Is this the end of the Greens?

[Mofra]

Is Bolt a journalist? Or is he a polemicist?

He writes opinion columns, but does not write hard news (reactive), or investigative reports (active)..

I'd say a rhetorician, he certainly doesn't qualify as a journalist given his defence on day 1 of his RDA case

 

[clogged]

A medical doctor with a young family and a long history of sporting involvement would be in a great spot to understand a lot of issues.

He's a good choice for them - the footy background means a lot in terms of appealing to mainstream Australia. He's certainly not a fringe dweller. I think with him, Ludlum and Bandt they've got a decent core of likeable leaders. Certainly better than the two majors. Will be interesting to see their policy direction - Labor should be worried.

 

[Showbags]

Please explain how the Labor party didn't move further to the Left under Gillard? I need a good chuckle!

Asylum seeker policy, not supporting gay marriage, neutering the mining tax, a pissweak carbon pricing scheme that was only introduced to pander to the Greens (not because of any real conviction from Gillard), cutting higher education funding, cutting the baby bonus......

 

[Todman]

Interesting graphic

 

[Lebbo73]

Asylum seeker policy, not supporting gay marriage, neutering the mining tax, a pissweak carbon pricing scheme that was only introduced to pander to the Greens (not because of any real conviction from Gillard), cutting higher education funding, cutting the baby bonus......

Asylum seeker policy - if you aren't deluded, everyone knows where Labor really stands.
Gay marriage - they know it is an issue that will cost them the election if supported.
Mining Tax - Abbott scared them out of it.
Carbon Tax - yeah right, it was the most punitive impost out of any country.
Higher Education funding cuts - they were a mirage. Spending is higher than ever.
Cutting the Baby Bonus - didn't they spread the payment out over 18 weeks. Happy to stand corrected on this issue!

 

[telsor]

View attachment 137067

Interesting graphic

2% That's just being childish.

That means they're not even voting yea for the trivial/procedural motions.

 

[Showbags]

2% That's just being childish.

That means they're not even voting yea for the trivial/procedural motions.

Well when you have a government that is so diametrically opposed to your core beliefs/policies, how did you expect them to vote?

 

[johnhunt]

Well when you have a government that is so diametrically opposed to your core beliefs/policies, how did you expect them to vote?

This kinda proves that the Greens supporters claims about the Senate not being a problem for the current goverent as an absolute myth.

 

[Lebbo73]

This kinda proves that the Greens supporters claims about the Senate not being a problem for the current goverent as an absolute myth.

Let's increase the fuel excise, something I personally disagree with, but The Greens actually support. Their response is to vote against it!

 

[telsor]

Well when you have a government that is so diametrically opposed to your core beliefs/policies, how did you expect them to vote?

A fair number of bills are simple procedural stuff, like the bill that allowed the BOM to have advertising on their website (after a year long trial that started under Labor and was approved by the Greens), but they're clearly voting no to practically everything.

BTW, The BOM bill was from a quick check...It was about the 6th bill that was put to this Senate, I'm sure there are plenty of other (better?) examples.

The thing is, it's counter productive....If they think a bill will go through that is 100% bad, but can negotiate to make it 'only' 90% bad, then surely they should do that and use their influence to moderate/reduce the problems, but instead they just say no with little or no interest in what the bill says or does.

 

[Showbags]

A fair number of bills are simple procedural stuff, like the bill that allowed the BOM to have advertising on their website (after a year long trial that started under Labor and was approved by the Greens), but they're clearly voting no to practically everything.

BTW, The BOM bill was from a quick check...It was about the 6th bill that was put to this Senate, I'm sure there are plenty of other (better?) examples.

The thing is, it's counter productive....If they think a bill will go through that is 100% bad, but can negotiate to make it 'only' 90% bad, then surely they should do that and use their influence to moderate/reduce the problems, but instead they just say no with little or no interest in what the bill says or does.

It goes both ways though. Abbott can also negotiate with the crossbenchers to get their support. Its hardly like Abbotts strongsuit is compromise. Its the government of the days job to sell/negotiate/amend the passage of their policies through the parliament which they are clearly failing to do.

 

[telsor]

It goes both ways though. Abbott can also negotiate with the crossbenchers to get their support. Its hardly like Abbotts strongsuit is compromise. Its the government of the days job to sell/negotiate/amend the passage of their policies through the parliament which they are clearly failing to do.

When everyone else (even the ALP) votes for the government at least 10 times as often, I don't think it's entirely the governments fault. Clearly they can negotiate to some degree. Compromise isn't exactly a Greens trait either.

 

[johnhunt]

Let's increase the fuel excise, something I personally disagree with, but The Greens actually support. Their response is to vote against it!

Absolutely and then when Milne got called hypocritical she blamed Abbott and everyone els .

 

[Todman]

The thing is, it's counter productive....If they think a bill will go through that is 100% bad, but can negotiate to make it 'only' 90% bad, then surely they should do that and use their influence to moderate/reduce the problems, but instead they just say no with little or no interest in what the bill says or does.

Surely if you are in opposition and you believe that a bill is 100% bad, chances are then society will agree with you. You should pass it without amendments. Fastest way out of government is to pass bad legislation.

 

[johnhunt]

Wonderful work from the greens senator today calling the government welfare fraud crackdown innapropriate and unnevcessary . pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact a large percentage of their voter base are simply dole bludging scum by personal choice.

 

[swingdog]

Wonderful work from the greens senator today calling the government welfare fraud crackdown innapropriate and unnevcessary . pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact a large percentage of their voter base are simply dole bludging scum by personal choice.

Yes, because that's where all the gain in Green votes has been - dole bulging suburbs like Prahran.

 

[johnhunt]

Yes, because that's where all the gain in Green votes has been - dole bulging suburbs like Prahran.

Damn dumb comment this one. I am going to take a punt and say you've never been to prahran?

 

[swingdog]

Give it a break, mate.

The Greens growing support is coming from inner city professionals, not dole bludgers. Blame the lawyers, architects and doctors, if you like. I'm sure they'll care.

 

[madmug]

Wonderful work from the greens senator today calling the government welfare fraud crackdown innapropriate and unnevcessary . pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact a large percentage of their voter base are simply dole bludging scum by personal choice.

I think its more the point that the Gument is more interested in vilifying yet another group in the community. The welfare system already has lots of checks on recipients circumstances. Their are penalties if they are incorrect. Checking becomes a function of having enough human & computer resources to do the work. What would the rate of deliberate fraud be, do you think. Where does 'cost effectiveness' come into the equasion?

I note the Gument also want to gut the CPS, yet also want more work done!.

On a broader note, I think it would be more effective coming up with a suitable jobs policy to give more people the chance of gaining employment.

Vilifying welfare groups might make some LNP supporters feel better, & allow pollies to look like they are doing 'something', but will it really 'fix' anything?

 

[johnhunt]

I think its more the point that the Gument is more interested in vilifying yet another group in the community. The welfare system already has lots of checks on recipients circumstances. Their are penalties if they are incorrect. Checking becomes a function of having enough human & computer resources to do the work. What would the rate of deliberate fraud be, do you think. Where does 'cost effectiveness' come into the equasion?

I note the Gument also want to gut the CPS, yet also want more work done!.

On a broader note, I think it would be more effective coming up with a suitable jobs policy to give more people the chance of gaining employment.

Vilifying welfare groups might make some LNP supporters feel better, & allow pollies to look like they are doing 'something', but will it really 'fix' anything?

Welfare rip offs are rife and there is clearly a need to do it. Claiming the govt is just wanting to vilify another group is ridiculous but unsurprising especially from the greens who hypocritically claim to be about fairness and protecting vulnerable people in society.

 

[Showbags]

Give it a break, mate.

The Greens growing support is coming from inner city professionals, not dole bludgers. Blame the lawyers, architects and doctors, if you like. I'm sure they'll care.

This is quite correct. Young professionals are the real and growing supporter base that are voting Green atm. That would have to be a worrying trend on the part of the big two parties.

Saying that the Greens supporter base is a large percentage "simply dole bludging scum" is akin to saying the Liberals are only supported by "rich plutocrats and religious nutjobs".

 

[Maggie5]

No end in sight for the Greens, in fact with the change in leadership can only see it growing stronger.
Support is not only coming from young professionals but also students and amongst the elderly who care about the future.

 

[johnhunt]

Give it a break, mate.

The Greens growing support is coming from inner city professionals, not dole bludgers. Blame the lawyers, architects and doctors, if you like. I'm sure they'll care.

Lol you're the one who made an absolutely incorrect factual comment and now are backpedaling after getting owned. Greens weren't even a top two party in the seat . as for prahran it is extremely disproportionate area for welfare people and other greens types like gays. The other inner city areas are full of dole bludging, student lefty sharehouses which quite simply goes a long way to refuting your claim of inner city professionals voting for them

 

[swingdog]

Lol you're the one who made an absolutely incorrect factual comment and now are backpedaling after getting owned. Greens weren't even a top two party in the seat . as for prahran it is extremely disproportionate area for welfare people and other greens types like gays. The other inner city areas are full of dole bludging, student lefty sharehouses which quite simply goes a long way to refuting your claim of inner city professionals voting for them

Well, how can I argue with such cogent political analysis not at all tainted by personal values?

 

[johnhunt]

Well, how can I argue with such cogent political analysis not at all tainted by personal values?

Lol more ducking for cove . You have absolutely no idea about the voting landscape and have been ripped as a result now you're having to go the man to defend yourself. Nice try