The September 6 by-elections for Mayo and Lyne initially loomed as fizzers, with Labor showing no inclination post-Gippsland to test the waters in unwinnable seats. They have instead respectively emerged as mildly and enormously interesting, thanks to the entry of non-major party players. In Mayo, housing tycoon Bob Day will bring a cashed-up campaign to bear against the Liberals as the candidate of Family First, having failed to win Liberal preselection for Mayo after unsuccessfully contesting Makin last year. Day would nonetheless have to be considered a long shot against Liberal candidate Jamie Briggs, but it’s a very different story in Lyne where independent state MP Rob Oakeshott has been rated the “clear favourite” by Antony Green. Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports that Nationals polling puts his approval rating in the electorate at over 70 per cent, and says the party is concerned Labor will “direct resources to Mr Oakeshott’s campaign”.
Lyne covers a 100 kilometre stretch of coastline up to 400 kilometres north of Sydney, the main population centres being Port Macquarie (home to 33 per cent of the electorate’s population) and Taree (14 per cent). Smaller centres include Old Bar, Lake Cathie and Harrington on the coast, and Wauchope and Wingham further inland. The National/Country Party has held the seat since its creation in 1949. The electorate covers the entirety of Oakeshott’s state seat of Port Macquarie, which provides Lyne with 55 per cent of its voters. Oakeshott won Port Macquarie as the Nationals candidate at a 1996 by-election ahead of independent John Barrett, who had come within 233 votes of defeating Mark Vaile as Liberal candidate for Lyne in 1993. He was promoted to the front bench after the 1999 election, taking the sport and recreation, fisheries and ports portfolios. In March 2002 he quit the party, claiming its local branches were controlled by property developers and questioning whether the party was still relevant to an electorate transformed by tourism and demographic change. The Nationals campaigned aggressively against him during the 2003 campaign, in particular over his support for drug law reform, but he was overwhelmingly re-elected with 69.7 per cent of the primary vote. This fell slightly to 67.1 per cent at the March 2007 election, his two-candidate preferred margin down from 32.8 per cent to a still formidable 28.2 per cent.
The Nationals candidate is Rob Drew, who was mayor of Port Macquarie until the council was sacked by the state government in February. The Macleay Argus reports he won a preselection vote ahead of Taree solicitor Quentin Schneider by 48 votes to 15. State party leader Andrew Stoner was reportedly urged by “senior colleagues” to throw his hat into the ring, but perhaps sensibly decided to stay put. The prospect of an Oakeshott candidacy was a cloud on the horizon from the time of Vaile’s departure, with Oakeshott earlier threatening to run against Vaile at the 2004 election. There has also been intermittent speculation over the years that he might be enlisted by the Liberals, although this might never have been more than wishful thinking by the party. Most recently, powerbrokers including Senator Bill Heffernan approached him to contest the by-election as the Liberal candidate, hoping that his success might push the Coalition further along the road to a merger. The party has instead opted to sit out the contest, aware that its presence would only increase the already high likelihood of an Oakeshott victory.
The other thing to be noted is that win, lose or draw, Oakeshott’s candidacy will initiate a state by-election for Port Macquarie – though that is a subject for another post. While it would be open to Oakeshott to re-contest Port Macquarie, owing to what Imre Salusinszky calls “a quirk in NSW electoral law”, Oakeshott has declared that such a move would be “unfair to the community”.
Are Sydney and Melbourne far apart or close together? It depends on your perspective. If you are an astronaut looking down from the moon, they’re about equally far away, and the difference is negligible–and this would be even more emphatically the case if you were in orbit around Proxima Centauri. The difference between Sydney and Melbourne looks a lot bigger, on the other hand, if you’re in Albury or Canberra.
It’s the same in politics. It is meaningless to ask whether Labor and Liberal are politically similar or politically diverse unless you first establish what your standard of comparison is. (It is indisputably false to say that there’s _no_ difference between them, but for some people–_depending on their own political position, which therefore needs to be defined to make the discussion meaningful_–the difference might be negligible.)
My feet are firmly planted on the ground and Melbourne’s a bloody long way away.
I get a sense that this very dangerous notion that not a lot separates the major parties in Australia is on the wane. It’ll probably return with vengeance when people on the Left forget what the Howard/Bush years were like.
It’s such an easy thing to say: they’re all alike, there’s bugger all to choose between them. But I just can’t fathom how anyone could honestly deny there’s a vast difference between the Rudd and Howard Governments? Don’t people read newspapers? Much of our politics is a little to the left of America’s, but the same is true there.
Disagree all you like with Rudd and Obama, but let’s finally put this dubious notion of no difference to rest.
Quite co-incidentally I was talking to a western Sydney ALP suburban branch president yesterday evening. His “mail” is Costa, a country member, will go soon and Mo is finished and will be gone by March.
A purely unsubstantiated rumour but there you have it… what are blogs for anyway?
GB, it looks like an important difference to me too. But I recognise that that is a result of where I’m standing. From the point of view of, say, Fidel Castro, the difference doesn’t look vast. In order to disagree with this assessment, you have to disagree with Castro’s point of view. I’m happy to say that I do, I’m just saying that you can’t separate the issues. If somebody comes here and says that from their point of view the difference between Howard and Rudd is insignificant, I’m happy to say that in that case there must be something wrong with their point of view, but I don’t imagine I can argue a contrary case without at the same time (at least implicitly) attacking their underlying position.
Is that clearer?
Albert Ross
#53
“what are blogs for anyway?” To pass on you did , some end up occuring , although those rumours about Costello having ticker will never happen
GB
#52
“how anyone could honestly deny there’s a vast difference between the Rudd and Howard Governments? ”
I hav seen a number (but not all) disengenuous Greens suporters say here on this site that Rudd is ” a consevative” For those Greens posters it is a cheap “non ticker” way of saying there’s no vast diference between Labor and Liberal policys
Unfortunately one has to ignore many US politcans , because th lines of ‘left’ and ‘right’ ar blurred in th US by some clever US politcans who bullsh.t and ar plastic As mentioned in #37 th 2 current candidates will be bad for ‘oz’ , being oiliness phony Obama who pretends to be ‘left’ , but his written policys say different for example his policys ar not 100% for universal healthcare at all and do not support Kyoto ratificaton And McCain who is a maverick ‘right’ Republican BOTH ar all over th “left” and “right”‘ place and flip flop on fundamentel core issues However John Edwards is a fair dinkum ‘left’ politican
In ‘oz’ , we hav been fortunate our culture makes it imposible for politicans
to avoid being clearly ‘left’ vs ‘right’ This has at least meant for a “right” Howard to get away with getting re-elected (whilst th voters knew he was ‘right’) he had to ‘con’ middle leaning voters with $ bribes & spin about interst rates (and with poor Labor Leaders/ campaigns helping him) Finally after 8 years th ‘right’ Howard thought he could get away with an extreme ‘right’ policy (W/C) and got caught out by a good ‘Left’ leader in Labor Kevin Rudd
Politics – especially nowadays – is very simple.
I’m a rank-and-file member of a union. Under workchoices many people I know could have lost their house or gone to prison simply for taking part in trade union activity that would be considered normal and perfectly legal in any other democracy.
With what were centre-Right parties being captured by people with very extreme views, to view politics nowadays as some kind of dry, academic exercise simply defies reality.
There are a lot of law-abiding people who will now not go to prison. Liberals and Republicans have made politics very simple and clear-cut.
The libs have wimped out and will NOT nominate a candidate for Lyne.
Oakshott to break 80% mark….
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/08/2329128.htm?section=justin
wimped out? With oakshott running it makes a lot of bloody sense.
GB
#56
“Politics – especially nowadays – is very simple”
Yes , simple for phoney politcans , everything is packaged into a 15 second TV grab or a controlled press conference Voters therefore who then then vote by just relying on th Party’s name tag ar foolish They may as well just pre vote all there votes for a particular Party 30 years in advance , then we’d hav PM’s elected who ar not even yet born
Need to listen to what is promised in politcal election campaigns and what there policys state specificaly , and if not happy change Party vote or vote informal
I’ll leave yous guys here Labor has won again A great day Morgans latest poll 55% to 45% Just where ar those anti Labor forces as voters certainly like what they see in Sir Kevin todate
I called Gippsland early for the Nats but I think Oakeshott will win Lyne.
The Nats can’t win this type of seat while they’re in coalition in opposition.
There are three options for the Nationals:
1) Merge with the Liberals (might work in Queensland, won’t work anywhere else).
2) Steady as she goes (and keep losing seats when sitting members retire).
3) Quit the coalition and be independent (as per Brendon Grylls in WA).
ron, you’ve simply ignored what GB says about industrial relations. Do you really think there’s no difference between Labor and the Coalition on industrial relations? Or is it a difference that doesn’t matter to you? Or would you rather just dodge the issue because you don’t want to disturb your preconceptions?
Only a few days left for an independent Labor person to show the flag by nominating for Lyne and Mayo. C’mon guys and gals! Fill the void left by the ALP.
J-D
#62
Given you would hav read my #55 , #59 and #60 posts collectively , I can only assume you ar also deluded by that oiliness phoney as well , who carrys a ‘left tag’ , but has ‘right’ policys Thought you guys could hav put up a more clever argument
#64
Ron, I have read your posts, and none of them actually look at any specific issues and the actual positions of the parties on the issues, only at your generalised perception, not backed by any concrete evidence. Once again you have failed to confront, for example, the specific issue GB raised, that of industrial relations.
It’s a simple question: do you agree that there is a real difference between Labor and the Coalition on industrial relations? If you don’t want to answer it, nobody can make you, but the implication that you prefer to avoid anything that would call your preconceptions into question is obvious.
Thanks J-D. I find this reassuring. If I’d have said the same thing say 3 years ago, lots of people would have come out of the woodwork agreeing with Ron.
But I get a sense that most people on the Left – even people who are perennially disappointed by the ALP – just can’t make that argument any more. Some repeat the same old tweedle-dum-tweedle-dee mantra, but it’s half-hearted at best.
I think if something no longer fits reality, drop it.
Michelle Grattan on this by-election.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/nats-face-vaile-of-tears/2008/08/09/1218139160473.html
GB, don’t get me wrong. I can see both sides of the argument. If somebody were to say frankly ‘Yes, there is a difference between Labor and the Coalition on industrial relations (and some other things), but _from my perspective_ that difference is just not important’, I would respect that. It’s legitimate for people to have different perspectives on these things. It’s Ron’s refusal to acknowledge that there is any difference on industrial relations at all, preferring instead to repeat his mantra, that I find suspicious.
I think what a lot of people really feel (and not just on the left) is that there isn’t as much difference between Labor and the Coalition as they would like there to be. That’s legitimate too–and to be honest, it’s the way I usually feel myself. But it’s not the same as saying that there’s _no_ difference–which is untrue now, and was also untrue three years ago. It was untrue too in 1974, when Bob Catley and Bruce Macfarlane’s book _From Tweedledum to Tweedledee: the new Labor government in Australia, a critique of its social model_ was published. Yes, that’s right, in 1974 some people were saying that the *Whitlam* Labor government was not significantly different from the Coalition. And again, I expect the truth then was that there wasn’t as much difference as they would have liked. That’s fair enough: I just think that if that’s what you mean, that’s what you should say.
J-D
Speaking of industrial relations, there was this story
“Donut King boss Jim Martinoski unleashed a tirade of abuse to his then-employee Jennifer Claus while trying to force her to sign an Australian Workplace Agreement last year. He told her if she refused to sign it her hours would be cut to 15 per week. Mr Martinoski also said to her: “And as for you, Jennifer, asking for your f…ing payslips, we’re not going anywhere, so you don’t have to keep f…ing asking for them.” “If it was up to me, I would close the shop for a week, sack everyone and rehire everyone – people who do care about my business.”
Federal Magistrate Philip Burchardt said Mr Martinoski’s behaviour was an “inherently unattractive and significant form of misconduct”. “This was bullying conduct against an employee who plainly felt it to be offensive and oppressive, because she resigned almost immediately thereafter,” he said.
But Employers First’s Garry Brack said the Government was taking the magistrate’s ruling out of context and that a no-swearing rule was unrealistic. ”
I think Garry should run in Costello’s seat when he pulls the pin and run exactly on this issue. Stand up for what he believes in.
Rod
“I think Garry should run in Costello’s seat when he pulls the pin and run exactly on this issue. Stand up for what he believes in.”
as the esteemed john elliot would say “pigs arse”
I’ve got a copy of that book too, J-D! One of the classics.
I sometimes wish the ALP would put a lot more distance between itself and the Libs. Although I’ve gotta say I’ve been suprised by some of the decisions the Rudd Government has taken – I would have expected them to be much more cautious in a lot of areas.
But just look at Iraq, the Tampa election, workchoices (the only first world country to effectively outlaw unions), refusing to sign Kyoto or do anything about global warming…..I’ll stop here because I could go on until the site crashes. I mean, how much of a difference do people want?
James Langley the Labor candidate in the November election has announced that he will run as an independent. His main policy on local TV tonight was to attack electricity privatisation. Those with too much time on theirs hands and who wish to find out about his politics, will be rewarded by googling his name.
J-D
#68
I make clear pro Labor Party comments in #55 (last paragraf) , including quote :
‘ W/C is an extreme right wing policy’ , and that there is a clear difference between ‘left’ vs ‘right’ politcans in ‘oz’ I then also indicate clear suport for Kevin Rudd in both #55 and in #60 So my pro Labor and anti W/C views ar clear to all but you & GB
You 2 hav gutted English language in your posts in your apparent desires to use that despicable W/C Policy as red herrings to camoflage , either your own non Labor allegiences and instead disengenuously your suport of Greens Party , and/or your blind suport for that US oiliness phoney politican who carrys a ‘left’ tag but has in fact clear ‘right’ policys , or likely both Unlike yous I noted the great Labor PM Rudd who will fortunately dismantle despicable W/C when in th US , made no effort to personaly see that alleged ‘left’ oilines phoney politican face to face , but did so for Clinton , so Kevin07 can pick a phony as well Being a former very experienced diplomat , Kevin07 would not innocently make such a mistake
W/C will be Howard’s one of twin historical adverse legacys , th other losing hiws own seat Kevin07 can take credit for both
Ron, I’m sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I didn’t grasp the contrast you were making between Australia and the US.
If you are saying that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is not as big as the difference between Labor and the Coalition, you are of course emphatically correct. Please accept my apology.
J-D
Accepted completely J-D
.
th other guy was very subtlely running that line to suport a particular candidate who is th antithisus of Kevin Rudd and , I assumed you were th back up
.
J-D , think we ar a ‘lucky country’ in many ways including we hav a very sharp choice between ‘right’ and ‘left’ politicans/Partys in ‘oz’ , which no amount of sweet talk by a candidate to camoflage (which occurs in USA) or ‘spin’ by th MSN can hide
Correction ” a line” , not “that line” ,
suggestion being any Democrat is = to Labor in policy , to suport a particular Democrat candidate (who has a actualy raft of ‘right’ policys including opposition to universal healthcare , does not support rafication of Kyoto , is pro guns , is pro offshore drilling in pristine waters , has appointed th most consevative of economists to run a future Treasury etc etc etc) , none of which Rudd or Labor would suport
If you’re talking about comparisons between countries, it’s only fair to say that it’s Australia which is closer to other democratic countries (in this particular respect) and the US which is more atypical. But even in the US there _is_ a difference between Democrats and Republicans, even if it’s not as big as the difference there typically is between parties in other democracies.
“and the US which is more atypical”
Agree completely
We ar it seems , like many European Countries having true complete ‘left’ parties Whilst th USA does hav two separate Partys , I think it was Michelle Grattan who said they ar both of th ‘right’ , with Republicans far more so than th Democrats , and with th Democrats having a ‘left’ wing I feel John Edwards is an example of that Democrats ‘left’ wing , as he strongly supports universal healthcare , ratifying Kyoto and is firm on consevation
Would hav been very happy J-D , with a candidate from Democrats ‘left’ wing like John Edwards , especialy regarding CC via his support for ratificaton of Kyoto Sadly this is not th case in this election Actualy Al gore was another who I’d liked given his CC credentials , although he’s not quite as dogmatic on universal but open
which is why I was posting that a ‘left’ tag for a Democrat in USA is meaningless , and I was suggesting one has to look at politcans individual policy stanses Some Democrats pretend to be ‘left’ when they ar hav ‘right’ policys , some pretend to be ‘right’ when they hav ‘left’ policys , ands some ar all over th place
This is where you originally asumed at first when I suggested looking at a politcans policys to decide if he was ‘left’ , you thought I was talking ‘oz’ Alot easier to pick in ‘oz’
Lets not forget the third party in this election who also enjoyed a swing toward her in the 2007 election and represents the third strongest party in Federal politics above the Nationals. This is Susie Russell of the Greens. Her team has helped to promote her profile in the region including the recent visit of the only Federal party leader senator Bob Brown of the Greens. Will all of the ALP voters back Oakeshott after the “Glasshouse” shenannigans? Probably not. What is the only other alternative? The Greens. Don’t get Rob’d! Go Susie!
http://three-rivers.nsw.greens.org.au/index.html
Susie Russell has been the only candidate so far to put policies out, host the leader of her party and attend community rallies. The rally against the proposed Marina extension is a great example of local action. What are Oakeshott’s and Drew’s view on a development that threatens the sanctuary of a unique species of dolphins in the Hastings River? Nothing. Stoney Silence.
Oakeshott is appearing just as conservative as his old collegues the Nationals, and was happy to be filmed on the 7.30 report last night with another ex Nationals collegue.
And what was Oakeshott’s role in the sacking of the Hastings Council? He’s happy to remove our democratic right to vote for our council, yet seeks his democratic right to be elected! What a hypocrite!
So, if the Nationals really, really get whacked and the Greens do as well as you think, the 2CP result could end up being Oakeshott vs Greens, considering the Libs and Labor aren’t running – no major party in the last two. Has that ever happened in a federal seat before? It’s happened a couple of times in Queensland (independent vs One Nation).
The real labor party is running a candidate in Lyne. It’s called the DLP. Why is the DLP running a candidate in Lyne? Well… analysis of the Lyne by-election seems to be of the National/”independent” personalities, their personal track record on specific local issues and their careers (saving or advancing them). What is missed in all of this that country people and farmers currently have no major party representing their interest. My grandfather was a dairyman. He lost his fingers chopping wood and had to upgrade to milking machines. But you don’t have to be a farmer to observe that rural people have been abandoned and despised. The Nationals (even the deputy PM and trade minister) have let Lyne and down at the federal level, the ALP doesn’t care enough to run, and the Greens do not have the interests of farmers in mind. Surely it would be better for Lyne if rather than paying farmers to leave their farms, they encouraged the transfer of needed resources, people and industry out of the noisy big smoke into rural areas (which would be better for the environment as well). The DLP, having reformed as a state party as well, intends to contest both the next state and federal elections in both houses, and will give fair representation of the interests of workers and families in rural areas as well as urban areas. Dale Higgins, Vice President DLP NSW.
William, can you open a Mayo specific page?
“The real labor party is running a candidate in Lyne”
Dale, what is the difference between the DLP and the ALP, all I know of the DLP is what my dad told me ie “They existed to keep labor (the ALP) out of office”.
Thanks.
83 Dale Higgins: That DLP website (linked in the other thread) is absolutely dreadfully designed. Apart from the HTML abuse (god, I hate frames), if I just happened on that site out of the blue, how would I find out the party is running in Lyne? If you expect to use a website to get the attention of people who have never heard of your party (or thought it vanished in the 70’s), it needs to be a lot better.
Also, here’s a list of all the candidates, from the AEC:
1 The Fishing Party Bob Smith
2 Citizens Electoral Council Graeme Muldoon
3 Independent Stewart Scott-Irving
4 D.L.P. – Democratic Labor Party Michael Patrick O’Donohue
5 Independent Robert Oakeshott
6 The Greens Susie Russell
7 Nationals Rob Drew
8 Independent Barry Wright
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/supplementary_by_elections/2008_lyne/candidates.htm
I guess By-elections have a role in democracy. As we can see from the above, they give free oxygen to the fringes.
Suzie Russell to outpoll Drew …really!. The reformation (pun intended) of the DLP, presumably as an advocate of Port Macquarie’s biggest land owner and developer. Of course these groups have only got their deposits to lose. They get 3 weeks of publicity and then when they fail to make a significant impact nothing more is heard and they do not have to make excuses.
“Suzie Russell to outpoll Drew ”
I’ve seen the Greens vote growing but it’s a brave call midnorthcoast, are you privy to secret polling?
No. I was ironically commenting on #81, #82 who suggested this. Of course its not going to happen. Greens always build themselves up before a poll and when it dosen’t happen they just high step away from it. I guess that’s the advantage of being on the fringe
Hi midnorthcoast,
I reread #81, #82, and nowhere did they say “Suzie Russell would outpoll Drew”,
so I thing it’s your kind self who is building them up.
Another typical example of Green bashing by our jelous opponents.
Thank you.
At 80 the greens the third strongest force in Australian politics above the Nationals oh really. The greens haven’t got a single seat in the House of Representatives where governments are made whereas the Nationals have 10.
Also the Greens have never had the balance of power in the Senate whereas the Nationals did between 2005-2008. The Greens will end up like the DLP and the Democrats and disappear forever whereas the Country/National Party will remain a permanent fixture on Australias political landscape.
The Nationals were on the Government benches. Hardly a balance of power.
Oh really, Paul Nash, results from 2007 Fed election.
Party Votes Percentage% Swing %
Liberal 4,506,236 36.28 -4.19
A L P 5,388,147 43.38 +5.74
The Greens 967,781 7.79 +0.60
The Nationals 682,424 5.49 -0.40
Count third from the top, so #80 is correct
Over one million Australians voted for The Greens in the Senate,
to ignore that you are just fooling yourselves, and ignoring the FACTS.
Another interesting aspect of the Lyne by-election is its comparsion with the recent Gippsland by-election. In Gippsland the Victorian National Party leader Peter Ryans state seat of Gippsland South fell within the federal boundaries of Gippsland likewise New South Wales National Party Leader Andrew Stoners seat of Oxley falls within Lyne. Both Leaders have performed strongly for their respective parties and have a strong personal following. This aspect will see a strong National Party victory in Lyne like the recent win in Gippsland.
I’m neither for or against the Greens (sure, I’ll be voting for them on the day, but on the other side of the country) – I’m more interested in this election than the one I’m actually voting in, though. My internet-ninjas did some research for me, and found the seat of Nicklin in Qld was the only known case of no major party finishing in the final two (Peter Wellington vs One Nation, 2001 state election). It’s never happened at the federal level since there’s been political parties, but if Oakeshott is as popular as everybody says and the National candidate is a real dud, it ain’t out of the question. Remember the Cunningham by-election in 2002… I doubt many people were tipping the Greens to win that, but they did – weird things can happen when major parties don’t run. It’s more likely to be Nationals second, though… I can’t see too many preferences from the CEC / DLP / Fishing Party going to the Greens, and I don’t know about the other two independents (both ran last year, got a combined 1.6%).
No, let me reassure you, it’s out of the question but I tip Suzie Russell will win Elands booth.
The overlap between stoner’s seat and Lyne is not great. Certainly Stoner’s seat of Oxley is a typical national party seat but thanks to sea changers and coastal development, the Nationals now have little relevance in Lyne
The difference between Gippsland and Lyne is Oakeshott. If he didn’t run it would be like Gippsland.
Yes you are right Phil, Nationals would win without Oakshot. He is a former National who gets the National vote. Without him that vote would revrt to the Nationals. The DLP preferences will be of interest. Will they go to Oakshot?
I suspect DLP preferences like the DLP vote will be random
I’m sorry, but when did the Greens become enemies of the farmers? Missed that. Is it when the Greens started polling better then the Nats(the supposed farmers party)? Or when the Greens creating policies on farming. Policies created by farmers, not the NFF by the way.
What do the DLP pretend to stand for anyway?
The ALP pretend to stand for the unions, as well as hospitals, education et al. Yeah going great guys. A friend had to buy private insurance as he was going to die within weeks if he didn’t have an operation, the best he could hope for was within six months! Um, something wrong there.
The Libs. Say they are for small business. Haven’t noticed any small business going worse off now that the Libs are gone.
Thats right. They are pro business, pro money, anti-union. Until the wind changes.
The Nats. Heroes of the farmers. Um try again. Heroes of the NFF. Remember wheat desk? Most farmers who used to vote nat vote Lib cos it saves time, or Green, to get water.
Greens. Coming to be known as the party for the environment. Well done people, you’ve noticed they have been right about climate change all along.
But essentially they are the ENEMY.
But I cant even tell what the DLP want people to think they stand for. Except maybe they say whatever the person they are talking to wants to believe.
Ah, now I see why everyone hates the Greens. The Greens tell it like it is. It scares you, because all the other parties survive by lying through your teeth.