2007 Federal Election - Coalition or Labor/Howard or Rudd? (2 Viewers)

[Generator]

So, is the party over?

An excellent opinion piece. Everyone should read it and pass it on. Well, everyone who's OK with the idea of a party of the centre to centre-left acting as a voice of compromise in the Senate should pass it on, that is. Senators Murray and Stott Despoja may be retiring, but the Australian Democrats should still have the ability to be an effective voice of reason (if they are given the chance).

Also, for those out there who may be wondering whether there is any point in giving a minor party their first preference, I suggest that you take note of the following -

Election funding

Candidates receive election funding if they obtain at least four percent of the first preference vote

A candidate or Senate group is eligible for election funding if they obtain at least four per cent of the formal first preference votes in the division or the State/Territory they contested. The amount to be paid is calculated by multiplying the number of votes obtained by the current election funding rate. The funding rate for the 2004 election was 194.397 cents per eligible vote. This rate is indexed every six months to increases in the Consumer Price Index.

Election funding is paid in two stages. First, the AEC calculates the amount of election funding due based on the number of votes counted as at the 20th day after election day and pays at least 95% of that amount. Secondly, once vote counting is finalised, the AEC pays the remainder of the amount of election funding due. The total election funding paid at the 2004 federal election was $41 926 158.91. For candidates and Senate groups endorsed by registered political parties, payments are made directly to their parties. Unendorsed candidates and Senate groups receive their payments direct, unless they have appointed an agent who is to receive the payment.

Source: AEC (see this link for the distribution of funding following the 2004 election).

Voting for a minor party need not always be a futile gesture - every first preference helps.


Well, that's more than enough time at the pulpit for me.

 

[Iron]

Do mine eyes decieve me? Generator back from the dead??

 

[Generator]

Do mine eyes decieve me? Generator back from the dead??

I've been here in spirit for some time .

I received a PM asking for info regarding my major, so I thought that I'd pop into NCAP and say hello.

---

Don't go, PM begs retiring Liberals

I for one will not be saddened to see Jackie Kelly retire. The Labor candidate for Lindsay may be a two time failure, but I'm fairly certain that he'll perform well if (no, make that when) he takes the seat for the ALP.

 

[Iron]

I've been here in spirit for some time .

I received a PM asking for info regarding my major, so I thought that I'd pop into NCAP and say hello.

Well it's good to have your warming glow.
I've got a lot of love for you man, and when you left the hurt was so deep.
...
So, who do we think the gay minister is? At a guess, id say McGauran or Pine.

 

[jb_nc]

Well it's good to have your warming glow.
I've got a lot of love for you man, and when you left the hurt was so deep.
...
So, who do we think the gay minister is? At a guess, id say McGauran or Pine.

The smear was on Christopher Pyne... it was nothing really, there was an Australian blog site that release the "dirt file" (http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/) and I think most of the journalists in the Gallery were like, "so, who cares?" but Glen Milne was thought it must have been ground breaking evidence but most people in the gallery said it had been circulating for a while.. Pretty lame.

Here's a LOL GREENS (Vote Democrat) article:

Bob Brown is a brilliant politician with an incredible knack for getting himself heard by the media. He probably believes in most of what he has to say.

But he's a lousy legislator. Of the nearly 2000 bills that have passed the Senate since the Howard Government came to power in 1996, Brown has had a material effect on one of them: a bill to set up the Constitutional Convention.

Brown has little taste for committee work and he has displayed absolutely no interest in negotiating to get bills through.

He either votes "no" or doesn't bother to turn up.

One example that springs to mind is that of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999, which has become the main legal weapon used by environmentalists to stop developments they fear will harm the environment.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/so-is-the-party-over/2007/09/22/1189881833182.html

Yeah, they suck.

 

[Iron]

The smear was on Christopher Pyne... it was nothing really, there was an Australian blog site that release the "dirt file" (http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/) and I think most of the journalists in the Gallery were like, "so, who cares?" but Glen Milne was thought it must have been ground breaking evidence but most people in the gallery said it had been circulating for a while.. Pretty lame.

Here's a LOL GREENS (Vote Democrat) article:


http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/so-is-the-party-over/2007/09/22/1189881833182.html

Yeah, they suck.

Pyne! Hahaha. That's so convincing, what with his silly voice and so on, cough,

Yeah the Greens cop it a bit for their refusal to compromise. But I think that that's pretty important to their support - look at what happened when the Democrats made senisble deals with the government over the GST.
There's interesting speculation that they may be crucial to a Rudd government, and will be significantly pressured to water down the radicalism.
At any rate, they'll no doubt cave in once Brown goes.

 

[jb_nc]

Yeah the Greens cop it a bit for their refusal to compromise. But I think that that's pretty important to their support - look at what happened when the Democrats made senisble deals with the government over the GST.
There's interesting speculation that they may be crucial to a Rudd government, and will be significantly pressured to water down the radicalism.
At any rate, they'll no doubt cave in once Brown goes.

I don't think once Brown goes they will open up to being the go-between party. All their substance is in their ideology which, at the best of times, is not in the interests of the Australian majority at all. e.g. cutting carbon emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2020 or whatever is completely nuts. For comparison, Europe has a meagre target of around 40% on 1990 and after the Soviet Union's collapse their emissions fell by 10% or something and they still won't be able to keep up with that target.

The Victorian Labor party had a "smear" website up on the Greens saying the vote around ~80% with the Liberals, I don't really think they have much interest in being the mediating party like the role the Democrats filled (and the role they claim they will fill). IMO they are far self-serving and out for their own interests. e.g. they are preferencing Liberals (pro-workchoices) above Family First (anti-workchoices) in the Senate which does seem like "their" interests above the general Australian population for a party who claims to be passionately anti-Workchoices.

I think the Dems will go down hard this election, Senator Bartlett will probably lose his seat to the joke of a woman Pauline Hanson; imo I'm disappointed she didn't get a shank in prison. Stott Despoja is retiring. It will be a sad day for this country when then Democrats are gone and completely replaced by Greens.

 

[Graney]

IMO they are far self-serving and out for their own interests. e.g. they are preferencing Liberals (pro-workchoices) above Family First (anti-workchoices) in the Senate which does seem like "their" interests above the general Australian population for a party who claims to be passionately anti-Workchoices.

Family first are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, oppose harm-reduction policies, have no real environmental policy, endorse censorship of pornography and have repeatedly publicly clashed with the greens in a way no other party has. The two parties are in direct competition for senate preferences.

Workplace relations are not a major issue of the greens policy. Social policies are a major policy and Family first has a stronger ideological opposition to greens social policy than the Liberals.

They're representing the issues that matter most to the greens constituency.

Family First are only want amendments to AWA's anyway.

Senator Bartlett will probably lose his seat to the joke of a woman Pauline Hanson

Hasn't she not declared which seat she's going for? The democrats are already gone anyway, doesn't matter.

 

[jb_nc]

Family first are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, oppose harm-reduction policies, have no real environmental policy, endorse censorship of pornography and have repeatedly publicly clashed with the greens in a way no other party has. The two parties are in direct competition for senate preferences.

Workplace relations are not a major issue of the greens policy. Social policies are a major policy and Family first has a stronger ideological opposition to greens social policy than the Liberals.

They're representing the issues that matter most to the greens constituency.

Family First are only want amendments to AWA's anyway.

Let's elect a Senator from a party with no economic policies Who cares about people's jobs/livelihoods, save the TREES duder! lol, if you want to get me running on their mental policies (including stop exporting to China) they are indeed the Loony Left. Also did you pull what you wrote there off the Greens propaganda website?

"Workplace relations are not a major issue of the greens policy."

Greens commit to "ripping up" WorkChoices - http://wa.greens.org.au/items/Media_Release.2007-09-05.1004
Shred the unfair WorkChoices law - http://www.greens.org.au/shredworkchoices
Greens industrial relations election platform - Fireproof NSW workers from WorkChoices - http://nsw.greens.org.au/media-cent...atform-fireproof-nsw-workers-from-workchoices
"Kevin Rudd's backflip on key elements of his party's workplace policy means the Greens are now the only party in Australia to support the internationally recognised rights to bargain collectively and for union representatives to visit workplaces." - http://www.vic.greens.org.au/media/...udds-decision-to-retain-workchoices-condemned
Rally against Workchoices - http://www.vic.greens.org.au/get-in...ptember-2007-events/rally-against-workchoices
Two hands needed to rip up WorkChoices - http://nsw.greens.org.au/media-centre/news-releases/two-hands-needed-to-rip-up-workchoices
About 120 results matching "WorkChoices" - http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:nsw.greens.org.au+greens+workchoices

Nope, industrial relations is most certainly not a major issue of the Greens policy!

n.b. I don't think you realise how the Senate works tbh.

Hasn't she not declared which seat she's going for? The democrats are already gone anyway, doesn't matter.

She's running for the Senate not the Commons.

 

[Graney]

Let's elect a Senator from a party with no economic policies Who cares about people's jobs/livelihoods, save the TREES duder! lol, if you want to get me running on their mental policies (including stop exporting to China) they are indeed the Loony Left. Also did you pull what you wrote there off the Greens propaganda website?

I agree, conditionally. I vote for the greens based on their social activism. I think they have a real potential for influence in this area. I'm environmentally and economically moderate, and don't endorse all their policies in this area.

They will not form government, so I'm not really worried about their economic policies. It's not like they're really going to be able to stop mining in Australia. But they may help legalise civil unions for gay couples et al.

If they had a prospect of affecting a major downturn in the economy after the next election, I would think differently.

"Workplace relations are not a major issue of the greens policy."

Nope, industrial relations is most certainly not a major issue of the Greens policy!

Fair call on the google links, I realise it is a policy of theirs, I meant it was not major, in the sense that it does not differentiate the greens from labor and others in the eyes of voters.

n.b. I don't think you realise how the Senate works tbh.

tbh, no. Most Australian don't. I understand some aspects of the role of the senate.

 

[williams180]

So, is the party over?

. Well, everyone who's OK with the idea of a party of the centre to centre-left acting as a voice of compromise in the Senate

wat a joke centre to centre left they should go to some welfare state if they think left wing propaganda is the way a country should be democratically run. Bunch of lunatics. I heard that despoja chick saying that people who are pregnant and cant work should be getting more money from government for up to twelve months what an absolute joke

 

[williams180]

Let's elect a Senator from a party with no economic policies Who cares about people's jobs/livelihoods, save the TREES duder! lol, if you want to get me running on their mental policies (including stop exporting to China) they are indeed the Loony Left. Also did you pull what you wrote there off the Greens propaganda website?

lol haha its funny cause those 'loony left' people believe that lol. Absolute disgrace the greens are personally i believe i could start a party write now and make more sense and more progress then they have ever made. What a joke environment before people.

 

[jb_nc]

I agree, conditionally. I vote for the greens based on their social activism. I think they have a real potential for influence in this area. I'm environmentally and economically moderate, and don't endorse all their policies in this area.

If they had a prospect of affecting a major downturn in the economy after the next election, I would think differently.

If you vote purely on social issues, then yeah, I can see why you'd vote Greens, I vote on social issues too, but the Democrats have the exact same social views of small l-liberals with more sensible economics and the same regard for the environment.

They will not form government, so I'm not really worried about their economic policies. It's not like they're really going to be able to stop mining in Australia. But they may help legalise civil unions for gay couples et al.

Greens do seek seats in the Reps however, they are actively campaigning (time and resources) in safe seats like Melbourne (Lindsay Tanner's seat) for the House, when if they're the party they say they are, they should be campaigning in Liberal safe seats with Green votes.

Fair call on the google links, I realise it is a policy of theirs, I meant it was not major, in the sense that it does not differentiate the greens from labor and others in the eyes of voters.

When you actively campaign on being anti-Workchoices then preference the anti-WC party above the pro, I think it's a sell-out. Keep in mind also, that Greens preference Liberals higher than Labor in something like 30 per cent of House of Rep seats.

 

[Triangulum]

Greens do seek seats in the Reps however, they are actively campaigning (time and resources) in safe seats like Melbourne (Lindsay Tanner's seat) for the House, when if they're the party they say they are, they should be campaigning in Liberal safe seats with Green votes.

But they aren't, realistically, ever going to get anywhere near the primary required to win in a safe Liberal seat. So why bother? The reason that they target Labor seats - a specific type of inner-city Labor seat, which tilt significantly to the left - is because in these seats they can (at least in theory) get a high enough primary vote to be within striking distance of winning on preferences.

Incidentally, last election they campaigned in two safe Liberal seats that I'm aware of - Bennelong and Mayo. Arguably the two campaigns were quixotic, and were more a plea for national attention than anything (hence the use of 'celebrity' candidates), but they put a fair bit of money into them iirc.

 

[jb_nc]

Oops, I meant marginal seats. Freudian slip?

Yeah, they campaigned in Bennelong. Some Exclusive Brethren henchmen went down to stand-over Andrew Wilkie (who basically typified the "mindless hatred of John Howard" party voter) at a speaking engagement.

 

[Enteebee]

I've parked my vote with the liberals now, my preference would be for a close election won by the liberals (if only because if the liberals lose they'll probably be significantly weakened as an opposition anyway). Interestingly the libs are doing much better in this election with BOSers than they have in the past (where the greens equalled their polling), odd considering how much the general electorate has turned on them.

 

[Rafy]

Costello lets cat out of bag — poll on Nov 24

 

[lala2]

Ever since Rudd got elected to Opposition Leader, Howard has aged at an exponentially faster rate than he has with any of the previous Labour leaders that have gone through his terms. I think Rudd is going to give him a really hard time at this election. I still vote Howard though, Rudd doesn't look like he's got much spine or the charisma to run this country the way it should be run (imagine him ruling the country on the basis of the unions, which are very powerful!). Though I admit Rudd has more more popular and personal appeal, especially with his successful Facebook, YouTube and MySpace campaigns.

 

[Triangulum]

Labor widens lead in latest poll

Edit: But Christopher Pyne isn't worried. Not at all!

 

[iEdd]

BOS poll:
ALP - 62%, LIB - 38% [by disregarding the other votes]

Australian Newspoll
ALP - 56%, LIB - 44%

It's hard to know what to make of these polls though.