-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
At Large
The Thief Prime Minister
Independents give Australia a minority government of dubious legitimacy.
The term “thief president” has sometimes been used for a U.S. President who is elected to office on a majority of electoral college votes but a minority of popular votes.
Australia now has a thief prime minister, ex-student radical leader Julia Gillard, whose left-of-center Labor Party was elected with a very decided minority of popular votes compared to the opposition Liberal (i.e. Conservative) party, led by Tony Abbott, but retains government with the support of two Independents in the House of Representatives. It is an outcome that the framers of the Australian Constitution and voting system never intended, and a slap in the face for democracy and majority government.
Gillard originally came to power by a coup within the Labor Party that got rid of her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, whose popularity had collapsed shortly after his election. Australia is a long way from real political trouble, but the succession of events is beginning to raise eyebrows among those Asian countries that have always looked at it as a model of political regularity and stability. The real responsibility for this, however, lies not only with Gillard’s determination to cling to power but with two independent Members of Parliament, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who put an extension of their personal power ahead of representative government.
Following the election, Australia was basically without an effective government for 17 days while the Independents reveled in their new-found importance. Finally these two stated that they would support Gillard. Windsor actually explained they had sided with her because Labor in government was less likely to call another election. Why was Gillard less likely than Abbott to go back to the polls? “Because I think [Abbott] would be more likely to win.” Commentator Janet Albrechtsen wrote:
Get it? Windsor admitted he sided with the party that had less support from Australian voters. It’s a novel theory of democracy, almost as brazen as Stalin’s theory that it’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.
Politics does not get more elitist than what happened yesterday. The Independents use fine rhetoric of grassroots politics, respecting their constituents, supporting their electorates, improving our democracy.
Windsor and Oakeshott revealed that Independents play raw politics just as toxic as either of the political parties that Independents like to scorn. Their game has been one of self-interest clothed in the tricky language of stability and longevity.
Backing the party less popular with voters does not improve democracy. It diminishes and devalues democracy.
Actually, the Independents’ behavior can be seen as more toxic than that of any major party: they have decoded, for the sake of their own power, to keep a minority party in power simply because it is a minority. Anything as quaint as beliefs or values appear to have nothing to do with the case.
Windsor and Oakshott have suddenly found they are important and wish to prolong the agreeable sensation. In the previous Parliament Oakeshott voted in only one-third of the divisions and Windsor voted in only-half: not an indication that they actually take Parliamentary democracy very seriously in ordinary circumstances.
Albrechtsen remarked: “Perhaps we should not be surprised by the Independents’ patently undemocratic decision to side with the party least likely to win the next election.”
Windsor and Oakeshott have, incidentally, not only defied the wishes of a majority of the country’s voters but also the wishes of what appears to be a heavy majority of the voters in their own constituencies. Voters in both constituencies strongly supported the formation of a non-Labor government. In Windsor’s seat Labor polled only 8.1% of votes and in Oakeshott’s seat 13.5%. Local reports quote a number of members of Windsor’s and Oakeshott’s traditionally conservative electorates who claim to have been betrayed.
Australia has had some fairly noisy elections in the past, but they have always ended up with a result that more or less reflected what a majority of the public wanted. It is one of the oldest democracies in the world and its political history has been one of the most decent and peaceful.
What it is confronted with now is a spectacle of blackmail on a national scale by two members of Parliament unrepresentative of any party, and a “thief” Prime Minister determined to cling to power irrespective of the wishes of the majority of electors.
The only democratic way to clear the air would be to call another election but at the moment there is no way to force this. Australia is left with a lame-duck government full of potential for further instability. However radical Gillard’s personal agenda may be, the government is likely to be very cautious, at least in the obvious sense, although the Labor Party left in alliance with the far-left Greens, which in some ways has an eerie resemblance to Obama’s Democrats, is likely to try to get social legislation through on euthanasia and related “moral” issues a good deal less innocuous than it seems at first glance. There is also the possibility of a so-called Bill of Rights which while sounding innocuous enough will enforce political correctness by defining “rights” in a very special way.
Australia will probably carry on, on the surface, much the same as before with little change in foreign or domestic policies, but at the very least its international image is tarnished.
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Melvin| 9.9.10 @ 7:30AM
I guess we all knew this was bound to happen eventually. But Asia in the not so distant future will have it's hands completely full, in keeping the Chinese Dragon from gobbling everything up.
The Chinese have been very, very patient while it has slowly slithered into Asia and gained massive influence with the Asian countries leadership who in most cases are throughly corrupt and eager to consume huge amounts of the Chinese Yuan at the sake of their Countries resources whether it be natural or human.
As some have noted, China doesn't want repayment in kind, it wants raw materials and lots of it.
The former President of the Philippines Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was all to eager to kowtow and rescind her Country's claim to the oil rich Spratly Islands at the sake of very, very questionable secret deals with the Chinese that has given them access to her Country and it's people.
Not only was Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's administration elbow deep in corruption with the Chinese, so was the Philippine Legislative Branch members all too eager to get their cut.
There were some questions raised at the ethics level but they were quickly quited by the rush of those Congressmen and Senators with suitcases full of cash to be squirreled away in some unforeseen account.
Australia, has always been the stable guardian of Asia, but over the years has become immersed in it's own internal issues and has lost sight of the shadow expanding across Asia from the flexing of the Dragons wings.
George| 9.10.10 @ 1:16AM
Do you really think that Australia has any hope of holding back such a immense nation?
Doctor Right| 9.9.10 @ 8:13AM
Isn't it amazing that whenever the Left gets their claws on the levers of power, democracy begins to suffer? America, Australia, Britain...It doesn't matter where, the result is always the same: More corruption, more government, and less personal freedom.
We had a similar circumstance in the US several years ago, when Senator Jim Jeffords from Vermont (a certifiable moron) switched from 'Republican" to "Independent" when the Democrats offered him the Chairmanship of a Senate Committee. By flipping, Jeffords denied the Republicans a working majority in the Senate.
Of course, justice eventually caught-up with the idiot from Vermont. After the next election cycle, the Republicans won enough seats to control the Senate without Jeffords, and he was left adrift in the political wilderness. He actually made overtures to the new Republican leadership indicating a "willingness to return" to the G.O.P., and was politely told to pound sand up his ass.
Eventually, this will happen to Windsor and Oakeshott, too. And hopefully Ms. Gillard, as well.
Melvin| 9.9.10 @ 8:43AM
There is a certain irony self- defeating- destructive behavior. A rational person in-spite of their political ideology and or philosophy can surely see things as, "This is going to bite me and my country in the backside if we continue down this path." Knowing that their will be pain associated with this course, they still continue to walk down this path knowing full well it could lead to their doom.
I call this behavior the rail road track syndrome. A Leftist stands in the middle of the railroad track and see a train coming. He or she knows that it will hurt very, very much if they get struck by the train. But for some reason that have in their heads that the train surely sees me standing here and it will stop. As the train gets closer and closer all they have to do is step to the side of the tracks to get out of the trains way, but refuse to do so because they have locked into their heads that the train will stop for them.
!!!W H A M!!! as the Leftist lays there in a bloody pulp of human refuse that looks like they just got run over by a train, last conscious thought is, "I really, really thought the train would stop."
Even though the Leftist could have stepped to the side of the tracks to avoid getting struck by the train, their narrow single minded philosophy disallowed them from doing so.
Leonora| 9.9.10 @ 8:39AM
How very nice of Mr Colebatch to begin with the explanation what the term "Thief President" means and to forget to give an example, viz. the Spectator's one-time darling Bush Jr. (in 2000). Hadn't heard the diatribes of the "murder-of-democracy" style from the Spectator back then.
Doctor Right| 9.9.10 @ 9:08AM
Leonora...You're clueless.
George W. Bush DID NOT steal the 2000 election.
Quite the opposite, he prevented Al Gore from stealing the election.
George W. Bush WON Florida.
Gore's legal wrangling in Florida was never going to work.
The US Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Florida Supreme Court to allow hand-recounts in select counties by a score of 9-0! Do you understand what that means?
It means that even the arch-Liberal Justices on the Supreme Court - those who supported Gore - knew that it was TERRIBLE idea. They basically nullified the Florida Supreme Court's decision, embarrassing the Florida Supreme Court so badly that their Chief Justice refused to revisit the decision.
The US Supreme Court then took two (2) other votes regarding this case.
The first was whether or not the Florida recount was proper. Gore lost, 7-2.
The second was whether or not the Florida recount should continue. Gore lost, 5-4.
So instead of the Liberal fantasy of George Bush being elected by one vote in the Supreme Court (resulting from a 5-4 decision), in actuality, his election was supported by 21 votes vs only 6 for Gore (9-0; 7-2; 5-4).
To wit:
Gore lost Florida.
Gore was never going to win Florida.
Gore lost the election.
Gore was never going to be President.
Gore tried to steal the election.
Gore failed.
Now grow up, Leonora, and move on. Peurile idiocy grows tiresome after 10 years.
Leonora| 9.9.10 @ 9:37AM
Dear Dr Right,
it's surprising (or not?) to see you applying some sort of "female" logic in refuting the statement I actually haven't made. I haven't questioned the constitutionality of Bush Jr's election, as I am in no position to do so. What I did is read the first sentence of the article (viz. "The term "thief president" has sometimes been used for a U.S. President who is elected to office on a majority of electoral college votes but a minority of popular votes") and observe this had been the case with Bush in 2000 (or are you going to dispute the fact that he obtained a smaller nationwide percentage of popular vote than Gore did?). As for your toxic and disrespectful comments... well, winners win and losers spin, as the British say.
Doctor Right| 9.9.10 @ 12:07PM
Leonora, Leonora,
It's quite clear from your first post ("...the Spectator's one-time darling Bush Jr...Hadn't heard the diatribes of the "murder-of-democracy" style from the Spectator back then) where your political sympathies are rooted.
What you object to in your girlish hissy-fit is the specific, adamant, and factual way in which I rejected your pathetic claim.
And since the media was basically calling the election for Gore several hours before the polls closed on the west coast, I seriously doubt that Bush REALLY lost the popular vote, either.
If you're going to come to an intellectual gunfight,
Leonora...It's best to NOT bring a plastic butter knife.
Tom| 9.9.10 @ 10:37AM
Leonora,
Does any reasonably informed adult really need to be reminded that Bush was elected with a minority of the popular vote?
I probably would agree with you that this is no big deal. If the voters are angry enough with their representatives they will vote them out. When there are no majority parties coalitions happen; it is very often ugly but that is how it works. Maybe next time the Liberal Party/Coalition will run a better campaign and recieve a majority of seats.
Tom
Radegunda| 9.10.10 @ 1:13PM
At some point before the 2000 election, Dems were expecting Bush to win the popular vote but Gore to win on the electoral votes--and they were full of praise for the wisdom of the Founders in devising such a sensible system as the Electoral College.
After the halting of Gore's attempt to steal Florida by selective hand counts (including many double-punched ballots, and ballots probably shoved in by the handful), controlled by party loyalists, then suddenly the Dems decided that the Electoral College is an unjust system.
Roscoe| 9.9.10 @ 1:31PM
Leonora; The author didn't forget to give an example; he just didn't need to. His inference was obvious. However I'm sure that he could have guessed that within minutes a cry-baby like you ("Boooosh murdered-democracy...") would be along to boo-hoo over something that mature, sane people should have already internally resolved.
Bob Menzies| 9.9.10 @ 9:00AM
I suppose this is similar to Bush winning in 2000 with a minority of the popular vote (and with the assistance of the Supreme Court), mmmm.
In Australia one must remember that an independant is just that. Independants are elected by the people to exercise their right to vote with either side, or none at all.
If the punters don't like it they can elect another member at the next election - that's democracy, it can be messy at times but at least in Australia it is done peacefully.
Those who voted for the above Independants could have voted conservative if they wanted to, they did have the choice.
As an aside it should be noted that Tony's Abbott's Liberal party had nowhere near the number of seats to form government.
When in government the Liberal Party is in fact a minority government and relies on the support of the National Party, hence they form a coalition, or "the Coalition".
On a party basis the Labor Party in Australia has generally been the most popular, followed by the Liberals and then the Nationals (representing rural areas which tend to be more conservative).
Thus the Party breakdown of the Australian election (lower house) looks like this:
Labor - 72
Liberal - 61
National - 12
Independant - 4
Green - 1
Total of 150 seats.
Democracy isn't it great - we can spin anything anyway we please, just as Janet Albrechtsen can.
Doctor Right| 9.9.10 @ 9:10AM
Bob:
See the above answer for Leonora, minus the invective I usually reserve for incurable lefties.
Bob Menzies| 9.9.10 @ 5:51PM
Why that's very kind of you dear doctor. But it is rather presumptuous of you to assume I am a leftie (don't you think?). In fact I voted conservative (Liberal) but simply don't get all upset when my team doesn't win.
Bloody hell, with a name like Menzies what would you expect - but that would be lost on the likes of your good self.
Bob Menzies| 9.9.10 @ 7:58PM
Hey Doctor Right, my apologies, I misread your post. You didn't diagnose me as a leftie at all.
I suppose when the term leftie is placed anywhere near my name I suffer from intense anxiety.
It would be appreciated if you would prescribe me a little bit of medication for said anxiety - a pint of top shelf scotch would do the trick nicely, thankyou kindly.
Petronius| 9.9.10 @ 9:11AM
What the Aussies need is a Conservative version of Kevin "bloody" Wilson.
Jose| 9.9.10 @ 10:39AM
I just looked at the results of the popular vote, Labor/Greens had 49.7% of the vote, the Coalition 43.7, and independents 6.6%. It seems to me that a Liberal/Green/Independent grouping is the most viable and representative.
Albert| 9.9.10 @ 10:57AM
"...two independent Members of Parliament...who put an extension of their personal power ahead of representative government." It is simply unbelievable that a POLITICIAN would do such a thing! Politicians are GODS, are they not? ("Divi Iuli") Politicians are the highest form of humanity, the charitable, self sacrificing class! "Public Service" is what they call their work, and it is a calling to sacrifice their own fortunes for the greater good of all! I am shocked, SHOCKED! I tell you, that a divine politician would put his own interests and ambitions ahead of the people's. WHAT has the World come to?
Derek Leaberry| 9.9.10 @ 12:41PM
It seems to be a legitimate, if odious, government to me. With a scant 76-74 majority relying on two independent seats and one Green seat, the Labor government's durability is questionable. Miss Gillard's government may not last a year. In a run-up to a 2011 election, Miss Gillard may play the republic card and run against Prince Charles, in absentia. You can always count on the Left to try to smash any institution that is not "progressive."
Richard Baker| 9.9.10 @ 4:24PM
Regardless of the facts, dear Leonora's childish mind MUST believe that George Bush stole the election from Al Gore. Another brain-dead liberal squeals. So what's new?
Philip Isett| 9.9.10 @ 6:13PM
As for thief presidents, how about Abe Lincoln?
Rich Rostrom| 9.9.10 @ 11:22PM
Mr. Colebatch:
I have never seen the term "thief president". Hayes in 1876 was dubbed "Rutherfraud", but that had more to do with how he carried three disputed states in the South. Harrison in 1888 ran 91,000 behind Cleveland, but he carried states with an electoral vote majority by decisive majorities in each. No one called him a "thief".
"Labor Party ... with a very decided minority of popular votes compared to the ... Liberal [Party]".
Not true. Labor received 4.7M "first preference" votes to 3.8M for the Liberals. However the Liberals are allied with the National Party. They fused in Queensland, drawing 1.1M 1stP votes; and the Nationals drew 0.5M more elsewhere, so the "coalition" had a higher total 1stP vote (5.4M). But the Green Party drew 1.5M votes, so there was no conservative majority.
An Australian voter must list all parties in order of preference, and votes for the least popular party are redistributed by second, third, or lower preference till only two parties are left.
The "national two party preference vote" is split almost exactly: Labor 50.1% , Liberal/National Coalition 49.9%.
By the way, this count is as of 12:04 PM Canberra time Sep 10; there are still several hundred thousand uncounted votes.
Philip Isett: how about Abe Lincoln?
Lincoln won a clear plurality of the popular vote: 485,000 more than the second-place candidate, Douglas.
George| 9.10.10 @ 1:10AM
What this really reveals is that the author has a very poor understanding of how representative democracy works in Australia.. The Australian house of representatives does not work on the system of majority vote but rather on districts. In this case Oakeshott, Winsor and the green afillitated member choose what is best for there consitutents. That is how representative democracy is intended to work, even though parties however neccessary have perverted it.
In addition Australia can not be truly called a democracy. All legislative power is technically held in the hands of the Queens as acted by the Governor General. It can also be seen by the election of 6 senatator per state that Australia does not uphold the principle that each vote should be equally weighted.
While you may be correct in saying that the Gillard Government has lost a measure of legitimacy, it is incorrect to argue it on democratic principle. The system is simply not built like that, it is not intended to be democratic.
John Stafford| 9.11.10 @ 5:16PM
Ohhhh George how wrong you are, Windsor's and Oakeshott's electorates both had a very weak (less than 15%) percentage of voters supporting Labor. The majority erred on the side of "Conservatism" in that Windsor and Oakeshott were former members of a Conservative party, thus even though they did not vote for the traditional Liberal/National alliance, they still wanted to to err on the side of caution. Thus both Oakeshott and Windsor together with Andrew Wilkie (Former Green) and Adam Bandt a Radical Green go Labor. Oakeshott felt it too dangerous to accept the attempted Gillard bribe of a Ministership otherwise there would have been total revolt. I am not enamoured by either side of Politics, be they Liberal, Labor or God help us bloody Greens, I rather ask why do we have running the biggest business in the country and Government is after all a business, a bunch of clowns, none of whom I would ever employ. Until such time as we get true and proper "Captains of Industry and Commerce in charge of running the country " we will continue to waste money and promote stupid idealists with radical ideas they force on those of us who do not dare to speak against them, so I would say to each and every MP "A pox on the lot of you". I consider not one Parliamenarian Labor, Liberal or non-entity worthy of being entrusted with running the country, its just that those more conservative seem to make a better job of it, ie the Fraser led conservatives following Whitlam and his mob addressing the economic rescue, Howard and Costello addressing the "Recession we had to have" French clock collector Keating and his useless lot.