57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
57 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
4476 readers
99 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The reason why Labor ended up with such a huge majority was that the Liberal (and National) Party’s platform was all about Green-bashing and Orange Man Idolatry, while the Greens were all about hippy-dippy bullshit.
Greens voters went with Labor because their own parties policies weren’t perceived as realistic enough and LNP voters went with Labor to protest the Trumpian behaviour of the LNP.
The greens got more votes in the last election than the one prior, and their overall percentage remained unchanged. The greens lost out because the liberals preferenced Labor over them, and so a large amount of the swing away from the liberals ended up in Labor's lap both directly and through preferences
Isn't that a contradiction? Was it increased or was it unchanged? I think you might be talking about first preferences vs 2PP.
Just loose wording from me. What I was trying to say is that their vote count was actually higher this time around, not lower, but the increase was so small it was a rounding error on their overall percentage. The point being, their voterbase didn't go anywhere, but nor did they attract new folk.
Gerrymandering in Melbourne also worked against Greens.
Are you meaning this in a negative way? The seat was reapportioned and as is the Electoral Commission's guidance on the matter, it was pushed towards as even of a split as possible.
Maybe it is unfair to call it Gerrymandering but my understand is that it worked against Greens (eg boundary extended across the Yarra into Kew - that is conservative territory).
I mean, to call it gerrymandering is valid, but people always tend to use it as a dirty word. Any time people are making the choices about electoral boundaries there's gerrymandering at play. We just choose in Australia to generally try to make seats as competitive as possible. On the balance of things, Greens-dominant areas in Fitzroy North and Carlton North were also redistributed away from Melbourne to Wills, which meant that Peter Khalil (Labor) had a huge 7.60% swing against him. Samantha Ratnam (Greens) came within 3k votes of winning the seat. This is all coming from a Greens member by the way.
Do you think Greens would have won within the old boundaries? Or would the preferences have screwed them anyhow? Speaking of which...
Just to be precise: Greens probably preferenced Labor in the previous election too. The difference this time is that 2PP was between Lab & Grn, whereas previously it was between Lib & Grn so of course the Kab preferences followed mainly to Greens.
You sound savvy enough to know it but your wording was ambiguous so I just want to make sure a fellow Green is armed with the info.
I no longer vote #1 Greens although they get my vote via preferences. A few of my friends have followed suit. Their support of the Digital Identity Bill was a sellout and their lack of criticism of Hamas put me off.
Also Larissa Waters using the hashtag #ibelievewomen. I have been arguing this week with two women friends who embraced it literally to mean that not a single woman would lie about rape. It took me a lot of energy to budge them from that delusional stance. That is why using the hashtag is irresponsible regardless of what Waters means.
I don't put them first myself, usually I put the Socialists. I also don't make voting choices based off hashtags though...
Hashtags sometimes are used for indexing. In this instance it was the the only hashtag used and it was at the end of an understandable congratulations Tweet re Higgins win.
The hashtag was used to make a political point and it is an irresponsible one IMO, feeding hysterical views in vulnerable people (as my two friends demonstrated - yet Reddit don't think anyone would interpret the hashtag thus).
There was the other two points I mentioned as well, all within a year.
People are always going to misinterpret something as shortform as a hashtag. I think there's a larger conversation to be had about their use in spaces like politics, but I'd hardly say that makes one instance of their use irresponsible to the level you're implying. Especially when you consider the fact that "women often make false accusations" is absolutely a red-herring used to try and delegitimise accusers again, and again, and again. The most prominent example from recent memory that comes to my mind, within politics, being the way Christine Blasey Ford's accusations against Brett Kavanaugh were treated.
Have a nice night though 💜😊
Up to 10% of the time in court. "often" is not a useful qualifier.
"Absolutely"? So no exceptions? Just like my two friends eh? One of whom implied all accused should be castrated because no woman would ever have a reason to lie.
I am all for presumption of innocence until proven guilty and treating all parties with dignity in the meantime (even though the vast majority of the men in the hearings are guilty).
Am unfamiliar with the Kavanagh case.
Did you see the video example in the Reddit thread showing cops automatically believing the woman and treating the man in an undignified fashion? Spoiler: the man is obviously innocent.
Enjoy your passive-aggressive smugly wugly day.
Yup exactly. The Greens' loss was mostly because the earlier Greens wins came on the back of Labor finishing 3rd and preferences going to the Greens. If the LNP finishes 3rd, preferences go to Labor and Labor wins. There was also a redistribution in Melbourne that favoured Labor pretty strongly. It's one of the weird quirks of IRV and exposes a reason proportional systems like MMP (used in Germany and NZ) are better.
I voted against the Greens because their behavior voting against the HAFF was straight-up psychotic. They were throwing the homeless under the bus for headlines and renters.
The Greens' behaviour on the HAFF was pretty objectively good policy. HAFF is a long-term project, not a quick win for homeless. The Greens stalled something that won't pay off for years by a couple of months in order to make it better. And make it better they did. Including in the shorter term, by requiring it pay out a minimum amount.
By stalling it a couple of months, the HAFF was made better in both the short and long terms.
Many NGO's were prepared to hit the ground running with the HAFF funding, by blocking the HAFF the Greens screwed up the prepared contracts. They delayed much needed housing for people genuinely in need by years just so they could get brownie points with renters.
On the minimum payout, Labor conceded on that point immediately. The Greens were not voting against it on those grounds.
And before you say Labor should've made concessions, the Greens unlike Labor don't actually face any electoral pressures since they have less than zero chance of forming government and basically zero chance of losing senate seats. The Greens, for good reason, have become politically toxic to deal with because they think acting like whiny children makes them charismatic. If Labor met the Greens $10 billion spending demands, it would've been used as a campaign point in this year's election and Labor would've lost to the LNP who would've then cut the HAFF.
They said they did. Then they presented the original version to Parliament again.
Source? Not that I really care. It barely matters.
I found it out when I was talking to a Greens member and I shared exactly the same viewpoint you expressed in your earlier comment. You can verify it by looking at the timeframe of the bill's passage through Parliament.
I did some digging, looks like Labor offered it in exchange for support but in response ...
Although I don't know if mandatory disbursements are a good idea anyway. I've just accepted your framing of them as a good idea.