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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #90 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 4:16pm

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.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #91 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 4:50pm

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.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #92 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 4:53pm

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #93 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 4:56pm

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.

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: 59347
Here
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #94 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 5:48pm

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

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26^th, 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??

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 #95 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 6:08pm

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

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

Dnarever wrote on Mar 26^th, 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.

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: 49438
At my desk.

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #96 - 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.

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 #97 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 7:03pm

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.

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!

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: 49438
At my desk.

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #98 - 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.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Phallic Baldwin

Senior Member

Offline

Phallic Baldwin

Posts: 370
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #99 - 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 96614	Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"? Reply #100 - Mar 26^th, 2013 at 10:33pm What’s your take on their watered-down animal welfare policies, Phallic? Thoughts?
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 #101 - Mar 27^th, 2013 at 7:25am

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.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"?
Reply #102 - 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.

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: 49438 At my desk.	Re: Are the greens no longer seen as an "alternative"? Reply #103 - 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.
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 #104 - 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.

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