The Coalition has 19/42 seats. The Christian Democrats have 2, and the Shooters have 2. The ALP and Greens are redundant, they have no say.

Yep..the neo cons wet dream..an all out despot dictatorship

at least it isnt about Oakeshott so thats a first. I wonder if matty realises there are other states than NSW?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:19pm:

at least it isnt about Oakeshott so thats a first. I wonder if matty realises there are other states than NSW?

Why bring up Oakeshott when I didn't even mention him?

Yes, by the way, I do know that.

matty wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 5:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:19pm: at least it isnt about Oakeshott so thats a first. I wonder if matty realises there are other states than NSW? Why bring up Oakeshott when I didn't even mention him? Yes, by the way, I do know that.

then act like it. try a thread that deals with someone besides oakeshott and a state besides NSW. if people were able to filter posts and simply used NSW and Oakeshott, you'd be invisible.

Matty just refuses to understand the concept of a Westminster democracy. Why do you hate democracy so much, matty?

matty wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 4:37pm:

The Coalition has 19/42 seats. The Christian Democrats have 2, and the Shooters have 2. The ALP and Greens are redundant, they have no say.

It is true that the Greens are a dead party, the ALP will recover though.

Where do you get your results of 19/42 etc from?

As wasn't the result:
Coaltion: 67
ALP:       18
Other:      3


http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/interactive-map

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 7:48am:

matty wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 4:37pm: The Coalition has 19/42 seats. The Christian Democrats have 2, and the Shooters have 2. The ALP and Greens are redundant, they have no say. It is true that the Greens are a dead party, the ALP will recover though. Where do you get your results of 19/42 etc from? As wasn't the result: Coaltion: 67 ALP:       18 Other:      3 http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/interactive-map

I believe matty is talking of the upper house of the NSW parlament. And yes i do agree with Astro it is called democracy and it does matter that all have their say. By your reckoning one would say that in the senate the coalition are meaningless. I hardly see that, and opposition is important to the maintenance of a healthy democracy.

Just because the minors are parties like fred nile and the greens they are not all useless. The shooters and fishing party are strange bed fellows and may appear single issued but the issues over fishing and shooting rights are a big issue in this state as soon as you step outside the vacuum of Sydney. It is more about the way NSW State government has for 30 years been city centric and the nationals have done zip to help. They represent the frustration of the rural minority that produce more of the countries real wealth than seems to be understood by the city folk with tunnel vision.

nairbe wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:15pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:48am: matty wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 4:37pm: The Coalition has 19/42 seats. The Christian Democrats have 2, and the Shooters have 2. The ALP and Greens are redundant, they have no say. It is true that the Greens are a dead party, the ALP will recover though. Where do you get your results of 19/42 etc from? As wasn't the result: Coaltion: 67 ALP:       18 Other:      3 http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/interactive-map I believe matty is talking of the upper house of the NSW parlament.

Yes of course, thanks, missed the LC
And Labour & the Greens have 19/42 as well.

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 5:27pm:

nairbe wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 5:15pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 7:48am: matty wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 4:37pm: The Coalition has 19/42 seats. The Christian Democrats have 2, and the Shooters have 2. The ALP and Greens are redundant, they have no say. It is true that the Greens are a dead party, the ALP will recover though. Where do you get your results of 19/42 etc from? As wasn't the result: Coaltion: 67 ALP:       18 Other:      3 http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/state-election-2011/interactive-map I believe matty is talking of the upper house of the NSW parlament. Yes of course, thanks, missed the LC And Labour & the Greens have 19/42 as well.

That right lab/Green 19, lib/nat 19 and 4 to minors that for me are conservative votes. Fred Nile is obvious and the others are country votes mostly and they are generally more conservative.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:34pm:

matty wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 5:19pm: at least it isnt about Oakeshott so thats a first. I wonder if matty realises there are other states than NSW? Why bring up Oakeshott when I didn't even mention him? Yes, by the way, I do know that. then act like it. try a thread that deals with someone besides oakeshott and a state besides NSW. if people were able to filter posts and simply used NSW and Oakeshott, you'd be invisible.

I have started threads about other topics as well.  :)

My whole point is that the Coalition only needs the support of the Christian Democrats or Shooters to pass legislation. Both are right wing, therefore making 23/42, hence Grabor are redundant.

matty wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

My whole point is that the Coalition only needs the support of the Christian Democrats or Shooters to pass legislation. Both are right wing, therefore making 23/42, hence Grabor are redundant.

Yes, in theory you'd think that that would be so.
But at the 2010 fed election the National Party (WA) (Crook) didnt automatically side with the coalition.
And the three independents (Oakeshott, Windsor & Katter) were all former National party members.

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:30pm:

matty wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:21pm: My whole point is that the Coalition only needs the support of the Christian Democrats or Shooters to pass legislation. Both are right wing, therefore making 23/42, hence Grabor are redundant. Yes, in theory you'd think that that would be so. But at the 2010 fed election the National Party (WA) (Crook) didnt automatically side with the coalition. And the three independents (Oakeshott, Windsor & Katter) were all former National party members.

As if Crook was not ever going to side with the Coalition. Katter did eventually side with them too. Windsor is bitter, and Oakeshott ALP in drag.

Fred Nile (and the other CD, Paul Green) will pretty much always side with the Coalition, and the Shooters will too. They certainly won't side with the greens.

hey matty I klnow this is off topic... but as you seem to know more than the average joe on here regarding our independents....

what have any of them said about this Malaysian policy we are hering so much about....I seem to have missed anything coming from them about it.. what have you heard?

matty wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:36pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:21pm: My whole point is that the Coalition only needs the support of the Christian Democrats or Shooters to pass legislation. Both are right wing, therefore making 23/42, hence Grabor are redundant. Yes, in theory you'd think that that would be so. But at the 2010 fed election the National Party (WA) (Crook) didnt automatically side with the coalition. And the three independents (Oakeshott, Windsor & Katter) were all former National party members. As if Crook was not ever going to side with the Coalition. Katter did eventually side with them too. Windsor is bitter, and Oakeshott ALP in drag. Fred Nile (and the other CD, Paul Green) will pretty much always side with the Coalition, and the Shooters will too. They certainly won't side with the greens.

"The WA National Party subsequently issued a statement saying in part, "The Nationals WA as an independent political party are not bound by the rules of a coalition agreement". Crook says, "In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be". The National Party of Western Australia prior to and subsequent to the election are in no federal Coalition agreement, Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government. On 6 September Crook declared his support for the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench."

Have the three stupidoes ever crossed the floor?

creep wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 10:48pm:

matty wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:36pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:21pm: My whole point is that the Coalition only needs the support of the Christian Democrats or Shooters to pass legislation. Both are right wing, therefore making 23/42, hence Grabor are redundant. Yes, in theory you'd think that that would be so. But at the 2010 fed election the National Party (WA) (Crook) didnt automatically side with the coalition. And the three independents (Oakeshott, Windsor & Katter) were all former National party members. As if Crook was not ever going to side with the Coalition. Katter did eventually side with them too. Windsor is bitter, and Oakeshott ALP in drag. Fred Nile (and the other CD, Paul Green) will pretty much always side with the Coalition, and the Shooters will too. They certainly won't side with the greens. "The WA National Party subsequently issued a statement saying in part, "The Nationals WA as an independent political party are not bound by the rules of a coalition agreement". Crook says, "In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be". The National Party of Western Australia prior to and subsequent to the election are in no federal Coalition agreement, Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government. On 6 September Crook declared his support for the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench." Have the three stupidoes ever crossed the floor?

True. I was confused, because some sources had the Coalition at 73 seats, others more accurately at 72. Still, Crook was always going to side with the Coalition, it would be stupid to suggest otherwise. The 4 independents just mindlessly go along with Masters Brown and Gillard.

matty wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:01pm:

creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:48pm: matty wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:36pm: creep wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Jun 4th, 2011 at 10:21pm: My whole point is that the Coalition only needs the support of the Christian Democrats or Shooters to pass legislation. Both are right wing, therefore making 23/42, hence Grabor are redundant. Yes, in theory you'd think that that would be so. But at the 2010 fed election the National Party (WA) (Crook) didnt automatically side with the coalition. And the three independents (Oakeshott, Windsor & Katter) were all former National party members. As if Crook was not ever going to side with the Coalition. Katter did eventually side with them too. Windsor is bitter, and Oakeshott ALP in drag. Fred Nile (and the other CD, Paul Green) will pretty much always side with the Coalition, and the Shooters will too. They certainly won't side with the greens. "The WA National Party subsequently issued a statement saying in part, "The Nationals WA as an independent political party are not bound by the rules of a coalition agreement". Crook says, "In every news report and press report we see, my number is being allocated in with the Coalition and it shouldn't be". The National Party of Western Australia prior to and subsequent to the election are in no federal Coalition agreement, Crook has stated he is a crossbencher, and he and the WA Nationals are open to negotiating with either side to form government. On 6 September Crook declared his support for the Coalition on confidence and supply, but would otherwise sit on the crossbench." Have the three stupidoes ever crossed the floor? True. I was confused, because some sources had the Coalition at 73 seats, others more accurately at 72. Still, Crook was always going to side with the Coalition, it would be stupid to suggest otherwise. The 4 independents just mindlessly go along with Masters Brown and Gillard.

You see matty this is your problem. Just because they didn't do what you wanted they are all mindless idiots and dangerous mavericks. They had good reasons and if you had the objectivity to reason it out you would be annoyed with Kater for being a sheep. Toni Crook may well support the government on differing issues and in WA it was a very close go who they formed government with. In the end it was the need for change that drove it. The WA nationals are leading the way for the national party in this country and the federal party should hang it's head in shame at the weak and gutless way they have pandered to the liberal party for many years when they had the power to have demanded a much better deal for their electorates.
So stop dragging down the independents who have worked hard to get more for their electorates and not been blind sheep as you would like. and stop listening to rubbish radio it shows in you attitude, bitter and sour.

Yes the ABC is a voice for propaganda from the left.

if you are really so droll then fine creep. Yes the ABC and SBS are two of the better places for information if you are a TV addict. But then again it would not be hard when the only competition is the three commercial stations with their completely bias garbage always developed to suit the boss. At least the ABC and SBS try to have some modicum of objectivity, but i would encourage you to expand you zone of information to more varied sources. If you can read try searching the web that should keep you busy for a year or two, but be warned there is a lot of misinformation and you will need to check the source, unlike some TV and Radio commentators i could mention.

nairbe wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 3:51pm:

if you are really so droll then fine creep. Yes the ABC and SBS are two of the better places for information if you are a TV addict. But then again it would not be hard when the only competition is the three commercial stations with their completely bias garbage always developed to suit the boss. At least the ABC and SBS try to have some modicum of objectivity, but i would encourage you to expand you zone of information to more varied sources. If you can read try searching the web that should keep you busy for a year or two, but be warned there is a lot of misinformation and you will need to check the source, unlike some TV and Radio commentators i could mention.

The ABC is leftist crap!

But as you've been brainwashed into that line of thinking you wouldn't realsie that and then it comes as a shock to you when the facts get aired or an alternative viewpoint is presented.

creep wrote on Jun 5^th, 2011 at 4:24pm:

nairbe wrote on Jun 5th, 2011 at 3:51pm: if you are really so droll then fine creep. Yes the ABC and SBS are two of the better places for information if you are a TV addict. But then again it would not be hard when the only competition is the three commercial stations with their completely bias garbage always developed to suit the boss. At least the ABC and SBS try to have some modicum of objectivity, but i would encourage you to expand you zone of information to more varied sources. If you can read try searching the web that should keep you busy for a year or two, but be warned there is a lot of misinformation and you will need to check the source, unlike some TV and Radio commentators i could mention. The ABC is leftist crap! But as you've been brainwashed into that line of thinking you wouldn't realsie that and then it comes as a shock to you when the facts get aired or an alternative viewpoint is presented.

You truly are deluding yourself creep. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Saw a really good doco on SBS from us frontline talking about Afghanistan last night. Incredibly informative about what is really going on. It didn't put down the troups nor make any sweeping claim. It just set out some fact and left the rest to us to find how we felt.

This is a far cry from the rubbish you speak of that rams an opinion down our necks and then claims the ABC are lefties. So blind. :'( :'(

SBS doco's can go either way, presenters are a different story and the ABC most of their reporters put a leftist spin on things

Like come on, I’ve seen reporters say the term 'carbon pollution' when referring to CO2. We all know CO2 is not a pollutant and without it we wouldn’t be here.