http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/greens-biggest-losers-poll
First any mention of any party by any one is seen as bias.
Well yes I am biased, who of us is not.
But can we leave our bias in the bucket at the door and talk about the true feelings we think this country holds about that party?
The link tells us about a big fall in green vote in its very heartland.
I based not on my bias but on the great hurt and pain a hung parliament has given Australia, and the resulting views, not of Liberals but the left of center voters, agree they are in trouble.

They deserve to loose every seat they have, there blind policy to refugees does not reflect the concerns of the majority of Australian citizens.

To want to support them is okay but to open the floodgates is absurd, to release all in detention is also a recipe for future disaster.

Personally I hope they do loose every seat.

A soufflé never rises twice.

This one turned out to be a dog’s breakfast. So the dog threw up and the Greens are trying to sell what’s left!

It’s all down to the same thing, preferences and the total “other” voting patterns.

Current betting has the Greens favorites to win NO seats in the reps.

spindoc at least, understands only 4 seats are in peril in this election.
3 in the Senate, only half Senate election , and the seat Liberal preferences gifted them, in Melbourne their only lower house seat.
I wanted to explore a deeper reason the Greens face a turbulent future.
About 5 years ago, Bob Brown and his party seemed to reach for the stars.
While disenchantment with Labor, the only party the Greens could work with, seemed promising for Greens.
They seemed to think, unwisely, voters actuality came to them as a home, not a protest vote.
Current polling, and the fact the seat of most concern to Greens is the South Australian Senate one, held by their co leader, is telling.
Australians for the most part are fixed voters, knowing from one election to the next who they will vote for.
The small party,s and swinging votes make up not more than 20%
We will see rage, directed against the Greens, here as is the case in the real world.
Rage however not at those making up that party but the policy,s they push, knowing they will never get to implement them.
Folly for any party to gain power *nine Senate seats* and use it only to stop the wishes of most voters.
Much the same can be said about any small party.
But in the case of the greens policy,s presented turn more away than it brings to them.

For the Greens to appeal to intelligent voters they'll need more policies rather than just "let all the boat people in".

<< They deserve to loose every seat they have, there blind policy to refugees does not reflect the concerns of the majority of Australian citizens. >>

Too right Philip.

They most definitely deserve to crash and burn.

But what a crying shame it is. We so desperately need a strong environmental/sustainability-oriented party!

The Greens should be it, but they have so badly missed their true calling!

Both Bob Brown and Christine Milne have honourable environmental-activist histories, but totally lost their way with this damn asylum-seeker business!

And they never really had a strong sense of sustainability, which is most unfortunate and very hard to understand from such environmentally passionate people!

Two very different policy positions would have won them a great deal of support, and would have changed the political landscape in this country enormously for the better.

These are:

1. Stopping the boats, upholding strong border-protection and concentrating (and increasing) our humanitarian efforts through our formal refugee/immigration intake and our international aid programs and

2. Espousing a sustainable Australia as being the MOST IMPORTANT thing that we should be striving to achieve, starting off with progressive cuts in immigration so that we can head towards a sustainable population as soon as we reasonably can.


The Greens need to very seriously look at themselves. I think that if they did these two things they would be able to resurrect themselves from a fate close to that of the Democrats, and rise to become one of the major parties, and to even hold government in their own right.

Agree with that one Greens to go but indeed I with there was an alternative to Dumb and Dumber there needs to be a counterbalance but not the way the Greens used it to prop up a failure even though they knew it was damaging Australia.

To me they just wanted there days of being the power behind Labor and getting to push through there party's agenda.

The real tragedy is we have Labor and Liberals now running around pledging money $1 Million here a couple of million there BUT if Rudd had not messed around with border protection we would have had in excess of $6 BILLION DOLLARS, which has been wasted on these Economic Invaders and it is costing $ BILLIONS more every year.

They could have created lots of jobs, raised pensions a lot of good things, only 1 person to blame Rudd.

Corrected

Agree with that one Greens to go but indeed I wish there was an alternative to Dumb and Dumber there needs to be a counterbalance but not the way the Greens used it to prop up a failure even though they knew it was damaging Australia.

It's about the only good point about the past three years, that, and the fact that the so called independents will join them in the dole que.

It was bound to happen, all that was needed was time for them to prove they are out of touch, and they did a Stella job of it.

Outside Tasmania the Greens really have no leadership structure and are not a unified party in the sense that the majors are. Whether you agreed with his views or not Bob Brown was a leader, he has "dash" and credibility as an activist, none of the other elected Greens do and what's more their party has no working class members or supporters, it's seen as a bastion of inner city elitism and it's policies are damaging to the interests of normal people.
What have the Greens actually done? Did they use their leverage to end the wars and bring the troops home early, did they give us a Denticare scheme, did they even use their influence to change refugee policy? No, no and no, they've done nothing for this country.

While Indy,s statement is far from the only one, it highlights what I knew we would get here.
Greens of course have far more than one policy.
And it has policy,s that bring certain folk to them.
Mostly not two headed Hippy,s, but folk like us.
It is the policy,s that condemn the greens, and in the end, force the voter who went to them looking for a home, to leave.
Politics are always about getting the numbers to get elected.
Any honest review of greens policy,s, they have many, will show they seem to want only to gain power by holding the balance of power.
Not by having policy,s that bring near a majority.
Born and powered by our preferential voting system they will die by it as elections like the coming one, high lighting results of preferences and the nations devisions demanding a clear winner Greens still look for the crumbs to build their party.
In time we may see the down side in our system, and see one vote one value is a better way.
While we wait for that remember next time some one thinks that is unfair, or as they claim un Democratic.
If that boat floats it says loud and clear minority's over rideing the wish of majority is their target, that, never will be the Democratic way.

Quote "Greens of course have far more than one policy."

Trouble is there policy on boat people far outweighs anything good they could have.

But I agree they have some good policies but the only way they will be able to do anything is to prop up a minority Government.

I hope my fellow Labor voters are reading this thread.
Because right up the front of it is evidence understanding need not be linked to comment.
Remember I dislike the Greens.
Last nights debate, Abbott vs Rudd, will never see either side spend the time taking on the greens, unless a wish to destroy them exists.
Not because of the rage words used here.
A truth exists the greens will come to understand, but it will be too late to save them.
They are their own opposition.
Every word uttered every policy put forward is just that, an opponent to the greens.
More stand against them than drift toward them.
Greens increasingly are becoming a flimsy shelter in the midst of a cyclone.
Mathematics get ignored in politics, but only by those afraid to confront the truth.
Who could ever see Australia voting in numbers big enough to increase the greens numbers.
An easier question is who thinks current greens leadership and policy,s will not see them shrinking.
In the end all minor party,s are straws some clutch in protest and in doing so see their votes do not count.

Well what am I on about?
Every one understands my views are as heated as any ones about the greens.
But in truth I wanted greens to see, maybe understand from what is written about them here a fact.
Our rage against them may, probably is wasted.
See any one could have written this thread/my posts.
The odd angry shot fired but still truth does it for us.
Policy,s such as the greens, now and forever will be marginalized, we just do not share their views.
And in fact more are made angry by them than any party we ever had in my view.
If my ALP comes to its end in government , and it is close, that election night will be very interesting.
How will the greens go bank on it badly, will Katter win Senate seats, will Palmer, Hansen will not her time has past.
What if along with other small party,s greens hold sway in the senate?
If and they may well, a forced double dissolution is called it ends forever the greens as a party, they would hold no more than two seats maybe not that.
The greens are their own worst enemy and have damaged this country,s political debate trying to force feed us their views.
We suffer by letting our preferential voting be used against us all, hardly democratic.

"About 5 years ago, Bob Brown and his party seemed to reach for the stars"
True but that was when Brown (the gay abomination) was leading his merry band of fellow gays up the proverbial garden path with stories about saving the ecology etc. Really all he was doing was setting the gay movement on a pedestal with people like "Penny" to rally the troops.

Does anyone ever really know the policies of minor parties?
All most people comprehend is a symbolic "essence".

The Greens were the hippies/tree huggers, an "essence" that could never appeal to most people.
They were doomed to the fringes from the start.
Now it's oblivion time.

After terrorism, the GFC, and no-gone zones in Western cities, there's not much hope for cute fluffy bunny parties anymore.
Especially once their longtime leader goes.

What we really need is a Realist Party. No false hopes or utopian dreams.
It's time. To get real.

Belly,
It will be interesting if the Greens vote does fall dramatically.

From memory, I think their height was about 12%.

I ask, where do you think those votes will go? Hardly LNP or any of the current minor parties. so maybe you are hopeful that the votes will go to Labor. Then many will not be happy with the major parties policies on illegals, so do they vote informal.

Also from memory, I think it was the ALP that gave the Greens the leg up by giving them preferences in the Senate. How will ALP preferences be allocated this election? Will Labor put the Greens last?

Any Party that holds to One World view cannot survive in a democratic society. Our society is diverse so a representative Party must reflect that diversity. An exclusive environmental, religious or secular party only has limited followers, and while they can create fear they have a voice, but their message cannot accommodate all.

cut the crap mate. I was a hippie, an acid head, a psychedelic thunderstorm back in the late 70s. These green couldn't even find their way to the dunnie let alone to policy.
Back then 'grass' was free and acid totally legal and that was what the "free" movement was all about.
There were no Bob Browns and Penny Wongs and life was s good.

Wrong Josephus, every party cannot represent "diversity" or it couldn't develop any specific policies!

And all parties would end up sounding the same.
Democracy is about choice.

The democratic *system* should reflect any political diversity, which is why we should have proportional representation at all levels and/or direct democracy, not single member seats.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/latest/a/-/article/18491349/election-live-abbott-to-stick-knife-into-greens-rudd-campaigns-in-cairns/
This link is a act of bravery and we should know that.
It should be matched by Labor,regardless of the possiblity of a lost seat or two.
I note the anti Labor crew are out linking the greens, our ex voters to us.
And blaming every illness on that link.
Cute, and uninformed!
Liberals are a party that links its self to their pet dog the National Party.
They without a seconds thought took Katters vote and will use him Palmer and even one nation if they need to.
There! got me to take the focus away from a truth, nothing other than greens policy,s,gee they have heaps of them!, not as said one!
And of even more importance ACTIONS.
They promise anything knowing they will never have to deliver.
Banjo yes you will see the nose dive but remember the senate is not a full senate election.
We, all of us,must understand the senate once elected, takes two full terms of the lower house to be removed/face the voters.
IF Labor puts greens last we are watching their end come closer and we will again see majority gets to rule.
Watch for a double dissolution election in 2014.

Banjo having re read your question it deserves an answer.
I think the following.
Greens vote will be 7 point some thing.
Yes the five percent [currently counted in two party preferred polls] will vote Labor.
Some will just put a informal vote in, yes some greens are not middle class high income voters.
Some have always gave second preference to Liberals.
Banjo it is not until we get to the senate that greens get power and that the self wounding they are involved in will impact .
OF those three senate seats watch the South Australian one more closely.
But be Happy!~ at long last the party of idiot promises and wild threats is on the slide that leads to oblivion.
What ever my party says they will be last on both tickets for me.

Within both major parties are a diversity of religious, secular and environmental views that gain voters from every section of society. We choose on whom we believe who best represents us on the issues we strongly hold. The two major parties are not single issue focused.

You might want single issue parties with proportional representation that you have in the Senate. But that can stifle government if too many disagree with local representatives promises to their electorates.

Belly,
it will be interesting to see.

I have never seen a Green voter that preferenced the Libs, spose there are a few. Their HTVs always favoured the ALP. Watch to see if ALP formally puts Greens last.

the Green voters will then be really confused, the informal vote will go up.

I applaud Tony Abbott for declaring that he will not form a minority Govt.
Yes... cut the Greens out.
We have a failed experiment.
Let us move on.

Shame on Kevin and Julia for not making a stand and for compromising their stand all the time.

Banjo it remains true some green voters do preference your side.
Yet only in two lower house seats will both sides not preferenceing them matter, one in NSW another in Melbourne, they hold the Vic one on Liberal preferences.
It is the Senate that matters.
Remember they only have three seats in danger and in all truth one only a possible loss.
Platypus, ah lets not go their Gillard is gone good ridance.
My thought in starting this was simple.
See Greens contributors think be anti green is because we do not understand.
I happen to think using nothing but mathematics, truth and seeing trends, we could prove they have had their day in the sun.
Yes emotions from dislike to hate are seen on mentioning the word green.
But a truth hidden from them but in plain sight just can never be ignored.
Many more, by at least 8 to one, who do not vote for them grow more certain they never will after hearing and seeing rat bag policy,s they hold.
I would beg that voters look at the NSW upper house and see the real damage to Democracy a few from minor party,s voting with Labor are doing.
We need a Senate controlled by other than one or the other majors like a hole in the head, your senate HTV needs your attention.

Dear Platypus,

So you admire Mr Abbott for declaring that he will
not form a minority government? But isn't his
party a Coalition? Would his party ever get elected
in their own right -
without the Nationals?

Just a thought.

'Would his party ever get elected
in their own right -
without the Nationals?

I take it you are desperately hoping no Lexi. It is quite likely they won't need the Nationals although most of the Nationals would be far better than the progressives (really regressives) in the Liberal party. The point is the likely PM Abbott has seen what a total diaster a slimy minority Government has been. Windsor and Oakshott have got what they deserved. They ignored their electorate through self interest and hatred and are now history.

Dear runner,

Actually you'd have no idea of what I'm hoping for
in this election. The same as what you're spruiking
is sheer nonsense. But its a public forum and if you
want to look silly - go on doing it.

Cheers.

'Actually you'd have no idea of what I'm hoping for
in this election.'

An Abbott victory? Surely not Lexi!

Dear runner,

You're not bothered at all by the facts.
That clearly makes you a candidate for
a political career with the Coalition.

Belly,

It is a while since I have posted in the General Discussion area of the Forum, but matters raised in a now-archived topic of yours, 'Should the green senator resign?', opened on 20 October 2011, have come back to life. I ask your indulgence for a bit of posting tangential to your present thread. I need the link-posting latitude of OLO to give immediate public access to some tweets otherwise unlikely to be accessible to many on Twitter presently interested in the 'outing' of Michaela Banerji as Twitter userID '@LaLegale', and the feared loss of her job because of it.

`

Given that some sort of surveillance of tweets by userID '@LaLegale' was by admission claimed to have been being maintained by DIAC in May 2011, it is reasonable to expect that surveillance to have been ongoing. The following links to tweets by '@LaLegale', or showing her participation in twitter conversations in relation to the improperly forced resignation of then Commonwealth Ombudsman Allan Asher, have been copied by me from various posts of mine in that archived discussion.

http://twitter.com/#!/LaLegale/status/135141871067475968

http://twitter.com/#!/LaLegale/status/133302060505497601

http://twitter.com/allanasher/status/133121041965924352?iid=am-156194753213205735045273725&nid=4+status_timestamp&uid=29143498

http://twitter.com/#!/LaLegale/status/132317386719236097

http://twitter.com/#!/ForrestGumpp/status/132338439969443840

With the identification of these tweets with Ms Banerji as a public servant employed within DIAC at that time, and the fact that they reveal an interest of Ms Banerji in ventilating the breach of Parliamentary privilege that saw Allan Asher effectively improperly removed from his Statutory Office that reported to the Parliament, it is not beyond belief that the disciplinary action recommended by DIAC could be seen as 'payback' for Ms Banerji's imputed attempt to see justice done in that matter.

It is, of course, possible that Ms Banerji first came to the notice of DIAC via monitoring of the OLO discussion, and a possible 'witch hunt' for what may have been a presumed (but in reality non-existent) 'leak' from within DIAC, with guilt (wrongly) presumed. Tweets from earlier (May) having been used to disguise what in reality may have aroused DIAC concern.

For OLO viewers who may be interested, this is a link to the archived OLO discussion 'Should the green senator resign?': http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4792#127245 that Belly kindly let me sort-of-blog on back then. It delivers the clicker to the first of my posts in that thread from October-November 2011. It is effectively an 'All' link: the whole thread can be scrolled from the landing point.

This is a link to a Twitter conversation involving Allan Asher within which is contained a link to the judgment in Banerji vs Bowles, in consequence of the reporting of which the 'outing' of '@LaLegale' occurred. https://twitter.com/allanasher/status/367869490144354304 You do not have to have a Twitter account to view and surf. (You have to copy and paste 'https' links manually on OLO. Sorry.)

I'm just wondering, in the light of hindsight, if anything from the events recorded back then bears upon former PM Julia Gillard's 'captains pick' of Nova Peris over the otherwise erstwhile-endorsed sitting Senator from the NT, Trish Crossin, for first place on the ALP NT Senate ticket at the upcoming elections?

I also wonder at the speed with which the change in allocation, as between political parties, of the Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Review Committee from an appointment filled by a Liberal Senator (Senator Humphries, ACT) to one filled by a Greens Senator (Senator Wright, SA), occurred at that time. A deal done to prevent evidence of possible collusion (collusion NOT involving the Ombudsman) coming out in any consideration as to a breach of privilege having occurred that might have taken place? That loss of Parliamentary appointment on the part of Senator Humphries to be shortly followed by demotion on the Liberal ticket for the ACT Senate election in what had all the appearance of a branch-stacking scenario. Curious.

Oh, and a link to Markus Mannheim's news item reporting on Banerji vs Bowles where the 'outing' of '@LaLegale' occurred: http://www.theage.com.au/national/public-servant-loses-fight-over-twitter-attack-on-government-20130812-2rsgn.html

One of the things, express or implied, behind the DIAC recommendation for the dismissal of Ms Banerji ('@LaLegale') that was the reason for the seeking of injunctive relief in Banerji vs Bowles, is the suggestion that a public servant cannot hold and express privately held political opinion whilst still performing properly in their employed role.

Yesterday, being both Viet Nam Veterans' Day and the 47th anniversary of the battle of Long Tan in that war, I responded on Twitter to a series of tweets by Senator Penny Wright, Greens Senator for South Australia. Senator Wright had a minor, and probably incidental, role in the events that surrounded the forced resignation of the Ombudsman in 2011, events involving breach of Parliamentary privilege in relation to testimony before a Committee, which Ms Banerji, now identified as a public servant within DIAC, but tweeting pseudonymously and unidentifiably at the time, is on record as having expressed an intention of ventilating. A (copy & paste) link to that Twitter conversation:

https://twitter.com/ForrestGumpp/status/368935312715563008

I drew to Senator Wright's attention that at least one of those who died in the battle of Long Tan was capable of both privately opposing Australia's involvement in that war, yet at the same time discharging, and to the ultimate extent, his duty as a member of the Australian Defence Forces. The implicit challenge to Senator Wright was, to the extent she may be able, to honour such sacrifice to see Michaela Banerji is given credit for the same capacity of both effectively privately (through erstwhile online anonymity) expressing political dissent, and yet performing acceptably in her employment. Just possibly, Senator Wright knows something she may not know she knows as to the circumstances that surrounded the improperly forced resignation of Ombudsman Allan Asher that Ms Banerji appears may be being 'paid back' for being thought, through DIAC intrusion into her online anonymity, to have perhaps blown the whistle on.

'@LaLegale' never raised any suspicion that she was a public servant, let alone in DIAC. I suspect an element of 'payback' in the investigation that has led to her 'outing'.

As some on here would know I am a member of The Greens, and don't hide the fact, and find little joy in reporting good news for the conservative side of politics. but here is a bit, private Liberal polling last week in my electorate, which is almost marginal Labor, they hold the seat with by 6% on 2 party preferred, polling shows an 8% swing to the Liberals. Then again Labor have shot themselves in the foot with their candidate, the retiring member was on a fast track to political oblivion and the new chum is heading the same way.

LNP by the biggest margin ever achieved in federal politics.
Labor consigned to the fires of Hades
The Greens/ They came they saw and they left...down the drain
The rest are also rans with the exception of Uncle Clive who will win a seat in the senate.
Incidentally did anyone know Joe Hockey was born in Palestine?

Belly,
As I read todays press, it appears that Labor has done a deal with the Greens to get their lower house preferences in exchange for Labors preferences in the Senate. Apparently in every state except Qld.

Does not look as though the labor bosses have the same principles as you.

Pity that, they were quick enough to put One Nation last when they were a threat.

It appears that Power beats Principle.

Banjo old chum, the political reality is that in this election Labor needs the Green vote far more than The Greens need the Labor vote. The reality is without Green preferences Labor would lose a swag of marginal seats, they may still do so.
Belly has been wishing and praying for the downfall of The Greens ever since the Labor grubs from NSW backed Gillard for the top job.
All I'm personally concerned with in this election is helping to get Cate Faehrmann elected to the Senate for NSW to joint the wonderful Lee Rhiannon. I'm sure seeing The Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate when the Mad Monk is in government will warm the cockles of your heart.

Paul1405
What a clown you really are. Why would anybody in their right mind want to live in a minority ruled country?
Surely you remember Russia and East Germany and all the other communist bloc countries where the minority communist party ruled.
You must of heard of Adolf Hitler and his minority government of National Socialists.
What is the point of having an elected government headed by a Prime Minister which is dictated to by some upstart with a few votes and a lot of radical ideas.
I can assure you mate if there is a "balance of power" problem in Tony A's government he will bounce right back with a double dissolution and there will be no opposition at all.
Do you honestly think the people of Australia really want another three years of government by a cross section of homosexual deviates like Brown and Wong dragged along by idiots of the ilk of Garrot and Slipper.
The people are demanding a real government with real power to right the wrongs of the past and get this country moving again.

chrisgaff1000, You call me a clown then you refer to your very own hero, the fuhrer himself Adolf Hitler. Why do you attack homosexuals, like you do, do you hate minorities? I'm sure you do. The Greens will obtain over 1,000,0000 votes in this election. The Greens can always work with good government. How many votes will your party of right wing ratbags get? Don't hide behind the conservatives why not put your cards on the table and tell people who you really support.

Whilst I don't support old Adolf he must have had some good qualities after all the Israeli's followed his path of trying to create a super race and the Yanks took his scientific, medical and aerospace technologies back to base

Chrisgaff,

"Do you honestly think the people of Australia really want another three years of government by a cross section of homosexual deviates like Brown and Wong dragged along by idiots of the ilk of Garrot and Slipper.
The people are demanding a real government with real power to right the wrongs of the past and get this country moving again."

Well, lets hope the opposition can do better than this bloke?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/liberal-candidate-kevin-baker8217s-offcolour-website-closed-down-after-links-to-pornography/story-fni0cx12-1226700187245

Do you reckon Abbott will disendorse him?

Holier than thou conservatives...what a joke.

Poirot; as our conservative brothers on here like nothing more than stereo-typing minority groups in society. Would be Liberal politicians are indeed such a minority group, it may be fair to say Barker is representative of all Liberal candidates.
The crud is obviously a knuckle dragging sicko but unfortunate many such types find a home within the Liberal Party. Wait to see how fast Abbott acts on this one.
chrisgaff1000; can you supply that list of "good qualities", should make interesting reading.

Poirot
For your edification the deed was done this morning and we are no standing a candidate in that seat.
How's that for falling on ones sword or doesn't that count.

Fair enough (no other choice really was there)

No great loss for the Libs - very safe Labor seat which the Libs wouldn't have won anyway.

Poirot
Sex is a hard master