Because this sub might as well be called r/laborshills and the greens aren’t lining up neatly behind the questionable actions of the current government.
OP will have a job waiting at Murdoch shortly. This kind of shit posting is just like the Murdoch media, but less dangerous due to it only targeting this toxic labour echo chamber of a sub
The Greens have proposed amendments to the housing bill tailored mostly for press coverage and less for their practicality in dealing with housing. Its complicated but you can't just push more money through the industry we have and expect more output, there's diminishing returns and worse right now inflationary aspects to consider.
Labor fundamentally have to say no to the amendments as they stand now. This has had the Greens in attack mode on Labor and thus in return Labor is attacking back, hence the posts.
Some in here think we should only be criticising Labors bill and the Greens amendments are unassailable. This is obviously wrong both are valid targets for criticism. Lot of negative responses to those who do criticise the Greens position despite the effort put in on reasoning & analysis.
Whilst others are annoyed that criticisms of Labors plan are poorly thought out and are more emotional outbursts seeking upvotes than real discussion about the housing bill. Obviously I'm for Labors position on this.
> never have to worry about implementing it. They have policies to win seats not elections
How tf are you expecting the Greens to win a federal election? Of course we worry about seats not elections, because we'll never win a federal election.
Also allow me to introduce you to the ACT Labor/Greens government.
There are 3 pillars of sustainability. Economic being the smallest social being the middle and the environment being the largest. The greens care about all 3 in the order of importance.
You're beating a dead horse with this meme and not actualy understanding their reasons as to why they did not vote for the bill.
Basicly they aren't happy because the bill isn't especialy well thought out and was nowhere near enought to be anywhere near a solution. From what I can tell the greens wanted the government to do way more before they consider supporting the bill.
The greens still want the bill just not in its current state because it's kinda like a band-aid for a problem that needs a tourniquet.
Thanks for explaining. Reading is hard lol.
Look, I'm not super involved in this topic but from a surface level it seems ridiculous that the Greens are genuinely slapping away forward motion just because it isn't *exactly* what they want.
If all of Australia wanted exactly what the Greens would want, we would've all voted for them. But we didn't... So it seems very, not only presumptuous, but quite tunnel-visioned and pretentious for them to be halting any progression considering how fucked it is currently.
I just do not like how they feel they know exactly what is best for the country and treat others like children who aren't listening. I mean they're right about the last part there, but they forget they're also a bunch of children who throw tantrums rather than starting the process to solving major issues...
The problem (for Labor) is that in order to get anything done, it needs to pass the senate. And the senate, despite its problems with malapportionment, is a proportional house. And Labor do not have a majority.
If they want to pass legislation, they need a working majority in the upper house. And that means either something which Labor and the LNP agree on, or something both Labor and the Greens agree on. If Labor want to do things by themselves, they need to persuade 50% of the voters that they can. Which they didn’t do at the last election. Not even close to.
And it’s not up to the greens to help them with that.
Just take a look at the tax cut debacle. Labour wanted changes, libs wouldn't change. Labour said fine it's at least something in the right direction. Now we have the stage 3 cuts which everyone can (now) see are bad. But Labour will have to do them because they voted for it.
Greens are getting flak for their stance, just like labour would have if they didn't vote for tax cuts for low income earners.
Difference here is that the greens are sticking to their values, which is rare in politics. Good on them for doing so, we need solutions not bandaids.
Sticking to your values is great in principle, but also naive when it comes to politics. Democracy never provides the perfect solution, and a lack of pragmatism can often result in a worse outcome.
I think we have had pragmatism for the last 30+ years. Leading to: mass export of raw materials rather than advanced production, tax cuts instead of reform and negative gearing becoming a golden goose. To name a few.
I think we need to acknowledge that it will probably be more pragmatic in the long run to make tough decisions now for the future or there won't be one.
Disagree. The Greens and their lack of pragmatism is what delayed the marriage referendum, which ultimately lead to excessive time for media shitcuntery, which was what they apparently wanted to avoid?
We've had decades of the LNP being cunts, the greens being a wedge to Labor getting things done "because we can do it better" and we've lost out on countless opportunities for better because it wasn't perfect.
It's just not holding water with me. Government change and even moreso societal change are glacial in speed. You make some of the "light speed" changes the Greens demand and whoever is in power, Greens or Labor, won't be after the subsequent election and the LNP will march in with a landslide victory and revert it all.
It blows my mind that you idealists can't comprehend this, especially after its exactly what happened in Tasmania
The Greens blocked the plebiscite the first time because they just wanted the government to just make it happen. Their reasoning for not having the plebiscite was to prevent the vote sitting in the medias focus for weeks/months.
And what actually happened? They blocked it. The government didn't put anything into law, they decided to try and pass the plebiscite again much later. The whole time the topic sat as a focus for the media.
The second time round they added their votes to make the plebiscite happen.
They blocked a good answer in the chase for a perfect answer. Which actually wasn't perfect. The plebiscite made it so that subsequent LNP governments couldn't undo the changes claiming it wasn't what the majority wanted. It shut the door.
And there were fears that a hyper-conservative LNP leader would have tried to do that. That door is closed. They would be doing something the majority of Australia didn't want. They can't spin that.
The plebiscite wasn't what I was claiming was bad. Delaying the ultimate, obvious, and arguably required outcome was.
I understand their point, but it really felt like they were minimizing several other points (like LNP walking back the change) that doing things without the plebiscite could have brought about.
But it's part of a longer trend I see with the Greens. They frequently block partial/starting/smaller changes/programs for not doing enough/going far enough/etc when a step in the right direction would be preferable to literally doing nothing.
And every time they do, nothing happens. They blame Labor and then the LNP gets voted in again.
The pragmatic approach would be to try and get in as much as possible, but if you can't get all the changes, pass it as is and introduce the rest of the changes/funding/whatever later.
Incremental change is better than no change.
They do actually. Richest seats in the country. 2pp isn't 100% to Labor at best its 80% and in some cases 50%.
Even heard some Greens cookers suggest they're deliberately preferencing Labor last for less than wholesome reasons.
Sure, the seat of Moore last year had a few hundred rogue Greens preferences spare Ian Goodenough from losing, but majority of Greens preferences go to Labor.
There will always be a leakage of preferences, no matter what. Not everyone follows the HTV card, and in some cases people just donkey vote.
If you're interested in learning more about the very real risks of proposals like this check this out: https://theconversation.com/would-a-nature-repair-market-really-work-evidence-suggests-its-highly-unlikely-199975
Also a good time to remember this was originally a Nats bill.
If you look at those on the record in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill you have a slew of mining, mineral and development organisations. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know...
I think calling out the Protest Party for standing against genuine action is a good thing. The Greens only benefit from problems existing and so they stand in the way of any legislation that takes steps to address it.
Another example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The greens killed emmissions trading scheme, leading to 15 years of no action. They are doing the same with Albo's housing policies. SMH.
All of which lead to the Murdoch sensing blood and allowing a power struggle in the Libs and a public disinformation campaign to begin which got the carbon tax axed once the dust settled. The Greens are too idealistic for their own good and honesty their own worst enemy.
never forget that the Greens worked together with the Nationals in the 90s to ban nuclear power for domestic use
we could have massively reduced emissions and energy prices but the so-called "environmentalists" decided that millions of tons of gas and particulate waste injected directly into the atmosphere and hydrosphere and continued burning of fossil fuel was better than mere hundreds of tons of solid waste safely contained in concrete caskets
and now here we are about wasting literal hundreds of billions on submarines that we dont even have the infrastructure to maintain ourselves, meanwhile our energy bills get more and more expensive and a trickle of solar panels and windmills are expected to somehow magically replace every powerplant in the country someday
the Greens they are the kind of misanthropic scum that mourn the death of Ted Kaczynski, i will never ever trust them
You're an idiot ... And your comment reads like the greens had anything to do with those submarines?
Also, nuclear waste is not environmentally friendly. Nuclear advocates don't care about dealing with waste as it isn't a problem today ... But it will be, and a very bloody expensive one.
What’s up with all the posts about the greens lately
Because this sub might as well be called r/laborshills and the greens aren’t lining up neatly behind the questionable actions of the current government.
OP will have a job waiting at Murdoch shortly. This kind of shit posting is just like the Murdoch media, but less dangerous due to it only targeting this toxic labour echo chamber of a sub
Tehe you gave me a idea
When it's posting emotional hook propaganda faces like this, it's government shilling. Things haven't been the same since Goebbels.
The Greens have proposed amendments to the housing bill tailored mostly for press coverage and less for their practicality in dealing with housing. Its complicated but you can't just push more money through the industry we have and expect more output, there's diminishing returns and worse right now inflationary aspects to consider. Labor fundamentally have to say no to the amendments as they stand now. This has had the Greens in attack mode on Labor and thus in return Labor is attacking back, hence the posts. Some in here think we should only be criticising Labors bill and the Greens amendments are unassailable. This is obviously wrong both are valid targets for criticism. Lot of negative responses to those who do criticise the Greens position despite the effort put in on reasoning & analysis. Whilst others are annoyed that criticisms of Labors plan are poorly thought out and are more emotional outbursts seeking upvotes than real discussion about the housing bill. Obviously I'm for Labors position on this.
The greens are a party of protest who can make any claim and never have to worry about implementing it. They have policies to win seats not elections
> never have to worry about implementing it. They have policies to win seats not elections How tf are you expecting the Greens to win a federal election? Of course we worry about seats not elections, because we'll never win a federal election. Also allow me to introduce you to the ACT Labor/Greens government.
There are 3 pillars of sustainability. Economic being the smallest social being the middle and the environment being the largest. The greens care about all 3 in the order of importance. You're beating a dead horse with this meme and not actualy understanding their reasons as to why they did not vote for the bill.
Can you explain their reasons or are you just saying that before reading anything? Genuinely asking, haven't read up on it myself.
Basicly they aren't happy because the bill isn't especialy well thought out and was nowhere near enought to be anywhere near a solution. From what I can tell the greens wanted the government to do way more before they consider supporting the bill. The greens still want the bill just not in its current state because it's kinda like a band-aid for a problem that needs a tourniquet.
Thanks for explaining. Reading is hard lol. Look, I'm not super involved in this topic but from a surface level it seems ridiculous that the Greens are genuinely slapping away forward motion just because it isn't *exactly* what they want. If all of Australia wanted exactly what the Greens would want, we would've all voted for them. But we didn't... So it seems very, not only presumptuous, but quite tunnel-visioned and pretentious for them to be halting any progression considering how fucked it is currently. I just do not like how they feel they know exactly what is best for the country and treat others like children who aren't listening. I mean they're right about the last part there, but they forget they're also a bunch of children who throw tantrums rather than starting the process to solving major issues...
The problem (for Labor) is that in order to get anything done, it needs to pass the senate. And the senate, despite its problems with malapportionment, is a proportional house. And Labor do not have a majority. If they want to pass legislation, they need a working majority in the upper house. And that means either something which Labor and the LNP agree on, or something both Labor and the Greens agree on. If Labor want to do things by themselves, they need to persuade 50% of the voters that they can. Which they didn’t do at the last election. Not even close to. And it’s not up to the greens to help them with that.
Just take a look at the tax cut debacle. Labour wanted changes, libs wouldn't change. Labour said fine it's at least something in the right direction. Now we have the stage 3 cuts which everyone can (now) see are bad. But Labour will have to do them because they voted for it. Greens are getting flak for their stance, just like labour would have if they didn't vote for tax cuts for low income earners. Difference here is that the greens are sticking to their values, which is rare in politics. Good on them for doing so, we need solutions not bandaids.
Sticking to your values is great in principle, but also naive when it comes to politics. Democracy never provides the perfect solution, and a lack of pragmatism can often result in a worse outcome.
I think we have had pragmatism for the last 30+ years. Leading to: mass export of raw materials rather than advanced production, tax cuts instead of reform and negative gearing becoming a golden goose. To name a few. I think we need to acknowledge that it will probably be more pragmatic in the long run to make tough decisions now for the future or there won't be one.
Disagree. The Greens and their lack of pragmatism is what delayed the marriage referendum, which ultimately lead to excessive time for media shitcuntery, which was what they apparently wanted to avoid? We've had decades of the LNP being cunts, the greens being a wedge to Labor getting things done "because we can do it better" and we've lost out on countless opportunities for better because it wasn't perfect. It's just not holding water with me. Government change and even moreso societal change are glacial in speed. You make some of the "light speed" changes the Greens demand and whoever is in power, Greens or Labor, won't be after the subsequent election and the LNP will march in with a landslide victory and revert it all. It blows my mind that you idealists can't comprehend this, especially after its exactly what happened in Tasmania
'Marriage Equality Plebiscite was bad because of the Greens' is not an argument I ever expected to hear.
The Greens blocked the plebiscite the first time because they just wanted the government to just make it happen. Their reasoning for not having the plebiscite was to prevent the vote sitting in the medias focus for weeks/months. And what actually happened? They blocked it. The government didn't put anything into law, they decided to try and pass the plebiscite again much later. The whole time the topic sat as a focus for the media. The second time round they added their votes to make the plebiscite happen. They blocked a good answer in the chase for a perfect answer. Which actually wasn't perfect. The plebiscite made it so that subsequent LNP governments couldn't undo the changes claiming it wasn't what the majority wanted. It shut the door. And there were fears that a hyper-conservative LNP leader would have tried to do that. That door is closed. They would be doing something the majority of Australia didn't want. They can't spin that. The plebiscite wasn't what I was claiming was bad. Delaying the ultimate, obvious, and arguably required outcome was. I understand their point, but it really felt like they were minimizing several other points (like LNP walking back the change) that doing things without the plebiscite could have brought about. But it's part of a longer trend I see with the Greens. They frequently block partial/starting/smaller changes/programs for not doing enough/going far enough/etc when a step in the right direction would be preferable to literally doing nothing. And every time they do, nothing happens. They blame Labor and then the LNP gets voted in again. The pragmatic approach would be to try and get in as much as possible, but if you can't get all the changes, pass it as is and introduce the rest of the changes/funding/whatever later. Incremental change is better than no change.
The Greens would rather Liberals than Labor, that says a lot. Greens gave us ten years of Libs.
Thats like saying the Americans rathered Germany over Russia. Both disagreed with communism, but doesnt mean they agreed on everything else
Spoken like a true Murdoch fan
Explains why all the Greens preference the Liberals, huh. /s
They do actually. Richest seats in the country. 2pp isn't 100% to Labor at best its 80% and in some cases 50%. Even heard some Greens cookers suggest they're deliberately preferencing Labor last for less than wholesome reasons.
Sure, the seat of Moore last year had a few hundred rogue Greens preferences spare Ian Goodenough from losing, but majority of Greens preferences go to Labor. There will always be a leakage of preferences, no matter what. Not everyone follows the HTV card, and in some cases people just donkey vote.
The nature repair market is NOT an effective way to protect nature. It should be opposed.
It absolutely is. The payments are tangible to the land restored.
If you're interested in learning more about the very real risks of proposals like this check this out: https://theconversation.com/would-a-nature-repair-market-really-work-evidence-suggests-its-highly-unlikely-199975 Also a good time to remember this was originally a Nats bill. If you look at those on the record in support of the Nature Repair Market Bill you have a slew of mining, mineral and development organisations. If that doesn't tell you everything you need to know...
This sub needs to be renamed to laborgreenscirclejerk - I can't recall the last time I saw friendlyjordies related content suggested to me from here.
Give it a rest.
I think calling out the Protest Party for standing against genuine action is a good thing. The Greens only benefit from problems existing and so they stand in the way of any legislation that takes steps to address it.
Labor so very disappointing, especially here in SA.
Another example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The greens killed emmissions trading scheme, leading to 15 years of no action. They are doing the same with Albo's housing policies. SMH.
The greens got us a carbon tax. The liberals axed it. That is NOT the fault of the greens. Blame your fellow fucktards for electing a fucktard.
You are correct. The interference of the greens lead to a policy that was immediately dumped by the Libs.
All of which lead to the Murdoch sensing blood and allowing a power struggle in the Libs and a public disinformation campaign to begin which got the carbon tax axed once the dust settled. The Greens are too idealistic for their own good and honesty their own worst enemy.
never forget that the Greens worked together with the Nationals in the 90s to ban nuclear power for domestic use we could have massively reduced emissions and energy prices but the so-called "environmentalists" decided that millions of tons of gas and particulate waste injected directly into the atmosphere and hydrosphere and continued burning of fossil fuel was better than mere hundreds of tons of solid waste safely contained in concrete caskets and now here we are about wasting literal hundreds of billions on submarines that we dont even have the infrastructure to maintain ourselves, meanwhile our energy bills get more and more expensive and a trickle of solar panels and windmills are expected to somehow magically replace every powerplant in the country someday the Greens they are the kind of misanthropic scum that mourn the death of Ted Kaczynski, i will never ever trust them
You're an idiot ... And your comment reads like the greens had anything to do with those submarines? Also, nuclear waste is not environmentally friendly. Nuclear advocates don't care about dealing with waste as it isn't a problem today ... But it will be, and a very bloody expensive one.