Australian Federal Election thread - 2010 edition.

[Twoyboy]

Labor might be dumb but at least they aren't malicious.

That should be their new slogan. They can use a picture of Peter Garrett next to a cartoon Tony RAbbott swimming out to attack the boats in his budgie smugglers.

[pj1351]

However, as Stephen Conroy (2009's Internet Villain of the Year) proves, dumb and malicious are not mutually exclusive concepts.

[GuppyShark]

As a recreational target shooter I can't vote Green. Eliminating my sport is one of their policies.

Single issue (especially single USELESS issue) voting is fucking retarded.

Aren't we critiquing Green policy? This is far from the only thing wrong with their platform.

Although if they force Apple to fix iOS all is forgiven*.

* Not a serious comment bit this was a reallyhorroble way to post.

[bobalot]

As a recreational target shooter I can't vote Green. Eliminating my sport is one of their policies.

Single issue (especially single USELESS issue) voting is fucking retarded.

Aren't we critiquing Green policy? This is far from the only thing wrong with their platform.

Although if they force Apple to fix iOS all is forgiven*.

* Not a serious comment bit this was a reallyhorroble way to post.

That's true, but GuppyShark named recreational shooting as his major deal breaker. Which is as Stark said, pretty retarded.

[loomer]

Yeah. I mean, I'm a shooter and I hunt, and I love old muscle cars...

But those aren't exactly what I care about when it comes to national policy. It'd be nice if they'd let me keep those things, but the importance of that issue pales before the nuclear power problem presented by both Labour and the Greens.

[Stark]

The Greens are never going to win anyway; but a vote for them is a vote against STOP THE BOATS.

[xt828]

At this point I'm just looking forward to Sunday when the media saturation has died down.

The Greens do seem the be the protest vote of choice, if my Facebook is any guide - lots of people becoming fans of various "Vote Green because they aren't ALP or Coalition" type pages and lots of discussions of how much the two party system blows. It's interesting seeing people who were on the Kevin07 bandwagon railing against Labor now.

[GuppyShark]

That's true, but GuppyShark named recreational shooting as his major deal breaker. Which is as Stark said, pretty retarded.

If only there were a dozen or so parties and I could find one that I have a better fit with! (ie Sex Party)
I could go through the Greens site and find policy after feel-good policy that won't have a positive net effect. I probably exaggerated/oversimplified when I made my previous post but we already had people criticising their nuclear policy, etc so I didn't want to rehash what has already been said.

How many people here are voting Green over Labour because they oppose the net filter? The people I talk to fall into two camps on this - the Internet crowd that are raging (the same ones that voted Gamers4Croydon in the State election recently) and the rest of the population who hadn't ever heard of it. I talked to my gym trainer and he asked me about it, I explained and his response was "No porn? I'm voting Green!"

[adam_grif]

That's pretty accurate.

[tim31]

CHERYL KERNOT

No one's really going to vote for her but her family, right? And not even all of them?

[Stark]

Let's all vote for joke parties that just preference to real parties anyway.

Uhhhhh ....

Needs more net filter hysteria that's for sure. Griffo??

[bobalot]

That's true, but GuppyShark named recreational shooting as his major deal breaker. Which is as Stark said, pretty retarded.

If only there were a dozen or so parties and I could find one that I have a better fit with! (ie Sex Party)
I could go through the Greens site and find policy after feel-good policy that won't have a positive net effect. I probably exaggerated/oversimplified when I made my previous post but we already had people criticising their nuclear policy, etc so I didn't want to rehash what has already been said.

How many people here are voting Green over Labour because they oppose the net filter? The people I talk to fall into two camps on this - the Internet crowd that are raging (the same ones that voted Gamers4Croydon in the State election recently) and the rest of the population who hadn't ever heard of it. I talked to my gym trainer and he asked me about it, I explained and his response was "No porn? I'm voting Green!"

The whining over the filter is epically retarded.

It will never pass the senate. There is opposition from the Liberals, Greens, Independents and even within Labor itself. Even if it does magically pass, it can be removed at some later point.

Cancelling National Broadband Network will relegate Australia's internet speeds to its current level of shittiness for another decade and continue the sky-high prices for another decade.

This is an another example of myopic internet nerds losing sight of the big picture.

[Stark]

Even if it did pass, it wouldn't work and it'd be a hilarious disaster public-relations wise as every corporate network started complaining.

[pj1351]

Greens got fans to call talkback
Paul Austin
August 20, 2010


THE Greens have been caught red-handed trying to ''stack'' calls to talkback kings Neil Mitchell and Jon Faine with pro-Bob Brown messages.

The Age has obtained internal emails showing the Greens' Victorian media officer, Tom Maclachlan, urged members to hit the phones as Senator Brown did interviews with Faine on ABC Radio and then Mitchell on 3AW.

At 9.19am on July 21, Mr Maclachlan emailed supporters saying: ''Well done everyone - 30 positive texts for Bob on Faine. Don't forget to call in too.

''Now on to 3AW, where Bob will take on Neil Mitchell, an even harder taskmaster. Please let everyone know again (this seems to be working).''

Mr Maclachlan provides the activists with the station's talkback and text numbers.

Told of the email yesterday, Mitchell said: ''It shows that even the squeaky clean, ethical Greens are just as grubby as any of them.''

Link to full article here.

The Greens are just as unethical as the other political parties they look down their noses at. In other news, healthy grass are green, clears skies are blue.

[bobalot]

Greens got fans to call talkback
Paul Austin
August 20, 2010


THE Greens have been caught red-handed trying to ''stack'' calls to talkback kings Neil Mitchell and Jon Faine with pro-Bob Brown messages.

The Age has obtained internal emails showing the Greens' Victorian media officer, Tom Maclachlan, urged members to hit the phones as Senator Brown did interviews with Faine on ABC Radio and then Mitchell on 3AW.

At 9.19am on July 21, Mr Maclachlan emailed supporters saying: ''Well done everyone - 30 positive texts for Bob on Faine. Don't forget to call in too.

''Now on to 3AW, where Bob will take on Neil Mitchell, an even harder taskmaster. Please let everyone know again (this seems to be working).''

Mr Maclachlan provides the activists with the station's talkback and text numbers.

Told of the email yesterday, Mitchell said: ''It shows that even the squeaky clean, ethical Greens are just as grubby as any of them.''

Link to full article here.

The Greens are just as unethical as the other political parties they look down their noses at. In other news, healthy grass are green, clears skies are blue.

How is it just as unethical as secretly using tobacco companies to run "independent" anti-government advertisements? (This is what the Liberals did). Or blowing Billions of dollars in promises on marginal seats? Or refusing to say how your promises are actually going to be costed? Or using the race bait card against the "flood" of boat people?

Sure it's pretty stupid, but it doesn't come anywhere near what the other parties have done.

[Archaic`]

Using Tobacco companies? When did they do that? I haven't heard anything like that. They've certainly accepted donations from those in the Tobacco industry, but I'm fairly sure Labor have there as well.

[pj1351]

Sure it's pretty stupid, but it doesn't come anywhere near what the other parties have done.

Then how about, despite the supposed party policy about them being against Internet censorship in Australia, the Greens run Clive Hamilton as their representative in the 2009 Federal by-election? Or little gems like this? Or comments like this (in the article I linked to in my previous post):
''If any of you are listening to 3AW this morning you will be aware of Bob's extreme discomfort at the shady preference deal with Labor and the fact that, as party leader, even he doesn't know which 54 seats were sold out - not a good look for the Greens.'' (Steve Meacher, Greens candidate for McEwen).

They run someone who is openly and ardently opposed to the party's stance on Internet censorship as their representative, they have secret talks with those they refer to as "nasties" for the chance at power (and that's only what's managed to leak out), and their leader has no idea what the hell their members are actually doing... So who the fuck is actually running the Greens, and what does the party actually stand for?

At least with Labor and the Liberals, their stupidity tends to be out in the open to be scrutinised.

[bobalot]

Using Tobacco companies? When did they do that? I haven't heard anything like that. They've certainly accepted donations from those in the Tobacco industry, but I'm fairly sure Labor have there as well.

Source

Then how about, despite the supposed party policy about them being against Internet censorship in Australia, the Greens run Clive Hamilton

You do realize that party members don't have to agree with every policy that their party proposes? (See Petro Georgiou and his long and ongoing criticism of the Coalition's immigration policies)

Or little gems like this?

So they talked to other political parties but as usual directed their preferences towards Labor and other left-wing parties...so what? How is this on par with actually dealing with fundamentalist tards like Family First or the Exclusive Brethren?

''If any of you are listening to 3AW this morning you will be aware of Bob's extreme discomfort at the shady preference deal with Labor and the fact that, as party leader, even he doesn't know which 54 seats were sold out - not a good look for the Greens.'' (Steve Meacher, Greens candidate for McEwen).

1) The Greens have always preferenced Labor. How the fuck is this deal shady? EVERY FUCKING PARTY DOES IT. It's part and parcel of a preferential voting system.
2) How does this not "look good" for the Greens? They are headed towards their greatest primary vote in Federal History.
3) The Green party is structured in such a way that there is a great deal of autonomy for its regional levels. It has ALWAYS been this way. This is nothing new. The fact that the leader doesn't know the exact details of what the autonomous wings of his party does is of no surprise.

In short, you are a moron, and that's coming from somebody who would never vote for the Greens. I can understand criticizing their more retarded policies but criticizing trivial bullshit and then holding it on par with the major league bullshit that the main parties pull is fucking stupid.

[mr friendly guy]

Hey golden mean fallacy for the win.

Back on topic it seems that Family First may lose their only senator, that moron Steve Fielding since the parties aren't engaging in the same preference deal that saw Fielding get a seat. This year instead of being lazy and just putting one in the party of my choice I am going to number every one. IIRC there are 55 would be senators in WA. With any luck Family First will go the way of the Australian democrats.

[Lusankya]

I already voted last week. Above the line, but that's because the Sex Party's preferences matched mine, except for the LDP and the Carers' Alliance being swapped around, which was acceptable to me.

[pj1351]

Using Tobacco companies? When did they do that? I haven't heard anything like that. They've certainly accepted donations from those in the Tobacco industry, but I'm fairly sure Labor have there as well.

Source

Anonymous and unsubstantiated "sources claimed" in your source... Oh, oops.

You do realize that party members don't have to agree with every policy that their party proposes? (See Petro Georgiou and his long and ongoing criticism of the Coalition's immigration policies)

One doesn't have to agree with every policy of their party. Sure, that's understandable. But when there's such clear signs of disunity and lack of control by the leadership, and even the party's own members are outraged at the shady backroom deals apparently being made without the leader's knowledge? And with some of the shit that does apparently happen with the leader's knowledge...

''If any of you are listening to 3AW this morning you will be aware of Bob's extreme discomfort at the shady preference deal with Labor and the fact that, as party leader, even he doesn't know which 54 seats were sold out - not a good look for the Greens.'' (Steve Meacher, Greens candidate for McEwen).

-snip

... It was Steve Meacher, the Greens candidate for McEwen, who outright called it shady. But if it's part and parcel (wait, I thought the Greens was supposedly above the usual political B.S., which was why this subtopic popped up in the first place), and there's nothing over the whole thing for them to feel uncomfortable about... Then why the heck did the Greens candidate for McEwen even comment on Bob's extreme discomfort over it (and at another point, the candidate implying that he may even leave the party over the back room deals issue)? And why did they even have to organise a dog and pony show to try to defuse the issue, if it's no big deal in the first place?

In short, you are a moron, and that's coming from somebody who would never vote for the Greens. I can understand criticizing their more retarded policies but criticizing trivial bullshit and then holding it on par with the major league bullshit that the main parties pull is fucking stupid.

We're talking about the same party that apparently has an "attack response group" (based in Bob's own office), which specifically digs around for "solicitors who are willing to write 'cease and desist' letters to frighten off people (will work only with smaller groups, not with the other major parties)" to silence critics?

But hey, I must mean that the Greens are just as unethical as the two major parties to exactly the same degree, regardless of practical reality of how much power, funding and publicity they have in comparison. Can't possibly be talking about them on the grounds of principle.

[bobalot]

Using Tobacco companies? When did they do that? I haven't heard anything like that. They've certainly accepted donations from those in the Tobacco industry, but I'm fairly sure Labor have there as well.

Source

Anonymous and unsubstantiated "sources claimed" in your source... Oh, oops.

Wow, you have proven beyond a doubt that you are a fucking retard. It appears you didn't even read your own article.

The Daily Telegraph reports the campaign is run by the Alliance of Australian Retailers, which was registered only last week, and is being funded almost entirely by tobacco giants Philip Morris and British American Tobacco.

You do realize that party members don't have to agree with every policy that their party proposes? (See Petro Georgiou and his long and ongoing criticism of the Coalition's immigration policies)

One doesn't have to agree with every policy of their party. Sure, that's understandable. But when there's such clear signs of disunity and lack of control by the leadership, and even the party's own members are outraged at the shady backroom deals apparently being made without the leader's knowledge? And with some of the shit that does apparently happen with the leader's knowledge...

Wow, more waffling bullshit. You basically say "It's okay for party members to disagree with party policy, but if someone from the Greens does it, it's bad."

Talk about loaded language. "Shady Backroom Deals"? Every fucking party has done this ever since preferential voting was introduced to Australia.

The Green's unique de-centralized party model means that the leader doesn't have total control over the party. Unsurprisingly for morons like yourself don't realize this is one the draw cards to the party for many members. You of course, took care to ignore this point and kept pretending the Green party is structured like the major parties.

You ignore the fact that the Greens are polling well, party morale is high and their campaign this year is their biggest in Federal History....but a internal debate about electoral strategy is a sign of disastrous disunity.

... It was Steve Meacher, the Greens candidate for McEwen, who outright called it shady. But if it's part and parcel (wait, I thought the Greens was supposedly above the usual political B.S., which was why this subtopic popped up in the first place), and there's nothing over the whole thing for them to feel uncomfortable about... Then why the heck did the Greens candidate for McEwen even comment on Bob's extreme discomfort over it (and at another point, the candidate implying that he may even leave the party over the back room deals issue)? And why did they even have to organise a dog and pony show to try to defuse the issue, if it's no big deal in the first place?

It wasn't a big issue, you taken this minor issue and blown it out of all proportion in a pathetic attempt to justify your bullshit golden mean. It has barely been mentioned in the papers, and nobody in Australia (or anybody who has a passable knowledge of our voting system) remotely gives a shit.

The story here is that a few people are uncomfortable with what their elected Regional Party branches have done. In pj1351's world, every party member must agree 100% or it is a sure sign of shady deals and total disunity.

pj1351 also forgets the fact that the vast majority of green preferences have ALWAYS been sent to Labor. Formalizing this situation and getting some concessions from Labor to maximize their party's electoral strength is something they should have done years ago. Idealism can only get you so far.

We're talking about the same party that apparently has an "attack response group" (based in Bob's own office), which specifically digs around for "solicitors who are willing to write 'cease and desist' letters to frighten off people (will work only with smaller groups, not with the other major parties)" to silence critics?

You took that out of context, you dishonest shit. That was a single request from a single member. Not official party policy.

Emma Bull from Senator Brown's office requested each state branch check local contacts ''for lawyers who may be willing to give pro bono advice if injunctions are required at any point''

But hey, I must mean that the Greens are just as unethical as the two major parties to exactly the same degree, regardless of practical reality of how much power, funding and publicity they have in comparison. Can't possibly be talking about them on the grounds of principle.

Golden Mean Bullshit. I don't see the Green's using the race bait card, which is something that is far worse than any of this trivial bullshit.

[bobalot]

Using Tobacco companies? When did they do that? I haven't heard anything like that. They've certainly accepted donations from those in the Tobacco industry, but I'm fairly sure Labor have there as well.

BTW, Labor stopped accepting donations in 2004. One of the only few good party policies that Mark Latham implemented.

[pj1351]

Wow, you have proven beyond a doubt that you are a fucking retard. It appears you didn't even read your own article.

The Daily Telegraph reports the campaign is run by the Alliance of Australian Retailers, which was registered only last week, and is being funded almost entirely by tobacco giants Philip Morris and British American Tobacco.

Who's being a fucking retard? Your claim is that the Liberals are "secretly using tobacco companies to run "independent" anti-government advertisements", and yet in the same article that you claim I didn't read, the link from Alliance of Australian Retailers to Crosby Textor (the supposed "architects of the research behind the campaign") is shot down.

We're talking about the same party that apparently has an "attack response group" (based in Bob's own office), which specifically digs around for "solicitors who are willing to write 'cease and desist' letters to frighten off people (will work only with smaller groups, not with the other major parties)" to silence critics?

You took that out of context, you dishonest shit. That was a single request from a single member. Not official party policy.

Oh, I took it out of context? Then let's read the entire paragraph for the full context:

Two days later, in an email written after a meeting of the attack response group on July 23, Emma Bull from Senator Brown's office requested each state branch check local contacts ''for lawyers who may be willing to give pro bono advice if injunctions are required at any point'' and for ''contact details for solicitors who are willing to write 'cease and desist' letters to frighten off people (will work only with smaller groups, not with the other major parties)''.

I don't see the Green's using the race bait card, which is something that is far worse than any of this trivial bullshit.

Hm. This point, however, I do conceed.

[Archaic`]

Using Tobacco companies? When did they do that? I haven't heard anything like that. They've certainly accepted donations from those in the Tobacco industry, but I'm fairly sure Labor have there as well.

BTW, Labor stopped accepting donations in 2004. One of the only few good party policies that Mark Latham implemented.

Stopped accepting all donations? I find that very hard to believe. If they've stopped taking money from firms, I doubt that means they've also stopped taking money from the unions.