Breaking the deadlock - Election 2010

[medhead]

thats because more people voted for the coalition than they did labor! Even when it comes to the two party preferred, coalition are still in front! Yet here we have a Labor government!

Yes, but then again more people didn't vote for the coalition than did vote for them. More people have said that they would rather have someone other then the coalition.

Just like in 1998 when 2 party preferred was in favor of the ALP.

Really there is no point believing any public opinion in no news papers they selectively publish positive comments for the coalition. As a long term letter writing I have vast personal experience of how they publish the most outrageous public comments in favor but don't publish anything against the coalition. Even Malcolm Fraser has noted this situation. The funniest bit is that they then have the nerve to accuse the ABC of bias. To which I always send in a letter to suggest balance can be had by watching the ABC and reading the australian. Strangely it has never been published.

 

[Hvr]

Disappointing to hear the news earlier that Windsor and Oakeshott have gone with Labor to form a minority government. I cannot see either winning a seat at the next election which makes you wonder what they have been promised for their sacrifice.

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that "Gillard is the prime minister we had to have" and when she leaves things can return to normal....

And what is normal?

 

[Aussie_flyer]

Yes, but then again more people didn't vote for the coalition than did vote for them. More people have said that they would rather have someone other then the coalition.

and even more people said they would rather have someone other than LABOR! get real, labor lost the popular vote its that simple.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Yes, but then again more people didn't vote for the coalition than did vote for them. More people have said that they would rather have someone other then the coalition.

Just like in 1998 when 2 party preferred was in favor of the ALP.

Really there is no point believing any public opinion in no news papers they selectively publish positive comments for the coalition. As a long term letter writing I have vast personal experience of how they publish the most outrageous public comments in favor but don't publish anything against the coalition. Even Malcolm Fraser has noted this situation. The funniest bit is that they then have the nerve to accuse the ABC of bias. To which I always send in a letter to suggest balance can be had by watching the ABC and reading the australian. Strangely it has never been published.

You should move to Sydney the Herald loves coalition bashing !

 

[dragonman]

And what is normal?

normal is when you lie about people throwing their kids overboard and win office as a result

 

[JohnK]

And what is normal?

Normal? What politics was like before June 2010.

There is something about Julia Gillard I do not like. Perhaps it is the backstabbing and the craving for power at all costs. And perhaps it is true for every prime minister but I do not think she cares about the welfare of the country or it's people.

And let's remember that it does not take much to end up in the same mess as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal etc.

 

[anat0l]

Normal? What politics was like before June 2010.

There is something about Julia Gillard I do not like. Perhaps it is the backstabbing and the craving for power at all costs. And perhaps it is true for every prime minister but I do not think she cares about the welfare of the country or it's people.

And let's remember that it does not take much to end up in the same mess as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal etc.

It's views like this which basically show why our democratic system is a failure.

 

[medhead]

You should move to Sydney the Herald loves coalition bashing !

That's why I watch Aunty. Really I couldn't be bothered with the herald either. What I want is balanced reporting, with the facts and then to make up my own mind. ABC I find is the closest to this ideal, but they do have some funny bits and that is why I also read The Oz

Notmal? What politics was like before June 2010.

There is something about Julia Gillard I do not like. Perhaps it is the backstabbing and the craving for power at all costs. And perhaps it is true for every prime minister but I do not think she cares about the welfare of the country or it's people.

And let's remember that it does not take much to end up in the same mess as Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal etc.

You know, as a neutral comment, that is how I felt about both sides up to about 3 weeks before election day. But after than I get the feeling that Gillard/the ALP has that craving for power at all costs mentality less that Abbott and Co. There were a couple of reasons for the change in my opinion. I posted the FASTs science policy survey results, the ALP was the only party that answered all the questions in a positive way. The Liberals banged on about budget constraints or how the ALP is bad.

The ALP had a slightly more positive/vision focussed campaign. All I got from he coalition was stop the boats and the we'll all be runed. Maybe because I'm in a safe seat, but then while in Sydney during the week I'm not in a safe seat (I think)

The coalition kept on about the charter of budget honestly, but then totally threw it out the window. Nick Michin's comments on the charter of budget honesty last night on Q&A were interesting. Basically it was put in place by the coalition to disadvantage the opposition, now that the coalition was in opposition they're not going to follow there own system. Then, thanks to the independents, we find out that the coalitions policies were out by a big heap of money.

To me Abbott's basic position was "Look how great our numbers are, our surplus is bigger than theirs, trust us the numbers are good". The fact that was proven to be a misrepresentation screams power at all cost, IMO.

edit: the other thing that strikes me about Abbott is the constant referral to the primary vote and 2 party preferred vote, while ignoring that more people voted for someone other than the coalition on the primary vote and that the 2 party preferred vote situation was the same in 1998 with the parties reversed. To continue to quote facts that are meaningless, and can be so easily shown to be such, suggests a lack of ideas to me.

 

[straitman]

Just remember if there is a double dip recession it will be bye bye the ALP next time so I doubt anyone really should be celebrating.

With or without the double dip I believe that they will be in sufficient trouble and sufficiently hog tied that I think it will be bye bye ALP next time around. :-|

I guess Windsor has decided this term will be his swansong while Katter wants to continue and Oakeshott is on the Pixie Dust (anyone hear his 25 minute waffle?).

It was the speech of a true politician. 25 minutes to say 'I'll back Labor (most of the time)'

 

[coyote25]

thats because more people voted for the coalition than they did labor! Even when it comes to the two party preferred, coalition are still in front! Yet here we have a Labor government!

I'm waiting for the Libs to say Howard shouldn't have been returned when he won with less than 50% of 2 party perferred. We vote for members of parliament, they decide the government. We don't have a President style system yet!

As for the conversative natural of the Independents seats, the Coalition has thrown everything into winning this seats and keeps getting rejected. If the Nats actually stood up to the Libs users pays for everything then they could still have these seats. As the Libs and ALP move closer together I actually see the Nat being closer to ALP policies for regional areas than the Libs (even if both aren't great).

This is mostly due to the Coalition taking these seats for granted in the past. It's doubtful there will be a backlash against them regardless of who they picked as long as the local area benefits.

 

[JohnK]

It's views like this which basically show why our democratic system is a failure.

Wow! My views are why our democratic system is a failure?

You know, as a neutral comment, that is how I felt about both sides up to about 3 weeks before election day. But after than I get the feeling that Gillard/the ALP has that craving for power at all costs mentality less that Abbott and Co.

I didn't say I like Tony Abbott and company. I simply said there is something about Julia Gillard and company that is not quite right and does not belong in this (my) country's politics.

Democracy is a failure, not because of me or my views, but because of people like her who do not do the things they promise once they are elected or sneakily takeover. And I don't buy the line about how in Australia we vote for a party and not a person.

P.S I voted for Morris Iemma at the last NSW election not for the 2 pretenders that have replaced him.

 

[dajop]

Trying to be a little positive about the situation, the power of the independents may just keep a check on the power of the different factions and power brokers within the ALP (or indeed the Libs if the decision had gone the other way). I think the sort of discipline needed to keep the indepts in the fold, is a check on power that kept the Bracks govt on an even keel during its first term. It remains to be seen if Gillard and her minders have the talent to do likewise.

 

[straitman]

It remains to be seen if Gillard and her minders have the talent to do likewise.

I would like to think so but I suspect not.

 

[medhead]

I didn't say I like Tony Abbott and company. I simply said there is something about Julia Gillard and company that is not quite right and does not belong in this (my) country's politics.

Democracy is a failure, not because of me or my views, but because of people like her who do not do the things they promise once they are elected or sneakily takeover. And I don't buy the line about how in Australia we vote for a party and not a person.

P.S I voted for Morris Iemma at the last NSW election not for the 2 pretenders that have replaced him.

I didn't think I said anything about like or hate either. Gillard has been PM for 3 weeks before the election, so I'm not sure that there is much to the idea that she hasn't done anything that she promised to do. That was her predecessor who didn't achieve some of the the things that were promised. That predecessor was no doubt deposed because people like you were not happy that he didn't live up to the promise. So while I totally respect your opinion, I'm not sure what Gillard is expected to have done to address the issue of Rudd besides replace him and then do something different. I don't think 3 weeks is much time to show anything and I do think the next 3 years will hopefully show us something useful. So I don't really have a problem with the outcome and I hope that Gillard does something positive with the opportunity given to her.

It terms of voting for a person or a party, I thought people where saying that you in fact vote for a person, the person who represents your electorate. So no you don't vote for the leader of a party but you do know which party your representative is in and that gives some indication of the possible leader. Having said all that I do think it is a bit strange to say that you voted for a person, i.e. Rudd, but then hold another person responsible for the failures of the voted in person.

Of course I can see how that situation would be viewed as a failure. fair enough.

 

[cove]

I just hope these new chums stick to the Budget so we dont have to hit up the decreasing number of taxpayers with more to pay back.
Deadlock is fixed for the moment but at what cost to our country for promises made?

 

[serfty]

...
edit: the other thing that strikes me about Abbott is the constant referral to the primary vote and 2 party preferred vote, while ignoring that more people voted for someone other than the coalition on the primary vote ...

IFAIK, JG was the one harping about the 'two-party preferred" - she soon shut up when it became apparent the conservatives overtook the vote tallies on that basis.

Certainly the Conservative Coalition has more votes than the Labour/Green Alliance:

Liberal                         3,757,841
Liberal National Party of Qld   1,129,433
The Nationals                     461,143
Country Liberals                   38,157

Total                           5,386,574


Australian Labor Party          4,689,720
The Greens                      1,450,543                        

Total                           5,208,384

First Preferences By Party

 

[medhead]

and even more people said they would rather have someone other than LABOR! get real, labor lost the popular vote its that simple.

And so you have just highlighted how stupid it is to even mention the primary vote in those terms. The liberals and coalition also lost the popular vote in those terms as well. Fewer people put 1 next to a coalition party than those that put 1 next to a non coalition party.

But that's hasn't proven a thing

IFAIK, JG was the one harping about the 'two-party preferred" - she soon shut up when it became apparent the conservatives overtook the vote tallies on that basis.

Certainly the Conservative Coalition has more votes than the Labour/Green Alliance:

Liberal                         3,757,841
Liberal National Party of Qld   1,129,433
The Nationals                     461,143
Country Liberals                   38,157

Total                           5,386,574


Australian Labor Party          4,689,720
The Greens                      1,450,543                        

Total                           5,208,384

First Preferences By Party

I only recall hearing the preferred vote thing from JG once, on election night. By comparison I've heard TA bang on about the primary vote at least 4 times from election night onwards and twice on the preferred vote. I've also seen JB get on and gloat about the preferred vote change. ) Yet I haven't seen them mention how JH shouldn't have formed a government in 1998.

Simple point is that these are BS statistics, by both sides. Convention is that the incumbent government has first chance to form a government.

On the numbers: the total that you've quoted is 10,594,958. There were 13,072,032 votes lodged on election day including 724714 informal votes. So 5,386,574 voted for the coalition and 7,685,458 didn't vote for the coalition. That's 2,298,884 more people rejected the coalition on a primary vote basis. The ~2% difference on primary vote and 0.01% difference on 2 party vote pales into insignificance by comparison.

But please remember I'm just pointing out the failing of the arguments pushed by both sides.

 

[serfty]

... Fewer people put 1 next to a coalition party than those that put 1 next to a non coalition party. ...

The same can be said against the Labour/Green Coalition and even less #1 votes than the Conservative coalition. See above.

 

[anat0l]

Wow! My views are why our democratic system is a failure?

No. But your response is a good example of the tone of most citizens right now, and exactly why our system of government is a travesty and an utter failure of governance.

By and large, the rights of the people to decide who should govern have been betrayed. At least, this is the popular opinion of the people of this nation. It doesn't matter who actually became the puppet leader in the end, but a sizable proportion of the population - and indeed even the formed government - are of the belief that the wrong person is leading the country.

However, if we wanted to actually make sure all people were fairly content with who is leading the country, then we would need an election result by consensus. Since that's "too difficult", it doesn't happen. Yet our conceding of this point does not stop the opposition to the leadership (be it in the form of the populace or their representatives in parliament) from paralyzing the progressing of the nation, the responsibility of the elected government. That action of paralysis is itself a betrayal of democracy and is perpetrated without boundaries by the press.

Democracy is betrayed by the people against the people in this country:

• Special interest groups - be they large companies, unions or whatever - have the power to hold the government to ransom irrespective of the populace or expert opinion (mining companies vs. the RSPT)
• Individual parliamentarians have the sole right to hold an entire nation's legislative course to ransom (in this case, Fielding)
• The facade of freedom of speech and representation masks a much more sinister web of cronyism, victimisation, persecution, bullying and corruption. Even if these activities do not prove to be actually true, the accusations made of them are damaging enough that they are as good as, if not more weighty than, the "truth". An excellent example is this current mess where a whole bunch of citizens are accusing others of being bigots, idiots and other terms (perhaps not suitable for this forum) for voting for "the wrong party"/"the wrong leader"; some are even going to the point that the "idiots" of the nation who either (a) voted for the "wrong" party/leader and/or (b) caused this close-to-hung-parliament situation in the first place should be either deported or at the very least have their right to vote revoked. Now you try and tell me that the people of this country actually appreciate living in a democratic society....

For a democracy by parliament to actually work, people need to respect the system and then acknowledge that when a decision on leadership has been made, until the next time that leadership is contested then we need to work effectively together for the best interests of the nation. Perpetrating a cycle of governance paralysis and unfair representation will certainly not be in the interests of the nation, but we all know it's going to happen. It's happening right now....

 

[medhead]

The same can be said against the Labour/Green Coalition and even less #1 votes than the Conservative coalition. See above.

Exactly, that is my point I don't want to hear coalition voters banging on for 3 years about how they were robbed. Did you even read the rest of my post? It says exactly that it is stupid to raise this point by either side (my emphasis):

And so you have just highlighted how stupid it is to even mention the primary vote in those terms. The liberals and coalition also lost the popular vote in those terms as well.

I did edit my post to address your post. Didn't want to be accused of padding the posts to influence the 300,000 post competition.

Of course there is also the fact that it is only the coalition that has placed any faith in the primary numbers. Not sure how pointing out the fallacy of that position translates into a suggestion that the coalition's false measure should be applied to the other side.