The Senate voting system has always been the minor parties play ground where a long succession of wannabe third party hopefuls have played out their ambitions in controlling government. From time to time, a minor party gains enough senators through either luck or good policy to hold the Balance of Power. Widely misunderstood, the Balance of Power has less power than expected as it only has effect if the two major parties oppose each other. And given that around 90%+ of legislation is passed with bipartisan support that Power only applies to the remaining 10%. As the Greens discovered recently, bipartisan support for Asylum seeker policy rendered not only their votes, but their opinions irrelevant. It was a rather harsh wakeup call to the Greens who had enjoyed an unparalleled and in many people’s view, undeserved access to government policy and power. That has all changed now.

The ALP has belatedly recognised that their alignment with the Greens, which was supposed to be a marriage of convenience, has turned out instead to be the marriage from hell. Repeated calls by labor heavy-weights to dump the Greens has been met by resistance from Julia Gillard, but even she realises that the marriage is over in everything but name only.

Despite Labor’s recent electoral gains, they have started to shed votes yet again and in any case, never got even close to the Coalition. They seem now doomed to return to the sub-thirty percent level where they have spent so much of the last two years.

But the spectre of the Carbon Tax continues to haunt Labor. Its changes to the floor price recently was a good decision, even if it was not recognised as essentially a Coalition policy. It is perhaps noteworthy that the Asylum seeker success was also a carbon copy of the Coalition policy with a couple of extras added. But Labor and the Greens have continued to declare that they would not repeal the carbon tax after the next election which they already know they will lose and lose big. The half-senate election will not produce a senate majority for Tony Abbott like Howard had in 2004. It would take a massive senate backlash to produce such an outcome. However, Labor is playing with fire in stating that they will not accept a massive coalition mandate to repeal the carbon tax. They risk a voter rebellion even within its own ranks and the outside possibility of an Abbott senate majority. But it is still  unlikely. But what has happened to the Greens vote??
When Bob Brown retired from parliament unexpectedly, it was tipped that the Greens vote would drop significantly. Christine Milne does not have the Brown charisma or the Brown political nous. She is the classic crash-through or crash politician. Unfortunately, the result has been ‘crash’. With the latest Newspoll showing the Greens on just 8%, the likelihood of them retaining all of their senate seats at the next election has dropped dramatically. Enough so that the Greens may lose their singular balance of power and have to once again share it with independent senator(s). Suddenly the bravado of rejecting the carbon tax repeal seems a little hollow. But there is another small problem for the Greens that works very much to the Coalition’s advantage.

A double dissolution for the repeal of the Carbon Tax is no empty threat and Tony Abbott has stated very clearly that he intends to use this power if necessary. Unlike Kevin Rudd’s now infamous refusal to use the DD over the CPRS legislation, Abbott has no fear of a DD election. He would easily win it and then repeal the carbon tax at a joint sitting. But the biggest problem in a DD election is that suddenly, the quota for a senator is halved from 14% to just 7% of the primary vote. Under normal circumstances, the Greens would be expected to increase their senators from 9 to as many as 12 without actually increasing their base vote. Abbott could win the battle over the Carbon Tax but lose the war by creating a senate that is simply unworkable through the intransigence of the Greens. But that may have just changed.

The Greens are now polling at just 8%. And given past electoral history, that may be inflated from their ultimate electoral votes by as much as 2%. That puts them at 6% or UNDER a quota for a senator. Normally the Greens and Labor swap preferences, but that has changed somewhat. Various state branches have selectively refused to preference the Greens and the Liberals have already discovered that preferencing Labor ahead of the Greens works out a whole lot better. So what is the outcome if labor and liberals preference each other ahead of the Greens?

In a normal half-senate election, the Greens would lose most, if not all, of their senators up for re-election. This would probably end their exclusive Balance of power But in a Double Dissolution election  - which should be a golden opportunity - they could instead be neutered if their primary vote fails to exceed 7%. They will win to odd senator or two in places like Tas and VIC but that’s about it and their power will be close to zilch.

Suddenly, everything has changed. In the bunker that is the Coalition party room, they too will have enjoyed Labor losing two points but they will be thrilled at the Greens dropping so badly. The wildcard in a DD strategy is suddenly not so scary.

good write up

The Greens have 9 Senators they'll still keep the balance of power in the Senate even if Abbot wins.

Is that your Grade 12 Assignment, Longy?  I reckon it is.  Bit late for you to be trying to matriculate, wot?

:D

TheGreenLight wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 4:04pm:

The Greens have 9 Senators they'll still keep the balance of power in the Senate even if Abbot wins.

you keep up that delusion. on 8% and dropping you may be lucky to win even ONE of the senate postions up for grabs. 8% is the level that parties of no consequence get.

Aussie wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 4:17pm:

Is that your Grade 12 Assignment, Longy?  I reckon it is.  Bit late for you to be trying to matriculate, wot? :D

And clearly the content is well beyond your analytical ability or otherwise you would be challenging my conclusions and processes. But alas... you are hardly alone. In fact, you might have noticed that NO ONE has debated the content or conclusions.

Excellent post gold_medal.

Shane B wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:27pm:

Excellent post gold_medal.

thanks. the real test is the next few polls to see if the greens are really this low or it was an outlier. And if they are dropping still or this is the low point. if they get to 6% then their days with the balance of power are numbered. they might not win a single senate vacancy at the next election or perhaps just in Tas.

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:11pm:

TheGreenLight wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 4:04pm: The Greens have 9 Senators they'll still keep the balance of power in the Senate even if Abbot wins. you keep up that delusion. on 8% and dropping you may be lucky to win even ONE of the senate postions up for grabs. 8% is the level that parties of no consequence get.

Shame you wasted your TIME

Read the QUESTION again



Quote:

IF A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TODAY, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? IF “UNCOMMITTED”, TO WHICH ONE OF THESE DO YOU HAVE A LEANING?

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: TheGreenLight wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 4:04pm: The Greens have 9 Senators they'll still keep the balance of power in the Senate even if Abbot wins. you keep up that delusion. on 8% and dropping you may be lucky to win even ONE of the senate postions up for grabs. 8% is the level that parties of no consequence get. Shame you wasted your TIME Read the QUESTION again Quote: IF A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TODAY, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? IF “UNCOMMITTED”, TO WHICH ONE OF THESE DO YOU HAVE A LEANING?

'Rogue Poll' Buzz is back with us again lending us his amazing insight into polls. In today's imaginary session Buzz explains to us why the senate results at the next election will be significantly different to the HoR results when they havent been so in the past.

Go ahead Buzz... explain to us why you think an 8% Greens poll in NewsPoll whom YOU call 'very accurate' is not a devastating blow to the Greens.  Try and tell us why a drop from 12% to 8% is of no consequence!

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 5:11pm: TheGreenLight wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 4:04pm: The Greens have 9 Senators they'll still keep the balance of power in the Senate even if Abbot wins. you keep up that delusion. on 8% and dropping you may be lucky to win even ONE of the senate postions up for grabs. 8% is the level that parties of no consequence get. Shame you wasted your TIME Read the QUESTION again Quote: IF A FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WAS HELD TODAY, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WOULD YOU VOTE FOR? IF “UNCOMMITTED”, TO WHICH ONE OF THESE DO YOU HAVE A LEANING?

When are you switching back to Labor Buzz ?

That drop from 12 to 8 per cent is also outside the margin of error.

Shane B wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

That drop from 12 to 8 per cent is also outside the margin of error.

there occasional outlier results which are corrected next time around or by other polling groups so I would like to see confirmation of this result. But it certainly without a doubt shows a massive drop in Greens support. their asylum seeker policy has cost them big time in their absolute refusal to save lives unless they got 100% of their own way. They were very clearly shown to be arrogantly dangerous and very much out of their depth in issues of national importance. They look like amateurish clowns. Christine Milne is a terrible leader.

Great post! Well written.

It will be interesting to see the fate of the greens over the next year, but I think the analyses given to the relationship between the greens and labor shows what could be a big issue in Australian politics. After this failed relationship it will be interesting to see what this could mean for future 3rd parties. After the last couple of years I can't help but feel that both labor and liberal will be very careful about jumping into bed with any other party.

(on a side note; it would be good if more people could start topics like this that puts out an argument with an attempt to support it. That way even if you don't agree with it you can still respect it and discuss it.)

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:56pm:

Great post! Well written. It will be interesting to see the fate of the greens over the next year, but I think the analyses given to the relationship between the greens and labor shows what could be a big issue in Australian politics. After this failed relationship it will be interesting to see what this could mean for future 3rd parties. After the last couple of years I can't help but feel that both labor and liberal will be very careful about jumping into bed with any other party. (on a side note; it would be good if more people could start topics like this that puts out an argument with an attempt to support it. That way even if you don't agree with it you can still respect it and discuss it.)

Most other parties have managed to work with 3rd parties in the past. The Democrats were at times difficlt but could usually be compromised with and sometimes gave superior outcomes. But the Greens really dont do that at all. They want their way or they vote against it. Gillards biggest problem in this parliament has been the greens. She needs them to get anything thru that the Libs dont like and they normally want THEIR way instead of compromise. The asylum seeker legislation was the perfect example.

But you are right, I dont see either party easily going into any form of formal coalition with another party that doesnt share their core objectives and ideology. The nats and libs have their occasional spats but they work together.

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:13pm:

Aussie wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 4:17pm: Is that your Grade 12 Assignment, Longy?  I reckon it is.  Bit late for you to be trying to matriculate, wot? :D And clearly the content is well beyond your analytical ability or otherwise you would be challenging my conclusions and processes. But alas... you are hardly alone. In fact, you might have noticed that NO ONE has debated the content or conclusions.

I can't imagine why anyone would ignore your sock, Longy.

Aussie wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 6:29pm:

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 5:13pm: Aussie wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 4:17pm: Is that your Grade 12 Assignment, Longy?  I reckon it is.  Bit late for you to be trying to matriculate, wot? :D And clearly the content is well beyond your analytical ability or otherwise you would be challenging my conclusions and processes. But alas... you are hardly alone. In fact, you might have noticed that NO ONE has debated the content or conclusions. I can't imagine why anyone would ignore your sock, Longy.

So you are confirming that the analysis is above your intellectual reach?

Quote:

So you are confirming that the analysis is above your intellectual reach?

Until you 'fess up Longy...all I will do is point out your puppetry.

:D

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 9:14am:

The Greens are now polling at just 8%.

So the entire premise of you argument is based on you not understanding relatively basic concepts like margins of error or being able to read a rogue poll? So I can just dismiss the rest of your post then, right?

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2012/06/primssidejune5.png

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:06pm:

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 9:14am: The Greens are now polling at just 8%. So the entire premise of you argument is based on you not understanding relatively basic concepts like margins of error or being able to read a rogue poll? So I can just dismiss the rest of your post then, right? http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/files/2012/06/primssidejune5.png

So we have a new ROGUE POLL person - upton...

Heres a cluef for you to consider. Dont come to use with graphs that end 3 months ago and talek about what is happening NOW. that just makes you look silly. And the greens are polling at 8% which even with the maximum MOE still makes them look woeful.

But when you start the desperate ploy of using MOE to support your delusions then you look silly.

Rogue Poll Upton now joins Rogue poll Buzz.

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

So we have a new ROGUE POLL person - upton...

So what do you call it when the Greens poll at 15%?


Quote:

Heres a cluef for you to consider. Dont come to use with graphs that end 3 months ago and talek about what is happening NOW. that just makes you look silly. And the greens are polling at 8% which even with the maximum MOE still makes them look woeful. But when you start the desperate ploy of using MOE to support your delusions then you look silly. Rogue Poll Upton now joins Rogue poll Buzz.

OK, so you're clearly not the smartest guy in the room. I guess we can all just wait for next months Newspoll so we can come back to this thread and point and laugh at your delusional unhinging

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

what is happening NOW. that just makes you look silly.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/members/Upton_Sinclair/newspoll.PNG

Yes. What IS happening now? Even when we take into account the latest result of 8% the Greens still have an average of 11.14% - they polled at 11.8% in 2010, and you think that's a BOP losing position? ;D ;D ;D

Now THAT makes YOU look silly. Or, more unhinged and hysterical, to be more exact.

 

Quote:

The Senate voting system has always been the minor parties play ground where a long succession of wannabe third party hopefuls have played out their ambitions in controlling government. From time to time, a minor party gains enough senators through either luck or good policy to hold the Balance of Power

Only one Government in about the last 6 - 8 has had control of the senate. The rest of the time a minor party has held the balance, you could hardly be more definitivly wrong.

You opening opinion was not a good start - not sure it didn't go downhill from there.

Quote:

A double dissolution for the repeal of the Carbon Tax is no empty threat and Tony Abbott has stated very clearly that he intends to use this power if necessary. Unlike Kevin Rudd’s now infamous refusal to use the DD over the CPRS legislation, Abbott has no fear of a DD election.

I would think a DD in 2015 would be unlikely - Abbnott if in power would lose too many seats and the bottom line is that he can not afford his carbon plan anyway - the fixed price in place will do more for less.

More bang for the buck and unlike the abbnott plan it is not payed for from our tax dollars.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 8:43pm: what is happening NOW. that just makes you look silly. http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/members/Upton_Sinclair/newspoll.PNG Yes. What IS happening now? Even when we take into account the latest result of 8% the Greens still have an average of 11.14% - they polled at 11.8% in 2010, and you think that's a BOP losing position? ;D ;D ;D Now THAT makes YOU look silly. Or, more unhinged and hysterical, to be more exact.

they have now fallen significantly in the last month. its called a TREND.

You are making a wanker of yourself by trying to just ignore this 8% result. it is that kind of delusion which makes you look silly.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 10:09pm:

Quote: The Senate voting system has always been the minor parties play ground where a long succession of wannabe third party hopefuls have played out their ambitions in controlling government. From time to time, a minor party gains enough senators through either luck or good policy to hold the Balance of Power Only one Government in about the last 6 - 8 has had control of the senate. The rest of the time a minor party has held the balance, you could hardly be more definitivly wrong. You opening opinion was not a good start - not sure it didn't go downhill from there.

I know that grammar confuses people but I said minor PARTY not PARTIES. there is a very big difference between a disparate group of unaligned senators holding some mythical balance of power and one disciplined party doing so.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 10:13pm:

Quote: A double dissolution for the repeal of the Carbon Tax is no empty threat and Tony Abbott has stated very clearly that he intends to use this power if necessary. Unlike Kevin Rudd’s now infamous refusal to use the DD over the CPRS legislation, Abbott has no fear of a DD election. I would think a DD in 2015 would be unlikely - Abbnott if in power would lose too many seats and the bottom line is that he can not afford his carbon plan anyway - the fixed price in place will do more for less. More bang for the buck and unlike the abbnott plan it is not payed for from our tax dollars.

Thats delusional because it entirely based on what YOU would do. Abbott is not you.

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 8:43pm:

Rogue Poll Upton now joins Rogue poll Buzz.

Take no notice, Upton
He'S a pathological LIAR and HYPOCRITE -of the highest order - best IGNORED

( ... probably why his LAST I.D. was BANNED)i






gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:35pm:

the real test is the next few polls to see if the greens are really this low or it was an outlier (rogue)

Lol...nobody believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming - boo-hoo, think for yourself... ;D ;D

Global warming zealots come across as very very stupid on TV...PM Gillard for instance is not an intelligent woman... :) :)

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:35pm:

Shane B wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 5:27pm: Excellent post gold_medal. thanks. the real test is the next few polls to see if the greens are really this low or it was an outlier. And if they are dropping still or this is the low point. if they get to 6% then their days with the balance of power are numbered. they might not win a single senate vacancy at the next election or perhaps just in Tas.

I reckon that when the next electricity bills come in, we'll see another big drop in support for both Labor and the Greens. The last electricity bill only included a small portion of time with the carbon dioxide tax. Wait for the next bill when it includes the entire duration with the carbon dioxide tax!

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 10:26pm:

they have now fallen significantly in the last month. its called a TREND.

No, it called a VARIATION.


Quote:

You are making a wanker of yourself by trying to just ignore this 8% result. it is that kind of delusion which makes you look silly.

Do you always resort to abuse when losing an argument? You must be a real hoot at dinner parties.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 6:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:26pm: they have now fallen significantly in the last month. its called a TREND. No, it called a VARIATION. Quote: You are making a wanker of yourself by trying to just ignore this 8% result. it is that kind of delusion which makes you look silly. Do you always resort to abuse when losing an argument? You must be a real hoot at dinner parties.

variation vs trend. Three drops in a row is statistically speaking, a trend.

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:44pm:

Three drops in a row is statistically speaking, a trend.

Yes, they're trending at about 11%, even when you take into account the current poll. Not that different to where they polled in the 2010 election, hence the contention of the OP that this will put their BOP at risk is fundamentally flawed and we can dismiss the conclusion he has reached on the basis of this 8% poll.

Prevailing wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Global warming zealots come across as very very stupid on TV

That's funny because you come across very very stupid on the internet. How's the lawsuits coming along, you caped constitutional crusader you? ;D

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 6:53pm:

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4th, 2012 at 10:26pm: they have now fallen significantly in the last month. its called a TREND. No, it called a VARIATION. Quote: You are making a wanker of yourself by trying to just ignore this 8% result. it is that kind of delusion which makes you look silly. Do you always resort to abuse when losing an argument? You must be a real hoot at dinner parties.

You're talking to a crack smoker mate: they eat prawns and crayfish over lunch with dad and go home to smoke crack and recite what daddy told em all day to their room-mate and in and out motor-bike riding drug dealer!!

They don't do dinner parties!!

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 8:52pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 5th, 2012 at 8:44pm: Three drops in a row is statistically speaking, a trend. Yes, they're trending at about 11%, even when you take into account the current poll. Not that different to where they polled in the 2010 election, hence the contention of the OP that this will put their BOP at risk is fundamentally flawed and we can dismiss the conclusion he has reached on the basis of this 8% poll.

You cannot safely conclude the 11% 'trend' because for one thing, trends dont have numbers associated with them (absolute values); they have rates of change and direction (vector quantities) associated with them instead. The actual trend based on the last 3 polls has been a consistent decline in Green polling. Given the somewhat large drop recently, the next poll (or other polls by other groups) would be needed to validate the extent of the drop, but not that there is a drop itself. And large drops and rises are not inconsistent with recent political history. Labors 5% rise in one poll cycle was confirmed by subsequent polls so why should that not also apply to the Greens? They are not immune from political trends any more than any other party.

The OP was an opinion piece that was based on the assumption that the 8% figure was valid and constituted part of a continuing trend. In fact it even said so. To say that is not possible is not a credible option. Trend analysis clearly indicates it is a quite credible possible outcome.

That is the nature of opinion peices. It takes todays facts and trends and tries to extrapolate them into the future. Not liking the result doesnt invalidate any analysis or experiment. Thats medieval thinking.

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

You cannot safely conclude the 11% 'trend' because for one thing, trends dont have numbers associated with them (absolute values); they have rates of change and direction (vector quantities) associated with them instead. The actual trend based on the last 3 polls has been a consistent decline in Green polling. Given the somewhat large drop recently, the next poll (or other polls by other groups) would be needed to validate the extent of the drop, but not that there is a drop itself. And large drops and rises are not inconsistent with recent political history. Labors 5% rise in one poll cycle was confirmed by subsequent polls so why should that not also apply to the Greens? They are not immune from political trends any more than any other party. The OP was an opinion piece that was based on the assumption that the 8% figure was valid and constituted part of a continuing trend. In fact it even said so. To say that is not possible is not a credible option. Trend analysis clearly indicates it is a quite credible possible outcome. That is the nature of opinion peices. It takes todays facts and trends and tries to extrapolate them into the future. Not liking the result doesnt invalidate any analysis or experiment. Thats medieval thinking.

OK. First things first. Let me qualify the following statement by pointing out that I'm drunk right now and in no position to much in the way of a deeply thought out argument either way. That being said, excellent post. The argument you've put forward far exceeds anything I've seen in the short time I've spent in this cesspool of a forum. When it comes to your statistically based conclusions, I largely agree as far as I can tell. I disagree with your conclusion of the value of opinion like that expressed in the OP, well, I disagree but CBF'd getting into it just now. That's neither her nor there though, you make a good argument and that's something I respect, even if I do politely disagree.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Sep 5^th, 2012 at 9:31pm:

rules_of_the_game wrote on Sep 5th, 2012 at 9:16pm: You cannot safely conclude the 11% 'trend' because for one thing, trends dont have numbers associated with them (absolute values); they have rates of change and direction (vector quantities) associated with them instead. The actual trend based on the last 3 polls has been a consistent decline in Green polling. Given the somewhat large drop recently, the next poll (or other polls by other groups) would be needed to validate the extent of the drop, but not that there is a drop itself. And large drops and rises are not inconsistent with recent political history. Labors 5% rise in one poll cycle was confirmed by subsequent polls so why should that not also apply to the Greens? They are not immune from political trends any more than any other party. The OP was an opinion piece that was based on the assumption that the 8% figure was valid and constituted part of a continuing trend. In fact it even said so. To say that is not possible is not a credible option. Trend analysis clearly indicates it is a quite credible possible outcome. That is the nature of opinion peices. It takes todays facts and trends and tries to extrapolate them into the future. Not liking the result doesnt invalidate any analysis or experiment. Thats medieval thinking. OK. First things first. Let me qualify the following statement by pointing out that I'm drunk right now and in no position to much in the way of a deeply thought out argument either way. That being said, excellent post. The argument you've put forward far exceeds anything I've seen in the short time I've spent in this cesspool of a forum. When it comes to your statistically based conclusions, I largely agree as far as I can tell. I disagree with your conclusion of the value of opinion like that expressed in the OP, well, I disagree but CBF'd getting into it just now. That's neither her nor there though, you make a good argument and that's something I respect, even if I do politely disagree.

That comment alone differentiates you from the vast majority of posters on this and a variety of other cesspool forums around. By and large, the inhabitants of these types of places lack intelligence, education, relationships and any experience whatsoever in real life. And of course how many have relationships? not many. There are some that are actually real, well-rounded, intelligent thinking people.

around 1% atually.

And yes, I am using that '1%' in all of its current meaning.

The problem with the communist elites in Australia is that they are perpetrators of violence and this they cannot help doing because they received no structure, discipline or role modeling in their childhood.  They have been earmarked for success by the social engineers not because of their good behavior but because of their violent, unruly behavior, the way they look or some sporting prowess.  Through liberalism we have bred a generation of sociopaths with no empathy or compassion for the victims they create in the west.  And these elites...we see them on our TV every day are committed to repressing the victims of their terror, to scapegoating them and continuing the perpetrators of violence through the state and other means.  The irony is that it is this very lack of parental family structure and discipline that leads to bullying and the violence we see in the world perpetrated by people like Julia Gillard...Julia Gillard is acting out like any dictator, projecting herself as the authority figure she never had as a child in the most inappropriate of manner.  She feigns compassion for specific causes to legitimize her conscience but people like this are perpetrators and not spreaders of civilized behavior.  In Gillards world and the socio economic elites world their are no rules and laws, they do what they like...form their own committees and dictate power because it is to power they are driven this 1%...Something fixed so simply with a smack on the bottom grows to become a tyrant and a dictator if unchecked... 8-) 8-)