>>1452962
>good party
is this guy the leader?

I don't know your greens, but ours are hilarious and in no way even slightly good. They're politicians, don't forget that. They are not good, they are a necessary evil.

>The only slightly-good party
>Voted against ETS
>GREENS
>VOTED AGAINST ETS
What is this shit

>>1452981
Aussie Greens actually sound like really chill guys. Completely oppose net filter, want to stop logging, want the vast majority of the energy to be renewable, and investing heavily in education and new research.

Family First are greater

>>1452984
Because it's a stupid fucking half-measure.

>>1452989

>>1453001

Obvious morally corrupt child molesting enabler is obvious.

lol greens

>Make an entire party around the idea that the natural environment is at risk of being destroyed and must be aggressively protected.
>Stall nuclear technology for decades causing millions and millions of tonnes of additional CO2 to be released into the air.
>Vote against minor backburning in Victoria despite warnings that fires could be catastrophic.
>Vote against emissions reduction because it isn't good enough.
These clowns can't decide their way out of a paper box because they are naive, ideological fools that cause more harm for their own cause, and Australia, then their opposition. The truth is the only sane party to vote for is one of the major ones. The Labor party presents itself as progressive, and is on aboriginal rights, but they are the same old shit (anti-gay marriage for example) + net censorship filter + economic incompetence. It also doesn't allow crossing the floor, so members have to vote the way the party decides. In the Liberal party on the other hand members can vote however they want, and thus you have situations where people like Turnbull who voted with the Greens on the ETS no matter how stupid Abbott is on climate change. If Gillard decides climate change isn't a priority, the entire Labor party effectively decides it isn't. And if she decides internet censorship is a priority, which she has, then the entire ALP votes that way. TL;DR: Liberal or Nationals.

>>1453066

you mad?

>>1453102
>He put forward an opinion that is opposite to mine, he mad.

No, you sir, are mad.

>In the Liberal party on the other hand members can vote however they want, and thus you have situations where people like Turnbull who voted with the Greens on the ETS no matter how stupid Abbott is on climate change.
...and got destroyed for it. Mmm, conscience votes for political suicide. What an improvement on Labor.

>>1453102
Nah I love watching retard Greens thinking they are intellectuals. Meanwhile I don't think anything can happen on climate change without the U.S. and China agreeing to an ETS, so until then I'm not worried if Australia doesn't get an ETS because it will have a minimal effect.

>>1453115
Only cause he's leader. There's Liberal backbenchers that voted for it too.

>>1453066
>If Gillard decides climate change isn't a priority, the entire Labor party effectively decides it isn't.

Gillard doesn't have that much power, why do you think Rudd was rolled from the leadership? It's beacause he refused to negotiate with Labor factions, such as Labor-left and Labor-unity.

If Gillard wants to retain her job, she'll have to delegate power and accept the position of Labor's Caucus.

>>1453138
Like Petro Georgiou, who got branded a "political terrorist" by his own party for daring to vote with his conscience?

The Liberal party you imagine died decades ago.

>>1453149
That sounds dangerously democratic. Why can't they just appoint a dictator?

>>1453149
It's always the powerful faction that has it's policy made Labor policy in the ALP. Gillard's faction decides, if not her alone. As she polls well her factions power increases because they can't risk not suckling at her teet or they will get hit on for being in disarray by the opposition and media and crushed at the election.

Same thing happened to Rudd. He made a power move, got elected, and his faction got everything it wanted down to having Rudd break a hundred year tradition and select his own ministers. While he polled well everything that he wanted he got. He didn't even consult with people before announcing policy - case in point was backing down on the ETS, but the same thing happened with the stimulus package, the deposit guarantee and so on. Rudd made up his mind, and that was that, it didn't matter what the rest of the party thought, until his popularity took a nosedive (and what a nosedive - record low approval figures) which was the only time the rest of the party could pounce.

As long as Gillard polls well it's basically her party to do whatever she wants with.

>>1453203
Gillard's faction is in the minority though, and i doubt Labor will be seeing polls of over 60% for the remainder of their years in government, however long that will be.

If anything she'll be forced into governing by consensus with Labor-unity, which will probably result in a more neo-liberal approach regarding economic issues.

>>1453187
That was Sophie Mirrabella though, and she's a renown lunatic, like ol'Tuckey. Still it's frightening that a nutjob like her actually made it in the shadow-ministry, she belongs on the backbench with Tuckey.

>>1453279
Hope so.