Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won.

If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders.

Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras?

I am sure they will get around to addressing it but their first order of business is to get the country moving forward again after languishing completely directionless in the wilderness for the last 3 years and instead of talking about a 21st century economy , actually building one.

Then once that is taken care of and things are moving forward again we can have a forensic look in to Libtards business dealings, after ICACs finding this is of the upmost importance that we romper stomp the head of Liberal corruption once and for all.

another stupid thread by greens ... have you got a minimum daily quota or something?

I accept your surrender John.

---

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1137/1244102272_2770baaae8.jpg

Its time wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 9:15pm:

I am sure they will get around to addressing it but their first order of business is to get the country moving forward again after languishing completely directionless in the wilderness for the last 3 years and instead of talking about a 21st century economy , actually building one. Then once that is taken care of and things are moving forward again we can have a forensic look in to Libtards business dealings, after ICACs finding this is of the upmost importance that we romper stomp the head of Liberal corruption once and for all.

Much for granted ... that Shorten has the charisma to win the support of voters and so win office.
Or do you think the civil war waging within the coalition will hand labor government without it doing anything?

____ wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 9:27pm:

Its time wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 9:15pm: I am sure they will get around to addressing it but their first order of business is to get the country moving forward again after languishing completely directionless in the wilderness for the last 3 years and instead of talking about a 21st century economy , actually building one. Then once that is taken care of and things are moving forward again we can have a forensic look in to Libtards business dealings, after ICACs finding this is of the upmost importance that we romper stomp the head of Liberal corruption once and for all. Much for granted ... that Shorten has the charisma to win the support of voters and so win office. Or do you think the civil war waging within the coalition will hand labor government without it doing anything?

The Libs are policy paralysed , Labor only need to hammer home that nothing with any substance has occurred in 3 years and reiterate to the public that Libs current monetary policy or( lack there of )and performance even remotely suggesting any superior economic management is quite simply, complete crap. Australia will be hearing lots of Tony Burke type attacks on the Libs over the next few months along with a policy direction that outlines where Labor intends to take the country as opposed to the Libs who will just spend all their time attacking Labors policy , Keating will be doing his part behind the scenes  :) , grab the popcorn , sit back and enjoy , 3 word slogans wont work this time .

Not as long as it benefits the major parties and as long as their arseholes point downwards.....  ::)

Its time wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 10:04pm:

The Libs are policy paralysed ,

a friend of mine (staunch lib) was today trying to tell me that the libs are biding their time and have a whole raft of policies ready to go. They just don't want to announce them before the election because they don't want to give labor the chance to tear them apart ....

I told him he was dreaming :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:

Its time wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 10:04pm: The Libs are policy paralysed , a friend of mine (staunch lib) was today trying to tell me that the libs are biding their time and have a whole raft of policies ready to go. They just don't want to announce them before the election because they don't want to give labor the chance to tear them apart .... I told him he was dreaming :D :D

They don't want to give Labor a chance to tear them apart !

Even if there was a Lib policy pot of gold , and we all know there is nothing but the empty pot , are they that bad they don't even want to announce them  :D

How can you formulate policy when you are tearing yourself apart internally?

more PANIC from greeny.....

he wont be happy until everyone is wearing green and riding green bikes... and living in aperfect boring world....ho hum greeny....

your a stirrer and trouble maker...go live in NZ..

cods wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 7:37am:

more PANIC from greeny..... he wont be happy until everyone is wearing green and riding green bikes... and living in aperfect boring world....ho hum greeny.... your a stirrer and trouble maker...go live in NZ..

Or Tassie.

Labor actually support the senate changes but chose to oppose it for political reasons. Very poor form and makes them look like a party that values politics over good policy.

not news to anyone of course

____ wrote on Mar 18^th, 2016 at 8:46pm:

Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras?

You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying?

Bam wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

so why are you lying?

he's a greenie, lying comes with the tree hugging and brainlessness that's a pre-requisite to joining the party

Labor won't reverse the reforms. Labor will keep them, and amend them to make voting below-the-line easier and more convenient.

The Liberals don't want this because it would threaten the careers of far right hacks at the top of the Senate ticket. More importantly, the Coalition agreement with joint tickets ensures a quota of seats for the Nationals and the open nature of below-the-line voting would threaten this.

The Greens and Xenophon also acted out of self-interest, by removing competition on the crossbench to gain more seats. The joke could well be on Xenophon and the Greens though if they end up competing for the last Senate seat in South Australia.

Will Labor Reverse The Senate Reform?

Politically motivated change is not reform ?

Again - I will be ensuring that LNP, Labor and especially the Greens get lowest ranking in my vote, if any ranking at all, and I will automatically put the Independents first.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 10:40am:

Again - I will be ensuring that LNP, Labor and especially the Greens get lowest ranking in my vote, if any ranking at all, and I will automatically put the Independents first.....

I was thinking of doing the same .... leave the majors and greens off the ballot altogether. See how much they enjoy their reforms :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

Will Labor Reverse The Senate Reform? Politically motivated change is not reform ?

A change deliberately organised to remove the genuine opposition is a crime pure and simple.

Labor might not need to reverse anything ... (not that they would anyway)

Family First senator Bob Day will be taking the Government's new Senate voting laws to the High Court as early as next week.

The legislation, which will make it harder for micro parties to get elected, passed both houses yesterday.

The Coalition bill passed with the support of the Greens and independent Senator Nick Xenophon after a marathon sitting session of more than 28 hours.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described its passage as good for democracy, but Senator Day has said he will lodge a legal challenge against the legislation within days.

Under the new laws, voters who issue a limited number of preferences at the polling booth will have their ballot discarded if their preferred candidates are excluded from the race.

Senator Day told the ABC that he would argue on the potential disenfranchisement of voters, following the High Court's response to missing ballot papers from Western Australia in the last federal election.

"Just 1,200 votes went missing and the High Court was sufficiently concerned about that to order a rerun because of the way it would impact the outcome of the election," he said.

"What their attitude might be to 3 million votes exhausting or dying deliberately as a result of these laws is the question that needs opt be asked."

On Twitter, Senator David Leyonhjelm said the Liberal Democrats would help to fund the High Court challenge.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-19/bob-day-to-challenge-senate-voting-laws/7260354

Bam wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

____ wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:46pm: Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras? You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying?

Labor and other crossbenchers voted against the changes which will allow voters to allocate their own preferences above the line on the Senate ballot paper.

And if they choose to vote below the line they won't have to number every box - in some states that could be as many as 100.

As well group voting tickets will be abolished, a move crossbenchers fear will purge the Senate of micro-party senators.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/03/18/marathon-debate-continues-on-senate-reform.html


I look forward to your retraction.

John Smith wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 10:56am:

Labor might not need to reverse anything ... (not that they would anyway) Family First senator Bob Day will be taking the Government's new Senate voting laws to the High Court as early as next week. The legislation, which will make it harder for micro parties to get elected, passed both houses yesterday. The Coalition bill passed with the support of the Greens and independent Senator Nick Xenophon after a marathon sitting session of more than 28 hours. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull described its passage as good for democracy, but Senator Day has said he will lodge a legal challenge against the legislation within days. Under the new laws, voters who issue a limited number of preferences at the polling booth will have their ballot discarded if their preferred candidates are excluded from the race. Senator Day told the ABC that he would argue on the potential disenfranchisement of voters, following the High Court's response to missing ballot papers from Western Australia in the last federal election. "Just 1,200 votes went missing and the High Court was sufficiently concerned about that to order a rerun because of the way it would impact the outcome of the election," he said. "What their attitude might be to 3 million votes exhausting or dying deliberately as a result of these laws is the question that needs opt be asked." On Twitter, Senator David Leyonhjelm said the Liberal Democrats would help to fund the High Court challenge. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-19/bob-day-to-challenge-senate-voting-laws/7260354

I don't think this challenge will succeed. We've had ticket voting for years.

____ wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

Bam wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 8:05am: ____ wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:46pm: Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras? You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying? Labor and other crossbenchers voted against the changes which will allow voters to allocate their own preferences above the line on the Senate ballot paper. And if they choose to vote below the line they won't have to number every box - in some states that could be as many as 100. As well group voting tickets will be abolished, a move crossbenchers fear will purge the Senate of micro-party senators. http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/03/18/marathon-debate-continues-on-senate-reform.html I look forward to your retraction.

I've been looking at the legislation itself, not the second-hand media reports. There was nothing in that legislation about changes to below the line voting except for a provision that changed the allowable sequencing errors from 3 to 5.

I'll only post any kind of retraction if it turns out the legislation that was passed was different to the one in the database.

If that turns out not to be the case, I expect you to post your own corrections. You've also not posted your own corrections regarding Labor party policy after you've been caught out misrepresenting it on more than one occasion.

Bam wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 8:05am:

____ wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:46pm: Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras? You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying?

why do you believe that labor spin? The below the line argument is at best a failed amendment to a policy they actually support. Instead, they voted against the whole thing and you want to think it is because they couldnt get a single small amendment? 

It was politics pure and simple - and they screwed it up big time.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 11:44am:

Bam wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 8:05am: ____ wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:46pm: Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras? You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying? why do you believe that labor spin? The below the line argument is at best a failed amendment to a policy they actually support. Instead, they voted against the whole thing and you want to think it is because they couldnt get a single small amendment?  It was politics pure and simple - and they screwed it up big time.

The change is politics pure and simple. The aim is to get a more compliant senate.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 11:44am:

Bam wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 8:05am: ____ wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:46pm: Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras? You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying? why do you believe that labor spin? The below the line argument is at best a failed amendment to a policy they actually support. Instead, they voted against the whole thing and you want to think it is because they couldnt get a single small amendment?  It was politics pure and simple - and they screwed it up big time.

Of course it was politics. Where did I say it wasn't?

What you need to grasp though is that the voting was political self-interest for everyone, not just Labor. Every Senate vote can be predicted simply by asking this question: would the person or party voting be likely to be better or worse off with the changes?

Coalition - Never worked well with the current Senate. Laying the ground work for a double dissolution and a more compliant Senate.
Greens - Have ambitions to be the party with the balance of power in the Senate. Looking to remove competition.
Xenophon - Got screwed over at the last election with ticket voting. Expects to gain seats with the changes.
Labor - Voting as they are because they will receive preferences from a very annoyed crossbench. Also any change that benefits the Greens may harm Labor.
Other crossbenchers - They expect to lose several seats so are voting against the changes.

That about sums it up. Not one Senate vote was cast for any other reason than political self-interest.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 8:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 11:44am: Bam wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 8:05am: ____ wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:46pm: Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras? You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying? why do you believe that labor spin? The below the line argument is at best a failed amendment to a policy they actually support. Instead, they voted against the whole thing and you want to think it is because they couldnt get a single small amendment?  It was politics pure and simple - and they screwed it up big time. The change is politics pure and simple. The aim is to get a more compliant senate.

actually, it isnt. in fact, all it is demanding is that senators are actually elected by voters rather than preference harvesting or falsy like the LDP guy.

surely you are not opposed to people being elected genuinely?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 7:51am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 11:44am: Bam wrote on Mar 19th, 2016 at 8:05am: ____ wrote on Mar 18th, 2016 at 8:46pm: Abbott went to the last election with negative commitments and won. If the senate reform, that hands more power to the voters, if labor hates it so much, should they go to the next election with a commitment to dump it and hand power back to Labor factional leaders. Or is all the labor squealing like stuff pigs just for the TV cameras? You are being wilfully misleading on Labor's position on the Senate voting reforms. Labor has voted against the reforms because they did not include reforms to make voting below the line easier. This has been explained to you before, so why are you lying? why do you believe that labor spin? The below the line argument is at best a failed amendment to a policy they actually support. Instead, they voted against the whole thing and you want to think it is because they couldnt get a single small amendment?  It was politics pure and simple - and they screwed it up big time. The change is politics pure and simple. The aim is to get a more compliant senate. actually, it isnt. in fact, all it is demanding is that senators are actually elected by voters rather than preference harvesting or falsy like the LDP guy. surely you are not opposed to people being elected genuinely?

surely you are not opposed to people being elected genuinely


Of course not.

But I am against the timing and the motivation.

A government that has spent the entire term complaining about the senate composition taking steps to alter this in the voting process in the run up to an election I see as inappropriate.

This should be looked at dispassionately following an election with decisions being made with a cool head and for the right reasons. Clearly not the case we see here.

The changes not going to under the line voting effectively means that independents would be significantly disadvantaged even if people want to vote for them.

By trying to rush this through in a knee jerk reaction to what they see as a solution to fix an obstructionist senate they have produced an incomplete not well thought out partial solution that has not been well considered or appropriately debated. They are potentially swapping one problem for a more serious one.

So the conclusion is that I do believe reform in this area is needed but that this isn't it, this is about engineering a more compliant senate, nothing more.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 20^th, 2016 at 8:13am:

The changes not going to under the line voting effectively means that independents would be significantly disadvantaged even if people want to vote for them.

I've seen conflicting information about this. The Bill I looked at had no significant changes to below-the-line voting but some of the other information I have seen suggests some further changes were made. The only way to be sure is to look at the actual legislation that was passed. I'm waiting for this to become available.

.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 19^th, 2016 at 10:03am:

Will Labor Reverse The Senate Reform? Politically motivated change is not reform ?

well said.....its time everyone woke up to the tricks the Greens play..and greenwin in particular is a divider and trouble maker....

what is the point of hypotheticals..

other than to cause trouble...

its high time we.. the voters expected no more no less from our elected members than to work on whats best for this country

as we see every day someone is just working for their own benefit....

thats not what I vote for..