I’m skeptical, but I trust the source of this piece arguing that Australia’s version of Ben Nelson, Tony Windsor, cast the deciding vote to enable a Labor coalition government because Labor is planning nationwide fiber broadband. That said, according to the AP, the story is a bit more complicated:
The last two independents to agree to support Gillard’s government, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, are former members of the conservative Nationals party, which is part of Abbott’s coalition.
Gillard rewarded the two rural-based lawmakers by promising 10 billion Australian dollars ($9 billion) in new investment for rural schools and hospitals.
She has also offered Oakeshott a Cabinet post, which he had yet to accept.
Oakeshott said on Tuesday that governing with the support of four lawmakers from outside Labor would be “ugly, but it’s going to be beautiful in its ugliness.”
A guy who can spin like that deserves a Cabinet post, at a minimum.
Southern Beale
I’m sorry this is OT but did everyone see this? I’m SHOCKED. Seriously. Why isn’t this bigger news?
Arizona Republican operative runs street people for office on Green ticket. The idea is to siphon off votes from Democrats.
It’s like Alvin Greene all over again. But worse. The Republicans are truly the party of sleaze. Anythng to stay in power. ANYTHING. There is no bottom to their low.
Platonicspoof
Rotating tagline material.
pakenman
Yes, mistermix, believe it – in the end, the major difference between the two parties was high speed broadband, or no high speed broadband, see here-
http://www.zdnet.com.au/understanding-the-broadband-election-339305235.htm
and for something funny about the coalition’s policy, see here-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGzleHwzmTQ
ta. pakenman
Tattoosydney
mistermix – I like your posts, but that comparison makes no fucking sense at all. Windsor and Oakeshott are both independent members of the lower house of parliament from rural seats who used to be members of the conservative country based National Party. As far as I know, Ben Nelson is a conservative Democrat who has always been a Democrat and sits in the Senate. Two of these things are not like the other.
I suspect the AP has it more right, and anyone suggesting that there is just one reason behind Windsor’s decision is talking out their arse…
The Labor Party’s broadband plan is certainly a major factor, but Windsor and Oakeshott are both a bit more complex than that – they both regularly get a lot of votes from across the political spectrum (Windsor ended up with 71% of the preferential vote in his electorate), and Australia has a long tradition of rural independent politicians who aren’t beholden to any political creed.
Relevant factors might include the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate and a view that the Labor party had a better chance of getting legislation through the Senate, the fact that Labor had already gained the support of the greens and another independent, the fact that Windsor and Oakeshott both hate the Nationals (and the hatred is returned), the fact that the Liberal party negotiated with them badly and acted as if they were entitled to the Independents’ support just because the independents were from a country electorate, and the fact that the leader of the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott, is an ultraconservative anti-abortion anti-women highly creepy whackjob.
My guess for the factor that swung Windsor and Oakeshott away to the Labor party – they just wanted to piss off Tony Abbott because he is a loon.
cleek
@Southern Beale:
politics ain’t pretty, no matter which side you’re on.
slightly_peeved
@Tattoosydney:
I’d say another big one was that the Libs were pretty open about wanting to go back to the polls as soon as possible. That didn’t line up with the Independents’ stated goal of a stable government. Also, I can’t see why they’d want to pick the party that was going to try and remove their power as soon as possible.
Oh, and I’d like to add “climate change denier” in the list of adjectives describing Tony Abbot.
Apart from that, really good post. Especially the bit about how ridiculous the Ben Nelson comparison is. Ben Nelson, and probably a large chunk of the Democratic party in both houses, couldn’t get $5 for lunch from any political party in Australia with the contrarian shit they do. The lack of party loyalty, at all levels, is a major difference between US Democrats and their equivalents in other countries. IMHO, it’s also probably part of the reason the US Democrats get far less done than their equivalents in other countries.
mistermix
@Tattoosydney: Yeah, the Ben Nelson thing was just because he was a rural rep who was getting all kinds of benefits for his district, but I take your point.
Tattoosydney
@slightly_peeved:
True – I had forgotten that (contrary to any attempt to shoehorn them into a “conservative” model) both Windsor and Oakeshott believe at least that the possibility of climate change is enough reason to do something about it….
I suppose the Nelson reference might be a reference to Windsor being the swing vote, as Nelson often is, but if that’s so, I don’t see why they aren’t Australia’s Mary Landrieu or Olympia Snow…
mistermix
@Tattoosydney: After viewing a picture of the guy, it was unfair, because he’s man enough to go bald instead of wearing a ridiculous Ben Nelson rug.
Tattoosydney
@mistermix:
True. I was harsh. I apologise.
Thankyou for an Australian oriented post, btw. I’ve wondered why American political writers don’t look at Australia more often as an indicator for US politics.
Our political environment and general society are in many ways quite similar to the US (more so than the US is similar to the UK, I suspect). We have tended recently to elect governments of the same political persuasion as yours (although we generally have independents and minor parties in our Senate – you should try it).
We had Howard, the US had Junior. We threw out our ultra conservative, immigrant hating, war and business loving government and replaced it with a new fresh leader who came from nowhere and swept into power with a strong reform agenda, but was then criticised heavily and lost a lot of voters on the left because he “hadn’t done enough” (even though he had achieved a lot of good and many of his reform attempts had been blocked by the Senate) and also lost a lot of swinging voters because they was skeerded of the immigrants and the tax man. We also have a press that mostly does no political analysis (although we actually have a decent publicly funded TV channel).
I can’t imagine how any of that could have lessons for the US.
slightly_peeved
@Tattoosydney:
Though it has to be pointed out – said leader’s popularity particularly dropped when, in the face of opposition, he walked away from the big piece of legislation (an emissions trading scheme) that he’d been trying to get through parliament.
In his case, scuttling a piece of legislation because it wouldn’t pass in the form he wanted was viewed very unfavourably by the voting public.
Tattoosydney
@slightly_peeved:
Yes. Kevin walking away from climate change was a big one for me – that and the stupid internet filter proposal. After those it was Green all the way for me.
I suspect that if Julia Gillard’s government can last until 1 July next year when the new Green Senators actually get to sit in parliament, we might actually get some decent climate change legislation, given the supportive views of almost all the independent and green members in the lower house.
slightly_peeved
@Tattoosydney:
And after 1 July next year, no Family First senators. Which is nice. Pity the Sex Party didn’t get a few more votes – they could have replaced him.
Chris
No, no, if he were the Ben Nelson of his country, he would’ve gotten his richest dozen or so constituents a fuckload of federal cash.
Australia, poor dears, still has rural conservatives who actually try to get universal benefits of modernity. Once they get their silly campaign finance laws reformed like we have, that naive tendency will vanish.
Andrew
@slightly_peeved:
No Family first, yeah but there is now a Democratic Labor Party Senator, who hold basically the same Policies as Family First