PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Oepty
03-09-2010, 01:31 PM
Wow, thanks Kevin, I didn't mean to put you to work, but it appears if the house is the same as the senate I was wrong. I may have even picked it up from America or some other parliment or just imagined it.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2010, 01:44 PM
Wow, thanks Kevin, I didn't mean to put you to work, but it appears if the house is the same as the senate I was wrong. I may have even picked it up from America or some other parliment or just imagined it.


Actually it's the sort of thing it's useful for me to know for sure in the present circumstances, so it's good to have to get it sorted out.

Arrangements vary in different parliaments around the world. In the last US presidential election, there were a fair few comments about how Obama had a habit of voting "present" in the Illinois legislature. Voting "present" in that legislature is a fairly commonly used option that basically means you abstain but want it noted that you were there. Australian parliaments don't have this option.

In any case, it looks like whoever is chairing the Senate can abstain, so most likely there is some mechanism to allow the Lower House speaker to do likewise.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-09-2010, 02:06 PM
In any case, it looks like whoever is chairing the Senate can abstain, so most likely there is some mechanism to allow the Lower House speaker to do likewise.
Isn't speaker only voting in case of divided house?

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2010, 02:33 PM
Isn't speaker only voting in case of divided house?

Correct; the question is whether the speaker has to vote in such a case or can just leave the motion tied.

Actually it makes no difference, since presumably even if the speaker can abstain in such a case then the tied motion would be lost. So an abstention would be the same as a vote against.

Rincewind
03-09-2010, 03:07 PM
Correct; the question is whether the speaker has to vote in such a case or can just leave the motion tied.

Actually it makes no difference, since presumably even if the speaker can abstain in such a case then the tied motion would be lost. So an abstention would be the same as a vote against.

I guess it is a matter of timing. If the speaker abstains when the vote is already divided then it is equivalent to a vote against. If the speaker notifies that they will abstain in the case of a tied vote (but without knowing that is may be tied) then it is more like a normal abstention and so perhaps not precisely equivalent.

In the usual run of things, the speaker is effectively appointed by the government and would normal vote with the government on their legislation and so it is academic except in cases of conscious votes or if the government is short on numbers due to some absent members.

Oepty
03-09-2010, 03:23 PM
I guess it is a matter of timing. If the speaker abstains when the vote is already divided then it is equivalent to a vote against. If the speaker notifies that they will abstain in the case of a tied vote (but without knowing that is may be tied) then it is more like a normal abstention and so perhaps not precisely equivalent.

In the usual run of things, the speaker is effectively appointed by the government and would normal vote with the government on their legislation and so it is academic except in cases of conscious votes or if the government is short on numbers due to some absent members.

This is not usual circumstances. Maybe an independent could take the speakership without saying they will support the government on anything. So if the government can't get enough votes on the floor they risk losing. Would be great fun, but if a government MP missed a vote and the government lost I would hate to be that MP.
Scott

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2010, 07:07 PM
What on earth does Hockey mean when he says this would be "the most centre-left government in Australian history"? Is it like he's trying to say they are the most left-wing but doesn't think anyone would believe him, so instead he wants to say they are the most left-wing, sorta, but also sorta-not? How does one measure a government's centre-leftness as opposed to its outright leftness? Seems a really odd use of words by him.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-09-2010, 08:52 PM
A disappointing performance from Hockey lately. He does not look like a good treasurer (unless standing next to Swan:D ).

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/09/02/1225913/530010-kudelka-costings.jpg

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/08/18/1225907/046382-nicolson-robb.jpg

Goughfather
04-09-2010, 03:51 PM
What on earth does Hockey mean when he says this would be "the most centre-left government in Australian history"? Is it like he's trying to say they are the most left-wing but doesn't think anyone would believe him, so instead he wants to say they are the most left-wing, sorta, but also sorta-not? How does one measure a government's centre-leftness as opposed to its outright leftness? Seems a really odd use of words by him.

I think trying to make any sense out of anything that Hockey says is a fairly fruitless endeavour. That he is currently the "Shadow Treasury Spokesman" (as opposed to the "Shadow Treasurer") shows an appalling lack of discernment from Abbott. They are really starting to pay the price for this decision.

Garvinator
05-09-2010, 01:40 AM
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=509049&articleID=1737384

Betting agency Centrebet has suspended betting on the federal election, with north Queensland independent MP Bob Katter's decision imminent.

Centrebet spokesman Neil Evans said Labor was at $1.51 and the coalition $2.50 when betting was suspended on Saturday afternoon.

'It's expected Bob Katter will side with the coalition, with New England and Lyne MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott potentially tipping the unpopular Gillard (Labor) government back into minority government,' Mr Evans said.

The odds aren't too different to those Centrebet was offering on election eve, August 20, which were $1.52 for Labor and $2.44 for the coalition.

The other independents, Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott, are expected to make their announcements on Monday or Tuesday.

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2010, 12:06 PM
If Labor does survive in minority, then even if it does go full-term I really don't like their chances at the subsequent election. Certainly in state politics, incumbent governments that lose their majority at one election generally either don't survive until the next one or else are defeated at it.

Tony Dowden
05-09-2010, 01:08 PM
:eek: I'm completely confused. Aussie politics is impenetrable :rolleyes:

Garvinator
05-09-2010, 02:25 PM
:eek: I'm completely confused. Aussie politics is impenetrable :rolleyes:What is confusing you?

Spiny Norman
05-09-2010, 06:15 PM
:eek: I'm completely confused. Aussie politics is impenetrable :rolleyes:
You think you've got problems; we have to work out who to vote for ... its a nightmare.

Kevin Bonham
05-09-2010, 10:00 PM
There is disagreement over the likely SA Senate outcome on pollbludger with one experienced observer of Senate elections calling it for Bob Day and another willing to bet up to $5000 that Bob Day does not win. (It remains to be seen if the former is interested.) My analysis suggests Day is actually very vulnerable to leakage from below-the-line votes from eliminated parties and needs to improve his position as more votes are counted to win.

Also there is still some dispute about Victoria where the DLP appear well placed but they might still miss out to McGauran (or less likely Family First).

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2010, 12:54 AM
Alex in the other place still wants to play with the big boys on this stuff despite his deleted Wilkie blunder/troll, and tried to respond to my #761 with some comments about the UK and Canada as other hung parliaments about at the moment. They're really not comparable.

The UK minority government is a minority government formed from Opposition. These actually have fairly good prospects in single-seat systems; some lose but often they go on to win bigtime at the next election.

Canada is nothing like Australia because of issues that came to the fore in the 1993 election, and are still in the system. The Progressive Conservative government completely collapsed, going from a majority to winning just two seats and suffering a 27% swing - makes NSW Labor look good! One of the new parties formed for that election was the Bloc Québécois and that party has kept winning a big pile of seats in Quebec ever since. Once the pieces of the conservative zombie reassembled (which took a few elections after the disaster) and the conservatives started winning anywhere near as many seats as the Liberals, it became very difficult for either side to win a majority because of the massive BQ presence. Hence the last three elections have been hung parliaments. Without the BQ, or if the BQ merged into one of the others, Canada would probably be like the UK (mostly majorities with a third party getting the balance of power every now and then).

It's a year for hung parliaments but in Australia we'll only need a very small swing either way at the next election before we no longer have one. UK - depends on if there is major electoral system reform.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2010, 02:55 AM
For anyone with an interest in the minutiae of the messy Denison count, or just in me splattering both Glenn Milne and the state secretary of the ALP, I have an article I've spent way too much of the past week writing up on TT here:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/election-2010-how-denison-confused-the-nation/

Oh, and for those with an interest in the accuracy or otherwise of betting outcomes, it looks like the Centrebet market successfully predicted 141/150 seats. It missed the Labor retains in Robertson and Lindsay, Labor losses to the Coalition in Forde, Bonner, Dawson, Brisbane and Longman (all Qld) and Solomon (NT), the Labor loss to Wilkie in Denison (the biggest upset with Wilkie at $17.00 in from $51.00), and Wilson Tuckey losing O'Connor to Crook. That is a poorer performance by the seat-by-seat market than in the previous two elections. As for whether the overall market was correct, we'll find out in the next few days perhaps. The line markets and total seats won markets were very close.

Garvinator
06-09-2010, 06:36 AM
One upside to the final decision being 76-74 in either direction is that there will almost certainly be no by elections during the three years, especially with the majority holder causing the by election.

Rincewind
06-09-2010, 09:26 AM
One upside to the final decision being 76-74 in either direction is that there will almost certainly be no by elections during the three years, especially with the majority holder causing the by election.

Not sure what effect the close margin will have on the frequency of by elections. Often by elections are unavoidable narrow margin or not.

Desmond
06-09-2010, 09:35 AM
For anyone with an interest in the minutiae of the messy Denison count, or just in me splattering both Glenn Milne and the state secretary of the ALP, I have an article I've spent way too much of the past week writing up on TT here:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/election-2010-how-denison-confused-the-nation/
Herding cats is a great analogy for those independents.

Goughfather
06-09-2010, 03:02 PM
Not sure what effect the close margin will have on the frequency of by elections. Often by elections are unavoidable narrow margin or not.

Sometimes unavoidable, anyway. MPs who find themselves in opposition and would retire merely for that reason may be persuaded to stay on, especially if the prospect of an early election and returning to government arises. Those who retire by way of sickness or scandals will still continue, though they may well be persuaded to be bodies in the seats until the following poll, whether they are part of the government or part of the opposition.

One thing that probably will increase exponentially, sadly, is the number of baseless no confidence motions and requests for ministers from the government to resign, regardless of who forms government.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2010, 03:46 PM
In further Senate counting in SA Bob Day of Family First is now notionally 258 votes behind the Liberal. The notional count assumes all votes are above-the-line, and as I mentioned above Day actually needs to be a long way ahead (a four figure lead required, IMO, though I am not sure exactly how large) to avoid getting done by leakage on below-the-lines. So the Libs are now again looking very good for the last seat in SA but the counting of non-ordinary votes does flow back and forth so this can still change.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2010, 05:09 PM
Interesting comment by Ted Mack (ex-North Sydney independent). He reckons it is in the indies' interest to back Labor:


"Now that sounds a bit unusual because they are sitting in National Party seats but the point is, if there is a Liberal/National government formed, then that government will do its best to get those three out of office because they think that those seats belong to them, whereas if Labor is in government, they know that they can never win those three seats so they have a vested interest in keeping those three independents in power.

"So I think those independents and their residents will get a lot more money spent on them than they would if there was a Liberal National Party government. I think that is probably the logic that they'll follow as well because they didn't come down in the last shower."

Igor_Goldenberg
06-09-2010, 06:06 PM
One upside to the final decision being 76-74 in either direction is that there will almost certainly be no by elections during the three years, especially with the majority holder causing the by election.
Except Kevin Rudd is very likely to cause by-election if his ambitions aren't met (which is most likely to be the case).

Igor_Goldenberg
06-09-2010, 06:10 PM
Interesting comment by Ted Mack (ex-North Sydney independent). He reckons it is in the indies' interest to back Labor:
I disagree. If they support Labor, Nationals will be able to mount very strong campaign against them, something like "vote for Oakeshott/Windsor/Katter is the vote for Labor " and continue it for the whole three years.
If they side with Coalition, Nationals will sit still until before the next election. Sometimes I wonder if Nationals secretly want Inds to support Labor.

Garvinator
06-09-2010, 06:18 PM
Sometimes I wonder if Nationals secretly want Inds to support Labor.I agree with this. If the inds do decide to back the Coalition and manage to extract heaps of pork and reform in return, then it will leave the Nats wondering what they are really getting for being part of the Coalition when a trio of indies can gain so much more.

Make the Nats look more irrelevant.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-09-2010, 06:49 PM
I agree with this. If the inds do decide to back the Coalition and manage to extract heaps of pork and reform in return, then it will leave the Nats wondering what they are really getting for being part of the Coalition when a trio of indies can gain so much more.

Make the Nats look more irrelevant.

One can argue that economically Nats belong to the left, probably even more then ALP (haven't looked at them closely, though, so not sure).

Igor_Goldenberg
06-09-2010, 10:32 PM
Independents asked Western Australia National MP Tony Crook to clarify his position (and Crook said he will support Abbott on supply and no confidence motion, but will sit on cross bench). It would make sense if Indies wanted to sign up with Coalition. On the other hand, they could've taken a leaf from Wilkie's book and decided to play games, but it begs a question: what for?

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2010, 11:50 PM
SA senate count bouncing about a lot; FF back "in front" now by 763 votes. They keep on adding votes in and there is a long data entry phase and then sometime in the next couple of weeks somebody pushes Da Button and the computer declares the winner.

Kevin Bonham
06-09-2010, 11:51 PM
Independents asked Western Australia National MP Tony Crook to clarify his position (and Crook said he will support Abbott on supply and no confidence motion, but will sit on cross bench). It would make sense if Indies wanted to sign up with Coalition. On the other hand, they could've taken a leaf from Wilkie's book and decided to play games, but it begs a question: what for?

They could have just been checking to see if Crook might say he would not support Abbott, since that would have made their decision a no-brainer.

Rincewind
07-09-2010, 12:01 AM
Please God can we at least try to form a government tomorrow. It's been more than two weeks now.

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2010, 04:45 AM
Maybe a Grand Coalition is what's best, as has happened in Israel. This would also be the best way of calling the bluff of the three halfwits independents.

Desmond
07-09-2010, 08:48 AM
Maybe a Grand Coalition is what's best, as has happened in Israel. This would also be the best way of calling the bluff of the three halfwits independents.
I'm sooo sick of that twit Oakshot

Capablanca-Fan
07-09-2010, 09:06 AM
One shot at real stability (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/one-shot-at-real-stability/story-e6frfig6-1225915059988)
Terry McCrann
Herald Sun, 7 September 2010

IF THE three country independents — or just two of them — choose Labor, they will be choosing anything but a middle-of-the-road 'new politics of inclusion' style of government.

They will be choosing a government with some very definite and radical policy plans that would fundamentally change Australia and risk huge amounts of taxpayer money. A government that will veer left by inclination and as hostage to the reality of the Greens.

The trio will also be opting for a strange mix of chaos and stalemate. For what’s got lost in the chatter of the past two weeks is that only a Coalition Government can actually deliver stable and functioning government over the next year.

This is because the Senate doesn’t change until July. Until then the Coalition and Family First’s Steve Fielding have the power to block legislation, with 38 of the 76 votes.

It is reasonable to expect Fielding would join with the Coalition and basic rationality in standing firm against the crazier and more irresponsible proposals from a Labor-Green government. After all he was the other big ‘hero of the hour’ on the government’s Emissions Trading Scheme insanity..

Further crucially, with anti-pokies independent Nick Xenophon, a Tony Abbott-led government would have the ability to actually get legislation through the Senate. That is something Xenophon cannot deliver on his own to Labor.

pappubahry
07-09-2010, 09:52 AM
Maybe a Grand Coalition is what's best, as has happened in Israel. This would also be the best way of calling the bluff of the three halfwits independents.
That's what Oakeshott wanted! :P

I agree with Andrew Bolt on this topic though (not often I would do so on democratic practice!) - how would voters hold a grand coalition accountable? A basic idea of the two-party system is that if the government's terrible, you vote for the other side next time. If a grand coalition's terrible, and we vote for another side, we'll just end up with another hung parliament.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-09-2010, 10:04 AM
I'm sooo sick of that twit Oakshot
Why? He is soooo progressive:D

Desmond
07-09-2010, 10:10 AM
Why? He is soooo progressive:DSorry did I say twit? I meant dickhead.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-09-2010, 10:15 AM
Sorry did I say twit? I meant dickhead.
You are moving forward;) . Not there yet.

Garvinator
07-09-2010, 10:18 AM
You are moving forward;) . Not there yet.
Please do not use moving forward in any context :eek:

Desmond
07-09-2010, 01:32 PM
Comment from "Philip" on SMH comments

Ever since I was a vigorous young teenager I’ve liked double D’s

so bring on the Double Dissolution

:lol:

Kevin Bonham
07-09-2010, 02:54 PM
Maybe a Grand Coalition is what's best, as has happened in Israel.

Grand coalitions, except where necessitated by very extreme circumstances, are death sentences for the junior party. If the government succeeds the junior party is superfluous, if the government fails the junior party is an accessory to that failure. Check out what happened to the SDP in Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_2009) the election after unwisely going into grand coalition with Merkel's Christian Democrats. Grand coalitions also lead to big surges in support level for whatever force was frozen out because the public dislike the impression of lack of choice.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-09-2010, 04:33 PM
$10bn regional package seals Labor win (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bn-regional-package-seals-labor-win/story-fn59niix-1225915420209)


JULIA Gillard has secured government with a $10 billion package for regional Australia.

The agreement reached with the two independents will include a $1.8 billion boost to the Health and Hospitals Fund earmarked for regional Australia only.

It will also include extra spending for infrastructure and education that will be contestible by regional communitues alone.

Mr Windsor said the deal was evidence that previous governments had been short-changing regional Australia.

The Prime Minister has previously confirmed she will make spending cuts to pay for any additional spendin and will hold a press conference to explain how she will fund the $10 billion package.

In other words, bigger pork won.

Desmond
07-09-2010, 04:47 PM
$10bn regional package seals Labor win (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bn-regional-package-seals-labor-win/story-fn59niix-1225915420209)


JULIA Gillard has secured government with a $10 billion package for regional Australia.

The agreement reached with the two independents will include a $1.8 billion boost to the Health and Hospitals Fund earmarked for regional Australia only.

It will also include extra spending for infrastructure and education that will be contestible by regional communitues alone.

Mr Windsor said the deal was evidence that previous governments had been short-changing regional Australia.

The Prime Minister has previously confirmed she will make spending cuts to pay for any additional spendin and will hold a press conference to explain how she will fund the $10 billion package.

In other words, bigger pork won.
They should fund it by cutting the NBN to those two electorates.

Rincewind
07-09-2010, 04:49 PM
Please God can we at least try to form a government tomorrow. It's been more than two weeks now.

Anecdotal evidence for the power of prayer?

Igor_Goldenberg
07-09-2010, 04:55 PM
They should fund it by cutting the NBN to those two electorates.
I like Bolt's idea of imposing Greens policies, but only for electoral seat of Melbourne.

Goughfather
07-09-2010, 05:25 PM
One shot at real stability (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/one-shot-at-real-stability/story-e6frfig6-1225915059988)
Terry McCrann
Herald Sun, 7 September 2010

IF THE three country independents — or just two of them — choose Labor, they will be choosing anything but a middle-of-the-road 'new politics of inclusion' style of government.

They will be choosing a government with some very definite and radical policy plans that would fundamentally change Australia and risk huge amounts of taxpayer money. A government that will veer left by inclination and as hostage to the reality of the Greens.

The trio will also be opting for a strange mix of chaos and stalemate. For what’s got lost in the chatter of the past two weeks is that only a Coalition Government can actually deliver stable and functioning government over the next year.

This is because the Senate doesn’t change until July. Until then the Coalition and Family First’s Steve Fielding have the power to block legislation, with 38 of the 76 votes.

It is reasonable to expect Fielding would join with the Coalition and basic rationality in standing firm against the crazier and more irresponsible proposals from a Labor-Green government. After all he was the other big ‘hero of the hour’ on the government’s Emissions Trading Scheme insanity..

Further crucially, with anti-pokies independent Nick Xenophon, a Tony Abbott-led government would have the ability to actually get legislation through the Senate. That is something Xenophon cannot deliver on his own to Labor.

Incoherent. Parliament may not sit until October and will retire over Christmas. Effectively, the Coalition will only have six months to attempt to push through legislation, but they will be frustrated for the following two and a half years. All Labor have to do is wait six months for the obstructionism to end before they will be able to make hay while the sun shines.

Kevin Bonham
07-09-2010, 07:22 PM
Incoherent. Parliament may not sit until October and will retire over Christmas. Effectively, the Coalition will only have six months to attempt to push through legislation, but they will be frustrated for the following two and a half years. All Labor have to do is wait six months for the obstructionism to end before they will be able to make hay while the sun shines.

Yes, this McCrann piece was rubbish. A Coalition government would have been a bizarre spectacle because it would have had only until mid-2011 to get stuff through the Senate formed by the 2007 and 2004 (!!) elections, reliant for support on a Senator who has apparently been voted out. Past that point it would have been obstructed by Labor and the Greens, and would have had to go to a double dissolution which might not have made a difference anyway, or else be a lame duck for two years.

This Labor government might not last - but on the other hand at least it has some chance of going to full term provided it is not destroyed by bad luck or internal dissent.

Incidentally the last federal government with a working majority of two (Menzies following the 1961 poll) lasted about two years before Menzies decided the slim majority was a pain in the neck and he could win a bigger one.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2010, 12:57 AM
SA Senate count bounces back again, Liberals over 2500 "ahead" now, that's looking pretty much terminal bearing in mind that FF need not to lead but to lead substantially.

DLP's John Madigan cruising in Vic, over 22K up on Libs and 6614 up on FF, both margins expanding.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2010, 01:17 AM
A note that although the result on election night has been generally expressed as 72-73-5, this (and Abbott's claim that the Coalition won more seats) is very disputable.

There is no formal Coalition agreement with the Nationals in WA and Crook has been saying he should not be included in the Coalition total. So even if he later joins the Coalition there is a fairly strong case for calling the outcome 72-72-6.

Or if you want to be really pedantic, 72-72-1-1 +4. :lol:

Garvinator
08-09-2010, 06:35 AM
"What does Autralia and McDonalds have in common? They're both run by red head clowns !

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 09:46 AM
Let's look at the behaviour of independent in terms of decency and integrity in the descending order.

1. Adam Bandt. He represent everything I despise in a politician: worst kind of watermelon, Marxist to the left of anyone I know of in Australian politics. To top it off he is a lawyer and, AFAIK, of worst ambulance chasing type.
Yet he takes the first place in terms of behaviour as he:
a. Expressed the will of his electorate that clearly would prefer Labor government.
b. Didn't drag his feet basking in the spotlight
c. Didn't try to harvest pork barrelling.

2-3. A tie between Katter and Wilkie.
Both expressed the will of their electorate. Positive behaviour ends here. Both tried to milk cash from Gillard/Abbott, both dragged their feet basking in in the spotlight. Katter did it to a higher degree. Wilkie would get second place ahead of Katter if didn't play dirty games tricking Abbott into offer Wilkie wasn't going to except anyway. He is clearly one-issue (which is seven years old and past it's due date) politician on the vendetta and ready to stoop quite low despite his moral grandstanding about ethical government.

4. Windsor
Went against clearly expressed will of his electorate. Dragged his feet trying to extract as much pork from Gillard as possible. Pretended to be indecisive despite making up his mind quite some time ago.
Reasons given for support Labor were bogus. The one of choosing Labor as they are more likely to lose election and thus less likely to go to the polls speaks for itself.
Made a lot of noise about Coalition costing mistake, yet decided to turn the blind eye to much bigger Labor costing blow-out. 43Bn NBN and 10Bn rural package hasn't been costed. Latter appeared out of nowhere and will make a significant impact on the bottom line.

5. Oakeshott
Everything said about Windsor applies to Oakeshott. On top of it his press-conference behaviour was despicable (Windsor backed Labor and then spoke about his reasons, short and to the point - even though he was wrong IMO. Oakeshott was going on an on without declaring support for almost twenty minutes with a lot of grandstanding and incoherent and irrelevant staff).
Despite talking about ethical parliament and difficulties to choose he didn't mention being offered a ministry by Gillard.


I think risk of independent loosing their seats at the next election rises in the same direction (with exception of Wilkie who might run a greater risk).

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 10:12 AM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/09/07/1225915/551230-kudelka-coin.jpg

ER
08-09-2010, 11:26 AM
Let's look at the behaviour of independent in terms of decency and integrity in the descending order.

1. Adam Bandt. He represent everything I despise in a politician: worst kind of watermelon, Marxist to the left of anyone I know of in Australian politics. To top it off he is a lawyer and, AFAIK, of worst ambulance chasing type.

Not as biased as one could have expected! :P
Didn't mention the 24 years under Communist (c'mon last 5-6 of those years were a joke) regime! :P

Garvinator
08-09-2010, 11:44 AM
5. Oakeshott
Was going on an on without declaring support for almost twenty minutes with a lot of grandstanding and incoherent and irrelevant staff).
I gave up listening after 5 minutes, good to see I did not miss anything.

With him having a say on bills, nothing will get done because he will want to chat for 30 mins before talking about anything.

Goughfather
08-09-2010, 11:51 AM
I think risk of independent loosing their seats at the next election rises in the same direction (with exception of Wilkie who might run a greater risk).

You are a little bitter and twisted, aren't you? I find your whinging quite enjoyable to witness.

For what it's worth, Katter and Windsor will romp home next time. In my opinion, Windsor acquitted himself wonderfully. I would have said the same thing even if he had sided with the Coalition. Katter's eventual logic seemed quite strange, but one must admire the way in which he fought for the interests of his electorate.

Oakeshott did seem like a bit of prima donna who enjoyed his time in the sun a little too much. Given the brevity of his tenure, he could be at risk at the next election if the Nationals run an effective campaign.

Wilkie pulled off his three-card trick seamlessly. At a time when malcontents like yourself were accusing Gillard of giving in to the whims of the independents, Abbott found himself with his pants around his ankles. Hypocritically, but nonetheless predictably, you didn't pull him up on his behaviour.

You wish to demonise Bandt simply because you disagree with his political beliefs. Your refer to your pathological hatred of lawyers and accuse him of being an ambulance chaser without the slightest of evidence. Of course, even if this were the case, the accusation is a non-sequitur and you fail to refer to Bandt's role in the process. You fail to mention that Bandt kept his word about supporting the Labor Party and did not seek favour in return. He could have played coy and named his price, but refused to do so.

In short, you really are a wretched misanthrope. Are you so unhappy with your life that you feel the need to behave in this way?

ER
08-09-2010, 12:12 PM
I gave up listening after 5 minutes,

LOL what's 5 minutes compared to the eternity of (at least) three years? Enjoy son! :P

Capablanca-Fan
08-09-2010, 01:12 PM
You are a little bitter and twisted, aren't you? I find your whinging quite enjoyable to witness.
So you're a disreputable sadist with too much time on his hands.


For what it's worth, Katter and Windsor will romp home next time. In my opinion, Windsor acquitted himself wonderfully. I would have said the same thing even if he had sided with the Coalition. Katter's eventual logic seemed quite strange, but one must admire the way in which he fought for the interests of his electorate.
At the expense of the rest of the country. A mafia don fights very well for the interests of the mob too. He will probably do OK though, because at least he tried to avoid the dreadful Labor-Green coalition.


Wilkie pulled off his three-card trick seamlessly. At a time when malcontents like yourself were accusing Gillard of giving in to the whims of the independents, Abbott found himself with his pants around his ankles. Hypocritically, but nonetheless predictably, you didn't pull him up on his behaviour.
Typical leftard attack. IG did pull up Abbott for this. But Wilkie's little Lucy-holding-football trick was even more despicable.


You wish to demonise Bandt simply because you disagree with his political beliefs.
Yet IG said that Bandt was the best behaved of that sorry lot, because he acted in accordance with his political beliefs, as abhorrent as they are.


Your refer to your pathological hatred of lawyers and accuse him of being an ambulance chaser without the slightest of evidence.
One lawyer friend told me that lawyer jokes are most unfair: the bad 99% of them give the rest a bad name.


Of course, even if this were the case, the accusation is a non-sequitur and you fail to refer to Bandt's role in the process. You fail to mention that Bandt kept his word about supporting the Labor Party and did not seek favour in return. He could have played coy and named his price, but refused to do so.
Again, didn't you read? IG commended his behaviour as been the best of the lot of them.


In short, you really are a wretched misanthrope. Are you so unhappy with your life that you feel the need to behave in this way?
More likely, someone who lived under communism for 1/4 century doesn't want to see his adopted country fall for the same dream, or rather, nightmare.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 02:51 PM
Wilkie pulled off his three-card trick seamlessly. At a time when malcontents like yourself were accusing Gillard of giving in to the whims of the independents, Abbott found himself with his pants around his ankles. Hypocritically, but nonetheless predictably, you didn't pull him up on his behaviour.
Like RW, you never miss an opportunity to miss a plot. FYI, I was the first one on the forum to criticise Abbott for the offer.
The trick that Wilkie pulled tells heaps about this character (and it's not flattering).


You wish to demonise Bandt simply because you disagree with his political beliefs. Your refer to your pathological hatred of lawyers and accuse him of being an ambulance chaser without the slightest of evidence. Of course, even if this were the case, the accusation is a non-sequitur and you fail to refer to Bandt's role in the process. You fail to mention that Bandt kept his word about supporting the Labor Party and did not seek favour in return. He could have played coy and named his price, but refused to do so.

Again, like RW, you can't grasp even the simplest logic. If you read my post and tried to use your brain, you might have a chance to understand that I actually said that Bandt's behaviour was the best in comparison to other four.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 02:54 PM
Not as biased as one could have expected! :P
Didn't mention the 24 years under Communist (c'mon last 5-6 of those years were a joke) regime! :P
Did you expect me to praise Bandt without telling what I think about him?:lol:

pax
08-09-2010, 03:32 PM
4. Windsor
Went against clearly expressed will of his electorate.
Last time I checked, his electorate had the opportunity to elect the coalition, and instead voted for Windsor. If anything, that says that they would expect him not to automatically jump in bed with the Coalition, but to extract the best deal from either party for his electorate.


Pretended to be indecisive despite making up his mind quite some time ago.

and the evidence for this is where?



Reasons given for support Labor were bogus. The one of choosing Labor as they are more likely to lose election and thus less likely to go to the polls speaks for itself.

There is a pragmatic advantage in Windsor siding with Labor. It is in Labor's interest for the independents to do well, and be reelected. On the other hand, the Coalition covet those seats, and would undermine the Indys if they think it could win them the seats.



Made a lot of noise about Coalition costing mistake, yet decided to turn the blind eye to much bigger Labor costing blow-out. 43Bn NBN and 10Bn rural package hasn't been costed.

As opposed to the Coalition's policies, which were funded by cancelling the NBN?

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 03:39 PM
Last time I checked, his electorate had the opportunity to elect the coalition, and instead voted for Windsor. If anything, that says that they would expect him not to automatically jump in bed with the Coalition, but to extract the best deal from either party for his electorate.
If you look at either Senate vote, 2PP Nat vs ALP or a poll, the figures were significantly in Coalition favour.




and the evidence for this is where?

Did you see him lashing out at Coalition for the costing mistakes without looking at Labor's?



There is a pragmatic advantage in Windsor siding with Labor. It is in Labor's interest for the independents to do well, and be reelected. On the other hand, the Coalition covet those seats, and would undermine the Indys if they think it could win them the seats.
But going against the will of the elctorate.




As opposed to the Coalition's policies, which were funded by cancelling the NBN?
And the point of it is?

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 03:43 PM
Pax,

Do you honestly believe that Windsor and Oakeshott acted in the best interest of their electorate?
Do you also believe they expressed the will of their electorate?

pax
08-09-2010, 03:56 PM
Pax,

Do you honestly believe that Windsor and Oakeshott acted in the best interest of their electorate?
Do you also believe they expressed the will of their electorate?

That's for them to judge, but there is a very solid case to make that they did. Both are known to be strong supporters of the NBN for example. As for the "will of the electorate", they voted for independents, not for the coalition (despite being given that chance).

pax
08-09-2010, 03:57 PM
Did you see him lashing out at Coalition for the costing mistakes without looking at Labor's?
Well Labor's costings were found by treasury to be broadly accurate, while the Coalitions were out by $7-10bn. Bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2010, 04:33 PM
Wilkie would get second place ahead of Katter if didn't play dirty games tricking Abbott into offer Wilkie wasn't going to except anyway.

There are a few views about on this. One is that the Wilkie wishlist was a kind of "test" - that he wanted some progress on the issues listed but was also looking to see whether either party would go overboard with the pork by being too compliant without explaining where the money was coming from.

The other one is that it was a payback for Iraq and he was never going to support the Coalition anyway.


He is clearly one-issue (which is seven years old and past it's due date) politician on the vendetta and ready to stoop quite low despite his moral grandstanding about ethical government.

He's not a one-issue politician at all. Indeed in Denison his main issue has been poker machines. In the candidates' debate here he was very passionate about health and education and completely wiped the floor with the Labor guy on education funding. (Not that that was hard since the Labor candidate wasn't terribly bright, but Wilkie was clearly across his subject matter on the issue.)


4. Windsor [..]
Reasons given for support Labor were bogus. The one of choosing Labor as they are more likely to lose election and thus less likely to go to the polls speaks for itself.

I doubt whether Windsor's advancing of that argument was heartfelt but I do believe that if the Coalition had been put in we would have another election inside 12 months. Whereas with this arrangement, that might happen, but we don't know.

ER
08-09-2010, 04:44 PM
Politics aside, people in areas of country Victoria have suffered and still are suffering the consequences of one of the worst floods ever to hit their areas! I am yet to hear a word of sympathy for them on behalf of either the Govt or the Opp, let alone some promise of act of providing some relief. I know it's a state matter but still, with all this talk on upgrading rural Australia one could expect something more concrete! So much for country people and shame on you Govt and Opp, (independents and Greens not excluded)

Expecting some announcement, I hope it's sooner rather than later!
Also, this should be another eye opener for Australians before they dig deep in their pocket in order to help overseas people suffering from natural and/or other disasters.
I am not saying we should stop helping others, just to give our own some priority!
Politicians (of either side) should provide a good example!

Spiny Norman
08-09-2010, 04:52 PM
Well Labor's costings were found by treasury to be broadly accurate, while the Coalitions were out by $7-10bn. Bit of a difference, wouldn't you say?
"Found by Treasury to be broadly accurate" ... maybe ... unfortunately Treasury's ability to forecast things inaccurately is now almost legendary. :lol: (more so now that there appears to be a hole in the mining tax revenues roughly 3-4 times the size of the entire amount that the Coalition is being damned for).

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 05:55 PM
There are a few views about on this. One is that the Wilkie wishlist was a kind of "test" - that he wanted some progress on the issues listed but was also looking to see whether either party would go overboard with the pork by being too compliant without explaining where the money was coming from.

The other one is that it was a payback for Iraq and he was never going to support the Coalition anyway.

The latter option seems more credible.

Earlier in the thread I was arguing that Green member of the house, especially if Labor has to rely on him to govern, is a disaster. It was pointed out to me that while it's correct in the short term, there is a long-term benefit: Greens policies might finally be scrutinised.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 06:02 PM
Andrew Robb considers challenge for Liberal deputy job (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pyne-backs-julie-bishop-amid-speculation-of-andrew-robb-challenge/story-fn59niix-1225915967619)

Interesting development. Both Robb and Bishop did a good job during campaign, even though Robb shares at least some responsibility for costing mistake.
If Andrew Robb is elected deputy leader, is he likely to get Shadow Treasurer position? He might not run at all depending on numbers.
Abbott's position is, undoubtedly, secure. Any rumours on what portfolio Turnbull can be assigned to?
Any whiffs on likely Cabinet disposition?

george
08-09-2010, 07:31 PM
Hi all,
This whinging by conservatives that the two independents were basically traitors to their class or at least to their electorate is exactly the sort of stuff we heard in SA when Lewis a disaffected liberal sided with Rann all those years ago and delivered a labor minority government.

I am much more interested in sitting back and observing how they construct the mechanisms to make it work - it will be somewhat bumpy for the first period and I think the mechanisms will have to work otherwise we will be back to an election- the independents may not get all they thought was agreed but if the consultation process is respectful of their opinions it might just work!!

I voted Green so the outcome achieved hopefully will achieve some of the progressive less nuttier Green policies!

Onwards forever onwards!

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 08:23 PM
I voted Green so the outcome achieved hopefully will achieve some of the progressive less nuttier Green policies!
Sometimes I wish Green policies are enforced on Green voters!

Oepty
08-09-2010, 08:34 PM
Hi all,
This whinging by conservatives that the two independents were basically traitors to their class or at least to their electorate is exactly the sort of stuff we heard in SA when Lewis a disaffected liberal sided with Rann all those years ago and delivered a labor minority government.


I agree with George totally on this, all familar stuff to us in SA. Hopefully there won't be a repeat of Peter Lewis as speaker though, very very strange performance he put on. Mad, bad and ugly.
Scott

ER
08-09-2010, 08:36 PM
But you guys have Nick there. Apparently Xenophon is a Jewel in the independent politics crown and arguably a great statesman on the making! However,for some reason I suspetc that in the next election we 'll witness a return to main party preferences again.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 08:59 PM
Andrew Robb backs down from challenge to Bishop for Liberal deputy job (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pyne-backs-julie-bishop-amid-speculation-of-andrew-robb-challenge/story-fn59niix-1225915967619)


LIBERAL frontbencher Andrew Robb will not challenge Julie Bishop for the deputy Liberal leadership after earlier sounding out colleagues.
As I understand "sounding out colleagues" is a euphemism for "counting votes".

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 09:09 PM
Squabble over speaker role brewing (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/squabble-over-speaker-role-brewing/story-fn3dxity-1225916085655)


While formal discussions are unlikely to take place for weeks, the coalition has already made a play to have one of its members - or an independent - sit in the chair.


If the reports are true, it looks quite stupid as in a hung parliament reducing it's own numbers by providing a speaker (who does not normally vote) is an unaffordable luxury.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2010, 09:20 PM
It's interesting that the Coalition seems to think it would be worth giving up a vote to get the Speakers' chair. If they provide the Speaker they're no longer one by-election (or one member crossing the floor) from a no-confidence motion.

Of the current independents, I can't find a suitable Speaker. Windsor isn't interested, Wilkie would throw everyone out of parliament for disorderly conduct, Bandt and Katter are too extreme and Oakeshott would never shut up!

But if the indies decide they want one of their number to be Speaker they can easily accomplish this just by threatening each party to put the other party's nominee in instead.

The Greens rolled Labor for the Deputy Speakership in Tasmania by telling the Libs that if the Libs did not vote for the Green candidate, they would support the Labor incumbent (a complete dill).

Desmond
08-09-2010, 09:24 PM
It's interesting that the Coalition seems to think it would be worth giving up a vote to get the Speakers' chair. If they provide the Speaker they're no longer one by-election (or one member crossing the floor) from a no-confidence motion.

Of the current independents, I can't find a suitable Speaker. Windsor isn't interested, Wilkie would throw everyone out of parliament for disorderly conduct, Bandt and Katter are too extreme and Oakeshott would never shut up!

But if the indies decide they want one of their number to be Speaker they can easily accomplish this just by threatening each party to put the other party's nominee in instead.

The Greens rolled Labor for the Deputy Speakership in Tasmania by telling the Libs that if the Libs did not vote for the Green candidate, they would support the Labor incumbent (a complete dill).
Wasn't there something about changes to the speaker with the parliamentary reforms? Sorry Oakeshott was talking, my eyes glazed over.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-09-2010, 09:24 PM
Oakeshott would never shut up!
:D :D He'll interpret the job literally!



But if the indies decide they want one of their number to be Speaker they can easily accomplish this just by threatening each party to put the other party's nominee in instead.
We both seem to be in agreement it would help the party that does not provide the speaker.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2010, 09:28 PM
Wasn't there something about changes to the speaker with the parliamentary reforms? Sorry Oakeshott was talking, my eyes glazed over.

There's supposed to be both an independent Speaker and an independent Deputy Speaker with the two coming from opposite parties and steering clear of their party rooms.

Oakeshott's speech yesterday was a humungous load of waffle but it's not like he was genuinely keeping the nation on tenterhooks; it was obvious once he and Windsor rocked up together and Windsor endorsed Labor that he would do the same.

Actually Katter holding his presser separately was a fairly strong sign of which way it was going, because if they were all backing the Coalition they could have done so together.

Desmond
08-09-2010, 09:30 PM
There's supposed to be both an independent Speaker and an independent Deputy Speaker with the two coming from opposite parties and steering clear of their party rooms.

Oakeshott's speech yesterday was a humungous load of waffle but it's not like he was genuinely keeping the nation on tenterhooks; it was obvious once he and Windsor rocked up together and Windsor endorsed Labor that he would do the same.

Actually Katter holding his presser separately was a fairly strong sign of which way it was going, because if they were all backing the Coalition they could have done so together.
Yeah I meant his speech the day before outlining the reforms.

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2010, 11:18 PM
I won't put this in "They said it" because I projected a fair few things wrongly in this election myself but just to note something re this one for future elections:


IMO pollsters are more reliable in working out primary vote.
I'd think the rule of thumb should be:
If Labor polls 40% primary vote, they are most likely in.
Below 40% - they are most likely out.

I indicated this election could be different if there was a really high Greens vote.

The Green vote was quite high (though not as high as some polls suggested) and it was different.

Labor has survived (albeit in minority and we're not sure if it will last) with a primary vote of about 38. Labor would have won in majority with a primary vote of 39 had the extra point been evenly distributed.

The number of Labor seats won on preferences from behind is smaller than I expected - probably just eight of them (Lilley, Reid, Deakin, Banks, Moreton, Robertson, LaTrobe and Corangamite). Moreton was like Bass last time - Labor polled 36 primary and overhauled a gap of 7.4 points on the primary to win.

The seat of Brisbane is an amazing one. Labor copped a swing of 13 points knocking their primary down to 30. However most of that went to the Greens and came straight back as preferences, so from a primary gap of 15 points they ended up only losing 51.2 to 48.8.

pappubahry
08-09-2010, 11:22 PM
It's interesting that the Coalition seems to think it would be worth giving up a vote to get the Speakers' chair. If they provide the Speaker they're no longer one by-election (or one member crossing the floor) from a no-confidence motion.
This observation is especially interesting in conjunction with some of Grog's thoughts (http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2010/09/listening-for-new-told-lies.html) today:

The other fun old time for Julia Gillard will be Question Time. The new “direct relevance” clause in the standing orders will mean presumably that when Abbott asks about a specific school building done under the BER that does not mean she can talk about the BER in general, but will have to actually talk about that specific school building.

This will be pure hell, and you can bet the Libs will do the old death by a thousand cuts tactic – ie a program could have 150,000 successes and 10 failures and they will ask 10 questions in a row on those 10 “failures”. The difficulty for Gillard will be to talk about he successes while still being “directly relevant”. Personally, I think putting things in their proper context is always directly relevant, but whether or not this will fly under the new paradigm is yet to be seen.

Goughfather
09-09-2010, 01:01 AM
Abbott's position is, undoubtedly, secure.

Abbott's position is secure for about six months, then it's open season. Given all the talk about stability, it would be suicide for the Coalition to do anything other than present the pretence of a united front.

Abbott could get lucky and the newly formed "rainbow coalition" could collapse. If not, then his days are numbered.

One of the interesting questions for the Coalition is "How do you solve a problem like Joe Hockey?" Clearly inept and utterly unqualified for the job of Shadow Treasurer, but where do you put him? Perhaps the answer may lie in the Peter Principle - promote an incompetent person to his level of incompetence. Perhaps he may function well as a puppet leader and will do less damage in this role.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2010, 04:11 AM
One of the interesting questions for the Coalition is "How do you solve a problem like Joe Hockey?" Clearly inept and utterly unqualified for the job of Shadow Treasurer,
What would you expect from a GF-like theological liberal?

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2010, 04:37 AM
Given the Government we didn’t want (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_given_the_government_we_didnt_want/)
Andrew Bolt, 8 September 2010

...

Two of the three key factors cited yesterday by Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor for handing Labor government were actually there from day one.

Both agree with Labor on the need to Do Something big and useless about global warming. And both love Labor’s $43 billion gamble on connecting almost every house to broadband fibre.

Oakeshott and Windsor both said this two weeks ago and both said it again yesterday.

So why spend two weeks stringing along the Coalition — and voters — by pretending they might go either way?

But then there’s the third reason that both men gave yesterday: that above all, they wanted this parliament to keep going as long as possible, and Labor seemed the most unwilling to call an early election and face the voters again.

Hear it from Windsor, who said a Coalition government under Abbott might rush back to the polls “because I think he would win”. Labor, more scared, “are more likely to be here for a longer period of time if they can’t go back to the polls in a hurry”.

Oakeshott agreed, saying Labor had “got more to lose” from an election.

That’s right: the independents had just admitted they were foisting on voters the party most did not want.

And it’s true.

Labor won fewer votes, fewer seats of its own and less of the two-party preferred vote.

Moreover, Windsor and Oakeshott — along with fellow independent Bob Katter, who an hour earlier backed the Coalition — come from electorates which are strongly conservative, to judge from the Senate vote. Both are former National Party members.

So what they gave Australia was the least popular alternative, a decision they’ve spent a fortnight trying to find an excuse for, while squeezing from Labor $9.9 billion of giveaways for the country, to be paid for by city folk.

What a desperate deal Labor has snatched, having no mandate and being too terrified to ask voters for one.

...

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2010, 10:06 AM
One of the interesting questions for the Coalition is "How do you solve a problem like Joe Hockey?" Clearly inept and utterly unqualified for the job of Shadow Treasurer, but where do you put him?
I agree that Australia deserves a better Treasurer then Joe Hockey. But his position is not under a big threat because he compares very favourably to Wayne Swan.
Until Swan is replaced as Treasurer, Hockey is more then sufficient for a shadow role.

Rincewind
09-09-2010, 10:38 AM
I agree that Australia deserves a better Treasurer then Joe Hockey. But his position is not under a big threat because he compares very favourably to Wayne Swan.
Until Swan is replaced as Treasurer, Hockey is more then sufficient for a shadow role.

:lol:

The whole thesis that you can have people in key positions who are inept just as long as they are a little better than the opposition is simply puerile. However, Joe Hockey has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster and Swan has at least delivered a number of budgets and played a big part in protecting Australia economy from the GFC. Looking at track records, Joe Hockey simply isn't in the game.

So we agree. Australia does deserve a better treasurer than Hockey and what''s more we have one! We truly are the lucky country.

TheJoker
09-09-2010, 10:46 AM
And it’s true.

Labor won fewer votes, fewer seats of its own and less of the two-party preferred vote...

Actually its all false

AEC currently has Labor ahead on the two-party preferred (albeit by 0.02%). Given the margin you'd be misguided to suggest that it gives either side any sort of mandate.

In terms of seats won by an individual party Labor is ahead with 71 seats.

Liberals (44 seats) leader Tony Abbott needs to form a coalition with 3 other parties before being able to challenge Labor. Yet Bolt's whining about Labor.

Desmond
09-09-2010, 11:03 AM
Actually its all false

AEC currently has Labor ahead on the two-party preferred (albeit by 0.02%). Given the margin you'd be misguided to suggest that it gives either side any sort of mandate.

In terms of seats won by an individual party Labor is ahead with 71 seats.

Liberals (44 seats) leader Tony Abbott needs to form a coalition with 3 other parties before being able to challenge Labor. Yet Bolt's whining about Labor.
Lib/Nat is a workable coalition; Greens spent the last 3 years blocking Labor's agenda.

Capablanca-Fan
09-09-2010, 11:04 AM
Swan has at least delivered a number of budgets and played a big part in protecting Australia economy from the GFC.
The biggest parts by far were:


Economies usually right themselves if governments would get their butts out. The American economy recovered fine under Coolidge and Reagan who were criticized for "doing nothing".
The Howard/Costello government left a big surplus.

Conversely, Labor's big spending has left Australia with a huge debt, fire hazards in homes, useless school buildings, failed schemes like FoolWatch and GroceryChoice ...

TheJoker
09-09-2010, 11:32 AM
The biggest parts by far were:


Economies usually right themselves if governments would get their butts out. The American economy recovered fine under Coolidge and Reagan who were criticized for "doing nothing".

Conversely, Labor's big spending has left Australia with a huge debt

Reagan enacted massive fiscal stimulus through tax cuts, in the process he tripled the US public debt. Hardly doing nothing. In addition there were monetary policy interventions. So your example doesn't hold water.

TheJoker
09-09-2010, 11:41 AM
Lib/Nat is a workable coalition; Greens spent the last 3 years blocking Labor's agenda.

Don't disagree. Point was that Bolt was whining that it was unfair for Labor to be in government because they had to form a coaltion with the Greens and a couple of independents.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2010, 05:42 PM
In SA, the Liberals have moved to over 6000 votes notionally ahead of Family First in the race for the last Senate seat. So it now appears that one is settled and the new Senate (from mid-2011) is overwhelmingly likely to comprise:

Coalition 34
ALP 31
Greens 9
DLP 1
Ind 1 (Xenephon)

Total 76


Lib/Nat is a workable coalition; Greens spent the last 3 years blocking Labor's agenda.

They did block sections of it (eg the CPRS) but they would block the Coalition's even more. Also now that they'll have the Senate BOP to themselves, and a slice of it in the Reps, they will be less likely to risk fresh elections that might alter that.


Labor won fewer votes, fewer seats of its own and less of the two-party preferred vote.

Ah yes, the trifecta of dubious claims. Even the more credible Coalition sycophants have dropped back to using only the first two.

In order:

Labor won fewer votes

True in terms of primaries, but irrelevant because Australia has a preferential voting system. If the primary vote was relevant to the formation of government (eg if we had FPP) many of those voting Greens-Labor would instead vote Labor-Green to keep the Coalition out.

Fewer seats of its own

Debatable. Labor won 72 seats and the Coalition (consisting of Liberals, Nationals, LNP and CLP) won 72 seats. The WA Nationals are not a formal member of the Coalition and Tony Crook has stated that although he will give supply and confidence to the Coalition he should not be included in the Coalition count.

less of the two-party preferred vote

Almost certainly false. As the 2PP figures start to be included from those electorates which did not have a standard Labor/Coalition 2PP, Labor has moved ahead and now leads 50.1/49.9, by 23539 votes. Labor will win the 2PP and win it by enough that it will not matter whether O'Connor is counted as Crook vs Labor or Tuckey vs Labor.

Windsor is right that the Coalition would win a second election held right away but the basis for that statement has nothing to do with the results of the one we've just had.

Indeed if you assume the results of the present election are the basis for predicting a new one, then the new one results in the same outcome.

The real basis for Windsor's statement is that if another election was held straight away or soon there would be an impetus for resolving the mess and voters would decide that a further swing to the Coalition is the cleanest and easiest way to do this.

Also new governments that go to early elections to clean up an obstructive Senate tend to win.

ER
09-09-2010, 06:36 PM
Excellent analysis Kev, great contributions of all :clap: and thanks. Now that the election is over (GO JULIA! ;) ) could you please get your honourable backsides back to the Chess threads ??? thanks

Rincewind
09-09-2010, 06:42 PM
Excellent analysis Kev, great contributions of all :clap: and thanks. Now that the election is over (GO JULIA! ;) ) could you please get your honourable backsides back to the Chess threads ??? thanks

The election was over weeks ago, what's been happening since then was politics. Unfortunately, that will continue unabated until the next election.

To borrow a quote from Azimov, In politics, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate - fortunately for Tony Abbott. :lol:

ER
09-09-2010, 07:21 PM
...To borrow a quote from Azimov, In politics, unlike chess, the game continues after checkmate - fortunately for Tony Abbott. :lol:

they should be reminded that even ex world champions, shouldn't some times over indulge in politics! Here's the evidence!

http://www.kingpinchess.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/kasparov19-300x220.jpg

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2010, 09:02 PM
In terms of seats won by an individual party Labor is ahead with 71 seats.

Liberals (44 seats) leader Tony Abbott needs to form a coalition with 3 other parties before being able to challenge Labor. Yet Bolt's whining about Labor.
Rubbish. Labor+Country Labor is an alliance announced before the election.
Same goes for Liberal and National. And listing Queensland LNP as a third party is silly.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2010, 09:04 PM
:lol:

The whole thesis that you can have people in key positions who are inept just as long as they are a little better than the opposition is simply puerile. However, Joe Hockey has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster and Swan has at least delivered a number of budgets and played a big part in protecting Australia economy from the GFC. Looking at track records, Joe Hockey simply isn't in the game.

So we agree. Australia does deserve a better treasurer than Hockey and what''s more we have one! We truly are the lucky country.
If you seriously believe that Swan is a good Treasurer please accept my condolences. Australian medicine is one of the best in the world, but your case is too severe.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2010, 09:06 PM
Reagan enacted massive fiscal stimulus through tax cuts, in the process he tripled the US public debt. Hardly doing nothing. In addition there were monetary policy interventions. So your example doesn't hold water.

You confuse the difference between tax cut and spending.


Don't disagree. Point was that Bolt was whining that it was unfair for Labor to be in government because they had to form a coaltion with the Greens and a couple of independents.
Here you confuse the difference between a coalition presented to voters before the election and the one formed after.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2010, 09:18 PM
If you seriously believe that Swan is a good Treasurer please accept my condolences. Australian medicine is one of the best in the world, but your case is too severe.

Does that really hold up though? Isn't Australia's debt as a result of the GFC relatively low by comparison with other nations? Who around the world would you say was a good treasurer in response to the GFC and why?

I don't think Swan is any world-beater but I'm not convinced that he is bad.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2010, 09:24 PM
Does that really hold up though? Isn't Australia's debt as a result of the GFC relatively low by comparison with other nations? Who around the world would you say was a good treasurer in response to the GFC and why?

I don't think Swan is any world-beater but I'm not convinced that he is bad.
The reason for Australia's low debt is surplus left by Howard/Costello. If Costello was a Treasurer during last three years we'd be hardly aware of GFC.
He might have a small deficit reducing amount of money government had in the bank, but we'd have no debt and most likely budget would've been in surplus by now.

Kevin Bonham
09-09-2010, 09:33 PM
The reason for Australia's low debt is surplus left by Howard/Costello.

Then what would Australia's debt be without that surplus and how does that compare to other nations?

I've seen comparative lists of GFC response and Australia's does not appear to be extreme.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2010, 09:48 PM
Then what would Australia's debt be without that surplus and how does that compare to other nations?
I think you can get an idea by looking at other nations debt before the GFC, it was quite big. US and most European countries budget was in deficit as well.


I've seen comparative lists of GFC response and Australia's does not appear to be extreme.
I've seen two graphs that plots change in the GDP vs the relative size of the stimulus. One (that include only few countries) shown positive correlation, another one (which included every country that had stimulus) shown no correlation between stimulus and economy revival.

You can also look at what post-Costello Coalition did. They supported first (relatively modest) stimulus and rejected the second. When second (much larger) stimulus started rolling out, we were already out of threat of recession, i.e. it was unnecessary.

BTW, Swan was an architect of the original mining tax that brought Rudd down. Good caucus politician, bad Treasurer.

Igor_Goldenberg
09-09-2010, 10:10 PM
http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2010/09/08/1225916/095713-kudelka-parliament.jpg

Rincewind
10-09-2010, 12:17 AM
If you seriously believe that Swan is a good Treasurer please accept my condolences. Australian medicine is one of the best in the world, but your case is too severe.

Well I don't think he is as bad as you make out and comparing track records (and not the unsubstantiated opinions of right-wing bloggers) he cannot possibly be ranked down to Hockey's level.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 12:41 AM
Well I don't think he is as bad as you make out and comparing track records (and not the unsubstantiated opinions of right-wing bloggers) he cannot possibly be ranked down to Hockey's level.

I think that's the sad bit really. Swan in my view is OK, no more no less. The Coalition is the side that is supposed to be more economically accomplished. So why can't they find anyone better than Hockey?

TheJoker
10-09-2010, 10:47 AM
Rubbish. Labor+Country Labor is an alliance announced before the election.
Same goes for Liberal and National. And listing Queensland LNP as a third party is silly.

Learn to read. I said labor won the most seats of any single party. That is true check the AEC website if you disagree.

As pointed out by Kevin the Coalition won the same number of seats as Labor (correct me if I am wrong here Kevin).

As for who got the most seat after post-election alliances well that's obvious.

TheJoker
10-09-2010, 11:07 AM
You confuse the difference between tax cut and spending.

No at all, both are a form of fiscal stimulus. Reagan also increased federal spending, while slashing revenues.

He was a massive interventionist despite his claims to the contrary. He put the taxpayers into massive debt to prop up the economy. Public Debt as percentage of GDP had been on a decline since 1950 until he came into office.

Check it out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)

Not that I am saying it wasn't necessary government stimulus



You can't blast Labor over their economic stimulus response to recession causing an increase in public debt. When Reagan did exactly that.

Goughfather
10-09-2010, 11:36 AM
I think that's the sad bit really. Swan in my view is OK, no more no less. The Coalition is the side that is supposed to be more economically accomplished. So why can't they find anyone better than Hockey?

Robb and Turnbull would be better, but obviously, that's not difficult. Robb was sounding out support for him as Deputy Leader as a springboard into the Shadow Treasury role. His performance in the election campaign was underwhelming, but not as disastrous as Hockey. Turnbull would probably be the best choice at present, but I'm sure that Abbott would consider him as too much of a threat to his leadership to give him a role of such high profile.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 11:40 AM
Learn to read. I said labor won the most seats of any single party. That is true check the AEC website if you disagree.
Formal division by single parties in this context is absolutely meaningless.

TheJoker
10-09-2010, 11:57 AM
Formal division by single parties in this context is absolutely meaningless.

Depends on what you consider the context to be. I thought it was in exactly the same context as Bolt trotting out meaningless guff such as 0.01% difference in 2PP vote.:owned:

Goughfather
10-09-2010, 12:06 PM
Formal division by single parties in this context is absolutely meaningless.

And yet Abbott wishes to describe Labor and Greens as a coalition until it suits his purposes not to do so. How inconsistent can you get?

Of course, all talk of legitimacy aside, the cold, hard fact that you have to live with is that Labor is now in power. Perhaps all the whinging and whining from you and your cohorts is evidence that this reality is too hard for you to acknowledge. You poor things have my most sincere condolences.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 12:07 PM
Depends on what you consider the context to be. I thought it was in exactly the same context as Bolt trotting out meaningless guff such as 0.01% difference in 2PP vote.:owned:
As far as I know it was Labor Gillard who trotted 2PP line immediately after election, and Bolt (as well as many other journalists) simply took her to task when count turned the other way.

Goughfather
10-09-2010, 12:08 PM
As far as I know it was Labor Gillard who trotted 2PP line immediately after election, and Bolt (as well as many other journalists) simply took her to task when count turned the other way.

As I've pointed out previously, Minchin was the first to make this claim.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 12:12 PM
And yet Abbott wishes to describe Labor and Greens as a coalition until it suits his purposes not to do so. How inconsistent can you get?
Bullshit. The Coalition between Lib and Nat was taken to voters before the election, and Socialist Alliance formed after the election.


Of course, all talk of legitimacy aside, the cold, hard fact that you have to live with is that Labor is now in power. Perhaps all the whinging and whining from you and your cohorts is evidence that this reality is too hard for you to acknowledge. You poor things have my most sincere condolences.
The most bitter and whining person on the forum is yourself. As I said numerous times before (but you never missed an opportunity to miss the plot) three year of Gillard government is an inconvenience, but in comparison to twenty four years of communists is a cake-walk.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 12:14 PM
As I've pointed out previously, Minchin was the first to make this claim.
There were many claims during election night on various TV programmes. It is not as significant as PM speech on first post election press conference.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 12:19 PM
According to The Australian, Rob Oakeshott 'asked Labor for state cabinet seat' (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/neutral-oakeshott-asked-labor-for-state-cabinet-seat/story-fn59niix-1225916807612) before.



The Australian has learned that Mr Oakeshott, then a state MP, approached former NSW premier Morris Iemma in 2007 and asked to join his ministry. He was emboldened by persistent rumours of a cabinet reshuffle and the fact that Mr Iemma had recently appointed another independent, Northern Tablelands MP Richard Torbay, as Speaker.

According to a senior Labor source, Mr Oakeshott told Mr Iemma he might resign from parliament if his request were not met, warning that his seat of Port Macquarie would probably revert to the Nationals.

A spokesman for Mr Oakeshott said last night he had "no recollection whatsoever of being in a conversation with Morris Iemma about a ministerial position in 2007".

Mr Iemma declined to comment in detail but confirmed that the conversations took place.

Two questions arise:
1. Is it true?
2. If it is true, did Oakeshott mislead voters in Lyne by not revealing it before the election?

TheJoker
10-09-2010, 12:41 PM
As far as I know it was Labor Gillard who trotted 2PP line immediately after election, and Bolt (as well as many other journalists) simply took her to task when count turned the other way.

Igor take of the blinkers...

Yes Gillard used that argument stupidly.... but Bolt wasn't taking her to task in the article, he was using the same stupid claim to support a coalition government

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 12:52 PM
Igor take of the blinkers...

Yes Gillard used that argument stupidly.... but Bolt wasn't taking her to task in the article, he was using the same stupid claim to support a coalition government

Correct. And furthermore, while Gillard's use of the 2PP argument was irrelevant (especially given that the 2PP margin is so wafer thin) she was nonetheless correct that Labor did win the 2PP vote, and she later correctly stated the reason why the AEC "count" at that time was not correct.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 12:56 PM
Two questions arise:
1. Is it true?
2. If it is true, did Oakeshott mislead voters in Lyne by not revealing it before the election?

I'm voting Yes and No to those two.

I suspect that not only was it true, but also that it was more or less on the public record and is not in fact new.

With quite a deal of effort I found this item:

http://www.independent-nsw.com/MonNewsJUNE20.html


PORT Macquarie was ripped off in the state budget

Thats the view of the Mayor of Port Macquarie , Cr Rob Drew as expressed to Port Macquarie News'
Clare Hayes, Mayor says we've been ripped off, 22 June 2007

The mayor noted money was provided for the continuation of old projects, but nothing was provided for
emerging needs.

Port Macquarie, MP Rob Oakeshott had little to say about the budget, apparently constrained by the "new rules" applying to him, as
explained in detail to him by Bob Carr in 2002.

The ability of Rob Oakeshott MP to keep his counsel, since he was ripped off by the Iemma government, after the TERRIGALS
sub-faction blamed Oakeshott for being the source of the leak to the Sun-Herald's Alex Mitchell, which led to to the headline "JOE MUST
GO" and whilst admittedly Torbay got the Speakers job as promised, Oakeshott was denied and "ripped off" of a ministry - is simply
amazing.

The item is on a site devoted to the various NSW Independent state MPs.

This item, while opinionative, confirms that there was consideration of a ministry for Oakeshott following the 2007 election and reason to believe he probably wanted it.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 03:57 PM
Igor take of the blinkers...
Why don't you look in the mirror first


Yes Gillard used that argument stupidly....
Finally at least one leftie admits it


but Bolt wasn't taking her to task in the article, he was using the same stupid claim to support a coalition government
Since you brought up Bolt on this issue, why don't you provide a source?

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 04:12 PM
Since you brought up Bolt on this issue, why don't you provide a source?

Actually the source was already linked to by Jono and quoted from at length in #835.

Capablanca-Fan
10-09-2010, 04:28 PM
No at all, both are a form of fiscal stimulus. Reagan also increased federal spending, while slashing revenues.
Rubbish. One is letting people keep their own money to spend as they please. The other is the government confiscating money to spend as politicians please. The first genuinely stimulates the economy; the second merely stimulates votes by the beneficiaries.


He was a massive interventionist despite his claims to the contrary. He put the taxpayers into massive debt to prop up the economy. Public Debt as percentage of GDP had been on a decline since 1950 until he came into office.
The big spending was on what the government should be spending on: defence. This won the cold war, causing a big peace dividend.


Check it out here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)
Wikipedia? The Abomination that Causes Misinformation.


You can't blast Labor over their economic stimulus response to recession causing an increase in public debt. When Reagan did exactly that.
Only because you equivocate between good and bad policy by giving them the same name.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 04:39 PM
Wikipedia? The Abomination that Causes Misinformation.

Is this rather clumsy (though in cases deserved) nickname for it originally yours? I did a Google search for the term and got only 23 distinct hits, many of which came from CC, the Bolt blog or creationist sites.

I'd say Wikipedia more often propagates misinformation than causing new misinformation to arise. On the whole the site is useful but you really have to know to pick and choose, especially with pages that are mainly the work of a single editor or that rely heavily on mainstream media for claims about specialised areas.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 05:03 PM
Actually the source was already linked to by Jono and quoted from at length in #835.
OK, Bolt mentioned it in passing, but he first went after Gillard when the stupidity of her original claim became obvious. And it wasn't the main point of the article Jono quoted.

ER
10-09-2010, 05:29 PM
I'd say Wikipedia more often propagates misinformation than causing new misinformation to arise.

I have observed WP references that can be described from inaccurate to laughable. Yet some people tend to use it for bibliographical and other notations. Would anyone of the academics here accept any of their students' work citing WP as a source?

TheJoker
10-09-2010, 05:40 PM
Rubbish. The first genuinely stimulates the economy; the second merely stimulates votes by the beneficiaries.

No actually empirical studies show that government spending stimulates the economy more than the equivalent tax cuts. I referenced it before in other threads do a search if you don't believe me.

Big problem with spending approach is that it usually arrive well after it is needed due to the bureaucracy involved.

But hey bury head in your dogma. Thing was Reagan did both for of fiscal stimulus (tax cuts and spending increase) in spades, not to mention monetary policy interventions of the Fed. To say he left the economy to its own devices in a cock an bull story.


Wikipedia? The Abomination that Causes Misinformation.

It not academic debate. Feel free to provide to a counter argument at any time. You know an alternate source that suggests something different.



Only because you equivocate between good and bad policy by giving them the same name.

If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Libby2
10-09-2010, 05:43 PM
.... less of the two-party preferred vote.

:wall: Yawn. Can we have a re-run of the 1998 election please when the John Howard led Liberals also lost the two-party preferred vote to the Kim Beasley led Labor party? Clearly the majority of Australians at that time did not prefer John Howard as Prime Minister.

If we can rewrite that outcome, I wouldn't have had to put up with all the things I didn't like about being in a country led by a bunch of politicians I didn't have much time for :rolleyes:

Labor was certainly less than convincing in their efforts to be re-elected but Tony Abbott & co have been entirely unconvincing in their efforts post-election. I'm not sure how successful this would make them in negotiating their way through three years of minority government and a hostile senate.

I almost understand the teeth-knashing of the conservative voters, but I am a bit perplexed by the political commentators whose major beef with the whole outcome seems to have more to do with their inability to control/predict what would happen. Perhaps before we all get our knickers twisted over the idea that we'll all be compulsorily turned into dope-smoking, tree-hugging, homosexual (and communist) hippies with our tax dollars diverted into building convention centres and four-lane freeways in rural electorates, we could see how it goes - just for a little while ...

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 05:58 PM
:wall: Yawn. Can we have a re-run of the 1998 election please when the John Howard led Liberals also lost the two-party preferred vote to the Kim Beasley led Labor party? Clearly the majority of Australians at that time did not prefer John Howard as Prime Minister.

In more fairness to Howard than he deserves, that outcome was skewed by One Nation voters following their how-to-vote cards, on which the party had a standing policy of putting every incumbent last. As the Libs had far more incumbents, they suffered far more from that policy than Labor did - another reason why 2PP is a silly indicator.


Labor was certainly less than convincing in their efforts to be re-elected but Tony Abbott & co have been entirely unconvincing in their efforts post-election. I'm not sure how successful this would make them in negotiating their way through three years of minority government and a hostile senate.

I totally agree. Conservative parties tend to be more dismissive of minority government anyway but Abbott's inability to keep rogue elements under control in the negotiations was amazing.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 06:03 PM
OK, Bolt mentioned it in passing, but he first went after Gillard when the stupidity of her original claim became obvious.

Yes he went after her here (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/whats_gillards_argument_now/)

Only even then he went after her in the wrong way. He prematurely, and as it turned out wrongly, said:


Gillard’s own argument is now destroyed by the latest counting from the Australian Electoral Commission:

Australian Labor Party 5,345,241

Liberal/National Coalition 5,347,150

He then went on to quote:


One reason for the change:

One reason is that officials have now removed all eight seats where the final contest was not between the Coalition and Labor - including the six seats won by the independents, Greens and WA Nationals, and two seats where the Greens were runners-up.

Adding them, Labor’s vote now is about 50.1 per cent. But with a million votes still to be counted, the odds are that the Coalition will end up the winner.

...which was not a view supported by any serious analyst to my knowledge (though some including me thought it was just too close to call).

So firstly Bolt was wrong that the then-current counting destroyed the basis of Gillard's argument (it didn't as it wasn't a reliable 2PP count). Then he was apparently wrong in suggesting that once all votes were included the counting should show the Coalition "winning" (we're not sure yet but it's extremely likely it will not).

Gillard was premature in declaring Labor had won the 2PP. Bolt was premature, and it now appears wrong, attempting to suggest it was likely they would not.

The argument that really matters, which Bolt could not make for himself (though he cited Wilkie making it) is that the 2PP is simply irrelevant both to the actual formation of government and to the proper formation of government.


And it wasn't the main point of the article Jono quoted.

That's debatable. The article had a number of attempted points.

Goughfather
10-09-2010, 06:33 PM
Bullshit.

No need to engage in such profanities, Igor. Take a bex, lie down for a few hours and things will start to feel much better.


The Coalition between Lib and Nat was taken to voters before the election, and Socialist Alliance formed after the election.

Abbott presented the idea of Labor and the Greens being a coalition during the election, presumably to scare supporters from both parties from voting for either party. Of course, once the election smoke cleared, Abbott backed away from this previous rhetoric because it no longer suited him.


The most bitter and whining person on the forum is yourself.

Not really. The sun is shining, Labor is in government and malcontents such as yourself are miserable about this fact. What else do I need to hope for?


As I said numerous times before (but you never missed an opportunity to miss the plot)

Simply because I choose not to respond to your inane and feckless commentary doesn't mean I've missed what you were trying to say.


three year of Gillard government is an inconvenience, but in comparison to twenty four years of communists is a cake-walk.

And yet you're still chucking a wobbly like a three year who hasn't got what he wanted. Go figure.


There were many claims during election night on various TV programmes. It is not as significant as PM speech on first post election press conference.

The point is that it was a senior figure from the Liberal Party that first tried to claim moral victory on that basis. That you take Gillard to task while ignoring Minchin's own hubris clearly demonstrates your own hypocrisy. The suggestion that we should hold people accountable for their statements only if they are Prime Minister really is the feeble argumentation that we are used to from you.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 07:02 PM
Oakeshott has declined a ministry.

Desmond
10-09-2010, 07:14 PM
Oakeshott has declined a ministry.
Did he give a 17-minute, excruciating explanation as to why?

deanhogg
10-09-2010, 07:28 PM
Did he give a 17-minute, excruciating explanation as to why?
Its to do with liberal/national party Boris.Oakeshott is worried they will

undermine him if he took Ministry position ,but still a win for his electorate no

matter what .

Igor_Goldenberg
10-09-2010, 09:33 PM
:wall: Yawn. Can we have a re-run of the 1998 election please when the John Howard led Liberals also lost the two-party preferred vote to the Kim Beasley led Labor party? Clearly the majority of Australians at that time did not prefer John Howard as Prime Minister.

AFAIK, there were five or six federal election (and numerous state) elections where party lost 2PP but won the election. 1998 example is the latest on federal level (Hawke won 1990 despite losing 2PP). I remember Labor politicians going on about mandate in 1998. At post election speech Beasley said that ALP was the biggest parliamentary party (as if matters).
I wasn't there in 1990 but have no doubts Coalition was flaunting their superior 2PP.
The whole topic would be mute if Gillard didn't try to push this line immediately after the election.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 11:21 PM
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/09/what-will-happen-if-there-is-an-early-election.html#more

Antony Green on where we go from here in terms of options for the next election.

In summary:


Any election held before July 2013 will almost certainly be a House-only election, in conjunction with an election for the four Territory Senate seats.

Unless, of course, Abbott takes over and decides he wants a double-diss. Much of the article is premised on the idea that if Labor has problems getting stuff passed it will more likely be in the Reps than in the Senate.

Of course they might find some bills that three of the four Inds support but the Greens do not.

Kevin Bonham
10-09-2010, 11:30 PM
AFAIK, there were five or six federal election (and numerous state) elections where party lost 2PP but won the election.

Yes, five federal elections technically:

1954 (Coalition)
1961 (Coalition)
1969 (Coalition)
1990 (Labor)
1998 (Coalition)

However, the 1954 figure is not a proper example because many seats were uncontested, or contested only by token opposition, and this deflates the Coalition figure. So I don't count that one.

At state level there are indeed many cases, though many of the earlier ones relate to malapportioned electoral setups.

Garrett
14-09-2010, 10:56 AM
Political staffer: “Hey, Rob I’m just going to the parliamentary canteen, did you want the pasta or the salad roll?”

Rob Oakeshott: “Well, look. I mean, yikes. I’m not pretending this is easy.
It’s been line ball, a points decision, six to one half a dozen the other,
it really could go either way, in fact it’s going right down to the wire. I
mean, I like pasta. I like it a lot. Over the years I have eaten a lot of
pasta, it’s, you know, it’s a carbohydrate, and you can have it with a
variety of sauces.

But then I really like salad rolls. I’ve eaten a lot of salad rolls in my
time too. And weighing it up on balance I have to say that I’m kind of
torn. The question I have been asking myself is what is the pasta going to
provide? I want more than just sustenance, I don’t just want to eat for the
sake of eating, I think what we really need at this point of time, that is,
lunch time, is a whole new way of eating.

So if it’s going to be the pasta then the question has to be asked, is it
just going to be the same sort of pasta that we’ve seen in the past, or a
whole new pasta paradigm? And I find myself wondering if whether it’s the
salad roll after all that can provide that – not just the usual ham cheese
lettuce and tomato combo but something which also involves some grated
carrot, alfalfa, maybe some Jarlsberg instead of the plain old Kraft
single, some beetroot – a roll that’s more inclusive, that says a bit more
about who we are and what we can be, a roll that…

Political staffer: Sorry, er... Rob….

Rob Oakeshott: A roll that involves everybody, a roll that breaks down the
presumptions and rewrite the rules governing the…

Political staffer: Rob…

Rob Oakeshott: A roll for tomorrow! A roll that’s beautiful in all its
ugliness…

Political staffer: ROB!!!

Rob Oakeshott: Sorry, yes?

Political staffer: Lunch is over. They’ve got the dinner menu on now. Do you want to have the chicken or the veal?

Rob Oakeshott: Well, look. I mean, yikes. I’m not pretending this is easy…

Garvinator
14-09-2010, 08:23 PM
After the big sorry speech after Kevin Rudd's win in the 2007, Labor really has shown how much commitment it does have to aboriginal affairs by not even remembering to include that area in the new ministry after having it between 2007-2010.

What was that about Labor being all talk and no action. Some of us bellowed loud and clear on here that Labor was going to be all talk after the sorry speech, and it has turned exactly that.

pappubahry
15-09-2010, 10:22 AM
After the big sorry speech after Kevin Rudd's win in the 2007, Labor really has shown how much commitment it does have to aboriginal affairs by not even remembering to include that area in the new ministry after having it between 2007-2010.
No, Jenny Macklin had Indigenous Affairs from the first announcement. What was removed and subsequently put back in was Indigenous Health, which had only been an "official" part of a portfolio since 2009.

TheJoker
15-09-2010, 12:43 PM
Political staffer: “Hey, Rob I’m just going to the parliamentary canteen, did you want the pasta or the salad roll?”

Rob Oakeshott: “Well, look. I mean, yikes. I’m not pretending this is easy....

Brilliant :lol:

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2010, 02:49 PM
Yeah, Oakeshott was a bit fake with all that stuff about it being a close decision for him. He showed that today when saying it was not just the broadband but also (insert list of things) that had led to his choice. If the choice was really so close then any single issue would have swung it either way.

pappubahry
15-09-2010, 03:23 PM
Oakeshott keen to speak full-time (http://m.news.com.au/TopStories/fi583043.htm). :lol:

Kevin Bonham
15-09-2010, 03:29 PM
Paradoxically, making him the Speaker could be the best way to shut him up!

Garvinator
15-09-2010, 03:33 PM
Paradoxically, making him the Speaker could be the best way to shut him up!Or gives him even more chances to keep blubbering on!

Igor_Goldenberg
15-09-2010, 05:10 PM
Paradoxically, making him the Speaker could be the best way to shut him up!
What if he takes the role literally?

On a more serious note, Coalition seems to be naive in thinking they can win him over. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the best way to get him on side might be going hard on him.

Garrett
15-09-2010, 05:33 PM
Brilliant :lol:

perhaps should have mentioned (the obvious?) this is not my work, from an email, sorry don't know the original source.

thought it better here then the jokes thread...

pappubahry
15-09-2010, 10:53 PM
perhaps should have mentioned (the obvious?) this is not my work, from an email, sorry don't know the original source.
It's from Penbo at the Punch (http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/day-one-of-democracys-new-dawn-oakeshott-gets-lunch/).

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2010, 12:05 AM
Family First have lost in South Australia with the Liberals taking the final Senate spot. We are still waiting for the magic button to be pushed in Victoria but that can't be far away.

If, as appears to be the case, that button push elects the DLP then unfortunately Axiom's favourite micro-party the Liberal Democrats will be to blame for preferencing the generally illiberal DLP ahead of the Liberals. What's more, the Lib Dems didn't even get anything out of it since the DLP put them second-last ahead of only the Sex Party.

It is true that the DLP are not completely illiberal (they would have more libertarian cred than the Libs on some environmental issues) but given that they are on many issues one of the most illiberal parties out there, this preferencing decision defies political logic and suggests that the LDP are more than a little bit clueless.

Either that or they did a preference swap and got doublecrossed. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
16-09-2010, 01:20 AM
The LDP and DLP seem to occupy opposite political quadrants: LDP is libertarian in both moral/social issues and economy policy, and the DLP is authoritarian on both (being mainly Catholic socialists), rather like the morally conservative agrarian socialists in the Nationals or ex-National protectionists like Katter.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2010, 01:55 AM
The LDP and DLP seem to occupy opposite political quadrants: LDP is libertarian in both moral/social issues and economy policy, and the DLP is authoritarian on both (being mainly Catholic socialists), rather like the morally conservative agrarian socialists in the Nationals or ex-National protectionists like Katter.

Yes. The DLP are almost the nearest thing to the polar opposite of the LDP that there could be, which makes the similarity in their initials amusing. If they were green zealots as well they would be a very consistent illiberal package.

They really love their politics though. The DLP-heads I encounter online have a great dedication to their Party cause and their Party cause is fundamentally to stop the ALP. It is a proud moment for the Party if their preferences cause Labor to lose a seat. In this case they have got themselves elected by unseating Fielding and McGauran and they are really apologetic about it. It's almost as if they're saying "look, sorry guys, we didn't mean to get elected at your expense and all, we were mainly running to see if we could kill Labor and the Greens".

There is little doubt that the name of the party traps a very small percentage of voters into voting for them, mistaking them for the ALP.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-09-2010, 10:59 AM
... we were mainly running to see if we could kill Labor and the Greens".
An example where the ends do not justify the means. I might regret voting for Climate Sceptics as they preferenced DLP ahead of Lib. Looks like Greens scored just above single quote on primary votes and were nowhere near the chance of getting the second spot.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2010, 12:21 PM
I might regret voting for Climate Sceptics as they preferenced DLP ahead of Lib.

Which is not surprising since the DLP are probably much more climate-sceptical than the Liberals. But the Climate Sceptics didn't get enough votes to influence the outcome anyway. The Liberal Democrats got nearly 2%, which is a good result for them but they have wasted it on a stupid distribution of their preferences.


Looks like Greens scored just above single quote on primary votes and were nowhere near the chance of getting the second spot.

Yes. The Greens were never a chance of getting two anywhere except for an outside chance of getting two in Tasmania if the Labor vote was low enough. It turned out the Labor vote in Tas was way too high and even with a vote of 20% the Greens could not get two in Tas.

The Greens could have got a fair bit less than a quota in Vic and still won because lots of micro-parties give them preferences, including the Sex Party which polled over 2%.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-09-2010, 02:16 PM
Which is not surprising since the DLP are probably much more climate-sceptical than the Liberals. But the Climate Sceptics didn't get enough votes to influence the outcome anyway. The Liberal Democrats got nearly 2%, which is a good result for them but they have wasted it on a stupid distribution of their preferences.
And that's why I didn't vote for them.



The Greens could have got a fair bit less than a quota in Vic and still won because lots of micro-parties give them preferences, including the Sex Party which polled over 2%.And I would be upset if my vote helped to tip over the line ahead of ALP. That's why I didn't vote for Liberal

Sceptics flow is FF=>Lib=>ALP=>Greens, which is fine by me (would've swapped Lib and FF, though). Didn't even consider DLP getting in the way. Expected 1 Greens, 2 Lib, 2 ALP and a fight between Lib and ALP, or 3ALP, 2 Lib and all of them fighting for the last spot.

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2010, 03:04 PM
And that's why I didn't vote for them.

I've seen reports that they have a standing practice of preferencing minor parties ahead of major parties. However even this doesn't make sense of it because they put some minor parties below the majors: Socialist Equality, Socalist Alliance below Greens, and then Christian Democrats above Greens but below the majors. Family First are just above the majors at 34-38 but DLP are way above them at 10-12. CDP, FF, DLP are all about equally revolting from a libertarian standpoint. I get the impression that whoever did the preference deal for the Lib Dems just wasn't very cluey and didn't know what the DLP were really like.


Sceptics flow is FF=>Lib=>ALP=>Greens, which is fine by me (would've swapped Lib and FF, though). Didn't even consider DLP getting in the way. Expected 1 Greens, 2 Lib, 2 ALP and a fight between Lib and ALP, or 3ALP, 2 Lib and all of them fighting for the last spot.

Same here. Generally it was just not expected that the Lib/Nat vote in Victoria would be so remarkably low (only 34.4%). That is what brought the last seat into play - Lib/Nat only got over their second quota by 6%, and the right-wing micros plus Lib Dems have almost half a quota between them, and all of that pools to the DLP.

pappubahry
16-09-2010, 03:15 PM
II get the impression that whoever did the preference deal for the Lib Dems just wasn't very cluey and didn't know what the DLP were really like.
Apparently the swap was for DLP preferences in NSW, which added to yet another awesome preference harvest by Glenn Druery.

Igor_Goldenberg
16-09-2010, 03:20 PM
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/09/15/1225924/240678-100916-nicholson.jpg

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2010, 04:19 PM
Apparently the swap was for DLP preferences in NSW, which added to yet another awesome preference harvest by Glenn Druery.

Ah, that makes sense of it then. Yes, in NSW the DLP curiously preferenced Glenn Druery 3 while putting the rest of the LDP ahead of only the Greens, SA, the Communists, Sec, Sex etc.

What intrigues me here is why the LDP even accepted Druery as a candidate when the guy is a well-known party-hopper. Perhaps they figured that whether or not he actually adhered to LDP ideology the publicity of winning a seat (if they could do that) would be worth it or perhaps he simply infiltrated the party. If he is "philosophically a classical liberal" why did he run for liberalsforforests last time?

Kevin Bonham
16-09-2010, 09:28 PM
Well, the election as such is now over! The final Senate race was the subject of a button press today with the DLP indeed winning the last Senate seat. It goes to a blacksmith who's just six years older than me but belongs so much to a bygone era he reckons shops should close at midday on Saturdays!

There is already one Dispute of Return I am aware of, and it is filed by Tasmanian antiques dealer John Hawkins against Tasmanian Liberal citizen Eric Abetz, alleging Abetz is ineligible to sit in the Senate on the supposed basis of never renouncing German citizenship. I expect this case to fail as on my understanding Abetz did take all reasonable steps to renounce when first elected over a decade ago.

There may be others against four Libs who failed to resign local council positions and those could be more interesting.

If people want to start other threads for general discussion of the new parliament and so on from this point then that's something I encourage.

Tony Dowden
16-09-2010, 10:03 PM
I'm finally getting the hang of Aussie politics: once it looks like one side is going to win, well, its the other side that'll win ;)

pax
17-09-2010, 03:56 PM
Ah, that makes sense of it then. Yes, in NSW the DLP curiously preferenced Glenn Druery 3 while putting the rest of the LDP ahead of only the Greens, SA, the Communists, Sec, Sex etc.

Is Druery the guy who has been known to set up a bunch of bogus candidates in order to siphon random votes to a particular candidate?

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2010, 04:24 PM
Is Druery the guy who has been known to set up a bunch of bogus candidates in order to siphon random votes to a particular candidate?

Something like that. What he and his pals did for the NSW Upper House in 1999 was register a huge number of micro-parties, which had basically overlapping membership bases but real candidates, and which had idealistic sounding names like Three Day Weekend Party, Marijuana Freedom Party, Gay and Lesbian Party, Wilderness Party and so on. The below-the-line preferences of these groups tended to go to the Greens or Democrats, but those voting above the line didn't realise these parties were fake micros and their votes were being channelled to Druery and Malcolm Jones ("Outdoor Recreation Party") - the latter won a seat.

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2010, 05:47 PM
For the record (for those who really care!) Labor won the two-party preferred vote in the Reps 50.12-49.88 officially.

The AEC figure counts Crook as Coalition. If he is counted outside the Coalition it is apparently 50.17-49.83.

William Bowe here (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/09/17/final-2pp-50-12-49-88-to-labor/) smacks down a long list of people who made premature and false claims that the Coalition had won the 2PP vote; Andrew Bolt is of course one of those.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-09-2010, 10:41 PM
For the record (for those who really care!) Labor won the two-party preferred vote in the Reps 50.12-49.88 officially.

A decisive win by a huge margin!

Kevin Bonham
18-09-2010, 11:37 PM
A decisive win by a huge margin!

Given the number of false Coalition and MSM claims that the Coalition had won the 2PP, Labor are entitled to say that a win is a win is a win on that (irrelevant) score.

Of course, what the closeness of the 2PP really shows is that in an election with a significant crossbench, a hung parliament with Labor remaining in office is a fair reflection of the 2PP, so everyone saying this government lacks a mandate (and that means you, Tony Abbott) should just get over it. It has a conditional and tenuous mandate and that's what it deserves and all that it deserves, in either case on any meaningful indicator.

I'm starting to think that use of the word "mandate" should be limited to people who complete a "mandate licence". On Tasmanian Times tonight, I had to thwack down an idiot who claimed that Will Hodgman (whose party received 39% of the vote and 40% of the seats and is supported in the parliament by no other party) has a mandate to be Premier of Tasmania.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2011, 01:16 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-focus-proved-unfocused-20110204-1agt2.html

^^^
Good article by Peter Hartcher (SMH) about why the Labor campaign was so utterly crap.

Rincewind
24-03-2014, 05:07 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. 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.

I wonder if this view is still staunchly held now that Ken Wyatt is threatening to cross the floor over the Libs proposed amendments to the racial vilification laws.