Election Wrap - 4 October

Jakez, perhaps you could explain your exasperation with my views?

Thanks.

Passy said :

So I am forced into Hobson’s choice. For me personally that means voting Green because socially they reflect my more libertarian views and they at least have a clue about the environmental problems.

ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

disenfranchised said :

Gun Street girl – if I could respond to your comment above regarding “that’s the mentality…etc”. Osborne got up because of his reputation as a Raiders footballer. He was in fact a right wing politician with strong christian values who took a very conservative line on issues. My point is that the majority of the people just want candidates to be small l in outlook, ie not too right wing or too left wing in outlook. There is plenty of room between the extremes. That may not be a fashionable view. I contend it represents political reality.

Also I didn’t suggest being a nice bloke, family man or football watcher were the criteria for selection. I used a term – a common sense approach. I reckon it never goes astray.

Boomacat: being on radio doesn’t disqualify you either for seeking political office.

You might ask if Zed’s not running a rather similar campaign,

sepi said :

In the absence of a party, we have no idea what someone like Mark Parton’s stance is on health funding, roads, or even public art.

I don’t think he’s in favour of the GDE artwork – we can ascertain that from the ads on telly. Apart from that, I don’t know what he stands for, either. I think he’s gone down on the record as having said he doesn’t have policies, because he’s an independent – that he wants to pick over what all the major parties have to say, and choose the best option (or blend them, if possible). Problem is, it’s asking a lot of the public to trust somebody to make the best – and most unbiased – decision on their behalf, particularly if you are not upfront about where you stand before you hold office. It’s not enough to simply present yourself as a nice, affable bloke if you’re putting your hand up for that sort of responsibility.

For mine ‘substance’ equates to either a relevant background/experience, or some public statements about their policies, or even their political leanings.

In the absence of a party, we have no idea what someone like Mark Parton’s stance is on health funding, roads, or even public art.

Kitchen Man – I agree with the thrust of your comments, particularly with regard to the issue of “substance”. From my perspective some of the candidates look like they have just come straight out of university. By the way I have never met Mark Parton. But I have no problem with him having been on radio earning a living. Given the power of the fourth estate in Australian politics that is probably useful background. So he trades on his name – welcome to Hare-Clarke!

Gun street girl. I did actually say Osborn got in because of his football credentials. Most who voted for him probably had no idea that he was a right wing politician with a strong set of Christian values.

Thumper, it’s not just Mark. All of a sudden these gnomes appear every four years trying to buy my vote with inane slogans like getting it done (whatever it is) and standing tall for whatever. And waving inanely to me from teh side of the Parkway. Then they disappear for another four years.

Personally voting tweedlee dee or tweedle dum is not much of a choice. All I ever hear every four years is how they have fixed or will fix health, education, transport etc while doing the exact opposite.

So I am forced into Hobson’s choice. For me personally that means voting Green because socially they reflect my more libertarian views and they at least have a clue about the environmental problems. I used to always vote Labor because no matter how warped the connection, they at least had some links to the working class. No more.

Parliamentary cretinism dominates everything, as if managing the system is somehow being in charge of it when most of the economic decisions – who is employed, at what wages etc – are made elsewhere.

Anyway, others will have different views obviously, but my criticism of Mark applies equally to CAP, Pangallo independents, Canberra party etc.

I have to laugh whenever I hear the ‘socialist’ viewpoint expressed, for 2 reasons:

1) The people expressing the view are almost always students who have never had to work full time and genuinely support themselves, and have never missed a meal in their lives. Most of these people have no real memory of what working was like before the mid 90’s, when our period of unprecended prosperity started.

2) The world is currently experiencing a major shift in wealth, particularly towards some developing countries. This means that many ‘rich’ countries will naturally experience a drop in living standards (especially those people who demand luxuries and travel, and don’t earn enough to pay cash).

In a similar vein, I suspect that the Greens have gotten more play in recent years, simply because there aren’t the same pressing issues that we dealt with in days gone by. Frankly, I think the Greens are useless idiots, with very little grip on most peoples’ reality. Saving the trees is great, but wait until people have to choose between trees and feeding their kids.

Don’t get me wrong, because I’m not being critical. I just want to know what that bit more of substance is. And the question isn’t directed just at you Thumper. What is the bit more substance that’s required. Is it chasing the Japanese on a Greenpeace ship ? Is it working in media relations with the CFMEU ? Is it working for the last 8 years for a local politician and being effectively a ‘machine politician’ before you start. Is it being yet another Lawyer in the Assembly or is it having a number of university degrees. What is it exactly that tells you someone is much more suited than another to represent the people in the Assembly.

disenfranchised said :

Gun Street girl – if I could respond to your comment above regarding “that’s the mentality…etc”. Osborne got up because of his reputation as a Raiders footballer. He was in fact a right wing politician with strong christian values who took a very conservative line on issues. My point is that the majority of the people just want candidates to be small l in outlook, ie not too right wing or too left wing in outlook. There is plenty of room between the extremes. That may not be a fashionable view. I contend it represents political reality.

Ah, but do you reckon he got elected because of his right wing views, or because he performed so well in the Grand Final? I reckon the right wing politics got swept under the carpet in favour of voting in a football hero who seemed like a pretty ordinary kind of bloke – the sort of guy you could invite around for a BBQ and a beer. The right wing politics came back to bite us in the backside later. What’s to say the same thing won’t happen with other independents?

Also I didn’t suggest being a nice bloke, family man or football watcher were the criteria for selection. I used a term – a common sense approach. I reckon it never goes astray.

No, you certainly didn’t suggest that. Parton’s campaign seems to be suggesting that – which is what I was getting at. He wants to be our “voice of reason”. Why vote for him? Well, as far as I can see (on his website and ad campaigns), we should trust him because he, like the rest of us, is sick of the current Government making stupid decisions, and, by the way, he’s a good bloke, with a nice family, who lives on the Northside, who likes to watch footy. He loves to doorknock, and get amongst the people. He’s sending shout-outs to people he’s met in his electorate via his blog. He’s a common sense sort of bloke. Why wouldn’t you trust this seemingly likeable guy to be your “voice of reason”?

Why not? IMO, too much spin, and not enough substance. He may well have common sense, but that’s not enough for my vote – particularly if he’s any threat to hold the balance of power.

The Stalinist states were or are not socialist or Marxist in any sense. They were or are state capitlaist. But as johnboy said elsewhere, I (with others) am getting off topic.

So to get back to the topic, this election looks to me to be offering more of the same. If Australia went into deep recession (Westpac rates it a 30% chance) what policies will any of the candidates suggest for dealing with it. So far I have heard nothing.

This side of workers’ revolution, I’d suggest cutting the working week to 30 hours without loss of pay, nationalising banks in the ACT or setting up a people’s bank, pegging interest rates, democratising workplaces, increasing taxes on well off suburbs and starting a set off public works needed to fix the place up (eg light rail) to name a few.

But the possibility of a deep recession is not being mentioned in the election.

If one of my comrades stood, we’d get at best less than 2%, more like less than 1 per cent. But people’s politics respond to changing circumstances. Today’s foolishness can be tomorrow’s wisdom. Uncertain economic times produce people looking for all sorts of alternatives.

To be frank, I had never heard of Mark Parton before the election was called or indeed most of the candidates for that matter. If those waving at me as I drive along the parkway think I am going to vote for them on that basis – think again. What the hell are your policies on school closures, an airport curfew, better hospitals, better schools, and how will you address a possible decline in our economy?

Imhotep has expressed a sensible view – the free market does not work all the time and tends to favour those who are already in a strong financial position – the ‘establishment’ – resulting in distinctly inequitable outcomes. In our society, it is a given that certain accepted human entitlements, like housing, education and health services, should not only be for those who can pay. Nor should the market be prioritised over people’s real needs (as happened in the Irish potato famine, where that country exported huge amounts of food while the populace starved).

However, nanny state regimes do not sit well as we are humans, not robots, and like to have the flexibility to choose how we live. So, so long as there is universal access to good essential services, people can be free to choose, say, private hospital treatment or private schooling for their children if they so desire.

Luckily we live in a democracy that (generally speaking) allows for a balancing act of these ideologies. If things tilt too far in a certain direction, the people chuck out the incumbents.

One test of a society is to ask yourself the following hypothetical question: where would I prefer to live, if I did not know my financial status – USA, Sweden, Germany, or Australia? The answer indicates how a society takes care of its people in the broadest sense and have probably got the balance right. (USA, home of the free market, is last in my book!)

A couple of people have asked how it’s decided if Barr, Corbell & Gallagher end up in a contest for 2 spots. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how elections are counted. The parties and politicians do not decide where preferences go, the voters do.
If more punters put Barr higher than Corbell, Barr will lead Corbell, and thus be elected.
Obviously, you can switch the names in the example how you wish.
Parties and politicians don’t decide that, the umpty-thousand voters who allocate preferences to them do.

As for those who think that polls of small samples in the ACT give accurate data, you’re deluded. And those who think the Greens will get 2 Molonglo seats – you’re sucking too hard on the Kool-aid.

And free societies have been, from a utilitarian perspective, better able in the long run to utilise the creativity and potential of their citizens.

Passy said :

(Passy) Socialist Alternative meets every Thursday at 6 pm… (we will talk about) the boom/bust slump inherent in capitalism, – one where the great majority – working people – democratically decide what is produced to satisfy human need, not to make a profit…

All fine in theory Passy, but whenever and wherever your Marxist theory has been applied, it almost always ends in tyranny and misery.

IMO many people are ready for more (benign) Sate intervention to correct the worst of the free market’s excesses, but you guys (S.A.) go too far. People still want freedom, and they don’t like being told what to think.

Gun Street girl – if I could respond to your comment above regarding “that’s the mentality…etc”. Osborne got up because of his reputation as a Raiders footballer. He was in fact a right wing politician with strong christian values who took a very conservative line on issues. My point is that the majority of the people just want candidates to be small l in outlook, ie not too right wing or too left wing in outlook. There is plenty of room between the extremes. That may not be a fashionable view. I contend it represents political reality.

Also I didn’t suggest being a nice bloke, family man or football watcher were the criteria for selection. I used a term – a common sense approach. I reckon it never goes astray.

Boomacat: being on radio doesn’t disqualify you either for seeking political office.

boomacat said :

Hmm, I am very suspicious of independents, and they have to have a very good track record, either within or outside of politics, before I will vote for them. For example Clover Moore, independent member for the NSW State seat of Sydney, and also Lord Mayor of Sydney. Otherwise, without party discipline or a consistent political brand, what’s to stop them acting like a total nut job, eg Steve Fielding of the so called “Family First”.

I know nothing of Mark Paton and I don’t see how being a radio announcer qualifies you for a job in politics, with no disrespect meant to Mr Paton who I bet is a great guy. I think you have to be a top performer to make a difference on the cross benches. I would not vote for him.

Agreed. Being a well-recognised personality around town, being a “good bloke” who has a nice family, and who likes watching footy, doesn’t necessarily make you the most qualified or appropriate person to be calling the shots in a minority government.

Spamming? Am I?

Hmm, I am very suspicious of independents, and they have to have a very good track record, either within or outside of politics, before I will vote for them. For example Clover Moore, independent member for the NSW State seat of Sydney, and also Lord Mayor of Sydney. Otherwise, without party discipline or a consistent political brand, what’s to stop them acting like a total nut job, eg Steve Fielding of the so called “Family First”.

I know nothing of Mark Paton and I don’t see how being a radio announcer qualifies you for a job in politics, with no disrespect meant to Mr Paton who I bet is a great guy. I think you have to be a top performer to make a difference on the cross benches. I would not vote for him.

Last warning on spamming Passy.

disenfranchised said :

The majority in the community just want middle of the road candidates with a common sense approach.

Yep, that’s the mentality that got the likes of Paul Osbourne elected. And wasn’t that just a rousing success? 😉

Thanks for the abuse and stereotyping disenfranchised. I was trying to make the point that Mark Parton (and all the other pseudo-liberals and independents) have absolutely no chance.

Socialist Alternative meets every Thursday at 6 pm in room G 52 of the Haydon Allen Building at the ANU. The discussion this coming Thursday 9 October is on capitalism in crisis. We will talk about the impact of the finance crisis in the US on the rest of the world, including Australia, talk about the boom/bust slump inherent in capitalism, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, low profit rates in the developed world and how crisis is inbuilt into capitalism. We will argue for an alternative world – one where the great majority – working people – democratically decide what is produced to satisfy human need, not to make a profit.

As financial crisis grips the world, and destroys the living standards of tens of millions of American workers, (900,000 have lost their jobs to date this year, millions have lost their homes, 30 million are on food stamps, tent cities are springing up), and with unemployment likely to increase to over 5 percent by early next year in Australia, (an extra 200,000 unemployed) and to 6 per cent by the end of next year, the masses, as so you interestingly put it, might need to look beyond the usual economic analyses of the problem and what solutions exist. If Mark Parton, or Frank Pangallo, or Shane Rattenbury or Jon Stanhope or Zed Seselja have any idea about if and how they can insulate the ACT (or Australia for that matter) from the possible depression around the corner then let them tell us their ideas.

If you or other readers want an alternative view of the world, come along to our meeting – Capitalism in crisis, Thursday 9 October 6 pm in Room G53 of the Haydon Allen Building at the ANU.

http://www.sa.org.au Canberra@sa.org.au

Passy. You have put your own credibility on the line with such a silly statement. We’ll hold you to this. I conclude from one of your recent RiotACT entries, concerning a Socialist Alternative event at the ANU, that Mark Parton probably isn’t your cup of tea in terms of political views. I’m not associated with him. He is not in my electorate. Moreover, I didn’t listen to him on radio, but understand many Canberrans did. Let me assure you the masses – the Industrial Reserve Army – are sick and tired of polical hacks and wannabe intellectuals. The majority in the community just want middle of the road candidates with a common sense approach.

Disenfranchised, Mark who? He will not get elected. If anyone other than the ALP, Libs and Greens gets elected, I’ll walk naked through Riot ACT’s offices. (I hope you don’t have any!!). Indeed if this motley crew average more than 5% across the ACT I’ll do that. (Please, please don’t have a real office.)

Both the major parties are in trouble. Labor will lose some skin. I see them coming back from 9 to 7. However, what we need to remember is there is no hint of corruption or great scandal. The budget is in surplus. Stanhope will do a Beattie and win (ie don’t believe the polls). When it comes to the crunch, I can’t see many in the community switching from Labor to Liberal candidates. This is the election to be a Green candidate. I see them winning 1 seat in each electorate, reflecting national trends. What I think we’ll also see will be the Liberals struggling to win anymore than 6 seats. They will pay for their shenanigans since 2004 (3 leaders and various scandals revealing gross disunity) and running with an inexperienced leader. I see Ginninderra as a key electorate for the Liberals. They do not have the candidates required to safely deliver 2 seats. Everyone seems to be downplaying Stefaniak’s very strong personal vote. That is a mistake. He won over a quota in first preference votes. Dunne does not have the pulling power Bill had(she got around 3,300 firsts last time – a poor result). We will see a Green and Mark Parton get up in that Belconnen electorate. Labor will win 2 seats.

I think taking the Green vote at the last federal election and using it as a basis for this election is a grave mistake.

Labor federally last year was the next big thing offering left leaning Canberrans an end to the Howard government.

Now not only are they pissed off with Rudd as they realise he’s more conservative than a large chunk of the Liberal party, but they’re really pissed off at local Labor who have let them down on a lot of hot button lefty issues. Education first and foremost.

A high tide is a very poor predictor of a low tide. And that’s what we’re realistically looking at.

jimbocool

Thanks for the analysis. My enthusiasm about the fact that the ALP might suffer a kick in the guts is tempered somewhat by your more reasoned analysis. Oh well.

Thanks Spectra. You say: ‘to this day I hear otherwise intelligent people saying “well, I’d like to vote for [minor party X], but I don’t want to waste my vote”. It makes my blood boil.’ I can only agree.

I want people who normally would vote for the ALP to consider voting for the Greens to give Labor a kick up the backside for closing schools, mishandling the GDE, backing down on gay marriage and right to die laws, presiding over a disgraceful health system, trying to sneak a power plant into Tuggeranong, backing away from a curfew at Canberra Airport, not addressing global warming in any significant way, barely managing our transport system, just to name a few.

I see what you mean. I still think people will be far more inclined to vote green locally as opposed to federally, but perhaps not 22 thousand people…

– Can anyone explain to me how it will work between the three Labor bods if they only get two seats. Will it just come down to their own primary votes, and then other labor preferences?

Eg – Say if one of them got more than a quota, of above the line votes, which of the other two would get the flow on votes?

Sepi – Molonglo getting two Greens will be an event deserving more than mild surprise! The earth will have had to have fallen off its axis! No malice intended but the Greens got 24,000 first preference votes in the ACT for the 2007 Senate election, which was for the whole of the ACT. To win two seats in Molonglo will require 22,000 first preference votes! The maths aint pretty…

I think you misunderstood my comment. People are reluctant to desert the party they have voted for since they were young adults. To actually make a protest vote is not as easy as it sounds, even knowing that with preferential voting you can vote second for the party you have suported all your llife till now.

My apologies if I took you the wrong way Passy – I didn’t necessarily meant to imply that you yourself didn’t understand the system, but I did infer you to mean that there were plenty of others who didn’t (which is sadly true) – sorry if that was wrong. It just touched a nerve with me – the notion of “throwing your vote away” is one that’s always infuriated me, and to this day I hear otherwise intelligent people saying “well, I’d like to vote for [minor party X], but I don’t want to waste my vote”. It makes my blood boil.

I think almost everyone knows that Andrew Barr didn’t make the decision to close the schools, he just got handed the education job once the decision was done.

Of course he did say they wouldn’t sell off any schools, which then was not true.

I think this election could be a real shake-up, and I won’t be surprised if Molonglo gets 2 greens.

It’s so unfair – finally a poll on which to comment and I’m busy all day with family commitments (damn Labour day long weekend). To add insult to injury I find myself agreeing with Thumper (and boomacat, but that aint so bad). As it’s late – especially since it’s daylight saving soon – I won’t bother getting too stats heavy (I’ll write that up on pollbludger) but let me say this:
1) the Greens will not win four seats. Not because I don’t like them (I once shared a sauna with Shane Rattenbury and he seemed like a nice chap), nor because of any political leaning I have (confused at the best of times) but because to win four seats would require winning two in Molonglo. This aint going to happen because they would need to DOUBLE their vote from last time.
2) they need to DOUBLE their vote because unlike the major parites they don’t get a natural flow of preferences to them – Labor picks up green/dem prefs, Libs pick up CDP (not running this time)or random conservative prefs. They would need to get at least 1.8 quotas on first prefs to have a chance.
3)The Patterson poll, whilst having a decent sample size does have two bad flaws:
3a)the electorate sample has an error margin of 4.9% – the last seats in each electorate are decided by far less than this, but rather then acknowledging this they reduce the error by using a 70% confidence interval! A scandalous con – a 70% CI isn’t worth spitting on
3b) the method used for distributing the significant undecided vote is note one normally used – and since it comes up with some of the marginal calls (such as the second green in Molonglo) should be treated with extreme caution.

Given the prima facie quality of the poll (issues above nothwithstanding)I’m tempted to put this result down as a 5% outlier (ie in the 5% that are outside a 95% confidence interval).

If the Greens get two seats in Molonglo I’ll happily eat my hat.

Spectra

You quote me:

Those who may have been considering voting Green but wouldn’t because they thought their vote might be wasted…

Then you comment:

“Jesus Christ. Every bloody election. Anyone who can’t explain, at least in simple terms, what a preferential voting system is and how it works should be banned from voting.”

I think you misunderstood my comment. People are reluctant to desert the party they have voted for since they were young adults. To actually make a protest vote is not as easy as it sounds, even knowing that with preferential voting you can vote second for the party you have suported all your llife till now.

Dump the Liberal/Labor apparatchiks. Forget the feral hippies. Make it Mike!

Kitchen Man said :

I think it would be a great pity if Andrew Barr were to lose his spot in the Assembly. Andrew is a competent politician who has been given some very tough jobs in his very first term on London Circuit

Maybe we are all getting sick of “competent politicians”. Maybe we would like good political leadership, or effective administration or any combination of the two!

I really don’t see this happening. I think Greens will probably get two, three if they are lucky, but four no way.

And as if the Greens would back the Libs. My guess remains 8 Labor, 6 Libs, 3 Green.

To finish the middle sentance there – “the poisioned chalice of implementing the schools closure program – which was going to be vastly unpopular no matter which minster implemented it”.

Steady Eddie said :

It’s fairly obvious that the minister to lose his seat will be Andrew Barr. Apart from his unpopularity among straights, there is a push on in the gay community to put him last on the ballot paper as punishment for his role in having Black Mountain Peninsula (Homo Point) closed at night, and his refusal to reply to any letters or other representations protesting about the decision.

Um, okay, I understand he has SOME unpopularity amongst parents of schoolkids, due to being handed the poisoned chalice of implementing the

However, the push on in the gay community represents a grand total of one poster on ACT Queer, as far as I can tell. To argue that a minister should be representing or involved in a push to encourage the re-opening of a dangerous facility largely used by married men in the closet, simply ’cause he’s gay, seems remarkably ludicrous to me…

sepi said :

I suspect one of them should have moved house (and electorates) – it seems a waste to hvae 3 of their 4 top people fighting for 2 seats.

One of them did move house – right out of Gungahlin! Seems it was a bit of a crappy place to live ….

The Greens were part of the ruling majority of Kiama council when I was down there.

That municipality worked a lot better than Liberal Shoalhaven to the south or Labor Shellharbour and Wollongong.

I thought Corbell would go last time, after taking time out for depression just before the election. He has good name recognition, as do the other two. It will be interesting.

I suspect one of them should have moved house (and electorates) – it seems a waste to hvae 3 of their 4 top people fighting for 2 seats.

Hmmm. If the poll is correct the Greens are likely to hold balance of power. I just remembered why I along with the majority of Canberrans, voted (twice) all those years ago for no self-government.

“One of the three Ministers in Molonglo, Barr, Gallagher and Corbell is set to lose their seat.” Intreseting that bloggers are thinking it will be Barr, I would have thought Corbell for sure, anyone who has talked to him on the street would have seen how uncomfortable he is with the general public and how he doesn’t want to be in the public eye.

Stanhope was given majority government and has no-one but himself to blame for falling this low. He had the whole pavlova on a platter and dropped the lot.

Spectra, but even Labor were caught out when they had initially planned to run an extra candidate in two of the electorates until Antony Green pointed out that such a move would disadvantage them 🙂

Those who may have been considering voting Green but wouldn’t because they thought their vote might be wasted…

Jesus Christ. Every bloody election. Anyone who can’t explain, at least in simple terms, what a preferential voting system is and how it works should be banned from voting.

I think it would be a great pity if Andrew Barr were to lose his spot in the Assembly. Andrew is a competent politician who has been given some very tough jobs in his very first term on London Circuit

Barr may be feeling the heat – see his green campaign sign.

kagey said :

“One of the three Ministers in Molonglo, Barr, Gallagher and Corbell is set to lose their seat.”
Couldn’t we try for all three. Not much between Barr and Corbell in terms of arrogance. At least Gallagher does some work – just not very effect.

Fail.

“One of the three Ministers in Molonglo, Barr, Gallagher and Corbell is set to lose their seat.”
Couldn’t we try for all three. Not much between Barr and Corbell in terms of arrogance. At least Gallagher does some work – just not very effect.

Steady Eddie said :

It’s fairly obvious that the minister to lose his seat will be Andrew Barr. Apart from his unpopularity among straights, there is a push on in the gay community to put him last on the ballot paper as punishment for his role in having Black Mountain Peninsula (Homo Point) closed at night, and his refusal to reply to any letters or other representations protesting about the decision.

Wow, given that the decision was made by public servants and it’s not even his portfolio that seems a bit misguided. I also think it was the right decision given the massive amount of crime taking place at ‘homo point’.

It’s fairly obvious that the minister to lose his seat will be Andrew Barr. Apart from his unpopularity among straights, there is a push on in the gay community to put him last on the ballot paper as punishment for his role in having Black Mountain Peninsula (Homo Point) closed at night, and his refusal to reply to any letters or other representations protesting about the decision.

I was surveyed a few weeks ago by telephone, though whether it was ‘push polling’ or a survey such as today’s I couldn’t say. (I asked who the authorising client was but an answer was not forthcoming.)

I can say, though, that I thought the questions were pretty obviously ‘directional’ in that they assumed people would vote for one of the two major parties. Several questions had no scope for answers that indicated a preference for a minor party, of which we have a plethora this time around (Greens, Pangallo, CAP, Motorists, Canberra), or any of the independents. This meant the answers were inevitably skewed.

I was one of those polled. Apart from the incompetence of the interviewer (he called it a state elction at first, until I asked him which state, and couldn’t pronounce Zed Seselja’s name)it was heavily biased towards the ALP and Liberals. How so? There were a series of questions about which I preferred, Stanhope or Seselja, and then based on that answer a serious of propositions about Stanhope I could agree or ddisgree with.

I think the result is fantastic because I want to give the school closing, managerial, HowRuddistas in the conservative ACT ALP Government a kick right up that place where the sun don’t shine. I couldn’t ever stomach voting for the ALP’s alternative face of reaction, the Liberals, so it is the Greens for my vote. I have no illusions in them, but at least they understand there is a global warming crisis even if they don’t have a class analysis of society.

In fact I hope there may be a snowball effect. Those who may have been considering voting Green but wouldn’t because they thought their vote might be wasted might now re-consider and switch from the ALP to the Greens. The poll makes it clear many have already made the switch and others can do it too. The message is that it’s OK to vote Green.

One quibble. Shane Rattenbury refuses to say who he would support for Chief Minister. I suggest he put himself or one of the other Greens forward and force the ALP to grovel to them. But secondly, Shane, I am not voting Green to see you do deals with the Liberals. Go anywhere near them and you have lost me forever.

In fact, tell us before the elction who you will support. I know you won’t because you want disaffected Liberal voters (and there are heaps of them since the Libs vote is static or below 2004) to vote for you too. That’s a worry. It’s the same cross-class alliance the Democrats tried to forge. It could end in disater. You have to decide now if you are to the left of the ALP or not.

Interesting that 3 of labor’s high profile ministers are possibly fighting for 2 seats.

So how will this work – will the BArr, Corbell, Gallagher race come down to their own primary votes? (I still don’t have a grip on our complicated voting system).

It says in today’s Crimes that they would join either major party.

How embarrassing for Mulcahy that even Helen Cross stomps over him.

Have the Greens given any indication as to which major party they would support in forming a government?

Ah. Ok well let’s hope that Caroline le Couteur’s 11 years in a Nimbin commune relaxed her enough to cope with the stresses of a portfolio.

http://act.greens.org.au/candidates/shane-rattenbury

And your point is? Rhodium shows the calibre of the ALP’s financial management. And I’m not sure what pearls of economic wisdom Zed may have found during his brief career as a bureaucrat in DOTARS…

What wonderful news. Emo genocide, 3 extra recycling bins per household and free range eggs as far as the eye can see. I for one hope all the greens candidates get in. What we need in these economically troubled times are the steady hand and profound economic nouse of the likes of Amanda Bresnan and James Higgins running the city.