With the final result still uncertain but increasingly looking like Liberal/National 73, Labor 72, independents four and Greens one, it’s time for a new thread.
Author: William Bowe
William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.
View all posts by William Bowe
3941
I believe that the High Court has said that an MP or Senator being declared to ineligible can`t invalidate a law.
I cannot see an Abbott Government (minority or otherwise) enacting a mining tax. They would loose most credibility in their 2 best states.
JV
8 days till pee day
🙁
I am just wondering how sympathetic Windsor might feel toward Labor after the Labor candidate in New England campaigned heavily on the issue of Windsor’s sale of his farm to a coal mining company:-
[ Dr Greg Smith, the ALP candidate for New England, had called on Mr Windsor to “end the speculation and clear the air after the controversial sale of his farm to a coal mining company” earlier this week.
He said people considering voting for Mr Windsor “deserve an explanation, considering he has been a vocal critic of coal mining on agricultural lands, both locally and federally”.
“Mr Windsor has campaigned against coal mining in the region and his continued silence is raising questions about his convictions and what he really stands for,” Dr Smith said.]
Windsor defends sale of family farm
Admittedly Dr Smith only got 8% of the vote.
Is there anyway of knowing how the Senate vote was cast in an electorate ?
[While the Coalition certainly has no mandate to govern at 73/72, requiring less independents does give them a good argument for being the best choice for ’stable government’.]
Not at all. The Green is a definite 73 for Labor.
But…….Labor is winning the 2PP vote 50.5 – 49.5 – something else the independents might consider. 😉
No-one has a mandate to govern in terms of votes or seats. The only mandate therefore is a majority in the House of Representatives. Gillard is the incumbent PM. She has the right to say to the GG: “I can command the confidence of the House,” and to test that assertion in a confidence vote. In such a vote, if the indys vote for confidence, she carries on. If they vote for no confidence, she resigns. If they abstain, the vote (assuming Labor doesn’t win Hasluck or Brisbane) will be 73 all (Coalition 73, Labor 72 + Bandt), and the Speaker will have a casting vote. Traditionally, he uses that vote in favour of the status quo, so in a no confidence vote he would use it in favour of the government.
And, where’s the guarantee that Mr Crook from WA will stick 100% with the Libs/Nats?
John Reidy 3903
I agree once parliament is in session. That is what it is for, and will need to be with a hostile senate (for my blue team). But negotiating the agenda of a national government with 50.3% (or 49.7%) 2PP of the votes with three people who enjoy less than 2% nationally of first preferences is simply an obscene distortion of the Westminster democratic process.
[If they abstain, the vote (assuming Labor doesn’t win Hasluck or Brisbane) will be 73 all (Coalition 73, Labor 72 + Bandt), and the Speaker will have a casting vote. Traditionally, he uses that vote in favour of the status quo, so in a no confidence vote he would use it in favour of the government.]
Trouble is in this scenario who is speaker – can only be an independent as you have all coalition and labour an dgreen voting and the speaker doesnlt ge ta deliberative vite – only a casting vote
Nostrildumbass
1999 Victorian State Election, Coalition won 43 seats, Labor 42 with 3 Independents.
Labor formed government with the backing of the Indies despite winning less seats.
There’s your precedent.
Psephos – who is speaker on your tied vote scenario?
3953
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateDivisionFirstPrefsByVoteType-15508-135.htm
Pssst, no one tell Nostra that it 1999 Kennett had 43, and Bracks 42.
He’ll start seeing visions.
Of course, the big difference here is that Bracks didn’t have a GRN levelling the scores. 🙂
Nostradamus@3936
The boy needs a nappy change and a pacifier.
Oh and I didn’t know they allowed internet access from the Frankland ward at Graylands Psychiatric Hospital in Mesma’s Electorate 🙂
WASECC
[But negotiating the agenda of a national government with 50.3% (or 49.7%) 2PP of the votes with three people who enjoy less than 2% nationally of first preferences is simply an obscene distortion of the Westminster democratic process.]
The home of the Westminster system has had governing partys with much less than 50% support before today (inded almost always)
Yes Psephos but before the vote of confidence a speaker must be elected – I am sure you know the story of the NSWLA in 1911
Lots of kickbacks from the miners ought to do it evan.
Psephos 3956
As much as it pains me I agree. Gillard enjoys incumbency and so is entitled to take the government benches in the first sitting. Then let the House decide.
Importantly no one will have hocked the family silver to get it done.
Question: when is the earliest date the HoR can sit?
[Psephos – who is speaker on your tied vote scenario?]
That will be up to the Indys. I presume the Coalition will contest the position and the Indys will decide whether to elect Jenkins or … Bronny? But that doesn’t alter the maths of the House, unless a Coalition speaker breaks convention and votes in favour of the no confidence mtion. Surely no Liberal speaker would do such a thing! 😮
[ Psephos – who is speaker on your tied vote scenario?
]
I imagine Oakeshott would be happy to accept nomination as Speaker so he can act as the catalyst for parliamentary reform.
They would have to elect a speaker first. The deadlock could come there.
BTW
betting washup
lost a motza on QLD
damn you scorps and co
and WA
damn you frankc and co
but one Mr crook covered most (he was 6.50 at one stage )
still have a few bundles on the result
avg price 1.75
ie 75% return over 5 weeks
jam
Psephos
I don;t undertsand your math.
The Speaker does not get a deliberative vote.
IN your scenario it is therefore 73 no confidence and 71+1 confidence with speaker never getting to cast the casting vote
Why would either party nominate a speaker and reduce its vote on the floor in this setting?
#3837 Labour in 1999 had one less seat than the coalition and was still able to form minority government
given the even numbers and some of the characters involved, you couldn’t imagine the GG doing anything other than letting Gillard test the numbers on the floor of the house – the only way this won’t happen is if she resigns
so JG holds the cards (for at least 5 weeks), in which time many things can happen…….
[when is the earliest date the HoR can sit?]
The House must sit within 30 days of the return of the writs, which must be within 100 days of when they were issued.
Psephos
Hasn’t Abbott already said he is happy for Harry Jenkins to continue. I hope the HoR sits as soon a possible and he will have the opportunity to demonstrate that in the House.
3969
They would only vote it down if it was a supply bill!
[Question: when is the earliest date the HoR can sit?
]
Day after writs are returned t GG. which can;lt happoen until 13 daus after election (postals)
So Monday week
Will Katter be Speaker?
#3971
[ They would have to elect a speaker first. The deadlock could come there.
]
NO. If Labor nominates Oakeshott for Speaker I doubt the coalition would stand a candidate and Oakeshott would be elected unopposed.
Thank you, PS.
Couldn’t remember and couldn’t be bothered looking it up.
Abbott is happy for jenkins to be speaker because it robs labour of a vote
[ie 75% return over 5 weeks … jam]
nice work!
PY, I thought all the indys had ruled out being Speaker.
PS, yes you’re quite right. At least one of the indys must vote against a no-confidence motion.
OC, it is the government’s responsibility to nominate a speaker.
[ Will Katter be Speaker?
]
WHO would nominate Katter ?
Why would Harry Jenkins accept the speakership – unless he is channeling Mal Coulston?
Oakeshott would have to accept the speakership. I’m not convinced any of the independents would.
What about Turnbull for Speaker?
wilkie is in the frame
plus the indies could direct traffic
🙂
#3986 I think discipline is less strong in the coalition than Labor – they should start dropping a few hints
#3986
[ PY, I thought all the indys had ruled out being Speaker.]
The only report is a “source” said the Independents have ruled it out. Oakeshott has never ruled it out. If so, please provide a quote.
P.S. Oakeshott has some form in this regard.
The mantra from News Ltd and Abbott’s talkback radio friends seems to be – make me PM, or I’ll bring on an election – blackmail of the worst sort!
[Will Katter be Speaker?]
Very unlikely
[Question: when is the earliest date the HoR can sit?
Day after writs are returned t GG. which can;lt happoen until 13 daus after election (postals)
So Monday week]
I don’t think the writs are returned that quickly. They don’t have to be returned until 27 October!
3988
People wanting to reduce the number of votes he influences. If he is Speaker then bills can be passed 75-74 without him voting.
Also people who want more interesting Parliament sessions.
Betfair now has a punting market for: “2 Elections in 2010?” Yes/No
There haven’t been any bets yet, but that is an interesting wagering concept. And it will fluctuate nicely in the early stages as things get bedded down. I like it.
But the election punting wowsers here will no doubt see it as being likely to bring about the nobbling of whatever minority government is formed.
This is what they think will happen:
Balaclava-ed figures will one day sneak into Parliament House ministerial offices under cover of the ministers sleeping it off after lunch with a few glasses of red. Syringes the size of vacuum cleaner tubes – full of elephant juice – will be administered. The ministers will then sweat profusely when the bells go for question time; jump awkwardly to their feet, and launch into a speedy stream of galloping verbiage no-one in the House can keep up with, before slumping to their seats in a daze which will last for weeks. The speaker will call for a swab, but the government will already have fallen – all because of a few bets.
Obviously we should ban betting on elections. 😆
Bronwyn Bishop would literally kill to be Speaker, but I doubt anyone would offer it to her, even to keep themselves in office.