Given the election campaign we have endured, the only just outcome is that both sides should lose. Amazingly, this is, more or less, what happened.[1]
fn1. A bit of esprit d’escalier on my part. But thanks to the slowness of counting, I can get my thrust in before it’s too late
John Quiggin 
The ALP have gone from government to limbo land.
The opposition have gone from opposition to limbo land.
I think the ALP have lost whilst the Liberals have won. Clearly.
Huh?
Most sentient beings realise that this election handed the Greens the so-called “win”. The patchy swing away from labour was in a normal range overall (2.2%).
So Abbott only has to keep his 3 political cousins onside for Confidence Motions and Supply.
So, stuck with a Mad Monk, we at least are saved by the Senate.
@TerjeP
So you hide behind DLP and are really LNP Terje? You couldnt even make up your own mind and neither could the rest of the voters.
Terje, congratulations on getting 235 voters supporting your ideas but you are really blowing in the wind saying the L-NP won. Unless you know something others don’t the Coalition has buckleys chance of getting the magic number of 76.
Abbott is starting to show his flakiness now – he “doesnt trust Ken Henry’s Treasury”. This is despite Ken Henry being originally appointed by the Coalition. Two or three possible reasons
1. because Godwin Grech is absent on sick leave.
2. Because Abbotts numbers are lousy and dont add up
3. because Abbott is such a flake he thinks the only good public servant is a dead public servant
Why would the independents even have the gall to ask the great emporer Abbott to prove his numbers by asking for public sector scrutiny? Dont they know whjo he is?
Oh and now…only now…Abbott apologies to Wilkie for calling him a flake and trying to have him thrown in jail.
The training of Mr Abbott begins…..lesson 1 – how to become a nicer person.
Why would anyone trust the Treasury? The public servants have NFI. One only has to look at Treasury’s commodity price projections to see that we might as well have monkeys in there crunching the numbers.
Tony Abbott for PM, what commodity price projections are you talking about?
@Tony Abbott for PM
Why would anyone trust the treasury? Well Gillard and the independents and the Greens dont have any problems trusting treasury TAPM. I guess that makes Tony Abbott the odd man out (very odd)…hmmm makes you wonder how things might have gone for the Coalition if Turnbull was still in power. Cant imagine Turnbull making half the gaffs Tony Abbott has. Its not too late to change. We in the electorate are rapidly become used to leadership revolving doors. Almost as fast as broadband.
@Tony Abbott for PM
Ahhh I see TAPM says “The public servants have NFI.”
Now I know why Tony Abbott doesnt trust Treasury. Its reason number 3 so he can appeal to dimwits. Big mistake thinking Australians on average are that dimwitted. Even the independents must now be starting to think he is slightly mad.
Let Tony Abbott put his shonky numbers on the table under the scrutiny of the same Treasury that costs for other parties in the interests of ALL Australians.
Or does Abbott have something to hide? (reason no 2)
I hope the liberals dont send that hapless private accounting firm, Horvath, out of business by getting them mixed up in Tony Abbotts rabid “anti treasury anto public service” paranoia.
I don’t think anyone reasonable can understand why Tony Abbott wouldn’t send his policies to treasury for costings as the pressure of the election has now receded. His failure to do so has certainly caused the independents who through electoral serendipity have the upper hand. Abbott has shown that he would be very difficult to work with for the next three years as he showed when he was in government.
Looks like “the force from the North” isnt going to take no for an answer on the numbers Jill.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/we-want-abbotts-treasury-briefing-katter-confirms/story-fn59niix-1225910763442
Of course the independents should have access to budget costings of both parties – so should Treasury and Treasury should have the right to say “yes these are feasible or no they are not”. The trouble with the Coalition is they think they using a private accounting firm to hurriedly throw some numbers together (which raises serious questions about the way they are prepared or not prepared to work with our government structures).
The independents need these costings and they should be examined by Treasury because it is they who are making a decision on who will govern this country, not Tony Abbott.
abbott is showing far more spine than gillard, who is conceding everything up-front including the next election data(!) to keep to treasury benches.
abbott is playing the long game, knowing that if a minority government of whatever party falls, the public will want to turn to a strong leader.
@Jim Rose
The long game could be a very short game for Abbott. None of the independents want another election and neither do the Greens. I think they have the power here Jim Rose -every one of them that is not part of the red team or the blue team. Abbott is just covering up for the fact that he doesnt want to have his underwear exposed over his dodgy numbers. He has messed up big time (so whats new about that?). Abbott was found time and time again in the election to be just making numbers up. Country people wont get the national broadband or better health and education services for country people if they go with Abbott. They will just suffer more “stripping” and more “privatisations” and less “public investment” and more “free market” ideology. Abbott doesnt even like government or its services, – so how is he going to deliver what people in these independent electorates want?
In short – he isnt.
Alice, if the latest reports are correct there could be three bye-elections as a result of candidates being disqualified but not another national election as Abbott is falsely suggesting.
@Michael of Summer Hill
Where did you get that info Mosh? I cant find anything about it…
Also it looks like JRs “strong leader”s spine just turned to jelly and his “playing the long game” just got very short. Abbott has agreed to hand his costings to Treasury for the independents.
@Michael of Summer Hill
where are these reports?
Sorry Alice, I gave you a bum steer there are now four L-NP candidates who may be disqualified. You can read it all vexnews.com. Have to go.
If the independents think they can get a stable government with Abbott (unstable) well how about Abbott + Fielding (double snake in bag trouble).
Poor Steve Fielding. He has been hanging around Heartland institute as a denialist for so long that he doesnt even realise he has scrambled eggs between his ears and he only polled 2.6% of the vote.
The pleasantries and the eating of humble pie by both red and blue team leaders towards the independents was starting to sound like music to my ears..(wow – civil nice polite listening caring politicians – how strange!!)..until ……..
…. like an ugly scary little Jack in the box, up pops Fielding with 2.6% of the vote in his electorate who wants to block supply if Labor get in???.
I guess this must be the part where they bring on the clowns.
The link
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2994988.htm
I wouldn’t get too excited about the impact of those potential candidate disqualifications. When this has happened before, the usual result is that the disqualified candidate wins the by-election more comfortably that they did the first time round.
This is a likely outcome. The office for profit disqualification includes public servants, who must resign from their office to contest parliamentry seats (they then get reappointed if unsuccessful).
But byelections may replace like-for-like, so the problem still exists.
If the number of Representatives was odd (say 151), a hung parliament would never arise because the Speaker would have a useful casting vote.
So the needed reform is to increase the House of R. by 1.
Heh. Chris, they tried that trick in Tasmania years ago. The result: both parties on even seat numbers, one independent and a hung parliament. The Tasmanian parliament still has odd seat numbers, but that didn’t stop the most recent Tasmanian election resulting in a hung parliament. The only way to a void a hung parliament is for the voters to give one side a majority.
@Chris Warren
I dont think there will be any movement on that one Mosh.
The current chaos and uncertainty means “no stable government”. But I thought everything was running fine. This is the best possible outcome, with the Politicians on their best behaviour. No bullying and unilateral decison making. This is free market politics at its best. This short string won’t last for long however, especially if we have three indies doing what Rudd/ Gillard and Swan practiced.
Tim Macknay
People tend to use “Hung Parliament” too loosely. An odd number of seats can never produce a hung parliament unless a member is disqualified – bringing the numbers down to even.
A hung parliament is when no grouping can get a majority. ie no Bill can pass, and a new election is needed.
In Tasmania, it was hung, until a workable coalition emerged (and partly because of odd numbers).
We only have a hung parliament if the 3 stooges, split, 2 for ALP and one for Liberals.
So, unless this split occurs, I see no true hung parliament.
The mad monk is back, or we are back to the polls (as a deliberate tactic by the rightwing).
This is what Crickey is saying ……..
I completely discount this, but if true, I may even renew my Crickey sub.
If false, then no more Crickey for me.
Hi Alice.
I’m still alive, just saying in the background, waiting for Armageddon.
BA Santamaria laughed at the wasted energy on Australian politics when he stated to Phillip Adams that the levers of economic policy had been given to international banking elites in the early 1980s.
Why JQ wastes his time is beyond me.
@2020
waiting for Armageddon…..arent we all? Shouldnt be too long.
The slimy hands on the levers are there still.
Julia Gillard was looking a bit tired and deflated tonight, the race is still on and now that both parties are in limbo land Abbott has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Sorry Chris, I don’t agree. On the contrary, I think you’re now seeking to impose an artifically narrow characterisation of the term in order to rescue your argument. It is perfectly reasonable, and in line with ordinary usage, to refer to the current federal situation, or the Tasmanian situation immediately after the last Tasmanian state election, as a hung parliament. My point stands: having an odd number of seats in the house does not prevent hung parliaments.
Tim Macknay
An odd number of seats will always allow one group to get a majority, even if only by the speaker casting a vote.
So if you get supply and can pass bills – there is no hung parliament.
It is only hung, if the groupings cannot be formed – eg intransigent independents who abstain, flip-flop and so on.
A 75-75 standoff, with the speaker voting, so that supply does not pass, is a hung parliament and must go back to the polls.
Or supply not passing because the speaker does not vote, because the decision is resolved in the negative, also hangs parliament, so back to the polls.
Anyway, the three stooges may join the Liberals on condition that Abbott is removed as Leader.
I wonder what phone calls Malcom Turnbull has been making and receiving?
the house cannot do anything until it elects a speaker who only has a casting vote.
a 75:75 stand-off would result in new election because the house is unworkable.
one of the independents would then change sides to avoid that instability, but then if he changes back, then the speaker resigns, and the show goes around and around.
@2020
20 20 …my dear friend…Ive been missing you. Yet here you are…reincarnated with even better sight ahead of time.
@2020
Fancy B A Santamaria having that sort of 20 20 vision so long ago…
You know the Coalition puts B A Santamaria and Bob Katter is the same “too hard” basket dont you…like mad uncles.
I dont know why any of us waste our time. We are just pawns in the game of politics for the ubermensch. Its still BHP and their like and the banks that dictate what goes on here. They just got a prime minister thrown out…and the dept of Premier and Cabinet in NSW only just telephoned the Department of Environment to ask why they were upsetting BHP by asking for 20 million instead of 1 million to clean up a mess BHP made…
Oh shame, shame….. less we upset the ubermensch. Bow and crawl and wait for Armageddon.
Thats all we can do.
May as well have some background on B A Santamaria
“Late in his life he began to write passionately against the dangers of “monopoly capitalism” and was consistent in his view that this represented as great a threat to civil society as communism. ”
He wrote throughout the 1990s, in The Australian newspaper and elsewhere, that the debt-based monetary system, credit creation and the private ownership of major banking institutions were all fundamentally deleterious to good order and government, and that international investment banks based in New York, London and Frankfurt had taken effective control of the levers of Australian economic policy since the 1970s.
He was also concerned about the consistent contractionary economic policies pursued in the “pro-market” 1990s, which in his view had produced a long-term decline in real wages, which had in turn forced mothers into the workforce, and had then led to the breakdown of the family unit. Late in life, he continued to believe that the power of the “market” was the greatest threat to the survival of the family and, more broadly, of Western civilization in the late 20th century.
So – a balanced man? (if somehwat more religiously conservative than most? Some weaknesses can be forgiven). Maybe Santamaria would have seen the GFC coming had he been alive (died in 1998). Others who live now and lead still have NFI what went wrong.
Oh and Packer gave him editorial space – can we imagine Murdoch doing the same today?
Actually the speakers casting vote is a convention.
If the tellers are in control, what is to stop a speaker, leaving the chair and walking 5 yards, get counted, return to the chair, and then ask for the results?
When tellers are counting, then no other business is transacted.
J.Q. posted two topics about the “mirade” of democracy or so I thought. After the first post, I thought it was a typo for mirage. After, the second post, I have finally figured out the word is miracle. On my screen, the typefont runs the c and l into a d.
Hang on, I thought, maybe mirade is still the right word. And indeed I find that mirade comes from mirar or its various forms in Latin, Portuguese, Spanish etc. Mirar means to look and mirror is an obvious derivative.
Ah, I thought “the mirror of democracy”! This is telling me something now. We have not democracy but some distorted reflection of it.
But then I found the best translation. The Kurdish “mirar”means the carcass of a dead animal.
I think we need proportional representation in the lower house. Going on their total vote, the Greens deserve to hold about 12 seats (is my maths right?) and thus the balance of power in the parliamant.
The gang of three would be relegated to the irrelevance they deserve. It will be a complete travesty if they hold the balance of power.
Thanks MOSH. We improved on last effort in Bennelong by about 200%. And I didn’t even realize that many people even knew about the LDP so I’m quite pleased. Strangely a far larger number voted for us in the senate.
@Alice
Alice – I know next to nothing about the DLP. And in terms of Tony Abbott versus Julia Gillard I’m not hiding from the fact that Tony is the lesser of two evils. He has been quite good in his opposition to new taxes and no worse than the ALP on issues of same sex marriage, drug liberalisation, property tights etc.
As for the senate it does seem clear that we are returning to a more conservative (little “c”) era.
Ikonoclast asked:
It is. Assuming 11.4% of the vote that would be 17.1 seats — round down to 17. With 38.4% the ALP would get 57.6 — round down to 57 — thus a total of 74
The Liberals (30.3%) would get 45.45 (round down to 45). The LNP QLD with 9.28% would get 13.92 seats (round down to 13). The Nats with 3.76% would get 5.64 (round down to 5)
Abbott total = 63
Assuming one set the threshhold at 3%
Seats remaining = 13 … these could be distributed to the 2PP winner in each seat not allocated otherwise.
l
Depending on the
@TerjeP
I dont think Tony Abbott is the lesser of two evils Terje – (there are also three evils)
Tony Abbott clearly found some inspiration in B A Santamaria (a man with some incisive ideas yet with some shortcomings also?). However, given this homily below it may have been more B A Santamaria’s religious conservatism and his political gift to the liberals, that inspired Tony Abbott than Santamaria’s ideas on the economy; the economy not being TAs strong point.
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/Speeches/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5637/LAUNCH-OF-BA-SANTAMARIA-COLLECTION-OF-LETTERS-YOUR-MOST-OBEDIENT-SERVANT-SELECTED-LETTERS-1938-19.aspx
Yet B A Santamaria also refused to give Tony Abbott a preselection reference but not for the reasons TA ascribes above, I suspect, which are somewhat self serving with a drift of narcissism.
Santamaria’s reason…
“it wont do any good”
Santamaria may have also overlooked that there are three possible oppressors of people, not two as in communism or the unfettered free market, the latter which he came to see as an oppressor later in his life. To me, policy, as far as possible should be situated equidistantly as far as possible from all three points of a triangle which concede an an excess of power to any one of the three potential oppressors of man: these potential oppressors that to some degree we all have to live with and therefore cannot ignore or deny.
the state, the free market and religion.
Tony seeks to deny the power of the state, yet embraces greater power to the free markets and religion.
Not ideal Terje and not the lesser of three evils.
@Chris Warren
australian constitution section 40: Voting in House of Representatives.
Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be determined by a majority of votes other than that of the Speaker. The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall have a casting vote.
Oops [it is not from
@Ikonoclast
above
Good grief … the entire page has gone italic just because I failed to close mine … oh well …
Terje, Tony Abbott’s christian values are not supported by the more progressive Catholics. The world has changed since BA Santamaria came onto the scene and is all but a distant memory. Since the 1950s I have seen many changes within the Catholic church and the more progressive Catholics wouldn’t want to go back to the outdated traditions. The Catholic Church does not support Abbott’s strong stance against ‘asylum seekers’ and if anything he is acting like an agnostic.
Like so many “libertarians”, another simple Tory hack who likes to pretend to be something slightly more sophisticated. You’ll never need a script for RU486 I imagine.
Wouldn’t have thought you’d support the government doling out $50,000+ of public money every time a woman on a six-figure salary has a kid. I guess it’s the economic conservative belief that somebody with a five-bedroom mortgage needs a bit more help from the public purse than most. But the fact that the unemployed woman gets nothing would probably seal the deal for you.
MOSH – is there a difference of policy between the Libs and ALP towards asylum seekers? I must have missed it.
@Fran Barlow
Fran have you sent the whole thread listing to the right? I hope this restores the balance.
One of the other “miracles of democracy” are the many minor parties and independents that elongate the Senate ballot paper. In NSW there were 32 groups and 84 candidates. I wonder why bother when group gets less than 1% of vote, appreciating the difficulties inherent in promoting the various causes. It seems to me some threshold needs to be established, but how I am not sure consistent with allowing minority opinion to be expressed and the potential for the development of new political parties. While it is easy to vote above the line; it is equally easy to make a mistake given the size of the paper.
Terje, I’m glad you asked that question for few here are a few asylum seekers facts:
MYTH 1: We no longer have children in detention.
FACT 1:
• The Federal Government has broken one of its key 2007 election promises as there are still children in detention.
• As of the 22nd July 2010, there are 651 children in immigration detention.
MYTH 2: We no longer have many asylum seekers in detention centres, now that there is a Federal ALP Government.
FACT 2:
• Australia has as many people in detention now as we did under the Howard Government.
• As of the 25th of June 2010, Australia had 4,116 people in detention.
MYTH 3: It makes good financial sense to keep Christmas Island open to process asylum seekers.
FACT 3:
• The Gillard Government has committed to spending $973.6 million dollars on Christmas Island for the next 5 years.
• That same amount of money would fund the entire budget of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre for the next 540 years.
MYTH 4: The Gillard Government invests an equal amount of money in caring for asylum seekers in the community as it does to keep asylum seekers in detention.
FACT 4:
• For every $1 the Gillard Government gives the Red Cross to care for community based asylum seekers, it will spend $30.41 dollars to keep asylum seekers in detention centres over the next 4 years.
• That’s $1.441 billion dollars on detention compared to $47.4 million dollars to the Red Cross Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme
MYTH 5: Australia is being flooded by asylum seekers coming by boat and has lost control of its borders.
FACT 5:
• In the last 34 years (from 1st January 1976 to 19th May 2010) we have had a total of 23,540 people come by boat to Australia seeking asylum. That’s an overall average of 692 asylum seekers a year.
• At this rate it would take 145 years to fill the MCG once with asylum seekers coming by boat. etc etc etc
You can read the rest at http://www.asrc.org.au/media/documents/myth-busters