[Phil L.]

tfrommer at mindspring.com wrote:

>Nathan, thanks for the link. 
>
>A couple questions for you patient Aussies from a Yank trying to understand this all. Was PG previously a member of another party and that is contributing to some of the outburst about his joining Labor, or were people just *hoping* he would join the Greens?
>
Pete stood as a Greens candidate in 84(?), however, he was unsuccessful 
in getting elected.... Probably due in no small part to the rather small 
amount of support the greens actually have at the ballot box... the only 
safe seats for the greens are in the upper house, and none of the 
sitting senators would be likely to give up their seat for PG...

and of course, if you want your voice heard.... if your in a party with 
2 or 3 elected reps like the Greens, then you'll get your voice heard 
every now and then, when the government doesnt have the numbers.... by 
going with a major party, PG has the chance to actually be in the party 
making the decisions... so not only does he have a better chance of 
getting elected, he has a better chance of being heard....

> As I understand it, the ACF is not aligned with a specific political party so his presidency there didn't require specific membership. Then another issue seems to be his being appointed to a spot and not voted to it by party membership? I guess PG thinks he can more effective in a party with a bigger profile? It's tough enough trying to be a political junkie and making sense of the US let alone Oz!
>
>many thanks for any insights,
>Tim
>_______________________________________________
>Powderworks mailing list
>Powderworks at cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu
>http://cs-lists.cs.colorado.edu/mailman/listinfo/powderworks
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Phil L.
http://www.Car-Porn.com
http://www.HighOctanePhotos.com
http://www.LandBarge.com