<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mackerras versus McGauran</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2006/02/06/mackerras-versus-mcgauran/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2006/02/06/mackerras-versus-mcgauran/</link>
	<description>Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:44:50 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2006/02/06/mackerras-versus-mcgauran/comment-page-1/#comment-1351</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 May 2006 10:21:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/311#comment-1351</guid>
		<description>AN INCONSEQUENTIAL PEBBLE IN THE POND OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICS

Who cares if Julian McGauran defected? He has just moved his uselessness to another party. Hopefully, the Liberals will have the courage to free his spot for someone that actually wants to work for the people of Victoria, rather than someone who has enjoyed a minimal effort life on the political gravy train.
Julian McGauran is not a people person, and he probably doesn&#039;t know or even relate the sufferings and concerns of the average punter. 
A newspaper article stating that he can point to no road or bridge that he has inspired the construction of, is a fair assessment of him and his capacities.
Julian McGauaran is hardly an animated reformist with reputation for making change to improve governance and policy. His strategy for maintaining power is not action, but to use his own words &quot;to get through this term with as little ripples as possible&quot; -- political speak for more inaction!

De-forest the dead wood of politics to make way for the new inspired, motivated people-caring engaged politicians. Let&#039;s start with lazy McGauran!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AN INCONSEQUENTIAL PEBBLE IN THE POND OF AUSTRALIAN POLITICS</p>
<p>Who cares if Julian McGauran defected? He has just moved his uselessness to another party. Hopefully, the Liberals will have the courage to free his spot for someone that actually wants to work for the people of Victoria, rather than someone who has enjoyed a minimal effort life on the political gravy train.<br />
Julian McGauran is not a people person, and he probably doesn&#8217;t know or even relate the sufferings and concerns of the average punter.<br />
A newspaper article stating that he can point to no road or bridge that he has inspired the construction of, is a fair assessment of him and his capacities.<br />
Julian McGauaran is hardly an animated reformist with reputation for making change to improve governance and policy. His strategy for maintaining power is not action, but to use his own words &#8220;to get through this term with as little ripples as possible&#8221; &#8212; political speak for more inaction!</p>
<p>De-forest the dead wood of politics to make way for the new inspired, motivated people-caring engaged politicians. Let&#8217;s start with lazy McGauran!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Dymond</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2006/02/06/mackerras-versus-mcgauran/comment-page-1/#comment-261</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Dymond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2006 08:57:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/311#comment-261</guid>
		<description>How strange to be discussing an actual moral obligation in politics. Do the Liberals (including McGauran) actually owe any consideration to the Nats if the Senate deal is no longer a net benefit? Who was actually &#039;represented&#039; by McGauran anyway?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How strange to be discussing an actual moral obligation in politics. Do the Liberals (including McGauran) actually owe any consideration to the Nats if the Senate deal is no longer a net benefit? Who was actually &#8216;represented&#8217; by McGauran anyway?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graeme Orr</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2006/02/06/mackerras-versus-mcgauran/comment-page-1/#comment-260</link>
		<dc:creator>Graeme Orr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/311#comment-260</guid>
		<description>I understand the line that the Nats don&#039;t &#039;own&#039; the seat due to a divine mandate from electors.       But I don&#039;t understand the claim that they aren&#039;t entitled to the seat:    they have a solemn agreement with the Libs to share resources/spots!   The only purposes of that agreement are to (a) minimise division (and hence maximise the Coalition vote all round); and (b) entitle each party to pre-select candidates in certain winnable positions.

Yes, the agreement is not strictly a binding contract (for junkies of the law of politics I can send you a paper on why).     But it is a serious agreement.   That it is their partner in the agreement who is complicit in and benefiting from the breach makes it even more galling than if McGuaran had say done a Colston (who really did dud Labor voters in Qld).

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand the line that the Nats don&#8217;t &#8216;own&#8217; the seat due to a divine mandate from electors.       But I don&#8217;t understand the claim that they aren&#8217;t entitled to the seat:    they have a solemn agreement with the Libs to share resources/spots!   The only purposes of that agreement are to (a) minimise division (and hence maximise the Coalition vote all round); and (b) entitle each party to pre-select candidates in certain winnable positions.</p>
<p>Yes, the agreement is not strictly a binding contract (for junkies of the law of politics I can send you a paper on why).     But it is a serious agreement.   That it is their partner in the agreement who is complicit in and benefiting from the breach makes it even more galling than if McGuaran had say done a Colston (who really did dud Labor voters in Qld).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Walsh</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2006/02/06/mackerras-versus-mcgauran/comment-page-1/#comment-259</link>
		<dc:creator>David Walsh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2006 02:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/311#comment-259</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m slightly surprised that Mackerras is so adamant that the seat belongs to the National Party and is so indignant about the whole affair.

It&#039;s the sort of reaction you&#039;d expect from disgruntled Nats or from the more uninformed commentators.

But Mackerras knows full well that the Nationals would be incapable of winning a Victorian senate seat in their own right in a normal half-Senate election. So what&#039;s the big deal?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m slightly surprised that Mackerras is so adamant that the seat belongs to the National Party and is so indignant about the whole affair.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the sort of reaction you&#8217;d expect from disgruntled Nats or from the more uninformed commentators.</p>
<p>But Mackerras knows full well that the Nationals would be incapable of winning a Victorian senate seat in their own right in a normal half-Senate election. So what&#8217;s the big deal?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
