Laura Tingle’s Friday AFR Canberra observed column is worth the $3 alone.
In this week’s column she says that unless the remaining seats fall noticeably in favour of the Coalition (I think she means 74/71) their strategy is to hand the “poisoned chalice” to Labor.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s approach this week reeks of this, she says.
Armed with the support of News Ltd, which did everything in its power to get the Coalition into power this time around and which is now already campaigning for a fresh election, the Opposition thinks it would be likely to win another election held in the next six months. (Emphasis added)
Discredit and destabilise,
knowing you also have an extra problem, which is that your election costings don’t add up, leaving your economic credibility vulnerable.
She thinks there are “profound problems”, both in the costings as such and their politics.
She cites the release timing, hidden away late one afternoon. Also when you start playing with the contingency reserve it spells trouble, she says. Moreover there are unexplained political nasties hidden away, like the $1.2bn claimed saving in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Present yourself as the stable option and emerge in a new political landscape.
One problem with an early election is that the party coffers are bare.
Labor, she says, is trying to form a minority government to buy the time “to atone for its sins and rebuild confidence.”
In any event there is an opportunity to “refresh politics”.
…whatever happens, the impact of a pause in the hostilities should not be underestimated.
But the biggest impact of a hung parliament (for however long it lasts) and a lack of money, may be that it puts a line under the mindless momentum of Australian politics and forces both sides to find new ways to win our votes.
In another article, Marcus Priest tells us that Rudd maintained an open door to the three independents, as did some of his ministers. Indeed on that fateful day Rudd was in a meeting with Bob Katter when someone slipped a note under the door, saying Julia was outside wanting to talk to him. Katter has said that if Rudd were in the chair now it would be “very hard to go against Kevin”.
Gillard herself had given the three her mobile phone number and made a point of briefing them on new legislation.
A quick count indicates that there are 17 articles and an editorial on the election in today’s issue of the Fin Review. A pity, then, that it is firmly behind a paywall.
A pity too that today in the face of a $662 million turnaround on profit Fairfax intends to put all the news behind the paywall. I guess they’ll tell you that their existing business model is broken and obviously they can’t keep reducing staff costs forever.
I’ve just heard David Salter on this. He says it may be only the columnists, that the news itself would be available. He also said the Rupert, when asked about how all this was going in his trial in Britain, replied that it was “encouraging”. That, he says, is code for “disastrous”.
I should blooody think so, recostings and election platform!
Worst of all, Abbott seem to be getting away with it again. He looks like some brownshirted thug from nineteen thirties politics, trying to ram thru a plebiscite prior to ascent to power. Arturo Ui, resurrected in the flesh!
Fairfax really has become a lost cause. Not only is there a fair bit more lies coming from them than previously, but we are now expected to pay for this most valuable of commodities, on line.
Godwin.
I’m sure the independents understand this. So, perversely do the Indys go with the Coalition because it will be more stable? Labor is probably not going to wreck and destabilise if they’re in power.
If the Libs try to this tactic under a minority Labor government, it may well backfire on them, as long as it’s clear to the electorate who the wreckers are.
I agree that Laura Tingle’s column is worth $3. But it would have been worth $9 if it was written in the midst of the election campaign.
Moreover there are unexplained political nasties hidden away, like the $1.2bn claimed saving in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.
The Coalition claim to the Pharmacy Guild (after releasing this at the last possible moment) was that this is the same, costed, savings of $662 million as Labor presented, only by *their* calculations, it mysteriously doubled.
Hmmm Brian two quite different topics in one post!
I don’t altogether agree with ‘A quick count indicates that there are 17 articles and an editorial on the election in today’s issue of the Fin Review. A pity, then, that it is firmly behind a paywall.’
Firstly, I have trouble believing there are 17 different perspectives worth reading. I surmise there’s an awful lot of tedious repetition. Secondly, are they significantly more insightful or informative than the posts here and on other non-MSM blogs (including the ABC)? It might be unusual that Tingle would tell the truth about News Ltd but she’s not telling us anything we don’t already know.
Personally I wish they would all disappear behind expensive paywalls as fast as they can. It will have the same effect on the blogosphere as the election might have on politics: open the way for exciting new possibilities that have failed to emerge to date because so many people are locked into old paradigms.
If I never have to read another blog post along the lines of ‘Have you read what x says in today’s Australian/Telegraph/Age/whatever?’ I will be a happy man.
#2, where’s you heart. How can you Godwin me on Brecht?
Laura Tingle is the best political journalist in Australia by the length of the straight.
their strategy is to hand the “poisoned chalice” to Labor
You have to admit that the Gillard/Katter love dance would also be entertaining to watch.
There may be something to Tingle’s speculation, but I think another of Tony’s considerations is probably to establish ground rules for his prospective government’s interaction with the independents – which require a clear understanding of who is running the government.
@5 –
The justification was that they could extract a better price from Big Pharma because the are Grown Ups With Serious Negotiating Skills! Believe it or not!
Insiders’ insight on the number of articles on any particular issue – it’s related to how much advertising you sell that day.
Production manager announces the “book” is 65 pages or whatever. Editorial’s job then is to fill the white spaces between the pre-sold ads.
Fin’s online strategy for the past decade has been a defensive one. Their aim is to protect their fat EBIT print margins. They do that by locking up online content behind a paywall. Any revenue gained this way is a bonus, but the overwhelming aim is to prevent cannabilsation of print revenues.
With no growth in circulation, the other part of the strategy is continuing to drill down on costs – which means fewer and cheaper journos filling ever greater amounts of white space and with less and less quality control.
Guess what happens!
And don’t forget the Fin Review endorsed Abbott as their choice for the election.
So much for their committment to responsible economic management!
“The justification was that they could extract a better price from Big Pharma because the are Grown Ups With Serious Negotiating Skills! Believe it or not!”
Words fail me. Truly fail me. Do they really believe this? Really? I look forward to Treasury’s costings of Coalition policies, which should be so damaging to Abbott’s economic credentials, any delusions of winning Tingle’s 6 month away poll are shattered. Seems to me, Labor have to make this work, the Independents have to make this work, the Greens have to make this work. The only people who think they don’t are Tony & his troops – and with insightful pieces such as Tingle’s, they’re being left with little in the way of an emperor’s wardrobe.
“their strategy is to hand the “poisoned chalice” to Labor.”
lets hope so!!
that’d be ace – minority ALP and a temporary halt to the useless status quo of Australian politics along with Green BOP upstairs would be the best result since sliced bread.
(I find it hard to believe the Libs wont angle for minority PM though, Laura…)
So with everyone going behind a paywall effectively rendering print media inaccessible. What do we do? Do we say Long Live the ABC??
Fine @3 “Labor is probably not going to wreck and destabilise if they’re in power.” . . . apart from changing the PM at whim – seeing as that is so succesful.
Paywall Schmaywall.
It’ll go two ways: the information will simply be pirated if it is useful, or it will be (even more) irrelevent.
I for one can’t wait for Murdoch to put all his garbage behind a Paywall. In fact, I would pay money NOT to have to read Paul Kelly, so I’d like to propose a reverse paywall which filters out news organisations I don’t trust or who are known for a particular agenda (and I might even toss the Age in there too, because as a mirror of the Oz it’s becomes almost totally useless as a source of news).
I mean, if the bastards want to push an agenda on me, they better pay for the privilege of me reading it, not the reverse.
As for teh Coalition playing a littl hardball – it is a negotiation taking place. Maybe La Guillotine thinks that rolling over for a tummy tickle is a good current strategy – I don’t know.
So Laura Tingle reads the Opposition Organ … who is the other one?
Some strange reasoning on this thread:
Ken Lovell:
In that case you must be a happy man, Ken, because not only do you never have to read another blog post, you didn’t actually have to read any of the ones you have read. Reading blog posts is optional.
Ute Man:
Ute Man, you don’t have to read him now, for free.
Oh FMD. What crap, that Abbott’s inability to negotiate a government is in fact a deeply cunning strategy to give the ALP and the independents enough rope to hang themselves. What, in six months time the entire nation will be demanding that we go to an election again so Tony can save us? The delusionality of this thinking is so great that I’m just gonna have a terrific weekend. We can just about relax methinks. If Aussie voters were total mugs Abbott would be the PM with a resounding majority. He ain’t, we ain’t.
Three Boats’ decision to hand labor a poison chalice is not due to some well thought out strategy. The problem for Tone is that campaigning and arguing are the only lifestyles he knows. Governing? Forget it? Too boring.
Take the chalice Julia and drink deep. You’ll find it tastes pretty good, and the poison will only make you stronger.
Tim: I’m with Uteman. I want to never hear about Paul Kelly ever again. His writing is ponderous, overblown, pompous and totally unacquainted with political philosophy.
No disagreement there, akn.
Can I pay the ABC not to read Glenn Milne on The Drum?
Tim Mackney wrote:
Only when he puts his byline on it Tim. Google news would be far more useful if I could simply get it to filter out the rubbish on my behalf so I don’t waste a click when I’m quickly looking for some facts.
AKN – You’ve put it much better than me.
I agree Mike that the cut and thrust of battle is Tony’s raisen d’etre – but I would have said the same about John Howard who introduced policy for the wedge value alone.
Nice theory but – if the Coalition’s costings are revealed to be as bad as everyone thinks they are, why would the electorate reward them six or 12 months down the track with government? What if a minority Labor Government actually made a good fist of it?
I’d say the Lib strategy is to bully their way into Government, then try to force something controversial through the house, lose, throw up their hands and declare, with all sincerity, that they tried but really, the parliament is unworkable and it is all the ALP and independents fault. Sorry, we will have to have another election.
Then, enabled and supported by news limited,the libs will probably win in a landslide.
No matter who the indies support it is in their interest to maintain this rare moment of power as long as they can. So they are not going to be supportive of action that gets us an election in a few months time. Abbott,by the way has given in on the costing with lots of weasel words to justify the change.
I just noticed that the Oz is now declaring Tony has won a magnificent “Win on costings”. By now agreeing to submit costings to treasury under a modified format.
oops dont know what happened there.
[fixed - moderator]
I think it wishful thinking that the political position we find ourselves in will lead to “an opportunity to “refresh politics””.
We’ve all heard the idiom “every man has his price”, and if Gillard and Abbott continue with their stooping and unearned concessions to the Independents, it won’t be long before the latter develop hoarseness from swallowing all those special considerations?
The ABC says “Abbott gives in” – more unbalanced reporting
Yes thanks Tim @ 20, nothing like a bit of literalism to liven up the discussion.
Abbott can play hardball with the ex-Nat Indies because he knows that they themselves will be trying to guess how much pain will come from their conservative leaning electorates if they jump into bed with La Gillotine.
Why does it matter whether the government knows how they arrived at their dodgy figures? There is an unparalleled stench arising from this which will eventually bite them on the bum.
Razor it must be a nightmare for the independents. Being seen to side with either major party would undermine the whole basis of their appeal to their electorates. That’s why I can’t understand why three of them have agreed to negotiate collectively. It immediately throws doubt on their independent credentials.
Wilkie and Crook seem to have the right idea. “See you on the floor of the House.”
Trevor @ 31, I heard Gillard give a press conference today on how the consultations would be handled procedurally and the flow of information. She was very clear that if departments briefed the independents then that had nothing to do with the government, and what the independents did with the information was entirely up to them.
It wasn’t a win for the Opposition, it was just how the Government set the whole thing up in a correct and proper way. Abbott’s spinning is shameless, and you can bet that the independents will recognise it as such.
It would be overstating matters to say I favoured a new election. IMO, the parties should find a way to make this work.
OTOH, I’m not amongst those who believes that a new election, held in say, 8 weeks time, would be something the left should fear.
It seems to me that the ALP could essentially get a “do over” with their campaign, and Abbott would not be able to play underdog. This would reduce tactical voting, since, pre-election, most thought the ALP would be returned and this could mean that a number of seats that the ALP narrowly lost could be recovered.
It’s worth recalling that while pre-Saturday polls showed that people thought neither side should win, those thinking Abbott should not win exceeded those thinking Gillard should not.
It seems to me that whoever was seen as the primary cause of the new election would probably suffer a penalty, and since that is going to be the Coalition, the portents would be good for the ALP/Greens who are pushing the idea of making it work.
And we haven’t even considered how long these Liberal campaign promises will look credible (not 8 weeks I fancy), or how Steve Fielding’s threat might play out. Will you respect the voter’s decision this time? would be a potent line thrown at the coalition.
So my advice to the ALP, were I in a position to give it, would be to play a straight bat, embrace the Indies, appear to be keen on making it work and then allow the coalition to spend its time looking arrogant and devious and like people who were keener on power than respecting the vote, which they actually lost.
Mr Denmore at 11: My only quibble with your Insiders’ insight is that a newspaper “book” would never be 65 pages. A newspaper always ends on an even number page.
Fran Barlow, seeing as you vote informal, why would you care whether there’s an election, or not?
jane @ 36
As I have mentioned on another thread just now, the firm that signed off on the original costings is now under investigation by the ICAA, per Peter Martin’s blog.
This is serious and if the complaint that was made is upheld, exclusion from membership is a possibility.
Ken @ 6, of course I knew there were two topics, thought about it and decided to go that way. On the 17 articles, I’ve included opinion pieces. Inside the back page they always have the Tingle column on Fridays. Hewson is always there too, and this time, not surprisingly, he’s writing on the election. There is also a piece by Peter Shergold on how the last time Australia had a minority government it was government disunity rather that the independents that caused them to come unstuck.
I counted in the tally a feature article about Lynton Crosby which is significantly about his views on the election.
In the main body of the paper there was 8 pages of coverage, three with no advertising. Only the last was more than half advertising. One included the rest of the front page header. There were by my count 11 different authors, some involved in more than one piece.
The topics covered and the information given goes way beyond what you’ll get in blog posts.
I didn’t read it all, but I’d say that the one by Geoff Kitney and Hewson’s column wouldn’t add all that much.
BTW we are told, surprise, surprise, that the share market would be energised by a Coalition win. I gather MySuper is seen as a downer from that protected species, the fund managers.
So the paper is probably worth $3 without Tingle’s article.
Razor @ 35
Ken @ 37
Razor how can those electorates be “leaning conservative” when they overwhelmingly told the National Party to fuck off aeons ago. The electorate of New England for example encompasses Armidale and Tamworth, and you appear to have no idea how “liberal” Armidale (the home of UNE) is. There may well be a difference between Tamworth and Armidale in social conservatism, but the fact that TW supports the majority view all the time (eg against the Iraq war) is palpable here, and as a consequence, his support keeps on growing.
During the Howard years, Ratty treated him like a mangy dog, and now the boot’s on the other foot.
Ken, whichever party they support in government they have undertaken NOT to block supply nor support a no confidence motion but reserve the right to oppose what they perceive to be any BS legislation. It’s built-in fail safe, so how does that “undermine” electoral support?
It is not and never will be a “nightmare” as the electorate in New England (of which yours truly is an elector) trust that Tony W will get a better result for the country in the new paradigm AND for the electorate. We are revelling in his new influence. I believe the same applies for Katter and Oakeshott.
Whatever happens, they cannot lose. Insulted by cretins such as Barnyard and Trusterfuck, they will most likely get some revenge as a fringe benefit but will undoubtedly show their electorates and the rest of Australia (who happen to suffer the misfortune of the NP) how IMPOTENT that party is. (And that’s even if they support a coalition government.)
Paul Burns, help me out here
If Abbott’s tactic is really to hand the “poisoned chalice” of minority government to Labor, he had better be careful, even if he, and the coalition are “armed with the support of News Ltd.” If the results of the last pol showed anything, it is that the Australian voting public has run out of time and patience with those people who are seen to be playing facile and vacuous political games for the sake of some short term advantage. My prediction is that whatever party is seen to precipitate another election held in the next six months will be the ultimate loser in such a contest.
Are you going to reprise your prediction of a Labor win by 57/43 or whatever it was last time, Fran?
/snark
Fran, if there’s another election, will you preference Labor over the Libs this time?
Peter Kemp @ 44
Will I do? All that faffing about re how conservative NE electors are overlooks one point – the REAL conservatives voted for the Nat. He still got about 30% TPP I believe.
So if you assume a normal Nat would get double that it only means that half the Nat vote goes to TW, not enough on its own to get him elected. He also draws heavily from supporters of other parties as I am sure some number crunching would prove (but it is Friday and I am done bean counting for the week).
Brian@38 – Yes of course the Independants would see through Abbott’s ploy, but I think the claim he is making is directed to the public who wouldn’t realise the protocols that exist.
In any event, it is probable that he will seek to impose a condition of confidentiality on the Independants to prevent any public knowledge regarding shortfalls, subterfuges and straight out lies. We all “know” they are there in spades but unless the Indies tell us, they will remain hidden.
We all need to start thinking more like devious bastards all of the time instead of just now and then if any sense is to be made of the moves of the Liberals.
Btw, can Razor or any of the resident Coalition fans explain to me how Mr Rabbit was “brave” yesterday not to allow Treasury to cost his promises and “statesmanlike” or whatever epithet Shanahan and Paul Kelly will ascribe to him tomorrow for deciding to submit his promises to Treasury today?
Does Sinclair Davidson still believe Treasury to be automatically suss as a Labor front?
Does Razor still think Mr Rabbit was pursuing a clever negotiating strategy yesterday?
Inquiring minds, etc.
bmitw re
He still got about 30% TPP I believe….He [TW] also draws heavily from supporters of other parties
28.42% to be precise, two candidate preferred-
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-135.htm
And TW got 74.41% TPP but 62.23% primary votes , so saying he “draws heavily from supporters from other parties” as an argument is clearly not supported by his primary vote.
There will always be brain dead rednecks in the electorate of New England (including some cousins of mine with inherited farming wealth) but any cries from them to support Tones on TW’s past NP membership or conservative ideological grounds can be safely ignored TW if that’s the way he wants to go.
TW is on the record as saying he doesn’t trust either party, but the Rudd government and Rudd himself showed him some respect, so for my money, FWIW, TW is likely leaning towards Labor.
Mr. Rabbott’s problem is that Godwin isn’t there to keep him in the loop, so, of course Treasury can no longer be trusted. I don’t believe Mr. R. is trying to lose, he’s just delusional enough to think no-one will understand the fuss about proper costings and assumptions etc. Besides everyone knows the Coalition are the best economic managers and news ltd. have declared him a winner again today. I see Graham Morris’s fingerprints on today’s effort.
Peter @ 51
The term draws heavily refers to the sources of his primary vote not just his TPP. I don’t know what Ian Sinclair’s primary or TPP was but would expect that it was lower than TW’s as TW has a strong personal following.
If he was not standing his votes would have to go somewhere and since other threads have mentioned gaps between Labour lower house vote in NE of less than 10% but Senate vote close to 30% he must draw off some of those. In a largely conservative electorate the only choice someone can make to “keep the rabbits out” is to vote for the Independent where there is one and hope he gets over the line.
I did.
Ken@37
As I understand it the three rural independents have only agreed to a negotiating process. They have not agreed to vote as a bloc. It seems likely that the two NSW ones will come to the same decision, but Katter may well not agree. They have all effectively agreed to some basic conditions, though, including durability. Katter might perhaps retain his independence by agreeing to abstain from voting on confidence motions. As I understand it, if the other three independents and the Green supported the government, and the WA Nat voted with the Opposition, this would result in a tied vote and the Speaker would be able to exercise a casting vote, obviously resolving the issue in favour of the Government. I wonder if this is what he has in mind? I’m pretty sure the independents and Green would want a major say in selecion of the Speaker, too. Maybe Harry Jenkins could stay on… Of course this would be dependent on Wilkie coming aboard. However, the maths don’t work so well if they opt to support Abbott, since the Green and Wilkie would tip the numbers in favour of the want of confidence motion getting up. I most certainly can’t see Wilkie signing up to supporting an Abbott government heaping further oppression on asylum seekers – and if Abbott can’t deliver that he wouldn’t want to be in government anyway since his support base would be howling for his blood.
Peter @ 44 people following closely will understand this – hopefully – but many will only notice the ‘independents choose Abbott’ headline or whatever it is, should some agreement be reached. Perception is everything.
The Italian soccer player hits the deck squealing in pain as the supporters, the OO, screams FOUL.
I hope so – but I suspect it’s plan B
Although the born to rule mentality is stuffing up plan A. Unfortunately, I think Smuggles is still even odds on getting Plan A.
Fine@41 asked:
Indeed. Why would I?
Kim asked:
IIRC that was in February … which seems an age away now
Much depends on the circumstances leading to a new poll, but I’d be very surprised if the result were more favourable to the coalition
Terry asked:
Too little data at this stage to say. Things can change pretty quickly.
I sympathise a bit with FB here, it’s not like the election was the most inspiring one, as to “choice”.
I also know other quite intelligent people who voted informal; they felt this the only way to make a protest at the duplicity of both major parties and their exploitation of the system to vandalise precisely those imperatives that should could come a healthy election as to a frank and open dialogue between the people and their representatives.
Kym, Fine; Labor has been becoming complicit in the worst of the system, with its secrecy and behind closed doors wheeling and dealing- the obvious choice you may have felt Fran miss may be something that appeals to tribal loyalty, but with both of the big parties you are, in our time, voting for something more or less a sham.
And who didn’t think labor would romp in six months ago, when many thought it a good time to go, but for fear of sharing power with the Greens, lest they had to pull some of their supporters from the big end of town into line?
Onto the current situation, I don’t see why the indies have to commit to one or other party to the point of selling out their own principles, for a set period of time. It needs only to be decided on the floor on the basis of the quality of a given peice of legislation, at given time.
That the indies would give Abbott’s Liberals government, I find inconceivable.
Abbott’s own mental condition, remarkable for the wall of silence when it comes to commentary on it, represents a far worse case than the individual most cited as being “unpredictable”, Mark Latham.
Abbott’s mental balance is clearly an elephant in the room, for thepublic, something that should become more clear in the wake of this election and some sober thought over the interim between now and next election, for votersin some seats.
Greens FP 1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010
Ballarat 0.00% 1.42% 6.36% 6.73% 7.98% 11.00%
Bendigo 0.00% 2.67% 5.22% 6.93% 7.25% 12.10%
Kooyong 5.01% 4.05% 10.72% 12.54% 11.82% 17.79%
Melbourne 6.64% 6.06% 15.70% 18.98% 22.80% 35.84%
Kooyong is where Melbourne was in about 2002. Retro bastards.
I’m very sure Abbott’s resistance had nothing to do with handing the poisoned chalice.
They want to take charge, but don’t want any more scrutiny than they faced on the campaign trail. Hence the sudden about-turn when it became clear that this stand was rapidly taking them away from forming a government.
Abbott’s occasional unusual frankness can give us some clues. I found it extraordinary that he was originally so strongly opposed to the Red book being shown to any outsiders. The reasoning seems transparent. It may deprive oppositions of a post-election ‘aha’ moment: the books are far worse than we were told – all non-core promises are off, get ready for some tough cuts.
Doubtless the real reason is that the costings won’t hold up to close scrutiny and he knows it.
And it may well allow the independents the rationalisation for supporting a minority Labor government. Something the coalition know that trio will have to tread carefully about. Hence the pressure re polls and media.
Fran Barlow, personally, I have no patience with someone who insists on voting informally because of their wonderful ideological purity. It just ends up as a default vote for the Libs as someone has to end up in government anyway. So, thanks for helping to give us Abbott, if it ends up that way.
In the CM this morning Dennis Atkins tells us that in West End (Rudd’s seat, just across the river from the CBD) it was Labor 41.3%, a swing away of 12%, Greens 31.7% and LNP a distant third on 23%.
North of the river in Brisbane at Kelvin Grove (QUT campus) it was LNP 34.5%, Greens a whisker behind at 34.2% and Labor languishing on 29.1%.
@64 – with those numbers perhaps Anna Bligh is in trouble from the Greens.
Fine said:
You are entitled to disburse patience as you see fit of course, but to describe my stance as a demand for ‘ideological purity’ does violent offence to even superficial observation of politics in this country over the last few decades. It is not ALP eclecticism that prompts my stance. Their politics has clarified around a program that, like their boss class rivals, is antithetic to human progress, and debauches even the process by which a politics of working humanity may be developed and articulated.
I support the Greens, despite the fact that they are no kind of socialists, and are thus not ‘ideologically pure’ whatever that may mean, because they at least leave open a discussion of measures aimed at empowering working people.
You cite the fact that “someone has to end up in government anyway” and taking that as your starting point, and your ending point too, work backwards to read my informal vote as one for the Libs. That is the mentality of a hostage or a victim of blackmail, and it can never challenge the basic framework within which the best arrangements for stable boss class rule are worked out. I reject that.
All of the progress in this country and elsewhere has been acheived through the working people inserting themselves into the interstices lying within boss class rule, and seeking to enlarge them at the expense of these criminals. The mere fact of Liberal rule, if that is what occurs, for whatever time it is lasts, does not change that basic feature of workingclass politics, for it would be the same in the event of ALP rule.
We must build today for a new and better polity, if we are to ensure that progress is a stable feature of Australian public policy.
Fine @ 63 can you explain why not voting for anyone is ‘a default vote for the Libs’? Is there some hidden clause in the Constitution or something which declares that in the event of a voter strike, the Liberal party will be declared the winner?
Fran @ 66, I’m sure you will be interested in Immanuel Wallerstein’s latest column Contradictions in the Latin American Left, as should we all.
Ken Lovell, it comes down to a default vote for the Libs, if one can otherwise vote formally for a progressive party eg. Greens and then work through their preferences to lodge a formal vote. Many people on LP have done this e.g. vote Green and then preference the Labor party with the knowledge that Labor has an awful lot wrong with it, but it’s better than having the other guys in government.
Fran, I find your argument risible. The revolution isn’t going to occur. The working class isn’t going to rise up in revolt against their capitalist masters. More likely that they’d rater be their capitalist masters. If you support the Greens, then vote for them. If enough people do so, then they will end up in government. And in the mean time, they’ll start having real influence politically, which has started to happen over the last few years and is accelerating. It’s not going to happen any other way. Voting informally hardly supports them, or any form of progressive politics.
And, yes, someone does have to end up in government. That’s reality, Fran. And if you think that a Liberal government lead by Abbott will be just the same as a Labor government, then you’re being dangerously naive.
Not the influence of the Greens in the ACT on climate change policy – ALP government supported by the Greens setting a target for green house reduction of 40% (forget the date) – the local Liberal Party wanted to stop at a 30% target – no denialist responses in sight given the electoral pressure and competition for votes presented by the Greens.
Without a carbon price they will be struggling but they do have levers in energy efficiency for buildings, retrofitting and public transport that would enable some progress to be made. Canberra is a special case with no major industry but suggests possibilities for getting some movement.
Fine said:
Big call. The jury will never declare on that one. I will stipulate though that it isn’t occurring any time soon.
The mere existence of some wrong, or of some prospective good has never been a sufficient condition for people en masse to act in concert.
Before they can, they must recognise not merely that the rule of capitalist masters is no longer apt but that there exists some vehicle for challenging that rule. They must come to believe that their action can make the difference and that the action that they take can be made at acceptable cost to them.
The complexity of this constraint explains why the forces favouring stasis have been so successful at resisting both continuous and discontinuous change. Yet it highlights the path to that change. It emphasises that we must construct a context in which working people see change not only as desirable but possible through their own acts in concert with others. In the absence of that adaptation to existing forms of rule seems reasonable often enough to permanently obstruct rapid change. And yet, as we see now, rapid change is required to avoid a catastrophic setback in human well-being.
Your irony meter malfunctions here. Being the master/mistress of one’s own life entails striking down the rule of one’s capitalist masters. At the level of the system, on the day when the working people determine the polity, there will be no capitalist masters/mistresses.
Your configuration of the problem betrays the superficiality of your analysis. The “working people” is not a static set of persons, but a group of persons defined by its relationship to social production. It is iterated and reiterated daily. The orientation of progressives ought to be not to workers as individuals but to those whose interests are served by inclusive and equitable governance. One may allow people to define themselves against that standard and be satisfied with that.
You, and the purveyors of the politics of the next ten minutes serve your ostensible clients ill. Over much more than a century, courageous advocates of workingclass empowerment have endured terrible hardship and cost to achieve progress, and here, on a left-of-centre blog, you seem unwilling to contemplate what seems little more than tribal or aesthetic irritation that a bunch of superficially more egregious boss class sleazebags than those of the ALP might hold office. In the past some chose to die for the cause, yet here, some seem unwilling to pay the price of enduring the wrong brand of boss class huckster speaking for the polity.
That’s just shameful.
Right here and now that context exists once every three years, at a Federal level. It’s called an election. Refusing to use that context on the basis that it’s ideologically tainted is self-defeating.
Gummo Trotsky quoted me:
then continued:
Yes, that is true, but if that is the beginning and end of our focus it will always be true. If you keep doing what you’re doing you keep getting what you’re getting.
I don’t refuse to use it. I just decline to use it as suggested by the principal and secondary beneficiaries of the system.
Refuse/decline – whatever. In this context they’re synonymous.
The fact remains that once every three years, the system, as it exists, gives you the opportunity to act in concert with other working people to achieve political change. However marginal. Your position is that you won’t act in concert with other voters because the system sucks – whoever you vote for, you just get another politician.
So you do nothing even minimally effectual while crying shame on those of us who do participate in elections, even if it’s only by voting.
All self-contradictory and more than a little shameful. I prefer the informal voter who stuffs a blank paper in the ballot box because he just can’t be bothered over your ridiculous pretense of highly principled abstention.
I think Fran is echoing a disenchantment which is widespread in the community, and not just with informal ‘protest’ votes.
In my electorate of Wannon (safe country Liberal) this argument has raged in a different way, comparing and contrasting it with neighbouring Corangamite. The latter has become marginal and has been loaded with pork offers from both sides during this campaign. Wannon got offered practically nothing.
The solution, openly discussed at present although not seriously in action yet, is that if you want anything done the quickest route to action is to become a marginal seat and get in an auction war with the two majors.
It surely cannot be good, long-term, for politics in Australia. That’s another reason I’m hoping the independents can make a major breakthrough in their negotiating on government. It would be better for everyone to get back to the big picture, where our major parties have let us down.
A PR voting system might provide a way of doing it, but you’re never going to get under-populated country electorates to agree to it at a referendum. Maybe the next best option may be to encourage high-profile individuals to run as independents.
Don,
On my reading of Section 24 of the Constitution, a referendum wouldn’t be necessary:
As long as Parliament complies with those requirements, it would be possible to alter the electoral act to provide for multi-member electorates with proportional representation. S29 is marginally relevant:
Well argued, Fran Barlow.
The notion that we should prefer arsenic to cyanide, or vice versa, now that the “choice” has narrowed to that level, passed into “absurd” when Labor stopped being Labor, anyway.
FB, at least you are not in denial as to politics.
At least there is not the Tory sense of “born to rule”, that if you question what they say in some way or other, you become a traitor to class.
Fine et al, the real class traitors emigrated to labor and took it over: Costa, Arbib, Andrew Fraser, Anna Bligh,etc amd are trashing our democracy.
The kick in the guts from Murdoch, Howard and Abbott we knew was coming, the knife in the back has been a bit harder to take.
Gummo Trotsky said:
Not at all. Instead, once very three years, the system as it exists invites me, along with the other working people, to affirm the marginalisation of working people from politics and to choose the boss class party I’d like the marginalised to be worked over by.
It does rather remind me of a famous Monty Python skit …
There’s nothing “minimally effectual” that prefering the ALP over the Liberals achieves. All it does is show that in the end, the only people who count are those willing to vote Liberal or informal. And those who vote Liberal encourage the ALP tyo becvome more like the Liberals. Right now, if the party attributes were barcodes even a highly sensitive CCD would return the same integer post-scan. The ALP has done its darndest to deny space to those who say it is more progressive/less egregious than the Liberals to cling to this delusion.
And as things stand, given that the ALP have vacated the field, The Greens are the party of the left-ALP imagination. No, they aren’t socialist (but the ALP never was either), but as with the ALP of old, one can still indulge one’s passion for the warm inner glow imagining they are.
Well yes … those you can write off as indolent. Clearly, you prefer indolence to principle. Need one wonder why the ALP is in the condition that it is, if its left-of-centre critics such as you respond as you have?
Really though, if I accepted your terms, I could easily construct an argument for voting Liberal — as they are at least a prospective governing party. No less a person than Professor Quiggin — neither a rightist nor a fool — has advocated such in Qld. I radically disagree, but this is the logic of accommodation of the system’s terms for contest.
What I find fascinating is the obvious unease and resentment that Fran has created in a few people just by the innocuous act of refusing to participate in a deeply flawed system. It bespeaks the way many Australians find any serious change to our existing political order to be not only unthinkable but positively threatening.
If a solitary act of withdrawal can cause such hostility, one can barely begin to imagine the rationalisations that would accompany rejection of any more serious political action, such as *gasp* civil disobedience or taking to the streets. Needless to say, the ruling class knows its position is secure as long as the masses believe they can achieve change through existing institutions.
Not the constitution Ken, it’s in the Articles/Memorandum of Association of Limited News, where the “dividends” are (more often than not), disinformation sabotage of the ALP followed by a declaration of government to the
Limited News PartyLNPKen Lovell, we well-know the ruling class responses to open dissent.
Just think back to the anti globlisation demos and the way people like Brumby put them down when they came to a city near you. Also the vicious response to some of the asylum seeker events.
But, no worries- we saw how well QLD labor handled Mulrunji’s death and the preeminence of true justice after the resultant Palm Island riots and subsequent arrests of scapegoated Aborigals protesting the shocking death of Doomadgee Mulrunji, at the hands of a sadistic uniformed thug.
@78&79.
Indeed. And the defence of the right to vote as the epitome of political democracy is especially risible today when so many people obviously vote only under threat of penalty, to feel good, to tick a box marked “being a responsible citizen”, or who enter a polling booth with the express vote of voting informal or who inadvertently vote informal because of a lack of interest in learning or ensuring how to cast a valid vote.
It’s an apologetics based too on an assumption that all others will accept your choice of vote without abuse or derision. Again this is rarely the case as anyone who has worked on polling booths knows full well. And if you’re handing out for the Greens, the worst abuse and derision comes from the ALP booth workers, in my experience.
Query: are there stats on the % of Senate votes made above the line?
Found this piece in the Oz of all places …
The vote that dares not speak its name
Philomena said:
That certainly wasn’t my experience. The ALP folks were on the whole, polite and friendly, and some a little shame-faced about their campaign. One fellow, who reminded me of nobody so much as “the Skipper” from Gilligan’s Island tried a little aggressive banter about the CPRS along the lines of Tanner/Wong, but it was more like sledging between mates than rudeness. One ALP woman decided to hand out her stuff away from me after a brief and robust exchange but she wasn’t rude.
The nastiest was some older Liberal woman, but I enjoyed it. I like a rumble, as people here will know.
Philomena, it was about 97% in 2007.
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/consultation/elect_reform/strengthening_democracy/docs/strengthening_australias_democracy_5.pdf
(PDF page 16)
What Ken Lovell said.
@82 not my experience – the Labor workers at the booth I worked on were a great bunch.
Oh, Fran you sound like a parody of a very earnest first year politics student who’s just discovered Trotsky. Keep going with the rhetoric. It’s very funny. I’m just seeing the Australian workers striking down their capitalist masters. Oh, yes, it won’t happen anytime soon. You are right there.
“All self-contradictory and more than a little shameful. I prefer the informal voter who stuffs a blank paper in the ballot box because he just can’t be bothered over your ridiculous pretense of highly principled abstention.”
Exactly Gummo.
And why isn’t it you won’t vote for the Greens even though you support them, Fran?
Ken I don’t find Fran’s refusal threatening. I find it silly. But then I’ve always found being lectured to by over earnest Trots using over blown and cliched rhetoric very amusing as well. They’re kind of all cute and cuddly.
Ken @79:
It’s not just a solitary act of withdrawal (equivalent to stuffing a blank paper in the ballot box), it’s a solitary act of withdrawal masquerading as a political protest. When it comes to serious political action, such as civil disobedience or taking to the street, I’m up for it, given the right cause.
Here’s a serious political action you might want to try at the next election – a voter boycott. None of this turning up and voting informal, a mass actiuon where voters stay away from the polls in droves then contest the fine in the (Federal) Magistrates Court, citing as their reason for not voting: “I don’t live in a marginal electorate so my beliefs and interests are not considered under the current system of voting. I conscientiously object to such a system”.
Philomena @82:
Not the epitome, merely a necessary condition. A very necessary condition.
Ken. I’m all for civil disobedience and taking to the streets and have been known to do both. Voting informal doesn’t count as either.
@fine, I’m right with you.
If I’ve missed this having been raised in amongst today’s comments, apologies. But I’ve just read Hartcher’s piece in the SMH – Jesus wept. WTF? Christ on a bike. Glenn Milne’s piece from yesterday seems reasoned and properly researched in comparison. Tingle’s should win her a Walkley.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/leaders-walk-the-tightrope-in-a-three-ringleader-circus-20100827-13vx6.html
I’m sorry, but I don’t think Hartcher was in the room; this would not have come from the independents given their response on the following day, so where did this spring from? Apart from Andrew Robb’s posterior. Yet another member of the media dazzles us with their skill and objectivity.
Voting informal because the major parties do not satisfy one’s own deeply held ideological beliefs is a bit self-indulgent.
The election is not all about ‘me’
The well-being and daily lives of lots of people are influenced very dramatically by specific health intitiatives etc.
Philomena @ 82 my ALP booth captain had Greens htv cards to hand out as well as ours! They were a bit short handed it seems. He was conscientious about it too.
What Bernice said @ 91. Scott Prasser, a Brisbane academic and sometime commentator, was on the box tonight saying the three indies had better hurry up because the people are getting impatient. Stuff ‘the people’, let them take their time.
Yeah, what Brian said.
Better yet stuff the media.
No deals, no public pre-announcements – let’s all watch it happen live on the floor of parliament.
Yeah Brian and Rum … but they’re still working on it. Now a Newspoll in the 3 amigos electorates confirming that a majority in each of them want Abbott. It was commissioned just a few days after a similar Galaxy poll … both by News Ltd.
Now, ain’t that an interesting coincidence.
Bernice @91 — Peter Hartcher’s position since late June has actually been pretty consistent. Après mon ami Kev, le déluge.
PC @97 – true, Hartcher has been playing the jealous god since Rudd’s descension but frankly it is bordering on reckless for a journo to pump out a poorly written supposed insider’s guide to the ‘sneakiness’ of the independents – I am shocked that such a senior journalist is happy to grind the monkey’s organ without fear of the consequences upon the dynamics of the negotiations. He has followed someone’s instructions to focus on the political achilles’ heel for Windsor & Oakeshott – their public standing as honest and straightforward.
In one article, Hartcher has attempted to repaint Abbott as the honest broker, and the independents as something close to malevolent. Shouldn’t be surprised really, but I am. I cannot remember an electoral climate where journos have scurried and leapt onto the political stage, players all – Falstaffs all.
We have to remind ourselves that 50.39% of the people didn’t want a Coalition government.
Also Tones can’t pass any bill that Labor and the Green oppose without Katter’s vote, unless he gets Wilkie on board. Gillard can, if she gets Wilkie on board.
That’s counting Crook as voting with the Coalition.
Under these conditions, why shouldn’t the three Amigos take their time to see how we can get stable government? They are acting responsibly, which is as well, because they have the responsibility. Hartcher and his like should have a look at what their own responsibility is.
Philomena @ 82 (and others), my experience on Saturday was that the ALP and LP volunteers were pleasant enough (although a couple of the Libs were insufferably smug), but the Family First people were a bit difficult. Not unpleasant, so much as completely uninterested in an exchange of ideas.
Patricia @ 93, I suspect that would have been part of the national preference deal the ALP made with us. They did something similar at the SA State election earlier in the year.
I’m a bit surprised Tingle would come out and say that Newscorp has been agitating for an Abbott government—I’m not even convinced that is the case, or rather, I’m not convinced Newscorp isn’t doing anything which the entire rest of the gallery and MSM haven’t already been doing. Murdoch joining the pile-on against post-Rudd Labor isn’t necessarily an example of Murdochism at work. That would be a case of them following the pack, not leading it.
Anyone else think the Libs are on a hiding to nothing in going against the regular populist disdain for elections? Punters don’t like to vote more often than they’re obliged to. That’s the Aussie way.
I think the tories are showing too much middle-class navel-gazey sentiment here. And RARA independents no longer have any patience for what older, middle class folk from blue ribbon suburban electorates feel. That’s why they’re independents.
Brian @ 99—Wilkie is becoming a bit frustrating, I think he genuinely believes all this “don’t make me choose the lesser of two evils” guff.
However, I think his claim about possibly supporting nobody at all can be read as him saying he’s willing to help Gillard get to 77 votes, yet if Abbott forms a minority govt. he won’t be number 77. “I may support nobody” is obviously also a shot across Labor’s bows, i.e., see if I care if Abbott gets the Big Three to support his party, that allows me to sit all by myself in the corner, all nice and pure.
Patricia @93, I suspect that’s actually against the party’s rules – campaigning against an endorsed Labor candidate.
Wilkie would not be a wise choice as a minority government partner. His own deeply held ethics are so paramount he’d be far too easy to offend on policy matters and bang goes your government.
But I read his book on Iraq et. al. and its nice to see a true independent in the parliament with the opportunity to make his voice heard.
Very impressed with Xenophon. Knows just when to make his moves. And good on Wilkie and Xeno for having the guts to point out the national misery inflicted by pokies.
Those things are a cancer the nation can well do without.
It will be interesting to know the alignment of newly elected Liberals.
Tony could be a takeover target now that he has got his party so close to the treasury benches. He won by one vote last time. The next time the empire may strike back to get fresh faces up. The present line up look like refugees from a right wing nursing home.