For mine, Julia Gillard, in her address to the National Press Club this afternoon, summed up the actuality of the situation our national politics is in quite nicely:
Neither party convinced Australians that it alone should shape the nation’s course over the next three years.
The consequence is that if we are to have stable and effective government, our political process must now change.
Of course the focus now is on how the six MPs on the cross benches will determine which party to support in the days ahead.
And some of the focus is also on alleged punch ups at airports, a Liberal Senator thinking he is the devil, and a National Party Senator announcing the Nationals are also in a balance of power position.
But looking beyond that colour and movement, the critical question confronting us all is this:
How we can achieve stable and effective government in Australia with no party enjoying majority control of the Lower House.
Australia’s new political landscape requires a government that can find new ways to develop policy and establish consensus around the major issues that come before the next parliament.
Because if the new government doesn’t find new ways to establish consensus and parliamentary support, then we will have gridlock – and we will quickly look more like Washington than Westminster.
Much of the rest of Gillard’s address focuses on her arguments about why Labor should form the next government. But probably of most interest, given the current negotiations with the cross-bench members, are the remarks she made about parliamentary reform. She held up the Fair Work Act as an exemplar of wide consultation, including with stakeholders outside parliament. What remains unclear, and no doubt will be revealed soon, is the precise nature of the reforms to process she plans to place on the table.
Viewed the whole thing and thought she painted a fairly coherent picture (then again, I’m an admirer). In the questioning part, I especially liked the way she handled News Ltd questioners who mostly asked loaded questions. She was confident of being able to stay within budgetary forecasts when accommodating requests of the independents.
It is hard to imagine how Abbott could present an appealing alternative – it would have to be a lot different from what he’s said up to date.
I don’t think these things are decided logically, much as we’d like them to be. Otherwise she’d be a shoo-in – there’s just that much difference between the two leaders.
Don,
You would think so, but 49.98% of voters (at the moment) couldn’t see that.
It was because of the smoke BigBob.
Policy differentiation would help Australians choose one major party over another. As it is the ALP represents neo-liberalism with a human face and the Libs represent neo-liberalism with Abbott’s face. Then there are the Nats who don’t present a face at all – just two cheeks with Barnababy Joyce between them
I don’t think these things are decided logically, much as we’d like them to be.
That is the tragedy of politics indeed. Analysts and experts are wasting their time I am afraid…
`Brnbarby Ch-oyce is one of the best retail politicians in the country’ -Mr Rabbit
So Barnaby’s the Shadow Minister for Shopping, Joe?
akn @4 FTW.
FTW ? Fuck that william?
FTW = Forget the word?
That’s fairly insulting to arseholes, akn @ 4.
Outside of News Ltd questioners there were some pertinent inquiries about transparency, in particular why the nation can’t be privy to what Gillard has supplied the independents in those glossy folders. It’s as though we’ve moved from the inordinate attention to Western Sydney and Queensland marginals in the election to secret and exclusive bargaining with the three amigos.
So she’ll reform the parliament like she reformed IR? What, she’ll make the parliament a venue for oppressing workers?
AKN @4 “Then there are the Nats who don’t present a face at all – just two cheeks with Barnababy Joyce between them”
One of the funniest lines on LP this year.
I thought Gillard’s performance was work-personlike rather than inspiring – probably suffering election exhaustion. Thought she could have dome down harder on some comments – especially the drop kick who suggested Abbot had the right to form Government on the higher primary vote. That would imply a bigger reform in Australian political practice than anything the indies are putting forward.
Given the lack of discipline being shown by the National, maybe Labor should go for primary vote. On its own, the Liberal Party is currently on 30% to Labor’s 38% according to the AEC.
That was ‘the Nationals’, of course.
I agree, Kim, that Julia Gillard
.
I can’t imagine her words seeping out of Tony Abbott’s mouth. He is more confrontational rather than conciliatory.
Yes Emma, The National’s recent second album, while less immediately attention-grabbing than their first in some ways, still keeps bringing one back for more, and shows them to be anything but undisciplined.
Salient Green @14. Sure. Real funny. Especially if you think of or liken people to orifices, a peculiarly male predisposition. No prizes for why.
Not to mention Trusstus Maximus Gluteus flexing his well, muscles.
Philomena @20 initially more uncontrolled chortling until the thought of Barnababy as an orifice sunk in!
I thought akn was talking about the cheeks one doesn’t sit on, and comparing Barnaby to the gap between the upper lip and the nostrils.
But then I had a rather sheltered upbringing.
Ah, the orifice between the cheeks is gender neutral in so far as it is a human universal, ie, everyone has one. Except for the Nats who have the good ol’ boy Barnaby. I could go on with a gendered analysis of name calling with reference to human body parts and functions but I think I’ll quit while I’m ahead.
So Gillard sees no evil,hears no evil and speaks no evil about herself as a player in what has transpired!? And what comes before Parliament thus surely be not themselves and their attitudes on ,say, matters Israel etc!?
Bringing up FairWorkChoices as an example of consultative policy is a pretty direct call to the regional independents. A lot of the ire expressed at things like superannuation, workers comp and individual contract arrangements came from farmers (who find it hard to attract competent staff because they can’t pay them as much as the mining industry, and farming is hard, dirty, boring and occasionally dangerous work that nobody in their right mind would do for a salary).
…so, I think it’s a crock and a pretty blatant crock at that. Gillard turns out to be extraordinarily conservative considering her background. It also neatly ties into the “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs” concesso-victory speech on election night. A one note act is our PM apparently.
Sigh … Well, at least the words were right in the statement, but the longer this goes the less prepared either party really seems to be for this outcome. Ultimately the instability of this government may not come from the cross-bench but from the major parties themselves, but we won’t know how bad that is until we let it run for a while.
I think we might have Schrödinger’s Majority in Canberra at the moment.
PinkyOz
I dont think Philomena, 20# is quite right, have heard many, many women use the term, usually in connection with males of their acquaintance.
Now, this could mean that women are as obsessed with fundamental orifices as much as men, altho there might be a different sense from which the term derives, in female usage.
The question we need to resolve syllogistically, is, “are all men assholes”, or ” are all assholes men”.
In which case if Philomena, for example has visited the ladies and releived herself, has she wiped one of her bums( women often say they a front bum as well, for example), or is she wiping a bloke rather than an orifice (not to mention how did this man, or asshole, orifice; whatever slyly insinuate him/itself to such a personal location pertinent to Philomena’s snatomy?
Speaking of arseholes, how about the journalist who asked her, if she failed to win over the independents and Labor moved into opposition, would she step down as leader of the opposition?
In questions I thought Gillard did exceptionally well on focus groups. Essentially he said political parties will always use them, as Abbott no doubt did to generate his neat slogans. But she was “profoundly uninterested” in what focus groups thought of he policies on education or work.
Except that she said it far more eloquently than the above.
Didn’t watch it, but one question: was she giving off a vibe indicating she wants to go the whole three year term before calling another election?
Because I’m now convinced that serving a full term is now the defining feature between her and Abbott when it comes to minority govt strategies. Tone is leading a side that is spending a whole lotta time talking about how this parliament will go back to the polls sooner rather than later (plenty of anti-Gillard folk want a new election right now.)
This is ultimately the most important thing for the Indies, IMHO, and no amount of passive aggressive anger directed at them RE they-must-do-their-middle-class-tory-loyalist-duty-and-support-the-Coalition will change that. I reckon this comes first for them, even before parliamentary reform or broadband construction.
FTW = For The Win.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=for%20the%20win
Although now “Shrodinger’s Majority” is making a run on the outside rails…
I don’t know if she actually specified, Nickws, and the journos didn’t use the opportunity to ask her. But the vibe I got was that she was planning to.
She did speak of continuing the uncompleted business in health, education, training and NBN, and that one term was hardly sufficient to implement all they’d aimed for.
Aside from being the strategy most appealing to the independents, I’d think it would be in Labor’s interests also. It would be more likely to avoid serious bloodletting over the various failures of the last six months or so. And a longer term in government, with delivery on regional services, would offer a better chance of recovering support in Queensland and WA.
However, the task has just got harder with Wilkie rejecting Labor’s offer. Whether that means further haggling is not clear, but I’d have thought her run for the 3 amigos would be a lot easier if Wilkie was on side.
I gave up watching about halfway through the questions and went back to reading an intertesting book.
Re Wilkie – Okeshott has said if The Melbourne Green and Wilkie supported Labor, that would lean him towards Labor. (I suspect Wilkie will tell them both to get stuffed.)
Sounds like the questions were much more interesting than the speech, which was full of statements of the bleeding obvious and stumping.
No, the questions were not very interesting at all, but at least they drew a response that was marginally better than the scripted blather.