|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Can't get RU486 in Canberra so you have to go to Queanbeyan. (not if my bill gets passed)
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
V for Vegas posted:What's happened to Di Natale? I don't think I've seen him make a statement on anything for weeks. He was on Sky this morning?  I think his office has been hectic the last couple of months getting stuff ready for the federal election - and the byelections just made that worse. There's not much space for proactive announcements until the election campaign starts up.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 03:39
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Well it's not like they can talk about policy...and the popularity contest has just fizzled. It's the same with Vic Libs, they've tried their hardest to stick Dandrews with something and their own Guy is running on Laura Norder after being lunched by a mafioso. Speak of the devil (Denis Napthine): "ALP-Greens alliance would be a nightmare for Victoria | The Standard posted:What would be the worst result for Victoria at the November state election? ONCE AGAIN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IGNORES THE ETERNAL REIGN OF SHANE RATTENBURY IN CANBERRA Kafka Syrup fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Jul 30, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 06:48
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:actually I've always been interested in what turned van badhams so hostile against the greens. the venom is more than just derived form policy and ideology. My understanding is she was an “active member” in the same way she’s an “independent journalist” for Labor. She was invested, semicompetent and loud so was on track for candidature at some point. But in the course of six months, Vic Greens started going hard against pokies and Fed Greens supported the part pension changes. Her parents are apparently “working class” owners of several pubs with large investments in pokies companies and were in the process of retiring. The changes materially impacted her parents wealth. All the political capital she thought she’d built up in the party wasn’t enough to change their positions on these things. Her allies and MP contacts weren’t supporting her positions. So she left and basically vowed to destroy the Greens for betraying her personally. (see also why she’s constantly trying to make pokies and greyhound racing “Labor working class” issues)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:hmm this is an interesting and somewhat new (to me) theory. This is anecdotal from members who were in the same branch as her when this all went down. Chances are they're blowing poo poo out of proportion and her dad may have just been a club manager whose club relied on pokies revenue to stay afloat. Which is a bit more defensible, but seeing first hand how evil the pokies (and greyhounds) industry is in the ACT and how underhanded they'll fight, I have limited sympathy. (obviously solidarity with clubs workers who are even shafted by their "union" Hospitality United who recruit them and doesn't offer them industrial protection and is pretty much just a donation poaching scam ANYWAY)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Beetphyxious posted:on van badham im not finding much on her parents ownership of clubs. I mean supporting a pokies ban and phase-out would impact the profitability of a LOT of pubs and clubs, especially those who ... whatever the opposite of diversify is ... and made their clubs almost entirely reliant on pokies revenue. This is doubly true of "chain" pubs owned by ALH and Spirit who homogenised the look, menu and entertainment options at their clubs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Box of Bunnies posted:Labor need to rebrand to get away from the "union thugs" image The talk about rebranding is interesting because I was living in Denmark when the Danish equivalent of the Greens is split into three different parties - none of which have Greens in the name. The Rhiannonites are Enhedslisten, an alliance of communists and ecosocialists. The "mainstream Left" are part of Socialistisk Folkeparti, the democratic socialist party. The RDN technocrats created a new party Alternativet - literally "The Alternative" - which is kinda like a ramped-up version of the Arts Party, the Science Party and Reason. There isn't really a party for the deep greens like Tassie. Between the three they account for roughly 16% of the seats in a pretty proportionate system. Which if our electoral systems were the same, the Greens here would hold. Don Dongington posted:The biggest issue with this is that the primary desire for the average Greens voter is to see the Liberals out of government (preferably loaded into the nearest guillotine, but I digress), and get some senators up. Beyond that, any seats that we actually win are just the cherry on top. So moving preferences around is going to damage our primary vote severely, because people will just play it safe by voting straight ALP. Also, all it takes is for one of those minor parties to do something hosed up (See: Wikileaks circa 2013) and that poo poo splashes all over us. This is the problem every non-extremist party has in a majoritarian system - even more heavily proportional or coalition-oriented ones. You're always gonna have to pick a "big sibling" when it comes time to form government, and 9/10 you're gonna back the centre-left option (unless you're Germany and your centre-left option is crazy racist and you're also pretty cooked in other ways) And ultimately, in most systems, left-wing parties will get between 10% and 20% of the vote, between them. The Greens in Australia are a bit lower than that which is a problem, but we're still in the band. I'm personally happy with the party polling between 10% and 15% if we're consistent and vocal. We can push Labor left, we get a few Senators in and maybe an MP or two, and we occasionally get BOP and can get some direct policy asks - while at the same time not having to compromise our values or the influence of our members. Kafka Syrup fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Imo one of the biggest problems for the Greens is a rise in challenger third parties, like One Nation. For a while the Greens have been able to hold their place pretty solidly as the majority on the cross bench and just use numbers to refuse to negotiate, thus enabling them to get better policy or legislation. That's a good tactic when you are the majority and have the numbers to hold out, but refusing to deal on principle is going to start costing when other parties and independents also have the numbers but not the same principles (which has arguably already happened). You can either nobly refuse to deal and wind up with a poo poo result, or pragmatically agree in the hopes of getting a less-than poo poo result. I think this is mostly a problem only under Liberal Governments and will flip when Labor gets in. PHON and on certain issues KAP, UAP and AC will refuse to even engage on and won't negotiate, whereas the Greens can take a more radical position but negotiate with a Labor Government to pass something through. CA is the weirdest one since they're the closed to the old school Australian Democrats as technocratic centrists with no real ideology so could negotiate to the right of Labor - but that's also contingent on them surviving the next federal election. ewe2 posted:If changing Greens preferences changes the primary vote, guess what? They weren't really Greens voters, just voters looking for an alternative to the ALP. And that's not enough to sustain a party, you may as well stay in the "other" column. I think the electorate is shifting away from the majors permanently, but the majors can still play divide and conquer if a minor party retains the mindset of being an "alternative". I'm not saying there's a sure-fire solution to all this, because probably it's really down to what the electorate thinks on an election-by-election basis, but I do know that a good chunk of support is just disaffected Labor voters and they have to find a way of turning that into real Greens voters. But this is what the Greens strategy has been since 2013..? Building up at subnational levels, slowly trying to secure local council majorities or coalitions and working up to state-level coalitions. Building the Greens as a distinct political force with it's own management style. As much as I hate the idea of the Greens having Ministries any time soon, demostrating a distinct Ministerial style and relationship with the "machinery of government" might embed the party in the electorate in ways other third parties in Australia haven't been. Kafka Syrup fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Jul 31, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 01:00
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:I don't think the electorate sees it that way, that's the problem. With councils, the majors at state level get to dump all the thorny problems on them and plays that up as failures at election time. In my electorate for example, the parties see council as the dumping ground for its has-beens and no-loving-ways. I'm not disparaging local government: it's valuable political experience for the party but for the actual politician, it rarely translates upwards, at least not around here. The comeback to that though is, generally, the electorate doesn't pay attention to politics at all. A huge proportion of the electorate would struggle to identify any political issue in the media. Heck I've doorknocked people who still think Howard's PM. There's so much political journalism and so little political engagement, that the usual punter will have the most surface level understanding of what's going on, and make a decision on who to vote for based on a mixture of preconceptions, their material reality, whatever opinion mouthpieces they do listen to (whether that's in the media or in the meatspace), and the feeling of backing a winning horse. It's not just internal party poo poo that doesn't get noticed, it's policies and politics. There just isn't space for it in most people's heads. (and the local council point is true - which is why I'm pro council amalgamations and professionalisation. Say what you like about Brisbane City Council, having a salary, full-time position and staff reduces corruption and improves quality of councilllors). BBJoey posted:Honest question beet: if the greens rebranded, how many votes do you think they’d gain And what would they rebrand to? Leftist parties do equally poorly (often worse) in other, more proportionate systems, and noone likes centrist technocrats even when there's no competition.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
bell jar posted:I would prefer an ALP where the unions donate but don't get a controlling say in party leadership/policy. Union members vote for union leaders, party members vote for party leaders. That's how it should be IMO, unions are great in theory but Australian Unions in practice can definitely suck (shoppies anyone?) The alternative to that is an ALP without a membership at all, and everything was filtered through union membership (although that would create conflicts of interest for unionists who are members of other political parties). The main issue is the hybrid model where power in the ALP is split between grassroots members/branches, union, factions, party room and the national officebearers, without any clear accountabilities. Beetphyxious posted:Exactly 3 *RDN's office scrambles a poo poo rebrand to win these three votes, loses 1000 in the process, blames internal democracy*
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 01:48 |
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:oh yeah, it's August We haven't done an old fashioned "who you vote for" poll in a while, or even a "who to follow on twitter" op. Heck its been months since we did a party comparison OP. (i'm not volunteering)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2018 03:36
|
|
