JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Delcons, Defcons, and elections in Australia 2016

With an election likely for July 2nd, the hottest topic in Australian politics right now is how to vote. So put your best case forward here. Hammer this out. Will Turnbull promise anything to win back the Delcons — the angry conservatives? The time to ask is now, and if the Liberal base are not prepared to vote against him, they have nothing to negotiate.

“Better to have a real conservative opposition than a fake conservative government.”

The elephant in 2016 is the ferocious boiling anger among betrayed conservatives and small government libertarians, divided over whether they can bear to vote for Turnbull (a Liberal*) who has been called the best leader the Labor Party never had. Delcons was tossed at the so-called “Delusional” Conservatives. But they took up the badge. Defcons means the Defiant ones.

Right now, and since September, I’m a Delcon, like Tim Blair, Merv Bendle, and James Allan. Convince me otherwise. (We love you Miranda but you are wrong.)

“As long as Turnbull is in charge there will be no real alternative for conservative libertarians.”

The issue: Is it better to vote for the lesser of two evils and hope a Turnbull-led party can be reformed after a win, or is it better to think long term, take the medicine and rebuild in opposition — and is there a realistic third choice?

Winning at any cost is a loss. It’s a matter of principle. As long as Turnbull is in charge there will be no real alternative for conservative libertarians. If the “true liberal base” will put up with Turnbull and support power for Liberals regardless of principles then their vote is truly worth nothing. I’m not just talking about putting small parties or independents ahead of the Liberal candidate, but the nuclear option — sending the preferences to Labor, despite its ghastly policies [and Tanya Plibersek, says DavidE, who incidentally leans more to the Miranda-line].

Both Labor and Liberal want carbon trading. Neither speak for the sensible center; both speak for the ABC crowd:

Come election day, many in the Liberal base that pollster Mark Textor said “doesn’t matter” will confront a question Malcolm Turnbull poses with very nearly his every utterance: Is a party that pursues power without principle worth the lead in a polling-booth pencil? — “The Samson Option” Merv Bendle, Quadrant

The old rules of voter loyalty, and the theory of wins-so-big they last two-terms are gone. But that means the landscape can change fast and new parties can transform it. The tired two party system has been captured. It needs to be broken to be reformed.

US politicians are not battling over the center anymore. If the establishment centrist Mitt Romney had won in 2012, Trump and Cruz would not be fighting it out now. Appealing to the passionless “fickle centre” is not a winner in the tweedle-dee-and-dum era. It’s a media-defined imaginary center, far removed from the sensible center in the street. Which sensible voter really wants to pay for wind turbines in the hope they will cool the world?

A least worst option: A Strategic Stalemate

It’s not necessarily Armageddon if Labor wins the Lower House, Lib-Nats, independents win the Upper. The Senate cuts the pain. Better to have a real conservative opposition than a fake conservative government. Shorten gets to be PM (ugly) but the damage can be limited if the Lib-Nats hold the Senate or, better yet, a serious alternative centre-right group gains a foothold.

Here’s a voting strategy: Choose your Representative carefully. Campaign non-left in the Senate.

Don’t throw the baby out with the water — keep the useful Libs, but weed out the weak. For starters, did they vote for Abbott in the coup?  If your member doesn’t measure up, choose an alternative, then put Labor before Lib in the House of Reps, but keep those preferences flowing to the Coalition (especially the Nationals) in the Senate.

Many conservatives and libertarians are supporting the Australian Liberty Alliance. Check ‘em out: see the ALA values and core policies. It goes without saying that savvy voters in Australia always send their preferences to smaller parties and independents first (keep the bastards honest), but ultimately, in a two party system, you have to pick one of the two parties. Do I need to say informal votes don’t count?

The Miranda defense of Turnbull

Miranda Devine coined the “Delcon” name. She justifies a vote for Turnbull by pointing out the ways Abbott let down real conservatives. But Abbott’s failures aren’t a reason to shift to Turnbull’s guaranteed success for Big-Government waste. Abbott didn’t get rid of the stifling, ridiculous 18C, but neither will Turnbull.

Miranda:

“Perhaps Turnbull is better off without the delcons. People so willing to cut off their nose to spite their face, are not really worth having on your side.”

Turnbull is not on my side.  My nose is not at stake.

More than half of Australians don’t buy the IPCC climate position. Who speaks for them?

Skeptics are the people who elected the Liberals. Turnbull is the one cutting off noses.  Let him and those who elected him face the consequences.

I’m with James Allan — spite is there for an evolutionary reason:

“…there are very good consequences in not allowing yourself to be played for a mug. If they know you will always vote Lib, provided the party is perceived to be just a smidgeon to the right of Labor, then Mark Textor is right in asserting that the base doesn’t matter.  We become irrelevant to their thinking, or virtually so.  In evolutionary psychology this is analogous to the person who does not take retribution when double-crossed (see my Spectator pieces from immediately after the coup).  It is a ‘loser gene’ and will die out.   The best long-term strategy is niceness and co-operation until you are stabbed in the back. Then you get even.  This has no good short-term consequences for you.  But it has great long-term consequences.  You are seen not to be a mug – in this case a Textor stooge. Now you can respond in three ways.  (1) The Libs will never lose another election so vote Turnbull.  (2) We can keep stop the political spectrum from moving to the left under Turnbull.  We really can.  (3) It is wrong-headed to think long-term and dynamically.”

If Abbott had led a government of MPs with principles and backbones — willing to take on the racial-vilification-bullies for instance — would he have axed 18C? Maybe. Probably. Would Turnbull? Never; it’s a silly question. A party of MPs with principles, who knew what they stood for, wouldn’t have been fooled by the ABC into voting Turnbull in. Nor would they have been fooled by Turnbull, as Minister for the ABC, into keeping the funding flowing to the ABC. There is no chance Turnbull will deliver the things Abbott failed on. Miranda’s reasoning is wrong. (But you’re still invited to dinner Miranda, anytime and with a smile.)

I don’t like being on the opposite side to Steve Kates either. In 2016 he says “Hold Your Nose“. But I’m still with Steve in Feb 2015 all the way. Steve in 2016 hopes that Turnbull will get voted in by the people, but voted out by the MPs afterwards, or at least kept on a leash. But Abbott couldn’t keep him on a leash.

What Kates gets right in 2016 is that Labor is completely unreformed, has not done any kind of mea culpa, and could do more fiscal damage than Turnbull. On that big-spending note, strangely the Libs have failed to pin them for the massive debt run up by Labor. Abbott glued them on the boats, even the ABC can see that, but where were the cries with every spending cut that these were “Labor-Cuts”, thanks to “Gillard’s Black Hole”, and “Kevin’s Golden Sheds”? None of the cuts in the Budget of 2014 would have been necessary if not for the profligate vandalism of the Labor Party during the iron-ore boom that rescued the economy. Any idiot can hand out other people’s money. (Wayne Swan’s job. Remember him? Cost Australia an awful lot of dollars.)

A vote for Turnbull is a vote for an Emissions Trading Scheme

He and Hunt have already said they want us to buy foreign carbon credits. They would probably be starting the trading right now if not for the election. (The introduction was flagged for mid 2016.) The Gore-Palmer combo put the option of a review to recommend this into the “Direct Action Plan”. It was the back door for Turnbull to say he’s technically sticking to the Abbott climate plan, and for him to do what he always wanted and was chucked out as leader of the opposition for in 2009. He hasn’t learned.

Perhaps Abbott’s success bore the seeds of his failure

“A better conservative opposition will help us get a better Labor option too.”

Abbott and the Liberals won so big at the last election that a lot of new first timer MPs were voted in. I’d guess these naive MPs in marginal seats were more likely to lose their nerve, fooled by the ABC, and to vote for Turnbull. (I haven’t crunched those numbers on the turncoats, feel free to show I’m wrong.)

Should we take the Samson Option and blow the house down? No. Let’s be more strategic. Don’t bomb conservative politics,  rebuild it. In the long run Australian politics will be stronger if conservatives lose the House of Reps but win the Senate.  The best choice is if the good Liberals stay in, and the spineless and the weak are weeded out. It’s a win-win. A better conservative opposition will help us get a better Labor option too. At the moment both are pathetic, and voting for Turnbull merely extends the problem.

What will make me change my mind?

Turnbull could categorically, unconditionally promise some meaningful basics (which also cost nothing). How about a blood oath? No emissions trading scheme – ever. No section 18C. No more subsidies to Big Renewables (lets do the research, not buy expensive electrons — remember the “free market”?). No more pandering to the ABC — split it to left and right wings, or demand equal time for conservative views, or better yet — privatize it and cancel some Labor debt. Odds of any of these? A million to nothing.

Turnbull does not have to bring in emissions trading, nor spend more on “renewables”. There is no grassroots conservative movement calling for either of these. Voter interest across the spectrum rates climate scares lower than low. Climate change is off the political radar in Australia for everyone except politicians and rentseekers. The only people who will protest these are people who would never vote for Liberals anyhow.

A weasel wordy endorsement of any of these would remind us of Julia.

Abbott supporters

Thanks to the legwork of Redbaiter and the TrueblueNZ blog there is a list of likely Abbott supporters and the names of the 54 who didn’t. The Liberals don’t necessarily have to be led by Abbott, but they do need a team that understands what the Liberal Party stands for:

Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Karen Andrews, Kevin Andrews, Chris Back, Cory Bernardi,  Bruce Billson, Jamie Brigs, Russell Broadbent, Scott Bucholz, David Bushby, Matias Corman, Peter Dutton, David Fawcett, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Josh Frydenburg, Ian Goodenough, Natasha Griggs, Andrew Hastie, Joe Hockey, Luke Howarth, Greg Hunt, Eric Hutchinson, Craig Kelly, Jo Lindgren, Russell Matheson, Ian MacDonald, Karen McNamara, Scott Morrison, Andrew Nikolick, Stephen Parry, Tony Pasin, Christian Porter, Melissa Price, Linda Reynolds, Andrew Robb, Zed Seselja, Ann Sudmalis, Michael Sukkar, Angus Taylor, Dan Tehan, Alan Tudge, Nikolas Varvaris, Brett Whitely, Rick Wilson.

The problem with this list: many here are not contesting. Some are in the Senate. Can readers fine tune this so we can update? There are new Liberal candidates — what do we know about them? I know I’d vote for Andrew Hastie, the former SAS officer if I were in Canning. Likewise, Cory Bernardi, SA Senate.   Send in your suggestions. Who speaks for skeptics? Who speaks for real science?

________

*Liberals? For foreigners, “liberal” in Australia still means something like a real liberal — a free-market, small-government player.  In the US  progressives stole the term and the silly Republicans let them misuse it.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (130 votes cast)
Delcons, Defcons, and elections in Australia 2016, 9.2 out of 10 based on 130 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/hgjsa6t

493 comments to Delcons, Defcons, and elections in Australia 2016

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Canada was in the same position of voting for the lesser of two evils but we had more then two parties and yet all were pushing the same policies that are for the politicians aspirations with the US policies which are economically killing our country.
    So many new laws and policies implemented over the decades have made our country unfriendly to any new business ventures. Many issues are not covered that are destroying this country by the media that just keeps pushing for the new TPP that will take away our sovereignty for business interests that will not be good for any citizens except for foreign companies to impose bad and dangerous products on the people with no choice to say no.

    The system has to crash due to too much corruption that in powerful hands that will make countries individual again and not this global governance that is currently being imposed no matter who you vote for.

    331

    • #
      Mike

      The pen is mightier than the pencil in powerful hands. Are pencils used in Canada too?

      20

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I suppose now is good time to reinterate the ugly reality that , if people had been paying attention, that no matter who you vote for, you get the &*same * result.

        The only difference I can discern is that with the “liberals” , bad stuff happens slower. With “labor” bad stuff just happens faster.

        I think the bad stuff will still happen, the real fight begins once we reach the bottom of the “ugly socialist reality” situation, and force the powers that be to go right wing.

        The alternative to loosing *that* fight is a long-term technocracy, effectively Australia turning into a huge open-air prison – a high tech Soviet Australia where everyone is watched, recorded and monitrored and controlled….oh hang on……..

        40

    • #
      Dariusz

      After being ready to die for democracy all my life (I lived without it for more than 1/3 of my life or 20 years) and seeing what is happening in the western world, it paines me to say that I do not believe in this system anymore. Self destruction reflected in mad economic and immigration policies will lead to the “rivers of blood” that we have been warned about. Democracy is inherently unstable as it panders to the lowest demoninator and average people,s greed. The great ideals of the equality, freedom and individuality that I was ready to lie down my life for is all but an illusion. Now after living in free Australia I see the ever tightening noose around these ideals and sadly see I no answer or way out. This is like watching a car crush in slow mention and I am in passenger seat.
      The only way to stop this madness is curtail the rules of democracy for all. In my option only citizens that are not the beneficiaries of any state money are allowed to vote like unemployed, public servants, retirees on government pensions, anyone that gets anything form the taxpayers. Voting is a previlage, that you have to earn, not right.
      Like wise with politicians. If you promise and under deliver you go to jail and be bankrupted forever. See how many snouts will come them.
      This is not new as this follows Greece and Roman republic examples.
      The average person does not understand, does not care except their stomachs.

      290

      • #
        Dariusz

        Apologies for spelling as my monitor froze and did not have a chance to final edit my rant.

        50

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Well said Dariuz, I think that you speak for a lot of us.

        KK

        90

      • #
        Broadie

        Darius
        A step in the right direction is to run a Party on a single issue. Xenophon has been successful with this strategy and is wallowing in the wealth and power.

        A party whose sole platform is electoral reform.

        - No salary or super for Politicians, return to meeting fees and compensation for travel
        - The removal of public funding of Political parties.
        - 2 year terms.
        - voting to be non-compulsory.

        Democracy is imperfect and should remain that way. The experiment has been completed. Payments to politicians and political parties only corrupt the bureaucracy as what are supposed to be community representatives become another layer of bureaucracy.
        Such an electoral platform would be palatable to a large spectrum of the population as many Australians are sceptical of the political system. The policy has the added benefit of being a small target for the complicit media.

        50

      • #
        Robdel

        In other words no representation without taxation. I totally agree with you.

        60

      • #
        Old Bloke

        Dariusz, don’t be so despondent, use the democratic system to force the major parties to change or die.

        Jo, I live in the Canning electorate and agree with you that Andrew Hastie is a good candidate, as evidenced by Malcolm Turnbull’s decision to send the head of ASIO to lecture him about how wonderful Islam is. I voted for Andrew in the by-election following Don Randall’s death, but I’m in two minds now as how to vote in July. My options in the House of Representatives are to vote for Hastie, though that will be through preferences rather than first preference (so the Libs won’t get the $$$’s), or to vote informal. I can’t bring myself to vote for the “atomic option”, i.e., vote Labor, though I agree that the Libs should be booted out and given time to consolidate and renew on the Opposition benches.

        In the Senate my choices are clear, I’ll be voting ALA for a variety of reasons; I like their stronger immigration policy, their commitment to small government, their commitment to reduced government spending, their commitment to cheaper energy through the disconnection of uneconomic power sources from the grid (bye-bye windmills), their commitment to remove Section 18c, and the end to all government spending on “climate change” programs. I was particularly impressed with their Murray-Darling basin regeneration plan, see here from the 39 minute mark.

        I will never vote Liberal again, or at least never first preference them again, while Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt remain in Parliament.

        ——————-
        REPLY: Keep Hastie in. The Libs are better with a man like him in it. — Jo

        50

      • #
        vivien Johnson

        Darius , I agree. I see and deplore all the same things. Disappearing free speech. Intolerance in universities- of all places!, endless spending of our money on stuff that will do no good but fill the pockets of rent seekers, union overlords and corrupt politicians, but I still think democracy is a worthwhile ideal. We just seem to be drifting faster and faster away from it. As somebody said, democracy is the worst system of government we have had…. except for all the others.
        Unlike you, we have had this privilege all our lives but have taken it for granted. Now we are in danger of losing it.

        70

      • #
        Greebo

        Nevil Shute, in his classic novel In The Wet ( published in the year of my birth, incidentally ) put forward a system of multiple votes.

        A person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one’s living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote is only given at the Queen’s discretion by Royal Charter.

        Now, some of his criteria may seem a little odd, or dated, but perhaps the concept is worthy of consideration. (The ensuing debate could be fun. I would take away a vote if a person held office in a Trade Union, but that’s just me. ) As Dariusz said, voting is a privilege, to be earned. So, perhaps one could earn more than one privilege.

        OK, never going to happen, and Shute was writing in the ghastly times following WWII, but he accurately predicted the mindless Governments led by cloth capped Trade Unionists that Britain had to deal with. The revolution in his book came from the Colonies. Unfortunately, we have none, so the revolution has to come from us.

        40

        • #
          Stan

          I would now take away a vote for anyone with university education! With the exception, possibly, of an engineering degree. Even if you make a broad distinction between hard sciences and soft sciences, many of the hard sciences are now infested by “climate scientists” of various descriptions. So you cannot distinguish on that basis.

          32

        • #

          The problem is there is no ‘feedback loop’ for badly performing politicians that don’t actually represent the people – other than voting for the other one.

          What I propose is this: The fulfillment of office vote, basically when you vote, you get another vote (yes or no) for the current incumbent – if they get less than 50% yes – they get no rewards from the office (no pension, etc). If they get less than 25% yes, they are barred from seeking elected office for 4 years… This is publicly reported as well.

          Vicious, maybe – but if you (the electorate) cannot hold them responsible for what they just did, then who can?

          20

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Dariusz,

        My uncle escaped with his family from Hungary under communist rule.

        I can tell people some stories…..

        The main bulwark we have is to keep educating our kids about Communism and how evil it is. Communism only thrioves by brainwashing a generation in SCHOOLs…which is why so much awful stuff is being flooded into public schhols now….

        COmmunism also hates morals – their view is teh State determines morality, not parents, not churches, not society – the State.

        People need to wise up fast about Communism and tech thier kids about how to resist it….a smart bunch of kids wont fall for it, and without that, like a cancer, it cant exist where there is oxygen of liberty and wisdom….

        50

      • #
        Arsten

        Darius, I agree with the sentiment of “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” attributed to a Winston Churchill.

        The problems you see are a result of the Representative Democracy that was so popularized by us Americans after stealing it from the English. The system allows a representative to get elected and then do anything not considered ‘unethical’ by his peers while in office. Did s/he promise to lower taxes? It’s quite alright for him/her to vote every single option to raise taxes – and so forth.

        The system needs an update with more controls on what the elected representatives are allowed to do. You send John Doe to represent you, but your district gets to vote on categorical issues that he is allowed to represent for your district. Or something. I’m sure far smarter people than I have better ideas.

        00

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      What a complete and utter rant, Jo.

      You might be pissed off about Turnbull and co but the ONLY reason he is in is because Tony Abbott stuffed up. I mean ‘Sir Prince Phil’ – really!. That’s when he lost me. Not that I am a republican but that was just sooo freaking DUMB!! Tony Abbot with his Adler Shotgun mouth shooting himself in the foot with rapid fire. What’s he left with? His political career wobbling on his two little toes. I feel sorry for him to a point but don’t feel any support for him as a leader.

      As for the Delcons, Defcons etc, they only got a sniff of power because the ALP self destructed and TA did such a good job of destroying their credit. Then he did a similar job on himself. Klutzes like Cory “Bestality” Bernardi, Kevin Andews and Eric Ebetz do not help. They alienate the mainstream with their foot in mouth utterances and give the leftard media fee kick after free kick.

      Get over yourselves you pack of whingers. The ‘Cons’ overplayed their hand and now they seem to thing backstabbing MT will make them feel good? Are you freaking mad? 3 years with backstabbin Biily Short’n is the answere is it.

      At least the Nats know they are the junior partner and behave accordingly. The “Cons” think they own the place. Well they don’t.

      GROW UP!

      010

      • #

        but come on UA admit it. Like me you’ve taken up eating onions raw, skin on.

        04

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Ask yourself how an “unelectable” abbott became electable, then promptly self destructed?

        Now we have a champers socialist who is having fun pulling all the levers of govt and going “wheee…look mum…” to see what stuff does….he doesnt need the job, it must have been for some favour elsewhere…

        As to Gullard – Gullard had been told to go down in such a ball of flames that even the drovers dog could win the next election ….. where is Gullard now? Safely out of the country on some Socialist jolly….

        Australia is in a political deaths piral – people just seem to think that by painting the walls a new clour they can cover the large and growing cracks…..they keep saying “maybe if we can keep bailing the water out ( voting ) it will all change…”…I’d say its closer to a psychotic delusion….

        When the population backs something as repulsive and morally bankrupt as “Safe Schools” you have major structural failures within society. Just because every fool has a smart phoen and has a voice doenst mean they are wise, and quite frankly many of them should have a vote because they are unrecoverable boofheads with cotton wool for grey matter….

        Oz is in a very bad weay – a bit like the USA – you have neomarxist Obummer, Communist Hullary and Communist Senders and loose canon disaffected lightning rod Trmp…..

        Time to head bush I reckon.

        50

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Tough choices ahead for Australia!

    It reminds me of the ridiculous situation in the UK, where all the mainstream parties are officially in favour of voting to stay in the European Union, while a small majority of the electorate want to leave.

    The problem is smug politicians are constantly in denial of just why there were voted into power, it certainly had nothing to do with their supposed abilities or integrity. Save the World Syndrome, witnessed by imposing disastrous energy policies, is another negative shared by far too many western politicians.

    350

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      What a choice! Which major party would be the least disastrous for Australia?

      190

      • #
        Bog Cog

        The Nationals.
        They are not usually professional politicians, but are people with a record of service to their community asked by the party to stand.
        Vote for them in the senate if you can’t vote for them in the House of Reps.
        Some of the Nationals might not be publicly skeptical of climate change but they know what their supporters think.
        The Nationals are the best handbrake on Turnbull that we have, especially if they have the benefit of the balance of power.

        311

        • #
          Ted O'Brien. (From NSW, not Fairfax).

          In the Senate the Nationals run on the Liberals’ ticket, so the only way to change that is to fill in below the line, a difficult job.

          In the electorates, the Nationals do not run in Liberals’ seats, and haven’t the nous to know they should run in ALP held seats.

          10

          • #
            Allen Ford

            fill in below the line, a difficult job.

            No it’s not! You can, if you wish, fill out the zillion candidates on the ticket, but under the new rules, you can either:

            •number at least six boxes above the line for the parties or groups of your choice, or
            •number at least 12 boxes below the line for individual candidates of your choice.

            http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm

            Twelve boxes is really not above the capabilities of even the simplest intellect, surely!

            I am certain that as the times draws near, there will be any number of web sites available to make sure voters can be effective in making their intentions valid.

            50

            • #
              Mjw

              Twelve boxes is really not above the capabilities of even the simplest intellect, surely!

              Wanna bet?

              00

  • #
    mark

    Maybe a first vote for the ALA and the second for the Libs would send them the message. You could obviously scale the votes down to Labor and the greens being last. Wouldnt that get the Libs back but let them know we are not happy with MT.

    281

    • #
      aussiepete

      Mark,
      I’m kinda thinking the same thing, but not sure if ALA will run in the lower house.I’d be perfectly happy for ALA to hold balance of power in the Senate. I have been voting in Australia for 52 years and never did get to understand how preferences worked in the Senate, does that make me a bit of a dummy?

      150

      • #
        Peter C

        No one knows how preferences work in the Senate, because we do not know, in advance, what deals,have been done by the parties.

        The best way is to distribute your own preferences. This will be easier this time around because you can vote above the line and still nominate the parties in order of your preference. However a true enthusiast will vote below the line and number each box from one to xxx, which will probably be about 150. That way you can vote for James Patterson, number one on the Victorian Liberal senate bloc, but not have to give your number 2 vote to the next Liberal on the paper.

        If every one votes as I do it will probably take about 3 months to work out who actually won the election!

        191

        • #

          Peter, for those dedicated enough, the electoral commission has the preference lists for each party available through its web site at some point before the election. These are not secret deals, but it is easy to drown in the permutations and combinations if you wade in without knowing what you are looking for.

          http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2013/

          See “Senate Preference Flows” towards the end.

          140

        • #

          The voting system for the senate has changed. A new Act passed in the senate by Libs, Nats and Greens (opposed by labor, and independents) allows a form of optional preferences. According to the electoral Commission for a double dissolution (where there are 12 senators to be elected in each state) you should number 6 boxes above the line, presumably indicating preferences for party candidates or you can number a minimum of 12 candidates below the line. Voting below the line seems the simplest and will reflect your choice eg in Queensland you could chose not to give a vote for Senator McGarth, Lib, who was a numbers man for Turnbull. You do not have to put a number in any of the boxes of Labor or the Greens (especially in Qld Senator Larissa Waters one of the worst of the Greens or that communist lady Greens senator in NSW)
          According to Pauline Hanson the Act has an out for those that put a mark in only won box above the line. Not sure about that. It could apply if a party has 12 candidates and your intention was to vote for 12 candidates along party lines. She has suggested that votings papers like that would be subject to dispute. Best to vote as suggested by the Electoral commission and better still to vote below the line to exclude ALP, Greens, Turnbull supporters and stupid independents like Lambie and Lazarus.

          180

          • #
            AndyG55

            “and better still to vote below the line to exclude ALP, Greens, Turnbull supporters and stupid independents like Lambie and Lazarus.”

            Just re-iterating so it is seen clearly. :-)

            242

          • #
            Lawrie

            Senator Lazarus at least forced the government to rid us of the owner-driver annihilation tribunal. Senator Cash sent me a form letter crowing about her success. I wrote back saying she should have ditched the Tribunal before it got to make any decision adversely affecting owner drivers. Turnbull wanted the ODs to vote him in first; what a disgrace.

            It was the ODs who led the charge against the carbon tax at the Canberra rally and recall Albanese calling us the Convoy of no consequence and the convoy of incontinence. They are all slime balls. I intend to vote for my Nationals candidate in the house and to vote ALA, Nationals and Llyonhelm in the Senate. (I’m sure he spells it correctly).

            142

            • #
              Greebo

              recall Albanese calling us the Convoy of no consequence and the convoy of incontinence.

              Yeah, Albo and Textor make a fine pair.

              50

              • #
                vivien Johnson

                I recall this too. I was at both rallies, as I was living in Canberra at the time. I also saw the jerks hoisting the “Ditch the Witch” sign behind Abbott, saw his shock. He had nothing to do with it but lies keep being told.

                40

              • #
                Ross

                Albo’s got em pegged.

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                Good thing Labor hasn’t got the basic intelligence to dump Shorten and install Albo as leader.

                The would ensure a MASSIVE landslide against Turnbull.

                The ONLY thing holding Turnbull anywhere near 50/50 is Shorten.

                42

        • #
          Simple Simon

          aussiepete and Peter C:
          Preferences belong to voters until they vote above the line.
          If you vote above the line you give away your preferences for the parties to distribute as they see fit and according to the deals they have worked out.

          If you vote below the line, you allocate the preferences as YOU see fit.
          Above the line voting was introduced only in 1984, by the major parties who saw an opportunity to dupe electors into handing control of preferences to the faceless machine men who stitch up deals. Sadly more than 90% of Australians hold their democracy and their vote so cheaply that they vote above the line (and then complain afterwards, though they did it to themselves).

          Under the recent Turnbull ‘reforms’ voting below the line has become easier than ever*.
          All you need to do is number 12 candidates below the line.
          (Technically, the law allows fewer, but party scrutineers may (illegally) disallow those with fewer, so put down 12 to be safe.)
          Do this and you can direct your preferences exactly as you wish, putting the Liberals in any position you want from first to last while also ensuring that your preferences (and they are YOURS, unless you give them away by voting above the line) do not go where you do not want them to, e.g., Labor/Greens.

          Although I think that anyone can work their own preferences out by themselves, if you desire assistance in working out where you want your preferences to go and wish to prepare a personalised ‘how to vote card’ that you can take along to the polling booth you may find the following sites useful.

          At present the sites remain as they were for the last WA Senate by-election, but should be updated closer to the upcoming 2016 election. (Obviously, the updating can only occur once candidates are known.) The sites are:

          http://www.belowtheline.org.au
          and
          http://senate.io/

          Anyway, vote BELOW the line in the Senate (with at least 12 preferences marked) if you want to control YOUR preferences; only vote above the line if you want to throw YOUR preferences away and have them sucked up in the backroom deals that the parties will have stitched up between themselves. If you do that, however, don’t complain afterwards about ‘preference deals’ as you will have been complicit in those deals.

          *Contrary to popular opinion, even before the so-called reforms it was not difficult and even the largest Senate paper took less than five minutes to complete. Five minutes once in three years to decide who will have the power to tax you, regulate you, and control you and all your assets, let alone the country, and most people found it all too much! No wonder politicians do not respect electors and the country has come to the pass it has.

          50

          • #
            Kathy

            Neither belowtheline.org.au or senate.io are available in 2016…any other suggestions for those of us who want to vote every number below the line but not sure where to start?

            00

      • #
        gigdiary

        I .. never did get to understand how preferences worked in the Senate

        Don’t feel bad about that. I reckon there’ll be a lot of disillusioned conservative voters who will be new to ‘voting below the line’ this Senate election, myself included. Fortunately, as Peter C said, there has been a change to the ballot paper which should make it easier. However, like Peter, I’ll be ticking each box from one to xxx. If others do the same, expect a longer than usual wait at the voting booth.

        This time, it’s no longer good enough to vote Liberal, we have to sift the wheat from the chaff and look outside the Liberal paradigm. While there are some Liberal representatives and senators worth supporting, many support Turnbull and are clueless about the climate hoax and ambivalent about unfettered immigration.

        It is imperative that the next government doesn’t legislate an ETS or dismantle Abbott’s border protection policy.

        180

        • #

          Can you explain how that voting arrangement works to someone not in Oz? Would such be a good consideration for other places that wish to throw out the whole bathroom, but keep the baby?

          31

          • #
            Peter C

            The system of distributing preferences is dfferent for the two votes; house of representatives – lower house and the senate- upper house..

            In the lower house the votes are put into piles according to who got the number 1 vote, then added up. If one candidate gets more than 50% he/she is elected. If no candidate has a majority the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and all his/ her votes are redistributed to the other candidate and the piles are counted again. The processes is repeated until one candidate gets the required no of votes (more than 50%). There is only one winner for each seat in the lower house and usually 6-8 candidates on the voting paper.

            In the upper house vote it is more complicated because there are 7 senators to be elected in each state ( or 14 if we have a double dissolution). That means a candidate only needs 7/100 or 14% of the vote to get elected. In this case a senator can get excess votes. The excess votes need to be distributed first. But which votes are the excess ones? Actually all the successful candidates votes are redistributed but at reduced value.

            To see how this works we will take a theoretical situation and imaging that Nick Xenophon needs 100 votes to get elected, but actually polls 205 votes in the first count. Nick is elected. All of his votes get stamped at the reduced value of 205-100/205, and get redistributed to the next person (who got the number 2 vote). That may result in more successful candidates so the process is repeated. If no more candidates are elected the person with the least votes is eliminated and his/ her votes are distributed. The same process gets repeated again and again until all the senators are elected.

            It is cumbersome and there are usually a lot of candidates for the senate so it can take weeks until the last senators are announced.

            120

            • #
              Lawrie

              Twelve senators per state. You are mistaking the formula for gaining a quota. If there are 100000 voters for the state and it is a double dissolution election the quota will be 100000/14 or 7142 votes. An individual who gains 7142 number one votes is automatically elected. If he/she is a member of a party and he/she has votes surplus those votes flow to the next candidate in the party. So if the Libs for example gain 36000 votes that would get them 5 senators. Any residual votes would go to where the party sent it’s preferences. With the latest revision it is now possible (it always was if you numbered EVERY square below the line) to select the senators you want in your order of preference by just checking 12 boxes below the line. The beauty of this is you get to choose who gets your preferences. So you might in NSW select Kirralee of ALA then all the Nationals followed by David Llynhelm followed by the Libs but making sure the Turnbull turncoats come in last. Currently the number one on the Lib ticket is a Turnbull adherent and Jim Molan the very successful and very right wing former general is last. I would vote bottom to top.

              I believe that Turnbull might just have made the Senate a more representative house and I am hoping that Australians make full use of a much simpler system. You can kick his butt and still have a conservative and sensible senate.

              100

              • #
                Peter C

                I was wrong about the number of senators per state. 12 it is. And may remain 12 for ever more. I thought that they have been adding senators but I guess that is for the territories.

                However I think my explanation of how the votes are worked out is correct. It does not matter whether they flow according to the party ticket or if you vote below the line. It is of course a lot easier for the electoral commission if if people vote above the line. Then they can count whole blocks of votes at one time.

                I have often wondered if my vote ever gets counted or if it gets put in some sort of remainder pile, to be retrieved only if the vote is very close.

                20

              • #
                Ted O'Brien. (From NSW, not Fairfax).

                Peter C. 12 for each state + 2 each for the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory.

                Re your “distribution”. “…the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and all his/ her number 2 votes are redistributed to the other candidates ….”

                This is a curious but well thought out system.

                For those not familiar with our system. Australia is divided into 6 states and 2 territories, of which one has avery low population density.

                For the lower house, The House of Representatives”, each sate is divided into electorates of a bit less than 100,000 voters.

                For the upper house, The Senate”, each state has 12 senators. This was set up by our founding fathers in 1901. The obvious bias was to 1. protect smaller states from being bullied by bigger sates, and 2. To persuade those smaller states to join the federation.

                All very well. But look at this, the populations in recent times. NSW has 639,000 per senator, while South Australia has 141,700 per senator and Tasmania has 41,667 per senator. The ACT 200,000 and the NT 125,000.

                Tasmania has 5 seats in the lower house and 12 senators. NSW has 47 seats in the lower house and 12 senators.

                State: New South Wales 7.6 million
                Victoria 5.9 million
                Queensland 4.8 million
                Western Australia 2.6 million.
                South Australia 1.7 million.
                Tasmania 0.5 million

                Australian Capital Territory 0.4 million
                Northern Territory 0.25 million.

                Note in all of that that the electorate size is based on the number of people of voting age, not population. So there can’t be many kids in Tasmania, which has suffered under Green government for 33 years now.

                30

          • #

            It really is not easy to explain , nor understand. Above the line voting means your 1,2,3, vote is decided by the parties, not the voter. People are elected on quotas, the total number of votes divided by 6 plus 1 in a half senate election. When someone reachs a quota they are elected and their surpluses distributed to other candidates. This process continues until the next candidate is elected and so on, usually the last candidate elected doesn’t get a quota. By minor parties exchanging their preferences amongst themselves resulted the election of folk with a couple percent of primary votes. So in S. Aust. Nick Xenophon usually gets more than a quota, but his preferences are important in getting someone else in. Sarah Hansen Young was elected due to a deal between the greens and Clive Palmers mob, and so it goes on.

            My suggestion: have some random lists and people put a tick, not 1,2,3 against the 6 candidates they like. Count the ticks and the top six are elected. Far too easy and democratic so the parties would lose control. Never will happen as too much vested interest.

            40

            • #
              Greebo

              t really is not easy to explain , nor understand.

              Not wrong. If anyone can explain a system where a bloke can get 0.51% of the vote ( Ricky Muir ) and pick up a plum Senate seat I’ll dip me lid.

              40

          • #

            H. Jordan,

            Voting is compulsory. We get fined if we don’t turn up. The preferential system means I can give my first vote to my favourite candidate even though I know they probably won’t win. My vote will still count. After they are eliminated my vote shifts to choice 2, and in the end, usually the big decision is whether to number Lib 6, Labor 7 and Green 8, or some other variation at the bottom.

            If a party scores above a certain percentage of votes they do get money (like a dollar or so) for each #1 vote.

            In the Senate there are two choices of how to fill in the form. “Above” the line means (or used to mean) putting a 1 in a box for your choice of party, and then your vote follows their official published preferences (Hence a lot of wheeling and dealing goes on between parties to set up those lists). “Below” the line is for the die-hards (like me) who number all the candidates from 1 – 110 or something ridiculous. It’s a big sheet like a tablecloth. The rules have just been changed a little in the last month. But you can imagine most voters take the quicker “above the line” route, so those preference flows matter.

            130

            • #
              AndyG55

              Pretty sure that has now been changed to 12 votes required below the line to be a “legal” paper.

              Can anyone confirm?

              If so, I suspect that a lot more people will take that option than used to under the old system.

              81

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              If we don’t turn up. You can put a blank paper into the box although that might turn out to help the person you don’t want.

              50

              • #
                AndyG55

                Blank papers are very useful to scruntineers..

                ….and I don’t think the Liberals will have too many of them this time around.

                51

        • #
          Angry

          Indeed it is going to be a tough choice.
          We are intending to number every single box below the line.
          To this end we are going to apply for a postal vote and complete the task at home and at our leisure.

          140

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Angry,
            from experience start at the bottom choice. i.e. if there are 74 candidates for the Senate put 74 by the lead candidate of the party you least want (for most here the Greens, unless the Compulsory Castration Party is standing). The next Green becomes 73 etc. Then work your way up through the parties in order of decreasing dislike. (That way you keep count and don’t have to try and correct or get a new paper which is allowed).

            50

            • #
              AndyG55

              As I read it….

              If you number 1 to 12 below the line, that is all that required.

              My understanding is that your vote then retires, no flow on to anyone.

              Can someone please check this is correct under the new system.

              61

              • #
                Greebo

                You don’t have to stop at 12, that is just the minimum for the vote to count. Other than that you are correct.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                I said that 12 was all that was required

                Pretty sure that is totally correct. ;-)

                10

            • #
              Angry

              We are going to create a spreadsheet with all the candidates, their party and notes such as whether they are global warming nutjobs etc.
              That way we can number them before marking the ballot paper.
              A lot of work but worth it if we get a good result…

              30

        • #
          Kneel

          As a long time “below the line” voter, I was very pleased when they removed the restriction of having to number every single candidate when voting this way – after my 10th preference, it’s well and truly into the realm of best guess. Fortunately, you now need only number a much smaller number (6?, 12? No matter, it is marked on the ballot paper), which makes it much easier to avoid casting an informal vote.
          Definately ALA and independents for me – Abbott contested for PM from opposition, he should at least have gotten one term before getting turfed.

          20

    • #
      Greebo

      Certainly ALA is not in the position to field candidates in all the Rep seats. The Nats won’t. My Local Member, Jason Wood, was one of the 54, and knows very well that he’s no longer getting MY vote, but what’s the alternative? I commented on many blogs after Malcolm’s moment that three years of Opposition would be worth it if the Libs would be forced to remember what they are supposed to stand for. My dilemma is, do I still think that? The alternative PM is just as sickening as the current one.
      At the last Poll the choices were Lib, ALP, Greens, Palmer, DLP, Family First, Rise Up Australia and the Sex Party. Ye Gods. How does one place a 1 next to the Sex Party?
      As for the Senate, below the line is the only way. I plan to download the voting paper and spend some time with it prior to Jul 2.

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        Please keep the list of Turnbull voting Senators, I posted elsewhere, in mind :-)

        111

      • #
        Cheryl

        Jason Wood is also my Fed member. I too have let him know my feelings. I would think a vote for Family First would be the obvious choice. Bob Day has proven quite sound.

        Given the new Lib campaign: If it doesn’t add up, speak up, I am about to send Jason my list of things that don’t add up.

        80

  • #
    Dave

    Voting for what?

    1 An ETS
    2 Section 18C
    3 Border Policy

    I have emailed my new LIB candidate to replace Clive (Sir Eatalot)Palmer, and
    So far no answers regarding the above?

    What do I do?

    Easy, I vote for someone else, no choice, if he can’t give an answer to my questions – he will NOT receive my vote. The alternative is not good.

    Senators just want to send out PDF’s on the policies but nothing else.
    This includes ALP, NAT, LIB etc

    After this election there is going to be the biggest turnaround in our political history


    [EDIT, Dave. Ahem. Spellchecker warning "boarder protection" - -Jo]

    110

    • #
      Popeye26

      Dave – I agree with your thoughts (see my post below).

      I think this election is the most important in the history of Australia – but I’m still having problems in knowing exactly what to do :-(

      I do hope though I see the SHOCK syndrome in all of the politicians eyes at midnight on election night when we still don’t know who is PM.

      Cheers,

      110

      • #
        bobl

        Ask your candidates, I just sent a letter similar to this to my (Liberal aligned) member. I will send similar letters to all the other candidates.
        =================================================
        To help me figure out which way to vote in the upcoming election I wonder if you would answer a few leading questions.

        If the following votes were put to parliament – How will you vote for each one.

        1. A new Carbon Tax OR ETS (An ETS is just a Carbon Tax in disguise)
        2. Repeal of 18C or substantial modification to protect free speech
        3. Increases to taxes on Pensions ( or Superannuation which is the same thing)
        4. Removal of negative gearing ( Which drives me nuts because negative gearing is nothing more than claiming a tax deduction for costs of running a rental property business, a deduction every business is due)
        5. Changes to Border policy that favour more open borders.
        6. Reforming the ABC to provide truth and balance.

        I am really bothered by the current Liberal party being more like Labor than Labor, people like myself that favour small government, a balanced budget, individual responsibility, minimal regulation (less Nanny State), and a very light touch (like almost none) beyond the front gate of a private property – well, We currently have almost no-one to vote for. So, one final question – and it’s a doosy…

        7. If Turnbull was to win, and given it’s well known he supports big-government leftist claptrap like pension taxes and climate change nonsense like an ETS/Carbon taxes that are diametrically opposed to my beliefs (above). Would you be prepared to contain him, remove him and/or cross the floor to prevent those things happening – as happened when Abbott was elected as opposition leader over Turnbull’s plan to support Labor/Greens ETS on “The day the electorate went nuts” ?

        Sorry to ask , but the deposing of Tony Abbott by Turnbull has destroyed any trust I had in the Liberal Party, so I am voting on what my candidates own values are instead, to me it’s now very important that my representative states HIS or HER OWN commitment on these things. Since I can no longer trust parties (any of them), maybe I should trust the individual.

        I will be asking all the candidates similar questions, those that don’t answer (or spin) will dip out too. I will likely tell others or publish information on the internet about your answers.

        Hope to hear from you soon

        90

        • #
          Stevem

          In many ways an ETS is worse than a carbon tax. Emitters still pay the same amount per tonne, but the money goes overseas, damaging our balance of payments for no benefit whatsoever. At least a carbon tax stays in Australia, for the government to squander on its cause de jour.

          10

          • #
            bobl

            Yes, and a carbon tax is easily undone while an ETS creates property rights which can’t be undone without compensation.

            10

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          “4. Removal of negative gearing ( Which drives me nuts because negative gearing is nothing more than claiming a tax deduction for costs of running a rental property business, a deduction every business is due)”

          Exactly.

          00

      • #
        vivien Johnson

        I , too, believe that this election is the most important in a long time. The result will determine the future of the Liberal party. If Turnbull wins easily we will have endorsed, willingly or otherwise, the shift to the Left which Turnbull is clearly desperate for. This was crystal clear when he was Leader of the Oppositionfrom 2007 to 2009. Why have people forgotted that ?
        After this occurs, if it does, we will have two Left wing parties and nowhere to go for Conservatives, people who believe in traditional values or plain democratic ideals.
        The other reason this election is a vital determinant for the future is the submarine issue. Some in the media are pointing to the fact that the enormous amount of money to be spent is of country- breaking proportions. It is like the spending on defence which pushed the Soviet Union to the breaking point, to collapse. The outcome there was very good for the rest of the world but our economic collapse will have nothing but disaster for us.

        10

    • #
      Greebo

      [EDIT, Dave. Ahem. Spellchecker warning "boarder protection" - -Jo]

      Anyone who attended any of the so-called elite schools in their youth would be able to attest that protection from boarders was quite often warranted….

      80

      • #
        Greebo

        [Please don't let the subject of boarders go on. It's off topic. Thanks] AZ

        Sheesh. Let us have a little levity. This is such a depressing topic, no matter how important.

        10

    • #
      Retired Now

      I have been perplexed about who to vote for ever since Turnbull got in. I wrote to my local MP to tell him I didn’t vote for 18C, nor the excessive spending, nor an ETS, nor Turnbull but got all of that. I told him I was not happy and got a courteous response that time, but not to any further correspondence. I will write one more time warning him that if I didn’t get his personal assurance that he would vote against these in the future then I wouldn’t vote for him.

      As my MP was a Turncoat supporter I guess I won’t hear from him and will need to find someone else to vote for. ALA in the senate, but I am very torn about only having the choice I have. I cannot vote for the union controlled party (I had to take out the descriptor I used as it would have got me moderated!). But neither can I support Turnbull as he would take it as support for his ETS and all he stands for.

      80

    • #
      Lawrie

      Borders are the lines around a state or the edges of a quilt. BOARDERS are people who sometimes pay their BOARD if they are not members of the family and probably don’t if they are.

      40

      • #
        Fez Bejo

        And sometimes boarders will swarm aboard your ship bearing cutlasses.

        [Please don't let the subject of boarders go on. It's off topic. Thanks] AZ

        10

    • #
      Leigh

      Dave -I am in the same electorate as you and emailed Ted O’brien the same questions and guess what … No reply.

      20

    • #
      clive

      Dave,the last I heard,Pauline Hanson will be running a candidate against the Fat Man.I can just about guarantee Palmer will be lucky to get any votes,come the next election.

      00

  • #
    AndyG55

    What we need is a list of Turnbull supporting Senators in each state.

    Number below the line, and BYPASS these anti-Liberal/conservative senators in the vote.

    Do NOT number them in your 12 (or whatever the number is)

    171

    • #
      • #
        AndyG55

        It would be easier if it was by state.

        I’ll do it tomorrow and post the list…… if no-one beats me to it tonight. ;-)

        Label it..

        “Which Liberal Senators NOT to vote for in your state.”

        Send the list to BoltA , Tim Blair etc etc

        Send the list to Liberal Admin :-)

        111

        • #

          Andy. Thanks.
          Marginal seats are worth listing too. These members will feel more inclined to pressure Turnbull into making some carved-in-stone concessions. Their staffers will be reading incoming emails intently.

          Can someone update this? The SMH has a list of marginal seats in the last election
          These members voted for Turnbull in Sept.
          Peter Hendy *
          Craig Laundy *
          David Coleman *
          Matt Williams *
          Lucy Wicks *
          Sarah Henderson *
          Jason Wood *
          Teresa Gambaro *
          Bert van Manen *
          Ken Wyatt *
          Warren Entsch *
          Steve Irons *
          Wyatt Roy *
          Andrew Southcott *
          Tony Smith *
          Luke Simpkins *

          130

          • #
            AndyG55

            Tomorrow.. I’m done for now. :-)

            I’m in Newy, not at all sure who the candidate might be, or if they are a liberal or a Liberal.

            71

          • #
            FIN

            Last time I looked the ABC had an approval rating of about 74% so while I get the extreme right hate the ABC the rest of society doesn’t. That’s democracy I guess.

            118

            • #

              Forcing people to pay is your totalitarian form of “democratic”. Since the ABC is so popular you’ll be happy to campaign to make them run on voluntary funding, right? In a true democracy people can vote with their wallets. (Don’t tell me you are afraid their budget would disappear and their ability to run agitprop would be diminished…)

              30% of Australians don’t trust or don’t use the ABC

              I guess the 3 or 4 million Australian voters that get their information online (and read non-left sources) are the ones who recognize how carefully filtered and edited the ABC news is.

              “…46 per cent [of Coalition voters] believing the ABC to be politically biased and 43 per cent saying it is not.
              http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/voters-trust-the-abc-says-nielsen-poll-20140217-ixrs8#ixzz47HJcgGkr

              131

            • #
              AndyG55

              That approval rating only applies to far-left winger nutters..

              I’m totally sure the “survey” that came out with that result would have been totally unbiased…(said with utmost sarcasm)!!

              122

          • #
          • #
            MudCrab

            Andrew Southcott is retiring. His replacement was out pressing the flesh at an event last Monday arvo but I didn’t get to speak to her. Don’t know which way she leans on the Turn vs DelCon spectrum.

            Matt Williams I honestly believe is toast.

            Strange thing is that I was chatting to a Turny friend from WA a couple of weeks ago who was trying to find out what was happening in SA. She was under the impression that the party had a good chance to win Federal Adelaide. These people honest believe that Turnbull was/is a good idea.

            10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Turnbull Senate supporters by State

      Vote BELOW the line, but do not vote for these traitors.

      NSW:- Bill Heffernan, Marisse Payne, Arthur Sinidonis

      VICTORIA:- Mitch Fifield, Scott Ryan

      QLD:- George Brandis, James McGrath

      SA:- Simon Birmingham, Sean Edwards, Anne Ruston

      WA:- Michaelia Cash, David Johnson

      TAS:- Richard Colbeck
      .

      .

      disclaimer. this was done pre-breakfast/coffee.. please check for errors, spelling.

      181

      • #
        AndyG55

        ps.. after checking.. please post to as many places as people feel appropriate.

        Let’s try to send a message they will hear.

        I’ve already sent it to liberal admin.

        91

        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks Jo and Andy,

          Very useful information. I might make a sign and take it up to my polling both on the day!

          60

          • #
            AndyG55

            please double check the names first !!

            71

            • #
              AndyG55

              I had the Liberal party site with the senators list open as well as the TrueBlueNZ list of those who voted for Turnbull.

              Simple cross reference…..but it was done BC.. (Before Coffee).

              81

          • #

            It’s worth knowing that anyone can set up a stall outside a polling booth on the day as long as they are 6m from the door.
            http://www.aec.gov.au/FAQs/Voting_Australia.htm#senate-how

            People who are really passionate and have conviction can amplify their views. Would there be one active p—–d off conservative in each polling booth? (There are around 7000 in Australia).

            Would the libs treat DelCons differently if they were organised through social media and capable of doing this? You bet…

            160

            • #
              Konrad

              Jo, this is an excellent idea!

              There are a great number of those who are normally coalition campaign volunteers refusing to lift a finger for Lord Bouncy Waffle. They are now free to campaign near polling stations and encourage others to “VOTE DEFCON [1]”.

              There are plenty of rules surrounding printing and distribution of “how-to-vote” materials, but none concerning “how-not-to-vote” materials as these are not endorsing a candidate. Ie: Defcons can hand out cards enabling those voting below the line on the white paper to avoid numbering Turnbull’s quislings.

              The new senate voting rules mean that only 12 numbers need be filled in below the line for a valid vote. This means Defons can simply number centre right candidates and leave the leftists including Turnbull’s quislings un-numbered. And the great news? The Waffling Banker of Wentworth has exposed all of his quislings to the horror of Weasel Stomping Day by foolishly calling a DD election.

              Defcons have the power end the reign of Lord Bouncy Waffle. Most of his lower house quislings are on low margins. Just 10% of former coalition voters voting informal in those seats will end him. But we also have the power to ensure the Shorten is stuck with a centre right majority senate.

              70

              • #
                Winston

                An even better idea would be to actively concentrate on campaigning against Turnbull in his own seat, with a large group at every polling booth handing out “how not to vote” cards and explaining why die hard Liberal supporters need to vote him out to save the party from a Greens coalition, an ETS, and ultimately oblivion as a political force.

                Better to sacrifice the one “safe” seat to get rid of the man who has steered the party away from its conservative base toward Labor-lite positions on most policies. I don’t think his seat is invulnerable and this would be the least worst option.

                On the Central Coast, Lucy Wicks is toast. I spoke to her in person well before Turnbull even challenged and warned her what would happen if he rolled TA, so she can’t say she wasn’t warned, and yet she still voted for him. I would pay good money to see her face on election night when her political career goes down the S bend.

                30

              • #
                Winston

                I am sorry to Bill Posters below, I hadn’t read that response before posting. I think that is far more doable than people believe. Even if 20% of voters in Wentworth felt slighted by Turnbull’s direction for the party, a significant message could be sent at the very least.

                10

              • #
                Konrad

                Winston, I understand your position, but I reiterate mine: Hope is not a plan.

                Wentworth is a very safe seat. In North Sydney, a staggering 28% of the electorate voted informal or not at all, but the Turnbull quisling still managed to scrape in even after losing 30% of the votes they had in 2013. To defeat Turnbull and ensure the Liberals return to the centre right, his quislings on low margins must be targeted. Of the 40 lower house Turbullites, around 20 are on margins of 5% or less. Defcons voting informal in each of those seats is a workable plan.

                In the senate it is far easier. You only need 12 numbers below the line. Just don’t number the Liberals who voted for Turnbull, just number all the centre right candidates you trust.

                Winston, there is no workable plan that involves a Liberal win in the lower house, but Defcons can work for a centre right win in the senate, thus paralysing Shorten between Opposition leader Tony Abbott and a conservative senate.

                20

              • #
                Greebo

                Winston, I have to reiterate as well. MT is in one of the safest seats the Libs hold.The people in those suburbs are all of the ‘Blue Blood’ variety ( ok, perhaps not Bondi ), and the idea that they would somehow turn on one of their own is lamentably laughable, no matter how much we cross our fingers. Wentworth is a far cry from Bennelong, the marginal that JWH held for so long. MT can hold it for his lifetime if he chooses. Would that it were not so.

                10

      • #
        sn

        Leftist Hollie Hughes heads the NSW senate ticket in place of the retiring Bill Heffernan.

        30

        • #
          Konrad

          However Jim Molan is likely to do well out of the new below the line senate voting rules. After all, Hollie Hughes will be on the Defcon “Do Not Dumber” list ;)

          20

  • #
    Mike Spilligan

    Being a Brit with Oz connections I appreciate your explanation for the word Liberal – however (and this is not a criticism) I think the word “progressives” ought to be in quotation marks.

    30

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    For thinking voters, most now realise they are conservative in their reasoned observations of politics in this country we love. We are the only ones standing up and now speaking out to counter the almost universal, and left wing media lead hysterical hate campaigns that are a new feature of politics, the baying crowd who could not care less if the country was bankrupted, as long as they can sit back and get rewarded immediately with their “entitlements” and are too scared to speak as individuals without the mob and sameness facebook like mealy mouthed projection of a false image of whatever they might stand for if they though deeply enough, and worked their way logically through the great raft of propaganda that is being pushed by social media and guided by agenderists like getup and Fenton like “progressives” who will if they can destroy this country.

    Thank you Jo for this thoughtful post that covers so many issues and of course the amazing backlash at the stupidity of the nervous nellies that voted down Tony Abbott in the an act worthy of a biblical plot and the Palmer/Turnbull plotting in the background. We have NO trust of Turnbull and his ilk, what were they thinking of when they joined the howling mob calling for their leaders head.

    We are torn by this betrayal, but it has caused us to understand who and what we are, true blue conservatives who must be heard or a new party created to represent us with staunch Leaders who will not falter at the first sign of the “progressive” regressive media disapproval.

    290

    • #
      bobl

      Wouldn’t call myself True Blue conservative, more like tea party.

      Individual rights over communal rights, Small Government, Anti-Nanny state, and the sanctity of one’s own castle (private property) to be uninfringed by anyone, especially government.

      I am however a conservationist but believe people must come BEFORE environment. Let’s solve poverty and then the environment will be saved. Part of that is cheap ubiquitous and reliable energy.

      120

  • #
    PeterS

    Makes little difference who wins the next election. Australia, just like the US and Britain are well on the decline into self-destruction. I find it sad that much of the population are ignorant of this fact, or don’t care. The are more interested in partying. When the music stops though it will be plenty of tears to go around.

    00

  • #
    Bill Posters

    Another alternative albeit far fetched is that Turnball’s electorate sacrifice him and lodge a vote with greens/Labor

    110

    • #
      Greebo

      Unfortunately far fetched. One of the Libs safest seats. The old “Born to Rule” adage could have begun there.

      40

      • #
        bobl

        However a concerted campaign by the disenfranchised faithful – that is Liberal Voters – to unseat Turnbull in his own seat would send a really serious message to the Liberal party. Basically – we will not be ignored!

        What happened to Coca-Cola when they changed the recipe a decade or so back – does “New Recipe Coke” even exist today? – NO! That’s people power, since Turnbull is “New Recipe Liberal” I suggest it’s the job of the faithful to show him the error of his ways. If we could get a Nova into every polling booth in Wentworth with an alternative card showing how to downvote all the holders of the knife, while still electing a conservative member a strong message would be sent that we are not to be messed with. That we are PREPARED TO TAKE ACTION.

        70

        • #
          Greebo

          OK, it’s worth a try. Are you prepared to man a booth? My Old School Tie, even if I could find it, isn’t likely to cut any ice in Elizabeth Bay or Vaucluse, so I doubt I would have any luck, but I could give it a go. However, I believe that a large number of voters will avail themselves of the absentee system, rather than risk rubbing shoulders with anyone not of ‘the right type’.

          00

          • #
            bobl

            Hmm, probably not in Wentworth since I’m in QLD but I’ll be looking at doing something in my own electorate.

            10

    • #
      Konrad

      Bill Posters will be prosecuted!

      Hope is not a plan. Failing to plan is planning to fail. We have the full list of Malfunction Talkbull’s quislings, therefore Defcons can make an effective plan.

      Here is an oh-so-easy Defcon plan -

      On the green paper -
      If your local member is Labor or green, vote National or Liberal.
      If your Liberal local member voted for Abbott, vote Liberal.
      If your Liberal local member voted for Talkbull or is Greg Hunt, vote informal.

      On the white paper -
      Put 12 or more numbers below the line. Do not number any of Talkbull’s warmist quislings.

      What does this plan achieve? The end of Talkbull’s quislings. A slim possibility that the coalition sans leftists and warmists could be returned to office. Most probably Shorten given three further years to complete the destruction of Labor, while paralysed between ALA in the senate and opposition leader Tony Abbott in the house of reps.

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Do not number any of Talkbull’s warmist quislings.”

        Lists for each state in the Senate have been given elsewhere in the thread.

        A list of “The 54″ can be found here

        31

      • #
        Winston

        That is exactly what I planned to do, so I am glad someone else thinks the same as I.

        Kudos to you, Konrad.

        20

  • #
    ianl8888

    Been here a thousand times or more.

    My answer, which no one has the courage to address (they simply shadow box at imagined questions) and which Cassandra will happen yet again, is mass civil disobedience. How ?

    Deliberately voting E) None of the above

    Yeah, yeah, blah, blah. Now answer this question (not some other question you imagined I asked): what do you think would happen if say, 60% of the votes were deliberately informal. Be honest, answer that question, not some other one you might like to answer.

    For most people’s information, little over a year ago, the Netherlands had NO political Govt for over 12 months because, essentially, the majority of people voted informal. The only people that actually noticed were the unemployed politicians. No one else gave a damn, the coubtry just went on with normal life.

    Loved it.

    BTW, Jo, I would appreciate it if you didn’t use the insulting DelCon word. It’s as bad as “denier”.

    And no, we don’t all love Mirandy baby. She admits she can’t even read a map. Useless, but perfect for the DT.

    57

    • #
      philthegeek

      what do you think would happen if say, 60% of the votes were deliberately informal.

      Thats easy. The election would be decided by the 40% of votes that are formal. As it should be. These are the votes of the people who have chosen to participate in the process of choosing a Govt.

      160

      • #
        ianl8888

        And the “elected” Govt would collapse in 6 months.

        That’s the point. I gave the example of the Netherlands. Examine it carefully.

        So we’re still with the yeah, yeah, blah, blah.

        Golly, what a surprise. Yet still everyone cries like babies because we have such a poor choice – what to do, what to do ?

        Cassandra says again – people get the politicians they deserve. Try to grasp that.

        11

        • #
          philthegeek

          [ And the “elected” Govt would collapse in 6 months.]

          No it wouldn’t. Election over the bulk of people int the electorate move into a disengaged mode.

          50

    • #
      J.H.

      It’s a different system. Here we have preferential voting…. A government is formed no matter what. The worst that can happen here is a “Hung Parliament” and we go and vote again. But usually a deal is done…. We saw that with Gillard’s Government and Palachook’s Queensland Government.

      110

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      I think that was Belgium.

      40

      • #
        ianl8888

        No, the Netherlands.

        Belgium has no govt that can be distinguished from zero.

        40

        • #
          Greebo

          Belgium has no govt that can be distinguished from zero.

          Yeah they do. It’s called the EU, and whatever else it might be, zero it isn’t… /sarc

          80

          • #
            AndyG55

            “and whatever else it might be, zero it isn’t”

            One needs to start considering large NEGATIVE numbers.

            111

            • #
              Greebo

              One needs to start considering large NEGATIVE numbers.

              Now, how did THAT earn you a red thumb???

              60

              • #
                AndyG55

                I count them ALL as a positive response.

                Either people agree with me…

                or I have pissed them off..

                Either way.. I WIN :-)

                71

  • #
    mark

    Textas for Textor, like the man said…blank all the boxes on the house paper and write WDM, big letters, both sides. Textor will get the message!

    Double D means all senators in play…Mitch! Your gone, mate! Same for you, Mr Ryan.

    60

  • #
    Doubting Thomas

    I’m of an age when this could easily be my last Federal election. Nevertheless, and despite my adult life as a Liberal voter, I cannot bring myself to vote for any party led by Turnbull. Indeed, as things currently stand, I couldn’t bring mysel to vote for any party with him as a Parliamentary member. My attitude has nothing to do with the way Abbott was treated, although that disgusted me as much as it did anyone else. I have despised the man ever since the Spycatcher trial where his triumphalist arrogance was nauseating regardless to one’s opinion of the outcome of the case itself. Turnbull’s behaviour as the head of the Republican campaign was surely one of the main reasons the campaign was defeated. It certainly revolted me. (As an aside, it’s startling that the current leader of the Republican movement exhibits all the unpleasant traits that Turnbull displayed. Is there a personality type that flocks to these campaigns?)

    As I see it the short-term pain should this coming election be lost would be worth it because, in my opinion, unless the Liberal Party rabble who backed Turnbull’s unprincipled coup are thoroughly shamed by defeat, nothing will be done to reform the party. Until this is done, the Liberals will be no better than Labor.

    320

  • #
    Analitik

    I think the clearest action would be to lobby Cory Bernardi to branch off a conservative wing from the current Liberal party and for him to appeal to all conservative politicians to join him against the centrist appeasement policies backed by Turnbull. The we would clearly see who is worth our support.

    I also feel Tony Abbott is being harshly treated – yes he didn’t deliver on many issues that we would have liked but he did have to deal with a most hostile, uncooperative Senate. His worst actions were to waste valuable political capital on “captain’s calls” and his chief of staff which makes his ultimate judgement questionable. But he was a man of his word or at least to an extent that is rare in politics.

    Malcolm Turnbull will never win my vote except via preferences – he will always be a man whose primary goal is to look after himself with no regard for principals (of his own or the party). His vested self interest should make him predictable if you look to the long game as TdF has done.

    201

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Too late to do so before this election, but I can see something like that happening in the next 3 years. It is increasingly obvious that the Liberal Party has passed its Use By Date and something else will emerge. Possibly we will go to something like many european countries of a mess of parties which have to form coalitions after the election. That at least keeps the politicians fairly harmlessly employed while they fight for office, but the problem comes after that as they all try to be “popular” with taxpayers money.
      Look at the UK 2010 -2015 when a loony party was in coalition with a weak in the head PM.

      90

    • #
      Pauly

      Analitik,
      The recent history of leadership changes in the Liberal Party shows that the deciding votes were small in number. Which indicates that internally, there are two strong “camps”, centred around these two strong leaders.

      However, this situation is hardly new. Historically, the two major Liberal “camps” have been regionally structured (NSW vs Victoria), and then there was that strange episode of the “Wets” and the “Drys” that journalists cooked up.

      The choice of a leader within any Federal political party has all the social behaviours of a gang choosing a leader. The reality is that Australians do not vote for the leader – unless you happen to live in their electorate. My wish is that we avoid turning Australian politics into the equivalent of the US Presidential race. What a nightmare that is turning out to be this time around.

      51

      • #
        Analitik

        internally, there are two strong “camps”, centred around these two strong leaders

        Pauly, that is exactly why there needs to be a branch off – so that the 2 factions can clearly express their differences in policy to reflect their thinking. At the moment, the dominant faction forces its stance on party policy with only minor input from the other faction so we get an all or nothing situation on most issues.

        Even a partial “Tea Party” style split would be helpful as the factions would then be able to publicly state their differences, rather than everything being hidden in backroom number counts and the overall policy might better reflect the numbers in each camp. But a full separation would allow a troika between the metropolitan conservatives and centrists with the Nationals representing the regional population that would be even more open.

        40

        • #
          Pauly

          There is a significant difference between “camps” and “factions”. And that difference is exactly the same as gang behaviour. The “prize” is winning the leadership of the whole gang. There is no prize in destroying the gang. So I won’t hold my breath for a split.

          11

        • #
          clive

          I here that if ALA are successful they will field candidates in the House of Reps at a future election.The costs are rather large and they need more financing before they go to the next level.

          00

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Pauly, true, we don’t all vote for the leader; but the leader is a big determinant of our vote, nevertheless.

        If you miss that, you miss everything.

        60

        • #
          Pauly

          Sceptical Sam,
          You are falling into the trap of Presidential politics. That particular style of politics only came to the fore in Australia with Bob Hawke. But ever since, political parties have been trying to emulate both his populist support and his success as a leader of his party.

          Our constitution is more instructive. There is no mention of a Prime Minister, so the leader of the government is really a leader amongst equals. When a leader forgets that, they don’t last very long.

          41

          • #
            Greebo

            Sorry Pauly, but it began with Whitlam.

            If you truly believe that people don’t vote for PM, have a look at the polling booth next time. The biggest pictures there will be of MT and Shorten ( if he lasts that long).

            The Government has been called the “Hawke Government”. or the “Howard Government” or whatever since I started voting in 1972. It’s the reason this debate is happening.

            If we truly had Presidential politics though, we would still be stuck with Rudd or perhaps Gillard. The Pres has fixed terms, and that is truly scary.

            60

            • #
              Analitik

              Executive orders would mark a true Presidential style government. Thankfully, our constitution does not allow for this sort of abuse.

              40

            • #
              Pauly

              Greebo,
              While Gough Whitlam led the Federal Labor Party for 11 years, he only won a single election. And despite the rhetoric surrounding his government’s dismissal, his government’s performance was what lost him the 1975 election.

              So Gough doesn’t make it on either populist support or as an effective example of Presidential politics.

              22

              • #
                Greebo

                Have to disagree with you here. Gough was who people voted for. The “It’s Time!” campaign was focussed on him to the almost complete exclusion of everyone else. The Dismissal has echoed down through Australian politics on a scale not seen in this country before or since, and is formative in the attitudes displayed towards Howard, who was the Treasurer in the left despised Fraser Government, and also Abbott, who was Howard’s man, by the Left. He was revered in a way that was almost Kennedy-esque.

                I am unsure what the number of elections won has to do with being Presidential. George H.W. Bush won one. Also Ford, Carter, Hoover and Taft were all one termers last Century, and all are still POTUS.

                40

              • #

                Greebo mentions this:

                Also Ford, Carter, Hoover and Taft were all one termers last Century, and all are still POTUS.

                Perhaps the best President of the U.S. was (technically) a one termer also, Theodore Roosevelt, the youngest man to be President in U.S. history. He was VP to Mckinley, who, only Months after winning a second term was a$$a$$inated. Mckinley’s first VP, Garrett Hobart died in office, so Theodore Roosevelt put was on the ticket for Mckinley as his VP, and the result was a huge landslide for McKinley.

                The remainder of Mckinley’s first term was served out by Theodore. He then ran for president in 1904, easily won, but declared he would not seek another (second) term, which he was entitled to do, if he wished. In 1908, he anointed his good friend and ally, Taft, who was one of the eight nominees, and he won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency.

                Between then and the 1912 election was when the Republicans split. Roosevelt nominated and got the bulk of the delegates, but in a deal at a divided conference, Taft received the nomination, splitting the party.

                Roosevelt ran as an Independent, splitting the Republican vote, and in fact, he ran second to the Democrat Woodrow Wilson, and still, to this day, he is the highest polling both in Electoral College and Overall National vote for an Independent. It’s the only time a sitting U.S. President has run third.

                Theodore Roosevelt is, without doubt, in my opinion, the best President the U.S. has ever had in the last 120 years.

                Incidentally, he was a friend of coal too, breaking that infamous strike of 1902. Problems with what happens when coal is threatened are no new thing.

                Tony.

                PostScript – Yes he was the youngest. 86 days younger than JFK.

                40

              • #

                Incidentally, Theodore hated being called ‘Teddy’.

                And he is the one responsible for the Teddy bear, named after him, but in fact originally, Teddy’s bear.

                He was an avid hunter, and once, while President, and while out hunting with a group, (so the story goes) he (allegedly) shot, and wounded a large bear. They tracked it back to a cave where it had gone to die, and as it turned out it was a female, recently become a Mother. There was the tiny cub at its Mother’s side. Roosevelt was pretty much shocked and he took up the tiny cub, and took it with him back to civilisation, An avid media took over right then and there, and from thence forth, toy bears wore the appelation Teddy’s bear, and literally everyone wanted one, and an entrepreneur marketed them as Teddy’s bear.

                Umm, the real story while similar in part, is a little less warm and fluffy, but he did refuse to kill the bear, saying it was unsportsmanlike, hence the original cartoon, which inspired the toy bears.

                Tony.

                30

              • #

                Theodore Roosevelt is also the source of ‘The White House’.

                The residence was always called The President’s House before him, and was always poorly looked after. The only ‘sprucing up’ it really got was a coat of Whitewash every so often.

                He and his wife (with their young family) wanted to renovate the residence, and when pressed on it, he referred to it as ….. “That d@mned White House.”

                It stuck.

                Also, having young children running around the White House was not the sole province of JFK, as at one stage Theodore had six of them in the White House, Alice from his first marriage, and five of them with his second wife Edith, the youngest two only four and five.

                Tony.

                30

            • #
              AndyG55

              I would vote for a “Liberal Government” (in the Australian sense of Liberal Party)

              …. but I WILL NOT vote for a “Turnbull Government”

              132

    • #

      There are similarities with Menzies who was PM from 1939 to 1941. Lost support from his coalition to allow Curtin (Labor) to form a minority government. Menzies formed a new party -the Liberals and became PM again in 1949 to until his retirement in 1966. There could be a possibility for Tony Abbot with others to form a new party say Australian National Party (similar to the New Zealand National Party led by John Key who performed much better than Australia during the GFC by restricting government expenditure rather than spending as Rudd and Gillard.

      60

      • #
        bobl

        Actually, all that would really be required is a conservative factional deal with the Nationals for all the conservatives to move to the national Party. This would allow the Nationals to grow their influence, something the ban on Three Cornered contests stops. Except of course in QLD where LNP candidates may get to choose which party room they sit in. Personally I’d really like my member to split to the Nationals. Would love to see the Libs become the minor coalition partner.

        ALA fielding Reps candidates and then coalition with the Libs could achieve the same result – balance of power in the party.

        60

  • #
    Davefromweewaa

    Shorten/Green Labor is definitely worse than Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce. If it wasn’t for Barnaby you could scarcely tell the difference between Green/Labor & Malcolm. We shouldn’t forget that Barnaby destroyed first Malcolm then Kevin on the issue of planet saving when Malcolm last led the Libs… What Mark Butler has said about land clearing recently is a disgrace.
    Greens last, Labor 2nd last. Davefromweewaa

    111

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Yes.

      As I’ve stated on the previous thread, Barnaby and the Nationals have the potential to get this sorted out for the conservatives who no longer trust the Liberals and who won’t vote Labor.

      If Barnaby were to come out and say that the Nationals will never support a Carbon tax or an ETS in any shape or form he would receive tremendous support and many new members (and donors).

      If he added to that statement that the Nationals would repeal 18C, he’d be on a real winner.

      I can live with the small component of “agrarian socialism” that “The Nats” are wrongly accused of. Compared to $50 billion of submarines for the mendicant state of South Australia it’s a drop in the ocean – if it exists at all.

      100

      • #
        Dennis

        The National Party stood up to the Liberal Party when Turnbull was elected by them to be leader and insisted on a written agreement that PM Turnbull would not make any changes to policies already decided in the joint party room. And so far that has been adhered to. Which might also explain the basis for attacks by Bill Shorten and Union’s Labor Party that Turnbull has changed his attitude to climate change issues?

        80

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Dennis, Thanks. That’s right.

          However, that Agreement covered the term of the current Coalition government, as I understand it.

          We need to hear from the Nationals what they would put into any new agreement if they were to join in a Coalition government after the forth-coming election.

          When the Nationals announce that we’ll all have an understanding of where they stand in the future.

          Barnaby needs to let us know.

          70

          • #
            Dennis

            Sam I understand that the Agreement covers ALL EXISTING POLICIES so any changes must be discussed in the Joint Party Room which would automatically be carried forward into the next term in government, if elected again.

            20

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            I can’t agree that 3 years of Labor will be all, nor that we will recover from it without permanent damage. If Turnbull loses then the Left will try and cement their hold on power, by any means.

            I think you also under-rate the rat cunning of our politicians. Malcolm T will be well aware that he is unpopular with the usual voters (after the Sydney by-election), so is plotting with the Greens for preferences to return with a majority. He stays PM with some authority. For the Greens di Natale wants more seats to extend his party’s influence. He doesn’t expect to have the balance of power this term, but once Turnbull proves hopeless then he will have the chance of a coalition with Labor and white ant them from within, as they did in Tasmania. Shorten has little choice but moving left and adopting the less loony policies of the Greens to try and save seats. I don’t think he has any real convictions except that he is ‘entitled’ to be Leader and possibly PM.

            Barnaby is lying low. If Turnbull is PM and tries to bring in a carbon tax/Emission scheme etc. then he can claim it breaks the coalition agreement. The Liberals will split, quite a few could be lured into the Nats. and the way will be open for them to storm the city seats. If Malcolm loses then there is no coalition and the Nationals are free to exploit the situation.

            The other thing is the 50:50 split between those who pay tax and those who collect ‘entitlements’. I have no doubt that the vast majority of your readers are in the first category. The second expect that the Goodies will continue, but we are in a depression and likely to be for 10 years or more, with world-wide devaluation. There is a limit to deficits, and to quantitative easing so it will become increasingly impossible to maintain ‘entitlements’. No party is prepared to cut spending, so we will head into economic collapse like Greece. The Greens would get us there the quickest, and the Liberals (under Turnbull etc.) won’t be that far behind. The prospect will concentrate minds and it will be Bull overboard.

            70

            • #
              Dennis

              Remembering that Gillard and Conroy came very close to censorship being imposed in Australia to control us.

              50

        • #
          Angry

          I would like to know WHY the text of the “agreement” is not able to be read by the public……

          10

        • #
          Mike

          From: http://www.alp.org.au/climate_change_debate_bill_shorten

          For our part, we walked away from calling an election which the nation was entitled to have.

          We did the second best.

          We worked to achieve a national response.

          We settled for second best, transforming international pricing into a carbon tax.

          But we were right to have international pricing.

          We were right to support an emissions trading scheme.
          (My bolding)
          We were right to have climate change as a political priority of the previous government.

          We were right to establish the Climate Change Authority, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

          We were right to back the Renewable Energy Target.

          We were right to listen to the scientific world.

          We had a responsibility to work within the political realities to achieve the best national outcomes for the best international response.

          For this, we do not apologise.

          From this, we do not resile.

          We are not skeptics.

          We believe the science.

          01

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘I can live with the small component of “agrarian socialism” that “The Nats” are wrongly accused of.’

        Actually they are quite proud of the title.

        http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/nsw/content/2011/06/s3237860.htm

        20

        • #
          Dennis

          Pales into insignificance when compared to the annual grants/subsidies Union Labor make to their union movement brothers when in government federal and state, or to union dominated industries such as automobile until recently.

          But I am aware of the Coalition’s contribution to the Labor Government State of South Australia and the union movement there subsidising the construction of a new Submarine fleet.

          The Pork Barrel has been greatly expanded.

          30

  • #
    Popeye26

    I’m in the electorate of Greenway currently held by Michelle Rowland – Labor. Liberal can’t win this seat in the next election.

    I don’t have a CLUE who is standing for the Liberal Party yet, but I won’t be helping or handing out how to vote cards for them at this election like I did at the last time!

    So much for Mark Textor’s statement “We don’t matter” – he WILL regret that!

    At this stage I don’t have much idea of what to do?

    I was thinking of going for ALA in the Senate or Nationals if I can.

    Is anybody able to provide clearer ideas on what the ALA is thinking in relation to climate change and future energy strategy because it appears to have changed over the last couple of months? Initially, they “believed” in CO2 POLLUTION – now, they are promoting CSG & dissing costly renewables.

    Whatever happens, it’s my sincere belief that we need to remind these politicians (of all persuasions) that we the People are in control – NOT THEM.

    Cheers,

    100

    • #

      Popeye, you can always hand out how to vote cards for the ALA, or find a Liberal/Nat worth supporting and hand out cards in their seat.

      Things like writing letters to MPs, newspapers etc — conviction counts. It brings in votes. There are lots of ways to make a difference, and most people won’t do any of them.

      130

      • #
        bobl

        OR even better Jo, he should study his electorate and senate ticket and hand out information on how to vote conservative, but without voting for Turnbull or his co-conspirators, to get a majority of conservatives elected.

        We forget, the party decides who stands – but WE decide which of them gets elected. If more L’s get elected than l’s or CINOs (Conservative in name only) then we can shift the balance of power in the party room. For example if we were able to shift the balance by switching just 3 from l to L, then Turnbull could receive some of his own treatment.

        We have seen a bit of this already, candidates preferred by the executive being beaten in local preselection contests. In some cases we have shifted from a l to an L. Not sure on the washup come election day – email them, ask the questions.

        20

    • #
      James Bradley

      Popeye and everyone else here,

      Download the application form from the ALA site, print it, complete it, pay a joining fee and first year member fee total $20.00 – get your member number, neat little badge and get out there on polling day.

      This country needs people who are prepared to vote against a media biased consensus and do what is right for the country.

      Vote ALA in the senate and then select the most conservative candidate (NP or independent would be best) you find for the lower house.

      It’s all about sending our next government a very clear message.

      100

      • #
        AndyG55

        They need to adjust at least #6 in their Core policies before they get my funds.

        Upgrade our coal fired power station to latest most efficient coal burning systems.

        Thorium is still a pipe dream.

        71

        • #
          Analitik

          I have to disagree about thorium reactors being a pipedream – they are not a present option but a medium future likelihood. Given that they have not been fully demonstrated, however, a sensible policy is to replace current coal plants with supercritical or ultrasupercritical coal plants as the current ones reach their natural end of life or even with proven Gen 3 nuclear reactors (CANDU is my preferred option). An eye should be kept on thorium reactor but realistically, we are not about to contribute to their commercial development in any meaningful way.

          I do not agree with the notion of rushing out new plants to shut down perfectly operational existing ones, however. If this is not what you meant, then I apologize in advance for misinterpretation.

          60

          • #
            AndyG55

            medium future likelihood..

            um.. ok

            Tell me when they reach proven, reliable technology status. ;-)

            41

          • #
            AndyG55

            Some guy below said … #21.1.1.1.2

            “That’s all and well but policy cannot be based on future developments”

            Who was that, do you know ! ;-)

            51

            • #
              Analitik

              And I’m just saying thorium will be a viable energy source but since we don’t know when, no policy should be based on it.

              What’s your issue with that?

              I consider fusion (especially LENR) to be pipedreams

              Our real disagreement appears to be about uranium nuclear plants. I feel there is a place for them, here and you do not. But we both agree that energy policies should be based on currently proven, commercially deployed technologies.

              50

              • #
                AndyG55

                “But we both agree that energy policies should be based on currently proven, commercially deployed RELIABLE and CONSISTENT technologies.” :-)

                The cost of uranium infrastructure would be horrendous compared to updating our current coal fired plants.

                And as you say.. the waste fuel rods can be stored, and re used in the Thorium style system….LATER.. assuming….eventually….

                The point is that in Australia, with its huge coal reserves…. why would you even bother with uranium nuclear…. pointless.

                71

              • #
                Analitik

                See below. Let’s continue this discussion down there since we’re bringing up the same points

                30

        • #
          cohenite

          Thorium is still a pipe dream.

          India are having a go.

          And the yanks and Germans had working thorium reactors from 1967 to 1989.

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            I am well aware they several countries are working on Thorium reactors.

            Please get back to me when they have a workable version that has proven, in use, to be reliable, consistent and commercially viable.

            Until then, its rather silly for Australia to even consider it.

            81

            • #
              AndyG55

              ps.. we have waste more than enough money on unreliable, inconsistent, uneconomic “alternatives” already !!!

              61

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Popeye,

      Yep. while Labor might be the winner of your electorate in the House of representatives, you can still make a difference.

      You can vote for the Nationals or the ALA in the Senate.

      That’ll show ‘em!

      For mine, I push the Nationals because they have already, in the current Coalition, made it very clear that they’ll not accept a Carbon tax or and ETS. That’s a track record that the others don’t have.

      70

  • #
    Mark A

    ” look after himself with no regard for principals

    I suppose the principals won’t like it. LOL
    But I agree with you.

    I prefer a short sharp pain of 3 years of labor instead of the long agony of MT’s government should he scrape in.
    Give him a “mandate” and nothing will stop him. In the long run he can be more dangerous than labor itself.

    100

    • #
    • #
      philthegeek

      I prefer a short sharp pain of 3 years of labor instead of the long agony of MT’s government should he scrape in.
      Give him a “mandate” and nothing will stop him. In the long run he can be more dangerous than labor itself.

      Possible. But……If the Libs led by Malpractice are re-elected on July 2 they are not going to have a big win.

      They will lose seats, and maybe quite a few. With the polling (and more important the aggregates / trends ) being at best 50/50 now, and a hung parliament being only a remote possibility (being based on seats won, not TPP vote) the most likey outcomes are a narrow Lib win or an ALP win. surprise!!!! :)

      After a narrow Lib win his usefulness to the Libs is expended. Knife time and bye bye Mal. Start thinking who you would like as the next Lib leader now.

      If the ALP wins then the Libs HAVE to do some serious rebuilding. None of the “we wus wobbed” crap. Actual policy work, strategic planning, and listen to the people to work out which dead wood to clean out.

      120

      • #
        Greebo

        Yes. The interesting thing is how many of the 54 hold marginals. My bloke does. They were panicked into backing Mal, sold on the fact that Tony would lose. (That’s why Mal and Julie rushed to act before Canning. Andrew Hastie was always going to win that, and Abbott would have been safe.) Their chooks are about to come home IMO.

        Another thing worth mentioning: as I see it, people resent unnecessary elections, especially DDs. They can tend to punish.

        80

        • #
          philthegeek

          people resent unnecessary elections, especially DDs. They can tend to punish.

          Lol! Greebo, i think in this case, it has been telegraphed for sooooooooooooooooo long that we are already at the point where people want it done dusted and over. Budget doesn’t really matter as an economic document, everything except Supplly (which they absolutely need to get through prior to May 11 to HAVE and election July2) wont get through till after the election so budget is really the Lib campaign policy launch.

          I often argue against the “this time its different” thing. I reckon that indicates an unrealistic focus or peoples anger running away with them. But on this one point i reckon it different and people want it asap.

          40

          • #
            Greebo

            Remember Julia’s six month campaign? Went well IIRC.

            30

            • #
              philthegeek

              Its a truism that long campaigns are toxic for the incumbent, and i think that will be especially the case this year. Really…the Libs are pretty damn thin on policy, and, whatever your opinion on their policy, the ALP have quite a bit out there. :(

              It appears, particularly from very recent history, that the Australian is being used to provide pretty accurate advance leaks of Lib policy and position. The stuff out now about “modest” ( sandwich and milkshake ??) tax cuts for +$80k will be put up for July 1st is a worry.

              Its gimmicky, populist, and really makes them look like they are on a desperate vote buying spree. Budget 2016 HAS to be framed on more sound terms than that, and if this is the best they can come up with as their centerpiece then the Libs are gone for all money in the HoR. :(

              20

              • #
                Greebo

                Budget 2016 HAS to be framed on more sound terms than that

                Who would want to be Scott Morrison right now?? I liked the job he did with the boats, but don’t really like him. But boy, does he ever have to watch his back. Lying down, dogs and fleas doesn’t really cover it, does it? Mal is just using him, and poor Scot knows it.

                20

  • #
    Turtle of WA

    *Liberals? For foreigners, “liberal” in Australia still means something like a real liberal — a free-market, small-government player. In the US progressives stole the term and the silly Republicans let them misuse it.

    In Australia, however, lefties are known to demonstrate their ignorance of the history of political thought by claiming that conservatives don’t understand the term ‘liberal’. Most Australian lefties hold the mistaken belief that U.S. progressives regressives are using the term correctly. These lefties in Australia believe that communism and freedom go together.

    70

    • #
      Turtle of WA

      Take, for example, Paul Bongiorno, an ABC radio personality of the far left, here on far left Radio National:

      Paul Bongiorno: Yes, it’s an excruciating and exquisite dilemma for Malcolm Turnbull. Unlike Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada is a centre-left party. The Liberal Party of Australia is a centre-right party. The challenge for Malcolm Turnbull is to remain the leader of the centre-right party while at the same time dragging the more reactionary conservatives, dragging the party more to the centre than leaving it out there on the far right.

      By ‘far right’ he means anything right of Pol Pot or Stalin.

      160

      • #
        Analitik

        You really have to wonder what drugs Bongiorno took before making that statement – they couldn’t be legal.

        110

        • #
          Turtle of WA

          You really have to wonder what drugs Bongiorno took before making that statement – they couldn’t be legal.

          90

  • #
    TdeF

    Both of the alternatives are depressing.

    There is another way. If only the Nationals under Barnaby Joyce could show strength and demand an election by withdrawing immediately from the coalition, there might be no double dissolution or a great constitutional battle. The coalition would cease to exist and the government with it. All How to Vote cards in the air.

    So the minority parties would not be removed in this election and Malcolm’s backroom deals with the Greens would be exposed in a shambles. Abbott could then lead a traditional conservative rational Liberal party, perhaps not to victory but at least to a respectable loss as a real alternative to the Greens. He might even win, such is the anger against Malcolm. Otherwise the Nationals are doomed to irrelevance like the DLP and Labor will barely make an opposition without the Greens.

    As for Section 18C, this is false. No serious legal changes could get through the senate. Abbott only went into battle for those things he could win, like the Carbon tax and Mining tax, but the story is that broke his promise. The Carbon tax repeal was a great battle, only resolved by the minority parties. Since then the independents have blocked 70% of changes to laws and Labor 40%. Changes to 18C would never have survived and cost more humiliation. If Abbott had control of the senate like Gillard/Rudd/Howard, he would have removed 18C immediately.

    It is obvious Malcolm’s backroom solution is a new Liberal Green alliance government and first preference swap, wiping out Labor and the Nationals. Once again, Liberal voters will have no say. This is Malcolm the lawyer working the rules. Like the leadership itself, the coalition is a matter for politicians, not for the public and deals have already been done, secret deals.

    So if the Nationals do not act now, they are finished as a political force. Their last chance is to dissolve the coalition with Turnbull and renegotiate a deal with Abbott. Otherwise, either way we will have Green/Liberal government full of madness, representing no one except Green Malcolm who was spurned by the Labor he loved and detests conservative policies. They just cannot see it. Everyone loves Malcolm. Why? What good has he ever done? How can he demand loyalty when he would not give it?

    Do not forget Labor voters never wanted a Carbon Tax either! That was Gillard’s deceit and her need for power with three turncoats, all now comfortably retired. She had promised her own supporters absolutely no carbon tax in a government she led. Shorten is only pushing carbon taxes and renewables to get Green preferences on which he also utterly depends and he will be burned in the greatest loss in Labor history. Ironic to see the great betrayer himself betrayed.

    At least a Liberal/Green alliance would allow people to vote Labor again. Labor used to be a worthwhile and at least fiscally conservative party before it went Green. Now the Liberals under an unelected Green leader are going to betray their supporters again. The new mantra is “tell them what they want to hear and when you get power you can do what you like” or Richardson’s “whatever it takes”.

    130

    • #
      TdeF

      Labor too could shun the Greens. Where would they go? However under Rudd/Gillard/Shorten Labor choose the easy option of giving the Greens everything they want, so Bob Brown wrote our laws with one vote in the democratic House of Representatives.

      Now Labor could be wiped out if they do not put the Greens last, as should the Liberals but both could end up preferencing the Greens, giving them many seats, Labor and Nationals.

      You see the Greens want government and to be a real party and in this their real opposition is Labor, not the Liberals now under Green Malcolm. Preferencing the Liberals would give them many seats in the House of Representatives and even more in the Senate and they stand a real chance of becoming a real government. It is so attractive for Di Natale that it is obvious and Malcolm as a lawyer and a lifelong left Green position is the right partner. Too bad about his rusted on conservative voters. Like Labor, they too have nowhere to go. They will talk of splitting, of voting Labor but in the end, they will do nothing.

      So it is all up to Barnaby Joyce. Is he going to fold and accept Truss’ bad retirement decision. Truss could have stopped Turnbull, but accepted his promise that nothing would change, until the next election. Then the second coup will be apparent, this time against the Australian people.

      121

      • #
        TdeF

        Do not be surprised if the next deputy PM is Richard Di Natale.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          What I find odd is that it is public knowledge that Michael Kroeger is openly organizing preference swaps with the Greens and no one seems to realize the significance? The talk was that a few Liberal people might change their vote, but too few to matter.

          Since when did the Liberals swap preferences with the Greens for any reason? The Liberals won 80 seats without deals from the 150 house parliament and ten seats for the Nationals, so why are they doing this?

          What does Bill Shorten think, because every preference which goes to the Liberals does not go to Labor. Every Liberal preference may go to the Greens who were previously last on the ballot? It can only cost Labor seats to both the Liberals and the Greens. Similarly in Nationals seats in the country if the Liberals preference the Greens over the Nationals?

          As said, the Greens are a Labor creation. Now Malcolm the lawyer and banker has seen a deal ripe for the making. Commentators are not saying a thing, especially not Malcolm’s ABC. The word is that they have been asked not to comment. Two months to go and no need to scare the sheeple. Besides, who believes Malcolm would do it, partner with the Greens. All that matters is that they can form government and they can today, dominating both houses.

          90

          • #
            pattoh

            Wouldn’t you love to see BoltA interview Kroeger over this!

            110

          • #
            Considerate Thinker

            I think you are on the money with a Turnbull strategy to get rid of any need for conservatives, by quietly behind the scenes move to a more left of centre party structure and public image. That would fit in with the strategy of Michael Kroeger of seeking green preference deals with Di Natale. I can confirm there is a link between the Michael Kroeger/ Victorian Liberals in that Turnbull is emailing out on Kroeger’s email list. I know this because I first received an email from Malcolm Turnbull and was irritated in that it addressed me like a schoolmaster using my surname. I already dislike him over his sly alliance with Palmer over the “innocent” restaurant meetings where plotting to get rid of Tony Abbott was the more likely scenario, and this surname address “Smith” (insert your own surname)really got to me. I more liked the following email from Tony Nutt Federal campaign director that addressed me by first name and asked for a donation, I resolved that we would initially send $150 to help defeat Shorten who is not a friend of workers, a union dupe and drone IMHO! Anyway I have just got an email from Michael Kroeger (Victorian Liberals) asking for a $3 token donation but also addressed by Surname, so appears quite obvious to me that the Victorian email list is being supplied to MT by Kroeger, so evidence of a joint strategy. MT and MK this “schoolboy” “Serf or whatever you think of us conservatives” won’t be sending anything while you play games behind the scenes. I don’t want either the Greens or Labor to get a sniff of government due to the harm they will cause, equally I am not a cash cow to milk and then be cast aside with the Nationals in the Malcolm Turncoat grab for power. I will be working on the Senate how to vote list and not voting for progressive (regressive!!) traitors who did the unthinkable in installing an unelected leader to wreck the Coalition and turn their back on their conservative base. Got that Turnbull..Kroeger six of the best applied through the ballot box!.

            10

        • #
          Greebo

          Coalition with the Greens would suit MT down to the ground. Labor would be marginalised and the Nats irrelevant. As the so-called Baby Boomers age, and the left educated generation grows it could happen. Not this time though, I hope.

          60

          • #
            Retired Now

            I have seen figures which showed that if the Libs preference the greens that Labor will effectively wiped out as a political force, putting the greens as the second party. While I think that would be excellent to destroy Labor putting the Greens in their place would be equally disastrous. And I would hate to have a Green Turnbull all puffed up because he has the power to push all his greenie policies. And put there because of the Liberals vote for him!

            If those figures I saw (I can’t remember where unfortunately) were accurate then with the wiping out of the union power would be epic. It would destroy the current power structure as we know it.

            Now I have no idea of whether the greens and Libs will preference each other but I don’t think we should underestimate the impact if they do. Australian politics as we know it will be changed forever if those figures I saw were actually correct.

            50

            • #
              TdeF

              Exactly. The ridiculous removal of the democratically elected minority parties tells us that a Liberal/Green alliance is already a done deal. There are now only four parties in the senate, plus Xenophon. The only solution is that people know well before the election. Obviously Malcolm and Di Natale are saying nothing because they want to get to a double dissolution election before voters and even politicians wake up. Even astute commentators like Bolt cannot follow what is going on, when it is so obvious. The old order will be overthrown. It’s so long and thanks for the ride from the Greens to Labor.

              The solutions are, so far

              - put the Greens last
              - vote Labor if your MP voted against Abbott
              - tell people.
              - let Barnaby Joyce know his party will vanish in a Green/Liberal partnership. He will not be deputy PM. Even the young farmers are going Green.
              - tell Bill Shorten, he needs to distance himself from Green nonsense like 50% renewables, very fast trains, taxing workers and businessess to extinction. NDIS, Gonski, debts. He needs to be more Hawke and less Gillard. Tell people voting Green is the opposite to voting Labor. Do not give them a free ride to the second position.
              - ask journalists to ask Malcolm about it. What are these preference deals? Will he promise to keep Abbott’s policies after the election? Will he bring in an ETS?
              - suggest to shorten that trying to force truckies and volunteer fire fighters to join unions will be dead in a Liberal/Green government and it is just costing him votes he can ill afford to lose. He has more pressing problems than the TWU. He may have trouble even forming an opposition in the lower house and of no consequence in the Senate.

              and more?

              In fact is any politician against an External Taxation System, or is it a done deal in Labor, Liberal and Green parties?
              -vote for someone who promises no carbon tax in a government they lead.

              40

              • #
                Angry

                ETS….(Employment Termination Scheme)

                10

              • #
                Mike

                To do all that you need to use a pen, which is always used i legal documents, not a pencil that is supplied in polling booths.

                It might be that all politicians/parties are nul and void because pencils were used. Hit the reset button and start again.

                10

        • #
          pattoh

          Is that a Bull Moose scat I just stood in?

          20

    • #
      J.H.

      Yep, the political landscape is changing fast. If things with Malcolm and the Greens are as you say…. Then Barnaby had better pull his finger out and maneuver the Nationals to relevance…. or perish.

      … What was Truss thinking when he let the Liberals replace Abbott. It couldn’t have happened if Truss had had some intestinal fortitude and political vision.

      80

  • #

    The problem (I am going to assume you agree with this, if not, this argument isn’t for you): We know the coalition with Turnbull is bad – but Labor with Shorten would be a total disaster.

    The solution (not without some risk, but better than nothing): If your local member is M. Turnbull, put him last on the voting paper. If your local member is anyone else, put the coalition candidate #1 on your voting paper.

    The risk: Turnbull is voted out and Labor win by 1 seat. Any other outcome from following this prescription is good. If Labor win by more than 1 seat, they would have won anyway, but the loss of votes for MT tells the rest of the coalition where their voting public wants them to go. The best result: MT thrown out, coalition win and come to their senses and select a leader who doesn’t buy into the climate change BS.

    50

    • #
      Popeye26

      Ron – Libs also need to be blocked in the Senate JUST IN CASE Turnbull wins his seat AND Liberals remain in government.

      We can’t let him have that much power.

      Cheers,

      60

      • #

        Seems to me from over the ditch here in NZ, that you don’t trust those for who voted for to run the country, so you put in place a ball and chain to prevent them from doing what you voted them in for!

        Sounds logical.

        43

        • #
          TdeF

          As Tony Abbott said last night in an interview with Andrew Bolt, five Prime Ministers in five years indicates there is something wrong, as if that needed to be said.

          There is a new class of professional politicians like Bill Shorten who went from school to the Union to University to leader of the union to leader of the Labor party, without getting a job. With salaries 8x the national average and lifetime pensions and gold passes and all the extra payments for committees and staff and offices, we are being run by opportunistic adventurers. Their motto is “whatever it takes”.

          As for Climate Change, it is rubbish as Abbott said, but there is no longer a party which is not going to tax us and us alone to save the world. In the senate, if we refuse to vote for the big parties, our vote is now officially worthless. No, we don’t trust them because they do not tell the truth. There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead was an absolute promise and Gillard brought in a carbon tax so she could lead.

          So did Helen Clarke, now in line for the top job at the UN. Now in whose interest was the NZ carbon tax?

          50

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        And that’s why the “Nats” need to make their position clear on Carbon taxes and the ETS

        And the ALA.

        With the “Nats” holding the balance of power and committed to no Carbon tax and no ETS a modicum of commonsense might prevail.

        Ditto ALA.

        70

    • #
      Greebo

      You need to look at this; http://www.aec.gov.au/profiles/nsw/files/2016/2016-aec-wentworth-nsw-divisional-large.pdf, and remember that MT holds this with 67% 2PP. Then look at all the blue blood suburbs and ask “who is going to put MT last?”.

      It’s a nice dream though.

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        Everyone, if MT is the big taxing, big government Green he seems to be and we have not even seen the real Malcolm yet, just his approach to debt. No balanced budget, nor any attempt. Massive borrowings, capital gains taxes, superannuation taxes, negative gearing removed, Very Fast Train, stopping the turnbacks, billions donated overseas to help ‘victims’ of unspecified Climate Warming and our very own AFC, Australian Financial Crisis which could destroy real estate values.

        If Malcolm is revealed to be to the far left of Labor swapping preferences with the Greens, he will not be welcome in Wentworth. As far as we can tell, the real Malcolm could make Labor look positively indulgent. Malcolm’s own money is overseas.

        30

    • #
      GrahamP

      Well said Ron, I think it is crazy to vote against the local Lib candidate in the faint hope that MT “gets the message”.

      The policies Labor has announced so far will be a colossal disaster for Australia.

      I would rather have a left leaning Lib than Labor and if the Lib’s don’t have a working majority in the Senate then we are in for another period where the country is held to ransom by fringe parties.

      14

  • #
    Rob JM

    Lets face it, Abbott betrayed the sceptic cause as he never officially declared it is all BS. The member for Goldman Sachs on the other hand is just doing what his masters are telling him too! The Parasitic FIRE sector (finance insurance and real estate) are destroying this country with their ponzi population and debt slavery (housing bubble) schemes. The green parasite is tiny in comparison.
    What we need is to remove the power from our corrupt political parties via direct democracy. Only then will Australia get back on the path.
    As much as I hate unions (especially in the public sector) Its plain to see that Capital has won the battle against Labor and unless that reverses then we will end up with the four horsemen partying like its the french revolution all over again.

    17

    • #
      TdeF

      Abbott said it was socialism posing as environmentalism. He called it crap. How much clearer can you get?

      However like any politicians he needed not to alienate the middle, so he brought in the much cheaper and more sensible Direct Action. The same CO2 reduction at little cost. That snookered them. He played the game.

      230

    • #

      Rob, he got rid of the carbon tax. He’s practically the only western leader to unwind something that big. He paid his skeptic dues. Without Senate control it took a major effort and a lot of political capital to fight that.

      If he had a lot of support from other Libs, if the ABC was not religiously fanatic about CO2 he could have done more.

      380

      • #
        Analitik

        Exactly. Abbott did what was possible given the circumstances – ie the circus of the current Senate. Sadly, he wasted valuable political capital on some useless gestures and misplaced loyalty, reducing his opportunities for reform and ultimately creating the opening for his own downfall.

        Meanwhile, anyone thinking a Labor government couldn’t do much damage in a single term is sorely mistaken. The damage that would be done by them forming deals with the Greens to pass legislation would take a generation to recover from. The only possible way we could survive a Labor win would be if the Coalition held outright control of the Senate so they could block supply and force another double dissolution.

        Perhaps this is the election outcome that would ultimately produce the best result. Malcolm would get the boot for losing the election, strong conservative leadership would be fostered in the Senate and we would go back to the polls before any damage could be done. I can dream, can’t I?

        110

        • #
          TdeF

          If Labor distanced itself from the Greens, that idea that a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor would vanish. This would take in a lot of public servants and pseudo public servants. If both parties distanced themselves from the Greens, they would not have the power they have. The Greens are almost a creation of Labor and Labor are utterly dependent on them. It has the potential to destroy Labor, firstly as they are indistinguishable from the Greens and secondly as they are encouraging people to vote Green, as it is a safe Labor vote. No longer.

          The Greens need to be isolated by both major parties. The Labor vote might go up and they would be less dependent on the Greens, as the Green primary vote in the Senate would go down too, but Shorten does not have the wisdom or the courage. Only when he loses a lot of seats to the Greens will he realise they are not his friends. It will be too late for Bill.

          80

          • #
            Analitik

            Labor’s problem is that Bob Hawke courted the greenwash during the Gordon below Franklin dispute. While it netted them additional votes, there would have been sensible ALP voters disillusioned by this episode that they lost and never recovered. Then with the self-destruction of the Democrats and subsequent rebirth as The Greens, the greenwash found a new political base and Labor constituency was eroded. This has led to an identity crisis as they have tried to pander to the environmental concerns of the greenwash while differentiating with a more centrist economic platform. With Turnbull’s centrist positioning of the Liberal party, this has given Labor nowhere to move.

            Of course the centrist Liberal policies have now disenfranchised true conservatives, hence this thread.

            Side note: While I hate the complexity of the GST exemptions that were forced by the Democrats, I feel their eventual support of the GST and getting it into legislation was one of the finest examples of Don Chipp’s mantra to “keep the bastards honest”. By comparison, The Greens have no redeeming actions in their resume.

            40

      • #
        Rob JM

        I disagree Jo. Abbott publicly proclaiming he was a sceptic would have reopened the debate about the science and given sceptical scientist a platform to get their views across to the public. Instead he played along with the “global warming is real” and produced a policy of direct action that hands public money to his mates. Yes its less damaging than the carbon tax but two wrongs don’t make a right. Every other policy this government has introduced has been utterly destructive to australia and has merely served the corporates and the 1% (who are behind the global warming scam as you should know). This Government has spent their term gorging naked at the public trough and sending selfies to the populace so they know who is raping them.
        The government would not spend 250million to save the car industry and 150,000 jobs but they are happy to spend 50billion on Useless subs to save Christopher Pines seat for 2000 jobs.

        31

        • #
          Dennis

          The government met with the automotive industry and demanded to know their future plans which turned out to be, as the government suspected, to cease manufacturing in Australia because the operating costs are far too high. The example being that on average total cost of skilled labour including all costs divided by number of employees was over A$600/day compared to the US A$400/day, and in emerging or developing countries like India less than A$200/day.

          So the government made the correct decision to withdraw taxpayer subsidies.

          50

          • #
            Greebo

            The government met with the automotive industry and demanded to know their future plans which turned out to be, as the government suspected, to cease manufacturing in Australia because the operating costs are far too high.

            And that was after decades of subsidies. and Rudd and Brumby giving Toyota $70 mil for nothing at all.

            30

            • #
              Dennis

              Yes, and noting that the automotive industry factories are unionised workforces and present management problems relating to poor productivity, absenteeism on sick leave to use up the full entitlement sick or not, workplace agreements containing well over award conditions and remuneration, etc.

              Subsidised via governments with private sector taxpayer’s monies to effectively protect unionist jobs and way above average benefits.

              Same goes for building new Submarines in Adelaide, but far more expensive for taxpayers than the automotive industry.

              An example of how union shops/factories can be a burden, like mentioned above, was the NSW Chullora Railway Workshops. During the 1980s at a Bankstown District of Sydney meeting of employers Railway Workshop executives admitted that there was a daily absenteeism of sixty per cent of employees …. 6 out of 10 absent every working day.

              When the Greiner Coalition Government was in office they closed the Chullora facilities and put the work out to tender with private sector engineering firms, and saved taxpayers millions of dollars a year thereafter.

              Politicians talk about raising taxes and complain about falling revenue but rarely about where savings could be achieved, cuts to budgets. Some real leaders, like Nick Greiner, like Campbell Newman when he was Queensland Premier and a few others, do their best to run a lean government but as night follows day taxpayers can bet that the next Union controlled Labor government will overturn the savings and add to the costs.

              Maybe that is why I shudder when I think about the Turnbull Government, or the Shorten alternative.

              50

              • #
                Greebo

                An example of how union shops/factories can be a burden, like mentioned above, was the NSW Chullora Railway Workshops. During the 1980s at a Bankstown District of Sydney meeting of employers Railway Workshop executives admitted that there was a daily absenteeism of sixty per cent of employees …. 6 out of 10 absent every working day.

                Go back a little further and look at British Leyland and Harold Wilson. If ever there was need to explain Thatcher the explanation can be found there. Same goes for Kennett and the MMBW.

                30

      • #
        Greebo

        Getting rid of the Carbon Tax was a courageous promise, never mind act. TA will long be remembered for it. As will MT for crossing the floor.

        100

        • #
          TdeF

          I had forgotten that. Amazing. MT was a traitor then and as Minister for the Environment under Howard, determined to bring in his trading scheme. Then he is a banker and trading schemes are all about profits for merchant banks. He has been after a Carbon Tax and ETS for a decade. He lost the leadership of the Liberals over this issue. MT is not going to walk away from his ETS now, so we have three months before everyone has to pay carbon taxes, again.

          The planet is fine and the temperature has not changed for 20 years. Even when it did, the difference was barely detectable and insignificant. It is all about corporate greed. That is what the socialist Greens are supposed to be against!

          60

        • #
          TdeF

          Really, Malcolm crossed the floor as a minister of Abbott government, opposing the policy of the Liberal party under Abbott. He should never have been a minister.

          70

          • #
            Greebo

            It makes clear why TA is a good, if not great, man, but a lousy politician. Now, ask yourself; which one would you choose?? The question now is, why do we vote for politicians, rather than women or men? Seems to me that there is no walk in life that doesn’t have a politician involved. The great Irish ( why am I not surprised? ) poet, Brendan Behan once wrote, “There is no human situation so miserable that it cannot be made worse by the presence of a policeman.” Change the last word to ‘ politician ‘. The quote is still valid.

            10

          • #
            clive

            No,Turdbull did whilehe was leader of the Libs.That was why he got the heave ho.

            00

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Its plain to see that Capital has won the battle against Labor …’

      That should be labor, the ordinary working men and women, nice try comrade.

      High finance is ‘destroying this country with their ponzi population and debt slavery (housing bubble) schemes.’

      Australia takes more immigrants than any other country and Talcum wants to unlock the land to alleviate pressure on the cities.

      You maybe aware that capitalism is in strife all around the globe and the China Infrastructure Bank is prepared to lend at very reasonable rates. Its the only way to pull us out of this deflationary spiral.

      The free market is still better than the command model.

      30

  • #
    llew jones

    Here’s the reason I will not support the ALA:

    6. Affordable Energy for a Cleaner Australia

    Life as we know it ends without reliable access to affordable, clean, safe energy and a healthy environment. Australia has enormous reserves of Thorium and Australian Liberty Alliance will investigate the use of efficient and safe options to replace our ageing coal-fired power stations.

    We will phase out unsustainable subsidies for uneconomical and unreliable energy sources connected to our power grid. However, we will continue to assist Australians in remote and rural off-grid locations with sensible wind and solar technology. We will reduce our dependency on oil-based fuels through the promotion of abundantly available natural gas for CNG-powered vehicles and foster research, production and export of non-combustive engines for cars and other applications.

    http://australianlibertyalliance.org.au/values-and-policies/values-and-core-policies

    Clearly another bunch of scientifically illiterate no-hopers.

    I would find it impossible to vote for the ALP having had a lifetime aversion to the trade union movement.

    Shorten’s policies on renewable energy, if implemented, couldn’t possibly be more destructive of Australia’s Manufacturing Industry. If the voters choose the ALP in the House of Reps this time, with those policies, there is no guarantee they will not keep voting for the ALP to continue those policies into the future.

    We live in Shorten’s electorate so he won’t be getting mine or my family’s vote.

    Turnbull is a backer stabber and on that ground alone I will not vote for the Liberal Party candidates in the House of Reps or the Senate whilst he is leader though I have voted for the Liberal Party at every past election (I was a fool to vote for Fraser given his subsequent championing of Left wing causes).

    As some here have suggested as an option I also will vote, if possible, for the more conservative National Party in the Senate.

    104

    • #

      llew jones April 29, 2016 at 11:42 pm

      “Here’s the reason I will not support the ALA:”

      6. Affordable Energy for a Cleaner Australia
      Life as we know it ends without reliable access to affordable, clean, safe energy and a healthy environment. Australia has enormous reserves of Thorium and Australian Liberty Alliance will investigate the use of efficient and safe options to replace our ageing coal-fired power stations.

      “Clearly another bunch of scientifically illiterate no-hopers.”

      Could you please elaborate as to how that quote can be “scientifically illiterate”?

      100

      • #
        Pauly

        A reasonable discussion on the use of Thorium for nuclear power here:
        https://theconversation.com/should-australia-consider-thorium-nuclear-power-37850

        The key paragraph makes the ALA’s approach self-evident:

        “No thorium reactors operate commercially worldwide, whereas 430 operating uranium reactors produce 11% of global electricity. If Australia does eventually decide to build nuclear power plants, the best choice would almost certainly be a proven design based on existing third-generation uranium technology.”

        50

        • #
          Rob JM

          You obviously don’t understand the key benefits of a thorium molten salt reactor design.
          Tradition reactors use a large amount of fuel in the reactor that has to be constantly cooled to stop a melt down due to decay of fission products in the fuel. They are therefore very expensive as you have to build massive containment structure around them (that don’t work) to comply with safety.
          A molten salt reactor on the other hand is inherently stable as their is minimal fuel in the reactor chamber and the nuclear reaction is inhibited if it overheats. You can literally turn off the pump and the reactor will shut down by itself. This means you can make a reactor the size of a truck and produce energy for half the price of a traditional reactor. The the U233 fuel cycle is much more efficient and produces 100 times less long term waste as U235.

          20

          • #
            Pauly

            Rob JM,
            What do you call a nuclear reactor that is not commercially viable as a power generator? A government subsidised waste of tax-payers’ money.

            You are only promoting theoretical benefits at this stage.

            21

          • #
            Analitik

            That’s all and well but policy cannot be based on future developments. Otherwise, you end up with the renewables mess where all the current issues of intermittency are excused by the “coming advances” in storage and “technology”.

            An eye should be kept on thorium and it would be a sensible place for the CSIRO to do some research (particularly on the fuel cycle plant) but currently, uranium thermal and breeder reactors work well and the spent fuel rods (they are NOT waste) can be stored for when thorium reactors are commercial reality. Fossil fuels and uranium should be the basis of any realistic energy policy

            60

            • #
              AndyG55

              We do not need uranium based reactors in Australia.

              We have more than enough COAL…

              Wait for the safety of proven Thorium power if you want to bother with nuclear power.

              93

              • #
                Analitik

                Long chain hydrocarbons are invaluable (irreplaceable?) for many purposes (transport energy, lubrication, polymers). Our primary source for these is oil but coal is an alternative that would be useful in the future. Plus burning coal does produce pollutants even if the effects are nothing as the greenwash would have us believe.

                We may not need nuclear but some would be preferable. It would also provide a core of skilled operators/technicians for when thorium reactors become viable

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                “It would also provide a core of skilled operators/technicians for when thorium reactors become viable”

                Wow, so we build a massively expensive Uranium reactor, with all the billions of dollars needed to set up the infrastructure at both ends…. just to train some technicians?

                China will be able and willing to supply as many technicians as we need once they have Thorium up and running. :-)

                51

              • #
                Analitik

                Have you looked up small modular reactors on Google?
                Nuclear reactors don’t have to be Hinkley C style

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yes I have.

                Please tell us all when they are a fully tested, viable solution is some other part of the world.

                Until then, let’s just UPGRADE the coal fired power that we have.

                61

              • #
                Analitik

                Well, I guess for you the subject is settled.
                I see some nuclear in the mix would be a big advantage for us but it’s not worth discussing any further

                21

        • #

          I agree with the need for small LWRs for the interim, along with modern fluidized coal electrical generation to replace aging equipment.
          The availability of gobs of local thorium as a future source of energy remains a well considered and scientifically sound consideration in my opinion. Nuclear fusion is likely unaffordable for AU. What am I missing?
          How can that quote be “scientifically illiterate”?

          40

      • #
        handjive

        “scientifically illiterate” might not be the correct words, as thorium energy might be possible in the far, far distant future.

        But, Australia needs new energy sources now to replace our ageing coal power stations.

        The ALA offers more of the same- renewable energy on the edges, and waffling around a possible thorium future.
        ~ ~ ~
        Reliable, affordable energy access is a basic necessity and is essential to global development. Coal is a major part of the solution.”

        Today’s efficient coal-fueled electric generating plants also reduce carbon dioxide emission by up to 25 percent compared to older coal plants.

        Replacing a single, large coal plant with advanced 21st Century coal technology can reduce carbon dioxide emissions rates by the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road.”
        ~ ~ ~
        Of course, carbon (sic) is not ‘pollution’ anyway, but, ‘more efficient and cleaner’ is good, and we all want a clean planet and environment.
        . . .
        In order for a political party to fight for that truth above, that political party will need the fortitude to literally stand up and say Doomsday Global Warming is crap officially to the world, and say they will have no more part of it, and announce the immediate construction of modern coal fired power, thus making Australia strong and competitive.

        Sure, Abbott ‘got rid of the carbon (sic) tax’, (possibly slightly more than a symbolic gesture), but failed dismally in dismantling the bureaucracy behind it.

        Playing the game, (and so, by the rules) did Abbott no good. He needed to stand up and tip the game board over, call the rules rigged.

        He didn’t, and so, voters like me couldn’t support him, posting comments here @jonova and elsewhere that undermined Abbott.

        31

        • #
          AndyG55

          “But, Australia needs new energy sources now to replace our ageing coal power stations.”

          NO, Australia needs to update its aging coal powered fleet to the most up to date coal burning processes.

          That will give us a stable, reliable, electricity supply for another 50 years at least.

          153

          • #
            Dennis

            Very clearly wind turbines coupled with solar systems would not give us stable and reliable electricity supply over the foreseeable technology next 50-years future.

            70

          • #
            handjive

            Thanks Andy.
            I could have been more articulate.

            Either way, no party, including the ALA, are talking sensibly about Australia’s energy whilst genuflecting to the Greens Golden Calf, called ‘Sustainability’.

            I am again reminded of David Archibald at carbon (sic) tax rally, 2012:

            “As for any politicians who have ever believed in global warming, or supported the carbon tax, or a carbon-constrained economy, there is no hope for them.

            They are either too stupid or incompetent to be taken seriously.

            Make their lives hell too, just as they wished a diminished life on you.” (my bold)

            81

          • #
            Analitik

            I won’t repeat my comment at 15.2.2.1 completely but advanced coal and nuclear plants should be built to replace existing coal plants that are approaching end of life. But we should not close down any coal plants prematurely if they are still in good working order.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2016/04/delcons-defcons-and-elections-in-australia-2016/#comment-1801716

            41

            • #
              AndyG55

              Upgrade the coal plants to most efficient, least real pollution type currently available… one unit at a time as the old ones really start to get too old.

              That gives us another 50+ years of coal fired power, and there is no need for Thorium nuclear until it becomes an absolutely proven technology over a reasonable time period.

              131

        • #

          handjive April 30, 2016 at 7:49 am
          (“scientifically illiterate” might not be the correct words, as thorium energy might be possible in the far, far distant future.)

          Can we not even attempt to clearly distinguish the so called ‘scientific’ phrasing of words; from the ‘political’ phrasing of words? Please explain the complete, disjoint, intentional difference between the two.

          20

        • #
          Greebo

          He didn’t, and so, voters like me couldn’t support him, posting comments here @jonova and elsewhere that undermined Abbott.

          Such a pity. If you look at the makeup of the Senate you would see not that he didn’t, but that he couldn’t. The one thing I find it hard to forgive him was 18c.

          21

      • #
        Pauly

        For those who want a more detailed investigation of Thorium based nuclear power, the following link takes you to a recent report from the Electric Power Research Institute:
        http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002005460

        Key phrases from the abstract include:
        “a dramatic departure from today’s dominant and proven commercial light water reactor technology”;
        “the innovative and commercially unproven nature of MSRs, as with many other advanced reactor concepts, presents significant challenges and risks “;
        “The early design stage of the LFTR concept indicates the need for significant investment in further development and demonstration of novel systems and components”

        Unless Ziggy Switkowski has put himself up as an ALA candidate, I suspect that no one in the ALA has a clue how difficult it would be to move a thorium based nuclear reactor from the science experiment stage to a commercially viable generator. So this “investigation” could last a very long time.

        20

        • #
          Rob JM

          I believe India and China are investing massively in research for it. The reactor design is proven, its the removal of U233 from the thorium breeder blanket that is the current technical hurdle they need to overcome.

          20

      • #
        llew jones

        H Jorgan in 19.1

        6. Affordable Energy for a “Cleaner” Australia

        “Life as we know it ends without reliable access to affordable, clean, safe energy and a healthy environment.”

        If you look at ALA’s Values and Core Policies No. 15 you will notice it claims to be neither in the camp of believers nor in that of deniers.

        However ALA gives itself away in the heading of 6. What does ALA have in mind when it wants Energy that will produce a “cleaner” Australian (presumably) atmosphere?

        Surely it has bought the unscientific nonsense, peddled by the alarmist scammers that the CO2 produced by fossil fuel generated power is dirty and thus is a pollutant. Those with any scientific understanding know that CO2 is a gas vital to all life on the planet (also there seems to be little doubt that the record food crops over the last few years and the observed greening of the planet are in part due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 which may well be due primarily to the natural warming of the oceans in which case CO2 is expelled into the atmosphere).

        Now those other gases and particular matter produced in the combustion of fossil fuels and which are harmful to human life are readily trapped in contemporary Western power plants.

        What did you think ALA meant by this: “LIFE AS WE KNOW IT ENDS without reliable access to affordable, clean, safe energy and a healthy environment?”

        That can only refer to catastrophic global warming caused by human use of CO2 producing fuels particularly in power generation. And ALA says it is not a believer? That comment is the height of AGW alarmism.

        Science? The historic science tells us that the relationship of the increase in global temperature caused by an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is logarithmically related. In case one does not know what that curve looks like the tangent to it (that is the rate of change of temperature with respect to increases in atmospheric CO2 (as distinct from the volume or mass of human emissions of CO2) asymptotes (tends) to zero. That means that each given unit increase in atmospheric CO2 has less and less of an effect on global temperature. Good bye any tipping point from the effect of CO2 alone.

        Those who are familiar with the science know it tells us that significant global warming can only occur if there is a positive feedback involving water vapour. Present observations cast doubt on the significance of that interaction. That really is the guts of the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 and is possibly confirmed by the flat global temperature over that last couple of decades despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 40ppm in that same time.

        If ALA was not scientifically illiterate it would not have made the alarmist statement in Values and Core Policies No.6.

        01

        • #

          llew jones April 30, 2016 at 8:46 pm
          H Jorgan in 19.1

          6. Affordable Energy for a “Cleaner” Australia

          “Life as we know it ends without reliable access to affordable, clean, safe energy and a healthy environment.”

          How can that quote be “scientifically illiterate”?

          “If you look at ALA’s Values and Core Policies No. 15 you will notice it claims to be neither in the camp of believers nor in that of deniers. However ALA gives itself away in the heading of 6. What does ALA have in mind when it wants Energy that will produce a “cleaner” Australian (presumably) atmosphere?”

          All power generation creates waste, generally toxic waste. Therefore it is scientifically proper planning, to do that in a manner that results in clean, safe energy and a healthy environment. Unfettered capitalism has demonstrated over and over that only profit and stockholder ROI are important! Only a government can sufficiently fetter such to result in clean, safe energy and a healthy environment.
          Why must you introduce the fantasy nonsense that is CAGW i.e.:

          Surely it has bought the unscientific nonsense, peddled by the alarmist scammers that the CO2 produced by fossil fuel generated power is dirty and thus is a pollutant.

          To me it is only you that is peddling and promoting such scientific travesty, not others!

          10

    • #
      gigdiary

      Here’s the reason I will not support the ALA:
      6. Affordable Energy for a Cleaner Australia

      That’s a motherhood statement. All parties make those.

      The ALA are going hard on immigration. They’re lukewarm on the climate hoax. All other parties are gung-ho for the climate hoax, including the Libs. The ALA are a new party, give them time to find their feet. When looking at the ALA manifesto, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      80

      • #

        ARE the ALA a “new party” or are they just a front organisation for who knows whom? Read their constitution. Party members have NO say in, well, anything. They exist solely to do donkey work and provide the numbers for party registration. The leaders choose their own replacements, different categories of member to completely disenfranchise the larger mob at the bottom. Just go to their web site and read it. And their bet each way on climate change just strengthens my suspicion that they have another agenda entirely.

        21

        • #
          Greebo

          Party members have NO say in, well, anything. They exist solely to do donkey work and provide the numbers for party registration. The leaders choose their own replacements, different categories of member to completely disenfranchise the larger mob at the bottom.

          OK, serious question. How, to all intents and purposes, does that differ from the Liberals or the ALP? How much influence could you or I have on the Party’s actions? Sure, the ALP is influenced by Unions, but I’ve been forced into joining Unions in my past and I can tell you that I have never managed to have any influence over them.

          Please, I am not endorsing the ALA. My only sort of first hand knowledge of them is from reading Kirralie on Pickering. And I too have difficulty trusting them.

          50

        • #
          bobl

          Yes, the manifesto arranges local constituents in a kind of soviet structure with HQ able to dissolve the soviets at will. It’s federalist with no state representation at all (which is a real problem with senators). Ordinary members can be expelled for speaking out against the ALA or indeed even being a member of another party. However their policies are broadly conservative, pro business, pro individual so they are a refreshing policy alternative to the left, and not quite so left parties we have now. It will probably do no harm to have some on the cross bench cancelling out the green vote.

          The fact that they use a communist internal structure bothers me – I could never be a member until the grass roots elect leaders rather than the leaders electing the grass roots.

          20

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      s some here have suggested as an option I also will vote, if possible, for the more conservative National Party in the Senate.

      There are no circumstances that I’m aware of where that is anything but possible.

      So go for it. Firstly however, assure yourself that the “Nats” will not support a Carbon tax or an ETS in any shape or form.

      40

  • #
    philthegeek

    Just vote to put Tony back in the big chair. Then it will ALL get sorted very definitively.

    To send the message for that, preference Libs who voted against him in the knifing, dead last on the paper especially in marginal seats. Everywhere the margin is < 5%.

    Coalition Seats (88)

    Petrie (QLD) LNP 0.5%
    Capricornia (QLD) LNP 0.8%
    Lyons (TAS) LIB 1.2%
    Solomon (NT) CLP 1.4%
    Hindmarsh (SA) LIB 1.9%
    Braddon (TAS) LIB 2.6%
    Banks (NSW) LIB 2.6%
    Eden-Monaro (NSW) LIB 2.9%
    Lindsay (NSW) LIB 3.0%
    Page (NSW) NAT 3.1%
    Robertson (NSW) LIB 3.1%
    Deakin (VIC) LIB 3.2%
    Macarthur (NSW) LIB 3.3%
    Reid (NSW) LIB 3.4%
    Bonner (QLD) LNP 3.7%
    Gilmore (NSW) LIB 3.8%
    Corangamite (VIC) LIB 3.9%
    La Trobe (VIC) LIB 4.0%
    Bass (TAS) LIB 4.0%
    Brisbane (QLD) LNP 4.3%
    Forde (QLD) LNP 4.4%
    Macquarie (NSW) LIB 4.5%
    Cowan (WA) LIB 4.5%

    90

  • #
    harry buttle

    Me, I’ll work out what order I vote in the reps later, but it will not be for the Liberals, they must pay a price for what they have done.

    I will vote ALA, Coalition in the senate.

    I just can’t vote for a party that follows a waffling, treacherous narcissist like Turnbull.

    I didn’t leave the Libs, they left me.

    210

    • #
      J.H.

      “I didn’t leave the Libs, they left me.”……. Yep too true. They are no longer a Party for liberalism or liberals. They are a high taxing, over regulating, state-ist elite. Under Turnbull they are Labor Lite with Green aspirations.

      Sad.

      The Nationals had better make themselves relevant…. Or they’ll be replaced by Turnbull with a Lib/Greens coalition and a Republican agenda.

      200

    • #
      Greebo

      I didn’t leave the Libs, they left me.

      As Jo said, “Turnbull is the one cutting off noses. Let him and those who elected him face the consequences.”

      50

  • #
    richard ilfeld

    Whether in the states, in Britain, or in your country, we’ve not yet arrived at a means to bring sense to the system by forcing idealogues to eat their own cooking. Policies that unambiguously diminish the economy, reduce security, deplete capacity, reduce employment, and limit freedom can be demonstrated, in the US at least, to have no effects in the “Superzips” where our elites live and prosper. These limited geographies are sufficiently rich and socially segregated to prosper in difficult times. There seems no way is us politics to reach the mind of a legislator whose constituancy lives in a bubble. Even facing bankrupcty, the artificial ecosystem of governmnent will insist its privilege unalterable, and throw the entire burden on the economy within which it is a parasite. The “good bug” we may have tolerated as symbiotic during good times has gone rogue. The US is evolving to an election where we examine the personalities gaming to system for personal gain, and realize to our horror why such conversations have been kept off-limits for years by “political courtesy”. Those who govern us no longer live the same lives as we do, and while pretending to public service follow a set of priorities vastly different the the electorate. Good luck down under, as I’d judge from afar you have similar problems.

    90

    • #

      Accurate analysis I think. Where is any offered method for escape from the current in deep shit and only digging deeper. Even my kitten ‘shadow’, carefully licks on my fingers, offering some hope in the future!

      20

  • #
    J.H.

    I’m in the electorate of Leichhardt. Which means that I will not be voting for the Liberal’s Warren Entsch ever again under any circumstance.

    I don’t want to vote Labor, but after some thought, there’s no point voting informal because Labor might not get the votes to oust him…. I don’t want to vote for a minor party if they are going to ultimately pass their preferences to Entsch either…. So I’ll be voting Labor in a federal election. First time in my life.

    In the Senate, I’ll definitely be voting in a Liberal or National candidate, but I’ll be giving the “other’s” a good look if they are conservatively minded.

    I first thought voting informal in the House of Representatives would be a good idea to send a message to the Liberal party. But ultimately any informal vote might be needed to oust the Liberal turncoat. One of the 54… So I’ll just vote Labor and be done with it.

    Ultimately the objective is to oust Turnbull and the 54 quislings, or as many as possible anyway. Deny them an electoral win and hand a Coalition opposition party to a conservative/liberalist majority. We’ll have a Labor Government, but we just have to live with it and try and combat it from the Senate.

    We can’t afford to allow Turnbull to turn the Liberal party into “Labor Lite”…. We cannot continue to have this so called “Two Party System” that has become nothing more than a single minded politburo of political elites enslaving us to their ambitions without regard to ours.

    It’s a crying shame…. An Abbott led coalition would have easily won this election. They would’ve lost seats. But they would have won.

    Anyhoo, that’s my thoughts on it all.

    121

    • #

      I’m in Leichardt as well and will vote for the Nationals in the Senate, and for the Reps I haven’t made up my mind. I don’t think the Nats have a candidate running. It really is a sad state of affairs when you have little choice but to vote for parties lead by Messers Turnbull and Shorten.

      One can lament over recent history and the infamous 54, but it happened and life goes on. My take on it was they thought they had better electoral prospects with Turnbull due to the constant attack by the MSM on former PM Abbott. But I notice the latest polls are now putting Labor ahead and PM Turnbull’s honeymoon is now over.

      One can hope that the member for Wentworth loses out and I would encourage this electorate to vote Labor, but really it is only wishful thinking

      100

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Old Joke … new actors

    There is an old joke about rats and Lawyers.. so i have changed the actors to suit the current political climate.. :o

    In a recent study behavioral scientists prefered to use politicians instead of rats for their experiment.
    when questioned why the scientists had prefered politicians, they answered ” there are certain things that rats just wont do ”

    always makes me smile this one …. :D

    170

  • #
    a happy little debunker

    There two things all conservatives can do – to express their displeasure.

    1. Do not assist the major parties with any electioneering. Leave the booths unmanned, the doors unknocked, the letter unaddressed. Deny them the boots on the ground they have always relied upon, but clearly take for granted.

    2. Ensure that the taxpaying sponsored electoral funding of $2.60, for your primary vote, does not flow to the coffers of the LNP (and to neither Labor or the Greens)
    When you vote, vote alternative – even if, by preferences, your vote winds up with these three – your message will be heard by the ‘party leaders’ that matter – the money men.

    90

  • #
    grahamd

    A brilliant article Jo,
    It mirrors my thoughts exactly, and I expect many others on the conservative side of politics.
    Where is the due diligence in political decision making, there are heaps of examples of where there is none, with billions being squandered!
    Scientific integrity is paramount. When we have an environment minister, unwilling to hold a full inquiry into the activities BOM, relating to the harmonization of Australia’s climate records. Notwithstanding there was comprehensive and damming analysis conducted by Jennifer Marohasy and others, followed by a formal request lodged with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO).

    120

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Although I am generally in agreement with Miranda Devine, there are occasions when the message is unclear or waffle with no centre to it.

    As Jo points out,there is a phrase used which suggests that the user doesn’t think for themself.

    When you see:

    “according to polls” or some variant of that, you know your brain is being subjected to y New science of opinion based decision making. This is in contrast to fact based thinking where consequences are logically assessed.

    No has cooing a new variant: “internal polls”.

    The image of a giant tapeworm comes to mind.

    Kk

    40

  • #
    AndyG55

    SENATE .. who to avoid voting for below the line…
    .

    Turnbull Senate supporters by State

    Vote BELOW the line, but do not vote for these traitors.

    NSW:- Bill Heffernan, Marisse Payne, Arthur Sinidonis

    VICTORIA:- Mitch Fifield, Scott Ryan

    QLD:- George Brandis, James McGrath

    SA:- Simon Birmingham, Sean Edwards, Anne Ruston

    WA:- Michaelia Cash, David Johnson

    TAS:- Richard Colbeck

    91

    • #
      A C, of Adelaide

      Yes, Simon Birmhingham is on my list too. The idea of Government endorsed “grooming” makes me shiver right down the spine.

      50

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Add to NSW

      Concetta Fierravanti-Wells

      She spread the rumour, through Niki Sava, about Tony Abbott and his CoS, Peta Credlin. She deserves no support.

      80

    • #

      Can you please even partially explain this ‘above the line’ vs ‘below the line’, for us fools in the northern hemisphere?

      10

      • #
        AndyG55

        A senator is a member of the Australian Senate, elected to represent a state or territory. There are 76 senators, 12 from each state and two each from the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.

        A cut-down version of the voting paper might look like this:

        http://lachlanwetherall.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/icon_senateballotpaper.gif

        The real paper is much longer with many different Parties.

        So, you can vote for a Party, ABOVE the line, this vote carries through that party, then to wherever the party directs its preferences.

        or for individuals BELOW the line.

        You used to have to number all the boxes below the line, but I’m pretty sure that has now been change to only having to number 12 boxes below the line.

        disclaimer.. From memory, I think this info is close, but it may need revision by someone who knows more about the system

        61

      • #
        bobl

        to Add to Andy.

        For the senate election each state gets a number of senators allocated 12 I think. Each electoral cycle (every 3 years) half of them are up for election except where we have a double dissolution when all 12 are up for election.

        In that state you need to allocate 6 votes for senators in preference order (or 12 in a dd election). To do that we used to have to number all the senators in order of preference from 1..N – in some states there could be 100 or more candidates to choose from,

        A decade or so ago this was changed a line was added to the ballot paper and above that line was listed the Party and a box, below that line and vertically down below the party is listed the parties senate candidates in the order the party designates. Each party would lodge with the electoral commission a voting order for every senate candidate, this is called a party preference flow. You were allowed to enter a single vote ( the number one) in just one of the party boxes above the line instead of filling in all the boxes below and then your vote would be counted as if you entered that parties preference flow below the line where the 1..n candidates are listed. Depending on the deals that are done on preference flows between the parties unusual things can and do happen for the last senate position in each state because the party position on the ballot is not set by the voter but rather the way each parties preference flow interact.

        To some extent its a good system, every vote made by every citizen is allocated to a candidate according to the preference order you gave them, if the candidate of your first preference loses, (or in the Senate has already reached a winning vote) then you second preference is used and you might elect your second preference too. In the end the candidate that has the highest preference of the most people wins.

        Just recently parliament voted to change this again. Now you can enter preferences in the party boxes above the line. This Means that the preference flow is followed only for that parties candidates, then you choose where the next set of preference go, and so on. So while you can’t pick and choose candidates you can at least choose your favourite party followed by your second favourite, and you can make sure that parties you don’t want elected are last. This years election is the first time we can do that. I think they have also said that you only need to enter as many preferences as there are seats, so for this election you can stop your preferences after 12 candidates or 6 parties in the senate.

        In the house it’s a bit different, you must number all the boxes in preference order – there aren’t usually more than 10 candidates. In some state elections you are allowed to stop numbering when you want your vote to stop propagating – basically you can say I don’t want my vote to propagate to these candidates under any circumstances.

        Any other questions?

        10

      • #
        Lizzy

        From what I understand from the advertising blitz. If you vote above the line you number 6 boxes 1-6 but if you want you can just number 1 your vote is still valid according to the Act. If you are voting below the line you must number a minimum of 12 boxes in any order you like.

        10

        • #
          bobl

          Yes, however this is for a DD Election where 12 senators are being elected, I’m not sure it will be so for a half senate election.

          00

  • #
    el gordo

    Out in the bush its Nats all round, so my advise to the rest of you is give the Nationals your vote in the Senate.

    For the city slickers among us, if you don’t like anyone on the ticket then vote for none and soil the paper with ‘a pox on both your houses’.

    The problem we have is that Talcum is going to buy voters with massive infrastructure spending, VFT and new cities, so I’ve already factored in a win for the government.

    Under these circumstances the Nats probably won’t object to him buying junk CO2 credits, DAP is already making farmers much better off than they would otherwise be, so they are not in a position to complain about the misuse of taxes for a useless cause.

    31

    • #
      Dennis

      It should be noted that Tony Abbott led the Liberal-National Coalition to effectively defeat Union Labor at the 2010 election forcing them into a minority alliance government. And despite Rudd Union Labor’s significant defeat of the Howard Government in 2007.

      In 2013 the Abbott led Coalition defeated Union Labor in a landslide victory, and historic landslide win.

      Ignoring the media polls and commentary I cannot see how the government could lose the coming election based on that 2013 win and the number of electorates gained by the Coalition. However, there is no doubt in my mind that they will lose many seats and the election result will be based on a much lower margin of seats than held now.

      And Shortens return to carbon tax emissions trading etc will seal Union Labor’s defeat.

      20

      • #
        el gordo

        The punters still have the Coalition as favorite to win and Plebersek to take over as Labor leader after the loss.

        10

      • #
        Greebo

        Ignoring the media polls and commentary I cannot see how the government could lose the coming election based on that 2013 win and the number of electorates gained by the Coalition

        No? Just ask Campbell Newman.

        10

  • #
    Ross

    When I read this ( I’m a kiwi) and reflect on what is going in the USA, the UK , the EU and NZ it seems to me politicians are in the same boat as the MSM in that they have lost track of the major change going with voters and readers, in the case of the MSM.

    Both groups simply don’t seem to understand what changes have occurred because of the internet and other communication technologies. Yes, they use it themselves but it hasn’t sunk in what speed and ease of information transfer really means. Both groups still operate in their little bubbles , talking to themselves, believing they still control the information.

    They just don’t see that the power related to information has shifted massively from them, towards the voter/reader. MSM newspapers are self destructing because in their drive to reduce costs their quality has dropped dramatically ( in some cases it has disappeared) and readers know it is easy to find alternative sources of information/news.

    The politicians don’t understand that voters with the benefit of more available information sources can see through the games they have played for decades. They are struggling to “control the message”. This why Trump is so popular –his experience in the media (and business) has given him an “insiders view” which he is exploiting, showing the voters that he knows they already know and think –he reinforces their view.

    80

  • #
    Orang Putih

    While I have a hard working local Federal Member (Lib), I have told her that I will never support or vote for any Socialist government, and that is what the Libs have given us.
    I believe that the only way to force reform on the Libs is to well and truly pull their pants down at the next election, get rid of Turnbull and his cheer-leaders and get back to the basics of good governance.
    Consequently I will be voting for Australian Liberty Alliance in the Senate and informal in the House.
    Our choices in the House are Tweedle Dumb or Tweedle Dummer so I don’t see it will make much difference who is PM in the short term.

    40

  • #
    TdeF

    There is time to change or Malcolm would not be smirking and saying nothing much. All we have is our vote and that cannot stop the backroom deals. No one wanted Abbott to be removed except the Green ABC who attacked him for winking and eating an onion and looking at this watch. However the professional politicians can act now.

    The Liberal party under Malcolm is saying nothing about its intention on major issues like an External Taxation System, gay marriage, section 18C, a republic but blind Freddy can guess. They are saying nothing because no one is asking questions and hoping to coast to the election with people thinking it is a conventional Labor/Liberal battle with the Greens as the sandwich. Malcolm cannot afford his real plans to be exposed too soon, as voters can formulate response to being betrayed, as they did against Gillard.

    Would someone in the media please ask Malcolm a direct question about his ETS so at least we can go to the election with a promise he has to break? So far a compliant press, especially his ABC has gone very soft where Abbott was besieged.

    Most importantly, can some politicians show sense of self preservation instead of the opportunistic rabble which gave us Oakshott, Windsor, Slipper, Gillard and now Turnbull. Walk out, say something, ask questions, show the Australian voters some backbone. This dealing for personal advantage behind closed doors has to stop, if only with sense of self preservation. As Morrison knows now, you cannot trust Turnbull the deal maker. Seven of those who agreed to remove Abbott are now gone, their careers over. Morrison’s budget will be the end of his career. Turnbull is close to a lip curl at Morrison’s naivety and takes every opportunity to humiliate him. He wants Morrison out of the way.

    Barnaby Joyce however, a man with a reputation as a maverick has the ability to overturn the known dealings between the Liberals and the Greens. Windsor has been put on his case.

    Even Bill Shorten should understand that Malcolm is even better at backroom deals and coups and should abandon his total obsession with Green preferences and Green policies, exposing Malcolm as the carbon tax kid he is.

    Labor has given the Greens their absurd image as the environmentally friendly branch of the Labor party. No wonder they get up to 25% of the primary vote in old Labor seats like Melbourne Ports. He could make a stand that the Labor party is really about Australian jobs, Australian culture not pushing up electricity prices, shutting power stations, shutting manufacturing and massive taxation and illegal migration and ignoring religious violence. Labor has given Greens their entire credibility and so his primary vote. It is going to cost him everything. He could make a stand.

    At the very least, Turnbull should be under the intense scrutiny which accompanied everything Abbott did. The idea that he is simply incompetent and a deer in the headlights is wrong. It is the Australian voter who is the coup target this time. Malcolm wants his ETS, Republic, Gay marriage, massive borrowings, big government and the end of Labor, Nationals and his own place in history with his own Green Liberal party. He is counting the days.

    130

    • #
      AndyG55

      Malcolm wants his ETS, Republic, Gay marriage, massive borrowings, big government and the end of Labor, Nationals and his own place in history with his own Green Liberal party. He is counting the days.

      Just re-iterating as large as I can. :-)

      141

      • #
        Dennis

        But first and foremost Malcolm stands for Malcolm Agenda, and he admitted that his pathway to The Lodge was with whatever political party offered him that pathway.

        50

        • #
          Orang Putih

          Dennis, your comment brings to mind a remark made by some Greek a couple of thousand years ago;
          “Power should never be given to a man who craves it.”

          90

          • #
            Dennis

            As we discovered when Kevin 07 succeeded in gaining power. Not that his assassin was any better.

            40

    • #

      Is it coincidental that Windsor is trying to get his seat back from Barnaby due to an inflated ego, or is he a stooge for Mr. Turnbull? I would have thought the electorate of New England having been betrayed once wouldn’t give this Quisling a second go.

      80

      • #
        Angry

        tony WINDBAG windsor.
        What a vindictive vicious old man.
        The traitor who sold out his fellow Aussies.
        He has two chances of winning……BUCKLEYS & NONE.

        31

  • #
    Dennis

    In my opinion we have two bad choices at the coming election, the worst choice would be Bill Shorten leading Union controlled Labor.

    The second worst choice would be Malcolm Turnbull leading the Liberal Party and therefore in government the Liberal-National Coalition, however this ignores the fact that Turnbull’s rebels are a problem for me and therefore I would not vote for any of them.

    The following link is how I intend to vote;

    http://stopturnbull.com/what-can-we-do-a-conservative-electoral-strategy/

    30

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Thanks for the link Dennis.

      It reflects my position with one exception.

      I’ll be putting the Nationals at the top of my Senate vote rather than at number 2 – provided they confirm that they will not support a Carbon tax or an ETS in any shape or form.

      And, given I’m in the electorate of Curtin (WA), currently held by the backstabber Julie Bishop, I’ll take your advice and put her last.

      70

      • #
        AndyG55

        “provided they confirm that they will not support a Carbon tax or an ETS in any shape or form.”

        This will be the first thing I look for with any person/party I will vote for.

        121

        • #
          Angry

          Add to that requirement also that they must not open our borders to all and sundry as gillard & rudd did.

          20

      • #
        Dennis

        Definitely, she is the able assistant assassin including character assassination used against Tony Abbott and Peta Credlin from 2009 to 2015 and still being used from time to time in case there is an uprising.

        Leaking stories to the media and unwilling to be named as the source.

        As Tony Abbott referred to in his last speech as PM, advised media not to publish anonymous donor stories.

        30

      • #
        bobl

        But work out who to put first and pick a realist

        00

    • #
      Greebo

      It’s a little disheartening when, under the heading “Who are the reliably conservative Liberals in the Senate?”, for Vic the answer is N/A.

      00

  • #
    Dennis

    Fortunately I am in a sitting National Party held electorate and David Gillespie MP is a very good local member. So I will vote for him.

    But if I had a Liberal Rebel MP I most certainly would not vote for him.

    Please remember that most of the Union controlled Labor MPs were in Parliament during the disastrous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years.

    30

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Jo, thanks for that very useful article. We in this household have been thinking that way for some time. We had understood that our MP, Louise Marcus, was an Abbott supporter. She claimed, in a phone conversation that I had with her, that she is a “conservative” but did not deny that she had voted for Tony Abbott. I have since discovered that she was the “lost” 54th of the Turnbull supporters, but did not have the guts to admit it. This changes how we will vote.

    In the lower house we will look for a conservative independent (we have no Nationals) for our first preference, and perhaps our second. Louise will get our third (or perhaps our second – she might be better than the alternative). Greens will be last, Labour second last.

    In the Senate Kirralie Smith (ALA) will get our first preference and if the ALA field a second candidate in NSW prior to the election they will get the second. After that we will choose whatever liberals we know are conservatives – Jim Molan for one – plus the Nationals. Concheta what’s-her-name will definitely NOT be getting any flow on from us – the traitor that told Niki Sava that Tony was having an affair with Peta.

    That’s where we are at the moment and I think that fits in with your general plan.

    Go the DELCONS!

    80

    • #
      Dennis

      By denying a Liberal candidate first preference we deny the Party taxpayer money, a message in itself.

      50

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Yes, Dennis, that had not escaped us, and even if the Liberal gets in, the drop in first preference votes must send some sort of message.

        50

        • #
          Greebo

          even if the Liberal gets in, the drop in first preference votes must send some sort of message.

          Certainly sends a financial one. Often they are the best kind.

          50

  • #
    John Watt

    Isn’t this just perpetuating the red team vs blue team rubbish that passes for government in this country? Take a look at a few years of headlines. They fight within their teams. They deliriously reverse the policy of the other team once they get back into power.
    What we have is a wonderful system for creating media headlines about going around in circles. Too bad about achieving anything useful.
    We need to innovate to a better system.
    Let’s face reality this is the system that can’t get past the Gorebabble that is helping to ruin our economy.

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      You are right, but isn’t it now the time to try and create a revolution of sorts via the ballot box?

      To show the two alternative government parties that we are fed up with the political pass the baton competition and resulting largely to ignore what voters want attitudes?

      And in the case of Union controlled Labor, a government managed from outside by people exposed by the Trade Union Royal Commission into corruption and lack of governance.

      41

  • #
    TdeF

    Consider there was never any point in removing the minority parties, a joint Liberal and Green move against Labor and all the minority parties. This forces an unnecessary double dissolution just before the ordinary election and a total spill of the senate. It can only be about control of the Senate the election but removing the minority senators only benefits Labor and the Greens? So why did Labor fight it? Liberal control of the senate is then only possible with an existing deal with the Greens. There is no surer proof that a deal has been done between the Greens and Malcolm’s Progressives. Bill knows it.

    That is the only explanation which makes sense. That is why Malcolm started talking madness about a Very Fast Train and putting the submarines in Green South Australia alone and attended the Gay Mardi Gras, the first Prime Minister to do so. This with the openly gay head of the NSW Liberal party. In preselection Malcolm and friends are stacking the parliament with ‘progressive’ Liberals and the experienced Liberals are resigning or being forced out.

    The Greens are not Labor at all. They have no connection with the unions and Greens are more middle class than working class, more rich inner suburban than outer. However they have to pretend to be in alliance with Shorten as Labor Lite until the very last minute.

    If the electorate realised a Green vote was really a Liberal vote or a Liberal vote was equally a Green vote, they would change their preferences. Possibly many would stop voting Green at all.

    Another odd observation is that the polls still presume preferences will remain unchanged from the last election. Why? It is public knowledge that the Greens and the Liberals are working to game the preferences. The very left press is very quiet about this and no one is calculating what could be achieved, mainly to replace Labor with Greens or Liberals.

    In a single move, Malcolm will blindside the entire country. How many Liberals will be prepared to go Green, like Gillard’s Labor, if only to be in government. This is what MPs want, not what their voters want. It is the era of the selfish career MP who cares more about the principal than the principle.

    90

    • #
      Dennis

      The Greens have been receiving substantial donations from the Unions TdeF

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes. The Unions need the Greens as only 8 Labor seats were an absolute majority. However the Unions are being deceived. The Greens have no ties at all to Labor. If anything, Labor’s slavish adoption of all Green policies is encouraging young upwardly mobile people to vote Green as a more progressive branch of the Labor party. Young people like to make their own choices.

        There is no part of carbon taxes, shutting mining, smelting, refining, manufacturing and farming which is in the interests of the Labor party of Hawke and Keating. Amazingly the greatest challenge of a generation for Kevin Rudd was Global Warming, now a climate emergency according to Australian Environment writer Lloyd. This Climate Emergency is something which exists only in Green propaganda. It is utterly fact free. Labor has lost its way, like the Nationals and the Liberals, the curse of professional politicians who get their agendas from the media and polls.

        80

    • #
      Greebo

      Too true. When even Andrew Bolt is calling the election a fizzer you can see that the wool is very definitely pulled..

      30

  • #
    Rich

    Another to add to the list to make sure you vote for. Tim Wilson.

    As a disillusioned liberal voter who was going to not vote liberal for the first time in their life they did the only thing that has saved my vote, selected Tim to run for Goldstein. Safe Liberal seat even without my vote, but I want to support Tim, who I have hope for as a major player in the Liberals going forward.

    30

  • #
    A C, of Adelaide

    My best suggestion is that in the Senate – do your homework on the individuals and vote 1 to 12 below the line, but remember this may mean voting up columns or across columns not just down each one.
    For my money, the ALA ticks all the boxes for the first couple, but here in SA I wouldnt want to see Bernardi or Fawcett disadvantaged because of Turnbull. Guard against the temptation for doing a protest vote to populists. Make sure you do your homework first. Xenophon for example seems like a nice choice but is described by Bolt as “Greens-leaning” and has been photographed cosying up to the Grand Mufti to try and get some votes from that direction.

    The thing to remeber is that both major parties have virually a bipartisan position on everything that counts – Renewable Energy targets, high immigration, deficit spending and more borrowing, … The only difference is a triffling matter of degree. Who you vote for in the lower house wont actually change anything so in doesnt really matter.

    30

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      Who you vote for in the lower house wont actually change anything so in doesnt really matter.

      I beg to disagree.

      It does really matter.

      You need to put those disloyal back-stabbing Liberals who voted against Tony Abbott, last on your ballot for the House of Reps (lower house). And, put those who supported him at number 1 position, unless you have the opportunity to vote National Party.

      It sends a message and denies them their $2.60 taxpayer contribution.

      20

    • #
      bobl

      Xenophon is an AGW Believer – I have an email from him to prove it, while he is a realist (which is a good thing) he would vote FOR an ETS. He should not be preferenced highly

      30

  • #
    TdeF

    Perhaps the best way to stop this coup against all Australian voters is for everyone to put the Greens last and regardless of the How to Vote cards. Many Greens will feel betrayed too, especially those who think voting Green is a more caring Labor party.

    50

    • #
      Greebo

      I have always put the Greens last since their inception. Same for The Democrats under Spot Destroyer.

      40

  • #
    aussiepete

    When speaking about the Kidman sale this week Scott Morrison was at pains to say that his “rejection” of the Chinese bid was only a preliminary view. This smells a lot like “two bob eachway” to me. I am wondering what his view will be if the LNP win the election. Therein lies the problem with this mob, i can’t find much reason to vote LNP with any certainty. Very fast trains and 30 minute cities are pipedreams. MT needs to come out with a very forceful restatement of Liberal Conservative values with a few examples that they intend to implement in their next term, not some airy fairy stuff with 30 or 40 year projections.

    30

    • #
      AndyG55


      “I can’t find much reason to vote LNP with any certainty”

      Again, just to re-iterate a point :-)

      51

    • #
      Greebo

      Very fast trains and 30 minute cities are pipedreams.

      Isn’t it amazing how often these get trotted out, and how often the meeja laps them up? Of course, if TA had announced them they would have been lampooned as ‘Captain’s picks’. Don’t you just love the MSM?

      50

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    I don’t know. I swore I’d never vote for Labor again as long as I live, after the Gillard/Rudd and the Anna Bligh lies. I was so furious I would have signed up for insurrection is some was happening.

    I can’t do it. And I’m pretty sure ALA don’t have a candidate in my region.

    As much as I hate the idiot Turnbull and whoever supported him to replace Tony Abbott, at the end of the day it is a party system. Whoever you vote for, they are only a figure head. It’s supposed to be the party policies that rule. We know that isn’t the case, which is where the whole system falls flat. But what can you do.

    Come on ALA, we need more of you on the ground.

    40

    • #
      bobl

      What electorate, you may have a conservative candidate prepared to ditch Turncoat

      00

    • #
      Greebo

      Whoever you vote for, they are only a figure head.

      Probably true in the past, Greg, but not now. Malcolm is a cuckoo, pretending to be something while in reality being something entirely different. He moist certainly does not represent the principles and values that most people expected when they voted LNP at the last poll, when the biggest ticket item was TA’s pledge to repeal the Carbon Dioxide Tax.
      Turnbull and Bishop have absolutely ZERO mandate to take the Party, and the Nation, in the direction they are, and, to me, it is vital we don’t give them one.
      It galls me to be even contemplating a vote for Labor, but consider: Shorten is a known quantity. He is too stupid to be able to maintain any hidden agendas for vey long ( although, that may be why the ALP has left him there. The Party machine is anything BUT stupid ). Everything about Turnbull is a hidden agenda. I believe him to be the single most untrustworthy politician I have ever encountered, which, given the field, is saying something.

      10

  • #
    George

    WAKE UP COALITION!
    Judging by Turnbull’s accidentally-on-purpose bumbling since he became PM, I feel sure that he is DELIBERATELY sabotaging the Coalition’s chances at the next election.

    HE IS A LABOR PLANT!

    Why, you ask?

    Well, we all know how deeply he has fallen for THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SCAM and how he would dearly love to inflict a carbon tax on us again, he probably reasons that if he can lose the election then Labor, together with the Greens, would re-introduce his beloved carbon tax.

    He obviously thinks losing the next election would be worth it.

    I will NOT be voting Coalition whilst this leftie is the leader.

    If there is no conservative option, my vote will be INFORMAL.

    I’m sure many others are thinking the same way.

    The Coalition deserves to be taught a strong lesson for forcing such a (UNELECTED) leader upon us.
    They should wake up, and dump him ASAP before the election, otherwise defeat will strike.

    60

  • #
  • #
    Transport by Zeppelin

    promise some meaningful basics (which also cost nothing). How about a blood oath? No emissions trading scheme – ever. No section 18C. No more subsidies to Big Renewables (lets do the research, not buy expensive electrons — remember the “free market”?). No more pandering to the ABC — split it to left and right wings, or demand equal time for conservative views, or better yet — privatize it and cancel some Labor debt. Odds of any of these? A million to nothing.

    I’d vote for that!

    20

  • #
    Mal

    Off Current topic, attached link to Greenie watch http://antigreen.blogspot.com.au/ and an article on 29th April by Jamal Munchi climate scientist.

    Jamal Munshi is a very bright and very sceptical climate scientist. He must have tenure or wouldn’t get away with it. His latest paper is a new study of radiocarbon levels — which shows that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is NOT the result of human activity. Beat that! (These comments are by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.))

    Dilution of Atmospheric Radiocarbon CO2 by Fossil Fuel Emissions

    Jamal Munshi

    Abstract:

    Post bomb period data for 14C in atmospheric carbon dioxide from seven measurement stations are available in small samples up to and including the year 2007. They do not support the theory that dilution by 14C-free fossil fuel emissions is responsible for falling levels of 14C in atmospheric CO2. We find instead that the observed decline of 14C in atmospheric CO2 is consistent with the exponential decay of bomb 14C. We also find that the attribution to fossil fuel emissions of the pre-bomb dilution of 14C in atmospheric CO2 in the period 1900-1950 found by Stuiver and Quay in tree-ring data is inconsistent with total emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 during that period. We conclude that the data for 14C in atmospheric CO2 do not serve as empirical evidence that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution is attributable to fossil fuel emissions.

    The attached source paper goes into the detail.

    30

  • #
    el gordo

    Fairfax appears to be supporting Malcolm.

    Its a national emergency.

    “Unless we start slowing down our [greenhouse gas] emissions and really mitigating them completely in the next few decades, there’s going to be a lot of environmental shocks to the planet,” Dr Vertessy said. Human societies and ecosystems “are being pushed to the edge of sustainability”.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/perilous-bureau-of-meteorology-boss-rob-vertessy-exits-with-climate-warning-20160429-gohwu6.html#ixzz47HEKdSI7
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

    20

  • #
    Dennis

    I wonder how many trade unionists realise that Labor’s plans including emissions trading version of carbon tax and phasing out coal and gas usage, even exporting fossil fuels and longer term (within 20 years I read in a motoring website) banning fossil fuel powered vehicles for private transportation and other road transport later will impact adversely on their jobs and if not their children’s jobs?

    Sadly I suspect that most unionists are short sighted and politics comes a long way down their list of important items, if on that list.

    That Union Labor would be again campaigning on “a price on carbon” indicates that they rely on voters having very short memories.

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    And another point regarding fossil fuels.

    Our competitors on the world market would rejoice if Australia stopped exporting coal and gas, all the more business for them, and extra jobs for their citizens. And fossil fuels would continue to be used to generate electricity, to produce steel and aluminium, and cement, etc.

    40

  • #
    Zee

    If the Liberal Party would just dump Turnbull now, they can have my vote back. I will not vote for a Turnbull-led Liberal Party.

    90

    • #
      Dennis

      And so say many of us.

      40

    • #
      Konrad

      No, Talkbull, or one of his quislings must go to an election and be destroyed. This is the only hope of rebuilding the Liberals as a centre right party.

      Otherwise they will never learn -
      -Never to submit to rule by the lame Scream Meeja.
      -Never to submit to the AGW propagandists.
      -Never to submit to Islam

      Talkbull is the living embodiment of these spineless submissions. He and his quislings must be destroyed. No centre right MP would accept the poisoned chalice now, and yet there is a high chance it will be offered. Talkbull is a classic case of narcissistic personality disorder. They take credit for everyone else’s successes, and blame all their own failures on others. When a clear cut test of their personal competence looms, they run squealing in panic. As Weasel Stomping Day draws near, Talkbull will likely flee. In this likely event, centre right Liberals should refuse the job, leaving a Talkbull quisling like Julie Bishop to lead on Weasel Stomping Day.

      20

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    MT, (I used to chalk that on gas cylinders when the gas had been used up), needs to give up his permanent chair at the partisan Q & A. That may help with a few more votes. Otherwise put MT second last.

    60

  • #
    Mark of Redlands

    My MP’s a backstabber (Andrew Laming). I take the view that the Cthulu Option applies – why vote for the lesser evil?

    So I want him out and just do not care if the ALP wins the seat. It’s not like there’s the slightest political, moral or ethical difference between him and some brain-dead corrupt ALP apparatchik, is there?

    And it’s a poke in the eye to that cretin Textor, who apparently learned nothing from what happened to Campbell Newman.

    If Jo Lindgren’s running in the Senate for QLD, she gets my #1 vote there, then ALA, FF. Any other Liberal is down behind the ALP and next to the genuine political vermin, the greens.

    Backstabbing narcissistic treachery like that displayed by Turnbull CANNOT go unpunished.

    10

    • #
      Old Lucy

      My LP MP was not a backstabber and will get my second preference after some other suitable conservative, who will likely not survive the preference cuts. This should see him ultimately getting my vote. However, the AEC has fiddled with this electorate’s boundaries, turning it into a marginal seat, possibly even marginal ALP. So, regrettably, I fear my current MP will lose his seat.

      10

  • #
    Lloydww

    I am late to this thread so it’s not likely my post will be read. However, I’d like to voice my total disgust with Turnbull and the mob of unprincipled lollies who supported his coup.

    Turnbull was an utter failure as an Opposition Leader, he revealed himself to be a politically clueless, narcissistic, wordy, incoherent leftist who is nowhere near as smart as he likes to think himself. I did not expect him to improve as PM and nor has he.

    I will not for the LNP in the next general election. My MP is Ross Vasta, no neophyte. If that means Labor gains control of the Lower House, so be it. The argument that people like I who refuse to be guilted into voting for this Government will be responsible for the damage to Australia is utter hogwash. The guilt lies with 54 current MPs and with them alone.

    While I would take great delight in seeing a Turnbull government fail at the polls, I cannot bring myself to vote for Labor. Most likely I will vote an independent or minor party in the Lower House and LNP in the Senate, given that Queensland Senators appeared to be Abbott loyalists.

    Lastly, thank you Jo for this post. It is gratifying to see that others have maintained their rage at the the LNP bastardry and wants to exact retribution. I have always said that we get the Government we deserve. In this instance however I do not believe that to be true and I would like to punish the LNP for its stupidity.

    91

    • #
      Zee

      Wholeheartedly agree with you Lloyd.

      41

    • #
      Greebo

      leftist who is nowhere near as smart as he likes to think himself.

      Anyone who doesn’t believe that should remember Utegate, and Godwin Gretch.

      I have always said that we get the Government we deserve.

      True, but only if we’ve had the opportunity to vote for it. That’s the biggest difference between the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd debacle and MT’s treachery. Not much changed when the ALP switched leaders. Everything changed when the LNP did.

      10

      • #
        Lloydww

        Greebo, exactly my thought.

        Abbott made some errors no doubt about it. But his Government was generally competent and for the most part made the right calls. The most egregious errors of judgment IMHO were to associate the $7 Medicare copayment with a mythological $20bn Medical Research Fund and the abandonment of repeal of the Racial Discrimination Act’s s18c. In both cases he sent the wrong message, namely that he didn’t take the issues seriously. They were dumb moves for a conviction politician, and Abbott does conviction well when he chooses to.

        In contrast, I see the Turnbull Government as bumbling and inept. At times, the political cynicism in its strategy is nakedly obvious to the point of being nauseating. At other times there is no obvious strategy. The overall impression is of a lazy, self-indulgent amateur hour operation led by untrustworthy characters.

        But the worst sin IMHO is that a whole cohort of LNP federal parliamentarians have been damaged in the process. The most obvious casualty is Scott Morrison, who started his tour of duty as Treasurer looking like a possible future PM but who now looks incompetent, flighty and dithering. I hope he can recover in due course but I fear he may be tarnished forever. For their failure to nurture, protect and develop talent like Morrison and others, Turnbull and his supporters deserve to be consigned to political oblivion, now.

        30

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    Well written Jo .
    I would agree with everything and add that any ‘True B’lvers’ of CAGW / CACC or whatever they call it this month , BE VOTED OUT !
    Any and all advocates of this Climate / Prayer Wheel Nonsense should never be allowed to hold any position of authority , power , or influence .
    They are all either mentally incompetent and /or corrupt !

    The only new Royal Commission we should be having is one into this Climate Racket .

    60

  • #
    bobl

    We should also bear in mind that even though a candidate may have voted for Abbott, they may still be a Carbon Tax/ETS supporter – you need to ask their honest opinions before you put them in parliament (see my sample letter up thread) – it would be best to have Turnbull supporters AND CARBON TAX supporters at a minimum in the next parliament.

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      Good point bobl, let their own words decide our voting intentions. George Christensen is good and Ian Macdonald (the father of the Senate) deserves our support. This is him on the floor of Parliament.

      “The children of Australia have been brainwashed into thinking if you turn off a light in Australia, somehow that is going to stop climate change,” the Queensland senator told parliament on Wednesday.

      “This is a puerile debate in its extreme. We have to bring some sense into the debate.”

      Guardian

      20

  • #
    mct

    Not James Annan, James Allan, Jo.

    I’m pretty sure James and Jules are not any kind of con… del or def!

    —Well spotted! Thanks. — Jo

    00

  • #
    MudCrab

    I feel I am in a good spot as a DelCon protestor.

    I am in Adelaide which is effectively safe Labor at the moment. Hence I can I protest vote informal there with a clean conscience.

    (for an added amusement, remember if you write a message on the ballot paper the party scrutineers are highly likely to read it. Informal papers are always double checked by scrutineers so if you want to rub it in that you WOULD have voted Liberal if it wasn’t for Turnbull… :D )

    Senate I can vote Nats.

    To me the greatest power of the DelCon is to be ‘washing my hair’ everytime your local Turny campaign office asks you for your assistance. For added passive aggressiveness don’t just say no, tell them that you want to make sure all those new people Turnbull brought to the party are allowed their time in the sun. You would LOVE to help, but those new supporters have to feel like they are doing something after all.

    40

    • #
      ianl8888

      (for an added amusement, remember if you write a message on the ballot paper the party scrutineers are highly likely to read it. Informal papers are always double checked by scrutineers so if you want to rub it in that you WOULD have voted Liberal if it wasn’t for Turnbull…

      Suggested that about 200 posts ago. Most people will follow the rules, telling themselves it’s for the good of the country, yet whining the whole time about the awful choices they have.

      Mass civil disobedience – in the form of mass informal voting – is the only way to change anything. People will, and do, get exactly the politicians they deserve.

      20

    • #
      philthegeek

      Hence I can I protest vote informal there with a clean conscience.

      Informal isnt a protest, its just running away from a decision. And trust me, “messages” scrawled on ballot papers just prove to a scrutineer that the particular ballot they are scrutinizing was filled in be an idiot.

      01

      • #
        ianl8888

        Informal isnt a protest, its just running away from a decision

        B/S, yeah, yeah, blah, blah you’re just a sheeple

        One can easily see why nothing will change … and that is exactly what you deserve

        21

        • #

          Ian, isn’t it faster and more reliable if instead of mass informals, there was a mass shift in choice (say ALA, LibDem, I’m open to suggestion). The US Tea Party did not exist in 2007. It grew from nothing. Now both major candidates in the GOP side now would fit better with the Tea Party mold than in the establishment. The Republican Party was lost to the establishment until this year.

          An informal protest relies on Big numbers and someone noticing and systems falling apart.

          Ten percent informals will not change the system, but ten percent voting for a new party would.

          60

          • #
            memoryvault

            isn’t it faster and more reliable if instead of mass informals, there was a mass shift in choice

            Jo, forgive me for the intrusion, but the subject matter is too important to ignore. We are at a point where a large section of the Australian population has had a gutful of party politics – ANY party politics – and are more ready than ever before to cast a protest (informal) vote. And yet you continue to believe it is easier to get a mass swing to (yet another) political party, than to get people to vote informal in an organised, quantifiable way.

            Ten percent informals will not change the system, but ten percent voting for a new party would.

            Five percent of voters who would normally vote Liberal, voting informal instead, would cost the Liberals the election. It can be done in such a manner as to guarantee the Liberals understand just exactly why they lost. Getting ten percent of the population to vote for a new party, first time up, is up there with powering the planet with pixie dust and moonbeams.

            60

            • #

              Hey man,

              good to see you back.

              Tony.

              20

              • #
                memoryvault

                Hi Tony,
                Never intended to be here again, but the subject matter is just too important.
                I’ve come across your work linked far and wide.
                You’ve been doing a great job.
                Congrats, and thank you for continuing the fight for sanity.

                60

              • #

                Far and wide is a surprise to me.

                I only do here and my Home Site, so others must be getting that word out.

                Thanks for the kind words.

                Say, still think Kevvy has eyes on SecGen UN?

                Tony.

                20

              • #
                Annie

                Nice to see you memory vault. I’ve missed you.

                00

              • #
                memoryvault

                Hi Annie – just passing through. This election is just too important to miss any opportunity.

                20

            • #
              bobl

              I missed you too, I still think about the oceans pouring out into space from a 1 square meter tube because of a Christmas lights worth of AGW.

              00

            • #
              bobl

              PS MV,
              I do think though that it would be easier to point out an alternate way of voting to Liberal supporters that would still elect a conservative majority without the Turnbull supporters, for example it’s pretty easy to eject the Senators and replace them with sceptic conservatives whether they be from the party or outside (eg ALA or indie) just by voting below the line. The problem is that the public rarely do enough research to know who represents what beliefs, that homework needs to be done for people.

              If that happened Turnbull’s support base would be undermined and he would be politically unable to enact an ETS without losing the top job.

              Informal voting changes nothing really, you won’t switch the majority belief that way, all you could do is elect shorten which would deliver us a carbon tax anyway – I think informal voting is ineffective in achieving the goal of preventing carbon taxes.

              10

              • #
                memoryvault

                Bobl, you need to decide what your objective is. Alternative strategies for voting in the Senate have already been well covered here. My comments are relevant to the HoR only. In most seats in the HoR you have one of four choices:

                1) – Vote Labor either directly or indirectly via preferences.
                2) – Vote Liberal either directly or indirectly via preferences.
                3) – Record a protest via an informal vote as outlined.
                4) – Stay home and pay the $20.00 fine.

                You can’t make a protest but ensure a Liberal win at the same time. The choice is protest, OR vote Liberal, either directly, or via preferences. Unless you live in the seat of Wentworth, you have no influence over the fate of Turdbull as Leader of the Liberals, regardless of how you vote. His future is entirely in the hands of the voters in Wentworth, and the Parliamentary Liberal Party.

                Finally, in all states but NSW, there is no way you can cast a formal vote in the HoR without voting for either a carbon tax (Labor), or an ETS (Liberal) so it is really irrelevant to the question of making a protest informal vote, or not.

                I might add that it appears the growth in informal voting has the major parties sh*t scared, and they are moving towards reintroducing legislation to make it illegal to deliberately vote informal. As has already been established, this unenforceable. However, it then clears the way to make it illegal to encourage people to vote informal as a protest, as I am doing now. In other words, this election will be the very last opportunity Australians have to organise a protest based on withholding their vote. After that, you will effectively be compelled via the preferential voting system, to vote Liberal or Labor.

                Think carefully on that for a while.

                20

            • #

              Memoryvault, good to see you again. Thanks.

              Well as you say “organised and quantifiable” — at the moment groups like the ALA are growing fast and are organised.

              Who is actively trying to organise a mass informal vote? I see nothing.

              Are there examples of it working?

              31

              • #
                Konrad

                “Are there examples of it working?”

                Jo,
                in the North Sydney bi-election over 28% of voters voted informal or not at all. The Liberals had no campaign volunteers, no one to door-knock, no one to letter-drop. They spent $600,000 on paid mail-outs and robo-calling to lose 30% of the votes they had in 2013. They had to pay backpackers to put on the blue T-shirt and hand out pamphlets. The Turnbull quisling just scraped in, but that was only because Labor didn’t field a candidate.

                Mass informal voting in 40 lower house seats is a workable plan. 20 of the lower house Talkbull quislings are on margins of 5% or less. Defcons have the power to end the Waffling Warmulonian Drivel Monkey.

                You have the power. Defcons have the power. Tim Blair is linking to your site. Fearful company man Bolt is holding off, but he will fold.

                Lord Bouncy Waffle called AGW sceptics “Hitler appeasers”. We must end him. Now and forever.

                You see nothing? Defcons are distributing the names of the guilty right under your nose! Stand with us as we stand with you!

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Delcons…… Not Defcons !!!

                00

              • #
                AndyG55

                ok I went back and read jo’s intro a bit more carefully..

                I will allow DefCon…. although it sounds all to American to me !!!

                I wear the DelCon tag with pride, because I know where the real delusion is..

                10

              • #
                memoryvault

                Sorry Jo and Bob, you both raise interesting points that deserve to be addressed. Unfortunately, it’s too late in the day to address properly now. I will reply fully in the morning.

                30

              • #
                Greebo

                Memoryvault, good to see you again. Thanks.

                Really? You welcome back someone who openly admits to being too important to be bothered with your blog, but decides to come back simply to throw names at a regular contributor? I ask, if Sillyfilly or GeeAye called someone a shill for a political party, would they escape moderation? His eminence MV did just that, at #79.2, without sanction. If I’m wrong I’m happy to be corrected, but I don’t like it.

                00

              • #
                Mike

                Jo…..there are no forms of rebellion or mass movement that do NoT end up worse than before.

                Some would argue that rebellion and mass movement are a precursor to conditions becoming worse than before//

                Thanks

                00

              • #

                Konrad, Interesting story on North Syd thanks.

                I must be missing something. Is the plan is to get so many informals that many marginal seats of Turnbull supporters go to the non-Lib candidate which in most cases will be Labor? Isn’t that essentially a similar end result to what I’m suggesting, except by abstaining instead of actively voting? As far as I can see the difference is the active vote plan needs half as many people to swing results but those people who vote Labor will have to live with that knowledge (and the result). Why abstain? Is is just for conscience sake?

                If we want Turnbulls supporters out, in each seat someone else has to be elected. If there is a Nat, an ALA, a LibDem, etc I’d rather send a vote their way than opt out. But if we vote for them, we have to deal with the ugly question of whether Labor or Liberal are third last or second last. When I say “I’ll vote Labor” that’s what I’m talking about.

                PS: I suspect you read my comment and not my post (top). When I say “I see nothing”, I’m talking about seeing not organized action on the “mass informals plan”, no leader, no special web site. No facebook group. No twitter campaign. Read my post, I AM a Delcon/Defcon. I’m supplying one of the lists you are talking about. But I’m not convinced that “informals” is the answer.

                20

              • #
                memoryvault

                Greebo
                May 1, 2016 at 11:05 pm

                You welcome back someone who openly admits to being too important to be bothered with your blog,

                For the record, Greebo, I was never “too important to bother” with this blog. I was “disappeared” from it. I will happily abide being [SNIP]ped, and moderated – hell, I was so moderated at times Jo and I used to joke about it in emails. But Moderators “disappearing” posts without a trace? No way. That’s how things work at places like John Crook Cook’s Septic Science blog.

                I used to love commenting here – it was like a second home. And I have nothing but the utmost respect for Jo – who wasn’t involved in the above incident, by the way. But I will not normally post on websites that “disappear” comments, and that’s that. Lax as they are, I have some principles. I am only back now because of the importance of the actual issue to hand.

                but decides to come back simply to throw names at a regular contributor?

                Andrew peddled the same BS here about informal voting and promoting it being illegal, back two years ago. At the time I pointed out the error of his ways, complete with links to the relevant pages on the AEC website. Old-timers will remember it. I can’t repeat the exercise, as the AEC have now changed their website regarding the matter. Nonetheless, Andrew is back trying to scare the sheeple into conforming – again. Draw you own conclusions.

                10

              • #
                memoryvault

                Jo Nova
                May 2, 2016 at 2:44 am

                Well as you say “organised and quantifiable”

                By that I mean readily identifiable by the Liberals as a protest, via their scrutineers. A vote for a minor Party or Independent does not register as a “protest” with the major parties. With the possible exception of Greens preferences, they don’t give a rat’s arse how far down the queue you put them, as long as the vote ultimately flows to them. Which it invariably does.

                at the moment groups like the ALA are growing fast and are organised.

                Jo, if ALA, FF, or any of the other minor parties run candidates in the HoR at this stage, they will be lucky to get 2% of the vote, as the LDP learned the hard way in the by-election in NSW. There is a simple reason for that which in no way reflects on the parties themselves, but here is not the time nor the place to discuss it. Suffice to say, for the time being they should concentrate their efforts on the Senate, where they do have a chance, especially in a DD, if we have one.

                Besides, none of the minor parties will be running candidates in all 150 HoR seats, not even as a collective whole. So even if it was a valid protest, which it isn’t, and seen as such, which it won’t, it would still only be an option available in some seats.

                Who is actively trying to organise a mass informal vote? I see nothing.

                You see me, Jo. From little acorns mighty oak trees grow, and all that. Actually, as Konrad and others have pointed out, the numbers are there, they’re just not organised into a single plan of action yet. I’m hoping that remains the case until an election is officially called. There are reasons for that which I will cover separately in an email.

                Are there examples of it working?

                None that I can think of. But there has to be a first time for everything.

                00

              • #

                > A vote for a minor Party or Independent does not register as a “protest” with the major parties. With the possible exception of Greens preferences, they don’t give a rat’s arse how far down the queue you put them, as long as the vote ultimately flows to them. Which it invariably does.

                Except, read my post. Did I mention the “nuclear” option? I did…

                > You see me, Jo. From little acorns mighty oak trees grow, and all that.

                And that’s not to be underestimated, best wishes from me. Keep me informed.

                > minor parties run candidates in the HoR at this stage, they will be lucky to get 2% of the vote..

                So? I’m not trying to elect minor parties to the HOR. I said, send em the $2.68 from your first pref, put em on the map. Then trickle down to unfortunately THAT choice, Labor 3rd last. Liberal 2nd last. Elect the minors in the Senate, send prefs to good Libs.

                You can protest. I’d rather get a better Liberal Party. The most important thing the Liberal Party will recognize is the final score: Sitting or Ousted.

                If strategic voting doesn’t get the Libs attention — the back up is that it strengthens minor parties, because we sure need an alternative Party. Why not start now? Why toss away the opportunity to vote minor?

                PS: I can’t see the email. Looking for it. My email address has not changed.

                20

              • #
                memoryvault

                PS: I can’t see the email. Looking for it. My email address has not changed.

                Coming, Jo. Typing is a major challenge these days.
                I promise it won’t be nearly as long as my last comment spent in moderation.

                10

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Ironic that we both make appeals to the AEC web site and both insist that the AEC web site backs up our mutually exclusive arguments. As MV could not be bothered, in the search for the truth I have done his digging for him. In the 2010 Backgrounder on Informal Voting which you have previously cited, the AEC said: “It is not an offence to vote informally in a federal election, nor is it an offence to encourage other voters to vote informally.” Regardless, ultimately the text of the Electoral Act prevails. The AEC website today also says: “Under the Electoral Act, the actual duty of the elector is to attend a polling place, have their name marked off the certified list, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box.”
                As to how any rational being can reconcile the deliberate contravention of the Electoral act with the same behaviour not being an offense is anyone’s guess. I say if it breaks the letter of the law it is illegal regardless of whether you label it as an offense. Of course I am not a lawyer so you don’t have to accept my interpretation, but I believe the act is in plain English and is quite clear what a voter has to do to “mark” the ballot.

                As to how any of this advice could be interpreted as “scaring sheeple” when in the same comment I also pointed out that there was zero chance of being punished for it is just really stretching MV’s credibility. Are most people here so feeble-minded they will be scared of an event I’ve told them won’t happen? Was I being scaremongering or was MV being condescending to his audience?

                It is lucky we have the Internet as our vault and do not rely upon Memoryvault as the final arbiter of history. I do not recall ever saying before that the informal votes were illegal, though this absence is not significant because I don’t remember most of the hundreds of comments I have made here over the years.

                So I checked.

                Honestly, I have DuckDucked and DuckDucked until my little finger nearly fell off the mouse in quack exhaustion, but I have not been able to find any prior comments by myself “promoting [informal votes] as being illegal”. Even if someone can dig up some URL where I said as much, this would only establish that my interpretation of the Electoral Act would have been the same in 2013/2014 as it was yesterday. My research so far shows I accepted MV’s interpretation of the law at that time. If MV wants to remind me differently then he can jolly well do the work.

                But all this DuckDuckGo-ing was interesting for how many old comments in which I lent support to MV’s vote4themm informal voting campaign. (eg: August 17, 2013 at 10:57 pm. and June 4, 2013 at 1:14 am. ) How embarrassing for me! I used to support informal voting in the past, and now I don’t in this election for the two reasons given (comment #79). How convenient that memoryvault remembers past statements of scaremongering for which there is as yet no apparent evidence, but does not remember that my past support for his campaign has waned. How convenient that memoryvault remembers alleged previous statements of “shilling” for the Liberals, yet does not remember the numerous times I have derided the Liberal party generally and Abbott in particular for acquiescing to non-liberal policies. (eg: November 2, 2014 at 4:30 pm.) A vault of convenience, it seems. Rather than focus on our disagreement about his solution, which does not stand up to scrutiny, he has instead deflected attention from it by pretending I disagree about whether there is even a problem with the Liberal Party. (Yer bluff failed there me old son.)

                I find myself in full agreement with Memoryvault’s advice that readers should draw their own conclusions. Certainly do not receive your opinions uncritically from memoryvault.

                10

              • #
                memoryvault

                In the 2010 Backgrounder on Informal Voting which you have previously cited, the AEC said: “It is not an offence to vote informally in a federal election, nor is it an offence to encourage other voters to vote informally.”

                I think that’s plain enough, Andrew. The AEC said it is not illegal to vote informally, and it is not illegal to encourage others to vote informally. Now here is what you wrote in your comment #79 on this very thread:

                If you encourage people to vote informally you’re encouraging people to break the law.

                I think that’s plain enough too.
                The prosecution rests.

                31

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              You have seriously been missed, my friend – seriously, I mean it.

              00

          • #
            Konrad

            Jo,
            I beg to differ. Precisely targeted lower house informal voting in just the 40 seats of the Turnbullites is a very workable plan. Defons have the numbers to make this work. 28% of voters in North Sydney voted informal or not at all. The advantages to informal voting in Turbullite seats are many -

            - No electoral funding for any candidate from an informal vote.
            - No chance of a preference flow to a Turnbullite from an informal vote.
            - Informal votes are counted and numbers published by the AEC so -
            - No chance of Labor saying voters preferred them.
            - No chance of Liberals saying their loss wasn’t because of Turnbull.
            - Journalists like Divine and Savva shown their opinions and endorsements are worthless.
            Media commissioned 2PP push-polling shown to be junk.

            This election is not just about cleansing the coalition of leftists, it is also a chance to end “rule by media”. Turnbull was the media’s choice for PM. A precision Defcon strike that is clearly directed at Liberal Turnbullites in both houses sends a clear message to the media that their undeserved power is dying.

            20

            • #
              memoryvault

              Exactly, Konrad. If I may I will add two points to your excellent strategy.

              1) – Encourage people to record their informal vote in an identifiable way. I’m suggesting “WDM” (we DO matter), in blue Texta pen, both sides of the ballot slip, plus a horizontal line through each of the boxes, to prevent any “alterations and additions”.

              This creates a measurable, quantifiable record of precisely why people voted informal – it wasn’t a mistake, it wasn’t just because the voter was fed up with the political system, it is aimed precisely and directly at Turdbull and the direction he is taking the Liberals.

              2) – Take up the “Textor Challenge”. A week after the election is announced, email your local Liberal member or candidate, and ask them if they are going to meet the Textor Challenge. They will know what you mean. At best you will get an evasive response, in all likelihood you will be ignored. That’s fine. It leaves you free to contact local media outlets, and advise others via social media, that your local Liberal member/candidate doesn’t have the cojunes to meet the Textor Challenge.

              The Textor Challenge is in response to Mark Textor’s statement that “conservative voters don’t matter”, presumably because there aren’t that many of us. The Challenge is for Liberal Party polling booths on election day to have available blue Texta (felt tip) pens, so that conservative voters can indicate how they feel about that, and give the Party a quantifiable value of what the “conservative” vote is, or isn’t worth.

              I have little doubt that the Liberals will try and simply ignore the Challenge. However, done properly, if enough people contact the media – which is largely hostile to the Liberals anyway – the Challenge will get publicity. This, in turn, promotes the concept of the WDM formally informal vote.

              40

            • #

              Konrad, strategic voting fit most of your points too.
              - It’s not sending my electoral vote cash to any major party. We’re funding the smaller competition. They need it.
              - No chance of prefs flowing to a Turnbullite if Labor (and nearly everyone) marked above.
              - The AEC stats will show Labor picking up prefs from odd combinations like The Nats, ALA, etc. The higher vote in the Senate, and loss of HOR seats would still show the Savva’s and Devines (and Turnbull supporters) missed the passion and energy (and principles).
              - The ALP are going to say voters prefer them anyhow.
              - When minor parties, independents win, and preference flows are unpredictable, Media polling = same thing. “Junk”.

              Voting informal risks a Turnbull win more than strategic voting does. As long as Turnbull wins, even in a hobbled form, there will not be a serious conservative party in Australia. A strategic vote wins two ways, supporting any conservative minor elements, as well as cleaning the Libs and setting up, hopefully a better opposition to run a few years from now.

              But hey, it is nuclear. I don’t want a Shorten government. It’s just that in the long run, I think a Turnbull govt might be worse.

              Convince me there is a serious alternative choice.

              30

          • #
            PeterPetrum

            Jo, as far as the Senate is concerned you are absolutely correct. In states with an ALA candidate (all except Tas, ACT and NT at the moment) make sure that they are near the top of your preference listing of 12 below the line (I will be placing mine at No 1) and that any Turncoat Senators are well down the list. As far as the lower house is concerned a protest vote is more difficult to quantify. I feel, as others have said, that those who voted for Tony Abbott in the spill should be rewarded with your vote. Those that voted for Turnbull should not. How this latter is done is a matter of choice and will depend on the quality and political leanings of the other candidates. Clearly the recalcitrant, Turncoat loving Liberal, should not get your first preference. This will be clearly demonstrated in the lack of primary votes and the loss of the financial reward.

            As many here have said, the best outcome would be the Libs back in with Turncoat gone, but that is not going to happen. Three more years of Labor will be dreadful to bear, but it would mean the end of Turncoat, in ignominy – that would have to be a consolation prize!

            30

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Informal isn’t a protest, its just running away from a decision”

        No its not.

        I have made a decision to vote informal in the HOR.. Get over it.

        In my electorate here is no-one there I wish to vote for. MY DECISION.

        41

      • #
        AndyG55

        [SNIP]

        21

  • #
    Peter

    I am in the same position as MudCrab, but will vote ALA in the Senate.

    10

  • #
    sillyfilly

    “Delusion conservatives” now the “defiant ones”: doubly delusional!
    Credible evidence for opposing AGW has yet to appear here or anywhere for that matter.
    Cop it on the chin and at least display some rational behaviour.

    110

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Credible evidence for opposing of AGW has yet to appear anywhere ”

      There.. fixed your typo for you.

      Don’t forget to thanks me.

      61

    • #
      Annie

      Oh, good grief! The neighing nag’s back.

      20

    • #

      Silly, the evidence has been here for years. You still deny it. Take this discussion to another thread. Thanks.

      40

      • #
        Mike

        A thread on how global warming is caused by Carbon graphite pencils used in endless elections ?

        (Carbon graphite pencils were not included as a source of carbon for global election warming.)

        Man made global political climate caused by election pencils.

        00

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      silly filly …you should take your own advice and deal in rationality …. instead of climate medievalism !

      00

  • #
    David Wood

    For what it’s worth, here are my suggestions.

    HoR

    If your MP supported Tony Abbott
    Then support him. But only after you have sent the “Party” a message.

    1 Vote 1 for an independent who has no chance of winning. This denies the ‘Party” any cash from your vote.
    2 then vote for your MP
    3 Fill out the remaining squares as you wish. Possibly putting Labor second last and Greens last.

    If your MP supported Turnbull.
    Then don’t support him. But only after you have sent the “Party” a message.

    1 Vote 1 for an independent who has no chance of winning. This denies the ‘Party” any cash from your vote.
    2 Fill out the remaining squares as you wish, but fill in the last three, labor, liberal and dead last green

    Senate

    Depends upon the state I suppose.

    In Qld I intend to fill in 12 squares below the line, as follow;

    1 ALA for however many they nominate (say 3?), followed by any liberals known to have supported Tony(1?), followed by the Nationals ticket. If any of the 12 spots are left I intend to fill in the lowest ranking liberals (who have no chance of being elected).

    The above strategy ensures that;

    1 No electoral commission money goes to the liberal party from your vote.

    2 You support your MP if he/she was loyal.

    3 You don’t support a disloyal MP, but only vote labor as a protest.

    4 You don.’t support the awful greens at all.

    5 You have done everything possible to ensure a conservative senate

    40

    • #
      Greebo

      1 Vote 1 for an independent who has no chance of winning.

      If we do that, then he/she has everychance of winning, so choose carefully.

      00

  • #
    Matt Wilson

    “or is it better to think long term, take the medicine and rebuild in opposition — and is there a realistic third choice?” No, if you vote for anything but the Libs you are being selfish. Thrusting upon the country a Labor party to satisfy some base need to get back at Mr Turnbull sucks. All the hard work that Mr Abbott did will also be undone as a Labor govt will not introduce an ABCC or stop the boats. I expect that the delcons (so American) will win thus confirming the me, myself and I outlook on life that is so prevalent now. If you can think past your noses, vote Liberal.

    03

    • #

      Matt, Turnbull isn’t offering to bring in any of the legislation we want (which would cost nothing). He could have stood up for Lomborg and free speech. He could have done something about the ABC. He promised the Nats he’d stick to the Abbott climate plan, but two weeks later announced a sub-clause which lets him bring in an ETS and call it “Abbotts plan”. He’s increased funding to renewables. How is any of this different to Labor?

      As long as we have Turnbull, there will be no real Liberal Party.

      I’m taking a long term view. Turnbull could of course, with no extra budget expense, immediately do some truly Liberal things and I would change my mind.

      The Liberals who keep defending Mr Labor-lite have given up their negotiating power. Turnbull doesn’t need to be Liberal to win their support, he just needs to be less extreme Green than the Labor Party.

      Is the Liberal Party about an idea or is it just a label?

      70

      • #
        Analitik

        Turnbull could of course, with no extra budget expense, immediately do some truly Liberal things and I would change my mind

        Indeed, he could abolish ARENA and the CEFC and that would reduce budget spending and raise him in my estimation. But it won’t happen due to his personal interests

        10

      • #
        Greebo

        He could have done something about the ABC.

        Oh, but he did. He allowed them to continue unchecked, and thus put them in his pocket. The end result is there for all to see, with sickening sycophantic “interviews” love ins.

        10

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Jo,

    Dead Simple!

    whilst the Backstabbing Labor Lite Turncoat Turnbull is in place, I will not be donating to the Liberal Party – especially when they install Turnbull Acolytes in Liberal Safe Seats.

    – Trent Zimmerman in North Sydney – lost 13.4% of Liberal First Preference Votes in By-Election

    – Jason Faliskini in MacKellar – http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/mackellar-jason-falinskis-views-right-out-of-left-field/news-story/a9487233e621386852667f1e10652ab3

    and nailed by Andrew Bolt – http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/which_leaves_villatora/

    Andrew’s Article made me think about voting in the upcoming election – Turnbull and the 54 Liberal Traitors do not deserve to be elected

    In the Lower House with Tony Abbott as my member, I will vote 1 for a conservative who is not Tony, with Tony getting my number 2 place on the ballot

    I want Tony Abbott to win my Lower House Seat of Warringah, but want to deny the Liberal Party $2.68 AEC Funding

    At the Last Election I donated $100 to Tony Abbott and $100 to the Liberal Party, plus I donated $100 to Andrew Hastie in Canning, before the Canning By-Election.

    Andrew’s article on the shafting of Jim Molan, made me revise my NSW Senate Voting

    Originally I was going to vote below the line for ALA, then Conservative Groups with last Labor, Greens, Liberal in that order

    Now I will vote below the line, tedious, but I have done it before

    1 Jim Molan Liberal
    2-4 ALA
    then Conservative Groups with

    3rd last Labor
    2nd last Greens

    then

    Liberal 4th NSW Senate Candidate
    then Hollie Hughes

    and finally totally last –
    Concetta Fierravanti-Wells

    With Turncoat Turnbull having added to the growing differences between his administration and the previous Abbott government by reversing Coalition hostility to forward-leaning climate change policy through the creation of a new $1 billion clean energy innovation fund. Tax on Everything – useless Subs Decision, etc, etc

    Why vote for Labor Lite Turnbull, may as well screw Australia totally under Shorten Labor

    Regards

    A Very Disgruntled Conservative Voter

    40

  • #
    Matt Wilson

    After reading these comments, I cannot believe what a bunch of losers you all are. Jo, you have sunk to new lows encouraging this crap. May as well vote Labor.

    311

    • #
      AndyG55

      “May as well vote Labor.”

      With Turnbull there, Labor is somewhat less left-wing than the Liberals.

      DO…

      YOU….

      UNDER…

      STAND !!!!!.

      53

  • #
    el gordo

    Tony Abbott on his future.

    “Abbott era has been”.

    News Corp

    03

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Once you folk reach a consensus it will be interesting if your 25 votes spread across several states will make a difference,

    612

    • #
      AndyG55

      More than your 1 vote for the Green will !! ;-)

      And if you think its just 25.. you seriously have not been paying any attention. (as usual)

      103

    • #
      el gordo

      GA we are only a disgruntled reflection of the bigger picture and anyway there are at least 32 of us.

      30

    • #
      Greebo

      That’s funny. I’m sure I’ve seen more than 25 Red Thumbs next to quite a few of your posts GA.

      20

      • #

        I’m sure that those are on non-political topics though Greebo. Surely no one is suggesting that the AGW argument is in any way connected with right wing machinations?

        23

    • #
      Konrad

      Your Alinskyite sneering falls flat Leafy. In the North Sydney bi-election 28% of voters voted informal or not at all. The Liberals had to spend $600,000 dollars to lose 30% of the votes they had in 2013. They had to resort to paid mail-outs and robo-calling as they had no campaign volunteers to door-knock or letter-drop.

      Defcons have the numbers to bounce Turnbull’s waffle. The warmist’s great hope is about to be crushed.

      51

      • #
        AndyG55

        Delcons were the ground troops for the Liberal Party.

        A large proportion of that troop will not be going into battle this time.

        71

  • #
    michael hammer

    Maybe pick the most reasonable right wing independent you can find in your seat and vote for him or her. If we ended up with a massive number of right of center independents in the house of reps the house would quite probably be non functional but we would have given the libs time to wake up and remember what they exist to stand for. That they are there to represent people other than themselves. Maybe even the “liberals” within the liberal party might join them (the nucleus of a new party?)

    20

  • #
    TdeF

    We know Malcolm is going to bring in his ETS immediately. Simply because he has said nothing. That’s three parties promising to tax us on carbon for no good reason and who want to send money overseas when we are in debt.

    The promise to Truss was just to continue Abbott’s policies. A do nothing Prime Minister, which begs the question of why he wanted the job, but we know that. However it was always about the next election and gaming the preferences. It is all about the how to vote cards but even then, even in the current parliament it is possible but Malcolm has to get rid of as many old Liberals as possible, by resignation or removal of preselection. A Liberal/Green coalition would easily control both houses today with 44 of 76 seats but the new Liberals will be Malcolm’s men.

    That is not enough for the Greens. They want Labor and National seats in the lower house.The second coup will be after the election after Labor and the Nationals have been decimated. The big surprise will be when the Liberal/Green is coalition announced cutting out the Nationals, with at least three years where the people of Australia can do absolutely nothing.

    Then the big changes where Malcolm has in the words of Stephen Conroy who created the NBN on the back of a beer coaster, unfettered power. The only hope then is that MPs walk out of their own party and jobs, an unlikely event. Senators too. Malcolm will have stacked his party with like minded progressives. It will be Malcolm’s party and the ABC will think it is fantastic, their party, their man. Green Malcolm. Malcolm’s enemy will then be the State Labor premiers, just as at present. It may explain why he treated them so contemptuously at COAG, telling them to raise their own taxes if they had a problem.

    The only hope is that people realise what is going on. The outrage needs to be before the election, which is why the ABC and journalists are being told to keep quiet. Malcolm is a genius, apparently.

    50

    • #
      Greebo

      which is why the ABC and journalists are being told to keep quiet. Malcolm is a genius, apparently.

      Certainly it explains why MT, as the relevant Minister, did precisely nothing to make the ABC honour the terms of their Charter. Currying favour seems to be his strong suit. Following deceit, that is.

      20

  • #
    Brian

    Thanks for that, Jo. I said the same thing myself … except for the Labor bit. I’ll be voting ALA this time. It IS about principle. It’s NOT about winning at any cost. That’s why I won’t be voting for the LNP.
    For the good of the nation … I hope they crash and burn, and maybe, just maybe, what rises from the ashes will be something I can support next time.

    Like I said, I’m not advocating a vote for Labor. Many former Liberals taking this option assume that they’ll only have to endure three years of Labor. That’s a very dangerous assumption as far as I’m concerned.

    PLEASE don’t even … stop describing Turnbull as “the best leader the Labor Party never had.” He isn’t EVEN that! After 2009, and his latest stint as a bungling do-nothing Prime Minister, we now know he’s just another clueless Rudd, with no ticker and, actually, no principles. It’s all about power and ego – nothing more. He’s just a dud, plain and simple.

    10

  • #
    Correllio

    Agree, Jo, senate vote will be critical. So everyone do their homework and make sure you and everyone around you understand the new senate voting system. Hec, vote below the line if you have to. It really doesn’t take long and will be faster under the new system. Whatever you do, don’t tell pollsters how you are going to vote AND DON’T EVEN TELL THEM what outcome you are looking for, not even how angry you are. Anytime you see a poll or get asked by a professional pollster, just make something up. The more outrageous the better. Because yes, your vote matters, and no one who takes your vote for granted deserves. Any candidate worth supporting, support them. If you live in a ‘safe seat’ go help scare some monkeys in a few marginal seats.

    30

    • #
      gigdiary

      vote below the line if you have to

      As Angry mentioned before, apply for a postal vote and fill out the tablecloth senate paper at your leisure, preferably with a fine red and some inspiring or aspirational music. :)

      30

    • #
      FarmerDoug2

      Like it. Here we are at the bottom of a big, important, good thread and the sugestions are still good.
      For me I,ll be checking Family First. From their bio, a delusion of windmills won me.
      Doug

      20

  • #
    Drapetomania

    What is the Australian Liberty Alliance opinion on an ETS.????..
    I have asked them before..as a possible voter for them…no response.
    Way to go team !!
    That the left is so happy that a ETS…which wasted billions/trillions ? overseas and achieved nothing for the environment..will be back on the agenda..is bizarre.
    The money that could have gone on feeding starving people..vaccinations/fighting disease/clean water in africa etc….was sidetracked to “fight climate change”…so the left directly have blood on their hands..
    Yet still the left march goose step with each other…whilst driving their cars and connected to the grid.

    20

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Section 15 in the ALA Manifesto covers this, to some extent. They claim to be neither deniers or believers, recognise that the climate always changes, recognise that the forecasts for climate change are based on failed models, that verifiable data is more important and spend some time on the importance of ensuring that we protect the environment from real pollution and that sensible, cost effective policies are what is needed.

      Not specific, but certainly not supporting fixing the climate by spending money. The ALA is much more concerned with personal freedoms and controlling Muslim nfiltration into our lives.

      30

  • #
    Dennis

    The coming 2016 federal election reminds me of 1993 when Keating Labor almost lost office or 1996 when the media reported that voters had their baseball bats prepared to use against Keating Labor.

    But this time I believe that too many voters are even more wary about voting for union controlled and managed Shorten ALP.

    00

  • #
    TedM

    As I live in the electorate of O’Connor I have the choice of Liberal or National. Voting National is a possibility for disillusioned Liberal supporters, although we do currently have a really good Liberal representative in Rick Wilson. Rick supported Tony Abbott.

    40

  • #
    Cookster

    Thanks for the election tips Jo which I fully endorse. I too was thinking of casting my senate vote carefully to force whoever wins the election to negotiate with conservatives (just as Julia Gillard caved into the Greens after the 2010 election). Also, I know your post has been copied around conservative blogs on how to vote tips – so well done. Maybe a few who come here for the first time for your how to vote guide can also get an update on why we shouldn’t read the first thing we read on global warming either :-)

    20

  • #

    I will vote Labor, against a really deserving Liberal local member in Eric Hutchinson. Im not happy about it.

    However it is the only way I can truly express my utter disgust at the Turnbull farce.

    We all know Turnbull will not last as leader in opposition, so the best way to be rid of him is to make him sit on the other bench. Somehow they have to learn that the things that make people vote Liberal have not been reflected in the actions of the party since dumping the actual Prime Minister.

    20

    • #
      Dennis

      The problem is that Labor and Shorten are Union managed and controlled.

      I agree with your concerns about Turnbull however, please do not punish Liberals who supported PM Abbott.

      And remember that most of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd disastrous governments are still in the Shorten Union Labor gang.

      10

  • #
    Greebo

    It’s fairly obvious if you read political blogs, as I do, that there is a lot of ill will, mainly due to the disenfranchisement of Conservatives and AGW realists, directed towards the LNP currently. I think it’s important to bear in mind that there will most likely be people who would take advantage. So, if you choose to vote 1 for an ‘independent’ or a minor party in protest, look very carefully at them first.
    Apologies. I know that you are all smart enough to work that out for yourselves, but I felt it needed saying.

    40

  • #
    Retired Now

    Now all we need are a list of conservatives by state – our own how to vote cards, as it were.

    Say ALA, supporters of Abbot, National and any others.

    Then we can make our decisions as to who we want to vote for.

    I like the idea of getting a postal vote – given by someone above – so I can take my time making sure I have it filled in to my satisfaction.

    20

    • #
      Greebo

      As someone stated earlier, not all Abbott supporters are anti an ETS, so I would like to have their various positions on record as well.

      I asked the Nats if they would consider standing a candidate in my seat. So far they’ve stayed mum.

      10

      • #
        Greebo

        so I would like to have their various positions on record as well.

        In my case this only applies at the Senate level, as my bloke is a Quisling. But if everyone here polled their local member on the ETS and their intentions, and posted the results here, we could do as Retired Now suggests, and create How to Vote cards for each seat once nominations are closed.

        20

      • #
        Dennis

        The National Party are the junior partner in the Coalition Greebo and they cannot dictate to the Liberal Party as they do not have the majority in the joint party room.

        However, the Nationals did extract an Agreement from the Liberals when Turnbull became the Leader and PM that no agreed policies would be overturned without Nationals agreement. So the Agreement should carry forward into the next term of government.

        10

      • #
        Retired Now

        Yes, I agree. We need to know their stands on ETS, AGW(etc), Section 18C, big government spending and for me immigration.

        00

  • #
  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Mark Latham encouraged people to hand in blank ballots in 2010 and he appears to have gotten away with it. Just because Latham got away with it does not mean plebs will if they try the same thing. The Electoral Act requires all electors to vote (not just “cast a ballot paper”) and is quite specific about what a vote on a ballot actually requires in both Houses.
    You shouldn’t write in “Themm, Nunnov” as your preference because that is not a real person and is not a registered candidate.
    You have to number the boxes beside registered candidates in the manner appropriate for the House and the permitted above/below line options. Numerous judicial decisions have affirmed that “the duty of every elector to vote” means the elector must cast a valid vote.

    If you encourage people to vote informally you’re encouraging people to break the law. I cannot say if that itself is illegal but it is obviously not safe ground in the slightest for a political campaign. The only reason people are not charged with violating the Electoral Act for informal votes is because the secrecy of the vote is a higher concern and this prevents detecting the identity of the perpetrator. The inability to prosecute offenders does not make the offense any less illegal.

    If you want a change in representation and the major parties aren’t offering it, the only sustainable plan requires more actual work and gumption than secretly scribbling protestations on ballots that won’t count. New candidates would have to register and run for parliament to give the desired representation. There has to be actual competition to the Parties. Anything less is wishful pretence. It is unproductive to declare that following the usual rules will not effect the desired political change and then advocating a course of action that is counterproductive to your goals and is illegal to boot.

    Mass informal votes from ex LNP DelCons would hand the election to the LaborGreen/Left in a landslide, so people should take that into consideration before doing it. The only good that mass informal voting could possibly do is signal to prospective candidates in the 2019 election that there could be a lot of dissatisfied “conservative” voters available for conversion to new independents and parties. Ordinary political opinion polling would convey the same message without any need for informal votes. How much worse the country will be from three years of GreenLabor in the meantime is anyone’s guess.

    The greater Green/Labor damage in the result and the illegality of the method are the two main reasons why I cannot agree with this nascent DelCon informal vote movement. It is also possible that the DelCons are following the footsteps of the Labour Unions by threatening and pretending they will go on strike in the hope of negotiating a policy shift in mid-campaign and before the issuing of the writs, so they won’t really have to follow through with the threat. If that is their true agenda then they are very good actors.

    As to the crummy choice we presently have between The MT Vessels™ versus the hard Green/Left, I can only say this: When the choice is between bad and worst, go with bad. There’s no other productive and legal option. Of course if your perfect libertarian candidate suddenly appears in your electorate, the best option is vote for them below the line.

    21

    • #
      Dennis

      Good advice Andrew, voters need to be selective and make their vote count but not by inadvertently advantaging Union’s Labor and Greens.

      I prefer Nationals where candidates are standing and Conservative Liberal candidates who are not in the Rebel Camp with Turnbull.

      10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Being in a safe Labor seat (Newy).. I will be concentrating on what I can do in the Senate.

        51

    • #
      memoryvault

      This is all utter BS, Andrew.

      The AEC accepts an informal vote as “lawful vote” in that the voter has met his legal obligations. It has to, as there is no way to prove or disprove otherwise due the secrecy provisions of the ballot.

      It is not unlawful to encourage others to vote informal. Legislation was passed in 1992 to try and make it so, but was overturned on appeal, and subsequently repealed in 1996.

      It has been years since I last commented here, but if memory serves, you were a shill for the Liberal Party even back then. I see nothing has changed. What’s the matter? You lot getting scared?

      42

      • #
        Greebo

        All this was said before you deigned to grace us with your eminence. Why is it so much more important now that you have?

        12

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        The party is irrelevant. Show me a classically liberal candidate in my electorate, and I’ll vote for them, I said that in my comment above, it’s right there in black and white in the final sentence. Are you blind, or are you merely mendacious?

        The LNP were the least worst option for many years, until Abbott came along with his values of backwards into the future, whereupon I ridiculed the Messiah status that so many here were eager to heap upon him. Your memory does not serve you correctly. Again, are you getting forgetful, or merely mendacious?

        You want a lot of people to throw their vote away and hand the election to Labor/Green and there is no discernible benefit to doing so. That’s the bottom line.

        20

    • #
      Konrad

      No, sorry Andrew, but it just won’t do. Leftardulence for three painful years or leftardulence forever? This is the choice we have been given. You have failed. You have chosen poorly.

      23

  • #
    stu

    This has become really popular at my local swing club’s Delcon open mic nights!

    20

  • #
    Greebo

    As Dylan said, “in Jersey everything’s legal as long as you don’t get caught”. Informal voting may be illegal, but you will never get caught due to the secrecy of the ballot. Yeah, you said that, I know.

    How Latham got away with what he did escapes me, as Albert Langer got into hot water for championing his 1,2,2,2 style of preventing preference distribution, which was NOT considered informal at the time. The AEC, at, I believe, the behest of John Howard, changed the act in 1998 to render such votes informal.

    Your point about mass informal votes is well made, but it may be that something of that order is required to get the bl00dy politicians to remember who it is they are supposed to answer to.

    “When the choice is between bad and worst” …. yes, well, which is which? I don’t like Shorten and what he seems to stand for; MT is so deceitful it’s impossible to know what he stands for. Of the two, I’m leaning to Shorten being less dangerous.

    In the end, I guess it’s all going to come down to the Senate anyway. I said somewhere else that the electorate can tend to punish. With his DD, Malcolm may well come to heed the old adage ‘careful what you wish for’.

    10

  • #
    gbees

    In addition to ALA #DEFCONS should consider Family First & Rise UP Australia. My local member is a Chairman Maol traitor so she won’t be getting my vote. I will vote for an Independent conservative first and put LNP, Labor & Greens last. In the Senate I will studiously number the boxes and vote for ALA, Family First & Rise Up Australia as well as other conservative independents again placing LNP, Labor & Greens last.

    00

    • #
      Mike

      The main thing is to use a permanent pen but not a pensil.

      10

    • #
      AndyG55

      When did DelCon, mutate to DefCon?

      00

      • #
        Mike

        We are still trying to find a pencil that does not comprise of Carbon.
        or grayphite, another form of Carbon that is comprised of layers in its natural form
        Iodine might be ok and maybe potashium permangernate pencils?

        Mutation of this or that is something all australians can look at later when they/we have more time.

        00

      • #
        memoryvault

        The same day as DelCon entered the Lexicon. Miranda Devine termed the phrase DelCon in article titled “What kind of conservative wants a Shorten victory?” It was a derogatory reference to “delusional conservatives”. One of the first comments was from a “Sally”. I repeat it below. The “DefCon” movement has been growing from strength to strength ever since.

        Hi Miranda,

        I’m not a delcon and neither are my friends,

        We are DefCons – Defiant Conservatives.

        We were created when Turnbull knifed Abbott and we went immediately to DefCon 1 at which point the nuclear option was on the table.

        Nothing that Turbull has done since has made us DefCons dial the level back and as election day approaches the nuclear option is still live. We are committed to it and we will carry out the necessary strike to defeat our enemy and get our party back.

        We are fully cognisant that the price of destroying Turnbull is to give Government to Labor. But then we will fight Labor with sensible, practical, sane, conservative policies to win the following election.

        We are fully prepared to lose this coming battle in order to win the long term war.

        Wining with a left-leader like Turnbull is no victory.

        61

        • #
          Konrad

          Memoryvault, love your work, but the Internet is our memory vault ;)

          Talkbull donating 10′s of thousands to Labor in a failed effort to get pre-selected as a Labor candidate? The Internet remembers. Forever!

          Talkbull trying to get a safe labor seat not once, but three times? The Internet remembers. Forever!

          Talkbull calling all AGW sceptics “Hitler appeasers”? The Internet remembers. Forever!

          Talkbull’s unspeakable foulness is a matter of permanent Internet record. Now and forever.

          20

        • #
          AndyG55

          Thank you MV..

          I will accept either term.

          To me, they mean the same thing. :-)

          00

      • #
        Mike

        You could also argue that pencils are like a Carbon sink. If there are enough pencils/carbon, our climate would automatically improve.

        Off topic..
        http://forum.freeadvice.com/consumer-contracts-guarantees-warranties-22/legal-binding-contracts-pencil-428309.html

        00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “If there are enough pencils/carbon, our climate would automatically improve”

          Except you would have to chop down most of the world’s trees to make enough pencils.

          00

          • #
            AndyG55

            ps… maybe then I could find one when I need one !!!!

            00

          • #
            Mike

            Going by how many elections are called (Frequency), that has already happened…..lol, if i had a pencil for how many times we needed guidance/government. LoL

            10

      • #
        philthegeek

        When did DelCon, mutate to DefCon?

        well Andy, you know how tea party people branding themselves as users of bags actually didn’t work that well in hindsight……..

        Conservatives branding as delusional may have been a different but similar episode. :)

        00

  • #
    OldOzzie

    I’ve voted Liberal all my life but this time I’ll be biting the bullet and voting Labor.

    My election slogan, ‘Vote Labor and Shorten the pain’.

    Ronald of Tweed Heads (Reply)
    Sat 30 Apr 16 (04:27pm)

    Sums up my feelings re Turncoat Backstabbing Turnbull perfectly!

    70

    • #
      Mike

      Intereseting use of words.
      “Ronald of Tweed Heads (Reply)
      Sat 30 Apr 16 (04:27pm)”

      00

    • #
      DavidH

      I’ve come to this thread a little late, but I’ll put my stake in the ground and agree with OldOzzie – unless some alternative crops up in my electorate, I’ll vote Labor “to Shorten the pain” too. My local member is Alex Hawke, one of the traitors. I was one of many first-ever volunteers, handing out how-to-vote leaflets at the last election. I did it for Tony Abbott, not for Hawke and definitely not for Turnbull. I don’t wish to give any form of mandate to Turnbull and I’d rather have Australia find out how bad the current incarnation of Labor is so that hopefully a proper Liberal government, without MT on the scene, may be able to save the country at the election after this.

      30

    • #
      Dennis

      I reckon that would be a GetUp slogan, the Union Labor mouthpiece and spin department

      00

  • #
    Renato

    I actually donated $50 to Tony Abbott when he had his anti-Carbon Tax mail out prior to his winning his election – I felt so strongly about the issue.

    So I’m voting Liberal Democrats this election. Can’t see the point of rewarding back-stabbing traitors.
    Regards.

    20

  • #
    Allan

    A vote for Labor is seeing 10s of thousands illegal economic refugess arriving at Christmas Island. A vote for Labor is 50% renewable energy target. A vote for Labor is unions stuffing the economy.
    Are you that small minded to toss Australia into the toilet.
    Abbott lost his team!
    No one else is to blame!
    And that is politics.

    00

    • #
      Orang Putih

      Those to blame are the pathetic opportunists who knifed TA in the back.
      And don’t imagine for a minute that MT won’t make just as big a mess of things as Bill the Dill.
      I’ll be damned if I’ll vote for ANY socialist party, so it’s the ALA in the Senate and informal in the House for me. I won’t even give Turnbull the satisfaction of knowing he got my vote as a preference.

      10

  • #
    Drapetomania

    I spoke to the Australian Liberty Alliance Secretary.
    I asked him if they gained a senate position, would they oppose an ETS.
    His non response was

    “There are currently no CO2 trading schemes or taxes on CO2 in Australia, hence we could not possibly vote against any.”

    Since I was obviously talking about a future situation..I was staggered by the stupidity of this response.
    And asked him clearly in a return email if they had a policy re the ETS and if they did..where on their site was it..
    Nine hours later..after no email response…I went back to their site..posted up the same question..and told them if they didnt respond I would assume they knew what I was asking, had no policies re an ETS..and I would then make that public..which finally flushed them out..
    They responded with this…

    “..you received a response to your questions this morning. Try asking other political parties on the weekend.If the answer was not to your liking I can’t help it, we do not change our policy based on threats.”

    Jo, whom I admire, said in this post

    “..Many conservatives and libertarians are supporting the Australian Liberty Alliance. Check ‘em out:..”

    In regards to a fundamental thing like an ETS…why on earth would anyone support these mendacious clods.????

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      If that is the case, they really need to come up with a solid answer..

      ..and it better be a resounding NO

      They have to realise that nearly all those who are considering an ALA vote would expect a NO on this issue.

      If they are wishy washy about it.. the word will get around VERY quickly, and they will lose one heck of a lot of possible voters.

      20

  • #
    AndyG55

    I contacted ALA with the question….

    “If an ETS or other carbon pricing was proposed by either Liberal or Labor.

    What would ALA vote.. For or against?”

    Answer.. just one word….:


    AGAINST !!

    30

  • #
    Stan

    Yes, I’ll be voting Labor in the Reps (don’t care about prefs) and ALA in the Senate (prefs maybe to LDP then coalition).

    00

  • #
    Stan

    James Allan puts it very well – would it be better to have two Lib governments then two Lab governments, or two Lab governments then two Lib governments. Clearly the latter because, if the former, the Libs will have moved far to the left (and therefore Lab further to the left). If the latter, Libs will move back to the right.

    00

  • #

    [...] Delcons, Defcons, and elections in Australia 2016 With an election likely for July 2nd, the hottest topic in Australian politics right now is how to vote. So put your best case forward here. Hammer this out. Will Turnbull promise anything to win back the Delcons — the angry conservatives? The time to ask is now, and if the Liberal base are not prepared to vote against him, they have nothing to negotiate. [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    Dennis

    Bill Shorten says he will lead Australia like a unionist ……

    Be afraid people, be very afraid. Note the Trade Union Royal Commission into governance and corruption findings and the over one hundred unionists and former unionists referred to legal agencies by the TURC.

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/05/shorten-i-will-lead-australia-like-a-unionist-like-an-awu-organiser-taking-orders-from-bill-ludwig.html

    00

  • #
    PETER STYLES

    Bill Shorten claims big polluters will be forced to buy carbon off sets when they reach a cap .This is based on the assumption that CO2 is a pollutant.CO2 is a colourless ,odourless gas that has been in Earth’s atmosphere throughout time ,often in far greater concentration than at present. Together with oxygen CO2 is the staff of life for Earths biosphere, because the metabolism of plants depend on its absorption .Increasing CO2 over the range 200-1000 ppm is beneficial to life on Earth .The only CO2 that could be considered harmful or a pollutant is mixed with the crap coming out of Bill Shorten mouth, The Loy Yang power plant in the Latrobe Valley is claimed to be one of the biggest polluters in Australia .The fact is it emits clear steam 90%water vaporH20 4%methane 4%CO2 ,nitrous oxide and fluoride .The filters remove all the gritty carbon pollution at the insistence of the EPA .Last year a fire started outside in the coalmine ,and the Valley was polluted ,which had not occurred for over 60 years .This shows how effective the filters are .If humans cannot control Volcanoes and natural emitters of CO2 that make up 97%,whats the point I controlling coal fired power plants and our fossil fueled transport system that emit 3%

    00

  • #

    I’m always fearful of any option which risks Labor being allowed to come in and do more of this:

    https://themarcusreview.com/2016/05/03/what-did-we-get-for-our-400-billion-loan/

    00

  • #
    kraka

    I’m in a Nat seat with a true conservative who suggested ALA in the senate. Best case scenario a skin of the teeth win and Turnbull replaced shortly after.I don’t care if the ALP win as Turnbull going into a depression meltdown will sustain me for 3 years

    00

  • #
    kraka

    I’m in a Nat seat with a true conservative who suggested ALA in the senate. Best case scenario a skin of the teeth win and Turnbull replaced shortly after.I don’t care if the ALP win as Turnbull going into a depression meltdown will sustain me for 3 years

    00

  • #
    Rodcket

    Delcons, Defcons and Discons – Do not vote for these Liberals:

    Surname First name MP or Senator Seat State Reason

    Alexander John MP Bennelong NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Birmingham Simon Senator SA Voted for Turnbull
    Bishop Julie MP Curtin WA Voted for Turnbull
    Brandis George Senator Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Cash Michaelia Senator WA Voted for Turnbull
    Ciobo Steven MP Moncrieff Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Colbeck Richard Senator Tas Voted for Turnbull
    Coleman David MP Banks NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Edwards Sean Senator SA Voted for Turnbull
    Entsch Warren MP Leichhardt Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Falinski Jason candidate MP Mackellar NSW left leaning views- boat ppl, climate.
    Fierravanti-Wells Concetta Senator NSW Betrayed Abbott to Nikki Savva
    Fifield Mitch Senator Vic Voted for Turnbull
    Fletcher Paul MP Bradfield NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Hawke Alex MP Mitchell NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Henderson Sarah MP Corangamite Vic Voted for Turnbull
    Hendy Peter MP Eden-Monaro NSW Voted for Turnbull, provided house for meeting
    Irons Steven MP Swan WA Voted for Turnbull
    Johnston David Senator NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Keenan Michael MP Stirling WA Voted for Turnbull
    Laming Andrew MP Bowman Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Laundy Craig MP Reid NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Ley Sussan MP Farrer NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Marino Nola MP Forrest WA Voted for Turnbull
    Markus Louise MP Macquarie NSW Voted for Turnbull
    McGrath James Senator Qld Voted for Turnbull
    O’Dwyer Kelly MP Higgins Vic Voted for Turnbull
    Payne Marise Senator NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Prentice Jane MP Ryan Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Pyne Christopher MP Sturt SA Voted for Turnbull
    Ramsay Rowan MP Grey SA Voted for Turnbull
    Robert Stuart MP Fadden Qld Voted for Turnbull. favors for a mate
    Roy Wyatt MP Longman Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Rushon Anne Senator SA Voted for Turnbull
    Ryan Scott Senator Vic Voted for Turnbull
    Scott Fiona MP Lindsay NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Simpkins Luke MP Cowan WA Voted for Turnbull
    Sinodinos Arthur Senator NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Smith Dean Senator WA Voted for Turnbull
    Smith Tony MP Casey Vic Voted for Turnbull
    Southcott Andrew MP Boothby SA Voted for Turnbull
    Turnbull Malcolm MP Wentworth NSW Voted for Turnbull, Not Liberal enough.
    Van Manen Bert MP Forde Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Vasta Ross MP Bonner Qld Voted for Turnbull
    Wicks Lucy MP Robertson NSW Voted for Turnbull
    Williams Matt MP Hindmarsh SA Voted for Turnbull
    Wood Jason MP La Trobe Vic Voted for Turnbull
    Wyatt Ken MP Hasluck WA Voted for Turnbull

    Apologies for the formatting. Put it down to the mystery of Copy/Paste.

    00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    Joe, Graeme, and all. In the 1980s the ALP governed all states except Queensland. Journalists sometimes ask some silly questions, and a female journalist asked NSW Treasurer Ken Booth what I thought was a silly question: “What if the state goes bankrupt?” He replied: “It’s not possible for a state to go bankrupt.” So it wasn’t a silly question after all.

    NSW was saved from the ALP’s road to ruin by the election of the Greiner government, after the ALP declared war on private ownership of firearms before the election. However Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia all suffered severe recessions. In those three states the bankrupt governments gained reelection by calling an early election before the word got out.

    The ALP believes that governments do not have to pay their bills. In NSW and Victoria major city infrastructure works undertaken under Labor governments were funded by bankrupting the builders.

    And Pauly, your points 1. and 2. are deliberate ALP policy, for the purpose of destroying the capitalist system.

    10

  • #
    Mike

    Back then the country owned its own bank to print money. So how can a country that can print its own currency go broke? Hello!!

    After that date in 1997 …….Paul Keatig sold the rest of the Commonwealth Ban if i am right.

    PS. Only a country with its own central bank can truly own itself. As Paul Keating once said before/maybe after he sold the rest of our Commonwealth bank, : the ____ you had to have.

    10

  • #
    Mike

    The ALP believes that governments do not have to pay their bills.

    You must mean interest on loans from creditors who can print cash.

    10

  • #
    Mike

    You must mean interest on loans from creditors who can print cash.

    10

  • #
    Mike

    The last comment was a reply which ended up as a new comment. Here is a quote from the comment i replied to. ………

    “The ALP believes that governments do not have to pay their bills. “

    You must mean interest on loans from creditors who can print cash.

    00

  • #
    Mike

    It is though i were given a pencil for the last comment.

    00