In NSW, I think the only significant unknown is who the Climate Change Coalition will preference, assuming FF and the Coalition do tie up a national deal (which FF needs to have any hope). Now that will be a test of their (CCC) credibility, given ‘clean coal’ is ‘Goebbels-style propaganda’ but they were reportedly preferencing the ALP in some seats in the state election.

In SA, there’s the X Factor – where he sits in prefs from Dems and Greens, and vice versa, could well affect who gets up (esp. if he goes and wins 20% again!).

And Hanson’s preferences in Qld could be a factor if she polls poorly enough to drop out early.

Any other states where the pref deals of significant minors is in doubt?

I presume LP will have a post with all the details shortly, at any rate!

Weren’t all Senate preference deals to be lodged by last night? Anyone know where we can look them up – I can’t see it on the AEC or ABC websites.

Of course the Victorian team are looking at which parties will place carers and the people they support in the best position. But everyone promises everything, why is it that we suspect once seats are won things may change? Do you get it in writing! lol They all promise to consult and gain a better understanding of the issues.

Thanks
Junelle Rhodes
Victoria Senate Candidate
Carers Alliance

Perhaps assessing which non-major party candidate has the best policy for carers, pledging them your preferences and doing a couple of joint appearances is the best shot for highlighting your cause?

Of course I’m interested as a newcomer to this scene and a Victorian Senate Candidate for the Carers Alliance!

Your expertise and knowledge far outweighs mine! So I would appreciate your input!

Andrew E raises the possibility of the ALP teaming up with the Greens after the ALP next loses government but I don’t think we’ll see it unless we get PR in the lower house. The ALP are happy to denigrate the Greens until the cows come home and won’t offer them an inch unless it will guarantee an ALP government.

You seem to be implying that the Greens have to come cap-in-hand to Labor. I’d suggest that next time Labor go into opposition they will be bound by the Beggars Can’t Be Choosers Act.

I recall Stott Despoja saying she’d like to come back to politics post-childrearing but I don’t know if she’d have a party to come back to.

GetUp seem to be doing the organising that the Democrats and moderate liberals can’t/won’t.

If the Libs adapt oppositional tactics, then there will be lots of balance of power opportunities, where Labor will be forced to accept cross-bench amendments as the price for getting laws through. If the Libs adopt a ‘we don’t like it much but you’re the government’ approach most of the time, then there will be few balance of power opportunities on legislation.

This implies that the Liberals willl be sufficiently disciplined to follow a clear line in opposition: I’m not sure this will be the case. Liberal oppositions tend to b a rabble, as a rule.

A long-term alliance (coalition?) between the Greens and Dems has always struck me as a good idea, and the last 12 months or so it looks better and better. I wonder what Andrew’s thoughts would be on that – a bitter pill after being number 3 for so long, or not? Would there even be a need for some formal arrangement, or a case-by-case realignment on each issue?

If as hoped the Libs implode, something along these lines is required IMHO to prevent a politics dominated by a monolithic Labor sliding further and further to the lazy social right, and dragging its feet on the environment.

There will almost always be balance of power type opportunities on setting on Inquiries, demanding tabling of documents, and the general holding government to account type of things, as Oppositions usually support cross-bench efforts in this area if for not other reason than to irritate the Government.

However, balance of power opportunities on legislation may be much more difficult to predict. If the Libs adapt oppositional tactics, then there will be lots of balance of power opportunities, where Labor will be forced to accept cross-bench amendments as the price for getting laws through. If the Libs adopt a ‘we don’t like it much but you’re the government’ approach most of the time, then there will be few balance of power opportunities on legislation.

To use one example, when the first Native Title legislation was put forward, for reasons best known to themselves the Liberals under Dr Hewson (who now likes to style himself as something of a genuine liberal) decided to oppose the whole thing outright, rather than try to amend it to reflect something more suited to their views. This gave the Democrats and the 2 WA Green Senators balance of power on the legislation, thus enabling them to amend it to something which better reflected their views (and even less suited to the views of the Liberals, whose tactics perversely produced a law they liked even less than the original).

The same thing can happen on almost any issue, but it is often hard to predict in advance which ones they will be. But it is a reminder that balance of power on legislation will not always mean cross-bench combining with Libs to force an amendment on a Labor government. It is just as likely to be cross-bench telling Labor government they ill join with Lib Opposition to block a Bill unless/until Government agrees to certain amendment, even though the amendment may be something the Libs like even less than the original.

Or to use the very current Workchoices example, if the Libs lose and decide they’ll let Labor claim a ‘mandate’ on workplace laws and support it basically unamended, the cross-bench becomes powerless. But if instead the Libs decide to maintain the rage and rhetoric against the ‘union bosses’, etc and oppose everything, it will place the final say very much with the cross-bench – and some potentially interesting decisions about how much to insist on (not to mention some possibly quite different views amongst Green, Democrat and Family First Senators which may need to be reconciled, depending on how many cross-bench votes Labor will need to get legislation through)