Australian Federal Election 2010

AAP is currently predicting Labor 74 (after pre-poll and postals are finished counting late this week) meaning they'll only need the Green and Wilkie to form Govt. This would leave Coalition with 74 if they get the other 3 Indies.
 
So they're saying Brisbane, Boothby and Hasluck are all going to go Labor?
 
PieceOfMind said:
Note that in this reply I'm not trying to disprove your statement - just giving food for thought...
Click to expand...

Sure. The Green primary vote has been growing steadily. But the majority of that 5 per cent growth this time around is the Labor left defecting.

PieceOfMind said:
It's little wonder Green representation is increasing. Personally I see the Greens as being a lot more favoured by the younger demographic. In fact the seat of Melbourne, which the Greens won, I would assume homes a large number of uni students.
Click to expand...

That is the traditional Labor left. Look at who voted Gough baby in.

Arwon said:
Hey, at least they're online...
Click to expand...

That is something... I'll get around to the rest tomorrow.
 
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/minority-governments-can-work-bracks-20100822-13axo.html

Minority governments can work: Bracks
Paul Austin
August 23, 2010

STEVE Bracks has some advice for Julia Gillard as she contemplates trying to form a minority Labor government with conservative independents: go for it.

The former Labor premier says the big lesson from his alliance with conservative independents in Victoria from 1999 to 2002 is that minority governments can work.

And Craig Ingram, one of the three rural independents who installed Mr Bracks as premier over Jeff Kennett after the cliffhanger 1999 Victorian election, agrees hung parliaments can produce stable and good governments.

Asked by The Age yesterday what advice he would offer the Prime Minister as she entered into negotiations with the conservative, rural-based independents in a bid to save her government, Mr Bracks said: ''Negotiate face-to-face. Don't have surrogates - you have to do it yourself. And don't underestimate the importance of the personal relationships.''

Mr Bracks said Ms Gillard should emphasise Labor's plans for regional economic development, especially the $43 billion national broadband network.

He said the Prime Minister should also consider putting forward an agenda of reforms to the democratic system, such as fixed terms for federal parliament and improvements to question time.

Such reforms had been central elements of a charter of good governance he had signed with the three independents - Mr Ingram in Gippsland East, Russell Savage in Mildura and Susan Davies in Gippsland West - to clinch their support in 1999.

Mr Bracks said it would be wrong to think Ms Gillard, as a Labor leader, would be unable to strike an agreement with the three re-elected conservative independents: Bob Katter (the member for Kennedy in Queensland), Tony Windsor (New England, NSW) and Rob Oakeshott (Lyne, NSW).

''People are saying, 'Why would Bob Katter and the other two who have a National Party background go with Labor?','' Mr Bracks said.

''Well, you've got to remember that they left their party - and the contest for their seats is not a contest with Labor, it is with the National Party.

''They are disaffected with and estranged from the party they were involved in, and that party, the National Party, will demonise them and wants to wipe them out.''

Mr Bracks said people should also remember that the ''agrarian socialism policies'' of disaffected National Party members ''does have a common point with some parts of the Labor Party agenda''.

''It certainly can work.''

Mr Ingram, the last surviving MP among the ''gang of three'' independents who installed Mr Bracks as premier in 1999, is expected to be a sounding board for Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor during their negotiations with Ms Gillard and federal Coalition leader Tony Abbott.

Mr Ingram yesterday said one lesson from the Victorian experience was that independents should stick together in hung parliaments.

''They need to sit down together with the other cross-benchers and really work out what they have in common and what it is they are after,'' he told The Age.

''The decision they need to take [on who forms government] is a very, very difficult one, because it can effectively alienate 50 per cent of the population.

''Ultimately, that is an incredible weight for what will be about five or six individuals to have on their shoulders, when 10 or 15 million people can't decide.''

Mr Ingram said voters should not fear a hung federal parliament, because the experience in Australian states and other democracies was that minority governments could work well.

He was confident the federal independents were sensible, reasonable and level-headed, and would ''do the right thing''.

''You don't get elected as an independent without particular qualities - you have to rise above the crap of the two major parties,'' Mr Ingram said.

Mr Bracks said the success of his term of minority government was proven at the subsequent 2002 state election, which Labor won in a landslide.

''In some ways that was vindication of the work we did as a minority government,'' he said.
Click to expand...

It is very possible to have Labor and conservative independents working together, and we don't need to look back 70 years to see anything like that, just 11 years.
 
RE: Greens and agricultural.

Personal experience tells me that the Greens are quite friendly to agricultural interests. Last year a Greens state senator gave a talk at my then school emphasising the role of agriculture and the importance of maintaining agricultural education (of course, with an ecologically sustainable slant), and the Greens were quite adamantly against the state ALP on the issue at hand. May not apply across the board, but I know for a fact that they aren't simply out to get farmers.
 
Julia Gillard once again shows why women shouldn't be in positions of leadership.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/22/2990081.htm

Who are the key players?

Australia's political future hangs in the hands of a disparate gang of four independents and one Greens MP.

The Coalition and Labor are both hoping to form a minority government with the help of the independents.

The four MPs are Tasmanian newcomer Andrew Wilkie and rural seat incumbents Rob Oakeshott, Bob Katter and Tony Windsor.

Also in the mix is Nationals MP Tony Crook, who wants to be part of the cross-bench negotiations.

The major parties will now have to start horse-trading; this is what they have to work with:

Bob Katter

Background

* Member for Kennedy in outback Queensland since 1993
* Was with the National Party until 2001 but left to run as an independent
* Left the Nationals so he could better represent issues in his electorate
* Easily retained his seat in all the elections since 2001
* Kennedy is a family affair for Katter - his father Bob Katter Senior held the seat from 1966 to 1990
* Bob Katter Senior was a Labor politician but later joined the Nationals
* Was a Queensland MP from 1974 to 1992 and a strong supporter of controversial ex-premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen
* Describes himself as a "wild boy from wild country"
* Before the election he said he would work with the Greens if there was a hung Parliament

Issues

* Mr Katter says the survival of rural Australia will be his top priority
* Even though he rejects computers, he has already named broadband as a big issue
* Has called for more more investment in ethanol
* Opposed to privatisation and economic deregulation
* He says a privatised NBN will not work, saying "privatised Telstra has been absolutely disastrous for rural Australia"
* He is against banana, beef and other primary produce imports
* He wants to bring back agricultural subsidies and tariffs
* Mr Katter is a climate change sceptic and is against an emissions trading scheme

Tony Windsor

Background

* Has a farming background and is a primary producer
* An active participant in innumerable rural and community groups
* Holds a Bachelor of Economics from the University of New England
* Mr Windsor is the incumbent independent Member for the northern NSW seat of New England
* A former National Party member
* Was defeated in a National Party pre-selection ballot in NSW in 1991
* Went on to win the election as an independent and remained NSW independent MP until 2001
* Held the balance of power with three other independents in NSW
* Switched to federal politics in 2001, defeating the incumbent Nationals member in New England
* Won New England on preferences in 2001, increased his primary vote to 57 per cent in 2004 and nearly 62 per cent in 2007
* In 2004 Mr Windsor claimed then-deputy PM John Anderson and a Nationals senator bribed him to quit his seat
* Recently came under fire from other candidates over the sale and release of his farm to a mining company

Issues

* Mr Windsor says he would do a deal with either major party
* Mr Windsor has named broadband as a key issue
* He also says a main issue is the "stability of the nation"
* Has been heavily involved in the climate change debate
* Claims credit for some ideas which have been picked up including the Renewable Energy Institute and bringing the issue of soil carbon to a national level

Rob Oakeshott

Background

* Member for mid-north NSW coast seat of Lyne since 2008 by-election
* Former National Party member but left the party so he could better represent his electorate
* Was a NSW Nationals MP until 2008 when he resigned to run for Lyne
* Holds a Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Government
* Has described his views as economically conservative and socially progressive
* Mr Oakeshott won an easy victory at the September 2008 by-election
* Before the election he said there was nothing to fear from a hung parliament
* He said a hung parliament would increase the influence of all politicians, not just those in the balance of power

Issues

* Mr Oakeshott says he is undecided on who he will side with
* He names climate change as a top priority
* He says an emissions trading scheme should be a key policy of any government he will help form
* He has also called for a fair go for regional and rural Australia
* Names the make-up of the Senate, the stability of the government and his electorate's needs as key issues

Andrew Wilkie

Background

* Mr Wilkie is looking set to win safe Labor seat Denison in Hobart
* The retiring Labor MP is Duncan Kerr, who has represented the seat since 1987
* Mr Wilkie is a whistle-blowing former intelligence analyst
* No stranger to politics, Mr Wilkie has previously stood for the Greens
* He says he will not necessarily fall towards the Greens because of his history with the party
* He describes himself as centre-based "new breed of political activist"
* He was a former young Liberal
* In 2004 Mr Wilkie ran against then-PM John Howard in Bennelong as a Greens candidate
* Mr Wilkie just missed out on a Tasmanian seat in March's state election

Issues

* Mr Wilkie sees an "stable, competent and ethical government" as important above all else
* He also sees gaining a fair share of federal road funding for Hobart as a big issue
* Mr Wilkie has also named one of his main concerns as seeing pensions keep up with the cost of living
* He wants dental care to be included in Medicare and mental health funding increased
* Mr Wilkie also wants a better funding model for public education
* He says what is in the public interest is very important
* Believes major political parties focus too much in "self-interest" and "party politics"

Other key players

There are also two other members in the mix: the Greens' first lower house MP, Adam Bandt, and Nationals MP Tony Crook.

Adam Bandt

* Mr Bandt has indicated he will side with a Gillard Government
* He is replacing Labor frontbencher Lindsay Tanner in the seat of Melbourne
* Mr Bandt has worked as an industrial and public interest lawyer
* His work for unions included a stint at Slater and Gordon in a position previously held by Julia Gillard
* A PhD student who describes himself as a book nerd and live music fan
* Finished second in this seat in 2007 and also finished second in the 2009 Melbourne Lord Mayoral election
* Greens won NSW seat of Cunningham in a 2002 by-election but Mr Bandt's victory is the first time the Greens have won a seat in the Lower House at a general election

Tony Crook

* Mr Crook is set to win the West Australian seat of O'Connor
* Has toppled Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey
* Mr Crook is a Nationals MP but has not committed to joining the Coalition
* He says he wants to be part of the cross-bench negotiations.
Click to expand...

An interesting analysis.
 
Predictions are changing all the time.

According to The Age (http://www.theage.com.au/federal-el...ott--set-to-claim-73-each-20100823-13dyy.html), the AEC is indicating Denison has probably gone to Labor.

Denison in Tasmania was also in doubt, but was this morning listed as a Labor win by the Australian Electoral Commission, dashing the hopes of high-profile independent Andrew Wilkie.
Click to expand...

I assume this is also the AEC's prediction:
Single seat in limbo

With a single seat, Hasluck in Western Australia, still in doubt, Labor has 73 and the Coalition 72 of the 150 seats in parliament's lower house.
Click to expand...

The three independents Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter are safe from what I can tell.
 
The Denison result is currently based on 6 booths of 56, which aren't really representative of the seat as a whole. They appear to be processing each booth alphabetically.

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-194.htm

Most of the votes so far counted are from the most ALP-leaning part of the electorate. It's the posher areas like Sandy Bay that will decide the result.

Keep an eye on Grayndler as well. It's going to go very marginal and good preference flows and postal vote results could still see the Greens unseating Albanese.

Edit: 7 booths now, Wilkie nearly level again.
 
With 2 million postal votes, and not many preferences accurately counted, the whole board could change in the marginals. This will go on for a week before the true count is finalised.
 
Yep. For example, Dunkley and Kennedy now look closer than they did yesterday.

Tweeters from the Grayndler recount are saying it isn't delivering the Liberal preference rates the Greens need to beat Albanese. It'll be close once the bluer end of the electorate are added, but unless something happens in the postals, Albo will survive.

On the other hand, local knowledge suggests Denison is Wilkie's as the count moves along, ALP isn't getting the preferences it needs (again, postals could change this).
 
Arwon said:
Not sure what this means. I'm thinking of things like, for example, where fertiliser use is causing eutrophication or other pollution in a body of water thanks to the runoff. It's a collective action problem - no individual farmer is responsible, they need to grow their product, the impacts are downstream and away from their properties... but the water is getting polluted regardless.
Click to expand...

There's a problem, solve it - is not something most people like to see. The risk especially when dealing with city people is that 'the solution' to the problem will involve simply removing the problem: out of sight, out of mind. Consider land clearing there is no doubt that it was environmentally destructive. But the 'solution' was simply to ban farmers from doing it and give them nominal compensation for the privilege. That was Green driven, maybe not by the party, but certainly by Greenies.

Rights for Crown Land and State Forests for grazing will be the next one. At present, farmers are permitted to graze livestock on the two during certain parts of the year. This when properly done has good environmental form: reduces fuel-load, facilitates regrowth, helps out native species and is essential in rehabilitation. (Native grasses tend tend to spread outwards while introduced grasses spread upwards. Cows and sheep browse the top and devour the introduced grasses first, then can be driven off into a new section leaving the native grasses alone.) But arguments to this effect don't work on a city based environmental lobby bought up on one dimensional arguments: livestock evil.

Arwon said:
What should be done? How do you balance these things? I get that farmers are generally the most knowledgable land stewards (and some of the worst are the recent arrival hobbyists rather than established ones), but just because of the nature of individual property rights and individual decision-making, it's still potentially in a farmer's individual benefit to do some things which, in the long term, run down natural capital and reduce future output.
Click to expand...

Point out the problem. Talk about practical solutions. Give them assurances that the moment they rehabilitate that waterway the Greenies won't want to append it to the nearest National Park. You would be surprised what can be solved just by talking to people. The less government the better.

Arwon said:
Over-allocation of water is a fairly obvious example there. How should collective action problems in agriculture (or fishing) be dealt with? Is Australian agriculture sustainable currently? I don't know the answers to these questions, but they need to be asked.
Click to expand...

Fishing isn't really much of a problem. Australia has the best regulatory regime for fishing in the world. Most of the problems are just residuals. Tuna is particularly egregious but that could be solved by buying back licenses, imposing a quota and paying the difference. Twisting the arms of some of our Pacific Island friends in consultation with New Zealand to impose their own sustainable quota and to again, pay the difference, would be simple enough. Overall its not an expensive proposition. Mutually beneficial for all parties involved as well. The point is that they are being dealt with. Its just that nobody wants to get Greens of any stripe involved.
 
Arwon said:
Yep. For example, Dunkley and Kennedy now look closer than they did yesterday.

Tweeters from the Grayndler recount are saying it isn't delivering the Liberal preference rates the Greens need to beat Albanese. It'll be close once the bluer end of the electorate are added, but unless something happens in the postals, Albo will survive.

On the other hand, local knowledge suggests Denison is Wilkie's as the count moves along, ALP isn't getting the preferences it needs (again, postals could change this).
Click to expand...

Dunkley last night was only 50 votes apart (it's my electorate). It's looking bluer than last night. If anything, postal votes would favor Libs.

EDIT: Kennedy? You're kidding right? Katter got 47% of the primary vote. He got a 10% swing to him! http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-15508-167.htm
 
Well assuming that the ALP have 73 and the Coalition have 72, with 3 independents and 1 Green, the Coalition surely cannot form any sort of stable government, as it would rely on Green support, which, whilst possible, is much, much of a stretch than an ALP government relying on Green support. Even if Wilkie does win, that doesn't improve the Coalition position.

The ball is well in the ALP's court at the moment.
 
Your number is one out Camikaze, there's 150 seats. The current predictions seem to be 73-73-3-1. In that situation, either side to form Govt.
 
There's also speakership, which makes things interesting and tricky.
 
Hmm, yeah, SMH tally must not include an undecided seat.

ABC has it at 72-70-3-1, with 4 undecided, predicting Denison to ALP, and Boothby, Dunkley and Hasluck to LNP. So yeah, 73-73 works. Which makes a Coalition government much more possible.

Damn misleading SMH figures.

Arwon said:
There's also speakership, which makes things interesting and tricky.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that the Coalition were going to offer it to Rudd (although I can't find that anywhere...).
 
Camikaze said:
I read somewhere that the Coalition were going to offer it to Rudd (although I can't find that anywhere...).
Click to expand...

That was a joke by a Lib in the line of "side with us we'll give you a REAL job, not like a fake front bench seat with Gillard". ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Zardnaar
List MP Questions?
Replies
4
Views
556
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Progressives How Many?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
3K
JollyRoger
JollyRoger
Zardnaar
The Death of the Left/FPtP
Replies
1
Views
530
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Birdjaguar
Deportation: Millions must go!
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
5K
Cutlass
C
Zardnaar
Could the GoP/Trump Win Under A Proportional System?
Replies
17
Views
1K
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Back
Top Bottom