Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,705
- 53,005
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Recognition for Palestine was never going to happen because the Greens put up a motion. It's a controversial issue with global implications. Only three major Western nations have done it and that was all in the past week or so. It will take time but you see the tide turning globally.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,705
- 53,005
- AFL Club
- West Coast
At least once on climate change. That was a fun 15 years since.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #6,129
Yeah and them Gillard negotiated with them and what happened?
Oh that's right they passed legislation.
Rudd and Albo refused to work with the greens then and Albo is still doing that now.
Labor also votes with the libs a lot more than the greens do.
And the main issue for the majority of the last 15 years was the coalition undoing any progress that got made under Gillard, followed by almost a full term of inaction from Labor
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,705
- 53,005
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Ham-fisted legislation that allowed the Liberals to get back in in a landslide and undo everything. The fault for that debacle sits squarely with both Rudd for not having the courage of his convictions and calling a double dissolution and the Greens allowing their convictions to halt incremental progress.
Don't disagree at all that Labor and Liberal side together a lot, was simply replying to the one specific talking point.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #6,131
With a 15 year old point that is nowhere near as strong as you think it is.
You're also ignoring the fact the greens wanted better legislation than Rudd did, and that the ALP didn't lose the election because Gillard worked with the greens.
They lost the election because Rudd whiteanted Gillard and did enough damage to his own parties reputation that the coalition were able to regain power.
I don't see that legislation as incremental change on a path to better because it wasn't
Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 25,990
- 39,931
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #6,132
They have just backflipped on their national platform.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,705
- 53,005
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Not really, there position is still a two state solution and recognition of Palestine but they are not going to recognise Palestine before the two state solution is agreed. It will happen but not now, Israel are becoming increasingly isolated, Australia won't move without the US and UK though.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,705
- 53,005
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Rudd's a narcissist but let's not rewrite history here, the public were never on board with Rudd being toppled, it was a backroom deal that was never fully understood by the average voter. Yes, he whiteanted them, but there's no doubt Labor were headed for a bigger loss under Gillard. The damage was done when Shorten organised the change in leadership, everything else was just fallout.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,705
- 53,005
- AFL Club
- West Coast
The sacking of Rudd caused the eventual loss, the Gillard 'carbon tax lie' that came out of it compounded it. But Greens had a hand in both. If they had backed Rudd's carbon emissions plan, Labor would have romped the next election and Abbott would have been punted. The Greens didn't 'cause it' but they played their role in the winding back of incremental change.
If the Greens Party had supported the CPRS, Abbott would never have happened because the Libs would have never split over the chance to kill it as there would have been no chance.
Plenty of blame to go around for the carbon wars that remain unresolved after 15 years, but that decision to not support the CPRS because it didn't go far enough was the original sin of the whole thing.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #6,139
I did have a big reply to this but the site borked and I've lost it
the main point though was that the greens role in parliament is not to protect labor or keep them in power, its to push for what they were voted in to achieve and they did not see Rudds legislation as achieving that so they didn't vote for it
the reason they didnt vote for it is because labor, who didn't have the votes refused to negotiate and spat the dummy
and the number 2 for Rudd in this was Albo and we are seeing that he's as much that type of politician as Rudd
He thinks the senate should just roll over and give him what he wants and labor supporters argue not doing so will allow the coalition back in
well welcome to democracy
I'm sorry, are you equating what can be sometimes pedantic political grandstanding with the ALP (and LNP, but that is to be expected) refusing to recognise Palestine as a state?
I'm sorry, but that logic doesn't check out. We won't recognise them as a state until there is a 2-state solution... How is that possible when you don't recognise one of those sides as a state?
It's pro-Israeli pandering (for god knows what reason) and it's embarassing.
Pakenhamsaint
Hall of Famer
- Jan 5, 2011
- 48,894
- 41,196
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
That and there's not exactly many votes to me made in it. The amount of people who care about what is happening in the middle east isn't as big as it's made out to be.
You could argue that they won the battle and lost the war.
Greens could have easily agreed and over time have change to it. Instead it was used by the Liberals as a wedge and out went Labor and action on climate change was set back a decade.
I suspect in hindsight they would have voted with Labor.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #6,143
that is absolutely incorrect
Out went Rudd
Gillard worked with the greens on refined legislation
Gillard ran an extremely successful minority government that got a lot done because they collaborated with the people they needed to
The issue is any legislation can be undone and as soon as the coalition got in with enough power they went about scrapping everything they could
This is also why the slowly slowly approach to incremental change doesn't work, because by the time you might get somewhere your opponent has gotten in and wound it back further than when you started, and the do it straight away and don't **** about
Or perhaps the more drastic approach gets people offside and makes it easier for political opportunists to successfully run a scare campaign.
People aren't very comfortable with change at the best of times, and a more incremental approach would have probably proven more enduring.
I know you won't agree, but politics is the art of the possible, and we don't have a carbon tax (or however one would like to describe the Gillard Government's program) because the Australian electorate rejected it.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #6,145
that's got nothing to do with how incremental the change might be
companies fight any change, mining tax, carbon trading, company tax, sick leave for casuals
doesn't matter what it is they fight against it and they will happily spend money on ads and go to papers and donate to political parties to get what they want
politics isn't the art of possible currently its managing public sentiment while doing what the donors want
Abbott doesn't give a shit what people voted for, none of them do, they care about getting in to do what they want
you can tell what they want to do by what they move quickly on
and you can tell where the pressure on them behind the scenes is by what quietly goes away
Why not just put a team in WA that would likely make money on its own, or wouldn't that be cool enough.
And this is from someone that thinks the game is pretty stupid.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 33,705
- 53,005
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Gillard ran a very effective minority government but one that never won the public over, in large part because of the perceived shiftiness behind her installation and the deal with the Greens, the end result being that Abbott flourished, won power and was able to undo most of what she achieved. Which I think makes it an unsuccessful government. When you take the people with you, when legislation is popular, it's far less likely to be overturned.
- Banned
- #6,149
$600m is a pittance compared to much of our spend but why are we sending that much overseas for them to develop pathways. WTF?!
I don't think it passes the pub test to fund an expansion here let alone sending it overseas!
$600m could fund laptops in schools, extra homeless shelters per city, literally anything more important. It's truly insane they thought this was a good use of funds with so many doing it tough. Politically a dumb decision, real life dumb decision
- Status
Similar threads
