Australian Federal Election - Results Thread

[Secretary Polnut]

Katter to support Coalition.

[Mr. Morden]

Katter is backing the Coalition, but the other two are going ahead with their 3pm press conference....which possibly means that Katter is splitting with the other two, so maybe they're going with Labor?

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

So what happens if one of the remaining Independents go with Labor and the other goes with the Coalition?

[Mr. Morden]

So what happens if one of the remaining Independents go with Labor and the other goes with the Coalition?

There's a stalemate for a while, as each side tries to convince someone on the other side to defect.  If no one is willing to defect, then I think there would have to be a new election called.

[Secretary Polnut]

Yep, that would be 75-75... and I HIGHLY doubt that more room could be found.

I would imagine a new election would have to be called before the end of the year.

I think he's done this, in some ways, to put pressure on the other two.  

But as the saying about the Independents "party of three with three factions"

[Secretary Polnut]

Windsor to support the ALP

[Secretary Polnut]

And Gillard will form Government.

[Secretary Polnut]

[Sibboleth]

Ah, it's over good. Good.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

So you FINALLY picked a winner, eh?

[Vasall des Midas]

For now. We'll see how long it holds.

[Sibboleth]

Will the National Party survive this? The whole point of the County Party project was to hold Conservative governments to ransom for goodies and protection for rural areas, something that they've become less and less effective at in recent decades (which is why rural independents and rural protest parties have been doing increasingly well). Now two rural independents have that sort of arrangement with a Labor government and appear (the stress must be on appear) to have done a better job of it than the Nationals have managed for quite a while. And there's no reason why similar arrangements could not be don with future Liberal-led governments. Therefore, what's the point of the National Party? If you want a capital-c Conservative MP, just vote Liberal, if you want Country Person for Country People MP, vote for an independent.

[Sibboleth]

And by 'survive this' I mean 'survive this as an independent-ish force' and not like the National Liberal Party in post-war Britain.

[Secretary Polnut]

This is why I think Windsor is correct in doing this, and why the Nationals are being so vicious.

The Nationals have been sliding, (not including the LNP) they received 3.8% of the primary vote against say 11.7% for the Greens...

Watch a LOT of country Independents run in 2013 (or ... whenever)

[redcommander]

Labor will be gone come next election. This government is in an even more precarious position than Cameron's. Expect an election to be called before 2013.

[Secretary Polnut]

I think IF the Government can last close to full-term and Labor can point to actual achievements, they could be ok... plus I think a few of those QLD and NSW seats will go back to the ALP.

[Sibboleth]

The defeat of the government in NSW will do wonders for Labor's ratings in Sydney. Presumably the same is true of Queensland, but there may be other reasons for concern there.

[Smid]

Labor will be gone come next election. This government is in an even more precarious position than Cameron's. Expect an election to be called before 2013.

I highly doubt an early election. Still looking into a few things in the Constitution, but I read on Antony Green's blog a few months back that there is a provision in the Constitution preventing an ordinary General Election being called in (I think) the first two years of the life of the Parliament (I think this is something to do with the Senate having to sit for a certain length of time, but haven't found the relevant section yet). The only type of election that can be called in that time is a Double Dissolution, which still takes a while - because legislation has to actually be passed in one House (which takes time) and then be blocked in the other House (while debate is still likely to occur, so even blocking it will take time), and then be passed again in the original House and be blocked again in the other House... so don't expect one of those any time soon. Additionally, the independents are not going to want to squander their opportunity to hold the Government to ransom on every piece of legislation, so they won't want to provide the Government with a DD trigger, nor are they likely to support a no-confidence motion (or blocking a confidence Bill). Perhaps if they were willing to support the Coalition and change governments mid-term, they might support a motion of no-confidence, but I can't see it happening.

[Secretary Polnut]

I also wouldn't be surprised if Joanna Gash in Gilmore retires before the next election... I think there's a big personal vote there.

Just watch the Coalition go for the jugular, I think Tony Windsor will be fine (his is a deeply personal vote)... but Oakeshott is vulnerable. Personally, I'd not take a Ministry on the chance that this actually turns out to be a bad Government, and not only will the Nationals be baying for your blood, but you're actually 'part of the Government'.

[Smid]

I also wouldn't be surprised if Joanna Gash in Gilmore retires before the next election... I think there's a big personal vote there.

Just watch the Coalition go for the jugular, I think Tony Windsor will be fine (his is a deeply personal vote)... but Oakeshott is vulnerable. Personally, I'd not take a Ministry on the chance that this actually turns out to be a bad Government, and not only will the Nationals be baying for your blood, but you're actually 'part of the Government'.

I agree completely. My earlier post was only half of a longer post in which I started with... oh, I'll just post it, I'd copied and pasted into Word in case I changed my mind. Here it is:

I don't see this as a bad thing for the Nationals at all, indeed, I think they were the big winners out of all of this because they now have a clear point of difference to the rural independents. Voters in those seats want their representatives to deliver more for their seats, but equally want a Conservative Government. The Nationals will be able to point out that they are independent from the Liberals, grouped together and can drive a hard bargain (as Barnaby Joyce has been doing over the past few years) while at the same time saying "when you vote for us, you know what Government you get. If you vote independent, you don't know what you'll end up with." I think this will especially be the case if Oakeshott takes the Ministry offered him by Gillard - this will make it look like his decision was based on self-interest and he'll go the way of the South Australian Nationals MP who backed Labor and accepted a portfolio. As for comparing the Nationals vote with the Greens... the Greens run in every seat, the Nationals don't run against incumbent Liberals (except in WA), nor in most metropolitan seats. If they did, their vote would be higher than what it is, probably not as high as the Greens, but still considerably higher than it is presently (rural seats like Murray, Farrer, Indi, Wannon, Alby Schultz's electorate, Groom - LNP, but held by former Liberal Minister Ian MacFarlane, etc). Additionally, I don't think the 3.8% figure reflects votes received by the LNP in what were previously Nationals seats, like Wide Bay, Hinkler, Dawson, Flynn and Maranoa. Anyway, I could be wrong, but that's my thought. I could be wrong, that's just my thought on the future for the Nats.

[Secretary Polnut]

I've always believed that if the Nats want to survive, they need to demonstrate some actual independence.

A lot of Libs consider Nats 'socialists' because of the support they want from the Government. The Libs support it as they don't necessarily have as strong a nation-wide base as the ALP to govern in their own right, and need the Nats, but their economic policy platforms in their foundations are pretty much opposites.

They share social (and degrees of economic) conservatism... that's pretty much it.

I really hope the moderate Libs break-off one day...

[Smid]

Found the bit about half Senate elections not being in the first two years of the election...

Section 13. As soon as may be after the Senate first meets, and after each first meeting of the Senate following a dissolution thereof, the Senate shall divide the senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number as practicable; and the places of the senators of the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of three years, and the places of those of the second class at the expiration of six years, from the beginning of their term of service; and afterwards the places of senators shall be vacant at the expiration of six years from the beginning of their term of service.

The election to fill vacant places shall be made within one year before the places are to become vacant.

For the purpose of this section the term of service of a senator shall be taken to begin on the first day of July following the day of his election, except in the cases of the first election and of the election next after any dissolution of the Senate, when it shall be taken to begin on the first day of July preceding the day of his election.

[Χahar]

Smid, there could be House-only elections, no? I believe Senate and House elections were not aligned for much of the 1960s and '70s.

Anyhow, I think that at this point it's meaningless to speak of any single National Party as such. In the NT, ACT, and Tasmania, of course, there has never been a National Party. In Queensland alone, the Nats were the establishment, and thus now they have seen fit to rebrand themselves with the Liberal name, as the rural partner in the Coalition is increasingly forgotten. I predict that the LNP will drop the "N" at some point. In NSW and Victoria, the Nationals hold the same sort of position that they hold at Canberra: they are a junior partner to the Liberal Party, and not really all that different. Windsor and Oakeshott, it may be noted, both hold traditionally Country/National seats in NSW. In South Australia, the Coalition became one party long ago. There is a National Party there, but it is independent (having supported Labor until being defeated at the last election) and not very important. In Western Australia, the Nationals are not relly very clear about where they want to be in relation to the Liberals, resulting in the current confidence-and-supply agreement.

The National Party is not a unified national party. The independents in the House provide a more effective means of representation of rural interests, and the Nationals must either follow them or the Liberals. They cannot tread a middle ground.

[Secretary Polnut]

The problem is that in QLD, the Liberals are the junior partners at the state level and the reverse at the Federal level.

I re-iterate that I think there will be a slew of country independents at the next election... the reason why the Nationals are being SO vicious is because they're worried about being made redundant. All this crowing about best representation since yadda-yadda, it doesn't make a difference, going from 2-3 is still a 50% increase in representation... but in the grand scheme of things... who gives a toss.

These independents are a threat because they're trying to say to regional and rural areas "you don't need the Nationals".

[Smid]

Smid, there could be House-only elections, no? I believe Senate and House elections were not aligned for much of the 1960s and '70s.

I'd been discussing that last week, but I don't think that would happen... people really hate elections, and I don't think they'd buy into having them offset. Maybe they would, if there is too much instability... I think there was a poll saying people wanted to go back and have a second shot. Anyway, let's wait and see...

Anyhow, I think that at this point it's meaningless to speak of any single National Party as such. In the NT, ACT, and Tasmania, of course, there has never been a National Party. In Queensland alone, the Nats were the establishment, and thus now they have seen fit to rebrand themselves with the Liberal name, as the rural partner in the Coalition is increasingly forgotten. I predict that the LNP will drop the "N" at some point. In NSW and Victoria, the Nationals hold the same sort of position that they hold at Canberra: they are a junior partner to the Liberal Party, and not really all that different. Windsor and Oakeshott, it may be noted, both hold traditionally Country/National seats in NSW. In South Australia, the Coalition became one party long ago. There is a National Party there, but it is independent (having supported Labor until being defeated at the last election) and not very important. In Western Australia, the Nationals are not relly very clear about where they want to be in relation to the Liberals, resulting in the current confidence-and-supply agreement.

The National Party is not a unified national party. The independents in the House provide a more effective means of representation of rural interests, and the Nationals must either follow them or the Liberals. They cannot tread a middle ground.

The LNP is more the other way around, from what I hear. I could tell you a lot about the merger up in Queensland, but it's probably best I don't put any of that into writing. I very much doubt the N will drop out - I hear they already began dropping the P in election material last month...