Dictator Dan Quits And Victoria Is Free...

With the resignation of Dan Andrews, Victorians can once again go to…

Tech Council of Australia Supports Indigenous Voice to…

Media Alert Canberra: Following the announcement of the referendum date, the Tech Council…

The Legacy of Daniel Andrews: Recognising the Good…

Today the impending retirement of Daniel Andrews – Labor Premier of Victoria…

Study reveals most common forms of coercive control…

Media Release A new study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and…

Great Expectations from the Summit of the G-77…

By Denis Bright The prospects for commitment to UN General Assembly’s sustainment development…

Imperial Footprints in Africa: The Dismal Role of…

No power in history has exercised such global reach. With brutal immediacy,…

Fascism is unlikely: idiocy is the real threat

The fight against domestic fascism is as American as apple pie. Even…

Murdoch: King Lear or Citizen Kane?

By guest columnist Tess Lawrence It may be premature to write Emeritus Chairman…


A climate of being held to account

Ditch the Witch

Wasn’t it brilliant to wake up to the news of a global deal to address climate change? This is cause for celebration. We have a goal and the world is working towards it. I feel proud to be part of a planet ready to battle this problem together. My six month old daughter will be told about this day when she is older; an important moment in history; the moment we, as a humanity, decided to help each other. This is the good news.

The bad news is, as usual, Australia’s Liberal National government who, despite the fact they seem to be wanting to take credit for being part of this deal, despite Julie Bishop’s smiling face being plastered all over the positive news stories about the Paris conference, are actually the exact opposite of helpful. This deal was done despite Australia’s hindrance of pathetic climate change Direct Action bullshit. This deal was done despite Australia being an early adopter of a Carbon Price, a world leader, and then reversing this action by becoming the world first in destroying it. If the Paris conference was a meeting of vegetarians, Australia is in the awkward position of having brought a lamb roast. A burned, tough on the teeth, inedible lamb roast that not even the dog is interested in picking out of the bin.

So sit down Malcolm Turnbull. You’re not part of the standing ovation welcoming this climate deal. Sit down Julie Bishop and go away Greg Hunt. You’re all an embarrassment. After all the talk about innovation and technological advances and new economy, it’s time you were held to account for the crap you have pulled on Australia and in turn, the world.

Don’t pretend your government isn’t chocked full of climate change deniers. Don’t pretend your government wasn’t elected on a platform of lies about carbon pricing. Remember how many times we heard ‘Axe the Tax’ out of the mouth of your previous leader, Tony Abbott? Remember the anti-carbon price rallies, where Abbott stood in front of ‘Ditch the Witch’ signs, where your whole party told the Australian public that Gillard had done the wrong thing in pricing carbon, when in fact she had done exactly the right thing? And don’t forget Abbott actually won the leadership of your party back during the Emissions Trading Scheme policy debate. We all know the deniers run your party, run your government and no fuzzy language from Turnbull about the need for action is going to change the history of what your government has actually done.

Your government, your cheer-squad in the Murdoch Press, your donors in the fossil fuel industries are part of the reason it’s taken so long for the world to reach agreement. We’re not going to let you forget this. You took us backwards. You delayed action. This is your legacy. No one should be congratulating you now.

So what’s going to happen now that there is an agreement? Firstly, you’re not going to get away with pretending Direct Action is going to make any difference to Australia’s carbon emissions. The world is watching and will be very keen to scrutinise the results of this crap, expensive waste of space policy in a way that Australia’s own media have been totally incapable of doing. In fact, there is a very good argument that the only way we’re going to meet our obligations from the Paris agreement is to reinstate a Carbon Price. So how that’s going to work? I’ll tell you how. You’re going to have to suck it up and admit to the Australian people that you misled them when you said the Carbon Price was bad for the economy. You are going to have to suck it up and admit Abbott, and everyone in his party who agreed with him and never crossed the floor to stop him destroying the Carbon Price, lied when they said the Carbon Price was bad for Australia. It’s not going to be easy, but you’re going to have to do it. The world is going to force you to do it.

So finally, finally today we have someone holding you to account. Australia’s media might think the sun shines out of the Turnbull government’s collective you-know-where and collectively refuse to point out the contradictory position Direct Action holds against the Paris agreement. But who cares about Australia’s pathetic media when we have a world agreement. Flaff all you like Turnbull. You’re being held to account. You’re being held to account by the world. You might think you’re Teflon Turnbull but you’re no longer Mr-smooth. And I can’t wait to see the mud finally stick.


Login here Register here
  1. Matters Not

    Good to have friends in high places:

    Billionaire businessman Gautam Adani has personally asked Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to introduce a law that prohibits activist groups from seeking judicial review of environmental approvals for major projects such as Adani’s proposed $15 billion coal mine, rail and port project in Queensland.

    In what the Greens have described as “special treatment” for the mining magnate, Mr Adani used an hour-long meeting with Mr Turnbull on December 4 to put the proposal to the federal government.

    Hour long meeting. Fancy that. Perhaps they discussed ‘clean energy’?


  2. hemingway13

    In major USA media, many reports on the Paris Climate Pact have made a singular point how the change of Prime Ministers in both Australia and Canada had significantly reduced the strength of opposition to movement toward genuine international action being taken.

  3. Wally

    Great article, will be watching to see how this government wriggles through without causing massive rebuke from the sceptics within the ranks.

  4. Deidre Zanker

    Well said Victoria. I am so happy and relieved you daughter’s generation will have a sustainable planet on which to live.

  5. paul walter

    Getting long in the tooth..will beleive it when I see it.

  6. hemingway13

    I shudder to think what a catastrophe that future generations were going to cop if Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s dumbass climate-denialist program was now nearly three years down the track in synch with the Abbott government’s environmental vandalism. Emperor Murdoch’s minions succeeded in electing one of his diabolical imperial toadies here, but I reckon their failure to make Barack Obama a one-term president is a defining moment of this century.

  7. brickbob

    Great article,the writing is first class as usual,and i hope this awful Govt does come around and do the right thing, but i suspect Abbott and the gang will be working overtime to throw oil on tthe tracks,and i dont think Turnbull has the guts to stop them so i think a change of Govt is our only chance.

  8. JohnB

    Julie Bishop – her twitter feed is a visual boast of “Look at me… look at mee…. I was there when we saved the world”.

    “I am reminded of August 2009 when @Greens voted to block Rudd’s emission trading scheme…” ?

    Hypocrisy ++++++

    Shameless wench!

  9. mars08

    It’s absurd that our media mindlessly let’s the Coalition take the credit… they tried their hardest to sabotage any agreement…

  10. diannaart

    I will believe in a change of heart by government when it stops subsidising polluters et al.

    Nonetheless a great read, Victoria, so satisfying for finally hoping a little bit more. I am uncertain as to whether the world can mitigate much of the posited 2 degree+ in global warming; I am concerned too much has been left too late.

    To those people who still don’t get the science – screw you and the boat (because everyone except for the First People in Australia are migrants), screw you and the boat or plane you came in on!

  11. kerri

    Exactly how I feel Victoria! Let’s hope action can be improved but I am not holding my breath. A new government is definitely needed. Regardless of Turnbulls past annunciations he is useless and tied hand fist teeth and tongue by the RWNJs who put him in the job.
    Every night I curse Dame Elisabeth Murdoch for passing on the longevity gene to her completely undeserving son.

  12. David

    Justification for Julia Gillard despite the endless criticism’

  13. Jeffrey

    Plagiarising ghunts

    It would seem that since the govt announced an investigation into the activities and procedures of the media corporations. That the media corporations have instigated a hateful campaign directed at Julia Gilliard.
    The purpose of which is to remove the government from office and undermine efforts to hold the corrupt media corps from accountability.

    My understanding of the mineral resource tax, is to directly fund the carbon tax.

    The carbon tax could then be utilized to support a growing need for research and development of technologies that can be exported to developing states. These technolgies can be utilized to sustain economic growth of heavily populated developing nations, in a manner that can minimise detrimental impacts of advanced production systems.

    The technological developments can prevent pollutive process that in-turn minimise the expenses that result in damage to the
    environment followed by the expense associated with repairing said damage.

    Australian families aspire to a higher standard of living. By this I would mean that the average high school graduate would prefer to attend tertiary education such as acheiving employment in industry such as science or social justice.
    In developing countries, most parents would aspire at a minimum to have their offspring acheive employment, even as an employee on a mass assembly line would provide a more prosperous future than the alternatives available in these developing nations.

    Combined with inadequacies of these developing nations governments. Powerful corporate entities exploit not only the labour market but also the naivity of the policies associated with protecting the environment. Eg palm oil, fossil fuel.

    Australians, and the wealth of this nation should have higher standard of education. Even those less successful in education can
    acheive through tertiary education I.e. Lab techniques.
    Employment that is not necessarily menial nor that of which is high risk to health. Social service’s, lab assistants etc..

    Australia should then encapsulate this need, utilising the carbon tax to expand the industry of technological development, increasing opportunities for australians to be employed in a lower risk, but highly innovative industry.

    In doing so australia can then export these developments to minimise and prevent the damage to natural environments, rather than the focusing on repairing the damage.

    It is unfortunate that the media moguls need to protect themselves from accountability, are directing Australias’ populace away from the true value and benefits that these social taxes can provide, to not only future australians, but also the natural wealth and well being the global environment and populace.
    I felt the need to write because, even when I have tried to explain my understanding of these policies of the labor government to my peers, they dont comprehend and they focus on the personal attacks that have no value, no benefit, and grossly undermine the potential for Australian’s to be leaders of a infinitely better global society.

    Jeffrey E Shore.

  14. diannaart

    Thank you Jeffrey for so succinctly providing the reason for why we actually do have answers for many of our most vexing problems (which are mostly of our own making).

    Do not give up just because others think you are…. (place denigrating name of choice here). There are people whose power/ideology/vested interests impels them to claim insane ideas – Tony Abbott, Lord Monckton, Donald Trump, Fred Nile, Cory Bernardi – the list is near infinite. There are others who simply do not want to think too much; too busy on the the treadmill just trying to keep a roof over head and food on table – these are the people who really need help and yet consistently vote against their best interests – best to be as kind to them as possible even if they call you a brain-fried lefty and beat you up at Anti-Islam protests.


  15. Jeffrey

    Thank you Dianne.
    Some days, kind words mean everything.

  16. Kaye Lee

    Boast????? Here are 5 reasons why this government should apologise to the delegates in Paris and the people of the world….

    Malcolm signed a deal with the Nats promising there would never be a carbon price introduced under his leadership.

    He also refused the call to begin winding back fossil fuel subsidies.

    Our emissions in 2020 will be 6% higher than they are today

    The Adani project has been a mates’ deal from the word go and the more Greg Hunt et al spit chips about it the more ridiculous their support for a project that is unviable economically in a declining market, unsustainable in a world taking action on emissions, unwanted by the traditional owners of the land, seems.

    The emissions reduction fund is paying farmers to not cut down trees they had no intention of cutting down and to not run cattle they had no intention of running due to drought. People whose reduction would be costly, presumably the big emitters, can never win a reverse auction so are free to pollute away.

  17. flohri1754

    Jeffrey, Diana, Kaye ….. appreciate the posts …..

  18. Chris

    It certainly seems a positive agreement but with some dangerous ‘out’ clauses, is mostly not legally binding and has to be passed or ratified by the governments involved. It has to work….
    Some people seem to have forgotten the details of why the Greens refused to support CPRS http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rooted/2010/05/17/the-smoking-gun-labor-always-planned-to-shut-the-greens-out-of-the-ets/?wpmp_switcher=mobile or http://greensmps.org.au/content/news-stories/greens-and-emissions-trading-%E2%80%93-your-questions-answered#cantsupportCPRS or maybe http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/milne-says-no-regrets-over-carbon-decision-20130904-2t53i.html

    “Even today, with Rudd’s environmental credentials under a cloud in the face of what promises to be a tight election, his government has been unwilling to enter good faith negotiations with the Greens over an interim carbon tax.

    “Kevin was crystal clear from the start – the Greens couldn’t be allowed any sort of ownership of the [emissions] trading scheme and the Liberals would have to support it so that they’d wear the [associated increased] costs to voters,” a Labor source said.

    It might be politically convenient for the government to blame the Liberals and the Greens for scuttling its climate change legislation but this flies in the face of the reality of legislating in a two-chamber parliament.”

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/labor-needs-detente-with-the-greens-20100515-v5bf#ixzz3uAfHr99m

  19. Wally

    We need more business leaders to open their eyes and reap the benefits that proper carbon pricing can deliver. Here is a great example of Gillards carbon tax at work, hopefully this new agreement will force the LNP to look beyond planting trees and talking bullshit to meet emission targets.

    David Kassulke, who manages AJ Bush and Sons’ electricity -hungry meat processing plant in Beaudesert, Queensland, even hosted Coalition politicians Barnaby Joyce and Scott Buccholz in their campaign against the tax last year. But now Mr Kassulke has heaped praise on the controversial tax


  20. Bighead1883

    Oh dear,there`s a drought of sensible news globally.
    The bails of sheep chew are dispensed by Zionist media as the Hypocritical Governments now look to appease their home stock with ” grand and flowery language”
    The grandest “Oblahblahma” can say what he like s because the GOP held Congress won`t do shit and will even attack him for it all.
    Turnbull knows the truth as well but his words are nothing but added bails of sheep chew so nothing will be enacted until another Labor government is returned.
    The impotent Greens couldn`t even raise more than a point three one of one percent gain in Nth Sydney when the Liberals lost 12.82%
    Labor had it all-the ETS and MRRT but traitors all put us here today-prattle on,because nothing happens under an LNP government
    If you want these changes,mature up and vote Labor

  21. PC

    For the life of me I don’t understand what all this hoopla is all about: NONE of what was agreed to, NO-THING, at the ‘Paris Outcome’ was legally binding. Can someone on here please explain to me how preserving the ‘Wild Wild West’ rules (a lawless agreement) will save the planet from global disaster because all I can read on here is people munching on a turd sandwich.

  22. PC

    “Mature up and vote for the ALP”- Hilarious. What ‘wisdom’, Bighead1883. Vote for a gutless party who is just as obscene towards refugees and happy to undermine our democracy being complicit to the escalating power of Murdoch and letting this crazed government have control of people’s metadata.

    Well done; The message from Bighead1883 is: Perpetuate the corrupt two party system. After all, it’s worked a treat so far, hasn’t it.

  23. corvus boreus

    Just wondering, what % of the primary vote did the Labor candidate achieve in the North Sydney by-election, and what was the overall swing for/against Labor in that seat?

  24. whatismore

    corvus boreus Labor didn’t stand a candidate.

  25. corvus boreus

    Just so.
    ‘Nemo’, the ALP candidate in the North Sydney by-election, scored 0% votes, for an overall -20% swing against Labor.

  26. Miriam Possitani

    corvus boreus
    The ALP never ran a candidate . so your -20% swing is nonsense .
    Labor saves its limited resources to run in seats where they have a feasible chance of victory .
    The Greens run candidates in all 150 seats , not that they think they have a chance of winning or even making an impression {often in the count, they are bundled in with “Others” their % of vote is so low .
    As explained to me from a Green , they run “Opportunity candidates ” some living as far afield as 2000 kms from the seat as a way to supplement their income and take $4.50 of the AEC for each vote the get .
    It is a slippery way of getting the general public to fund them
    Given it was the former disgusting Treasurer Joe Hockeys seat, a 00.31 % increase is a bloody shocker .
    As someone asked on another site, is Di Natale ineffective ?
    Have the wheels fell of the Greens ?

    I did note even Fred Niles Party, and even the Euthanasia group picked up a way larger percentage of the 12.80 % swing against the Liberals than the Greens

  27. Lee

    “It is a slippery way of getting the general public to fund them”

    Crapola. A party cannot get votes if they don’t supply a candidate. Voters don’t vote for the Greens in order to secure funding for them from the AEC. They vote because they agree with the party’s platform and they’re over the same old crap from the major parties.

  28. Do Youself a favour

    “A climate of being held to account”

    not sure if anyone will be held to account when this agreement is nothing more than a group of people saying they will adhere to a non-binding, voluntary, self-determined un-enforced idea.. the whole excercise did nothing but add more hot air.

  29. Miriam Possitani

    you might think that but I was going on an article in challenge magazine
    “Queensland Election and Plastic Candidates
    In the Queensland election, the Greens took the concept of ‘parachuting in a candidate’ to a whole other level. They didn’t parachute; they unashamedly used phoney candidates. Candidates lived and worked as far as 1,823km away from the electorate they were purporting to represent.
    The patronising name the Greens gave for these people was ‘opportunity candidates’; giving voters in the area the ‘opportunity’ to vote Greens. Dr. Sandra Bayley, one of the 6 candidates profiled by the Courier Mail who all live at least 289km from the electorates they’re ‘standing’ for, said she’s “a city candidate for a country seat.? How nice for the country.
    But it’s a good money spinner, with the party doing very little but receiving $4.35 per vote in electoral funding. That is understandable. But this indicates that the Greens don’t represent a broad cross-section of Australians. And could hardly care to.

  30. Lee

    “But this indicates that the Greens don’t represent a broad cross-section of Australians.”

    And this would differ from other parties how exactly? Most of the Liberals are opposed to same sex marriage, yet the majority of Australians want it.

    “They didn’t parachute; they unashamedly used phoney candidates. Candidates lived and worked as far as 1,823km away from the electorate they were purporting to represent.
    The patronising name the Greens gave for these people was ‘opportunity candidates’; giving voters in the area the ‘opportunity’ to vote Greens.”

    Unless the candidate was not a real person at all, then the candidate was not phoney. Voters have the opportunity to perform due diligence before the election and find out where the candidate stands on the issues that the voter deems important. The party’s platform is published on its website, just like several other parties, and that’s what the voters are getting, regardless of the home address of their candidate. Living in Perth doesn’t make a candidate unable to represent an electorate in Sydney. If they’re doing their job properly, all of them need to get out and talk to their constituents.

    As a Greens voter, I’d be glad to have the opportunity to vote for a Greens candidate. I don’t want to be forced to vote for the major parties in order to register a valid vote. I want the opportunity to register my displeasure with the major parties. There are only two parties at this point in time whose platforms resonate strongest with my own values – Greens and Australian Progressives. I consider myself fortunate to have one candidate who represents my views.

  31. David

    Lee your argument ie: “Voters don’t vote for the Greens in order to secure funding for them from the AEC. They vote because they agree with the party’s platform and they’re over the same old crap from the major parties.” …so what was the Green percentage of the vote in Nth Sydney again?

  32. diannaart


    Probably not as high as Labor’s percentage – which, in North Sydney, is never going to be anything to brag about.

    Your point being?

  33. Lee

    “…so what was the Green percentage of the vote in Nth Sydney again?”

    Don’t be an idiot all your life.

  34. diannaart


    Much better than what I said


  35. Lee

    Diannart, I liked your response too. My eyes rolled back so hard when I read David’s response that I saw my own brain.

  36. diannaart


    I don’t know what the weather is like where you are – but today is one of those blissful beer-garden days…. wish we were there…. and I don’t even drink…

  37. David

    Oh, the Greens needing assistance in understanding their own rhetoric…read it again my dears 🙂

  38. Lee

    Next David will be telling us that someone who does not want to vote for the Liberal Party has no right to live in North Sydney.

  39. Chris

    There is nothing illegitimate about voting for the Greens so the AEC voting allowance goes to them. Most other candidates don’t represent me so why would I give them a vote or the electoral allowance? Some people seem to think voting is about only voting for a winning candidate. This is not sport….

  40. Miriam Possitani

    Most people want their candidate to know the area and the significant problems they face.
    They want a candidate to represent them in their electorate, and know what the hell they are on about
    That shows up in the results , where the Greens treated the locals with contempt and the locals overwhelmingly rejected the blow ins , 98% of the electorate in fact .No wonder the voters out there think the Greens are all about the Greens and to hell with the electors
    Warrego electorate 26.992 electors Greens blow in vote 649
    Mt Isa electorate 19,419 Greens blow in vote 318
    “THE Greens are running candidates in electorates up to 2000km from where they live with at least one admitting they haven’t even visited the area for at least a year.
    Greens candidate for Warrego Sandra Bayley, who lives at Ashgrove – 475km from the centre of the seat she is contesting – has not been to the area since 2013.
    She is just one of seven “opportunity” candidates put up by the party to run for the rural areas.
    Seats at Mount Isa, Warrego, Callide, Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Mirani and Burnett have candidates who live hundreds of kilometres from their electorates.”
    Now if that isn’t treating the voters as mugs, I don’t know what is .
    No wonder they have stagnated

  41. diannaart

    Last time I checked, Miriam, the Greens had a total membership of 10,000 (2011) – according to Wiki.

    From the same source, the Liberals claim 80,000, Labor 53,000+ and the Nats… well Wiki doesn’t say and a visit to the Nats website – my life is too short.

    Anyway, the point I am making is simply that small parties like the Greens simply do not have the numbers to cover every bit of Australia. Even the 2 major parties do not always place candidates in various electorates.

    Not stagnating, just not very big.

  42. Lee

    I acknowledge that some voters want a local candidate. Personally I think it of limited importance. A candidate whose selling point is “I’m a local and I’m familiar with the local issues” doesn’t actually tell us how he/she will vote on issues that are important to us. The party’s platform may be at odds with some of the local issues. For example, a major concern for people in the northern suburbs of Adelaide is the closure of GMH. A local Liberal candidate who was born at the Lyell McEwin Hospital, has been living in the area since birth and who is aware of the local issues, isn’t going to help keep the place from closing. Not being a local does not preclude any candidate from learning what the important issues are for the electorate and representing those people.

  43. Lee

    “Anyway, the point I am making is simply that small parties like the Greens simply do not have the numbers to cover every bit of Australia. Even the 2 major parties do not always place candidates in various electorates.”

    Greens voters are also very scattered. At the last Federal election the Liberal National Party got 1,152,217 votes and won 22 seats, the Nationals got 554,268 votes/9 seats and the Greens got 1,116,918 votes/1 seat. The system needs an overhaul.

  44. diannaart

    Indeed, Lee, something just doesn’t add up…

  45. Miriam Possitani

    I can only go on Greens own conversation

    THE Queensland Greens will contest the state election campaign with no leader — and plan to run stooge candidates in some seats.
    Their “committee system” means they do not have a leader, and the profile of the candidate named as their “first among equals” — Charles Worringham — has been quietly removed from their official website.
    Senator Larissa Waters will fill the role of “figurehead” for the party, which leaked emails reveal has dwindling membership and cannot attract real candidates in many seats.
    Secret emails obtained by The Courier-Mail also reveal how paid up members are dwindling and the party was struggling to find genuine candidates for the state election.
    But Moggill candidate Charles Worringham said he was the party’s “lead spokesperson” in the state because they did not have a leader “in that way at all”.
    Mr Worringham’s candidate profile page had yesterday disappeared from the party’s website.
    When asked about his absence, the party said they would reinstate Mr Worringham’s page.
    Mr Worringham said the party operated on a “first among equals” basis when it came to leadership.
    “No, I’m not (the leader) — I’m the lead spokesperson,” he said.
    He said he was first elected to the position about two years ago and then again last November, and described his role as speaking on behalf of the party in Queensland.
    “If you like, first amongst equals — we have other folks who have specialist policy areas as well,” he said.
    It comes as a leaked report to the Green’s Management Committee in September from campaign director Kitty Cara showed the party’s membership was dwindling.
    Ms Cara’s report reveals the party has just 1026 current members after 336 became “grace or expired” since the start of 2014.
    The report says a membership drive only prompted payment from 41 members with overdue fees.
    In an email to party delegates on December 3, Greens campaign committee secretary Neil Cotter admitted the party would have to resort to “opportunity candidates”.
    “The Queensland Campaign Committee is seeking reliable members to be opportunity candidates, that is candidates in electorates where there is no branch, or the branch has been unable to find a candidate,’’ he wrote.
    “Opportunity candidates are so named as they give voters the opportunity to vote for the Greens where they otherwise would not be able to do so.”
    Mr Cotter sent another email thirteen days later saying the party was abandoning normal preselection process and branches were to fast-track meeting and pick someone among those who turned up.
    “The branch will call preselection meetings immediately to decide on the floor of the meeting who shall be the candidate/s,’’ he wrote.
    “A minimum of two days notice of this meeting shall be given to all members in the electorate.”

    Desperation stakes indeed

  46. Lee

    Well Miriam, you gotta do what you gotta do. I notice that Murdoch’s best shot didn’t help his boy Newman and didn’t harm the Greens. They had a very small swing in their favour.

  47. Miriam Possitani

    Actually, when you look deeper as one commenter on another site did, the situation isn’t all that rosy for the Greens
    Note the very minor swings and also just how many individual seats they went south in
    “Actually, to be precise The Greens lost a % of the vote in 55 of the 59 seats in the WA State Election 2013
    Some seats like Fremantle -8.5% Perth -6.6% Swan Hill 7.9% etc

    In the most recent election in Victoria 3014 . where the voters dumped the toxic Napthine Government
    The Greens gained a State wide swing of 0.3 % but managed to have a swing against the , with a loss of % in 47 {fourty seven} seats
    In Queensland with the devastating defeat of the Campbell Newman LNP, with massive swings occuring,
    the Greens managed to gain just a tiny 0.9% swing to them
    Now the Queensland Election 2015 , Campbell Newman , Biggest swings around, 30%+
    A change of Government and
    The Greens managed to increase their statewide % by just 0.9%

    continuing with the same trend however, they actually had a swing against them in 33 seats where their % of the vote dropped.

    In some seats, like Mackay, Hinchenbrook,Warrego, Lockyer etc, the vote was so low, the ABC election site just lumped them in with “Others” for expediency
    Now the South Australia 2014 Election
    The Greens managed a 0.6 % increase in their Statewide vote
    HOWEVER, they managed to get a swing against them and lose of % in 18 {eighteen} seats
    with swings against them like the seat of Giles -7.2%

  48. diannaart

    Nice collection of gossip, interlaced with a fact or two and a whole lot of wishful thinking. What was that about damn lies and statistics?

    Maybe, now that Climate Change has finally gained global credence (apart from the anti-science types) we may, just may, find more people prepared to actually listen to what groups such as the Greens have to say and maybe, just maybe, even more MSM exposure – you just never know.

    What I do know is, unless there is a massive ideological rethink, the Libs, Nats and Labor really need to revise their goals in line with facts, not desires and they need to do so within the next 5 years.

    …and I am actually a little bit hopeful… won’t be perfect because there ARE serious $’s to be made out of sustainable clean technology and procedures (and the greedy will fall on such opportunities like the vultures they are when reality finally hits them), but I wouldn’t be investing in any more coal or oil … just sayin’…

  49. Lee

    “Actually, when you look deeper as one commenter on another site did, the situation isn’t all that rosy for the Greens”

    I’m still voting for them. They’re the only party that addresses most of the issues that I consider important for the majority of Australians. I’ve never voted Liberal and never will. I’d rather poke myself in the eye with a fork. If you don’t like that, too bad.

  50. Miriam Possitani

    There are none so blind as those who will not see .
    “What was that about damn lies and statistics?”
    I agree but these aren’t statistics

    These are not statistics they are Election results , the figures from the Queensland Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission {AEC}

    Lee, good luck to you if you want to vote for them, after all, we are a democracy.
    Just the facts need to come out as well

  51. Lee

    Reading something in a Murdoch rag doesn’t make it a fact.

  52. diannaart


    Electoral results ARE data; in other words statistics.

    Perhaps I was not being clear enough for you. I should’ve written something “like damn lies and whatever you read in the MSM.

    You still have nothing to say regarding my points that the Greens IS a small party, there WILL be greater attention paid to any issues regarding climate, sustainability and relevant technology.

    I guess you prefer gossip and hearsay to thoughtful discussion.

  53. Lee

    “These are not statistics they are Election results , the figures from the Queensland Electoral Commission and the Australian Electoral Commission {AEC}”

    Gee Miriam, you should be a reporter for Murdoch. The swings against the Greens in some seats was obviously more than balanced by swings to them in others, so that there was a net swing, albeit a small one, to the Greens. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your story.

  54. corvus boreus

    I noted the selective nature of the figures Miriam chose to quote as well.
    Big swings against the Greens in some seats, viewed in the context a net overall increase in total votes, means there must have been some pretty big swings towards them in other seats seats, but this fact did not fit in the barrow she chose to push.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: