No Morgan poll this week. Here’s some of the other mail:
• The Launceston Examiner reports that Brigadier Andrew Nikolic, veteran of numerous overseas postings and until recently the Australian Defence Force’s director-general of public affairs, has “confirmed that he is interested” in Liberal preselection for the federal seat of Bass. Also said to have his eye on the preselection is Senator Guy Barnett, who will otherwise have to settle for the slighly less appealing prospect of number three on the Liberal ticket.
• Michelle Grattan reports on a “glowing reference” for Kooyong preselection aspirant Josh Frydenberg from John Howard. Another of Frydenberg’s backers is Andrew Peacock. His principal rival, industrial relations lawyer John Pesutto, is supported by Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam, who was himself sniffing the breeze before deciding not to proceed. Former Liberal president and Fraser government minister Tony Staley has given his seal of approval to Peter Jonson, a 62-year-old former Reserve Bank official known to the web at large as Henry Thornton.
• The Townsville Bulletin reports there are rumours that prodigious McDonald’s franchiser George Colbran again hopes to run for Labor in Herbert, where he narrowly failed to unseat Peter Lindsay in 2007. Colbran reportedly says he “won’t commit either way”.
• David Rood of The Age reports that John Brumby has “cleared the way” for Keilor MP George Seitz to be dumped at the next election, amid the fallout from the Ombudsman’s recent report into Brimbank City Council. The party’s administrative committee will decide this evening whether to take preselections for western suburbs seats out of the hands of local branches, in which Seitz and others remain powerful. Also affected will be Kororoit MP Marlene Kairouz, whose preselection ahead of last year’s by-election formed the backdrop of much of the shenanigans investigated by the Ombudsman, and Derrimut MP Telmo Languiller. Labor sources quoted in the article wonder why both Languiller and Western Metropolitan MLC Theo Theophanous aren’t equally being targeted along with Seitz, so it evidently should not be taken for granted that either Languiller or Kairouz are endangered.
• Taking his cue from Manmohan Singh’s assumption of the Indian prime ministership from the upper house, Malcolm Mackerras argues for an end to the convention that Australia’s party leaders must sit in the lower house, which he relates to the anachronistic presumption that it is the more democratic chamber.
• Final score from the Fremantle by-election: Carles 10,664, Tagliaferri 9,100. Margin: 3.96 per cent. I expected Labor would rein it in a little on late counting, but no.
• With the whiff of a dying government in the air, talk of electoral reform is very much in vogue in London this season, just as was when the scandal-ridden Major government was breathing its last. Conservative leader David Cameron opposes proportional representation but promises to “look seriously” at fixed terms. Health Secretary Alan Johnson – “still the favourite to lead Labour if Gordon Brown is removed from the top job“ – has suggested the government at last look seriously at the “Alternative Vote Plus” model which has been floating around since the 1998 report of the Jenkins commission, which was set up when Tony Blair came to power. It proposes a slightly watered down version of German/NZ style MMP, combining constituency members with party list members to produce a proportional result. Unlike Germany and NZ however, there would be a cap on the number of party list members which might make results less than fully proportional. The “Alternative Vote” part of the title refers to Australian-style preferential voting for the constituency seats, which the Jenkins commission appeared to be taken with as it had just helped defeat Pauline Hanson. From the Jenkins commission report, a “note of reservation by Lord Alexander”:
My colleagues also think that AV will contribute to a less confrontational style of politics because candidates will be inhibited from attacking rivals too strongly as they wish to gain their second votes. I do not see it as particularly desirable that candidates from different parties, who are different precisely because they do not agree on all issues, should be pulling their punches in order to seek approval from voters who support other parties. In any event, from my observation of Australia, which is the only single large country to use AV, their politicians tend to be, if anything, more blunt and outspoken than our own.
1,122 Comments
From the previous thread:
Frank:
Do you specialise in ad hominem, Frank, or is this just a one off?
No, I note yor super seriousness as a sign that you may have some sort of vested interest when attacking those who are quite rightly suggesting that there is a degree of over-reacting to the Swine Flu, as compared to regular influenza.
WHAT? A senior Liberal insider thinks it is in his party’s interests to pre-select a 62 year old?
Another name for the cytokine storm is systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). It’s often triggered by a second hit, ie someone who is already sick (from a burn etc) and has a “primed” immune system gets a complication (like a chest infection) and the immune system goes nuts killing everything in it’s path. The question about anti-inflammatories is a really good one, dyno. None of them have been shown to work except one whose name I forget which helps a little (45% mortality cf 50% if you get SIRS). It costs about $10,000 for a course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIRS
The GFC is not an infectious disease.
The fact is that the horse flu outbreak killed no horses, and it too was a massive media beat-up. Of course we don’t want horses getting flu, but shutting down the whole horse industry for months was a massive over-reaction. We are seeing the same thing now. I gather about 2,000 people die of complications of flu every year in Australia – mostly frail elderly. So far this virus hasn’t even made anyone seriously will. There’s no evidence so far that H1N1 is any more dangerous than the flu we get every winter.
I’ll leave the Urban Dictionary the last word on the “virii” issue. It agrees with Adam, of course.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=virii
Frank I’m sure the teachers arent complaining either
= seriously ill. A typo, not a pun, William.
On the Mackerras article…
I thought the PM was theoretically elected by the HOR. Could the HOR simply just choose to elect someone in the senate? Are there any procedural impediments to a senator being PM (other than the convention that Mackerras notes)?
Showson @ 3
Are you suggesting that a 62 year old should not be in Parliament?
Doesn’t Kev want us to work til 67 now?
Not as a first term MP Winston…No!
No, one can retire at any age – they just cannot claim the Pension until they are 67.
Psephos
The problem with horse flu was not it’s mortality rate (1-2%) but it’s morbidity. Affected horses are sick for 2-3 months and cannot race. Given that Oz and NZ had never had it, there was no herd immunity so it would have spread like wildfire (it’s much more contagious than swine flu). Almost every horse would have been out for ages.
The HUGE problem for the racing industry is that it is reliant on gambling. No-one would bet on horse races where you were really betting on which horse was healthier rather than faster.
The PM is not elected by anyone. He or she is commissioned by the Governor-General, on the assurance that he or she commands a majority in the House of Representatives.
There are no procedual impediments to a Senator being PM, just ones of convention.
TWO errant apostrophes in the one sentence! Dr Dio gets the prize for tonight, narrowly topping “virii.”
I take your point about the poor sick horsies, Dio.
No. I just can’t see how it would help the Liberals show that they are different to the party that was voted out in 2007.
The Liberals shouldn’t pre-select anyone new over the age of 45.
Well in thinking about it further, if a Senator was to become PM their party would have to already be in government. I imagine it would be incredibly difficult to set an agenda from the senate….
Dio,
Thanks for your response on SIRS. Sounds nasty. Interesting too that this is the reason why some of the really nasty flus are actually worse for the young and healthy than they are for the old and frail.
ShowsOn agree with you 100%…
Interesting article from the NYT – Krugman saying inflation risk is not such a big deal right now:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=2
I don’t know what to think.
dyno
Elderly people have “weaker” immune systems and are much less likely to get SIRS. My experience with the indigenous population has been terrible if they get SIRS. Almost none survive. It’s meant to have something to do with lots of indigenous people having a degree of chronic inflammation from their chronic infections making them very prone to it.
Suppose the Libs were to elect Nick Minchin as Leader and he were to win the 2010 election. He would sit in the Senate, he would answer questions from Opposition Senate frontbenchers. Whoever was the senior minister in the Reps would answer questions there, just as the senior minister in the Senate does now, on behalf of the government. I can’t see any practical difficulties at all. It’s just a convention, inherited from the UK where the lower house is elected and the upper house is not, that the PM must be in the lower house. The authors of the Constitution clearly intended the Reps to be the house of government, because they prescribed that the Senate cannot initiate or amend money bills.
That’s pretty extraordinary Showson. Nobody over 45 should be preselected?
Because ……. ?
Doesn’t that limit their job prospects?
Any other professions you’d like to put an age limit on?
Please don’t be sarcastic about the effects of equine influenza on the horse industry.
It was a shattering event.
Horses did die, and most of those who did were quality livestock.
Horses which came down with the flu and survived have in most cases seen an effective end to their ‘careers’. It’s shattering to spend years training and conditioning a horse for a particular event and then find it’s all for nothing.
As a horsebreeder, I can attest it was a knock out blow for many in the industry, especially combined with drought.
I checked several online sources before making that comment, and I saw no references to deaths from equine flu, nor do I recall any references to deaths at the time. Do you have a source on this question?
Because the Liberals need younger people with new ideas.
Justices of the High Court
Children’s Television Performers
Showson @ 26
Barack Obama is 47.
Rosanna Capolingua the next Lib PM?
She’s 58 and divorced
Doesn’t fit the prototype of a Typical Liberal Famly person.
Barack isn’t lining up to 10 years in the political wilderness…
Great, he is in Government. If the Liberals are dumb enough to pre-select this 62 year old, he could be in his 70s before they are back in government.
Frank, thank Heavens fo that then
Precisely.
If Labor lost the 2007 election, a heap of them would’ve moved on. I doubt Tanner and Swan would’ve hung around for example.
How many search engines do you need before you can find anything,
Then answer my friend, it’s binging in the wind,
the answer is binging in the wind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/technology/internet/29bing.html?em
But then again, it’s a case of another El Stuffo from Microsoft:
As I noted earlier, next year the Coalition will have 21 MHRs and Senators over 65, all of them backbenchers and likely to remain so, while Labor will have two, one a minister and one the Chief Whip. Apart from the fact that they are keeping younger and more talented people out, figures like Tuckey, Heffernan, Bishop and Boswell create a public image for the Coalition as being a bunch of angry, bitter, ignorant, reactionary, silly old men and women which is extremely harmful.
The Republicans have a similar problem. Their party membership is starting to match their major support base – old white men.
There’s a vision I could do without.
Psephos, A vet in Brisbane died of horse flu, earlier this year.
re the mini series True Believers. I asked ABC Commercial if they had any copies for sales. This was the response:
The producers are Roadshow Coote & Carroll – who also did Brides of Christ, which is avaliable on DVD.
As the father of a 2 year old girl who has had a history of respitory illness, I certainly take the threat of Swine Flu seriously. Perhaps no more seriously than the “normal” flu, or bronchiolitis etc, but I’ll be very happy to get through this winter without it coming near my household.
If I am not mistaken, you MAY find a copy at your local University Library as I believe that a few years back it was available for sale to approved Educational Institutions, or more likely, that said insitutions may under the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act, may have recorded it off air.
Well if you live in Victoria Grog good luck…
We’ve got 100+ out of 200 down here.
Nope – ACT. We got 3.
Is your daughter entitled to a free flu vaccination because of her history?
I want the ABC to reissue Labor in Power on DVD. They put The Howard Years out immediately, but I believe Labor in Power has only ever been released on VHS.
Re my 42, I wonder if William is aware of the UWA Politics Dept having a copy ?
Well that’s a good bit of luck you should be a ok
Are either Rudd or Turnbull going to get on with their jobs next week instead of using stupid props next week we do have a lot to keep us busy with let’s hope they get their act together.
I haven’t seen any media references to how many people in Australia are actually *sick* with swine flu, as opposed to testing postive for H1N1. Does anyone have any knowledge about this? Is anyone seriously ill with this flu?
If the ABC won’t reissue this on DVD, then we can rightly claim that the ABC is genuinely biased towards the Right
ShowsOn if they were smart they’d have had them as a box set that means you’d double your market and it would be worth watching the other sides one for comedy
Apparently all of the cases are Mild and they are being quarentined at home and given Tamiflu, so far none have rquired Hospital treatment.
William said on Kooyong:
Peter Jonson also writes a column for The Australian under the historical pseudonym “Henry Thornton”
Roxon said most of them are recovering fine after taking Tamiflu.
But 11 people died from it in the U.S., so I think it is fine for the Government to be careful.
Adam, it looks as though someone has taken notice of your suggestion!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/29/2585109.htm
No, not the kind of thing they/we do.
Well, I never. Added that to my post.
Murdoch predicts end of newspapers:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/murdochs-newspaper-predic_n_208821.html
8 years after everyone else.
There were a few reasons for the high mortality rate in Mexico (which did drop dramatically when they worked out most never had swine flu). Their medical care is pretty crappy. They weren’t prepared. Lots were sick already.
But overwhelmingly the main reason was selection bias. They only tested the sick ones who went to hospital for H1N1, of whom quite a few died. All the ones who had a mild flu never went near the hospital, let alone being tested for H1N1.
I suppose you all saw the beatup in the OO today. It screamed;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25555590-601,00.html
Gary will be pleased to note the use of the phrase “Rudd…was forced to defend” rather than “Rudd corrected the caller…”
A mate of mine enquired a couple years ago. Apparently the ABC don’t own the copyright.
Not sure – she has Down Syndrome so any chest infections tend to knock her around due to the low muscle tone.
Well one guy in the ACT said he had had worse paper cuts. (but paper cuts can bloody hurt!)
I presume the next President of the AMA will be another Liberal Party hack.
Evan14, Brenda might get his old job back
Well I have Spina Bifida with well as Kidney problems associated with it, so I’m entitled to the Flu Jab, but I only pay the PBS Concession price of $5.00 or whatever it is these days.
Was Kerryn Phelps a Liberal hack?
No, she was a Labor hack.
And don’t you love how the Cumberland Courier are covering the Swine Flu.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHFC64CjY-M
Well I’m off to bed – I actually do feel like I’m coming down with something (and I did get a flu jab earlier this month)
At least Capolingua had some idea that there was a problem but she kind of missed the point.
http://www.ama.com.au/node/4718
It’s true that the AMA isn’t JUST there to act as a “greedy doctor’s union”. They also act as useful organisation for useless GPs with inferiorty complexes to shelter in. Once or twice, they point out that we don’t have enough hospital beds but they never go out on a limb on that one. They’d prefer to keep their powder dry for a real fight like GPs salaries.
Internet predicts end of Murdoch
Typical Liberal tactics.
* Liberal stooge rings talkback radio, screams about how Labor government is ruining / killing / starving / corrupting her family.
* Minister responds saying this is all tosh and everything is under control.
* Murdoch reports this as “Minister forced to defend” or “Minister fails to deny” etc etc.
* Liberal MPs read out Murdoch press in QT as though it was holy writ, demand Minister apologise / resign / do handstands.
* Murdoch press reports Liberal antics at QT as “Rudd under pressure” for “Minister’s failure to deny” that Labor government is ruining / killing / starving / corrupting ordinary families.
* Start again…
Said lady was on Ch 9 news whinging that they had to wait 3 1/2 hours at the hospital emergency dept. Beats me why she was whinging I thought it normally took 6-8.
And depending on the time of day, she could’ve easily gone to a After Hours GP Clinic attached to a Public Hospital, or attend her local GP.
You’ll notice the poll they used was whether the response was “inappropriate”. So all the people who thought we were going overboard voted against Rudd. And all the people who were outraged that Rudd recklessly let swine flu loose on the population also thought the response was inappropriate. The article doesn’t actually say what Rudd and Roxon SHOULD have done because the media don’t know, and don’t particularly care.
3-4 hours is a perfectly normal wait at an ER for a patient who should have gone to their GP. If you get in the ER door straight away with any crap, no-one would ever go to their GP.
It was an online poll. WHO CARES.
Wonder if the Murdoch goons in Australia realise how bad their rubbish is? Their they are masturbating behind their desks not thinking nobody knows what they are doing.
Don’t eat the biscuits at The Australian or DT is all I can say.
..anybody knows///
Mummy was whinging about her son, who you would of thought was a little boy…………son was 19!
I don’t understand what the government should do differently about swine flu? They have to consider the fact that some people will panic, so they essentially have to cover those fears.
From the OO:
But the government doesn’t GO on talkback radio. Kevin does, from time to time, but not the government. How would they fit that many people into a studio!
But according to the dimwitted Talkback Callers and the OO- Kevin IS The Government.
The Republicans maybe just crazy enough to try it.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/operation-gringo-can-republicans.html
I heard that caller to Mitchell and Rudd. Talk about set up. As it turns out the hospital concerned refute her story. Rudd offered her assistance from his department and Roxon’s and she still easn’t pleased.
easn’t = wasn’t
LOL, The Age is at it again.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/new-claims-over-fitzgibbons-trip-20090529-bqb5.html
Oh and that bloody Rudd. How dare he work so hard in a time of economic crisis.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-staff-run-ragged-in-80hour-weeks-20090529-bqfe.html
Similar to a story in WA when Hospital Staff leaked photos of an “Elderly” Woman lying on some chairs to the West etc and it then transpired that she wasn’t elderly, and she specifically asked that she lie on the chairs.
It was later featured on Media Watch.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2042149.htm
That was given a good run by Mark Reilly on Seven Nooz as well tonight.
What they don’t realise is stories about Rudd’s capacity to work a a positive for him not a negative.
to work a = to work hard.
Good old Mad Monk.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/30/2585153.htm?section=justin
The Age is dying a slow painful death and they symptoms are not pretty.
If Tony Abbott actually believes that then thank God he is not in power.
So if he is against stimulus what would his solution be? Nothing? Cut taxes?
And here there are shades of hoping that it will come to pass so he can use this argument again.
Frank,
Here’s a recent Stephen Elder’s character reference for Abbott.
http://andrewelder.blogspot.com/
They rang here the other night so does this mean they are doing a 2 week phone+face-to-face or are Morgan moving more towards phone polling?
No 91
Abbott is on the money.
Flu kills, but the odds are usually pretty low. It did last year, it will this year and it will probable do so next year. Excellent health system and all, there is a chance that “swine flu” will kill someone in Australia. I expect a totally feral media and a state funeral if and when it happens.
Giving a version of the fly a scary name doesn’t change the odds.
The immune system responds better if it has seen something similar to whatever is coming, if you think this one is going to mutate into something that will actually increase the odds next time, catch this one, the odds that you will survive seem pretty good.
The health department may actually regret their action, we could in a years time have truck loads of talkback callers pointing out that less would have died if the milder version had spread more widely. It might be wise for the health departments to look at how the Spanish fly progressed. It’s pretty much accepted that those who caught the first wave did a lot better in the second.
I suspect the current response by the health departments will make their life more difficult when something serious does happen. If this over reaction to mild version of the flu happens a couple of more times the general population will have pretty much learnt to ignore them and the press.
A serious outbreak of something will require the suspension of all travel, for people to accept that they need some faith in the system.
GP
If you believe Abbot is on the money then you to have a very poor grasp of economics. I aren’t going to write a two thousand word essay trying to explain it to you. My suggestion is your talk to you mates in parliament , ask them to stop behaving like high school prats and you and them sit quietly and listens when Tanner talks, you might learn something.
fredn:
Fair enough, but it’s my understanding that one of the reasons the Spanish flu was so deadly is that secondary bacterial infections such as pneumonia set in. We now have antibiotics and pneumonia vaccinations that would help considerably on that score.
But Diogenes would be better able than I am to comment.
* New? – this was claimed all along
* How many alleges can you have before it is a lie
* Associates and sources – name names, you fool, as Gus would say
* expressed interest – just ask my wife, i have expressed interest to become the Queen of Sheba
This should be placed on the front page of SMH & TA:
http://nefariouslabs.r30.net/Dead%20Horse.jpg
This actually is a better illustration of the Ftizy beatup by a dying old media as Rupe has called it:
http://www.monkeyboy.ws/photos/uncategorized/flogger350×450.jpg
The ‘revelation’ that Fitzgibbon had trips paid for by Liu before he entered politics to me explains why he forgot to register the others.
I’m not totally defending him, he was stupid to deny them in the first press conference (when such a specific question is asked, any politician worth their salt should at least pause and think before answering, it’s an obvious ‘gotcha’ situation) and obviously should have declared them to start with.
What it suggested to me was that he was used to having these kinds of things paid for by Liu and saw them as totally personal affairs not connected with politics.
Therefore when he was filling out pecuniary interest forms they genuinely didn’t come to mind.
Just read the article (teach me to follow links before commenting!)
It really is a very poor piece of journalism.
For starters:
- the trip referred to was declared by the elder Fitzgibbon. It wasn’t a mystery then, it’s not a mystery now.
- I would expect he was spied upon whilst in China. I thought it was common knowledge that any foreigner is spied on whilst in China. Do we get articles about every highly placed Chinese traveller suggesting they’re spies? (News flash: Whilst in China, PM Rudd was spied upon).
- the Chinese authorities might have suggested Ms Liu be used as a spy. (It’s the sort of thing that can’t be disproved, so it’s always safe to say). Whether she was actually asked to be one and whether she accepted is a totally different story.
- the anonymous sources are given more weight than those which have gone on the record. So someone who refuses to give their name or any other details is more reliable than a former MP and the Defence Department.
Zoomster,
If the article says anything (on the home page) which puts JF, Liu or China in some combination in the same sentance, I’ve learned not to go there.
Guess they didn’t get a Morgan this week so they’re looking to beat the same boring drum looking for a lift
Good point, juliem – guess I’m a slow learner!!
I’m on record as being all for letting all the refugees/detiainees in, all of them. When I’ve previously stated that, though, I’ve been referring to our cases here and not those inherited by Obama.
They can come in too, all of them BUT ….. BUT ….. if Rudd accedes to this request when made by Obama as opposed to Bush, he had bloody better well bookend that accession with the #($*)#*$()#*$()* closing of all of our detention centers.
Double standards are something I can not tolerate.
If Senator Chris Evans moonlights on this blog or someone who knows him reads this, please pass along this message to him.
oops, William …. you probably aren’t out of bed yet, but if the “chars” in para2 above breach the “strong language” conventions of your moderation guidelines, please delete them as the sentance will stand fine enough on its own without them.
sorry if I’ve done the wrong thing
Thanks Julie, but there’s no problem if it isn’t clear what word you meant.
Hey Zoomster? Read up, good on the Herald Sun here, they are playing Good Cop this morning to The Age’s Bad Cop ……
Comments from the resident Libs who were whinging about payments to dead people (that their estate(s) were entitled to) will be encouraged
108,
NEAT
Good on you William 
The heading “New Claims Over Fitzgibbon’s Trip” seems to be assigning a meaning to “New” which is such as to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
(apologies to Yes Prime Minister)
And when the govt moves to clean up these rorts we will see headlines of “envy of the rich”?
I would think the rich getting the tax payment would make people angry at the rich bastards rorting the tax system, not at the Government.
The article is quite funny.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25557276-29277,00.html
She describes doctors as
And the govt as
Love the mutual respect, can you feel the love.
Laurie Oakes throws out a statemnt and backs it up with… err well with nothing:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25557699-5000117,00.html
Traction? Where?
Steve Lewis contiues his fine work:
Really? Defensive? The widows of bushfire victims weren’t getting stuck into Kevin Rudd this week.
I would have thought a more accurate report would be:
Of course given that Steve Lewis was the one who came up with the “scoop” he is hardly going to write that it was a dud.
Someone asked earlier this week “who were the pollies getting the bonus?”. I thought at the time that might probably have been tongue in cheek. However after reading this today, I wonder …. if any of the Libs used these back alley rorts to get the money, they had better well pray that Albo doesn’t find out about it or there will be trouble to pay next Parliament stting period in mid June
Off to Bradfield with you Capolingua
116 – good point juliem. I think the LIbs kind of leaked it thinking it would be a good eg of how bad the payments were, and then they realised ooops, it might make them look a tad tax rorty.
Not sure how much people care about Tasmanian politics, but former premier Robin Gray thinks Liberal and Labor should form a formal coalition because they’re the same.
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/grays-vision-the-liblab-coalition/
Interesting article on that subject here as well:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8971
An intersting article in the WSJ about the dubious value of Cinese economic statistics:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124350326977562001.html
Its a valid point but I find the hypocracy glaring: the WSJ faithfully reported the profit results of Wall Street trading banks that we now know were hopelessly optimistic, and in some cases may have deliberately hid the extend of their (inevitable) sub prime and derivative losses. Even the official US economic figures I found hard to believe last year; there was no downturn reported until at least 6 months after everyone knew it had hit with full force.
That’s because the WSJ ’s rule is:
Chinese statistics – Communist lies.
Bank profit results – Creative accounting..
Juliem 106
I agree with you; we should accept Guantanamo detainees that were found not to be terrorists. And we should not have our own detention centres either.
But I’d go futher than that – we should ask Obama for something in return. Identification and prosecution of the torturers would be a good start. They can’t be hidden for ever. Unless all detainees are going to be denied the right to speak publically for the rest of their lives sooner or later they will be released, speak, and the game is up. The excuse that it will endanger US servicemen is a crock. Stories on torture, Cheney defending the use of torture, and the content of the unreleased photos of it are already all over the Arab world:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/05/2009521154821973183.html
Exactly Grog. Perhaps the Chinese government doesn’t pay the WSJ enough in advertising revenue for it to print “the truth” about it.
Robin Gray’s observation has occurred to me before. If the two major parties could form a grand coalition in Germany, there’s no reason at all to think it won’t happen in Tasmania.
William,
They could all join as a coalition government, bring the resources of great minds and committment to the broader community and forge ahead as a united team bringing untold prosperity to Tasmania.
It will be called a Labor Government.
Socrates 122,
Obama may soon (if he’s not already there) find himself backed into a corner on this by comments from government officials with a conscience. Someone somewhere and it should be multiple people imho will be hung out to dry in the long term.
Oz
Gray (among many others, I suspect) commits the sin of omission
Cue Frank and his cabbage patch dolls
Don
The secondary bacterial infection which kills flu victims is normally Staph aureus. There isn’t a vaccine for it. Antibiotics work but it is often a case of SIRS which I mentioned earlier. The secondary infection triggers a cytokine storm which causes multi-organ failure which is why people still die of the flu.
fred
I agree that the public health response to the flu is wrong. It’s futile and counterproductive.
A fascinating way to watch the effect of the flu is to look at the share price of Biota, which makes Relenza. You can see the second spike once Oz patients started catching it.
http://hfgapps.hubb.com/asxtools/Charts.aspx?TimeFrame=D6&compare=comp_index&indicies=XJO&pma1=20&pma2=20&asxCode=BTA
The article on Online Opinion makes a pretty convincing case.
As noted by some comments on the Tasmanian Times, Gray is now a director of Gunns. I don’t think it’s a big jump to suggest that his opinions reflects that of the business (especially forestry) community in Tasmania, that Liberal and Labor and the same and their biggest fear is The Greens.
Hmmm. It’s all getting a bit silly.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25558286-2682,00.html
Any potential Lab-Lib coalition would be fairly unexciting in policy terms, things in Tasmania would continue pretty much as they are. Suggestions that it would have enormous implications federally are pretty overstated. Fed Labor and Liberal are hardly going to make a big deal about it and while some commentators might get excited for a bit, everyone would get over it.
The only thing worth noting would be The Greens as the opposition.
It looks like all is doom for Malcolm, come what may, in the gospel according to Mesma’s admirer. Just as well Malcolm has his millions to cry all the way to the bank with.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25556856-7583,00.html
dio 130,
AFL has said that they are NOT going there …..
juliem
If Rudd banned AFL, it would be the end of civilisation as we know it.
132 – the next sentence is the key one:
I think it would take the end of civilisation before would even be contemplated.
#135, i know. just trying not to be too cruel while being kind.
Participation in the Merkel government has reduced the SPD’s level of support to 20%, the lowest in the postwar period. Come the elections in September, if people want to vote for the government, they will vote CDU. If they want to vote against the government, they will vote FPD, Green or Left. The SPD, being weder Fische noch Hunne, will fall through the middle. This fate has already befallen Israeli Labour, and for the same reason.
I guess the moral of the story is that it doesn’t pay to be the junior partner in a grand coalition. Surely though in Tasmania, that role would more likely fall to the Liberals, who seem to accept that being in government is a historically rare event. It might well be though that they would be better off backing a minority Labor government.
If there’s a hung parliament at the next election, I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that the outcome will be minority Labor government with Lib support.
The question is how close the partnership is. Is it restricted to confidence and supply issues? Or will the Libs ask for ministers, thus making it more like the formal coalition Gray is talking about.
Policy convergence and the influence of business on both parties has ruled pretty much ruled out minority government with Greens support.
As BH said on Wednesday, the msm will be doing their dangest to get a few hit’s on Rudd and his govt before the newspoll on Monday, but fair dinkum, things are crook when they have to rehash Fitz’s Chineses spies, stimulus to dead and Rudd overworking staff.
Talk about slack can’t the media hacks at least come up with a new scandal?
I guess I agree with this statement, but I am also wary of going with conventional wisdom, especially conventional political pundit wisdom.
I’d really start getting scared, for example, if it had been Glenn Milne who wrote those words. I’m happy with his fevered rationales for Rudd being a “oncer”. If he started out stating the bleedin’ obvious about the Libs’ hapless state, it might just make his “oncer” statements come true.
Don’t ask me how or why Milne gets so much so wrong, so often. It’s a mystery.
Oz,
Sure, Eric Abetz as a rusted on “True Believer”. I’d like to see that. I reckon his head would explode.
Why wouldnt the Libs stay out of Government and let the ALP have to deal with the Greens
Unstable government, a government reliant on watermellons will surely do a poor job of running the State which will bring the Libs into contention the election after.
It never pays to be in a Coalition government, look at the Nats
Also one of the reasons the Nazi Party did so well was because they stayed out of large Weimar coalition Governments in the 1920s/early 30s until they were offered power and the Chancellor ship. When all the major parties in Government were pro-Weimar political parties, this meant the only opposition to them was the Commos and the Nazis and the Nazis and Commos did well in subsequent elections.
If the Liberals will die a slow death in Tassie if they join the ALP.
So far, the Libs have been very responsible about not politicising the swine flu pandemic.
This cannot last.
I predict that on Monday that the Opposition criticize the response as “all over the place, unco-ordinated, policy on the run, lacking leadership which is unnecessarily inflaming the situation” or similar. There will be no specific criticism as they don’t want to defend a decision.
Dio i was more thinking the Coalition would come into QT all with face masks on.
sounds like a stunt Uncle Buck would possibly run with.
Very unlikely that Bartlett would deal with The Greens.
With the CFMEU standing behind Labor and Gunns standing behind Labor and Liberal, I think a Lab-Lib partnership of some kind is virtually agreed.
Another record low for UK Labour. They’re down to 21. But the Lib Dems have also taken a massive 7 point hit.
In the EU poll, the majors are all down but the UKIP is up to 19, The Greens are at 10 and the NBP is at 5.
With The Greens polling double the BNP, you have to question the flood of media reports suggesting the BNP have been the “main beneficiaries” of the expenses scandal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6390069.ece
Diog,
Flu will always be more hysterical under the Libs.
Met a UK govt MP this week. He was in no doubt of the situation coming up next year. He’s aware that by May next year he’ll be in opposition.
If the greens are watermelons the Nats would have to be cow pats, hard crusty exterior, soft and gooey inside and full of it.
The main point of a grand coalition seems to be that the opposition members get more money being members of the govt. If they were concerned at the seriousness of the crisis they can support the govt in parliament. There is no difference between the opposition views being rejected and voted down in parliament and rejected in the party room of a grand coalition .
Also from that UK poll, 56% of voters support a change from FPP to PR.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6391226.ece
If there is a hung Parliament in Tasmania, and Labor is the largest party, they will not do a deal with either the Libs or the Greens. They will simply stay in office unless and until the Assembly votes them out. If the Governor won’t commission them on that basis they will go into opposition.
Glen, the NSDAP barely had any Reichstag representation before 1930. At the 1928 election they won 12 seats out of 491. They had no choice but to “stay out” of coalition governments because they were a group of fringe ratbags. As I’ve said to you before, what changed that situation was the Depression and the Bruning government’s disastrous response to it, which was *the same response* Turnbull is now advocating – no deficits, no debt, cut spending to keep the budget balanced. When you have a fall in revenue, cutting spending to match revenue takes you on a downward spiral to disaster. That’s what allowed the NSDAP and the KPD to win 31% of the vote between them in 1930 and 52% in 1932, rendering the Reichstag unworkable and allowing Hitler to become Chancellor. If you’re going to lecture here on German history you need to tell the whole story.
Expect some vigorous debate on this. I doubt that the Feds could impose it on Victoria anyway. Adam might know.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25560154-5005962,00.html
They’re like rats trying to scurry off a sinking ship. 52 Labour MP’s (1/7 of the party) have requested a peerage.
Best chance is throw out Brown, put in Alan Johnson, put in some of the more radical reforms, accept you’re going to lose the next election but then focus on your legacy (parliamentary and electoral reform) for the next election. And if PR gets up they’d have a better chance with a Lib-Dem coalition.
Glen 146,
Jenkins would chuck the whole lot of ‘em
William, there are only 7.5 words in #156 plus a ‘grin’ and your spam filter banned it. I don’t get it …… that program must have a hangover from drinking too many alcopops last night
Interesting that a report comes out today claiming that climate change kills 300,000 people a year and all the coverage is on swine flu and how the government must take drastic steps to stop it when it’s killed what, 50 people around the world?
I think the report is a bit dodgy to be honest, but poor quality studies never seem to dissuade the media when it backs up their agenda.
And just to think that when Brown took over, there was that 3 week period where everyone thought he might go to an early election!
Diogenes:
Thanks Diogenes, I didn’t know that.
However, is it the case that golden staph is far more prevalent, on average, in hospitals than in homes? I’ve heard that is the normal scenario, dragged from my garbage bag of a memory.
If so, would there be any benefit in flu victims recuperating at home rather than hospital, or is that a dumb idea?
Diogenes @ 154
then you have stories like this saying we should do nothing ans let the swine flu run it’s course
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/29/2585109.htm
Labour probably deserves to be thrown out, but I’ve been reading some articles that make a Tory government look a lot more scary than David Cameron.
Most of the likely new Tory MP’s are a bunch of socially conservative anti-environment hacks and only a tiny proportion. The opposite of the image Cameron is trying give the country.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6195107.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6182474.ece
Sort of like our situation in NSW. We hate Labor but we don’t really trust the radical elements in the Liberal Party. And while Barry has some ideas about planning laws and public transport (at least in comparison to Labor), a new influx of right-wing MP’s to go with the existing anti-environment right-wing MP’s is pretty scary.
Perhaps it will be like Rudd here? He managed to keep the middle ground by appearing my right wing that I wanted him to be. Thought he might let the ‘crazy lefties’ such as myself more oxygen. Turns out I was wrong
I know nothing of UK politics, but perhaps a strong leader who recognises his political strength lies in being more centrist will actually push his party that way?
don
The problem is the term “Golden staph”, which really is just Staph aureus (aureo being gold in Latin). “Golden staph” is often used by the media to describe multiple resistant Staph aureus (MRSA) which is more common in hospitals than the community.
20% of people carry Staph aureus on their skin. It’s everywhere.
No I don’t. I think Professor Macintyre should be quarantined from Murdoch press journalists.
Maybe, and he will have a lot of political capital given he’s just given them government after 12 year. But he may also struggle with parts of agenda that are more progressive – particularly with regards to the environment.
The Liberals in Tasmania would be best advised to do exactly what Michael Field and Labor did in Tasmania in 1996 when the Groom Liberal government lost its majority. That is to promise general support on supply and the budget for a period of one or two years, but reserve the right to oppose or amend legislation.
This example is generally forgotten as Tasmanian politics in 1996 was completely overwhelmed shortly afterwards by the Port Arthur massacre. It was well over a year before normal politics was resumed. Then in 1998 the two major parties acted to cut the size of the Parliament and call an early election.
No state has seen bigger shitfs in major party support over the last two decades than Tasmania. Between 1992 and 2002, Labor’s vote rose from 28.9% to 51.9% and the Liberal vote fell from 54.1% to 27.4%. The Green vote rose from 13.2% to 18.1%.
Those are shifts of tectonic scale compared to those in other states. I know there is a lot of criticism of the two major parties being the same, but the majority of the electorate see them as being close enough that they are prepared to vote for either. And the driving force for those major party vote shifts in Tasmania is that the majority of the electorate view the Greens as being so different that voters are prepared to vote for either of the major parties to prevent the Greens getting the balance of power.
I suspect the course of Tasmanian politics is becoming one where brief hung parliaments with the Greens holding the balance of power occur at the points in the Labor-Liberal vote shift where the gap between the two parties has not yet become so pronounced that it can produce a majority government.
It is always hard to see the course of a new political force. In 1891 the Labor Party gained the balance of power in the NSW Parliament within two months of forming and completely to its suprise. It split badly within weeks as it could not resolve internal divisions on Free Trade versus Protection. You would not have predicted at that point that Labor would be the majority NSW government in 1910. Even in 1904, when Labor became the official opposition after the last Progressive/Protectionist government was smashed at the polls by the newly former Liberal Party, you would not have predicted it would be in government six years later.
How did it do it? It set out to broaden its appeal beyond its base vote in the working class. By 1910 it was picking middle class candidate who had previously been Free Trade MPs as candidates in suburban seats it needed to win office.
Labor spent its first ten years in Parliaments trying to trade votes for concessions on policy. So did the Country Party. Once Labor found itself in the position of being an Opposition rather than a balance of power party, it had to change its view on politics. It could no longer use its numbers to bargain on policy. It now had to either stay ranting in opposition, or had to work out how to get into government.
At past Tasmanian elections, the Greens have stood a full tickets of candidates in every seat, but clearly had only one electable candidate in four seats and two in Denison. At this stage they still drive for balance of power.
I thought in 1992 that the Tasmanian Labor Party might have shriveled away and the Greens become the new opposition. Labor was saved by the Groom government’s mishandling of the Burnie Paper Mill industrial dispute, which saw Labor’s union base vote come flooding back, as was shown at the 1993 Federal election.
Maybe the next state election will change things. As I said, who would have picked in 1891 that Labor would sweep away the old political order and become part of a new order.
But until the ‘new’ parties of today are prepared to do more than just criticise the ‘old’ parties, but instead do all the hard work required broaden voter appeal and supplant the ‘old’ parties, politics will contiue as it is.
It could be a godsend to Rudd (and a craptackular for the environment) if the UK backs of its targets at all.
NO government in a democracy remains in government forever. They have a life span. Some live longer than others but they come to an end. The UK government is no different and neither is the NSW government. There will be Liberal governments in the states and federally in the future here as there will be more Labor governments to come and so it goes. Time marches on. I hate to state the obvious but there you go.
Nasty choice for Rudd here. Annoy China and risk “terrorist hysteria” or snub the US. It would be pretty brave to take them.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25560251-5005962,00.html
Albania took the last lot of Uighurs, why can’t they take this lot too? (Notice that the Muslim world generally is happy to demand that we take their refugees, but none of them take in any themselves, even their fellow Muslims.)
“Muslim world” is such a joke of a term.
Why can’t we? Uighur food is awesome.
Oz why should we?
If they are cleared of any wrong doing and they were brought there by the US and they pose no threat why doesnt the USA just take them???
The US should take them then, but it doesn’t look like they’re going too.
We should take them because we don’t want them to get tortured or jailed in China and immigration + multiculturalism rox.
I can’t see a single downside.
Other than costing the Australian taxpayer a heap of cash to resettle them and give them government handouts.
So if they arent good enough for the US then they arent goo enough for us.
I dont care what would happen to them if they were sent back to China, or what would happen if they were sent to another country or went to the US to live.
IMHO the USA has a responsibility here they took them in and they were ‘innocent’ hence they should take them in and not force them onto other countries.
Detriot should do nicely
I can. Hysteria from Turnbull about taking “suspected terrorists”.
And the fairly valid question of why the US can’t take them. After all, they detained them forever without a trial, tortured them, created a farcical military tribunal and still couldn’t find them guilty of anything.
The reason the US won’t allow them in is that they will then be able to sue the US for their detention and treatment at Gmo, which was undoubtedly illeagl under US law.
On balance I think we should take them if no-one else will, although I agree there are risks. They would have to put under fairly strict control orders so that their movements and contacts are restricted.
Tough.
Well, that’s the reason, and Obama (whom you all welcomed as the great anti-Bush) doesn’t want the Gmo people in the US any more than Bush did. If they can’t go to the US and they can’t go to their countries of origin, they will have to be taken by someone else, and that means the traditional countries of emigration such as Canada and Australia.
Adam we didnt put them in Gitmo, they arent our responsibility.
Obama can get stuffed as far as im concerned and if Bush tried the same thing id have said the same thing too.
Rudd is no fool and he knows the political capital this will give the Libs, so he wont do it thankfully.
Psephos:
I don’t know the rules, but is it not possible (or, more likely, not practical) to sue the US from outside the US?
Yeah Glen, most immigrants are dole bludgers and never contribute to Australia or its economy.
Sick.
Actually, Glen, your government was an active participant in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why these people are in Gmo, and Howard supported that to the hilt (remember David Hicks?). So, yes, we are responsible, and now the bill is coming due.
Psephos:
More likely, selling it the US public is the problem, rather than any ideological issues.
I don’t know about that. Maybe it is, maybe it can be prevented. They certainly can’t be stopped from suing once they are in the US.
Glen:
Charming, Glen, just charming. Your humanitarian concerns know no bounds.
I’ve bloody well posted this thing a billion times.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/migrants-fiscal-impact-april-2008.pdf
See page 31 for the short version.
Shorter version – migration makes us money – even refugees in the long term.
Psephos we didnt capture these men and hand them to the US.
We arent responsible. The US are and they should take them.
So says Glen.
There’s midterm elections coming up next year and the last thing the Dems want is a Republican scare campaign about letting terrorists loose in your neighbourhood.
The US *should* not have locked them in Gitmo. China *should* not torture and detain political opponents. Unfortunately, the world isn’t ideal.
I know that. Unfortunately people like Glen will never grasp the idea.
How do you know that? You don’t know what the SAS did in Iraq. Maybe we did.
Diog, can we now say that Obama has also thrown the Gitmo people under the bus.
The amigos TOLD you so.
There is a pattern emerging, a couple of nights ago he wanted everyone in North Korea to be infected with Swine Flu.
I imagine who caught who, when and where is classified. It is at least POSSIBLE that some Gitmo detainees were caught by Australian or British, or Canadia troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Remember, Bush constantly told us that they had to be held there without charge in order to make the whole world safer, since Australia is part of the world, that must mean they were in there to make Australia safer.
#172, not to mention their horse riding skills. they will grace Randwick and flemington nicely
Hilliary wouldn’t have done that. Oh no.
GB, Hillary never said “yes, we can”
Geez I’m glad you’re a Liberal Glen. I’d be totally ashamed of anyone who thought like you did and were strong Labor supporters.
I suspect we will take them. Rudd and Obama must have discussed it already and I can’t imagine the US asking when they knew we’d say no. When Bush asked, he knew we’d say no and it was pretty easy to say no to him. Obama’s going to be a lot harder to say no to, and as for Hillary…
So you believe Hilliary would have done something different Finn?
Finns,
Now don’t be too tough on Diogs. He was blinded by the rapture.
However, seeing this story by Albrechtsen claiming Obama as agent of her side and her using throw away sledges like, ” For some on the Left, the Obama presidency may well be a case of what began in tears ends in tears, of a different, more bitter taste”, must induce a degree of indigestion.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/obama_makes_em_sob_again/
GB, no, but it was Obama that said he would have done something different. and you suckers believe him.
we amigos wanted to believe him, but there was just too many bodies under the bus
If I were Rudd I would be asking the US to cover ALL expenses for each person taken in from this time forward. That would include expenses incurred in keeping a very close watch on them. The arrangements would have to be clearly spelt out and very public.
Australia did accept back David Hicks. Do you hear any outcry now?
During the primary and general election Albrecthsen criticised Obama for being too left wing, now she is arguing that he is actually centrist.
Couldn’t a simpler explanation be that he never was a left wing radical? Also, Obama won the election by a 2:1 ratio in terms of electoral college votes. Is it likely that all those people that voted for him are mad left wingers? Isn’t it more likely that he won because he was able to appeal to a broad coalition of voters?
Hillary have aged a lot since undertaking the SOS role. it must be the burden of the office that she has to sort out the mess Obama is GOING to leave her, you know:
ME, Iran, North Korea, Gitmo, China, Pakistan, Australia, Venezuela, Cuba
Dubya, all is forgiven, please come back
But he is an Australian citizen who most people wanted returned. This situation is a bit different, we would effectively be accepting them as refugees, which sadly drives a lot of people nuts.
Nuff said. Take your child like “nah, nah, nah” to the local playground where the inhabitants too form little gangs and go about trying to get one up on those around them with little gotchas. Fairdinkum.
ShowsOn,
I think she is as surprised as everyone else that Obama has turned out to be a garden variety turnip politician like all the rest. I suspect many of the Obamarama cheersquad that catapulted him in to the White House are feeling a degree of buyers’ anguish.
But cost is always part of their criticism and safety. If you can negate these worries you’re halfway there.
Why? He has already done a lot of things he said he would do. His approval rating is still in the high 60s, when Bush couldn’t get out of the 30s in his second term. There must be a lot of people extremely happy with what he has done so far.
It doesn’t sound like security is an issue. Haven’t the U.S. essentially admitted they were detained for no reason?
The main down side would be upsetting Beijing. And of course having potentially dangerous people in the country, but nothing control orders wont handle, depending on the known background of each.
But as a measure of good will to the USA it would be politically worth if for Rudd.
Australians wont be as concerned about these than if they were middle eastern muslim detainees as the association with terrorist and that region is very strong, but not almost non existent for Chinese muslims – in the mind of Australians. In fact some people might draw parallels between Tibet and Uihgur and have some ‘understanding’ for them. Though you would have to ask how they ended up in Gm.
So it comes down to race – potential Chinese muslim terrorists are less scary than the middle eastern version due to lack of form.
Turnbull and Co and the MSM may go the race and fear dog whistle and The Age whose favourite scare race this year is Chinese may enjoy it too.
The race bit will fail but the fear bit will have some traction. So if Rudd goes with it pretty strong and clear control orders will have to be sold to the public.
..[due to lack of form.]
That is form known to Australians.
206 – There will be some, the righteous, naive left who believe everything they hear. Those that expect the world to be perfect and that politics is a piece of cake, just snap the fingers and magic happens. Fortunately not everyone is so simplistic and naive.
I wonder how many people really are wandering around saying “Bring back George” or “Give me the repubs back”, other than their diehard supporters?
What she actually did is what all the U.S. conservatives tried to do against Obama – pretend that he is a rabid left wing socialist, and then argue against the straw man caricature version of Obama that they created.
His policies were never close to what the Right in the U.S. and other places pretended they were. They were essentially middle of the road social democracy, his policies simply became more salient given a background of massive economic collapse.
About 30% of the electorate probably want this.
Solid gold from Bill Leak:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6649223,00.jpg
In reality you’re probably right but that wouldn’t stop the scaremongering MSM. You know that. The talkback radio would be a flood with callers saying “I don’t want them next to me. No telling what they’ll do.” I can hear it now.
Last night when I checked the U.S. swine flu alert it recorded ~7900 confirmed or suspected cases, it is now on 8975. It also showed 11 deaths, now it has 15:
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm
ShowsOn:
Yeah, but don’t forget Adam tells us it’s nothing more than a few sniffles, and we should have swine flu parties so everybody gets it.
Told you Dubya is back.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2009-05/30/content_7954145.htm
One way to fix the swine flu is to drown it in alcohol. This bloke should be safe. What a man. I would hate to have to pay his weekly grog bill!
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25559287-2682,00.html
Gary you bleeding heart lefties are a joke, trying to make people feel ashamed for supporting our country. One Worlders like yourself just dont get the fact that if you asked your average joe in Australia whether they’d want to pay to resettle Chinese Muslims in our country at the taxpayers expense id like to see how many people would actually support that.
If Rudd took the Uighurs this is the sort of stuff that would be on the front of every newspaper in the country, playing politics to give Turnbull a free kick.
ABC has allready started the frighteners
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/30/2585292.htm?section=justin
Glen:
Glen, it is refugees who built our country.
My children are the children of refugees, they are contributing greatly to the country as a qualified solicitor, a computer engineer and a sub-lieutenant in the Royal Australian Navy, and your inference that refugees are a blight on the landscape is offensive.
No surprises there.
I never said refugees were Don. I just dont think we have a responsibility to help this group out.
The papers and talk-back radio are already full of populist right-wing crap.
Your side can’t talk about the costs of resettling refugees in Australia Glen. The previous government managed to deport Australian citizens on two separate occasions. Which has now cost Australian taxpayers millions of dollars in compensation payments. Vivian Solon was paid about $4.5 million, and will have all of her future health care costs paid for directly by the Federal government.
In 2003, the immigration department told a man they were taking his daughter shopping before deporting her to Iran. That man, who was found to be a refugee, is going to receive hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions in compensation.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25485309-5006787,00.html
Of course this doesn’t even include the hundreds of millions wasted on the Pacific non-solution. The previous government completely maladministered Australia’s immigration regime, so members of the Liberal and National parties are in no position to lecture anyone about the costs of settling refugees.
I dont think he deserves that much in compensation being found to be a refugee and being settled in Australia is compensation enough IMHO.
ShowsOn that was about stopping people smuggling and it did a good job as a deterrence however Rudd and Co watered this down and now refugees are at the mercy of people smugglers once again.
You just don’t get it! That man was completley mislead by a representative of the Australian Government! The Government must obey laws just as much as private citizens, if he didn’t have that obligation then laws would be completely meaningless, the government could do whatever it wanted to anyone.
The Pacific non-solution didn’t work, all it did was waste half a billion dollars that could’ve been better spent building hospitals, or fixing roads, or upgrading schools.
Most of the people held in detention centres in other countries were found to be refugees and now live in Australia. The Pacific non-Solution was a tremendous waste of money, nothing more, nothing less.
He doesnt deserve millions of dollars for such an accident, especially when he comes here as a refugee.
Rudd wasted 20b in handouts that could have been used for “building hospitals, or fixing roads, or upgrading schools.”
Unlike you, fortunately the people who will determine the compensation are familiar with the concept “rule of law”.
1) the Liberals voted for half of those hand outs
2) The Rudd government is spending $14.5 billion upgrading schools and about $20 billion to fix and build roads over the next 3 years. As for hospitals, the Liberals presided in a relative decline in federal funding of health, the new Government is replacing that money.
Glen, since you changed your avatar from Menzies to Lyons, you have become notably dumber and more reactionary. Could I suggest you change it to Deakin, much the best non-Labor PM in our history? You might then find yourself channelling a genuine liberal.
The Swannies had too much alcopops
How about George Reid?
I dont consider anything I have said dumb.
Immigration Compensation cases deliver too much financial dividends to complainents. Someone like that Iranian guy would get more money because he daughter was sent to her mother in Iran. I mean comeon!
People get less money when they are injured at work or by drunk drivers.
George Reid was a demagogic buffoon, so maybe he is more appropriate.
Quite so.
Good old Yes-No Reid. Maybe he’s related to Yes-No Turnbull.
How the hell would you know? The compensation Vivien Solon received was determined by a review of the case by Sir Anthony Mason. Given that he is a former Chief Justice of the High Court, I put more faith in his careful analysis of the case rather than your reactionary determination.
SHowsON – yep that is Leak in top form
If Sol Trujilo thought Australia was such a backward and racist country, why did he choose to work here for 4 years? Was he actually a covert cultural critic just pretending to be a telco CEO? Will he be publishing an anthropological study of contemporary Australia in a few months?
I don’t think Australia’s have a problem with Sol because of his Mexican background, it was his abject arrogance that most Australians found unappealing.
The mortality rate from swine flu in the US is 0.17%. That’s about one in 500. Not negligible, but no more dangerous than regular flu. In fact, of course, the real mortality rate is much lower, because lots of infected people are not being tested and not sick enough to force them to enter the health system. Testing is by definition concentrated among highest-risk people, such as those who have been in direct contact with known cases. Untested people only enter the statistics if they become sick enough to enter the health system.
Just a little childish. It seems Obama’s real ‘failure’ was to defeat Hillary, for which he is not to be forgiven or credited with right deeds. All failures are his, all success should be attributed to Clinton.
Nice point antony g.
Some examples would be enlightening.Also is the issue “ploicies” or simple “public relations”
Because I’m incredibly lame, I’ve spent my Saturday afternoon reading Senate estimates transcripts from the Environment committee.
The wet/dry division on climate change is pretty stark. You’ve got Ian Macdonald trying to “gotcha” the BoM into admitting the planet has cooled and then you’ve Simon Birmingham happy to allow Rachel Siewert from The Greens probe the Antarctic researchers on climate change because she knows more than he does.
Yes, it does look like a fairly blunt piece of advice to The Greens.
Hey Glen, Ross Gittins doesn’t think the $20b cash handouts were wasted. Do you really understand the role of a Government in tackling economic slowdown? Have a read:
http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-strategy-sorted-down-to-a-t-20090529-bq7g.html
“So it’s hardly surprising that, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s review of the fiscal stimulus applied by the developed countries, it judged our efforts to be among the most effective in terms of stimulating economic activity and supporting employment.
Surely that’s what matters most.”
Bit tough on George Reid there Psephos. He was the greatest Premier NSW had. The man who appalled conservatives by implementing real Free Trade policies, which meant introducing income tax and land tax to pay for government services.
He so smashed the Protectionsist in NSW that they jumped on the Federation bandwagon to try and defeat him. At the 1898 election, where Barton led the Federation forces against Reid, the Federationist just adopted all the candidates who had already been selected by the Protectionists, including a couple who were opposed to Federation!
Most of the history of federation was written by Victorians or NSW opponents of Reid, so he has received appalling press from history. He did become bombastic in his days of Federal politics, but he is by far the most impressive figure in pre-Federation NSW politics.
Glen
Howard support this nonsense so I think your side of politics should just butt out.
I say take em, it an insignificant number of people they will probable be well received if you avoid settlement in a red neck area and it wold do our international reputation a lot of good at very little expense.
243 – great article vortex
Psephos
I can tell you for sure that with the current nonsense going on, I will be staying home and well away from the health system if I come down with the flu. So you can count me out of the statistics unless I die.
Fredn if you come down with some swine flu all you need is a Lemsip.
The difference is that the Labor Party was built on the back of the trade union movement, which provided a solid base of membership, votes and money. Labor’s political task was to persuade the working class to vote for their own economic interest by supporting a party that promised to improve their living standards – not all that difficult a task. The Greens, by contrast, have only a narrow membership and financial base in the inner city liberal elite, although the internet does give them an enhanced capacity to mobilise their base. More importantly, they are trying to persuade people to vote *against* their own (short-term) economic interests, since the full Green agenda would of course lower most people’s standard of living in the name of a more ecologically sustainable future. They are doing this following a post-materialist ideology which will always have limited appeal outside the inner city elite. So I think the analogy is a bit strained. Of course, it’s possible that the climate crisis will bring these issues to the political centre stage, which would advantage the Greens, but in that case Labor would probably move to pre-empt them, as we have to some extent already done.
#240
Antony, yes fair enough re Reid. McMinn’s biography rehabilitated his reputation to some extent, and he has of course been proved right on free trade v protectionism.
Oz
Which do you think it is:
Policies or Public Relations ie spin
I think if there was a Labor-Liberal coalition in Tasmania then a the Green vote would go up because many of the Liberal Party haters who currently vote Labor would swich and term of government would probably send voters from the government to the opposition as usually happens.
Dunno if anyone’s made this point yet, so sorry if I missed it.
We joined the War On Terror. We (the Australian government of the day) defended Gitmo. WE should take the consequences.
It is hypocritical of Turnbull and Bishop to bleat about it now. We sowed the wind. WE should reap the whirlwind.
Tom. There will not be a Labor-Liberal coalition, in Tas or anywhere else.
Excellent question. Given my bias I would have to resist automatically saying “public relations” because I agree with the policies and they look like common sense to me. But I can accept that there are policies that a lot of people would flat out disagree with.
In my experience the biggest problems are misconception of the policies coupled with a complete lack of knowledge as to what they are.
“Broadening your appeal” often just boils down to making your policies more like the major parties. If you were to do that, I don’t understand why anyone would vote for you and not them.
I think anyone who doesn’t think The Greens vote would rise pretty significantly if they had the same marketing and advertising budget as Labor and Liberal (indicated a lack of public relations is a significant hindrance) is kidding themselves.
Stranger things have happened.
Adam, you’re doing it again – you’re building up a Green strawman and then attacking the strawman. Labor folks love to bash on about the Greens being some supposed inner-city elite, which just isn’t borne out in reality. The Greens have a solid and growing base in social progressives disgruntled with both major parties, which cuts across the base of both of them. Still, it’s an attitude that I hope persists – as long as Labor have their heads too deep in the sand to notice that Adele Carles won traditionally very working-class booths that are in no way stereotypical Green by actually responding to issues those voters gave a damn about, I doubt Labor’ll be able to mount an effective response to either her or a similar campaign elsewhere anytime soon.
It’s also a bit ridiculous to claim that voting Green necessarily implies voting against one’s own economic interest. On the issues that lower-house battles will be fought and won or lost over, it’ll be a mix of social issues, local issues of concern, and greater assistance in switching to renewable energy, which is cheaper anyway.
I agree. One party will form minority government in Tasmania, the other larger party will guarantee supply, and then both sides will spend all their time accusing each other of getting into bed with the Greens. Then at some point there will be an early election and one side or the other will have convinced the electorate that only their party can form majority government. That’s exactly why there have been those huge swings between Labor and Liberal in the last two decades. The shift is caused by the fact that the Tasmanian Greens are the smallest of the parties, but a large slab of the electorate hate them, and both Labor and Liberal can play fear of the Greens as a way of causing voters to shift between Labor and Liberal.
This is actually terribly unfair on the Greens. The two times they have held the balance of power, they have exercised it very responsibly. They backed the Field government despite its huge budget cuts, though it was Labor and not the Greens that wore that opprobium. They gave reasonable support to the Rundle Liberal government.
But both of those governments lost the next election and saw their opponents form majority government. Rightly or wrongly, there is a great slab of the Tasmanian electorate that will vote for either party in a deliberate attempt to block the Greens. The 2006 electioon is a classic, where Labor just leeched votes off the Liberals in the campaign as it became apparent the Liberals could not win in their own right.
If there is a hung parliament in Tasmania after next year`s election then it is a possibility.
If only after the High Court ruled the political ad ban unconstitutional, the parliament had amended the relevant act so the the free broadcasts to parties with (a) seat(s) in parliament had been kept but with a proviso that if they paid for broadcast ads then they would lose the free broadcasts.
Parties don’t win votes through PR and spin, except at the margins. Parties win votes by appealing to the economic interests of classes of voters. Labor appeals to the working class and sections of the middle class, the Liberals appeal to the rich and the rest of the middle class, the Nats appeal to farmers. Of course there are people who vote against their class interests for various reasons – socially conservative workers who vote Liberal, for example. But most people, most of the time, vote for the party that speaks for their class. Whose economic interests do the Greens speak for? Nimbin dope-growers, Balmain basket-weavers, Clifton Hill performance artists, Fremantle cultural theory lecturers. That about exhausts the list, and most of them vote Green already.
Oz is exactly on the money there. It’s easy to fend off a Green challenge when they run an old guy with beard, don’t have any money, and lack either a decent campaign manager or person to deal with the press.
When, as in Fremantle, they’ve got a candidate who’s fantastic in front of a camera, knows how to deal with the press, is well-funded, and has a great campaign team behind them, surprise surprise, the vote rises. Now that the precedent has been set, watch for this to be repeated elsewhere.
In 7-8 weeks there will be a vacine available against this particular strain of H1N1 “Piggy” flu. Due to the hysteria everyone will want it.
Expect to hear radio talkback callers with horror stories because they were not vaccinated – or people claiming to have grown a second head because of the vaccine.
By summer everyone will be saying – ‘flu?
Adam did say “short-term”, which I still dispute, but it is a perception.
Ew, #261 just devolved into an arrogant refusal to look at the facts.
Good point
and with CC taking up more and more political oxygen, the public relations side is being driven in part by the MSM.
So Oz what would you describe as the greens most contentious policy??
Whose economic interests do the Greens speak for? Nimbin dope-growers, Balmain basket-weavers, Clifton Hill performance artists, Fremantle cultural theory lecturers. That about exhausts the list, and most of them vote Green already.
Oh, do keep on believing this, Adam.
As long as Labor partisans ignore the changed realities on the ground and cling to their devout belief that Green voters are all just a bunch of hippies, they’re going to be surprised time and time again when that strawman just doesn’t match the reality.
Adele Carles won Fremantle because she won the working-class vote. If we’re going to do the same in Melbourne, Northcote, Balmain or Sydney, we’re going to have to do the same there.
Just to prove you are not a hypocrite Glen give your 900 bucks back or hand it to a hospital.
More than that, while Labor keep playing up to an idealised audience of “working families” out in the ‘burbs, Adele ran a campaign targeting the issues that people in those suburbs actually gave a damn about.
Fixing badly neglected infrastructure and saving the jobs at the Port of Fremantle just has a better appeal that “ZOMG THE COMMIES ARE COMING”.
Finns @ 251
You sound like you are channeling Meg Ryan.
Was that what flipper was doing, throwing the head back and making those noises.
The trouble is if the Libs and ALP formed an alliance this would give the Greens the credibility they do not deserve.
Oz, broadening your appeal normally means blurring your policies. Very pure policies always appeal to enough voters to keep a minor party going, but when you want to get beyond that, say to get enough support to win an election and implement the policies you have spent so much time crafting, you always end up fudging principles.
As an example. The German Greens have always been a pacifist party. Yet when they were in government in 1999, they faced a terrible choice. A million Kosovars were in the process of being expelled from Kosovo. The only solution anyone could come up with was the bombing of Belgrade to pressure the Serbian government to stop.
Did they sell out their pronciples in agreeing to the bombing? Did they feel they had blood on their hands afterwards? No, they dealt with the fact that when you are in government, you have to wear the decisions you make. In that case they ran slap bang into TINA, ‘there is no alternative’. Bomb Belgrade or aceed to the expulsion of a million people, make your choice which is more morally wrong.
No ive already cashed my cheque
I pay my taxes and I am entitled to my entitlement
Yes, I’m sure the working class will fall all over themselves to vote for a party that wants to reduce their standards of living in the name of ecological sustainability. I say that quite apart from my views on the question of living standards v ecological sustainability, on which I may well agree with the Greens. I say it simply as a political observation. If you think the Freo by-election is an indicator that working-class voters are deserting Labor, you are deluding yourself.
Adele Carles won Fremantle because she campaigned on local issues. If she retains the seat at a State election Rebecca may have a point. But by-elections do tend to throw up some weird results.
I just wish the Greens would forget the fantasy of winning Melbourne at a Federal election, it is drivel like this that makes them look stooopid.
Let’s be honest she won the Liberal vote and protest vote on top of the normal Green vote and that’s what the Greens attract.
What’s new
I agree with this, but I dispute that the policies are in fact “very pure”. Looking at the way The Greens operate federally and across the states, as well as in local governments, it’s very clear that they don’t view themselves as uncompromising idealists. Though this doesn’t stop them being derided as such.
And on policy commitments themselves, I don’t think there’s that much room to move closer to the majors while still having a sound basis for differentiating yourself. In quite a few cases that no one ever talks about, you’ve actually seen the majors adopt The Greens policies positions. For example, harm minimisation.
Adam, I’m not saying that working-class voters are deserting Labor across-the-board. What I’m saying is that if the Greens to win in seats like Fremantle, they’re a constituency whose support they need – and what Fremantle provided is that they’re a constituency the Greens can win.
Climate change barely raised a whimper in the Fremantle campaign. As I’ve said time and time again, the Greens won because they focused on local issues that mattered to residents, and which had been neglected by Labor. These campaigns are always going to be fought on social issues, and when a Labor candidate who starts screaming “ZOMG GREENIE RADICALS” when opposing someone like Carles, who isn’t scary in the least (and would probably be a prospective Premier had she joined the Labor Party), they’re just going to look silly.
273 – Well Glen you have just shown me how serious you are about the stimpacs.
If the House of Reps vote had been the same as the Senate vote was, then Tanner would have been out of a job.
Here’s a question. Say the Greens stay true to their principles and won’t “sell out” as some seem to see it. Say Labor loses its majority at the state election and gets 40% of the vote, and the Greens win 20%. Say they go into a Coalition government.
Whose policies should be implemented? Do the Greens have the right to demand Labor implement Green policy as the price of Coalition? But why should Labor do this if Labor got twice the vote? And if the Greens don’t force their full policy platform on Labor, which policies will they put aside? Are there core and non core policies, and would these be the sort of sell-outs so many constantly accuse the major parties of doing?
d policies in Tasmania ands at the next state election Labor loses its majority
In Fremantle some Liberal votes went Green on primaries some on preferences and others went to the Labor party (direct and on preferences). Some voters also switched from Labor to Green which was covered up by the Liberal vote Labor got.
If my aunty had gonads she’d be my uncle.
Just how do we know this?
Yeah, this is where I can agree with bits of Adam’s premise but disagree with his conclusion. Labor did start with a strong trade union base, that undoubtedly helped them, but you can’t ignore the context of that period. Workers rights were non-existent and exploitation was rife. The 19th and early 20th centuries were largely defined by very polarised views on economics – free trade vs. protectionist, working class vs. bourgeois.
I am of the view that the period we’re living in now, and the immediate future, will be defined largely by environmental issues, though the economy will still be very important. Any following politics and policy development over the last few decades as seen the rise in the environment and I think it’s accelerating. Even though we’re in the biggest economic collapse since the 30’s, we’re talking about Copenhagen not Bretton-Woods.
In my experience, probably drugs. Not because it is actually that radical (harm minimisation is official government policy) but because effective scare campaigns have been run and they’ve been successful.
I’d also say energy policy. Transitioning from coal to renewables. This is already hard enough to explain but any defence of the policy based on the fact that its supported by accepted science and economics, including Treasury modelling is again outweighed by confusion.
No politician from any party is likely to lose when they get a 49%+ primary vote.
Adele Carles won Fremantle because she campaigned on local issues. If she retains the seat at a State election Rebecca may have a point. But by-elections do tend to throw up some weird results.
I’d be amazed if she didn’t, honestly. The people working the Green campaign down there were second-to-none, she’s a top notch candidate, and with the profile she’s going to have in three years time, I suspect she’ll have the seat until she retires. People who want to make the Cunningham analogy forget that Carles polled nearly double what Organ did; she’s closer to a lefty version of Liz Constable than anything else.
I just wish the Greens would forget the fantasy of winning Melbourne at a Federal election, it is drivel like this that makes them look stooopid.
Totally agree there. Bob keeps coming out with this, and it doesn’t do the party any favours. It’s a seat that might be a future pick-up, but it won’t be this election, and it probably won’t be until a couple of state seats fall first.
Let’s be honest she won the Liberal vote and protest vote on top of the normal Green vote and that’s what the Greens attract.
This just isn’t borne out by the reality. She won every booth bar two, many in non-traditionally Green, solid Labor-voting suburbs.
I agree with this, but I dispute that the policies are in fact “very pure”. Looking at the way The Greens operate federally and across the states, as well as in local governments, it’s very clear that they don’t view themselves as uncompromising idealists. Though this doesn’t stop them being derided as such.
This is the thing. Labor partisans love to believe that the Greens are some sort of radical purist bunch, when this doesn’t have much link with the reality of how Green MPs act in parliament. You might be able to pull a label that off with some of the older-school Greens, like Christabel Chamarette, but trying to attack someone like Adele Carles as a scary radical just doesn’t work.
Oz, the bigger you get, the more you blur. Do you remember one day when Bob Brown mused whether the sale of Telstra might be worth it if the proceeds could save the nation’s forests? An interesting question to ask, but also an anathema to others in the party. Being a major party means these sort of cross-cutting battles of principle occur all the time. Most Green caucuses around the country are groups of a half-dozen or so, and at the moment, not one caucus in a state or federal parliament has the final yay or nay vote on legislation.
Sorry if I’m being negative, but claiming purity when you’re in opposition is always easy. It’s tougher when your vote is critical (just as the Democrats), and even tougher when you are in government.
The paradox of Tasmanian politics is that it is the Greens’ strongest state, but there is no state where Labor and the Greens are further apart, since Labor represents the people who work in the industries that the Greens want to shut down. That of course is *why* the Greens are strongest in Tasmania: a large chunk of middle-class voters don’t like Labor’s position of defending those industries, so they vote Green. This basic antagonism, which is basically a *class* antagonism, makes an accommodation like the ACT Green-Labor agreement impossible to see in Tasmania. After the experience of the Field government, Labor would much prefer to stay in opposition than govern with the Greens again. That’s why, as I say, if there is a hung parliament, Labor will either form a minority government and govern with no deals with anyone until the Assembly puts them out, or go into opposition.
Well as a third of the government`s vote the Greens would be entitled to a third of the policy outcome. Many policies would be a compromise between the Green position and the Labor position with the gap between the Labor position and the outcome usually being twice the gap between the Green position and the outcome. Say Labor wanted a $50 hypothetical tax and the Greens wanted an $80 hypothetical tax the fair outcome in such a coalition would usually be a $60 hypothetical tax.
Antony: It’s already happened. Look at the Labor-Green accord in the ACT – the Greens negotiated a perfectly reasonable deal, a mix of socially progressive policy improvements, climate change solutions, and parliamentary reform. Labor has begun dealing with this – i.e. with the soon-to-be-built new southside library.
This is a quite good example of the perception issue.
In what ways do The Greens want to reduce living standards of the working class? I can’t think of any, but I’m sure Adam will come up with some.
On the flipside, what Greens policies would actually improve living standards of the working class? Well they advocate an IR system weighted more in line with workers, similar to pre-Howard reforms. A more progressive tax system. More investment in health and education. A more generous safety net and welfare provisions.
Anthony
To be fair to the greens we are getting to see how they behave when they are in a horse trading position and to be fair there behavior in the senate has been quite reasonable.
The interesting question in my view is not Tasmania, but the senate. Will Australians give the balance of power to the greens. I suspect the answer is yes and labor knows it, hence the reason for their near hysteria.
Psephos has limited green support to :
“Nimbin dope-growers, Balmain basket-weavers, Clifton Hill performance artists, Fremantle cultural theory lecturers.”
Ummm 10% of the population.
Rebecca, it is still a mystery to me why they didn’t go into government.
Psephos: there is another matter at play there. The Green vote is huge in Hobart, so as a matter of principle, many voters in Launceston, Burnie and Devonport are anti-Green. The Cascade/Boags divide lives on in Tasmania.
It’s too much, to big a target to attack, too many changes, to many unknowns. They are the policies of a party aiming for the balance of power, not power.
Why not look to the ACT? That’s how I would suggest The Greens operate if such an issue repeats itself. Clearly both parties would have to accept that they had their own election priorities. The Greens would emphasise the implementation of these, as part of any agreement, as well as any others they thought they could achieve with Labor support.
They would also have to accept that they didn’t achieve a majority of the vote and don’t have the right to demand 100% implementation of their agenda.
In what way are they sell-outs if they don’t actually have the legislative ability to enforce their policies? Depending on how much power they actually had they would be able to get different things. As a junior party in a coalition I don’t think anyone would expect the full suite of Greens policies.
Not only am I not sure what this actually means (not much?) the comment was in direct response to how policies would impact on living standards for the working class.
Herr Doktor, Australia is a classless society.
Tom: So you will compromise to form a Coalition with the dreaded Labor, but you wouldn’t compromise internally to replace the dreaded Labor? Isn’t the sort of dealing in that sort of Coalition government exactly the sort of blurring of policy I was talking about?
That doesn’t disprove what I said at all. Were their Green voters at those booths? Was their a protest vote by Labor voters at those booths? Were their Liberal voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote Labor at those booths. You can bet your bippy there were.
Antony: you mean without the Greens?
At the time, the Greens were in a not indifferent position to the Nats in WA – as far as I understand, they’d had approaches from the Liberals, and there’s at least a few people (myself included) who’d have happily endorsed a Liberal government if Labor tried to play hardball.
They’re going to need Green support to get legislation through probably permanently from hereon out, and I suspect Stanhope thought that anatagonising the new Greens wasn’t the best of ideas. Better to agree to some parliamentary reform and changes which were going to be popular anyway than to risk having the Greens start acting as an alternative opposition.
221 Glen
It will take a whole generation (or MORE) to undo the damage done to society in this regard by JH. He sent us back to the stone ages in regards to human decency and caring. If you ask the average Joe this question atm, his brain is still poisoned. Ask his kids and grandkids in 20 to 30 years and you might get a more honest answer. For now, I just hope that they help but NOT W/O undoign all mode of detention centers here in Australia at the same time.
Gary, Glenn was on your case in the early part of this comment (snipped that part in reply). You go man, good on you, keep holding up the banner of the left
None of which will be affordable if the coal industry is shut down. You can “advocate” anything you like, but if you’re going to cut off the sources of revenue that pay for it all, this is just fantasy.
The ACT Govt. is a glorified local council, that would be better served if political parties were not allowed.
232 Finns,
North drank from the same batch
That doesn’t disprove what I said at all. Were their Green voters at those booths? Was their a protest vote by Labor voters at those booths? Were their Liberal voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote Labor at those booths. You can bet your bippy there were.
Of course.
This doesn’t change the fact that Carles won widespread support in those booths – I suspect a lot of what you term “protest votes” won’t be going back to Labor anytime soon, or at least as long as Carles is around. It also doesn’t change the fact that, since she’s very unlikely to fall behind the Liberal candidate again, whether the Liberals run or not is irrelevant to her chances of re-election.
Goodness Oz, if you are prepared to accept that sort of compromise to become the minor party supporting a Coalition, why wouldn’t you do that sort of compromising on policy within your own party as part of the process of replacing the ‘old’ parties.
What is the difference between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ parties? Are ‘Old’ parties the ones that form government, and are the new parrties those that get the balance of power and negotiate to have bits of their policies implemented?
I’m not claiming purity though. I readily accept there are policy debates within The Greens, that The Greens amend their position depending on the legislative context and that as The Greens gain more power and influence the number of such cases will increase.
Antony, are you a Green?
Oz take a look at Antony’s comment on the need to make policy fuzzier.
Well they advocate an IR system weighted more in line with workers, similar to pre-Howard reforms. Do we really want them back
A more progressive tax system. Am I going to be taxed more?
More investment in health and education. Am I going to be taxed more
A more generous safety net and welfare provisions. Am I going to be taxed more
Cheers Oz
thanks for that.
fredn: The point is that the answer to all of those questions is probably either “no” or “don’t care” for most people in the lower house seats the Greens would be targeting, or “don’t care” for the people in Liberal seats who usually vote Green.
You don’t know that. By-elections are notorious for protest voting. It’s not unknown for a government to lose a by-election, only to win it back at the following general election.
The only compromise I’ve accepted so far is the fairly common sense approach of accepting that you’re a minor party, not the government, and not everything you want is going to get legislated.
I’ve not used the terms “old” and “new” parties, other then when quoting someone else. The Greens don’t go to the election saying “Well we’re aiming to be in a BoP so we’ll do this, this and this with ALP policy”. But the fact that they do end up sharing the BoP in parliament obviously determines the positions they take.
Rebecca, I have to say the Greens have been in control of my local council for a number of years and I haven’t noticed any difference.
In Australia the strongest census category correlation with the Greens is “no religion” which is a growing category, has been a growing category for a loge time and will continue to be a Growing category.
One of the “cuts to the standard of living” that is actually a rise because of the negatives of the current situation. Cars and sprawl. Cars cost a lot of money to make by and run. Cars cause huge pollution and are a major factor in the rise in obesity. Cars take up a lot of land. Much of the money “saved” by buying in sprawl suburbs is spent on transport costs.
Many of the cuts needed can be achieved through greater efficiency leaving a similar standard of living. We will forced to be more efficient in our resource use anyway because of the middle class in China, India and other third world places.
I see. So the Greens policy platform is like the one the Australian Democrats used to have?
You don’t know that. By-elections are notorious for protest voting. It’s not unknown for a government to lose a by-election, only to win it back at the following general election.
This is true. However, people who make the Cunningham analogy keep forgetting that Carles polled nearly double what Organ did. Carles very nearly won the seat at the general election in the first place, had the by-election to finesse her campaign strategy to the point where I’d say it was the campaign the Greens have ever run, and is likely to be a pretty high-profile member of parliament.
WA has a long history of good independents and minor parties holding on to seats forever if they don’t bugger up, and I’d be very surprised if Carles turned out to be otherwise. Even among those independents, I suspect she’ll have an easier re-election than Janet Woollard – Carles is a much better campaigner.
I really do hope Labor keep believing that Fremantle was a protest vote gone wrong. It’ll make it all the more easier to hold the seat in the general.
Rebecca
It’s not the answers that matter but the questions. It all only matters if you going for control. There is in my view a strong argument for the greens to stick with the balance of power.
No we are to the Left of the Democrats and Labor and are usually try and keep the Libs out. Unlike the Democrats with there preference spiting and GST supporting.
No, I explicitly said that The Greens don’t go to elections professing to be those wielding the BoP. The policy platform is based entirely on what they would do if they won government.
However, in parliament, The Greens are not the government. And the don’t have the mandate to implement their policy agenda They can try too get the bits in that they think are achievable and try and make other legislation better, which is what they do.
fredn: It’s a bit of a silly discussion to be having, in that case, since the Greens aren’t in a realistic position to gain government any time soon.
I think it’s quite plausible that the Greens could take over as the official opposition in the ACT within a couple of elections if the party continues to improve its campaigns and the Liberals stay as incompetent and right-wing as they’ve been thusfar. But even there, a Green government would be a long way off indeed.
I think “fuzzy policy” is part of the reason people are so apathetic about politics, and something I’ll reject, even if Antony thinks it will lead to electoral success.
Would any of the Green Senators feel comfortable in moving to the Lower House? Surely Bob or Christine could win one of the 5 Tassie seats?
Surely Scott or Rachel could sneak a seat in WA, maybe Sarah in Mayo?
If Labor and the Liberals get an equal number of seats in the next Tasmanian election and cannot come to an agreement then the Governor may ask the Greens to form a government as a solution. It would however be voted out when Parliament next sat.
Well, this is interesting. We seem to have a range of views here on what the Greens are. Rebecca seems to like the soft fuzzy ACT Greens. Tom wants the lefties. Oz wants the Greens to have policies they will only implement if they win government, but doesn’t seem that fussed about getting into government.
ruawake: What for? It’d be death. Upper house MPs trying to run for the lower house before the party infrastructure’s there have a tendency to end their careers – just look at Janine Haines or Jim Scott.
Tom
Govenors are not usually that dumb – they would call a fresh election.
Why would the Governor ask The Greens, would have less seats than Labor or Liberal, and no chance of coalition support?
Actually, what would happen in that case? Could the governor just call an election straight away if no one could form government?
And fredn who wants to stick to the balance of power cos going beyond that is a bit hard.
I wouldn’t say that I like the Greens “soft and fuzzy”. I’m just a pragmatist, and I want whatever is going to create the best result in terms of actually enacting progressive policies and ensuring good representation of local communities.
Oz, if you check back through history, that is exactly how the first Labor governments were formed. It’s how Dawson became Premier of Queensland in 1899 and how Watson became Prime Minister.
The Country Party governed Victoria from 1935 to 1945 despite having less seats in Parliament than either the Labor or Liberal parties.
Rebecca
So there are no Carles in Green politics who may try to win a Federal seat? If a non-senatorial Green wins a Reps seat – will the Senators make him/her leader?
Disunited rabble indeed, Antony.
I think you’re simplifying my position though, especially regarding not being “fussed” about getting into government. I very much want The Greens to get into government, but I don’t think there’s a point kicking a fuss after election day and having a tantrum because you didn’t win.
You didn’t win, but you’re still there with the ability to get some of your platform through so you may as well try.
Thanks, didn’t know that.
So how does the governor justify that? I guess they don’t really have too, but how do they pick one party when no one has a majority?
But Oz, isn’t that just what the major parties do?
I doubt it. Not sure why you’d make a fresh MP leader when you’ve got others with years of experience.
I didn’t suggest it was a protest vote gone wrong. It was probably a protest vote gone right in fact. WA state Labor is on the nose and the Libs are at their high water mark. The last thing the Lib supporters would do is vote Labor. Also the last thing any dissatisfied Labor voter and swinging voter would have done is vote Labor but would have no worries voting Green this time round, given that government was not on the line. Next state election government will be on the line and if Barnett is unpopular by then traditional Labor voters won’t be thinking about the voting Green that’s for sure.
That might have been so in the days of the new colony when people from all walks of life mingled together socially with a refreshing lack of class awareness. For a long time we told ourselves that’s what sets Australia apart. While a bit of that does remain, it’s generally been watered down with time. Now it seems a bit like the ‘Man From Snowy River’ mythos. We like to believe we could all be Clancies ourselves, or bronzed Crocodile Dundees, even as we board the bus every morning to go to our city skyscraper jobs. Consider your well-heeled Liberal-voting snob. Why do they vote Liberal? As much as out of self-interest, they vote Liberal because they hate unions, in other words (words they may or may not admit themselves), the working class.
ruawake: It’s not a matter of a candidate at this stage. The Greens just don’t have any federal seats where they’re even close to getting someone elected – any good candidate running would be better directed towards a state seat they might actually win. Winning Melbourne, Richmond and Northcote at state level, on the other hand, might actually set up Melbourne as a future win.
Denison is the Greens best seat in Tasmania and if they overtook the Libs then they could be in a winning position if the Libs directed preferences to them.
Brown is too old to be a good candidate for moving to the lower house strategy. Milne is from Lyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Tasmanian_House_of_Assembly,_1992%E2%80%931996).
Melbourne is the Greens best chance followed by Sydney. Having a Tasmanian HoR leader would increase the likelihood of a “Tasmanian party” perception.
The link should be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Tasmanian_House_of_Assembly
Third time lucky.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Tasmanian_House_of_Assembly,_1992-1996
Try and get their agenda through even though they aren’t in power? Sure, and in that case I’m quite happy for The Greens to be compared to the majors as it’s something they should strive for.
I don’t really have any inherent hate for Labor and Liberal simply because they’re major parties. The primary reason I vote Green is because of their policies compared to the other parties, not because I get kicks out of sticking it to the big guys.
Tom.
Members with 49% of the primary vote do not lose seats. It may be a Green fantasy to look at these seats (Melbourne and Sydney) and say gee our vote is high we might win, but it is dumb.
The sitting members will win before Green preferences are even counted.
You could argue that big ideas brought the democrats down. As you note there is a very wide range of view on what the greens should be.When it come to economics I’m about as right wing as you can get, but I’ve voted Greens because Bob brown was the only one that said something sensible when the Tampa fiasco was running.
My dream would be a party that forgets about green for pretty and focuses on green for a sustainable future. But it ain’t going to happen and if it did it would destroy their base.
Rudd can’t win. He left the conference he was attending early to get back to Australia to do his job and Bishop J says he should have stayed to listen to everyone else. Had he done so he would have been criticised for staying too long.
In the case of the 1935 Country Party in Victoria, they got into government initially with some backing from Labor, and then they just proceeded for 10 years by just droping any policy that might lead to their defeat in Parliament. They had enough numbers at each election to prevent either the Labor or UAP/Liberal Party turfing them out. So they stayed in office. It was the most extra-ordinary do nothing government that lasted a decade.
In the case of Tasmania, if the Greens won 6 seats and the others 10 or 9, and one of the major parties refused to countenance minority government, then if the other party did form minority and was defeated, the Governor is justified in asking any other party in the parliament whether it is prepared to form an adminstration.
If you go back a century, you will find in every state an array of governments that lasted less than a month. In every case this happened either a precursor to an early election, or in a period when the other parties were sorting out some new coalition agreement. What I am not sure is, in this modern era, would a Governor go through these steps involving a baton change in government to justify an early election, or just rely on sounding out the key players.
Well obviously The Greens aren’t going to win when Tanner’s primary vote is 49%. I don’t think we’ll win Melbourne any time soon.
I agree with Rebecca that The Greens will get state lower house seats before the Federal ones come and there a few state seats that they genuinely have a chance of picking up in the next few elections, as opposed to none at the Federal level.
I’m amused at the fact that if The Greens refuse to budge from their policies and never compromise, they’re “holier than thou” purists but if they accept the reality of their situation and negotiate and compromise they’re compromising sell-outs who only want the balance of power.
Members with 49% of the vote do not lose in the elections where they get 49% but if there vote drops the story can change.
Members with 4.71% margins are vulnerable
http://results.aec.gov.au/13745/Website/HouseDivisionFirstPrefs-13745-228.htm
Interesting hypothetical, but I think judging by what’s going on with the ETS there’d be significant business and union pressure to make Labor and Liberal put up with each other rather than have The Greens.
dammed if you do, dammed if you dont
(pun intended)
Tom whatever.
Tanya Plibersek only got 48.99% primary I guess that gives the Greens an edge in Sydney.
Some of this afternoon’s headlines from their ABC …
Australia must reject Guantanamo prisoners: Turnbull
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/30/2585292.htm?section=australia
Turnbull doubts Rudd’s Asia-Pacific community plan
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/30/2585303.htm
=D
Good end to an interesting (and civil!) discussion.
In Sydney the Greens still need to overtake the Libs which they got to within 5.6% of in 2007.
Re Mackerras, while I do agree that there are times when the best talent a party has occurs in the Senate, I don’t agree that the Senate is equally democratic in its electoral processes. In one respect (PR vs single-seat) it is more proportionally representative but this is overridden by its extremely malapportioned nature (Tasmania getting as many Senate seats as NSW for instance). Also, a Senator isn’t elected solely by votes that are registered directly to their name by the voter, because of above-the-line voting, so it’s hard to say anything about the popular appeal of those elected to the Senate.
Re the Lib-Lab Tasmanian coalition proposal floated by Robin Gray, assuming there is a hung parliament (which I most recently rated as about a 50-50 chance, although I will review this when the next polling comes out) then I doubt it will happen for any period of time. I have said a few things about this on various threads at Tasmanian Times but basically the Liberals as junior partners in a cordon sanitaire would be on a hiding to nothing. If it fails then the electors are likely to take it out on both parties, increasing the Green vote. If it succeeds then the electors are more likely to reward the senior partner returning Labor to majority government. The Libs will have been out of office for 12 years when the next election is held. The factors making Labor supposedly vulnerable to loss of majority (personnel instability, fallout from Lennon years, response to GFC) may all prove temporary and if the Libs do not seize whatever kind of day presents itself to them they could find themselves out in the cold for another decade or longer. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Libs were willing to give Labor a guarantee of supply for a limited period (say 12-18 months) on account of the GFC but a full-term grand coalition strikes me as extremely counterproductive for them strategically.
(That is, assuming that the Liberals actually want to be in government, and one of the problems the party has faced in this state at recent elections is that at least some elderly “conservative” and pro-small-business members of its support base are more concerned with its ideology than its electability.)
On comparisons with the Rundle government it is worth bearing in mind that at that time Labor had a commitment to govern in majority or not at all, which it had gone to the people with at the 1996 election. So Labor was not interested in entering a minority government during that term and had no reason to precipitate an immediate election for which it would have been blamed. However if the Liberals are interested in attempting to govern in minority, they may well seek to roll the incoming Labor minority government quickly or even immediately.
On comparisons with the Fusion as made in Peter Henning’s article, one significant difference is that the party excluded by the Fusion (Labor) was a serious contender for government that had already been in office. The Greens are not serious contenders to govern.
Shame that nice Richard Butler isn’t still in the job.
Tom
It does not matter what vote the Greens or Libs recieved, Tanner and Plibersek were both elected on the few votes they needed from the tiny indies.
That is the point I am making. When any candidate gets 49% primaries they get elected. You hope that the vote may change at the next election, it will. Lindsay and Tanya will win on primaries.
Wow this is the most we’ve talked about Tasmanian politics for well as long as i’ve been on PB.
Do you think the ALP and the Libs would support going back to the pre-PR voting system??
That would destroy the Greens
and then each major party could restore their power.
The Tassie Parliament is too small 25mps id put it up to 35 and have single-member electorates again.
Oz, there was in 1989 in Tasmania, and the Governor of the day quite rightly chose to reject Robin Gray’s advice to call another election. Look around for RD Lumb’s “The Constitutions of the Australian States”. It lists a number of principles for a Governor to follow, one of which is the Parliament must meet. A second is that a Governor would not, under nornal circumstances, grant a dissolution in the first year after an election.
If after the next Tasmanian election, Labor has more seats than the Liberals but lost its majority, it can’t resign office unless there is an alternative government. Under our constitutional system, the Governor must have advisers. The Liberals cannot be made to form government, so Labor cannot just resign. Nor would it normally be able to ask for a new election unless alternative advisers had first been tried.
Which is why you wouldn’t discount a brief Green government as part of the process of getting an early election. The Constitutional precedents are clear it could happen, but I’m just not sure that in this modern era we could cope with a brief government.
The shortest government in NSW history is about 7 hours on 20 December 1921. George Fuller was granted the right to organise a government the previous week after the Labor government had lost a vote in Parliament. He negotiated with the cross benches for a week and it all fell apart, but he still took on the Commission on the morning of 20 December, only to lose a vote and see Jim Dooley sworn back in as Labor Premier in the evening.
Oz
when two gentle souls like your good self and moi happen to discuss matters of public import, conviviality is assured.
Kevin see my analysis of the democratic equality of upper houses @ 1543 in the previous thread.
But I must say, I’m not sure if Labor did lose its majority, it wouldn’t try to stay in government long enough to re-build its support and call an early election. It’s why I think they’ve gone cold on the idea of fixed-term parliaments.
Glen,
The tassie’s wold probably relish the fact hat they are differnet to the rest of us.
A PM (Lyons) and a few notable Senators like Brown, Harradine and Milne show they punch above their weight.
Yeah I think they’d voters over the head with “You have to vote for us to get stable government, no protest votes”.
There seems to be a recuring theme in the MSM that we should abolish State Govts. My view is that upper houses should be axed.
Look what happened when Howard and Co. got control of both houses, why can’t we let the Govt. (in the lower house) make decisions, then if they stuff up vote them out?
I’d support one house if it was PR.
Nah it’s too much power
Rebecca:
Onya Rebecca. Great post.
No, we must have Upper Houses. What if Howard had been a first-term government and tried on SerfChoices? Without the “aged government” / It’s Time factor working against him, we might have been stuck with SerfChoices for all time: our kids and grandkids to be virtual serfs by birthright. Perish that thought!
Cuppa
Howard would have lost the first term election if he introduced serf- choices. He only just scraped back in.
Why should Govts be “held accountable” if they want to do something – do it. Pathetic Govts should not be kept in office by unrepresentative swill because they cannot implement dud policies.
ruawake,
You want Government to do something?
When did you assume these luxuries?
I do not want to re-open the PR discussion, but. How could it work in an Australian context?
I have no problem with an Australia wide PR system for the HoR, where a vote in Hobart, Canberra, Alice or Melbourne is counted as a vote with the same value, its just that nobody can suggest one. (Except of course those who see it as a way to garner more influence for their preferred minor party).
Correct – Cunningham is a prime Example.
Oh and I do like the term Cabbage Patch Kids – cos sometimes they behave like spoilt brats when they don’t get their way
Bob tried Denison in 1993 and didn’t even get half the vote of the Liberal. He did get an 8-point swing but most of that was off the Democrats whose Denison candidate had a massive faction-fight with their Senate candidate, destroying both. The Greens were at a relatively low point in their electoral cycle in Tassie at that time but there is no way the Greens would win Denison now at a normal election either.
The problem for the Greens with the Tassie federal lower house is that Tasmania has no city large enough to have its own entirely inner-city federal electorate. Denison includes poor low-education outer-city areas in the northern suburbs where the party gets very little traction. They got 18.6% in Denison last federal poll and that was a pretty good result. They can’t realistically get much over 25 in Denison ever and for them to come second off that sort of base the Liberals have to do so abysmally that Labor is just about across the line on primaries. Even when Duncan Kerr (who in my view keeps the Denison Green vote down a bit by being both locally popular and a kind of closet Green) finally goes, I doubt that Denison will get interesting. Indeed, the Greens aren’t even yet in a position to win any of the 15 Tasmanian Upper House single-member electorates although one of them (Wellington) might at least be competitive once the sitting member quits.
People sometimes imagine that candidate selection is a big thing for the Greens and that running high-profile candidates in key seats might bring them huge votes. As far as I can tell candidate quality has much less impact on Green votes than on votes for the majors and is only worth a couple of points on a good day.
Would I be correct in saying that WA, SA and Tas have more of their population in Major cities than the other states?
And it certainly doesn’t help when you run a candidate who looks like a refugee from a Hippie Commune with policies to match.
Multi-member electorates with a constant ratio of voters to MP’s.
WA and SA, maybe. Tasmania? Heavens, no. Look at federal electorates: one-and-a-half Hobart, three-and-a-half for the rest. Compare that with WA: nine in Perth, six elsewhere (including three that touch on the outskirts). In fact:
Sydney population as share of NSW: 62.8%
Melbourne/Victoria: 73.0%
Brisbane/Qld: 44.5%
Perth/WA: 73.7%
Adelaide/SA: 73.1%
Hobart/Tas: 41.9%
“People sometimes imagine that candidate selection is a big thing for the Greens and that running high-profile candidates in key seats might bring them huge votes. As far as I can tell candidate quality has much less impact on Green votes than on votes for the majors and is only worth a couple of points on a good day.”
I’d agree with that. I think people are overestimating Carle’s popularity and underestimating the effect of Tagliaferri’s unpopularity. He was a polarizing figure with a quite negative local history, parachuted in, and a lot of normally ALP voters didnt like that.
To compare the freo result with seats like Tanners and Plibersek’s is probably not really valid.
The Constitution won’t let you have any Australia-wide voting system for either house. You could approximate it with State-wide systems. Tasmania used Statewide STV in the 1901 House of Representatives election.
If you want an Australia-wide PR system for a hypothetical scenario where the Constitutional impediment has been removed, I don’t see what the obstacle is. The Netherlands and Israel both operate nationwide PR systems, and I don’t know of any reason (apart from the Constitutional issue) why we couldn’t do what they do.
No it didn’t. It used statewide first-past-the-post. The five candidates with the highest votes were elected. Preferential voting wasn’t introduced until 1918.
There is nothing in the Constitution which would prevent statewide PR or MMP being used for the House of Representatives. S29 says: “In the absence of other provision, each State shall be one electorate.”
A lot of the discussion here about Carles seems quite disconnected from reality, given that she has just been elected.
To predict that she will win the seat again because she will have high profile, will stand up for local issues, and will be a good performer ignore some of the realities facing parties with few seats (and independents).
Carles faces several dangers.
Firstly, any profile she gets will necessarily be local. She is unlikely to get much beyond her seat (why would she?) and the government will minimise the media opportunities she has within it.
Thus she will most likely be left with purely local issues.
This has two dangers. Firstly, purely local issues which are newsworthy are also usually highly controversial. ‘Picking sides’ is dangerous. You might please a vocal minority at the expense of a much quieter majority. Nothing inflames passions so much as the purely local issue.
Secondly, there is the danger of appearing too negative and emphasising one’s powerlessness. Either Carles will spend her time railing at government decisions which impact adversely on her electorate (thus appearing both negative and weak) or will have to keep spruiking what she is doing within the government to get the decision she wants. If it then doesn’t come about, it emphasises the weaknesses.
She can’t offer the reassurance that, given a change of government, things will be different, that she will have more power and will be able to force through decisions more acceptable to the electorate.
Carles will only be able to achieve the required image of a good local MP who delivers if the WA government lets her have a few wins to cruel the ALP’s chances next time around.
(I emphasise again that I don’t particularly care about Carles’ win – these are observations based on working for an MP who was a surprise winner in a by election and then lost it again at the next general election).
Exactly the point I was trying to make when I used the example of a project which may be at odds with the Greens Core values (Coal Fired Power Station) but will benefit the Electorate and the general community with more power and employment opportunities – yet the Cabbage Patch Kids were saying that Ms Carles will join the protesters at the picket line and get arrested – wow great image for a swinging voter who doesn’t like troublemakers and shitstirrers.
#387 doesn’t stack up when you look at the independents you have all over the country. They certainly don’t depend on the government throwing them a bone, they do quite well on local issues and representing their electorate in parliament. That’s the point of electorates right? Representation? Not just forming government?
Frank, your “point” was that it’s an MP’s job to support everything in their electorate that creates a job regardless of any other impacts. Stupid.
Oz 352,
EXACTLY
:mad 
…… you hit it on the head. And since they can’t get a thing done without someone complaining, they just ought to continue along whatever path they feel right. They’re entitled.
Zoomster answered it thus
I think it’s a pretty severe over analysis regarding what people expect from an independent MP who isn’t part of government.
McGinty was an MP for 12(?) years, what did he actually get for the electorate?
No Psephos South Australia used state-wide FPTP and Tasmania used Hare-Clark.
All other statexs used single member electorates with FPTP.
http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#Commonwealth
Juliem @ 390
Exactly
Have been following this debate and, as usual, see merit in points raised by all participants. This comment of Oz’s @ 352 was the clincher for me too
As I said, Oz, no particular axe to grind – just trying to get a bit of reality into the gush here.
I know a few independent members of Parliament who do a terrific job and she may well do as well as they did. I also know (as I said, personal experience) how difficult the job is.
It’s ridiculous to say, as some posters here have, that it’s a laid down misere for her because she is media savvy and a good operator. She won, so of course people think she’s fantastic.
Running a good campaign on local issues and being a good local member are two different things.
I’m not saying she can’t do it. I’m just saying it’s silly to say she will do it when she hasn’t even given her maiden speech yet.
As I always say here, feel free to ignore my message, it doesn’t bother me. Doesn’t mean it’s not a good message, though.
I don’t think she’s a shoe-in, but I think you’re using an inappropriate yardstick for measuring her potential performance.
And for 8 of those year he was a Senior Minister.
What did those 8 years get for the electorate of Fremantle?
Actually frank,
I was using the term as a double edged sword
The cabbage patch (or vegetable patch) revolt was quite pivotal in Irish (and incidentally Australian ) history.
I believe that it changed the home rule movement into something tangible rather than being seen as a “pipe dream”, the analogy with the greens is appropriate
So yes the greens can be seen as amateurish,but your use of “vegetable patch” may be more prescient than you intended.
Anyway the Libs have gained the most out of Carles being elected.
It means the ALP need to spend big to try and win the seat back thus giving the Libs an advantage over them.
If I were a betting man Barnett will get a majority government in the next election.
Tom, whatever that source is (I can’t open it), is incorrect. Tasmania didn’t introduce Hare-Clark for state elections until 1906. The 1901 House of Reps election in Tasmania was done with statewide FPTP. Voters cast (up to) five votes, and the five candidates with the most votes were elected.
OK, Oz, provide us with an appropriate one, then.
Or better still, critique my analysis. Easy to say it’s inappropriate and leave it at that, why not say why?
Anyway – independents generally get by by being populist. They don’t have a party platform to adhere to, so there’s no need for them to stick to a predetermined set of policies. They can (to a certain extent) make it all up as they go along.
Carles won’t have quite the same flexibility, as she has been elected as a Green.
He seems to be travelling quite well at the moment, but he’s got 3 years of deficits and cutbacks ahead of him.
I said I thought it was an overanalysis and why at #392.
It’s 11pm on a Saturday, not going to apologise for failing to provide a blow-by-blow analysis on a topic that we’ve covered about 34 times before.
Here the link is again
http://www.prsa.org.au/history.htm#Commonwealth
403 Oz,
Not to mention an iron clad promise given to a journo a few weeks to a month ago that he would NEVER run a budget in deficit …… ALP will nail his backsides to the wall with that one
True Oz but his opposite number is Eric Ripper nuff said.
Tasmania used Hare-Clark for Hobart and Launceston 1897-1903.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_district_of_Hobart
Well he’s already upset the Cops over a pay dispute, he’s cutting 200 jobs at the Agriculture Dept, scarpped Free Funerals for the poor etc.
Umm, who says Eric Ripper won’t be replaced closer to an Election.
Frank the ALP will get smashed in the next poll and you know it. They are a rabble right now and a couple of defeats and you may have a shot like you did against Court eventually. But the Libs are looking good so far and Sniff is doing a good job as Treasurer and we’ve got some rising stars in Porter too. The WA Libs are travelling fine
You have to be joking
When The Police are involved in industrial action re a Pay Increase, and a general negative response to the Budget from your former Fanbois at The West, the Barnett Honeymoon is over.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/29/2584064.htm
Tom, here are the 1901 election results in Tasmania:
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1901/1901repstas.txt
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1901/1901senatetas.txt
As you can see, the top five candidates in the Reps and the top six in the Senate were elected. The candidates were listed on the ballot alphabetically, not in lists. I don’t see how you can have a PR election without party lists. The voters voted for the individual candidates they wanted, and the ones with the most votes won. That’s not how PR works. Furthermore, Hare-Clark has always been a preferential system, and there is no reference to preferences being distributed in the official returns on which my tables are based.
Rudd Government to provide $3.6m for school plaques
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25557154-3102,00.html
Wow what a way to waste money during a financial crisis and this on top of sending assistants First Class to the UK, the ALP are a joke!
“MORE than $3.6m is to be spent buying plaques and signs to ensure Australian schools display their gratitude to the Rudd Government for its education building blitz.”
“About 15,280 promotional plaques and road signs plugging the Federal Government will be sent to Australian schools, who must display them in return for receiving the federal cash.”
“An invitation must be sent to Education Minister Julia Gillard at least two months in advance, and she must be provided with three possible dates for the celebration, which cannot be held on a parliamentary sitting day.”
Typical rubbish from the ALP!!
I’m sure Johnny did EXACTLY the same thing during his porkbarrelling of National Party electorates
Pot, Meet Kettle.
413
Glen, It’s called rubbing the Libs noses in it. I personally love it. Waste of money? Of course not. Plaques are always part of the deal when opening a new government funded building.
I can hardly wait to see the conservative members who voted against the school building program elbowing everyone aside when the photo opportunities arise. Hypocrites.
Glen, I notice you omitted these parts of the story:
I think it was stupid when Howard did it and it’s stupid when Rudd’s doing it.
What’s stupid Oz?
So you’d prefer BNob Brown be involved ?
Tasmania and the ACT have PR without party lists (they are in groups now though). The used not to be. The recent municipal elections in Victoria had PR without party lists or groupings. For PR what is needed is one vote per voter, each voters vote to count once in total, multiple vacancies and a way for the vote candidates (or parties) that get significantly more than one candidates share of the vote from the first candidate to other candidates.
Glen, the Libs would have been entitled to plaques too if they had ever built anything bigger than a flag pole.
Actually didn’t they at one stage have a requirement for plaques on those flag poles?
Howies biggest contribution to infrastructure was those bloody flagpoles
As I understood it, you were required to erect a flagpole (and flag) and to honour appropriate holidays (my kids school did,)
further FEDERAL funding was conditional to this flagpoles being erected
Putting up plaques commemorating the Federal government for funding the school. I can understand it if it was some private donor, but considering the government is spend our money (and parents) anyway, why can’t they just do it and leave it at that.
The flagpole thing was a complete joke.
What’s so bad about that??
You have on the one hand having to get Gillard out to take the credit for something and name it after her and praise Rudd under the ALP.
Or buy a flag poll and honour you country by displaying the national flag under the Libs.
BTW
my kids school is getting new carpet (the first in 20 years in the library and staffroom) and the colour was put to staff and P&C
The colour chosen was GREEN
I sagely said it was all a commie plot
Actually EVDERY publicly funded piece of infrastructure has a plaque commerorating it’s opeing andf construction, and it’s been happening for decades.
Will you be objecting to Adele Carles officiating at such a ceremony as Member for Fremantle ?
If not, you are a hypoicrite of the highest order.
If I see a plaque on a building I invariably stop to read it. It is an historical record which will have increasing significance as the years roll on.
Or have a Swimming Pool named after a Liberal Prime Minister who was lost at sea on a beach in 1968
The conservatives really can’t bring themselves to face the realilty of defeat. Their syphilis is working its way deeper into the brain.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/liddy-sotoyamor-menstruating/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/paper-apologizes-for-publ_n_209099.html
I take it then, Glen, that Liberal and National MPs will not be attending opening ceremonies for school facilities in their electorates paid for with Rudd StimPac money? And will stop putting out press releases *claiming credit* for these projects, as they have been so shamelessly doing? Hmmm?
I see hypocrite Glen is at it again. Only Liberal governments are allowed plaques of course…
Glen
In another time and era one could also call it overt Nationalism and Jingoism, tactics utilised by all repressive regimes.
If there’s one image of the USA that gives me pip it’s the flag flying on most city streets and outside homes. That’s what Howard wanted for Australia and I am glad to see it failed. Crass patriotism from a crass politician.
This is rubbish, a a GOVERNMENT representative can be there, it won’t necessarily be Gillard. You are forgetting that Gillard is the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, i.e. a senior member of the executive government.
And yet on Indigenous issues John Howard constantly lectured us that symbolism didn’t matter!
Apparently Wilson Tuckey has been complaining about Labor of Entrapment by inviting him to release said media releases.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/28/2583727.htm
I have an American neighbour who flies their U.S. flag in the front of their home HERE.
zoomster: On the issues that matter to a local electorate, Carles will have plenty of flexibility. The great advantage she has is that, not being bound by a binding caucus, she can take up constituent issues and speak out on them where required. I can’t think of many issues where there’d be a significant clash between Green policy and anything that was likely to emerge as an election issue.
Frank Calabrese: Ever the optimist, huh?
So far, Barnett seems to me to be governing much like a conservative equivalent of Steve Bracks after he came to power. He hasn’t done anything to startle the horses, has made some popular calls, and with the absolute mess the opposition’s in, they’ll have to pull off something really special to knock him off at the next election. I can’t see any of the prospective Labor up-and-comers being able to do that: McTiernan would be a long shot, Wyatt would have to prove to be much better than he’s looked so far, and Barnett would wipe the floor with either Ripper or Cook.
REbecca,
You are living in La La land as usual – With Electricity Prices set to skyrocket, budget cutbacks galore, the people will soon see what a mistake they made in voting for these bunch of Bufoons – but of course since the Vegetable Patch is now part of a pact with the devil, you can’t see that.
McTiernan was a good minister. Why would she be a long shot?
Shows
Worstchoices was the start of the Orwellian choices
Healthchoices-destroy medicare
Citzenchoices-destroy multiculturalism
Educationchoices-destroy higher learning and equality of education
Nationchoices-destroy regional and international agreements
Religiouschoices-destroy tolerance and diversity of faiths
I think you get the idea
McTiernan wants to go federal I believe.
Cracking start to the FA Cup final! Everton scoring in the very first minute, and the game now 1-1 all after half an hour.
And I note the local member for Fremantle is strangely quiet over this.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=144957
Considering it is part of the cornerstone of tourism in the electorate.
and she’s in the wrong faction as well – but I do think she’ll be good in Canberra, especially against Mesma
*departs*
Oh and this won’t win many fans in the already precarious relationship with the WA Nationals.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/30/2585258.htm
Frank: None of these things would appear to be any different to governments elsewhere. I honestly can’t see any sort of great backlash against this government happening on the basis of how they’ve gone so far. It’s not an anti-Labor thing – it’s a competent government thing. If a few more Labor governments behaved a bit more like the Brumby, Stanhope or Bligh governments, I’d be a hell of a lot less irritated with Labor.
Carles hasn’t even been sworn in as the member for Fremantle yet, and you’re already writing her off because a newspaper article didn’t quote her, on an issue where she I would imagine stands with Labor anyway? A partisan to the end, aren’t you?
Tom: She’s got a reputation as being a bit outspoken, and it’s pretty rare historically for any one-term government to get kicked out – I just can’t see her having what it takes to make up so much ground in only one term.
It’s called getting on the front foot. Not being sworn in is no excuse for her not to make some sort of reassurance to the electorate that she will deal with this when she is officially a member.
Her silence indicates that she doesn’t give a shit (to paraphrase a Greens campaign slogan – as it is an issue which doesn’t renosatew with the hairy armpit brigade.
This is her first challenge as local member and she has already failed.
Try telling that to the average worker who’s lost their job and are seeking assistance from the Salvos and are living out of their car.
Try telling that to the average worker who’s lost their job and are seeking assistance from the Salvos and are living out of their car.
Labor is no different in this regard. You wouldn’t have to rely on Fielding’s vote in the Senate if it hadn’t been for Rudd’s fulfilled pledge to sack a ton of Canberra public servants in the last days of the 2007 campaign.
Because I’m getting really tired of hearing about Adele Carles, I’ll be unusual and address the OP.
Vic folk: is the Brimbank Council stuff gonna bite Labor much in Melbourne’s western suburbs, specifically in Kororoit? I know they’re all ridiculously rock solid Labor seats, but if Labor gets a kick there next election and Les Twentyman runs again, things just might get interesting.
Colin and his magic one man band are heading for real trouble. Even the West Australian, after eight or nine years of the most virulent anti Labor diatribe, is starting to feel the rumbles of unease in its belly and is baulking at the prospect of where this pleasant but vacant incompetent is taking us all.
First, he jacks up residential power tariffs by formerly unheard of percentages in order to raise an amount of, I think, $650M. Then in the same breath, he cancels a royalty increase deal with the major miners, negotiated by the previous Labor administration, and which would have netted $550M, simply because Labor negotiated it.
Then the 20% immediate pay increase for police which the greatest cretin in his liberal cabinet, Police Minister Rob Johnston, had thundered before the election should have been paid immediately, becomes 9% over three years. And the police are on go slow and sabotaging road safety, Robbie has gone to ground in his wombat hole and won’t speak to anyone, and Troy the Lad is wandering around dazed and incoherent trying to defend the indefensible.
Fut her, having blamed the then Labor Government for the Gas explosion at Veranus,
and lam blasting them unmercifully for it before the election for negligence and incompetence, after the election they are now suing the gas line owner, Apache, claiming their negligence instead. Che? And not a word of apology to the previous administration who they obviously wrongly maligned.
As an afterthought Colin gives carte blanche to uranium mining and encourages exportation through major Ports, at the same time as he allows the company that poisoned children with lead through Esperance to transfer their exports through Fremantle.
As an act of fiscal desperation, having first got himself installed in office by promising $950,000,000 to the regions, he has now retreated from that promise without so much as an apology or cogent explanation. And that munchkins, Grylls of the glorious Nats, has copped a castration by his own party and a shafting by the Libs on the issue.
Not to be cowed by his owns stupidity, Colin infuriates local Mungos, RahRah Boys and ethnic soccer clubs by refusing to contribute a few paltry dollars towards a rectangular stadium in a state where non exists and where there are several hundred supporters of the codes, and then proceeds to tell the AFL and their director that theAFL are greedy bastards who should just naf off with their Super Duper Subiaco proposal.
I could go on, but the sleeping dogs in the electorate have already been stirred by this Mickey Mouse, clueless administration, and within a few months will be baring their teeth and snarling over the con job which has been played on them.
It won’t be a pretty sight, though, seeing the amiable Colin running down Broome street Cottesloe with his bleeding arse exposed through the great tear in the seat of his trousers.
No 452
Sacking public servants is always a good thing.
No 450
Frank, it’s a bit rich to complain about Rebecca being in la la land when you actually think Labor has a chance at the next election in WA. Get a grip, honestly.
Carps ran the state into the ground and Ripper will simply bury it beneath his grand heft.
Judging by the frequency and nature of the changes you make to your honorific on this site GP, are we to assume you are having self loathing issues?
GP: It doesn’t mean much, 2013’s a long way away. In any case, I bet ya Ripper won’t be leader then, any more than Brendan Nelson will be federal Lib leader in 2010. Last time WA Labor was in opposition they went through about three leaders before they ever hit an election… it’ll probably end up being Wyatt or somebody. Who knows, there might even be a relatively boring by-election in Belmont… Ripper’s not that old but has been around longer than McGinty.
Also, feast your eyes upon the NT Electoral Office’s absolute abortion of a website…
http://www.nt.gov.au/nteo
Gawd, I remember small-town school intranets running systems like that a decade ago. I was trying to find a specific seat result for the last election, but good luck finding that. I managed to, eventually, after clicking semi-randomly for a while. Fun fact: in the seat of Braitling (in Alice Springs), Labor came fourth and last, behind an independent, the Greens and the CLP (who won on the primary vote). Margin was CLP vs Grn 20.3%, as opposed to the ABC page, which has it as CLP vs ALP 23.6%. I was clicking around looking for the ‘UFO spotting chicken farmer’ independent, and got a bit confused by the last-placed candidate ending up in the final two. Notional counts, I guess…
County by county unemployment rates in the US. You can point the arrow thing and scroll across the counties in each state. Have a look at the California numbers. The Hollywood Dream State is a Nightmare.
Krugman has written criticizing Proposition 13. Looks like the Terminator’s hands are tied!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/03/us/20090303_LEONHARDT.html?ref=business
No 453
I dont know much about how this will affect state seats. What will be affected are councils statewide.
In the Ombudsman’s report on Brimbank, it was recommended, and the gov is going to put it in place, that you cant be a councillor and also be on an MP’s staff. As this is where most ALP MP’s come from(staffers), I think we will see many council by-elections. I will probably see one in my council as one ALP member is Pike’s Chief of staff.
A joke eh? Well what do you call sending the little Lying … Howard and wife to Europe for two weeks at the cost of a million bucks? It’s worse than a joke; the lousy Liberals are a disgrace!
Sydney Morning Herald, 19 July 2003:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/18/1058035200830.html
That was a million bucks in 2002 money. God knows what it would be now!
WorstChoices was also instrumental in Little Johnny’s career-long campaign to undermine the hated Medicare. As people’s wages went down, thus their Meidicare levy goes down. Less money for Medicare.
In addition to its agenda to undermine the universal health insurance system, the miserable Liberal SerfChoices (is*) a dastardly weapon of destruction designed to:
- undermine employees’ living standards, now and for untold generations into the future
- undermine trade unions by legislating them out of viability. With workers’ only means of organised advocacy crippled, employees are given carte blanch to exploit workers
- undermine financial support for the Labor Party, to the hegemonic advantage of the far-right Liberal Party
It’s Orwellian, as you put it, Gus. The undisguised class warfare based on “unregulated” exploitation, the undermining of public institutions, the undermining of the two-state system, the moves towards a Liberal dictatorship. Heck, calling it Fascism isn’t a far-stretch, IMO.
____
* I speak of SerfChoices in the present and future tenses, because it is not dead. Although the Liberals have declared the name dead, they have said the philosophy behind it is alive and well in their party.
Dave,
You obviously live in Banyule as I do. Cr. Peter McKenna (a Lib) is also an EO for Matthew Guy (Liberal MLC). Although some pollies come through as advisors and EOs, most come from other sources. The above example demonstrates that it affects all sides as well.(Greg Barber the Greens MLC’s EO is a Councillor).
Personally, I believe the employment restriction is an infringement on people’s rights and this particular Ombudsman recommendation is a crock.
GG
complete agreement here. Local councillors are elected in their own right. If the people who vote for them don’t object to them working for an MP, then it’s not up to anyone else to.
Brumby got it right on bikies, saying there was plenty of legislation to deal with individuals breaking the law and to single out a particular group was not necessary. Yet he’s doing exactly that with councillors.
As tapper, i am really glad that a dance group has won the Britains Got Talent 2009. I got nothing against Susan Boyle, I think she is like Cossie and H1V1, over rated. Makes my day, here it is, enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnWpRnEOm_8
What everyone Liberal, ALP and Green all seem to focus on is the by-election result, with all but the Greens saying it is Adele won ONLY
Taverner: 54-46 to Coalition in NSW.
continued from last post.
ONLY because there was no LIB. At the last election she needed 2.65% to win. That is a bit more the the SA vote.
I’m not saying its done and dusted, but with the Greens improving their vote at every election, and that if either major party performs badly, the Green vote will rise again.
I can already predict that the ALP will run something about needing Freo to beat the Libs. Wrong. You need a decent party structure and a good leader to beat the Libs.
zoomster,
Brumby is caught betwen the rock and a hard place. If he did not come out strongly and say he was implementing the Ombudsman’s recommendations in full, then the Opposition and the media would have been all over it like rash criticising the Government for being soft on crime and corruption.
Baillieu has already said he is going to fight from here to the next election on alleged Government sleaze. Having read the Ombudsman’s report, there is plenty of bad behaviour (rudeness and incivility and people not getting on), but no corruption. However, you wouldn’t get that take from the media hysteria.
So, unless the Opposition are prepared to lay down their guns it is likely that around 50 EOs and advisors are going to be collateral damage in a larger political war.
That was shaping up as the best interview of Turnbull I’ve ever seen.
Until they fixed the microphone.
Oh, it’s not that bad. They’ve got a market of barely 100,000 voters, so what do you expect. Anyway, go here, click the drop-down link on Legislative Assembly Elections, and off you go.
Okay, link doesn’t quite work. Click on “results” on the bottom right, then do as directed.
Turnbull on the Insiders – not that convincing at the end when pressed for some indication of the debt under a Coalition governmant.
Thanks BB – 472
I was feeling a bit gloomy with all the rain up here until I read that post.
We’ve all cracked up here. It was just what we needed.
Willaim – does that 100,000 include all the Aboriginal communities. I didn’t realise it was that small a population up there.
150,000 then. Anyway, not many.
Why the Republican Party is heading off a cliff, exhibit 2785618795:
Unbelievable.
Antony Green on Possum’s margin-of-error calculation tool:
While we are all in a raspberry blowing mode, it mightn’t hurt Antony to have another look at how well his election calculator for the Queensland election worked despite his pessimism throughout the campaign.
If he gets any more pessimistic he may well become a candidate for the Suncorp Metway PR department a mob notorious for putting a negative spin on any bit of good news that comes their way.
Must be a dearth of elections and Antony is going a little poll “stir” crazy.
Is not the forthcoming election in Greenland excitement enough for anyone?
Can’t imagine what you mean by “pessimism”. But since you ask, every single poll published during the Queensland campaign was within the MoE of the final result, and each one showed a Labor victory when you plugged the raw figure into his calculator.
Exactly William, what I thought was weird were the dire predictions from Antony that OPV would render the calculator untrustworthy.
The immigration wall is a Commonwealth mater.
“Untrustworthy” doesn’t mean “wrong”. To clarify, when I read your talk of “pessimism”, I thought that meant you were taking it as read that one would want Labor to win, and Antony’s calculator was providing insufficient grounds for optimism on that score.
Oh Good, a new Liberal ad to watch on TV tonight about getting debt under control. Just how much debt we would have under the Liberals, Turnbull was unable to express in figures on Ínsiders’ this morning.
http://www.liberal.org.au/
No William, my beef is that the calculator was more accurate than the author was giving it credit for. I think the calculator would have been pretty right no matter which way the final result went, I’m keen to see how close it gets in other places that use OPV like NSW, but I think it worked well in Queensland.
Untrue. he quantified is as “a lot less”. He’s a numbers man.
Up our way we now have 160 taking up the offer of Solar energy, that’s from one company alone. Also the equivalent number in ceiling (pink bats and other) insulation.
The Stimulus package is working.
Have to say I switched off, once I saw Turnbull. Hearing his “cash in the bank” phrases etc is such a dumb way to talk about the nation’s finances.
(and yeah, Rudd has his share dumb phrases)
His argument that since they’re the Opposition and thus don’t have the resources to provide a detailed budget is also complete nonsense.
Even the bloody Greens managed to point where they’d save or re-direct tens of billions of dollars and there’s only five of them!
No one expects a thousand page budget document, but you should have the guts to say exactly what you wouldn’t have spent on. So far, it’s only the stimulus packages – a fraction of government spending and the deficit.
Does anyone think there’s a risk that the constant hammering of “debt and deficit” could ultimately be a turn off?
Whenever I hear the Libs talking about it, especially on this new ad, I literally feel like throwing up.
But I don’t know if that’s just because I’m a political tragic or whether it’s something that will translate into the general community.
Oz at 494, I posted a piece relating to this issue at:
http://www.ozforums.com.au/viewtopic.php?id=5618
It might be of interest to you and others.
Cheers Aristotle, looks interesting. I’ll give it a read over lunch.
steve @ 488, thanks for that link -I guess. I kinda feel like washing my hands after visiting that site.
No you forget – in Turnbull world the entire $300b debt is due to the $14b “cash splash”.
Just remember – revenue has not declined by $173b over the forward estimates. Keep repeating until you have reached George Costanza like status of thinking it’s not a lie if you believe it to be true.
Name names godammitt, the suspense is killing me
BTW
what ever happened to hacks, hackles or plain cheersquad??
Are we entering a new era with “triumphalists”??
who cares
Carps left the state in surplus GP, the Libs are now predicting they’ll soon enough be running deficits.
In the la-la land of Liberal supporters, going from a surplus to a deficit is nothing to do with a massive drop in tax revenue as a result of a global recession, and everything to do with the economic credibility of the government, doesn’t it? I’m glad WA fell, it puts you lot back in your kennels.
If rusted Laborites keep this kind of attitude up, and Greens MP(s) was/were to hold the balance of power after an election, they may end up eating their words. Play nice with those you’re ideologically closer to, or else you may be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Fulvio,
Thanks for illustrating to our Eastern States Bretheren the situation with Barnett, something that even our Green hued bludgers cannot, and will not appreciate.
Ah, the Green-Liberal alliance foreshadowed again.
Foreshadowed?
Frank thinks its the status quo.
lol
Look at the ACT. The Greens would release a set of demands, and whichever party matches it the Greens will go with. Just happened to be Labor in the ACT.
By contesting lower house seats, the Greens create two dynamics. They create a deep antagonism between themselves and Labor, since it is Labor members they are trying to knock off. This risks strengthening anti-green sentiment in the ALP, which will have policy consequences. And they put themselves in a position where they may hold the balance of power and will have to decide whether they put the Libs-Nats in power or whether they swallow their anti-Labor rhetoric and support Labor. The WA Libs are a stronghold of climate denialism – if Carles were to be responsible for keeping them in office after the next election, I doubt the basket-weavers of Freo would be very pleased.
Foreshadowed?
Some of the Greens were screaming for a Green/LNP alliance during the last Queensland state election. Especially in regard to the Premier’s seat of South Brisbane and the Treasurer’s seat of Mount Cootha.
Steve, if you want to make claims about the predictive capacity of the calculator when you don’t know the maths going on its background, you do so. At least you’ll have a better chance of being right than you were with your assertions on the Larvatus site at the end of 2008 and early in 2009 that the Queensland government was going to go full term. Have you yet worked out why the dreadful media continued to discount Anna Bligh’s assertions she was going to go full term.
If Greens hold BOP and side with Libs to block Labor’s policies they might be in for a nasty shock of their own.
Carefull it isn’t your own nose that goes missing.
By the way if you don’t like Laborites’ attitude Stiff! Begging us to be nice to the Greens is likely to have the opposite effect. They’ll be last on my voting form from now on
Well it WAS the Vegetable Patch who bang on about Adele focussing on local issues to the electorate that helped her win, and who insist will be a factor in her re-election, but at the first sign of a local issue, the new Greens Member is as quiet as a mouse.
Like I said – it makes a total mockery of her claim of being able to represent her local electorate when it comes down to the crunch.
I just saw Malcolm’s add on Sky, I wonder if he’s paying for it himself?
ShowsOn:
I have a flag pole at my home, and I regularly fly the US flag. It is a very good design, in marked contrast to the defaced ensign we have.
I have a large collection of flags, and give them all a turn when the spirit moves me. The Union flag of Britain is an excellent design, too.
Most days I fly the Oz flag, because that’s what we are stuck with for the foreseeable future.
Yes, Antony point taken. Still not a big fan of running to an election early but that’s the way the cards fall sometimes.
Exactly,
They are a bunch of ungrateful so and sos in my book who when the Libs were last in Governmengt federally they were insisting that the ALP vote with the Greens to block legislation etc, but now they have a whiff of a state seat they think they’re gods gift to politics.
Talk about having delusions of Grandeur.
A timely report from the Fremantle Herald: there are “rumours Labor is quietly talking to the Liberals about a deal that would see Labor help the Libs regain Alfred Cove from Janet Woollard in return for the Libs’ assistance wrestling Fremantle from the Greens”. ALP state secretary Simon Mead describes this as “completely preposterous”, and I believe him. Also: “Peter Dowding will not run for Fremantle mayor in October”. For his part, Peter Tagliaferri “has ruled out a run for a third term and will retire in October to concentrate on setting up homeless programs and fighting the introduction of genetically modified crops to WA”. Poor bastard.
Meantime, today’s Sunday Times reports a leaked CCC draft recommends the DPP consider charges against independent Kalgoorlie MP and former Labor minister John Bowler over his dealings with the Burke/Grill axis. The paper’s reporters reckon “any successful prosecution against Mr Bowler could be disastrous for the Government, which relies heavily on the National Party-aligned Independent’s vote to pass legislation through the 59-seat Legislative Assembly”. That wasn’t my initial reaction – on current form, you would think a Kalgoorlie by-election would more likely be won by the Liberals or the Nationals than Labor. It should also be noted that a successful CCC-inspired prosecution would be a first.
For those who don’t want to go to the Liberal Party website to watch that video, here is the direct youtube link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyoxKHjtWNY
Bit hard when he’s not even a ratepayer in Fremantle I assume ?
The report says he is a South Fremantle resident, which is news to me, but what would I know.
Hmm, I wonder if Richard Utting will make a comeback ?
William, before the 2002 SA election, there were reported rumours of a similar deal where the Liberals would direct preferences to Labor in Enfield to defeat ex-Labor MP Ralph Clark, in return for Labor directing preferences to the Liberals in Hammond to defeated ex-Liberal MP Peter Lewis. Both parties denied the rumour and it didn’t happen. Just as well. Labor won Enfield in a canter anyway, and it was only Lewis’s victory in Hammond that allowed Mike Rann to become Premier.
Sounds like a thought bubble by some local party activist.
Quiz question: If I lived in Alfred Cove and the Labor Party directed me to preference the Liberals ahead of the independent, would I do so?
Psephos,
Depends if you follow HTV cards or freelance it.
Depends if you loathed Janet Wollard enough to follow the ALP How To Vote Card, which on her current behaviour, would lead strongly to do so
If you were Frank, and had any vestige of decency, you’d resign from the ALP and move to Tanzania.
Gus, godammitt, you wanna names, i give you more names that you can drop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8XQZYIiNgo
Me, I would NEVER resign from the ALP, to quote the Lazy Aussie- I was BORN an ALP Man, and I will DIE an ALP Man
The answer is that I would only preference a Liberal if the alternative was even more right-wing. Thus I would have preferenced a Liberal, or even a National, ahead of One Nation. I don’t know enough about Woollard to make a judgement about her, but I doubt she could be to the right of the WA Libs.
Here are some Conservative triumphalists with their new catchy anthem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8&feature=channel_page
I am glad some of you jokers finally caught the idea that there is an unholly alliance forming between the Greens and Liberals.
So you’re a hypocrite. No surprise.
Woolard is literally a Doctor’s Wife – her husband is Cardiologist and former WA AMA President Dr Keith Woolard and she originally stood for Liberals For Forrests, before the AEC decreed that the name was invalid.
Believe me, Psephos, she isn’t. She was elected under the Liberals for Forests banner. It probably wouldn’t be fair of me to point out that she is literally a doctor’s wife, but there it is.
I guess it’s okay if Frank gets in first.
no, I am a TRUE Believer who sticks by the party in good times and Bad, not like those who only support a party cos it’s fashionable.
Oz,
Pretty ordinary comment by your standards.
Well it describes the Greens more so than Labor, considering their attitude to Wind Farms – classic Nimbyism.
Flashback to my coverage of the 2005 WA election:
Nah, it’s just hilarious.
You honestly delude yourself into thinking that the Greens and Liberal are in an alliance because Liberal voters, allegedly, swung behind Carles.
But if Labor was actually to preference the evil Libs?!? That’s fine.
As evidenced by her recent Private Members Bill regarding Smoking.
Preferences and PRIMARY votes in absence of a Liberal Candidate are two totally DIFFERENT things.
And YOU know it.
Oz,
How long have you had this secret yearning to be a Liberal?
Ah, Adam. Firstly, Labor isn’t entitled to get the left vote by default, though it’s amazing how many of its partisans seem to think so. As long as Labor outright dismisses progressive policies and ignore the inner city as “basket weavers”, they’re going to face a greater fight there. Labor has taken advantage of strict party discipline for years to marginalise the left; now you have to deal with us anyway. Not sure how you think whingeing about knocking off Labor MPs is going to win any sympathy there.
Secondly, when Labor partisans respond to the above with that entitlement, and start getting, as you put it, antagonistic. I dare say you’re creating an awful lot of Green supporters who have no particular kindness towards Labor, and thus are going to be much less supportive both of your policy priorities in parliament, and ultimately perhaps even *putting* you in government if the Greens create the balance of power. This even though plenty of current Greens were once Labor supporters. You might remember that, when I first encountered you, I was a dedicated Labor supporter. This sort of attitude is one of the reasons why this is no longer the case.
I can’t see the Greens putting a Liberal government in power anytime soon (unless perhaps in the ACT if the Libs can get their act together). However, if the Libs could offer a good enough deal – which would probably involve ceasing to be a hotbed of climate change denialism – I’d gladly support them over Labor.
For the Greens, in purely tactical terms, an alliance with the Liberals makes all the sense in the world. They have a common enemy in Labor, and they each bring something vital to an alliance – the Libs can give the Greens a leg-up in safe Labor seats (as they did in Freo), and also in Senate races, and the Greens can give the Libs vital prefs in key marginals. But while Liberal voters are cynics who will cheerfully vote Green (or anything) to dish Labor, Green voters are not cynics and could probably not be directed to pref the Libs (although enough did so in Qld in 1995 to give the election to the Nats). So the Greens are on the horns of a dilemma of principle v self-interest.
Not all that dedicated, obviously.
Frank Calabrese: I see you’re still obsessed with the idea that the absence of a Liberal candidate had some impact on Fremantle. Carles came within an inch of taking the seat off a seriously high-profile senior minister in 2008. Given the improvement in her vote generally in the by-election (much more effective campaign), there is about zero chance that the Greens would have fallen behind the Libs – which means that even if there’d been a Liberal candidate, she would have romped in on preferences.
Being a dedicated Labor supporter is no reason to be ignorant of the flaming electoral system.
But Liberals think the Greens are communists, and we all know what party Menzies tried to ban!
GG, how long have you had a yearning to be a “you’re either with us or against us” Howardite?
Rebecca in that one paragraph you have illustrated that the Greens would do ANYTHING to stick it to Labor, including voting for a Government who would have no qualms turning their oprecious little forrests into concrete jungles in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Now THAT is Hypocrisy.
Principle versus self-interest? I believe in getting things done, and I’ll support whatever route is the best way of seeing that happen.
The Greens are not purists. When will you learn this?
http://www.watoday.com.au/national/turnbull-denies-plan-to-quit-politics-20090531-brcr.html
Rebecca
You are assuming that more preferences would flow to the Greens, than Labor. If the Libs run third.
It may happen, but is not a certainty.
It is the TRUTH. Which you are continually in denial about. If there WAS a Liberal Candidate, then Adele would’ve got in on a MUCH smaller margin.
Rebecca in that one paragraph you have illustrated that the Greens would do ANYTHING to stick it to Labor, including voting for a Government who would have no qualms turning their oprecious little forrests into concrete jungles in pursuit of the almighty dollar.
Um, no. For someone who posts so regularly on a political site, you seem to be a little off on how parliament works. See, if a Green had the balance of power, legislation for mass forest logging would be unlikely to get through parliament, and should a minister try and do it without going through parliament, the government would probably fall. Thus, in the event that the Greens did support a Liberal government, it would be in the Liberal interest to self-moderate of sorts.
Rebecca,
The Greens could run a ticket that directs preferences away from Labor to the Libs. The problem is, the Green voters don’t take any notice. My understanding is that Labor gets 80% when preferences are not directed and about 70% when they are.
The Greens don’t have the street cred to deliver on their threats. Directing preferences to CC denialists and “let it rip” Liberals would see a bigger backlash against the Greens.
Labor says boo!
It is the TRUTH. Which you are continually in denial about. If there WAS a Liberal Candidate, then Adele would’ve got in on a MUCH smaller margin.
Much smaller margin on primaries, certainly. Probably would have finished second. Would have won by just as much if not more on 2PP though.
When your beloved leader says they’re not.
The Greens could run a ticket that directs preferences away from Labor to the Libs. The problem is, the Green voters don’t take any notice. My understanding is that Labor gets 80% when preferences are not directed and about 70% when they are.
Your understanding is wrong. The Greens have only delivered preferences to the Libs on one occasion to my knowledge – Qld 1995 – and I somehow doubt those figures come from then, considering that said preferences tipped the Goss government from office.
Treating a split ticket as if it was a Liberal preference, and then wondering why the preferences aren’t solidly flowing to the Liberals, is kind of silly if you ask me.
When your beloved leader says they’re not.
Well, for the radical purist you keep saying he is, he’s certainly helped Labor get a lot of its legislation through the Senate, and been a far more reliable vote than Fielding, who your ilk so cheered…
I would not rule out the Greens taking seats off the Libs at elections where the Left does very well like in 2002 in Victoria. It is quite possible that in the future the Greens will overtake Labor in Hawthorn (won by Labor in 1952) and then in a 2002 type very good for the Left election the Greens might win on Labor preferences.
The Greens may also take seats in inner-city Labor versus Liberals marginals by overtaking Labor and winning on their preferences (I think that Victorian Labor is unlikely to preference the Liberals ahead of the Greens as this would leave them even more vulnerable to attack from the Greens as too close to the Libs).
The Greens won’t take seats off the Libs anytime soon, outside of multi-member electorates. It’s theoretically plausible it could happen in the former Democrats heartland in state SA (witness Mayo by-election), but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Then what’s the point of creating a new party and fighting to win seats away from Labor left-wingers like Tanner, Albanese and Plibersek who ought to be your best allies? If all the current members of the Greens had joined the ALP instead, they would have had a decisive influence on ALP policy, and would now be in key positions of influence in federal and state Labor governments. Instead of the environment movement being a natural ally of the labour movement, the formation of a separate Green party as a rival to the ALP has created needless antagonism and waste of resources, and has set back achievement of the green agenda. There are plenty of voices in the ALP saying “Why should we concede anything to the Greens when all they do is try to knock off our members?” This is a difficult question to answer.
This is correct, although the first number is perhaps on the high side. Rebecca has evidently taken “preferences are not directed” to mean “preferences are not directed to Labor“, when GG intended it to mean not issuing a recommendation or running a split ticket (not sure if the Greens ever do this, but the Democrats did quite often).
Rebecca
I agree with a lot of what you say and understand it, but I do question your portrayal of the Labor posters here.
Any criticism of the Greens or of Carles appears to be put down to ‘whinging’ or antagonism.
Seriously, no party is perfect. No candidate is perfect (although many believe they are). Criticism is not necessarily antagonistic or carping; it can be friendly and helpful.
Rebecca,
I am totally indifferent to the Greens threats to preference their ideological opponents in the Liberals.
Please, bring it on! It would only hasten the Greens demise IMHO by exposing them as grubby opportunists.
Tanner, Albanese and Plibersek are no allies of the left. They can’t vote on left issues, they can’t speak out on left issues, and they can do bugger all in Cabinet when they’re comprehensively marginalised by the right. You might also care to remember that your beloved right had the left marginalised well before the Greens came along. I knew a bunch of good Labor Left people in Canberra – but the fact remains that, if one wanted to actually support any progressive policies, they were about as useful as tits on a bull. They’d be better joining the Greens.
I see the Greens as being a useful potential ally to the labour movement, since Labor itself hasn’t exactly been particular supportive of late. I dare say they helped us win Fremantle…
I see it as a well-deserved antagonism. As I said, Labor has taken advantage of strict party discipline to pretend the left doesn’t exist and go out on a limb chasing the right. If we had a system like the US, the left could remain in the party and still be counted. Under this one, anyone on the left who actually wants to achieve a result is better off in the Greens.
Looking at what happened when the Greens directed preferences against Labor in some seats in Queensland in 1995. Mansfield alone was a nice and easy three-way contest with no Democrats or independents: the preferences split 51/49 in the Liberal candidate’s favour.
Good point Tom
One issue avoided by many is where the greens are strong V lib and/or lab and what electorates are vulnerable
possum’s analysis certainly points the way.
This is correct, although the first number is perhaps on the high side. Rebecca has evidently taken “preferences are not directed” to mean “preferences are not directed to Labor“, when GG intended it to mean not issuing a recommendation or running a split ticket (not sure if the Greens ever do this, but the Democrats did quite often).
If we’re talking about split tickets – which the Greens have run plenty of to my knowledge – then yes. I was talking about outright preferencing the Liberals.
Anyone who wants to acheive a result is better off in Govt.
I think this sums up the Greens Oh So Pure attiude. THey can dish it out, but when those evil ALP people dare criticise thir little party, they go crying like little children who can’t get their way.
I did not say it would not happen any time soon. I an not expecting but would not die from surprise if Labor came third in Prahran next year or 2014 because of Labor loosing votes to the Liberals and Greens. Labor only got 16.59% more than the Greens and if/when Labor looses votes to the Greens and Liberals then that gap would drop. If Labor lost 3% each to the Liberals and Labor then the gap would drop by 9%.
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state2006resultPrahranDistrict.html
A good article in the SMH by Ross Gittens assessing Rudd and Swan’s stimulus packages. Warning to conservative readers: this article contains numbers and factual explanations about economics that may conflict with anti-debt sound bites.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/rudd-and-swan-right-on-the-money-with-stimulus-packages-20090529-bqbw.html
Some interesting points:
“The recession’s effect in slashing expected government revenue explains almost two-thirds of that cumulative deterioration of $270 billion. Only the remaining $97 billion is explained by the Government’s explicit spending and revenue decisions since last year’s budget.”
“In truth, cash bonuses account for only $22 billion, a third of the $67 billion, with capital works and infrastructure accounting for most of the rest.”
“So it is not surprising that, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s review of the stimulus applied by the developed countries, it judged our efforts as among the most effective.”
Here is the link to the actual OECD report:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/14/42528786.pdf
(Warning: factual content may conflict with Liberal Party BS about debt and stimulus)
I liek this foinal quote
My problem with the Greens (via Bob Brown) is the same problem that I had with Obama. Namely, i am holier than thou in attitude and persona.
As it has been proven with Obama, the REAL politik means that he is just another average garden variety polly. From the quotation above, ditto with the Greens.
Only 16.59% ??????????
It’s also hard to fight for environmental issues when – if you are successful in getting the policy adopted – the Greens are given the credit for it.
There are a number of issues where I fought long and hard within the party to get a result, only to open the paper the day after the legislation went through to be told it was due to pressure from the Greens or was an attempt to woo the Green vote.
For those of you who questioned my rant on wind farms, this is exactly why these issues upset me – the Greens aren’t involved in the hard yards necessary to get policy ideas translated into action, they don’t wear the political flak, they’re missing in action when it comes to real support for many of these actions, and yet they get the credit.
I know it isn’t the Greens fault in some ways – if the media or the Libs decide that Labor did something purely to garner preferences (which wouldn’t make sense, anyway, given the way Greens preferences flow regardless) it’s not the Greens fault.
What I do resent is their lack of on the ground support and acknowledgement when these things happen, especially as in some cases – such as removing cattle from the Victorian High Plains – Labor paid a real political price for a good environmental outcome.
zoomster: I call things as I see it, but you certainly won’t find me claiming the Greens are perfect. I speak highly of the Greens in Fremantle because I was there and that’s what I saw, but I don’t necessarily agree with the party on everything, and I don’t necessarily share the same high opinion of some of the other state branches in particular.
GG: Labor have been falsely claiming for years every time the Greens run a split-ticket that they’ve preferenced the Liberals. At some point, they’re going to have cried wolf so often it’s going to lose it’s bite, and then I don’t think the public is really going to give a damn.
Tom,
The most recent polls in Victoria have Labor about 60/40 on 2pp. There will not be any Green gains in Victoria any time soon.
For the benefit of other PBers, Hawthorn is located in the Federal seat of Kooyong. Hardly the seat ever likely to be a Green stronghold.
Precisely, and with Rebecca’s Statement about supporting the Libs over Labor, we all know what happened to the last political party who claimed to “Keeping The Bastards Honests”, and then suddenly supported theLiberals to introduce a GST now don’t we – they barely have enough supporters to meet in a phone booth.
I think this sums up the Greens Oh So Pure attiude. THey can dish it out, but when those evil ALP people dare criticise thir little party, they go crying like little children who can’t get their way.
You have an interesting definition of “crying like little children.” Me personally, I’d consider giving up on being taken for granted, taking the party on in a straight fight, and winning, as something a little different…
You obviously don’t understand how grown-ups do politics, and also know very little about what goes on in the Rudd Cabinet. Do either Tanner or Albo look marginalised to you at the moment? Gillard and Tanner are now the most powerful left-wingers Australia has ever seen. If you were to knock off Tanner in Melbourne it would be the biggest own goal for the left since Jim Cairns met Junie Morosi.
As I explained that 16% could dive substantially because 1% from Labor to the Greens cuts the gap by 2% and the Liberals can take a cut the margin by taking votes off Labor as well. And I think that you will find that 16.59% is the smallest gap between Labor and the Greens in a seat that Labor can win.
But as a so-called ALP Supporter you didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to stay and fight from within, but you went and ran away to a bunch of political opportunists who DON”T put in the hard yards, but claim credit for something that they had little or no input into.
Frank Calabrese: The Democrats downfall in that respect was their insistence on trying to compromise between the two major parties at all costs, a philosophical difference that went back to their beginning. This is something the Greens do not share. If it’s a bad idea, like the GST, the Greens will shoot it down. Nice try, though.
GG: Labor’s 2PP versus the Liberals isn’t exactly relevant to their chances of losing seats to the Greens. They came fairly close to losing the state seat of Melbourne in 2006, and I think a campaign as effective as that run in Fremantle might well dislodge that, and significantly narrow the margins in Richmond and Northcote.
Finns
If i’ve told you once, Ive told you a thousand times
Dont drink GREEN tea
It makes you see RED
When Facts meant Liberal:
FACT: Liberal, how are you? Haven’t seen you for ages!
LIBERAL: I’m sorry sir, I don’t believe we have met.
FACT: Liberal?! Oh, c’mon don’t be like that. We can be friends can’t we?
LIBERAL: Sir, I will ask you kindly to leave.
FACT: Geez, you just still haven’t forgiven me for that whole record low interest rates thing have you.
LIBERAL: I know not of which you speak.
FACT: Finally a true statement.
You obviously don’t understand how grown-ups do politics, and also know very little about what goes on in the Rudd Cabinet. Do either Tanner or Albo look marginalised to you at the moment? Gillard and Tanner are now the most powerful left-wingers Australia has ever seen. If you were to knock off Tanner in Melbourne it would be the biggest own goal for the left since Jim Cairns met Junie Morosi.
They might have a senior ministry, but in terms of doing anything that’s actually left, they have bugger all influence. Watching Julia Gillard get interviewed on welfare issues now is like watching Brendan Nelson at his most insensitive. I can’t think of the last time either Tanner or Albanese got any major progressive change through either.
But the Greens will have their Democrats moment when the ETS gets defeated and the Government will just forget about even CONSIDERING reintroducing it in the near future.
But of course the Greens would rather side with a bunch of CC denialists than get the framework in place to build upon it later.
Talk about own goals.
Yeah, and be bound to their policies like it or not, and be booted out of the party if they decide to vote against it.
The 60/40 is on a TPP basis and does not show the Green and Labor primary votes which are more important for ALP vs Green.
A poll before the last liberal leadership change had 61/39 (which would have reduced the Liberals to single digits in the Assembly) and yet the TPP went from 58/42 to 55/45 in the 2006 election.
Gus, The East has to be RED, otherwise we will NOT be able to have the $300B debt under control.
The BRW 200 Rich List will always be longer under Liberals.
But the Greens will have their Democrats moment when the ETS gets defeated and the Government will just forget about even CONSIDERING reintroducing it in the near future.
Labor would be pretty foolish to do that, since the Greens would have a solid reason (at least to anyone who would actually vote for them) for voting it down, and the resulting backlash against Labor for being disinterested in solving climate change would help elect a couple more Greens senators at the next election.
Rebecca
It would help if you outlined some of the issues you want progress on and what you see as ‘left’ issues.
For all we know, you may be after completely la la land reforms that no sane government would ever adopt. On the other hand, they might be quite sensible and do able and it’s only the wicked Right (as personified by that evil Senator Conroy, who fought to get equal rights for lesbians to access IVF) who are preventing them.
Can’t judge this if you don’t get specific.
Rebecca,
I love the “nearly” Greens. It’s what keeps their pulse going. The reality is that it hasn’t happened and is not likely to happen in the near future.
It’s like when toward the end of the season people say their football team has a mathematical chance of making the finals. You know at that point that the cause is hopeless.
Don’t let GG hear this! He thinks Labor hasn’t gone to the right at all!
A minor price to pay for being at the heart of government, I would have thought. The alternative is to sit on the sidelines and feel ideologically pure. You’re welcome to it.
Spot on Psephos. Any “left wing” party that thinks not having Tanner in the parliament is a good thing, really needs to ask what is its ultimate goal?
Ahh, 2pp ignorance.
?? Be nice if you’d let us know what you class as a major progressive change.
Adam what would it matter if they did lose?
Firstly they are (well Tanner is anyway) hard workers in the Government and they could easily force a useless backbencher MP holding a safe seat to resign and get them back in Parliament.
I hope we get a DD soon.
Once we do we can get rid of the dead wood and move from Turnbull to the next generation of leaders.
Bob,
I’ve told you before, don’t take sleeping tablets and laxatives at the same time.
In ideology, yes. In positions of power, no.
Sums up Labor really.
What left wing things has Tanner been behind? Or Plibersek? Or Albanese ?
zoomster: It’s hard to even find a place to start, but off the top of my head – the Howardesque approach to the welfare system, running against even Swan’s manifesto for fixing it. The miserable approach to LGBT issues. The continuing of Howardesque policies towards Aboriginal communities in the Top End. The continuing lack of a humane solution to refugees. At a state level, developer-biased planning laws and rotten consultation processes.
GG: And those “nearly” Greens in Fremantle just tipped over into a win. I’m a realist. You won’t find me claiming that the Greens are going to win federal seats any time soon, and you won’t find me claiming that they’re in with a chance in any other seats than Melbourne and Balmain at the next state elections. However, those two seats are very marginal on the figures, and a good Greens campaign (which is something I suspect the party is starting to get the hang of, and hasn’t necessarily had in the past) has a reasonable chance of tipping those seats over as well.
Hardly overoptimistic there.
Rebecca 586
If you think getting rid of Tanner is a victory for the left, you are starting to sound like the 1995 Greens in Qld, and their self serving leader, long time wanna-be politician Drew Hutton. He would have rather let the Nationals govern than get a good outcome for the environment that excluded his own entry to parliament.
I am one of those on this blog who has argued against Labor on the original (very weak) Rudd ETS. In the long term I think it would be healthy to get more Green members into parliament. However I don’t want to see cynically manipulative Greens elected any more than I want to see NSW State Labor get re-elected.
Where? Tas, nope. WA, nope. SA nope, ACT pobably nope, NT nope. NSW, Vic, Qld well they haven’t come too close recently.
We know they’re the only choices. We’re not debating that. At least we can agree however, that it’s the choice we’re left with thanks to the Labor Right.
A minor price to pay for being at the heart of government, I would have thought. The alternative is to sit on the sidelines and feel ideologically pure. You’re welcome to it.
There is no point in being at the heart of government if you can’t actually achieve any results by doing so. As Bob said above, you wind up personally powerful, but ideologically marginalised. I’d rather see people in parliament in a position to block Labor’s agenda unless they start being reasonable; it’s hardly sitting on the sidelines if you win.
A DD would give the Greens at least 6 but probably 7 Senators. But this would be because the lower quota would mean that the Greens would not fall between the big parties getting 3 quota each. A DD is now quite likely.
Rebecca,
There has been a swing to the Labor Government in Victoria, so you can scratch Melbourne for a start.
As for Fremantle, there are special circumstances which have been commented upon ad nauseum. I’ve commented previously, “smirk it while you’ve got it”.
Glen, how can I put this gently? All the deadwood is on your side, and apart from Judith Troeth not one of the 21 backbenchers who will be 65 or over next year has announced their retirement. Are you ready for a Night of the Long Knives? If not, you will be stuck with the oldies and maddies until they drop.
Poor Rebecca, I left her out in the cold all afternoon.
What exactly has Gillard achieved from a left-wing perspective? A dilution of Work Choices that’s still rather Howard-esque in its essence and could really not be called “left” (and definitely isn’t). Keeping the flawed private school funding formula. Introducing market based competition into public schools. Deregulating universities.
It’s called political reality – sure it would be nice to get some real progressive policies passed, but in reality with a conservative media any thing which resembles a victory for a minority group such as gays and lesbians would be greeted with the mother of all scare campaigns and would raise such a moral panic which would be seized by the Libs.
Where? Tas, nope. WA, nope. SA nope, ACT pobably nope, NT nope. NSW, Vic, Qld well they haven’t come too close recently.
One of the reasons Labor did well in 2007 was because it was seen to be so much better on the environment (i.e. Kyoto, etc.). I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that ditching any pretense of acting upon climate change to spite the Greens would probably up the Green vote at the next election. It wouldn’t take too much to swing another seat in SA and a seat in Vic, and the Greens’d have won the Lib seat in the ACT in 2007 anyway if it hadn’t been for Rudd’s idiotic last-minute plan to slash public servicejobs
That arguement hasn’t seemed to work for Brough…
The modern ALP is too focused on “how to win” and not enough on why to win.
Euthanasia, gay marriage, liberalisation of media classifications are just a few that come to mind.
It also would destroy the number of Liberal Senators and prevent the media from blaming the Libs everytime a piece of legislation fails as the Libs wont hold the BofP and they’ll have to deal with the Greens which will radicalise their policies and give the Libs some free kicks
and expect Fundies First and every other Moral Christian Group to have a field day – remember the outcry over the Two Mums segment on Play School – expect that magnified tenfold
The most amusing thing is that these Labor rusteds would support this if Labor advocated the opposite. They’ll support whatever Labor supports, disregarding what they believe themselves. It’s obscene.
Gorg Brough wanted some time off.
That doesnt mean he doesnt want a crack down the track.
Adam i wasnt talking about your side with regards to deadwood but my side.
There has been a swing to the Labor Government in Victoria, so you can scratch Melbourne for a start.
A swing to the Labor Government as opposed to the Liberals. Not a Green problem.
As for Fremantle, there are special circumstances which have been commented upon ad nauseum. I’ve commented previously, “smirk it while you’ve got it”.
And what special circumstances would these be? Dismissing losing an election offhandedly as “zomg the protest vote!” has been a great way of losing future elections since time immemorial. I hope Labor does truly believe that Fremantle was another Cunningham, despite the Green vote being double what it was there. It’ll make it so much easier to hold in 2012 if they don’t actually respond to the reasons why they actually lost Fremantle.
Umm, Labor reinstated the Permit System.
Your arguement is like the Liberals demanding Rudd make “tough choices”. You want Gillard (or whoever) to do something that will most likley be greatly unpopular and help the Liberal’s chance of winning the next election. And you seem to say – oh well it doesn’t matter they’re all the same.
Being a one issue party is the easiest thing. Be nice if the Greens actually had an economic policy that would work in the real world.
Too true.
So Labor will only implement policy the Daily Telegraph says is ok?
If Kevin Rudd announced he was going to adopt The Greens climate change policy tomorrow and risk going to a DD over it, virtually everyone who was rubbishing it as “economic insanity” would reverse their position and support it.
and expect Fundies First and every other Moral Christian Group to have a field day – remember the outcry over the Two Mums segment on Play School – expect that magnified tenfold
And, for once, Labor needs to pick a fight with these people.
I’m not saying take it to extremes. But Rudd is well to the right of Obama at this point, and that’s frankly ridiculous considering the Australian electorate.
If Tanner, Plibersek, Alabanese, and Gillard’s achievements don’t count as “left wing”, then that should be seen as a condemnation of left wing ideology, rather than a criticism of the achievements of said politicians.
Unless you want a repeat of the Labor Split and the Libs free run between 1953 and 1972.
Labor learnt from that.
Glen
If Labor and the Libs decide to pass a bit of legislation, it does not matter what any other party, independent etc. thinks.
Ahh GG, you and your 2pp ignorance.
http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl
Greens on a record high 15% primary vote.
Get your hand off it, and get a clue for once.
No, Adam is saying if you want progressive policy, join the Labor left, and look at the prominent members like Gillard as to why.
The failure to present any progressive policy Gillard has implemented or even refute the quite conservative ones she had (mentioned above) shows this argument to be entirely rubbish.
I’m talking about MIDDLE Australia, not the latte sipping Ferals.
The swing to Labor in Victoria has been from the Libs. The 60/40 TPP you provided does not show the Green vote so it is impossible to tell from that whether there has been a swing between Labor and the Greens and if the has which way. There may well have been a SWING TOO THE GREENS which the TPP is unlikely to show up. The major problem with the Victorian Labor Government in Melbourne is Public Transport which the Liberals are bad at but the Greens are good.
Your arguement is like the Liberals demanding Rudd make “tough choices”. You want Gillard (or whoever) to do something that will most likley be greatly unpopular and help the Liberal’s chance of winning the next election. And you seem to say – oh well it doesn’t matter they’re all the same.
No, it isn’t. I don’t want Labor, in the event they actually begun doing something useful, to push it too far and wind up losing an election as a consequence. What I do want is for them to actually start trying to achieve progressive change, and not dismiss the entire left as irrelevant in their plans for the electoral conquest of the centre-right.
There is no good reason why Rudd should be to the right of Obama.
Labor used to take it upon themselves to progress the conservative electorate. Dunstan won 4 elections and eventually resigned over ill health rather than lose.
Meanwhile in the real world…
So saying Sorry to Indigineous Australia is being to the right of Obama ?
Gees you Greens spout some rubbish.
Instead of just general “feelings” why not respond to some criticism.
Is introducing competition between public schools “left-wing”?
Is retaining Howard’s system of private school funding “left-wing”?
Is Workchoices-lite, disparaged by the unions, “left-wing”?
The funny thing is it’s 100% true and everyone here knows it.
What the?
Do you actually know anything at all about the three Labor splits?
What an incredible oversimplification.
Since when was euthanasia “progressive”? There are arguments for and against legalising euthanasia and/or assisted suicide, but it’s hardly a left-right issue. I need hardly remind you how keen the Nazis were on euthanasia. The only attempt to legislate for it in Australia so far has been by a conservative government in the NT.
Frank Calabrese: Well, yes. Obama doesn’t have the Stolen Generation to deal with, so that comparison doesn’t really work, and Rudd’s well to his right on a whole range of issues.
Obama has actually tried to institute progressive law reform where politically possible on a whole range of issues, and while cautious, not been terrified of picking a fight either. He might be to my right, but I’d have a whole lot more sympathy for Rudd if he was a little more Obama and a little less Brendan Nelson with a better haircut.
The ALP in the 50`s and 60`s was slightly too focused on why and now the are too focused on “how” (the quotation marks are because they could win with more progressive policies but they won`t try).
Which poll is that – the last newspoll had them at 9%
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/19may-newspoll.html
One thing! Oh wow!
Does that help your inner-left conscience sleep at night, held hostage by your stronger love of Labor and any policy it puts forth?
Is having a Minister for Housing right wing?
Remember Latham’s Rich List !!!
It is actually going back to the situation when Hawke was in Power and was EMBRACED by Unions. oh and Labor has introduced Unfair Dismissal Laws, so how can it be Workchoices Lite – the REAL Workchoices had NO protection from that.
I gave you the link. GG was referring to Victorian Labor. The Greens there are on a record 15%. GG somehow things that a 2PP swing to Labor means the Greens are less popular. He’s a joke.
I hardly need to remind you how keen the Nazi’s were on anti-communism.
What a joke.
I’d think he was being “courageous” in the ‘Yes Prime Minister” sense. I’d also be dreading the return of the Libs at the next election.
Is it just coincidence that there’d be more Labor MPs who in private would support it than Liberal MPs?
And is it coincidence that the Greens openly support it, as do the Dems, whilst Family First don’t?
Adam, research ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’. Then you can answer your own question on how euthanasia is progressive.
Dear Bob,
Unlike you, my hand is on my mouse and look what it clicks up. Don’t apologise.
“Is the result of the next election as predictable as its date? The opinion polls seem to say so, with the latest (admittedly in February) giving Labor 60 per cent of the two-party preferred vote to the Coalition’s 40 per cent. This represents a swing of nearly 6 per cent on the 2006 result and would cost 11 Coalition MPs their seats”.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/forget-sleaze-and-innuendo-just-pick-a-water-fight-20090530-br1r.html
Bull – some in the left wing of the ALP would go with it, but a massive percentage of swinging voters would flee to the Libs.
Why are Green’s voters such big fans of Pyrrhus?
But he always has been. He was before the last election, he was after the election. He still is.
Greensborough Growler,
A 6% swing to The Greens, as indicated in that poll would give The Greens Melbourne. So not sure what your point is.
If it’s a joke it’s one I don’t get.
The link you give just goes to newspoll’s page – not to a specific poll.
But, sorry, didn’t realise you were talking state politics.
Psephos
The only successful introduction (later overruled by the Commonwealth for all territories) was in the NT.
The Greens tried in the Victorian Legislative Council (I think last year) with some Libs voting for it (I believe both Nats voted against it) it would probably have passed if Labor had had a conscience vote.
I’m not talking about swinging voters (though I dispute that point). I’m talking about the people on this blog who would defend Rudd to the death regardless of policy. There’s been enough examples of this in the past, but one of the more recent were is ETS changes. Up until the day he made his policy closer to the Libs there was general support and the Libs with their delay and more compensation for polluters were rubbished. Yet when he adopts that policy, he’s applauded.
YES!
Nazism and Communism are equally bad. I don’t see how this helps your argument that the Rudd government isn’t progressive.
I do agree that it will be more progressive if it is able to win a 2nd term.
#607, the Greens could do better if they study a bit more of Sun Tzu’s the Art of War:
Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
There’s one fact people can’t deny, if voters wanted the Greens’ policies enacted they would elect a Greens government.
But he always has been. He was before the last election, he was after the election. He still is.
…which is why anyone on the left is wasting their time with Labor.
It has nothing to do with that argument. It was too demonstrate Adam’s now quite frequent resorting to Nazi ideology to defend his position is pointless.
And this affects Green chances……….. how?
Look at 2007. Big swing to Labor. Greens also picked up a swing.
Vic Greens are currently sitting pretty on a record 15%, with a Labor-Liberal 2pp of 60-40.
The Greens haven’t lost ground in a chance of gaining a seat in Vic Parliament – i’d like to think you can admit you’re wrong, but I know you too well. You won’t. Rather i’ll get another GG insult. Insults over facts has always been your forte.
As somebody who has to face euthanasia as a real prospect, it is not a political issue. Most doctors and palliative care nurses practice euthanasia every day.
I have figured out how I will die, its easy. When I need to do it I will and NO politician will tell me I cannot do it.
To consider euthanasia as a political issue is crud.
Exactly. All navel gazing about who or what the Greens are is pointless. If they want to have more power, they will need to adopt policies that more people want to vote for.
In fact, they should adopt ONE tough policy that people wouldn’t expect from them to demonstrate a new seriousness in policy development. For example they should support nuclear power. If they did that then their 25% mandatory emissions cuts wouldn’t be so pie in the sky.
Thanks Rebecca, you just help me make my point that if voters wanted the Greens’ policies enacted they would elect a Greens government. They haven’t and don’t obviously.
His point was that euthanasia isn’t a purely ideological issue. Some conservatives support it and some progressives oppose it.
I love how the word Progressive is now word of the left. It was once was a party label attached to right-of-centre populist parties in the US, Canada and Australia. The NSW Country Party was known as the Progressives for the first 10 years of its life.
Rubbish, there’s plenty of laws surrounding euthanasia that result in a lack of information about it, convictions and an unwillingness to talk about it openly. This is why it’s a political topic in Australia and around the world.
There’s currently a private members bill to legalise euthanasia in Tasmania.
So what did they want to progress? Agricultural development?
Tough Yes
Realistic No
Nice segue btw
Especially in rural seats where they would rather vote for Satan, than for a Greens candidate.
Oh yes, much better to be enraged and in opposition.
Why isn’t it realistic? Nuclear power now has its highest support in Australia ever.
I love how people refer to it as pie in the sky without a shred of evidence. I posted a fairly detailed post some weeks back demonstrating cuts of that order in the short term were achievable largely by simple behavioural changes and implementation of (existing) new technology.
Exactly. All navel gazing about who or what the Greens are is pointless. If they want to have more power, they will need to adopt policies that more people want to vote for.
I think the Greens are doing quite nicely so far. First lower house seat, good shot at two more in 2010 and 2011, likely balance of power in the Senate from next election. If Labor needs Green support to pass any legislation through the Senate, I think the Greens are doing quite nicely in the power stakes thank you.
In fact, they should adopt ONE tough policy that people wouldn’t expect from them to demonstrate a new seriousness in policy development.
Nuclear power? Hah. Not only would that lose the Greens a whole bunch of voters, but I seriously doubt that it would win any.
If we apply the 15% as a 5% uniform swing then that is
A. Bye Bye Bronwyn Pike
B. Probably Bye Bye Richard Wynne and Carlo Carli
C. A nervous time for Fiona Richardson
D. A 10% drop in the gap between Labor and the Greens in Prahran
The swing will probably be more in the areas where the Greens are strongest.
The swing may not be so big at the election.
Oh yes, much better to be enraged and in opposition.
I’d rather be enraged, in opposition, and forcing Labor to actually enact some decent policy, as to sucking on the teat of government and achieving bugger all.
Somehow I think that might not be a great example of a policy that more people want to vote for.
Oz,
There is plenty of info on euthanasia, for those who may need it.
In my case I just stop getting bags of platelets. I will die of a brain bleed in about 2 weeks.
It’s only pointless in the same sense that every other discussion on this blog is pointless.
It won’t achieve anything tangible and most people won’t change their minds, but it is still interesting and of value.
The only reason we’re talking about The Greens is because their vote is on the rise and they are becoming more influential. If you deny this, then the discussion is unlikely to hold any merit for you.
What stems from this is interesting propositions as to the future policy direction of this country and various psephological effects. So while it is rather roundabout, it’s also relevant, and we sometimes learn some new things.
I do, because if clean coal proves to be impractical, or too expensive, nuclear is our only hope.
They were trying to say they weren’t conservatives, they wanted to progress society in a way they thought would be an improvment. Its use today is in a similar context. The use of progress implies change that is good, like the difference in the meaning of reform and change, but whether the change is good, is progress, will depend on your politics.
It has often been argued that to win government in Australia you need to appeal to “the centre” of the political spectrum. We have on record here, at least by their supporters, that the Greens are trying to appeal to “the left”. A party can spend a lot of years in opposition appealing to “the left” or “the right” of the spectrum. Deviating from “the centre” has proven to be a dangerous move.
Well the Greens haven’t forced Labor to do anything with the ETS. Instead by being so damn righteous, they have achieved bugger all.
It’s ok for the Greens to be enraged and in opposition – they’re never going to be in power. But the ALP actually has to consider winnnig and losing elections. And given that the current Lib economic policy of no deficit or debt would put Australia into the fiscal toilet, I’m quite glad we won last time.
Wow the Greens and ALP supporters are having at it
This is classic entertainment for a Tory watching Laborites and Greenies duke it out trashing each other.
You’re on the same side of the political spectrum for crying out loud.
Is it not illegal to spread information construed to be promoting euthanasia or how to about doing it? The government has blacklisted websites on this basis, so that if anything, makes it a political issue.
The left wing of the Victorian Labor Party used to have that philosophy. It kept the ALP out of government for many years and the Libs did what they liked. So where did that get the left? Try nowhere.
Bob,
You poor old soul. You like to think you can dish it out. But you show time after time that you just can’t handle the heat coming back. After your latest bleating, my advice is to play nice or suffer the consequences.
They actually only appeal to a small subsection of the left.
I don’t think anyone disputed that it is a political issue, it is not an ideological issue.
It was pretty clear from the start that the ALP, behoven as they are to mining and energy unions as well has big polluting industries were never going to negotiate with The Greens. This was made obvious when they released their initial ETS, even though Adam tried to deny it and promised us that Penny was actually very keen for a stronger policy.
The Greens wrote a letter to the ALP in which they compromised on their lower target and gave a further list of demands, thus setting up the basis for negotiation. Labor responded by making their policy virtually identical to the Coalitions.
But yeah, it’s The Greens fault for being “righteous”.
Not according to the Greens. In fact they see the Libs and Labor being closely aligned Glen.
Well the Greens haven’t forced Labor to do anything with the ETS. Instead by being so damn righteous, they have achieved bugger all.
Labor proposed bugger all from the beginning. They could have chosen to improve that proposal and do more than bugger all, and thus win Green support, but chose not to.
It’s ok for the Greens to be enraged and in opposition – they’re never going to be in power. But the ALP actually has to consider winnnig and losing elections.
This is bollocks. Obama is more popular than Rudd is, and he’s actually making an effort. I’ll support a Labor that both tries to enact progressive policies where politically possible *and* wins elections, instead of trying to copy Robert Menzies and still expecting the left to vote for them.
Yeah Bob, if you keep this up G.G. will start telling you how to post, and then he will make fun of your posts.
SO LOOK OUT, you have been WARNED!
Rebecca,
“I’d rather be enraged, in opposition, and forcing Labor to actually enact some decent policy, as to sucking on the teat of government and achieving bugger all”.
You have not spent nearly enough time in opposition.
Ruawake:
I don’t deny it – do you deny there’s a definite cieling though – and that you’re right near it?
Haven’t you been listening Glen, Rudd is a tool of the evil capitalists. If he were a true lefty he would never have broken the golden rule of the left that it’s always best to lose an election.
Maintain the rage comrades!!!
#690, Family always quarrel. we just love each other too much
This is wrong.
I don’t think you could deny that Labor and Liberal are closer than Labor and Greens.
But I doubt you’d find many Greens (certainly none here) that would argue The Greens are closer to Liberal than Labor.
Most Labor diehards here have this strawman image of Greens in their head, which is what they argue against here. It’s some combination of feral/hippy/communist/moralists/Liberal stooges. Unfortunately, no one this blog actually fits their preconception which makes for a lot of tedious discussion.
You have not spent nearly enough time in opposition.
Different kind of opposition though, isn’t it?
Labor, on its own, is achieving very little in the way of progressive change. By taking seats in left-wing areas out of the control of the Labor caucus, and forcing Labor to actually negotiate that, we can achieve more. There was a ton of things in the ACT accord which Labor never would have done if it hadn’t been for their desire to comfortably retain goverment – even where no such situation exists, we get a lot more done with a few Greens in parliament than with a ton of heart-is-in-the-right-place-but-useless left Labor people.
That’s a good point. They appeal to the inner-city middle-class university-educated left. There are other lefts. The most anti-green member of Cabinet is probably Martin Ferguson, who speaks for the working-class left, particularly those who work in carbon-dependent industries.
The Govt. has not blacklisted anything – the howard govt. made it an offence to access this material from a website.
Unless you are unfortunate enough to have dementia, the info is everywhere. I do not need to have someone tell me how to die, be it “Dr Death” or Steve Fielding.
What drug causes the most “accidental” overdose deaths in Australia?
Haven’t you been listening Glen, Rudd is a tool of the evil capitalists. If he were a true lefty he would never have broken the golden rule of the left that it’s always best to lose an election.
Good old Labor. Better to do nothing and cling to power rather than actually put up a fight and get things done. It works for Obama. It works for the Liberals when they do it from the opposite direction. But Labor? Spine? Never!
It depends what issue you are referring to. Labor and Liberal are definitely closer on economics, because the Greens generally completely ignore the economic consequences of their policies.
My issue with the Greens is that they don’t admit that many of their economic policies have economic consequences. They don’t admit that environmental protection often creates economic trade offs.
If they were willing to admit this, then they would be more credible.
Oz,
The Greens are such a rare species that they have never been seen in real life. They are mostly confined to blogs and special breeding programs.
I wasn’t suggesting you were denying it.
I think with the policy measures The Greens currently have there is a vote ceiling at this point in time. But I don’t think that cieling is 8%, I would say closer to 15-20%.
I don’t have very much to quantify this, and you’re free to disagree, but I can point to things like the fact that the Greens vote Federally has more than trebled in under a decade and you’re seeing State results in the low-mid teens.
Line ball on who is more popular. And he’s making an effort? Oh bravo.
Geez, you would have loved the 1950s and 60s.
Bzzt.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1888011,00.html
I think some of the discussion of the battle for Melbourne overlooks that Adam Bandt, a union lawyer from memory, was the candidate, and his campiagn received some parallel support from left-wing unions like the ETU because of Kevn Rudd’s attacks on the ETU through 2007. There was a bit of internal Labor politics running in that contest that may not be around at the next election.
Hence my earlier comment about the Labor Split. THe Vegetable patch thing idealogically pure will win them broad support when in REALITY it will make them impotent.
Really? There is talk that “the left” are unhappy with Obama and “the right” are crowing that Obama is keeping some of their policies.
You left out hippy pot-smoking left.
Blacklisting sites advocating Christianity would be very leftwing indeed. You will all have to revise your opinions of Conroy if he does that.
Martin Ferguson is a rather old fashioned person who said (after okaying, on behalf of the ACTU, Labor not introducing it) that paid maternity leave was a middle class issue when in fact government funded paid maternity leave would help the working class the most.
Has Martin Ferguson ever done any good?
Which was created under the HOWARD Government.
Do try and keep up.
Rebecca,
Define socially progressive. I’d really enjoy a good laugh.
If you are referring to the Rudd government, it can’t pass any legislation without another 7 Senate votes.
And good old Mar’in supports nuclear power!
Them too.
713
I don’t think there’s anywhere here who actually thinks Federal Melbourne is winnable anytime soon. I was talking about State Melbourne earlier.
The Howard government hasn’t been around for 18 months, get with the program.
So power is best?
Would you support the Liberals if the Liberals were centrists and Labor was left? Would you have been a Menzies voter?
Gary Bruce: There’s certainly a lot of left-wing discord with Obama.
He’s still a bloody sight better than Rudd.
Obama is a huge pragmatist, but will try and pick fights he can win where he can. Rudd doesn’t even do that.
Shouldn’t this tell you something?
no, YOU get with it, the ACMA is compiling the list based on HOWARD’s Criteria.
Not really. Considering the Labor agrees with the Libs over the Greens more often than not, and goes for their Senate vote before the Greens.
So obviously you acknowledge that what the Greens are advocating is politically “courageous” and libel to lead to a short time in government. Correct?
GG, i’ll take the heat if you balance it up with some facts. But time after time you put forth untrue nonsense, or nothing at all.
60-40 2pp means a swing away from the Greens. What total lullery you speak of.
No worries, I didn’t think you were suggesting that I was suggesting it!
Personally I can’t see the Green’s vote improving much on 2007. At that eleciton the economy was hardly a focus; the green issues were huge, Howard was in power, the ALP looked like winning, so it was “safe” to vote Greens and know that the ALP would still win.
To improve you have to take votes away from the ALP. I can’t see that happening in great numbers. It never has historically.
I recall when people on polling of a couple percent, that the Greens would become nothing more than a fringe party. Now they’re often polling double digits and poised to take the balance of power in the Senate come the next election.
Gary Bruce: Nope. I’m arguing that what Labor should do is actually, within the confines of actually getting re-elected, make an effort to enact some serious progressive reform.
The Democratic Party and the Labor Party are both hugely pragmatic. The difference is that one still tries to push its agenda within the bounds of what’s politically achievable without losing an election, and the other just does bugger all in the hope that they won’t be challenged.
Yes Rebecca it does. It tells me that Obama works in a different system altogether and that he is not the darling of the left at the moment you make him out to be.
Oh yeah, that’s why Conroy weakened the criteria and apologised for the presence for pro-euthanasia sites.
Oh wait, he didn’t.
Take your blinkers off.
The funny thing Adam is that you’ve just described yourself.
Well, there’s the difficult bit. You’re advocating very much a left agenda to a society that isn’t really all that “left”. If it was the Greens would be in government today. They aint.
fight, fight, fight, fight fight, fight, fight, fight fight, fight, fight, fight
The Greens have almost become the DLP of the modern era taking away Left Wing votes and it doesnt bother the Libs one bit as we fight the ALP for votes
I would argue the direct opposite. There’s quite a profound misunderstanding of our electoral system and I’ve talked to many people who voted 1 Labor, even though they supported The Greens, to make sure they got rid of Howard.
Also, I don’t see the environment sliding down the scale in terms of importance in the medium term.
It’s happened in QLD, WA and ACT. I think it will happen Federally.
Yeah raising the pension age has been met with such joy. And it so good that you think the Liberals are in agreement with his economic policy, his broadband policy.
Tell me one fight he could have won that he hasn’t picked?
The ETS? yeah he might have “won” the Greens”, but he sure are heck wouldn’t have won Xena or Fielding.
Taking votes away from an incumbent government is quite possible if you can appeal to voters who are dissatisfied with the government. Labor is quite alienating to the left at the moment and the Greens have shown ability to pick up middle-class left votes (and some working class left vote). The could be a significant swing to the Greens.
Personally I can’t see the Green’s vote improving much on 2007. At that eleciton the economy was hardly a focus; the green issues were huge, Howard was in power, the ALP looked like winning, so it was “safe” to vote Greens and know that the ALP would still win.
It was certainly a good election for the Greens, but it helped the party grow substantially, to the point of being able to run more effective campaigns, achieve a higher profile, and with it, greater public support. I don’t think there’s huge potential for much in the way of federal wins anytime soon – I think a second SA Senate seat is likely, picking up one in NSW and Vic is plausible, and depending on how the ACT Greens go, knocking off Gary Humphries might be possible, but that’s about the extent of it. The real battlegrounds will be the state parliaments for the next few years, I suspect.
To improve you have to take votes away from the ALP. I can’t see that happening in great numbers. It never has historically.
If the Greens are smart, and run a good, targeted campaign, appealing to local issues, I think they’re quite capable of capitalising on Labor’s neglect of their safe seats, and taking Labor voters away. This is, however, an if – I have my doubts about the Victorian Greens ability to pull this off after their handling of the 2007 by-elections, and I don’t know enough about the NSW Greens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_progressivism
Here’s News Limited’s David Penberthy-edited superblog The Punch.
Well I think a lot of left wing Democratic members of the U.S. House of Reps are ideologically closer to the Greens than the Labor Left. If you want to compile a list, just find all the Democrats who opposed the bank bailout package.
In the U.S. they have almost a pure 2 party system, so if you want to get anywhere you need to be in one of the majors parties.
oh be quiet Glen!!! Stop gloating!!!
We’re alright.
So Rudd Labor will suddenly become socially progressive when the Greens hold the balance of power?
But what will all these pollbludger Labor rusteds do when that happens?
Their instinct is to support whatever Labor does, but they’ll have spent the last 3 years fighting against social progressivism!
What a conundrum!!!
So Bob1234, do you support the right of Mulsims to have multiple wives. After all, our current form of marriage between one man and one woman is merely a social construct.
Hot topics – Swine flu and Rubgy League sex scandals.
No thanks.
To put Qld in context of 2,372,651 formal votes the Greens got 198,475. Some people are happy with such mediocre results.
Hardly. The vast majority of Green prefs go back to Labor. The vast majority of DLP prefs went to the coalition.
743 – rebecca – some good points – State politics is certainly the best best for the Greens.
In terms of building profile Federally, I still think their biggest problem is what happens once BB goes.
Tell me one fight he could have won that he hasn’t picked?
Take any of the issues that I highlighted above. Improving the welfare system according to Wayne Swan’s own reform manifesto. Supporting gay civil unions (as Obama does). Getting rid of the patronising aspects of the NT intervention, and attempting to do something useful. Being a little bit more ambitious on climate change (again, look to Obama – it might fall well short of ideal but he’s preparing for a fight to achieve a better response, rather than going with the least ambitious scheme possible).
None of those things would actually lose someone an election, if managed politically with the slightest bit of sense, as Rudd is well capable of.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Or as Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it:
bob,
The Greens are not in ascendancy. They are a very minor Party that are unlikely to ever amount to anything significant. They have no real policies but seem to be made up of handringers, whingers and sloganeers.
Rudd has played them for mugs in the Senate and when the ETS is implemented the Government will get kudos from the electorate. The Greens will be portrayed, once again, as out of touch idealists without the political nous to make a deal when they had the opportunity.
Yep, : and this Late Show clip illustrates that perfectly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n42lNEoP5zE
My background is outer-suburban and upper-middle-class, and I now live in a country town. *pokes out tongue, as if in acknowledgement of childishness of this whole discussion*
I’m gay and I support polygamy – bet you weren’t expecting that. Consenting adults can make their own decisions and bear the responsibility that comes with them.
I think so. Because it won’t require Fielding’s vote to get anything done.
It depends on what the issue is.
I think marriage should be privatised. I don’t understand why people need a certificate from the Government to say they are married. The state took over the role of determining what constitutes a marriage hundreds of years ago to stop religious conflict, I don’t know if we still need a Government to say when people are or aren’t married. I think it should be left up to consenting adults to decide when they are or aren’t married. Regarding multiple marriages, I think a lot of these ultimately result in exploitation of women by men. So I don’t think women have actually consented to such marital arrangements. If there is no consent, there shouldn’t be a marriage.
Grog: Oh, I agree entirely there.
There is the precedent of the Tasmanian Greens, which went from strength to strength after he left: Milne held their ground until they changed the electoral system, Putt built the party up so it was just as strong as before anyway, and then McKim seems to be doing a reasonable job so far.
The problem is that I’m not convinced any of the current federal Greens would do the same. Rachel Siewert is a policy wonk. Sarah Hanson-Young is a bit too…green (in the other sense). Christine Milne isn’t bad, but she’s not Bob. Scott Ludlam might prove to be the best one down the line, but I haven’t really seen enough of him in action to know.
But compare the US Target to Australia’s
So you want a far weaker system ?
That’s put a HUGE hole in the Green’s 40% or nothing mantra now
Social progressivism in itself isn’t unpopular. Just look at Dunstan.
Then why, to this day, does polling for the Greens continue improve post-election to pre-election? The federal Greens are consistently polling higher than they did prior to the 2007 election.
Rudd goes at the coalition, he is careful to avoid criticism of any of the crossbench.
Rudd has played them for mugs in the Senate and when the ETS is implemented the Government will get kudos from the electorate. The Greens will be portrayed, once again, as out of touch idealists without the political nous to make a deal when they had the opportunity.
Hardly. It’s not ambitious enough for that – if he’d gone for 10 or 15 percent it might have been. Those who are particularly concerned about climate change will vote Green. Those who don’t care won’t be swayed. The denialists will still opposite it.
It’s the least politically dangerous course, but it also won’t win him any plaudits.
Well, your quote did say that as we find out more about human benavior, or understanding of what is normal changes.
We do know that generally adults can’t live in multi-partner relationships without the production of JEALOUSY.
But South Australia has always been a progressive state. We’re talking more about Sydney & Melbourne and to a lesser extent Queensland and WA.
Percentage wise, Labor certainly was in the late 1800s
All the responsibility Bob? You want to wind back the welfare state?
Frank Calabrese: Obama is operating within the context of a more conservative society, but instead of going for something so small that it won’t raise a stir, he’s picking fights where he can so as to get what he can without denting his popularity.
In the context of what he could achieve if he actually gave a damn about much besides his own ego, Rudd isn’t doing a damn thing.
I’m from SA and I definately disagree with that.
But did Dunstan really lead society? Or was it that the conservative Governments before Dunstan had been passed by changing social mores?
It seems obvious to me that the Whitlam government reforms for divorce were readily accepted because opinions on the issue changed during the 1960s, it just took a new government elected in the 1970s to make the change at a legal level.
I think the vote-building leadership future of the Greens will probably be in The House of Representatives. A Commonwealth version of Adele Carles. The next leader of the Greens may be in the next federal member for Melbourne.
Nope. I’m talking about social responsibility, not economic responsibility.
Look, Antony for once is getting involved in pollbludger debates! Yay!
But South Australia has always been a progressive state. We’re talking more about Sydney & Melbourne and to a lesser extent Queensland and WA.
South Australia always been a progressive state? This, from the state that kept re-electing the same Liberal for about half the 20th century, and has only had two Labor governments since the 70s, both of which have leaned right?
Nice try, though.
I know of people in successful long-term polygamous relationships. I also know of some that haven’t been. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed. People should be free to make their own choices and bear the responsiblity if it breaks down.
I think the vote-building leadership future of the Greens will probably be in The House of Representatives. A Commonwealth version of Adele Carles. The next leader of the Greens may be in the next federal member for Melbourne.
Tom: Not going to happen. The Greens aren’t even close to winning a federal seat, and it took the last election for them to even get in the ballpark of being able to think about winning Melbourne. They’d have to knock a fair sized chunk of Tanner’s vote off before being able to think about that.
They also need a decent candidate. Adam Bandt seems to be an alright bloke, but he’s no Bob Brown.
SA was the first state to legalise homosexuality.
What else did he do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Dunstan
And it is more likely that the next leader of the National Party will come from Melbourne.
Thanks to the Playmander.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playmander
1) Playford was the most left wing Liberal in Australian history 2) He was elected based on massive electoral mal-apportionment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playmander
I see Bob Brown as the only politician, pre Rudd, that could read JWH like a book. I think that the Geens vote will tank badly when Bob Brown retires and the Greens will suffer when all the squabbling occurs to be the new leader. As to the Greens desire to enact legislation regardless of the popularity? What legislation have the Greens initiated and enacted in their own right? None! That alone makes the Libs and the ALP more effective political parties. It’s easy to get on a soapbox giving promises that you know can not be kept, as it is easy to criticise other for not keeping the same policies. If the Greens are serious about enacting their policies, then they too will have to be pragmatic, the very thing that they are criticising the ALP for.
Tom.
Only economically. Socially he was anything but.
This will be a waste of time unfortunately.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25564430-5003402,00.html
The Playford government was kept in by the Playmander (a third of the seats for Adelaide and two for the rest). Had there been one vote one value then Labor would have been the government of SA for most of the 20th century. If it had not been for the DLP, then Victorian Labor would have been the government for the majority of the second half of the 20th century. The modern Victoria is quite socially progressive.
I find it very amusing how Laborites laugh at the Greens for not being in a position of power and thus not being in a position to enact policies. It just shows that they fail to be aware of Labor history and how Labor was treated then exactly how the Greens are now.
So Bob, the state keeps financial responsibility for all adults decisions? Hardly seems fair.
I see Bob Brown as the only politician, pre Rudd, that could read JWH like a book. I think that the Geens vote will tank badly when Bob Brown retires and the Greens will suffer when all the squabbling occurs to be the new leader.
Not going to happen. The Greens don’t place much authority in the party leader, so they’ve never tended to have great leadership battles – whereas the Dems had one about every five years. I think about the only case I know of where I understand there was even a contest of sorts was in the ACT, and there hasn’t been any sort of ongoing rumblings as a result of that.
What legislation have the Greens initiated and enacted in their own right? None! That alone makes the Libs and the ALP more effective political parties.
Not really. The Greens don’t have the numbers to enact legislation in their own right, but they can block or amend government legislation, and in the event of a hung parliament, use their vote to swing the chamber. The Greens aren’t playing for the political centre, so in terms of achieving their political goals, they’re doing quite nicely.
I cant help it Grog
But the more I stay out of the debate the more heated it will become
Green Senators, by an impartial observer who watches the Senate a lot:
* Milne: Intelligent, tough and persistent, but comes across as a nagger (sexist I know, but that’s the fact)
* Siewert: Angry at everything all the time. Needs to calm down.
* Hanson-Young: Too young, and it shows.
* Ludlam: Very quiet (being the well-behaved male in a feminist party, no doubt). Needs to assert himself.
I don’t think it’s a great choice, but I’d go with Milne as leader and Ludlam as deputy.
But Labor got out of that position in 13 years, and formed a Government. And ever since have been a major party.
Gary Bruce: They’re a bit stuffed on the ETS when the Greens and Fielding and Xenophon all want different outcomes. It’s their own fault for creating the monster that is Fielding, but I digress.
I suspect this one mightn’t be solved until after an election, when Fielding will be gone and the Greens will most probably have the balance of power. After which time, with an obstinate Liberal Party, Labor can go negotiate with the Greens like rational people…
Tom, you’re re-writing history. Until the industrial development of the Elizabeth area, South Australia had very little industry. Playford created the industrial base that was his eventual undoing. He also ran into the problem that he had ignored Adelaide issues for so long that when Dunstan came along, the sort of middle class radicalism he embodied was melded on to the Labor Party as well. Some of those historic vote figures in South Australia are very mis-leading because there were so many seats that were uncontested by both parties.
Correct. Hence their low vote and hence their attitude to winning government. They know it won’t happen.
Psephos: For once, I more or less agree with your thoughts on the Green Senators. The only difference is that I might go with Ludlam over Milne, since I think he might have the potential to step up to the plate given the opportunity.
The Margin in Melbourne was 4.71%. That is a marginal seat. To say that the Nationals (who have never contested Melbourne) are more likely to win than the Greens who came within 5% of winning is ludicrous in the extreme.
The argument of South Asutralia being a progressive state was a wonderful bit of spin created by Dunstan. It had one radical outbreak in the 1890s under Kingston, and had to await the next under Dunstan.
Correct. Hence their low vote and hence their attitude to winning government. They know it won’t happen.
It doesn’t mean the Greens don’t have a demographic they appeal to, or that their vote isn’t growing. It just means that they’re likely to remain an effective third party, albeit probably one with lower and upper house seats in several states.
I think it’s interesting that the only people who seem to talk as if the Greens seek to win government (and should be judged on this basis if they do not) is the Labor people.
To some extent. I’m not arguing for communism or socialism. Let’s not play in black and whites Antony.
The Margin in Melbourne was 4.71%. That is a marginal seat. To say that the Nationals (who have never contested Melbourne) are more likely to win than the Greens who came within 5% of winning is ludicrous in the extreme.
Tom, you can’t win if your opposition is polling 49% of the primary vote. It’s just not realistic. Should Tanner’s share of the vote drop over time, this might be more plausible (perhaps once Tanner retires), but that’s not the case at the moment.
My mum and dad have a lovely gat couple living next door, they are in there 50s and have been together for 30 years. They are a great couple of guys and I like them very much.
They are pissed off at the “treat gays as equal” brigade. One has been working, the other on the dole. This has worked well, it gave the partner who stayed at home and looked after the house, while the other ran an exclusive eatery in Noosa some spending money.
Now, of course they are law abiding citizens, they are a couple and fail the income test. Not happy campers in that household.
ruawake: Aww, diddums. Now they’re in the same boat as every other couple in the country with one partner who stays home.
Not every new party that eventually makes it to government will take 13 years. I’m not even saying the Greens will make government. I’m just pointing out the sillyness of the argument.
Antony, you told me that the primary vote was based on actual votes, while the 2PP was an estimate based on all seats, uncontested and contested. All things being equal, Labor would have won 1953 and 1962 before they eventually lost in 1965.
I don’t think leadership plays a big deal in how The Greens operate and form policy and I don’t think any significant proportion of Greens voters base their vote on Brown, other than maybe in Tasmania.
He does have an image of a likeable, compassionate guy but his retirement won’t have enormous consequences.
You said all adults should take social responsibility for their choices, but you seem to draw a line between social responsibility and economic responsibility. I wouold have thought the two were highly related. People often choose not to have children when economic times are tough. Is that social responsibility or economic responsibility?
Indeed. And Dunstan won 4 elections. Proof that social progressivism isn’t electorally destructive.
This is part of creating a ridiculous portrayal of who The Greens are and what they want, disconnected from reality, and then enjoying pulling it down. It may be fun but it doesn’t mean anything.
One could argue there was somewhat of a radical outbreak under Price.
And Kingston was a ‘liberal’, who fought against the ‘conservatives’! The liberals were the progressives. So yes, progressive is a relative term that could apply to either side, but typically conservatives/the right are not progressives.
I agree Ludlam is a long-term prospect but he needs to raise his voice and his profile. If Brown were to step down next year I think Milne would have to be leader, unless someone is drafted in to fill Brown’s Senate vacancy. (I thought there was a plan to draft Andrew Wilkie, but he has apparently jumped ship.) I watched Milne in the Senate Climate Policy Committee hearings and she was very impressive. She knows the issues, is tough and dogged. But she does need to lighten up and not sound so shrill all the time.
Exactly.
Rebecca I agree entirely, but those who are banging on about the superior Green policy on LGT issues have to address the fact that these policies are not supported by some of those who are affected by them.
That’s their choice. Are you saying one cannot be economically and socially left wing? Social freedom is not the same as economic freedom, and people don’t have to support one to support the other.
What? I thought The Greens had negotiated themselves into irrelevancy. I thought their ludicrous, planet destroying policy had painted them into an uncompromising feral hippy corner.
Party line?
Isn’t this just an admission that the Green’s policies will not attract the mainstream voter?
And what point are you trying to make anyway? That one cannot be socially progressive without being a thatcherist?
Same with Gay Civil Unions and Marriage. THere is no one size fits all Gay Person which Greens purport to support.
They won’t, nor will they ever form an opposition.
There’ll always be those in a section of society that don’t support what others in that section do. It’s called difference of opinion. But the majority of gay people would support the policies that the Greens have on LGBT rights – not to say they would necessarily support the Greens themselves (again however, a higher % do).
Call in the cat herders.
Well they were good outbreaks though Antony.
No, it’s called biting the bullet and facing to political reality – it may sometimes be unpalatable, but at least the ALP will do it.
The same was said of Labor.
Can you point out anyone suggesting that The Greens purport to represent all GLBT?
Isn’t this just an admission that the Green’s policies will not attract the mainstream voter?
I don’t think the Greens want the mainstream voter. The Greens believe in socially progresssive values. If you don’t believe in socially progressive values, then you’re probably not a prospective Green voter.
Bob, some of those numbers from the 50s in SA are so dodgy. I can’t vouch for how the hell they were calculated. Even without the gerrymander, Labor’s vote was so concentrated it still might have lost.
Another thing about the Labor Party’s origins, and my knowledge is mainly on NSW. For its first 13 years it played the balance of power in Parliament between Free Trade/Liberal and the Protectionist/Progressive Parties. In 1904, the Progressive disappeared and Labor was the official opposition. It could no longer play balance of power. The only way Labor could now implement its policies was to achieve government. Here’s the Labor votes in NSW fropm 1891, it’s first election, to when it achieved government in 1910
1891 21%
1894 16%
1895 13%
1898 12%
1901 18%
1904 23% (became opposition)
1907 33%
1910 49% (government)
In 1910, the Labor Party pre-selected a bunch of middle-class candidates in seats it needed to win government. It also brought in a string of rural activists concerned about land-reform. Neither were that wedded to Labor natural industrial base, but when the choice is between getting into government and doiung something, and sitting in opposition and shouting, sometimes you have to blur and muddle what you stand for to build a majority.
In its first decade Labor had to resolve the problem of internal unity and came down on the side of the block vote. It was also in a no-contest pact with Free Trade 1894-98, and also sat on the side line and kept its head down while the other parties resolved the Federation issue.
After two decades in Tasmania, the Greens are still in the balance of power phase.
Same with Gay Civil Unions and Marriage. THere is no one size fits all Gay Person which Greens purport to support.
…and of course, Frankie dearest knows all about teh gay issues.
Well why pretend that you want to win lower house seats if that is case.
Talk about double standards.
Yes Bob, but nobody else pays for your social freedom, but they pay for your economic freedom.
Rebecca,
I’ll ask again what does “socially progressive” mean?
So the aim of the Greens is to stay a minor party? I don’t think you’ll have too much trouble reaching that aim.
They were still bound to Labor policy.
Antony: I don’t think it should surprise anyone that they’re still in the balance of power phase in Tassie. The Greens have a very significant demographic in Tassie, but there’s also quite a lot of voters who hate the Greens with a fiery passion. The sort of political changes they’d have to offer to chase the middle would probably just result in them haemorraging support to Labor.
The Greens can win one or two or three lower house seats without attracting the so-called mainstream.
Gary Bruce: The aim of the Greens, at least as far as I see it, is to enact Green policies.
This is something that can be achieved far better from the crossbenches, under the current system. Having to chase voters who fundamentally do not support Green values would rather dilute the point of the additional power that might be gained in doing so.
And so they should. People on higher incomes should be taxed higher to support people who are struggling.
But we aren’t exactly a welfare state. There’s much larger welfare states out there.
The Greens can win one or two or three lower house seats without attracting the so-called mainstream.
In the long term, I think there’s potentially even more seats that are in play here. The seats that we’re talking about at the moment don’t include seats like Albert Park, which Adam was insisting was a gigantic Labor triumph for fending off the Greens a week or two ago…
Bob, Dunstan made one stunning decision while Premier. He sold the railways to Gough Whitlam at an amazing price. South Australia didn’t have another finanacial problem until 1979 when the Whitlam government’s 5-year funding agreement had to be re-negotiated under Fraser. Social and economic freedom ran slap bang into each other.
All socially progressive government at some point run into the problem that you have to pay for stuff, and if voters don’t like the amount of tax your taking off them, you’ll fnd yourself out of government. Life’s tough but someone has to pick up the tab somewhere.
Speaking as someone who was a gay journalist and activist for 25 years or so, I don’t blame the Greens for the unfortunate consequences of the relationship-equality legislation, any more than I blame Robert McClelland for enacting it. I blame the minority of gay and lesbian activists who pushed the “gay marriage” issue without any evidence that the majority of gay men and lesbians actually wanted to get married, or have the state regulate their personal lives at all. My view is that the majority didn’t and don’t. The politicians in all parties were talked into this legislation thinking they were doing what the gay and lesbian community wanted.
Vera, BH;
it has been an ugly weekend. my tips will be 3/5 this round and I’m 0/3 on winning FF games. hope that your NRL teams are doing better. do you both follow NSW in the Origin this week?
The Greens have a piss weak demographic in Tasmania – if they were not guaranteed 12 Senators by our Constitution they would probably have none.
They can’t win a Reps seat in Tassie. That is the issue.
835 – Rebecca, you seem to be admitting that the policies of the Greens are not supported by the mainstream voter.
Again I say, if they were, the Greens would be in power or heading that way.
Why should the minority rule over the majority?
Because They’re Tuff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=602B5AXT0GQ
The Rudd governments welfare changes did not have a grandfather clause like the Howard sole parent pension changes (and possibly their disability changes). A grandfather clause may have been a good idea.
Rebecca: Exactly!! Which is why the presence of the Greens drives Tasmanian politics. There is a slab of the electorate that will vote either Labor or Liberal to keep the Greens out of government. Which party would the Greens find it easier to replace, Labor or the Liberals, and what is the strategy for achieving it.
Surely the fact that The Greens are not in government is a pretty obvious sign this is the case. Are you hunting for a gotcha? You’re stating an obvious assumption that has been the basis for much of the discussion.
Why indeed?
Antony: For what it’s worth, I think that was Dunstan’s *worst* decision. Had it not been for that, SA wouldn’t have the worst railway network in the country.
Adam: Ah, the conservaqueer rises again. There’s always been fairly widespread support for relationship recognition among the queer communities I’ve been involved in over the years. I’m not terribly surprised that if there were resistance it might come from mid-40s gay men, though; thing is, for some of us, it’s just not all about teh sex.
Do you think so?
I think forestry and environmental issues drive the politics, The Greens being a symptom of that rather than the catalyst.
Psephos, I say cut the crap and redefine marriage to require monogamy. If that’s too hard, people gay or straight will just have to put up with civil union. I can’t see why the Churches could object to that.
Antony: You’re assuming that there’s a realistic strategy towards displacing either the Liberal or Labor Parties, and that this would necessarily be in the policy interests of the Tasmanian Greens.
From where they are, the Greens can make their case, and slowly expand their vote, influence, and seats in parliament. Chasing the centre ground risks losing much of the ability to actually institute progressive policy. Look at the examples of the NDP in Canada – shifting into government gave them the likes of Bob Rae, who makes Rudd look like a lefty.
I don’t want to get married, but I support it.
Rebecca, most of the south australian rail system he sold just took stuff through south australia. He kept the metro rail. Given the state’s long term financial difficulties, it never had the money to improve regional rail anyway.
The Party Line is the ALP will at least look as though they are trying to get a deal done.
So Labor, being the government, has policies people support. Obvious as well. The majority support them.
Getting to the Nub there Oz
And that is why the greens are having an ascendancy, as CC bites deep into mr and mrs average mindset.
That quote and the Greens in general remind me of this bit from The Castle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dik_wnOE4dk
For many people over 40, Rebecca, it’s about the money, which they regard as more important than ideology. The new laws have adversely affected the finances of many same-sex couples who don’t care whether the state has certified their relationship or not.
Antony, do you mean the state should make sex outside marriage illegal? If not, what do you mean?
Even if only a minority of gays wanted the right to marry, that wouldn’t be an argument to have a legislated ban on it for all others. Not all heterosexual people marry, and many that do at some stage decide to get out of those marriages.
It is just an equality issue. There are no laws saying that black people, or left handed people, or people with blonde hair can’t marry. I don’t understand why we have laws that have the effect of excluding homosexual people from marrying. It completely defies our egalitarian traditions, that are more important than our antiquated marriage act.
Rebecca, most of the south australian rail system he sold just took stuff through south australia. He kept the metro rail. Given the state’s long term financial difficulties, it never had the money to improve regional rail anyway.
I don’t know that it needed improving, but it needed not closing. It’s ridiculous that there’s still railway lines to places like Mount Gambier and Victor Harbour, complete with stations, but no services, and no prospect of reintroducing them because of the break-of-gauges that got introduced when the Commonwealth buggered things up.
Rebecca, the Greens can’t institute any policy. All they can do is to try and persuade others to do so.
That’s why it’s better – if you want actual results – to be in a major rather than a minor party.
I’m not an MP, staffer or adviser but I’d be willing to bet I’ve had more policies implemented than any Green Senator.
And I wouldn’t swap being able to implement real policies from a position of relative political unimportance for sitting in the Senate and amending others’ legislation.
You appear to be relying on Greens having balance of power and thus being able to influence policy. That’s not guaranteed – the Dems did not always have bop and that was their raison d’etre.
So what happens in between times? The Greens sit in the Senate and have no influence whatsoever??
Thanks, I’ll stay a party hack and know that I have real influence on policy outcomes whether the party’s in power or not (been both places and achieved stuff in both).
For many people over 40, Rebecca, it’s about the money, which they regard as more important than ideology. The new laws have adversely affected the finances of many same-sex couples who don’t care whether the state has certified their relationship or not.
If that’s the case, then perhaps you should have used your wonderful influence in the Labor Party to push for grandfathering clauses.
…rather than screwing all the people under 40, who would like to be able to get married, kthxbye.
Rebecca, I am really amused why people think it is easier to introduce progressive policies from the cross benches rather than government. The only difference is that doing it in government means you have to take responsibility for it.
Now the Greens were realy responsible during the time of the Field government in Tasmania. They held the line while Field slashed state exependiture to deal with the debt problem left over by the HEC. But it was easy in the sense that the Greens didn’t have to take responsibility for those decisions.
I still rememeber the reception Michael Field got in the tallyroom at the 1992 election. It was the only time I’ve ever heard a Labor leader in that hall get a bigger boo than Bob Brown.
Exactly. I don’t want to marry myself but I support the rights of those who do, no matter who they are or what they do in the bedroom.
I am sure there are some scenarios where (from next financial year) people living in homosexual couples may receive lower Centrelink payments, but there are now a lot of benefits they will be eligible for such as superannuation payments that before they weren’t legally entitled to.
Rebecca, the Greens can’t institute any policy. All they can do is to try and persuade others to do so. That’s why it’s better – if you want actual results – to be in a major rather than a minor party.
This just isn’t true. I’m a former member of the Labor Party. I met some really good, hard-working people in the Labor left who would have been tremendous representatives if they’d been allowed to speak their mind, but were wasted with no influence except on the most tangential issues. They can’t publicly disagree with the party, they can’t vote their conscience, and they’re marginalised in caucus on factional lines. There might be a few more of them getting a parliamentary pension, but they’re not achieving anything in the way of actual results.
As long as the Labor Party maintains watertight party discipline and established factions within caucus, the argument of “you’re more able to change from the inside than the outside” just isn’t true. I’d say there’s quite a few people who are currently Greens who found this out for themselves.
And I wouldn’t swap being able to implement real policies from a position of relative political unimportance for sitting in the Senate and amending others’ legislation.
I was in the ACT when the post-election accord got signed that ensured Green support for the Stanhope government. That deal instituted a whole range of things that I knew people in the Labor left strongly supported but were in no position to do anything about. Beyond that, even where a Green vote is required to pass legislation, they can exert far greater influence than that same member could if they were within Labor – as we’ve seen time and time again this term where Labor has had to deal with the Greens and address their issues in order to get things passed.
I’m not opposed to the principle of relationship equality, although I’m enough of an old 1970s radical to think that marriage is a patriarchal institution etc. The point I was making was that this particular set of laws has been foisted on the community by a handful of activists who persuaded politicians of all parties that this was what the community wanted, when it pretty clearly wasn’t in many cases.