
- Jul 5, 2012
- 28,905
- 48,846
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Kidding, right?
Someone hitting the turps?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Supercoach Rd 14 Gameday Talk 👑 - Trades - Butters time? - Vent Thread - Big Freeze Competition 2025 ,//, AFL Fantasy Rd 14 Round 14 AFF Talk - VC/C Thread - AF Trades
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
You sound a bit eager to drop the scattergunIt is nuts to think women couldn't own property that long ago. Even as late as the 80s couldn't get a bank loan and if they could they would probably require a male guarantor.
I feel some of the shaming comes from wanting to keep them in a box and our Christian Church roots had no issues using sex and desire to control their customers. Specifically if women have no options in life, they will simply breed. We see the same discrimination with gays.....those horrible non- procreators denying the church of future customers and king's their next army.
Personally I believe religions like this have to change to align with our laws or leave Australia.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Not really, as none of that was true. It's a fantasy dreamed up by someone who likes to give the impression they know a lot, but really know very little.Another insightful take on things Green. Thank you.
I can see how you in particular would think that.The LNP are probably easier to work with imo.
The author is not wrong that the Greens are in touch with reality on climate change, social justice and economic justice. What I think he misses is that the Australian people are often not, and the media and political establishment have a vested interest in making sure they continue not to be.Patrick Marlborough, in Crikey
The Greens must radicalise, or perish
This doesn't make sense, if the centre is radical, then society would look a lot worse and a lot different.The only radicalism I see in parliament is the prime minister’s radical centrism
This doesn't make sense, if the centre is radical, then society would look a lot worse and a lot different.
Patrick Marlborough, in Crikey
The Greens must radicalise, or perish
The media and political narrative is clear: the Greens’ woeful election performance is the result of voters punishing them for their dangerously radical beliefs (don’t bomb hospitals, starving children is wrong, you should be able to afford the dentist) — the rabid ravings of frothy-lipped eco-terrorists, gone feral from inhaling the fumes of dangerous culture war dogma (trans people should be protected, refugees shouldn’t be tortured, etc).
But if you truly think the Greens ran an “extreme” campaign, you’re probably a tenured columnist writing for somewhere like, oh, I don’t know, [REDACTED]. Among a creaky old media who vaguely remember Bob Ellis as Australia’s Chomsky, the Greens will always appear as a nightmare vision of Unabomber-adjacent Wahhabism. It’s wild that the party’s senior members still haven’t learnt this rather blunt, obvious lesson: these people will always hate them, no matter what they do.
Throughout the federal election, the Greens’ leadership — perhaps cowed by recent state results — pulled back on what various multimillion-dollar smear campaigns framed as their divisive, extremist ideas, such as climate justice, Aboriginal land reform, and ending Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Instead the party made funding social services by taxing megacorps (if this is “radical”, God help us) the centrepiece of an otherwise listless campaign — and were somehow surprised by the vitriol they received from the government, media and lobby groups.
The greatest trick Anthony Albanese pulled this election wasn’t trouncing Peter Dutton; it was sidestepping climate justice and Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the campaign. He achieved this in large part thanks to an obliging media that also prefers to avoid those conversations. Gaza was (and is) Albanese’s greatest weakness, just as surely as it will be the core of his legacy.
The Greens understood this. The past two years saw the party’s diverse left-wing base galvanised by issues the prime minister loathes touching. What momentum the Greens have had since 2022 stems from a growing, popular discontent around issues that are as “distant” as Gaza and as immediate as the price of groceries. Passionate volunteers, grassroots organising and genuinely leftist and progressive actions lent the party an energy that, for a while, made it seem like 2025 was theirs for the taking.
Instead, the party pivoted to policies and messaging that hinged on centrist compromise. Inevitably, the wind went out of their sails, and that excitement and energy rolled back like Bob Brown’s hairline.
There is an awareness among this “new” young-left faction that the party’s leadership and Bike Tory rusted-ons let them down — that they blew it by trying to beat Labor at its own game.
“We tried to become all centrist during the Richard Di Natale era,” a prominent party strategist told me on the condition of anonymity, “and that didn’t work.”
“We need to keep these diverse communities that have found the Greens through our advocacy on Gaza,” they said. “If we stop talking about Gaza, we stop demanding racial justice, we stop demanding economic justice, and we just try and be like some centrist climate movement — then what separates us from the teals?”
On the party’s new blood, they said: “All these young people and immigrant communities who voted for us for the first time: if we take one step back, why would they stay with us?”
The argument that Gaza cost them the election is a non-starter. “We didn’t do it to be popular,” this person stated flatly. “We did it to do the right thing.”
If there’s anything Albanese understands, it’s that doing the “right” thing isn’t worth the bother. The Greens’ failure to exploit this during the election was an own goal. The prime minister’s petulant sooking about Max Chandler-Mather edged levels of cringe that should have been weaponised against. Instead, we were all told to act like his nappy-filling had a shimmer of cool to it.
What may have undone the Greens more than anything is that familiar weakness of any progressive party whose reformist policies require considered conversation.
“My experience campaigning was where there were higher levels of housing stress or income stress, the impacts of anti-politics were much stronger,” a young and well-regarded Greens organiser told me. “When people are too worried about paying rent or eating, they don’t give a **** about politics.”
And yet, it’s these folks they found the easiest to win over to their cause. “The anti-politics people were by far the easiest demographic to swing to voting Greens for the first time,” they told me.
“It was the message of winnability that usually got them over the line: in our campaign, we told everyone just how close it was last time and you’d just see people’s eyes light up. Like, decades of political stagnation and being told constantly that change is impossible had left them completely switched off and the idea that that change was within reach really cut through.”
They went on to say that, with hindsight, the disappointing outcome makes sense “as a party coming up against a really strong contradiction: in a lot of cases, the classes of people we’re talking to have contradictory interests. Broadly, who’s benefiting from the status quo, and who’s not — I think that’s what’s come through in the results.”
The party may succumb to its enemies’ revisionism, however. These younger party members dread that the elders will steer them towards something resembling an appendage of the ALP, existing solely to prod the government in the ribs when it’s about to steer the proverbial “progressive patriotism”-fuelled Dodge Ram off the road.
The charge that the Greens are radical is frightening because they appear to be the only party addressing reality. Climate catastrophe is now inevitable. Refugees are being illegally mistreated. Israel is committing genocide. I can’t afford to go to the dentist.
The only radicalism I see in parliament is the prime minister’s radical centrism, the performance and maintenance of which requires a strain of disengagement that is genuinely, frighteningly, extreme.
Sure, and GDP is up as wellMore people voted green at this election than ever before
In the 2021 home and away season, 14 of the 18 teams won more games than the year before!More people voted green at this election than ever before
In the 2021 home and away season, 14 of the 18 teams won more games than the year before!
See this is interesting. I had to read your post word for word.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"
Funny that the greens in this election went central wing, considering in the past they were a left wing type group.Patrick Marlborough, in Crikey
The Greens must radicalise, or perish
The media and political narrative is clear: the Greens’ woeful election performance is the result of voters punishing them for their dangerously radical beliefs (don’t bomb hospitals, starving children is wrong, you should be able to afford the dentist) — the rabid ravings of frothy-lipped eco-terrorists, gone feral from inhaling the fumes of dangerous culture war dogma (trans people should be protected, refugees shouldn’t be tortured, etc).
But if you truly think the Greens ran an “extreme” campaign, you’re probably a tenured columnist writing for somewhere like, oh, I don’t know, [REDACTED]. Among a creaky old media who vaguely remember Bob Ellis as Australia’s Chomsky, the Greens will always appear as a nightmare vision of Unabomber-adjacent Wahhabism. It’s wild that the party’s senior members still haven’t learnt this rather blunt, obvious lesson: these people will always hate them, no matter what they do.
Throughout the federal election, the Greens’ leadership — perhaps cowed by recent state results — pulled back on what various multimillion-dollar smear campaigns framed as their divisive, extremist ideas, such as climate justice, Aboriginal land reform, and ending Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Instead the party made funding social services by taxing megacorps (if this is “radical”, God help us) the centrepiece of an otherwise listless campaign — and were somehow surprised by the vitriol they received from the government, media and lobby groups.
The greatest trick Anthony Albanese pulled this election wasn’t trouncing Peter Dutton; it was sidestepping climate justice and Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the campaign. He achieved this in large part thanks to an obliging media that also prefers to avoid those conversations. Gaza was (and is) Albanese’s greatest weakness, just as surely as it will be the core of his legacy.
The Greens understood this. The past two years saw the party’s diverse left-wing base galvanised by issues the prime minister loathes touching. What momentum the Greens have had since 2022 stems from a growing, popular discontent around issues that are as “distant” as Gaza and as immediate as the price of groceries. Passionate volunteers, grassroots organising and genuinely leftist and progressive actions lent the party an energy that, for a while, made it seem like 2025 was theirs for the taking.
Instead, the party pivoted to policies and messaging that hinged on centrist compromise. Inevitably, the wind went out of their sails, and that excitement and energy rolled back like Bob Brown’s hairline.
There is an awareness among this “new” young-left faction that the party’s leadership and Bike Tory rusted-ons let them down — that they blew it by trying to beat Labor at its own game.
“We tried to become all centrist during the Richard Di Natale era,” a prominent party strategist told me on the condition of anonymity, “and that didn’t work.”
“We need to keep these diverse communities that have found the Greens through our advocacy on Gaza,” they said. “If we stop talking about Gaza, we stop demanding racial justice, we stop demanding economic justice, and we just try and be like some centrist climate movement — then what separates us from the teals?”
On the party’s new blood, they said: “All these young people and immigrant communities who voted for us for the first time: if we take one step back, why would they stay with us?”
The argument that Gaza cost them the election is a non-starter. “We didn’t do it to be popular,” this person stated flatly. “We did it to do the right thing.”
If there’s anything Albanese understands, it’s that doing the “right” thing isn’t worth the bother. The Greens’ failure to exploit this during the election was an own goal. The prime minister’s petulant sooking about Max Chandler-Mather edged levels of cringe that should have been weaponised against. Instead, we were all told to act like his nappy-filling had a shimmer of cool to it.
What may have undone the Greens more than anything is that familiar weakness of any progressive party whose reformist policies require considered conversation.
“My experience campaigning was where there were higher levels of housing stress or income stress, the impacts of anti-politics were much stronger,” a young and well-regarded Greens organiser told me. “When people are too worried about paying rent or eating, they don’t give a **** about politics.”
And yet, it’s these folks they found the easiest to win over to their cause. “The anti-politics people were by far the easiest demographic to swing to voting Greens for the first time,” they told me.
“It was the message of winnability that usually got them over the line: in our campaign, we told everyone just how close it was last time and you’d just see people’s eyes light up. Like, decades of political stagnation and being told constantly that change is impossible had left them completely switched off and the idea that that change was within reach really cut through.”
They went on to say that, with hindsight, the disappointing outcome makes sense “as a party coming up against a really strong contradiction: in a lot of cases, the classes of people we’re talking to have contradictory interests. Broadly, who’s benefiting from the status quo, and who’s not — I think that’s what’s come through in the results.”
The party may succumb to its enemies’ revisionism, however. These younger party members dread that the elders will steer them towards something resembling an appendage of the ALP, existing solely to prod the government in the ribs when it’s about to steer the proverbial “progressive patriotism”-fuelled Dodge Ram off the road.
The charge that the Greens are radical is frightening because they appear to be the only party addressing reality. Climate catastrophe is now inevitable. Refugees are being illegally mistreated. Israel is committing genocide. I can’t afford to go to the dentist.
The only radicalism I see in parliament is the prime minister’s radical centrism, the performance and maintenance of which requires a strain of disengagement that is genuinely, frighteningly, extreme.
Yep that is true. But sadly they only got 1 seat, despite almost 1.9 million votes.More people voted green at this election than ever before
Funny that the greens in this election went central wing, considering in the past they were a left wing type group.
I don't know if they need to go to the " radicalism" path.
Funny thing was from the 1970s to the early 1990s, there was a semi decent party that was the undisputed 3rd biggest party outside the big 2 of Labor and Coalition. Yep the Democrats.
Their alignment wasn't left wing or right wing. They were centre.
Eventually the democrats slowly faded into being irrelevant. They didn't even participate the 2016 Australian Federal election.
There were various political parties in the 1990s and 2000s that tussled for that spot as the 3rd Major party...
It started off with the democrats, then one nation. Now it's the greens
See this is interesting. I had to read your post word for word.
You need influence or money, or both. If you got one that's good. Influence and generate money. You can also buy influence too.
But if you got both in good spades, your are a chance to do something
I mean Donald Trump being a billionaire and funded his presidential campaigns. No Doubt his influence and money helped him become president again.
Gina Rhinehart a billionaire, funded the Dutton led Liberals/national coalition.
Albanese and the Labor party won again. I don't know if he had billionaires helping him. But there would be some political donations to his party.
Clive Palmer is a billionaire too. He spent 60 million on the election campaign funding his trumpet of the patriots party.
One Nation party.... Well the 1st person we think of in that party is Pauline Hanson.
Then there is the Greens. They are not funded by some rich billionaire in the shadows. But slowly they have got people voting for them.
They have been around since the early 1990s. In the 2022 election, they got around 1.4 million voters and 4 seats. In 2025, they got 1,895,000 or close to 1.9 million voters but only 1 seat.
I am looking forward to the next election in 2028.
I am curious if they can get 2 million or more voters and a few seats, 5-8 seats to be exact
Correct. The only seat the Greens can realistically win without receiving preferences from Labor is Melbourne, because they can get a primary vote in the mid-40s in a good year. They didn't achieve that in any of their Queensland seats. So Melbourne is really the only place where they're masters of their own destiny.Seats depend on preferences. If libs perform poorly again greens will be up against Labor and will struggle for seats
The fact this question is being discussed in this thread is pretty crazy, in my view.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?