Thoughts from the election

1. Is the biggest story of the election the end of the National party…? If the Labor party is governing for the regions, what’s the niche for the Nationals?

And if the Nationals are a chance of losing some of the seven seats they hold, what is the future for the coalition? Will Liberals pick up seats Nationals lose next time round? Will they merge, and if they do, as has happened in Queensland, will they be as able to angle for the country votes? Or can Labor swoop? Or will country voters see the value in supporting a local independent?

2. Has Labor won government?

They have the prime ministership, but is that the same as government? If they can’t move their own legislative agenda without compromising with everyone, are they any more powerful than anyone else?

What does it mean to be in government?? Without a lower house majority, is it just a nominal title??

What’s the point of chairing a Cabinet with no capacity to implement its decisions? How is the executive of this “government” any different from the opposition caucus? What’s the role of the leader of a parliamentary party without a majority? it’s not so different from Tony abbott’s job, or bob brown’s job.

3. This election is going to be the start of something, or the end of something.

I expect this will be the most-discussed election of our life times.

Published by


Thomas the Think Engine is the blog of a trained economist. It comes to you from Melbourne Australia.

5 thoughts on “Thoughts from the election”

  1. More pay, better pension?

    One thing that’s been forgotten in everything is that previous governments generally fell because they couldn’t get important legislation through. Julia isn’t about to recommend the Governor-General appoint Mr Abbot as her prime minister because she can’t get some critical NBN legislation through the lower house, even though the first Labor Party prime minister Chris Watson had supply but passed the batton on because he couldn’t get his IR law through. (The most comparable situation, the 1940 minority government, did fall on supply though.)


  2. The subtext intended by the author’s apparently wilful excess of punctuation is plausibly that the event, in throwing so much into doubt, raises more questions than it answers.


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s