Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Threat to Seselja real: Rattenbury

By Charlotte Harper - 22 October 2015 56

rattenbury

Liberal Senator Zed Seselja faces a real threat from just-announced Greens candidate Christina Hobbs because Labor Senator Katy Gallagher will attract a higher vote for Labor than was the case at the last election, according to ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury.
“Those middle-of-the-road voters who move between the Labor and the Liberal parties will be strongly attracted to the Labor Party given Senator Gallagher’s popularity,” Mr Rattenbury said at the announcement of the Greens Federal candidates.
“The great challenge for Zed Seselja is actually getting to the quota, getting to that 33%. We saw last time that that was a very near issue, and certainly from a Greens point of view, once Senator Seselja goes below that threshold for winning that seat in the ACT, that ups our chances of getting [Ms Hobbs] across the line, particularly if we’re successful in securing Labor Party preferences.
“We have a fantastic Federal Election candidate team to run a strong campaign against Zed Seselja who is dragging Canberra backwards on so many issues that our community cares about.”
Australian Greens Leader Richard Di Natale was also at the announcement and said Canberrans had a real choice at the upcoming Federal election.
“They can choose a Liberal Senator who has threatened to move even further to the right than the rest of his party by tearing down our racial discrimination laws, or Greens candidate Christina Hobbs who is committed to standing up for our diverse community, genuine action on global warming and economic policies that support the whole community,” he said.
Ms Hobbs said there were many Canberrans who did not feel represented by the existing ACT Senators.
“Senator Zed Seselja is on the extreme right of his own conservative party. He failed to stand up for the people of Canberra when his old boss Tony Abbott gutted our public service, and he’s made it clear that he’s determined to keep pushing his own ultra-conservative agenda,” she said.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
56 Responses to
Threat to Seselja real: Rattenbury
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
rubaiyat 1:11 pm 31 Oct 15

chewy14 said :

rubaiyat said :

Skyring said :

rubaiyat said :

Zed didn’t get over his quota until the last preference split and had 105% against 95% for the Greens.

That’s a long way from true, according to the Australian Electoral Commission at http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/External/SenateDopDownload-17496.zip

Seselja came close to a quota (82248) on first preference votes, only needing a couple of thousand:
Lundy (ALP) 84305 (2057 over)
Seselja (Lib) 79969 (2279 under)
Sheikh (Grn) 46772 (35476 under)

At the final count:
Lundy (ALP) 82248 (quota, excess votes transferred at pro-rata)
Seselja (Lib) 82659 (2690 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)
Sheikh (Grn) 52037 (5265 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)

The AEC figures are different to the Wikipedia figures I quoted earlier, but let’s go with the official tally. From preferences, the Greens got about twice as many than the Libs, but even at that rate the result was never in doubt.

Next time around, I doubt it will even go to preferences. Turnbull is a LOT more popular with the ACT voters than Abbott was, so the same candidate (Seselja) should poll higher.

You do need to do your homework.

You can get it from the Electoral Commission spreadsheet but it is easier to see on the ABC summary:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/act/

The very final distribution was:

Liberals: 86,296 (1.0514 Quotas)

Greens: 77,852 (0.9485 Quotas)

Geez,
You probably should be careful when telling others to do their homework when that ABC site is a “prediction” model of the expected count based on above the line voting.

They even warn you of such and link to Antony Greens blog which has the real count showing that it didn’t in fact go down to the last preference count with the Liberal vote being well ahead of the model in those later counts due to below the line leakages of votes.

In the end Zed got there when the PUPs were excluded, it wasn’t as close as you’re making out.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/10/act-senate-count-summary-of-the-distribution-of-preferences.html

I also worked from an Electoral Commission document, which I am having trouble relocating.

Still took 39 counts and Zed still only got 442 out of the 6046 PUP votes.

And no way the second Labor candidate was ever going anywhere with his 3,103 votes.

It shows Canberran’s sense of humour and “None of the Above” that the Sex Party polled so strongly as well as The Bullet Train for Australia Party. Much as I have voted for the NRMA more often than not when in one of the Tweedledum and Tweedledee party’s blue ribbon seats.

chewy14 10:21 am 31 Oct 15

rubaiyat said :

Skyring said :

rubaiyat said :

Zed didn’t get over his quota until the last preference split and had 105% against 95% for the Greens.

That’s a long way from true, according to the Australian Electoral Commission at http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/External/SenateDopDownload-17496.zip

Seselja came close to a quota (82248) on first preference votes, only needing a couple of thousand:
Lundy (ALP) 84305 (2057 over)
Seselja (Lib) 79969 (2279 under)
Sheikh (Grn) 46772 (35476 under)

At the final count:
Lundy (ALP) 82248 (quota, excess votes transferred at pro-rata)
Seselja (Lib) 82659 (2690 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)
Sheikh (Grn) 52037 (5265 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)

The AEC figures are different to the Wikipedia figures I quoted earlier, but let’s go with the official tally. From preferences, the Greens got about twice as many than the Libs, but even at that rate the result was never in doubt.

Next time around, I doubt it will even go to preferences. Turnbull is a LOT more popular with the ACT voters than Abbott was, so the same candidate (Seselja) should poll higher.

You do need to do your homework.

You can get it from the Electoral Commission spreadsheet but it is easier to see on the ABC summary:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/act/

The very final distribution was:

Liberals: 86,296 (1.0514 Quotas)

Greens: 77,852 (0.9485 Quotas)

Geez,
You probably should be careful when telling others to do their homework when that ABC site is a “prediction” model of the expected count based on above the line voting.

They even warn you of such and link to Antony Greens blog which has the real count showing that it didn’t in fact go down to the last preference count with the Liberal vote being well ahead of the model in those later counts due to below the line leakages of votes.

In the end Zed got there when the PUPs were excluded, it wasn’t as close as you’re making out.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2013/10/act-senate-count-summary-of-the-distribution-of-preferences.html

rubaiyat 7:55 pm 30 Oct 15

Skyring said :

rubaiyat said :

Zed didn’t get over his quota until the last preference split and had 105% against 95% for the Greens.

That’s a long way from true, according to the Australian Electoral Commission at http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/External/SenateDopDownload-17496.zip

Seselja came close to a quota (82248) on first preference votes, only needing a couple of thousand:
Lundy (ALP) 84305 (2057 over)
Seselja (Lib) 79969 (2279 under)
Sheikh (Grn) 46772 (35476 under)

At the final count:
Lundy (ALP) 82248 (quota, excess votes transferred at pro-rata)
Seselja (Lib) 82659 (2690 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)
Sheikh (Grn) 52037 (5265 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)

The AEC figures are different to the Wikipedia figures I quoted earlier, but let’s go with the official tally. From preferences, the Greens got about twice as many than the Libs, but even at that rate the result was never in doubt.

Next time around, I doubt it will even go to preferences. Turnbull is a LOT more popular with the ACT voters than Abbott was, so the same candidate (Seselja) should poll higher.

You do need to do your homework.

You can get it from the Electoral Commission spreadsheet but it is easier to see on the ABC summary:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/results/senate/act/

The very final distribution was:

Liberals: 86,296 (1.0514 Quotas)

Greens: 77,852 (0.9485 Quotas)

rubaiyat 7:42 pm 30 Oct 15

HenryBG said :

And if it had had to go one more redistribution by eliminating Sheikh, once again, how many people vote Greens 1, Libs 2? Virtually none. That would have been 2 seats to the Labs.

It did go right down to the barrel as you said but it wouldn’t have been 2 seats to Labor because the massive Greens vote picked up Labor’s preferences as well as from all the other smaller Parties. It is debateable whether the minor parties would have as readily given their preference to Labor as they did to the Greens, should the second Labor have gotten ahead of the Greens. Which was nowhere near possible as Labor had so shot themselves in the foot.

Zed only managed to get over the line after every other candidate was eliminated.

It seems he managed to do it with a paltry 442 votes transferred from the leading PUP candidate.

http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/External/SenateStateDop-17496-ACT.pdf

Seeing as Zed only got 442 out of the final 6030 PUP preferences, you can safely say that virtually nobody except dyed in the wool Liberals actually wanted him.

rommeldog56 6:09 pm 30 Oct 15

This is a press release issued by the Greens/Labor Minister Rattenbury. Unsurprisingly, it is clearly designed to play politics.

Why is it getting airtime/comments on here ? It serves no useful purpose other than to destract from the decision making by this ACT labor/greens government.

Rattenbury would do better by trying to make better decisions as part of the ACT labor Government – he obviously does not have enough to do…….

Garfield 4:41 pm 30 Oct 15

Matt Watts said :

No way will the Greens win the seat off Zed. The Greens have promoted such flights of fancy in previous elections when they had better-known candidates. Time to put this story to rest until the federal election after this one.

So Matt, what you’re saying is that if anyone supports a Liberal government but has a problem with Zed being the Liberal candidate for Canberra, they can feel confident lodging a protest vote with the Greens safe in the knowledge that the Green candidate won’t be elected?

It may be a long shot, but I’m not sure you can dismiss the Greens winning the seat as an impossibility. Looking back at past results in 2001, 2004 and 2007 the Liberals won the seat on first preferences. Then in 2010 it was won once you were excluded and preferences flowed to Gary Humphries, meaning the Liberal vote was enough in itself. In 2013 the total Liberal vote was less than a quota and once the second Lib was excluded, Zed was still 731 votes short of a quota. The Liberal vote in the ACT Senate dropped at a time when Labor’s unpopularity was at its height. Since then promises to the public service have not been kept with job losses exceeding what was advertised, nobody was expecting below CPI pay offers and some jobs are being moved out of Canberra. While a minority, lots of public servants normally vote Liberal, but I know some who are very unhappy and won’t do so next year. On top of that Zed has made it clear to anyone paying attention that he is on the far right wing of the Liberals, but the ACT is the most socially progressive state or territory and his views grate with some voters who normally vote Liberal. If the choice is between a far right wing Liberal and a left wing Green, some swinging voters will go left, but if the choice was a centre-right Liberal instead, the Libs would get more votes.

I agree with Rattenbury, the threat is real, but Zed is still likely to hold the seat.

Skyring 1:49 pm 30 Oct 15

Matt Watts said :

No way will the Greens win the seat off Zed. The Greens have promoted such flights of fancy in previous elections when they had better-known candidates. Time to put this story to rest until the federal election after this one.

Spot on! Every election we hear the same old guff: the Liberal spot is at risk. The last time there was any significant threat was 1998, when One Nation put up a candidate.

I suggest that all the swinging voters swung in 2013, when the two big parties had unpopular (in the ACT) leaders. The Greens made a huge effort and picked up a lot of the Labor vote. While Shorten isn’t exactly a shining star, the ALP is fully on board with the threat the Greens pose, and they’ll be working hard to increase their vote.

HenryBG 11:46 pm 29 Oct 15

Skyring said :

It’s just a matter of who gets to the quota first. Seselja was only 2 279 votes short of a quota. He picked those up relatively easily. All else being equal, if there was a 1.7% swing against him, he’d need 3 638 votes, not a big ask..

Actually, considering Seselja didn’t get that tiny amount of votes he needed off preferences until the 2nd-to-last candidate elimination, this should show any person trying to conduct and honest analysis how very close it was: the preferences were very much flowing every way but to the unpalatable Seselja.

And if it had had to go one more redistribution by eliminating Sheikh, once again, how many people vote Greens 1, Libs 2? Virtually none. That would have been 2 seats to the Labs.

No ACT senate vote in recent decades has been as close as that one was.

Zed is a right-wing Abbottophile, working hard to screw Canberra over, and Canberrans know it. Here’s hoping the morons grow some sense over the next 10 months.

Matt Watts 4:40 pm 29 Oct 15

No way will the Greens win the seat off Zed. The Greens have promoted such flights of fancy in previous elections when they had better-known candidates. Time to put this story to rest until the federal election after this one.

Garfield 9:31 am 28 Oct 15

Skyring said :

Garfield said :

At the final count, Seselja had 82,659 votes while Sheikh had 52,037, the Bullet Train had 15,548 and the Sex Party had 14,155. Of those 29,703 votes with the Bullet Train and Sex Parties, only 2,113 above the line votes were going to Seselja ahead of Sheikh. The majority of under the line votes were also going to Sheikh, but Seselja was getting some of them. If the preferences had been fully distributed, I think the final position would have been about 86,000 to Seselja and 79,000 to Sheikh. This would be about 35% of the vote for Seselja, meaning the Greens need a swing of 1.7% away from him to take the seat next year.

Preferences don’t need to be fully distributed for a Senate election (or a Reps election, for that matter). It is quite rare for a count to go that far in the ACT.

It’s just a matter of who gets to the quota first. Seselja was only 2 279 votes short of a quota. He picked those up relatively easily. All else being equal, if there was a 1.7% swing against him, he’d need 3 638 votes, not a big ask.

I don’t think too many voters look through every press release issued by the Greens (or any other party, for that matter) and work through the arguments made in party propaganda. I think that Australian voters tend to go with the presidential style of election campaigns, especially if they are voting above the line. They vote for the party leader more than the local candidate, in other words.

Turnbull is going to attract more votes than Abbott in the ACT. That’s a given.

Shorten is likewise going to do better than Rudd. Rudd was especially hated by the public service, and the comparatively low result for Lundy reflected this. Shorten just seems to be a fairly innocuous Labor leader. We haven’t seen him campaign, but I think he’ll make a good job of it. I’d expect both Labor and Libs to increase their votes over last time.

I think both Gallagher and Seselja will easily make quota on first preferences, simply because they are both experienced campaigners with good teams behind them, and they will be riding on the tails of party leaders who if not actually popular, are not hated and despised, which was a big factor in 2013. Turnbull in particular seems to have a good handle on the ACT demographic.

For the Greens to have a real chance at winning, they would have to mount a fantastic campaign, and count on one or both major parties making some serious campaign mistakes. I think the Greens have pretty much run balls to the wall campaigns over the past few elections and never really made a dent.

I’m fully aware preferences in the Senate only need to be distributed to the point where the final candidate has made quota. The article is about the Greens being a threat to Seselja holding the seat, so to analyse what they need to do to win it, we need to fully distribute the preferences in order to see how many votes they need to gain or he needs to lose in order for the seat to change hands. By my approximation they need a 1.7% swing of the 247,000 or more votes that will be cast or about 4,000 votes.

If the Greens can convince the Animal Justice Party to preference them ahead of the Liberals, that would switch 2,100 votes based on 2013 or half the number they need to take the seat. I think you’ll find that genuine swinging voters do pay more attention to the material put out by all parties, and so if the Greens hammer the line that Seselja is a far right wing Liberal and doesn’t support Turnbull at all, some people will hear it. The question then becomes how many people will change their vote to Seselja because of Turnbull’s leadership without looking at Seselja’s personal beliefs vs how many people the Greens can convince to not vote Liberal, and how many public servants voted Liberal last time, but won’t this time because of the way pay negotiations have been handled.

If Seselja shuts up and falls into line behind Turnbull’s leadership, then he should increase his vote and get a quota on first preferences. If he keeps making it clear to the public that he would dump Turnbull at a moment’s notice for a socially conservative PM who is strongly opposed to gay marriage and denies climate change, then he’s keeping the door open for the Greens and it may be closer than it was in 2013.

Skyring 5:36 am 28 Oct 15

Garfield said :

At the final count, Seselja had 82,659 votes while Sheikh had 52,037, the Bullet Train had 15,548 and the Sex Party had 14,155. Of those 29,703 votes with the Bullet Train and Sex Parties, only 2,113 above the line votes were going to Seselja ahead of Sheikh. The majority of under the line votes were also going to Sheikh, but Seselja was getting some of them. If the preferences had been fully distributed, I think the final position would have been about 86,000 to Seselja and 79,000 to Sheikh. This would be about 35% of the vote for Seselja, meaning the Greens need a swing of 1.7% away from him to take the seat next year.

Preferences don’t need to be fully distributed for a Senate election (or a Reps election, for that matter). It is quite rare for a count to go that far in the ACT.

It’s just a matter of who gets to the quota first. Seselja was only 2 279 votes short of a quota. He picked those up relatively easily. All else being equal, if there was a 1.7% swing against him, he’d need 3 638 votes, not a big ask.

I don’t think too many voters look through every press release issued by the Greens (or any other party, for that matter) and work through the arguments made in party propaganda. I think that Australian voters tend to go with the presidential style of election campaigns, especially if they are voting above the line. They vote for the party leader more than the local candidate, in other words.

Turnbull is going to attract more votes than Abbott in the ACT. That’s a given.

Shorten is likewise going to do better than Rudd. Rudd was especially hated by the public service, and the comparatively low result for Lundy reflected this. Shorten just seems to be a fairly innocuous Labor leader. We haven’t seen him campaign, but I think he’ll make a good job of it. I’d expect both Labor and Libs to increase their votes over last time.

I think both Gallagher and Seselja will easily make quota on first preferences, simply because they are both experienced campaigners with good teams behind them, and they will be riding on the tails of party leaders who if not actually popular, are not hated and despised, which was a big factor in 2013. Turnbull in particular seems to have a good handle on the ACT demographic.

For the Greens to have a real chance at winning, they would have to mount a fantastic campaign, and count on one or both major parties making some serious campaign mistakes. I think the Greens have pretty much run balls to the wall campaigns over the past few elections and never really made a dent.

Garfield 2:04 pm 27 Oct 15

Skyring said :

rubaiyat said :

Zed didn’t get over his quota until the last preference split and had 105% against 95% for the Greens.

That’s a long way from true, according to the Australian Electoral Commission at http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/External/SenateDopDownload-17496.zip

Seselja came close to a quota (82248) on first preference votes, only needing a couple of thousand:
Lundy (ALP) 84305 (2057 over)
Seselja (Lib) 79969 (2279 under)
Sheikh (Grn) 46772 (35476 under)

At the final count:
Lundy (ALP) 82248 (quota, excess votes transferred at pro-rata)
Seselja (Lib) 82659 (2690 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)
Sheikh (Grn) 52037 (5265 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)

The AEC figures are different to the Wikipedia figures I quoted earlier, but let’s go with the official tally. From preferences, the Greens got about twice as many than the Libs, but even at that rate the result was never in doubt.

Next time around, I doubt it will even go to preferences. Turnbull is a LOT more popular with the ACT voters than Abbott was, so the same candidate (Seselja) should poll higher.

At the final count, Seselja had 82,659 votes while Sheikh had 52,037, the Bullet Train had 15,548 and the Sex Party had 14,155. Of those 29,703 votes with the Bullet Train and Sex Parties, only 2,113 above the line votes were going to Seselja ahead of Sheikh. The majority of under the line votes were also going to Sheikh, but Seselja was getting some of them. If the preferences had been fully distributed, I think the final position would have been about 86,000 to Seselja and 79,000 to Sheikh. This would be about 35% of the vote for Seselja, meaning the Greens need a swing of 1.7% away from him to take the seat next year.

Turnbull is potentially a big positive for Seselja, which is ironic seeing that he is a strong Abbott supporter. Unless the government makes peace with the public service quickly and is somewhat generous, the long drawn out negotiations and multiple rejections will be a negative for him. Having come out publicly against Turnbull after the leadership vote, there may be some people who are hesitant to vote for him even though they like Turnbull as PM and I think this is where the Greens will focus part of their grassroots campaign. Some people who didn’t vote for him last time because he knifed Gary Humphries and abandoned Tuggeranong may come back, but people who voted against him on those grounds are likely to have long memories. The big unknown is how minor parties will direct their preferences. If the Animal Justice Party preference the Greens before the Libs, that’s a good chunk of the votes the Greens need to get in front, but its still going to be a hard task for the Greens to win the seat.

chewy14 8:56 am 27 Oct 15

watto23 said :

The fact Zed got voted in shows the average stupidity of voters. Here is a guy that didn’t win an election, so did a dummy spit and quit. Then took down a respected liberal senator in Gary Humphries because he wasn’t on the right side of the Liberal party, yet Zed will get elected because blind voters don’t actually look at the person they are voting for. Every person who votes liberal should vote the second liberal candidate. I’ll be putting Zed last. He has done nothing for Tuggeranong, he didn’t get his way and quit and that is not the sort of person we should have representing us in the ACT.

Also last election there was a swing to Liberal nationally, yet in the ACT many recognised Zed is only in it for himself and that vote for the second senate spot was much tighter than its ever been. So use your brain when voting. Don’t vote above the line unless you don’t care about your preferences.

Based on your criteria what has any ACT senator done for us ever? They’re almost completely irrelevant because they hold so little actual power.

Who should we actually vote for?

Skyring 11:52 pm 26 Oct 15

rubaiyat said :

Zed didn’t get over his quota until the last preference split and had 105% against 95% for the Greens.

That’s a long way from true, according to the Australian Electoral Commission at http://results.aec.gov.au/17496/Website/External/SenateDopDownload-17496.zip

Seselja came close to a quota (82248) on first preference votes, only needing a couple of thousand:
Lundy (ALP) 84305 (2057 over)
Seselja (Lib) 79969 (2279 under)
Sheikh (Grn) 46772 (35476 under)

At the final count:
Lundy (ALP) 82248 (quota, excess votes transferred at pro-rata)
Seselja (Lib) 82659 (2690 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)
Sheikh (Grn) 52037 (5265 votes gained from Lundy’s excess and excluded candidates)

The AEC figures are different to the Wikipedia figures I quoted earlier, but let’s go with the official tally. From preferences, the Greens got about twice as many than the Libs, but even at that rate the result was never in doubt.

Next time around, I doubt it will even go to preferences. Turnbull is a LOT more popular with the ACT voters than Abbott was, so the same candidate (Seselja) should poll higher.

dungfungus 11:30 pm 26 Oct 15

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

So all it takes for The Greens to take the 2nd ACT senate seat is either a 2.5% swing to Labor or The Greens or both.

Which is a narrow margin in politics.

Just as well for the Liberals that they swapped Turnbull for Abbott because they would have got hosed here and in many other electorates. So it is up to Turnbull to not lose the faith of the electorate by continuing to implement the hard right’s policies. There are signs that Turnbull is slowly turning the SS LNP away from The iceberg it was going to hit under Abbott. Turnbull has a much better ear for what the Australian electorate wants than Abbott, who must have had some inkling or he wouldn’t have lied his way into power the way he did.

It will actually be a good result for Turnbull and the Liberals if in the next election he survives in government but loses the hard right candidates that make the Liberals unpalatable to the broader public. Reshaping his party is going to still be difficult. The hard right is well funded and supported by mining, big business and the Murdoch Press.

We have unfortunately drifted to a more US style of democracy where money counts more than individual’s votes. Money buys the electorate in the States, here it still only buys some of the electorate and even those it bought last time must be questioning what they got with Palmers party being such an erratic non event. The question is who the populist voters who turned to Palmer will vote for next time.

“The hard right is well funded and supported by mining, big business and the Murdoch Press.”
Two things, what is the “hard right” and where is the evidence that they are supported by the nominated groups/people?
I though Murdoch had lunch with Turnbull just before he shafted Abbott so are you suggesting that Turnbull is “hard right”?

Well the hard right, conservative right etc clearly do fund the liberal party. If you really don’t know that I’m sure you’ll be able to find some donations from mining companies and news limited related companies.

No Turnbull is from the liberal part of the liberal party. Not the far right conservatives that screwed the country over with Abbott and his negativity and fear mongering.

As long as Turnbull is able to put in fair policies we’ll finally have a decent government. The far right need to understand, what they wanted is not what the public wanted. So they either have to accept Turnbull as their leader and PM and allow him to put in place true Liberal policies, or they’ll be unpopular again and not win. Its very clear people in this country do not want a conservative right government spreading fear mongering policies. And to think Dungfungus you accuse the Greens of fear mongering, when the Abbott government was the best at it.

Nice try a the usual spin, again.
In fact, I was the one asking for evidence of exactly who the hard right conservatives are and who is funding them. I have already tried to find the evidence but there isn’t any so don’t try that “I am sure you can find donations etc.” stuff.
You may be unaware or you don’t want to be reminded that it was “big business” (Wotif) who gave the biggest donation on record to The Greens of $1 million!
Now, tell all about the alleged fear-mongering policies of the far right conservatives that bother you.

watto23 3:46 pm 26 Oct 15

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

So all it takes for The Greens to take the 2nd ACT senate seat is either a 2.5% swing to Labor or The Greens or both.

Which is a narrow margin in politics.

Just as well for the Liberals that they swapped Turnbull for Abbott because they would have got hosed here and in many other electorates. So it is up to Turnbull to not lose the faith of the electorate by continuing to implement the hard right’s policies. There are signs that Turnbull is slowly turning the SS LNP away from The iceberg it was going to hit under Abbott. Turnbull has a much better ear for what the Australian electorate wants than Abbott, who must have had some inkling or he wouldn’t have lied his way into power the way he did.

It will actually be a good result for Turnbull and the Liberals if in the next election he survives in government but loses the hard right candidates that make the Liberals unpalatable to the broader public. Reshaping his party is going to still be difficult. The hard right is well funded and supported by mining, big business and the Murdoch Press.

We have unfortunately drifted to a more US style of democracy where money counts more than individual’s votes. Money buys the electorate in the States, here it still only buys some of the electorate and even those it bought last time must be questioning what they got with Palmers party being such an erratic non event. The question is who the populist voters who turned to Palmer will vote for next time.

“The hard right is well funded and supported by mining, big business and the Murdoch Press.”
Two things, what is the “hard right” and where is the evidence that they are supported by the nominated groups/people?
I though Murdoch had lunch with Turnbull just before he shafted Abbott so are you suggesting that Turnbull is “hard right”?

Well the hard right, conservative right etc clearly do fund the liberal party. If you really don’t know that I’m sure you’ll be able to find some donations from mining companies and news limited related companies.

No Turnbull is from the liberal part of the liberal party. Not the far right conservatives that screwed the country over with Abbott and his negativity and fear mongering.

As long as Turnbull is able to put in fair policies we’ll finally have a decent government. The far right need to understand, what they wanted is not what the public wanted. So they either have to accept Turnbull as their leader and PM and allow him to put in place true Liberal policies, or they’ll be unpopular again and not win. Its very clear people in this country do not want a conservative right government spreading fear mongering policies. And to think Dungfungus you accuse the Greens of fear mongering, when the Abbott government was the best at it.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site