Trashing the Westminster System of Government

The three Independents who will hold the balance of power in a minority government if formed have asked for Treasury costings and analysis on both major parties policies to be provided to them. For this to occur it apparently requires changes to the caretaker arrangements of government (http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/docs/caretaker_conventions.pdf). Julia Gillard wants to do this and not only that she wants to publish all the costings and Treasury analysis on the economy for consumption by all Australians.

Tony Abbot says he still won't submit his policies for costings as required by the caretaker arrangement amendments of the Howard Government. Tony puts forward that: "What we've got here is a desperate Prime Minister trashing the Westminster system in an attempt to hold onto power,".

Well... Err... No... Tony... The Westminster system of Government doesn't really prescribe anything about specific caretaker arrangements and in fact if a Government wants to change those arrangements they can - As evidenced by the Howard Government.

As for publishing what is usually confidential treasury advice and analysis, I couldn't find any convention of the Westminster system that claims this is a key element of it that could or would harm it's legitimacy.

What is a key element of the Westminster system of Government is that the lower house or House of Representatives is subject to a Government being dismissed by blocking supply or passing a no confidence vote. This is the core of why the Independents want to be sure that they side with the party most capable of providing stable Government because the risk of this happening is dramatically increased in a hung parliament.

By resisting the request to submit his policies for costings and analysis to Treasury (the very body that will be asked to handle them if the Coalition take Government) Tony effectively puts in doubt the ability of his party to provide stable Government. Why is it a problem for those who hold the balance of power and could pass a no confidence vote against the minority government to have some reassurance that they can commit to a Government with confidence that won't come to pass?

Tony argues that a leak made during the campaign means the Coalition cannot trust Treasury, which in itself is a fairly dangerous statement to make. What does this mean? How does a leak of an analysis constitute a failure of the body in question to provide accurate analysis? It just doesn't make sense. If Tony had argued the analysis was biased in some way and could provide evidence then at least his argument would hold some water.

In contrast to Tony, Julia Gillard is bending over backwards to provide the Independents with everything they want and more. Some would argue she's just selling herself out in order to gain power, but that largely ignores the circumstances we find ourselves in. If we went back to the polls it would be harder to argue that Julia's stance would cost her more votes than Tony's would, people really don't like the idea of unanswered questions and Tony is doing his best to manufacture a few.

So who is really is "trashing the Westminster system"? If anyone? At this point no one is, but you could argue Tony is showing a little disregard for the reality of the situation. If the Independents side with the Coalition and then discover that the budget or important bill isn't to their liking, they can block it and send us back to the polls. So lets find out now if they would block it so we can get that over and done with as soon as possible.

The Worst of ALL TIME

If Tony Abbott is correct and the Rudd/Gillard Government was the "worst government in living memory", then does his failure to win outright make him the worst alternative in living memory? If you follow his logic then it's hard to ignore the fact that for all the woes of Labor, the Coalition failed to capitalise.

Since 2007 the Coalition has had 4 leaders, 2 deputy leaders, 3 Shadow Treasurers amongst other shadow portfolio shuffles and reneged on a commitment made under Howard and followed through by Turnball to pass an ETS. This doesn't mean Labor smelsl like Roses but a bit of perspective is necessary.

In terms of primary votes in this election Labor received 38.49% to the Liberal parties 39.32% (Liberal: 30.33% + LNP: 8.99%), with the Nationals adding another 3.87% to raise it to 43.19%. That's about 4.7% more votes for the Coalition than for Labor. By this logic Tony Abbott would have you believe that they have earned the right to govern this country.

Tony ignores however that this isn't how our Democracy works, it's a preferential system and it is so for this very reason. The Greens won 11.40% of the vote and the majority of those votes specified that they would prefer Labor over the Liberals, so that creates what's called the two-party preferred vote. All those Green preferences increased the Labor vote to a level that was competitive with the Coalition.

It's like sending your mate to the shop to buy alcohol, I told him I wanted a six-pack of Corona's but if they don't have them then buy Pure Blonde before you buy XXXX. I know I'd prefer a blonde to a XXXX so that's why I asked him to do so. If Tony Abbott's argument holds water then I wouldn't be able to tell my mate to buy Pure Blonde before XXXX and I'd have to take a risk and hope he gets it right.

So does having a higher two-party preferred vote give you the right to govern? Julia Gillard wants everyone to think so, but truthfully it doesn't. But it helps. What's most important is the number of seats which looks to be locked at 73-73, another conundrum for the politicians of today.

Which brings us back to the premise of this blog post ... If Labor is the worst government in living memory then the Coalition is the worst alternative. It's very fitting the seats are squared at 73 all and the other numbers are very close and very Grey. Perhaps the cheeky suggestion put forward by Rob Oakeshott's of a mix-&-match government is actually a pretty fitting idea. We could have the best MPs from the worst incarnations of both of the major parties in living memory.

Liberal with the Truth

This wasn't an election campaign about truth, it was definitely about integrity but not Truth. You can be untruthful and still maintain your integrity and that is pretty much the mantra of modern political campaigns.

The Liberal party knew that Australia's debt was necessary and likely to be very similar regardless of who was in power, but forget that truth! As long as they kept up the attack consistently it would become the perception and maintain their integrity as an alternative.

The Labor party knew that the mining tax is poorly constructed and poorly communicated, but forget that truth! As long as they kept up the defense consistently it would become the perception and maintain their integrity as a Government.

The problem however comes when you do win or retain Government and you have to deliver. This couldn't be more pronounced in the current wheeling and dealing for the independents support in the hung parliament.

Tony Abbott doesn't want to invest $42billion (well it's really only about $22billion of Government funds, but facts aren't important here) in the NBN, instead he basically wants to keep the status quot and support private investment. The problem is for many many years private investment has ignored both regional Australia and broadband because it isn't seen as profitable.

Telstra once proposed building their own NBN, but they wanted exclusive use of which the ACCC forbid. Perhaps Tony should just allow a Telstra broadband monopoly - Although the public don't like monopolies as much as they don't like Telstra.

Now that Tony is being forced to deal with broadband and the needs of regional Australia (why haven't the Nationals forced him before?) he finds himself having to reconcile the facts of his campaign with the reality of delivering. It's entirely possible he would back flip and sign up to the NBN.

If he were to do so he would be doing significant damage to his integrity, because he can only maintain it if he doesn't concede that his attacks on Labor's Debt, Deficit, and spending are maintained. If he spends $42billion on the NBN then he's effectively admitting he lied to the electorate - or at least that is how people will see it.

The same problem confronts Julia Gillard in the new Independent/National Tony Crook in Western Australia. He doesn't want the mining tax, and he would support Labor if it was gone. Combined with the Greens Adam Bandt this would give Labor the best chance of taking power.

However, if Julia dumps the mining tax she effectively admits it wasn't worth the $10.5 billion dollars in revenue and puts in danger the company tax cuts and superannuation increases that have been promised. As much as people may not like the mining tax they really want it's benefits.

These are important issues that need to be resolved and the leader that navigates them well will lead the country in a minority Government. But there are many many issues and promises from the campaign that are now even more in doubt because of the hung parliament but also because they stretched the truth.

Governments tend to lose Government when they lose their integrity in the eyes of the public, maybe the modern parties should learn how to deal in truth instead of integrity - you can't lose the truth.

The winner writes History

Kevin Rudd had two persona's: Sunrise Kevin, and Angry Kevin.

For the majority of people he was Sunrise Kevin, that bright personality who was well spoken and an endearing leader who successfully unseated Australia's longest serving PM. But there was also Angry Kevin, the short tempered, very driven, dictatorial political machine that many behind the scenes said he was.

Kevin will be remembered as one or the other based on who win's the right to govern when all is said and done in this election. If the Labor party take power then Kevin will be remembered as Angry Kevin, if they fail he will be remembered as Sunrise Kevin. This kind of bipolar disorder is the personification of the current Labor Party, it is driven by the same weakness that brought Kevin 07 crashing down.

There are two groups of opinion emerging as the "reason" the Labor Party failed to win this election. The first state that dumping Rudd, going to the polls so quickly, and running what was essentially a Sydney-centric state campaign for a federal election cost the party more than anything else. On the other hand there are those that argue the party was going to lose and lose badly under Rudd and if the leaks had not occurred then Julia Gillard would have won outright.

The opinion that eventually wins out will be decided not by any great analysis on fact or the available evidence but rather on whether Labor can take power or not.

If Julia Gillard manages to lead a minority Government than the party will have no choice but to back the idea that Rudd would have lost in a landslide and the biggest single factor was the leaks. If she loses however, then the door is open to the idea that those running the party and calling the shots are out of touch with the electorate.

It was interesting to note during channel nine's broadcast of the election the number of times the Labor members of the panel (with the exception of Nicola Roxon) dropped Bill Shorten as the next Labor leader and pushed Rudd forward as a "failed experiment". This showed those running the party were very afraid that they would lose outright and be held to account by the party.

In the end it just exposes how disconnected the Labor Party machine is from it's constituents, hell even from it's grass roots members. The message on the weekend wasn't about who or what, but rather about how. People do not like the manner in which modern Labor works and they don't care if Rudd would have lost because they wanted to choose for themselves. Until Labor comes to terms with this problem it won't be able to fix it.

Perhaps then the best thing for the party would be to fail to form government and be forced to confront the burning question - what does the modern Labor party want power for, besides power for powers sake?

A Hung Parliament

I have to be honest I didn’t expect this outcome, I believed enough people would walk into a polling booth and find voting for a Tony Abbott led Coalition just a bit too much of a stretch. I still believe had Malcolm Turnball, Peter Costello, or even Joe Hockey been leader then the Coalition would now be in power.

Even though I wasn’t right, I wasn’t wrong either. You see the LNP only managed to improve their primary vote by about 1.2% while Labor saw a drop in 4.87%. That leaves a gap of about 3.63% that didn’t swing to the LNP but instead went to the Greens. So it is true that some people walked into a polling booth and couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Tony Abbott, but they couldn’t do it for Julia Gillard either.

So where does this leave us? Well with a hung parliament likely to be controlled by four independents and one green. What do we know about them and which way they will turn? Well primarily it will come down the number of seats each of the major parties holds which looks like the Coalition somewhere between 72-74 and Labor between 71-73.

The most likely outcome is Labor 72 with the Coalition on 73 seats based on the current count of the votes, however there has been some late confidence today that those numbers will be reversed. Regardless, if the Coalition manages 74 seats then they will govern with the independents and the rest of this blog today is a waste of time.

Adam Bandt, Green, Melbourne

Yes he’s a Green, and you would have to say he’s more likely to side with labor (he even says so himself). He appears to have campaigned on climate change, gay marriage, and refugees. All three of those policy areas are not in line with the promises of the major parties so perhaps we could see Julia or Tony break an election promise to woo him over.







Andrew Wilkie, Independent, Denison

Now beware that today the media are now claiming he may still not win this seat and it may go to Labor, but that may be a moot point given this man’s history. Andrew was the intelligence analyst who quit in protest in 2003 over the Howard governments choice to go to war. He effectively said the intelligence used to justify the war wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. To see him side with the Coalition would be a major revelation but anything is possible.



Bob Katter, Independent, Kennedy

If you don’t know who Bob Katter is then I’d wonder why you’re reading a this (apologies to first time voters). Bob quit the National party basically because he felt they no longer represented regional Australia, which is what Bob does and does so fiercely.

He believes in protectionism policy for agriculture and is very socially conservative. This means he would probably align well with the Coalition, but does a former defector effectively rejoin his old party to help them win government?




Tony Windsor, Independent, New England

To me Tony is a more stable (and probably more reasonable) version of Bob Katter, fighting very hard for regional Australia. He also quit the National party when he was not preselected for a seat, it should be noted that Tony commands a massive majority regardless.

He believes in Broadband but probably doesn’t buy into Labors NBN wholeheartedly, and he feels the major parties are too city-centric and don’t develop good policy for regional Australia.

Which way he will go might be decided no Broadband, so Tony Abbott might have to change his policy. But if he does that then he damages his attack on Labor of Debt and Deficit and that their NBN plans are not good for the country. It might be that Tony Abbott might offend some of those who voted for him by doing so.



Rob Oakeshott, Independent, Lyne

Just like Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, Rob is a former National who abandoned them in 2002 while he was a state MP. He is avery experienced and capable politician and in my opinion might hold a ministerial profile for whichever government holds power as part of a deal for support.

He believes in broadband and communications policy as well as health and education, again this looks more like Labor than the LNP but we’ll see.






*****

Does this make us any wiser? NO.

It does show that Labor will probably have an easier chance of winning over these five politicians which may be enough for them to be a minority government, but they still need to win 73 seats for this to be an assured outcome.

There is also the possibility none of this will work out and we’ll be back at the polls very soon. If that’s the case who will you vote for? Will the vote for the Greens and Independents get bigger? Will NSW and QLD have had their cathartic vent about their local state governments and return to Labor, or will it be even stronger?

Interesting days ahead…

Inception

Inception is one of those rare gems that show up every few years, as entertaining and refreshing as it is original in a way that works for the audience and not against it. It can be enjoyed purely as an incredible action thriller or for the braver cinema goer as a labyrinth of complex plot devices and thought provoking ideas.

Much of the enjoyment of the film is in the discovery of the world Director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) has created, so to give away too much of the plot would be to spoil some of the fun of the film. This one rewards the viewer who goes in cold without any prior knowledge ten-fold.

Simply put however the plot revolves around a piece of technology that allows people to share dreams. Dom Cobb played by Leonardo DiCaprio has perfected that art of using these shared dreams as a way of stealing people’s secrets. In this world of dream thievery, inception is the “Holy Grail” – planting an idea in the mind of someone in a way they feel it is their own.

If Cobb can pull off just that, then the wealthy businessman who hired him played by the commanding Ken Watanabe will grant him safe passage back to the United States and to his children. With the help of his team, Cobb undertakes the dangerous assignment but there is a lot more to this task than any of the players bargained for.

The film features the likes of Jospeh Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Michael Cain, and Cillian Murphy all holding their own amongst all the big names. Ellen Page doesn't get enough material to shine as Adriane, which is a little disappointing as she embodies her Greek namesake to help Cobb navigate his own Labyrinth in his mind. The film also avoids going into any detail about the dream technology or developing any of the characters outside of Cobb, but that of course may have been deliberate too.

The success of the film is that it works on a number of levels. It’s simultaneously a balls-to-the-wall action thriller, a commentary on the nature of human perception, an auto-biographical piece on Nolan himself and his approach to his films, and a fantasy that draws the audience in so wholly that it leaves your head swirling with the possibilities.

The genius of the film however is that just like the characters in the story live out a shared dream, we the audience are so wholly sucked into that dream that we’re spat out with much of the same awe, wonderment, frustration, and emotional upheaval as the characters experience in the story itself.

Inception is the must see film of 2010