Think you may mean 2010, and as soon as Oakeshot, Wilkie and Barnaby’s best mate went with Julia, Adam Bandt was knackered.
So, if the Greens take a seat from Labor and it delivers conservative majority, god luck to their policies.
Yeah, I did mean 2010. Derp.
And as for Bandt falling in line after Oakeshott, Wilkie, etc made their decision - well, if that was true I’d be interested in purchasing his time machine. The Greens committed to supporting the ALP on supply and confidence on 31 September. Wilkie, Oakeshott, and Windsor didn’t choose to support Gillard for another week after that..
No. That’s not how parliament or majorities work. To form a government, the governing party needs to be able to deliver a reliable majority (50% plus) of lower house votes. If the Greens win a seat off labor, that doesn’t help the Libs reach 50%. It just (maybe) means that the ALP needs to negotiate with the greens so that THEY can deliver a reliable 50%.
The Greens are pretty much locked in to supporting the ALP if they win the balance of power and are required to choose which one of the two major parties wins govt. The Libs are just too far beyond the pale policy-wise. This Greens know this, and are none too pleased about it, because the ALP know it too and this reduces the greens bargaining position massively. But conversely, the ALP know they need the greens (especially in the Senate) and are none too happy about this either. It’s kinda a mutual hostage situation at this point, held together by shared loathing of the coalition.
Their is massive ill-will between Labor and Greens, no trust and many of us have personal experience with being shafted by Greens dishonesty and worse at local levels.
That said, my gut tells me that if the opportunity for Greens to share power with LNP arose they would jump into it readily. Opportunism in Politics over-rides “core promises” regularly.
Yeah it’s the worst.
Nah, there are worse things.
AFL
ASADA
Mrs Fox the first
1 Like
Hey Bacchus, if the electoral situations of the ALP & Greens were reversed, and if the ALP held the balance of power and had to choose between supporting the Libs or the Greens for government, who would you pick?
Greens would never side with the Liberals, it would end the party, Democrats style. I think it’s wishful thinking that ALP went the greens to self implode like that.
3 Likes
The reality is that Labor could wipe out the Greens by doing one simple thing:
Be Labor.
But they refuse to do that, so people vote for the party that fills the void left for environment, social and industrial relations policy when Labor shuffled to the right.
That’s what burns up the true believers like Bacchus.
8 Likes
Reality doesn’t burn me up at all Ding.
Think you are also living a bit in the past as well, as the typical Labor Working Class Voter has other priorities than environment and social justice. The Voters turning Green you are talking about are not working class generally, and not all working class people vote Labor.
The SSM survey showed that the “safe” Labor seats were the highest NO voters, and I have seen the apathy that workers have to refugees and Indigenous Australians. If you do the demographics on Greens, they are well educated, middle class, age varies from Baby Boomers with a passion for environment and social justice (us old Whitlam voters, who are “progressive”), and those younger from 16 to 35, which is the growing demographic, especially in inner city, (like our trendy Baby Boomers were in 1972) Usually have well paying jobs, high disposable income and follow the issues; they are not rusted on anything in fact and Labor could win them back, but not by being traditional Labor.
Think we both would agree that Labor lost its way, with the economic direction of Hawke / Keating; not that it was entirely wrong and indeed was much better than Fraser before and Howard after. The Accords and the changes in our Economy survived on the good-will of the Trade Union movement and the trust they had for Hawke/Keating, who in my view were fooled by their capitalist mates, like Peter Abeles. Trade Unions gave up power and ultimately it has screwed them, but they are on the way back.
If Shortens wins the next election, then Industrial Relations will be revamped and my hope is that fairness returns to the workplace.
I do understand why people vote Greens; will never understand why anyone would Vote Liberal or PHON though.
1 Like
You really need to poke your head in at your local greens meeting.
I think you will be shocked at the people you will find there, plus the amount of members are ex Labor people.
Federal government have decided to cancel next week’s sitting. Obviously worried about numbers before the by-elections are out of the way.
How often does that actually happen?
Weak as ■■■■.
Someone or other (Albanese?) was saying that if Gillard had cancelled sitting every time HER parliamentary margin looked this shaky, parliament wouldn’t have sat at all between 2010 and 2013.
4 Likes
How the actual fark is it acceptable for this to happen?
Will they forgo their salary for the week?
Get to ■■■■■■■ work and do your ■■■■■■■ jobs you pack of arrogant ■■■■■■.
3 Likes
That could well be the worst possible thing he could do.
Scared Govt won’t go down well and people are actually engaged in this legislation. This gap will feel like an eternity
1 Like
Lol.
The local Greens in my area are disgraceful, lying, unprincipled bits of scum. I hope that they are not like Greens elsewhere.
For years we worked together at Election time, did mutually beneficial deals on preferences and acted together in environmental issues, and we have had a number in this area. The rot started when they got donations from the developers of a local wind farm and their new best buddies, Friends of the Earth, misrepresented what Labor and our Local Council were trying to do. In 2007 we sat down and negotiated preference deals in good faith, and included Greens in the Campaign in our Federal Seat, with our Local Member making a number of concessions. I was Mayor at the time, and sat down with Greens MPs and discussed the Council position on Wind Farms, which was totally supportive of renewable energy, but our policy was to ensure that local residents rights were safeguarded. After reaching what we thought was total agreement, he released a press statement attacking the Council, and they brought in that idiot Simon Chapman to further misrepresent the local issues, and to ridicule residents who had real health issues. Whether or not the health problems were due to windfarms was irrelevant, as these people were actually sick and we were trying to find out why.
The Candidate then publicly blasted Labor and preferenced the Liberals, which was ironic as they were totally anti-wind energy, where Labor policy was one of support. No principles, anything for a headline.
I know that truth in politics is just a random hope for some, but I believe in it and always have. I don’t hate Greens policy, just the people. The pity for me is that I have seen the great things that Greens Parties have done in Europe without being ego-driven.
2 Likes
Only the Reps cancelled, the Senate will continue with the SSM bill and then refer it to the Reps.
It will push back citizenship disclosures and possibly delay any referrals to the HC.
It will also forestall the push for a Royal Commission into the banks.
Is it constitutional?
Only need a third to form a voting quorum, Labor cover that easily.
I was under the impression it was the same as having voting “seconds” or whatever they’re called: if someone on one side can’t make it, they agree with someone on the other side to stay home too, so the numbers aren’t out of whack.
What happens if Labor follow through on Katter’s threat - turn up, declare a speaker, and start passing legislation?
1 Like
It could depend on the power to suspend sittings. The sittings calendar was agreed to by the House early this year. There does not appear to be a suggestion that the Governmeng cannot suspend sittings ( through the Speaker I think)
The quorum usually applies to a vote when the House exercises its powers ( and pairs are customarily granted). The House can still sit without a quorum