|
It’s been over a week since Australia went to the polls, but we’re still without a PM.
Independents of the hour — Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott — are commencing talks with Treasury today over budget figures, while fellow independent Andrew Wilkie also busy courting both parties, but won’t commit to the independent bloc that the other three have.
But it’s still not clear who the independents will support. Originally it was assume they’d be more traditionally aligned with the Coalition, but with reports of the independents being harassed by Liberal MPs at home and complaints about Liberal costings, either party could edge over the line with the magic 76 seats. The Nationals are also raising their heads, saying they won’t automatically support everything the Liberal Party does in a Liberal minority government.
Instead, the blame game continues to be Canberra’s favourite pastime, as the media both thrashes and exalts the Greens, wonders how a hung parliament will work and tries to figure out whether Labor or Liberal is more in a shambles.
Here’s what the commentariat are saying:
The Australian
Mark Dodd: Climate inaction ‘cost Labor key votes in marginal seats’
One in three Greens voters in key seats would have supported Labor if it had not delayed introducing its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
David Burchell: Harsh light of reality about to hit Greens
At present the Greens, rather like religious revivalists of another era, are lost in an attitude of rapture over their party’s impressive electoral showing, a state of mind so joyous and uplifting that it prohibits them from observing what is actually going on in the political world around them.
Henry Ergas: Marginal wooing costs too much
The Greens secured more than 11 per cent of the popular vote, but won only one seat in the lower house out of 150. Could it be time for Australia to introduce proportional representation?
David Hetherington: Independents may hold key to policy reform
Paradoxically, the election result means policy reform may now be the big winner: the independents have stated clearly that, alongside parliamentary reform, policy delivery will be the price of their support.
Sydney Morning Herald
Phillip Coorey: Kind and gentle no more than words
When Abbott knifed Malcolm Turnbull less than a year ago — the Liberals’ third leadership change in two years — this too was driven by ”faceless” MPs and senators such as Nick Minchin and Kevin Andrews. There was nothing kind and gentle about that either.
Courier-Mail
Mike OConnor: Blame game in full swing amid election 2010 fallout
Beattie’s motives were hardly pure but he did, at least, concede fault. This puts him at odds with developments in the current political paddock, which has become a curious place in which nothing is anyone’s fault but everything is someone else’s fault.
Daily Telegraph
Malcolm Farr: Anti-war hero now in firing line
There has been an outbreak of more-independent-than-thou at the start of this crucial week in which a handful of MPs might decide who governs Australia for three years.
Herald Sun
Alan Howe: Poll plots a lot of rot
Had Julia Gillard clearly got over the line last week, I am sure there would have been some people wrongly claiming that Mark Latham handshakes had cost two elections. But I reckon Maxine McKew is the only woman to defeat a sitting prime minister, and then possibly cost her government power.
| 
28 Comments
Bad news for those who are pro-Labor. Centrebet has the Coalition priced at $1.43, compared to a very long $2.70 for the Labor party. Does this mean Labor is screwed?
Unless Centrebet sits inside of the heads of each of the independents, I would say those bets mean nothing.
Centrebet odds have gyrated wildly since the election. There may be further gyrations to come.
The fewer human beings in the contest, the less well-advised is betting. As for who might be placing the wagers to what end …
Burchell’s commentary was particularly facile. Once again, Burchell missed the irony of someone asserting the virtues of down and dirty business-as-usual politics in the language of someone desperate to persuade everyone that he ereally is “a high-falutin’ interlettual”. He had plainly decided not to use one word where a dozen would suffice.
After a massive detour into pop-psychologistic maundering, he gets down to tacks, making the utterly banal point that The Greens are going to have to work out how to trun their policies into actions in parliament. Really, that could have been done in 50 words, but who would have known Burchell had had an education? Sadly, those of us who read his waffle know it was wasted.
Predictably, he trotted out the now visibly ageing Bolt-style points against The Greens. They wouldn’t pass the CPRS, they are out of touch, asylum seekers are frauds if they come on boats etc … So keen was he to vent his spleen, as he ridiculed Bandts specatcles that he couldn’t even get his name correct.
Truly, these god-that-failed ex-lefties like Burchell and Windschuttle are a lot more egregious than Bolt, who has never pretended to be anything but a rightwing boofhead.
While I regard a new election as undesirable from a public policy POV, I would regard it as probably more advantageous to The Greens than anyone else.
Everything I have heard since the election indicates that the independents are more unhappy with the Coalition than with Labor.
Conservative independents (is Oakeshott a conservative? He doesn’t sound like one - more like a committed Christian social activist) have backed state Labor governments before. Steve Bracks has been playing a very useful role for Labor by calmly demonstrating how these independents could happily work with a Labor government.
is there really any realistic chance that independent country conservatives would ‘give the gong’ to the ALP? Surely this is just brinksmanship. The Independents pretend to be negotiating with the ALP to up the ante with the Libs, and the ALP pretend to be making deals to force the Libs into making stupid concessions that make them look weak
the real focus should now be on the friction between the independents, the Nats and the Libs.
as I understand it there is currently no written agreement between the Nats and the Libs, so no Coalition exists, and if the Independents can get whetever they want then the Nats want a bit of that loving too.
pull up a chair and enjoy the fight. Soemtime this week Barnaby is going to go postal
Personally, I hope the Indies dig in and demand major concessions from the coalition as this will irritate the hell out fo the NATS and accelerate the frictions within the coalition. We already heard some of that this morning — classic collective acvtion problem here!
Troy C: Didn’t Centrebet have Labor to win by a longshot over the Coalition just one week ago? If the betting market always got it right, no-one would bother running the Melbourne Cup.
Skink: I fully expect Oakeshott to lean Labor purely out of spite. Of all the independents, he seems the most unhinged (yes, even more so than Katter). Mind you, I have a sneaking suspicion there are some within the Liberal party who want that to happen. Better an ineffective Labor Government having to deal with a Green Senate and some independents (who would then lose their seats next election), than an ineffective Coalition Government.
Remember, these guys can’t even agree on the mining tax, climate change or asylum seekers. The three “big issues” (or non-issues, depending on your POV) of the campaign.
It would suit the Nats better to paint the independents as Labor dupes rather than bring them behind a Coalition government. The constant focus then would be on how much more effective and prominent the independents are. Even if there was enough money in the Budget (very doubtful) to give every Nationals seat a bag of goodies that that would still be seen as ultimately deriving from ‘independent power’.
As was pointed out on Insiders yesterday that would have every National’s electorate wondering if they should have an independent too. S0, for the Nats, saving the party is probably a higher goal than getting into government immediately.
Also, is the angry, aggressive style of the current Liberal Party really a comfortable fit for these independents? Gillard is acknowledged as an accomplished, respectful negotiator and that may be good for the independents blood pressure.
John64: Unfortunately Centrebet doesn’t provide a third option, “Neither”. That’s where my money would be going, now. It must be apparent to even the most stubborn observers, that there are two many variables in the mix for this parliament to function. Yes, I know, there’s a long and illustrious history of successful minority State governments. But let me ask this: How many of those State governments had six — six — sitting on the cross benches? One or two or three, yes it might have been workable. Six, no way.
You are probably wrong Troy. Firstly, there are only four true independents - the other two are more or less locked in. Secondly, there is an enormous amount of self-interest for the independents here in making this work. They have an unparalleled opportunity and I don’t think they are going to waste it.
Having just seen Wilkie’s list if priorities he will clearly have to back Labor. Sure, they are well to the left of current Labor but it is inconceivable that he will back Abbott.
“The Nationals are also raising their heads, saying they won’t automatically support everything the Liberal Party does in a Liberal minority government.”
I fail to see how that isn’t the final nail in the coffin for the coalition’s claim to be able to deliver stable government. It’s looking less like a coalition than a loosely alligned group of tribes.
Speak to me about a parliament that functioned with six cross-benchers holding the balance of power.
That is not an argument Troy - just a cheap debating flourish.
The Independents are under zero obligation to agree with each other on the mining tax, climate change or anything else. (And I for one bet that you could get all but Katter to agree on the substantive elements of a climate change policy, if you were seriously trying). All they have to do is act responsibly, which they are doing, and eventually come to support one side or the other on supply and confidence votes. Everything else can be negotiated on an issue-by-issue basis. That’s, um, how it’s supposed to work. Everybody else needs to stop freaking out.
Meanwhile, at the moment I expect that a new election would favour the Coalition, but Abbott would want to be careful about not looking like he’s gunning for it quite so blatantly. Because that would really annoy people.
@Troy
At this point in the game, CentreBets publicity craving pronouncements are about as useful as Alby Schultz reading the entrails of roadkill in an attempt to discern the result. Anyway, if all those abusive phone calls from Alby and his right bully boys over the weekend are anything to go by, it would seem that other conservative clairvoyants are no longer sharing your optimism
Christopher Pine says threatening phone calls are nothing out of the ordinary in the Coalition - all just part of the cut and thrust of robust democracy. I’m not quite sure that was the response from Rob Oakeshott was looking for, but recollecting NSW Nationals leader Andrew Stoner once proclaiming he wanted to blindfold Alby Schultz, and “shoot him, maybe we’ll just have to be it tad more understandingof their right-wing redneck culture *laughing*.
I suspect the best indicator of the likely outcome is that quietly confident steelly resolve we’ve seen from Julia Gillard as the coalition has imploded ever since Toxic Tony temper tantrum over the costings.
I am with Lucy-
Why does everyone seem to consider that the Government should be able to get in power and enact every one of their policies without argument or exception? whoever forms Government, half the population did not vote for, so with the independents as they are we may well get a representative debate, some issues will pass, some won’t, but the Governing Party will get to set the ‘tone’ of the government, not dictate their will as has recently been the case.
@David Sanderson
The Nats who run the local party branches in Lyne have been trying to paint Rob Oakeshott as a Labor stooge since he decided to run for Mark Vaile’s spot. They did the same in the state seat of Port Macquarie from the day he turned independent. They have used the same tactic on state independent MP for Port Macquarie, Peter Besseling as well and we’ll get more of the same come the state election next year.
The Nats ran their usual incompetent campaign in Lyne. This time it featured a replay of the ‘a vote for Oakeshott is a vote for Labor’ line and a lot of gossip-mongering by devoted Nationals (what’s left of them, anyway) along the lines of ‘did you know Oakeshott always votes with Labor/is giving his preferences to Labor’. Both untrue, but telling porkies in election campaigns is a National tradition. Tony Windsor and Bob Katter woul have had much the same treatment in their electorates. I believe that a few independent candidates further north in NSW are considering legal action after they too were slandered by the Nats.
Now, after years of mud-slinging, lies, innuendo, sulking and accusations the Coalition would suddenly have us all believe that Oakeshott and his fellow independents are really sons of the National Party at heart and will, of course, return to the fold and side with a minority Abbott government. In your dreams.
I think Bob Katter summed up the current situation perfectly when he pointed out that the Nationals had in effect, held the balance of power of the 12 out of the last 15 years, but had managed to extract little in the way of benefits from rural Australia out of their Liberal masters.
Why? Because the Liberals see the unquestioning support of the National as their birthright. Even sadder for rural Australia, as long as the Nationals got Cabinet representation disproportionately greater than their numbers in Parliament might otherwise dictate, they have been all too happy to be play the obedient wife in this rather ugly marriage of convenience.
Toxic Tony is only just realising the ” circle the wagons, no enemies on the right” orthodoxy that used to compel most Australian Conservative politicians to stick together like wet turds in a bucket was left dead, buried and cremated at the polls ten days ago
We are in effect, as Rob Oakshot pointed out early last week, in a whole new political paradigm.
OLDSKOOL and LUCY are right: tension between competing interests is not inimical to good government; it’s a necessary condition for it, and is the entire basis of our federal structure.
Elements with different priorities are supposed to be able to block each other, such that they will do so for all but the most all-round sensible policies, or at least acceptable compromises.
We’ve become unused to this with the winner-take-all party contests in which the Senate is just an arm of whichever party controls it. But as Fareed Zakaria said of fledgeling democracies, “the trouble with these winner-take-all systems is that, in most democratizing countries, the winner really does take all.”
With a bit of patience and luck, we may see a brief outbreak of actual democracy the way it was designed, and the way it used to work in the early years of federation.
My gut feel is that these guys aren’t gunning for gifts, but are more interested in who will work with them to redress the current imbalance away from independents and minorities interests. And if that is actually true, then which party and their policies is not totally irrelevant but definitely less relevant to these boys.
The three wise men realise that this is a once in a life time proposition. I don’t believe any of them are stupid. That they think differently and more expansively than the two major parties, I believe is a once in a lifetime gift to Australia and minority Australians.
If all they achieve in the three years, is to put the spotlight on the difficult lot of rural Australians, and to redress the political imbalance, then I believe Australia as a whole will be better off for it.
It comes down to the senate. There is not a snowball’s chance in hell the lieberals can do anything after July 1 when the coalition are reduced to a rump of 34 senators.
Newsflash
Coalition now ahead of Labor on 2 party preferred by 500 votes, see AEC website
Wonder how Gillard will spin that now.
They are still ahead by 500,000 votes on first preference.
Why read past this first sentence when it so patently wrong? Australia has a PM, in fact we have had PM’s since 1901 - only when a “new” PM is sworn in does the previous PM’s term expire.
Abbot may not be able to do anything after July 1 but maybe he can stop the spendathon and save us all from the wasted 5 billion yet to be spent on school canteens and 43 Bn (nice to have but we don’t need it) spendathon on NBN. Save us too from the RSPT stupidity. Only labor/Greens could believe they can tax this country back to prosperity!