Pakenhamsaint
Hall of Famer
- Jan 5, 2011
- 48,416
- 40,459
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I don't think it is. We saw the greens get a belting in Queensland recently.
The Greens
- Thread starter Herzog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Cmon, you don't think Adam Bandt is not really a man of the people?
Pakenhamsaint
Hall of Famer
- Jan 5, 2011
- 48,416
- 40,459
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I don't. He's some inner city bloke who couldn't identify the outer suburbs on a map.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #5,179
The phrase is still bullshit
The government of the day accuses anyone who doesn't agree with them of playing politics as if that isn't also what they are doing.
Queensland also isn't Victoria as we see every election
The greens didn't get a belting either but do please continue to uncritically regurgitate mainstream media narrative
They went backwards for sure in seats from 2 to 1 but their overall first preference increases slightly they were still under 10% in both elections
It's just where the votes were
Pakenhamsaint
Hall of Famer
- Jan 5, 2011
- 48,416
- 40,459
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
None of them are and none could even though it's about to become the next battleground election wise.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 12,740
- 10,264
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
When labor and greens oppose coalition govt legislation, the stances are similar
When it’s coalition and greens opposing labor, their ‘reasons’ are opposite and open to being labeled hypocrisy.
It’s not a hard concept to understand
Precisely! And the amount of times the Greens oppose legislation that is directionally in line with their position is a testament to this.
The original post you quoted was trying to compare apples and oranges.
**They're not on their own in this regard
- Nov 10, 2022
- 12,740
- 10,264
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Well they did manage to delay the assistance for some needy people, so it’s not all bad.
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
It's a shit bill and the Greens were right to not support it. But at least now Labor can stop deflecting and will actually have to front-up when it proves to do **** all to help "needy" people.
Chief
~ Shmalpha ~
- Admin
- #5,189
Mainly by bad faith or lazy journalists repeating the other side's claims without investigating the reasoning.
The very fact they don't support something with a name that sounds like they should support it is not proof of the Greens being hypocritical.
But it is presented as such, and is thus usually just bullshit.
It's not so much having a bad or disliked candidate, but a combination of a few factors:
- In 2020, the seat was a Greens-Labor contest, and the Greens won from LNP preferences. This time it was also a Greens-Labor contest, but the LNP preferenced Labor above the Greens everywhere, so Labor won the seat on LNP preferences.
- The Greens still could have won South Brisbane had Labor lost enough primary votes to fall into third place, thereby distributing their preferences which would have mostly flowed to the Greens. This almost happened, but not quite. Miles implementing more leftist policies in the lead up to the election was probably what prevented Labor falling into third. That or the late scare campaign on abortion, which probably shifted a few people from LNP to Labor.
- A lot of renters who lived in the inner suburbs in 2020 have had to move further out since then, either to buy a home or to find a more affordable rental. That probably hurt the Greens vote in South Brisbane while boosting it in safe Labor seats like Miller and Toohey.
Incorrect, their statewide vote went up. They lost South Brisbane due to the factors I've detailed above.
Deng Xiaoping once defended his economic reforms by saying "it doesn't matter if a cat is black or yellow, as long as it catches mice". Or in other words, the results are what matter, not the ideology. Even if most voters are ideologically centrist, they largely won't complain much about the ruling party's ideology if they feel prosperous and secure.
What if, in the environment we're in, centrism won't deliver that prosperity and security, but strong left or right ideology will? I'd argue that every party that claims to be centre-left in the West is suffering in the polls right now because they're trying to use centrist solutions to the problem, which are proving ineffective, instead of just embracing full government intervention and fixing the prices of basic necessities at an affordable level, which in the short term is effective at limiting inflation (not necessarily in the long term).
If that's the case, then following leftist economics isn't just the ideological thing to do, it's also the pragmatic thing to do. If it gets results, people will appreciate it. One could argue price fixing at an affordable level is basically what Miles did with public transport, and it's widely accepted as keeping a lot of votes that Labor would have otherwise leaked.
Plus, it's something that only Labor could have pulled off effectively, because Labor are usually trusted more on matters relating to governmental control of an economic sector (like health or education).
Conversely, what they couldn't pull off effectively was something the LNP are usually trusted more on: being tough on crime. This was always going to be difficult for Labor, because the LNP can almost always appear tougher on crime than them. Regardless, Labor should have gone for whatever gets results on lowering crime a lot sooner in their term. By not doing that, they had already lost this election a year out.
(I don't actually know what is pragmatic on crime as I haven't read anywhere near enough on the subject to say with confidence. It's possible that it involves tough on crime measures in the short term and addressing the root causes in the long term. But the tough on crime measures obviously don't always work, or we'd have solved crime forever already).
Miles implementing the public transport freeze and energy bill subsidies counts, though again this came too late, after Labor had already lost the election on the issue of crime.
But that aside, what you're describing is basically the strategy Tim Walz has used to govern Minnesota. It's a pity he wasn't the Democratic nominee in the US election, and was simply running mate to the most centrist presidential candidate of all time.
Lessons from Minnesota’s progressive turn under Tim Walz
Minnesota Democrats took advantage of a narrow election victory to implement important reforms, before their window closed.
policyoptions.irpp.org
It's nothing of the sort. Do you actually think Peter Dutton wants a Labor minority government after the next election? No, he wants a Coalition government.
Because the mainstream parties across the West think there's only one way to do economics, corporate-friendly neoliberal capitalism, despite its obvious failings. People who are not prospering under this system want change, which is why in America the underclass mostly voted for Trump over candidates promising the economic status quo. Trump is of course a charlatan who is just out to enrich himself and other already wealthy people, but he knows how to give people the hope of something different, in the hope of changing their stagnant economic situation, where wages stay the same and the cost of living rises.
In Australia, our voting system ends up pushing most seats to one of the major parties for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because compulsory voting gets the politically apathetic to vote, and they mostly end up voting for the majors. Secondly, because even if people want change, if they can't agree on the type of change they want, the preferences end up mostly flowing to the majors. And the parliamentary system means parties choose the head of government, so someone who wants change has to spend decades working through the party hierarchy to become a candidate for leader, during which time they usually lose much of their enthusiasm for change, and come to be enthusiastic for power instead. They get trapped in the political bubble. And the exceptions to the rule end up getting destroyed by the corporate-controlled media.
So, there's no real way in the Australian political to get that change to the economic system that the underclass desires from a majority government. Only a minority government creates that kind of change, because it requires the majors to make compromises with parties who haven't been proximate to serious power long enough to lose all their sense of ideology.
The only way the Liberals will actually go against their corporate masters and cut skilled immigration is if they're forced into a minority with One Nation, who make that a condition of supporting a Liberal government. Or, the only way they'll take the electoral risk of fully privatising Medicare is if they're forced into a minority with the Libertarians. Similarly, at this point Labor will only take serious action on lowering house prices or speeding up the phasing out of fossil fuels if forced into a minority with the Greens.
You may not agree that some, or any of these demands are better outcomes. But the minor parties in question do. And what cannot be argued is these all represent a serious change to a status quo that, for one reason for another, isn't working for lots of people. That's why a minority government will mean better outcomes in the eyes of those who want change.
When Labor and the Liberals vote the same way on legislation, do you call that Labor joining with the Liberals?
Except that's not how politics works. If minor parties or independents are needed to pass that legislation, they have every right to request changes, and to vote against the bill if they aren't satisfied with what it says.
If you disagree, then you're effectively saying you want the major parties to have all the power and the minor parties to just wave through whatever the majors want. In that case, why bother having a parliament? We could have an elected dictatorship instead. We'd save lots of money not having to pay the salaries of all 225 MPs and Senators!
I couldn't give a damn when Barnaby did that and couldn't care less if a Greens politician I've never heard of does it. The country is in multiple crises.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 12,740
- 10,264
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Teals seem closer to labor than the greens are biggest flow to teal in Kooyong was green voters. Then labor
Initially tactical voting. But we like what we are seeing
Initially tactical voting. But we like what we are seeing
Dixie Flatline
Moderator
- Jun 3, 2005
- 37,052
- 38,112
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Cartagena C.F., NYJ, A's
- Moderator
- #5,194
Frydenberg had the most first preference votes in Kooyong, about 1,600 first preference votes in front of Dr Ryan. The ALP candidate finished third on first preference votes, with a touch over 7,000 first preference votes, then the Greens candidate finished fourth, about 500 first preference votes behind the ALP candidate.
Dr Ryan would have received the bulk of the ALP and Greens preferences in Kooyong, but there is a pretty clear delineation in the seat. Kooyong covers parts of Boroondara City Council, Stonnington City Council and Yarra City Council. Of the three local government areas, Boroondara is by far the most conservative, but the conservative elements of Boroondara are generally restricted to Kew, Balwyn, Greythorn and the like. Hawthorn and Auburn tend to be less conservative (in the State election, Pesutto had to defeat the sitting Labor member to get Hawthorn back in Liberal hands).
If you look at the booth results, you'll find pockets of Kooyong that voted overwhelmingly for Frydenberg, but they were already in his corner when you compare the previous election results. He lost the seat because he lost the more progressive elements of Kooyong to Dr Ryan. Booths like Hawthorn, Glenferrie, Hawthorn East, etc., were clearly in favour of Dr Ryan compared to Frydenberg (for example, in Hawthorn East Central, Dr Ryan received over 50% of the first preference votes, compared to 34% for Frydenberg, and a similar margin in Hawthorn, while in Glenferrie, Dr Ryan received 46% of first preference votes to Frydenberg's 35%).
I'd say that Dr Ryan won the seat because of the Scott Morrison factor as well as a general disdain with Frydenberg (he didn't exactly endear himself to Victorians with some of his comments during lockdown about the State) and because he really only won the hardcore conservative vote in the seat. Didn't really have much to do with votes leeching away from the Greens or the ALP to Dr Ryan.
It will be interesting to see the Kooyong contest in the next federal election. The Liberals pre-selected Amelia Hamer to contest the seat. She is the grand niece of Sir Rupert Hamer, who was a long-time Premier of Victoria. She's also photogenic and young (in her early 30s) and will also position herself as a high achiever (Oxford-educated, worked for blue chip companies) but with an understanding of how tough it is for millenials to get into the housing market (her first interview after securing pre-selection focused on housing).
Dr Ryan would have received the bulk of the ALP and Greens preferences in Kooyong, but there is a pretty clear delineation in the seat. Kooyong covers parts of Boroondara City Council, Stonnington City Council and Yarra City Council. Of the three local government areas, Boroondara is by far the most conservative, but the conservative elements of Boroondara are generally restricted to Kew, Balwyn, Greythorn and the like. Hawthorn and Auburn tend to be less conservative (in the State election, Pesutto had to defeat the sitting Labor member to get Hawthorn back in Liberal hands).
If you look at the booth results, you'll find pockets of Kooyong that voted overwhelmingly for Frydenberg, but they were already in his corner when you compare the previous election results. He lost the seat because he lost the more progressive elements of Kooyong to Dr Ryan. Booths like Hawthorn, Glenferrie, Hawthorn East, etc., were clearly in favour of Dr Ryan compared to Frydenberg (for example, in Hawthorn East Central, Dr Ryan received over 50% of the first preference votes, compared to 34% for Frydenberg, and a similar margin in Hawthorn, while in Glenferrie, Dr Ryan received 46% of first preference votes to Frydenberg's 35%).
I'd say that Dr Ryan won the seat because of the Scott Morrison factor as well as a general disdain with Frydenberg (he didn't exactly endear himself to Victorians with some of his comments during lockdown about the State) and because he really only won the hardcore conservative vote in the seat. Didn't really have much to do with votes leeching away from the Greens or the ALP to Dr Ryan.
It will be interesting to see the Kooyong contest in the next federal election. The Liberals pre-selected Amelia Hamer to contest the seat. She is the grand niece of Sir Rupert Hamer, who was a long-time Premier of Victoria. She's also photogenic and young (in her early 30s) and will also position herself as a high achiever (Oxford-educated, worked for blue chip companies) but with an understanding of how tough it is for millenials to get into the housing market (her first interview after securing pre-selection focused on housing).
Why has this thread become about the teals? Surely someone can create a thread for that.
- Nov 10, 2022
- 12,740
- 10,264
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Greens vote dropped by was it 14% overall labor 10% but 90% of each party’s first preference tactical voted.
Her 40% first preference came 24% from here and 16% elsewhere, probably just 6% from liberal
As a Kooyong resident it was weird knowing your vote matttered all of a sudden. Having seen Ryan in action I’m very happy
But the coalition vote has wained over many elections. Not just this one
But suppose more alp and greens voters get into the tactical groove?
And would thinking voters think Dutton was better than morrison? Perhaps not and some of his messaging on teal swinging electorates has been insulting
In republic and ssm votes these electorates were the most progressive
Short answer tactical voters switched first preferences to teal. Enough that her or fryzos preference flows didn’t matter
FIRST preferences
Last edited:
Ghost Patrol
Incognito Moderatore
- Sep 17, 2019
- 25,722
- 39,611
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #5,198
OMG MCM what an evil green socialist
(tl;dr - he's funding free meal programs in his electorate to the tune of $50k/year from his own salary)
(tl;dr - he's funding free meal programs in his electorate to the tune of $50k/year from his own salary)
- May 16, 2016
- 2,582
- 5,074
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Good on him, refreshing to see him actually walk the walk rather than bullshit. His salary is very nice but hardly outrageous.
