If the Coalition and Labor both end up with 73 seats, then the three country independents should look to their own seats to decide which way to jump – the voters have indicated their preferences clearly. Here are the results on the AEC website this morning.
In New England, the Nationals got 20,337 first preference votes against Labor’s 6,472. In Lyne, the Nationals got 25,994 first preference votes against Labor’s 9898. And in Kennedy the LNP got 17,309 first preference votes against Labor’s 13,659. In all three cases the preference distribution shows that the Nationals and LNP ran second.
In all three cases the voters of those electorates have CLEARLY spoken and it is up to Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter to listen.
I don’t agree with that — I think they should bust the balls of the major parties to get the best deal they can, since next election they might not control the balance of power again (indeed, that’s the likely outcome). Surely this is what the people that voted for them first want.
conrad
24 Aug 10 at 8:08 am
Samuel, it would have been nice if just once you might read something and write say something about political conventions and hung parliaments.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 8:53 am
Lol. Yes the national fate should be decided by which way the minority of voters in their electorates voted….
Or they could go with the 70+% of voters in their electorates who said they didn’t want the national party in power.
Steve Edney
24 Aug 10 at 8:57 am
I think the Independents would be mad not to go with Labor. Abbott campaigned on not spending a dime. Labor campaigned at least on one issue all the Indies care about; broadband and telecoms. I think they all also demand action on climate change; with the exception of the cut snake Mr. Katter (whom I otherwise think is an absolute hoot)
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 9:04 am
Yeah my feeling is that independents want one thing – pork for their electorates and the ALP will be much happier dolling it out since parts of it are already part of policy (NBN). The liberals will have to compromise their position more to do so.
Steve Edney
24 Aug 10 at 9:11 am
Peter you obviously weren’t paying attention.Abbott was spending money here there and everywhere and then came up with mickey mouse savings to show net spending was low.
Country electorates want pork a lot and most like the NBN.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 9:18 am
Anyone see Oakshott on Lateline?
He ain’t no National, that’s for sure.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2991306.htm
FDB
24 Aug 10 at 9:35 am
As a conservative, it’s surely time you went and read Burke’s address to the electors of Bristol.
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?
To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,–these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. “
ChrisB
24 Aug 10 at 10:15 am
When I read Burke’s address to the electors of Bristol, so help me, it just sounds to me like political spin and a cop out.
Is there something I am genuinely not getting here?
There may be something like responsibility trumps direct democracy, but if so, it is discredited by the Swiss experience.
2dogs
24 Aug 10 at 10:29 am
Oh good, there’s an outbreak of Koombaya-ism from some at Catallaxy. Just waiting for CL & JC to join in. Come on, try holding hands, you two.
steve from brisbane
24 Aug 10 at 10:30 am
WTF are you babbling on about Steve, you moron.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 10:37 am
The Nationals were preferred. Not the Libs. There’s a schism between the interests the National represent and that of the Liberal Party. So how does that break down?
Still it’s pretty clear that they will probably support Abbott.
Adrien
24 Aug 10 at 10:38 am
You think that is clear?
Steve Edney
24 Aug 10 at 10:40 am
Whatever happens, Abbott needs to listen Katter. Katter’s views are much closer linked to rural Australia than the other two bandits.
I knew Oakeshott was trouble the moment I saw his t-shirt tucked into his jeans.
Infidel Tiger
24 Aug 10 at 10:41 am
Steve’s still trying to save face for hero-worshipping not one, but two consecutive disastrous prime ministers.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 10:42 am
Ignore Homer, Samuel. Last year I had to explain to him how the Senate works. He didn’t know that the Senate President has a deliberative vote but not a casting vote – unlike the House Speaker, who has a casting vote but no deliberative vote.
It was embarrassing.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 10:45 am
The Nationals were preferred. Not the Libs.
In seats like New England and Kennedy.
No kidding, Adrien?
Thanks for the heads-up.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 10:47 am
There’s probably a locker somewhere in Parliament House at the moment holding a bound and gagged Barnaby Joyce.
steve from brisbane
24 Aug 10 at 10:48 am
Currency Lad – the post assumes unity between the NAts and the Libs. Id didn’t make the point about the Nats, Sam J did. Might point escaped you (funny that). The Coalition has been fraying now for quite some time and considering these guys are independents and not Nats well it’s not a simple matter where they go is it?
Being from the land where necks are red and heads are baked you might catch on sometime during the 23rd century.
Adrien
24 Aug 10 at 10:53 am
Abbot should listen to this IT?
http://www.bobkatter.com.au/bobsvision.html
“Rural industry must compete against an OECD Average Support Level of 49 per cent. Since Australia has virtually no tariffs or subsidies our farmers are asked to do “the 100″, giving their competitors a 30m start. They can’t win and they’re not. ”
“And finally developmentalism – the free marketeers tell us “private enterprise must do it”. Government money provided and created the sugar industry, aluminium industry, coal industry and car industry. There wouldn’t be much Australian economy if Governments had listened to this foolishness in years past. “
Steve Edney
24 Aug 10 at 10:54 am
The Coalition has been fraying now for quite some time.
No, it hasn’t, Adrien. The Labor Party has. You really are a politically illiterate dope of almost Homer proportions.
Being from the land where necks are red and heads are baked you might catch on sometime during the 23rd century.
You mean Queensland? Where you got your degree in the bush suburb of Nathan?
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 11:00 am
““And finally developmentalism – the free marketeers tell us “private enterprise must do it”. Government money provided and created the sugar industry, aluminium industry, coal industry and car industry. There wouldn’t be much Australian economy if Governments had listened to this foolishness in years past. “”
Bob,
Where did that money come from in the first place? By Katter’s reasoning, we should rejoin the British Empire and engage in franchise monopolies etc.
.
24 Aug 10 at 11:04 am
Steve – Forget Katter’s economic advice. That’s just crazy. Give Bob the perosnal freedoms and property rights he’s demanding.
Infidel Tiger
24 Aug 10 at 11:10 am
I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Stuff like tariffs and subsidies are crazy. However a project like turning the waters inland and making a larger part of Australia habitable? It could pass a cost benefit analysis. I’d keep my mind open on that. Just as I support a space program.
jtfsoon
24 Aug 10 at 11:13 am
I’d be curious to know how big a problem Native Title would be to such ideas, Jason. I suspect it’d be a very big problem indeed.
steve from brisbane
24 Aug 10 at 11:19 am
I’d rather spend $43bn building dams and diverting rivers than building an express porn chute.
Infidel Tiger
24 Aug 10 at 11:19 am
Country people mustn’t be what they used to be. Not that New England is ‘the bush’ in the same way that Western Queensland is. It was toffy old Ian Sinclair’s stomping ground, FFS. Usually they like to tell anyone willing to listen that they can and do get by without the mod-cons and a corner K-Mart. Suddenly, if Oakeshott is to be believed, they’ll all commit suicide if they can’t dial up the website of The Farmer Wants a Wife.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 11:23 am
jtfsoon
Is it really such a joke this idea of turning the rivers inward? It has always sounded like the best fucking idea this country has ever had.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 11:25 am
Steve
Native Title is the very lowest of property title. It cannot even be bought and sold. The Crown can extinguish it with the stroke of a pen.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 11:27 am
Major parties always run dead in seats they cannot win but an independent or other party can win. That way their preferences determines the winner.
Have a look at Tanner’s old seat.
wonderful logic from Samuel again
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 12:04 pm
“Major parties always run dead in seats they cannot win but an independent or other party can win. That way their preferences determines the winner.
Have a look at Tanner’s old seat.”
???
So the Libs wanted the Greens to win?
.
24 Aug 10 at 12:09 pm
of course they did.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 12:10 pm
…and the ALP dudes didn’t preference the Greens over the Libs?
.
24 Aug 10 at 12:12 pm
dot
The Greens won Melbourne on Liberal preferences.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 12:15 pm
No one knows that for sure.
.
24 Aug 10 at 12:16 pm
Is Oakeshot is well man?
He sounds quite articulate but when you actually listen to the shit he’s spouting you kind of think he’s basically Homer with better diction.
Who the hell voted in this loon?
JC
24 Aug 10 at 12:16 pm
It’s true that the independents are in some sense conservative (though not economically, or in terms of public services), but surely there are other considerations for them. Until the numbers are decided, it’ll be impossible to determine the strongest party. It may be that the much-touted need for ‘stability’ will be fulfilled with an alliance with the ALP, rather than the Coalition.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 12:16 pm
PM Gillard and the Greens are a grave danger to Australia if they remain in charge of the Treasury. Gillard had her chance to be PM and chose to call the election 8 months early risking her Prime Ministership to help more Greens into Parliament. The Libs/Nats won the primary decisively and would have won the two party preferred vote had there not been a red traitor in the non-socialist camp who preferenced Greens before Labor in many seats.
“ENCOURAGE INDEPENDENT MPs To Change The Government”
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=152688368077088&ref=ts
James Darby
24 Aug 10 at 12:20 pm
There’s no need for “stability”. We have a GG, caretaker provisions, a permament public service and loyal military.
We can have another election, it won’t hurt, if it sucks, get rid of compulsory voting.
.
24 Aug 10 at 12:21 pm
James Darby
PM Gillard and the Greens are a grave danger to Australia if they remain in charge of the Treasury
Not really. Wait till Christine Milne opens her gob from the front-bench and the bond/currency markets go ape shit. That’ll learn ‘em.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 12:23 pm
The Libs/Nats won the primary decisively and would have won the two party preferred vote had there not been a red traitor in the non-socialist camp who preferenced Greens before Labor in many seats.
Rubbish. The Coalition only got more primary votes because they are a coalition. And the 2PP preferred had nothing to do with ‘red traitors’, and everything to do with the fact that almost all votes lost be the ALP went straight to the Greens, and were preferenced back again. The Red Terror is over, comrade.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 12:23 pm
Marky the ALP preferences were irrelevant they were ALWAYS going to be 1 or 2.
the preferences are ONLY important if you run THIRD and they are distributed.
your preferences then determine the winner.
If the Liberals ran second the ALP would have won very very easily.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 12:24 pm
Australia has the most stable and institutionally strong polity on earth. That’s the ‘conservative’ part of my political philosophy; not upsetting that apple cart. But we are still a galaxy away from that.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 12:24 pm
There’s no need for “stability”. We have a GG, caretaker provisions, a permament public service and loyal military.
It’s Abbott and the triumvirate who are talking up ‘stability’.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 12:27 pm
“If the Liberals ran second the ALP would have won very very easily.”
Um no shit. Which is precisely my point.
.
24 Aug 10 at 12:29 pm
no it wasn’t.
go away and find out about a subject before writing such confused and ignorant work
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 12:30 pm
Homer, I think I know what I think, whereas you can barely write comprehensibly.
“If the Liberals ran second the ALP would have won very very easily.”
Again – um no shit. The Libs may have preferenced the Greens on HTVs but the ALP came second. What do Liberal voters think of the Greens, you dishonest charlatan?
.
24 Aug 10 at 12:33 pm
Bizarre comment of the day:
“The Coalition only got more primary votes because they are a coalition.”
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 12:34 pm
I’m not a violent person or advocate violence, Cl. However in the most exceptional circumstances (Homer) we should bring back whipping in the town square.
I wonder if Bob Katter could make that suggestion as a condition of supporting government?
JC
24 Aug 10 at 12:37 pm
It’s Abbott and the triumvirate who are talking up ‘stability’.
Gee, I thought Gillard offered ‘stability’ in her address here. Sorry, my mistake:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/i-can-form-a-government-that-works-says-gillard-20100822-13ayo.html?autostart=1
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 12:41 pm
I meant, CL, that the ALP got far more primary vote than any other party. The Coalition’s primary vote only becomes significant once one adds up the votes of the disparate constituent parties. This demolishes the lunatic argument that the Coalition ‘won decisively’.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 12:43 pm
‘I can form a government that works, says Gillard.’
LOL.
She couldn’t get a government to work when they had a handy majority.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 12:44 pm
Gee, I thought Gillard offered ‘stability’ in her address here. Sorry, my mistake
Ah, the short and selective memories of conservatives:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-emphasises-stability-as-his-forte-20100822-13aym.html
THR
24 Aug 10 at 12:45 pm
I’d love footage of Katter and Bandt having a chin wag.
Infidel Tiger
24 Aug 10 at 12:46 pm
Rubbish. The Coalition only got more primary votes because they are a coalition.
What the ?
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 12:46 pm
Your observation is bizarre, THR. It’s Labor versus the Coalition. Your protest: ‘but the Coalition is a Coalition.’
The Coalition was the preferred choice of a half a million more voters. Most Australians wanted Rudd-Gillard OUT of government. Labor’s primary vote was in the toilet – in the 30s. You should instead be saying that the only reason Labor looks passably respectable on 2PP is because of a rigid preference deal with an essentially constituent party – the Greens.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 12:49 pm
Marky you cannot think period.
you said
So the Libs wanted the Greens to win?
and then said
and the ALP dudes didn’t preference the Greens over the Libs?
say no more
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 12:51 pm
Wrong, CL. The ALP is comfortable the single most popular party in the country. It also won the 2PP vote, and the outcome on seats is yet to be decided. There’s no such things as a ‘preference deal’ in the lower house, so Greens voters are free to preference however they wish. In fact, they’re forced to.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 12:51 pm
I’d LOVE to see some ‘instability’ in the parliament. Some good policy might come out of it!
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 12:51 pm
The bogan princess can holler all she likes. The real test is who gets that vote of confidence in the lower house.
That’s the test. No other shit about 2pp etc. matters.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 12:52 pm
Ah, the short and selective memories of conservatives
Short and selective? I never argued that Abbott didn’t make overtures to stability, but you appeared to airbrush Gillard’s own overtures. Now that is one’s memory at war with one’s pride.
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 12:52 pm
gentleman the votes wil prove to be irrelevant.
It is the seats that wil count.
if it was the vote then it would be the 2PP vote.
No government ever gets elected nowadays on primary votes
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 12:53 pm
Labor versus the Coalition, THR.
That’s how it works.
Most people preferred the Coalition. A majority of Australians’ first preference was an Abbott government.
Labor’s primary vote was the lowest since WWII – in the 30s. Embarrassing.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 12:55 pm
I imagine the GG has already been on the blower to Her Majesty a couple of times seeking advice. This is one occasion when the old bird’s wisdom and experience will be invaluable.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 12:55 pm
You don’t want policy, Patton. You basically want these fuckers to do zip.
The funniest thing that happened when the GOP stopped the budget from being passed in the late 90′s was that the Clinton Administration was really worried that Americans would realize their lives weren’t really impacted by having the government close down.
I hope this state of limbo lasts for a very long time in order to get that point across to the Australian public, which seems addicted to government.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 12:56 pm
Labor versus the Coalition, THR.
If you insist on the election being ALP vs Coalition, then the ALP clearly won, after preferences. If you look at things before preferences, the ALP are by far the most popular party in the country.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 12:57 pm
That’s a reasonable perspective, but no, I would really like to see this tedious party discipline melt away.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 12:58 pm
It’s interesting watching the lefty talking points come forth. Suddenly, stability is an overrated concept because Gillard’s gang of in-bred louts is going at it like button men in the Castellammarese War.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 1:00 pm
I doubt it Peter.
She would merely phone the Tasmanian governor.
The convention is the present Prime Minister is invited to form a Government. If they can they do.
If they cannot then she invites the Leader of the opposition.
Lizzie did this in 1974 and indeed quite recently with similar results.
when the premier of Tasmania tried to say the Opposition leader should be asked to form a government the governor said no it was the current premier that had the first call.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 1:01 pm
You’re being Homeric and silly, THR. No point debating someone who’s in denial.
Most Australians’ first preference was an Abbott government.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 1:01 pm
CL is stupid mode again.
The reason why the coalition is talking up the primary vote is because they lost the 2PP vote.
It wil be the seats won which will determine it.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 1:03 pm
Jeez
Blight and Christine are really at it.
I think it’s time those two were placed in a mud wrestling comp wearing bikinis to work it out.
Arbib or Bitar can ref.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 1:03 pm
“you said
So the Libs wanted the Greens to win?
and then said
and the ALP dudes didn’t preference the Greens over the Libs?
say no more”
Yes you halfwit, the first was rhetorical.
.
24 Aug 10 at 1:04 pm
Homer
Go away. Your presence isn’t required today. Go and see what Rog is doing in the cellar.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 1:05 pm
BBB
Are you trying to tell me that in a situation like this , our GG would not call on the wisdom of the world’s longest reigning and most astute statesperson, who also happens to be part of our Constitution? Why on earth would our GG shun that opportunity?
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 1:06 pm
you fullwit thew preferences of the ALP were irrelevant but the Liberal’s were not.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 1:06 pm
Peter,
She doesn’t need it.
A phonecall to either Tasmania or indeed South Asutralia would be all that is needed.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 1:07 pm
I think a phone call to the Eastwood Senior Citizens home is needed.
jtfsoon
24 Aug 10 at 1:08 pm
“#
you fullwit thew preferences of the ALP were irrelevant but the Liberal’s were not”
Yep sure Homer. The ALP who finished second didn’t preference another leftist party who came first. Liberal voters, third on first prefs determined the election as they all faithfully preferenced the Greens second….
Christ you’re living in a fantasy world.
.
24 Aug 10 at 1:08 pm
She would merely phone the Tasmanian governor.
If Bryce phones anyone – including on the subject of her ethical conundrum over her son-in-law, Dick Shorten – it will probably be the Governor of New South Wales. Marie Bashir holds the dormant commission to act as the Administrator of the Commonwealth.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 1:09 pm
Most Australians’ first preference was an Abbott government.
This is an elementary failure of arithmetic. Neither on first preferences, nor 2PP, were ‘most Australians’ supporting an Abbott government.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 1:10 pm
You freaking moron Homer. The GG is not going to call the state G’s for advice. That wouldn’t be on.
It would be like someone calling you for economic advice. It just won’t happen.
If Quinten Crisp is stuck she’ll call her son-in- law, who I’m sure will point her in the right direction.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 1:11 pm
I think a phone call to the Eastwood Senior Citizens home is needed.
lol
Yea… The cordless phone takes reception down in the cellar.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 1:13 pm
Today’s bizarre and/or stupendously obvious comments from THR and Homer:
“The Coalition only got more primary votes because they are a coalition.” (THR).
“If the Liberals ran second the ALP would have won very very easily.” (Homer).
“It wil be the seats won which will determine it.” (Homer again).
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 1:13 pm
BBB
She might not “need” it, for any constitutional/legal reasons, but it sure would be reassuring to have. The GG is currently – deftly – seeking advice from prominent jurists, who comfortably fall within the ambit of conventions. Why? Partly, to get all the technical stuff as straight as possible, and partly for credibility among the citizenry if she is forced into a very tricky decision.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 1:13 pm
CL
That is correct. If the GG were to stand aside, Governor Bashir makes the call.
Anyway, why are even discussing this, her little dick, son-in-law should be standing aside!
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 1:15 pm
THR, most Australians’ first preference was an Abbott Coalition government.
That is, most Australians wanted the Gillard ‘government’ out.
Labor’s primary was an epic humilation – which is only rendered respectable on 2PP with the help of its coalition ally, the fascist Green Party.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 1:15 pm
you fullwit thew preferences of the ALP were irrelevant but the Liberal’s were not.
What does this mean?
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 1:16 pm
Freaking Labor. They’re like a demolition truck.
The fuck up running government and now they’re fucking up the political process of the country.
They’re like Midas in reverse. Everything they touch turns to shit.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 1:16 pm
hmm Neither David Flint, Graeme Orr or Greg Craven believe there is a conflict of interest.
No Forest of course not why ring someone with FIRST HAND Experience recently of what is happening now.
Every time we think you cant get anymore stupid you prove us wrong.
Peter the political convention is very clear on what happens when no party has a majority of seats.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 1:17 pm
you fullwit thew preferences of the ALP were irrelevant but the Liberal’s were not.
What does this mean?
Who knows, DB. Just ignore it. I’ve noticed that his batting average has moved down to 1 in 3. Now every one in three of dolt’s comments are incomprehensible, incoherent gibberish.
It’s tightening up towards 1 in 2.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 1:18 pm
I don’t believe she has any conflict. But she does have potentially a very tricky and important decision to make.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 1:19 pm
That is correct. If the GG were to stand aside, Governor Bashir makes the call.
Right. Homer should familiarise himself with Section 4 of the Australian Constitution before banging on about phone calls to the Governors of Tasmania and South Australia. of course, Bryce is free to ring whomsoever she chooses but it has already been reported that she is taking counsel on events from the Solicitor-General. If she recuses herself from any judgement call because of Dick Shorten, it will be the Administrator of the Commonwealth – that is, the Governor of New South Wales (who holds a dormant commission from Queen Elizabeth II) – who will probably make the relevant decisions.
Do some reading, Homer, you ignorant buffoon.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 1:23 pm
Only if Homer read a little!
It is clear that Homer can’t read.
.
24 Aug 10 at 1:26 pm
David Flint, Graeme Orr or Greg Craven
All very interesting, Homer, but the Governor-General herself has put the question in the hands of the Solicitor-General.
you fullwit thew preferences…
Welsh?
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 1:26 pm
BBB
What I am talking about is how the GG might react if Tony Abbott were to bound up the stairs of Government House in 20 minutes time, and said “right, I will form a government, I’m your man, wave your wand, and make me PM.” She would probably politely say no.
But then what if Gillers does the same 20 minutes later, and says “nope wave the wand here, I’ve got Turnbull and Katter in the bag?” And we can get and more specific. Now, I imagine that the GG has already foreseen these dicey possibilities, and she knows she MUST handle them flawlessly.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 1:30 pm
Honest question… Will Turnbull go labor?
JC
24 Aug 10 at 1:31 pm
No. He can’t. His electors would drown in their Bollinger dregs. I’m one of his electors, but I’m not wasting ANY of my Bollie!
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 1:34 pm
C;L, err if yuo cared to read you would kniw that the Asiustrain consortium says quite clwearly on page 21 that the guvernor gentile msut first consort with a tasmanian!!!1 Typical cattleprodlian crankstarts. They never read!!! this is sinkers leve of de-Forrestation tppe of msitake!!!
Infidel Tiger
24 Aug 10 at 1:37 pm
CL is Forresting himself.
Of course the GG will ask for advice.
We know what the advice wil be as there is a precedentant.
Tasmania.
Duh
Neither Gillard nor Abbott can do anything. They must wait until the G/G ask them to form a government.
Political convention is that the G/G asks the present PM to form a government.
By the time that happens we will all know which way the Independents are leaning
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 2:41 pm
“Of course the GG will ask for advice”
Really? She was a QLD Supreme Court Judge.
.
24 Aug 10 at 2:46 pm
CL is Forresting himself.
Of course the GG will ask for advice.
She already has, dopey. The Solicitor-General is advising her. This was reported in the press yesterday.
Your ignorance of all things constitutional is breathtaking.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 2:49 pm
Yes I said she is asking for advice stupid.
I also said there is a precedent.
your ignorance of all things is breathtaking
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 2:50 pm
“Really? She was a QLD Supreme Court Judge.”
I don’t think asking yourself for advise about whether you have a conflict of interest is going to really stand up, particularly if your answer is no.
Steve Edney
24 Aug 10 at 2:56 pm
Steve – she doesn’t have to and the next PM is unlikely to punish her. A newly elected Parliament after a short electoral cycle will.
Politics will sort this out.
“I also said there is a precedent.”
Please quote the incident.
.
24 Aug 10 at 3:20 pm
If you look at the ‘independents’ in Victoria circa 1999 they did pretty well for themselves even though they were in a similar position (or two of them were) to the current country MP’s making a similar decision at the federal level – the voters will forgive them if they get lots of money in return.
TJW
24 Aug 10 at 3:32 pm
Not only that, but Bracks formed a succesful government and the ALP have never looked back in that dank, grimy, socialist cesspit. It’s a big mistake to think Gillard forming govt. is a poisoned chalice.
Infidel Tiger
24 Aug 10 at 3:35 pm
Homer’s probably just trying to give us a garbled verion of this cricket article which discusses the Tasmanian governor’s approach when they have a 10 ALP 10 Lib 5 green result and includes a link the to governors reasoning.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/23/does-gg-quentin-bryce-have-a-conflict-of-interest/
Steve Edney
24 Aug 10 at 3:39 pm
Lol I mean crickey article not cricket!. In trying to explain Homer I am writing like him.
Steve Edney
24 Aug 10 at 3:40 pm
who holds a dormant commission from Queen Elizabeth II
Why is it dormant?
Rococo Liberal
24 Aug 10 at 3:50 pm
The majority of Australians’ first preference was not to have a Coalition government, otherwise they would have over 50% primary vote. It was not even their second preference as they lost the TPP.
AndrewL
24 Aug 10 at 4:14 pm
CL – No, it hasn’t, Adrien. The Labor Party has.
The ALP is frayed CL it’s cracked. The Coalition is frayed because the interests of the Libs and that of the Nats are becoming divergent.
You really are a politically illiterate dope of almost Homer proportions.
Do you want me to cry?
You mean Queensland? Where you got your degree in the bush suburb of Nathan?
Yep. Lucky I left before my head was completely backed. As everyone knows it’s only half-baked.
Adrien
24 Aug 10 at 4:26 pm
CL in stupid mode again.
You mean there’s another mode!?
Adrien
24 Aug 10 at 4:31 pm
Uh that’s the ALP isn’t frayed it’s cracked.
Adrien
24 Aug 10 at 4:32 pm
BBB
No. The GG waits for advice from her Prime Minister.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 4:38 pm
Yes I said she is asking for advice stupid.
Homer, you said she was speaking to the Governors of Tasmania and South Australia.
She hasn’t.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 4:56 pm
BBB
The Constitutions of the Commonwealth versus the colonial States are a galaxy apart in every sense. The Governor of Tasmania would have 3/5 of fuck all to offer the GG as advice.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 5:00 pm
A half a million more people voted for an Abbott government as their first preference than voted for a Gillard government.
who holds a dormant commission from Queen Elizabeth II
Why is it dormant?
Because the Governor-General is presently in the country and not otherwise unable to discharge her duties.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 5:00 pm
It is interesting that the Rann Minority government in South Australia is cited as an example of a good and workable arrangement – good if you like an overdose of spin and media management, that is. But the fate of Karlene Maywald, the single National Party member of SA Parliament from Renmark, who remained in the Cabinet even in the Rann government when it had a clear majority. She was booted out by her electorate – a deeply conservative rural area – at the last election.
Judith Sloan
24 Aug 10 at 5:41 pm
Honest question… Will Turnbull go labor?
I think it would be a risky and possibly foolish maneuvre.
There’s a high chance that a Gillard government will come unstuck in a couple of months, even with his support. If they descend into a squabbling, NSW style mess, there would be no glory in being part of the rabble. So if he switched, he could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. But besides, even if Gillard prevailed, Labor would knife him at the first opportunity.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 5:41 pm
<a href="http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/independents-must-pay-heed-to-the-voices-of-their-electors/story-fn5zmod2-1225909062949"
(from Tim Blair who comments that voters in their electorates “may be surprised to learn that they are on the verge of returning Labor to power. ”
Well yes. That’s putting it mildly.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 6:19 pm
Oakeshott is a loon. He should go labor.
Abbott shouldn’t take any shit from these dudes and hold his ground.
Let Labor bribe them.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 6:21 pm
JC – things looking slightly better
Sinclair Davidson
24 Aug 10 at 6:28 pm
I can’t believe they’d form a minority Labor government. The response of locals is going to be interesting to observe if these figures are anything to go by:
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 6:42 pm
Yea, Sinc.
Part of me, the destructive side, would like to see Labor take it, that way they could implode in office in a spectacular fashion that would people under no illusions next time when their primary vote goes into the 20′s.
However the other side would like to see some adult supervision in government that we’ve not had for several years.
I hope Abbott doesn’t let me down here and avoids firing the top layer of Treasury
JC
24 Aug 10 at 6:43 pm
oops… leave people under..
JC
24 Aug 10 at 6:43 pm
The story for Labor is considerably worse in Mr Windsor’s seat of New England, where in the last three elections Labor has recorded primary support of 8.7 per cent, 9.8 per cent and 8 per cent.
DB, In all honesty New England is showing the rest of the country where the natural support base of labor ought to be. Anything above say 8% should be considered alarming.
They should be bottom feeding with the Greens.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 6:46 pm
The GG is asking for advice so appearances ere okay.
Yeah Peter Tassie and South Asutralia would have nothing to tell her.
What just happened in Tassie and who was related to the governor?
no CL I said she should speak to both because of the above.
No government theses days EVER gets elected on primary votes it is 2PP.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
24 Aug 10 at 7:29 pm
A half a million more people voted for an Abbott government as their first preference than voted for a Gillard government.
We’re not talking about that fact getting the Coalition elected, you wilfully obtuse block head, we’re talking about moral authority.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 7:48 pm
CL, you’re right that Homer was being deliberatly obtuse. I’d like to pretend he doesn’t exist for a moment and address this issue of moral authority.
The truth is that I’m skeptical about any claims of moral authority because you can look at it from so many angles. The only moral authority that has teeth is a solution that arises from the legal, legitimate use of the democratic system, which in this situation is any solution at all.
That’s separate from the fact that Oakeshott and Windsor no doubt preferenced Labor behind conservatives on their how-to-vote cards, and other things to signal their anti-Labor credentials.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 8:03 pm
Incidentally, the GG can ask for all the legal advice she wants, it doesn’t change the fact that she’s compromised. If she is seen to favour the Labor party in any way, she will be seen to be corruptly installing her allies.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 8:06 pm
Dave, it seems to me that it’s very likely the ex-Nats are probably deliberately talking up their openness to Labor so as to avoid accusations of 1) unbecoming peremptoriness; and 2) selling out on their infrastructure fantasies. But their local electors – both in the House and Senate – demonstrated that they’re virulently anti-Labor and that judgement cannot be ignored by them.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 8:18 pm
Funny that the moron known as JC should call for advice from someone whom he regards as a moron.
Same goes for samuel j’s argument – extend it over a national base and the Libs should just pack up and go home – they extended their vote by a miserable <1% and failed to gain a majority national vote.
rog
24 Aug 10 at 8:23 pm
Rog had yet another shitty weekend. Will his rotten luck never end?
Infidel Tiger
24 Aug 10 at 8:25 pm
“A half a million more people voted for an Abbott government as their first preference than voted for a Gillard government. ”
They did? there was a presidential election?
rog
24 Aug 10 at 8:32 pm
Oh Hi Wodge.
Your prediction worked out well. LOL
You’re pathetic. Back in November you were telling us how the Libs refusal to back that abortion of an ETS was going to turn them into a rump of a party and that Abbott was the worst possible choice of all time.
Why don’t you apologize to the ridership here at the CAT instead of acting all tough like and wishing that away, as no one’s fooled by this bravado, you twit.
Not for nothing Wodge, but if your predictive abilities and the refusal to admit error is exemplified by your behavior here, you’d have to be the worst businessman in the country.
In fact you and Homer ought to get together more often as you both live in the same area…. A little pocket of Eastwood called Loserville.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 8:33 pm
oops.. readership…
JC
24 Aug 10 at 8:33 pm
CL, that’s probably true for Katter and Windsor, but Oakeshott is a worry. On Lateline he said:
No doubt Gillard has put this into his head.
Plus, his comments today about boat people are in direct opposition to a central plank of Abbott’s campaign.
He condemned the politics of fear, “bullish rhetoric” that is causing them damage, and said they be processed on the mainland. That sounds like a guy who’s moving closer to Bob Brown than either of the major parties.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 8:36 pm
Same goes for samuel j’s argument – extend it over a national base and the Libs should just pack up and go home – they extended their vote by a miserable <1% and failed to gain a majority national vote.
LOL. The Coalition on the weekend reduced a near 30 seat majority for Labor to 0 or -1 and this rog counts as miserable. Well, yes, certainly a miserable result for the ALP and anti-Abbott stooges.
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 8:37 pm
The triumvirate may be swayed by the fact that an Abbott government won’t be able to legislate anything after July 2011, when the new senate kicks in. Contrary to CL’s claims that ‘most’ Australians voted Abbott, we will have a rather left-leaning upper house. If the independents side with Abbott, they’ll be guaranteeing a DD election in 2011, and a permanent election campaign in the meantime.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 8:40 pm
Rog had yet another shitty weekend. Will his rotten luck never end?
Yea.. it took all weekend and Monday for the Loserville resident to show up here and he does so by attempting to cover it all up with arrogance and condescension.
It’s the refusal to apologize that really is disappointing about him. It’s not even that he’s gone all doctor’s wife after he married Geoffrey. It’s the non-apology that offends me most about Wodge. I’m both offended and disappointed in her.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 8:41 pm
Bad result for the Libs, says Rog.
‘LOL’ just doesn’t cover it.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 8:42 pm
‘LOL’ just doesn’t cover it.
How about OMG followed by ROTFL?
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 8:45 pm
Hey JC, despite the ALPs electoral fumblings the libs are still a minority, they need to form a coalition with all sorts of weird hayseed country bumpkin socialists, and continue to be “a rump of a party and that Abbott was the worst possible choice of all time”
rog
24 Aug 10 at 8:45 pm
Dad
Abbott needs to stand his ground with Oakeshott. I’m sure the electorate from where he comes from wasn’t counting on the fact that they were voting in a loon and Greens party aspirant.
He needs to take his ideas and go play in Labor’s sandpit, as that will work out well.
We had domestic transfer centres and Howard was ape raped about them by the crazed left.
Perhaps Oakeshott would like to be minister of domestic processing centers and see how that works out for him.
He’s just talking shit. Fancy the crap he came up with about Rudd being a foreign minister in Abbott’s cabinet. Lord almighty.
Oakeshott doesn’t sound like he’s well man.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 8:48 pm
THR, the other issue for them to consider is that if any of them help Gillard become leader, they will not be re-elected. Oakeshott seems not to care. Maybe he’s in love with a Greenie?
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 8:49 pm
Wodge…
Are you tranquilized at the moment?
The seats are neck and neck you freaking lobster brain. A couple of votes either way will swing the result.
In November you were predicting the Libs would end up being a mere rump of a party, so stop it with the bravado and pretend analysis.
Man up and aplogize to everyone here you’ve abused because they weren’t buying into your stupid predictions.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 8:52 pm
If I’m reading the consensus here right, it’s that the independents are simply playing hardball with the Coalition. They need the Coalition to be worried about their allegience or they won’t be taken seriously and they won’t get what they want.
Is that it?
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 8:52 pm
Dunno, Dad. They’re a strange bunch. They’re hard to read.
Rationally one would agree with you, but they don’t really seem to be on this planet. Oakeshott being a good example.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 8:54 pm
Rog, you’ve been personally humiliated by Abbott. You predicted that Labor would win by an historical landslide. No amount of spin can save your already trashed reputation for stupidity. When Bob Brown said the other day how overjoyed he was about that whale being born in the Derwent, I thought of you, Rog. Specifically, I remembered your proposal at Morahasy’s blog that a tourist industry be established to cater for people who wanted to see whales slaughtered in situ.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 9:00 pm
So JC who are the Liberal National Party of Queensland who hold 21 of the coalition seats?
“The objective of LNP policies and specific initiatives is to provide Queenslanders with a fair and just society and a sustainable economy that delivers a high standard of living and the quality of life of a first world country.”
rog
24 Aug 10 at 9:01 pm
Dave,
Who says they won’t be re-elected? They’ll be able to negotiate some local pork, and some of these electorates may be disinterested in the ALP, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re in love with the Coalition. If anything, the few remaining seats held by Nats could probably be won by independents, if the right person put their mind to it.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 9:01 pm
A vote for Abbott is a vote for CL’s lunch – bananas
rog
24 Aug 10 at 9:03 pm
Who says they won’t be re-elected?
I’m saying it now, THR. Labor is toxic in these electorates. It’s the equivalent of being a One Nation supporter in St Kilda.
They can get all the pork they like, but once they’re branded as Labor supporters they will have no chance at all. Their only hope will be as an alderman on the local council.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 9:06 pm
So JC who are the Liberal National Party of Queensland who hold 21 of the coalition seats?
Dunno them by names Wodgie, Do you? They’re perhaps part of the coalition people voted for to replace the failed Labor experiment. Did I guess right?
“The objective of LNP policies and specific initiatives is to provide Queenslanders with a fair and just society and a sustainable economy that delivers a high standard of living and the quality of life of a first world country.”
Umm I don’t quite get the purpose of the quote, wodge.
(Sounds laudable to me in a political party spin sorta way).
What is it that you’re trying to say, you incomprehensible buffoon.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 9:07 pm
Here is another “independent” that forms “The Coalition”, the Country liberals
Our policy will entail 6 core philosophies.
• The development of green energy and energy efficiency
• Ensuring Government introduces practical measures and sets benchmarks for changing community behaviour on reducing pollution.
• Reducing the impact of savanna burning
• Supporting green business and industry
• Developing a green workforce
• Promoting green communities
Go Green!
rog
24 Aug 10 at 9:08 pm
A vote for Abbott is a vote for CL’s lunch – bananas
WTF?
Okay , wodge. that about does your time here. Now back to the cellar, as Homer has nicely given up the warm spot beside the boiler for you to use.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 9:08 pm
Go Green!
Another zombie. How many are there?
JC
24 Aug 10 at 9:09 pm
You idiot JC, the Abbott so called “coalition” is just a bunch of red necked independent banana bending hayseed day dreamers.
Of course you have never heard of the Liberal National Party of Queensland, you just dont get out much do you?
rog
24 Aug 10 at 9:11 pm
You idiot JC, the Abbott so called “coalition” is just a bunch of red necked independent banana bending hayseed day dreamers.
Says, Mr. Urbane Zoo reader.
Wodge, can I remind you that you once linked a Zoo magazine piece to support your argument. And you have the hide to call other people red necks? You complete bogan.
Who the hell do you think you are. Voting Green doesn’t change your stripes, Wodge.
Of course you have never heard of the Liberal National Party of Queensland, you just dont get out much do you?
Okay. You need to get into the cellar now. Bye Wodge.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 9:17 pm
the Abbott so called “coalition” is just a bunch of red necked independent banana bending hayseed day dreamers.
This is rog’s big point that he’s been building up to. Thanks rog. Very interesting contribution. Thanks again.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 9:17 pm
Yea Dad… Wodge is moving to 5th Ave.
Mr Urbanity has had enough of this non metro-sexual lifestyle.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 9:20 pm
Rog, can we have the Morohasy links where you call for a whale slaughtering tourist industry, the privatisation of beaches, denounce carbon zombies and mock “climate change”?
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 9:21 pm
Don’t move a muscle, let me.
Scientist Rog
* SATELLITES & warming: Aug 2005
Since the satellites now clearly show that the atmosphere is warming at around the rate predicted by the models, we will report on his no-doubt imminent proclamation of a new found faith in models as soon as we hear of it…*
What are you on about Luke, the latest graph from Spencer and Christy 1980 to now shows sfa warming in the lower troposphere – the big year was 1998.
I thought I told you to stay away from the cheap red.
http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_6.0p
and
The aggressive side was coming even then
Comment from: rog October 7th, 2006 at 7:31 pm
Do you refute the satellite data from NASA or dont you?
I cant see how you can, without resorting to yet another character assasination
Comment from: rog October 8th, 2006 at 6:06 am
Personal abuse aside, we agree that the data indicates that 1998 was the hottest year.
Try to have a better day Luke.
Rog takes a minimalist line
Comment from: rog October 8th, 2006 at 8:28 am
The total warming is minimal.
He really seems to hate an ETS.
Comment from: rog October 8th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Try and pay attention Luke, the ritalin has yet to kick in; pixie wants you to tell her about carbon credits and how they will cool the climate.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 9:34 pm
My point was that if the three independents had not run, the national party (LNP in QLD) would have won all three seats with far more votes than Labor. While it is fair to say that as representatives voters trust them to vote on bills, it is quite different to ask what party they will support as the government. Rightly the three independents should refer to their voters for instructions on this. And the preference system shows clearly that the voters in each of those three seats went for the Coalition over Labor. I think they have a moral obligation to support the Coalition if the Coalition wins 73 or more seats.
samuel j
24 Aug 10 at 10:13 pm
My point was that if the three independents had not run, the national party (LNP in QLD) would have won all three seats with far more votes than Labor
What a foolish point. If the Coalition had not run, 145 seats would have been won by Labor.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 10:16 pm
So you now admit it’s Labor versus one entity, THR?
Labor versus the Coalition.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 10:20 pm
Which “national” party?
Funny (peculiar) how the nationals in QLD are only for QLD, not the nation yet are a national party
And funny (peculiar) that the liberals cannot exist without having to form a coalition with restrictive xenophobes – irony reigns supreme
rog
24 Aug 10 at 10:27 pm
“the liberals cannot exist without having to form a coalition with restrictive xenophobes”
???
They are skeptical of free trade, not entirely dismissive. They are pro immigration and pro development.
.
24 Aug 10 at 10:35 pm
What a foolish point. If the Coalition had not run, 145 seats would have been won by Labor.
What a ridiculous response.
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 10:38 pm
Wodge;
Bravado doesn’t work. man up and apologize.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 10:38 pm
Immigration increased markedly under Howard.
The Labor Party’s coalition ally, the Greens, are against increased immigration.
C.L.
24 Aug 10 at 10:39 pm
THR, Samuel’s point is simply that these independents were voted in by conservatives, just as Wilkie and Bandt were voted in by green leftists. When they retire, the seats will revert to being safe coalition seats.
daddy dave
24 Aug 10 at 10:46 pm
dd, THR understands that, he’s merely firing off some chaff.
dover_beach
24 Aug 10 at 10:54 pm
Samuel’s point is rubbish, both logical and rhetorical. It’s slightly embarrassing that anybody would rush to defend it.
The very reason independents succeed in the country is that the electorates there are utterly and irrevocably disillusioned with the Coalition, and yet, for tribal reasons, are disinclined to vote for the ALP. Hence, you get ‘conservative’ independents, who happen to oppose privatisation, but support the ETS, the mining, ‘big Australia’, etc. These independents ought to be viewed as a stepping stone toward the ALP, not the Coalition.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 11:15 pm
THR
Indeps don’t succeed in this country. In fact indeps would be one area of politics one can say has been a miserable failure in Australia.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 11:22 pm
Jc, Australia is not the US, but in politics, the barriers to entry are still high. I’d say that’s the main thing against independents. There are loads of seats, IMO, waiting to be taken from the major parties if a high-profile, talented independent shows up.
THR
24 Aug 10 at 11:25 pm
THR:
I don’t understand your point about the US. However Indeps in Australia are pretty meager and overall it’s a failure.
The barrier to entry here isn’t that much. I think it’s about $1000 to get on a ballot and the reason they raised it was because far too many idiots were getting on that weren’t;t really that interested and doing more for pranks.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 11:37 pm
JC
I notice the markets haven’t raised an eyebrow over the political situation. Maybe that is a good sign that all is well. Your predictions?
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 11:40 pm
THR
I don’t know anything about Terje, but I don’t get the impression his last name is Rockefeller!
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 11:46 pm
Peter:
The Aussie copped it a little. markets are funny at the moment.
I think they’re prepared to accept both parties with a slight lean to the Libs because they’re remove the mining tax.
We’re also okay because the world is still buying our shit and our fortunes will only change, all thing being equal, if that situation changes.
The only real upset to markets is if Lab gets in and then, goes full on retarded and begins to suck up to the greens by adopting some of their polices.
If the markets get a whiff of the Green zombies getting some influence, then look out below.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 11:50 pm
I’m just a tiny bit worried about global equity markets at the moment because the Japanese Yen continues to strengthen and strengthen really hard. It’s pretty much a proxy for world risk appetite. If it strengthens it means risk is getting taken off the table.
The bank of japan needs to stop drinking the sake and ease up on Yen Strength at the moment, as that currency is really going the wrong way for their economy. They don’t need strength. They need the yen to be weak.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 11:55 pm
I made that observation elsewhere. If Labor does do a deal with a Greens, and, say, gave Christine Milne a front-bench spot. The moment she opened her mouth in parliament, the bond and currency desks would light up like a christmas tree, giving the Greens one hell of a wakeup bitchslapping they have yet to experience; but soooooo deserve to.
Peter Patton
24 Aug 10 at 11:55 pm
I actually blame labor for the rise of these zombies. If they had ever shown some backbone and attacked them the way they deserve to be attacked people would have listened to them in a different way than say they would listen to a conservative attack them.
Instead by playing into their game, labor has given the zombie party legitimacy they never deserved.
It’s Labor’s fault.
JC
24 Aug 10 at 11:59 pm
You mean a left-wing negligence analogous to their claim that Howard was negligent in not directly attacking Pauline?
Peter Patton
25 Aug 10 at 12:05 am
Yea…exactly.
Most of the sensible labor guys would find The greens to be anathema, yet they are too frightened to attack them.
Some do like Gary Johns, but he’s only one I’ve seen.
To be honest I also think Gillard isn’t so disposed to their views (and this is only my hunch), I don’t think she really believes much of this AGW stuff and wouldn’t be too far from Abbotts postion.
However she’s too cowardly to stick up for her views.
JC
25 Aug 10 at 12:20 am
As I said, most people are thinking about this whole election so wrong. Labor HATES the Greens. Either Gillard or Abbott will be PM of a government whose main legislative alliance will be with the other.
That is, we will be governed more by a Labor-Liberal alliance than a Labor-Green alliance.
Peter Patton
25 Aug 10 at 12:26 am
“If the Coalition and Labor both end up with 73 seats,”
187 comments. Right. But the above premise is no longer relevant. Wilkie has won Denison. This means ALP and Libs together will have 145 seats, This means they will NOT have the same number of seats. End of story.
Boris
25 Aug 10 at 1:25 am
PP, Labor may hate Greens but they need them. If ALP forms govt, Libs will have to do everything in their power to undermine them and vice versa. Greens have other agenda.
Boris
25 Aug 10 at 1:26 am
The very reason independents succeed in the country is that the electorates there are utterly and irrevocably disillusioned with the Coalition, and yet, for tribal reasons, are disinclined to vote for the ALP
Absolute rubbish THR. Every single independent elected in this election has succeeded because they are ex-members of a well-known and well-supported political party.
Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor would be nobodies if they weren’t ex-nationals, and Wilkie would be a nobody if he wasn’t an ex-green.
Conservatives voted for these independents for the same reason that a lot of left-wingers vote Greens – as a protest. And for the same reasons, they would scream bloody murder if the independents went with Labor, just as LPers would lose their shit if the Greens they voted for decided to form a coalition with the liberals.
Yobbo
25 Aug 10 at 3:38 am
Exactly.
Ev630
25 Aug 10 at 3:50 am
“Conservatives voted for these independents for the same reason that a lot of left-wingers vote Greens – as a protest.”
Maybe. But maybe they just like their prominent local member and his record. After all, there is no particular reason why protest should be particularly strong in these three divisions.
Boris
25 Aug 10 at 4:16 am
“Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor would be nobodies if they weren’t ex-nationals,”
True, but this is only their origins. Once they established their record within the Nats, they have (local) prominence of their own.
If Turnbull or Rudd are deselected tomorrow, they can be easily be reelected as independents without any protest vote. Of course, they will be still expected to align with their former party homes.
Boris
25 Aug 10 at 4:20 am
daddy dave, RE: …just as Wilkie and Bandt were voted in by green leftists. When they retire, the seats will revert to being safe coalition seats.
Denison has been a pretty safe labor seat for a while, held by D. Kerr (since 1987 I believe). He decided not to recontest and wilke will be an interesting challenge for either side.
DP
25 Aug 10 at 7:50 am
the Liberals are gone.Tony Windsor wants them to submit thier policies to Treasury for costings!
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
25 Aug 10 at 10:31 am
Abbott should steer well clear of these clowns. Katter is mad, Oakshott is a girly man and Windsor just wants cash. The leadership of this country should not be sold to the highest bidder.
asf
25 Aug 10 at 5:16 pm
In all three cases, the electorates chose an Independent so they should vote Independently and as history has shown that Tony Windsor is very independent.
In State Government he supported a Coalition and in Federal he supported Labor – an accusations of bias are rendered moot.
Katter does speak a lot of protectionism but you know how compromise and trade works, ask for something well above whilst negotiating. Katter has a point that we are a country with the least trade subsidies and tariffs but no other country is willing to lower theirs to an equivalent giving those countries an advantage over Australia. Or perhaps we should talk about the negligible benefits of the AUSFTA which no one has done a Cost-Benefit Analysis on since 2006 with the possible exception of Peter Gallagher
I’ll take a broad based independent over a backward looking Liberal Party type or an anti-country Labor/Green type any day.
Senexx
18 Sep 10 at 11:38 am