Tony Abbott asked his supporters tonight to avoid “premature triumphalism” but that clearly wasn’t the mood in the room in which he spoke. I’m not sure that the “exuberance” he identified was all that helpful to him, nor the highly partisan nature of his remarks. It was a big contrast with the restrained, dignified and measured performance of Prime Minister Julia Gillard, speaking in Melbourne.
As Stephen Smith said, she displayed “grace under pressure”.
Let’s be clear about one thing: just as Labor very clearly did not win this election, neither did the Coalition. There’s no basis for claiming that the Australian people voted to “stop the boats, end the waste” and all the rest – given that had the Liberals and Nationals been able to persuade a sufficient majority of electors of their case, that would have been reflected in the result. Nor is it certain that the Coalition won a majority of the two party preferred vote nationally. And it is not clear that the Coalition have won more seats than Labor.
The final results will not be clear for a week or more.
If, as appears almost certain, there is a parliament in which neither major party has a majority on the floor of the House of Representatives, it is far from impossible that Julia Gillard will yet form a government. All of the three rural independents, Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, left the Nationals for a reason.
We should also not underestimate the importance of broadband, access to health and food and water security in particular to their electorates. And it’s worth observing, as I predicted earlier in the campaign, that The Greens performed impressively in regional and rural areas.
I’m going to eschew any further analysis or interpretation until later on.
Who did Abbott learn his craft from. Howard, Australia’s master of wedge politics.
but hoo has teh numbers; heh, heh!
As I said elsewhere… as the voters failed to give either party a majority, it is a very clear message. But will the politicians listen?
We live in interesting times…
The rural independents who appeared on Lateline the other night both flagged the importance of broadband to their communities – so they may see a benefit in supporting the NBN?
This election has show that Abbott is a very effective politician, but in doing so he has debased the role of politician within our society even further.
As I said on the other thread, this is a victory for compromise and consensus. Whoever forms a government will have to work very hard to get their program through. Surely that is a good thing.
Let’s face it, being in government in these circumstances is probably not something that either side would like.
Having said all that, it seems as though Tony has his nose in front, having won far more primary votes than his opponent, as well as more seats. The last time I looked the Coalition had won the 2PP as well. It looks like it’s going to be 73 coalition, 3 Conservative Indies on one side and 72 ALP, 1 Green and 1 indy green on the other. That’s 76/74.
Julia Gillard is a very similar position to Gordon Brown in the UK. Labor can only look sleazy if they try too hard to remain in Government if they have fewer seats than the Coalition.
@joni, when do politicians ever listen!
What Abbott and the Libs learned was that his strategy was really effective.
Expect more of the same.
This is an amazing result. 3 years ago moust of us were predicting that the Coalition were going to spend years in the wilderness – and many were forecasting the desth of the Liberal party as we know it…. just hark back to some of the comments on Quiggins blog in 2007.
It is truly amazing that we’re now at a point where we don’t know who will be PM next week.
Unfortunately there are no winners. The ALP has blown it, the Lib/Nats are still essentially a rabble, and the Greens are still largely irrelevent.
The winner will be decided next election (maybe sooner than we think! If Gillard hangs on, the Lib/Nats wll continue to rehuvenate in opposition and then will be back in power next election.
It’s amazing the ALP has blown up so quickly.
“….and the Greens are still largely irrelevent.”
Been on another planet tonight have we Andrew?
After 1993 there was talk of the Libs being out of power for a generation, there was similar- though not quite as dramatic- talk about the Libs after the 2007 election. Sometimes things change quickly. In this case it looks like the Libs can form a minority govt with the 3 rural independents (watch the pork fly..), hard to see Labor being able to come to a lasting deal with them. Labor don’t look like having the numbers to govern without at least 1 of those 3.
Simple people requires simple messages and TA is a master at delivering that. The implication is of course that the vast majority of Australians are simple folk who are more keen to own a Plasma TV than be a responsible citizen.
keep them angry, keep them stupid. works every time.
I predict the ongoing victory of the politics-as-football commentary. It has swept the field from all else.
I wouldn’t be too sure about Abbott getting the support of the 3 Independents. The NBN is due to be rolled out in part of Armidale, I think, next month. That’s in Windsor’s electorate. Windsor has little love for the Nats, and is determinedly independent. He was one of the biggest opponents of the privatisation of Telstra. From what Oakeshott said tonight telecommunications is big on his wish list too. Katter is the only wild-card in that trio.
The Melbourne Green will definitely back Labor, and Wilkie is more likely too than not.
Clearly the Coalition expects the Indies to hand them Government on a platter. Suspect they might be disappointed.
Balance lies with gang of five: ABC
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the independents support a Labor government.
Bandt I think promised to support the ALP.
Interesting times.
Tony Abbott is flexing his muscles and talking about mandates. But coming over all strong-arm doesn’t quite cut it. His speech sounded hollow. The glory days of Howard and born to rule are gone.
With the rise of the Greens, the Left is no longer hostage to the ALP. It is now possible for the Left to say “no” to the Right by means of the Greens’ now permanent control of the legislative process.
Abbott is fixated on triumphing about the fact that the Labor Party lost its lower house majority in one election.
Abbott would be better employed contemplating the Tories’ permanent loss of the legislative process.
Tony can argue the mandate. He has more seats than the ALP (at this very moment at least.) He had a swing towards him whereas the ALP had a massive swing away.
If John Howard can lose the popular vote but win with 49% of the vote and still call it a mandate and have it accepted as such then Tony can call this a mandate.
Paul, I think the LNP is more likely to form a coalition (a true coalition) with the 3 than Labor is. . Not only because they’re naturally philosophically aligned but also the LNP will be prepared to throw more cash the 3 independents way
It will be an unstable arrangement. If there is to be another election soon then you gotta favour the LNP to get those extra few seats.
You also need to factor in what the media and what the mining companies want.
The big danger is Rudd. Obviously Rudd was popular with the electorate. Him being moved to the front could be a big danger to the Libs. The Libs and the media need to move now and blame as much of this on Rudd as possible. Make him persona non grata in the ALP to negate him being a risk to the natural order of things.
Gillard was gracious towards Abbott in her “concession speech,” but Abbott was not gracious towards Gillard in his. In fact, Abbott did not celebrate his party’s performance, but rather he was gloating over Labor’s poor performance. Already the power has gone to his head. If Abbott manages to form a government, he has signaled that it will be negative and hubristic.
Let’s not forget the role of the media in producing this disgraceful result.
The media win from this Silkworm. If the Abbott government is anything like the Howard one the money from advertising alone will be worth it.
Agree AMrl. I thin this election will “change the country” more than any in recent memory.
Rural independents will find it hard to say no to National Broadband Network; and we all know which way Bandt and Wilkie will go. Gillard may yet emerge as minority PM here – depends on final seat count.
I think there’s also a clear element of no-confidence in the two parties, and the elctroal sysem as a whole. The public have engineered at PR -style outcome.
Frankly, I’d be pushing for PR if I was any of the 5! And if I was the ALP – id be strongly considering it.
(and No Tuckey, and no Fielding.)
This is a major shake-up. Politics as we knew it just ended folks.
Here’s how Abbott can win. Broadband for the bush! (Or at least for a few seats as a pilot plan)
Sorted.
The ALP did slightly better than I thought they would today. But hard to see how Abbott won’t be able to form government next week.
Either way though, the next election will come in short order but the big challenge till then is for the left to avoid the ALP coming apart at the seams due to payback and recriminations in the meantime.
The tragedy is that good policy on climate change will be even further deferred.
The only seats where the Greens are insignificant is in solidly working-class ALP seats and in solidly bucolic and/or dusty National Party seats.
Therefore the Greens and the ALP MUST recognise the political moment and work together to the greatest extent possible. The left can only make inroads in upmarket Liberal seats via the green route. The ALP must cede this point. The left can only make inroads in outer suburbs via the ALP route. The Greens should give up on those seats for twenty years or so.
The LNP has proved that coalitions are fantastic political solutions over decades now. Time for the left to move forward.
@16
Yes but John Howard had the bums on the seats. Tony Abbott is going to have to treat with the independents, who will be anxious to protect their cachet of independence in the eyes of their constituents.
Politics has changed, but the media has not.
The three conservative independents will get what they want, their electorates will be grateful and Abott will form government.
I cant see Tony getting the numbers hear – without completely recreating himself.
Key dimension: the greatest risk to the independents – by dint of being ex Nats – is to ally themselves with the coalition.
Cutting a deal with labor is actually their ONLY option to retain credibility. the NBN certainly works in labor’s favour here – and no one can accuse them of latter-day opportunism over the policy.
Of course, this will all be much easier for them if labor draws level on seats. So thats important.
But Im with Mark: Gillard far more likely to form Minority govt.
I think it could be the best thing that ever happened to us if it works.
(the 5 of them should call for a referendum on MMP or PR). Ours systems bullshit and broken anyway – who’d miss it?
You can very reasonably and sensibly hate sections of the media, but to blame the media for this result is to waste time.
Politics hasn’t changed.
What’s happened is that a new ALP government under the great stress of managing the GFC under the leadership of an eccentric personality, in a new era of media hyper-attention, fractured. The opposition settled, finally, through dumb luck, on the guy with teeth.
Voters heard the simple message that the government had fucked up. It indeed had fucked up – but not in the way the voters were told by the gut with teeth.
The government had actually governed very well. The government had only fucked up politically. “Irony” doesn’t begin to describe it.
“Gillard far more likely to form Minority govt.”
If the ALP win the three in doubt seats then, yes. But that is objectively less likely than other scenarios!
Interestingly Newspoll got this result exactly right.
Antony Green’s already said they’re ‘likely’ for two of the three, Wbb. And they’re ahead in the third.
Let’s not forget either about Tony Crook in O’Connor – the man who unseated Wilson Tuckey. A National as well – kinda like Windsor, Katter, and Oakeshott before they left the party.
Abbott cannot take that man for granted. 90% probability that he’ll support the coalition, but 10% that Tones makes a real ass of himself. And if Crook gives the nod to Gillard, what are the Nats going to do? Disendorse him? He’s the first one they’ve had in WA for ages.
Advice for our wannabe-PM: if Tones comes a’courting the indies, I suggest he leaves the Debt Truck at home. His dream of the Eternal Surplus ain’t going to cut the mustard.
Sorry – thats “ahead” in two; behind (but gaining) in the third.
Saigon, you are seriously deluding yourself if you think that the member for O’Connor – the most conservative electorate in the country – is going to side with Labor.
Crook got elected because of Brendan Grylls, and none of the elected Nats are going to side with labor if they want to retain their seats.
To me it looks more likely than not that we will have an Abbott government. As I understand it the current senate configurations will remain in place until mid-next year.
I hope he can’t do too much damage to society (especially the poor) in that period.
I forgot but special mention to Michael Kroger too. I flicked over to Channel 9 during their coverage to hear him saying Wayne Swan is a lunatic and the Today woman (Lisa Wilkinson?) having a massive go at Kroger for speaking so poorly to our nation’s Treasurer.
I missed all that but I gather he made a real ass of himself, as usual.
Amazing.
There’s a picture on the ABC website of Abbott and Howard, arms held high in triumph, that disturbs me. That after the ‘experiment’ of an ALP gummint, the punters have returned to the fold, that Tones is Rodent Redux, and that’s gunna be the ‘natural’ political centre of Oz going forward.
Sure there’s a large green protest vote against the ALP, but I can’t see that lasting beyond the next election. The green vote will go down from record highs, and more voters will switch from ALP to LNP as the latter assume incumbency.
I can’t believe how the ALP blew it so quickly.
Argh, this certainly took me by surprise, I thought Gillard/Labor were going to edge it out.
Condolences to all Gillard’s supporters here. But as others have pointed out, the game ain’t up yet. Besides, it could’ve been worse, Abbott coulda got a clear majority.
Perhaps the uncertainty and instability will encourage the key players to re-imagine and revise their agendas. 21st century politics needs new vocabularies, so if the old vocabularies keep producing irritating stalemates and standoffs, maybe that will hasten new imaginingsand new ways of seeing. In the near term though, Good luck!
In the event of a hung parliament, if the independents want a stable government, it’s worth keeping in mind that with the Greens having the balance of power in the Senate, only the ALP can provide this…
Tony Windsor used the NBN in his advertising. Bit hard for him to side with a guy who wants to tear up the contracts!
And as has been mentioned before – he left the Nats for a reason and is well known around here for his hatred of them.
What about if Gillard offered the CLP member from Solomon a job? Just like Rann did in SA.
The most benefit accrues to the ALP if Abbott forms government with the support of the agrarian socialist MPs. Then bring on the greek tragedy of dismantling the NBN.
We’ll see vision of fibre access network being removed from poles in Tas & Brunswick in Melbourne, people losing their jobs at NBNco and companies like Alcatel Lucent into the government for hundreds of millions for breach of contract.
And there’s no spectrum available to start on the Abbott ‘vision’ until the analogue TV shutdown is complete. And there’s no delivery mechanism. So then there’s going to be two years at least of kerfuffle over how to deliver it. Quigley will be gone due to the Gig-E NTU announcement during the campaign. Doubtful NBNCo as it exists will deliver that project.
A SIGNIFICANT upside is NO MORE IRON BAR TUCKEY. That blight on democracy is gone. How does that play overall given that he was turfed by his own side!
Malcolm Mackerras says the three conservative independents are unlikely to risk anger in their conservative electorates by supporting Labor.
Is Mackerras talking out of his arse?
OB this then comes back to the NBN question. Katter has to go to Ingham & explain why they don’t need & can’t afford FTTH.
Support for these independents comes strongly from the left side as well. That whole northwestern mineral province is in his electorate.
Albo is gone in Grayndler so it’s two Greens that Gillard will have to do a deal with plus three ex Nats plus one current Nat plus Wilkie.
Good luck with all of that.
Whereas Abbott only has to promise a mountain of pork to the bush. Very simple and something the Santanaria in him would agree with anyway.
First thing tomorrow I am buying shares in a wire coat hanger manufacturing company.
The similarities with the recent UK election are interesting. An apathetic electorate, uninspiring majors, a concerted push by progressive minor parties. No clear mandate, deal making followed by a coalition of unlikely bedfellows. A Green elected in the lower house for the first time (in Brighton). And a push for PR in the House of Reps…. interesting when you dwell on it for a bit…
Massive failure to understand the time.
Both parties were well represented with views on health, education, broadband, employment, economic management, immigration, hate the other guy.
End result? balanced opinion. Except for the Greens who grew in support.
Neither major party had a solution for Global Warming. The Geens did, and they were the party that swelled with support.
It is a very simple conclusion.
With the endless flood of political spam that came through my mail box, not a single one asked me for my opinion on the issues with a check box questionaire.
They just do not want to know…and they now pay the price. We all pay the price.
The most significant things said on the night – with regards to the future – were said by the four independents.
By the sound of it, Wilkie (assuming he wins) has an agenda that Labor should have relatively little difficulty making an accommodation towards.
Katter talked about the decimation of rural Australia. Frankly, I was struck by some of the commonality of the themes in his comments with Bob Brown. But who knows which way he’ll go.
Windsor specifically talked about stability and responsibility, and mentioned telecommunications. That he chose – specifically – to mention that issue was interesting. It would appear to be laying the groundwork to at least seriously negotiate with the party promising the biggest upgrade in fixed-line telecommunications this country’s seen since we put down the copper.
Oakshott talked a lot about stable and responsible government, and how it was an exciting time for the Parliament.
One final point – a deal with Labor and the Greens offers the independents something that the Coalition can’t – the Senate numbers to guarantee the passage of the relevant legislation.
Something to keep in mind.
Japerz is correct.
This election, which the major parties fought on the narrowest of grounds, has become the midwife of a new politics in Australia.
The century-old nexus between the organised union movement and progressive politics, more and more frequently a tense relationship, can now be cut by progressives with confidence.
Progressives now have another political, ethical, and perhaps, spiritual home in the Greens.
Necessarily the Greens will have to change and broaden their appeal and perhaps traditional Greens won’t like what their party is about to become.
But now we are living in the new, post-earthquake world.
And on the political Right, the Libs and the Nats are losing control of their own traditional supporter base.
Preferential voting was devised to prop up a two-party system. But now the system is failing to channel protest towards the two major political tendencies.
The short term result is will be legislative paralysis. Then what? Who knows?
Robert @ 44
I think you are correct. bmitw @39 says Windsor used the NBN in his election material. But what else can the ALP offer them apart from not-exactly control of the Senate (and only from July 2011). To be an effective majority the ALP would have to bind the Greens into the cabinet. Otherwise anything they promise the 3 rural independents can’t be guaranteed to pass the Senate. And most of the green agenda Katter will not vote for … he’s a hunt & fish in the national parks, lets get on with land clearing, dam the rivers, sort of guy, I think, certainly he describes himself as an ‘anti-greenie’ and that’s what I take that to mean.
What if Windsor Oakshotte and Katter get the LNP to agree to keep the NBN as their price of their support? Come the next election, the NBN will be seen as a Coalition policy. It’s clear many voters, and the media especially, have the memory of a goldfish.
I think it’s also clear that a good number of people (around 10%, say) vote out of nothing but pure resentment. It’s almost not important at what the resentment is aimed.
I just can’t see the -next- election as anything other than an LNP win.
OB @ 40.
What Malcolm Mackerras may not realise is that for TW at least (don’t know about the other ex-Nats) it’s PERSONAL. And has been for the past 19 years.
New England voters have the chance to vote a Nat in if they want to and they never do. They do so as far as I can gather out of the desire to flip the bird to both the major parties.
Someone can correct me if I amm wrong but I remember reading somewhere that back in the 30s there was a secessionist movement in the New England region. I think this still plays out with all the independents we have both State and Federally.
Katz
Speaking as an ordinary party member.
I think the problem for the ALP is the union control of the conference process. The unions need to have their delegate vote reduced to 0.
As a quid pro quo I think its fair to make any affiliated union’s members automatically a member of the ALP, with the proviso that before they can vote for SEC/FEC and pre-selections they’d have to act as a member i.e. join and attend minimum number of local branch meetings in the last year.
But this is never happening. Having that union-controlled conference vote is how the factions work. That’s why Paul-fukcing-Howe gets to parade around on TV like the big fucking election losing jerk that he is.
They knifed Crean for trying to take them on. As far as I am concerned the union control of the ALP is the fucking problem and we need the nuclear option on them.
10% of the vote… Greens. Now that is significant.
Message? Both majors have lost touch.
ALP – get the message- climate change is important, and YOUR supporters don’t like refugee bashing. Lack of integrity on this & not standing tough on mining tax = punishment at the polls…
If Tony caves and offers NBN for the bush he will be seen in the same light as Rudd: no firm principles
This was Labor’s undoing, Arbib et al thinks that the battleground is policy and gets Labor to move to the right to cut off the Libs but, in fact, the battleground is in leadership and standing up for what you believe.
You know SueZ @ 50, I don’t believe specific policy positions are the problem here (although they are a problem). The problem is the way the policy positions of the ALP are decided.
See my post @ 49. I reckon even if the Howes, Arbibs and Bitars of the world decided that treating refugees decently and a Carbon Tax etc were election-winning positions the ALP would still probably lose. They’d leak votes to the right (i.e. mum and dad suburbans who will vote for the LNP), but not for the traditional reasons. Its a question of how the policy and decision-making process is generally perceived.
Agree with Katz, it is time for the major parties to rethink their Hollowmen politics. It make for great drama and entertainment, however results in bad outcomes allround.
Bob Katters main line in the Tablelands Advertiser was: “It’s amazing what you can achieve when you don’t have to stand there like a ventriloquist doll” played nice up in the Far North. The good folks of Kennedy are sick and tired of the old party backroom politiking.
To give you an idea what the sentiment is up here, the headline of above mentioned paper reads “Great State Debate”. Wherein the local Labor State member is furiously defending the State government spending in the South East QLd, because four out of six mayors have voted to hold a referendum in 2012 to split up from the rest of QLD.
How does TA offer NBN to the bush in any meaningful way?
He can’t go the full enchilada because he can’t afford either the cost of it with his other policies or the optics of going against his anti-spending crusade.
And if he only rolls it out to certain electorates held by certain ex-Nats they and he will look like the opportunists that they probably are.
If there really is to be a hung parliament then it is up to JG as the incumbent to try to strike a deal first. And if she can’t….:(
Cortex @ 51, you may be right.
But do the 3 conservative indys have enough common ground with the Libs to agree to let them govern -without- Abbott having to agree to the NBN? It might be hard for Windsor if he campaigned with it.
The best outcome for Labor is possibly 72 seats + 1 green + Wilkie == 74 + any 2 of the 3.
We’re also assuming that Wilkie here is a natural fit for the ALP. Is he? I know he was once a Green candidate, but apart from his ethical position over the intelligence lies of the Howard govt., what other sorts of politics goes he carry? Remembering he is a former ONA analyst. Was he ASIS, ASIO, or military before that?
One thing is for sure – If Gillard loses office, it will a long time before the next female PM
WBB #28
Sums it up perfectly.
William at Pollbludger fears it will turn out a Coalition minority government, and he’s pretty accurate. It’s not over but Labor needs a bit of luck with the late count. Ideally if they can finish with more or the same seats as LNP, they are in a stronger position to negotiate a minority government.
As other posters have suggested the Greens and Wilkie, if elected, would back Labor, and there is everything to suggest that Oakeshott and Windsor would be open to negotiation. They have done well not only by their weight as independents but by opposing the Nationals at every turn.
Katter is the wildcard and nobody knows which way he’d break. You’d think he’d lean to the coalition, but it might also appeal to him to link loosely with the other independents in a ‘charter of public integrity’. That would be similar to what the Vic independents did in 1999 with Steve Bracks. At that time two were notionally National and one Labor, but all had their own issues with Kennett.
My guess is that Labor could more easily strike an Accord than Abbott, especially with issues like NBN, water supply, education and health. The mining tax is unlikely to bother these independent electorates and may even be perceived as more economically responsible than dropping it.
Frankly, I feel it is a matter of staying in the race for the doubtfuls.
How is that our supossed “two-party” system now consists of a Labor Party and a Liberal, National, Liberal National, Country Liberal “Coalition”.
Cortex:If Tony caves and offers NBN for the bush he will be seen in the same light as Rudd: no firm principles
My understanding of the LNP $6bill broadband fund was that it included wireless broadband for regional areas.
Perfect for the independents, I would have thought.
wbb:Voters heard the simple message that the government had fucked up. It indeed had fucked up – but not in the way the voters were told by the gut with teeth.
I’m sure if Labor had its time over it would not have dropped the ETS – which in my view was where their demise commenced. This has been too much discussed at LP, so. I’ll just say that the first thing that Labor should do is identify the genius who made the decision to drop the ETS, and give them a right royal rogering.
This action will have bipartisan support.
I’m very glad, finally to have something I agree with you on, PeterTB.
PeterTB @ 63.
Armidale is a city of 20,000 and has the UNE. Tamworth has 40,000 plus. Why should we put up with wireless if we can get FTTH?
And can someone tell me why a Lib/Nat coalition plus extras is somehow more noble than say an ALP/Green coalition plus extras?
Tyro Rex @56,
That kind of thinking is the problem. Micro manage the policy process???
Get the policy right!
Rudd floated in on a Tsunami of support after Howard bullied the environment into submission. Rudd signed Kyoto to popular applause then………………………until a tiresome, annoying, confusing, divisive carbon pricing thingy filled the mediasphere. Rudd failed to follow through and his support collapsed. Gillard moved in sensing the danger, promised 3 things, delivered 2. Piking on the one policy that caused Rudds collapse. Her support collapsed.
The policy making process is to blame?? Please.
It is the thinking that is to blame.
The public knows that there is something going on that lobotamises the environmetal concern part of politicians brains, and it seems to occur the first time that new leaders go into meetings with coal mining lobbyists. They soon after appear strangely altered.
The first lesson labor supporters should learn is that you cannot undo the past. Any bickering over what might have been will be counter productive and boring and once again play into the narrative the media want. New opportunities have arisen and they might as well get on with dealing with the present.
BilB, I don’t you know anything about the ALP at all. Yes, it’s the process by which policy decisions get made in the ALP that lead to bullshit like the ETS fail, the leadership spill, and the ETS fail mk2.
You might want to reflect not just what decisions were made, but how and why (and by whom) they are made. Then you find the actual underlying problem.
You may think it’s a simple question of “Rudd decides …” or “Gillard decides …” and while I’m certainly not trying to absolve those leaders of their respective leadership failings, they are not the only people involved in the decision making processes here.
Joe2, and what “opportunities” would they be? Six years of opposition?
Looking at the constitutional practicalities of this hung parliament, it is fairly clear, but by no means crystal clear, that the GG is concerned only that the ministry that she commissions can be as sure as possible of achieving supply.
However, hovering in the back of her mind may well be the relatively likelihood of any ministry succeeding in shepherding legislation through the Senate. A quite significant time elapse pertains to the new Senate meeting. However, I believe, that state of affairs is complicated by senators from the territories taking up their seats before senators from the states. I’m happy to be corrected on this matter.
It is quite likely that we could all go to the polls again before the new Senate is even convened.
Could the new PM, whoever that may be, push some legislation through the process, have it defeated, and thus trigger a double dissolution? Again, what are the legalities of this possibility?
joe2, bickering over what might have been is one thing, thrashing out what caused this fiasco is another. Labor has gone from being completely dominant to opposition in nine months. This is unprecedented. And they did it to themselves.
You are overly pessimistic Tyro. Abbott, for a start, will self destruct very rapidly once he has to face up to the fact that his small swing is just based on slogans.
Sam they just lost their nerve. Hardly surprising under the barrage of negativity that came down from various quarters including the left who were calling for the Rudd scalp earlier than anyone else.
Katz wrote:
Gillards speech made it sound like the ALP was devolving into a single issue party based around organised labour. That to me was a pretty significant step back from the politics of the Whitlam era ALP.
“Jobs, jobs, jobs etc.” what kind of pitch is that when the number of self employed (and people who’d like to be) is increasing? When environmental concerns are front of mind for a significant portion of the electorate on the left and right? It’s not a new kind of politics, it’s an ancient one and it’s irrelevent.
Dman it. Had a big sleep and have woken up to watch the Insiders. They are right. The Indpendents have to go with the national interest first. Stability. They have no choice.
Congratulations Prime Minister Abbott.
(And yes. Even Andrew Wilkie will have to suck it up. He above all of them has an understanding of how a sucky stable government is better than a feel good but lost and instable one.)
Gahhhh! JOhn Howard is on looking triumphant. As is Downer.
And I hate this with every fibre of my being.
They are right and should be proud.
They have had the ultimate revenge on us latte sippers. It is they who are relevant, not us.
History will record only one outlier now and that is the RUdd government.
Saigon, you are seriously deluding yourself if you think that the member for O’Connor – the most conservative electorate in the country – is going to side with Labor.
Crook got elected because of Brendan Grylls, and none of the elected Nats are going to side with labor if they want to retain their seats.
I thought it was unlikely, Yobbo – not impossible. After all, Crook got elected on Greens and ALP preferences. And the WA Nationals “have indicated they do not want to be tied to the dictates of the federal National Party or the coalition”.
Of course, Crook can always go to the electors of Albany and Kalgoorlie, and say that he’s going to help kill the NBN.
The simple fact is this. According to what I saw on another blog the Libs have 400,000 more votes than the ALP. They have the popular vote.
We need to recognise that and support our new PM as part of a united front. Julia will recognise this a la Al Gore and concede in the next two days I am sure for the stability of the nation.
The GG takes no notice of gross numbers of votes. She is interested only in having HMG achieving stability by ensuring supply.
joe2 – keep dreaming.
Coalition myth making already on ‘popular vote’
From AEC official count ~75% counted 2PP
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm
Australian Labor Party 5,023,070 50.69 -2.01
Liberal/National Coalition 4,887,105 49.31 +2.01
Kim Beazley won the popular vote in 1998. Didn’t help him any.
In which case Katz the GG has no choice. It’s either an ALP government which would have half the population up in arms or a Lib government which lets face it we would grudgingly accept for stabilities sake.
And we all know which one the media wants in.
The ALP lost. Big time. We have to deal with it.
tssk, your trolling is boring.
On the GG, surely some crackpot will soon raise her apparent conflict of interest: that her common law son in law is a Labor front bencher.
Further to Tyro’s comments about the way decisions are made, here in SA recently Jay Wetherill (sp?) offered that the approach of “announce and defend” that Labor had adopted needed to be questioned in favour of a more consoltative approach: “debate and decide”. It’s clear that Labor needs to be more open and transparent, and IMO much less defensive. They wedged themselves by trying to be too clever by half – they left the public out of a discussion to try and do a deal with Turnbull and when the tide turned, they had a citzenry that was basically ignorant about what it all meant. Frankly, I’m tired of the blame the media mentality here, Labor wasn’t even trying to talk to the people about what the ETS meant, they couldn’t because at heart they knew the poilicy, as it stood, was a dud. The same is true of the asylum seeker issue and the east Timor solution. In my opinion the marriage equality issue revealed the problems for Labor most obviously. We had the unedifying sight of Gillard and Wong simply repeating that it was not Labor party policy – full.stop. No discussion will be entered into. In this context, “moving forward” was just an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. Broadband got traction because it’s the one area of genuine leadership, and even then they have to fuck it up by wanting to whack a filter on it – another of their “announce and defend” policies. Idiots.
Gillard, in her defence of her questioning of Labor’s parental Leave scheme revealed that she is interested in looking at issues from all sides and was unapologetic about that, so it was good to see her stand firm on it. It’s interesting that this approach was deemed to be something that warranted being leaked – factional Labor shooting itself In the foot, the great strength of the factions is the internal debate process and clearly there are some who don’t have what it takes to participate in the discussion, so they settle dick-swinging instead.
And the evidence supporting this civil war assertion is…
I’m not trolling Sam. I just know where the media is going to go on this and who they will support. Bad news about the gg’s son in law there
Oh and the Kim Beazley thing? Well he was ALP. I remember the media nodding their heads when Howard won that and declared he had a mandate.
Is it too early to drink?
The problem for the ALP is that it didn’t really believe in it’s own legitimacy when it had a 17 seat majority. Now it will crumble in the face of the media and coalition onslaught.
I’m not going to name names here. But concern troll is really, really concerned. Folk: you know who I’m talking about.
How did that apostrophe get there? Damned iPhones!
Don’t blame me Down and Out. I voted ALP for lower house and Greens for the Upper House.
I just think given the recent media history of comepletely going the ALP they aren’t going to stop now that they are close to the result they wanted.
For now though I’m going to take a bex and have a good lie down before I do a Latham in sheer frustration.
This should have been an ALP win.
tssk @78 The simple fact is this. According to what I saw on another blog the Libs have 400,000 more votes than the ALP. They have the popular vote.
They don’t. Have a look at the AEC 2PP figures. The ALP is in front by about 250,000 or 50.7% to 49.3%:
ALP Perc. LNP Perc Total Swing
National 5,023,226 50.69 4,887,208 49.31 9,910,434 -2.01
The Al Gore comparison does not fly. We do not have a Court that would ever employ its powers to stop a vote count.
Every vote will be counted and perhaps recounted and then decisions will be made.
To the extent that the independents are rural, the opinions of the metropolitan media types are irrelevant.
JM…that’s heartening, that lends Julia more credibility.
I’m just so bitterly disappointed.
I can at least feel proud of one thing. I convinced a friend who hated Abbott but was going to donkey vote that throwing his vote away would help vote in the very person he didn’t want in.
The upside of all this is that participation seems to be up. I hope not too many listened to Latham.
Uteman citing Katz @74: exactly – “jobs, jobs, jobs” for blokes working in mining, coal and extractive industries who are in orthodox hetero relationships. The Labor party has just turned itself into a rump. A big swing to the Greens means a new politics and, as Katz notes, a home for the broad left free from the baronial values of the union secretaries in the ALP.
At last nights Greens’ function the campaign sec. for the Greens commended Rhiannon for surviving for years the bullying of NSW ALP parliamentarians. I bet. Anyone who thinks that the Greens will be co-operative with the ALP has got it totally wrong. This is a big change, at last. If this change comes at the expense of Labor in office then tough bloody luck, Workcoices Mk ii(b) and all. After all, the Greens want to dismantle the ABCC. Labor doesn’t. Labor has blown up chance after chance to get it right as a genuinely inclusive party of social democracy. Gays? fuck ‘em; refugees? fuck ‘em? environmental policies? fuck ‘em?
Yeah, well fuck youse too boys.
akn, reading that my first thought was that TISM is pretty much relevant again.
Trolling or not, it is rather boring, tssk. The hand-wringing over the media, I mean. Just ’cause you like to read right-wing blogs, and right wing blobs are populist, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those views are indeed popular. An election that delivered the Greens it’s strongest vote ever, is evidence of that. This was in the context of the Labor preference deal being widely reported. You overestimate the role of the meeja.
I’ve come around to cautious optimism.
I think if the ALP has won the 2PP as Quoll helpfully linked to, given there is a clear plurality for the ALP 2pp and a dead heat if you consider 72 ALP + 1 GRN against 73 LNP, then Gillard actually deserves to get her support tested on the floor of the parliament.
Actually that is the most stable Government possible at the moment, whatever tssk says. It won’t get anything too radical through the Senate for the time being, and afterwards won’t get anything too radical through the lower house.
Abbott on the other hand hasn’t won the 2pp, has an element of his Coalition (Nationals) absolutely hostile to the 2 NSW regional independents, and absolutely opposed a critical policy they want (NBN).
Carbon pricing is probably dead for this parliamentary term, however, I think.
Then have a lie down and stop being such a bloody sook, tssk. And in future, look at the primary sources first. The AEC Virtual Tallyroom is a primary source. Insiders is not a primary source. Neither is some right-wing blog accessed by way of Boltie’s colon.
@95 for sure – big recruitment period for the Greens and build toward the next election.
Labor will uunderstand this election as showing that they don’t support big power enough and aren’t conservative enough.
What a hopeless bunch of arseholes.
tssk: “We need to recognise that and support our new PM as part of a united front.”. Not effing likely darl.
What does TISM mean, anyway?
“In which case Katz the GG has no choice. It’s either an ALP government which would have half the population up in arms or a Lib government which lets face it we would grudgingly accept for stabilities sake.”
No. We have three hundred years of Westminster tradition that the GG needs to follow. She has no choice but to follow that. She is above such concerns as two-party preferred vote, or what Andrew Bolt thinks, or the coalition believing they have a divine right to rule (surely that’s what you mean when you write “half the population up in arms”).
What matters is who can command the confidence of the HoR. The convention is that the GG invites the current primeminister to try and form a government. If the PM knows she is unable to or tries to and and loses a no-confidence motion, she either resigns or is sacked. Traditionally, the PM resigns and advises the GG to call on the leader of the Opposition to see if he can form a government. If he can’t she may ask the Speaker if there is anyone else she should invite to form a government. She may (at arms length) facilitate negotiations for the formation of a new government. The very last resort is another election. She will do almost anything to avoid that.
The opinion of a few partisan hacks on Insiders cuts absolutely no ice. All that matters is who can gain the confidence of the majority of the Representatives.
One of the ALP’s many problems was that it listened too much to the bloody media, giving the clowns a legitimacy they didn’t deserve. It’s time to discover new ways of communicating with the electorate.
Look at the Greens – 10% of the vote and very little media coverage, and what there was mostly negative.
I agree with that fb…but as to me underestimating the meida…why aren’t the media talking about the massive swing to the Greens? I don’t think I underestimate the media at all. They made the ALP blink and took Rudd down, one of the most prinicpled politicians we’ve had in years.
I don’t mind them being rough on the ALP but they were so hands off with Tony and the Coalition it was unbelivable. Anyway I’ll shut up about that for now until we have a thread examining the media’s role in this. Be interesting to see if a broom goes through the ABC if the ALP get in this time.
If and that’s a big if Julia manages to get deals with the independents she’ll be seen as one of the best deal makers since Hawke. (And you never know…maybe they might get Hawke in to talk to the various parties involved although Bill Shorten might also do a good job in that role.)
Part of my concern trolling is I suspect a worry I might jinx the result. Make no mistake, I do have a personal stake in this. If Tony wins I can see my working life either becoming very unpleasant or non-existant. over worked or unemployed. I’m not sure what’s worse.
If Abbott gets in I wish all of you the best of luck. I have no doubt some of the people who voted for him will be surprised at his policies.
Abbott is in the box seat here. One reason – among many, that would be too boring to go through – is that the Greens favour proportional representation. Last night, both Bob Brown and Sarah Hanson Young went out of their way to declare that under a PR system the Greens would have had 17 seats last night.
Whatever the pros and cons of PR in the abstract, it is absolute anathema to Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott. They would rather sign up for gay marriage, or even perhaps marry each other, than support PR. The reason is that their power absolutely resides in their capacity to have identifiable power in a defined territorial domain, that they can then engage in ‘horse trading” with the government of the day, and then go to their electorates saying they got $X million for roads in Y, $ million to upgrade the sports ground etc. etc. etc.
Their trump card against the Nationals – and for these guys the Nats are the real enemy, in the sense that Tanner, Albanese and Plibersek are/were for the Greens – is that they can pursue hyper-local politics. People in NW Qld may or may not like Bob Katter, but they definitely know who he is, and they know they’re in “Katter country”. They have less than zero interest in electoral reform that disentangles representation from particular geographies.
TISM is a pop culture refer to a bunch of 1990′s dada-ists.
Another aspect of this election that has been disappointing for me has been the ABC itself.
It used to be fairly impartial, and now its a home for Piers Akerman et al.
Terrible, terrible speech by Gillard. She really degenerated into being an Annabel Crabbe stereotype of a ‘bot’, truly automatonic like. The bits where she emphasised jobs, jobs, jobs and then fight, fight, fight were almost rants.
I think she was suffering from terrible shock. So yeah, she did display grace under pressure, but not the really charming form of grace.
Taking blog comments or talkback radio callers at face value is a huge, weird mistake to make.
It’s useful to note them, as they’re a good indicator of what the most opinionated members of society are thinking, but still, the vast preponderance of ‘em are fuckwits.
The problem for the ALP is that it didn’t really believe in it’s own legitimacy when it had a 17 seat majority.
That’s right, Adrian. My friend wrote this post, which I think nails it nicely.
Let’s start with the positives. The Greens did well. Fielding and Tuckey gone.
Julia Gillard ran a terrible campaign, both in substance (refugees, citizen assembly) and in style (real Julia?). Can we have Kevin Rudd back?
Terry @ 105, as a matter of interest, when did you come to Australia?
PR or electoral reform has never been an issue in the formation of minority govts in this country. I haven’t heard a peep out of the Greens on this issue, and they’ve known all along they might end up in this position RE Brandt (he’s declared all along he would back a Labor administration). This isn’t the UK or NZ.
Wilson Tuckey gone is long long overdue. That has put a smile on my face.
It’s victory to the spoilers! – courtesy of their media mates.
Perhaps it’s time to turn the tables and give the media egos a bit of attention – like routinely picketing National Press Club functions, the Parliamentary Press Gallery and the capital city studios of the shock jocks.
True, not yet a loss,
But already victory
For all that sloganeering dross
Pushing back our tide of history
To ignorance and fear of danger
Which centuries past had men build moats.
Slogans blind to ‘Christ, the stranger’
Shout out loud, “We will stop the boats!”
As the tally room accounting
Provides time for contemplation
Many feel grief and a mounting
Anxiety for our young nation.
The idea that whoever won the 2PP somehow automatically deserves to form government is rubbish. The 2PP is just one of many statistics that can be used to support a particular point of view. For example, far more people gave their first vote to a left-of-centre party than a right-of-centre party. The 2PP is not a particularly good measure of the will of the electorate. It’s useful in predicting elections but that’s about it. To illustrate some problems with it consider the substantial number of voters who voted Green 1 and then Liberal 2. (15 to 20% I believe). Their vote will be counted amongst the Liberal’s 2PP but it’s doubtful that that is their intent. It’s also worth noting that the people who voted in independents or a Green do not get included in the 2PP
I also find it strange that people think that the Independents should abandon their independence and vote for whoever got the 2PP majority. No. The reason they won is because their electors want them to exercise their independence. Presumably that includes making independent decisions regarding who should form government.
We have a Westminster system where what matters is who can command the confidence of the lower house. Not whatever statistic Andrew Bolt thinks will support his own political predilections.
I for one will abandon Labor forever, including my begrudgingly given preference if Rudd were ever to return to the leadership. It’s his inabity to lead a debate in his party room that got them in this mess and all the LP revisionism isn’t going to change that fact. It’s all
sweetness and light when things are travelling wel, but he proved to be inept at preparing Labor for the storm. It’s not the medias fault, it’s not the fault of swinging voters in the marginals – it’s the fault of an individual that didn’t know how to inspire the electorate, even when he had an extraodrdinary mandate, and who faultered completely when that mandate started to be eroded.
Nickws, both Bob Brown and Sarah Hanson Young were very explicit last night in drawing attention to the importance of electoral reform, and the value of PR as it would have given the Greens a number of seats commensurate with their vote – 17 seats. No-one asked them about it, and they both came up with the number of 17 seats, so it hardly emerged out of thin air.
Also, electoral reform has always been a central plank of the Tasmanian Greens platform. I assume you’re not saying that Adam Bandt is more central to defining the Greens’ platform than Bob Brown, Christine Milne or Sarah Hanson Young.
If Abbott cuts a deal with the three rural independents that will most likely involve revising their telecommunications policy, and pushes their enemies in the Nationals to one side, he’s got this in the bag. Labor are toast if they don’t win all three doubtful seats, and they are in a terrible palce to try and horse trade with these guys. In their constituencies, four words work against a deal with Labor “Anna Bligh, Kristina Keneally”.
@110
Not according to the panel on this morning’s Insiders, including (of all people) Andrew Bolt. General agreement there that Labor would have done much worse with Kevin Rudd leadingthe campaign.
Ha ha ha fb! Have you already forgotten the Westminster system and the fact that we vote for the party and not the leader. That’s what people supporting Rudd’s overthrow were telling us at the time, anyway.
But I think that your ‘it woz all Rudd’s fault’ line will really help to cure the ALP’s ills.
Re: PR. I don’t it would be ‘die in a ditch’ issue just yet for the Greens so I don’t even see that it will be in play in terms of deciding independent’s votes.
Re: 2PP. My only concern with it as a measure of ‘who forms Government’ is that the Liberals last night were quick to claim first bite at the cherry on the basis of the ABC’s preliminary 2PP figures. If the ALP really do win it, and come equal or +1 (with GRN) to the LNP in terms of seats, you just watch the LNP’s rhetoric move away from it faster than the speed of light.
PS. ABC news 24 just reported that Boothy could be back in play for the ALP.
The GG will ask Julia to form a government. One possibility is that at least one of the Independents will accept a ministry in the new Government, in return for a massive load of pork. Abbot and co will fulminate about “no mandate”; failing to realise that they have no mandate either.
Dunno what the Green member will do, that’s the worry.
Huggy
It makes perfect sense that the likes of Bolt would say that.
BTW, one of the problems with the left is that it obsesses about what people like Bolt, The OO, The Onesiders and all the other media clowns have to say. Ignore them and deprive them of relevancy!
@ 116, I take it this means you weren’t around to see the formation of the (IIRC) six state governments that have relied on RARA Independent MP support this past twenty years.
Two Coalition minority adminstrations supported by conservative Independents, three State Labor minority govts supported by conservative/populist Independents.
You do realise you’re relying on pro-Coalition pundits and their talking points that have, literally overnight, rewritten the history of those political precedents, right?
Terry’s comment changed from @116 to @117 when I was writing that.
[Mod note: this happens sometimes when an earlier automoderated comment is approved]
Gummo, the ‘Rudd-would’ve-lost-in-a-landslide’ meme appears to have been formulated by Lord Chancellor Mike Kroger, possibly as a sop to Prime Minister Peter Costello.
I’d take it with a bucketload of salt.
We’ll never know whether or not KR would have won the election. But his reported anger management issues and inability to negotiate good legislative outcomes and get them passed were an impediment to good governance in this country in any event.
If Julia Gillard does remain the PM she would be better than he was for that reason alone.
Nickws @ 123, I know that both Peter Beattie and Mike Rann governed with the support of fairly conservative rural independents. In both cases they were lining up with reasonably stable parties under strong leadership – hardly the case with the ALP at present. Moreover, Qld in 1998 is pretty unique as it was the election where One Nation got 11 seats, so someone like Peter Wellington had a further choice to declare himself for or against One Nation, in a seat in Toowoomba where there were quite a lot of ON supporters.
It may be helpful to stop assuming that people who have a different point of view to yours are not the dupes of media or conservative propaganda. There is quite a difference here between spotting that Tony Abbott is holding the best cards here and welcoming the outcome. Its like the perpetual tendency to underestimate the political acuity of conservative leaders, as occurred for a decade with Howard and seems all too clearly set to continue with Tony Abbott (witness the “surely he will self destruct” comment at @ 75).
Very tough, Furious, but I think at the risk of starting yet another dogfight, probably right.[I should also add for balance that Gillard made a couple of very bad calls). They handled the governing and administration but not the politics.
Let us yet hope for a negotiated deal.
Re Windsor.
I live in Armidale in Windsor territory. His vote is probably composed of -
1. Disillusioned Nationals. After Sinclair’s retirement we had a one term National Party member who was undoubtedly one of the worst local members ever. People just wanted to get rid of him and Windsor had proved himself to the Tamworth part of the electorate that he was an excellent local mewmber. So he got in.
2. Labor voters who vote for Windsor to stop the Nationals winning the seat, because they know Labor can never win it.
3. Voters who really like Windsor.
It is definitely not a given that he will side with the coalition. In fact he hates the National Party.
Well, Terry, considering you like making big declarative statements about WHAT WILL HAPPEN AND WHY IT WILL BE SO, I sure got the impression you didn’t know the most important examples of recent history.
Though if you really wanted to provide some useful analysis then you might like to comment on which party leader is most like Beattie/Rann/Bracks (the successful minority premiers on the mainland states) and which is more like Greiner/Fahey/Borbidge (the unsuccesful ones.)
That would entail you more general, objective political knowledge than either Andrew Bolt or wikipedia can provide.
Paul Burns @ 129.
I am a current and former Tamworthian and former Armidilian (also lived in Sydney in Bennelong once FWIW).
The metro analysts IMHO really don’t get Tony Windsor at all I believe. I know him slightly, and his wife a bit more, but my father knows him well and would confirm what you have said.
The New State movement. There was a referendum in, I think 1968, and an earlier one in the 1920s I think. Those date are approximate as I haven’t bothered to check them. Newcastle was supposed to be the capital.
Paul, get ready for a lot of big city punditry (coincidently of a pro-Abbott stripe) that instructs you residents of Big Three seats that you’re all just gagging for your local member to return to the tory fold.
Hell, I heard Jeff Kennett’s ex-press secretary(!?) say this very thing on the radio this morning. (Kennett was brought down by Independents, one of whom was an ex-Nat who loathed Jeff with the heat of a million suns.)
So, back to the leader’s speeches: Gillard looked like she’d been poleaxed, which she has, by the electors. Laughing, laughing, aw shucks. WTF. What a screw up that result is for Labor. ALP leadership’s only defence at this stage is to say “look, it would’ve been worse under Rudd” which meme remains unconvincing in the light of the electoral rejection of that idea at the ballot box.
Abbott looks ready to govern and sounds convincing. This is merely a comment on his performative presentation. If he does form a government, which is likely given the antipathy of the three conservative independents to the ALP, then we are in for Orwellian media reportage of Lib policies.
Where does Oakeshott stand on climate change?
Katter is a nutter, and by definition a sceptic.
Windsor (AFAIK) is/was a supporter of the CPRS legislation.
Bandt and Wilkie will obviously support a price on carbon.
So that leaves Oakeshott as the most powerful person in the country on the most important issue.
One thing’s for sure, broadband in the bush will be a winner out of all this.
Don Wigan, I have no interest in the dog fight either, I agree that Gillard has shown some really poor judgement, but as I said earlier I think we’ve seen hints that she is more capable of leading a discussion in the party room. I believe that’s what Labor needs right now.
I was wrong when I characterised this as the Worst. Election. Ever.
It’s now bloody fascinating!
No,Paul Burns @132. Armidale was to be the capital. As I recall, the referendum was lost mainly because the people of Newcastle voted against it precisely because Newcastle was not to be the capital.
I’ve got bugger all idea what will happen next and what the independents will do. But I thought it was a very unwise negotiating position for Minchin and Brandis to take last night, that the indys had to support them. It’s not smart to tell people what they have to do when you really want something important from them.
We know that Bandt will support Labor as he has said that explicitly and he would never get re-elected if he helped form an Abbott government. As for Wilkie, who knows? I have a family member who knows him well and says that he’s a man of total integrity. I’m reminded of ’99 when I expected the three rural independents to side with the Libs to form a government and they didn’t. So, the answers a pineapple, as far as I can see.
If (huge if) we end up with a minority Labor government and Greens holding BOP in the Senate, we may actually get some good policy and Labor will be forced to come up with a decent climate change policy.
I’m not as depressed as I was after the 2004 election, which was dire (Lib landslide, Stephen Fielding!!!) People are right in identifying it as a really basic shift in our politics and that’s going to be fascinating to watch and may have some really good outcomes.
Anyway, congrats to all the Greens. Major celebrations.
The hubris of the Coalition on display last night = Abbott’s gloating, George Brandeis on the ABC, and to a lesser extent Nick Minchin, might be their downfall. Their sense of entitlement might just piss the Independents off. (Nats already attacking Katter in Queensland, NSW Nat resentment at Windsor for capturing and keeping the jewel in the National crown. And despite Robb’s claims on Insider’s this morning I don’t think Abbott can cut it. Anyway we have to see how the remaininmg few seats go. If Labor and the Coalition have equal seats, Government should be Labor’s for the asking.
And, a message from this election for the ALP. If you move so far from the left that you become indistinguishable from the Coalition, the left will desert you if they have somewhere to go. And now they have.
The Victorian independent who loathed Kennett and brought about his downfall had been personally, viciously and gratuitously humiliated by Kennett when he was riding high, when he was at the height of his powers.
Not sure that that applies in this case.
I’m trying to remember why Anna Bligh is so disliked here Queensland, and thus the effect federally:
– Coal-rail privatisation + union run-ins
– Queensland Health payroll debacle + union run-ins
– NAPLAN testing + union run-ins
– Traveston Dam
– Gordon Nuttall corruption case
– Loss of AAA credit rating / financial stewardship
– Lack of population growth planning (hard to blame squarely on Bligh)
– Lack of alternative choices (ineffectual LNP and can’t blame Bligh)
– Courier Mail (in general)
– [I don't think Daylight Savings]
I’ve probably missed a swag, but it doesn’t seem as “damning” as NSW does it? (Also given the large amount of, arguably in same cases ineffectual and budget-draining, infrastructure recently built in Brisbane).
For me the irony of my Rentier State is that we’re suffering a kind of “tragedy of the commons” where due to our perceived richness from coal – which is 75% foreign owned – we’re “innundated” by population that we can’t handle. Maybe summed up by: we were happier when we were poorer.
Insiders are not. Retain your sanity and ignore them, it’s like breathing fresh air. Accepting the mainstream media’s version of events is an amateur mistake: you already know they have a vested interest, and their agenda depends on the highest bidder.
I expect whatever the result there will be further constitutional crises down the road; remember the GG is the one who has to be convinced of a government’s legitimacy and there are many ways to attack it.
I am only sure of one thing, we thoroughly deserve this.
akn @ 134
And your source for the rural independents’ antipathy towards the ALP is??
They loved the Nats so much they LEFT THEM. They may go that way but will then have to contend with electorates that may decide next time not to bother voting for the faux Nat when the real one will do.
Let’s reiterate the good points about this election result:
* Tuckey and Fielding out.
* A Green (and former Green) in Lower House
* Greens BOP in Senate
* Independents and Greens BOP in Lower House.
* ALP knife-wielders given their just desserts
* And if Abbott does form a minority government, that means Malcolm Turnbull is one party-room vote away from the Prime Minstership.
I would’ve preferred to see a clear ALP win, but given the Gillard team made every possible effort to lose the election, I’m quite gruntled by the above list of good points among all the dross.
Mr Windsor, who is on track to retain his NSW seat of New England, has said he’ll gladly work with any political party but would not work with Senator Joyce, who he called a fool.
That anti-Nat antipathy runs very, very deep.
Given the fact that the Senate changes on 30 June next year, yes 10 months time, and the Sneate is still stacked with conservative Senators from the 2004 election, the best a Labor minority government can hope for is
- hang on until July 2011 before creating new policy – unlikely given the budget has to be presented early May 2011
- go for a double dissolution election
Bill Shorten said Australian politics was a very toxic environment and one reason behind this was because half the Senators were voted in in 2004, giving the COALition the balance of power in the Senate. I think the Liberal campaign was very negative, their use of condemnatory tone of voice when attacking Labor policy was very effective. Labor attacked Liberal ledership and policy in reasonable tones of voice.
If the Liberals form government they will have to move fast to get their policies enacted before they lose control of the Senate. I look forward to Abbott following the conservative playbook from New Zealand and the UK, implementing a minibudget to drive the country into recession and destroying the retirement savings of ordinary Australians as they trash our universal health care system starting with the sale of Medibank Private
akn @ 134,
What bmitw says.
Now, the Senate up till next July. I suspect Xenophon will respect whatever deal is made in the lower house and continue on the way he has been continuing on, though he’ll probably try and get as much as he can before the Green BOP takes effect.
If ita an Abbott minority government (which I don’t think it will be I hope Labor and the Greens combine to make the Senate not unworkable, but a place where it appears Abbott will definitely not have control, come July.
As for the Earthworm, suspect he will be relieved to be able to spend more time at Hillsong or wherver he hangs out.
And Abbott does get a plus in the new Senate – he will have a DLP Senator to ask around for afternoon tea with George Pell.
Fine, Wilkie is pretty secure for supporting Labor over the ex-Howard Cabinet.
The one potential problem with him could be his hardcore anti-neoconservatism, IMO.
If he makes the withdrawal of Oz forces from Afghanistan a demand then we could be in for some trouble, and his relationship with Team Gillard could eventually end in tears.
Labor governments just don’t think like blogs commments thread people, not on foreign affairs…
My source is 100 years of Federation history. The ALP lost any real support in rural electorates when mechanisation wiped out the rural working classes which process has been quickening over even the last two decades. Why would the three independents seek to form a government with a party which is so culturally distinctive from their own rural conservative elctorate when they can probably deal hard with the Libs and get what they want? That would be NBN and environmental policies that remove the dead hand (so it is seen) of Canberra bureaucrats from the throat of environmentally aware (as they see it) rural industries. Watch out for a rerun of the agrarian socialism of Black Jack McEwan with which Abbott, follower of BA Santamaria, will be sympathetic.
Sam @ 141, you might be right about my analogy RE Russell Savage and Kennett not applying here.
But… Bob Katter, man.
Who knows what he feels in his heart of hearts.
Indeed PB, Xenophon may be annoying but he’s hardly someone the conservatives could rely on to pass their legislation. To me, politically, he’s like a Democrat, but with a (much) bigger ego.
I’m actually pleasantly surprised by the way he’s conducted himself in the federal senate.
Abbott sympathetic to Socialism? I’ve heard it all now.
Befor the creation of the Country Party in 1923, the bush was more or less solidly Labor, akn. Outside of Queensland, the Nats have always been a minority party who cannot get elected in their own right, and they were only successful in Queensland because of a gerrymander.
This relatively new breed of rural Independents (Katter possibly excepted) are a completely different type of animal, akn. You’re comparing apples with oranges. (I’m not saying they won’t support an Abbott minority government, but its defiunitely not something I’d take as read.) With respect, your analysis is not nuanced enough.
Nickws @ 151 and Sam @ 141.
When JWH was in power, and after the loss of New England in 2001, he never missed an opportunity to rub Tony Windsor’s nose in it.
We got very little from that government in its last 6 years and what we did get was announced by Senator Sandy McDonald as the proxy local Nat. Windsor was never given credit for anything, whether he deserved it or not.
On Terry’s argument, there’s no likelihood of The Greens’ making PR a deal breaker for Bandt’s support of a Labor government, and in any case, under MMP systems there are still local members who could be independents.
Well, during the mid-to-late 20th century the rural electoral coalition constructed by Bill Mckell was pretty effective for NSW Labor. That’s how Neville Wran won a majority of one when the Labor brand was still toxic thanks to Whitlam in 1976.
But as for the last twenty years, er, I think the existence of the Big Three proves that the Coalition has their very own problem with being alienated from RARAland and vice versa.
(Seriously, this is you argument as to why Labor couldn’t govern with Big Three support?)
pb @ 153 – I’m using the term “agrarian socialism” with irony. Wealth transfer to rural electorates was so described with irony because it would never have been acknowledged as as such by the Country party.
Rudd would have run a better campaign in the sense of a simpler tighter message: this is what Maxine KcKew (channeling Bob Hogg) was practically screaming last night.
I feek the ALP’s policy cowardice is the larger issue here – but they really could have done with the full incumbency factor last night. The plotters should immediately resign from public life, or be sacked. Either way they are finished.
QLD tells it all: 2 seats more saved and this was all different. Anyone who thinks Rudd wouldnt have done better up there doesn’t know QLD.
Still sow what you reap: cowardice, and division. The ALP has both in spades.
On balance it appears to me that the three rural independents can deal hard with whichever party and make major and deserved gains for rural electorates not least of all telecomunications that actually work, an NBN and mobile coverge that doesn’t have you walking around to find the sweet spot. If, say, both the majors offer that much and wahtever else might be on the wish list, where would those independents look to form a government against a background of socially conservative and generally anti-union rural electorates? I’d say with the Libs.
Throw in (I’m guessing) a probable hostility to refugees and boat people within their electorates and Howard/Abbott’s brutal policies, notwithstanding that Gillard offers the same, and the chances of a Lib/Independent government looks strong.
Mecurius @ 145: agree.
I think this was a disendorsement by the public of our dead two party political system.
Massive informal vote, no mandate to either party, and a PR style result – forcing change.
Plus its a sea-change Senate election: a substantial centre-left majority has been embedded.
I think that could yet prove the best result, with a whole new deal forced on the majors – still hoping for a Gillard minority – but minority the other way would have to be 60-40 on.
I remember the New England successionist movement was still alive in the 1960s.
LeftyE citing Mercurious: agreed. Happy day. All day yesterday I handed out how to votes urging a Green Senate as the best possible insurance vote and voter response, especially from women, was very positive.
billie @ 161.
I think that the sentiments that underlie the secessionist movement are still there and always have been. We don’t call NSW Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong for nothing.
That’s why I think it is simplistic to assume TW is going to go with the Coalition because that’s what the electorate wants. And indeed for the voters who vote for him to do so under the assumption that that’s what he will do is also possibly misguided.
You vote Independent, you have no right to expect he will endorse the major party of your choice.
I love that everybody’s hating the NSW Centre Unity (aka Right) this morning. It’s like when an obscure band you’ve loved for years suddenly gets played on high-rotation commercial radio and everybody’s singing the same songs.
Man, I despised ‘em before they got famous.
Heh @ Liam: is it less fun hating them now its ‘mainstream’?
‘The New England Movement’ reminds me that a good way to respond to state secessionist movements is to propose a further divide – for example, for WA secessionists, why not the rest of WA seceding from Perth (the ‘big city’)?, or say, the mining areas seceding from the rest of WA (those who don’t contribute to our wealth’), or the north west seceding from ‘those down south’? Perhaps a case could be made for Armidale seceding from New England.
Aww c’mon, Liam. You’re still the cool kid in class.
Lefty, they may have held a couple more in QLD, but they wouldn’t have gains in Vic, and Boothby, wouldn’t be still in doubt in SA. Swings and roundabouts.
@164,
Liam how does this fuck up compare with their earlier stuff? You know, back in the day when they were doing really edgy innovative stuff before they sold out, ditched their loyal fans etc, etc?
akn @ 159,
I don’t know about the other electorates, but New England is a peculiar place when it comes to refugees.
A couple of years ago some racist slurs were cast on Sudanese migrants in Tamworth. It went on for a couple of weeks and then the local paper and the people of Tamworth more or less rose up and put the racists back in their box very firmly.
Armidale is even odder. We have a very large student and migrant population here, so foreign students of all races and religions seem to be readily accepted by the community, given the usual town versus gown argy-bargy. (Mainly objections about uni students vomiting in shop doorways on Friday and Saturday nights. But we loves their money.)
Armidale has (had) one of the strongest branches of Rural Australians for Refugees in the country, to the point we tried to get council sponsorship for housing for sponsoring the settlement of refugees out of the camps in the town. The Lab/Nat councillors wouldn’t come at it, but pro refugee feeling was very strong here among the people, and I understand Windsor was quite supportive as a local member.
At least that’s my impression, and I was quite heavily involved in the refugee support movement for several years. (I might be wrong of course.)
Just sayin;.
Exactly fb @168. If only life were that simple. Personally, I’m fed up with hearing what the people of Queensland and Western Sydney want. Maybe a few more seats would have fallen Labor’s way, if they’d paid more attention to the Southern half of the country.
Lefty E @ 158 – a tighter ALP campaign message should have basically had two words “economy” and “jobs” in it. “Strong on Economy. Strong on Jobs” or “Delivering on Jobs. Strengthening the Economy”. How more fscking simple could it have got to encapsulate what the ALP had done since the start of the GFC?
“Its the economy, stupid” to quote JGill’s lately favorite US President.
Liam @ 164. Being an ex-inner-Sydney branch member I know what you mean … South Sydney City left branches were the defacto opposition to Center Unity run Macquarie St in the inner city of Sydney for many years under Carr’s rule, also going to the particulars of what Clover Moore got up to (the NIMBY yuppie’s friend who actually hated traditional inner-city communities).
Although Bob Carr was a political genius compared to the idiots there now.
Gummo Trotsky @ 169.
For all that Carr implemented shit policy, he delivered Government. “Whatever it takes” only works when it *works*. His heirs leave a lot to be desired, and for that he deserves censure.
Actually I think the better analogy is of a once-were number one hit album soft-rock band trying out a reunion tour comeback. Reeks of desperation.
PB: well, that’s heartening. I do recall the incident you mention in Tamworth. Here’s hopin’.
Okay, beginning to get myself together.
A few, only tenuously related comments:
Mercurius @ 145:
One hopes, but will one’s hopes be fulfilled?
Now to the whole schemozzle of the leadership change + campaign debacle. I realise that I am venturing into conspiracy territory (yeah yeah, cockup over conspiracy every time – almost) – what if, just what if, it was that delightful young thug Joe Tripodi’s cunning plan to ensure that the ALP “survives” in NSW next year?
Na, Fiona.
This current crop aren’t that bright.
Paul Burns, pity about that. I had almost half-convinced myself
Another observation that I should have made earlier: when I woke this morning I thought that I felt as bad as I did the day after the 1975 election. I am happy to report that things aren’t quite so dire: I feel marginally better than I did post 2001 and 2004…
Writes note to self: Must join the Greens tomorrow.
SMH analysis reckons the late counting and other factors slightly favour Gillard as minority PM:
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/labor-leads-race-for-minority-government-20100822-13akb.html
Frankly, Im too hungover to get my head round the combos today. Can someone with a functional mind read the link at comment?
@ Tyro Rex at 53
Speaking as another ordinary party member, I disagree. The ALP is not a social democratic party, it’s a labor party.
Attending minimum number of branch meetings was removed from the rules some time ago.
Hmmm, just checked it out – the only problem with the SMH analysis is the ALP is behind in Boothby, not in front as it suggests.
Other than that it seems possible.
Sporting bet on the question of who forms goverbment Coalition 1.42 Labor 2.75.
The same price for who forms government as well lol.
Well, I think this election has finally put paid to the myth of the all knowing betting markets, Trenton!
Lefty E, SMH analysis looks reasonable. Antony Green’s figures are based on projections and modelling assumptions, AEC count may have Boothby better for Labor.
Incidentally, if the ALP does end up on 74 seats (which I doubt, 73 seems more likely), I’m sure they’d try to bring the 3 rural independents into the tent as well as Bandt and Willkie.
Rebekkah, if we don’t do it, the party will be continued to be captured by the likes of Bowes et al.
And the alp is a Democratic Socialist party. I have no problem with the Union members controlling the party.
Min attendence still a rule in QLD, as far as I know. It also was still a rule in NSW when I left in 2005.
Thats right Mark: check this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/22/2989990.htm
ALP closing hard on Southcott in Boothby.
Nothing wrong with the betting markets as a guide but as with polls people must learn not to take them literally. The polling and the weight of money to the Coalition showed the swing was on and it was obviously going to be a close finish.
why not the rest of WA seceding from Perth (the ‘big city’)?, or say, the mining areas seceding from the rest of WA (those who don’t contribute to our wealth
Agriculture is a pretty big industry too I hear. Non-mining areas still contribute far more than their fair share.
Regardless of that, your supposed “gotcha” would actually help even more than just WA seceeding, it only make sense that 1 government covering so many wide and disparate economies is going to be inefficient.
All the places you named would be much better off if they were not under the control of the federal government. And it doesn’t really make much sense to have the same people governing the Pilbara and the Swan Valley, they are completely different places both economically and demographically.
In the article linked by Lefty they have got the Boothby figures wrong. The liberal candidate leads.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-182.htm
!75, Fiona, I’d think you could also consider Brumby’s role in Australian politics. The system creates weird politics at the moment.
Nah, Paul Walter @ 189, my eagle eye and bloodhound nose detect the paw prints and scent (eeew) of Tripodi all over this one.
@145, it is very unlikely that the right factions of the ALP have had, or will receive, “justice” from this point.
They have the tail of the Australian dog firmly in their grip and will drag us down with them.
Fiona, your bloodshot eye and eagle nose miss the reality that Gillard is expendable. If fed labor goes, so much the better for Brumby and the interests he protects, with a poll upcoming.
The backroom geniuses’ spin is that the disaster was all caused by those awful leaks against Gillard, which were no doubt the work of … *cough*
The possibility that the plunge in support for Labor might have had something to do with the knifing of Rudd is obviously not going to be allowed to be even discussed in the official ALP post mortem. Every day in every way we have to keep moving forward.
hopefully this is the death of the triangulation policy practiced by Labor (not just in NSW but around the world) of promoting an acceptance of right wing policy to claim the middle ground. (eg boat people, competition in the education arena, funding private schools and health insurance etc) It has just entrenched right wing ideology as the accepted wisdom, and that there is no ideological difference between the parties only a difference of competence in implementing these policies.
The right instead have used Wedging – the implementation of populist extremist policies they know the left can’t go successfully.
Labor should introduce populist policies such as gay marriage, an ETS, all of which have majority support but are off limits to the right. We need to adopt the sales tactics of the right of fairness (boat people get everything for free -> Miners have 0 tax in the last 5 years – Friday’s AFR)and Aussie values.
“But I thought it was a very unwise negotiating position for Minchin and Brandis to take last night, that the indys had to support them. It’s not smart to tell people what they have to do when you really want something important from them. ”
Yes, Fine.
And tonight on a special “7.30 Report”, two of the Independents were chuckling about how foolish it had been for Barnaby and Warren Truss to attack them on TV on election night.
Tony Windsor repeated his assessment of Barnaby as “a fool”.
Actually, I found their comments in the joint interview quite refreshingly direct; quite a contrast to interviews with major-party spokespersons during the campaign [controlled, disciplined, rarely-answering-a-question, cautious, pious, .... FAKE].
I doubt that LNP or ALP would accede to re-regulation of the dairy industry (one of Bob Katter’s implied wishes)… but it was interesting that Mr Oakeshott put basic reform of Parliamentary processes so high on his list.
Tyro Rex @53
Once you’ve succeeded in removing union secretaries from heavy influence inside the ALP, could you please sort out property developers?
They have to hard sell, before the public wakes up to Abbott, Ambi?
Or labor snaps out of its paralysis and starts to get real before the Tories can snaffle..
This isn’t over yet.
A quick trawl through the AEC website reveals that none of the provisional votes have been counted yet.
Approximately 2 million more votes were cast in 2010 than in 2007!
So far, nationwide about 75% of the votes have been counted.
I would be very surprised if those as yet uncounted provisional votes (many more than at any other election because of the GetUp triumph) are not disproportionately votes for the broad left.
This fact must influence the final outcome of some close ALP seats that are at present called in the Coalition column.
That sounds an interesting theory, Katz.
Id just note that the turnout rate was 78%. Thats about 15% lower than you get in East Timor – where voting is voluntary!
@201 – It should get up closer to 90% when pre-polls and postals are fully factored in, LE.
Big informal vote, though.
Apologies if this has been said before – I haven’t had time to read through all the threads this weekend.
Even worse than the reappearance of Ratty with his oleaginous smile was the entirely dispiriting negativity of his rhetoric:
“It’s clear that he has undermined and potentially destroyed a first-term Labor government,” the former prime minister said.
“That is a tremendous achievement and I am very proud of him.”
That says it all. What a terrible, negative, and completely irresponsible outlook on the political process. Still waiting to see if the Liberals are capable of anything constructive.
Helen @ 203. The Liberals exist as an entity to deny Labor the Government, it’s their reason to exist and Howard never forgets that. One of the tradgedies of Labor is that it also seemingly exists as an entity to deny Labor the Government.
Tyro Rex: LOLsob!
That says it all. What a terrible, negative, and completely irresponsible outlook on the political process. Still waiting to see if the Liberals are capable of anything constructive.
There’s nothing negative in being happy about getting rid of the worst government in history.
You’ve conveniently forgotten the Howard/Ruddock/Downer/Minchin years… now back, with bonus Bishop to make people laugh and point at Australia overseas.
Ah, right Mark.
(Even so 90% would be lower than tbe voluntary Timorese turnout – which is around 92%!)
“Big informal vote, though.”
And a big jump in pre-polls. I wonder why.
“There’s nothing negative in being happy about getting rid of the worst government in history.”
You talking about Australian history, world history, or the personal history of John Howard?