Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #51
Einstein and others may disagree.
Here is some more reading for you.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20212_the-6-greatest-acts-trolling-in-history-science.html
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j3
Is this the end of the Greens?
- Thread starter Navy_4_life
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Einstein and others may disagree.
Here is some more reading for you.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20212_the-6-greatest-acts-trolling-in-history-science.html
http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html#j3
telsor
Hall of Famer
I was asked.
telsor
Hall of Famer
About the topic I replied to.
More precisely...Show me a model (which is what climate science is based upon after all) that predicted the 'pause'.
We're supposed to trust these models to make massive changes to our economy based on predictions they make for 50, 100 years, but they don't even work for 10-20 years.
Now, the underlying ideas (human driven changes) might be correct, but clearly the details are very lacking. Do we have the processes right, or the drivers of these changes? If we can't be sure of these things, how can we be sure we're doing the right thing to adjust/compensate? And we're betting our economies on this? Who knows, maybe half a billion internal combustion engines around the world are providing, collectively, a massive 'heater', and we need to turn them off/provide cooler power sources - no, I'm not seriously suggesting that, just providing an example.
telsor
Hall of Famer
I'm sure there are people who believe Palmer is right too.
I would prefer to trust the experts in the field, rather than vested interests in the pockets of oil and coal companies.
That's all reasonable what you say, but what if they're right? What if sea level does dramatically increase (and not just by a few inches) in the next century or so (or worse, much less)? What then? Isn't it better to explore options and try and solve it? New technologies and new innovations can create new economies too.
That's the great thing about Earth (which will be fine), and about Nature - it doesn't give a feck about us.
- Jun 19, 2006
- 10,031
- 18,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Can anybody actually say what Palmer's policies are though? Apart from some basics there really isn't much detail. Also considering he's walked both sides of the road on a number of issues which time was he right? At least when somebody says they agree with the Greens' policies they can actually point to a detailed policy suite that they're referring to.
On the Greens yep they're cooked. Done, dusted, finished. But then they were finished 5 years ago when they didn't pass the ETS. They were finished when they formed a minority government with the ALP. They were finished when Bob Brown retired. They (more particularly Bandt) were finished when the Liberals preferenced against them. Don't worry they're definitely finished this time...
Generally young people stop voting Green when they leave uni, move out of home and realise what the real world is all about. The ones who keep voting Green are the ones who live with mother and father and have no living costs.
- Banned
- #60
Greens care about a wide range of issues. Labor giving up being left wing aside from platitudes has certainly helped them. Been getting elected too long to be protest votes.
- Apr 4, 2013
- 13,670
- 16,890
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Paul Sheehan must have gone to town on his pain meds that day.
MrCharisma
Club Legend
MrCharisma
Club Legend
Wrong.
Overall, jobs within the larger categories of Labourers, Machinery Operators and Drivers, Technicians and Trades Workers, and Community and Personal Service Workers are more likely than average to vote Labor, while Clerical and Administrative Workers and Managers are more likely to vote Liberal and those classified as Professionals are over 50% more likely to vote Greens. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/party-vote-by-professions-december-2012-201306140318
This paper shows that the Greens attract a distinctive group as party members. Most are highly educated, in their mid to late 40s, working in professional occupations for either government or the non-government sector. http://www.tasa.org.au/conferences/conferencepapers05/papers (pdf)/rural_vromen.pdf
Former ALP Senator John Black suggests that green voters don’t conform to the popular stereotype. His research company has studied the demographic data and he offers a radical reappraisal of their attitudes and voting preferences. The richest voters in Australia he says are not Liberals but Greens. http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2010/...ers-in-australia-are-not-liberals-but-greens/
Some 26 per cent of the 18 to 24 age bracket is intending to vote Green. This compares with 39 per cent planning to vote for Labor and 29 per cent planning to vote for the Coalition. This figure shows that the Greens are unequivocally a third force in politics for the younger demographic.http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/08/06/2976030.htm
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
you just have to look at Ludlum's bike path app to know they are all talk and dreams without any ability to deliver.
I just hope they sit on the sides and entertain the disenfranchised because if they do have any major influence for any period of time, we will all be disenfranchised.
Attested to by our last government.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
people who don't feel they have a place in society, no voice and little power to change their life for the better.
Historically the disenfranchised are the youth trying to find their place in life, struggling to be heard, struggling to be recognised for the abilities they offer, loads of energy but nowhere to focus it and locked out of the property market because of price to income ratios.
The disenfranchised category is bigger today as Australia is changing to compete in a global market, certain parts of Australia are mature (from a development sense) which means many opportunities are already closed and we are more aware socially and politically. This last aspect can be positive, as those who aren't disenfranchised act positively and contribute by doing something positive. However, it can be a major negative as the disenfranchised, rather than building a better alternative, they simply take their negative energy and use it to frustrate or stop positive activities.
To gain strength the disenfranchised also turn to like minded groups but rather than gaining personal strength in numbers and confidence, they tend to feed on their own negativity which leads to anger and protests. Often this negativity is channeled against foreigners for stealing our jobs (One Nation and Unions), big companies and employers (unions and the greens) and the wealthy.
Yes in many ways life is more complex today than ever before, so I can understand why there are more disenfranchised people today. However, I would prefer people remembering that family, friends and community is the place to turn to in times of need rather than acting out negatively or in protest.
Last edited:
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
More choice equals more spin and politics.
I prefer my governments to focus on policy.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...testing-against-mining-im-glad-i-took-a-stand
Young idealists. Should grow up.
- Banned
- #72
Silly old bugger
The Greens should be an alternative, not the alternative.
- Mar 17, 2014
- 187
- 85
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #74
interesting this thread has thrown up some good arguments - both ways.
Thanks all for a mainly constructive discussion!
Thanks all for a mainly constructive discussion!
- Jun 19, 2006
- 10,031
- 18,399
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Being serious for a second, those who think the Greens are just going to disappear are being rather optimistic. What we're seeing is a distinct shift in the Greens from being a broad protest movement to being a party that is actually voted for based on policy. Rather than appealing to environmentalists and doctors' wives they're appealing much more to the left-wing inner city types who have historically been strong Labor voters. You can see that from the fact that, while the Greens vote was destroyed at the last election (-3.1% overall), their vote held fairly well in the inner city areas particularly around Melbourne where they had campaigned very strongly to keep Bandt in. That's a positive sign for them since those inner-city voters are much more solid than protest voters. If they can get that ~5% as solid repeated Greens voters then that's a solid base to build from and a much better base than relying on notoriously fickle protest voters or environmental activists who swing from one movement to the next.
It's really hard to see the Greens not having a decent chunk of senators any time soon. I mean they got smashed in the Tasmania election recently yet their primary vote was basically still a senate quota on its own. They've got 3 senators for the next 6 years (possibly 4 after tomorrow) and 6 for the next 3 years. 3 years is a long time in politics but right now it's hard to see them missing out on senators in Tasmania and Victoria (Richard Di Natale is well known and popular for a senator). Then they'd be a realistic chance in every other state. I can't see them having anything less than 6 senators in the foreseeable future and any move away from the ticket voting system in the senate is likely to benefit them.
The real question isn't "Is this the end of the Greens?" since the answer to that is obviously no or at least not yet. Writing the obituary of any party that has multiple senators locked in for 6 years is a bit silly. The real question for the Greens is will they stagnate over the next decade (and possibly fall away) or will they expand beyond their current position. For them to expand they must make a solid move into the House of Reps. Having Adam Bandt in the house has got them similar publicity as having 10 senators. They held onto Bandt this election which was a big positive. Now they need to target winnable seats in the house if they want to expand. Batman is an obvious one with a really poor local candidate (Feeney is as big a hack as Labor's got). That would've been knife-edge if the Liberals hadn't changed their preferences and with a strong candidate and a good campaign it's winnable. Then there are seats like Wills, Melbourne Ports and Grayndler which should be targeted strongly when Albo retires.
So the way I see it is that they're guaranteed to have some presence at a national level in the senate for the foreseeable future. But if they want to go beyond being a distant 3rd party then they need to make inroads in the house, chipping away at the seats on Labor's left. They've got the young politicians who appeal to those types of electorates it's just a question of how well they can shift away from their protest party roots. I'd say for the good of the party Milne should give up the leadership within the next year or so and bring in the generational change that is absolutely necessary.
It's really hard to see the Greens not having a decent chunk of senators any time soon. I mean they got smashed in the Tasmania election recently yet their primary vote was basically still a senate quota on its own. They've got 3 senators for the next 6 years (possibly 4 after tomorrow) and 6 for the next 3 years. 3 years is a long time in politics but right now it's hard to see them missing out on senators in Tasmania and Victoria (Richard Di Natale is well known and popular for a senator). Then they'd be a realistic chance in every other state. I can't see them having anything less than 6 senators in the foreseeable future and any move away from the ticket voting system in the senate is likely to benefit them.
The real question isn't "Is this the end of the Greens?" since the answer to that is obviously no or at least not yet. Writing the obituary of any party that has multiple senators locked in for 6 years is a bit silly. The real question for the Greens is will they stagnate over the next decade (and possibly fall away) or will they expand beyond their current position. For them to expand they must make a solid move into the House of Reps. Having Adam Bandt in the house has got them similar publicity as having 10 senators. They held onto Bandt this election which was a big positive. Now they need to target winnable seats in the house if they want to expand. Batman is an obvious one with a really poor local candidate (Feeney is as big a hack as Labor's got). That would've been knife-edge if the Liberals hadn't changed their preferences and with a strong candidate and a good campaign it's winnable. Then there are seats like Wills, Melbourne Ports and Grayndler which should be targeted strongly when Albo retires.
So the way I see it is that they're guaranteed to have some presence at a national level in the senate for the foreseeable future. But if they want to go beyond being a distant 3rd party then they need to make inroads in the house, chipping away at the seats on Labor's left. They've got the young politicians who appeal to those types of electorates it's just a question of how well they can shift away from their protest party roots. I'd say for the good of the party Milne should give up the leadership within the next year or so and bring in the generational change that is absolutely necessary.
Similar threads
