I thought is was really great when the progressive Labor party finally got same sex marriage in.
Last edited:
Fitzgibbon: ALP could split in the next 20 years
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
- Tagged users None
As I've said before, I actually prefer the bigots.
Did I ever state that my comment was referring to the general populous? I qualified it to apply to the loonies in 'words don't hurt' camp. Not to mention, within the context of the posts preceding mine it was fairly clear who and what I was referring to. Others seemed to understand just fine, I'll spell things out more simply for you next time.
Your advised litmus test is far more idiotic than the majority of posts on here. With respect, I will not follow it.
- Thread starter
- #229
You made a sweeping statement about how things are “these days”. Don’t whine about getting called out on it.
Joel continuing to try and keep the worker central to the ALP, the L in Labor:
Labor frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon has slammed the manufacturing workers union for forming an alliance with an ALP climate change group that he claims wants to rip out ovens, hotplates and heaters from Australian homes.
The AMWU’s incoming national secretary Steve Murphy unveiled an alliance with the Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) over the weekend, despite manufacturing’s long reliance on coal and gas.
www.crikey.com.au
Labor frontbencher Joel Fitzgibbon has slammed the manufacturing workers union for forming an alliance with an ALP climate change group that he claims wants to rip out ovens, hotplates and heaters from Australian homes.
The AMWU’s incoming national secretary Steve Murphy unveiled an alliance with the Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) over the weekend, despite manufacturing’s long reliance on coal and gas.
Australia's power trip has lit up a classic class-culture struggle
For some people solar energy is the future. But millions of working class people fear it will make them surplus to requirements.
www.crikey.com.au
The tumeric latte (with oatmeal) inner city sorts despise the working class and those in the bush.
How do you know this? Did you ask them?
Ned_Flanders
Make me an Admin!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 77,158
- 142,364
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- 76'ers
Big tip, hipsters prefer the greens
Why does the ALP need to split? Fitzgibbon and Labor Right are already getting what they want, despite the leader being "Left".
www.theguardian.com
Labor agrees to support new gas projects after public brawl sparked by Joel Fitzgibbon
Party has signed off on document acknowledging role gas plays in economic growth, job creation and electricity generation
Why does the ALP need to split? Fitzgibbon and Labor Right are already getting what they want, despite the leader being "Left".
Labor agrees to support new gas projects after public brawl sparked by Joel Fitzgibbon
Party has signed off on document acknowledging role gas plays in economic growth, job creation and electricity generation
Papering it over is unlikely to last, no different to the coalition.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I don't really understand the vote stealing argument in a preferential system. Labor don't need to chase votes from the Greens in the majority of electorates so it doesn't wedge in any substantive way that would keep them out of government. The only seats where Labor needs to worry about the Greens are Labor/Greens marginals which would support a Labor government in any case (as even if they voted Green the Greens would support Labor, although obviously want some concessions). That Labor care more about winning these seats and fighting the Greens than winning government is on them
- May 1, 2016
- 28,820
- 56,175
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #238
If you look at the post you quoted, nowhere in it do I mention votes. I mean, that the policies and beliefs of the ALP are changed, shifted, because the people who would once have been ALP members are now Greens members, and this has lead to the Labor party becoming a centre-right party. Sure, you'll still get left wing leaders, but they have to keep the right of the party happy to maintain power.
Then you have the propaganda effect. The greens can criticise Labor for not being left wing enough, and the Libs can criticise Labor for not being right wing enough, and ditto for social issues. They get hit from both sides, and thus become unable to find a compromise, which is the point of their party.
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
So somehow the Greens are responsible for the Labor party both being more right wing than they would've been, but also wedging them from the left? Nobody who isn't a Labour/Greens voter actually listens to what the Greens have to say, so I don't really think the Greens criticising them for not being left wing enough has any impact electorally.
As for the Labor party being more right wing now, that's kind of their own problem. You could also argue that if the Greens are successful in getting 5 or so seats in inner cities around the place eventually they could be more successful at pushing a combined government policy leftward than they would be within the Labor party. Also the Greens don't have a lot of power. If you want to be a politician a career in the Labor party is going to appeal a hell of a lot more than one in the Greens. So I'm not really sure I buy that Labor would be so much more left leaning if the Greens didn't exist.
They may not literally despise them, but the unfortunate perception of The Greens is that they're a bunch of inner-city latte sippers.
An unfortunate irony given Bob Brown's own country roots.
They have a fairly diverse mix of ignoramuses.
What's wrong with latte sipping anyway? I do know a few Greens from the country. Regardless, I wonder why certain people from the country judge those from the cities for being unconcerned with their interests, when some country people are similarly unconcerned with city interests. Everyone is ultimately most concerned with the interests of their immediate surrounds.
If anything, the concern of the Greens for social welfare all over the nation would help more people outside their immediate environment than rural parties' concern for country issues first and foremost.
- Thread starter
- #245
Yeah! And while we’re at it, I wonder why poor people judge rich people for being unconcerned with their interests, when poor people are so unconcerned with rich people’s interests.
I mean, you’re so right, it goes both ways. The unemployed really have no right to expect help on being lifted out of poverty until they’re on the streets campaigning for tax breaks on luxury cars.
Last edited:
On paper, much of the Greens platform is OK, but their representatives (invariably inner-city) give rise to that whole stereotype.
This is one of the silliest comparisons I've ever heard. Are you trying to say all urban people have it good in life and all rural people are suffering badly in financial terms?
Do they, or is it the media playing on certain narratives that suit their ownership's interests?
- Thread starter
- #249
I’m saying it’s ******* stupid to pretend that two groups have the same level of mutual obligation when one is demonstrably more politically and economically marginalised than the other.
Right, so all the homeless people and urban poor simply don't exist? Or maybe climate change simply won't affect people in the country? Nor better access to affordable healthcare or education? Or a better level of welfare payments? Just urban-only issues, are they?
And they don't have the same level of mutual obligation, hence why rural people have more spent on them per capita than urban people, precisely because they are disadvantaged by the tyranny of distance. How that equates to politicians only caring about urban areas and not about the country is a mystery.
