I see you did mean “unanimously” and in both cases you are just plain wrong.

The problem with Rudd and Gillard not having destroyed the good work of Hawke-Keating and Howard-Costello and claiming credit for what mining companies and other taxpaying businesses have made possible in the way of better economic stats (apart from productivity for one) than nearly all other countries is that they are a mixture of the old Whitlamite spend up on things which make us feel good Labor while pretending to be the real old Labor which battled for the old typically unionised working class and the modern cynical careerists, often private school boys, who, at best, turned to Labor because of some romanticised view of its values. They will spend what productive people make and pay in taxes (or borrowed money) to buy the votes that keep them in a position to do good (if extravagant) things and bad things like handing mining leases to mates.

I would be inclined to say “spare me from the help of my friends” except that your mindless cheer squad usage was echoed by Emma Alberici (from memory) who also said that Gillard was re-elected unanimously (your word “anonymously” was, I presume, a mistake on top of a mistake). BS. She was re-elected nem. con. [nemine contradicente] which concealed in reality the opposition of almost half the caucus. Haven’t you noticed the resignations and sackings?

@ Achmed - What you say is absolutely right. I do not question that the nation is in good shape when compared with other OECD countries. The problem is Gillard.
First, the way she became PM. Many, many people do not accept her legitimacy. Second, she has managed to comprehensively stuff up just about every process she has undertaken. Third, for heaven sake doesn’t anybody realise that 31% of the primary vote just doesn’t cut it? I will predict her support will be all down hill from here. It is all about Gillard, and bug+ar the Australian people.
If it were otherwise, why didn’t she step aside and allow Rudd, who has a far better chance of winning the election than she has, to keep a Labor government in power?
I am totally depressed about what happened yesterday.

Tx. I guess it was a slip of the pen that BK wrote “an absolute motion”. (For dummies like me he should have written “an absolute majority of the 150 members eligible to vote.”)

I see that Abbott is claiming the three independents were supporting his no confidence in the government however I think that is extremely unlikely, especially in the case of Tony Windsor who has given many interviews in the past 48 hours. I am absolutely certain he would have used the actual vote to support the PM; and equally that he retains an abiding dislike and distrust of Abbott.

However, this won’t stop every paper — including Fairfax and News, and of course the ABC which these days just mirrors whatever is on the front page of the Australian — repeating this untruth/speculation. I can only hope the independents get interviewed soon and clarify.

Note: There are 150 members in the HOR Therefore, 76 votes are required for an absolute majority.

There were 73 votes to suspend standing orders to hold the no-confidence motion, 71 against; the motion required an absolute motion to get up, so failed.
.
Worth noting that key independents Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor voted “yes”. Does this bode ill for whoever wins the leadership ballot? Would the independents push them to a swift election?

I am feeling deeply mathematically/constitutionally challenged so if anyone can help, please …. Why did the 73 to 71 vote not succeed? What is an “absolute motion” in words that mean something to me? (Obviously not “absolute majority” which it was.)

On BK’s second point, Shirley it means that those independents simply wanted the opportunity to demonstrate their support of Gillard in the eventual confidence vote. As to their attitude to an election, who knows. As moot as it is, one can also note that Katter has said he would consider joining Labor if Rudd became PM.