Who would have thought that the Greens were the misogynist party? They have cut their female representation in the ACT Legislative Assembly by 100 per cent. Meredith Hunter, Caroline Le Couteur and Amanda Bresnan have all lost their seats, while the only male Greens member, Shane Rattenbury, has retained his seat.
Or is it that the ACT voters are misogynist?
Seriously, though, there is a reasonable chance that Rattenbury might support a Liberal Government. He seems to be an atypical Green – interested in environmental issues rather than far left policies that the three former female members would support. Meredith Hunter, the now deposed Leader, was rusted on to a Labor Government.
I think that even the left-leaning ACT electorate is sending a strong signal to the Federal Labor administration: it is more interested in outcomes than confected outrage about misogyny (however defined).
I get my freind Giovanni to makea him a offer hesa canna refyooza ,EH?
The Mole™ has claimed that ratters may support the Gliberals rather than laybore.
We wait…
P.S. Sucked in greenfilth – a 75% reduction in your malign influence in this lobotomised leftist dump. Great work, dildos!
It depends on whether he does what he’s told by the greens party behind closed doors. He mentioned that he is taking direction from his party’s membership, but I assume that would mean the ACT greens management committee. Meredith and others will be exerting their influence behind the scenes and they just hate Zed. However, you are correct that he is somewhat atypical, but this has a bit to do with him occupying the Speaker’s chair in the Assembly, and being seen as somewhat above the fray.
Its possible Mr Rattenbury is actually an alien (ie a LGM, little green man), in which case the new ACT Greens caucus is not misogynist but misanthropist. Question to myself: do the Greens serve man?
Mr Rattenbury, your fellow Earthians await your comment on this pregnant issue.
The Greens Party supporting a Liberal government!
What are you smoking?
Ahh. Not an actul Green then.
There is no hope – none, nil, nada, zip, zero, zilch – that Rattenbury will support the Liberals.
If he is speaker, though, then his vote doesn’t count, does it? So that’d make it 8-8 in the Assembly so one presumes he can’t be speaker and king/queenmaker at the same time.
Perhaps he can court both parties to actually take the top job!
Shane Rattenbury might want to stay as speaker.
HT: http://www.legassembly.act.gov.au/members/163.asp
100% male MPs… they need a quota or something,
The NSW Greens’ Constitution requires the party to attempt to achieve at least 50 per cent representation by women as well as membership from rural and regional areas and amongst minority and disadvantaged groups
napoleaon said never interrupt an enemy when he is making a mistake.
HT: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Womeninparliament#_Toc318895786
Interesting question. The Speaker only votes when there is a tied vote.
So if he commits to one party and remains speaker – as the bribe – he may the first Speaker to vote on every issue.
Also, the Speaker has a Deputy, but does he have a pair?
Show us ya affirmative action! Ha Ha Ha.
Better get the Macquarie do a new alteration
Rattenbury may have a deeper interest in environmental issues (although I for one think this improbable). What is clear is that he is more inclined to support – or at least not forcefully condemn – criminal acts of damage in a green cause.
Prior to the election, when it was expected that the Greens would retain 3 seats), it was being put by informed persons that he wanted a ministry. Labor might find this hard to accommodate, and the Liberals certainly will not.
I suspect that the national-level Greens will have say in what happens, and I can’t see that they would want to have to explain to their members the creation of a Greens/Liberals alliance.
This is another example of the problem with our electoral system. Most of the votes go to major parties but a party of flea bitten hippies gets to swing power far beyond their mandate and support base.
There needs to be a way of negating this sort of thing, I just don’t know what it is!
There’s no need to negate it; the Liberals and Nationals have shown how a major party can have a productive long term alliance with a minor party.
The problem is that Labor has a habit of ceding policy direction to the Greens. This is a miscalculation and it will all wash out over time.
How very sanguine of you; when the current green policy directed fed government gets washed out, at the current rate, we should have a debt of about 1/2 trillion.
That’s not a “wash out”, that’s a fucking tsunami.
No chance that the Greens will form government with the Liberals. There is waaaay to much personal animus between them in terms of personality within the Assembly.
Maybe the problem is that the Libs actually want to parley with him. Kissing the Greens can only end in tears.
In the ACT, the Speaker gets a deliberative vote, and not a casting vote. Just like the Senate.
One of the things I really like about the ACT election system is that the parties are not able to allocate safe seats to anyone. There is no ordered party list like in the senate (different versions of ballots are generated so order is random). And although some people may always want to vote ALP or Lib they always have the ability to choose from a range of ALP or Lib candidates. When a major party is unpopular its pretty common to see the longer term MPs voted out and new ones voted in.
chris, in tasmania, under-performing ministers lose their seats even when their party is reelected easily.
have not seen an analysis of the robson rotating ballot either in terms of why the liberals introduced it or its public choice implications for the lack of rational ignorance in voting. tassie voters have detailed preferences on who they support within party tickets.