This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Does Gillard inspire confidence?

Jump to new

I think that Australians are sick of the major parties in their current form. The way the ALP and LNP are running at the moment is exactly as you say, they are willing to flip flop for the sake of votes. Until they get back to their core values, they will continue to lose votes.

In relation to you question re 'rise and rise of the greens', i think that until now the Greens have been able to slip under the radar, and have managed to stay out of the way while the ALP and LNP sling crap at each other. But now that they have become quite prominent, and are in a position to impact quite significantly on the running of parliament, you will see them get drawn into it a little more. At the end of the day, i think we will see them go the same way as any other political party, and the 'deal-making' will become part of their party procedures.

I think the other factor that has seen them rise is just the 'Green' vote. Some voters just assume that because the are called the Greens Party that they will save us from the inevitable climate shift that the media is telling us about.

But i think they will become a bigger 'player' before that happens, and as i said in an earlier post, i think we will see them steal votes from Labor and Labor will need to 'join forces' with the Greens to fight the LNP.
 
nioka said:
If they had to be forced into fighting to save their own country then we shouldn't want them here either. We have enough of the white feather brigade here now.
Click to expand...
Simplifying thousands of years of regional history into a simple black vs white argument and expecting dirt-poor civilians to forgo food to buy arms and face certain death against a better armed, better organised force that refuse to recognise the Geneva convention.

I'm sorry but this is the single most illogical argument anyone has raised on immigration yet.
 
Absolutely spot on. Most people I know vote against a party, rather than for one.

The Greens are gaining some of their vote by default, simply because there is a vacuum of ideas amongst the major parties. Like or loathe their ideals, they actually have ideals to start with.
The ALP is run by factions dominated by a union base that is struggling for relevence in many industries.
The LNP is being seen as increasingly out of touch with a society that appears to be becoming more progressive.
Both seem to be political parties whose major aim is to win government first, provide proper governance second.

Until the (for example) LDP in Australia gain any sort of foothold, I can't see the Greens losing their current levels of support without a major shift in thinking from one of the major parties.
 

Julia, Bob Brown is a smooth customer and knows how to push people's buttons, however, as the GREENS are getting bigger, dissension is starting to gain momentum in the party who also have their factions.
Sarah Hanson/Young is starting to stir the pot in seeking the Deputy Leadership from Chritine Milne. So the cracks are staring to appear.
Whilst many voters may be disillusioned by the two major parties and swung to the Greens in protest, a majority of those swingers would not have a clue what the Greens stand for.
The Greens have a enviromental skin and a MARIST heart. Beware of the Greens!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
That may be the case, but I'd imagine Greens voters would be more informed of their party's choices than your average mainstream party voter. The Grens core constituency tend to be:
a. Far more likely to hold tertiary qualifications, and
b. Politically active

There was some research a while back thats showed the Nats tested quite highly too for their voters being aware of party policies.
 
You left out fairly affluent. Therefore happy to advocate policies that result in e.g. increased electricity costs which would impact far more harshly on people with low incomes.

At the time of the election, though, anyone I spoke to who wasn't voting Labor or Coalition was voting Greens purely by default. They just didn't want to vote for a main party but didn't have much idea about what the Greens were on about, simply perceived them as being "genuine". If you'd brought up their socialist inclinations (too mild a word?) they'd have been either surprised or just not interested.
 
Australia has perhaps the most urban population of any nation? The Greens will continue to rise. Although once Bob Brown retires it will be a temporary setback.

Is it so far-fetched to imagine that the duopoly of the future might be the Greens on one side, and a coalition of fmr Lab-Lib-Nats on the other? I think it will ultimately turn this way in parliament.
 

I believe you meant Marxist there noco.

The environmental skin is that distorted by the business press and bankrolled by interests attached to fossil fuel et al.

Marxism is distorted by the same lobbies for the same reasons. Profits over the workers.

To bring youself up to date noco there is an excellent book on Karl Marx by Francis Wheen, 1999 and very readable.

The Greens are for fair play and equality at the base level and as times continue to bite the support will increase regardless. So it is worth learning a bit more about what is really going on and what being a Green means.
 
I was at a music festival on the weekend - the word "affluent" to describe them would have made most of them laugh.
I'd say idealistic is a better descriptor than affluent.

Do we get to stereotype the other parties now? If so, bags Family First
 
explod said:
The Greens are for fair play and equality at the base level and as times continue to bite the support will increase regardless.
Click to expand...

Equality has been shown time and time again to be a false premise. It is a practical impossibility.

Equal opportunity is one thing (and difficult enough on its own), but equality is quite another.
 
wayneL said:
Equality has been shown time and time again to be a false premise. It is a practical impossibility.

Equal opportunity is one thing (and difficult enough on its own), but equality is quite another.
Click to expand...

Of course, but there needs to be an aim for a base level, like the basic wage, a basic standard for the bottom end in education, shelter, welfare and schooling. And in this we need to respect the achievers and allow entrepreinership (the billy gates) to do it too. Some have not had the right beginning because of parents et al., intelligence or schooling opportunities to make it, some will never with all the opportunities in the world but none of this should deter attempts.

But of course its a pipe dream, the only one I assert in the bigger picture myself is the three big E's,,, "education education edu..."

The greens however will try IMHO.
 
wayneL said:
Equality has been shown time and time again to be a false premise. It is a practical impossibility.

Equal opportunity is one thing (and difficult enough on its own), but equality is quite another.
Click to expand...

Very true. The greens are more likely to make us equal than any other party. But equal to what. Equal to a flying fox maybe. I don't want to have to come down to equal Bob Brown either.
 
Mofra said:
I was at a music festival on the weekend - the word "affluent" to describe them would have made most of them laugh.
I'd say idealistic is a better descriptor than affluent.
Click to expand...
The music festival Greens supporters is just one anecdote. Most political commentators seem to agree with your earlier typecasting, and add that many in the inner urban areas (eg Melbourne seat of Adam Bandt) are professional people, not short of a dollar.

Do we get to stereotype the other parties now? If so, bags Family First
Click to expand...
By all means. I'm interested in how you'd stereotype Family First. Will they actually exist when the Senate changes next July? Did Senator Fielding keep his seat?

explod said:
Of course, but there needs to be an aim for a base level, like the basic wage, a basic standard for the bottom end in education, shelter, welfare and schooling.
Click to expand...
I think most people will agree about this, explod, and to some extent it does exist. Education to year 12 is available, but if the family has no interest in supporting a kid and placing a value on education, you can't expect the State to do much about it, can you?

We don't do 'shelter' well at all, especially for people with a mental illness, or who have become unemployed. Ditto the broad term of 'welfare'.
With the rise in rents and general cost of living, I have no idea how thousands of Australians survive. Many don't, hence the increasing number of homeless.

It's a difficult line for governments. If they make the dole too generous it will genuinely deter people from seeking work, and will cause screams of outrage from people seeing their taxes rise to pay for it.

I haven't heard the Greens espousing any particular policies for overcoming the above problems, so I'm not sure why you seem to assume that if they had more influence they'd necessarily be able to create this magical equality.

Wayne is right. You can provide equal opportunity but it's just not logical to imagine this necessarily translates into the sort of utopian society you dream about
 

The state could do more about direct family support and family planning at the base level too. Some attempt at pruning the vine must take place for us to improve.

It's a difficult line for governments. If they make the dole too generous it will genuinely deter people from seeking work, and will cause screams of outrage from people seeing their taxes rise to pay for it.
Click to expand...

There are some strings attached to the dole in indigenous communties why not extensions to wider social groups. In Sweeden (socialist) two years military traning which is meshed in with higher education is compulsory. If you are against the military the service is focused on some type of supervised community service.

I haven't heard the Greens espousing any particular policies for overcoming the above problems, so I'm not sure why you seem to assume that if they had more influence they'd necessarily be able to create this magical equality.
Click to expand...

As a Green member we actively discuss such new propositions, the greens are growing and changing to reflect the new members input and a fast changing world. In my years I have found Greens to be very democratic. Too many on ASF judge by looking back at the past, get over it, all have made mistakes but lets be positive about the future.

Wayne is right. You can provide equal opportunity but it's just not logical to imagine this necessarily translates into the sort of utopian society you dream about
Click to expand...

The three big "E's" would do that. Very few with a university education do not do well. Some of course want to use a hammer and others want to be mum's but you get the idea, I hope.

If we are going to make a difference we do have to dream and get others on board too.

Back to topic, picked up a biography on Gillard published in 2008, just in the opening paragraphs but will keep you informed, a great read so far and she is from good working stock.
 
Nothing to do with any previous posts, but I was just thinking, where's Calliope?
 

Apology for the typographical error. Marxist was the intended word.
 

The greens picked up seats due to the LNP giving them preferences Melbourne being a good example expect more so during the NSW state election.

Nick Michin blushed when picked up on the fact
 
explod said:
The state could do more about direct family support and family planning at the base level too. Some attempt at pruning the vine must take place for us to improve.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming your reference to 'pruning the vine' is a suggestion to limit reproduction in families that are not pulling their weight in society?
If I have this wrong, could you explain what you mean here?
(Gee, explod, wouldn't it be simpler for the sake of clear communication to just say what you mean in the first place???)

There's plenty of family support in terms of financial payments, and all sorts of counselling, advice etc is available also. What you're ignoring, or preferring not to acknowledge, is that there is a sector of our society which is perfectly happy not to make any contribution, but to just sit back, whine, and take, endlessly.
That's where your socialist ideals fall over imo.

There are some strings attached to the dole in indigenous communties why not extensions to wider social groups.
Click to expand...
This is already happening. Jenny Macklin (one of the governments least seen but more effective members) has extended this programme into general communities in some areas. I expect they have to go on tiptoe with this.

In Sweeden (socialist) two years military traning which is meshed in with higher education is compulsory. If you are against the military the service is focused on some type of supervised community service.
Click to expand...
Sounds good, though I don't see our revered Labor government getting too keen about this. And would we necessarily wish some of the disaffected youth on the defence forces? Wouldn't they be more nuisance than they are worth?
In principle, though, good idea.

OK, and they have some excellent progressive social policies, e.g. voluntary euthanasia.

Explod, I suppose you've read George Orwell's "Animal Farm"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bill Shorten: High Flying Fake Or The Worker's Friend
Replies
5
Views
2K
Investoradam
Assange told of ASIO snooping
Replies
3
Views
3K
DB008
A
KRudd Q & A
2 3
Replies
40
Views
8K
moXJO
M
M
PM reduced hostess to tears over meal
6 7 8
Replies
148
Views
16K
MrBurns
R
IRAQ: the Big (neo) Con
Replies
1
Views
5K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...