Labor is acting like it is doing something by making submission to fair
work commission for 5% minimum pay rise.

The commission would mostly ignore any submission make by the government
because it is meant to be independent of the government.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> Labor is acting like it is doing something by making submission to fair
> work commission for 5% minimum pay rise.

> The commission would mostly ignore any submission make by the government

Bullshit.

> because it is meant to be independent of the government.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

On 5/06/2022 11:31 am, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> Labor is acting like it is doing something by making submission to
>> fair work commission for 5% minimum pay rise.
>
>> The commission would mostly ignore any submission make by the government
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> because it is meant to be independent of the government.
>
> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Of course the commission would be receiving all the objective data from
treasury etc.

But it would be ignoring any subjective opinion of the Labor government
that wages should rise by a certain amount.

For the new government to therefore take credit for the submission as
though it has done something effectual is a bit pathetic.

Surmising there will be a particular date for Scott Morrison to resign
the seat of Cook based on his first elected dates as MP, Minister and
Prime Minister. 15 years Cook is 24 Nov 2022. 10 years minister is 18
Sep 2023.

You cannot expect him not to resign at a date that would maximise his
entitlements. Any sane person would do that in any job.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> Labor is acting like it is doing something by making submission to
>>> fair work commission for 5% minimum pay rise.

>>> The commission would mostly ignore any submission make by the
>>> government

>> Bullshit.

>>> because it is meant to be independent of the government.

>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

> Of course the commission would be receiving all the objective data from
> treasury etc.

And submissions from everyone, so they appear to be impartial, stupid.

> But it would be ignoring any subjective opinion of the Labor government
> that wages should rise by a certain amount.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

Treasury doesn't say what the change should be, stupid.

> For the new government to therefore take credit for thesubmission as
> though it has done something effectual

They haven't done that, JUST said what their submission would be.

> is a bit pathetic.

Not as pathetic as you tho.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> Surmising there will be a particular date for Scott Morrison to resign
> the seat of Cook based on his first elected dates as MP, Minister and
> Prime Minister. 15 years Cook is 24 Nov 2022. 10 years minister is 18
> Sep 2023.

More fool you, as always.

> You cannot expect him not to resign at a datethat would maximise his
> entitlements.

There is no way to do that for MPs.

> Any sane person would do that in any job.

Depends on whether you like the job or not.

Couple of mates of mine hate having resigned.

On 5/06/2022 11:08 am, Max wrote:
> Labor is acting like it is doing something by making submission to fair
> work commission for 5% minimum pay rise.
>
> The commission would mostly ignore any submission make by the government
> because it is meant to be independent of the government.

Do you know that governments have submitted submission annually to the
FWC for many years?

Or are you just having a whinge because Labor has done so?

On 5/06/2022 11:39 am, Max wrote:
> On 5/06/2022 11:31 am, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>
>>> Labor is acting like it is doing something by making submission to
>>> fair work commission for 5% minimum pay rise.
>>
>>> The commission would mostly ignore any submission make by the government
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> because it is meant to be independent of the government.
>>
>> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>
> Of course the commission would be receiving all the objective data from
> treasury etc.
>
> But it would be ignoring any subjective opinion of the Labor government
> that wages should rise by a certain amount.
>
> For the new government to therefore take credit for the submission as
> though it has done something effectual is a bit pathetic.

Did you bother to read your last paragraph before hitting the send
button because that paragraph is simply ridiculous.

Of course the government can take credit for doing the submission. The
govt DID do the submission. It wasn't some group of pixies that did the
submission, it was the GOVERNMENT that did the submission.

On 5/06/2022 11:57 am, Max wrote:
> Surmising there will be a particular date for Scott Morrison to resign
> the seat of Cook based on his first elected dates as MP, Minister and
> Prime Minister. 15 years Cook is 24 Nov 2022. 10 years minister is 18
> Sep 2023.

I think your surmise would be incorrect but can't be bothered wading
through the MOP(S) Act, the Rem Tribunal determinations etc.

In pension terms, he's been PM, he's served for years and he's of an age
where his parliamentary pension will kick in.

He might be hanging out to get a privately plated car that he can gets
his paws on if goes or for some other perk to deliver but who knows?
He's a greedy sod. He hung out on moving out of Kirribilli House,
hasn't held down a job on merit in many decades but always reies on perk
jobs from his mates or by knifing anyone who gets in his way. He's
probably waiting for some perk job offer such as he and his corrupt
cronies managed to get for Cormann after having spent huge amoutns of
taxpayer's money to ensure Cormann got it.

> You cannot expect him not to resign at a date that would maximise his
> entitlements. Any sane person would do that in any job.

Yes one would expect that knowing how greedy and grasping Morrison and
his government were.

On 5/06/2022 12:48 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> Surmising there will be a particular date for Scott Morrison to resign
>> the seat of Cook based on his first elected dates as MP, Minister and
>> Prime Minister. 15 years Cook is 24 Nov 2022. 10 years minister is 18
>> Sep 2023.
>
> More fool you, as always.
>
>> You cannot expect him not to resign at a datethat would maximise his
>> entitlements.
>
> There is no way to do that for MPs.
>
>> Any sane person would do that in any job.
>
> Depends on whether you like the job or not.
>
> Couple of mates of mine hate having resigned.

Makes no sense. The longer you wait to retire, the more your
entitlements will be, unless there is a voluntary redundancy.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> Surmising there will be a particular date for Scott Morrison to resign
>>> the seat of Cook based on his first elected dates as MP, Minister and
>>> Prime Minister. 15 years Cook is 24 Nov 2022. 10 years minister is 18
>>> Sep 2023.

>> More fool you, as always.

>>> You cannot expect him not to resign at a datethat would maximise his
>>> entitlements.

>> There is no way to do that for MPs.

And it is unlikely that Labor will be offering him some
cushy job as am ambassadore etc and unlikely that
ScoMo would even want that sort of shit job anyway.

>>> Any sane person would do that in any job.

>> Depends on whether you like the job or not.

>> Couple of mates of mine hate having resigned.

> Makes no sense.

We'll see...

> The longer you wait to retire, the more your entitlements will be,

Doesn't work like that with MPs, ministers or PMs.

> unless there is a voluntary redundancy.

Ditto.

My mates who hate having retired hate
having nothing interesting to do anymore.

On Thursday, 2 June 2022 at 20:38:17 UTC+10, Ozix wrote:
> But why didn't the coalition do anything for months, when it was obvious
> that blacklisting Russian gas would send prices up?
> He probably has a wood fireplace in his humble abode, and will stay warm
> while the city slickers freeze in the dark.

Under the previous govt., Australia somehow buys gas at a higher price than overseas customers !!!
What an economic anomaly !!!!! Someone is ripping off the Australian consumers!!!
Whatever the "valid reasons" or excuses these businessmen have cooked up for the anomaly,
it's time Labor look into this and legislate to ensure these excuses they have cooked up or devised become illegal !!!

On 5/06/2022 2:00 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>> Surmising there will be a particular date for Scott Morrison to
>>>> resign the seat of Cook based on his first elected dates as MP,
>>>> Minister and Prime Minister. 15 years Cook is 24 Nov 2022. 10 years
>>>> minister is 18 Sep 2023.
>
>>>  More fool you, as always.
>
>>>> You cannot expect him not to resign at a datethat would maximise
>>>> his  entitlements.
>
>>>  There is no way to do that for MPs.
>
> And it is unlikely that Labor will be offering him some
> cushy job as am ambassadore etc and unlikely that
> ScoMo would even want that sort of shit job anyway.
>
>>>> Any sane person would do that in any job.
>
>>>  Depends on whether you like the job or not.
>
>>>  Couple of mates of mine hate having resigned.
>
>> Makes no sense.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> The longer you wait to retire, the more your  entitlements will be,
>
> Doesn't work like that with MPs, ministers or PMs.
>
>> unless there is a voluntary redundancy.
>
> Ditto.
>
> My mates who hate having retired hate
> having nothing interesting to do anymore.

Why would they care? Why not just live it up, watching TV, internet,
eating food, hanging out with pets etc. ?

I work and I enjoy my job and I am stimulated by the challenges and
interested in my field, but I wouldn't care if I didn't have to work
because I was financially set up.

Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>
>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>
>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>
>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>
>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>
>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>
>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>
>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>
>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>
>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>> the line.
>
> Glad you are sure!
>
If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
any of your twelve preferences to .....

Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
Three TNL candidates, or,
Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
Eight The Greens candidates, or,
Two ungrouped candidates, or,
Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
Five Independent candidates.

So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!

Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
your ideologies, Petzl!
--
Daniel

On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>
>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>
>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>
>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>
>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>
>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>
>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>
>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>
>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>
>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>> the line.
>>
>> Glad you are sure!
>>
> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>
> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
> Three TNL candidates, or,
> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
> Five Independent candidates.
>
> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>
> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
> your ideologies, Petzl!

Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major parties?

Rod Speed wrote on 5/6/22 2:00 pm:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote

<Snip>

>> The longer you wait to retire, the more your entitlements will
>> be,
>
> Doesn't work like that with MPs, ministers or PMs.

Didn't work like that with me, either!! (for what it's worth!)

I was in the Army for twenty years and six days when I retired on a
(DFRDB) pension. If I had stayed in longer, I would have had to stay in
until I'd served about twenty-seven years to be on an equivalent pension
as there is/was a dip in payout rate between those two 'dates'!

>> unless there is a voluntary redundancy.
>
> Ditto.
>
> My mates who hate having retired hate having nothing interesting to
> do anymore.

THAT I can certainly relate too!!
--
Daniel

Max wrote on 5/6/22 10:47 pm:
> On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>
>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>
>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>
>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>
>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>
>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>> your any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>
>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>> Five Independent candidates.
>>
>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>
>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>> with your ideologies, Petzl!
>
> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major parties?

No!! Once your twelve preferences have been allocated (according to YOUR
instructions) how the hell could anyone, apart from you, know where you
might want your thirteenth preference to go!

Hence the instructions you should have been given AND WHICH ARE WRITTEN
ON THE BALLOT PAPER that, to be valid, you must allocate from ONE to AT
LEAST TWELVE preferences!! ;-)
--
Daniel

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>> Surmising there will be a particular date for Scott Morrison to
>>>>> resign the seat of Cook based on his first elected dates as MP,
>>>>> Minister and Prime Minister. 15 years Cook is 24 Nov 2022.10 years
>>>>> minister is 18 Sep 2023.

>>>> More fool you, as always.

>>>>> You cannot expect him not to resign at a datethat would maximise
>>>>> his entitlements.

>>>> There is no way to do that for MPs.

>> And it is unlikely that Labor will be offering him some
>> cushy job as am ambassadore etc and unlikely that
>> ScoMo would even want that sort of shit job anyway.

>>>>> Any sane person would do that in any job.

>>>> Depends on whether you like the job or not.

>>>> Couple of mates of mine hate having resigned.

>>> Makes no sense.

>> We'll see...

>>> The longer you wait to retire, the more your entitlements will be,

>> Doesn't work like that with MPs, ministers or PMs.

>>> unless there is a voluntary redundancy.

>> Ditto.

>> My mates who hate having retired hate

>> having nothing interesting to do anymore.

> Why would they care?

Because some of us find work more
interesting than not working.

> Why not just live it up, watching TV,

You ever checked what is broadcast in the daytime ?

> internet, eating food, hanging out with pets etc. ?

You are free to do all that when doing interesting work as well.

> I work and I enjoy my job and I am stimulated by the challenges and
> interested in my field, but I wouldn't care if I didn't have to work
> because I was financially set up.

Plenty feel otherwise.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Daniel65 wrote
>> Petzl wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>
>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>
>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>
>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50%
>>>>> in
>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>> the
>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>
>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>> below
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>
>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>> your any of your twelve preferences to .....
>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>> Five Independent candidates.
>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>> with your ideologies, Petzl!
>
> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major parties?

Not if you vote BELOW THE LINE.

Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>> The longer you wait to retire, the more your entitlements will be,

> Doesn't work like that with MPs, ministers or PMs.

> Didn't work like that with me, either!! (for what it's worth!)

Didn't work like that for a mate of mine either, head
master of a primary school. He got into a situation
where he was financialy better off returing when he did
rather than working at that job for as long as he could.

He was quite happy to retire, keen golfer and gardener
and with something like 8 kids, a roman catholic.

> I was in the Army for twenty years and six days when I retired on a
> (DFRDB) pension. If I had stayed in longer, I would have had to stayin
> until I'd served about twenty-seven years to be on an equivalentpension
> as there is/was a dip in payout rate between those two 'dates'!

>>> unless there is a voluntary redundancy.

>> Ditto.

>> Two of my mates who hate having retired hatehaving nothing interesting
>> to do anymore.

> THAT I can certainly relate too!!

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:45:00 +1000, Daniel65
<daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>
>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>
>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>
>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>
>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>
>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>
>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>
>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>
>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>
>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>> the line.
>>
>> Glad you are sure!
>>
>If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>any of your twelve preferences to .....
>
>Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>Three TNL candidates, or,
>Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>Five Independent candidates.
>
>So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>
>Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>your ideologies, Petzl!
>
Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
your preference would go down to your option on vote.
When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
number on that list collection of votes etc.
Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition that gives
them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.

In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero values whose
only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.
Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
(Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).
Malcolm Turnbull was behind the "Teal" candidates to push out
Liberals.
--
Petzl
All governments lie about some things,
but Labor/"Green" Coalion totalitarian governments
lie about everything.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 22:47:24 +1000, Max <max@val.morgan> wrote:

>On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>
>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>
>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>
>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>
>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>
>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>
>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>> Five Independent candidates.
>>
>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>
>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>
>Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major parties?
>
Most often
--
Petzl
The problem with socialism is that you
eventually run out of other people's money.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 23:22:22 +1000, Daniel65
<daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:

>Max wrote on 5/6/22 10:47 pm:
>> On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>> oddity that you  vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>
>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>
>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50% in
>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down the
>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>
>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting below
>>>>> the line.
>>>>
>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>
>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>>> your any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>
>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>
>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>
>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>>> with your ideologies, Petzl!
>>
>> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major parties?
>
>No!! Once your twelve preferences have been allocated (according to YOUR
>instructions) how the hell could anyone, apart from you, know where you
>might want your thirteenth preference to go!
>
No once your and other votes (marbles) end up on your 12th selection
(assuming none got over 50% of the marbles) Then ALL of the marbles in
the 12th go to the selected preferences to continue down to most
likely Labor/Coalition
>
>Hence the instructions you should have been given AND WHICH ARE WRITTEN
>ON THE BALLOT PAPER that, to be valid, you must allocate from ONE to AT
>LEAST TWELVE preferences!! ;-)
>
Or draw a cock and balls if the informal votes get over 50% means the
election has to be done again!
--
Petzl
All governments lie about some things,
but Labor/"Green" Coalion totalitarian governments
lie about everything.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Daniel65 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote
>> Petzl wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>
>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>
>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>
>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>
>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>
>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>
>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over 50%
>>>>> in
>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>> the
>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>
>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>> below
>>>> the line.
>>>
>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>
>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded your
>> any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>
>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates, or,
>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>> Five Independent candidates.
>>
>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>
>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree with
>> your ideologies, Petzl!
>>
> Wouldn't mater unless one of the/your above selections got above 50%
> your preference would go down to your option on vote.
> When or IF your vote gets to the last number on that list, ALL that
> last number on list preferences take over, and so-on till the last
> number on that list collection of votes etc.
> Eventually ALL votes end up,mainly, in Labor or Coalition

Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

> that gives them over the 50% to Senate or HoR.

Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

Instead you just waste your vote.

> In that case both Labor and Coalition ministers are zero valueswhose
> only aim is to get their corrupt snout and trotters in trough.

That's bullshit too. Howard didn't even bother to live in Kirrabilly.

> Sometimes it stuffs up when they parachute a real offensive stinker
> (Kristina Keneally) to push out a very popular known local (Dai Le).

Separate issue entirely.

> Malcolm Turnbull was behind the "Teal" candidates to push out Liberals.

Only because they dumped him.

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 09:23:11 +1000, Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 23:22:22 +1000, Daniel65
> <daniel47@eternal-september.org> wrote:
>
>> Max wrote on 5/6/22 10:47 pm:
>>> On 5/06/2022 10:45 pm, Daniel65 wrote:
>>>> Petzl wrote on 2/6/22 4:02 pm:
>>>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 15:23:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>>>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you wish to vote a duopoly last you can't unless the
>>>>>>>>> oddity that you vote for gets 50% of the vote first count,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Corse you can if you vote below the line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you don't no the way preferences work!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one with that problem, as always.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your vote goes downhill ,assuming none achieve a vote of over 50%,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your last box preferences take over and takes over going downhill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when you vote below the line, you can ensure
>>>>>> that neither of the two majors ever gets your vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again assuming no selected preference is achieve a vote of over
>>>>>>> 50% in
>>>>>>> last box, preferences take over with ALL votes gathered going down
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> preference drain again till they end up in the duopolies rectum!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That last never happens if you don't include those in your voting
>>>>>> below
>>>>>> the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad you are sure!
>>>>>
>>>> If you wanted to vote BELOW THE LINE, Petzl, you could have awarded
>>>> your any of your twelve preferences to .....
>>>>
>>>> Three Animal Justice Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three TNL candidates, or,
>>>> Three Citizens Party candidates, or,
>>>> Three Sustainable Australia Party candidates, or,
>>>> Eight The Greens candidates, or,
>>>> Two ungrouped candidates, or,
>>>> Three Reason Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Three Socialist Alliance candidates, or,
>>>> Two Federal ICAC Now candidates, or,
>>>> Three Australian Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Indigenous - Aboriginal Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Four Shooter, Fishers and Farmers Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Seniors United Party of Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two Informed Medical Options Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two The Great Australian Party candidates, or,
>>>> Two Legalise Cannabis Australia candidates, or,
>>>> Two FUSION, Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency, candidates,
>>>> or,
>>>> Three Pauline Hanson's One Nation candidates, or,
>>>> Four Liberal Democrats candidates, or,
>>>> Two Australian Values Party candidates, or,
>>>> Six United Australia Party candidates, and,
>>>> Five Independent candidates.
>>>>
>>>> So heaps and Heaps of N.S.W. Senate candidates (69) wanting to get any
>>>> of your twelve preference votes, Petzl, before you have to go anywhere
>>>> near the LNP or ALP, Petzl!!
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm sure some of those Party's ideologies might disagree
>>>> with your ideologies, Petzl!
>>>
>>> Don't their preferences all end up flowing to one of the major parties?
>>
>> No!! Once your twelve preferences have been allocated (according to YOUR
>> instructions) how the hell could anyone, apart from you, know where you
>> might want your thirteenth preference to go!

> No once your and other votes (marbles) end up on your 12th selection

Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

> (assuming none got over 50% of the marbles) Then ALL of the marbles in
> the 12th go to the selected preferences to continue down to most
> likely Labor/Coalition

Not if you VOTE BELOW THE LINE.

>> Hence the instructions you should have been given AND WHICH ARE WRITTEN
>> ON THE BALLOT PAPER that, to be valid, you must allocate from ONE to AT
>> LEAST TWELVE preferences!! ;-)
>>
> Or draw a cock and balls if the informal votes get over 50% means the
> election has to be done again!

Nope. Not enough are ever that stupid.