Election Wrap - 9 September

The ACT is heading for sub par economic growth which has implications for every wallet in Canberra and I can’t believe your usual Posters can’t see this or care to be concerned. You give inexperienced and looney candidates ‘balance of power’ pursuing useless, minor and poorly thought agendas and you are going to get a govt and economy you deserve. Man, suck it up. The last thing we need are the Greens with more say.

Probably because recent post runs off story number, where the front page runs on datestamps.

And it’s really not anywhere of our list of issues.

My point was that it is already on the public record that potential cross-benchers (mainly the Greens) are open to considering alternatives to Stanhope as CM. Like PM I believe the ALP would put government before personal aspirations, if push came to shove.

As I’ve said elsewhere, a minority government would return some accountability to the ACT that it doesn’t currently have. The choice of CM and Ministers would be the big first test of that.

Have to say I’m surprised there haven’t been more people on RA jumping onto this possibility. In “a Labor town” and on a forum where discontent with Stanhope is voiced daily, I would have thought the idea of a minority government with a leadership change would have been seen by many as a viable option.

(And JB: why are posts disappearing off the front page but not appearing on the recent articles list?)

Sure, lots of things may happen, and I’ve picked my words carefully – I’m not predicting what will or won’t happen, just pointing out what is established practice. I don’t think it’s hubris for Stanhope to assume that Westminster tradition would be upheld.

(Thanks for the historical footnote – I wasn’t sure if this kind of thing had been carried out in the past – the example is certainly instructive).

That’s right caf, but if the cross-benchers refuse to support a Stanhope minority government, Labor may put up another candidate.

I believe the CAP have said they wouldn’t support a Stanhope minority govt, but wouldn’t reject supporting a different Labor leader.

BTW – not entirely unprecedented in practice. For example, in the 60s, the Country Party refused to support a coalition with McMahon as PM immediately after Holt’s death, which added to Gorton’s support amongst his Liberal colleagues. Not quite a minority govt, but similar in terms of the implications ie Libs were threatened with losing government with Leader A as opposed to Leader B.

caf, If we’re talking written rules in the Westminster system, then political parties and Prime Ministers don’t exist. The ACT system is a little different in not having a “Crown” though, so if the Assembly can’t decide on a Chief Minister, then who knows what happens?

Much of Westminster practice is carried on through tradition rather than codified in written rules. Including that the governing party selects the leader of the government. If you go only by the written rules, then as an example, federally the Governor-General can select whoever he likes as PM.

My point precisely.
It was the subject of a couple of large articles in CT a couple of weeks back, where the Greens indicated it wouldn’t be a given that the CM role would be unchanged.
So they have the potential to bring about major change in the parliament for the next term.

caf said :

it would be a pretty big departure from Westminster practice (unprecedented?) for the cross benches to get to decide on any ministerial position, let alone Chief Minister.

Incorrect:
I can’t find the specific piece of legislation I’m looking for… but the Chief Minister is actually (sel)elected by the elected members of the Assembly. Each party capable of forming government puts forward their preferred candidate for Chief Minister and the successful candidate is then decided by a majority vote of the Assembly.

The Ministerial positions, once the governing party has been selected, are a matter for the specific party.

Al, it would be a pretty big departure from Westminster practice (unprecedented?) for the cross benches to get to decide on any ministerial position, let alone Chief Minister.

Gungahlin Al said :

Question that needs to be asked is, if you were not given the CM role post-election, would you accept a ministerial or back bench role and guarantee to stick out the full term?

I’d probably wait and try and knock off Bob McMullin during preselections for the next election.

I was amazed at the presumption in this piece from Stanhope that he will be the Chief post-election.

If the ALP got back in with a majority, there would be no guarantee that he’d get the position as a lay-down misere (that how you spell it?).

And if the ALP was back in as a minority government, then there really would be questions as to who would/should be Chief. I think those on the cross-benches will hold amazing sway over this aspect, and they will have a very big responsibility facing them from day 1.

Question that needs to be asked is, if you were not given the CM role post-election, would you accept a ministerial or back bench role and guarantee to stick out the full term?

This story is crap. It’s been brewing for a while.

It’s just bickering.

No matter how many times I vote for the free range chicken party, stanhope will still cruise in for another four years.