Politics How does the left get its political mojo back and win power?

[owen87]

So Green voters are likely to preference Labor? colour me shocked

You asked why people have the perception; I'd say that preferencing allocation shows you why. Make of it what you will.

Those greens votes have to go *somewhere* though don't they? Isnt the whole point of preferential voting that people get to say "If I can't have X, then I'd prefer Y, if not Y then Z (and so on)"? It would make sense to me that voters of a left wing party would prefer a centre left alternative over a centre right option.

I suspect you'd see much the same phenomena with respect to the right wing parties and the coalition (with ONP being the odd exception). Is it fair to say that the Liberals were 'in bed with' Corey Bernardi's old party or PUP?

If so, why do you think that it 'sticks' more to the ALP than the coalition? In other words, why is greens being in bed with the ALP seen as so much worse than PUP being in bed with the coalition?

The Greens are a much larger and more influential party than PUP for example, they actually represent a large share of the vote. You barely hear anything about most of the minor parties so limited opportunity to form strong opinions on them, whereas the Greens have a fairly prominent platform. Personally I think the AEC should have to provide a product comparison chart where each party lists their policies under various categories - e.g. Education, Health, Tax etc.. - so voters can make a more informed choice.

First preferences by party - AEC Tally Room

First preferences by party

results.aec.gov.au

 

[Patrick Bullet]

You asked why people have the perception; I'd say that preferencing allocation shows you why. Make of it what you will.



The Greens are a much larger and more influential party than PUP for example, they actually represent a large share of the vote. You barely hear anything about most of the minor parties so limited opportunity to form strong opinions on them, whereas the Greens have a fairly prominent platform. Personally I think the AEC should have to provide a product comparison chart where each party lists their policies under various categories - e.g. Education, Health, Tax etc.. - so voters can make a more informed choice.

First preferences by party - AEC Tally Room

First preferences by party

results.aec.gov.au

Would it be fair to say that you're proposing the following? Imagine the greens didn't exist and instead there were, say, four different leftist parties that attracted a share of the (current) Greens' primary votes. If 80-90 % of those leftist parties' voters' preferences went to Labor, there would not be a perception that the ALP is in bed with the fringe left (currently demarcated by the Greens).

 

[Pie eyed]

Euthanase the 51% of Australians who voted for the Liberal dick heads.

 

[Nathan32]

Personally I think the AEC should have to provide a product comparison chart where each party lists their policies under various categories - e.g. Education, Health, Tax etc.. - so voters can make a more informed choice.

First preferences by party - AEC Tally Room

First preferences by party

results.aec.gov.au

Really don't think this will achieve much mate. Do you think short slogans from political parties on a chart is going to make voters more informed ? if voters are interested this information is easily accessible. Essentially you will just get the stuff that appears on advertisements and how to vote cards.

 

[Nathan32]

That's because the working class get their news from the Herald Sun, My dads the same, though would never vote Liberal.

Labour cant please both its activists base and win over enough working and middle class voters at the same time.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I wonder why people think that

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

By rights the Labor Party should be pissed off with the Greens for stealing their votes, not eager to get in bed with them. Strange perception people have.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Euthanase the 51% of Australians who voted for the Liberal dick heads.

Don't reckon 99.99% of that 51% wanted to vote for the liberals, was more they wanted to vote labor even less so.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Euthanase the 51% of Australians who voted for the Liberal dick heads.

Firing squads, gas chambers?

 

[owen87]

Would it be fair to say that you're proposing the following? Imagine the greens didn't exist and instead there were, say, four different leftist parties that attracted a share of the (current) Greens' primary votes. If 80-90 % of those leftist parties' voters' preferences went to Labor, there would not be a perception that the ALP is in bed with the fringe left (currently demarcated by the Greens).

You've gone well off in to hypothetical land here and i'm not sure of the relevance.

The Greens are a fairly major party in Australia, and tend to preference votes to Labor when voting above the line, so there is a link.

 

[This Is Anfield]

You've gone well off in to hypothetical land here and i'm not sure of the relevance.

The Greens are a fairly influential party in Australia, and tend to preference votes to Labor when voting above the line, so there is a link.

 

[owen87]

View attachment 800870

Both; I'd say ~1.4m first preference votes accounting for 10% of the total and making them by a significant margin the largest non LNP or ALP party would make them 'major'. They do appear to wield a strong influence on public discourse currently due to popular social trends as well. Given the environment is their bread and butter, the current push on climate change suits them well.

 

[Evolved1]

Ah I think it get it. To be honest I think the language being used is a little mischievous. "Destroying the nuclear family" sounds as though left wing people are out there actively looking for nuclear families and murdering those that they find. Or that people are out there actively campaigning against the nuclear family (e.g., "No more nukes!" "End the two parent two kid structure"). I don't think that you believe this is going on though.

In fact, I honestly doubt that many on the left could give two hoots about what the structures of families other than their own are. I do wonder a bit why anyone could care at all about other people's family structures. Surely, ain't nobody got time for that!?

The most important thing is that children are being given the love and support they need to give them the opportunity to be successful in life. I don't see how a single parent or gay couple raising their children with love and support could possibly be a threat to the nuclear family.

It's not a ******* competition!

 

[Evolved1]

I'm again a bit surprised to hear this as it doesn't match my experiences. I do think that it's likely that you'll be able to find some closet socialists within the Greens. People who sit on the fringes are often highly motivated to participate in politics. Further, there have been documented attempts from the fringe right to infiltrate the LNP for example, so I'd be amazed if similar things weren't happening within the Greens by fringe leftists. But I'm still not seeing the overthrow of capitalism being discussed openly among the greens supporters that I know. Some of my colleagues participated in the XR protests and even they are capitalists. They just want something to be done to slow the CC process.

The other factor for me is that I know lots of scientists personally (i.e., the sorts of people who would study climate change). It's probably accurate to say that scientists are more left than right leaning, but none of the scientists I know of want to overthrow capitalism. In fact, if I asked, most of them would say that the threat of socialism scares the bejesus out of them as it would encroach on their rights and restrict their ability to keep doing the science that they love so much.

Overall, I honestly believe that the fringe you're talking about is an even smaller % than you estimate.

We're well past that point.

“What the problem is, is that people … on the right, they are treating what should be a question of physics and science and economics and engineering as though it were an issue of religion and belief. And it’s nuts.”
Malcolm Turnbull

 

[00Stinger]

Remember when we were all ****ed because of the Y2K bug? or when we were ****ed with the cold war/nuclear holocaust?

Stay woke kidlettes..................the next world extermination is only a few years away..............older humans are stupid and kids have got this!

 

[CM86]

Remember when we were all f’ed because of the Y2K bug? or when we were f’ed with the cold war/nuclear holocaust?

Stay woke kidlettes..................the next world extermination is only a few years away..............older humans are stupid and kids have got this!

What do you mean?

From what I understand, y2k wasn't an issue in the end due to the forward planning and proactive work done to resolve the problems.

And the Cold war was pretty serious.

Not sure about the older humans being stupid vs kids thing.

 

[Evolved1]

Remember when we were all f’ed because of the Y2K bug? or when we were f’ed with the cold war/nuclear holocaust?

Stay woke kidlettes..................the next world extermination is only a few years away..............older humans are stupid and kids have got this!

I remember when we were in danger of being swamped by Asians, when the carbon tax would hurt the pockets of the average person, and when gay marriage would bring the wrath of god on our nation.

Older people are stupid too, even if they refuse to admit it.

 

[Evolved1]

A life begins at conception, that's a reasonable position. If not at conception than when, hey how about a year after the baby is born ?

Every sperm is alive. Do you care about the welfare of innocent sperm and ovum that have committed no sin?

If I was to advocate on behalf of innocent sperm that weren't given a chance to find an ovum as a result of masturbation, how would you feel about my position?

A fundamentalist interpretation of revelations still doesn't prevent people from believing climate change can cause severe deadly weather advents.

Why would you care? The bible tells you how things end, and it's all peachy for believers.

It's best to focus on important matters like gun rights, abortion, and religious freedoms, no?

 

[medusala]

And when it's pointed out that Labor dont campaign on any of these things then you asked why are they in bed with the Greens (even though Labor hate the Greens.)

Look at their record in Victoria.

Hard on for safe schools
LGBTI funding including a "pride" centre
wasting money on legal services for illegal immigrants
head in sand over violent crime by ethnic minorities.

blah blah

That sort of extremist piffle may play well in inner Melbourne and get you over the line in Victoria but its utterly repulsive to a large chunk of the electorate who have no interest in such drivel.

Oh and yes, which party idiotically banned grazing in national parks? People shlould be in prison over that. Vermin.

 

[medusala]

I remember when we were in danger of being swamped by Asians, when the carbon tax would hurt the pockets of the average person, and when gay marriage would bring the wrath of god on our nation.

Older people are stupid too, even if they refuse to admit it.

It would. Why did Gillard have to offer "compensation" if it didnt?

Carbon tax exemplifies everything wrong with the ALP. The SCIENCE is very clear, nothing Australia does re emissions will affect global temperatures.

 

[Evolved1]

It would. Why did Gillard have to offer "compensation" if it didnt?

Is it fair to assume that the compensation was mostly used for political reasons to negate the LNP scare campaign rather than offset any significant cost?

Carbon tax exemplifies everything wrong with the ALP. The SCIENCE is very clear, nothing Australia does re emissions will affect global temperatures.

The science is clear that nothing any single person does will affect global temperatures, right? Using your logic, nobody should do anything.

We missed a big opportunity to be world leaders on the issue and reap potential economic rewards from incentivizing technological developments.

 

[medusala]

The science is clear that nothing any single person does will affect global temperatures, right? Using your logic, nobody should do anything.

A truely woeful argument. The science is clear, the big absolute emitters have to act, doesnt matter what we do. That is the SCIENCE of it.

We missed a big opportunity to be world leaders on the issue and reap potential economic rewards from incentivizing technological developments.

World leaders! What in? Virtue signalling. Making people poorer for nothing in return?

What potential economic rewards? We know the damage it would do to mining and manufacturing.

Lets take for example the cost to the UK of going to net carbon zero emissions.

Climate change: Emissions target could cost UK £1tn, warns Hammond

The chancellor warns the PM that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 could lower public spending.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[sdfc]

Every sperm is alive. Do you care about the welfare of innocent sperm and ovum that have committed no sin?

If I was to advocate on behalf of innocent sperm that weren't given a chance to find an ovum as a result of masturbation, how would you feel about my position?
Why would you care? The bible tells you how things end, and it's all peachy for believers.

It's best to focus on important matters like gun rights, abortion, and religious freedoms, no?

So kids are just a wank gone wrong? Weird argument.

 

[Evolved1]

A truely woeful argument. The science is clear, the big absolute emitters have to act, doesnt matter what we do. That is the SCIENCE of it.

There are approximately 7.8 billion people on Earth. Are you saying that people who live in more densely populated nations should be expected to do relatively more than me and you towards reducing their impact on the environment just because they don't live in a country with a smaller population density like Australia?

World leaders! What in? Virtue signalling. Making people poorer for nothing in return?

What potential economic rewards? We know the damage it would do to mining and manufacturing.

Lets take for example the cost to the UK of going to net carbon zero emissions.

Climate change: Emissions target could cost UK £1tn, warns Hammond

The chancellor warns the PM that reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 could lower public spending.

www.bbc.co.uk

World leaders in renewable energy technology.

 

[medusala]

There are approximately 7.8 billion people on Earth. Are you saying that people who live in more densely populated nations should be expected to do relatively more than me and you towards reducing their impact on the environment just because they don't live in a country with a smaller population density like Australia?

Irrelevant point. Policy is made at national level (unless you have the unfortunate experience of living in an EU country). You need to get China etc to act. Buffoons like Greta demanding that countries like Australia cut emissions to zero are just making fools of themselves. She should be in Tiananmen Square if she was actually serious. Of course she doesnt though.

World leaders in renewable energy technology.

In a decentralised country with a smallish population. Yep, very amusing.

Australia has a couple of industries that it has best in world practices in. Farming and mining. But hey stuff that lets stuff them and go in to high tech where we have zero comparative advantage. Sure to work.

 

[Rotayjay]

As a person who voted Labor last May, I don't even care much about social issues. I want people who can work to have decent-paying jobs with decent conditions. I want people who can't work not to be crushed by an underfunded welfare system. Just get Morrison and his mob of tone-deaf campaigners out of Canberra and stop them from making Australia more unequal.