Australia General Discussion

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If Abbott was smart he'd cut her loose, no?

Theoretically, yes.

However, this whole debate is bringing up the long and widely known hostilities within the NSW Liberal Party.

1. Bronwyn Bishop has been in the upper echelons of the NSW Right for decades now. She was very important in Abbott's rise and knows where the skeletons are. The is a considerable danger for Abbott in casting her adrift. As we saw with Peta Credlin, he's a very loyal person, even if to his own determent, and he'll also resent being told what to do by his party room/the media.

2. Bishop and Hockey have hated each other for years. They're roughly from the same part of Sydney (as is Abbott) but Hockey is from the moderate wing and Bishop from the right.

3. It's really too late now. At the very beginning, Abbott should have showed some leadership and said "I have discussed this matter with the Speaker, and I believe that it is right and proper that she agree not to preside over the House until such time as this matter has been resolved". But by backing her, he cannot back down. a) it's not in his nature b) it'll make him look INCREDIBLY weak. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah she's one of the most blatantly biased Speakers I've ever seen.

But that aside, I do wonder why this is getting more attention than most instances of politicians inappropriately claiming taxpayer funded travel.

Frankly, because of the idea of chartering a chopper to Geelong.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I've met Randall a few times, apart from teasing me for drinking white over red, he was a thoroughly nice guy and way too young.

I don't expect we can win the seat, but I imagine the swing would be significant

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So, all in all a successful conference.  The asylum debate was never going to be easy, but it was done in a dignified manner by both sides and the result seems to be accepted by most.  Shorten, I believe, handled himself very well throughout all of this and though I doubt his polling will take much relief, he's certainly in a stronger position than at the end of the last parliamentary sitting week.

I think Shorten handled himself quite well. I think ALP leaders*** will dissipate. They knew Abbott wanted desperately to run an anti-immigration/national security early election... with Shorten given the right to neutralise one the biggest contrasts on a very potent issue in the election-deciding demographics, it certainly undermines Abbott's strategy.

The Libs wanted and needed a bloody National Conference. They didn't get it.

The contrasts with the Government on renewables, real tax reform and marriage equality are not something, I'd think Abbott would want to run an election on.

The other thing is, I still think the Libs want an election earlier, rather than later.

a) the Royal Commission report is due before Christmas, but no one knows what's going to be in it. It cost $80m... they'd want to be damn sure they've got enough to hurt Shorten with, otherwise it risks being attacked by Labor as a politically-driven waste of taxpayer's money. They'd rather run with the threat of the report, than run on it.

b) Mid-Year economic outlook (MYEFO) will also be in December and will raise some nasty financial outcomes, namely, while the value of the dollar has dropped, the value of iron-ore has also dropped. So likely greater deterioration in the Budget since May. I doubt they'd want that.

Fundamentally, I don't think they want to go to another Budget only a few months out from an election.   

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bronnie, seemingly, is going the full Hitler in the bunker. She's refuting the public statements of Julie Bishop and claiming Abbott has backed her. I didn't think this could get better, but it might be.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Bronnie has resigned.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

And she's resigned.

I wonder who her successor will be.

I expect Bruce Scott (currently Dep speaker) will be speaker until the election (he's not seeking re-election).

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

damn, I wanted her to stay.

It was never going to be allowed to happen.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

damn, I wanted her to stay.

It was never going to be allowed to happen.

I know but like everyone hates her, she was such a great talking point for swing voters.

I'm interested David Speers was so confident that this has removed the threat from the Government. I certainly wouldn't be so comfortable.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

And she's resigned.

I wonder who her successor will be.

I expect Bruce Scott (currently Dep speaker) will be speaker until the election (he's not seeking re-election).

The Deputy Speaker will I suppose be able to temporarily administer her role in the operations of the House, but the election of a new Speaker will have to be the first order of business next week with the Clerk presiding over the election.

No, as in he's one I could see serving officially in the role. Other names being mentioned are Phillip Rudock (considering Abbott sacked him as Chief Whip in March, it might be an odd choice) and Kevin Andrews

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

^Ah, yes, yes.  The practices of the House always interest me so I thought I'd focus on that for that post.

Do you think Kevin Andrews would run into the problem of being someone in a highly political position being asked to serve as the independent arbiter of the House? Not that any Speaker has been extremely independent, but still as the recent example shows...

Well yes, the Speaker isn't that independent, but Bronny set an all-time low standard. The difference is its expected widely, that Andrews will retire at the next election, Speaker and Defence are seen as retirement pre-cursor jobs. You could maybe throw a Jane Prentice type up, despite her being critical of Abbott earlier in the year.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Ruddock has stated he's interested in serving as speaker.

Additionally, it's possible that the Monday sitting might be used only to move a condolence motion for the late Don Randall.

That would be expected.

Um, yes, Ruddock has expressed that interest, but apparently there are some strong feelings that he shouldn't. The name emerging recently is Tony Smith, Member for Casey.

You can't help think that Abbott really is starting to lose control...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Did Abbott ever really gain back control of his backbench after the February crisis- probably not. No wonder he can't control the narrative if he can't control the party room.

Not really, but superficially he appears to have the chickens in line again. He looks much much weaker since all of this blew up.

Let's see what Newspoll has to say this evening.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I still think they want to go before Christmas. But I think it will be late November or they'll wait until the last possible moment to give themselves some distance from the 2016 Budget so they can release a politically influenced pre-election outlook.

So, to put it in English. I think they want an early election, but if it happens it will be closer to Christmas or it will be Aug/Sept next year.

But if Abbott somehow falls before then, I'd expect an almost instant election.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Ugh - there's some kind of Twitter-based rumour that Newspoll was actually done over the weekend, but News Ltd is hiding it. Such bloody idiocy.

Newspoll has clearly been delayed to coincide with Parliament resuming and when the Ipsos in Fairfax papers is due out.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

In the last two days ... two polls out with three expected today and tomorrow.

Galaxy: ALP - 53-47
Newspoll: ALP - 54-46

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The full Coalition party room will meet at 3:15 to discuss Same-sex Marriage.

Pyne has apparently accused the PM of stacking the meeting to ensure the free-vote numbers are more tenuous, by having it as a Coalition Party room meeting, instead of just the Liberals.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The full Coalition party room will meet at 3:15 to discuss Same-sex Marriage.

Pyne has apparently accused the PM of stacking the meeting to ensure the free-vote numbers are more tenuous, by having it as a Coalition Party room meeting, instead of just the Liberals.

Yeah, reports of "gasps" in the meeting this morning from Libs supporting SSM when the joint meeting was announced.  Moderate Liberals accusing Abbott of blindsiding them.

Now - we can see if any of the moderate Libs have any balls.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Reports going around that about half a dozen Liberal MPs would cross the floor if a conscience vote is denied.

That's only because the Ministry cannot cross the floor without losing their positions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The meeting's been going nearly 4.5 hours in total...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The joint party room has decided against a free-vote.

The mind boggles at the stupidity.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It should also be noted that a free vote would very likely still have failed in a Liberal only vote. The fact that Abbott brought in the Nationals to ensure this shows just how insecure about his own position in the party is.

Also noting that there were a number of MPs/Senators who were not there, so the numbers would have been a LOT tighter in a Liberal-only meeting and a small margin on this kind of issue?

To me this is a bizarre moment - Abbott has deliberately kicked at least half of his front-bench in the stomach to get this short-term win with his own conservative faction, essentially to give those who might be questioning his judgement to say "yeah, we're not that keen on him buuuuut same-sex marriage will probably come if he doesn't stay".

Let's NOT forget that only a few months ago, Abbott said (correctly) that the only way to change the law, was to change the law in the Parliament. So, he doesn't have the guts to risk his own colleagues thinking for themselves AND, also remember that he promised his colleagues who most strongly oppose marriage equality that he'd use "tricky" tactics to make sure it never got to a vote.

So, let's timeline what he's said...
1. Says the SSM is an issue for the party room
2. Under pressure, suggests that people work toward a national cross-party response that the Parliament should own.
3. At the same time, telling conservative colleagues that he would never allow the Bill he encouraged to get to a vote.
4. Stacks the votes to ensure an emphatic party-room result and a) not consulting Cabinet b) not consulting senior colleagues c) picks a time when there are a number of Liberal colleagues not available.
5. Offers a Referendum (which is pointless since marriage is not a Constitutional issue) or a plebiscite, which is a multi-million dollar funded opinion poll that has no binding power on anybody.

Leadership, thy name is Tony. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Ouch.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It's arse coverage. He's becoming more strident in his opposition to try to sure up his up own position. Hence why the most conservative are saying voting shouldn't be compulsory which they think will crash turnout and skew the result their way. Even a 55/45 yes result could give enough room for a "well, this wasn't really emphatic enough" etc.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Plebiscites are also non-binding so even if one was held and the vote was overwhelmingly in favour Abbott could still decline to legislate on it for whatever reason. It's all a deceptive ploy.

In most developed democracies plebiscites are considered morally binding and it is "political suicide" to ignore their result. Is that really different in Australia? If so, why?

Plebiscites are very rare in Australia, the last was nearly a century ago, over conscription in WWI . Referenda are also, frankly, rare and also very difficult to pass. There have been 44 questions asked since Federation in 1901 and only 8 have passed. As it requires not only an electoral majority nation-wide, but in 4 out of 6 states as well.