http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/disorder-as-rob-oakeshott-bids-to-run-house/story-fn59niix-1225924344538

If Rob Oakeshott had taken the cabinet position, he would at least have had the choice of exercising his independence on matters outside his portfolio. This simply frees up a Labor MP to vote as JG instructs.

For an extra 100 000 pieces of silver RO is simply prostituting his vote, and is giving up any claim what so ever to being independent.

Dear SM

You would never made the above claims had Rob Oakeshott sided with the Libs.

I have been troubled since Nick Minchin repeatedly said that Labor needs to be destroyed. Has the Liberal Party no shame?

In fact, could you please explain to Tony Abbott that the dust has settled on the last Federal election and that his job is form an effective opposition with which to ensure the best interests of Australia.

For example, NBN - we do need, especially our rural areas, fast info technology able to cope with any new software developments, this optic fibre can do being the speed of light and having massive carrying capacity. Rather than setting out to destroy Labor's proposal here's a novel idea; prepare a comprehensive, step by step implementation proposal that will be better than Labor's - it may well be cheaper, not inadequate and better.

Stating things like "destroying Labor" or "destroying the NBN" does not act in the interests of Australians, just political egos.

Same for water resources. Much cheaper to set up storm storage capabilities than building saline processing plants.

Invest in our skills - make tertiary education, be it technical or university, available to people of all levels of income, so that people do not emerge with a massive debt at the beginning of their working lives. Let those who can afford pay. Let those with talent be educated.

Oh, here's another thought how about the Libs work with Labor, the Greens and the independents not for personal gain but of all Australians?

Dear Severin,

I couldn't agree with you more.

Well said!

I simply cannot believe the comments coming
from Tony Abbott and members of the Coalition.
Destroy Labor, destroy Broadband, destroy,
destroy, destroy... everything despite the
fact that it may be good for the nation!

It reminds me of spoilt petulant children
who will go out of their way to wreck everything
if they don't get their own way.

If they keep behaving in this way, they will
lose all credibility as a political party.
Who in their mind would vote for a party that
is intent on wrecking rather than considering
what's good for the nation.

As you rightly said - have they no shame?
And of course if Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor
had sided with the Coalition - this thread would
not exist.

Yes it is a shame, but the shame belongs entirely
to Tony Abbott and his party of bad losers - defeat
is not something they do well.

Labor is a "glass half full" political party.
Libs - think they own the glass!

They will learn the hard way - just ask Malcolm Fraser.

I too am disturbed by the battle talk and rhetoric from the opposition. I'm worried that our voters will fall for it again like they did during the election campaign. The Coalition increased their vote by about 1 percent or so at the election, so you only have to influence a tiny, tiny percentage of the population. If at the next election the coalition can influence, via battle rhetoric, just 50,000 or so more people, then our next prime minister could be Tony Abbott.

For the coalition it's not about correctly costed and good policy, it's about attack, destroy, rhetoric and humiliation and it's often delivered on a personal level.

Normally I would think such behaviour would work against a political party, but I'm not so sure now. That small percentage of voters fell for it hook, line and sinker at the last election.

Rob Oakeshott is putting his money where his mouth is because he says there should be an independent Speaker.

Unfortunately, it is not atypical of his generation that he puts a premium on his personal claims, while discounting the knowledge of the rules and operation of the Parliament and the long-term respect from both sides that is usually expected of a Speaker.

Rob Oakeshott is ill-advised to take on the role, which is tough enough normallly but nigh impossible where the opposition will be (unfairly) baying for his blood.

Dear Jockey,

I think the fast majority of voters were
disillusioned with both parties - the swing
to the Greens, especially in Melbourne was
very large. I don't think many people really
want Tony Abbott as PM. And as Labor has admitted -
they didn't explain their wins and their achievements,
and their policies enough - prior to the election.

However, I must confess that I watched the interview
with Downer (former Libs Foreign Minister,)
on Lateline last night and I was impressed. He's no
longer in politics and for the first time we got to
see the "real" man, instead of the party hack.
Downer was fair, and his assessment of Kevin Rudd
was totally commendable. He told Lateline that we
should get behind Mr Rudd - who's now this country's
Foreign Minister - and we should support him as he
represents all of our interests overseas. He said
that we should draw a line on the past - and back
Rudd's position today. It's a shame his colleagues
can't take a page out of Downer's book - or is that
the way the Coalition plays the game - when they're
in office? A pity - because if we could see the "real"
people - they just may appear more credible.
Nobody likes people who only condemn and attack - but
offer no better alternatives.

I look on with some amusement at Severin and Foxy firstly completely ignoring the topic, and then trying to divert the thread by inventing quotes by the coalition and then condemning them for it.

For example when has the term "destroy the NBN" or "destroy Labor" been used? I have never heard it. And I could not find it by Googling.

The closest I could find was TA saying that MT was to demolish plans for the NBN. Which basically means exposing the shonky accounting behind the proposal.

The issue still remains that Rob Oakeshott cannot take the role of speaker and then pretend to the electorate that he is independent. This comment has come from other commentators as well. Rob through his several attempts at a cabinet role, and now the highly paid cushy speaker role is after the cash. He must be extremely naive if his pecuniary interest is not shoved down his throat at the next election. Tony Windsor has not been so politically stupid.

Dear SM,

You protest too much Sir.

Severin answered your opening post quite
fairly, and I simply seconded her
opinion, because she expressed my feelings
as well.

As for diverting the thread - you're mistaken.
We were both merely responding to your
claim that Rob Oakeshott has no shame -
by pointing out who the real culprits were
who should have shame - but obviously don't.

I'm quite surprised that you were not able
to google and find any website references
to Tony Abbott's tasking Malcolm Turnbull to
DESTROY the Labor Government's NBN.
Perhaps you need help with your searches.
It's a question of how you search -
were you to google:

"Malcolm Turnbull - Destroy NBN"

You'd find heaps of websites listed -
including articles in - The Australian, ABC,
Sky News, to mention just a few.

Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, and others have also
given interviews on Television stating quite
plainly that their intention is to DESTROY
Labor. And to force another election within the
next 12 months. Because as Abbott has stated
he has the supposesd "mandate" from the people
to be the next "ruler," of this country.

Even on Monday's "Q and A," references were made
to the fact that Abbott feels cheated that he's
not the current PM. He's even stated in the media
that he would not be the first "popularily elected"
leader of a party who did not become a Prime Minster.

Issues such as these have every right to be discussed
on a thread where accusations are levelled at only one side,
they are by way of clarification and providing balance,
to the argument. And they are crucial
on a public Forum such as this one.

In that way, we can all be amused - it's only fair.

For the coalition it's not about correctly costed and good policy, it's about attack, destroy, rhetoric and humiliation and it's often delivered on a personal level.

Jockey,
you're confusing Labor with Coalition there.

Shadow Minister

I listened to Nick Minchin on ABC local (Victoria) radio referring not once but twice that Labor is the enemy, like Foxy I have both heard and read that Labor policies, particularly the NBN should be destroyed. You are merely trying to provoke a brawl with myself and Foxy, because you have deliberately ignored the suggestion that the Liberal party actually provide workable policies for broadband, infrastructure, education, sustainable technology.

Calling Oakeshott shameful in the face of what Abbott and co continue to do - is petty and shameful. A definitive case of glass houses and stones.

You also deliberately ignore the point that had Oakeshott sided with the Libs, this thread would not even exist.

Simply to be a politican of any stripe requires a skin so thick that elephant hide appears delicate.

There is so little to differentiate between Labor and Liberal that the election resulted in a hung parliament - learn from this, create, inspire, revitalise and stop with the name-calling and insults - do something useful for this country instead of creating animosity.

Work with Labor, the Greens and the Independents - you can't keep the bastards honest unless you are honest yourself and your claims regarding Oakeshott are just a smokescreen to hide a lack of anything worthy to offer Australians.

Foxy,

I googled your word combo, and in every case the words were by journalists not the coalition, whilst Severin specifically ascribed these words to the coalition.

If an idiot put in a blog that Julia Gillard had an abortion, it would come up if googled. If I posted it as fact, I would be an idiot. Even Severin has realised her screw up.

As for Severin's conjecture as to the existence of this thread in the parallel universe where RO chose to represent the views of his electorate, or didn't falsely claim to be independent, It is completely irrelevant. Or as my brother says, "if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle".

The constitution is clear. The speaker has no vote, only a casting vote in the case of a tie. By taking the position, RO frees up a Labor MP to vote as per JG's instructions. To this end RO might as well pledge allegiance to the Labor party. The only apparent reason that he has not done so so far is that his electorate would never have voted for him.

His actions are shameful in that he has been duplicitous not only to his electorate, but in the negotiations post the election, and in his pledge to remain independent. The cash and prestige of the position of speaker would appear to be his prime motivation not lofty ideals.

Maybe it is time for the speaker to be appointed from outside the House, like judges and other public officials

,Dear SM,

I can see that no matter what is said - or how
people argue - you've got your own agenda,
and you're out to follow it through.

The clue should have been that this is the second
attempt by you to
discredit Rob Oakeshott. You tried earlier, when
you thought the man would accept the front-bench
position offered by the PM - which Oakeshott turned
down - and when he did - you had nothing more to say
on the subject.

It hasn't occurred to you has it, that as a key Independent -
the advantage of being speaker would be the day-to-day
relationship he would have with the two party leaders?

That as a person who's interested in parliamentary reform,
this gives him the opportunity to achieve something
worthwhile? That whoever fills this role will have a
great chance to drive the changes for a better parliament?

That when it ends up being an equal vote - and that's
going to happen in this parliament, the speaker's
position will have a casting vote. And that could be
crucial to an Independent to ensure that the proposed
programs for his constituents do get through.

However, you keep on with your negativity - Sadly,
it reflects the party politics
of the one-eyed conservatives.

It is actually the third attempt by Rob Oakeshott to weasel himself into a high paying high profile position. His first attempt was for NSW Labor which he kept quite, the second was the regional affairs minister, which after having requested, was pressured (his own admission) to reject, and finally asking for the speaker's position thinking he could pretend to be independent.

He doesn't need me to discredit him, as he does it well enough for himself.

As for my bias, Foxy you are no better, as I have yet to see a balanced post from you.

What is wrong with a man wanting to earn more money? Is this not why we go down a career path. The man would also be aware because of the decision he made, this could be his last term in Federal Parliament. Of course Mr. Abbott is not seeking to be PM, to earn more money to pay off his large mortgage he took out to live the lifestyle he became accustom to when Mr. Howard was thrown out. Why should anyone do the job for the love of it?

Dear Shadow Minister

I do understand how difficult it must be to have people disagree with you. People who have watched all the sweet talk about cooperation and collaboration go down the sewer, because Rob Oakeshott had the utter gall to apply for Speaker - my god, next thing we'll have Bob Katter trying out for Opposition Leader and then Tony Abbott will call for Alter boys to wear chastity belts.

Some people just don't know their place in the scheme of things.

Take Labor (please), trying to pull together a scheme that will provide an information technology that will see Australia through the next 50 or more years - what are they thinking?

And wanting to set a tax from mining Australia's resources for the benefit of Australians, last time I heard anything so absurd was when Whitlam implemented equal wages for equal work.

We're going to hell in a natural fibre hand-basket, that's for sure.

The only shameful thing is SM's continued circus antics in the face of a sour grapes loss at the election.

Severin's concerns about the Coalition are well founded. Extremely worrying for anyone who believes in democracy and better government.

Come now why do you expect anything different from Shadow Minister?
At the time I first came to this forum politicians openly posted here,some under their own names.
Read SM,Post history, find a time when his posts did not sound like Julie Bishop on steroids.
But note these two things.
His posts are pure conservative spin and policy, no issue is too small not to be twisted and turned into a weapon.
Second this is our short term future in Australian politics.
No matter what Abbott promised with his plastic smile during negotiations he never intended anything but confrontation if he was not to govern.
We are about to see conservatives knife themselves repeatedly.
And destroy an old and faithful weapon ,one that is being exposed by over use, spin confrontation even bald faced lies , thank you for your continuing posts high lighting this Shadow Minister non conservatives prosper by you lifting the rug exposing the dirt on your side.

Oakeshott merely did as did Peter Wellington in Qld to get Petter Beatty over the line. They sacrificed integrity.

Is Mr. Oakeshott testing Mr. Abbott? Does he want to expose him as a person who does not intend to keep his word? One of the complaints that the independents raised was their lack of trust of Mr. Abbott

Dear SM,

Labor won - Get over it!

Foxy,

Labor managed to retain a tenuous grip on power in spite of losing the confidence of the electorate, and is falling further behind in the opinion polls to their lowest primary vote in 6 years.

None of the factors that TA used to batter Labor with have changed.

The agreement with the independents has already impacted the NBN with a 12 month delay and increased costs, providing excellent ammunition to discredit Labor.

The boats keep coming, and the prison camps have reached record proportions.

NSW and Queensland keep providing examples of Labor waste and corruption.

If Belly and Foxy were getting ready for 3 years of unchallenged Labor rule, then get over it.

SM, the Liberal party primary vote was just a mere 30.46%. They are the 'offical' figures. Methinks you should be whinging more about the Liberal lowly primary vote.

Tony Abbott's achievement at the election was to have nearly 70% of the population NOT vote for his party.

Tony Abbott snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

As Malcolm Turnbull leads the Liberal party into the next election, Tony Abbott will be left wondering "what happened?".

SM

>>> If Belly and Foxy were getting ready for 3 years of unchallenged Labor rule, then get over it. <<<

So no chance that the Libs will try to ensure good governance for Australia, no matter what policies are presented for the benefit of Australian technology, education, infrastructure, health, transport, transitioning to renewable energy - just business as usual then? Which means fear of change by the big end of town.

Severin, about 80%/90% or so of Federal legislation always gets through parliament with relative bipartisan support. It doesn't matter who's in government. That's always the case.

It's with the remaining approximately 10% where the trouble lies.

Thanks for the reassurance, Jockey.

I just can't fathom the claptrap that is coming out of some Libs mouths lately, I did hear Nick Minchin call Labor "the enemy" and I also heard Abbott declare he would destroy the NBN. However, now that Turnbull has that particular item on his plate - maybe the Libs will devise something for the future.

I can only hope.

Do you think Abbott will lead the Libs to the next election?

Rob Oakeshott would make a good speaker.

And Abbott would be concerned that an Oakeshott Speakership would reinforce the stability of the Alliance between Labor and the Independents and would dramatically reduce Abbott's capacity to make dirty tricks effective or to create conflict or instability or put pressure on the Independent's through their own back doors.

I'm for it.

I think Malcolm Turnbull will be re-elected as leader.

There's a slim chance Joe Hockey might get the job, but he's no better than Tony Abbott. They're like two naughty little boys spitting the dummy because they didn't get what they wanted. That "attack" mentality can only get them so far, and without properly devised and costed policy they will never regain government. I think that's what cost them the election. If they had put up an accurately costed policy platform, they would have probably got the extra few thousand votes they needed.

But that didn't happen because poor old Tony Abbott thought he could win with "battle" tactics. And what happened? Tony Abbott ended up snatching defeat from the claws of victory.

Jockey I to think Turnbull will return to the leadership roll.
But have a look at stalled bills in the last Parliament,know Abbott will stop far more this time.
LABOR won SM you however look forward to confrontation me too, it is a stick in the wheels of your lost tribe.
Have you considered a true opportunity to start a business?
Get your hands on those boats and sell passage to disgruntled conservatives you can double book, sending refugees back in them.

Jockey, the correct first preference votes are Liberals 39.58% and Labor 37.99%. The LNP is a division of the Liberal Party, but for some reason is listed separately by the AEC. http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm

The ALP just won the 2PP vote with 50.12% http://vtr.aec.gov.au/Default.htm.

And if anyone is really interested in debating the actions of Rob Oakeshott in wanting the position of speaker rather than slagging off your political opponents you might be interested in my blog post. http://bit.ly/a51CLa.

Oakeshott is totally unsuitable as speaker from both the Liberal and Labor points of view. He would be more conflicted than any speaker before him that I can think of. You can't be both speaker and active participant, but that's what he wants to be.

The bid for speaker would give him more power than anyone else in the parliament, including the PM.

I do agree, GY, that Oakeshott would be a bad choice for Speaker for the reasons you outlined, however Shadow Minister thought this a shameful incident which when compared to antics by the Libs thoughout their regime and Labor more recently is not remotely shameful, just typical pollie ambition.

Dear SM,

No one is talking about "unchallenged rule,"
but how about doing what's good for the country?
Coming together on policies that are for the good
of everyone - regardless of who suggested them.
How about putting party politics aside as Graham
Young has suggested in his post?

There is a time to challenge, and a time to support,
what scares me is that the Coalition doesn't seem to know
the difference between the two. And I very much doubt
whether this is going to change anytime soon.

Graham Y, the Australian National Party is a "separate" political party to the Liberal party. The National party has it's own leader, Warren Truss, and it's own internal processes. If the opposition had won the election, it would have been a "coalition" between the Liberal party and the National party, plus supporting independents.

In Queensland the Nationals (the dominant party there) and the Liberals merged to form one party ........ the National party there is not a division of the Liberal party. As you would be very well aware, but didn't mention, they merged in Queensland because the Liberals knew they were getting decimated at election after election after election there. Their only hope for survival in Queensland was to merge with the dominant National party. The vast,vast,vast majority of those LNP votes in Queensland were in "reality" National party votes. As I said, the Australian National party is a separate political party, it's not a branch of the Liberal party. If the Liberals in Queensland ever get back their previous influence and power they'll dump the Queensland Nationals quicker than you can say "phony policy costings". The National party and the Liberal party have their own separate identities, even when "temporarily" merged like they are in Queensland.

And as I previously correctly wrote, the official results regarding the primary votes for the Labor and Liberal parties are:

Labor: 37.99%

Liberal: 30.46%

That's a mathematical fact.

Labor + Greens got 49.75% of the primary vote

Liberals + LNP + Nationals got 43.31% of the primary vote

It's plainly obvious the public sentiment was towards the left of middle ground rather than towards the right

On those obvious and clear figures it would have been a grave miscarriage of justice if Tony Abbott was now Prime Minister. He's NO Liberal hero, because he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Eventually the Liberals will come to realise that.

Tony will be knifed, and replaced by either Malcolm Turnbull if they want to win the next election, or Joe Hockey if they want to lose the next election.

Oops, sorry for 3 posts in a row. I forgot to mention something I wanted to say.

I think Rob Oakeshott as speaker is a fantastic idea. In parliament the members scream and shout at each other and continually go for the "personal" jugular. They behave like naughty little children. It's pathetic to watch. We need a speaker who's prepared to spank their bottoms. If a speaker acts unconstitutionally, illegally or with undue favour there are processes to remove the speaker.

Therefore Rob Oakeshott is a threat to nobody as speaker - - - - except those parliamentarians who think they can get ahead using abuse and personal aggression; the very ones who need their bottoms spanked.

Severin,

Your agreement with GY on RO is an admission that Rob Oakeshott is primarily motivated by self interest, and the only reason for your stance is because I said it first.

I also agree that Labor has no shame.

Jockey,

Maths is obviously not your strong point. Quit before you dig any deeper.

Foxy,

The coalition is not going to block legislation they agree with, however, Labor pork barrelling and fantasy projects that are not really in the interest of the country will be opposed.

Shadow Minister

I disagree that Oakeshott is shameful for wanting the position as speaker - he is ambitious.

Unless you equate ambition with shame there is no basis for your topic.

I agree with Graham to a point. However, GY is disappointed that Windsor and Oakeshott sided with Labor so Abbott missed out on being Prime Minister - something that you and other far-right Libs have difficulty accepting.

I believe that what Oakeshott would be a loss as speaker because he would no longer be able to vote - if my understanding of Speaker is correct. I do agree with Jockey that he is a very ethical person. This might be difficult for you to grasp - people can be both ambitious and ethical.

Finally Jockey's maths is spot on. Fact is the Libs would rarely win elections at all if they did not form a coalition with the Nats.

That Labor has had to form an alliance with the Greens is very unusual and indicative of the message most voters (with the exception of the rusted on elements of either side) were sending to both the Labor and Liberal parties.

As for "pork barrelling" and "fantasy projects" the Libs and Labor are guilty of both.

Pot & Kettle?

Dear SM,

"Pork Barrelling," and "Fantasy Projects?"

You mean like the 11 billion dollar blow-out
in the Libs budget found by the Treasury
examiners, or the $1 billion offer made to
the Independent in Tassie for the hospital?
And the $3 billion offers made to the other
three Independents, on top of the $11 billion
blow-out. All promises they guaranteed to keep,
if they get into government.
Or their antiquated "Broadband" scheme - instead
of Cable Broadband, or planting trees ,instead
of the ETS? which is not going to be favourable
with the farmers, who want to clear land to plant
crops. And the list goes on...

Scientist estimates that tree-planting would only
solve less than 20% of the carbon-pollution problem.

From my understanding, most of the Liberal Budget
Estimates savings are based on cuts in public-service,
roads, rail, schools, hospitals, welfare, pensions,
and everything that the country needs to survive.
However if you view these cuts as positive steps in
national development, then definitely we need the
Libs to govern. Luckily most of Australia doesn't
agree with that scenario.

cont'd ...

Sorry, I forgot to add that as for
your statement that the Libs will only
oppose policies they don't agree with?

My goodness, they haven't agreed with
much during their term in Opposition
to date - so according to your theory,
it will be the same old, same old,
tactic, with perhaps even more aggression,
unless they replace Tony Abbott as leader.

As for Rob Oakeshott, as Speaker; what better
person to bring reform to parliament than an
Independent who proposed parliamentary reforms
during the election. And as I stated earlier,
whoever fills this role will have a great chance
to drive the changes for a better parliament.
And that's something we all need.

Shadow Minister says maths is not my strong point. Ok SM, I'll repeat the maths and I ask you to show me where the following figures and statements are inaccurate:

Labor primary vote 37.99%

Liberal primary vote 30.46%

Labor + Greens primary vote 49.75%

Liberals + LNP + Nationals primary vote 43.31%

Labor 2 party preferred vote 50.12%

Liberal/National coalition 2 party preferred vote 49.88%

Election result:

Labor won

Liberals lost

GY hang on bloke focus please this is not the first time you charge in to defend Shadow Minister.
He she has one focus to slag off my side
And I agree Oakshot should not get that job but can you assure us Abbott would not do exactly what Gillard does?
IF Shadow needs help after posts that stretch fairness and balance I am concerned.
2 PP is the measure not much in it, then seats won if Katter is a conservative win if the separate party nationals are,, then greens labor and our independents are ours.
has rob Oakshot got no shame?
Is it so? having a history of not being a national he has lost his honor, why, how?

Jockey, you are factually incorrect. The LNP is a division of the Federal Liberal Party. David Russell is both a member of the LNP Council and a Vice-President of the federal Liberal Party. They have some odd arrangements re: elected members and who they sit with, but you can't count them as not the Liberal Party.

If you are going to start adding all the minor party votes together, then you should go to the two-party preferred where Labor wins by the narrowest of margins.

The country is virtually split right down the middle, and that split is somewhere along a line drawn between Wilsons Promontory and Perth.

According to, "The Age," Saturday, 18th September 2010,

ELECTION HOW IT ENDED

2-Party Preferred

Total Votes Share of Vote
Labor 6,216,439 50.1%
Coalition 6,185,943 49.9%

With the count now virtually complete, the Australian
Electoral Commission reports that after preferences,
Labor won 50.12 per cent of the two-party vote and
the Coalition 49.88 per cent.

After more than 12 million votes had been counted and
re-checked, just 30,000 votes separated the two sides
in the closest election Australia has seen.

Nonetheless, according to, "The Age," Labor emerged
with its nose in front, boosting its claim to be the
legitimate election winner.

As the newspaper tells us this time the virtual dead
heat in votes was matched by a virtual dead-heat in
seats with Labor ultimately scrambling together
76 MPs to support it, while 74 supported a Coalition
government.

The final count includes the eight seats where the final
contest was not between Labor and Coalition but involved
the Greens, independents or West Australian Nationals.

As Mr Madigan, a Ballarat blacksmith summed up,
"All parties have good people in them and they
all have some good policies...We'll judge people on
merit and their policy on merit."

You're talking about the LNP of Queensland, which was a merger 2 years ago of the dominant Queensland branch of the National party with the minority Queensland branch of the Liberal party. I went back and re- read my posts and in a post on the previous page I made an error by accidentally putting the word "not" when describing the Qld. Nationals as not a branch of the Liberals- - - - - they of course ARE a part of the Liberals as they merged to form one Party. What I meant to write was "the National party there is a division of the Liberal party - - - - or more correctly the LNP is a division of the Liberal party. Sorry for the confusion, one can make mistakes when typing fast.

In my voting results figures I separated the LNP results and the National Party of Australia results; I've always been fully aware of the difference between the two, and closely followed the Queensland merger as it was happening.

However, I'm referring to the National Party of Australia when I say the Nationals are a separate political party. The National party is quite simply NOT a branch or division of the Liberal party, which is what I've been saying. They have their own internal processes and their own separate leader Warren Truss.

The facts are that there is a "coalition" in opposition. The coalition consists of a separate Liberal party and a separate National Party of Australia. As I've been saying, the National Party of Australia is not a branch of the Liberal party. It's in a coalition partnership with the Liberals.

Also, I have not been adding minor party votes together, that's factually incorrect. I've been showing the official voting results for the Liberals, Greens, the LNP, Labor and Nationals. These are all major political parties, not minor parties. They all vitally affected the outcome of the election. I also showed the two party preferred results. The figures I presented are 100% factually correct, and no amount of spin can alter that.

My post above was in reply to Graham Y's last post on the previous page.

Labor from about mid February lost its way.
We fell for the 24 hour news cycle, putting some thing out to feed the chooks.
We failed in not keeping our promises,I privately think it may have been Gillard who stopped the ETS and broke a commitment.
OH yes greens voted us down, could have passed it with government defectors but thats another story.
We failed to enforce the law in the pink bats scandal.
We should be seeing contractors in prison.
It as used against us.
In the strangest way if you understand,the schools program was aped, not every one not even most but thefts took place.
But it is weird,, strange,, those who contracted and some times stole are from middle class conservative voting backgrounds!
We owned this election, once A DD victory was there for the taking.
RUDD? who knew I did not believe the nasty controlling nature of the man, unlike those who say I am an insider I am just a foot soldier, and walk away from those conversations.
Yet Abbott did not win, he did very well, against the odds? hardly the ALP leaks pushed us into their hands.
11 billion black hole and such saw them drop it.
NOW we see Conservatives slandering 50% of Australians ,bitterly shafting the ALP am indeed me, for? telling the truth you lost get over it think about this chance.

It hasbeen 70 years from the last hung Parliament.
That one saw a mid term swap, this one may too.
The reality is both sides must every Day Parliament sits and every other day sell its self.
If it gets too warlike conservatives will want an election before the greens get balance of power.
Labor may well with the greens want a DD election at that time.
Greens want a great deal they cannot have, if Labor can stand firm votes will return, remember this is our worst result in years.
In negotiating before sides got picked Abbott made promises.
He never had any intentions of keeping.
Right now Turnbull is the way to government for his side not Abbott.
Right now Conservatives must stop thinking their great result was victory or forever constant open warlike confrontation will cripple them.
May I ask my conservative sparring partners to tell me the faults in Australian Liberalism?
Jockey you are a breath of fresh air but should know GY was a Liberal and in QLD and both you and he have some claims to your views on the new party , I agree liberals are a lump in the back of the QLD boat seats and 2pp win your point.

Belly,

Labor's "rainbow coalition" has an Achilles heel, and that is Rob Oakeshott.

Both the electorates of Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are deeply conservative, and there is unhappiness about their supporting Labor. Tony Windsor, an astute campaigner of a couple of decades has built up considerable political capital for his electorate, but realising how quickly that can dissipate, has deliberately kept sufficient distance from the Labor party to retain his independent status.

Rob Oakeshott has done anything but remain impartial. His attempt at self aggrandisement and attempts to get involved with the labor cabinet have ripped away the fig leaf of independence. There is a rapidly growing movement within his electorate for him to change sides, and with the growing dissatisfaction within his electorate, largely self inflicted, and stirred up by the local coalition branch, his support is swiftly eroding.

There will come a point in the not so distant future when it will be apparent to all that his re election chances are shrinking to zero and if he is dumped at the next election, his future is grim. At this point only an alliance with the coalition can save him.

At this point, the 75 - 75 split will suck all the oxygen from the Gillard government.

Dear SM,

Rob Oakeshott has got plenty of support in his
electorate. At least that's what I'm told by
family members who live in Port Macquarie and
South West Rocks. The only way that his electorate
might vote against him is if he doesn't deliver
on some of the promises that were made. And, for that
we'll have to wait and see. Overall, his performance,
to date has been credible - and acceptable to the majority
of his constituents. And, as I said, that's from
people who know him and live in his electorate.

As for his application for the position of Speaker.
Well, his motives may well be the best of intentions,
(to drive parliamentary reforms), but realistically,
both you and I know that at present that position
happens to be taken. In a way, it would be extremely
unfair to the current Speaker to oust him out of a
job that he's performed satisfactorily. However, I
guess this is politics - and what's fair in politics?
We'll have to wait and see what develops. However,to
blame a man for applying for a job - is a bit tenious
at best, and rather narrow - in my opinion.

Shadow Minister refers to " attempts to get involved with the labor cabinet" regarding Rob Oakeshott.

No such thing happened. He was offered a position on the cabinet, which he REFUSED.

Shadow Minister, what is this problem you have with the "truth"?

I grow weary of Shadow Ministers confrontation, question his balance even his reason for stretching the truth.
However if it becomes other than his right OLO is not a place for free speech.
We here often ignore posters who seem lost, in taking the bait we give SM a reason for threads like this, who posted sleeping your way to the top?
Look at the last twenty threads started by our SM ask your self this, why bother?
Why respond.
Are we to be side tracked from our future? this unique Parliament is full of promise and threats but we just may get some things done.
Rudd is back doing very well in his post that was made for him.
Take no notice of the constant confrontation it is the only true policy conservatives have.

Jockey,

Are you stating that you know that RO did not ask for a cabinet position? Because it is pretty clear that he requested the position and was forced to turn it down, as happened with the speaker position.

Belly,

It takes two to tango, and much of what you have said has been pure conjecture, much of which has proved to be false.

“Is Mr. Oakeshott testing Mr. Abbott? Does he want to expose him as a person who does not intend to keep his word? One of the complaints that the independents raised was their lack of trust of Mr. Abbott.” If this was not his intent, it has been the outcome of what he did. Mr. Abbott desire to rule knows no bounds. He has shown that he is willing to do anything to win. Mr. Abbott half heartily agree to the demands, knowing that he would find it easy to dump his promises whenever it suits him. Mr. Abbott is not willing to respect the voter’s desires and give Labor a fair go. Mr. Abbott still believes that the election results are somehow wrong and that he won the right to rule. I am not too sure that Mr; Abbott would know what to do with government if he manages to gain control. He knows that the longer this government survives the harder it will be for him to win

Flo, it's only a matter of time till he's replaced as leader, probably by Malcolm Turnbull. There's nobody else in the Liberal party who possesses even half the capacity of Malcolm Turnbull.

Tony Abbott is living on borrowed time. The knife is coming at some stage.

Flo, Jockey yes indeed.
Remember Rudd's high standing see his down fall.
Abbott is in self destruct mode he just can not keep the false face up.
His real self, the one we waited for during the election will find him out.
Conservatives are split, never forget one vote took Turnbull out.
Time has made Turnbull look statesman like compared to Abbott's inner circle.
Shadow list the titles of your last 20 threads.
Find that number of mine so unbalanced and bitter.
I rest my case.
Turnbull to return and the vote on climate change will split the opposition ,be won on the floor of both houses and may lead to Turnbulls return.

I am not so sure that Mr. Turnbull will not do the smae on NBN as he did on climate change.

Jockey, it ill-behoves anyone to accuse someone else of being untruthful when you can't admit to your own error. The LNP is part of the Liberal Party, so you need to add their votes together, despite their somewhat odd position on what their elected members can do.

It's also not correct to add the Greens vote to the Labor Party and claim some sort of majority and ignore all the other minor parties (the Greens are a minor party). You have to take them all into consideration which is what the two-party preferred vote is about.

Now, can everyone stick to the arguments and leave accusations against others' characters alone.

Facts regarding the primary vote.

Fact: LNP = 9.12%

Fact: Greens = 11.76%

Fact: Labor = 37.99%

Fact: Liberal = 30.46%

Fact: Nationals = 3.73%

Fact: Country Liberals = 0.31%

Fact: Labor + Greens = 49.75%

Fact: Libs + LNP + Nats + Country Libs = 43.62%

Fact: % of voters who did NOT vote for Libs/LNP/Nats/C.Libs = 56.38%

Facts regarding 2 party preferred vote:

Labor = 50.12%

Coalition = 49.88%

Election result.

Fact: Labor = WON

Fact: Coalition = LOST

Therefore, the "facts" speak for themselves!

Fact,

Voters who did not vote for Labor - 62.01%

Last News poll Voters who would not vote for Labor now 66%

2 PP prefered is the only messure worth noting, if you look at seats you must count coalition vs Labors coalition.
The targetting of posters is not one sided.
SM by far contribute more to confrontation than any one.
LABOR did not win the election it lost.
But it won the suport of more than conservatives surely that is true?
Is this country to become a battle ground after every election.
SM fish in your dry dam but this fish will not bite you are getting frantic.

"Voters who did not vote for Labor - 62.01%" 62.01% also did not vote for the Coalition.

It's pretty close to a dead heat, but yes, Labor won. I don't have a problem with that. But you also have a situation in a number of states where Labor has won with less than 50% of the vote. It's a wrinkle in the system that voters appear to be prepared to accept. So it does leave Oakeshott and Windsor with a question to answer. Two-party preferred you will find their electorates are not Labor voting.

If you accept that Queensland and SA have legitimate governments with less than 50% of the vote because of how it fell then there is a debate to be had about whether Labor is legitimate because of the actions of the independents in going against their electorate's overall wishes.

I'm not buying into that part of the debate. I just pointed out that Jockey's original post was wrong, as are some of his subsequent ones. It's not a point that you can have an argument around.

Belly I don't accept that SM has been more aggressive than others. I think you all need to be more civil. And that is not a comment directed specifically at SM either.

We've had minority governments right from the very beginning. It's an intrinsic part of how our system of democracy works. When they're on the losing side of minority government the losers whine for all they're worth, when they're on the winning side of minority government they applaud the "system". Ain't human nature grand!

Everyone goes into elections under the same rules, and they know exactly what those rules are and know exactly what all the possible outcomes can be.

Our very first Federal government under Edmund Barton in 1901 was a minority government. That was followed by another minority government with Alfred Deaken. In 1931 the Nationalists had a minority government when Joseph Lyons was PM. When Robert Menzies became PM in 1940 it was with a minority government (he later formed the Liberal party when it was a "liberal" party, instead of the current Libertarian, far right wing political correctness that engulfs it today). Various State governments have also had minority governments. Also, there's been occasions when majority governments have received less votes than the losers.

This is the way our system works, and this time the winner is - - - Labor.

All the figures I've posted, without exception, have been mathematically 100% correct. All figures were taken from the "official" election results. All my posts have been factually 100% correct. However, there was one single point referred to by me in a subsequent post, that related to a single earlier factual error where I accidently typed the word "not", which altered the meaning of what I was actually saying. What I was actually saying was, the Qld LNP is part of the Libs.

As we all know, the Libs and Nats in Queensland are in a mere marriage of convenience. They can't stand each other. The Nats there are the dominant party by FAR, not the Libs. As soon as either party sees an advantage in the future from dumping the other party, they'll do it quicker than you can say "bogus policy costings".

Rob Oakeshott probably did the right thing in knocking back the speaker's job. The Liberals, as expected, reneged on their agreement, so Mr Oakeshott basically had no choice but to decline. So much for group hugs and honesty and integrity.

I am not looking for confrontation GY.
I however can not agree SM is as you say.
I claim no halo but point out threads like snout in the,well it could be ten or more threads titled to offend, sleeping your way to the top comes to mind.
Kim won 51% of the vote but not office it happens.
I have never seen the bitterness after an election before and while it is true both party's got more who did not vote for them surely we are not avoiding 2pp as the measure?
Last while rude it has been me trying to put my sides faults in posts has any one from your side GY considered such a thread?
CAN WE ALL admit close to 50% want/do not want each side? if and election was held today, wish it was, we would not have a hung Parliament and I would no be so bitter if my side lost, well maybe I would but against my side.

All that really matters in this election result is (1) Labor won the two party preferred vote (2) Labor has been able to form government.

Fact + fact = reality.

And you're correct about Shadow Minister Belly.

Belly,

Sleeping your way to the top was runner. If you want to slag me off, at least get your facts straight.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3834

As far as the 2pp, it is a mechanism to avoid a side effect of the Westminster system where two similar candidates can be pipped at the post by a third very different who wins the seat where if one of the other two weren't standing, he would lose.

However, it is a blunt instrument as the majority of 2pp are assigned by the parties and may not actually reflect the will of the voter. To this extent the AEC actually refuses to include the 2pp figures where independents win.

In short it has a significant margin of error.

If the 2pp was 52% to 48% the difference would be sufficient to overcome the margin of error, at 0.1% it is completely meaningless, especially when 5% of the vote was excluded.

If JG and her spin doctors don't try this on, it should indicate to you that is has no basis.

Shadow Minister, it is not a poll of a couple thousand people representing the population in general. . It is how over 90% voted. I do not see much room for a margin of error, is it about time that the outcome of Labor gaining government be accepted. Mr. Abbott is Opposition Leader. He is not PM in waiting. The way the Greens and Independents decide to align their votes means that there is no way for the Coalition to lead.

Shadow Minister I have no need to slag you off you do it better than I can.
I have considered why your posts and for that matter runners get to see daylight here without title changes .
But think after all they should not be censored.
truth bloke I am a bit stunned by your constant bitterness.
And think you need to review your attitude.
The seeds of my posting future have been planted in the last two weeks.
I try to be fair but think you do not.
I think you will never have the grace to back up so I will do it.
I love OLO, maybe I have got it wrong but I am a stubborn man, in my view you got too much support.
And I think soon I will leave it to you any advice on other forums would be greatly received none will be this good but maybe rebutting such as you will not meet with criticism.
Help me avoid you do not please address you posts to me, know bloke I maintain until death my right to be different than you with pride.

Belly,

I keep strictly within the requirements for posting and in addition I try to publish the truth, all be it with my personal spin. There is nothing that you accuse me of that you are not guilty of either, and there is more than a little bias in your posts, and neither have you seldom missed a chance to put in the knife.

After the debacle of the last few years federally and the last decade in NSW, I am convinced that as it stands a Labor government is not in the nation's interest. I am angry that through two self serving independents, Labor managed to squeeze in.

I am not a member of any party, and whilst an avid Liberal supporter, do not agree with all their policies. I do, however, think strategically, and my predictions are based on what I can see is in the interests of the parties and individuals concerned, and in most cases self interest wins through. With RO and TW, I completely called it wrong, as I assumed that keeping one's electorate happy would have been the first priority. But what I missed was the opportunity to hold the balance of power with Labor that would not have been so easy with the liberals.

I do feel that TW and especially RO miscalculated the reaction from the liberals and are unprepared for what is headed their way.

A minority government that succeeds generally becomes a majority government at the next election. If it fails it becomes the opposition. TA would be remiss to grant JG any leeway.