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


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

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

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The Greens also won't consider sharing a coalition with the Nationals for similar reasons, unless the Nationals dump outdated policies like subsidies for fossil fuels and allowing unfettered land clearing.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

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.

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

The Greens and Labor already have a defacto coalition anyway.

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


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

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



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.

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


This is why they are such a good fit for Labor