http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-open-to-more-deals-with-the-government-on-legislation/story-fn59niix-1227633562432

Senator Di Natale last month predicted the Greens and Labor will form a coalition government within 15 years.

Last week Greens pulled it's pants down for the LIBs

In 15 years time the Greens predict a marriage with the ALP

Moral of the story

Greens happy to be #%cked by the LIBs then happy to get into bed with the ALP

And labor have been an obvious closet greens admirer.

This guy has been every bit as disappointing and stupid as Turnbull.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:07pm:

This guy has been every bit as disappointing and stupid as Turnbull.

Di-Nutella?

Can't help but agree.

Doubt the Greens will be around in 15 years but if they are and are in coalition it will be with the Libs.

DiNatale talking about coalition with the ALP is just typical Green posturing, pretending to be left–progressive when he has in fact moved them way over to the right.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-open-to-more-deals-with-the-government-on-legislation/story-fn59niix-1227633562432 Senator Di Natale last month predicted the Greens and Labor will form a coalition government within 15 years.

Plausible ... as long as both parties remember the lessons learnt from previous coalitions, both previous ALP-Greens ones and also the various Country Party/UAP and Liberal coalitions that formed over time. Coalition splits can be damaging.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 10:07pm:

This guy has been every bit as disappointing and stupid as Turnbull.

He's been slightly better than Milne, who voted against a rise on diesel taxes just because she hated Abbott even though it had been long held Greens policy.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:07pm: This guy has been every bit as disappointing and stupid as Turnbull. He's been slightly better than Milne, who voted against a rise on diesel taxes just because she hated Abbott even though it had been long held Greens policy.

At least she didn't dump good policy simply BECAUSE it was Labor policy, like that POS Abbott did.

You are not in a position to criticise Milne for this.

I doubt that Labor and the greens have been further apart since the inception of the greens and this goose is deliberately widening the gap.

The only prospect of this happening would be through a forced election result which is about a one in 70 year chance.

Di Natali seems ok, A Lib Green coalition is probably more likely.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:42am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:07pm: This guy has been every bit as disappointing and stupid as Turnbull. He's been slightly better than Milne, who voted against a rise on diesel taxes just because she hated Abbott even though it had been long held Greens policy.

I rate Milne as much better so far, this guy looks keen to support some really poor Liberal deals.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:05am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:42am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 6th, 2015 at 10:07pm: This guy has been every bit as disappointing and stupid as Turnbull. He's been slightly better than Milne, who voted against a rise on diesel taxes just because she hated Abbott even though it had been long held Greens policy. I rate Milne as much better so far, this guy looks keen to support some really poor Liberal deals.

He is very right wing and has dragged the Greens to thee right. This means their delicate juggling act of pretending to be left-progressive while actually being right wing is much harder to keep up. Couple of elections and I think the Greens will be down to 1-2 Senators at best.

Its not the Greens job to be left wing

its their job to protect the environment.

They have a much better chance working with the Libs

Who said being left wing is their job

When will they begin their job of protecting the environment? That we have no AGW measures is entirely down to the Greens.

Libs protecting the environment? Don’t make me laugh! Shenhua, Carmichael, rescinding the ETS, in bed with developers etc etc etc.

miketrees wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:11am:

Its not the Greens job to be left wing its their job to protect the environment. They have a much better chance working with the Libs

Don't see how working with the environments natural enemy can help anything.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:25am:

miketrees wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:11am: Its not the Greens job to be left wing its their job to protect the environment. They have a much better chance working with the Libs Don't see how working with the environments natural enemy can help anything.

Labor just reduced the RET and included burning old growth forests in the RET with the coalition ... bit rich for Labor supporters to point the finger.

miketrees wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:04am:

Di Natali seems ok, A Lib Green coalition is probably more likely.

I disagree. On environmental policy - the Greens' core policy platform - the Greens and Liberals are poles apart. This is likely to dissuade the Greens from pursuing any future coalition agreement with the Liberals. It's not the ALP that sabotaged investment renewable energy in this country for more than a year over a manic desire to drag down renewable energy targets for specious reasons. It's not the ALP that has had a leader who has said "climate change is crap".

The Greens also won't consider sharing a coalition with the Nationals for similar reasons, unless the Nationals dump outdated policies like subsidies for fossil fuels and allowing unfettered land clearing.

The ALP have shown more willingness to negotiate on environmental policy with the Greens than the Liberals and this is why the Greens would be likely to consider the ALP before the Liberals in any future coalition agreement. It doesn't mean the Liberals won't be considered, it is simply that the Liberals are less likely to be an attractive coalition option for the Greens.

____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:25am: miketrees wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:11am: Its not the Greens job to be left wing its their job to protect the environment. They have a much better chance working with the Libs Don't see how working with the environments natural enemy can help anything. Labor just reduced the RET and included burning old growth forests in the RET with the coalition ... bit rich for Labor supporters to point the finger.

Labor didn't reduce the RET willingly and it is misleading for you to imply this. The ALP negotiated on the RET for a year to keep it as high as possible. Remember, the ALP are not the current government, and it is the current government that sought to reduce the RET, not the ALP. Why do you not place the blame where it rightly belongs: the Coalition?

If there's a future Labor government they will be very willing to lift the RET again. Shorten has already stated far more ambitious policy goals for renewable energy and emissions reduction than the Coalition's very limp offering. If the Greens sided with the party with a 28% maximum emissions reduction target over the party with a 45% target, the Greens will die quickly like the Democrats did after they sold out over the GST.

Labor voted with the coalition to reduce RET. No one was holding a gun to Labor's head.

Also Labor claims a number as a target just for headlines and has no idea how they will do it.

The Liberals are currently carrying conservative policies ... in time the progressives in the party will influence Liberal policy and so could out manoeuvre labor on the left.
Ruling something out is fool hardy.

That said, I personally would not like a Greens coalition with either old party.
Replace the bastards, not support the bastards.

DiNatale is simply demonstrating how naive his party is. After the last Labor/Greens 'agreement', Labor stated that it was a disaster - which it was. The Greens have no conception of what a coalition is. They want the rewards of power but are completely unwilling to compromise and vote in unity. They want their own way ALL THE TIME as well as the benefits of a coalition.  It will never happen until they learn to compromise.

The ETS fiasco and the entire Gillard government experience will tell labor MPs not to trust them.

____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

Labor voted with the coalition to reduce RET. No one was holding a gun to Labor's head.

Incorrect. The Coalition were causing uncertainty in the renewable energy sector (perhaps intentionally) and the sector wanted to end the uncertainty by bringing on a vote. I notice that despite being offered a chance to do so, you have NOT criticised the Coalition's lowering of this target. Why is this? Why do you keep avoiding blaming the Coalition for imposing this target in the first place?


____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

Also Labor claims a number as a target just for headlines and has no idea how they will do it.

Labor has announced a policy that's more ambitious than the Coalition's. Again, you have not criticised the Coalition's policies here.


____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

The Liberals are currently carrying conservative policies ... in time the progressives in the party will influence Liberal policy and so could out manoeuvre labor on the left.

That is wishful thinking. The Liberals have steadily drifted farther to the right since Menzies retired and there's no way in hell the conservative old guard in the Liberal party will give up this hard-won ground without a fight.

You're clearly holding the Liberal party to far lower standards than the ALP, by being sympathetic to them based on what you think "could" happen, yet you dismiss a reasonable ALP policy because it is as yet just a statement of principle made a full year out from an election. Shouldn't you be holding both parties to the same standards?


____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

Ruling something out is fool hardy.

And yet you have done exactly that by dismissing the ALP's policies by claiming they have "no idea how they will do it". It's not an election year and the ALP are not in government. You are a political junkie, you should know the rules of the game by now. The ALP have announced a broad policy proposal a year out from an election to see how well it is received by the electorate. If the policy is well received, the ALP will probably then announce further details, if not, they will repudiate it. Both major parties do this - the Greens too, to a lesser extent - and it is a normal way of advancing debate on policy. For you to dismiss it because there's no detail is disingenuous.


____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

That said, I personally would not like a Greens coalition with either old party. Replace the bastards, not support the bastards.

A noble goal, but it is unrealistic. A more realistic goal - as demonstrated with green parties around the world - is for the Greens to gain enough seats to form a coalition with the governing party and to influence policy. A party doesn't have to win the most seats to be in government.

Di Natale is being realistic about the Greens' likely fortunes in 15 years to state that a coalition with the ALP is likely. It is a masterstroke to make this statement. It is saying to voters who are choosing between the ALP and Greens that it doesn't matter which you vote for, you will be in government regardless. Such a statement could well increase the Greens' likelihood of winning lower house seats.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:17am:

DiNatale is simply demonstrating how naive his party is. After the last Labor/Greens 'agreement', Labor stated that it was a disaster - which it was. The Greens have no conception of what a coalition is. They want the rewards of power but are completely unwilling to compromise and vote in unity. They want their own way ALL THE TIME as well as the benefits of a coalition.  It will never happen until they learn to compromise. The ETS fiasco and the entire Gillard government experience will tell labor MPs not to trust them.

It is extremely naive on your part to dismiss the possibility of an ALP-Greens coalition out of hand based on imperfect early efforts. If this same principle had applied from experiences in the 1920s, the Country party would never have formed a bound coalition with the Liberals or the conservative party of the day. It took 30 years or more for the Country Party and the conservative party of the day to iron out their differences and form a settled coalition. Permanent coalitions take time to be established because trust must be built up between the parties.

The Greens and Labor already have a defacto coalition anyway.

Bam wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

Di Natale is being realistic about the Greens' likely fortunes in 15 years to state that a coalition with the ALP is likely. It is a masterstroke to make this statement. It is saying to voters who are choosing between the ALP and Greens that it doesn't matter which you vote for, you will be in government regardless. Such a statement could well increase the Greens' likelihood of winning lower house seats.

In reality, the electorate has already moved in this direction. The labor primary vote is chronically - and seemingly permanently in the mid-low 30% range, and for quite a while they have been hopelessly reliant on green preferences to maintain the number of seats they hold. So in the mind of the electorate, greens and labor are practically a coalition already.

____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:25am: miketrees wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 7:11am: Its not the Greens job to be left wing its their job to protect the environment. They have a much better chance working with the Libs Don't see how working with the environments natural enemy can help anything. Labor just reduced the RET and included burning old growth forests in the RET with the coalition ... bit rich for Labor supporters to point the finger.

While we have a liberal government the RET is a meaningless term, may as well have them pretend to do something.

seems to me WALLY is predicting there will be

NO MORE GREENS... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D..

Bam wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 8:38am: Labor voted with the coalition to reduce RET. No one was holding a gun to Labor's head. Incorrect. The Coalition were causing uncertainty in the renewable energy sector (perhaps intentionally) and the sector wanted to end the uncertainty by bringing on a vote. I notice that despite being offered a chance to do so, you have NOT criticised the Coalition's lowering of this target. Why is this? Why do you keep avoiding blaming the Coalition for imposing this target in the first place? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 8:38am: Also Labor claims a number as a target just for headlines and has no idea how they will do it. Labor has announced a policy that's more ambitious than the Coalition's. Again, you have not criticised the Coalition's policies here. ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 8:38am: The Liberals are currently carrying conservative policies ... in time the progressives in the party will influence Liberal policy and so could out manoeuvre labor on the left. That is wishful thinking. The Liberals have steadily drifted farther to the right since Menzies retired and there's no way in hell the conservative old guard in the Liberal party will give up this hard-won ground without a fight. You're clearly holding the Liberal party to far lower standards than the ALP, by being sympathetic to them based on what you think "could" happen, yet you dismiss a reasonable ALP policy because it is as yet just a statement of principle made a full year out from an election. Shouldn't you be holding both parties to the same standards? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 8:38am: Ruling something out is fool hardy. And yet you have done exactly that by dismissing the ALP's policies by claiming they have "no idea how they will do it". It's not an election year and the ALP are not in government. You are a political junkie, you should know the rules of the game by now. The ALP have announced a broad policy proposal a year out from an election to see how well it is received by the electorate. If the policy is well received, the ALP will probably then announce further details, if not, they will repudiate it. Both major parties do this - the Greens too, to a lesser extent - and it is a normal way of advancing debate on policy. For you to dismiss it because there's no detail is disingenuous. ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 8:38am: That said, I personally would not like a Greens coalition with either old party. Replace the bastards, not support the bastards. A noble goal, but it is unrealistic. A more realistic goal - as demonstrated with green parties around the world - is for the Greens to gain enough seats to form a coalition with the governing party and to influence policy. A party doesn't have to win the most seats to be in government. Di Natale is being realistic about the Greens' likely fortunes in 15 years to state that a coalition with the ALP is likely. It is a masterstroke to make this statement. It is saying to voters who are choosing between the ALP and Greens that it doesn't matter which you vote for, you will be in government regardless. Such a statement could well increase the Greens' likelihood of winning lower house seats.

Labor pretends to be a friend of the renewable sector. The coalition are up front on their opposition due to fossil donations to the party.

Labor are being dishonest to try and trick voters.


_/_/_/


Stating a target without policies to attain. And just days before the climate conference.
Labor has no real aim on renewable energy. More trickery.

As bad as the coalition, they are constant in policy. Labor isn't.

/_/_/


The Liberal now being conservative is a political advantage to the Greens in the longer period, in giving Greens more scope.
Labor trying to be all to everyone is just an attempt to be relevant in a changing world.
Longterm the diametrically opposed Greens ~ Conservative is the main game.
Labor sooner or later has to either split, die out, or choose a side.

_/_/_/


The ideals labor will forward are reasonably obvious. Labor is reliant on coal electorates, coal exports, and will want to avoid a fossil fuel campaign against them. They are also trying to work nuclear into Australia's future. Labor will once again fence sit on an issue, rather than take a conservative or progressive side.


_/_/_/


I would rather see the demolition of the older parties and the rise of other parties out of their ashes, as well as new or smaller parties growing. And a shift to a more democratic model along the lines of a MMP or similar.

Coalition with either old party is just keeping the status quo and is against the Greens' revolutionary principles of renewal.

cods wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:16am:

seems to me WALLY is predicting there will be NO MORE GREENS... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D..

Peter Garrett

____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Labor are being dishonest to try and trick voters.

This is why they are such a good fit for Labor

Looking at Greens_Split here why would anyone ever vote Green? More spin than Lisa’s hard worked washing machine.

Attacks Labor not Lib, then says Greens aren’t rightwing???

Yet more childish nonsense, can't anyone have a discussion without restoring to name-calling.

After the last fiasco with Labor it will probably take another 15 years before Labor prostitute their heart and soul again in combination with the greens.

Bam wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 9:32am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:17am: DiNatale is simply demonstrating how naive his party is. After the last Labor/Greens 'agreement', Labor stated that it was a disaster - which it was. The Greens have no conception of what a coalition is. They want the rewards of power but are completely unwilling to compromise and vote in unity. They want their own way ALL THE TIME as well as the benefits of a coalition.  It will never happen until they learn to compromise. The ETS fiasco and the entire Gillard government experience will tell labor MPs not to trust them. It is extremely naive on your part to dismiss the possibility of an ALP-Greens coalition out of hand based on imperfect early efforts. If this same principle had applied from experiences in the 1920s, the Country party would never have formed a bound coalition with the Liberals or the conservative party of the day. It took 30 years or more for the Country Party and the conservative party of the day to iron out their differences and form a settled coalition. Permanent coalitions take time to be established because trust must be built up between the parties.

Labor are centre-right while Greens are left. Their agreement centres on being opposed to the Libs and pretty much nothing else. Labor are professional while Greens are activists and little more.  They have nothing in common in terms of aspirational goals or methodologies. Gillard found that out quickly. They will take everything you offeren and give precisely nothing back.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:32am: mariacostel wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 9:17am: DiNatale is simply demonstrating how naive his party is. After the last Labor/Greens 'agreement', Labor stated that it was a disaster - which it was. The Greens have no conception of what a coalition is. They want the rewards of power but are completely unwilling to compromise and vote in unity. They want their own way ALL THE TIME as well as the benefits of a coalition.  It will never happen until they learn to compromise. The ETS fiasco and the entire Gillard government experience will tell labor MPs not to trust them. It is extremely naive on your part to dismiss the possibility of an ALP-Greens coalition out of hand based on imperfect early efforts. If this same principle had applied from experiences in the 1920s, the Country party would never have formed a bound coalition with the Liberals or the conservative party of the day. It took 30 years or more for the Country Party and the conservative party of the day to iron out their differences and form a settled coalition. Permanent coalitions take time to be established because trust must be built up between the parties. Labor are centre-right while Greens are left. Their agreement centres on being opposed to the Libs and pretty much nothing else. Labor are professional while Greens are activists and little more.  They have nothing in common in terms of aspirational goals or methodologies. Gillard found that out quickly. They will take everything you offeren and give precisely nothing back.

I would quibble about Greens being Left, especially now, but apart from that pretty much agree.

____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Labor pretends to be a friend of the renewable sector. The coalition are up front on their opposition due to fossil donations to the party. Labor are being dishonest to try and trick voters.

But the Coalition are good because they have worse environmental policies? What kind of nonsense is this? Why are you so soft on the Coalition when they are the biggest environmental wreckers in Australian politics?


____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

Stating a target without policies to attain. And just days before the climate conference. Labor has no real aim on renewable energy. More trickery. As bad as the coalition, they are constant in policy. Labor isn't.

Labor are not in government now. They don't have to keep the same policies that they took to an election and lost. Oppositions are allowed to develop policies between elections. Your analysis isn't credible because it's so biased. You have hardly said a word against the Coalition even though they have backflipped on environmental policies just as much and have done far worse. They are the ones who pushed hard for the reduction in the RET ... yet you blame Labor for this. Why are you so filled with bile and hate towards Labor when the Coalition are far worse?


____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

The Liberal now being conservative is a political advantage to the Greens in the longer period, in giving Greens more scope. Labor trying to be all to everyone is just an attempt to be relevant in a changing world. Longterm the diametrically opposed Greens ~ Conservative is the main game. Labor sooner or later has to either split, die out, or choose a side.

You really need to understand how the political spectrum works. Perhaps it is the Greens who will die out when there's no longer room in the political spectrum for their policies?


____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

The ideals labor will forward are reasonably obvious. Labor is reliant on coal electorates, coal exports, and will want to avoid a fossil fuel campaign against them. They are also trying to work nuclear into Australia's future. Labor will once again fence sit on an issue, rather than take a conservative or progressive side.

Again, all Labor bashing. Obviously lashing out at the party that is the biggest threat to the Greens' survival.

You need to learn a simple truth. Politics is not a contest of parties. It's a contest of ideas. If the ALP adopted every one of the Greens' policies, passed them into law in government and so made the Greens' irrelevant, does it really matter at all? No, it doesn't because the ideas are still implemented. Once you're talking about parties, you're losing sight of the ideas.

The archer who aims for the bullseye will win the prize. The archer who looks at the prize will miss the target.

So too should we remember that the target's bullseye is the set of ideas that are to be implemented. Being in government is just a prize, but setting the sights on the prize will cause the ideas to be missed. This is a problem with democracy in Australia. Too much partisan crap, not enough mature discussion on policy.

____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

I would rather see the demolition of the older parties and the rise of other parties out of their ashes, as well as new or smaller parties growing. And a shift to a more democratic model along the lines of a MMP or similar. Coalition with either old party is just keeping the status quo and is against the Greens' revolutionary principles of renewal.

We can't change to a MMP system federally without some effort. The Federal Parliament elects members from the states and a MMP system would cause difficulty for Tasmania and the territories because they only elect a few members. For example, the NT elects two members. Electing both members from a single electorate pretty much guarantees that one will be Labor and one CLP. Rather than encourage democracy, such a system would cause stagnation in these states.

Moving away from a state-based Federal Parliament requires a constitutional amendment and that's not likely to succeed.

It doesn't mean that MMP can't work (electing the 37 Federal MPs from NSW in a single statewide electorate by an MMP system would produce very good proportional results) but the possibility of stagnation for "safe" MPs in high positions on list seats has to be addressed.

Greens_split is beginning to sound desperate, especially now after the bielection.

With shorten_15%_and_dropping fronting dismal labor, I suggest you review your own position JM.

Bam wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Labor pretends to be a friend of the renewable sector. The coalition are up front on their opposition due to fossil donations to the party. Labor are being dishonest to try and trick voters. But the Coalition are good because they have worse environmental policies? What kind of nonsense is this? Why are you so soft on the Coalition when they are the biggest environmental wreckers in Australian politics? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Stating a target without policies to attain. And just days before the climate conference. Labor has no real aim on renewable energy. More trickery. As bad as the coalition, they are constant in policy. Labor isn't. Labor are not in government now. They don't have to keep the same policies that they took to an election and lost. Oppositions are allowed to develop policies between elections. Your analysis isn't credible because it's so biased. You have hardly said a word against the Coalition even though they have backflipped on environmental policies just as much and have done far worse. They are the ones who pushed hard for the reduction in the RET ... yet you blame Labor for this. Why are you so filled with bile and hate towards Labor when the Coalition are far worse? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The Liberal now being conservative is a political advantage to the Greens in the longer period, in giving Greens more scope. Labor trying to be all to everyone is just an attempt to be relevant in a changing world. Longterm the diametrically opposed Greens ~ Conservative is the main game. Labor sooner or later has to either split, die out, or choose a side. You really need to understand how the political spectrum works. Perhaps it is the Greens who will die out when there's no longer room in the political spectrum for their policies? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The ideals labor will forward are reasonably obvious. Labor is reliant on coal electorates, coal exports, and will want to avoid a fossil fuel campaign against them. They are also trying to work nuclear into Australia's future. Labor will once again fence sit on an issue, rather than take a conservative or progressive side. Again, all Labor bashing. Obviously lashing out at the party that is the biggest threat to the Greens' survival. You need to learn a simple truth. Politics is not a contest of parties. It's a contest of ideas. If the ALP adopted every one of the Greens' policies, passed them into law in government and so made the Greens' irrelevant, does it really matter at all? No, it doesn't because the ideas are still implemented. Once you're talking about parties, you're losing sight of the ideas. The archer who aims for the bullseye will win the prize. The archer who looks at the prize will miss the target. So too should we remember that the target's bullseye is the set of ideas that are to be implemented. Being in government is just a prize, but setting the sights on the prize will cause the ideas to be missed. This is a problem with democracy in Australia. Too much partisan crap, not enough mature discussion on policy.

Not soft on the coalition. The topic is ALP/Greens coalition is 15 years.
Personally I think this is the very first error of Richard's leadership. Hopefully his last.

Bob Brown would of never given preference to a coalition without a hard fought negotiation.
Bob also kept open a coalition with Liberals.

If Richard Di Natale is after a ministry in a Labor government, then perhaps he is in the wrong party.

A coalition with either bastard old party should be the very last option sort. Majority government in 15 years, a better Greens target.

Bam wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 2:16pm:

____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Labor pretends to be a friend of the renewable sector. The coalition are up front on their opposition due to fossil donations to the party. Labor are being dishonest to try and trick voters. But the Coalition are good because they have worse environmental policies? What kind of nonsense is this? Why are you so soft on the Coalition when they are the biggest environmental wreckers in Australian politics? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Stating a target without policies to attain. And just days before the climate conference. Labor has no real aim on renewable energy. More trickery. As bad as the coalition, they are constant in policy. Labor isn't. Labor are not in government now. They don't have to keep the same policies that they took to an election and lost. Oppositions are allowed to develop policies between elections. Your analysis isn't credible because it's so biased. You have hardly said a word against the Coalition even though they have backflipped on environmental policies just as much and have done far worse. They are the ones who pushed hard for the reduction in the RET ... yet you blame Labor for this. Why are you so filled with bile and hate towards Labor when the Coalition are far worse? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The Liberal now being conservative is a political advantage to the Greens in the longer period, in giving Greens more scope. Labor trying to be all to everyone is just an attempt to be relevant in a changing world. Longterm the diametrically opposed Greens ~ Conservative is the main game. Labor sooner or later has to either split, die out, or choose a side. You really need to understand how the political spectrum works. Perhaps it is the Greens who will die out when there's no longer room in the political spectrum for their policies? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The ideals labor will forward are reasonably obvious. Labor is reliant on coal electorates, coal exports, and will want to avoid a fossil fuel campaign against them. They are also trying to work nuclear into Australia's future. Labor will once again fence sit on an issue, rather than take a conservative or progressive side. Again, all Labor bashing. Obviously lashing out at the party that is the biggest threat to the Greens' survival. You need to learn a simple truth. Politics is not a contest of parties. It's a contest of ideas. If the ALP adopted every one of the Greens' policies, passed them into law in government and so made the Greens' irrelevant, does it really matter at all? No, it doesn't because the ideas are still implemented. Once you're talking about parties, you're losing sight of the ideas. The archer who aims for the bullseye will win the prize. The archer who looks at the prize will miss the target. So too should we remember that the target's bullseye is the set of ideas that are to be implemented. Being in government is just a prize, but setting the sights on the prize will cause the ideas to be missed. This is a problem with democracy in Australia. Too much partisan crap, not enough mature discussion on policy.

Poor diddums... you dont like people criticisign labor but do so all the time with the libs. Your hypocrisy is a tad obvious.

____ wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 2:55pm:

Bam wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:16pm: ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Labor pretends to be a friend of the renewable sector. The coalition are up front on their opposition due to fossil donations to the party. Labor are being dishonest to try and trick voters. But the Coalition are good because they have worse environmental policies? What kind of nonsense is this? Why are you so soft on the Coalition when they are the biggest environmental wreckers in Australian politics? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Stating a target without policies to attain. And just days before the climate conference. Labor has no real aim on renewable energy. More trickery. As bad as the coalition, they are constant in policy. Labor isn't. Labor are not in government now. They don't have to keep the same policies that they took to an election and lost. Oppositions are allowed to develop policies between elections. Your analysis isn't credible because it's so biased. You have hardly said a word against the Coalition even though they have backflipped on environmental policies just as much and have done far worse. They are the ones who pushed hard for the reduction in the RET ... yet you blame Labor for this. Why are you so filled with bile and hate towards Labor when the Coalition are far worse? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The Liberal now being conservative is a political advantage to the Greens in the longer period, in giving Greens more scope. Labor trying to be all to everyone is just an attempt to be relevant in a changing world. Longterm the diametrically opposed Greens ~ Conservative is the main game. Labor sooner or later has to either split, die out, or choose a side. You really need to understand how the political spectrum works. Perhaps it is the Greens who will die out when there's no longer room in the political spectrum for their policies? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The ideals labor will forward are reasonably obvious. Labor is reliant on coal electorates, coal exports, and will want to avoid a fossil fuel campaign against them. They are also trying to work nuclear into Australia's future. Labor will once again fence sit on an issue, rather than take a conservative or progressive side. Again, all Labor bashing. Obviously lashing out at the party that is the biggest threat to the Greens' survival. You need to learn a simple truth. Politics is not a contest of parties. It's a contest of ideas. If the ALP adopted every one of the Greens' policies, passed them into law in government and so made the Greens' irrelevant, does it really matter at all? No, it doesn't because the ideas are still implemented. Once you're talking about parties, you're losing sight of the ideas. The archer who aims for the bullseye will win the prize. The archer who looks at the prize will miss the target. So too should we remember that the target's bullseye is the set of ideas that are to be implemented. Being in government is just a prize, but setting the sights on the prize will cause the ideas to be missed. This is a problem with democracy in Australia. Too much partisan crap, not enough mature discussion on policy. Not soft on the coalition. The topic is ALP/Greens coalition is 15 years. Personally I think this is the very first error of Richard's leadership. Hopefully his last. Bob Brown would of never given preference to a coalition without a hard fought negotiation. Bob also kept open a coalition with Liberals. If Richard Di Natale is after a ministry in a Labor government, then perhaps he is in the wrong party. A coalition with either bastard old party should be the very last option sort. Majority government in 15 years, a better Greens target.

But a truly stupid an naive one.

First error?

More like third.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

Greens_split is beginning to sound desperate, especially now after the bielection.

The greens improved their result, I'm not sure what you are getting at here?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:55pm: Bam wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:16pm: ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Labor pretends to be a friend of the renewable sector. The coalition are up front on their opposition due to fossil donations to the party. Labor are being dishonest to try and trick voters. But the Coalition are good because they have worse environmental policies? What kind of nonsense is this? Why are you so soft on the Coalition when they are the biggest environmental wreckers in Australian politics? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: Stating a target without policies to attain. And just days before the climate conference. Labor has no real aim on renewable energy. More trickery. As bad as the coalition, they are constant in policy. Labor isn't. Labor are not in government now. They don't have to keep the same policies that they took to an election and lost. Oppositions are allowed to develop policies between elections. Your analysis isn't credible because it's so biased. You have hardly said a word against the Coalition even though they have backflipped on environmental policies just as much and have done far worse. They are the ones who pushed hard for the reduction in the RET ... yet you blame Labor for this. Why are you so filled with bile and hate towards Labor when the Coalition are far worse? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The Liberal now being conservative is a political advantage to the Greens in the longer period, in giving Greens more scope. Labor trying to be all to everyone is just an attempt to be relevant in a changing world. Longterm the diametrically opposed Greens ~ Conservative is the main game. Labor sooner or later has to either split, die out, or choose a side. You really need to understand how the political spectrum works. Perhaps it is the Greens who will die out when there's no longer room in the political spectrum for their policies? ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 10:24am: The ideals labor will forward are reasonably obvious. Labor is reliant on coal electorates, coal exports, and will want to avoid a fossil fuel campaign against them. They are also trying to work nuclear into Australia's future. Labor will once again fence sit on an issue, rather than take a conservative or progressive side. Again, all Labor bashing. Obviously lashing out at the party that is the biggest threat to the Greens' survival. You need to learn a simple truth. Politics is not a contest of parties. It's a contest of ideas. If the ALP adopted every one of the Greens' policies, passed them into law in government and so made the Greens' irrelevant, does it really matter at all? No, it doesn't because the ideas are still implemented. Once you're talking about parties, you're losing sight of the ideas. The archer who aims for the bullseye will win the prize. The archer who looks at the prize will miss the target. So too should we remember that the target's bullseye is the set of ideas that are to be implemented. Being in government is just a prize, but setting the sights on the prize will cause the ideas to be missed. This is a problem with democracy in Australia. Too much partisan crap, not enough mature discussion on policy. Not soft on the coalition. The topic is ALP/Greens coalition is 15 years. Personally I think this is the very first error of Richard's leadership. Hopefully his last. Bob Brown would of never given preference to a coalition without a hard fought negotiation. Bob also kept open a coalition with Liberals. If Richard Di Natale is after a ministry in a Labor government, then perhaps he is in the wrong party. A coalition with either bastard old party should be the very last option sort. Majority government in 15 years, a better Greens target. But a truly stupid an naive one.

The potential for a major swing in the political pendulum to the left is a very viable option within 15 years. If you spent less time snipping from the sideline and partook in debate, you might learn things. Perish the thought.

mariacostel wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:55pm: Majority government in 15 years, a better Greens target. But a truly stupid an naive one.

Naive? Perhaps, it relies on a large number of things to go right.

But stupid? What nonsense. The Liberals and Labor aspire to majority government (for different reasons), does that make this goal stupid for them too? It's actually a sensible goal for a political party not just to be there to make up the numbers. Not that it's likely for the Greens in the short term, but that doesn't diminish the ambition.

Kytro wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Greens_split is beginning to sound desperate, especially now after the bielection. The greens improved their result, I'm not sure what you are getting at here?

Only in a tight race like 2010

In 2013 they made little difference if any one the final outcome

Improved their result, what, 0.7%? Oh wow! And with no Labor candidate running that is a big failure.

I think you have all misread the mood of the Australian people.
A lot of Liberal yuppie voters have a green tinge.

Kytro wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 3:50pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Greens_split is beginning to sound desperate, especially now after the bielection. The greens improved their result, I'm not sure what you are getting at here?

Did they?  No ALP candidate and an increase of .58%, a figure so small that it is described using two decimal places.  It was a woeful result.

Bam wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:34pm:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 3:42pm: ____ wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:55pm: Majority government in 15 years, a better Greens target. But a truly stupid an naive one. Naive? Perhaps, it relies on a large number of things to go right. But stupid? What nonsense. The Liberals and Labor aspire to majority government (for different reasons), does that make this goal stupid for them too? It's actually a sensible goal for a political party not just to be there to make up the numbers. Not that it's likely for the Greens in the short term, but that doesn't diminish the ambition.

I repeat that it is naive and stupid as it has zero chance of occuring. The Greens have shown no trend to ever acheive even opposition status, never-mind government while the two majors have been there many times in the past. We might as well discuss Family First's expectations to form government.

miketrees wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

I think you have all misread the mood of the Australian people. A lot of Liberal yuppie voters have a green tinge.

The voting patterns of some people do not fit the usual spectrum of left-right politics. The Greens have won seats of Labor, Liberals and even the Nationals. There is no evidence to suggest that someone voting Liberal would necessarily switch to Labor before the Greens even though the two major parties have more policies in common than the Liberals have with the Greens.

miketrees wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

I think you have all misread the mood of the Australian people. A lot of Liberal yuppie voters have a green tinge.

That is the Greens base. To play to this base the Greens HAVE to be right wing. Play environmental/progressive, in fact, right–conservative.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 4:41pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 3:50pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 2:22pm: Greens_split is beginning to sound desperate, especially now after the bielection. The greens improved their result, I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Only in a tight race like 2010 In 2013 they made little difference if any one the final outcome

My point was more that are hardly loosing ground or popularity if the vote share increases, now can you.

I expect to see the Greens drive a wedge between city yuppie  Liberals and National Party country people by attacking the farmers.

Kytro wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:41pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 3:50pm: [quote author=Jovial_Abbott link=1449400920/37#37 date=1449462139]Greens_split is beginning to sound desperate, especially now after the bielection. The greens improved their result, I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Only in a tight race like 2010 In 2013 they made little difference if any one the final outcome

My point was more that are hardly loosing ground or popularity if the vote share increases, now can you.
[/quote 8-)]
This was in a bielection with no Labor candidate where the Greens should have picked up a big swag of Labor votes. Nope.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

Kytro wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 6:29pm: Maqqa wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 4:41pm: Kytro wrote on Dec 7th, 2015 at 3:50pm: [quote author=Jovial_Abbott link=1449400920/37#37 date=1449462139]Greens_split is beginning to sound desperate, especially now after the bielection. The greens improved their result, I'm not sure what you are getting at here? Only in a tight race like 2010 In 2013 they made little difference if any one the final outcome My point was more that are hardly loosing ground or popularity if the vote share increases, now can you. [/quote 8-)] This was in a bielection with no Labor candidate where the Greens should have picked up a big swag of Labor votes. Nope.

No. Labor are right and Greens are left.
As you keep on telling everyone.

If Senator Di Natale does not either shape up or get moved on there is a good chance that there will be no Greens in 15 years.

Green voters will not support him on what seems to be his position in a number of areas. 

He seems to me to be more a generic centre right factory produced professional politician than a green.

He seems to me to be more a generic centre right factory produced professional politician than a green


That's because you have a preconceived idea that the Greens must be leftist.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 6^th, 2015 at 9:22pm:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-open-to-more-deals-with-the-government-on-legislation/story-fn59niix-1227633562432 Senator Di Natale last month predicted the Greens and Labor will form a coalition government within 15 years.

I don't know that a coalition will occur, but many in Labor will soon have to make a decision about the future of the party. Labor has two incompatible groups in its ranks: far-leftist lunatics and the working classes (many who are bogans). Sooner or later Labor will have to go in one of these two directions. I am guessing they'll go back to their roots and support the working man again. When this occurs, the lunatic left fringe will move to The Greens.

And the Greens will be trying to get the looney yuppie city people from the Libs

Di NaMonkey predicts ALP/Greens coalition in 15yrs

he's dreaming

https://youtu.be/jL2DH-nKBeA

miketrees wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:15pm:

And the Greens will be trying to get the looney yuppie city people from the Libs

They have quite a few, welcome to try getting more.

Such a base tho is not really what will get you into government. E.g. the reason we do not have any action to combat AGW is due to the Greens.

miketrees wrote on Dec 7^th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

He seems to me to be more a generic centre right factory produced professional politician than a green That's because you have a preconceived idea that the Greens must be leftist.

As does everyone who votes for them and considering 90% of the conservative or right wing politicians are environmental vandals there has been little room for the Green policy on the right over the last 50 years..