The Future of the Greens

Sinc noted in March last year that they have done very badly at the State level, and that was before the recent Queensland election.

Before that SamuelJ called for the lancing of the Green carbuncle.

The demographic of the Green supporters, rich but doomed to extinction.

Can the Greens survive their success? After they achieved the balance of power in the Senate.

Up to date the Greens have been able to travel under the radar of serious examination of the consequenes of their policies… 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.

A small segment on The Bolt Report on market research on support for “the green brand” does not play well for the green future.

Nothing demonstrates the failure of our media and commentators than the free pass they gave to the lunatic and wrecker Bob Brown. But Andrew Bolt wondered whether the worms were turning in the last few months and that may have been the trigger for Brown to exit.

But something has quietly shifted in the media coverage. The bell has cracked.

The largely missed truth is that this past year has been a disaster for Brown, who suddenly seems not avuncular but angry, not reassuring but dangerous.
And this has come just when the public is feeling the sharp pain of his green agenda. No wonder he’s going while that going is good.

We were warned! Look at the state of Tasmania, the original base of the Bob and the Greens!

A reminder of the full suite of Green policies, summarizedfrom a collection of papers.

Andrew McIntyre of the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs wrote the introduction to this 145 page collection of 22 short pieces on the policies of the Greens. He pointed out that the lack of commentary on Green policies has been an extraordinary failure of our media. This is probably beause for a long time they were regarded as a single issue party and too small to matter outside Tasmania.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to The Future of the Greens

  1. Token says:

    There will always be a party of the far lunar left. Therefore, if not the Greens, another mutation of the socialist left will emerge.

    During the past decade, as the headcount and pay rates in the state and federal public services grew, so did the vote of the greens. Not all public servants (including teachers) vote for the Greens, but a significant population do.

    Thus, as long as Australian government maintain large bodies of public workers, and thus the Greens will always have a base of voters.

    I do agree that we saw peak Green in the mid 2000’s before the AGW doomsday predictions were put under sustained skeptical scientific scrutiny. They will be a niche business who will hold influence beyond the size of the electorate when the Senate or House of Reps evenly split.

  2. Rafe says:

    Green propaganda in the schools is a worry, that will ensure a stream of young supporters.

  3. perturbed says:

    Not if they make idiots of themselves first. Then it doesn’t matter how “environmentally aware” the kiddies are – if they get to voting age aware of the hypocrisy of their idols, it won’t matter a damn what Milne or Gillard or any of their successors say – “Green” will be finished as a party, a brand and a concept.

  4. Token says:

    Green propaganda in the schools is a worry, that will ensure a stream of young supporters.

    I agree perturbed.

    Get rid of the bloated public services and you reduce the number of people that can live the intellectual ghetto the teachers lay out.

    The majority of people will run from those hollow ideas once they have to get out in the real world. Seriously, how many people want to compromise all their other goals and aspirations to maintain their environment purity?

  5. Token says:

    Sorry Rafe, I forgot to say thank you for the round up.

    Once again you have done well tying together this group of complimentary articles and ideas.

  6. Rabz says:

    They are evil, anti-democratic idiots who should be mercilessly ridiculed.

    Some Most of their policies are literally insane.

    One that springs to mind is their obsession with shutting down Lucas Heights – where nuclear medicine treatments for cancer victims are made.

    If Lucas Heights was shut down, where would cancer victims have to go to receive treatment? That’s right, overseas. Thanks,you evil morons, way to go.

    To add insult to injury, a particular greenslime scumbag just before the election in 2010 tried to deny shutting Lucas Heights was one of their policies, until it was pointed out that the very same policy was on their website.

    Whatever it takes.

    They are in my sights, as birdbrain byrne’s hubby discovered in August 2010 outside of Lewisham station one morning…

  7. Sean says:

    Now Milne is taking their policies seriously they are in big trouble!

    The arrogant,deluded holier than thou act worked well for mad dog.

  8. Rafe says:

    Get a copy of this book and lend it to your Green friends and relations.

  9. Sean says:

    Thus, as long as Australian government maintain large bodies of public workers, and thus the Greens will always have a base of voters.

    -> People who pay no tax and are therfore happy to push the burden onto others.

  10. Token says:

    This is the Green Future the greenslime has for the children foolish enough to fall for their crap.

    Uncertainty and fear.

  11. Rabz says:

    Speaking of greenslime scumbags

    Almost 1600 words and nary a coherent thought to be seen…

  12. brc says:

    Really, everyone seems to think that the kids coming out of schools are little environmental activists.

    I say nothing could be further from the truth.

    All the ones I see still dump their rubbish wherever they finish it, and are prone to irrational nature destruction as teens have ever been.

    The one change I would note is that they all appear to feign some desire for activism. As long as it just requires joining the right facebook group or calling Tony Abbot some names on twitter.

    But to actually go and put their name down for a political party, carry a protest sign, make a paper mache head?

    Sorry, not seeing it.

    Think about it – when was the last time you saw someone chained to a bulldozer, young Bob Brown style?

  13. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B. says:

    The Bunyip has risen from the deep, and from the mire has brought forth Green aesthetics.

  14. Gab says:

    I saw that, Lizzie. What a lovely painting for Milne to proudly display – the death of humans. So ideologically apt.

  15. Bruce says:

    Don Chipp demonstrated there was a demographic for “Keep the bastards honest”. This works well until you yourself become bastards, which is why Meg Lees oversaw the fairies at the bottom of the garden reverting to mythology.

    The Greens presently hold this demographic.

    But with Katter as an alternative, and the Greens-ALP coalition, the Greens are starting to look quite bastardly. So they could indeed sleep with the fairies.

    Sadly though one difference is the religion of Greenery, which may act to keep their beautiful plumage glossily green and their bums nailed to the cross benches for a while yet.

  16. Pingback: Green Reflections and the New Reactionaries

  17. Tiddly Pom says:

    “The demographic of the Green supporters, rich but doomed to extinction.”

    Pretty much received wisdom (well perhaps not the extinction part) I guess, but how true actually is it? There is a respectable case to be made that much of the Greens vote is just a protest vote which is very largely an artefact of compulsory voting, whereby the disillusioned with either real prospective governing party are forced to park their vote somewhere.

    There are only 10 countries that enforce compulsory voting (OK, Wiki, but we can take it as an approximation). It puts Australia in the company largely of such shining examples of good governance as Nauru and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

    I have never understood why there is so little criticism in this country of the compulsory vote, especially these days when it has played such a role in the rise of the loonies and their current influence on policy.

  18. wm is censored says:

    hehe, the sore loser brigade still in denial that the greens will hold the balance in the most representative house of government, the senate, for the foreseeable future. Those retards confusing the greens with democrats are stupid indeed. The Democrats were a centre party idiots! Between lib and labs. They also helped introduce the GST, the greatest tax on hard working Aussies ever. But somehow, I don’t think the Greens would be so stupid as to abandon their left principles as easily as Abbott abandons his parties extremist right wing neo-con principles with his socialist policies. I mean, i’m really surprised you guys aren’t holding your faux-tory messiah Abbott to account for his socialist march to power! I guess its much easiest to hurl abuse at the slickest and most stable run party in Australia…over to your sticks and stones…

  19. Token says:

    Tiddly Pom, it is the tradition here which the prore-gressives count on to give them an advantage.

    Tegardless of the merits of a move to optional voting, any conservative who puts it forward will be jumped on by prore-gressives with the lie that it is done to take away the franchise from the poor.

  20. JC says:

    The demographic of the Green supporters, rich but doomed to extinction.”

    I don’t think it is doomed. There’s a healthy movement or at least there has been from the established proto churches that no longer really exist in this country other than in name only to the Greens movement. So can see this happening for some time yet.

  21. Tiddly Pom says:

    Yes you are right of course Token. I was just venting.

    Compulsory voting is daft though, and essentially anti-democratic.

  22. Fisky says:

    So long as there are wealthy, childless people in the cities, there will always be a constituency for the Greens.

  23. Samson Agonistes says:

    Wealthy, childless and Godless??? Also well educated, highly skilled and perceptive analysts!!! Definite troublemakers.

  24. Rabz says:

    So long as there are wealthy, childless people misanthropes in the cities, there will always be a constituency for the Greens.

    Fixed.

  25. Samson Agonistes says:

    There is no future for moderate greens if the electoral backlash against the Labor/Green de facto alliance teaches us anything.

  26. Token says:

    Fisky’s quote:

    So long as there are wealthy, childless people in the cities…

    Samson’s attempt to verbal him to the Max:

    Wealthy, childless and Godless???

  27. kelly liddle says:

    Pom
    Voting is voluntary. You don’t have to enrol in the first place then if you do enrol you may choose to pay a relatively small fee to not turn up at the polling booth or if you do turn up do anything you want with the voting slip, tear it up and throw it in the bin if you want. A true protest vote against all politicians will be to mess up the voting slip. Even though so called compulsory voting will favour certain groups it is good in my opinion. This could be one of the reasons the US has a massive corporate welfare system versus our social welfare system and if given the choice I prefer the social welfare system.

    If the Greens go back to only environmental protection (not the extremist elements though) they will always get votes but because they have decided to be in all policy areas and people have seen what that means their vote is likely to decrease.

  28. Samson Agonistes says:

    I think its clear that I added Godless so there’s no attempt to verbal.

  29. JC says:

    Voting is voluntary.

    You idiot, Kelly.

    If the Greens go back to only environmental protection (not the extremist elements though) they will always get votes but because they have decided to be in all policy areas and people have seen what that means their vote is likely to decrease.

    It can’t be just the ‘vironment. You need to control the rest of the economy in order to achieve objectives for the ‘vironment.

  30. Token says:

    I think its clear that I added Godless so there’s no attempt to verbal.

    Thanks for clarifying that Samson. So you were not responding to Fisky’s point all, you were raising your own independent of his. Gotcha, Cheers.

  31. Samson Agonistes says:

    I can’t make any sense of your comment, Token.

    You need to look up ‘verbal’ in the dictionary.

  32. Bruce says:

    JC – voting is voluntary, putting a piece of paper in a carboard box is not.

    Compulsory voting has the advantage of getting the disengaged to think a bit, and to (slightly) own the result. It is harder to revolt against society when you’ve voted.

  33. JC says:

    JC – voting is voluntary, putting a piece of paper in a carboard box is not.

    Is it? So getting fined for not showing up at the polling booth is just a fig tree of people’s imagination.

    Compulsory voting has the advantage of getting the disengaged to think a bit, and to (slightly) own the result.

    Really? So forcing people to show up at a booth will make them engaged in the political process. I’m sure.

    Have you ever given it some thought that an engaged person may elect not to vote too as a political act.

    It is harder to revolt against society when you’ve voted.

    And that’s good because?

    Ghadaffi used to receive 99.9% of the votes. Didn’t seem to help prevent the Arab Winter.

  34. hzhousewife says:

    Compulsory voting is daft though, and essentially anti-democratic.

    So it’s good that we don’t have compulsory voting here in Australia then, isn’t it, Tiddly Pom.

  35. Bruce says:

    JC – To choose not to fill out the voting paper is a choice and a political act. To write rude words on it is a choice and a political act. To veg at home and not get your name crossed off is a choice (price $20, wahay!). To vote for a party, religion or furry animal/independent is a political act. All these options are available to you.

    I am consisent in this as I also think everyone should be subject to income tax for the same reason. However low. Having half the population not pay income tax (but pay opaque taxes like GST) is to have half your population thinking they are getting something for nothing. Having half your population not voting is similarly dangerous.

  36. JC says:

    Having half your population not voting is similarly dangerous.

    Really? Why?

  37. Bruce says:

    When your population is sufficiently apathetic you open door to extremists. One person one vote once.

    Then you do get to vote compulsorily, for the ruling party and get to drive Trabants if you’re lucky.

    There is always a sector of humanity that likes power. Democracy winnows these by the requirement that they must also get themselves elected. I’ve worked for enough maniacal power types to not want them in government over me. Why do you think local councils are often incompetent zomboids?

  38. Bruce says:

    Von Moltke’s leadership matrix is worth a mention. When you have a energetic/dumb power hungry type in power you have a disaster.

    Oh, we do.

    I really can’t wait for an election!

  39. Sean says:

    Bruce, the UK seems a pretty healthy democracy with optional voting. same goes for most of the EU.

    Where is this extremist fringe in evidence? Sounds more like anti-church propoganda from the ABC against the US evangelicals.

  40. Bruce says:

    “the UK seems a pretty healthy democracy with optional voting.”

    Sean – Remember Mosley. There are signs of radicalisation in Europe today. The following article is from a couple days ago:

    Austerity is Breeding Radicalism in Europe Again

    Via Meadia is a well regarded political blog.

    History repeats. Ever different, ever the same. Keeping people engaged helps make the hurdle higher for the AK style parties of this world to take over. The more people you have to convince the harder it is for them to go authoritarian. Will the Muslim Brotherhood behave themselves in Egypt and Tunisia? Who knows? Will they do a Hamas as in Gaza? So in Oz you have to at least convince 40% plus 1 (since turnout is about 80% here, maybe a bit higher). In some EU countries the turnout is less than 20% in certain elections.

  41. Tiddly Pom says:

    Those who are arguing that voting is not really compulsory in Australia, because you can choose to deface the ballot, or stay at home and get prosecuted (!!!??), or otherwise find some complicated way of not actually making a vote that counts, are playing with words and missing the point. There is a higher degree of compulsion in Australia to get involved in the voting process than practically anywhere else in the world. It is easier just to tick a name and get it over and done with than not. Most people do.

    So there are much higher numbers of the apathetic, ignorant and just disillusioned with the major parties who would in other countries stay home who cast ballots. The Greens benefit from this.

    Those who are arguing that, yes, it is effectively compulsory voting, but this is actually a good thing, need to explain why forcing those who, through design or apathy are not interested and have little idea of the policy differences between parties, to influence at random the outcome of an election promotes good governance. And the consistency between freedom of choice – which most people here purport to hold very dear – and government compulsion in voting.

    I am far from convinced, Bruce, by the thesis that it prevents extremism. Give me a recent example of a country with voluntary voting that has installed an extremist. As Sean points out, there are plenty of examples of quite the opposite.

    There are reasons why only 10 countries have systems like Australia’s, and it isn’t necessarily because we have superior acuity and the rest of the world is wrong.

  42. Bruce says:

    Turkey.

  43. Bruce says:

    Iran most certainly, unless you think Ahmadinajad is a sweetie-pie. Before you complain, I am refering to the previous election when he was first elected.

  44. Bruce says:

    And if you want European countries: Putin, Lukashenko. The latter was initially elected to office, but now presides over an unreconstructed police state.

  45. Token says:

    So Bruce, there seems to be a lot of causation in your argument.

    I could put a similar slant and ask, is it

    1. a strong democratic tradition or
    2. compulsory voting

    that stops as state from falling from a democracy into autocracy (like the examples you cite)?

  46. Charles Bourbaki says:

    Bruce – “To veg at home and not get your name crossed off is a choice (price $20, wahay!).”

    No, it’s $50 in Queensland and voting is compulsory in council elections as well. Unlike SA, WA and Tas where the voting turn out in local government elections range from ~10% to ~50%, cf ~95+% where voting is compulsory. Says a lot about compulsory voting doesn’t it.

    Forced voting in a democracy is an oxymoron. I haven’t voted since 1971 and don’t intend to until I have the choice of whether I vote or not. So with council elections coming up in Queensland, 2012 will see me fork out $100 for what should be a free choice not to vote.

    I sent the electoral commission a cheque for a few hundred some years ago and asked them to let me know when it ran out after a few elections so I could send some more and get in credit again. Not acceptable, had to pay the exact amount. Since then I pin a $50 note (or $20 for federal elections) to a letter and post it to them a few days before the election. Saves everyone time, postage and paperwork. Although they do write to me objecting about it because at the time of posting it I am admitting to a “crime” that I haven’t yet committed.

  47. Tiddly Pom says:

    Wot Token said.

    That you are supporting an argument about the political system in Australia by pointing at Putin as an example,is a very long bow. There are a shedload more, and more plausible, potential explanations for Putin and what he has done than voluntary versus compulsory voting.

    Mind you, you could just be more far-seeing than I am. A few more years of a Rudd-Gillard-Brown regime, and parallels between the two political systems would I grant you almost certainly be enormously stronger.

  48. Samson Agonistes says:

    Compulsory voting and democracy are actually the opposite of an oxymoron.

  49. jtfsoon says:

    Compulsory voting and democracy are actually the opposite of an oxymoron.

    So the US isn’t a democracy?

    Stick to writing speeches for the Ginger, Bob

  50. Samson Agonistes says:

    Liberalism and compulsory voting are probably an oxymoron, but we have a mass democracy and not just a limited liberal democracy.

  51. Samson Agonistes says:

    The US is an imperfect democracy compared to some democracies.

  52. Bruce says:

    Compulsory voting doesn’t stop a state becoming authoritarian. What it does I think is make it more difficult, since you have to convince more people (ie in true elections – unrigged). People will always have an unsurpassed ingenuity finding new ways of being stupid (including me). We have Julia, after all.

    Does Spain have a stronger democratic tradition than Turkey? Arguably no. How many journalists are imprisoned in Spain right now?

    The founding fathers in the US had a healthy disrespect for those in power, including themselves, so put many barriers in the way of effectively exercising power. I think compulsory preferential voting works in that same principle, because people have voted however reluctantly for the politicians, and have supported a major party by at least their preferences. I think the two together have a valuable synergy that people do not credit (and just try explaining our system to anyone – in the UK referendum they were tying themselves in knots trying to explain the AV system).

    There are European countries which now could conceivably go authoritarian, if circumstances occur badly. It might be that in a low turnout election an extreme right or extreme left party gets in. They might behave well. Or they might go in the arc that Turkey and Russia have been travelling, where key people in the public service, justice system, and armed forces are appointed by the party in power, so that rigging becomes feasible and authoritarianism can be established. It can happen. It does happen. Zimbabwe happened this way, and Belorussia.

    This gets us back to the Greens. They have the right mental processes that in a low turnout election, particularly in a proportional voting system, they could go the same arc. There will always be ideological minorities, the important thing is to make sure that they do not capture the political system by stealth. If we are silly enough to vote for a Greens led Government openly, well we’d deserve what we got.

  53. JC says:

    Compulsory voting doesn’t stop a state becoming authoritarian. What it does I think is make it more difficult, since you have to convince more people (ie in true elections – unrigged).

    Evidence.

  54. Bruce says:

    “I sent the electoral commission a cheque for a few hundred some years ago and asked them to let me know when it ran out after a few elections”

    Cool!

    I would’ve just got my name crossed off and written something on the ballot paper. Especially in a marginal electorate (which mine isn’t yet) it’d get a message across. Scrutineers will be watching in marginals from all major parties, and they would probably report it if its a strong current of opinion.

  55. Samson Agonistes says:

    So if checks and balances work why is America in a permanent state of emergency since 911?

  56. Charles Bourbaki says:

    The antonym of an oxymoron is a tautology (using dissimilar words that effectively say the same thing).

    So compulsory voting and democracy effectively say the same thing? A bijection for the mathematically minded.

  57. Rafe says:

    More than a different voting system we need small and limited government so it is not such a big deal who wins elections. The fragile states of Africa have been gutted by the winner-take-all outcome from political office.

  58. Bruce says:

    “Evidence”

    Iran presidential election 2005

    In that election Ahmadinajad was seen as a conservative and not then as a maniac. Turnout was lowish, 59% in the 2nd round. From a low primary vote he won the run off.

    Given the conservative people in the provinces were a significant voter base for him, you’d conclude it was mostly the city types who didn’t bother to vote.

    In the 2009 the turnout is said to have been much higher. But too late.

  59. FDB says:

    “So there are much higher numbers of the apathetic, ignorant and just disillusioned with the major parties who would in other countries stay home who cast ballots. The Greens benefit from this.”

    You think?

    I reckon Greens voters, whatever you might think of the party, are probably the most motivated to vote in the country. They’d likely benefit from voluntary voting if anything.

  60. Rabz says:

    I reckon Greens voters, whatever you might think of the party, are probably the most motivated to vote in the country. They’d likely benefit from voluntary voting if anything.

    Whereas laybore’s vote would most likely halve…

  61. FDB says:

    I think both major parties’ votes would probably halve (in absolute number terms), while Greens and other minors (eg LDP) wouldn’t change much at all.

    I used to be pro-compulsory voting, but with the dearth of talent and vision of the majors I’m coming around to voluntary.

    It’ll never happen of course, for precisely the reason that it would hurt the majors.

  62. Jim Rose says:

    the greens have always had way out there and feel-good policies.

    climate change got somewhere when the major parties starting competing for middle class voters with environmental concerns.

  63. LacqueredStudio says:

    Rafe,

    If the Greens policies are so horrendeous … why would you need to link to a bunch of people already predisposed to hating them, rather than the party’s *actual* policy webpage?

    Are you worried readers might get the real picture?

  64. JC says:

    Are you worried readers might get the real picture?

    lol

    You mean like the policy to get rid of Lucas heights thereby killing all the cancer patients. You realize that they also want to ban the transportation of nuclear material over the sea or air, so there would be no hope for those with cancer.

    That’s a sure winner of a policy, right?

  65. Jarrah says:

    “why would you need to link to a bunch of people already predisposed to hating them, rather than the party’s *actual* policy webpage?”

    Because their policies are given ‘as is’, without any contemplation of what effect they will have. Rafe’s link is to an attempt at teasing out the consequences.

  66. LacqueredStudio says:

    “Tease” being the operative word for unhinged speculation.

    Got it.

  67. Tiddly Pom says:

    FDB @4.29pm, I did think twice before pressing send on that bald proposition for precisely the reason you adduce, but qualification would have made a longish comment even more so.

    There is certainly a highly committed element to the Greens vote. But they are the main current parking place for protest votes recently too. Many protesters would protest by simply not turning up if they didn’t have to. So yes, I think they do to some degree benefit. How much, who knows?

    A real alternative for protest votes next time round, like the Kattermites, might be illuminating.

  68. Jumpnmcar says:

    There is certainly a highly committed element to the Greens vote.

    Not fran b, informal is clever.

  69. Jarrah says:

    Feel free to elaborate on why you think the analysis in unhinged, LacqueredStudio. We can have a nice discussion about it.

  70. Peter Patton says:

    The Greens still have the cover of the fairies at the bottom of the garden. Christine Milne’s recent Q&A turn, where she was banging on about “competitiveness” and “productivity” revealed how quickly they’ll collapse should they ever get any real responsibility.

  71. Bruce says:

    I can’t watch Q&A in the same way I can’t listen to a thousand fingernails scratching down blackboards.

  72. Peter Patton says:

    I can hang on – just – thanks to remote control.

  73. hzhousewife says:

    I’m strongly with Bruce re all his voting comments.

    I have over the years wept seeing people vote for the first time in countries like East Germany, South Africa and more recently Egypt.

    These systems may be corrupt, but the principle is worth standing for. I will always vote when I am afforded the privilege. I thank all the officials at the booths when I go to vote (I know they are paid),
    for being part of the process of letting me vote.
    Voting is one of the most profoundly important thing I am able to freely do in this society that I live in.

  74. Charles Bourbaki says:

    Voting is one of the most profoundly important thing I am able to freely do in this society that I live in.

    Agreed. You should also be freely able not to vote (without penalty) if you so wish.

  75. Splatacrobat says:

    If the Greens policies are so horrendeous … why would you need to link to a bunch of people already predisposed to hating them, rather than the party’s *actual* policy webpage?

    I had a look at the Greens web site and now I hate them even more.

    They want death taxes to help fund their lunacy. I’m surprised they haven’t added TV licences like this ad to the list.

  76. hzhousewife says:

    Yes, Charles, I understand your point, perhaps there should be no penalty for not voting. However, I like that no-one else can use my voting privilege, even if I choose not to use it, hence the need to mark off a roll of some sort. I would also like our voting system not to be corrupt.

  77. Token says:

    I had a look at the Greens web site and now I hate them even more.

    They want death taxes to help fund their lunacy. I’m surprised they haven’t added TV licences like this ad to the list.

    When it comes to Green policies I will paraphrase Reagan:

    How do you tell a communist Green? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin Green Policies. And how do you tell an anti-Communist rational human? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin Green Policies.
    Ronald Reagan

  78. Samson Agonistes says:

    Reagan – a great Keynesian!

  79. Peter Patton says:

    Samson

    Clearly another dolt who learnt his Economics in the English department.

  80. wreckage says:

    hehe, the sore loser brigade still in denial that the greens will hold the balance in the most representative house of government, the senate, for the foreseeable future.

    What, six months?

    Re: compulsory voting. I don’t like the idea that people can be compelled to vote. But I do very, very much like the idea that people will tend to vote even when they don’t feel motivated, since the only reliable motives are greed and fear.

  81. Bruce says:

    One for Samson…

    Since we’re discussing voting systems, an interesting take is by Heinlein in Starship Troopers, where voting is restricted to veterans (including the equivalent of National Servicees). The hypothesis is that this causes franchise to mean something, and since all politicians are required (in that system) to be voters it means politicians have had to serve in some capacity. Sort of diametrically opposite to compulsory voting, or something.

    While I don’t know what that would do to the body politic and governance if anyone ever actually tried this, I mention Heinlein since our friend Samson brought up Reagan.

    Reagan it was who accidentally destroyed the Soviet Union.

    And it is rumoured he was lobbied by Heinlein, Niven and Pournelle (and possibly others) that SDI was feasible (SF writers are optimists). Gorbachev believed the intelligence briefings that the US could do this. And the USSR could not possibly afford to match Star Wars, so he went for perestroika instead.

    So Reagan may have believed Keynes, he may have believed Heinlein, and he definitely oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. On false pretenses.

    But what Reagan was, above everything, was lucky.

    Back to the discussion. The fall of the Soviet Union caused the left to be bereft. So some CPA members helped formed Socialist Forum which included amongst others our esteemed PM. And some went into the Greens, including our new senator Lee Rhiannon. Which therefore means the Australian Greens Party as it now exists to some extent owes its platform and membership to…Ronald Reagan.

  82. wreckage says:

    definitely oversaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. On false pretenses.

    Absolutely. Now go read The Art of War.

  83. David Elson says:

    Look at the power greens weld in Germany and tell me you want noncompulsary voting (only the strongly motivated voting) here?

  84. Yobbo says:

    Um, you don’t need to deface your ballot paper and vote informally to avoid voting. You can just toss it in the bin and walk out. Only attendance is compulsory, not voting.

  85. Cory Olsen says:

    @ Yobbo,

    Exactly!

  86. Rafe says:

    Green policies need commentary to indicate just how bad they are, how many people know enough across the whole range of policy issues to form a good opinion?

    If you have a problem with the hostile analysis, pick your favorite policy and defend it from the short form of the analysis that I have provided (being here to help, like a good public servant).

  87. LacqueredStudio says:

    There’s plenty of room for improvement in Greens policies, definitely. But I agree with their broad strokes far more than those of any other party. It’s still possible to have a more nuanced opinion on this stuff than boots-&-all flag waving, you know.

  88. wreckage says:

    But I agree with their broad strokes

    Very broadly, they are very control-oriented. Unless by “broad strokes” you mean “motherhood statements”.

  89. wreckage says:

    It’s still possible to have a more nuanced opinion on this stuff than boots-&-all flag waving, you know.

    By voting for the pre-eminent flag-wavers of this generation?

    No nuclear power! No logging! No mining! No coal! No genetic engineering! No cigarettes! No clearing! No fire-breaks, fire-trails, back-burns, or control-burns! No grazing in the highlands! No shooting, no guns! No 4WDs! No new roads!

    You know what else? No nuance.

  90. JC says:

    You know what else?

    No nuclear medicine.

  91. Gab says:

    You know what else?

    No dams.

  92. Irving J says:

    You know what else?

    no GM foods, no yellow rice and the end goal:

    no human footprints

Comments are closed.