Imagine Laurie Oakes on one of these trying to "doorstop" the PM on his morning ride... Is that not a media image to conjure with?
Imagine Laurie Oakes on one of these trying to "doorstop" the PM on his morning ride... Is that not a media image to conjure with?
Well this is a turn up for the books, and one that must play at least a small part in deciding who has the moral authority to form government.
Yesterday, as the independents converged on Canberra for formal talks, counting showed the Coalition edging ahead of Labor on the two-party-preferred count.
By 10.30pm last night, with more than 80 per cent counted, the Coalition was ahead by 1909 votes after the AEC removed eight seats from its two-party count on the basis that the major parties did not run first and second.
In a stunning measure of the closeness of the election, the Australian Electoral Commission website had the parties locked at 50.01 per cent for the Coalition to 49.99 per cent for Labor with close to 11 million votes counted.
Its looking more and more like the next resident in the lodge may just be someone who is keen on an early morning bike ride rather than a pie with free sauce 
Cheers Comrades
Hmm I wonder why Lynot has been so quiet lately????
Bolta had one of those Independents going ballistic this morning on the radio.
Which one? What did he say?
Oakshot.
LULU!
I realise that Ray won’t read posts more than 2 lines when they make his heroes look like geese, but here’s a transcript of the conversation with the loopy Oakshott.
STEVE PRICE: Rob, good morning to you, mate.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Good morning.
STEVE PRICE: On those figures, you really now have to give Tony Abbott a chance to govern don’t you?
ROB OAKESHOTT: Look, we’ll take everything into consideration but we’re going through a process now and I think it’s a sensible process. The first thing before we even get to governing, I think the really exciting thing in a parliamentary sense and a better government sense that’s underway at the moment is both sides working to reform the Parliament for better government and I think by the end of the week, we’ll have a document that we can sign off on, which involves everyone in the Parliament, all 150 members and therefore it’s sustainable. On the back of that, then we can start to look at formal agreements being entered into and…
STEVE PRICE: But Rob, the Australian people have said in, hang on, the Australian people have said in the vote that more of them want the Coalition to govern than Labor.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Yep. And so look, and then on the back of that, going on at the same time is, ah, draft documents are now being bounced back and forth between all of us in regards to formal agreements that are being asked of us to enter into and remember and I ask for some grace from the Australian people, is my crime, is to have been elected as an independent member for Lyne. My second crime is that I am not aligned to a major party. So my vote matters. So I’ve heard the argument about 80 per cent of the people voted for a party, I agree with that…
STEVE PRICE: But this is not about you and Tony Windsor and Bob Katter, it’s about Australians.
ROB OAKESHOTT: That is exactly what I’m saying. That I agree with that argument and so if Australians are sitting in an electorate where there member is not participating, that is the question. This could easily be resolved and I know people like Andrew Bolt, you know, puts fairy dust, fairy dust and pixies around the idea of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott talking to each other…
ANDREW BOLT: No, that’s not what I said.
ROB OAKESHOTT: No, no, well, I cannot deliver government.
ANDREW BOLT: No, Rob that’s not what I said. I said it’s fairy dust and anti-democratic to insist on a coalition government between, when I say coalition I mean a coalition of Labor and Liberal, that was pixie dust.
ROB OAKESHOTT: That is exactly my point. That this can be resolved by those guys talking. I have…
ANDREW BOLT: Talk….
ROB OAKESHOTT: Hang on, hang on. I have one vote, the independents have five votes, we cannot form government. Yet we are being asked to do something that Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard are unwilling to do. We are being asked to do something unnatural and do consensus politics when we have been elected as independent members to represent our seats and represent our country through the Parliament.
ANDREW BOLT: That’s not quite true. This is not quite true. You’re not being asked to form, you’re not being asked to be part of a government and you’re not being asked to do anything in a sense that the Liberal and Labor parties don’t do when they both pass, join in passing legislation. They both do that. Most legislation is passed on agreement. But listen, I just want to go back to this…
ROB OAKESHOTT: Well, hang on, you are saying I am not being asked to form a government, that is incorrect. That’s exactly what I’m being asked to do.
ANDREW BOLT: No, you’re being asked, no I didn’t say you weren’t being asked to form a government, you weren’t being asked to be part of the government. Now, listen, I just want to go back to…
ROB OAKESHOTT: …part of a majority on the, Andrew, I am being asked to be part of a majority on the floor of the House to have confidence and supply approved.
ANDREW BOLT: That’s right.
ROB OAKESHOTT: That is being part of a majority government.
ANDREW BOLT: That’s right, but not…
ROB OAKESHOTT: That is an unnatural thing for a local member to have to do. I would’ve joined one of those two parties years ago, if that’s what I wanted to do. So…
ANDREW BOLT: You’re not being asked, you’re not being asked to approve of all their legislation.
ROB OAKESHOTT: No, I agree with that. But I’m being asked to have confidence in one of those political parties. That is a significant and unnatural move that is being asked of me and something that neither Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott…
ANDREW BOLT: Frankly, I don’t think you should agree. I don’t think you should agree to confidence, I think you should put them in, but I don’t think you should agree for three years if it all turns out to be cactus, to keep in power a government that isn’t performing.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Well, your words put them in is asking for me to put confidence in them.
ANDREW BOLT: No, initially yes. But what if a year from now, it turns out, no good. Are you really going to keep them in?
ROB OAKESHOTT: That is unstable. So I do think there is one of the questions we are putting to both sides this week is the question of longevity, if they are serious about governing in the national interest, I do think we need to lock them in for three years.
ANDREW BOLT: But Rob, how can that be, what if, look, both sides, it’s inherently unstable. They rely on a coalition of votes, neither are likely to get much stuff through, particularly with the Senate, how can you possibly think that three years of this, site unseen, no matter how it turns out, is going to be good?
ROB OAKESHOTT: Do you know how many hung parliaments we’ve got in Australia right now?
ANDREW BOLT: No, no, no. I’m, you’re talking about a three year guarantee, no matter how good, how bad they are, that they stick it out. How can you insist on that?
ROB OAKESHOTT: Do you know how many hung parliaments we’ve had in Australia since the mid-80’s?
ANDREW BOLT: That’s not my question. I’m just asking you…
ROB OAKESHOTT: Well, it is an important point. We’ve had 16. It is not unusual. It does work and government does continue, the sky does not fall in. It’s exciting…
ANDREW BOLT: I tell you what happened in Victoria…
ROB OAKESHOTT: This is an exciting moment, not a bad moment and I know you’re wanting to try and crank it up and get a result and we all move on, but here is an opportunity to get some much needed reform to parliamentary practice and to get some national outcome issues actually dealt with rather than just talked about. I think if we can work through this process sensibly this week, we will have one of the best parliaments Australia has ever had. It will work because people will have to talk to each other rather than just putting on the blue goggles or the red goggles. This is an exciting moment and should be embraced.
ANDREW BOLT: Rob, can I just go back, we played earlier, before you came on air, Julia Gillard, one of here many statements that the critical fact and they’re her words, the critical fact to weigh in the coming days was that Labor won the two part preferred vote. Now, it seems that the Coalition has won the two party preferred vote. Did she put this argument to you in negotiations, that you must consider the two party preferred vote that most Australians on preference wanted Labor?
ROB OAKESHOTT: Look, she, from memory hasn’t, but I’ve heard the public comments and in the end we’ll consider all things, I think this two party preferred and primary vote is of interest, I think the majority number of seats, whoever does actually get to 74 in any agreement with the likes of Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt is of interest. Because…
ANDREW BOLT: Well, clearly this hurts her, doesn’t it? Clearly this hurts her because if she raised this herself as her main claim to fame, her main claim to government and now it turns out that its actually the Coalition’s main claim to government, that’s got to hurt her, doesn’t it?
ROB OAKESHOTT: Yeah, but it’s not the only consideration.
ANDREW BOLT: No, no, no, but it’s got to hurt her, doesn’t it?
ROB OAKESHOTT: There are a range of considerations, so you know, everything is in play both for good and for bad. So the good are you know, what sort of agreements we can get out of these two machines to work better and to achieve, in my view, regional outcomes that are long overdue and also the negative, you know, statements are made by Julia Gillard last week about what to place factors on or if, I’ve got MP’s on the Liberal side who are ringing my wife and kids playing games.
ANDREW BOLT: Oh please, that was Bill Heffernan, everyone knows is got, is a bit loopy and has got a weird sense of humour, it’s not Liberals plural, it’s Liberal one.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Yep, that’s right, but that is a factor.
ANDREW BOLT: You just said Liberals, plural.
ROB OAKESHOTT: No, well, I said…
ANDREW BOLT: And everyone’s said, you know.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Hang on, everything is in play and I have a six year old and a four year old daughter who don’t even understand what the devil is, so…
ANDREW BOLT: Oh, Rob, please. Anyone who takes Bill Heffernan seriously, really needs to check in somewhere, I mean that’s…
ROB OAKESHOTT: Well, hang on, have you got a wife and kids?
ANDREW BOLT: I’ve met Bill Heffernan.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Have you got a wife and kids.
ANDREW BOLT: Yes, of course I do and if Bill…
ROB OAKESHOTT: Well, you answer this, if someone anonymously rang you and said it’s the devil or rang your wife and said it’s the devil on the phone, how would you react.
ANDREW BOLT: Yeah, I wouldn’t react well, and knowing later that it’s Bill Heffernan I’d think, well that figures.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Andrew, Andrew, that is my point.
STEVE PRICE: I don’t think I would worry about it at all, I mean, unless my six year old picked the phone up. Can I just ask you Rob, has this
ROB OAKESHOTT: Hang on, hang on, hang on! Guys! Now, well…
STEVE PRICE: Let me interrupt you for a change. This has become too much about you.
ROB OAKESHOTT: No! My point is…
STEVE PRICE: I mean, your ego is getting in the way here, isn’t it? Your ego is getting to the point where you think this is all about you. This should be about the Australian people.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Not at all. Here we go. My crime is to be elected…
STEVE PRICE: No, your crime is trying to talk yourself up.
ROB OAKESHOTT: Ok. Is this where we’re going to go?
STEVE PRICE: Well, we may as well go. Thanks for your time. What’s that all about?
ANDREW BOLT: I don’t understand. Now that he knows he’s exaggerating, Liberals plural, are ringing him up. No, it was one. He’s claiming that it might, you know, scaring his children. The man didn’t speak to his children. He’s claiming that it might be part of a Liberal conspiracy led by Tony Abbott. You think?! I mean, there wouldn’t be a single journalist in Canberra and I’ve heard a lot of them talk about this very claim that rates this seriously and he’s trying to make it a big issue and yet on the really big issue, does it make a difference that most Australians on preference vote want the Coalition not Labor, he doesn’t want to commit.
STEVE PRICE: Is this about, is he getting too much pressure? Is he under too much pressure?
ANDREW BOLT: No, the point is, his heart is with the Labor Party, his constituency is with the Coalition.
STEVE PRICE: I just think he’s loving the limelight.
ANDREW BOLT: He’s loving it.
STEVE PRICE: The reason I asked that question, it’s all now about him. He’s got the limelight and he loves it.
ANDREW BOLT: Look, I agree with you completely. Our future in his hands. Scary.
STEVE PRICE: God help us.
“I realise that Ray won’t read posts more than 2 lines when they make his heroes look like geese, but here’s a transcript of the conversation with the loopy Oakshott.”
I’ll ignore your backander, Wingman, and say thanks for putting up that very interesting transcript of the conversation between right-wingnuts Price & Bolt and the independent Rob Oakeshott.
I’m not sure what you mean by suggesting this makes my “heroes look like geese”. Oakeshott is a goose alright, but he is certainly not my hero. Did you mean Gillard? Well she’s not really my “hero” either but I don’t see how this exchange made her look like a goose.
The two-party preferred argument (which admittedly she first advanced) doesn’t mean a thing anyway – unless it’s very, very clear like, say, 55% to 45%. What we have here is a disputed figure that boils down to this: both parties got “about” 50% of the 2-party preferred. So it’s a moot point in my opinion.
The biggest things I got out of that transcript were this:
1. Price & Bolt were attempting to bully Oakeshott into supporting Abbott. And, as they are clear agents for the conservatives, I think Oakeshott would not take that kindly and would regard that as part of the Liberal Party strategy to bully the independents into a favourable decision.
2. Oakeshott is indeed loopy if he thinks that Labor & the Coalition will work together on this but I think he was getting at a bigger picture of having a more diverse government than say a coalition of Lib, Nats and 3 ex-Nats. I think he was talking about a coalition of Labor, a Green, an independent (Wilkie) & 3 ex-Nats turned independents. He said as much.
3. And he also said this: “I think the majority number of seats, whoever does actually get to 74 in any agreement with the likes of Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt is of interest.” He was then cut off, but I think that suggests he’s leaning towards going with Gillard.
Thanks again for the transcript.
Price+Bolt=Waste of Space
Ray.
Prime Minister Julia Gillard said last week that Labor’s lead in the two-party preferred was critical in being able to form a stable government.
Critical!
There’s only two options.
Either it in fact isn’t “critical” and she looks a goose, or, they have not got the ability to be able to form a stable government.
And a majority is a majority. I’m sure you’re not going to conceed that the Saints only premiership isn’t actually valid because they won by the smallest possible margain?
1)….agents for the conservatives???????? Oh goody a conspiracy theorist. Nasty Rupert is pulling their pubic hairs to make them do hiss dastardly bidding. OOOOga Boooooga. At worst they asked him to explain himself and he was not willing to.
2) After sentence one that par is blah blah blah, but sentence one – that’s on the hole.
3) Which is why you’ll die in a ditch to defend him. He’ll deliver your auburn haired angel the treasury benches. Even though SHE says that she’ll lack the “critical” factor in being able to form a stable government.
Wingman, you have me wrong on this. I reckon the 2-party preferred vote in this election is a meaningless stat and I believed that when Gillard claimed it too. According to Antony Green though, the figure only changed because of a decision by the AEC to leave out 8 seats until they’re finalised. As I said, it’s a moot point and I don’t support either party using it as a reason to claim a right to govern. But I don’t see how the 3AW transcript you quoted made Gillard look “a goose”. It wasn’t about her. But if she’s a goose for claiming it originally then so what? Politicians are like that and the Libs are no different. As for your response to my observations:
1. It’s not just my contention that Bolt is a blatant supporter of the coalition and a Labor hater. It’s pretty obvious that he is. The amount of disrespect they showed Oakeshott was astounding and really stupid – because he & Windsor have already mentioned they suspect journos like Bolt are conducting a campaign designed to thwart this process.
2. You missed the point here. I’m only commenting on what Oakeshott clearly indicated – that he wants a mix of parties & political views running the government. I’m not suggesting he’s right.
3. See above. I’m not defending Oakeshott. In fact I agree he’s away with the fairies and I’d suggest the only reason he’s not a member of the Greens is because he knows he wouldn’t get elected if he were.