In all the talk about hung parliaments and who’s going to be first to 75 with the help of Others, the pundits seem to be ignoring that whoever is first to 75 will likely have to provide the Speaker or convince an Independent to be It. Sir Roger doesn’t think any Independent or Green is going to want that poisoned chalice, and no major party is going to offer up their chance of forming government on the altar of the Speakership.

You have to assume that all the independents will want to hold onto their newfound power. After all, it’s the independent’s dream to have actual influence on policy. If the Coalition finishes with more seats they would still have to take the Speaker out of their own number which could still deadlock the parliament

The independents may want to consider which way to jump Labor achieved 50.69% of the primary vote

The Electoral Commission is giving the ALP 71 seats so far. If they win two more of the doubtfuls that would give them 73 plus one Green and one Independent (probably). A total of 75. That would leave the Coalition with 72 plus possibly three Independents who would perhaps tend to lean to the right. but out of those 75 seats one would have to be Speaker (assuming Labor has first choice to try to form government) and there is obviously no way Labor would propose the Speaker be one of their own, and the Green and the Independent would have no interest in that position.

Here’s how the Australian Electoral Commission site has the parties’ position this morning:

^* This is Tony Crook, the guy who looks to have rumbled Wilson Fuck-ye (thank christ that embarrassment has gone at long last). He claims to be independent and says he won’t be joining the Coalition party room, so his vote is in play slightly although you’d have to expect he’d support Abbott over Gillard. Would he be likely to accept the Speaker’s position? Someone would have to make him a very big offer about O’Connor. Would he even be offered it? He’s got no Parliamentary experience.

^{^} Notionally Coalition supporters, all being former National (or Country) Party members. However, they are former Nationals who left the Nationals for a reason so their support for one side or the other is not necessarily predictable.
Tony Windsor, the Member for Deliverance Country, sounded reasonable last night but one recalls once wondering long ago whether he didn’t feel the Nationals were a bit too left-wing for him.
Oakeshott claims to be an economic conservative but a social progressive. Depending what he actually means by “progressive” he might go either way. His electorate includes a very high proportion of retirees who demographically lean to the right. On the other hand he complained last night about the poor telecommunications service on the NSW north coast and seems warm to the NBN – which he’s not about to get with Abbott.
Katter, from what he said last night, could potentially go with whoever offers him the best bribe for rural people.

You would think, all in all, these three will decide whom to support, not on the basis of ideology so much as on what pork their powerful position in the middle can gain for their electorates. The ghost of the un-dead Harradine rises before our eyes.

^# This is Denison. It looks as if it could go to Andrew Wilkie, an Independent ex-Green (as candidate for Bennelong in 2004 and for the Senate in 2007), who could be expected to support Labor. If not to Wilkie, it will go to Labor. So whichever way it goes it is safely in Labor’s column.

So Labor needs another two seats out of the three doubtfuls to be sure, to limit the Coalition to 74 and a Speaker. At this stage those doubtfuls are not doubtful enough to give them too much hope. So Gillard is going to have to get into some very serious negotiating/ bribing/ promising stable government.

All the Independents have said their first priority will be to ensure stable government. (That’s why Abbott and Minchin have been running the “inevitability of protracted recriminations and internal bickering” (read “instability”) line about Labor, straight off the blocks.)

All of this depends still on the outcome of the postal and absentee votes, and any declaration votes still to be counted.

It’s fascinating.

In fact it might, on reflection, be the best possible outcome. This sort of parliament, they are saying, is what the “founding fathers” envisaged in the Constitution – or at least they didn’t envisage the powerfully polarised two-party system. This outcome may moderate the more outrageous policies of both sides. This outcome (and perhaps only this outcome) might lead to more actual discussion on policy, what is best for the people rather than for the party (the polloi rather than the pollies). This outcome might lead to more, and more rational, debate about real issues and actually deliver workable compromises in real timeframes. (Well, it’s a dream worth dreaming.)

[tags]politics, Australian politics, Australian government. government, election, Australian election, hung parliament, parliament, Denison, Wilkie, Oakeshott, Katter, Windsor, constitution, Greens, Tasmania, Bennelong, Senate, deliverance, two-party, preferred, Labor, Liberal National Country Party, Wilson Tuckey, hoi polloi, politicians, stable government, independents, Australian values, Australian political values, political values[/tags]