Richard Dawkins meets Steve Fielding


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewDT-r00eCU

Longweekend, is this the sort of senator you would want in parliament?

What about you maqqa, this the type of senator you want back?

ALP threat carries high risks



THE threat by ALP leaders to direct Labor preferences to the Liberals ahead of the Greens would have no impact in the House of Representatives. But it might cost the Greens a Senate seat or two - and give the Coalition control of the Senate.

If they mean it, it's a high-risk threat. Like them or loathe them, the Greens are Labor's ally. In 2010, 45 of Labor's 72 MPs won their seats on Green preferences. In the whole of Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and both territories, every Labor MP got there on Greens preferences.

Labor's tough guys brush aside the threat: except in five seats at most, Greens voters will ultimately have to choose between Labor and Tony Abbott. Election after election has shown that Greens how-to-vote cards make almost no difference: most Greens voters give their preferences to Labor whether told to or not.

But in the House, Labor's threat is hollow. In the handful of seats the Greens have a chance of winning, Labor preferences will not be distributed. In seats such as Melbourne, and at a stretch, Batman and Wills, the fight would be between the Greens and Labor. Liberal preferences would decide it.

The Senate is different. Given the size of the ballot paper, most of us tick the box for our party and its preferences, rather than fill out our own. In 2004, Labor preferences put Family First's Steve Fielding into the Senate instead of the Greens. They could do it again.

In 2010 it wouldn't have mattered. The Greens' vote hit record levels, and except in New South Wales, they won either a full quota or close to it. Where they got Labor preferences, they didn't need them. But if their vote falls a bit in 2013, Labor preferences could be crucial. If Labor and the Coalition swap preferences, they could limit the Greens to Tasmania and Victoria.

For Labor, the risk is that it could give the Coalition control of the Senate. Ultimately it has to decide which party is its real enemy - and which its ally.

Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/national/national/general/alp-threat-carries-high-risks/2619170.aspx

Thge risk of continuing to give support to extremist groups like the Greens is too great, we've seen that.

corporate_whitey wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 11:15am:

Thge risk of continuing to give support to extremist groups like the Greens is too great, we've seen that.

So you support Family First, Abbott, and Labor by giving them both houses of parliament, pushing for creationism being taught in the science class?

Yes, senate voting can be a pain.
When I saw the loony religious nutjobs running, I was compelled to fill in the whole sheet, just so I could put them absolutely last.

Born again christians/happy clappers, are the very last people I want to see determining the laws and values of our nation.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

Yes, senate voting can be a pain. When I saw the loony religious nutjobs running, I was compelled to fill in the whole sheet, just so I could put them absolutely last. Born again christians/happy clappers, are the very last people I want to see determining the laws and values of our nation.

and what you dont seem to realise is that Christiansa are EVERYWHERE in the major parties (not te Greens). So while you spend all your energies attacking Family First and the likes of Steve Fielding (who was unimpressive), the rest of the parliamentary christian fellowship takes its seats in the house and many make it to the top job. For example. Howard ias a christian and so is Abbott. And based on the performance of the avowed atheist Gillard - whose reign has been one screwup after another - perhaps you shoudl find some christans to vote for as well.

____ wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 10:42am:

ALP threat carries high risks THE threat by ALP leaders to direct Labor preferences to the Liberals ahead of the Greens would have no impact in the House of Representatives. But it might cost the Greens a Senate seat or two - and give the Coalition control of the Senate. If they mean it, it's a high-risk threat. Like them or loathe them, the Greens are Labor's ally. In 2010, 45 of Labor's 72 MPs won their seats on Green preferences. In the whole of Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and both territories, every Labor MP got there on Greens preferences. Labor's tough guys brush aside the threat: except in five seats at most, Greens voters will ultimately have to choose between Labor and Tony Abbott. Election after election has shown that Greens how-to-vote cards make almost no difference: most Greens voters give their preferences to Labor whether told to or not. But in the House, Labor's threat is hollow. In the handful of seats the Greens have a chance of winning, Labor preferences will not be distributed. In seats such as Melbourne, and at a stretch, Batman and Wills, the fight would be between the Greens and Labor. Liberal preferences would decide it. The Senate is different. Given the size of the ballot paper, most of us tick the box for our party and its preferences, rather than fill out our own. In 2004, Labor preferences put Family First's Steve Fielding into the Senate instead of the Greens. They could do it again. In 2010 it wouldn't have mattered. The Greens' vote hit record levels, and except in New South Wales, they won either a full quota or close to it. Where they got Labor preferences, they didn't need them. But if their vote falls a bit in 2013, Labor preferences could be crucial. If Labor and the Coalition swap preferences, they could limit the Greens to Tasmania and Victoria. For Labor, the risk is that it could give the Coalition control of the Senate. Ultimately it has to decide which party is its real enemy - and which its ally. Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU http://www.theherald.com.au/news/national/national/general/alp-threat-carries-high-risks/2619170.aspx

Labor needs to take the risk and the short-term pain of eliminating the greens from parliament.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 11:23am: Yes, senate voting can be a pain. When I saw the loony religious nutjobs running, I was compelled to fill in the whole sheet, just so I could put them absolutely last. Born again christians/happy clappers, are the very last people I want to see determining the laws and values of our nation. and what you dont seem to realise is that Christiansa are EVERYWHERE in the major parties (not te Greens). So while you spend all your energies attacking Family First and the likes of Steve Fielding (who was unimpressive), the rest of the parliamentary christian fellowship takes its seats in the house and many make it to the top job. For example. Howard ias a christian and so is Abbott. And based on the performance of the avowed atheist Gillard - whose reign has been one screwup after another - perhaps you shoudl find some christans to vote for as well.

Christians are losers afraid to face reality, you fit the bill perfectly.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 11:23am:

Yes, senate voting can be a pain. When I saw the loony religious nutjobs running, I was compelled to fill in the whole sheet, just so I could put them absolutely last. Born again christians/happy clappers, are the very last people I want to see determining the laws and values of our nation.

Yeah, know how you feel. I've done the same thing several times. It can be hard to decide which bunch of nut jobs gets the wooden spoon - Family First, Fred Nile or the Shooters.

Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens.

john_g wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 3:10pm:

Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens.

you mean you are voting LIBERAL in the lower house and your senate vote will end up via preferences to one of the three majors.

thats your reality.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 4:39pm:

john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:10pm: Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens. you mean you are voting LIBERAL in the lower house and your senate vote will end up via preferences to one of the three majors. thats your reality.

No, I am voting specifically for Turnbull, because him to be a man of great integrity, honesty and he stands up for his values.
I will just put a 1 next to a party like the Christian Democrats or something like that.

john_g wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:39pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:10pm: Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens. you mean you are voting LIBERAL in the lower house and your senate vote will end up via preferences to one of the three majors. thats your reality. No, I am voting specifically for Turnbull, because him to be a man of great integrity, honesty and he stands up for his values. I will just put a 1 next to a party like the Christian Democrats or something like that.

your reasoning can be whatever you like but you are still voting for Libs in the lower house and in the senate you need to look where your preferences end up. if you vote CD then it will just be another Liberal vote anyhow.

THATS the reality.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:39pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:10pm: Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens. you mean you are voting LIBERAL in the lower house and your senate vote will end up via preferences to one of the three majors. thats your reality. No, I am voting specifically for Turnbull, because him to be a man of great integrity, honesty and he stands up for his values. I will just put a 1 next to a party like the Christian Democrats or something like that. your reasoning can be whatever you like but you are still voting for Libs in the lower house and in the senate you need to look where your preferences end up. if you vote CD then it will just be another Liberal vote anyhow. THATS the reality.

Of course it is, as Turnbull is a Liberal.

Would it be? I have no idea how preferences work in the Senate. I will be voting for a minor party, that's all, and it certainly will not be the Greens. I'll see who's running, and then make up my mind.

john_g wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:58pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:39pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:10pm: Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens. you mean you are voting LIBERAL in the lower house and your senate vote will end up via preferences to one of the three majors. thats your reality. No, I am voting specifically for Turnbull, because him to be a man of great integrity, honesty and he stands up for his values. I will just put a 1 next to a party like the Christian Democrats or something like that. your reasoning can be whatever you like but you are still voting for Libs in the lower house and in the senate you need to look where your preferences end up. if you vote CD then it will just be another Liberal vote anyhow. THATS the reality. Of course it is, as Turnbull is a Liberal. Would it be? I have no idea how preferences work in the Senate. I will be voting for a minor party, that's all, and it certainly will not be the Greens. I'll see who's running, and then make up my mind.

not sure why you think voting for a minor party is intrinscally superior. Anyhow, you DO need to look where those  preferences are going because YOUR vote will end up in someone elses numbers and you best be informed as to WHOM.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 5:09pm:

john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 5:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:58pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:39pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:10pm: Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens. you mean you are voting LIBERAL in the lower house and your senate vote will end up via preferences to one of the three majors. thats your reality. No, I am voting specifically for Turnbull, because him to be a man of great integrity, honesty and he stands up for his values. I will just put a 1 next to a party like the Christian Democrats or something like that. your reasoning can be whatever you like but you are still voting for Libs in the lower house and in the senate you need to look where your preferences end up. if you vote CD then it will just be another Liberal vote anyhow. THATS the reality. Of course it is, as Turnbull is a Liberal. Would it be? I have no idea how preferences work in the Senate. I will be voting for a minor party, that's all, and it certainly will not be the Greens. I'll see who's running, and then make up my mind. not sure why you think voting for a minor party is intrinscally superior. Anyhow, you DO need to look where those  preferences are going because YOUR vote will end up in someone elses numbers and you best be informed as to WHOM.

Because I don't want to give the Coalition too much power and am still not totally satisfied with them, although I prefer them to Labor and especially the Greens.

I don't know if it's possible to know where your prefernces go if your preferred choice doesn't get elected in the Senate. I've never seen it anywhere. When the election is called, I will have a long look at the paper and decide for whom I will vote. Still not sure yet.

john_g wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 5:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 5:09pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 5:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:58pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 4:39pm: john_g wrote on Jul 10th, 2012 at 3:10pm: Better than the alternative. There is no way in hell that Labor, Liberal or the Greens are getting my Senate vote. I'm voting Turnbull in the lower house, and a minor party in the Senate, but definitely not the Greens. you mean you are voting LIBERAL in the lower house and your senate vote will end up via preferences to one of the three majors. thats your reality. No, I am voting specifically for Turnbull, because him to be a man of great integrity, honesty and he stands up for his values. I will just put a 1 next to a party like the Christian Democrats or something like that. your reasoning can be whatever you like but you are still voting for Libs in the lower house and in the senate you need to look where your preferences end up. if you vote CD then it will just be another Liberal vote anyhow. THATS the reality. Of course it is, as Turnbull is a Liberal. Would it be? I have no idea how preferences work in the Senate. I will be voting for a minor party, that's all, and it certainly will not be the Greens. I'll see who's running, and then make up my mind. not sure why you think voting for a minor party is intrinscally superior. Anyhow, you DO need to look where those  preferences are going because YOUR vote will end up in someone elses numbers and you best be informed as to WHOM. Because I don't want to give the Coalition too much power and am still not totally satisfied with them, although I prefer them to Labor and especially the Greens. I don't know if it's possible to know where your prefernces go if your preferred choice doesn't get elected in the Senate. I've never seen it anywhere. When the election is called, I will have a long look at the paper and decide for whom I will vote. Still not sure yet.

in the senate, parties register a how-to-vote card with the AEC and if you vote for them above the line THAT is how the preferences will be allocated. alternatively you can choose to vote below the line and do all the preferences yourself.