Can't count…
From The Australian:
Independent MP Rob Oakeshott, who backed Labor and its carbon tax plan, was unmoved by the huge levels of negative sentiment.
Asked whether he had backed the right horse, Mr Oakeshott told ABC Radio:
“That’s what it is for the next three years.”
Last time I checked the next election will be in 2013, at most two years away (and with luck, much, much sooner). And then you, my friend, will be consigned once and for all to the dustbin of Australian political history.
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
Note how he didn’t say he’d backed the right horse. He appears to have at least enough smarts to realise that he hasn’t.
I guess he’s counting on Labor remaining in power til the next election. He’d have to be completely deluded to think that he’d be re-elected in his seat, let alone Labor. I’m surprised he hasn’t needed to travel around Pope-mobile style.
Rob Oakeshott is a spent force in Australian politics. The once mighty ‘independent’ held a majority of nearly 63% to his Nationals rival – 37% (after preferences – 2010 election – http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/lyne.htm).
Unfortunately for Oakeshott he backed the wrong horse. Only 13.5% of his electorate voted Labor in the last election. The electorate of Lyne, which Oakeshott represents, is primarily conservative with the once Nationals leader Mark Vaile holding a 16% majority.
The NSW state election results 2011 have already given some indications. The sitting Independent member, supported by Oakeshott, was defeated by the Nationals candidate who now has a majority of 13%. Labors vote was a paltry 5.7%. ( http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2011/guide/pmac.htm )
The writing is already on the wall for this goose!
I’ve always wondered whether some sort of legal challenge could be mounted against the legitimacy of both Oakeshott & WIndsor as members of parliament. They are, for all instensive purposes, members of the ALP yet were voted in as independents. Isn’t that false pretences?
I would imagine greater minds than mine have already rejected this possibility…but it’s an enticing thought.
There aren’y many things that would give me more pleasure that to see those two turds get their come uppance.
Well Windsor and Oakeshott are still technically ‘independents’ and not card carrying members of the ALP so no legal challenge would be possible.
Oakeshott has a history of switching allegiances on a whim. In 2002 after being elected to the state seat of Port Macquarie, on a National Party ticket, he left the party mid-term and became an Independent.
Same deal for Tony Windsor who was a National Party candidate for the seat of Tamworth but was dis-endorsed due to a drink driving charge. He subsequently ran as an independent.
Both come from conservative party backgrounds and from conservative electorates … but chose to side with Labor!
the only mention of political parties in the constitution refers to casual senate vacancies which was slipped in some years ago when joh got under their neck.political parties should be illegal in a true democracy , we only have to learn the literal meaning of the term democratic representative
Confirmed too, Baldrick, by the 2010 election results for the Senate with the Coalition awarded 45.53%, Labor 30.12% and the Greens 8.40%.
Oakeshott has indeed mastered the art of serial idiotic statements. To to-day’s selection add this babble:
to betray my electorate.
Why is that every time I hear a quote from this numb-nuts, the following scene pops into my mind:
He’s even a very good look-alike.
Really? This is as good a comment as you can come up with for comment of the day. Come one! This is kindergarten stuff.
Hu hu the election is two years away but you said three years!!
[snip – just lighten up…]
Hey Mick McGee do you know Rick O’Shea?
Maybe he knows something that we don’t.
Perhaps this government (sorry, Greens) will decide to indefinitely postpone an election (think of all the paper saved if you didn’t have to print ballot papers), they seem to be edging towards dictatorship, starting with censoring/demonising anyone who disagrees with them. Though, it’d obviously be for the good of the country, so that will make it ok.
On the other hand, perhaps his mathematics is shaky, after all, he is one of the people who thinks reducing 1.5% by 5% is a big change.