Oz Election Thread #4 - Gillard's Labor

That's interesting, Eorl.
(I know you're kidding, but ...)
Both you & hinge have (kinda half seriously) predicted a re-election.

They may have thought all their dreams came true, but I'll bet at least one of them will look back on this as a nightmare. (I think Oakeshott could be the first to crack.)

Nope, not kidding at all.

That's interesting, Eorl.

Me, I rather suspect they might not end up voting as a bloc. (see my post above .. a few posts back)

But I think Oakshott is the least likely of the 3 to compromise on what he's been advocating. He's by far the most politically astute of the 3 (though that wouldn't be hard with Mr Katter ), in my opinion.

Oh OK!

That's very interesting. I've never actually experienced a re-election of this sort during the whole time I've been a voter. Not nearly such an early election for similar sorts of reasons, anyway.
Yes, I guess it's certainly possible.
But, if it should come to this, the big 2 political parties would need to run entirely different campaigns. They could not fail to be very aware of disenchantment, on a huge scale, out there in voter land!
This, of course, could be a very positive thing.

But if we had a re-election would the vote change? And if the indies have captured the electorate's imagination maybe we'll get even more people voting outside ALP/LNP now that they've seen it isn't a 'vote wasted'. And maybe the informal voters will be more engaged. We could see a further 10% swing away from the big two.

I can see MPs in marginals putting their hands up saying 'I'm independent', 'Me, too, and so is my wife'.

An oft retweeted comment during #npc was that it was shameful how few conscience votes there are.

On a more practical note. All either Tony and/or Julia really need is a commitment from the cross benches not to block supply. Then the indies can vote on bills however they want (just a little bit more horsetrading than happens now in the senate). I don't think it's even necessary to get them to not voting on no confidence motions from the opposition - their pronunciations about 'stability' mean their credibility is insurance.

Interesting times. I worry that we'll limp through three years of non-progression.

And if you're a political strategist with an end game in mind will it be better to be in or opp in three years? Saddled with 'couldn't get anything done' or 'stopped anything from happening'.

Weird.

I have a hunch that the large informal ("Latham factor"?) vote would be considerably reduced. As for the rest, who knows?



And that's how it should be, I think.
I'd say that will definitely be Andrew Wilkie's position, anyway.



Yes, that's the real concern.



I'm not clear about what that actually means, hinge. Conscience votes by whom, about which particular issues? Do you mean by elected parliamentarians (of any hue) having the freedom to vote against their own party's official line/policy on a particular issues of conscience?

Yes I agree, Oakshott will be the last to compromise, but I think he's highly idealistic, maybe even naive, all of which I find laudable, but it's for those reasons I think the pressure of expectation mixed with frustration at the reality will break him before the others, all of whom seem more jaded and skeptical.

OK, after watching tonight's news & the 7:30 report, I'm now saying:

pro-Liberal: Tony Winsdor & possibly Bob Katter
pro-Labor: Adam Bandt & possibly Rob Oakeshott.
Unaligned crossbenchers:Tony Crooks & Andrew Wilkie

How likely does that sound? I just can't see Windsor, Oakeshott & Katter all coming to the same conclusion.

Looks like the independents themselves are hung!

Wait. That didn't come out right...

No it didn't!

... & yes, they could be! It's quite possible.

So what do we do then, hmmm?

Another massive election !

No, no, no!
Seriously, no.
Please.

(OK, but only after a seriously dysfunctional period of government - after one or more of them have realigned their choice of party to support, under extreme pressure - then?)

<whimper>

I think there's a good chance the independents will value the opportunities of their rare position enough that they will eventually all agree to lean one way regardless of their preferences. The green staking out a firm position up front could help the rest of them roll to that side of the boat.

Except for the mad hatter, who is fundamentally unpredictable.

I hope you're right, Eorl, but personally I don't think it will be that clear cut.
Apart from anything else, they have their political reputations (future re-election prospects with their respective electorates) to consider.
But we'll see.
I just hope this decision precess doesn't take too long, that's all.

Yep, that's what I mean - but I would argue that all decisions should be made considering your conscience. Half of the Nats problems re: independents are because they told their MPs to approve Telstra privatisation against their better judgement because they were in coalition. The only reason we even know of Barnaby Choice is because he refused to follow that directive without guarantees of services to the bush. (which I know think John Howard mistook as services to the [GW] Bush).

All votes should be conscience votes. If you're in a party any way you'd think you'd have commonality on the big issues. Why shouldn't you be able horse trade for your electorate? That's why your there.

Best Chaser this year last night (not that necessarily means it was good).

In the interests of a balanced approach I've got two vids, The Bob Katter Song (brilliant) and the 'Why did I vote green?' which I hope greens voters can laugh at - I know I did, and I'm one.

Bob will tell you that even if you don't ask.

I have for some time advocated a less party dominated parliment. By that I mean local members voting according to the needs and wishes of their electorate and the national interest as opposed to voting the way they are told to vote by the executive.

It seems there may be some hope of this happening now.
My only issue is with how MP's would deal with an issue that will cost jobs in their electorate but is in the national interest.
MPs get lobbied by special interest groups and as we all know squeaky wheels get the most oil. Somehow we need to get the silent majoity heard. Perhaps MP's should be required to maintain a focus group slected from a range of demographics within their electorate

I do wonder how it might work if Julia signed up some effective national or liberal MP's for front bench portfolios as long as they agree not to block supply. That is, selecting an MP for minesterial responsibility on the basis of how effectivly he/she could do the job rather than on his/her political persuasion.