Ho ho! I’d say so. With the networks I’m on, I know they’ve all been thoroughly debriefed as to what is coming. Time to sit back and watch the Greater Depression unfold. We’ll lose all the equity in our house and go bankrupt, but hey? We weren’t going to leave Sydney unless our whole extended family followed us to some survivalist permaculture farm.
(Not that I think society is ‘going down’, but that in the years to come, being able to pluck and cook your own home grown chooks could look like real wealth).
I think we need to look at the current cinema list for possible answers.
If the 3 amigos go for stable government with the Coalition, it’s “Going the Distance”.
If it’s a hung parliament (75-75) and we have to go back to the polls then it’s “Tomorrow when the war began”
If Tony Windsor ( from a conservative electorate ) gives Labor a 76-74 victory, then he can look in the mirror and say “Despicable Me”
If Bob Katter does the unthinkable and votes left, it’s definitely “Vampires Suck”
And if all 3 independents turn their backs on their conservative constituencies, then next election these three ‘turncoats’ will become “The Expendables”.
If only they were into nukes! This is what I wrote earlier today…
Apparently Australia’s 3 independents, the so called “King-makers”, are going to announce via live broadcast who will be the next Prime Minister before they tell either of the party leaders. Is this a first in how we do democracy?
Now while I support some fairly radical reforms to Australian politics and would like to see Cabinet policy debates opened up for public scrutiny, this strikes me as a rather bizarre media stunt. Are we going to have Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard standing out on lawn together, nervously awaiting their fate? What about media interviews before the judgement falls? Will they do it like Big Brother and have an expulsion of the loser, like Survivor, or like Master-Chef?
My preference would be “The Weakest Link”.
We get the 2 leaders lined up above carnival dunking tanks. The drums roll. The independents burst through red drapes, smiling and waving to the media circus. They run up to the microphone, and together yell, “Tony Abbott, YOU are the Weakest Link!”. Then the budgie-smuggler boy gets dunked in the drink. It would make about as much sense as anything else this election, and provide the country with the spectacle we crave.
What about dignity you ask? What about the great debates of Western civilisation? What about the enormous responsibility of governing a nation of 21 million, the sheer gravity of the task, and the enormous far-reaching implications of policy development just years before the final oil crisis? I’m sorry, but what on earth are you talking about?! This is Australia, and reality TV is king.
And the oscar for “Despicable Me” goes to Tony Windsor. Together with a special scriptwriting oscar for Rob Oakeshott who wrote about “a juicy and sexy decision” - before finally declaring the result.
Well at least Julia Gillard won’t be living at The Lodge - after all, following her assassination of Kevin Rudd, Julia did state that she would not move into The Lodge UNTIL the people of Australia voted for her as Prime Minister. And they didn’t did they ?
In it’s own right, Labor won less seats than the Coalition, was outvoted in first preferences by well over 600,000 votes and the Coalition won a majority of second party preferenced votes. So that’s not exactly a rosy position for Julia, is it ? But now we see that a few independents have given her the nod - for now.
There was however one question that wasn’t asked at the PM’s Press Conference:
If Julia Gillard assassinated Kevin Rudd by stabbing him in the back, how come it is the rest of Australia that has to do the 3 years of hard labor ?
In it’s own right, Labor won less seats than the Coalition, was outvoted in first preferences by well over 600,000 votes and the Coalition won a majority of second party preferenced votes. So that’s not exactly a rosy position for Julia, is it ? But now we see that a few independents have given her the nod - for now.
Woah, I’m detecting a Proportional Representation supporter in you Kevin! Except then we would have had 17 Greens in Parliament and an unbeatable Labor-Green coalition. So if you want to take your government more strictly by numbers, be prepared for the consequences.
No Dave.. just someone who HAS heard the majority of the people of Australia speak. With a loss of 16 seats and a national swing away from Labor, most people were saying “no thanks Julia”. And now these same folk are saying to the last 2 amigos standing - “thanks for nothing” ;)
What would you change to reflect the ‘majority of the people’? You know me — Mr Idealist. If it’s a grand enough idea I’ll support it even if it has not real chance of getting through. :-)
As it is, PR is good enough for Germany and Japan and many successful European countries, so I’d love to see it get a burn here.
I’m for optional preferential, not PR for ironically a reason that Dave put:
Except then we would have had 17 Greens in Parliament
I expected hung parliament with a Labor minority government being the only outside option. I was a bit surprised about Tony Windsor’s decision to favour Labor, but not Oakeshott’s. After all, Oakeshott was abused by telephone by a so-called Christian and Coalition member Heffernan during the past fortnight.
I’ll take the minority government; let’s see how it goes and will it stem the rookie mistakes that it made in the first term.
Independents give us the government we didn’t vote for
Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, September 08, 10 (05:56 am)
Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott have installed the government they know fewer people want - and because fewer people want it. Even the commentariat is astonished.
Peter Hartcher:
In announcing his decision, Windsor told a press conference this afternoon that he had decided to support Labor because it was more likely to allow the Parliament to run a full three year term.
The Coalition, he said, was more likely to run to a new election as soon as possible. Asked why he thought so, Windsor replied: “Because I think they would be more likely to win.”
Labor, however, is “more likely to be here for a longer period of time.” The longevity of the new government, he added, was “key” to his decision…
On his own confession, Windsor is prepared to deny the Australian people the government of their choice so long as he can prolong his own position of extraordinary leverage in holding the balance of power.
Janet Albrechtsen:
Get it? Windsor admitted he sided with the party that had less support from Australian voters. It’s a novel theory of democracy, almost as brazen as Stalin’s theory that it’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.
Michelle Grattan:
In a moment of excessive frankness, (Windsor) admitted he had believed a Coalition government would be more inclined to call an early election - because it would be a better bet to win. Once there is an election, the independents will almost certainly lose their pivotal position.
Paul Kelly:
This decision will leave a legacy of bad political blood. It will be fanned because the rural independents, unable to agree, split 2:1 yesterday for Labor and argued their obligation was to prevent another election during the next three years, ultimately an unacceptable and unjustifiable stand of dubious political integrity…
They backed Gillard, they said, because the best chance for a three-year term was under Labor. Windsor even said Abbott would be tempted to an election some time because he’d be “more likely to win”… What, pray, is wrong about another election at some stage? Why shouldn’t the people get the chance to decide the issue that the independents arrogantly assume is their right to decide for the next three years? How ineffective does the parliament have to become before the people get the right to elect a new parliament?
These comments smack of the independents putting their own interests first.
Simon Benson:
However, they also revealed their decision was based largely on self survival. Mr Oakeshott admitted that it was a case of “who was less likely to knife us first” and call an early poll to regain a majority.
David Marr:
Then came Windsor’s fateful quip: he was backing Labor because the Coalition might call a fresh poll and win. Regret took possession of his face: he darkened, his eyes narrowed, he ended a man in misery.
The Daily Telegraph on the government we got as a result:
This is a sprawling, philosophically misaligned collective brought together by a shared aim for power and without anything close to a popular mandate….
Julia Gillard - who yesterday became Australia’s first female prime minister not to be elected twice…
“Julia Gillard - who yesterday became Australia’s first female prime minister not to be elected twice…” therefore she has no legitimacy to move into The Lodge. Being a vacant property, perhaps she’ll put all the boat people in there ;)
[ Edited: 08 September 2010 06:46 AM by Kevin Goddard]
Meh, people just don’t understand representative governments. Technically none of us voted for the government, but for our representative. I’d prefer them all to be independents.
And shouldn’t our ‘representatives’ actually represent what their local constituents want - rather than just do their own thing ? At least they’ll only get to do it once. Most thinking voters have long memories.
Cracks starting to appear :
Tony Windsor is playing down its significance, but it’s already the first crack - and before 24 hours are even out:
” Treasurer Wayne Swan today said Labor’s proposed mining tax would not be part of a tax summit the Government had promised to Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott.
But Mr Windsor said he understood the issue would be discussed along with all aspects of the Henry tax review, which he believed the Government had largely shelved. “
Who’s doing their own thing? Have they published stats of the second preferences of those who voted first for the independents? That seems to me to be the only way we could know what their constituency would want.
Does anyone know any general prayers for government / parliament?
I’ve found something in the BCP which goes…
A prayer for the high court of parliament, to be read during their session
Most gracious God, we humbly beseech thee, as for this Kingdom in general, so especially for the High court of Parliament, under our most gracious queen at this time assembled: That thou wouldest be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations to the advancement of thy glory, the good of thy Church, the safety, honour, and welfare of our sovereign, and her dominions; that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations. These and all other necessaries, for them, for us, and thy whole church, we humbly beg in the name and mediation of Jesus Christ our most blessed Lord and Saviour. Amen
A bit too British? Is there an Australian version?
Meh, people just don’t understand representative governments. Technically none of us voted for the government, but for our representative. I’d prefer them all to be independents.
I’d go further and say that we don’t really have a democracy where we vote on policy, but a republic because we vote for the mix of reps that will decide policy. If only I had time to drop everything and read our Constitution. I’d love to know if the term ‘political mandate’ ever arose. ;-)
A mere 80 days after the election, and more people are waking up to Labor’s broken promises, lies and abyssmal performance as a minority government :
So all we now need is for one or two so called “independents” to abandon their “love affair” with Julia’s minority team, and we’ll see a change of government on the floor of parliament - and no need to go back to the people. A week is along time in politics - and 80 days seemed much longer with this current babble of egos “in charge” ;)
Now we begin to see what the Greens true agenda is.
Euthanasia :( :( :( :( :(
Were there warning signs?
The Greens are ideologicalically driven and anti-Christian, (as well as anti-Labor), in practice. It wouldn’t make sense for a labor-voting Christian to switch to them.
Me, #10
I vote anti-green. Anything to keep them from gaining influence and power. Ick.
Dannii, #29
The Greens leader is much admired among journalists. With the obvious exception of Leigh Sales on Lateline, few reporters drew attention to the disingenuousness involved here. The Greens negotiated a deal to direct preferences to Labor in the Senate, and in most of the marginal House of Representatives seats, in return for ALP preferences in both the Senate and the House. This will almost certainly ensure that the Greens will exercise the balance of power in the Senate after July 1 next year.
Yet Brown is dismissive of the agreement likely to ensure a forthcoming key role for him in Australian politics. That aside, Brown has established a useful precedent. It is widely accepted the Greens have a chance in this election of winning seats in the House. The most likely prospects are the inner-city seats of Melbourne (where Cath Bowtell has Labor preselection after Lindsay Tanner’s resignation), Sydney and Grayndler. The latter two seats are being defended by Labor ministers Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese respectively.
The Liberal Party has no hope of winning seats in inner-city Melbourne or Sydney. Nor do the Greens have the support to win an absolute majority. The Greens can only win if they receive Liberal preferences - which is likely to be the case.
It is here that Brown’s advice has value. It would make sense for Liberal voters to place the likes of Bowtell, Plibersek and Albanese ahead of the Greens, irrespective of what the Liberal Party machine directs. The Liberal Party is closer to the left of the ALP than to the middle-class radicals who control the inner-city Greens.
quoted from Sunday Telegraph 27th July, by Kevin, #41
Howes declared in The Sunday Telegraph that the Greens ‘‘party is being infiltrated by many whose commitment to the environment is questionable, and who are more focused on turning the Greens into a left-wing, socialist-style party’‘.
also quoted from Sunday Telegraph 27th July, by Kevin, #41
The Greens are not honorable like the Democrats were. And while they like to present on environmental credentials, I think they really are implacably anti-Christian.
Me, #45
But then the Greens have never been particularly transparent or consistent in their behaviour. The barrage of material on environmental policies smothers their liberal and freewheeling policies on many social issues.
As the situation now stands, the preference deal and the leverage it will give the Greens after the election would see a blending of Brown’s green and Gillard’s red. This rainbow coalition could well give Australia a revived mining super profits tax, a carbon tax, softer border protection, more power to the unions and gay marriage, among other Green policies.
All is probably fair in a democracy but only if elected parties are true to the principles they espouse, and are open and transparent in the policies and strategies they are pursuing. This is especially so if they are likely to hold the balance of power. It is time for the Greens to come clean about how they would wield this power.
A secular society where women’s health needs are fully met are being eroded. Turning around that tide of destruction and ensuring that the religious right is not in the political ascendancy are clearly linked.
If the Greens really want environmental action, why didn’t they at least vote for the ETS??? (They didn’t, did they?) All they come up with is ‘ooh, that’s not good enough for us’, and the only things they actually seem to do is introduce private members bills of the kind that are unhelpful for Christians or Christian values. Sorry I can’t provide concrete examples - that’s my impression built up over time, from specific instances, which I promptly forgot. I understand the point that it’s useless forcing CVs on non-believers, but I also think CVs are inherently good for society, if society is mostly accepting of them.
Me,#58
Their (lib dems.) ‘socially liberal’ views on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality are not based on a direct attack on Christianity as per what the Greens, Socialists etc are doing.
Arthur, on the lib dems,. #67
[ Edited: 10 November 2010 12:32 PM by Ros Burgess]
Firstly, Greens’ pro-Gay marriage stance ( = downgrading Christian values ) :
Greens step up same-sex marriage campaign
From: AAP November 09, 2010 2:23PM
THE Australian Greens are stepping up their campaign to legislate for same-sex marriage, with moves in Victoria and Tasmania set to put pressure on the federal Labor Government to act.
The Greens will introduce a bill in Tasmanian parliament today, while a candidate in Victoria’s upcoming state election promised to act on the issue if elected.
And secondly, Greens want to LEGALISE DRUGS ( = anti Law and downgrading society ) :
Leichhardt councillor Alan Cinis charged over drug raid
Amy Dale From: The Daily Telegraph November 09, 2010 2:37PM
GREENS councillor and actor Alan Cinis has been charged with a string of drug offences following a police raid at his Leichhardt home this morning.
Cinis, who is also a TV and stage actor, was arrested at his Leichhardt home this morning, after police allegedly seized 12 plastic bags containing “green vegetable matter” and six plants from the backyard.
He was taken to Newtown Police Station and has just been charged with deem supply, possessing and cultivating a prohibited plant and possessing a prohibited drug…..
The Greens are definitely anti-Christian. Any Christians who consider voting for them need to get their heads read.
I only heard about this last night, so apologise for the late notice :
Come and Hear the Rev Dr Andrew Cameron
Social Issues Executive Chair for the Anglican Diocese of Sydney
Lecturer in Ethics at Moore Theological College
Address the topic “Voluntary Euthanasia: Why it sounds good but goes bad”
At The Recital Room, B Block Centre, Penrith Anglican College
338-356 Wentworth Rd, Orchard Hills
On Wednesday 10 November 2010, 7:30 for 8pm
A retiring offertory will be taken to subsidise the Penrith School of Christian Ministry
For more information contact Rev Steve Gooch 4736 6393
[ Edited: 10 November 2010 01:35 PM by Kevin Goddard]
[null]Obama vs. Catholics, Catholics vs. ObamaNew York Times (blog)[{}]This would frame the issue as yet another intra-Catholic dispute over sexuality and abortion, rather than an external assault on Catholic religious liberty. Seen in this light, Georgetown University's decision to invite Kathleen Sebelius, ...
[null]Rally fights for abortion law changeThe West Australian[{}]Liberal MP Peter Abetz has spoken out against WA's abortion laws, warning "the womb is most dangerous place for children to be in this State" at a rally last night attended by hundreds of right-to-life campaigners. Addressing the 750-strong rally at ...
[null]As Obama Seeks the Votes of WomenNew York Times[{}]Ms. Brown seems to scorn Mr. Obama's support for women's efforts to get a “seat at the table,” but I found it more disturbing that a number of her friends and family members “all laughed” over whether contraception or abortion rights were key in their ...
[null]Pastor wants gays held in electric penThe West Australian[{}]And, in reference to President Obama's same-sex marriage and pro-choice abortion stance , when asked who he'll vote for in the Presidential election, Mr Worley said: "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover.and more»
Pastor wants gays held in electric pen The West Australian And, in reference to President Obama's same-sex marriage and pro-choice abortion stance , when asked who he'll vote for in the Presidential election, Mr Worley said: "I'm not going to vote for a baby killer and a homosexual lover.
RSS Feed