not ALP "ahead". (Although it is still on their page of "seats in doubt").

Denis_Jessop
24-08-2010, 12:21 AM
ABC is also showing it as ALP "retain" and not ALP "ahead".

Ha! i may have just got my edit in before you :) (although it may be too close to call)

DJ

Rincewind
24-08-2010, 12:22 AM
Ha! i may have just got my edit in before you :) (although it may be too close to call)

I demand a recount!

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2010, 01:11 AM
But the Electoral Commission's summary of sets won etc (updated half an hour ago) gives Denison to Labor, not even counting it as doubtful. I'm not sure quite what that means.

It means the Electoral Commission's website is using a brainless program instead of manual override by someone who actually knows what's going on. At the moment Jackson is up 50.6 to 49.4 on 2CP but that is because the booths remaining to be counted for that exercise include 11210 votes in the City of Hobart, where Wilkie beats Jackson, and 7555 in the City of Glenorchy, where it's the other way around. So Wilkie will overtake Jackson, but the Electoral Commission's website just sees a 2CP margin greater than about a point and "calls" it for Jackson. When Wilkie overtakes Jackson, I predict the Electoral Commission's website will start calling it a win for Wilkie - and that, too, will be premature.

The ABC computer is running the same kind of automated nonsense and predicting it as a retain when Antony Green knows there is more to it and projected a 51.1% 2CP for Wilkie on Twitter earlier tonight.

The people doing these websites just have no idea how to handle this kind of mess, and it's disappointing because that is where the mainstream media get their impressions from. Actually I picked that Denison was going to be interesting on the basis of four booths less than an hour after the polls closed, and it took the ABC another hour and a half to wake up and realise it was not necessarily the straight Labor win the Lib/Lab projection said it was.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2010, 03:28 AM
The seat of Dunkley has moved onto the radar after 200 votes were found to have been counted for the Liberal candidate when they were actually for Labor, closing the gap by 400 and the margin to just over 600. Still not super-close and the sitting member is ahead so should be fine on postals.

arosar
24-08-2010, 09:35 AM
So what's the situation here? Who actually had the most votes? That party should govern.

Also, does the Aussie constitution allow for the military to intervene in these situations?

AR

Rincewind
24-08-2010, 09:46 AM
So what's the situation here? Who actually had the most votes? That party should govern.

No they shouldn't. The party with the most votes in the house of reps should.


Also, does the Aussie constitution allow for the military to intervene in these situations?

You must be thinking of the Fijian constitution.

Garvinator
24-08-2010, 10:05 AM
You must be thinking of the Fijian constitution.
The military just saves time and takes over without an election.

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2010, 11:54 AM
So what's the situation here? Who actually had the most votes? That party should govern.

By votes do you mean primaries or including preferences? :lol:

I just flatly disagree with the notion that there is something wrong with the system if the party that loses the 2PP wins the election as happened in South Australia anyway. Often this just means that they played the game to win marginal seats because seat tallies is what determines the formation of government. If 2PP determined the formation of government, they would have played the game to win that instead.

But marginal-seat politics is a pain in the neck if you live in a safe electorate. As we here in Denison have just proved by making our electorate unsafe. :lol:

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2010, 11:55 AM
The military just saves time and takes over without an election.

I think the correct procedure for nations like Fiji is actually:

1. Hold election.
2. If election fails to provide desired result, stage military takeover.
3. "Democratise" gradually over a few to several years.
4. Rinse and repeat.

Moriarty
24-08-2010, 12:37 PM
In my own electorate, Petrie (http://abc.com.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/petr.htm), it looks like Darth Yvette (LAB) is holding her seat. D'Ath took Petrie from Gambaro (Lib) in 2007, who was returned to parliament in a different seat.

Anyway it looks like the promised train line to Redcliffe might have to wait for another day.

That's my electorate too. I thought that D'Ath would hold, but was shocked to see that Gambaro may take Brisbane from Arch Bevis after he has held that seat for 20 years.

Your mob are getting a bit demanding aren't you? First you get a nice new bridge and now you want public transport too? Geez :lol:

Desmond
24-08-2010, 01:17 PM
That's my electorate too. I thought that D'Ath would hold,I thought she was going to lose, but she got a favourable re-distribution which I didn't know about. It seems that without the redistribution the swing against her would have been fatal.


but was shocked to see that Gambaro may take Brisbane from Arch Bevis after he has held that seat for 20 years. Yes quite an amazing thing really, such is the backlash against Labor up here.


Your mob are getting a bit demanding aren't you? First you get a nice new bridge and now you want public transport too? Geez :lol:Well we have an airport too, next we'll just need a space program to complete the set. :P

Garvinator
24-08-2010, 01:35 PM
Well we have an airport too, next we'll just need a space program to complete the set. :PIn betting terms, a space program is favourite to be delivered before the Petrie to Kippa Ring rail line :lol:

arosar
24-08-2010, 03:39 PM
Well we have an airport too, next we'll just need a space program to complete the set. :P

Australia should definitely have a space program. The military applications for this sort of thing are enormous. I mean, shit, if we can afford the sort of building that is the Australian embassy in Tokyo, we can sure as hell afford a space program!

As to my earlier question: yes, I meant also including preferences. So who won in that regard?

Btw, did that c**t Stephen Conroy win his seat too? I just hate that mofo.

AR

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2010, 04:31 PM
As to my earlier question: yes, I meant also including preferences. So who won in that regard?

Hahaha. We don't know yet and won't know for another couple of weeks. It looks like Labor may have just done so (once everything is added in) but it was extremely close.

Mr Conroy was preselected top of the ticket for his party in his state in the Senate, so he was assured of winning his seat months ago. Yes, he was elected. Shame he didn't have to defend his internet filter before a lower house electorate instead of to a bunch of party hacks.

Oepty
24-08-2010, 06:07 PM
Postal votes are going 60-40 to Liberal Southcott so he should hold the seat as expected.
Other seats still quite interesting though especially Denison.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
24-08-2010, 10:36 PM
Denison update:

As I said would happen Wilkie took a slim lead over Jackson on two-candidate preferred in today's counting, but that doesn't mean he'll stay there. His lead is 1375 votes.

The number of votes remaining can be seen here (http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDecScrutinyProgress-15508-194.htm). It has been misreported as 13,000 in many places, even including the Toolbox!

The remaining votes consist of:

* 3167 absentee votes (votes cast out of electorate on the day, mostly elsewhere in Tasmania.)
* Up to 956 provisional votes. These are cast in booths on the day but by people whose enrolment status is dubious. Most of these will be rejected.
* Up to 4878 postal votes, of which 918 have still to be received.
* Up to 1644 early vote (pre poll) envelopes of which only 97 have been received so far. These are pre-poll votes cast at centres outside the electorate, including in other states.

Ignoring the provisional voting (since most of those will be rejected) and assuming all the other votes are received and are formal (a few % won't be formal and some won't be received) Jackson needs about a 57:43 split over Wilkie on the remaining votes to beat him on 2CP. If that happens, Jackson wins.

Wilkie's postal vote will probably be down a bit on his primary. In the State election this year it was 0.8% lower. I think it could be down more than this this time, but no big deal, especially as Jackson made no effort on postals.

But the big question is this: the Libs did make an effort, and the Liberal voters who voted at booths got How To Vote cards, and these preferenced Wilkie. The Lib voters voting by post will not have got these. Will this make a big difference to the flow of Liberal preferences in the postals? It needs to make a very big difference to matter.

Antony Green was just about calling it tonight but I think it is still too early, still a number of unknowns. It might be possible for me to call it tomorrow, one way or the other.

Rincewind
24-08-2010, 10:44 PM
From the ABC news item...


Mr Green says Labor would need to secure more than 57 per cent of the remaining votes to take the seat.

"I think at this stage you could mark Wilkie down as the winner," he said.

"Labor would have to have an extraordinary result from this stage and obtain more than 57 per cent of the postal and absent vote to win Denison."

Mr Green says based on pre-poll votes this seems extremely unlikely.

"[Mr Wilkie] will not do very well in postals and absents, I suspect, because most independents rarely do," Mr Green said.

"But of the pre-polls he's done very well. So at this stage I can't see how Labor can turn that lead around."

Sounds like he is calling it to me. :)

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2010, 04:59 PM
2000 postals added today. Wilkie moved further ahead of the Green so the Green can't catch him. Labor beat Wilkie 52:48 on the postals but that's nowhere near enough so if the final two are Labor and Wilkie it's all over. The Lib in second is pulling away from Wilkie gaining 200 today to be over 400 up but even if he continues and leads Wilkie by 1100 or more Wilkie should blow that away on Green and Socialist preferences; Green voters in this electorate hate Libs about as much as the few remaining Lib voters in this electorate hate Labor. He hasn't quite iced it yet but Wilkie's position is extremely strong.

Garvinator
25-08-2010, 05:20 PM
2000 postals added today. Wilkie moved further ahead of the Green so the Green can't catch him. Labor beat Wilkie 52:48 on the postals but that's nowhere near enough so if the final two are Labor and Wilkie it's all over. The Lib in second is pulling away from Wilkie gaining 200 today to be over 400 up but even if he continues and leads Wilkie by 1100 or more Wilkie should blow that away on Green and Socialist preferences; Green voters in this electorate hate Libs about as much as the few remaining Lib voters in this electorate hate Labor. He hasn't quite iced it yet but Wilkie's position is extremely strong.
I think this whole process is fascinating. Not sure if it is truly representative of 'the people of Denison' when who ends up winning the seat can come down to who goes out in 3rd place though.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2010, 05:27 PM
I think this whole process is fascinating. Not sure if it is truly representative of 'the people of Denison' when who ends up winning the seat can come down to who goes out in 3rd place though.

I think there would be a case that it was unrepresentative if Wilkie lost by being stuck behind the Green or the Liberal, but it looks like he won't.

As it is, Wilkie appears to be the "Condorcet winner", ie the candidate who would win a two-candidate contest against any other candidate, and so if he is the winner even against those with greater primaries it appears to be a fair outcome.

Denis_Jessop
25-08-2010, 08:18 PM
Just as there is no perfect tie-break system, there is no perfect electoral system either. The preferential system we use can operate strangely at times but no more so (indeed much less so) than the first past the post system, especially when voting is not compulsory) or the proportional representation system which has the potential to amplify the power of minorities as with the Australian Senate. Note: I'm not wanting to start a debate on the merits of various electoral systems which would be almost as idle as a debate on the "existence" of God :)

DJ

Garvinator
25-08-2010, 08:34 PM
Just as there is no perfect tie-break system, there is no perfect electoral system either. The preferential system we use can operate strangely at times but no more so (indeed much less so) than the first past the post system, especially when voting is not compulsory) or the proportional representation system which has the potential to amplify the power of minorities as with the Australian Senate. Note: I'm not wanting to start a debate on the merits of various electoral systems which would be almost as idle as a debate on the "existence" of God :)I do think that optional preferential voting is a better system than compulsory preferential voting, in that a person is not required to give even bottom preferences to candidates they do not want to vote for at all.

I think this would also cut down the number of informals who incorrectly do not fill in all the boxes.


especially when voting is not compulsoryI pulled this out of the quoted text above.

I wish to start a campaign on here, just like a swear jar, for those who refer to voting in Australia as COMPULSORY. It has been explained many times before that voting is not compulsory, the only compulsory bit is getting your named marked off on the electoral roll.

I am sure you already knew this Denis, so dollar in the tin from you thanks :D

Rincewind
25-08-2010, 09:06 PM
I wish to start a campaign on here, just like a swear jar, for those who refer to voting in Australia as COMPULSORY. It has been explained many times before that voting is not compulsory, the only compulsory bit is getting your named marked off on the electoral roll.

According to Wikipedia that is the same thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting


Compulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day.

By your way of arguing any secret ballot system is not compulsory since, even if voters are obliged to return a form, since a voter can spoil their ballot thus nullifying their vote.

Kevin Bonham
25-08-2010, 09:23 PM
I do think that optional preferential voting is a better system than compulsory preferential voting, in that a person is not required to give even bottom preferences to candidates they do not want to vote for at all.

If you put a candidate absolutely last your vote can never reach them and will never help them in any way, so those who object to having to do so are being silly.

But I understand it when someone says they wish they weren't forced to choose between Liberal and Labor on preferences. I actually think all parts of the voting process should be optional, except for enrolment.

Denis_Jessop
25-08-2010, 09:42 PM
I do think that optional preferential voting is a better system than compulsory preferential voting, in that a person is not required to give even bottom preferences to candidates they do not want to vote for at all.

I think this would also cut down the number of informals who incorrectly do not fill in all the boxes.

I pulled this out of the quoted text above.

I wish to start a campaign on here, just like a swear jar, for those who refer to voting in Australia as COMPULSORY. It has been explained many times before that voting is not compulsory, the only compulsory bit is getting your named marked off on the electoral roll.

I am sure you already knew this Denis, so dollar in the tin from you thanks :D

Garvin

This really is nit-picking at best. I suggest you read s.245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 which deals with compulsory voting under that name. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s245.html
:)

DJ

Adamski
25-08-2010, 10:06 PM
To me the most worrying outcome of the election is the power that the Greens will have in the next Senate. With 9 seats there, they will be able to effectively block laws that they do not like. Especially if it is a Coalition government, we might be in for a few years of not much substantial legislative change.

It all made interesting tv on Saturday night on Channel 7 up to about 10.45. From then on, apart from the 2 leaders speeches, the coverage was extremely repetitive and with a number of quite humorous computer glitches - none more so than a photo of Julia above a male candidate's name!

Oepty
25-08-2010, 11:06 PM
Just read Antony Green's blog, http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/is-tony-crook-new-nationals-mp-for-oconnor-a-member-of-the-coalition.html#comments, and Tony Crook seems to want it both ways, be an independent while still being a member of a political party. O'Connor looks to have replaced one interesting character with another.

Along with that it seems Brisbane might be going to Labor, against earlier predictions, so Labor might end up with 73 to the Coalitions 72 (or Tony Crook-less 71).

Corangamite might go the Coalition, but looks less likely than Brisbane going to Labor.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
26-08-2010, 03:45 AM
But I understand it when someone says they wish they weren't forced to choose between Liberal and Labor on preferences. I actually think all parts of the voting process should be optional, except for enrolment.


According to Wikipedia that is the same thing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
Compulsory voting is a system in which electors are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day.
By your way of arguing any secret ballot system is not compulsory since, even if voters are obliged to return a form, since a voter can spoil their ballot thus nullifying their vote.
Imagine agreeing with both KB and RW on the same page :hmm: :uhoh:

Desmond
26-08-2010, 07:28 AM
In betting terms, a space program is favourite to be delivered before the Petrie to Kippa Ring rail line :lol:
According to the Redcliffe Herald, the Coalition has also pledged to match Labor commitment. Federal, State, and Council have all pledged money.

Rincewind
26-08-2010, 10:01 AM
Imagine agreeing with both KB and RW on the same page :hmm: :uhoh:

Not to mention Wikipedia! :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
26-08-2010, 10:24 AM
So far, three Amigos are having a party!
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/08/25/1225910/095373-opinion-major.jpg

Garrett
26-08-2010, 12:36 PM
Imagine agreeing with both KB and RW on the same page :hmm: :uhoh:

Stockholm syndrome ?

ha ha

Igor_Goldenberg
26-08-2010, 03:29 PM
All seats "in doubt" are firming up for the leading candidate, including Brisbane (Lib 684), Corangamite(ALP 725) and Hasluck(721). Assessment of 73-72-1-4 (Lib/Lab/Green/Ind) is likely to stay.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-08-2010, 03:31 PM
The Chasers videos are hilarious - download them here (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/yeswecanberra/video.htm)

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2010, 03:44 PM
All seats "in doubt" are firming up for the leading candidate, including Brisbane (Lib 684), Corangamite(ALP 725) and Hasluck(721). Assessment of 73-72-1-4 (Lib/Lab/Green/Ind) is likely to stay.

Apart from the weirdness in Denison (all resolved now anyway, Wilkie's clearly got it) it's been a pretty boring post-count really, compared to last time when there were many much closer than any of these.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-08-2010, 04:12 PM
Did you vote Greens in the last election? This video is for you!
WH_MBwQhGgA

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2010, 08:55 PM
Just to show how few contests there are this election, there are currently no seats closer than 50.5 2CP to the leading party (one is 50.51 and another 50.52).

Last election there were eight seats that finished closer than 50.25!


Assessment of 73-72-1-4 (Lib/Lab/Green/Ind) is likely to stay.

Given the unclear status of the WA Nat perhaps that should be 72.5-72-1-4.5. :lol:

Garvinator
26-08-2010, 09:05 PM
I am surprised that Boris is not doing the happy dance as he was the only one to get the poll prediction correct.

Kevin Bonham
26-08-2010, 09:20 PM
I am surprised that Boris is not doing the happy dance as he was the only one to get the poll prediction correct.

Yes, and a long way out too, at a time when the hung parliament chance was not being taken as seriously as in the final week or so of campaigning.

Capablanca-Fan
27-08-2010, 03:45 AM
:lol: :lol: a year ago Rudd was declared unbeatable and Turnbull was desperate to appease thie "great moral issue of our time" and pass the ETS (Enormous Tax Scam) to avoid electoral annihilation, and Abbott was too conservative to be a good leader.

Yet he provided a real choice rather than an echo, and Rudd was the one who was gone, and Labor lost all its majority.

Oh congrats, Boris on your insightful psephological prediction. :clap:

Garrett
27-08-2010, 05:36 AM
yes well done Boris !

Igor_Goldenberg
27-08-2010, 10:05 AM
I understand Swan is desperate, but that desperate?
http://alsblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/kingmakers_sml.jpg?w=630&h=392

Kevin Bonham
27-08-2010, 11:10 PM
Preliminary full distribution of preferences in Denison tomorrow just to make it publicly clear (or not) that Wilkie easily gets past the Liberal into second place in the cutup and therefore wins.

I have the burner ramped up to maximum for Labor hypocrites complaining about Wilkie winning this seat when they led on primaries, after all the times Labor has itself won on preferences from behind on primaries. Indeed Labor won nine seats in 07 from behind on primaries; take those away and it would have been 74-73-3 in 2007 and we could have had our hung parliament three years earlier.

Basil
28-08-2010, 12:02 AM
I have the burner ramped up to maximum for Labor hypocrites complaining about Wilkie winning this seat when they led on primaries, after all the times Labor has itself won on preferences from behind on primaries.
Good work. Carry on!

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 12:09 AM
Good work. Carry on!

Our local Karl Bitar equivalent has even tried to blame the Liberals for the result. :doh:

Never mind that Labor copped a 12% primary swing in what was one of the safest seats in the country while the Libs only copped 7.

Never mind that some of those Libs were voting tactically.

Never mind that not much over a third of the electorate voted for their hack while eighty percent of the remainder preferred a guy who three years ago could only get a gig as a Green #2 pick for the Senate!

ER
28-08-2010, 04:01 AM
Good work. Carry on!
you only approved of it because he said

...on preferences from behind ...
thus, corresponding to you recently developed proctological approaches! :P

Spiny Norman
28-08-2010, 06:21 AM
Suggestion for next election: Labor and Liberal to preference each other ... thus driving all Greens and Independents out of the lower house.

Basil
28-08-2010, 08:54 AM
This is all going to end one of two ways. Both result in Tony Abbott being PM. One (the least likely of the two) results in a farce where Julia and Labor govern for a short while before the country is back at the polls.

While some aren't in the mood for Tony's manoeuvering (care factor zero), I venture a greater proportion of people (who hovered with the knife over the wrist on election day, but couldn't quite summon the courage) now want Labor out. I reckon the whole world knows that Labor would arseholed in a rerun and that no one is more certain of that outcome than the ALP itself.

Carry on!

Arse. Plate. Cherry on top.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 10:54 AM
There was a post-election Morgan phone poll just done that claimed 51.5:48.5 to Labor (sample size small so error margin 4 points). All that shows is that there is no immediate massive public sentiment for tossing the government.

I don't know why there is so much assumption (beyond the leadership farce of the last several months) that if Gillard stays in government it must collapse. In the last 20 years every single Australian state or territory has had a minority parliament of some kind or other. Indeed, four of them have one now. Minority governments with wafer-thin margins when you added their supporters included those of Bracks (went full term then re-elected with comfortable majority), Beattie (ditto), Rann (ditto), and Borbidge (went full term then trashed by One Nation and silly response to One Nation).

Perhaps a relevant difference is that those were all elected from opposition, but the only ones that have collapsed have been Tasmanian governments reliant on Green support with the Greens lead by idealogues Brown and Milne (hence inherently unstable). Even the Greiner/Fahey government in NSW survived and went full term after the crossbench demanded Greiner's resignation, although it lost the next election.

The last federal hung parliament resulted in a switch of parties mid-term but that was not because the independents were moody, but because the senior coalition partner under Menzies had become so hopeless that they could not find a prime minister, forcing the Country Party to act as the government.

By the way if the independents have any strategic sense they will initially all prop up Labor, but put it on notice that it is only being given the benefit of the doubt. The reason for this is that they then have the option of throwing out Labor and putting the Coalition in, which gives them two bites of the cherry in terms of being able to implicitly threaten no-confidence in order to obtain whatever they want in terms of policy (or pork). If they put Labor out right now and put the Coalition in and later want to toss it, firstly that looks indecisive and secondly the likely outcome is a fresh election right away at that point.

Desmond
28-08-2010, 11:10 AM
Any chance of the independents forming a party in their own right? They seem to have a bit in common.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 11:13 AM
Any chance of the independents forming a party in their own right? They seem to have a bit in common.

Well, Wilkie has already effectively suggested that Oakeshott, Katter, Windsor are acting a lot like a putative party (with Katter as its right wing and Oakeshott as its left) and has said that he wants none of it and will negotiate with Labor and Liberal without meeting with the other three.

Spiny Norman
28-08-2010, 12:18 PM
Well, Wilkie has already effectively suggested that Oakeshott, Katter, Windsor are acting a lot like a putative party (with Katter as its right wing and Oakeshott as its left) and has said that he wants none of it and will negotiate with Labor and Liberal without meeting with the other three.
Good for him. I think he's got the most integrity of the lot. If I were Abbott and was having to deal with these 3 guys, I'd be playing hardball and telling them "Listen, you blokes are 1 seat each, we have 72 (or 73), we're not prepared to make even small concessions, but really, we want to know what you guys have got to offer us?". All this horse-trading makes me feel ill. The idea that these independents will have a huge say in policy outcomes is just plain wrong and I hope the wider population can see that. Both Gillard and Abbott ought to be putting forward their policies in detail and the independents can choose which policy set they like the best ... and then go with that ... neither Liberal or Labor ought to be making concessions.

Basil
28-08-2010, 12:27 PM
I don't know why there is so much assumption (beyond the leadership farce of the last several months) that if Gillard stays in government it must collapse.
Because, apart from the chest heaving from Katter and the naive curiosity towards life from Oakeshott, these three amigos know deep down, or will realise shortly, that should they align with Labor, they themselves will be arseholed at the next election, and only after having their electorate stood at their door berating them until that election.

Were these guys genuine Independents, then the story would be different.

Further, as for voter sentiment, I don't believe there'd be many people having voted for the Coalition now thinking 'oh geez, perhaps I should got myself a bit more of that Labor action'; but I think there'd be a significant group that if pushed, would roll over to the Coalition to sort the vote one way or another (the hesitant wrist slashers) - notwithstanding your cited post-election poll.

Oepty
28-08-2010, 12:45 PM
Were these guys genuine Independents, then the story would be different.

Why are Windsor, Oakenshot and Katter not genuine independents?
Scott

Garvinator
28-08-2010, 12:46 PM
Good for him. I think he's got the most integrity of the lot. If I were Abbott and was having to deal with these 3 guys, I'd be playing hardball and telling them "Listen, you blokes are 1 seat each, we have 72 (or 73), we're not prepared to make even small concessions, but really, we want to know what you guys have got to offer us?". All this horse-trading makes me feel ill. The idea that these independents will have a huge say in policy outcomes is just plain wrong and I hope the wider population can see that. Both Gillard and Abbott ought to be putting forward their policies in detail and the independents can choose which policy set they like the best ... and then go with that ... neither Liberal or Labor ought to be making concessions.A lot of this would not be such a problem with the independants if parties did not have such strict policies on voting along party lines.

Basil
28-08-2010, 01:18 PM
Why are Windsor, Oakenshot and Katter not genuine independents?
Scott
Windsor is a farmer. The other two are ex-Nationals MPs. While each of them professes independence, they are as much removed from the Liberals as a Green is removed from the ALP. Each of The Three Amigos has as much Labor in his veins as to fill a thimble.

Notwithstanding policies green and broadband, and the woeful dating game being played-out at present, the likelihood of these guys maintaining both an ongoing working relationship with the left and with the approval of their electorates is nonexistent. All else is a soap opera that must be played out, blow by painful blow so that everyone ends up on the same page and has fully followed the monkey.

Arse. Plate. Cherry on top.

Oepty
28-08-2010, 01:55 PM
Windsor is a farmer. The other two are ex-Nationals MPs. While each of them professes independence, they are as much removed from the Liberals as a Green is removed from the ALP.

Each of The Three Amigos has as much Labor in his veins as to fill a thimble. Notwithstanding policies green and broadband, and the woeful dating game being played out at present, the likelihood of these guys maintaining both an ongoing working relationship with the left and with the approval of their electorates is nonexistent. All else is a soap opera that must be played out, blow by painful blow so that everyone ends up on the same page and the slower among us in the electorate can fully follow the monkey.

Arse. Plate. Cherry on top.

I don't see how any of this stops them being genuine independents, no more than when independent Rory McEwen joined the Rann Labor cabinet, was not an independent. They are genuine independents because they are not representing a political party. Having leaning one way or another, or being former members of one party or another makes no difference to that status. Rory McEwen was a former Liberal member who sought preselection for the Liberals and that did not stop him from being reelected when supporting a Labour government. It didn't stop former Liberal minister Bob Such being reelected as an independent after being speaker under the Rann government.
Being in SA where 4 conservatives helped a Rann Labor minority government stay in power I think anyone who assumes the 3 independents will support the Coalition is being a little too simplistic in there views.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 02:03 PM
Because, apart from the chest heaving from Katter and the naive curiosity towards life from Oakenshot, these three amigos know deep down, or will realise shortly, that should they align with Labor, they themselves will be arseholed at the next election, and only after having their electorate stood at their door berating them until that election.

Perhaps, but I think that depends on what they can score for their electorates. The rural indies who threw out Kennett and supported Bracks didn't cop it for doing so.


Further, as for voter sentiment, I don't believe there'd be many people having voted for the Coalition now thinking 'oh geez, perhaps I should got myself a bit more of that Labor action'; but I think there'd be a significant group that if pushed, would roll over to the Coalition to sort the vote one way or another (the hesitant wrist slashers) - notwithstanding your cited post-election poll.

I also think that this is true - Labor must aim to avoid another election being held quickly, since it will be a disaster for them. Their aim should be to govern and to go full term.


Each of The Three Amigos has as much Labor in his veins as to fill a thimble.

I agree with that but Oakeshott has moved a long way from where he was when he was a National and now comes across roughly as a centrist.

Incidentally Wilkie also has anything but Labor heritage. He was once a Young Lib and more recently a Green.

Basil
28-08-2010, 02:03 PM
I don't see how any of this stops them being genuine independents
OK. We clearly have differing interpretations of 'genuine'.


Being in SA where 4 conservatives helped a Rann Labor minority government stay in power I think anyone who assumes the 3 independents will support the Coalition is being a little too simplistic in there views.
Julia will be delighted to hear that she's still in with a shot. I do think you might want to check in with the Nationals Independents' electors first.

Goughfather
28-08-2010, 02:33 PM
This is all going to end one of two ways. Both result in Tony Abbott being PM. One (the least likely of the two) results in a farce where Julia and Labor govern for a short while before the country is back at the polls.

While some aren't in the mood for Tony's manoeuvering (care factor zero), I venture a greater proportion of people (who hovered with the knife over the wrist on election day, but couldn't quite summon the courage) now want Labor out. I reckon the whole world knows that Labor would arseholed in a rerun and that no one is more certain of that outcome than the ALP itself.

Carry on!

Arse. Plate. Cherry on top.

Howie's speculation that he is really part of the mainstream and that most people agree with him really is charming in its naivity.

It seems to me that for every individual who reluctantly voted for Labor to be returned, there is someone else who voted Liberal either to give Labor a kick in the pants in the expectation that this wouldn't change the government or primarily because of state issues in Queensland and New South Wales. Fortunately for the Coalition, Queensland don't face another state election for some considerable period of time and the Bligh government will be rotting like a dead carcass for the next two years. The Keneally government in New South Wales, however, will be unceremoniously booted in April and after this point, many who wanted to engage in blood-letting will be appeased and will return to Labor.

The net result of a return to the polls, assuming that it took place after April would be pretty much status quo in Queensland and Western Australia (since it couldn't get much worse in these states) and perhaps a small gain for Labor in New South Wales in metropolitan and Western Sydney seats. The real question would then be whether Gillard would be able to retain support in Victoria and South Australia and whether Wilkie would hold Denison, now that Labor realise that they can't take the seat for granted.

As for questions of stability, how many Coalition MPs have been disendorsed over the last three years, either to become independents, or during the preselection process at the subsequent Federal election? It seems to me that Abbott would be ill-advised to take this tact, lest the fairly sizable elephant in the room present itself.


Julia will be delighted to hear that she's still in with a shot. I do think you might want to check in with the Nationals Independents' electors first.

If those who voted for the independents wanted a Coalition government, that's precisely where they should have cast their vote at the last Federal election. I suspect that the unrepresentative swill who would take offence at the independents forming minority government with Labor would do little more than take a few percentage points off the iron-clad grip that these individuals currently have on their electorates.

Spiny Norman
28-08-2010, 02:54 PM
It seems to me that Abbott would be ill-advised to take this tact ...
not tact ... tack ... its a nautical term ... when one is sailing into the wind, one has to tack ... it involves sailing at roughly 45 degrees to the wind direction, and changing direction as one zigzags to the intended destination.

Rincewind
28-08-2010, 03:01 PM
not tact ... tack ... its a nautical term ... when one is sailing into the wind, one has to tack ... it involves sailing at roughly 45 degrees to the wind direction, and changing direction as one zigzags to the intended destination.

Perhaps you should educate Igor too. :)

Oepty
28-08-2010, 03:17 PM
OK. We clearly have differing interpretations of 'genuine'.


Julia will be delighted to hear that she's still in with a shot. I do think you might want to check in with the Nationals Independents' electors first.

I remember in 2002 when there was a hung parliment and Labor was 1 seat short of majority. There was a Nationals MP and three former Liberals. When one of the former Liberals Peter Lewis decided to support Labor the Liberals were stunned, they really believed he would support them. A while into the term Labor MP Kris Hanna decided to become a Green, leaving Labor potentially 1 seat short again, Labor got the support of another former Liberal Rory McEwen by giving him a place in Cabinet.
I am not saying the 3 independents will not support the Coalition, but if the Coalition just assume they are going to they might find themselves in opposition. The Rann government was elected into majority at the next election as were Rory McEwen, Nationals Karlene Maywald and Bob Such. Peter Lewis was not reelected but that was for far more reasons than he supported a Labor government although it might have been a factor.
Scott

Spiny Norman
28-08-2010, 03:23 PM
Perhaps you should educate Igor too. :)
I will if I catch him at it ... :)

Basil
28-08-2010, 03:23 PM
I am not saying the 3 independents will not support the Coalition, but if the Coalition just assume they are going to they might find themselves in opposition.
Indeed. I don't think Abbott or merely 'assumes' with no work being required. I think Abbott will do and say just sufficient as becomes necessary and as it presents itself throughout the game. This is distinct from the Gillard grovelling courting ab initio.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 03:43 PM
There is a general tradition for conservative parties to be more wary of minority government and to take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to negotiations with prospective minority partners.

I think the difference here is that Abbott would fear the 2010 result was an aberration. If Labor can form a workable government and stop stuffing up for long enough then the chance could be missed. Whereas if he takes it and has to do deals to get it, the electorate will probably be understanding both of the deals (so long as they aren't too silly) and of any difficulties he faces.

Denis_Jessop
28-08-2010, 04:26 PM
I look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on on this thread with wry amusement.

Having an election result that does not produce a clear victory at the Federal level in Australia is rare but not unprecedented. It was common in the early days of Federation but last occurred in the 1940s when the Menzies government had to rely on the votes of two independents who subsequently crossed the floor and helped throw him out.

A like situation is quite commmon in other countries, Starting at the bottom, Iraq had an election in May but there is still no governement as a result. After the war governments in France and italy lasted about nine months on average. There have been "grand coalitions " of the major left and right parties in both Germany and Israel and so it goes on.

The fact that there needs to be negotiation between major parties and minor parties and independents (forget the barren issue whether the three CP independents are really independent) comes as a shock to those employing the confrontationist practice current in federal politics. In this respect (and others), the election result was probably the best thing for Australian politics for decades. It should force the major parties to have a serious re-think about their position. policies and practices especially if the Greens continue to rise, as seems likely. Clearly the Labor party, for example, must consider whether it can continue being merely an Alternative Liberal Party. To date, sadly, neither the parties nor the media seem to have seen the fundamental lessons of the election and continue to regard the result as some sort of aberration.

The assumption that a two-party system is the only acceptable one is false.

DJ

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 04:31 PM
Having an election result that does not produce a clear victory at the Federal level in Australia is rare but not unprecedented. It was common in the early days of Federation but last occurred in the 1940s when the Menzies government had to rely on the votes of two independents who subsequently crossed the floor and helped throw him out.

Actually they threw out Fadden; Menzies had resigned several weeks earlier after his own party lost interest in his leadership. Indeed the indies turfed Fadden partly because they were annoyed about how Menzies had been treated.

Naturally I quite agree with the rest of your post. The hysteria because we've got a hung parliament is silly.

Basil
28-08-2010, 04:56 PM
I look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that is going on on this thread with wry amusement.
Don't be wry ;) No gnashing here. My position is best described as watching a fait a compli resolve itself.


The fact that there needs to be negotiation between major parties and minor parties and independents (forget the barren issue whether the three CP independents are really independent) comes as a shock to those employing the confrontationist practice current in federal politics.
I think you've gloriously missed the point (and reality, ergo you love of far left ideology) and should become immediate facebook friends with Oakeshott. You guys would look in the sunset together. Perhaps painting a vista of the promised land.

Carry on!

pax
28-08-2010, 05:23 PM
Windsor is a farmer. The other two are ex-Nationals MPs. While each of them professes independence, they are as much removed from the Liberals as a Green is removed from the ALP. Each of The Three Amigos has as much Labor in his veins as to fill a thimble.

They are all pretty far removed from the Liberal party, and a couple of them hold the Nationals leadership in utter disdain.

In my view, a 'genuine' independent is one that can win a seat on his or her own merit and through a personal following across the electorate (and not e.g as a protest vote in favour of a recently disendorsed candidate).

While most voters in those electorates probably prefer the Coalition to the ALP, the fact remains that the voters did not choose the Coalition to represent them.

Denis_Jessop
28-08-2010, 05:24 PM
Don't be wry ;) No gnashing here. My position is best described as watching a fait a compli resolve itself.


I think you've gloriously missed the point (and reality, ergo you love of far left ideology) and should become immediate facebook friends with Oakeshott. You guys would look in the sunset together. Perhaps painting a vista of the promised land.

With that, I'm off to my favourite lefty's retirement party at Gardiner Chess Centre.

Carry on!

Howie/Gunner

As an interested observer and sometime activist in Australian politics since at least the 1949 election I'm sure I haven't missed the point at all. The face of Australian politics is changing, albeit slowly, and the major parties seem yet to realise this. Moreover the recent election was interesting because both major parties conducted the most trivial campaigns I can remember at the Federal level, based mainly on personal insults and negative slogans, while the independents and the Greens actually campaigned on substantive policy issues.

DJ

PS As a matter of interest, when the ALP supported protectionism against the Liberal's free trade, which was the case until the late 1960s at least, the Country Party policies in many ways supported Labor's as protectionism was a staple part of looking after the farmers etc. Labor supported protection for Australian manufacturing industry; the CP protection for Australian rural industry.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2010, 05:52 PM
Perhaps, but I think that depends on what they can score for their electorates. The rural indies who threw out Kennett and supported Bracks didn't cop it for doing so. )
Russell Savage did (even though only in 2006



Incidentally Wilkie also has anything but Labor heritage. He was once a Young Lib and more recently a Green.

You can't go further to the left then Green.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2010, 06:06 PM
Greens too bourgeois for Adam Bandt when he was a uni student (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-too-bourgeois-for-adam-bandt-when-he-was-a-uni-student/story-fn59niix-1225911093349)

If the very left of Australian politics is not left enough for him, he is beyond hopes. On the other hand, Green could've moved to the left in the last 15 years.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2010, 06:08 PM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/08/27/1225911/083002-bill-leak-100828.jpg

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 06:18 PM
Russell Savage did (even though only in 2006

Yes, this was after a term of office in which Labor had had an enormous majority.


You can't go further to the left then Green.

Yes you can; there's the Socialist Alliance for starters. In any case Wilkie came across as a moderate Green when he was one, though on some issues (like pokie machines) he is now more strident than they are.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2010, 07:39 PM
Yes you can; there's the Socialist Alliance for starters.
I am not talking about fringe groups nobody knows about:D :D

In any case Wilkie came across as a moderate Green when he was one, though on some issues (like pokie machines) he is now more strident than they are.
"Moderate Green":hmm: :hmm: :hmm: I thought it's an oxymoron.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-08-2010, 08:50 PM
I don't know why there is so much assumption (beyond the leadership farce of the last several months) that if Gillard stays in government it must collapse. In the last 20 years every single Australian state or territory has had a minority parliament of some kind or other. Indeed, four of them have one now. Minority governments with wafer-thin margins when you added their supporters included those of Bracks (went full term then re-elected with comfortable majority), Beattie (ditto), Rann (ditto), and Borbidge (went full term then trashed by One Nation and silly response to One Nation).

Those were first term government who (with exception of Borbidge) successfully fulfilled their first term and went on to became a majority government in it's own right.
Non-first term minority government have a higher risk of becoming last term government.
Having said that, I personally do not think Gillard minority government will necessarily collapse (but not likely to become any better then the disaster it was).
If Abbott forms the government, he will be a reasonable prime minister and likely to win next term as well.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 09:20 PM
I am not talking about fringe groups nobody knows about:D :D

We know about them plenty here, they polled over 1% in Denison this election!


"Moderate Green":hmm: :hmm: :hmm: I thought it's an oxymoron.

Not at all. It depends on where you are around the country but in some areas the Greens (or some of them at least) are far more moderate than others. The Tasmanian leader, Nick McKim, is a moderate (though not as moderate as Wilkie was) and that is why he has now been able to deal his way into Cabinet and why the Greens did so well at our state election.

A common sign of moderation in a Greens candidate is a focus on urban and social issues as opposed to an obsession with forestry.


Non-first term minority government have a higher risk of becoming last term government.

In theory yes, but we have so very few relevant examples in practice. The two most relevant examples we have are Greiner and Menzies, but in both cases it was not the minority government situation that caused the government to lose the next election.

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 09:37 PM
Amusingly, Alex in the other place tried to play psephologist on this one. He predicted that because the postal vote would be coming in from people overseas who would not be aware of Wilkie's campaign, Wilkie would get drubbed on postal votes and lose.

I previously mentioned another error in the post, but Alex has now deleted the post entirely, although antichrist's reply to it remains visible. So basically Alex, having already shown himself as beyond hopeless at running elections, has also shown he can't follow them either, but has made a failed attempt to cover up his error. If he had any clue about the subject he would know that:

* Many postal votes actually come from interstate - they are not all from overseas.
* Andrew Wilkie is very well known to Tasmanian voters who are not permanently somewhere else having run in our state election this March and also in the previous Senate election.
* Labor made no effort on postals in the seat of Denison.

But I can comfort poor Alex with the knowledge that the sentiments in his now-deleted failure of a post were also shared by plenty of ALP hacks who were confident Jackson would "mow down" Wilkie's lead, then of 1375 votes, once postals were added in.

At latest count the "mowing" amounted to precisely thirteen votes. :lol:

(By the way, Wilkie has been confirmed as winning now - an indicative distribution of preferences was done today.)

Oepty
28-08-2010, 09:49 PM
Keeping with Denison. Would Bob Brown win the seat of Denison if he ran for it whenever there is another election? It just seems to me if the Greens start winning more lower house seats then they are going to need their leader in the lower house. Bob Brown in Denison would solve that problem.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
28-08-2010, 09:54 PM
Keeping with Denison. Would Bob Brown win the seat of Denison if he ran for it whenever there is another election? It just seems to me if the Greens start winning more lower house seats then they are going to need their leader in the lower house. Bob Brown in Denison would solve that problem.
Scott

Bob Brown tried to win Denison as a Green in 1993 and didn't get anywhere near coming second. And really he is at the stage where retirement and handover to a new leader cannot be all that far away anyhow. No, I don't believe he could win it, whoever the incumbent.

Some people are saying that the Wilkie result shows that if Wilkie had not run the Greens would have won the seat. I don't believe that to be true at all. Wilkie got a lot of votes the Greens would never have seen (people who voted 1 Wilkie 2 Jackson) and the Greens had a big gap to make up on the Liberals from last time to come second.

Oepty
28-08-2010, 10:44 PM
Bob Brown tried to win Denison as a Green in 1993 and didn't get anywhere near coming second. And really he is at the stage where retirement and handover to a new leader cannot be all that far away anyhow. No, I don't believe he could win it, whoever the incumbent.

Some people are saying that the Wilkie result shows that if Wilkie had not run the Greens would have won the seat. I don't believe that to be true at all. Wilkie got a lot of votes the Greens would never have seen (people who voted 1 Wilkie 2 Jackson) and the Greens had a big gap to make up on the Liberals from last time to come second.

Fair enough. I did not know about 1993.
Scott

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2010, 02:06 AM
When Bob and Ken are one, be afraid (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/when-bob-and-ken-are-one-be-afraid/story-e6frg8zx-1225911082135)
Terry McCrann
The Australian 28 August 2010

The same 80 per cent-plus who always cast their first preferences for either the Labor party or the Coalition collection, did so again… We ended up with the very tight, 51/49 per cent or less, two-party preferred outcome that is the most common in federal elections. Of the 24 previous elections since the war, 11 have fallen within this range. Add on last Saturday’s and it’s now 12 out of 25. Stretch the range to 52/48 per cent and the number goes up to 15.

What’s really changed is our ability now to reform and to pass rational laws, thanks to a Greens bloc - and block - in the Senate:

Now, with Greens ascendant,… there is no way, no way, that Labor will do anything other than pander to the, especially environmental, but indeed all the streams of the Left.

And when even the Hawke-Keating remnants in parliament in the second half of the 1990s would not support the Howard-Costello reforms, there is no way a future Labor opposition would do anything but oppose even the mildest of reforms from a future Coalition government.

We now have a permanent Green minority that will endorse (any) irrational policies from a Labor government and frustrate rational ones from a Coalition one.

Basil
29-08-2010, 03:51 AM
As an interested observer and sometime activist in Australian politics since at least the 1949 election I'm sure I haven't missed the point at all.
We're going to have to agree to differ.

The face of Australian politics is changing...
No doubt, but in my estimation not in any material fashion relevant to what is being played-out at the moment.

In relation to the bipartisan morphing, cooperation and general common sense being placed above party lines, which Oakeshott is peddling; that idea appears born (again - it gets a good run every now and again) in the last 12 months, especially as a hung parliament has occurred in parallel in the UK.

It's idealistic poppycock (and in may cases worse than the disease), and its an especially attractive concept to brain-in-vat lifers (read 'leftist intelligentsia'). Adversarial politics is changing as much as the adversarial legal system. Its not happening, and nor are its underlying drivers.

That we have had two close-run western elections in the space of months is a blip and not a pattern, and the hippies who have become highly excited at the prospect of mutual love can go back to their dens as there's nothing to see here.

Denis_Jessop
29-08-2010, 01:07 PM
We're going to have to agree to differ.

No doubt, but in my estimation not in any material fashion relevant to what is being played-out at the moment.

In relation to the bipartisan morphing, cooperation and general common sense being placed above party lines, which Oakeshott is peddling; that idea appears born (again - it gets a good run every now and again) in the last 12 months, especially as a hung parliament has occurred in parallel in the UK.

It's idealistic poppycock (and in may cases worse than the disease), and its an especially attractive concept to brain-in-vat lifers (read 'leftist intelligentsia'). Adversarial politics is changing as much as the adversarial legal system. Its not happening, and nor are its underlying drivers.

That we have had two close-run western elections in the space of months is a blip and not a pattern, and the hippies who have become highly excited at the prospect of mutual love can go back to their dens as there's nothing to see here.

I haven't seen what Oakeshott has said regarding placing cooperation and common sense above party lines. But such a line of argument is not at all left wing. It's an old line run by "independents" who have no idea of real politics.

I'm not sure if your reference to adversarial politics is inspired by my mention of confrontationist antics in the recent election. If it is, I'd point out that the two are by no means the same. Indeed, if there are two (or more) parties with differing policies adversarial actions will inevitably follow. My point is that the two major parties are now so close in basic policies that what follows is confrontationist insult throwing.

Regarding the change in the Austraian political scene, there has been a third party with enough clout to get seats in the Senate for a long time now. The Australia Party founded by Gordon Barton was the first if one (properly) discounts the DLP. Gradually the strength of support for these parties has grown.

Importantly, the Greens are not only an international movement but are attracting support both from young voters and older disillusioned Labor voters. This phenomenon places them in a more powerful electoral position than any of their predecessors including the Australian Democrats who for a time enjoyed success but lacked any firm base of support. The further to the right Labor moves, the more likely is the rise af a permanent third party with parliamentary representation. The fundamental political scenario in the UK is quite different both now and in its origins. (Incidentally, the Australian Labor Party is older that the UK Labour Party.:) )

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2010, 05:42 PM
My party was trashed by the middle class (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814)
Michael Thompson
The Australian, 28 August 2010

Labor's self-appointed progressives despise working-class values ...

A recent front-page report in The Courier-Mail revealed that "[m]ore than 300 Queensland teachers are under investigation for inappropriate behaviour [and] almost all 26 teachers who had their registrations suspended or cancelled in the past year were cited for sexual misconduct."

It further revealed that a "state-employed teacher went from school to school, leaving a trail of complaints about indecent behaviour to young children, before losing his job", and it "also highlighted an issue with teachers leaving private schools under a cloud and being re-hired by Education Queensland."

There was no such coverage in the media further upmarket. But if the report had revealed that Catholic priests rather than public school teachers were the subject of investigations into alleged pedophile behaviour on such a scale, they without doubt would have given the investigation blanket coverage, at least until such time as the clergy were punished and removed, compensation paid, and apologies made to the victims, or charges laid and convictions entered, to be dragged up again at the first opportunity. ...

It's now time for all the ALP's traditional working-class supporters -- not just the Howard battlers -- to seriously think about abandoning the careerists who have whored their party to the chattering class. Labor's claim to working-class loyalty has been forfeited.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-08-2010, 05:52 PM
We know about them plenty here, they polled over 1% in Denison this election!
Don't tempt a comment about place;) :D



Not at all. It depends on where you are around the country but in some areas the Greens (or some of them at least) are far more moderate than others. The Tasmanian leader, Nick McKim, is a moderate (though not as moderate as Wilkie was) and that is why he has now been able to deal his way into Cabinet and why the Greens did so well at our state election.

Alliance with Labor, albeit quite natural for Greens and not flattering to Labor, is not necessary a sign of moderation. Look at Bandt.
I will accept, however, that leaving Greens might be a sign of Wilkie's moderation.

A common sign of moderation in a Greens candidate is a focus on urban and social issues as opposed to an obsession with forestry.
Isn't it where their leftism becomes obvious?

Basil
29-08-2010, 06:07 PM
I haven't seen what Oakeshott has said regarding placing cooperation and common sense above party lines. But such a line of argument is not at all left wing. It's an old line run by "independents" who have no idea of real politics.
:D

I had believed you were suggesting this ideal was the change you referred to in politics witnessed over many years.


I'm not sure if your reference to adversarial politics is inspired by my mention of confrontationist antics in the recent election.
It wasn't. It was derivative of wibble from The Three Amigos.


Importantly, the Greens are not only an international movement but are attracting support both from young voters and older disillusioned Labor voters. This phenomenon places them in a more powerful electoral position than any of their predecessors including the Australian Democrats who for a time enjoyed success but lacked any firm base of support. The further to the right Labor moves, the more likely is the rise af a permanent third party with parliamentary representation. The fundamental political scenario in the UK is quite different both now and in its origins. (Incidentally, the Australian Labor Party is older that the UK Labour Party.:)
While I largely agree with this commentary, I add that the Greens (IMO) won't ever grow into a significant party capable of challenging in significant primary numbers because:
a) Their base, comprised in part, as you say of aging, disenfranchised Labor voters, only transfers from one to the other, doesn't encroach on Liberal base.
b) I maintain that Green party is 'hot' now, and will be less so in the future, because should the movement develop further credibility, the traditional parties will adopt more of the Green ethos (in that they will enact it, and not mouth it). Or, if debunked as hippie wibble, the pot will go off the boil and the focus will go back to workplace relations. I rather think the first as, contrary to what was spouted in large numbers three years ago, I think the traditional Labor movement is on the wane (not the conservative one).

pax
29-08-2010, 06:34 PM
A recent front-page report in The Courier-Mail revealed that "[m]ore than 300 Queensland teachers are under investigation for inappropriate behaviour [and] almost all 26 teachers who had their registrations suspended or cancelled in the past year were cited for sexual misconduct."


and this is connected to the Labor party how, exactly?

Rincewind
29-08-2010, 06:55 PM
a) Their base, comprised in part, as you say of aging, disenfranchised Labor voters, only transfers from one to the other, doesn't encroach on Liberal base.

Not directly but indirectly. As the more sensible conservative voters have seen the Labor party as really a conservative party with slightly more ethical positions on social issues there has been a significant bleed from Liberal to Labor. However the more left-oriented Labor supports will also realise the same thing and so look to a party like the Greens.

So in a political dynamic with both mass based parties are heading right a third party to the left of both will naturally find increasing support. Liberal voter won't magically start voting Greens 1, but there will be a shift involving the support base of all parties involved in the dynamic, not just those that are ideologically adjacent.

Basil
29-08-2010, 07:33 PM
As the more sensible conservative voters have seen the Labor party as really a conservative party with slightly more ethical positions on social issues ...
:lol:

I must remember that next time there's political talk of Naive Central Labor actually helping the homeless, indigenous, people with disabilities and so forth. Thanks for the giggle. God bless Brand Laba. It's a wonder that it doesn't attract 90% + of the electorate. Oh haaaang on, I forgot - it's all bullshit that the majority of people who can smell the coffee can see through, just leaving the very young and the very insulated clutching the dream.

Rincewind
29-08-2010, 08:15 PM
I must remember that next time there's political talk of Naive Central Labor actually helping the homeless, indigenous, people with disabilities and so forth. Thanks for the giggle. God bless Brand Laba. It's a wonder that it doesn't attract 90% + of the electorate. Oh haaaang on, I forgot - it's all bullshit that the majority of people who can smell the coffee can see through, just leaving the very young and the very insulated clutching the dream.

Unfortunately the entire history of two party politics is not on your side.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-08-2010, 08:20 PM
and this is connected to the Labor party how, exactly?
Did you read the whole article?

Basil
29-08-2010, 08:29 PM
Unfortunately the entire history of two party politics is not on your side.
I'm not so familiar with the entire history of the two parties, but I'm very familiar with recent history, as is Ken Wyatt. As a father of a boy with a profound disability and as Australia's first indigenous House Rep, respectively, we're here to tell you that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you'd like a few facts to add flavour, we can discuss Rudd's appalling (now proven as failed) gesture to address homelessness, Labor's adoption of the Howard government's NT Intervention, Labor squibbing of mental health and it goes on. While neither side is perfect, the idea that Brand Laba brings it home for the disenfranchised is misguided, self-serving wibble.

Denis_Jessop
29-08-2010, 08:38 PM
I'm not so familiar with the entire history of the two parties, but I'm very familiar with recent history, as is Ken Wyatt, and as a father of a boy with a profound disability and Australia's first indigenous House Rep, respectively, we're here to tell you that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you'd like a few facts to add flavour, we can discuss Rudd's appalling gesture to address homelessness. Labor's adoption of the Howard government's NT intervention, Labor squibbing of mental health and it goes on. While neither side is perfect, the idea that Brand Laba brings it home for the disenfranchised is misgiuded, self-serving wibble.

As the last few posts flow on from mine I must say that, sadly, I haven't a clue what you are talking about either in the context of the Australian political system. :(

DJ

Basil
29-08-2010, 08:42 PM
As the last few posts flow on from mine I must say that, sadly, I haven't a clue what you are talking about either in the context of the Australian political system. :(

DJ
A glance at posts 627, 628 and 629 may assist. Essentially we're discussing Barry's oft-peddled, well-loved and utterly bankrupt assertion that Brand Labor brings home the bacon for the disenfranchised.

Rincewind
29-08-2010, 08:48 PM
I'm not so familiar with the entire history of the two parties, but I'm very familiar with recent history, as is Ken Wyatt, and as a father of a boy with a profound disability and Australia's first indigenous House Rep, respectively, we're here to tell you that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You don't have an single clue. But since you are a pom let's have a history lesson on British politics of the 18th and 19th centuries.

First look at the development of the suffrage movement in the UK. Was it the Tories or the Whigs who looked to broaden the franchise and would a Labour Party had ever been formed (let alone rule as a majority) if the Tories had their way and the franchise been left at approximately 15% of the adult male population?

Going back further you can look at the Slavery Abolition Act, 1833. Was that advanced by Lord Wellington's Tory government? No. Too many of the gentry had foreign interests in the slave trade and it was Earl Grey's Whigs which introduced that reform in the first non-Tory government for decades.

The list goes on and on when you look at things like the fair labour trade practices, public health policy, education reforms, etc.

Of course nowadays and in Australia, the differences are less stark as the two parties fight for the biggest slice of the centre cake. Hence my use of the word "slightly" in the first post.

But if you can come up with ethical issues of the last couple of hundred years that dwarf the abolishment of slavery and universal suffrage that were generally advanced by the right and generally opposed by the left then trot them out.

Basil
29-08-2010, 09:00 PM
First look at the development of the suffrage movement in the UK.
Good point. Entirely irrelevant to Labor in 2010. Entirely irrelevant to your claim that Labor brings it home for the disenfranchised. 100 years ago Barry.


Going back further you can look at the Slavery Abolition Act, 1833.
No Barry, no Barry, no! We don't want to go back even further to 150 years ago and use what happened then to justify a positioning statement now. Put the history books down Barry. Time to get with the program and smell the coffee.


Of course nowadays and in Australia, the differences are less stark as the two parties fight for the biggest slice of the centre cake. Hence my use of the word "slightly" in the first post.
Ah the caveat. But a fail. While acknowledging all the good things from 100+ years ago, the class-based ideology that only you and David Beaumont seem to invoke as justification for many things, has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling today's society.

Your attachment to the events of the 1800s, and no doubt very seductive to the vast majority of brains-in-vats, to justify 2010 Brand Laba is lily-white propaganda with neither basis nor substance.

My real world experience, my observations of contemporary policies and no doubt those of Ken Whyatt's beats your well-worn, tired and irrelevant rhetoric blindfold - you're a dinosaur. And so too is your bankrupt assertion that modern day Brand Laba brings it home for the disenfranchised.

Rincewind
29-08-2010, 09:28 PM
Ah the caveat. But a fail. While acknowledging all the good things from 100+ years ago, the class-based ideology that only you and David Beaumont seem to invoke has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with anything resembling today's society as cited above.

Not the caveat, just pointing out exactly what I said as you seemed to be implying that I was taking a much stronger position than what said.

And again my follow up point was regarding history of big ethical issues and so it is hardly surprising that we are talking about things of some time ago. As I said, it is hard to trump the issues I raised.

The problem with current issues is it is very difficult to disentangle present perceptions to see the real winner and losers, the lasting changes. History will be the judge and in 50 to 100 years we will have some idea as to whether Abbott is a political genius or a clueless goose. But it is hard to see either side leading on any ethical issue at the moment. Rudd of course made his name on it and attracted many of the disenfranchised centre right as a result - hence the landslide of 2007.

Denis_Jessop
29-08-2010, 10:30 PM
Your attachment to the events of the 1800s, and no doubt very seductive to the vast majority of brains-in-vats, to justify 2010 Brand Laba is lily-white propaganda with neither basis nor substance.

My real world experience, my observations of contemporary policies and no doubt those of Ken Whyatt's beats your well-worn, tired and irrelevant rhetoric blindfold - you're a dinosaur. And so too is your bankrupt assertion that modern day Brand Laba brings it home for the disenfranchised.

The problem with this thesis, apart from the rather weird way it is expressed, is that, despite all your worldly wise experience, you have overlooked that the Liberal Party in Australia has been fondly moving back to the 19th century over the last 15 years or so and thus Barry's references to that time are very apposite.

Moreover, even if Labor's recent record on social issues is not good, no Federal Liberal government in Australia has ever shown any significant sympathy for the oppressed or disadvantaged.

DJ

Capablanca-Fan
30-08-2010, 12:45 AM
Thomas Sowell (http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/history/4126-Bury-the-Chains-How-The-West-Ended-Slavery.html), himself African-American:


The anti-slavery movement was spearheaded by people who would today be called "the religious right" and its organization was created by conservative businessmen. Moreover, what destroyed slavery in the non-Western world was Western imperialism.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.

The American Democrats were the party of slavery (or at least "pro-choice" on slavery: Don't like slavery? don't own slaves!), the KKK (revived by the film Birth of the Nation, admired by Woodrow Wilson) the Jim Crow laws, segregation, filibustering Civil Rights laws. The Republicans were the party formed to abolish slavery, voting at a higher percentage for civil rights laws, and of MLK.

Basil
30-08-2010, 07:50 AM
The problem with this thesis,
Pfft.


... apart from the rather weird way it is expressed,
Pfft.


is that, despite all your worldly wise experience,
Pfft.


... you have overlooked that the Liberal Party in Australia has been fondly moving back to the 19th century over the last 15 years or so and thus Barry's references to that time are very apposite.
Oh, you're finally making your point? Let's have a read ... What a disappointment. We're discussing the assertion that Labor brings home the bacon on social issues, and after some self-flagellation, you've moved to discuss the Liberal party, not the issue at hand. In any event, you're also jumping on the misdirection bandwagon as what the Liberals are doing now and Barry's history lesson, has nothing to do with his failed defence of his erroneous assertion. You both look very clever together.


Moreover, even if Labor's recent record on social issues is not good, no Federal Liberal government in Australia has ever shown any significant sympathy for the oppressed or disadvantaged.

DJ
OMG! The final sentence discusses the ALP, which is the topic at hand! David Castor would be most proud. That aside, I see your entire post does nothing whatsoever to defend my debunking of Barry's original assertion that Labor brings home the bacon for the disenfranchised. In fact, buried within your text, is the acknowledgment that Labor's record is not good!

Good grief.

Spiny Norman
30-08-2010, 08:17 AM
... you have overlooked that the Liberal Party in Australia has been fondly moving back to the 19th century over the last 15 years or so ...
Denis, you do yourself an injustice by trotting out rubbish like that ...

Denis_Jessop
30-08-2010, 01:42 PM
Denis, you do yourself an injustice by trotting out rubbish like that ...

Sorry Stephen, but apparently you haven't been noticing what has been happening to, among other things, working conditions and work practices recently. In 2007 much of the rest of the electorate did.

Now that you're here I might also comment on your recent complaint of illness regarding the independents. This is not a matter of concern to any reasonable person. The independents were elected, not for the first time, for good reasons. They put these to the major parties. The role of the independents is clearly to achieve what they say are their policies and to take exception to that is to misunderstand the nature of politics.

DJ

TheJoker
30-08-2010, 02:21 PM
Hi CU

The biggest social issue of the last few years in Oz has been the right to collective bargaining

Libs removed the right to collective bargaining

Labour restored the right to collective bargaining

P.S. If you want to look like a complete goose please start ramblings how removing the right to collective bargaining benefits the "disenfranchised".

pax
30-08-2010, 03:20 PM
Did you read the whole article?

I did. Did you?

It was the usual right wing diatribe against unnamed stereotyped "latte lefties", "limousine lefties", or "chattering classes" (because righties never talk about politics obviously) who have been brainwashed by their arts degrees. The mention of allegation of inappropriate conduct against Queensland teachers was completely out of the blue, and was not directly linked to anything else in the article. It seemed to be an isolated attempt to associate child abuse with voting Labor. A nice piece of work.

Igor_Goldenberg
30-08-2010, 04:51 PM
The mention of allegation of inappropriate conduct against Queensland teachers was completely out of the blue, and was not directly linked to anything else in the article.
If read article carefully you'd notice that the author compared coverage of sex abuse by the teacher with the coverage of the sex abuse by clergy (very subdued in the case of former and blown out in the case of latter).

Igor_Goldenberg
30-08-2010, 04:52 PM
Hi CU

The biggest social issue of the last few years in Oz has been the right to collective bargaining

Libs removed the right to collective bargaining

Labour restored the right to collective bargaining

P.S. If you want to look like a complete goose please start ramblings how removing the right to collective bargaining benefits the "disenfranchised".
You seem to confuse "the right to collective bargaining" with compulsory unionism.

TheJoker
30-08-2010, 04:56 PM
You seem to confuse "the right to collective bargaining" with compulsory unionism.

No you are the one that is confused. I know exactly what I am talking about

Spiny Norman
30-08-2010, 06:06 PM
Sorry Stephen, but apparently you haven't been noticing what has been happening to, among other things, working conditions and work practices recently.
I didn't fail to notice it. I considered the majority of the hullabaloo over Work Choices to be a beat up (not all, just most of it). If you are seriously suggesting that Work Choices somehow equated to a return to 19th century working conditions, then I think the proposition is laughable.

Rincewind
30-08-2010, 06:19 PM
If read article carefully you'd notice that the author compared coverage of sex abuse by the teacher with the coverage of the sex abuse by clergy (very subdued in the case of former and blown out in the case of latter).

I think you will find that the issue (generally) with clerical abuse is the web of deceit woven by those in the church hierarchy that makes the headlines. Systematic cover-up by non-paedophiles in the church is in many ways more shocking than the actions of the paedophiles themselves.

Rincewind
30-08-2010, 06:33 PM
That aside, I see your entire post does nothing whatsoever to defend my debunking of Barry's original assertion that Labor brings home the bacon for the disenfranchised.

I'm not sure of you use of italics here. Perhaps it is your way to flag a complete fabrication on your part.

I entered this discussion to debunk your unimaginative assertion regarding the growing Greens vote, that


a) Their base, comprised in part, as you say of aging, disenfranchised Labor voters, only transfers from one to the other, doesn't encroach on Liberal base.

Of course it does as even if you discount Liberal voters voting Green (which I don't rule out) but as many voters will go from Labor to Green will be filled by Liberal voters who go Labor.


Now the rest of your bollocks has been about my off the cuff comment regarding Labor having a "slightly more ethical position on social issues". I must say your hissing fit has been amusing but I do not that there hasn't been an issue you have raised to counter my not-too-serious position on ethical issues. There has been some breast beating about indigenous members of the house of reps and having a son with a disability, just not much in the way of reasoned argument or evidence.


So now on to your fabrication. My words


"slightly more ethical position on social issues"

your words


"Labor brings home the bacon for the disenfranchised"

Please explain your rank misrepresentation?

Igor_Goldenberg
30-08-2010, 07:02 PM
I didn't fail to notice it. I considered the majority of the hullabaloo over Work Choices to be a beat up (not all, just most of it). If you are seriously suggesting that Work Choices somehow equated to a return to 19th century working conditions, then I think the proposition is laughable.
Indeed. My friend relayed to me a conversation he had three years ago with a guy from fitness club, which went something like this:
- Who are you going to vote?
- This time it's easy, Labor
- Why?
- WorkChoices
- What's wrong with WrokChoices?
- Many people will lose their jobs
- Are you at risk losing your job?
- Ahhh, not really.
- Do you know anyone who lost his job because of WorkChoices?
Ammm, hmmm, scratching his head, thinking for half a minute, then answering:
- Not really.

A beat up? Definitely. But worked brilliantly for the Labor.

Kevin Bonham
30-08-2010, 07:13 PM
An issue to watch will be likely legal challenges to the election of four Coalition MPs who apparently failed to resign local councillor positions prior to nominating (and one has still not resigned!). The key question is whether a local councillor position constitutes an office of profit under the Crown, as does a state service position for instance. Although the general view is that the challenges are fairly unlikely to succeed, no one really knows the answer as it hasn't been legally tested before. It's also possible the answer will vary by state.

Denis_Jessop
30-08-2010, 07:59 PM
I didn't fail to notice it. I considered the majority of the hullabaloo over Work Choices to be a beat up (not all, just most of it). If you are seriously suggesting that Work Choices somehow equated to a return to 19th century working conditions, then I think the proposition is laughable.

That was just one example.

The right wing "innocents" such as yourself seem not to realise what has been happening in industrial relations over recent years. Nor would they care. The trade union movement struggled for almost a century to achieve just working conditions for Australian workers which were the envy of other countries. Among these was the industrial relations arbitration system now demolished.

To refer to the Work Choices debate as a beat up is either hypocrisy or sublime ignorance to the n th degree as well as being just silly and wrong. It is no exaggeration to say that leading Liberals like Howard, Abbott and the detestable Kevin Andrews would be very happy to see industrial relations on the same footing as it was in the 19th century.

Your nonsense about things being laughable (coupled with your tripe about the independents) only shows how little you understand about politics and the way in which the political system works. My practical experience in this regard both in politics and in government far outweighs yours. Just a tidbit - can you remember the 1949 federal election? :) I can.

Really there is no point in pursuing this matter further unless you can show at least a modicum of intelligence about it. This is the main reason that I rarely engage in postings in this area. The level of intelligence and knowledge of Australian politics displayed especially by right wing posters is abysmal. CU and Jono also take note though I partly forgive them as Australian politics is not their first language.

DJ

Desmond
30-08-2010, 08:08 PM
Indeed. My friend relayed to me a conversation he had three years ago with a guy from fitness club, which went something like this:
- Who are you going to vote?
- This time it's easy, Labor
- Why?
- WorkChoices
- What's wrong with WrokChoices?
- Many people will lose their jobs
- Are you at risk losing your job?
- Ahhh, not really.
- Do you know anyone who lost his job because of WorkChoices?
Ammm, hmmm, scratching his head, thinking for half a minute, then answering:
- Not really.

A beat up? Definitely. But worked brilliantly for the Labor.And the point of this is? I personally know people who were adversely affected. Does my anecdotal evidence swing the pendulum the other way?

Rincewind
30-08-2010, 08:14 PM
And the point of this is? I personally know people who were adversely affected. Does my anecdotal evidence swing the pendulum the other way?

Not for the guy who thought that summary dismissal on racist grounds was absolutely fine.

Basil
30-08-2010, 09:30 PM
Hi CU

The biggest social issue of the last few years in Oz has been the right to collective bargaining

Libs removed the right to collective bargaining

Labour restored the right to collective bargaining
It seems you're supporting the notion that Labor is better on social issues on account of their fighting for workplace reforms. If so, I'll leave you to it. If you think that's the most important social issue of our time, we have no business discussing the issue with each other.

Basil
30-08-2010, 09:36 PM
Now the rest of your bollocks has been about my off the cuff comment regarding Labor having a "slightly more ethical position on social issues".
Not the 'rest' - it's my whole point.


My words


"slightly more ethical position on social issues"

your words


"Labor brings home the bacon for the disenfranchised"

Please explain your rank misrepresentation?
I paraphrased the lily you were gilding. And I'm certain I understood you correctly because you launched into a history lesson trying defend exactly what I suggested you meant.

But that wriggle aside, if you didn't mean to imply that Labor 'brought home the bacon', what sort of example can you offer in support of your vague statement 'more ethical position on social issues' ?

Basil
30-08-2010, 09:43 PM
CU and Jono also take note though I partly forgive them as Australian politics is not their first language.

DJ
Odd, but by complete coincidence, I have formed the opinion that despite your advanced years and no doubt varied experience, you haven't the slightest clue about the real world application of most subjects on which you pontificate.

Basil
30-08-2010, 09:54 PM
The problem with this thesis, ... despite all your worldly wise experience
The only experience I was invoking was my considerable experience in matters concerning disabilities and the political environment in relation to same.

It has to date involved petitioning the QLD government in a matter relating to disability services, applying for various disability fundings and navigating the bureaucracy of same, being an advocate for people with a disability, being a parent and living that experience through my own eyes and through my son's, meeting with (and I don't mind saying educating) three MPs (federal) in the course of the past 12 months, assisting a fellow parent write a soon-to-be published book (available through all hospitals) for parents of new-born and children with a disability and the list goes on, including a being a fundraising manager attached to a shltered workshop an despite centre. In fact there would be very few with more experience.

I'm not sure whether or not you aimed to insult or deride, so I supply the credentials so that in case of the affirmative, you have pause before you repeat.

Rincewind
30-08-2010, 09:57 PM
Not the 'rest' - it's my whole point.

Given you have made no effort to defend you silly arguments regarding the Green voting base hurting the Liberal vote, I supposed that is true. Still you agreeing so readily that your whole point is bollocks comes as a bit of a surprise.


I paraphrased the lily you were gilding. And I'm certain I understood you correctly because you launched into a history lesson trying defend exactly what I suggested you meant.

Ah so you deliberately misrepresented then. I believe there is a word for that... rhymes with your premier's surname.

The point of the history lesson (apart from your general edification) was to point out a few cases where the left side of politics has lead the way of social reforms which history has shown to be significant and ethically justified.

Doing what is morally right is not on the conservative agenda. Never has. Conservative voters who somehow develop a clue or a conscious realise that and start leaning left.


But that wriggle aside, if you didn't mean to imply that Labor 'brought home the bacon', what sort of example can you offer in support of your vague statement 'more ethical position on social issues' ?

I meant exactly what I said. I have given many examples of the left side of politics taking more ethical positions perhaps you might like to substantiate your side of the argument with something other than hot air...

We're all waiting.

Basil
30-08-2010, 10:07 PM
I meant exactly what I said. I have given many examples of the left side of politics taking more ethical positions ...
Remind me of one? Are you talking about 100 years ago again? You're just going round in circles and generally moving goalposts to suit.

I took issue with one thing you said, and that was your comment 'that Labor is more ethical on social issues'.

I called you on it citing their bad present record.
You cited the origins of Labor from 100 years ago.

I called you on being out of date and a dinosaur.
You had nothing more recent to support your position.
Denis agreed that Labor's history on the subject wasn't good.

You then claimed it was an off-the cuff comment.
Apart from vehemently defending you off-the-cuff comment (odd), you then claimed it wasn't what you intended anyway.

Barry, you always were the most disingenuous poster on the board, and it's as ugly now as it was when I first noticed it.

The only thing we're waiting on is if for you to substantiate your original claim.

Rincewind
30-08-2010, 10:18 PM
Remind me of one? Are you talking about 100 years ago again? You're just going round in circles and generally moving goalposts to suit.

I took issue with one thing you said, and that was your comment 'that Labor is more ethical on social issues'.

I called you on it citing their bad present record.
You cited the origins of Labor from 100 years ago.

I called you on being out of date and a dinosaur.
You had nothing more recent to support your position.
Denis agreed that Labor's history on the subject wasn't good.

You then claimed it was an off-the cuff comment.
Apart from vehemently defending you off-the-cuff comment (odd), you then claimed it wasn't what you intended anyway.

Barry, you always were the most disingenuous poster on the board, and it's as ugly now as it was when I first noticed it.

The only thing we're waiting on is if for you to substantiate your original claim.

I fear you are one of those righties who will never get a clue or a conscious. It is simply beyond you.

To set the matter straight yet again. I was correcting your silly remark regarding the growing Green voter base. Something you have never even bother to defend, instead blinkered on this ethical comment.

Again I will call you on misquoting me. If you use quotes, or italics please have the integrity to quote what I actually said and not your Blighs.

I gave you a number of issues of the left leading on ethical issues and invited you to counter with your own examples of the right doing the same. On this you have been tellingly quiet.

I would say you are one of the stupidest, pig-headed and arrogant posters on this board but that would do a disservice to Igor. So instead I will just say if you don't smarten your act up you simply aren't worth the effort of replying to.

We are all waiting for you to say something of substance rather than huff and puff and cry "moving goalposts" and "disingenuous". Now I know it is difficult for you but try to engage your brain before replying to this post.

TheJoker
30-08-2010, 10:43 PM
It seems you're supporting the notion that Labor is better on social issues on account of their fighting for workplace reforms. If so, I'll leave you to it. If you think that's the most important social issue of our time, we have no business discussing the issue with each other.

Not the most imporant social issue of our time, but the most significant in terms real policy differences between the two parties in the last decade...

Perhaps you'd care suggest some other recent social issues where there has been a real policy difference between the two parties that are in your supreme opinion more important?

TheJoker
30-08-2010, 10:49 PM
I sick of these independents thinking they've got a mandate to dictate policy after receiving a poofteenth of the national vote...

pax
31-08-2010, 12:34 AM
If read article carefully you'd notice that the author compared coverage of sex abuse by the teacher with the coverage of the sex abuse by clergy (very subdued in the case of former and blown out in the case of latter).
Right, but that has exactly zero to do with so-called "lefties" and the Labor party.

Spiny Norman
31-08-2010, 06:41 AM
I sick of these independents thinking they've got a mandate to dictate policy after receiving a poofteenth of the national vote...
You and me both. I wish they'd just decide who they like more and get on with it. I get *very* annoyed when I see there 3 people thinking they can push around parties with 72 people.

Spiny Norman
31-08-2010, 06:54 AM
The right wing "innocents" such as yourself seem not to realise what has been happening in industrial relations over recent years. Nor would they care.
I spent some months studying the impact of Work Choices within the not-for-profit sector and trained some NFPs on how to comply with the legislation. So I know more about it than the average punter ... so that refutes your "right wing innocent" labelling of me.


The trade union movement struggled for almost a century to achieve just working conditions for Australian workers which were the envy of other countries. Among these was the industrial relations arbitration system now demolished.
So your argument is, what? That because something was once fought for and built up, that it should remain forever? You need to be more specific about exactly what bits of the system were lost that should have been kept. Hint: there are bits that should have been kept; you just need to list them instead of waffling.


To refer to the Work Choices debate as a beat up is either hypocrisy or sublime ignorance to the n th degree as well as being just silly and wrong.
There was a beat up, which ran concurrently with the debate. A lot of very silly accusations were made; some of it was plain dishonest. And yes, we saw a repeat of the dishonesty in the recent election campaign. Not hypocrisy. Not ignorance. Dishonesty on the part of some unions and on the part of the Labor Party.


It is no exaggeration to say that leading Liberals like Howard, Abbott and the detestable Kevin Andrews would be very happy to see industrial relations on the same footing as it was in the 19th century.
How you keep a straight face when you make ridiculous accusations like that is quite beyond me.


Your nonsense about things being laughable (coupled with your tripe about the independents) only shows how little you understand about politics and the way in which the political system works. My practical experience in this regard both in politics and in government far outweighs yours. Just a tidbit - can you remember the 1949 federal election? :) I can.
How about you just stick to making your argument? If you're going to claim that advancing years and experience make you an arbiter to truth, you need to work a bit harder to make that argument stick. (hint: I watched Malcolm Fraser waffling away on Q&A last night ... sad really).


Really there is no point in pursuing this matter further unless you can show at least a modicum of intelligence about it.
Been overdoing it on the cranky pills have you?

Garrett
31-08-2010, 07:47 AM
You and me both. I wish they'd just decide who they like more and get on with it. I get *very* annoyed when I see there 3 people thinking they can push around parties with 72 people.

they play their cards right and they will ensure themselves re-election.

All the publicity is doing them no harm what-so-ever.

Basil
31-08-2010, 08:24 AM
Apart from developing ever-increasing concentric circles of misdirection, I remind you that this is all about your original assertion that Labor is "more ethical on social issues". You have spectacularly failed to show it so, having so far:

- tried to defend it with ancient runes
- claim it was only an off-the cuff comment
- resort to the desperate claim of my erroneous paraphrasing, which you can't milk forever

So with all of those things acknowledged, how about you return to your job at hand and show me (with a link or a restatement or a post number) how you have defended the claim.



To set the matter straight yet again. I was correcting your silly remark regarding the growing Green voter base. Something you have never even bother to defend, instead blinkered on this ethical comment.
For the umpteenth time, I've asked you to remind me what remark you were talking about. You haven't. Simply quote it for me and I'll answer it. Refer blue text above.


Again I will call you on misquoting me. If you use quotes, or italics please have the integrity to quote what I actually said and not your Blighs.
You can call me on it. I have explained that I was paraphrasing you. I will now hold you to the same standard, which you will no doubt fail, as many blow-hards such as Beaumont, Mephisto and Goughfather have done so when selectively chosing the debating high ground of standards. Refer blue text above.


I gave you a number of issues of the left leading on ethical issues
Again, I ask you to tell me what they are. You're simply reiterating that you have done something. Just reiterate the point the you have made as opposed to claiming you have done so. Refer blue text above.

Basil
31-08-2010, 08:30 AM
Hi Joker

In case you're not feeling silly for back-flipping and then not acknowledging it and/ or missing that you had done so, I have supplied our dialogue in full in relation to my claim that lefties don't bring home the social bacon (as Barry finesses 'being more ethical on social issues'). You waded in straight in with:


Hi CU

The biggest social issue of the last few years in Oz has been the right to collective bargaining
Libs removed the right to collective bargaining
Labour restored the right to collective bargaining

To which I replied:


It seems you're supporting the notion that Labor is better on social issues on account of their fighting for workplace reforms. If so, I'll leave you to it. If you think that's the most important social issue of our time, we have no business discussing the issue with each other.

To which you replied (my highlighting):

Not the most imporant social issue of our time, but the most significant in terms real policy differences between the two parties in the last decade...

Brilliant. Real policy differences??? That's not the discussion - you've just switched the topic - straight out of the Barry book of dropping the assertion like a hot potato and grappling for ever increasing concentric circles of misdirection and obfuscation. The point at hand, which is for lefties to defend, is the laughable, ancient claim of whether 'Labor is more ethical on social issues'.


Perhaps you'd care suggest some other recent social issues where there has been a real policy difference between the two parties that are in your supreme opinion more important?
No thanks, perhaps another time. That's a massive issue. I'm interested in ridiculing the rusted-on lefties' notion that they have the moral high ground on social issues right now.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:01 AM
Right, but that has exactly zero to do with so-called "lefties" and the Labor party.
Obviously not in the eyes of disillusioned life-time Labor supporter.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 10:03 AM
Apart from developing ever-increasing concentric circles of misdirection, I remind you that this is all about your original assertion that Labor is "more ethical on social issues". You have spectacularly failed to show it so, having so far:

- tried to defend it with ancient runes
- claim it was only an off-the cuff comment
- resort to the desperate claim of my erroneous paraphrasing, which you can't milk forever

Re-read post #627 and you will see that it was indeed an off the cuff comment positing one reason why some Lib voters might sway to Labor. Certainly not the main thrust of the post (which was to point out the shallowness of your argument in post #625)


So with all of those things acknowledged, how about you return to your job at hand and show me (with a link or a restatement or a post number) how you have defended the claim.

As I stated in post #636, historical lessons make the best case studies as the issues are more clearly delineated and the significance of present positions are not so easily judged in an objective way. I picked two examples from British politics if you wanted more evidence of unethical government we could look at the various travesties of the Thatcher years.


For the umpteenth time, I've asked you to remind me what remark you were talking about. You haven't. Simply quote it for me and I'll answer it. Refer blue text above.

umpteenth time? really?

I would say you have been too busy huffing and puffing and posturing like an 80's pop star to have bothered actually reading and thinking. To make it clear even for you here is the blow-by-blow.

Your post #625.
I replied quoting you and giving argument against the point you make in post #627.
Follows several posts of you being completely sidetracked on the ethical off-the-cuff remark.
Then in post #649 I try in vain to rein you in and again quote the original text from #625.

Either you haven't been reading or you are a goose. Of course those two are not mutually exclusive.


You can call me on it. I have explained that I was paraphrasing you. I will now hold you to the same standard, which you will no doubt fail, as many blow-hards such as Beaumont, Mephisto and Goughfather have done so when selectively chosing the debating high ground of standards. Refer blue text above.

Actually what happened is I called you on it as a complete fabrication and you made some denigrating remark that I was gilding a lily. If that was true you should have been able to make that point with out misrtepresenting me. Then in less than 24 hours in the same thread you misquote me again. I call you on it again and you have no defense other than, now I'll call you on it.

Given you (a) demostrated to be a repeat offended in a matter of hours and (b) had no defense other than rhetorical device, I would say you have no leg to stand on. If you do call me on it in the future I hope that I have the character to give me as many chances as I gave you.


Again, I ask you to tell me what they are. You're simply reiterating that you have done something. Just reiterate the point the you have made as opposed to claiming you have done so. Refer blue text above.

Um... Slavery and extending the franchise. At the moment you have present: zip.

I make the score 2-0 at present.

Good day.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:03 AM
And the point of this is? I personally know people who were adversely affected. Does my anecdotal evidence swing the pendulum the other way?
The point is that many people swallowed anti-liberal trade union fear campaign without subjecting it to a critical analysis.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 10:04 AM
Obviously not in the eyes of disillusioned life-time Labor supporter.

Ouch! Zing. Burn on you, Pax. :lol:

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 10:05 AM
The point is that many people swallowed anti-liberal trade union fear campaign without subjecting it to a critical analysis.

:lol: This from the guy who thought dinosaurs were overgrown lizards. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:06 AM
Brilliant. Real policy differences??? That's not the discussion - you've just switched the topic - straight out of the Barry book of dropping the assertion like a hot potato and grappling for ever increasing concentric circles of misdirection and obfuscation. The point at hand, which is for lefties to defend, is the laughable, ancient claim of whether 'Labor is more ethical on social issues'.

Howard, I wonder why do you bother with RW, his logic has more holes then swiss cheese (not surprisingly).

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:07 AM
Ouch! Zing. Burn on you, Pax. :lol:
You waddle in without having the slightest idea what we were discussing.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 10:07 AM
Howard, I wonder why do you bother with RW, his logic has more holes then swiss cheese (not surprisingly).

Did an oversized bluetongue tell you that?

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:07 AM
:lol: This from the guy who thought dinosaurs were overgrown lizards. :lol:
Another lie from RW. No wonder, though.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 10:08 AM
You waddle in without having the slightest idea what we were discussing.

Wow you refer to my mode of locomotion as a waddle. You're brave.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 10:13 AM
Another lie from RW. No wonder, though.

Um... No.

Example of Igor's uncritical analysis (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=279325&postcount=34)

:lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:26 AM
Um... No.

Example of Igor's uncritical analysis (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=279325&postcount=34)

:lol:
You have a well deserved reputation for trolling the threads with irrelevant stuff.
FYI - listing the hypothesis and outlining the possibilities of the hypothesis to be valid is not the same as endorsing it.
Flatly refusing to consider any hypothesis outside of comfort zone is an example of uncritical analysis.
If you want to continue irrelevant dribble - post it in the relevant thread (or create a new one). It will still be a dribble , though.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:28 AM
Not for the guy who thought that summary dismissal on racist grounds was absolutely fine.
Is it just your racist interpretation?

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 10:35 AM
Back to the topic (after all RW trolling).

What should be the criteria for independent to support Labor or Liberal?
I don't think that either primary vote, or 2PP, or even number of seats should be relevant to their decision. After all, they are independent and must express the wishes of their electorates.
For that, they can use three criteria:
1. If they distributed how-to-vote cards, who did they preference? (after all it somehow expresses their position)
2. What was 2PP (Labor vs Coalition) vote in their seat?
3. Among voters who gave independent their primary vote, what was the preference between Labor and Coalition.

I know answer to all 3 questions in case of Bandt, so he clearly must support ALP. In case of four others I can guess (but not sure), about 2PP. Have no idea whether they had how-to-vote cards and how they allocated preferences.

Desmond
31-08-2010, 10:35 AM
The point is that many people swallowed anti-liberal trade union fear campaign without subjecting it to a critical analysis.If that was your point then it was not well made with the anecdotal evidence of acquaintances of an acquaintance of an acquaintance of yours.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2010, 11:03 AM
Wow you refer to my mode of locomotion as a waddle. You're brave.
I doubt it. I thought it was totally figurative, much like "wade in". Nothing physical came to mind (I haven't the slightest idea what you look like or your mode of locomotion FWIW).

Desmond
31-08-2010, 11:05 AM
Back to the topic (after all RW trolling).

What should be the criteria for independent to support Labor or Liberal?
I don't think that either primary vote, or 2PP, or even number of seats should be relevant to their decision. After all, they are independent and must express the wishes of their electorates.
For that, they can use three criteria:
1. If they distributed how-to-vote cards, who did they preference? (after all it somehow expresses their position)
2. What was 2PP (Labor vs Coalition) vote in their seat?
3. Among voters who gave independent their primary vote, what was the preference between Labor and Coalition.

I know answer to all 3 questions in case of Bandt, so he clearly must support ALP. In case of four others I can guess (but not sure), about 2PP. Have no idea whether they had how-to-vote cards and how they allocated preferences.I don't consider any of those 3 criteria to be all that important. For one thing, the how-to-vote cards might just be tactical and not express their position. All the major parties might not even contest some seats.

Their primary objective is who can form a stable government. Not only is this in the national interest but also in the independents' best interests. A quick return to the polls could see some of them lose next time around.

TheJoker
31-08-2010, 12:25 PM
Hi Joker

In case you're not feeling silly for back-flipping and then not acknowledging it and/ or missing that you had done so, I have supplied our dialogue in full in relation.

All I can say is learn to read in context; the context of the discussion was social policy issues in the last few years in which Labour "brought home the bacon" relative to the Libs. So when I said it was the biggest social issue of the last few years it was meant in that context. I'll admit my initial statement was not clear about the context hence the clarification, I simply took it for granted that you had the brains to figure it out, my mistake.

Regardless, point stands that returining the right to collective bargaining is an example of Labour bringing home the bacon. Unless you doubt that the right to collective bargaining has significant long-term impact on the living standards of low income workers?

TheJoker
31-08-2010, 12:31 PM
If that was your point then it was not well made with the anecdotal evidence of acquaintances of an acquaintance of an acquaintance of yours.

It's rather ironic isn't it

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 12:49 PM
You have a well deserved reputation for trolling the threads with irrelevant stuff.
FYI - listing the hypothesis and outlining the possibilities of the hypothesis to be valid is not the same as endorsing it.
Flatly refusing to consider any hypothesis outside of comfort zone is an example of uncritical analysis.
If you want to continue irrelevant dribble - post it in the relevant thread (or create a new one). It will still be a dribble , though.

Hardly irrelevant when you are claiming that those accepting that Work Choices protect jobs are being uncritical you bring into question your own rather dismal record on anything approaching critical thought.

The link was necessary as you claimed I was lying and I clearly was not. Any sensible person with an education and some semblance of critical analysis would see they hypothesis of dinosaurs being overgrown lizards as farcical. The fact you described it as "an interesting hypothesis" speaks volumes.

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2010, 12:49 PM
What should be the criteria for independent to support Labor or Liberal?
I don't think that either primary vote, or 2PP, or even number of seats should be relevant to their decision. After all, they are independent and must express the wishes of their electorates.
For that, they can use three criteria:

I don't agree with these criteria as necessarily conclusive from any viewpoint other than self-preservation. After all if an independent is elected to pursue particular issues and they can best do so by aligning with a party that was not the next choice of their supporters, is that necessarily the wrong thing for them to do?

Also, in electorates where there is an Independent, it is common for one major party or another to "run dead", ie make no real effort to get votes so that the Independent will win rather than the opposing major party winning. Labor ran dead in Lyne and the Liberals probably did the same in Melbourne.

I can however (approximately) give the stats you mention in the case of Wilkie because I have studied that case closely:


1. If they distributed how-to-vote cards, who did they preference? (after all it somehow expresses their position)

Wilkie issued an open ticket and explicitly refused to endorse or preference any other party, saying it would compromise his independence to do so.


2. What was 2PP (Labor vs Coalition) vote in their seat?

About 66-34. We don't know exactly because the 2PP count was suspended before postal votes could be included in it.


3. Among voters who gave independent their primary vote, what was the preference between Labor and Coalition.

About 60:40 to 65:35. Not possible to determine exactly on the data available but would have been somewhere in that range.

Curiously in the state election I believe those who voted 1 Wilkie would have preferenced the Coalition by about 55:45. In the state election he mostly took votes from the Libs and Greens. This time he took them from Labor as well.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 01:08 PM
I doubt it. I thought it was totally figurative, much like "wade in". Nothing physical came to mind (I haven't the slightest idea what you look like or your mode of locomotion FWIW).

Talk about an Igor apologist. Equating wade and waddle (even approximately) is to make a total bastardisation of the English language. Waddle may be defined


1. To walk with short steps that tilt the body from side to side.
2. To walk heavily and clumsily with a pronounced sway.

The key feature is that the body rocks from side to side with the gait and therefore it is not a word that lends itself to figurative use.

Now I assume Igor simply meant to use "wade" but just confused the words. If so, apology accepted.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2010, 01:37 PM
Regardless, point stands that returining the right to collective bargaining is an example of Labour bringing home the bacon. Unless you doubt that the right to collective bargaining has significant long-term impact on the living standards of low income workers?
Impact is right: denying them jobs. Look at the way Gillardova forced teens out of after-school jobs that were for less than 2 hours. Other employers won't hire because they can't take the risk that they will be unable to fire.

Unions are often legalized gangs of thugs. Thatcher did a great thing for the UK in breaking their power.

The real source of improvement in employee conditions is the improved productivity. The conditions were horrid in Dickensian times because the productivity was very low--but still better than the countryside they escaped from.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2010, 01:48 PM
Talk about an Igor apologist. Equating wade and waddle (even approximately) is to make a total bastardisation of the English language. Waddle may be defined ..
I know their primary meanings, but in context, neither wade nor waddle would be meant in the primary sense. I have no idea how you walk, nor is it relevant to the matter at hand, and nor did it even cross my mind until you brought it up.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 01:49 PM
Waddle may be defined


1. To walk with short steps that tilt the body from side to side.
2. To walk heavily and clumsily with a pronounced sway.

Which reflects precisely your intellectual efforts and ability to think, so "waddle" is correct word.

Igor_Goldenberg
31-08-2010, 02:02 PM
I don't agree with these criteria as necessarily conclusive from any viewpoint other than self-preservation. After all if an independent is elected to pursue particular issues and they can best do so by aligning with a party that was not the next choice of their supporters, is that necessarily the wrong thing for them to do?
I agree that they should try and get the best deal for their constituency. While guessing their preferences is not the only issue, they should weight it carefully. Self-preservation also includes carrying out the will of the voters who put those Independent into Parliament.


Also, in electorates where there is an Independent, it is common for one major party or another to "run dead", ie make no real effort to get votes so that the Independent will win rather than the opposing major party winning. Labor ran dead in Lyne and the Liberals probably did the same in Melbourne.
If a major party "runs dead" in the electorate, they have no moral claim for support from this electorate. I have no problem with Bandt supporting Labor, he would do his electorate disservice by not endorsing ALP.


I can however (approximately) give the stats you mention in the case of Wilkie because I have studied that case closely:

Wilkie issued an open ticket and explicitly refused to endorse or preference any other party, saying it would compromise his independence to do so.

About 66-34. We don't know exactly because the 2PP count was suspended before postal votes could be included in it.

About 60:40 to 65:35. Not possible to determine exactly on the data available but would have been somewhere in that range.

I expected higher ALP vote in Wilkie case. If he put Labor higher on the how-to-vote card he'd me morally obliged to support ALP (like Bandt).
Given that he issued an open ticket, he has some leeway but I still expect him to support Labor government (because that's what voters would prefer).

In case of rural independents I don't know if they had a how-to-vote card. The votes are expected to split heavily in Coalition favour.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 02:07 PM
Which reflects precisely your intellectual efforts and ability to think, so "waddle" is correct word.

What twaddle.

Your lack of aptitude for anything approaching English is well documented. However, if waddle is a perfectly acceptable "figurative" term, then you won't mind me using it to describe your own intellectually bankrupt efforts. All of your posts look like they would definitely break into a sweat when running for the bus, as it were.

Can I suggest that you (figuratively) waddle off and talk about something you have some idea about.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2010, 02:15 PM
And the point of this is? I personally know people who were adversely affected. Does my anecdotal evidence swing the pendulum the other way?
I personally know people whose small businesses fell through because the pre-Howard workplace rules made it so hard to let go of staff.

Desmond
31-08-2010, 03:14 PM
I personally know people whose small businesses fell through because the pre-Howard workplace rules made it so hard to let go of staff.
OK I give up. You and Igor's mate's mate's buddies v me is 2 v 1. Youse must be right.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 03:24 PM
OK I give up. You and Igor's mate's mate's buddies v me is 2 v 1. Youse must be right.

I wouldn't be so despondent. The abolition of the Howard Work Choices legislation was major part of the 2007 election campaign which Rudd won at a canter and delivered on quickly. The electorate has spoken and Work Choices are history.

Regardless of how many mates, mates businesses fell through because they couldn't sack employees for unfair reasons.

Capablanca-Fan
31-08-2010, 03:27 PM
OK I give up. You and Igor's mate's mate's buddies v me is 2 v 1. Youse must be right.
Well, at the very least it shows that the evidence that Work Choices is bad is equivocal.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 04:12 PM
Well, at the very least it shows that the evidence that Work Choices is bad is equivocal.

Not in the minds of the wider Australian public who voted overwhelmingly to remove it.

Spiny Norman
31-08-2010, 05:57 PM
Not in the minds of the wider Australian public who voted overwhelmingly to remove it.
53:47 ... a decent majority ... hardly "overwhelming" (but perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder).

Love the use of the word "wider" (which perhaps seeks to contrast with the "obviously" narrow point of view of the 47%).

Never mind that a substantial chunk of the arguments put forward at the time were either (a) downright false; or (b) laughable misrepresentations of the facts.

But it servers to show that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time (perhaps, in the case of many unionists, all of the time).

FWIW, when I took my semi-government role (n.b. in a Labor state) a couple of years ago, I was placed on a "management contract" so that I could be paid what I was worth ... never mind that I wasn't management ... so the idea that Gillard's new laws and/or Labor's rules here in VIC somehow are "better for all workers" (which is a claim that I have heard elsewhere, though not repeated here to my knowledge) are just plain false.

They are good for some workers, bad for others ... just as Work Choices was good for some workers (e.g. me, and many people I know personally, such as pastors of churches) and it was bad for others.

The bad thing about Work Choices is that it was claimed at the time by the Libs that nobody would be worse off ... that was a silly claim and palpably false ... but that's a whole other discussion I think.

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 07:00 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/results/sidebar/labor-72_coalition-73_b.png

I love this graphic. One wonders if the Crook is the one pictured. :P

Rincewind
31-08-2010, 07:02 PM
53:47 ... a decent majority ... hardly "overwhelming" (but perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder).

I have heard the defeat described with many superlatives and in any objective measure the Coalition were tossed out on their ear. Thanks the ACTU campaign Work Choices was a big issue and so you could hardly say the Australia stood by Howard on that one.


Love the use of the word "wider" (which perhaps seeks to contrast with the "obviously" narrow point of view of the 47%).

No. I meant wider than Jono's friend and Igor's mate's mate's mate.

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2010, 07:13 PM
53:47 ... a decent majority ... hardly "overwhelming" (but perhaps that is in the eye of the beholder).

Not sure how usable the 2PP vote is in this context - eg was a 1 Green 2 Liberal vote in 2007 a vote for Workchoices or against it?

Spiny Norman
31-08-2010, 07:14 PM
No. I meant wider than Jono's friend and Igor's mate's mate's mate.
I have been wider, but have lost 4.5kgs since June!

Kevin Bonham
31-08-2010, 08:02 PM
My view of the current situation is that neither party can guarantee stable government, but one or the other will have to try anyway. Counting Bandt for Labor and Crook for the Coalition, there's four still to decide, and neither party can get above 77 which is only a majority of 2. Some Coalition MPs face potential legal challenges and whoever governs will be prone to by-elections. Both parties have ex-leaders and they can be unreliable creatures (we already have one case in Australian history of a resentful ex-PM, Billy Hughes, bringing down his own party's government.) I'd ignore anything the parties are saying about their ability to guarantee stable government because it's probably optimistic whichever one it comes from.

pax
01-09-2010, 02:38 AM
Obviously not in the eyes of disillusioned life-time Labor supporter.
Who is that?

If you mean the author of the article, it's pretty plain he never supported Labor. Not since the '70s at least.

pax
01-09-2010, 02:42 AM
I expected higher ALP vote in Wilkie case. If he put Labor higher on the how-to-vote card he'd me morally obliged to support ALP (like Bandt).

What a ridiculous notion this is. You might as well make membership of one of the major parties compulsory.

Incidentally, does anyone know what Windsor Oakeshott and Katter put on their how-to-vote? I'd be very surprised if the National Party was high on their lists.

Capablanca-Fan
01-09-2010, 08:16 AM
I think Spiny had a point above about the major parties preferencing each other. After all, about 80% of the population voted for the majors. All the same, some of the minor parties like the LDP have some great ideas. But those egotistical pork-barrelling "independents" are fleas wagging the tail wagging the dog.

Desmond
01-09-2010, 09:04 AM
I think Spiny had a point above about the major parties preferencing each other. After all, about 80% of the population voted for the majors. If that was an important factor you could just as easily argue that only 80% of members should be from those parties. Clearly that is not how it works.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 09:52 AM
What a ridiculous notion this is. You might as well make membership of one of the major parties compulsory.
If Wilkie puts Labor higher on his how-to-vote card, it says he prefers Labor.
Bandt put Labor on his how-to-vote card, so now he supports Labor.
What's ridiculous about it?

Aaron Guthrie
01-09-2010, 02:33 PM
Back to the topic (after all RW trolling).

What should be the criteria for independent to support Labor or Liberal?
I don't think that either primary vote, or 2PP, or even number of seats should be relevant to their decision. After all, they are independent and must express the wishes of their electorates.
For that, they can use three criteria:
1. If they distributed how-to-vote cards, who did they preference? (after all it somehow expresses their position)
2. What was 2PP (Labor vs Coalition) vote in their seat?
3. Among voters who gave independent their primary vote, what was the preference between Labor and Coalition.

I know answer to all 3 questions in case of Bandt, so he clearly must support ALP.Bandt said who he would support before the election.

Desmond
01-09-2010, 02:47 PM
If Wilkie puts Labor higher on his how-to-vote card, it says he prefers Labor. Could just mean that you can't put them both dead last.

pappubahry
01-09-2010, 02:58 PM
Could just mean that you can't put them both dead last.
You don't have to direct preferences. Or you can give two options.

Desmond
01-09-2010, 03:01 PM
You don't have to direct preferences. Or you can give two options.If you choose not to direct preferences does that run the risk of people not voting formally?

pappubahry
01-09-2010, 03:08 PM
If you choose not to direct preferences does that run the risk of people not voting formally?
I suppose so, but there are HTV's that roughly say "vote 1 for us and number the rest of the boxes however you like". In Tassie everyone seems pretty knowledgeable about voting though (they don't even have how-to-votes in state elections I think; Kevin could confirm this).

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 03:56 PM
Could just mean that you can't put them both dead last.
OK I accept this point.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-09-2010, 04:04 PM
My view of the current situation is that neither party can guarantee stable government, but one or the other will have to try anyway. Counting Bandt for Labor and Crook for the Coalition, there's four still to decide, and neither party can get above 77 which is only a majority of 2. Some Coalition MPs face potential legal challenges and whoever governs will be prone to by-elections. Both parties have ex-leaders and they can be unreliable creatures (we already have one case in Australian history of a resentful ex-PM, Billy Hughes, bringing down his own party's government.) I'd ignore anything the parties are saying about their ability to guarantee stable government because it's probably optimistic whichever one it comes from.
Ex-leaders is always a potential problem. However, Turnbull's behaviour was remarkably good in the last six months (especially in comparison to Rudd). He might still serve as a senior minister (like Downer did).
Rudd is a much more complicated case. Giving him a senior ministerial post could be a disaster. Not giving one could also be a disaster (and a by-election that Labor might lose).
Legal challenge from Labor is to buy some time only to prevent parliament being convened earlier (thus delaying no-confidence vote).

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2010, 04:30 PM
Legal challenge from Labor is to buy some time only to prevent parliament being convened earlier (thus delaying no-confidence vote).

As far as I know this isn't correct. Legal challenges to the Court of Disputed Returns do not obstruct the convening of parliament. The member who is supposedly wrongly elected sits until disqualified by the court.

A famous example is the Mundingburra case in Queensland. The election was held in July 1995 and the incumbent won by 16 votes. Various breaches of the Electoral Act were alleged and dismissed, but because 22 votes from military personnel serving overseas arrived too late to be counted, and could have swung the result, the result was declared void and a by-election held. However, this decision was not delivered until December, and in the meantime the elected member was retained (and even served as a minister.)

pax
01-09-2010, 09:23 PM
If Wilkie puts Labor higher on his how-to-vote card, it says he prefers Labor.

Does it? More likely it's a judged decision that he thinks Labor will finish third and if he does a preference swap he can get elected. Maybe he also prefers Labor, but that is a much smaller consideration in a campaign.

A decision on where to send inconsequential preferences (e.g whether Windsor preferenced Labor or Liberal) is completely different to deciding who is going to govern the country.

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2010, 10:34 PM
If you choose not to direct preferences does that run the risk of people not voting formally?

Yes. The Greens suffered from this in some of the electorates where they did not direct preferences. Some of their HTV cards in such electorates were badly designed with just a 1 in the Greens box and ?s in other boxes, and some guff about preferencing on the back. A small minority of voters then just voted 1 Greens with no other preferences and their vote was informal. Especially in the states that have optional prefs in state polls, you really have to scream from the rooftops that the voter must fill in all the squares when you are doing an open ticket.

Rincewind
01-09-2010, 10:41 PM
Yes. The Greens suffered from this in some of the electorates where they did not direct preferences. Some of their HTV cards in such electorates were badly designed with just a 1 in the Greens box and ?s in other boxes, and some guff about preferencing on the back. A small minority of voters then just voted 1 Greens with no other preferences and their vote was informal. Especially in the states that have optional prefs in state polls, you really have to scream from the rooftops that the voter must fill in all the squares when you are doing an open ticket.

Did anyone write in the question marks?

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2010, 10:59 PM
I suppose so, but there are HTV's that roughly say "vote 1 for us and number the rest of the boxes however you like". In Tassie everyone seems pretty knowledgeable about voting though (they don't even have how-to-votes in state elections I think; Kevin could confirm this).

Correct. Handing out HTVs in state elections here is banned. You can put them out in advance of the election but (i) no-one will care (ii) if you name another candidate without their consent in such material, you're nicked. (It's not pretty if that happens. Former state Lib Brett Whiteley was once found guilty of this because he circulated a card recommending that Lib voters put the Libs in his electorate in a particular order. Had he been elected by less of a margin he would have lost his seat over it.)

Tasmanian voters are very well used to switching from one peculiar electoral system to another and tend to be well informed about preferencing. But I wouldn't say everyone here is knowledgeable, just a higher proportion!

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2010, 11:01 PM
Did anyone write in the question marks?

I hope so. If I was scrutineering I would have been disappointed not to see any like that.

I'm very fond of silly informal (or facetiously formal) votes by smart-alecks. They provide great entertainment for polling officials and scrutineers alike.

pappubahry
01-09-2010, 11:36 PM
I'm very fond of silly informal (or facetiously formal) votes by smart-alecks.
:hmm: You can't say something like this and not give an example of a facetiously formal vote!

Kevin Bonham
01-09-2010, 11:46 PM
:hmm: You can't say something like this and not give an example of a facetiously formal vote!

The Tasmanian Legislative Council has a strange preferencing requirement. It is single-member, just like the House of Reps, but you have to vote from 1 to 3 (except in a two candidate race of course!) and then you can stop if you want to. So in effect, full preferencing is compulsory if there are four or less candidates, but preferencing is semi-optional if there are five or more.

I scrutineered a Legislative Council election with eleven candidates. A smart-aleck cast a modified donkey vote by filling the eleven boxes down the page with the following numbers:

1
2
3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80

Electoral Office ruling: formal for places 1 to 3. Then exhausts.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 09:18 AM
Coalition has exceeded 50% 2PP by whooping 0.03% margin. But I heard on the grapevine that postal votes from Antarctica, strongly favouring ALP, arrived and Labor is on the way to obtain a decisive majority of 50.0001% nation wide two party preferred votes.

Desmond
02-09-2010, 10:04 AM
But how relevant is the 2PP vote anyway when the candidate is not from the majors? Take Kennedy, where ex-National Katter holds the seat so comfortably that the Nationals don't even bother fielding anyone against him.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 11:18 AM
But how relevant is the 2PP vote anyway when the candidate is not from the majors? Take Kennedy, where ex-National Katter holds the seat so comfortably that the Nationals don't even bother fielding anyone against him.
I think I answered it in a different thread, 2PP is only relevant for predicting likely outcome (with large margin of error).
It does not stop major parties claiming legitimacy when they have higher 2PP but fail to win majority. Except Gillard made a fool of herself by grandstanding.

Desmond
02-09-2010, 11:47 AM
I think I answered it in a different thread, 2PP is only relevant for predicting likely outcome (with large margin of error).
It does not stop major parties claiming legitimacy when they have higher 2PP but fail to win majority. Except Gillard made a fool of herself by grandstanding.
Fair enough but what I am saying is that perhaps the 2PP vote based on 142 seats is a better indication than 2PP based on 150 seats.

george
02-09-2010, 12:03 PM
hi all,

Tony Windsor and other independents now have extreme reservation on coalition after Henry found a 9 billion dollar blackhole in coalitions costings.

After analysis it was found labor figures "about right" quote from Windsor but Coalition figures 9 billion out. Windsor now says "he knows why Abbott didnt want to put his figures up for analysis" and says this goes to the major issue of trust.

Interesting times we live in. The phrase "own goal" comes to mind.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 12:18 PM
Libs are now arguing with Treasury about assumptions/interest rates used.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 03:54 PM
Because, apart from the chest heaving from Katter and the naive curiosity towards life from Oakeshott, these three amigos know deep down, or will realise shortly, that should they align with Labor, they themselves will be arseholed at the next election, and only after having their electorate stood at their door berating them until that election.

I think this only holds for Katter. Although Lyne is a conservative seat, Oakeshott's voterbase is roughly equally ex-Labor and ex-Coalition. Windsor's voters are more likely to be more interested in the end (in terms of outcome for the electorate) than the means.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 04:25 PM
Wilkie has declared that he will support a Gillard Labor government on supply and that he will not vote in favour of unnecessary or silly no-confidence motions. (This is actually much more guarded than the usual no-confidence agreement which limits support for no-confidence motions to matters of gross maladministration or corruption.) He will not offer support for legislation and has also said that if Abbott gets the numbers to become PM he will not obstruct Abbott.

Concessions obtained by Wilkie included:

* $340 million to revamp Royal Hobart Hospital
* $1.8 billion of competitive health funding brought forward, with a preferred emphasis on rural/regional areas
* Poker machine precommitment technology so the user has to identify themselves and can have their losses limited if they are a problem gambler.

Wilkie said that Abbott had offered him $1 billion to rebuild RHH but he rejected it because he considered it unethical to just grab money for his electorate.

I was quite impressed with Wilkie's speech announcing his decisions though I do wonder if he put a little too much pressure on the other independents to agree with him in a way that may discourage them from doing so.

Oepty
02-09-2010, 04:33 PM
Wilkie has declared that he will support a Gillard Labor government on supply and that he will not vote in favour of unnecessary or silly no-confidence motions. (This is actually much more guarded than the usual no-confidence agreement which limits support for no-confidence motions to matters of gross maladministration or corruption.) He will not offer support for legislation and has also said that if Abbott gets the numbers to become PM he will not obstruct Abbott.

Concessions obtained by Wilkie included:

* $315 million to revamp Royal Hobart Hospital
* $1.8 billion of competitive health funding brought forward, with a preferred emphasis on rural/regional areas
* Poker machine precommitment technology so the user has to identify themselves and can have their losses limited if they are a problem gambler.

Wilkie said that Abbott had offered him $1 billion to rebuild RHH but he rejected it because he considered it unethical to just grab money for his electorate.

I was quite impressed with Wilkie's speech announcing his decisions though I do wonder if he put a little too much pressure on the other independents to agree with him in a way that may discourage them from doing so.

Wilkie seemed to say he would support no confidence in the government by moving or seconding the motion himself. He also said that it would only occur in cases of illegal or severely unethical actions of the government. He used the example of the Howard governments decision to be part of the war in Iraq.
Scott

Oepty
02-09-2010, 04:36 PM
I think Gillard is saying the 340 million for Royal Hobart is coming from the 1.8 Billion spending. 100 million straight away and the rest upon approval of Royal Hobart development proposal.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 04:41 PM
I think Gillard is saying the 340 million for Royal Hobart is coming from the 1.8 Billion spending. 100 million straight away and the rest upon approval of Royal Hobart development proposal.

Yes, that is what I hear too.

Oepty
02-09-2010, 04:43 PM
Gillard saying 100 million available because their costing were under by more than that, so they had more available to spend. The rest of the 340 million to come if the Royal Hobart hosipital meets the criteria, against other applications from other hospitals. Federal government to help with the Royal Hobart application to make sure it meets the criteria. Rather odd way of doing things in my view.

Also very odd is Abbott throwing 1 billion dollars at a 595 million dollar project.

Scott

Rincewind
02-09-2010, 05:51 PM
So will we have a ALP minority government sometime soon? I get the feeling Windsor is not feeling predisposed to the Coalition and as I understand it unless Abbott can get all three amigos he can't get the numbers.

Oepty
02-09-2010, 06:05 PM
In the SA senate race the 6th spot appears highly likely to go to Bob Day of Family First. He was initially well behind the Liberals but has gained ground steadly and has now hit the lead. He would join 2 Labor, 2 Liberals and 1 Green from SA. The second time in a row 2 seats have gone to non major party candidates. Last time it was NIck Xenophon and the Greens Sarah Hanson-Young.
Scott

Oepty
02-09-2010, 06:07 PM
So will we have a ALP minority government sometime soon? I get the feeling Windsor is not feeling predisposed to the Coalition and as I understand it unless Abbott can get all three amigos he can't get the numbers.

75:75 is still quite likely in my opinion, the three independents could quite easily go different ways. What fun that is going to be.
Scott

Rincewind
02-09-2010, 06:41 PM
75:75 is still quite likely in my opinion, the three independents could quite easily go different ways. What fun that is going to be.
Scott

Yes that is still a possibility for sure but I think ALP could get Windsor and Oakeshott scraping over the line and if so Katter would be irrelevant.

I think odds favour ALP then 75-all then LNP government as the least likely scenario.

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 08:24 PM
75:75 is still quite likely in my opinion, the three independents could quite easily go different ways. What fun that is going to be.
Scott
Betting went strongly ALP way. Given Windsor reaction to Treasury costing it's likely he is going to use it as a base for supporting Labor. Oakeshott will then a perfect excuse (for his voters) to support ALP for the sake of stability.

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 10:14 PM
In the SA senate race the 6th spot appears highly likely to go to Bob Day of Family First. He was initially well behind the Liberals but has gained ground steadly and has now hit the lead.

Very interesting. Antony's senate projections should always be treated with a little bit of caution as they assume a 100% preference hold on below-the-lines. While the Liberal is theoretically about twice as exposed to losing votes to below-the-line leakage in this case, some of the FF ticket votes come from odd places, so on current figures it is no sure thing. But if the trends in counting continue to favour Day it may become one.

What I notice is that FF are in fact improving their position as both postals and absents are added at the moment.

Oepty
02-09-2010, 10:28 PM
If a vote is tied on the floor of parliment, then the speaker gets a vote. Can the speaker abstain from voting? What happens if the speaker does?
Scott

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2010, 10:35 PM
If a vote is tied on the floor of parliment, then the speaker gets a vote. Can the speaker abstain from voting? What happens if the speaker does?
Scott

Well this usually doesn't come up unless someone else abstains or is absent, because the parliament is 150 including the Speaker, so if the Speaker did abstain the motion would be won 75-74 (at the closest) by one side or the other. The Speaker does not have a casting vote additionally to their own vote, but has a casting vote after all others have voted, if that vote can change the outcome.

I am unsure if the Speaker can abstain on votes since the normal way of abstaining is by simply by being absent from the chamber. But in any case whether the Speaker can abstain or not, if the final tally including the Speaker's vote is a tie then the motion is lost.

Oepty
02-09-2010, 11:39 PM
Well this usually doesn't come up unless someone else abstains or is absent, because the parliament is 150 including the Speaker, so if the Speaker did abstain the motion would be won 75-74 (at the closest) by one side or the other. The Speaker does not have a casting vote additionally to their own vote, but has a casting vote after all others have voted, if that vote can change the outcome.

Aware of all of that, but there has been talk of perhaps the independents abstaining from no confidence motions. If one of them was the speaker then they might want to abstain.



I am unsure if the Speaker can abstain on votes since the normal way of abstaining is by simply by being absent from the chamber. But in any case whether the Speaker can abstain or not, if the final tally including the Speaker's vote is a tie then the motion is lost.

I thought you could stand in the crossbenches during a divison to abstain.
Thanks
Scott

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2010, 01:11 PM
I thought you could stand in the crossbenches during a divison to abstain.

Maybe you can do that in federal parliament. I know that in Tasmanian state parliament there is no mechanism for abstaining except for simply not being in the chamber.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2010, 01:25 PM
Found this re the Senate:


The procedures do not allow for senators formally to record an abstention from voting. All
senators who are on the floor of the chamber when the count is begun must vote with the ayes or
the noes, except the senator in the chair (SO 101(5)). Senators who wish to abstain in a vote can
do so only by absenting themselves from the floor of the chamber. If a senator is absent during a
division, it is therefore not possible to tell from the record of voting alone whether the senator
has deliberately abstained from voting or has simply been absent. It is of course open to senators
to declare an intention to abstain from voting during debate on a motion or otherwise to make
their abstention known.

An exception to the rule that a senator who is present in the chamber must vote is made for the
President in the Senate and the Chair of Committees in the chair of the committee of the whole,
and in practice for any senator who occupies the chair at the time of a division (SO 101(5); see
Chapter 5, Officers of the Senate: Parliamentary Administration). The rationale of this exception
is that the senator in the chair cannot avoid voting by leaving the chamber as can other senators.
In practice, the President and other senators in the chair normally vote in a division. They do so
by indicating whether they are voting with the ayes or the noes (SO 99(2)).

Source http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/pubs/odgers/pdf/chap11.pdf

Expect it could be the same for the House but will see what I can find.