Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Election 2010 (2)

Australia now has two People's Choices arguing that they are the clear new winners and should govern for the next three years. The Liberal/National Party argues that they received the largest primary vote (even though Australia doesn't operate under a first past the post system). The Australian Labor Party argues that it got the largest overall vote after preferences were distributed (even though there was a heavy swing away from them). While there was over a 5% swing away from the ALP, only 1.8% went the L/NP way, and 3.7% went to the Greens (ie a leftwing party) so it could also be argued that the Australian people wanted a more socially progressive government.

EoR thinks the obvious solution is for the L/NP and the ALP to form a coalition. They'd control around 143 seats in the Parliament. Their policies, politicians and poll-driven reactiveness are the same. They're both right-of-centre parties.

At least there was one pleasing result: the Climate Sceptics Party only polled 3,486 primary votes. Even the Australian Sex Party polled better, gaining 8,728 votes. In Western Australia, the Greens polled 14% of the vote in the Senate, the Australian Sex Party 2.14%, and the Climate Sceptics Party a paltry 0.14%. The Australian Sex Party generally outpolled Family First, leading The Register to comment:


Of course, being laid back is only one position.

Bob Katter, though, is back as an independent. He is on record as denying climate change, arguing forcefully and clearly:

"I mean, if you could imagine 20 or 30 crocodiles up there on the roof, and if all that roof was illumination, and saying that we wouldn't see anything in this room because of a few croco-roaches up there."

Crocs on the roof! Oh my!

Bob Katter also understands the important things for Australia's future. Like promoting the building of a giant illuminated statue of Jesus on Queensland's highest mountain.


  1. Of course, Labor and Libs could put all those uppity Greens, Independents and Nats in their place by joining together to form one mega-government that would control both houses.


  2. But that would mean compromising heart felt positions. Why, it would be like the Southern Baptists, Council of 1836 and the Southern Baptists, Council of 1837 or some such crap compromising on their differences.

    When all you've got separating you from the other guy is a sentence in your statement of beliefs, compromising becomes a damned hard thing to do.

  3. Sometimes...

    But consider how people, of a whole variety of one true faiths seem to be able to come together to agree to condemn atheists.

    That's all this would be. Abbott and Gillard could still really, really disagree with each other over whatever it is they actually disagree over but join together to oppose the minority.

    Oakeshott seems to be suggesting it as a serious possibility.

    Hell, if Kate Lundy was an MHR, she could resign from Labor and go for the Communications ministry in a Liberal govt. Sadly, she's a senator.

