Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[SQ421]

An inconvenient truth.

Which part? That the Liberal Party won less seats than Labor did?

 

[Deleted member]

Which constituents? The majority of voters in each seat got their chosen member. Those who vote for independents know they have to align themselves with one of the major party groups, i.e. Labor or conservative to be heard.

I'd suggest that the ability of Julia Gillard to form a coalition and hold it together for the life of the parliament is an achievement in itself. Tony Abbott couldn't form a coalition with the independent members and he desperately tried with offers of huge cash expenditure to their electorates.

She has also been able to achieve the great majority of her party's legislative agenda despite everything. The country has survived the global financial crisis with other countries looking to us for inspiration.

The endless negativity by the conservative side of politics surely reflects badly on them as they continually talk down the country.

Still doesn't change the fact that oakshot and Windsor went against the wishes of their constituents.( who overwhelmingly rejected labour) They are from conservative electorates. Let them run for labor in September. See how they fare

 

[amaroo]

I don't get to decide.

We all get to decide......very soon

 

[SQ421]

Er, the same constituents had also rejected the conservative parties and preferred to elect the Independents than the Conservative parties own candidates.

 

[SQ421]

We all get to decide......very soon

In our own divisions, yes.

I do think the outcome of the elections will surprise many. And cause a few to put their heads through the wall.

 

[Skyring]

Er, the same constituents had also rejected the conservative parties and preferred to elect the Independents than the Conservative parties own candidates.

The same constituents had also rejected Labor and the Greens. Be fair.

Now, Independents tend to have difficulty getting elected, but once in, they stick around, because their first loyalty is towards their electorate, not party headquarters. The big parties have their powerbases in the big cities, so rural independents often have a dream ride - they are simply the best representative.

That's so long as they maintain their independence and their integrity and they listen to their constituents.

Windsor and Oakeshott will not be re-elected, because their largely conservative electorates are furious that their representatives propped up a Labor government which has been a continuing disaster.

Thomson and Slipper have no chance at all. If either decide to stand, they will likely be outpolled by minor party candidates such as the Greens.

In each of these four electorates, the Coalition candidate will romp home. That's quite apart from anything that takes place between now and the election. The Coalition have had an amazing amount of material to craft election ads from already, and I feel confident in predicting more of the same in the next six months. There are some skeletons in the Labor closet which are coming home to roost.

Tony Abbott would have to be tremendously incompetent to lose the election from here. He hasn't shown any great statesman abilities, but neither has he been as ineffective as Gillard.

The only factor I can see harming his prospects is the same one that saw John Hewson lose against Keating in 1993. Overconfidence, whether real or imagined.

 

[Deleted member]

Er, the same constituents had also rejected the conservative parties and preferred to elect the Independents than the Conservative parties own candidates.

Who used to be conservative party members , see what happens in September.

 

[serfty]

House of Representatives Results

New England 2010 significant results (1st Pref.):

[TABLE="class: results, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: rownorm"]
[TD="align: left"]SMITH, Greg[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Country Labor[/TD]
[TD]8.13%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: rownorm"]
[TD="align: left"]COATES, Tim[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]The Nationals[/TD]
[TD]25.22%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: rownorm"]
[TD="align: left"]WINDSOR, Tony

[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Independent[/TD]
[TD]61.88%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Lyne 2010 Significant results (1st Pref.):

[TABLE="class: results, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: rownorm"]
[TD="align: left"]OAKESHOTT, Robert

[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Independent[/TD]
[TD]47.15%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: rownorm"]
[TD="align: left"]LIPS, Frederik[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]Labor[/TD]
[TD]13.49%[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: rownorm"]
[TD="align: left"]GILLESPIE, David[/TD]
[TD="align: left"]The Nationals[/TD]
[TD]34.39%[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

It will be interesting to see what happens for 2013 in these seats.

 

[drron]

I don't get to decide. Neither does Tony Abbott.

If one gets convicted of an offence that carries a sentence of more than a year in prison, they get turfed out. The constitution doesn't make a distinction between the severity of the offence.

See the 2 posts above this one of yours.The law has already decided Sen Fisher's offences were not serious indeed questions have been raised as to whether those charges should have proceeded.
Although Craig Thomson has not yet been judged no one is questioning whether or not he should have been charged with 154 charges of fraud except Mr thomson himself.There has been an extensive investigation by Fair Work Australia as well as Victorian and NSW police.any reasonable person would conclude that the Thompson situation is vastly different to that of Sen Fisher.

 

[drron]

Which part? That the Liberal Party won less seats than Labor did?

But the coalition won more than labor.

Also interesting that Mr.Windsor forced the resignation of the Greiner government in NSW when he was an Independent in the NSW Parliament.The Coalition was supported by Independents in a hung parliament.He did so because Terry Metherrel had been appointed to a senior executive position after he left parliament-the matter was referred to ICAC.Mr Windsor did not wait for the result but immediately supported a motion of No confidence in the Greiner government.ICAC subsequently found there was no case to answer.
Funny that his opinion has now changed on who should do the judging.

 

[777]

Although Craig Thomson has not yet been judged no one is questioning whether or not he should have been charged with 154 charges of fraud except Mr thomson himself.There has been an extensive investigation by Fair Work Australia as well as Victorian and NSW police.any reasonable person would conclude that the Thompson situation is vastly different to that of Sen Fisher.

Obviously: Sen Fisher has been convicted. Mr Thompson remains innocent until proven guilty. The law is unequivocal in that respect.

 

[Pushka]

Which part? That the Liberal Party won less seats than Labor did?

It was actually a tie. And 43.2% of the population voted for the Coalition, and 37.99% voted for Labor. You may want to revisit the results.

The three non Green independents who enabled Labor to govern went against the wishes of their community and only Katter will be voted in next election, according to latest polls. Needless to say the candidate will be Coalition, according to latest polls.

To say that the majority of the population voted Labor to govern is re-writing history.

Obviously: Sen Fisher has been convicted. Mr Thompson remains innocent until proven guilty. The law is unequivocal in that respect.

Yes, but one has been found guilty of an offence that was regarded as trifling by the court, and acquitted of theft. The charge of assault is now the event which is being investigated as an abuse of power by the police.

Mr Thompson has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but if that occurs, then the two events are not within a bulls roar of each other with regard to gravity.

 

[777]

It was actually a tie. And 43.2% of the population voted for the Coalition, and 37.99% voted for Labor. You may want to revisit the results.

On two party preferred Labor beat the coalition.

It's a bit disingenuous to use "Coalition" figures that combine Liberal and National Party numbers without doing the same on the other side. Labor and The Greens have formed a coalition in government so you need to add their vote to the Labor vote if that's how you are counting it.

In votes cast: Labor + Greens earned more votes than The Liberal Party + The National Party + The Country Liberal Party NT + Liberal National Party Queensland combined. You can even throw in the National Party of WA and the coalition still falls behind.

If you want to chose largest party v. Largest Party the ALP out polled the Liberals by more than 7 percent.

 

[Skyring]

Mr Thomson has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but if that occurs, then the two events are not within a bulls roar of each other with regard to gravity.

For political purposes, the courts are immaterial. Thomson isn't going to go to trial before September. These things can be delayed - as indeed the whole thing has been delayed. The salient facts of the Thomson situation were known before the 2010 election, but he was pre-selected anyway.

What counts politically is the support Gillard gave Thomson. She said he was a good member and would continue to do that job. However, once he became a hot potato, she dropped him, presumption of innocence or no. The union movement may have its problems, but they know that if the Prime Minister is supporting credible allegations of union corruption on an epic scale, along with all the sleaze that the story has generated, then their historically low membership levels will corrode even faster. Few workers earning minimum wage are happy to see their union dues spent by management on prostitutes.

 

[Pushka]

On two party preferred Labor beat the coalition.

It's a bit disingenuous to use "Coalition" figures that combine Liberal and National Party numbers without doing the same on the other side. Labor and The Greens have formed a coalition in government so you need to add their vote to the Labor vote if that's how you are counting it.
.

The Coalition is what it is - that is the way they form Government.

And yes, the Courts will still be hearing the Thompson case when we are all dead and buried. There will be delays and all sorts of tactics used.

 

[777]

Yes, but one has been found guilty of an offence that was regarded as trifling by the court, and acquitted of theft. The charge of assault is now the event which is being investigated as an abuse of power by the police.

Mr Thompson has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but if that occurs, then the two events are not within a bulls roar of each other with regard to gravity.

I agree with you on the gravity of the charges but the presumption of innocence is a real thing and applies whether it's convenient for your political views or not. What's the principle here:

That politicians should stand down/ be suspended from parliament/ not be able to vote when charged with a crime?

OK, Let's say that is the principle. Should it apply to all crimes or only serious crimes? Should apply in circumstances only where the evidence is strong? Should it apply regardless of conviction if the crime is, say, subject to a year or more in prison. So what happens if, a dodgy NSW state ALP govt discovers evidence of a stuff up in the workings of the Liberal party campaign office (say a technical error on the filing of printing allowances or something) and then uses that to charge 10 or 20 Federal MPs on trumped up charges that may or may not be true. Should they all then resign immediately? Who should judge? [Reverse the sides of politics depending on your prejudice].

There is a really, really, really good reason why the constitution says a member of parliament is entitled to retain their seat until CONVICTED of a serious crime. The reason is that allegations are potentially cheap and courts are much better at judging them than politicians or armchair critics. Even serious ones aren't always what they seem and it is very easy to create them if it is political expedient to do so.

FWIW i hope the book gets thrown at Craig Thompson. If he is in fact guilty i hope he gets everything that is coming to him. I hope they round up and out every union leader who has abused union funds (or anyone has committed a fraud in business or wherever). If the allegations currently being aired at ICAC are true I hope the stench of those dealings haunts the ALP until every trace of those guys and their cronies are gone.

BUT the allegations have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law before we start messing with the right to sit in parliament.

 

[Pushka]

I agree with you on the gravity of the charges but the presumption of innocence is a real thing and applies whether it's convenient for your political views or not. What's the principle here:

That politicians should stand down/ be suspended from parliament/ not be able to vote when charged with a crime?

OK, Let's say that is the principle. Should it apply to all crimes or only serious crimes? Should apply in circumstances only where the evidence is strong? Should it apply regardless of conviction if the crime is, say, subject to a year or more in prison. So what happens if, a dodgy NSW state ALP govt discovers evidence of a stuff up in the workings of the Liberal party campaign office (say a technical error on the filing of printing allowances or something) and then uses that to charge 10 or 20 Federal MPs on trumped up charges that may or may not be true. Should they all then resign immediately? Who should judge? [Reverse the sides of politics depending on your prejudice].

There is a really, really, really good reason why the constitution says a member of parliament is entitled to retain their seat until CONVICTED of a serious crime. The reason is that allegations are potentially cheap and courts are much better at judging them than politicians or armchair critics. Even serious ones aren't always what they seem and it is very easy to create them if it is political expedient to do so.

FWIW i hope the book gets thrown at Craig Thompson. If he is in fact guilty i hope he gets everything that is coming to him. I hope they round up and out every union leader who has abused union funds (or anyone has committed a fraud in business or wherever). If the allegations currently being aired at ICAC are true I hope the stench of those dealings haunts the ALP until every trace of those guys and their cronies are gone.

BUT the allegations have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law before we start messing with the right to sit in parliament.

Ah well, yes I do know about presumption of innocence and how the courts work. I used to be a Police Officer.

 

[777]

The Coalition is what it is - that is the way they form Government.

And the greens and ALP have formed a government by combining. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

To over simplify it: there are two sides of parliament. The one with the most votes and members forms government. You can't count all the voters on one side and not count all the voters on the other.

 

[serfty]

And the greens and ALP have formed a government by combining. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

To over simplify it: there are two sides of parliament. The one with the most votes and members forms government. You can't count all the voters on one side and not count all the voters on the other.

I would suggest that be "one greens, three independents and the ALP have formed a government by combining".

It is basically a given that by aligning with Gillard, Windsor and Oakshot went against the wishes of the majority of people who voted for them - although that's matters little in a legal sense.

I reckon Windsor has got his revenge on the Nationals after being dumped for pre-selection while a sitting representative and would be unlikely to re-contest "New England".

IMHO, Oakshoot is "off with the pixies', will re-contest his seat and be genually surprised when he loses it.

 

[amaroo]

If the allegations currently being aired at ICAC are true I hope the stench of those dealings haunts the ALP until every trace of those guys and their cronies are gone.

ALP won't be the only organisation that will need to remove the stench.....there's a couple of ALP rejects starting new carriers over at Packers casino!

Watching the rotten exploits of Eddie & the ALP over at ICAC.......Mark Arbib's resignation is starting to make sense!

Had a great giggle this week watching Burke and the "Red Undies" moron distancing themselves from Eddie & his ski lodge