Foxy,

You do realise that the preferences for ON were only for the senate. In the lower house, the Nats get the libs preferences and the spill from ON.

As for a hypocrite, Juliar sold the country down the drain to get the support of the greens with a carbon tax that would never happen under a government she led. What a liar.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You're still at it dredging up the old political
tactics. Give it a rest.

Shadow, you seem to be becoming as unhinged as the Liberal Party under Money Bags Malcolm. We talk about the WA election, and you start spruiking about the Federal Senate. A little info for the inexperienced, naive political novice that you are, where there is a sitting Liberal or National MP the other party agrees not to contest the seat. So the lower house preference swap is all but useless to either party, its only relevant in a very few seats ever. Of the 16 National Party MP's, 15 were elected with not one Liberal Party preference. In the seat of Murray, the Nationals took it from the Liberals with Labor Party preferences. Not one National Party lower house member can thank the Liberal Party for getting elected. The only place where the Liberals help the Nationals get elected is in the Senate! So giving the One Nutter their Senate preference is effectively cutting the Nationals out.

"You do realise that the preferences for ON were only for the senate. In the lower house, the Nats get the libs preferences and the spill from ON."

What a dumb statement. Besides, Barnyard and the boys are no friends of Money Bags Malcolm, anyway they would knife him given the first opportunity.

Unhinged to call The Greens Fascist, then Stalinist, words you heard at kindy, but don't know the meaning of, but sound good to throw around on the forum.

Which of the lunatic uncosted policies of One Nutter do you agree with Shadow, the 2% tax, the scrapping of the GST, they have a range of whacko policies which are right up your alley,

Hi Foxy,

I know my above post is beyond Shadows level of understand, but you can grasp what I have been saying. The National don't require Liberal preferences to win their lower house seats. In the one and only case where they took the seat of Murray off the Liberals last time, it was Labor which as the third party there determined the winner. Many years ago The Coalition realized they needed a M.A.D arrangement in seats where one of them was going to finish in third place with Labor second on first preferences, as a drift of preferences away from their coalition partner could be enough to give Labor the win.

In the days of Nationals (Country Party) leader, hard man and king maker John 'Blackjack' McEwen there is no way he would have accepted the Liberals doing any deal with any other party that disadvantaged the Country Party. McEwen would have simply threatened Turnbull, that if he didn't fall into line the agreement is over, and you are out on your ass. Barnyard Joyce is spineless in his dealings with The Liberals,

p/s Under McEwen's leadership, with the Nationals 100% opposed to Turnbull taking over from Abbott, it would not have happened. Just as in the way McEwen made it clear to the Liberal Party McMahon was not to take the PM job. McEwen hated McMahon with a passion, not just because McMahon was gay, but he perceived McMahon as weak, and he was. The Coalition has been a love hate relationship as long as i can remember. On the very few occasions when the Liberals have won enough seats to rule in their own right, there are those rumblings within that they should do so. But wiser heads prevail and they realize there is a tomorrow, and things can change.

cont

cont

The Country Party began life as a socialists party representing the sectional interests of farmers and the like, conservative on social and moral issues, god fearing people as they were, but radical on economic matters. My father (who would be well over a 100 if he was alive today) would say "The Country Party changes with the weather, give them a drought and they become the greatest mob of socialists you'll ever meet, In good times they are out and out capitalists."

Paul,

You're right, the understanding of your post is probably limited to your therapist after a stiff joint.

As to use of the word Senate, I was referring (as did Graham Richardson) to the WA upper house. While not being technically correct is understood by all but nitpicking pinheads.

Secondly, perhaps you could point to a single greens policy that has been costed. P.S. the Greens censorious attitude is the closest to fascism in Aus.