Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Greens

Oct 23, 2009

Share

The Greens have chosen a pro-net censorship, hysterical purveyor of moral panics and all round cryptocommunist to stand in the Liberal heartland seat of Higgins.

A seat where the ALP isn’t running, where the Greens actually stood a chance to take the seat with a really good candidate – but where, instead of showing some political smarts and pre-selecting a blue-Green, have opted to alienate half the electorate straight way and chosen a red-Green in the form of Clive Hamilton .

Absolutely baffling.

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

181 comments

Leave a comment

181 thoughts on “Greens choose moralising crypto-communist for Higgins

  1. Possum Comitatus

    Deconst – Somewhere between Buckleys and slightly more but not much than none 😛

    Unless the Libs elect Abbott tomorrow.

  2. David Richards

    Bet the ALP are wishing they had run now.

    Maybe they can assist the Greens?

  3. deconst

    Possum, what do you think Clive’s chances are now of gaining this seat?

  4. EXCLUSIVE: Corrupt, Anti-Democratic Behaviour In The Victorian Greens « The musings of an Australian classical liberal in Washington DC

    […] a seat the Greens stood at least somewhat of a chance of winning, this surprised me, to put it mildly. Why choose someone who wasn’t a local, who had no […]

  5. Fiona Patten

    What’s more I think there are a lot of Liberal voters in Higgins who supported Costello for his economic abilities but when he started making those insane videos for the Catch the Fire Ministries they puked. The Liberal machine should have taken him aside at that point and said he was making them look ridiculous no matter how much he put the budget in surplus. But they didn’t. They just stood by and said its now quite acceptable for the Liberal Party to do the bidding of a man who claims that God gave us the bushfires as pay back for abortion law reform. Howard blew many economic dries away with his acceptance of the Exclusive Brethren. Tony Abbot….Kevin Andrews…Bruce Baird….its reads like a who’s who of the Australian Christian Lobby and I reckon a lot of traditional Liberals of just sick of it.

  6. Fiona Patten

    Indeed Venise there is a Sex Party running in Higgins. Someone had to make a stand against Clive Hamilton. I also think that a lot of the voters of Higgins are tired of the socially conservative Libs.

  7. Venise Alstergren

    Barking: Is there a SEX Party in the out-post of Higgins? I don’t remember them handing out how to vote cards! I’d be happy to vote for them. But, based most fiercely on my previous areas of fury, who am I going to give my prefs to? I’ll never forgive the Greens for what they have done vís-vís Clive Bloody Hamilton. I’m consumed with fury with Labor not deigning to run a candidate and short of being put to a Auto-da-fé, I refuse to vote for all those twits in the Libs.

    Buckley’s choice.

  8. Possum Comitatus

    What’s it matter where they preference, you don’t have to follow their how to vote card.

  9. Barking

    If I lived in Higgins I’d vote for the SEX party, but if they support the libs with prefernces, then I’d take my vote back to the Greens.

  10. Defamed Raw Prawn

    When I was in the Greens in the mid 90s, local branches had the first, second, and final word on candidate selection.

    Most nice branches chose candidates that the State Committee would approve of, but some didn’t, and they didn’t have to. The rest of “The Greens” could take a running jump, in effect.

  11. Barking

    Well, what a good test for the whistle blowers of the COALiton. What a disgrace. Hopefully our Green csndidate will enter the fray with a bit of humanity. I wonder how the doctors wives will reapond to the bottom dwelling of op. Wonder if Kevin has any memory of Costello’s conduct during the Tampa debate. There are a lot of ALP members out there who enjoyed Keatings comments. Best ALP PM for a long time.
    Sharp relief for those of the ALP who bark Kevs lines.

  12. Venise Alstergren

    Michael Wilbur-Ham: Oh I wouldn’t vote for the Coalition in a fit. But I was considering voting Green with prefs to Labor.
    Now this maniac is in favour of internet censorship which is another point I feel deeply about. What is the man, a Catholic? A member of Steve Fielding’s congregation? A certifiable lunatic?
    Try to understand, IMHO Australia has been ill served by politicians who think god is more important than people. Think Tony Abbott and all the Catholics in the Liberal Party and whatever the Prime Minister’s choice of god happens to be. I will not vote for the Liberals, I can’t vote for Labor-’cause they ain’t gonna be there-. And I will not vote for a candidate who wants to interfere with our lives, who wants to tell US, THE VOTERS, what we can/can’t see on the internet.

    I dare say he wants the right to come into our bedrooms as well. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
    Sorry to have been so late in replying to your comment. My only choice is to vote informally. Either that or pay a fine for not turning up to the polling booth.

  13. Barking

    Whenever there is an issue where you have a small minority of people obsessed it you get these comments re ‘Oh I’m outraged, I’m voting for Atilla because you’ve really upset me about possum hunting”. Really, So the most important issue for the voters is net-filtering. Something that I, a political obsessive, had paid little attention to . Your average voter would have little or no engagement with it and finally both the majors have positions that are not open slather.
    The ALP have shown that when you have a voter single issue voter group you only have to be slightly closer to them than the others and whilst they will whinge, they will come back. Or they were never going to vote for you anyway.
    I’m reminded of the old Jeff Kennett comment. “The only person you can trust is the one who says they are not going to vote for you.” Having seen parties chase these minority issues for many years I’d sugest that there is no way it translates to votes in any meaningful way.
    The Greens were not established with net filtering as a core issue. Infact, to all the bleeters here, get an independant to run on an anti-filtering stance, just don’t expect to get your deposit back. Oh, and if you did where would you put your preferences?

  14. Kevin Bonham

    Maybe net filtering has its uses in the right places.

    I’d pay $20/year extra for my Crikey sub if it came with a filter that removed all material by Clive Hamilton.

  15. Simon Shaw

    I was going to vote Greens next election.
    Labor and Liberal have too much going against them now. (For a multitude of reasons I won’t go into).

    Now that the Greens have got Clive Hamilton I’m seriously reconsidering this.
    True, I can’t influence whether he wins or not, (wrong seat). However I can vote elsewhere as a protest.

    If the Greens issue a statement stating they will NOT back the filter, I am unsure if I will change my mind, he COULD become a Senator and end up pushing his pro filter views anyway. (There are a number of ways he could end up in the Senate).

    Amother problem is, he doesn’t have any REAL weight when it comes to climate change either. Sure he can expouse on the issue, hell I can too, but I’m an IT person, not a climatoligist, geologist or atmospheric scientist.

    And neither is Dr. Hamilton.

    Plus, he’s for net filtering, despite the fact he “may be rounding the corner” and he has some damn kookie ideas on sex and koala hunting.

    Couldn’t you find a climate scientist or something?

  16. Possum Comitatus

    Barking went:

    [And Possum, your comment around what constitutes a good result for the Greens. I’ll take that as a straight piss take?]

    No – it’s a by-election in an inner city seat without Labor running and with the conservatives on the nose.

    The Greens got a 53/47 split at the Mayo by-election – a seat more difficult for the Greens than Higgins.

  17. Barking

    Possum said,
    “If the Greens can’t pull 47 to 48% on the two party preferred, I’d see it as a failure.”
    Just in case people were wondering what I was going on about.
    My own prediction, Peter Singer ended up with 37% in a similar setting. That was a long time ago, but as people on these site know, the rusted on group are hard to move. The COALition candidate for the Higgins seat has no profile, will get done if they allow here anywhere near a debate(They wont). expect ot see Bob Brown in Higgins a couple of times and maybe a celebrity or two. The Libs wil stay away like the plague, or hopefully they will bring a Bus, in which case I will have to reconsider. However, TPP Li6 56 Greens 44, anything more would be exceptional!

  18. Barking

    Has there ever been a poll done in a pre byeletion setting? I can’t ever remember one but it would be a lot of fun and they could flesh it out with some issue stuff?
    I can, however, imagine that getting any meaningful sample could be a challenge, but even the old 400 would ive a bit of a rough idea, OK a very rough idea.
    Further the doomsdayers and the Greens no0minee, I have been looking and waiting for the big shock in the Melb Media, nothing. No ‘Oh its the end of the world, Clive doesn’t like kiddies being able to access donkeys and etc.” I must admit taht away from the blogatariate, I don’t thik I’ve ever experienced people sitting around the old BBQ saying, .”He Bozo, what do you think about the nuances of the filtering laws.’ “Oh I think they are absolutely crucial for western civilization as we know it Bazza.”
    For a group who spend so much time with the brake of moderation around stats, I really think that there were some personal biases at play here.
    And Possum, your comment around what constitutes a good result for the Greens. I’ll take that as a straight piss take?

  19. Martin C. Jones

    A reply to myself (#149): Given Hamilton’s recent interview regarding web filtering, I withdraw my view that it doesn’t belong to his core beliefs. Poss, that point is yours. I’ll be interested to see where the Greens go on the issue and whether Clive goes with them or not.

    He is sounding a little too whack-job too often for the crowd he’s trying to win over.

  20. skepticlawyer » Hamilton and Higgins

    […] better comparison. There’s that fervour mixed with piety and self-hatred. Like Andrew Norton, Pollytics isn’t impressed either. On the other hand, Guy Rundle and Mark at LP think he has a […]

  21. deconst

    “Clive Hamilton clarifies position on web filtering”
    http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,26265586-5014239,00.html

    That’s the sort of “pro-censorship” stance I can get behind, as of course the mandatory filter can’t feasibly block child pornography. Nice to now Clive’s come around to a sensible side.

    “Many of them would have voted for an environmentalist with a conservative bent. ie not totally away with the fairies.”
    Venise, have a look at his stuff, he has a stroke of conservatism: “[Clive’s] search takes him to an unexpected conclusion: that we cannot be truly free unless we commit ourselves to a moral life.”
    All it’s about is selling, really. If he can sell that Higgins needs a visionary then he’s got it worked out. Kelly O’Dwyer doesn’t seem like a candidate with a strong vision.

  22. David McRae

    It’s a shame they didn’t grab Guy Pearse if he was available (economic conservative, ex-Liberal, whistle-blower on greenhouse interests and recent Green member – author of “High and Dry” and the essay “Quarry Vision”).

    The red under the bed crap would be gone and the only fight would be the woeful response to Global Warming by the majors by a bloke who’s taken a personal hit to get the message out.

    I may be biased – I liked both his book and essay.

  23. Michael Wilbur-Ham

    Venice,

    Believe it or not, your vote matters. Overall, our politicians do what they say they will. If you look under the spin at what they promise to do, they, on the whole, do it.

    For example, at the last election Rudd made no commitment to amu 2020 reduction in CO2, he promised to sign Kyoto, and he promised to hold an enquiry. He has done this. The people got what they voted for.

    What ever issues you think are most important, look at what the candidates are promising to DO in the next few years (if they got a chance). Compare Greens POLICY with Liberal POLICY (as defined by Turnbull).

    For me, this is like a referendum on climate change (because I see this as the most important issue). If the people of Higgins vote Liberal then both Liberal and Labor will see no need to change their policies of doing next to nothing (but at high cost to you and me). And if we don’t act really soon …

    Forget spin, forget personal aspects of the candidates. Look at what they will want to DO. And take responsibility for any actions (or inactions) that result if your candidate wins.

    It matters!

  24. Greensborough Growler

    Possum,

    Any thoughts about the possibility of Clive extending this policy to include possums?

    http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/Cashing_in_on_Koalas.pdf

  25. Venise Alstergren

    Possum: I agree that Turnbull might have made an excellent Green’s candidate for Higgins in theory. But in my tiny little part of the electorate there would have been virulent hatred for him in large parts of Prahran. The citizens of Toorak would have been onside. But many in Malvern would have disliked his brash Sydneysider habits and his congenital lies.

    But it’s all academic now. Is it not? Personally I’m considering going into a convent or going to live in Argentina.

  26. Venise Alstergren

    I just wanted to thank everyone concerned for all their advice to the people of Higgins. Of whom I happen to be one.

    My political position is left of centre and I’ve always been a noted hater of Peter Costello and, in my naïveté, I’d hoped Labor might come up with a candidate to lose the next election but have a shot at winning the next one after that. Which just goes to show what a bloody fool I am.

    Most of the voters-excluding the Chapel St/Commercial Rd area and some parts of Windsor-are self-conscientiously conservative. Aware of their richer cousins in Toorak who, at the same time, are considered to be Oz versions of parvenu money.

    They believe in religion even if they don’t do much about it. But they tolerated Costello’s varying degrees of belief. This means that they will not hold Ms O’Dwyer’s Catholicism against her.

    As with their religious beliefs, so too with the environment. Many of them espouse environmentally correct attitudes, but I don’t think these beliefs are carried too far in practice. Many of them would have voted for an environmentalist with a conservative bent. ie not totally away with the fairies. In short, Mr Hamilton must have Buckley’s chance. But what would I know? I’m just one of the poor stupid cows who live here.

  27. maxt

    I wouldn’t vote for this nut-case if he was the only candidate standing. The man is a fool, and his stance on censorship of the net, alone, (which he seems to have difficulty grasping) and his pandering to the Christian lobbyists, ensures that he will NEVER get MY vote.

  28. Chatswood Statsman

    I googled “crypto-communism” and got only Orwell’s list of suspected Soviet sympathisers given to MI5.

    Depicting Clive as Lenin fomenting class struggle in the shadows is all a bit much.

    PS: I’ll grant you “moralising”

  29. deconst

    > What matters is primarily the voters of Higgins, but also how it plays out in the parochial Victorian press – particularly the spill-over from Higgins with the local rags, spill-over which takes in the strong Green voting inner city areas of Melbourne.

    The Greens have never shied away from a fight. It’d be very hard to load bad press onto Clive without it being partisan and the Greens can run counter-accusations if that happens.

    As for these elusive doctor’s wives, these days it’s more likely to be banker’s wives and I think they’d be less receptive of the Greens message.

  30. Disasterboy

    Michael Wilbur-Ham 151

    I wasn’t refering to anyone in particular. Nothing wrong with being or sounding a bit “Greens Staffer”. I’m sure I do sometimes.

  31. Michael Wilbur-Ham

    It if was my comments that some think are a bit “Greens staffer”, then

    1 – I am not endorsed to speak for the Greens (which feels really great because I can say whatever I like which I could not do last election), and

    2 – In a discussion about the Greens some of you guys (without going back and checking, are all the posts by males?) need to inject a bit of reality about how the Greens think and work. Whether you like or dislike the Greens, my posts are aimed at saying things how this Green supporter (not the party) sees things.

    Written before I finished my morning coffee, not authorized, not Canberra.

Leave a comment

Advertisement