Quote:


only an SOB could conclude the greens are on he up when every post 2010 election has shown the greens polling less than that high mark and their currently polls saying exactly the same. It is going to be very hard to have a proper discussion if you are going to willfully misstate facts and misinterpret history. so far, you are doing both.

Quote:


dot be so silly. both major parties have shown dozens of ebbs and flows. third parties however have one rise and one fall. again, it is just history and feel free to point to a single historical instance of that not being true.

Quote:


i dont need BS. you supplied it all. when you describe the ALP, Libs and Nats as third parties then your argument falls down rather badly. and why must you refuse to consider just the post war period. is 70 years not enough for you to prove the point?  It isnt delusion at all, rather it is rational thinking to consider that perhaps politics has changed dramatically since the early days of federation.

Quote:


so we are discussing the ebbs and flows of minor parties and you want to use the example of a party only 20 years old??? epic fail since the cycle of minor parties is often longer than that period of time.  and has been stated previously, the nats are a unique case being the defacto rural liberal party. if you cant see that then it explains so much

Quote:


the predecessors of parties that are 70-100 years old??? talk about irrelevant crap. you are just desperately holding out for the hope that a thrid party will come into existence and break the repeated chain of rise and fal. fine. but at least admit it and dont go into these convoluted snd idiotic rants about how it has already happened.

Quote:


so the greens are gaining relative to labor??? on what planet is that true? the greens are dropping in line with the trajectory of EVERY THIRD PARTY since ww2 and the fundamental shift in Australian politics that occurred then

and when the greens go sub 5% what will you say then?  Actually you will say exactly the same thing you are syaing now only replacing the Greens with the next thrid party. you will rant and rave about how they are different.

it gets old and frankly. it gets a bit silly with you always desperately wanting a third party to take control but without doing the hard yards of actually winning an election.

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:


care to make an even moderately mathematically and politically based assessment of that. throw in a little history too while your at it just to make a better case.  Your position has zero merit.

freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 10:06am:


well as a detailed analysis that was rather lacking. Yes labor have dropped from 37% to 32% - a drop of 13.5% (please dont ask why it isnt 5%!) the greens have dropped from 12% to 10% a drop of 16.6%. Now if i wanted to make a simplistic argument like you tend to make I'd say 'point proven' and move on. But it is never that simplistic.

Labor have a 100 year record of ebb and flow and therefore it is reasonable to say that without any evidence that that has in any way changed this current low point will eventually turn around and they will rise and form government again even if not likely for at least 6 years and even more if the slaughter that the polls currently suggest, comes to pass.

The Greens on the other hand have no such extensive history to base a prediction on. All we have to predict a trajectory is the performance of other third parties. Federal politics was transformed by WW2 and in the post-war period no third party has ever shown the ability to stay the course. IN fact, history demonstrates that third parties rise, spend a little time in the sun and then fade away.

The Greens may in fact become a major long-lasting force. My argument is and has always been, that there is no evidence at all to suggest that is the likely outcome. The reverse in fact, is what is far more likely. And my primary evidence to support their likely demise is that they are to date tracking pretty much identical to third parties. They are even following the tried-and-true history of  founders of third parties taking them to their zenith, being replaced by lesser lights and the party slowly fade into the sunset. That the Greens have failed to capitalise on the large drop in Labor support not only reinforced my argument but may in fact hide a far bigger drop in the green vote as long-term labor voters 'park' their votes with the greens while their preferred party gets its act together.

Now if you wish to dispute my analysis then feel free but how about trying some actual argument and not just saying drivel like 'the labor party was once a third party etc' when that hasnt been true for 100 years and the coalition have been around also for 70 years as well.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 15^th, 2013 at 11:10am:


You mean - when Howard revealed he had been lying all the time:

"Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia." Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the lie. Asked if he'd "left the door open for a GST", Howard said: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508474312.html

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 25^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:


and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST which every party accepts is a good tax. Gillard saiud no to a carbon tax and then 5 DAYS later decided to implement one and still 60+% of voters hate it.

not really the parallel you are looking for, is it?

In 1972  the first enviro party was formed in Tassy. There were  Green parties in all the states and they decided to make it a National party in 1992. If we follow long fools reasoning the Nationals are not likely to last as they are only ten years old.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2013 at 8:08am:


and 5 years later and two elections... we havea  GST

That is not particularly honest - He stood in the 1996 election with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST in any government he led and was openly campaigning for a GST around 14 months later in the very term that his commitment first applied.

It may have taken 5 years from his first promise to when it was implemented 1995 to 2000. But no GST ever was his position for the 1996 election and the promise was being breached in 1997.