It is electoral SUICIDE…why sell out your base (the city) to the tune of 2.6 BILLION in the next 4 years for a pack of inbred banjo-twanging economic illiterates who got 4% of the vote, hate you anyway and will only let you govern when they feel like it?

How do you think the elctorate will react when they are told that Carpenter and Grylls want to take away their school upgrades, stadiums and rail lines for a fookin’ road to Port Hedland or some such ridiculous boondoggle?

Tell the Nats to get stuffed, let the Libs wear the oppobrium from the sell-out of the city and then watch Barnett try to govern with a one seat majority, a coalition of agrarian socialists, certifiable independents and the Dalkeith Mafia, and Buswell and the Courts stalking him for a chance to slip the knife. All the while one by-election from oblivion.

Meanwhile, clean out the Caucus, re-generate, move on from Carps and his merry band of incompetent fools and take bake government in four years.

Whoever does the deal with the Nats will lose in 2012 – guaranteed.

Let’s put paid this ‘union dropin’ horseshit.

Apart from the idiotic notion that union officials don’t know anything about ordinary people (I don’t know what you think union officials do all day, but the fact is they talk to ordinary people all day long about being shafted by their employers, and they do things like assist people who are struggling for money to the extent that they can’t affor to put petrol in the car to get to work.)

Apart from the fact that unions don’t ‘drop in’ candidates -they preselect them by using their votes within the party, legitimately held (no matter what you think of that) and they preselect active party members.

Both Janine and Roger have been active members of the ALP for at least 20 years. Roger has been president of the state party (an unpaid position) as well as all the usual activities like working on campaigns and being active in branches. Janine has likewise been an active branch member and run campaigns etc.

Janine, Chris Tallentire in Gosnells and Lisa Baker in Maylands all romped it home in safe labor seats. Janine’s the only one of those 3 who didn’t need a waive from State Exec to get preselected because she wasn’t a member of the party already.

Kobelke, a Minister in a safe seat, got a belting.

Carp’s picks got thumped. (Cook, Freeman, Baker and Tallentire were all left-endorsed candidates – they were not Carps’ picks).

Let’s face it the electorates were all over the place due to local factors, independents and the vagaries of preferences. Where those factors weren’t present, the labor vote held. Giving labor a range of new MP’s with credibility (and some even have vaginas, unlike the Libs).

You are missing a fairly fundamental point. The Greens aim to WIN seats, to change legislation…

A party is crap because in a preferential voting system the vote flows to a completely different party with completely different policies in boxes numbered by the voter…?

If the Greens agreed wholeheartedly with Labor, they wouldn’t preference Labor, they’d BE Labor. On the subject of hypocrisy, it might be more accurate to fulminate at Carps, who voted for uranium mining at the national ALP conference.

Uranium mining and Nukes are but one issue. The Greens are not a single issue party, and choices have to be made to deliver the best outcome possible. If anti-nuke, anti-uranium is an issue a voter is passionate about, they’ll know that the Greens have the strongest policies, and they’ll know to preference the ALP. If that’s your issue and you’re in South Australia, you’re kinda stuffed for choice as to where you number your boxes after the Greens.

As an example, The Greens could not actively preference a climate-change denying ALP candidate over a Liberal with a strong record in social justice, for fear of alienating their base. Nor can they can preference a party that has a record and policy platform that the Greens base finds abhorrent.

If the Greens won Freo, it would be on Liberal preference flow. And not because of some shared ideology or arrangement.

The point is, the vote will always go somewhere other than the Greens believe it should, until they start winning seats.

Any chance you could clarify your “Labor needs four out of five doubtfuls” versus Van Olsen’s “three out of five”?

Van Olsen was counting two Labor-leaning independents (Kwinana, Kalgoorlie) plus 25 Labor definites, leaving them three short.

25 Labor definites are below but maybe you have one of these out?

Armadale
Balcatta
Bassendean
Belmont
Cannington
Cockburn
Fremantle
Girrawheen
Gosnells
Joondalup
Kimberley
Mandurah
Maylands
Midland
Mindarie
Morley
Nollamara
North West
Perth
Pilbara
Rockingham
Victoria Park
Warnbro
West Swan
Willagee

He also said the Libs weren’t confident of getting the same 52/48 benefit from postal and absentee votes, and that they may well break Labor’s way.

Either way, an ALP minority or a Lib minority, makes it hard to govern. Just ask Nick Greiner, although I think Bracks did OK with it in his first term.

Just as aside. Joe Hockey was on Meet the Press yesterday, and was making it up as he was going along. He claimed the Coalition had a swing to it at the last Federal election in WA. Not so, Joe.

In 2004 the ALP achieved 44.6% TPP, and in 2007 it achieved 46.7%. A swing away from the Coalition of 2.1%. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Joe!