27 October 2012

And it's 8/8/1. Negotiations to follow

| johnboy
Join the conversation
96

Despite certain democracy hating tree killers trying to call the election result two days before people actually got to vote it has turned into a monumentally close affair.

Elections ACT have the final allocation of seats:

Brindabella

* Zed Seselja

* Joy Burch

* Brendan Smyth

* Mick Gentleman

* Andrew Wall

Ginninderra

* Alistair Coe

* Vicki Dunne

* Mary Porter

* Chris Bourke

* Yvette Berry

Molonglo

* Katy Gallagher

* Jeremy Hanson

* Andrew Barr

* Simon Corbell

* Shane Rattenbury

* Giulia Jones

* Steve Doszpot

Shane Rattenbury to decide what happens next.

Join the conversation

96
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Aeek said :

watto23 said :

Another interesting fact, that I picked up before the election is that candidates ran for seats, they didn’t even live in. As a result of the election not a single MLA actually lives in Gungahlin.

Two ways to look at this, the system allows for people to change electorates but not their home address. Also the people in the electorate of Ginninderra (Mostly Gungahlin)

Ginninderra electorate is all of Belconnen + Hall, Nicholls, Palmerston and Crace. Kalleen is also a fringe case. No surprises that all the members come from the Belconnen majority and none from Gungahlin.

Molonglo is the same, Gungahlin is still in the minority even though the electorate includes most of Gungahlin.

Yes got that mixed up…. point is that candidates moved to other electorates so the parties had the best chance of winning. ala Zed. However there is no actual representation of the region. A politician will always look after thei backyard first 🙂

I think 5 electorates of 5 would allow for a few more pollies to get things done, plus a decent representation of the region. yes those on the the borders of the satellite towns might still get grouped the the neighbouring town, but it would allow for more flexibility with the electoral boundaries.

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Sadly, like many prejudices, yours is utterly wrong:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/independent-schools-are-bastions-of-equality-and-tolerance-20091123-it24.html

The report states, “only 53.9 per cent of participants from Catholic secondary schools reported being subjected to racist treatment, whilst over 76 per cent of students from both types of government schools indicated experiencing some form of racist treatment”.

Additional evidence that Catholic and independent schools successfully promote social cohesion and tolerance is found in an analysis of the 2005 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes by education commentator Andrew Norton.

That’s not what my post was about HenryBG… I was referring to the simple fact that kids in independent schools primarily come from middle to high income families that value education, whereas public schools have kids from across the spectrum –

Oh dear, still getting it wrong with your unjusitifed prejudices:

From the same link I provided:

“t should also be noted that the social composition of Catholic school communities largely mirrors that of government schools. Instead of only serving the privileged, many Catholic schools exist in low socio-economic communities with a strong multicultural profiile.”

Wasn’t hard to walk you into that one, I must say.

watto23 said :

Another interesting fact, that I picked up before the election is that candidates ran for seats, they didn’t even live in. As a result of the election not a single MLA actually lives in Gungahlin.

Two ways to look at this, the system allows for people to change electorates but not their home address. Also the people in the electorate of Ginninderra (Mostly Gungahlin)

Ginninderra electorate is all of Belconnen + Hall, Nicholls, Palmerston and Crace. Kalleen is also a fringe case. No surprises that all the members come from the Belconnen majority and none from Gungahlin.

Molonglo is the same, Gungahlin is still in the minority even though the electorate includes most of Gungahlin.

johnboy said :

And now it’s official.

(Note to the idiot academic who called me a bozo on Twitter when she was incorrectly claiming an 8/7/2 split to be “official” the day after the election)

Which clown called you a bozo?

And now it’s official.

(Note to the idiot academic who called me a bozo on Twitter when she was incorrectly claiming an 8/7/2 split to be “official” the day after the election)

Jim Jones said :

DrKoresh said :

HenryBG said :

You seem to be trying to mislead about the Greens’ policies.

The ALP were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Libs were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Greens were putting $5 million extra into education, all of it aimed at addressing the needs of disabled gay black whales.

I’ve bolded the two important bits, my god you’re a silly person.

It’s not really a valid argument unless you’re accusing someone of being a communist and eating mung-beans now, is it?

The real question here is, ‘do communists eat mung beans?’

And if so, then why?

I would say ‘yes’ on the grounds that the Chinese are (supposedly) communist and because mung beans sound like something they eat in China.

DrKoresh said :

HenryBG said :

You seem to be trying to mislead about the Greens’ policies.

The ALP were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Libs were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Greens were putting $5 million extra into education, all of it aimed at addressing the needs of disabled gay black whales.

I’ve bolded the two important bits, my god you’re a silly person.

It’s not really a valid argument unless you’re accusing someone of being a communist and eating mung-beans now, is it?

HenryBG said :

You seem to be trying to mislead about the Greens’ policies.

The ALP were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Libs were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Greens were putting $5 million extra into education, all of it aimed at addressing the needs of disabled gay black whales.

I’ve bolded the two important bits, my god you’re a silly person.

devils_advocate11:17 am 31 Oct 12

Jethro said :

That’s not what my post was about HenryBG… I was referring to the simple fact that kids in independent schools primarily come from middle to high income families that value education, whereas public schools have kids from across the spectrum – kids whose parents are junkies, refugees who have been in country for a couple of months and have next to no English language skills, kids with high level learning difficulties and disabilities, kids who have been excluded from independent schools because they refuse to do their school work.

The kids in independent schools almost all would succeed in education wherever they go. It is far less the school that causes their success, but their background. Indeed, if you were to look at only the public school kids who matched the socio-economic profile of the kids from the local independent schools you would see very little difference in educational outcomes. Indeed, you might actually see the public school kids achieving more long-term educational success. Multiple studies have shown the public school students who go on to university have a lower drop-out rate than private school kids.

It is not that public schools or private schools offer anything all that different in the way of learning programs or educational opportunities, but that public schools have all the kids who independent schools will not cater for.

This is BS. Yes, background is important, yes, individual ability is important, but not to the exclusion of all other factors. Good schools impact on performance.

Also, attending a private school doesn’t guarantee academic success – consistent with the above, it can only make the situation for the individual better than it otherwise would be. Plenty of independent schools have remedial education programs and allow students to focus on vocational training prior to leaving after year 10, to go to CIT.

Another interesting fact, that I picked up before the election is that candidates ran for seats, they didn’t even live in. As a result of the election not a single MLA actually lives in Gungahlin.

Two ways to look at this, the system allows for people to change electorates but not their home address. Also the people in the electorate of Ginninderra (Mostly Gungahlin) didn’t care to check if the members they voted for actually lived in Gungahlin, they just voted along party lines like sheep.

So if residents of Gungahlin get a bad rub of the green in the next 4 years, who is to blame?

I know I certainly didn’t votemy top 5 preferences in Brindabella to anyone who didn’t live here and would ultimately understand the issues here.

I think everyone agrees the molonglo electorate is a mess.

HenryBG said :

LegalNut said :

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Keep trying though, Jim, you’ll get the hang of this analogy-thingie one of these days.

No Henry. My neighbours and I have each put $50 into the pot to arrange a healthy and nutritious but simple meal for the children of the neighbourhood to eat.

The people organising the meal have sorted out something that will do the job perfectly well.

False.
They have come up with a very substandard option which is woefully inedequate given the money they are spending. (The neighourhood meals system demonstrated it operates at only 30% of the efficiency of the alternative system).
And every year they have to devalue standards further in order to simulate continued success.
Is it necessary to point out that discipline at these meals is nonexistent, and in fact very little proper eating ever gets done?

Other choices exist which provided a much more nutricious meal.

LegalNut said :

If you want to go to a dinner where everything is gold plated or they aren’t serving pork or you need your airy-fairy vegan food, you can go and pay for it. Yes, you aren’t getting all of your $50 back.

No, we choose not to submit to an inferior and unhealthy menu and we’re getting $8.50 back. That’s it. The neighbours get the $50, we don’t impose any costs on them, and we get just $8.50 back.
Very good value if anybody knows how to do sums.

The ALP and Labor have said we should get $12.50 back. The Greens don’t care.

The problem for you is that by any objective measure, public schools are fine. I went through public schools and came out the other end of ANU with a law degree. The fact is that public schools do provide high levels of education even if some don’t want to accept it. In fact, I would argue that the college system for senior secondary education provides a higher level of education than the private institutions.

Yes, there are some limited exceptions when it comes to children with special educational needs but the independent sector doesn’t do a stellar job there either.

As for your last point, you are mistaken on two fronts. First, you don’t count the federal contribution to private education in your $8.50 which is higher than what the feds provide the public sector. You also miss the point that a significant part of the population get back nothing because they don’t have kids. Like all government services it is inherently redistributive. If you don’t want to use the government service, pay for it.

OK guys. That’s enough about education.

I gather tax reform is the main agenda at the moment.

HenryBG said :

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/independent-schools-are-bastions-of-equality-and-tolerance-20091123-it24.html

The report states, “only 53.9 per cent of participants from Catholic secondary schools reported being subjected to racist treatment, whilst over 76 per cent of students from both types of government schools indicated experiencing some form of racist treatment”.

Yeah, if you’re trying to make a point it’s best not to refer to rubbish research. If you look at the report it doesn’t give a breakdown of the background of the participants by school type. The result could be entirely due to the fact that the Catholic schools were 100% “Anglo” (you don’t know because they don’t say).

Plus I think the percentages are too low. If you look at their definition of a racist act it includes: heard or read comments stereotyping your cultural group?. Now I’ve watched Top Gear so I’d have to answer yes (being called a convict by Jeremy Clarkson falls into the category of stereotyping). So maybe we can interpret the study results as suggesting students from Catholic schools consume media less widely than their government school colleagues?

HenryBG said :

Andrew Norton.

I’ve read Andrew Norton’s blog for many years. I think his head would explode before he’d admit that the government sector could do anything nearly as well as the private.

HenryBG said :

Jethro said :

Actually, there are two dinner parties eating very similar meals and enjoying a friendly trivia night. One party has to invite and accept every kid in the neighbourhood, including the intellectually disabled and non-English speakers . The other one selects and chooses which kids get to go to their party and occasionally kicks kids out of their party if they’re not going well at the trivia questions. The selective dinner party wins the trivia competition and asserts it must be because they prepared a better meal than the other party.

Geez, it really helps, when you go ans display an ignorant prejudice, if you can at least base it on reality.

Sadly, like many prejudices, yours is utterly wrong:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/independent-schools-are-bastions-of-equality-and-tolerance-20091123-it24.html

The report states, “only 53.9 per cent of participants from Catholic secondary schools reported being subjected to racist treatment, whilst over 76 per cent of students from both types of government schools indicated experiencing some form of racist treatment”.

Additional evidence that Catholic and independent schools successfully promote social cohesion and tolerance is found in an analysis of the 2005 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes by education commentator Andrew Norton.

That’s not what my post was about HenryBG… I was referring to the simple fact that kids in independent schools primarily come from middle to high income families that value education, whereas public schools have kids from across the spectrum – kids whose parents are junkies, refugees who have been in country for a couple of months and have next to no English language skills, kids with high level learning difficulties and disabilities, kids who have been excluded from independent schools because they refuse to do their school work.

The kids in independent schools almost all would succeed in education wherever they go. It is far less the school that causes their success, but their background. Indeed, if you were to look at only the public school kids who matched the socio-economic profile of the kids from the local independent schools you would see very little difference in educational outcomes. Indeed, you might actually see the public school kids achieving more long-term educational success. Multiple studies have shown the public school students who go on to university have a lower drop-out rate than private school kids.

It is not that public schools or private schools offer anything all that different in the way of learning programs or educational opportunities, but that public schools have all the kids who independent schools will not cater for.

Jethro said :

Actually, there are two dinner parties eating very similar meals and enjoying a friendly trivia night. One party has to invite and accept every kid in the neighbourhood, including the intellectually disabled and non-English speakers . The other one selects and chooses which kids get to go to their party and occasionally kicks kids out of their party if they’re not going well at the trivia questions. The selective dinner party wins the trivia competition and asserts it must be because they prepared a better meal than the other party.

Geez, it really helps, when you go ans display an ignorant prejudice, if you can at least base it on reality.

Sadly, like many prejudices, yours is utterly wrong:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/independent-schools-are-bastions-of-equality-and-tolerance-20091123-it24.html

The report states, “only 53.9 per cent of participants from Catholic secondary schools reported being subjected to racist treatment, whilst over 76 per cent of students from both types of government schools indicated experiencing some form of racist treatment”.

Additional evidence that Catholic and independent schools successfully promote social cohesion and tolerance is found in an analysis of the 2005 Australian Survey of Social Attitudes by education commentator Andrew Norton.

LegalNut said :

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Keep trying though, Jim, you’ll get the hang of this analogy-thingie one of these days.

No Henry. My neighbours and I have each put $50 into the pot to arrange a healthy and nutritious but simple meal for the children of the neighbourhood to eat.

The people organising the meal have sorted out something that will do the job perfectly well.

False.
They have come up with a very substandard option which is woefully inedequate given the money they are spending. (The neighourhood meals system demonstrated it operates at only 30% of the efficiency of the alternative system).
And every year they have to devalue standards further in order to simulate continued success.
Is it necessary to point out that discipline at these meals is nonexistent, and in fact very little proper eating ever gets done?

Other choices exist which provided a much more nutricious meal.

LegalNut said :

If you want to go to a dinner where everything is gold plated or they aren’t serving pork or you need your airy-fairy vegan food, you can go and pay for it. Yes, you aren’t getting all of your $50 back.

No, we choose not to submit to an inferior and unhealthy menu and we’re getting $8.50 back. That’s it. The neighbours get the $50, we don’t impose any costs on them, and we get just $8.50 back.
Very good value if anybody knows how to do sums.

The ALP and Labor have said we should get $12.50 back. The Greens don’t care.

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Actually, there are two dinner parties eating very similar meals and enjoying a friendly trivia night. One party has to invite and accept every kid in the neighbourhood, including the intellectually disabled and non-English speakers . The other one selects and chooses which kids get to go to their party and occasionally kicks kids out of their party if they’re not going well at the trivia questions. The selective dinner party wins the trivia competition and asserts it must be because they prepared a better meal than the other party.

I know. Don’t you hate selective government schools?

Jethro said :

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Actually, there are two dinner parties eating very similar meals and enjoying a friendly trivia night. One party has to invite and accept every kid in the neighbourhood, including the intellectually disabled and non-English speakers . The other one selects and chooses which kids get to go to their party and occasionally kicks kids out of their party if they’re not going well at the trivia questions. The selective dinner party wins the trivia competition and asserts it must be because they prepared a better meal than the other party.

This is also a great interpretation of the difference between two sides of one coin.

LegalNut said :

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Keep trying though, Jim, you’ll get the hang of this analogy-thingie one of these days.

No Henry. My neighbours and I have each put $50 into the pot to arrange a healthy and nutritious but simple meal for the children of the neighbourhood to eat.

The people organising the meal have sorted out something that will do the job perfectly well. If you want to go to a dinner where everything is gold plated or they aren’t serving pork or you need your airy-fairy vegan food, you can go and pay for it. Yes, you aren’t getting all of your $50 back. That is how government services work. In the same way that the $50 is being spent by those without children.

If you want your children to go to a school with a particular set of values that you have picked or with special services, you can pay for it. Government education is there as a simple, effective education system that works and is contributed to be everyone. Like everything paid for by your taxes, you don’t get it all spent on you just the way you want it. If it was supposed to be that way, it wouldn’t be paid for through the tax system.

Explained well LegalNut!

Mr Gillespie9:44 pm 30 Oct 12

Come on Shane, stop the charades.

Time to install Katy as supremem being for the next four years.

The only supreme thing about Katy Gallahr is her sense of self-importance. I don’t consider inflating her ego with a 4-year opportunity to rule Canberra, a very good idea at all.

Come on Shane, stop the charades.

Time to install Katy as supremem being for the next four years.

Is “supremem” shorthand for supreme memsahib?

Madam Cholet said :

Thought I’d catch up with comments on this post as I’ve been having a think about what Shane should do. So I went to page 3 of the discussion only to find a conversation about having dinner at the neighbours house, and then expecting them to pay for a meal at a restaurant.

WTF?

I was about to make almost the exact same post.

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Actually, there are two dinner parties eating very similar meals and enjoying a friendly trivia night. One party has to invite and accept every kid in the neighbourhood, including the intellectually disabled and non-English speakers . The other one selects and chooses which kids get to go to their party and occasionally kicks kids out of their party if they’re not going well at the trivia questions. The selective dinner party wins the trivia competition and asserts it must be because they prepared a better meal than the other party.

Are cheap catholic schools counted as “private”? Because very few catholic schools are anything like what we think of as affluent, elite schools. If you take the almost-fully-guvvy-funded pov catholics out of the equation, surely only 20 per cent or fewer schoolchildren are in “private” schools.

rosscoact said :

poetix said :

Duffbowl said :

RedDogInCan said :

trevar said :

the electorate is made up of 256,702 individuals who probably all want different things

I want a pony.

I’d like a beer please. Preferably something from the Wig. Oh, and a packet of crisps. Not chicken flavoured, though.

I want a Citroen DS instead of my Camry. And a continental Parker to keep it going. But that’s not going to happen.

So perhaps I should want Noel Towell to get the Mully instead.

Citroen DS, now that’s a car of style

The black ones Charles De Gaulle used to ride in looked stunning and he had a big nose…

Woody Mann-Caruso6:40 pm 30 Oct 12

Adolf Hitler…I pay tax…Supreme Soviet…

I like the part where you criticise socialism but expect a handout from the government. (Also the bit where you conflate Communists with National Socialists. That’s hilarious.)

Education $$$ should be spent equitably on education

It should be spent where it’s needed, you twit – not where you happen to want it because it suits you.

Madam Cholet said :

Thought I’d catch up with comments on this post as I’ve been having a think about what Shane should do. So I went to page 3 of the discussion only to find a conversation about having dinner at the neighbours house, and then expecting them to pay for a meal at a restaurant.

WTF?

I think Henry BG is shouting everyone to dinner at Sage. Jim Jones, who is funnier, (in an intentional sense) has obviously agreed to pass on the invitation, as Henrry is too shy. It’s a bit like Cyrano de Bergerac, only no-one has a huge nose. So far as I know.

Madam Cholet5:36 pm 30 Oct 12

Thought I’d catch up with comments on this post as I’ve been having a think about what Shane should do. So I went to page 3 of the discussion only to find a conversation about having dinner at the neighbours house, and then expecting them to pay for a meal at a restaurant.

WTF?

HenryBG said :

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Keep trying though, Jim, you’ll get the hang of this analogy-thingie one of these days.

No Henry. My neighbours and I have each put $50 into the pot to arrange a healthy and nutritious but simple meal for the children of the neighbourhood to eat.

The people organising the meal have sorted out something that will do the job perfectly well. If you want to go to a dinner where everything is gold plated or they aren’t serving pork or you need your airy-fairy vegan food, you can go and pay for it. Yes, you aren’t getting all of your $50 back. That is how government services work. In the same way that the $50 is being spent by those without children.

If you want your children to go to a school with a particular set of values that you have picked or with special services, you can pay for it. Government education is there as a simple, effective education system that works and is contributed to be everyone. Like everything paid for by your taxes, you don’t get it all spent on you just the way you want it. If it was supposed to be that way, it wouldn’t be paid for through the tax system.

HenryBG said :

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

No great surprises there.

Jim Jones said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead.

My neighbours haven’t invited me to any dinner party.

My neighbours and I have each put $50 in the kitty to arrange a meal.

The people arranging the meal are dumb bogans who think Maccas drive-thru is suitable (or maybe they’re vegans), so I’d like my $50 to be used to provide a decent meal which I will source from a different provider.

Keep trying though, Jim, you’ll get the hang of this analogy-thingie one of these days.

davo101 said :

Perhaps they’re more worried about the 75% of voters that don’t have children in private schools?

Are elections generally won by margins of:
– more than 25%?
– less than 25%?

Generally, bigotry is a bad idea, electorally. Yes, it worked for Adolf Hitler, but that’s an exception rather than the rule.

watto23 said :

[

Yes but parents are choosing to do that. You decide to send your child to a non-government school for whatever reason, fully knowing what the funding is from the government.

I pay tax to provide education. I also choose which school from which to obtain that education.
Currently, the schools providing 44% of that education in the ACT are funded to the tune of only 17% per student compared with government schools.

I guess one day the Supreme Soviet may be allowed to dictate what school I send my children to, but in the meantime, the parents of the 44% will vote with self interest in mind.

Education $$$ should be spent equitably on education, not on pushing political ideology.

chewy14 said :

Very poor analogy when private schools have to teach to a government approved curriculum. If the government let them teach whatever they wanted then id agree with you.

Two points:

If you don’t want state control then don’t take the State’s coin.

I would guess that most parents would like their children to leave school with some form of recognised qualification, which means for simple business reasons private schools are going to be teaching something like IB, HSC, etc.

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead. When I got there, they asked me to pay for the food. WTF? I tried to explain that my neighbours should pay for it because they promised to get me dinner, but the restaurant demanded that I pay for myself. It’s completely unfair? Why should I have to pay just because I want to choose?

If my neighbours still forced me to eat a meal of their choosing at that restaurant then yes I would think its fair that they gave me some money for it.

Very poor analogy when private schools have to teach to a government approved curriculum. If the government let them teach whatever they wanted then id agree with you.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

the $50million the Greens were going to deny from the Education portfolio

You mean there’s $50m in the education budget currently earmarked for independent schools? And the Greens are going to ‘deny’ access to that money?

The ALP were putting $50 million extra into education
The Libs were putting $50 million extra into education

Oh, you mean imaginary, promised money. However will the poor Catholics cope? If only they were sitting on some gigantic pile of money they could use to pay for their own informed, free-market choices.

The ‘poor Catholics’ need to keep their ‘gigantic pile of money’ in reserve to pay out any future claims against brothers, priests or catholic knights like Jimmy Savile. Does anyone remember the program Louis Theroux did on Savile? It was obvious that Jimmy was hiding secrets but in hindsight I wonder if Louis already knew of the allegations…

HenryBG said :

My neighbours invited me to a dinner party, but I don’t like their cooking, so I went to a restaurant instead. When I got there, they asked me to pay for the food. WTF? I tried to explain that my neighbours should pay for it because they promised to get me dinner, but the restaurant demanded that I pay for myself. It’s completely unfair? Why should I have to pay just because I want to choose?

HenryBG said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Oh, you mean imaginary, promised money. However will the poor Catholics cope? If only they were sitting on some gigantic pile of money they could use to pay for their own informed, free-market choices.

If only prospective candidates could look past their ideology and recognise that only paying per non-government student 17% of what government students get is inequitable in the eyes of the voters who are the parents of the 44% of ACT students who attend these non-government schools.

Sheesh. Just not getting it, are you guys…

Yes but parents are choosing to do that. You decide to send your child to a non-government school for whatever reason, fully knowing what the funding is from the government.

Its probably not fair, but at the same time its a double edged sword. The less quality education the children who go to government schools get, the bigger the burden to society on paying for them to have 6 kids and a V8. You only need to look at countries with poor levels of education, or even the indigenous population to realise it doesn’t help to be uneducated.

HenryBG said :

If only prospective candidates could look past their ideology and recognise that only paying per non-government student 17% of what government students get is inequitable in the eyes of the voters who are the parents of the 44% of ACT students who attend these non-government schools.

Sheesh. Just not getting it, are you guys…

Perhaps they’re more worried about the 75% of voters that don’t have children in private schools?

poetix said :

Duffbowl said :

RedDogInCan said :

trevar said :

the electorate is made up of 256,702 individuals who probably all want different things

I want a pony.

I’d like a beer please. Preferably something from the Wig. Oh, and a packet of crisps. Not chicken flavoured, though.

I want a Citroen DS instead of my Camry. And a continental Parker to keep it going. But that’s not going to happen.

So perhaps I should want Noel Towell to get the Mully instead.

Citroen DS, now that’s a car of style

How is that hunk, Ratso still single? And now single at work (3 ladies have left him). What he needs is a good sub-committee to think for him…

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Oh, you mean imaginary, promised money. However will the poor Catholics cope? If only they were sitting on some gigantic pile of money they could use to pay for their own informed, free-market choices.

If only prospective candidates could look past their ideology and recognise that only paying per non-government student 17% of what government students get is inequitable in the eyes of the voters who are the parents of the 44% of ACT students who attend these non-government schools.

Sheesh. Just not getting it, are you guys…

Duffbowl said :

RedDogInCan said :

trevar said :

the electorate is made up of 256,702 individuals who probably all want different things

I want a pony.

I’d like a beer please. Preferably something from the Wig. Oh, and a packet of crisps. Not chicken flavoured, though.

I want a Citroen DS instead of my Camry. And a continental Parker to keep it going. But that’s not going to happen.

So perhaps I should want Noel Towell to get the Mully instead.

Woody Mann-Caruso6:42 pm 29 Oct 12

the $50million the Greens were going to deny from the Education portfolio

You mean there’s $50m in the education budget currently earmarked for independent schools? And the Greens are going to ‘deny’ access to that money?

The ALP were putting $50 million extra into education
The Libs were putting $50 million extra into education

Oh, you mean imaginary, promised money. However will the poor Catholics cope? If only they were sitting on some gigantic pile of money they could use to pay for their own informed, free-market choices.

Chop71 said :

I guess the same people who come up with the hospital waiting times also run the election poll in the CT.

Lol.

That would not surprise me.

Tetranitrate said :

PantsMan said :

Chop71 said :

Libs should have focused more on the hospital lies.

Well, they tried, but Noel and The Crimes ran some pretty serious interference for Labor on that.

Yeah, not to mention the drummed up nontroversy over Zeds timesheets earlier in the year as well. The way the Canberra times has acted over the past year or so is just shameful, if by some miracle the Liberals do get in I damn well hope they pull ACT government advertising and put that rag down like a sick dog.

I guess the same people who come up with the hospital waiting times also run the election poll in the CT.

Tetranitrate12:13 pm 29 Oct 12

PantsMan said :

Chop71 said :

Libs should have focused more on the hospital lies.

Well, they tried, but Noel and The Crimes ran some pretty serious interference for Labor on that.

Yeah, not to mention the drummed up nontroversy over Zeds timesheets earlier in the year as well. The way the Canberra times has acted over the past year or so is just shameful, if by some miracle the Liberals do get in I damn well hope they pull ACT government advertising and put that rag down like a sick dog.

It’s such a stupid system for a city… a council would work better, with each councillor having a vote (and the mayor a casting vote in deadlocks), and everyone having a job. Opposition is not a job.

RedDogInCan said :

trevar said :

the electorate is made up of 256,702 individuals who probably all want different things

I want a pony.

I’d like a beer please. Preferably something from the Wig. Oh, and a packet of crisps. Not chicken flavoured, though.

Chop71 said :

Libs should have focused more on the hospital lies.

Well, they tried, but Noel and The Crimes ran some pretty serious interference for Labor on that.

Chop71 said :

Libs should have focused more on the hospital lies.

Interesting to hear Rats talking about light rail (Gunners-Civic). Seems we are all going to have to pay for that over the next 4 years while stamp duty is going down. Not saying rates will triple but the money has to come from somewhere.

God this town is expensive.

yeah the rates tripling thing may or may not have been very accurate before the election,but yet another greens/labor coalition looks set to guarantee it is.

Rattenbury is reported as wanting to support whichever Government he sides with for the whole four years. I realise he could remove his support at any time but it would be much better if he also made his support reviewable mid term and really make the Government work hard to achieve something during this next cycle.

As for light rail, wasn’t Labor’s election promise only to complete another study during this next term with a view to possibly turning a sod in the next political cycle. I doubt that the Greens will be too popular at the next election if all they have to show for it is another glossy brochure. Perhaps the Libs can come up with something that is faster to implement and more cost effective than the numbers that Labor has been spruiking for ages.

Gungahlin Al said :

HenryBG said :

The single biggest vote-loser would have been the $50million the Greens were going to deny from the Education portfolio and their continuing ideological attacks on the Independent Schools systems, favoured by the parents of 44% of Canberra school children.

That is one heck of a chunk of the electorate to alienate for no good reason.

You can keep parroting this Liberal spin HenryBG, but it doesn’t make it any less BS than the first time you said it.
The Greens were the first party to come out supporting the Gonski review 100%. And unless I’m quite mistaken, there isn’t anything in there about taking funding off any schools.

You seem to be trying to mislead about the Greens’ policies.

The ALP were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Libs were putting $50 million extra into education, including addressing the funding disparity that affects non-government students.
The Greens were putting $5 million extra into education, all of it aimed at addressing the needs of disabled gay black whales.

No point complaining about a minority government. We had a majority once and Stanhope screwed that over so much, that 4 greens got elected 🙂

Although Zed isn’t doing himself any favour IMO, coming across as rather arrogant. Demanding there is a mandate. However you look at the stats for every pro to the Libs there is a pro to Labor. Although he did do one thing well and that was to avoid getting Abbott associated with the election.

Zed’s best hope is to wait it out and hope Shane Rattenbury decides things are going crap, lets give the liberals a go.

And… however you look at it the triple rates campaign was based on fear. At no time did they ever say it would take 10-20 years for the rates to go up and stamp duty to be erased, which is the reality of the situation, or that it may actually be beneficial to Canberra in the long term. But this is where Labor failed miserably, because saying that would come across as agreeing they’d triple rates!

Aaah politics, when are we constituents going to come across as more intelligent than we are seen to be by the politicians (locally and federally)?

andym said :

Ok – so its 8-8-1. From this they have to elect a Chief Minister and a Speaker.
They have 30 days to do this otherwise the GG sends it back to the electorate to sort out.
Does the Speaker get a vote in the assembly or do they hold the deciding vote?
Does the Speaker get elected before the Chief Minister?

The speaker has a normal deliberative vote. The first order of business of the assembly is to elect a Speaker, so yes, this happens before the Chief Minister is chosen.

andym said :

What if the Liberals nominated Rat Boy as the Speaker again?

Could the whole process die right here?

That’s entirely possible, but it would not constrain him to voting for a Liberal as Chief Minister.

farnarkler said :

Ok I’m pretty thick when it comes to hung politics so tell me; can Rat sit in the middle, listen to what Labor and Libs want to do and say yes I’ll vote in favour of whichever decisions he likes or does he have to side with one party in order to form a government until the next election?

Yes and no. Shane has to support either the Labor or Liberal candidate for Chief Minister (unless he wants to force another election, which is not likely). This will determine the party making up the executive government – the Chief Minister appoints the other Ministers, and the Ministers are the ones who direct the day-to-day operation of the government departments.

But this doesn’t mean he has to support every piece of legislation put up by that executive in the assembly. He can still pick and choose which legislation to support (and propose legislation of his own), as well as disallowance motions which can overrule certain Ministerial decisions. This is how the assembly operated during the last term – sometimes the Greens sided with the Liberals, and sometimes Labor and Liberal even voted together against the Greens.

Gungahlin Al9:50 am 29 Oct 12

HenryBG said :

The single biggest vote-loser would have been the $50million the Greens were going to deny from the Education portfolio and their continuing ideological attacks on the Independent Schools systems, favoured by the parents of 44% of Canberra school children.

That is one heck of a chunk of the electorate to alienate for no good reason.

You can keep parroting this Liberal spin HenryBG, but it doesn’t make it any less BS than the first time you said it.
The Greens were the first party to come out supporting the Gonski review 100%. And unless I’m quite mistaken, there isn’t anything in there about taking funding off any schools.

Libs should have focused more on the hospital lies.

Interesting to hear Rats talking about light rail (Gunners-Civic). Seems we are all going to have to pay for that over the next 4 years while stamp duty is going down. Not saying rates will triple but the money has to come from somewhere.

God this town is expensive.

Ok – so its 8-8-1. From this they have to elect a Chief Minister and a Speaker.
They have 30 days to do this otherwise the GG sends it back to the electorate to sort out.
Does the Speaker get a vote in the assembly or do they hold the deciding vote?
Does the Speaker get elected before the Chief Minister?

What if the Liberals nominated Rat Boy as the Speaker again?

Could the whole process die right here?

steele_blade10:55 pm 28 Oct 12

I wanted an elephant stamp.

Inflicting great inconvenience to the general population (note general population, not riotact population) by forcing a policy with next to nothing in the way of outcomes has left the Greens with a fraction of the power it used to have and therefore much less ability to keep REAL environmental reform moving.

Greens – LOL.

Ok I’m pretty thick when it comes to hung politics so tell me; can Rat sit in the middle, listen to what Labor and Libs want to do and say yes I’ll vote in favour of whichever decisions he likes or does he have to side with one party in order to form a government until the next election?

trevar said :

the electorate is made up of 256,702 individuals who probably all want different things

I want a pony.

Minz said :

But given the Liberals’ more-or-less stated “slash and burn” policy with regards to the environment, could a real Green possibly support them? I don’t see it.

Sorry, I don’t understand this one – what has any “real Green” got to do with the ACT Greens political party?

Minz said :

Disappointing result for the Greens and shows something about how people vote – the Greens had what looked like a really strong set of policies (particularly in comparison with the other parties) and people voted based on… what? A scare campaign, apparently. Pretty sad really.

Spare us. People voted against Greens policies, and voted against the Greens’ credibility.

The single biggest vote-loser would have been the $50million the Greens were going to deny from the Education portfolio and their continuing ideological attacks on the Independent Schools systems, favoured by the parents of 44% of Canberra school children.

That is one heck of a chunk of the electorate to alienate for no good reason.

Mr Evil said :

miz said :

Justin is right – people will not take kindly to being assessed as stupid for [what Minz calls] ‘voting based on . . . a scare campaign’. Some (people looking for excuses) may call the Liberals’ focus on rates and local issues a ‘scare campaign’, but it has to be faced that it was effective in drawing the voters’ attention to the poor value for money already received on rates being paid now, and that the Labor/Green alliance intended rates to go up dramatically. In Tuggeranong, all you have to do is look around you with your eyes open, to see that the triple or not quite triple thing was pretty much a moot point.

Sepi, Mick Gentleman has replaced long time Labor MLA john Hargreaves. Mr Gentleman has been an MLA before but lost his seat last election. I would rate him as far better than Joy Burch (don’t ever bother taking constituent issues to her, she is hopeless and patronising).

Scare campaign – what, a bit like the one you and your public housing bludging mates ran to try and have some disadvantaged kids kept out of ‘your’ street, lest they’d supposedly ‘rape and pillage’ everything and everyone in your street????

Thumbs up!

Primal said :

His voters, more than anything, want him to implement Green policy. That’s why they voted for him. Any choices they’ve made below that are therefore a lower priority than their support for the Greens. So if they were forced to choose between ‘more Green policies from a less-preferred government’, or ‘less Green policies from a more-preferred government’, I’d say the Green element has to be assumed to take priority.

(Not to mention… do you want to be the one to calculate which major party his voters really “prefer” under Hare-Clark? That’d be a statistical nightmare.)

+1

Any claim to know what Shane Rattenbury’s constituents want other than what they actually voted for is pure fantasy. Both of the Laboral parties will claim they know what the electorate wants, but the reality is that the electorate is made up of 256,702 individuals who probably all want different things, so unless they list all of the 256,702 different things they want, based on a comprehensive survey of all of their desires, it’s just made up nonsense.

All we know is that Shane Rattenbury’s constituents want a Green (maybe more) in parliament. Beyond that we can probably assume they’d prefer not to have members of the Laboral parties in parliament, so to claim that their desire is for the Labor or Liberal wing of the duopoly to form government is a pure nonsense based on the misapprehension that there are only two sides to any debate.

I agree entirely that Rattenbury’s decision should be based on the policy platform he took to the electorate, and not conform to this fascist notion that anyone who fails to vote for the major parties should have their wishes prescribed for them.

Mr Evil said :

But given the Liberals’ more-or-less stated “slash and burn” policy with regards to the environment

Source.

My second cousin’s next door neighbour’s brother-in-law overheard someone say it at the Belconnen Labor Club one evening while they were playing the pokies.

I heard it at the alternate lifestyles and mung bean festival while Phoebe was recharging the bong.

miz said :

Justin is right – people will not take kindly to being assessed as stupid for [what Minz calls] ‘voting based on . . . a scare campaign’. Some (people looking for excuses) may call the Liberals’ focus on rates and local issues a ‘scare campaign’, but it has to be faced that it was effective in drawing the voters’ attention to the poor value for money already received on rates being paid now, and that the Labor/Green alliance intended rates to go up dramatically. In Tuggeranong, all you have to do is look around you with your eyes open, to see that the triple or not quite triple thing was pretty much a moot point.

Sepi, Mick Gentleman has replaced long time Labor MLA john Hargreaves. Mr Gentleman has been an MLA before but lost his seat last election. I would rate him as far better than Joy Burch (don’t ever bother taking constituent issues to her, she is hopeless and patronising).

Scare campaign – what, a bit like the one you and your public housing bludging mates ran to try and have some disadvantaged kids kept out of ‘your’ street, lest they’d supposedly ‘rape and pillage’ everything and everyone in your street????

But given the Liberals’ more-or-less stated “slash and burn” policy with regards to the environment

Source.

My second cousin’s next door neighbour’s brother-in-law overheard someone say it at the Belconnen Labor Club one evening while they were playing the pokies.

Minz said :

Disappointing result for the Greens and shows something about how people vote – the Greens had what looked like a really strong set of policies (particularly in comparison with the other parties) and people voted based on… what? A scare campaign, apparently. Pretty sad really.

The “my party didn’t win because you’re all stupid” argument is always a classic!

I propose the ALP and the Liberals form a coalition government and lock the Greens out.

After all the two main parties have more in common with each other than they do the Greens.

gooterz said :

the election term should be proportional to the winning margin

Love this!

Will Shane consult with aliens before choosing?

Nutjobs.

Justin is right – people will not take kindly to being assessed as stupid for [what Minz calls] ‘voting based on . . . a scare campaign’. Some (people looking for excuses) may call the Liberals’ focus on rates and local issues a ‘scare campaign’, but it has to be faced that it was effective in drawing the voters’ attention to the poor value for money already received on rates being paid now, and that the Labor/Green alliance intended rates to go up dramatically. In Tuggeranong, all you have to do is look around you with your eyes open, to see that the triple or not quite triple thing was pretty much a moot point.

Sepi, Mick Gentleman has replaced long time Labor MLA john Hargreaves. Mr Gentleman has been an MLA before but lost his seat last election. I would rate him as far better than Joy Burch (don’t ever bother taking constituent issues to her, she is hopeless and patronising).

RedDogInCan said :

Skidbladnir said :

If Shane were sane, he’d … proclaiming himself Chief, and … form Cabinet with whichever Members on the day want to cooperate and share instead of competing to the detriment of the constituency.

So it would operate like a town council then?

Unfortunately, local government looks to be the new playground of the parties.

the election term should be proportional to the winning margin

Simon got re-elected … ? Did he even try this time?

Skidbladnir said :

…….If Shane were sane, he’d ignore the small percentage who voted for him first, teach Canberrans a thing or two about seizing power by proclaiming himself Chief, and instead of going through the bullshit of negotiating with Katy or Zed instead form Cabinet with whichever Members on the day want to cooperate and share instead of competing to the detriment of the constituency…….

I think the Greens suffered because they didn’t show any teeth, didn’t really achieve any notable outcomes and didn’t demonstrate much effort in holding anyone else accountable for their actions. I’m sure they worked hard but I suspect it was a bit like a duck paddling.

Shane should make whatever support he gives subject to specific and publicly accountable deadlines and expenditure both for the outcomes he wants and for the outcomes promised during the election by the party he supports. He should make his support reviewable mid term, if any expenditure or deadline is missed or if he believes there has been any immoral or unethical behaviour – and stand by those conditions.

Given the equal split in votes, he might even get bonus points for implementing some of the policy initiatives of the Opposition (Labor or Liberal) that the Greens find more palatable. They can’t all be bad and morally repugnant ideas and, although probably naive, it might demonstrate a more cohesive and workable Government that is more interested in getting things done rather than wasting time point scoring.

Skidbladnir said :

If Shane were sane, he’d … proclaiming himself Chief, and … form Cabinet with whichever Members on the day want to cooperate and share instead of competing to the detriment of the constituency.

So it would operate like a town council then?

So is there a mandate for Labor to now build light rail to Gunghahlin?

So Guilia with a G finally gor a geurnsey – what what this – her third go at it?

And Brendan Smyth is still in – I think he was in the original assembly!

And simon corbell scraped home. And newbie Chris Bourke is still around.

3 greens lost their seats, Guilia, Yvette Berry,, mick gentleman and Andrew wall are new, so which other former member lost out?

I think it is interesting that Shane and Carolyn le couter were the greens thatwere more public about what they were doing, and got more votes. The other two got too involved in committees etc, and the process of parliament, and were not seen to be doing too much by the general public.

dominic_mhd said :

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result. I would rather a 9/7/0 split either way than this joke.

I already sent a tweet to Katy and Zed asking them to form a coalition together. I doubt either of them gave it a second look but I can at least say I tried…….

Australians are getting scary good at this hung parliament thing.

If Shane were sane, he’d ignore the small percentage who voted for him first, teach Canberrans a thing or two about seizing power by proclaiming himself Chief, and instead of going through the bullshit of negotiating with Katy or Zed instead form Cabinet with whichever Members on the day want to cooperate and share instead of competing to the detriment of the constituency.

Sure, it would be unstable and unpredictable, but it would keep people on their toes and be the very definition of governing through evidence based policy , accountability, and self-determination.

But he’s not, so I expect to see Katy back at her tricks and Zed \Smyth continuing to claim relevance, despite the electorate’s best intentions.

dominic_mhd said :

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result.

Actually, _any_ MLA could control the result simply by voting for the other side. A promise of a ministery or speaker’s role could be enough for a junior member to be tempted to ‘slipper’ over to the dark side. Stranger things have happened.

johnboy said :

Shane’s main issue is what will get the greens more votes in four years time.

And that’s a bit of a toothsucker.

Sure you can say few green voters thought they were voting for a Liberal government. But at the same time if they wanted a Labor Government they’d have voted for Labor.

I maintain that serious greens need to view Labor as more their enemy than the Liberals. Labor voters might turn Green, Liberals much less so.

If Shane is capable of getting Liberals to genuinely enforce Greens policies, then:
a) He’s a shockingly good negotiator; and
b) He thorougly deserves re-election by his supporters next time.

Unfortuantely, I don’t see Zed really compromising anywhere given the nature of HIS hardcore supporters, meaning, yep,

So inevitably, given the Labour party will compromise for power, and the Libs won’t, we’ll end up with a Labour government and a lot of fake outrage from the Libs about how hard done by they are.

dominic_mhd said :

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result. I would rather a 9/7/0 split either way than this joke.

You seem to forget that not only have cross benchers had control of the Assembly for much of its existence, but even in the last one where the Greens held four seats, the Liberals and Labor sided with one another against the Greens on a number of votes.

A lot of the arguments I’m reading on here and elsewhere may hold up for larger Parliaments, indeed there seems to be a good deal of transference going from the Federal example, but the ACT does have a different dynamic.

All the negotiations will decide is who gets to say they’re in government.

Despite a swing against the greens, they still get to control the result. I would rather a 9/7/0 split either way than this joke.

justin heywood9:27 pm 27 Oct 12

Minz said :

Disappointing result for the Greens and shows something about how people vote – the Greens had what looked like a really strong set of policies (particularly in comparison with the other parties) and people voted based on… what? A scare campaign, apparently. Pretty sad really.[/quote>

It may be comforting to some to believe that their team lost because a gullible public was fooled by a scare campaign, but is it true?

It’s axiomatic in politics that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them, and I think the current incumbents deserved to lose, or almost lose, this one.

The fact that most people didn’t support your team doesn’t necessarily mean that most people are stupid. Sometimes you have to look closer to home.

The unfortunately named Mr Rattenbury is a politician, which almost certainly means that he will do whatever he sees as being in his own best interest.

enrique said :

I see your point… but my question still holds… essentially, shouldn’t Shane do what *his voters* wanted him to do? i.e. if the majority of them decided that their first preference was Green but then after that they wanted Labour as their second preference (in a Labour vs Liberal choice) – shouldn’t Shane go with Labour? (or vice-versa if the second preference for the majority was Liberal?)

His voters, more than anything, want him to implement Green policy. That’s why they voted for him. Any choices they’ve made below that are therefore a lower priority than their support for the Greens. So if they were forced to choose between ‘more Green policies from a less-preferred government’, or ‘less Green policies from a more-preferred government’, I’d say the Green element has to be assumed to take priority.

(Not to mention… do you want to be the one to calculate which major party his voters really “prefer” under Hare-Clark? That’d be a statistical nightmare.)

Primal said :

enrique said :

Question: Shouldn’t Shane Rattenbury’s decision be based on what the preferences of all the people that voted for him are?

Nope. What if that ‘preferred’ party was willing to implement fewer Green policies than the other? That argument falls over real quick.

Rattenbury was personally elected as a Green. His only sensible approach is to negotiate with a goal of having as many Green policies as possible implemented by the eventual coalition government.

I see your point… but my question still holds… essentially, shouldn’t Shane do what *his voters* wanted him to do? i.e. if the majority of them decided that their first preference was Green but then after that they wanted Labour as their second preference (in a Labour vs Liberal choice) – shouldn’t Shane go with Labour? (or vice-versa if the second preference for the majority was Liberal?)

enrique said :

Question: Shouldn’t Shane Rattenbury’s decision be based on what the preferences of all the people that voted for him are?

Nope. What if that ‘preferred’ party was willing to implement fewer Green policies than the other? That argument falls over real quick.

Rattenbury was personally elected as a Green. His only sensible approach is to negotiate with a goal of having as many Green policies as possible implemented by the eventual coalition government.

But given the Liberals’ more-or-less stated “slash and burn” policy with regards to the environment, could a real Green possibly support them? I don’t see it.

Disappointing result for the Greens and shows something about how people vote – the Greens had what looked like a really strong set of policies (particularly in comparison with the other parties) and people voted based on… what? A scare campaign, apparently. Pretty sad really.

“Shane Rattenbury to decide what happens next.”

Absolutely delighted that the Greens have been given the slap in the face they so much deserve. Unfotunately, I don’t think that holding Katy accountable for the fudging numbers at the hospital will be at the top of Shane’s to do list.

Question: Shouldn’t Shane Rattenbury’s decision be based on what the preferences of all the people that voted for him are?

i.e. if the majority of people that voted for Rattenbury preferred, say, Labour as their next choice (in a Labour vs Liberal decision) then shouldn’t Rattenbury do what his constituents wanted him to and form government with Labour?

And vice-versa… if the majority of people that voted for Rattenbury preferred Liberal as their next choice then shouldn’t he form government with Liberal?

This is a genuine question. I don’t really understand how it works and I’m wondering why it is up to Shane to decide the government and not based on the preferences of the people that voted for him? I know I’d be pretty p!$$ed off if I voted for someone and they held the balance of power but then they decided to go against what the majority of people that voted for them wanted…

Shane’s main issue is what will get the greens more votes in four years time.

And that’s a bit of a toothsucker.

Sure you can say few green voters thought they were voting for a Liberal government. But at the same time if they wanted a Labor Government they’d have voted for Labor.

I maintain that serious greens need to view Labor as more their enemy than the Liberals. Labor voters might turn Green, Liberals much less so.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.