With the elections over, the frequency of posts from the sty will be less frequent. Unlike other bloggers who have lots have time on their hands, my time is divided between work and family commitments. Blogging comes a poor third. SWMBO says I'm spending far too much time in front of the PC, and she's right.
Less blogging will give me a chance to get the head around last weeks election results. I don't think I can write too much about it at present. The tendency is to argue that the reason why Labor lost is because of the apathetic nature of swinging voters. I don't want to go there; we live in a democracy and people have the right to vote for whoever they like and for their own reasons.
There's been a tendency with conservative writers to paint the election result as proof of the latest social theory. I think these writers would do everyone a favour by acknowledging that both parties targeted the marginals, and that the result was nothing more than the electorate examining the options and casting their votes based on self interest.
Interestingly, no one predicted the weakening of the review power of the Senate. In my opinion, this was an unintended consequence of the vote, not helped by Labor's preference deal with Family First. The electorate has consistently voted over the past 20 years to keep the government in the minority in the Senate. I don't believe they voted to give the government control. No point in speculating on the implications until the count is finalised.
This comes from a contributor to Margot Kingston's Webdiary. It's pretty telling I think
"I (contributor)was at a 30th Birthday with a huge number of Liberal voters. When engaged in a debate I was surprised to discover that each and everyone knew what they were doing. They knew that John Howard was (and is) a liar and megalomaniac. They knew that interest rates were not determined by governments. They knew that total power in the Senate to either major party is dangerous. They knew about the negative effects to the environment and education, whilst also acknowledging the poor record the government has on health. So why did they vote for the Coalition Government?
"We don't care about all that. This time we are going to be selfish and vote for ourselves."
This is a direct quote. Funnily enough, many admired me for looking at the bigger picture. I guess my point is this. Many Coalition voters aren't stupid, or ignorant, and understand that what they are doing is not good for the country. It's just at the moment, their material wealth is more important, and I find that just so terribly sad."
If true, it's such a pathetic attitude, but the damage is done so it's not worth losing too much sleep over.
There wasn't enough reason for them to vote Labor. I don't think anyone predicted the balance would be lost in the Senate, and I'm sure lots would have voted differently if they'd thought there was a chance of that happening.
I think 99% of people who voted above the line, especially in Victoria had no idea what they were really doing in regard to giving Family First preferences, although the warnings were out there. And Labor's preference deal was spectacularly inept.
Ah well - as you say - onward and upward....
I'm sure you're correct on both counts. It was bad enough that Labor lost in the lower house, but to give a leg up to Family First through a bad preference deal is a disaster! One I'm sure we're going to pay for.