Election washup

The “Unelectable” Abbott and the voters have prevailed – almost ….it’s all down to the Independents and the last few seats to be counted.

Lower house independents Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Bob Katter said they would meet to discuss how they would approach forming a stable government but in separate interviews on the ABC all three refused to back either Labor or the Coalition.

And and that’s the way they should play it. They can do a lot for their constituents but I have met Katter and Windsor and in the long term I can’t imagine them backing the ALP/Greens.

Julia Gillard;

“the people have spoken and it’s going to take a little while to determined exactly what they said”

They’ve said you’re gone Julia.

Tony Abbott;

“And I say that a government which found it very hard to govern effecitvely with a majority of 17 seats will never be able to govern effectively in a minority.”

I watched ‘Red’ Kerry and have no complaints with the way he handled the night. I was impressed with Stephen Smith, as I always have been, and must say he handled what must have been a shock to him, in a calm and professional manner.

I also visited live blogs at Jack the Insiders and the ABC’s The Drum. The Drum was the most entertaining with people vowing to shift overseas if Abbott got in. A move, that on the whole, would enhance the intellectual standing of Australia.

I hope they’re packing now…the writing is on the wall. I felt their pain as well as the anguish and spite of Maxine McKew.

It was exquisite.

The Greens have increased their power and that augers bad for the country (what on earth is in the water in Victoria – LSD?) The only possible plus I can see is that with one of them in the house of Reps the voters may see more of their insane policies and maybe, just maybe, think a bit.

Optimistic I know but one can always live in hope.

18 Responses to Election washup

  1. 1735099 says:

    “I have met Katter”
    So have I, and I used to see him at Mass every Sunday when I lived in Mt Isa.
    He’s an Independent’s Independent.
    In his office (which was across the road from mine back then) he used to have a picture of (Red) Ted Theodore and (Black) Jack McEwen.
    His dad, Bob Katter Senior, was at one time a member of the Australian Labor Party and a union delegate on the Brisbane wharves. He left the Labor party in the 1957 split. His Catholic Lebanese heritage had a lot to do with that.
    Bob Senior represented Kennedy for the National Party for 24 years.

    In regard to his son, every now and then, you’d see a big white hat with Bob Junior under it making a beeline for my building. I had in those days a job that had responsibilities for Aboriginal education and kids with disabilities.
    Bob was always civil, but if he thought his constituents were being dudded, he be up me like a rat up a drainpipe if it was within my area of responsibility.

    The southern media can’t get its head around him and regard him as a bit of a joke – he’s far from that. He’ll negotiate as an agrarian socialist with his constituents in front of mind. If you listen to him long enough, he’ll tell you about farmers committing suicide because of policies killing the bush through the sell-out of the National party to the Liberals. He feels passionately about this. He dislikes Joyce and Truss intensely. It could get interesting, especially if the Coalition need his vote to form government.

    • Kev says:

      Pretty well my take on the man as well. I used to be a Nat Delegate (Lilley) and would travel to Townsville often when a mate of mine was the Qld Sec of the NP. Would meet him at meetings…John Stone as well…interesting times.

      I have no problem helping those in the bush given my background and I’m sure an accommodation can be reached.

  2. I must admit that I was pretty impressed with Kerry and Smith as well.

  3. Eddie says:

    Kev, he hasn’t been elected, and with the 9 Green Senators, Phoney Tony will not be able to form government, as the Greens will never support his racist and anti environmental policies. (not that the ALP’s are much better)

    73 seats each, now for Julia to form a minority government and get shit moving again, at least Steve Fielding is gone, and the Coalition dominated Senate also gone.

    Greens were the big winner out of this election.

    • Kev says:

      The 9 Green Senators aren’t Senators until next year so they have no immediate effect.

      Whoever forms government will have problems with the Greens when they take over. Unless they get a sudden rush of reality (and that’s not likely anytime soon)no one will be able to govern with them having the BOP and a DD could be on the cards after that becomes apparent.

      Whats with the Phoney, racist and anti environmental tags? What has he said that would lead you to that conclusion?

  4. 1735099 says:

    Oakeshott ‘s talking sense.
    http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2991482.htm
    Sounds refreshing to me. It would also render pseudo commentators like Blot and Blur* irrelevant. They remind me of out-of-control parents at junior soccer matches.
    *Bolt and Blair

    • harry buttle says:

      Only a complete fool thinks that sort of nonsense can work. If both parties were pushing for the same thing, we wouldn’t have parties and if an individual puts his hand up to play for the other party (having been elected to represent his existing party) he is toast, so how do you see it working?

      Consensus politics – give us an example of how that will work in regards dealing with ‘global warming’ or stop wasting our time.

      BTW, you really need to get over your fear of Bolt and Blair – if you honestly think screwing up a system of Govt that works is worthwhile just to put a few journos out of work, you are more unhinged than even I imagined.

      • 1735099 says:

        So Oakeshott’s a fool, and all those who voted for him fools also? I judge pollies by the quality of their ideas, not by 30 sec media grabs.
        “If both parties were pushing for the same thing, we wouldn’t have parties” – yeah, and the Westminster system would work a whole lot better.
        Both parties fight for the middle ground. Only a fool would fail to see the logic in consensus. Problem is, too many have been conditioned into thinking there is no ther way.
        “you really need to get over your fear of Bolt and Blair”
        I’m not afraid of them – given they censor my posts, I think it’s the other way around. Neither of them are Journalists. Read Pure Poison – http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/
        for the best take on Blot.
        Funny thing is, I post regularly on both using a range of tags and I’m not censored. They just don’t like me using 1735099.

        • harry buttle says:

          Yep, Oakeshott is a fool, those who voted for him probably never expected him to matter.

          I see you didn’t asnwer the question. tell us, how will consensus work re ‘Global Warming’? not a hard question, Katter doesn’t believe in it, Abbott doesn’t believe in doing much about it and Gillard thinks it is “the greatest moral challenge of our time” (’til it gets inconvenient), so – how do you think ‘consensus politics will work in the real world?

          Citing crikey just shows how clueless you are.

          Let me guess, nasty Mr Bolt or Blair don’t have any interest in wasting their time with your insanity and shut you up? boo hoo, let me guess – it all came down to you being conscripted and they were not prepared to put up with your idiocy?

    • 1735099 says:

      “those who voted for him probably never expected him to matter” That’s an interesting take on democracy.
      Consensus works on the application of logic and reason. Action on global warming is logical and reasonable risk management. Men and women of goodwill have for centuries made decisions about their collective futures. This issue is no different.
      Blot kicked me out when I made him look silly by pointing out that he doesn’t know the difference between graphing a trend and an anomaly. He hasn’t posted a graph since.
      “it all came down to you being conscripted”
      You’ve got a major obsession with this – get help.

      • harry buttle says:

        Independents hardly ever matter, so it is an accurate take on democracy.

        You REALLY do have to stop trying to bullshit, google is your friend, it would stop you making an arse of yourself. again.

        “con·sen·sus   /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sen-suhs] Show IPA
        –noun, plural -sus·es.
        1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
        2. general agreement or concord; harmony. ”

        like yourself, Consensus has nothing to do with logic or reason. it is about the majority opionion.

        Anthropogenic Global Warming is a scam, the scam is in the process of falling apart (see climategate). risk management does not require action against every possible problem or you would never leave the house due to possibility of lightning strike. risk management also requires that you consider the cost of the mitigation activities (mitigating ‘global warming’ costs far more than the cost of doing nothing about it – see Moncktons work).

        Men and women of goodwill, etc – only when they agree on what is reasonable you lackwit – the science says do nothing, CSIROs own climate forecast comes with a disclaimer that says (effectively) – we don’t understand climate well enough, and even if we did, our computer models are inadequate to accurately model the systems involved. place no reliance on these forecasts.
        So, do we go with the ‘consensus’ ie the majority, when it is split right down the middle politically (seats wise), if so what is the consensus when 50% said no and 50% said yes?

        Re why you got booted, my money is you are lying again. I keep catching you lying so I see no reason to believe your statements.

        • 1735099 says:

          For a clear indication of the level of Blot’s ignorance of even basic facts go here – http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abbotts_case_why_i_should_be_pm/P40/
          It took one of his readers to tell him that Bob Katter’s electoral office is in Mt Isa, not Broken Hill, as he’d originally posted.
          And he calls himself a commentator…..

        • harry buttle says:

          Wow, you picked a piece of trivia and think it is of importance. I expect you got booted for making an arse of yourself and given your well documented habit of lying and trying to move the goalposts, it is likely that they had less time for your idiocy than is displayed here.

          Seriously, you complain that an opinion columnist gets an electoral office location wrong, but don’t see the issue when a teacher doesn’t know what the word ‘consensus’ means, yet insists on using it?

          The mind boggles.

  5. Sue says:

    a DD will just result in more greens senators.

    • harry buttle says:

      Don’t count on it Sue, I doubt Labor will preference the Greens in future now that it is apparent that they are cannabalising their own vote by doing so.

      A DD under those circumstances, ie without pref deals, the Greens can hold their party meetings in a phone booth.

  6. Peter says:

    I was also impressed with Steven Smith. I feel the big winners are the Greens who seem to have increased their vote by approximately 50%. I feel it will take the Labor Party a long time to recover.
    As for aminority government Oakshot seems to be suggesting a Unity Government with cabinet members from both sides of politics, interesting suggestion but I can not see it working.

  7. 1735099 says:

    “like yourself, Consensus has nothing to do with logic or reason. it is about the majority opionion”
    Ignoring the fact that you can’t spell “opinion”, you also seem to have a very limited understanding of the process of arriving at consensus. Consider the following (from Wikipaedia) -
    “Consensus is defined in English as, firstly – general agreement and, secondly – group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together.
    The formal process of achieving consensus ideally requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of action, genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since discussion, it is supposed, can only enhance ultimate consensus. The hope is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of group opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare. A consensus rather than a voting process is often employed with this intention, as well as to minimize any possible damage to interpersonal relationships.”
    As a school principal, I never adopted a vote to secure staff agreement on an issue. My general aim was to reach a decision whilst at the same time maintaining team solidarity. Sometimes it took time, but in the end we always achieved consensus.
    We also valued everybody’s opinion. It was important to resolve dissent, because a dissenter could always white-ant a decision after the event.
    Contrast this with adversarial politics, and it’s clear that whatever the outcome of the election, the closer we get to collaborative decision making, the better will be the quality of the decisions.

    • harry buttle says:

      you know you’ve lost the argument when you have to go after typos.

      and now you quote wikipedia. one of the most discredited sources available, lets face it – you lied (again), got caught out (again) and refuse to simply come clean on it (again).

      keep digging.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Facebook