So, we finally know who’s going to be running the show until the next election. And we’ve already seen the start of the Coalition’s talking points in response to their loss – but more on that later.
When Bob Katter appeared alone to declare his support for the Coalition, there was likely a moment of delight on the conservative camp before they realised what one of the three amigos appearing alone likely meant. Having spent 17 days talking about voting as a bloc, the most obvious reason for Bob Katter to be speaking alone was that he was also voting alone. There were probably a great many hoping that the reason was actually just Bob Katter being Bob Katter, and needing to do things his own way.
Unfortunately for the Coalition, this was not the case. An hour later, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor appeared together (give or take a few minutes for poor coordination) to declare their support for Julia Gillard. Eventually, after Oakeshott milked the limelight for all it was worth. As with Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt, their support for Gillard goes only as far as forming government, guaranteeing supply (passing budgets) and protecting against frivolous votes of no confidence. They were clear that this did not amount to an endorsement of any specific Labor policies and – to paraphrase – that anyone who claimed a mandate for anything in the coming term would be full of shit.
In the aftermath of today’s announcements from the no-longer-gang-of-3, I was speaking to BKoP Dave about where the Coalition would go from here, in terms of its posturing, rhetoric and talking points. Not long after, articles by bastions of non-partisan journalism were popping up aping these talking points.
“Relying on independents means a Gillard government will be unstable”
Which would explain why the Coalition had no interest in wooing the independents in the hope of forming government. Obviously, this harks back to the pre-election talking point regarding a leadership change making for an unstable Labor party. Compared to the two leadership changes the Coalition had undergone. So, at least they’re consistently hypocritical.
“Labor didn’t win the election”
Thank you for reminding us of this. Otherwise we might forget the 17 days of limbo that resulted from the Coalition winning the election. Wait, no. The Coalition didn’t win the election either. So, uh, what’s your point?
“Labor-Greens government”
This one’s just rude, ignoring the three independents supporting Gillard. Of course, “government bringing together people from all corners of the political compass based primarily on the notion that the Coalition would do a worse job” doesn’t sound as good.
As to be expected, Barnaby Joyce continues to say incredibly stupid things. Stung by Oakeshott and Windsor panning the Coalition’s broadband proposal (and I use the term broadband loosely), Barnaby proceeded to decry the NBN as not future proof, and providing poor coverage to regional Australia. For those who don’t know, the Coalition’s proposal involves technology that’s already been surpassed, while the NBN uses fibre optic – not quite infinitely scalable, but close.
What does all this mean? While Labor gets on with running the country, the Coalition will be scheming the best ways to shed itself of the last of its shame.
Is it wrong of me to be looking forward to reading the false bravado and outrageous bullshit Andrew Bolt will have to say in his next column?
Firstly to suggest that the Gillard government was re-elected is an exaggeration of the truth the Coalition leads both the primary vote (by a rather handsome margin I might add) and also the two party preferred vote (which I’m sure you remember as Gillard’s main claim to power on election night)she has put together a highly unstable and very fragile government after having lost a (very) comfortable majority in the house of reps, but yes she has managed to scape together a government, however I believe that to say that government was re-elected by the Australian people is somewhat of a misinterpretation of the situation this is a government that was negotiated amongst key individuals, as opposed to elected; Australian’s have indicated they aren’t happy with either of the major parties and have voiced for political reform.
Yes, the coalition didn’t win the election either but to imply that labor did is a false interpretation.
On the issue of the Coalition leadership changes, surely a political party that is in opposition has the right to reorganise it’s structure? unlike an incumbent government the leader of the opposition has not been elected by the constituents they represent and therefore a period in opposition is the appropriate time for the leadership of the party to be re-evaluated.
“to say that government was re-elected by the Australian people is somewhat of a misinterpretation of the situation this is a government that was negotiated amongst key individuals, as opposed to elected”
By that logic, no government in Australia’s history has ever been elected because that is exactly how our system of government works.
I’m not suggesting Labor ‘won’ the election, per se. But to claim, as the Coalition is, and will continue to do, that not-winning is somehow relevant, then they need to look at themselves too. Being as the Coalition is the one saying it, they’re the hypocrites. I’m just analysing.
You’re right, the leader of the opposition has not been elected by the people. Neither has the PM. The PM, like the opposition leader, is elected by their peers. Who the Australian people elect to vote on their behalf. If an opposition has the right to reorganise and restructure, why doesn’t the government? Answer: They do. They’re well within the bounds of both constitution and convention to do so.