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.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 16 hours ago
A government can only go against lobbyist interests (and especially American interests) if they have the opposition on-side. Labor, to this day, has a long history of being couped and they’ve learned cowardice as a result.
Whitlam, Rudd, Fyles, Palaszczuk.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 14 hours ago
Rudd did it to himself by being pigheaded and refusing to go far enough.
Palaszczuk never really did anything stand-out brave. Her government lost because of the natural churn that comes with having been in power for 8 years, and because of global trends favouring oppositions.
Whitlam is definitely a good example. So would be Shorten, even though it was a bold platform from opposition that lost him a seemingly-unlosable election, rather than losing Government for bold actually-enacted policy.
I won’t comment on Fyles. I’m not nearly familiar enough with NT politics to say anything intelligent.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 14 hours ago
Palaszczuk taxed the coal mining companies and balanced the state budget. And keep in mind this was in Queensland, the most conservative state in the country.
Rudd … there is so much I could say. One of Gillard’s first acts after replacing Rudd was to drop the taxes on mining, she then put in a carbon tax that even an idiot could come up with a scare campaign against, said carbon tax only lasted a few years and permanently poisoned the idea of a price on carbon. This is not even mentioning the CIA cables discussing whether they should replace Rudd with Gillard.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 12 hours ago
Sure, but it wasn’t an especially bold proposal. And it wasn’t particularly central to either party’s election campaign, compared to things like cost of living, the Olympics, and “youth crime”.
Not a carbon tax. A fixed-price period leading into a cap and trade scheme.
Still not a carbon tax. It lasted only a few years because the Government lost at the next election. Something that was greatly aided by the constant white-anting by Rudd after he lost the leadership.
Gillard’s scheme was actually working. It was world-leading legislation that actually reduced emissions while it was in effect. If Rudd had just been willing to compromise and had delivered that exact policy in 2009 instead of trying to act the Big Tough Guy and insisting it was His Way or the Highway (despite the fact that “his way” would not have reduced emissions for another decade from today), turning it into the political football that brought down both his and Gillard’s Governments.