As the bloodbath continues in NSW there is only one winner - the Lib/Nat Coalition. The Greens, tipped to win as many as four lower house seats, hold the balance of power in the upper house and acheive a record 17% vote have failed miserably on all these targets. With 17% sliced off Labor's primary vote, this was the election that was a huge opportuniity for the Greens to mine the wells of discontent and drag massive support to them. The result was quite different - and embarrassing.

The Greens polled just over 10% - a mere ONE PERCENT increase over the 2007 result in what is a huge disappointment for them. When looking at the federal result only 6 months ago we see the same effect where the vote is actually down 2% on the result then and a HUGE 7% lower than recent polls.

The coalition has romped to an upper house majority thus negating any influence from the Greens and in the lower house they are struggling to win any seats at all.

The proven formula of the Vic Libs of refusing to preference the Greens at all has been only tried in part in NSW but even then has ruined the Greens hopes for a Tasmanian like Influence.

When Bob Brown spoke of this being a 'Tasmanian-like experience' people began to wonder what he was on about. The green influence over NSW politics has been totally neutered. They now have zero influence.

Up until the Carbon Tax fiasco - which is widely looked on as being nothing more then Gillard kowtowing to the Greens - the Greens were widely tipped to poll well in the anticipated electoral slaughter in NSW.  

Not any more.

The Carbon Tax has cost the Greens any hope of influence in NSW just as it has also seen its polls drop federally.

Bad news for Labor on all fronts, but history tells us they will be back - although not for some time. That same political history also tells us that third parties reach a zenith and then begin a slow and often humilating slide into irelevancy and death. That zenith has now been reached.

As ugly as it is to be a labor member today, it is still better than being a Green member. At least Labor still has a future. The slow death of the Greens has begun.

;D ;D ;D
Oh what a LITTLE, LITTLE, LITTLE increase,

But Buzzard had to make it like IT WAS A BIG DEAL, OH AMAZING DEAL,

I guess people like Buzzz handles Labor getting THRASHED in that fashion by the electorate in different ways.

stryder wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

;D ;D ;D Oh what a LITTLE, LITTLE, LITTLE increase, But Buzzard had to make it like IT WAS A BIG DEAL, OH AMAZING DEAL, I guess people like Buzzz handles Labor getting THRASHED in that fashion by the electorate in different ways.

there is a little bit more in political analysis than comparing two numbers four years apart and calling it a victory. Winning nothing and losing all influence is not the basis of a celebration.

The Greens have paid the penalty for jumping into bed with a corrupt Federal Labor Government, and people were not going to let it happen on a State level.  Sucked in I say.

culldav wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 11:31pm:

The Greens have paid the penalty for jumping into bed with a corrupt Federal Labor Government, and people were not going to let it happen on a State level.  Sucked in I say.

personally I think its becoming clearer to people more and more that the greens are all about HUGE TAX.. if it moves TAX IT.

since they dont hug trees anymore and when there is nothing more they can complain about..[plastic bags].or PANIC about this is what they do they turn to TAX... they want to cut our defence budget,, yet let anyone and everyone in over our borders, talk about sitting ducks.

dread the thought of this Mining TAX getting into their hands booby and gillard I wouldnt trust with a rustynail.so much will go down the drain.. it could even end up feeding our addicts certainly wont improve things for our homeless. but should help swanny with his bottom line.

bob brown is said to be a freemason like the rest of the despots

in government

this is about to be dissolved,

fear not beloved ones

namaste

-:)

did Steve Whan lose his seat??.. now that would be a blow he was very very popular.not that I have seen a lot of Fed money in his area but as a person he had a lot of followers.. did notice when I went to a local Show he had his tent up and no ALP logo.. they were all on the back against a shed wall.. lol..he was just the Member for Monaro.

somewhere someone has to own up that the Labs Fed and State are on the nose..its silly to pretend one doesnt affect the other.. we are waking up 25 years ago maybe but not now.. everything the feds do affects each and everyone of us.. they should wake up to themselves and stop taking it for granted.. do them all good.

how does empowering the illusion of bi partisan politics

serve your elevation in consciousness?

these are all freemasons working toward the same agendas

if you cannot see this,so be it

namaste

-:)

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:22am:

how does empowering the illusion of bi partisan politics serve your elevation in consciousness? these are all freemasons working toward the same agendas if you cannot see this,so be it namaste -:)

well thanks for those few meaningless words.

It was a very bad result for the Greens.

I watched Ms Keneally deliver her concession speech and I thought that the speech was in no way impromtu but instead seemed to be the product of much home work. Despite putting on a brave face it would appear that she knew 4 weeks ago that she was going to cop a flogging. Also, dragging that barfly Hawke around with her did not help in the least.

Just for the record I'd still like to put that lass across my knee and bring my massive hand crashing down on that cute little bum of hers.

Quote:

The Carbon Tax has cost the Greens any hope of influence in NSW just as it has also seen its polls drop federally.

So what you are saying is that instead of getting elected, the Greens are controlling government policy?


Quote:

That same political history also tells us that third parties reach a zenith and then begin a slow and often humilating slide into irelevancy and death.

Like the Liberal Party?

this is what the govt has to learn from alliance with the Green .. homosexual, open door to illegal economic immigrant, raising cost of living of the carbon tax .. something like this will happen ..

http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9081398/clashes-hit-massive-british-anti-cuts-demo/

Woody's gone very quiet.........

bridonta wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 9:50am:

this is what the govt has to learn from alliance with the Green .. homosexual, open door to illegal economic immigrant, raising cost of living of the carbon tax .. something like this will happen .. http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/9081398/clashes-hit-massive-british-anti-cuts-demo/

Pardon!?  

Could you kindly elaborate - but this time in English, please!?

The Greens didnt do well in a voting system  from people who so easily vote for a party with no mandate to win...O'Farrell just had a huge   victory without a mandate. seems the people want less from a government....

After all, we must assume the people of NSW have taken his Ofarrells policies (or lack thereof) into due consideration before they voted

I wouldn't fret too much about the lacklustre performance of Independents and Greens.
Remember, their ARENA is the Federal Level, rather than the recent STATE level. (I mean, do you see AFL do many Internationals as what Union or League does and do you see League get bigger crowds than AFL at 'club/suburban' level?)

So expect the Coalition (mostly won by the Nationals) to control all the States eventually (just like the ALP did - and put to good use regarding the 'Water Shortage Crises' when all States teamed up against Howard's Federal Coalition level).

...alas, for the Coalition - they won't be facing their 'old enemy' much longer. The Unions will soon start throwing punches at the Coalition.

The Indpendents/Greens will drain the ALP into self-destruction via the Federal level.

SIMPLE AS THAT. ;)

salad in wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:46am:

I watched Ms Keneally deliver her concession speech and I thought that the speech was in no way impromtu but instead seemed to be the product of much home work. Despite putting on a brave face it would appear that she knew 4 weeks ago that she was going to cop a flogging. Also, dragging that barfly Hawke around with her did not help in the least. Just for the record I'd still like to put that lass across my knee and bring my massive hand crashing down on that cute little bum of hers.

Oh yes...she's been very naughty, and needs to be disciplined!!!

salad in wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:46am:

Just for the record I'd still like to put that lass across my knee and bring my massive hand crashing down on that cute little bum of hers.

Alas I too must agree  ;)

Labor does seem to have some nice looking pollies

Maqqa wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:42am:

salad in wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 7:46am: Just for the record I'd still like to put that lass across my knee and bring my massive hand crashing down on that cute little bum of hers. Alas I too must agree  ;) Labor does seem to have some nice looking pollies

Blokes like her. Blokes really like her. There are half a dozen political reporters in this State who would gladly lay their cloaks in a muddy puddle if Keneally wished to glide across it.

She has left a trail of slack-jawed politicians and misty-eyed bureaucrats in her fragrant wake in her eight years in Macquarie Street.

Her lovely smile, beautiful skin and athletic figure earn her admiring glances wherever she goes, from blokes of all shapes and sizes.

A photographer in Brisbane said to me: "Mate, we always try to make our lady [Premier Anna Bligh] look good in pics, but it's not easy. She's not a good sort like yours."

Broadcaster Ray Hadley told me recently it had taken him a while to get a handle on Keneally: "It's hard to get cranky with her, because she's quite disarming. The first time I interviewed her, she did put one over me. She had me disarmed, batting her eyelids and carrying on."



It looks like Hadley is one of the few blokes who woke up to her.  

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:46am:

It was a very bad result for the Greens.

INDEED

A shift to a 10.3 primary - from 8.95 at the last election - was quite a blow

Ah Buzz.

Our unbiased, neutral political commentator is here.

---

Given that the Greens had just lost their biggest policy issue - action on climate change - I think they did pretty well. I suspect they usually do worse in state politics than federally.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:03am:

Ah Buzz. Our unbiased, neutral political commentator is here.

Well, did the Greens' vote INCREASE - or DECREASE ?

NSW had to have a change of government, no question about that, but the disappointing aspect is that the Libs will falsely claim that they have won on the back of their own policies, even though they seem reluctant to promote any.
They won because they were not Labor, they had not been in power for 16 years, and they had not had the nepotistic levels of corruption that stems from being in power for too long.

Of course we see a similar degree of crass bad grace from Lib supporters in victory, to what we saw from them in defeat, which has to raise questions about just how immature their supporters are.

So the massive amount of anti-Carbon tax hysteria that we have seen from the media, may be a big reason why the Greens did not secure a larger part of the vote shed by Labor, but even so, I think they would have to be disappointed with what would have to considered a relatively poor outcome for them.

The worst aspect of the whole process seems to be that the voters are rewarding parties for offering very little in the way of openly expressed, alternative policy choices, where no real mandate is delivered for any specific policies.

Of course the Libs will falsely claim that the result is a resounding rejection of the Federal Carbon Policy, which is understandable, despite being largely unfounded, with the hard truth being that they would have achieved the same result even if there had been no Carbon Tax issue at the Federal level.

The one, most critical factor was that Labor had completely self destructed, and as Hawke had once said about the logistics of facing uo against a thoroughly damaged, and discredited opposition, "a drover's dog" could lead you to victory.
So it was yesterday, and while the Libs won easily, it would be hard to imagine any opposition party which could not have led the annihilation of the former NSW Labor government, which was terminally unelectable.

They will however, rue the day, if they take this victory for granted, and fail to deliver a strong reforming government, because a very jaded NSW electorate wants to see positive action, and while they could win without offering anything much in the way of policies for the future, they cannot afford to govern with the same lack of vision, or else they will find the good will of the electorate, quickly disappearing.

Even so, congrats have to go their way, and our strongest hope that they do govern honestly, and effectively, as it has been far too long since NSW has had a government offer either of those qualities.

Lets hope the  Pressure is on O’farrell to perform. Lets also hope the msm media tell us both -the good, AND bad .

GrandPaPa wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:35am:

salad in wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 7:46am: I watched Ms Keneally deliver her concession speech and I thought that the speech was in no way impromtu but instead seemed to be the product of much home work. Despite putting on a brave face it would appear that she knew 4 weeks ago that she was going to cop a flogging. Also, dragging that barfly Hawke around with her did not help in the least. Just for the record I'd still like to put that lass across my knee and bring my massive hand crashing down on that cute little bum of hers. Oh yes...she's been very naughty, and needs to be disciplined!!!

Oooh...she has been such a bad, bad girl! As a punishment she must not wear any knickers today, or while sitting on the back bench when parliament resumes!!  :o

Quote:

INDEED A shift to a 10.3 primary - from 8.95 at the last election - was quite a blow

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

OH YES BUZZZZZ, THAT WAS HUGE SEISMIC INCREASE IN SUPPORT,

But with all that momentum, I STILL DONT SEE ANY SEATS WON YET ????? and they were expected too ??


BUT THEN AGAIN WE CANT TAKE THAT AWAY FROM BUZZZZ, YES THAT LITTLE, LITTLE INCREASE WAS SEISMIC,  ;D

wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

The Greens didnt do well in a voting system  from people who so easily vote for a party with no mandate to win...O'Farrell just had a huge   victory without a mandate. seems the people want less from a government.... After all, we must assume the people of NSW have taken his Ofarrells policies (or lack thereof) into due consideration before they voted

Just to help you with this:

"man·date (mndt)
n.
1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.3.
a. A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory.
b. A region under such administration.
4. Law
a. An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court.
b. A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another without payment.
tr.v. man·dat·ed, man·dat·ing, man·dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation of public schools."


The NSW LNP have been given such an instruction by the electorate  -to form a Government.

End of story.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:39am:

So the massive amount of anti-Carbon tax hysteria that we have seen from the media, may be a big reason why the Greens did not secure a larger part of the vote shed by Labor, .

To call the genuine concern that so many of us have for the destructive nature of a tax on middle to lower income families budgets 'hysteria' is very ignorant and bordering on offensive.

There is nothing hysterical about opposition to an unnecessary tax which will put so many lower income people under economic strain.

stryder wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

Quote: INDEED A shift to a 10.3 primary - from 8.95 at the last election - was quite a blow ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D OH YES BUZZZZZ, THAT WAS HUGE SEISMIC INCREASE IN SUPPORT, But with all that momentum, I STILL DONT SEE ANY SEATS WON YET ????? and they were expected too ?? BUT THEN AGAIN WE CANT TAKE THAT AWAY FROM BUZZZZ, YES THAT LITTLE, LITTLE INCREASE WAS SEISMIC,  ;D

Was that the same as the swing away from labor  You dam moron  buzz    ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The Greens, as longie has summarised it so well, have just gone over the hill.
This was THEIR election to shine but they didn't. They were supposed to get the disaffected Labor voters but they didn't.
Why didn't they? Becuase the people have had a chance to see them in action at the federal level and they don't like what they see.
Good old common sense mainstream Australia knows a bunch of dangerous extremists when they see them. They are not fooled any more by the outward cloak of warm & fuzzy lovers of the environment.
Mainstream Australia realises there are environmentalists in the Liberal & Labor parties. After all, who has given us environmental laws & protection? Not the Greens.
The Greens haven't given us anything but trouble and they are hell-bent on giving us more.
Mainstream Australia doesn't want their extreme policies.

"The Greens are crap" - bogarde, 2011

Any time there is a close election or a minority government people polarise back to the major party's.

With people going away from Labor this benifited the Libs and Nats and hurt the Greens and indipendants.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:42am:

salad in wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 7:46am: Just for the record I'd still like to put that lass across my knee and bring my massive hand crashing down on that cute little bum of hers. Alas I too must agree  ;) Labor does seem to have some nice looking pollies

Is there another example?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

Any time there is a close election or a minority government people polarise back to the major party's. With people going away from Labor this benifited the Libs and Nats and hurt the Greens and indipendants.

you only have to look at the last federal election to see how inaccurate this 'assessment' is.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:01pm:

Any time there is a close election or a minority government people polarise back to the major party's. With people going away from Labor this benifited the Libs and Nats and hurt the Greens and independants.

That SEEMS to be the consensus ...





Quote:

Why the middling performance for independents and Greens? I think the main reason is that the campaign was completely dominated by the Coalition’s defeat of Labor. Voters were desperate to remove the Labor government, and for most the Coalition was the most clearcut way of getting rid of Labor.

http://www.tallyroom.com.au/

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:01pm: Any time there is a close election or a minority government people polarise back to the major party's. With people going away from Labor this benifited the Libs and Nats and hurt the Greens and independants. That SEEMS to be the consensus ... Quote: Why the middling performance for independents and Greens? I think the main reason is that the campaign was completely dominated by the Coalition’s defeat of Labor. Voters were desperate to remove the Labor government, and for most the Coalition was the most clearcut way of getting rid of Labor. http://www.tallyroom.com.au/

Its not a CONSENSUS at all. just one opinion you like. and are you also accepting that the Greens performance was 'middling' ie ORDINARY?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2011 at 10:49pm:

The Greens polled just over 10% - a mere ONE PERCENT increase over the 2007 result in what is a huge disappointment for them. When looking at the federal result only 6 months ago we see the same effect where the vote is actually down 2% on the result then and a HUGE 7% lower than recent polls.

Might have been a few of those "rogue polls" you're always bangin' on about ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26th, 2011 at 10:49pm: The Greens polled just over 10% - a mere ONE PERCENT increase over the 2007 result in what is a huge disappointment for them. When looking at the federal result only 6 months ago we see the same effect where the vote is actually down 2% on the result then and a HUGE 7% lower than recent polls. Might have been a few of those "rogue polls" you're always bangin' on about ?

you are the one known as 'rogue poll buzz'. the polls had Greens at 17% (newspoll) until the Greens showed what they are made of with the Carbon tax and VOILA!!! your hopes of lower house seats evaporated.

Quote:

until the Greens showed what they are made of with the Carbon tax

You think people didn't realise that?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:43pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:01pm: Any time there is a close election or a minority government people polarise back to the major party's. With people going away from Labor this benifited the Libs and Nats and hurt the Greens and independants. That SEEMS to be the consensus ... Quote: Why the middling performance for independents and Greens? I think the main reason is that the campaign was completely dominated by the Coalition’s defeat of Labor. Voters were desperate to remove the Labor government, and for most the Coalition was the most clearcut way of getting rid of Labor. http://www.tallyroom.com.au/ Its not a CONSENSUS at all. just one opinion you like. and are you also accepting that the Greens performance was 'middling' ie ORDINARY?

It was consistant with increases in every recent election
The last minute shift was the realisation Labor could form a minority government with Greens' support - if enough of them were elected

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

Quote: until the Greens showed what they are made of with the Carbon tax You think people didn't realise that?

Ive said for a long time that people primarily vote Green as a PROTEST VOTE only. they dont liek the policie sbut feel safe that it wil not be a problem. Now it is. The Carbon tax is Bob Browns policy and the Green vote suffered badly for it. in the most golden opportunity for votes they will probably EVER GET they should have gotten at least 17-20%.

But they got 10% - a DREADFUL result!

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:43pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:32pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:01pm: Any time there is a close election or a minority government people polarise back to the major party's. With people going away from Labor this benifited the Libs and Nats and hurt the Greens and independants. That SEEMS to be the consensus ... Quote: Why the middling performance for independents and Greens? I think the main reason is that the campaign was completely dominated by the Coalition’s defeat of Labor. Voters were desperate to remove the Labor government, and for most the Coalition was the most clearcut way of getting rid of Labor. http://www.tallyroom.com.au/ Its not a CONSENSUS at all. just one opinion you like. and are you also accepting that the Greens performance was 'middling' ie ORDINARY? It was consistant with increases in every recent election The last minute shift was the realisation Labor could form a minority government with Greens' support - if enough of them were elected

Garbage and nothing more than wishful thinking. NO ONE in NSW expected Labor to get anywhere NEAR a majority. No one voted Liberal for that reason. They voted ANTI LABOR and ANTI GREEN.

Greens had a dreadful result that they may never recover from. The slide is on and now they are on the way make to electoral irrelevance. They already are in NSW!

From now on if you kiss illegals' asses you get the flick  >:(

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:09am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 11:03am: Ah Buzz. Our unbiased, neutral political commentator is here. Well, did the Greens' vote INCREASE - or DECREASE ?

By the polls or by the election??
Because, according to the Jan/Feb polls, the Greens had 17% of the vote...and according to the March 21-23 polls they had 12%...but in the election (3 days AFTER the last poll) the Greens only got 10.3%....A drop of 6.7%...

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 3:51pm: Quote: until the Greens showed what they are made of with the Carbon tax You think people didn't realise that? Ive said for a long time that people primarily vote Green as a PROTEST VOTE only.

I voted for them in protest of the two major parties failing to impliment a carbon tax. Any vote for a minor party can be construed as a protest vote. It does not mean that the people who vote for them do not actually support their policies.

I think it's a GREAT result that the Greens anticipated Lower House seats have not eventuated.      :) :)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 4:20pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 11:09am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 11:03am: Ah Buzz. Our unbiased, neutral political commentator is here. Well, did the Greens' vote INCREASE - or DECREASE ? By the polls or by the election?? Because, according to the Jan/Feb polls, the Greens had 17% of the vote...and according to the March 21-23 polls they had 12%...but in the election (3 days AFTER the last poll) the Greens only got 10.3%....A drop of 6.7%...

Doesn't that nearly always happen with minor parties?

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 4:23pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 4:20pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 11:09am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 11:03am: Ah Buzz. Our unbiased, neutral political commentator is here. Well, did the Greens' vote INCREASE - or DECREASE ? By the polls or by the election?? Because, according to the Jan/Feb polls, the Greens had 17% of the vote...and according to the March 21-23 polls they had 12%...but in the election (3 days AFTER the last poll) the Greens only got 10.3%....A drop of 6.7%... Doesn't that nearly always happen with minor parties?

no.

...... wrong thread

wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 6:06pm:

...... wrong thread

Why? because it didnt happen> as recently as a few weeks ago the Greens were expecting a FLOOD of votes

wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 10:10am:

The Greens didnt do well in a voting system  from people who so easily vote for a party with no mandate to win...O'Farrell just had a huge   victory without a mandate. seems the people want less from a government.... After all, we must assume the people of NSW have taken his Ofarrells policies (or lack thereof) into due consideration before they voted

hu7hum what was the Labor mandate veg it slips my mind again?????????

not more roads to nowhere.. or hospitals that never arrive..what about a tunnel or three...lol..all pending from about 3 elections ago.

the must be your idea of a mandate.. as long as its promised... then we must have got it..

wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

Lets hope the  Pressure is on O’farrell to perform. Lets also hope the msm media tell us both -the good, AND bad .

yes its about time all those labor investors heard some GOOD news..hysterical.. t hey havent heard much for 15 years poor things, so come on Bazza give it to them High Five..lol..

all in the next 5 minutes please.

Citizenship is a privilege - not a right, pathological subversives of our democracy and inherited British system of Government and law can be stripped of their citizenship and exiled. 8-) 8-) 8-)

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 4:03pm:

Greens had a dreadful result that they may never recover from. The slide is on and now they are on the way make to electoral irrelevance. They already are in NSW!

The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Federal Election
The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Victorian State Election
The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last West Australian State Election
The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last South Australian State Election
The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Queensland State Election
The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Tasmanian State Election
The Greens' vote INCREASED at yesterdays NSW State Election


Increases ranged from 0.4 points to 4.6 points


Were they ALL "dreadful results" ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 4:03pm: Greens had a dreadful result that they may never recover from. The slide is on and now they are on the way make to electoral irrelevance. They already are in NSW! The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Federal Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Victorian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last West Australian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last South Australian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Queensland State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Tasmanian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at yesterdays NSW State Election Increases ranged from 0.4 points to 4.6 points Were they ALL "dreadful results" ?

The Greens obviously aren`t collecting their "share" of disgruntled ALP voters` wake up votes.  Considering the lack of subsatnce of the Greens, the result wasn`t too  bad, or unexpected.

It does look like many NSW's voters realised that voting for the small independents and parties can cause a real problem if results are tight. They made their choice between Labor and Lberal with many changing sides for the first time.

Its definitely a case of spot the reds!!

And from Malcolm Farr, another leftist journalist....

Greens will die on the vine without Liberal help
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/greens-will-die-on-the-vine-without-liberal-help/?from=scroller&pos=1&referrer=home&link=text

To adapt the slogan of the NRA: Labor voters don’t elect Greens; Liberals elect Greens.
The Green ambitions in the NSW election were massively frustrated last night because the Liberals did not direct their second-choice votes to them.

Without that vital second tier support from their unlikely ballot buddies the Liberals, the Greens did worse than they hoped in the vulnerable inner-city Labor seats of Marrickville and Balmain.

The hopes of holding the balance of power in the state Upper House also were dashed by the same preference deprivation.etc etc etc...............There is an argument that in such convincing swing against a government, the overwhelming objective of NSW’s voters was to eliminate a party, not necessarily to elevate one or two others.

So they made damn sure Labor was their target, and that was the sum total of the strategy. Voting to position minor parties didn’t enter the equation, so determined were they to dump the ALP.

That might be one reason why the Greens did not feature strongly in NSW. But it seems that in the middle of a huge protest vote, a high profile protest vote party missed out.

Another might be that the Green experiment in influencing government federally has not impressed voters and they do not want it repeated in NSW.

The Greens have worked closely with major parties in other state governments, notably Tasmania, but it could be the exercise in federal politics has not been seen as a triumph by mainstream voters, or my so-called progressives.
_________________________

Ted Bailleiu set the pace by not preferencing the loony Greens............Bazza O'Farrell didn't either and I am pretty sure the Libs won't at the next Election.  and just look at the result.  24% swing away from Labor with only 1% of that going to the Greens.........LOL.  The Greens are going nowhere fast..........so it's GOODNIGHT to the LOONY GREENS AND GOOD RIDDANCE.

My commiserations woody and buzz   :'(

Not getting Lib preferences is a sign that they are seen by the Libs as a serious threat and on the way up.

Another sign is all the desperate claims that the Greens are getting bad results from people who refuse to actually look at the scoreboard.

I think this harkens back to the fall of the Democrats. People remember sinking the boot in when they were on their knees, but in their memory they have come to mistake this for having some kind of causal effect on their downfall. So they hope that by chanting the same mantra it can cause the fall of the Greens, regadless of the fundamentals.

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 8:45pm:

And from Malcolm Farr, another leftist journalist.... and just look at the result.  24% swing away from Labor My commiserations woody and buzz   :'(

Firstly, girly ...

Malcolm Farr ...     "leftist" ?

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/malcolmfarr/

He blogs for MURDOCH PRESS - for Christ's sake !




Regarding your "24% swing away from Labor" ...

Did you think of a number - and double it ?

The swing was 13.5%

http://www.abc.net.au/news/

Firstly boy, I admit I made a typo, it should have been 14%.

Malcolm Farr is just about as left as they come.  And none of this changes the fact that most of the swing went to the Libs and NOT the loony commies re-badged, The Greens............what was it for the Greens again.........about a 1% gain?  Great result I don't think.  Again, my commiserations buzz.  The Libs are hardly likely to direct their preferences to the Greens again, so where does that them them?  Up the creek without a paddle.  Couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of mis-fits.......great news

Still NO seat for the Greens .. just checked the LIVE election results again. Here .. see for yourself.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2011/


Also double checked by clicking on this link too ..

Seats in Doubt - Electorates where the result is too close to call.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/nsw/2011/guide/seatsindoubt.htm



Nothing Green there either .. now or ever.

It seems the Greens will be sitting outside on the Parliament car park this term

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

Not getting Lib preferences is a sign that they are seen by the Libs as a serious threat and on the way up. Another sign is all the desperate claims that the Greens are getting bad results from people who refuse to actually look at the scoreboard. I think this harkens back to the fall of the Democrats. People remember sinking the boot in when they were on their knees, but in their memory they have come to mistake this for having some kind of causal effect on their downfall. So they hope that by chanting the same mantra it can cause the fall of the Greens, regadless of the fundamentals.

VERY well put

Quote:

think this harkens back to the fall of the Democrats. People remember sinking the boot in when they were on their knees, but in their memory they have come to mistake this for having some kind of causal effect on their downfall. So they hope that by chanting the same mantra it can cause the fall of the Greens, regadless of the fundamentals.

Are you sure about ??

;D ;D

What happened to the democrats, only happened with them. what makes anyone so sure it will be replicated with the greens.

Hey Buzzzz, that 1% increase in the greens support was PRETTY SEISMIC compared to the increase of the Coalition.  ;D ;D ;D

stryder wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 12:21am:

Hey Buzzzz, that 1% increase in the greens support was PRETTY SEISMIC compared to the increase of the Coalition.  ;D ;D ;D

It was clearly a two horse race, when it came to the crunch
Support for independants, Christian Democrats and the Shooters Party ALL fell - with voters focusing on GOVERNMENT

ASIDE from the Coalition - the Greens were the ONLY cantidate/s that registered an INCREASE - giving them ONE more upper house seat (from 4 to 5)

Give it up Buzz, the Greens have had it.  There will be no  more free rides via Lib's preferences...........people are now seeing the Greens for what they really are which is a bunch of drongos who would ruin Australia economically and ruin our way of life.  The tree hugging bit is just a cover for their communistic ideals and poor man that you are, you refuse to see it. Australia won't have a bar of it, especially now the truth is coming out about these loonies...............so get used to it

wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 11:49am:

Lets hope the  Pressure is on O’farrell to perform. Lets also hope the msm media tell us both -the good, AND bad .

the media controlled by rupert murdoch will only heap praise upon them and defend the bad

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 7:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 4:03pm: Greens had a dreadful result that they may never recover from. The slide is on and now they are on the way make to electoral irrelevance. They already are in NSW! The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Federal Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Victorian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last West Australian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last South Australian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Queensland State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at the last Tasmanian State Election The Greens' vote INCREASED at yesterdays NSW State Election Increases ranged from 0.4 points to 4.6 points Were they ALL "dreadful results" ?

Perspective dear Buzzard....

we are talking NSW at the moment where the Greens put in a dreadful performance during the biggest chance of the century. 17% of labor votes shedding and you picked up ONE. truly pathetic.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 9:07pm:

Not getting Lib preferences is a sign that they are seen by the Libs as a serious threat and on the way up. Another sign is all the desperate claims that the Greens are getting bad results from people who refuse to actually look at the scoreboard. I think this harkens back to the fall of the Democrats. People remember sinking the boot in when they were on their knees, but in their memory they have come to mistake this for having some kind of causal effect on their downfall. So they hope that by chanting the same mantra it can cause the fall of the Greens, regadless of the fundamentals.

You are being naive - as Greenies tend to do a lot! The Greens did very poorly and the reason the Libs want to get rid of the Greens is because they are BAD for government. The libs effectively get to choose a  labor or green member and they choose labor. The greens are too insane to work with so the Libs choose labor. Its a wonderful situation for everyone. The libs now have the secret weapon to remove the Green influence - all at NO COST to themselves!

I must disagree with the OP here. With all things considered, the Greens (born again Democrats) actually polled extremely well, far better than they really deserved, we can only attribute their amazing success to voter dissatisfaction with the major parties.

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 7:52am:

I must disagree with the OP here. With all things considered, the Greens (born again Democrats) actually polled extremely well, far better than they really deserved, we can only attribute their amazing success to voter dissatisfaction with the major parties.

How do you figure that? the Greens will never get an opportunity like this again. Labor shed 17% and the Greens picked up only 1%. That is a dreadful result and a repudiation of them as a party. and it is also 2% LOWER than how they polled only 6 months ago in the federal election. By any measurement the Greens result was unexpectedly poor.

This election was a repudiation and emphatic dismissal of Labor in NSW, for obvious reasons.

I believe that took the form of voting for the other party to take over government, much more than we normally see, very much like Rudd getting in.

The greens could not benefit from that, neither could the independents.

Every voter was determined to get rid of Kenneally, and they didn't want to dilute the message.

Sure, some of the swing against the independents could be attributed to bitterness towards Oakeshott and Windsor, but both of those seats still show remarkable sympathy to independents.

Please delete wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

This election was a repudiation and emphatic dismissal of Labor in NSW, for obvious reasons. I believe that took the form of voting for the other party to take over government, much more than we normally see, very much like Rudd getting in. The greens could not benefit from that, neither could the independents. Every voter was determined to get rid of Kenneally, and they didn't want to dilute the message. Sure, some of the swing against the independents could be attributed to bitterness towards Oakeshott and Windsor, but both of those seats still show remarkable sympathy to independents.

sympathy? by getting flogged mercilessly? You hgave an interesting way of analysing a 30% swing

Please delete wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:03am:

This election was a repudiation and emphatic dismissal of Labor in NSW, for obvious reasons. I believe that took the form of voting for the other party to take over government, much more than we normally see, very much like Rudd getting in. The greens could not benefit from that, neither could the independents. Every voter was determined to get rid of Kenneally, and they didn't want to dilute the message. Sure, some of the swing against the independents could be attributed to bitterness towards Oakeshott and Windsor, but both of those seats still show remarkable sympathy to independents.

Let the excuses begin...

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:07am:

Please delete wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 8:03am: This election was a repudiation and emphatic dismissal of Labor in NSW, for obvious reasons. I believe that took the form of voting for the other party to take over government, much more than we normally see, very much like Rudd getting in. The greens could not benefit from that, neither could the independents. Every voter was determined to get rid of Kenneally, and they didn't want to dilute the message. Sure, some of the swing against the independents could be attributed to bitterness towards Oakeshott and Windsor, but both of those seats still show remarkable sympathy to independents. sympathy? by getting flogged mercilessly? You hgave an interesting way of analysing a 30% swing

Party politics is objectionable, inefficient, and dysfunctional in a democracy, however, we are stuck with party politics.  A vote for an independant is usually a wasred vote.

The swing was large, no doubt.

But even with that sour attitude to Oakeshott and Windsor, the independents in Port Macquarie and Tamworth still got 36.3 and 37.9% of first preference votes.

I wouldn't say the nats will be comfortable in those seats.

While it can seem that way, no vote is a wasted vote. It lets the pollies know that not everyone agrees with them, even if they win by a landslide. I live in Barry O'Farrels electorate, yet I voted independent as I am not a supporter of either major party. Even though my candidate got only 2% of the vote I have the satisfaction of knowing I did not vote for a party I disapprove of.

Please delete wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:13am:

The swing was large, no doubt. But even with that sour attitude to Oakeshott and Windsor, the independents in Port Macquarie and Tamworth still got 36.3 and 37.9% of first preference votes. I wouldn't say the nats will be comfortable in those seats.

30-35% swings against them is a massive repudiation. any way you look at it the electorate has show a particularly savage vengeance on independants. I wonder why??? oakeshott/windsor anyone?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:54am:

Please delete wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 8:13am: The swing was large, no doubt. But even with that sour attitude to Oakeshott and Windsor, the independents in Port Macquarie and Tamworth still got 36.3 and 37.9% of first preference votes. I wouldn't say the nats will be comfortable in those seats. 30-35% swings against them is a massive repudiation. any way you look at it the electorate has show a particularly savage vengeance on independants. I wonder why??? oakeshott/windsor anyone?

As I said, Oakeshott/Windsor PLUS a determination to get rid of Labor.

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 27^th, 2011 at 9:32pm:

sandysquirrel18 wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 8:45pm: And from Malcolm Farr, another leftist journalist.... and just look at the result.  24% swing away from Labor My commiserations woody and buzz   :'( Firstly, girly ... Malcolm Farr ...     "leftist" ? http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/malcolmfarr/ He blogs for MURDOCH PRESS - for Christ's sake ! Regarding your "24% swing away from Labor" ... Did you think of a number - and double it ? The swing was 13.5% http://www.abc.net.au/news/

doesnt oakes work for Murdoch???..and I seem to remember a Steven Loosley.now they have that dreadful Howes person. no one is more left than him..



as for the greens I think veryone is trying to say that the greens get IN with preferences.. mostly...and when you count the swing AGAINST Labor which is where they MOSTLy pick up their primary votes...the greens didnt do as well as they expected.....for gods sake... the labs went down by 17% a RECORD.....

so why didnt the greens get a record as well????????


could it have something to do with the LIBS being more popular?????????????

Please delete wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:13am:

The swing was large, no doubt. But even with that sour attitude to Oakeshott and Windsor, the independents in Port Macquarie and Tamworth still got 36.3 and 37.9% of first preference votes. I wouldn't say the nats will be comfortable in those seats.

I would prefer it if no one was SAFE as they call it...it really makes me cringe when I saw some of the rubbish that was in this Lab govt [NSW}.. they were just good old boys and we know it.. and they sat and they sat untill they couldnt do it an ymore without being caught.. its disgraceful.some get where they are by sheer force and scare tactics.and this is called democracy

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 7:42am:

freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 9:07pm: Not getting Lib preferences is a sign that they are seen by the Libs as a serious threat and on the way up. Another sign is all the desperate claims that the Greens are getting bad results from people who refuse to actually look at the scoreboard. I think this harkens back to the fall of the Democrats. People remember sinking the boot in when they were on their knees, but in their memory they have come to mistake this for having some kind of causal effect on their downfall. So they hope that by chanting the same mantra it can cause the fall of the Greens, regadless of the fundamentals. You are being naive - as Greenies tend to do a lot! The Greens did very poorly and the reason the Libs want to get rid of the Greens is because they are BAD for government. The libs effectively get to choose a  labor or green member and they choose labor. The greens are too insane to work with so the Libs choose labor. Its a wonderful situation for everyone. The libs now have the secret weapon to remove the Green influence - all at NO COST to themselves!

The libs have been always happy to give preferences to left wing minor parties, including the Greens, on the grounds that it is better to split their opposition - ie it is better to have small party candidates in opposition as it gives them negotiation options, rather than giving it all to labor.

The policies have not changed. If anything the Greens are getting more mainstream. The only thing that has changed is that the Greens are now a credible political threat. That is all. The more powerfull they get, the more the mainstream parties chant this mantra that they are on the way out.


longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 7:58am:

How do you figure that? the Greens will never get an opportunity like this again.

Crap. This was an election where almost all minor parties (the Greens being one exception) lost ground.


Quote:

Let the excuses begin...

Not excuses Longy. We are saying their vote went up, against the tide of fewer votes to minor parties and independents. It is you making excuses for your silly claims.


Quote:

could it have something to do with the LIBS being more popular?????????????

Not really. It took them 6 terms to get rid of Labor. It is hard to get less popular than that and still be a major party.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 7:58am:

mavisdavis wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 7:52am: I must disagree with the OP here. With all things considered, the Greens (born again Democrats) actually polled extremely well, far better than they really deserved, we can only attribute their amazing success to voter dissatisfaction with the major parties. How do you figure that? the Greens will never get an opportunity like this again. Labor shed 17% and the Greens picked up only 1%. That is a dreadful result and a repudiation of them as a party. and it is also 2% LOWER than how they polled only 6 months ago in the federal election. By any measurement the Greens result was unexpectedly poor.

No, this is an exceptionally good result considering the circumstances.  The Greens came into politics promising to deliver a breath of fresh air, problem is, they just smell like a wet dog.

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 6:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 7:42am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 9:07pm: Not getting Lib preferences is a sign that they are seen by the Libs as a serious threat and on the way up. Another sign is all the desperate claims that the Greens are getting bad results from people who refuse to actually look at the scoreboard. I think this harkens back to the fall of the Democrats. People remember sinking the boot in when they were on their knees, but in their memory they have come to mistake this for having some kind of causal effect on their downfall. So they hope that by chanting the same mantra it can cause the fall of the Greens, regadless of the fundamentals. You are being naive - as Greenies tend to do a lot! The Greens did very poorly and the reason the Libs want to get rid of the Greens is because they are BAD for government. The libs effectively get to choose a  labor or green member and they choose labor. The greens are too insane to work with so the Libs choose labor. Its a wonderful situation for everyone. The libs now have the secret weapon to remove the Green influence - all at NO COST to themselves! The libs have been always happy to give preferences to left wing minor parties, including the Greens, on the grounds that it is better to split their opposition - ie it is better to have small party candidates in opposition as it gives them negotiation options, rather than giving it all to labor.The policies have not changed. If anything the Greens are getting more mainstream. The only thing that has changed is that the Greens are now a credible political threat. That is all. The more powerfull they get, the more the mainstream parties chant this mantra that they are on the way out. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 7:58am: How do you figure that? the Greens will never get an opportunity like this again. Crap. This was an election where almost all minor parties (the Greens being one exception) lost ground. Quote: Let the excuses begin... Not excuses Longy. We are saying their vote went up, against the tide of fewer votes to minor parties and independents. It is you making excuses for your silly claims. [quote]could it have something to do with the LIBS being more popular?????????????

Not really. It took them 6 terms to get rid of Labor. It is hard to get less popular than that and still be a major party.[/quote]

but now they have learned that when push comes to shove, a labor MP is preferable to  Green since they only vote with labor and are far harder to negotiate with (being insane)

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 6:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 7:42am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2011 at 9:07pm: Not getting Lib preferences is a sign that they are seen by the Libs as a serious threat and on the way up. Another sign is all the desperate claims that the Greens are getting bad results from people who refuse to actually look at the scoreboard. I think this harkens back to the fall of the Democrats. People remember sinking the boot in when they were on their knees, but in their memory they have come to mistake this for having some kind of causal effect on their downfall. So they hope that by chanting the same mantra it can cause the fall of the Greens, regadless of the fundamentals. You are being naive - as Greenies tend to do a lot! The Greens did very poorly and the reason the Libs want to get rid of the Greens is because they are BAD for government. The libs effectively get to choose a  labor or green member and they choose labor. The greens are too insane to work with so the Libs choose labor. Its a wonderful situation for everyone. The libs now have the secret weapon to remove the Green influence - all at NO COST to themselves! The libs have been always happy to give preferences to left wing minor parties, including the Greens, on the grounds that it is better to split their opposition - ie it is better to have small party candidates in opposition as it gives them negotiation options, rather than giving it all to labor. The policies have not changed. If anything the Greens are getting more mainstream. The only thing that has changed is that the Greens are now a credible political threat. That is all. The more powerfull they get, the more the mainstream parties chant this mantra that they are on the way out. longweekend58 wrote on Mar 28th, 2011 at 7:58am: How do you figure that? the Greens will never get an opportunity like this again. Crap. This was an election where almost all minor parties (the Greens being one exception) lost ground. Quote: Let the excuses begin... Not excuses Longy. We are saying their vote went up, against the tide of fewer votes to minor parties and independents. It is you making excuses for your silly claims. [quote]could it have something to do with the LIBS being more popular?????????????

Not really. It took them 6 terms to get rid of Labor. It is hard to get less popular than that and still be a major party.[/quote]

thats not an analysis. its an excuse. there was NEVER any electoral space for the minor parties to grow further and the independents were slaughtered in the 'oakeshott' factor. The Greens had plenty of room to grow but totally muffed it.

Quote:

but now they have learned that when push comes to shove, a labor MP is preferable to  Green since they only vote with labor and are far harder to negotiate with (being insane)

You are not making any sense Longy. You do not need 100% of MPs on your side to govern, only a majority. So from that perspective it is always better to rank your main opponent last and have minor party MPs and independents get elected instead.


Quote:

there was NEVER any electoral space for the minor parties to grow further

Yes there was. There always is. It is not true that minor parties can only grow when government changes hands. Experience shows the opposite.

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2011 at 8:36pm:

Quote: but now they have learned that when push comes to shove, a labor MP is preferable to  Green since they only vote with labor and are far harder to negotiate with (being insane) You are not making any sense Longy. You do not need 100% of MPs on your side to govern, only a majority. So from that perspective it is always better to rank your main opponent last and have minor party MPs and independents get elected instead. [quote]there was NEVER any electoral space for the minor parties to grow further

Yes there was. There always is. It is not true that minor parties can only grow when government changes hands. Experience shows the opposite.[/quote]


your political analysis skills seem to be limited to wishful thinking. The Vic Libs discovered that preferencing the greens LAST was a positive tactic that not only got rid of the Greens who almost no one can actually work with and cause government for both sides to be difficult, but it also surprisingly increased their votes. from now on the greens will not be getting Liberal preferences and therefore will see their lower house changes destroyed and their upper house numbers reduced. It is a good decision.

Quote:

but it also surprisingly increased their votes

What makes you think that?

Like Labor , the Greens (like all government parties)  struggled in the polls and elections  from time to time, particularly when taking on the big issues, And big companies that have the money to influence the media.  Especially with such action to battle climate change.

The Greens as a 3rd party  gots very little coverage during the campaign  (as did many independents ,like Hatton) . Except from The Australian who's only ploy is  to obviously destroy the party .

So all in all I think they did well.

Anyone seen Woody?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Anyone seen Woody?

No, perhaps he's retreated to an Ashram, to eat tofu and study his navel, and come to terms with the election result???

Either that, or he's far too embarassed to post on here, considering the completely idiotic statements he made about the Coalitions 'Poll Collapse', just before the election....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 2:47pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 2:42pm: Anyone seen Woody? No, perhaps he's retreated to an Ashram, to eat tofu and study his navel, and come to terms with the election result??? Either that, or he's far too embarassed to post on here, considering the completely idiotic statements he made about the Coalitions 'Poll Collapse', just before the election....

I am not sure he knows what embarrassment truly is.

He has come out with some absurd comments in the past - about how he is much better off having left school at 16 etc.
Now if he was Alan Sugar or Richard Branson and worth millions I would take that from him - by all accounts he is unemployed.

Yeah he is really living the high life....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 2:42pm:

Anyone seen Woody?

hard to know... You would normally say he is too embarrassed after his idiotic comments. But that's never stopped him before.

Maybe he'll have a Buzz-like personal public meltdown.

I just thought earlier, Buzz's behaviour is explained -

In the last 18 months we have seen -

+ Labor lose Western Australia
+ Federal Labor become the first party in over 70 years to lose its entire majority after just one term
+ Labor lose Victoria
+ Labor lose New South Wales
+ Kevin Rudd knifed in the back by his deputy who promised total loyalty
+ Completely U turns in policy on Federal level
+ A resurgent Liberal party under an ardent right-winger


Remember his predictions of increased majorities in the federal election and more terms for Brumby.

No wonder the guy has had a meltdown.
The house was built out of cards all along.....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 4:00pm:

Maybe he'll have a Buzz-like personal public meltdown. I just thought earlier, Buzz's behaviour is explained - In the last 18 months we have seen - + Labor lose Western Australia + Federal Labor become the first party in over 70 years to lose its entire majority after just one term + Labor lose Victoria + Labor lose New South Wales + Kevin Rudd knifed in the back by his deputy who promised total loyalty + Completely U turns in policy on Federal level + A resurgent Liberal party under an ardent right-winger Remember his predictions of increased majorities in the federal election and more terms for Brumby. No wonder the guy has had a meltdown. The house was built out of cards all along.....

its all the better because 18months ago he was predicting the end of the liberal party. now it looks like the labor party is in desperate trouble - esp the dominant NSW labor party.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 4:53pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:00pm: Maybe he'll have a Buzz-like personal public meltdown. I just thought earlier, Buzz's behaviour is explained - In the last 18 months we have seen - + Labor lose Western Australia + Federal Labor become the first party in over 70 years to lose its entire majority after just one term + Labor lose Victoria + Labor lose New South Wales + Kevin Rudd knifed in the back by his deputy who promised total loyalty + Completely U turns in policy on Federal level + A resurgent Liberal party under an ardent right-winger Remember his predictions of increased majorities in the federal election and more terms for Brumby. No wonder the guy has had a meltdown. The house was built out of cards all along..... its all the better because 18months ago he was predicting the end of the liberal party. now it looks like the labor party is in desperate trouble - esp the dominant NSW labor party.

Just a minor correction - Labor lost in WA 30 months ago, not 18. Only a year out.

Please delete wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 5:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:53pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30th, 2011 at 4:00pm: Maybe he'll have a Buzz-like personal public meltdown. I just thought earlier, Buzz's behaviour is explained - In the last 18 months we have seen - + Labor lose Western Australia + Federal Labor become the first party in over 70 years to lose its entire majority after just one term + Labor lose Victoria + Labor lose New South Wales + Kevin Rudd knifed in the back by his deputy who promised total loyalty + Completely U turns in policy on Federal level + A resurgent Liberal party under an ardent right-winger Remember his predictions of increased majorities in the federal election and more terms for Brumby. No wonder the guy has had a meltdown. The house was built out of cards all along..... its all the better because 18months ago he was predicting the end of the liberal party. now it looks like the labor party is in desperate trouble - esp the dominant NSW labor party. Just a minor correction - Labor lost in WA 30 months ago, not 18. Only a year out.

a minor RECORRECTION. I was referring federally where buzzard was so endearingly mocking the libs and saying they wil be destroyed and only 18months later it is the LABOR party on the verge of very serious difficulties.

A minor re-recorrection. I was referring to hicks' initial slur.

Please delete wrote on Mar 30^th, 2011 at 7:31pm:

A minor re-recorrection. I was referring to hicks' initial slur.

minor re-re-re-correction... yep you are right...

anyhow where is GREENS_LOSE?