Jump to content
The Education Forum

Australian Federal election


Evan Burton
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We have a government. A care taker government with Gillard as prime minister. Technically the proceedings can continue for quite some time.

No gov? Sure, that would suit the neo fascists, a mono government. Unfortunately the great unwashed masses need to be deprived of a say first, unless you're advocating Anarchy? (just kidding)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The parties are looking at the funding of a new election. I doubt it'll happen and suspect the stalling independents already have decided but are maneuvering for maximum future advantage..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who Won the National 2-Party Preferred Vote?

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/08/who-won-the-national-2-party-preferred-vote.html

''....

Earlier this year the Rann Labor government in South Australia was returned with a majority of seats in the House of Assembly, but only 48.4% of the two-party preferred vote.

On the same day in Tasmania, the Bartlett Labor government lost its majority. Premier Bartlett had promised before the election that if he finished in minority with fewer seats than the Liberal Party, or with equal seats but fewer votes, he would resign his commission as Premier.

The Labor and Liberal Parties finished equal with 10 members and the Liberal Party recorded more votes than Labor. Premier Bartlett advised the Governor that Liberal Leader Will Hodgman should be appointed the new Premier.

Constitutional experts warned that Bartlett had no right to offer such advice to the Governor and in the end the Governor declined to accept the advice, instead re-commissioning Bartlett as Premier pending the first sitting of the House. Bartlett subsequently came to an agreement with the Greens and formed a Coalition government.

Tasmanian Governor Peter Underwood published the reasons for his decision and critically made reference to the issue of the vote received by each party. As Governor Underwood put it:

"In view of certain public statements made by some candidates in the lead up to the election I express my view that the commissioning of a person to form a government is entirely the Governor’s prerogative and it is not within the gift of any political leader to hand over, or cede to another political leader the right to form a government, whatever the result of the election. For the same reason it is also appropriate to express my view that the total number of votes received by the elected members of a political party is constitutionally irrelevant to the issue of who should be commissioned to form a government.".

...''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, and those young ones are just the ones to lead it, (if they can get out of bed in time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main thing so far today is the Labor and Green signing off on becoming a coalition which formalises a truly hung parliament 73-73.

Abbott is trying to make the most of this in his typical style.

The openess of Gillards Government stands in stark contrast.

It's now up to the ''kingmakers'' to show what they are made of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it looks to me like the day has been a one which shows what type of Leadership we may have to live under for the next three years. On the one hand a deft and principled Gillard and on the other a divisive, somewhat frantically aggressive Coalition under Abbott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assessment, John, but that is to be expected since I am politically opposed to your views.

You know, i really think we'll be going back to the polls soon. No matter which party forms government, I see the other obstructing things such that a new election has to take place.

Time will tell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, and I can see no reason to have an argy bargy about it. Like you say time will tell. Perhaps more than some are expecting.

I wouldn't bet on that. There are reasons a Labor minority (now a greater possibility with Wilkies) government can work effectively. I think The Coalition needs to tread lightly should they consider forcing an early election. I have a growing conviction that Abbots days as leader of the opposition MAY be numbered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

''After outlining some of the promises she made to win Andrew Wilkie's support, particularly on hospitals funding and poker machine reform, Julia Gillard launches an attack on the Coalition over its election policy costings.

She says Tony Abbott had 11 billion reasons why he wanted to keep the costings secret. She says Treasury's costings show a "huge black hole" in the Coalition's plans.''

http://abc.com.au/el...s/federal/2010/

''Julia Gillard is one step closer to keeping Labor in power after securing the support of independent MP Andrew Wilkie to form a minority government.

Mr Wilkie says he decided to back Labor after Ms Gillard agreed to several requests, including $340 million for the Royal Hobart Hospital and restrictions on poker machines.

His decision means Labor has 74 definite seats, two short of the majority needed to secure power.

The Coalition has 73 seats if West Australian Nationals MP Tony Crook is included.

Mr Wilkie also revealed Opposition Leader Tony Abbott offered him almost three times as much for the Hobart hospital, but he turned it down.

"The ALP best meets my criteria that the government must be stable, competent and ethical," he said.''

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://abc.com.au/el...s/federal/2010/

''As he declared himself as a vote for the ALP in the Parliament today he also revealed himself as an increasingly rare commodity - a politician less interested in pork-barreling than in the national interest.''

If nothing else, Wilkies support for a Labor government continues to highlight the difference between a Gillard and an Abbott government : Ethics.

Abbottt continnues to ensure if he became PM, his tenure would be short like his grasp on decorum.

Wilkies rejected Abbots $1 billion sweetener and the Libs are now gunning for him, Abbott rejected a scrutiny from the treasusy of the Libs costings, then caved in and an $11 billion miscalculation was found. Is this really the PM Australia needs? A backpedalling, reckless and vindictive person like that shouldn't even be allowed to guard a cattle crossing.

Ultimately it will come down to the ''king makers'' showing what they are made of.

edit format

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of Australia's second week of political purgatory, we find ourselves in knots about the fact that Tony Abbott offered Andrew Wilkie up to $1 billion to fix up the Royal Hobart Hospital.

Wilkie has since plumped for Labor, rejecting the Coalition's $1 billion (and primly broadcasting the news of the offer to the world) in favour of the conditional offer, from Julia Gillard, of about one-third that sum.

Andrew Wilkie runs a rug shop in Hobart, by the way.

While it may be an unfair generalisation on the trade to describe his bargaining techniques as atypical of rug salesmen, on present form I would have no problem recommending that you race there for all your kilim needs.''

edit typos

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest Party totals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...