Can the Greens survive their success?

If they can we are in deep trouble.

Up to date the Greens have been able to travel under the radar of serious examination of the consequenes of their policies. Now they are anticipated to hold a clear-cut balance of power in the new Senate, the question is, what sort of legislation can get through unless it has bipartisan support from Lab and Lib.

Assume for the moment that the ALP get the first crack at government, then consider the kind of provisions that the Greens will demand to pass legislation in the Senate. Wait until Joe and Jane Citizen find out the costs and other downsides of  Green thinking. It is well documented that a lot of people are prepared to talk green but keep their hands firmly in their pockets (or out of them) when it comes to parting with their hard-earned.

The Greens appear to attract two very different kinds of people, some of the hard core activists appear to be people who would have been communists in a  previous generation and most of their followers are probably young people who think that Green is Good without having enough economic savvy or experience to know that they are doing. Their capacity to learn and re-think their position will be the key to whether the Greens have reached the high point of their popularity, whether they can gain more support, or whether they sink.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Can the Greens survive their success?

  1. C.L. says:

    Can the Greens survive their success?

    Don’t think so, Rafe. They’ll be whittled away as the urban luvvies gradually end their tanty and go home to Labor.

  2. THR says:

    Shorter Rafe: The sky is falling. Australians will soon be clutching their right-leaning security blankets.

  3. JC says:

    Gangrenes policies

    Principles

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. human economies exist within, and are dependent upon, natural systems; resource management is, therefore, central to good economic management.
    2. equity of access to the essentials of life and promoting equality are central goals for a civilised society.
    3. the free market economy, by externalising the environmental and social costs of greenhouse gas emissions is creating the greatest market failure of all time, namely climate change.
    4. the cost of addressing climate change now is far less than the cost of failing to do so.
    5. timely and cost effective solutions to social, environmental and economic challenges can be achieved by a cohesive industry policy.
    6. the fulfilment of human potential and the enrichment of lives is best achieved when people work together for common goals.
    7. sustainable, equitable economic progress is best achieved by government ownership of natural monopolies and new government investment in strategic assets.
    8. government finances must be sustainable over the long run; budget deficits and surpluses must balance each other over the business cycle.
    9. long term government borrowing is the preferred mechanism for funding long term infrastructure investments.
    10. governments have an important role to play in regulating markets and correcting market failures, but markets where they function well have an important role to play in the allocation of resources.
    11. social, political and economic institutions must allow individuals and communities to determine their own priorities.
    12. the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is unfair, regressive and places an unfair burden on individuals and small business.
    13. progressive taxes such as income taxes are preferable to regressive forms of taxation such as the GST.
    14. national governments must not allow the pressures from the globalisation of trade to override the democratic preferences of their citizens.
    15. international institutions such as the World trade Organisation (WTO) the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank must assist countries to achieve their democratically determined priorities within ecological constraints.

    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    16. an economy that meets human needs without unnecessarily damaging the natural environment.
    17. full accountability of government and corporations to the broader community.
    18. an equitable taxation system that generates the revenue necessary to fund public services at the appropriate level of government.
    19. international trade regulations that ensure human rights and that protect the natural environment.
    20. industry policy and major infrastructure decisions to be consistent with national environmental and social goals.
    21. industry assistance, and the granting of tax concessions, that align industry development with national goals.

    Measures

    The Australian Greens will

    Taxation

    22. reduce inequities in the current personal tax system by:

    * reducing tax breaks for high income earners;
    * removing Fringe Benefits Tax concessions which promote increased use of motor vehicles;
    * removing the concessional arrangements for Capital Gains Tax;
    * only allowing losses from an investment to be offset against income from the same investment;
    * abolishing the 30% Private Health Insurance Rebate in order to increase funding for public hospitals;
    * taxing family trusts in the same way as companies;
    * eliminating high rates of effective marginal taxation for those on welfare benefits; and
    * introduce a new top marginal tax rate of 50 per cent on incomes of $1 million or over.

    23. introduce an estate tax with full provisions to protect the family farm, the family home and small business with a threshold of $5 million as indexed from the year 2010.
    24. conduct an inquiry with a view to implementing changes to the tax system that address the negative impacts of the GST on:

    * income distribution;
    * environmental sustainability; and
    * business administration costs.

    25. oppose any increase or extension to the GST.
    26. implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution including:
    * a carbon tax levied on generators of mains-supplied electricity or gas
    * a national carbon trading scheme; and
    * other ecological taxes and charges at a level sufficient enough that their prices reflect the full environmental cost of their production, use or disposal.

    27. introduce a system of minimum personal and corporate tax legislation to reduce the opportunities for individuals and companies to use loopholes to minimise their tax obligations.
    28. conduct a full review of the superannuation system with the aim of reducing its complexity and establishing progressive rates of superannuation taxation.
    29. return the company tax rate to 33% and broaden the company tax base by reducing tax concessions.
    30. limit tax deductibility for salaries & salary-related expenses for any individual employee to $1million per year.
    31. end subsidies and tax concessions to environmentally harmful industries.

    Economic Governance and Industry Development

    32. implement triple bottom line accounting measures at all levels of government to incorporate social, environmental and financial impacts into policy development and assessment.
    33. introduce broad measures of genuine national progress to supplement the current measures of GDP, including the production of a comprehensive national balance sheet that reflects this.
    34. require all listed companies to report on standardised social and environmental indicators in their annual reports.
    35. provide the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with enhanced powers to prevent the formation of monopolies through ‘creeping acquisitions’ and to divest monopolies and oligopolies of assets if they are abusing their market power.
    36. direct industry assistance towards the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries.
    37. require major proposals to be subject to climate change impact assessment with the aim of reducing greenhouse gases.

    Investment and Overseas Relations

    38. strengthen the regulatory framework for banks and financial institutions to ensure that consumers and investors are better protected.
    39. ensure that natural monopolies and other essential public services are under public ownership.
    40. reduce Australia’s foreign debt and foreign ownership through use of trade, financial and regulatory measures to ensure more productive use of foreign capital and strengthening of Australian manufacturing, recognising the need to support economies in developing countries.
    41. require the Foreign Investment Review Board to broaden its assessment of the national interest to explicitly include Australia’s long run energy security.
    42. revoke sections of the National Competition Policy that seek to impose market values in public, social and environmental areas of Australian life.

    I love number 40. They’d get a sledgehammer to our external accounts.

    They were more specific once, giving more detail. But when they got heat for some of their most outrageous ones, they took those off the site and went bland.

    The worst I saw was the one that wanted to ban nuclear medicine, which meant cancer patients would really cop it under the gangrenes.

  4. Yobbo says:

    A lot of their policies are just weasel words rather than actual policies too.

    For example, what does this mean:

    “17. full accountability of government and corporations to the broader community.”

    anyone care to take a guess?

  5. Infidel Tiger says:

    8. government finances must be sustainable over the long run; budget deficits and surpluses must balance each other over the business cycle.

    HAHAHAHA! The chances of a budget surplus under a Green Govt. are the funniest thing you’ll ever hear!

  6. JC says:

    Yep

    what it means is that they would fuck over business with tons more regulations and the government being more accountable is just bullshit. What they really mean is that no one could move a muscle without government approval.

    It would actually give you a shot to make loads of money if you could bullshit them and become a decent rent seeker, as it would be a rent seeking paradise of graft and corruption.

    I could thrive in that environment if I really wanted to and you don’t have worry about getting the market right all the freaking time. Just suck up and pull lots of strings. PM Bob and I or PM Christine… we’d be like that. (Curl index finger around the other)

  7. pedro says:

    I reckon they will learn how to have maximum impact for their pet causes while keeping the 10 or 11% they need to keep the balance. Same as the Democrats managed back in their day.

    Different people will support them for different reasons so if they don’t make themselves totally objectionable they should be able to keep the balance going pretty well.

    I think they are more likely to lose their MHR based on dud performance, but keep the senate balance. It is not surprising that the long-term successful independents are convervatives in country electorates standing up mainly for local pork rather than national lunacy,

  8. JC says:

    they really seem absoltuely prettified of genetic crops.

    Look a this swill

    Principles

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. genetically manipulated organisms (GMOs), their products, and the chemicals used to manage them, pose unacceptable threats to natural and agricultural ecosystems.
    2. the precautionary principle must be applied to the use of genetically manipulated organisms and the techniques for producing them.
    3. GMO assessments must be broad, independent and scientifically robust, and any negative effects detected and addressed proactively.
    4. as living organisms – plants, animals and micro-organisms – are not inventions, patents on life are unethical, against the public interest and should be banned.
    5. the Australian government must ban plant GMOs with seeds made sterile by ‘terminator’ (Gene Use Restriction) technologies, so they will not germinate when planted, and advocate this policy in Convention of Biological Diversity negotiations.
    6. farmers and consumers have a right to grow and consume food that is not genetically manipulated.
    7. everyone has a right to know if foods contain any ingredients made using GM techniques, through the comprehensive labelling of those products.

    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    8. a moratorium on the release of GMOs into the environment until there is an adequate scientific understanding of their long term impact on the environment, and human and animal health. (NB: most GM products are fed to animals)
    9. mandatory labeling of all foods containing any ingredient, additive, processing aid or other constituent produced using GMOs.
    10. a ban on patenting all living organisms – plants, animals and micro-organisms – and naturally occurring DNA code sequence information.
    11. a scientific system which sets objective benchmarks, standards and quality assurance systems in advance, to mandate top quality, peer reviewed scientific evidence must be the only basis for assessing and licensing GMOs.
    12. a strengthened, transparent, precautionary regulatory and monitoring system which prevents GMO contamination.
    13. impact assessment research criteria and benchmarked processes that ensure GMOs are safe for the environment, and that derived foods are safe for human consumption.

    Measures

    The Australian Greens will:

    14. sign and ratify the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (on the safe international transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms) so that Australia fulfils its responsibilities under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
    15. review and amend the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000 (as amended) to:
    * ensure the precautionary principle is rigorously applied to all applications for the general or restricted release of any GMO;
    * ensure that assessment processes are objectively and fairly conducted by independent scientists and community representatives with the power to influence the regulators decisions;
    * ensure that assessment processes examine the potential benefits as well as the risks of any proposal to release GMOs, and not issue a license where the risks outweigh the benefits; and
    * require economic, social, marketing and ethical factors to be part of impact assessment processes.
    16. put in place a moratorium on the release of any GMOs into the Australian environment for trial or commercial purposes
    17. remove as far as possible all GMOs from the Australian environment and food supply while the moratorium is in force.
    18. require mandatory, accurate and comprehensive labelling of all foods and animal feed containing any ingredient, additive, processing aid or other constituent produced using GMOs.
    19. require certification of all imported seed, food and other products as GM or GM-free and ensure facilities exist for stringent testing.
    20. make balanced, accurate, complete and high quality information available to the interested public, on the environmental, economic and social aspects of the genetic manipulation of living organisms.
    21. change publicly-funded agricultural research and development priorities and resourcing from genetic manipulation to sustainable production methods.
    22. fund independent scientific research to investigate the risks, hazards and costs of GMOs (including the associated use of agrichemicals) to human health, the environment, society and the economy.
    23. replace the existing ad hoc system of GMO assessment, licensing and monitoring with a scientific system consistent with our principles.
    24. ensure that when regulators assess the risks of GMOs as manageable and issue a license, they specify the agencies or individuals responsible for the identified risks and mandate the management systems to be used.

  9. JC says:

    They’re terrified of uranium. They’d ban exports of it.

    Principles

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. Australia’s natural resources must be managed in accordance with the principles of intergenerational equity, biodiversity conservation and respect for the traditional ownership of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
    2. the management of Australia’s natural resources must ensure the sovereignty and independence of future generations.
    3. resource extraction decisions must be guided by rigorous environmental and social impact assessment and by the precautionary principle.
    4. climate change must be a central consideration in the management of forests, fisheries and mining

    Forests, Plantations and Wood Products
    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    5. recognition of the essential role played by mature forest ecosystems in wildlife habitat, carbon storage and water supply.
    6. a sustainable and productive wood products industry on public and private land that maintains or enhances the resilience of natural ecosystems.
    7. a high value-adding wood products industry that creates long-term skilled jobs and social sustainability in regional communities.
    8. an end to the destruction of old-growth forests and other forests of high conservation value.
    9. tax arrangements which do not advantage plantations over other crops.
    10. world’s best practice certified farm-scale plantation forestry
    11. a diversity of species in plantations.

    Measures

    The Australian Greens will:

    12. end the export of woodchips and whole logs from native forests.
    13. end the logging of high conservation value native forests and wildlife habitats.
    14. end logging in native forests except, once export woodchipping from them is banned, in limited areas where small volumes of timber can be taken from defined areas under strict conditions and for specialty purposes.
    15. prohibit the use of native forests for electricity generation.
    16. nominate Australia’s qualifying ancient forests for listing on the National and/or World Heritage registers.
    17. abolish Regional Forest Agreements and replace the Commonwealth Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 to ensure that forests, plantations and the wood productions industry are treated equally with other activities under environmental law.
    18. implement a national wood products industry plan that will complete the transition from native forests to existing plantations, including retraining and other assistance for workers and the development of sustainable alternative fibre industries.

    Fisheries
    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    19. the management of recreational and commercial fisheries to maintain sustainable populations and fisheries, and to minimise the environmental impacts of fishing.
    20. protection of fish nursery habitat.
    21. environmentally benign aquaculture industries.
    22. a strategy to maintain adequate, biologically representative ‘no-take’ areas within each fishery and/or marine bioregion for the conservation of marine biodiversity and fish stocks.

    Measures

    The Australian Greens will:

    23. complete the independent ecological assessment of Australia’s commercial fisheries under the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
    24. expand fisheries assessments to all Australian fisheries, including recreational fisheries, and develop and implement a national framework for managing recreational and charter fishing.
    25. increase the number of Australia’s marine reserves, particularly where these improve the resilience of vulnerable fish populations.
    26. strengthen and continue Australia’s proactive stance on illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, including assisting in the development of alternative employment opportunities for impoverished communities now relying on the illegal trade.
    27. in cooperation with the states and territories, develop a nationally agreed framework for the assessment and regulation of aquaculture developments based on ecosystems management principles.
    28. implement a moratorium on deep-sea bottom trawling in Australian waters and require by-catch reduction in all trawl fisheries.
    29. maintain adequate, biologically representative ‘no-take’ areas within each fishery and/or marine bioregion.
    30. ban all factory-ship based fishing in Australian pelagic fisheries.

    Mining and Mineral Exploration
    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    31. a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards.
    32. all mining activity to be consistent with the desires and needs of affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

    Measures

    The Australian Greens will:

    33. ensure that environmental and social impact assessments are rigorously applied and implemented on all mining proposals and projects.
    34. prohibit the exploration for, and mining and export of, uranium.
    35. oppose the establishment of new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines
    36. prohibit mineral exploration and mining as well as extraction of petroleum and gas in terrestrial and marine nature conservation reserves, including national parks, wilderness areas and other areas of outstanding nature conservation value.
    37. establish a national mining insurance fund, based on mining industry contributions, to provide resources sufficient to rehabilitate the environmental impacts of existing mining operations.>
    38. ensure that all new mining proposals include a fully costed and funded allocation for the restoration and rehabilitation of the impacted area(s) to world’s best practice standards.

  10. Yobbo says:

    It’s a pity they don’t apply the same precautionary principle to their economic policies.

  11. JC says:

    Harry Clarke said their policies overall weren’t terrible.

    I think what he meant was they’re not terrible they’re fucking horrendous.

  12. JC says:

    They love d’Arts.

    Hey, I wonder if strip joints could get a subsidy as a form of artistic impressionism.

    Principles

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. creative artistic expression and cultural experience are fundamental aspects of social wellbeing.
    2. access to diverse, innovative artistic and cultural experiences should available to all Australians.
    3. Australian artistic expression and culture should be protected and promoted.
    4. creative artists play an essential role in Australian social life and should be fostered and supported.
    5. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists and artistic work express unique cultures and heritage which must be supported, respected and appropriately protected through legislation, policy and funding priorities.
    6. cultural heritage must be protected and preserved.
    7. national libraries and collecting institutions are essential to our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world, and must be maintained and developed as the repositories of cultural heritage.
    8. specialist artistic education and training programs provide a unique learning environment for aspiring artists and should be promoted.

    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    9. Australian arts and culture to maintain its unique character and diverse nature through support and promotion of local content and the development of local projects for all forms of art and culture.
    10. to promote arts and cultural events, and access to those events, with appropriate funding and support.
    11. increased access to arts and cultural experiences in rural and regional areas.
    12. the support and promotion of arts and culture that reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of the Australian population.
    13. artists’ intellectual property rights to be protected

    Measures

    The Australian Greens will:

    14. recognise the importance of arts and culture to our society by promoting a national approach to policies and programs.
    15. prioritise and safeguard public funding for our national artistic and cultural institutions.
    16. support and adequately resource the Australia Council as the principal independent body for policy development and administration of arts grants programs.
    17. increase funding incentives for artists and arts events to tour and/or establish in rural and regional areas.
    18. reinstate the Community Cultural Development program as a discrete funding program in the Australia Council.
    19. support the expansion of the Commonwealth Art Bank – Art Rental program with a focus on emerging artists.
    20. sign and ratify the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage 2003.
    21. ensure that any trade agreement or other international instrument does not adversely affect Australian artists and cultural expression.
    22. introduce legislation to protect intellectual and artistic property rights.
    23. ensure that the national arts resale royalty program applies to all existing art works.
    24. introduce a fixed term income support scheme for emerging artists.
    25. enable emerging artists to access small business start-up grants and schemes.
    26. provide federal funding to local and state governments to purchase venues for permanent community arts and cultural groups and organisations.

  13. tal says:

    I’ll have to start churning my own butter

  14. pedro says:

    Someone should calculate the hit to GDP if the greens were to get all the policies in. I reckon it would be a wipeout and we would be back to second world status in no time. This should be the Green slogan:

    “Argentina in 3 years!”.

  15. thefrollickingmole says:

    23. introduce an estate tax with full provisions to protect the family farm, the family home and small business with a threshold of $5 million as indexed from the year 2010.

    A death tax, the foulest and most digusting tax ever. Why not dig up the bodies and pull the gold teeth from them?

    Prostitute the dead bodies till they get a bit smelly as well?

  16. pedro says:

    Do it slowly tal, you don’t want to be huffing to much CO2 in the process. Hey, wait minute, do you know how much water a cow uses for a litre of milk produced? No butter for you!

  17. JC says:

    Pedro

    I keep saying that in six months you’d have the place resembling a dusty old South American village…

    When you drive in they’d be chickens flying around everywhere trying to avoid the old decrepit car heading their way.

  18. JC says:

    Here’s some more. These people are truly fucking insane.

    Laughably they have a jobs policy statement , which is pretty funny.

    What fucking jobs? There wouldn’t be any. LOL

    Principles

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. Australia must have a fair and equitable industrial relations system for all workers.
    2. all people have the right to pursue their well-being in conditions of freedom and dignity, economic security and equal opportunity.
    3. Australia’s future workforce must be highly skilled, highly trained and well paid; the existence of a safety net and the right to collectively bargain are essential to achieving these aims.
    4. working people must receive fair and equitable remuneration for their work.
    5. working people have the right to be involved in decisions about their work.
    6. the right to be a member of a union, to collectively bargain, to collectively withhold labour and collectively organise in the workplace is essential to achieving a sustainable and democratic future.
    7. free, independent and democratic unions are an essential pillar of a civil society.
    8. people have the right to a safe workplace free from occupational hazards.
    9. industrial manslaughter is a crime.
    10. the objectives of profitability and efficiency should not override social and ecological objectives.
    11. effective processes of dispute resolution, including conciliation and arbitration before an independent tribunal are a necessary element in any fair and effective industrial relations system.

    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    12. an industrial relations system that protects and enhances the rights of employees and workers by:
    * legislating a minimum standard for pay, annual leave and hours of work that protects all employees and workers;
    * providing comprehensive industry-wide awards that give rights and entitlements in excess of the legislative minimums and which are determined by conciliation and arbitration before an effective and independent industrial tribunal;
    * facilitating industry wide collective agreements that are union negotiated and exceed the Award standards; and
    * ensuring that workplace and union-led bargaining is the primary tool for obtaining industrial outcomes by putting in place a sufficient threshold before any party can refer a dispute to conciliation and arbitration.

    13. restoration and maintenance of strong state and national industrial relations systems.
    14. the promotion of collective agreements as the primary means of regulating employment.
    15. full protection of accrued entitlements of employees.
    16. full employment, and job security for all who seek employment.
    17. protection against the forced casualisation of work and greater protection for existing casual workers.
    18. equal access to paid work based on ability and irrespective of gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, marital or civil status, family responsibilities, political affiliation, union membership, disability or religion.
    19. elimination of the gender pay gap.
    20. a fairer sharing of paid work through mandated shorter standard working hours and a reversal of current trends towards increased unpaid overtime.
    21. a more equitable distribution of corporate income between management and employees.
    22. a better balance between work and family, social and community involvement.
    23. the costs and benefits to employees of workplace bargaining to be shared fairly among all employees.
    Measures

    The Australian Greens will:
    24. allow workers to terminate substandard individual or collective agreements and be covered by a relevant award or collective agreement.
    25. ensure effective dispute resolution processes are available to all workers, including through conciliation and arbitration.
    26. require employers to enter into collective agreements with their workforce unless a majority are demonstrably opposed to collective bargaining, with the Industrial Relations Commission to have the power to arbitrate if no agreement can be reached.
    27. require employers to inform new and existing employees that they are entitled to join a union, and enable the provision of information about the unions responsible for the sector and industry.
    28. repeal provisions against legitimate union activity (such as sections 45D and 45E in the Trade Practices Act 1974), and protect unions and workers against common law actions.
    29. legislatively protect the right to strike, as recognised in International Labour Organization conventions No. 87 and No. 98, as a fundamental right of workers to promote and defend their economic and social interests.
    30. abolish the requirement for secret ballots before industrial action.
    31. strengthen unions’ right of entry to recruit members, inspect for and remedy breaches of occupational health and safety provisions, breaches of the Fair Work Act and relevant awards or agreements, and other activities relating to strengthening workers’ organisations.
    32. protect the right of trade unionists to have their dues deducted from their wages directly.
    33. repeal any independent contractors legislation that strips employment rights from individuals.
    34. limit the use of independent contractor arrangements to individuals who are genuinely running their own business.
    35. create and enforce industrial and immigration laws that stop the exploitation of foreign workers, by ensuring they receive the same pay and entitlements as a local worker doing the same job.
    36. establish minimum employment standards for trainees and apprentices.
    37. ensure that relevant training and skills development is made available to all workers, including apprentices, trainees, part-time and casual employees, without loss of pay.
    38. abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and repeal the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act.
    39. abolish the Office of the Employment Advocate and the Office of Workplace Services and reinstate the functions of the Industrial Relations Commission.
    40. require the Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Authority (Comcare) to fund additional industry liaison staff, review provisions under Comcare so that workers receive fair treatment and benefits and are not disadvantaged.
    41. introduce national industrial manslaughter laws.
    42. ensure all employees, including casual, fixed term and probationary workers, and employees of small business have the same rights to challenge termination of employment where it is unfair, with reinstatement to be the remedy except in exceptional circumstances.
    43. repeal the current National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry.
    44. increase casual loadings to a minimum of 30% and introduce the ability for casual employees to convert to permanent part time work after 3 months of continuous employment, where employment is on a continuous ongoing basis.
    45. provide a national paid parental leave scheme.
    46. establish a National Pay Equity Standard to help correct the gender pay gap.
    47. provide industrial tribunals with full powers to make orders to give effect to gender pay equity, on a workforce, industry or workplace basis.
    48. establish industry trust funds for protection of workers’ entitlements.
    49. require the ABS to publish more meaningful monthly measures of underemployment and unemployment, with broader definitions of unemployment.
    50. amend the Trade Practices Act to introduce a National Unfair Contracts regime.
    51. use a combination of government job creation and industry policy to achieve full employment and job security for all who seek employment.
    52. legislate for a mandatory minimum of five weeks paid annual leave for all employees.
    53. limit the tax deductibility of any executive salaries to 25 times the minimum full-time adult wage.

  19. . says:

    “Do it slowly tal, you don’t want to be huffing to much CO2 in the process. Hey, wait minute, do you know how much water a cow uses for a litre of milk produced? No butter for you!”

    Not nearly as much as these arseholes make up and present as fact.

  20. tal says:

    Oh no dot we’ll all be chowing down on organic tofu

  21. daddy dave says:

    Neither social democrats or conservatives have found an effective attack strategy against the Greens or their arguments. Notice that they have shifted from global warming to other issues, such as asylum seekers and gay marriage. I believe that they should be taken on head-on, toe-to-toe, but not on battlegrounds of their choosing. For example, don’t bother debating them on gay marriage. Debate them on nuclear power; pine forests (so where will all the paper come from?); taxes on fuel and energy. They will only go away once people take their dumb-arse policies seriously and take them apart point by point.

  22. JC says:

    Lol They have housing policy.

    I’d call it a shack policy because that’s all we could afford after they raped the rest of the economy.

    Principles

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. affordable housing is a human right.
    2. the housing needs of low income Australians should be met through the provision of a mix of affordable options, including community housing, public housing, shared equity with social housing providers and private rental housing.
    3. governments need to provide sufficient public and community housing to meet current need and projected demand.
    4. new urban developments should be environmentally sound, close to employment and public transport, and should facilitate community interaction.
    5. public participation in the development of public and community housing, (including planning and in the assessment of development proposals) is a right, the exercise of which should be encouraged by planning authorities.
    6. the housing needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be met as a matter of urgency.
    7. passive thermal heating and cooling (including solar) design must be mandatory as a building principle.
    8. existing subsidies and incentives for property investment should be reviewed with a view to guaranteeing housing affordability across all tenure types.

    Goals

    The Australian Greens want:

    9. the elimination of housing-related poverty.
    10. all Australians to have access to adequate, safe, secure, sustainable and affordable housing.
    11. Australians who are unable to provide their own housing to be given housing assistance by the government.
    12. minimal waiting times on public housing waiting lists.
    13. adequate investment in public and community housing throughout the community to ensure its social and economic viability.
    14. participation by tenants and homeless persons in decisions regarding their housing services.
    15. a reduction in the environmental impact of housing, both during construction and throughout the life of the building.
    16. priority given in town planning to recreational, cultural and social amenities that promote healthy communities.
    17. greater diversity in housing to meet the accessibility needs of changing demographics and disadvantaged groups.
    18. increased provision of emergency accommodation and transitional housing for people in need (including women and children affected by family violence, people experiencing homelessness, refugees and asylum seekers, migrants and people released from detention) with sufficient exit options to long term housing.
    19. improved legal security of tenure and reduced discrimination.
    20. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to have access to adequate, secure, well-maintained, safe and culturally appropriate long-term housing, wherever they live.

    Measures

    The Australian Greens will:

    21. develop a national housing plan and significantly increase funding to public and community housing.
    22. provide increased financial assistance to people unable to provide for their own housing.
    23. urgently fund sufficient public and community housing, to minimise waiting lists.
    24. ensure public housing is accessible, affordable, secure, habitable and in locations that provide reasonable access to employment, health-care, public transport, schools and other social facilities.
    25. significantly increase funding to address the housing needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
    26. ensure subsidies and concessions for the provision of private rental accommodation are targeted at affordable housing for low-income households.
    27. means test the first home owners grant.
    28. require new buildings and retrofit of old buildings to meet high minimum standards of energy-efficiency, noise insulation and water conservation.
    29. develop national planning guidelines for new housing developments that require:

    * a social mix of public and private housing with a target of 20% low cost and public housing, and housing that caters for diverse social needs;
    * design for maximum energy efficiency meeting or exceeding a national six-star rating;
    * privacy and noise controls;
    * permeable road networks allowing for bus access;
    * segregated bicycle paths and footpaths;
    * landscaping, design and infrastructure for rainwater trapping and wastewater recycling; and
    * at least 15% to be allocated to public open space in addition to community facilities.

    30. develop national building standards that:

    * take account of climatic variation across the continent;
    * strengthen disability access provisions;
    * set high standards for energy and water efficiency; and
    * specify minimum standards for non-toxic, low environmental impact construction materials.

    31. develop national urban planning standards that provide for:

    * the location of high density housing and commercial buildings close to high capacity public transport; and
    * the clustering of medium-density housing, community facilities and small-scale businesses around neighbourhood shopping centres and other social facilities (including health care and schooling) linked with public transport.

    Good to see they want us to drink our own piss.

    And which of you would be first to drink recycled piss constructed under greens engineers fresh out of arts school?

    Frankly I’d be off drinking seawater because at least I’d be able to survive a few more days.

  23. tal says:

    Nice reporting from the war room Joe

  24. JC says:

    Dad

    It’s easy to go after them. Laugh at them hysterically and them explain concisely why they’re fucking lunatics.

    Whenever they’re mentioned people being asked about them should laugh and then say they would destroy the economy or they would ban nuclear medicine for cancer sufferers.

    There’s plenty of shit there.

    The people voting for them should be made to feel embarrassed for being such nincompoops.

    Watch what former ALP’er Gary Johns says about them. He’s absolutely ruthless about these freaking trogs.

  25. pedro says:

    “Neither social democrats or conservatives have found an effective attack strategy against the Greens or their arguments. Notice that they have shifted from global warming to other issues, such as asylum seekers and gay marriage. I believe that they should be taken on head-on, toe-to-toe, but not on battlegrounds of their choosing. For example, don’t bother debating them on gay marriage. Debate them on nuclear power; pine forests (so where will all the paper come from?); taxes on fuel and energy. They will only go away once people take their dumb-arse policies seriously and take them apart point by point.”

    That’s certainly the best approach. But they only need to cobble together 10% or so and they can make that up with the 0.5% obsessed with gay marriate, the 6% fretting about AGW, 2% who are commies, and so on. What are the odds that the sum total of idiots in the electorate is less than 30%? Pretty much zero I reckon, so their is plenty of low hanging fruit for them (and not just on gay marriage, boom boom)

  26. THR says:

    Actually, there are some decent socialist critiques of the Greens out there.

  27. JC says:

    Actually, there are some decent socialist critiques of the Greens out there.

    Yep, there are actually. The Strange Times crowd who I actually don’t mind at all freaking despise the greens as much as I do.

  28. JC says:

    THR

    I don’t really know why you like these loons. Marx would be rolling in his grave over these idiots.

    He were alive today he’d hate them more than he’d hate capitalists.

  29. Jarrah says:

    Imagine the poor Finance and Treasury number-crunchers if the Greens had to have their policies costed like the LabLibs:

    Ring ring
    NC: Hi, could I talk to Bob Brown please?
    BB: Speaking.
    NC: Mr Brown, we’re trying to do the costings on your election promises, but unfortunately we get about a third of the way down and run out of money.

  30. Keith says:

    Probably communists ? Rhiannon is a communist, and is now heading for the Senate next year.

    We don’t really need to examine the consequences of their policies. I doubt the greens would have even an agreed comprehension & understanding of their policies at this stage.
    When they attempt to vote in accordance with their policies, is when the fun begins. That might be the stage at which the greens themselves might seriously examine their own policies, and even attempt to arrange them in priority order.

    Look what happened to the democrats when they negotiated with the liberals to help pass the GST : the beginning of the end. Despite having been elected with a mandate to negotiate on the GST the internal commotion was vicious nevertheless. Their leader stood down not long afterward and was gone from politics at the next election. The others slowly followed into political oblivion.

    The greens risk a similar fate. The have almost guaranteed it by not declaring any position on the announced policies of the major parties. Instead they emphasised their own alternatives, not how they would deal with others’. Sooner or later they will need to respond to the legislative program of whoever forms government. That first touch of political reality might be too much to bear.
    They also seem to have a rogue party management that does preference deals with other parties without their leaders consent. Another parallel feature of the democrats.

  31. Yobbo says:


    Probably communists ? Rhiannon is a communist, and is now heading for the Senate next year.

    The LDP could yet win that seat. Unlikely, but we can live in hope.

  32. Peter Patton says:

    I was going to vote for Greens – tactically – until I visited their website, and went through all their policies. Not only do they just contradict each other all over the shop, but we’d need the GDP of the US to implement even a skeleton of their policy agenda.

  33. Jarrah says:

    “Actually, there are some decent socialist critiques of the Greens out there.”

    I’d be interested, but I suspect they would mostly be complaints that the the Greens have sold out to The Man by not advocating an immediate proletarian revolution and dictatorship.

  34. Myrddin Seren says:

    “2. the management of Australia’s natural resources must ensure the sovereignty and independence of future generations.”

    That’s the death-blow right there.

    I have had this discussion with someone who relishes history and military history – not just some goober who thinks history stopped with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

    Moi: “At the end of the day, while it would be nice to think that the decision on development of mines and export of minerals is strictly local politics – how much do you think the burgeoning, resource hungry economies of North Asia, the Sub-continent and South America will cheer us if we turn off the tap – ‘to save the planet’ !?”

    Answer: “I think We should decide about our mineral resources”.

    Moi: “Do you not recall that resource-driven unpleasantness to our immediate north in 1941 ? I am talking precedent here !”

    Answer: “I think We should decide about our mineral resources”. – continuous loop.

    FFS – I can hear the keels of Chinese aircraft carriers being slapped down now. According to this, they are training pilots in flight deck ops already !!

    http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008180284.html

    My one prayer is that when the landing barges of the Greater Indo-Asia-Pacific Co-prosperity Resource Reallocation Task Force hit the beaches at Port Headland and Dampier – Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Adam Bandt, Lee Rhiannon, Clive Hamilton and Tim Flannery will be standing on the shore line waving copies of the Greens’ policies on intergenerational sovereignty as the 12.7mm tracer rounds illuminate the route to the Pilbara………

  35. Peter Patton says:

    Yobbo

    How could the LDP win that seat? Whose preferences?

  36. Crowbar says:

    The Oz LDP is just riding on the coat-tails of Liberal Democrat parties o/s. Most people who vote for them probably think they’re like the British party, concerned about the environment and supportive of the welfare state. A vote for the LDP in Australia is thus most likely a vote for the centre-left, not the right.

    It’s a vote made in ignorance by people not that engaged in the detail of politics which is just fine.

  37. . says:

    “The Oz LDP is just riding on the coat-tails of Liberal Democrat parties o/s”

    Um yeah sure. Australians all follow UK politics and don’t know anything about Australia.

    “concerned about the environment and supportive of the welfare state”

    The faction that got up is actually libertarian, not the soft wet left.

    “It’s a vote made in ignorance by people not that engaged in the detail of politics which is just fine.”

    No, no, that would be your comment you freaking loon.

  38. daddy dave says:

    I was going to vote for Greens – tactically – until I visited their website, and went through all their policies.

    I knew you’d see sense in the end Peter. 🙂

  39. Peter Patton says:

    Well I voted for them in the Senate.

  40. Jarrah says:

    “The Oz LDP is just riding on the coat-tails of Liberal Democrat parties o/s.”

    There may be an element of that, but I think you’d be hard-pressed to provide evidence for it. Also, your argument contradicts itself somewhat – these voters are supposedly “not that engaged in the detail of politics” in Australia but are fully cognizant of the UK LDP’s policies.

    It’s far more likely that some people are confused about whether the LDP in Australia is an offshoot of the Liberals or the Democrats. Although, again, I couldn’t provide any evidence that is right, it’s just a gut feeling.

  41. Crowbar says:

    Thus the Oz LDP is a complete con. Their vote means little since most people think they are voting for this.

    “Promoting social liberalism, the Liberal Democrats voice strong support for constitutional reform, electoral reform, civil liberties, and higher taxes for public services. The party president’s book of office is John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, which defended individual rights while attacking the tyranny of the majority and the despotism of custom. The party objects to state limitations on individual rights and favours a welfare state that provides for the necessities and amenities of life.[13][14] They support multilateral foreign policy, opposing British participation in the War in Iraq and supporting the withdrawal of troops from the country.[15] The Liberal Democrats are the most pro-European Union of the three main parties in the UK. The party has strong environmentalist values—favouring renewable energy and commitments to deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.”

    Busted.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats

  42. Peter Patton says:

    dd

    I wouldn’t trust them to duck down to the shops and buy a loaf of bread and a litre of milk! 🙂

  43. Yobbo says:

    Everyone’s preferences PP, Glen Dreury is the candidate and he’s an expert at preference deals. Nevertheless at last count we were a bit behind where we needed to be to win that seat over the greens. The ABC prediction has the LDP candidate being the last one excluded at this stage.

    http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2010/guide/snsw-results.htm

    20,000 votes behind but that is only a prediction.

    Getting the sex party to preference LDP ahead of greens looks like the key move there.

  44. Crowbar says:

    People vote Democratic Socialist (communist) too because they think it is Social Democratic. There are all sorts of confusions and illusions with party names.

    Very few people here would know anything about the local LDP. The point is they think it is the LDP they’ve heard of and have a vague idea (or not so vague) from their country of origin.

    So the vote the LDP receives is essentially meaningless and void.

  45. Peter Patton says:

    The Australian Greens believe that:

    1. affordable housing is a human right.

    How can you believe something is a right or not. It either is or it isn’t, whether you believe it or not. We can say, I believe, that in Australia, a judge has the right to sentence someone to death. Well good for you, honey. But s/he doesn’t.

  46. Jarrah says:

    Crowbar, the Liberal Democrats is a name that describes the Aus LDP very well (stands for liberalisation and improved democracy), the UK LDP OK-ish (stands for some liberalisation and improved democracy), and the Japanese LDP badly (stand for right-wing conservatism). Then there’s the Italian LDP, of which I know very little.

    My main point is that ‘liberal’ and ‘democrat’ are nebulous words that can’t be owned by any group. My secondary point is that the Aus LDP can plausibly be described as being the most liberal, most democratic of all the various LDPs.

  47. daddy dave says:

    I don’t like the name of the LDP. It’s a confusing brand name since it combines the names of two other Australian political parties. Most importantly it has the word “Liberal” in it and we already have a prominent party with that name.
    I know this is a shallow issue, nothing to do with policies, but surely it is hard to get traction in the minds of the general public with such a confusing name.

  48. Jarrah says:

    “It either is or it isn’t, whether you believe it or not.”

    They’re not talking legal rights, but moral ones. The former exists or it doesn’t, the latter depends heavily on beliefs.

  49. JC says:

    Phil

    Jut vote for the olive party.

    Hey, Phil , did you vote or couldn’t you get off the old couch?

  50. Crowbar says:

    Yes. The LDP here can be all things to all people. The point is people are confused by it and its vote is in no way reflective of its actually existing policies (whatever they are).

  51. Peter Patton says:

    Can someone “please explain” the Sebate quota system? If when all is counted, you have say 2.7, how many Senate seats do you get?

  52. Peter Patton says:

    Ah, just worked it out. They keep eliminating folks who haven’t reached 1.0

  53. Peter Patton says:

    JC

    PLEASE don’t start on the olives again. When you raised it again the other night, I pissed myself laughing for about half an hour; it was worse than hiccups. That Fake Phil post – about the American Dominoes guy who ended up dying by falling off a cliff – was just gold.

  54. Crowbar says:

    OTOH everyone knows what the Greens stand for.

    It’s no accident the ecology movement developed in parallel with the space race. People then and now associate the Greens with the moon landing and that most beautiful image of the 20th century, the photograph of Earth taken from space and all that implied about our fragile blue planet, its limitations and preciousness.

  55. Peter Patton says:

    Jarrah

    There is no such thing as “moral” rights, unless you live in a theocracy.

  56. Jarrah says:

    Where do legal rights come from, if not an expression of asserted moral rights?

  57. jtfsoon says:

    We need more politicians like Bob Katter.

    I’m impressed. The complete opposite of the misantrophic Green creed

    http://aiecquest.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/australian-independents-on-immigration-population-and-regional-development/

    I represent more than half of Australia’s water run-off – the Kennedy
    electorate. I mean, with just seven per cent of that water in north
    Queensland, all of north Queensland, and two per cent of our land in
    north Queensland – I know people will not believe this when they hear
    this: we can support a population of 60 million people.

    Now, if we haven’t got a population of 60 million, we can make a lot
    of money by selling that product overseas. That’s just two per cent of
    the land. Now why isn’t it being opened up? Why isn’t some of those
    resources being used? And there’s just no way out except to say it is
    immoral to sit on those resources when your nearest neighbour has 80
    million of their population going to bed hungry of a night, it’s just
    simply immoral and it won’t be allowed to continue.

    There’s no question about that. So what we are saying to you: there is
    a different paradigm out there. There is a paradigm of
    developmentalism and vision that this country has lost. You just
    develop a little tiny bit of those resources….We don’t want them to go
    to the cities. We want to take some of the people out of Sydney and
    Melbourne and put them where they can have a civilised lifestyle,
    which we can provide for them in Australia.

    I mean, if you drop a series of hydrogen bombs from the back of
    Cairns, the other side of Mareeba, 30 kilometres from Cairns, all the
    way across to Broome, you won’t kill anybody. There’s nobody living
    there.

    I mean, there’s about 95 per cent of the surface area of Australia –
    just cut out the little coastal strip and a little dot around Perth:
    the population’s not much different than when Captain Cook arrived.
    There’s only 670,000 people living on 95 per cent of the surface area
    of the country. And, I mean, we’re talking about overpopulation!

    I mean, the rest of the world must really laugh at this. I mean – but
    the concept of developmentalism, the concept of a vision where people
    can live in a civilised city of 40,000 or 50,000 people, that seems to
    have been lost completely and it’s gotta be restored and the people
    will restore it

  58. THR says:

    Ktter’s ‘vision’ requires significant planning, and almost certainly of the centralised sort. ‘Civilised’ cities don’t just pop up out of nowhere.

  59. Yobbo says:

    That’s what I’ve been saying for years about high rainfall areas of Australia vs everyone living in Sydney.

  60. Adrien says:

    There is no such thing as “moral” rights, unless you live in a theocracy.

    Natural Law advocates are contenders based largely on this point: where do the idea of rights come from. Sometime, somewhere they must be drawn from a strong belief that people are entitled to this or that. If not, no-one’d have the gumption to fight for it.

  61. Infidel Tiger says:

    Yep, more Katter please.

    We need to dam the Fitzroy river too. The north of Australia could be anything if we had a bit of get up and go.

  62. Peter Patton says:

    Jarrah

    Rights come from political agitation, which finally results in legal expression – either constitutionally, by statute, or common law – whose enforcement is ultimately guaranteed by the barrel of a gun. Whence the ideas and/or desires for this or that right is indeterminate, and a product of the context of the time.

  63. Jarrah says:

    Peter, so you believe that the only rights are legal ones? That all rights are positive?

  64. Crowbar says:

    Presidents Carter and Kennedy played their role too in responding to the growing ecological movement spurred on by Rachel Carson’s work. Carter’s Great Society speech in 1964 referred to the impoverished environment as one of the reasons for the need to act on the issues of pollutants, pesticides etc. J.R.R. Tolkien’s books, massively popular again today, were also an impetus in raising nature consciousness mid 20th century.

    Carson had the satisfaction before her untimely death of seeing Kennedy call a special meeting of his scientific advisory committee to discuss the implications of “Silent Spring” before she died in 1964.

    Her legacy bore fruit a few years later with US Congress passing national environmental laws requiring an enviro impact statement for each govt decision. Around the same time the use of DDT as a pesticide was effectively banned and the EPA was established along with clean air, water pollution control etc laws.

    In 1969, world nations met in Rome to discuss pollution. The UN had a world conference on the environment and a few years later the first green candidates ran in elections in Germany, France and Britain. These events coincided with the 1973 oil crisis.

    This is all Greens’ history.

    And what does the LDP have by way of historical? Chile under Pinochet. Very inspiring. Not.

  65. dover_beach says:

    Ktter’s ‘vision’ requires significant planning, and almost certainly of the centralised sort. ‘Civilised’ cities don’t just pop up out of nowhere.

    Infrastructure planning is not the sort of ‘planning’ that I’m particularly worried about.

    Rights come from political agitation, which finally results in legal expression – either constitutionally, by statute, or common law – whose enforcement is ultimately guaranteed by the barrel of a gun.

    Quite, but why should these facts suggest that rights are not moral? The reasoning that is involved in agitation, and finally, expressed in the law only arises because people claim this or that freedom which they have enjoyed or which others have enjoyed to be moral rights that ought to be recognized and legally acnknowledged.

  66. . says:

    “And what does the LDP have by way of historical? Chile under Pinochet. Very inspiring. Not.”

    Fuck me you’re a bitter, barking moonbat of a commie, Jinmaro.

  67. JC says:

    Presidents Carter and Kennedy played their role too in responding to the growing ecological movement spurred on by Rachel Carson’s work.

    Crow, you moron, Cater was president from 76 to 80.

    Carson was a moron. Her book was nonsense.

    Have you read it? I spend time doing so and it was nothing more than a false alarm about chemicals.

    The stupid woman even got cigarettes wrong. She warning about chemicals going into tobacco growing rather than the carcinogenic concerns of smoking itself.

    Like you she was a moron and I have am not surprised one moron would attract another.

    Tim Lambert of course is attracted to her non-scientific work, because he’s also an idiot.

  68. THR says:

    Infrastructure planning is not the sort of ‘planning’ that I’m particularly worried about.

    Why not? If you’re a market enthusiast like most people here, why not let the market decide who should move to rural QLD?

  69. dover_beach says:

    Fuck me you’re a bitter, barking moonbat of a commie, Jinmaro.

    Isn’t Crowbar Phil? Sure sounds like it.

  70. Peter Patton says:

    dover

    I also said

    “Whence the ideas and/or desires for this or that right is indeterminate, and a product of the context of the time.”

    So rights can certainly be inspired by “moral” values/inclinations, but their status as “rights” only comes from the law, and its enforcement capabilities.

  71. dover_beach says:

    Why not? If you’re a market enthusiast like most people here, why not let the market decide who should move to rural QLD?

    Building infrastructure will not force people to move to Rural Nth Queensland. Further, Nth Queensland is not the only part of Australia I’d be building dams or other infrastructure.

  72. Crowbar says:

    Correction. President Johnson, I meant, not Carter.

  73. Peter Patton says:

    Jarrah

    Peter, so you believe that the only rights are legal ones? That all rights are positive?

    Partly correct. You are trying to trip me up on the ambiguity of positive rights, you cheeky monkey. 😉

    They are positive in the positivist sense. You can find them, point them out, they are written down (let us leave aside pre-literate polities).

    They can be “positive” in the sense of “right to housing” if this or that polity so decides. I believe the Soviet Union had such “positive rights” and maybe modern-day South Africa.

  74. jtfsoon says:

    hey phil

    how was the lasagna filled with potato filled with blue cheese?

  75. Crowbar says:

    So, to recap.

    No one in Australia who votes LDP really knows what they are voting for. It’s confusion and vagueness iced with con.

    And that sort of con only goes so far. A political party has to stand for something worth fighting for, and murdered workers and peasants Chile-style is not what the good folks of Australia today aspire to. Which is why the LDP is doomed to oblivion.

  76. dover_beach says:

    So rights can certainly be inspired by “moral” values/inclinations, but their status as “rights” only comes from the law, and its enforcement capabilities.

    I agree with your first statement but not your second. I think it make sense to speak of moral and legal rights so long as we distinguish the two.

  77. Peter Patton says:

    How are they distinguished? To whom do you turn for relief against the violation of your “moral” rights, if said rights have not also been sanctified by law?

  78. Crowbar says:

    Rachel Carson’s legacy lives on in the Green movement today. Not only was she an exemplar scientist, her main book has never been out of print, she inspired other academics and artists whose work lives on today, such as Charles Reich, Stanley Kubrick, Ken Kesey, the Beatles, The Who, Cream, Tom Wolfe, economist Franz Schumacher and countless other trailblazers.

    And who does the LDP have by way of contrast in its intellectual clutch-bag? Err, Ayn Rand and Augusto Pinochet. LOL.

    Fabulous.

  79. THR says:

    Building infrastructure will not force people to move to Rural Nth Queensland. Further, Nth Queensland is not the only part of Australia I’d be building dams or other infrastructure.

    So you’re happy for the taxpayer to fund this infrastructure? Do you apply the same standards to public health, housing, etc?

  80. DavidJ says:

    Crowbar, you really are a fucking moron.

    Carson was a junk scientist who alarmist bullshit cost the lives of millions of poor people. She spouted the same old standard lefty bullshit claiming the high ground of greater good yet there are the pesky unintended consequences. Just like that fat turd Gore.

  81. Adrien says:

    Crowbar, I have my most sincere doubts that anyone in the LDP regards Pinochet as part of their philosophical pantheon regardless their attitudes to his reign. Chile in the 70s and Australia in the teens are quite different places. I think you’re barking in the wrong forest.

    I voted for the LDP in the Senate. I knew what I was doing.

  82. Sinclair Davidson says:

    Crowbar – you’re beginning to remind me a lot of a former poster who gets banned everytime he is outed.

  83. JC says:

    how was the lasagna filled with potato filled with blue cheese?

    Don’t forget the olives. Phil did an olive tasting.

    Olives and more olives.

    Hey, Phil… Whatever you don’t remind the moderator of who you are as you know hat that means.

    Back in birdie’s fat arms.

  84. dover_beach says:

    So you’re happy for the taxpayer to fund this infrastructure?

    I wouldn’t say I’m happy, but I think it’s reasonable in the circumstances.

    Do you apply the same standards to public health, housing, etc?

    There is a clear difference between public infrastructure and publicly provided health care, housing, etc.

  85. dover_beach says:

    How are they distinguished? To whom do you turn for relief against the violation of your “moral” rights, if said rights have not also been sanctified by law?

    You’ve answered your own question; that is how they are distinguished.

  86. Crowbar says:

    Well, Sinclair Davidson, I’m a she not a he. So you’re barking up the wrong tree.

  87. Crowbar says:

    But if you want to set some of record for banning women from this site, go right ahead.

  88. JC says:

    Along with jarrah I think we’re right about filthy Phil. It’s two loons who were using the same moniker. You could tell sometimes.

    This one is the other lunatic.

    And somehow… the connection seems to be metromick because this loon sounds awfully like Metro, my former carbon slave.

  89. JC says:

    How on earth would we know you’re a woman? And why should lunatic females get special privileges more so than loonie men?

    I know you’re going to point to homer and say.. “look at him, he’s a loon and he hasn’t been banned”.

    Homer is sort of inherited. Getting rid of Homes just wouldn’t be right.

  90. Crowbar says:

    Any one who trashes Rachel Carson is an irrelevant moron. All histories of the 20th century put her in the top echelons of movers and shakers. She’s never been out of print, she influenced two US Presidents as well as countless millions internationally, she is a forebear of the Greens internationally and in that sense 10-48 per cent of Australian people cast a first preference vote for her in last Saturday’s federal election.

    Eat your heart out “LDP”ers.

  91. JC says:

    Crow:

    Every single prediction she made about big bad chemicals was wrong. Every single one.

    She caused people to question the use of DDT, chilling their use and thereby causing the death of millions of people under false premises.

    Every single prediction was wrong?

    Have you even read the book?

  92. jtfsoon says:

    Well, Sinclair Davidson, I’m a she not a he

    That’s what they all say to ‘Gra Gra’.

  93. Peter Patton says:

    db

    Then how do you justify collapsing them both under the umbrella of “rights” if one is civically/legally recognized and enforced, while the other is not?

  94. THR says:

    There is a clear difference between public infrastructure and publicly provided health care, housing, etc.

    And this difference is…?

    Every single prediction she made about big bad chemicals was wrong. Every single one.

    Actually, I looked into this, and whilst I haven’t read Carson’s book, I understand her key claims are all correct. DDT is carcinogenic, and associated with a range of health problems.

  95. THR says:

    Speaking of Gra Gra, after kampfing it up all week, he’s obviously brought out the brandy, schnapps and Wagner records, and is now blitzkrieging us with his Wissenschaft:

    I would say that Labour is, demographically, the natural party of government. But they have to shed this sycophancy to the hard left and the public service. For the love of this continent, and for the Labour party as well, they must pledge undying allegiance to THE WORKING POOR TAXPAYERS (and to helping our more destitute mates, and old buggers, of course.)

    If they cannot do that they ought to give it away.

    Mark Latham uber alles.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2010/08/20/the-purposeful-drawing-of-fire-depleting-the-other-guys-ordnance-full-spectrum-superiority-in-tradesmen-possible-warfighting-strategy-for-australia/?replytocom=32365#respond

  96. dover_beach says:

    Then how do you justify collapsing them both under the umbrella of “rights” if one is civically/legally recognized and enforced, while the other is not?

    Because they are both something we enjoy, except the former is more precarious then the latter.

  97. dover_beach says:

    And this difference is…?

    Although I’m not completed convinced of the notion of public goods, the former is certainly one, while the latter is certainly not.

  98. Crowbar says:

    “Silent Spring” was serialised in the influential “New Yorker” and it created a furore. Carson explored not only the science and toxicity of pesticides but the culpability of industry, accusing specific companies of greed, of putting profit before adequate care for wildlife and humans. Sound familiar?

    Like her previous book “The Sea Around Us”, a US bestseller, “Silent Spring” was timely, in its case because it coincided with the thalidomide scandal which showed that certain chemicals taken by mothers in the early stages of pregnancy could result in deformed offspring.

  99. Infidel Tiger says:

    Crowbar – You’e obviously high on rancid olive oil or tucking your meat and veg between your legs has cut off circualtion to your brain. No one gives a continental about your opinion.

  100. Crowbar says:

    Infidel, tigers aren’t monogamous. You appalling hick.

  101. jtfsoon says:

    gra gra is also going on about his trailbike and horseriding in the city fantasies again

    I share a lot of your concerns Doc. And if it were up to me, in 200 years time, you would be able to ride your horse, or trailbike, through LAND-GOOD-LAND in a curved path, from the centre of town, to anywhere else you would want to go.

    And when you rode your horse from the centre of town, you would ride past the hobby farms and the Edwardian estates that had invaded to the centre of town, and those estates and hobby farms would be looked down at by the poor people living in impossibly spacious sky-houses.

    In other words the poor people would have incredible space. In other words the poor people would LOOK DOWN on the rich people.

    Thats where all my policies would be leading us too. Thats what I’m about.

    Reply Alert moderator

  102. JC says:

    Crow:

    He’ll love everything you say about St. Rachael.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

    No one here gives a shit about it.

  103. THR says:

    I think gra gra has been inspired by his recent travels abroad. He wants to turn everybody on the Central Coast into a reserve army of bogan tuk-tuk drivers.

  104. Peter Patton says:

    db

    You are relying on a rather banal notion of “rights” (with regard to your non-legal ‘moral’ rights), which I think should be resisted, as it dilutes the real significance of actual legal rights.

    Presumably, you might argue a fetus has a “right” to life. But in Australia, it does not. Now, while a woman’s access to abortion has not been enshrined as a legal “right” which transcends ordinary legislation (which can be repealed by whim), nevertheless, as the matter stands – at least in NSW – a woman does have a negative right to be left alone by the state as she goes about her aborting business.

    Similarly, when a 16 year old girl is about to walk out the front door on a Saturday night dressed like Madonna, and her mother says, “you’re not going out dressed like that, young lady.” Daughter responds, “I’m an adult now, you’ve got no right to tell me what to wear.”

    These two examples of the use of the word “right” are thoughtless colloquialisms, and we should resist encouraging them into the discourse of actually existing civil rights.

  105. John H. says:

    Crowbar – You’e obviously high on rancid olive oil or tucking your meat and veg between your legs has cut off circualtion to your brain. No one gives a continental about your opinion.

    On such matters I will happily be your ally Crowbar. I haven’t read Rachel Carson though, why bother when there are thousands of primary peer reviewed research articles highlighting the risks of pesticides, with only last week a report of ADHD and some pesticide exposures, entirely concordant with the well established link with Parkinsons Disease and pesticides.

    But I’ll tell you now. Generally, with this lot, you are wasting your time. Your not preaching to the choir you’re preaching to the deaf. Ya just keep plugging and here and there you can break down 20 years of unerring conviction that there is no problem.

  106. Sinclair Davidson says:

    ‘Crowbar’ is outed and out of here.

  107. dover_beach says:

    PP, you and/or we have a problem since your qualifying a right with the adverb ‘legal’ suggests that referring to either a legal or moral right is perfectly legitimate, otherwise the ‘legal’ would be otiose. And even in respect of your example, the argument as it occured in the courts was undertaken with neither right being recognised in the circumstances until the courts deciding to in fact recognize and acknowledgement the enjoy of this conditional freedom as a legal right. But, I agree, we should resist thoughtless colloquialisms.

  108. jack67 says:

    being i dont know alot about the greens ,how come when i hear bandt and brown say there for a more loving australia, i got a very bad feeling in my guts about peolpe smugglers rubbing there hands together over all the money they will be making?

  109. dover_beach says:

    Correction: and acknowledge the enjoyment…

  110. JC says:

    hahahahahahah

    Phil… you gotta stop this. Now back to Birdie’s big fat open arms.

  111. Infidel Tiger says:

    Did you watch the Pauly Howes puff piece, JC? I’m watching it right now.

  112. Peter Patton says:

    db

    No, my adjectical qualification -moral/legal’ – was out respect for the discussion we were involved with. That is, I was assuming the legitimacy (pun intended 🙂 ) of non-legal ‘moral’ rights for the puppose of illustrating why the word ‘right’ should be avoided.

    Now, if we go back to where all this started, it was The Greens policy statement saying ‘we believe that affordable housing is a right.’

    1. My argument is no it is not. If you would like to make it so in the future, then say so, including how you will make ‘affordable housing’ roll of the tongues of Australians as might “right to vote.”

    2. Actually, in concession to the vile oleaginous Greens, I note they said ‘human right,’ which instantly gives them some slither room, coz they can hold up some UN Convention or other which says so.

  113. Peter Patton says:

    In which case why didn’t the lying airheads just say “affordable housing is a human right.” Even by their own mindless set, they are not the keepers of what are and are not “human” rights.

  114. JC says:

    Yea I did Infel

    He really is full of himself too. What a bloated little mediocrity.

    By the way I’m awfully suspicious about the Cuba trip he took trying to find socialism and left disillusioned.

    Junior dudes that worked for me used to get down there for sex weekends. It was really funny. They’d go off Friday lunch and bought all sorts of girlyie stuff like lipstick etc to trade for sex. They told me the gals didn’t want dolls , they wanted the goodies to trade.

  115. daddy dave says:

    John H, I believe you that toxins in the environment are a potentially serious problem.
    I am wary of getting carried away, having been taken for a ride by green crusaders too many times before. I’m not saying that you’re a green crusader, far from it, but just that I am wary of green issues, particularly ones that are some version of predicting armageddon.

  116. Infidel Tiger says:

    Very poorly timed show for little Pauly. Hopefully the days of the backdoor union bandits are over.

  117. dover_beach says:

    The Greens policy statement saying ‘we believe that affordable housing is a right.’

    I agree that that is not a right, but I would go further and say it could never be a right. PP, we more or less agree with each other; its seems that we find agreement rather boring and prefer the activity of quibbling.

  118. Peter Patton says:

    True! 🙂 For the record, I cannot STAND quibbling: “Ah, but 435 posts above you said are not is. Soooo lacking in integrity that crap.

  119. Keith says:

    The Howes show was to enlarge his importance to unionism. Next stop – head of the ACTU. Pity his big plans for the country fell in a heap on the weekend. And his ‘mate’ Arbib didn’t front for Q&A tonight. These apparatchiks really like to avoid examination, even when they can expect a reasonably friendly reception at Q&A, but maybe not tonight. Too many knives out. It was claimed that Gillard had ordered Arbib not to appear. Must present calm, stable face to the electorate. Nothing bad has happened – move along nothing to see here.

  120. Infidel Tiger says:

    Struth! You know you’re in a bit of strife hwne the leftists of Q&A are getting crank with the ALP:

    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/arbib.htm

  121. Peter Patton says:

    On the issue of affordable housing ever could be a right, I was talking to this chick over the weekend, who used to be a social worker. She’s now a litigation lawyer. She said part of the intractability of the homelessness problem – even putting aside the mental health issues – is that even where the state can find temporary/emergency accommodation, the class of people we are talking about are overwhelmingly anti-social, violent, abusive, bereft of social skills, concern for hygiene etc. So any joint that will give them a go is trashed very quickly. Thus, the expense ratchets up.

    For example, the Department of Housing has arrangements with all sorts of dives and cheap motels/hotels it will pay for desperate people to be able to stay in for a limited period. But even these dives and cheap motels will insist on a premium of up to 50% on their usual tariff to cover the high risk of damage.

  122. Pingback: The Future of the Greens at Catallaxy Files

Comments are closed.