View Full Version : How can anyone believe that Labor deserves to form Government?
I didn't vote Liberal, but as someone who supports the principles of democracy it's so blatantly clear to me that they should be the ones to form Government!
Three of the Independents in question come from seats that would never vote for Labor. For the Independents to defect to Labor would not represent their constituents at all and would be so incredibly undemocratic :(.
silverstars
24-08-2010, 10:51
I don't know, do we deserve Tony Abbott?
chicken and eggs mum
24-08-2010, 10:53
I agree that the Liberals should be the ones to try and form government first, but we will see....
I didnt vote for them, but think the country swayed that way (except for Tas, which swayed Labours way)
I don't know, do we deserve Tony Abbott?
I think we all need to see past that. This isn't about what any individual Hubber wants, it's about respecting the views of the majority of Australians, respecting democracy.
silverstars
24-08-2010, 10:55
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/axis-of-power-swings-to-alp/story-fn5zm695-1225909128711
silverstars
24-08-2010, 10:56
I think we all need to see past that. This isn't about what any individual Hubber wants, it's about respecting the views of the majority of Australians, respecting democracy.
It's not an individual hubber it's neck and neck so it's pretty much half of Australia.
chicken and eggs mum
24-08-2010, 10:57
Agreed lambjam...
Does Gillard only get to try and get her government together first because she was pm before election?!?!
I think that stinks.... as clearly is swung liberals way, and as much as I would hate to see them in power personally (and obviously most tasmanians would as well) i think thats what most people want...
I think its going to be tough for whoever forms gov in house of reps to then try and get anything through the senate...
I think we are in for a tough couple of years!
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/axis-of-power-swings-to-alp/story-fn5zm695-1225909128711
Ask Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott's constituents whether they would have voted for them if they'd realised it would be a vote for Labor. No way. Those are Nationals seats through and through.
If they go with Labor it's for their own reasons, not because it represents their constituency.
I think if you're going by that logic you could say that the Greens did amazingly well this time around - most Green supporters would sway Labor's way as opposed to Liberal. And 2 (?) of the Independents are EX Nationals, so I would assume they are ex Nationals because they were sick of the Nationals policies, so I wouldn't assume that they are necessarily Liberal supporters (I would assume the opposite).
chicken and eggs mum
24-08-2010, 11:04
Agreed Benji, and I think that most who voted greens, knew that pref would go to labour....
Thats interesting about the independents too, I didnt know that.... how come they wouldnt then run for labour?!?!?!
I think if you're going by that logic you could say that the Greens did amazingly well this time around - most Green supporters would sway Labor's way as opposed to Liberal. And 2 (?) of the Independents are EX Nationals, so I would assume they are ex Nationals because they were sick of the Nationals policies, so I wouldn't assume that they are necessarily Liberal supporters (I would assume the opposite).
The are ex-Nationals, yes, but they are still far closer to the Nationals ideology than that of Labor! The constituents are traditional Nationals supporters. If given the choice between Labor and Nationals there would be no question.
Agreed Benji, and I think that most who voted greens, knew that pref would go to labour....
Thats interesting about the independents too, I didnt know that.... how come they wouldnt then run for labour?!?!?!
Because they hate Labor! The fact that they left their party doesn't mean they "switched sides", far from it.
I've heard the Independents are ex Nationals because they were disheartened with the Nat party, if I was a National supporter and voted for someone who was disheartened by that party, come on... it'd be pretty silly to vote for them presuming they would prefer a party that they have been disheartened by. I'm not saying they 100% won't, but c'mon... it's pretty silly!
ETA: I should add one of those Independents is a major supporter of the improvement of Aust broadband network! Why would anyone vote for him thinking he's going to put his faith in the Libs?
Poopandpee
24-08-2010, 11:10
I voted Labour, This is my 4th election and my 1st time actually voting, Normally I lodge a blank form.
I dont think anyone deserved to win but I do believe its better the devil you know than the devil you dont.
Phyllis Stein
24-08-2010, 11:10
The country didn't swing towards the Coalition, it swung away from Labor (and mostly to the left, to the Greens). The Coalition merely managed to recoup some of their lost ground from the last election. Most political commentators suggest this means that the electorate is disenchanted with *both* major parties. Neither has a clear mandate to govern.
As for the Independent's electorates, the Independents will side with whoever can give their constituents the best deal. While this might not benefit the rest of the country, I'd suggest that the Independent's electorates will be winners in this, regardless of which party ultimately forms government.
silverstars
24-08-2010, 11:11
I've heard the Independents are ex Nationals because they were disheartened with the Nat party, if I was a National supporter and voted for someone who was disheartened by that party, come on... it'd be pretty silly to vote for them presuming they would prefer a party that they have been disheartened by. I'm not saying they 100% won't, but c'mon... it's pretty silly!
And the fact that there are issues with Barnaby Joyce doesn't help.
Let me put it this way... if you voted Green and your Green member ended up giving their support to the Liberals how would you feel?
That's the position those constituents are in.
RedPanda
24-08-2010, 11:15
The country didn't swing towards the Coalition, it swung away from Labor (and mostly to the left, to the Greens). The Coalition merely managed to recoup some of their lost ground from the last election. Most political commentators suggest this means that the electorate is disenchanted with *both* major parties. Neither has a clear mandate to govern.
:yes:
However, I'm not a fan of preferential voting. I realise it has its advantages and a simple "first past the post" system would disadvantage smaller parties, however it doesn't produce a true representation of people's votes. I'm not suggesting there's a better way, but I wish the weaknesses of our current system were more recognised.
Liberal scored more primary votes. Labor pips them with preferences, making them first out of the two-party preferred system. However, regardless of this, many, many, many people voted Greens yet there's only one rep in the lower house. Not proportional. We could end up with a government led by the party which essentially, had the biggest swing away from it.
futureherder
24-08-2010, 11:22
I agree that it is neck and neck...a similiar amount of people didn't vote for labour and liberal. However more have voted for the libs it seems.
At the end of the day it is up to the independent seat leader to decide which party they can best use to represent their parties policies, they can reject labour if they wont to...I am more annoyed that labour will bend their policies to form a governement and I dont like that the future leader of Aust. is being picked by 3-4 independence who I dont even know!
Whatever happens I smell an election in the air in the next 6-12 months TBH.
The Velveteen Rabbit
24-08-2010, 11:25
Because they hate Labor! The fact that they left their party doesn't mean they "switched sides", far from it.
Well actually they didn't leave, the Nationals dumped them and actually tried to bribe Tony Windsor to quit politics all together. I'd say they probably have more than a few issues with Nationals which didn't help when Barnaby Joyce had to have a go at Tony Windsor either.
Phyllis Stein
24-08-2010, 11:25
:yes:
Liberal scored more primary votes. Labor pips them with preferences, making them first out of the two-party preferred system. However, regardless of this, many, many, many people voted Greens yet there's only one rep in the lower house. Not proportional. We could end up with a government led by the party which essentially, had the biggest swing away from it.
Liberal didn't score a higher primary vote, Labor did (http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/parties.htm). The Coalition scored the highest. Many people who vote for the Libs don't necessarily support the Nationals.
But I agree with your overall point about proportionality. However, countries which do have proportional representation, such as Israel, are far from perfect and frequently very unstable. I'd prefer it, though - lesser evil and all that. *shrug*
nothanksbye
24-08-2010, 11:26
I think if you're going by that logic you could say that the Greens did amazingly well this time around - most Green supporters would sway Labor's way as opposed to Liberal. And 2 (?) of the Independents are EX Nationals, so I would assume they are ex Nationals because they were sick of the Nationals policies, so I wouldn't assume that they are necessarily Liberal supporters (I would assume the opposite).
Totally agree.
RedPanda
24-08-2010, 11:28
Oops. Good pick up Phyllis. I meant Coalition. I tend to use the terms interchangably because they're both conservative but you're right.
Phyllis Stein
24-08-2010, 11:30
Plus, Labor and Nationals are nowhere near as ideologically opposed as Labor and Liberal. Nationals tend to support protectionism, immigration and big government, as does Labor. And as PP already mentioned, the incumbent Independents hold their seats as Independents, not Nationals.
Don't forget that which ever party get's the top job now dose not mean that they will still have the top job in six months. They need the Independents to form Government.
If they don't keep them happy there is nothing stopping the Independents from getting up and joining the Coalition at any time.
Nothing is going to be 100% till we head back to the polls. That could be any time in the next 3 years. We are going to be a mess till then.
Well actually they didn't leave, the Nationals dumped them and actually tried to bribe Tony Windsor to quit politics all together. I'd say they probably have more than a few issues with Nationals which didn't help when Barnaby Joyce had to have a go at Tony Windsor either.
You're still not thinking of the constituents, of their democratic voice. I couldn't care less about the independents themselves, I'm sure either way they'll make themselves comfortable.
Again I ask... what if the Greens MP elected in the seat of Melbourne sided with Liberal instead of Labor? Would he be representing his constituents? Of course not. The people who voted for him would have otherwise voted Labor.
Similarly, three of the independent seats would have otherwise voted National. These are traditional farming, RM Williams-esque seats. To imagine them voting Labor is ridiculous.
missie_mack
24-08-2010, 11:44
You're still not thinking of the constituents, of their democratic voice. I couldn't care less about the independents themselves, I'm sure either way they'll make themselves comfortable.
Again I ask... what if the Greens MP elected in the seat of Melbourne sided with Liberal instead of Labor? Would he be representing his constituents? Of course not. The people who voted for him would have otherwise voted Labor.
Similarly, three of the independent seats would have otherwise voted National. These are traditional farming, RM Williams-esque seats. To imagine them voting Labor is ridiculous.
Evidently your very upset personally with what has happened. One would imagine any independent would align themselves with whomever is going to meet their needs the most and as another poster said there is nothing preventing them from changing allegiance should whoever they align themselves with not meet their needs, that is afterall the benefit of being an independent. The area voted for the independent based on the independents policies, if they wanted to vote for the nationals they would have *shrug* Regardless who they side with to form a government there is no requirement for the independent to follow that party 100% blindly.
Evidently your very upset personally with what has happened. One would imagine any independent would align themselves with whomever is going to meet their needs the most and as another poster said there is nothing preventing them from changing allegiance should whoever they align themselves with not meet their needs, that is afterall the benefit of being an independent. The area voted for the independent based on the independents policies, if they wanted to vote for the nationals they would have *shrug* Regardless who they side with to form a government there is no requirement for the independent to follow that party 100% blindly.
You make a good point, and I suppose that's what's gotten to me about this election. That we are in this position is absurd; although the system usually works it's not fail-proof, and that doesn't seem good enough to me.
I need to clarify again; I voted Green in a safe-Labor seat, effectively I voted for Labor to form government. This is not about me, or the leader I want for the country. This is about me watching democracy disintegrate over who can provide the most independents with the best lunch and the most flattery. The constituents of those independents seem to have been forgotten in the process. :(
Pina Colada
24-08-2010, 11:55
Well actually they didn't leave, the Nationals dumped them and actually tried to bribe Tony Windsor to quit politics all together. I'd say they probably have more than a few issues with Nationals which didn't help when Barnaby Joyce had to have a go at Tony Windsor either.
Bob Katter wasn't dumped. He left the Nationals. I would be extremely surprised if he supported a Labor government, and even more surprised if the electorate of Kennedy would stand for it, even if they were 'promised' a better deal.
Mrs Nietzsche
24-08-2010, 12:02
As is always the case in democracy, if the constituents are unhappy with how the Independents choose to play their allegiance, then they will simply vote them out.
I am sure this is a major consideration for the Independnts right now.
There's no point complaining about our democratic system. We need a majority because otherwise things won't get done, government will grind to a halt.
Neither party has a majority.
Therefore obviously the best solution is for whoever can best work with the independents to form a government.
There's no point Labor OR Liberal forming a government if they can never ever get anything done because everyone votes against them.
I actually dont think either of the two major parties deserve to form a govt, based on the results of the election.
No-one was voted in- their election campaigns sucked on both sides.
No-one told us what they WOULD do, they were too busy flinging sh!t at each other. Like a pack of school girls.
Now we have another pivotal decision regarding our futures which we have had no say in. What's the point?
Mrs Nietzsche
24-08-2010, 12:07
I don't really see how either party can form a govt, surely even if libs get 73 seats and all the independents, once they have chosen a speaker they will be back to 75 max
It's unlikely Labor will get all the Greens and all the Independents, but if they did they would have 76 even after choosing a speaker.
Pina Colada
24-08-2010, 12:10
I don't really see how either party can form a govt, surely even if libs get 73 seats and all the independents, once they have chosen a speaker they will be back to 75 max
It's unlikely Labor will get all the Greens and all the Independents, but if they did they would have 76 even after choosing a speaker.
I have heard that they have the option of picking a speaker from Labor, although I'm sure that isn't ideal.
I agree Labor getting the support of of the Green and all the independents is highly unlikely.
The whole situation is so unstable :no:
And I think some are underestimating the independants. They won't be swayed by public flattery and a bit of wining and dining. They would be VERY aware of their constituents beliefs and opinions.
I used to work in Local Government in Far North Queensland and had a few dealings with Bob Katter. Although he comes across country yokel, and at times plain crazy, he is a very astute and experienced polictial veteran and I doubt there is a representative in this country who is more atuned to his constituents .
This is about me watching democracy disintegrate over who can provide the most independents with the best lunch and the most flattery. The constituents of those independents seem to have been forgotten in the process. :(
I think that is an extraordinarily cynical viewpoint to have. How do you know they have been forgotten? Nothing has been revealed.
I cannot imagine Bob Katter playing kissy kissy bottom chase games.
These independents have an enormous amount for whatever term remains. It really is a most remarkable chain of events, and I think for once, it will give the major parties a huge wake up call.
I am immensely proud of the Australian public for the huge swing to the green vote. I think people did vote more passionately this year, instead of defaulting to the safe vote.
Phyllis Stein
24-08-2010, 12:19
Don't forget that which ever party get's the top job now dose not mean that they will still have the top job in six months. They need the Independents to form Government.
If they don't keep them happy there is nothing stopping the Independents from getting up and joining the Coalition at any time.
Nothing is going to be 100% till we head back to the polls. That could be any time in the next 3 years. We are going to be a mess till then.
The Independents/ Greens have to agree, in writing, to guarantee supply, which only relates to funding for current policies. They can't just switch their allegience, as that would go against their agreement. However, they can vote against the government in relation to other policies and they can block legislation which would force another election. Yes, it's less stable than the government having a majority, but it's not necessarily going to self-destruct - many state governments function with minority governments.
No-one told us what they WOULD do, they were too busy flinging sh!t at each other.
:iagree:The first time I've ever agreed with you in regards to politics. :D
:iagree:The first time I've ever agreed with you in regards to politics. :D
Haha:laughing:. And it'll probably be the last.:laughing:
missie_mack
24-08-2010, 12:28
Personally I have always thought it should go back to party basics. Removing the two party race and make it just who got the most votes, pure and simple. But that would be too easy :p
Personally I have always thought it should go back to party basics. Removing the two party race and make it just who got the most votes, pure and simple. But that would be too easy :p
I think that would be problematic because many people who vote Greens and Independent do so in the knowledge that their second preference to a major party is being counted.
If we went on first preferences alone people would vote very differently.
The Liberals do not deserve to form government. :no:
Labor are far more likely to be able to work with the independents to form a stable situation for Australia, however I think there will be another election in 18 months.
sarajeff17
24-08-2010, 12:56
The Liberals do not deserve to form government. :no:
Labor are far more likely to be able to work with the independents to form a stable situation for Australia, however I think there will be another election in 18 months.
:iagree:
KatiesMum
24-08-2010, 16:15
A lot will depend on Labors position on the mining tax, how flexible the Lib/Nats will be with everything and how consolidated the independants are with each other.
If Labor are prepared to move on the mining tax, I think the independants are much more likely to go with them as they seem to agree on many other major points.
The sticking point then will be how committed the independants are ... as if they go with Labor they will pay for it at the next election. The vast (overwhelming) majority of the voters in those independant seats voted National as their second preference. So they ARE more aligned with that side, and may vote against the independant next time around.
The crux then will be if the independants did enough for their local electorate to be forgiven for siding with Labor.
Because they hate Labor! The fact that they left their party doesn't mean they "switched sides", far from it.
I heard one of the independents say that he left the Nationals in the 80's and stopped smoking - he then said he gave up 2 cancers at once, so I don't think it is certain they will go with TA.
Sure, their electorates might not like Labor but I have seen that the priority for some of them (like NBN) would mean that they may choose to form government with the ALP as their goals reflect the needs of the electorates more than the Liberal party would.
Most political commentators suggest this means that the electorate is disenchanted with *both* major parties. Neither has a clear mandate to govern.
I think so too!
Mrs Nietzsche
24-08-2010, 19:27
One of the indepdent is saying he thinks Labor adn Liberal should govern together OMG dictatorship, then we would have no options at all. Though hopefully Greens will quickly get a lot of votes and become a contender.
My sources tell me that the constituents in question have been polled, which I'm very relieved to hear :).
You're still not thinking of the constituents, of their democratic voice. I couldn't care less about the independents themselves, I'm sure either way they'll make themselves comfortable.
Again I ask... what if the Greens MP elected in the seat of Melbourne sided with Liberal instead of Labor? Would he be representing his constituents? Of course not. The people who voted for him would have otherwise voted Labor.
Similarly, three of the independent seats would have otherwise voted National. These are traditional farming, RM Williams-esque seats. To imagine them voting Labor is ridiculous.
You're making assumptions here that are simply not correct, though Lambjam.
Many farmers DO and have voted Labour. In Queensland, historically, they supported the Nats because the Nationals supported supporing the primary industries. Ideologically, however, many farmers DO NOT agree with the Liberal party "good for big business approach."
Certainly, where I grew up (Bob Katter territory), the Nats held sway, THEN the Labour party, then the Libs. The formation of the LNP was seen as a great betrayal by many. (Incl Bob Katter.)
And lets not assume that "farmers" are any less complex than city people ... they have their own politics, quite aside from self interest, and the vote varies in the country seats, too.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/reject-labor-voters-message-to-independent-mps/story-fn59niix-1225909130153
I think that article supports much of what I am saying ...
a) country voters DO think for themselves, rather than the uncritical vote for National often assumed
b) issues in the country are determined by practical rather than philosophical issues.
Getting back to your original premise, that people should feel betrayed because the popular vote is with the Liberal party ... that is assuming (incorrectly) that the Nats and the Libs are regarded as essentially the same (I disagree) and that the Libs also have more popular support than Labour.
I don't agree. I believe Labour lost this election because of the rise of the Greens splitting the non-conservative vote, NOT that there was a widespread turn to conservatism.
And really, concensus making is about making conscensus. If Labour are able to do it better, why is that a betrayal? Tony Abbott has already bowed to the new reality of concensus making, and is trying to show the Libs have an ability to do that.
I lived in New Zealand in the 90s when there was a remarkable period of a MINORITY government propped up by a number of minor parties; far less stable than this situation, where the two majors are seeking the support of a few independents. It worked ... after a fashion ...
ETA: just had a look at NZ's political history ... not remarkable at all apparently. Minority governments have become the norm there since the move to proportional representation. The major parties have need to form Coalitions with several minor parties on every occasion since about 1990. Unfortunately it seems to have the effect of putting radicals (on both sides) in a dangerously powerful position, which can be dangerous for sensible policy.
twotrunks
25-08-2010, 09:09
So we should be deciding on Govt based on the wishes of three areas of voters??? I realise this is essentially what will happen, but surely to say, well these constituents wanted NAts/Libs so we should all get them is a bit out there?? Personally my electorate recorded a swing TOWARD Labor, away fro the Libs, so if the Libs get in that will not be representative for us :no:. But that's the way it goes, clearly someone has to miss out, half of the country is going to be disappointed, its politics.
I would love to know what would happen if the vote was counted person by person nationally, rather than seat by seat. Melb, for eg, would be a pretty big population electorate, yet as it stands their vote is equal to that of a country area with few people... if we added up exactly how many people voted for each party, who would win??
RedPanda
25-08-2010, 09:12
I'd be concerned about any voters who elected Katter. That man appears more and more unstable with every article that I read. His latest rant is quite alarming in terms of how much he's loving this power.
I can say a lot of bad things about Bob Katter (the word redneck would feature highly) but his record of working hard - and getting big wins for his electorate - is actually very impressive.
My parents BOTH voted for Katter for this reason. Pretty hard not to feel grateful when the guy makes sure you have a road safe enough to travel on, a hospital in the next town, and a voice that isn't afraid to demand the same standard of living for the bush as people in the city enjoy.
Please keep in mind that your contempt is for real people ... not very nice.
RedPanda
25-08-2010, 09:26
Please keep in mind that your contempt is for real people ... not very nice.
Is this directed at me :confused:
How can that be construed as contempt? I am concerned for them because the person they have elected is loving his 15 minutes so much that I would start to worry about his intentions (classic example being his statement that he will start to "dictate" to the media about what they should report on).
Read today's Australian Financial Review and The Age if you're looking for why I'm concerned for them.
I am very nice Jaq. Well, I like to think so. I'm also entitled to an opinion. I'm not going to think Katter is not a grumpy old man just because your parents voted for him (although I'm sure they're very nice too!).
Sorry, Panda, I'm glad that wasn't your intention. I took it the wrong way. Please be assured that northerners have very good reasons for voting for him .... he IS one of the longest serving MPs, after all, and the most experienced indepedent by a long way. (Hardy 15 minutes when this is his fourth or fifth term?)
He is known for saying outrageous things and may well be a grumpy old man, but there's a school of thought that its all a facade to disguise what a cunning political operator he is.
I don't know about that but ... people know why they voted for him. A lot of people up there don't like him as an individual but respect what he's done for the North in general.
RedPanda
25-08-2010, 09:46
Yeah, I know he's a veteran but this is surely the most attention he's had on a national scale. Regional areas tend to get forgotten so I guess they tend to favour the louder voices (they have to). He just doesn't come across as dignified or professional as the other independents (like Windsor).
KatiesMum
25-08-2010, 10:03
I don't agree. I believe Labour lost this election because of the rise of the Greens splitting the non-conservative vote, NOT that there was a widespread turn to conservatism.
I have to disagree slightly here. If people wwere turning from ALP to Greens, then they would have voted ALP second, and Labor wouldnt have lost 17 seats.
I do think the only way to see this is people have turned away from Labor to an extent. Some is the inevitable return from them turning TO Labor last time .... but if Labors record and campaign had been better, they should have been able to keep a good proportion of these voters.
(I am not saying than means the Libs should form government .... just that I have read a lot lately about how its not a turn away from Labor, and I just dont think that is the case)
So we should be deciding on Govt based on the wishes of three areas of voters??? I realise this is essentially what will happen, but surely to say, well these constituents wanted NAts/Libs so we should all get them is a bit out there??
and this is the biggest problem with a hung parliament. The country is basically dictated to by the needs of a few that an incredibly small proportion of Australia actually voted for.
I would love to know what would happen if the vote was counted person by person nationally, rather than seat by seat. Melb, for eg, would be a pretty big population electorate, yet as it stands their vote is equal to that of a country area with few people... if we added up exactly how many people voted for each party, who would win??
This would be REALLY bad for the country. we have electorates because what is good for one area is not great for others. We have seen what happens in marginal electorates - money gets thrown at them in ridiculous ways ....
If it was just a popular vote with no electorates, ALL campaigning, money etc would be centred only on Melbourne and Sydney (where nearly 1/2 of all Australians live) and the rest of the country would get nothing at all.
It is important to note though - the boundary changes that happen each election are due to population changes. Each state gets a number of members based on population, and the electorates are set and calculated based on a complex formula around population. Thats why Melbourne has more representatives that Perth ....
And as for Bob Katter - he got over 75% of the vote, so he must be doing something right at least. (That doesnt mean him having immense power is good for the country though)
RedPanda
25-08-2010, 12:52
And as for Bob Katter - he got over 75% of the vote, so he must be doing something right at least. (That doesnt mean him having immense power is good for the country though)
Actually, he only got 45% (or something) of the primary vote and the rest on preferences. Didn't hurt that he was high enough on the ballot to enjoy the donkey vote either.
Sorry - sounds like I'm anti-Katter but I'm not. I don't know anything about him other than his pretty intense self-promotion in the media at the moment.
Pina Colada
25-08-2010, 12:57
Actually, he only got 45% (or something) of the primary vote and the rest on preferences. Didn't hurt that he was high enough on the ballot to enjoy the donkey vote either.
Sorry - sounds like I'm anti-Katter but I'm not. I don't know anything about him other than his pretty intense self-promotion in the media at the moment.
Really? Self promotion? :confused: When asked if he wanted a portfolio he laughs. All he wants is the most he can get for his electorate, which is a rural Queensland seat that covers a huge area and has been virtually ignored by major political parties until now. Drive on the roads and visit the hosptials :no: I for one hope they can get a great deal out of these negotiations as it is long overdue.
RedPanda
25-08-2010, 13:01
I'm not referring to using his profile to help his electorate. I went to great effort previously to state that I know nothing of Katter's policies. My comments are merely on his attitude towards the media, which has been arrogant, self-promotional (inaccurately stating how much of the vote he got and how he will now "dictate" what will be reported on) and really quite rude. This isn't someone who fell into the spotlight accidentally. This is someone who ran for public office, won, and now is in a huge position of power and quite rightly the media is seeking his comment. They didn't go into his loungeroom during his favourite telly show. It's fine to lack polish (in fact I prefer "unpolished" pollies), but he seems to also lack dignity and professionalism.
Good for him for representing his electorate well. Rural areas need strong voices (which I also stated in a previous post).
Pina Colada
25-08-2010, 13:08
I'm not disagreeing with you on his manner and his attitude, just wasn't quite following your term 'self promotion'.
I have had dealings with Katter whilst working in Local Government, and it is not a put on, that is him, although his manner and attitude don't quite reflect his political shrewdness. Like Jaq said, a lot of people don't like his personality, but there is no denying his passion and ability to fight for his electorate.
twotrunks
26-08-2010, 08:59
I was laying awake last night thinking about the OP, and whether Labor "deserves" to win Govt...
According to today's tally, Labor has around 120,000 more votes nationally on the 2 party preferred basis.
And seat wise, Labor has 71 seats, while the Liberals alone have 43. If you add in the Liberal-Nationals in QLD, it brings their total to 63, still far short of Labor. It is only by agging the Nats and country Libs that their tally raches 71, equal with Labor.
Yes I realise that due to preferences all parties get some "help" from another party. But come on. Does Labor "deserve" to be in? of course they do - they won!!! They won on seats and they won on individual votes.
trishalishous
26-08-2010, 09:39
I was laying awake last night thinking about the OP, and whether Labor "deserves" to win Govt...
According to today's tally, Labor has around 120,000 more votes nationally on the 2 party preferred basis.
And seat wise, Labor has 71 seats, while the Liberals alone have 43. If you add in the Liberal-Nationals in QLD, it brings their total to 63, still far short of Labor. It is only by agging the Nats and country Libs that their tally raches 71, equal with Labor.
Yes I realise that due to preferences all parties get some "help" from another party. But come on. Does Labor "deserve" to be in? of course they do - they won!!! They won on seats and they won on individual votes.
:iagree:
the coalition already is multiple parties 'pooling' their votes to rival the single party of labour...
KatiesMum
26-08-2010, 09:42
My comments are merely on his attitude towards the media, which has been arrogant, self-promotional (inaccurately stating how much of the vote he got and how he will now "dictate" what will be reported on) and really quite rude. This isn't someone who fell into the spotlight accidentally. This is someone who ran for public office, won, and now is in a huge position of power and quite rightly the media is seeking his comment. They didn't go into his loungeroom during his favourite telly show. It's fine to lack polish (in fact I prefer "unpolished" pollies), but he seems to also lack dignity and professionalism.
Good for him for representing his electorate well. Rural areas need strong voices (which I also stated in a previous post).
Firstly - he isnt misrepresenting his vote. He got 69% of the vote according to abc website. Yes - that is on a 2 party preferred method - but that is the electoral method we use, and is hte method that Labor is claiming government on. 69% of people in his electorate preferred him to the next best candidate.
I think we are in for a world of pain from having a hung parliament. 4 independants and 1 green basically get to decide for everyone who will govern the country - and they can and will put their own interests and the interests of their own electorate above the national interest.
I was laying awake last night thinking about the OP, and whether Labor "deserves" to win Govt...
According to today's tally, Labor has around 120,000 more votes nationally on the 2 party preferred basis.
And seat wise, Labor has 71 seats, while the Liberals alone have 43. If you add in the Liberal-Nationals in QLD, it brings their total to 63, still far short of Labor. It is only by agging the Nats and country Libs that their tally raches 71, equal with Labor.
Yes I realise that due to preferences all parties get some "help" from another party. But come on. Does Labor "deserve" to be in? of course they do - they won!!! They won on seats and they won on individual votes.
Sorry - but when I voted, i was fully aware that the Liberals, Nationals and Liberal-Nationals formed a coalition. Thats why they are listed as the LNP (Liberal National Party). It is fair enough to add the vote together for these parties.
twotrunks
26-08-2010, 11:19
Sorry - but when I voted, i was fully aware that the Liberals, Nationals and Liberal-Nationals formed a coalition. Thats why they are listed as the LNP (Liberal National Party). It is fair enough to add the vote together for these parties.
In that case they should only get one candidate per seat. There are seats where both a national and a liberal ran, which seems ridiculous to me, given that they are apparently seen as one. QLD seems to be the only state where they were represented as one party on the ballots, in the others they were still seperate.
RedPanda
26-08-2010, 11:39
Firstly - he isnt misrepresenting his vote. He got 69% of the vote according to abc website. Yes - that is on a 2 party preferred method - but that is the electoral method we use, and is hte method that Labor is claiming government on. 69% of people in his electorate preferred him to the next best candidate.
He is misrepresenting his majority when he claims to have a mandate from his electorate when he wasn't the first choice. Fewer than half of his electorate actually wanted him so his statement that he has "the trust" of the majority of his electorate is wrong because he was the second choice for many. Another candidate was given that trust before him. I know we have a preferential voting system, hence I used the term "primary" vote. When claiming to represent the majority of people, I think it's important to clarify what constitutes "majority", and in this case, it's 47 per cent of people. When reporting election results, it's prudent to clarify whether it's under the two-party preferred system or whether it's the primary vote. When referring to the former, most reporters AND politicians choose to clarify, as Julia Gillard has done correctly since the results were known.
I have taken no sides and I'm not debating Katter's politics. I am interested in the political science of the whole thing. I studied politics for four years a decade ago and nothing has fascinated me more than the events of this election.
RedPanda
26-08-2010, 11:43
In that case they should only get one candidate per seat. There are seats where both a national and a liberal ran, which seems ridiculous to me, given that they are apparently seen as one. QLD seems to be the only state where they were represented as one party on the ballots, in the others they were still seperate.
I agree with Katie'smum on this one. You'd have to have been living under a rock to not know what parties comprise the Coalition.
KatiesMum
26-08-2010, 14:34
In that case they should only get one candidate per seat. There are seats where both a national and a liberal ran, which seems ridiculous to me, given that they are apparently seen as one. QLD seems to be the only state where they were represented as one party on the ballots, in the others they were still seperate.
I guess that is a point .... however they are seperate parties who do have seperate interests. They have a formal agreement to form a government together - but power comes from the number of seats, so they each want to win the majority of the seats.
Here in WA the Liberals and Nationals have NOT formed a coalition. Campaigned on seperate tickets entirely, and we ended up with a hung parliament. the Nationals did talk to both sides and have formed a minority governmnet with the Liberals, but it isnt a coalition. The Nationals had their own agenda, their own ideas and desires, and fought hard to get them in place.
KatiesMum
26-08-2010, 14:36
He is misrepresenting his majority when he claims to have a mandate from his electorate when he wasn't the first choice. Fewer than half of his electorate actually wanted him so his statement that he has "the trust" of the majority of his electorate is wrong because he was the second choice for many. Another candidate was given that trust before him. I know we have a preferential voting system, hence I used the term "primary" vote. When claiming to represent the majority of people, I think it's important to clarify what constitutes "majority", and in this case, it's 47 per cent of people. When reporting election results, it's prudent to clarify whether it's under the two-party preferred system or whether it's the primary vote. When referring to the former, most reporters AND politicians choose to clarify, as Julia Gillard has done correctly since the results were known.
I have taken no sides and I'm not debating Katter's politics. I am interested in the political science of the whole thing. I studied politics for four years a decade ago and nothing has fascinated me more than the events of this election.
but Labor didnt win half of the primary vote last time around either - but still claimed a mandate because they won with a large majority of seats.
I DO think the two party preferred vote is the one to judge by.
Just wanted to say that Katter only got 45% of the primary vote, but 69% on a 2 party preferred.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-167.htm
melandstan
26-08-2010, 19:08
Have just come across this thread.
Have read through many of the comments.
1 thing that i think may not have been bought up - is that the Prime Minister DOES NOT RULE alone.
This was distinctly shown in the ousting of K.Rudd..... The PARTY (and the no-name, no-faced) party members (whom are not elected by anyone but their buddies in politics already) have the say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am a swinging voter - but over the last 10 yrs, prob moreso liberal. I was not a K.Rudd fan - BUT, what they did to him as P.M. - well, what chance do australian people like you and I have in the honest (and non-biaise and deal making) election process?
BIG
FAT
0
and, as for basically now in the dilemma of hung parliament - we are waiting for 4 people (independents and green) to choose (basically) our P.M.
BS
Pina Colada
26-08-2010, 19:08
Just wanted to say that Katter only got 45% of the primary vote, but 69% on a 2 party preferred.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-167.htm
I don't think anybody is arguing that. KM said she was referring to 2 party preferred.
melandstan
26-08-2010, 19:09
Katter
he's scary - that's all i have to say...
I don't think anybody is arguing that. KM said she was referring to 2 party preferred.
Was referring to this:
And as for Bob Katter - he got over 75% of the vote, so he must be doing something right at least. (That doesnt mean him having immense power is good for the country though)
Pina Colada
26-08-2010, 19:14
Which she followed with this:
Firstly - he isnt misrepresenting his vote. He got 69% of the vote according to abc website. Yes - that is on a 2 party preferred method - but that is the electoral method we use, and is hte method that Labor is claiming government on. 69% of people in his electorate preferred him to the next best candidate.
sunnymummy
26-08-2010, 19:42
I can understand the concerns that a 'few' people in 3 rural electorates my be in a position to dictate policy for the whole government, but haven't we previously had even fewer power brokers within the ALP who did the very same thing??!
silverstars
26-08-2010, 19:46
I don't know how anyone could believe that the Liberal Party with Tony Abbott at the helm deserves to form Government.
Blows my mind!
The indeps will decide who they support based on their view of stable gov and what they can squeeze out of whoever hey support. There are good reasons why they left the Lib/Nats, and while they are by nature conservative, if Labor comes to the table with a better deal, they will support them, no question. And that's how it should be...they will never have this power again, ever. They need to wring every deal they can for their constituents (even if these constituents don't like who they get into bed with).
BabelFish
02-09-2010, 17:46
Given that Liberal essentially lied about the funding for their election promises (now that Treasury has found an $11b black hole in their costings) and refused initially to submit that funding for scrutiny (knowing what would happen) I can't imagine how anyone could think that LIBERAL deserve to form government.
Labor's costings held up - they were just what they said they'd be.
Also, the two-party preferred vote notwithstanding, if the Liberal party didn't have a coalition with the Nationals they would never win government, ever. Never, ever, ever.
Labor does not need to join forces with another party to get enough votes. Liberal have always had to join forces with another party to get enough votes.
So for those against Labor, who are complaining about our system, I'd stop. Because without our system the way it is you'd never have a chance.
Our system is showing to be flawed in this instance, and parliamentary reform is going to be one very positive (I hope) outcome of this whole mess.
And I also hope that the major parties take from this that the people of Australia are disenchanted with them both, and take steps to change this in the future.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.