The first honeymoon Newspoll has Labor leading 46 per cent to 35 per cent on the primary vote and 58-42 on two-party preferred (hat tip to James J). Kevin Rudd has a predictably massive 68-11 lead as preferred prime minister, and personal ratings of 59 per cent satisfied, 11 per cent unsatisfied and 30 per cent undecided. However, Brendan Nelson has also started well with a surprisingly strong 36 per cent approval rating – although his 19 per cent disapproval is also high under the circumstances, as demonstrated by this table showing earlier opposition leaders’ ratings at their first Newspolls:
| Satisfied | Dissatisfied | Undecided | |
| Andrew Peacock (June 1989) | 22 | 50 | 28 |
| John Hewson (April 1990) | 33 | 15 | 52 |
| Alexander Downer (May 1994) | 31 | 12 | 57 |
| John Howard (February 1995) | 45 | 23 | 32 |
| Kim Beazley (April 1996) | 39 | 15 | 46 |
| Simon Crean (December 2001) | 30 | 25 | 45 |
| Mark Latham (December 2003) | 32 | 17 | 51 |
| Kim Beazley (February 2005) | 40 | 22 | 38 |
| Kevin Rudd (December 2006) | 41 | 10 | 49 |
| Brendan Nelson (January 2008) | 36 | 19 | 45 |
The only point of comparison for an incoming government in Newspoll’s historical data (which goes back to 1985) is the Howard government’s debut entry of 52 per cent to 34 per cent on the primary vote, with no two-party figure available. Past incoming prime ministers’ ratings were Paul Keating’s 21 per cent satisfied, 42 per cent dissatisfied and 37 per cent uncommitted, and John Howard’s 45 per cent, 12 per cent and 43 per cent.
374 Comments
Green’s primary is quite high (12%). Pre-election they were polling between 4-7% in Newspoll.
“However, Brendan Nelson has also started well with a surprisingly strong 36 per cent approval rating – although his 19 per cent disapproval is also high under the circumstances”
I can’t see how you work that out. John Howard had similar results (as below, with an even higher disapproval rating) in 1995, and we know what happened after that.
John Howard (February 1995) 45 23 32
James J, isn’t that what the Greens DO – poll reasonably well in non election periods but have their vote clawed back when it gets serious?
I would expect that the more unelectable the Coalition becomes, the more of a protest vote will go to the Greens. I would expect also that a reasonable percentage of that vote will go back to the ALP when voters are actually in a booth with a pencil.
I think it’s more of a matter of the more conservative the ALP becomes, the more of the left vote will go to the Greens.
I know some quite conservative Green voters! – but point taken.
However, I still contend that a large proportion of Green votes will come back to the ALP at the actual election.
Most people are sensible enough to realise that the Greens policies are not ‘real’, in that the Greens don’t expect to deliver on them and therefore can indulge themselves in wimsy (just as they can portray themselves as anti politics because they don’t actually have any power so they can’t misuse it – although Vic Greens seem to be giving this a bit of a run for its money).
Others say they’re going to vote Greens with no knowledge of Green policies other than they’re for the environment.
Others regard voting for the Greens as the ’stuff the lot of you’ option – punishing the ALP for not doing what they want them to do but recognising that the Libs will NEVER come near doing what they want them to do.
For all these reasons, when life gets serious Green votes go out the door (and declines significantly in what voters see as ‘important’ elections).
#4
“when life gets serious Green votes go out the door (and declines significantly in what voters see as ‘important’ elections).”
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-12246-NAT.htm
2004 Federal election Greens 1st Pref. 7.19%
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-13745-NAT.htm
2007 Federal election Greens 1st Pref. 7.79%
How disappointing
but what do you expect at this point in the electoral cycle, the Liberal Party is at its lowest point in its 64 year history so its not surprising that its primary vote is languishing in the low 30s with Labor’s in the mid 40s. The Green vote is far too high the Nat vote as they stand with just 10 seats at 3% sounds is about right.
Still this poll hardly counts for anything Mr Rudd hasn’t done anything significant since becoming Prime Minister even Kyoto was a non-event we havent seen him tested in Parliament or making any tough decisions so his ratings are superfulace IMHO same as Nelsons ratings but that wont stop the Bulliten from running articles about ‘Mr 11% why does Nelson bother?’ i fear he wont be given a fair shot at the leadership.
I can only hope that if the Queensland Conservatives can form a new political party that it could be a possible Federal model and one that can be transplanted to the States.
Is it just me or is Malcolm Turnbull trying to build a big media profile it seems just about every night he’s the one rebutting the ALP when it comes time to hear from the Coalition. I dont know if this is Nelson’s doing or whether he’s just too busy working hard on preparing for the next sitting of Parliament.
I wouldnt take any notice of Federal polls until March IMHO, what’s more interesting will be the State polls. Personally the Liberal State Opposition leaders ought to meet more than twice a year they ought to meet at least 4 times every year because they’ve got a lot of work to do!
OK, I’m wrong and apologise profusely (but would still contend that a party which wants to portray itself as a growing threat needs to do better than less than 1% rise in primaries between elections…and my point was that they won’t get anywhere near 12% in a real election).
Anyway, someone has to say rash things based on opinion and not hard evidence now that the likes of Nostra and Steven are off licking their wounds, or where would we be? (Hi, Glen).
Glen: “Is it just me or is Malcolm Turnbull trying to build a big media profile it seems just about every night he’s the one rebutting the ALP when it comes time to hear from the Coalition. I dont know if this is Nelson’s doing or whether he’s just too busy working hard on preparing for the next sitting of Parliament.”
Yes, it’s Nelson’s cunning plan. He’s dragging Turnbull kicking and screaming into the limelight, because he’s worried that Turnbull’s media profile isn’t high enough. It’s a very clever strategy for dealing with a leadership rival.
In a similar vein, Julius Caesar appointed Brutus to the high-profile position of praetor back in 45 BC, and it worked out brilliantly for Caesar.
zoom 4 and 7, better that a political party builds slowly with voters who are dedicated to the policies of that party than eg the One Nation experience. The Greens now have a core group of voters and I do not see those voters going elsewhere for some considerable time. Both state and Federal voting patterns have been very consistent for the Greens. Slow steady growth.
OK, Brenton – a 1% rise in primaries every 3 years (and that’s being generous) means that in about 32 elections time (2103) they’ll have 40% of the primary vote.
That’s scarcely going to have the majors quaking in their shoes.
zoom, the important thing for Australian politics is to have diversity. I do not want to see Australia only have an entrenched 2 party system like the USA. If proportional representation was introduced into our lower houses of Parliament then smaller parties like the Greens would be having more impact. It seems that many Labor people are disturbed by the presence of the Greens. I wonder why?
Well the Liberals really have to get this Mr Undecided into a leadership position somewhere. First he was way ahead of whats-his-name for Queensland Coalition leader, and now he leads Brendan Nelson for preferred PM 30 to 11! Certainly a great month for Undecided in the polls. ROTFL
Seeing the share markets continued slide so far today, with a US recession now obvious to even Bush-supporters, its hard to see how people are going to look back kindly on Liberals here (or Republicans in the US). They blew the surplus when times were good, and now its looking bad. What annoys me is how many credible people were warning last year that the spending had to stop, yet they still couldn’t get the message till it was too late. I wish Rudd would just say he shouldn’t have matched Howard and ditch or at least revise some of hte stupider promises. This is getting serious.
zoom said
“OK, Brenton – a 1% rise in primaries every 3 years (and that’s being generous…”
http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/federal_elections/2001/results/index.html
2001 Federal election Greens 1st pref 4.96%
http://results.aec.gov.au/12246/results/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-12246-NAT.htm
2004 Federal election Greens 1st Pref. 7.19%
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-13745-NAT.htm
2007 Federal election Greens 1st Pref. 7.79%
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-13745-NAT.htm
2007 Federal Senate election Greens 1st pref 9.04 % increase of 1.37% on 2004.
Hey zoom I’m not having a go at you, well maybe just a little bit.
But us Greens followers know that the reporting of Greens performance is generally negative [Credible commentator on election night "The Greens vote is disappointing because...."] and divorced from reality.
As Brenton says “Both state and Federal voting patterns have been very consistent for the Greens. Slow steady growth.”
Increased vote, in real and relative terms, increased parliamentary representation in states and federal houses, increased funding from increased votes, increased public awareness.
Contrast that to the Nats, FF, ADs et al.
I’m in the state of Utah just now, watching the Democrats debate on CNN live
Let me tell you, Barrack Obama is a windbag and is pretty bad at debating. He looks like he does not have substance on this live-across-the-nation debate.
I think his challenge for nomination just failed.
Hillary, on the other hand, is cut through and devasting.
Edwards is the surpise package. Polite, witty, on message clarly aligning himslef with Hilary – this boy wants to be VP
In Qld the deed has been done.
‘Nats, Libs agree to form one party’
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23090576-29277,00.html
wonder what they will call it
agrarian conservative libertarian socialist liberal party ?
I can’t believe is not the liberal party ?
Don, I can’t work out what point you’re making. I believe you’re disputing what I said about Nelson’s high disapproval rating with comparison to Howard in 1995, who by that time was very well known to the public as a former leader who had unsuccessfully contested an election – hence the very large gap between Howard and Nelson’s “uncommitted” ratings. Nelson has the highest disapproval rating of genuinely new leader in the table, other than Simon Crean (and we know what happened after that).
Mr Squiggle, please keep discussion of the US to the appropriate threads.
Fred, you may be right about the Green vote increasing, but also (and connected) they may be right when they say the world is coming to an end.
Because a country with a “Green” government is not a country worth living in.
Ok William – My Apologies
What happened to the Democrats? Will there be a resurgance? Will they merge with the Greens or quietly dissapear into the distance?
Isn’t Nelson known as the locum? we all know he is just keeping the seat warm.
The 2007 election delivered a blow to the Australian Democrats but it does not have to be a fatal blow. In fact it has been a trigger for a tidal wave of brilliant ideas for rejuvenation.
We have no intention of going quietly. We have no intention of going at all. We will take our place in the Senate until July next year and we will be there for the next election. The critical fights to protect people and the environment must still be fought.
If you think it’s time to rebuild and regrow, join us. Because the defining characteristic of the Australian Democrats is not how we are knocked down but how we stand up.
Join the fightback!
(from their website)
Willum said: …Howard government’s debut entry of 52 per cent to 34 per cent on the primary vote, with no two-party figure available…
The calculated Newspoll COAL TPP jumped from about 54% pre-election to as high as 60% post-election. The election result was about 53.2%.
21
Centaur, that’s an interesting question.
I don’t think they will disappear as such, but I could see a very close allignment.
One question…if the Wilderness Society was given a place at the table of input to the future of this nation, would this improve the prospects of The Greens in future elections?
OK I have a grump about the Greens…
based on -
(i) purer than thou attitudes because they don’t have to produce policies or positions which take into account the reality of government (interestingly, where Greens have had power, they’ve split into purists and realists, with the realists winning and taking the party to a more centrist posititon);
(ii) a lack of real guts when it comes to environmental issues – dodging difficult policy issues because they don’t want hassles within the party (windfarms for example); lack of support for governments which make good environmental decisions and face voter backlash because of these (where was the Green Party when Labor refused to let cattle back on the High Plains?)
(iii) Bob Brown’s incredibly parochial attitudes on the environment, where Tasmanian forests are more important than global warming (what were his 2004 preference deals based on?)
(iv) their habit of overclaiming before each and every election;
(v) the grating cry of “Labor would not have won without us and therefore owes us” which ignores the fact that – if Greens did not exist – the majority of their votes would go to Labor anyway (as stated below, many Greens campaign on the ‘a vote for us is really a vote for Labor’ line).
(vi) dishonest statements overheard from Greens who pretended to be more moral than the other parties, that “a vote for the Greens is the same as a vote for Labor” without the more honest “if you vote Green, the vote still goes to Labor but we get the money” rider.
I like the Greens. Some of my best friends are Green. I am a committed environmentalist myself (and have actually got some real runs on the board when it comes to having policy implemented) – I just can’t stand the pretence that they’re somehow better people than the rest of us.
1 big tick to our PM
And that equals 1 big tick from Steveo
And so says Steveo!!!
“Where Greens have had power, they’ve split into purists and realists, with the realists winning and taking the party to a more centrist posititon.”
That sounds like the ALP in its early days. It would be interesting to see the Green supporters declaring the Greens no longer stand for anything (which is not far from the truth).
Blacklight @ 16.
Anna Bligh and her team call the new entity “lunch”.
zoom I tried to say similar things to your 26 last week sometime but you did it beautifully.
58/42 2PP with Nelsen as leader? Poppycock! It’s only a matter of time before Turnbull takes over the leadership.
Still I believe that the liberals best chance is for Costello to take over at some time when the PM may not be travelling as smoothly. As has been said before, perception is everything in politics. I remember how unpopular Howard was before he became leader. Coconut was elected from a position of strenth as opposed to a position of weakness (his party needed him) and the rest is history.
I think Cossie has got a contract lined up with one of the major financial institutions, but I like playing with his mind.
Good to hear from you again zoom. The greens have got to learn to win before they can be taken seriously about anything. By the way, I think Nostral and Kaye have left the country lol.
Aside from debates about the leadership, this would certainly make by-elections interesting at present. I imagine a few of the past-their-prime brigade in the coalition must want to go soon, but they would surely hold off on these numbers. Or would they?
Zoom , sorry about the ALP and all of their liar leftist MPs , putting up their hands in unison to DENY the rights of so many individuals and then their inner city MPs say how LUCKY we are to have them.
I will never forgive them for their betrayal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets hope Nicloa Roxen ROTS in her Catholic hell!!!!!!
Yep Labor ahead in the polls, and what exactly have they done other than signing Kyoto.Federal Labor and its State Governments a visionless useless lot.
blacklight Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
In principle means little more than we had to say something for the press release.
It won’t happen, but if it did I really hope they call it the conservative party and stop this charade that there is something liberal about this bunch of conservatives.
Brenton, I don’t think Roxon is a Catholic. What has she done to offend you so much?
marky marky Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Oh lets have a look, they haven’t deported anybody on fictitious charges. The Australian that was silly enough to jump onto Japanese ship didn’t end up in Guantanamo bay, and I haven’t yet heard Rudd threaten to invade any other country yet even though I am sure some right wing nutters would feel India should cop it cause they was rude to our rude cricketers..
It’s been a pretty good year so far.
Adam, I thought you at LEAST would remember her announcement a few years ago to the press at Parliament House about the ALP supporting a particular change to a certain act! Sorry about my vitriol, but I actually will never forgive the ALP , especially the ‘Left’ , for denying my rights to have my relationship officially recognised.
Come on Brenton didn’t they go half way. And lets be honest family law is about families, and as one witty prime minister put it: Two blokes and a poodle don’t make a family.
There’s no point blaming her personally for that, she was announcing a decision made by the Shadow Cabinet.
As you may recall, I said in print at the time that the ALP was quite right not to fall for Howard’s “wedge” on that topic. If the gay and lesbian community wants progress on that issue, they (we) have to do some work to gain public support for it, and should start at state level where a lot can be done, but where very little has been done. It was quite unrealistic to demand that the federal Opposition go out on a limb on an issue where no preparatory political work had been done.
charles, Australia is TOTALLY out of step with most other countries. Great Britian, Canada , New Zealand , South Africa etc. Even Uruguay and Hungary in recent weeks. Actually , my partner and I were recently in New Zealand and 2 Canadian couples at breakfast said to us, “You poor things you live in Australia!”
Adam , sorry I was a teenager and a young adult under the Dunstan Government! I dont accept the ALP of today! The ALP is a Conservative Party with No Balls!
38
charles – i think for the purposes of Queensland they ought to call themselves either The Queensland Party or the Queensland Conservative Party, as this would make it easier for them to switch names in the hopefully likely event that nationally the Liberals and Nats will form one Conservative force.
I hope that the model offered by Queensland will get the Federal leaders Truss and Nelson to seriously consider a single party.
Ideally they ought to use either the Conservative Party of Australia or the old name of the Tories in Australia the United Australia Party far more an apt name considering it will be a merger of the Liberal Party and the ‘Country Party’. Thus if federally it was to occur id be happy with either name but i like the UAP best.
Hurray im really glad they’re going to get the ball rolling in Queensland i hope they have every success so as to get the rest of the country behind creating a single Conservative force against Labor.
Brenton; yes I know. But surly the issues has three levels, legal, cultural(religious) and family. From the children,s point of view the legal issues are critical, but from a relationship point of view I believe ( and I know it’s only my point of view) it’s the cultural and family support that are more important.
And from a cultural and religious ( in some churches) point of view you would, I think have to agree things have moved forward.
Dunstan may have worn some pretty outlandish cloths, but he did live in a period were these things were whispered about and from memory he was pretty careful to leave it at that level.
You are in fact asking a lot more from the present labor government and I think Adam put it well, if you want it, you have to lay the political ground. The Government has only so much political capital to burn, they have to ask is it worth burning it for this issue. And be honest labor is not one voice, there will be people that worry they may end up in a catholic hell.
To be fare to the government you have to deal with the cultural issues, and lets be honest marriage is pretty central to our culture.
Is it really the legal document you want, or is it recognition from our culture that relationships between same sex couples are valid, and the legal document is a means to force that recognition.
I guess i’m asking are you trying to put the cart before the horse.
Glen I would be really happy if the Liberals and Nationals joined forces and called themselves the Australian Conservative Party. People like me could then stop dreaming that one day the Liberal party would return to it’s roots.
That act alone would probable rejoivinate the democrats. To be honest a look at the Liberal party and I despair.
marky marky reading the cry baby remarks of sore-loser Tories is the enduring joy of the election win. Enjoy opposition (everywhere)
Well just as the Tories in Britain have moderates and hardliners so would a single Tory party in Australia. But the Liberal Party name had little if nothing to do with liberal social policies rather economic liberalism. BTW would returning to its roots involved returning to the White Australia Policy??? Personally i like the name the United Australia Party seeing as it would be a merger of the ‘country party and the liberal party’ but the Conservative Party of Australia wouldn’t harm our voting block after all the Tories have a minority government in Canada and it didnt hurt them when the Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance joined to form the Conservative Party of Canada.
The Conservative parties of Australia have had a long history of reforming themselves into new organisations. The Commonwealth Liberal Party was replaced by the Nationalist Party of Australia in 1917, which was replaced by the UAP in 1931, which was replaced by the Liberal Party in 1944. I see no reason why there need be 2 Conservative parties its almost like when the ALP shot itself in the foot by splitting up in the 1950s.
charles, I have to laugh at your ignorance! Did the few people who fought for the end of Slavery, force that recognition????? Did the Suffragettes force their recognition of the right for women to have the vote etc ????? I actually find I can tolerate heterosexuals sitting in judgement of gay relationships because they dont no a damn thing about them! It is amazing that people delight in saying how promiscuous gay people are but the whole idea of them having some form of legal recognition for their realtionships under the law is oh so difficult! I can assure you that this issue in Australia is not going away! What I cannot stand is gay people who make excuses for the policies of the ALP!
Legal recognition is one thing and i support to the fullest financial rights. However the State Governments’ have gone too far on surogacy laws and IVF laws that allow same sex couples who biologically are unable to conceive children to have them, which IMHO is wrong. Financial rights for homosexuals is a just thing but children either by surogacy, IVF or adoption is out of the question and my views are not the minority here they are the silent majority. I suppose the only party that would come close to what you desire would be the Greens or Democrats, you wont find much support from the Libs, Nats or ALP.
Glen, thank goodness for someone sane! I totally AGREE with you! I think that you are spot on! I am ALL for leaving anything to do with children to the other gender! I simply want the right to have my relationship recognised under the law. I think it would be a minority of a minority that would want to have the laws that you have mentioned.
Glen , I meant leaving anything to do with children to hetereosexuals not the word gender!
To the all the United Preservatives out there…doesn’t the wicked witch of the north already call her party the United Australia Party.
Maybe there should be few more United Australia parties…hell the more the better for that matter. …I would be happy with at least 17 of them.
Here’s some for starters
Pauline’s United Australia Party (the naughties retro version)
Laurie’s United Australia Party
Barnaby’s United Australia Party
Brendan’s United Australia Party
Mal’s United Australia Party
Julie’s United Australia Party
Wilson’s United Australia Party
Maybe even Tonys “the people person” United United Australia Party
Aren’t you forgetting one itsy, bitsy, teenie, weenie, yellow, polka dot bikini point here…you have to actually be UNITED to form a United Australia Party
53
Brenton – my mistake.
54
stark – of course stark and if and when the Liberal and National Party join together to form one political party then wont they then be united?
The question is how united is Gillard to Rudd or Swan to Rudd?
At the start maybe joining will creating the illusion of a united front…but come on…who’ll lead this united movement?
If they do as you say then we will probably see the remergence of the Country Party before the next election
Before the establishment of the Liberal Party in 1945 the main urban anti-Labor party in Qld was called the Queensland Peoples Party. Perhaps this name could be revived. It has a better ring to it than the Disorganised Demoralised Discredited Rabble Party.
Afraid I don’t share Glen’s obsession with unifying the conservative forces.
The National Party is dying a natural death but will probably still hold (a few) HoR seats for another 20-30 years. How is it in the conservatives’ interests to sacrifice half of those seats now when they could hold them a bit longer?
Seems to me that the main thing a “unification” will achieve is to highlight how little the average Nationals’ voter has in common with the Liberal Party, at which point many of the National voters will leave for Labor (or Country Labor, or whatever).
So Brenton you would be full of praise for Jon Stanhope and the ACT Labor Government then!
#49
> I see no reason why there need be 2 Conservative parties its almost like
> when the ALP shot itself in the foot by splitting up in the 1950s.
Overall (with a few notable exceptions – like the crazy “Joh For PM” thing) the 2 conservative parties get along fairly well, and do preference each other in 3-cornered contests. Lib v Nat stoushes don’t quite have the venom of the DLP v ALP. Having a dedicated rural-based conservative party (at least in name) does help the standing of that side of politics in the bush.
charles @ 47
The Australian Conservative Party name is a good idea however the initials ACP could cause confusion as to which organisation was representing media, communication and gaming interests and which organisation represented political interests.
Hello Brenton. I think there is pretty widespread community acceptance these days that gay couples are entitled to legal recognition of their relationships, and deserve equal treatment in financial matters such loans and superannuation. It’s a great think that our society has this tolerance for gay relationships. But I absolutely draw the line at allowing gay couples to have children-all children are entitled to grow up in a family where there is a mother and a father present. (Yes, I know there are many single parent heterosexual families, but that’s a different issue). The chances of a mainstream political party supporting gay marriage (as opposed to legal recognition short of marriage) or supporting gay adoption are nil, as there would be strong community opposition to both of these. I think it’s a bit unfair to castigate the ALP for not supporting the extreme positions I think you are advocating.
As for a single right-wing party in Qld, won’t there be there be big problems in reconciling the interests and attitudes of low income social conservatives from the bush, with those of the high income business/private school types from the city? We may well see Tony Windsor/Bob Katter style right wing independents emerge in the bush, or maybe someone will try to tap the One Nation sentiment that seems to lie just below the surface in Qld-leading ultimately to a fragmentation of right-wing representation in the parliament, and continued electoral dominance for the ALP.
Parramatta Moderate – does that mean you would support a child being raised in a gay household provided the birth mother and father lived together under the same roof? Oh, and why is heterosexual single-parenthood any different to homosexual single-parenthood? Why should a single heterosexual woman be able to have a child on her own but a single homosexual woman not?
It really annoys me when people talk of “what’s best for the children” when every child is different and every family is different. Some heterosexual people should never be allowed to have children, and yet the law places no restraints on them doing just that. Some homosexual people would be wonderful parents, but they aren’t allowed to, unless they do it off their own bats. Any many are. All the adoption laws do is prevent gay people from accessing adoption services. There is no law, however, preventing them from finding a willing woman or man to have a baby for them. Gay parenting isn’t going away; if anyone wants to have children they will find a way.
And from my personal experience of working at a camping ground where we dealt with all sorts of children: the children on the “gay parents” camps were more friendly, polite and well-socialised than any I’ve ever seen before. I saw no fighting at all – unheard of in any group of 20 children aged 5 to 16 on a camp – and the contrast between that and the school camps is stark. Even the Christian school children weren’t as well behaved as these children who, the Christian fundamentalists will have us believe, will be scarred for life because they have two mummies or two daddies.
I know this is probably pretty off-topic for what is a pseph forum, but someone else started it
KAABBOOM……………SHOCK waves have ripped through the Victorian Liberal Party with Upper House Leader Phil Davis quitting this morning.
He announced his decision at a press conference and refused to give full support to Liberal Leader Ted Baillieu.
Brenton Says:
January 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Both I think good examples of social change. In the latter case I would argue there were hard fort efforts for political support and the changes happened after there was social support. I think the former (slavery) is too wound up in Economic arguments to be a valid comparison.
I think what we are arguing here is, should you condemn a party for not pushing social change, and ignorant or not my view is no you should not, it is not their job.
Be honest, when it comes to sex the laws pretty much codify cultural accepted norms. One wife ( or one husband if thats your point of view) for example, it’s not something handed down from high, it’s just something that works.
If I was pushing the cause I would be argue as you, stable relations are good for society. As it happens I would also argue, stable relations are good for children and stability trumps having one of each sex, but thats only my ignorant view.
I do find it strange you want to condemn a party for not supporting marriage but do not lend your support to same sex couples that want to raise children. I would have thought both issues are about where you draw the line.
Fred @ 14 – The problem the Greens face is that same as the one that did in Hanson – as soon as one or other of the big 2 move onto their turf they are finished. Given the overwhelming evidence that what we are doing to the environment will likely soon do us in unless we make drastic changes, its inevitable that one of, and possibly both the majors will take up most of the Green’s environment policies and may well go further if only to be hairy chested. I doubt other policy differences will be enough to sustain the party.
#66
“….its inevitable that one of, and possibly both the majors will take up most of the Green’s environment policies and may well go further if only to be hairy chested.”
Sounds good to me.
Hope you are right.
A Liberal/National merger in Queensland on the Nationals terms is not a good thing.
Such a party would struggle to win over the sort of voters living in Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast, Toowoomba, Cairns and Townsville who would vote for a strong Liberal Party.
68 Tristan – Yes, but only if there is a “strong Liberal Party” in Queensland. Which there is not.
McArdle is a compromise, placeholder leader; the whole situation with the party is extremely unstable and I’d be surprised if he lasts the year. A united party dominated by ex-Nationals would might dilute the power of the Nicholls and Flegg factions just long enough to develop some actual policy substance. Or it might lead to further instability and hijinx, but that’s pretty much what’s going to happen if they do nothing anyway.
Before the election for Labor it was and rightly so industrial relations and ensuring workers are protected and after the election it is mass funding cuts to the public service and that means job losses. Labor as i stated yesterday a party without vision and without a care in the world. I hope all those dills who voted for them are satisfied. Public service cuts will do nothing to inflation instead it is about making the big business happy, the exact people who hate the party and campaigned against it during the election. Time for a new party simple.
The Australian population is NOT opposed to gay marriage. It is now a myth. Things have chnaged. It is a shame that supposedly progressive people haven’t moved with the population on this one.
The poll bludger community should be willing to accept the polls.
According to last year’s Newspoll gay marriage is supported 57 to 37%.
http://beta.getup.org.au/files/media/equalityforsamesexcouples.pdf
Get over it. We (the Australian public) have moved on but most of our politicians have not.
Marky Marky at 70
What do you want you f$%#*n idiot – a workers paradise. Nothing but whinge whinge since the election. Get a grip of yourself you utopian wish is never going to happen. Just be thankful we have a party in power that at least will be more sympathetic to workers than the opposition.
No need to get abusive and personal that is uncalled for.
So Enjay it is okay to lay off people, people who have families, mortgages, debts and a life to live.
Just been discussing suicide on another thread take note such actions to peoples’ lives cause such problems.
And yep my utopian wish, i will continue to espouse it, because i believe in it unlike yourself. Money does not run my life.
I want a party that cares for all workers and not just a few select individuals. The Labor party was formed on that principle and should act accordingly.
Utopia if it is alright for Liberals to enact far changing policies why can’t Labor? Why fund private schools and private health subsidies to the wealthy is that okay then?
marky a good point there.
“Time for a new party simple”
you could lead it
Now now, Enjaybee …
Many people toyed with voting Green yet voted for labour for the soul reason to get rid of the Howard government. This can explain the “tightening” of the greens polls of 10+% down to 7.8% on election day. It certainly happened in the blue collar and mortgage belts of my local seat.
This Labour party has moved significantly to the right and will probably dissappoint those thinking this government was going to be pro-worker, pro public schooling and pro public health. Those that voted for labour thinking they were going to address global warming are also in for a rude awakening. The key for the Greens is to hold on to that pre-election double digit poll result – an far easier task with a right of centre labour party.
I am flattered Gusface, no doubt sarcasm.
I think most people on this site would rather lynch me for speaking my mind and caring about where we are heading in Australia. We have become a self-centred bunch who care little for each other and put greater faith in how bigger cars and houses than other people.
“We have become a self-centred bunch who care little for each other and put greater faith in how bigger cars and houses than other people.”
Rubbish – at least rubbish if you are referring to the average lefty supporter on this site. You need to pull your head out of your largest orifice and take a broader look at what’s been happening in this country. Rudd is part of a solution, not a continuation of the problem.
There’s no place on earth called utopia so unfortunately I can supply supply you with directions.
All you need is lerv.
BTW did a whole post disappear? I remember writing something this morning and can’t find it.
Had a lost of posts about people most likely to die.
Is that something to do with Heath Ledger, William?
Why do people become silly and rude when replying to comments.
Your comment Steve made little sense and did not provide anything of value.
Steve, last year big cars and big houses continued to increase in demand. And have you been to a big retail store lately big everything, tv’s, furnture, computers.. and we are buying it.
Steve saw a news item two weeks ago on how a persons body was discovered in a house a full two months after they died with letters and bills coming in and no one bothering to see if they were home. More people live on their own and more people have no one to talk to. Sorry Steve our priorities are wrong and Rudd who intends to cut funding and provide tax cuts to the rich and allow private health benefits and private education funding to the rich schools for the next four years to me seems likely to continue to provide a country of greed and wealth for the haves and nothing for nots.
Good Lord, polls again! Didn’t these people have the decency to close up shop after the last election? And why is Bowe still reporting their rubbish?
Anyway, looks like we’re in for a fun 3 years as Krudd’s one term is engulfed by economic chaos. Suffer, twat! And has anyone noticed how fat he’s getting? Doesn’t look well at all….
marky (or should that be marxy)
‘why are people so unkind”
no sarcasm intended -with your obvious passion and deep social conscience why not form a party that looks after everyone and makes sure everyone is looked after-last attempt was by some guy called marx so maybe your channelling some residual socialism.
I’ve now banned Steven Kaye – not because of his last comment specifically, but just generally for being a wanker.
William,
The great thing about Democracy is every one has the right to be a w*anker.
It is just that people like Steven Kaye exercise their rights more frequently.
I don’t comment often, but i do keep up on this blog as it got me through the nervous-novembers. seems the current comments lack focus – uniting conservatives but no uniting of gay parents – i completely fail to understand the vitriol that surrounds suggestions of gay couples raising children – my father did NOT deserve to raise one much less four children and he was VERY hetrosexual.
and as for heaping calumny on st kev – give it a rest people – it hasn’t stopped raining since election day
Steven kaye if your reading this please remember that the cyanide pill is stitched into your right collar. Enjoy!
The blowback from WorkChoices will continue smudging the windscreen of the Liberals for years to come, possibly even through the next election when Labor raises the spectre of the Coalition just wanting to get back in so they can screw workers again.
Rx I agree – the emotive “17% interest rates” will become the equally emotive “work (no) choices” – should do for at LEAST 2 further elections
Otiose, the good thing is that there is nothing the Libbos can say in their defense. The evidence of what they knowingly did to employees, and how they intended to go even further with the abuse if re-elected in 07, is all on the table. Indisputable facts. They won’t be able to just say, “We’ve changed”, because after the tawdry WorkChoices try-on, no one will believe them.
WorkChoices will be the gift that keeps giving – to Labor.
Rx I’m looking forward to the lame excuses/reasons that will surely emanate from the deluded (mostly young private school BOYS) that will continue to flap their hairless jaws
Glen I think Philip Davis has a point. What does the Liberal party stand for?
Sorry, popped out for a while….
Brenton, I note you haven’t contested any of the complaints I made about the Green party. If the Greens had any chance of forming government, their stance on gay rights would be exactly the same as the majors (their language might be a little more lovey dovey, that’s all).
Senator Conroy’s ability to change the IVF laws to be more inclusive are an example of the simple fact that an individual has more power to bring about social change as a member of a major party than any one – even the party leader – has in a minor.
If you’re serious about gay rights, you’d get involved in the ALP and work to change its policies.
(I am not being utopian here – my reason for joining the ALP was to make certain things happen and my run rate is good so far. Of course I’ve had to compromise and of course I haven’t got all I wanted, but that’s what living in a democracy is about).
As for your comments about womens rights and the end of slavery, you show dismal ignorance about the century long fights for both – and the suffragette movement involved women going to jail, hunger striking and, ultimately, dying for the cause – don’t see similar commitment from the gay movement, there seems to be a ‘we’re victims so give it to us on a plate’ attitude there.
Slavery was fought over centuries and still hasn’t been eliminated. Again, advances were won by people making real sacrifices, including the ultimate, to gain their ends.
I am, by the way, an advocate for gays to have the same rights as the rest of the community – which means that, unlike you, I support their right to raise children as a family. This is the only logically consistent (if dangerous politically) position – either gays do not have equal rights or they do. Yours seems to be a ’some are more equal than others’ position.
By the way, I am very much a rural based ALP member. Until the Greens have REAL understanding of country life, their chances of electoral success are limited. At present, their support base out here tends to be treechangers and other urban escapees.
If they want to be an inner city party,fine, but in that case could they please restrict their environmental policies to inner city issues?
I object to the “honeymoon” tag for this poll. Rudd has worn that tag for over a year now. The honeymoon is over. We are settled in for a long happy marriage
As long as he governs well (aka not stuffing up the economy), it could well be a long though not necessarily happy, marriage.
Steven Kaye showing his true colours and what dark, ugly colours they are. No loss William, good on you.
I think zoom put it well. And I would argue if your going to argue for gay rights you have to go all the way.
It used to be you needed one of each sex to tango, but it’s over, science and a female can now generate a result, and it may be within my lifetime that the issues looked at in “brave new would” will have to be looked at ( and I think I will be dead in 30 years).
Do we get our guidance from a book written by a bunch of bronze age men 2000 years ago or do we think about it? Do we look at “brave new would” to see just how badly things can turn out if we don’t face these issues in a open and honest way.
To claim we are the only species that has sex within a sex is plain ignorant nonsense that can only be dished up to people that have never lived on a farm, however I think it’s pretty safe to say the ability for one sex to have children without a partner is reasonable unique ( ok snails have the whole issue sorted out).
I think mankind is going to have to face some pretty serious issues about what society looks like, two guys getting married is only the start and two gals having a child is little more than another step in the road (at least the two gals still use two different strands of DNA, one X and one Y).
I think stability of relationships is a solid rock to hold the debate together. The fact that Brenton wants to marry a guy and not have kids is a personal thing, it’s not a good basis to argue for change, nor in my opinion a good reason to condemn a party.
apparently our PM has got rid of the menzies desk and chesterfield lounge in his office at parl house,restoring the original furniture-good sign that
‘the broom sweepeth as the scythe reapeth’
i think RuddK is set for an extended bit of spring cleaning and not just the furniture and fittings will be replaced
tee hee hee
92
Zoom, I’m gobsmacked. One party in this country calls for fully equal relationship rights irrespective of the sexuality of that relationship. That would be The Greens.
Your response is to say that these would be watered down if The Greens were to have a realistic chance of governing – in other words the party’s policy is unpalatable to the electorate and unrealistic and should therefore be ignored. And then you go on to say that the best hope is to ignore those policies, join the ALP and seek to change Labor from within.
Bollocks!
Debates such as climate change, reaction to the erosion of civil liberties and a host of others show how important a real alternative voice is. The majors respond to externalities much more readily than ‘grassroots’ pressure from within. And the pressure has to be maintained to effect real – rather than marginal – change
I was way ahead of you in realising that my logic was not pristine, however I would still argue (using the Conroy example) that you have more chance of achieving something real working from within one of the majors than you ever have as a member of a minor party (and that the Conroy example shows that it doesn’t have to be in the party platform prior to an election for major changes to be made).
Senator Conroy has achieved more for gay rights than Bob Brown ever has or can (and that’s not bad for someone seen as a conservative within his own party).
I would like you to nominate one policy issue where the majors changed because of Green pressure (and by changed I mean brought in legislation which is active today, rather than just saying they would do something and then quietly dropping it).
John Howard actively campaigned against gay rights and euthanasia, using Federal powers to block or limit legislation in the territories on these issues. Rudd has made it clear that these are not Federal issues and are up to each State to legislate on, thus giving the States far more freedom of action in these areas.
To suggest that nothing would happen with issues such as climate change and civil liberties without a real alternative voice is – to use your own term – bollocks.
Removing cattle from the High Plains (an issue I was involved with) owed nothing to Green pressure; Greens are non existent when it comes to putting the case for windfarms, when the Vic Labor government faces real community and political pressure in promoting them; climate change policies adopted by both the State and Federal parties come from grassroot members (I have had a number adopted, as I work in this area, so can attest to this); Greens were missing in action when it came to supporting the Vic Govts stance on the National Water Initiative (and the Green candidates I heard speaking on it had little or no understanding of the environmental issues involved).
As for civil liberties, I would point out that the ones we enjoy at present were introduced by the major parties, not the Greens. Greens leaping up and down about the erosion of these have had no effect (if you disagree, again, provide examples), whereas a Rudd Labor Government will achieve changes (maybe not as quickly as any of us would like, but that’s where internal party action is important – and this kind of action is only effective if there are people in the party doing it!)
Of course, if all you do is go to branch meetings and pass resolutions, not much will happen. You have to be a bit more active than that – but not much.
So far, I would point out, I have used specific examples of real issues when putting my case. I would appreciate if those attacking my arguments would attempt the same. (Fairy floss is hard to refute).
Zoom, what you are saying is their is no point having minor parties because it is the 2 majors that make all the rules. Your arguement of the Green’s irrelevance the
It is the minor parties, particularly the Greens that bring issues such as climate change, gay rights, the war in Iraq, civil liberties and many human rights issues to the public’s consciousness. Once these issues appear in the polls re public opinion THEN the majors react. Bob Brown said back in the 90’s climate change needs to be addressed by Australia. Now its 2008 and the labour government are what? positioning themselves to possibly act?
As for civil liberties, I would point out that the ones we used to enjoy at present were diminished by the major parties, not the Greens
Your arguement of the Green’s irreleveance would hold weight in an American voting system but certainly not here with our preferential voting.
I’m not arguing they’re irrelevant, I’m arguing that they’re less relevant than they think they are.
Preferential voting is based on the assumption that if X party didn’t exist then you would have voted for Y (so I voted Greens first but if there hadn’t been a Green candidate, I would have voted Labor so my vote ultimately goes to Labor).
Arguments that the Greens are more effective at forcing policy change within the Labor party are based on the premise that Greens preferences would have gone somewhere else otherwise.
Preferences are important in the Senate, due to the necessity for candidates to achieve a quota, but are only influential in lower house seats if voters blindly follow HTV cards – and the evidence is that Green candidates don’t.
I think there’s also a good case to argue that Green supporters – if their representation on this thread so far is any guide – don’t have much understanding of ‘real’ politics, the inner workings of the major parties and their own party’s lack of action – which I really, really, really resent – on key environmental issues.
You voted 1 Greens, Zoom?
zoom on 26 you quoted,” I like the Greens. Some of my best friends are Greens” I do not think that is the case at all.
Deano, my recollections of the history of the climate change debate are that it first came to public prominence in the mid 80s as the Greenhouse Effect and that the Hawke government was a world leader in advocating for measures to be taken to fix it in the early days of the debate. To claim that Bob Brown started the public movement for it to be addressed is a bit revisionist.
The minor parties do serve a very important role in campaigning for progressive policies. Perhaps there also needs to be more respect shown to people such as those who stand for the Labor Party. Labor politicians may start out with an ideologically pure view of the world but are willing to make the compromises and concede defeat where need be in order to achieve goals such as killing off WorkChoices.
105 TurningWorm , it will be very interesting to see what changes to WorkChoices that the new government makes? I am a worker and a union member.
Some of my best friends are Liberal voters, too – doesn’t mean that I think the party they support has the right ideas or that I let them get away with sloppy thinking…my main objection to the Greens.
I can’t see why explaining (when asked) what I dislike about a party means I don’t like its members as individuals.
Sounds a bit totalitarian to me – I’m either with you or against you? How about I’m willing to let you exist but I don’t agree with you? Or I just don’t think you’re as wonderful as you think you are?
I’d be perfectly contented to NOT criticise the Greens if I saw them ACTING rather than talking – so, as I’ve said before, supporting windfarms publically (would it hurt to say “the Victorian Labor Government’s support of windfarms is to be commended”? “Victorian Greens support Government’s stance on windfarms”? – and then, of course, suggest how the Government could improve?) and skewing the environmental debate to suit their own agendas (Bob Brown’s preference deal in 2004 implied that Tasmanian rainforests were THE most important environmental issue confronting the nation – why didn’t he tie preference deals to climate change action rather than his own parochial interests?)
Andos, whoops, my rhetoric does run ahead of my brain at times (note other silly mistakes in wording in former post).
By the way, I could write a post about what’s wrong with the ALP which would really fry your onions – but I’d prefer to work away at changing it from within.
zoom, I can well imagine you having Liberal friends! You would have a lot in common with them!
zoom, I gather you are an expert on Windfarms? I very much understand why?
zoom, I wouldnt write that blog about what’s wrong with the ALP because you would probalby be expelled for the party. But if you do please use your real name!
By the way , I am curious, did you actually as a member get the chance to vote for your candidates (especially the Senate candidates?????) Did you receive ballot papers?
Gee Turning Worm, Bob Hawke was a world leader on climate change action back in the 80s???? Here we are 20 years later and the problem, and Australia’s contribution to it, has got worse. Imagine the predicament we would be in if they were in denial! Thats what I call a “partys lack of action”. Wall to wall labour governments and I see nothing, in what year do you think the labour party will act?
Actually any leadership Hawke showed on climate change was undermined by Keating. Hawke set up a process to look at things we could do (not just on climate change but on various environmental matters) that would have broad support. Numerous recommendations came out that had the agreement of the environment movement, unions and the business lobby groups. Very few of them were implemented. It’s hard to know if more would have been had Keating not replaced Hawke, but the fact is Labor chose to throw away literally hundreds of ideas that were supported by all three groups.
Keating looks great compared to Howard, and he did have some very substantial achievements Hawke would never have matched, but none of them were environmental.
deano
when i was at school (1970s) the big fear was global cooling not waaaaarming?
and more importantly not one whaleshagging,treesucking snotty can explain
the mini ice age 1300-1700 which it has universally (you do the research) been agreed was stopped by the industrial revolution
so which is it freezing cold cos we stuffed the ozone or boiling hot cos we stuffed the ozone
bit contradictory
Do a little more digging, Gusface, and you’ll find that the science of global warming/climate change is neither contradictory or involved with the ozone layer in anyway.
In fact, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the chemicals responsible for depleting the ozone layer, are actually potent greenhouse gasses. If not for the Montreal Protocol global warming would be even worse than it already is (although we ain’t seen nothin’ yet).
112 Keating was a good Prime Minister, in many ways misunderstood by the Australian public. I think it would be a very different Australia in regard to many issues, if he had remained leader of the country. There, I have been positive about a Labor leader, but I am waiting for all the “other side ” to attack me now.
Hmmm … coal many coal-fired power stations were operating between the years 1300 and 1700?
I might hazard a guess at ZERO.
The problem of climate change is not, I might suggest, the earth’s ever varying climate which has rolled from ice age into periods of warming and back again for millions of years …
The problem is the massive and man-made rise in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution – which is ADDITIONAL to any natural varience in the world’s temperature.
These man-made emissions increasingly prevent the world from shedding its heat, or so the science tells us.
The “stuffed the ozone” issue you refer to is a totally different problem, which was generally solved by western countries joining together to ban the use of CFCs.
Investigate this stuff before you dismiss it as contradictory, please …
Sorry guys, I know this is a politics blogg …
Yep, Brenton, I do. I also have a lot in common with my Green friends (got a Christmas card from the local candidate, thanking me for my assistance) and have lots of arguments with my ALP friends.
I happen to think that differences of opinion are good. Arguing your point of view (using facts, a concept you seem unfamiliar with) with someone who has a different world view to yourself – rather than isolating yourself from people who think differently to you – is a good way of testing your own thinking.
The reason I get along with Liberals, Greens, members of Family First, Democrats (mostly ex – there seem to be more ex Democrats than the sum total of all former and present Democrat members combined, but that’s one of the darker mysteries) as well as – obviously – my Party colleagues is because I value them as individuals. It’s hard for me to dismiss the local Liberal party operatives as somehow not worthy of my friendship because of their political beliefs when I see them working to change to lot of disabled people or campaigning to raise awareness of autism…just as I respect (yes, I do) my Green friends for protecting the local environment.
I live in the real world, Brenton, where nobody and nothing is perfect and therefore one has to make compromises.
You seem to live in a world where the only people worth talking to or taking seriously are those who echo your own world view. You want – demand – tolerance and acceptance of yourself as an individual but seem to be denying it to others.
That’s just as bad as far righters like Steven Kaye or Glen.
By the way – am still waiting for SOME Green out there to defend their party on the specific issues I’ve raised. I really would be interested to know if I’m wrong here.
Andos
i just think no one acknowledges the mini ice age
to me it is the elephant in the room re climate change
also a bit presumptive of us as humans that we in our infinite superiority have F**ked mother earth.
krakatoa (to quote just one natural event) caused alot of short term climatic change (as i understand it the suplhuric emissions wiped out the ozone around the mid east across india all the way thru the tropics to include WA) for at least three years-but then hey gaia regained balance
the bigger issue is pollution (heavy metals dioxin etc) and their storage.
ps what happened to the black forest (germany) i was there in 1985/6 you could punch holes thru trees and the prediction was that it would turn into a desert-fast forward to today and it is a wonder of regeneration-there are still high levels of pollutants but nature adapts
sure have controls but not this ‘the end is nigh” mentality as real science is obscured in the “herd response”
Deano @ 111, In what year will the Greens take any concrete action to solve global warming?
gusface
Acid rain was a real problem for Europe. Have to stopped to wonder why Europe is moving fast towards windfarms and why they support with vigor the reduction in CO emission.
All the climate change denial in the world won’t change the fact things have to change, you only have to spend an hour in Chine to work out that.
And as for the Greens, we need to move to renewable energy we need windfarms. I haven’t heard a peep out of any off them supporting the changes needed, instead we hear about yellow spotted parrots or something.
The environmental issues are critical moving forward and we have the greens still acting as if the solution is the destruction of humanity .
Turning Worm @ 119 – “In what year will the Greens take any concrete action to solve global warming?”
The Greens have taken concrete and relevant action against global warming in countries such as Germany and New Zealand where they have been part of a governing coalition. It is why European countries leave this country for dead re the issue. The Greens are still chasing a greater vote here to be part of the global solution. Untill then I ask, in what year will Labour take any concrete action to solve global warming? You suggest they were aware of it on the 80s
Just a bit of trivia – Australia’s population is one third of one percent (0.33%) of the world’s population yet produces 2% of the world’s carbon emissions.
Dear William – could you please open a thread on Roswell and Elvis sightings for Gusface?
Charles @120 – It was former enviro liberal minister Ian “dalek” McFarlaine who blocked the Gippsland windfarms to save one orange-bellied parrot per year.
Have a look at the party website if you have doubts about the parties commitment to renewables. There are binding national targets for 2010, 2020 and 2050. A call for 15% of all electricity needs to be from renewables by 2012 and 25% by 2025. These figures are all very achievable. A relocation of the considerable subsidies from the carbon producers to the renewables sector will ensure a minimal impact on the economy. Not taking action will ensure the economy will take a bigger hit than an obscure parrots.
I have a lot of respect for Gary Bruce’s comments but I beg to differ with his Post 95. I think William was wrong to ban Stephen Kaye on the basis that SK is (allegedly) a ‘wanker’. SK’s posts are outrageously partisan but they are witty. There are plenty of other regular posters who are just as partisan (some more so) but who are completely humourless. I hope William reviews his decision; otherwise, I will be looking to see that there is some consistency with any moderation of future threads.
121
Deano
And thank god the SPD lost in 2005, the Grand Coalition headed by Merkel’s CDU/CSU is planing to extend the life of its nuclear power stations which will reduce its CO2 emissions. Also the British Labor Party has announced that it will expand its own Nuclear Industry as well.
Windfarms are an eyesore and cannot produce the same level of base load power generation as a Nuclear Power Station.
Its nice to know that at least one Labor Party in the world backs Nuclear power pity another one down under doesnt too. I fear our coastlines will look like a junk yard if Labor and the Greens get their way
Deano also why did Kevin Rudd commit us to targets without knowing the impact on the economy is this something a true fiscal conservative would do?
David, please direct me to anything Steven Kaye has ever said which might reasonably be described as “witty”.
William: ‘engulfed by economic chaos’ is an example of the hyperbole of a partisan which I thought (maybe, in your eyes, ‘unreasonably’) to be witty.
Glen says
And there we have it, instead of renewable energy, lets leave it up to our children to tidy up the mess.
Deano Says:
January 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
I know; my complaint is the greens didn’t do their best to roll the guy; it was by any account a disgrace.
It’s funny you know; you go to Europe and they have these large majestic windmills scattered all over the place, go to California and you see hillsides covered in smaller units, and in Australia you have people that haven’t traveled past their backyard advocating solutions that where rejected ( for very good reasons) in the 80’s.
Glen the world has moved on, we are one of the few countries that enjoy blue skies, the one’s that have lost them want them back further Europe knows what it’s like to have a radioactive cloud pass across it’s population, they are not keen for it to happen again.
Australia has two choices when it comes to renewable energy, lead or follow. Fortunately Rudd has put us in a position where we may be able to lead, it’s a bit sad the backward looking lot we had in destroyed the lead we had.
Glen if you really subscribe to this nonsense about economic damage because a country is moving to forward get on you bike and go and look at what is happening in Europe.
Glen,
I see your coastline with turbines, and raise you two clearfelled hillsides.
A trip through Northern Tasmania was interesting … the Northwest is betting on the foodie, and the Northeast is temporarily reforesting, forty acres at a time.
I’d say the latter is a decent bet only if someone else is paying for the road damage.
Ian Whitchurch
Glen the Poms are in the early stages of decommissioning Calder Hall, their first Nuke power station.
Q: How long do you figure it will take them to return it to a condition that would allow humans to use the land?
A: 120 years. And then they have to guard the waste for another 100,000 years. http://www.wcssg.co.uk/calder.htm
How much will that cost, not only in monetary terms but also environmental?
Of course the real problem with nukes is that if we generated all the world’s electricity needs with it then all known uranium reserves would be exhausted within about 2-3 years. Even the current power stations will use up all significant reserves by mid century.
And its not like nuke reduces carbon emissions by much. Build 1,000 stations and annual carbon emissions will drop by about 5%, a long, long way short of the 60% we need.
Ian Whitchurch are you still “known” in East Timor?
Where is the realism of BOTH the Left and the Right
To increase the present 440 Nuke Power stations to 1,000 will take min 20 years
to build.
According to the UN the 1,000 will only contribute just 36% of the world’s energy needs. So the Right are unrealistic.
According to the UN Renewable energy at best can contribute 30% of world energy needs by 2030. So the Left are also unrealistic.
Hopefully future technology can capture the emissions by Plant and either disapate/clean them or make them renewable.
Hopefully also a ‘clean energy’ motor car will assist
With the UN ‘tipping point of irreversibility dropping now to the 2030 ’s , the Left and the Right’s solutions are fooling a concerned Public
ESJ,
Thats a better question for them than for me, really …
Ian Whitchurch
Ron the future is bleak, no the world is finished. Whilst all the skeptics on here don’t agree i think their is no turning back.
The arctic is melting rapidly and according to Nasa scientists last month in will be completly melted in the summer months by 2012 and antarctic is melting rapidly as well .
What we must realise is that ice helps to cool down the planet by reflecting the suns rays but once it goes temperatures will rise rapidly. The western world is doing little, this country nothing but people here keep stating we are only 1 per cent of emissions, these are denial crowd.
We continue to build roads, pulp mills, deepen channels and allow subsidies on diesel, and company car handouts and clear forests. Sorry this country is pathetic and visionless, and we have Labor Governments from coast to coast.
Just waiting for someone to say that Federal Labor has been in six minutes, yes but they not stopping the pulp mill, not stopping road funding, and not a hint yet of scrapping subsidies and tax cuts for company cars and farm equipment and diesel. Ron nuclear is not realistically the answer, when you have terrorists, nuclear waste and the cost and then possible malfunctioning.
What a chirpy fellow you are marky.
Surely a nihilistic attitude on your part is no help to the cause either?
Yep i may sound depressed with my ranting on but only write how it is. Put simply i care about people and world especially people who live in difficult circumstances each day.
Saw an article in todays Age monthly glossy spread and nearly choked on wheeties boats moored in Port Phillip Bay costing 2.5 million and quite a few, good to see whilst workers work their guts out to just pay for house and car.
Yep i am bearer of optimism but i’m afraid pessimism mostly.
Sorry if you don’t like it but i cannot stand to see a few doing very well and most not and a beautiful world dying before our eyes.
MarkyMark,
The ice isnt the main problem IMO. It’s the methane trapped in what is ceasing to be permafrost, combined with the rotting of the plant matter in what used to be permafrost.
Did you ever have dealings with Kopassus Ian Whitchurch?
That whole geothermal thing seems rather promising. there has been abit of chatter around about that here in Tassie:
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23044488-3462,00.html
Most of our electricity is already non carbon, ie Hydro/Wind. Of course there is no one solution, but there are ways to reduce the influence of coal. Which needs alot of fresh water that can not be used again.
Tidal is one that in the near future could be very helpful.
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1965853.htm
Thankyou for providing me with that information and yes you are correct Ian, but what also frightens me is carbon dioxide as it i think (as you may be greater scientific knowledge) can sit within our atmosphere for many years and each day we add to it and add to it causing even more harm to be done at faster and faster rates.
ESJ,
Not to my knowledge, Comrade Citizen.
Scotty,
I agree that Geothermal should be getting more attention than it is, and for what it’s worth Matt Simmons thinks wave/tidal/ocean energy is a promising approach.
marky marky @ 134
I agree with you. History shows that whenever humans have had to choose between modifying their behaviour to repair their environmetal damage or continuing as before they’ve done the latter. But it ain’t all bad. No doubt in several million years some new slightly intelligent creature will be teaching its young about us in the same way we teach ours about the dinosaurs.
That said, marky marky, if there is indeed such a place, I suspect you’ll even be disappointed in Heaven!
“the future is bleak, no the world is finished”
Sounds like the “Chaos” and madness theme of the libs at the last election. If you’re right looks like I was sensible in taking the 30 year option to repay my loan, finally I will get one over the banks.
However I like gusfaces’s thinking also, we have had mini ice ages not that long ago and Krakatoa threw a massive amount of pollution and debri into the atmosphere, we have recurring cycles going back thousands of years.
Still I agree we are polluting too much and a big city can warm its’ surrounds, but there is an “industry” associated with this global warming that benefits from all this “sky is falling talk”.
Bottom line is that Australia will not be part of the solution to global warming with this government. Charle’s comment @ 128 that Rudd has put Australia in a position to lead is laughable. There is nothing on the horizon to suggest they would even come close to matching the action taken by EU nations. Our fed government has traded in the Howard Hummer for a V8 as far as global warming is concerned
marky marky the world is not finished. Planet earth has had climates a lot more extreme than what we are headed for. I doubt mankind is finished (much more likely). What is finished is the carbon economy. We have two choices, heads in the sand and wait for the walls to start coming down, or start using the technology developed to start a new economy. Europe is going for the second option.
Charles when the carbon ‘tipping point’ of irreversibility is reached according to the UN panel of 400 odd world wide cientists , nothing can get done stop global warming.
The temperature increase is a 1% to 3% range.
1/3 of current species will become extinct. oceans will rise. Droughts will be longer etc etc
I am baffled that seemingingly intelligent blogers & most World leaders simply ignore the undeniable science.
The future kids will ask why this generation ignored science
My answer from the grave would be the majority of humans in the World whilst perhaps too greedy if given the science info WOULD HAVE accepted the inconvenience & costs of permanently stopping climate change.
The minority led by political & business Leaders from the US (& perhaps by China & India) were too personally greedy & power hungry for THEIR present life irrespective of the future cost
charles@145
well put
changing tack
Our deputy PM wants to put all the IR stuff in the Feds hands
maybe recreate the old ir commission and take away the states powers
is this worstchoices Reinforced or the beginning of Repealling these draconian laws
i know which one i want
zoom, I can quite understand why NO Green has responded to your demands! They probably are not into verbal rollercoasters. How curious you presume ANYTHING about my life! You know little about my life experience. You assumed that because you are from the country that I no nothing about it . I lived for the first 28 years of my life in a small rural community and I know a great deal about country life and people. At least I have the guts to USE my real Christian name on this site. Usually on Green blogs , people on the whole use their real identities and contributions are welcomed whether people are highly educated or not. On this site if you dont get it right the first time people jump down your neck and everything is twisted to suit the ‘high’ ego levels of many of the contributors. Do all the people who go out to vote for the ALP know ALP policy back to front? People vote for particular parties for various reasons. Sometimes it might even be one particular issue that they feel passionate about. I love the Greens at this stage of my voting life. I do not go to branch meetings or hold any Party positions , but I admire many of their politicians and it is where I feel comfortable. You stated how at ease you are with so many different types of people. Lucky you and you are fortunate that your life and relationships have been valued , respected and I doubt( I may be wrong) that you have been threatened both verbally and physically throughout your life. I suffered so much mentally during the Howard years and especially with the rise of One Nation , that yes it affected every part of my life. My partner and I were threatened with having our throats cut on public transport and we stopped going out at night for a very long period of time. I hated where the country was going. I may not be able to express myself very well at times and I probably say some dumb things , but I am trying my best in life and I am interested in politics . I do not know a great deal about policy , I greatly admire people who do. I very much admire William for having this site and he probably thinks i am a dipstick , but he hasnt got rid of me because I do try to be civilised and I do want to learn from the many well informed people who contribute on here. I do admit to being staggered about the amount of coverage and comment the Greens get on here for a small party. The Labor and Liberal parties are the main political parties and yet little comment is made about the many things that are happening with them. I hope that when Parliament resumes in Canberra that there will be much more interaction between the traditional foes. zoom , I wish you well in your life and I hope that the Labor Government delivers the many things that will improve the quailty of life for all citizens and our Australian environment.
Well well,
the Greens are back as topic -again. We seem to generate a lot of comment for such a suppodely irrelvant force in Australian politics.
I think a few of you need to take a deep breath and and calm down.
Greens , like other parties, are made up of people with a vast array of experiences and opinions. We are not a homogeneos group who all agree on every point. As a candidate I try to best represent the policies of the part to the voters in my (rural) electorate. I also disagree at times with other party members, and try to have input into revising current, and developing new policy.
As to the futility of trying to make changes from outside the majors, ask Peter Garrett. It must be pretty difficult for him to defend the Tamar Pulp mill, the dredging of port Phillip bay, the ongoing logging of wilderness, the mining of uranium etc etc. He may have truly believed that a high profile candidate like him could really influnce labour policy
But he was wrong.
BTW- as a candidate in the 2004 election I actively and publicly supported the banning of cattle in the high country( and copped plenty of personal abuse for doing so.)
Brenton – you might notice that, at the start of the thread, I did apologise for mistakes I made. I would also happily say I was wrong about some of my concerns about the Greens, if someone would actually show that I was in error (and I have repeatedly ASKED for people to do so).
I like to think the best of people and people are what make up political parties. One of the reasons I got involved with blogging was that I wanted to understand why people supported various ideologies – I think in past posts I have made it clear how disappointed I was when noone on the Right actually could mount a decent argument to defend their various positions. Depressing if it’s the same as the Greens.
It’s great to support a party but it’s also good to be aware of its shortcomings, otherwise it can never improve.
Yes, I have suffered bullying and isolation as a child, not for the same reasons you did but because of being obviously different. I must say it’s made my life in politics a bit easier, as the vitriolic attacks from my political opponents, the personal costs (my battles against the Kennett Government have meant that it’s difficult for me to find employment in this very conservative area), and the physical and verbal abuse one receives when one stands up for minority beliefs have all been easier to bear – and to understand.
Hi Jen!
On Peter Garrett – yes, it is difficult to change party policy if you’ve only been there a few years and don’t have the connections and the know how to influence policy. Some of the policies I’ve got up have taken me years of plugging away and sometimes involved quite convoluted manouevering. However, I think Peter Garrett would echo what John Thwaites once said – that’s it’s better to be in Government and get some of what you want than be out of Government and get nothing.
I don’t believe the Greens are irrelevant – I’ve said that before. I do think they need to be more realistic about the extent of their influence to use what they have effectively. If Bob Brown had put climate change ahead of Tasmanian rainforests when doing preference deals, for example, we might be a lot further down that particular track.
Hiya zoom -
my point about Garrett is that he hasn’t got any of the concessions in any of the environmental issues he has publicly and repeatedly supported. I actually feel sorry fro him, as I think he really is a man of integrity, but misjudged the cost of compromising your principles. (And what about the power he would have had if he had stood for the senate as a Green , and possible held the BOP?)
As for Bob on climate change vs Tassie forests: they are not mutually exclusive issues, adn the Greens have lobbied long and hard for a range of strategies on enery, water, reducing emmission etc etc as well as logging. It is not an either/or argument.
If you want to see detailed policy positions check out the website. There is extensive information, which might answer some of your questions.
Give him time, Jen. Too early to judge much about a government that hasn’t even had a Parliamentary sitting yet. He’s been able to do far more on the Japanese whaling issue than any previous Environmental Minister (because they did SFA) and did get to attend Bali as a representative of the Government – neither of which would have been possible to him as a Greens Senator.
Didn’t say it was either/or on Tasmanian forests, but Brown made it crystal clear in 2004 that Labor’s stance on these would determine Green preferences. I have had a lot of conversations since with fervid Green supporters who made it clear that, as a result of this, they saw Tfs as the most important environmental issue (they have since switched to cc but without any questioning of Brown’s stance). Linking preference deals to climate change would have got the message out there in the general public’s awareness a lot sooner. (The beginning, I must say, of my viewing Brown in a far more cynical light).
I’m not interested in policy stances, as much as policy action. I’m decrying the failure of the Greens as a party (not as individuals) to stand alongside governments and take some of the political flak when these governments do the right thing environmentally (and get accused of doing so to please the Greens, which is even more ironic).
I’m also frustrated (you’d never guess) by the idea put forward in previous posts that without the Greens there would be no action on some of these issues, which implies that there is no push for them within the ALP itself, a very arrogant and ignorant stance to take.
Zoom, thankyou for your reply, I am sure that if we met personally that we would have more in common than differences. I appreciate your comments about questioning a party’s shortcomings and it is good that you are in the Labor Party plugging away at policy. I greatly respect that. By the way , I have voted Labor on some occasions , but not in recent times. I greatly admired Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating, Don Dunstan and John Bannon. Thankyou for sharing about your childhood. I well realise that life is a very difficult journey for many people, but at least we have some ‘passion’ about various issues and hopefully, I will be able to express myself in a clearer way in the future. I wanted to say I support some form of civil union for ‘all’ couples that want their relationships recognised by the state, but outside of the marriage situation. The only reason that I have concerns about gay parenting , adoption etc. is that the Australian community may only just be able to cope with 2 people of the same gender living together, there are so many who still associate homosexuality with pedophilia, that I believe one issue at a time may be warranted. Unjust I know , but one small step at a time. I admire your all out approach! Yes, I do admire John Stanhope and his goverment for their progressive policies and I pray that the Rudd Government will allow the states and territories to enact legislation that those jurisdictions have passed. I would be wonderful if some of these issues would be finalised as such. I think many people just want to get on with their lives and just be treated like everyone else. The Berlin Wall came down, I thought I would never see that , so I live in hope! I have to share that I have some concerns about the Labor Right and the Catholic link , but that is my baggage. I also have never recovered from Senator Fielding’s election. But I can assure you , I have NO sympathy for the ‘Other Side” at all.
zoom -
I think in our defence, that the TF’s were a hotter political issue in 2004 than the increasing awareness (and urgency) of climate change is in the curent political debate. Your argument, That Bob Brown could have raised the profile of CC is perhaps overestimating our influence on the electorate- CC has had much bigger advocates than Bob could ever be: Al Gore, to name one and we are`all more informed (well, apart from some of the head in the sand sceptics), and more prepared to vote accordingly.
As for not taking the flack when the governemnt does something right, we actively disagree witha number of federal and state government decisions. This does not mean we do not support the decisions that we are in agreement with (ie Kyoto – but disappointed in the targets). So we can hardly be expected to stand beside them, when we are lobbying for different outcomes. We want the proposed Tasmanian pulp mill stopped, no dredging of Port phillip bay, no nuclear mining, stop ther logging of old growth forests for woodchips, no pipeline from Goulburn to Melbourne, no desalination plants etc etc. Labour is supporting all of these, so how can you expect us to support them when we are opposing them??
Ta Brenton. Similar concerns about Labor Right and the Catholics, which is why I don’t belong to a faction (was pleased to see myself described as a Labor moderate).
I was so anti Fielding that I ditched the Labor HTV and stood there putting in all the numbers from 1 – 74, after making some very loud noises to the people responsible!
Good for you zoom:
the preferncing of the Fundies was one of the lowest points of Labour in recent history. I know lots of labour voters who were as appalled as you were. And some who now vote Green as a direct result.
Jen, I think I made it clear which issues I thought the Greens should stand up and be counted on. I’m not saying they have to whole heartedly agree with everything a particular Government is doing, or even every aspect of a particular environmental action, but I am saying that I’d have more respect for them if, say, Bob Brown had visited the High Plains in support of the removal of cattle or a massed Greens rally was organised to support windfarms at a contested location.
It’s also a bit contradictory when some bloggers here claim the Greens recognised the importance of cc as an issue way back beyond the dawn of time (I’m getting all rhetorical again) and you appear to think it only emerged post 2004.
Surely, if the Greens were aware even five years ago of the importance of cc as an issue, they could have used their preference deal to highlight this with the major parties?
And what is it anyway? – either you don’t have an influence on the electorate or you do. If you don’t, then you are irrelevant (I’m not saying you are, just questioning your line of argument).
zoom 155, I think the Greeks said ‘all things in moderation’ , so I think that is a good approach. I loved your story about filling in all of the numbers 1 to 74. I think it is good to study who all of the candidates are and I also like to make my own decisions about preferences, no matter what the HTV cards say.
How can you build dams when CC has caused more droughts & less consistent rains in the same areas for dams
Ron
The destruction of the economy and the death of a lot of people is different to the end of our species and the destruction of the planet.
Some entertaining reading to give you a longer term view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
Eocene period happened, the planet recovered and we are here.
We are just a blip; as a species we are only a couple of hundred thousand years old; we have seen the last ice age end but little else. We may cause another Eocene period, but form the planets point of view, so what, the cycle starts again.
Based in history, in a few million years, whatever comes after will dig up our fossils and wonder what killed the mammals much as we ask, what killed the dinosaurs. Based on history it is a safe bet our period will end.
Dealing with global warming is about trying to preserve what is, perhaps it is about saving our species ( but I doubt it) it’s not about saving the planet. Entertaining thought when you consider Glen goes on about how Rudd should take into account the cost to the economy.
zoom -
I am not saying that climate change has only recently become an issue, but that it was not an electoral issue as much prior to this election. Which is not a good thing ,and there have been many people (including Bob Brown) trying to make it better understood for many years. However it took more than local Politics to wake up the electorate, which thankfully has happened.
The either/or positiins you take are too Extereme (there’s irony for you!!). It is not that we do or do not have any influence- it is the degree and timing of what we can do politically.
As for the high plain grazing issue , I totally agree with you: we should have had much more public support for the banning of this as a response to the Akubra/ Drizabone blockades. We did our limited bit in Indi to support this in the media .However one of the most legitimate criticisms of the Greens is that we are not always well organised. We are the first to admit it, but we have v. limited resources both financial and people. It’s getting better all the time though.
zoom , as Ali G said, “You are the main man” at the moment! You will have to start your own site!
It’s post election relevance deprivation syndrome, and it’s got to stop!
enjoying the conversation between Brenton,zoom and Jen.
a nice change from the same ol Rightoids and Kevin 07ers.
oh,and zoom, just who were the Labor dolts who delivered Fielding.
Names pls
Apparently Alan Stockdale is in line to become the next President of the Liberal Party, with the aim of ‘rebuilding’ the Party, if we can take Imre Salusinkszy seriously:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23105188-601,00.html
Victorians will remember Alan Stockdale well as Treasurer in the Kennett government and afficionado of privatisation and neoliberalism. Since Kennett was unceremoniously booted out of office (Steve Bracks, you will always be a legend for achieving just this result in my book), Stockdale has served on various boards and has most recently been the chairman of that bastion of neoliberal thought, the Institute of Public Affairs. This seems to indicate a turn to the right.
http://www.ipa.org.au/people/bio.asp?peopleid=8
So, do you still hope Nicola Roxon rots in her catholic hell, Brenton?
Actually , TurningWorm, Adam corrected me that Nicola Roxon is NOT Catholic, so I do apologise for that! But , I think it has been reported in the media that Nicola hasnt had time to be able to get married! I wish her well when she does , but please give a lot of other people a chance to get hitched, no matter what the type of arrangement!
TurningWorm 166, I also wanted to add that many thousands of gay and lesbian people were mortified the day the ALP ( thus focus on Nicola Rixon) announced support for the Howard Government’s position on excluding same-sex couples from the Marriage Act. It was the resulting and increased homophobia and the fact that in Australian society’s mind ,that gay relationships were not at all worthy or to be respected. I think a majority of homosexual couples could not careless about the Marriage Act at all. There are far better legislative options that will be arrived at for citizens.( eg civil unions) I hope I have been able to express, how such an event affects the lives of so many. You may not be able to relate to this at all. So many people felt so badly betrayed by the Labor Party on this issue that many of them have never returned to vote for the Labor Party. I hope you respect my thoughts and writings here. I feel many people do not understand the sensitive nature of such issues and how such political actions can cause so much sadness and suffering.
HarryH (164) Who are you referring to?…”Rightoids” and “Kevin 07ers”??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Roxon
Alan Stockdale is to the “right” on economic issues, certainly, but is not a moral conservative. He’s more an economic radical than an economic conservative. I suspect he’d be very good at raising funds for the Liberal Party.
We can all get a bit confused when discussing the Liberal Party “right”. The Liberal party attracts people who can be very pro-business and pro-”free market”, and people who are from the religious right, and are anti-gay, pro law and order etc.
The Liberals struggle to accommodate both these groups and present policies that appeal to the broader public, just as Labor also struggles with reconciling its Catholic wings and its more libertarian left.
Even the Greens contain a fair sprinkling of devout Christians who want to protect God’s environment, while other members want gay marriage and less help for religious schools.
I guess I’m just saying that most of our political parties have a broad range of members, and won’t get elected if their membership is too narrow. So we have to be careful defining people as “right-wing” or “left-wing”. Stockdale and Kennett certainly did a lot of privatisation, but their government wasn’t a conservative Christian one.
Antonio,
Welcome aboard.
My suggestion for you is to find a blank piece of paper and draw a cross. Then label the axis(es) social conservative/liberal and the other one economic conservative/economic liberal.
Then place your favourite Liberals where they fit on this two dimensional scale(totally opinionated).
As a rule, those diametrically opposite get on because they undestand that each is coming from different perspectives. Those on the same plane disagree because they can’t understand how the other can disagree about things when they are so much alike.
Not perfect but helps you understand the human condition.
Antonio 171, you have scared the living daylights out of me with “even the Greens contain a fair sprinkling of devout Christians”. I think I need to contact the Socialist Alliance tomorrow as soon as possible. LOL.
Dunno about a ‘fair sprinkling’ but our local Greens candidate [lovely lady] is near to finishing her Dr. of Divinity.
Takes all sorts.
The Greens love everyone except GWB and the Liberals.
Not too sure about evangelical christians either – personally I find them scary and really,really ignorant.
But that’s OK, cos they think I represent Satan.
I think the middle-of the road ordinary variety of Christians are Ok though.
Prefer an atheist myself, but that’s a personal choice, not a party requirement.
Antonio 171, by their works shall ye know them. Stockdale and Kennett between them were responsible for consigning many Victorians to unemployment and depression (as another pollblodger has said, the hypocrisy of Kennett’s sponsorship of ‘Beyond Blue’ is mindblowing), and many of their more crazed policies (such as the ‘tendering out’ of all work in local government) have had far-reaching and deleterious effects. Stockdale may well, as you say, be ‘good at raising funds’ for the Liberal party. Does this make him a ‘good’ leader or person or president of the Liberal party? Only if raising funds is very, very important. In passing, it will only irritate pollbludgers if you embark on mind-improving passages beginning with ‘We’, as in ‘We can all get a bit confused’. Me, I’m not confused, and I’m not your we.
Another thing, Antonio, there are plenty of catholics who are also libertarians.
jen 175, your comments always make me smile!
fred 174, diversity is a positive thing!
The ‘business elite’ love Stockdale especially the overseas corporates who now own much of our sold public utilities and infrastructure and will most likely give because of what he acheived. Achieved is perhaps the incorrect word as he did nothing for the benefit of middle, poor and working classes. People may also give money because they have short memories.
Meantime talking of selling publically owned utilities, New South Wales LABOR is now going to do the same, Short term stupidity. I suppose it shows that these days their is little difference between the parties and they now do things to feather the nests of the corporate elite and do such things after elections and well before the next so that people forget.
Channel Deepening in Victoria is another case in point.
apres @ 176,
“by their works shall ye know them”, indeed.
Where does that put the man who gave us “the recession we had to have”, I wonder?
After all, it’s one thing to cause a recession accidentally, but PJK boasted about his!
jen @ 175,
What specifically about evangelical Christians makes them not “ordinary” Christians in your view? After all, the term “evangelical” really just means Bible-believing, which probably encompasses 90% of Protestants who ever lived, just for starters.
Oh for F’s sake-
are the Libs actually going to regurgitate Stockdale??
We might as well have Meg Lees running as leader of the Dems, or Bronwyn Bishop for PM.
Dyno-
it could be the talking in tongues, the cheque-book based proof of devotion, the blatant homophobia, the talking in tongues, the anti-contraception position, the intolerence of all other religions, the belief in creationism, the denial of scientific evidence that disproves the legends of the bible, the support for conservative bigotted political parties…
do I need to go on? Because I can.
Agree Jen but how many people outside of Victoria know who Alan Stockdale is? Noticed one thing about he is getting more hair on his eyebrows these days than his head, wonder he didn’t privatise them.
jen,
Most evangelical Christians don’t talk in tongues, or believe in the prosperity doctrine, etc, etc. Most of them believe in evolution and don’t see it as a big issue. Most of them practice contraception. Most of the evangelical Christians I know vote Labor (although perhaps that fits within your concept of “bigoted conservative parties”?).
I too could go on, but I suspect this argument isn’t what William runs the site for…
Dyno-
I am perhaps confusing Evangelical with Fundamentalist.
or you are not being honest about what goes on at the Hillside Churches?
happy to be told I am wrong though.
(Not sure how William puts up with us, but hats off to him… it’s fantastic to have these dialogues.)
Dyno, thankyou for informing us that evangelicals practice contraception. I think they need to demand refunds because everytime I go past the local churches there are huge vans fulls of kids! LOL.
Can anyone answer my question regarding the Oil and Supermarket inquiries and what they achieved?
Dyno-
out of interest, and with William’s indulgence: how do you define/describe an Evangelical Christian?
And, are you a Family First voter?
Anyway time to ponder tomorrows political stories, Good night from me and its good night from her, sorry him.
Any chance of a Murdoch by-election thread, William? All this political discussion is oh so interesting, but it’d be great to be able to get back to discussing the next election off the rank..
Rebecca,
See my reply here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=791&cp=2#comment-120657
Giiven that this thread began with Rudd’s popularity -and the licence that provides for positive action in all policy areas- and has spiralled into a detailed analysis of Green issues, perhaps I can tie it together and say I hope Rudd MAKES the Greens irrelevant, by adopting good workable policies. As the only Mandarin-speaking western leader, I feel Rudd is uniquely poised to play a decisive role in global climate resurrection. If he can convince China to make significant emissions cuts, the US and other big emitters will be shamed into doing the same, and there will be hope for the planet. I predict Clever Kev will hand the top Australian job over to Julia Gillard some time before the 2013 election, then he’ll go on to lead the UN’s new Climate Serious bureau, and save the world from choking on its own vomit. (Six billion of us, and we all want to be rock stars…)
Strangely enough, I USED to be an evangelical Christian (even talked in tongues at the time)….big shift from there to atheism, but that’s another story.
This was, of course, quite some time ago.
Even then there was a recognisable distinction between evangelical Christians, who base their beliefs on Christ’s teachings and fundies, who seem to concentrate exclusively on the Old Testament and Revelations.
The evs study Christ and try to emulate him – a lot of the fundies don’t seem to read the Bible at all.
So the evs are into love for all people and the fundies are only the chosen few (which always includes themselves, even though Christ basically says you don’t know if you’re one of the chosen or not, and that many who call him ‘lord’ aren’t really Christians) are worth worrying about.
I read a fundie text once, about a vision of hell. People were burning in pits (individually), being charred to skeletons and then regenerating so that they could burn again (this agony continues, of course, for all eternity). Meanwhile Christ wandered around from pit to pit, pausing to say to the agonised inhabitant “I love you”.
Made me sick.
But the point is, there’s a big difference between those two types of Christian (and a big difference between them and your average conventional church goer).
“Evangelical” simply means Bible-believing and as I said earlier that term would cover the vast majority of Protestants (and plenty of other Christians besides).
Hillsong might be classified as “evangelical” (I’m not sure), but its style of worship and general attitudes on a number of issues would vary widely from many, if not most evangelicals.
I half agree with zoom at 195 – I agree there’s a big difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals.
I disagree with the last statement though – your “average conventional church goer” (in Protestant churches, anyway) would actually fit within most definitions of the word “evangelical”. But they would not be fundamentalists.
This is the way it works in Australia, I don’t know about the US.
Enough on religion I suspect! But jen, to answer your other question, I’ve never remotely considered voting Family First – have you?
Hi Dyno:
No.
I wonder did anyone every stopped to think about what he meant by that. We were moving from a government controlled financial system to one controlled by the market, as a result we where exposed to the reality of the mess we where in because of our closed economy.
It seems to me there are a lot on the right that have not grasped what happened and why it had to happen. I was at a meeting the other day were one gentleman was complaining about the election win by labor and the removal of tariffs over the last 20 years, it all seems quite quaint, a blast from the past.
Charles -
re Blasts from the Past:
whaty does it really say about the state of the liberal party if they are seriously considering bringing back Alan Stockdale, after the drubbing the Kennett government (finally) got from Victorians.
They really are scaping the bottom of the barrel.
They do better to try and woo back Malcolm Fraser.
Is Fraser still a Liberal?
No – he appears to have developed a heart.
Share that has fallen more than 50% Mariner Financial. Founded by Bill Ireland in 2003, after he was moved on from Challenger Financial Group. Four directors, including former Victorian treasurer Alan Stockdale.
Fraser is still a Liberal party member. jen you are unjust, the party has problems but not all members are right wing thugs.
Good ol Conservative Kev has taken his “razor gang” to middle class welfare……NOT.
Kev has deigned that $250,000 a year is a reasonable enough amount of coin that you no longer need Family Tax Benefit B….so no welfare for you.
I bet the Fams earning $220,000 a year are breathing a huge sigh of relief that they are still (in Kev and Therese’ view)in need of welfare and can continue to put food on the table.
Great start to a “new” era Kev.
With this guy leading the ALP, the Greens will never go out of business. Labour will continue to attract moderate conservatives to them and continue to bleed the working class ,compassionate and progressive vote to the Greens.
If the working class, compassionate and progressive vote is 7% we’re in more trouble than I thought!
Jen , Stockdale has massive business networks which could provide much needed donations to the Libs. If you,ve met Stockdale , you’ve met a cold fish
oh Charles,
I’m sure there are some lovely people in the liberal party. There’s just a lot of pricks as well.
Ron, thankfully I have never met Stockdale, bvut I lived`under The Kennett regime and was as appllaed`as I hvve been with Howard’s crew.
Economic “rationalism” at any cost, regardless of the impact on human beings. They were a disgrace.
Jesus, this site really has degenerated into a sickening lefty love-fest, hasn’t it.
zoom, large slabs of the working class, compassionate and progressive were hell bent on ending Howardism last election.
next election, Conservative Kev could be their bogeyman. I hope not, but with indications like the $250,000 cut-off for welfare, Conroys inane attempt at censorship of the net, continued funding of wealthy private schools(including The Brethren’s), medicare safety net for the wealthy sucking up the funds,general blind loyalty to big business ethos etc etc etc , i would say The Greens will be more than fringe dwellers in the next 10 years.
Don’t get me wrong, Conservative Kev is not all bad in this progressives eyes. He WILL be vastly more palatable than JWH. I’m just saying there will be ample territory for the Greens to inhabit after a term or 2 of Kevin07 and Kevin11.
Tipping that 7% will be 10% and solid and will be loud.
The inevitable slight tilt to the Left(for numerous reasons) in the Western world is in its infancy.
AC -
feel free to post as much love as you like for the conservatives. It’s always fun reading the indefensible.
The problem with liberal membership is i don’t think it actually means anything. There were/are elected members of parliament that have no say in policy let alone what happens down in the trenches. Can someone tell me what a Liberal branch does other than leafletting and manning polling booths?
Alan Stockdale, and his ilk, are of huge importance to the Libs due to their contacts and money-raising abilities. No longer can they be reliant on the country’s taxes to spread their gospel. The business money they raised paled in significance next to the 100s of millions of public money spent on government advertising. I’m tipping the Libs will be working hard to re-establish those ties.
Meanwhile don’t expect our new fed gov to reel in tax-funded advertising for the incumbent – just have a look at the labour state governments. Only the elecorate can stop this rampant abuse.
If Labor went further to the left under “Conservative Kev” the Greens would have someone else to moan about (as would the “Labor Left”) after next election, a PM coming from the conservative side of politics. Take your pick. I know which one I prefer.
Gary,
I have a problem with the “this guy isn’t as bad as the last one, so leave him alone” political position.
I would like to see a real change in policy direction, particularly in relation to environmental and social issues. So I and others like me will continue to push for that.
otherwise it won’t happen.
Jen , you are 100% right but it will take years to overcome what Howard left behind
Politically” ALP needs to detroy the Libs “better economic managers” myth
Economically: Inflation is back as Howard stopped fighting it from 2005
Equity: middle AND upper class no means tested welfare takes time to unravel
I don’t think that’s what Gary’s saying, Jen.
If both sides of politics – Greens and Liberals – spend their whole time attacking the Labor Government, then it makes it easier for the Libs to stage a comeback, which makes it even harder for the Greens to achieve what they want to.
I’m repeating myself, but the best position for the Greens to take is that of the reasonable critic – e.g. “We’re pleased that the Rudd Govt has taken X action on issue Y, but it would be good if they took it further and did Z”.
(It’s the kind of approach the Nats take to the Libs – “We disagree with what you’re doing, but if you go ahead and do it, you need to…”)
…so a kind of supportive friend who isn’t afraid to tell you when you’re being a complete prat but balances it by the occasional sincere compliment. At the moment, the Greens are more like the sulky teenager who can’t admit anything mum and dad do is cool.
After all, why should either of the majors listen to the Greens if – even when they do so – they never get acknowledgement for it? (Or the acknowledgement consists of the nyah nyah, told you so, wouldn’t have done it if we hadn’t nagged, type).
Political pressure does not have to consist of negativity.
Zoom , your criticism of the greens is naive.
They are not part of Labor. Its an independent party doing ITS agenda
with Bob Brown well aware of ‘balance’
between a average devil and a rotten devil
zoom,
I can’t speak for the entire membership of the Greens , but if you have read my previous postings oyu would see that I have been fulsome in my praise of Kevin, particularly with his acknowledgement of the need for an apology to indigenous australians, his ratification of Kyoto, hios decsion to disband the “Pacific Soluion”, amnd I just Love Julia. At the same time I am in complete isagreement with him over the Tamar Pulp Mill, the dredging of POrt Phillip Bay , the coninued logging of old growth forests for woodchipping, the mining of uranium for export etc etc .
So, I feel you are being a tad unfair.
And I still can’t Type.
215 zoom – well put. I agree 100%
zoom amd Gary-
I get the feeling you fellas want Bob to join Labor.
Where would PBs be if that happened??
You are just not thinking this through.
I have seen the destructive “agee with everything we believe in or we’ll bring you down” approach from the left caused Labor in the past. Believe me, they were prepared to see the election of a conservative government and see their own side be defeated to get their own way. To me this is totally self defeating. The approach zoom suggests is the way to go.
No, I don’t want Bob to join Labor, and I don’t want the Greens to disappear.
I have made it clear that I’m totally supportive of the Greens right to disagree with the ALP.
However, too often when campaigning for Labor I have got the impression that the Greens regarded the ALP as their real enemy, rather than the Libs (a bizarre example of that was a debate I attended during the election campaign. The Lib candidate didn’t even deign to attend. The Labor candidate focussed on a critique of Liberal policies, whilst the Greens spent most of the debate attacking Labor).
As a political operative, I’m quite sympathetic. After all, the Greens are more likely to lose primary votes to Labor than they are to Liberal. For the Greens, this is deathly important, as their main source of funding appears to be the payment the AEC makes on the basis of primary votes.
So, if the Greens are simply a political party like any other, which puts political survival above all odds, then a focus on attacking Labor makes perfect sense.
However, if the Greens are not a political party like any other, and genuinely put the good of the environment against mere political survival, then they need to recognise who the real enemy is and focus their efforts accordingly.
Otherwise we end up with the Victorian situation, with the Greens using their numbers in the Upper House to scuttle legislation they originally campaigned for, in order to curry favour with the Libs.
I get back to the reasonable adult position – as I say to the kids, for every criticism they make of each other, I want to hear one compliment as well.
And…blame an early morning Australia Day start…what are PBs?
Zoom you are too sensitive to the Greens criticism.
The Greens policys on environment are consistently pro environment whereas Labor’s Pulp Mill & pro logging old growth forrests fo chips is ANTI environment
but for Labor its politically sound
I luv the Greens and usually their environmental criticism’s “embarass most Labor voters because they are true !
Whereas alot of the Greens economic criticisms should be ignored as mainstream Australia does not agree with them for sound economic reasons
Zoom,
not sure which candidate you were listening to but most of us (Bob included), made it clear that we were supporting the election of Rudd, and that getting rid of the Howard government was the focus of much of our campaigning.
I am not going to apologise for being critical of Labor policy. That does not mean that I, and others, do not acknowledge the vast improvement Labor is over the liberals. Nor does it mean that we should back down on pressuring them to change the decisions we disagree with.
After all, if I agreed with them I wouldn’t be in the Greens, I’d be in the Labor party. And I’m not.
PB’s are us- pollbludgers.
I want to make it clear that I too believe there is a definite place in the political landscape for the Greens and admire their ultruism to do with all things green. I share many of their concerns and ideals. However, I also see the need to be politically realistic and believe to achieve the desired ideals, you need to bring the electorate along with you otherwise your “stay at the crease” will be a short one, in which case your ideals and aspirations will never be reached.
The one big difference between Labor and the Greens when it comes to environmental policy is that Labor recognises this reality and the Greens don’t. This will always cause trouble. The fact is Labor can form government and the Greens can’t and while the Greens take the approach of “stuff the political consequences” they never will IMHO.
Rightly or wrongly that is the reality, one we all have to live with and work with.
Criticism of Government policy is a good thing, Jen. Keep it up and you may just capture that large slab of 3% of the vote over the next decade that HarryH was talking about.
I would have thought that the impending doom of global warming would have meant that the Greens were willing to make compromises on other policies to put themselves in the main game and give themselves a chance to fix global warming. Apparently the death of the planet is not as important as a clear conscience.
P.S. Apropos of nothing I just wrote above, it’s still a thrill to type Government Policy and mean Labor Policy
Gary Bruce that was clever political advice !!!!
Get the Greens to be a copy of the ALP & they’ll become extinct
Then all “Family First” have to do is appear to be the real “green” party and
get the green votes
AND of course Family First preferences the Libs
thats the sort of political advice that led the Democrats into the grave
TW-
not sure what you mean re: death of a planet less important than a clear conscience????
I think the death of the planet is obviously of utmost imporatnce, and having a ‘clear conscience ‘is no way mutually exclusive from wanting to see improvements in government approaches to the environment.
Not sure what you are getting at….
Jen what he’s saying is the Greens forget their consciences (policys) on all non green issues & agree to all Labors policys ….then Labor will quid quo and agree to the Greens CC policys which will save the Planet
Political nonsense or jealous of the Greens or both
Also Worm,
are you suggesting that we shouldn’t criticise government policy (Yes, YAY…LABOR gov’t policy) when it is poor policy because of the possibility of only a small increase in the vote? It’s not why we are doing it. It’s because we want to see a change in what is done.
If all we wanted was a higher vote then we would become labor or liberals.
Basically this is becoming ridiculous. A number of you are suggesting that in order to be a good political party the Greens should not criticise labour policy.
What a lot of crap.
Jen , correct
If you are Liberal ‘Glen” , would they be criticising the Libs for criticising labor
but if you are Greens Jen , would they be criticising Greens for criticising labor
Yes , if they are political novices or anti Green
but you said it more concisely ….crap
And in a supreme irony,
I /we cop more flack from Labor people on this site than all the libs put together.
Jen, I am just making criticism of what I see are the deficiencies in Greens policies and campaigning.
The Greens are good at wanting to see change and pouring scorn and derision on any party which does not meet their timetable for change. Yet as a political party they seem incapable of being able to garner enough votes to be the ones who make the changes.
The Greens tell us all about the urgency of action on global warming then high five themselves over a 1% increase in their vote. It’s kind of amusing to watch as an observer of the Greens.
For a party who’s existence revolves around criticising others, they seem very sensitive to criticism of themselves
On a non-partisan note:
just saw a group of true blue’s walking aroung in t-shirts with the oz flag and the slogan
“if you don’t like it then F#ck Off” emblazoned on them.
Makes you proud, don’t it?
Worm my friend,
I think you are resentful of our very existence.
Which is tough, because we are not going to go away anytime soon.
Jen, please stop misrepresenting my position.
I said that you were allowed to criticise Labor policy – but I also said that this should be balanced criticism, giving credit where credit’s due.
I don’t see why the second bit is so hard.
To be really provocative, Family First actually does this – it is prepared to praise either of the majors when they come out with policies that FF supports and criticise when they think either of them have got it wrong.
As I said before, that’s a reasonable position.
To use my sulking teenager analogy, some teenagers seem to think that acknowledging something their parents have said or done as cool undermines their whole rejection of their parents values thing – rather than realising that it’s a sign of maturity.
And, like Gary and Turning Worm, I think what I’m trying to do is to point out the weaknesses in the Greens position which they will need to recognise and overcome in order to remain a viable political force.
I don’t think the ALP is perfect, never have, and see it as important that ALP members continually criticise the performance of their party. (As our branch members said to each other years ago, when a member announced he was resigning because he was disillusioned with the party, “We thought that being disillusioned with the ALP was why anyone joined in the first place.”)
The preparedness of party members to criticise its party and its representatives is one of the reasons for the ALP’s longevity.
TW there will be never any more than 2 mainstream partys so to suggest they should aspire to the impossible is fanciful.
As a Labor person I respect the Greens right to have different policys & be able to criticise Labor. Others here wanted to deny the Greens these rights which is nonsense.
You down play the urgency of CC in your blog which proves you have not read the UN panel of 400 odd world wide scientists CC conclusions nor understood the geo political & commercial forces at work on the issue
zoom-
I’ll try again.
I think I do exactly as you are (repeatedly) asking. I give credit when Labor does something I agree with- read my previous posts pre and post election – and I also continue to criticise what I disagree with.
This is getting terribly repetitive.
ZOOM
To be really provocative, Family First actually does this – it is prepared to praise either of the majors when they come out with policies that FF supports and criticise when they think either of them have got it wrong.
Ron says
No you are not provocative in praising Family First (who preferenced the Libs)
You are a naive novice.
The Democrats would never have preferenced Howard in all 150 seats & didn’t
The Greens would never have preferenced Howard in all 150 seats & didn’t
Family First The Democrats DID preference Howard in all 150 seats ,
demonstrating how absurd your FF praise is (unless you’re a closet FF of course)
Hi zoom, Gary and Turning Worm, I am not from Victoria, so I and probably a lot of other people from interstate would like to know what are the issues and the particular pieces of legislation that the Victorian Government is so furious with the Victorian Greens about rejecting? Is it also about now having different parties in the upper house there? I know there is also a DLP elected as well. Here in South Australia we have ALP, LP, FF, AG, AD and 2 NO Pokies as well. The Rann Government has to deal with all of these parties and each piece of legislation ends up with various combinations of voting. But you never hear a great deal of fuss about upper house voting at all here. No SA Government has had control of the upper house for years and years. But Government continues apace, on and on. I have seen local statistics and the Labor Party and the Liberal Party vote the most together in the upper house here in South Australia. They were recent parliamentary stats. Sometimes Family First and the Greens vote together as well, depending on the legislation. Surely, the Greens do not vote with the Victorian Liberal party all of the time? Green MPs would be voted in by their members ansd supporters to look at each piece of legislation and therefore vote accordingly to party policy or to the issue in hand. Also , the 3 Victorian Green MPs must have been very new to the parliamentary process when elected , not that is any excuse at how they vote, but I am sure it was a shock to be in the real world of the Parliament and probably a shock for the majors to have them there. I would like to hear some facts in regard to this issue, not just , The Greens vote with the Liberals!
And there we have it. The pulp mill was based on regrowth and plantation forest yet support for the pulp mill becomes “pro logging old growth forrests fo chips is ANTI environment”.
I’d be more impressed with the greens if they attacked the use of paper instead wanting to stop sound projects so we have to buy paper in from overseas.
???How does acknowledging that a party (however repugnant) is politically savvy mean that I’m a closet supporter? I think I made it very clear earlier on how opposed to them I am.
It’s not praise to recognise tactics. It would be hard to find someone more opposed to the Liberal party than I am, but I recognise that Howard’s use of wedge politics and distractions were electorally successful. Doesn’t mean I think they were good tactics or I would adopt them myself or I would vote Liberal.
It’s important to recognise what others in politics do successfully in order to improve yourself – I know more about my local opponent, for example, than most of their supporters, and as a result have more contempt for them. Knowledge of how this person operates, what their strengths and weaknesses are and what motivates them, is not admiration and does not mean I’ll vote for them at the next election.
As for being a political novice – I’ve been responsible for at least 10 election campaigns (at each level of government) at a local level over the last ten years, each of which resulted in an above average swing to Labor. I couldn’t have done that if I didn’t have a good idea of what works and what doesn’t. That said, if the Greens don’t want to take on board the message I’m trying to get across – and, as I said previously, it is given in their best interests – it is really no skin off my nose.
After all, most of my members who defected to the Greens have returned to the fold now, so it’s not like they’re a threat to me.
If they took my advice, however, they might be.
Brenton, the Victorian Greens have voted with the Liberals 65% of the time. This includes voting with the Liberals to scuttle legislation which would have necessitated a State plebescite before a nuclear power station could be built in the State, a policy position the Greens had supported during the election campaign.
Jen Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“if you don’t like it then F#ck Off” emblazoned on them.
Makes you proud, don’t it?
And I am sure the designers total lack of imagination can be attributed to some Sydney shock jock. What upsets me is their use of the Australian flag when displaying such crap.
charles.
read The pulp mill. full stop. And the logging of old growth forests for woodchipping.
2 separate , but equally appalling labor-supported acts of environmental vandalsim in Tasmania.
And, by the way, The Greens do have policies that encourage both recycling and reduction in paper usage.
But thanks for the tip.
harles,
am in total agreement with youi re: the misuse of the flag.
It has become an embarrassment rather than something to be proud of.
Hopefully with Howard’s End (take note Zoom) Thanks To Kevin Rudd, the association with nationalism, jingoism, parochialism and out and out racism will dissapate.
that would be ‘Charles’
Zoom , were amendments put forward for these pieces of legislation, so perhaps they could be passed in the future if the Government agreed to them? Obviously there are vast policy differences between the Victorian ALP and the Victorian Greens. Oh well, at the next election all parties as per usual will be judged by their performances by the electors in Victoria. I am not so shocked about policy positions being changed after an election campaign because we would be here for years with statistics concerning things promised by the Majors during election campaigns. I still think that it must be a big change to have other parties in the Upper house. How does the DLP guy vote?
247
zoom -
The Greens and Libs have voted the same in Spring Street 65% of the time because of the complete and utter incompetence of the Brumby government.
Lets not forget that the Greens would have hardly any representation in the Legislative Council had Bracks not changed the electoral system in Victoria. The ALP made a bad move.
Nice to see that Minchin now supports One conservative party in Australia. I agree i think it must be done at a National level first and they applied to all the States. Interesting times ahead, but nows the time when we’re down and out that we change things, we’ve got nothing to lose atm we can’t go any further back then where we are now.
Brenton
How does the DLP guy vote? – who cares lol!
zoom, you know very well that saying the Vic Greens have voted with the Libs 65% of the time is totally misrepresenting the intent of those votes.
The Libs and The Greens are voting against some Labor policy for entirely different reasons. This points to the undeniable fact that Labour are most definately occupying the “political middle ground” these days, with the Libs disagreeing with them from the Right and the Greens disagreeing with them from the Left.
Greens supporters have every right to disagree with Labour policy if they don’t agree with it.
In the transition from Far Right politics back to Centrist politics over the next 10-20 years Modern Australian Labour presently are espousing Conservative policies. It is the Greens place to challenge them and drag them to the Centre and the Libs job to drag them back to the Far Right.
I have no doubt , over the next term or two that Labour will progress Left to a more centrist position, but while we are waiting, people who are sick to death of backward looking social conservatism and welfare to the rich etc will continue to harangue the ALP until they change policy.
Surely for an Aus Labour Party there is no excuse for funding Exclusive Brethren schools, or giving welfare to people earning $240,000 a year(thats $4,500 a week).
oh, and zoom, you still haven’t named any names of who in the ALP delivered Fielding to us. You intimated earlier you knew who made the decision. Is it so shameful that they can’t be named?
Brenton forget the rotten DLP
NO DLP will ever get elected again & only did so this time as a few silly ALP powerbrokers got too cute with preference deals. Those guys have been told never to do so again
Bracks brought in laws guaranteeing minor party balance of power
The other Partys in the upper House makes for better Government which Bracks correctly forcast.
Neither Bracks or Brumby have even remotely complained about obstruction
which tells you the Greens have been responsible despite cliams made here
Yes Ron Bracks and Brumby have not whined about the Greens but other hacks have. The State Office under the pathetic leadership of Stephen Newhman whinges and uses Alp money to campaign against them. I was at meeting last year and Martin Ferguson criticised them heavily over their split ticket decision in the Victorian election of 2006, actually like most in the Party he misrepresented it and said the Greens backed the Liberals which is totally untrue. Dishonesty rules in the party because it cannot stand a party actually believing in something where the Labor Party once had Greens beliefs but now believes in corporate greed and spin to ensure it occurs.
HarryH , Zoom cann’t tell what he does not know
I can say it was the same senior powerbrokers who delivered a DLP seat in Vic’s Upper House.
Fielding FF will not get re-elected next time , the ALP prefs will go to the Greens
intead as they did in 2007 meaning either a Green or ALP Senator replacing FF
Ron @ 241, my posts have not made any comment one way or another about the validity of the climate change debate. I take it that you agree with Greens criticism of Rudd’s policy of waiting for the Garnaut Report before making the big decisions on how to tackle global warming?
HarryH
one of the senior ALP powerbrokers who made the silly FF decision sits in the Senate and is embarassed everytime he looks accross the Senate Chamber and sees “his man” Fielding !!!!!!
What the ALP cutely but foolishly tried to do was to prefernce FF before the Greens thinking it would guarantee an ALP senate seat.
Instead it delivered a FF seat
(which IF Labor had of preferenced the Greens instead as the ALP did in 2007 WOULD HAVE delivered a Greens Senate seat)
Ron its the members of the retail and hospitality union who would have had a say, the mob who wanted Jacinta Collins.
The ‘groupers’ who are making a comeback, these people have a right wing agenda consisting of anti abortion, anti homosexuality, right wing economics, a women’s position is in the home and not the boardroom, and pro marriage.
The groupers are back and really their union should never have been allowed to be affliated with party again.
229 Ron – Not at all Ron. If you want the Greens to be a minority party forever and a day just let them keep going the way they are. How are their present policies and approach working for them? They have been around for a long time and are still a minor party. Having ideals is well and fine but ignoring the realities of government is a luxury the Greens have at the moment and will continue to have with their view on the realities of politics.
Maybe they don’t have a desire to be a major political player? Hmm, that’s possible I suppose. If that’s the case they’re going along beautifully.
So Gary the Greens need to have the same right wing agenda as Labor to actually be relevant.
A party that sells out it consistency time after time and then through spin tells us all it is doing something for us all.
Instead its big business who runs Victoria and runs Australia.
Gary your comments no doubt suggest to me that you work for the Labor Party, you are an appatichik , wonder when you will get your seat? That is how it happens does it not?
Marky marky – the kind of attitude you display in 263 is exactly what I’m criticising – the idea that everyone inside the ALP is driven purely by political gain. It’s the kind of attitude shown when the ALP does something worthwhile environmentally and it is creditted to the Greens – ignoring the fact that within the Labor Party there are a substantial number of people committed to and working for a better environment.
Likewise, Glen’s comment about Upper House reform – yes, Labor knew at the time that the reforms would cost them seats and would certainly cost them control of the Upper House. I’m very proud of a Party which implemented the reforms anyway, when they could have walked away from them. I’m especially proud of those friends of mine in the Upper House who knowingly voted themselves out of a job.
Of course, Glen being a conservative, the idea of a party implementing a principled policy even though it hurt them politically is one he can’t grasp.
HarryH, whatever the intention the result is the same…and illustrates the problem we were talking about before, that if Labor is attacked from both sides its chances of holding government are lessened. The Greens, by using such tactics, could effectively mean the return of the Libs earlier than necessary. (Glen’s praise of the Greens in this regard should serve as a dire warning!) Several bloggers here have tried to point out that this approach is counter productive for the Greens – a bit of a pyrrhic victory if you succeed in switching voters to the Libs.
Brenton asked me the details, I gave them. I’m quite happy to have others justify the Greens actions for them, that’s not within my scope of competence (or indeed interest).
Yes, I know some of those involved in the FF fiasco and very naughty boys they were. However, they were well intentioned (good intentions being the cause of more harm in the world than anything else I can really think of) and I like them, so I’m not naming names…you should have figured out by now that I’m a very loyal person.
Glen,
If you are about. What is your take on the Liberal Leadership power play in Victoria?
Is start of the beginning of a revival?
Is it the end of the beginning of a revival?
Is it the end of the start of a revival?
Is it the beginning of the end of a revival?
Liberals in Victoria are the joke!
261
marky marky Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Ron its the members of the retail and hospitality union who would have had a say, the mob who wanted Jacinta Collins.
Ron says
rubbish. You just demonstrated how little you know of ALP powerbrokers and I don’t intend to add to blog #260
Garry Bruce
As a Labor person I’m delighted the greens exist with their prefs
Your “advice” for the Greens as to how they could get bigger is politically flawed.
You do not get it that there will never be a 3rd force
If they moved policy wise towards the centre , they’re finished politically
Fortunately the Greens understand this so they won’t comit political suicide like the Democrats. Thats good for the Greens & good for Labor
zoom, i’m not particularly interested in the names, although i do await the (hopefully soon) demise of our current Minister for Communications.
The fact that you are unwilling to “out” them through your “liking” for them or your “loyalty” to your colleagues is a good enough sign to me. The fact that they want to hide behind anonymity,through shame, points to such foolishness never happening again.
Oh, and i had to giggle when you said the Greens “intention” about their decisions are irrelevant and its the result that counts, and then 2 sentences later you excused Fieldings ALP helpers because their “intentions” were good.
Oh well…….shit happens.
I can see your point that if Labor and the Greens work against the Conservatives then everything will be better. I agree.
But at the moment , the Greens are a progressive party and Labour are acting like a conservative party. You can’t really expect the Greens to happy clap along behind Labour at the moment. Especially after Conservative Kev deliberately sabotaged a Labour/Green BoP in the Senate by helping turn the second ACT senate seat from probable Green to Lib.
This was a very calculated move by KR. The last thing he wanted was a Labour/Green senate.
Ron
that assumes that if the Greens didn’t exist, the present Green voting bloc wouldn’t go to Labor. I think that’s a big assumption – that a left of centre party supporters would all vote Liberal if the left of centre party didn’t exist.
If the Greens can’t even hope to be a third force, then WTF is the point of their existence? If they want to have real influence on environmental outcomes (which I am assuming is the point of their existence) then the bigger bloc of votes they influence the better.
Of course, if they just want to be a protest party for disenchanted Labor voters, then they’re doing fine at present.
However, I’d find my job a lot easier if disenchanted Labor voters stayed in the fold and helped that way.
The DLP has continued its amazing comeback – winning the Barbados election in a landslide.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/
How nice it must be to live in a country where elections are fought only between two different Labour parties
Zoom your job of handing out HTV ’s won’t change
Your belief the Greens could ever be a 3rd force is politically fancilful
Unlike you the Greens are politically astute & have had ll continue to have influence both on policy & its direction.
Your understanding of politics & the interaction of political voting blocs between greens and the varous blocs of Labor voters is a laugh
Ron
at the risk of seeming trite and a tad pedantic may i point you to the greens in west germany and their phenomenal rise and impact on the political agenda,so i wouldnt necessarily “write ‘ them off
also i believe they are serving a useful purpose,a bit like FF and the nats viz representing narrow interest groups with little semblance to mainstream thinking
but allowing a chance for ‘pressure groups’ to vent there spleen.
adam
but what are their policies on CC
i would like to ask a simple question to all the Kevin07ers out there:
can anyone please justify the $250,000 cap to the lucrative Family Tax Benefit B?
it is a ludicrously high threshold to set.
HarryH, it’s a simple question with a simple answer if you knew anything about how Latham’s policies were treated by the media in the ‘04 election.
Ron, I shudder to think where one has to get to in the political game for becoming a sycophant to the Greens to seem like a good idea.
yep gusface you’re right they’ve made a big mark in Germany
yep you’re right they are serving a useful purpose
No don’t agree they “representing narrow interest groups with little semblance to mainstream thinking” as reagards Climate & environmental issues.
I think they’ve made them gradually mainstream
but yep on non Climate & environmental issues you’re right they’re not mainstream.
So mostly Gusface I agree with your blog
But as a Labor person I love their preferences which they will ALWAYS generally give rather than us facing in their place FF who’ll usually pref the Libs
which is why I’m baffled at some of the anti Green sentiments made by Labor people here especially given the history of the anti Labor DLP pref history 2 Libs
Ron
maybe its the fear that once the greens hold the BOP in the senate that “radical” legilstaion will be passed that although ‘green’ in origin will be regarded by the great unwashed as ‘labor’ policy
(remember J-Ho was able to conjure all sorts of demons and blame em on the labor devils)
Ron, a bit of respect please – when I say I’ve been responsible for running election campaigns, that’s exactly what I meant. Of course that means handing out lots of HTVs – even Brumby and Rudd do that – and I hope you’re not slurring those who do that as insignificant politically.
Bit tired of saying I’m not anti green and like Gus I believe there is a much greater role for the Greens than you forecast…which makes me more pro Green than you are.
I’m not sure how you can say on one hand that the Greens are politically astute and then on the other that they’ll never amount to much…but then you don’t seem to be into reasoned argument either.
I’ve illustrated my concerns about the Greens with real examples. I’d be interested in you attempting the same.
BTW I don’t think climate change were made central issues due to the Greens’ efforts (for someone who’s playing ‘I’m a bigger Labor insider than you are” that’s remarkably ignorant) – as Jen said, the Greens couldn’t really get the message across until it was picked up by the mainstream (which gets back to how concerned I’d be as a Green if, in an election which dealt so much with environmental issues, my party only managed a less than 1% gain on primaries).
HarryH
The $250,000 cap to the lucrative Family Tax Benefit B APPEARS disgracefully high.
However there are NUMEROUS like welfare programs like Benefit B for the upper class & middle class that are NON MEANS TESTED (created by Howard)
Kev07 may be going to put a line in the sand for ALL of these at 250,000
Then subsequently gradually reduce the 250,000 threshold.
Its a complex task to unravel Howard’s vote buying welfare schemes
Ron, i see the “logic” in the slowly slowly approach BUT only if you swallow the propaganda that welfare to the wealthy is popular with the masses. it is NOT. It is just standard issue Liberal Party thinking. It is not one of the things that sustained Howardism. Things like inate racism and dog whistling and fear is what sustained Howardism .
Without 9/11 Howardism would have ended long ago. Significant parts of the population were craving security and Howard cynically exploited that. When the fear subsided with the passing years so did the political usefulness of fear as a Howardism tactic.
Welfare to the wealthy should be scrapped immediately by ANY Labour government. It would be popular and should be basic Labour policy.
Setting the limit at an obscene $250,000 catches a mere 4,000 seriously wealthy familys, saving $40Mil.
Setting the limit at $100,000 catches 60,000 families. Imagine the help this would be to the “inflation beast”.
So now i hear all the Kevin07ers saying “but $100,000 a year aint much these days”and we aint into that class warfare stuff these days…..well ok, how about we make it $150,000. Surely that is more than enough to get by on without the need for welfare.
Cmon.
gusface@275
if the Greens get the BoP maybe the 2 majors will have to cut the charade of combat and vote together on most of their likeminded policies to slay the horrible Green monster.
Remember ALL 3 parties will hold the BoP.
Scary stuff for the Big 2.
Ron @ 277 – You may be right.
Plus, just because they are earning $250,000+ doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t miss the money. Many of the moderately rich sail much closer to the financial wind than those on average incomes. So do quite a few of the more seriously rich for that matter.
Gusface ,
Those blogers have seriously under estimated Kev 07. Labor will definitively trade with the Greens plus Mr X at the margin.
But for the benefit of Zoom & others , Kev 07 is the most conservative Leader the ALP has EVER had. The proof ?…listen to his effect on Julia
So no radical Greens or Mr X or FF legislation will get passed
For the sake of illustration only , I’ll use ‘tags’ & discuss shallowly
Globilisation has forced Labor to accept a market economy & fiscal responsibility
if it wanted to govern.
Labor has moved to the spectrum of centre left to centre right (depending on which policy was decided on)
Labor gained new voters (the left libs or wet libs & their kids but lost the Labor left …socialist left who’ve gone to the Greens.
Zoom naively thinks if there were no Greens , Labor would get them back without losing the middle ground or changing policy towards the left
In fact if there were no Greens , splinter ‘left’ partys would spring up plus FF and the prefs WOULD BE “uncontrolled’ to Labors loss
Oh and to those with a conscience
Labor spent 23 years , yes 23 years in opposition listening to party officials who believed conscience & labor principles could never be corrupted.
I’ll take Government anytime …accept the compromises ..because the net will be a gain or the people compared to having a Howard
The Greens definitely need to learn from the Dems mistakes, and the DLPs too.
Meg took Dems too far to the right, then Tash took them to the left to correct. Alienated supporters in both halves of the Dems.
Why are the ALP so desparate for “credit” (if Zoom is to be believed). Aren’t they grown men and women, who can do things without constant approval-seeking?
The ALP wsa founded in the early 1890s but took till 1912 to have a fleeting minority government, which was sabotaged by a man who believed what zoom is saying – Australia is fundamentally conservative. And who then destroyed the party to save himself. This is the ALP thinking on this blog apparently, do what you need to do to appease “Conservative” Australia without looking at what a menace Conservative Australia actually is (and how unAustralian it is too!) – anti-abortion, women in the home, anti-homosexual and so on.
Supposedly the Greens should have dumped their opposition to this to get a few ALP Catholics off their back. As if Conroy and friends would have then voted for Kyoto in return. Look at Mick Costa in NSW, Conroy, the Groupers – none of them believe in climate change – they are not going to change these views to humour the Greens and they would rather deal with the DLP than the Greens.
Adam- you’re back.
I thought you would never talk to us again: (just got in trouble from resident Labor voter that I would prefer to blog than…)
I would like an explanation for the seeming projection that the Greens are attacking Labor and undermining the left-leaning base. So Not True.
Why are we being attacked when the threat from the neo-Cons is still so real : A Repug in office in the US, and (snigger) the threat of Brendan Nelson as PM?
Jen I will put my views like this.
Now I know about old growth and the need for nesting holes and all that, so I’m not going to say you don’t need old growth forest. And I used to bush walk and I love the creaks, but have observed there is very little unburnt forest in Victoria. I have lived in Hobart and have watch the fires traverse Mount Wellington. Thats not to say there are not some wonderful old stands in Tasmania. There is.
I now live on a farm and have personally planted thousands of trees, and have noted that if you deep rip, and water them in, they grow. I suspect forest do the same ( with a lot less work).
Oil; once used is gone; it doesn’t grow on trees. Uranium once used is a danger to all living things for hundreds of thousands of years.
I was in a shop once; a person hit the roof because the product was presented in a paper bag instead of a plastic one. Paper is bio degradable and comes from a renewable resource. Plastic bags are a blot on our environment.
I suppose to be fair I should ask, what is the position of the green party?
I should add – you can see when they ALP has been successful with environmental issues – Wran, RIchardson, Hawke and so on – it is because they listened to the polls – ordinary people and activists – not to the party heirarchy, which is filled with those loathsome Catholic splittists that have been part of the party since it was founded.
Too much of the mythical light on the hill rubbish has been about Irish Catholic garbage of chips on shoulders etc, not enough about how the ALP evolved into a modern social democratic party that responded to the middle class eg Whitlam, Wran and so on.
When the middle class leaned left, they were wanting middle class comforts – whales saved, nukes banned, pollution removed, NOT threatening teenage girls because they got knocked up, or carrying on about giving condoms out in Kenya.
Some of the discussion on Labor and Green policies seems a bit unreal. Its actually a lot more efficient economically and otherwise to pay subsidies across the board and use the main tax rates to collect the necessary revenue. The whole tax system is biased in giving deductions which have a much higher benefit for higher income levels. Eg its much better to allow everyone $1000 for health expenses rather than allow an amount of up to $2000 as a tax deduction. Same with super and many other things. This tends to be the way progressive European and other govts work. Having caps on “welfare” payments sounds like its benefiting poorer people but it leads to a range of problems with higher income people thinking they are subsidising welfare and so demanding tax cuts. The Whitlam govt abolition of tertiary fees was an example – at one level it was middle class welfare but also benefited many working class people. Now with all the schemes for HECS and fees we have a system which allows high income earners to buy their way in. Its not obvious that having complex caps instead of a more transparent system of tax is fairer.
Equally with incomes and tax generally. We have currently bought the free market ideology thoroughly. If we had a maximum level of income of a few times the average (and with very high tax rates after that) we would have a much more egalitarian society and fewer problems with wasteful consumption and environmental destruction. Those who couldn’t cope on an income of say $300,000 a year would be allowed free financial counseling.
Feel better with all that off your chest TEV? I’m pretty sure it’s not Labor policy to ban abortions or ban women from working or ban condoms. Maybe you have had your head in the American election for too long.
Ron
I don’t know whether Kev will be the most conservative ALP leader, his gift to Bush may be an indication of his thinking.
He has a true battlers background and identifies with many of their stuggles in a harsh world. One thing he is though is ruthless.
Worm, you need to realise it doesn’t matter what ALP policy is, we aren’t talking about ALP policy. We are talking about how some contributers here, yourself included, believe the Greens should give their opposition to these policies up, and mollycoddle the likes of Conroy, in order to get a few iconic environmental policies through – when you know full well that these ALP hacks have NO intention of changing their opposition to the Greens or their policies.
Electoral suicide it would be.
Marn Fergssn is one of these. Hatred of the Greens is in his bones – it wouldn’t matter what the Greens did. I don’t know why the ALP contributers here are so keen not to look at the behaviour of their own people.
There is a valid discussion of good electoral tactics for the Greens – but this ain’t it.
A lot of the ALP guff on this board is premised on the “united front” that the Greens should recognise the Libs as the enemy, but Lenin had the right idea.
The Greens medium term objective should be to destroy the ALP – clear the debris out of the way so they can take on the Libs in a real fight.
Arbie Jay , I’m aware of his internal political & policy debates and he is very conservative….economically like Hawke but more gradualist on social issues but without any labor left instead micro managing equity outcomes.
The Elect Vessel ,
agree Zoom & co are too sensitive to labor being criticised but their obvious antipathy to the Greens shows they’re novices
as to your belief Labor powerbrokers would prefer to deal with the DLP than the Greens , I can definitively assure you this is not the case. I do know TEV.
The ALP preference meeting decided by majority to preference the DLP over the Greens in the 2003 Vic Upper House to try & pinch the majority.
It was a longshot. Political realism said then the majority could not be achieved.
It was a poor political nubers decision apart from an appaling moral one
It has since been decided that irrepective the DLP will not be preferenced before the Greens in future
Rudds’s Standards of Ministerial Ethics list.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23114331-948,00.html
TEV, I would love for you to find a post of mine which says the Greens should give up their policies to make a deal with the Labor party.
My posts have been talking about the inability of the Greens to capture the public vote. I really don’t know what Conroy or Ferguson have to do with that other than you wanting to throw their names around because you think it will muddy the waters in some way.
Perhaps if the Greens had more of the spirit of Lenin in them and took on the Labor party head on then they would get greater respect from some. The Greens tactics seem to be to remain in a bubble of moral rectitude while they criticise others for making compromises in policy in order to beat the Liberals at the election.
Worm you just do not get it
The Greens are NOT to quote you “wanting capture the public vote”
the Greens are trying to get the support of voters who support their policys
AND THEY HAVE SUCEEDED !!!!! winning 7% of the electorate.
With partial BOP and being an important prefs ally to the ALP , they can lever public policy and do so.
You have misunderstood the political game…..its called nubers & influence
Your expectation they should try to be a major party defies the realities and sounds like sour grapes against a successful political ally of Labor
This will NEVER Happen in WA
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23114724-5005361,00.html
TWorm, the election is now over. The Libs have been dethroned. All hail Kev. I will be eternally grateful that he helped to defeat Howardism when he did. 4 more years could have been ghastly.
But now Labour are running the ship. No more excuses that Kev is tailoring his policies to keep the Conservative dragon at bay. The Conservatives are a rabble. In power nowhere.
Without being stupid about it, he should from here on in be acting like the leader of a centrist, progressive/mildly conservative Australian Labour Party.
Now, it is only early, but many peoples fear is that Kev is not just acting Conservative.
Ron summed up nicely earlier that globalisation forced Labour to the Right. This is correct. That is where the Greens fit in. To fill the void left. If Labour and the Greens continue to pref each other exclusively, they will remain in power for the foreseeable future.
It is worrying though when Labour deliberately obstruct chances at Labour/Green senates. I suspect this trick won’t be successful again.
Kev wanted a do-nothing 1st term and he got one. From 2010 there will be a turning back of Conservatism in Oz.
Ron, I know the Greens don’t want to win the popular vote. I know that the lower house candidates are just a vote farming/money making exercise and that most Greens candidates would actually be embarrassed to say that they represent the people who’s electorates they stand in.
Don’t you think it’s a fair point of criticism that they don’t consider global warming to be so important that they would want to win the popular vote? That the Greens don’t think the solutions some governments are trying such as wind farms are worth getting vocal in support of lest it upset one of their core demographics of NIMBY aestheticists? It certainly seems to rub a lot of Greens the wrong way whenever I raise these issues with them.
HarryH , could not agree more with your views.
this term , fight inflation to prevent interest rates going thru the roof and otherwise be cautious to cement a longterm Labor with Greens support
both workchoices & CC legislation will be moderate laws
IF Kev 07 tried to unravel all “Howardism” in one term , the number of disaffected groups & the calamity the Media would make of it would mean a loss in 2010
HarryH, Rudd’s “centrist, progressive/mildly conservative Australian Labour Party”
over 3 to 4 terms will demolish “Howardism” completely
Also Ron just for completeness sake, which post did you get your quote from me “wanting capture the public vote” from?
I’m fascinated by how much flack John McCain is getting for opposing the Bush tax-cuts, McCain talks a lot about balancing the budget and cutting spending (of course this is always a lot easier said than done). This is the problem with the tax cuts of both Reagan and Bush, neither were able to offset government spending to put the budget in neutral, and yet McCain gets hammered for doing something your average voter can understand – trying to keep their budget in the black (if your can’t cut spending, you can’t finance tax-cuts), something anyone with a household budget can understand.
Debt is a big problem in the US, the sub-prime crisis in the US just the latest manifestation. While big-bang tax-cuts might play to the GOP base, the Democrats will be able to play on the economic fears of pushing the budget even further in debt in an environment where the cost of debt is starting to become more worrysome. The Democrats will be able to paint the Republicans as fiscally irreponsbile for tax-cuts that will help only a small % of people, the Democrats can talk about the spiralling debt, and talk about them being the last administration to balance a budget, something Mr. Deficit Cheney didn’t think was very important. The Dems can even indulge in a little populist nationalism about the debt, talking about how it weakens America’s position in the world, which most of the voters will buy.
Here’s a graph of the public debt in America, and the Bush proflicacy certainly hasn’t helped with tax cuts and more pork-barrelling making the chasm even larger. Even Paul Kelly is talking about US having to face reality about this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Public_debt_per_GDP_1791-2006.svg
Oops sorry William, wrong thread
Like TW, I’m a bit nonplussed at some of the interpretations of my comments. All I can assume is that the thread is not being read continuously (or that some commentator have abysmal clear thinking skills).
For the record:
(i) Greens have every right to criticise Labor policy and should do so as vocally as possible.
(ii) However, rights bring responsibilities. If Greens put the environment over political considerations, they should give credit where credit is due. (This is not being ‘desperate for credit’ – I personally don’t care a toss whether the Greens follow this advice or not. It’s called be consistent).
As stated earlier, one of my gripes with the Greens is the idea pushed by many members that their party is above politics and somehow ‘holier than thou’. If this is true, standing up for environmental actions taken by other parties shouldn’t be a problem. If it isn’t, then let’s be real about this and stop treating the Greens as above criticism.
So if the Libs come out with a brilliant policy position on the environment, or FF does, or the Nats do, the Greens should be prepared to acknowledge this.
As it is, when there’s a real environmental stoush on – taking on the Japanese, the mountain cattlemen (which cost Labor a couple of rural seats), windfarms – the Greens are missing in action. (They’re quite happy to take up populist causes like the North South pipeline).
(iii) My comments have had nothing to do with the ALP itself (other than that I’m peeved that when the Labor Govt brings in good environmental policy with no help from the Greens, the Greens get the credit). I was asked to explain why I have a grump against the Greens and did this. Since then, I’ve been responding to comments on these grumps.
(iv) Yes, there is a shuffle system whereby the ALP picks up disaffected small libs and loses (at less than 1% in the election) disaffected ALP and lefty members. However, to assume that if there wasn’t a left of centre party (whether they’re called the Greens or not) most of that vote wouldn’t go to Labor is just ridiculous. It’s not politically naive, it simply shows no undertstaning of human nature – “Oh, I don’t have a far left Party to represent me, so I’ll vote Conservative” – WTF?
Ron says splinter groups would arise. Maybe so. I premised my earlier comments on there being no left of centre party at all.
(v) Where did I say that Australians are fundamentally conservative? Where did I suggest Kev wasn’t? Why put words in my mouth (or opinions to my name?)
Spirit of Lenin????????????
This is getting ridiculous.
The greens want some changes to environmental and social policies that we have been lobbying for since year dot.
WE supported labor with our preferences, and are delighted at the result.
We attract support from voters who decide that they want some of the things we are advocating for to happen e anti- nukes, or anti-loggong or pro greater investment in sustainable energy or support for gay marriage or concern for traement of refugees asnd many many other positions that neither of the major parties endorse to our stisfaction as individual voters.
In doing so we bring to bear pressure on the governmenty of the day to hopefully amend or change their policy and we raise awareness of issues i the political dis course of this country. At every level -local, state and federal politics.
That is not being “holier than thou”. That is using the political process to effect.
That is the role of the minor parties.
Annd for those of you who do not agree (around 90%)who do not vote Green, then continue to not do so.
And zoom: I’ll say it yet again. We do give Labor credit when we agree with their policies or decisions, desp[ite your repeated assertions that we do not. Simply incorrect.
Zoom – When did the labour govt bring in good environmental policy?
And if the Libs, FF or anyone else put forward “brilliant policy on the environment” be rest assured it will be judged on its merits and weighed up against their other policies come preference time. Untill that happens there is still only one party that is putting forward brilliant policy on the environment with daylight a clear second.
Deano
I refer again to the removal of cattle from the High Plains, the promotion of alternative energies such as wind farms, and taking on the Japanese regards whaling – let alone the black balloon campaign, very successful campaigns on water recycling, signing Kyoto etc.
Removal of cattle from the High Plains was something that only a Labor government could have achieved. There was intense pressure from within the party to make this decision, despite the knowledge that it would hurt politically. At least two of the pollies on the parliamentary taskforce (Rob Mitchell, Ian Maxfield) suffered for this at the next election, with mountain cattlemen targetting their campaigns.
Given the small number of mountain cattlemen involved (one protest, involving four mountain cattlemen, which included a local National pollie and his wife, got national coverage), it wouldn’t have taken many people pushing the other viewpoint to counteract their impact.
The party’s decision on this issue was portrayed as being a sop to inner city Greens. It wasn’t (because if it was, surely some of those inner city Greens would have been involved in promoting the government’s decision). It was a recognition of the environmental imperative involved, given the weight of the scientific evidence.
Greens should not just support good environmental policy proposals when considering preferences. Political decisions are made on a daily basis, not once every three years. Many of the important decisions are made outside of the election cycle, as a reaction to circumstances.
I don’t sit back waiting for an election to bob up to make my political views known, so I don’t expect that Greens members do either. I would expect anyone who is passionate about the environment to have their say on important environmental issues, let alone a political party which sees them as their reason for existence.
Jen, I don’t have a problem with you or your approach. However, you did agree with me that the Greens failed to support Labor on the cattle issue. I continue to be disappointed about the Greens lack of solidarity when it comes to wind farms – is it true that there is no Green policy supporting windfarms, or have those internal divisions been overcome since the Victorian State election?
Jen @ 303,
That all sounds very noble and pure except it comes unstuck when Greens start saying they hope Labor politicians rot in their catholic hell for giving ground on some issues in order to win the broader struggle. I will forever reserve the right to put the blowtorch to any party which uses that kind of language when describing the Labor party.
fair enough. but that is the view of one individual not the party.
And I take exception to you making those generalities, unless you apply them to all members of your own party who use hyperbole and say excessive things at times.
And zoom, I’ll say it again. As a local candidate I absolutlely DID support the position on alpine grazing, representing my party. What i said was that we needed more resources to do it better at the time.
I’m off to Mt Buffalo.
Cheers, and Go obama.
John Howard,
Building the future by contrrolling the past?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23113562-953,00.html
Zoom – Firstly, the Greens did support the banning of cattle in the high country.
Banning cattle grazing, signing Kyoto, putting some pressure on japanese whaling are all good enviro initiatives by labour. But they pale into significance when you put it up against their support of increased uranium mining, pulp mills, desal plants, bay dredging, refusing to set emission targets, etc. Your on a hiding next to nothing if you think that Labour has any enviro cred whatsoever. In fact, anyone who voted Labour at the last election consolidated Australia’s position as the one of the worse countries in the world re global warming.
I reiterate the Greens don’t just look at enviro policy when preferencing. Parties are weighed up on the sum of all of their policies. I find it hard to cop flak from a Labourite re preferences when you think back to the Fielding debacle. No way would you find the Greens ever doing such a deal. Call it political ignorance or niaviety but our voters expect nothing less as far as integrity goes. Meanwhile the 2 majors keep playing the game of spin, lies and backroom deals. Politicians will remain at the bottom of public perceptions as far as honesty and integrity goes. And we will keep getting the likes Conroy, Andrews, Mirabella, Kelly, Brumby, Vaille representing us. No-one trusts or respects them but apathy keeps on electing them.
TurningWorm , you are so, so sensitive! What I verbalised in a previous post was a purely individual reaction, nothing to do with the bloody Greens at all! Also , a comment which I apologised for as well. I have voted Labor for God’s sake and I was blogging in relation to an issue that I am more than passionate about. As though Labor people dont react to issues and individuals from time to time and say heaps more than I did. From your reaction you OBVIOUSLY know Nicola Roxen personally and may even work for her????? But I can assure you on many blogs around the country the 2004 ‘Happening ‘ is still widely discussed and well remembered. Your attitude is be happy about what you are given and maybe in another 50 years we will do it for you!
Deano
you asked me to list some good enviro policies of Labor’s. I did. I didn’t say that Labor was brilliant in all areas of the environment.
Yes, there was on paper support (I acknowledge Jen’s efforts) for the ban on cattle, but it didn’t translate to bodies on the ground, or the wearing of any of the political flack. As I said, the Nats mounted an effective demonstration with only 4 people – is it beyond the wit of the Greens to do the same? And – as I said repeatedly – the ultimate decision was not influenced by the Greens, but by the clear scientific imperative for action.
The ALP decisions you criticise are an example of the ALP having to live in the real world politically.
But -
(i) increased uranium mining – an attempt to avoid a Liberal wedge. Firstly, it was a Federal policy which – even at the Conference at which it was passed – made it perfectly clear the ultimate decision was up to individual states. This in the knowledge that each of the individual states were against increased uranium mining.
I’m also not sure about the benefits of banning uranium mining, given that so many countries do have nuclear power. If they abandon this because they can’t get uranium, I would expect that we would see MORE coal fired electricity plants. That said, I’m totally opposed to nuclear power in Australia -we simply don’t need it.
(ii) pulp mills – world standard, state of the art, aiming to use plantation timber (a renewable resource), built in an area where an alert populace will ensure that the highest environmental standards are adhered to. Of course, we could have a pulp mill in some Third World country where we can’t see the damage it causes or compensate for it but it doesn’t seem a responsible attitude to me.
Tell me you’ve given up using paper and I’ll let you tell me a pulp mill shouldn’t be built anywhere.
(iii) desal plants – again, not desirable, I agree. But ‘dams are out, so what other suggestions do you have? I think almost any scheme you can come up with to ensure water supply for a growing Melbourne has environmental problems. Moving large contingents of the Melb population (my preferred option) has too.
(iv) bay dredging – I’m not Melb based so don’t know how real some of the concerns are about this. My understanding is not very.
(v) refusing to set emission targets – oh lordy lordy, isn’t is easy when you’re not responsible for the consequences? Labor has set emission targets, as you well know, and will set more when the Garnaut report is returned.
Waiting for economic evidence to back these targets will ensure that it will be extremely hard for a future Governmetn to renege on them. If targets are based on sound economics as well as environmental concerns, the Libs will have to show that the economics are flawed – which neatly shifts the argument from squabbling over which scientist said what.
It was the Labor states who goaded the Commonwealth into action to start with by making it clear that if the Feds weren’t going to act on climate change, they would.
As I repeatedly say, Deano, you can’t pretend to be a party of political integrity and not back this with acknowledgement when the majors get it right. Your refusal to concede that Labor has some enviro cred – or that your own party has sometimes failed in the enviro cred area – demonstrates your own lack of political integrity.
Still amused at the lack of response from any Green on my repeated questions on windfarms.
Greensborough Growler 308, Thanks for the link. Interesting, but not surprising. John Howard must have a lot of ‘thinking’ time on those morning walks of his! I suppose the ‘entourage’ is much reduced.
Brenton, I do not work for or know Nicola Roxon. You greatly overestimate me.
In any case you just started the snowball rolling so to speak. These things tend to take on a life of their own once they start moving. Perhaps in future we can still disagree but try to be more respectful.
TurningWorm, Thankyou for your reply. Yes, I did put my foot into it so to speak that is for sure! Comments in relation to individuals and ‘religion’ are something I need to avoid. I think you will find we are more on the ’same side’ of things than not! We all have pet projects and often emotional reaction can get in the way of reasoned comment and debate.
GG @ 308
“John Howard,
Building the future by controlling the past?”
That story was sooooo sad, rejected by the people of Australia, rejected by his own electorate and now rejected by his own party.
I feel so depressed that this has happened to him, I think I’ll go out and chainsaw a couple of trees to feel better.
William, I hope it is Ok to mention that Suharto is dead. Any experts on Indonesian politics on here?
one less arsehole in the world
HarryH, that is what I thought but was too polite to say.
Anyone encountered the AAP story on Brendan Nelson’s speech to the Young Libs?
Apparently he said that the Liberal Government changed Australia, but Australians wanted change so they got voted out…
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080127/2/15nfy.html
Zoom
you missed the punchline
“Motions including supporting nuclear energy development and use in Australia, recognising Mr Howard as the nation’s best ever prime minister, and supporting of the Liberal Party’s commitment to IR reform were passed on the first day of the conference.”
boom tish
Liberals are Liberals, get used to it! Would anything less be expected at such a gathering? Unfortunately, they are still lurking around!
So we accept that we got booted out because of industrial relations, and we’re going to listen to Australians views about this and change our policy, but we’re totally commited to our original stance ?
They’ve got a bit of work to do, I think.
gusface and Benton, the three motions by the young libs are politically naive. I was hoping for more.
And what of Brendon Nelsons changes.
Workplace relations: Gillard rewriting it as we speak
Tax reform: One out of 5 isn’t good.
education choices: ?
border protection: The pacific solution has been dismantled
national security: Whats this about, troops in iraq.
Young Liberals , that sends a chill down my spine!
zoom, relax, the Australian people will never except a man with a ‘hairdo’ like Brendon Nelson. A few votes from the hairdressing community that is all.
I meant ‘Accept”.
Brendan Nelson has a favourite Slim Dusty album?
You know how I was a right wing death eating troglodyte who has no mercy, compassion or understanding of people in need and people with a different view of life………..
I was only joshing!
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23115080-5005941,00.html
I know…you can understand having one Slim Dusty album, which your aunt from Tamworth gave you as a Christmas present, but a favorite SD album??
I spent an entertaining afternoon once, at a wedding reception in Sydney. We were downstairs and in the foyer outside the Young Libs had one of those felt boards with stick on letters directing people to the YL convention upstairs. We spent the whole arvo sneaking out and rearranging the letters…until they put a security guard out.
Ah youth!!
GG…that is truly awesome.
A person many despised in life as a tyrant passes on and HarryH (318) shares a graceless remark.
Good God GG
I just came in from chainsawing a few pines to get over the party’s rejection of our bestest ever PM, nothing like the smell of petrol, oil and pine sap to pep one up, and you spring this Abbott stuff on me.
What’s happened, Abbott with a heart, Abbott with feeling, and the article almost, almost implies a tactic, tactic concession, though I may be reading too much into it, that raising kids in a gay household could be OK if that was what was best for the kid(s).
What is it, did the libs make new years resolutions to become more human or something.
Re Abbot: Pick me up off the floor. Sanity from where you least expect it.
Abbott with a heart?…………No
Abbott with feeling?………….No
Abbott with a breakdown of the demographics they need to win back………Yep
Yawn.
Howardism has killed the Conservatives for at least a decade, probably 2.
But HattyH, he worked it out, he is a lot smarter than the combined wisdom of the young libs.
Nuclear power plants ra ra ra.
Arbie Jay @ 333 said:
Probably, but NY resolutions rarely last into February. The Mad Monk will be back to pulling wings off blowies in no time, if he isn’t secretly doing it already.
Charles,
Abbott may have worked it out(or more accurately he was reading a prepared speech by crosby or textor lol), but the Libs need someone more “Pure of Heart” than Tony to deliver the spin.
I’m sure Bernie Bantan is having a chuckle at Tony’s expense right now.
Long may Abbott remain a figurehead of the Conservatives.
by way of reference das papa is due on our shores soon and abbott surely wants to prove he has what it takes to kiss the papal ring
Harry etal with apologies to Charles. Would rogue element suffice? Suppose the 1m odd that preceded him were just inconvenient elements. He was a butcher Charles get over it.
BTW
this from Mumble is worth some dwelling on
“Quick comparison between 2004 and 2007: in 2004 the roll increased, from close of rolls to election-day, by 77, 231. In 2007 it was just 1, 466″
gusface he may be the butcher, however he ( or as HarryH points out crosby or textor) has at least worked out where they have to go if they want to win.
However; given that the party has been purged of moderates, and the brains of the new crop, will they have the ability to get there.
Rudd to say ’sorry’ on first day of new parliament, at last, a breath of fresh air!
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23118012-2,00.html
Wonderful Basil.
(See TWorm and zoom: credit where it is due).
Now,
as for access to compensation……
Another sign of hope, Rudd’s maintaining emphasis on homelessness as a national issue:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/28/2147726.htm?section=justin Note that Horatio supports the inquiry to be headed up by Brotherhood of St Laurence head Tony Nicholson. It seems that some NGOs very close to the previous government were more interested in getting grants and keeping close to Johnnie than in considering underlying causes of homelessness and poverty in this country. The Brotherhood of St L has to its credit been a tireless critic of government policies that prevent people from escaping from the poverty trap.
Hang on – it’s no good for me to draw the obvious connection between some members of the ALP and the Catholic religion, but ok for others to do the same with Tony Abbott?
When I did Health Policy at Uni back in the 90s, we had an emininent speaker who had been Health Dept head under Whitlam and of that leaning.
He spoke about how in the late 80s, Victoria first started banning smoking indoors, advertising and so on. Half the ALP state cabinet were in favour, half against. But then the Catholic Archbishop sent them letters supporting the ban, and magically the resistance disappeared. And this guy was Catholic too which was how he knew.
They can have their religion – fine – but understand that not all ALP hacks will be persuaded that a Green Party is OK just because it might have had a change of heart and starts working cooperatively with the ALP.
The deep hatred of the Greens is coming from other issues than the environment and not all the dirt dug on the Greens comes from the conservative camp.
Much of the demonising of the Greens has religious dimensions (hence Family First went after the Greens first) so why get so shirty when this is fired back?
So it’s all the work of Opus Dei, TEV?
You haven’t seen any albino monks lurking in the shadows at Spring Street have you?
My objections to your comments of the other day were based on your misrepresentations of my posts to suit your own arguments. By association you are trying to imply that my criticism of the Greens is based on reasons other than those expressed in my posts. I should tell you that I am an agnostic and support gay marriage.
Whatever hobbyhorse you want to ride in relation to catholic control of the Labor party is yours to ride but please don’t hang your comments off mine.
I will leave the comments about Tony Abbott for the people who made them to explain.
TEV – where do you get ‘deep hatred of the Greens’ from?
My concern is that – if they go Federally the way they appear to be going in the Vic State Parliament – they will make it harder, not easier, for Labor to implement environmental policies and in the long run help undermine the ALP government so that it’s easier for the Libs to get back into power.
(It goes like this, children: if you implement good environmental policy and don’t get any support for doing so – I’ll apolgise in advance, Jen, I’m speaking in generalisations – and, in fact, the credit goes elsewhere – whilst at the same time, the party that gets the credit for the policy is busily attacking you, why do it? Altruism only goes so far…
Whereas, if you implement good environmental policy with the support and applause of the party who’s going to get all the credit anyway, you are more likely to listen to them on other issues, flattery and appreciation being always in style – and therefore more likely to react positively to their criticisms…I admit this is a very simplistic way of putting it, but am not up to writing dissertations at present)
I’m not advocating the Greens working cooperatively with the ALP to please ALP hacks but to ensure that the Right don’t get power a minute sooner than they absolutely have to, something I assume is a common goal shared by both parties.
(And anyone who’s read my comments properly will also realise that I extend to the Greens the full right to critique the ALP, as long as this is coupled by a willingness to acknowledge what they have achieved – which, in the end, is far more than the Greens have or can).
TW
surely you must have heard of the act of obessiance whereby a subject vassal kisses the ring of their liege
quite popoular still in the Catholic Church and various secret societies
btw many years ago i attended a fabian meeting at the ANU where the minister for incredible ties (pun intended) actually held court and various people did in fact kiss his ring.I was later informed it is a sign of respect and loyalty.
I wonder if Der Pabst still has his Hitler Jugend ring.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,grossbild-462273-352861,00.html
Zoom darling-
we do not advocate good environmental policy to win plaudits or otherwise, but to ensure the survival of the species. And so should all parties, regardless of who does or not get the credit.
And don’t say I’m holier than thou – one of the least holy people around, let me assure you.
Adam-
have you been lurking ???
#340 codger -
are talking about Soherto or Tony Abbott?
Gusface, your comments are yours. TEV took umbrage at them not me.
TW
i was merely hoping to inform (umbrage be damned) TEV by referencing your post
ps i generally look forward to your enlightened comments and quips
Jen, the monk is the candlestick maker.
Codger
but do you know the muffin man?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsOAYhCgXyE
codger-
didn’t you know Tony is a born-again progressive, not a nasty,ill-mannered mysogynist after all?
“You haven’t seen any albino monks lurking in the shadows at Spring Street have you?”
I saw Extreme Makeover last night, after watching what they did I’m sure they could turn an albino monk into whoever they so desired.
Jen, if Tony fronts the bring back Frank Zappa sideshow @ the next Tamworth, I’m up for & will believe anything. Nelson & Slim…weasels ripped my flesh…
codger-
surely don’t doubt that Tony could reform?
In much the same vein as the rumour that George`W Bush can read.
Jen as the H word recedes into the sunset the song sheet will change but Tony as the new Malcolm, on trainer wheels? Don’t think so. I’m off to see if Billie Bowden can count to six! Bush & read is an oxymoron.
Speaking of the Young Liberals , this is a good read and very good evidence of why the YL’s have such shitty policies http://www.smh.com.au/news/book-reviews/the-education-of-a-young-liberal/2006/08/21/1156012451880.html
Has anyone else posted that labor is finally going to the High Court to challange Fran Bailey for McEwen. Apologies if someone has already.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23126776-601,00.html
Maybe a new thread is in order??
Scotty
News to me, don’t think it has been posted.
Good idea to challenge, it is not on a technicality like with Kelly over citizenship or holding an office of profit, but purely on the grounds that votes were wrongly excluded.
“The ALP believes that if the AEC’s ruling stands it will mean that voters in McEwen, and in future elections, can be deprived of their vote because of poor handwriting despite their voting intention being clearly marked.”
Fran Baileys response is amusing seeing that she was the one to challenge in the first instance.
What happens next, a recount that follows voters intentions giving it to labor or a new election for the seat? either way it looks like it will be a labor seat.
Yeah, its all the rage up in here
Glen’s pissed about it, so might be worth a laugh
hmm, buggered that up, William…little help?
anyways === http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/795#comments
Federal election preference flows…
The AEC website shows that in the recent 2007 federal election, the Liberal to ALP leakage was 14.55% whilst the National to ALP leakage was 21.88% (19.31% in Qld).
This would mean that roughly speaking only about 60% of the National Party vote should be added to the Liberal vote when predicting results. It also suggests that running a National and a Liberal candidate is counterproductive, as the votes lost through leakage are probably multiples of what might be gained by either party from having their own candidate on the ballot paper.
Also of interest was the leakage of Family First votes to the ALP… Nationally 39.71%… NSW 49.55%… VIC 35.80%… Qld 36.08%… WA 44.07%.
Going the other way, Greens preferences flowed to the coalition… Nationally 20.31%… NSW 19.22%… VIC 17.11%… Qld 24.69%… WA 24.15%.
In comparison here are the 2004 AEC figures…
The AEC website shows that in the 2004 federal election, the Liberal to ALP leakage was 13.94% (18.07% in Qld) whilst the National to ALP leakage was 13.54% (15.85% in Qld). A big increase in the leakage from the National Party therefore from 2004 to 2007.
The leakage of Family First votes to the ALP in 2004… Nationally 33.43%… NSW 41.70%… VIC 32.83%… Qld 30.45%… WA 45.90%. An increase therefore of about 6% from 2004 to 2007 in Qld and Nationally, although a slight drop in WA.
Going the other way in 2004, Greens preferences flowed to the coalition… Nationally 19.21%… NSW 17.68%… VIC 16.86%… Qld 25.12%… WA 22.65%. An increase of about 2% from 2004 to 2007 Nationally.
Also of interest, One nation preferences to the ALP increased nationally from 40.1% in 2004 to 45.1% in 2007 (43.6% to 47% in Qld).
Geoff
Those Lib and Nat votes look like votes from 3 cornered contests and are very small totals, around 27,000 and 35,000, so don’t think can extend to overall contests.
I was surprised to see the amount of Family First preferences Labor got, a lot higher than I would have expected.
The green votes to the libs is interesting, lib protest vote in there? It is a large amount of votes for them. The amount of Green and Australian Democrat votes for the libs is almost equal to the amount of Family First, One Nation and CDP votes they got. Green votes easily the biggest minor party vote for the libs.
One Nation is deceptive as their vote plummeted so it can skew the preference flow.
Also of interest was the CDP vote, it increased with @ 70% of votes going to the libs. I thought some of the One Nation votes may have gone there given the noises Fred made.
Dear Arbie Jay…
Thanks for your response. You could be right about a Liberal protest vote being at least partly to account for the Greens to Liberal preference leak, but I would have thought that the choice of an independent would have been a more likely vehicle for such a vote.
Maybe I have just always assumed that there is some sought of broad ‘leftist’ closeness as between the Greens and the ALP in everyones eyes, whereas perhaps about a quarter of predominantly environmentally concerned (Greens) voters are actually ‘rightist’ orientated and hence preference to the Coalition?
Dear Arbie Jay…
Re the preference leakage of preferences from the National and Liberal parties away from each other.
It was as you said from only a few seats that were three cornered contests, but nonetheless I think that it has potentially large ramifications.
I put this down to the increased opportunity for three cornered contests at the next election. This arises as a result of the 2007 election, as there are now nine less sitting coalition candidates then there were in 2004, due to the gain of nine seats by the ALP. To these can be added any seats with retiring Coalition members at the next election.
If there are separate Liberal and National party senate tickets next time, the Nationals in particular may want to run in as many lower house seats as possible, regardless of their chances of winning any of them, simply to boost their senate chances, by maximising the exposure of the electorate to the National brandname.
Potentially adding further fuel to the fire is the fallout from what I think will be a total breakdown of the already difficult relationship between the Liberal and National parties at a state level in Qld, once the Liberals get around to rejecting the ‘United Conservative Party’ nonsense being bandied about. The same nonsense that National Party leader Lawrence Springborg has effectively staked his reputation on, and which has been supported by his deputy and the current Liberal Party leader and his loyal deputy.
Some details from the 2007 election highlight the potential problem…
In Flynn the ALP won by 0.16%. The Nationals polled 33.56% to the Liberals 14.78% and 14.39% of the Liberal vote went to the ALP. That is 2.13% of the total vote. The Liberal leakage was therefore more that the ALP margin. (Also of interest was that 36.97% of the Greens vote of 1.97% (0.73% of the total vote) went to the Nationals).
In Forde the Nationals polled 12.20% to the Liberals 33.95%. 23.37% of the Nationals vote went to the ALP, which is 2.85% of the total vote. The ALP margin is only very slightly greater at 2.91%.
In Leichardt the Nationals polled 3.98% to the Liberals 38.81% after the Nationals candidate made a complete goose of himself. 24.80% of the Nationals vote leaked to the ALP, which is 0.99% of the total vote. A tight contest next time and an increase in the Nationals vote a the expense of the Liberals could make the difference, even though the ALP margin is currently 4.03%.
In Wide Bay the Liberals did not stand in 2007 but in 2004 they polled 20.87% to the Nationals 27.83%. Given continuing demographic changes, we can expect that upon the eventual retirement of Warren Truss, or perhaps even earlier if thing turn nasty, there will be a no holds barred three cornered contest there.
The leakage of preferences has the potential to be in the 3% to 5% range (15% to 20% of 20% to 25%). The current National Party margin is 8.47% but a swing to the ALP and a bitter three cornered contest could cause an ALP upset there.
Other seats which could be three cornered contests next time, and which could cause a problem for the coalition parties if they are, are Blair and Dawson.
Finally, the current Qld state redistribution could also be another cause of fighting between the Liberal Party and National Party, over which party will contest which state seats, once the new boundaries have been decided. As could the next redistribution of federal Qld seats, when Qld gains another seat.
Geoff
Thanks for that.
Very interesting and certainly cannot assume where preferences will go.
My initial read was that FF had cost labor some seats but having a closer look could just as well say that it was green preferences going to libs that cost labor some seats.
FF going to labor and green going to lib, people not following how to vote or making their own decision or different HTV cards issued?
Cannot even assume that libs will vote nat and nat will vote libs.
The lib and nat coalition looks like it could be headed for a very rocky ride with more of these 3 cornered contests coming up.
Tuckey was almost unseated in WA through labor preferences as was Goward in the NSW state election. Would be a smart strategy to target these type of vulnerable members to further splits between the libs and nats.