Prefs
Click here for larger image.
This is the weighted political preferences in the Victorian senate at the last federal election.
Greens got around a 40 from Dems and ALP
Family First got around a 50 from Dems and ALP
Also, if you follow the Dem and ALP lines for preferences, bar where they preference themselves, they are quite identical.
So many little things in there. ALP puts One Nation above Liberal/Nationals. Dems put Libs not that much lower than they put Greens.
Might add some of the minor parties in more detail later.
posted by Larry Bonewend @ 12:44 am
4 comments
4 Comments:
i have to agree with some stuff siad in your last politic rant
the labour party did stand for something once upon a time but grahem richardson and the nsw right came along and changed all that
i think the 2001 election spoke volumes to me
there was big kim and little john bangin on about all the bad shit happening in the world, with fear mongering, race policies and how the other guy's party was responsible for our troubles.......blah blah blah
the only party that had any thing positive to say was the green's the one party you think is just a reactionary party
but bob brown displayed great vision for our nation as long as he's in the greens i'll continue to vote for them
but that's why all parties want the greens out
they aren't gonna just play the seedy game (whoops that really wasn't meant as a pun...but i'll take the credit!) they are actually gonna stick to their principals
Bob's getting on, and he gets too much media coverage, being considered to be the leader. He's 60, and deserves retirement, although I doubt he'd take it.
Worshipping Brown is a bit of a cult of personality - understandable, but detrimental for the party if he leaves.
One thing that frustrates me about Labor (aside from the main mention of union activity in The Age today was about how ALP Vic Premier Bracks is trying to screw the super out of emergency services workers) is not what they do, as what they don't do.
I got to thinking about the RSPCA - and the All Creatures Great and Small ad - the one with the wombat. There is a rooster and chickens in that ad.
The RSPCA head has stated that it's OK for them to accept funding and print their logo on Pace farm eggs, despite accusations of cruelty, because it is legal.
That's annoyed me for a while now, but why should it? Why is it legal to factory farm? Because it's more efficient? Why is it cruel to torture a chicken for fun but not profit? Why is there such a massive difference in laws depending on whether you get paid or not?
How can cock-fighting be illegal - surely it makes a profit, and only results in temporary cruelty, unlike caged hens who spend their entire lives in such a way. (The same goes for pigs if you are of the opinion that chickens are dumb birds.)
There is such inherent stupidity in the cruelty laws. In a Labor vs Liberal world, these are non-issues, despite the fact they are issues for the public, they will never be dealt with.
This is just one of the multitude of issues that keep charities working away, trying to make a change, when the two big parties piss fart around with petty changes we don't really want.
How about a tax - $1 per dozen eggs, on non-free range eggs. The money can go to discounting free-range (so no one can complain it will cost consumers money) or to charities, or given back to producers to discount the changes required to convert to free range.
Sounds good. Never going to happen. Why?
So many changes can be made in politics, sensibly, and to the merit of the nation, that would save so much effort that goes into campaigning, fundraising, marches, even arrests.
Antibiotics, hormones and roids in animal feed can't be good for us? Look at Latham's man-boobs - too much estrogen chicken for him. Why do we allow this stupidity? Why are there no bills being passed?
Why don't we have the right to know if our food is GM or not? Some are concerned, should they not have the option to at least be informed? Why exactly did Howard remove the rule stating a minimum quantity of meat in a meat pie? How is that Australian? Does that benefit the average Australian? Would Labor undo it?
Where did I read that child-care has gone to $100 on average? How does it help employement when people stop work altogether because they can't afford to live otherwise?
The way I see it, Liberals take us two steps back, Labor 1 step forward, Greens, Democrats, whoever, are looking 3 steps ahead.
There is a massive array of changes we could make to better the country, our lives, our world. It's frustrating when the major parties pick a couple, shuffle them around and play politics, pretend to do something about it, and eventually don't - while the other issues just sit there, kept alive by those who seem to give a crap.
I do like the greens I have to admit. I could not have been prouder of Brown when he was booted for heckling old Bushie.
But an ALPer I will remain since in our current state they are my preferred model of the bigger boys in town.
But I sure as hell recognise they need some f_cking help to fix up and soon. Maybe Latham was the lance to the boil that needed to be done? We shall see...
Dear Author watermelonrant.blogspot.com !
Thanks for the help in this question how I can thank you?
Post a Comment
<< Home