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


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

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


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.

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


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:


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:


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:


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:

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:


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?

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


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:


When? Three years ago? In 2525?

Quote:


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

Quote:


I accept your surrender.

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


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:


When? Three years ago? In 2525?

Quote:


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

Quote:


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.

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


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