Advertisement

Indies show their true colours

By 24 October 2008 43

The Canberra Times reports that the desperately close race for the Molonglo seventh seat now has Elena Kirschbaum, Caroline le Couteur, and Giulia Jones locked ridiculously tight.

But with counting running to next week it’s all still speculative.

Of possibly more interest, and sure to be the subject of some degree of “I told you so” from Labor, is the new publicity alliance of The Australian Motorist Party, Mark Parton and the Community Alliance Party who are claiming that their combined 15% of the electorate (not that they managed to distribute preferences between themselves) are utterly opposed to Labor:

    They are asking the Greens to take this factor into account when deciding whether to throw their support behind a Liberal or Labor government.

Please login to post your comments
43 Responses to Indies show their true colours
#1
Jim Jones10:45 am, 24 Oct 08

“are utterly opposed to Labor”

Yeah, but the Australian Motorists Party are essentially opposed to everything except for bourbon, boobs and burnouts anyway.

#2
PM10:50 am, 24 Oct 08

The “I told you so” will be expected, but can’t be justified. Whilst these particular indies are of an anti-Stanhope persuasion, the Libs actually did not benefit from their running.

As you mention, they didn’t distribute preferences.

The only effect that these indies had was to minimise the Libs’ primary vote. If the Libs had a higher primary vote in Molonglo, they possibily wouldn’t be in this tight run-off with the Greens for that last seat.

If the Libs wanted to run indies, they’d be marketed to attack the Labor base eg former union officials, etc, not people running on the basis that they didn’t think the Libs were up to the fight against Stanhope.

#3
harvyk111:26 am, 24 Oct 08

Yes, there are people who didn’t like the Stanhope gov’t, but there are obviously enough people out there who did \ still do.

Yes, a 10% loss is a big loss, but lest we forget the libs also had a 3% loss, so this means that 13% of people decided that they didn’t like the major parties – BOTH OF THEM.

The alliance shown by AMP,CAP and Mark Parton is not surprising as I believe they all have right leanings in them (I might be wrong), so of course they don’t want to see a left leaning labor gov’t

#4
tom-tom11:45 am, 24 Oct 08

i was under the impression that on october 18 the electorate decided that they didn’t want this lot to have a say in how the territory is governed. this just smacks of arrogance.

#5
PM11:54 am, 24 Oct 08

I still reckon the Greens might want to support Labor, but only on the condition that Stanhope isn’t leader.

#6
Dante12:32 pm, 24 Oct 08

Hey, if they have to compromise and Katy’s not Deputy CM then I’d still be happy.

Pity the Greens couldn’t pick and choose from either side.. Take that bi-partisan system!

#7
PM1:24 pm, 24 Oct 08

Dante said :

Pity the Greens couldn’t pick and choose from either side.. Take that bi-partisan system!

In theory, it could happen. Strange alliances happen all the time at a council level in the states, and internationally there are plenty of examples.

It would be a complete and utter mess, but it’s possible nonetheless.

#8
Primal2:03 pm, 24 Oct 08

Odd… AMP and Parton I realised leant right, but I always perceived CAP as a centre-left protest vote.

#9
sepi2:06 pm, 24 Oct 08

I think CAP would be left-ish, but hate labor over the fires and the school closures.

#10
PM2:07 pm, 24 Oct 08

The CAP is a bit of a general protest party- no real unity in the candidates’ views. Having said that, I didn’t note any leftist zeal in any of their pronouncements.

#11
jakez2:25 pm, 24 Oct 08

tom-tom said :

i was under the impression that on october 18 the electorate decided that they didn’t want this lot to have a say in how the territory is governed. this just smacks of arrogance.

I think your comment also smacks of arrogance.

Like it or not they represent 15% of the population and that 15% of the population does deserve to be heard.

Whether the claim that these 15% would prefer a Liberal Govt over an ALP Govt is accurate though…very subjective.

#12
harvyk12:41 pm, 24 Oct 08

jakez said :

I think your comment also smacks of arrogance.

Like it or not they represent 15% of the population and that 15% of the population does deserve to be heard.

Whether the claim that these 15% would prefer a Liberal Govt over an ALP Govt is accurate though…very subjective.

I’m going to say likewise. A democracy love it or hate it basically says “Majority Rules”. This 15% where heard, on the 18th. Given that they where told by the people “No, we don’t want you.” says something as far as I’m concerned. Them making comments about “what Canberra wants” seems a little academic. They haven’t finished counting so no one can yet truely say “what Canberra wants”.

#13
Jim Jones2:52 pm, 24 Oct 08

“Like it or not they represent 15% of the population and that 15% of the population does deserve to be heard.”

Do you really mean to say that, because 15% of people voted for a wide range of independents and minor parties (from the nutsack Australian Motorists Party to the ‘these flaming mongrels have stuffed it up’ Community Alliance), that they have been entirely disenfranchised by the political system and that this should have the effect of overruling the actual election results?

#14
Kitchen Man3:27 pm, 24 Oct 08

No Jim, I think they were just respectfully asking the Greens to consider the size of that vote and to consider that more than half of the electorate seemingly went to the ballot box seeking a change of government, but that they may still get Jon as Chief Minister with Hargraves, Barr, Gallagher and Corbell on the front bench. That if the Greens were considering the voting intentions of Canberrans when deciding who to form an alliance with, that the 15% who voted for minor parties and independents should not be completely ignored.

#15
caf3:55 pm, 24 Oct 08

The Greens should consider the voting intentions of those that voted for them. Those who voted for Parton, AMP or CAP had the opportunity to have their votes preference the Liberals ahead of Labor, if that’s what they wanted to do. Presumably many did – so they’ve already helped elect Liberal candidates, there’s no reason why their vote should count twice.

#16
johnboy3:59 pm, 24 Oct 08

Well, there was the Liberal campaign which failed to sell its new faces.

But I agree, the failure to preference other non-labor parties speaks against that 15% voting for change.

#17
PM4:08 pm, 24 Oct 08

johnboy said :

Well, there was the Liberal campaign which failed to sell its new faces.

Yet a few of the new faces got up – I reckon that shows they ran good individual campaigns.

#18
Kitchen Man4:09 pm, 24 Oct 08

If the Motorists Party had not run the full ticket of candidates in Brindabella or Monlonglo the results would most likely have been different. Those who passionately voted just within the ticket for the motorists party, who you would expect to be right leaning, effectively delivered a Green member to Brindabella. If they had just run two candidates their preferences would have flowed back to candidates like Val Jeffrey.

#19
Jim Jones4:16 pm, 24 Oct 08

Now who would have thought that the Motorists Party wouldn’t be very bright?

#20
Jim Jones4:19 pm, 24 Oct 08

“more than half of the electorate seemingly went to the ballot box seeking a change of government”

With respect, that’s a bit of a stretch. Just because someone didn’t vote for the Labor Party doesn’t necessarily mean that they went seeking a change of government. If someone really wanted a change of government above all else, they would have voted Liberal in the first place.

#21
Kitchen Man4:25 pm, 24 Oct 08

Did the ALP not make is exceptionally clear in one of their high rotate TV ads in the last few days of the campaign…’a vote for anything else other than Labor is a vote for a Liberal government!’ ??

#22
Jim Jones4:30 pm, 24 Oct 08

Like anyone takes political advertising seriously.

Regardless, it’s patently ridiculous to assert that not voting for the incumbent party is inherently a vote for the largest opposition party (even if it wasn’t ACTUALLY a vote for the largest opposition party).

“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!”

#23
tom-tom4:34 pm, 24 Oct 08

jakez; if this group had been elected then they would be entitled to play a role in choosing who forms govt. They weren’t elected, so they dont have a role to play.

on election day the vast majority of canberrans took a look at them and decided that they didn’t want them making decisions like this. for this group to now suggest that they are above the result and have a role to play in government is absolute arrogance, there’s no other word for it.

the people have spoken; they didn’t want this group involoved, and they should respect that result.

#24
Jim Jones4:37 pm, 24 Oct 08

tom-tom said :

the people have spoken; they didn’t want this group involoved, and they should respect that result.

Except for Val Jeffrey. That guy is a crazy maverick who plays by his own rules.

#25
ant4:38 pm, 24 Oct 08

Jim Jones said :

Now who would have thought that the Motorists Party wouldn’t be very bright?

Heh!

I’m still amazed that they garnered as many votes as they did. I saw them as the huntin’ fishin’ drivin’ (and no brown people) party.

A Rights for Yobs conglomeration.

#26
jakez4:40 pm, 24 Oct 08

tom-tom said :

jakez; if this group had been elected then they would be entitled to play a role in choosing who forms govt. They weren’t elected, so they dont have a role to play.

on election day the vast majority of canberrans took a look at them and decided that they didn’t want them making decisions like this. for this group to now suggest that they are above the result and have a role to play in government is absolute arrogance, there’s no other word for it.

the people have spoken; they didn’t want this group involoved, and they should respect that result.

If that is the case, then democracy is a lie, and your vote does not count unless you win. Jeez it’s not often that someone outdoes me on cynicism over democracy.

Mate, 15% of the population said yes and so they have 15% of the voice.

#27
caf4:47 pm, 24 Oct 08

The 15% is a considerable overstatement. Territory-wide, CAP, AMP and Mark Parton garned 10.5% of the formal votes. Additionally, as I’ve already put above, many of these votes got passed on as preferences, so those voters views are already being represented by the people that actually got elected by them – CAP, AMP and Mark claiming to speak for them as well is “double-dipping”. I would even contend that those CAP, AMP and Parton votes that exhausted were also making a deliberate choice, of “any of the others, I don’t care”. If they wanted to preference Liberal, they could have.

#28
caf4:49 pm, 24 Oct 08

Kitchen Man: The debunking of that particular brand of tripe will be a great side-effect if the ALP does end up in Government.

#29
harvyk14:49 pm, 24 Oct 08

What are you talking about jakez? Of course your vote counts, but it mean shit when the majority of people vote for someone else.

I hate to point this out to you but “15% of the voice” basically means nothing. 85% of the population didn’t want these particular guys having a voice, in a democracy the wishes of 85% of the population need to outweigh 15% every time.

#30
sepi4:50 pm, 24 Oct 08

Plus why hvae they now become a single group.

It isn’t 15% at all – it is 3 smaller groups of people, who now, after the event, claim to be speaking with one voice.

If that were true they should have all run as the ‘anyone but Jon’ party.

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Are you in favour of Light Rail for Canberra?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.