-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
but to form government you have to get supply bills through the house of reps. If you have the votes to guarantee the passage of essential bills, you form government. Nobody had a majority in 2010. we had no government for 3 weeks. Both parties tried to do deals with the independents to get an assurance that they had their vote on essential bills, so they could form government. The ALP succeeded, the 2 independents were happier that the ALPs approach on a number of policies was closer to theirs. That is what will probably happen now.
The convention you speak of relates to the senate, it rubber stamps supply bills. The breaking of that convention, with valid reasons according to a lot of people, resulted in the constutional crisis of '75, and the sacking of the government by the Queens GG. In the house of reps, if you can get supply bills through, you can form government. There is no convention for everyone to just vote with the government on supply in the house of reps. If you vote with the government, you are part of the government. Maybe a defacto part, like the independents in the Gillard government, but still part.
The coalition will start to deal with the independents to ensure they have their votes in the bank on essential bills. They'll probably get it, but they will have to give something in return.
The convention you speak of relates to the senate, it rubber stamps supply bills. The breaking of that convention, with valid reasons according to a lot of people, resulted in the constutional crisis of '75, and the sacking of the government by the Queens GG. In the house of reps, if you can get supply bills through, you can form government. There is no convention for everyone to just vote with the government on supply in the house of reps. If you vote with the government, you are part of the government. Maybe a defacto part, like the independents in the Gillard government, but still part.
The coalition will start to deal with the independents to ensure they have their votes in the bank on essential bills. They'll probably get it, but they will have to give something in return.
antman said:
OK, there is no distinction, there is no convention in the house of reps. For an explanation as to why, see above.
tigersnake said:
Very well then... And good point about the constitutional crisis in '75.
So what we are talking about is a "deal" (to use your term) or a principle (to use my term) for the lower house cross-benchers not to block supply.
Clearly if a cross-bencher enters an agreement with, say, the Libs to vote with them on all bills in return for some policy/other concessions, this is a "deal". Implied in this is that they will not block supply - and will actually vote with the government on all bills (except maybe matters of conscience like gay marriage and the like). This is not a deal not to block supply, this is an deal to join a temporary coalition to form a government. The Greens, NXP, Katter etc would all fall into the category of those who might be open to this sort of deal.
Rosy's favourite - Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie, may have already said they won't do a deal with either side - Andrew Wilkie for sure, not sure about Cathy. They will not join any side to form a government. They will remain independent, and vote on each bill as they feel best suits themselves and their constituents. They might also say they, as a matter of principle, won't block supply. They will abstain from voting on supply bills thus allowing the government's greater numbers to force these bills through. This is not "doing a deal". They haven't talked to the government, they haven't got any concessions, they haven't agreed to anything. Likewise they will not vote with the opposition to block supply - because they haven't done a deal with the opposition either! They have chosen as a matter of principle to not block supply. That is all.
Now if you think it is possible to "do a deal" without talking to anyone, without a handshake, without a commitment of anything in return, without performing any action (except abstaining from a vote), without any inducement or incentive, then your concept of "deal-making 101" is very different to mine.
You have to look at the subtle context here. A lot of it is posturing, and also a lot can and does change, and quickly. Wilkie for example, he is making a show of being a staunch indy, but that's because he's a lefty and he knows the ALP can't form a government. Cathy on the other hand, from what I've seen which is not much, she's tough and smart. She might say 'I'll (most likely) be "sensible" and vote with the government on supply but stay independent', she is signaling to her conservative constituents that she won't side with the ALP (learning from Windsor's bridge-burning), but if there is ANY wriggle room in her comments, which there would be, she may as well say 'I am open to do deals'. In the house of reps, the government must have the numbers, iron-clad, before they can meet the GG and form government.
McGowan will not be handing government to MT without some substantial concessions that she would not have got it the Libs had a majority. She might look all sensible conservative woman who doesn't engage in all that grubby Canberra business while she's doing the deal, but she'll be doing a deal.
But it might not even come to that. Who knows? He may not need McGowans vote due to securing those of other Indys. But he'll be canvassing everyone for starters, saying 'what do I have to do to get your vote?' Whoever he has to do the least for, that's who he'll get. McGowan may well be one of those.
also, there will be talking, there will be handshakes, there will be commitments and incentives. Tunnbull can't go to the GG and say he can form government based on a comment McGowan made to the media. He has to have her vote in the bank via an agreement, a deal, or he essentially doesn't have it.
McGowan will not be handing government to MT without some substantial concessions that she would not have got it the Libs had a majority. She might look all sensible conservative woman who doesn't engage in all that grubby Canberra business while she's doing the deal, but she'll be doing a deal.
But it might not even come to that. Who knows? He may not need McGowans vote due to securing those of other Indys. But he'll be canvassing everyone for starters, saying 'what do I have to do to get your vote?' Whoever he has to do the least for, that's who he'll get. McGowan may well be one of those.
also, there will be talking, there will be handshakes, there will be commitments and incentives. Tunnbull can't go to the GG and say he can form government based on a comment McGowan made to the media. He has to have her vote in the bank via an agreement, a deal, or he essentially doesn't have it.
antman said:
sorry ant, see edit, Turnbull can't go to the GG based on a media statement by an independent. he has to have the vote in the bank.
antman said:
No hey presto. You've manufactured this distinction that doesn't actually mean anything, as Brodders original call highlighted. I don't know where you've got this from.
Speaking of Wilkie, interesting discussions around the UK Chilcott report which found what we already knew - the UK/US/Australian invasion of Iraq was unjustified and essentially illegal.
If you recall Wilkie is a former intelligence analyst who quit and entered politics as an independent because he believed that intelligence about WMDs in Iraq was being exaggerated and manipulated so the allies could commence the war. He's calling for a new broader inquiry to hold Howard, Downer and others to account.
If you recall Wilkie is a former intelligence analyst who quit and entered politics as an independent because he believed that intelligence about WMDs in Iraq was being exaggerated and manipulated so the allies could commence the war. He's calling for a new broader inquiry to hold Howard, Downer and others to account.
You'd never want ant or baloo dealing for you at the trade table. 'No, don't be silly, we don't need any draft picks for Ty, as long as he's happy at his new club we're happy to release him, that's the way this works right?'. ;D