Australian Federal election

[John Dolva]

Yes, I take back what I said about early election.

Katters an oldie, I can't remember a time without him. He's tough and wily. I find it hard to second guess him, except to say he's old school conservative. Things are changing and change brings out rash behaviour. Perhaps it's his last dash?

[Evan Burton]

Yes, I take back what I said about early election.

Katters an oldie, I can't remember a time without him. He's tough and wily. I find it hard to second guess him, except to say he's old school conservative. Things are changing and change brings out rash behaviour. Perhaps it's his last dash?

I notice a few people saying that. Do you think it is cunning / political savvy, or just luck? After all One Nation got a fair slug of the vote a few years ago.

[John Dolva]

Well, I tend to expect politicians to be opportunistic. Unless they loose their cool or things they say are twisted in the telling, there is always a purpose that serves an agenda.

Given that it is now finally up to the right leaning conservatives they'll basically be out for most gain for a purpose and time will tell.

Some discussion is on about minority government, but either way stability is not here as it stands or is likely to pan out, ie a degraded parliamentary functioning which could put an early election on the cards. We'll see.

It's been an interesting process to sit through.

I wonder if the donkeys can be / are to be recounted.

edit typos

Edited August 27, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Guillard letter to independents:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/documents/scribd.htm?id=36431002&key=key-2ng8mzrbyhr428ia25da

''Where it's at:''

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/26/2994071.htm

[John Dolva]

This oppostunism, or compromise with principles, is not only a right wing MO. The Socialist Alliance had a very poor showing. A basic tenet is that real change can never be parliamentary for many of the reasons in the article below. IMO an adherence to principles should relfect in activism, not in legitimising a flawed system by election participation.

Through the allegiances, the true progressive left has, imo, committed the very same blunders that this article rails against.

Sure it is an opportunity for debate, but this increasingly popularist tendency, with a contrary real direct action history, can be seen as betraying it's fundamental principles and wasting time and money while coming out as solid losers.

The rest of us are now likely to face a hostile pro profit government for the next three years.

Had the Alliance spent its time educating the public about how a left vote can end up right and how the preferential voting system really works where groupings are formed, with no chance of victory, for the expressed purpose of garnering votes to direct according to their preference guidelines, so that those who vote above the line basically lose their vote to the vagaries that kick in as a consequence ending up with the situation we have today : A possible return to the horrors of the Menzies, Frazer and Howard years.

Had they focused on an attack on the coalition, we, the people, would have reason to consider them more seriously in the future, as well as them attracting more social activists, many of whom likely voted donkey. In a way, the ''far'' left can be seen as the major losers and as long as they maintain a participatory position will always be open to compromise and will remain fringe. (imo) The primary vote in Oz is almost invariably Labor majority, and it's in the contradictions within Labor that people get politicized. ie a struggle for Labor supremacy is (imo) a best strategy for change.

The alliance should be seen as an alternative with ordinary peoples interests at heart at all times.

''Creating the democracy we don't yet have

Monday, August 23, 2010 By Tim Anderson

Tim Anderson.

Unexpectedly, it seems to me, a great opportunity for social change has emerged. This might seem strange, with another neo-fascist on the verge of becoming Australian Prime Minister. However remember that real change comes from widespread social participation, over longer periods.

First of all, the problem has to be clear - both of our major parties serve a tiny corporate elite, which likes to play them off against each other, to discipline them. This oligarchy (tightly interlocked finance, mining, media and investment groups) likes "change" amongst the administrators, but never allows them "power".

Despite its origins in trade unions, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) is institutionally committed to gaining administrative office, and that means Labor must cut deals with this oligarchy. If the Greens, in their enthusiasm to be "credible" with the big powers, start cutting such deals, they will be similarly compromised, as were the Democrats before them. This is a time for bold new ideas, not shabby deals crippled by electoral ambitions.

The August 21 election was a strong statement against this shallow electoral politics. Disillusionment with the two right-wing parties has created an outcome where a few populist MPs and the Greens will have a chance to demand some institutional change. That is not enough, but it is important. What about proportional representation in elections? What about wider constitutional change and accountabilities, for example including (i) prohibiting war without parliamentary consent (ii) meaningful Aboriginal rights instead of constant tokenism, and (iii) a wider set of citizens and workers' rights?

We must hear genuine voices for popular struggles. But how is it possible to have a "new politics" through the old language? Such voices are not possible through the corporate media, which bombards us with trivia, consumerism and "market solutions". We need new media, and we need democratic controls (e.g. mandatory community participation in media boards, public and private) on the existing media. We want to hear the new MPs talking about real issues.

We need platforms to raise and strengthen the popular demands – for public health and education, an end to our appalling wars, real environmental solutions, support for genuine social institutions and control of the corporate tyrannies.

There is, I think, an opportunity for this sort of new politics, in the aftermath of the August election. And there is room for a range of new voices, including the Greens, including the maverick MPs, but also including all those of us who have been disillusioned with conventional politics. If we don't participate, who will?

Tim Anderson is a political activist and lectures in political economy at the University of Sydney.

See also:

We didn't get what we deserved by Fred Fuentes.

'Greenslide' a shift to left — neither major party wins majority mandate by Peter Boyle.

Anti-Intervention vote high in NT Indigenous communities by Peter Robson.

The political record of the independent MPs by Graham Matthews.

Beyond The Elections by Peter Boyle.

• 

From GLW issue 850''

edit adds typos

Edited August 27, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Minority Rule

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/08/25/2993505.htm

[John Dolva]

On the outside it could still hinge on Brisbane. Bevis has not conceded and considers there are reasons to not do so.

At the moment there are 73 firm Labor(with green) and 73 Coalition with the Senate firmly in the Labor camp and two of the /four kingmakers likely Coalition with the other two one of whom poss Labor and one unknown. With Katter declaring independence (for now) it's still up in the air.The next two days or so should begin to make things clearer as negotiations continue.

[Evan Burton]

Hey John - how 'bout we just toss a coin and be done with it!

[John Dolva]

LOL, Evan. That's brillient. I;m sure a lot of us feel just that way. It's been so whacky. Still, the fat lady aint sung yet (havent checked the latest but it seemed when last looking that a min of two days left, possibly weeks.

[Evan Burton]

The SMH tally seems to change constantly. I suppose the AECs virtual tally room is the most authoritative source.

[John Dolva]

Part of the media came out supporting Labor, part Coalition. No doubt that influences, and seeks to influence things. Of course the AEC is THE source, but I've rarely seen the team on ABC call it wrong. AFIK there are many votes yet to count and many options to cover.

Did you note Wilkies has come out with a call for an end to Oz in Afghanistan? Very good imo. It''ll show us what the major players are thinking, (particularly after that foul raid on the Kurds in Melbourne by the AFP, a prep for involvement in Iran?).

[Evan Burton]

There was a very good write-up of him in the paper. He's an independent you can trust to actually be independent.

[John Dolva]

A bold statement, Evan, hopefully true. He does indeed seem to have acted on ethical principles (and continues to use the word) and will likely be a deciding force because of that, in being, at least till now (and certainly, if continued, in the future) a yardstick to measure others by.

[John Dolva]

Party Primary votes. As can be seen the ALP got the major slice (John Costellas cohorts, the Climate Skeptics were thankfully ignored)

[John Dolva]

The latest stuff coming in is quite hilarious (follow links in past posts).

The potential Gillard gov supporters, among the ''kingmakers'', are coming across as being rational.

It's a pity the rest are in the position to determine what government we'll have. Still, should there be an early election, as it is becoming clearer to the Australian public what the coalition really is, an early election might not be such a bad idea.