Government by the phew

Trevor says:

04:26pm | 07/09/10

@TheRealDave, what on earth are you talking about? I listened to Katter’s press conference and it was the complete reverse: Rudd was doing his best to encourage Katter to support Labor!  The problem was that Rudd’s policies are not the same as Gillard’s, and that Katter couldn’t get the commitments from Gillard that he felt he would be able to get from Rudd.

Katter managed to explain this fairly well in between journalists yelling questions at him that failed to acknowledge any of the points of subtlety.  We have a media that’s fed on black-and-white conflicts and simply can’t handle the nuance.

Andrew says:

04:35pm | 07/09/10

I think the opposite. Putting Kev on the back bench would be a direct insult. I reckon he would either resign or cause a massive amount of trouble. Either way Labor would be in real strife.

She’ll give him foreign affairs and placate him as much as possible. Keep your friends close….

Difficult to believe a Party which lost the primary and the two party prefered and a sh88load of seats (ie their majority) has been able to form government.

Goes to show the absolute desperation Labor had to hang on to power.

If Libs can stay together and act responsibly in opposition they should win by a mile in the coming election.

I reckon Oakeshott will get voted out next time. Windsor maybe as well. Katter probably has the safest seat in Australia.

Nicole says:

04:47pm | 07/09/10

Gawd Dave, if you want porn that bad, go and buy some DVDs. As for Kev, he’s up to something. He’ll have his revenge and soon I think.

TheRealDave says:

04:57pm | 07/09/10

@Nicole - I thought you would have ‘got it’ in regards to my facetious remarks about 100mb broadband for porn. Wait….you weren’t one of those people who denigrated the biggest advancement in telecommunications infrastructure this country will ever see as just a toy for nerds to download porn on were you?

For shame.

farkurnell says:

07:09pm | 07/09/10

The dynamic tagteam from the deep north - the Rudster & the Katter. Onya Joolz ,your knife saved us.

Keith hammersmith says:

07:34pm | 07/09/10

“biggest advancement in telecommunications infrastructure this country will ever see ”  with the biggest internet filter slapped right on top of it.

showtime says:

09:53pm | 07/09/10

few picked up on the fact that Abbott chnaged his stance on the filter and would support it

TimB says:

11:30am | 08/09/10

@ Showtime…when the hell did he say that? Last I heard (about a week before the election) was the Coalition were opposing it. (Something that really should have been shouted from the rooftops).

Sources please.

Front Lobe says:

07:44pm | 08/09/10

Now look here,
Am I the only one who is seeing this or have I been thinking about this too long?
Bob K has just given his old mate Kevin the most perfect gift imaginable. Far, far better than what Windsor and Rob Oakeshott gave Gillard. 
By siding with the Coalition, Bob Katter has given Kevin a right of veto on the Whole Government.  All Kevin now has to do is quit because he doesn’t get what he wants, slap in a few tell-alls about what really happened and quit.  Then there’s a by-election. Labor dies.  Coalition takes by-election: 75/75.  He knows that his former mates know he’s just mad enough to do it.  Money is obviously not an issue to Kev and, were he interested, Coalition would give him any diplomatic/consular job he wants, including Rob Hill’s old UN gig in New York.
Alternately, Julia struggles, and Kevin makes a leadership comeback on the basis that he can deliver Katter’s support.  What do you reckon Bob and Kevin were talking about for two days at Ruddy’s in Brisbane?
Smart bloke on the long game, is Bob.  Kevin, too.

Pamela Skipper says:

05:29pm | 07/09/10

You watch the Communist and Unionist come out of the woodwork now as they were only waiting for this moment.  I hope also that Rudd has to answer a few unanswered questions that he has avoided for the past few months.  I just wonder how long he can hold his silence.  This is a disgraceful day for Australia not a historic one.  Very disappointed!!!Let’s see how long it lasts before someone is knifed in the back.

Phil says:

06:56pm | 07/09/10

Alex. EXcept they have stuff all chance of getting legislation through the senate before July 2011. By this time they will be pulling their hair out, well all except Peter G.

The factional warlords will be hissing at Julia, and Kevin will be travelling the world at our expense.

Labor cannot claim a mandate to govern, yes they got the nods, cept wait for the 8 bn hole in the mining tax which will be quickly fixed by the greens wanting an even bigger share.

My bet is that we will be at the polls late next year early the next and the Libs will win in a landslide. Oakshott may not get reelected after this and the Greeny will definately not unless labor have agreed to not run against him for his support now and the future, as the libs will not preference him.

I wish Julia good luck cause shes gunna need it big time.

Vince says:

07:17pm | 07/09/10

44%of the voters did not want to spend $43 billion on a network that is mostly wasted or not wanted.  How can morally and legally they do it?

Tony of Poorakistan says:

08:12pm | 07/09/10

Better have a read of the Greens policies on their website.

Then have a read of the 9 page agreement about changes in the House of Reps, particularly private members bills.

Then be afraid. Be very afraid.

Jane says:

10:11pm | 07/09/10

Tony.Another doozy, check the wording out vcarefully:
nitiate a three-stage process to establish a republic with an Australian head of state, consisting of:

  * a non-binding plebiscite to determine whether Australians support a republic;
  * a consultative process to determine a model for the selection of a head of state; and
  * a referendum to endorse such a model.
It begs the question, “Why bother going to all that expense”  It’s exactly the same as setting up Committees with pre-ordained conclusions, why not just say - “te determine the amount”......

Tony of Poorakistan says:

05:21am | 08/09/10

I want to see if she keeps her fiirst election promise - to process the illegals in East Timor, rather than put them in four-star hotels in Australia.

This will be the litmus test.

Is she honest or did she lie?

Trevor says:

09:16am | 08/09/10

@Tony, if you had actually read Gillard’s Lowy Institute speech (instead of 15-second soundbites from the media), you would know that she never promised processing in East Timor in the first place.

But then, using primary sources instead of the lazy summaries of a journalist would require a bit of effort, wouldn’t it?

Steely Dan says:

01:56pm | 08/09/10

@ Vince

“44%of the voters did not want to spend $43 billion on a network that is mostly wasted or not wanted.  How can morally and legally they do it?”

Morally:  Assuming your figure is correct, how could it be immoral to implement a policy when a minority of Australians disagree with it?
Legally:  They’re the government!  Go ask the GG!

James1 says:

06:16pm | 08/09/10

Tony, illegal immigrants do not get processed, they get deported.  You have a real problem understanding simple English, my friend.

Jimmy says:

04:37pm | 07/09/10

Unelected? How do you figure that?

We elected our representatives and they formed a government - seems to be the quitessential elected government in my book.

Although I won’t take that bet

john says:

04:50pm | 07/09/10

It was those miners that layed off so much of their workforce at the first sign of the GFC that saved us?  Awesome, i’ll let my mates who are only now just getting back into the industry know that being sacked was really a favour

C. Hanson says:

04:56pm | 07/09/10

All PMs are elected by their parliamentary party members. They are never directly elected by the electorate at large. (Of course, they must win their own seat.)

TheRealDave says:

04:59pm | 07/09/10

Umm Ziggster, how exactly is Fibre ‘outdated’ technology? Its leading edge and will, unlike wireless, be in use in 50 years time at speeds we can only imagine right now. Pushing wireless as ‘comparable’ to fibre is not only fraudulent but exposes the complete technical ignorance of the person spruiking such.

Canberra says:

05:15pm | 07/09/10

“So we now have an unelected PM”

*Bangs head on desk*

We. Have. Never. Had. An. Elected. One.

Macca says:

05:32pm | 07/09/10

@TherealDave, I think your response to wireless is complete and utter rubbish. The great thing about the NBN would be the ability to have local public Wireless routers that run off the Fibre. that would be a vision for 10 - 15 years in the future. Fibre to the home is going to be a complete waste of money.

50 years. Bullshit. Considering how fast technology has changed in the last 5 - 10 years (the original iPod to iPads being the most obvious), your statement exposes the complete technical ignorance of the person

BG says:

06:20pm | 07/09/10

@TheRealDave - the fibre itself doesn’t even last 50 years.  If we’re going to be still using it, we will face more billions of dollars in going around replacing it.

The biggest single factor in saving us from the GFC was not the ALP, and nor was it the mining industry, it was the dramatic reduction in interest rates by the Reserve Bank to emergency levels, and the most stable economy in the region.

My two Cents says:

06:33pm | 07/09/10

First Julia was made PM by Labor’s power brokers then by two independents.

But the undeniable fact is that most Australians intentionally voted for Tony Abbott as PM and the strong swing against Labor and for the Coalition and the Greens proves that the majority of Australians rejected Julia Gillard for PM. 

The strong growth seen by the Greens reflects a protest vote of no confidence in Julia Gillard.

Windsor and Oakeshott will face the anger of their electorates come next election for ignoring the signs and going against the tide.

Effectively, Julia did not get a clear mandate from the Australian people that she would have gotten had Labor won by an outright majority.  That she is still the PM is just a result of the system that gave 3 independents the power to decide for all Australians.

Julia Gillard is now half the PM she was before the election and hostage to the Greens.

Tony Abbot will be the next PM.

Likes Joining Dots says:

06:38pm | 07/09/10

@TheRealDave
Please not another quote about the future and fibre having “speeds we can’t imagine” or as other supporters might say -“applications we can’t imagine and have not been developed yet”.
In this imaginary world of yours, can you also see that delivery technology for broadband may also develop over 50 years, (beyond fibre) “in ways you cannot imagine”. 

Sorry to use your own argument against you.

GreenGoblin says:

07:07pm | 07/09/10

There is a positive Ziggy…Bob Katter went with the coalition!

Jack says:

07:39pm | 07/09/10

Your comment:Abbott would be Prime Minister if he had a half decent broadband and climate change policy. Facts are his policies in this area were crap and that’s why he lost.Bad luck to the Libs.. you threw a heap of $$$ into our electrorate (Corangamite) and lost. I think you can now get Sarah Henderson to take down all those bloody election signs that litter the Surf Coast countryside!

Sam says:

06:44am | 08/09/10

Considering Labor won 72 seats to a combined Liberal/national 72 seats, and in all the polls leading up to the election JG was preferred PM over TA, I fail to see how Rabbot could have been considered as an elected PM if Julia cannot. Oh wait a minute, Labor aren’t “born to rule”.

Steve says:

07:54am | 08/09/10

@BG
Where do you get the idea that fibre cables have less than a 50 year life? I’ve never heard that before, and having checked, most providers seem to offer a 25 year warranty.

Reg says:

10:26am | 08/09/10

It occurs to me that we have fibre already and yet some are going to place their hopes in improvement in wireless speeds.

This is old technology and yet we have never attempted to address abysmal wireless speeds currently available by the use of diversity systems. Resorting to iPODs or iPADs as examples is sheer pap, the problem is more immediate than that, it’s how you fit millions of diversity signals into a tiny area without completely screwing up the spectrum?

The reality is that fibre is here and now and workable high speed wireless is NOT.  There will clearly be an interim where local wireless or line of sight is the limit, opening up opportunities for business to install the final fibre or some alternative to the door.

I can’t believe that so many Liberals who pride themselves in their supposed foresight, are prepared to wait around for years while technology make their hoped-for advances. Wireless will never be as fast as fibre without a diversity signal so spectrum inefficient, that it would be impractical.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

11:31am | 08/09/10

@ Steve

These fibre cables will have a life of around 15 years, mostly because they are designed to be laid in conduits, not strung from electricity poles. Weather, particularly UV on the sheathing, will have an effect.

The other issue in the bush is parrots. You may laugh, but I can tell you from personal experience, that flocks of galahs and rosellas will sit on these cables at certain times of the year (in their thousands) and they like nothing better than to sharpen their beaks on the cable sheath, which is then damaged. Doesn’t matter greatly for copper unless two damaged copper wires subsequently rub together, but it would mean replacing a fibre cable.

James1 says:

06:20pm | 08/09/10

My two cents,

In 1998, the Coalition lost the popular vote.  Should Howard then have offered the ALP the chance to form a government?

Much as some of us don’t like this result, far, far more important than how you or I feel is the constitutional integrity of our country.  And under our constitution, the popular vote is irrelevant.

Louisa says:

04:35pm | 07/09/10

I think it was Fraser who said many years ago - hide your money under the mattress.

Ryan says:

04:46pm | 07/09/10

@Louisa: I can assure you that the South Africans are cheering today as they wake up. I am sure it will be a day of partying because of the knowledge that the mining investments will now be coming their way.

N says:

04:57pm | 07/09/10

Yep; should be interesting to watch the ASX over the next few days. Suggest another 3 years of labor should make the gold market rather attractive, especially with other countries economies floundering.

BR says:

05:06pm | 07/09/10

RBS Morgans closing summary of the day:
“The market closed relatively flat having risen in the early part of the day only to give up these gains following the decisions of the three independents.”

Scarneck says:

07:29pm | 07/09/10

Ryan, how do you think the markets would have reacted with the news that Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb, Barnaby Joyce and Bob Katter are controlling the purse strings?

TonyA says:

11:00pm | 07/09/10

BR - “following the decisions” not “becasue of the decisions”

Ryan says:

10:25am | 08/09/10

@Scarneck : considering the Liberal government has a history of paying off Labor debt, bringing economic stability and success to the country, I would say quite positively actually. I know of many substantial investors that will not risk their money in Australia while Labor are in power, merely because of their blatant incompetence. I can’t wait to see the first Labor government in history actually pay off their own debt rather than the Libs have to do it.. I won’t be holding my breath though, somehow I think it will be a cold day in hell when we see a Labor government actually manage to balance the books.

Ryan says:

11:24am | 08/09/10

Well looking at the markets so far today.. S&P -22.9 All Ords -22.4..
Don’t say you weren’t warned!

BR says:

01:25pm | 08/09/10

TonyA: it’s implied that the backing of the Labor government by the independents resulted in the ASX retreat yesterday afternoon (the trend continuing today).
Nicely spun though - send your resume to the ALP, they’re going to need your help convincing Australia they are “fiscal conservatives”. Especially with the Greens on side, their own leader decreeing yesterday that the party “...should have an economic policy..”

Jimmy says:

04:45pm | 07/09/10

Yes, Little Johnny loved that too…

Steely Dan says:

04:50pm | 07/09/10

@ Mark

We don’t know who won the two-party preffered.  As at 4:17pm today the Coalition were up by less than 2,000 votes, with 11.98% of the two-party preferred vote yet to be counted.  Unless you know something the AEC doesn’t…

I’m interested in what electoral reform you think would ‘fix’ the issue, though.  Proportional rep?

Macca says:

05:36pm | 07/09/10

@Steely Dan, The thing working in the Coalitions favour is that postal votes (the last to be counted) traditional favour the conservatives.

You’re correct, but the smart money is on the Coalition on this one

Macon Paine says:

06:39pm | 07/09/10

@ Jimmy

John Howard won 80 seats in the 98 election, which is an outright majority. So the primary vote and 2 party prefered votes where irrelevant.

mary says:

08:19pm | 07/09/10

Doesn’t say much for the libs if they still couldn’t win!!!!

Joan says:

09:13pm | 07/09/10

Mary: And don’t you just love her smirk ..... it outdoes any Costello smirk ever!!!.  And Mary it was the the donkey vote of Windsor and Oakshot that got Gillard past the post smirking… nothing to do with voter at all, they were too smart to install her in the first place. They didn`t quite fall for her back stabbing lying ways.

Rod Hagen says:

09:16pm | 07/09/10

As far as the Primary votes go the Labor / Green alliance, (with over 49% of the primaries ) actually completely creamed the coalition of four or five parties led by Tony Abbott (with a combined total of about 43%).  The 2PP is still being determined, but when you look at the seats so far omitted, and, even more particularly, at the electorates with a low percentage counted, it is very, very clear that Labor will actually come out in front in this area too. 

Tony Abbott’s opening comments in recognising his defeat concerning such things were actually all fibs. The Coalition didn’t win a majority of seats (it only managed 72), didn’t win the primary vote when compared to its Labor/Green “opponents”, and won’t have won the 2PP when the counting is all finished.

Jimmy says:

09:45pm | 07/09/10

@Macon Paine - my point exactly, thank you for helping me make it.

Ben81 says:

09:50pm | 07/09/10

Rod Hagen that’s funny, I don’t remember seeing any Labor-Green coalition candidates when I went to vote.

Dr.Regnl_red_gay_boatprsn says:

06:09pm | 07/09/10

Exactly, everyone wins!

Nicole says:

04:41pm | 07/09/10

Ooohhh yeha! Now I need to search around for my earplugs. I don’t know what Kev’s up to, but I can’t wait for it to happen.

Joolz says:

05:29pm | 07/09/10

Well! my father has a friend who goes to Krudd’s church and he said Krudd said he told Jooooolia that he would resign if he didn’t get Treasury.

Well! I can’t believe he’ll hang around on the back bench, he’s off fer sherrrr.

AND if Qld is genuinely peeved, that could become a marginal. Particularly as a lot of Anna Bligh’s own electorate is in Griffith.

I wonder if anyone told Joooolia that there’s no S in Griffith.

Nicole says:

09:16pm | 07/09/10

I reckon that the ‘S’ in Griffith can join her ‘ostralya’ ‘Cuppa Toyee’ and ‘Wada’ in to our new Jooolya dictionary. And we’re only just beginning.

Sam says:

07:07am | 08/09/10

Nicole says:09:16pm | 07/09/10

I reckon that the ‘S’ in Griffith can join her ‘ostralya’ ‘Cuppa Toyee’ and ‘Wada’ in to our new Jooolya dictionary. And we’re only just beginning.

Nicole, you are what..    12?

jeffb says:

04:58pm | 07/09/10

How many times does it have to be said?... We don’t vote for a PM, we never have and without substantial reforms we never will.

You vote for a member to represent you in a federal parliament, that member then goes to Canberra and comes to an agreement with the majority of the other 149 members to select a PM, it usually just goes down party lines. In this election we saw 5 members using the system to its full extent, where were the other 145? Where was your member?

Keating was right, civics should be taught in schools.

Dave says:

05:03pm | 07/09/10

it is remarkable that so many people take the time to comment on this website but not the time to find out how our government works. The PM in Australia is NOT elected by the people. The PM is NOT chosen by the primary vote or the two party prefered vote. We each elect a member for the electrate we live in. The elected representatives then decide who will form a government and who will be the PM. The system is not that hard to understand you just have to take a minute to find out how it works.

If you can take the time to complain you should also take the time to understand the system.

Vanessa says:

05:28pm | 07/09/10

Right yes, of course we don’t elect a PM. So the Kevin07 election campaign was just for his electorate? Wow, expensive.

Trevor says:

05:53pm | 07/09/10

@Vanessa, the only reason they get away with US Presidential-style election campaigns is because, UNLIKE America, no-one here learns in school how our own system works.

Pick up a copy of the Australian Constitution sometime and see if you can find where it says you elect the Prime Minister.  See if you can even find a mention of the Prime Minister!

Vlastislav says:

07:23pm | 07/09/10

It is true that the Parliament selects the PM, not the voters. But why then the whole campaign was about Tony Abbott versus Julia Gillard? In reality the voters do vote for one of them indeed, and Gillard came second best. And that is a fact.

Pete says:

07:33pm | 07/09/10

Waah waah waah spin spin spin. Don’t you people ever stop? Look at the preferred Prime Minister polling, nobody likes Abbott, Gillard is the clear leader. If it was a presidential election, Gillard would have won in a landslide.

Cliff Hanger says:

07:43pm | 07/09/10

Vanessa..you are a conservative dill..Please learn a little about our system of government!!  Calling good Aussies buffoons,is not only rude but insulting as well..

Brian Taylor says:

07:58pm | 07/09/10

@jeffb and other clowns going on about erecting the PM, who really cares you fools.
the fact of the matter is, people who voted lib did so because they didn’t want gillard as pm simple as that, get a life goose

Roja says:

08:21pm | 07/09/10

So Vanessa, lets say the liberal party won more seats in 2007 and the Coalition had the majority, yet John Howard lost his seat - who do you think would have been PM? 

Here is a hint… the answer is not John Howard.

We don’t elect a PM.  Never have.

jeffb says:

09:20pm | 07/09/10

Brian, I can’t follow your logic, I’m replying to someone who obviously cares about ‘erecting’ the PM.

Of course people who voted for the LNP didn’t want Gillard PM as that would mean the LNP would have lost… I’m not quite sure what your point is here, unless your suggesting the complaints about an unelected PM are just sour grapes.

Vanessa says:

08:38am | 08/09/10

A message to all the condescending twits who are carrying on about how we don’t directly elect a PM and completely missing the point: If you honestly think that voters elect their local representative with no view or expectation about who that rep will endorse as PM through their particular party allegiance (and, therefore, who their vote will eventually go to for PM), then please get in touch as I’ve got some oceanfront property in Afghanistan to sell you.
And, naturally, it is not the least bit insulting to call me a ‘conservative dill’, way to make your point.

Trevor says:

09:20am | 08/09/10

@Vanessa, a message to you: If you end up with only 72 people on each side who have declared their affiliation as to who they would select as PM, then NO-ONE has been ‘elected by the people’ in the way that you apparently want, and this is what happens.  This is our ACTUAL system in action.

Deal with it.

Vanessa says:

11:21am | 08/09/10

Thanks Trevor, that was exactly my point. This government was not elected by the majority, and instead by only four people. And I’ll deal with it, just like you’ll have to deal with it when the minority government crumbles and we have to go back to the polls, which is what should have happened in the first place. At least I’ll get to have a have a giggle watching Joolia try to balance the Greens and the rurals.

jeffb says:

01:33pm | 08/09/10

No I think you’ll find it was formed by 76 people not 4.

Glenys says:

08:17am | 10/09/10

Dave, lets see if I’ve got it right. In Oakeshott’s and Windsor’s electorates, voters overwhelmingly voted against Labor.  About 13% Labor in each electorate - some of the lowest in Australia. Each candidate was the 2nd preference listed on the Liberal how to vote card. By deceipt, they stole our Liberal votes to give them to Labor and thumbed their noses at not only their own constituents, but the majority of Australians. In how many other electorates were people conned into voting for undercover Labor candidates? Hope a few honest people will stand as Liberal candidates in these electorates so our vote will be counted.

MarK says:

04:49pm | 07/09/10

Robbie Oakeshott enough already. Don’t come on The Punch under an assumed name. You had plenty of chance on the tv earlier.

Gabrielle says:

07:58am | 08/09/10

Hilarious…nice work Fiona. Only comment to put a smile on my face.

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

04:50pm | 07/09/10

I agree. I think that the Greens will introduce Death Duties (aka Estate Tax) with ALP support, probably by this time next year.

You can’t even leave your money to your kids any more.

Aitch B says:

05:04pm | 07/09/10

They have it in the UK, TSP. 40% inheritance tax on the value of the estate if it’s over 325,000 squid.

Nice, innit? You bust your bum all your working life, pay your income tax along the way, paying 12.5% VAT on everything you’ve bought and at the end the government says thanks by taking nearly half of what you’ve been able to amass - after paying all sorts of taxes on that too!!

Fred says:

05:29pm | 07/09/10

Yeah but the threshold for this estate tax is 5 million! I’m ok with that

Estate planner! says:

05:33pm | 07/09/10

So? Transfer the wealth before you shuffle off the mortal coil.  It is what many nationalities do already.  Don’t leave anything for them to tax!

jeffb says:

05:46pm | 07/09/10

Fred!... don’t you know anything about a scare campaign?!

jeffb says:

07:04pm | 07/09/10

Thats kinda the whole point Estate planner!, keep the money in the economy instead of sitting in some random bank account collecting dust.

Andrew says:

04:47pm | 07/09/10

Dr, Dr, Dr, Dr, Dr, Dr, Dr…. Spies Like Us

Macca says:

04:50pm | 07/09/10

LOL, two of the most bubble-bound men in public life

Jimmy says:

04:48pm | 07/09/10

hopefully the new PARADIGM (choke, splutter…) won’t let that one come into being now.

jeffb says:

04:52pm | 07/09/10

What are the chances of the filter making it through the Senate? Zero and we’ve know that for a long time now…

TheRealDave says:

05:02pm | 07/09/10

@jeffb - yep, the filter was dead even before the election, not that the Lib shills wanted you to know that.

BOTH sides ran their scare campaigns

Mike Cockburn says:

05:08pm | 07/09/10

Scarlet, Dave, JeffB, Jimmy,
The internet filter isnt something to worry about.
Get your brain around a communist dictatorship being in charge of all your phone calls, emails, uploads, downloads. Once the contracts are signed, the money got, the debt mounting, we are setting Australia on road to HAVING to sell NBN to China.
Thereby handing command and control of Australia’s telecoms to that friendly bunch of democrats in the PRC.
Only Fabians, Socialists, Gillards and Conroys are comfortable with that idea.

jeffb says:

05:41pm | 07/09/10

Mike, thats gotta be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard. Please keep posting, its hilarious.

TheRealDave says:

07:12pm | 07/09/10

I want what Mike is smoking…. Is it laced with Liberal tears? I bet it is…..

The Badger says:

08:03pm | 07/09/10

@mike

Under capitalism, man exploits man, Under communism, it’s just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith

Ben81 says:

09:58pm | 07/09/10

TheRealDave, it’s a lot more than just “Lib shills” with something to say about Labor’s internet filter and you should know that.  If you think opposition to it was a scare campaign who cares, it was bloody well deserved.  Luckily not everyone’s so rusted on that they just brush it off like it’s nothing, I know for a fact what your attitude towards it would be if the filter was Liberal policy.

Mike Cockburn says:

10:48pm | 07/09/10

JeffB, TheRealDave,

You’re both right!

You’d have to be smoking something to think a min $5k per house for internet no one wants is a prudent move, or sustainable or economic or responsible or sensible etc.

Yet, you both probably voted for it. Sucked in, now watch the DISASTER unfold.

When you get the concept that every dollar you spend on NBN fees is going straight to Beijing - you’ll probably get IT then.

Check it out.

Labor is going to sell NBN to China.
How many of the great unwashed would have voted for the NBN - Labor if they knew that?

jeffb says:

01:16am | 08/09/10

No Mike, you’re a straight up paranoid conservation white male. If you actually want to raise some issues with the NBN drop the conspiracies and start referencing some hard data., theres a ton out there. You probably think Labor is paying $43 billion for the NBN…

I thought the great unwashed voted for Tony ‘Boatphone’ Abbott?

@Ben81, noone cares about the filter because they can add up the numbers in the senate, theres just no way it would get through. Even the people in Labor realise that, if you haven’t noticed its completely dropped off the radar over the past 6 months.

For awhile there it seemed that Labor + Fielding + some LNP would be able to get it through, that hasn’t been the case for a long time now…

Ben81 says:

02:14pm | 08/09/10

Oh right jeffb, no one cares, got it.  It’s dropped of *your* radar because you’re a blind apologist.

jeffb says:

06:41pm | 08/09/10

Don’t hold my ability to do some basic maths against me Ben.

Jimmy says:

04:51pm | 07/09/10

No ricko, that refers to f*3&^ing ugly, which I think is what one of the journalists muttered during the press conference…

Michael says:

05:22pm | 07/09/10

Should’ve done that three weeks ago, Louisa.  Little big late for the Liberal intimidatiing e-mail campaign, isn’t it?

Gabrielle says:

08:07am | 08/09/10

Louisa has a point…if the indies can get $10 billion for their electorates and regional Aust, let’s get them to slip us a few $.

Joe Blow says:

06:38pm | 07/09/10

Well there are already two additional rural seats the Coalition can count upon at the next election.  So that puts the Coalition at 76!

Nicole says:

04:57pm | 07/09/10

What odds have you got?

Andrew says:

05:12pm | 07/09/10

Still waiting on Centrebet, they say it could take two weeks to work it out and it could come down to just three posts here or there.

I reckon I’ll get better odds than backing Gillard to serve a full term.

farkurnell says:

07:01pm | 07/09/10

from the people who posted Maxine as odds-on to retain Bennelong,I suggest the bookies stick to Cricket & NRL 1st points scorers.

The Badger says:

08:05pm | 07/09/10

Nicole

You trying to get some of the old mans bet back?

Andrew says:

05:07pm | 07/09/10

Oh Seano, even for you this is a bit silly. Labor suffered one of the most humilating smackings in election history. This government depends on two MP’s from far right electorates and 1 green from the far left. Chances are by keeping both sides happy Labor will alienate the centre right they have spent decades trying to attract. This is not your normal minority government. I had thought for a while now that Government for labor here would suit the libs unfortunately it will be a disaster for the country. I know a few people in Windsor and Oakeshotts electorates who voted for him. They categorically told me that if they backed a Labor Green coalition they would lose any credibility. Hope they can build an 8 lane highway between Sydney and Port Macquarie before the next election.

BTW what chance now the Est Timor solution?

Eric says:

05:12pm | 07/09/10

Julia Gillard - unelectable and unelected.

Trevor says:

05:18pm | 07/09/10

Stop it both of you. Gillard and Abbott. Member for Lalor and Member for Warringah. Both elected.

Seano says:

05:29pm | 07/09/10

@Eric - I’ve not claimed it was a good result fo Gillard. Piss poor effort if you ask me. They’ll have to improve greatly. The win is dodging the Abbott bullet.

@Andrew - give it a rest clown, where have I claimed this was a good result for Labor? Althought talk about silly apparenly an 8 seat catch up is more humiliating than a 16 seat land slide. But they say you can beat a good player but not a good scorer.

That Abbott could not negotiate a deal with two blokes from his own side of politics says more about Abbott than anything. Avoiding Abbott and hopefully forcing Labor to raise their game or be booted for good next time is a great result for Australia IMO.

Macca says:

05:39pm | 07/09/10

@Seano, if Abbott is unelectable, why would you vote for the ALP when they have done such a piss poor job. If Abbott is so bad that he could never be PM, then the ALP must be absolutely shocking.

Seano says:

06:02pm | 07/09/10

@Trevor - of course you’re right. However this goes back to an old arguement I’ve been having with the more rabid of the right wing ranters that to too many people Tony Abbott was unelectable as PM. And this, even on his best behaviour and with Labor on the nose with the punters. Of course those same ranters have incorrectly claimed near enough was good enough inspite of how our system works.

And of course I was right, but I wont hold my breath for apologies. They’re not rabid and right wing for nothing.

The important thing for all of us is that both majors must lift their game if the want to run the country which I for one think will be a good thing.

Seano says:

06:04pm | 07/09/10

@Macca = Logic fail. Try again.

TheRealDave says:

07:07pm | 07/09/10

@Andrew - no, humiliating would be loosing the election AND having a serving Prime Minister lose their own seat….

Nicole says:

07:44pm | 07/09/10

No Seano, please do hold your breath.

GreenGoblin says:

07:46pm | 07/09/10

John Hewson (on his lonesome) held the title of losing the un-losable election…Tony Abbott has now joined him.

Andrew says:

10:48pm | 07/09/10

Seano, you said “good result for everyone” I gather you therefore included Labor in that comment. If not try to be a little more specific. And really only people of very low intelligence need to start name calling. I guess that’s why most Labor supporters need to vilify Abbott.

Green Goblin - what the? So Abbott lost the unloseable election?? If you go back a few weeks almost ever political commentator backed labor to win with a reduced majority. Almost no-one backed Libs and one possibility two backed a hung parliament/minority government. Another Labor attempt to rewrite history. I suppose you think the pink batts scheme was a success and the BER was well managed.

The Real Dave, agreed, losing government and Howard losing his seat was an embarrassingly bad defeat. Doesn’t make this Labor experience any less of a massive fail. Knife first term PM, try to ride honeymoon period into election victory, cling on to power with green coalition and help of 2 independents from predominantly conservative seats. Both of whom are likely to see significant voter backlash if this delicate balance doesn’t work.

Seano, one thing I’ll agree with is that this is a good result for Abbott. If he runs a good opposition he will be PM very, very soon.

Seano says:

12:17am | 08/09/10

@Nicole - Up to your usual standard I see.

But what else could I expect from so vehment an Abbott supporter? Someone who supports a bloke so unfit to run our economy he either was too stupid to see an 11 billion dollars hole in his election promises or was too dishonest to admit it.

Seano says:

07:34am | 08/09/10

@Andrew - “Seano, you said “good result for everyone” I gather you therefore included Labor in that comment.” -

Champ obviously I was referring to Australian’s generally, what a silly justification of your silly rant.

Speaking of silly, wheren’t you the first to use that particular word? And yet you accuse people who resort to “name calling” of being of “low intelligence”, oh the irony.

Seano says:

07:41am | 08/09/10

“Seano, one thing I’ll agree with is that this is a good result for Abbott. If he runs a good opposition he will be PM very, very soon. “

Champ what you for get is that Abbott has to avoid the same “heavies” and “thugs” that knifed Nelson and Turnbull. He has to continue to be on his best behaviour and he still has the little problem of an 11 billion dollar hole in his election promise costings, indicating he’s either a bad economic manager or a liar.

Abbott provide good opposition? Fat chance. The real question is whether Labor can lift their game and also work with the independents. Either way whenever there’s a new poll either full term or not it will be anyone’s game. Smug predictions of win for Abbott assuming he’s still there, are about as smart the smug predictions he would win this time.
Or the even stupider smug self congratulation of the conservative demogoguery over his claytons “win”.

Robert S McCormick says:

10:23am | 09/09/10

Green Goblin, maybe the reason you use the name Green is because you are green with envy that though Abbott did not get the nod from the Independents nothing you or the ALP will ever be able to erase are the facts (Socialists, particularly those of the Left, love to re-write history Stalin tried & failed too) The unassailable, incontrovertible fact is this: Under the leadership of Julia Gillard the ALP suffered one of it’s most devastating defeats in recent years. She caused the ALP to lose it’s entire majority, she was responsible for the Coalition Parties getting the most 1st Preference Votes & the most Two Party Preferred Votes.
All will depend on the fickle Independents & Greens whether or not they, and they alone, will allow Stop-gap Prime Minister Julia Gillard & the ALP to be in Government.

Seano says:

07:12pm | 09/09/10

@Robert - problem with your line of reasoning champ is that Labor weren’t defeated. 72 all, look it up if you don’t believe me. If you believe a draw is humilating for Labor then either you had no faith in the LNP (not surprising) or mathematically challenged enough to think an 8 seat catch up is more humiliating than 2007’s 16 Rudslide with the sitting PM of 11 years booted out on his arse. Now that was humiliating.

carson says:

05:22pm | 07/09/10

What a complete load of garbage.

Mike Cockburn says:

05:39pm | 07/09/10

carson? details? where’s the garbage?
I’m quoting S.Conroy, confirmed live on air 3AW. This is a fact. They want to sell the NBN to China.

Mike Cockburn says:

05:40pm | 07/09/10

carson? details? where’s the garbage?
I’m quoting S.Conroy, confirmed live on air 3AW. This is a fact. They want to sell the NBN to China.

Shane From Melbourne says:

05:52pm | 07/09/10

If the Chinese want Australia’s telecommunications backbone why can’t they buy Telstra shares like the rest of us? Seriously though, don’t you think that the same arguments apply to a Telstra privatized by the Liberal Party? They didn’t seem to care about Australia’s communication security back then.

Pat says:

07:57pm | 07/09/10

I don’t care what Conroy says on selling it off, its not his decision, because the Greens (or independents) won’t let it through the Senate ... so it won’t get sold.
Wholesale only, level playing field across city and bush, why would you want to sell it?  Maybe 50% equity from super funds/future fund or the like and have Gov bond rate level returns but thats it.

Mike Cockburn says:

10:39pm | 07/09/10

Shane: Telstra selloff restricted to Australian Shareholders to avoid this Comrade Gillard/Conroy situation happening.
Pat, the massive bill for this disaster is going to force ANY government to privatisation.
Unless you want to actually PRINT the money?
This is the Gillard/Conroy Plan.
Weren’t you told?
Most of us weren’t - all talk was carefully avoided - prior to the election.
Although this was easily confirmed, no one at ABC etc wanted to touch it. Censored to keep election outcome on track.

MarK says:

08:15pm | 07/09/10

Happy. Very happy.

Ryan says:

11:22am | 08/09/10

@dale: you don’t honestly believe the Labor party will actually honour a promise for once now do you? I mean I know some naive people but believing Labor will actually deliver a promise is just plain craziness.

Macca says:

05:42pm | 07/09/10

Can someone throw the staffer out please?

Nicole says:

07:47pm | 07/09/10

Yes Macca, I’m more than happy to do that ! I’ll just blow my nose first.

MarK says:

08:18pm | 07/09/10

I sort of get the gist of the post.

i can see words in there. I thought I saw a sentence too but was wrong. This make CR looks poetic.

The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

11:44am | 08/09/10

Hang on - if he’s a staffer, I have some questions.

1. Where are the rest of those laptops for the schoolkids? My neighbours’ kids don’t have theirs yet and they were promised them. You can’t disappoint children like that.

2. Can we have an actual date you will be turning on the internet censorship filter? I need to get my tech-savvy mate to set up a VPN before then.

3. So, if we are going to use East Timor as a regional solution, does this mean you won’t be turfing our soldiers out of their barracks next week to make room for more of your future voters from the middle east?

4. I have a friend in Sydney who says you lied about the Epping railway line. I said he was mixing up different Labor Govts and it wasn’t you who lied but a different two Labor Govts. When is this starting?

Trevor says:

06:44pm | 07/09/10

Oh please. The Constitution was written in the 1890s, before either the Unions or the Communists had their modern form.  Deal with it.

Seano says:

07:29pm | 07/09/10

Or a basic failure in understanding how our democracy works on your part.

Some Union/communist conspiracy though, making Abbott so poor a negotiator that he couldn’t get two conservatives to side with him. Clever stuff.

Ryan says:

12:07pm | 08/09/10

@Seano: or Abbott had the integrity enough not to agree to backhand these two with the bribes they requested, clearly Labor hasn’t the same morals, although none should be surprised since Labor is clearly devoid of any morals whatsoever.

Seano says:

04:51pm | 08/09/10

@Ryan - Abbott offered a billion dollars for Hobart Hospital to Wilkie when he had an 11 billion dollar black hole in his election promise costings. As ever you grip on reality is tenuous.

Andrew says:

07:27pm | 07/09/10

Very good.

Andrew says:

07:29pm | 07/09/10

You’re drinking champagne! How borgeouis! The green/labor coalition will soon put an end to that, unless of course you are one of the pigs from Animal Farm.

Nicole says:

07:49pm | 07/09/10

I hope it doesn’t hit you in the head.

Skinny says:

11:42pm | 07/09/10

I hope it does.

nosthow says:

08:56am | 08/09/10

Thanks all for your well wishes - havnt been so happy since i bought thousands of BHP shares before Chip Goodyear did his restructure ! Big hangovers all round here today. Bless you Ms Gillard !

Simon says says:

08:30pm | 07/09/10

No. That is not what Windsor said.  His remarks have been widely misreported, possibly deliberately so. 

He sought for a period of stable government built on *this* election.  He supported Labor largely because he thought a)  *they* could deliver that, plus b) their NBN proposal and c) other regional issues.

His further remarks were simply that he had heard a persistent whisper from Liberal backbenchers who felt that they could win a quick fresh election. He himself did not agree they might win, and he himself did not think there needed to be a fresh election. Clearly - like many other Australians - he saw no call for a fresh election at all.

I agree with Windsor. The electors voted and gave an even result. It is then for the elected members to make that work, Clearly today they’ve achieved that.

We can’t be calling fresh elections every time some of us don’t care for a particular result.

Iseefreely says:

09:02pm | 07/09/10

sounds strangely like ” I’m hitting you, because i love you ” doesn’t it?

David says:

09:33pm | 07/09/10

The laugh is that NBN will not get out to the country because of the cost blow out.  Labor is rolling it out to their city seats and thats it.  Country people will still be on dial up in 3 years.  Well done Tony Windsor the gullible

Nicole says:

10:02pm | 07/09/10

Simon, did you actually listen to what Windsor said? Joe Blow is correct. Windsor is looking after his own arse. He doesn’t give a toss at the out come, as long as he’s safe for now. He has stated he’ll pack it in at the next election, so his pension is now set in concrete. He is a self serving half wit, who has completely ignored the wishes of his electorate. As for Oakeshott, I need to compose myself before I let loose on that imbecile.
I’ll be back!!!

Jimmy says:

10:08pm | 07/09/10

@Simon says: spot on!

(except for the paranoid bit about deliberate misreporting…)

Yvonne says:

10:36pm | 07/09/10

Frankly behind their attempts to support a stable government, they chose Julia because she neeeded them more. She was on the downhill run, losing so many seats, and would clearly have lost the leaderhsip if she had lost the election. So she needed the independents more, and has more reason to stay in office as long as she can and avoid any early election. However, since the coalition won the primary vote, and would likely win another election right now just on momentum, the indepedents wanting “Stable government” really only wanted to keep their power as long as possible. Surprisingly only Katter thought better to back the party with principles he could support

William Croft says:

12:53am | 08/09/10

Let me clarify what Windsor said for you since I watched and listened to the whole event beginning with Kattar’s address right up to Truss’ address.

Windsor gave the number of reasons in his address as Simon Says outlined. Following media scrutiny after Oakeshot’s address Windsor gave another reason for the selection of Labor for stability; that being that because Labor was in a poor position they would be least likely to want a fast return to the polls.

At one point during that media scrutiny (this is the real reason it is widely reported, saying something that sticks in the reporters heads) Windsor did offer that he was inclined to think that the Coalition is in a good place to win a quick return to the polls and Oakeshot quickly interjected that he did not agree with him on that. Windsor then backtracked a little and as clarification then further mentioned that he had heard persistent whispers from the Liberal backbenchers about feeling they could win a quickly called election and that his opinion is that it wouldn’t be stable. Because of that media scrutiny, the lasting impression that I got was that at least partly Windsor actually backed the government that he perceived to be worst in order to achieve a full 3 year term.

This is not surprising from Windsor since NSW has 4 year fixed terms for State Parliament and he is on the record as being an an advocate of that. He is also on the record for advocating putting into place fixed terms at a Federal level too. Though how anyone could look at NSW in the current political landscape and say that actually is something to strive for is beyond me. For NSW we’ve got about 200 more days and it can’t come soon enough for the 75% of us (if we believe the last poll I saw) that want the State government gone. I would rather see a bunch of school children there than the current mob.

As for the Federal election, I have my own criteria (much like the independents) and this time I voted for LNP. Partly for the Paid Parental Leave Policy, even though I have no children (nor any on the horizon), but particularly because of the Coalition’s broadband policy. Even though the Coalition were bad at selling it I actually read the information contained within the policy document and having over 10 years experience in the online IT industry it did honestly contain the better plan. However for the record, since the Government went to Labor, I had hoped that that they would have 77 seats, not the 76-74 split result we saw today. That would have been more stable.

Jb says:

06:36am | 08/09/10

@simon, no buddy I watched the conference live he said when asked why he didn’t want to go back the polls was because Abbott would win not they think they will win or anything else just tha he thinks they will win pretty soft reason to give power back to the Rudd/gillard govt but hey that’s politics we have to live with these decisions so make the most of it I guess…

Simon says says:

07:14am | 08/09/10

Did I actually listen to Windsor?

Yep, indeed, and on 7:30 report too.  And most attentitvely too.

He’s consistent on his view, and I’m reporting it right.

He’s not the most articulate, but he managed to get the gist of it out again this am on radio, under rapid fire questioning.

He’ll need to marshall his responses a bit more acutely than he’s used to, but good on him.

Jimmy, ta, doing me best.

Yvonne, disagree, comprehensively. Katter painted himself into a corner on Carbon Price and Mining Tax from the start. He’s right on one thing though. Joyce *is* a fool.

Joan says:

08:45am | 08/09/10

Simon: Yesterday just listening to Windsor and Oakshott rambles   showed that there is nothing stable about those two guys…. so there won’t be a stable government, its impossible. And Gillard has offered Oakshott possibilty of some executive postion…..after watching the independents for 2 weeks and last performance the only position they deserve is out of parliament.  bring on an election. Australia deserves better than this quality of parliamentarian.

Randal says:

10:19am | 08/09/10

William & Simon seem to suffer from a hearing bias I think, Windsor clearly stated that one of (not the only) reason he supported the ALP was, in his own words that the Liberals would:

“be more likely to win if they did go back to the polls”

He further clarified that with the ALP would:

“Be more likely to be here a longer time if they can’t go to the polls and win in a hurry”

Oakeshot then interjected that the ALP had

“More to lose”.

With time to consider his words more carefully Windsor has of course backed away from those comments, but he did say them clearly on the public record and was supported by Oakeshott and to say otherwise is simply untrue.

Further, these statements can only lead us to one conclusion, that a key factor in this decision was for the two Independents to choose the weaker of the two alternatives as they believed that they had more to gain from a government who would bend to them rather than returning to polls.

That in itself is an indictment upon both, and very disappointing considering the virtues they espoused by the ‘Three Amigo’s” over the past 17 days and only Katter has walked away from this with his integrity clearly intact.

Reg says:

10:54am | 08/09/10

Joe, allow me to to put it in a nut-shell for you. The Independents interpreted the Liberal philosophy that had been place before them, as an intention to contract policy such as to reduce and eliminate rural considerations.

The call for a new election as prominently proclaimed within PUNCH by Liberal and National supporters, would have been confirmation of that policy. Even Katter voiced such a fear.

Trevor says:

09:46pm | 07/09/10

If you’d paid attention to the details (not that the media ever helps in this), you would know that the 10 billion includes over 6 billion that was already committed in the election campaign, and it includes the money that had already been discussed with Wilkie.

But of course that’s too complicated and it’s much better to just say that 10 billion was for the two independents that made their announcement today.  Bugger the facts, they’re too hard!

Jb says:

06:43am | 08/09/10

No trev it isn’t already in the budget that’s the point so something has to give and it’s not the nbn so will the mining tax spread wider to pay for the paper bag if promises?
Poor mr wilkie he did Tassie out of a world class training hospital so his new girl could stab him in the back in an act of true irresponsibility.

Gabrielle says:

08:19am | 08/09/10

Bugger the maths Trev, there too hard…by my calculations, there’s still an additional $4 billion???

Trevor says:

09:25am | 08/09/10

@JB, listen. I said it was committed in the election campaign. Not already in the Budget. Gillard and Swan explained this in their press conference.

They also provided the media at that conference with a document explaining the costings as to how the rest of the money would be accounted for, including savings in other areas.  The media has completely failed to pass this information on except for one question from one reporter which at least gave me the knowledge that the costings existed.

Yvonne says:

10:31pm | 07/09/10

correct

Jimmy says:

12:24pm | 08/09/10

David, I’m not surprised your business is struggling when you’ve got your head buried so deep in the sand. The Libs and Labor are so close in policy in the areas that will affect your business that there really is no difference. In fact, Labor policy is probably better for you, which just shows that they aren’t really a Labor party anymore.

Power costs are going up and will continue to do so, whether there’s an ETS or not (by much more if there isn’t some better investment in new energy technologies). The mining tax has had no impact on mining company investments, and will not have any, as they have themselves stated when saying future plans are not in jeopardy due to this tax. There is much literature on this if you take the time to actually read up on it (and I’m not talking about the opinion writers).

Your post just shows that you are about ideology and bias, as it does not reflect reality. Also by the fact that Yvonne agreed with you..

Jimmy says:

10:14pm | 07/09/10

Tony? TOOONNY!!
It’s Joe Hockey here andI’ve rought Andy Robb with me. Come back from the ledge mate FFS, you’re babbling again…

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:31pm | 08/09/10

Yes, except the ALP promise requires the Council to fund some of it. Another first for Australia, well done Gillard.

PS. Watch your rates rise.

Joan says:

09:23pm | 07/09/10

One day the voters will wake up and not vote for Labor or independents as they don’t respect the will of the voter. That day will come. Perhaps sooner than you think. By Christmas Gillard wil be in trouble…. by this time next year it wil be all over for Labor and Independents- you are the first to hear it here.

Simon says says:

11:31pm | 07/09/10

Yup to all that.

And the Coalition DID NOT win a majority of seats, either.

72 all,  actual seats, actual Lib/Nat Coalition v actual Labor.

Trevor says:

01:15am | 08/09/10

@Joe, we do not elect the government. We elect the Parliament.  We have no direct control over the formation of a government, and we never have!

The Constitution. Sections you will find particularly helpful include 24 and 64, but best of all have a read of the very extensive introduction, included in the online version, that will disabuse you of all the myths that the media, and indeed the major political parties, have created about how you are electing a government.

jeffb says:

01:20am | 08/09/10

The majority didn’t elect the LNP either, haven’t you been watching the news about the hung parliament and what not?

Simon says says:

07:21am | 08/09/10

And? If the Liberal National coalition had been able to form a minority government, then what?

We now have a legitimate Government and Prime Minister, legitimately formed, with a result that reflects fairly the very even result that was the will of the people.

Good result. Australian democracy and Westminster System at work.

James1 says:

06:14pm | 08/09/10

Joe, in 1998 Howard lost the popular vote, yet he still formed a government.  That is because he controlled the lower house of parliament, as it sets out in our constitution.  Are you suggesting that he should have allowed the ALP to form a government, because they won the popular vote?

Eric Ireland says:

02:37pm | 08/09/10

I reckon the odds are on for the Epping-Parramatta railway to go ahead. Why would the independents or the Greens be against it? What’s more, if it does go ahead, there will be votes in it for Labor.

Joan says:

01:07pm | 08/09/10

The biggest test in the coming term of parliament will be for Gillard, she has changed her mind about policies, ripped about policies , made deals on the run, made promises, and owes big time to Paul Howes and his ilk , played so many different versions of Gillard…..the backstabbing ,sinister spinster won’t know where to begin, with her bag full of tricks which to draw first?.  Not long to Halloween now .

TimB says:

01:22pm | 08/09/10

Explain the swing against Kevin Rudd in his own electorate then.

The QLD vote was a vote against an incompetent government with an idiotic mining tax (amongst other stupid legislation).

In fact, (despite me being as NSW Blue as they come), I was so impressed by the QLD result that I have seriously raised my estimate of their collective intelligence .

Reg says:

03:21pm | 08/09/10

GM if you think Gillard has a long hard fight, just imagine how a Liberal National Coalition would have exploded with a few ex-national Independents holding the reins and stirring all the long quiescent Nationals to bubble to the surface. Every National an Independent demanding a better deal from his Liberal tormentors

But you’re right, if there’s going to be a near unstable government, Labor is likely to handle it best. Do you really think these Independents have long term prospects as members of parliament? Oakeshott perhaps, but it’s death or glory for all of them and on past performance, Katter will be the survivor.

One more point, I think Abbott should put an ankle bracelet on Katter and keep him away from all those meek Nationals and others who help keep the Liberals afloat. Perhaps he’s white-anting the Coalition from the inside? Good plan, they need some fire in the belly.

Steve says:

10:55am | 08/09/10

There lies the problem. For all intents and purposes they are a coalition but during the election they repeadetly denied being such. The libs and nats went to the election as a coalition. Anyone voting for them knew they were voting for a coalition. They were up front about it.
The greens were a different matter. People kept on saying a vote for the greens is a vote for labor and the greens denied that before proving it right.

GreenGoblin says:

11:49am | 08/09/10

What are you trying to say Steve @ 10:55?  If the Libs and nats had gone to the polls not as a coalition the result would have been different?  I voted Green not Labor but I would be lying if I said I was upset they didn’t go with Abbott.

Rod H says:

02:24pm | 08/09/10

Not so in the one seat won by the Greens, Steve.  Bandt made it perfectly clear, before the election, that in the event of a hung parliament he would support a Labor government.

Simon says says:

10:15am | 08/09/10

Nup, that’s not right.  That is not what Windsor actually said, as he has himself already explained, on air, at least twice more.

He was after a workable full-term government. The whisper he was getting from the Lib backbench was *they’d* hot foot to a fresh poll ‘cos *they* thought *they’d* win.

It wasn’t what /*he* thought or was seeking. Nor, indeed was what Abbott thought or sought.

And yes, I listened to all three.

Already discussed on The Punch, at length.

jb says:

10:53am | 08/09/10

Simon it is from a transcript, it’s not me making it up dude, it was his EXACT words…

Simon says says:

11:33am | 08/09/10

That is emphatically not what I heard him say, yesterday afternoon, nor last night on 7:30 Report, nor this morning on AM.

I’‘ll stand by what I’ve said, what I heard,  what I understood, and by Windsor’s view.

They aimed for a stable full-term government and have reached an agreement that can deliver that, and closely reflects the view of the electorate.

Trevor says:

12:07pm | 08/09/10

@jb, there is nothing irresponsible about taking the view that seeking another election because you’re not happy with the result of the first one is a bad thing and that it should be avoided.

L says:

12:40pm | 08/09/10

On the subject of Julia’s appearance, did anyone else notice that on 7.30 Report last night her eyes looked different?  They looked like they were pried wide open with something.
I hope she’s not trying to emulate Julie Bishop’s “Rabbit in spotlight” look.  Personally, I think the heavy eyelids make her look sexier.

Reg says:

03:29pm | 08/09/10

I may be too human for this discussion but I’d like to suggest she was tired or exhausted. Make-up artists always have their own ideas and are frequently wrong.

Robert S McCormick says:

04:00pm | 08/09/10

Maybe Tone did’nt get that extra vote he needed to become PM. Gillard only got it because of the $10 billion sweetener. Either she offered that bribe or it was demanded of her & she gave in at the first ign of pressure. Either way it says a whole lot about her political character. Remember, Nosthow, she did, whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not, lead the ALP to one of it’s biggest defeats since the Voters of Australia handed Gough Whitlam his massive defeat in 1975. A massive majority of 18 seats & everyone of them lost & just to rub salt in the wounds she had to get the backing of Independents to take on the job of Caretaker Prime Minister with a one vote margin.It will only take one ALP, Independent or the Green MP in the Reps to miss a Division to defeat her. It will only take one negative Public Opinion Poll to get all those nameless,faceless, unelected denizens of Sussex St.Sydney to panic & arrange her disposal just as she & they did with Kevin Rudd.

Jimmy says:

11:02am | 10/09/10

@nosthow, very mature argument - the Labor party would be loving advocates like yourself.

@Robert S McCormick - well, it now seems that the Labor bribe was small in comparison to the Coalition bribe by quite some way. Does that mean you now have the same comments to make about Tony Abbott and his political character?

Isn’t it interesting that ormer Nationals could not bring themselves to side with the Coalition? For all their posturing - and I’m sure their beliefs and ideology did sway them a little - it seems Windsor and Oakeshott, at least partly, based their decision on personalities, old grudges and concerns about the pollies in the National Party.
Although this may lead us to feel that the minority government will be less stable for this reason, it could also mean those two Independents will find it difficuslt to side wth the Coalition on some votes, even if they agree with them. We’re in for very interesting times.

Robert S McCormick says:

10:41am | 09/09/10

Right on! Jacquie!
Despite their new-found concern for the Regionals & the 30% of voters who live there being expressed by the two major Parties they have both ignored Tural Australia for far too long. Being an entirely Urban, Big City based Parties we could & expect nothing from, in particular, the ALP & to a lesser extent the Liberals. The greatest shame must be attached to the National Party of Australia, earlier proudly named the Country Party. Though the pimple on the backside of the Liberals in terms of size they have wielded immense power whenever the Coalition have be in Government in Canberra. They were in the same postion as the Greens are now to the ALP. They could have forced the Libs to allocate the resources to enhance the lot of their Rural supporters. If they had done something then Julia would not have been able to use her $10billion bribe for all the infrastructure, services etc. would already be in place & the result would be that Rural people would have swept the ALP out of office. Like all our politicians those from the Nationals are solely in it for themselves & what they can get for themselves in the way of pay’n'perks