We need more hung parliaments in the future.

[gemini_liberal]

This could seriously be the best thing for our democracy. Treating the House like a legislature again is a noble idea. At first I was weary of Oakeshott and Windsor and figured them probably just some country conservatives but the rhetoric they used yesterday (especially Oakeshott) has really impressed me. Bring on PR in the House, I say.

[Matilda]

1. I agree absolutely!

The Independents are forcing the majors to look beyond just winning the next election and thinking about long-term planning.

And public funding of elections is definitely the way to go - corporations wield far too much power, and after Paul Howes' involvement in the Rudd assassination, I'm not too happy with the unions either.

We just have to hope that nobody in the government dies unexpectedly!

[depakid]

2. Check out this shot across the bow

THE Greens and the independents have offered Tony Abbott the opportunity to help govern from opposition, saying they would pass any policies with which they agreed, including paid parental leave, whether Labor liked it or not.

As the political establishment comes to grips with the concept of minority government, the Greens leader Bob Brown said the Parliament belonged to everybody, not just the government. ''Please think about it,'' he said.

He was backed by the independent Tony Windsor, who suggested the Coalition tone down its venomous attacks on the government and independents. ''There's good stuff that can come from anywhere and that's why the Liberals are silly to be running this sort of stuff,'' he told the Herald. ''They can do things with us and the executive won't have the power to shut them down. The opposition can be part of the government, too.''

The opposition childcare spokeswoman, Sharman Stone, was attracted to the idea of putting forward the Coalition's generous paid parental leave scheme which the Greens broadly favour. ''Our lines of communication have always been open to anyone who wants to talk about helping to deliver us better policy,'' she said.

The Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young was keen to explore the idea. Senator Brown suggested weekly policy meetings with Mr Abbott, as he will have with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and mentioned possible policy deals on mental health, dental care and biosecurity.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-offered-a-slice-of-power-20100908-151cf.html?autostart=1

[Matilda]

3. I really think it would be a bad move to allow legislation from the Opposition benches.

While in this case, Labor can't claim a clear mandate on anything, drafting legislation in line with party philosophy is one of the perks of being in government. It's very hard to imagine where the idealogy of the Greeens and the Coalition would coincide to enable passage of legislation not favoured by Labor. As things are now, both Greens and the Independents will have the opportunity to put their own bills on the table for an open vote, and that should satisfy them.

Given the Coalition's recent and current behaviour, I don't see Tony Abbott as a credible leader at all. Refusing to have his Budget properly costed by Treasury was an act of sheer irresponsibility and insulting to the public. All he did was have a private firm add up his figures to make sure there wasn't an error in the maths – they were never analysed to probe their feasibility, but Abbott, Hockey and Robb then claimed their figures had been audited. They were not, and to make that claim is simply a lie – enough to have the company in question now the subject of an enquiry by the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Now the catch-cry is that Labor isn't a legitimate government – that's bollocks, and no more applicable than if the Coalition had gained power by the same means. The truth is that the people couldn't decide which major party was the worse and sent a clear message to both of them. But it's Abbott back to his old bovver-boy tactics, and it's not a pretty sight.

[gemini_liberal]

4. I don't think it's possible

My vague understanding of the constitution is that all bills that are related to taxing, borrowing or spending, all have to be done so with the approval of the government, or something to that effect. While, in the name of bipartisanship, the crossbenchers could twist the PM to endorse the bill if it passes, I don't see that happening. Firstly, because it'd be treated suspiciously by the government as a poison pill (the opp have shown they will do anything to get into power) and if it is a genuinely good bill, the opposition aren't going to want to pass it - it'd make the government look good! (What's the point in voting Lib if their best legislation is passed under a Labor government anyway)

You're right on the "illegitimate" rhetoric. It's upsetting that the opposition want to take this route. While I know I am biased, I would be annoyed with any Laborites saying that of a Liberal government in these circumstances, I would expect the same of them. Oppose the government and its legislation, by all means but this government IS legitimate and constitutional.

Also interesting the opposition's appraisal of this election is they have to just go harder and be nastier. Whereas, to their credit, Labor know that they ran a crappy campaign and have realised they need a rethink of how the approach things like policy, campaigning and structure. It's obvious now that several party figures, including the PM herself are getting sick of this "market friendly" management. You are trying to govern a country, not sell furniture!

[Matilda]

5. And on the topic of Abbott's performance,

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing the Libs bleating on about how he ran a fantastic campaign and brought them back from the brink. Not really - he certainly did increase their numbers, but only about one-fifth of the votes that bled from Labor went to the Coalition, the rest went to the Greens. If Labor was rejected, so were the Libs, so where they get the idea that they would have a huge win if we were forced back to the polls, I don't know. Abbott is a very divisive personality, and I don't really see him gaining any more ground than he already has. The lunar right have certainly embraced him, but not the moderates.

So much will really depend on whether Julia is smart enough to stop listening to the policy wankers in Sussex Street.

[depakid]

6. "...stop listening to the policy wankers in Sussex Street."

Amen to that.

[Matilda]

7. Here they are ...

How long can they hold up under sustained attack by Abbott & Co? (And from the ghoul in the back row?)

[Esra Star]

8. OK I'll bite...... who is it?nt

[gemini_liberal]

9. I'm guessing Mark Arbib nt

[Matilda]

11. Yes, Mark Arbib it is.

I always thought he was creepy looking.

[gemini_liberal]

12. He is very creepy looking.

Especially when he smiles. He looks like he's up to something. When Rudd promoted him last year, even though he came off as nice, I still thought he seemed like he would be the type to sell us down the river.

It's not his factional position either. Bill Shorten doesn't come off as creepy and, as someone who has met him, I don't think Don Farrell comes off that way either...

[gemini_liberal]

10. Regardless of the events behind it

or some of the people in it, that's still a lovely photo.

[Matilda]

13. Are we already seeing the downside of the current situation?

Rob Oakeshott has put up his hand for the position of Speaker, which would bring him an extra $100,000 per annum. This is in spite of Harry Jenkins saying he was willing to continue in the role.

Harry Jenkins has been in Parliament since 1986 – twenty-four years' experience, and his father was Speaker before him. So you might think he knows the ropes (not that it stopped Bronwyn Bishop continually jumping to her feet, her copy of the Standing Orders in hand, to bring a point of order to his notice). But he seemed to be unbiased, and was respected by both sides of the House. And he was not without a sense of humour, often having little digs at the members on both sides.

Rob Oakshott has been in federal Parliament for just two years, although he had previously served in the NSW bearpit since 1996.

This next parliament is going to be a rough ride – nothing between the two sides numerically, and Abbott will be going boots and all for the government. Does Oakeshott have the knowledge and the clout to keep order?

But Julia Gillard has said she will not back Harry Jenkins as Speaker against Oakeshott, which begs the question – is she backing Oakshott because he will bring superior skills to the position, or because she's afraid to put him offside?