6 - # of Straya threads or # of times we've changed Prime Minister in a decade?

[Kieran McConville]

I can only imagine.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

I'm more concerned about condemning the athletes to the Gold Coast. Nobody deserves that.

whenever i think of athletes and the gold coast, i think of this oldie but goodie:

 

[Axver]

What the fuck dos I just watch.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

it's a parody of a real video (only the voiceover was changed) announcing the new gold coast nrl team from something like five or six years ago.

 

[cobl04]

Tanya Plibersek just put up the most bizarre anti-Greens FB post. How disappointing.

 

[Axver]

And the hardcore anti-Green ALP Right members that I know are sharing the shit out of it.

 

[cobl04]

Nice to see that all the top comments are pretty scathing.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

The word "populist" has become so overused and is supposedly synonymous with everything that's not in the limited ballpark that consists of the ALP and the LNP.

 

[Axver]

You can't simultaneously accuse a party of having a ceiling of 10% support and accuse it of being populist. It doesn't work that way! Pick one!

 

[cobl04]

It was her euphemism for all social media being full of lefty loonies.

 

[Axver]

I do get why Plibersek is jumping on this - her seat is under greater threat from the Greens than the Libs.

But I can't wait for an ALP member to come out and say they'd rather work with the Libs than the Greens. Imagine the field day that will follow that.

 

[Kieran McConville]

'Populist' is mostly code for 'outside the bipartisan consensus'. That said, of course there is a political history of (mostly right-) populism both here and in the US which is its own peculiar beast and has certain common traits. But I'll wager this has nothing to do with our talking point of the day from Ms Plibersek.

In any case, even in the way she probably meant it, this label is less and less true of the Greens at the federal level. For better or for worse. If they were truly populist, I think Labor would have a hell of a lot to worry about.

 

[Kieran McConville]

There is only one path back from the precipice, such as it is, for Labor (I mean, the Greens represent a pretty minor threat outside of certain inner city areas which just happen to also house senior Labor figures); appropriation. I won't hold my breath.

 

[Axver]

I fully expect that the next generation of senior ALP figures will all be given outer suburban electorates rather than the inner city gifts they used to get. The Albo of 2036 won't be trying to secure Grayndler, let me tell you that.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Oh hell no.

It's a tricky time for them, geographically, because as I say, it's not clear to me that the Greens overall represent more than nuisance value. They've plateaued but they're not going anywhere very interesting. I think Bob Brown had this much right: either you aspire to be some day a governing party, or you just kind of putter along (I'm putting words in his mouth, what he actually said was that on his watch he wanted the party to be a party of government, and I'm not so clear that his successors see it that way). Compare this to Labor's own very early history: the first national Labor governments were formed -however briefly - within two decades of the 1891 founding.

 

[Axver]

The Greens at their current rate will become to the ALP what the Nats have been to the Libs - traditionally, anyway, without speculation of the Nats' possible demise.

I don't buy the "10% is the Greens' ceiling" rhetoric for reasons I've said before. In short, having a vote in 2016 not far off their vote in 2010 is a good achievement when in 2010 there were no other major destinations for protest votes and they were still an outsider party, while in 2016 there are plenty of claimants for the protest vote and the Greens have been (somewhat inaccurately) painted as a party of government from the Gillard years. They are growing their base, if not their fairweather fans.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Yeah, I think they can do better than 10%. I'm not sure what their ceiling is, but it's clearly going to be a long process, barring implosions (relatively unlikely at this stage).

Hey, at least they're doing better than the bizarre cult that is the US Greens (and I'm a whole hell of a lot more sympathetic to the disaffected-Bernie-supporter element of their support than most people you'll find on Interference).

 

[Axver]

The US Greens are a great example of how farcical American politics are. Every other Western democracy has a functional, coherent Green party. Those without first past the post even have Green parties strong enough to hold the balance of power or participate in government as a significant partner. The US one has a leader who is barely credible and it seems to be struggling to even get momentum from disaffected Bernie fans. I mean, fuck me, that tired meme Harambe can poll just as well. (Yes, one poll, yes, statistical margin of error; still pretty fucking damning. You're not going to see Richard Di Natale under threat by Harambe or Warnie or Crocodile Dundee or Ernie Dingo even in the most shoddily conducted poll.)

 

[Kieran McConville]

The problem in the US, as I understand it, is that anything kind of has to find a place in one or other of the two 'big tents'. It's a pretty fucked up system that delivers, frankly, undigestable choices.

 

[Axver]

I find it fascinating that the US and UK have rather different outcomes despite both being very populous first-past-the-post democracies with relatively low levels of voter turnout and an electoral system that coalesced more or less as we know it in the nineteenth century. The UK sustains a three party system, perhaps now a four party system given the strangehold the SNP has on Scotland, plus the ability for minor regional parties to gain seats in Wales and Northern Ireland and for the Greens to win one seat in England. It produces results in the House of Commons not too far removed from those in our lower house. The US, however, despite the intense regionalism of some areas, seems incapable of electing anybody to federal office from outside the D/R tent with the occasional exception of an independent, and this despite those parties enduring far greater ideological shifts than anything that has ever happened in the UK.

As much as we try to argue that certain electoral systems lead to better outcomes than others (and they do), there is something to be said for emphasising electoral culture too. I am increasingly convinced, to bring this back to Australia, that results in Queensland for example cannot be explained without an understanding of the local political climate. Queenslanders, put simply, expect - and accept - different things from their government than New Zealanders despite the strong similarities their systems shared between 1950 and 1996. A Bjelke-Petersen would never happen in New Zealand; a David Lange would never happen in Queensland; neither would happen in the States.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Maybe it's precisely because those US parties have endured such massive ideological shifts that they can persist, some kind of duality... or Manichaeism... seems to be built into the culture if not the system (as you say, the UK isn't so different with its first past the post deal). If this were Australia, a party like the late nineteenth century Republicans would likely have vanished without trace the way our Federation-era 'Liberal Party' did, instead of morphing and evolving into a mirror of itself.

Maybe there is something in the politicised nature of US culture, where so many officials seem to double as politicians in a way that would be unheard of here in Australia (school boards, sheriffs, you get the picture).

And of course in the 70 years or so since the US became a global empire, and the powers and aura accruing to the presidency snowballed commensurately, the winner-take-all nature of the political game has probably reinforced that duality. You won't have a Green president or a Libertarian president or a Hunter S. Thompson Shooters Party president, so get in the fucking big tent of your choice or fuck off, is the vibe.

Yeah, agreed on what you say about Queensland vs NZ and I guess that just bolsters my own suspicions, that it's never purely a case of designing the right technocratic system. I certainly think for instance that the US could stand to benefit from some form of preferential voting system, an arms-length electoral commission, compulsory voting backed up with a national holiday for the election and so on... but I am thinking it unlikely that US politics would start to resemble Australian politics in that hypothetical world.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

The US Greens are a great example of how farcical American politics are. Every other Western democracy has a functional, coherent Green party. Those without first past the post even have Green parties strong enough to hold the balance of power or participate in government as a significant partner. The US one has a leader who is barely credible and it seems to be struggling to even get momentum from disaffected Bernie fans. I mean, fuck me, that tired meme Harambe can poll just as well. (Yes, one poll, yes, statistical margin of error; still pretty fucking damning. You're not going to see Richard Di Natale under threat by Harambe or Warnie or Crocodile Dundee or Ernie Dingo even in the most shoddily conducted poll.)

seriously. i'd been a democrat my whole life but was part of the whole demexit movement after bernie dropped out (i just don't like clinton) and i like the policies of the us green party and stein, but i do wonder how effective of a leader she'd be. and don't get me started on the harambe meme. how is it still a thing? thing whole election is such a shambles.

Spoiler

sorry for kinda taking the thread off-topic but i'd rather just talk politics in here instead of fym

 

[Axver]

Your stance surprises me, Khan, and it's a shame trying to discuss it in FYM would be a shitshow. Clinton would probably be a moderate Lib in Australia or a Nat in New Zealand, but given that the alternative is just about an existential threat, it seems to me that any responsible left-wing voter will suck it up at the top of the ticket and make their ideological statement by choosing green/socialist/whatever candidates down the ticket in congressional/judicial/dogcatcher races. That of course leads to my big problem with the US Greens, that they don't seem to put all that much energy into these other races. It makes it hard to take them seriously as a viable and worthwhile alternative.

There's a fuss going on here right now because some members of the ALP are unhappy that some in the Greens have suggested they aren't yet aiming to be a party of government. But depending on how you interpret that, it's perhaps a sensible position for the Greens at the present. They have worked their way up steadily, first seeking membership in the house of review (the Senate), then the balance of power in that house, then seats in the house of government (the House of Representatives), and likewise at state level. The way that the federal and state lower houses are organised and elected, an ambition to form government - even as a meaningfully large junior member of a coalition - is at best a few decades away (Tasmania and ACT excepted), so why waste resources trying to bound to the top in one leap when they can focus on ascending one step at a time? My impression is that the US Greens think they can leap all the way from the ground floor to the White House without ever setting foot on the local, state, and congressional steps in between. As long as they think that way, they are simply a spoiler for the Democrats.

Perhaps the one positive this year is that the Libertarians will act as an even bigger spoiler for the Republicans. Libertarianism is a joke ideology but it's superior to fascist demagoguery.

 

[Axver]

Maybe it's precisely because those US parties have endured such massive ideological shifts that they can persist, some kind of duality... or Manichaeism... seems to be built into the culture if not the system (as you say, the UK isn't so different with its first past the post deal). If this were Australia, a party like the late nineteenth century Republicans would likely have vanished without trace the way our Federation-era 'Liberal Party' did, instead of morphing and evolving into a mirror of itself.

Maybe there is something in the politicised nature of US culture, where so many officials seem to double as politicians in a way that would be unheard of here in Australia (school boards, sheriffs, you get the picture).

The politicisation of every minor public office in the US must have some sort of effect, not that I'm sure what it is precisely. It really is striking that the only party to still exist in Australia today that dates back to Federation is the ALP. If we go back to 1856, the first US presidential election contested between the Democrats and Republicans, I don't think there is a single Western democracy to claim a similarly enduring party system. There definitely isn't in the Anglosphere.

I do expect it is partly to do with the US not having parliamentary government. Compare the UK and Canada, both first past the post systems that sustain multiple parties. For whatever reason, it seems that if the leader of the lower house is also the head of government, it is easier to maintain a multi-party system than if the head of government sits outside that house. And preferential voting is a product of Australia's multi-party system, not the producer of it.

Yeah, agreed on what you say about Queensland vs NZ and I guess that just bolsters my own suspicions, that it's never purely a case of designing the right technocratic system. I certainly think for instance that the US could stand to benefit from some form of preferential voting system, an arms-length electoral commission, compulsory voting backed up with a national holiday for the election and so on... but I am thinking it unlikely that US politics would start to resemble Australian politics in that hypothetical world.

Yep. The "right" electoral system may enable more people to feel as if their vote counts, give voters greater flexibility, and produce more representative outcomes, but those outcomes are only going to reflect the prevailing political culture. Queensland, as I read it, has a preference for stability (the result in 2015 being all the more a shock for that very reason), state intervention in key assets and services, and a high tolerance for assertive if not authoritarian leaders. New Zealand has a similar but not as striking preference for stability, but a much greater desire for consensus politics and its acceptance of state intervention has been eroded in recent decades. It's worth noting that members of the New Zealand Labour Party are allowed to cross the floor while ALP members cannot. That inflexibility and unrealistic insistence on rigid party unity is why I could never join the party even if it were to somehow regain my primary vote from the Greens.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Spoiler

sorry for kinda taking the thread off-topic but i'd rather just talk politics in here instead of fym

Although it's ostensibly the 'Aussie' thread, I like to think of this as the politics thread for people who don't suck.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Yep. The "right" electoral system may enable more people to feel as if their vote counts, give voters greater flexibility, and produce more representative outcomes, but those outcomes are only going to reflect the prevailing political culture. Queensland, as I read it, has a preference for stability (the result in 2015 being all the more a shock for that very reason), state intervention in key assets and services, and a high tolerance for assertive if not authoritarian leaders. New Zealand has a similar but not as striking preference for stability, but a much greater desire for consensus politics and its acceptance of state intervention has been eroded in recent decades. It's worth noting that members of the New Zealand Labour Party are allowed to cross the floor while ALP members cannot. That inflexibility and unrealistic insistence on rigid party unity is why I could never join the party even if it were to somehow regain my primary vote from the Greens.

I could never join any party I don't think, in the sense of being a committed member, but at the same time, I can see the sense in ALP style party discipline. The idea is that democracy happens in the caucus (yeah, ok, in theory), and then it's a case of presenting a united front. Hang together or hang separately, and all that. I get that it's a legacy of the party's union origins, and that's as it should be. I wouldn't join the party though.

Queensland has a preference for stability and a great appetite for government intervention in the economy; the authoritarianism may be an added bonus (and historically went hand in hand with the big interventionist government), but I'm not sure that shit washes so much any more. In fact it's almost certainly why the Newman government was out on its ass after one term, despite holding the backing of pretty much the entire Courier Mail media establishment. Come to think of it, it's partly the reason why the Goss Govermnent was brought to its knees a mere six years after the end of the Joh era... though in fairness that was also a dry run for the demolition of Keating a few months later.

 

[Axver]

I'll reply in detail to that later, but for now: any of you folks watching the NT election?

CLP looks hilariously fucked early on.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Oh shit, is that tonight?


Yeah, ok, I checked the Guardian. Well this ought to be entertaining. A wipeout in all likelihood.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Oh shit, is that tonight?


Yeah, ok, I checked the Guardian. Well this ought to be entertaining. A wipeout in all likelihood.

 

[Axver]

This is unbelievable. Looks like independents will win more seats than the CLP.