The Greens

[Ghost Patrol]

Amongst other subjects that Bandt wouldn’t define his position on.

Did Speers keep interrupting Bandt, trying to get him to condemn Hamas again?

Instead of letting him speak? Any interesting questions?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Watch an old Insiders with Barry Cassidy hosting. Compare it to today's version.

That’s not really an argument though. Cassidy was the best in the business.

The fact that Speers is inferior does not absolve politicians, Bandt included, of their responsibility to answer the questions put to them.

Otherwise don’t bother fronting up for the show.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Did Speers keep interrupting Bandt, trying to get him to condemn Hamas again?

Instead of letting him speak?

He called Bandt out for dodging a number of questions put to him. Go and have a look for yourself. Bandt’s petulance speaks for itself.

 

[Gralin]

Well well, Bandt and his bourgeois party playing politics again ... who would have thought?

They stage a walk out in the Parliament to show their support for Palestinian people months after throwing the First Nations people of this country under the bus and now, a few moths after there hypocritical grandstanding in the Parliament, Bandt refuse to commit to a two sate solution in Palestine/Israel and throws the Palestinian people under a bus.

F**k the Greens political party

That's great but the greens supported the voice

 

[Northalives]

He point blank refused to answer David Speers this morning when asked where he stood, especially regarding Hamas.

It’s very difficult to know what Bandt is playing at much of the time. This will be a quite interesting week.

He and that young Liberal look-a-like, the spokesperson on how to "create conflict to win votes" (refusal to pass HAFF), have turned the Greens from a party of principle to just another grubby, political party.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

He and that young Liberal look-a-like, the spokesperson on how to "create conflict to win votes" (refusal to pass HAFF), have turned the Greens from a party of principle to just another grubby, political party.

Yep. Like I said, I voted for him.

I expected better.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

He called Bandt out for dodging a number of questions put to him. Go and have a look for yourself. Bandt’s petulance speaks for itself.

I'd prefer not. I'll assume Bandt should have called Speers out for inane questions that have already been answered.

 

[Northalives]

That's great but the greens supported the voice

"Reluctantly" (Bandt), after months of umming and ahing instead of staying loyal and in solidarity with the black fellas as they had been right from the beginning of the Voice process which began some ten year earlier.

They played a pivotal role in convincing the electorate about the absolute bull shit being peddled by the racists and the reactionaries that it was touch and go amongst Aboriginal people as to whether or not they supported the Voice. And all so that they wouldn't lose a few votes from the inner city Blak fascists. Have a look at the voting numbers on the AEC to see that between 65% and 85%+ YES vote in areas and regions with predominantly Aboriginal populations.

Bandt and the green/bourgeois party played politics with the lives and wellbeing of the First Nations people and they stand condemned forever for that atrocity. F**k the greens!

 

[Northalives]

Yep. Like I said, I voted for him.

I expected better.

Good onya. That's why I despise the Greens now more than the LNP because at least with the LNP, they are up front with their filth, the Greens use stealth and that goes against everything that I and friends and members of my own family expect from the Greens.

 

[Gralin]

"Reluctantly" (Bandt), after months of umming and ahing instead of staying loyal and in solidarity with the black fellas as they had been right from the beginning of the Voice process which began some ten year earlier.

They played a pivotal role in convincing the electorate about the absolute bull shit being peddled by the racists and the reactionaries that it was touch and go amongst Aboriginal people as to whether or not they supported the Voice. And all so that they wouldn't lose a few votes from the inner city Blak fascists. Have a look at the voting numbers on the AEC to see that between 65% and 85%+ YES vote in areas and regions with predominantly Aboriginal populations.

Bandt and the green/bourgeois party played politics with the lives and wellbeing of the First Nations people and they stand condemned forever for that atrocity. F**k the greens!

I shouldn't be surprised that you continue to peddle lies

But I am going to point out that you've avoided the swear filter twice and the need to stop doing that.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Good onya. That's why I despise the Greens now more than the LNP because at least with the LNP, they are up front with their filth, the Greens use stealth and that goes against everything that I and friends and members of my own family expect from the Greens.

So, the secret ministries of Scott Morrison wasn't stealth? The nuclear nonsense is up front?

 

[Northalives]

Watch an old Insiders with Barry Cassidy hosting. Compare it to today's version.

No question man but that does not let Bandt, Angus Taylor and others off the hook.

 

[Northalives]

So, the secret ministries of Scott Morrison wasn't stealth? The nuclear nonsense is up front?

Of course they were but as I said, we know the modus operandi of the LNP, we don't expect the same bull shit from the Greens. I am not having a go at you. I am having a go at the reluctance of people to see through the bull shit.

It was only a while back that I realised that the "Treasuries own figures showed that the CPRS would have no effect on Australia's emissions for 9 years" was a lie! The Treasury document/numbers showed that the WORLD outlook for emissions reduction would take 9 years to make any difference if the world settings remained in place HOWEVER, the same Treasury document/numbers showed that the CPRS would result in slight increase in emissions the first year of the scheme and then emission would plummet after that. What the Greens did was to substitute one description for the other so as to show that the world outlook was the CPRS outlook!

I only became aware of this when one of the people I really respect on these boards told me about Treasuries own numbers saying that the CPRS would not have any great effect on emissions so I went and searched them out. Imagine my horror to discover that I and others had been duped by the Greens propaganda. I had great respect for the Greens up to then and after the disgrace of the Voice, I despise them my friend.

 

[Gralin]

Lol we're still doing the CPRS labor stans are the worst

 

[Northalives]

Lol we're still doing the CPRS labor stans are the worst

So we just sweep lies and deceit under the carpet do we?

 

[Gralin]

So we just sweep lies and deceit under the carpet do we?

No I just think it's about time Labor supporter move on from pretending that the CPRS was good and that the greens somehow responsible for the current state if the country or the climate

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I'd prefer not. I'll assume Bandt should have called Speers out for inane questions that have already been answered.

So you’re arguing this one from a position of complete ignorance.

How odd.

 

[Northalives]

No I just think it's about time Labor supporter move on from pretending that the CPRS was good and that the greens somehow responsible for the current state if the country or the climate

You are such an irritating person!

You cannot grasp the simplest of concepts. It is a fact that the Greens lied and switched descriptions of the CPRS and the World outlook. It is a fact that the CPRS would have made a massive difference to Australia's transition to renewables and the reduction of emissions : "TREASURY DOCUMENTS TELL US SO!! It is a fact that the Greens voted against the CPRS twice and spun lies to justify their no vote. It is a fact that the ALP were gutless in not going to an election over it and it is a fact that because of these two so called "left wing" parties, that the rest of the world moved forward and we were stuck with the far-right flat earth monster for the next decade.

It is a fact that I stopped having sympathies for Labor because of its gutlessness over their betrayal of “the great moral challenge of our generation”.

Are you going to delete this post as well and issue me with an infraction?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I love the ideology of the Greens but Adam Bandt put in the single worst performance I have ever seen on Insiders this morning. It was truly embarrassing and an indictment on the Party.

Despite his popularity in his electorate (and I’ll admit that I voted for him) they’d do well to find somebody to lead them who isn’t quite as combative.

It's fair to say that Bandt has had very mixed performances in the media in the past. When he's on top of his game, he makes gotcha journalists look like silly little children (eg "Google it, mate") . When he's bad, he's an embarrassment (like his histrionic response to nuclear submarines. You can point out that something is a bad idea practically without losing the plot on ideology).

So while I haven't seen the interview, and I'm not in a rush to watch it either, I wouldn't be surprised if Bandt did indeed flub it. But that's okay, I don't expect perfection from him every time. He's been a good leader regardless. That said, he's been around almost five years now, and should step down soon, ideally after the next election. Brown and Di Natale were leader for two elections each, and Bandt should follow their precedent and quit after two as well.

However, I don't understand why you feel it'd be a good thing if the next leader wasn't "combative". At the end of the day, the Greens are not to Labor as the Nationals are to the Liberals, they're an opposition party with interests that are often not compatible with Labor's. When one is in opposition, being combative is a good thing most of the time. When Tony Abbott was Opposition Leader, I'm sure you'd agree he was combative. But that was viewed by many as a good thing, and he's still regarded as being an effective Opposition Leader by many today (I disagree, but that's another story), even though he's regarded by many of those people as a terrible PM.

So why should the Greens be held to a different standard? What's wrong with them being combative if it helps them drive a harder bargain in negotiations and get more of their manifesto put into practice? Being nice and appeasing Labor doesn't shift the dial, I'm afraid. It just leads to Labor offering up more half measures to crises like cost of living, climate change and housing, because they know they won't be held to account from the left, only from the right.

I'd argue the best candidate for the next leader of the Greens is Max Chandler-Mather, precisely because he's willing to be combative on the issues that resonate most deeply with people, like housing affordability and poverty. It takes someone combative to capture media attention, which is like gold to a minor party. Chandler-Mather is able to do that while also articulating a vision for a better country. He'll be an effective face of the party.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

It's fair to say that Bandt has had very mixed performances in the media in the past. When he's on top of his game, he makes gotcha journalists look like silly little children (eg "Google it, mate") . When he's bad, he's an embarrassment (like his histrionic response to nuclear submarines. You can point out that something is a bad idea practically without losing the plot on ideology).

So while I haven't seen the interview, and I'm not in a rush to watch it either, I wouldn't be surprised if Bandt did indeed flub it. But that's okay, I don't expect perfection from him every time. He's been a good leader regardless. That said, he's been around almost five years now, and should step down soon, ideally after the next election. Brown and Di Natale were leader for two elections each, and Bandt should follow their precedent and quit after two as well.

However, I don't understand why you feel it'd be a good thing if the next leader wasn't "combative". At the end of the day, the Greens are not to Labor as the Nationals are to the Liberals, they're an opposition party with interests that are often not compatible with Labor's. When one is in opposition, being combative is a good thing most of the time. When Tony Abbott was Opposition Leader, I'm sure you'd agree he was combative. But that was viewed by many as a good thing, and he's still regarded as being an effective Opposition Leader by many today (I disagree, but that's another story), even though he's regarded by many of those people as a terrible PM.

So why should the Greens be held to a different standard? What's wrong with them being combative if it helps them drive a harder bargain in negotiations and get more of their manifesto put into practice? Being nice and appeasing Labor doesn't shift the dial, I'm afraid. It just leads to Labor offering up more half measures to crises like cost of living, climate change and housing, because they know they won't be held to account from the left, only from the right.

I'd argue the best candidate for the next leader of the Greens is Max Chandler-Mather, precisely because he's willing to be combative on the issues that resonate most deeply with people, like housing affordability and poverty. It takes someone combative to capture media attention, which is like gold to a minor party. Chandler-Mather is able to do that while also articulating a vision for a better country. He'll be an effective face of the party.

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading that.

Let me rephrase (or explain) what I mean in terns of Bandt being combative. Yes, I expect the Greens leader to hold the main parties to account. But what I am seeing from Bandt at the moment is a little boy who is throwing his toys out the cot every time he doesn’t get what he wants. I feel he is at his best when he is hammering the message, not arguing the point if that makes sense. Right now he is losing the message because he is too quick to pick fights with everyone. At his best, he is engaging and gets people’s attention. He is so far from that right now that he’s doing himself, his Party and his supporters a disservice.

 

[Gralin]

You are such an irritating person!

You cannot grasp the simplest of concepts.

This is where I stopped actually caring what your point was going to be

It is a fact that the Greens lied and switched descriptions of the CPRS and the World outlook. It is a fact that the CPRS would have made a massive difference to Australia's transition to renewables and the reduction of emissions : "TREASURY DOCUMENTS TELL US SO!! It is a fact that the Greens voted against the CPRS twice and spun lies to justify their no vote. It is a fact that the ALP were gutless in not going to an election over it and it is a fact that because of these two so called "left wing" parties, that the rest of the world moved forward and we were stuck with the far-right flat earth monster for the next decade.

Do you think all caps yelling makes your point better?

It is a fact that I stopped having sympathies for Labor because of its gutlessness over their betrayal of “the great moral challenge of our generation”.

Are you going to delete this post as well and issue me with an infraction?

No because you didn't break the rules

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Thanks for your post. I enjoyed reading that.

Let me rephrase (or explain) what I mean in terns of Bandt being combative. Yes, I expect the Greens leader to hold the main parties to account. But what I am seeing from Bandt at the moment is a little boy who is throwing his toys out the cot every time he doesn’t get what he wants. I feel he is at his best when he is hammering the message, not arguing the point if that makes sense. Right now he is losing the message because he is too quick to pick fights with everyone. At his best, he is engaging and gets people’s attention. He is so far from that right now that he’s doing himself, his Party and his supporters a disservice.

I don't think I really understand your point about picking fights, but I agree that he does need to stick to a message and push it consistently. Another thing Tony Abbott proved is that the electorate are simple and enjoy hearing the same three words over and over again. Smart politicians learn from what's proven to work, no matter what part of the political spectrum demonstrated it first.

On that subject, one thing I'm glad about with the direction of the party under Bandt is the shift towards left-wing populism. There are some people who get annoyed with that development and want the party to return to some previous approach, but those people are either supporters of other parties who don't want the Greens to be an electoral threat, or they're people who are satisfied with voting for a protest party that wins 5% of the vote and doesn't fundamentally change anything. Real change takes numbers in parliament, and I don't think it's any coincidence that the numbers have increased since the populist approach was taken. Though how much of that is attributable to Bandt is debatable, since it's been most effective in Queensland rather than Victoria.

 

[Gralin]

I don't think I really understand your point about picking fights, but I agree that he does need to stick to a message and push it consistently. Another thing Tony Abbott proved is that the electorate are simple and enjoy hearing the same three words over and over again. Smart politicians learn from what's proven to work, no matter what part of the political spectrum demonstrated it first.

On that subject, one thing I'm glad about with the direction of the party under Bandt is the shift towards left-wing populism. There are some people who get annoyed with that development and want the party to return to some previous approach, but those people are either supporters of other parties who don't want the Greens to be an electoral threat, or they're people who are satisfied with voting for a protest party that wins 5% of the vote and doesn't fundamentally change anything. Real change takes numbers in parliament, and I don't think it's any coincidence that the numbers have increased since the populist approach was taken. Though how much of that is attributable to Bandt is debatable, since it's been most effective in Queensland rather than Victoria.

Queensland Greens appear the best run, most grounded of the lot.

They're also very big at door knocking, boots on ground work to grow their presence in the community.

All the people shocked by how well they did in Queensland last election were paying zero attention to what they were doing.

And have continued to do

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I don't think I really understand your point about picking fights, but I agree that he does need to stick to a message and push it consistently. Another thing Tony Abbott proved is that the electorate are simple and enjoy hearing the same three words over and over again. Smart politicians learn from what's proven to work, no matter what part of the political spectrum demonstrated it first.

On that subject, one thing I'm glad about with the direction of the party under Bandt is the shift towards left-wing populism. There are some people who get annoyed with that development and want the party to return to some previous approach, but those people are either supporters of other parties who don't want the Greens to be an electoral threat, or they're people who are satisfied with voting for a protest party that wins 5% of the vote and doesn't fundamentally change anything. Real change takes numbers in parliament, and I don't think it's any coincidence that the numbers have increased since the populist approach was taken. Though how much of that is attributable to Bandt is debatable, since it's been most effective in Queensland rather than Victoria.

By picking fights, what I am getting at is that when he is asked about the Greens position he too frequently shifts the discussion to what the major parties aren't doing rather than what he wants to do, why and how. He's got ideals that I agree with and that will bring people along for the ride but whenever anybody drills into Bandt's (Greens) policy lately, he is found wanting. He then changes gears and starts the finger pointing.

Yesterday was a prime example. Insiders, love it or loathe it is an excellent forum for somebody like Bandt given the audience it attracts. He's never going to win over the right, but he does need to win over the centre and centre-left as they are the people who will push the government to where the Greens want them to go. But all he wanted to do was get into an argument with David Speers and dodge answering questions that he should expect to be asked. It then just turned into two people talking over the top of each other.

 

[Carn The Berries]

By picking fights, what I am getting at is that when he is asked about the Greens position he too frequently shifts the discussion to what the major parties aren't doing rather than what he wants to do, why and how. He's got ideals that I agree with and that will bring people along for the ride but whenever anybody drills into Bandt's (Greens) policy lately, he is found wanting. He then changes gears and starts the finger pointing.

Yesterday was a prime example. Insiders, love it or loathe it is an excellent forum for somebody like Bandt given the audience it attracts. He's never going to win over the right, but he does need to win over the centre and centre-left as they are the people who will push the government to where the Greens want them to go. But all he wanted to do was get into an argument with David Speers and dodge answering questions that he should expect to be asked. It then just turned into two people talking over the top of each other.

Yep - He ended up just sounding like an old man shouting at clouds. He started ranting about rooftop solar and batteries. Got asked multiple times how long it would take, how much it would cost and what infrastructure changes would be necessary. His "answers" were essentially, that's not the point, the ALP should start doing it now.

Maybe the "rantyness" resonates with people who are considering voting green... But he just sounded like any other pollie of any other persuasion refusing to actually answer a question.