I think it is the Greens refusing to rule out propping up the Coalition, if they lost a by-election, that cost them this seat. The Current Victorian Government are not too popular at the moment, especially in Melbourne.
GG – If you could step above politics I think it is fairly easy to see why it is more democratic for the AEC to deal with postal votes (as is done in most other countries).
Indeed MWH – both majors are involved. Lets not pretend its all above board either – its more in the line of major party consensus that Australia’s unusual postal vote system works for them:
After each recent election, parliament's joint standing committee on electoral matters has seen the main party representatives team up to outvote the minor party and independent members who would like to change the processes of postal voting
Here’s the money quote. Its all a bit smelly. I was just wondering if this had moved on at all since I last looked into it a few years back.
The main parties send out postal voting application forms to constituents. If the main party candidate is an MP, the public pays for the practice under electoral entitlements. The taxpayer-funded materials contain a host of party propaganda attached to the application form and voters are expected to return the form to the political party, which then forwards the information to the AEC.
Tom – What percentage of registered voters do you think would have even heard of this issue?
Just because those who post on PB follow things closely does not mean that most people do.
Who apart from Labor and Green were handing out HTV cards at most booths? The Greens lost the election on preferences from these parties. There are still many who fill out the HTV card as given without thinking about it.
I fully explained this late last night …… Shows On amplified part of what I said. The “CPRS is bad because it locked in a bad scheme” is a mantra ….. Nothing more nothing less.
It is the Green’s excuse and is not a reason.
Fact is the Greens overplayed their hand … Their usual high principled but unattainable stance. In the end they preferred nothing to something. The something would have been Step 1 and the anti AGW ball would’ve started rolling.
The whole issue of controlling carbon emissions was quite benign in comparison to the present climate.
All praise for Ms Milne’s work on the MPCC but it was too late.
You had already visited Abbott upon us.
Had your mob had one ounce of common sense and half an ounce of pragmatism the Wong McFarlane agreement would not have been created as a target for Minchin’s and his deniers.
Just to restate, the Greens gave us Abbott. Shame!
One can only wonder how Green handwringing, crying, principles, but no action on AS ers will pan out. In the worst scenario the carbon matter will settle and the AS issue will be VIP at the 2013 election.
If this happens, the Greens will then have served up Abbott as PM and Morrison as Minister for Immigration.
You’ve been writing political crap all day and night. So attempts to criticise others for being political on a political blog is rubbish.
The fact is that Parties running the “postal Votes” is a part of our political system as are How to Vote cards and all the traditional things that Greens despise because they perceive them as disadvantaging them.
Are you really saying that no aspect of the CPRS could have been repealed / amended by a future government. That is fairy talk, otherwise known as Green handwringing.
Fact is you blocked Step 1 of who knows what might eventually have merged / will in fact emerge in regard to reducing carbon.
By this you served up the intolerable Abbott and we are all suffering as a result of the Green’s immature, naive, and unconscionable conduct.
Not having learned your lesson, now you continue down the same pathetic path regarding ASs.
GG – Nice to see you aligning with the Liberal logic of Bronwyn Bishop. Her ‘reasoned argument’ against changing the law to make it easier for the young and people who have moved to enrol before an election was simply something like “the current system is the law so it should be respected”.
But isn’t the whole point of politics to make changes to the law?
But to you, just now, the current system is great because it was Labor who could send out the postal forms. As lefty e pointed out, when Labor isn’t in the favoured side then they want the law changed.
But I think you have just given us a great example of Labor values – “nothing to do with principle or fairness”.
psyclaw – Perhaps try reading what I wrote. I explicitly said that parts of the law could be changed.
But the part that cannot be changed is the taking away of property rights without reasonable compensation. That is part of the constitution.
Now I still fail to see how the Greens gave us Abbott.
The bit I left out was that after Abbott become opposition leader Labor could have negotiated with the Greens. As proven by the Carbon Tax, the Greens would have accepted a low initial target and absurd compensation. But they would have insisted on changes so that the bill no longer gave polluters property rights.
Labor refused to negotiate with the Greens. Once again, this was a decision of Labors.
Rationalise to your heart’s content, and when you’ve exhausted your excuses, ask FB to add on a bit more.
Time your mob stops running on the spot on the sidelines and finds the ticker to join the game and actually do something other than handwring, and making excuses.
Nice attempt at misrepresentation. But, you’re talking more rubbish.
There was nothing to stop the Greens sending out postals (which they did). I’ll bet that Bandt and his merry crew will have an advantage at the next Federal election because they will be the office people contact. That’s a reality not a flaw in the system. As I said, the alternative is that these people don’t vote at all.
I’ll give you an example of Greens values “Much ado about nothing”.
Are you dull or just a game player.I’ll spell it out once more.
1) The greens blocked the CPRS, even though (in words)they are an enviro friendly party. Forget the excuses, that’s what you did ….. Sat on your hands.
2) That left the issue alive.
3) This created time and a target for the Liberal deniers to install Abbott.
Why can’t you accept responsibility for your mob’s actions, and move on and do something.
Get off your hands and actually do something about ASs, and stop the fairy talk.
psyclaw – Yes, my whole point is that once you create property rights the government has to compensate.
So if a company is now emitting 100 units of carbon, and you give this company the rights to emit 90 units for free, and have them pay for 10 units, there will be an incentive for them to reduce their emissions. If the reduction target is only 5% then this scheme works well.
But if a later government wants to reduce emissions by 20%, then this can only be done by buying back 10 of the 90 units that were given away. And even though the 90 units were given away, the trading on the 10 units has set a market price. So buying back 10 units would be prohibitively expensive.
This is far more complex than just repeating spin.
The history was that the Liberals installed Abbott BEFORE the legislation was put to parliament. If Turnbull was still the leader then the Liberals would have approved it.
And, as I’ve said before, Labor was unwilling to negotiate with the Greens. As proven by the Carbon Tax negotiations, the Greens are willing to compromise. But back then Labor was not willing to compromise.
That nothing was passed under Rudd is the fault of Labor.
I’ll point out that Rudd’s Labor failed to do anything on climate change. Labor’s failure.
Gillard’s Labor only took action because it was the price demanded by the Greens.
Do you really think that there would be a price on carbon today if Gillard had won in her own right?
So on this issue it is the Greens who achieved something despite the efforts of Labor to first “lock in failure” to “provide certainty to business” under Rudd, and then Gillard’s attempts to defer any action until the next term.
You confuse spin with action. But the Greens got us the Carbon Tax.
MWH
Abbott was installed before the in faith agreement was put to the House …… Yes …. to bomb the agreement so that it COULDN’T be put to the House.
Had the do nothing Greens passed the CPRS months earlier, no need for in faith agreement, no need to bomb the in faith agreement, no need to install a denier LOTO, no need to have Abbott.
You are obviously unprepared to discuss actual facts.
Good luck as you muse your way through the issues still ahead of with fairy talk.
And don’t forget, you can’t wash your hands of future happenings that you cause by your failure to act.
It’s easy ….. support the changes to the Migration Act ….. Disempower Abbott and Morrison, and as an act of restitution send away the LOTO that you gave us.
GG – I think they did. First preferences for Labor – 33.3%, first preference to Green – 36.4%.
And in two party preferred, almost half the voters preferred Green over Labor.
Labor can be pleased that they won the seat. But if they claim that these figures show that Labor have Melbourne’s support, I would hate to see what figures are needed for them to admit that they are in trouble.
pscyalw – have you been taking lessons from climate change deniers.
Many times I’ve pointed out where your facts are WRONG. Yet all you can say to me is “I’m unprepared to discuss actual facts”.
Note that the history of what happened with the CPRS can be told without any value judgements of favouring a political party. Saying that the Greens were responsible for Abbott due to the CPRS has no relationship to this history.
You are so locked in to blindly supporting Labor that you don’t even know what has happened.
I’m just saying that, in my opinion, it is not a result that shows strong community support for Labor.
Maybe you should let Adam Bandt know that there isn’t “strong” community support for him in his electorate since he only managed to win on Liberal preferences.
The Greens getting 2nd on the PV and winning on Liberal preferences = Great victory for the Greens and evidence of strong community support for the Greens.
Labor getting 2nd on the PV and winning on preferences (With defacto Liberal preferences going to the Greens) = Great victory for the Greens and evidence of strong community support for the Greens.
Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
I really respect your efforts here,. the ALP yellers are having a field day. ‘Oh congrats to the ALP who managed a 4.8% swing against with the worst government in Vic in living memory.’
The point you are missing is that the 1% can be put at the feet of the Greens leader. What disasters does this man have to oversea. The ALP are not going to attack him, he is their best asset.
Long term, this is a strategic point, the ALP hard heads are shouting with glee their victory,. listen to them they are telling you something.
The Inner Melbourne problem for the Greens is the Barber/Luntz faction can not be told,. They have protected their backs at the expense of others,. And the expense of the party vote.
This election is not overly important, only 60% turned up, but if the Greens elite refuse to accept that they are not political geniuses then it could become an issue.
Oh and just to renew some old friendships,. Greensboro growler in particular,. the sooner you step back and actually have a look at what is best for the workers that you profess to represent the better.
Could you tell me just what is the short,. medium and long term strategy for your party,.
Tell me where I go wrong,. “Blow the left vote untill they have no option and the Libs totally lose it and then you get the developer donations back, the pokie donations back, (oh and keep the revenue from the dirty 1000 machines,) etc etc./
Now the bet you are making is that the Green voters, will either give up or leave,. just where to I’m not sure,. Do you honestly think they will flock to the Shorten/fitxgibbon ALP./ HAAAAAAa HAAAAAA what a joke,.
Rejoice in your shallow victory, you are giving up on the battlers for the apparent promise of the white cars in ten years,. what a disgrace.
“…the fact is that Parties running the “postal Votes” is a part of our political system as are How to Vote cards and all the traditional things…”
Just a few comments on this if I may. There is nothing traditional about political parties intervening in the postal voting process, which prior to the early 1990s, was the full responsibility of the AEC.
In those days, voters could only obtain postal vote applications directly from the AEC, and they returned them directly to the AEC in order to be issued with the ballot materials, which then had to be filled out and returned to the AEC, post-marked before polling day. This all took a couple of weeks, but there was nobody standing in between the AEC and the voter, and we depended only on the efficiency of our postal service to ensure it was all done on time.
However, the two major political parties have colluded over the past two decades to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to allow political party offices to send out AEC postal vote applications, with political advertising attached, and their own return addresses. The political parties have placed themselves between the AEC and the postal voter, and that is not a good thing, let alone traditional.
The political party offices in each electorate are then supposed to send all the postal vote applications they have received back from voters immediately to the local AEC divisional office, so the ballot materials can be posted by the AEC to the voters in time. However, according to the AEC, some applications forwarded by political party offices come into the AEC in batches, too late for the issuing of ballot materials, and those voters are effectively disenfranchised.
The AEC has also reported its suspicions that some applications do not make it to them at all, either by accident (because the politcal intern, who was supposed to deliver them to the AEC, got sick one day, and they all dropped down behind the desk and nobody noticed), or by design (one can only hope not).
The reason for this relatively recent interference by the political parties in the postal voting system is so that they can build up their computer databases with likely voting intentions, by recording the names and addresses (and any other conveniently visible details) of anyone who sends their postal vote application to them.
The history of these changes to our postal voting system can be followed through the AEC submissions, made after every election, to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The AEC has consistently, for more than a decade now, objected to the direct involvement of poltical parties in the postal voting system.
Anyone who trusts local political staffers with their personal information on postal vote applications is sacrificing their privacy, and probably telegraphing their voting intentions. Australians led the world with the secret ballot and this relatively new intervention by the political parties in the electoral process is a retrograde step. It is not only robbing some people of their vote, and it is also stealing personal information for politically partisan purposes.
Bottom line, if you must vote postal, do it directly with the AEC.
Saw this up-thread. Seriously?? Apart from the ALP having a quite convincing win where they were expected to lose this has got to be about the funniest aspect to this election.
Oh, apart from Brant being a hypocritical tosspot……
the part that cannot be changed is the taking away of property rights without reasonable compensation. That is part of the constitution.
MSW, genuine question (although yes I think Green strategy on climate change has been disastrous for the nation and the planet and I resent all those involved having much to say to anyone about anything but anyway), where did you study constitutional law? Sydney in my case.
on further thought, MWH, never mind the earlier question just answer me this, WTF does the proviso that acquisition of property by the Commonwealth must be on “just” terms (note, for what its worth, not “reasonable” as per your post) have to do with movement from the initial CPRS to something better?
First, a power in the Cth or a Minister to issue free permits etc on a year by year basis hardly creates a property right to continue to receive same in perpetuity.
Second, imposition of additional liabilities to purchase permits or take other actions isnt likely to constitute acquisition of property
Third, did you happen to read the arguments in the tobacco plain packaging cases? The basis of the Commonwealth’s case (which it looks like the HC thinks is soundly based in this respect) is that extinguishment or limitation of a right is not the same thing as the Cth acquiring it for itself. And this is where we get to the “oh the damage done” bit about Green strategy. Its entirely possible that the same argument supports at a legal level the validity of the Abbott approach of scrapping the lot
So, to quote Lilly Allen, f..k you very much to the oh so pure and oh so silly Greens for giving us a very high risk of Abbott PM
MWH is having a lend of readers with his “constitution says can’t take away property rights” crap.
At s51 ss xxxi it is actually provided that the C’w CAN acquire property but must pay fair compo. This ss is positively phrased and talks about what can be done, not what can’t be done. It’s not unsurprising that a Green has difficulty understanding “doing” and confuses it with “not doing”.
But MWH is trying to promote the nonsense that it is unconstitutional for the C’w to acquire property rights.
What is unconstitutional is the C’w doing so without paying fair compo.
This is Green spin …… Greens are the masters of rhetoric but paralysed as far as action is concerned.
@ Greensborough Growler (596)
No doubt, the Green
FACELESS MENfaithful are furiously coming up with excuses why the situations are different.by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:49 pm
MWH,
The Greens declared something wrong, so it must be wrong? More sanctimoniuous bulldust.
The reason the Libs send out the postals is because they have always held the seat and people contact the electoral office.
I dare say that you would prefer these people not vote at all.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Bobalot,
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:54 pm
I think it is the Greens refusing to rule out propping up the Coalition, if they lost a by-election, that cost them this seat. The Current Victorian Government are not too popular at the moment, especially in Melbourne.
by Tom the first and best on Jul 22, 2012 at 3:59 pm
GG – If you could step above politics I think it is fairly easy to see why it is more democratic for the AEC to deal with postal votes (as is done in most other countries).
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Indeed MWH – both majors are involved. Lets not pretend its all above board either – its more in the line of major party consensus that Australia’s unusual postal vote system works for them:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/parties-allowed-to-hijack-postal-votes/story-e6frg6zo-1225787722798
by lefty e on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Here’s the money quote. Its all a bit smelly. I was just wondering if this had moved on at all since I last looked into it a few years back.
by lefty e on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Tom – What percentage of registered voters do you think would have even heard of this issue?
Just because those who post on PB follow things closely does not mean that most people do.
Who apart from Labor and Green were handing out HTV cards at most booths? The Greens lost the election on preferences from these parties. There are still many who fill out the HTV card as given without thinking about it.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:12 pm
MWH
I fully explained this late last night …… Shows On amplified part of what I said. The “CPRS is bad because it locked in a bad scheme” is a mantra ….. Nothing more nothing less.
It is the Green’s excuse and is not a reason.
Fact is the Greens overplayed their hand … Their usual high principled but unattainable stance. In the end they preferred nothing to something. The something would have been Step 1 and the anti AGW ball would’ve started rolling.
The whole issue of controlling carbon emissions was quite benign in comparison to the present climate.
All praise for Ms Milne’s work on the MPCC but it was too late.
You had already visited Abbott upon us.
Had your mob had one ounce of common sense and half an ounce of pragmatism the Wong McFarlane agreement would not have been created as a target for Minchin’s and his deniers.
Just to restate, the Greens gave us Abbott. Shame!
One can only wonder how Green handwringing, crying, principles, but no action on AS ers will pan out. In the worst scenario the carbon matter will settle and the AS issue will be VIP at the 2013 election.
If this happens, the Greens will then have served up Abbott as PM and Morrison as Minister for Immigration.
That’ll be another feather in the Green’s cap.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm
The public pays for the sitting party to send out postal info plus party propaganda, and Greensborough Growler thinks this is as it should be!
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Postal vote or not, at the end of the day you vote for who you wish.
by Dee on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:17 pm
I wonder if any Green supporters can explain Adam Bandt’s hypocritical dummy spit?
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:17 pm
MWH,
You’ve been writing political crap all day and night. So attempts to criticise others for being political on a political blog is rubbish.
The fact is that Parties running the “postal Votes” is a part of our political system as are How to Vote cards and all the traditional things that Greens despise because they perceive them as disadvantaging them.
It’s nothing to do with principle or fairness.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:17 pm
psyclaw – My reason is wrong because you say it “is a mantra ….. Nothing more nothing less. It is the Green’s excuse and is not a reason.”
Maybe you don’t agree with my reasoning. So lets discuss why.
Or are you so locked in to Labor spin that you can no longer present a reasoned argument?
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:19 pm
MWH @ 547
Are you really saying that no aspect of the CPRS could have been repealed / amended by a future government. That is fairy talk, otherwise known as Green handwringing.
Fact is you blocked Step 1 of who knows what might eventually have merged / will in fact emerge in regard to reducing carbon.
By this you served up the intolerable Abbott and we are all suffering as a result of the Green’s immature, naive, and unconscionable conduct.
Not having learned your lesson, now you continue down the same pathetic path regarding ASs.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:25 pm
GG – Nice to see you aligning with the Liberal logic of Bronwyn Bishop. Her ‘reasoned argument’ against changing the law to make it easier for the young and people who have moved to enrol before an election was simply something like “the current system is the law so it should be respected”.
But isn’t the whole point of politics to make changes to the law?
But to you, just now, the current system is great because it was Labor who could send out the postal forms. As lefty e pointed out, when Labor isn’t in the favoured side then they want the law changed.
But I think you have just given us a great example of Labor values – “nothing to do with principle or fairness”.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:25 pm
psyclaw – Perhaps try reading what I wrote. I explicitly said that parts of the law could be changed.
But the part that cannot be changed is the taking away of property rights without reasonable compensation. That is part of the constitution.
Now I still fail to see how the Greens gave us Abbott.
The bit I left out was that after Abbott become opposition leader Labor could have negotiated with the Greens. As proven by the Carbon Tax, the Greens would have accepted a low initial target and absurd compensation. But they would have insisted on changes so that the bill no longer gave polluters property rights.
Labor refused to negotiate with the Greens. Once again, this was a decision of Labors.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:30 pm
MWH
My paragraph 3 @608 says it all.
Rationalise to your heart’s content, and when you’ve exhausted your excuses, ask FB to add on a bit more.
Time your mob stops running on the spot on the sidelines and finds the ticker to join the game and actually do something other than handwring, and making excuses.
Time the Greens grew up.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:30 pm
MWH,
Nice attempt at misrepresentation. But, you’re talking more rubbish.
There was nothing to stop the Greens sending out postals (which they did). I’ll bet that Bandt and his merry crew will have an advantage at the next Federal election because they will be the office people contact. That’s a reality not a flaw in the system. As I said, the alternative is that these people don’t vote at all.
I’ll give you an example of Greens values “Much ado about nothing”.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:31 pm
MWH
“The taking away of property rights without compensation”
This happens all the time in various areas of life. The government takes the rights and pays the compensation.
As I said ….. such is your excuse…… a straw man no less.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:34 pm
psyclaw – the world I live in had Labor negotiating with Liberals (under Turnbull) on the CPRS with the Greens totally excluded.
Please explain how in your world the Greens had anything to do with what happened within the Liberal party.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm
My Say
Are you around?
by Dee on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:38 pm
MWH
Are you dull or just a game player.I’ll spell it out once more.
1) The greens blocked the CPRS, even though (in words)they are an enviro friendly party. Forget the excuses, that’s what you did ….. Sat on your hands.
2) That left the issue alive.
3) This created time and a target for the Liberal deniers to install Abbott.
Why can’t you accept responsibility for your mob’s actions, and move on and do something.
Get off your hands and actually do something about ASs, and stop the fairy talk.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:43 pm
psyclaw – Yes, my whole point is that once you create property rights the government has to compensate.
So if a company is now emitting 100 units of carbon, and you give this company the rights to emit 90 units for free, and have them pay for 10 units, there will be an incentive for them to reduce their emissions. If the reduction target is only 5% then this scheme works well.
But if a later government wants to reduce emissions by 20%, then this can only be done by buying back 10 of the 90 units that were given away. And even though the 90 units were given away, the trading on the 10 units has set a market price. So buying back 10 units would be prohibitively expensive.
This is far more complex than just repeating spin.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:44 pm
psyclaw – you really have no idea.
The history was that the Liberals installed Abbott BEFORE the legislation was put to parliament. If Turnbull was still the leader then the Liberals would have approved it.
And, as I’ve said before, Labor was unwilling to negotiate with the Greens. As proven by the Carbon Tax negotiations, the Greens are willing to compromise. But back then Labor was not willing to compromise.
That nothing was passed under Rudd is the fault of Labor.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm
MWH
Unlike you and your’s I’m interested in getting things done rather than wringing my hands as to why they can’t be done.
Compensation that must be paid is paid, and the courts enforce this, every day of the week, simple or complex, big amounts and small amounts.
But …… Talking about actually doing things is a foreign language to your mob …… Sideliners, handwringers, fairy talkers.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:51 pm
So you ignore all my points.
I’ll point out that Rudd’s Labor failed to do anything on climate change. Labor’s failure.
Gillard’s Labor only took action because it was the price demanded by the Greens.
Do you really think that there would be a price on carbon today if Gillard had won in her own right?
So on this issue it is the Greens who achieved something despite the efforts of Labor to first “lock in failure” to “provide certainty to business” under Rudd, and then Gillard’s attempts to defer any action until the next term.
You confuse spin with action. But the Greens got us the Carbon Tax.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:57 pm
MWH
Abbott was installed before the in faith agreement was put to the House …… Yes …. to bomb the agreement so that it COULDN’T be put to the House.
Had the do nothing Greens passed the CPRS months earlier, no need for in faith agreement, no need to bomb the in faith agreement, no need to install a denier LOTO, no need to have Abbott.
Accept your responsibility.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:58 pm
psyclaw,
The Greens are in favour of a bottom of the ocean AS policy.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 4:59 pm
GG
Yep.
Followed by the mandatory tears and handwrining.
Then follows words in biblical proportion about how it wasn’t their fault.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:01 pm
And 70% of Labor voters think that Labor is responsible for the failure to make progress on AS.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:02 pm
MWH,
Yeah, those poll results really showed up in Melbourne.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:08 pm
MWH
You are obviously unprepared to discuss actual facts.
Good luck as you muse your way through the issues still ahead of with fairy talk.
And don’t forget, you can’t wash your hands of future happenings that you cause by your failure to act.
It’s easy ….. support the changes to the Migration Act ….. Disempower Abbott and Morrison, and as an act of restitution send away the LOTO that you gave us.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm
GG – I think they did. First preferences for Labor – 33.3%, first preference to Green – 36.4%.
And in two party preferred, almost half the voters preferred Green over Labor.
Labor can be pleased that they won the seat. But if they claim that these figures show that Labor have Melbourne’s support, I would hate to see what figures are needed for them to admit that they are in trouble.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:10 pm
pscyalw – have you been taking lessons from climate change deniers.
Many times I’ve pointed out where your facts are WRONG. Yet all you can say to me is “I’m unprepared to discuss actual facts”.
Note that the history of what happened with the CPRS can be told without any value judgements of favouring a political party. Saying that the Greens were responsible for Abbott due to the CPRS has no relationship to this history.
You are so locked in to blindly supporting Labor that you don’t even know what has happened.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:14 pm
You have to love the Whine of Pyne! wtte, “Labor must crushed at the result!”
by This little black duck on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:17 pm
MWH,
Labor’s Primary held up and the Greens were bolstered by Libs. Preferences gave the seat to Labor.
$250k incinerated for no result. Greens no chance when the Libs preference agaisnt them at the next election. Bandt screwed.
That’s the system. You probably want to portray that as another electoral outrage.
by Greensborough Growler on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I’m just saying that, in my opinion, it is not a result that shows strong community support for Labor.
by Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH) on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Maybe you should let Adam Bandt know that there isn’t “strong” community support for him in his electorate since he only managed to win on Liberal preferences.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Logic of a Green’s supporter:
The Greens getting 2nd on the PV and winning on Liberal preferences = Great victory for the Greens and evidence of strong community support for the Greens.
Labor getting 2nd on the PV and winning on preferences (With defacto Liberal preferences going to the Greens) = Great victory for the Greens and evidence of strong community support for the Greens.
Apparently this makes sense.
by Bobalot on Jul 22, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Michael Wilbur-Ham (MWH)
I really respect your efforts here,. the ALP yellers are having a field day. ‘Oh congrats to the ALP who managed a 4.8% swing against with the worst government in Vic in living memory.’
The point you are missing is that the 1% can be put at the feet of the Greens leader. What disasters does this man have to oversea. The ALP are not going to attack him, he is their best asset.
Long term, this is a strategic point, the ALP hard heads are shouting with glee their victory,. listen to them they are telling you something.
The Inner Melbourne problem for the Greens is the Barber/Luntz faction can not be told,. They have protected their backs at the expense of others,. And the expense of the party vote.
This election is not overly important, only 60% turned up, but if the Greens elite refuse to accept that they are not political geniuses then it could become an issue.
by Barking on Jul 22, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Oh and just to renew some old friendships,. Greensboro growler in particular,. the sooner you step back and actually have a look at what is best for the workers that you profess to represent the better.
Could you tell me just what is the short,. medium and long term strategy for your party,.
Tell me where I go wrong,. “Blow the left vote untill they have no option and the Libs totally lose it and then you get the developer donations back, the pokie donations back, (oh and keep the revenue from the dirty 1000 machines,) etc etc./
Now the bet you are making is that the Green voters, will either give up or leave,. just where to I’m not sure,. Do you honestly think they will flock to the Shorten/fitxgibbon ALP./ HAAAAAAa HAAAAAA what a joke,.
Rejoice in your shallow victory, you are giving up on the battlers for the apparent promise of the white cars in ten years,. what a disgrace.
by Barking on Jul 22, 2012 at 6:33 pm
“…the fact is that Parties running the “postal Votes” is a part of our political system as are How to Vote cards and all the traditional things…”
Just a few comments on this if I may. There is nothing traditional about political parties intervening in the postal voting process, which prior to the early 1990s, was the full responsibility of the AEC.
In those days, voters could only obtain postal vote applications directly from the AEC, and they returned them directly to the AEC in order to be issued with the ballot materials, which then had to be filled out and returned to the AEC, post-marked before polling day. This all took a couple of weeks, but there was nobody standing in between the AEC and the voter, and we depended only on the efficiency of our postal service to ensure it was all done on time.
However, the two major political parties have colluded over the past two decades to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act to allow political party offices to send out AEC postal vote applications, with political advertising attached, and their own return addresses. The political parties have placed themselves between the AEC and the postal voter, and that is not a good thing, let alone traditional.
The political party offices in each electorate are then supposed to send all the postal vote applications they have received back from voters immediately to the local AEC divisional office, so the ballot materials can be posted by the AEC to the voters in time. However, according to the AEC, some applications forwarded by political party offices come into the AEC in batches, too late for the issuing of ballot materials, and those voters are effectively disenfranchised.
The AEC has also reported its suspicions that some applications do not make it to them at all, either by accident (because the politcal intern, who was supposed to deliver them to the AEC, got sick one day, and they all dropped down behind the desk and nobody noticed), or by design (one can only hope not).
The reason for this relatively recent interference by the political parties in the postal voting system is so that they can build up their computer databases with likely voting intentions, by recording the names and addresses (and any other conveniently visible details) of anyone who sends their postal vote application to them.
The history of these changes to our postal voting system can be followed through the AEC submissions, made after every election, to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The AEC has consistently, for more than a decade now, objected to the direct involvement of poltical parties in the postal voting system.
Anyone who trusts local political staffers with their personal information on postal vote applications is sacrificing their privacy, and probably telegraphing their voting intentions. Australians led the world with the secret ballot and this relatively new intervention by the political parties in the electoral process is a retrograde step. It is not only robbing some people of their vote, and it is also stealing personal information for politically partisan purposes.
Bottom line, if you must vote postal, do it directly with the AEC.
by susan winstanley on Jul 22, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Psephos @ 49
haha… just noticed.
Obviously I’m more progressive than I thought.
by Gecko on Jul 22, 2012 at 7:08 pm
http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/melbourne-by-election-run-and-won#.UAvD1GF-TTq
Saw this up-thread. Seriously?? Apart from the ALP having a quite convincing win where they were expected to lose
this has got to be about the funniest aspect to this election.
Oh, apart from Brant being a hypocritical tosspot……
by imacca on Jul 22, 2012 at 7:15 pm
MSW, genuine question (although yes I think Green strategy on climate change has been disastrous for the nation and the planet and I resent all those involved having much to say to anyone about anything but anyway), where did you study constitutional law? Sydney in my case.
by Marrickville Mauler on Jul 22, 2012 at 7:24 pm
slip of the pen there, meant MWH obviously …
by Marrickville Mauler on Jul 22, 2012 at 7:25 pm
on further thought, MWH, never mind the earlier question just answer me this, WTF does the proviso that acquisition of property by the Commonwealth must be on “just” terms (note, for what its worth, not “reasonable” as per your post) have to do with movement from the initial CPRS to something better?
First, a power in the Cth or a Minister to issue free permits etc on a year by year basis hardly creates a property right to continue to receive same in perpetuity.
Second, imposition of additional liabilities to purchase permits or take other actions isnt likely to constitute acquisition of property
Third, did you happen to read the arguments in the tobacco plain packaging cases? The basis of the Commonwealth’s case (which it looks like the HC thinks is soundly based in this respect) is that extinguishment or limitation of a right is not the same thing as the Cth acquiring it for itself. And this is where we get to the “oh the damage done” bit about Green strategy. Its entirely possible that the same argument supports at a legal level the validity of the Abbott approach of scrapping the lot
So, to quote Lilly Allen, f..k you very much to the oh so pure and oh so silly Greens for giving us a very high risk of Abbott PM
by Marrickville Mauler on Jul 22, 2012 at 7:53 pm
MM
MWH is having a lend of readers with his “constitution says can’t take away property rights” crap.
At s51 ss xxxi it is actually provided that the C’w CAN acquire property but must pay fair compo. This ss is positively phrased and talks about what can be done, not what can’t be done. It’s not unsurprising that a Green has difficulty understanding “doing” and confuses it with “not doing”.
But MWH is trying to promote the nonsense that it is unconstitutional for the C’w to acquire property rights.
What is unconstitutional is the C’w doing so without paying fair compo.
This is Green spin …… Greens are the masters of rhetoric but paralysed as far as action is concerned.
Sydney for me too.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 8:00 pm
MM @ 647
Meatloaf …… You took the words right out of my mouth, while I was busy doing 648.
by psyclaw on Jul 22, 2012 at 8:04 pm