I have an op-ed piece in the Australian today. I am reprinting it below:
The newly formed government, hanging on by a thread, has committed $10 billion of new spending to the regions as part of the deal with the country independents. Julia Gillard has described the deal as “fair share” for regional Ausralia.
Windsor, Oakeshott and Katter all believe that the regions get a bad deal and that this needs to be remedied. In their opinion, their country cousins simply don’t appreciate how tough life is in rural and regional Australia.
So in the context of the current electoral architecture, a question worth posing is: how bad is it in the bush?
In one sense, this is a difficult question to answer because conditions in the bush vary from year to year and from region to region. As long as the locust plague can be kept in check, there is every indication that Australia’s grain growers are about to experience a boom period, with international grain prices rising rapidly in recent months.
By the same token, it is very apparent that the prolonged drought severely impacted many farmers, leading to widespread despair in some regions. But the drought has now broken in many parts and farmers quite rightly have a spring in their step.
It needs to be pointed out that the bush is more than agriculture; many people who live in rural and regional towns are not connected, or are connected only indirectly, to farming. Indeed, the recent growth of many regional centres has more to do with mining than agriculture.
A number of years ago, the Productivity Commission undertook a study looking at the impact of National Competition Policy on rural and regional Australia. Many people in the bush were very unhappy about aspects of NCP, including the dismantling of various forms of regulation affecting agricultural products – dairy, sugar and wheat marketing.
But it turned out that the attribution between what was happening in the bush and the various initiatives under the NCP was pretty flimsy and, in any case, there were generally both winners and losers from the NCP initiatives. For example, dairy farming in parts of Victoria, with its natural advantages, did very well out of deregulation.
It was certainly true that smaller towns were shrinking, with the larger ‘sponge’ cities growing instead. Think Horsham, Sale, Wagga Wagga, Tamworth, Bathurst, Port Macquarie which have all grown strongly, but their growth has at least partly been at the expense of smaller hamlets that no one outside the districts can name. We would need to ban the car if we want these smaller towns to cease shrinking.
Over time, agricultural production has become increasingly concentrated on larger farms, which have also included a greater presence of commercial farms. This trend away from the small family farm has been partly responsible for the demise of many of these smaller towns.
But sea-changers and, more latterly, tree-changers are contributing to the vigour of the bush, as cashed-up city folk have sought alternative lifestyles and to reap the advantages of living in a country town as opposed to a big city.
Bob Katter, in particular, is fond of quoting rates of subsidy to farmers in other countries while suggesting that Australia does virtually nothing for its farmers. In point of fact, some one-fifth of the federal government’s assistance to industry is devoted to agriculture, even though agriculture only accounts for 4 per cent of GDP and employment.
Programs such as drought assistance; rural R & D assistance; the CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship Initiative; Forest Industries Climate Change Research Fund; On-farm Irrigation Efficiency Grants Program and many others cost the taxpayer many billions of dollars.
If we look at an objective indicator such as unemployment, we find surprisingly small differences between the big cities and the bush.
On recent figures, the unemployment rate in Sydney was 6.4 per cent compared with 6.3 per cent in the New South Wales. In Melbourne, it was 5.9 per cent compared with 5.8 per cent in the rest of Victoria; in Brisbane, it was 5.2 per cent and 5.6 per cent in the rest of Queensland; and in Adelaide 5.4 per cent and 4.3 per cent in the rest of South Australia.
Comparing household incomes between the city and the bush is a very tricky exercise that would require netting out major expenses such as housing costs, because the differences in these expenses are so great between city and bush.
We also cannot directly account for the value of the favourable social amenity of rural life compared with battling congested freeways, packed trains and the potential social isolation of big city life. And there are also costs arising from poor or absent service provision that is a feature of parts of the bush which are difficult to put a figure on.
There are of course pockets of rural poverty, but by the same token, there are pockets of significant social disadvantage in all of the major cities.
The real point is that there are always trade-offs in life – the benefits of life in the bush are offset by some costs. It is important that government subvention in the bush does not distort this trade-off to the point that citizens in the city subsidise their country cousins for their choice of lifestyle or vice-versa.
If we look at an objective indicator such as unemployment, we find surprisingly small differences between the big cities and the bush.
This is a telling point. The lack of disparity in unemployment reveals that the bush is not the social wasteland that some make it out to be. In fact it’s no different from the city.
There are of course pockets of rural poverty, but by the same token, there are pockets of significant social disadvantage in all of the major cities.
Exactly right.
These regional guys are falling into the resentful victim mindset that drives all aggressive policies of social change. Attitude is important. They need to take pride in the bush, not descend into this us-and-them paranoia about cities.
daddy dave
9 Sep 10 at 9:54 am
Perhaps the lack of disparity in unemployment reflects more on the fact that centrelink won’t pay you any unemployment benefits if you insist on living in the bush. Moving to an area of higher employment opportunities (i.e. “the city”) is part of mutual obligation and has been for decades.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 10:12 am
It’s possibly also due to high variance between regional centres. Some places have very low unemployment, while others are high.
But again, as Judith points out, it’s not all roses and sunshine in the major metropolitan areas.
daddy dave
9 Sep 10 at 10:30 am
Moving to an area of higher employment opportunities (i.e. “the city”) is part of mutual obligation and has been for decades.
Is that true Yobbo? I’d presume it might work the other way. That is, you can’t move from Sydney to say Byron Bay and take your Newstart with you, but can Centrelink really stop a Byron Bay local receiving Newstart unless she moves to the Big Smoke?
Peter Patton
9 Sep 10 at 10:44 am
Is Byron Bay really the bush? They probably even have a centrelink office there already. They sure don’t have one in most places in country WA.
And the answer to your question is: If they think you have more chance of being employed elsewhere, they can ask you to move. And if you refuse, they can cut off your benefits. So, yes. Usually though they will suggest further education first. Further education that can only be undertaken in a more populous area.
Having dependent spouse/kids will exempt you from having to move, but since these sort of rules are mostly targetted towards school leavers, most will have made the move before those sort of considerations are relevant.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 10:49 am
If they think you have more chance of being employed elsewhere, they can ask you to move.
Sounds like social engineering. The regions are seen as places of ignorance and culture-free zones that need to be depopulated. Get those young people to the city.
A properly functioning labor market shouldn’t need those kinds of policies.
daddy dave
9 Sep 10 at 11:13 am
Judith
I think a simple comparison of average unemployment rates between capital cities and the rest of the state fails to capture the variation in unemployment rates within cities and within regional areas.
DEEWR has a very useful website at http://www.deewr.gov.au/Lmip/default.aspx?LMIP/SALM
For example, in March 2010 the unemployment rate in the Eastern suburbs of Sydney ranged between 2.4% and 4.1% (by SLA), while in Canterbury Bankstown the range across SLAs was between 4.5% and 11.9% and in Central Western Sydney the range was 4.4 to 13.6%.
In the Hunter the range was between 2.9 and 8.9% and in the Northern Tablelands the range was between 3.7 and 7.5%, and in Far West NSW the range was between 8.7 and 13.4%. In (most of) Bob Katter’s electorate the range was between 1.0 and 13.4%.
So I would read these figures as implying that certain parts of Sydney have extremely high unemployment rates – possibly associated with concentrations of public housing – while other SLAs have much lower unemployment rates. Parts of the non-metropolitan area like the Hunter are doing as well as parts of the city, while others like the Clarence, Richmond-Tweed and Tamworth have unemployment rates that are never as good as the better parts of Sydney, but not as bad as the worse parts of Sydney. In contrast other parts of regional Australia have very wide ranges, so different rural and regional areas are doing very differently.
The other issue is the variation in participation rates by region. The Parliamentary Research Service used to do estimates of receipt of Centrelink benefits by electorate, but I couldn’t easily find this just now. But my memory is that National Party electorates tend to have the highest rates of pension and benefit receipt, with the assumption being that it was partly driven by retirement choices – Northern NSW and the Sunshine Coast and North of there being popular and beneficiaries of working age such as lone parents seeking cheaper housing.
Peter Whiteford
9 Sep 10 at 11:22 am
a simple comparison of average unemployment rates between capital cities and the rest of the state fails to capture the variation in unemployment rates within cities and within regional areas.
Isn’t that Judith’s point?
And surely that highlights the absurdity of treating “the regions” as a single thing. Broadband for “the regions”, assistance for “the regions,” etc.
daddy dave
9 Sep 10 at 11:32 am
If it was Judith’s point she illustrated it by example.
Her post says, “If we look at an objective indicator such as unemployment, we find surprisingly small differences between the big cities and the bush.
On recent figures, the unemployment rate in Sydney was 6.4 per cent compared with 6.3 per cent in the New South Wales. In Melbourne, it was 5.9 per cent compared with 5.8 per cent in the rest of Victoria; in Brisbane, it was 5.2 per cent and 5.6 per cent in the rest of Queensland; and in Adelaide 5.4 per cent and 4.3 per cent in the rest of South Australia.”
Peter Whiteford
9 Sep 10 at 11:40 am
Peter, the point about quoting those figures on unemployment rates in the capital cities and the (average) of the rest of the state is that there are no real differences between the recorded rates.
Before I went looking, I wasn’t sure that this would be so on recent data. But of course there are wide variations within the capital cities and within the regions – but my point was that the data do not show that the outcomes in rural and regional Australia labour markets are on average any worse than in the capital cities.
Judith Sloan
9 Sep 10 at 12:09 pm
Judith
The point I’m making is that in NSW, for example, the variance in Sydney appears to be wider than the variance in rural areas. Sydney’s average is heightened by several areas with extremely high unemployment rates, so perceptions of people who live in regional areas are probably based on comparing themselves with well-off Sydney areas. With a small number of exceptions like the Hunter no region in rural NSW appears to have as low an unemployment rate as the best performing parts of Sydney, and my view is that this may drive part of the rural complaint.
Peter Whiteford
9 Sep 10 at 12:22 pm
With a small number of exceptions like the Hunter no region in rural NSW appears to have as low an unemployment rate as the best performing parts of Sydney
If that’s their complaint then they have no case at all. But I don’t hear that message from the three independents. I hear a general, inchoate complaint that the bush is getting a raw deal.
daddy dave
9 Sep 10 at 12:54 pm
You’ve discounted the urban drift of youth to cities. Of course unemployment rates are not significantly different, when many leave the regions for employment in cities. To look simply at overall rates without factoring in mobility and migration in search of work is a howler. And the widespread desertion of younger people is incredibly socially destructive.
It would be useful to look at the average age of farmers – generationally they at their use by date. Younger entrants can’t get in due to high capital costs. This means many farmers, when retiring, are faced with a choice of who to sell the farm to : corporate agriculture or noone.
Cause and effect is very muddled, and I’m not sure I can provide any clarity, except to say regarding deregulation of the dairy industry : when did city dwellers see any beneficial/significant drop in retail prices ? If drought assistance is a subsidy to agriculture, then deregulation was a subsidy to Coles/Woolies.
How bad is it in the bush ? Dreadful.
Keith
9 Sep 10 at 1:18 pm
Doesn’t all this sorta indicate that decentralization of the tax base is important?
JC
9 Sep 10 at 1:20 pm
To look simply at overall rates without factoring in mobility and migration in search of work is a howler.
If average employment rate is the same, then average migration in search of work should balance out to zero, right? If we’re talking averages… what am I missing? Other than Yobbo’s point that centrelink have a policy of moving unemployed young people to the city.
daddy dave
9 Sep 10 at 1:54 pm
Corporate ag as a proportion of the number of producers is pretty small (it tends to concentrate in pastoral enterprises so can cover a large area, but they are few). Most buyouts are from expanding family operations.
The capital cost severely limits the ability of new players to enter agriculture, so the young, if they can’t inherit a viable farm,move into other sectors. The loss of young people is a major driver of rural dissatisfaction. The place is full of grumpy old men and women.
But the core problem is both on a comparative basis as well as cultural.
A city means the population base to provide a high degree of medical and educational services at a low distributed cost. In comparison, a rural hospital or school offers a much lower range of service, even though it’s unit cost is much higher. The problem is that on a per capita basis the provision of services is much, much higher.
This reality runs up against a cultural belief that most of the money available to governments is raised in the regions ( via royalties for example) but spent in the city. For example, most people would believe the Qld government is run on royalties. In fact, royalties do not even raise $2b whereas stamp duty in SEQ alone is nearly three times that. And per capita spend is for a regional quenslander is twice that of a Brisbane resident.
Entropy
9 Sep 10 at 2:15 pm
If we’re talking averages… what am I missing?
The way I see it is this :
Assuming 5% overall unemployment.
A region has 20000 labour market participants and 2000 are unemployed – 10% unemployment
1000 of these depart for the big smoke to look for work. Regional unemployment is now 5.26%.
These 1000 arrive in a city with 1,000,000 labour market participants, and 50,000 unemployed. Number of unemployed rises to 51,000 with the new arrivals. New city unemployment rate = 5.1%
Overall, that same number of people are unemployed, but now the regional figure is no longer so concerning, while the city figure is barely impacted.
Keith
9 Sep 10 at 2:52 pm
Unemployment rates are also not alway a particularly good way of gauging the health of a local labour market or local economy. In a 2002 RBA research paper, the authors showed that many of the SLAs in regional Australia with very low and falling unemployment rates between 1986 and 1996 were also regions in which there had been signficant falls in total employment and population. The reverse was true for many regions with relatively high unemployment rates.
For someone living in a region where the number of available jobs and economic activity is shrinking significantly, but where unemployment is being held down by significant out-migration, the low unemployment rate is unlikely to make them feel particularly happy about local circumstances.
That said, I broadly agree with this piece. The fact that some parts of regional Australia are performing badly does not justify an enormous boondoggle for regional Australia. I’d also note that Oakeshott’s electorate is not one of those regions that has done poorly over the past decade or so – it is a pretty dynammic region.
However, I’d also say that this argument doesn’t run entirely in the coalition’s favour. Afterall, have long been inside the coalition and there interests have also influenced the distribution of government spending, including what I would argue has been poorly designed drought assistance policy and mismanagement of water allocation and pricing.
Labor Outsider
9 Sep 10 at 8:20 pm
LO
Please as a labor supporter, you are the last person to ever criticize the coalition on economic policy particularly as it pertains to the Howard era, as your lot seem even worse than stunted mental pygmies compared to the previous conservative government.
Instead of whining about regional unemployment, here’s a novel thought. Allow the markets to clear labor without the impediment of government intervention in the area of the economy and regional unemployment will be solved soon enough. But it would help if your side stopped the callous lying about labor markets economics and perhaps it would help if some of you actually understood that area a little better than a semi retarded dodo bird.
Another thing that would also assist greatly is to stop the bullshit of closing down large chunks of the country by making them national parks because it somehow assuage left-wing guilt trips and other psychosis running rampant in your side of the political divide.
JC
9 Sep 10 at 8:57 pm
I don’t really think you can blame Labor for most of the shrinking in employment opportunities in rural areas.
The primary driver behind it is mechanisation and technology. A single person can manage 10,000 acres of farmland or more nowadays. 100 years ago you would have needed 20 people.
Those 19 other people now work in the city or the mining industry.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 9:18 pm
Yobbo
We’ve had 100 years of controlled labor markets with one courageous attempt and breaking that vicious cycle. While we can’t blame previous Labor governments if we don’t blame liberal government equally fro not deregulating, we can give credit to the Howard government and feel total contempt for the Rudd./Gillard government’s re-regulation.
You can’t of course fault the drift from the country to the cities, but you can fault controlled labor markets for unemployment in the rural areas as those things are two entirely different issues and do not need to be associated.
In other words you could still have drift into the cities with the state of the labor markets in the rural areas being at full employment or no worse than in the city with market wage differentiation doing its work.
One other thing. It’s not a given that higher wages can only be found in the cities as the mining sector has disproved seeing the highest wages in the world for semi skilled jobs can be found in the outback.
The Liars party has a lot to answer for in doing what they did.
JC
9 Sep 10 at 9:37 pm
“you could still have drift into the cities with the state of the labor markets in the rural areas being at full employment or no worse than in the city with market wage differentiation doing its work”
Which on the figures provided seems to be exactly what we do have.
So… still Labor’s fault?
FDB
9 Sep 10 at 9:47 pm
Which on the figures provided seems to be exactly what we do have.
No we don’t. At least not in those areas where there is no mining to bloat the figures up.
So yea, it’s Labor’s fault. In fact I’ll say it again. It’s Labor’s fault… or rather the Liars Party’s fault.
Here’s the thing for you to ponder, FDB.
The government’s regulation of the labor market has essentially locked in wages without almost no explicit regional wage differentiation. If you think Sydney leave wages can be supported in the bush ex mining, you really to explain that one to us as perhaps you could be this years winner of the Nobel economics prize.
Go on, have a go at it.
JC
9 Sep 10 at 9:56 pm
oops…. Sydney level…
JC
9 Sep 10 at 9:57 pm
In my small sample size of experience (namely, the area I grew up in) most country areas are at full employment with the exception of the aboriginal population who could easily account for that 5% on their own.
This is largely because if people don’t have a job in town and aren’t likely to find one, they leave.
Yobbo
9 Sep 10 at 10:20 pm
JC – can you point out anywhere that I decried high regional unemployment? You keep wanting to address me as though I agree with all of the ALP’s policies. It should be pretty clear by now that I don’t. Perhaps if you were less partisan yourself you wouldn’t interpret everyone else’s comments through the same prism as yours are written?
I completely agree that flexible labour markets are important in helping labour markets, including those in regional areas clear. My point was merely that low unemployment in many inland regional communities should not be interpreted as a sign that those communities are doing well economically. And that helps to explain why there is a clamour in some regional areas for government assistance.
You should also note that I agree with Judith that poor economic performance in some regional areas is not a justification for a significant reallocation of resources from city to rural areas.
However, I also pointed out that the ALP is not alone in wanting to facilitate this redistribution. You should try reading Barnaby’s many statements on the subject.
Labor Outsider
9 Sep 10 at 10:22 pm
Yobbo
Perhaps in regional areas of WA. However despite my dislike for going rural areas I do know a little about them and I can tell you that large parts of the Victorian country side is not like that. There really is a large amount of poverty. I tend to think WA may be different possibly due to the crops/mining interaction.
JC
9 Sep 10 at 10:27 pm
can you point out anywhere that I decried high regional unemployment? You keep wanting to address me as though I agree with all of the ALP’s policies. It should be pretty clear by now that I don’t. Perhaps if you were less partisan yourself you wouldn’t interpret everyone else’s comments through the same prism as yours are written?
I’m not partisan at all actually although I draw the line at the leftwing. I haven’t ever criticized anyone that is pro-markets, for far less intervention and doesn’t profess quackery.
I completely agree that flexible labour markets are important in helping labour markets, including those in regional areas clear.
There you go right there. Playing word games pretending you’re reasonable when in fact it just appears you’re another rusted on Labor crapologist. What exactly do mean that you support free Labor markets in regional areas? Does that mean you favour regional differentiation in a regulated market setting or does it mean that you’ve supported virtually free unencumbered labor markets, LO. You need to spell out exactly what you mean by this. The reason I’m pointing this out is that I’ve read some of your comments pertaining to labor markets at LP and can’t ever recall you waving the free market flag, so this sort raises a caution ticket up for me ask you to be more specific. You need to spell this out very clearly.
My point was merely that low unemployment in many inland regional communities should not be interpreted as a sign that those communities are doing well economically.
True. How could they when regulation essentially means city wages in the bush.
And that helps to explain why there is a clamour in some regional areas for government assistance.
Yep, it sure does. Unfortunately the Liars Party has been really good at swindling the real reasons why seeing they cause most of the fuck ups and people don’t really understand the reasons why.
You should also note that I agree with Judith that poor economic performance in some regional areas is not a justification for a significant reallocation of resources from city to rural areas.
I actually disagree in a way. It’s no good taking opportunities away from people in the bush by regulating the shit out of labor markets and allowing very little in explicit regional differentiation.. In other words fucking them over… and then walking away and not compensating them. Anyone having a job or higher wage rate as a result of government regulatory rorts and other crap, such as closing down entire regions to placate inner city arseholes should be compensating those that are injured by these policies whether it’s in the city or the country.
However, I also pointed out that the ALP is not alone in wanting to facilitate this redistribution.
Please, Labor has no idea what it’s doing. The starting point when discussing present Labor should be analogous to a sheltered workshop environment and even then it’s disrespecting those poor folk.
You should try reading Barnaby’s many statements on the subject.
Unlike any of the best in Labor, Barnaby feels there is a problem but he’s not enough schooled to properly understand what’s going on and that the regulatory environment and all the other stuff is adversely affecting his rural constituency
JC
9 Sep 10 at 10:50 pm
JC – you obvioiusly haven’t read many of the comments on LP, or even here. I have stated a number of times that labour market regulation (employment protection legislation, minimum wages, minimum award conditions, etc) is inefficient and that governments that have concerns about the distributional consequences of a free labour market would create fewer distortions by addressing those concerns through the tax-transfer system. Now you will disagree with me about the desirability of redistribution, but politically, the only hope for the coalition of getting further labour market deregulation is to think about how they can address the perceived adverse distributional consequences in the eyes of most voters.
You should also know that there is a lot more flexibility in regional labour markets than you think. For a start, there are significant real wage differentials between many regional areas and urban areas. Minimum, award and EB wages put a floor under wages but don’t put a ceiling on them. Second, regional migration is quite a common adjustment mechanism to region specific shocks.
Also, while allowing real wages to vary more across different regions would reduce the incidence of region specific shocks on employment, it wouldn’t stop those shocks from significantly reducing living standards in many regions as wages are a very important source of disposable income.
The critical problem in many regional areas and towns is that there economic reason for existence has disappeared over time.
Now, for some well located towns and regions, lower real wages would provide an added incentive for businesses to locate there and further drive growth, many are simply located in places where opportunities for growth are limited, regardless of how flexible the labour market is.
And btw, your apologies for Barnaby really know no bounds do they?
Labor Outsider
9 Sep 10 at 11:34 pm
You should also know that there is a lot more flexibility in regional labour markets than you think.
Should we ignore for the purposes of this debate before I go on the fact that we have possibly the highest minimum wage + unskilled rates and other regulatory factors in the world or doesn’t that have a hand in the rosy picture you paint. LO?
JC
9 Sep 10 at 11:49 pm
I didn’t say it was a rosy picture, I just said that it is wrong to say that there are is little variation in real wages across regions, because it isn’t only wage floors that matter. Of course, if there was no minimum wage, there would be even greater variation.
Labor Outsider
10 Sep 10 at 12:00 am
Okay, so with the our minimum/unskilled total factor wage rates so high and our labor markets so controlled how can you possibly make any assessment rosy or otherwise about the state of our regional labor markets.
We can’t possibly tell. You also can’t possibly have any idea when there is a regulatory floor and it’s mere speculation until such a floor is lifted and the markets are allowed to repair after this level strangulation..
And btw, your apologies for Barnaby really know no bounds do they?
LOl, what do you think of Swandive?
JC
10 Sep 10 at 12:14 am
And btw, your apologies for Barnaby really know no bounds do they?
Barnaby is good value.
daddy dave
10 Sep 10 at 9:27 am
Indeed. You can’t say Barnaby is nuts and holds millennial views and then excuse Swan for being totally ignorant on the topic in question.
.
10 Sep 10 at 9:31 am
JC – you obvioiusly haven’t read many of the comments on LP
ahahahaha
Yeah JC you ignorant bastard, how dare you not read the comments on LP
Yobbo
10 Sep 10 at 9:35 am
Yobbo – he claimed to have read the comments on LP when forming his initial judgement. Reading comprehension – fail.
Labor Outsider
10 Sep 10 at 5:10 pm
To be fair LO accepts that there is a choice between equality of outcome goals and economic development.
Many of the left pretend they don’t exist.
.
10 Sep 10 at 5:17 pm
“I’m not partisan at all actually”
Ha.
Jarrah
10 Sep 10 at 6:09 pm
Unlike you, Jarrah.
Dude how the fuck do you vote Gangreens and LDP. How on earth can you find a logical path doing that?
——–
Yea Yobs Lol…I started that part actually. To be fair I said that I had read his comments at LP which I did a long time ago.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 6:21 pm
“How on earth can you find a logical path doing that?”
I’m a moderate libertarian who values liberalism and democracy and pluralism, not a mouth-foaming right-winger who can’t conceive of having a nuanced position on anything, like some I know.
Jarrah
10 Sep 10 at 8:40 pm
No really Jarrah I don’t fucking get it either.
Come on man, compare the people who were in the Democrats (somewhat closer to the LDP position) and compare them to the Greens (who want a super profit tax on every industry).
“Our Tash” vs Brown
Aiden Ridgeway vs Christine Milne
Andrew Bartlett vs Kerry Nettle
Makes me wish we didn’t beat up on them so hard.
The Greens best bit is they call China out for their police state crap.
.
10 Sep 10 at 9:34 pm
Jarrah:
You can’t be a moderate libertarian and a Gangreens supporter. They’re diametrically opposed.
Don’t even try nonsense that the Gangreens support civil liberties when Happy Hamilton was endorsed by that twit, Bob Brown.
You really need to figure were you stand and stick with it instead of having legs on either side of the fence, as you’re going to get badly hurt.
How the hell do you reconcile your so called open trade opinion and vote Gangrenous. It just doesn’t figure.
The Greens best bit is they call China out for their police state crap.
Which is really to do with China’s fast development and their emissions otherwise those gangrenous loons couldn’t give a shit.
JC
10 Sep 10 at 9:47 pm