The Greens

[Saint]

A fair bit of this is about the optics. All of the LNP and a decent few in Labor have become persuaded that publicly aligning themselves with the greens is electoral poison. Dumb on both parts, particularly Labor whose voter base is less concerned about the matter.

Necessary for the libs who have run a scare campaign for so long that they can’t even contemplate compromise. And of course, in being that way, they left what they thought were blue ribbon seats open for the teals to just pluck out of their hands.

Fear of the Greens is utterly unreal.

It's the natural Conservative position. They oppose progress at all costs. The Greens are focused on progress. It's policy-driven for the Libs (when they know what they believe in).

For the ALP, it's typical pragmatism. The only group that the ALP will fight harder than the Greens are other factions within the ALP. They don't care about the policy outcome, they care about power.

 

[Proper Gander]

The only group that the ALP will fight harder than the Greens are other factions within the ALP. They don't care about the policy outcome, they care about power.

Basically true, but not true of everyone within the party, but historically there has been no group so capable of hanging their dirty washing for all to see. Quite nice to see the Libs having a bit of a tilt at that one though.

It’s been a fascinating election. Possibly the most surprising part for me was discovering (or finding out for certain) that I am a party member of the Greens. Not certain how it happened but I have a dim recollection of getting the shits, getting drunk, and deciding that I needed to play a more active role in our nations future.

I did notice a significant uptick in greens emails over the past 3 years but I get spammed so relentlessly that I tend to glance and delete. But my personal dear PG email from Adam pretty much confirms it.

 

[Seeds]

The problem is that the ‘Australian Greens’ doesn’t really exist - the state ‘branches’ are really separate organisations who own the Greens brand independently in each state, and essentially have an agreement to caucus together in the federal parliament

I come from New South Wales, where the activist Greens are quite literally communists. Like, a huge percentage of them openly identify as Trotskyites. The party has a close working relationship with the Socialist Alliance, often coordinating on protests and speaking at each other’s events. People move fluidly between the two parties.

This is very different to (say) WA, where the Greens are fundamentally environmental activists who grew out of the anti-nuclear movement and do not really interact with the Socialist Alliance at all

The composition of these state Greens parties, the way they operate and set policy, even what they believe the ‘Green movement’ is - it is very, very different from any other party, much more fractured, and it makes their federal caucus dynamics very weird.

The greens need to rid themselves of the watermelons if they ever wish to win an election. They have a big opportunity to do so in the next 10-15 years. But not if the full on communist component of the party has influence on economic decisions. They definately should play a role in economic policy and go big on policy as younger people want it. But go big in the right way. Not the wrong way.

 

[Festerz]

The problem is that the ‘Australian Greens’ doesn’t really exist - the state ‘branches’ are really separate organisations who own the Greens brand independently in each state, and essentially have an agreement to caucus together in the federal parliament

I come from New South Wales, where the activist Greens are quite literally communists. Like, a huge percentage of them openly identify as Trotskyites. The party has a close working relationship with the Socialist Alliance, often coordinating on protests and speaking at each other’s events. People move fluidly between the two parties.

This is very different to (say) WA, where the Greens are fundamentally environmental activists who grew out of the anti-nuclear movement and do not really interact with the Socialist Alliance at all

The composition of these state Greens parties, the way they operate and set policy, even what they believe the ‘Green movement’ is - it is very, very different from any other party, much more fractured, and it makes their federal caucus dynamics very weird.

Excellent summary and thank you.

Your commentary of the Greens being 'State Branches' borne out with the abrupt resignation today of SA Greens Parliamentary leader Tammy Franks due to white anting from her own colleagues from the SA Greens branch.

Greens supporters often like to paint their party as being above the factional politicking that affects both Liberal and Labor parties but that is BS of course.

 

[evolved2]

If you can't handle the heat, use your power/wealth/influence and the legal system to hurt the people who caused the heat.


https://www.theguardian.com/austral...lmost-ruined-me-and-it-could-happen-to-anyone

This was a cabinet minister, a very wealthy and powerful man who has parliamentary privilege and who wants to be prime minister, suing me – an unemployed refugee advocate – over a single six-word deleted tweet which linked to a news report.​

https://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/greens-senator-mehreen-faruqi-sues-pauline-hanson-over-insulting-and-humiliating-tweet/news-story/f1093380c7361b26136b6ffaeb1d7aca

Your thoughts?

 

[evolved2]

Sarah Witty, who won Melbourne against Adam Bandt, seems like a thoroughly likeable person.

How do Greens voters feel about her win?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

A fair bit of this is about the optics. All of the LNP and a decent few in Labor have become persuaded that publicly aligning themselves with the greens is electoral poison. Dumb on both parts, particularly Labor whose voter base is less concerned about the matter.

I partly agree with you and partly don't. I think the Greens are indeed poison to half the country, although a lot of this is not their own fault. Most media, including social media, is controlled by the extremely rich, and anyone who dares point out the rich's exploitation of the Australian worker will have their character thoroughly assassinated in said media. And the rich need an enemy to keep the people distracted and divided, just like the Wizard needed Elphaba in Wicked.

Some Labor supporters may not be concerned about the Greens, but I'd argue that the majority of them are, because they've been set against the Greens by their own party, Albanese most of all, perhaps because he's insecure about having sold out from his radical youth whereas the Greens haven't done so yet.

The Greens serve as a very convenient scapegoat for Labor's own failings and lack of ambition. Just witness how much Labor have cried and wailed and torn their hair for years over the Greens not voting for Rudd's ETS bill. Anything to distract from Labor's own failings, whether there was a good reason to vote against that bill so or not (there was), whether this craptastic ETS would have survived an Abbott government or not (it wouldn't have), whether Labor would have lost to Abbott in 2013 or not (they would have, they were a shambles). I've met too many Labor supporters who deny all of these things no matter what evidence they're presented with, because they have happily gulped down whatever Kool-Aid Labor have offered them and asked for seconds.

But it doesn't really matter what Labor's base think of the Greens. What matters is what the general public think, and they've been told every day for more than two decades that the Greens are evil and want to destroy everything. It's similar propaganda to the idea that the Liberals are superior economic managers, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, yet it persists through repetition by people with media megaphones.

That is the Labor Party for you in a nutshell though: we could do what it takes to fix the system, but why would we, when the extremely rich will toss us some of their delicious table scraps if we do their bidding? After all, nothing good will happen if we lose. Just pay no attention to the fact that very little good will happen either if we're in power.

But it works. And the more the Liberals keep losing, the closer the extremely rich will grow to Labor. They like backing a winner even more than they like their Liberal servants.

Necessary for the libs who have run a scare campaign for so long that they can’t even contemplate compromise. And of course, in being that way, they left what they thought were blue ribbon seats open for the teals to just pluck out of their hands.

Fear of the Greens is utterly unreal.

True. The Liberals played themselves. But was that due to the Greens, or just being led by rabid conservatives, and then trying to ape Trump?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Sarah Witty, who won Melbourne against Adam Bandt, seems like a thoroughly likeable person.

How do Greens voters feel about her win?

What specifically do you find likeable about her?

 

[evolved2]

What specifically do you find likeable about her?

Witty worked with several charitable organisations, including as CEO of The Nappy Collective and as a staff member at Homes for Homes. Witty has also been a foster carer.

Sarah Witty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Witty worked with several charitable organisations, including as CEO of The Nappy Collective and as a staff member at Homes for Homes. Witty has also been a foster carer.

Sarah Witty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How much did you donate to her charitable organisations?

 

[evolved2]

How much did you donate to her charitable organisations?

Nothing. How much did you donate to Adam Bandt's campaign?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If Witty's political party is so good, why does it need charitable organisations to help poor people?

Shouldn't her government be doing that?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Witty worked with several charitable organisations, including as CEO of The Nappy Collective and as a staff member at Homes for Homes. Witty has also been a foster carer.

Sarah Witty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's good. I would say that many politicians, including Greens politicians, have worked with charitable organisations, and many more have volunteered for them too. That's always nice to see, but it doesn't make Witty any more likeable to me than several other politicians.

At the end of the day, Witty does not control her party room, but is obligated to vote the way her party room decides, so her individual good qualities don't mean that much in a majority Labor government. The same is true for any other Labor MP who does not have a very large influence within the party room.

 

[Festerz]

If Witty's political party is so good, why does it need charitable organisations to help poor people?

Shouldn't her government be doing that?

Seriously?

 

[Gralin]

Seriously?

yes
charity is a failure of government

 

[evolved2]

If Witty's political party is so good, why does it need charitable organisations to help poor people?

Shouldn't her government be doing that?

I didn't say her political party is good. She seems to be a good person fighting for change within the system.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I didn't say her political party is good. She seems to be a good person fighting for change within the system.

Yeah, but so is The Punter but you aren't fawning over him

 

[The Punter]

Yeah, but so is The Punter but you aren't fawning over him

Thanks for the endorsement of me being a good person.

Now I'm off to unsubscribe from this thread. Enjoy!

 

[Gralin]

Hey Festerz you want to explain why you think charity isn't a failure of government?

Governments give charities money all the time instead of you know, directly helping the people the charities supposedly support

Charities are not an efficient way to get money into peoples hands either, most of it goes to "running the charity"

 

[evolved2]

Yeah, but so is The Punter but you aren't fawning over him

I like The Punter. He's genuine and intelligent.

 

[evolved2]

Thanks for the endorsement of me being a good person.

Now I'm off to unsubscribe from this thread. Enjoy!

Listerine too.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Thanks for the endorsement of me being a good person.

Now I'm off to unsubscribe from this thread. Enjoy!

Witty too!

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The only group that the ALP will fight harder than the Greens are other factions within the ALP.

Are you sure about that? I'm looking from the outside in when it comes to Labor, but it seems to me that after the factions tore each other to shreds between 2009 and 2013, Rudd's subsequent reforms have pretty much fixed the problem. Labor Left and Labor Right will always be rival contenders for power, but at this point they feel like two people who have played the Prisoner's Dilemma many times — they've realised it's more profitable to both of them to keep working together and be on the same page, at least publicly.

It helps that they don't seem to have major ideological differences anymore, as Albanese from Labor Left has had a far less ambitious reform agenda than Bill Shorten who was from Labor Right.

Greens supporters often like to paint their party as being above the factional politicking that affects both Liberal and Labor parties but that is BS of course.

Correct, it never has been as harmonious as they claim. Politics attracts people who crave power and will stomp on others around them to get there, no matter what part of the political spectrum it is. I will say that the less money that's involved and the less power the party has, the fewer chancers you get. And the true left usually kill each other over ideological differences rather than power, probably because they usually have so little of it.

 

[Festerz]

Hey Festerz you want to explain why you think charity isn't a failure of government?

Governments give charities money all the time instead of you know, directly helping the people the charities supposedly support

Charities are not an efficient way to get money into peoples hands either, most of it goes to "running the charity"

As someone who spends a fair amount of time volunteering for charities your definition of what they and those who contribute to them do and why in a mixed economy is offensive and myopic. Of course all charities are not the same but that's not the point.

Take my time as a volunteer for Orange Sky Laundry for example. It's a service that provides support and connection to homeless and vulnerable people in a way that imho you could never put dollar value on and could never be done by a government agency. The people who volunteer their time snd resources to support it in the early and late hours of the day after working their jobs or going to uni/school understand that. They don't bemoan the fact that it's not being provided by government - they, and the young guys who started it, understand that its a service that could only be done through volunteers with financial support of governments and businesses.

Anyway I'm not interested in arguing the toss as to why charities fill a vital and meaningful role in ALL economies with the likes of you in a shouty politics thread.

 

[Gralin]

As someone who spends a fair amount of time volunteering for charities your definition of what they and those who contribute to them do and why in a mixed economy is offensive and myopic.

Take my time as a volunteer for Orange Sky Laundry for example. It's a service that provides support and connection to homeless and vulnerable people in a way that imho you could never put dollar value on and could never be done by a government agency. The people who volunteer their time snd resources to support it in the early and late hours of the day after working their jobs or going to uni/school understand that. They don't bemoan the fact that it's not being provided by government - they, and the young guys who started it, understand that its a service that could only be done through volunteers with financial support of governments and businesses.

Anyway I'm not interested in arguing why charities exist with the likes of you in a politics thread.

The failure of government is that charity needing to exist