Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Blogging » In The National Interest: Preference The Greens Out Of Existence

In The National Interest: Preference The Greens Out Of Existence

Now if only the ALP would do precisely the the same thing they would have far more respect from the moderate swinging voters, sadly the ALP are far too interested in soaking up the slops (preferences) from the Greens than enacting any matter of principle even though it was Gillard giving in to the blackmail of the Greens that has fundamentally destroyed he personal credibility.
You are completely correct about the sanctimonious witches of the Party (Milne and Hanson-Young) to see them laid low will be the high point of may election watching on September 7.
Cheers Comrades


  1. Ray Dixon says:

    I certainly endorse the coalition’s decision to put the Greens last, Iain. It will only mean, however, that Adam Bandt might lose his seat, which can only be a good thing – did you see him on Q & A this week? He’s such a lightweight and a complete waste of space. However, there’s no point or consequence in the ALP doing likewise, as you are hardly likely to see a 3-cornered contest that results in the Libs & the Greens having the most primaries.

  2. James says:

    The following cartoon I think says a lot about how most people feel….

  3. Elroy says:

    Boy! Mr Abbott sure hates them Greens! Even more than he hates the ALP! The Greens must be doing something right, then!

    Still, I’m glad to see Abbott won’t enter into an arrangement with a minor party in order to hold power! I await his announcement on the end of the Liberal/National coalition in 1…2…3…4…hmmm, I think I’m going to be here a while…5…6….7…



  4. Tony says:

    Sorry Elroy, I think you have that backwards.
    The Greens, the last few years, have had a great opportunity to cement their legitimacy in Australian politics, but instead, what have they done ? Nothing but agree with everything that labor was doing. Time, and time again, when labor did something that was right in the Greens wheelhouse, what happened ? Nothing, they folded, shut their mouths, and sat back down again on their hands. A real disappointment, and come election time, tthe average joe voter, won’t forget that unfortunately ?

    It will be interesting to see if the KRudd comes up with a similar announcement ? Somehow, I doubt it, as he is going to need every vote/preference he can lay his hands on, in his attempts to hang on to the reigns of power ?

  5. Elroy says:

    Au contraire! Why would the Greens argue when the ALP ‘did something that was right in the Greens wheelhouse’? Your contention makes no sense. Or course they’d agree with it! Dur!

    The Greens used their power, such as it was, wisely, but stuck to its guns on core issues like asylum seekers and climate change – it’s called being ‘principled’. However, unlike certain past and present Rightsters, the Greens were responsible enough not be the party of bloody-minded no.

    For Conservatives the Greens are either radical socialists painting the halls of parliament deep crimson or ALP lap dogs, and have either too many policies or not enough, depending on the day, but such prevaricating is no surprise; the Greens are the future, which why the ALP/LPA are so keen to drown them at birth – it’s a survival reflex. 

    However, when it comes to co-opting pet rural parties to get them over the line the Libs wrote the book. When the Liberal Party dares to campaign in its own right without the help of such political colossi of Joyce and Truss and the rest of the confused rubes who make up the National Party, agrarian socialists in all but name, then I might stop laughing – however, until then, let the hilarity ensue!



  6. Tony says:

    Principled ? They sold out everything they believe in, for the slimmest of chances of sitting at the adult’s table.

    Give you a few examples Elroy, both at federal level, as well as state level ?

    The massive delay in the introduction of the Carbon Tax; and the biggie,
    The continuation of unranium mining with their apparent consent ?
    The allowing of logging in old growth forests down in Tasmania ?

    That should be enough to get you started ? 😉
    The latter is when the Greens lost ALL respect from me.
    Like all politiicans, they are in it for the money, and perceived ego feed.
    Sorry 😦

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    The Greens were okay when they stuck to Green issues – you know, the environment. But on other issues like the economy they are just out of their depth. No one should ever let them near the nation’s purse strings again.

  8. James says:

    If ever there was a good reason NOT to support the Greens or INDEPENDENTS, Peter Slipper has just announced he will re-contest and stand for the seat of Fisher. 😯

  9. Iain Hall says:

    James the only reason slipper is re contesting has to do with the size of his parliamentary pension (which will be higher after the September poll) and then there is the matter of the couple of bucks per vote that he gets as well so I would suggest that Mammon is the only reason in his case.

  10. James says:

    Even more reasons to put him last on the ballot paper except if there’s a Green standing of course.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    My mate Yale sums it up well:

    The Red And The Blue

    BREAKING: Peter Slipper To Recontest Fisher As Independent
    by Yale Stephens

    IN A CASE of not knowing when to quit, National-cum-Liberal-cum-LNP-cum-Independent, conservative traitor and disgraced Speaker Peter Slipper has announced he’ll recontest his Sunshine Coast electorate of Fisher as an Independent; it is to be hoped the Liberals’ Mal Brough wins in a canter.

    If ever there was a more pointless or less inspiring candidacy for public office, this is it.

    For reasons best known to himself, Slipper has announced today that he will stand as an Independent at the imminent election in the seat of Fisher.

    It comes in the wake of a poll conducted in the electorate, which showed Slipper would attract just 0.5% of the vote, were he to stand.

    And it comes as his wife has apparently seen fit to issue a statement in support of Slipper, insisting their marriage is “real” and that she loves him.

    Be that as it may or otherwise, the issue here is whether Slipper retains the support of local burghers — now stripped of his Liberal Party endorsement — and whether, after more than 25 years in public life, he has anything left to contribute, be it locally or nationally.

    Having spent 23 of the past 26 years as a member of the House of Representatives, it is perhaps noteworthy that he has never held office as a minister of the Crown.

    Indeed, even his tenure as Speaker is noisome, commenced as it was in a deal to shore up Labor’s parliamentary numbers under Julia Gillard, and terminated in the wake of a scandal in which Slippery Pete had likened female genitalia to shellfish in obscene terms.

    This column notes that a candidate of outstanding calibre from the Howard government years — former cabinet minister Mal Brough — is attempting to resume his parliamentary career at this election in the seat of Fisher, and we hope Brough is elected in a landslide.

    That said, there had been speculation in the mainstream press in recent days that Slipper would opt to contest a losing campaign as an Independent in order to qualify for a share of public election funding — supposedly to help pay his legal bills.

    Whether this is the case or not, I note that to qualify, Slipper must poll 4% of valid first preference votes: not only do I think he will fail to do so, but I also hope he fails to do so.

    We have discussed the former Speaker in this column too many times to recount, and for once I’m not going to republish any links to the commentary we have made on his antics, although readers will be able to access these articles easily through the archives section.

    I simply relate the news that Slipper is to stand, and it is to be hoped the announcement heralds the end of a career that has been an abject waste of a conservative seat in the House of Representatives, and which

    could hardly be described as “glittering.”

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Good to see you lot getting stuck into a Liberal MP who you endorsed for 20 years.

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Ray I have NEVER endorsed Peter Slipper and That is largely because I have friend who lives in Fisher.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, Iain, but you never complained about him while he was a Liberal MP, which was when he committed his alleged frauds (and other, er, stuff). Strange how coalition supporters suddenly found him unacceptable AFTER he became an independent. Until then he was one of the ‘boys’, it seems.

  15. James says:

    Ray I had you sort of in the bracket of being a brighter person than to make a comment like that. I also have never endorsed Slippery, for one he’s got as much sex appeal as a blank chalk board. These days he’s nothing but another Labor stooge, like any of the so called independents.

  16. Tony says:

    Gee guys, never mind which side to pick, we know for certain, that everyone that attempts to get a seat in the big house, (or even smaller ones) are sleaze bags. They do it for such wonderful all the usual reasons ?
    Those ?
    Sex, money, power, and to get their names attributed to a success in history, that one day may be etched in a statue somewhere, in some park, so pigeons can spend their days c*apping on it ?
    They’re all the same, no matter what party, or particular political and economic leaning they have ?

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh yeah? When did you first take a dislike to Slipper, James? Would that be about the time he was appointed Speaker, ie after 20 years serving loyally as a coalition MP? This is called reinventing yourself, James – face it, you accepted Slipper as an ‘upstanding’ MP until he was no longer in the party. As for being a Labor “stooge”, sure, he was used by Gillard for political purposes. I’m sorry mate, but where’s the crime in that? What’s the problem? Oh, Abbott was out-manouvered – bad luck. Don’t point the finger at Labor when you won’t own up to the fact the coalition kept this sleaze in its fold for 20 years.

  18. James says:

    Ray Ray, calm down young fellow. I have never been a fan of Slipper, I had never heard of Slipper. He probably started out as one of those local government councillors or something, you know those people who in local government sit in big old fashioned stuffed leather chairs, very fitting, and feather their own nests for all I know.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    Stop the condescending “calm down” crap, James. Even if you (personally) had never heard of him, your precious coalition certainly did .. for 20 years as the member for Fisher. Endorsed by the coalition.

  20. James says:

    Ray I certainly wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings or have you feel that I might be threatening by making you think that I would involve myself in condescension.

    I would hate to think that you might take my remarks about subjects as a personal affront towards your, intelligence.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    Your whole style is condescending, James. And immature. You don’t seem to want a sensible debate and you show no respect for those who express opinions different to yours. No, it doesn’t “hurt” me, it just renders any argument with you futile and personal. When (or if) you start debating in a mature & adult fashion I’m happy to resume but until then, keep up your grandstanding, condescension and barracking all you like. I won’t respond any further to it.

  22. Elroy says:

    Tony – there you go!  The Greens are either crusty commies or pair-for poodles, damned if they do and damned if they don’t. So the Greens,   not unreasonably given their well- known objectives, thought the CSRA to be somewhat pathetic and held out for something more effective? Good. They tried. However, they understood that the government must go on and that they could only say ‘No’ to a point. What a shame the tantrum-chuckers on the Right, both in Aust and elsewhere, can’t learn from them.

    In relation to uranium mining, their ‘apparent’ consent? Really?is that all you have? Apparent? Not exactly rock-solid on this one, are you? However, where do you get the idea that The Greens are capable of single-handedly stopping Rio Tinto et al against the wishes of the ALP/LPA duopoly? They do what they can, if you want them to do more, vote for them. If you want them to do less, carry on as per.

    As for logging, the Tasmanian Greens might have even fleeced by the Lablibs by they went against the wishes of the Australan Greens, the bunch I believe are under discussion here, but tell me a what do you want? A more militant Green party who you can accuse of being ‘radical’ and ‘out of touch’, or a more compromising one who you can who you can declare to be Labor’s domesticated Kitty-cat?

    Rob – why do you want to keep the Greens away from other topics? Which ones? Why? What is wrong with their economic polices? Come on, let’s have it out! There’s a whole lot of hate for the Greens here but not much flesh on them bones, and I dread to think where we would without them – probably trying to remember what trees looked like. 

    So, the Greens – a one issue party with a complete raft of costed polices and a wholly-owned pack of rabid red radicals. Sounds like you guys are a tad confused.



    PS They’re worse than Slipper? That’s low…

  23. GD says:

    the Greens – with a complete raft of costed polices

    I read that to mean a return of death taxes and the adoption of nuclear power.

    Otherwise there is no way the loony Greens could ever deliver a ‘complete raft of costed policies’.

    The Greens have repeatedly said that they want to shut down the coal industry. Bob Brown was the best at that. He reckoned renewables could take up the slack. He retired soon after that silly statement.

    So without the help of nuclear power, the Greens reckon somehow they can run the country, deliver services and balance the budget all with wind and solar power.

    No wonder the Greens vote is dropping to almost nil.

  24. Tony says:

    Elroy ?

    The Greens are capable of single-handedly stopping Rio Tinto et al against the wishes of the ALP/LPA duopoly?

    Then why the hell haven’t they done it ? That’s all I got ? No, that’s all I need !
    After all, stopping uranium mining has been on their charter ever since the seventies ffs ?

    As for logging ?

    They are in a coalition government down there. Your stating that things are different down there is absolute b/s.
    They had a massive chance to further their cause, RESPONSIBLY, down there and what have they done ?
    The rape of old growth forests continues, unabated, and the leader sits back on his cabinet front bench, and twiddles his thumbs (?), yells cluck cluck, and does nothing else, but bank his massive ministerial pay packet !

    The Greens have many issues, but in all their entire history have followed through with none of them.
    Put em last !

  25. […] In The National Interest: Preference The Greens Out Of Existence (iainhall.wordpress.com) […]

  26. GD says:

    what the Greens stand for

    Cartoon by Zeg

  27. Iain Hall says:

    Great Toon GD.

    Go easy on Ray though Mate because he is Grieving (think Kubler-Ross’ “stages of grieving”) on two fronts, firstly there is the terminal nature of the federal ALP under the New Again Dear leader. As I see it he has gone through the denial stage and is well and truly into the Anger stage, with just a little of the bargaining this week should see him move into the acceptance phase of grieving and then he can truly come to terms with the loss that is all but certain on September7.
    Secondly his beloved AFL has been dogged by the Essendon scandal for most of the season which has detracted from the games and spoilt the competition for all of the AFL faithful.

  28. Richard Ryan says:

    I think I may be Tony Abbott’s long-lost love child——–G’day Dad, Mum reckons you were an arse-hole.

  29. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I’m not the slightest bit upset about the prospect of Labor losing this election and I’ve been saying they will lose it for well over two years. I have only ever said that bringing Rudd back would at least save them from oblivion, ie from being totally obliterated. And even you have agreed that’s a better outcome. I think Rudd has achieved that already, but there’s no real chance of him winning and there never really was. So no, I’m not “grieving” and I certainly have not ever been in “denial” about their prospects, nor am I “angry”. I have never worried about which party is in power.

    As for Essendon, the issue has not “detracted” from the games or “spoilt” the season. I think it’s admirable that the AFL has at long last come down hard on drug cheats, although it took the Federal Govt’s ACC & ASADA agencies to force their hand. Drugs are rife in all sports (look at cycling) but as long as the cheats are caught and punished, the sport goes on. I do think Essendon were lucky they didn’t cop more but there could be more charges to come once ASADA has completed its investigations.

  30. James says:

    All the Labor sooks are coming out to play.

    The biggest one being the ‘Born Again New Leader’, sooking all over the media today because people think he’s nasty, people say they don’t like him, people telling the truth about him.

    When the winners flag falls Saturday week there will be a rush of books to the bookstands,l tell all books that will expose the devil in the Prada shoes, Krudd. The best part is they will all be written by his ex-staffers; ex-Ministers and MP’s, tell all books that will rip into him bigtime.

  31. Ray Dixon says:

    A stunning and incisive political comment, James. So, um, irrelevant. Keep up the good work.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: