Kevin Rudd may have inadvertently helped the Greens. Their Senate balance of power was endangered by the prospect of a landslide Coalition victory. But a revitalised Labor will now almost certainly poll much more strongly in the Senate. This will ensure the continuation of a Labor-Green Senate majority regardless of how well the Greens themselves poll


http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=36884#.UfdrNGT89k8

well they needed all the help they could get didnt they??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

pity its from the darkside.

Prolly a fair assumption to make, hence why Abbott has said he will call DD within 6 months if his mandates dont get through, he is aware he wont have a majority.

I will say though the greens can kiss Melbourne goodbye.  I fail to see the Libs giving preferences to the greens again for that seat and would rather see it back in the hands of the ALP.

cods wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

well they needed all the help they could get didnt they??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D pity its from the darkside.

It could come from Satan Himself, for all I care.

Anything to keep Tony out.

cods wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 5:34pm:

well they needed all the help they could get didnt they??? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D pity its from the darkside.

Are libs preferencing Greens so to keep Labor at bay cods?

What a crock of shyte!

The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed.

After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!!

There is not one shred of evidence in any polling that remotely suggests the coalition will hold a majority in the senate.

Verge wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 6:51pm:

There is not one shred of evidence in any polling that remotely suggests the coalition will hold a majority in the senate.

Nor win government on current polls. But the conga line are narky, they can see the precious slipping away by the day. Funny really, no body expected Rudd to go anywhere near as good as he has, save some of the silver at best, the conga line screeched. Well the fat little prick may just pull off a win, even if he doesn't the coalition majority would be so small no way would Abbott be dumb enough to go to a DD, though we are talking about Abbott. Rudd could well join Menzies and be PM  with a few gaps in between.

De-registered User wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!!

Close.

The public (or a large section of it) is too stupid to realise they're being had by the Con-alition.

De-registered User wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!!

If people are sick of a hung parliament then why vote for a lame duck Liberal since if they win then will face a hostile senate.

Liberals = uncertainty for the economy.

____ wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 7:29pm:

De-registered User wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 6:26pm: What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!! If people are sick of a hung parliament then why vote for a lame duck Liberal since if they win then will face a hostile senate. Liberals = uncertainty for the economy.

And I doubt it will be long before they're facing a hostile electorate either, once the idiots realise the disaster they've voted for.

Greens are on track to go the same way as the Democrats and One Nation

Maqqa wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 8:21pm:

Greens are on track to go the same way as the Democrats and One Nation

Shame the Libs aren't, if ever there was a party and philosophy that didn't deserve to exist, it's them.

Kat wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:29pm: De-registered User wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 6:26pm: What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!! If people are sick of a hung parliament then why vote for a lame duck Liberal since if they win then will face a hostile senate. Liberals = uncertainty for the economy. And I doubt it will be long before they're facing a hostile electorate either, once the idiots realise the disaster they've voted for.

As opposed to the amazing government that we've had for the last three years?

Kat wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 8:21pm: Greens are on track to go the same way as the Democrats and One Nation Shame the Libs aren't, if ever there was a party and philosophy that didn't deserve to exist, it's them.

Is that why we've been in government more than any other party since Federation?

matty wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:43pm: ____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:29pm: De-registered User wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 6:26pm: What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!! If people are sick of a hung parliament then why vote for a lame duck Liberal since if they win then will face a hostile senate. Liberals = uncertainty for the economy. And I doubt it will be long before they're facing a hostile electorate either, once the idiots realise the disaster they've voted for. As opposed to the amazing government that we've had for the last three years?

Well, yes.

No, they're not my idea of good government.

But they're light-years closer to it than the assholes in this Con-alition.

Kat wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

matty wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:43pm: ____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:29pm: De-registered User wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 6:26pm: What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!! If people are sick of a hung parliament then why vote for a lame duck Liberal since if they win then will face a hostile senate. Liberals = uncertainty for the economy. And I doubt it will be long before they're facing a hostile electorate either, once the idiots realise the disaster they've voted for. As opposed to the amazing government that we've had for the last three years? Well, yes. No, they're not my idea of good government. But they're light-years closer to it than the assholes in this Con-alition.

What is your evidence?

matty wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 8:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 8:21pm: Greens are on track to go the same way as the Democrats and One Nation Shame the Libs aren't, if ever there was a party and philosophy that didn't deserve to exist, it's them. Is that why we've been in government more than any other party since Federation?

Yes, unfortunate how the people often don't get the government they want. On at least five occasions more people voted Labor than the coalition but given that government is won on seats and not overall votes Labor have not formed government. Labor won more votes in 1940, 1954, 1961,1969 , and 1998 but didn't win government. It's only happened to the Coaltion once.

matty wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:05pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:02pm: matty wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:43pm: ____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:29pm: De-registered User wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 6:26pm: What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!! If people are sick of a hung parliament then why vote for a lame duck Liberal since if they win then will face a hostile senate. Liberals = uncertainty for the economy. And I doubt it will be long before they're facing a hostile electorate either, once the idiots realise the disaster they've voted for. As opposed to the amazing government that we've had for the last three years? Well, yes. No, they're not my idea of good government. But they're light-years closer to it than the assholes in this Con-alition. What is your evidence?

The past performance (or rather, lack of it) by its members, both singly and severally.

Their lies, especially those related to the economy.

Their bullshyt 'policies'.

And that's enough for me.

skippy. wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:18pm:

matty wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:02pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 8:31pm: Maqqa wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 8:21pm: Greens are on track to go the same way as the Democrats and One Nation Shame the Libs aren't, if ever there was a party and philosophy that didn't deserve to exist, it's them. Is that why we've been in government more than any other party since Federation? Yes, unfortunate how the people often don't get the government they want. On at least five occasions more people voted Labor than the coalition but given that government is won on seats and not overall votes Labor have not formed government. Labor won more votes in 1940, 1954, 1961,1969 , and 1998 but didn't win government. It's only happened to the Coaltion once.

How many times have the Liberals or Nationals won seats because of preferences, despite coming second in those seats?

Off the top of my head, from the last election I can recall Banks, Moreton, Lilley, La Trobe, Deakin, Corrangamite and Robertson. The Coalition was first in all of the seats that they won.

Kat wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:28pm:

matty wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:05pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:02pm: matty wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 9:01pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:43pm: ____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 7:29pm: De-registered User wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 6:26pm: What a crock of shyte! The Libs will win this election and hold the senate, this is guaranteed. After the last 3 years of shyte governing from the greens and the ALP your both gone and will be assured they be gone for the next 2 terms at the very least. The public has had enough!!!!!!!! If people are sick of a hung parliament then why vote for a lame duck Liberal since if they win then will face a hostile senate. Liberals = uncertainty for the economy. And I doubt it will be long before they're facing a hostile electorate either, once the idiots realise the disaster they've voted for. As opposed to the amazing government that we've had for the last three years? Well, yes. No, they're not my idea of good government. But they're light-years closer to it than the assholes in this Con-alition. What is your evidence? The past performance (or rather, lack of it) by its members, both singly and severally. Their lies, especially those related to the economy. Their bullshyt 'policies'. And that's enough for me.

Agreed. How dare they pay back all of keating's debt and leave us with a 22 billion surplus.  >:(

matty wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

[ Agreed. How dare they pay back all of keating's debt and leave us with a 22 billion surplus.  >:(

Well you see thats your whole f#ckin problem isn't it, the complete inability to see things from a leftoid perspective, in looney leftoid world a surplus is a f#ckin evil demon that must be destroyed ... and a massive interest bill to China and the ayrabs is their idea of nirvana  :D

For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only.

Either they've been over-taxing.

Or they've been under-spending.

Or both.

But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right.

Greens On Track For Balance Of Power

Hope your right but would be a bit surprised

Kat wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:39pm:

For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right.

I agree to a certain point, but there's no better feeling of security than having at least a small surplus.

I think Howard would still be PM today if he started to spend a little in his last term.

AND the Howard government would have spent when the GFC hit, BUT in a controlled and regulated fashion, they would of delivered a lot more from the surplus than Labor and yes they may have delivered a deficit but it would of been a hell of a lot smaller

De-registered User wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 12:09pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 10:39pm: For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right. I agree to a certain point, but there's no better feeling of security than having at least a small surplus. I think Howard would still be PM today if he started to spend a little in his last term.

Howard would still be PM if it wasnt for workchoices.  His policy on workplace relations mobilised and united the Unions in such an unprecedented manner that I dont think the Coalition had any idea that they were going to bombard the media in such volume.

The unions campaign was so influential as it become a united message and one that the Coalition didnt have the funds to combat, as they also had to campaign against the ALP as well.

Howard also suffered the "its time for change" issue, and was seen as an aging leader compared to a more media friendly Rudd.

I honestly dont think Howards lack of infrastructure spending was ever considered a critical factor at the time.

Kat wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 10:39pm:

For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right.

Not necessarily. It shows that the government can actually ahdnle the economy, and not waste money on things like canteens without doors and home inulation disasters that led to the death of four young men.

Verge wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 12:24pm:

De-registered User wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 12:09pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 10:39pm: For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right. I agree to a certain point, but there's no better feeling of security than having at least a small surplus. I think Howard would still be PM today if he started to spend a little in his last term. Howard would still be PM if it wasnt for workchoices.  His policy on workplace relations mobilised and united the Unions in such an unprecedented manner that I dont think the Coalition had any idea that they were going to bombard the media in such volume. The unions campaign was so influential as it become a united message and one that the Coalition didnt have the funds to combat, as they also had to campaign against the ALP as well. Howard also suffered the "its time for change" issue, and was seen as an aging leader compared to a more media friendly Rudd. I honestly dont think Howards lack of infrastructure spending was ever considered a critical factor at the time.

Nice to see you can actually post something sensible for once. I couldn't agree more.

matty wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:30pm:

Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 10:39pm: For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right. Not necessarily. It shows that the government can actually ahdnle the economy, and not waste money on things like canteens without doors and home inulation disasters that led to the death of four young men.

So it was the spending on these two projects that created a deficit was it, and the fact you keep bring up the deaths of 4 people as for some cheap political gain shows you not only lack the class to debate in a political forum, but the maturity to debate in an adult one.

Verge wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:33pm:

matty wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:30pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 10:39pm: For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right. Not necessarily. It shows that the government can actually ahdnle the economy, and not waste money on things like canteens without doors and home inulation disasters that led to the death of four young men. So it was the spending on these two projects that created a deficit was it, and the fact you keep bring up the deaths of 4 people as for some cheap political gain shows you not only lack the class to debate in a political forum, but the maturity to debate in an adult one.

That big hand out we all got, $1800 I think, that didn't help keep the budget in check. Plasmas for everyone.  :)

Verge wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:33pm:

matty wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:30pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 10:39pm: For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right. Not necessarily. It shows that the government can actually ahdnle the economy, and not waste money on things like canteens without doors and home inulation disasters that led to the death of four young men. So it was the spending on these two projects that created a deficit was it, and the fact you keep bring up the deaths of 4 people as for some cheap political gain shows you not only lack the class to debate in a political forum, but the maturity to debate in an adult one.

No, there were other things too, but they contributed. Was anything that I said about the home insulation and four men dying incorrect?

matty wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Was anything that I said about the home insulation and four men dying incorrect?

Only everything
(as usual)

____ wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

Kevin Rudd may have inadvertently helped the Greens. Their Senate balance of power was endangered by the prospect of a landslide Coalition victory. But a revitalised Labor will now almost certainly poll much more strongly in the Senate. This will ensure the continuation of a Labor-Green Senate majority regardless of how well the Greens themselves poll http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=36884#.UfdrNGT89k8

That's great news Green.
Imagine giving absolute power to Abbott?

We need a house of review that is strong & the Greens
have this in spades - keep the bastards honest.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:53pm:

____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Kevin Rudd may have inadvertently helped the Greens. Their Senate balance of power was endangered by the prospect of a landslide Coalition victory. But a revitalised Labor will now almost certainly poll much more strongly in the Senate. This will ensure the continuation of a Labor-Green Senate majority regardless of how well the Greens themselves poll http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=36884#.UfdrNGT89k8 That's great news Green. Imagine giving absolute power to Abbott? We need a house of review that is strong & the Greens have this in spades - keep the bastards honest.

Good thing you support the greens and their focus on gay marriage, should be law in no time at all.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:46pm:

matty wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:41pm: Was anything that I said about the home insulation and four men dying incorrect? Only everything (as usual)

Such as?

matty wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:33pm: matty wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:30pm: Kat wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 10:39pm: For a government to even have a surplus means one (or both) of two things only. Either they've been over-taxing. Or they've been under-spending. Or both. But, that'd be beyond the understanding of the dickwads from the Right. Not necessarily. It shows that the government can actually ahdnle the economy, and not waste money on things like canteens without doors and home inulation disasters that led to the death of four young men. So it was the spending on these two projects that created a deficit was it, and the fact you keep bring up the deaths of 4 people as for some cheap political gain shows you not only lack the class to debate in a political forum, but the maturity to debate in an adult one. No, there were other things too, but they contributed. Was anything that I said about the home insulation and four men dying incorrect?

Four men dying in workplace accidents is nothing to be boasting about for political gain

Its cheap, its pathetic and most of all de-railing to a thread.

Do you think it would be appropirate if in every thread about the Liberal Party it was finished with "a party that gave us a war in Iraq that killed 2 soldiers and hundreds more injured at a cost of over $20 billion."

It does nothing to ad to the debate does it other than cheap shots.

Verge wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Four men dying in workplace accidents is nothing to be boasting about for political gain Its cheap, its pathetic and most of all de-railing to a thread. Do you think it would be appropirate if in every thread about the Liberal Party it was finished with "a party that gave us a war in Iraq that killed 2 soldiers and hundreds more injured at a cost of over $20 billion." It does nothing to ad to the debate does it other than cheap shots.

Or use abbotts comment sh1t happens' totally out of context so to purely make a political jibe that is patently untrue. Yeah wouldn't that be great if we all abided by those rules, but alas and alack, there are many cretins here that do exactly that, because that is what they are.

Between adel and pansi, this is pretty standard stuff

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 5:18pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 5:00pm: Four men dying in workplace accidents is nothing to be boasting about for political gain Its cheap, its pathetic and most of all de-railing to a thread. Do you think it would be appropirate if in every thread about the Liberal Party it was finished with "a party that gave us a war in Iraq that killed 2 soldiers and hundreds more injured at a cost of over $20 billion." It does nothing to ad to the debate does it other than cheap shots. Or use abbotts comment 'poo happens' totally out of context so to purely make a political jibe that is patently untrue. Yeah wouldn't that be great if we all abided by those rules, but alas and alack, there are many cretins here that do exactly that, because that is what they are. Between adel and pansi, this is pretty standard stuff

I have said many times, both recently and prior to my time off that I have no issue with Abbotts comments as I believed they were in context, and were supported by my friends current and ex army who have said that's just the way it is.

So whats the answer Big Ol, do we continue the ride further into the gutter or do we rise above it and say we wont be following in the footsteps of those in Canberra and resort to cheap stunts to win pretend points?

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 4:58pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:53pm: ____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Kevin Rudd may have inadvertently helped the Greens. Their Senate balance of power was endangered by the prospect of a landslide Coalition victory. But a revitalised Labor will now almost certainly poll much more strongly in the Senate. This will ensure the continuation of a Labor-Green Senate majority regardless of how well the Greens themselves poll http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=36884#.UfdrNGT89k8 That's great news Green. Imagine giving absolute power to Abbott? We need a house of review that is strong & the Greens have this in spades - keep the bastards honest. Good thing you support the greens and their focus on gay marriage, should be law in no time at all.

I don't support the Greens homo policies.

I do however like a 3rd voice in the Senate.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 7:41pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:58pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 31st, 2013 at 4:53pm: ____ wrote on Jul 30th, 2013 at 5:31pm: Kevin Rudd may have inadvertently helped the Greens. Their Senate balance of power was endangered by the prospect of a landslide Coalition victory. But a revitalised Labor will now almost certainly poll much more strongly in the Senate. This will ensure the continuation of a Labor-Green Senate majority regardless of how well the Greens themselves poll http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=36884#.UfdrNGT89k8 That's great news Green. Imagine giving absolute power to Abbott? We need a house of review that is strong & the Greens have this in spades - keep the bastards honest. Good thing you support the greens and their focus on gay marriage, should be law in no time at all. I don't support the Greens homo policies. I do however like a 3rd voice in the Senate.

You like it in the Senate, Bobbie?

Saucy.