Reply With QuoteAtriplex hi did you say that you do not vote if not may i ask why.cheers
I'm also a bit sceptical as to what the greens might do if they get into power. But I don't believe they will be able to do everything they want to do. If the bill is too radical the bill won't be passed, so we shouldn't really be too afraid of what could happen.Originally Posted by TimiBoy
I was probably a little remiss in my comment - there is a big difference between Green thinkers, and Political Greenies. I think of myself as a conservationist, to the extent I think sensible. There is a very significant difference between what I believe is sensible, and what The Australian Greens Party wants to do (not what they say, but what they are really after).
Just because a person is Green, doesn't mean they have to join the Party, Comrade!
Cheers,
Tim
Atriplex hi did you say that you do not vote if not may i ask why.cheers
Yeah sure, I can't vote because I'm not old enough sorry I should have cleared that up. I'll edit that information in
Having radical policy doesn't mean you won't get elected. Hitler was originally elected too. Now just substitute Herr Hitler for Herr Brown. Although coming from Tassie he could legitimately argue that they need some lebensraum.They could take over Victoria, because the rest of us would vote to appease them by giving it up.
Then they could stage an invasion of NSW, with the fuhrer getting his photo taken at the Sydney Tower. In the meantime they could sign a peace treaty with Western Australia but plan to invade, then trigger the Great Aussie butt kicking by invading South Australia which will have by that time signed a defence pact with Queensland and the Territory.Then they'll start aerial bombardment of Thursday Island, which will by that time be the capital of free Australia.
OK, I'm talking crap. But Hitler was elected.
Its your view and fair enough but IMO misdirected idealism Atriplex,
Putting such faith in any political party actually doing what they say they will do can be a big let down, they all tone it down to get a vote then get on with their real program.
Just a hint, do some research on the origins of the green factions of certain green organisations relevant to the current green zone debate, their historical ideological origins are extremist and radical which is being kind. They have cleaned up their public image over the past decades, but the real question to ask is who and where pulls the strings behind the scenes.
Do political parties really change their culture/manisfesto in such a short time? ask yourself that question. Are they subject to the same funding policy corruption and pressure of interest groups as the other political parties? WHo funds and supports them and what is their real agenda? Some has been touched on here.
Not saying anything other than dig a bit deeper and find out for yourself before swallowing the populist media image and lines. And follow the money.
if the Greens get their way at least you have age on your side and can brush up on your Bass Fishing skills on the Playstation?
Good luck in your research
mike
Tangles KFC
I haven't heard much about their deep and mysterious past to be frank.
As I said before "of course what they say now might be different to their actions." The Greens policies have evolved as have other parties' policies, but it seems other parties are evolving into Greener parties, while the Greens tinker and change their policies as they see right. Perhaps, they are just cleaning up their act, but I can't believe that because I've only seen a very good Greens party.
In answer to your question "Do political parties really change their culture/manisfesto in such a short time?" As I said above the Greens have changed their policies and ideas but nothing as radical as what other parties have done, the Greens still continue to believe in Green policies.
I'd like to learn more about the history of the greens. Because like I say I don't know much about them apart from what they're doing now.
I'd also like to ask you and everyone else whether or not the Greens are the most progressive party and proactive party. In terms of environmental and social policies they seem, to me at least, to set the trends.
If you are too young to vote then you are in a generation facing some tough times ahead.
The catch cry these days appears to be the environment...some of the issues are good and some are based on doom and gloom fear factors (global warming for one).
If you seem to like the Greens policies on the environment then I would suggest you read ALL their policies...especially industrial relations and see how socialist their ideals on that subject are.
"I'm also a bit sceptical as to what the greens might do if they get into power. But I don't believe they will be able to do everything they want to do. If the bill is too radical the bill won't be passed, so we shouldn't really be too afraid of what could happen."
If they get into power then the Bill would be passed..that is what being in power is.
I moved to Hobart in 1997, when the Greens held the balance of power in Tassie. It was a State Manager's Role, and I had an agenda of growth and process improvement, including getting significant cooperation happening between us and Hospitals. Because I was a big fish in a small pond, I got to rub shoulders with a lot of interesting people, and there was a common thread, which you could also see in everyday life.
The Greens made progress next to impossible. Their lack of scrutiny on just about every bill they were asked to look at, combined with their insistence that every single bill be changed to suit their ideological standpoint before it was passed turned the joint into a quagmire of economic malaise and unemployment.
Mr Rudd has to do the same deals now. I am quite worried about what deals he will have to do with the watermelons, just to get business done for the next 2.5 years.
Tim
Last edited by TimiBoy; 24-07-2008 at 05:45 AM. Reason: spelling
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
A Green Vote is a Vote for Economic Vandalism
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_832.html
A GREEN VOTE IS A VOTE FOR ECONOMIC VANDALISM
By Jim Hoggett
Australian Financial Review
John Quiggan claims that the Greens are not 'irrational kooks' but 'are defending rational, evidence-based policies against populism and pork-barrelling'.
We beg to differ. Wherever you look with the Greens economic policies you see school kid posturing and trendy, wealth-sapping strategies.
Economic Crisis will ensue as a result of Greens Economic Policy.
The Greens are concerned about our high current account deficit. Fair enough. The obvious answer to solving it is to export more. But the Greens actually plan to shut down coal, our biggest export industry. In addition, their policies would devastate the export potential of our other energy intensive industries, like alumina/aluminium and steel. As they seek to eliminate non-renewable energy sources, they also appear to rule out new natural gas developments. Import replacement, an alternative approach to filling the payments gap, is not even mentioned other than promoting local production of windmills.
The Greens build on their illogical current account policies with capital account policies that would stop foreign investment inflows. This would require a plummeting exchange rate. The Greens autarkical policies would thereby amount to economic disruption worse than that faced by Indonesia and Philippines in the aftermath of the 1999 Asian Crisis, and establish us on a downward economic path that would hurtle us towards those countries' living standards.
Proposals to gut our major export industries, while expressing concern for the current account deficit and ruling out capital inflows, surely, are not examples of 'evidence based policies'.
But export and other balance of payments policies are only the start of the Greens' economic vandalism. As well as shutting down coal exports, they also plan to stop its use for domestic electricity generation. Given that it provides 88 per cent of our electricity, this would be catastrophic. The Greens' energy policies would require increases in the share of renewables from the planned 5 per cent of electricity in 2010 to 12 per cent, rising to 25 per cent by 2020. This would double the cost of electricity, with all that this implies for industrial disruption and family hardship.
Moreover, their favoured substitutes for fossil fuels, wind, solar and other renewables have reliability problems---they only work when the sun shines and the wind blows. Hence they need massive back-up, comprising 90 per cent of their capacity.
One thing the Greens are fond of is more and higher taxes. They have a spider's web of 41 new taxes or tax increases. These include taxes or higher taxes on superannuation, savings, and even the family home---so much for addressing the aging population and national saving problems. The new taxes combine the predictable---like a plastic bag levy---with the absurd---taxing the electromagnetic spectrum assets.
The only major tax cut is the elimination of the GST but this will be replaced with a consumption tax---a proven recipe for subjecting the tax system to populist pork barrelling.
Even without accounting for their disincentive effects on economic activity, these taxes will be insufficient to pay for the one thousand plus new spending measures across every major social program. The Green budget deficit would plumb new depths.
The Greens have specially targeted the farming community. They propose to flush an additional 3000 gigalitres of water down the Murray Darling system. This would take over 40 per cent of the water now allocated to irrigated farming. It would devastate rural communities throughout the interior. They are persevering with their policy in this matter in spite of a recent a major study on the impact environmental flows which has indicating that it would cost the economy $800 million a year.
The Green's assault on the rural economy does not stop with water. Under their policies, control of farming land will pass out of the hands of farmers into Green accredited 'environmental management systems' and third party consultative processes. As farmers' costs and taxes are forced up by other Green policies, their production options will narrow. Native forestry, live animal exports and GM crops all fall foul of Green ideology.
The Green's infrastructure policy calls for the stock of transport infrastructure to be cut back to 1995 levels. As with so many of their proposals, this would play havoc with productivity growth. The one ameliorating strategy that gets an honourable mention is a plan to increase bicycle trips by 20 per cent!
The Greens' policies are as loopy as they have always been. The difference now is that they stand to gain the balance of power in the Senate. Their stated policies provide a good indication of the direction they will be pushing an ALP or Coalition Government. That direction is totally wrong.
The Greens, having already decided to offer preferences in most seats to the ALP, are now auctioning forestry electorates. This puts the Australian timber industry on the Green Line. Voters who favour the Greens out of a social conscience need to be aware of the widespread damage that their policies will do.
At the risk of seeming a pain in the a$$, I pretty much agree with this element, though obviously steps need to be taken to relieve the impact on the farming community effected, the Murray and particularly it's lower reaches, including The Coorong, are at crisis point.
The Coorong is a World Heritage listed area, and it is actually dying. That's not a dramatisation. It is a National shame, and is not attracting any interest because there are very few voters living there, and it is South Australia.
Everything else you said is scary! I DO NOT LIKE the Greens Party.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
For a bill to be passed the majority have to agree with it in both houses. And the government does not control the senate.
Atriplex - you do not have to hold the majority of seats in the Senate to force government policy (unless the government is game to go all the way to a double dissolution). See introduction of GST for one.
Do not trust the Greens. Surely the Animal Welfare Bill that they tried passing a couple of years ago with the support of the now dead (thank God) Democrates should be waring enough. The Greens were establish by the Socialist Left, and are nothing more than the watermelon party. Aldolf Hitler cared for animals too. You wern't allowed to kill a dog, but a Jew? Hey they were free game. Come to think of it Hitler was a vegan long before it became trendy. Bob Brown would have been proud of him!
Besides - I didn't spend billions of years evolving to the top of the food chain, just to give up my right to meat (be it fishing or hunting).
No one would disagree with managing our resources. But managing and "locking up" (see Greens) are two very different things. Its a bit like Peter Garrett telling us poor folk to pay an ETS while he sits in his mansion, or jet sets first class around the world in order to save the planet (you'd think he'd sail). Besides what else did that great conservationist say before the election? Something about not keeping any promises after the election? Do NOT TRUST THEM! ANY of them.
you stated that if the greens were in "power", meaning they have control of the Government therefore they could pass anything they want.
The current Govt does not have a majority in both houses but the previous one did.
I am very afraid what would happen if the greens ever did get into power.
I'm sure acknowledging Aboriginal cultural traditions won't really affect you too badly.
That would be true,if the traditions were followed.I dont see many canoes,and spears on the water,these days.What metods are used to catch the dugong? Any one know?
David.
Hi Dave,
There was a report in the Courier Mail last year about an Elder of the Aboriginal community complaining that the they are losing their cultural ways and .303 rifles were being used to kill Dugong and mostly for "fun". I will see if I can find the link to the article.
Chris
Cheers,
Chris
Posting Permissions
