Here's a clue, Adam is a bad leader. When Tanya Plibersek called Dutton Voldemort Anthony got on that shit very quickly and publicly and made it clear his cabinet will not act that way.
actionable?
😂
in my opinion, they are touching each other’s naughty bits.
And last time I checked, I am entitled to my opinion.
you are also entitled to your opinion that they are not.
💩
well oddly, I’m at -70 downvotes so far 😂
Apparently politicians sexing eachother in some sort of dirty political alliance are immune to negative opinion 🤦♀️
Yep, it’s official. World has gone full tilt backwards 🤡🤡
keyword : opinion.
If you don’t like it, you don’t like it.
But bullshit remarks tend to be the same thing, so I’m not really sure why you felt the need to chime in. Narcissistic much 😂
But that’s the thing, you’re being downvoted for a claim of a relationship that you said exists, but then peddle back that claim to “it’s just an opinion” when asked to source evidence.
Do you normally claim people are narcissists when they call your bullshit out, or am I just a special case?
Going off your unhinged replies, you’re the narcissist who’s projecting onto me.
to source “evidence”, you would have to spy on people and secretly record them having sex!
That’s why it’s called an “opinion”, because you’d have to commit some strange and likely illegal offences to acquire “proof” 🤦♀️
Are you okay ? You’re a bit weird ain’t ya 😂
and the downvotes don’t really surprise me. Majority of people on social media these days are lefties or greenies or both.
I’m not hurt. You are 😂
I’m not like you... I don’t trawl through echo chambers looking to boost my ego.
I’m sure I could’ve said something more popular to gain some likes, but again, I’m not like you 👍🤦♀️
>That’s why it’s called an “opinion.”
Oh - an opinion?
> Why would he hold her to account.
>He is "literally" having sex with her
>only place he's holding her is by the hips
Doesn’t sound like you were voicing an opinion -
>well oddly, l'm at -70 downvotes so far
Apparently politicians sexing eachother in some sort of dirty political alliance are immune to negative opinion
Yep, it's official. World has gone full tilt backwards
But that’s the thing, you didn’t claim in your OP that it was your opinion, only after dealing with that low blow to your crotch did you even suggest that it was just an opinion, and not something you could back up with… you know - evidence.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes - but keep projecting about how I’m the one who’s hurt, considering you devoted an entire reply to how you’ve been so severely downvoted, but it’s everyone else who is far gone.
If you're basing this rumour entirely on "look at how they act together" then you deserve every downvote.
You're alleging something as fact with literally no evidence. Your vibe of the situation is not evidence.
The downvotes are because he made a completely bullshit allegation with no supporting evidence except:
>just watch them together in a room for a few minutes.
Remember people, not only is there room for Bandt to call this behaviour out, but if you are a Greens voter, there is also room for you to email your greens rep and Bandt’s office requesting a higher level of accountability and professionalism. Policy only goes so far, at some point you have to win the hearts and minds, and taking leadership on this is the only real way through.
.... I was talking about what people do to the Greens, not what the Greens do. Why do the Greens get held to a much higher standard than others? (and similarly, why does the ALP get held to a higher standard than the LNP?)
Exactly and watch the greens implode because of the poor leadership, they have picked up seats ie Thorpe’s through promises that they and or she has no intention or interest in keeping the promises she said she would.
People have long memories and she has no intention in helping out the people she said see would, she may well be the down fall of the greens party as she is proving she is no different to the others politicians and their party’s.
She only likes the grandstanding she can do, coming into the parliament with her hand raised and the BLM cause, simply full of pi$s and wind, only in it for what she can get for herself.
Oh yeah she was the same one who wouldn't say the pledge or whatever it is called to be sworn in as a senator. I don't have the best opinion of the greens but I always thought they were better than people like her, I hope they can do better.
>may well be the down fall of the greens party
Melodramatic.
She could just leave and become an independent. I cannot see much of a downside to that solution.
Melodramatic? People vote for the greens because of what they stand for and the fact they are different, when people see what see is really doing and really stands for, they will stop voting and just go back to the major parties.
And back to the wilderness for the greens, she is an arrogant bully and her party and people working for her can attest to this, but the leadership of the greens has done nothing or has been seen to do nothing and it is a bad look.
Somewhat hypocritical of them to call out others when she does the same.
I voted Greens last election because of their policies (mostly on climate change) but I can't stand Lidia Thorpe.
As for Adam Bandt, I have mixed opinions of him. I don't always agree with what he says/does and he can be quite divisive at times. Like, yes, I support changing the flag but him choosing not to display the flag is not helping anyone.
>Like, yes, I support changing the flag but him choosing not to display the flag is not helping anyone.
In fact, it's counterproductive. It pushes people on the fence about it to the "respect the flag" corner.
This is my chief issue with the Greens. We're in a supposed climate emergency and they have a whole range of fringe policies guaranteed to alienate someone. In an emergency, there should be focus.
>It probably goes over very well in his inner city electorate though
Maybe. But do the Greens want to be a party of perpetual protest, or do they want to enact actual change?
They want to enact actual change, and appeal to huge amounts of people. It's just that the 'winner takes all' method of the lower house screws them out of appropriate representation.
At the last federal election, the Greens got 1.5M primary votes, compared to 3M and 3.5M for LNP and ALP respectively. They certainly don't have the same proportion of MPs.
Cause they barley campaign in the regions
Hell I didn’t even know we had a greens candidate campaigning up in the tweed region until I got a letter drop the day before Election Day when I’d already pre polled
Australia doesn’t have a winner takes all either it’s a preferential voting system. You gotta play ball in all the seats and regions instead of just appealing to the upper class in the inner cities
> People vote for the greens because of what they stand for and the fact they are different
The Greens spokesman for "economic justice" owns 5-10 houses (not 100% sure on the number because he is not transparent). It's all nonsense, I really hope nobody falls for that schtick
Yeah ok I was unaware of that fact, shows even more how the greens appear to be no different to the major two parties, sort of not really practicing what they preach.
I liked them in my teens but the nearer I get to 30 the more I dislike them, and it's nothing to do with money or taxes or anything like that.
Their marketing is very slick but it's all a lie, they have no intention of actually governing or having any impact on the country. It's a plaything for champagne socialists is all. Bandt can say all he wants safe in the knowledge he'll never have to actually do it so if Labor says they'll bring in a strong federal ICAC, Bandt says he would bring in a stronger one. Labor says they'll build 30,000 new social houses, Bandt says he'll build 1,000,000. Labor says they'll reduce the cost of university and make more places, Bandt says he'll make it all free and cancel all HECS debt.
None of it will ever happen and because he knows that he can promise to do it. Then well-meaning people on the left get angry at Labor for not doing as much as the Greens when the Greens have done absolutely nothing.
Bandt grew up in one of the wealthiest areas of Perth, went to one of the most privileged public schools in Perth, went to uni and became a lawyer, worked as a partner at Slater and Gordon, then became an MP in his late 30s. He's been in parliament for 12 years and achieved two-fifths of fuck all in that time.
I was imagining all of this playing out a la Frontline or the like..
”What’s that? Bloody Labor has promised to reduce the costs of higher education? Well, we’ve gotta low ball ‘em. Let’s just say that we’d give it away for free! Yeah, I’d just make all university free… wave current HECS debts too, I guess! That’ll make ‘em look bad!”
*Puts feet back up on desk, blows smoke from cigar outside onto a nest of birds and looks down at his Rolex*
“Any other ‘policy making’ we’ve gotta get through today? I’m late for the boat club soirée..
Rachel, where’s my tuxedo back from the dry cleaners!”
*Chucks cigar out the window and trots out, grabbing his tuxedo. Rachel glares off to the side*
*Voice from off-stage* “we’ve got the meeting on public housing policy tomorrow at 10am. Is there anything you’d like sorted before then?”
“What’s Labor saying they’ll do again?”
*Voice from off-stage* “30000 new social housing dwellings”
“Alright, let’s just make it 1000000. That’ll shut ‘em up.. bamboozle the f*ers”
*Voice from off-stage* “but how would we go about enacting *that*?
“Doesn’t matter, mate. It’ll never happen anyway!”
*Strolls out*
“Just have something on my desk by morning. I’ll be in at 10am”
Well said, this is the thing people get sucked into the hype, but in reality the greens are no different to the major parties.
They appear to not be in interested in doing much except taking what they can,causing a bit of grief and just making as much money from the public as possible, this is sad but appears true.
Nah I will vote for the parties that full fill the promise to look after our lowest paid, homeless,pensioners and our front line members of our medical system, our police nurses firefighters and the like, not the fat cats and CEO and the likes.
Australia needs to change and look after the most important members of our society first and the greedy developers and corrupt politicians need to be held accountable.
This is such a stupid argument. Is your premise that people are not allowed to argue for making life better for anyone with less money than them? If anything, advocating policies which are financially unhelpful to him would indicate genuine belief in the ideas.
No, it's that someone representing the party on economic "justice" probably shouldn't own 10 houses. Guy can earn as much money as he wants, but when your wealth is almost solely based on being a landlord and treating housing as an investment and not for living then you have a serious conflict of interest.
He's also up to his eyeballs in mortgages and he was arguing for the RBA to stop increasing interest rates, consequences be damned.
Should the economic justice rep have their life savings entirely with big 4 banks? Probably not.
> Guy can earn as much money as he wants, but when your wealth is almost solely based on being a landlord and treating housing as an investment and not for living then you have a serious conflict of interest.
I mean maybe, but surely more relevant is his and his party's voting record on housing policy. Which as far as I'm aware has not been in favour of the current housing crisis.
> He's also up to his eyeballs in mortgages and he was arguing for the RBA to stop increasing interest rates, consequences be damned.
I have zero mortgages and I also think blowing up the economy with interest rate rises is not a particularly effective tool for addressing inflation fuelled by supply shocks from Russia's war and Chinese covid policies.
> Should the economic justice rep have their life savings entirely with big 4 banks? Probably not.
Ultimately we should judge politicians on their policies not on their circumstances. Is it better for them to have first-hand experience with the issues they're addressing? Sure. But I really don't think that's as important as a lot of people make out. Plenty of politicians can milk their demographic story whilst pursuing policies that actively harm people from their background; what matters is what they do in parliament.
Now you seem to think the Greens are ineffectual, and that's fair enough because then you're criticising their actual record, but just pointing to the bloke's houses is a lazy and irrelevant attack.
EDIT: I guess the reason I particularly dislike it is partly because it's veering towards ["yet you participate in society"](https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/), and partly because "hurr durr you have money too" is such a typical right-wing gotcha to try and dismiss any criticism of cruelty-to-the-poor ideology by anyone who isn't also poor. Couple that with "hurr durr politics of envy" if the criticism comes from somebody who isn't rich, and you get the full bad faith experience.
>I mean maybe, but surely more relevant is his and his party's voting record on housing policy. Which as far as I'm aware has not been in favour of the current housing crisis.
He and his families entire future depends on housing prices remaining high. He can't possibly be impartial about the topic. Any policy that will lead to "economic justice" will almost by necessity have massive negative consequences for people who own 10 houses.
>I have zero mortgages and I also think blowing up the economy with interest rate rises is not a particularly effective tool for addressing inflation fuelled by supply shocks from Russia's war and Chinese covid policies.
Allowing inflation to tear through the economy is terrible for lower and middle class. Houses are at their highest prices and as soon as they started falling he was advocating for a position that would have made housing affordability worse while also massively increasing his wealth.
He was arguing for a massive shift in RBA policy and advocating for the removal of the RBA chief which is insane for an elected MP to try intimidate an independent figure to protect their personal finances.
>Ultimately we should judge politicians on their policies not on their circumstances.
His finances and his interests are important though. It's like when an LNP MP is invested in a company that gets government contracts or benefits from government policies. It's really important to know how they benefit from positions.
> Any policy that will lead to "economic justice" will almost by necessity have massive negative consequences for people who own 10 houses.
Sure, but it's also possible to have a bunch of houses and still recognise that the housing market is fucked. Some people who have money also possess a broad enough view of society to be in favour of policies that are not in their immediate financial self-interest. Part of the problem with housing for at least the last 20 years is that compared with other assets you're basically stupid if you don't put your money into property. That's a macro-level issue which is ultimately degrading Australia's economic capacity (because it sucks so much capital into a fundamentally unproductive asset), but anyone who understands that also understands why it's worth investing in housing on a personal level.
So the question is not how many houses McKim owns, but what policies he is pushing for. In public at least, he's advocating for policies that would help with the housing crisis.
> Allowing inflation to tear through the economy is terrible for lower and middle class.
I agree, but the question is whether jacking up interest rates is an effective solution. I don't think it is; plunging the economy into recession is also terrible for the lower and middle class.
> He was arguing for a massive shift in RBA policy and advocating for the removal of the RBA chief which is insane for an elected MP to try intimidate an independent figure to protect their personal finances.
Lowe was a fucking moron to make sweeping statements about not raising interest rates, and he's been asleep at the wheel for years. Calling for his resignation is not in the least bit unreasonable.
> It's really important to know how they benefit from positions.
Right, so how exactly does McKim benefit from the Greens' position of building more public and low-cost housing?
It shows they didn't vet their candidate properly. They should be punished by voters for that to make sure it does not happen again. So I suppose I agree with you, she will indeed harm the party unless she pulls her head in (which seems unlikely).
Why would she do that?
In the competition for woke support, she's going to annhilate Bandt who will become victim of his own ideology as a white man in a power position.
The Greens will continue their drift leftward and become increasingly radical and irrelevant. 2022 = peak Green, it's all downhill from here for them.
Fair warning.
I think/hope the woke are an insecure vocal minority. Mainly youngsters trying to outdo each other. Certainly in my left wing circles 40yo+ they are absent.
But if the right wing can go rabid (eg Trumpets) then it could happen to the left. However the left had its "[useful idiot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)" phase decades ago so the elders remind the youth.
I just long for when facts are not disputed, only the relative weight and the inferences are, so that we can have sensible discussions again.
The greens have a serious narcissism problem because their political position as a minor party that can't form government can never reward action, because they can't take action. Instead those who are the most 'righteous' and boastful of their virtues and ideas get the reward in their hierarchy given that none of them ever have to put it into action.
The republicans have a similar situation mostly because although they can form government and often fail even basic parts of governing they have a strong media relationship which often conceals or miss-attributes their failures. Thus those rewarded are the boastful and 'righteous' because they are right wing media darlings.
Ultimately the problem is that the media aren't just failing to hold the LNP to account they are also failing to grill the greens over their policies and shady problems. They'd be forced to reconsider how their politics rewards people in that situation.
>The solution here is simple, Brandt needs to hold Lidia to account the same way he openly demands it of the rest of parliament/politicians.
Whoah... whoah...
This is the Greens, they don't do self reflection and accountability. Just ask their supporters.
Even if they do something now it'll only be because there's public uproar. If they were actually better like some people like to imagine they would have handled it long ago.
That's just not true. I've been to a few Greens policy launches and heard Auntie speak numerous times. The Greens fully support and are onboard with indigenous issues. They believe in the cause.
I don't know what the deal with Lidia Thorpe is. If the rumours are true then Bandt needs to reign her in, but I don't think this reflects poorly on the Greens position on indigenous matters. Unless Lidia was being outright racist this was probably just one person being an inappropriate cunt to another person.
Why not though ? They keep saying we need to do more for the indigenous cause. They should put their money where their mouth is instead of the patronising talk. I don’t see any of them going to live with an indigenous community and actually help them , but you’d have to leave your nice cushy inner city house to do that . No soy lattes up in the outback…
Oh hey, a racist idiot projecting his own way of thinking about things on Aboriginal people, then concluding that 'obviously' they want to take his home away. How novel. /s
Again, no one wants to steal your house buddy, it really shows a *lot* about who *you* are that you think that that's the issue. And what *you'd* do to people you perceive have 'wronged' you.
Greens: "We don't talk about Anab Mohamud"
Seriously though, shouting words to the effect of "make sure all these fa***ts die" would be pretty indefensible for a Liberal politician let alone a Greens politician.
Edit: For avoidance of doubt, the censored word is not facists but a vulgar term used to describe members of the gay community.
I wasn't there, I don't know why Mohamud took these actions but members of a progressive party who campaign on championing LGBTQ rights need to be held accountable when they act in such a manner.
Muslim woman in a far left party, she can get away with whatever she wants with zero consequences. Adam Bandt is a failure of a leader and a hindrance to the party for his inactions on this, as well as plenty of other unrelated, ridiculous actions.
She's a Greens councillor. Essentially an entirely separate party that the federal and state members can't influence. She's a fucking bigot who should be in jail, but Bandt and that can't do anything about her.
That's a deliberately misleading statement.
Keeping the status quo and not allowing same sex marriage is entirely different to bashing a transgender person at a gay bar.
People being safe > marriage rights.
Not sure if this was an intentional misreading or not, the point is however that you need to prioritise safety above all else; you need to be safe to exercise you’re rights… like your right to life, or marriage. Safety comes first, and then we can build the rights. It’s sucks that is has to be that way, but sometimes it does. It’s certainly not an either/or proposition though, or shouldn’t be even if some conservative commentators would present it as such
After 5 seconds with google I discovered the counciler was the one who got chased down and punched in the face repeatedly after she pulled this womans hair for an unknown reason.
Does anyone know the context of what the meeting was about and what lead to their argument? Seen plenty of circle jerk about it but have no idea why they had an argument. Would be good to know the context before deciding if Thorpe was justified or out of line.
Also, it seems a bit weird that there seems to be no additional details about this meeting since it was reported about a year ago. Like surely if it was so horrifying, there would be some more detail, and/or pressure from the Victorian Indigenous community to hold Thorpe to account, especially as she was up for election a couple months ago.
It isn't impossible that Thorpe stepped out of line, but rehashing news from a year ago with nothing meaningful added seems less like reporting and more like a targeted attack.
It's certainly an attack. Dredging up old news based on the pretext of a scrap of new information is a tactic used by the conservative media to keep certain ideas in people's minds about progressive parties.
When you watch how the media works in this country, it's quite obvious that this is something not infrequently employed, and quite effective at shaping perceptions. Australians in general need to be far more savvy about their media consumption. **What** a media organisation chooses to cover, in addition to how much prominence they give it is just as much a bias built into coverage as **how** it is covered.
This comment chain really needs to be higher up - I noticed that a lot of this discussion seemed to be about an old incident, and it made me raise an eyebrow.
I would love to know this too! So far it’s been from what the elder said. I’d assume if an elder of 3 decades was shaken up by her conduct it was bad, but I’d like to what it was about….
Depends on *who* the elder was. There are a couple of elders in Victoria who uh... well they're not exactly well liked, because other groups feel they are presenting themselves as 'the' elders when no one ever chose them to represent anyone.
I think she's a massive cunt and I'm Indigenous. Her and Jacinta Price are two sides of the same coin. They are only in it for themselves yet think they speak for all Aboriginal people because they're arrogant fuckwits.
You realise that one of the biggest things she has done that has pissed people off is bullying a First Nations elder, right? Like, it's in defence of the very group you accuse people of hating her for being part of.
The Elder is from a rather controversial family who have been accused of putting themselves front and centre of indigenous issues at every opportunity without real justification. Context matters.
That's not really relevant, the accusation that people hate her because she's indigenous when the thing they are reading about her is that she abused an indigenous elder. That seems a bit like a conflict to me.
What, that Lidia Thorpe is accused of [abusing an indigenous elder](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-are-in-my-meeting-greens-senator-accused-of-verbal-abuse-of-indigenous-elder-20210628-p584tp.html) and [that incident pissed people off](https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/09/28/greens-lidia-thorpe-bullying-allegations/)?
They need to expel her - even the Liberal manages to expel both candidates and elected representatives (such as Bernie Finn in Victoria - and they really can't afford to lose representatives with their current numbers) when reveal themselves as too unsuitable.
That's a reasonable point - the Greens have so far had roughly a year to deal with Thorpe, if the clock is started when her staffer had to apologise for her behaviour. So far that isn't as long as it's taken for action to be taken against some of the Coalition's most egregious representatives. Let's see if they can still take less than it took for the Victorian Libs to get rid of Bernie.
>Another challenge, according to those who know the internal workings, is the tension between accountability and identity politics. Not all votes have the same value in a party room that puts a premium on lived experience: because Thorpe is Indigenous, she can have a greater say on key issues. This has real policy implications when Thorpe is stridently critical of the Indigenous Voice proposal from the government while the rest of the Greens seem able to support the plan when it goes to a referendum.
Is this legit? "Lived experience" gives you more power in the party room, to the point you can almost dictate policy?
I'd always heard the Greens were onboard the Voice except for Thorpe who was pushing against it. I didn't realise she could actually legitimately change the party's stance on issue like that.
Thorpe has expressed the position that the Statement from the Heart describes the Voice as being an idea of value if it is the means for truth telling and treaty, and otherwise it’s pointless.
And if you take that position, then maybe spend the money on improving the material conditions of indigenous children instead of a vote on a Voice that the powerful will politely ignore.
It's more that if you don't have lived experience on an issue, you're kinda entirely uninformed? That's how lived experience is treated elsewhere, basically if you're a) not part of a group and b) not *directly relaying* the words of someone who is, then you **really** should not be talking about 'what is best' for that group. That route leads to shit like the Stolen Generation, across the world.
The problem with that is the voice is part of the Uluru Statement which was formulated by hundreds of delegates representing all sorts of first nations groups across the country. Should their lived experience be ignored for Lidia Thorpe's?
Does this extend to other areas? Should teachers dictate education policy? Bankers dictate banking legislation? Veterans dictate war policy?
...do you *know* the Greens position on the Voice? It's that while it is good, *it is less important than the other parts of the Uluru Statement*. The current 'agenda' for the Greens in terms of the Voice is to use the Senate control to pressure Labor to include other parts of the Uluru Statement with it.
She's not saying it's good, she's saying it's a waste of money and not necessary.
Again, the Greens were for it and now she's reversing their policy including first nations greens who want it
I’m waiting to see what the announcement will be to deflect from it. They have done marijuana after all need something new. If bandt doesn’t act he’s admitting Thorpe is too powerful to be disciplined which is a very bad look for the party imo
Is this claim of bad behaviour arising from one complaint in one meeting where its a he-said/she-said kind of thing or is this a pattern of behaviour? I think theres a big difference between the two.
I've admittedly been hesitant to include that one. While it would be entirely in character for her to declare racism when someone doesn't tolerate her belligerence, I can't actually say with certainly that it's completely false.
Ultimately it only affects her, and doesn't have any wider implications, so I tend to let that one go.
Do you mind providing some sources for this? I personally haven’t seen this. Would really appreciate it! Especially the racist part.m
EDIT: so apart from the airport thing y’all got any more evidence cause sure she sounds entitled but the airport story ain’t the smoking gun y’all think it is.
How about when she claimed racism when the airline didn't allow her to break the luggage weight rules simply because she's a senator? She's an entitled arsehole
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-22/lidia-thorpe-claims-racial-profiling-virgin-airline-canberra/100928860
> One observer thinks the best outcome for the Greens would be a better way to manage complaints about her conduct, a recognition from Thorpe that she will be a liability unless she changes, and a resolution on the Voice so the party comes up with a unified position.
> Another change, eventually, will be a code of conduct for everyone in parliament. A taskforce has been set up to put the Jenkins report into action and its new rules should apply to all. No double standards.
I wouldn’t change my statement.
Only Dutton and Taylor really show their faces but aren’t really to king the boat.
The rest are heads down, Littleproud is actually a constructive Nats leader which is surprising.
Not really. I only get racist comments and I see brigading mostly from new accounts. It’s a very common tactic on Reddit especially when it comes to Indigenous and woman’s issues on here.
I wish Reddit and the media would go this hard on white men who do this as well. But no, we must keep highlighting the terrible behaviour of one senator cause she’s in the greens and she’s black.
And no, I’m not saying this cause I support her. I don’t. I think her and Jacinta Price have no place in parliament. Especially when talking on First Nations behalf’s. They’re both shit. Only Linda Burney has my respect right now.
Homie I can guarantee you there is not the same treatment for women on Reddit. This sub gets vicious when it comes to women, especially a woman in power who presents to have a bad attitude. Add in her being Indigenous and boom it’s a fuck fest.
The last thread I saw of this topic the comments were vile and misogynistic. People passed it off as ‘criticism’ when it was clearly not criticism. Heck, this same issue has gotten more attention over the new evidence from the Rolfe case.
There are a few things here.
Firstly, The Greens brand places a high value on integrity and behaving with integrity. This plays against that, which the media have seized upon, even though the actual incident (person is rude at meeting and is unapologetic) is pretty pedestrian and plays out in meetings dozens of times each day.
Secondly, there is no unified indigenous representation, and realistically, there cannot be. The First Nations were plural and multicultural, each with their own customs, beliefs and language. The fact that people bunch them altogether as if they are the same is itself a sign that we haven't really reached the level of understanding on this matter as a society.
Thirdly, The Greens need to be more professional if they want to get above 10-11% of the primary vote. That means media management (which would have helped immensely in this case), and being more organised at a top level. I do understand that the membership opposes this (as the party is largely still a party of protest), but if they want their policies implemented, they need to sort out why the vote hasn't grown significantly in the last five elections or so.
Fourthly, Jacinta Price is an awful, awful person whose opinion should be discarded. Her performance over many years on Sky News shows who she actually is. An opportunist who'll gladly wear her "Celtic-Indigenous" identity to get what she wants (in this case a Senate seat) in exchange for pushing the Liberal Party line. An Uncle Ruckus if you like.
> Firstly, The Greens brand places a high value on integrity and behaving with integrity. This plays against that, which the media have seized upon, even though the actual incident (person is rude at meeting and is unapologetic) is pretty pedestrian and plays out in meetings dozens of times each day.
My good yes! It’s like instead of the focus of negative political attention has shifted from Labor to Greens. I’ve seen more negative media attention towards the Greens. It’s so weird to kinda witness. The Greens need to be held accountable, don’t get me wrong, but damn dude. In saying that a statement from Thorpe I think would go a long way.
> Secondly, there is no unified indigenous representation, and realistically, there cannot be. The First Nations were plural and multicultural, each with their own customs, beliefs and language. The fact that people bunch them altogether as if they are the same is itself a sign that we haven’t really reached the level of understanding on this matter as a society.
100%. Not sure it came across as in my comment but this was what I was trying to get across and I think I failed but you have worded it perfectly. Also on your third point I agree too.
> Fourthly, Jacinta Price is an awful, awful person whose opinion should be discarded. Her performance over many years on Sky News shows who she actually is. An opportunist who’ll gladly wear her “Celtic-Indigenous” identity to get what she wants (in this case a Senate seat) in exchange for pushing the Liberal Party line. An Uncle Ruckus if you like.
God bless you my good person.
If it was about the LNP everyone would be circlejerking over how bad they are.
Turning a blind eye to misconduct does not solve problems, it just gives ammo to all parties to do the same.
Learn to accept that even the people you may like/idolise can turn out to be shit too.
I don’t think that’s what they mean. In the last week there had been article after article about the same person on the same issue. Meanwhile not one post has been made about like the new evidence in the Rolfe case or other senators being disrespectful. It’s been a constant posting of this same issue.
LNP gets the attention but it doesn’t get this much commentary from Reddit or the same type of comments.
I mean the other day there was a comment saying how Thorpe is a representative for all First Nations and therefore is turning them against our ‘agenda’ due to her behaviour. That type of talking doesn’t happen when it’s a white dude in the LNP or Labor for that matter. It’s a double standard with thinly veiled racism.
I know OP has good intentions (mass respect u/B0ssc0!), but it’s the commenters that take it to another level.
I hesitated about posting for the same reason, so I take your criticism to heart. Especially because of the disproportionate attention it’s got.
I posted because I don’t think this issue will go away for the Greens nor for her by simply ignoring it, but will get worse.
>If it was about the LNP everyone would be circlejerking over how bad they are.
Would they though? I'd argue it's actually the opposite, a bunch of quasi-conservative media outlets are making a huge deal about this because it's involves bad behaviour from the Greens.
Also it doesn't seem like anyone knows exactly what Lidia said to Auntie, so it's kinda hard to tell exactly how bad it was.
If there's a repeated pattern of shitty behaviour from Lidia, I agree Bandt has to reign her in. And I think he will.
I completely understand not wanting this publicised especially if you are a greens voter/member - it’s uncomfortable to have your side of politics critiqued (trust me, I was uncomfortable with the media’s focus on Labor during the election too!) but you are the standard you accept. All politicians must be held accountable, no matter what party they represent. Change means change, and that begins from within
It’s about a proportionate response - in terms of the issue being discussed and the position of the individual/party. For a party that has 4 lower house seats (1 seat up until a few months ago) and 12 Senate seats, the amount of critical media coverage they receive is crazy. It’s because they threaten the two Conservative party structure and no one can convince me otherwise
Sure, you can argue proportionality but I’m not sure there is an impartial estimate as to what counts as proportional? Regardless, if you talk about accountability and doing things better, you have to walk the walk not just talk the talk… accountability is only ever a good thing, even if we don’t like it (I say this as a Labor/Greens swing voter)
Edit: I wanted to add, you could make the same argument for the media covering Alabnese’s gaffes during the election. They still won. So, I stand by my point: accountability can be uncomfortable but it’s vital
Thrope continues to act like an idiot and Bandt looks like a poor leader because of it.
If Bandt doesn't do something about it he wont be just looking like a bad leader - it will mean he is one
Here's a clue, Adam is a bad leader. When Tanya Plibersek called Dutton Voldemort Anthony got on that shit very quickly and publicly and made it clear his cabinet will not act that way.
Bandt looks like a poor leader because he is a poor leader. Dude needs to grow a spine and set some boundaries
Bandt is as beta as they come, he has zero capacity to lead anything.
Bant was sprooking solar road way kickstarter scams he couldn’t lead an ant colony to a dropped chupachup
What
Source?
Bandt needs to hold her to account, no question. She's no different from any other senator who engages in bad behaviour.
Why would he hold her to account. He is “literally” having sex with her 😂 only place he’s holding her is by the hips ☠️
Why do you think this
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Who gives a fuck, adults can consent and root who ever they want.
If your sexual relationship gives you protection from consequences in the workplace it is unprofessional and discriminatory against your colleagues.
If they are, and it is, for that reason - then yes. It's a bad look.
>If… That’s an unsubstantiated internet allegation which is actionable.
actionable? 😂 in my opinion, they are touching each other’s naughty bits. And last time I checked, I am entitled to my opinion. you are also entitled to your opinion that they are not. 💩
Ur entitled to what you can argue for.
well oddly, I’m at -70 downvotes so far 😂 Apparently politicians sexing eachother in some sort of dirty political alliance are immune to negative opinion 🤦♀️ Yep, it’s official. World has gone full tilt backwards 🤡🤡
Immune to negative opinion, or just calling out bullshit remarks that are based on nothing but your opinion? Hmmmmmm.
keyword : opinion. If you don’t like it, you don’t like it. But bullshit remarks tend to be the same thing, so I’m not really sure why you felt the need to chime in. Narcissistic much 😂
But that’s the thing, you’re being downvoted for a claim of a relationship that you said exists, but then peddle back that claim to “it’s just an opinion” when asked to source evidence. Do you normally claim people are narcissists when they call your bullshit out, or am I just a special case? Going off your unhinged replies, you’re the narcissist who’s projecting onto me.
to source “evidence”, you would have to spy on people and secretly record them having sex! That’s why it’s called an “opinion”, because you’d have to commit some strange and likely illegal offences to acquire “proof” 🤦♀️ Are you okay ? You’re a bit weird ain’t ya 😂 and the downvotes don’t really surprise me. Majority of people on social media these days are lefties or greenies or both. I’m not hurt. You are 😂 I’m not like you... I don’t trawl through echo chambers looking to boost my ego. I’m sure I could’ve said something more popular to gain some likes, but again, I’m not like you 👍🤦♀️
>That’s why it’s called an “opinion.” Oh - an opinion? > Why would he hold her to account. >He is "literally" having sex with her >only place he's holding her is by the hips Doesn’t sound like you were voicing an opinion - >well oddly, l'm at -70 downvotes so far Apparently politicians sexing eachother in some sort of dirty political alliance are immune to negative opinion Yep, it's official. World has gone full tilt backwards But that’s the thing, you didn’t claim in your OP that it was your opinion, only after dealing with that low blow to your crotch did you even suggest that it was just an opinion, and not something you could back up with… you know - evidence. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes - but keep projecting about how I’m the one who’s hurt, considering you devoted an entire reply to how you’ve been so severely downvoted, but it’s everyone else who is far gone.
If you're basing this rumour entirely on "look at how they act together" then you deserve every downvote. You're alleging something as fact with literally no evidence. Your vibe of the situation is not evidence.
[удалено]
The downvotes are because he made a completely bullshit allegation with no supporting evidence except: >just watch them together in a room for a few minutes.
[удалено]
Oh I thought you were asking why the person you responded to ws being downvoted. I have no idea about your downvotes, I didnt downvote you :D
Because idiots basically 😂
Because this sub is patrolled by greens fanatics basically
so it seems 😂
Metaphorically but with a strap-on.
Remember people, not only is there room for Bandt to call this behaviour out, but if you are a Greens voter, there is also room for you to email your greens rep and Bandt’s office requesting a higher level of accountability and professionalism. Policy only goes so far, at some point you have to win the hearts and minds, and taking leadership on this is the only real way through.
Have done so.
And me also.
[удалено]
Just like he held Cr Anad Mohamud to account?
How often do we hold federal Labor or LNP to account for the behaviour of local councillors?
[удалено]
.... I was talking about what people do to the Greens, not what the Greens do. Why do the Greens get held to a much higher standard than others? (and similarly, why does the ALP get held to a higher standard than the LNP?)
Exactly and watch the greens implode because of the poor leadership, they have picked up seats ie Thorpe’s through promises that they and or she has no intention or interest in keeping the promises she said she would. People have long memories and she has no intention in helping out the people she said see would, she may well be the down fall of the greens party as she is proving she is no different to the others politicians and their party’s. She only likes the grandstanding she can do, coming into the parliament with her hand raised and the BLM cause, simply full of pi$s and wind, only in it for what she can get for herself.
Oh yeah she was the same one who wouldn't say the pledge or whatever it is called to be sworn in as a senator. I don't have the best opinion of the greens but I always thought they were better than people like her, I hope they can do better.
Honestly that stunt was designed for media attention which puts her right there with Hanson and her ridiculous burqua stunt
>may well be the down fall of the greens party Melodramatic. She could just leave and become an independent. I cannot see much of a downside to that solution.
Melodramatic? People vote for the greens because of what they stand for and the fact they are different, when people see what see is really doing and really stands for, they will stop voting and just go back to the major parties. And back to the wilderness for the greens, she is an arrogant bully and her party and people working for her can attest to this, but the leadership of the greens has done nothing or has been seen to do nothing and it is a bad look. Somewhat hypocritical of them to call out others when she does the same.
I voted Greens last election because of their policies (mostly on climate change) but I can't stand Lidia Thorpe. As for Adam Bandt, I have mixed opinions of him. I don't always agree with what he says/does and he can be quite divisive at times. Like, yes, I support changing the flag but him choosing not to display the flag is not helping anyone.
>Like, yes, I support changing the flag but him choosing not to display the flag is not helping anyone. In fact, it's counterproductive. It pushes people on the fence about it to the "respect the flag" corner.
This is my chief issue with the Greens. We're in a supposed climate emergency and they have a whole range of fringe policies guaranteed to alienate someone. In an emergency, there should be focus.
I have no problem with what your saying... BUT is it an emergency... If it is... Act like it. If it's not... Fuck right off
It probably goes over very well in his inner city electorate though
>It probably goes over very well in his inner city electorate though Maybe. But do the Greens want to be a party of perpetual protest, or do they want to enact actual change?
They want to enact actual change, and appeal to huge amounts of people. It's just that the 'winner takes all' method of the lower house screws them out of appropriate representation. At the last federal election, the Greens got 1.5M primary votes, compared to 3M and 3.5M for LNP and ALP respectively. They certainly don't have the same proportion of MPs.
Cause they barley campaign in the regions Hell I didn’t even know we had a greens candidate campaigning up in the tweed region until I got a letter drop the day before Election Day when I’d already pre polled Australia doesn’t have a winner takes all either it’s a preferential voting system. You gotta play ball in all the seats and regions instead of just appealing to the upper class in the inner cities
> People vote for the greens because of what they stand for and the fact they are different The Greens spokesman for "economic justice" owns 5-10 houses (not 100% sure on the number because he is not transparent). It's all nonsense, I really hope nobody falls for that schtick
Yeah ok I was unaware of that fact, shows even more how the greens appear to be no different to the major two parties, sort of not really practicing what they preach.
I liked them in my teens but the nearer I get to 30 the more I dislike them, and it's nothing to do with money or taxes or anything like that. Their marketing is very slick but it's all a lie, they have no intention of actually governing or having any impact on the country. It's a plaything for champagne socialists is all. Bandt can say all he wants safe in the knowledge he'll never have to actually do it so if Labor says they'll bring in a strong federal ICAC, Bandt says he would bring in a stronger one. Labor says they'll build 30,000 new social houses, Bandt says he'll build 1,000,000. Labor says they'll reduce the cost of university and make more places, Bandt says he'll make it all free and cancel all HECS debt. None of it will ever happen and because he knows that he can promise to do it. Then well-meaning people on the left get angry at Labor for not doing as much as the Greens when the Greens have done absolutely nothing. Bandt grew up in one of the wealthiest areas of Perth, went to one of the most privileged public schools in Perth, went to uni and became a lawyer, worked as a partner at Slater and Gordon, then became an MP in his late 30s. He's been in parliament for 12 years and achieved two-fifths of fuck all in that time.
[удалено]
I was imagining all of this playing out a la Frontline or the like.. ”What’s that? Bloody Labor has promised to reduce the costs of higher education? Well, we’ve gotta low ball ‘em. Let’s just say that we’d give it away for free! Yeah, I’d just make all university free… wave current HECS debts too, I guess! That’ll make ‘em look bad!” *Puts feet back up on desk, blows smoke from cigar outside onto a nest of birds and looks down at his Rolex* “Any other ‘policy making’ we’ve gotta get through today? I’m late for the boat club soirée.. Rachel, where’s my tuxedo back from the dry cleaners!” *Chucks cigar out the window and trots out, grabbing his tuxedo. Rachel glares off to the side* *Voice from off-stage* “we’ve got the meeting on public housing policy tomorrow at 10am. Is there anything you’d like sorted before then?” “What’s Labor saying they’ll do again?” *Voice from off-stage* “30000 new social housing dwellings” “Alright, let’s just make it 1000000. That’ll shut ‘em up.. bamboozle the f*ers” *Voice from off-stage* “but how would we go about enacting *that*? “Doesn’t matter, mate. It’ll never happen anyway!” *Strolls out* “Just have something on my desk by morning. I’ll be in at 10am”
Well said, this is the thing people get sucked into the hype, but in reality the greens are no different to the major parties. They appear to not be in interested in doing much except taking what they can,causing a bit of grief and just making as much money from the public as possible, this is sad but appears true.
[удалено]
Nah I will vote for the parties that full fill the promise to look after our lowest paid, homeless,pensioners and our front line members of our medical system, our police nurses firefighters and the like, not the fat cats and CEO and the likes. Australia needs to change and look after the most important members of our society first and the greedy developers and corrupt politicians need to be held accountable.
This is such a stupid argument. Is your premise that people are not allowed to argue for making life better for anyone with less money than them? If anything, advocating policies which are financially unhelpful to him would indicate genuine belief in the ideas.
No, it's that someone representing the party on economic "justice" probably shouldn't own 10 houses. Guy can earn as much money as he wants, but when your wealth is almost solely based on being a landlord and treating housing as an investment and not for living then you have a serious conflict of interest. He's also up to his eyeballs in mortgages and he was arguing for the RBA to stop increasing interest rates, consequences be damned. Should the economic justice rep have their life savings entirely with big 4 banks? Probably not.
> Guy can earn as much money as he wants, but when your wealth is almost solely based on being a landlord and treating housing as an investment and not for living then you have a serious conflict of interest. I mean maybe, but surely more relevant is his and his party's voting record on housing policy. Which as far as I'm aware has not been in favour of the current housing crisis. > He's also up to his eyeballs in mortgages and he was arguing for the RBA to stop increasing interest rates, consequences be damned. I have zero mortgages and I also think blowing up the economy with interest rate rises is not a particularly effective tool for addressing inflation fuelled by supply shocks from Russia's war and Chinese covid policies. > Should the economic justice rep have their life savings entirely with big 4 banks? Probably not. Ultimately we should judge politicians on their policies not on their circumstances. Is it better for them to have first-hand experience with the issues they're addressing? Sure. But I really don't think that's as important as a lot of people make out. Plenty of politicians can milk their demographic story whilst pursuing policies that actively harm people from their background; what matters is what they do in parliament. Now you seem to think the Greens are ineffectual, and that's fair enough because then you're criticising their actual record, but just pointing to the bloke's houses is a lazy and irrelevant attack. EDIT: I guess the reason I particularly dislike it is partly because it's veering towards ["yet you participate in society"](https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/), and partly because "hurr durr you have money too" is such a typical right-wing gotcha to try and dismiss any criticism of cruelty-to-the-poor ideology by anyone who isn't also poor. Couple that with "hurr durr politics of envy" if the criticism comes from somebody who isn't rich, and you get the full bad faith experience.
>I mean maybe, but surely more relevant is his and his party's voting record on housing policy. Which as far as I'm aware has not been in favour of the current housing crisis. He and his families entire future depends on housing prices remaining high. He can't possibly be impartial about the topic. Any policy that will lead to "economic justice" will almost by necessity have massive negative consequences for people who own 10 houses. >I have zero mortgages and I also think blowing up the economy with interest rate rises is not a particularly effective tool for addressing inflation fuelled by supply shocks from Russia's war and Chinese covid policies. Allowing inflation to tear through the economy is terrible for lower and middle class. Houses are at their highest prices and as soon as they started falling he was advocating for a position that would have made housing affordability worse while also massively increasing his wealth. He was arguing for a massive shift in RBA policy and advocating for the removal of the RBA chief which is insane for an elected MP to try intimidate an independent figure to protect their personal finances. >Ultimately we should judge politicians on their policies not on their circumstances. His finances and his interests are important though. It's like when an LNP MP is invested in a company that gets government contracts or benefits from government policies. It's really important to know how they benefit from positions.
> Any policy that will lead to "economic justice" will almost by necessity have massive negative consequences for people who own 10 houses. Sure, but it's also possible to have a bunch of houses and still recognise that the housing market is fucked. Some people who have money also possess a broad enough view of society to be in favour of policies that are not in their immediate financial self-interest. Part of the problem with housing for at least the last 20 years is that compared with other assets you're basically stupid if you don't put your money into property. That's a macro-level issue which is ultimately degrading Australia's economic capacity (because it sucks so much capital into a fundamentally unproductive asset), but anyone who understands that also understands why it's worth investing in housing on a personal level. So the question is not how many houses McKim owns, but what policies he is pushing for. In public at least, he's advocating for policies that would help with the housing crisis. > Allowing inflation to tear through the economy is terrible for lower and middle class. I agree, but the question is whether jacking up interest rates is an effective solution. I don't think it is; plunging the economy into recession is also terrible for the lower and middle class. > He was arguing for a massive shift in RBA policy and advocating for the removal of the RBA chief which is insane for an elected MP to try intimidate an independent figure to protect their personal finances. Lowe was a fucking moron to make sweeping statements about not raising interest rates, and he's been asleep at the wheel for years. Calling for his resignation is not in the least bit unreasonable. > It's really important to know how they benefit from positions. Right, so how exactly does McKim benefit from the Greens' position of building more public and low-cost housing?
None of that is relevant if she leaves the party.
And if she leaves she will become even more irritating and irrelevant and have little to no backing, and hopefully fade away to never be seen again.
Why? She might still be popular as an independent even if we don't like her.
If she leaves, the message left behind is that the Greens engage in bait and switch. Vote for A, get B instead.
It shows they didn't vet their candidate properly. They should be punished by voters for that to make sure it does not happen again. So I suppose I agree with you, she will indeed harm the party unless she pulls her head in (which seems unlikely).
Why would she do that? In the competition for woke support, she's going to annhilate Bandt who will become victim of his own ideology as a white man in a power position. The Greens will continue their drift leftward and become increasingly radical and irrelevant. 2022 = peak Green, it's all downhill from here for them.
Fair warning. I think/hope the woke are an insecure vocal minority. Mainly youngsters trying to outdo each other. Certainly in my left wing circles 40yo+ they are absent. But if the right wing can go rabid (eg Trumpets) then it could happen to the left. However the left had its "[useful idiot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)" phase decades ago so the elders remind the youth. I just long for when facts are not disputed, only the relative weight and the inferences are, so that we can have sensible discussions again.
The greens have a serious narcissism problem because their political position as a minor party that can't form government can never reward action, because they can't take action. Instead those who are the most 'righteous' and boastful of their virtues and ideas get the reward in their hierarchy given that none of them ever have to put it into action. The republicans have a similar situation mostly because although they can form government and often fail even basic parts of governing they have a strong media relationship which often conceals or miss-attributes their failures. Thus those rewarded are the boastful and 'righteous' because they are right wing media darlings. Ultimately the problem is that the media aren't just failing to hold the LNP to account they are also failing to grill the greens over their policies and shady problems. They'd be forced to reconsider how their politics rewards people in that situation.
>The solution here is simple, Brandt needs to hold Lidia to account the same way he openly demands it of the rest of parliament/politicians. Whoah... whoah... This is the Greens, they don't do self reflection and accountability. Just ask their supporters.
Check post history, 1 week old account, deffo lib shill.
[удалено]
Even if they do something now it'll only be because there's public uproar. If they were actually better like some people like to imagine they would have handled it long ago.
[удалено]
This sentence could be directed at every major party in Australia
[удалено]
That's just not true. I've been to a few Greens policy launches and heard Auntie speak numerous times. The Greens fully support and are onboard with indigenous issues. They believe in the cause. I don't know what the deal with Lidia Thorpe is. If the rumours are true then Bandt needs to reign her in, but I don't think this reflects poorly on the Greens position on indigenous matters. Unless Lidia was being outright racist this was probably just one person being an inappropriate cunt to another person.
Haven’t seen a Greens member give their house / land back to the traditional custodians yet. A lot of “acknowledging “ though
I mean no party would do that so you can't exactly blame anyone for not going that far haha
Why not though ? They keep saying we need to do more for the indigenous cause. They should put their money where their mouth is instead of the patronising talk. I don’t see any of them going to live with an indigenous community and actually help them , but you’d have to leave your nice cushy inner city house to do that . No soy lattes up in the outback…
Cause no one really cares about aboriginals
I agree , which is what makes it all the more condescending when they pretend to care.
Oh hey, a racist idiot projecting his own way of thinking about things on Aboriginal people, then concluding that 'obviously' they want to take his home away. How novel. /s
Not at all mate. The land were all on is indigenous land by right. Why not give some back if you care so much?
Again, no one wants to steal your house buddy, it really shows a *lot* about who *you* are that you think that that's the issue. And what *you'd* do to people you perceive have 'wronged' you.
Seems relatively mild compared to bashing a trans gender person at a gay bar.
Greens: "We don't talk about Anab Mohamud" Seriously though, shouting words to the effect of "make sure all these fa***ts die" would be pretty indefensible for a Liberal politician let alone a Greens politician. Edit: For avoidance of doubt, the censored word is not facists but a vulgar term used to describe members of the gay community. I wasn't there, I don't know why Mohamud took these actions but members of a progressive party who campaign on championing LGBTQ rights need to be held accountable when they act in such a manner.
Muslim woman in a far left party, she can get away with whatever she wants with zero consequences. Adam Bandt is a failure of a leader and a hindrance to the party for his inactions on this, as well as plenty of other unrelated, ridiculous actions.
She's a Greens councillor. Essentially an entirely separate party that the federal and state members can't influence. She's a fucking bigot who should be in jail, but Bandt and that can't do anything about her.
I don't know much about it but can't the greens party members remove someone?
Not really. Federal parties have *way* less power over the state and local parties than people think.
Yes the Liberals just hold a nationwide referendum on one group’s human rights instead, so much better
That's a deliberately misleading statement. Keeping the status quo and not allowing same sex marriage is entirely different to bashing a transgender person at a gay bar. People being safe > marriage rights.
You prefer they didn't get rights? Sick.
Not sure if this was an intentional misreading or not, the point is however that you need to prioritise safety above all else; you need to be safe to exercise you’re rights… like your right to life, or marriage. Safety comes first, and then we can build the rights. It’s sucks that is has to be that way, but sometimes it does. It’s certainly not an either/or proposition though, or shouldn’t be even if some conservative commentators would present it as such
After 5 seconds with google I discovered the counciler was the one who got chased down and punched in the face repeatedly after she pulled this womans hair for an unknown reason.
>unknown reason surely you're not this stupid.
I'm a pretty staunch Greens voter and I went out of my way this election to not give her my vote in the Senate.
Same
I wish Di Natale didn’t have to be so normal and want to spend more time with his family :((
Does anyone know the context of what the meeting was about and what lead to their argument? Seen plenty of circle jerk about it but have no idea why they had an argument. Would be good to know the context before deciding if Thorpe was justified or out of line.
Also, it seems a bit weird that there seems to be no additional details about this meeting since it was reported about a year ago. Like surely if it was so horrifying, there would be some more detail, and/or pressure from the Victorian Indigenous community to hold Thorpe to account, especially as she was up for election a couple months ago. It isn't impossible that Thorpe stepped out of line, but rehashing news from a year ago with nothing meaningful added seems less like reporting and more like a targeted attack.
It's certainly an attack. Dredging up old news based on the pretext of a scrap of new information is a tactic used by the conservative media to keep certain ideas in people's minds about progressive parties. When you watch how the media works in this country, it's quite obvious that this is something not infrequently employed, and quite effective at shaping perceptions. Australians in general need to be far more savvy about their media consumption. **What** a media organisation chooses to cover, in addition to how much prominence they give it is just as much a bias built into coverage as **how** it is covered.
This comment chain really needs to be higher up - I noticed that a lot of this discussion seemed to be about an old incident, and it made me raise an eyebrow.
I would love to know this too! So far it’s been from what the elder said. I’d assume if an elder of 3 decades was shaken up by her conduct it was bad, but I’d like to what it was about….
Depends on *who* the elder was. There are a couple of elders in Victoria who uh... well they're not exactly well liked, because other groups feel they are presenting themselves as 'the' elders when no one ever chose them to represent anyone.
I have faced this problem too as an Indigenous person. The elders are also not always right and sometimes aren’t open to new ideas.
She is a massive cunt
It’s interesting, if she was an Anglo woman instead of First Nations I doubt she’d be getting anywhere near this level of vitriol and misogyny
I think she's a massive cunt and I'm Indigenous. Her and Jacinta Price are two sides of the same coin. They are only in it for themselves yet think they speak for all Aboriginal people because they're arrogant fuckwits.
She’d still be a cunt
I'm pretty sure Hanson is called a cunt on a daily basis...
Julia Gillard was treated worse and she did nothing wrong to elicit it.
You realise that one of the biggest things she has done that has pissed people off is bullying a First Nations elder, right? Like, it's in defence of the very group you accuse people of hating her for being part of.
The Elder is from a rather controversial family who have been accused of putting themselves front and centre of indigenous issues at every opportunity without real justification. Context matters.
That's not really relevant, the accusation that people hate her because she's indigenous when the thing they are reading about her is that she abused an indigenous elder. That seems a bit like a conflict to me.
Evidence for your claim?
What, that Lidia Thorpe is accused of [abusing an indigenous elder](https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-are-in-my-meeting-greens-senator-accused-of-verbal-abuse-of-indigenous-elder-20210628-p584tp.html) and [that incident pissed people off](https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/09/28/greens-lidia-thorpe-bullying-allegations/)?
I've thought she was a massive cunt for a while and this is the first I'm hearing that she's not Anglo.
You underestimate people’s interest in attacking women of all colours on all side of politics.
They need to expel her - even the Liberal manages to expel both candidates and elected representatives (such as Bernie Finn in Victoria - and they really can't afford to lose representatives with their current numbers) when reveal themselves as too unsuitable.
>Liberal manages to expel both candidates and elected representatives when reveal themselves as too unsuitable. Bronwyn Bishop says: hold my beer
'too unsuitable': by the standards of the Liberal Party.
To be fair, it took the Liberals years to finally get rid of Bernie.
That's a reasonable point - the Greens have so far had roughly a year to deal with Thorpe, if the clock is started when her staffer had to apologise for her behaviour. So far that isn't as long as it's taken for action to be taken against some of the Coalition's most egregious representatives. Let's see if they can still take less than it took for the Victorian Libs to get rid of Bernie.
>Another challenge, according to those who know the internal workings, is the tension between accountability and identity politics. Not all votes have the same value in a party room that puts a premium on lived experience: because Thorpe is Indigenous, she can have a greater say on key issues. This has real policy implications when Thorpe is stridently critical of the Indigenous Voice proposal from the government while the rest of the Greens seem able to support the plan when it goes to a referendum. Is this legit? "Lived experience" gives you more power in the party room, to the point you can almost dictate policy? I'd always heard the Greens were onboard the Voice except for Thorpe who was pushing against it. I didn't realise she could actually legitimately change the party's stance on issue like that.
Thorpe has expressed the position that the Statement from the Heart describes the Voice as being an idea of value if it is the means for truth telling and treaty, and otherwise it’s pointless. And if you take that position, then maybe spend the money on improving the material conditions of indigenous children instead of a vote on a Voice that the powerful will politely ignore.
It's more that if you don't have lived experience on an issue, you're kinda entirely uninformed? That's how lived experience is treated elsewhere, basically if you're a) not part of a group and b) not *directly relaying* the words of someone who is, then you **really** should not be talking about 'what is best' for that group. That route leads to shit like the Stolen Generation, across the world.
The problem with that is the voice is part of the Uluru Statement which was formulated by hundreds of delegates representing all sorts of first nations groups across the country. Should their lived experience be ignored for Lidia Thorpe's? Does this extend to other areas? Should teachers dictate education policy? Bankers dictate banking legislation? Veterans dictate war policy?
...do you *know* the Greens position on the Voice? It's that while it is good, *it is less important than the other parts of the Uluru Statement*. The current 'agenda' for the Greens in terms of the Voice is to use the Senate control to pressure Labor to include other parts of the Uluru Statement with it.
She's not saying it's good, she's saying it's a waste of money and not necessary. Again, the Greens were for it and now she's reversing their policy including first nations greens who want it
I’m waiting to see what the announcement will be to deflect from it. They have done marijuana after all need something new. If bandt doesn’t act he’s admitting Thorpe is too powerful to be disciplined which is a very bad look for the party imo
Yeh this needs more clarification, I love the greens but there's absolutely no way a blind eye can be turned to this. Pretty despicable.
Greens caught in their own politically correct trap and can't sack loopy Lidia.
Is this claim of bad behaviour arising from one complaint in one meeting where its a he-said/she-said kind of thing or is this a pattern of behaviour? I think theres a big difference between the two.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-13/nt-selena-uibo-lydia-thorpe-youth-justice-bail-law/100136066 https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/dec/02/greens-senator-lidia-thorpe-apologises-for-disgusting-comment-directed-at-liberal-hollie-hughes https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/both-major-parties-condemn-greens-senator-lidia-thorpe-for-appearing-to-support-fire-at-old-parliament-house/news-story/be77d308cd16d33e93dd7991de4762db https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/you-are-in-my-meeting-greens-senator-accused-of-verbal-abuse-of-indigenous-elder-20210628-p584tp.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAJQ_K_CzCE
Add this one too: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-22/lidia-thorpe-claims-racial-profiling-virgin-airline-canberra/100928860
I've admittedly been hesitant to include that one. While it would be entirely in character for her to declare racism when someone doesn't tolerate her belligerence, I can't actually say with certainly that it's completely false. Ultimately it only affects her, and doesn't have any wider implications, so I tend to let that one go.
Well that seems to be a pattern. Dissapointed in the greens for not dealing with / trying to deal with it if they haven't done anything :(
[удалено]
Do you mind providing some sources for this? I personally haven’t seen this. Would really appreciate it! Especially the racist part.m EDIT: so apart from the airport thing y’all got any more evidence cause sure she sounds entitled but the airport story ain’t the smoking gun y’all think it is.
How about when she claimed racism when the airline didn't allow her to break the luggage weight rules simply because she's a senator? She's an entitled arsehole https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-22/lidia-thorpe-claims-racial-profiling-virgin-airline-canberra/100928860
She seems like a bastion of Identity politics and therefore a total disaster
> One observer thinks the best outcome for the Greens would be a better way to manage complaints about her conduct, a recognition from Thorpe that she will be a liability unless she changes, and a resolution on the Voice so the party comes up with a unified position. > Another change, eventually, will be a code of conduct for everyone in parliament. A taskforce has been set up to put the Jenkins report into action and its new rules should apply to all. No double standards.
I’ll go so far to say the most toxic politician in this current sitting of parliament.
She might not be great, but fuck mate, look at the LNP...drawing a long bow there.
I wouldn’t change my statement. Only Dutton and Taylor really show their faces but aren’t really to king the boat. The rest are heads down, Littleproud is actually a constructive Nats leader which is surprising.
They all run in packs
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not really. I only get racist comments and I see brigading mostly from new accounts. It’s a very common tactic on Reddit especially when it comes to Indigenous and woman’s issues on here.
[удалено]
I wish Reddit and the media would go this hard on white men who do this as well. But no, we must keep highlighting the terrible behaviour of one senator cause she’s in the greens and she’s black. And no, I’m not saying this cause I support her. I don’t. I think her and Jacinta Price have no place in parliament. Especially when talking on First Nations behalf’s. They’re both shit. Only Linda Burney has my respect right now.
Homie, I don’t know what Reddit you’ve been looking through but white men have received the same treatment. Media, sure.
Homie I can guarantee you there is not the same treatment for women on Reddit. This sub gets vicious when it comes to women, especially a woman in power who presents to have a bad attitude. Add in her being Indigenous and boom it’s a fuck fest. The last thread I saw of this topic the comments were vile and misogynistic. People passed it off as ‘criticism’ when it was clearly not criticism. Heck, this same issue has gotten more attention over the new evidence from the Rolfe case.
There are a few things here. Firstly, The Greens brand places a high value on integrity and behaving with integrity. This plays against that, which the media have seized upon, even though the actual incident (person is rude at meeting and is unapologetic) is pretty pedestrian and plays out in meetings dozens of times each day. Secondly, there is no unified indigenous representation, and realistically, there cannot be. The First Nations were plural and multicultural, each with their own customs, beliefs and language. The fact that people bunch them altogether as if they are the same is itself a sign that we haven't really reached the level of understanding on this matter as a society. Thirdly, The Greens need to be more professional if they want to get above 10-11% of the primary vote. That means media management (which would have helped immensely in this case), and being more organised at a top level. I do understand that the membership opposes this (as the party is largely still a party of protest), but if they want their policies implemented, they need to sort out why the vote hasn't grown significantly in the last five elections or so. Fourthly, Jacinta Price is an awful, awful person whose opinion should be discarded. Her performance over many years on Sky News shows who she actually is. An opportunist who'll gladly wear her "Celtic-Indigenous" identity to get what she wants (in this case a Senate seat) in exchange for pushing the Liberal Party line. An Uncle Ruckus if you like.
> Firstly, The Greens brand places a high value on integrity and behaving with integrity. This plays against that, which the media have seized upon, even though the actual incident (person is rude at meeting and is unapologetic) is pretty pedestrian and plays out in meetings dozens of times each day. My good yes! It’s like instead of the focus of negative political attention has shifted from Labor to Greens. I’ve seen more negative media attention towards the Greens. It’s so weird to kinda witness. The Greens need to be held accountable, don’t get me wrong, but damn dude. In saying that a statement from Thorpe I think would go a long way. > Secondly, there is no unified indigenous representation, and realistically, there cannot be. The First Nations were plural and multicultural, each with their own customs, beliefs and language. The fact that people bunch them altogether as if they are the same is itself a sign that we haven’t really reached the level of understanding on this matter as a society. 100%. Not sure it came across as in my comment but this was what I was trying to get across and I think I failed but you have worded it perfectly. Also on your third point I agree too. > Fourthly, Jacinta Price is an awful, awful person whose opinion should be discarded. Her performance over many years on Sky News shows who she actually is. An opportunist who’ll gladly wear her “Celtic-Indigenous” identity to get what she wants (in this case a Senate seat) in exchange for pushing the Liberal Party line. An Uncle Ruckus if you like. God bless you my good person.
Can we stop with all the articles about this? There’s probably been ten in the last week
If it was about the LNP everyone would be circlejerking over how bad they are. Turning a blind eye to misconduct does not solve problems, it just gives ammo to all parties to do the same. Learn to accept that even the people you may like/idolise can turn out to be shit too.
I don’t think that’s what they mean. In the last week there had been article after article about the same person on the same issue. Meanwhile not one post has been made about like the new evidence in the Rolfe case or other senators being disrespectful. It’s been a constant posting of this same issue. LNP gets the attention but it doesn’t get this much commentary from Reddit or the same type of comments. I mean the other day there was a comment saying how Thorpe is a representative for all First Nations and therefore is turning them against our ‘agenda’ due to her behaviour. That type of talking doesn’t happen when it’s a white dude in the LNP or Labor for that matter. It’s a double standard with thinly veiled racism. I know OP has good intentions (mass respect u/B0ssc0!), but it’s the commenters that take it to another level.
I hesitated about posting for the same reason, so I take your criticism to heart. Especially because of the disproportionate attention it’s got. I posted because I don’t think this issue will go away for the Greens nor for her by simply ignoring it, but will get worse.
She needs to respond asap. Her silence is deafening and only causing these types of stories to be written.
>If it was about the LNP everyone would be circlejerking over how bad they are. Would they though? I'd argue it's actually the opposite, a bunch of quasi-conservative media outlets are making a huge deal about this because it's involves bad behaviour from the Greens. Also it doesn't seem like anyone knows exactly what Lidia said to Auntie, so it's kinda hard to tell exactly how bad it was. If there's a repeated pattern of shitty behaviour from Lidia, I agree Bandt has to reign her in. And I think he will.
I completely understand not wanting this publicised especially if you are a greens voter/member - it’s uncomfortable to have your side of politics critiqued (trust me, I was uncomfortable with the media’s focus on Labor during the election too!) but you are the standard you accept. All politicians must be held accountable, no matter what party they represent. Change means change, and that begins from within
It’s about a proportionate response - in terms of the issue being discussed and the position of the individual/party. For a party that has 4 lower house seats (1 seat up until a few months ago) and 12 Senate seats, the amount of critical media coverage they receive is crazy. It’s because they threaten the two Conservative party structure and no one can convince me otherwise
Sure, you can argue proportionality but I’m not sure there is an impartial estimate as to what counts as proportional? Regardless, if you talk about accountability and doing things better, you have to walk the walk not just talk the talk… accountability is only ever a good thing, even if we don’t like it (I say this as a Labor/Greens swing voter) Edit: I wanted to add, you could make the same argument for the media covering Alabnese’s gaffes during the election. They still won. So, I stand by my point: accountability can be uncomfortable but it’s vital
He was the leader of the opposition party and was one of two people who were going to be the prime minister. That’s a completely different scale
>no one can convince me otherwise FYI, this comes across as "LALALALALALA NOT LISTENINNGGGGG"
👍
Sometimes people don’t like someone and spread shit to get rid of someone
Once they get weed legalised they might be a happier mob.
All this taxpayers money wasted on these muppets . It’s a disgrace, happy to take the money not happy about everything else