It's official, the man who idolises Maggie Thatcher can now do his best to emulate her. The conservatives have control of the Senate. The soon to be mogulised SMH article says Pauline Hanson's preferences got them over the line. Is there no end to the political influence of that woman? She's eclipsed the preference deal blunder between Labor and Family first that would have given the God Botherers the balance of power. (Mind you, Barnaby Joyce is one as well.)

The only possible obstacle for the Government is rumblings from the Greens that they might challenge the result in Queensland. Not much comfort there.

Senate control is a bit of a dilemma for Howard. Do you go hard while the going's good, or do you back off and hope that you keep control next time round? Despite Howard's assurances that they won't be too radical, there'll be lots of discussion in the party room about how far they're prepared to go. The 'goers' will be thinking how the electorate has deliberately kept the sitting government in check in the Senate for the past 25 years. They'll argue that the situation this time round is an aberration.

A lot will depend if Howard stays or retires, but I expect the 'goers' will win out.

Expect the following to happen post June 2005:

1. The sale of Telstra. Not a forgone as the Nationals are not keen, or weren't when One Nation was breathing down their necks. Perhaps they'll take the advice of an incredibly smart person and break the company up.

2. Abolish Unfair Dismissal laws. Well, not exactly 'abolish,' just make them not applicable to small business. Small business may be reluctant to expand because of this arbitrary limit. Is a two tier system workable? I suspect the answer may lie in removing this protection from all employees.

3. Amend Industrial Relations laws. Awards will be pared back further and it will become harder for employees to collectively bargain via a union. Not a problem if you're well educated and qualified, but an open door to exploit the less skilled and socially confident.

   They'll remove the right for the Arbitration court to arbitrate disagreements, or abolish it completely, so the only recourse for disputes if you're on a contract will be the civil courts.

   There'll be some colourful, if futile, action from Trade Unionists.

   The aim, of course, is to have a pool of low paid, unskilled workers, US style, who have no rights or bargaining power.

4. Tighten up welfare. The government will make it harder to receive or keep benefits. The money saved will pay for expensive middle class welfare and high income tax cuts.
5. Amend the US Free Trade Agreement. The government argued that Labor's forced FTA amendments to protect the PBS from frivolous drug patents were unnecessary. The Americans are a bit upset about these 'unnecessary' amendments.

   Will the government cave in the US if this becomes a show stopper? It can if it wants. More likely they'll give away something else. Australian content regulations for existing media may do the trick.

6. Repeal Cross Media Law. Fairfax is gone, soon to be under the heal of a media mogul. Expect more foreign control and media concentration; those bits that Rupert doesn't own already.
7. Nobble the ABC. They now have the power to mess with the ABC's charter. The possibilities are endless. More political interference is likely. Introduce advertising, change the way the board is selected. Cut funding further. Interfer with news and current affairs programing and personnel. They could even privatise it completely.
8. Strengthen anti-terrorist laws. Allow the detention of children, increase surveylance on the population, remove checks and balances.
9. Amend the Senate's voting method. This is not protected by the constitution. They could abolish proportional representation or introduce quotas to lessen the influence of minor parties. Tempting, but that will help the Opposition when they win government. More likely they'll introduce city and country electoral zones. If done cleverly it could deliver an opposition disadvantaging gerrymander.

There'll be others. Hopefully, enough to ensure the electorate won't be so obliging next time round.

I've been a reader of 'The Bulletin' for well over 20 years. Obviously, someone at the magazine's been around for that long too, because this week they've resurrected a theme I distinctly remember during the period Bill Hayden was Labor leader in opposition. It's about the inevitable demise of the Labor Party.

The magazine's cover story 'ALP RIP: Is the party over for Latham - and Labor' is more about Latham's leadership style and his shaky hold on the office than the long term viability of the Labor Party, but I suppose it helps to sell magazines.

As much as the Conservatives would like to think Labor is on death's door, it's safe to say the party will inhabit the Treasury Benches again.

There's no Bob Hawke in wings to sweep them back into government, so the task is harder this time. Labor will evolve, as they've done before, and circumstance will turn against the government, as it always does.

Just don't ask me how long it will take.

As a follow on from the previous entry .... the smart operators that have been stymied by reforms to the NSW upper house voting arrangements are alive and well in Federal politics.

The average punter may be confused by the Senate counting system ...

However, Glenn Druery knows exactly how it works. He can calculate every permutation of preference distribution in his head. This skill, plus the ability to talk sweetly with other candidates, has Druery still in the hunt for the last NSW Senate seat.

Not a bad result for someone who secured a paltry 17,979 primary votes - fewer even than the perpetual drop-outs, the Hemp Party - only 0.53 per cent of votes cast in NSW.

Druery has been associated with a variety of micro parties involved in preference harvesting. In this election he stood for Liberals For Forests.

The key to Druery's success - replicated by Family First in Victoria and Tasmania - is harvesting preferences from everyone else, while dealing with serious players on the basis of trading votes, not policies.

And don't expect Druery to apologise if he gets elected. "I wouldn't say it would be a travesty at all. I can't be an apologist for those who designed the system," he argues. "It was designed by the major parties to bolster their support and I don't think anyone has really come along before and said, 'Hey, this is how it works, let's take an entrepreneurial view of the system rather than the political hacks' view and see what can happen."

If Druery does make it, he'll have to wait till he retires to get his trotters in pollies superannuation trough, providing John Howard is true to his word about reforming the system.

Druery may think the Senate vote just a competition to get elected by whatever means possible. In my opinion, it would be a travesty if he got elected. The system needs to be changed to give the voters the power to distribute preferences as they, not the parties, see fit.

During the recent Federal election, above the line Senate voting delivered a seat for a Victorian Family First candidate, a person who received 1.9% of the first preference vote, or just 0.13 of the quota required to win the seat. Family First success had a lot to do with preference deals done with other parties, particularly the Labor Party. (Thanks guys!) The deals were done without any visibility to the voters when casting their vote.

This begs some questions:

Is it a good thing that you can vote for Senate candidates 'above the line' and have no idea of where your preferences are being allocated?

Is it desirable that you are made to allocate a preference for someone whose policies you detest?

I think most people would answer no the the above questions, but this is exactly what we have at the moment in Federal elections. Something should be done.

A solution to the above deficiencies in the Federal voting system is to adopt an Optional Preferential voting system similar to that used in the NSW elections. In the NSW lower house, the Legislative Assembly, voters only need to allocate one preference for the vote to be valid. It's up to the voters to decide if they want to allocate further preferences. If you don't like a candidate, you don't have to allocate a preference.

In the NSW upper house, the Legislative Council (LC) has a system that allows the voter to allocate preferences above the line. LC ballots used to follow the Senate format, but have evolved into something different.

Some background information follows detailing the evolution of the NSW LC ballot paper.

The facts in the following have been shamelessly lifted out of Prospects for the 2003 Legislative Council Election written by Antony Green.

Above the line voting for the Senate was introduced in 1984. It was established because the large number of candidates nominating themselves for the Senate made numbering every square chore, and caused large numbers of informal votes. The politicians decided it would be much better if the voters only number one square, with the parties deciding the preferences, a system called Group Ticket Voting. Voters have the option of voting the conventional way by numbering every square if they want to direct their own preferences.

The above the line system was adopted by NSW for upper house ballots in 1988. The NSW system closely followed the Federal system, using Group Ticket Voting.

It all came to a head during 1999 NSW election. The upper house ballot paper that had 81 groupings and 264 candidates, and measured 1m x 0.7m! Registering a political party was relatively easy, hence the large number of groupings. Smart operators saw a seat in the NSW LC as a way to set themselves up financially for life. Politicians in NSW qualify for generous superannuation entitlements after being in parliament for two terms. Since politicians are elected to the LC for two terms, winning once was like winning the lottery. A lot of effort was put into stitching up preference deals that would get a minor party candidate elected despite only receiving and handful of primary votes. Antony Green was too polite to state it so cynically, but he did point out the following:

The ease with which parties were registered in NSW was one of the causes of the giant ballot paper in 1999. Many registered parties appeared to have overlapping party memberships, and seemed to consist of names derived from petition drives rather than formal acceptance of party membership. It also appeared many parties were closely related, and attractive party names were adopted that did not always reflect the opinions of the people who had set up the party. When combined with the control of preferences allowed by group ticket voting, multiple party registrations became an effective way to channel preferences to a preferred candidate. Several candidates elected in 1999 achieved their quota thanks to very complex flows of preferences that would have been impossible without group ticket voting.

The NSW upper house voting system, similar to the one still used in Federal Elections, was effectively corrupted. This was confirmed when Malcolm Jones of the 'Outdoor Recreation Party,' a beneficiary of preference swapping deals, was found rorting his travel allowance by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

The system was changed for the 2003 NSW election. Political parties had more stringent tests applied before they could nominate for the ballot, and Group Ticket Voting was abolished. To register a valid LC vote, the voter could number one or more boxes above the line, or number a minimum of 15 candidates below it.

It's still possible for a minor party to win with a small primary vote, but it's much more unpredictable.

Voters should be given the decision for preference allocation in Senate Elections. In a half Senate election, only 6 senators from each state are elected. Groupings could be limited to six candidates, and electors could choose preferences above the line. Even if the compulsory preferential voting was retained, voters would only need to number a handful of boxes.

And for some trivia:

1. In Federal Senate elections, those who vote below the line can make mistakes and the vote is still valid! From Antony Green:

Senate elections are conducted using compulsory preferential voting. Group Voting Tickets must show preferences for all candidates. Some saving provisions are provided so that below the line votes are not unfairly excluded from the count. A formal ballot paper must show preferences for at least 90% of candidates, and up to three acceptable sequence errors are allowed in preferences.

I wonder what an acceptable error is?

2. In NSW, all LC votes are entered into a computer but not counted!

Random sampling is used in NSW LC ballots to allocate preferences! The exact preference calculation could be done at the touch of a button, but isn't. This is a NSW constitutional requirement and can not be changed without a referendum.

3. In NSW, a vote can be valid if marked with a tick or a cross, but it's an offence to promote voting this way.

I'm expecting a knock at my door any minute!

Chris Sheil has started a lively debate with his article 'Letting it Bleed' at Back Pages.

Just when you think there's no answer to the right wing braying, along comes someone who's succinct writing causes a storm of (mostly) positive comment about the events of last weekend.

Thankfully, Chris left the Sociology theory in the lecture room, unlike some other academic bloggers I've read lately. Mind you, I now know what 'Nihilism' means. Being an engineering type means my social theory is rusty, if it ever existed.

As stated previously, I had no doubt that Labor would lose the election. Howard nailed the election early by exploiting doubts about Labor's ability to run the economy. The heavily indebted people living in the mortgage belts, ie, marginal seats territory, were not going to take a chance on this unknown leader.

We now know that the non-economic issues that so many of us are passionate about didn't cut through.

Chris pointed out how the old class terms of 'boss' and 'worker' have been hijacked by the conservatives to become 'liberal elites' and 'ordinary people.' This caused a lot of discussion in the comments.

Here's mine.

The old term 'boss' is derogatory. The old class structure where the 'boss' was socially superior has almost gone. Bosses are now called Supervisors or Managers, and modern work culture has them on a much closer social level to the people they supervise. 'Worker' has connotations of manual workers or factory labourers, the type of work that mostly gone off shore. Workers and Manager and Supervisiors are all now 'employees.'

My answer to the conservative rewriting of the social strata is that the Labor party should start referring to their constituency as 'employees.' Labor should sell themselves as the party that looks after employees' interests. The 'employees' party.' Employees are Labor's natural constituency. They need to aim for them. Starting today.

This would fit Chris' observation that for the Labor party to win government, they need to aim at 100% percent of the population to get the 52% required. I think 98% would do.

And what about the employers? Well, they can vote Liberal like they always do.

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.

Been out tonight ... had a few drinks, watched it all unfold; I'm totally depressed. His Minuscule is home and gloating. Been watching it with friends. A little wasted.

As I predicted, they're in, but I didn't forsee the increased majority. More worrying is the possible control of the Senate.

When I'm a more coherent I'll give my views how it happened.

To you RWDBs out there .... I'll think of something smart to say later.

Update: The Bunyip's at it already.

I still think our furry friend will get back in, but, I'm heartened by that other big event the bookies got wrong......

Tipped to win four on the trot, the Lions went down to Port in the final stages of the AFL Grand Final. Is it an omen?

Go you undecideds! Do the right thing!

Is the 'vote for secularism' waning? Miranda Divine thinks it is. She points to the rise of the Family First party as proof, and thinks media scrutiny of the organisation is extreme.

Miranda paints Family First as a moderate organisation. Certainly, its public face may appear to be, but what are they like behind that bland facade? She claims that some extremist remarks attributed to a supporter were an aberration, not the norm.

On occasions, it has to be said, Family First supporters are their party's worst enemy. When a campaign volunteer in Brisbane this week answered "yes" when asked by a Greens supporter if lesbians should be burned to death, it made headlines around the country. The party banned the volunteer and publicly rebuked him. But the story fitted beautifully into attempts to paint party supporters as dangerous crackpots.

The media has every right to ask what's behind this new political organisation. At the end of the day, Family First are in it to exercise power, ie, impose their personal beliefs onto the rest of the population. Why else would they be seeking election? If they have links to extremist religious organisations, then we should know about it.

In an election in which so-called Bible-belt preferences may be crucial, an aggressively secular media is making itself a player.

And a good thing, too. Just because it's a religious organisation doesn't mean it's immune from scrutiny. If the government has done deals with them, then we need to know about it.

Miranda thinks 'the baby boomers who control public debate in this country' fear religion. Not all political commentators are boomers, Miranda. I'm fairly sure there aren't many boomers at crikey.com.au.

The influential political website crikey .com.au, often echoed in print by journalists, has given the "God-botherers" much attention during the campaign ....

She's correct in the sense that secularists, many of whom are boomers, fear the effect that religious conservatives will have on the rest of us if they get the chance.

Boomers remember the conservative straight jacket that the country was in before the sixties. The worry that younger people who never experienced it may inadvertently cause it to happen again if they allow these religious political groups have too much influence.

Bugger!

The polls are not looking good for Labor. The marginals are holding for the government. The Greens’ vote seems to have increased at the expense of the opposition. On the face of it, the parties are close on a two party preferred basis, but the government has the edge.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

My lower house vote usually doesn't mean much as I live in the Prime Minister’s electorate. Although his seat has steadily moved west into hostile territory due to redistributions over the past 20 years or so, he normally has a five to ten percent buffer that allows him to concentrate on other things. Thanks to John Valder's 'Not Happy, John' campaign, this margin is likely to be eroded, but not to the extent that will lose him his seat.

In the spirit of cooperation with the NHJ movement, I will be numbering our furry friend last on the ballot paper, after Fred Nile’s Christian Democrat Party. (Normally I put One Nation and the God Botherers last.)

At least my vote counts in the Senate. Be sure that I'm planning to annoy the electoral officials by numbering every square.

I can only hope we are going to have some surprises this election. Are all the usually solid Liberal seats going to hold? Commentators have noted the 'Doctors’ Wives' phenomenon where the better informed and well off voters will register a protest on the back of issues largely ignored by the rest of the population. Could there be some new marginals created this election?

One lives in hope!

Liberals defecting in safe seats may mean that the margin to win government this time will be more like 50/50, instead of the 49/51 that the coallition has enjoyed previously. It won't make any difference to the result, but will make the process seem slightly fairer.