Gillard angry
The Speaker of the House debate has intrigued me. Gillard appeals to the opposition to help her by ‘pairing’ votes that would allow her to select one of her members as Speaker without detriment. She says it’s based on Parliamentary reform but any reform she has in mind starts with “the ALP shall be in power”
In short, she is appealing to Abbott to help keep her in power which is definitely not his role.
Pairing occurs when members with opposing views agree not to vote, effectively cancelling each other out
Abbot had previously agreed to the ‘pairing’ when negotiating with Oakeshott and according to todays media and various ALP heavies that meant it was written in blood and should stand. But I figure any agreement with the Independents would only apply if they backed the Coalition and they didn’t.
The agreement meant an opposition MP wouldn’t participate in divisions to cancel out the Speaker, who doesn’t have an ordinary vote.
Solicitor General Stephen Gageler Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler has advised the government there’s no “necessary constitutional impediment” to the speaker being paired with a member of the opposing party – so long as a number of conditions are met. He says the arrangement must be voluntary, and the speaker cannot gain a deliberative vote or be deprived of their casting voteSounds a bit loose to me.
For instance, Mr Gageler admits if pairing meant the speaker exerted influence over another member’s vote – thereby giving them the substance of a deliberative vote – “the potential for the application of the constitutional prohibition could not be ruled out”.There are questions as to the legality of the proposal and, as the Coalition point out, it may invalidate legislation making it subject to later legal challenges. Looks like ALP 75:Coalition 74 making it a hard row to hoe for Gillard. Parliament should be interesting when it finally sits. Update: More on the subject at The Punch
Facebook
Twitter
Bob Brown must be sitting back smiling as another election will see the Greens increase their vote and win more seats. Rge big parties need to remember that the people are sick of politics and want good government.
The Greens already have 1,735,099 votes with all prefences to go to Labor, who ever is leader.
Don’t count on it, in a future election the 2 major parties are unlikely to preference the Greens.
Remember very few Greens have been elected on primary votes, as such a DD election is likely to clear out a lot more Greens than it elects.
Abbott is behaving within the same ethical framework as Jo Bjelke Petersen did when he appointed Pat Field to the senate.
a. bullshit.
b. to quote the classics “whatever it takes”.
Where is your legit bitch? the opposition made an offer to an independent and refused to extend it to the Govt.
It is the role of the opposition to oppose the Govt, the people voted to, at best, place the current Green/Ind/ALP Govt in a precarious position, do you want the Libs to ignore the voice of the people?
Joe appointed Field in contravention of a long help precedence while Abbott withdrew his offer in support of a long held precedence.
Abbott’s original offer was made under different circumstances that eventually prevailed and anyway, who in their right mind would hand a hung government an extra vote? If the shoe was on the other foot would Gillard?
Not likely.
Kev
The term “hung government” is an oxymoron. Government is a product of legislation which is passed on the floor of parliament. We’ve become so conditioned to the notion that government is about adversarial rather than collaborative processes that we’ve forgotten that the Westminster system was not developed with political parties as a given.
HB
You have no idea what intention the individual voter had when he/she voted for each and every local member. It’s just as valid to suggest that the collective mindset of the Australian electorate was weariness of adversarial politics.
The Australian people, as a group came to the decision that the ALP/Green/Ind govt should be in a precarious position. established fact. the AEC can confirm it for you if you just go and look at the numbers (though I know you don’t deal in facts).
Gillard got it right at her first question time as Prime Minister, in June, when she shook hands with Abbott and declared “game on”.
That was when she had 87 Labor MPs sitting behind her. Now that she only has 72, she wants a group hug. Forget it.
It is Abbotts job to try to turf her as soon as possible.
Funny how the ALP isn’t quoting the old “whatever it takes” line anymore.
“The Australian people, as a group came to the decision that the ALP/Green/Ind govt should be in a precarious position.”
You’ve got to be kidding. There was no such proposition put to them. They elected individual members who then agreed to form a government.
“(though I know you don’t deal in facts)”
So what are dealing in? I’d suggest a combination of dodgy assumptions and sour grapes. Get over it.
Try not to exhibit your ignorance too easily, look at the AEC result you fool, virtually 50/50 – by definition that is the Australian people choosing, as a group, to put the ALP/Green/Ind group in a precarious position.
Spin away idiot. there is no other explaination.
I’ll be overseas 4 the next few weeks and my access my be spotty (also I don’t expect to be wasting much time while I’m away on showing up a renowned liars mistakes).
“to put the ALP/Green/Ind group in a precarious position”
There was no rainbow coalition proposed when the Australian people voted. If you can’t see the significance of this you don’t understand temporal sequence, or you’re equivocating.
Probably both….
“temporal sequence” = pretentious prat.
There you go bobby red-herring, I’ve explained it to Harry.
“There was no rainbow coalition…” Do keep up bobby red-herring. That the Malthusians would get into bed with Gillard was a given before the election.
In fact it was a promise by the bourgeoisie economic fantasist who pinched Labor’s once safe seat in Melbourne.
He told all and sundry before the polls that “my approach to the situation where my vote was to matter is a clear preference for a Gillard Government.” He had to say it loud and often to ensure those in his electorate who were voting Greens as a protest didn’t get cold feet and vote for Labor as is their habit.
That you rather ridiculously say it wasn’t so cannot be excused by even your well known lack of research skills or connectivity. There wasn’t a political commentator or ‘psephologist’ in the land who didn’t pronounce there was a significant possibility of a ‘hung parliament’.
“He told all and sundry before the polls…”
Really? And you believe that the electorate (as a block) took this on board, predicted that Oakshot and Windsor would support Labor and that Katter wouldn’t, sharpened their collective little red pencils, and saying “This’ll learn ’em” voted with precision and deadly intent to bring about a hung parliament.
You’ve been reading too many Captain Marvel comics.
SHAZAM