• Two comments on this site regarding the government’s Queensland council amalgamations gambit deserve wider exposure. Electoral law authority Associate Professor Graeme Orr anticipates legal hurdles for the proposal that the AEC conduct plebiscites over the head of the state government (UPDATE: Graeme clarifies this point in comments):
The Feds can appropriate money for broad purposes, so I assume they will try to package any legislation to enable this as purely a matter of bespoke expenditure (like the Hospital ‘intervention’). But legislate they must: the AEC currently has several functions under the Electoral Act, but none of them involves holding plebiscites, let alone on state issues. How the Feds will be able to override the clear State legislative prerogative to determine Council activities is unclear. Councils are created by State law, and can only act within that law. It may be Howard is just goading Beattie to go further and appear undemocratic, by restricting Councils abilities to co-operate with the AEC. Or it may be Howard will just pay the AEC to run some half-baked plebiscite across Qld on election day, that says ‘do you approve of council amalgamations’.
Anthony Llewellyn detects the influence of recent practice in the United States, where ballot initiatives have been used as a ploy to mobilise voters on polling day (also noted earlier by Optimist). The most famous example was a 2004 initiative providing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which was seen to have given the President a boost in the crucial swing state of Ohio.
• PortlandBet is running a blog noting developments in its comprehensive federal electorate betting market. Of particular interest is a shortening of odds on Labor’s Sid Sidebottom in Braddon after the government announced its Mersey Hospital intervention, famously described by indiscreet Tasmanian Liberal Senator Stephen Parry as “a disaster”. Taken in aggregate, the agency’s electorate-level odds point to a result of 75 Coalition, 73 Labor and two independents.
• Sydney residents of a particular political persuasion might like to note a free presentation from 6pm on Monday from US poll maven Vic Fingerhut, who boasts “four decades’ experience in polling for progressive political parties and unions”. Fingerhut will discuss “the anti-WorkChoices campaign in the context of other international campaigns, including the campaign against Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America” (not a successful campaign so far as the 1994 congressional elections were concerned, but you can’t win ‘em all). Presented by the Walkley Foundation and the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (whose card-carrying members include me), those wishing to attend must RSVP by Friday. More info here.
201 Comments
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All
Since I’m partly responsible, I point out in my defence: (a) I did say that, although a real possibility, it’s unlikely; (b) Somebody Did Ask.
feral’
My feeling living on the Sunshine Coast Qld is that a majority of people in Maroochy and Caloundra are in favour of amalgamation and have been for years.
In fact from listening to ABC Radio talkback and reading local media people are starting to get annoyed with the Noosa council. They are seen as a small group of local elite making headlines.
My parents who live in Noosa Shire hinterland are happy with the amalgamation as they (and the people they talk to) would like some attention paid to thier roads, rubbish and facilities.
I only have anecdotal evidence but I feel that John Howard’s foray into this will do the Liberal Party more harm than good.
I expressed myself unclearly. I don’t mean that the GG is ‘above the law’ in any general sense. I still say that the High Court does not have the power to direct him in the exercise of the particular functions we are discussing.
Not just ‘a bit hard’: impossible. This is a crucial point. What can be done to stop somebody doing what Pakistani generals do when they announce that they’re ’suspending the Constitution’? Nothing. You could write a clause into the Constitution saying that there is no power to suspend the Constitution and that nobody can ever suspend it, but the generals would just announce that they’re suspending that clause as well. What would ultimately protect the stability of democracy in Australia in the extremest emergency would be, what does not exist in Pakistan, the general commitment of the bulk of the population to it, rather than verbal provisions in a constitutional document. Hence the miscomprehension of the arguments that we need a Governor-General, or the Queen, in case the Prime Minister goes mad. (People who make this argument don’t seem to think about what could happen if a Governor-General, or even the Queen, went mad.)
“Separation of powers” must be the most misused expression in Australian public life. It derives from the debates around the framing of the US Constitution and refers primarily to the separation between the executive and legislative branches, something completely unknown in the Westminister system. It was devised in reaction against the Westminster system – as it existed in the reign of George III. In Australia there is, constitutionally speaking, no executive branch at all, only a de facto one which is located within the legislature. All the expression really means in Australia is the independence of the judiciary.
J-D, if you’ll indulge me a further tumble down this justicable rabbit-hole…
Doesn’t Section 75(v) give the High Court the power to grant an injunction directing the GG on these matters?
In all matters:
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
Doesn’t the explicit jurisdiction imply justicability?
d
It’s also something that was intentionally built into the Constitution, and we absolutely do have a separation of powers designed to prevent abuse of power and then developed by a century of jurisprudence. We are not a pure Westminster system, and there’s a good reason why we are often referred to as a “Washminster” system.
Of course our crucial separation is between the Chapter III Courts on the one hand and the Commonwealth Parliament/Executive on the other. This is reflected in both the words and structure of the Constitution, and is one of the best established principles of constitutional law in this country – for a recent discussion of some key aspects of the notion, look at any of the judgments in the Jack Thomas decision, Thomas v Mowbray, where the High Court had to determine in part whether control orders breached that separation and were therefore impermissible.
J-D, I believe I can answer your other points when I have a little more time, which unfortunately is not now. However, I should make the point that I am not suggesting the High Court could direct the G-G in the exercise of his discretion – merely that it could prevent him from making certain decisions, and force him to exercise his discretion in others.
Noosa town is going to be in Wide Bay this election (see http://www.aec.gov.au/pdf/profiles/2006/w/widebay.pdf). While Fairfax once covered the entire Sunshine Coast, it now just covers part of its north.
106
Yes, but only to the extent to which it is possible to apply for a writ of mandamus or prohibition or an injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth, something which those words themselves do not define.
And I don’t know whether there is a definition of ‘officer of the Commonwealth’ which would include the GG.
Daryl,
Did voters for the Green Independents know they were voting for a Labor govt? Labor was 12% points behind the Liberals. The Liberal vote in 1992 was remarkable.
It’s a while since I read Australian constitutional history, but I don’t recall that the federal conventions gave much attention to the separation of powers in the sense the term is used in the US. The term doesn’t appear in the index of La Nauze’s Making of the Australian Constitution. Most of their attention was devoted to the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the states (and wouldn’t they be furious if they could see what Howard is doing to their Constitution now?). They had all read their Bryce and knew how the US system worked, but they were most emphatic that they were not copying it, except to the extent necessary to create a federal system. What has “Washminstered” our system since 1901 is firstly the expansion of Commonwealth power at the expense of the states and secondly the growth of the de facto presidential powers of the Prime Minister’s office and the subordination of the legislature to it.
I accept that you may have good answers which you don’t have the time to provide. As things stand, however, I stilll don’t know what your definition of ’separation of powers’ is, and now I also don’t know how far you think the power (as you assert it) of the High Court to direct the GG is supposed to extend. I certainly don’t think it could extend to forcing the GG to dismiss a PM, which was (I think) the point originally at issue.
My 2c as a Queenslander re: Amalgamation:
I can see some clear cases where I support amalgamation.
An example is Dalby and Wambo shires. Both councils have their offices in the town of Dalby. Money is going down the toilet supporting two sets of identical administration in the same town. It’s dumb.
Look at this page:
http://www.wambo.qld.gov.au/council/joint_services.shtml
They even share their library etc already.
On the other hand, half the councils in Queensland are getting the chop. There must be plenty of cases where it isn’t warranted.
However, in general I support it. Anything that cuts the number of beaurocrats and spends this money increasing services is on the right track.
Fair cop, Optimist, now noted.
One former Liberal party councillor, and possibly even Alan Cadman to run as Independents against Alex Hawke in Mitchell. I guess we’ll see if Hawke can walk the walk, or just Towke the Taouk.
http://www.hillsnews.com.au/2007/08/3_cadmans_crossroad.php
WITH the Liberal Party in disarray in the Hills after factional warfare, Mitchell MP Alan Cadman – forced to retire because he didn’t have the numbers to defeat right-wing candidate, Alex Hawke – may run as an independent.
…Almost certain to throw his hat in the ring is disenchanted Liberal, Councillor Peter Dimbrowsky, who said he has been offered a war chest of up to $50,000 by local business people urging him to stand against Mr Hawke.
”I’ve been approached by large businesses all of whom would previously have backed the Liberals.”
The Baulkham Hills councillor did not renew his long-term Liberal Party membership at the end of the financial year – ”like many, many others” – and has joined the Community First Party, founded by former Mayor Sonya Phillips.
His move assures her of donning the robes, yet again, in September after a longstanding deal with the ALP trio on council.
”I want to bring a new voice of moderation to The Hills by putting people before politics,” Cr Dimbrowsky told the News yesterday.
”The Liberals at all levels are in disarray because of left versus right versus right factionalism and it’s time to stop the rot and give moderate Hills voters a conservative alternative.”
And also after the treatment Elliot received, the AHA withheld a $200,000 donation.
Agree wholeheartedly on the second point, but on the former the states in the US actually have much more real power than our states and their Supreme Court has even featured states-rightists from time to time who have prevented a comparable federal takeover. For instance, many states are currently legislating their way out of the federal “Read ID” act.
Sacha
I stand corrected. I forgot the new distribution.
Now I realise why Alex Somlyay is worried.
As far as this blog is concerned, the question is not the merits of the amalgamations per se, but whether the row between Beattie and the councils, and now between Howard and Beattie, will hurt federal Labor’s vote in seats where it matters. I gather from what Qld people have said above that it is not an issue in Brisbane, so it will not affect the situation in Bonner, Moreton, Petrie or Bowman. What about Blair (Ipswich) and Longman (Caboolture)? On the other hand I gather the view is that it will / might affect the Labor vote in Herbert, Hinkler and Flynn (and Leichhardt?). Can we get some informed local comments on this?
And also on how Qld parochialism might play here. In the past Qlders have generally supported their populist premiers in rows with the evil Canberra centralists. Why will they not do so this time?
Maybe it will improve votes in those electorates were amalgamations are controversial, but increase the vote in urban and outer urban electorates.
I just don’t understand why people not living in Queensland have to pay for these plebecites. But there’s no expense spared when electoral careers are at stake.
I just don’t buy the parallel with the Republican ‘get out the vote’ campaign, purely because the compulsory voting system completely changes the dynamic.
At most you would be hoping that people will be reminded of why they’re p#ssed off about the issue in question, and that will swing a few votes. But unless it’s a really big, and universal, issue, I don’t see that being particularly effective.
Thanks J-D, you’ve been most accommodating.
Graeme: “I assume that local govt rolls are kept by the QEC, not the AEC.”
The ECQ only has responsibility for the BCC rolls. The rolls for other local elections are compiled by the Returning Officer for the Council (usually the Council CEO) based on the roll for the State Electoral District(s) with help from an Electoral Registrar if required.
d
“Maybe it will improve votes in those electorates were amalgamations are controversial, but increase the vote in urban and outer urban electorates.”
Sorry, Simon, improve whose vote?
Improve the vote for the opposition because some QLD would be annoyed that the Federal government is intervening in a state issue.
I think the main issue isn’t necessarily the idea of amalgamation, which I broadly support, but the manner in which Beattie is attempting to foist it on the state.
Sure, it may not do much in Brisbane, but it will only gave the Coalition traction in places like Leichhardt, Flynn, Fairfax, Wide Bay etc. (apparently Capricornia is also deeply affected – if the Nats have money to spend there, with the Libs not contesting, that could fall – and make Rudd’s job that little bit more difficult.
This is a state issue though, QLD voters have supported Howard and Beattie at different elections. So they seem capable of differentiating between different issues and different levels of government.
There is a heck of a lot of noise on the issue here in Qld. Page 3 full-page ads in Courier Mail from different councils, lead stories etc. You are right Antony in that this does not affect Brisbane City council at all. The other areas of note are:
Pine Rivers and Caboolture amalgamate to form North Moreton Regional. This will affect Longman and Fisher votes – safe Coalition seats (I count Brough as safe)
Caloundra, Maroochy and Noosa amalgamate to form Sunshine Coast Regional. This affects Wide Bay and Fairfax – again safe Coalition seats.
Ipswich remains unchanged, except giving a small portion of the Peaks Crossing area to Beaudesert Regional – no effect to Blair
All the way up the coast sees the main strong councils incorporating smaller, less financially stable regions (eg Townsville and Thuringowa combine, Whitsunday and Bowen combine, Mackay, Mirani and Sarina)
The effect on voting intention will be negligible apart from those in safe Coalition seats anyway.
I don’t know what Howards ploy is apart from getting media play and maybe pushing the ‘Herr Beattie’ chorus that covers the airwaves
Kerry Nettle is at it again – desperately trying to give herself relevance and appeal. Shame really that the Greens are being colonised by the far left that want to turn it into the Socialist Marxist Party.
Are people righting off the Coalition being returned but Howard losing his seat???
Also what are people’s thoughts on the Conservative side of politics if they lose Canberra will they implode like they did in 1943 where the United Australia Party suffered a 14.71% swing against it…Clearly conservative politics in Australia will be in a worse position than in 1943 as in 2007 if Howard loses the Coalition will be out of power in every level of government in Australia…
Adam says, I gather from what Qld people have said above that it is not an issue in Brisbane, so it will not affect the situation in Bonner, Moreton, Petrie or Bowman. What about Blair (Ipswich) and Longman (Caboolture)?
Ipswich and Moreton Shire were amalgamated about 15yrs ago into the existing Ipswich City Council of today with no problems. They are losing Boonah, but other that that Blair is pretty well for amalgamations.
Forgot to put Redcliffe in the Pine Rivers/Caboolture amalgamation which includes the Federal seat of Petrie. Maybe Gambaro will hold after all…
How about in the seat of Flynn Grooski?
The feds have no power over local government, local government units are created by state law. The state governments have the right under legislation they drew up to merge councils as they see fit.
Flynn will be interesting because of its large size – it affects quite a few different councils. Of note is the Aramac/Jericho/Barcaldine merger which sees a very successful financially Aramac shire amalgamate with an in-debt Barcaldine. Quite a number of full page ads for the region and an appearance on a local Qld current affairs show showing farmers vowing to never vote Labor again. Small numbers of votes in the scheme of things though. Contrast this to further east which sees 4 shires including Emerald combine. The shires there have not been vocal on the issue at all.
The main centre of Gladstone is combined with Calliope and Miriam Vale which really has very little effect as well.
I guess in Flynn, there is some opposition, but in areas of smaller voting capacity anyway
In the regional queensland council mergers, if smaller councils near Carins, Townsville, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Gladstone are merged into the city councils, people are inclined to support it because they would feel particularly if they are suburbs of these regional centres. They generally feel they are a part of that city instead of being members of a seperate community.
People in the suburban areas of Brisbane and Sunshine Coast feel they belong to Brisbane and Sunshine Coast instead of bits of it. Plus a lot of people in those areas have recently moved from elsewhere, often interstate.
Grooski,
Farmers are very strong National or Liberal party voters, very few vote anyway.
There is no doubt Queenslanders are parochial. It is quite possible that many Queenslanders will register a vote against Beattie’s council amalgamations and support the coalition in the Federal election. You will recall that in 1990 (I think), Bob Hawke won the Federal election despite a big swing against Labor (and consequent loss of seats) in Victoria, in what was a clear protest against a Labor state government.
I do think, though, that Beattie is very much a pragmatist, who’d back down on the amalgamations late in the piece if he really thought it would hurt Labor. He even has a remarkable ability to do a backdown and a grovelling apology and the voters love him for it, as instanced in his handling of problems in the health system.
The other factor in Queensland (which no-one seems to have mentioned) is the positive parochialism of Queenslanders being able to elect a local as Prime Minister (with a Queensland Treasurer thrown in as a bonus). I think that, when the election comes, many Queenslanders will find it hard to vote against the home boy, Kevin Rudd, no matter how much they’re annoyed with Beattie.
Similar to the Toll Road announcement in Victoria, I think the Queensland local government saga will have no impact at all in regards to the election result. Most people have switched off already and have stopped concentrating, like 1996 this election has already been decided and Mr Rudd will win in a landslide. The only thing that may make the result a closer contest is Mr Rudds’ constant denial regarding policy prescriptions, this is a little worrying as he cannot continue to say duplicate government policy and if he does it may backfire slightly. Nonetheless whatever happens i cannot see Labor losing. People are generally not interested in politics….and this may be a good election to lose anyway as the economy seems to overheating and when this occurs a recession may result and the next one will be very nasty…
Big differences with 1943. Billy Hughes was the leader. He’d been elected as Labor MP in the NSW Parliament way way back in 1894. He’d left Labor while PM in 1916. He was pushed out of the PM’s office in 1923 by Earl Page and the Country Party. Hughes had brought down the Bruce government with his vote in 1929. After setting up his own party in opposition to the Nationalists for the 1930 NSW election, he’d later joined the UAP. He only became leader of the UAP after the party deserted Menzies while he was wartime PM. Hughes was 82 years old, deaf, irrascible and dispeptic. No one on his own side trusted him, let alone Labor voters. And Labor had been in power for two years and Curtin was seen as doing a good job in running the war. I don’t think the Liberal Party is anywhere near the nadir of the UAP in 1943.
Antony i keep referencing canada 1993 and the rout of the conservatives there.
Only the then underground media tipped it and from memory it was the biggest swing ever against an incumbent govN
any chance we may go close?
Go Laworr! Go the Bunnies! That’s what really counts! How do ya reckon we’ll go in the ‘Gong, Satdy?
I reckon we’ll struggle. Williams, Smith AND Buddy Gordon?
Even in 1943 the Libs and Country Party were in government in Vic and SA (thanks in both cases to gross malapportionment). If Howard loses this will be first time ever that the conservatives have been out of office everywhere, with no immediate prospect of returning to office anywhere. The Liberals have a history of disunity and leadership instability in opposition, and the state branches are factionalised, short of money and demoralised. Once Howard is gone all these things will come into the open, and Rudd will have a honeymoon that may carry him to the expected DD in 2008. If Costello becomes leader he will be in the same position as Peacock after 1983, and retaining control of the Senate may well be a double-edged sword, since he will have to decide how much to obstruct a popular new PM with a shiny new mandate, and whether to risk an early DD at which he might well get clobbered and lose the leadership. All in all, the Libs have a lot to lose at this election, which is why they are fighting so desperately not to lose it.
Glen,
People are going to have to choose between an extreme right wing, an extreme left wing and a middle. Somewhere between the extreme right wing and the middle is the perception that one party has been around for nearly twelve years and that they haven’t made much headway. People aren’t scared of the extreme left because they won’t get in. They are also not afraid of the centre. You, as in Howard et al, have lost the centre. There is your problem. Right there. Right now. You’ve got about six weeks to get it back.
Adam said “If Howard loses this will be first time ever that the conservatives have been out of office everywhere,”
That is not strictly correct, there will still be a liberal Lord Mayor of Brisbane.
Brisbane is not a constitutional jurisdiction.
Gusface, the big difference is the party system. In Canada in 1993, the Progressive Conservative Party (yes, that was its name) split across the country. In Quebec it was squeezed between the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois. In Western Canada is was squeezed between the Liberals and Preston Manning’s party, which I think was called the Reform Party that year, but some like to call is the Bloc Albertois.
The PC vote did collapse, but the result in seats was magnified by first past the post voting in a multi-party system. With the non-Liberal vote split between the Bloc, Reform, PC and the New Democrats. The PC won 16% of the vote and got 2 seats, the Bloc got 13.5% and 54 seats, Reform 18.7% and 52 seats. The Liberals won 177 seats with 41%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993
Canadian politics has since been dominated by the regional splits first created in 1993.
Can’t resist two quick comments.
Firstly local government is really really unimportant, but a comment above about it being all corrupt is pretty broad; and who was it that said something about democracy and getting people you deserve elected.
I think the only significant bit can be the campaign / HTV on the day having an effect; and this may not be pro-Howard.
Like extended trading hours in WA. The small shops were loudly planning to give liberal party money in marginal seats and the State Govt gave them a extended trading hours campaign to distract them from party political activity. The small traders were too busy in the referendum to even consider the broader political debate.
In WA I think of Local Govt as by the Liberals, of the Liberals and for the Liberals. For example the City of Belmont, blue ribbon Labor territory seat of Treasurer Eric Ripper has a liberal Mayor.
Is it the same in Queensland? If so Howard is pretty silly if he is going to give them a second front to fight an election on? Money energy and time diverted from the real campaign?
Adam, point taken, but at least they will have a rebuilding point, a base to rally around as such.
Useless Loop? I never even realized people lived there – always assumed it was a ghost town or something like that. How many votes were cast at this booth in 2004 Adam?
45
Pretty much concur with Grooski’s assessment. –
Before the Council amalgamation issue got to the pointy end, back in May when Rudd tried to convince Beattie to find an ‘alternative’ approach, Labor was probably looking at a host of Coalition held seats that they might tip some resources into contesting with a level of confidence.
These would have included the obvious trio of Bonner (0.6), Moreton (2.8), and Bowman (8.9).There was (and remains) a very apparent strong swing against the Coalition in Qld, according to Labor internal polls, the media ‘feel’ via the polls and the misappropriation of funds issue for Vasta (Bonner) and Hardgrave (Moreton) which may see them forced to resign if the DPP decides to prosecute them over the issue.The mud is expected to stick to these 2 regardless of the DPP outcome.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21333204-601,00.html
Bowman was (and still is) expected to be caught up in the tide of the QLD pro Rudd swing, supported by the fact that the sitting member (Laming) is among three QLD Federal MPs who were being investigated for misappropriation of funds. Laming was not referred to the Federal DPP for possible prosecution because he ‘corrected’ his “administrative error” and announced his correction at a press conference standing beside a beaming JWH. Unfortunately for him, he is now being investigated over ‘ghost staffing’ issues. This investigation has not been concluded- the noose is around his political neck, waiting for instructions.
In my assessment, any ‘protest’ vote in these 3 seats not significantly affected by the ‘amalgamation’ issue will be totally overwhelmed by the mud stuck on the faces of these 3 sitting members over ‘dodgy’ activities.
So what about Blair (5.7) then ? I agree with Grooski who wrote that
“Ipswich and Moreton Shire were amalgamated about 15yrs ago into the existing Ipswich City Council of today with no problems. They are losing Boonah”. Therefore, Labor-ites can maintain a (as things stand) confidence that Blair, Bonner, Moreton and Bowman remain ‘in the bag’ if the pro-Rudd swings stays the course.
It is when we come to the ’second tier’ Coalition seats Labor (back then around May) had some confidence about that things have muddied abit. Here I am thinking of Herbert (5.4), Longman (6.6) Petrie (7.9), Hinkler (8.6) and the new notionally National seat of Flynn (7.9).
Before this week when the idiot from Redcliffe (Petrie) pulled his stunt and walked to town with 22,000 anti amalgamation petitions, I would have put Petrie in the bag for Labor ahead of the other ’second tier’ seats. Now I am not so rusted to that idea- This is probably one seat is QLD I will be cussing Beattie over if it is not won because it was/is likely to fall to Labor with a strong pro-Rudd swing.
Longman (Caboolture) is another seat I would have been confident for Labor about , but again it could be the amalgamation issue keeps conservative voters in JWHs pocket and scores enough ‘protest’ votes among swingers and no name voters to stop this seat from falling. Brough has a strong profile as well ( I like Brough anyway, hope he keeps his seat).
Flynn (7.9) I dont know enough about to offer an informed view on and it was an ‘outside’ chance in my estimation before this amalgamation issue hit the fan anyway.
Herbert (5.4) from what I hear remains very much in the Labor ‘confident’ category because the folks out there are not overly miffed either way over the amalgamation issue, some for it , some against, most (like those living in Brisvegas) don’t give a damn.
Any Labor hopes of getting somewhere near Leichardt (10.3) and Hinkler (8.6) may have been diverted (in resource and attention) by Labor by now because of the uncertain nature of reactions in those seats to the amalgamation issue – and you can forget about Wide Bay, Fairfax and which some overly excited Labor people once had an eye on.
In summary, Labor in QLD at this point ought to be (Im not claiming access to specific insider information) remaining very confident about picking up Blair, Bowman, Bonner, Moreton and Herbert (5 seats) and remain very much in the race for Longman and/or Petrie despite the amalgamation stuff up Beattie could and should have put to bed till 2008. Longman, Petrie and Flynn are the 3 Labor will be cussing Beattie over if they don’t swap guernsey’s in November. The others (Fairfax et al) were a fantasy. In all, 5-8 gains for Labor in QLD is the likely outcome IMHO.
Awaiting the birth of the psephblog-
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 » Show All