The September 6 by-elections for Mayo and Lyne initially loomed as fizzers, with Labor showing no inclination post-Gippsland to test the waters in unwinnable seats. They have instead respectively emerged as mildly and enormously interesting, thanks to the entry of non-major party players. In Mayo, housing tycoon Bob Day will bring a cashed-up campaign to bear against the Liberals as the candidate of Family First, having failed to win Liberal preselection for Mayo after unsuccessfully contesting Makin last year. Day would nonetheless have to be considered a long shot against Liberal candidate Jamie Briggs, but it’s a very different story in Lyne where independent state MP Rob Oakeshott has been rated the “clear favourite” by Antony Green. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports that Nationals polling puts his approval rating in the electorate at over 70 per cent, and says the party is concerned Labor will “direct resources to Mr Oakeshott’s campaign”.
Lyne covers a 100 kilometre stretch of coastline up to 400 kilometres north of Sydney, the main population centres being Port Macquarie (home to 33 per cent of the electorate’s population) and Taree (14 per cent). Smaller centres include Old Bar, Lake Cathie and Harrington on the coast, and Wauchope and Wingham further inland. The National/Country Party has held the seat since its creation in 1949. The electorate covers the entirety of Oakeshott’s state seat of Port Macquarie, which provides Lyne with 55 per cent of its voters. Oakeshott won Port Macquarie as the Nationals candidate at a 1996 by-election ahead of independent John Barrett, who had come within 233 votes of defeating Mark Vaile as Liberal candidate for Lyne in 1993. He was promoted to the front bench after the 1999 election, taking the sport and recreation, fisheries and ports portfolios. In March 2002 he quit the party, claiming its local branches were controlled by property developers and questioning whether the party was still relevant to an electorate transformed by tourism and demographic change. The Nationals campaigned aggressively against him during the 2003 campaign, in particular over his support for drug law reform, but he was overwhelmingly re-elected with 69.7 per cent of the primary vote. This fell slightly to 67.1 per cent at the March 2007 election, his two-candidate preferred margin down from 32.8 per cent to a still formidable 28.2 per cent.
The Nationals candidate is Rob Drew, who was mayor of Port Macquarie until the council was sacked by the state government in February. The Macleay Argus reports he won a preselection vote ahead of Taree solicitor Quentin Schneider by 48 votes to 15. State party leader Andrew Stoner was reportedly urged by “senior colleagues” to throw his hat into the ring, but perhaps sensibly decided to stay put. The prospect of an Oakeshott candidacy was a cloud on the horizon from the time of Vaile’s departure, with Oakeshott earlier threatening to run against Vaile at the 2004 election. There has also been intermittent speculation over the years that he might be enlisted by the Liberals, although this might never have been more than wishful thinking by the party. Most recently, powerbrokers including Senator Bill Heffernan approached him to contest the by-election as the Liberal candidate, hoping that his success might push the Coalition further along the road to a merger. The party has instead opted to sit out the contest, aware that its presence would only increase the already high likelihood of an Oakeshott victory.
The other thing to be noted is that win, lose or draw, Oakeshott’s candidacy will initiate a state by-election for Port Macquarie – though that is a subject for another post. While it would be open to Oakeshott to re-contest Port Macquarie, owing to what Imre Salusinszky calls “a quirk in NSW electoral law”, Oakeshott has declared that such a move would be “unfair to the community”.
342 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 7 » Show All
GREENSBROUGH
The only other players are a National, Ind National and the green.
At least this way we keep it in the family and may even get lucky on the preferences as ziggy has said.
It might be good to inject some new ideas into the lower house.
The DLP policies might gain support amoungst the other members in the house.
It’s worth a go.
1984
GG
The fact that there is a grassroats movement of youngish 20s to 40s people to membership of the DLP in 4 States proves that it is not just “a whole DLP movement in their minds”.
These are a group of people with keeness and enthusiasm, with no memories of the bitterness of ‘The Split’,.
They are drawn to the DLP by it progressive policies that value life from conception to natural life.
These policies are designed to help the average and not so average family in rearing teir children and coping with the problems that such family endure.
They are not policies to cater for the ‘mythical’families’ and ‘intersex’ persons???, that the Greens so called policies are designed for .
1984
You will be rewarded with your vote by helping to put traditional Labour family values back on the agenda, for the ALP, and for the community
I’m beginning to think the DLP posters are all the same person. What’s this fascination with intersex, anyway?
Bird
no fascination from me.
Intersex is just an idiot term dreamed up by a idiot party. (Greens)
The DLP concentrates on real people, real families, and the needs of them and their children.
With a new team of young and enthuastic supporters to bolster th older party members, the DLP is alive and well, and growing daily.
As young australian families look to a party that understands their needs, and aspirations, and not the party of the radical left, that is anti life.
The term intersex was around a very long time before the Greens.
It covers those that feel that they are male but have femasle parts, and vice versa. The ones that go in for a sex change.
Bert
Ok i accept what you say on face value.
But that policy is hardly a priority for any political party.
How many Australians are “those that feel that they are male but have female parts, and vice versa. The ones that go in for a sex change.”
I guess it says a lot about the focus of the Greens.
It is not about the needs of mainstream Australians.
Not even about needs of minority groups in this country.
What are their policies about?
Answer,
anti life, anti family, anti anything that is good and wholesome in our society
I’m me, died in the wool Soylent Green by the way B of P. No multiple personality on my side (unless I AM psychotic!).
The ones that go in for a sex change (or some serious counseling) …… how many are we talking here?
I mean are we in the 0.0067% range like phenylketonuria or more like the 0.5% prevalence of Coeliac disease? I daresay it will be very low, but in any case, would this affliction be an issue of concern for the voters of Lyne in the upcoming election?
Would the voters really want to create a new “gender” and if so, by extrapolation, what about a further one for those who’ve had total hysterectomy, or orchiectomy?
A bit like the “religion” field on a database form. Does one say Christian, evangelical, AOG, or name the specific “one off” non-affiliated church you connect with.
One last minute thought: What would be the cost to amend all the paperwork and all the computer software & databases to cater for this proposed change? Better and cheaper to pay for some good counseling I’d have thought.
Soylent
Ha Ha well said,
i am rolling in the aisles
It would be really funny if it was’nt so serious to have the sort of people who advocate some of thése ‘nonsense’ political ágendas wanting to influence the political life of this country, via the Lyne by-election
Bird of paradox
Your sure you’re not bert ?
1984
Bird
Or do u want to promote sexchange operations so you can become Bert??
Good luck with the operation, but dont expect me to support it financiallly!!!!!!
goanna,
Its your prerogative to focus on any issue you like, but to accuse the Greens of focusing on that one issue when you are, looks a tad hypocritical.
The Greens are used to false accusations of being a one issue party yet have 100″s of policies.
The Green don’t hide their platform or history unlike others.
That’s why over one million Australians vote [1] The Greens.
Judge
As you well know the DLP also has 100’s of policies which are all listed on their website for everybody to see.
The DLP has been formulating policie for 50+ years that are in the best interests of all Australians, now and into the future.
To many people criticize the DLP without looking at their policies.
Judge: There’s been a bit of chatter about the non-populist issue of “intersex”, one of the Greens “100’s of policies”.
Indeed they do have a plethora of policies, and I’ve not heard anyone here saying that they just focus on intersex.
Still, a policy is a policy, and as such, is fair game for comment. Widespread and unfavourable comments sometimes bring changes in policies.
Let’s not forget that they’ve got plenty of other extreme policies to breakdown a society, wipe out farmers or just tickle the enviro-nuts. Maybe we could further discuss some others that spring to mind.
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. A national labelling system that identifies products as “cruelty-free”
4. Phase out intensive farming practices in meat, dairy and egg production.
5. Equal representation of women and men in public life.
6. Marriage of homosexuals
7. Proposal to cut CO2 to 80% below 1990 levels 2050 whilst at the same time “distributing the cost fairly, both domestically and between nations”
You’re right! Our society would be under threat of extinction if we allowed equal representation of women and men! Or responded to climate change in any concrete and just way!
(Irony is very difficult to express in plain text - I think I’ve made my point, as have you, Soylent. As for the aims I mention above - well, we’ve got a bit of work to do on both, but they’re not impossible dreams. Unlike, say, the DLP winning Lyne.)
For the record:
Intersex people are people born with sexual characteristics of both sexes - so that would be a biological trait that, presumably, doesn’t warrant discrimination from the likes of the DLP (by the way, I don’t know if some of the posters on this site have heard, but to most of the country, the DLP is either a joke party or the people who kept the real Labor Party out of office - or never even existed, for vast swathes of we under-30s).
Transgender people are people who feel that they were born into a body of the wrong biological sex, i.e. they feel male but have female organs, or vice-versa. As with many issues of personal identity, there are shades of grey here, and I don’t want to generalise - but that’s usually how the term is defined.
The two terms are separate and discrete.
Now that that’s sorted out, may I clarify that the Green stance is based on the idea that families come in more than one variety, and that there are fundamental human rights and dignities at play in this area. I might point out that this sense of human equality underpins a lot of Green policy - it would be a little hard to base Nazism on this ideology, so I think that one’s safely away.
Moderate this last bit away if you think it’s appropriate, William, but I’d like to point out that the current DLP posters on this site are ignorant and bigoted (not to say that all DLP identities are), and that their comments don’t belong on this site. I am still unconvinced that they’re not the same person with three identities.
What’s the term for that?
Now back on topic - I don’t think Oakeshott’s margin will be as enthusiastic as, say, Iemma’s in 2007 - but he will win the seat barring a major upset. Nationals to come second, with Greens third, and the other candidates including the DLP providing interest but no threat as yet.
Margin in the higher 60s.
(says city slicker with little to no local knowledge - conventional wisdom is a brilliant thing)
Saying that - are there any Lyne or Mayo residents who could give us an idea of the campaign in either seat? Update update?
Ménage à trois ?
No, I’m the normal one
Judge & Bert & Greensborough
and Bird of paradox
Lyne is a rural and regional centre. The target of the greens, and one of the areas that will suffer the most should a Carbon Emissions Trading/Tax Scheme be introduced.
Whether or not you believe in man made global warming, a carbon trading scheme is not the answer.
1. It will not achieve its aim see Link 2
2. It will be another tax where the workers and small regional business pay
to compensate for the major emitters (Global TNC’s) Link 3
3. It will allow global giants including banks and TNC’s to cash in at our and our childrens expense.
4. It will harm our own regional businesses by making them uncompetitive while letting the major emitters of the hook.
The DLP is against regressive taxation and would better use the wasted funds in CTS developing clean and renewable technologies.
This policy alone will make our DLP candidate be attractive to political aware voters.
Link 1. Consensis or No Consensis
Link 2.
Link 3 The Tax
Ziggy
Judge & Bert & Greensborough
and Bird of paradox
Try again. If this fails help I might need some help william
Link 1. Consensis or No Consensis
Link 2.
Link 3
ts try again with those links.
Hope this works.
Ziggy
Josh WK: [ Saying that - are there any Lyne or Mayo residents who could give us an idea of the campaign in either seat? Update update? ]
Yep, midnorthcoast (further up the page) is from Lyne, as is Possum Comitatus (he might’ve posted here, certainly posted his own article on his site). Both reckon Oakeshott’s gonna tear the Nats a new one… midnorthcoast was saying the campaign’s fairly low key so far.
By the way, that term you’re looking for is ’sock puppet’.
Last time I looked at any polls, 80% of voters understood that Climate Change was real, that human activity played a significant role in this happening and that voters wanted the Government to do something about it, now. Furthermore, they were prepared to pay a price.
I reckon there might be a few working families in that 80%. I also think anyone that continues to deny global warming and climate change exist are outside the mainstream of Australian political life. So, be a ratbag. It don’t worry me none.
Bring on your alleged army of malcontents.
Josh WK
My initial prediction was.
1. The Independant - Oakshott (Favourite)
2. The National - Rod Drew (Must be a look in)
3. Sussie Russell (I think her vote could even fall from last election) I honestly believe that the greens peaked in the 2007 and now will bear the brunt of the governments Carbon Trading Scheme. (Imagine the damage to rural and regional centres when this CTS is implemented fully).
Sussie will also struggle to get and preferences in this lot as well.
4. The Dark Horse… There are a lot of rural voters. Plus a good spread of Liberal voters, as well as the ALP voters. Its where these votes go that could decide the outcome. There is bound to be a protest vote on the Nationals for causing the Bi Election so the DLP could pick up a fair share of these.
So the two favourites will lead down the straight. Its whether 3rd & fourth horses and gain enough disgruntled or 2nd preferences to get to the finish line
Or it could be a one horse race.
Ziggy
Greeensborough Growler:
Its irrelavent if you want believe in man made global warming or not.
Its this regressive tax, (All pain for no Gain) that they dont like.
The carbon Emission Trading Scheme is very unpopular across that electorate.
I know I speak to small businesses, including Transport etc that come out of Taree, Port Macquarie and surrounding areas.
In fact some have donated to us up here. (A lot of truckies work in SE following the work) That policy and many of the DLP policies are very popular with rural and small business. I dont know if they can get the message out in time though.
It might take a couple of goes, which might be too late for the district.
Once its in, Its In. Fully implemented they estimate from farmgate to the table on most foods (particularly, Beef, Lamp and Dairy) an increase over a few years of 46 %. Think of all the money the brokers and traders will be making at the expense of your local small businessman. “Think about it and think hard”
All that for a tax that will achieve nothing at all. (Just substidise the poluters) Are you going to support a tax on your kids and grand kids for a flimsly green ideology?
Ziggy
Ziggy,
And the dish ran away with the spoon.
Greeensborough Growler:
I think you ment.
“Last time I looked at any polls, 80% of voters understood that Climate Change was real”
And the dish ran away with the spoon.
Lets see what scientists really know:
<a http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
Ziggy
Ziggy,
The guy is not a scientist, he is an engineer.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/DavidEvansbio.html
Put up job from the the BCA.
Hang your head in shame.
But, you believe in fairy tales if that is how you get your jollies.
Should never have been employed by the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Well [b]you and I[/b] had better zip our lips with our unworthy two bobs worth …..
[i][b]After you[b][/i] Greeensborough Growler
[i][b]Otherwise, hang your head in shame.
Sorry - a slower learner as the years roll by.
Greeensborough Growler:
The guy is not a scientist:”
Should never have been employed by the Australian Greenhouse Office.
Well you and I had better zip our lips with our unworthy two bobs worth …..
After you Greeensborough Growler
Otherwise, hang your head in shame.
Soylent,
Ziggy is the one who accused him of being a scientist @174. My point is he ain’t qualified as a scientist in the field and the use of the Dr monniker is a tad misleading in the context.
Someone close to me is a doctor of theology. Come over and see us next time you want your appendix out.
Greeensborough Growler:
Thats right but he would be the closest to the models and outputs they are trying to achieve. As you know if you design the programme you have would have an intimate working knowledge of the system and models that they were trying to achieve.
The’ve spent $50Billion around the world trying to prove this theory. The only thing they’ve managed to achieve is a consensus that there is no consensis.
Lets here it from another
Or another.
or another.
But one thing is for sure we know who is going to be profiting, and it isn’t the electorate of Lyne or any other electorate.
Now lets have a look at that Tax again. Because as I’ve said I dont care if you believe in man made global warming or not.
You know how we never know what fuel will cost. Thats because the arabs will sell it for $80 per barrell and the Singapore prices could be $147 so who makes all the money out of it…… Brokers and Traders. They’ll be cashing in your your electorates tax. Have a look
Getting the idea yet. Lets see if will assist the NSW tax payer.
See what others say about this enconomically disasterous tax.
The DLP is against the implementation of a Carbon Trading/tax Scheme in anyway shape or form. We Believe that the funds that will be wasted could be better used in developing renewable energies and cleaner technologies.
Ziggy
Ziggy,
Sad for you, but your credibility is shot. I am sure the link with DLP will be a thoroughly researched scientific paper though. ( controls guffaws of laughter).
My post at 170 stands unless you have some real evidence. You’re firing blanks at the moment.
Greeensborough Growler & Soylent
Pleny of sceintist in that lot including the IPCC.
But as I’ve said I dont care if Greeensborough Growler believes in fairies at the end of the garden (nothing against the greens). What I’m saying is we should not be implementing this horrific Carbon Trading Scheme.
Read to your hearts content.
Ziggy
Greeensborough Growler
Greensborough Gowler
“Sad for you, but your credibility is shot”
There not my words but if you disagree with all that lot than I know whose credability is shot.
You can believe what ever you like.
But have the decency to attack this carbon Tax and all that it stands for.
Ziggy
Greeensborough Growler:
And again, reworded and revv’ed up. Are you a “scientist” of the right discipline?
Or a B. MTy (Blogger of Mythology).
I jest without offense intended, but the point is valid.
And of course, Ziggy has a point as well. If this guy is a loser, why was he employed by the Australian Greenhouse Office to program the climate change modeling software, and was he aware of the related issues, or was he just a spreadsheet (or FullCAM) data entry lackey making some spare bucks, albeit with a Stanford Phd?).
Ziggy,
Have the decency to stop talking rubbish.
Soylent,
See 183 above.
Soylent:
I think Greeensborough is a lost cause. He is determined to have this monsterous tax introduced onto his neighbours at all costs.
The earths warming so lets tax the people and give it to the polutors.
Go one Greens
Ziggy
Soylent: See 183 above.
Don’t need to. I wrote it.
Greeensborough Growler:
I must confess that I’ve not yet read the voluminous links provided by Ziggy.
However your statement that:
I am sure the link with DLP will be a thoroughly researched scientific paper though. ( controls guffaws of laughter).
Is I guess related to his link titled
The DLP is against the implementation of a Carbon Trading/tax Scheme
No apparent link to DLP, so it would seem that you have summarily dismissed any argument put forward. I guess the hour is late, and the mind may be lazy, but why not wait till the light of day, and respond with a meaningful argument after reading the material? There may be some clangers, who knows.
Greeensborough
As I’ve said we are only against the tax..
Even if there was……….it still wouldn’t warrant introducing this tax.
If you cant see that then (Forget your brainwashing for one second)
and just look at who’s profiting from this tax, and how much it will cost the average Australian.
Ziggy
First we have the Stanford Phd previously employed by the Australian Greenhouse unqualified to offer a qualified meaningful opinion on climate change.
THEN we have the [point 170} 80% of the public understanding that Climate Change was real.
And this was an argument for your side?
And if consensus of scientists is proof, (it’s not), then what do you postulate is the meaning of a poll saying that 80% of the lay public believe in “climate change” or “global warming”?
On this game-set-match note (:), I bid Growlers & Ziggy’s good night
Ziggy,
Having had your scientific reference squashed as being unreliable, you now resort to what you always believed, “We don’t beleive in it , because….. well, we don’t believe in it”.
Please come back when you have a credible argument. This emotive nonsense is nothing but tosh, puts you fairly at odd with the majority of Australians (I dare say many of your young Australian families you go on and on about) and doesn’t correspond with what the sceince and our glorious Labor Government are telling us.
Oh, in a democracy, it’s the tyranny of the majority. Sad for you I know.
Greeensborough Growler
Lets refresh this agrument on Carbon Tax.
You discredit the engineer who designed the software modelling package to track global warming. David Evans:
You brushed of Jenifer Marohasy
“Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth stillwarming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
Marohasy: “Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued … This is not what you’d expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you’d expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up … So (it’s) very unexpected, not something that’s being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it’s very significant.”
You ignored
Geophysicist Philip Chapman says he’s not convinced by the current arguments on global warming - and says the drop is due to a slowdown in sun spot activity.
You don’t want to know about the profit.
But you still want that tax.
What did the people of lyne do to you and greens.
Ziggy
Ziggy.
Your not the only ones against the Carbon Emission tax..
Michael Costa the Nsw Treaurer has spoken out against it on a number of occasions. So there is a lot of support against it ziggy.
Keep up the good work
1984
Ahem. Actually, the ETS as it currently stands might deliver an initial windfall profit to polluters - IF the permits to emit are given out freely, only IF - and that’s why the Greens support a better design for a system that would distribute the load among the polluters, with support for low-income people who will struggle when carbon pricing effect.
Now, as far as I can tell, that’s what the DLP supports - action on climate change, with buffers for those who need it and action on big polluters. Was there something I missed?
By the way, saying that centuries of climate science got discredited by the Lavoisier group isn’t actually an argument. In any way. At all.
The science behind global warming is incontrovertible fact; within that, there are very small natural fluctuations in average global temperature that manifest themselves differently in different areas of the planet. The overall trend is steadily, overwhlemingly for an increasing global average temperature.
I don’t know if you noticed, but the 10 hottest years on record are all within the last 15-20 years.
I’d call that, along with the considered opinion of thousands of people more qualified than the pet ’sceptic’ scientists, somewhat convincing.
Now to link all this to Lyne…hmm…something about families.
And, seeing as I can give the perspective of a proud New South Welshman, saying that Michael Costa supports something is akin to saying it’s
a. political death; and
b. a terrible policy.
Thank you for pointing that out.
Josh
@194
post of the thread
The Nationals have chosen their candidate for the Port Macquarie state by-election that has resulted from Rob Oakeshott’s resignation from State Parliament. She is Lesley Williams, a nurse from Lake Cathie who got a primary vote under 20% against Oakeshott at the last state election. I am surprised by this, I was expecting the job to go to Rob Nardella, a dismissed Port Macquarie councillor and Vaile staffer. Perhaps the Nationals have realised that involvement with the Glasshouse is the one factor able to get the locals’ juices flowing. Nardella is certainly closely aligned to the Glasshouse
Labor will not run a candidate and the only other declared candidate at this stage is James Langley who ran as the Labor candidate for Lyne at the last federal election and will run as an independent now. He has resigned from the party.
Jamie Harrison, a dismissed councillor who opposed the Glasshouse and is seen as an Oakeshott protege has placed ads in the local media asking for expressions of support. He gained 5% at the last federal poll and I feel is a potential challenger. He has apparently not been harmed by the unfortunate incident involving his trousers at the Irish tavern.
My barber, Jimbo, reckons he would be a better member than any of the above and I tend to agree.
The big question is whether the Liberals will consider a run and if they will be able to find a suitable candidate in the next few weeks.
For our climate change deniers, here’s something tht compares you to tobaco denialists.
http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-deniers-20080802-3ou6.html?page=-1
Greeensborough Growler
That makes sense……Not. Now I’ve heard everything.
Why dont you listen to your own green friends.
<a href = http://risingtide.org.uk/resources/factsheets/carbontrading<who profits
Why is it when you try to discuss the carbon trade/tax scheme, the alarmists will not listen and continue on their illogical (almost religous belief)that taxing a population will somehow benefit them. A regresive tax is simply that. (A Tax of the poorest members of society). The emitters wont be coughing up anything. It will be you, and our regional farmers and companies.
I have said on a number of occasions I dont care what you believe and its obvious you dont care what I believe about global warming. So leave it at that.
Here have another look at what the left side of politics is saying.
If you live in lyne then you would have a fair Idea of the damage this tax will cause on the community.
Ziggy
GREENSBOROUGH GROWLER:
Perhaps you alarmists should take a breath and look at this article again from the Australian.
It might start to bring you back to reality.
Remember once its it its in. It would be impossible to reverse a carbon trade/tax system so any mistakes we make today will be with us forever.
Ziggy
The alarmists and extremists in this debate are the Climate Change deniers. You disbelieve the science and you disbelieve popular opinion. You’ve got your fingers in your ears, your eyes shut and your stomping like a child.
Ratbags is you.
Pages: « 1 … 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 7 » Show All