Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » The ALP makes a Faustian bargain with the Loopy Greens, and we will all pay for it through our power bills

The ALP makes a Faustian bargain with the Loopy Greens, and we will all pay for it through our power bills

Julia likes walkies and hanging out with her new friend Bobby the poodle

There is one thing that you can be sure of and that is the way that a dog loves to wag her tail when she is happy, I know mine certainly does. In fact Bonnie (our dog) is a very happy canine who wags almost constantly .This is the correct order of nature a dog wagging her tail . But what we now have in Canberra is another type of canine where the tail grabs hold the dogs hips and gives it a a very firm shake whenever it pleases.

Did anyone else spot the almost maniacal grin on the face of Christine Milne during the photo opportunity when this deal was signed?

Julia Gillard has done a deal with the Greens and what a Faustian bargain it is, under this deal we will see a carbon tax and we will see a great deal of the Loopy Green agenda foisted upon the Australian public. The fact that that the majority of Australian voters did not vote for the Greens will not matter, they have a vote that counts to the Labor party so they will wag that dog for all its worth and Julia Gillard has been giving us her very best red setter grin while she tells us that we are moving forward into a bright new future…

I am not a man who as a rule prays, but I may have to take up the sport if this pack gets in to the lodge because if you think that Labor did a woeful job of governing on their own then a government in cahoots with the Greens is going to be worse by many orders of magnitude.

Cheers Comrades


33 Comments

  1. Ray Dixon says:

    Actually Iain, I think Gillard negotiated a very good deal with the Greens who (to their credit) showed a great willingness to compromise on their ‘conditions’ of forming an alliance. Contrary to what you and Tony Abbott are saying, the ETS is not part of that deal and there is no certainty of a carbon tax as a result of it. Gay marriage wasn’t included either. I reckon even Abbott would have accepted the same terms to get Greens support in the Lower House (of 1 member) and in the Senate (9). I don’t think this is a case of the tail wagging the dog at all.

  2. Indi Warrior says:

    meanwhile the Liberal costings just don’t add up.
    now that’s a surprise!
    not long to go now.

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes Iain, why no post on the costings fiasco?

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Quite simply I have not looked into the matter yet Ray , But I did notice that Andrew Bolt makes a good point about the issues.

  5. Indi Warrior says:

    Andrew Bolt makes a good point? Really?
    That’s okay then we can all relax, it’s just a misunderstanding. How silly of us.

    Whichever way you spin this one, turn it inside out upside down do whatever you like it’s still dishonest. Its dishonest because these are the same numbers that Abbott et al went into the election with. The same numbers he would not reveal. The same numbers he asked people to trust him with.
    Its dishonest, its deceitful and Abbott, if he has any shred of decency, should resign.

    But he won’t because Andrew Bolt implied that its just a misunderstanding.
    I’m waiting for the howls of bias from the right. The Treasury is not playing fair etc.

    Like I said not long to go now.

    Where is Malcolm by the way?

  6. Iain Hall says:

    IW

    I just say Tony Abbott , Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb vehemently defending their costings on the ABC and the bone of contention seems to me to be the assumptions used to calculate the final numbers. But as Andrew Bolt points out that even in the worst case scenario that the treasury has come up with the coalition is still well a head of Labor’s outcomes. and when it comes down to it isn’t that what is important?

  7. Craigy says:

    Iain, sorry mate but your appeal to authority is just showing you are not across the issue.

    The funny bit is that your appeal to authority is Andrew (i’m a climate scientist/economist) Bolt.

    I am trying really hard not to wet myself…….

    Ray, spot on, I am very happy with the way Bob and the Greens are handling this situation. The smearers and doomsayers on the conservative side, are continuing their slide into irrelevance.

  8. Craigy says:

    “the coalition is still well a head of Labor’s outcomes. and when it comes down to it isn’t that what is important?

    Iain, you have just been arguing (elsewhere) that the end can’t justify the means. Then you tell us that it’s okay that Tony is telling lies as his figures save more money than the ALP……..

    What is going on with your arguments at the moment? Has the fact that Tony couldn’t win the election, as I pointed out before hand, got you rattled…..go have a Bex and a good lay down, it won’t be all that bad. The Greens will look after you as well and you can still drive your car.

  9. Iain Hall says:

    Your argument is totally confused Craigy and I will address the detail of your comments later because I have to go out right now…
    I’ll just suggest that you should be careful what you wish for…

  10. Craigy says:

    Nah, it’s very clear Iain, this kind of stuff only confuses conservative wingnuts….

    You can’t get away from the fact that Tony is telling lies and yet you still support him…..

    BTW I still think Tony will end up trying to form a Government, I just can’t see the independents supporting the ALP/Greens. But I might be wrong. Still, I was right that Tony couldn’t win.

  11. Ray Dixon says:

    “I still think Tony will end up trying to form a Government, I just can’t see the independents supporting the ALP/Greens”

    Yep, Craigy I agree – once a conservative, always a conservative. I think the only chance Gillard has got is if Wilkie commits to her like Bandt has. That would give her 74 seats to Abbott’s 73 meaning that if the 3 amigos go with Abbott he’d only have a one-seat majority, the stability of which would rest solely on (wait for it) …. Bob Katter!

    Whereas if Wilkie commits to the ALP and so do the 3 amigos, Gillard would have 77 seats and then Krazy ‘unstable’ Katter would not be able to hold the Govt to ransom.

    Think about it – if the independents are honest about ‘stability’ being the no.1 priority (i.e. stability of a govt staying in power for 3 years), a 77-seat one offers a much better option for them.

    It would also be a more interesting & diverse government incorporating ALP, Greens, independent & independent/conservative views. It’s a winning combination.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    I must be clairvoyant. This article was published @ 4.38pm, half an hour after my above re the prospect of Wilkie backing Labor:

    http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/andrew-wilkie-supports-labor-20100902-14qyq.html

    ALP 74 seats, Coalition 73. Pressure’s right on the 3 amigos now.

  13. Indi Warrior says:

    has anyone seen Iain?

  14. Lin says:

    Geez Iain, you said that the majority didn’t support the Greens.

    I hate to kick you while you’re down mate, but the majority didn’t support Labor or the Coalition either. Certainly not the way that people’s votes are recorded in this country.

    And, don’t you think that it is likely that this sort of cobbled-together government is the future for Australia?

    What people are going to discover about a mixed-member parliament is that they function and that they consult with people more than has been the rule since the 1950s. Consequently more people will tend to move away from voting for the two big parties.

    Why would voters want to go back to the simple-majority voting of old?

    Then there is the vexed question of the future for the Nationals with the ex-National Independents getting more kudos than the old-style cobbled-to-the-Liberals Nats. Will the Nationals be able to survive for another three years, or will they go the way of the Democrats? Why would country people support the old-style Nationals in three year’s time?

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    Good point about the Nats, Lin.

  16. gigdiary says:

    And, don’t you think that it is likely that this sort of cobbled-together government is the future for Australia?

    I agree, Lin. Bantering and bartering between the red party and the blue party every three years achieves very little. A cobbled-together government will mean more debate, more give and take, and therefore a clearer representation of the electorate’s needs rather than the wants and desires of the incumbents.

  17. Iain Hall says:

    Oh I have no problem admitting that the game has changed but at least the Liberals understand what is necessary to balance the competing imperatives of a coalition I suspect that the ALP are going to have a great deal more trouble with the new paradigm, especially if they manage to form government.

  18. Craigy says:

    Tim Dunlop @ http://twitter.com/lesliecannold

    Turns out Tony and the Liberals are “budget smugglers”….. 😆

  19. Iain Hall says:

    Interestingly it seems that Labor has faulty costings that contrary to Julia’s “it won’t cost a cent more” campaign mantra will cost way more than a few cents : Here

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    Today might be the day the 3 amigos decide.

    My tip is that Windsor & Oakeshott will go with Gillard because the alternative is that Abbott would be reliant on Katter (who is not exactly reliable or stable in my opinion).

    Imagine a government where Bob Katter effectively held the balance of power, which is what the case would be if all 3 side with Abbott. He’d play havoc.

  21. Iain Hall says:

    You might be right there Ray but I still hope that they all decide to back Abbott I think that the gang of three have over played their hand a bit here because I think everyone is sick of the procrastination that is disguised as careful consideration.

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    Well actually, I’ve changed my opinion on which way I think they’ll go.

    Windsor is suggesting they may decide to vote in a bloc to avoid a 75-75 deadlock and that someone might have to change his mind.

    Now, if you think about it, they only need to vote in a bloc if it’s to give Abbott the job, as he needs all three. Whereas Gillard only needs to two of them. The only way there can be a 75-75 deadlock is if just one independent goes with Gillard – and that’s most likely Oakeshott.

    So I’d suggest the ‘someone’ he’s referring to is Oakeshott and, from what he has said also, he’s considering changing his decision to join the other 2 and go with Abbott.

    I realise this would make you very happy, Iain, but do you really want a government in which Bob Katter effectively holds the whip hand? He’s a nutjob.

  23. Iain Hall says:

    Gillard/Rudd Labor government has been a truly terrible government that does not deserve to retain power. Add to that the “Loopy Green” factor and we face a disaster if the amigos go that way.

    Katter May be a Nut job Ray but he is a Queensland conservative nut job !!! But I also think that once he has squeezed as much as he can out of the coalition he will settle down because he has to realise that if the country goes back to the polls he and his pals are not likely to be in the same strong position again, For a start I don’t think that the Libs will ever preference the Greens in any seat again, this will mean that Brant and Wilkie won’t stay in the house for another term.
    One thing that I do agree with commentators on is that if Abbot gets in their will be amazing blood letting in Labor Ranks but there If Labor hold on Abbot will still lead and there still will be blood letting in Labor.

  24. Ray Dixon says:

    “Gillard/Rudd Labor government has been a truly terrible government that does not deserve to retain power. Add to that the “Loopy Green” factor and we face a disaster if the amigos go that way.”

    That is just your (somewhat biased) opinion, Iain, and the standard line being pumped out by Abbott and other Liberals. But I don’t think the 3 amigos are looking at that sort of rhetoric in deciding whether a 76-74 Abbott government (reliant on Bob Katter) would be more stable than a 77-73 Gillard one that is not reliant on his support. Katter’s not worth the risk in my opinion – he would hold the Libs & Nats to ransom.

  25. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    I am Biased but then so are you we are each backing our preferred team in this penalty shoot out.

    For all his faults I don’t think that Katter any more flaky than either of the other two but also as long as the numbers are so close we are always only a heart attack or a road accident away from a change of government so Katter being a bit flaky is not such a big deal

  26. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m not “backing” Gillard out of any bias here, Iain. I’m saying a Gillard govt would be more stable because it wouldn’t need to rely on the unreliable, loose cannon that is Bob Katter. He certainly is a bigger risk than the other two, who I reckon would stick by their word. Whereas Katter is likely to go off half-cocked and that is why I think an alliance with the coaltion would be very shaky indeed.

  27. Iain Hall says:

    I’m not “backing” Gillard out of any bias here, Iain
    really???
    😆

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, you don’t seem to understand what this post election stuff is all about (neither does Abbott). It’s not about who would make the better government – the voters have had their say on that and the decision is “dunno”. This is only about achieving a stable outcome and to that end, I repeat, a Gillard govt that does not rely on Katter’s support would be far more stable than an Abbott one that does (and must) rely on the loose cannon from Northern Queensland.

  29. Iain Hall says:

    Ray
    if you want to talk about threats to stability then look no further than the Greens who have zero experience in having to compromise, zero experience in how government actually works, at the very least Katter has experience as a minister (at state level) and working within a coalition. I think that you are just looking for an excuse to back a Labor government even when you know that they were not that flash last time.

  30. Ray Dixon says:

    No, no, no, Iain. You don’t get it. It’s not about experience either – it’s about ensuring a government retains the confidence & support of the parliament. You can’t rely on Katter to deliver that – he’s a wild colonial boy and would love nothing better than being in the situation of effectively holding the balance of power. And he can only be in that situation under Abbott.

  31. Iain Hall says:

    I get your argument Ray I just think that It is wrong and that you under estimate the character of Bob Katter I don’t think that he would be any more likely than the other two to go back on his word, I also think that you are mistaken if you really think that this parliament will go to term, As I said its only a heart attack away from an entirely different paradigm…
    What if Kevin were to decide to run a counter coup? or what if Shorten decides to have a go?
    there is lots of angst in the ALP so you just can’t pretend that it will be sweetness and light under a Gillard minority government.

  32. Ray Dixon says:

    Okay, we disagree on the ‘stability’ and ‘realiability’ of one cowboy hat-wearing & gun-toting Bob Katter. I know who I’d rather rely on for support.

    But yeah, I can’t see it going 3 years either and, of course, there will be internal instability on both sides for sure. But don’t forget that Gillard has agreed to legislate a 3-year fixed term or something like that. I’m not sure that Abbott has.

    Anyway, I suggest you ‘be a devil’ and stay up to watch Q & A tonight, Iain. Katter is on and he’s just as likely to shoot his mouth off.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: