MedVision ad

NSW Election - BOS Voting Intentions (1 Viewer)

Legislative Assembly: 1st Preference

  • Liberal/National

    Votes: 24 20.5%

  • Labor

    Votes: 53 45.3%

  • Greens

    Votes: 25 21.4%

  • Independent

    Votes: 7 6.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 8 6.8%
  • Total voters
    117
B

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Triangulum said:
It's horribly depressing that Fred Nile has apparently regained his LC seat.
Click to expand...
Oh not only this - the real kicker is that the Greens lost votes in the only place where their votes counted - the upper house.

I guess thats what happens when the Greens actually make the public aware of more than their party name.

I also love the way the Greens always bitch heavily whenever a righty gets a seat, and the Greens are supposed to be a democratic party? My ass.

The Greens are 20% far left dickheads who couldn't run a lemonade stand, and 80% people who vote for the name, and who would not vote for them at all if they bothered to read their policies.
 
ElendilPeredhil

ElendilPeredhil

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
543
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
I'm voted in the Electorate of Bathurst. Labour since 1999.

1. Labour
2. Independants
3. Greens
4. Democrats
 
withoutaface

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Nebuchanezzar said:
Lol. Just shuttup, you fool.

As for your statistics, I don't give a shit. For fucks sake, I've already said that there was a MOUNTAIN of things working AGAINST the ALP at this election and they still won! What the fuck are you trying to prove? The fact is that PEOPLE VOTED BASED ON IR. How the hell else can you explain it? At the very most, I can see personality played a big part, and if that's the case then Howard is in for a whole heap of trouble at the federal election. I expect you to pull some bullshit excuse out to say that it won't have any effect, or using the horribly trite excuse of incumbency to say that none of it will matter at the federal election. Oh, we'll see about that.

I also love the fact that the coalition in recent hours has been throwing the reason of mudslinging as the dreadfully immoral, indecent means that the ALP won the election. Do they not recall their tactics at the 2004 federal election? Pot calling the kettle black?
Click to expand...
If the election was won based on IR, then the entire state of New South Wales is mentally retarded.
EDIT: The tactics in the 2004 federal election attacked Latham based on his acts on Liverpool council, they didn't take his policies and construct blatant lies about them.
 
withoutaface

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Nebuchanezzar said:
Explain.
Click to expand...
1. IR is a federal issue.
2. Bracks has had the system Debnam described for 8 years, noone's ever really complained about it.
 
Nebuchanezzar

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I think it was more of a protest vote, than anything else. The advertisements by labor seemed to focus on a complete handover to Howard, even though anyone with a decent memory would know that Iemma really can't stop anything.
 
B

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Nebuchanezzar said:
I think it was more of a protest vote, than anything else. The advertisements by labor seemed to focus on a complete handover to Howard, even though anyone with a decent memory would know that Iemma really can't stop anything.
Click to expand...
Ok, do you think about the Iraq war when you cast your vote for your local council/shire?

Because thats essentially how stupid someone has to be in order to treat IR as a state issue.

On that note wtf was AAFI doing on the ballot anyway ..
 
J

Josie

Everything's perfect!
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
Messages
1,340
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Cause AAFI are stupid.

And yes, people are stupid enough to think that IR has something to do with state.
 
B

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Josie said:
And yes, people are stupid enough to think that IR has something to do with state.
Click to expand...
... and they're the ones who voted 1. Labor ..
 
W

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Nebuchanezzar said:
I think it was more of a protest vote, than anything else. The advertisements by labor seemed to focus on a complete handover to Howard, even though anyone with a decent memory would know that Iemma really can't stop anything.
Click to expand...
Withoutaface is making the point that the NSW industrial relations system protects only a very very small proportion of NSW citizens. IR isn't or shouldn't be a state issue.

However I'm sure the ALP was happy to exploit any potential anti work choices sentiment out there.
 
Last edited:
Nebuchanezzar

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
bshoc said:
Ok, do you think about the Iraq war when you cast your vote for your local council/shire?
Click to expand...
If they were a part of the Liberal party then it would certainly have a bit of an influence over the matter, yes. It mightn't have much to do with the election, but most sane people do like to punish those who are directly involved with war-mongerers.

wheredanton said:
Withoutaface is making the point that the NSW industrial relations system protects only a very very small proportion of NSW citizens. IR isn't or shouldn't be a state issue.
Click to expand...
And before workchoices and the high court decision?
 
W

wheredanton

Retired
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
599
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Nebuchanezzar said:
And before workchoices and the high court decision?
Click to expand...
Workchoices is based on the corporations power of the constitution. It is a power of the commonwealth to make laws with respect to corporations. I don't know the detail of the legislation but it is probably also based on other heads of power as well. It was decided by the high court, afaik, to be easily within the power of the commonwealth government to make laws for the employees of corporations.

The state industrial relations system only protects public servants - Nurses, teachers and police officers etc. The government can make laws with respect to corporations and their employees.
 
Last edited:
Nebuchanezzar

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
wheredanton said:
Workchoices is based on the corporations power of the constitution. It is a power of the commonwealth to make laws with respect to corporations. I don't know the detail of the legislation but it is probably also based on other heads of power as well. It was decided by the high court, afaik, to be easily within the power of the commonwealth government to make laws for the employees of corporations.

The state industrial relations system only protects public servants - Nurses, teachers and police officers etc. The government can make laws with respect to corporations and their employees.
Click to expand...
Oh, lol, I'm not second guessing the legality of the legislation. As Gleeson (I think) said, it might not be a fair legislation, but it's legal legislation. I'm guessing that the majority of people wouldn't remember the High Court decision unless someone reminded them, so I tend to think that any opposition to the legislation is based on a hip pocket concern, rather than concern over it being illegal and whatever. And indeed, if the electorate thinks that anything put forth by a government will hurt them financially, they're going to act pretty fast over the matter, regardless as to whether it will really hurt them a lot or not.
 
withoutaface

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Nebuchanezzar said:
Oh, lol, I'm not second guessing the legality of the legislation. As Gleeson (I think) said, it might not be a fair legislation, but it's legal legislation. I'm guessing that the majority of people wouldn't remember the High Court decision unless someone reminded them, so I tend to think that any opposition to the legislation is based on a hip pocket concern, rather than concern over it being illegal and whatever. And indeed, if the electorate thinks that anything put forth by a government will hurt them financially, they're going to act pretty fast over the matter, regardless as to whether it will really hurt them a lot or not.
Click to expand...
One can also oppose it on:
1. Federalist grounds.
2. Its needless complexity, in that it takes 1000 pages to change, in the scheme of things, very little.

Now while the former doesn't seem to matter to anyone except Nick Minchin, the latter would be a concern to employers, in that it refutes the view that IR change was 100% perfect for them, because a lot would need to hire legal advisers to plod their way through it.
 
Serius

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
aww i like debnam. I was kinda hoping he would be around to win the next election. That is, if labour fucks up badly this term aswell.

Those missing votes must be pretty embarassing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top