UPDATE (9.30pm): Liberals win Nedlands by 987 votes.
UPDATE (9pm): Janet Woollard wins Alfred Cove by 405 votes. Liberals win Morley by 340. Labor wins Collie-Preston by 411. Labor wins Kwinana by 300. Only Nedlands to go, where the Liberals are believed to be home and hosed.
UPDATE (3pm): Alan Carpenter resigns as Labor leader.
UPDATE (11.30am): Nationals back the Liberals. Colin Barnett the new Premier.
UPDATE (11am): Brendon Grylls to hold press conference at 11.30am.
Perth’s Sunday Times newspaper brings a remarkable account of yesterday’s deliberations by the WA Nationals’ state parliamentary party, which met to decide who it would back to form government. Appearing under the headline: “DONT YOU DARE: Nats’ boss last-ditch plea to stop WA Labor marriage”, the report by Joe Spagnolo relates that federal leader Warren Truss made a “last-ditch plea” to talk state leader Brendon Grylls out of “a shock alliance with Labor”. Agricultural region upper house MP Max Trenorden, a known opponent of any deal with Labor, is quoted saying: “I am not going to say whether I am happy with the decision or not, but I’m certainly not going to commit suicide over it.” We will find out what that means exactly later today, after the parliamentary party puts its recommendation to the state council.
The Nationals’ endgame comes as the Western Australian Electoral Commission spends the weekend conducting preference counts in 11 seats designated as in doubt. The big news from the six counts conducted yesterday was that Labor retained Albany by a surprisingly comfortable 96 votes, while falling 64 votes short in Riverton. In North West, the Nationals fell 67 votes short of overtaking the Liberals in the second last count and taking the seat from Labor with their preferences, the final result being a 719 vote (6.9 per cent) Labor win over Liberal. Also determined were Forrestfield (Labor by 98 votes), Wanneroo (Liberal by 322) and Pilbara (Labor by 534).
Of the five seats to be counted today, two are genuinely in doubt: Alfred Cove, which the Liberals might recover from two-term independent member Janet Woollard, and Kwinana, where Labor has been gaining on independent front-runner Carol Adams in late counting. This puts the numbers at Labor 27, Liberal 24, Nationals four, independents two and two in doubt. The two confirmed independents are both in the orbit of another party: Churchlands MP Liz Constable has been promised a position in a Liberal cabinet, while Kalgoorlie MP John Bowler has resolved to work in concert with the Nationals. Nonetheless, any Liberal-Nationals arrangement will have to rely on the support of one or possibly two independents to maintain a majority in the lower house, whereas Labor plus the Nationals will equal a clear majority.
It’s the opposite story in the upper house, through which any Royalties for Regions deal would also need to navigate. While final seats remain in varying degree of doubt in all regions except North Metropolitan, the Liberals appear certain to win 16 seats out of 36 while Labor can hope for no more than 13, and are more likely to win 11. With the Nationals looking at five or six seats, the support of the Greens would probably be needed to pass a Labor-Nationals scheme that was opposed by the Liberals.
Hmmm…
So, tell me it isn’t true… we are going to have a National Socialist government?
Could this be another vote of no confidence in the Liberal Party? If it goes ahead it will be thanks to the legacy of the rodent.
The National Party leadership are proving to be no more than a Liberal Party coat tails.
If the Nats do back Labor and it works out, how do the Libs ever regain Govt. in WA?
I recall when Labor had an alliance with the Greens in Tasmania. Michael Field and Labor found that experience so bad that they refused to do it a second time – giving up government because the Greens were an unreliable rabble. It doesn’t matter which way the Nats go – the result will be the same here for either major party – an alliance with an unstable and divided rabble, driven more by the grossly skewed numbers in the Council. Grylls has shown his hand – its all about the money at the moment, but once that is in the kick, the policy is going to be an almighty mess.
#1 – The Nats have always been a socialist party taking, expecting and demanding handouts from the Govt
Nat-Lib alliance not set in stone: Joyce
http://news.smh.com.au/national/natlib-alliance-not-set-in-stone-joyce-20080914-4g2l.html
You would imagine The Nationals would have more to lose by supporting Labor than the Liberal Party. If they support Labor they run the risk of losing a lot of support at the next election as people realise they need to vote Liberal to get rid of Labor.
On the other hand, if they side with the Liberals they run the very real risk of what’s happened at a Federal level… being seen as the Liberal Party’s doormat and as a very ineffective party.
Viewed in this light, perhaps a way to handle the issue would be to side with Labor but having the power to veto on policy matters that are socially too progressive for their country support base.
Still, the most likely outcome will be with The Nationals supporting a Liberal Government.
I should add that it’s still looking like it will be a very exciting few years of WA politics and this decision will be a large part of that. I suspect should Labor scrape back in they’ll claw back a few seats at the next election to make a more comfortable Government… but who knows.
It’s also interesting wondering on the leadership of both parties after the election should their party lose. You’d assume the Libs would stick with Colin Barnett for at least a while, but it would be tempting for leadership aspirants to push for the leadership given they will see Government as so close to reach.
I’d suspect Mr Carpenter will leave very quickly should Labor lose…
I believe schnitzel is entirely right. The South Australian experience is less relevant, ie dealling with an individual rather than a collective rabble.
I think you need to look beyond SA and focus more on what happened in Tas. Of course there is no chance of Carpenter knocking back a deal with nats if its on offer but that would be the sane and strategic place to go.
surely given the ever decreasing influence and power state governments have, an alliance between the nats and labor isnt going to send the sky crashing down. If anything having to debate ideas and present plausible arguements for programs policy and expenditure can only improve the decision making process. A broader more robust political process in which outcomes must be argued and negotiated has got to be better than what we have now. Throw inthe fact that in the upper house greens support may be required and we may start to see an unpredictable and exciting real democracy in power. One things for sure regardless of which way the nats swing, the days of an all powerful administrative government are coming to an end. More power to the people of WA for whats bound to be an exciting and fascinating next 4 years.
Question: is there any chance Morley could be a surprise?
Will all of D’Orazio’s preferences necessarily go to the Liberals?
Morley is finished. All over, red rover.
isnt any deal dependent on what the upperhouse looks like? if you cant push your agenda through the upperhouse your cactus.
Labor/National. I’ll believe it when I see it.
LOL @ Tom. That’s right, John Howard – a man retired for 10 months now – is responsible for the libs being on shaky ground in a WA election. Good grief, not even Crikey has tried to spin that one.
ruwake – If the Nats go with Labor here and it works out, the Liberal Party is almost certainly going to field a candidate in every National seat next election with the message ‘a vote for the Nats is a vote for Labor.’ By then, the Labor government will be going for its fourth consecutive term in office, and it’s likely every indicator will be pointing to an Opposition victory, especially if term three heads in the same direction as the previous two (and let’s be honest, does anyone seriously think a Labor minority government is going to get more done then the majority government did?)
The Nats might hold on to a couple of seats, but you’d suspect there’d be enough conservative and cranky voters switching to Liberal in disgust to ensure they lose at least some votes. I don’t think there’d be any going back from it, they’d have to make the switch completely to an ‘alternative right wing minor party’ and hope enough people are interested in that for them to survive.
(BTW, I’m going to pick up a neat $45 if the Nats go with the Libs from a $10 bet, so I may have a tinge of bias here)
Yes, Max. Grylls may go for short term gain (and fame?) but he will end up with long term irrelevance for his party.
We do need to remind ourselves that strange alliances like this are quite common in European politics, where PR elections throw up all kinds of results. It’s our single-seat electoral system that makes them unusual in Australia. In Germany for example we have red-green, red-black and even black-green coalitions. In Belgium and the Netherlands, left and right parties are frequently in coalition in various combinations. There is usually a written agreement which specifies which policies will be enacted and which won’t.
sounds very colourful adam
i cant believe people still see any future for the nats with the libs. As previously stated when it comes to economics the two are at opposite ends of the spectrum. In terms of social issues the nats are generally more conservative, however both labor and libs have moved to the centre ground on nearly all issues. Labors slighty softer stand on free market economics is more in line with the nats requests. Federally the nats are going the same way as the democrats. Thier survival depends on presenting a different face from the city libs and more importantly delivering money and services to the bush. The question people need to ask is whether a nats voter in rural wa is prepared to oppose labors ever so slightly more progressive social agenda at the expense of rural protectionism and services.
‘I hope that they bargain the best deal and end up with an arrangement with the Liberal Party, but I wouldn’t put all my money on that horse.’ – Barnaby Joyce.
will treasury be scotch guarding all their seats? I reckon.
grylls to have a press conference at around 11:30am perth time
Adam
do you support PR for Australian federal elections?
Things are certainly starting to sound interesting. Has anyone seen anything of ESJ since we switched to this new site. I’d love to get his take on this.
By the way William, I’ve heard that hats don’t taste too bad with tomato sauce.
Do we know if the Grills press conference will be on Sky?
[do you support PR for Australian federal elections?]
Who in their right mind doesn’t. Well the major parties, obviously. Since they’re the only losers.
hat is a dish best served cold
Mary: Not for lower houses, no. I like stable one-party or coalition governments, not alphabet soup.
^ What’d I say.
Perhaps Oz would rather live in Belgium, where there was no government at all for eight months after the last election because of the unworkable menagerie thrown up by PR.
Adam,
Agree with you. Most PR advocates are from Parties or organsations that have an over enlarged opinion of their opinions. They see nothing wrong with a 15% rump exercising control over the other 85% as long as it is their rump that is in control.
The Australian voters have tended to eschew such nonsense and tend to prefer stable Governments rather than a pot porri of coalitionists.
[Mary: Not for lower houses, no. I like stable one-party or coalition governments, not alphabet soup.]
There’s an easy way to fix this. Remove the executive from the legislature.
That way you could have all the PR you want, and it would have the added benefit of making strict party discipline pointless.
If there was a no single party majority situation in Tasmania then a Labor-Green coalition would work better than it did last time because the Greens would be likely to demand one or two cabinet positions or do a clear only confidence and supply assured everything else on merit deal.
Adam would you support two party preferred party list proportional representation (where voters get a preferential choice of party lists and the seat distribution is based on the TPP) for lower houses?
There is no way in the world in space Tas Labor will go into coalition of any kind with the Greens ever again in any arrangement whatsoever.
Tom, um… how can you have TPP and PR together? PR will by definition render TPP meaningless.
The Nationals could legitimately argue a case that claims to support the will of the people, for either party: the Liberals on the basis that they achieved the highest primary vote, and the ALP on the basis that they achieved the highest number of seats.
I suspect, Grylls wanted an alliance with Happy Carps, but after most of his caucus backed the Libs i think its fair to assume he may have been successful in getting a deal with the ALP.
However i hold out hope that the Nats would still back us their traditional partners.
Good news in Alfred Cove, too bad about Albany.
I wouldnt have thought Truss would have weighed into the debate if Grylls wasnt dead set on Labor. Also if he wanted the Libs why did he bring out the SA Nat traitor over who is supposedly his Hero.
I fear after a 6% and the loss of 10 seats and with the CCC and Veranus Island Reports due out later on that the good people of WA may be stuck with an incompetent and corrupt Government unwanted by the majority of voters for another possibly 4 years.
Bloody bumpkins!
Schnitzel @5
[…I recall when Labor had an alliance with the Greens in Tasmania. Michael Field and Labor found that experience so bad that they refused to do it a second time – giving up government because the Greens were an unreliable rabble…]
Now, now, nice mythology for Laborites who resent that The Greens were not their pet votes. I think the quote below is how most people would see it:
“The initial break in the relationship came in October 1990 when Labor raised the woodchip export quota above the level of 2.889 million tonnes per year, thus breaching a key Accord agreement. Even so, the Greens only moved no-confidence in the government towards the end of 1991; and again over its forest policy.”
I think Tasmanian Greens would see the Labor Party were the unreliable rabble, and that they even went beyond a breach in the accord to provide stability. I suspect that the refusal was mutual. I get the impression that the Tasmanian Labor party is a bit like the WA Liberal Party: confused that its inevitable right to rule could be diminished by an independent minor party.
To both, they can again, ‘suffer in their jocks’ (say in either a Bob Brown or Brendan Grylls voice), for all I care. 🙂
One example where the issue is really about ethnic rivalries rather than any inherent flaws in the electoral system is not enough to claim the system is broken.
Presidential systems mean that there is if a party gets the executive with minority first preference support with the support of another party or other parties then those other parties those parties have no means of holding the governing party to account (a similar problem exists with my above suggestion of TPP list PR). Chile would have been less likely to have a coup in 1973 if it had had a parliamentary system.
If you wanted to introduce responsible government in America without interfering significantly with congress then you could reform the electoral collage from a historical anomaly to a lower house style president and cabinet appointing and dismissing body (with the appointees coming from the Electoral Collage). With at least annual sessions paid members and proportional representation electing it from each state and the District of Colombia. With the appointments being for an indefinite time or a period that was longer that the for year term of the electoral collage term and could be dismissed by a simple vote.
I would say, non complusory and first past the post would be the simplist and most democratic choice of voting system. The reason Belgium and other European countries cannot have stable governance is because they have voting systems that allow many minor parties to gain representation and thus you have to wait 8 months for a government or have 2 parties who hate each other join together CDU/CSU and SPD in Germany.
I agree Oz. Equally in some countries with major regional differences (eg. African tribal areas) single member electorates provide a number of small medium parties in unstable coalitions, just like Belgium with its regioanlised PR system.
The basis of selecting the electoral system should be what best represents the will of the people. Usually a combination of accidents of history and political expediency are how they are developed.
For most circumstances a variant of PR is the way to go. That of course depends on the purpose of the body being elected. Executive or Legislature or Review or whatever.
[Tom the first and best]
Did you mean Electoral College or were making a joke about that anachronistic system?
Adam the system I was asking if you might support is having a lower house with only two parties elected to it with the count conducted like a single member electorate count but instead of having one member elected all the seats are apportioned by a list system apportioning method on the of the two list preferred vote. (I favour a Tasmania style system not this one I am asking you whether you might support).
So back to WA…
Press conference in half an hour, yes? Being streamed anywhere?
Glen S @ 37: what good news in Alfred Cove?
What Glen means is that non-compulsory and non-preferential voting is the system that would most benefit the Liberal Party, and he is right, which is why it isn’t going to happen.
From all reports it is still close.
I was making a serious suggestion for reforming the American system that is more likely to get up than a parliamentary system (direct election most likely to get up though) but a parliamentary system would be better.
It wouldnt necessarily Adam, the Labor Party in the UK won 3 terms with 1st past the post and the left generally wins in Canada with the same system.
It would only be useful in the lower house to ensure stable government. Even so minor parties could still win seats after all the NDP in Canada has 30 seats and the Liberal Dems win around 60 seats each time around.