Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

We'll switch your business
to Led lighting for Free*

And it’s 8/8/1. Negotiations to follow

By johnboy - 27 October 2012 99

Despite certain democracy hating tree killers trying to call the election result two days before people actually got to vote it has turned into a monumentally close affair.

Elections ACT have the final allocation of seats:

Brindabella

* Zed Seselja

* Joy Burch

* Brendan Smyth

* Mick Gentleman

* Andrew Wall

Ginninderra

* Alistair Coe

* Vicki Dunne

* Mary Porter

* Chris Bourke

* Yvette Berry

Molonglo

* Katy Gallagher

* Jeremy Hanson

* Andrew Barr

* Simon Corbell

* Shane Rattenbury

* Giulia Jones

* Steve Doszpot

Shane Rattenbury to decide what happens next.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
99 Responses to
And it’s 8/8/1. Negotiations to follow
joingler 11:08 pm 27 Oct 12

dominic_mhd said :

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result. I would rather a 9/7/0 split either way than this joke.

I already sent a tweet to Katy and Zed asking them to form a coalition together. I doubt either of them gave it a second look but I can at least say I tried…….

Skidbladnir 11:00 pm 27 Oct 12

Australians are getting scary good at this hung parliament thing.

If Shane were sane, he’d ignore the small percentage who voted for him first, teach Canberrans a thing or two about seizing power by proclaiming himself Chief, and instead of going through the bullshit of negotiating with Katy or Zed instead form Cabinet with whichever Members on the day want to cooperate and share instead of competing to the detriment of the constituency.

Sure, it would be unstable and unpredictable, but it would keep people on their toes and be the very definition of governing through evidence based policy , accountability, and self-determination.

But he’s not, so I expect to see Katy back at her tricks and Zed \Smyth continuing to claim relevance, despite the electorate’s best intentions.

RedDogInCan 10:32 pm 27 Oct 12

dominic_mhd said :

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result.

Actually, _any_ MLA could control the result simply by voting for the other side. A promise of a ministery or speaker’s role could be enough for a junior member to be tempted to ‘slipper’ over to the dark side. Stranger things have happened.

simsim 10:27 pm 27 Oct 12

johnboy said :

Shane’s main issue is what will get the greens more votes in four years time.

And that’s a bit of a toothsucker.

Sure you can say few green voters thought they were voting for a Liberal government. But at the same time if they wanted a Labor Government they’d have voted for Labor.

I maintain that serious greens need to view Labor as more their enemy than the Liberals. Labor voters might turn Green, Liberals much less so.

If Shane is capable of getting Liberals to genuinely enforce Greens policies, then:
a) He’s a shockingly good negotiator; and
b) He thorougly deserves re-election by his supporters next time.

Unfortuantely, I don’t see Zed really compromising anywhere given the nature of HIS hardcore supporters, meaning, yep,

So inevitably, given the Labour party will compromise for power, and the Libs won’t, we’ll end up with a Labour government and a lot of fake outrage from the Libs about how hard done by they are.

c_c™ 10:19 pm 27 Oct 12

dominic_mhd said :

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result. I would rather a 9/7/0 split either way than this joke.

You seem to forget that not only have cross benchers had control of the Assembly for much of its existence, but even in the last one where the Greens held four seats, the Liberals and Labor sided with one another against the Greens on a number of votes.

A lot of the arguments I’m reading on here and elsewhere may hold up for larger Parliaments, indeed there seems to be a good deal of transference going from the Federal example, but the ACT does have a different dynamic.

All the negotiations will decide is who gets to say they’re in government.

dominic_mhd 9:29 pm 27 Oct 12

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result. I would rather a 9/7/0 split either way than this joke.

justin heywood 9:27 pm 27 Oct 12

Minz said :

Disappointing result for the Greens and shows something about how people vote – the Greens had what looked like a really strong set of policies (particularly in comparison with the other parties) and people voted based on… what? A scare campaign, apparently. Pretty sad really.[/quote>

It may be comforting to some to believe that their team lost because a gullible public was fooled by a scare campaign, but is it true?

It’s axiomatic in politics that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them, and I think the current incumbents deserved to lose, or almost lose, this one.

The fact that most people didn’t support your team doesn’t necessarily mean that most people are stupid. Sometimes you have to look closer to home.

LSWCHP 9:22 pm 27 Oct 12

The unfortunately named Mr Rattenbury is a politician, which almost certainly means that he will do whatever he sees as being in his own best interest.

Primal 9:19 pm 27 Oct 12

enrique said :

I see your point… but my question still holds… essentially, shouldn’t Shane do what *his voters* wanted him to do? i.e. if the majority of them decided that their first preference was Green but then after that they wanted Labour as their second preference (in a Labour vs Liberal choice) – shouldn’t Shane go with Labour? (or vice-versa if the second preference for the majority was Liberal?)

His voters, more than anything, want him to implement Green policy. That’s why they voted for him. Any choices they’ve made below that are therefore a lower priority than their support for the Greens. So if they were forced to choose between ‘more Green policies from a less-preferred government’, or ‘less Green policies from a more-preferred government’, I’d say the Green element has to be assumed to take priority.

(Not to mention… do you want to be the one to calculate which major party his voters really “prefer” under Hare-Clark? That’d be a statistical nightmare.)

enrique 8:59 pm 27 Oct 12

Primal said :

enrique said :

Question: Shouldn’t Shane Rattenbury’s decision be based on what the preferences of all the people that voted for him are?

Nope. What if that ‘preferred’ party was willing to implement fewer Green policies than the other? That argument falls over real quick.

Rattenbury was personally elected as a Green. His only sensible approach is to negotiate with a goal of having as many Green policies as possible implemented by the eventual coalition government.

I see your point… but my question still holds… essentially, shouldn’t Shane do what *his voters* wanted him to do? i.e. if the majority of them decided that their first preference was Green but then after that they wanted Labour as their second preference (in a Labour vs Liberal choice) – shouldn’t Shane go with Labour? (or vice-versa if the second preference for the majority was Liberal?)

Primal 8:38 pm 27 Oct 12

enrique said :

Question: Shouldn’t Shane Rattenbury’s decision be based on what the preferences of all the people that voted for him are?

Nope. What if that ‘preferred’ party was willing to implement fewer Green policies than the other? That argument falls over real quick.

Rattenbury was personally elected as a Green. His only sensible approach is to negotiate with a goal of having as many Green policies as possible implemented by the eventual coalition government.

Minz 8:32 pm 27 Oct 12

But given the Liberals’ more-or-less stated “slash and burn” policy with regards to the environment, could a real Green possibly support them? I don’t see it.

Disappointing result for the Greens and shows something about how people vote – the Greens had what looked like a really strong set of policies (particularly in comparison with the other parties) and people voted based on… what? A scare campaign, apparently. Pretty sad really.

Antagonist 8:28 pm 27 Oct 12

“Shane Rattenbury to decide what happens next.”

Absolutely delighted that the Greens have been given the slap in the face they so much deserve. Unfotunately, I don’t think that holding Katy accountable for the fudging numbers at the hospital will be at the top of Shane’s to do list.

johnboy 8:26 pm 27 Oct 12

Shane’s main issue is what will get the greens more votes in four years time.

And that’s a bit of a toothsucker.

Sure you can say few green voters thought they were voting for a Liberal government. But at the same time if they wanted a Labor Government they’d have voted for Labor.

I maintain that serious greens need to view Labor as more their enemy than the Liberals. Labor voters might turn Green, Liberals much less so.

enrique 8:20 pm 27 Oct 12

Question: Shouldn’t Shane Rattenbury’s decision be based on what the preferences of all the people that voted for him are?

i.e. if the majority of people that voted for Rattenbury preferred, say, Labour as their next choice (in a Labour vs Liberal decision) then shouldn’t Rattenbury do what his constituents wanted him to and form government with Labour?

And vice-versa… if the majority of people that voted for Rattenbury preferred Liberal as their next choice then shouldn’t he form government with Liberal?

This is a genuine question. I don’t really understand how it works and I’m wondering why it is up to Shane to decide the government and not based on the preferences of the people that voted for him? I know I’d be pretty p!$$ed off if I voted for someone and they held the balance of power but then they decided to go against what the majority of people that voted for them wanted…

1 2 3 7

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site