NationStates

The Greens are the party that has a fair bit of say in something passes however is not ever leading

Emile Zola wrote:They are the only left leaning major party in Parliament.

Bill Shorten and his party are not left leaning? Really? Full srs?

Quilavaland wrote:

Emile Zola wrote:They are the only left leaning major party in Parliament. What Labor used to be under Whitlam. Not anti-capitalist just interested in protecting the environment. Has one of the best Senators with regards to the NBN and tech with Scott Ludlum.

I just wish people would wake up to themselves and vote for the Greens for once. Australia's like that NationStates issue with the Progressive Right-Wing Party and the Conservative Liberals or whatever it was XD

Why would I vote for a political party who, if elected, plans to put me out of work? It sorta sucks that the only genuinely left wing party happens to have conservation as it's overriding ideology, because that sort of makes them irrelevant for anything other than being an also-ran in Australian politics. The apparent conservation-at-all-costs approach (they oppose building dams for fuck sakes) doesn't lend well to running a prosperous country and maintaining the standards of living we enjoy. Because of that, I don't intend to vote for them, ever.

Vitaphone Racing wrote:

Emile Zola wrote:They are the only left leaning major party in Parliament.

Bill Shorten and his party are not left leaning? Really? Full srs?

They are not. Labor ain't what they used to be. Unless you're a redneck you should be able to tell the difference.

What are the Aussie Greens? Slightly saner than American Greens, imo.

Emile Zola wrote:

Vitaphone Racing wrote:Bill Shorten and his party are not left leaning? Really? Full srs?

They are not. Labor ain't what they used to be. Unless you're a redneck you should be able to tell the difference.

Lmao

"you disagree with me so you must be an uneducated fuckwit"

Christ you're hilarious

The ALP is socially more progressive than it's ever been. That's not an opinion, that's an objective fact. Just because they're relatively maintaining the economic status quo does not make them right wing. If you think your boy Whitlam was economically progressive then you should check what he did with tariffs.

Vitaphone Racing wrote:

Emile Zola wrote:
They are not. Labor ain't what they used to be. Unless you're a redneck you should be able to tell the difference.

Lmao

"you disagree with me so you must be an uneducated fuckwit"

Christ you're hilarious

The ALP is socially more progressive than it's ever been. That's not an opinion, that's an objective fact. Just because they're relatively maintaining the economic status quo does not make them right wing. If you think your boy Whitlam was economically progressive then you should check what he did with tariffs.

Oh come on... More socially progressive than it's ever been? They're ineffective as an opposition and fail to stand up for those that voted for them, have a closet liberal for party leader and are make enormous concessions on policy. There is no doubt they're shifting slightly further to the right. Since Rudd replaced Gillard as leader, there has been a slight shift to the right in policy in the hope of appealing to undecided voters and the more conservative factions of the ALP. But in the process they risk losing the support of ALP supporters with more progressive views. The Greens have been able to capitalise on that, by widening their focus on issues other than conservation and environmental policy and an effective PR strategy. The significant gains made in the WA senate run-offs are proof of this.

ALP isn't what it used to be, and it's getting more conservative by the day.

Vitaphone Racing wrote:Lmao

"you disagree with me so you must be an uneducated fuckwit"

Christ you're hilarious

The ALP is socially more progressive than it's ever been. That's not an opinion, that's an objective fact. Just because they're relatively maintaining the economic status quo does not make them right wing. If you think your boy Whitlam was economically progressive then you should check what he did with tariffs.

What a bizarre argument for someone who ostensibly follows Australian politics.

Bill Shorten is from Labor Right. Kevin Rudd was from Labor Right.

Julia Gillard, importantly, was from Labor Left. Labor has a standing policy of electing its Leader from Labor Right and Deputy Leader from Labor Left. Julia Gillard was the exception because Labor Right supported her into office to replace Kevin Rudd, and so the policy was not broken by the faction which technically stood to gain (whether practically they did is another story).

So, the first contention is that Labor tends to be represented by its right-wing elements. Hence, its center of mass is closer to the middle (the right) than the Liberals. Comparative to the Liberals, it is less extreme as a party comparative to the Australian population, based on the people who actually take power.

This is, of course, a terrible terrible thing for party politics, because you have things like Julia Gillard being supported by Labor Right because she actually leans right, and Kevin Rudd being supported by Labor Left because he used to lean left.

This all pales when you consider the fact that, under Mr. Shorten, the ALP's challenges to government corruption, asylum seeker policy, and both domestic and foreign surveillance have been immensely muted in favor of fiscal discourse. Following along with Rudd's second term policy, the ALP has moved to a fiscally reactionary and socially inept position that is, if anything, more philosophically conservative than the Liberals' neo-conservatism. That's the only thing they can do, because half our damn social policies are as much their fault as the Liberals.

Domestic spying is a disgusting thing, but the Liberals got it passed because Shorten wasn't willing to risk a gamble - it was Deputy Leader Albanese and Fremantle MP Melissa Parke who were the most vocal voices against it, with Parke being a notoriously socially progressive member of the ALP with a very impressive portfolio of both political and career work (as a lawyer) in the field of human rights. The asylum seeker policy is oneupmanship heralding from the Rudd era.

Kingsley Bedford wrote:. But in the process they risk losing the support of ALP supporters with more progressive views. The Greens have been able to capitalise on that, by widening their focus on issues other than conservation and environmental policy and an effective PR strategy. The significant gains made in the WA senate run-offs are proof of this.

This seems a quite well calculated political move all the same. When it comes down to two-party preferred, the ALP will be seen as the minimum lesser-of-two-evils and will get preference votes from the Greens and other left wing parties. Hence the ALP is sacrificing seats in the Senate to the Greens in exchange for votes in the lower house. In other words, by moving further to the right, the Liberals could be cementing ALP victories in upcoming elections by allowing them that breathing space.

Keyboard Warriors wrote:

Kingsley Bedford wrote:. But in the process they risk losing the support of ALP supporters with more progressive views. The Greens have been able to capitalise on that, by widening their focus on issues other than conservation and environmental policy and an effective PR strategy. The significant gains made in the WA senate run-offs are proof of this.

This seems a quite well calculated political move all the same. When it comes down to two-party preferred, the ALP will be seen as the minimum lesser-of-two-evils and will get preference votes from the Greens and other left wing parties. Hence the ALP is sacrificing seats in the Senate to the Greens in exchange for votes in the lower house. In other words, by moving further to the right, the Liberals could be cementing ALP victories in upcoming elections by allowing them that breathing space.

It might be a well calculated political move... but also a very misguided one. Where do we draw the line between political advantage and principles? Is gaining a few more votes in the lower house worth sacrificing party principles and ideology.

Quilavaland wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:Australian Greens are vegetables grown.....oh, you mean the political party. Well, most "green parties" are independent although a number have moved to the left. The Green Party in NZ is actually surprisingly pro-market.

So basically the Greens don't fit on the left/right spectrum, it varies from country to country, but the thing they have in common is environmental policies?

Except in Finland and New Zealand, the green parties that I know of are left economically.