With the rise of the greens and the independants, what chance has either major party git of acheiving the 76 seats to rule???


I can't see a majority ever again, our voting system is now totally flawed.

there is nothing in the constitution for either labor or libs to form government as it stands now, regardles of who got how many votes etc.

It purely boils down to seat numbers nothing more nothing less.

The minor parties need to be eliminated like the democrats were, or prior to the election they should out line their alegance to the major party they'd back??


How many of bob Katters voters would want an ETS???

The old parties are walking the path of the dinosaurs


next step is for an independent party ... All vote on issues as they choose, meanwhile they use there numbers to gain revenue for their re-election campaigns.


Then watch all the lib and lab MPs defect

Hooray for democracy!

Never again will the LibLabs take ordinary Australian citizens for granted!

No more tokenistic tinkering around the socio-econo-enviro edges, feeding us BS or petty bickering amongst themselves...

Now for some real and altrustic and sustainable nation-building, for the benefit of the majority...

Well, one can but hope!

;)

laborfornever wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 3:50pm:

With the rise of the greens and the independants, what chance has either major party git of acheiving the 76 seats to rule??? I can't see a majority ever again, our voting system is now totally flawed. there is nothing in the constitution for either labor or libs to form government as it stands now, regardles of who got how many votes etc. It purely boils down to seat numbers nothing more nothing less. The minor parties need to be eliminated like the democrats were, or prior to the election they should out line their alegance to the major party they'd back?? How many of bob Katters voters would want an ETS???

The hung parliament has nothing to do with the Greens. It is hung simple because two parties got virtually the same number of seats. We wil get majority govt next time around just like we have every other time bar one toime before and this one. The Greens won ONE seat - not the kind of numbers that cause minority govts. if they hadnt won that seat nothing would change. we'd still have a hung parliament.

Exactly, it has nothing to do with the greens, it has to do with 4 independents and a Governor general being convinced either party have enough seats to form a government.  It's helpful to know that of the 4 independents, 3 are coalition nationals.

Libs have won, what we are waiting for is for Bill Shorten to get over his tantrum this and to concede defeat.

Remember, it was afterall his big idea to replace Rudd, only for it to have failed.


8-)

Here, read this...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/23/2990782.htm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:43pm:

The hung parliament has nothing to do with the Greens. It is hung simple because two parties got virtually the same number of seats. We wil get majority govt next time around just like we have every other time bar one toime before and this one. The Greens won ONE seat - not the kind of numbers that cause minority govts. if they hadnt won that seat nothing would change. we'd still have a hung parliament.

True, but the Australian people have sent a message by voting to install the Greens as National gatekeepers in the Senate...

This is a clear shift back towards the left - and the LibLabs need to start listening to that mesage...

So far, the ignorant Libs seem to be particularly hard of hearing that message...

Equitist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:43pm: The hung parliament has nothing to do with the Greens. It is hung simple because two parties got virtually the same number of seats. We wil get majority govt next time around just like we have every other time bar one toime before and this one. The Greens won ONE seat - not the kind of numbers that cause minority govts. if they hadnt won that seat nothing would change. we'd still have a hung parliament. True, but the Australian people have sent a message by voting to install the Greens as National gatekeepers in the Senate... This is a clear shift back towards the left - and the LibLabs need to start listening to that mesage... So far, the ignorant Libs seem to be particularly hard of hearing that message...

your analyses are entertaining rubbish - but remain rubbish. you start with the assumption that people vote FOR the Greens other than Against the major parties. That assumption is false. The large majority of those who vote Green are actually voting as protesters NOT as left-wing greenies.

I thought most people understood that. Apparently there are stil some deluded souls out there. You, for one.

Yeap Long, Greens got Melbourne, next time all attention will be on retaining Melbourne and winning seats like Graydler, Denison ... and moving all those other seats closer to becoming Greens like Batman Sydney and Brisbane.

____ wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:55pm:

Yeap Long, Greens got Melbourne, next time all attention will be on retaining Melbourne and winning seats like Graydler, Denison ... and moving all those other seats closer to becoming Greens like Batman Sydney and Brisbane.

It is rare for the two parties to be this close. in fact it is only the second time. it takes a lot more than a handful of non-aligned seats to make minority govt likely. We have had these 3 independants for 3 elections now. it never made a difference before and wont in the next election either. Greens wil need to win 10-12 seats to ever be in a position to regularly dictate who wins govt. Of course fot that to be meaningful you'd actually have to be genuinely open to voting for someone other than labor - and Greens arent. they simply become another labor party and dilute the ALP's voting pool.

Yep, last time it was this close, Menzies got in.


:)...

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:59pm:

____ wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:55pm: Yeap Long, Greens got Melbourne, next time all attention will be on retaining Melbourne and winning seats like Graydler, Denison ... and moving all those other seats closer to becoming Greens like Batman Sydney and Brisbane. It is rare for the two parties to be this close. in fact it is only the second time. it takes a lot more than a handful of non-aligned seats to make minority govt likely. We have had these 3 independants for 3 elections now. it never made a difference before and wont in the next election either. Greens wil need to win 10-12 seats to ever be in a position to regularly dictate who wins govt. Of course fot that to be meaningful you'd actually have to be genuinely open to voting for someone other than labor - and Greens arent. they simply become another labor party and dilute the ALP's voting pool.

The more opportunity for voters to vote for other parties besides Labor and Liberal ... the more likely for Liberal and Labor primary to decrease.

This will guarantee that it will be difficult to get a majority government until the new millennium parties, like the Greens, have overtaken the dying dinosaur parties on primary.

This could take a couple of elections to achieve.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:53pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:43pm: The hung parliament has nothing to do with the Greens. It is hung simple because two parties got virtually the same number of seats. We wil get majority govt next time around just like we have every other time bar one toime before and this one. The Greens won ONE seat - not the kind of numbers that cause minority govts. if they hadnt won that seat nothing would change. we'd still have a hung parliament. True, but the Australian people have sent a message by voting to install the Greens as National gatekeepers in the Senate... This is a clear shift back towards the left - and the LibLabs need to start listening to that mesage... So far, the ignorant Libs seem to be particularly hard of hearing that message... your analyses are entertaining rubbish - but remain rubbish. you start with the assumption that people vote FOR the Greens other than Against the major parties. That assumption is false. The large majority of those who vote Green are actually voting as protesters NOT as left-wing greenies. I thought most people understood that. Apparently there are stil some deluded souls out there. You, for one.

Bollox, Bates - where is the evidence of that!?

Whilst it is obviously true that there are many disillusioned and disaffected LibLab voters out there - they have a choice to protest by either: -

* Not registering to vote in the first instance.

* Not turning up to vote and paying a pissy fine.

* Registering a donkey vote on election day.

This election, the donkey vote was extraordinarily large - as was the swing to the Greens!

Equitist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 5:37pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:53pm: Equitist wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:43pm: The hung parliament has nothing to do with the Greens. It is hung simple because two parties got virtually the same number of seats. We wil get majority govt next time around just like we have every other time bar one toime before and this one. The Greens won ONE seat - not the kind of numbers that cause minority govts. if they hadnt won that seat nothing would change. we'd still have a hung parliament. True, but the Australian people have sent a message by voting to install the Greens as National gatekeepers in the Senate... This is a clear shift back towards the left - and the LibLabs need to start listening to that mesage... So far, the ignorant Libs seem to be particularly hard of hearing that message... your analyses are entertaining rubbish - but remain rubbish. you start with the assumption that people vote FOR the Greens other than Against the major parties. That assumption is false. The large majority of those who vote Green are actually voting as protesters NOT as left-wing greenies. I thought most people understood that. Apparently there are stil some deluded souls out there. You, for one. Bollox, Bates - where is the evidence of that!? Whilst it is obviously true that there are many disillusioned and disaffected LibLab voters out there - they have a choice to protest by either: - * Not registering to vote in the first instance. * Not turning up to vote and paying a pissy fine. * Registering a donkey vote on election day. This election, the donkey vote was extraordinarily large - as was the swing to the Greens!

You just keep believing that 11.5% of australians support death duties, high taxes and a return to a pre-industrial society. the reality is that people vote for the Greens because of who they ARENT rathe than what they say they stand for. and the proof is that when you actually ask a green supporter to endorse the Greens policies they decline to do so. Green-grub and you both refuse to endorse their policies as does pansi and skippy and other green lunatics.

and to prove my point try and get the afore-mentioned posters to articulate their support for death duties, much higher mining tax, higher company tax, higher income taxes. Get them to applaud the many ridiculous and unaffordable and unworkable Green policies. Then you will see all the proof you need. when the avid Greenies cant support the policies you can only imagine how the uninformed protest voters are not at all in support of them.

Over to you...

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:59pm:

seats to ever be in a position to regularly dictate who wins govt. Of course fot that to be meaningful you'd actually have to be genuinely open to voting for someone other than labor - and Greens arent.

I have no doubt that the greens would be happy to vote for another party I think the problem for the Liberals is the other way around.

They are an anti environment party and can expect little support from the greens while they clearly oppose everything the greens stand for.

Its a bit like the KKK expecting the black vote. - not going to happen.

I do not agree that the Libs need to be a bad party for the environment, and when in opposition they have often had some great environmental policies.
If Howard had not got the Liberal leadership back in 1995, we would have seen a far better renewable energy sector, and far lower emissions than we currently do, because it was only his climate change denialism that drove the party away from it's previous good policies on that issue, which were far superior to those of the Labor party of that time.

It is the curse of the Liberal party, and by default, the country, that the Libs so often dump better men for inferior Leaders like Howard and Abbott, who may be political animals, but lack the vision for the country that so many other Libs could far better deliver.

Quote:

This is a clear shift back towards the left - and the LibLabs need to start listening to that mesage...

You're kidding right Thy?  How many seats were lost to the right in the last election?

Hey check this out from the AEC web-site (wasn't sure which thread to put it on - so this'll do): -

http://vtr.aec.gov.au/


Quote:

The Official 2010 Federal Election Results    * Across Australia 14,088,260 electors enrolled to vote.    * Currently 78.43% of the primary vote has been counted.    * The two party preferred count is 75.27% complete.    * The election results on this website were last updated at 23/08/2010 7:56:30 PM.    * This website was last published at 23/08/2010 8:17:56 PM. Note for Grayndler and Batman: The indicative TCP settings on Polling night for these two divisions were ALP/LP, however these appear to be incorrect. The TCP has been redetermined as ALP/GRN, and fresh scrutiny of these votes commencing Monday 23 August will incorporate a TCP count to these candidates. Note for Denison: The indicative TCP settings on Polling night were ALP/LP, however these appear to be incorrect. The TCP has been redetermined as ALP/Independent, and fresh scrutiny of these votes commencing Monday 23 August will incorporate a TCP count to these candidates. Note for Kennedy: The indicative TCP settings on Polling night were ALP Independent, however these appear to be incorrect. The TCP has been redetermined as LNQ/Independent, and fresh scrutiny of these votes from Monday 23 August will incorporate a TCP count to these candidates.

It's all good. We need this to be a real threat to force the two major parties to focus on what the people want, rather than imposing a dupoly on us. It also helps to turf them out if it becomes necessary.


Quote:

there is nothing in the constitution for either labor or libs to form government as it stands now, regardles of who got how many votes etc.

Actually, a lot of it comes down to tradition, not the contitution. As I understand it, the constitution does not even mention the role of PM.

There are precedents. Check the general board.


Quote:

The minor parties need to be eliminated like the democrats were, or prior to the election they should out line their alegance to the major party they'd back??

Were you unaware which party the Greens or Nats would side with?


Quote:

and the proof is that when you actually ask a green supporter to endorse the Greens policies they decline to do so.

This is true. I vote Green, but this is more a reflection of my low opinion of Labor and Liberal than support for Green policies. Some Green policies I support - at the moment the ones I consider most important and the ones the two major parties are failing miserably on. I support them for the legislation they actually introduced in parliament. But plenty of their other policies I object too.

However, as the Greens become more powerful, they will become more mainstream in the pursuit of power. If they become too powerful they will either have to get better policies or people will turn away from them because they are too dangerous. While they are only in a position to get one or two laws through they can't do much harm. Also, the major parties will just copy their good policies and leave them with the bad ones.


Quote:

I do not agree that the Libs need to be a bad party for the environment, and when in opposition they have often had some great environmental policies. If Howard had not got the Liberal leadership back in 1995, we would have seen a far better renewable energy sector, and far lower emissions than we currently do, because it was only his climate change denialism that drove the party away from it's previous good policies on that issue, which were far superior to those of the Labor party of that time.

The denialism runs far deeper than Howard. It was not Howard who dumped Turnbull for Abbott.

I want the Libs in Government.  I want them to put in place all the promises they have made the the public.   As a long time labor voter, i admit the Gillard/Rudd government ended up on the nose.

I admit that the australian public took their anger out and there was a major backlash.

So, I want abbott in charge.  i want to see no more boats.  i want to see him axe the NBN and implement his solution.  i want to see the budget back in surplus in 2013 to the level he has promised.  I want him to fix the health system as promised.  

So Lib voters - guarantee me this will happen.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 7:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 4:59pm: seats to ever be in a position to regularly dictate who wins govt. Of course fot that to be meaningful you'd actually have to be genuinely open to voting for someone other than labor - and Greens arent. I have no doubt that the greens would be happy to vote for another party I think the problem for the Liberals is the other way around. They are an anti environment party and can expect little support from the greens while they clearly oppose everything the greens stand for. Its a bit like the KKK expecting the black vote. - not going to happen.

And the Greens slavishly supprot labor who give a very small amount of lip-service to environmental issues and then do precisely nothing. ON environmental matters, the opposition acheived just as much as the labor govt! so why do the Greens support labor 100% and without even wavering on the notion?

The less Labor does for the environment, the more votes the Greens will get. Either way it will work. Eventually.

BTW, the Greens do support, and take votes from, the coalition.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:19pm:

The less Labor does for the environment, the more votes the Greens will get. Either way it will work. Eventually. BTW, the Greens do support, and take votes from, the coalition.

The Greens support the coalition? on the occasional (and VERY occasional) policy perhaps - eg net filter. but in any meaningful way they support Labor. they give them their preferences and therefore ensure labor wins election they couldnt otherwise win. this current electoral impasse would not be here if Greens gave their preferences 50/50 (since no preferences are ridiculously not possible!) The Greens MP has promised to vote for labor as part of his first speech. Bob Brown says Greens will negotiate with the coalition but it seems the rest of his party has differnet ideas and clearly Brown is a figurehead an not the real leader.

Elections are funny things and you can really luck out as well with how constituencies are formed and played out.

The friends I am staying with down on the bayside of Melbourne have lucked out very much so.

They live in a lovely suburb, pleasant nice people and looks and feels every bit as blue ribbon as Armadale.

But unfortunately the constituency stretches down a fair bit and then it takes in some of the crappier and cheaper parts of the coastline, even including the northern parts of Frankston which is real scummier blue collar stuff down there.

As a result no matter how they vote they are saddled with a Labor MP.

Sometimes it's just a frustration, because you're not going to move house on the basis of an MP are you?
But you can be stuck with the MP you don't want simply because there are a couple of bogan suburbs down the way, which really play no part in your life.

Such is life though eh?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:25pm:

Bob Brown says Greens will negotiate with the coalition but it seems the rest of his party has differnet ideas and clearly Brown is a figurehead an not the real leader.

Geeze Louise, I suppose that Abbott is just a figurehead (or puppet) to - since I've heard some inconsistent commentary from them too...

Malcolm Turnbull certainly didn't stick to the official party line on Q&A tonight, Bates - I suggest that you watch it!

Equitist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23rd, 2010 at 10:25pm: Bob Brown says Greens will negotiate with the coalition but it seems the rest of his party has differnet ideas and clearly Brown is a figurehead an not the real leader. Geeze Louise, I suppose that Abbott is just a figurehead (or puppet) to - since I've heard some inconsistent commentary from them too... Malcolm Turnbull certainly didn't stick to the official party line on Q&A tonight, Bates - I suggest that you watch it!

I could introduce you to the concept of 'perespective' but clearly you dont get it. Bob Brown says preference deals are evil and HIS PARTY signs a preference deal that virtually ensures Labor gets into office. is that not only saying totally opposite things but actually making a mockery of the supposed principled position on preferences? It is like wanting to ban guns but happily using one to rob a bank for your own advantage.  Brown says 'we wil negotiate with the Libs' whiel Brandt tells the country that he wil support ONLY labor and effedctively denying ANY negotiation. they are not minor differences. they are seriously polar opposite positions. Bob Brown is NOT the leader of the Greens. he is the figurehead and his opinions and positions are clearly worthless.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:46pm:

I could introduce you to the concept of 'perespective' but clearly you dont get it.

You could try.
Then when you're done you can teach some advanced algebra to a set of monkeys as well.

Stalinists and perspective are not good bed fellows.

qikvtec wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 8:36pm:

Quote: This is a clear shift back towards the left - and the LibLabs need to start listening to that mesage... You're kidding right Thy?  How many seats were lost to the right in the last election?

Nope - what's relevant here is not the number of arbitrarily-drawn seats won at any one election but the swings...

What do these swings tell you!?

---

laborfornever wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 3:50pm:

With the rise of the greens and the independants, what chance has either major party git of acheiving the 76 seats to rule??? I can't see a majority ever again, our voting system is now totally flawed. there is nothing in the constitution for either labor or libs to form government as it stands now, regardles of who got how many votes etc. It purely boils down to seat numbers nothing more nothing less. The minor parties need to be eliminated like the democrats were, or prior to the election they should out line their alegance to the major party they'd back?? How many of bob Katters voters would want an ETS???

I think you could be right, but I dont think that means our voting system is flawed, on the contrary, I think this is what our parliament is meant to look like.
For years the old parties have bullshitted only they could govern, and the plebs voted for them believing it.
Now we have educated people, like the GREENS voters and independent voters who are not old party sheeple, its good for democracy that the two party monopoly is broken.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

I think you could be right, but I dont think that means our voting system is flawed, on the contrary, I think this is what our parliament is meant to look like. For years the old parties have bullshitted only they could govern, and the plebs voted for them believing it. Now we have educated people, like the GREENS voters and independent voters who are not old party sheeple, its good for democracy that the two party monopoly is broken.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 10:46pm:

I could introduce you to the concept of 'perespective' but clearly you dont get it. Bob Brown says preference deals are evil and HIS PARTY signs a preference deal that virtually ensures Labor gets into office. is that not only saying totally opposite things but actually making a mockery of the supposed principled position on preferences? It is like wanting to ban guns but happily using one to rob a bank for your own advantage.  Brown says 'we wil negotiate with the Libs' whiel Brandt tells the country that he wil support ONLY labor and effedctively denying ANY negotiation. they are not minor differences. they are seriously polar opposite positions. Bob Brown is NOT the leader of the Greens. he is the figurehead and his opinions and positions are clearly worthless.

His opinions aren't worthless, but as you say he is a figurehead and has to listen to the members of his party also. They are ambitious and as many are reasonably young - they want to do deals - as any political party would. Even the Independents are being forced into this.

Until recently - the Greens have always split their preferences evenly between both parties, but as the favour has never been reciprocated, they have had to move on and to do this their ideology has to be compromised a little.

If they can get their act together on the more serious issues facing Australia - they could end up being on an equal footing with Labor.

They can't be sidetracked though and need to focus on the bigger picture.

The GREENS need to stay as an independent party, they need to keep their own voice unlike the Nationals and the other parties that make up the coalition, or else they'll just end up like the Nationals being sucked up by the Libs.

How useless are the coalition ? 4 parties against 1 and they still cant pull off government.
Libs, Nationals, Lib nats and the Country Libs, useless.
Not to mention the WA Nats, who refuse to join the coalition and want to be treated as independents, what a mess of an organisation that lot are.

laborfornever wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 3:50pm:

With the rise of the greens and the independants, what chance has either major party git of acheiving the 76 seats to rule??? I can't see a majority ever again, our voting system is now totally flawed. there is nothing in the constitution for either labor or libs to form government as it stands now, regardles of who got how many votes etc. It purely boils down to seat numbers nothing more nothing less. The minor parties need to be eliminated like the democrats were, or prior to the election they should out line their alegance to the major party they'd back?? How many of bob Katters voters would want an ETS???

You're a joke!  :D :D :D :D  ;) :) ;) ;)

How useless are the coalition ? 4 parties against 1 and they still cant pull off government.
Libs, Nationals, Lib nats and the Country Libs, useless.
Not to mention the WA Nats, who refuse to join the coalition and want to be treated as independents, what a mess of an organisation that lot are.
===================================

Funny how the Libs and Nats carry on about ALP factionalism.

And what is a Coalition but factions that can’t even be in the same party?

:-?

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 3:26pm:

How useless are the coalition ? 4 parties against 1 and they still cant pull off government. Libs, Nationals, Lib nats and the Country Libs, useless. Not to mention the WA Nats, who refuse to join the coalition and want to be treated as independents, what a mess of an organisation that lot are. =================================== Funny how the Libs and Nats carry on about ALP factionalism. And what is a Coalition but factions that can’t even be in the same party? :-?

All you have demonstrated is you lack of understanding. But you have an exuse. You are stupid. Skippy on the otherhand claims to be a Polticial SCience student despite being woefully uninformed about the political process and history.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 4:48pm:

wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 3:26pm: How useless are the coalition ? 4 parties against 1 and they still cant pull off government. Libs, Nationals, Lib nats and the Country Libs, useless. Not to mention the WA Nats, who refuse to join the coalition and want to be treated as independents, what a mess of an organisation that lot are. =================================== Funny how the Libs and Nats carry on about ALP factionalism. And what is a Coalition but factions that can’t even be in the same party? :-? All you have demonstrated is you lack of understanding. But you have an exuse. You are stupid. Skippy on the otherhand claims to be a Polticial SCience student despite being woefully uninformed about the political process and history.

Even though I'm still in my first year of an Arts degree with a major in politics,I learnt more in my first week than you have in a life time you uneducated wanker.
When are you going to learn how to spell?

laborfornever wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 3:50pm:

With the rise of the greens and the independants, what chance has either major party git of acheiving the 76 seats to rule??? I can't see a majority ever again, our voting system is now totally flawed. there is nothing in the constitution for either labor or libs to form government as it stands now, regardles of who got how many votes etc. It purely boils down to seat numbers nothing more nothing less. The minor parties need to be eliminated like the democrats were, or prior to the election they should out line their alegance to the major party they'd back?? How many of bob Katters voters would want an ETS???

Another three years of Labor gross incompetence, instability and waste will ensure the Liberals 76 seats the next time round.
With Latham in 2004, Rudd in 2007 & Foolya in 2010, who will be the Labor leader at the next election?