On another thread, Josh makes the intriguing suggestion that Tony Abbott may not be taking negotiations to form government seriously, and preparing the ground for a claim that any Gillard minority government lacks “legitimacy”, particularly if the Coalition seat count ends up being higher than Labor’s.
That would no doubt be echoed by the media, who are already working themselves into a lather with aggressive columns, ranty editorials, and online polls and vox pops designed to reinforce their (highly contestable) claim that the three rural independents represent “naturally conservative” electorates.
Even if Abbott is expecting that negotiations may lead to his forming government (and the demand from Tony Windsor for Treasury to cost his promises is probably a significant roadblock), I think it’s pretty clear that the direction of his rhetoric over the past few days signals that this is Plan B.
He’d no doubt have no trouble at all getting support for a claim that a Labor minority government is illegitimate from the media and from all the corporate interests who are already asserting that any governing majority which includes The Greens is a harbinger of doom. I’d expect a lot of very high profile bleating about “sovereign risk”, “uncertainty” and all the rest to increase in volume.
Tony Abbott’s goal is probably to make any parliament which he cannot dominate unworkable, with an eye to another election he believes he can win.
I wonder if that is also in Windsor’s mind when he suggested that he could decline to support anyone, and send us back to the polls, if he didn’t believe there was a good faith desire to make any arrangement work for three years.
An Abbott all or nothing play is more likely from him than all his talk of a “kinder, gentler polity”. The key, though, would be that anyone who is seen to be rejecting the results and orchestrating another election in short order for partisan advantage is running a big risk.
If Abbott fails to secure the support of the Independents we will be able to tell the exact moment by the loud screams and gnashing of teeth coming from the Murdoch press, the pouty tsk tsking from the Fairfax press, the hurt puzzlement from commercial TV and the scuttling of ABC hacks as they look for a convenient hole in the ground in which to hide.
In today’s edition of The Australian Tony Abbott has warned that the Australian Greens would virtually control a minority Labor government. Naturally that would not be the case if the Greens aligned themselves with the Coalition. What hypocrisy from Tony Abbott! Must I remind him that The Liberal Party cannot function without the National Party, and using the distorted logic of Tony Abbott one can say the National Party always controls the Liberal Party within a Coalition government.
I had hoped that Toxic Tony was catching up on his sleep and eating a bit more. Unfortunately I agree with Kim that Toxic Tony won’t rest until he is King oops Prime Minister. Tony will call a double dissolution to remove the Greens from the Senate. The Greens do not have the funding of ALP and Libs and really struggle to get media exposure so they are unlikely to return 9 senators to a new parliament
In the last 30 yrs both the Labor party and the coalition have retained power despite losing the two party preferred vote. In this context it is also worth noting that Beazley comfortably beat Howard on two party preferred terms at the end of Howard’s first term compared with Abbot’s two party preferred loss at this election. (Funny how the media fails to point this out.)
In a country using preferential voting it is not unreasonable to suggest that a government’s legitimacy is boosted by winning the two party preferred vote. Gillard has a stronger claim to legitimacy than Abbot.
Claiming legitimacy on the basis of which party has the most primary votes in an election based on preferential voting is rubbish. I am sure that I am not the only Green voter who would have voted Labor if preferential voting had not been an option.
The extent to which Abbot could stuff up a Gillard minority government is debatable. The independents have everything to gain from making minority government workable and everything to lose if the country goes to the polls early as a result of their stuffing the government around.
Until next July, a Gillard government combined with a potentially obstructive senate gives Abbott & the mainstream media plenty of opportunities to spin how unworkable it is, how bad Labor are, how little they are achieving, and how we need to go back to the polls and get it right this time. It strengthens Abbott’s position if we have to go back to the polls.
An Abbott government would face difficulties with the senate after July 1st. He’ll want a poll before then, regardless of who becomes PM in the next few weeks.
Andy Bolt’s teeth are already grinding away, as he warns readers that the Independents represent the greatest threat to democracy in Australia since the Greens. So maybe he’s not expecting a deal to be made.
It’s difficult to see how Tony Abbott could make the Parliament “unworkable” if he doesn’t manage to form government with the Independents. If he adopts the tactic of attacking the government at every opportunity, that would represent a continuation of business as usual, rather than a “Plan B”.
Billie @3:
So how did they do it this time then?
It would be a high risk strategy if he is doing it.
No doubt there will be a Murdoch media storm if the Indies side with Labor. It would then be in both Labor and the Indies interest to make it work. Eventually the media would have to calm down, when the public realised that the world hadn’t ended.
I think he is much more likely to want minority government and go to an early election claiming he can’t implement his full program when the new senate is sworn in.
Quite right, John D.
It should also be noted that preferential voting was introduced by the conservatives in 1919, and in numerous State and Federal elections from the 1950s to the 1970s Liberal and Coalition governments were elected despite coming behind Labor on the primary vote because they benefited from DLP preferences. The current round of whingeing about the electoral system, “dishonourable victory”, “lost legitimacy” etc., is the biggest load of humbug I have heard and read for some time.
And how is all the confected media hysteria going to hurt the independents? The media cycle’s completely different in their electorates (as Liam pointed out on another thread). If pressured, they can always point to all the postal votes waiting to come in. Then there’s the Senate to count.
Abbott would be a fool to grandstand. He has this window of opportunity to influence the independents to support his government. If he doesn’t, then Gillard will do her best to entice them. Her disadvantage is that she’s behind in seats. Her advantages are that (a) she’s still sitting PM, and (b) her policies are closer to the indies. After that, it will be a stormy first year in the Senate, but then they take a long view in the country.
“If pressured to decide…” I should have said.
Just on the point about parliament – there’s a lot an opposition can do to stuff things up – constant quorum calls and divisions, refusing to grant pairs, etc.
Too late.
If we did have to go back to the polls, why would labor call a double-dissolution election. It would just be for the house of reps and the voters will know that, whatever happens, the greens will control the senate. Advantage?
Surely, people are starting to get a bit tired of Three Boats’ no-policy stance. He’s gonna have to start learning another trick.
Windsor though is showing just how much nous he’s got. If Three Boats doesn’t agree to the costing of his promises it will give Windsor good cover to join with labor.
Further, I don’t think Windsor is too concerned about electoral backlash. He learnt long ago that the best way to get re-elected is not worry about re-election. Further, I’ve heard he’s close to retiring anyway.
Finally, interesting that the independents seem to like Rudd but labor insiders thought he was a weird sociopathic loner God they must have him for saving their arses and still having his hand on the by-election button.
I’m not sure why the Coaltion wouldn’t want the access to government resources and MP allowances that they get from being in a minority government, even if it is to plan for an election in the near future. The idea that Libs don’t want power and resources seems counter-intuitive to me.
Just on the point about parliament – there’s a lot an opposition can do to stuff things up – constant quorum calls and divisions, refusing to grant pairs, etc.
Would that be among the stuff that Oakeshott wants to reform? Then problem solved.
Mark @11: fair enough.
As you all know, I don’t buy conspiracy theories. Tony Abbott’s plan B sounds like a conspiracy theory. Julie Bishop might have just ben having a cup of coffee with the Independents yesterday, but you can bet your bottom dollar the Coalition are dead serious about snatching a minority government. I doubt that they’ll get it. The price demanded by the Independents will be too high.
To speculate.
Katter – Install a new leader for the National Party.
Windsor – put Barnaby Joyce on the backbench; cost your promises.
Wilkie – look after the poor and disadvantaged in our society, maybe even pull out of Afghanistan.
Oekeshott – Behave like decent human beings and be friendly to Julia. Process refugees on shore
The divisions within the National Party and among the Lib. RWDBs will not be worth the trouble. It would be the Libs who are have a civil war on their hands.
And the last thing the Libs would want is their promises costed. It would expose them for the liars we know them to be.
And processing refugees on shore would lose the LIbs Western Sydney.
Paul Burns is on the money. The sticking point for the Coalition is the Nationals, who have everything to lose from an Abbott-led minority government based on appeasing the rural/regional independents. It would prove why you should elect Katter, Oakeshott and Windsor rather than Katter and Truss.
At the same time, blood can be sniffed in the water as far as a Julia Gillard-led Labor Party goes, whcih is very vulnerable if Australians go to the polls again, particularly if it can’t use government resources to sandbag the marginals.
Surely Tony is desperate to form a government if only to create a double-dissolution trigger and try to cleanse the Senate of the greens.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I assume that only the PM of the day can go to the G-G and ask for a double dissolution.
Paul, I’m not sure it’s a conspiracy theory in the normal sense. I could make a credible case for why it would be smart strategy for Abbott to do this, esp as Kim and you point out with the difficulty and inherent problems an Abbott minority government would entail.
Some elections are not terrible to lose in the long run. Between local events and a possible/probable worsening of the GFC in the next few years, this might be one of them.
MIKE, no DD anytime soon is going to cleanse the Senate of the Greens. If anything they would gain more seats.
I am less certain than I was a few days ago. I know someone who was at a party the other night with TW and spoke to him there and he insists that he would never side with Labor.
It should be about good governance but local backlash has to be factored in I guess.
It won’t necessarily be easy for a minority government to create a double dissolution trigger. They can’t must ram through legislation they know the Senate will reject like they could under ‘normal’ circumstances.
Sun Tzu advised to “Make a sound to the East, and attack from the West”. It could be quite consistent, under this logic, for Windsor and Katter to be amking lots of anti-Colation noises, only to secure a better deal from Tony Abbott. I’m not hearing them talking about the Labor Party at all, which may be a bad sign.
The pressures on the Independents back in their electorates may not quite be what everyone is assuming – if you look at the votes cast ALP and Green votes are well below what is the case in comparable electorates – that is they are supported by a significant number of people who see them as a genuine alternative to the National Party but who would revert to the ALP or Greens under other circumstances.
Doug, agreed. Bob Katter made a point of explaining to the completely ignorant media that his electorate covers 4 state electorates, 3 of which are held by Labor. And that between his father and himself holding it, his electorate was also Labor.
billie @3, that tactic could backfire on Abbott in a huge and unexpected way because it will expose him as the opportunistic, untrustworthy, cynical liar that he is.
I’ll go out on a limb and predict that the seats won by the coalition in Qld & NSW, would promptly change hands either to the Greens or Labour in a dd, after his duplicity and power-madness is exposed. And I don’t think that shortage of funds would be a worry for Greens or labour under those circumstances.
I love the idea that Tony Windsor and hopefully the other Independents will force the Smuggles Set to have all their policies properly costed before they decide who to support in a hung parliament. The ultimate irony after all the chicanery to avoid costing.
I think the ‘Tones will engineer election fear’ is overrated. The independents wont want to give up unprecedented influence – and on current numbers, whoever forms first minority – will always have the option of swapping sides.
Once an alternative PM advises they have confidence of the house an election being granted by the GG is far from certain – verging on quite unlikely the further it is from full term.
The Nationals aren’t going to want the next electionsoon.
Voters in National-held seats can see the clout that Independents are wielding; surely they’ll start wondering why they aren’t getting the same representation that the voters in Lyne, New England and Kennedy are currently receiving.
Among several wonderful moments during the independents national press club meet, is the vision of Bob Katter telling the Daily Telegraph reporter she’s living in the 18th century.
From the media questions, it’s clear they’re not getting that these guys are serious. And if they aren’t getting it, I’m sure Tony isn’t. But I’m damn sure the business community do and hate it, it’s a waste of their investment.
Absolutely brilliant press conference.
Jane I reckon that Tony has shown his opportunistic side, denying his utterances on abortion, RU486, child care policy and trying to reinvent ahimself as more female friendly. Only GetUp pulled him upon this, raising money [from people like me] to air their ad on TV.
He is as tenacious as his mentor John Howard.
I heard Antony Green on PM last night mulling over what could happen to senate if another or early election was called. While conceding that you would need a constitutional expert to have confidence, his views were;
1) A DD could not be called without the new senators having sat.
2) If another was called it could be called for the lower house only as another 1/2 senate election could not be called.
If right this would also surely restrict the options for conspiracies as outlined.
I do however think Tony would love to get the resources of govt behind him, then claim things were much much worse than he could have imagined etc etc.
Matt D @ 7 the problem with that argument is that neither party has much of a program requiring legislation. It’s hard to think of an issue in either party’s platform that would be worth calling an election over if it was blocked by the Senate. That’s why I think the Libs will concentrate on manufacturing a series of ‘crises’ involving perceived Labor incompetence and/or impropriety and use them as the justification for forcing another election. It’s a lesson from 1975: if you can make the other side look dodgy enough, nobody cares about substantive issues.
ewe2, sounds great. What was the dumb question?
Josh, she was rehashing, in Oakeshott’s brilliant phrase ‘red team blue team’ dynamics. The substance of the question wasn’t that important; it was about the 5th of its kind and she seemed to be more interested in getting a ‘Mad Katter’ quote than a genuine answer. She did not look pleased at Bob’s response either and that general line of questioning was stopped in its tracks. The media are desperate to marginalize Katter, you could sense their relief when he differed with the others over the mining tax.
The twitterverse seems split between Katterphobia and Planet Janet.
Anyone mug enough to send Australians back to the ballot box without very good cause will be severely punished. A significant number already hate voting. They won’t want to go again. The case for any minority party will need to be substantiated by errr, actual instability, befoe a rerun election will deliver government to either major party. Even then the Greens will run hard. Not only would I take leave to campaign for the Greens (though not a member) I would actively campaign against the party sending us back to an election without good cause. That would mean insisting on campaigning against that party in its most marginal seats.
And if the independents don’t have enough reason to delay their decision, here’s one more. MPs under scrutiny over council positions. Three elected MPs (all LNP) could be challenged because they were all LGA councillors when nominated.
You manage to make it sound like a bad thing.
mike @13
A Griffith by-election.
What a thought.
Yes Ken, correct, although for *either* side to be seen to look dodgy, a change of collaboration with Murdoch and big money from the Coalition to Labor would need to take place.
I agree with Paul Burns that Abbott has been duplicitous in the extreme but unlike the attacks on Gillard, is seldom brought to account.
@Trevor (32) – Those were my thoughts, confirmed by Antony Green. A double dissolution shouldn’t be called simply because there is a lower house blockage. That would imply a lower house election.
Remember that we only have synchronous lower and upper house elections due to convention and convenience. There’s no constitutional need for this to happen. (Senate terms are 6 years fixed, so need a half senate election every 3 years – which corresponds fairly well to lower house terms.)
Typically you only call a double dissolution when there is a lock between the two houses – that is, lower house passes something and the upper house blocks it. I believe that this approve / reject cycle needs to repeat twice before the PM can approve the GG for a double dissolution. Further, after the election there should be a joint sitting to resolve the blocking issue.
The key point here is that there is no blocking issue. The only problem is that there’s no majority in the lower house (hardly a major problem). This problem has no relevance to the Senate whatsoever.
Down and Out@37 there was no doubt about the rules in the case below. Maybe 3 by-elections are already on the way!
Phil Cleary’s election “was successfully challenged in the High Court and declared void on 25 November, as Cleary was on unpaid leave from the Victorian Education Department, and the Australian Constitution forbids people employed by the Crown from standing for election, however due to the imminent next election, no second by-election was held.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Cleary
billie @31, I agree with you that we knew Abbott’s true nature which was well concealed from the public with the connivance of the media. They constantly shifted focus from Abbott’s flakiness and lack of policies by relentlessly attacking Labour.
The situation is different, now. They can’t paper over the cracks by attacking Labour, because it’s a one horse race. He has to produce his policy credentials and he’ll have to have them properly costed. No sending them off to Dodgy Brothers, accountants to Carl Williams.
Rubbishing the Independents won’t work either; Smuggles is applying to them for the job, not the other way round. His mates in the MSM won’t be able to help him.
If they conduct a campaign against them, it’ll more than likely result in plenty of Bob Katter like sprays and lots of egg on their collective faces.
I think Abbott is constrained by procedural matters to some degree. Gillard continues as PM with first right to form a government – if she went to the GG unable to hold together the 76, Bryce would then call upon Abbott to make an attempt. I dont think sulking and stomping off home with bat and ball is written into the Constitution. Even given the partisan nature of the Oz Press, if Abbott fails to act in good faith, he wont be winning anything.
Indies seem to quite like Rudd.
Maybe the ALP should make him leader to improve their odds.
:0)
“I think Abbott is constrained by procedural matters to some degree. Gillard continues as PM with first right to form a government – if she went to the GG unable to hold together the 76, Bryce would then call upon Abbott to make an attempt.
Bernice I think the magic 76 number is probably not going to hold. Bandt, for instance, today said he would go into virtual coalition with Labor if necessary and Crook wants to sit outside the coalition. Go figure?
Billie @3.
I honestly think if Tony forced the Greens to a DD they would find themselves in funds – people would be so p**d that a GetUp campaign would be a mere drop in the ocean.
The blue and red teams are on notice big time.
I sincerely hope the Power Fox is listening and that the machine gets sent out for some long overdue maintenance.
SC@38 “A Griffith by-election…What a thought”
Oh it’d being thought of all right.
In fact, at least at some Griffith booths, there was a prominent tory poster of Kev astride a jet to the UN with the legend “stop the need for a bye election” or some such. The ALP machine was very upset, out with a camera gathering evidence, muttering dark threats about deformation or being against the electoral laws or something.
The Greens would love a bye election in Griffith, going by the senate vote count there as an indicator of generic ( sans Kev) labor support or otherwise. That ex-fringe party is pulling 24% while the once mighty ALP can only come up with 28%.
Imagine if The Greens stand a star candidate there against whatever apparatchik Peel Street seeks to reward. Griffith could be Qld’s (seat of) Melbourne.
Andrew B, there’s a room at my place you can have that will get you on the Griffith roll.
#43 Bernice, particularly when it’s a bat he wants to wield on the thick skulls of Australians, by way of his austerity rubbish.
This discussion puzzles me, in that many seem to assume Tone is the only leader (or MP) capable of insincerity or duplicity. When did he acquire that monopoly?
I can imagine circumstances where PM Gillard might prefer a new election. Not saying she does, mind.
In the background of all these negotiations is the possibility that at some future point a grouping occupying the Govt benches will be found to be “lacking the confidence of the House”.
(This was what Speaker Scholes wished to discuss with the Governor General, on the afternoon of 11th November 1975. The caretaker PM had lost a vote of confidence in the Reps. As it turned out, the GG was unable to see the Speaker before that parliament was dissolved.)
The current parliamentarians are doubtless keenly aware of all the possibilities. With negotiations going on behind closed doors, I think the voters will eventually be presented with some fait accompli agreement.
Then we’ll see how it turns out.
I am not sure why we are talking about an new election or a DD. How would this be permited by the constitution? I am not a specialist but I am sure there are delays and a process to comply with.
So, in practice even if Abbott was thinking about an early poll, it would be unlikely to happen until some time next year. What would happen until then? How would the government function without enough support in parliament…
Bearing in mind who the four independents are, but also the composition of the “future” senate, it is clear that a minority government formed by the Coalition will be a short lived one. Abbott’s strategy (assuming that this man can have a long term strategy!) Could be (1) I make promises to the independents to secure their support and last until the earliest date for a DD ( 2) I let Julia form a minority government, give her hell until she has no other choice but to call a DD.
Apart from the resources available to the party in government , (2) is from Abbott’s point of view a better strategy. A minority government led by the ALP and the Greens will be in charge , so it is easy to blame them for any “flops” . The MSM is more to blast the government. The coalition can claim all along that it has been “robbed” of its legitimate right to form government. The bonus for the coalition is that the Greens would also get their hands dirty and would suffer in the subsequent poll.
If Labor had a solid leader, I would be optimistic about the chances of a minority Labor/ Greens government to be able to manage the situation and get reelected. But at present a minority labor givernment would have two handicaps. Firstly, Julia is a “newby” PM and she has not excatly demonstrated that she was in control over the past few weeks. Secondly, a Labor government would be dragging behind it the “history” of its ” supposed” “real” failings over the past three years and would not e able to get away from that.
The upshot of my long story is that from a Greens /Labor point of view and also the long term interest of the nation, it would be better if Abbott and his crowd got a deal with the indies and show us all what sort of policies he can implement… This would give the Greens time to get used to their new power in the Senate and the ALP to clean its dirty stabel and get their leader ( may be Julia) ready to lead.
Danny
“muttering dark threats about deformation”
- what, did Kevin look ‘deformed’ in the faked posters? Did they make him look larger than an airliner? Dear oh dear, how simply horrid!
Abbott doesn’t have to do anything at all to get government. Yes, there is a pretend at “discussion and negotiation: with the Three Amigos, however:
1) The Indies are too diverse and indie to sign up to any Labor + indies deal. Gillard will not be able to go to GG with convincing deal.
2) Let’s say same for Abbott.
This will become apparent in two weeks. in meantime to media is clamouring for “certainty” and closure.
3a) GG goes with Abbott (more seats), who can carry guarantee from Indies that they will not bring Abbott government down with no-confidence motion or blocking supply. In meantime they are kept sufficiently sweet by teased out hope of handouts to their electorates (“support for regional development”).
Just speculating but is there a possibility that this could be the start of a split amongst the Nationals between the farming and mining blocs? Crook could leverage Windsor and Oakeshott as being the true representatives of the interests of farmers – carbon pricing, NBN, water, etc. They could appeal to the southern WA and SA Nationals. The rest would be shunned for selling their souls to the Liberals. Katter would have to choose his poison. The farmers would then be free to choose their own coalition partners and gain substantial leverage in parliament. Leverage which the Nationals no doubt are looking to with jealous eyes right now in Windsor and Oakeshott (Crook being a case in point).
Do you think that this pig could be fitted with wings sometime in the future?
Ambigulous@ 51:
Yeh well, they were being quite ambigulous about what might or might not have been the offense. but they were certainly offended.
Anyone that looked like they might be thinking about saying anything like “bye election” or “A vote for Rudd is a vote for instability” or “The ALP don’t even want him” were told about the naughty corner.
@49,
no, he’s doesn’t have a monopoly on duplicity, but let’s just say that he’s a star in the field.
The I’s are proving to be a bit too smart for the sudden incantation of Tony ‘Mr Nice Guy’/'genuine reform’ Abbott that Christopher Pyne has been given the monumental task of selling. Tony Windsor’s response to the Coalition spin on this is to point out that Abbott has indeed ‘reformed’ Parliamentary SO’s – to prevent Independant members speaking on certain matters.
While the Coalition may have been able to hide the real Tony from the media during the campaign, the Independent members aren’t quite so gullible.
Phil263, in order to call a DD, a government has to twice pass a bill through the House of Representatives and have it rejected by the Senate. Because it involves the passage of a bill through the lower house, a minority government will require the support of independents to create the conditions necessary for a DD.
Since the independents’ influence depends upon the continuation of a minority government (and the avoidance of a DD), why would they support a bill in the House of Reps a second time if they know it won’t pass the Senate?
Reinu @54, that scenario doesn’t really make sense. If, as you suggest, Tony Abbott can’t do a ‘convincing deal’ with the Independents, then how can he show the GG he will be able to guarantee supply and confidence in the House? The fact that he may have one or two seats more than Labor is irrelevant – he needs to show that the Independents have confirmed that they will guarantee supply to him, rather than Labor. That requires a deal. If neither major party can guarantee supply and confidence to the GG, there will be another election.
@49 it’s not that I think he has such a monopoly, it’s an attempt to understand his party’s “unusual” negotiation strategy, much of which seems to involve insulting the Independents.
bmitw @ 23,
He really said that? Windsor said he wouldn’t support Labor? If your mate told you the truth, and wasn’t just sprouting National Party BS, Windsor, too, it seems is duplicitous as well, in light of what he’s been saying to the electorate. Didn’t think he was like that. Then again, he is a politician.
I think I almost have my head around the process here but can anyone answer how much time they have.
If neither party can come up with a deal, presumably Quentin will see if one party can demonstrate confidence on the floor of the house, then if this cant be demonstrated its back to the polls for us. I am not sure when we parliament is scheduled to sit again.
I guess there has to be a limit to how long they can negotiate before confidence has to be tested. Does anyone know what that time may be.
JC@55 “a split amongst the Nationals between the farming and mining blocs? Crook could leverage Windsor and Oakeshott as being the true representatives of the interests of farmers .. appeal to the southern WA and SA Nationals. ”
Not just them,: there’s a major rift out there in Qld Cockieland over the God, Mar’n and Anna given right of crypto-coal miners to do whatever they like, regardless of the farming and social opportunity cost (including polluting the artesian basin water, with carcinogens) as long as it delivers to treasury. There are green shoots out beyond the blue hills of the Great Divide.
Some in the LNP have twigged to mining v agriculture as a wedge, via a fascinating policy alignment with the Greens, heaven forbid. The qld LNP brains trust, ahem, now that even they can see the Greens exist, might even wake up to how the safe labor seat of fremantle, held for 85 years, was wrested into green hands. All the tories had to do was realise the watermelon green preferences would always keep them, the tories, out, and just not field a candidate.
They could do that, and get behind, or at least not in the way of, a star greens candidate in Anna’s south brisbane seat, or when Kev brings on a bye election there.
There’s a time limit after the election by which Parliament must sit once the polls have been declared. I think its some time in October. Some one on LP gave the exact details in an earlier thread.
Tim @59, my understanding is that the Indies have said they will not block supply or support no-confidence motions against either government…..to ensure stability.
What I believe, is that they won’t formally sign up to support a raft of policies with either party.
They won’t be able to agree among themselves on a sufficiently comprehensive and significant bundle of policies to be able to vote as a block for the duration. So they won’t be able to sign up as a virtual “coalition”.
Hence GG can go with best case, that is, most seats plus committment by Indies not to bring government down.
Ken @34.
I agree with you, that Tony won’t force an election on actual policy, it will be on some cooked up BS.
I don’t think there is much prospect of an election immediately. If Tony gets in (still the likely outcome, I think), it will be in 12-18 months time, once the Greens have the balance of power in the Senate.
Tony will serve up something they can’t possibly support and then bash them as blockers. The compliant media will cheer him on.
Presumably the govt gets the first shot at a confidence motion. So the indies will then have to show their colours to either support or not. If they do not support the govt then presumably the coalition will then have a shot at a confidence motion. If this fails too then I guess there is no choice but to issue more writs.
If one side scrapes through but is without any formal agreement and all looks pretty shakey I dont believe the GG can deny them govt.
That still doesn’t make sense Reinu. The Independents can’t guarantee supply to both sides simultaneously – it’s one or the other. The Independents have not yet given any commitment to support either Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott.
For Tony Abbott to become PM, he still needs to do a deal with the Independents to guarantee supply, and Julia Gillard needs to fail to reach such a deal. If Tony has the greater numbers, that might help him in his pitch to the Independents (or it might not), but it won’t in itself get him government.
Paul @ 61
The implication was that the public 50:50 stance was just for show and that when push came to shove he would know who his real friends were etc etc. Mind you this was before election day. Might also have been what had to be said to that audience.
I think that this is going to be a wake up call to the independents and their supporters as well as the major parties. I get the distinct impression talking to various people that whilst they like the idea of voting in an independent they would be horrified if he actually demonstrated said independence by supporting a party that they do not support.
I have tried pointing out to these people that if they wanted a Nat they could have voted for one but that is not a popular point of view.
So caveat emptor. Wonder what will happen at the next election? They’re going to piss some of their supporters off either way.
Zorronsky @41, make that never brought to account.
The real authentic Smuggles has never been concealed from the media, it was their task to conceal the real authentic Smuggles from the voters.
Election Night BBQ: Day 5
=========================
Guests still very jolly and show no signs of tiring on their steady diet of Coles Classic Thin Beef Sausages. Greens voters are starting to wear each others clothing and demanding to get married. Servo across the road so Gas/Ice no problem.
Carpet sports several dinner plate sized Claret stains and a coarse texture derived from 3 kilos of ingrained Smiths Chicken Chips. Countering by smearing Avocado on worst bits.
Oh yes, a few of the younger children had some nightmares bought on from the yellow food colouring in Cheezels. Have isolated and given more Cheezels.
This evening’s report on PM has Indies demanding access to Treasury briefing as well as costing of policies. JG publicly supported this but acknowledged it would mean change to caretaker conventions which TA would have to be consulted on. If this happens (and I certainly hope that it does) then the possibility of TA forming government and repudiating any policy which costs anything (Swan’s Swamp perhaps?) is greatly lessened. One can imagine that his new partners in government would not be impressed by any such move!
(I assume from JG’s position that there are no nasty shocks in the briefing.)