They haven't moved in the polls - they seem to only have their core supporters.

Plus they LOST seats in WA.

I don't think they will go the way of the Dems, but they have definitely peaked 2 years ago. Bob saying goodbye didnt help matters.

I believe they will survive also, but not at their former glory. They've had a beating by the Coalition and the media.

They are still needed as an alternative party to keep Labor and the Coalition in check, although whether they'll be in a position to do so after the next election remains to be seen.

They need to get back to their roots as an environmental and conservation party. We need the Greens to do what they were created to do especially as both the major parties are doing their best to turn Australia into a dust bowl with excessive mining and exploration.

If the Coalition gets in, first off the Wild Rivers legislation will be revoked. If anyone has watched the series on SBS - the Dust Bowl on the destruction of Oklahoma in the 20's - Australia is headed in the same direction.

The big parties only care about their own needs.

The Greens were never seen as an alternative for government and they were always going to suffer for a few terms after a hung parliament and the loss of their long term leader.

Nothing unexpected they will maintain a lot of support and come back stronger off a good base in a few terms. It will be dissapointing for them but thet is how it goes.

The Greens are not an alternative.

They can't government on their own.

The best they can do is muddy the water enough to get a hung Parliament and do their damage there.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:38pm:

The Greens are not an alternative. They can't government on their own. The best they can do is muddy the water enough to get a hung Parliament and do their damage there.

too right.... they got themselves into a position of POWER and they couldnt take it all the way..

it showed them up for what they are all mouth and no substance..

they like the Labs lost their way... they sold their souls for VOTES... people soon wake up to that.

most people have a core principle for why they vote a certain way...and when its thrown in their face like this last govt has done.. well its a big wake up call..

The lunatic Greens were never an alternative, just a protest vote against either of the two main parties...

cods wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:38pm: The Greens are not an alternative. They can't government on their own. The best they can do is muddy the water enough to get a hung Parliament and do their damage there. too right.... they got themselves into a position of POWER and they couldnt take it all the way.. it showed them up for what they are all mouth and no substance.. they like the Labs lost their way... they sold their souls for VOTES... people soon wake up to that. most people have a core principle for why they vote a certain way...and when its thrown in their face like this last govt has done.. well its a big wake up call..

Are you trying to infer that the libs arent exactly the same if not worse?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

cods wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 7:25am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:38pm: The Greens are not an alternative. They can't government on their own. The best they can do is muddy the water enough to get a hung Parliament and do their damage there. too right.... they got themselves into a position of POWER and they couldnt take it all the way.. it showed them up for what they are all mouth and no substance.. they like the Labs lost their way... they sold their souls for VOTES... people soon wake up to that. most people have a core principle for why they vote a certain way...and when its thrown in their face like this last govt has done.. well its a big wake up call.. Are you trying to infer that the libs arent exactly the same if not worse? SOB

The speaker implies, the listener infers.

I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties.

What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest.

What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left.

john_g wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left.

What voters fail to understand is the difference between a political party set up to run the country and a political party that's set up to lobby for policies that fell through the gap

right now there are only 2 parties that are set up to govern - Liberal & Labor

so for those who says they are seeking an alternative is kidding themselves - there are no alternatives

the Greens, Independents and other minor parties are simply lobby groups

the Greens being more extreme

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 8:01am:

The lunatic Greens were never an alternative, just a protest vote against either of the two main parties...

As a GREENS supporter I would never want the party to represent the likes of you. We have our core support and as mantra has said we have never wanted to rule, much better to force the major paties to have a conscience.

john_g wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left.

Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats.

damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind

Which he lost, but got over the line with preferences.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. What voters fail to understand is the difference between a political party set up to run the country and a political party that's set up to lobby for policies that fell through the gap right now there are only 2 parties that are set up to govern - Liberal & Labor so for those who says they are seeking an alternative is kidding themselves - there are no alternatives the Greens, Independents and other minor parties are simply lobby groups the Greens being more extreme

I meant a minor party who can have influence, as the Greens have had for the last few years.

Of course no other party about from Labor or the Coalition will ever form government.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Which he lost, but got over the line with preferences.

The Democrats did exactly what they promised - they kept the bastards honest.

Howard took the GST to the election, and won a majority of seats and hence government.

john_g wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Which he lost, but got over the line with preferences. The Democrats did exactly what they promised - they kept the bastards honest. Howard took the GST to the election, and won a majority of seats and hence government.

Quote:

Still, before the 1998 election, Howard proposed a GST that would replace all sales taxes, as well as applying to all goods and services. The Howard Government finished on a two-party-preferred vote of 49.02% at the election, suffering a swing of 4.61% to Labor on 50.98%. However, the incumbent government retained a parliamentary majority of seats in the lower house. Howard described the election win as a "mandate for the GST". Lacking a Senate majority, and with Labor opposed to the introduction of the GST, the government turned to the minor parties such as the Australian Democrats for support.

Some here are happy to say Tony won with the higher TPP, so they then must agree that Howard lost.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:19am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Which he lost, but got over the line with preferences. The Democrats did exactly what they promised - they kept the bastards honest. Howard took the GST to the election, and won a majority of seats and hence government. Quote: Still, before the 1998 election, Howard proposed a GST that would replace all sales taxes, as well as applying to all goods and services. The Howard Government finished on a two-party-preferred vote of 49.02% at the election, suffering a swing of 4.61% to Labor on 50.98%. However, the incumbent government retained a parliamentary majority of seats in the lower house. Howard described the election win as a "mandate for the GST". Lacking a Senate majority, and with Labor opposed to the introduction of the GST, the government turned to the minor parties such as the Australian Democrats for support. Some here are happy to say Tony won with the higher TPP, so they then must agree that Howard lost.

"Others" are not me.

Howard won fair and square in 1998, and for the record, I voted Labor.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats.

wrong. the Democrats died when they stopped being the party determined to make the others honest eg live up to their promises. it was a wildly effective policy and when natasha spot-remover decided to move the party away from that and beome a left-wing party, they died within 2 elections. and the very first thing they did as this new lefty party was oppose the GST  which had a mandate from the winning party.

and now they are gone from every parliament.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Which he lost, but got over the line with preferences.

and gillard did what???  at least Howard actually had a majority!

and btw 2PP has precisely zero impact on elections. it is not mentioned in legislation or anything else. it is no more than a statistcial measuer that has come into play in recent years. polling didnt even mention it until 2001.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 6:15pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. wrong. the Democrats died when they stopped being the party determined to make the others honest eg live up to their promises. it was a wildly effective policy and when natasha spot-remover decided to move the party away from that and beome a left-wing party, they died within 2 elections. and the very first thing they did as this new lefty party was oppose the GST  which had a mandate from the winning party. and now they are gone from every parliament.

No idea LW - the GST killed the dems stone dead.

Virtually all their supporters believed they have voted for an iron clad position of no GST.

the Democrats died when they stopped being the party determined to make the others honest

The bit you got right the guys who were ment to keep the bastards honest became the dishonest bastards. The majority of their support base never voted domocrat again.

live up to their promises

Yes they stood in that election garanteeing to block the GST and the Leader bent over for Howard.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:02am:

Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats.

True. The moment Lees sided with Howard on the GST - the Democrats went down the tube. Meg Lees destroyed the party. Stott Despoja wasn't interested in leading and had other issues to deal with.

The Greens made a mistake helping Gillard form government. They should have remained strong and independent and they would be a more viable party today. Labor made false promises and reneged on their deals with them - finally blaming them publicly for the government's failures.

The Greens compromised to their detriment, however they'll get through this and return to their core values quickly. Perhaps they won't do so well at the next Federal election, but they'll start catching up again when people realise we have wall to wall Coalition and no decent opposition.

The Greens are now the only alternative if you demand fair treatment for asylum seekers fleeing persecution.
Labor and the Conservatives have shown that political football and dog whistling is more their style.

skippy. wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:01am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:01am: The lunatic Greens were never an alternative, just a protest vote against either of the two main parties... As a GREENS supporter I would never want the party to represent the likes of you. We have our core support and as mantra has said we have never wanted to rule, much better to force the major paties to have a conscience.

Then the Greens have failed miserably, as Gillard's actions on the carbon dioxide tax show she has no conscience when it comes to lying to the Australian people.

I think they will continue to rise, especially given labor's issues and inability to dump the unions. They will inevitably become more mainstream as part of this process. You only have to compare them now to ten years ago to see this trend.

A major part of the greens most recent decline is a swing to the coalition in general. Labor also lost a lot of ground. Don't confuse this with a permanent swing to the right. It always returns to some kind of 50/50 split. Unless another major party pops up to the right of the coalition and pushes them through the centre, it will swing back.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

Then the Greens have failed miserably, as Gillard's actions on the carbon dioxide tax show she has no conscience when it comes to lying to the Australian peopl

The Greens have always spruiked for a carbon tax and initially that was part of the deal for their support of Labor. It's not their fault Gillard "lied". She should have told the truth immediately to the public as to why she changed her mind.

Regardless - we would have got a carbon tax anyway. The big boys want to gamble in international carbon trading which has recently been legislated.

There is no way Abbott can undo it. His masters won't let him. He'll be called a liar a few months into office when it's confirmed that he can't do a thing about it.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 9:21am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:25am: cods wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 7:25am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:38pm: The Greens are not an alternative. They can't government on their own. The best they can do is muddy the water enough to get a hung Parliament and do their damage there. too right.... they got themselves into a position of POWER and they couldnt take it all the way.. it showed them up for what they are all mouth and no substance.. they like the Labs lost their way... they sold their souls for VOTES... people soon wake up to that. most people have a core principle for why they vote a certain way...and when its thrown in their face like this last govt has done.. well its a big wake up call.. Are you trying to infer that the libs arent exactly the same if not worse? SOB The speaker implies, the listener infers.

Yeah yeah go away troll

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:01am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 8:01am: The lunatic Greens were never an alternative, just a protest vote against either of the two main parties... As a GREENS supporter I would never want the party to represent the likes of you. We have our core support and as mantra has said we have never wanted to rule, much better to force the major paties to have a conscience. Then the Greens have failed miserably, as Gillard's actions on the carbon dioxide tax show she has no conscience when it comes to lying to the Australian people.

Wake up to yourself, why would the GREENS want to court the vote of a fascist?  I d prefer to never form government than to sell my soul for the the likes of you.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 7:30pm:

I think they will continue to rise, especially given labor's issues and inability to dump the unions. They will inevitably become more mainstream as part of this process. You only have to compare them now to ten years ago to see this trend. A major part of the greens most recent decline is a swing to the coalition in general. Labor also lost a lot of ground. Don't confuse this with a permanent swing to the right. It always returns to some kind of 50/50 split. Unless another major party pops up to the right of the coalition and pushes them through the centre, it will swing back.

that analysis is completely contrary to the history of third parties in this country. the usual experience is that they rise.... and then they fall and disappear. the democrats were the only party to have survived any significant length of time and that was to a large degree because they acted as a conscience to the other two rather than a real party in their own right. once they decided to become their own party, the died.

what makes you think the Greens will be any different? so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them.

Quote:

what makes you think the Greens will be any different? so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them.

Christine Milne is continuing to keep the party in the spotlight. Unlike Stott Despoja - she's raised her family and has no other distractions. She is committed to the Greens only and thanks to Bob Brown - who still remains alive and active, although with other interests, the Greens have the base support of a particular demographic of people who are disillusioned with the major parties.

That will not change to any great degree.

mantra wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

Quote: what makes you think the Greens will be any different? so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them. Christine Milne is continuing to keep the party in the spotlight. Unlike Stott Despoja - she's raised her family and has no other distractions. She is committed to the Greens only and thanks to Bob Brown - who still remains alive and active, although with other interests, the Greens have the base support of a particular demographic of people who are disillusioned with the major parties. That will not change to any great degree.

thats hugely optimistic and not based on any evidence, historical or otherwise. The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history. Milne is quite unremarkable as a leader and frankly, quite out of her depth. their policeis remain essentially unpalatable to most votes and once the ALP regains its self-respect and becomes a viable party again, the Greens will lose all their protest votes - which arguably amounts to the large majority of their vote. Not many vote FOR the Greens - they vote AGAINST the majors.  thats not a recipe for long-term success

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 8:48am:

thats hugely optimistic and not based on any evidence, historical or otherwise. The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history. Milne is quite unremarkable as a leader and frankly, quite out of her depth. their policeis remain essentially unpalatable to most votes and once the ALP regains its self-respect and becomes a viable party again, the Greens will lose all their protest votes - which arguably amounts to the large majority of their vote. Not many vote FOR the Greens - they vote AGAINST the majors.  thats not a recipe for long-term success

There's always a first for everything, but a lot of what you say is spruiked by the rightwing media - and makes some sense if you choose to believe it.

Milne is not as idealistic as Bob Brown and is modifying the Greens' policies to appear less extreme. The Greens have started to distance themselves from Labor. The excessive flow of boat people brought them down in the polls, but that is not their making.

Some people might vote in protest because they are disgusted at the inactivity of the major parties, but there are huge environmental concerns at the moment concerning mining and development. As more and more people's land and lives are encroached on by coal and gas exploration, the Greens are the only party supporting them and trying to get legislation through for more regulation and scrutiny.

This country is getting eaten up by the big boys, their corporations and unfettered and unchecked foreign investment.  Labor and the Libs stand idly by doing nothing. This ignorance alone will maintain sustainable support for the Greens.

I bet quite a few of those in the National Party wished they still stood independently. If they had - they would still be a viable party. They hate what is happening in the country, but are gagged by the Libs.

mantra wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 8:38am:

Quote: what makes you think the Greens will be any different? so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them. Christine Milne is continuing to keep the party in the spotlight. Unlike Stott Despoja - she's raised her family and has no other distractions. She is committed to the Greens only and thanks to Bob Brown - who still remains alive and active, although with other interests, the Greens have the base support of a particular demographic of people who are disillusioned with the major parties. That will not change to any great degree.

Unlike Stott Despoja

Natasha did a good job in an absolutely untenable situation, following Meg's bedrail of their entire voter base she was always on a hiding to nothing.

Her primary tactic was a solid action which if followed through after she stood down would have seen the democrats survive.

She obviously realised that any hope of getting votes from their previous support base was gone so she worked very hard on the youth vote visiting schools and setting up support primarily from the youth and it was working.

The following leadership dropped this initiative which meant that they were going to get no new votes at all, the result was always obvious.

After a hung parlament you expect to see independants and smaller partys struggle for the next few terms. This is because people start to think that their vote may be worth a little more than they previously did, they think they might make a difference.

I think that some of the independent electorated are a god enough example where people voted independant and may have later realised that it was maybe not what they had really wanted to do, had they voted differently it may have made a difference.

THe greens will struggle in the next two elections but will bounce back as strong as ever as long as they do not do anything stupid.

mantra wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 10:00am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 8:48am: thats hugely optimistic and not based on any evidence, historical or otherwise. The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history. Milne is quite unremarkable as a leader and frankly, quite out of her depth. their policeis remain essentially unpalatable to most votes and once the ALP regains its self-respect and becomes a viable party again, the Greens will lose all their protest votes - which arguably amounts to the large majority of their vote. Not many vote FOR the Greens - they vote AGAINST the majors.  thats not a recipe for long-term success There's always a first for everything, but a lot of what you say is spruiked by the rightwing media - and makes some sense if you choose to believe it. Milne is not as idealistic as Bob Brown and is modifying the Greens' policies to appear less extreme. The Greens have started to distance themselves from Labor. The excessive flow of boat people brought them down in the polls, but that is not their making. Some people might vote in protest because they are disgusted at the inactivity of the major parties, but there are huge environmental concerns at the moment concerning mining and development. As more and more people's land and lives are encroached on by coal and gas exploration, the Greens are the only party supporting them and trying to get legislation through for more regulation and scrutiny. This country is getting eaten up by the big boys, their corporations and unfettered and unchecked foreign investment.  Labor and the Libs stand idly by doing nothing. This ignorance alone will maintain sustainable support for the Greens. I bet quite a few of those in the National Party wished they still stood independently. If they had - they would still be a viable party. They hate what is happening in the country, but are gagged by the Libs.

befoer you swallow the fantasy that the Greens are going to be different to any other third party you would need to actually produce some evidence. Already we have seen the greens vote peak and has dropped significantly in every election since 2010. EVERY election. and the polls now show them several percent below 2010 even while labor has haemorraged so many votes to them. The current situation is as good as it is ever going to get for a thrid party to become a long-term success but the Greens are dropping away.

This is not an anti-Greens tirade. this is just political history that you seem to want to ignore.

Quote:

that analysis is completely contrary to the history of third parties in this country

No it isn't. The Liberal party was founded in 1945 out of the remains of various minor parties, and the LNP continues this trend. The national party has nearly always been a third party.

Also, there is no evidence that the Greens will ineivtably follow the path of minor parties that failed. It is just your rose tinted glasses. This is just as stupid as insisting that a certain business will inevitably go bankrupt because this is what happens for most businesses. The Greens may follow this trend. It could take them a few centuries to rise and fall as a political institution. None of your 'evidence' gives you any clue as to when they will fall and how high they will ge before then.


Quote:

what makes you think the Greens will be any different?

The first reason is the institutionalised links between the ALP and the unions. Changes to the nature of the modern workplace (ie greater diversity) are making the unions less relevant. The Liberal party will not take political territory from Labor as they have plenty of upstarts from the right trying to do what the Greens are doing from the left.

The second reason is that the Greens' target demographic is growing and will continue to do so.

The third reason is that the National party has demonstrated that a third party can remain stable. What limited them is that their target demographic is shrinking and is restricted more to geography than the Greens. They also entered into a gentleman's agreement with the Liberal party, whereas the Greens and Labor are in a fight to the death.

The fourth is that the Greens have shown a willingness to adopt more mainstream policies in order to broaden their support.

Five: The fate of a political party always boils down to individuals, which is what killed the Democrats. I was never a big fan of Bob Brown and think even less of him now that he has joined a terrorist group.

Six: Our electoral system facilitates the rise of minor parties to replace major parties. It is a completely different ballgame to the US.

Seven: The steady rise of Greens parties overseas. There is a vacuum for the Greens to fill.

Eight: The steady rise of the Greens party in Australia.

Quote:

Also, there is no evidence that the Greens will inevitably follow the path of minor parties that failed. It is just your rose tinted glasses. This is just as stupid as insisting that a certain business will inevitably go bankrupt because this is what happens for most businesses. The Greens may follow this trend. It could take them a few centuries to rise and fall as a political institution. None of your 'evidence' gives you any clue as to when they will fall and how high they will ge before then.

I know you love the Greens and the rose-tinted glasses are yours. I repeat that there is ZERO historical example of a third party that has stayed the course. the Nationals are in effect rural liberals and in a long standing coalition that effectively makes them the same. Sure they are technically different parties but it is a techicality only. that is why the LNP didn't really change that much.

But again, you need to find an example of a genuine long-lasting third party to prove your point. The liberal party is a particularly bad example as it was not formed out of minor parties - especially since its predecessors had managed to actually govern!


Quote:

The second reason is that the Greens' target demographic is growing and will continue to do so.

young people? you do know that as people get older they move to the conservative ranks of politics?  And if their target demographic is growing then why are their polls dropping even in what is the best possibly opportunity for them with the ALP mortally wounded?


Quote:

Six: Our electoral system facilitates the rise of minor parties to replace major parties. It is a completely different ballgame to the US.

and if you could find a single actual example of that in our history it might make sense. At the moment, it is fantasy only.


Quote:

Eight: The steady rise of the Greens party in Australia.

I know Greens count differently to the rest of us but even you must admit that polls and votes that have steadily and consistently DROPPED in the past 3-4 years are anything but a steady RISE. In fact, their history very much supports my  analysis rather than yours.


Quote:

The fourth is that the Greens have shown a willingness to adopt more mainstream policies in order to broaden their support

it doesn't seem very mainstream yet. most of their policies are still relatively extreme. and then the question has to be asked that if they became a force by turning all their policies into mainstream ones then what would be the point of their existence?

Vote 1 Green -

to save the planet

and to protect your human rights.

Quote:

I repeat that there is ZERO hisorical example of a third party that has stayed the course. the Nationals are in effect rural liberals and in a long standing coalition that effectively makes them the same.

In other words, the National are in fact an example of what you claim does not exist. The only difference is that you understand their support base and you think that this somehow makes them different to parties you do not understand.


Quote:

Sure they are technically different parties but it is a techicality only. that is why the LNP didnt really change that much.

All this means is that unless Labor and the Greens enter into a similar arrangement, they will continue to compete heavily against each other. It does not tell you who the winner will be.


Quote:

But again, you need to find an example of a geunine long-lating thrid party to prove your point.

The Nationals. Just because you understand them does not mean they do not exist. The Liberal part is another example. Even the Labor party started as a minor party. Labor is actually the unusual example, having survived since shortly after federation. The reality is that what you say about minor parties also applies to major parties. The only difference being that major parties get a bit higher before falling. You just have this fixed idea in your head that the democrats are the only example for minor parties to follow.


Quote:

The liberal party is a particularly bad example as it was not formed out of minor parties - espcially since its predecessors had managed to actually govern!

Yes, there are yet more examples in the many predecessors to the Liberal party. They didn't all become a major party the first time they competed. You have this absurd notion that major parties just come out of nowhere. You have it all backwards.


Quote:

young people? you do know that as people get older they move to the conservative ranks of politics?

Not all of them do, and I was referring just as much to other demographic aspects.


Quote:

And if their target demographic is growing then why are their polls dropping even in what is the best possibly opportunity for them with the ALP mortally wounded?

Like I explained in my previous post, this was a general shift away from both Labor and the Greens (ie from left to right). This does not mean the Liberals will become the only major party. And given that the Greens compete mostly against Labor, it says nothing at all about how that competition is going.


Quote:

and if you could find a single actual example of that in our history it might make sense. At the moment, it is fantasy only.

There are plenty of examples. You just attempt to explain away every example that is counter to your position. That is bias Maqqa. The reality is that every major party started as a minor party.


Quote:

I know Greens count differently to the rest of us but even you must admit that polls and votes that have steadily and consistently DROPPED in the past 3-4 years are anything but a steady RISE.

The Greens were setting and matching polling records within that period. One election cycle is hardly a long term trend in politics. This is just as stupid as arguing that labor is on the way out, because the same can be said about them.


Quote:

it doesnt seem very mainstream yet.

Does it seem more mainstream? Or is it all so alien to you that you cannot comprehend what is going on at that end of the political spectrum?


Quote:

most of their policies are still relatively extreme.

Except that one of their core policies (the carbon tax) has become reality and actually has the support of most economists.


Quote:

and then the question has to be asked that if they became a force by turning all their policies into mainstream ones then what would be the point of their existence?

They are a political party. What do you think the point is? Would you argue that there is no point having a Labor or Liberal party because they are mainstream? Why the different logic for the Greens?

Quote:

I know Greens count differently to the rest of us but even you must admit that polls and votes that have steadily and consistently DROPPED in the past 3-4 years are anything but a steady RISE. The Greens were setting and matching polling records within that period. One election cycle is hardly a long term trend in politics. This is just as stupid as arguing that labor is on the way out, because the same can be said about them.

why dont we have this debate in 3 yrs time and see who is right. I am simply following political history which to date, the Greens have matched rather well. and their slide is just more of the same.

you can argue all you like but if you want to argue from political history - especially the post-war period - I am spot on and you are dead wrong.

This is not an anti-greens rant. it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history. And they are following the trend nearly perfectly. Reach a peak, gain some power, handle it badly and then disappear to become largley irrelevant.

but the proof is in the eating. lets try resuming this in 3 years and then 5 years and see who was right.

Quote:

I am simply following political history which to date, the Greens have matched rather well. and their slide is just more of the same.

But you aren't fiollowing history. That is my point. You are picking and choosing those examples you want the Greens to follow and blindly insisting they are the only examples, despite the rather obvious evidence to the contrary, like the Labor party, the Liberal Party, the National party, and all the other major parties that did not magically gain power overnight.


Quote:

This is not an anti-greens rant. it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history. And they are following the trend nearly perfectly. Reach a peak

When? Three years ago? In 2525?


Quote:

gain some power

How much power? 10%? 20%? 60%? What is history telling you Progs? That the democrats are the only example available?


Quote:

but the proof is in the eating. lets try resuming this in 3 years and then 5 years and see who was right.

I accept your surrender.

john_g wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:26am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:19am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:15am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Which he lost, but got over the line with preferences. The Democrats did exactly what they promised - they kept the bastards honest. Howard took the GST to the election, and won a majority of seats and hence government. Quote: Still, before the 1998 election, Howard proposed a GST that would replace all sales taxes, as well as applying to all goods and services. The Howard Government finished on a two-party-preferred vote of 49.02% at the election, suffering a swing of 4.61% to Labor on 50.98%. However, the incumbent government retained a parliamentary majority of seats in the lower house. Howard described the election win as a "mandate for the GST". Lacking a Senate majority, and with Labor opposed to the introduction of the GST, the government turned to the minor parties such as the Australian Democrats for support. Some here are happy to say Tony won with the higher TPP, so they then must agree that Howard lost. "Others" are not me. Howard won fair and square in 1998, and for the record, I voted Labor.

It was  in '96, John!

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

Quote: I am simply following political history which to date, the Greens have matched rather well. and their slide is just more of the same. But you aren't fiollowing history. That is my point. You are picking and choosing those examples you want the Greens to follow and blindly insisting they are the only examples, despite the rather obvious evidence to the contrary, like the Labor party, the Liberal Party, the National party, and all the other major parties that did not magically gain power overnight. [quote]This is not an anti-greens rant. it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history. And they are following the trend nearly perfectly. Reach a peak

When? Three years ago? In 2525?


Quote:

gain some power

How much power? 10%? 20%? 60%? What is history telling you Progs? That the democrats are the only example available?


Quote:

but the proof is in the eating. lets try resuming this in 3 years and then 5 years and see who was right.

I accept your surrender.[/quote]

seriously??? thats the best you can come up with? thats the sort of peurile crap we expect from SOB or lastnail - not you. It has been notable that since the ALP and the Greens have gotten into such terrible trouble, formerly good posters (you, DNA, adelcrow etc) have turned into yawning idiots. You seem to be only capable of debating well when your side is doing well. lose and you turnd into this... an arrogant yet pitifully unarmed opponent.

so have you found a post-war example of a thrid party doing ANYTHING beyond rise and fall?  no, you cant - because it hasnt happened.

Quote:

so have you found a post-war example of a thrid party doing ANYTHING beyond rise and fall?  no, you cant - because it hasnt happened.

Sure. The Nationals. And the Greens. Got any more silly questions? Perhaps you need an example from the last six months of a minor party starting from nothing then gradually taking over one side of the political spectrum from a major party?

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Quote: so have you found a post-war example of a thrid party doing ANYTHING beyond rise and fall?  no, you cant - because it hasnt happened. Sure. The Nationals. And the Greens. Got any more silly questions? Perhaps you need an example from the last six months of a minor party starting from nothing then gradually taking over one side of the political spectrum from a major party?

You left out the Liberal party. 1945 - 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955 ...........1955.

why dont we have this debate in 3 yrs time and see who is right.

I would think the Greens will have about 2 tough terms as a result of the hung parliament, I would think they will still look shakey in 3 years but the political spectrum will turn as people start to forget about the current situation and look at the alternatives again.

So far each time that the greens have peaked it has been to a higher peak. They then drop off for a few terms and have another good result but the trend has been upwards each peak is higher and each trough is also higher.

As long as they do nothing as stupid as the Dems with the GST and shed their entire base support they will survive.

Macca:
Quote:

damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind

Howard never changed his mind he always supported a GST and what does that have to do with the democrats?


Macca:
Quote:

The Democrats did exactly what they promised - they kept the bastards honest.

The democrats had promised each and every person who had voted for them that they would block the GST. They became the bastards who needed to be kept honest and the people who had voted for them never forgave them - that is the only reason they are gone today.

There was a very substantial campaign in 1998 saying that you could vote for John Howard in the Lower house and vote to block the GST in the senate.

In the end the senate vote was more than sufficient to achieve that goal, in my view that was where the genuine mandate was held.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 12:16am:

freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 11:38pm: Quote: so have you found a post-war example of a thrid party doing ANYTHING beyond rise and fall?  no, you cant - because it hasnt happened. Sure. The Nationals. And the Greens. Got any more silly questions? Perhaps you need an example from the last six months of a minor party starting from nothing then gradually taking over one side of the political spectrum from a major party? You left out the Liberal party. 1945 - 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955 ...........1955.

Thanks dna.

Longy, is this a reasonable summary of your argument:

We cannot consider the historical example of the National Party.

We cannot consider the historical example of the Liberal Party, or any of the many minor and major parties that preceded it.

We cannot consider the example of the rise of the Labor party, whose unusual staying power since their rise appears to be the ultimate source of your position.

The only example we can consider is the Democrats, because they achieved a similar level of popularity (albeit from a centrist position - something fairly unusual) before falling. The Democrats are the one example you can find that you hope the Greens will follow, so that is the only historical example you are prepared to accept. Everyone else must also accept this as the only example. The only conclusion people can draw from this example is that the Greens will do exactly what the Democrats did. No other outcome is possible.

::)

FD,

Quote:

The only conclusion people can draw from this example is that the Greens will do exactly what the Democrats did. No other outcome is possible.

The Greens will take power in their own right as the other parties have sold the workers out.

example:

Work Choices got rid of 2 weeks retrenchment pay for every year worked e.g.

20 years of service equaled 40 weeks retrenchment pay.

Rudd - said - "we'll get rid of work choices " but he & that liar Gillard
kept the retrenchment policy of Howard.

Now what do you get?

Answer - 12 weeks maximum pay - chicken feed for a lifetime of service.

Only the Greens will restore fairness.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 12:44am:

Macca: Quote: damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Howard never changed his mind he always supported a GST and what does that have to do with the democrats?

They supported the GST didn't they?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 12:44am: Macca: Quote: damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Howard never changed his mind he always supported a GST and what does that have to do with the democrats? They supported the GST didn't they?

Actually they didn't support it, only the leader of the time did, so she got her ass kicked out as leader and left the party only to start another party that died in the ass, all as a result of supporting a lying little rodent. The democrats party, were totally against supporting it.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 12:16am: freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 11:38pm: Quote: so have you found a post-war example of a thrid party doing ANYTHING beyond rise and fall?  no, you cant - because it hasnt happened. Sure. The Nationals. And the Greens. Got any more silly questions? Perhaps you need an example from the last six months of a minor party starting from nothing then gradually taking over one side of the political spectrum from a major party? You left out the Liberal party. 1945 - 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955 ...........1955. Thanks dna. Longy, is this a reasonable summary of your argument: We cannot consider the historical example of the National Party. We cannot consider the historical example of the Liberal Party, or any of the many minor and major parties that preceded it. We cannot consider the example of the rise of the Labor party, whose unusual staying power since their rise appears to be the ultimate source of your position. The only example we can consider is the Democrats, because they achieved a similar level of popularity (albeit from a centrist position - something fairly unusual) before falling. The Democrats are the one example you can find that you hope the Greens will follow, so that is the only historical example you are prepared to accept. Everyone else must also accept this as the only example. The only conclusion people can draw from this example is that the Greens will do exactly what the Democrats did. No other outcome is possible. ::)

Longy, is this your argument?

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 12:16am: freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 11:38pm: Quote: so have you found a post-war example of a thrid party doing ANYTHING beyond rise and fall?  no, you cant - because it hasnt happened. Sure. The Nationals. And the Greens. Got any more silly questions? Perhaps you need an example from the last six months of a minor party starting from nothing then gradually taking over one side of the political spectrum from a major party? You left out the Liberal party. 1945 - 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955 ...........1955. Thanks dna. Longy, is this a reasonable summary of your argument: We cannot consider the historical example of the National Party. We cannot consider the historical example of the Liberal Party, or any of the many minor and major parties that preceded it. We cannot consider the example of the rise of the Labor party, whose unusual staying power since their rise appears to be the ultimate source of your position. The only example we can consider is the Democrats, because they achieved a similar level of popularity (albeit from a centrist position - something fairly unusual) before falling. The Democrats are the one example you can find that you hope the Greens will follow, so that is the only historical example you are prepared to accept. Everyone else must also accept this as the only example. The only conclusion people can draw from this example is that the Greens will do exactly what the Democrats did. No other outcome is possible. ::)

my position is to look at the post-war period and all you see is thrid parties rise and fall. that is ALL.  and if you want we can have this debate in 6 years time when the greens support is <5%. the greens support base is mainly disaffected labor voters. When labor gets its act together (and it will take time) they will return and the Greens will be back with just their hard-core supporters... not many.

there is the australia party, th DLP, the NDP etc... same trajectory, same fate.

skippy. wrote on Mar 17^th, 2013 at 11:23am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 11:12am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 12:44am: Macca: Quote: damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Howard never changed his mind he always supported a GST and what does that have to do with the democrats? They supported the GST didn't they? Actually they didn't support it, only the leader of the time did, so she got her ass kicked out as leader and left the party only to start another party that died in the ass, all as a result of supporting a lying little rodent. The democrats party, were totally against supporting it.

wrong again. they had a conscience vote and some supported it and some didn't. it passed just the same.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 6:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 11:23am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 11:12am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 12:44am: Macca: Quote: damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Howard never changed his mind he always supported a GST and what does that have to do with the democrats? They supported the GST didn't they? Actually they didn't support it, only the leader of the time did, so she got her ass kicked out as leader and left the party only to start another party that died in the ass, all as a result of supporting a lying little rodent. The democrats party, were totally against supporting it. wrong again. they had a conscience vote and some supported it and some didn't. it passed just the same.

Rewriting history again, you like to do that. ::) five senators backed it, while two said no way. At the same time the grass roots of the party ran a campaign against it, the overwhelming majority of Demorcrats members were against it. The party always listened to the party members, this time they didn't, and Lees paid the price with her ass being kicked out after a petition to remove her as leader, stop rewriting history. The party were against, only the dog Lees and the South African prick pushed for it, they were both hated by their own party for being dogs.

The Labor Party has been 'Liberal' light for years. Now that it's finally imploded the rise of the Greens is inevitable. Ironically the debacle that is now the ALP will mark the turning point of a swing back to real left wing values. 

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 6:43pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 10:52am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 12:16am: freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2013 at 11:38pm: Quote: so have you found a post-war example of a thrid party doing ANYTHING beyond rise and fall?  no, you cant - because it hasnt happened. Sure. The Nationals. And the Greens. Got any more silly questions? Perhaps you need an example from the last six months of a minor party starting from nothing then gradually taking over one side of the political spectrum from a major party? You left out the Liberal party. 1945 - 1955, 1955, 1955, 1955 ...........1955. Thanks dna. Longy, is this a reasonable summary of your argument: We cannot consider the historical example of the National Party. We cannot consider the historical example of the Liberal Party, or any of the many minor and major parties that preceded it. We cannot consider the example of the rise of the Labor party, whose unusual staying power since their rise appears to be the ultimate source of your position. The only example we can consider is the Democrats, because they achieved a similar level of popularity (albeit from a centrist position - something fairly unusual) before falling. The Democrats are the one example you can find that you hope the Greens will follow, so that is the only historical example you are prepared to accept. Everyone else must also accept this as the only example. The only conclusion people can draw from this example is that the Greens will do exactly what the Democrats did. No other outcome is possible. ::) my position is to look at the post-war period and all you see is thrid parties rise and fall. that is ALL.

So tell us about the fall of the National Party? Or the Greens? Oh wait, we cannot look at them as examples either, can we?


Quote:

and if you want we can have this debate in 6 years time when the greens support is <5%.

I accept your surrender.


Quote:

there is the australia party, th DLP, the NDP etc... same trajectory, same fate.

Ah, the examples we are allowed to consider. Thanks for picking and choosing the evidence for us longy.


Quote:

When labor gets its act together (and it will take time) they will return and the Greens will be back with just their hard-core supporters... not many.

Have you ever bothered to consider the polling in terms of the competition between Labor and the Greens? I pointed out earlier that most of the drop in Greens support coincides with a drop in Labor's support in favour of the coalition. In fact the Greens even seem to suffer less. Do you have any evidence to support your prediction, other than wishful thinking?

Grey wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:58pm:

The Labor Party has been 'Liberal' light for years. Now that it's finally imploded the rise of the Greens is inevitable. Ironically the debacle that is now the ALP will mark the turning point of a swing back to real left wing values.

Yea I agree. But I think the Greens have one major obstacle and that is preferential voting. I hate that I have to preference one of the major parties in the HORs.

skippy. wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 8:37pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:58pm: The Labor Party has been 'Liberal' light for years. Now that it's finally imploded the rise of the Greens is inevitable. Ironically the debacle that is now the ALP will mark the turning point of a swing back to real left wing values.  Yea I agree. But I think the Greens have one major obstacle and that is preferential voting. I hate that I have to preference one of the major parties in the HORs.

Why is that a problem skippy? Do you realise that your preferences will only flow to a major party after every minor party you prefer has been eliminated on the grounds that they cannot win the election? And that the existence of your later preferences does not in any way facilitate the elimination of those minor parties?

Alternatives like first past the post are 1000 times worse for minor parties.

The only thing the Greens are is exclusive.  These actions push people away from their party. If I was a refugee, gay , an abbo or a do-gooder I'd take notice of their little party.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 8:37pm: Grey wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:58pm: The Labor Party has been 'Liberal' light for years. Now that it's finally imploded the rise of the Greens is inevitable. Ironically the debacle that is now the ALP will mark the turning point of a swing back to real left wing values.  Yea I agree. But I think the Greens have one major obstacle and that is preferential voting. I hate that I have to preference one of the major parties in the HORs. Why is that a problem skippy? Do you realise that your preferences will only flow to a major party after every minor party you prefer has been eliminated on the grounds that they cannot win the election? And that the existence of your later preferences does not in any way facilitate the elimination of those minor parties? Alternatives like first past the post are 1000 times worse for minor parties.

Yea I do. But it always comes down to two parties being able to win the election. Look at how Labor and Liberal do deals to put the Greens last, like in Bandts case. There has to be a fairer system. I will not vote in the HORs this year, first time ever, because I refuse to preference the Nationals or Labor, so my vote would be invalid.

It only comes down to those two parties because they are the two most popular parties. That's what democracy is all about.

What do you think of this system?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

Grey wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:58pm:

The Labor Party has been 'Liberal' light for years. Now that it's finally imploded the rise of the Greens is inevitable. Ironically the debacle that is now the ALP will mark the turning point of a swing back to real left wing values.

I doubt the Greens will gain much more popularity than what they currently have. The majority of people look at them as a kind of joke.

If you want to be an alternative you don't support and climb into bed with one of those you are looking to be an alternative to. A vote for the Greens is now a vote for the Labs everyone knows it. Since the democrats voted in the GST I have placed them last in every election. Meg lees drove a stake through the heart of the democrats. With the democrats dead and all but buried I'm looking for someone new for that spot and it looks like I have one. I don't know about anyone else but who I put last is much more important to me than who I put first.

Quote:

If you want to be an alternative you don't support and climb into bed with one of those you are looking to be an alternative to.

Like the National and Liberal parties?


Quote:

A vote for the Greens is now a vote for the Labs everyone knows it.

They are different parties with different policies and the Greens have shown that they are both able to govern effectively in coalition and able to achieve some of their own policies despite being a minor partner. It's not like the carbon tax was Labor policy. We have a different outcome than we would have had if Labor had won outright. That's how it works.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:17pm:

They haven't moved in the polls - they seem to only have their core supporters. Plus they LOST seats in WA. I don't think they will go the way of the Dems, but they have definitely peaked 2 years ago. Bob saying goodbye didnt help matters.

It wasn’t Bob, Phallic, it was Matty. He ran two Sydney branches. He left to avoid the carbon tax.

He went to New Zealand, I think, to work on animal welfare.

Something tells me you have a similar interest, right?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 9:28pm:

Grey wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:58pm: The Labor Party has been 'Liberal' light for years. Now that it's finally imploded the rise of the Greens is inevitable. Ironically the debacle that is now the ALP will mark the turning point of a swing back to real left wing values.  I doubt the Greens will gain much more popularity than what they currently have. The majority of people look at them as a kind of joke.

You mean the people at the uni?

skippy. wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 7:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 6:44pm: skippy. wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 11:23am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 11:12am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 17th, 2013 at 12:44am: Macca: Quote: damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind Howard never changed his mind he always supported a GST and what does that have to do with the democrats? They supported the GST didn't they? Actually they didn't support it, only the leader of the time did, so she got her ass kicked out as leader and left the party only to start another party that died in the ass, all as a result of supporting a lying little rodent. The democrats party, were totally against supporting it. wrong again. they had a conscience vote and some supported it and some didn't. it passed just the same. Rewriting history again, you like to do that. ::) five senators backed it, while two said no way. At the same time the grass roots of the party ran a campaign against it, the overwhelming majority of Demorcrats members were against it. The party always listened to the party members, this time they didn't, and Lees paid the price with her ass being kicked out after a petition to remove her as leader, stop rewriting history. The party were against, only the dog Lees and the South African prick pushed for it, they were both hated by their own party for being dogs.

so in summary, some voted for it and some voted against it. exactly what I said in the first place.

Quote:

So tell us about the fall of the National Party? Or the Greens? Oh wait, we cannot look at them as examples either, can we?

the national party has been the defacto liberal party in the bush and they (mostly) dont compete against each other. that makes them a special case. And I cant believe you use the Greens as an example given that they are following the same trajectory but have not yet finished the cycle. 2010 was their high point and every election since has seen their position erode and they are severl percent down federally from then as well. and all this in an environment where the ALP is bleeding support and the greens are picking it up. and still they are dropping.

if you want to use an example of a genuine third party remaining then you will have to make one up because they dont last.

Quote:

there is the australia party, th DLP, the NDP etc... same trajectory, same fate. Ah, the examples we are allowed to consider. Thanks for picking and choosing the evidence for us longy.

I said all the post-ware third parties. if there are others then feel free to use them but I don't remember them either because.... they cam and went - just as I said happens to them all.

I said post-war because that was so you wouldn't use your idiotic example of the ALP and Liberal parties as (unbelievably) examples of third parties arising.

i know you would LOVE a third party to come to the fore and that is fine. what is not fine is making stuff up and pretending something is true that isnt.  Even the Democrats prove my point by the fact that their longevity was given because they WEREN'T effectively a third party but rather an external conscience to the existing ones. as soon as they decided to become a genuine third party they died.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 14^th, 2013 at 9:17pm:

They haven't moved in the polls - they seem to only have their core supporters. Plus they LOST seats in WA. I don't think they will go the way of the Dems, but they have definitely peaked 2 years ago. Bob saying goodbye didnt help matters.

Yep, Bob cacked and then Bob left, muttering "The carbon tax done 'em good" then chuckled.

Quote:

When labor gets its act together (and it will take time) they will return and the Greens will be back with just their hard-core supporters... not many. Have you ever bothered to consider the polling in terms of the competition between Labor and the Greens? I pointed out earlier that most of the drop in Greens support coincides with a drop in Labor's support in favour of the coalition. In fact the Greens even seem to suffer less. Do you have any evidence to support your prediction, other than wishful thinking?

well I guess we could start with pointing and laughing at you for your unwillingness to accept the generally understood notion that disaffected labor supporters tend to drif to the Green rather than vote for 'the enemy' (coalition). but moving beyond that the entire point was that the 2008-2010 significant rise in the greens support came at the same time a s big drop in labor support. the drift was obvious.  But now the greens support is dropping so fast that labor voters arent stemming the tide. That does not disprove the proposition.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 8:37pm: Grey wrote on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 7:58pm: The Labor Party has been 'Liberal' light for years. Now that it's finally imploded the rise of the Greens is inevitable. Ironically the debacle that is now the ALP will mark the turning point of a swing back to real left wing values.  Yea I agree. But I think the Greens have one major obstacle and that is preferential voting. I hate that I have to preference one of the major parties in the HORs. Why is that a problem skippy? Do you realise that your preferences will only flow to a major party after every minor party you prefer has been eliminated on the grounds that they cannot win the election? And that the existence of your later preferences does not in any way facilitate the elimination of those minor parties? Alternatives like first past the post are 1000 times worse for minor parties.

and therein lies the essence of your error. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS do not exists to facilitate or punish parties. it exists to put in power the parties people want. minor parties are called 'minor' because they dont have enough support to be counted. tough. thats what we call democracy or rule by the MAJORITY.

freediver wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2013 at 9:19pm:

It only comes down to those two parties because they are the two most popular parties. That's what democracy is all about. What do you think of this system? http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/voting-by-delegable-proxy.html

I think people that were interested in politics would be interested in the option of that sort of system. But I think the average punter on the street would find it too confusing and too much hard work for them to be bothered.

Quote:

I think people that were interested in politics would be interested in the option of that sort of system. But I think the average punter on the street would find it too confusing and too much hard work for them to be bothered.

I think it is actually less confusing than our current system. It is surprising how many people misunderstand how preferential voting works. Very few people understand all the implications of their Senate vote.


Quote:

the national party has been the defacto liberal party in the bush and they (mostly) dont compete against each other. that makes them a special case. And I cant believe you use the Greens as an example given that they are following the same trajectory but have not yet finished the cycle.

In other words, they are on the up, and the only conclusion you can draw is that they will follow the democrats. Not because the evidence actually supports this. Wishful thinking trumps all in your analysis.


Quote:

2010 was their high point and every election since has seen their position erode and they are severl percent down federally from then as well.

I almost got you understand the concept we have been discussing, but now you are retreating to a primary school level analysis. You would not say that the Labor party is going downhill even though they show the same trend. You admit that the Greens compete against Labor, not the coalition, but you are afraid to measure their performance against that of the Labor party. So you end up mistaking the cyclic left-right swings for the demise of one of the left wing parties, but not the other. We see the same trend for two parties, yet you manage to reach the opposite conclusion for each party. Other than wishful thinking and a very selective choice of evidence, you have nothing to support your position. So go ahead and fall back to "let's finish this discussion in 6 years".


Quote:

and all this in an environment where the ALP is bleeding support and the greens are picking it up.

Wow, you even acknowledge that the Greens are mainly competing against labor and gaining ground, but what you see is the opposite of what is right in front of you. Why is it so hard for you to understand these concepts?


Quote:

if you want to use an example of a genuine third party remaining then you will have to make one up because they dont last

Yes they do. I have given plenty of examples. You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit your agenda of blind wishful thinking in the face of reality. Here are some examples:

The Labor Party
The Liberal Party
The National Party
The Greens
And the predecessors to some of these parties

Now lets watch as Longy finds some BS excuse to ignore every single one of these examples.


Quote:

I said all the post-ware third parties.

Yes Longy, we noticed you trying to exclude every bit of evidence that doesn't fit your wishful thinking agenda. This is not rational Longy. It merely reveals the extent of your willful self delusion.


Quote:

if there are others then feel free to use them but I don't remember them either because...

There are the Greens and the national party - oh wait, you have even more BS excuses for them too.


Quote:

I said post-war because that was so you wouldn't use your idiotic example of the ALP and Liberal parties as (unbelievably) examples of third parties arising

Why are they idiotic? Do we need to see the collapse of major parties every dozen election cycles for you to remember that it can and does happen? The only thing that is idiotic is your insistence on excluding these examples of minor parties becoming stable major parties on the grounds that they became stable major parties. You use the fact that they succeeded at what you insist is impossible to exclude them as evidence that other parties can achieve what you blindly insist is impossible.


Quote:

i know you would LOVE a third party to come to the fore and that is fine.

Longy you are the only one putting wishful thinking above reality.


Quote:

what is not fine is making stuff up and pretending something is true that isnt.

The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens, and the predecessors to some of these parties are not made up examples. They are real. The only thing that is imaginary is your reasoning for excluding every example that disagrees with your infantile analysis. The only justification you appear to have for excluding them is directly related to the fact that these examples disprove your absurd claims.


Quote:

but moving beyond that the entire point was that the 2008-2010 significant rise in the greens support came at the same time a s big drop in labor support. the drift was obvious.  But now the greens support is dropping so fast that labor voters arent stemming the tide. That does not disprove the proposition.

So the only time that you can see what is right in front of you is when labor is going down and the Greens are going up? If they are both moving in the same direction, you suddenly loose your ability at rational analysis? Can you explain why you reach opposite conclusions for Labor and the Greens, even though the Greens are still gaining relative to Labor? What does it take to make you see what is right in front of you?

Quote:

What does it take to make you see what is right in front of you?

If you could get him to swallow a stainless steel weight attached to a long length of rope tethered to his neck and then hooked the weight end to a rocket, when it comes,  out you could turn him inside out maybe? 

Quote:

the national party has been the defacto liberal party in the bush and they (mostly) dont compete against each other. that makes them a special case. And I cant believe you use the Greens as an example given that they are following the same trajectory but have not yet finished the cycle. In other words, they are on the up, and the only conclusion you can draw is that they will follow the democrats. Not because the evidence actually supports this. Wishful thinking trumps all in your analysis.

only an SOB could conclude the greens are on he up when every post 2010 election has shown the greens polling less than that high mark and their currently polls saying exactly the same. It is going to be very hard to have a proper discussion if you are going to willfully misstate facts and misinterpret history. so far, you are doing both.


Quote:

You would not say that the Labor party is going downhill even though they show the same trend

dot be so silly. both major parties have shown dozens of ebbs and flows. third parties however have one rise and one fall. again, it is just history and feel free to point to a single historical instance of that not being true.


Quote:

if you want to use an example of a genuine third party remaining then you will have to make one up because they dont last Yes they do. I have given plenty of examples. You just choose to ignore them because they don't fit your agenda of blind wishful thinking in the face of reality. Here are some examples: The Labor Party The Liberal Party The National Party The Greens And the predecessors to some of these parties Now lets watch as Longy finds some BS excuse to ignore every single one of these examples.

i dont need BS. you supplied it all. when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly. and why must you refuse to consider just the post war period. is 70 years not enough for you to prove the point?  It isnt delusion at all, rather it is rational thinking to consider that perhaps politics has changed dramatically since the early days of federation.


Quote:

if there are others then feel free to use them but I don't remember them either because... There are the Greens and the national party - oh wait, you have even more BS excuses for them too.

so we are discussing the ebbs and flows of minor parties and you want to use the example of a party only 20 years old??? epic fail since the cycle of minor parties is often longer than that period of time.  and has been stated previously, the nats are a unique case being the defacto rural liberal party. if you cant see that then it explains so much


Quote:

what is not fine is making stuff up and pretending something is true that isnt. The Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens, and the predecessors to some of these parties are not made up examples. They are real. The only thing that is imaginary is your reasoning for excluding every example that disagrees with your infantile analysis. The only justification you appear to have for excluding them is directly related to the fact that these examples disprove your absurd claims.

the predecessors of parties that are 70-100 years old??? talk about irrelevant crap. you are just desperately holding out for the hope that a thrid party will come into existence and break the repeated chain of rise and fal. fine. but at least admit it and dont go into these convoluted snd idiotic rants about how it has already happened.


Quote:

So the only time that you can see what is right in front of you is when labor is going down and the Greens are going up? If they are both moving in the same direction, you suddenly loose your ability at rational analysis? Can you explain why you reach opposite conclusions for Labor and the Greens, even though the Greens are still gaining relative to Labor? What does it take to make you see what is right in front of you? [quote]

[/quote]

so the greens are gaining relative to labor??? on what planet is that true? the greens are dropping in line with the trajectory of EVERY THIRD PARTY since ww2 and the fundamental shift in Australian politics that occurred then

and when the greens go sub 5% what will you say then?  Actually you will say exactly the same thing you are syaing now only replacing the Greens with the next thrid party. you will rant and rave about how they are different.

it gets old and frankly. it gets a bit silly with you always desperately wanting a third party to take control but without doing the hard yards of actually winning an election.

Quote:

third parties however have one rise and one fall.

;D


Quote:

again, it is just history and feel free to point to a single historical instance of that not being true.

OK, lets start with the Greens, the National Party, and the Democrats.


Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

I did not describe them as third parties. I described Labor and Liberals as third parties that became stable major parties, contrary to your quaint belief that nothing ever changes.


Quote:

so the greens are gaining relative to labor??? on what planet is that true?

That's just the truth of the matter Longy.

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Quote: third parties however have one rise and one fall. ;D [quote]again, it is just history and feel free to point to a single historical instance of that not being true.

OK, lets start with the Greens, the National Party, and the Democrats.


Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

I did not describe them as third parties. I described Labor and Liberals as third parties that became stable major parties, contrary to your quaint belief that nothing ever changes.


Quote:

so the greens are gaining relative to labor??? on what planet is that true?

That's just the truth of the matter Longy.[/quote]

care to make an even moderately mathematically and politically based assessment of that. throw in a little history too while your at it just to make a better case.  Your position has zero merit.

Look at the polls for yourself Longy. It's hardly a secret that labor have also dropped significantly in the polls since 2010.

Were you wrong about third parties only having one rise and one fall?

Do you understand now that both major parties started as third parties or minor parties?

freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

Look at the polls for yourself Longy. It's hardly a secret that labor have also dropped significantly in the polls since 2010. Were you wrong about third parties only having one rise and one fall? Do you understand now that both major parties started as third parties or minor parties?

well as a detailed analysis that was rather lacking. Yes labor have dropped from 37% to 32% - a drop of 13.5% (please dont ask why it isnt 5%!) the greens have dropped from 12% to 10% a drop of 16.6%. Now if i wanted to make a simplistic argument like you tend to make I'd say 'point proven' and move on. But it is never that simplistic.

Labor have a 100 year record of ebb and flow and therefore it is reasonable to say that without any evidence that that has in any way changed this current low point will eventually turn around and they will rise and form government again even if not likely for at least 6 years and even more if the slaughter that the polls currently suggest, comes to pass.

The Greens on the other hand have no such extensive history to base a prediction on. All we have to predict a trajectory is the performance of other third parties. Federal politics was transformed by WW2 and in the post-war period no third party has ever shown the ability to stay the course. IN fact, history demonstrates that third parties rise, spend a little time in the sun and then fade away.

The Greens may in fact become a major long-lasting force. My argument is and has always been, that there is no evidence at all to suggest that is the likely outcome. The reverse in fact, is what is far more likely. And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties. They are even following the tried-and-true history of  founders of third parties taking them to their zenith, being replaced by lesser lights and the party slowly fade into the sunset. That the Greens have failed to capitalise on the large drop in Labor support not only reinforced my argument but may in fact hide a far bigger drop in the green vote as long-term labor voters 'park' their votes with the greens while their preferred party gets its act together.

Now if you wish to dispute my analysis then feel free but how about trying some actual argument and not just saying drivel like 'the labor party was once a third party etc' when that hasnt been true for 100 years and the coalition have been around also for 70 years as well.

Quote:

well as a detailed analysis that was rather lacking.

Sorry, next time I will go for you thesis style "third parties however have one rise and one fall".


Quote:

The Greens on the other hand have no such extensive history to base a prediction on. All we have to predict a trajectory is the performance of other third parties.

Like Labor, Liberal, the Nationals etc? Or only the ones you select?


Quote:

Federal politics was transformed by WW2

How? It looks to me like you only chose the postwar period after you realised how stupid your initial claim of 100 years was. There was no transformation. There is just you drawing lines back on forth through the sand trying to exclude every bit of evidence that disagrees with you, and changing your mind about where those lines need to be as it (ever so slowly) dawns on you how silly it is getting.


Quote:

and in the post-war period no third party has ever shown the ability to stay the course

Except of course the Nationals and the Greens.


Quote:

IN fact, history demonstrates that third parties rise, spend a little time in the sun and then fade away.

Yeah we know. One rise, one fall. That's all that exists in your imagination, and no amount of reality is going to change that.


Quote:

The Greens may in fact become a major long-lasting force. My argument is and has always been, that there is no evidence at all to suggest that is the likely outcome.

Sounds more like you changing your story to me.


Quote:

And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties.

The fact you even lump third parties all into the one basket and insist the Greens are somehow identical shows you have not thought about this at all. You have gone through absurd mental gymnastics to explain why the Nationals were a special case, and also the Democrats. Everything is a special case to you, except for some reason your only conclusion is that the Greens must therefor fit your imaginary generic trajectory of third parties.


Quote:

as long-term labor voters 'park' their votes with the greens while their preferred party gets its act together.

LOL. Another cracker from longy. If they change their votes they are not a long term labor voter (as about 30% of the population is). Voters drift between the two major parties. Some become long term voters for the other party. Some become long term voters for an alternative minor party. Some stick with the same major party. The most recent Greens peak in Greens vote was around the same time as Labors. Now they are both falling.


Quote:

Now if you wish to dispute my analysis then feel free but how about trying some actual argument and not just saying drivel like 'the labor party was once a third party etc

This is true Longy. Labor did start out as a third party. Here are some examples of drivel. This thread has been pretty much a constant stream of it coming from you.


Quote:

third parties however have one rise and one fall.

Quote:

I repeat that there is ZERO historical example of a third party that has stayed the course.

Quote:

The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history.

Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

Quote:

and btw 2PP has precisely zero impact on elections

Quote:

the democrats were the only party to have survived any significant length of time

Quote:

so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them

Quote:

it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind

You mean - when Howard revealed he had been lying all the time:

"Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia." Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the lie. Asked if he'd "left the door open for a GST", Howard said: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html

freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

Quote: well as a detailed analysis that was rather lacking. Sorry, next time I will go for you thesis style "third parties however have one rise and one fall". [quote]Federal politics was transformed by WW2

How? It looks to me like you only chose the postwar period after you realised how stupid your initial claim of 100 years was. There was no transformation. There is just you drawing lines back on forth through the sand trying to exclude every bit of evidence that disagrees with you, and changing your mind about where those lines need to be as it (ever so slowly) dawns on you how silly it is getting.


Quote:

and in the post-war period no third party has ever shown the ability to stay the course

Except of course the Nationals and the Greens.


Quote:

IN fact, history demonstrates that third parties rise, spend a little time in the sun and then fade away.

Yeah we know. One rise, one fall. That's all that exists in your imagination, and no amount of reality is going to change that.


Quote:

The Greens may in fact become a major long-lasting force. My argument is and has always been, that there is no evidence at all to suggest that is the likely outcome.

Sounds more like you changing your story to me.


Quote:

And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties.

The fact you even lump third parties all into the one basket and insist the Greens are somehow identical shows you have not thought about this at all. You have gone through absurd mental gymnastics to explain why the Nationals were a special case, and also the Democrats. Everything is a special case to you, except for some reason your only conclusion is that the Greens must therefor fit your imaginary generic trajectory of third parties.


Quote:

as long-term labor voters 'park' their votes with the greens while their preferred party gets its act together.

LOL. Another cracker from longy. If they change their votes they are not a long term labor voter (as about 30% of the population is). Voters drift between the two major parties. Some become long term voters for the other party. Some become long term voters for an alternative minor party. Some stick with the same major party. The most recent Greens peak in Greens vote was around the same time as Labors. Now they are both falling.


Quote:

Now if you wish to dispute my analysis then feel free but how about trying some actual argument and not just saying drivel like 'the labor party was once a third party etc

This is true Longy. Labor did start out as a third party. Here are some examples of drivel. This thread has been pretty much a constant stream of it coming from you.


Quote:

third parties however have one rise and one fall.

Quote:

I repeat that there is ZERO historical example of a third party that has stayed the course.

Quote:

The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history.

Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

Quote:

and btw 2PP has precisely zero impact on elections

Quote:

the democrats were the only party to have survived any significant length of time

Quote:

so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them

Quote:

it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history

[/quote]


seriously FD??? that is your (and I use the term loosely) 'analysis'? Have you ever been anywhere near a research project or engaged in objective research? ww2 absolutely transformed australian politics in a way you seem determined to ignore. before WW2 the federation was a loosely connected group of states and the fed govt didnt even have income taxation powers which were ceded to the govt as a wartime emergency.  post WW2, the march of federalism took off and the stats began their long (and continual) slide to near irrelevance as we have it today. so EVERYTHING CHANGED - including politics and the parties.

Your argument that the Greens disprove the theory of no third party surviving is an embarrassment of illogic. The democrats lasted 30 years. for the Greens to prove their longevity they have to pass that mark - at least. if they are to disprove the typical trajectory of 'one rise, one fall' of third parties then they need to do exactly that in reality. at the moment they have had ONE RISE and are currently on a slide down. So the litmus test of your claim that they have longevity is simple: rise yet again from their slump. Until they do that that are on the identical trajectory of third parties.

All I see from your objections to my analysis is 'i dont like it'. you provide not one example from history other than the nationals - who have disproven it time and time again by their atypical rise-fall-rise-fall etc history. How about you place you love affair with third parties to one side and have a real long hard look at the facts and the history that goes with it.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind You mean - when Howard revealed he had been lying all the time: "Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia." Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the lie. Asked if he'd "left the door open for a GST", Howard said: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html

and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST which every party accepts is a good tax. Gillard saiud no to a carbon tax and then 5 DAYS later decided to implement one and still 60+% of voters hate it.

not really the parallel you are looking for, is it?

Quote:

seriously FD??? that is your (and I use the term loosely) 'analysis'?

No Longy. It is a list of all the stupid and clearly incorrect things you have posted in this thread.

In 1972  the first enviro party was formed in Tassy. There were  Green parties in all the states and they decided to make it a National party in 1992. If we follow long fools reasoning the Nationals are not likely to last as they are only ten years old.

Longy appears to expect a thesis in response to whatever random incoherent ideas he blurts out.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind You mean - when Howard revealed he had been lying all the time: "Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia." Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the lie. Asked if he'd "left the door open for a GST", Howard said: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST which every party accepts is a good tax. Gillard saiud no to a carbon tax and then 5 DAYS later decided to implement one and still 60+% of voters hate it. not really the parallel you are looking for, is it?

and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST

That is not particularly honest - He stood in the 1996 election with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST in any government he led and was openly campaigning for a GST around 14 months later in the very term that his commitment first applied.

It may have taken 5 years from his first promise to when it was implemented 1995 to 2000. But no GST ever was his position for the 1996 election and the promise was being breached in 1997.

.

I have NEVER, EVER, considered the Greens as the alternative

Nor has anyone with whom I'm associated

Greens = Pollyanna

Bats.  Bats are filth, in my opinion.  I do not wish to live in harmony with bats.  Instead, I support the right of humans to live bat-free.  The Greens believe I should watch my life, my home, my vehicle, my health etc. take second-place to bats -- bats which indulge in oral sex, which poo and pee down themselves

Therefore, Greens in my opinion are a prime example of human devolution

Greens can have this planet to themselves if and when everyone else is dead or gone.  Then we'll see how the Greens cope when NO ONE OPPOSES THEM except the Natural world

What a joke it will be, watching from above as the Greens attempt to create some form of sustainable existence for themselves according to their professed ideals and when NO ONE ELSE is piping water to their sink for them, stocking supermarket shelves for them, providing  transport for them, etc. etc. etc.

I want to see the freaks dragging themselves around, dressed in leaves and twigs, scratching their sores and licking them because spit will be all they'll have, eating raw grass and sleeping standing up on one leg because 'ants have rights'

Give 'em the planet.  Fine with me.  Let's see how much flora and fauna they suddenly decide is less important than they as they struggle to make it through to the next generation

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

Quote: seriously FD??? that is your (and I use the term loosely) 'analysis'? No Longy. It is a list of all the stupid and clearly incorrect things you have posted in this thread.

wow I am stunned by the incisive nature of your response. it is stupid and incorrect because YOU said so and that's the entirety of your argument??

well let's remind you that the greens are now polling at 10% after polling at 14% just before the 2010 election. this is what we call in the non-mathematically challenged section of the forum as LESS SUPPORTERS. this is the FALL part of the rise/fall trajectory of third parties that you like to deny exists. you might disagree with my analysis but in the absence of an actual counter-analysis from yourself it is hard to take your commentary seriously.

skippy. wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 11:55am:

In 1972  the first enviro party was formed in Tassy. There were  Green parties in all the states and they decided to make it a National party in 1992. If we follow long fools reasoning the Nationals are not likely to last as they are only ten years old.

hey changed their NAME dunderhead.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 3:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 8:08am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 25th, 2013 at 6:59pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:10am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 11:02am: john_g wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 10:54am: I am a swing voter who is very disillusioned with both major parties, especially Labor,but I think the Greens are even worse than both parties. What I would love to see is a good honest centrist party there to keep the bastards honest. What a shame that the Democrats lost their way, they were originally this, but then shifted to the left. Actually the Right, it was support for the GST that killed the Democrats. damn Howard took the GST to an election when he changed his mind You mean - when Howard revealed he had been lying all the time: "Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia." Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the lie. Asked if he'd "left the door open for a GST", Howard said: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy." http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST which every party accepts is a good tax. Gillard saiud no to a carbon tax and then 5 DAYS later decided to implement one and still 60+% of voters hate it. not really the parallel you are looking for, is it? and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST That is not particularly honest - He stood in the 1996 election with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST in any government he led and was openly campaigning for a GST around 14 months later in the very term that his commitment first applied. It may have taken 5 years from his first promise to when it was implemented 1995 to 2000. But no GST ever was his position for the 1996 election and the promise was being breached in 1997.

when i hear you say that Gillard was dishonest in reneging on her carbon tax promise not 5 years but 5 DAYS later I might accept your commentary about Howards about face.

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 12:14pm:

Longy appears to expect a thesis in response to whatever random incoherent ideas he blurts out.

Random ideas like:

no third party has ever survived long term or been thru ebbs and flows and continued to exist other than the Nats?
the Green vote is dropping nationally and consistently after a single high point?

feel free to dispute my 'random idea' but you could try facts for a start.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 4:53pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 3:19pm: and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST That is not particularly honest - He stood in the 1996 election with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST in any government he led and was openly campaigning for a GST around 14 months later in the very term that his commitment first applied. It may have taken 5 years from his first promise to when it was implemented 1995 to 2000. But no GST ever was his position for the 1996 election and the promise was being breached in 1997. when i hear you say that Gillard was dishonest in reneging on her carbon tax promise not 5 years but 5 DAYS later I might accept your commentary about Howards about face.

If you want to measure from First promise to implimentation as is how you get 5 years which in reality was less than 14 months for the biggest new tax Australia has ever had - paid by everyone every day.

The same measurt for the fixed carbon price is from Aug 2010 to July 2012 about 2 years.

But you would not consider counting it the same way and what did we get a piddly little tax which nobody pays.

I said from the first day that what Julia had said was incredibly stupid but in terms of making any difference there was none.

Hardly fair comparing a real tax with the fixed carbon price.

but 5 DAYS later

Even a month Later Gillard was still saying she didn't believe it was a tax (see the argument with Alan Jones) She later found that she was technically wrong.

Somewhere around a month after the agreement was made she found out that it was technically a tax, even though nobody was ever going to pay any tax.

My feeling was that when she committed to no carbon tax she was refering to the Tony Abbott carbon tax where you pay a tax at the bowser and pay a tax in your electricity bill and then tony gives the money to the poluters and you get a refund from the tax office??

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 5:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 4:53pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 3:19pm: and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST That is not particularly honest - He stood in the 1996 election with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST in any government he led and was openly campaigning for a GST around 14 months later in the very term that his commitment first applied. It may have taken 5 years from his first promise to when it was implemented 1995 to 2000. But no GST ever was his position for the 1996 election and the promise was being breached in 1997. when i hear you say that Gillard was dishonest in reneging on her carbon tax promise not 5 years but 5 DAYS later I might accept your commentary about Howards about face. If you want to measure from First promise to implimentation as is how you get 5 years which in reality was less than 14 months for the biggest new tax Australia has ever had - paid by everyone every day. The same measurt for the fixed carbon price is from Aug 2010 to July 2012 about 2 years. But you would not consider counting it the same way and what did we get a piddly little tax which nobody pays. I said from the first day that what Julia had said was incredibly stupid but in terms of making any difference there was none. Hardly fair comparing a real tax with the fixed carbon price. but 5 DAYS later Even a month Later Gillard was still saying she didn't believe it was a tax (see the argument with Alan Jones) She later found that she was technically wrong. Somewhere around a month after the agreement was made she found out that it was technically a tax, even though nobody was ever going to pay any tax. My feeling was that when she committed to no carbon tax she was refering to the Tony Abbott carbon tax where you pay a tax at the bowser and pay a tax in your electricity bill and then tony gives the money to the poluters and you get a refund from the tax office??

so your argument is that it isnt a tax because Gillard said so even tho even she admitted later that it is a tax. wow... thats hard to contemplate without laughing.

14 months??? first brought up in 1997 and implemented in 2000. an way you cut it, it isnt 14 months. and even if it was... you still have that awkward problem of an election being held on the matter PLUS gillards 5 day 'change of heart'

Accept it is a tax - because it is.  accept that the word 'tax' does not imply everyone pays it because that doesnt even apply to income tax or is it now called an 'income price'?? Accept that the carbon tax is a popular as bob brown in a men's changing room. Thsi repeated denial has gotten past bemusing and now becoming concerning.

Quote:

wow I am stunned by the incisive nature of your response.

If you make a stupid post Longy, don't expect a thesis in response.


Quote:

it is stupid and incorrect because YOU said so and that's the entirety of your argument??

No Longy. I pointed out why most of them were stupid at the time. If you are confused about any just ask. Here is that list again for you:


Quote:

third parties however have one rise and one fall.

Quote:

I repeat that there is ZERO historical example of a third party that has stayed the course.

Quote:

The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history.

Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

Quote:

and btw 2PP has precisely zero impact on elections

Quote:

the democrats were the only party to have survived any significant length of time

Quote:

so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them

Quote:

it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history

Quote:

And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties.

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

Quote: wow I am stunned by the incisive nature of your response. If you make a stupid post Longy, don't expect a thesis in response. [quote]it is stupid and incorrect because YOU said so and that's the entirety of your argument??

No Longy. I pointed out why most of them were stupid at the time. If you are confused about any just ask. Here is that list again for you:


Quote:

third parties however have one rise and one fall.

Quote:

I repeat that there is ZERO historical example of a third party that has stayed the course.

Quote:

The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history.

Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

Quote:

and btw 2PP has precisely zero impact on elections

Quote:

the democrats were the only party to have survived any significant length of time

Quote:

so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them

Quote:

it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history

Quote:

And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties.

[/quote]

so you follow up a non-response with MORE non-response??

why dont you try an argument to defeat my position? after all if you think they are so stupid then presumably it should be easy.

why dont you start with the '2PP has no affect on the outcome of an election'?  My point is simple. the 2PP as a statistic has only been around about 15 years. it is not mentioned in legislation or any such laws. it is merely a statisticians convenience. and since there are multiple examples of a party winning a majority of seats but losing the 2PP then it would seem my point is proven.

and just ANOTHER REMINDER than the greens are polling 4% less than 3 years ago. Way to go for ignoring that!

You are completely missing the point of it Longy - on just about every level. The longevity of the statistic does not tell you anything. The first past the post statistic is not mentioned in legislation either. It's convenience is that it predicts an election outcome where a first past the post poll by itself cannot. Given that the intention of polling is to predict who the winner might be in an election, that is a pretty significant 'convenience'. The 2pp measure reflects what is in legislation - that it, it reflects the way an election outcome is determined.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 6:48am:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:17pm: They haven't moved in the polls - they seem to only have their core supporters. Plus they LOST seats in WA. I don't think they will go the way of the Dems, but they have definitely peaked 2 years ago. Bob saying goodbye didnt help matters. Yep, Bob cacked and then Bob left, muttering "The carbon tax done 'em good" then chuckled.

As much as I dislike Bob Brown, at least he was good at promoting the identity of the greens (see 2010). Guy was great for PR, but now they come across as less prominent without him.

What’s your take on their watered-down animal welfare policies, Phallic?

Thoughts?

freediver wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

You are completely missing the point of it Longy - on just about every level. The longevity of the statistic does not tell you anything. The first past the post statistic is not mentioned in legislation either. It's convenience is that it predicts an election outcome where a first past the post poll by itself cannot. Given that the intention of polling is to predict who the winner might be in an election, that is a pretty significant 'convenience'. The 2pp measure reflects what is in legislation - that it, it reflects the way an election outcome is determined.

actually it is. the post however is 50% of the vote as opposed to other systems where the post is simply who is in front.

the fact that you seemingly fail to understand is that the 2PP is an aggregated figure. Howard won with 49% of the 2PP. Mike Rann won with 47% of the 2PP. a 2PP figure in a particular electorate is spot on. a 2PP across the country however is not because it is an aggregated figure. Just liek swings in % terms can be misleading. in the last SA election the libs needed 3% swing to win, got 7% and yet lost. they got 20% swings in some seats and 1% in others.

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:48am: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:17pm: They haven't moved in the polls - they seem to only have their core supporters. Plus they LOST seats in WA. I don't think they will go the way of the Dems, but they have definitely peaked 2 years ago. Bob saying goodbye didnt help matters. Yep, Bob cacked and then Bob left, muttering "The carbon tax done 'em good" then chuckled. As much as I dislike Bob Brown, at least he was good at promoting the identity of the greens (see 2010). Guy was great for PR, but now they come across as less prominent without him.

he had presence and credibility for what he stands for. Milne sounds like a politician and not a particularly good one.

Longy where is it mentioned in legislation?

Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure.

freediver wrote on Mar 27^th, 2013 at 8:42am:

Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure.

i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2013 at 7:26am:

Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 10:23pm: olde.sault wrote on Mar 24th, 2013 at 6:48am: Phallic Baldwin wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 9:17pm: They haven't moved in the polls - they seem to only have their core supporters. Plus they LOST seats in WA. I don't think they will go the way of the Dems, but they have definitely peaked 2 years ago. Bob saying goodbye didnt help matters. Yep, Bob cacked and then Bob left, muttering "The carbon tax done 'em good" then chuckled. As much as I dislike Bob Brown, at least he was good at promoting the identity of the greens (see 2010). Guy was great for PR, but now they come across as less prominent without him. he had presence and credibility for what he stands for. Milne sounds like a politician and not a particularly good one.

The greens are weaker for that loss.

It may be a rant but he's right!

http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2337456252/Joes-Green-rant?area=videoindex20

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 6:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 5:48pm: If you want to measure from First promise to implimentation as is how you get 5 years which in reality was less than 14 months for the biggest new tax Australia has ever had - paid by everyone every day. The same measurt for the fixed carbon price is from Aug 2010 to July 2012 about 2 years. But you would not consider counting it the same way and what did we get a piddly little tax which nobody pays. I said from the first day that what Julia had said was incredibly stupid but in terms of making any difference there was none. Hardly fair comparing a real tax with the fixed carbon price. but 5 DAYS later Even a month Later Gillard was still saying she didn't believe it was a tax (see the argument with Alan Jones) She later found that she was technically wrong. Somewhere around a month after the agreement was made she found out that it was technically a tax, even though nobody was ever going to pay any tax. My feeling was that when she committed to no carbon tax she was refering to the Tony Abbott carbon tax where you pay a tax at the bowser and pay a tax in your electricity bill and then tony gives the money to the poluters and you get a refund from the tax office?? so your argument is that it isnt a tax because Gillard said so even tho even she admitted later that it is a tax. wow... thats hard to contemplate without laughing. 14 months??? first brought up in 1997 and implemented in 2000. an way you cut it, it isnt 14 months. and even if it was... you still have that awkward problem of an election being held on the matter PLUS gillards 5 day 'change of heart' Accept it is a tax - because it is.  accept that the word 'tax' does not imply everyone pays it because that doesnt even apply to income tax or is it now called an 'income price'?? Accept that the carbon tax is a popular as bob brown in a men's changing room. Thsi repeated denial has gotten past bemusing and now becoming concerning.

so your argument is that it isnt a tax because Gillard said so even tho even she admitted later that it is a tax. wow... thats hard to contemplate without laughing.

Wrong as usual.

Technically it is a tax even though nobody will pay any tax. If nobody will pay any tax is it really such a big tax???

1997 and implemented in 2000

I do not know what colour pills you are taking but the time line was:

Howard committed to never ever a GST in 1995 as he took the leadership (it was a condition on the job)

Howard repeated and confirmed that position till the day before the election in 1996 and probably even after the election.

Howard announced the biggest new tax ever in the middle of 1997 (after months of planning) and implimented it in 2000.


Again My number was comparing apples to apples.

Your claim is the difference between whan gillard Last said no to when it became a Yes. 5 days was your incorrect quote. This is not refering to the implimentation date. It is the time between the commitment and it being breached.

The same comparison for Howard is around 14 months, the number you give is the time between his announced GST and its implimentation. i.e. you have an orange.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 27^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 6:08pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 26th, 2013 at 5:48pm: If you want to measure from First promise to implimentation as is how you get 5 years which in reality was less than 14 months for the biggest new tax Australia has ever had - paid by everyone every day. The same measurt for the fixed carbon price is from Aug 2010 to July 2012 about 2 years. But you would not consider counting it the same way and what did we get a piddly little tax which nobody pays. I said from the first day that what Julia had said was incredibly stupid but in terms of making any difference there was none. Hardly fair comparing a real tax with the fixed carbon price. but 5 DAYS later Even a month Later Gillard was still saying she didn't believe it was a tax (see the argument with Alan Jones) She later found that she was technically wrong. Somewhere around a month after the agreement was made she found out that it was technically a tax, even though nobody was ever going to pay any tax. My feeling was that when she committed to no carbon tax she was refering to the Tony Abbott carbon tax where you pay a tax at the bowser and pay a tax in your electricity bill and then tony gives the money to the poluters and you get a refund from the tax office?? so your argument is that it isnt a tax because Gillard said so even tho even she admitted later that it is a tax. wow... thats hard to contemplate without laughing. 14 months??? first brought up in 1997 and implemented in 2000. an way you cut it, it isnt 14 months. and even if it was... you still have that awkward problem of an election being held on the matter PLUS gillards 5 day 'change of heart' Accept it is a tax - because it is.  accept that the word 'tax' does not imply everyone pays it because that doesnt even apply to income tax or is it now called an 'income price'?? Accept that the carbon tax is a popular as bob brown in a men's changing room. Thsi repeated denial has gotten past bemusing and now becoming concerning. so your argument is that it isnt a tax because Gillard said so even tho even she admitted later that it is a tax. wow... thats hard to contemplate without laughing. Wrong as usual. Technically it is a tax even though nobody will pay any tax. If nobody will pay any tax is it really such a big tax??? 1997 and implemented in 2000 I do not know what colour pills you are taking but the time line was: Howard committed to never ever a GST in 1995 as he took the leadership (it was a condition on the job) Howard repeated and confirmed that position till the day before the election in 1996 and probably even after the election. Howard announced the biggest new tax ever in the middle of 1997 (after months of planning) and implimented it in 2000. Again My number was comparing apples to apples. Your claim is the difference between whan gillard Last said no to when it became a Yes. 5 days was your incorrect quote. This is not refering to the implimentation date. It is the time between the commitment and it being breached. The same comparison for Howard is around 14 months, the number you give is the time between his announced GST and its implimentation. i.e. you have an orange.

it was interesting watching you criticise my 1997-2000 timeline and then reiterate it exactly as i had it...

anyhow. even if I grant you the 14months you need to compare that to 5 days for the CT. its a comparison where you will always come off worse.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27^th, 2013 at 11:40am:

freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome.

Where is it mentioned in legislation?

freediver wrote on Mar 28^th, 2013 at 9:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome. Where is it mentioned in legislation?

nice pick up on the mundane and utterly minute part of the discussion.

first past the post in a non-preferential system is nothing more than being in front. in the preferential system the 'post' is the first past 50% ergo FIRST PAST THE POST. your problem is that you cannot disentangle yourself from the common use of FPTP with the preferential version of the same.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome. Where is it mentioned in legislation? nice pick up on the mundane and utterly minute part of the discussion. first past the post in a non-preferential system is nothing more than being in front. in the preferential system the 'post' is the first past 50% ergo FIRST PAST THE POST. your problem is that you cannot disentangle yourself from the common use of FPTP with the preferential version of the same.

An interesting speculation.

However with FPTP it isnt really first past the post set at 50% either necessarity. i.e 4 contestants and someone can win with 25% of the vote if the others get 24% with some invalid votes in the system. Unless you are having multiple voting rounds.

Example would be to show the traditional Liberal primary vote of around 31%. They only take power from time to time because of their coalition and preferential votes adding up to over 50% or close enough to that mark to put individual electorate results in their favour.

I would still choose FPTP with preferences above FPTP with no preferences. 50% above a 20% vote.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 7:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome. Where is it mentioned in legislation? nice pick up on the mundane and utterly minute part of the discussion. first past the post in a non-preferential system is nothing more than being in front. in the preferential system the 'post' is the first past 50% ergo FIRST PAST THE POST. your problem is that you cannot disentangle yourself from the common use of FPTP with the preferential version of the same. An interesting speculation. However with FPTP it isnt really first past the post set at 50% either necessarity. i.e 4 contestants and someone can win with 25% of the vote if the others get 24% with some invalid votes in the system. Unless you are having multiple voting rounds. Example would be to show the traditional Liberal primary vote of around 31%. They only take power from time to time because of their coalition and preferential votes adding up to over 50% or close enough to that mark to put individual electorate results in their favour. I would still choose FPTP with preferences above FPTP with no preferences. 50% above a 20% vote.

i prefer preferential but with some modification such as the winner is the first person past 50% as currently but also the winner if at any point they are 10% ahead of their nearest rival.  This would prevent the silly situation of someone getting 24% of the primary vote defeating the one who got 44% of the primary. That is just WRONG.  A good example would be the family first senator who got a seat with 2% of the vote and overtook candidates on triple their vote. it is just wrong.

Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:11am:

Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate.

I have seen worse ideas but unfortunatly clearly remember the advertisments saying to vote Democrat to block the GST in the senate.

Though I suspect the Greens would be a bit more effective.

My biggest concern is that once you get past the primary known greens a lot of the others are nuts and will the greens necessarily agree with my view on the rare pieces of Lib legislation which should actually pass?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:24am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:11am: Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate. I have seen worse ideas but unfortunatly clearly remember the advertisments saying to vote Democrat to block the GST in the senate. Though I suspect the Greens would be a bit more effective. My biggest concern is that once you get past the primary known greens a lot of the others are nuts and will the greens necessarily agree with my view on the rare pieces of Lib legislation which should actually pass?

sure - but it's all about not giving Abbott absolute power.

---

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:04am:

i prefer preferential but with some modification such as the winner is the first person past 50% as currently but also the winner if at any point they are 10% ahead of their nearest rival.  This would prevent the silly situation of someone getting 24% of the primary vote defeating the one who got 44% of the primary. That is just WRONG.  A good example would be the family first senator who got a seat with 2% of the vote and overtook candidates on triple their vote. it is just wrong.

I am not really against this in principal but it is a concern that anyone would lose from that position, makes me wonder if there could be a real good reason why the vast majority of the rest of the vote is so strongly opposed to that result.

I think there would be more gain in a more honest more flexable voting system.

No preferences allocated by the Major parties. Choose you own. That would mean that if the preferences really did landslid against Mr24% it is not because of a preference deal and that the majority really don't want him/her.

Make our system more robust and the votes more meaningfull.

I certainly do see the Greens as an alternative.
Alternative to land fill that is.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

I certainly do see the Greens as an alternative. Alternative to land fill that is.

Yes they would make a nice dressing over the Liberals

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:29am: I certainly do see the Greens as an alternative. Alternative to land fill that is. Yes they would make a nice dressing over the Liberals

I have no doubt quite a few Greens wear dresses.
It's just a pity it's not the female party members though. :)

Quote:

Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"

They certainly are 'alternatives'. They are all a bunch of friggen weirdos as are their followers on here, Bobbi, Nails, Skippy, Crook.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:27am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:24am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:11am: Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate. I have seen worse ideas but unfortunatly clearly remember the advertisments saying to vote Democrat to block the GST in the senate. Though I suspect the Greens would be a bit more effective. My biggest concern is that once you get past the primary known greens a lot of the others are nuts and will the greens necessarily agree with my view on the rare pieces of Lib legislation which should actually pass? sure - but it's all about not giving Abbott absolute power.

Jesus Bobbi, how many times are you going to post that friggen photo?

I'll be posting that photo quite often as we approach the election.

---

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome. Where is it mentioned in legislation? nice pick up on the mundane and utterly minute part of the discussion. first past the post in a non-preferential system is nothing more than being in front. in the preferential system the 'post' is the first past 50% ergo FIRST PAST THE POST. your problem is that you cannot disentangle yourself from the common use of FPTP with the preferential version of the same.

I am just going by the common meaning of the term Progs. Making up new meanings to suit your argument is a bit childish don't you think?

Where is it mentioned in legislation?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:24am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:11am: Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate. I have seen worse ideas but unfortunatly clearly remember the advertisments saying to vote Democrat to block the GST in the senate. Though I suspect the Greens would be a bit more effective. My biggest concern is that once you get past the primary known greens a lot of the others are nuts and will the greens necessarily agree with my view on the rare pieces of Lib legislation which should actually pass?

you've identified the real problem with Green senators. They have zero (and i mean zero) regard for the policies or opinions of any other people or parties. They support their proposals and happily oppose all others. While labor likes to complain about abbott voting against their legislation they conveniently forget that their own coalition partners vote against them. tif the greens had an even minor understanding of the concept of mutual support gillard wouldnt need the libs support to pass anything. Instead she has the greens who she gave a carbon tax to and who in return have given her absolutely nothing - not one thing. She has been comprehensively screwed by them.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:24am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:11am: Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate. I have seen worse ideas but unfortunatly clearly remember the advertisments saying to vote Democrat to block the GST in the senate. Though I suspect the Greens would be a bit more effective. My biggest concern is that once you get past the primary known greens a lot of the others are nuts and will the greens necessarily agree with my view on the rare pieces of Lib legislation which should actually pass? you've identified the real problem with Green senators. They have zero (and i mean zero) regard for the policies or opinions of any other people or parties. They support their proposals and happily oppose all others. While labor likes to complain about abbott voting against their legislation they conveniently forget that their own coalition partners vote against them. tif the greens had an even minor understanding of the concept of mutual support gillard wouldnt need the libs support to pass anything. Instead she has the greens who she gave a carbon tax to and who in return have given her absolutely nothing - not one thing. She has been comprehensively screwed by them.

Rubbish Longy,
the Greens gave JuLiar power to form a government.

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:27am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:24am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:11am: Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate. I have seen worse ideas but unfortunatly clearly remember the advertisments saying to vote Democrat to block the GST in the senate. Though I suspect the Greens would be a bit more effective. My biggest concern is that once you get past the primary known greens a lot of the others are nuts and will the greens necessarily agree with my view on the rare pieces of Lib legislation which should actually pass? sure - but it's all about not giving Abbott absolute power. Jesus Bobbi, how many times are you going to post that friggen photo?

There are other photos of politicians taking that pose too, you know?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/2776682-16x9-340x191.jpg

Bobby. wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:17am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:12am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:24am: Bobby. wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:11am: Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate. I have seen worse ideas but unfortunatly clearly remember the advertisments saying to vote Democrat to block the GST in the senate. Though I suspect the Greens would be a bit more effective. My biggest concern is that once you get past the primary known greens a lot of the others are nuts and will the greens necessarily agree with my view on the rare pieces of Lib legislation which should actually pass? you've identified the real problem with Green senators. They have zero (and i mean zero) regard for the policies or opinions of any other people or parties. They support their proposals and happily oppose all others. While labor likes to complain about abbott voting against their legislation they conveniently forget that their own coalition partners vote against them. tif the greens had an even minor understanding of the concept of mutual support gillard wouldnt need the libs support to pass anything. Instead she has the greens who she gave a carbon tax to and who in return have given her absolutely nothing - not one thing. She has been comprehensively screwed by them. Rubbish Longy, the Greens gave JuLiar power to form a government.

no they didnt. on election night bandt stated that he would support gillard in forming governnent. So exactly what did the greens give gillard? nothing. nothing at all.

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 7:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome. Where is it mentioned in legislation? nice pick up on the mundane and utterly minute part of the discussion. first past the post in a non-preferential system is nothing more than being in front. in the preferential system the 'post' is the first past 50% ergo FIRST PAST THE POST. your problem is that you cannot disentangle yourself from the common use of FPTP with the preferential version of the same. I am just going by the common meaning of the term Progs. Making up new meanings to suit your argument is a bit childish don't you think? Where is it mentioned in legislation?

where it defines 'the post'. in this case 50% which is EXPLICITLY referenced.  Ah i see your problem... the legislation doesnt use the term 'first past the post' - just the concept. of course countries with FPTP systems dont mention it in their legislation either.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:33am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:29am: I certainly do see the Greens as an alternative. Alternative to land fill that is. Yes they would make a nice dressing over the Liberals I have no doubt quite a few Greens wear dresses. It's just a pity it's not the female party members though. :)

This, from a conservative tsk.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-maRfM6f8tYM/UAczIVWxsrI/AAAAAAAANKc/cQnDrMMCY9Q/s1600/2%2BGiuliani%2BDrag.jpg

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 11:37am:

freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:29am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 7:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome. Where is it mentioned in legislation? nice pick up on the mundane and utterly minute part of the discussion. first past the post in a non-preferential system is nothing more than being in front. in the preferential system the 'post' is the first past 50% ergo FIRST PAST THE POST. your problem is that you cannot disentangle yourself from the common use of FPTP with the preferential version of the same. I am just going by the common meaning of the term Progs. Making up new meanings to suit your argument is a bit childish don't you think? Where is it mentioned in legislation? where it defines 'the post'. in this case 50% which is EXPLICITLY referenced.  Ah i see your problem... the legislation doesnt use the term 'first past the post' - just the concept. of course countries with FPTP systems dont mention it in their legislation either.

So the legislation defines how to win an election, and you take this to mean it specifically refers to FPTP polls but not 2pp polls?

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 11:37am: freediver wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 10:29am: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 7:29am: freediver wrote on Mar 28th, 2013 at 9:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 11:40am: freediver wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 8:42am: Longy where is it mentioned in legislation? Whatever inaccuracies there are in the 2pp count as a predictor of election outcome, it is ten times more accurate than a first past the post measure. i fail to see your point about a preferential predictor being more accurate than a FPTP predictor in a preferential voting system. that is beyond obvious. My point which you never ever seem to get is that the 2PP is not how govt is formed and it is JUST a predictor which is sometimes on the wrong side of the outcome. Where is it mentioned in legislation? nice pick up on the mundane and utterly minute part of the discussion. first past the post in a non-preferential system is nothing more than being in front. in the preferential system the 'post' is the first past 50% ergo FIRST PAST THE POST. your problem is that you cannot disentangle yourself from the common use of FPTP with the preferential version of the same. I am just going by the common meaning of the term Progs. Making up new meanings to suit your argument is a bit childish don't you think? Where is it mentioned in legislation? where it defines 'the post'. in this case 50% which is EXPLICITLY referenced.  Ah i see your problem... the legislation doesnt use the term 'first past the post' - just the concept. of course countries with FPTP systems dont mention it in their legislation either. So the legislation defines how to win an election, and you take this to mean it specifically refers to FPTP polls but not 2pp polls?

im not sure i see your point. the 2pp figure is a statistical measure not even in place 15 years ago.

or are you just trying to score a point after your ludicrous debating position over third parties? hows that 10% green poll (and dropping) working out for you? it looks pretty much like a perfect fit for my assessment of third parties and their likelihood of gaining loing-term traction.

Quote:

im not sure i see your point

That's because it was a question.


Quote:

the 2pp figure is a statistical measure not even in place 15 years ago

So you keep saying. Why?

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Quote: im not sure i see your point That's because it was a question. [quote]the 2pp figure is a statistical measure not even in place 15 years ago

So you keep saying. Why?[/quote]

why dont you ask the people responsible for putting it in place?

I understand why it was put into place. That falls into the 'bleeding obvious' category don't you think? I am asking why you make an issue of the timeline. Is that supposed to detract from the legitimacy?

Also, can you please clarify why you think that the legislation specifying how an election outcome is decided specifically references FPTP polling outcomes but not 2pp? Is this just your funny way of conceding that the legislation does not refer to the FPTP bit after all?

freediver wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 2:06pm:

I understand why it was put into place. That falls into the 'bleeding obvious' category don't you think? I am asking why you make an issue of the timeline. Is that supposed to detract from the legitimacy? Also, can you please clarify why you think that the legislation specifying how an election outcome is decided specifically references FPTP polling outcomes but not 2pp? Is this just your funny way of conceding that the legislation does not refer to the FPTP bit after all?

for now I am just happy watching you shout that the Greens are a legitimate long-last thrid party while every bit of evidence  suggests otherwise. I am personally enjoying their 4% drop in the poll since 2010 while the labor party melts down as further proof of their inevitable decline to irrelevancy.

I'll take that as a concession that it does belong on the list of stupid things you have posted in this thread. Here is the list again for you. If there is anything else you would like to feebly challenge, go ahead:


Quote:

third parties however have one rise and one fall.

Quote:

I repeat that there is ZERO historical example of a third party that has stayed the course.

Quote:

The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history.

Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

Quote:

and btw 2PP has precisely zero impact on elections

Quote:

the democrats were the only party to have survived any significant length of time

Quote:

so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them

Quote:

it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history

Quote:

And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties.

Quote:

The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history.

Lets try this one. The difficulty in this argument from my perspective is because you like to redefine terms such as 'third-party'. You call the libs and ALP third parties which rather makes any genuine debate impossible.

So let's try and be a little bit generous and grant you your preposterous assertion above. What sets the ALP and Libs/Nats from other parties? Simple answer: the ability to win govt, lose govt and then come back again and form govt. IN short, resilience in the ebb and flow of the electoral cycle. This has set up the two-party system that we currently have where only two parties - the ALp and libNat coalition have that resilience and history of 70+years of ebb and flow. the 'third party' is another party that wants to elbow its room into this duopoly and forge a long-lasting resilient party that can at least genuinely compete for govt if not actually succeed. A third party is called thus because there are two roles in parliament - government and opposition. Unless a party can occupy one or other or at least be a genuine contender for same, they are a third party

Are we on the same page still or have I already lost you on my definition of major and third-parties?

For a third party to muster in on the territory of the two majors they would need to be:

1) have some substantial history (decades) or lacking that, have a high primary vote and be a genuine competitor for government or opposition.
2) have resilience in the normal ebb and flow of politics. That would mean that if they have a poor showing at one election they could reasonably be expected to improve at the next or near future based on a previous record of doing so.

My position is that the greens are just another third party because they fail on every criteria. They dont really have longevity and even if you think 20 years is a long time, the vast majority of that time was spent getting a handful of percent of the vote. Do we call Family First a major party because they have 15 years history of getting 3%?

Resilience: This is demonstrated by the ability to rise and fall and rise again. So far, the Greens have risen from a 2010 high and then started to fall. that is not resilience. That would be if in future years their votes increased again. Maybe it will, maybe it wont. But we cannot call them a long-lasting resilient party until they are both long lasting and shown resilience.

Now to hark back to the rather silly assertion that ALP and libs were once a minor party. lets grant that for a moment and see why they are no longer considered thus. they are long lasting (70-100 years). each has had ebbs and flows.

but there is one other criteria for major party status - the ability to compete for govt or opposition. The greens have never even gotten close to achieving that goal missing by the proverbial country mile. Even in a landslide, the opposition would have garnered at least 20 seats. the greens have only ever won ONE seat and even then only by preferences.

My assertion is that the Greens are just another minor party and based on all the evidence, there is no reason to believe that they wont follow the same track as most other parties and have a single rise and single fall and never even threaten for govt or opposition. to date that is EXACTLY what he Greens ahve done so far.

now feel free to debunk my analysis and tell me why you think the Greens are a special case despite demonstrating not one single attribute that separates it from the Dems/NDP/DLP etc that have come before.

Quote:

the ALp and libNat coalition have that resilience and history of 70+years of ebb and flow

ie not 100 years. You are making it up as you go along, shifting the goal posts until the facts in some way resembled your absurd story. Labor and Liberal were both minor parties before they became major parties and your childish argument from incredulity  is getting old. I am sorry you wasted all that time typing out such a long response, but all you have done is find a long winded way of saying the same stupid thing.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 7:42pm:

Quote: the ALp and libNat coalition have that resilience and history of 70+years of ebb and flow ie not 100 years. You are making it up as you go along, shifting the goal posts until the facts in some way resembled your absurd story. Labor and Liberal were both minor parties before they became major parties and your childish argument from incredulity  is getting old. I am sorry you wasted all that time typing out such a long response, but all you have done is find a long winded way of saying the same stupid thing.

so no actual response?? Are you intimated by the raw power of an argument you dont like but is irrefutable? Or is it that sinking feeling as you slowly realise the the Greens are nothing special and to date have done nothing whatsoever that makes them look any different to the usual history of wannabe third parties?

You appear to be quite happy to hand it out but when its posted back you go running...

and BTW the ALP was formed in 1901 making it 112 years old. happy now?

The greens have NEVER been seen as an alternative by any semi-intelligent voter.

They are a refuge for the sub intellects looking for a cradle to grave handout or a protest vote by a disgruntled labor voter, like one nation was for the libs and nats.


Even a cursory glance at that the greens refer to as their policies should tell you they are nothing more than a political joke.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 7:42pm:

Quote: the ALp and libNat coalition have that resilience and history of 70+years of ebb and flow ie not 100 years. You are making it up as you go along, shifting the goal posts until the facts in some way resembled your absurd story. Labor and Liberal were both minor parties before they became major parties and your childish argument from incredulity  is getting old. I am sorry you wasted all that time typing out such a long response, but all you have done is find a long winded way of saying the same stupid thing.

if it were 'stupid' it should be easy to debunk but all you ever do is say that the Greens are a special case despite zero evidence to support it.

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 9:39am:

The greens have NEVER been seen as an alternative by any semi-intelligent voter. They are a refuge for the sub intellects looking for a cradle to grave handout or a protest vote by a disgruntled labor voter, like one nation was for the libs and nats. Even a cursory glance at that the greens refer to as their policies should tell you they are nothing more than a political joke.

they are also just another third party. nothing special at all. come and go...

Quote:

so no actual response?? Are you intimated by the raw power of an argument you dont like but is irrefutable?

;D Do you need me to repost the list of stupid things you have posted in this thread? I am not sure how you managed, but you spent a few thousand words trying to explain that the Greens are not a major party because they are a minor party, and now you expect me to waste more time responding to it.


Quote:

they are also just another third party. nothing special at all. come and go...

There's another simple minded one liner for you. You left out "except the ones that stay, which I will use as evidence that they all go..."

Quote:

Are you intimated by the raw power of an argument you dont like but is irrefutable?

It seems Longweakend expects a candlelight dinner, Barry White on the gramaphone and a cuddle, in the face of the fury of his alphaness FD.  :D

Grey wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Quote: Are you intimated by the raw power of an argument you dont like but is irrefutable? It seems Longweakend expects a candlelight dinner, Barry White on the gramaphone and a cuddle, in the face of the fury of his alphaness FD.  :D

no, just a clear, coherent, on-topic, logical response would do. But alas, FD isnt terribly good at that. To him the Greens are a special case destined for greatness because they are ...

well what are they??? a minor political party that has to date followed the tried and true trajectory of thrid parties like te Dems, NDP, One Nation, DLP etc.  but apparently the Greens are set to be a major player because...

well that is the question and so far NO ANSWERS, just the rather ironic ad hominem attacks.

Grey wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Quote: Are you intimated by the raw power of an argument you dont like but is irrefutable? It seems Longweakend expects a candlelight dinner, Barry White on the gramaphone and a cuddle, in the face of the fury of his alphaness FD.  :D

;D my darling I ... Can't get enough of you love babe....

Here is that list again for you Longy. I suggest that this time instead of choosing the one that is least relevant to the debate to take issue with, you choose the one that is most relevant. There is one there that appears to be the crux of your argument.


Quote:

third parties however have one rise and one fall.

Quote:

I repeat that there is ZERO historical example of a third party that has stayed the course.

Quote:

The preponderance of evidence still suggests a slide and eventual irrelevance of the Greens. There is nothing to suggest that anything has changed from 100 years of thrid party history.

Quote:

when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly.

Quote:

and btw 2PP has precisely zero impact on elections

Quote:

the democrats were the only party to have survived any significant length of time

Quote:

so far they appear to following the usual trajectory and beginning their slide to irrelevance as all have before them

Quote:

it is an actauly unbiased analysis of their likely trajectory based on history

Quote:

And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties.