 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | David, how did I come to the conclusion that the Greens in the lower house make it harder for the ALP to win government (when they take seats from the ALP not the Libs)?
David this is tempting.....  |
The point is that, unless you think there's a remote chance of the Greens making a deal with a Coalition government (in which case I have several bridges down here in Hampton to sell you), then it's reasonable to consider Labor and the Greens a voting bloc for these purposes. So it's like saying that a vote for the Nationals instead of the Liberals could elect Labor in other words, complete nonsense. |
Remind me again how the legislation to amend the electoral act and the changes to voting in the senate got through?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
My GP has been doing that for years, as have many others. I don't recall being bulk billed by a GP this millennium.
It's hardly proof of anything, sorry Dave. The whole medicare thing is just a scare campaign by Shorten. |
How do you know it's a Scare Tatic  I know you think Labor and Shorten are Dickheads
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
How do you know it's not a scare tactic?
And i don't think Shorten is a dickhead, I think he's a muppet.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | ^
How do you know it's not a scare tactic?
And i don't think Shorten is a dickhead, I think he's a muppet. |
Why you hate Shorten?
What you think of our PM?
You vote for the Party and Not the Leader
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | David, how did I come to the conclusion that the Greens in the lower house make it harder for the ALP to win government (when they take seats from the ALP not the Libs)?
David this is tempting..... |
The point is that, unless you think there's a remote chance of the Greens making a deal with a Coalition government (in which case I have several bridges down here in Hampton to sell you), then it's reasonable to consider Labor and the Greens a voting bloc for these purposes. So it's like saying that a vote for the Nationals instead of the Liberals could elect Labor in other words, complete nonsense. |
Remind me again how the legislation to amend the electoral act and the changes to voting in the senate got through? |
Irrelevant. The Greens have voted with the government less than any party in the last term, far less so than Labor, incidentally. The idea that they or Malcolm Turnbull could survive the disastrous fall-out of a deal with each other is ... a little far-fetched (keep in mind the Liberals have placed the Greens last in every seat). It's just not a serious prospect worth considering.
Basically, if anyone's not voting for the Greens because they're afraid it will increase the chances of a Liberal election victory, they're either bad at maths or need a reality check.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | David, how did I come to the conclusion that the Greens in the lower house make it harder for the ALP to win government (when they take seats from the ALP not the Libs)?
David this is tempting..... |
The point is that, unless you think there's a remote chance of the Greens making a deal with a Coalition government (in which case I have several bridges down here in Hampton to sell you), then it's reasonable to consider Labor and the Greens a voting bloc for these purposes. So it's like saying that a vote for the Nationals instead of the Liberals could elect Labor in other words, complete nonsense. |
Remind me again how the legislation to amend the electoral act and the changes to voting in the senate got through? |
Irrelevant. The Greens have voted with the government less than any party in the last term, far less so than Labor, incidentally. The idea that they or Malcolm Turnbull could survive the disastrous fall-out of a deal with each other is ... a little far-fetched (keep in mind the Liberals have placed the Greens last in every seat). It's just not a serious prospect worth considering.
Basically, if anyone's not voting for the Greens because they're afraid it will increase the chances of a Liberal election victory, they're either bad at maths or need a reality check. |
Didn't Greens say they would Side with Labor?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | David, how did I come to the conclusion that the Greens in the lower house make it harder for the ALP to win government (when they take seats from the ALP not the Libs)?
David this is tempting..... |
The point is that, unless you think there's a remote chance of the Greens making a deal with a Coalition government (in which case I have several bridges down here in Hampton to sell you), then it's reasonable to consider Labor and the Greens a voting bloc for these purposes. So it's like saying that a vote for the Nationals instead of the Liberals could elect Labor in other words, complete nonsense. |
David, that is irrelevant to my point. Your point as it were is a nonsense.
Greens take ALP seats.
ALP has less seats than The Lib Nats.
Result as you obviously know is that the ALP cannot form a government in its own right.
That is the point.
Your argument about voting as a coalition is a separate point as it does not address the obvious argument about government in it's own right.
However, there is a possibility that the Greens can take a seat in Northern NSW from the Gnats.
Keating remains correct - although you're too young (not your fault) to know how really good he was & what he did not just economically but socially.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | David, how did I come to the conclusion that the Greens in the lower house make it harder for the ALP to win government (when they take seats from the ALP not the Libs)?
David this is tempting..... |
The point is that, unless you think there's a remote chance of the Greens making a deal with a Coalition government (in which case I have several bridges down here in Hampton to sell you), then it's reasonable to consider Labor and the Greens a voting bloc for these purposes. So it's like saying that a vote for the Nationals instead of the Liberals could elect Labor in other words, complete nonsense. |
Remind me again how the legislation to amend the electoral act and the changes to voting in the senate got through? |
Irrelevant. The Greens have voted with the government less than any party in the last term, far less so than Labor, incidentally. The idea that they or Malcolm Turnbull could survive the disastrous fall-out of a deal with each other is ... a little far-fetched (keep in mind the Liberals have placed the Greens last in every seat). It's just not a serious prospect worth considering.
Basically, if anyone's not voting for the Greens because they're afraid it will increase the chances of a Liberal election victory, they're either bad at maths or need a reality check. |
David, your argument is disingenuous - you're simply not addressing inconvenient truths here.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| watt price tully wrote: | | David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | David, how did I come to the conclusion that the Greens in the lower house make it harder for the ALP to win government (when they take seats from the ALP not the Libs)?
David this is tempting..... |
The point is that, unless you think there's a remote chance of the Greens making a deal with a Coalition government (in which case I have several bridges down here in Hampton to sell you), then it's reasonable to consider Labor and the Greens a voting bloc for these purposes. So it's like saying that a vote for the Nationals instead of the Liberals could elect Labor in other words, complete nonsense. |
David, that is irrelevant to my point. Your point as it were is a nonsense.
Greens take ALP seats.
ALP has less seats than The Lib Nats.
Result as you obviously know is that the ALP cannot form a government in its own right.
That is the point.
Your argument about voting as a coalition is a separate point as it does not address the obvious argument about government in it's own right.
However, there is a possibility that the Greens can take a seat in Northern NSW from the Gnats.
Keating remains correct - although you're too young (not your fault) to know how really good he was & what he did not just economically but socially. |
I see the point about "forming a government in their own right" as a bit of a side issue. In a hung parliament, one or the other major party will end up forming government. If the Greens hold the balance of power, then they will obviously back Labor (they want to get as much of their agenda passed as possible, so it's the only viable option), and Labor will form government, just as they did in 2010. The only difference is that Labor will be dependent on them for support and will probably need to make a deal (informal or otherwise) that takes into account refugees, climate policy, and so on. I see that as an overwhelmingly good outcome.
The only scenario in which the Greens winning a seat deprives Labor of government is where they decide to back the Coalition. As I've said, that would be the end of them as a party and the end of Turnbull's prime ministership too (the feral backbench would have his head on a platter on day one) it's just not a realistic possibility.
By the way, just because I was a kid when Keating left office doesn't mean I've never picked up a history book. I think he was our last great leader by some margin, and I respect his achievements as PM and treasurer under Hawke. But he's also a Labor man through and through and I think most of his public utterances on the Greens betray that. Frankly I think his comments on the Greens weren't merely wrong in the sense that he made points worthy of debate they were just playground insults.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | | David wrote: | | watt price tully wrote: | David, how did I come to the conclusion that the Greens in the lower house make it harder for the ALP to win government (when they take seats from the ALP not the Libs)?
David this is tempting..... |
The point is that, unless you think there's a remote chance of the Greens making a deal with a Coalition government (in which case I have several bridges down here in Hampton to sell you), then it's reasonable to consider Labor and the Greens a voting bloc for these purposes. So it's like saying that a vote for the Nationals instead of the Liberals could elect Labor in other words, complete nonsense. |
David, that is irrelevant to my point. Your point as it were is a nonsense.
Greens take ALP seats.
ALP has less seats than The Lib Nats.
Result as you obviously know is that the ALP cannot form a government in its own right.
That is the point.
Your argument about voting as a coalition is a separate point as it does not address the obvious argument about government in it's own right.
However, there is a possibility that the Greens can take a seat in Northern NSW from the Gnats.
Keating remains correct - although you're too young (not your fault) to know how really good he was & what he did not just economically but socially. |
I see the point about "forming a government in their own right" as a bit of a side issue. In a hung parliament, one or the other major party will end up forming government. If the Greens hold the balance of power, then they will obviously back Labor (they want to get as much of their agenda passed as possible, so it's the only viable option), and Labor will form government, just as they did in 2010. The only difference is that Labor will be dependent on them for support and will probably need to make a deal (informal or otherwise) that takes into account refugees, climate policy, and so on. I see that as an overwhelmingly good outcome.
The only scenario in which the Greens winning a seat deprives Labor of government is where they decide to back the Coalition. As I've said, that would be the end of them as a party and the end of Turnbull's prime ministership too (the feral backbench would have his head on a platter on day one) it's just not a realistic possibility.
By the way, just because I was a kid when Keating left office doesn't mean I've never picked up a history book. I think he was our last great leader by some margin, and I respect his achievements as PM and treasurer under Hawke. But he's also a Labor man through and through and I think most of his public utterances on the Greens betray that. Frankly I think his comments on the Greens weren't merely wrong in the sense that he made points worthy of debate they were just playground insults. |
Heartily disagree young chap. The main issue in town is government in it's own right. The Greens play a spoiler role. Do it in the senate not the lower house.
If one takes accepts your logic (which at once dismisses the main game that is government in its own right) then the Greens will wield far too much power than their numbers warrant.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The thing that people always forget when they warn us about the dangers of hung parliaments is that the Liberal Party have never held government in their own right. Their coalition with the National Party is a formal and long-standing agreement, but they still remain reliant on a minor party for support and there is always a risk that, if they were to dramatically break their junior partner's trust, their coalition could fall apart.
Such coalitions (often far more ad hoc and interchangeable) are a feature of parliaments in advanced societies all over the world, and they are still perfectly capable of functioning. What happened in 2010 was not bad for democracy; if anything, it gave us a government that was far more representative.
You can say that a party with only two to three seats in the lower house (as the Greens will probably have after tomorrow) should not be able to wield such influence on government. But remember that this is a party that gets 10-15% of the vote nationwide. How exactly would them acting as a junior partner in an informal coalition with Labor (as they were in 2010) be an undemocratic result?
I completely disagree that the Greens play a 'spoiler' role. We don't have an American voting system where a vote for a minor party disadvantages the major party candidate that your views more closely align with (which is why, if I were voting in the US, I would grit my teeth and vote for Clinton as a Greens vote over there only helps Trump in the long run). In our preferential system, a vote for the Greens is exactly what it says on the box: a vote for leftward pressure on a Labor government.
If you like Labor just the way it is (and it seems you do), then I understand if you would prefer to avoid the annoyance of another player forcing their hand on issues like climate change, refugees, trade deals and ending political corruption. But for those of us who want more from a progressive party than Shorten is offering, a vote for the Greens with Labor as second preference is the best possible compromise. And we can do so with confidence knowing that we will not be aiding the Liberal Party in any way.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Fri Jul 01, 2016 12:30 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That's one way to put it. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My Mum and Dad lost half there Pension because of Assests that ot changed for Decades.
Just showing the Libs are trying to get Rid of Majority Pension and Welfare
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
