Firstly, let me note that I have dedicated posts for late counting for the lower house and upper house, so if you’ve got anything to offer that’s particularly related to the progress of the count, I encourage you to do so there. What follows is a summary of the results and the fortunes of the various players.
Labor is up 2.5% to 38.8% on the primary vote, which will come down very slightly, say to about 38.5%, as absent and pre-polls come in. It won 43 seats in 2010, of which five were made notionally Liberal in the redistribution (Bellarine, Monbulk, Ripon, Wendouree and Yan Yean), while two new Labor seats were created (Sunbury and Werribee), giving them a net total of 40. Four of the five notionally Liberal seats have been retained, the exception being Ripon, the only one which was not defended by a sitting member. The ABC computer isn’t giving away Ripon either, but Labor’s chances appear slim. However, Labor appears likely to lose Melbourne to the Greens, although that is not as certain as it may have appeared earlier in the evening.
Assuming Labor loses Melbourne, that brings them to 43, which is supplemented by one clear gain from the Liberals in Mordialloc, leaving them one seat short of a majority. Added to that, Labor is all but certain to win the sandbelt marginal of Carrum, and likely to win the other two, Bentleigh and Frankston. Further, Labor is trailing but not out of contention in Prahran (assuming they finish ahead of the Greens, as seems very likely), and a technical possibility in South Barwon. If everything goes wrong for them they might end a seat short of a majority, but that would leave the Greens holding Melbourne, with no option but to support a Labor government even if they didn’t want to.
The Liberals are down 1.8% on the primary vote to 36.2%, which will probably rise very slightly in late counting, perhaps to 36.5%. The Nationals are down 1.2% to 5.5%, which is unlikely to change much, and have lost the seat of Shepparton, which was vacated by the retirement of Jeanette Powell, to independent candidate Suzanna Sheed. This was the worst aspect of a generally poor result for the Nationals, who were also given a fright in Morwell where their margin has been cut from 13.3% to 1.7%, and suffered meaty swings in a number of their very safe seats.
The Greens looked to be big winners early in the count, but their position weakened as the evening progress, such that it’s no longer entirely certain that they have won Melbourne. Certainly they have fallen short in Richmond and Brunswick, as well as the longer shot of Northcote. Their current primary vote of 11.2% is exactly as it was in 2010, although absent votes will probably push it up a little. However, they look to have won two extra seats in the Legislative Council, in Eastern Metropolitan and South Eastern Metropolitan, while also retaining their seats in the other three upper house regions. In no case do Palmer United preferences look to have been responsible.
There is a lot more to be said about the upper house result and the apparent bevy of successful micro-party candidates, but that’s dealt with here. Keeping things focused on the lower house, the one point to be made about the minor players is that Sheed’s victory brings elected independent representation back to the chamber. The result of the 2010 election was the first Australian federal or state election since 1993 at which all the seats were won by the major parties.
Finally, apart from shooting just a little too high for the Greens, and making no effort to account for the possibility of seats not being won by the major parties, I’d like to observe that my poll tracker (and no doubt poll trackers in general) just about nailed it.
UPDATE: Here’s a Labor swings map which I knocked together for my Crikey article today, but which I’ve decided not to use because it isn’t interesting enough.
Bw
[There’s an old Dutch peasant saying which, loosely translated, goes, ‘He who transports apples, eats apples.’]
But I bet their feet were wet.
Jeff Kennett blaming the Abbott Government for the Liberal loss in Victoria.
Well,my view is that the days of ALP- GRN stoushing are numbered, and will decline when the inner cities become natural and permanent GRN heartlands, which isnt that far off.
Probably only the retirement of ALP Left sitting members stands in the way.
Then we’ll be friends on regional comparative advantage grounds – much like the Libs and Nats
You heard it here first. :p
Dedalus @ 132 – if only the Libs “ditched their ideology”? LOL that’s some extraordinary wishful thinking.
Boerwar 141
I think you’ve made an error in logic here. Voting Greens (which I never do, by the way) does NOT, I repeat NOT, help the Liberals “smash the environment”. For the simple reason that a vote for the Greens is 8/10ths a vote for the ALP.
It’s all about preferences, as you should bloody well know.
The Greens are not a threat to the ALP, if that is what you’re worried about. It’s the dilution of that 8/10ths of each of their votes bleeding back to the tories that is the threat.
And that threat will only grow thanks to partisan extremists who can’t bring themselves to sensible accomodations with other progressive parties.
And yes, there are idiots in the Green party who suffer from the same blinkered intransigence.
JD
[ if only the Libs “ditched their ideology”? LOL that’s some extraordinary wishful thinking.]
The Restaurant at the end of the Universe comes to mind.
What would politics be if not for blinkered partisan idiots.
[Patrick Bateman
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
Every vote you succeeded with presented a 20% return to the Liberals by way of a preference bleed. Well done!
You could engage your brain and realise that every vote switched also sends a message to Labor that the voter in question disagrees with its policies on certain issues strongly enough to prefer a different party.
This is called democracy, it’s a great concept. You should check it out. If enough people feel strongly enough, then Labor will have to choose to change its policies or continue to lose support to a more progressive option.]
Goodness me. There is a pattern emerging amongst Greens posters that if you disagree with their views you are somehow against freedom of choice and against democracy. Pure twaddle.
I will repeat: Voters can vote for whom they want. The Greens Party can run candidates, spend money, dissemble, spruik, and try and win seats. Voters are perfectly entitled to play russian roulette with the environment. They are even entitled to deceive themselves about the consequences of their actions.
But the reality, despite stubbon Greens Party resistance to the very thought, is that every time the Greens Party damages the electoral prospects of the Labor Party, the Greens Party increases the liklihood that there will be Liberal government. And every time that happens, Liberal and Labor are not the same. The Liberals get straight into trashing the environment.
Despite numerous assertions by Greens that Labor and Liberal are ‘the same’ we all know that that is utter bullshit.
Are the Greens’ environnmental policies ‘better’ than Labor’s? OF COURSE THEY ARE EXCEPT THAT THE GREENS PARTY WILL NEVER FORM GOVERNMENT. In other words, the Greens Party environmental policies are good but irrelevant. How good is that? How easy is that?
So, what do the Greens do? Pissfart around at the electoral margins while playing russian roulette with the environment by damaging Labor vis-a-vis the Liberals.
I encourage all Greens voters to be active in our democracy. I also encourage them to reflect carefully and to be honest with themselves about the some of the nastier consequences of their activities.
And the main nasty consequence is that the Greens contribute positively to Coalition electoral outcomes.
[Labor, Green and Nationals voting together might be fun though.]
This might bring on some interesting dynamics here.
If the current numbers firm up, I’m guessing most of the bills passed will go through this route rather than Andrews having to negotiate with the Greens and S&F, though I wouldn’t be surprised seeing Labor + Nationals and S&F or ACA passing some bills together.
Labor have just had a good victory over the Coalition, and a slanging match immediately breaks out.
I don’t understand it.
[We’re talking about the Victorian election, and the Victorian Labor party…so asylum seeker policies, what’s happening in Tasmania, etc etc aren’t relevant.]
You must be the only person in the land who doesn’t think federal issues affected this election.
[So, what do the Greens do? Pissfart around at the electoral margins while playing russian roulette with the environment by damaging Labor vis-a-vis the Liberals.]
What’s your argument here – that the Greens voters who preference the Libs would have voted for Labor, but once they decided to vote Green they suddenly prefer the Liberals?
Seems much more likely that their choice was between Liberal and Green for their first preference. E.g. Turnbull-esque Libs who like their economic policies but hate their environmental and social policies.
So they aren’t the people we’re talking about. Labor left types who switch to the Greens are always going to put the LNP last.
lizzie
[Labor have just had a good victory over the Coalition, and a slanging match immediately breaks out.
I don’t understand it.]
The right wins and the Labor and Greens are at it.
The left wins and the Labor and Greens are at it.
lizzie
[I don’t understand it.]
Just standard Green tripe.
Lefty e,
[when the inner cities become natural and permanent GRN heartlands]
But where do the children play?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2rDp6FnbP0
[dedalus
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 1:09 pm | Permalink
Boerwar 141
I think you’ve made an error in logic here. Voting Greens (which I never do, by the way) does NOT, I repeat NOT, help the Liberals “smash the environment”. For the simple reason that a vote for the Greens is 8/10ths a vote for the ALP.
It’s all about preferences, as you should bloody well know.
The Greens are not a threat to the ALP, if that is what you’re worried about. It’s the dilution of that 8/10ths of each of their votes bleeding back to the tories that is the threat.
And that threat will only grow thanks to partisan extremists who can’t bring themselves to sensible accomodations with other progressive parties.
And yes, there are idiots in the Green party who suffer from the same blinkered intransigence.]
Do the Greens want to damage the Labor Party?
It is not just a matter of preference bleeds. It is the mispent money and the mispent energy. It is the wedging. It is the Greens pretence that policy should be developed and applied as if the world were the best of all possible worlds. As if. It is the constant sniping. It is the constant wedging.
The Liberals like the Greens Party BTW because they know that one of the cards in their game of Gain Government Poker is the Greens Ace in the Hole.
The Greens Party HAS to damage the Labor Party in order to get anywhere.
But damaging Labor is not a zero sum game. The struggle between the Greens Party and the Labor Party is not some internal struggle between centre, centre-left and loonie left voters.
Inevitably, damaging Labor also means helping the Liberals.
Helping the Liberals means taking a punt that they will not win government and introducing thousands more cattle into the Alpine National Park.
You guys got away with it this time. That’s how russian roulette works. But maybe next time you will give the Liberals the government by way of pulling the trigger on the loaded chambre.
Not a pretty thought, except for Greens/Liberals Alpine National Park Cattle Herd, of course.
[The Greens Party HAS to damage the Labor Party in order to get anywhere.]
I like how Labor is some sort of inert object in this analysis, not just another party competing for votes. Like Labor is a big peaceful whale and the Greens are a shark biting chunks out of it.
You continue to ignore the point that people vote Green because they disagree with Labor’s policies. If, for example, Labor had a humane approach to asylum seekers, the Greens couldn’t attack them on that issue effectively. Labor chooses to have an extreme policy to appeal to right wing bigots, so Labor makes it inevitable that the Greens will seek to profit from that. Shocking, right?
[97
Greensborough Growler
One outcome from the election may be that Joe Hockey might be in line for the chop. Julie Bishop was here during the last couple of days of the election and she’ll be reporting that Federal issues certainly affected the outcome.
Apparently, Hockey went off his face when the PMs office briefed journos that the $7 co-payment was being dumped. If Abbott is looking for a sacrifice, the buck might stop with Joe.]
I think it’s pretty obvious that Abbott lost that particular power game.
It suggests that the Ministers are going to assert themselves in relation to Abbott and his office. This must mean that their political strategy will be revised. Perhaps it means that Abbott is going to become a mere figurehead. Perhaps it means Abbott is finished, a la Rudd. We will soon see. Personally, I think that a PM that cannot exert their will on policy will not last. There cannot be a power vacuum at the very head of Government.
[It suggests that the Ministers are going to assert themselves in relation to Abbott and his office.]
This should be great for everyone who isn’t in the LNP, because we all know Abbott’s ability to improvise is minimal. If he is now going to be faced with a front bench who are willing to go under, over or around him with policy statements and the like, he will be shown up as the floundering dimwit he is.
Put differently, Abbott is only able to maintain some facsimile of credibility when there is only one script, written by his office, which he has already memorised, and which everyone else plays along with. Without that he is in big trouble.
[Patrick Bateman
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
So, what do the Greens do? Pissfart around at the electoral margins while playing russian roulette with the environment by damaging Labor vis-a-vis the Liberals.
What’s your argument here – that the Greens voters who preference the Libs would have voted for Labor, but once they decided to vote Green they suddenly prefer the Liberals?
Seems much more likely that their choice was between Liberal and Green for their first preference. E.g. Turnbull-esque Libs who like their economic policies but hate their environmental and social policies.
So they aren’t the people we’re talking about. Labor left types who switch to the Greens are always going to put the LNP last.]
I have summarised the ways in which the Greens do what they want to do which is to damage the Labor Party in order to gain votes for themselves.
I don’t have a problem with this in itself. That, as everyone keeps telling me but which I already knew, is democracy.
I’ll turn the discussion around for you. The Greens are apparently having difficulty even conceptualising something that seems perfectly obvious to me. Therefore there must be a communications problem:
I have given a list of probably ways in which the Greens damage the Labor Party above.
Here is another specific example. How does it not benefit the Liberal Party for the Greens Party and the Labor Party struggle using money, staff and volunteer resources, staff, energy, electoral focus for the seat of say, Melbourne.
Is not all that duplicated activity a dream for the Liberals?
Is not the parallel the dread of three-cornered contests amongst National and Liberals?
To turn the discussion aroun by 180 degrees:
‘How is it even theoretically possible for the Greens Party to damage the Labor Party without benefiting the Liberal Party and thereby playing russian roulette with the environment.’
And, if that is not possible, ‘How is it possible to defend yourself against the charge that the Greens Party is playing russian roulette with the environment?’
I just heard some details of the way that Asylum Seekers are treated by the Department. It is nothing short of torture.
Why are they not given care equal to those in our jails?
Why is nothing being done about this?
[And, if that is not possible, ‘How is it possible to defend yourself against the charge that the Greens Party is playing russian roulette with the environment?’]
You want to turn this around – ok.
Labor could run dead in Melbourne and let the Greens have it. No duplicated effort, right? By fighting for Melbourne, Labor are playing russian roulette with the environment.
Am I doing it right?
lefty e 153
I guess that’s a possibility. After all, when Adam Bandt won his federal seat, and has since represented it with a fair degree of aplomb, it followed that the Greens would be a major player in seats like that. And there are as many “Melbournes” as there are capital cities.
But could the Greens leapfrog the ALP as the main vote-catching progressive party? That seems impossible to imagine, although the impossible has a habit of happening.
Whatever, since they’re almost certain to move a lot of their positions back towards the centre, even if only in fairly subtle ways, the days of 15-20% Green votes can not be that far away.
For the ALP, its crucial that this consolidation for the Greens be done mainly at the expense of the Conservatives.
I truly believe that the overall electorate is basically a progressive-leaning one, except for rural backwaters and the capitalist blue-ribbon belts. If the progressive vote was efficiently garnered, no Murdoch press could ever finesse a Coalition government into Canberra.
So here is the problem arising from this absurd quarrelling between the progressives, which is nothing more, really, than a power play over market share. The Coalition, once rid of the biggest dill in the modern political era, can only shift back to the centre. For that is the pragmatic thing to do. And when that happens, that 80% preference flow will be under pressure.
Remember the DLP split? The Rudd-Gillard split? Now it is the ALP-Greens split. History repeating itself.
[It is nothing short of torture.]
It’s been nothing short of torture since the High Court decided that people can be detained forever without ever having committed a crime in Al Kateb.
[Patrick Bateman
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink
The Greens Party HAS to damage the Labor Party in order to get anywhere.
I like how Labor is some sort of inert object in this analysis, not just another party competing for votes.]
Good point. But the good point masks an absolutely critical lack of equivalence: the Greens Party can not form government. Labor can. What he Greens can do is, by damaging Labor, assist the Liberals to form government.
The consequences of the Greens and Labor struggling against each other are simply not equivalent.
I note that not a single Greens poster above has come anywhere near the implications and environmental consequences of the fact that the Greens can not form government.
I can understand that. It is the point at which Greens Party supporters have to engage in some serious cognitive dissonance about the real, practical, Alpine National Park-type consequences of their activies.
[I truly believe that the overall electorate is basically a progressive-leaning one, except for rural backwaters and the capitalist blue-ribbon belts. If the progressive vote was efficiently garnered, no Murdoch press could ever finesse a Coalition government into Canberra.]
Probably the most sensible comment in this thead.
Amazing nothing has been said of Suzanna Sheed who erased a 32 per cent National majority in one election. Her message that being in a safe electorate means you get ignored was simple and amazingly effective. The Greens in the inner city seats seem to have successfully employed the same tactics.
d
[Whatever, since they’re almost certain to move a lot of their positions back towards the centre, even if only in fairly subtle ways, the days of 15-20% Green votes can not be that far away.]
You are entitled to your dreams, but not your facts.
Polling more generally shows that the Greens Party is flatlining at around 12%.
I posted this when the Liberals preferenced the Greens last in 2010 – reposting as a response to people saying that the Greens pushing Labor towards the centre is a bad thing
There is a model in game theory “The two ice cream sellers on the beach” – they will both tend to gravitate to the middle of the beach to maximise their custom to 50% of available people.
http://ingrimayne.com/econ/International/Hotelling.html
Recent US elections have been historically close by US standards – is this because (as we hear) the electorate is terribly divided/polarised? Or has the electorate always been divided/polarised, but the “ice-cream sellers” (parties) weren’t selling in the middle of the beach (electorate) so we got very one-sided elections.
If so, was their malpositioning because they wanted to be there (the link suggests Goldwater and McGovern) or was it a lack of detailed knowledge about WHERE the middle of the beach was? (Democrats 1952,1956?) So rather than a “incredibly divided” electorate are we just witnessing very clever party machines who through polling and the dreaded focus groups know EXACTLY where that centre is and go for it – both of them?
Of course the Hotelling model is a two-seller model.
Then in Australia the Greens come along, and start selling eco-friendly ice-cream (it’s very late, I can have a laugh) up one end of the beach (Labor’s end). What do Labor do? The Greens can’t possibly get a 50% share up there, but Labor’s share is reduced if they don’t move. So Labor move to the Right (figuratively) to try and make up for some of their lost ground. And then the Coalition can’t be left in the middle of the beach either because then Labor gets a bigger share than them, so they move right also, ending up side-by-side again further up the “non-Greens” side of the beach. But the end result is the market-responsive Labor and the “we’re staying up this end” Greens end up with greater than 50% of the market.
So maybe the Liberal “hard heads” have thought like this, and decided to put an end to that third “ice cream” seller.
[Patrick Bateman
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 1:34 pm | Permalink
I truly believe that the overall electorate is basically a progressive-leaning one, except for rural backwaters and the capitalist blue-ribbon belts. If the progressive vote was efficiently garnered, no Murdoch press could ever finesse a Coalition government into Canberra.
Probably the most sensible comment in this thead.]
Tell ‘m he’s dreaming
This post defies the reality that the 2PP vote rarely strays very far from 50/50 for very long, and that reactionary governments rule at the federal level and represent around two thirds of state and territory voters.
PB
now, where did I say that?
I wasn’t talking about the election in general, but about judgements made about the State Labor party.
What I said was that it’s spurious to say you don’t vote for Labor on a state level because you don’t like their asylum policy or (even sillier) what they did in Tasmania.
I’m assuming, of course, that posters here understand politics better than the average voter. If you don’t, then of course federal issues influenced your vote.
That said, I’m actually with the Liberals here. The Victorian government was going down long before Abbott hove into view.
[Patrick Bateman
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
And, if that is not possible, ‘How is it possible to defend yourself against the charge that the Greens Party is playing russian roulette with the environment?’
You want to turn this around – ok.
Labor could run dead in Melbourne and let the Greens have it. No duplicated effort, right? By fighting for Melbourne, Labor are playing russian roulette with the environment.
Am I doing it right?]
Yes. But why stop there? Why shouldn’t Labor run dead in every seat?
That should work.
Gimme a break.
lizzie
[Labor have just had a good victory over the Coalition, and a slanging match immediately breaks out.
I don’t understand it.]
I am with you but Boerwar just cannot help himself.
[What I said was that it’s spurious to say you don’t vote for Labor on a state level because you don’t like their asylum policy or (even sillier) what they did in Tasmania.]
[I’m assuming, of course, that posters here understand politics better than the average voter. If you don’t, then of course federal issues influenced your vote.]
Well, I disagree with you. I certainly take into account federal politics in my state voting. For example, in SA the state libs are relatively wet, but I would never in a billion years vote for them because they are the same party that is prepared to have Tony Abbott and his cronies leading them federally.
That’s not because I don’t understand the difference between state and federal elections. It’s because the same parties stand in each. A further relevant factor is the extent to which a particular federal government is able to exert influence over state governments who are of the same party.
It is also a legitimate way to signal general discontent with the behaviour or policies of a party at both levels.
Just my view and, the evidence suggests, the view of more than a few voters.
I thought I might repeat this one because it is routinely ignored by Greens Party posters:
[ But the good point masks an absolutely critical lack of equivalence: the Greens Party can not form government. Labor can. What he Greens can do is, by damaging Labor, assist the Liberals to form government.
The consequences of the Greens and Labor struggling against each other are simply not equivalent.
I note that not a single Greens poster above has come anywhere near the implications and environmental consequences of the fact that the Greens can not form government.
I can understand that. It is the point at which Greens Party supporters have to engage in some serious cognitive dissonance about the real, practical, Alpine National Park-type consequences of their activies.]
Asylum seekers policy is determined in Canberra but there is an asylum seeker resource centre in Melbourne that provides housing and activities for asylum seekers and relies on the community to support its on going efforts.
People who feel our asylum seeker policy is evil are prepared to send their message from the ballot box as well as their donations to the asylum seeker resource centres.
I am disgusted at the preference deal fights the greens and ALP indulged in, I understand at least one negotiator’s personality got in the way. The preference squabble played heavily into the hands of the sitting member in Prahran – we will know by Friday if it has returned a Liberal to Spring Street.
The ALP stance of follow the party line blindly doesn’t go over well with progressive professional protestants
[MTBW
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
lizzie
Labor have just had a good victory over the Coalition, and a slanging match immediately breaks out.
I don’t understand it.
I am with you but Boerwar just cannot help himself.]
*laughs* Those Greens! All they want to hear is the sound of one hand clapping. Them.
billie
[The ALP stance of follow the party line blindly doesn’t go over well with progressive professional protestants]
So, it was the progressive professional protestants this time?
The Greens spent (apparently) three quarters of a million dollars to ALMOST win a Lower House seat. (To give some perspective on this, Cathy McGowan spent around one hundred and fifty thousand in a seat with three times the population and about thirty times the size).
Meantime (depending which source you go to, the ABC stats being slightly different to the VEC), their overall vote has either stagnated or gone backwards.
Even if they win Melbourne, it makes further gains questionable – they will have to raise even more money to gain further seats, and it will get even harder if their primary vote continues to decline.
There are so many votes to be counted that I’d be surprised there aren’t a lot of other seats still in play. The pre poll electorate is likely to be very different to the rest IMO.
Tony Abbott clearly does not accept the umpire’s decision!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/victoria-election-tony-abbott-vows-east-west-link-will-be-completed/story-fnqetyrp-1227139834406
And I thought he had declared the Victorian Election was a referendum on the Cemetery Tunnel? Another lie perhaps?
Boerwar
Do you ever consider that everyone on here is not enamored by what you say in your lengthy tomes.
Preaching is a very different dimension to considering the another’s point of view and discussing an issue.
“the” was not necessary @192
[MTBW
Posted Sunday, November 30, 2014 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
Boerwar
Do you ever consider that everyone on here is not enamored by what you say in your lengthy tomes.]
Yep.
[Preaching is a very different dimension to considering the another’s point of view and discussing an issue.]
True. But why are telling me that when you should be telling it to the Greens?
179
Rocket Rocket
The game suggests that the more successful the Greens become at taking votes from Labor, the further to the right Labor will move; and in turn, the LNP will also tend to move to the right.
While this might be institutionally positive for the G’s – they may gain MP’s, incomes and other resources – such an outcome would also conflict with the realisation of G “policy goals”.
As well, were the G’s to become particularly successful in winning votes (and the seats and cash that go with them), then eventually both Labor and the LNP will gain by joining together to destroy the G’s.
So G’s should be careful of what they wish for. Too much success could invite their undoing.
For mine, Labor has to accept that it’s a free democracy. The G’s and the LNP both want to steal from Labor. That’s just a fact of life. It’s also inevitable that Labor’s opponents will do whatever they can to undermine, discredit and obstruct Labor, to traduce and insult them. From this point of view, the LNP and the G’s are interchangeable.
The ALP’s support for Bay West underscores just how environmentally clueless they actually are. Cows in Alpine Parks is small fry compared to what is at stake if Bay West goes ahead.
The Bay West site at Point Wilson is smack in the middle of a swathe of RAMSAR listed wetlands and the area is of international significance for migratory shorebirds.
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/water/rivers-estuaries-and-wetlands/wetlands/significant-wetlands/port-phillip-bay-western-shoreline-and-bellarine-peninsula
briefly
[From this point of view, the LNP and the G’s are interchangeable.]
That is very norty. It is well-known that it is Labor and the Liberals that are the same.
Boerwar
I should be telling nothing to anyone – we are here to discuss and form our own positions.
Everyone already knows you hate the Green’s you have raised that issue every time you come on here.
Give it a break you are boring.
I am actually starting to seriously wonder about that theory on Tony Abbott and repeated head injuries from boxing possibly starting to have an impact on cognition.
RR
He sort of reminds of the horrible repeated movements that used to be common amongst psychologically-damaged larger zoo animals.