The latest development is consistent with my theory that negotiations with Tony Abbott were not conducted in good faith, but in fact have been part of a political strategy to ‘set-up’ Tony Abbott for a fall to the benefit of Julia Gillard.

Getting Gillard across the line will give the independents what they most want – fixed political terms like in NSW. Such an outcome would dilute accountability and allow them enough breathing space to pursue their own tax-payer funded hobbies. Only after they put Gillard into government will the real negotiations begin.

Well in a final last ditch pitch against Abbott the ABC Online has come up with this ripper of a headline: “Independents stand firm in the face of fear campaign”.

This news content – not meant to be editorial comments – is referring to the Coalition claim that because of the ALP-Green pact a Gillard government would most likely be the most left-wing in Australian history. Instead though of examining the validity of this claim the ABC instead is trying to portray the independents as brave souls battling the evil fearful Coalition:

The Coalition has done away with the niceties in a last-ditch effort to take office, embarking on a fear campaign to win the support of the independents that can deliver it a parliamentary majority.

The claim that the Coalition is on a fear campaign is an argumentative assertion, yet the ABC portrays it as a news statement of fact. Presumably the ABC is hoping to woo the independents and thereby give Gillard a helping hand in forming government.

Even former prime minister John Howard is joining in, warning the Labor Party made a significant shift to the left in signing an alliance with the Greens on Wednesday.

At this point we are all meant to be thinking: ‘what, JH has an opinion!!! Yep, even JH is getting involved, wink wink….’

Some Coalition sources have even told the ABC that they feel they have lost.

The statement above is news worthy? There is that word ‘even’ again. All round a fairly grubby article, both in content and tone.

Wilkie claims that the Coalition offer to build a new $1 billion hospital in his electorate was too much for his new found fiscal conservative sensibilities to handle. A bit rich from someone who has made 22 demands of the ALP, 18 of which amount to multi-billion dollar new spending proposals.

Apparently it was Wilkie that was pushing for the new hospital and Abbott obliged. Not the other way round.

…the Coalition disputes Mr Wilkie’s version of the negotiations, saying he was the one who asked for the billion-dollar spending commitment.

When asked on Radio National whether Mr Wilkie had “double-crossed” the Coalition, Mr Hockey replied: “Good question.”

Mr Hockey said Mr Wilkie never asked where the funds would come from.

Opposition finance spokesman Andrew Robb joined the attack, saying Mr Wilkie lobbied hard for substantial funds for the hospital.

“I find it somewhat odd, his claim yesterday,” he told AM.

“It is a bit ironic that he spent a week-and-a-half trying to desperately convince Tony Abbott that this was not only, not reckless, but the most responsible thing that he thought could be done.”

“He went to great lengths to explain why this money would be better spent on a major hospital for Tasmania.”

This whole negotiation to try and form a government has been a set-up from the beginning. The Greens, Wilkie, Oakeshot and Windsor never had/have any intention of doing a deal with Abbott. They have simply been looking for any minor excuse to ignore the voters and jump into bed with Gillard while trying to damage Abbott along the way to get Turnbull back in the leadership. You know someone that will just roll over on all things carbon taxation.

Take Oakeshott’s interview with Andrew Bolt this week, where he appears to be coming unhinged. His bromance with Tony Windsor, crazy policy demands for ‘consensus politics’, new found desire for all things anti-mining pro-carbon taxation and betrayal of the National Party would seem to suggest a person completely out of his depth. Emotionally erratic, intellectually naive and easily influenced by sneaky arguments that appeal to his poorly defined moral compass. Wilkie however is just a cynical leftie looking to settle old scores about the Iraq War. A war he has subsequently been shown to have been wrong about since the discovery of a range of WMD programmes and substances the UN did not know about and were in contravention of UN resolutions.

UPDATE

Andrew Robb has confirmed on AM Radio that it was Andrew Wilkie that proposed the $1 billion hospital deal, not Abbott. Wilkie then turned around and criticised the Coalition for offering him so much money for a hospital!

UPDATE II

The independents, at least Katter and Windsor, seem to be saying that they have not made their minds up yet. They have the weekend to make up their minds. I still maintain this is a set-up.

Independent MP Tony Windsor has conceded it would be easier for him to back a Coalition government, but he is adamant he will not be pressured by anyone to go either way.

Katter has lost me by claiming that Rudd led a good government.

When asked how much Mr Rudd had “twisted his arm” when the pair met for dinner he replied: “Pretty firmly. I was very surprised.”

“He just used arguments that there would be a continuation of the sort of government that he provided. I make no secret of the fact that [Mr Rudd] provided good government.

I challenge Katter to name one ALP policy of note that worked, came in on budget and on time.

UPDATE III

All three want fixed terms, much like how Windsor wanted fixed terms in NSW. Look how that has turned out.

The trio want legislation to stop an early poll, which would mean another election could only be called if the independents supported it.

“It’s a sign of weakness if you’re racing back to the polls every five minutes,” Mr Katter said.

More like a way to avoid the accountability and the career uncertainty that comes with elections. It is a set-up!

In the week of the Rooty Hill debate the ABC appeared to abandon any pretence of providing balanced opinion on its websites. Gillard and her campaign were praised 93 times – more than Abbott during the entire campaign, while he was showered with criticism. There was not a single online opinion article where a conservative substantially criticised Gillard or praised Abbott that week and at least 17 articles on the other side of the ledger.

…and how the internet kills the need for a public broadcaster like the ABC:

We now live in a world with a surfeit of news coverage. Through our computers, we each have access to news content from thousands of sources around the world, taking every possible perspective. Many of these sources are as good or better than the ABC. We do not need public broadcasters to get quality news…

No matter what your interest or how oblique and unique your tastes, the internet means that you can find news and information to satisfy your demand. With the internet, there are no ‘gaps’.

If public broadcasters are no longer needed to fill their traditional role, surely it is time to ask if we need them at all. Should taxpayers be funding the ABC to compete against private providers who both want to and can do everything that the ABC can do?

I want my $1 dollar back – time to privatise.

Firstly, there is capital fund upon which budget projections are partly based. Treasury had refused to give a true answer as to how much money was actually in the fund until yesterday, and hey presto it contradicts what the Coalition was previously told by Treasury under the Charter of Budget Honesty at the beginning of the election – meaning less savings. In other words, Treasury have set the Coalition up – a guerrilla ambush take down to help get the ALP across the line.

Secondly, Treasury have only now just – reluctantly – released what interest rate it is using to calculate the cost of borrowing on the NBN. It bears no relation to the real world at only 4.9 per cent and Treasury have been unable to explain how they came up with the figure. The Coalition used 5.5 per cent, the average of long-term bond yields over the last 6 months. That 0.6 per cent difference means Treasury can claim that the Coalition will save less money than they hope to, $1.5 bn instead of $2.4 bn. Given that the Coalition is doing away with the NBN, it is another after the fact hey presto magic trick from Treasury to get the ALP across the line.

Consider the following:

1. Even if one accepts the Treasury estimates, the Coalition budget surplus will still be at a minimum eight times larger than what the ALP is able to achieve,

2. Treasury under Ken Henry have given up being apolitical advisers to the government – as evidenced by Henry’s starring role in pushing Rudd’s stimulus plan, Henry’s environmental activism, Treasury’s ‘super’ profit mining tax and their role in pushing carbon taxation,

3. Treasury are notorious for getting budget figures wrong, aka their forecast error on the ‘super’ profit tax,

4. The AFP are still investigating a criminal offense in which Treasury leaked policy advice during the election claiming (falsely) that one of the Coalition’s policies had a cost blow-out, and

5. Now that the ALP and the Greens are in alliance together, Treasury aren’t exactly rushing out to cost the budgetary implications of the deal.

Treasury are no longer a credible source of fiscal information. They make up the numbers to suit the ALP and the Greens and embarrass the Coalition.

The agreement includes the formation of a new climate change committee made up of experts, politicians from major parties and independents.

….

Green’s Christine Milne: You will note in the agreement the proviso for membership of the committee is that the people going onto it are committed to a carbon price. They may not all agree with the mechanism of achieving a carbon price but they all want to a carbon price and the idea is to invite everyone to it and the Coalition clearly if they were in opposition would be invited to join it on that proviso.

This is a direct attack on democracy. We have a parliamentary committee process for a reason: elected representatives report on matters of interest to the public based on their experience at the local level and on what is good for the country. Gillard’s committee will likely be made up of ‘yes’ individuals, ‘renewal’ industry types who expect tax-payers to subside their inefficient business ventures and a range of other vested interests who have little concern for the nation’s prosperity and are certainly not subjected to the accountability of an election.

Democracy killed the ALP’s carbon tax, so the ALP is going implement carbon taxation by killing democracy.

The Labor leader dismissed calls for a new election, arguing the people had spoken in delivering a hung parliament and “we have to make it work”.

Ms Gillard said she had put a substantial package of parliamentary reforms to the three rural independents who are likely to decide whether Labor or the Coalition forms a minority government.

Amazing the propensity of politicians to put words into the mouths of voters. I didn’t recall anyone on talk back radio, blog comments or any other media form calling for a hung parliament during the election. Can you? Every individual had their own reasons for voting. Our hung parliament is merely a statistical probability coming true. So let’s drop the oracle speak and deal with reality.

The ALP has been a very bad government led by two bad PMs. I can’t think of anything Rudllard did that either worked, was delivered on time or to budget. Can you?

What the shell shocked left-wing media is doing now is using the ALP’s failure in government to impinge the ability and competence of all politicians in parliament  in order to keep Gillard in power. So runs the narrative: Abbott is guilty by association because he is a politician, the ALP may have been a bad government but all politicians are just as bad as each other, and both parties were uninspiring during election so vote Green (which is really a vote for the ALP), etc…

Painting Abbott with the same brush that painted the ALP government is grossly unfair and unbalanced. Abbott is not Rudd or Gillard and deserves to be treated differently, based on his record and what he has said and done in his recent political career. Consider that the ALP are the party that gave us Rudd and Latham. By contrast the Coalition gave us Howard and Menzies. Not all politicians are the same.

She was better qualified to offer stable government, Labor had won a higher share of the two-party preferred vote, Labor offered an integrated set of policies, and she stood taller in the opinion polls as preferred prime minister.

So winning the two-party preferred vote was front and centre of Gillard’s claim to power after the close election. Well guess what people, she spoke to soon. As of 3:55:43 PM the AEC has reported, with the vote still being counted, that the Coalition is now only 5,000 votes behind the ALP on two party preferred. The Coalition has been catching the ALP for a few days and it looks set to overtake the ALP by the end of vote counting this week.

The Coalition has already won the primary vote, won the most seats in the HoR and now look set to win the 2PP vote. Winning = mandate to govern!! Can you imagine after all the victories over the past nine months that Abbott ends up not being PM? If the three ex-nats independents want to find out what a conservative up rising is, then they better back the Coalition or otherwise they will get a taste of the 400,000 emails and calls that inundated Parliament a few months ago calling for the dumping of Rudd’s ETS. That is not a threat, it is reality. Talk back radio is already being swamped with angry callers who are against the independents for being so limp wristed. So man up three amigos and get off the fence.

UPDATE

The Coalition has just taken the lead in the two-party preferred vote – 7:09:39 PM – by 635 votes.

UPDATE I

The 2PP is all locked up now 50-50. So it is at least a mute point.

Bad

Take the best-case example. Assume a budget overrun of only 10 per cent of the capital cost ($47.3bn), an adoption rate for households and businesses of 60 per cent (more than 100 per cent of current broadband subscribers), a yearly running cost of $800 million, a 15-year lifespan and a wholesale charge of $50 a month per connection, and the NBN loses more than $1bn a year, costing taxpayers $64bn.

Really Bad

More likely, the budget overrun will be 15 per cent ($49.45bn), the adoption rate 45 per cent (still more than 100 per cent of current broadband subscribers), the running cost $900m, the wholesale price $45 and the lifespan 12.5 years.

After interest and depreciation, that’s a running cost of about $8bn a year, $4bn of which comes back in connection fees, creating an investment that loses $4bn a year, or $100bn over its life.

Terrible

In a worst-case scenario, with a capital overrun of 20 per cent, an adoption rate of 30 per cent, a $40 a month wholesale price per customer and a 10-year life, the network loses $7.3bn a year, or $124bn in total.

The fact that the government skipped a cost-benefit analysis, cancelled the private tender process and took the NBN off the budget financial statement speaks volumes about how much the NBN will cost tax-payers. Are the three ex-Nats independents listening?