The Greens

[Gralin]

lol way over here on the left, exactly my point above

 

[SSwans2011]

That's completely the wrong lens. My lens is:

"what's the best way of having the Govt act on climate change?"
"What's the best way of implementing progressive taxation policies"
"How can we reduce corporate capture in Oz politics"

All these three metrics are moving in the wrong direction.

The answer is a gradual one. Telling the electorate which are clustered around the centre that "we're way over here on the left and you all over there are all wrong" is going to push them right rather than bring them left.

The fact the electorate has moved towards climate action but not towards the Greens (who have been banging on about it for decades) should tell the Greens that they're achieving nothing with their current action.

Because climate justice is an issue that has moved to the centre relative to the rest of the world.

Want to know how leftist policy gets dragged to the centre over time? Social progress and progressive politics.

 

[Rob R]

That's right. It's scaring people off from progressive politics as a whole.

Have you watched Fox News or Sky or read the Tele or Hun? All they do is conflate centrist progressive politics with the "radical left". The reason they do that, is that it works! It scares people (who don't follow a lot of politics) into thinking progressives are coming to steal their horse racing. Then the Greens confirm it, because they'd rather be self-righteous than win and actually instigate change.

At least the Greens stand up for values rather than focussing on winning elections and prolonging the polticial careers of mates (aka knife the diverse candidate cause KK didnt want to have to fight for a seat). If the ALP wants to distance itself from the Greens then they should attack the small number of policies they disagree with - although Albo might find it tough given how far he is impaled on the fence.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Saint]

Because climate justice is an issue that has moved to the centre relative to the rest of the world.

Want to know how leftist policy gets dragged to the centre over time? Social progress and progressive politics.

Social progress yes, but I don't think progressive politics has had much influence, I'm convinced now that it actually holds progress back.

 

[SSwans2011]

Social progress yes, but I don't think progressive politics has had much influence, I'm convinced now that it actually holds progress back.

Progressive politics holds back progress.

Hahaha **** me

 

[Saint]

Progressive politics holds back progress.

Hahaha fu** me

Progressives are crap at politics. How else could you explain the success of the National Party compared to the success of the Greens, despite the Greens consistently getting more votes?

 

[SSwans2011]

Progressives are crap at politics. How else could you explain the success of the National Party compared to the success of the Greens, despite the Greens consistently getting more votes?

That's not what you said though. You said progressive politics holds progress back.
That is literally impossible.

The reason climate justice is now a centrist issue is progressive politics. The reason marriage equality is now a centrist issue is progressive politics.

If Labor weren't always so late to the party on these issues, they would be a progressive party. Instead they're a centre-right party that responds to social and national political trends that have been spearheaded by parties like The Greens, and then they and their supporters jerk themselves off about it as if they've always been allies of the cause.

 

[Saint]

That's not what you said though. You said progressive politics holds progress back.
That is literally impossible.

The reason climate justice is now a centrist issue is progressive politics. The reason marriage equality is now a centrist issue is progressive politics.

If Labor weren't always so late to the party on these issues, they would be a progressive party. Instead they're a centre-right party that responds to social and national political trends that have been spearheaded by parties like The Greens, and then they and their supporters jerk themselves off about it as if they've always been allies of the cause.

How is it literally impossible? If the Greens make ordinary voters scared to vote progressive, it holds back progress.

Progressive 'politics' didn't make marriage equality a centrist issue, 'social' progress did. Surely, if your hypothesis is true, then more voters would be turning to the Greens?

Likewise with climate. Science is making progress where progressive politics in Australia have failed for decades. Again, despite social progress, still no more votes for the Greens?

Meanwhile, the overall polity is moving to the right, less progressive taxes, more trickle down nonsense.

There must be something the Greens are doing wrong to have people start to agree with their core policies yet still not vote for them.

If the ALP are a centre-right party, does that mean 90% of the electorate are to the right? Or maybe, just maybe, you're wrong about where the centre is?

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

If the ALP are a centre-right party, does that mean 90% of the electorate are to the right? Or maybe, just maybe, you're wrong about where the centre is?

Yes, the solution is to embrace MORE neoliberalism!

 

[SSwans2011]

How is it literally impossible? If the Greens make ordinary voters scared to vote progressive, it holds back progress.

Progressive 'politics' didn't make marriage equality a centrist issue, 'social' progress did. Surely, if your hypothesis is true, then more voters would be turning to the Greens?

Likewise with climate. Science is making progress where progressive politics in Australia have failed for decades. Again, despite social progress, still no more votes for the Greens?

Meanwhile, the overall polity is moving to the right, less progressive taxes, more trickle down nonsense.

Social progress and political progress go hand-in-hand. Labor are reactive to social progress, The Greens are proactive to social progress, and the LNP mostly ignore social progress. Good luck achieving social progress without having proactive voices involved in the political landscape.

There must be something the Greens are doing wrong to have people start to agree with their core policies yet still not vote for them.

Yeah, scaring Rupert Murdoch and other powerful people is probably a big part of it.

If the ALP are a centre-right party, does that mean 90% of the electorate are to the right? Or maybe, just maybe, you're wrong about where the centre is?

No, it means that the ALP typically adopts centre-right policy positions. I think there's too many factors that impact how people vote (the two-party system hegemony, the media landscape, upbringing) to draw such a conclusion. I have mates who will most closely align with The Greens on political compasses, but remain hardline Labor voters. Family members who will most closely align with ALP, but donkey vote. In my experience, people are too unpredictable for me to say the way they vote is an entirely accurate reflection of their social views.

 

[Gralin]

Progressives are crap at politics. How else could you explain the success of the National Party compared to the success of the Greens, despite the Greens consistently getting more votes?

Because the conservatives got together and formed a coalition to maintain power and the ALP decided that if they need help to win they'd rather be in opposition bitching about how the greens dont just die

 

[ExcitementMachine]

That's not what you said though. You said progressive politics holds progress back.
That is literally impossible.

The reason climate justice is now a centrist issue is progressive politics. The reason marriage equality is now a centrist issue is progressive politics.

If Labor weren't always so late to the party on these issues, they would be a progressive party. Instead they're a centre-right party that responds to social and national political trends that have been spearheaded by parties like The Greens, and then they and their supporters jerk themselves off about it as if they've always been allies of the cause.

Actually a lot of that is Charles Darwin, science and human advancement - unfortunately it works both ways and you can get things like Hitler.

BTW - I noted that it was you who laughed at my post when I posted the story of my friend dying from drugs who started out a bong head.
Is that socially progressive behaivour by you?

 

[SSwans2011]

Actually a lot of that is Charles Darwin, science and human advancement - unfortunately it works both ways and you can get things like Hitler.

BTW - I noted that it was you who laughed at my post when I posted the story of my friend dying from drugs who started out a bong head.
Is that socially progressive behaivour by you?

I'm sorry about your "bong head" friend, but it really is melodramatic anti-drug hysteria to try to spin that as a reason to take issue with Adam Bandt's post. Tens or thousands of people are already on medical scripts in Australia, and CBD oil will be available over the counter without a script next year. It's an increasingly normal thing, and inevitably lobbyists will decide its in their best interest to capitalise off it, and it will be legalised. Seems to be going fine in ACT, SA, and the NT. Would have also thought "bong head" is a pretty dehumanising way to refer to someone.

I've got family history of alcohol abuse (we all probably do), but I don't think they should ban grog.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

I'm sorry about your "bong head" friend, but it really is melodramatic anti-drug hysteria to try to spin that as a reason to take issue with Adam Bandt's post. Tens or thousands of people are already on medical scripts in Australia, and CBD oil will be available over the counter without a script next year. It's an increasingly normal thing, and inevitably lobbyists will decide its in their best interest to capitalise off it, and it will be legalised. Seems to be going fine in ACT, SA, and the NT. Would have also thought "bong head" is a pretty dehumanising way to refer to someone.

I've got family history of alcohol abuse (we all probably do), but I don't think they should ban grog.

I have nothing against legalizing Marijuana. Just thought Brandt was being a knob.
I also have family history of Alcohol abuse.
I've also seen first hand Marijuana being abused and having dire effects too, with people (family) having psychotic episodes.
Both aren't attractive.

 

[Kram]

Yeah, attack the individual rather than the businesses expecting their entry-level $20/hr jobs to be filled by people with 3+ years experience.

 

[SSwans2011]

View attachment 1300705

Doesn't leave much time for smoking bongs, that's for sure.

 

[Gralin]

Actually a lot of that is Charles Darwin, science and human advancement - unfortunately it works both ways and you can get things like Hitler.

BTW - I noted that it was you who laughed at my post when I posted the story of my friend dying from drugs who started out a bong head.
Is that socially progressive behaivour by you?

So 13 pages to Hitler

 

[Carringbush2010]

Bit of chatter on here about 'progressive' being preferred over 'centrist' and vice versa.

I can understand, progressive policies to make the world a better place, but why is 'progressive' policy opposed by the centred majority? Is it because the methods to achieve those policies are viewed as impractical / inconvenient or even 'hazardous'?

By the way I don't like the idea that 'progressive' is seen as 'impractical' when it comes to policy, I think that is misleading. 'Progress' is not opposition to practic.

The Greens are seen as this somewhat.

What are your thoughts on this Johnny Bananas and Saint ?

 

[Saint]

Bit of chatter on here about 'progressive' being preferred over 'centrist' and vice versa.

I can understand, progressive policies to make the world a better place, but why is 'progressive' policy opposed by the centred majority? Is it because the methods to achieve those policies are viewed as impractical / inconvenient or even 'hazardous'?

By the way I don't like the idea that 'progressive' is seen as 'impractical' when it comes to policy, I think that is misleading. 'Progress' is not opposition to practic.

The Greens are seen as this somewhat.

What are your thoughts on this Johnny Bananas and Saint ?

I think it's a combination of things. Firstly, the conservative media are totally opposed to progress and progressive politics, so people who don't pay a lot of attention are easily misled.

Plus the uncompromising nature of progressives (The Greens in particular, but the same happens with the left in the US). Don't know if it's a feeling of superiority or just that they're so driven, but they just can't seem to balance themselves.

Meanwhile, the Nats on the far right get a lot more with a lot less votes because they work with the Libs and their stupidest ideas aren't amplified by the media. The Greens seem dead-set against keeping their stupidest ideas to themselves, then it gets amplified.

I follow horse racing, my twitter was overwhelmed yesterday and days before with people discussion how they'll put the Greens last despite wanting action on climate change, the only real debate about the topic seemed to centre around if voting for the ALP might also see the Greens get their way.

I mean, what bunch of morons decided alienating the ~4th largest industry in the country was a good idea? They might as well have come out saying they oppose hair-dressers or pet owners.

I just wish they'd keep the stupid fringe stuff to themselves so we can get some real action on progressive policies.

I'm faced with the choice of voting for politically stupid people (the Greens) who's policies I agree most with, or slightly less stupid people (ALP) who's policies I agree with less, but are a realistic chance of getting somewhere.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think it's a combination of things. Firstly, the conservative media are totally opposed to progress and progressive politics, so people who don't pay a lot of attention are easily misled.

Plus the uncompromising nature of progressives (The Greens in particular, but the same happens with the left in the US). Don't know if it's a feeling of superiority or just that they're so driven, but they just can't seem to balance themselves.

Meanwhile, the Nats on the far right get a lot more with a lot less votes because they work with the Libs and their stupidest ideas aren't amplified by the media. The Greens seem dead-set against keeping their stupidest ideas to themselves, then it gets amplified.

I follow horse racing, my twitter was overwhelmed yesterday and days before with people discussion how they'll put the Greens last despite wanting action on climate change, the only real debate about the topic seemed to centre around if voting for the ALP might also see the Greens get their way.

I mean, what bunch of morons decided alienating the ~4th largest industry in the country was a good idea? They might as well have come out saying they oppose hair-dressers or pet owners.

I just wish they'd keep the stupid fringe stuff to themselves so we can get some real action on progressive policies.

I'm faced with the choice of voting for politically stupid people (the Greens) who's policies I agree most with, or slightly less stupid people (ALP) who's policies I agree with less, but are a realistic chance of getting somewhere.

I see your frustration, I'm not all over the greens landscape but the impression I get is they're uncompromising with policy and the means to those ends is somewhat inconvenient to the majority. I'm an L plater here but would this be your view?

 

[Saint]

I see your frustration, I'm not all over the greens landscape but the impression I get is they're uncompromising with policy and the means to those ends is somewhat inconvenient to the majority. I'm an L plater here but would this be your view?

I think overall, they're just bad at the politics side of things. They think having the most moral policies is all you have to do. Then bang on about them.

They're the political equivalent of the Charge of the Light Brigade. All valour, no result.

 

[ExcitementMachine]

So 13 pages to Hitler

What's your point this time.

 

[Gralin]

What's your point this time.

You're the one who brought up Hitler

 

[ExcitementMachine]

You're the one who brought up Hitler

So?

 

[Gralin]

So?

Godwin's law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org