The voting down of the CPRS was obviously also a negotiating tactic to get a stronger scheme. Had Rudd not shown a Scullinnite inability to call a DD on the most hostile Senate since Whitlam then it would probably have worked better.
Thanks for your reasoned argument on why you disagree with the reasons why the Greens rejected the CPRS.
A fan-boy would have responded by just calling my post sheer hypocrisy. A fan-boy would talk about the Greens failure to compromise on the CPRS (though everyone knows that Labor refused to negotiate with the Greens).
Sorry, for a second space and time warped and I imagined an alternative universe.
Since this was a State by-election, can you point me to statements by The Greens MLCs in Victoria about the Bailleu Government’s repeal of the former Labor Government’s legislated 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and what action they took to prevent this?
No, the Greens have shown by passing 312 pieces of Labor legislation this parliament that they will support steps in the right direction without getting everything they want.
The Carbon Tax is a great example. I believe that if Gillard had won government in her own right that there would not be price on carbon during this term. The Carbon Tax is only in place because this was the price for Greens support.
The cuts of the CPRS and the carbon tax are much the same. The difference is that the CPRS would have prevented future large cuts, whilst the Carbon Tax can at least be seen as a step in the right direction.
And one of the saddest things about Labor is that they have been successful in making people think that the Carbon Tax is the only step needed. Unfortunately this first step is pretty insignificant compared to what needs to be done. If Abbott were to scrap it then it would not make much difference.
For example, if you need 20 expensive pills to save your life, it doesn’t make much difference whether or not you get one pill. Getting the one pill only makes a difference if this the first step towards getting the other 19.
Labor has made clear that they think the Carbon Tax is enough. No it isn’t. And this is not being pure or idealistic. It is facing the scientific facts that huge reductions are needed soon if we are to prevent climate change.
Andos – you can do your own research. If so I think you will find that the Greens did the only thing within their power to do – when the legislating went before the upper house they voted against it. Are you suggesting that they could have done more?
Well, it’s just that it seems to me like the Labor Government was able to legislate to reduce our State’s contribution to global warming without help from The Greens, but when the Tories decided to reverse that progress The Greens were unable to do anything about it…
So why would voting Greens in this election have produced better global warming prevention outcomes than voting Labor?
Andos – Because electing a Green would have put a new voice into the lower house, one which treats climate change and how to respond very differently from Labor.
Near me the achievement of Labor’s 11 years was to build a new lane on the South Eastern freeway. A lane which carries about 1800 cars in the two hour peak, and is otherwise not needed.
Just adding three more trains between 7 and 9 am to the Glen Waverely line would have carried this many people. Spending the money on fixing the train crossing in Hughsdale, Murrumbeen, and Carnegie would enable the Dandenong line to increase its services. And even building a proper commuting bike track would have provided a much higher cost benefit.
It is pretty easy to give other examples where Labor’s talk was different from its walk.
If Kanis ever says something new in the lower house, something that the other Labor members are not saying, then let me know.
I agree. I used to be a Kevin Rudd fan, but then I eventually realized he just runs away from anything resembling a real fight.
However, that still doesn’t change the fact the Greens voted it down for cheap political opportunism and will get nothing in the long term. Congratulations to them.
I would rather make gradual progress than howl at the moon.
Bobalot – Once again you totally ignore the reason I gave. And given my main point is that the CPRS would have prevented later action, it is just silly to say that you prefer gradual progress.
Also totally silly to accuse the Greens of just howling at the moon when it was the Greens that are responsible for getting the Carbon Tax happening.
Andos – If talk does not matter then I suggest that all the Labor members of the lower house (who can do nothing other than talk) should all resign.
Assuming that the PV breakdown finishes approx where it now stands it seems to me that the labor PV has held up very well from 2010.
As William notes above the Ahmed vote was a strong African community vote, a large percentage of which would have gone to labor if he did not stand.
So taking into account the large number of independents and other small parties, assuming around 2.0 % of the Ahmed PV vote would have gone to labor otherwise then the PV would be around the same as 2010 for labor.
On that basis I think labor can be very very happy.
Thanks to Dennis Atkins on ABC Insiders today for letting us know that the highly ridiculous Senator Brett Mason from Qld, George Brandis’ BFF, and moralising hypocrite, was elected on Sex Party preferences last time around. Delightful.
I checked this out and found that it was true. However, the only alternative to Mason remaining in the count at that time was the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party.
Does anybody else think that Greens leader Greg Barber is a liability? Every time he hits the electronic media – ABC radio is where I usually hear him – he comes across as a totally arrogant dickhead who feels that the whole process and everybody else involved is below him? If he is like that in the media – what is he like in real life? Uberdickhead?
I’ve always found that it is losing campigns that bitch about postals. The fact is that people contact political offices of all descriptions looking for postals and having the staff organise it ensures those people get to vote.
Every winning campaign runs an inspired pre post, absentee and postal voting strategy.
This seems to have been decided – in the end – by the unrepresentatively pro-ALP postal votes. Otherwsie this one would have been lineball.
Postals last time favoured Labor 61:39. This time so far it is 59.5:40.5. If the postals had split similarly to the rest of the election it would indeed have been line-ball but the record of the last election suggests that was always unrealistic.
If instead we consider what would have happened if the postals to this point had *swung* the same as the remaining votes it is still a 450-500 vote margin on current figures.
Greensborough Growler should hang his head in shame.
In other news, Adam Brandt is lambasting Labor for winning with ‘conservative’ preferences while his sole reason for being in Parliament is conservative preferences.
I bet that’s Greensborough Growler’s fault as a self admitted FACELESS MAN.
I usually disagree with what you have to say but on this one you are 100% correct – it is often illuminating to check adjacent seats – may be both marginal – to see how successful the postal vote organisation (it is not a campaign, it is organisation) has been for one party or another. From what I have seen over the years – the ALP are better than the Libs (though there have been exceptions) – both of whom are miles better than the Greens and minors.
Pretty ironic too that, for someone who was elected on conservative preferences after coming second in the primary vote, he criticises the Labor candidate for doing just that.
I don’t think the do nothing, all values, all principled, handwringing, crying Greens, the party that handed Abbott to the nation, can take any comfort in the Melbourne result.
No matter how many candidates, all votes eventually preference back to Coalition or Labor. In this case, the Green’s vote is comprised of their own 15 percent or so plus all conservo votes.
Forget the Liberal’s condemnation and previous non preferencing of Greens ….. In this by-election it was clearly Labor Vs the rest.
It mattered not one iota to the Libs if Greens had won …. They were only interested in a Labor loss.
Even As I write, the Poodle is on Ch 24 saying that the real result is that Labor really lost, and other Ruddstoration crap.
Did Adam Bandt WANT conservative preferences? If so, what did he do to try and get them? And I thought Melbourne had gone Green, so why would conservative preferences decide the vote?
It’s time for clear thinking PBers to understand and state over and over that the Greens gave us Abbott.
But for the Greens, the CPRS would be now quietly sailing along and Minchin’s installation of Abbott would never have occurred. Turnbull would still be LOTO and we would not be the polarised society that Abbott’s pugilism and ideology has created.
Shame on the Greens who put Abbott there, and shame on the greenish /moderate Liberals (the Washers, Moylans etc) who keep him there.
You could single out any part/region of the electorate that differs significantly from the average and make that claim.
It’s really quite meaningless.
Except that its a type of vote, not a region.
Every winning campaign runs an inspired pre post, absentee and postal voting strategy.
I dont doubt it GG. Sounds like the GRNs need to pick up their act there. On the other other hand, Im with the AEC – its never been clear to me why parties would have a role in postals. This is the only country in the world where they do.
I also said “part” of the electorate. People who use postal votes are part of the electorate.
Nitpickery over words aside, my point still stands. The same could be said for any group that differs from the average. They would all be covered by your original statement.
542
The voting down of the CPRS was obviously also a negotiating tactic to get a stronger scheme. Had Rudd not shown a Scullinnite inability to call a DD on the most hostile Senate since Whitlam then it would probably have worked better.
by Tom the first and best on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:25 pm
545
I think it was the evasiveness on who would be supported if the Government lost a seat in Parliament. That did not look good.
by Tom the first and best on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Babolat –
Thanks for your reasoned argument on why you disagree with the reasons why the Greens rejected the CPRS.
A fan-boy would have responded by just calling my post sheer hypocrisy. A fan-boy would talk about the Greens failure to compromise on the CPRS (though everyone knows that Labor refused to negotiate with the Greens).
Sorry, for a second space and time warped and I imagined an alternative universe.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Michael Wilbur-Ham:
Since this was a State by-election, can you point me to statements by The Greens MLCs in Victoria about the Bailleu Government’s repeal of the former Labor Government’s legislated 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and what action they took to prevent this?
Thanks.
by Andos on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Tom,
No, the Greens have shown by passing 312 pieces of Labor legislation this parliament that they will support steps in the right direction without getting everything they want.
The Carbon Tax is a great example. I believe that if Gillard had won government in her own right that there would not be price on carbon during this term. The Carbon Tax is only in place because this was the price for Greens support.
The cuts of the CPRS and the carbon tax are much the same. The difference is that the CPRS would have prevented future large cuts, whilst the Carbon Tax can at least be seen as a step in the right direction.
And one of the saddest things about Labor is that they have been successful in making people think that the Carbon Tax is the only step needed. Unfortunately this first step is pretty insignificant compared to what needs to be done. If Abbott were to scrap it then it would not make much difference.
For example, if you need 20 expensive pills to save your life, it doesn’t make much difference whether or not you get one pill. Getting the one pill only makes a difference if this the first step towards getting the other 19.
Labor has made clear that they think the Carbon Tax is enough. No it isn’t. And this is not being pure or idealistic. It is facing the scientific facts that huge reductions are needed soon if we are to prevent climate change.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Andos – you can do your own research. If so I think you will find that the Greens did the only thing within their power to do – when the legislating went before the upper house they voted against it. Are you suggesting that they could have done more?
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Well, it’s just that it seems to me like the Labor Government was able to legislate to reduce our State’s contribution to global warming without help from The Greens, but when the Tories decided to reverse that progress The Greens were unable to do anything about it…
So why would voting Greens in this election have produced better global warming prevention outcomes than voting Labor?
by Andos on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Andos – Because electing a Green would have put a new voice into the lower house, one which treats climate change and how to respond very differently from Labor.
Near me the achievement of Labor’s 11 years was to build a new lane on the South Eastern freeway. A lane which carries about 1800 cars in the two hour peak, and is otherwise not needed.
Just adding three more trains between 7 and 9 am to the Glen Waverely line would have carried this many people. Spending the money on fixing the train crossing in Hughsdale, Murrumbeen, and Carnegie would enable the Dandenong line to increase its services. And even building a proper commuting bike track would have provided a much higher cost benefit.
It is pretty easy to give other examples where Labor’s talk was different from its walk.
If Kanis ever says something new in the lower house, something that the other Labor members are not saying, then let me know.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:51 pm
MWH 547 – I see you have given Psephos a detailed outline of the Greens reason for not like the federal government climate change policies
In doing so you have basically said the same thing but in more detail than what I had earlier said, which you in turn dismissed as wrong.
by mexicanbeemer on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:51 pm
mexicanbeemer – Can you repost what you said earlier or just say it again.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:53 pm
@ 550 (Tom the first and best)
I agree. I used to be a Kevin Rudd fan, but then I eventually realized he just runs away from anything resembling a real fight.
However, that still doesn’t change the fact the Greens voted it down for cheap political opportunism and will get nothing in the long term. Congratulations to them.
I would rather make gradual progress than howl at the moon.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Since you have provided a detailed response then the question has been clarifies and I have a greater understanding of the Greens position.
by mexicanbeemer on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:55 pm
MWH:
Ok, so talk matters more than action. Got it, thanks for the help.
by Andos on Jul 22, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Bobalot – Once again you totally ignore the reason I gave. And given my main point is that the CPRS would have prevented later action, it is just silly to say that you prefer gradual progress.
Also totally silly to accuse the Greens of just howling at the moon when it was the Greens that are responsible for getting the Carbon Tax happening.
Andos – If talk does not matter then I suggest that all the Labor members of the lower house (who can do nothing other than talk) should all resign.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:00 pm
MWH:
Cool, thanks for that.
by Andos on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Assuming that the PV breakdown finishes approx where it now stands it seems to me that the labor PV has held up very well from 2010.
As William notes above the Ahmed vote was a strong African community vote, a large percentage of which would have gone to labor if he did not stand.
So taking into account the large number of independents and other small parties, assuming around 2.0 % of the Ahmed PV vote would have gone to labor otherwise then the PV would be around the same as 2010 for labor.
On that basis I think labor can be very very happy.
Is that being too simplistic ?
by Doyley on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:06 pm
MWH:
“And given my main point is that the CPRS would have prevented later action, it is just silly to say that you prefer gradual progress.”
Now, they will get nothing. Great work.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:07 pm
The Greens rejected the CPRS because that enabled them to get more votes at the following election.
If the Greens supported the CPRS then climate change policy wouldn’t have been as important at the next election.
by ShowsOn on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:19 pm
In more hilarious news, the Greens were so confident of victory, they had already planned their victory celebration.
http://www.vexnews.com/2012/07/weasels-pop-too-soon-greens-party-lose-despite-perfect-storm-for-labor-stephen-mayne-shamed-once-more/
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:32 pm
#532:
I checked this out and found that it was true. However, the only alternative to Mason remaining in the count at that time was the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party.
by Kevin Bonham on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:34 pm
A question for my fellow Victorian poster –
Does anybody else think that Greens leader Greg Barber is a liability? Every time he hits the electronic media – ABC radio is where I usually hear him – he comes across as a totally arrogant dickhead who feels that the whole process and everybody else involved is below him? If he is like that in the media – what is he like in real life? Uberdickhead?
by blackburnpseph on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:42 pm
This seems to have been decided – in the end – by the unrepresentatively pro-ALP postal votes. Otherwsie this one would have been lineball.
Suggests GRNs need to improve their postal vote strategy.
Postal voting used to be a borderline dodgy business: it would turn up with party propaganda etc. Is that still the case?
by lefty e on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Here are some day after figures you can mull over. Booth TCP swings and more
http://poliquant.com/melbourne-by-election-the-aftermath/
by Poliquant on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:48 pm
lefty e,
Yeah, it’s well known that Post boxes and the mail delivery service have an ALP bias.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:50 pm
“unrepresentatively pro-ALP postal votes”?
How so?
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Those undemocratic fascists didn’t vote the right way!
by Carey Moore on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Im referring to this, GG. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/parties-allowed-to-hijack-postal-votes/story-e6frg6zo-1225787722798
The AEC has “lobbied for years to remove parties from the process and deal directly with electors”.
Just wondering what’s become of the issue since last I read about it.
by lefty e on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Unrepresentative of the electorate at large, Bobalot. Which at ALP 1700- GRN 1156, they most certainly were.
by lefty e on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:07 pm
You could single out any part/region of the electorate that differs significantly from the average and make that claim.
It’s really quite meaningless.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I’ve always found that it is losing campigns that bitch about postals. The fact is that people contact political offices of all descriptions looking for postals and having the staff organise it ensures those people get to vote.
Every winning campaign runs an inspired pre post, absentee and postal voting strategy.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Postals last time favoured Labor 61:39. This time so far it is 59.5:40.5. If the postals had split similarly to the rest of the election it would indeed have been line-ball but the record of the last election suggests that was always unrealistic.
If instead we consider what would have happened if the postals to this point had *swung* the same as the remaining votes it is still a 450-500 vote margin on current figures.
by Kevin Bonham on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:19 pm
@ Greensborough Growler 579
No, you are wrong. It’s obviously the “faceless men” of Labor at work again (that everybody seems to know), doing their dastardly deeds.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Bobalot,
I’m a notoriously faceless man of the the ALP and proud to be such.
Decades of membership, Letterboxing, attending meetings, writing letters and posting on PB.
All the mundane things that help our Party to all these lucky wins.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Why the green whining…they got what they usually strive for: 100% of nothing
by Jolyon Wagg on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:31 pm
HE ADMITS IT!
Greensborough Growler should hang his head in shame.
In other news, Adam Brandt is lambasting Labor for winning with ‘conservative’ preferences while his sole reason for being in Parliament is conservative preferences.
I bet that’s Greensborough Growler’s fault as a self admitted FACELESS MAN.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:38 pm
GG@579
I usually disagree with what you have to say but on this one you are 100% correct – it is often illuminating to check adjacent seats – may be both marginal – to see how successful the postal vote organisation (it is not a campaign, it is organisation) has been for one party or another. From what I have seen over the years – the ALP are better than the Libs (though there have been exceptions) – both of whom are miles better than the Greens and minors.
by blackburnpseph on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:52 pm
Bobalot @ 584
Adam Bandt will need upwards of 45% to keep his seat should the Libs decide to preference the ALP at the next federal election.
by blackburnpseph on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Pretty ungracious ‘concession’ by Adam Bandt.
Pretty ironic too that, for someone who was elected on conservative preferences after coming second in the primary vote, he criticises the Labor candidate for doing just that.
by philofsydney on Jul 22, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Labor has control over ‘conservative’ preferences?!
by This little black duck on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:06 pm
I don’t think the do nothing, all values, all principled, handwringing, crying Greens, the party that handed Abbott to the nation, can take any comfort in the Melbourne result.
No matter how many candidates, all votes eventually preference back to Coalition or Labor. In this case, the Green’s vote is comprised of their own 15 percent or so plus all conservo votes.
Forget the Liberal’s condemnation and previous non preferencing of Greens ….. In this by-election it was clearly Labor Vs the rest.
It mattered not one iota to the Libs if Greens had won …. They were only interested in a Labor loss.
Even As I write, the Poodle is on Ch 24 saying that the real result is that Labor really lost, and other Ruddstoration crap.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Did Adam Bandt WANT conservative preferences? If so, what did he do to try and get them? And I thought Melbourne had gone Green, so why would conservative preferences decide the vote?
by zoomster on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Bobalot,
I not only admit it, I revel in it.
BTW, Bookies do have a heart.
http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/melbourne-by-election-run-and-won#.UAuIs2thiK0
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:22 pm
It’s time for clear thinking PBers to understand and state over and over that the Greens gave us Abbott.
But for the Greens, the CPRS would be now quietly sailing along and Minchin’s installation of Abbott would never have occurred. Turnbull would still be LOTO and we would not be the polarised society that Abbott’s pugilism and ideology has created.
Shame on the Greens who put Abbott there, and shame on the greenish /moderate Liberals (the Washers, Moylans etc) who keep him there.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:23 pm
z,
Amazing how if you put out policies that important sections of the electorate don’t like they vote against you.
Obviously, the Greens have never had policies before.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:26 pm
psyclaw – your logic is so twisted that you should win a medal.
1 – It was Rudd, Wong & Turnbull who negotiated the CPRS.
Nothing to do with the Greens, some Liberals didn’t like this, nothing to do with the Greens, the Liberals changed leader.
2 – I seem to recall that the Greens did a deal with Labor to form government. A government that has passed 312 pieces of Labor legislation.
3 – Abbott is only the leader of the opposition.
So a clear-thinking challenge – please explain how you think “the Greens gave us Abbott”.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:28 pm
@ Greensborough Growler (591)
The hilarity of it all
Like they say, it isn’t over until the fat lady sings… or in this case when Adam Bandt has a hypocritical sook.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Bobalot,
I have no problem with the Greens hypocrisy. It’s the the sanctimonious dribblings that peeve me.
Shorter Adam Bandt is “We didn’t win because we didn’t get enough votes”. He had no problem winning his own seat on Lib preferences.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Except that its a type of vote, not a region.
I dont doubt it GG. Sounds like the GRNs need to pick up their act there. On the other other hand, Im with the AEC – its never been clear to me why parties would have a role in postals. This is the only country in the world where they do.
by lefty e on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:40 pm
@ lefty e (597)
I also said “part” of the electorate. People who use postal votes are part of the electorate.
Nitpickery over words aside, my point still stands. The same could be said for any group that differs from the average. They would all be covered by your original statement.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Lefty e – I agree that it is wrong for parties to be able to send out postal vote material.
In my electorate of Higgins it is the Liberals who always send postal vote info before Federal elections.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:47 pm