EvilElmo posted:

It appears the Greens will do a preference swap with the LNP.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

ALP: Making the difficult, unpopular decisions like torturing children.

Frogmanv2 posted:

What are you basing this on?

EvilElmo posted:

Being soft on asylum seekers lost the ALP a few elections and contributed to them losing the most recent (party instability didn't help, but it wasn't the only reason).

8.65% of the population voted Green. So clearly there isn't wide spread support for their policy on asylum seekers (among other policies).

Even with party instability, with their "lovely" policies and a leader few people liked, the Greens still had a down-tick in their vote since 2010, why is that? The stars aligned for the Greens at the last election, but they still fell short of their high water mark.

EvilElmo posted:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...84d42f2e2d0a750

When the Libs are briefing The Oz, it's happening.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

So in fact it's not about making difficult decisions, like effectively getting the message out that offshore processing isn't an effective or humane strategy, it's about pandering to the lowest common denominator in order to stay in power.

Frogmanv2 posted:

chortle. uh huh.

asio posted:

Post your new watch

EvilElmo posted:

It appears the Greens will do a preference swap with the LNP. LNP preference them in marginal ALP/Green seats and in return the Greens will ensure no HTVs are handed out in ALP/LNP marginal seats. Let's watch the Greens win Malcolm a few more terms in Government.

Antony Green posted:

For instance, at the 2007 Federal election, the Tasmanian Greens chose not to direct preferences in the five Tasmanian electorates after both the Labor and Liberal Parties declined to stop the proposed Gunns pulp mill. Despite open tickets, Green preferences in Tasmania still flowed 78.3% to Labor

Antony Green posted:

With both the average and total of preferences there is a difference of about 3% in preference flows between seats where the Greens did and did not recommend preferences to Labor. That figure is 3% of preferences, not of the overall vote. If the Green first preference vote was 10%, this difference in preference flows would correspond to 0.3% of the overall vote.

EvilElmo posted:

Must be nice living in your world.

Back in reality, any attack campaign, like, literally any, would destroy any positive messaging the ALP tried to get out. The Greens have been trying for a long time, and their vote drops. The reality is, the majority of Australian's are not in favour of the Greens policy on asylum seekers. The ALP needs to Govern for all of Australia, not just 8.65% of it.


So the LNP are taking a hit internally for no reason? The Greens are laying the ground for preferences to come their way from the LNP.

My prediction:
"We can't tell another party how to preference"
"We're not giving LNP preferences we're just not giving out HTV's in marginal LNP/ALP seats"


I don't really get your fascination with this? You stalked me to another thread bringing auspol trash with you. Not sure what you're getting at. But, whatever.

hooman posted:

I don't want to vote for a party that considers "Governing for all Australia" to include torturing children. If the Greens took up this policy I would no longer vote for them.

Given this stance, is there any reason I should vote for Labor rather than preferencing them second after the greens?

Is there any policy that Labor could take up in order to "Govern for all Australia" that would cause you to stop voting for them?

EvilElmo posted:

The reality is, the majority of Australian's are not in favour of the Greens policy on asylum seekers.

EvilElmo posted:

Who would you prefer in power? Greens, 8.65%, not an option. Come talk to me when they hit 30%.

EvilElmo posted:

Between the ALP and LNP I will always vote ALP.

Who would you prefer in power? Greens, 8.65%, not an option. Come talk to me when they hit 30%.

EvilElmo posted:

Between the ALP and LNP I will always vote ALP.

Who would you prefer in power? LNP or ALP.

Greens, 8.65%, not an option. Come talk to me when they hit 30%.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

The reality is, the majority of Australian's are not in favour any specific policy on asylum seekers.

hooman posted:

I already said I preference Labor because they are a better option than the LNP. If the LNP had a better policy base than Labor I would preference them. If the LNP had a better policy base than the greens I would vote for them.

If Labor swung far enough right in order to "Govern for all Australia" that the LNP's policy base more closely matched your own views would you vote for them?

EDIT: I am someone who was a firm Labor supporter and voter and the only reason this changed is because Labor took up the policy of "Torture refugees".

Doctor Spaceman posted:

I agree, if the Greens really cared about Australia they'd roll over and die so that Labor would have a better chance of winning.

EvilElmo posted:

Well, not really. 61% believe the Government is either too soft, or taking the right approach.

20% of Greens voters think the Government is being too soft or spot on. That's... odd.


Green vote #1 with ALP #2 means the ALP needs to dedicate a diminishing volunteer base (and this isn't due to asylum seeker policies, membership, active membership across the board is shrinking, not just in politics) and diminishing money (again, not because of asylum seekers, but because of better spending/donating caps.. probably needs to get stronger though) to hold that seat. Meaning other marginal seats get wedged and it flows on.

The LNP don't have said issue, they're in a coalition with the Nationals who are their 'rivals' and they have rules around who can stand for what and when.

That won't work with a Green/ALP coalition, the Greens will never bind, making it pointless.

A lot would need to happen for the LNP to reflect my own views on the issues I give a gently caress about. They would need to replace their main political funding source, their base voters and their culture.

EvilElmo posted:

Must be nice living in your world.

Back in reality, any attack campaign, like, literally any, would destroy any positive messaging the ALP tried to get out. The Greens have been trying for a long time, and their vote drops. The reality is, the majority of Australian's are not in favour of the Greens policy on asylum seekers. The ALP needs to Govern for all of Australia, not just 8.65% of it.

BCR posted:

Battle begins over demands to make casual workers permanent


Link

1) This is a good thing that is finally moving
2) If you can join your union, do so
3) If you have any spare coins, think about putting it towards one of the unions fighting for this

Apologies if this has already coming up. didn't want to scan read 300 posts

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

So you're in fact conceding that the party that takes tough, unpopular decisions is the Greens, which is then reflected in their only capturing <9% of the vote?

"It sure was tough struggling with our conscience for long enough to figure out that yes torture is bad, but being in government is better!"

hooman posted:

Labor has to dedicate too many resources to holding seats against Greens who they have alienated by swinging hard right so they lose seats to the Liberal party.

Does it strike you that Labor is fighting entirely the wrong battle here? Do you see that Labor swinging right moves the overton window in a way that damages the things that at their core both Labor and the Greens agree on? Do you know that the National party also has a problem with losing votes to the Greens?

Nothing you've said has made me think that I should be voting for a party whose policies don't represent my view of how Australia should be run. You've only convinced me that Labor's strategy is really self defeating.

EvilElmo posted:

Noting that a Government deals with more than asylum seekers, yes. Being in Government and protecting the healthcare system, education system, disability pensions, workplace law and so on. It's a lot more important than sitting on the sideline bitching.

Ler posted:

After weeks of baseless anti Greens bullshit and countless arguments that fell on deaf ears, today I unfollowed about 40 Labor hacks and blocked Van Badham from my twitter feed.
Feels good.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

I feel honoured to meet someone who blocked Van Badham before she blocked them.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Oh gently caress you birdstrike

EvilElmo posted:

gay picnic defence posted:

This is cool. What is the SDA's position on it?

Ler posted:

After weeks of baseless anti Greens bullshit and countless arguments that fell on deaf ears, today I unfollowed about 40 Labor hacks and blocked Van Badham from my twitter feed.
Feels good.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

ALP: Making the difficult, unpopular decisions like torturing children.

LibertyCat posted:

If you're going to jump on a boat, throw away your documentation, and come to Australia, you should know what to expect.

LibertyCat posted:

oh, bullshit. They're free to return to their home country any time they want.

It's well known that fire is hot, that's why you don't put your hand in it.

If you're going to jump on a boat, throw away your documentation, and come to Australia, you should know what to expect.

LibertyCat posted:

It's well known that fire is hot, that's why you don't put your hand in it.

EvilElmo posted:

Being soft on asylum seekers lost the ALP a few elections and contributed to them losing the most recent (party instability didn't help, but it wasn't the only reason).

8.65% of the population voted Green. So clearly there isn't wide spread support for their policy on asylum seekers (among other policies).

Even with party instability, with their "lovely" policies and a leader few people liked, the Greens still had a down-tick in their vote since 2010, why is that? The stars aligned for the Greens at the last election, but they still fell short of their high water mark.