With two country independents backing Gillard, the Labor party will now pass the only threshold needed in Australia to form government – a majority on the floor of House. There is no other test, there is no other requisite, there is no other qualification needed to control the Treasury benches.
But this constitutional reality will not stop some. Indeed, it merely marks the beginning of what will become a long festival of delusion, conspiracy and outright lies – where its hysteria will only be surpassed by its grubby bitterness and its commercial exploitation.
With so many having invested so much in the defeat of the Labor government – including the leadership of what was once the national broadsheet of this country – to be denied victory by political inches, leaving a fragile incumbent holding the most delicate of majorities and being reliant on a handful of cross-benchers representing ideologically discordant electorates, creates a result that will not be respected.
What we will witness over the next 18 months or more is a Great Unhinging –an orgy of hysterics that will far surpass the duplicity, dishonesty – let alone the complete arsehattery – that substituted for public debate on matters of government during the previous 12 months.
The goalposts of what constitutes government legitimacy will be moved from the constitutional to the convenient, from the reality of the parliamentary majority to concocted nostrums about mandates to govern.
Every policy and utterance the government or the Independents make will be creatively analysed, deliberately distorted and whose fabricated consequences will be shouted from the rooftops. This will not be an exercise in political analysis, but an infection of pathological political syphilis. It will not just be a campaign against the government, but one rolling, frenzied campaign after another, where each new contrived outrage will assume a greater level of mania than the last.
The Independents will be targeted in a way they are probably not prepared for – they will be demeaned, ridiculed and treated with contempt, where their honourable characters will be distorted into debased caricatures. The character assassination will be ferocious and their connection to their electorates will be serially brought into question, particularly from a group of ostensibly inner urban media elites whose acquaintance with New England and Lyne extends no further than peering down from 30,000 feet as they fly between capital cities.
But it won’t just be the usual suspects here. There will be an angry that we haven’t seen for a long time, from a group of disgruntled political zealots.
The Liberal and National parties have a profoundly successful ability at attracting a disproportional quantity of the most embittered, politically pungent elements of Australian society as supporters – a dark, angry, belligerent underbelly that believes the only acceptable outcome of any political contest is the one they believe in.
Monday’s Essential Report, taken last week before we knew who was going to be government, hammered this reality home when it looked at public views on the election result – a set of findings that aren’t new in their tone mind you, for the same theme has been remarkably consistent by Coalition supporters in the polling since Tony Abbott took the leadership of the Liberal Party . Firstly, Essential asked about the quality of minority government:
After the election neither the Labor Party nor the Coalition has a majority in the House of Representatives – they need the support of independents to govern. Do you think this will result in a better or worse Government for Australia? (A lot better, a little better, a little worse, a lot worse, make no difference)
The “total worse” response from Coalition voters was nearly twice that of Labor or Greens voters. Not only do a majority of Coalition voters believe that minority government would be worse, but a plurality of Coalition voters believe it in the strongest possible terms available in the survey. If the Coalition can’t rule in their own right, many Coalition voters believe it is simply not acceptable.
Secondly, Essential asked about what should happen next:
Do you think Australia should have another Federal election in the next 12 months?
65% of Coalition voters want another election in the next 12 months – the only partisan block to carry a majority on the question, and the partisan block with smallest number of open minds represented by the Don’t know response. If the Coalition doesn’t clearly win, a majority of Coalition voters believe it is simply not acceptable.
A large proportion of the Coalition vote base believes there is one and only one acceptable outcome in politics – theirs. And it is this zealotry that will explode.
The temptation for the Opposition to continue to exploit this belligerence, as they so successfully did in the lead up to the campaign and in the campaign itself, will be overwhelming. When all that stands between the Opposition and a new election – a new chance at *power* - is one scandal, one stuff up, one member of parliament changing – the attraction of flicking the switch to rhetorical overdrive for effect, and righteous indignation to incite their masses, will simply be too great. No distortion will be too large, no lie too audacious, no accusation too brazen.
And they will be ably assisted and their supporters commercially exploited, by the leadership and opinion section of The Australian – not to mention the curmudgeonly Lesser Scribes infesting the sewer end of the News Ltd tabloids and that growing group of feeble minded cowards at the ABC whom appear to have lost any capacity for intellectual autonomy when it comes to independently assessing the dynamics of Australian politics.
Yet the Great Unhinging won’t be a one way street. The forces of good within the Liberal Party – the Malcolm Turnbulls, the Simon Birminghams, the Greg Hunts of this world – will, must, start to push back against the tawdry politics and tea party style behaviour that the Coalition will ultimately pursue under Tony Abbott. Someone will take a rhetorical step too far, and the tinder box that has been the Coalition will ignite with a fury.
The National Party – the political group that has done more to piss the living standards of rural people up the wall than any other – now face rural independents that for the first time have real power. The Nats ultimate weakness threatens to be publically exposed in their heartland – that they are impotent, do nothing ratbags that rely on the ideological patronage of their constituents and give them three fifths of five eighths of sweet fuck all in return. When, later this term, the fruits of Windsor and Oakeshott start rolling out through regional electorates – from health upgrades to the NBN to a plethora of inevitable policy programs – the National Party will start to be seen by their own constituents for exactly what they are, and the fallout will not be pretty.
What we are about to witness will indeed be a new paradigm, but not the one being advertised. This term looks to be the most policy rich in a generation – the NBN, health reform, a tax summit, campaign funding reform, federal whistleblower protection, a Parliamentary Budget Office and a proper review of climate change policy to name but a few – yet while this incredible agenda with its long, far reaching consequences for the nation will be on the table, there will be one side of politics and one wing of the media doing its best to turn it all into a complete and utter circus.
265 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All
JamesK: So Gerard’s point amounts to “She didn’t give him a free ride!”. Well, blow me down with a feather – I wouldn’t expect any interviewer to give any politician a free ride. They absolutely should be doing the research and preparation so that they can question the interviewee’s assertions. Sometimes that will even mean using a line of questioning that is similar to things the opposing political side is saying. That’s how the public debate progresses – issues that one side raises need to be answered by the other, otherwise we’re just watching two groups of people shouting past each other.
Of course, facts have well-known liberal bias…
@Cuppa
You can be sure that the ABC are preparing statistics on how many minutes each side received in coverage and the nature of the coverage. You can also be sure that it will amount to nothing because the coalition will be spending taxpayer money on scouring the thousands of broadcast hours that went to air to find any semblance of bias across TV and Radio networks from Sydney to Karratha. You can then be sure that the main coalition attack-dog Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells will be using that information in Senate Estimates to “prove” their case. No amount of statistics or analysis will change that.
Just realized what a massive two party preferred lead the ALP now has.
Its about 10 times the annual arrival number of boat people.
Abbott must be shitting bricks !
DodgyKnees@205
How strange – I can’t see this being reported anywhere on the ABC.
If a “boat” arrived, you can be sure the ABC would blare the fact from the rooftops. Headline story for the next day across all ABC platforms.
If the Coalition vote moved in front, they would be screaming “COALITION SURGES AHEAD OF LABOR”.
But when the Labor vote moves in front … crickets … silence.
“Stop the Votes!”
@Cuppa 207: “Stop the Votes!”
I’ll pay that. Just had a serious juvenile accident.
Their ABC …
http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2010/09/09/3007359.htm
Mad Dog, I could not agree more with your analysis of how the ABC has treated their election coverage! Case in point: during the election campaign the review of the BER was released. It revealed that less than 3% of the projects were wasteful. When I switched on the ABC 6.00pm news, the lead story was a Coalition politician (can’t remember which one) again denouncing the scandalous waste, in spite of the facts. This was allowed to run for some time before the item finally ended with the afterthought that the report had found very little waste, but this fact was buried by the preceding lies. I was so enraged that I phoned the ABC newsroom to complain of the bias, making the point that the way the story was run gave prominence to the lies about the BER, and obscured the truth. The idiot in the newsroom told me that the ABC calls this a “reaction story”, and that they had run a report on the BER review earlier in the day. I told him that I did not accept this explanation and that its obligation was surely to report the facts first before opinion, particularly as listeners may not have heard the story earlier in the day and would only really hear the reaction. He did not accept this either, saying again that this was the way the ABC did stories. I asked that my complaint be recorded, but I think now that i should put it in writing in the (probably vain) hope that it might make them just a little answerable for the appalling way they manage the news and their obligation to do it in a balanced way.
Why is Wyatt in the Liberal Party room?
Christine.
This is how I have learned to complain to the ABC hopefully getting maximum impact.
I put my complaints in writing, snail or e-mail.
When they respond I can then cite their response, or non-response, to whatever my complaint was and directly answer it if it is unsatisfactory.
Which it always is.
I then pester them if I do not get another response that directly relates to my initial and follow up complaint because I will not let them fob me off with an all purpose excuse that does not relate to my point.
I don’t overdo it, thus avoiding the tag of being a serial pest or complainer, but I won’t let them just do the PR trick and assume I’ll fade away.
For your consideration.
Christine,
I urge you to put the complaint in writing. You need to include: Date, Time, which ABC Network. They are required to respond to complaints. This is the address to use:
Audience and Consumer Affairs
GPO Box 9994
Your Capital City
Poss – tell it like you see it… Seriously, I can’t disagree with anything you’ve written here, we’re going to see interesting times ahead.
I had a few rants about the ABC on Poll Bludger over the last couple of months, I’m getting really tired of being served gratuitous opinion and smear from Liberal Party HQ with my news. It is a new set of Augean stables waiting for a river. Now that we have a new spirit of independence riding across the land, it would be nice to see some independence in the ABC Board and senior news producers. I don’t think being a personal friend of JWH or a Liberal party cheerleader can really cut it as a qualification for these type of jobs anymore. Maybe when they join in the coming bilestorm then they’ll finally get what’s coming to them.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abc-snubbed-greens-complains-brown-20100906-14y25.html
Some information about complaining to the ABC (supplied by Friends of the ABC) – you’ll note that you can do more than just one contact:
Some information about complaining to the ABC (supplied by Friends of the ABC) – you’ll note that you can do more than just one contact:
Complaints about ABC Programming
ABC Contact Details
. local phone listing in your local phone book; or national phone number 139994 .
The ABC, GPO Box 9994 in your capital city
. addresses and phone numbers for ABC services are at: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/abc_offices.htm
. comment or complaint can be made about ABC programming via its website: http://abc.net.au/contact/
Complaining
. You can lodge any comment or complaint about the ABC by telephone, and it will be noted and passed on to the appropriate program area. If you want a reply, you must specify that it is required.
. If your complaint is serious, it is best to put it in writing to the ABC.
Lodging a Serious Complaint
Step 1. Write to the ABC Details on contacting the ABC are outlined above.
The ABC aims to respond as quickly as possible to serious complaints, but no later than four weeks. If the response is likely to be delayed while information is collected, an acknowledgement will be sent.
If you are dissatisfied with the ABC’s response to your complaint (or have not received a reply) you can ask the ABC’s Complaints Review Executive to review the ABC’s decision, or you can seek external review through the Independent Complaints Review Panel and/or the Australian Communications & Media Authority.
Step 2. Complaints Review Executive (CRE) GPO Box 9994, Melbourne, VIC 3001
The ABC’s Complaints Review Executive (CRE) operates independently of the programs that are the subjects of specific complaints. The CRE takes into account the ABC’s Charter, the ABC’s Code of Practice and ABC Editorial Policies. If you are dissatisfied with the Complaints Review Executive’s response to your complaint, you can seek to have the decision reviewed externally, through the Independent Complaints Review Panel.
Step 3. Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) GPO Box 688, Sydney NSW 2001 The IRCP consists of members of the public appointed by the ABC Board because of their knowledge of or experience in journalistic ethics and practice, media operations and program production, complaints handling and other review processes. The ICRP reviews complaints about serious bias, lack of balance or unfair treatment, and written complaints alleging serious and specific cases of factual inaccuracy. The ICRP:
* provides reasons to complainants when it does not accept a matter for review
* has a preliminary stage in the investigation process to inform the ABC of its decision to investigate and invite further submission
* has a 60-day time limit for the panel to complete investigations of individual matters in normal circumstances
* notifies the ABC and invites it to provide written submissions, along with relevant program material on cases it accepts. The Panel interacts with ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs.
* in the ‘preliminary’ stage of the investigation process, informs the ABC of its decision and invites further submission of further relevant information. At the Panel’s discretion, this opportunity will also be extended to the complainant.
Step 4. Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA)
Yet another tier of external review is available to those wishing to lodge a complaint about serious bias, lack of balance or unfair treatment. Members of the public who complain to the ABC about matters covered by the Corporation’s code of practice and who are dissatisfied with the ABC’s response or the handling of their complaint may seek review from the Australian Communications & Media Authority.
Further Information on/for making a complaint :
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/audience/complaints_how.htm http://www.abc.net.au/corp/audience/complaints_whatif.htm
ABC Editorial Policies : abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/edpol02.pdf
[Sorry Pete - you were in the Spam bin for a bit.... Poss]
Despite his statement to the contrary, the election is not over in the dissembling Abbort’s mind. As you imply Poss, this is just a short break before the campaign resumes in more vicious form. One would hope Labor should has learned the lesson by now – to challenge every bit of putrid spin that comes out of the Coalition’s orifice. Consensus for the independents – all well and good – but no quarter should be given to the opposition. No more whimpy concessions a la Rudd and the pink batts scenario. Otherwise the credibility bleed will continue, this time with terminal consequences.
For totally unhinged, see the inaugural article in today’s smh by apparent Miranda Devine replacement Anita Quigley http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/behind-the-nice-bloke-facade-is-just-another-wily-politician-20100908-1519k.html? Got 435 comments most of them decidedly hostile, and several mention this thread.
Poss: I missed not having our regular Betting Market Friday, but this was worth the wait.
@Malcolm Street 221, see http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1863734.htm for a sample of Anita Quigley’s quality work at the Daily Telegraph and the Press Council’s view of it.
What?
‘Their’ ABC needs more than the one thousand million of our tax dollars than they take from us already whilst patronisingly informing us who to vote for?
The collective comments regarding the ABC’s complaints mechanisms are very helpful, thanks.
This is only the second time I have posted on Pollytics, so I may have missed earlier advisings on the topic of Fairfax complaints; if so, please accept my apologies. On Friday, 20 August – the day before the election – The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised in support of Labor. On the smh.com.au website, this editorial appeared immediately adjacent to a Liberal Party attack ad. After searching, I found a malfunctioning e-mail link to express my curiosity to Fairfax for the decision to juxtapose the courage of one’s convictions next to one’s revenue streams, and finally found an address that I was able to use manually to complain. I received a pro forma response, which I also found objectionable and responded further, thereupon receiving no further correspondence. That was what it was.
Today, Mark Davis, the national editor of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, authored an analysis at 12.03pm on theage.com.au website entitled ‘Leaders face drama of rewarding their political victims’. (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/leaders-face-drama-of-rewarding-their-political-victims-20100909-1523f.html) Mr. Davis’ articles and analyses, I have noticed (as a nascent commenter), never seem to permit comment, so I used the comments space under the Anita Quigley opinion piece noted by Comment 220 to broadly note the following.
Amongst other things, Mr. Davis makes the following statements in his analysis: ‘The man who “lost” the election, Tony Abbott … .’ and ‘The woman who “won” the election, Julia Gillard … .’ I’m interested in understanding why quotation marks were placed around the words ‘won’ and ‘lost’?
Is Fairfax no longer able – or willing – to make statements of fact? Why the contingency inferred by the quote marks? Is it in the public interest for Mr. Davis to make these assertions? There was no disclaimer, so does Fairfax stand by its employee’s statement that Mr. Abbott only “lost” the election and Ms. Gillard only “won” it?
I do note that Mr. Davis wrote an article on 7 September which bore the headline ‘Oakeshott holds Australia hostage with self-indulgent theatrics’ which seemed to me a precursor for today’s piece by Anita Quigley.
Any thoughts?
Dont worry James K you can always take solace in your morning copy of the OO sorry the Völkischer Beobachter,but then we all know what a fine fellow you right wingers think Murdock is.
I believe he may have a few problems in the UK with phone tapping again but then that would not worry the Australian right as semi fascist tendency’s seem to always exist on the right.
Maybe they just feel more comfortable under a Leader who can tell them how to think,then there’s always those snappy uniforms and those big holiday camps for the left and anyone who dont agree with the Leader.
And of course when the Republicans (Tea Party Fascists Murdock’s Faux News) win the election in the US it really will be welcome to 1984,and 1930 all over again
Yes John Ryan and we all know how lefties are naturally dishonest, love strawmen arguments and simply change the subject when they’ve been pwned…….
@peter Mcilwain #217
Very comprehensive information about complaining to the ABC.
I wonder if there is a similar mechanism for News Ltd sources?
I’d be interested to hear how S Grey fares with Fairfax, I’ve complained to ‘their’ ABC before sand I can assure you that John Ryan’s methodology is used to the full usually about 6 weeks later. As for the follow up questions to the woefully inadequate response……. well …. I’m still waiting 6 months later.
I shouldn’t bother making a complaint to ‘their’ ABC it just employs yet another lefty tosser to play silly buggers with you on the public dime.
Yeah well you know all about tossers James K being one yourself
Poss
the squeaky hinge gets the most oil?
The ‘Hatchet jobs’ n Oakeshott has begun. There was an opinion piece in SMH yesterday full of quotes by unnamed people, allegation of impropriety, and today SMH is even reporting hearsay stories from the Daily Telegraph.
I mean, SERIOUSLY? A NSW minister position from Iemma?? The NSW Labor Leader couldn’t even break a fart without consulting the fractional overlords. We had 3 Premier in 3 years for a reason. Oakeshott supposedly ‘threatened’ Iemma with quitting parliament : how does that work? Where’s Oakeshott’s leverage?
What is happening to journalism? If the journalist are no longer able to distinguish truth from fiction, then society is in real trouble.
Hi Poss
Yesterday, here in the West, the Letters page was full of the “mandate/legitimacy” narrative, supporting that being pumped out by Tony Abbott and the the Opposition.
We even had an afternoon female presenter on ABC radio whose program is usually as soft as a boiled turnip in content, saying how some of her friends were “so angry” about what happened. Read here that the Coalition did not get up and that “we wus robbed.” What was that about the ABC and impartiality?
Today, there are still some (fewer) letters of similar ilk with gems such as “hijacked democracy” and for we in WA, to be prepared to be “raped by Canberra”. The die-hards are likely to be this way for a few days/weeks/months until they have got the bile out of their system.
More promising is the fact that some elements of the media are not buying this rubbish.
A Channel 10 commentator yesterday, when questioned here by local morning radio, heaped scorn on the Coalition by stating the word “wrong” at least three times in relation to this furphy.
More telling, given the Liberal-leaning West Australian, is their Federal Political Editor, Andrew Probyn, producing a strong piece headed, “To labour on about PM’s ‘illegitimacy’ can backfire”.
In this article he refers to a a tweet by SA Liberal Senator Simon Bermingham – “Democracy – swings, roundabouts and other stuff harder to explain…upwards and onwards to the next election.”
Probyn noted that this was one of the coalition’s “bile-free texts” and “Rather than be poisoned about Labor’s illegitimacy, Senator Bermingham’s head was where the rest of the party needs to be at.”
Oh that other elements of the MSN were capable of more sober reflection such as this.
If anyone here is actually genuinely interested in whether ‘their’ ABC is indeed biased and indeed poisonously so, I recommend viewing Lateline’s contemptible report on the the Gainesville Pastor who proposes to burn The Koran on Sept 9th.
The ‘Pastor’ a a self proclaimed congregation of 50 ( so… probably 10).
The sickening leftist ABC ‘reporter’ manages to slime the former US Speaker and possible 2012 Republican Presidential nominee Newt Gingrich en passant and of course Sarah Palin and indeed the Republican Party generically.
If you are genuinely concerned that what I suggest about the ABC could even have a grain of truth I recommend reviewing the ‘Anti-Islamic sentiment spreading across US’ story by the viciously nasty Lisa Miller (whose wages are paid by you and me) with a critical mind:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
I have been to Gainsville FLA and can confidently report it’s redneck central.
The problem with bias in the media is that it’s not always clearly out in the open. There’s no mistaking who Phillip Adams or Miranda Devine are barracking for, for instance.
A more insidious bias comes with the subtle use of ‘framing’ words in ostensibly objective stories.
A case in point was Fairfax journalists’ stories mentioning Kevin Rudd from the time he was deposed. Commonly, opening paragraphs would include emotionally-charged framing words like ‘knifed’ and ‘stabbed’.
I did a short piece of extremely unscientific research just now and searched The Age website for ‘knifed’. Only eleven of the first 40 results (of 108 in total) weren’t somehow linked to Rudd.
In another example, it was rare to read of Nick Minchin being described as a “factional warlord”, but that is already a common descriptor for Bill Shorten. Minchin descriptors tended to the less aggressive “power broker”.
These examples are enormously subtle, but, like Chinese water torture, repeated thousands of times they influence people’s perceptions.
JamesK, have you become unhinged?
I’ve just read the transcript of the Lateline story you complain about and Lisa Millar doesn’t even mention Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin, only her interviewee does. Far from agreeing that Republicans are whipping up violence, one of her next comments is that there has not in fact been an increase in anti-Islamic violence.
It seems a reasonably straightforward reporting of a current issue in the US, perhaps you could back up your assertion with examples of what in the report you find to be “viciously nasty” or provide a direct quote of Lisa Millar “sliming” anyone. You know, actual evidence of your claims rather than just insinuations.
JP #236 – Good sleuthing.
JamesK is probably so outraged by his perceptions that another complaint letter will be ending up in the ABC inbox. The poor old ABC complaints panel will be tied up (& wasting even more taxpayer money) reviewing another spurious complaint.
Yawn…..yes JP …and indeed the prescient mikeb you’ve found me out.
I am indeed mad. No need to think.
Mainstream news outlets in the arse-end of the world really do need to spend a third of the show looking at a pastor of 50 people in Hicksville, USA and interview nobodys who really truly fully realise the sinister implications if the Republicans do well in the mid-term elections November 2nd.
LISA MILLAR: Those spearheading the anti-Muslim sentiment declined to speak to Lateline but some observers suggest their argument will only grow in strength as America continues to struggle with its history.
I wonder if Lisa muttered those immortal words “critics have said….”?
Not to worry….go back to sleep.
All is well with the world.
Lefties really are good people. Conservatives really are evil.
The ABC are honest crusaders fighting for justice.
Don’t fret.
Australia’s Electoral Secret – No longer open and transparent
Elections in Australia are no longer open and transparent with the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to subject information pertaining to the conduct of the electronic counting of the ballot to proper scrutiny. Scrutineers have been denied access to copies of the Senate count reconciliation and below the line preference data files
Without access to this copies of the preference vote data-files and reconciliation reports it is impossible for scrutineers to conduct a proper and comprehensive scrutiny of the ballot. A formal request for copies of the data has been made in writing, but this is of not much value to the scrutiny of the ballot after the count or the horse has bolted.
There is no suggestion that the conduct of the election has been fraudulent. We have not seen a repeat of the disastrous mistakes made in the counting of the 2006 Victorian State Election where data entry errors and a lack of due diligence by the Victorian Electoral Commission had necessitated a full review of counting the upper house votes in Northern and Western Metropolitan Regions.
The processes put in place by the Australian Electoral Commission, apart from the Commission’s inability or unwillingness to provide access to the data requested has been exemplary. It’s double data-entry validation system is significantly better system then the one used by the Victorian Electoral Commission in 2006.
The problem never the less remains in that the Commission has denied access to vital information pertinent to the proper and open transparency of the conduct of the election.
The suggestion by Mr Pirani, AEC legal officer, that scrutineers can only gain access to this data though an application of under the provisions of the freedom of Information Act is an abuse of process.
It prevents Scrutineers from independently verifying or scrutinising the quality of the data collected. There is no legal ground that this information should be withheld, in fact if we are to maintain an open and transparent electoral process access to this data must be readily available.
So the question is why is the Australian Electoral Commission refusing to provide access to the crucial and important information?
This issue will now be a subject of a further parliamentary inquiry.
More information:
http://democracy-works.blogspot.com/
D@W, you have already done to death your theories on the Senate counting process and the perfidy of Antony Green and Andrew Bartlett over in the Poll Bludger thread about the Senate count at http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/08/31/photo-finishes-the-senate/
Might I respectfully suggest that you, and any others who want to pursue the matter, do so over in that thread, rather than repeating the arguments and accusations ad nauseum in this one too!
Democracy – if you try and bring your never ending tirade over here, you will go permanently into the idiot bin.
The fact that the flaw with the Senate Counting system delivered the LNP Ticket vote an additional 14,00O bonus votes is a real concern. Take a look at the 2007 results there are a number of seats where determined well within the 14,000 mark. In Queensland it elected the wrong person to the sixth senate seat and in Victoria it nearly unseated Senator David Feeney. Is not democracy based on an accurate, open and transperent electoral system? Is notr a revoiew of the elctoralk system part of the analysis of the outcome of the campiagn?
The next Federal Election will be a double dissolution. Neither the ALP or the LNP will want half senate election to take place.
Politics is the art of compromise.
The longevity of this parliament will very much depend on the ability of the Greens to compromise and gina balance in its policies. Past indications are that they will not. (The CTS for example). Should the Greens not be in a position to accept compromise of moderation of its demands Australia will go to the polls within 18 months. Come July 1 Tony Abbott will up the pressure on the government, warranted or not he is in a strong position and within a heart beat of bring down the current minority government. As long as the LNP with the support of Steve Fielding (Family First) holds the balance of power Abbott will bide his time chipping away at the governments claim to be a legitimate government (Even though it rightly so).
Gillard is without any doubt the most capable member of the ALP caucus to lead a minorioty government. Her style of leadership and ability to negotiate is the ALPs greatest strength. Gillard is a very competent and skilled player in that respect. I have known her for most of my 30+ years as a member of the ALP.
Having the constitutional right to call a double dissolution would be in the interest of both the ALP and the LNP
Whoever tells the next election will be in the best position to win it. If the election is forced by Tony Abbott he will be the most likely to win. The same could be the case for Gillard.
The slogan “This time I will vote for Green” will soon become “Last time I voted Green, I will not make the same mistake next time”
The only concern I would have about the outcome of a double dissolution is that analysis of the Victorian and South Australian counts is that Family First will be re elected assuming preference fold ups remain the same. In Victoria Family First at a Double Dissolution would be elected in place of the DLP.
In discussion with LNP scrutineers on Friday it as clear that they were having second thoughts about preferencing the Greens ahead of the ALP. I am sure they will think twice before making that mistake a second time. The outcome of the Federal election has also raised questions and doubt whether then LNP will preference the Greens in the Victorian State elections scheduled for November 27.
At the next Federal election we can anticipate that the Green vote will drop significantly back to below 10%
As long as minor parties continue to cross preference each other and the Christian parties (Family First, DLP and Fred Nile) support each other they will remain ahead of the pack with a strong chance of securing representation in the various upper house elections that will follow. Above the line voting giving strength and cohesion to their vote.
Maybe next time, D@W , the Labor Party will actually get the CTS right, and by producing a system that has potential to actually work gain the necessary support of The Greens?
Maybe, too, they will get the politics right (or just be luckier)? We all know that the real reason that it failed last time around was not because of The Greens but because the Libs changed horses in mid-stream and Labor had put all its eggs in one basket by only negotiating seriously with The Libs on the matter.
The temptation, I must add, was understandable. If the Libs had stuck with their promises then at least the proposed, albeit seriously compromised, scheme would have seen the light of day. Labor, electorally, would have been seen as honouring its promises even if the result was far from ideal when it came to actually achieving anything real.
In an attempt to appease the Libs and get it through, Labor basically locked the Greens out during the negotiation process. Again, Labor’s approach made political, if not environmental, sense at the time. The Greens couldn’t deliver a majority in the Senate without Fielding also coming on board and he clearly wasn’t going to. The Libs could and Fielding was likely to go with the Libs anyway when push came to shove.
It was under these circumstances the Greens stuck to their guns. Labor hadn’t seriously sought out a compromise with them, and they wouldn’t have had the numbers anyway, unless Fielding and Xenophon came genuinely on side.
Labor had various choices at that stage. Their focus seemed to be primarily on playing on splits in the coalition over the matter rather than trying to negotiate a solution with the Greens and Independents in the Senate. They succeeded to some extent in the former, and got two Libs to cross the floor in the Senate. Whether these two would have done so, however, if this had meant that the vote would be won as a result, or, on the other hand, if Labor had negotiated with the Greens and developed a better package, we will never know.
Labor could have reworked the legislation, trying to take more of the Greens concerns into account. They didn’t because they wanted to keep a double dissolution trigger .
They could have gone to a double dissolution (and were on the verge of doing so) , but they didn’t.
Instead they put it all in the “too difficult” basket, and thereby lost a huge amount of electoral respect. If they had gone down on the issue fighting it would have been far less serious than simply giving up altogether.
I’m sure with Abbott, rather than Turnbull, as Opposition leader, and The Greens with full control of the balance in the Senate, the temptation to try to seek a compromise with the Libs to get any form of ETS through will be far weaker this time and, given the state of the lower house, they will obviously need Green support anyway in the Reps to even get the legislation into the upper house.
Whether this is a realistic possibility in the present term is going to depend heavily on Oakeshott (whose position is very similar to the Greens on such things) and Windsor (who is no climate change denier but may well provide some serious hurdles when it comes to negotiation about the matter).
But using the Greens position on the ETS last time around as an example of their “failure to compromise” is simply nonsense. Labor essentially locked The Greens out of the negotiating process on the basis of promises from the Libs that the latter subsequently failed to honour. I’m hopeful Labor won’t make the same mistake again, but you never know!
“Lefties really are good people. Conservatives really are evil.”
Jamesk is finally getting a dose of reality
Mike Carlton is either a reader of this column or has come up with similar ideas himself http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/kinder-gentler-welcome-back-to-the-nasty-old-paradigm-20100910-154v5.html
And Jamesk, when you are “pwned”, you should at least make a clean breast of it. But then, you are a capital C Conservative.
Here is an excellent article Possum..
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dark-days-as-the-media-plug-into-a-mob-mentality-20100911-155vq.html
Labor was never going to opt for a double dissolution at the last election. That was Andrew Bartlett’s fantasy. Why would it. In 2007 Labor had its best result in the senate winning three senate seats in Victoria and other states.
But a double dissolution at the next election would be much more desirable.
As to the question of the balance of power The Greens did not hold the balance of power. A negotiated compromise between then ALP and the LNP is preferable then a marginal supported outcome. The Greens in opposing the proposal was just being obstinate. Its all or nothing approach is there downfall. Again Politics is the Art of compromise Having failed to compromise we have nothing. The same BS occurred with the republic vote when the likes of Phil cleary opposed Australia becoming a republic without a directly elected head of state. I prefer the head of state to be appointed by the peoples elected parliament and would oppose a directly elected model.
For what ever reason it would be pragmatic if the government had the trigger and opportunity should it be required to flush out the Senate at the next election.
The ALP is onot in colaition with the Greens Party, They will, on occasions, side with the LNP on certain issues. Recognition of Gay marriage “White wedding and certificate” being one such issue.
I am sure that if the Greens holier then thou approach continues unabated then it will be their eventual downfall. If the Greens fail to demonstrate the ability to support stable minority government the motto at the next election will be
Looks like the trigger for a double dissolution might come about sooner rather then later. Victorian Senator Steve Fielding’s departing shot and opposition to a mining tax may provide the excuse (Even though he ill not be in office after July 1. The member for Dennisons want to see the restoration of the original proposed tax… In the end we will end up with no tax and or a DD trigger.
The Senate is not purged as a result of incoming members taking office after July 1, 2011. A trigger created before July 1 can still be called upon after July 1.
D@W, it was no fantasy of Bartlett’s. Agreement had actually been reached at the very highest levels to proceed with one, but the pin was pulled at the last minute.
Just by the way, it is most unlikely that a decision by Fielding would result in a double dissolution, unless the GG is feeling very obliging and the Independents decide that they’d like one too and are prepared to play ball in the lower house. Think about it.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 4 [5] 6 » Show All