The other week Gillard said a vote for the greens is NOT a vote for labor, so she says.

Now she says that labor rcvd the larger number of votes based on 2PP which includes the green preferences. But if a vote for the greens isn't a vote for labor as she said, then libs got 500K more votes.

So is she now saying that a vote for the greens is now a vote for labor?? what a contradiction.

Seems she'll say anything to get ahead, lyine coniving deceptive woman she is showing herself to be.


I wish the media would pick up on these annomolies.

Like Gillard saying she is open to a carbon tax this election cycle yet Swann said there is no intention of a carbon tax till 2013, outside of this term??

Either way the way this Oakshot fool is carrying on we're going back to the polls within weeks, just wait and see. Then these independants will be voted out as will the green queens.

the sooner we have a first past the post system the better.

coalition won 82 seats on primary vote well ahead of labor.

There have been lies from both sides. That's what they do in order to get elected. They don't tell the truth, they don't admit to their mistakes, they lie and try to make the other party look bad.
It's called politics.

laborfornever wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:24pm:

The other week Gillard said a vote for the greens is NOT a vote for labor, so she says. Now she says that labor rcvd the larger number of votes based on 2PP which includes the green preferences. But if a vote for the greens isn't a vote for labor as she said, then libs got 500K more votes. So is she now saying that a vote for the greens is now a vote for labor?? what a contradiction. Seems she'll say anything to get ahead, lyine coniving deceptive woman she is showing herself to be. I wish the media would pick up on these annomolies. Like Gillard saying she is open to a carbon tax this election cycle yet Swann said there is no intention of a carbon tax till 2013, outside of this term?? Either way the way this Oakshot fool is carrying on we're going back to the polls within weeks, just wait and see. Then these independants will be voted out as will the green queens. the sooner we have a first past the post system the better. coalition won 82 seats on primary vote well ahead of labor.

Fair enough, you want first past the post, but you cant have your cake and eat it too, if we do that it needs to be the single party with the most votes, not a coalition, as if its a coalition we have numb nuts screaming like banshees that IT NOT FAIR.
what do you expect GREENS voters to do? not preference Labor because its not fair,child.

First past the post should also provide the ruling party with the right to implement their agenda without opposition regardless of how bad a policy might be.

If it means labor wants a carbon tax they can do it, if they want 40% mining tax they can do it.

It shitz me no end that oppositions can stop a governments agenda.

let them implement it and if we don't like it then the next incoming party can dismantle it.

Just like the GST you lot whine about, labor could get rid of it but they wont.

If we get a carbon tax through Gillard then next election Abbott or who ever is running can say vote for us we'll get rid of it and it can then come down to keep what we have or change???

First past the post should also provide the ruling party with the right to implement their agenda without opposition regardless of how bad a policy might be.

If it means labor wants a carbon tax they can do it, if they want 40% mining tax they can do it.

It shitz me no end that oppositions can stop a governments agenda.

let them implement it and if we don't like it then the next incoming party can dismantle it.

Just like the GST you lot whine about, labor could get rid of it but they wont.

======================

I sort off agree with you .

The biggest problem is tho when some policies 9 especially larger financial ones) are implemented into our system it is then harder to take it away once we have  a system working  around it....

I wonder when the coalition, became just the liberal party, because on the figures I have seen, Labor got the most votes of any single party.

Keep going Libs, keep telling the Nats that they are an insignificant sideshow, it will do wonders for the view of you the ex-Nat independents hold.

laborfornever wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:36pm:

First past the post should also provide the ruling party with the right to implement their agenda without opposition regardless of how bad a policy might be. If it means labor wants a carbon tax they can do it, if they want 40% mining tax they can do it. It shitz me no end that oppositions can stop a governments agenda. let them implement it and if we don't like it then the next incoming party can dismantle it. Just like the GST you lot whine about, labor could get rid of it but they wont. If we get a carbon tax through Gillard then next election Abbott or who ever is running can say vote for us we'll get rid of it and it can then come down to keep what we have or change???

Is that the official unscrambling an omelette policy?

Life certainly can be simple when you do not let little reality problems interfere.

Gee, a politician spinning, how unsual.

Greens are a disaster for Australia.

In MY electorate (Ballarat) the Greens did not allocate prefences - which I believe was the case in not just this electorate
The best solution I had was via a 'how to vote Liberal card' -numbered in REVERSE

When they ARE given it is a "serving suggestion" only - the decision on preferences is always the decision of the voter
Anyone that says a Green vote is an "automatic vote for Labor" is talking a LOAD of NONSENSE

"Greens Voters" are primarily disenchanted Labor and Democrats voters, so I see no problem in linking Labor and the Greens.

I dislike a lot of "non-positions" that the government has taken lately - ETS, republic, renewables - and find that, for me, a vote for the greens was a form of "wake up" vote for Labor.

And I expect my Greens vote to flow to Labor.

Please delete wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 3:47pm:

"Greens Voters" are primarily disenchanted Labor and Democrats voters, so I see no problem in linking Labor and the Greens. I dislike a lot of "non-positions" that the government has taken lately - ETS, republic, renewables - and find that, for me, a vote for the greens was a form of "wake up" vote for Labor. And I expect my Greens vote to flow to Labor.

So do I expect my GREENS vote to flow to Labor.
The funny thing I'm finding is that its the coalition supporters whinging the loudest about GREENS voters preferencing Labor, it was always going to happen.
The fact is many GREENS voters are disenchanted Labor voters who would never preference the coalition.

I guess I missed the part when the Country Party and the Nationals gave preferance to the Liberals or is that an inconvenient truth.  I dont like it either way, we should just have a primary vote, because with the current system a few hillbillies will be running the country.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:55pm:

laborfornever wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 2:36pm: First past the post should also provide the ruling party with the right to implement their agenda without opposition regardless of how bad a policy might be. If it means labor wants a carbon tax they can do it, if they want 40% mining tax they can do it. It shitz me no end that oppositions can stop a governments agenda. let them implement it and if we don't like it then the next incoming party can dismantle it. Just like the GST you lot whine about, labor could get rid of it but they wont. If we get a carbon tax through Gillard then next election Abbott or who ever is running can say vote for us we'll get rid of it and it can then come down to keep what we have or change??? Is that the official unscrambling an omelette policy? Life certainly can be simple when you do not let little reality problems interfere.

Thus the mystery of how that political rash called the Liberal Party keeps coming back. Which only a balm of intelligence and applied education can remedy and alas only half the population have a clue. :(

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:29pm:

laborfornever wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 2:24pm: The other week Gillard said a vote for the greens is NOT a vote for labor, so she says. Now she says that labor rcvd the larger number of votes based on 2PP which includes the green preferences. But if a vote for the greens isn't a vote for labor as she said, then libs got 500K more votes. So is she now saying that a vote for the greens is now a vote for labor?? what a contradiction. Seems she'll say anything to get ahead, lyine coniving deceptive woman she is showing herself to be. I wish the media would pick up on these annomolies. Like Gillard saying she is open to a carbon tax this election cycle yet Swann said there is no intention of a carbon tax till 2013, outside of this term?? Either way the way this Oakshot fool is carrying on we're going back to the polls within weeks, just wait and see. Then these independants will be voted out as will the green queens. the sooner we have a first past the post system the better. coalition won 82 seats on primary vote well ahead of labor. Fair enough, you want first past the post, but you cant have your cake and eat it too, if we do that it needs to be the single party with the most votes, not a coalition, as if its a coalition we have numb nuts screaming like banshees that IT NOT FAIR. what do you expect GREENS voters to do? not preference Labor because its not fair,child.

First past the post is not based on a PARTY but on a particulcar CANDIDATE in the seat. on that basis the coalition would have won 82 seats. Of course if we had such a system people would vote different anyhow so the calculation is pretty meaningless. disaffected labor supporters would be less likely to vote Green if they knew their second preference for Labor was meaningless. and the same for the few setas where libs and nats run competing candidates. It woudl also mean that labor woudl retain Melbourne EASILY and Brandt would be just a failed candidate.

Interesting idea tho.

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 3:29pm:

In MY electorate (Ballarat) the Greens did not allocate prefences - which I believe was the case in not just this electorate The best solution I had was via a 'how to vote Liberal card' -numbered in REVERSE When they ARE given it is a "serving suggestion" only - the decision on preferences is always the decision of the voter Anyone that says a Green vote is an "automatic vote for Labor" is talking a LOAD of NONSENSE

But if you take out the word 'automatic' it DOES become true. With 80-90% of green preferences flowing to labor your protestations ring a little hollow!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 4:42pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 3:29pm: In MY electorate (Ballarat) the Greens did not allocate prefences - which I believe was the case in not just this electorate The best solution I had was via a 'how to vote Liberal card' -numbered in REVERSE When they ARE given it is a "serving suggestion" only - the decision on preferences is always the decision of the voter Anyone that says a Green vote is an "automatic vote for Labor" is talking a LOAD of NONSENSE But if you take out the word 'automatic' it DOES become true. With 80-90% of green preferences flowing to labor your protestations ring a little hollow!

Not at ALL
There is no shortage of political NONGS who still have this belief that the Greens preference swap ends as a Labor vote

NOTHING is further from the truth
If 80% of Greens voters give their preferences to Labor - that is a logical perogative forced on no-one

And also most of sound mind
What sort fool votes for the party that represents the environment first - and then second the party that represents the mining industry ?

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:29pm:

laborfornever wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 2:24pm: The other week Gillard said a vote for the greens is NOT a vote for labor, so she says. Now she says that labor rcvd the larger number of votes based on 2PP which includes the green preferences. But if a vote for the greens isn't a vote for labor as she said, then libs got 500K more votes. So is she now saying that a vote for the greens is now a vote for labor?? what a contradiction. Seems she'll say anything to get ahead, lyine coniving deceptive woman she is showing herself to be. I wish the media would pick up on these annomolies. Like Gillard saying she is open to a carbon tax this election cycle yet Swann said there is no intention of a carbon tax till 2013, outside of this term?? Either way the way this Oakshot fool is carrying on we're going back to the polls within weeks, just wait and see. Then these independants will be voted out as will the green queens. the sooner we have a first past the post system the better. coalition won 82 seats on primary vote well ahead of labor. Fair enough, you want first past the post, but you cant have your cake and eat it too, if we do that it needs to be the single party with the most votes, not a coalition, as if its a coalition we have numb nuts screaming like banshees that IT NOT FAIR. what do you expect GREENS voters to do? not preference Labor because its not fair,child.

Well actually, I'd expect the Greens voters to want to elect Greens...
I'm sure they're pretty unhappy about it too....

If I'd voted for a 'smaller' or 'special interest' party...Greens, Sex Party, Shooters Party or whatever....I'd much prefer that the representative from THAT party had won the seat, rather than just having MY vote given to one of the major parties...
After all, I voted for a special interest party because I didn't 'like' either of the major parties all that much.....

The viable alternative would be non-preferential voting, where your vote is binned with the  the illegible and invalids - should it fail to make the 2PP

Who in their right mind would place their first preference for the environment by voting green and then choose their alternate position to be diametrically opposite by voting against the environment (Liberal).

I just do not see what the Libs do not get you can not be environmental vandals and expect green preferences.

Ah look!!

Buzz has come out of mourning.

Tell me Buzz - how did you enjoy a one term failure of a Labor Government get a resounding kicking and losing its majority after just the one term?

Bailed out by the lunatic Greens in near on every seat.

Face it, governing is not Labor's natural place.

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:04pm:

Ah look!! Buzz has come out of mourning. Tell me Buzz - how did you enjoy a one term failure of a Labor Government get a resounding kicking and losing its majority after just the one term? Bailed out by the lunatic Greens in near on every seat. Face it, governing is not Labor's natural place. ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

The swing against the Government was relatively small, as an across-the board figure
Where it fell was the problem

My local Labor member was returned with an INCREASED majority - a rarity for a rural seat
The local Greens vote rose by roughly 50% - one of the highest in the country

We've done our bit
Our community wind farm will have a DIRECT connection next year to around 2000 homes and businesses
I have insulated myself, as best I can, from eruptions and implosions of government

But, it's early days ......
And an outcome based on which party the GG has the greatest confidence
It's HER call
Hers ONLY

The GG who was given a job by Rudd as a payback, and the GG whose daughter is married to a major labor power broker, that GG???


wont need a rocket scientist to work out which way she will lean????


unbiased my ass.

Please delete wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 3:47pm:

The fact is many GREENS voters are disenchanted Labor voters who would never preference the coalition.

You credit far too many, with far too much grey matter.

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:00pm:

The viable alternative would be non-preferential voting, where your vote is binned with the  the illegible and invalids - should it fail to make the 2PP

Why not use a system where the way YOU number the form decides the preferences??

Why is only a Two Party deal??
I (for example)vote Indie as 1, then that's my first choice, if he doesn't get enough votes, then preference the person I marked as 2 etc....

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:32pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 7:04pm: Ah look!! Buzz has come out of mourning. ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D But, it's early days ...... And an outcome based on which party the GG has the greatest confidence It's HER call Hers ONLY

Actually, I heard on the radio today, that the GG 'may' give the 'call' to the Chief Justice, to avoid any appearance of bias.....

Not that I personally believe she would be biased....
I guess she thinks maybe better safe than sorry....

Adam Brandt sounds like he'll fit right in   :-/

http://www.vexnews.com/news/10093/ca...#comment-40502

He divorced his wife a few years ago and took her to court, and got a huge settlement from her. He brought few assets to the marriage and then fought long and hard for his ’share’ – god knows who his partner is now, but I feel sorry for them. Dont believe me? Its all on public record, they lived in northcote together, she still does. Lovely woman.

Posted by Fitzroy | July 19, 2010, 10:33

And this >>>

http://www.vexnews.com/news/10655/bandit-bandt-greens-party-poser-adam-bandt-pushes-pilfering-from-prosperous-and-pounces-on-800000-property/

All that matters at this point is this vote and clearly we have the left side of voters that couldn't bring themsleves to vote for labor so they voted Green and Labor and Greens decided to head that protest off at the pass deciding that Labor would have their votes anyway.

Make no mistake this is about an extreme left  side of politics, unaccountable for their policies pinching votes from the accountable labor...not that it worries me, from a conservative side, this is all good news watching the 'tards fight it out  ;D

And it seems that Labors count is dropping

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:32pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 7:04pm: Ah look!! Buzz has come out of mourning. Tell me Buzz - how did you enjoy a one term failure of a Labor Government get a resounding kicking and losing its majority after just the one term? Bailed out by the lunatic Greens in near on every seat. Face it, governing is not Labor's natural place. ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D The swing against the Government was relatively small, as an across-the board figure Where it fell was the problem My local Labor member was returned with an INCREASED majority - a rarity for a rural seat The local Greens vote rose by roughly 50% - one of the highest in the country We've done our bit Our community wind farm will have a DIRECT connection next year to around 2000 homes and businesses I have insulated myself, as best I can, from eruptions and implosions of government But, it's early days ...... And an outcome based on which party the GG has the greatest confidence It's HER call Hers ONLY

So, you are retreating to your little hosue to avoid the Big Bad Abbott? well at least we wont have the Big Internet Filter to wrorry about, will we?

Some interesting statements -

Anna Bligh says that the 'poisonous' way NSW Labor treats leaders come election time 'like a revolving door' is a danger and a worry.

Maxine McKew says that the Federal Labor campaign was poor and changing leaders without asking the people was a mistake and led to many seat losses.

Julia Gillard bans the henchman Arbib from going on TV in case he says something that damages her and them.


Is this a party that should govern?
The same party that lost a majority after ballsing up its one term?

No sorry, time they went.....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:

Some interesting statements - Anna Bligh says that the 'poisonous' way NSW Labor treats leaders come election time 'like a revolving door' is a danger and a worry. Maxine McKew says that the Federal Labor campaign was poor and changing leaders without asking the people was a mistake and led to many seat losses. Julia Gillard bans the henchman Arbib from going on TV in case he says something that damages her and them. Is this a party that should govern? The same party that lost a majority after ballsing up its one term? No sorry, time they went.....

Ive predicted that when Labor loses this election - as it is looking increasingly like it will - there will be a bloodbath in the ALP. This is just the warmup!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Ive predicted that when Labor loses this election - as it is looking increasingly like it will - there will be a bloodbath in the ALP. This is just the warmup!

Interesting though, did you catch Kevin Rudd's victory speech in Queensland?
Glowing and smiling!

See his supporters?

Wearing yellow t-shirts and not a single mention of 'ALP' anywhere.

Interesting, suggests Kev may have actually enjoyed it a little bit....

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 10:52pm:

Ive predicted that when Labor loses this election - as it is looking increasingly like it will - there will be a bloodbath in the ALP. This is just the warmup!

The LibLabs are both deeply fractured - and, regardless of which one ends up governing, there will be a bloodbath within both parties...

No doubt, however, the bloodbath of the losing party will come sooner and will probably be more messy...

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 4:42pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 3:29pm: In MY electorate (Ballarat) the Greens did not allocate prefences - which I believe was the case in not just this electorate The best solution I had was via a 'how to vote Liberal card' -numbered in REVERSE When they ARE given it is a "serving suggestion" only - the decision on preferences is always the decision of the voter Anyone that says a Green vote is an "automatic vote for Labor" is talking a LOAD of NONSENSE But if you take out the word 'automatic' it DOES become true. With 80-90% of green preferences flowing to labor your protestations ring a little hollow! Not at ALL There is no shortage of political NONGS who still have this belief that the Greens preference swap ends as a Labor vote NOTHING is further from the truth If 80% of Greens voters give their preferences to Labor - that is a logical perogative forced on no-one And also most of sound mind What sort fool votes for the party that represents the environment first - and then second the party that represents the mining industry ?

Don't worry about him Buzz, the dick cant even spell properly and he bags Labor for education.

skippy. wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 8:14am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 6:27pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 4:42pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 3:29pm: In MY electorate (Ballarat) the Greens did not allocate prefences - which I believe was the case in not just this electorate The best solution I had was via a 'how to vote Liberal card' -numbered in REVERSE When they ARE given it is a "serving suggestion" only - the decision on preferences is always the decision of the voter Anyone that says a Green vote is an "automatic vote for Labor" is talking a LOAD of NONSENSE But if you take out the word 'automatic' it DOES become true. With 80-90% of green preferences flowing to labor your protestations ring a little hollow! Not at ALL There is no shortage of political NONGS who still have this belief that the Greens preference swap ends as a Labor vote NOTHING is further from the truth If 80% of Greens voters give their preferences to Labor - that is a logical perogative forced on no-one And also most of sound mind What sort fool votes for the party that represents the environment first - and then second the party that represents the mining industry ? Don't worry about him Buzz, the dick cant even spell properly and he bags Labor for education.

You mistake typos from fast typing with spelling. Unlike you, I am an author who CAN write and write well. But you claim to be a political science student yet make the most basic political mistakes!

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 10:05am:

You mistake typos from fast typing with spelling. Unlike you, I am an author who CAN write and write well. But you claim to be a political science student yet make the most basic political mistakes!

Have you written a book?
What is it on? Fiction or Fact based?

Most I have written was a dissertation at university on the Asian Financial Crisis of 1998 which I look back on now and really enjoyed too.

In the middle of it and working to deadlines, it felt less enjoyable.