Australian Politics Forum - Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?

Phallic Baldwin

Senior Member

Offline

Phallic Baldwin

Posts: 370
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #105 - Mar 27^th, 2013 at 4:26pm

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 639 NSW Gender:	Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"? Reply #106 - Mar 27^th, 2013 at 7:40pm It may be a rant but he's right! http://video.dailytelegraph.com.au/2337456252/Joes-Green-rant?area=videoindex20
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59332
Here
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #107 - Mar 27^th, 2013 at 7:57pm

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

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26^th, 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #108 - Mar 28^th, 2013 at 7:39am

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

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

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26^th, 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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49435
At my desk.

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #109 - Mar 28^th, 2013 at 9:57pm

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

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.

Where is it mentioned in legislation?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #110 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:29am

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59332
Here
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #111 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 7:46am

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #112 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:04am

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 106925 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"? Reply #113 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:11am Vote 1 - the Greens - to block Tony Abbott in the senate.
Back to top	IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59332
Here
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #114 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:24am

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 106925
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #115 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:27am

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

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?

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

Back to top

Tony_Abbott_061.jpg (21 KB | 58 )

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59332
Here
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #116 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:27am

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:33am by Dnarever »

IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7090 Townsville NQ Gender:	Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"? Reply #117 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:29am I certainly do see the Greens as an alternative. Alternative to land fill that is.
Back to top	"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government" Julia Gillard Shadow Health Minister 2003. IP Logged

Dnarever Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 59332 Here Gender:	Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"? Reply #118 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:33am 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
Back to top	IP Logged

chicken_lipsforme

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #119 - Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:40am

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

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

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

Back to top

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.

IP Logged