More evidence shows Tucker ahead of Humphries

GnT 14 November 2007 48

With the election just around the corner, ABC have informed us of another poll which shows the Greens’ Kerry Tucker could steal the second ACT Senate seat away from the Liberals’ Gary Humphries.

Despite Senator Gaz being relatively popular here, this reflects how much Canberrans are fed up with Howard and his crew. As cranky said in another thread, “Gaz, you may well be a nice bloke, but you keep lousy company.”


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
48 Responses to More evidence shows Tucker ahead of Humphries
Filter
Order
thetruth thetruth 2:43 pm 16 Nov 07

My point is it will not be only for 6 months – the greens WILL ave balance of power.

The deal with the labor party is – labor will not win majority in the senate who do we want to have the balance – not libs and the dems are sooooo out of contention so it will have to be the greens.

In return the Greens will sure up the house of reps vote.

Canberra will gain the type of influence it wants if it voted more for the Libs in the reps – just look over the border.

A green balance of power would be an unmitigated disaster for this country as a whole and I believe will result in a massive swing back to the Libs at the next election or they will become more centralist to keep power (just don’t see that happening)

jemmy jemmy 12:03 pm 16 Nov 07

Where have I implied I’ve orchestrated anything? I think you’ve misread my comments.

The fact is that generally ACT senators have no influence: there’s only 2, and they’re swallowed in the parties’ machines. There is a possibility for the next 6 months one can have national influence, provided they don’t subsume to the dominant parties.

You’ve had a lot to say in the last week, most of which has confused me on your understanding of how politics works. It’s not a matter of what should be, or ideal, or fair, if you can’t actually achieve it; it’s a matter of getting a result. Most times you have to do deals with people you dislike. I dislike the Greens, but if voting Green in the ACT will restore Senate oversight of the House AND give an ACT senator some power for 6 months, I’ll do it. If you allow your dislike of Brown or Tasmanian logging or whatever else to affect your tactics and you elect major party senators, then you remove even that small 6 month window of ACT influence before the Senate changes completely in July.

thetruth thetruth 8:48 am 16 Nov 07

Oh I am so glad that you have the rest of the country worked out so that you can orchestrate a we will let one in and the rest of the country won’t strategy.

While you are at it I would like a Rudd victory but Gillard to lose her seat – can you also take out Albernese, Carr and another left wing space cadet?

jemmy jemmy 1:54 am 16 Nov 07

At the risk of repeating myself, vote *tactically*, don’t vote to align yourself with one of the tribes. (God, I hate tribalism.) If you vote Green in the Senate, all you are doing is changing ONE senate seat to remove the Libs stranglehold. You’re not putting Bob Brown in power or doing anything. It’s peculiar to the ACT that the Senator takes their seat immediately and not in July. I’m not saying the entire country vote Green, just here in the ACT. Come July, what the rest of the country voted will take effect and our two senators will be relegated back to their usual doorstop position, but in the meantime, We Weilded The Power, Ha Ha.

Elvis Las Canberras Elvis Las Canberras 12:20 am 16 Nov 07

Yep Kerrie is a bit nuts! I met with her several years back and she had her head in her hands (literally) when discussing some issues about Civic (and it has plenty of issues).

Supposedly forward thinking, she thought that bars with 20 seats should only have 20 people having a drink at them. I mentioned a holiday to Hobart where Knopwoods in Salamanca has 50-100 outside most Friday nights and she said that this would cause too many problems. I suggested she go down for a look (apart from having enjoyed the spectacle, she may have even learned something from her green comrades about blocking, opposing and stopping everything as they seem to be doing a good job of down there at the moment!).

thetruth thetruth 8:05 pm 15 Nov 07

Boomcat – no I am not a 15 year old liberal schmuk, nor am I a 40 – 50 something career public servant that wishes their life way blissfully remembering the Whitlam years as the zenith of their social past. But that just confirms my direspectful comment.

My point stands generations of skills, capital and social institutions will not be swept away with some dwebby training program.

Many people sustained by these industries have been doing it all their lives. Most of our power station infrastructure is coal fired. The reality is that the industrial shift is not simple and simplified solutions put forward by industrial and economic pygmies will not work and will cause more human misery and social dislocation.

You want fries with that order?

boomacat boomacat 6:57 pm 15 Nov 07

PS – that was supposed to have a 🙂 in it to express that I was joking (doubt a young Liberal would vote at all, let alone vote Labor in the Reps)!

boomacat boomacat 6:56 pm 15 Nov 07

thetruth – try actually reading the post before criticising it – I said that the industries were bottom of the economic food chain, not the people working in them.

You might have inferred that from the fact I emphasised the need to retrain those people to ensure their future livelihoods, but given you’re probably some 15 year old young Liberal schmuk that’s probably too much to ask.

VicePope VicePope 6:53 pm 15 Nov 07

Joe Canberran – ALP in the Senate and Reps would probably be as bad as the Coalition has been over the last couple of years. And I am old enough to remember 1975 and an ALP Government with a ruthless Coalition Senate determined to bring them down – never again.

Having some voices in the middle has improved a lot of a legislation, espcially in terms of getting better oversight and accountability. (For example, even if a more balanced Senate had passed WorkChoices, it would probably have made it a better scheme, that didn’t need panicky revisions, a big new bureaucracy and untold millions in political ads). Some of the minor party Senators (a big hand for the retiring Andrew Murray) showed some genuine interest in dull but important things like probity and human rights. The legislation usually gets passed, but some balance is added – for example, although the Democrats mostly supported the GST, they ensured some significant changes. Similar things happened during the Hawke and Keating governments. And they happened with the Greens, and sometimes with Brian Harradine.

sepi sepi 6:33 pm 15 Nov 07

the greens are extreme in a forward thinking modern way.
family first are extreme in an 18th century kind of way.

Joe Canberran Joe Canberran 6:07 pm 15 Nov 07

Go the Dems!

But as for a “sensible review function” don’t you think that will happen anyway when we have a Rudd govt and a Lib senate or would you prefer a labor senate/reps combo?

VicePope VicePope 5:43 pm 15 Nov 07

I’ll probably go for the Greens in the Senate, or maybe the Democrats first to encourage them to stay alive a bit longer. I will Put Humphries Last, mostly to try to get the Senate back to a sensible review function and, incidentally, to ditch a passenger from the legislature.

thetruth thetruth 5:39 pm 15 Nov 07

I totally agree with Catey

A split vote acknowledges that we are voting for a real me – too – If Garrett was right and they do attempt to change after the election then someone will stop them.

I worry about the possibility of a secret deal between the greens and labor.

So for me Labor in the reps, lib in the senate

catey catey 5:34 pm 15 Nov 07

you seriously think bob browne and co are less extreme than family first?
the democrats at least were willing to discuss on issues and negotiated on things with the govt of the day to achieve outcomes that balanced the needs of a wider sector of the community. look at the Greens’ record in the senate and what negotiating Bob Browne has actually done. Labor and the Coalition are more likely to negotiate to produce outcomes – the greens just disagree without consultation. if labor’s going to take the House, its a much safer bet to have a coalition senate that will negotiate with labor to achieve real outcomes, particularly since labor has adopted much of coalition policy this time around and in areas where they differ, they can negotiate passage by a few concessions to placate other parts of the community whose views may differ.

thetruth thetruth 5:26 pm 15 Nov 07

Bottom of the food chain – very disrespectful way of discribing people and their livihood.

What reaction would I get if I described sudanese as bottom of the food chain with no future, or Seiv x passengers as doing them a favour.

I know lets retrain them in democracy and send them back – bloody chardonny socialist that bleat about one side making things simplistic and them do exactally the same to be politically expedient

sepi sepi 4:51 pm 15 Nov 07

Family First are vote swapping with Pauline Hansen – nuff said.

Crikey Crikey 3:31 pm 15 Nov 07

LOL…and the Greens aren’t “wierdos”.

boomacat boomacat 12:34 pm 15 Nov 07

timber mills and coal fired power stations are the very bottom of the economic food chain. They have no future. The Greens and the Dems are the only ones with enough guts to stand up and say so, the major parties don’t have the electoral fortitude.

Does anyone seriously think pumping out woodchips has a place in Australia’s economic future? How about retraining these people to be tradespeople, service industry workers etc?

A realistic economic option without decimating old growth forests.

sepi sepi 11:39 am 15 Nov 07

Family first are serious wierdos.

And I wish someone would do something about the loggin families in Tasmania. can’t we re-train them to be carpenters or something. Do we have to log every last tree so these ‘traditional foresters’ have some work?

I don’t mind Bob Brown.

Absent Diane Absent Diane 10:57 am 15 Nov 07

unfortunately there seems to be a serious lack of suitable candidates on both sides of the fence.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site