Mary Kissel has this great editorial on the WSJ, reproduced below:
After 17 days of a hung parliament, Australians might be forgiven for feeling relieved that the Labor Party managed to strike a deal to form a minority government yesterday. But the way in which it was formed raises questions about its staying power.
With most of the votes tallied from Election Day, Labor lost the primary and the two-party preferred vote to the conservative Liberal Party-led coalition. Voters in the key rural swing constituencies also chose the Liberals by a margin of 15 to 20 percentage points in Senate races.
Labor has now put together its 76-seat majority coalition thanks to two “country” independents who were swayed by promises of pork for their constituents and political influence for themselves. One of them, Robert Oakeshott, has been offered a cabinet post. The other, Tony Windsor, let slip yesterday that he sided with Labor because Liberal Party chief Tony Abbott would likely call an early election and win.
In other words, Mr. Windsor supported Labor because he wants to be a kingmaker for three years in an unstable minority government, not a backbencher in a majority Liberal government in which his vote wouldn’t matter so much. Mr. Abbott wasn’t in a position to offer as much without compromising his own spending principles, though he also didn’t help his cause with some bungling over budget numbers in negotiating with the independents.
As a result, Australians will now have the most liberal government on paper in 30 years — in the form of a Labor, Green and independent coalition — even though that’s not what they voted for. Prime Minister Julia Gillard promise yesterday that the new government will be “stable, effective and secure” was probably aimed as much to her Labor colleagues as it was to voters, given that it was her party’s poor governance, rampant spending and infighting that led to such a close poll result. The Prime Minister tried to heal those wounds during the campaign by moving to the political center. She struck a deal to modify a controversial windfall profits tax on miners, backed away from an expensive cap-and-trade carbon regulation scheme, and hit a populist anti-immigration note.
Ms. Gillard may find it hard to stay that course now, especially given the increased influence of the far-left Green Party. She will also have to contend with former leader Kevin Rudd, whose support she enlisted to win the election — though she was responsible for his unseating. Ms. Gillard confirmed that she will offer Mr. Rudd a “senior” political post. Talk about divine retribution.
Ms. Gillard acknowledged yesterday that voters had sent her and the Labor Party a “message,” yet she pledged to go ahead with big spending initiatives. Perhaps she should listen more closely.
“Australians will now have the most liberal government on paper in 30 years”
Another candidate for Mario Rizzo’s course I think.
Taylor
9 Sep 10 at 2:12 am
She’s an American writing for an American newspaper, when she says “Liberal” she means “Left-wing”.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 2:32 am
Sure, but a good way to correct the confusion (Hayek referred to it in “Why I am not a Conservative”) is for the press to be clear.
Taylor
9 Sep 10 at 5:43 am
She can’t be held responsible for your ignorance.
Ev630
9 Sep 10 at 6:09 am
Strange comment Ev: that Americans refer to the left as liberal is trite.
Taylor
9 Sep 10 at 7:16 am
Anyone with even a passing interest in US politics knows what she means.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 7:31 am
Yeah. My only point in making the distinction is try to preserve the classical meaning of “liberal”, which I guess is partly what Rizzo is doing as well. If you’re a liberal in the Hayekian sense it gets frustrating.
That was it.
I’m sure Kissell knows the distinction too.
Taylor
9 Sep 10 at 7:44 am
I agree with Taylor. She could have said leftist and made the same point with precision. I don’t want to see the great word ‘liberal’ reduced to a swearword so that we are left with ‘libertarian’ referring to S11 truthers, goldbugs and conspiracy nuts in the Libertarian Party.
jtfsoon
9 Sep 10 at 8:15 am
Well you are about 25 years too late to jump on that horse Jason. It is what it is. You might have a point if Kissel was an Australian trying to use the term in the context of Australian politics, but she’s American using it in the context of American politics.
You might as well complain about them also using the word “rooting” when they really mean “barracking”.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 8:46 am
Bob Brown:
‘Hey, let’s re-introduce death duties.’
C.L.
9 Sep 10 at 9:10 am
“Labor lost the primary and the two-party preferred vote”
Was true at deadline time, I’m sure, but not anymore. It has in fact moved further in Labor’s favour since I pointed this out in the open thread.
Jarrah
9 Sep 10 at 11:17 am
50.03 vs 49.97
An emphatic victory.
Election summmary:
- Swing to the Coalition.
- The first time a first-term government majority has been destroyed in 80 years.
- Coalition won popular vote (most common choice was an Abbott government).
- Coalition MAY OR MAY NOT WIN 2PP
- Coalition won most seats.
- Coalition won overwhelming majorities in key three.
- Windsor (Labor vote in his electorate: 8 percent) declares he supported Labor because the people would again back the Coalition.
Election result: “Prime Minister” Gillard “wins”.
C.L.
9 Sep 10 at 11:21 am
Jarrah:
Try and push the honesty button occasionally. The last count is still the libs in front.
You last comment referring to the 2PP is deliberately delusional.
JC
9 Sep 10 at 12:33 pm
It’s irrelevant anyway. The Coalition has an ensemble of legitimacy criteria that Labor can never overtake.
C.L.
9 Sep 10 at 12:41 pm
“The last count is still the libs in front.”
Ahem.
“It’s irrelevant anyway.”
Which is why you repeated it half a dozen times?
Jarrah
9 Sep 10 at 12:45 pm