It's standard for the major parties to say they won't "do deals" to form a minority government. Tasmanian Labor actually carried through on this, though they might have had trouble cobbling together a majority willing to support them.
So, I think independents and Greens can reasonably say that until the majors indicate a willingness to negotiate, there's no point in dealing with hypotheticals (hypotheticals are understood by all political journalists to be irredeemably evil).
Exactly right Tim! And there's also absolutely no reason why a leader of a major party has to be PM. If, as we hope and expect the case to be, that neither of the majors are able to form government, and have to reach agreement with the crossbench, there's nothing to say a member of the crossbench couldn't be PM. Sure, a very long shot at this stage, but if parliament has to truly negotiate and seriously consider governing according to what people voted for, that would be a reasonable expectation. Of course, politicians and even most political commentators haven't yet woken up to this because they're so blinded by the two-party system.
Yes, PM is just someone who has the support of the House. Clearly, as you suggests, the parties would not tolerate any other than one of their own. Baby steps.
I hadn't thought of that but I have wondered about the extra remuneration the 'leader of the opposition' gets. Surely that would have to go if the smaller major party has less seats than the crossbench.
There is likely a whole realignment of the sort you mention that is due. So much of the system is about priviledging the two-party structure. Remuneration packages are one. Another I've been meaning to write about is thencoming government brief (ICB) prepared by the public service. the ICB sets out the role of departments, ministerial responsibilities, and is based on the promises government and opposition have made during the election. Of course, this major document is only prepared for Labor or the LNP. One should also be prepared for the crossbench, recognising the role they might play in a monority govt. And so it goes....
I see something of a dilemma for the independents in their htv cards, which, like it or not, are an entrenched part of the process of voting.
An htv card showing only a 1 risks an uninformed voter leaving the remaining squares blank; an informal vote. Or perhaps he/she fills remaining squares donkey-style and then the raffle of place on the ballot form applies.
This might call for some creative design of htv cards and the hope that voters will read more than the numbered squares.
Back in the day the Australian Democrats would issue HTV cards with two suggested preference orderings - one to be used by AD voters who wanted to preference Labor, and one for AD voters who wanted to preference the Coalition.
And in the 1995 Queensland State election the peak conservation groups, the then Queensland Trades & Labour Council and Noel Pearson's organisation in Cape York clubbed in to authorise HTVs advising voters to either vote 1 Green 2 Labor or 1 Labor 2 Green. (Of course that election was run under optional preferential voting.)
This wasn't a problem for Kate Chaney in Curtin. As long as you ensure that the voter knows they have to number every box and her htv cards left it up to them to number after KC as 1. Certainly don't think informal vote numbers were much higher than previous elections.
Perhaps a scorecard like used by organisations like Australian Conservation Foundation is a better alternative, with voters being guided on the policies of the parties to help them make up their own mind.
Those scorecards are good when published by reputable and accountable organisations like the ACF. On the other hand there are examples of the misuse of this method, e.g. the Right to Lifers would issue scorecards of candidates' views on abortion without asking the candidates.
Also, if a reputable organisation such as the ACF published a scorecard that gave (say) an independent candidate and a Greens candidate the highest possible score on issues of concern to that organisation, the voter would then need to look at other considerations on which to base their choice of first preference.
Which party they will support? Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was no major party in control after the election; that a group of independents formed the government and then proceeded to elect one of their own to be PM?
I guess that situation (no party) might be how the parliamentary system of representation first started out. Members quickly realised they could make their job easier - and increase significantly their chances of being re-elected - by becoming members of a party of the like-minded. As you say, and here we are.
There are solid reasons for having parties, as I mentioned, but there is a downside that the parties=government mindset misses. Every system that becomes "common sense" needs to be challenge from time to time, and we are going through on of those times.
Another cogent piece of writing TD. I just pray to doG that more penny dropping happens between now & election day & as RD from TAI said:
“Seems voters have figured out you can be frustrated with a government without wanting to vote for the opposition.” that this turns in to a tsunami of disaffected voters.
I would hope that a group of senior and/or retired politicians would get together to attempt to (organise is the wrong word) distribute useful ways keeping things sociable and widening the options that should be considered.
Tony Lipton? Former ALP MP Tony Lupton, putting the Libs first preference. He was a nice and switched on guy last time I spoke to him twenty years ago, but this is just duplicitous.
It's standard for the major parties to say they won't "do deals" to form a minority government. Tasmanian Labor actually carried through on this, though they might have had trouble cobbling together a majority willing to support them.
So, I think independents and Greens can reasonably say that until the majors indicate a willingness to negotiate, there's no point in dealing with hypotheticals (hypotheticals are understood by all political journalists to be irredeemably evil).
I suspect the media's desire for a gotcha outweighs their dislike of the hypothetical.
(I think I could make a listicle out of aphorisms like this 😀 )
An independent who adopts a preconceived position to support one or the other major party to form government thereby ceases to be an independent.
Certainly in part. It's a more succint way of putting it for sure. They should use it.
Exactly right Tim! And there's also absolutely no reason why a leader of a major party has to be PM. If, as we hope and expect the case to be, that neither of the majors are able to form government, and have to reach agreement with the crossbench, there's nothing to say a member of the crossbench couldn't be PM. Sure, a very long shot at this stage, but if parliament has to truly negotiate and seriously consider governing according to what people voted for, that would be a reasonable expectation. Of course, politicians and even most political commentators haven't yet woken up to this because they're so blinded by the two-party system.
Yes, PM is just someone who has the support of the House. Clearly, as you suggests, the parties would not tolerate any other than one of their own. Baby steps.
I hadn't thought of that but I have wondered about the extra remuneration the 'leader of the opposition' gets. Surely that would have to go if the smaller major party has less seats than the crossbench.
There is likely a whole realignment of the sort you mention that is due. So much of the system is about priviledging the two-party structure. Remuneration packages are one. Another I've been meaning to write about is thencoming government brief (ICB) prepared by the public service. the ICB sets out the role of departments, ministerial responsibilities, and is based on the promises government and opposition have made during the election. Of course, this major document is only prepared for Labor or the LNP. One should also be prepared for the crossbench, recognising the role they might play in a monority govt. And so it goes....
Thanks, Tim.
I see something of a dilemma for the independents in their htv cards, which, like it or not, are an entrenched part of the process of voting.
An htv card showing only a 1 risks an uninformed voter leaving the remaining squares blank; an informal vote. Or perhaps he/she fills remaining squares donkey-style and then the raffle of place on the ballot form applies.
This might call for some creative design of htv cards and the hope that voters will read more than the numbered squares.
Fair point, I think, Peter.
Back in the day the Australian Democrats would issue HTV cards with two suggested preference orderings - one to be used by AD voters who wanted to preference Labor, and one for AD voters who wanted to preference the Coalition.
And in the 1995 Queensland State election the peak conservation groups, the then Queensland Trades & Labour Council and Noel Pearson's organisation in Cape York clubbed in to authorise HTVs advising voters to either vote 1 Green 2 Labor or 1 Labor 2 Green. (Of course that election was run under optional preferential voting.)
This wasn't a problem for Kate Chaney in Curtin. As long as you ensure that the voter knows they have to number every box and her htv cards left it up to them to number after KC as 1. Certainly don't think informal vote numbers were much higher than previous elections.
Perhaps a scorecard like used by organisations like Australian Conservation Foundation is a better alternative, with voters being guided on the policies of the parties to help them make up their own mind.
Those scorecards are good when published by reputable and accountable organisations like the ACF. On the other hand there are examples of the misuse of this method, e.g. the Right to Lifers would issue scorecards of candidates' views on abortion without asking the candidates.
Push polling. Push scorecarding.
Also, if a reputable organisation such as the ACF published a scorecard that gave (say) an independent candidate and a Greens candidate the highest possible score on issues of concern to that organisation, the voter would then need to look at other considerations on which to base their choice of first preference.
Which party they will support? Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was no major party in control after the election; that a group of independents formed the government and then proceeded to elect one of their own to be PM?
Or at least, install some of the crossbench as ministers. As I say, piece coming on that.
I guess that situation (no party) might be how the parliamentary system of representation first started out. Members quickly realised they could make their job easier - and increase significantly their chances of being re-elected - by becoming members of a party of the like-minded. As you say, and here we are.
There are solid reasons for having parties, as I mentioned, but there is a downside that the parties=government mindset misses. Every system that becomes "common sense" needs to be challenge from time to time, and we are going through on of those times.
Honest politics should also demand that the Victorian government scrap the Group Voting Ticket for the Legislative Council.
Equally both the majors ought not to be asked the same question. Nor have to come out with the tired mantra, “We won’t do deals etc.”
Another cogent piece of writing TD. I just pray to doG that more penny dropping happens between now & election day & as RD from TAI said:
“Seems voters have figured out you can be frustrated with a government without wanting to vote for the opposition.” that this turns in to a tsunami of disaffected voters.
Thanks for a great article, Tim.
I’m doing my best to talk down the idea that minority gov is a disaster with friends etc, but it’s hard work overcoming decades of indoctrination.
I know the feeling, dennis! Still, I think people eventually see what's possible.
I would hope that a group of senior and/or retired politicians would get together to attempt to (organise is the wrong word) distribute useful ways keeping things sociable and widening the options that should be considered.
Personally, I wouldn't have a clue.
Tony Lipton? Former ALP MP Tony Lupton, putting the Libs first preference. He was a nice and switched on guy last time I spoke to him twenty years ago, but this is just duplicitous.
'Fraid so. And he put the Greens last.