With the rise of the greens and the independants, what chance has either major party git of acheiving the 76 seats to rule???


I can't see a majority ever again, our voting system is now totally flawed.

there is nothing in the constitution for either labor or libs to form government as it stands now, regardles of who got how many votes etc.

It purely boils down to seat numbers nothing more nothing less.

The minor parties need to be eliminated like the democrats were, or prior to the election they should out line their alegance to the major party they'd back??


How many of bob Katters voters would want an ETS???

Hooray for democracy!

Never again will the LibLabs take ordinary Australian citizens for granted!

No more tokenistic tinkering around the socio-econo-enviro edges, feeding us BS or petty bickering amongst themselves...

Now for some real and altrustic and sustainable nation-building, for the benefit of the majority...

Well, one can but hope!

Exactly, it has nothing to do with the greens, it has to do with 4 independents and a Governor general being convinced either party have enough seats to form a government.  It's helpful to know that of the 4 independents, 3 are coalition nationals.

Libs have won, what we are waiting for is for Bill Shorten to get over his tantrum this and to concede defeat.

Remember, it was afterall his big idea to replace Rudd, only for it to have failed.




Here, read this...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/23/2990782.htm

Equitist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:49pm:


your analyses are entertaining rubbish - but remain rubbish. you start with the assumption that people vote FOR the Greens other than Against the major parties. That assumption is false. The large majority of those who vote Green are actually voting as protesters NOT as left-wing greenies.

I thought most people understood that. Apparently there are stil some deluded souls out there. You, for one.

____ wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:55pm:


It is rare for the two parties to be this close. in fact it is only the second time. it takes a lot more than a handful of non-aligned seats to make minority govt likely. We have had these 3 independants for 3 elections now. it never made a difference before and wont in the next election either. Greens wil need to win 10-12 seats to ever be in a position to regularly dictate who wins govt. Of course fot that to be meaningful you'd actually have to be genuinely open to voting for someone other than labor - and Greens arent. they simply become another labor party and dilute the ALP's voting pool.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 4:59pm:




The more opportunity for voters to vote for other parties besides Labor and Liberal ... the more likely for Liberal and Labor primary to decrease.

This will guarantee that it will be difficult to get a majority government until the new millennium parties, like the Greens, have overtaken the dying dinosaur parties on primary.

This could take a couple of elections to achieve.

Equitist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 5:37pm:


You just keep believing that 11.5% of australians support death duties, high taxes and a return to a pre-industrial society. the reality is that people vote for the Greens because of who they ARENT rathe than what they say they stand for. and the proof is that when you actually ask a green supporter to endorse the Greens policies they decline to do so. Green-grub and you both refuse to endorse their policies as does pansi and skippy and other green lunatics.

and to prove my point try and get the afore-mentioned posters to articulate their support for death duties, much higher mining tax, higher company tax, higher income taxes. Get them to applaud the many ridiculous and unaffordable and unworkable Green policies. Then you will see all the proof you need. when the avid Greenies cant support the policies you can only imagine how the uninformed protest voters are not at all in support of them.

Over to you...

I do not agree that the Libs need to be a bad party for the environment, and when in opposition they have often had some great environmental policies.
If Howard had not got the Liberal leadership back in 1995, we would have seen a far better renewable energy sector, and far lower emissions than we currently do, because it was only his climate change denialism that drove the party away from it's previous good policies on that issue, which were far superior to those of the Labor party of that time.

It is the curse of the Liberal party, and by default, the country, that the Libs so often dump better men for inferior Leaders like Howard and Abbott, who may be political animals, but lack the vision for the country that so many other Libs could far better deliver.