4636Re: A Response to Peter Boyle, and the Editorial Board of Green Left Weekly
- Feb 19, 2004I'm a little curious what exactly Bob means when he refers to
"campaigning for a Latham Labor-Greens majority government in the next
As far as I am aware ALP members are campaigning for an ALP
government, and Greens are campaigning for a (future) Greens
government. I'm not aware that anyone is campaigning for any kind of
Of course, Bob could be just trying to maintain his alliance with some
of the Greens on this list. (Other Greens think he is talking
horseshit, by the way.)
Personally, of all the federal elections I have seen, I feel the
greatest indifference to the one coming up this year. It just really
seems to be a case where the outcome doesn't matter. There's just no
evidence that Labor would be any significant improvement in any major
At most they might slow the pace of attacks in some areas - but they
wouldn't make anything better, and in other areas they are likely to
be worse than the Coalition.
And for a laugh - the Greens decided not to direct preferences in
Toowoomba North in the recent Queensland state election. I opposed
this, but it wasn't a local decision, and there were other locals who
supported it anyway. It all became moot on polling day, because some
of the How To Vote cards had been misprinted, so the ALP protested and
prevented the Greens from being able to distribute them.
I suspect that we won't be directing preferences in the Federal
election either. I won't be able to do anything about it. Fortunately,
I don't really care.
So much for "a Latham Labor-Greens majority government".
But it's all claptrap anyway, since a Latham government would be a
Labor government, with the Greens being at most a nuisance for them in
the Senate. This is nothing even remotely like a "Labor-Greens"
government. Bob's just putting out bait for suckers.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>