We have all seen the news lately re changes to Senate voting which the Greens are assisting the Govt to pass. I wonder if this will mean However, the effect the users usually feel only after a couple of days is increased energy, a feeling of well-being and better sleep. This is a cost-effective alternative that works the same way as tadalafil 20mg does. These drugs are also available without prescription and are not recommended for women. Kamagra is to be gulp down when you bear male impotence and learningworksca.org viagra sildenafil 100mg not for enjoyment. a quiet burial of any mention of the sensible voting notion to always “put the Greens last”.
The underlying issue is that far too many coalition preferences flow the Greens way.
I’ve pointed out a few times that 1) Libs 2) Greens is a likely Wentworth voting pattern
The “wets” have won big time … such is the way of successful Palace coups, one gets a Lord Waffle esconced in there. The obvious aim of the Senate voting changes is to limit any possible protest vote for, say, the ALA or similar
On an aligned topic, since the steep drop in mining commodity prices, the Feds are looking for replacement moola. It’s clear that the “oldies” have some assets – they worked all their lives to aquire some modest support for old age – so GST, negative gearing, superannuation, medical expenses, family home assets are all being thoroughly trawled. Waffle needs to limit the backlash from this, so Senate voting rules become critical to him
The answer is likely to be yes. Turnbull could easily be a leader of the Greens (believes in AGW, was instrumental in taking water for food growing and passing it into the ocean, wants emission trading so he can line his pocket, happy to take some money from people smugglers, wants to smash defense, etc).
However, if the new law allows only six votes below the line to be valid as Mackeras (ABC election guru) has indicated then it will not help the Greens at the next election and it could affect the green’ s preferences for Labor
At least at first blush, the proposal appears to just offer voters more choice with how many preferences they can express and still have their Senate vote counted.
But Labor must think it will disadvantage them because they are squealing like stuck pigs about it. Listen to Senator Conroy (from Warwick’s link):
‘”This is actually like going back in time to the 1950s in Stalin’s Russia,” Senator Conroy told the Upper House last night. Senator Conroy will lead the charge against the Greens saying their senators would be likely to lose their seats in a double dissolution.
‘”You are the turkeys voting for early Christmas,” he said. “They have given you the opportunity to march yourselves up to the guillotine and you have leapt into bed with them.” ‘
But how can they be guillotined while they are in bed being turkeys?
BTW complaints about Stalinist procedures come ill from Conroy who during his time as Communications Minister tried to establish government supervision of media content and bragged at a public meeting that:-
“If I say to you, everyone in this room, that if you want to bid next week in our spectrum auction, you had better wear red underpants on your head, I have got news for you: you’ll be wearing them on your head. I have unfettered legal power.”
So Anthony Albanese says you were correct about a Liberal/Greens deal. Nice call.
Mar 8, 2016
Transcript of doorstop – Sydney
Subject: Liberal-Greens preference deal; Grayndler
anthonyalbanese.com.au/transcript-of-doorstop-sydney-4
Mar 8, 2016
Transcript of radio interview – AM Program, ABC
Subjects: Preference deal between Liberals and Greens political party; Budget.
anthonyalbanese.com.au/transcript-of-radio-interview-am-program-abc
ALBANESE: Well the Liberal Party of course have had a policy previously of putting the Greens below Labor in all seats. That wasn’t a part of a deal. There was no quid pro quo there. The problem here is that this is all done in secret. I’m calling it out today, and it should be called for the cynical politics that it is that will result in the reverse of what both Greens supporters and Liberal supporters want. I don’t believe that most Greens supporters actually want to assist the re-election of a Liberal government. They’re progressive, they want to see action on climate change and on marriage equality, they don’t support the waste that is a plebiscite, they support fairness in workplace relations, and re-electing a Liberal government will not assist that. And of course the Liberal Party say they’re opposed to everything the Greens stand for and yet they are trying to assist them to become a larger party in the House of Representatives at the expense of ALP members.
If Labor and Coalition both always preferenced Greens last – where would Greens candidates end up then?
The decades long Labor/Greens preference deal is one of the pillars of Australian politics and costs Australia dearly.