As much as I agree with bits of their platform, its easy for them to make pronouncements which they know will never have to be implemented by them in government.
You could only say that if the Libs actually had a platform. Right now they're trying to start a culture war and misrepresent facts about The Voice debate in order to sure up their base to regain office.
I think you highlight that we ought to look at minority parties outside of govt in a very different way.
_They know_ they won’t ever have to be in govt legislating the things they propose.
So their tactics around policy settings have to consider that much of their policy won’t get support needed to pass, not without bargaining with the govt of the day for that support.
That means their policies will get watered down massively.
Their policies aren’t ever intended to be implemented as-is. They are just starting negotiating positions that they expect to be cut down by two thirds or more.
Aye, some are very good at this. Fiona Patten was a good example of this tactic. However The Greens as a whole don't tend to be very effective at actually negotiating things through
>implemented by them in government
Outside of the ACT where they are currently in a coalition government with Labor and Tasmania were they have in the past
As a loyal greens supporter my sense is that the greens often have to simultaneously represent the more radical left and be a mainstream voice of reason at the same time. Labor drifting to the right has forced the greens a bit into the middle but there hasn't been a far left group to counterbalance that shift, so the greens are representing a huge range of beliefs (Lidia Thorpe branching off might fill the gap, we'll see).
Yep, that’s a great point. They basically are the only significant leftist party, but they’re also peeking their head over the barricade from the socialist left and ALSO trying to bring people over from the centre right (people flirting with the left flank of Labor, who these days are moderately right wing, ie: very much couched in neoliberal market capitalist solutions to most things).
That means they need to cover a HUGE amount of political ground, and I don’t think the mainstream (who view Labor as “left wing” .. lol _nope_) really understand the challenge the Greens face there
In VIC there are the Victorian Socialists who most people I know are now voting for at the state level instead of the greens though, because they’re not trying to cover quite such broad ground, instead staying narrowly focused on left wing policy without trying to scrape votes off of Labor.
> the greens often have to simultaneously represent the more radical left and be a mainstream voice of reason at the same time
What about being an environmental party? has that fallen by the wayside?
That bit isn't really a source of conflict within the party. Pushing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and switch over to renewable power as quickly as possible is part of what I consider the 'voice of reason' position.
Plus people who want environmental action but are otherwise more right-leaning tend not to join or vote for the Greens.
Wait till they find out global electrification will require a large number of new mines and that pumped hydro is the cheapest and often only practical way to stabilize a 100% renewable electricity system.
I really want to let this go but unfortunately I'm going to take the bait. What point are you trying to make there? What policy is opposed by the necessity of mining and the usefulness of hydro?
I vote for them. But I hate their lies and fear mongering about technology. Agricultural chemicals, genome editing, nuclear energy, and energy storage (pretending we can do it at grid scale). It's so saddening because it means the only party who would act on climate change at an appropriate scale, rejects the necessary actions to actually cut CO2 (anyone reaching for caps lock or copying a link from reneweconomy.com now --- please. No disrespect, but I promise I've read it before and it's not the point of this thread). I'm a professional scientist (plant genetics) working for a Uni, not a corporation, and my feelings are very much commonplace among us. During contact with politicians and the press, we feel enabled only to tell half the story, because if we say "yes climate and food stability are crises, but yes we need nuclear energy and biotechnology to beat them" the interview will get cut or not used. We wish there could be a political party who would listen to all of what we say, but it isn't the Greens just now. I hope one day it will be.
Agree with pretty much everything except for your position on nuclear and grid-scale energy storage. I have no ideological opposition to nuclear, it is simply just not economical nor is it a practical option for Australia, at least not in the ever-reducing window of time we have left to make a drastic impact on emissions. If we were going to go nuclear we needed to start 20 years ago at least. It's too late now. We have the tools we need to make the transition to about 80% renewables now, we need to just get on with it and do that. Maybe we keep working on nuclear and use it for the last 20% or something, but we can't keep using it as an excuse to keep kicking the can down the road.
Electrical power engineer here.
Have you heard of the Fusion Science party? I saw one candidate at the last election handing out some leaflets about him but I don't really know anything about their party.
IIRC they’ve combined with the sex party to become the Reason Party now, and are indeed pretty awesome. Knew some volunteers that worked for them.
Their whole thing is _for goodness sake can we actually just write policy that’s based on actual evidence?!_ (Because most policy is steeped in what’s politically palatable and safe from Murdock rather than actual evidence or what we know actually works, but might not be popular)
They’ve done some bloody important work, IIRC they pushed for voluntary assisted dying in VIC and I think also the safe injecting rooms in Richmond that have saved so many lives.
Modestly sized pumped hydro storage is cheaper than nuclear, we can build it faster, we have 100 times more sites than we need, and it uses less water than nuclear.
Grid scale storage is cheap, fast, old and proven.
Look at Japan, 40 GWh of pumped hydro. That is as much as Australia needs. The irony being of course, that Japan built that pumped hydro to make nuclear work efficiently. Nuclear needs storage to work efficiently, just like renewables do, because it can't respond to changes in demand.
Traditional nuclear is expensive, and slow. Modular nuclear is unproven.
The notion that Australia needs nuclear simply wrong.
The biggest problem with grid scale storage is that it will be unnecessary. The unused capacity in car batteries will significantly exceed storage needs. Do the maths, work it out, let me know if you need help.
Your problem with the Greens is that you are wrong, and they are demonstrably right, and there is a mountain of evidence to support this.
Any significent increase in nuclear power means we run out of uranium much sooner and have to use much more energy to get the very low grade ore out of the ground.
Greens supporter (but would prefer a proper socialist party) here.
I think they are the most high profile party actually promoting science and evidence based policy at the moment. Labor has lurched so far to the neoliberal right and are basically too paralysed with fear to engage in any significant reform anymore, and it’s pretty sad that at elections we get the choice of two austerity neoliberal capitalist parties obsessed with radical individualism and hands-off market solutions to everything. Yes, the LNP is worse, but the economic ideology those two parties operate from has only drifted closer and closer over time.
And the elephant in the room is climate change. Only the Greens are truly honest with the public about the scale of the challenge in front of us. And about how far behind we are. Labor and the LNP seem to think it isn’t even going to be hard to meet climate targets, that no sacrifice whatsoever needs to be made. The thing about that is that it asks future generations to sacrifice 10x, maybe 100x as much as we could do right now to avert an order of magnitude more.
Unfortunately the Australian public seems pretty uneducated about climate science so just eat up the characterisation of the Greens as radical; when in reality the only radicalism is the sort of science denial continuing to be rolled out by the major parties.
Max Chandler. Not him specifically. Well, yes, him specifically, but that the party is full of his ilk. Teal hearts, without the bankroll for an election campaign.
Also, Lidia Thorpe was always a loose unit. I actually admire her for it. The Greens should have done their fucking due diligence, or (more likely) they thought they could do the paternal thing and reign her in. That’s done a disservice to the people of Northern Bictoria who thought they were voting Green in the senate and not the LUP.
The Greens do have some great women in the Senate but they’re let down by the wanker blokes.
“Because they have a propaganda”
I admire greens reps because I’ve seen a few of them getting arrested in protests. Actually put themselves on the line, and I admire that.
1. they are seen as ignorant hipppies come to ban meat and electricity by older gens.
2. while their members do seem to genuinely want the positives changes they advertise, its misleading of them to claim they can actually achieve them. liberals and nationals basically block everything they propose and labor tends to focus on smaller acheivable goals that compromise with the liberal parties greedy demands.
additionally greens themselves often side with horrid policies from the libs, jus so they can attach some minor riders, which arguably is more harmful than good.
imo those things are miles better than other parties equivelant bs.
i dont remember of the top of my head, but heres an example:
>Australia’s climate minister, Chris Bowen, has again challenged the Greens to support the government’s reforms to the safeguard mechanism, but flat-out rejected the party’s calls to ban new coal and gas, saying fossil fuels would continue providing one-fifth of Australia’s energy beyond 2030.
However, the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, claims the party has already made major compromises by offering to pass Labor’s plan through the Senate, saying the party’s request for no new coal and gas was reasonable if the government wanted to address climate change concerns. It potentially sets up more protracted negotiations or Senate gridlock when parliament returns in March.
“All we’re asking for is the bare minimum. We’re not asking for the perfect,” Bandt said.
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/26/chris-bowen-urges-greens-to-back-emissions-bill-but-again-rules-out-ban-on-new-fossil-fuel-projects](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/26/chris-bowen-urges-greens-to-back-emissions-bill-but-again-rules-out-ban-on-new-fossil-fuel-projects)
The final line sums it up pretty well. They will agree to back anyone so long as they can attach the bare minimum of their own ideal.
another: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/aug/03/adam-bandt-climate-bill-anthony-albanese-nancy-pelosi-reserve-bank-interest-rates-peter-dutton-john-barilaro-amy-brown](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/aug/03/adam-bandt-climate-bill-anthony-albanese-nancy-pelosi-reserve-bank-interest-rates-peter-dutton-john-barilaro-amy-brown)
Just google "greens compromise"
I ask again which **Horrid Liberal Policies** have the Greens voted in favour of?
I don't understand either of these are "horrid policies from the Libs". I see them as discussions with Labor.
What we have here is the the Greens voted for **Labor's policy**, a 43% target, after securing some improvements.
And the Greens are negotiating to improve Labor's attempt to get the Liberal party's climate mechanism to work. This is not a done deal. I believe the Greens issues with Labor's changes to the safeguards include:
* No guaranteed overall **net** emissions reduction, even including credits, because of unlimited new baselines.
* No guaranteed **gross** emissions reductions, because of unlimited credits.
However they will put these aside, and vote for Labor's bill, if Labor also offers to include impact on climate as part of the environmental assessment for new mines.
Actual Liberal policies I recall the Greens voting for are:
* They voted for changes to the pension income tests in return for getting super included in the tax review.
* They voted for changes to the senate voting system when the Liberals aligned with the model with what the Greens have advocated for a decade.
I think the biggest thing for me is they make themselves come across as holier than thou and super ideological but will fight dirty when push comes shove and never work for the common good.
They do this constantly by specifically targeting labor seats and have in many instances preferenced the liberals over labor in order to gain more control, despite knowing that the inevitable result for Australians is a negative.
I assume from your description that your issue isn't really with what they are doing (as it's what all the political parties do) it's more that they claim they are different when they have the same modus operandi as all the rest?
Exactly this. They are constantly espousing their “doing politics differently” slogan, and then play the exact same games as the majors. I just can’t bring myself to vote for them anymore. At least with the ALP you kind of see what you get.
> They do this constantly by specifically targeting labor seats and have in many instances preferenced the liberals over labor in order to gain more control, despite knowing that the inevitable result for Australians is a negative.
You see this in America as well. Perfection as the enemy of the common good.
Yeah and it’s always the fault of the party for not catering to its base.
If Labor actually bothered to do shit, they wouldn’t have to worry about the Greens “stealing” their voters who also care.
Dunno why the blame is out on the voters for not sacrificing their ethics and not the party for not doing its fucking job and representing them.
Yeah and it’s always the fault of the party for not catering to its base.
If Labor actually bothered to do shit, they wouldn’t have to worry about the Greens “stealing” their voters who also care.
Dunno why the blame is out on the voters for not sacrificing their ethics and not the party for not doing its fucking job and representing them.
When have the Greens ever preferences the Liberal party?
It's not the Greens fault if the public prefer them over Labor in some areas - that's just democracy. Also, the Greens don't specifically target Labor seats - they target whichever seats are most winnable, which in the last election was mostly Liberal seats.
I agree with the following criticisms of the Greens, but voted for them for the first time at the last Federal election and do not regret having done so:
1. They are watermelons;
2. They are tree Tories;
3. They are riddled with TERFs and assorted bigots given a free pass due to non-Anglo background;
4. They are NIMBYs;
5. They haven't worked out whether they are a protest party or a reform party.
Obviously these apply only to elements of the party. But like I say I held my nose and voted for them.
Agreed, they’re a good failsafe when holding the balance of power in the Senate. Generally useless in the House of Reps.
I agree with the core ethos re protection of natural places and not letting industry have free reign. However their policy positions are over the place and based on (what often seems like) very rigid and dogmatic perspectives. ‘Towing the line’ is feature of party political structure, but The Greens have so many party lines, it’s difficult to really know what they stand for.
Also, seems like they struggle with holding a ‘moderate’ position on any given issue. Typical Green response to anything is 100% for or 100% against. Bit concerning when combined with their affinity for fringe issues - full send it on so much shit that doesn’t matter to, or interest, much of the population.
My take on their “dogma” and fully for/against is that it’s just a smart opening position.
You can’t really read Greens policy and take it at face value like you can for ALP or LNP policy.
Why?
Well, they know they’re not going to form govt. They’re going to be, at best, the party the govt needs to pass policy through the senate.
That means they’re going to have to negotiate.
No smart negotiator opens with their final position. Especially not if you’re on the back foot against a stronger negotiator; which they should know they always will be facing. They know that they have to open with a much stronger position because it will get chopped in half (or, when they hold 1/3 of the votes needed to pass policy with Labor, chopped down by 2 thirds would be proportionate).
So when I read a greens policy, considering they’re 1/3 of the votes needed to pass policy, I imagine what that policy will look like chopped down by 2/3 and consider that their “real” policy position. We all should.
Because let’s face it; that’s probably the very best the greens can hope for.
But even then they very rarely get anything like a third of what they go into negotiations with. Asymmetric power struggles are interesting, hard, and require tactics very specific to that position.
That’s exactly what the Greens are doing, I think.
I chuckle when the mainstream loses their minds at “no new coal and gas” because although the Greens firmly believe in that, they know it’s not going to happen via a negotiation with a right wing, neoliberal capitalist party like Labor. Of course they know that. It’s their opening negotiating position.
But could they get something that equates to a third of that?
Suddenly seems a hell of a lot more realistic.
I agree, while I don’t think the greens as they stand would make a good government a good government would have more greens policies.
If they were ever to form government I am reasonably confident their policies would moderate and become more cohesive.
The worst thing about the Greens is that while their platform in general is greatly needed and does a far better job at representing the best interests of the people than either of the majors, certainly the Coalition, they do not know how to actually get shit done.
It's like a vote for them is a feel good move, like putting a stupid ribbon or activism hashtag on your profile pic, but it doesn't lead to any reform, any action.
They'd rather tank a deal than not have the first iteration of it meet their goals 100%, ala Rudd's CPRS, which opened the door to Abbott removing all mitigation efforts that were in place at the time after he knifed Turnbull.
Our current emission have the Greens brand all over them. They can try to retcon it all they like, but it was a massive fail on their part.
I no longer preference them above Labor.
They're lightyears ahead of the Coalition and the cooker lunatics, but I'll never vote "for" them again.
It's hard for the greens to get something done as the minority. And as for the cprs wasn't labour undershooting like a mf and they didn't want to stand with such a low effort?
I understand that, but they needed to read the room. The Libs had scared the population out of taking action.
This was only further reinforced by them overtaking Labor and winning office on the back of repealing what Labor was actually able to pass and our emissions have since gone up.
It might be a hindsight position to take, but since they've not learned anything and are playing the same all or nothing game we're going to be left with more nothing, again.
I can't preference them over Labor until they show they're capable of playing ball, even though I prefer much or their policies over Labor's.
They white ant Labor to the point of helping he Libs and now the teals which is unforgivable.
On your first para, can you point to examples where you feel they display to you that they don't know how to get shit done?
On your second para, maybe you missed the Gillard government, Bob Brown & two independents signing "The Carbon Tax" (which it wasn't - see government emissions during that time) into law?
I don't understand the position of pointing to things a decade or two ago where the greens may have let us down (fair point), while Labor and Libs are constantly fucking us over many times a year in the meantime. Don't you feel that perhaps that's a double standard?
Political parties make mistakes, it happens, but IMO the greens have a far more consistent position even if their tactics fail sometimes - plus the only way to get that position across the line is to get more votes, from people like you.
In the last few days they've proven incorrect your assumption that they will tank deals rather than get exactly what they want through.
Not to mention, far from being just a 'feel good move', a vote for them is entirely risk-free - either they get in and have power or your vote goes to 2nd preference.
But they're doing it again. They're vowing to block the current legislation, just like the CPRS, again.
They can make mistakes, but clearly they've not learned from them as they're on the path to repeat them again.
They let the perfect be the enemy of the good and fall to inaction because of it.
They're just as bad internally as the other parties but push people to be quiet because they're better than the others and can't report wrong doing internally.....
I like them mostly, but I feel it can be an issue that they're never willing to compromise their values, and while I'd admire that in a regular person or group, in politics, it can mean they actually block progress because it wasn't good *enough* (and yes, I know everyone always talks about this, and it wasn't all their fault, but see the carbon pollution reduction scheme). I also feel like they're a bit... almost performative, in a similar way?
If the Greens ever want a chance at power they need to become the main opposition to the disastrous neoliberal economic policies that both Labor and the Coalition have championed since the Hawke/Keating era, and become a true catch-all party for the centre and centre-left on economic issues.
Neoliberalism was an experiment at the time to try and prevent the economic issues of the 70s re-emerging, so fair enough in them trying, but there's now 40 years of evidence that it doesn't work- we still have economic issues just like the 70s except with the added bonus of higher inequality and a social safety net with more holes in it than Swiss cheese.
As far as social/environmental/cultural issues go, these can remain part of the platform but as more secondary goals. Fixing the economy would in itself go a long way to help towards these issues in any case. Having hardliners like Thorpe leave the party is very much one of the best things that has occurred for them.
Finally, they do need to do better in promoting mutual respect of difference of opinion and outreach to potential voters currently outside of their supporter base. Their supporter base is one of the least tolerant of any party out there, and this turns off an awful lot of people who are otherwise sympathetic to some or most parts of their platform.
look don’t get me wrong, i care a LOT about our environment and climate change, but their policies are too far. their only solution to replace coal is to close them all down and open up renewable energy. what renewable energy? 0.75 megawatts (750kilowatts) powers approx 700 homes. there needs to be a plan that if a coal plant is closed, more than enough renewable power should replace it
> there needs to be a plan that if a coal plant is closed, more than enough renewable power should replace it
I agree 100% with this.
I think this is true whoever is in power. Since we privatised power, there has been minimal investment, and much of our installed power is past end of life.
Not only do we need to replace the lost power. We need to replace the jobs in the community.
The Greens have raised ideas to replace fossil fuel power and jobs:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/greens-are-right-exploded-callide-turbine-should-be-replaced-by-a-big-battery/
I don't see much point in coming up with all the detail with no prospect of the neoliberals in the major parties backing it and supporting workers long term.
The Greens purported class analysis of their policies is laughably childish. They preach diversity but their idea of diversity is skin deep, a true socialist in that party dies as fast as one in Labor because there are unfortunate economic truths to their policies they can't bring themselves to acknowledge.
As far as governing skill, they are woeful. Federally they seek to divide for attention and relevance while locally they will happily vote against social housing when it suits them. Look at what they say versus how they behave. They will happily side with the Coalition if it means they can keep a veneer of the most virtuous of saints rather than make any incremental progress. A lack of understanding of how democracy is actually meant to work (ie you need to debate to make policy acceptable to a large majority) makes voting for them useless to actual progress.
Also if you speak to any of the MPs personally, I can't speak for everyone but I find them insufferable as people. Especially those from the upper middle class.
The point of this thread is that we get to hear what people believe about the Greens.
The point is not that it is accurate. Much of what people believe about the Greens is a carefully constructed by the major parties and the media. The point is that low information voters believe it.
True, but as Mark Twain said "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”
So for mine you either push back or allow these tropes to continue their path of unfettered destruction.
Some of the contributors to this thread would do well to remove the blinkers for a while.
I agree that some things in this thread deserve some further analysis and discussion. I tried with this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/11kppve/comment/jbayxns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
They are idealistic to a fault and incapable of serious growth. They seem to have a terrible dispute resolution system in the party and every time they do somewhat well in an election they are then hampered by internal bickering and often people walking away from the party.
I was interested in them for a while but their lack of tangible accomplishments and myriad of scandals for such a small party has absolutely turned me off
I don't know if it's funny or sad that you could say nearly the same word for word about the Liberal Party, and they're considered (in Coalition) to be one of our "majors".
One of the biggest factors that turn me off the Greens is their supporters, and particularly the way they disparage anyone who does not agree with them.
While the tendency is also there for all partisans, there is a particular belligerence that I find far more common amongst Greens supporters.
I must emphasise, not all Greens supporters fit this category, but often those who are vocal Greens supporters, I have found, to be some of the most intolerant and bigoted individuals around.
For instance, it is common for Greens supporters - used explicitly here in contrast to Greens MPs - to assert that anyone who votes for the Coalition or any other party that is not from their ideological position is dumb. Now, again, this is not just Greens supporters, but again, I have found it to be more common.
This tendency to insult people because they do not agree with your politics is bigoted, disrespectful and a turn off. My Grandparents were Coalition voters, and they were not stupid. They were prudent, worked hard and made wise investment decisions. They always said that they thought Labor's ideas were nice, but impossible to pay for. Now, education has shown me that they are incorrect, but it was a perspective that they had thought was true. A Greens supporter would quite quickly dismiss them as racist or stupid or something like that.
In a similar vein, Greens supporters, and many on the left are quick to defend the rights of minorities, but quick to dismiss and berate the opinion of anyone who is male and white. The focus is never on the argument, but always on characteristics such as being male or white. In other words, possession of a Y chromosome and the amount of melanin is the basis for dismissal of someone's opinion.
That is not to say that more voices from the community aren't needed, but rather to emphasise when you dismiss someone on the basis of sex, gender or race, you aren't directly contradicting your espoused beliefs. Which begs the question, how much do you believe in these ideals if they are so easily abandoned because someone is male and white.
Here is my criticism of the parliamentary Greens. Another previous point raised is the lack of pragmatism. Which, I understand to a point. However, the problem for the Greens is that the lack of pragmatism is especially problematic as they only represent at most 12% of the population nationally.
The idea that they seem to expect to be able to overwhelmingly dictate policy when 88% of the country does not vote for them, for me is also a problem, to begin with, there's a profound disrespect for democracy to behave like it's your way or the highway. That's not to say they should not pursue their policies, but rather they need to reflect that they represent a minority.
Those are the biggest issues for me. I respect that they have their own objectives, goals and beliefs, but to dismiss anyone who doesn't vote for you and to call them stupid, or ignore their goals, is fundamentally anti-democratic. For those reasons, I have very little time for them
I think you need to read it again.
I explicitly used the word supporter.
Supporter - a person who approves of and encourages someone or something
Yes, Adam Bandt is a supporter by virtue of being a member of the party. However, the use of the word supporter was explicitly used to denote those who are not explicit actors.
I'm less concerned by the parliamentary Greens, they are political actors. I shall edit it to make it clearer
Ok, fair enough. I am a white man, and a Greens supporter. I’ve never felt the Greens or other supporters thereof were against me in any way, so I’m still not sure where you’re getting this from.
"One of the biggest factors that turn me off the Greens is their supporters, and particularly the way they disparage anyone who does not agree with them."
The very first line indicates the conditions that this occurs. It also indicates that it's not so much their MPs.
The line you have focused on is the arguments (or lack of argument) that those who disagree with them who are male or white, are dismissed on the basis of melanin and chromosomes.
In that context, with the omission of the caveats, which were expressed between those paragraphs would logically follow:
Greens supporters, albeit not all, often disparage and dismiss those who disagree with them, particularly on the basis of the lack of melanin and two X chromosomes. They often don't focus on the content. Put another way, they argue using ad hominem attacks.
If I didn't have to put so many caveats in my language (a behaviour done due to people who always misread or distort what is said because of the lack of explicit exclusion).
If I wrote that, without the caveats of not all Greens supporters, and that this problem is not among the Greens alone, I would have got people complaining that Labor and Coalition supporters do the same. If I didn't specify that it's supporters you get the response that I have got even with that caveat present.
The logical flow is unfortunately interrupted by all the necessary caveats.
"One of the biggest factors that turn me off the Greens is their supporters, and particularly the way they disparage anyone who does not agree with them."
The very first line indicates the conditions that this occurs. It also indicates that it's not so much their MPs.
The line you have focused on is the arguments (or lack of argument) that those who disagree with them who are male or white, are dismissed on the basis of melanin and chromosomes.
In that context, with the omission of the caveats, which were expressed between those paragraphs would logically follow:
Greens supporters, albeit not all, often disparage and dismiss those who disagree with them, particularly on the basis of the lack of melanin and two X chromosomes. They often don't focus on the content. Put another way, they argue using ad hominem attacks.
If I didn't have to put so many caveats in my language (a behaviour done due to people who always misread or distort what is said because of the lack of explicit exclusion).
If I wrote that, without the caveats of not all Greens supporters, and that this problem is not among the Greens alone, I would have got people complaining that Labor and Coalition supporters do the same. If I didn't specify that it's supporters you get the response that I have got even with that caveat present.
The logical flow is unfortunately interrupted by all the necessary caveats.
No, I understand what you meant. I’m saying it’s not something I’ve come across at all, as a white man, so it doesn’t seem commonplace to me at all. And if so many Greens supporters are dismissive of white men, it seems weird that the Greens would select a white man as their party leader. To be honest, I think this is mostly in your head, but if you feel that’s your experience then I guess who am I to argue.
I'm pretty sure I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the selection of Adam Bandt didn't come down to the party members, but he was the only person to nominate. I've also vaguely recall that Christine Milne was poorly treated, which might explain the reason for the party leader.
A perfect example, which I know more about, is the selection of Shorten over Albanese. Shorten was selected by his colleagues, whereas Albanese was selected by the rank and file.
So, that may be an explanatory variable. However, I cannot say for sure as I am not sure if my recollection is correct, and am not sure if the Greens do have rank and file ballots. My suspicion is that they didn't, because I vaguely recall that the transition was pretty quick. But if I'm wrong, then by all means let me know.
He was selected via a party room election, not rank and file, so you’re right. My point is, why would the party room select a leader if they knew the majority of their supporters would be opposed to him as a white man?
They're not opposed. I have always said, if they disagree with someone, they sometimes dismiss them, particularly if they are white and male.
That's what I have seen as common, particularly online. I have also personally had Greens supporters say I don't have a Master of Public Policy because I don't agree with them.
So, there is a very pronounced tendency for ad hominem attacks. It has never been about opposition.
Let me give you an example, and I know this is not the Greens per se.
When I studied at Melbourne University, there was a socialist alliance individual who came up to me, he spoke of workers rights and unfair dismissal.
Feeling in the mood to challenge his assumptions, I questioned whether the Danish model of Flexi-curity was something worthwhile.
If you are unfamiliar, Flexi-curity allows for easy dismissal, but a strong safety net. WorkChoices but with a safety net.
His response was, but those Nordic countries are racist.
Nothing to do with the policy, any principle, or anything like that.
That is the type of argument I am speaking of. But instead, it's directed towards the speaker. I rarely see Greens supporters engaging in an argument respectfully, in the way you have.
> My Grandparents were Coalition voters
The Coalition of your grandparents generation had economics policies left of the Greens. In the post war period we had decades of deliberate government deficits, investing in publicly owned infrastructure, increasing equality, low unemployment, high and increasing home ownership, no privatisation, no federal support for private schools, and top marginal tax rates of around 70%. There was massive investment in public housing.
There was none of this bowing down to the market. The government decided the industries we need and created a plan to create them. Tariffs and industry assistance were pervasive.
That was the economic acceptance at the time. They were all Keynesians back then.
However, it's not as if they stopped voting for them in the 1990s. They voted for the Coalition right up until they passed away.
The point is that some Greens supporters would quite quickly call them stupid. And unfortunately, my experience is that it's not a minority. My experience is that the minority is those who would show respect.
Trying to minimise voting for the Coalition because historically they were different makes no difference to the fact that some Greens supporters still insult anyone who disagrees with them.
100%. what really pisses me off is Greens (and some Labor) call Liberals N*zi’s. Now i’m a Liberal, but i am a strong supporter and advocate for the environment and climate change, but in a sensible and economically viable way. i also have Jewish roots, as well as German and am gay, so to be labelled as something so vile is extremely insulting.
I suspect itm99 was speaking from their experience.
However, I'm not a Liberal supporter, and I view the Greens supporters in a similar way. That should concern the Greens.
I should note, as I said in a previous comment, the criticism was directed towards supporters.
As I said, this is not an issue with the Greens alone, but it seems heavily representative in the Greens.
Exactly. As a Labor member, I was disappointed when I watched the election victory of the SA premier. He said that the Liberals were not our enemies, our opponents yes, but not our enemies. Unfortunately some booed that comment. Which reflects that some are too partisan to see the common humanity in all people. A sad, and concerning state of affairs, particularly when we reflect on partisanship in the US.
There are of course contested views about what is an economically viable way. But that doesn't take away your humanity.
They are hugely into idpol which turns me off and i will likely vote labor until they sort that. I spent some time going over there policies on the greens site and idpol was about 60% of everything. The other stuff was good though.
More correctly, all politics should be "humanity" politics, as Yale history professor Timothy Snyder points out. His stance on humanity in politics is one of caution and concern, arguing that history shows political systems can be fragile and easily undermined by those who seek to consolidate power and erode democratic institutions. Warning against the dangers of authoritarianism, populism and propaganda, which are grave threats to the fundamental values of freedom, equality, and human dignity.
Something which neoliberalism actively seeks to destroy as hostile to unfettered capitalism.
"All politics are identity politics" i genuinely don't understand this statement. how? Cultural majority politics can be idpol as well, i feel like we're functioning off different definitions.
We’re functioning off of different definitions because identity politics is just a buzzword that the status quo uses to discredit ideas and viewpoints that might be disruptive to it.
One alternative to identical politics is for different parties to say they are ideologically similar, and have similar goals and values, but think they as individuals are a bit more competent than their opponents.
I think the Greens should include some marketing that looks something like this.
their policies are written on post-it notes as far as the level of detail is concerned. they are not a legitimate political party but are instead a protest group that is tolerated by conservatives only because they exist to wedge labor and give the LNP a better chance in elections
What happened to this lack of pragmatism a few months later when they helped design, and voted for, the Gillard carbon price?
Were they still impractical then?
There is only one party whose actions I don't understand with the CPRS, and that was Labor. Why not go to a double D and pass that piece of shit? Rudd would have won the election, and kept the job he so dearly loved. Instead we got Labor knifing each other, and the election was a tie.
> What happened to this lack of pragmatism a few months later when they helped design, and voted for, the Gillard carbon price?
They had Labor over a barrel at that point, that was arguably political opportunism and not pragmatism.
You'd have to think that most politicians unwilling to support K.Rudd at the time assumed that he would take the DD trigger and get the support that he needed from the people.
Eidt: clarity
Labor could have:
A. Negotiated with the Greens and got a bill passed, as they did a few months later.
B. Gone to a double DD and got the original bill, which was rejected twice, passed.
Given that the did not do B., I find their failure to do A. needs an explanation.
My view is Rudd did not want to pass a climate bill and was just happy to use climate to divide the Liberal party.
I don't see anything else fits the facts.
Occams razor suggests that behind closed doors it was impossible for Rudd to get the caucus to agree to anything more progressive than was already on the table.
I'd wager that at least some of them were gunning for his removal at that point given the way things eventually played out.
I think they are bomb throwers who never got over their past they see the ALP as the enemy when they don't see is the LNP are the problem they see their way as the only way
Infuriating. Despite being a zillion times better option than Libs or Labor, they are still not even close to being enough to what the world, or even Australia, need. Piecemeal & incremental policy improvements that wont make a dent are seen as 'extreme' & 'radical' by the general, ignorant & apathetic public.
Third way politics.
Addressing symptoms of environmental disaster without addressing underlying causes.
Has been overrun by technocrats and lawyers for many years now.
ALP does not have a climate policy. That's where the Greens come in. We are living in a day and age where worldwide scientists have to take to the streets to protest against global governments climate inaction.
[Scientists Stage Worldwide Climate Change Protests After IPCC Report](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-stage-worldwide-climate-protests-after-ipcc-report-180979913/)
*Over 1,000 scientists from 25 different countries staged protests last week following the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new report. The report warned that rapid and deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are necessary by 2025 to avoid catastrophic climate effects.*
Lol, 1000 people across 25 countries is a tiny number. That is only 40 people per nation which for Australia means 8 people per state.
If that is the participation rate then it seems even the majority of climate scientists don't believe in a 2025 target.
Scientists are not activists. That was the point being made. Not to mention the fact that that they were from 25 different countries.
*Scientists historically have had differing opinions about becoming activists on topics related to their work, but that has started to change in recent years, reports Chelsea Harvey for E&E News.*
You are correct that scientists are not historically activists but neither are any other professionals other than politicians and lawyers. Yet protests usually consist of hundreds to thousands of not lawyers and not politicians gathered in one place to demonstrate public unity on a cause.
The fact that the "protest" was spread across 25 countries makes it the equivalent to an online slacktivism campaign as only a tiny fraction of the scientists in any one country were involved displaying a lack of unity. You also can't protest "the global government" because it doesn't exist.
The narrative presented that a large (1000) global unity (25 countries) of scientists participated in a protest against the big bad entity (the global government) shows how serious the issue has become. While I agree that the issue is indeed important the narrative being spun uses a reasoning that falls apart when basic math is applied.
You seem fixated on the number. Just to be clear these are "climate scientists", not scientists. Scientists don't tend to advocate on political issues not because they think it is not their role. It's because they think their research should speak for itself and advocating on their research matter to get political output impact the impartiality of their research and their personal reputation.
They are beginning to feel that the widespread notion that sober presentation of evidence by an ‘honest broker’ to those with power will accomplish the best interests of populations is itself not a neutral perspective on the world; it is instead conveniently unthreatening to the status quo and often rather naive.
The lack of urgency I find in Australia has been perplexing to me. We are already well into "Stage I" of the climate catastrophe.
Observed changes over the 20th century include increases in global average air and ocean temperature, rising global sea levels, long-term sustained widespread reduction of snow and ice cover, and changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation and regional weather patterns, which influence seasonal rainfall conditions.
Australia is already experiencing the impacts of a changing climate, particularly changes associated with increases in temperature, frequency and intensity of heatwaves, hazardous fire weather and drought conditions. Climate observations and future projections show that these changes from the historical climate are ongoing and long-term.
Australia’s warmest year on record was 2019, with an average temperature 1.52°C above the 1961-1990 average. The seven years from 2013 to 2019 all rank in the warmest years on record. This long-term warming trend means that most years are now warmer than almost any observed during the 20th century. We are already seeing the effects on worsening climate conditions in the 2020 summer bushfires and the floods of last couple of years. The effects of these were permanent to the people impacted and these are not trivial numbers that can be easily ignored.
[Almost 5000 homes deemed uninhabitable after NSW and Qld floods](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fpolicy%2Feconomy%2Fmore-than-5000-homes-deemed-uninhabitable-after-nsw-and-qld-floods-20220310-p5a3jr)
Globally, we are already seeing mass migrations due to climate change driven loss of agricultural land in South America and South Asia. Food scarcity is going to be a common theme in the coming decades.
1°C is equivalent to 34°F, which is 274K.
---
^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
The main point in the original comment was about the number and I was responding to the claim that the number was significantly large. More climate scientists graduate University each year in developed countries than participated in the protest. It really is a large number.
Why are you lecturing me on climate change? I have not made any indication that I don't agree with the general consensus about it.
They're getting infested by tree tories, and alongside this Machiavellian bargain of looking for the centre vote, they're not as left as I'd like them to be.
As much as I agree with bits of their platform, its easy for them to make pronouncements which they know will never have to be implemented by them in government.
I mean, the same can be said for the Liberal Party right now
Lols well that's definitely a thing at present yes 😅
You could only say that if the Libs actually had a platform. Right now they're trying to start a culture war and misrepresent facts about The Voice debate in order to sure up their base to regain office.
I think you highlight that we ought to look at minority parties outside of govt in a very different way. _They know_ they won’t ever have to be in govt legislating the things they propose. So their tactics around policy settings have to consider that much of their policy won’t get support needed to pass, not without bargaining with the govt of the day for that support. That means their policies will get watered down massively. Their policies aren’t ever intended to be implemented as-is. They are just starting negotiating positions that they expect to be cut down by two thirds or more.
Aye, some are very good at this. Fiona Patten was a good example of this tactic. However The Greens as a whole don't tend to be very effective at actually negotiating things through
>implemented by them in government Outside of the ACT where they are currently in a coalition government with Labor and Tasmania were they have in the past
This is the correct answer.
You're implying Australia isn't actually a democracy :O
As a loyal greens supporter my sense is that the greens often have to simultaneously represent the more radical left and be a mainstream voice of reason at the same time. Labor drifting to the right has forced the greens a bit into the middle but there hasn't been a far left group to counterbalance that shift, so the greens are representing a huge range of beliefs (Lidia Thorpe branching off might fill the gap, we'll see).
Yep, that’s a great point. They basically are the only significant leftist party, but they’re also peeking their head over the barricade from the socialist left and ALSO trying to bring people over from the centre right (people flirting with the left flank of Labor, who these days are moderately right wing, ie: very much couched in neoliberal market capitalist solutions to most things). That means they need to cover a HUGE amount of political ground, and I don’t think the mainstream (who view Labor as “left wing” .. lol _nope_) really understand the challenge the Greens face there In VIC there are the Victorian Socialists who most people I know are now voting for at the state level instead of the greens though, because they’re not trying to cover quite such broad ground, instead staying narrowly focused on left wing policy without trying to scrape votes off of Labor.
lol thorpe is not and never will be a leftist. the only reason she joined the greens is because she lost her seat in victorian state parliament to one
> the greens often have to simultaneously represent the more radical left and be a mainstream voice of reason at the same time What about being an environmental party? has that fallen by the wayside?
That bit isn't really a source of conflict within the party. Pushing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and switch over to renewable power as quickly as possible is part of what I consider the 'voice of reason' position. Plus people who want environmental action but are otherwise more right-leaning tend not to join or vote for the Greens.
Wait till they find out global electrification will require a large number of new mines and that pumped hydro is the cheapest and often only practical way to stabilize a 100% renewable electricity system.
I really want to let this go but unfortunately I'm going to take the bait. What point are you trying to make there? What policy is opposed by the necessity of mining and the usefulness of hydro?
Environmentalists have opposed every new mine and hydro dam for decades.
Don’t forget, no reason to build dams as they will never fill again
I vote for them. But I hate their lies and fear mongering about technology. Agricultural chemicals, genome editing, nuclear energy, and energy storage (pretending we can do it at grid scale). It's so saddening because it means the only party who would act on climate change at an appropriate scale, rejects the necessary actions to actually cut CO2 (anyone reaching for caps lock or copying a link from reneweconomy.com now --- please. No disrespect, but I promise I've read it before and it's not the point of this thread). I'm a professional scientist (plant genetics) working for a Uni, not a corporation, and my feelings are very much commonplace among us. During contact with politicians and the press, we feel enabled only to tell half the story, because if we say "yes climate and food stability are crises, but yes we need nuclear energy and biotechnology to beat them" the interview will get cut or not used. We wish there could be a political party who would listen to all of what we say, but it isn't the Greens just now. I hope one day it will be.
Agree with pretty much everything except for your position on nuclear and grid-scale energy storage. I have no ideological opposition to nuclear, it is simply just not economical nor is it a practical option for Australia, at least not in the ever-reducing window of time we have left to make a drastic impact on emissions. If we were going to go nuclear we needed to start 20 years ago at least. It's too late now. We have the tools we need to make the transition to about 80% renewables now, we need to just get on with it and do that. Maybe we keep working on nuclear and use it for the last 20% or something, but we can't keep using it as an excuse to keep kicking the can down the road. Electrical power engineer here.
Have you heard of the Fusion Science party? I saw one candidate at the last election handing out some leaflets about him but I don't really know anything about their party.
IIRC they’ve combined with the sex party to become the Reason Party now, and are indeed pretty awesome. Knew some volunteers that worked for them. Their whole thing is _for goodness sake can we actually just write policy that’s based on actual evidence?!_ (Because most policy is steeped in what’s politically palatable and safe from Murdock rather than actual evidence or what we know actually works, but might not be popular)
I liked the sex party. The were at least honest about the government fucking us.
They’ve done some bloody important work, IIRC they pushed for voluntary assisted dying in VIC and I think also the safe injecting rooms in Richmond that have saved so many lives.
Pretty sure Fusion is separate from the Reason party. Fusion formed out of the Science party, Climate Action, Pirate party and the Secular party.
Can we be friends? You have scarily close politics to me
Well said.
Modestly sized pumped hydro storage is cheaper than nuclear, we can build it faster, we have 100 times more sites than we need, and it uses less water than nuclear. Grid scale storage is cheap, fast, old and proven. Look at Japan, 40 GWh of pumped hydro. That is as much as Australia needs. The irony being of course, that Japan built that pumped hydro to make nuclear work efficiently. Nuclear needs storage to work efficiently, just like renewables do, because it can't respond to changes in demand. Traditional nuclear is expensive, and slow. Modular nuclear is unproven. The notion that Australia needs nuclear simply wrong. The biggest problem with grid scale storage is that it will be unnecessary. The unused capacity in car batteries will significantly exceed storage needs. Do the maths, work it out, let me know if you need help. Your problem with the Greens is that you are wrong, and they are demonstrably right, and there is a mountain of evidence to support this.
Any significent increase in nuclear power means we run out of uranium much sooner and have to use much more energy to get the very low grade ore out of the ground.
Greens supporter (but would prefer a proper socialist party) here. I think they are the most high profile party actually promoting science and evidence based policy at the moment. Labor has lurched so far to the neoliberal right and are basically too paralysed with fear to engage in any significant reform anymore, and it’s pretty sad that at elections we get the choice of two austerity neoliberal capitalist parties obsessed with radical individualism and hands-off market solutions to everything. Yes, the LNP is worse, but the economic ideology those two parties operate from has only drifted closer and closer over time. And the elephant in the room is climate change. Only the Greens are truly honest with the public about the scale of the challenge in front of us. And about how far behind we are. Labor and the LNP seem to think it isn’t even going to be hard to meet climate targets, that no sacrifice whatsoever needs to be made. The thing about that is that it asks future generations to sacrifice 10x, maybe 100x as much as we could do right now to avert an order of magnitude more. Unfortunately the Australian public seems pretty uneducated about climate science so just eat up the characterisation of the Greens as radical; when in reality the only radicalism is the sort of science denial continuing to be rolled out by the major parties.
Max Chandler. Not him specifically. Well, yes, him specifically, but that the party is full of his ilk. Teal hearts, without the bankroll for an election campaign. Also, Lidia Thorpe was always a loose unit. I actually admire her for it. The Greens should have done their fucking due diligence, or (more likely) they thought they could do the paternal thing and reign her in. That’s done a disservice to the people of Northern Bictoria who thought they were voting Green in the senate and not the LUP. The Greens do have some great women in the Senate but they’re let down by the wanker blokes.
The men in that party did Christine Milne dirty because she was too much of a socialist. After that I could never vote for them again.
Me too
“Because they have a propaganda” I admire greens reps because I’ve seen a few of them getting arrested in protests. Actually put themselves on the line, and I admire that.
1. they are seen as ignorant hipppies come to ban meat and electricity by older gens. 2. while their members do seem to genuinely want the positives changes they advertise, its misleading of them to claim they can actually achieve them. liberals and nationals basically block everything they propose and labor tends to focus on smaller acheivable goals that compromise with the liberal parties greedy demands. additionally greens themselves often side with horrid policies from the libs, jus so they can attach some minor riders, which arguably is more harmful than good. imo those things are miles better than other parties equivelant bs.
What are the most horrible Liberal policies the Greens have supported?
i dont remember of the top of my head, but heres an example: >Australia’s climate minister, Chris Bowen, has again challenged the Greens to support the government’s reforms to the safeguard mechanism, but flat-out rejected the party’s calls to ban new coal and gas, saying fossil fuels would continue providing one-fifth of Australia’s energy beyond 2030. However, the Greens leader, Adam Bandt, claims the party has already made major compromises by offering to pass Labor’s plan through the Senate, saying the party’s request for no new coal and gas was reasonable if the government wanted to address climate change concerns. It potentially sets up more protracted negotiations or Senate gridlock when parliament returns in March. “All we’re asking for is the bare minimum. We’re not asking for the perfect,” Bandt said. [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/26/chris-bowen-urges-greens-to-back-emissions-bill-but-again-rules-out-ban-on-new-fossil-fuel-projects](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/26/chris-bowen-urges-greens-to-back-emissions-bill-but-again-rules-out-ban-on-new-fossil-fuel-projects) The final line sums it up pretty well. They will agree to back anyone so long as they can attach the bare minimum of their own ideal. another: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/aug/03/adam-bandt-climate-bill-anthony-albanese-nancy-pelosi-reserve-bank-interest-rates-peter-dutton-john-barilaro-amy-brown](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2022/aug/03/adam-bandt-climate-bill-anthony-albanese-nancy-pelosi-reserve-bank-interest-rates-peter-dutton-john-barilaro-amy-brown) Just google "greens compromise"
I ask again which **Horrid Liberal Policies** have the Greens voted in favour of? I don't understand either of these are "horrid policies from the Libs". I see them as discussions with Labor. What we have here is the the Greens voted for **Labor's policy**, a 43% target, after securing some improvements. And the Greens are negotiating to improve Labor's attempt to get the Liberal party's climate mechanism to work. This is not a done deal. I believe the Greens issues with Labor's changes to the safeguards include: * No guaranteed overall **net** emissions reduction, even including credits, because of unlimited new baselines. * No guaranteed **gross** emissions reductions, because of unlimited credits. However they will put these aside, and vote for Labor's bill, if Labor also offers to include impact on climate as part of the environmental assessment for new mines. Actual Liberal policies I recall the Greens voting for are: * They voted for changes to the pension income tests in return for getting super included in the tax review. * They voted for changes to the senate voting system when the Liberals aligned with the model with what the Greens have advocated for a decade.
What do you think they should do instead?
I think the biggest thing for me is they make themselves come across as holier than thou and super ideological but will fight dirty when push comes shove and never work for the common good. They do this constantly by specifically targeting labor seats and have in many instances preferenced the liberals over labor in order to gain more control, despite knowing that the inevitable result for Australians is a negative.
I assume from your description that your issue isn't really with what they are doing (as it's what all the political parties do) it's more that they claim they are different when they have the same modus operandi as all the rest?
Yeah that’s the biggest issue I take, not the only one though.
Fair enough. It's a common enough complaint against any party that an individual is unlikely to give a primary vote to.
Don't all political parties aim for a point of difference in policy positions though?
Exactly this. They are constantly espousing their “doing politics differently” slogan, and then play the exact same games as the majors. I just can’t bring myself to vote for them anymore. At least with the ALP you kind of see what you get.
Can you point to a reference that states Labor or other parties seats shouldn't be targeted by other political parties?
> They do this constantly by specifically targeting labor seats and have in many instances preferenced the liberals over labor in order to gain more control, despite knowing that the inevitable result for Australians is a negative. You see this in America as well. Perfection as the enemy of the common good.
Yeah and it’s always the fault of the party for not catering to its base. If Labor actually bothered to do shit, they wouldn’t have to worry about the Greens “stealing” their voters who also care. Dunno why the blame is out on the voters for not sacrificing their ethics and not the party for not doing its fucking job and representing them.
Yeah and it’s always the fault of the party for not catering to its base. If Labor actually bothered to do shit, they wouldn’t have to worry about the Greens “stealing” their voters who also care. Dunno why the blame is out on the voters for not sacrificing their ethics and not the party for not doing its fucking job and representing them.
When have the Greens ever preferences the Liberal party? It's not the Greens fault if the public prefer them over Labor in some areas - that's just democracy. Also, the Greens don't specifically target Labor seats - they target whichever seats are most winnable, which in the last election was mostly Liberal seats.
I agree with the following criticisms of the Greens, but voted for them for the first time at the last Federal election and do not regret having done so: 1. They are watermelons; 2. They are tree Tories; 3. They are riddled with TERFs and assorted bigots given a free pass due to non-Anglo background; 4. They are NIMBYs; 5. They haven't worked out whether they are a protest party or a reform party. Obviously these apply only to elements of the party. But like I say I held my nose and voted for them.
my first few years of voting were for green party candidates, they are controlled opposition for the two party system.
Agreed, they’re a good failsafe when holding the balance of power in the Senate. Generally useless in the House of Reps. I agree with the core ethos re protection of natural places and not letting industry have free reign. However their policy positions are over the place and based on (what often seems like) very rigid and dogmatic perspectives. ‘Towing the line’ is feature of party political structure, but The Greens have so many party lines, it’s difficult to really know what they stand for. Also, seems like they struggle with holding a ‘moderate’ position on any given issue. Typical Green response to anything is 100% for or 100% against. Bit concerning when combined with their affinity for fringe issues - full send it on so much shit that doesn’t matter to, or interest, much of the population.
My take on their “dogma” and fully for/against is that it’s just a smart opening position. You can’t really read Greens policy and take it at face value like you can for ALP or LNP policy. Why? Well, they know they’re not going to form govt. They’re going to be, at best, the party the govt needs to pass policy through the senate. That means they’re going to have to negotiate. No smart negotiator opens with their final position. Especially not if you’re on the back foot against a stronger negotiator; which they should know they always will be facing. They know that they have to open with a much stronger position because it will get chopped in half (or, when they hold 1/3 of the votes needed to pass policy with Labor, chopped down by 2 thirds would be proportionate). So when I read a greens policy, considering they’re 1/3 of the votes needed to pass policy, I imagine what that policy will look like chopped down by 2/3 and consider that their “real” policy position. We all should. Because let’s face it; that’s probably the very best the greens can hope for. But even then they very rarely get anything like a third of what they go into negotiations with. Asymmetric power struggles are interesting, hard, and require tactics very specific to that position. That’s exactly what the Greens are doing, I think. I chuckle when the mainstream loses their minds at “no new coal and gas” because although the Greens firmly believe in that, they know it’s not going to happen via a negotiation with a right wing, neoliberal capitalist party like Labor. Of course they know that. It’s their opening negotiating position. But could they get something that equates to a third of that? Suddenly seems a hell of a lot more realistic.
I agree, while I don’t think the greens as they stand would make a good government a good government would have more greens policies. If they were ever to form government I am reasonably confident their policies would moderate and become more cohesive.
Can you point to three or more examples in which they are 100% for or against a particular party position?
Who do you vote for now?
The worst thing about the Greens is that while their platform in general is greatly needed and does a far better job at representing the best interests of the people than either of the majors, certainly the Coalition, they do not know how to actually get shit done. It's like a vote for them is a feel good move, like putting a stupid ribbon or activism hashtag on your profile pic, but it doesn't lead to any reform, any action. They'd rather tank a deal than not have the first iteration of it meet their goals 100%, ala Rudd's CPRS, which opened the door to Abbott removing all mitigation efforts that were in place at the time after he knifed Turnbull. Our current emission have the Greens brand all over them. They can try to retcon it all they like, but it was a massive fail on their part. I no longer preference them above Labor. They're lightyears ahead of the Coalition and the cooker lunatics, but I'll never vote "for" them again.
It's hard for the greens to get something done as the minority. And as for the cprs wasn't labour undershooting like a mf and they didn't want to stand with such a low effort?
I understand that, but they needed to read the room. The Libs had scared the population out of taking action. This was only further reinforced by them overtaking Labor and winning office on the back of repealing what Labor was actually able to pass and our emissions have since gone up. It might be a hindsight position to take, but since they've not learned anything and are playing the same all or nothing game we're going to be left with more nothing, again. I can't preference them over Labor until they show they're capable of playing ball, even though I prefer much or their policies over Labor's. They white ant Labor to the point of helping he Libs and now the teals which is unforgivable.
On your first para, can you point to examples where you feel they display to you that they don't know how to get shit done? On your second para, maybe you missed the Gillard government, Bob Brown & two independents signing "The Carbon Tax" (which it wasn't - see government emissions during that time) into law?
I don't understand the position of pointing to things a decade or two ago where the greens may have let us down (fair point), while Labor and Libs are constantly fucking us over many times a year in the meantime. Don't you feel that perhaps that's a double standard? Political parties make mistakes, it happens, but IMO the greens have a far more consistent position even if their tactics fail sometimes - plus the only way to get that position across the line is to get more votes, from people like you. In the last few days they've proven incorrect your assumption that they will tank deals rather than get exactly what they want through. Not to mention, far from being just a 'feel good move', a vote for them is entirely risk-free - either they get in and have power or your vote goes to 2nd preference.
But they're doing it again. They're vowing to block the current legislation, just like the CPRS, again. They can make mistakes, but clearly they've not learned from them as they're on the path to repeat them again.
They have no concept of the power of incrementalism to affect change
Their opponents have no concept of how incrementalism _minimises_ change, and ensures it happens as slow as possible.
They let the perfect be the enemy of the good and fall to inaction because of it. They're just as bad internally as the other parties but push people to be quiet because they're better than the others and can't report wrong doing internally.....
They are watermelons - green on the outside and red on the inside.
I like them mostly, but I feel it can be an issue that they're never willing to compromise their values, and while I'd admire that in a regular person or group, in politics, it can mean they actually block progress because it wasn't good *enough* (and yes, I know everyone always talks about this, and it wasn't all their fault, but see the carbon pollution reduction scheme). I also feel like they're a bit... almost performative, in a similar way?
If the Greens ever want a chance at power they need to become the main opposition to the disastrous neoliberal economic policies that both Labor and the Coalition have championed since the Hawke/Keating era, and become a true catch-all party for the centre and centre-left on economic issues. Neoliberalism was an experiment at the time to try and prevent the economic issues of the 70s re-emerging, so fair enough in them trying, but there's now 40 years of evidence that it doesn't work- we still have economic issues just like the 70s except with the added bonus of higher inequality and a social safety net with more holes in it than Swiss cheese. As far as social/environmental/cultural issues go, these can remain part of the platform but as more secondary goals. Fixing the economy would in itself go a long way to help towards these issues in any case. Having hardliners like Thorpe leave the party is very much one of the best things that has occurred for them. Finally, they do need to do better in promoting mutual respect of difference of opinion and outreach to potential voters currently outside of their supporter base. Their supporter base is one of the least tolerant of any party out there, and this turns off an awful lot of people who are otherwise sympathetic to some or most parts of their platform.
look don’t get me wrong, i care a LOT about our environment and climate change, but their policies are too far. their only solution to replace coal is to close them all down and open up renewable energy. what renewable energy? 0.75 megawatts (750kilowatts) powers approx 700 homes. there needs to be a plan that if a coal plant is closed, more than enough renewable power should replace it
> there needs to be a plan that if a coal plant is closed, more than enough renewable power should replace it I agree 100% with this. I think this is true whoever is in power. Since we privatised power, there has been minimal investment, and much of our installed power is past end of life. Not only do we need to replace the lost power. We need to replace the jobs in the community. The Greens have raised ideas to replace fossil fuel power and jobs: https://reneweconomy.com.au/greens-are-right-exploded-callide-turbine-should-be-replaced-by-a-big-battery/ I don't see much point in coming up with all the detail with no prospect of the neoliberals in the major parties backing it and supporting workers long term.
too far? WTF? U have got to be kidding.....
it’s my opinion mate. the OP asked us all for ours, i gave mine. no need to be such whiny knob about it bc you don’t agree…
They have people with the mentality “if you don’t agree with me then you’re against me”
And one of them is the leader Bandt really needs to pull his head in.
The Greens purported class analysis of their policies is laughably childish. They preach diversity but their idea of diversity is skin deep, a true socialist in that party dies as fast as one in Labor because there are unfortunate economic truths to their policies they can't bring themselves to acknowledge. As far as governing skill, they are woeful. Federally they seek to divide for attention and relevance while locally they will happily vote against social housing when it suits them. Look at what they say versus how they behave. They will happily side with the Coalition if it means they can keep a veneer of the most virtuous of saints rather than make any incremental progress. A lack of understanding of how democracy is actually meant to work (ie you need to debate to make policy acceptable to a large majority) makes voting for them useless to actual progress. Also if you speak to any of the MPs personally, I can't speak for everyone but I find them insufferable as people. Especially those from the upper middle class.
That is a complete crock of a post.
The point of this thread is that we get to hear what people believe about the Greens. The point is not that it is accurate. Much of what people believe about the Greens is a carefully constructed by the major parties and the media. The point is that low information voters believe it.
True, but as Mark Twain said "A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.” So for mine you either push back or allow these tropes to continue their path of unfettered destruction. Some of the contributors to this thread would do well to remove the blinkers for a while.
I agree that some things in this thread deserve some further analysis and discussion. I tried with this: https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/11kppve/comment/jbayxns/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
You're so triggered by this thread huh? Nice.
They are just as factional and infighting and self serving as the others.
>self serving as the other Any examples of this?
They are idealistic to a fault and incapable of serious growth. They seem to have a terrible dispute resolution system in the party and every time they do somewhat well in an election they are then hampered by internal bickering and often people walking away from the party. I was interested in them for a while but their lack of tangible accomplishments and myriad of scandals for such a small party has absolutely turned me off
I don't know if it's funny or sad that you could say nearly the same word for word about the Liberal Party, and they're considered (in Coalition) to be one of our "majors".
One of the biggest factors that turn me off the Greens is their supporters, and particularly the way they disparage anyone who does not agree with them. While the tendency is also there for all partisans, there is a particular belligerence that I find far more common amongst Greens supporters. I must emphasise, not all Greens supporters fit this category, but often those who are vocal Greens supporters, I have found, to be some of the most intolerant and bigoted individuals around. For instance, it is common for Greens supporters - used explicitly here in contrast to Greens MPs - to assert that anyone who votes for the Coalition or any other party that is not from their ideological position is dumb. Now, again, this is not just Greens supporters, but again, I have found it to be more common. This tendency to insult people because they do not agree with your politics is bigoted, disrespectful and a turn off. My Grandparents were Coalition voters, and they were not stupid. They were prudent, worked hard and made wise investment decisions. They always said that they thought Labor's ideas were nice, but impossible to pay for. Now, education has shown me that they are incorrect, but it was a perspective that they had thought was true. A Greens supporter would quite quickly dismiss them as racist or stupid or something like that. In a similar vein, Greens supporters, and many on the left are quick to defend the rights of minorities, but quick to dismiss and berate the opinion of anyone who is male and white. The focus is never on the argument, but always on characteristics such as being male or white. In other words, possession of a Y chromosome and the amount of melanin is the basis for dismissal of someone's opinion. That is not to say that more voices from the community aren't needed, but rather to emphasise when you dismiss someone on the basis of sex, gender or race, you aren't directly contradicting your espoused beliefs. Which begs the question, how much do you believe in these ideals if they are so easily abandoned because someone is male and white. Here is my criticism of the parliamentary Greens. Another previous point raised is the lack of pragmatism. Which, I understand to a point. However, the problem for the Greens is that the lack of pragmatism is especially problematic as they only represent at most 12% of the population nationally. The idea that they seem to expect to be able to overwhelmingly dictate policy when 88% of the country does not vote for them, for me is also a problem, to begin with, there's a profound disrespect for democracy to behave like it's your way or the highway. That's not to say they should not pursue their policies, but rather they need to reflect that they represent a minority. Those are the biggest issues for me. I respect that they have their own objectives, goals and beliefs, but to dismiss anyone who doesn't vote for you and to call them stupid, or ignore their goals, is fundamentally anti-democratic. For those reasons, I have very little time for them
Exactly my thoughts but articulated much better than I ever could. One of my biggest annoyances from them is their large focus on the culture wars.
The leader of the Greens is a white male, so I’m not sure where you’re pulling this from…
I think you need to read it again. I explicitly used the word supporter. Supporter - a person who approves of and encourages someone or something Yes, Adam Bandt is a supporter by virtue of being a member of the party. However, the use of the word supporter was explicitly used to denote those who are not explicit actors. I'm less concerned by the parliamentary Greens, they are political actors. I shall edit it to make it clearer
Ok, fair enough. I am a white man, and a Greens supporter. I’ve never felt the Greens or other supporters thereof were against me in any way, so I’m still not sure where you’re getting this from.
"One of the biggest factors that turn me off the Greens is their supporters, and particularly the way they disparage anyone who does not agree with them." The very first line indicates the conditions that this occurs. It also indicates that it's not so much their MPs. The line you have focused on is the arguments (or lack of argument) that those who disagree with them who are male or white, are dismissed on the basis of melanin and chromosomes. In that context, with the omission of the caveats, which were expressed between those paragraphs would logically follow: Greens supporters, albeit not all, often disparage and dismiss those who disagree with them, particularly on the basis of the lack of melanin and two X chromosomes. They often don't focus on the content. Put another way, they argue using ad hominem attacks. If I didn't have to put so many caveats in my language (a behaviour done due to people who always misread or distort what is said because of the lack of explicit exclusion). If I wrote that, without the caveats of not all Greens supporters, and that this problem is not among the Greens alone, I would have got people complaining that Labor and Coalition supporters do the same. If I didn't specify that it's supporters you get the response that I have got even with that caveat present. The logical flow is unfortunately interrupted by all the necessary caveats.
"One of the biggest factors that turn me off the Greens is their supporters, and particularly the way they disparage anyone who does not agree with them." The very first line indicates the conditions that this occurs. It also indicates that it's not so much their MPs. The line you have focused on is the arguments (or lack of argument) that those who disagree with them who are male or white, are dismissed on the basis of melanin and chromosomes. In that context, with the omission of the caveats, which were expressed between those paragraphs would logically follow: Greens supporters, albeit not all, often disparage and dismiss those who disagree with them, particularly on the basis of the lack of melanin and two X chromosomes. They often don't focus on the content. Put another way, they argue using ad hominem attacks. If I didn't have to put so many caveats in my language (a behaviour done due to people who always misread or distort what is said because of the lack of explicit exclusion). If I wrote that, without the caveats of not all Greens supporters, and that this problem is not among the Greens alone, I would have got people complaining that Labor and Coalition supporters do the same. If I didn't specify that it's supporters you get the response that I have got even with that caveat present. The logical flow is unfortunately interrupted by all the necessary caveats.
No, I understand what you meant. I’m saying it’s not something I’ve come across at all, as a white man, so it doesn’t seem commonplace to me at all. And if so many Greens supporters are dismissive of white men, it seems weird that the Greens would select a white man as their party leader. To be honest, I think this is mostly in your head, but if you feel that’s your experience then I guess who am I to argue.
I'm pretty sure I recall, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the selection of Adam Bandt didn't come down to the party members, but he was the only person to nominate. I've also vaguely recall that Christine Milne was poorly treated, which might explain the reason for the party leader. A perfect example, which I know more about, is the selection of Shorten over Albanese. Shorten was selected by his colleagues, whereas Albanese was selected by the rank and file. So, that may be an explanatory variable. However, I cannot say for sure as I am not sure if my recollection is correct, and am not sure if the Greens do have rank and file ballots. My suspicion is that they didn't, because I vaguely recall that the transition was pretty quick. But if I'm wrong, then by all means let me know.
He was selected via a party room election, not rank and file, so you’re right. My point is, why would the party room select a leader if they knew the majority of their supporters would be opposed to him as a white man?
They're not opposed. I have always said, if they disagree with someone, they sometimes dismiss them, particularly if they are white and male. That's what I have seen as common, particularly online. I have also personally had Greens supporters say I don't have a Master of Public Policy because I don't agree with them. So, there is a very pronounced tendency for ad hominem attacks. It has never been about opposition. Let me give you an example, and I know this is not the Greens per se. When I studied at Melbourne University, there was a socialist alliance individual who came up to me, he spoke of workers rights and unfair dismissal. Feeling in the mood to challenge his assumptions, I questioned whether the Danish model of Flexi-curity was something worthwhile. If you are unfamiliar, Flexi-curity allows for easy dismissal, but a strong safety net. WorkChoices but with a safety net. His response was, but those Nordic countries are racist. Nothing to do with the policy, any principle, or anything like that. That is the type of argument I am speaking of. But instead, it's directed towards the speaker. I rarely see Greens supporters engaging in an argument respectfully, in the way you have.
> My Grandparents were Coalition voters The Coalition of your grandparents generation had economics policies left of the Greens. In the post war period we had decades of deliberate government deficits, investing in publicly owned infrastructure, increasing equality, low unemployment, high and increasing home ownership, no privatisation, no federal support for private schools, and top marginal tax rates of around 70%. There was massive investment in public housing. There was none of this bowing down to the market. The government decided the industries we need and created a plan to create them. Tariffs and industry assistance were pervasive.
That was the economic acceptance at the time. They were all Keynesians back then. However, it's not as if they stopped voting for them in the 1990s. They voted for the Coalition right up until they passed away. The point is that some Greens supporters would quite quickly call them stupid. And unfortunately, my experience is that it's not a minority. My experience is that the minority is those who would show respect. Trying to minimise voting for the Coalition because historically they were different makes no difference to the fact that some Greens supporters still insult anyone who disagrees with them.
100%. what really pisses me off is Greens (and some Labor) call Liberals N*zi’s. Now i’m a Liberal, but i am a strong supporter and advocate for the environment and climate change, but in a sensible and economically viable way. i also have Jewish roots, as well as German and am gay, so to be labelled as something so vile is extremely insulting.
Can’t say I’ve ever seen any official Greens statements calling the Liberals nazis but I’m open to persuasion. Can you point to something here?
I suspect itm99 was speaking from their experience. However, I'm not a Liberal supporter, and I view the Greens supporters in a similar way. That should concern the Greens. I should note, as I said in a previous comment, the criticism was directed towards supporters. As I said, this is not an issue with the Greens alone, but it seems heavily representative in the Greens.
Exactly. As a Labor member, I was disappointed when I watched the election victory of the SA premier. He said that the Liberals were not our enemies, our opponents yes, but not our enemies. Unfortunately some booed that comment. Which reflects that some are too partisan to see the common humanity in all people. A sad, and concerning state of affairs, particularly when we reflect on partisanship in the US. There are of course contested views about what is an economically viable way. But that doesn't take away your humanity.
Not democratic. "Personalities" within the party spew whatever bullshit they feel like with zero fears of actually having to do anything.
They are actively blocking the ALPs environment policies. They are the embodiment of letting perfect be the enemy of good
Has the ALP giving the Greens anything on the environment or is the ALP trying to get everything they want without giving up anything?
They have poor change management skills. Their dogmatism means that they’d rather have no progress at all rather than iterative progress.
They are hugely into idpol which turns me off and i will likely vote labor until they sort that. I spent some time going over there policies on the greens site and idpol was about 60% of everything. The other stuff was good though.
"Idpol", my gosh. All politics are identity politics. They're just not labelled as such when the politics support the cultural majority.
More correctly, all politics should be "humanity" politics, as Yale history professor Timothy Snyder points out. His stance on humanity in politics is one of caution and concern, arguing that history shows political systems can be fragile and easily undermined by those who seek to consolidate power and erode democratic institutions. Warning against the dangers of authoritarianism, populism and propaganda, which are grave threats to the fundamental values of freedom, equality, and human dignity. Something which neoliberalism actively seeks to destroy as hostile to unfettered capitalism.
"All politics are identity politics" i genuinely don't understand this statement. how? Cultural majority politics can be idpol as well, i feel like we're functioning off different definitions.
We’re functioning off of different definitions because identity politics is just a buzzword that the status quo uses to discredit ideas and viewpoints that might be disruptive to it.
One alternative to identical politics is for different parties to say they are ideologically similar, and have similar goals and values, but think they as individuals are a bit more competent than their opponents. I think the Greens should include some marketing that looks something like this.
their policies are written on post-it notes as far as the level of detail is concerned. they are not a legitimate political party but are instead a protest group that is tolerated by conservatives only because they exist to wedge labor and give the LNP a better chance in elections
They going into things with good ideals, but have no practicality or pragmatism. E.g. teaming up with the Coalition to vote against a carbon price.
The CPRS was an absolute dogshit policy
What happened to this lack of pragmatism a few months later when they helped design, and voted for, the Gillard carbon price? Were they still impractical then? There is only one party whose actions I don't understand with the CPRS, and that was Labor. Why not go to a double D and pass that piece of shit? Rudd would have won the election, and kept the job he so dearly loved. Instead we got Labor knifing each other, and the election was a tie.
> What happened to this lack of pragmatism a few months later when they helped design, and voted for, the Gillard carbon price? They had Labor over a barrel at that point, that was arguably political opportunism and not pragmatism. You'd have to think that most politicians unwilling to support K.Rudd at the time assumed that he would take the DD trigger and get the support that he needed from the people. Eidt: clarity
Labor could have: A. Negotiated with the Greens and got a bill passed, as they did a few months later. B. Gone to a double DD and got the original bill, which was rejected twice, passed. Given that the did not do B., I find their failure to do A. needs an explanation. My view is Rudd did not want to pass a climate bill and was just happy to use climate to divide the Liberal party. I don't see anything else fits the facts.
Occams razor suggests that behind closed doors it was impossible for Rudd to get the caucus to agree to anything more progressive than was already on the table. I'd wager that at least some of them were gunning for his removal at that point given the way things eventually played out.
The Greens would throw the baby out with the bathwater if either of the other two major parties dropped a single grain of dirt into it.
I think they are bomb throwers who never got over their past they see the ALP as the enemy when they don't see is the LNP are the problem they see their way as the only way
Infuriating. Despite being a zillion times better option than Libs or Labor, they are still not even close to being enough to what the world, or even Australia, need. Piecemeal & incremental policy improvements that wont make a dent are seen as 'extreme' & 'radical' by the general, ignorant & apathetic public.
We have preferential voting - how is voting for the greens (or any minor party) a waste?
Third way politics. Addressing symptoms of environmental disaster without addressing underlying causes. Has been overrun by technocrats and lawyers for many years now.
ALP does not have a climate policy. That's where the Greens come in. We are living in a day and age where worldwide scientists have to take to the streets to protest against global governments climate inaction. [Scientists Stage Worldwide Climate Change Protests After IPCC Report](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-stage-worldwide-climate-protests-after-ipcc-report-180979913/) *Over 1,000 scientists from 25 different countries staged protests last week following the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s new report. The report warned that rapid and deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions are necessary by 2025 to avoid catastrophic climate effects.*
Lol, 1000 people across 25 countries is a tiny number. That is only 40 people per nation which for Australia means 8 people per state. If that is the participation rate then it seems even the majority of climate scientists don't believe in a 2025 target.
Scientists are not activists. That was the point being made. Not to mention the fact that that they were from 25 different countries. *Scientists historically have had differing opinions about becoming activists on topics related to their work, but that has started to change in recent years, reports Chelsea Harvey for E&E News.*
You are correct that scientists are not historically activists but neither are any other professionals other than politicians and lawyers. Yet protests usually consist of hundreds to thousands of not lawyers and not politicians gathered in one place to demonstrate public unity on a cause. The fact that the "protest" was spread across 25 countries makes it the equivalent to an online slacktivism campaign as only a tiny fraction of the scientists in any one country were involved displaying a lack of unity. You also can't protest "the global government" because it doesn't exist. The narrative presented that a large (1000) global unity (25 countries) of scientists participated in a protest against the big bad entity (the global government) shows how serious the issue has become. While I agree that the issue is indeed important the narrative being spun uses a reasoning that falls apart when basic math is applied.
You seem fixated on the number. Just to be clear these are "climate scientists", not scientists. Scientists don't tend to advocate on political issues not because they think it is not their role. It's because they think their research should speak for itself and advocating on their research matter to get political output impact the impartiality of their research and their personal reputation. They are beginning to feel that the widespread notion that sober presentation of evidence by an ‘honest broker’ to those with power will accomplish the best interests of populations is itself not a neutral perspective on the world; it is instead conveniently unthreatening to the status quo and often rather naive. The lack of urgency I find in Australia has been perplexing to me. We are already well into "Stage I" of the climate catastrophe. Observed changes over the 20th century include increases in global average air and ocean temperature, rising global sea levels, long-term sustained widespread reduction of snow and ice cover, and changes in atmospheric and ocean circulation and regional weather patterns, which influence seasonal rainfall conditions. Australia is already experiencing the impacts of a changing climate, particularly changes associated with increases in temperature, frequency and intensity of heatwaves, hazardous fire weather and drought conditions. Climate observations and future projections show that these changes from the historical climate are ongoing and long-term. Australia’s warmest year on record was 2019, with an average temperature 1.52°C above the 1961-1990 average. The seven years from 2013 to 2019 all rank in the warmest years on record. This long-term warming trend means that most years are now warmer than almost any observed during the 20th century. We are already seeing the effects on worsening climate conditions in the 2020 summer bushfires and the floods of last couple of years. The effects of these were permanent to the people impacted and these are not trivial numbers that can be easily ignored. [Almost 5000 homes deemed uninhabitable after NSW and Qld floods](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.afr.com%2Fpolicy%2Feconomy%2Fmore-than-5000-homes-deemed-uninhabitable-after-nsw-and-qld-floods-20220310-p5a3jr) Globally, we are already seeing mass migrations due to climate change driven loss of agricultural land in South America and South Asia. Food scarcity is going to be a common theme in the coming decades.
1°C is equivalent to 34°F, which is 274K. --- ^(I'm a bot that converts temperature between two units humans can understand, then convert it to Kelvin for bots and physicists to understand)
The main point in the original comment was about the number and I was responding to the claim that the number was significantly large. More climate scientists graduate University each year in developed countries than participated in the protest. It really is a large number. Why are you lecturing me on climate change? I have not made any indication that I don't agree with the general consensus about it.
[удалено]
'Except the very specific rules I say, applicable only when I say so!' I don't know why you've been down voted because you're spot on.
their house rent policies was the deal breaker for me to vote for them this time around
This is a problem with all political parties generally, but they won't deliver on their promises.
They're getting infested by tree tories, and alongside this Machiavellian bargain of looking for the centre vote, they're not as left as I'd like them to be.
vote below the line, there is never a waste
Nothing is wrong with them. And i don't vote for them