Talk:Australian Greens

Revision as of 18:07, 1 November 2004 by imported>Ambi
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Hmm i thought Bob Brown was the leader of the Greens in Australia. Seeing there is an election on I could be wrong, but i would also like to be sure that wikipedia does not contain any errors because of the upcoming election. I would sincerely appreciate it if someone could research this, i am currently a bit busy. Thanks 11:23, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Greens do not have a leader, but he is generally considered to be the de facto leader by the media and political analysts. - Aaron Hill 11:26, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

political ideology

im just wondering. under political ideology it says green politics. i would suggest that it should say green politics / left wing (or something to that effect). as an example, the liberal page says conservative / neo-liberal. Xtra 10:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nah, green politics pretty much nails it, whereas the Liberals are neither totally conservative or totally neo-liberal. - Aaron Hill 11:31, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Balances of power

... are tricky things. More to the point, anyone who isn't familiar with Australian politics already isn't going to know what the article's talking about if we mention it. I've edited the reference out, pending a separate article on the concept as understood in Aussie politics, which I really think we need but don't have time to come up with myself at the moment. JK 10:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whoever added the "Howard government gaining power means Greens will have less influence" bit. I don't see the relevance at all, save heaping praises at the Coalition. Removed. 13:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And I've reverted. What the heck? If the Greens had the balance of power, they would have a huge amount of influence over legislation to be passed. As they do not, they now have practically none. It's not about heaping praise on the blasted Coalition, but a matter of a simple, unfortunate fact. Ambi 13:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let's look at this sentence: "In the 2004 Federal election the Greens' primary vote rose by around 2% (to an average of around 7%), giving them two additional seats in the Senate, but the success of the Howard government in winning a majority in the Senate, however, meant that the Greens' influence would decrease." How many commas there? Just throw in "however" for good measure, when you want to tack something on? That last snip is not necessary, and was placed on the end of the sentence recently. "What the heck" indeed. 05:15, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Unless, you know, you want to add a snip about "[x] party will lose influence due to the Howard majority" to EVERY SINGLE party's page on Wikipedia. There's no mention of "balance of power" in this article anymore, and without a reference to it, I don't see the relevance of predictions like "[x] party's influence will decrease." That's not encyclopedia-worthy. 05:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
its not a prediction. its a fact. when one party (or a coalition of parties) gains an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY in a house of parliament. oposition parties which would have otherwise held the balance of power and gained huge influence due to their individual good results no longer have any real effect and are in fact in a worse position than when they had less seats. Xtra 05:48, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Two edit wars in two days on Australian's political parties' pages and in this case I am again supposedly on the conservative side *sigh*. Any party who isnt the Liberal or Nationals power decreases in the event of the government seizing a Senate majority. Its a fact. If the government doesn't have to deal with you, you have little to no power. - Aaron Hill 06:17, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on the 2004 election results to the Liberal Party article, naturally including reference to their Senate success. (I'm not quite sure what to do with the Nats or Labor, since their articles are shorter and don't leave an obvious spots for modern elections results to go; the ALP one in particular could use an expansion. Adding a ref in Mark Latham might work, though.) Since the other minor parties involved in the elections all either lost seats or only have one senator anyway, I don't really think it's necessary to bring up the other reasons for their lack of influence in the articles. If no-one objects, I think we can safely put back the reference to the balance of power here. (Oh, and just so we're clear: I'm a Dems supporter, and I have the same contempt for John Howard as any other latté leftie. It hurts to talk about these election results, but I think it needs to be done.) JK 06:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not leaving a horrid run-on sentence like that. It reads horribly, is an eyesore, and serves no purpose. Unless there's an equally poor sentence added to every other Australian party page, I'll keep removing it. I'm surprised to see so many prominent Australian Wikipedians defending such poor writing. The main Australian 2004 election article covers plenty of "the Greens didn't do as well as they'd hoped" tone, and I'll not have this page reading like a eulogy when the Greens increased their numbers in the Senate. Inter-party dynamics are for the main election article. So far as this article goes, they gained two Senate seats -- nearly three, had it not been for the Victoria preferences sham. 20:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then reword the damned thing, not remove it. Please stop accusing us of being biased against the Greens - almost all of us are either Greens (as I am) or ALP voters. It should note just how much their vote increased, and how Siewert and Milne picked up seats despite the preferences sham - but it should also note that they had expected to do better (i.e. in seats such as Melbourne, and the Queensland Senate), and that their influence has now decreased, as a result of their support no longer being needed to pass legislation. Ambi 00:13, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
IMHO (and I'm a Greens member myself), the fact that we increased our seats is the reason *why* it should be included. When we note that the Democrats lost seats, it hardly needs saying that this weakens them. But if we note that the Greens won seats, the natural presumption is that they'd be more powerful in the Senate than they were last time around. This *isn't* the case, it's not obvious to a casual reader that it isn't the case, it has a lot of impact on the Greens' role in the Senate, and so it bears mentioning here. Even if it means a small amount of duplication. --Calair 00:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Ambi 06:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, the ALP offered to do a preference swap with the Greens in Tasmania, but the Greens were so confident of getting a quota in their own right that they declined. The ALP then did a deal with Family First instead. The ALP's view is that it is not their job to help get Greens Senators elected. The current Senate election system makes preference deals absolutely necessary to win the sixth spot, and the ALP did whatever deals seemed likely to maximise its own chances of doing so. The reason the Greens failed to win Senate seats in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia was not preference "shams" but their own failure to win enough votes. Adam 00:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is not the ALP's job to get Green Senators elected, but it also seems somewhat logical to preference someone who is likely to have similar views and vote with you, rather than someone who is likely to vote for the government. Preferencing Fielding over Risstrom was a disaster - rather than helping Collins hold her seat, he took it from her, and the ALP now has a right-wing nuisance in the Senate for the next eight years. So, at least in Victoria, if not a sham, it was one hell of a stuff-up. The ALP also should've known better than to preference Petrusma over Milne in any circumstances. It is madness for a left-wing party to be preferencing the far-right. Let us just hope the lesson has been learned for next time. Ambi 06:10, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm unsure that the Greens would receive Labor preferences in the future because one of Labor's biggest problems this time around was that it was seen as getting too cuddly with the Greens (re: Tasmanian forests especially). Conversely, Labor rather enjoyed its effective Senate majority on the matter of anything remotely progressive in a de facto ALP/Greens/Democrats voting bloc and such an arrangement will happen with Family First when hell freezes over. (Or when St Kilda wins the flag). - Aaron Hill 08:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
The ALP would be immensely foolish to hold that against the Greens. It was a risky policy (IMO a good one), but it should have been announced long before the election to give O'Byrne and Sidebottom time to rebuild bridges. Ambi 09:07, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)