The Greens

[Gralin]

Feel free to vote for whichever socialist party you want. They won't get elected, and even if they did, they'd never command any bargaining power.

well if the greens aren't going to use their bargaining power what value do they have

It's a bloody piss poor capitulation at the very first hurdle and I'm not sugar coating it.

They asked for balance of power in the senate to push for real action on climate change, they got given it and they've instead rubber stamped legislation that isn't and tried to dress it up as a win for climate action.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Forgive my ignorance, but how can legislation be written so that it can't be amended by a future government? Doesn't that fly in the face of... you know... democracy?

Because with a 50%+ majority you can pass a law that requires eg 66.6% majority to amend, that's one way. Courts will mostly back them up. Entrenched clauses. Kennett loved them.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Because with a 50%+ majority you can pass a law that requires eg 66.6% majority to amend, that's one way. Courts will mostly back them up. Entrenched clauses. Kennett loved them.

What an absolute rort of the system. No legislators should have the ability to mandate the majority required to overturn legislation.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

What an absolute rort of the system. No legislators should have the ability to mandate the majority required to overturn legislation.

It's probably not as simple as that though I don't have a big enough brain to do the relevant research. Certainly the Constitution is entrenched though, requiring a majority of voters in a majority of states to amend, that's one example.

 

[Gralin]

It's probably not as simple as that though I don't have a big enough brain to do the relevant research. Certainly the Constitution is entrenched though, requiring a majority of voters in a majority of states to amend, that's one example.

nah he's basically saying by getting the legislation amended to say 43% is a minimum a future government would have to get new legislation passed to change that

meaning the HoR and Senate would have to vote to allow a lower target

eg in 2025 Libs get back in and want to change the 2030 target from 43% to 30%, they have to pass legislation to do it

it's not some magic 66% majority, same rules would apply as for this bill

he's suggesting that there is no possible future in which the house and senate would majority vote for weaker targets, it ignores the fact that the current target is complete pox

 

[Johnny Bananas]

well if the greens aren't going to use their bargaining power what value do they have

You only have a certain amount of bargaining power with a Senate balance of power, compared to the House balance of power. It isn't a blank cheque. If you treat it like one, the government has a compelling case to say "give us full power if you want anything done ever again".

It's a bloody piss poor capitulation at the very first hurdle and I'm not sugar coating it.

They asked for balance of power in the senate to push for real action on climate change, they got given it and they've instead rubber stamped legislation that isn't and tried to dress it up as a win for climate action.

You're missing that Bowen was threatening to enact the policies by regulation instead of legislation. Not only did this remove a lot of the Greens' bargaining power, it would have made the policies easier to dismantle in future as they wouldn't have required a Senate majority to overturn. What was there to gain by voting no, exactly?

The commitment to 43% as a floor still allows the Greens to press for a higher target and hold another Labor pet project hostage if necessary. No deal, on the other hand, would have allowed Labor to use the excuse to the public that "we already made a target, we've done our bit, so the Greens can p!ss off". Labor is now still accountable if they don't take any further action, or approve any new mines.

 

[Gralin]

You only have a certain amount of bargaining power with a Senate balance of power, compared to the House balance of power. It isn't a blank cheque. If you treat it like one, the government has a compelling case to say "give us full power if you want anything done ever again".

I never wanted a Labor majority in the house for this reason as well, and this is why they did

You're missing that Bowen was threatening to enact the policies by regulation instead of legislation. Not only did this remove a lot of the Greens' bargaining power, it would have made the policies easier to dismantle in future as they wouldn't have required a Senate majority to overturn. What was there to gain by voting no, exactly?

we lose nothing really given this legislation will actually do nothing

but what the Greens have done is said, we negotiated behind closed doors with Labor, we won't say why and here's a s**t sandwich you should eat with a smile

The commitment to 43% as a floor still allows the Greens to press for a higher target and hold another Labor pet project hostage if necessary. No deal, on the other hand, would have allowed Labor to use the excuse to the public that "we already made a target, we've done our bit, so the Greens can p!ss off". Labor is now still accountable if they don't take any further action, or approve any new mines.

If they had no bargaining power before what will they have now? They've rolled over meekly at the first hurdle and tried to sell us that it was a win

The reality is we can't look to Governments or Corporations to actually do the right thing on climate change.

I mean the Vic Government is presenting a bill to make protesting illegal logging by their own state run company criminal.

These campaigners aren't going to actually fix anything

 

[Carn The Berries]

It's probably not as simple as that though I don't have a big enough brain to do the relevant research. Certainly the Constitution is entrenched though, requiring a majority of voters in a majority of states to amend, that's one example.

Would be interesting to see what the mechanics of it are. I've just read through the Bill and there isn't anything to suggest that it will be treated any different to any other piece of legislation.

 

[sataris]

1. They're not in power.
2. What SBD Gonzalez was saying is that the Greens' policy on donations reform is good, and that hasn't been invalidated.

I wouldn't be so quick to big note yourself.

1. They have the balance in the Senate.
2. Policies aren't worth the toilet paper they're printed on.

As I said before. Talk is cheap.

 

[Carn The Berries]

nah he's basically saying by getting the legislation amended to say 43% is a minimum a future government would have to get new legislation passed to change that

meaning the HoR and Senate would have to vote to allow a lower target

eg in 2025 Libs get back in and want to change the 2030 target from 43% to 30%, they have to pass legislation to do it

it's not some magic 66% majority, same rules would apply as for this bill

he's suggesting that there is no possible future in which the house and senate would majority vote for weaker targets, it ignores the fact that the current target is complete pox

F*** me - That is taking spin to an entirely new level.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Who could have seen this coming?

oh right, me.

Play Nice - Scott Morrison 2.0 - How Long? Part 8 - Lose Unit. Game Over, Bulldozer. Cont in Part 9

WTF? My post was about the Greens' proposals to clean up politics. ICAC with teeth, and donations reforms. Nothing to do with climate change.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

we lose nothing really given this legislation will actually do nothing

but what the Greens have done is said, we negotiated behind closed doors with Labor, we won't say why and here's a s**t sandwich you should eat with a smile

You're not answering the question. What was there to gain by voting no, exactly?

If they had no bargaining power before what will they have now?

I didn't say that, this is a pretty poor straw man argument. They still have the Senate balance of power and can use it to achieve more, if used selectively.

They've rolled over meekly at the first hurdle and tried to sell us that it was a win

Because the alternative was worse. I'll answer the question you have so far not answered: there was nothing to gain by voting no.

The reality is we can't look to Governments or Corporations to actually do the right thing on climate change.

I mean the Vic Government is presenting a bill to make protesting illegal logging by their own state run company criminal.

These campaigners aren't going to actually fix anything

Of course we can't. If anyone thought voting Green is all that was needed for climate action, they were severely deluded. The climate war is not over so long as the people are publicly seen to be demanding more.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

1. They have the balance in the Senate.

As I said above to Gralin, that isn't a blank cheque. Bowen made the threat of enacting the policy through regulation rather than legislation, which took away a lot of the bargaining power and would have made even this inadequate gain easier to overturn, since the Liberals are unlikely to have a senate majority before at least 2028.

2. Policies aren't worth the toilet paper they're printed on.

And if you'd said that at the time, that would have been a fair response in the context that conversation happened in.

Instead, you've trotted it out months later, in a completely different context, just to boast about how intelligent you are.

 

[Gralin]

You're not answering the question. What was there to gain by voting no, exactly?


I didn't say that, this is a pretty poor straw man argument. They still have the Senate balance of power and can use it to achieve more, if used selectively.


Because the alternative was worse. I'll answer the question you have so far not answered: there was nothing to gain by voting no.


Of course we can't. If anyone thought voting Green is all that was needed for climate action, they were severely deluded. The climate war is not over so long as the people are publicly seen to be demanding more.

I see no value in them voting for s**t legislation. To me this damages their credentials on climate change.

If the same end result was going to happen from them voting no they could have voted no and stood by their election promise and so called principles.

 

[mighty tiges]

Bandt is an attention seeking little turd who is only sooking and lashing out now because he snookered himself and got owned trying to play political games over climate.

He then stupidly went after Keating and got what he deserved. FFS, Bandt has never been in government and never will so it's easy to take pot shots from the cheap seats. Bandt has done nothing to change Australia for the better yet he's attacking someone like Keating who achieved so much LMAO! What an idiot!

 

[mighty tiges]

I see no value in them voting for s**t legislation. To me this damages their credentials on climate change.

If the same end result was going to happen from them voting no they could have voted no and stood by their election promise and so called principles.

I'm no fan of the Greens but they finally made a pragmatic decision for once. They will get credit for that.

If they had opposed this and were pictured sitting next to Dutton and co. then Labor's 2025 election ad would've already been done for them.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I see no value in them voting for s**t legislation. To me this damages their credentials on climate change.

Because it was going to happen anyway, and they at least left the door open to negotiate future cuts the next time Labor want them to pass a Senate bill that isn't also in the Greens policy manifesto.

If the same end result was going to happen from them voting no they could have voted no and stood by their election promise and so called principles.

That would cost them in two ways.

1. By not making Labor declare their target to be a floor rather than a ceiling, Labor can't now convince the public that there's no possibility of them agreeing to further cuts for the rest of this term. They have explicitly left that as an option, and so if they try to use the excuse that the issue is settled, it will be clear to the public that they're frauds.

2. The Greens would have got pilloried in public discourse as being wreckers and unsuited to governance. People were already parroting those lines even on this forum. This blunts that attack.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Bandt is an attention seeking little turd who is only sooking and lashing out now because he snookered himself and got owned trying to play political games over climate.

I'm sorry, what? Are you seriously mad at a politician for playing political games? That's literally their job. They have an agenda to execute, and they can use whatever leverage and tactics are at their disposal to get it done. History only remembers what politicians actually got done, and not what gambits they used to do it (provided they are legal).

By the way, Bandt is correct. 43% is not in keeping with the advice of scientists on how to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change. And Labor do take millions in donations from the fossil fuels industry, so they're putting their corporate donors ahead of what's best for the people.

He then stupidly went after Keating and got what he deserved.

What, having some decrepit old man call him names? Keating is a hypocrite trying to run from his own legacy.

FFS, Bandt has never been in government and never will so it's easy to take pot shots from the cheap seats.

Can you please tell me which stocks are going to rise the most in the next 20 years? Since you can confidently predict the future.

Bandt has done nothing to change Australia for the better

Yes he has, he introduced the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) 2011, which passed into law.

yet he's attacking someone like Keating who achieved so much LMAO! What an idiot!

So what, we should all bow down to Saint Keating and never question anything he did?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Forgive my ignorance, but how can legislation be written so that it can't be amended by a future government? Doesn't that fly in the face of... you know... democracy?

You're forgiven

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

I'm sorry, what? Are you seriously mad at a politician for playing political games? That's literally their job. They have an agenda to execute, and they can use whatever leverage and tactics are at their disposal to get it done. History only remembers what politicians actually got done, and not what gambits they used to do it (provided they are legal).

By the way, Bandt is correct. 43% is not in keeping with the advice of scientists on how to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change. And Labor do take millions in donations from the fossil fuels industry, so they're putting their corporate donors ahead of what's best for the people.


What, having some decrepit old man call him names? Keating is a hypocrite trying to run from his own legacy.


Can you please tell me which stocks are going to rise the most in the next 20 years? Since you can confidently predict the future.


Yes he has, he introduced the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) 2011, which passed into law.


So what, we should all bow down to Saint Keating and never question anything he did?

You're way too eloquent. I'm gonna go with:

Bandt is an attention seeking little turd who is only sooking and lashing out now because he snookered himself and got owned trying to play political games over climate.

He then stupidly went after Keating and got what he deserved. FFS, Bandt has never been in government and never will so it's easy to take pot shots from the cheap seats. Bandt has done nothing to change Australia for the better yet he's attacking someone like Keating who achieved so much LMAO! What an idiot!

Lmao nice melt!

 

[#40]

John Howard said Bob Hawke was the best Labor Prime Australia ever had.

 

[mighty tiges]

I'm sorry, what? Are you seriously mad at a politician for playing political games? That's literally their job. They have an agenda to execute, and they can use whatever leverage and tactics are at their disposal to get it done. History only remembers what politicians actually got done, and not what gambits they used to do it (provided they are legal).

So the Greens are no different to the major parties despite their claims otherwise.

By the way, Bandt is correct. 43% is not in keeping with the advice of scientists on how to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change. And Labor do take millions in donations from the fossil fuels industry, so they're putting their corporate donors ahead of what's best for the people.

Ah, the old Andrew Bolt excuse. If you have anything to do with fossil fuels you can't be pro climate action . We're in a transition phase. We can't practically for technological and economical reasons switch over immediately to clean energy which would be the "ideal". No apologies for being pragmatic.

By the way, the people gave a mandate for 43% at the recent election and Bandt and the Greens have decided to vote for it. Now we can finally get on with starting real climate action. Remember the 43% is a floor setting based on existing tech and industry methods. No doubt natural improvements will see further emission reductions by 2030.

What, having some decrepit old man call him names? Keating is a hypocrite trying to run from his own legacy.

The last thing Keating can be accused of is running away from what he did in government. He'll always defend it even if others disagree and criticise him.

It's Bandt who is the hypocrite. Seems everyone is bourgeois or neo-liberal except him!

The new Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist. He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments - “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time” - that Bandt views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits.
The ideological drive behind the Greens

Can you please tell me which stocks are going to rise the most in the next 20 years? Since you can confidently predict the future.

Bandt is 50 years old and never been in a government. Also are you seriously trying to claim that the Greens will win 76+ seats in the lower house in the next 10-15 years?

The Teals in one election have won more lower house seats than the Greens have combined over the past 20 years.

Yes he has, he introduced the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) 2011, which passed into law.

Actually it was Labor's Maria Vamvakinou (Cadwell) who gave a speech in Parliament on 15 June 2011 about life threatening conditions affecting firefighters after a meeting with the UFU.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2Ff2b003ac-3c2a-4ce2-94a6-69827f8e1f98%2F0146;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2Ff2b003ac-3c2a-4ce2-94a6-69827f8e1f98%2F0134%22

Her, Bandt and Liberal Russell Broadbent then introduced a joint private members bill on 4 July 2011 which was passed into law (under a Labor government I might add).

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F81949ec5-bb5e-4d57-b163-4c4b25a141ee%2F0065;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F81949ec5-bb5e-4d57-b163-4c4b25a141ee%2F0061%22

So what, we should all bow down to Saint Keating and never question anything he did?

As opposed to believing Dear Leader Bandt's s*** doesn't stink who has effectively done sweet FA for the country in comparison despite 12 years and counting in parliament? As you say, "history only remembers what politicians actually got done".

Keating was a political street fighter (joined Labor when he was 15 IIRC). No one said he was faultless by any means but for a little twirp like Bandt to try and trash him today was laughable. It was nothing but a desperate act by a desperate pollie of a minor party trying to deflect. It was aimed to try and appease his base who deludedly wanted a hardline stance or nothing. Bandt was trying to blame everyone and anyone else for stupidly snookering himself.

You're way too eloquent. I'm gonna go with:


Lmao nice melt!

Thanks Adam. I didn't hold a media conference today to have a tantrum blaming everyone else for him not getting his own way including blaming a former PM that hasn't been in office for 26 years .

 

[Kwality]

Paul Keating's attack on the Greens is disgusting imo.
Labor is not the party for the environment at all , look at the state of the country.He's still going on about 2009 .
He called Bob Brown a zealot for trying to save old growth forrest. He did nothing to save the barrier reef or stop our addiction to coal.
I agree with him on China but he's full of s**t on this one. He's just acting like another partisan w***er.
The 43% is a symbolic number that does nothing at all.

‘Bandt is a bounder’: Keating fires up in climate wars as Greens back Albanese bill

The former prime minister defended Labor’s environmental record after Adam Bandt described the government as “neoliberal” and “now the party of the centre-right”.

www.smh.com.au

'save the barrier reef,' you say:

Scientists are finding promising new signs of resilience on the Great Barrier Reef

Record amounts of new coral growth have been discovered in some sections of the Great Barrier Reef. While scientists say the findings are hugely promising, they caution that the reef's health is still extremely vulnerable to climate change.

www.sbs.com.au

Record amounts of new coral growth have been discovered in some sections of the Great Barrier Reef. While scientists say the findings are hugely promising, they caution that the reef's health is still extremely vulnerable to climate change.​

'The 43% is a symbolic number that does nothing at all.'

Sadly no one can ask 43% of what, & what is 100%.

 

[Brad Goodman]

*, that is way more fanboying for a political party than I can handle

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Sadly no one can ask 43% of what, & what is 100%.

Rubbish. 100% is the 2005 levels.

A 43% reduction equates to 57% of that level.