Is this the end of the Greens?

[Showbags]

What would they change to? There aren't a lot of words available in the English language to describe the ideologies that a party holds.

I'm not sure. Any suggestions?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

What would they change to?

The Democrats?

But they're not going to change. They get free publicity from being linked to other 'Greens' parties around the world and in the same way all the criticism from hard-line Koch Brothers style right-wingers helps them because normal people don't believe they really are the the most dangerous thing in the world.

Plus, it's pretty easy to rebrand through policy. It's not like the Liberals are liberal or that Labor is only about workers. The Greens are always going to be pro-environment so there's no need to change.

 

[The Speaker]

I'm not sure. Any suggestions?

None that come to mind. Most European Green parties, cut from a similar cloth, are still happy to use the name.

I suspect they also believe they may lose other voters if they changed to something more generic.

It's not like the Liberals are liberal or that Labor is only about workers.

You say that like it's a good thing...

 

[Showbags]

The Democrats?

But they're not going to change. They get free publicity from being linked to other 'Greens' parties around the world and in the same way all the criticism from hard-line Koch Brothers style right-wingers helps them because normal people don't believe they really are the the most dangerous thing in the world.

Plus, it's pretty easy to rebrand through policy. It's not like the Liberals are liberal or that Labor is only about workers. The Greens are always going to be pro-environment so there's no need to change.

Yeah I was thinking the Social Democrats or something.

The problem with rebranding through policy is that its hard to actually convey your messages about policy to the electorate. In the current political environment of soundbite and slogan politics you often get very little opportunity to cut through to joe sixpack about what policies you have.

Its just like the Pirate Party or Sex Party, I'm sure they have a more broad range of views than what their name suggests but without actually going and searching for what they stand for you can only really go off what their name says on the little piece of paper that you put in the ballot box.

 

[The Speaker]

Yeah I was thinking the Social Democrats or something.

The problem with rebranding through policy is that its hard to actually convey your messages about policy to the electorate. In the current political environment of soundbite and slogan politics you often get very little opportunity to cut through to joe sixpack about what policies you have.

Its just like the Pirate Party or Sex Party, I'm sure they have a more broad range of views than what their name suggests but without actually going and searching for what they stand for you can only really go off what their name says on the little piece of paper that you put in the ballot box.

The prostitution lobby chose their party's name well. It means that can get swathes of votes from people who see the name on the ballot paper and giggle to themselves while putting a 1 next to it.

 

[swingdog]

Add Brunswick to the list of inner Melbourne electorates they'll be a good chance for next time.

Not sure a name change is required. It hasn't hurt the German Greens who have been around the longest. Anyway, when you look at party names, it becomes pretty irrelevant - Liberals are really Conservatives, Nationals are really Country Party and who knows what Labor is.

 

[The Speaker]

Add Brunswick to the list of inner Melbourne electorates they'll be a good chance for next time.

Not sure a name change is required. It hasn't hurt the German Greens who have been around the longest. Anyway, when you look at party names, it becomes pretty irrelevant - Liberals are really Conservatives, Nationals are really Country Party and who knows what Labor is.

How are you defining conservatism? Neo-liberalism doesn't seem particularly conservative to me.

 

[Crawb]

What does everyone think about the Greens changing their name?

I fear that many in the electorate actually stay away from voting for the Greens purely as they are considered a one issue party (environment) and have no other strings to their bow.

I'd say the Greens actually have a policy platform that is palatable to the electorate but they need to be seen as a broader party than just the environment.

I'm big on the Greens changing their name. The Progressives does the job. If they wanted to make serious inroads into the Labor Left they'd do it. There is still definitely a vibe of "Oh I could not possibly vote for the Greens". The party is still seen as more of temporary thing in many's eyes (aka Friends of Bob and Christine) with many predicting the beginning of the end in 2013. However I suspect the 2016 result will be enough to cement the Greens as the legitimate 3rd party in the long term.

 

[Gough]

How are you defining conservatism? Neo-liberalism doesn't seem particularly conservative to me.

This government isn't really conservative economically I agree, I'd argue it's corporatist more than anything else, although socially I'd regard it as conservative

 

[CM86]

Is it time to give this thread the backfire tag?
It was wrong when it was made, but it's even more obvious now...

You say that like it's a good thing...

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

 

[The Speaker]

This government isn't really conservative economically I agree, I'd argue it's corporatist more than anything else, although socially I'd regard it as conservative

I've held for a long time that Abbott himself is not a neo-liberal. He is, in his heart, still in the DLP - that is, an actual conservative - but he's faced with a party that is increasingly full of people who have embraced neo-liberalism and has to juggle that with the fact he's not really a natural leader and that his grasp on the leadership has been pretty weak since the beginning. The Nats, who are historically more of a real conservative party, are also holding less and less sway within the Coalition, as demonstrated by their loss of the trade portfolio.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yeah I was thinking the Social Democrats or something.

The problem with rebranding through policy is that its hard to actually convey your messages about policy to the electorate. In the current political environment of soundbite and slogan politics you often get very little opportunity to cut through to joe sixpack about what policies you have.

Its just like the Pirate Party or Sex Party, I'm sure they have a more broad range of views than what their name suggests but without actually going and searching for what they stand for you can only really go off what their name says on the little piece of paper that you put in the ballot box.

We already have Social Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Democratic Labour, Australian Democrats, etc. All still exist as political parties even if some have come and gone from formal party status.

 

[swingdog]

This government isn't really conservative economically I agree, I'd argue it's corporatist more than anything else, although socially I'd regard it as conservative

Yes, should have been more precise but Gough nails it. It's definitely corporatist and not in a neutral manner - favours old, established industry over new emergent, disruptive industry.

 

[Baldy Head]

What does everyone think about the Greens changing their name?

They could change it to Regressive Left.

 

[rodney hoo]

They could change it to Regressive Left.

Or progressive centralists.
There up to 13% of the vote now make the national party insignificant.

 

[Baldy Head]

Or progressive centralists.

I thought it best to be truthful in naming.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I thought it best to be truthful in naming.

Then maybe you could rename yourself 'Right Wing Sock Puppet With No Desire To Have A Genuine Discussion'?

 

[Baldy Head]

Then maybe you could rename yourself 'Right Wing Sock Puppet With No Desire To Have A Genuine Discussion'?

Please don't tell me you have genuine discussions.

You are one of a handful of people on this board who must be in some kind of contest to see who can be the most irrationally Left Wing.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Please don't tell me you have genuine discussions.

As one of the people on here having genuine discussions with other people based on real-life experience, I'm sorry to say your request has been rejected. You are one-eyed and seemingly obsessed with labeling things as of "the left". It smacks of someone who's viewpoint is based on reading too much of a narrow band of authors, rather than someone who is constructing their world-view based on what they've actually experienced.

 

[Lebbo73]

You have to love The Greens. Just watching QT on Sky News and Adam Bandt claims that the Coalitions Emissions Targets will lead to a 4 degrees increase in temperatures. Does he do stand up comedy?

 

[telsor]

Add Brunswick to the list of inner Melbourne electorates they'll be a good chance for next time.

Not sure a name change is required. It hasn't hurt the German Greens who have been around the longest. Anyway, when you look at party names, it becomes pretty irrelevant - Liberals are really Conservatives, Nationals are really Country Party and who knows what Labor is.

People have been saying that about Brunswick for a while (I live there)...The last state election they put in a pretty big effort and even won the first prefs, but were still ~2.5% off on TPP. Not sure they can do a lot more to get votes in.

Labor is the party for the unions (which isn't the same as the party for the workers which they like to pretend they are because it's more palatable).

 

[Father Jack]

You have to love The Greens. Just watching QT on Sky News and Adam Bandt claims that the Coalitions Emissions Targets will lead to a 4 degrees increase in temperatures. Does he do stand up comedy?

Adam Bandt ‏@AdamBandt 21m21 minutes ago
By doing less than half of what the science requires, a weak and dangerous gov sets a weak and dangerous target for a world heated by 4° #qt

So did he say what you said, or what his tweet said?

 

[Footy Smarts]

Well they're polling at about their highest level ever (Poll Bludger has them on 13.5% compared to a best election result of 11.8% in 2010). I guess it might be the end...

 

[swingdog]

People have been saying that about Brunswick for a while (I live there)...The last state election they put in a pretty big effort and even won the first prefs, but were still ~2.5% off on TPP. Not sure they can do a lot more to get votes in.

Labor is the party for the unions (which isn't the same as the party for the workers which they like to pretend they are because it's more palatable).

Hey, neighbour! waves

I don't think it's a sure thing but there's a fair bit of angst about all the apartment building and still no clear height restrictions. You could argue that Jane Garrett partly rode a broader wave of wanting to see the Napthine government gone last time but that won't be there this time.

At the same time, who knows how all the new people moving in will vote? They're a real mix - lots of yuppies in the apartment block nearest us (the old Tip Top factory).

 

[funk44]

Add Brunswick to the list of inner Melbourne electorates they'll be a good chance for next time.

Speaking to a state labor party strategist a few weeks after the vic election last year he claimed that internally the party had all but written off Brunswick, Richmond and possibly Northcote to the greens at the next state election