Australian Politics part 2
During the week, Julia Gillard became the elected Prime Minister after two of the remaining independent MPs supported her. The third of the remaining MPs supported Tony Abbott, but implied that he may not have done so if Kevin Rudd were still Prime Minister.
A lot of people have been arguing that a Hung Parliament (such as we have) is a bad thing and it means that the government won't last long. The latter claim may well prove true, since the PM is supported by her own party, one Green (who is presumably more ecologically-interested than the Labor Party is), one independent MP from Hobart who appears to be very keen to promote Tasmanian interests and two independents from regional NSW. A funny collection in anyone's book, and there's certainly no guarantee that the Labor Party's agenda would be approved by all of those extra people. Still, we won't be sure on that until they start voting on legislation.
What's quite interesting, though, is the number of people saying that having the two independents backing Gillard is somehow "unfair". I'd argue that it's a legitimate result, just not one that people are used to. Technically, the Prime Minister is the leader of the group with the majority on the floor of Parliament. Traditionally, this group has been either the Labor Party or the Coalition, and it's been made up of a bunch of people who ran for election as "Members of Party X". You vote for them, knowing that they'll support this or that person as leader and thus elect them as PM. Catch is, though, that you don't necessarily have to have things this way.
In essence, when you vote in a seat, you vote for a person who represents the interests of the seat. If they're an ALP member or a Liberal member or a whatever else, that's up to them. What matters really is that they're the MP for your local area.
If you elect an independent MP, who has no party affiliation, what you're saying is that neither of the major parties (and none of the smaller ones) appeal to you, and that you trust this individual bloke (or lady, but the ones we're talking about are blokes) to represent your area better. If it comes down to a situation where the independent needs to choose sides, that's their prerogative whether they should or not. Because they represent your area, they're entitled to look at their options through that prism and then make a decision. That is, after all, what they were elected to do.
Obviously you're allowed to disagree with that decision - it wouldn't be politics if everyone agreed - and then hold the relevant MP to account later on at the next election. What you can't do, though, is to claim that the system working is unfair.
A lot of people have been arguing that a Hung Parliament (such as we have) is a bad thing and it means that the government won't last long. The latter claim may well prove true, since the PM is supported by her own party, one Green (who is presumably more ecologically-interested than the Labor Party is), one independent MP from Hobart who appears to be very keen to promote Tasmanian interests and two independents from regional NSW. A funny collection in anyone's book, and there's certainly no guarantee that the Labor Party's agenda would be approved by all of those extra people. Still, we won't be sure on that until they start voting on legislation.
What's quite interesting, though, is the number of people saying that having the two independents backing Gillard is somehow "unfair". I'd argue that it's a legitimate result, just not one that people are used to. Technically, the Prime Minister is the leader of the group with the majority on the floor of Parliament. Traditionally, this group has been either the Labor Party or the Coalition, and it's been made up of a bunch of people who ran for election as "Members of Party X". You vote for them, knowing that they'll support this or that person as leader and thus elect them as PM. Catch is, though, that you don't necessarily have to have things this way.
In essence, when you vote in a seat, you vote for a person who represents the interests of the seat. If they're an ALP member or a Liberal member or a whatever else, that's up to them. What matters really is that they're the MP for your local area.
If you elect an independent MP, who has no party affiliation, what you're saying is that neither of the major parties (and none of the smaller ones) appeal to you, and that you trust this individual bloke (or lady, but the ones we're talking about are blokes) to represent your area better. If it comes down to a situation where the independent needs to choose sides, that's their prerogative whether they should or not. Because they represent your area, they're entitled to look at their options through that prism and then make a decision. That is, after all, what they were elected to do.
Obviously you're allowed to disagree with that decision - it wouldn't be politics if everyone agreed - and then hold the relevant MP to account later on at the next election. What you can't do, though, is to claim that the system working is unfair.