Watch it, sunshine

Nicole says:

08:55am | 09/09/10

To be honest Sven, I was more than peeved at first. But after what’s happening now, I am ecstatic. It’s just hilarious. And it’s only going to get better, watching them rip each other to bits.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

05:48pm | 09/09/10

Did your mummy ever tell you that “pride goes before a fall”? ? Enjoy it whilst you can, remember MINORITY government, it’ll be all over by Christmas 2010

r says:

11:24pm | 08/09/10

Don’t be too smug chum, we’ll be back at the polls by January.

Northern Steve says:

08:07pm | 09/09/10

Actually Jeffb, the LNP, running as a pre-election declared coalition did win more seats and more primary votes.

You can split it up any way you want to prove a point, but comparing Labor to Liberal is not realistic because Labor stood in significantly more seats than the Liberals who by and large didn’t compete with the Nats, and your figure for the Liberals also don’t include Qld, which has 30 seats.  No credibility on that comparison. 

You might get away with claiming an equal number of seats for coalition and Labor if you exclude Tony Crook, but to be honest, to put such dodgy data up to prove some irrelevant point, and then later on claim it doesn’t mean anything and you’re doing it for the public does little for your credibility mate.  Maybe you should steer clear of the clag before posting, hey?

jeffb says:

01:45pm | 09/09/10

Steve, I know how little it actually means in the whole scheme of things but unfortunately theres a significant portion of Australians who don’t. Some people think the Labor minority government is completely illegitimate, which these numbers show the notion to be utter rubbish. They’re convinced that the LNP won more seats, more votes and a high 2pp. Thats just not true.

Simon said says:

11:00pm | 08/09/10

Yup.

And The Oz had a very good piece on the counts today, showing that Labor will carry the final 2PP result once all is done.

My post on it this am - an entirely polite one -  was “moderated”,  as they say…

I guess I’m about done here. I’m not a fan of attempted airbrushing of history.

Northern Steve says:

08:27pm | 08/09/10

No it says nothing.  It has never meant anything.  Regardless of whether you use Labor vs Libs, Labor/Green vs Coalition, Labor vs Coalition, Nats vs Greens whatever.  The first person to start playing that game was Gillard on election night, and it meant as little then as it does now.  Abbott was stupid to even play the game.  It was never votes that were going to decide the government, it was seats, and the independents. 
Can we move on to relevant things please?

Sven Gali says:

04:14pm | 09/09/10

No, Barry. You are.

They were elected as Independents. If their constituents had wanted to vote for the Coalition, there was nothing to stop them from doing so, and they would have.

Barry says:

02:24pm | 09/09/10

@Sven Gali
I think you’re really missing the point here . . . .

MarK says:

08:52pm | 08/09/10

Hahahaha nisthow.

The decision might have made sense but after all the carry on I am unhappy to say that for the first time in my life I am actually embarrassed by my sitting member.

He has acted disgracefully and without class.

Northern Steve says:

08:21pm | 08/09/10

I don’t see anyone going bananas?  Or is this just an excuse to parade your little video?  Is that yours nosthow?

Such a cutting commentary on modern conservative politics.  Some real deep analysis of policy and ideology.  It’s no wonder the Conservatives can’t rate with such geniuses (or is that genii?) on the progressive side.  I’m convinced!  I’ve had my conversion on the road to Damascus!  Never again will I vote anything other than Labor having now watched that video!  Such an inspiration!!!!

(facepalm)

Sven Gali says:

08:05pm | 08/09/10

Oakeshott and Windsor “did their job and represented the views of the people who elected them” perfectly, TimB.

They were elected as Independents.

TimB says:

07:21pm | 08/09/10

Course it’d be ok. They come from Conservative electorates. If they did their job and represented the views of the people that elected them, the decision would have been be a no-brainer.

Had Oakeshott and Windsor come from LEFT-leaning electorates, I (and I’m sure many others) wouldn’t be as ticked. I mean no-one is bitching that Bandt and Wilkie supported Labor, are they?

Seano says:

09:00pm | 08/09/10

Timmy - I think you need to go back and reread some of your own truimphalistic posts.

As for hopeless how about 11 billion dollars in uncosted promises from a bloke who wants to run the economy.

@Andrew - as I haven’t seen you post anything particularly clever I guess I’ll take that compliment with a grain of salt.

TimB says:

07:25pm | 08/09/10

Who Seano? I’m curious.

Personally I’m not claiming that the Coalition has a mandate on any of its legislation. In fact I didn’ even vote for the Coalition based on its own policies…I voted for them because they were going to stop Labor from enacting theirs-the ETS, the Mining Tax, and to a much lesser extent (coz it was never getting off the ground), the internet filter.

Oh and I voted for the Coalition on the basis of general competence. Labor is hopeless.

Andrew says:

06:46pm | 08/09/10

Maybe the smartest thing I’ve seen written by you.

Shane From Melbourne says:

06:56pm | 08/09/10

Can I have my raw cabbage with a bit of bacon and butter, please?

Matt says:

07:11pm | 08/09/10

Can’t wait for the removal of chaplains from schools and the removal of tax reductions for the church, will be long overdue

farkurnell says:

09:48pm | 08/09/10

agreed Bob,keep putting Tony up and it will be longer.Hasn’t the penny dropped yet ,Tony’s Labors best asset.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:43pm | 08/09/10

Shane :  Three years ?  what are you smoking. ?  Judging by the first day of this circus , it will be about 3 weeks.  Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyy !

Northern Steve says:

08:10pm | 08/09/10

There’s an easy way to stop hearing the ‘whinging’ - stop reading.
To be honest, Shane, you seem to be about the only person whinging here.  Most of the rest are participating in their democratic right to debate the actions of their government.

BobM says:

06:44pm | 08/09/10

It won’t be three years buddy…...

TC says:

03:30pm | 09/09/10

How well do most redheads handle sunshine?

Belle says:

09:40pm | 08/09/10

I’m with you, jb. Yesterday I was depressed, today I am amused. The Gillard circus will be most entertaining- backflips, juggling, clowns, knife throwers- it’s got it all!

Bruce says:

04:45pm | 08/09/10

Who let the dogs out !!!

Steely Dan says:

12:35pm | 09/09/10

@ Super D

“Sorry I thought it was implied that the ALP was supporting the legislation.”
That’s right.  The ALP will support some of the Greens’ policies (and some of the independents’).  But the ALP aren’t forced to accept their policies - they’ll only back what they think their electors will let them.  If they agree to everything Bandt wants to put forward they’ll be popular with the Greens, but unpopular with traditional ALP supporters, and they won’t get elected next time round.  It’s called compromise.

“I’m not sure exactly what the problem with pointing out that as a far left party the idea that the Greens are a balancing force is nonsensical.”
I’ll try again.  Holding the balance of power in no way implies that they have to be in ‘the middle’.  You’re confusing an imaginary left-right spectrum with an imaginary pair of scales.  The spectrum and scales aren’t going to conflict any more than they risk being hit by your train of thought.  They are independent metaphors. 

“Perhaps there is some legislation that both the Coalition and Greens would support but the ALP wouldn’t though I can’t think what it would be”
Try harder. The internet filter will be the big one.

Johnny says:

08:46pm | 08/09/10

I’m not sure you understand what the phrase ‘balance of power’ refers to. It doesn’t imply that they are in between the major parties politically and are a balancing/stablizing force. It means their vote will decide whether bills introduced will be passed or not, since the ALP and Lib numbers are roughly the same.

Northern Steve says:

08:04pm | 08/09/10

I don’t think Labor supports this push to revamp the tax.  I suspect they would support Bob Brown sticking his head in a bucket of water at this stage.  This is going to be a really good test of the capacity of Gillard to negotiate this coalition.  Labor, who wants the tax as it is now, the Greens who want it expanded, and he independents, who knows that they want, and an opposition that would scrap it.  If she can survive this, she might do okay.  I’ll be honest and say I’m not happy she won in the end, but I’m hoping that Labor has learned from the first disastrous term and will do better.  Hawke and Howard both had some ordinary moments in their first terms and went on to do OK.

Greens having balance of power does not necessarily mean that they are between the two major parties.  One Nation help balance of power in Qld at one stage, and you could hardly call them centre.

Super D says:

06:04pm | 08/09/10

@Steely Dan

Sorry I thought it was implied that the ALP was supporting the legislation.

I’m not sure exactly what the problem with pointing out that as a far left party the idea that the Greens are a balancing force is nonsensical.  Perhaps there is some legislation that both the Coalition and Greens would support but the ALP wouldn’t though I can’t think what it would be, I’d be interested in any ideas on that front.

Steely Dan says:

04:43pm | 08/09/10

@ Super D
“The Greens won 13% of the vote thereby allowing them to help pass legislation in the senate that the coalition disagrees with.”
...and the ALP agree with.  That’s crucial - not because the ALP’s votes are special or magical - but because that gives them the numbers.  Funny how this is only seen as undemocratic when the numbers don’t go the way some people would have preferred.

“They are the far left fringe, they can’t rationally claim to be between the centre-left ALP and the centre-right Coalition.”
Well now you’re just being silly.

Shane From Melbourne says:

08:26pm | 08/09/10

No politician is cool enough to rate an AC/DC song….

Ned says:

04:57pm | 08/09/10

Rosie, Rosie; if they had gone for Abbot, then it would have been him that was installed by the Amigos. Yes, he got more votes, but it’s not the first time a party with more votes ended up in opposition - remember Beazley in 1998 (I think)? The best thing for the Coalition (that’s the Liberals and the Nationals, just like the ALP and the Greens) to do is to whinge up until - say - Saturday - then accept their position and get on with it.

After they’ve stopped whinging they might realise that the Amigos have really only guaranteed Labor confidence. They can just as easily vote against the government on any other issue.

antman says:

04:43pm | 08/09/10

John Howard was a PM installed by a majority of members of the House of Reps that identified themselves as being on the conservative side of politics. Bob Hawke was a PM installed by a majority of members of the House of Reps who happened to also be members of the ALP. How were they any different to Julia Gillard? At the end of the day, Parliament chooses the Government, not the people.

Richard says:

10:44pm | 08/09/10

I think we always realised that a vote for the Greens was a vote for Labor, but what I don’t think the voters of Lyne and New England realised was that a vote for Oakeshott and Windsor was a vote for Labor.

Steely Dan says:

04:47pm | 08/09/10

Well, a vote for the Greens was a vote for the Greens, but if you’re saying that a vote for the Greens was a vote supporting the ALP over the coalition it was a hung parliament, you’d obviously be correct.

So you disagree with all the posters saying that the Greens will try and change Labor’s agenda (for good or bad)?  That’s a big split in the Anti-Green camp.

MarK says:

08:48pm | 08/09/10

A Death Duty policy is like really good in a town full of retirees

You are pretty right with your analysis too FR. While incumbency is always desired really the libs were always looking at 2 terms out of the treasury seats given history. It was a credit to Abbott and an pure damnation on Gillard and Rudds terms as leaders that they got as close as they did.

The Rudd PM’ship will be considered the worst ever - until we give Julia a real go. She was up to her eyeballs in all the disasters and I am serious when I say that as a manager she is out of her depth. She can play politics but get tangible results…..no way known.

If you had to pick a time to be in opposition a second term of an ordinary government with diminished talent through loss of seats and retirements trying to hold ex nat indies in line with a ex lib/green/whatever indie and a green would be a dream come true.

The best thing for Abbott is he can look like an alternative PM and actually engage the Greens on their idiotic politics without fear. Gillard will have to step carefully with them.

The other thing in Abbott’s favour is Oakeshott is toast next election, Windsor will retire, Tasmania can be worked along with the other 2 southern states. He has upside. Gillard will be walking on eggshells all term.

The only real hassle for Abbott is Turnbull will sense the time is ripe as well and will be keen to sit in the big seat again. Still a brawl in opposition is sort of meh and only really worries the political junkies and no lifers. Personally I hope Turnbull gets rolled again but that is just me and a complete opposition to anything that resembles a carbon tax or price on carbon.

it sure will be fun. Day 1 and already there is a difference on whether the mining tax is in the review. Good times

Front Row says:

07:02pm | 08/09/10

MarK -
Can you imagine how the Greens’ new death duties thing is going to play down at the Port Macquarie Bowls Club at the Friday Night Happy Hour?
I know Abbott’s probably pissed off because he’s over-competitive, but if it was me, by about Monday I reckon I’d be laughing my head off.
This Italian farce will last until July at the latest, and by then we’ll see the utter collapse of the Labor Party in its present form.  The scary thing is the amount or power the Conservatives will then hold for the next generation.  That’s not good, having a Tarago Opposition, take it from me.

New DLP, anyone?

Farkurnell says:

07:12pm | 08/09/10

Richard,That just cost you $2 ,but they will deduct it from the next $900
when GFC #2 arrives.

Matt says:

07:02pm | 08/09/10

Oh Richard you poor, spiteful, sour man. Your obviously a liberal coalition voter who can’t handle that your side lost,  and just like your party’s propaganda spinning leader you’ve got nothing but negative rubbish to put forward in any conversation. Did you give your $900 cheque back???

fish says:

04:51pm | 09/09/10

@TimB

C) Hold a community based focus group

I think we know the answer to that one

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:34pm | 08/09/10

Heather :  Well said indeed !  ......and they are linked to the remnants of the failed Rudd/Gillard experiment. 
The @%#* will hit the fan when the Greens put unsubtle pressure on Gillard to introduce death taxes in payment for policy passage through the Senate next year.  That , of course , is assuming this cobbled together ragtag posing as a government survives till then .

Heather says:

07:10pm | 08/09/10

The Greens *and* the fruitloops? Surely they are one and the same?

TimB says:

04:25pm | 08/09/10

Well therin lies the rub doesn’t it? If hypothetically, Adam Bandt is crazy enough to put up some idiotic, tree-huggy, devoid-of-all-logic, fantasy-based legislation as a private member bill what happens? Will he behave or hold the government to ransom over it? (Same goes for any legislation championed by the others)

And in the case of a ransom demand…does Labor:

A) In good conscience reject the legislation & risk suffering the wrath of the extortioner, potentially losing Government then and there.

or

B) Cave in to every crazy demand, and subsequently risk get thrown out of office by the Australian people at the next election for being weak.

Basically, do Labor do the right thing and risk losing power straight away or the grubby thing in an attempt to hold on to power as long as possible?

I guess the stability of the parliament will depend on just how well the Crossbenchers behave.

Seano says:

07:07pm | 09/09/10

@Macon - Small means reasonable. I would have thought that was obvious.

@MarK - I can’t personally name 5 people who have been in Afghanistan either but I would not deny their right to march on Anzac day. It’s a silly line of argument.

@Wayne - Low income earners might also have been concerned at the 11 billion dollar “mistake” in Abbott’s election costings. Low income earners might also been concerned when big business passed tax increases back to consumers in the former of price rises, especially when those taxes were going to fund middle class welfare. Low income earners might also have been concerned at the prospect of work"choices” mark 2. Luckily for low income earners Abbott couldn’t even negotiate a deal with conservative independents.

@S - Well for a start people likely to agree to a tax rise which helps to protect the environment would be those that voted Greens. There were a lot of them. Then there’s the people who would still pay said increase but voted based on other issues. And then there’s those concerned about the future of our planet.

S says:

04:18pm | 09/09/10

Seano,

How it is that “most” australian would be happy to pay a small tax on carbon.

Most og te country voted for two parties with little to no climate change policies.

I’m sure you know how amny people actually voted for the Greens, how is this “most” Australian?

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

01:53pm | 09/09/10

Seano :  A “small tax increase ” , do you really think it will be small . ?
Low income earners would like to have a word with you on just how your idea of a ” small tax increase ” affects their standard of living.
Families would face much higher costs of living . I don’t think you understand the effect a carbon price will have on the community.
Rates , insurance , freight , food , fuel , transport , and just about anything else you can name will go up in price.
Do you think for one minute that a carbon price on industry will stop carbon pollution . ?  You had better hope that it doesn’t because if industries stop producing your job may be gone along with thousands of others.  Charging a carbon price will do zilch on reducing carbon output .Invest in technology to reduce it at it’s source , that is one answer.  The other is nuclear energy , we have the raw resourses , lets look much more closely at that angle.

Macon Paine says:

10:53am | 09/09/10

@ Seano

“I’m prepared to pay a small tax increase to reduce pollution. I think you’ll find many Australians are. The environment is important to all of us and the future of our kids.”

Ok just out of curiosity what do you consider to be a “small tax increase”? And at what point would you say no thats too much?

Seano says:

10:07am | 09/09/10

@Andy - and if the Greens had decided to go with Abbott as the conservative independents went with Labor would that have been dishonest?

Give the situation that arose after the election there is nothing wrong with the Greens picking a side they felt they could best work with to form a stable government in the same way that 2 of the 3 conservative independents did. What you clowns keep forgetting is that neither side won a mandate and if Abbott had been a half decent negotiator he would now be leading a minority government.

You need to do better than hollow meaningless rhetoric.

MarK says:

09:14am | 09/09/10

On the sorry day can anyone actually name 5 of the people we said sorry to?

What about a sorry day for the ones not rescued from abuse? Nah - we don’t want to talk about them do we. Not PC enough.

Rabbit Proof Fence…...first thing they did after filming was pack the young girl off to boarding school seprarting her from her family “for her betterment” or some such shit…./roll eyes

Andy D says:

08:37am | 09/09/10

Seano, it’s quite simple really…

Did the Nationals announce before the election that they would partner with the Liberals? Yes they did.

Did the Greens announce before the election that they would partner with Labor. No they did not. Did the Greens sign a ‘negotiated accord’ with Labor after the election? Yes they did.

Like I said, either dishonest or idiots, take your pick.

Seano says:

08:27am | 09/09/10

@Wayne - You guys have got to get your stories straight either the Greens are just another faction of the ALP or their some evil leftist group who are going to force their agenda on the parliament.

Of course both are bollocks. Meaningless rhetoric. How do you think the Greens and Labor would fair at the next election if your dire and silly predictions of the Greens running the parliament came true? Did the Dems run the show when they held the Senate? No.

At least if the Greens disagree with the ALP they are still free to vote their own way, unlike the Nationals.

I’m prepared to pay a small tax increase to reduce pollution. I think you’ll find many Australians are. The environment is important to all of us and the future of our kids.

I am however not prepared to pay higher prices to fun Tony Abbotts middle class welfare. If people want to have more babies they should be able to afford them first.

The National Sorry Day gave emotional support to many Aboriginal people. No compo claims though,

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:07am | 09/09/10

Seano :  You just don’t get it , do you old mate ?  Next July the Greens will control the Senate and their demand on Labor’s functioning as a govt. will be to pass legislation introduced into the House of Reps. by Bandt
the barbarian ( death taxes ).  Labor have always wanted to do the same , but lacked the guts to introduce the Bill so they will be a willing party to this draconian Green policy.
By the way , Seano , have you spoken openly on the additional daily cost of living the Australian community will pay for a Carbon price. ?
No !  Just like Labor the Greens lack the guts to explain the facts to the electorate.
Would you also tell us one , just one , benefit derived from sorry day. ?

Seano says:

09:18pm | 08/09/10

@Andy - I doubt your as tired as I am about the bleating and false misrepresentation of the Greens as just an ALP faction. The Greens are on the same side of the political spectrum but they are an independent party (ETS anyone?).  The childish stupidity of the implication of some isudious relation between the parties when the Greens demonstratably act independently and the Nationals toe the coalition line is typical of meaningless right rhetoric we’ve come to expect. What else have you got besides windy rhetoric and paranoia?

@Wayne - Well the Greens have one seat so that’s not going to happen. Will be back to retract your comments when it doesn’t? I doubt it, I’m still waiting for retractions on the sorry day not leading to a flood of compensation claims.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

07:59pm | 08/09/10

Seano :  Sorry to rain on your parade but the National party are conservatives just as the liberals are Conservatives and they work in a Coalition.
Will you be quite as happy with the Greens when they promote their death taxes policy. ?

Andy D says:

07:03pm | 08/09/10

I’m so tired of all this bleating about the Nationals every time someone points out that the Greens are an unofficial partner of Labor.

Let s be very clear, the Nationals are in an official Coalition with the Liberals and they are honest enough to say so before people are asked to vote. Anyone who votes for the Nationals knows they are voting for a Liberal/National Coalition with the Liberals as the senior partner.

On the other hand, the Greens and Labor pretend that they have no back room deals and will never have any until after the election when they suddenly announce they actually love each other and are thinking of having a commitment ceremony. Many people would be utterly stunned to discover their vote for the Greens was actually a vote for a Labor/Green partnership, just like many Labor voters would be horrified to discover they voted for a party that wants to partner with the Greens.

There is such a huge difference between the official, transparent and long running Liberal/National Coalition and the ad-hoc, murky links between Labor and the Greens that anyone who tries to justify one by referencing the other automatically gets labelled as dishonest or an idiot in my book.

Seano says:

05:48pm | 08/09/10

And the National party are what exactly?

Steve says:

06:42pm | 08/09/10

@Matthew: funny how all the drones of the dumbing down of the nations years think were in a bad way all the time. May be they listen to much to the local press and sound bytes from people who are misinformed?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSGE6860A820100907
hope you know not everyone thinks so!! Remember the huge debt from the Howard years we don’t want that one slid under us again do we??

Matthew says:

05:05pm | 08/09/10

Providing we all survive it we might be able to look back and think it was funny,.... personally I think we’re all stuffed.

Steely Dan says:

12:16pm | 09/09/10

Ads,

The Greens don’t have a mandate…  the ALP plus the Greens plus the three independents have the mandate.  They’ve formed a government.  it was in all the papers.

Ads says:

11:58am | 09/09/10

“not direct election by the public, it lacks a popular ‘mandate’.”

Totally agree.  That also puits the Greens’ pathetic 11% of support in focus - how can ANYONE claim they have a mandate with such little 2PP support?

Oh and Bob 40+% (Coalition) is larger than 11%.  I know you are the greens and aren’t all that good with numbers, but they are numbers of votes, and this is a democracy

Scarneck says:

10:06pm | 08/09/10

Front Row@06:52pm, you need help. Matt just presented the best brief I have ever seen on ‘how our parliament works’ and you said what?

GreenAcres says:

09:44pm | 08/09/10

It’s OK for you Matt @ 5:03pm. “basic Grade Seven social studies” you must understand that some of us conservatives were out on the farm and not in a library!

Front Row says:

06:52pm | 08/09/10

Matt - Your responding lines “if you don’t like it”... “you can go live in….” was pure Pauline Hanson.  Or fat-arsed white Republican male from the US.
Funny how the Far Left and the Far Right rapidly move around half an ideological loop and then meet up at the bum-end because they don’t know any better ‘eh?
Hitler was a vegeterian, for instance.

TB says:

05:45pm | 08/09/10

Nice summary Matt.

Matt says:

05:03pm | 08/09/10

AdamC - not sure which election you participated in, but this one was a direct one.

Everything happened the way it has since 1901 - we vote for a local member, and that local member bands together with like-minded members and they form a government.

The party system (which isn’t enshrined in the Constitution) makes it a bit easier for us to loosely choose which government we’d like.

But at its heart, the Westminster system is exactly that - we elect people and they do deals with each other. That’s pretty basic Grade Seven social studies.

If you don’t like the system which has worked for the last 109 years (with quite a few minority governments), you can go and live in the enlightened democracies of Cuba and Zimbabwe.

As for me, I quite like our system. As Tony Windsor said, this may not be the result some people wanted, but it was THE result.

And no radio stations had to be taken over for it to happen.

antman says:

04:35pm | 08/09/10

Every Australian government is the result of parliamentary deals. The public elect the 150 members of the House of Reps and then the House chooses the government. Just because a majority of those members have aligned like sheep with either Labor or the conservatives (in whatever permutation) for the past 60 years, does not mean that they the public have directly elected any government. How do you measure a mandate anyway?