Sunday, July 10, 2016

A Mandate, Is It?

I always thought a mandate was what a bloke went looking for in a gay bar.

Now that Labor's Bill Shorten has conceded defeat, some idiot Liberal Party member is claiming that the Libs have a mandate from the electorate.

Funny that.   They just scraped home in an election where they lost thirteen MPs. and now survive only with a razor-thin majority.

 Some mandate. The only mandate they have is for a leadership spill and a reselection for the federal seat of Wentworth.

And don't forget, dear Kiwi readers, there is no such thing here as the protection of a majority enshrined in MMP.


Noel said...

Adolf it's four hours until the end of the week and Australia continues an AAA rating.

Hope you keep watching for those boats until 30 July?

Adolf Fiinkensein said...


Careful you don;t all off your pinhead.

Noel said...

Get another crystal ball. The one you have is letting you down.

David said...

I guess that " idiot Liberal Party member" was Christopher Pyne, who claimed the Libs were an "election winning machine" when no one in living memory can ever recall the Liberal Party winning an election.

No mandate.

No control of Senate.

Will not be able to get ABCC through joint sitting.

Will waste $160 million on an opinion poll. Unless the ALP/Greens/NXT force a vote in the House.

Mad Monk plotting, Rasputin like, for his resurrection, or to install a clone as PM.

Barnaby Joyce so afraid of public opprobrium that he wants coalition deal kept secret from the electors.

Well played, Malcolm. Well played

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Not Christopher Pyne. Sinodinos.

The Veteran said...

David ... piffle and not very bright piffle at that. Of course the Coalition has a mandate occasioned by their winning a projected 76 (possibly 77) seats against 74 (possibly 73) for all other parties combined. Of course they have a mandate in winning over 42% of the primary vote compared with 35% for Labor and 50.13% of the TPP vote over Labor's 49.87%. The outcome of the Senate vote matters is a side-bar to the issue. They didn't have a majority last time round. They won't have one now.

I agree Turnbull needs to reach out to the conservative wing of his Party but whether or not that means bringing Abbott back into cabinet is a moot point. There are a number of up and coming 'young thrusters' who identify themselves as small c conservatives who will be jostling for cabinet positions.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the agreement between the Liberals and the Nationals has always been confidential. What we do know is that it contains a mathematical formula that guarantees the Nationals seats in cabinet based on the proportion of seats won. There has already been comment that the very good showing by the Nationals where they increased their share of the vote from what had been their high-water mark in the 2014 election and picked up a seat (from the Liberals) will entitle them to at least one more cabinet seat.

There has been only muted comment regarding the effect of the ideologically driven decision by the Victorian State Labor Government to kowtow to the heavies in the Fire-Fighters Union and dump on the 60,000 members/volunteers serving in the Country Fire Authority. This resulted in the resignation of Minister for Emergency Services who opposed the move and the sacking of the CFA Board. Commentators have opined the fallout from this helped save three seats for the Liberals and handed the Liberals their only victory on the night when they won Chisholm, a seat previously held by Labor for the past 18 years.

So, with the Liberals expected to lose heavily in Victoria along comes Labor and manages to shoot itself in the foot backing their Union mates over 60,000 CFA volunteers. Turnbull owes Shorten a drink over that one.

As for Shorten's prediction of another election by Xmas ... wet dream territory. It is in the coalitions interest to serve a full term.

David said...

One of the rare times you’ve been right, Adolf. Here is your mandate.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Afternoon Vet

Afraid I have to disagree with you on the matter of Turnbull having a mandate.

What he actually achieved this election was to trash the mandate Tony Abbott had earned for the coalition at the previous election. He called a futile double dissolution far too late and managed to reduce his party's parliamentary majority from 30 seats to just two - if he's lucky. Some mandate, eh?

I cannot recall any significant policy Turnbull took to the election which could be construed as having been given a mandate by the electorate. The inept campaign essentially was a vain plea to 'vote for me because I'm the good guy.'

As you rightly point out, but for the idiot Premier of Victoria we wouldn't be having this discussion. Shorten would be Prime Minister.

I expect Turnbull to be tipped out sooner rather than later. He is merely another Rudd but with slightly more class. The 1.2 million Liberal voters who walked away will not come back as long as he is leader.

The Veteran said...

David ... fancy letting us know what pulls your chain. Thanks but no thanks.

David said...

Adolf is right for once. :-)

The DD was called over the ABCC legislation, but Turnbull seemed to forget about it during the campaign. In fact, Turnbull seemed to forget about everything except is mantra of more jobs for fringe politicians and growth in the number of Senate cross benchers. Jobs and growth, indeed.

I am astonished that they did not campaign harder in Victoria as daniel Andrew certainly provided the cudgel, but no one picked it up and swung. Labor has achieved a positive swing of 1.2% in that state while the coalition vote dropped 0.7%.

The Liberals problem with disposing of Turnbull is who could replace him? They are a house divided, at war with each other and now ever wary of the increasing influence of the Notionals.

Bishop? Morrison? Too tied to Turnbull. Abbott? Yesterday's man, he is most assuredly not Lazarus with a triple bypass

Just as Labor needs to stick with (is stuck with) Shorten, the Libs must stick with Turnbull or be tarred as a revolving door leadership.

Although, if as I suspect, Labor/Greens/Xenophon vote down the Mad Monk's $160 million dollar opinion poll and put forward a proper marriage equality bill, all bets will be off. The mouth breathing, knuckle dragging christian fundies will tear the place down. They would rather burn all their bridges than treat all people as equals.

The Veteran said...

David ... if you're going to debate with me at least do me the courtesy of getting your 'facts' right. You say Turnbull has presided over growth in the number of jobs for fringe politicians and for Senate cross-benchers.

Fact ... last time in the lower house there were 5 on the cross-benches (1 x Green; 1 X Katter; 1 X PUP; 2 x Indep) . This time 5 also (1 x Green; 1 X Katter; 1 x NXT; 2 x Indep). By my maths this = no change.

Fact ... last time round in the Senate there were 18 on the cross-benches (10 x Green; 1 x FF; 1 x LDP; 1 x Motoring; 1 x PUP; 1 x NXT; 3 x Indep). Currently the cross-benches comprise 11 (6 x Greens; 1 x One Nation; 3 x NXT; 1 x DHJP; 1 X JLN There are 11 still up for grabs. The majority of these are expected to go the Coalition and to Labor. The Greens are projected to pick up 3 and One Nation 2 = 16. Less than last time round. Part of the reason for this is that this time round they changed the rules and abolished Group Voting Tickets in favour of Optional Preferential Voting which negated deals being done by bit players.

So, stop telling lies because once you're found out it reflects on your own credibility.

Angry Tory said...

Of course the Coalition has a mandate occasioned by their winning a projected 76 (possibly 77) seats against 74 (possibly 73) for all other parties combined. Of course they have a mandate in winning over 42% of the primary vote compared with 35% for Labor

Yep. The questions is not whether he has a mandate: the questions is simply will he do what is right for Australia: finish Menzies (and Tony Abbott's) lifelong task to get unionism and leftism and Laborism out of Australian politics for ever?

or will he turn himself into a pathetic Aussie version of John Key?

Labor could't win this year. As in NZ, there is no reason they should ever be able to win again. Has Turnbull, in the end, got the guts??

David said...

Veteran, before accusing me of lying, check your own "facts".

Neither of us yet know the exact make up, but have just seen George Brandis on QandA state that he believes there will be 19 cross bench Senators, that is, one more than in the last Senate.

I think that's a win for me and your lie put to bed.

The Veteran said...

David ... condemned out of your own mouth ... none of us know the makeup of the Senate so why make the claim? As for the numbers of 'fringe' politicians in the lower hose and that certainly was a load of tosh.

But, back to the point of Adolf's post, I certainly disagree with both him and you that Turnbull has no mandate. He won, he does (and for the record I think Turnbull is a patrician prick who has moved the Liberal party to the left and alienated their conservative base ... part of the reason why the Nationals and One Nation did so well).

AT, quite difficult to respond intelligently to your call for the banning of Unions and Labor/Labour so I won't bother except to say that's what fascism and communism have in common.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I see the ever disloyal Julie Bishop has started the knifing process before the election count even is complete.

The Veteran said...

Adolf ... I think your new spiritual home could be with the Nationals.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Possibly but unliikely.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Further to last.

It doesn't matter which party is involved, I intensely abhor disloyalty.

Bishop's was Abbott's deputy and it was her duty to inform him of any rumblings. She did not. That was a deliberate act, not just of disloyalty but of treachery. Yesterday she publicly blamed Turnbull for the superannuation backlash. She did not need to do that. It was an act of public disloyalty to her leader and to her party.

She is demonstrating that she is not leadership material. although she undoubtedly thiks she is.

David said...

The Veteran said...
David ... condemned out of your own mouth ... none of us know the makeup of the Senate so why make the claim?

And yet on the basis of that same claim, you decided to call me a liar. Condemned from your own mouth, I would think.

But, back to the point of Adolf's post, I certainly disagree with both him and you that Turnbull has no mandate.

Each MHR and each Senator has a mandate from their electorate. Each MHR and each Senator is duty bound to follow that mandate from their electorate (yes, I know, I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one).

We do not live in a winner takes all triennial dictatorship, we live in a representative democracy where MHRs and Senators are elected to represent the electors, not an immutable party platform. It does play out, from time to time, when a member crosses the floor or abstains on a vote.

All this talk of mandates is simply special pleading so that the government can avoid the hard work of convincing others to support its policies.

The Veteran said...

David ... enjoy dancing on the head of a pin do you? You made the call, not me. All I did was to call you out on it.

Politics 101. People vote the Party not the person. Most informed comment has it that a 'good' MP may attract an additional personal vote of up to 5%. Incumbency is also a factor.

It is a rare moment when any MP from the government or opposition benches crosses the floor. Not so cross-bench MPs (don't include the Greens in this - they have their own policy platform. The so called independants have the luxury of cherry-picking the good and abstaining/voting no on the hard or contentious issues. When the going gets tough they tend to get going.

As an aside I note there is speculation that the Government may be able to cobble together the numbers to pass the ABCC legislation. Good for Australia if they do. The Oz Union movement has a fair proportion of thugs pulling the strings. They deserve to be held to account.

Gerald said...