The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Jilting the independents is prime ministerial > Comments

Jilting the independents is prime ministerial : Comments

By Alan Anderson, published 31/8/2010

Much of the commentary seems to have gone to the heads of the Independents. You'd think they'd each been elected President of Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
" They even want briefings from senior public servants on the implications of the major parties’ policies. It is obvious that such a role would hopelessly compromise the perception and reality of an apolitical public service."

I would have thought that in itself demonstrates an apolitical public service. What is wrong with those who will help to form government knowing the costings of policies. How could the independents possibly choose who will form government without an impartial and apolitical costing process.

Jilting the independents is not prime ministerial - these people have been elected by their constituents as is the democratic process and arguing that less consultative governing is better than not ranks of the 'more of the same' of which one hopes we have moved on (even if not forward).

"Old politics" has been in demise since the two major parties lost their ideological way.

I don't think the commentary has gone to 'their' heads at all. It is natural the media and the public's attention will turn to these Independents.

This article is just an Ad for the Coalition.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 10:01:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The treasury reports that the independents are asking for access to do not actually proclaim support or otherwise for either of the major political parties. They outline the effects of and requirements for funding the promises and economic plan of the government. As long as all involved treat the reports with respect on that level then there is no real problem in providing them for review. It will still be the job of the independents to analyse which plan is the one they'd rather support.

The independents have not as far as I've seen been trying to 'revolutionise the political system' through unreasonable demands. They've so far asked for a more consultative and inclusive approach to government with greater importance being placed on committees and private members' bills. Both of these have been reduced to irrelevance over the years by both parties.
Posted by Dick, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 10:53:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it's true that the committee system has been treated with disdain by governments of both types and that private members' bills have been largely ignored, simply asserting that a government should give them greater importance doesn't actually solve the problem. How would one do that in practical terms?

People who choose to stand as independents (and people who vote for them) need to accept that they are not playing in the main game and stop bitching about being ignored.

The only practical function of independents in the parliament is to decide which of the major parties they are going to support from time to time.

People living outside the major cities have been getting a bad deal for many years and that needs to be remedied conscientiously by the major parties, not independents with very limited remit.
Posted by KenH, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 12:01:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People living outside the cities are whingers. They get a great deal. Their vote is worth more for a start. They get great farming subsidies, no traffic, nature at their doorstep, low pollution, cheap housing, big backyards. If they think the city is so great, the solution is very very simple...

Move to the city.

Country people aren't 'salt of the earth' or friendly, they're whinging bigoted bitchy gossippers with a massive chip on their shoulder who think they're doing the country a favour.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 12:10:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice little flame there, Houellebecq.

Given that electorates are roughly the same size in terms of population, how do you figure that country people's votes are worth more than those of city people? Not to mention that, generally speaking, unless you're a conservative country voter your vote doesn't count at all except in the Senate. At both the Federal and State levels I'm represented by rusted-on National/LNP MPs who routinely return more than 60% of the primary vote.

As for this gross generalisation:

<< Country people aren't 'salt of the earth' or friendly, they're whinging bigoted bitchy gossippers with a massive chip on their shoulder who think they're doing the country a favour. >>

You obviously haven't spent much time in the bush, have you?

BTW, I see your namesake's in the news:

<< Has mad, bad Michel Houellebecq come in from the cold? >>

http://tiny.cc/rvr8q

I was rather taken by this bit:

<< One striking aspect of the novel is Houellebecq's appearance as a principal character. It is not a pretty sight: he is depicted, some would say realistically, as a stinking alcoholic with a skin disease and a penchant for eating mortadella and biscuits in bed. >>

Maybe you need to get out of bed and go bush for a while :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 12:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Haha CJ,

I've tempted a prize bite.

'Given that electorates are roughly the same size in terms of population, how do you figure that country people's votes are worth more than those of city people?'

The smaller populated states with more country areas and their equal senate representation.

Symptomatic of the zietgeist (always wanted to use it) is the quote...

'You obviously haven't spent much time in the bush, have you?'

That little doozy (Trying to relate to you in your country terms now) wouldn't be out of place coming from the mouth of the esteemed Bob Katter. Those city folks just haven't got a clue what we country people face.

My fathers side of the family are all from 'the bush'. And I have never heard of a farmer who doesn't still think Strayla rides on the sheeps back, or that country people are better people. They're always doin' tough, much like working families in the burbs I grant you, but with the added chip on the shoulder that city people just don't appreciate them and that they should get MORE hand outs. It's their god given right to work the land, permanent drought or not.

As to my namesake, well, this interview is a classic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t97G3gRH_Rg&feature=related

The man is a legend. I must admit his first 2 books were far superior to the last two, but then how many times have you heard that said about artists. Even more wonderful than his books is his ability to get people's knickers in a twist, and be such a divisive, polarising person all round.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 1:16:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country people are no different from city people. Have you ever found that we can be different people depending on who we are with. Not that we are split personalities but that different people might bring out or inspire different aspects of our personalities and character. Perhaps living in the city or country can have a similar effect.

(Had no idea his name was pronounced Wellbeck. I have trouble remembering how to spell it so Houlley it became. In the interview one wonders if H. is just good at the art of playing with people particularly the literary elite or just a man with natural angst having been "deserted by hippie parents and raised by a Stalinist grandmother".)
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 3:40:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always read 'Houelly' as Welly pelican.

I always wonder if Col Rouge was *raised* by hippie parents and *deserted* by a Stalinist grandmother.

PS: I really cant imagine Bob Katter seems any different when he frequents the cafes of Leichardt.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 4:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: << The smaller populated states with more country areas and their equal senate representation. >>

Er, that doesn't mean that country people's votes are worth more - rather, it means that people who live in less populous states have more representatives in the Senate per capita than in the more populous states. It doesn't give country people any advantage over city people in those states - indeed, quite the reverse. Think about it.

Also, even if your father's side of the family are country people, I really doubt that you've spent much time at all in the bush. If you had, you wouldn't make such silly generalisations. As pelican says, country people aren't really very different to city people - I can think of several butchers, accountants and tradespeople who frequent OLO who fit your description of "whinging bigoted bitchy gossippers with a massive chip on their shoulder who think they're doing the country a favour", but who live in urban areas.

However, one way that city and country voters to tend to differ is that country voters tend to support Coalition or Independent candidates.

As for your namesake, I tried to read 'Whatever' about 10 years ago, but got sick of the self-indulgent nihilism and gave up.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 5:05:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok - this has gone somewhat off course.
I do think that it is all rather unpleasant and undignified for the entire country to be effectively held to ransom by three people who represent just 2% of the population.
Politics is much like making sausages - you don't really want to know how it is made, you just want the end product.
Forcing the major parties to bend over on lists of demands is pushing extortion IMHO.
Posted by J S Mill, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 5:26:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

'I can think of several butchers, accountants and tradespeople who frequent OLO who fit your description of "whinging bigoted bitchy gossippers with a massive chip on their shoulder who think they're doing the country a favour", but who live in urban areas. '

Agreed. Please see my recent assessment of small business owners.

Doesn't mean farmers aren't the same though.

PS: I've spent a decent amount of time in the ten dollar town (When we had paper money that is), and also The Jacaranda City. Maybe that doesn't count. Not exactly city though.

Now *real* country people you say....
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 5:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is easy to oversimplify the situation by arguing the future lies in the hand of a few rural independents. Adam Bandt may follow the ALP over the Coalition but he seems the only sure thing at the moment. Wilkie is very much his own man and will on the face of it choose the party that he believes will act with integrity, the rural independents will act in the interests of their electorates which is why they were voted in. It is like a competition - those with the most points wins regardless of who gets the last say on the matter.

The fate of rural Australia is linked to the fate of urban Australia in many ways including addressing the issues of congestion and pollution in our cities. Issues of biosecurity and supporting locally grown is tied up very much with the security of our agricultural sector.

The current situation presents us with numerous opportunities for decentralisation in conjuction with a sophisticated NBN and better business opportunities in regional areas. It also provides an optimistic prospect for our farmers who are struggling to earn a wage over the costs of production forcing many to sidestep the middlemen and all power to them if they can pull it off.

Also, as someone else suggested in another thread it is very hard to bring about change if those in power benefit from the status quo.

We have an opportunity to take advantage of the situation for much needed parliamentary and electoral reform.

Jilting the independents is anything but prime ministerial unless arrogance is considered an attribute above courage in our representatives. What would be prime ministerial would be to recognise the great opportunities that lie before us over the self-interest of career politicians.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 31 August 2010 8:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JS Mill: "I do think that it is all rather unpleasant and undignified for the entire country to be effectively held to ransom by three people who represent just 2% of the population."

The country is not being "held to ransom" by anyone. The Electoral Office has not yet declared an election result. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Independents.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 7:04:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar Rose - I am trying to work out what you mean by "This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Independents."
If you are right then someone ought to tell Abbott and Gillard that they can ignore Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott (and Wilkie). Someone also should advise Lateline/QandA/Meet the Press and every other media punditry outlet that they can stop trying to talk to these guys because they are irrelevant. Of course, the Independents' list of demands can be immediately binned. Having the support of the independents is not going to mean anyone going to the GG or appearing on the press and announcing a resignation.
Nor is it going to put an end to the speculation and uncertainty.
You really don't think that maybe it has just a little bit to do with the Independents?
Posted by J S Mill, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 2:26:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Independents are currently serving one of the best causes that they can - to remind people that fail to be able to see beyond the tip of their nose that there is more to this country than a new surburban rail link. (yes I'm from the country)

Many many city jobs depend on things produced around the countryside (exporting them, manufacturing them, selling them), those in turn generate the need for shopping, health services, financial services. There is a huge flow-on effect beyond the immediate area where things are produced. When government formulates policy and legislation, these things can readily be forgotten. The Independents (and even more so the media that is hanging off them), are reminding everyone about where much of this starts. That cant be a bad thing, for the countryside and for the city areas in the longer term.

One thing that I think all sides should bear in mind is that the Independents are mostly conservative (which is why most spring from the National Party originally and not Labor). They are unlikely to pick sides with a party who plans significant change - we are unlikely to see an ETS this term (and probably a good thing, as the mechanism hasnt been properly worked out yet: needs a few more years of debating). Likewise we are unlikely to see significant new taxes etc. Its likely to be a time for both sides to take a bit of a hiatus and have the opportunity to fine-tune more significant policy for the next election in 3 years time. This could be a win-win for everyone.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 1 September 2010 10:50:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy