[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Mrs. Gillard's class (click to view)
Date: September 9, 2010
Julia Gillard, former schoolmarm and leader of the left-wing Labour Party, managed to narrowly cling to her position as Prime Minister of Australia this week, thereby ending weeks of political turmoil resulting from last month's indecisive parliamentary election.

In an amazingly close outcome, the August election had resulted in a near-perfect tie between Ms. Gillard's party (who won 72 seats) and the conservative opposition (who won 73). Having won more seats and greater share of the popular vote, there was initially a lot of momentum for conservative leader Tony Abbott to become prime minister and Gillard to step down and concede defeat. But she did no such thing, and instead began working furiously to court the support of the parliament's five independent members.

And this week the independents finally declared their loyalties, with one backing the conservatives and four for Labour. This gave Labour a 76 to 74, two-seat plurality in the House, forming what is now perhaps the narrowest coalition government in parliamentary history. Not exactly a recipe for long-term political stability, but it's what needed to be done.

I will readily concede that, as a Canadian, I don't know a lot about Julia Gillard, but from what little I do know, she comes off as a woman of incredibly ruthless personal ambition. This is the same lady, after all, who deposed a sitting prime minister, Kevin Rudd, mid-term, so she could take over the leadership of his party, and thus the country. There can be no doubt that she'll do everything it takes to stay in charge — and will of the public be damned.

[Greyskull]

Thanks JJ for the Australian-centred cartoon and blog post. Unfortunately your concession that you don't know a lot about Julia Gillard (and it would appear how the election unfolded) is true:

1. The final result was actually 73 Liberal/Nationals (Coalition) vs. 72 Labor; with the final 5 seats being 1 Greens and 4 independents.
2. The Coalition got one of the independents to side with them, bringing their total to 74.
3. Labor got the Greens member plus the remaining 3 independents to side with them, bringing them to a total of 76.

Our House of Reps has 150 seats, with a government needing a guaranteed 76 votes to pass supply and avoid a no-confidence motion. Labor got this so were able to form government and Gillard was able to retain the prime ministership.

Some members of the Coalition aren't happy (since they technically won an extra seat over Labor) but in the end that's how Australia's parliamentary system works - they failed to get enough of the indies/Greens member on their side to make up the seats, and therefore were unable to form government.

Not really sure we're you're getting the "will of the people" idea from either. We do not have a proportional voting system in place for the lower house (though we do have it for the upper house - the Senate) so whilst the Liberals had a higher percentage of the primary vote it's pretty meaningless on it's own - back in the late 90s/early 00s it was often the other way around but no one seriously suggested the Coalition shouldn't have been in government (since they still ultimately won the most seats). When it came to 2-party-preferred it was extremely tight between the 2 major parties, with the actual winner still changing day by day as the electoral commission finalises the votes and preferences. I think Labor is actually coming out in front, but only just (we're talking like 50.1% vs. 49.9% or something here - extremely narrow margin).

I think the overall conclusion that can be drawn from this election is that Australians in general were not impressed with either side. We had a record number of informal (ie. invalid) votes recorded, plus a lot of swing to the Greens and independents this time around.

As for Gillard herself, she is without a doubt an ambitious politician, although I think the removal of Rudd as PM was more due to factional bosses seeking to get rid of him which meant that Gillard (being the deputy) was in prime position to take over. IMHO the prime ministership was more thrust on her than anything.

[JJ]

Thanks for clarifying some of the details, Greyskull. I have had a hard time following some of these numbers. I do stand by my conclusions, though.

Greyskull wrote:

1. The final result was actually 73 Liberal/Nationals (Coalition) vs. 72 Labor; with the final 5 seats being 1 Greens and 4 independents.
2. The Coalition got one of the independents to side with them, bringing their total to 74.
3. Labor got the Greens member plus the remaining 3 independents to side with them, bringing them to a total of 76.

So the day after the election, the Coalition won the most seats and the most votes. In our system, in Canada, that would automatically place Abbott in the position of prime minister-elect, which I think is a more democratic response to the expressed will of the majority. Obviously it would be a challenge to pass legislation, but I think the best thing a minority-status PM can do is to just pledge to work with all parties on a vote-by-vote basis, rather than try to wedge them into a permanent coalition government (which obviously won't survive for very long anyway, and will just trigger a needless election when it breaks down).

Quote:

As for Gillard herself, she is without a doubt an ambitious politician, although I think the removal of Rudd as PM was more due to factional bosses seeking to get rid of him which meant that Gillard (being the deputy) was in prime position to take over. IMHO the prime ministership was more thrust on her than anything.

Maybe it's unfair to blame her directly, but she definitely benefitted from a decision that a) overrode the wishes of the Labour party membership, and b) overrode the wishes of the Australian voting public, who had clearly chosen Kevin Rudd to lead them in the previous election. If I was an Australian, I would object to being led by someone whose power has been derived from such unusual, unprecedented, shifty tactics, rather than the generally understood conventions that have generated previous governments. It just seems like the entire Australian system is so much more unpredictable and wild now, and I don't think any country is better off under regimes of that sort.

[Greyskull]

Quote:

So the day after the election, the Coalition won the most seats and the most votes. In our system, in Canada, that would automatically place Abbott in the position of prime minister-elect, which I think is a more democratic response to the expressed will of the majority.

Clearly, although both Australia and Canada operate by the Westminster system gifted to us from Britain, we each have our own quirks on doing things. It doesn't help matters that the Westminster system is built a large part upon basic traditions and formalities which aren't written down or designed to handle party-type systems.

Abbott would only have become prime minister-elect if he actually got 76+ seats (ie. enough to form government outright with no question) - he didn't, so Gillard automatically retained the title (pending the ultimate decisions by the non-aligned on who they would support). Kind of the same way that Gordon Brown was still prime minister-elect following the British election until it became clear he would not get the numbers (afterwhich he went to the Queen and resigned his commission).

Again, at present counting on a 2-party-preferred basis Labor has actually come out ahead (just) over the Coalition. But if you're going by primary vote - that's happened a number of times in Australian political history, and it's never been used a basis on who should rightfully form government. It comes down to seats in the end, and Labor eventually got the 76 it needed. If the Coalition has managed to get them over to their side, they would have formed government - but they didn't.

There have been some calls to change our parliamentary system (federally at least) to a proportional system, but of course that would almost certainly result in more minority governments which I think is too big a step to take at present - this is the first federal minority government we've had in 70 years.

Quote:

Maybe it's unfair to blame her directly, but she definitely benefitted from a decision that a) overrode the wishes of the Labour party membership, and b) overrode the wishes of the Australian voting public, who had clearly chosen Kevin Rudd to lead them in the previous election.

I do agree with point b). Even the Coalition used it to an extent during the campaign.

As for point a), the leadership of the Labor Party comes down to a caucus vote which is of all members within parliament (who in turn tend to follow the direction of their respective state factions). I should point out that Rudd in the end actually fell on his own sword - he declared the leadership position vacant and then decided not to contest when he realised he didn't have the numbers. This isn't the first time we've seen this happen with a prime minister, it happened in 1991 when Labor - funny it's always them - replaced Bob Hawke with Paul Keating when Hawke lost the numbers then.

Of course the Labor caucus isn't a full representative of the ALP membership as a whole, but frankly the whole organisation is a big Byzantine-like construction that I wouldn't even want to try and figure out how that would all work. It pretty much operates the way it does because that's the way it operates. The Liberals are no different (although their factions are not as strong and there is more independence within the rank-and-file parliamentary membership) - which is why Abbott is the 3rd Opposition Leader in 3 years.

Quote:

I do stand by my conclusions, though.

Following your explanations here I can see why you've drawn them. I just think though that any Aussies (except for die-hard Coalition supporters) who see your cartoon and read your blog would probably be scratching their heads and wonder how you got such an idea out of the result. I've actually seen a cartoon in an Australian newspaper not too dissimilar to yours, but it featured Abbott - not Gillard - in the title role.

[JJ]

This is one of the great challenges about drawing cartoons about domestic issues in countries you don't have much of a direct connection with: you can only ever really analyze their politics as a metaphor, or case study for your own nation's. Since I'm a big believer in direct democracy, especially as a way of selecting leaders, I'm troubled whenever a leader is chosen without a clear, direct mandate from the populace he or she aims to rule. I think unaccountable leadership is a big problem in Canada, though maybe less so in Australia, which could easily make me draw weird conclusions from matters I only sort of half-understand.

[Dryhad]

It's a popular misconception that the Coalition won 73 seats. In fact they won 72, the remaining seat being O'Connor in Western Australia, held by Nationals member Tony Crook. The reason people get this wrong is because the Coalition is called that due to being a (very long standing) coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party... except that the Western Australian Nationals have decided they want none of this and Crook has made it very clear he intends to sit as a cross-bencher. It's things like this, and the fact that the "conservatives" are represented under no fewer than 4 different banners nation wide (5 if you count the Western Australian Nationals as separate to the other Nationals, which you probably should but then again probably shouldn't count as part of the coalition) that somewhat undercut Abbott's various claims to legitmacy (not least of which his early, though now somewhat redunant, claim of the primary vote, which is completely meaningless in a system with preferential voting). And then there's the Green issue, where it can pretty much be taken as given that at least a significant percentage of the Green vote came from people who would favour Labor over the Liberal/Nationals, in which case why shouldn't Adam Bandt (Green member for Melbourne) be counted amongst Labor's seats, especially if Tony Crook is counted amongst the Coalition?

Anyway, yeah, just wanted to clear that point up.

[Greyskull]

JJ wrote:

This is one of the great challenges about drawing cartoons about domestic issues in countries you don't have much of a direct connection with: you can only ever really analyze their politics as a metaphor, or case study for your own nation's.

That's understandable. Again thank you for taking the time to do one on our messy little election down under, even if your perception of it might be a tad different compared to an Aussie's understanding of it.

I might also add you also picked up quickly on Gillard's defining feature as noted by other cartoonists - that bloody nose.

Dryhad wrote:

It's a popular misconception that the Coalition won 73 seats. In fact they won 72, the remaining seat being O'Connor in Western Australia, held by Nationals member Tony Crook.

You're quite correct. I didn't bother going into that level of detail because I was concerned I was already getting overly and unnecessarily deep into it all - ultimately Crook agreed to guarantee supply to the Coalition so I just counted him as part of their 73 seats (since he is a National) for simplicity's sake.

[Quantum_Wizard]

JJ wrote:

So the day after the election, the Coalition won the most seats and the most votes. In our system, in Canada, that would automatically place Abbott in the position of prime minister-elect, which I think is a more democratic response to the expressed will of the majority.

I disagree, because that would sidestep entirely the will of those who voted for the independents. Don't they have a right to influence the choice of prime minister also?

[Dryhad]

Greyskull wrote:

You're quite correct. I didn't bother going into that level of detail because I was concerned I was already getting overly and unnecessarily deep into it all - ultimately Crook agreed to guarantee supply to the Coalition so I just counted him as part of their 73 seats (since he is a National) for simplicity's sake.

Understandable, but I think by the same token you could count Adam Bandt as part of Labor's 73, especially since he declared his intention to support them (on supply and confidence) before Crook declared his intention to support the Coalition. And if you're going to count them, then perhaps you should count Wilke as well. And then why not Katter and Oakeshott and Windsor? The point is, tallying up members to see which "party" is ahead is of dubious merit at the best of times and of even less merit when you're tallying members who are in no way beholden by their party to vote the way you tally them. Such a metric might have value in a case such as the United Kingdom, where the Liberal Democrats formed an actual cohesive bloc, but in this case it's really more a matter of 6 effective Independents, each of whom must be separately brought on side.

Although I should say I didn't mean my post as a specific response to yours, it was more aimed at JJ's initial comments. I think you're ultimately making the same point as I am.

[Greyskull]

Dryhad wrote:

I think you're ultimately making the same point as I am.

I think we are. I'll just end off by saying that the fact that it took you a paragraph to explain the whole situation is the reason I simply avoided it and counted Crook with all the other Nationals.