The three independents have requested the Opposition to have its election commitments costed by Treasury and Finance under the charter of budget honesty.
This cannot happen – the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 does not provide authority for such costings.
Section 3 of the Act states
caretaker period means, in relation to a general election, the period starting with the issue of the writ for the election and ending at the close of the poll on the polling day for the election.
Section 29 of the Act provides
(1) During the caretaker period for a general election:
(a) the Prime Minister may request the responsible Secretaries to prepare costings of publicly announced Government policies; and
(b) the Leader of the Opposition may, subject to subclause (4), request the responsible Secretaries to prepare costings of publicly announced Opposition policies.
(2) A request is to:
(a) be in writing; and
(b) outline fully the policy to be costed, giving relevant details; and
(c) state the purpose or intention of the policy.
(3) A request by the Prime Minister is to be given to the responsible Secretaries.
(4) A request by the Leader of the Opposition is to be given to the Prime Minister, who may then agree to refer it to the responsible Secretaries. The responsible Secretaries are not obliged or authorised to take any action in relation to the request unless the Prime Minister has referred the request to them.
(5) The Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition may, at any time, withdraw a request that he or she has made. A withdrawal by the Prime Minister is to be by notice in writing given to the responsible Secretaries. A withdrawal by the Leader of the Opposition is to be by notice in writing given to the Prime Minister, who is to notify the responsible Secretaries of the withdrawal.
Since the close of poll on the polling day has passed, the Charter of Budget Honesty Act provides no ability for the costing of Opposition election promises.
Theoretically the Opposition could provide its material to the Government with a request that Treasury and Finance undertake costings, but there would be no protection for the Coalition from abuse of the process by the Labor Government.
This is why a Parliamentary Budget Office needs to be established – accountable to the Parliament.
Treasury and Finance are accountable to the Government.
It’s an unreasonable request, and it’s bad strategy because they backed Abbott into a corner and now he has to refuse their wish list. I put it down to poor judgement. They’re making it up as they go along, they don’t have the resources of the parties, and mistakes are understandable.
daddy dave
25 Aug 10 at 11:26 pm
If this circus goes on much longer it’s time for a new election.
daddy dave
25 Aug 10 at 11:27 pm
This is why a Parliamentary Budget Office needs to be established – accountable to the Parliament.
I can’t see it working. The US model doesn’t apply here. Who would hire these people and how would you prevent politicization?
If Treasury has been politicized without any problem whatsoever there would be no problem for another Rudd government stacking the decks.
Did you see how even the auditors report on BER was softened to make the government look good?
In fact it could make things worse because a politicized unit like that wouldn’t have any oversight, would be a law unto themselves and could work against the government of the day for political reasons and carry undeserved authority.
You need a separation of the executive and review at different ends of the political process for that to work.
JC
25 Aug 10 at 11:32 pm
Poll says Independents should back Tony Abbott.
C.L.
25 Aug 10 at 11:44 pm
And note the picture of Oakeshott.
C.L.
25 Aug 10 at 11:46 pm
A state poll is utterly meaningless in a federal election, CL. We already get that the Queenslanders don’t like Gillard.
As for the theme of this post – Abbott’s refusal to have his magic pudding policies costed isn’t dishonesty and shonkiness, but due entirely to statutory barriers? Does anybody honestly believe that? Anyone?
THR
25 Aug 10 at 11:59 pm
It isn’t a state poll, THR. It’s a poll of Federal constituencies.
Anyone believe the government’s argument that its NBN white elephant cannot be audited under budget auspices because it’s ‘off balance sheet’?
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 12:04 am
Yea, I do. But I would add that the shonkiness and the dishonesty would come from the caretakers side and a politicized Treasury with a Treasury sec that has an iron in the fire over the resources tax, which Abbot has opposed.
You don’t have to like the Libs to see there is huge risk in this THR.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 12:05 am
Ok. I’ve read the poll article again, CL. I still don’t think it shows anything terrible for the ALP. If anything, it shows their support in the Independents’ electorates is significantly higher than their first preference vote. Assuming the independents can negotiate something good for their local electorates, I wouldn’t be surprised if they joined an ALP minority government with minimal fall-out back home.
Yea, I do. But I would add that the shonkiness and the dishonesty would come from the caretakers side and a politicized Treasury with a Treasury sec that has an iron in the fire over the resources tax, which Abbot has opposed.
Resource tax or not, this is Abbott’s error. Watch him come crawling back in a couple of days.
THR
26 Aug 10 at 12:11 am
Katter was proposing a giant corridor of wind farms in North Queensland yesterday.
Costings please.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 12:15 am
He can’t THR. He can’t come back on it as the strategy would be wrong as there is nothing to gain for him.
The game is this. These three loons can do or say what they please, but the party that will hold the most seats will be government and they will have to support it.
There’s next to no chance they would go with a party that has less seats unless the reasons were politically applaudable and they could clearly get away with it.
All this shit is crap they’re going on with is just staged junk.
The day the party wins the most seats they will fall into line immedaitely.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 12:17 am
The problem is that the issue isn’t just lower house seats. By July 2011, any Coalition government will be useless when faced with a Greens controlled senate, and will have to go for the DD election. The independents seem hell-bent on avoiding an election conducted with unseemly haste. An extra seat or two for Abbott won’t fix matters, since the Coalition still won’t have a majority.
Abbott’s policies, meager as they are, should have been costed pre-campaign, and not by some private accounting firm according to the Coalition’s assumptions.
THR
26 Aug 10 at 12:25 am
Yes, with a hostile senate, the Libs would have to go to a DD – and the 3 amigos want to hold balance as long as possible. It’s possible that this whole thing is a charade so the amigos can justify their support for ALP to their voters back home.
Fleeced
26 Aug 10 at 12:41 am
Oh rubbish. Senates have been obstreperous, fractious challenges to governments for 40 years. There’s nothing new about that. If Abbott is prime minister in the people’s house, it is incumbent upon the Greens to be pragmatic and accommodating.
As for ‘costings,’ the government still refuses to provide any for its signature ‘promise’. Says it’s all off-books – like some kind of sly-grog racket. It’s nothing short of hilarious for Labor and its supporters to be discussing budget costings given that Rudd and Gillard totally wrecked the budget and wasted tens of billions of dollars on useless junk. Gillard, personally, was a disaster as an economic manager of the BER debacle.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 12:45 am
Yes, with a hostile senate, the Libs would have to go to a DD…
People keep assuming that The Greens Must Be Given What They Want. So they hold the balance of power in the Senate. So what? That means some policies – not all, by any stretch of the imagination – will have to be hammered out. It will be very difficult to do but the person you want involved in that process is Abbott, not a gutless weakling like Gillard. This is a woman who – literally – made a deal with Rudd one minute and reversed course the next minute on the orders of her puppeteers. A woman who – by her own admission – was a malleable fake before the invention of Real Julia.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 12:50 am
Should Katter be placed in a strait jacket?
Tony Windsor, Bob Katter and Rob Oakeshott have demanded the major parties offer iron-clad commitments, possibly backed by legislation, to serve a full three-year term as a precondition to their support.
Mr Katter last night said Mr Abbott’s refusal to submit the policies prompted the question: “What’s Tony got to hide.”
But Mr Katter told the ABC’s Lateline that Mr Abbott was right to be wary of Treasury secretary Ken Henry’s “prejudices”. “This is the bloke that brought you the mining tax; I wouldn’t be very impressed with his abilities at all.”
He wants abbot to submit to treasury analysis and then admits Henry is a political player and would be dangerous for Abbott to do so.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 12:55 am
Go back to an election and be done with these clowns.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/forget-three-amigos-lets-go-back-to-polls/story-e6frgd0x-1225910141083
JC
26 Aug 10 at 12:57 am
Interesting that despite slamming Abbott over the costings fetish du jour, Katter agrees with Abbott that Ken Henry is a partisan, untrustworthy galoot:
Abbott has, of course, offered the Independents’ Party full access to WHK Howarth’s costings. Katter agrees that the Coalition cannot trust the Treasury.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 1:00 am
Brilliant column from Shanahan, JC – the best I’ve read on all this.
What these three oafs should have done from the get-go is the exact opposite of what they’ve done. They’ve sought to extract payola and booty from the nation on behalf of their locals. In such extraordinary circumstances, however, they should have told their locals that the nation had to come first and, consequently, that they would respect their voters’ stupendously clear preference for the Coalition.
Is that tough because their electorates get screwed by Canberra and the State capitals? Yes it is. But it would have been more prudent and honourable for them to leverage some goodies discreetly from within rather than embark on this bizarre exercise in faux-Mr Smith Goes To Washington sanctimony.
They’ve blown it.
They deserve nothing now.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 1:13 am
Katter doesn’t trust treasury, but he trusts the Coalition’s private accountants even less. I don’t think this is all merely a bit of theater to justify possible ALP support back home, but rather a genuine reflection of Abbott’s inability to negotiate, not to mention the incompetence and bastardry of Minchin and Abetz. Negotiation will be necessary, since, with the exception of Katter, the indie pollies want a carbon tax, mining tax, and aren’t terrified of asylum seekers. Their all to the left of Labor already.
THR
26 Aug 10 at 1:14 am
The Shamaham column was embarrassing. He and Bolt have been particularly desperate the past couple of days. He’s basically admitting, albeit, in coded language, that the Coalition couldn’t negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag, so we should call the whole thing off, and have another poll.
THR
26 Aug 10 at 1:16 am
Listen to it, CL. He spent most of his time slamming Abbott. He reckons they’re experts in figuring out any shenanigans that Henry would present in trying to rat f..k Abbott.
He’s off his head.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 1:19 am
He’s not admitting anything of the sort, THR. He’s basically saying that our system is being held to ransom by these knuckle heads.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 1:21 am
The Shamaham column was embarrassing. He and Bolt have been particularly desperate the past couple of days.
Your take on things continues to be bizarre, THR. For the first time in 80 years a government has been trashed. Your side lost and lost epically.
…the Coalition couldn’t negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag.
As I said above, the person you want involved in this process is Abbott, not a weakling like Gillard. The woman dances to the tune of puppeteers and – by her own admission – was a malleable fake before the invention of Real Julia.
Katter doesn’t trust treasury, but he trusts the Coalition’s private accountants even less.
Nowhere did he say that.
They’re all to the left of Labor already.
Katter fervently believes in turning rivers inland, reversing Green Left and Laborite liberty-infringement regulations of all kinds and abolishing the gun ban. I’m sure the Labor-Greens Party won’t have any problem delivering this stuff. None at all!
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 1:23 am
LOL. These dopes just can’t help themselves:
‘Real Kristina Keneally’ to end spin sideshow.
She wants to change politics and stop the spin!
Elsewhere…
Business as usual.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 1:33 am
I don’t agree with any of the above. The three independents want most for their constitiuencies, and there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover some of the things like reform of parliamentary procedures and taking some of the decision making from the executive back to parliament and MPs is sensible indeed. Call me naive but I think there is a real opportunity to get some fresh air into the system and reduce the influence of faceless men in both parties.
I can understand the frustration of die-heart Abbott supporters but if he does not want to negotiate with these loons, he has only one option: hand it over to Gillard. I don’t see him chosing this option. He just has to negotiate, whether he likes it or not.
Boris
26 Aug 10 at 1:42 am
Agree. Abbott needs to backtrack quickly in my view.
He baulked at the first hurdle, which was basically parliamentary process changes.
He should have agreed to these, and then moved on to substantive issues next week. Then, both Coalition and ALP would have negotiated tougher because matters going to real party principle are involved.
Instead, he’s made it easier for Gillard by ruling himself out too soon. And it’s too early to call for another election – although that is the only card he has left.
Taylor
26 Aug 10 at 1:43 am
But having said that, it is not all one way. After all, Abbott has a lot more seats than the 3 independents. And more unity. He does not have to agree to all their 7 demands.
Actually he has a third option: unity government. It is Oakeshort that offeered something like this, not realising that in the unlikely scenario that they follow this path, he will no longer be necessary.
Boris
26 Aug 10 at 1:46 am
The three independents want most for their constitiuencies, and there is nothing wrong with that.
It’s called the Commonwealth for a reason, Boris. The idea is to return a national government for the good of all, not to facilitate Bob Katter’s desire for a $20 million football stadium in Woop Woop.
Abbott has negotiated with them. You seem to be defining ‘negotiating’ as ‘capitulating.’ It speaks volumes for Abbott’s superior claim to the job that he won’t. Gillard did, though, in 30 seconds.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 1:46 am
Oakeshott has called for a permanent government of national unity modus operandi. This has another name in the annals of political history: fascism. I love contestation, debate, vehement disagreement and competitiveness in our politics. This has another name in the annals of political history: democracy.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 1:49 am
“Abbott has negotiated with them. You seem to be defining ‘negotiating’ as ‘capitulating.’ ”
Where did I say he hasn’t? I was responding to some comments here that he should tell them to get lost.
Boris
26 Aug 10 at 1:50 am
“It’s called the Commonwealth for a reason, ”
The only people an independent MP is accountable to is voters in his electorate. Of course these people have both national and local interests. It is the balance he needs to pay attention to.
He shouldn’t rock the boat or sell to the highest bidder but adancing local and regional issues is quite legitimate. You can get an insight into this by looking at precedents at state level. One of them is NSW under Libs where there were a number of independents. Today I heard details about that arrangement. There was a lot of chaos and independents got a lot out of this, negotiating every week etc., but in the end they voted for most of the bills proposed by the coalition.
Boris
26 Aug 10 at 1:56 am
Nowhere did he say that.
He said it tonight on Lateline, in an interview in which he needed little encouragement to put the boot into Tony Abbott.
THR
26 Aug 10 at 2:13 am
” But it would have been more prudent and honourable for them to leverage some goodies discreetly from within rather than embark on this bizarre exercise in faux-Mr Smith Goes To Washington sanctimony.”
Maybe you have that kind of quiet personality. But these guys have been in parliament for a while and nobody outside of their electorates ever paid any attention to them. Now suddenly Australian voters gave them unbelievable exposure. Be charitable and give them their three minutes of fame.
Boris
26 Aug 10 at 2:29 am
Be charitable and give them their three minutes of fame.
That’s more than some so-called journalists want to give them (and the whole democratic process) apparently.
It beats me how a “journalist” can demand a new election when at least one of the major parties is still prepared to negotiate, and when issues of substance haven’t even been discussed.
These geniuses obviously know much better than anyone else in the country what is good for Australia, but on what actual facts are they reporting?
Taylor
26 Aug 10 at 3:15 am
I can understand the frustration of die-heart Abbott supporters but if he does not want to negotiate with these loons, he has only one option: hand it over to Gillard. I don’t see him chosing this option. He just has to negotiate, whether he likes it or not.
Boris, this passage can have no other meaning than that Abbott hasn’t negotiated with the Independent Party. Wrong. He has been negotiating with them since election night. But he’s not capitulating to their demands in the same manner, and with the same haste, as the panicking, floundering Julia Gillard – whose unfitness for office is being exposed daily.
…advancing local and regional issues is quite legitimate.
Right. Holding more than 90 percent of the electorate to ransom for your own personal wish-list is not legitimate and that’s exactly what the IP is doing. They have already begun disagreeing with one another on what they want. They are, in essence, a mini-rabble. The Labor-Greens Party, on the other hand, is a maxi-rabble. Only one party is behaving with anything resembling cohesion and unity and that it the Coalition.
Maybe you have that kind of quiet personality. But these guys have been in parliament for a while and nobody outside of their electorates ever paid any attention to them.
Oh, cry me a river… and then turn it inland.
There are Aboriginal children dying of disease and abuse and neglect in all corners of the nation but Oakeshott from the hellhole of New England wants some attention. Please, give me a break.
Now suddenly Australian voters gave them unbelievable exposure.
No, more than 90 per cent of Australians voted for the Lib-Nats or the Labor-Greens.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 3:20 am
“Boris, this passage can have no other meaning than that Abbott hasn’t negotiated with the Independent Party”
No the meaning was that some commenters and journalists suggested Abbott should not negotiate. Of course Abbott should and will negotiate. I did not mean capitulate, as I myself mentioned in the next comment above:\
“But having said that, it is not all one way. After all, Abbott has a lot more seats than the 3 independents. And more unity. He does not have to agree to all their 7 demands. “
Boris
26 Aug 10 at 3:27 am
Taylor, columnists still have a right to proffer their opinions in newspapers. That’s another thing we allow in democracies. I mean democracies of the kind that the Independent Party obviously dislikes.
Katter doesn’t trust treasury, but he trusts the Coalition’s private accountants even less… He said it tonight on Lateline, in an interview in which he needed little encouragement to put the boot into Tony Abbott.
Nowhere does he say that in the whole rambling, macho and utterly weird interview.
He repeats more than once that Ken Henry and Treasury are incompetent and untrustworthy.
His hubris will, as always for Bob, be his undoing:
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 3:31 am
“No, more than 90 per cent of Australians voted for the Lib-Nats or the Labor-Greens.”
But they did not say who should govern. A classical situation I am so familiar from Israeli experience. No big deal. But it never leads to stable government. Especially not if the governing coalition has a majority of one, which is maximum the three MPs can offer.
Boris
26 Aug 10 at 3:32 am
No the meaning was that some commenters and journalists suggested Abbott should not negotiate. Of course Abbott should and will negotiate.
Which ones? Not many, as far as I can tell.
And not “should and will” but has and is.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 3:34 am
But they did not say who should govern.
Yes they did. They chose the major parties – as it happens, in freakishly even numbers. That does not mean three local MPs have a right to now extort the Commonwealth (including the 90+ percent) and re-design the rudiments and praxis of Australian parliamentary democracy. They have no such right. They have massively overshot the limits of their legitimacy and their celebrity. It is a tactical error on their part.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 3:42 am
Oakeshott’s idea for a unity government is the equivalent of all catallaxians agreeing to get along.
That would be like Homer and Rog setting the agenda and the rest of us nodding our heads in solemn agreement.
Not going to fucking happen. Oakeshott needs to have his brain rinsed out with a drenching gun.
boy on a bike
26 Aug 10 at 7:00 am
talkfests/typefests are fine, but everyone should step back and take a deep breath and wait for the outcome in the remaining 3 undecided seats. The Electoral Commission are still counting.
Hasluck, Brisbane and Corangamite are close, and there are still 15% of the votes cast uncounted in 2 of those seats, (Hasluck and Corangamite), and 25% to be counted in Brisbane.
All of those seats might possibly go to Labor and that might change the situation for all. We just don’t know until they stop counting.
Calling for a new election before the counting has finished in the last one is just silly.
DP
26 Aug 10 at 7:26 am
CL, how is a draw an “epic loss”? An epic loser needs an epic winner. Where are they? Do you mean the Greens?
Jarrah
26 Aug 10 at 7:39 am
I am highly amused at the “so near and yet so far” desperation of CL and most of the other Catallaxians. Their hero, hailed as such for presenting an aggro, “the role of Opposition is to oppose” face to Parliament is now having to back pedal at a rapid pace. Who is the “real” Tony Abbott now, boys?
I referred once before to how, according to one academic’s theory, eunuchs had played a big role in many governments (to paraphrase) their lack of testosterone made them better at getting deals done rather than wasting time on aggro. This led me to jokingly suggest that Abbott could do better as one. I think the wry suggestion has been vindicated by this election.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 7:40 am
Who is the “real” Tony Abbott now, boys?
Steve, you’re assuming Abbott’s failed. But everything’s still in flux and most of the action is hidden from public view. The Independent Party has over-reached.
Gillard may agree to their demands, but being a flake has its price. There are big long-term effects of any deal. That idiot from WA, Tony Crook, will have to live with his foolish, rash offer to Gillard next time he stands for election. In the same way, any deals made now, will reverberate for a long time.
Both sides have to be very careful what they are throwing away in any deal.
daddy dave
26 Aug 10 at 8:09 am
They chose the major parties – as it happens, in freakishly even numbers. That does not mean three local MPs have a right to now extort the Commonwealth (including the 90+ percent) and re-design the rudiments and praxis of Australian parliamentary democracy. They have no such right. They have massively overshot the limits of their legitimacy and their celebrity. It is a tactical error on their part.
I agree, and I think other members of the public are starting to agree themselves. I think the Independents are starting to significantly overplay the hand they’ve been dealt.
dover_beach
26 Aug 10 at 8:19 am
I referred once before to how, according to one academic’s theory, eunuchs had played a big role in many governments (to paraphrase) their lack of testosterone made them better at getting deals done rather than wasting time on aggro.
Ergo, Steve from B is a modern-day eunuch.
dover_beach
26 Aug 10 at 8:20 am
CL
Indeed, I was merely calling into question the professionalism of these “journalists”.
But since you raised the issue of fundamental rights it’s also worth noting the potential for a conflict of constitutional principles here, namely:
- that expressed in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688, as applicable under s 49 of the Constitution, in relation to the rights of Parliamentarians; and
- that expressed in the 1992 High Court cases Nationwide News and Australian Capital Television in relation to implied Constitutional freedoms of political discussion.
No-one is entitled to use the media to deter another person from recourse to the courts to institute or defend proceedings. That is contempt of court: Attorney-General v. Times Newspaper Ltd [1973] 2 All ER 54.
In the same way, the media cannot be used to bring improper pressure to bear on parliamentary processes. That is contempt of Parliament. The Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 defines contempt to include: “Conduct (including the use of words)…[which] amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference …with the free performance by a member of the member’s duties as a member.”
Taylor
26 Aug 10 at 8:25 am
“Ergo, Steve from B is a modern-day eunuch.”
Because he doesn’t waste time on aggro? Is there some other Steve from B you’re thinking of?
Jarrah
26 Aug 10 at 9:22 am
As I said on an earlier thread, it is a very bad look to have the leadership of this country on sale to the highest bidder.
Katter is quite clearly mad and not to be trusted, while Oakshott is full of bad ideas. Windsor might be the brightest of the lot, but that isn’t saying much.
I think Abbott should call their bluff.
asf
26 Aug 10 at 9:22 am
d_d: no, I am not assuming Abbott has failed. It all depends were the last 3 seats fall. But in any event, I am getting amusement at the way he is having to change his message (the “yes, parliament is often too confrontational” line that we got 2 days ago) because of a sudden need to do so. (And of course, how upsetting it is to CL to listen to talk of less aggro in politics.)
I don’t think the independents are acting unreasonably so far, and am among those who think that at least the Parliamentary procedure reforms likely to come of this will be a good thing. Oakeshott is flying some kites; I don’t think he seriously thinks they will be achieved.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 9:23 am
Samuel is being a goose again.
It is a caretaker government.
Gillard has allowed Treasury to cost all their policies including the NBN which is not in the budget.
Abbott was simply embarrassing last night in his press conference.
He only has to hand over his policies to Treasury and finance and it would be done.
The reason he won’t is because they are shonky.
Anyone with any understanding of budgetary policy knows this. They wee so stupid they still included the interest savings on the NBN in their costing which was only $800m out which Howarths signed on to.
This is only one of the glaring errors they made
Who advised these clowns Forrest.
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
26 Aug 10 at 9:24 am
You have to laugh
However the Genetically Modified Opposition wont be transparent
rog
26 Aug 10 at 9:28 am
I am getting amusement at the way he is having to change his message (the “yes, parliament is often too confrontational” line that we got 2 days ago) because of a sudden need to do so.
Steve, Abbott was measured in his statements about political discourse. He stopped short of endorsing Oakeshott’s Platonic fantasy.
daddy dave
26 Aug 10 at 9:38 am
Either Abbot has lost the plot after being pitch perfect for 6 weeks (unlikely) or this is quite deliberate. By rejecting the Independents on a small issue (leaks from Treasury) he sends them and their long list of “demands” to the ALP. Labor then has to acquiesce to everything or have a public stoush in a week or so. That weakens Labor’s claim to be stable – and sends the Independents back to Tony with (presumably) a bit more appetite for compromise…or they pull the plug and we go back to the polls.
RoD
26 Aug 10 at 9:39 am
In fact the voters chose the Coalition in significantly more numbers than they chose the ALP. That, plus the wishes of their own constituents, is all that the indies need to know.
I think its time that the voting rules were shanged so that 2nd preferences were counted as having 80% of the weight of first preferences, 3rd preferences had 70% and so on.
This would diminish the awful greens’ power and make Labor concentrate on its primary vote.
Rococo Liberal
26 Aug 10 at 9:43 am
Oh and CL, you carried on idiot about me “selectively quoting” stories I link to a week or two ago, and then stop short of quoting the Daily Tele story about the Independent’s electorates before it said this:
“However, in an indication that voters still had doubts about Mr Abbott, more people believed that a Labor government would provide more stability than the Coalition.”
I expect you to give yourself a severe tongue lashing for dishonest quoting now. You can never trust me, says CL, always you have to go read the full story.
By the way, the electorates opinion on most stable government, and the fact that Labor got higher 2PP vote, makes the Independents going for Labor entirely justifiable.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 10:02 am
“carried on like an idiot”
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 10:03 am
Yes we do laugh Wodgie. We laugh whenever you show up.
Hows business?
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:05 am
Oh no – mistake already realised. CL was quoting from Courier Mail story – not Tele – and it did not have the further quote I extracted.
Sorry, CL, my dishonest hackery charge will have to wait for another day.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 10:06 am
Steve I’ll at least say this. you’re prepared to admit when you’re wrong, which is a step above some others who visit here.
daddy dave
26 Aug 10 at 10:16 am
I am getting amusement at the way he is having to change his message (the “yes, parliament is often too confrontational” line that we got 2 days ago) because of a sudden need to do so.
You find that amusing, simply because he says it is occasionally “too” confrontational? And it’s not as if the independents aren’t having a bob each way. One day Oakeshott is talking about consensus politics and the next he’s arguing that the independents will go their own way on matters of policy as soon as they’re some rumblings about independents acting as a bloc.
And so far as consensus politics is concerned, it is unparliamentary. The Parliament is a debating assembly, for god’s sake; this idea that there needs to be a consensus is disgraceful.
dover_beach
26 Aug 10 at 10:21 am
Wilkie ran on a platform of ethical government. He seems the most sensible of the lot. The fact that he had a falling out with the wankers party (Greens) makes him look even better.
How is he going to stomach DC’s bullshitting?
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:24 am
DB
The idiot is a prime wanker. I’m not sure the voters in his electorate took a good look at this fool. The more he opens his mouth the mouth likely that they’ll cringe at what he’s been saying.
You really don’t want this idiot supporting your majority as it wouldn’t be a good look to the voters.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:26 am
Bob Katter, man of inaction:
But Mr Katter’s claims to having spent a lifetime providing for the needs of north Queenslanders received a setback yesterday when the Mayor of the Charters Towers Regional Council accused him of being “big talk and no delivery”…
“As a council, we don’t approach him for anything.” he said.
Comes from a long line of mooching politicians. What did they expect?
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 10 at 10:37 am
AS I said before most comment on Wilkie puts him as “ex-green”. He may have been with the Greens but isn’t really on the same page as them economically.
http://www.andrewwilkie.org/content/index.php/site/issues/
From his section on economics.
“Moreover governments must help create the environment for private enterprise to prosper. There must be political stability; financial brakes like company tax, payroll tax and land tax rate should be as low as possible”
Education.
“Schools must be adequately funded according to need and not according to whether or not they are publicly or privately operated.”
There is some policy stuff that is more in line with green thinking as well but economically he’s clearly well to the right of them and probably the ALP also. Very likely economically to the right of the three ex-nats independents as well.
Steve Edney
26 Aug 10 at 10:37 am
Yes steve, I used to see Wilkie as an anti-war obsessive but there’s clearly more to him than that. he is looking better and better all the time.
jtfsoon
26 Aug 10 at 10:41 am
I finally figure out who Oakeshott reminds me of:
http://www.homevideos.com/movies-covers/TheJerk.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OiNER38sbYg/S_A20DBJbKI/AAAAAAAABA8/DIhObBMJXCg/s1600/steve-martin-actor-comedian.jpg
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 10 at 10:44 am
Yea, good catch that Steve E. You picked up on him earlier than others.
I listened to him last night and he seems perfectly reasonable and the fact that he’s staying well away from the three stooges and the greens wanker says a lot about him.
He sounds more like a Turnbull type.
—————–
Why is Fatty Jones doing promos with that Get-up imbecile all the time as it caused me to vomit in my mouth.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:46 am
lol
He does look like a younger version of Steve Martin.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:48 am
Wilkie seems pro NBN and a price on carbon. He is not completely against a mining profits tax. The only thing on which he seems completely against Labor is the internet filter.
I would still think him as more politically inclined to Labor than the Coalition.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 10:48 am
Yeah well he may turn out to be a total tool once he gets in parliment for all I know, but the “ex-green” description would seem to be inaccurate. And he hasn’t joined the independent’s party which is a good sign.
Steve Edney
26 Aug 10 at 10:50 am
CL, how is a draw an “epic loss”?
Here’s how: Abbott destroyed Kevin Rudd – touted for three years as a generational prime minister – and has destroyed the majority of a first term government to an extent that hasn’t been seen since a first term government was beaten outright 80 years ago. It is an epic loss for the Labor Party.
But you go on pretending it’s a sterling achievement.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 10:51 am
Steve from Mt K.
He can’t be “more Labor” otherwise he can’t be smart compared to this current crop of labor. He’s also slightly partial to markets etc. and Labor has not done one single market friendly reform in 3 years of governing. Labor’s idea of reform is re-regulation.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:51 am
And he hasn’t joined the independent’s party which is a good sign.
I’ll say. The traveling troop of clowns is one group you wouldn’t want to join.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:53 am
Yes Steve from B, he’s probably closer the to the ALP. The fact that the Liberals hung so much shit on him back in 2003 wouldn’t help either! Although I note Abbott has apparently apologised for that.
Steve Edney
26 Aug 10 at 10:53 am
the bloke who tossed out Tuckey will sit on the cross benches.
hmm
Butterfield, Bloomfeld % Bishop
26 Aug 10 at 10:55 am
Steve finally wieghs in on a subject about which his knowledge is ummatched:
“eunuchs… their lack of testosterone.”
Steve’s hero up until a month ago was Kevin Rudd.
I’m not sure why you’re amused, Steve. You’ve been humiliated. You said Abbott was heading for a LANDSLIDE LOSS!! Even if Labor ‘wins,’ it will lose. I’m comfortable with either scenario emerging over the next few days. Watching the Greens demand that Gillard increase taxes, withdraw from Afghanistan and bulldoze Pine Gap will be hilarious.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 10:56 am
Wilkie needs to be drafted into the LDP.
.
26 Aug 10 at 10:58 am
steve has been trumpeting his testosterone theory on his blog too. as if the beta-tisation hasn’t already gone far enough.
but good catch CL. steve’s basically saying Rudd is the closest you can get to a eunuch
jtfsoon
26 Aug 10 at 10:58 am
He ran as an indep national, Homer, you audacious clown. He’s not going to be sitting with the nationals and attending party meetings if that’s how he ran as.
Can we go back to your earlier limit of 7 stupid comments per day, as this free for isn’t working.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 10:59 am
Because he doesn’t waste time on aggro? Is there some other Steve from B you’re thinking of?
Steve spent two weeks here a Catallaxy ridiculing Lord Monckton’s eyeballs, at least a month attacking Abbott’s Speedos – and implying that he had knowledge of a scandal involving him (a lie); last week he attacked Abbott’s wife.
Steve’s aggro is the worst and most cowardly kind: passive aggressiveness, mendacious and bitter masquerading as reasonable and noble.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 11:01 am
steve has been trumpeting his testosterone theory on his blog too. as if the beta-tisation hasn’t already gone far enough.
Yea, I’ve noticed. Steve hates a decent does of testosterone and overcomes that with estrogen shots each day..
JC
26 Aug 10 at 11:01 am
This loss of old Catallaxy posts has been a real boost for CL, who can remember (and misrepresent) my comments any way he likes.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 11:03 am
It’s the passive aggressive shit that annoys me to no end. It’s his most annoying “quality” apart from his love of an ETS which in itself is bad enough.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 11:03 am
Steve’s obsession with Abbott’s Speedos must have been part of his “unified eunuch theory”. Has one man ever been more obsessed with balls?
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 10 at 11:04 am
to be fair, steve runs one of the most under-rated blogs around. that tesosterone story he posted was actually quite interesting.
but it’s too easy to make fun of him for his obsession with Abbott’s balls, speedos and sex life.
jtfsoon
26 Aug 10 at 11:04 am
Homer, two things: 1) please stop commenting on constitutional matters, about which you know nothing (as I’ve proved on multiple occasions). You didn’t understand how the Senate worked until I explained it to you and until yesterday you were unaware of the dormant commission held by the Governor of New South Wales as the Administrator of the Commonwealth.
2) The Independent Party and its leader have also demanded full costing details on the NBN – which, embarrassingly, Labor is describing as ‘off-budget.’
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 11:05 am
steve’s basically saying Rudd is the closest you can get to a eunuch
Jason, I think you forgot to add: and still have had a family.
dover_beach
26 Aug 10 at 11:09 am
Jason, you at least, as the only person who reads my blog, should at least be able to confirm that I have never been a Rudd booster. There was one policy of his that I thought should be let through – the amended ETS – even though I spent a lot of time expressing doubt that this would be better than a carbon tax. I basically followed Harry Clarke’s line – the amended ETS couldn’t do much harm and could be boosted when international positions became clear.
But it is a ludicrous line of CL’s to suggest I considered Rudd a hero.
Yes I have consistently attacked Abbott for a variety of reasons – some serious, some more tongue in cheek – but it’s only silly tribalism that interprets that to mean I loved Rudd.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 11:10 am
to be fair, steve runs one of the most under-rated blogs around. that tesosterone story he posted was actually quite interesting.
Thanks for the heads up Jase. But I have looked at his site once and don’t intend to read anything he posts.
Has one man ever been more obsessed with balls?
I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s quite disturbing and I seriously think he needs to get this testicle obsession thing he has going looked into by a qualified medical practitioner.
He went on about it for weeks and weeks.
A very nasty obsession.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 11:11 am
Jason, you at least, as the only person who reads my blog, should at least be able to confirm that I have never been a Rudd booster
Please stop the lying Steve. I’m upset and chagrined at your blatant dishonesty.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 11:14 am
Of course the various independents want to avoid another election any time soon.
These exercises cost big bucks, in spite of any taxpayer contributions.
These guys are probably looking at their bank balances and shuddering at passing the hat around again any time soon.
Labor is probably in the best position with the rivers of gold flowing in from the unions, but even they probably want to husband resources for the next round of state elections.
The coalition war chests will be low and in need of re-stocking.
Greens – your guess is as good as mine ?
But the independents will be doing handsprings to try and lock the majors into some deal to avoid what is probably another ruinous ( for them ) election within the three year cycle.
Myrddin Seren
26 Aug 10 at 11:14 am
how is a draw an “epic loss”?
In much the same way a Pyrrhic victory is an epic loss.
dover_beach
26 Aug 10 at 11:15 am
I basically followed Harry Clarke’s line – the amended ETS couldn’t do much harm and could be boosted when international positions became clear.
Well there you go right there.
My ma used to always warn me as a kid not to hang around with the wrong crowd. You should follow her advice.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 11:18 am
Yes I have consistently attacked Abbott for a variety of reasons – some serious, some more tongue in cheek …
Note the passive aggressiveness I was speaking of. When Steve gets into the gutter, it’s “tongue in cheek.”
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 11:19 am
…the amended ETS couldn’t do much harm.
Steve believes, however, that Abbott’s modest parental leave levy is an extravagant luxury which will lay ruin to the nation.
You’re a bone head, Steve.
That you admit to “following” gassy cattle catastrophist Harry Clarke says it all.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 11:24 am
Oh no JC is upset and chagrined he’ll break out in italics soon
tal
26 Aug 10 at 12:04 pm
What you interpret as “passive aggressive” JC, is much of the time tied to your inability to tell if I am being entirely serious or not; which I do sometimes (but not always) exploit deliberately to see the reaction. Like a comment that Abbott’s wife looks mean and that’s a reason not to vote for Tony has become today in CL’s comment today an attack on Abbott’s wife.
The thing is, CL will twist anything, even some things said with a clear humorous or tongue in cheek intent, into something else. It’s his modus operandi.
steve from brisbane
26 Aug 10 at 12:14 pm
Speaking of ‘costings’, Cash for Clunkers officially a massive failure in the US. Gillard’s hilariously dopey local version ($400 million) will of course end the same way.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 12:14 pm
that’s true. Steve wasn’t promoting Rudd
jtfsoon
26 Aug 10 at 12:15 pm
anyone want to be andrew leigh’s electorate officer?
JC? how about a career change?
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/08/25/fantastic-opportunity-for-some-lucky-person-electorate-officer-for-andrew-leigh-pmp/
jtfsoon
26 Aug 10 at 12:15 pm
Steve’s getting passive aggressive again, now wheeling out the ‘CL is twisting things’ lie.
And of course he repeats the excuse that his aggro is “humorous” and “tongue in cheek.”
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 12:16 pm
Steve was promoting the hell out of Rudd – especially during the COP15 excursion.
C.L.
26 Aug 10 at 12:18 pm
For goodness sake. It is not unreasonable for the independants to ask for Treasury costings before they commit their support to either party. The Charter of Budget Honesty Act did not envisage the possibility of a hung parliament. As such, a more appropriate reading of the legislation would require looking at the spirit of the legislation – BUDGET HONESTY!
Tony Abbott should have nothing to hide. The Caretaker provisions apply, so Treasury officials are NOT just accountable to the incumbent government. If you are so concerned about Treasury bias, why not suggest a combined Treasury and external consultant costing in the spirt of BUDGET HONESTY and transparency. The reason this has not been suggested is that Abbott certainly has something to hide. The liberal party has lost all credibility after running a campaign (rightfully) on the ALP’s wasteful expenditure.
Budgie
26 Aug 10 at 1:34 pm
Andrew Robb fumbles his cue card
Sounds pretty bad, must be suffering from another low
rog
26 Aug 10 at 7:15 pm
Libs going anal
Nothing like a good probe to flush out those bad costings
rog
26 Aug 10 at 7:17 pm
Rog knows all about costings. Which is why his building business went broke during a boom.
Infidel Tiger
26 Aug 10 at 7:17 pm
anyone want to be andrew leigh’s electorate officer?
JC? how about a career change?
hahahahahhahahaha That would really work, wouldn’t it.
I think he was lazy advertising the job as there’s really no point in contesting that Soviet seat. He should have advertised months ago when he was selected by the ALP and then just appointed. We could save a ton of money that way.
JC
26 Aug 10 at 7:27 pm