Victorian election: week two, part one

John Brumby and Ted Baillieu went head-to-head on Friday for a low-rating and soon-to-be-forgotten leaders debate. Milanda Rout of The Australia wrote approvingly that Ted Baillieu “took a risk and showed he had some political backbone”, by “throwing insults and delivering the best and funniest lines of the debate”. John Ferguson of the Herald Sun thought Baillieu’s dithering over preferences meant he “won the theatre, but lost the politics”. Shaun Carney of The Age believed Brumby suffered from lack of experience – this was his first leaders debate, as there wasn’t one when he ran against Jeff Kennett in 1996 – while James Campbell of the Sunday Herald Sun faulted Brumby for “staring statesmanlike into the distance and talking about the future”. If you’d prefer to make up your own mind, you can watch it on iView.

Elsewhere:

• Tim Colebatch of The Age makes the unarguable assertion that Ted Baillieu’s efforts to get his message out have been “drowned out by factional opponents beating their drum to insist that the Liberals should not direct preferences to the Greens”. He also casts an eye over the Liberals’ recent record in Tasmania, the only case study where the Liberals have pursued the strategy of privileging Labor over the Greens advocated by John Howard and Helen Kroger:

Tasmania went to the polls in March. The Liberals topped the vote, but both sides ended up with 10 seats and the Greens with five. Liberal leader Will Hodgman had first rights but, under pressure from right-wing powerbroker Senator Eric Abetz, refused to negotiate with the Greens. Labor leader David Bartlett went ahead and did so. So Labor and the Greens now have a coalition government, and it’s working well. The federal election saw the Liberal vote in Tasmania slump to 39 per cent after preferences — the party’s lowest vote in any state since World War II. Opinion polls show a collapse in Liberal support at state level. And The Mercury reports that Hodgman has now taken on Abetz for control of the party, declaring: “We cannot give away the middle ground. I will fight to make sure that doesn’t happen, even if it costs me my job.”

• Former federal Wills independent Phil Cleary has confirmed he will run in the seat of Brunswick. This further complicates the contest between Labor candidate Jane Garrett and Cyndi Dawes of the Greens, with Cleary making no secret of his intention to direct preferences to the latter. The seat is being vacated by the retirement of Labor member Carlo Carli.

• David Rood of The Age tells of “secret party research” from the ALP telling a familiar tale of ongoing inner-city drift to the Greens. The report found the most potent campaign remedy would be pamphlets trumpeting the fact that the Greens had voted with the Liberals 69 per cent of the time in parliament, as distinct from an existing strategy of “promoting the party’s stance on climate change and other progressive issues like social housing”.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

408 comments on “Victorian election: week two, part one”

Comments Page 6 of 9
1 … 5 6 7 … 9

  1. Ron

    “At start of Thread you made a totally unsolicited cheap shot at both me and Frank”

    Take your hand off it. I did no such thing. I replied to a reference by someone else about Frank and GG. You weren’t mentioned at all. I said they weren’t here. How is that a cheap shot?

    “I replied saying you should hav directed your coments to Frank when he was “around””

    No, you decided I said something that I didn’t and held it against me.

    “Regarding me , I said your coment “and I have gotten on their wrong sides too.“
    could ONLY refer to a SINGLE case”

    Once again, never mentioned you. Get over yourself. As for the reference to Frank, he is a mate, as far as I am concerned and knows my real identity. While I probably shouldn’t have said the “gotten on their wrong side” comment, as it makes unnecessary implications. We have before had a few heated arguments on here.

    “(where you you voluntarily chose to coment on an unaddressed post by me about gay marriage) saying it as slippery slope to which I demonstrated in effect your point was a straw man arguement”

    I chose to reply to a post made on a public blog, in which a fallacy was used to talk down to people with whom you disagreed. I’m sorry, Princess. I didn’t realise there was a rule about not agreeing with your bullshit. In future, I’ll just agree with you, shall I?

    “IE our above prevous xchange was a NON earth shattering ! And certain hardly meriting of your coment “I have gotten on their wrong sides too.“ ”

    Once again, show me where you have been mentioned.

    “You could hav left it at that , but no , you replied palying th “victum” ”

    You are the one imagining references to you and crying over someone making a dissenting post made nights ago…

    “You’ve proved you aint perfect”

    I know I am not perfect. Maybe it’s time to accept you’re not either.

  2. I didnt watch Brumby Vs Baillieu last night and really dont follow Vic politics too closely, but:

    1. Like Robb, Ted Baillieu just looks and sounds so miserable and aloof to me

    2. What is the game the Libs are playing with the Greens? surely, if the Libs are fiddling with their fundamentals, it will come back to haunt them.

  8. VIC ALP is ready to do a deal with Greens & preference them ahead of Libs. Seems like a strange contrast with the anti-Greens rantings of D@W etc doesn’t it ??!!

    [(Brumby’s campaign director) Reece said Labor had told the Greens it would preference them ahead of the Liberals in all 88 lower house seats, and had asked the Greens to preference the ALP ahead of the Coalition.]

  12. madcyril

    thanks for posting that link. I read D@W comments. I di dnot realise that the Greens Federally, were in cohorts with the Libs to bring down the Govt next year? 🙂

  13. The Libs would be stupid to not give peferences to the Greens in the inner city seats but the Greens have got to give them something for 4 seats surely?

  15. I mean lets face it the Libs are never ever going to win Brunswick or Richmond or Melbourne so why should the ALP have them their traditional enemy. Hell if the Greens dont perform or go feral the Libs can always preference Labor in 2014 and the mellons will lose their seats?

    Why not try and go for a hung parliament when the chances of majority government are so low?

  16. Glen

    I believe that if the Greens make a deal with the Libs, a hung parliament is looking more likely. This is unless, the public decide to punish the Greens and not give them preference.

  17. Apparently The Greens offered Labor a preference deal last weekend, which Labor itself rejected.

    Sounds to me like a lot of huffing and puffing and gamesmanship from all sides which will end up pretty much the same as usual, with Labor preferencing The Greens, The Greens preferencing Labor in marginal seats, and the Libs preferencing The Greens in the inner city.

  18. The ALP (and all other parties and independents) cannot work out their how to vote cards until the ballot orders are drawn and that is on Friday. Maybe the Greens are trying to get ahead of FF and the DLP in the ALP`s ATL preferences.

  19. Its almost as if the ALP see this as their last chance to stop the Greens. They have got just about everything wrong recently and Stephen Newnham looks to have all his prints over this strategy. Expect the number of Greens preferences going to the ALP to drop if they get shafted,
    I can see the press releases now.
    ” A vote for the ALP is a vote for another Stephen Fielding in ‘(Upper house region of your choice). ” Oh please make my day, are the ALP really this stupid.
    How about the offer for the preferences in the 88 lower house seats, Ha, nearly spat out my wheatbix reading that one. Ha ha ha. I wonder what that’s worth, Oh that right, didly squat. Ha, comedy hour.
    So this whole strategy is about saving one or two in the inner Melbourne region. I wonder how some of those regional Ministers are feeling if for the last two week they have Greens upper house candidates going mad about preferences and dirty ALP deals with shonky right wing groups.

  20. Glen@263: The Libs would be stupid to not give peferences to the Greens in the inner city seats but the Greens have got to give them something for 4 seats surely?

    They haven’t in the past, but it seems like Newnham’s genius-oh-yes-really-strategy has come to it’s obvious conclusion. Bait the Liberals to insist on something in return for their preferences in key Green seats (so they actually do that), and basically declare all-out war on the Greens (so that they’re angry enough to go along).

    Rocket Rocket@253: Many people on these Victorian threads have laughed when I said the Greens would do this

    You’ve been arguing for days that Labor could declare all-out war on the Greens as part of a “genius” move to wedge the Liberals, and not see any consequences for that. I suggested that that wasn’t very bright – and lo and behold look at the result.

  21. It seems that the government is finally going to do something about the understaffing of secondary schools.

    “MR BRUMBY flagged a big-ticket promise for more secondary school teachers during the campaign.”
    (Crime and stamp duty the hot topics at Herald Sun People’s Forum(on line title), “Leaders feel force of people power” (print title), John Ferguson and Nick Leys, Herald Sun, November 11, 2010)

    To save people going back through previous threads, I’ll repeat the relevant facts here:
    The primary pupil teacher ratio has been:
    1974 (the year I began teaching) – 22.6:1
    1981 (last full year of the last Liberal government that cared about education) – 18.1:1
    1992 (last year of the previous Labor government) – 15.8:1
    1999 (last year of the last Liberal government) – 17.2:1
    2009 (last year of the current Labor government for which I have figures) – 15.7:1.

    The secondary pupil teacher ratio has been:
    1974 (the year I began teaching) – 14.1:1
    1981 (last full year of the last Liberal government that cared about education) – 10.9:1
    1992 (last year of the previous Labor government) – 10.8:1
    1999 (last year of the last Liberal government) – 12.6:1
    2009 (last year of the current Labor government for which I have figures) – 11.9:1.

    Average primary class sizes over the last few decades have been:
    1982 – 26.5 (Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit)
    1992 – 23.5 (Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit)
    1999 – 25.4 (Summary statistics for Victorian Schools, March, 2010)
    2009 – 22.1 (Summary statistics for Victorian Schools, March, 2010)
    (In line with government policy, the average for prep to year 2 classes has gone from 24.3 in 1992 to 20.5 in 1999)

    Average secondary class sizes over the last few decades have been:
    1982 – 23.0 (Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit)
    1992 – 20.0 (Report of the Victorian Commission of Audit)
    1999 – 22.7 (Summary statistics for Victorian Schools, March, 2010)
    2009 – 21.6 (Summary statistics for Victorian Schools, March, 2010)

    Between1992 and 1998, the Liberal government removed 6,787 full-time equivalent teachers from our schools, despite promising before the election that it would do no such thing. (These are cuts in the numbers of actual teachers in schools created by changing the staffing formulae, not the number of packages taken as redundancies, which was around 9,000.) After the election, it used the poorer staffing ratios in NSW and Queensland schools to justify its cuts to teacher numbers (though it now uses the better police to population ratios in other states to argue the opposite in the case of policing).

    Labor has restored all the missing primary teachers but only one third of the missing secondary ones.

    I watched most of the town hall “debate”. John Brumby said not only that he would be making an announcement to increase secondary staffing, but also that that teachers would be excited by it.

    Teachers are bot going to get excited by a piddly 100 extra teachers (which is what Ted Bailliu has promised for primary schools). The number has to be real. It has to result in local candidates being able to say that Eltham High will get another three teachers, that Hampton park SC will get an extra four teachers and that Brunswick SC will get an extra two teachers, etc. I’m not expecting all 1,800 secondary teachers still missing to be returned, but perhaps 1,000 will be. Even 800 would be worthwhile. The quotation above does say “big ticket”. Let’s guess $200-300 million.

    The other aspect is that there has to be more to this than just numbers. There has to be a purpose to the extra teachers, and that is what I expect Mr Brumby meant when he said teachers would be “excited” by it. I’m not speculating on what that purpose might be. But secondary teachers and the parents of secondary school students certainly need a reason to vote Labor other than memories of what the Liberals did when last in office.

  22. Chris In plain simple terms how many teachers would the Government need to employ to cover the short fall you highlight in post 271

  25. [LABOR Minister Maxine Morand has received a major boost in the battle to retain her ultra-marginal seat of Mount Waverley with the Greens giving her their preferences.

    Despite reports that negotiations between Labor and the Greens had broken down, Green MP Greg Barber told the Herald Sun that Ms Morand will get the party’s support.

    “She is the only one from the Labor side that every puts her head over the parapet and we have decided to give her our support,” he said.]
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special-reports/crime-and-stamp-duty-the-hot-topics-at-herald-sun-peoples-forum/story-fn5kmqy2-1225951831975

  26. Mexicanbeemer,

    As you corrected yourself, roughly 1,800 extra secondary teachers would restore something like the ratios that applied under Lindsay Thompson (10.9:1) and the previous Labor government (10.8:1), a little fewer in the first case than the second. (The 0.1 improvement between 1982 and 1992 is entirely explained by the introduction of student welfare coordinators in secondary schools.) The point is not to employ exactly as many secondary teachers as there were in 1992, because the number employed then was based on the number of students enrolled then, while the number employed now needs to be based on the number of students enrolled now. My aim is to get closer to the old staffing ratio. It does not even have to be exactly the same because there are fewer secondary schools now than there were then, so we need fewer base staffing components.

  27. I would think that the Greens would be quite mad about Labor’s all out misleading (Kororoit style) campaign. So why is Labor going cap in hand to them? Where are the principles?

    All I know if i handed out for Labor when I was 16 and handing out next to me was Brumby. He did not as much as look at me or say hello. His arrogance was astounding. Obviously as a skinny 16 year old i wasn’t important enought to say hello to, even though I was helping his party. Not the best impression of a Labor leader. i never handed out for Labor again.

    My dad too has stopped leafletting and handing out for Labor. We come from very good union stock so it’s a bit sad I guess.

    I have a feeling that people are “looking” for something different this time. More scare campaigns will be attributed to the taxpayer-funded dirt unit.

    There seems to be a whiff of desperation.

    I wonder what the internal polls are saying for Labor to be this desperate and shrill.

  29. If I was Labor I would much prefer to have some FF, some CDP, some DLP, some ONP in the upper house rather then be forced to govern solely with the Greens

    So I an fully understand why the ALP might want to preference other groups in the Senate first

  30. dovif, its called the Legislative Council not the Senate in Victoria.

    I’m sure progressive voters who just vote 1 in the upper house ballot would baulk at that possibility after Steve Fielding.

  31. [the quid pro quo will be that the Greens, instead of preferencing Labor as they normally do, will distribute ”open” how-to-vote cards in several marginal seats the Liberals hope to win from Labor.]

    As I see it, it’s in the Greens’ interest to do a deal with the Libs. They’d like the BOP in the new parliament, but, with the polls as they are, for that they need the Libs to catch up to Labor.

  32. rebecca 270
    [You’ve been arguing for days that Labor could declare all-out war on the Greens as part of a “genius” move to wedge the Liberals, and not see any consequences for that.]
    I know some people believe the Greens are as pure as the driven snow, but the reality is they are just another political party.

    1. By thinking of them as actually just another political party the first conclusion I came to was that what mattered most to them was winning seats in the lower house – this was more important than preventing a Coalition government. Thus it seemed to me that the powerbrokers in the Liberals would also come to this conclusion. and as Glen has noted above, realise that they should not just give the Greens something they were SO desperate for because they could obviously get something in return (unlike the Adam Bandt “one-way” bargain)

    2. Thus some sort of Liberal-Green deal would be locked in, whether it was just open tickets on HTV cards in lower house seats (pretty poor value obviously) or more likely “split” tickets in some of the “Above the Line” prefs for upper house seats.

    3. So for Labor, being in government, the main game is to prevent a Coalition government. These Green-Coalition deals are going to happen no matter what Labor does, and so I felt that Labor has got little to lose by “pissing off” the Greens as someone so beautifully put it, and saying that they would put the Greens last in every Lower House seat. As you have pointed out. this would have ZERO effect in those seats (I don’t think the Greens can win Prahran). This would be directed not at the Greens but at swinging (Labor-Liberal) voters in the outer suburbs and inner rural seats.

    4. “Consequences” – as I have said all along, my aim is a non-Coalition government. “Pay-back” by the Greens Party powerbrokers (whose main aim is to increase their numbers in Parliament, as is the aim of all good backroom powerbrokers, rather than preventing a Coalition government) may end up giving Victoria a Coalition government. I’m sure the Greens powerbrokers would be happy with this, as they can then rail against the “terrible” policies of a right-wing government and say that only the way of the Greens offers salvation. Me, I would be disappointed if Victorians elect a Coalition government, but it’s a democracy and I am a great believer in democracy.

    5. Remember that if the Coalition win the election, and are looking fairly comfortable in 2014, the Liberals could always “beef up” their rural vote in 2014 by dumping their sponsorship of inner-city Greens MPs.

  33. dovif 279

    Yes, in 2006 the upper house was Labor 19, Green 3, DLP 1, National 2, Liberal 15.

    If it had been Labor 19, Green 2, DLP2, National 2, Liberal 15 (which looked like happening for a while) it would have given Labor three different paths to pass legislation that the Liberals opposed.

    So I’m sure that Labor will be looking for a similar result, and working out the “Above the Line” preference flows accordingly.

    They are not in coalition with any of those other parties – those other parties are working, individually and in “deals”. to unseat Labor MPs so they don’t “owe” anyone anything.

  34. [1. By thinking of them as actually just another political party the first conclusion I came to was that what mattered most to them was winning seats in the lower house – this was more important than preventing a Coalition government.]

    How bizarrely hysterical , rocket! What led you to that view?

  36. 269

    There is an outside chance ALP preferences will be of real value to the Greens in Prahran if the Greens overtake the ALP. They might also be of symbolic use to the Greens in several inner-suburban safe Liberal seats. The ALP are not under any circumstance going to Preference the Libds ahead of the Greens so the ALP do not have much to offer.

  37. Large ads advocating “Put Tony Robinson last” have been appearing in one of the weekly local newspapers in Whitehorse. Robinson is the ALP member for Mitcham and is sitting on a 2% margin.

    I followed up the authorisation printed at the bottom of the ad and discovered that the ads emanate from Melbourne nightclub owner, Peter Iwaniuk, of the Nightclub Owners Forum (NOF). NOF has thrown its weight behind the Australian Sex Party.
    [According to prominent Melbourne nightclub owner, Peter Iwaniuk, the Labor Party, particularly in Victoria, has shown itself to be over regulating and not supportive of the legitimate rights of adults to socialise in venues of their choice.

    “The Brumby Government in fact has openly declared war on the late night entertainment industry through botched attempts at lockouts, exorbitantly raising licence fees, openly intimidating responsible venue operators and stifling new investment. At the same time, they have demonstrated an abject failure to provide adequate support services in the form of police, public transport and other infrastructure” said Mr Iwaniuk.

    “Labor needs to be sent a message that we do not want our policies to be dictated by religious minorities, wowsers and special interest groups”]

    http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/news/feature-stories?start=5

  38. 283

    The DLP are unlikely to get the preferences needed in Western Victoria for a re-election because the Coalition vote is looking like being higher than the combined Liberal and National votes were last time and so they are unlikely to be able to overtake the ALP or Coalition votes and thus will have to be distributed to either one or both of the ALP and Coalition (they could also go to the Greens but I can`t see the DLP sending their preferences that way). The near DLP boil-over in Northern Metro (at the expense of the ALP) was almost certainly due to the DLP getting the left hand position on the ballot paper and thus accidentally getting a significant number of votes meant for the ALP.

  41. The local reporting on Mirabella’s leaflet:

    http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/oconnor-slams-mirabella-drug-jibe/1994287.aspx

    apparently she ordered the print run in September and thus had no idea that it would be coming out in the lead up to the state election (which, after all, is set down in legislation, so it would be an easy mistake to make…)

    So it can only be concluded that the names of two state candidates in the leaflet are there coincidentally.

    I’m hurt she missed me out.

  42. Rocket Rocket@282: 1. By thinking of them as actually just another political party the first conclusion I came to was that what mattered most to them was winning seats in the lower house – this was more important than preventing a Coalition government. Thus it seemed to me that the powerbrokers in the Liberals would also come to this conclusion. and as Glen has noted above, realise that they should not just give the Greens something they were SO desperate for because they could obviously get something in return (unlike the Adam Bandt “one-way” bargain)

    I honestly don’t understand the Labor logic that a) the Greens should be desperately hoping for the return of a Labor government, but b) it’s A-OK to run some of the dirtiest campaigns in Australian political history against them. When, on top of that, you’re not doing much for their voters in terms of policy, ultimately you’re going to find they don’t like you very much when you need their support at election time.

    And the Liberals didn’t start the talk about insisting on getting something from the Greens in return for lower house preferences – Labor did, with their ill-advised attempt to wedge Baillieu. The upshot of that was never going to be Liberals preferencing Labor in inner Melbourne, but rather the Greens not preferencing Labor elsewhere. How they didn’t see the bloody obvious there escapes me.

    3. So for Labor, being in government, the main game is to prevent a Coalition government. These Green-Coalition deals are going to happen no matter what Labor does, and so I felt that Labor has got little to lose by “pissing off” the Greens as someone so beautifully put it, and saying that they would put the Greens last in every Lower House seat.

    Firstly, the Green-Coalition deals were never “going to happen no matter what Labor does”. They’ve never happened before in Victoria. This election, if it happens, it’ll be a first – and it’ll be entirely because of Labor’s botched attitude towards them.

    You and other Labor commenters on this site keep trying to claim that Labor has “little to lose”, and then in the next breath whingeing that a Green split-ticket will see Labor incumbents go down in the Legislative Council (which it obviously would). Even beyond that, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, even if Green preference flow to Labor drops from 80% to 60%, you’ve still got a bunch of Labor MLAs out of a job.

    4. “Consequences” – as I have said all along, my aim is a non-Coalition government. “Pay-back” by the Greens Party powerbrokers (whose main aim is to increase their numbers in Parliament, as is the aim of all good backroom powerbrokers, rather than preventing a Coalition government) may end up giving Victoria a Coalition government.

    If Labor loses government on the back of a failure to retain Green preferences, they’ll only have themselves to blame. If you crap on your ideological allies so often that they cease to be your allies, you can’t rationally turn around and be upset that they’re not cheering you on to victory.

  43. Greens to preference Maxine Morand in Mount Waverly …

    [Unofficial Victorian Greens leader Greg Barber said the party had decided to preference her because she supports legalising euthanasia, same sex marriage and had “led the charge” to decriminalise abortion.

    “She is the only Labor MP who has stuck her head up above the Labor parapet in the last four years and we just like her,” he told AAP today.

    Mr Barber said the Greens were unlikely to make any further preference decisions until Labor releases its upper house group voting ticket, which must be submitted to the Victorian Electoral Commission by midday Sunday.

    “We will have a better idea whether Labor is trying to cook up some deal with Country Alliance or right-wing nasties if this is what this is all about,” he said.

    He said the offer of a preference deal in 15 marginal seats was still on the table, despite Labor throwing “the toys out of the cot” and turning it down.]

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/greens-preference-alp-in-key-marginal/story-fn3dxity-1225952229253

  45. In this Blog in recent days we have had GG urge us to read the writings of Andrew Bolt and a “fellow” from the Right-wing’s oldest think tank,The IPA(which I rememberthem attacking Whitlam),,,and now he offers use the wisdom of the awful Sophie Mirabella..I wait for his
    offering from John Howard of Bronwyn Bishop…but nothing would surprise me.
    Why this manic hatred of the Greens???? and why insult our intelligence with offers of Bolt and Mirabella.as sources of wisdom..it’s is a manic hatred of the Greens!!
    .
    This sort of paranoid behavior from some in the ALP seem to betray a fear of disaster,which their own mindset is helping to deliver.
    If the Greens win 3-4 seats and Liberals capture 8-9 we will have a hung
    parliament,,,and to hold onto power Labor MUST then negotiate with the Greens…and either
    have a minority Government,of a Tasmanian- style coalition…in either case those like GG who seem to think the Greens are the enemy will have to sing a different tune…because in that case, Brumby will walk over hot coals to hang on to power…and the Green’s critics in the ALP will be silenced in the interest of power…because that’s is all that matters to them !

  47. Rebecca

    [it’s A-OK to run some of the dirtiest campaigns in Australian political history against them]

    Good lord.

    The Greens think that a couple of Herald sun beat ups equals a dirty campaign?

    [When, on top of that, you’re not doing much for their voters in terms of policy,]

    Oh please. Outline – in a few words – the policy achievements of the Greens MPs in Victoria.

    I’ve pointed to many policy initiatives in the environmental area in Victoria which the Greens didn’t support – creation of new national and marine parks, removal of cattle from high plains, windfarms, solar, reform of water policy, draining of Lake Mokoan, return of water to the Snowy. Not so much as a media release from the Greens supporting these initiatives.

    [, even if Green preference flow to Labor drops from 80% to 60%]

    which is going to happen why?

    You can’t have it both ways. Greens posters here repeatedly claim that their HTVs are irrelevant because their supporters are too intelligent to be told what to do. I’m willing to accept this, given the available evidence.

    deblonay

    I don’t think anyone is pointing out Sophie’s sayings as a way of attacking the Greens, but because of her general awfulness.

    Really, the level of paranoia demonstrated here by Greens posters is quite interesting.

  48. From the other thread (in a desperate attempt to please William and not confuse the two):

    If the Greens in the Upper House have been unable to get a single amendment through, what use are they?

    Seriously, what has been achieved by having 3 Greens MPs in the Upper House? What gains can Victorians point to to justify their existence?

    Apparently they can’t negotiate effectively with the government of the day (and if they can’t with Labor, they won’t be able to with the Libs) to have legislation amended.

    Fighting and losing – as apparently they did on the green belts issue – may be morally satisfying, but is there anything that’s happened (or been stopped from happening) that wouldn’t have happened anyway if they hadn’t been there?

  49. …because failing to get a single amendment up in the Upper House suggests to me a level of incompetence that few other parties in their situation could match….

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 6 of 9
1 … 5 6 7 … 9