And the winner of the 2012 election is... Katy Gallagher

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Lol. The greens lost a third of their vote and you’re gloating and celebrating? I’d hate to see you if they actually did well.

‘Actually did well’? So, better than deciding who runs the government and getting all their policies agreed to and having a ministry? Getting exactly what they’d have if they got four seats instead of one? Being infinitely better than the Libs, who have precisely nothing? Knowing that all they have to do next time is win one seat and it’s four more years?

What’s not to celebrate?

Wow, you would have to have to be truly delusional to regard the past election as anything other than a humiliating rejection for the Greens. Not even the leadership is trying to dress it up as anything else.

By a quirk of electoral fate they have ended up with the balance of power. If the actual winners (i.e. Labor – Liberals) had not virtually dead- heated the Greens would be a rump – then again, they have already been reduced to a rump

If the Greens truly did take this ‘victory’ as some sort of vindication of their behaviour over the last 4 years, and conduct themselves in the same arrogant way this term, imagine how they will go at the next election.

Lol. The greens lost a third of their vote and you’re gloating and celebrating? I’d hate to see you if they actually did well.

‘Actually did well’? So, better than deciding who runs the government and getting all their policies agreed to and having a ministry? Getting exactly what they’d have if they got four seats instead of one? Being infinitely better than the Libs, who have precisely nothing? Knowing that all they have to do next time is win one seat and it’s four more years?

What’s not to celebrate?

How much of the ACT’s energy consumption is currently coming out of renewables, can any Rioter tell us? How much will it cost to achieve this target of 90 per cent by 2020? Wouldn’t the “scoping and planning, followed by tenders” stage still need to be done? Call that 18 months minimum? – from early next year?- that will leave little more than six years to achieve this. And what are the implications for the non-welfare, non-public-housing tenant ACT resident hip-pocket?
On the other hand, what’s the likelihood of this carrying through, with an ACT election due two years before the deadline? Snowflake’s?

Lucky for Katy that Section 2 (iii) was not in the last agreement with she had with the Greens.

“Maintain confidence in Chief Minister Ms Katy Gallagher except in incidences of proven corruption, gross negligence…”

Or maybe it was and that is why the Greens continually whitewashed the hospital fiasco…because a proper inquiry may have made her gross negligence “proven”.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Apples and oranges.

Lemons for you, Cameron old chum. Bitter, sour lemons.

Lol. The greens lost a third of their vote and you’re gloating and celebrating? I’d hate to see you if they actually did well.

Wouldn’t have been upset to see Zed get to form government, if only to wipe the smug off Andrew Barr’s face, and to put the wind up some of the Labor faithful in the bureaucracy.

Jim Jones said :

HenryBG said :

more educated and more conservative

BWAAA AHAHAHA HAHAHA

I think you’ll find that all the research undertaken across the Western world has shown strong links of high levels of education with progressive political leanings.

The people you describe are not the people who will swing to a Party whose platform is environmental conservatism. The people you describe are those who will vote for either the ALP or a leftist fringe group.
The Greens *have* been dabbling with the leftist fringe. This is why they lost the support of the environmentally conservative.

It should be pretty obvious that the upper middle class that is concerned with environmental issues is a far larger demographic than the leftist fringe the Greens have been courting.
Competing for votes with the ALP will
a/ Help put the Libs in power
and
b/ result in a no-brand Greens party forever in coalition with the ALP and destined to go the way of the Nationals.

Thanks to Hare and Clark we pretty much end up with the status quo…down, down, deeper and down…

Apples and oranges.

Lemons for you, Cameron old chum. Bitter, sour lemons.

To an outsider, the outcome of the 2012 ACT Legislative Assembly election would indeed be a mystery. Given that The Greens lost 3 seats, a normal person would expect that party’s policies going into the election were rejected unanimously by the electorate yet we now have 100 of The Greens policies on the winning Labor Party’s agenda.
Given that light rail is the number one item on The Greens’ (and now Labor’s agenda) and that the Liberals (who got more votes than any other party) didn’t have any light rail policy going into to the election (or apparently through the post election negotiations), a normal person would have also concluded that the ACT electorate had rejected The Greens’ light rail policy and the hastily cobbled together Capital Metro light rail proposal that Labor presented on the eve of the election.
This Labor light rail policy statement was a “me too” stunt by Labor to attract Green voters (they didn’t even register the “Capital Metro” name) and Labor parrotted the Queensland Gold Coast PPP Euro Tran-Tram model which is for a population of 550,000. Such a PPP proposal in the ACT would bankrupt us for many years to come. As it turns out Labor’s proposal was only for another multi-million dollar waste of ratepayers money feasability study anyhow – they can’t be fair-dinkum because of the massive cost.
There are nevertheless other light rail concepts available that are financially viable and very suitable for the ACT; even more environmentally efficient than anything that uses renewable electricity which The Greens are insisting on in fact. Unfortunately these concepts will never see the light of day in Canberra over the next 4 years so, as our population increases and more inefficient buses are put on the roads with more cars with less and more expensive parking spaces available, we will have more of the same, only worse.
In making that statement I am assuming that there is no way Labor will fund a billion dollar light rail white elephant for The Green.
However, like the “outsider” I referred to in the opening sentence, I could be wrong.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

2001, Federal election. Libs: 37.40%. Labor: 37.84%. Nats: 5.61%. Nats form a coalition with Libs, even though Labor had more votes than the Libs. Libs / Nats coalition takes government. Conservatives: ‘Democracy in action. Whoever can form a majority should take government.’

Apples and oranges. The Liberal/National coalition ran on a coalition platform. It was clear that they would support each other both in government and in opposition, and voters would (and did) go to the polls fully aware of that fact.

Whilst most people would have realised the Greens would support a minority Labor government, they did not run a joint platform, nor did either party pledge to support the other. Hence, the federal example of the National Party is off base.

Well Canberra you obviously deserve who you vote for. I wonder which school they will close this election, how many animals they will kill on their quota this year, how much parking will be increased, taxes, electricity etc etc.. dissapointed people just want more of it

Jethro said :

Cameron said :

I’m a Liberal supporter, and contrary to the hyperbole in this thread, I’m not sitting in a corner crying.

Anyone that seriously thought Rattenbury was going to side with Liberal was kidding themselves. Sure, I’m disappointed by his decision, but I, like most rational people, understand that 8 Lab + 1 Green = 9 seats left of centre, so a Lab/Green government does actually reflect the will of the people – despite the swing against such an arrangement.

The kind of rubbish commentary going on in some parts of this thread is exactly the reason why it is near to impossible for anyone to have a political discussion in this country without it becoming school yard name calling.

One other thing – Canberrans and their fixation with light rail. I don’t get it. We are the wrong type of city for this type of public transport. Low population and low population density does not lend itself at all to public transport operating along a single fixed route. Better to invest the money in improving the bus system.

Too many economically illiterate greenie voters. Anyone who has looked at the numbers would conclude that it would be absurdly expensive which is why I don’t expect labor to actually pull the trigger on building it. Look forward to 4 years of stalling.

aussielyn said :

…All ministers will now be cocooned from their constituents for another 4 years.

Thank God for that. I’m happy to see these politicians (and the wanabees) for just one month every 4 years. With the obvious exception of Gunghalin Al, of course.

And in accordance with prophesy, a vote for Greeens is a vote for Labor.

Jethro said :

..
One other thing – Canberrans and their fixation with light rail. I don’t get it. We are the wrong type of city for this type of public transport. Low population and low population density does not lend itself at all to public transport operating along a single fixed route. Better to invest the money in improving the bus system.

Every time I hear of light rail in Canberra I can’t help but think of Ogdenville, North Haverbrook and Brockway.

I tend to agree. I have to wonder, how many people out there currently driving to work instead of getting a bus are magically going to get on a ‘light rail’ system when it is active? If you had to bus it (or drive) to the station train, it’s almost a matter of why bother?

I mean, it’ll be almost identical to a bus from Gunners to Civic, except instead of stopping at 14 sets of traffic lights (depending on colour) they’ll be stopping at 14 stations – to pick up all the inner North people….
Basically it’ll be the same time to Civic, won’t it (give or take 2 minutes)? Unless they ran an express service or two?
I just can’t see how they’ll ever get their (our) money back…?

dpm said :

Madam Cholet said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

I thought that the Speaker did have the right to vote in the ACT?

Shhh, let him rant.

The speaker has a deliberative vote AFAIK (but not a casting vote)…..

You are right. The LA Standing Orders (S161) states that “The Member presiding has a deliberative vote only.” That means that the deliberative vote must be taken at the same time that everyone else votes. He cannot put an issue to the vote, wait to see the result and then exercise his casting vote – that is not seen as fair or reasonable.

If the rest of the polls run as expected Gallagher is going to cut a lonely figure at the Federal/State get togethers. She would also be the highest Labor leader heading a government in the country. The equivalent of this after the Rudd election was that Campbell Newman was the highest Liberal leader in the nation- as Brisbane Lord Mayor.

Cameron said :

I’m a Liberal supporter, and contrary to the hyperbole in this thread, I’m not sitting in a corner crying.

Anyone that seriously thought Rattenbury was going to side with Liberal was kidding themselves. Sure, I’m disappointed by his decision, but I, like most rational people, understand that 8 Lab + 1 Green = 9 seats left of centre, so a Lab/Green government does actually reflect the will of the people – despite the swing against such an arrangement.

The kind of rubbish commentary going on in some parts of this thread is exactly the reason why it is near to impossible for anyone to have a political discussion in this country without it becoming school yard name calling.

+1

I will say that I do think it is an unfortunate side-effect of our electoral system that it is going to be very hard for the Liberal Party to ever attain power as long as 2 of the 3 major parties are left of centre. It is very difficult (although not impossible) for a party to get an absolute majority of seats in the ACT, which essentially locks us in to the current arrangement unless there is a very significant lurch to the right or an electable right of centre party appears.

One other thing – Canberrans and their fixation with light rail. I don’t get it. We are the wrong type of city for this type of public transport. Low population and low population density does not lend itself at all to public transport operating along a single fixed route. Better to invest the money in improving the bus system.

Every time I hear of light rail in Canberra I can’t help but think of Ogdenville, North Haverbrook and Brockway.

Who started this silly rumour that the speaker doesn’t vote? In the ACT the speaker does vote.

The libs should definitely take on the speaker role.

However, if you think the losing of three seats to be some incredible victory for the Greens then so be it.

If not only getting into government, but also deciding who else gets into government, holding a ministry, getting all your policies agreed to and getting to laugh at the Libs for four more years isn’t an ‘incredible victory’, what is?

johnboy said :

Postalgeek said :

Says it all. And you’re spot on about the pathetic school yard name calling. Grade school name calling, like Ju-liar and RATwhatever, might be mildly amusing the first time, but f*** it gets tedious quickly. That’s what really grates, not name calling as such, but the sheer witless repetitiveness of it.

It’s the monty python effect. unfunny people see something they know other people think is funny and ride it into the ground hoping to be mistaken for funny.

Sadly I think some of those that ramble on with “clever” nicknames and cliches actually think they are making a thoughtful contribution. Not just being funny but also really making you think…… Look at comments on the ABC news site. No matter what topic it is sooner or later (well sooner) someone will throw in the Carbon Tax as destroying us all and the response will be Howard= War criminal.

watto23 said :

I think Zed probably could have been less antagonistic than he was, demanding this and that based on the vote.

He knew he wouldn’t form government. His “victory” speech on election night showed he will try to follow the Abbott strategy in opposition. ie “Waaaaaaaaaaaa”

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

If you seriously thought that Greens would side with the Lib’s you’re an A grade moron….

ABC showing some balls tonight, saying point blank to Katy G the results “is not a ringing endorsement of your government is it?” Who said Aunty is in Labor’s pocket, or is accurate for that matter given Labor received a swing to it.

The facts from Elections ACT are the primary vote: ALP 85,991, Greens 23,773, Lib 86.032
Quotas from primary vote; Gallagher 2.1, Seselja 1.8.
The other 15 MLAs elected got their quotas from preferences.
ALP 8 Lib 8 Green 1. Green decided to align with ALP and signed agreement.
The will of the people, under the electoral system we have, has been implemented.

A bitter pill for some RiotACTers!

All ministers will now be cocooned from their constituents for another 4 years.

2001, Federal election. Libs: 37.40%. Labor: 37.84%. Nats: 5.61%. Nats form a coalition with Libs, even though Labor had more votes than the Libs. Libs / Nats coalition takes government. Conservatives: ‘Democracy in action. Whoever can form a majority should take government.’

2012, ACT election. Libs and Labor both get 38.9% of the vote. Greens get 10.7% of the vote – more than twice the 2001 National vote. Greens and Labour form a coalition and take government. Conservatives: ‘HERP DERP JERBS DERP’

trevar said :

IrishPete said :

Responding to a few other commenters, I’m tempted to offer a dollar to charity for every voter you can find who voted Greens in 2008 and Liberal in 2012.

Hmmm… It occurs to me that under our electoral laws, the documentation to prove that particular conversion would be illegal, meaning that your evidence requirements couldn’t be especially stringent… which could make the job very easy… and I could get rather more than you expect for that particular charity… but which charity is it going to? I wouldn’t want to go to any effort only to find out that the charity is a political party!

I said “tempted”, not that I was offering. And ACT voters are all honest, so I would take their word for it – no evidence required (such records probably do not exist anyway, though Google will probably find a way to gather it one day). The nominated charity would of course have to be The Greens ACT – thanks for prompting me to say so!

IP

Reading through the parliamentary agreement, it looks like the Greens got almost all (if not all) if their policies agreed to by Labor in return for voting with them always (including to never support any no-confidence motion ever).

It would be worth looking through the Libs policies (few as they were) to see who and what the losers are going to be thanks to the Greens. I expect the Libs will do this in the next few days.

Postalgeek said :

Says it all. And you’re spot on about the pathetic school yard name calling. Grade school name calling, like Ju-liar and RATwhatever, might be mildly amusing the first time, but f*** it gets tedious quickly. That’s what really grates, not name calling as such, but the sheer witless repetitiveness of it.

It’s the monty python effect. unfunny people see something they know other people think is funny and ride it into the ground hoping to be mistaken for funny.

Cameron said :

I’m a Liberal supporter, and contrary to the hyperbole in this thread, I’m not sitting in a corner crying.

Anyone that seriously thought Rattenbury was going to side with Liberal was kidding themselves. Sure, I’m disappointed by his decision, but I, like most rational people, understand that 8 Lab + 1 Green = 9 seats left of centre, so a Lab/Green government does actually reflect the will of the people – despite the swing against such an arrangement.

The kind of rubbish commentary going on in some parts of this thread is exactly the reason why it is near to impossible for anyone to have a political discussion in this country without it becoming school yard name calling.

Says it all. And you’re spot on about the pathetic school yard name calling. Grade school name calling, like Ju-liar and RATwhatever, might be mildly amusing the first time, but f*** it gets tedious quickly. That’s what really grates, not name calling as such, but the sheer witless repetitiveness of it.

Madam Cholet said :

So, your votes hemorrhage to the Libs, but you feel that it’s ok to keep the apparent status quo?
My prediction for the next election…Shane Rattenbury, whilst a nice person and the best of the greeny bunch, will be blasted into outer space by the electorate.

You don’t really know where the Greens voters went – it’s at least equally plausible that they deserted to the ALP.

Consider that the Greens managed 1.1 quotas in Molonglo at this election, after supporting a Labor government for the previous 4 years – I doubt many of those votes are going to be too heartbroken by Shane supporting another one for the next 4 years. So I don’t think the Greens will have too much trouble continuing to elect a member in Molonglo – unless, that is, the Electoral Commission resurrects its plan to radically reshape all the electorates…

Cameron said :

I’m a Liberal supporter, and contrary to the hyperbole in this thread, I’m not sitting in a corner crying.

Anyone that seriously thought Rattenbury was going to side with Liberal was kidding themselves. Sure, I’m disappointed by his decision, but I, like most rational people, understand that 8 Lab + 1 Green = 9 seats left of centre, so a Lab/Green government does actually reflect the will of the people – despite the swing against such an arrangement.

The kind of rubbish commentary going on in some parts of this thread is exactly the reason why it is near to impossible for anyone to have a political discussion in this country without it becoming school yard name calling.

+1
Well said. If it was a moderate party/independant on the cross bench then fair enough, but it wasn’t.
Do the whingers realise that the Liberals also have been handed power before by the cross bench?
One could also summise that Liberal may find it hard to get more votes than what they got, next time around Its their best ACT election result, I’m sure they could improve, but just like the greens who had a best ever result support dwindled.

I think Zed probably could have been less antagonistic than he was, demanding this and that based on the vote. As stated more support for progressive over conservative candidates for a start. I think even with a 8-7-2 result, he’d be opposition still.

Cameron said :

I’m a Liberal supporter, and contrary to the hyperbole in this thread, I’m not sitting in a corner crying.

Anyone that seriously thought Rattenbury was going to side with Liberal was kidding themselves. Sure, I’m disappointed by his decision, but I, like most rational people, understand that 8 Lab + 1 Green = 9 seats left of centre, so a Lab/Green government does actually reflect the will of the people – despite the swing against such an arrangement.

The kind of rubbish commentary going on in some parts of this thread is exactly the reason why it is near to impossible for anyone to have a political discussion in this country without it becoming school yard name calling.

Well said. If the Motorist Party had won the balance of power, then we would have a Liberal government with a special Minister for Burnouts, as the Motorists would find it more palatable to support the Liberals.

Not that the Motorists would use the word palatable.

Cameron said :

I’m a Liberal supporter, and contrary to the hyperbole in this thread, I’m not sitting in a corner crying.

Anyone that seriously thought Rattenbury was going to side with Liberal was kidding themselves. Sure, I’m disappointed by his decision, but I, like most rational people, understand that 8 Lab + 1 Green = 9 seats left of centre, so a Lab/Green government does actually reflect the will of the people – despite the swing against such an arrangement.

The kind of rubbish commentary going on in some parts of this thread is exactly the reason why it is near to impossible for anyone to have a political discussion in this country without it becoming school yard name calling.

Well said, Cameron (and also one or two others). I actually switched my vote from Labor to Green this time around for several reasons. I mourn most of all a lack of civil discourse on politics, especially since we seem to be mimicking the US in this disturbing trend.

Had Rattenbury sided with the Liberals (unlikely I agree), I really don’t think it would signal the end of the world or be a failure of democracy or anything remotely similar.

Any chance we can behave in a mature and sensible fashion as we go forward? Just a bit maybe?

I dunno, four seats down to one seems a pretty definitive ‘against’.

15.6% to 10.7% is a better way to look at it – the Greens were very lucky to get the second seat in Molonglo last time.

PrinceOfAles said :

dpm said :

The speaker has a deliberative vote AFAIK (but not a casting vote)…..

Translation for the non-edumacated amongst us?

A deliberative vote is the normal kind of vote you can cast when the motion is being decided on.

A casting vote is a special vote that you can only cast when the vote has been resolved as a tie on the deliberative votes.

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

Those are actually the same guess, but anyway: This wouldn’t take any votes away from the Liberals. In the Legislative Assembly, the presiding Member has a normal, deliberative vote just like every other Member. Standing order 161, if you’re interested.

I’m a Liberal supporter, and contrary to the hyperbole in this thread, I’m not sitting in a corner crying.

Anyone that seriously thought Rattenbury was going to side with Liberal was kidding themselves. Sure, I’m disappointed by his decision, but I, like most rational people, understand that 8 Lab + 1 Green = 9 seats left of centre, so a Lab/Green government does actually reflect the will of the people – despite the swing against such an arrangement.

The kind of rubbish commentary going on in some parts of this thread is exactly the reason why it is near to impossible for anyone to have a political discussion in this country without it becoming school yard name calling.

Bosworth said :

Wow.

There are come very cranky Liberal Party members in this thread.

dpm said :

Madam Cholet said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

I thought that the Speaker did have the right to vote in the ACT?

Shhh, let him rant.

The speaker has a deliberative vote AFAIK (but not a casting vote)…..

Translation for the non-edumacated amongst us?

So, anonymous people who voted 1 Alan Kerlin, and, more realistically, various complicated combinations of Left and Green, including Shane, were right on the money…

I foresee a city economy based around poetry in parks.

Pretty funny the lib hardcore nutters don’t seem to understand how our system works but are so quick to jump up and down in outrage about democracy.

Mysteryman said :

We’re being promised the Greenest government in the country.

Hang on, am I missing something here?

Didn’t the public decisively and quite comprehensibly vote against the Greens?

(Not that I have a problem with a green government, I just think it’s a bit rich after being decimated in the polls.)

Nope, you got it in one (semantics about voting for or against, aside). It’s ridiculous, in my opinion.

Big surprise there.

So Shane has delivered us another majority government, something the electorate rejected in 2008. i find it hard to believe anyone really wants that (other than the Labor-Greens hacks, of course).

Well done Shane.

I hope the Libs have the common sense to refuse the speakership, so at least there will be some balance in the Assembly.

I am hoping that the government can work together and we get the best policies from both sides. 🙂
I heavily support cleaning up Lake Tuggeranong as it currently is the lake that spends most time closed.

I can see the masqara running down their little Liberal faces as their stamp their feet in this thread. Illegitimate gummint takin er jerbs.

We’re being promised the Greenest government in the country.

Hang on, am I missing something here?

Didn’t the public decisively and quite comprehensibly vote against the Greens?

(Not that I have a problem with a green government, I just think it’s a bit rich after being decimated in the polls.)

Nope, you got it in one (semantics about voting for or against, aside). It’s ridiculous, in my opinion.

Madam Cholet said :

So, your votes hemorrhage to the Libs, but you feel that it’s ok to keep the apparent status quo?
My prediction for the next election…Shane Rattenbury, whilst a nice person and the best of the greeny bunch, will be blasted into outer space by the electorate.

There was also an 8.3% swing away from Ungrouped / Independent candidates – do you honestly not think that the Lib boost didn’t come from here and some former Labor voters?

Madam Cholet said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

I thought that the Speaker did have the right to vote in the ACT?

Shhh, let him rant.

The speaker has a deliberative vote AFAIK (but not a casting vote)…..

Jim Jones said :

We’re being promised the Greenest government in the country.

Hang on, am I missing something here?

Didn’t the public decisively and quite comprehensibly vote against the Greens?

(Not that I have a problem with a green government, I just think it’s a bit rich after being decimated in the polls.)

I think you’ll find that, even with the Hare-Clark system, you can’t actually vote ‘against’ anyone. You can, if you so desire, vote for the person of your choice to be elected.

I dunno, four seats down to one seems a pretty definitive ‘against’.

Yeah, massive swing ‘against’ obviously. But nobody votes ‘against’ anyone.

Rattenbury won a seat. Labor and Liberal are tied, so he decides the winner. Given that the Liberals and the Greens are on opposite ends of the political spectrum (and the Libs spend every waking hour trashing the Greens) it’s no great surprise which way it went. The Greens would have absolutely killed themselves electorally if they’d supported a Liberal gummint.

All the RA RA OUTRAGE RA RA about Ratters choosing who gets to be the gummint is confected bollocks. He’s only in that position because the Libs and Labor are tied. He do anything without the support of one of the major parties. This bizarre notion that the gummint is taken over by the greens and democracy is dead TERK ER JERBS is the most puerile sort of ignorant rubbish.

Representative democracy – if you don’t understand it, shut the f$ck up about it.

Jim Jones said :

We’re being promised the Greenest government in the country.

Hang on, am I missing something here?

Didn’t the public decisively and quite comprehensibly vote against the Greens?

(Not that I have a problem with a green government, I just think it’s a bit rich after being decimated in the polls.)

I think you’ll find that, even with the Hare-Clark system, you can’t actually vote ‘against’ anyone. You can, if you so desire, vote for the person of your choice to be elected.

I dunno, four seats down to one seems a pretty definitive ‘against’.

All it took was a 5% swing against them and there goes 3 seats.

The ministry will be interesting because I think people were disappointed that the Greens didn’t take one when offered last time. They were seen as unwilling to govern once they got in, which defeats the purpose and makes them look like they only want to complain. Why would you vote for that? Maybe taking a ministry now will address that…

Bosworth said :

Wow.

There are come very cranky Liberal Party members in this thread.

Eh, not me. Disappointed, but not surprised. I really think the Libs have their act together now, they’re united. I’m a bit of a moderate in the Party, and nobody cares at all. Everyone is more or less equal, it’s been a great party to be a part of. There are ideologies, but no factions. I like that.

We’ll keep the government to account for the next 4 years, and we’ll have another crack in 2016. I think that might be our time in the sun.

To my fellow Libs on RA: don’t get too worked up. Are you really THAT shocked? No. So let’s just get on with the very difficult job of opposition.

To Mr Gillespie: just stop, please. You’re not right in the head, mate.

maxblues said :

damien haas said :

I think its is of great significance that Rattenbury mentioned light rail immediately after announcing his support. In questions from journos he said that work would commence in 2015 – in this assembly term.

Fantastic news.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Yes the news was ‘fantastic’, just like “Loneliness forced elephant to speak Korean” on ABC24 today.
The bad news is the Light Rail will now be re-routed from Shane’s place to the arboretum.

I selected that line on the scrolling news for the image i grabbed for the ACT Light Rail blog post on the announcement.

http://www.actlightrail.info/2012/11/light-rail-determines-act-government.html

IrishPete said :

Responding to a few other commenters, I’m tempted to offer a dollar to charity for every voter you can find who voted Greens in 2008 and Liberal in 2012.

Hmmm… It occurs to me that under our electoral laws, the documentation to prove that particular conversion would be illegal, meaning that your evidence requirements couldn’t be especially stringent… which could make the job very easy… and I could get rather more than you expect for that particular charity… but which charity is it going to? I wouldn’t want to go to any effort only to find out that the charity is a political party!

johnboy said :

Madam Cholet said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

I thought that the Speaker did have the right to vote in the ACT?

I wouldn’t take advice from Mr G about anything except stalking.

Way too harsh given Mr G’s mastery of autoerotic asphyxia is legendary.

Jim Jones said :

cmdwedge said :

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

Idiots like you do my wonderful party no favours.

Motorists Party?

Good lord, no. Ugh.

/I do drive a V8 though.

damien haas said :

I think its is of great significance that Rattenbury mentioned light rail immediately after announcing his support. In questions from journos he said that work would commence in 2015 – in this assembly term.

Fantastic news.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Yes the news was ‘fantastic’, just like “Loneliness forced elephant to speak Korean” on ABC24 today.
The bad news is the Light Rail will now be re-routed from Shane’s place to the arboretum.

Bosworth said :

Wow.

There are come very cranky Liberal Party members in this thread.

TERRRK ERRRR JERRRRRRRRRRRBS!!!

johnboy said :

Madam Cholet said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

I thought that the Speaker did have the right to vote in the ACT?

I wouldn’t take advice from Mr G about anything except stalking.

That made me giggle: oh the privilege of being editor – you can say what you want!

IP

We’re being promised the Greenest government in the country.

Hang on, am I missing something here?

Didn’t the public decisively and quite comprehensibly vote against the Greens?

(Not that I have a problem with a green government, I just think it’s a bit rich after being decimated in the polls.)

I think you’ll find that, even with the Hare-Clark system, you can’t actually vote ‘against’ anyone. You can, if you so desire, vote for the person of your choice to be elected.

Wow.

There are come very cranky Liberal Party members in this thread.

Madam Cholet said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

I thought that the Speaker did have the right to vote in the ACT?

I wouldn’t take advice from Mr G about anything except stalking.

SnapperJack said :

…. In this election the Libs won more votes than Labor ….

The difference was 41 votes out of ~230,000. So, while technically they got *more* votes, I don’t think either side could have stood proudly and announced that as an endorsement, could they?? It’s way too small to be of any meaning.
Let face it, it there was a recount there may have well been a 41-vote Labor ‘victory’. Hahahaha!

Responding to a few other commenters, I’m tempted to offer a dollar to charity for every voter you can find who voted Greens in 2008 and Liberal in 2012. Because I doubt there are many, and I wouldn’t have to donate much.

The change in voting is much more likely to have been: some people changing from Labor to Liberal; and some people changing from Greens to Labor. (The minor parties and independents are difficult to think about here, but probably also had an effect.)

So rather than being a swing “for” Labor, or “against” the Greens, I think the changes in voting are a general movement to the right – everyone take one step to the right, resulting in some Labor voters becoming Liberal voters, and some Greens voters becoming Labor voters. Or actually, rather than everyone taking one step to the right, a proportion of voters for each party have taken one step to the right.

(The concept of “swing” only really works in a two-party system, and we’re gradually leaving that behind again, as the Greens and Independents become more influential in State/Territory, Commonwealth and Local politics, albeit with some ups and down. We’ve probably been here before with the Democrats.)

The change in voting patterns is consistent with what has happened everywhere else recently, including the very recent local elections in NSW. That it didn’t result in a landslide Liberal government just shows how different the ACT is from most other jursidictions. But so was the City of Sydney different by re-electing Clover Moore, and replacing her as a State MP with an Independent endorsed by her.

I am confident that Federal Labor’s lurch to the extreme right on refugee policy will have the effect of driving left-wing voters back to the Greens.

IP

dpm said :

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

I think it was all due to keeping the plastic bag ‘ban’. So it’s your fault, really….

John Moulis should have posted another video 😉

Mr Gillespie said :

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

I thought that the Speaker did have the right to vote in the ACT?

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

I think it was all due to keeping the plastic bag ‘ban’. So it’s your fault, really….

cmdwedge said :

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

Idiots like you do my wonderful party no favours.

Motorists Party?

Mr Gillespie said :

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

Who wants to tell him that there was a swing towards Labor? Any volunteers? Experience with unstable substances advised.

The 40% climate change target is pointless, a waste of time, and nothing but Greenie symbolism. The only thing it will change is the amount of taxpayer funds spent on “projects” to meet that 40% target. It sure as hell won’t change the climate.

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

Idiots like you do my wonderful party no favours.

Greens Statement now available.

bundah said :

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

Oh dear that plastic bag has been on for way too long!

I’m betting a condition of Shane support was not spending $100,000 on a study to work out if the Plastic Bag Ban is an environmentally damaging waste of money.

HenryBG said :

more educated and more conservative

BWAAA AHAHAHA HAHAHA

I think you’ll find that all the research undertaken across the Western world has shown strong links of high levels of education with progressive political leanings.

Greens to support Liberals for the Speakership. Why? 2 guesses.

1. That takes the vote away from the Liberals so they only have 7 while Labor makes 8 votes.
2. The Speaker is not entitled to vote

Pity. Should have gone with QUADRUPLE YOUR RATES, really.

WAAAAAH … communists … mung beans … DEMOCRACY IS DEAD … let’s have a convoy!!!

Mysteryman said :

Oh geez. Another 4 years of this.

Madam Cholet said :

So, your votes hemorrhage to the Libs, but you feel that it’s ok to keep the apparent status quo?
My prediction for the next election…Shane Rattenbury, whilst a nice person and the best of the greeny bunch, will be blasted into outer space by the electorate.

+1. I hope he gets his marching orders next election.

It seems very unlikely that the Greens could lose any more support than they managed to lose this time around as a result of their extremely poor strategy and poilkcy.

The only way is up, for the Greens, but the big question is, will Shane pull of the PR necessary to drag them *significantly* up?
If the people he works with are professional in their approach, then they will analyse and construct policies that are inclusive and therefore appealing to large swathes of the electorate.
They might also advise him on how to actually act as a 3rd-party and hold the other two accountable, instead of being a Liberal-bashing adjunct to the ALP.

Perhaps they might even note that the the swing against the greens was matched by a swing for the Libs and think about what that means for their future strategy to woo voters: people likely to vote for an environmental party are more educated and more conservative, and therefore more likely to vote Liberal than Labor.

Mr Gillespie said :

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

Oh dear that plastic bag has been on for way too long!

A replay of the last federal election. In that election the Libs and Nats won one more seat than Labor but Gillard led a Labor government. In this election the Libs won more votes than Labor and there was a 5.3% swing away from The Greens yet we now have Katy as chief minister with one Green calling the shots.

All I can say is that the next election will see a landslide to the Libs.

Congratulations Mr Rattenbury, but as Minister For Something Or Other can you now please stop those labs from gunning down our pet kangaroos.

YOU BASTARD

Shane RATbag you have just sentenced Canberra to another 4 years of bulls***, on top of the 12 we have already served

The swing against these crooks was for a GOOD REASON.

SHAME RATTENBURY SHAME

In Government Shane will find out how expensive trams are. He still need to think hospitals our trams: do I give up a cushy ministry job over holding my breath for trams our just shuffle it under the carpet?

Interesting how Green he will remain.

I think its is of great significance that Rattenbury mentioned light rail immediately after announcing his support. In questions from journos he said that work would commence in 2015 – in this assembly term.

Fantastic news.

Damien Haas
Chair, ACT Light Rail

Oh geez. Another 4 years of this.

Madam Cholet said :

So, your votes hemorrhage to the Libs, but you feel that it’s ok to keep the apparent status quo?
My prediction for the next election…Shane Rattenbury, whilst a nice person and the best of the greeny bunch, will be blasted into outer space by the electorate.

+1. I hope he gets his marching orders next election.

Masquara said :

Rather freaky and utterly undemocratic that Rattenbury is insisting that his unelected colleagues will be taking a central role in running the show. THEY WERE KICKED OUT by the electorate!

Ah, but, “If only a few hundred more Canberrans had voted Green” two of his colleagues would have been reelected.
So that’s all right then – decision-making based on fantasy scenarios. Very much what the “Greens” [watermelons] are about.

Well, the moral of the story is that if you want to go places in ACT politics, lose 75 per cent of your representation in an election then demand your nutjob policies get adopted and demand a ministry.

MERC600 said :

I don’t think our bookmaking friends would have lost much on Shanes decision.

At least they can also be happy that their early pay out on the overall result was (now found to be) correct – just! 😛

Ding Ding Ding!!!

We’re getting trams!

Yo, Walter Burley Griffin, ya hear that? We’re gonna build ya bloody tram lines!!! Finally!

Rather freaky and utterly undemocratic that Rattenbury is insisting that his unelected colleagues will be taking a central role in running the show. THEY WERE KICKED OUT by the electorate!

I wonder which Ministry? A/G or Environment/Sustainability

I don’t think our bookmaking friends would have lost much on Shanes decision.

So, your votes hemorrhage to the Libs, but you feel that it’s ok to keep the apparent status quo?
My prediction for the next election…Shane Rattenbury, whilst a nice person and the best of the greeny bunch, will be blasted into outer space by the electorate.

Held to ransom by nutjobs.

Holden Caulfield said :

Noel Towel tipped this.

He got the distance wrong by a country mile!

Rattenbury will take on a ministry. This will be interesting.

Noel Towel tipped this.