Comments on: More people I won’t be voting for

By: Ann O'Dyne

Ann O'Dyne — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:40:26 +0000

…good thing keyboards don’t cost what they used to.

and I’d vote anybody in ahead of a ‘Camberwell nurse’
(ref. recent news on the many dodgy Homes For The Terminally Bewildered in 3204)

… or nurse from any other postcode.

By: Helen

Helen — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:48:49 +0000

*Cuppa tea on keyboard*

By: Francis Xavier Holden

Francis Xavier Holden — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:26:21 +0000

aah good old Vern. Back in his proper home the DLP. Lot of similarities. Long track record of being a cuckoo in other organisations, take them over or destroy them – generally both – while sucking out a salary. Spin everything ever done in past.
Eg chook raffle becomes:
restructured single handed poultry industry, conservation of birdlife, build viable feather exports, grass roots endevours for affordable meat in western suburbs, etc etc.

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:46:29 +0000

I’m also surprised Ariel, that I just saw a how to vote card (we were checking through the unsolicited mail we still had) and my mum noticed that they’d put Rice at no. 2 even while spending mega $$$ and effort undermining the Greens. My only guess is that one factional hand doesn’t know what the other factional hand is doing!

By: Ariel

Ariel — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:30:00 +0000

We voted for Janet Rice at the local primary school, too. No cake stall, but there was a sausage sizzle! The really odd thing is that the ALP candidate – now member for Williamstown is assistant national secretary of the Transport Workers Union, who represent the interests of truckers. I’m very surprised that the Greens didn’t campaign against him more heavily on that basis, as our seat is so very, very anti-trucks.

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:30:41 +0000

Well, long story short, because I’d rather vote for a party that was about the issues, rather than about wasting valuable time and resources “baiting” other parties – as you’ve just admitted they are doing.

You’re continuing the smearing by echo-chambering the “policy on selective schools” . Labor is trying to imply that to the general public whereas the Greens actually want to lift the public system up to a decent education system where gifted students won’t be held back for lack of resources, and where they are not creamed off to the selectives, leaving the rest as a ghetto for the disadvantaged. I think that’s the right way to go and there is a difference between reducing / eliminating the need for selective schools and just shutting them down. AS IF an existing school with the infrastructure in place would be shut down, under a Greens local member’s watch.

Hopefully the brainy kids and the brainy kids’ parents are intelligent enough to see through that crap.

Seems some Labor members / former members are, too:

Mr van Leeuwen, a party member for more than 35 years who worked in the office of former Labor minister Evan Walker and stood for the seat of Prahran in the 1980s, dismissed the Labor letter about selective schools as “nothing more than a scare tactic to stir the pot about the alleged Greens’ policy”.
“In my opinion there are valuable tens of thousands of election campaign dollars being wasted from central party sources on negative stuff,” he wrote.

By: Paul W.

Paul W. — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:23:08 +0000

The Greens swallowed Labor’s bait hook, line and sinker. They were vulnerable not on “green” issues as such – on which most people including me would agree with them – but on their silly and anachronistic Old Left policies like abolishing selective schools. Why does an environmentalist party need a policy on selective schools at all? If they had campaigned on things such as stopping bay dredging and the Grand Prix, ignored Labor’s baiting, and found a decent media-friendly “star” candidate (and not a stereotypical “typical” one), they might well have won Albert Park if not Williamstown.

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:39:20 +0000

Bernice, definitely.:-)

By: Helen

Helen — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:31:51 +0000

Paul W: Yes, because the 90% were just responding to the honest reporting from the straightforward media and the honest public servants (Halston, Moore-Wilton).
[/sarcasm]

As an experiment, why doesn’t Labor back off with its disinformation and smear campaign and see how the Greens do then?

They (Labor) must be scared of them, or they wouldn’t spend the money on the dirty tricks campaigns.

By: Bernice

Bernice — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:33:49 +0000

Eggs = cakestall…