The Australian Greens party

[Calliope]

Re: The Greens quit on Labor, Andrew Wilkie style

When is a non alliance an alliance, when its a Green's non alliance.

The Greens are more stupid and hypocritical than Labor (if that's possible)!

The Greens have ditched Labor because Labor if not moving quickly enough to destroy the mining industry, which incidentally, provides 500,000 jobs.

OPEN hostility has broken out between Julia Gillard and Christine Milne following the breaking of their alliance, with Labor and the Greens entering a new phase of fierce political rivalry in a crucial struggle for votes.

The Prime Minister yesterday accused the Greens of abandoning Australian jobs in a riposte to Senator Milne's claim Labor had neglected the environment and sold out to the mining industry.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...lp-greens-stoush/story-e6frgd26-1226582247689

 

[explod]

Re: The Greens

We have to stop the export of coal. Set an example, then Indonesia, Africa and all the other coal producing companies will follow.

We need to have lights out when the sun goes down and we will all have a better rest and work harder in the vegie fields. No puter either. Stop a few probs here on ASF

Okay, on orders from Calliope I have moved to the correct thread. He pasted my above quote of a few days back.

Now the mining jobs will go to;

more food production, back to our own abattoirs, they were a huge support to country towns years back;

the planting of trees everywhere,

the creation of huge communities along all of our northern borders, in this we will use boat people to help and eventually become part of our defence up there too;

And once settled in I bet some of them boat people will be able to help us to work out a way to stop the boat people. Fighting fire with fire.

the building of more efficient homes and for everyone too, subsidised by redeployed labour.

Setting up our communities and transport so that we can reduce the use of motor cars. Starting to see a few of those three wheeler pedal electric bicycles around Bendigo. A lady on one yesterday, you pedal as much as you can, but do not have to and the down hills with pedalling puts power back in making them very efficient indeed.

None of my statements/assertions should be read or be construed as having anything to do with Official Greens Policy.

 

[Calliope]

Re: The Greens

Okay, on orders from Calliope I have moved to the correct thread. He pasted my above quote of a few days back.

Wrong again. The thread Joe started is "Australian Greens Discussion". It is interesting to see that you are refusing to be drafted into the "correct thread", in spite of your support for the changes.

 

[explod]

Re: The Greens

Wrong again. The thread Joe started is "Australian Greens Discussion". It is interesting to see that you are refusing to be drafted into the "correct thread", in spite of your support for the changes.

You are correct again Calliope and thank you for your supervision in these very critical matters.

Perhaps this will be a test of the system and see if it is transferred to the correct one.

Of course as partners in crime ole pal we were way off topic anyhow. Should catch a fish or two soon though.

 

[Joe Blow]

Re: The Greens

There is no guarantee that the new threads I started earlier in the week will remain with their current titles.

There will be some political thread consolidation going on, I just haven't decided on the scale of it.

For the moment I kindly request that people continue to post in the threads that they are used to posting in.

I will get to work on the thread consolidation over the weekend after I have reached a final decision.

 

[Purple XS2]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

I've been wondering a bit about the Aust Greens lately, by the way, ever tried shortening that to "Aussie Greens"? Somehow it just doesn't roll off the tongue.

Now that the good senator Brown has retired, there's a chance for the party to redefine itself. Senator Milne can't run for all that many miles more, and I see much substance in the current crop of elected representitives, so the question is: what next?

I disclose membership thereof. Haven't turned up to any branch meetings or other events for a while.

Rather than bag the (#@P! out of them which believe me, would be easier for me to do than most of youse, dear readers, I would point out the following:

yes, they're elitist, cliquey, up-themselves and utterly disinterested in the Australian mainstream. Just tell me again how that makes them different from the political class in general? Except that the established parties are better at pretending otherwise?

for all their faults, they are the only party for which the concept of "the future" is part of their fabric. Tell me again, what is "the future" like in the eyes of the Lib-Lab-Nats?

somewhere in their ranks I think, are people for whom gay rights is not the most important item on the national agenda. I look forward to meeting one such, one day. I don't expect to meet anyone (else) in the party who thinks much of the gay rights agenda is a load of self-righteous and non-sensical hogwash.


rant, rant; mutter mutter.

P.

 

[Smurf1976]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

It seems that Tasmania thinks it's o.k to shut down most of its industry, in the name of conservation.
But they don't like it when people point out they are a welfare state, of their own choice.

There has been a significant degree of population churn which brings this about.

Go back a generation and Tasmanians were very much in favour of development and much was happening. Go back even further and you'll find that quite a few "firsts" for Australian cities were did in fact occur in Hobart or Launceston.

But if you look at the past third of a century or so, Tas has essentially stagnated to the point that it is now pretty much accepted as reality. Those in favour of development today, are about as quiet as those opposed to it were at one time. "No" has become the new normal.

Meanwhile people seeking employment have left the state to pursue opportunities elsewhere meanwhile the state has become a magnet for those of the opposite view. Tasmania has thus transformed from having a larger industrial base than either WA or Qld in the 1960's to the point where a recent major controversy erupted over (quite literally) some awnings on an old bank building. Some of the former pillars of development still stand, many are gone, and all are virtually silent.

Perhaps the most worrying of all is to look at how many Tasmanians are actually employed in a business that is not either run directly by government, has government as its' major customer, or government as its' major supplier. Something like half the population depends directly on government, and it's even higher once you count the various private businesses which are merely an outsourced part of the public service, having little if any revenue from anyone other than government.

To be honest and trying to be reasonably objective, Tasmania is about as close as you'll find to a centrally planned economy in a Western country. It's hard to find anything that government doesn't have a role in somewhere.

To some extent there was always an element of this. Engineers were the defacto central planners previously, and pretty much officially so for 50 years. All that's really changed is that environmentalists / Greens have become the new central planners. Engineers built engineering things, most notably hydro-electric dams and heavy processing and manufacturing industries (especially those which use lots of power). In contrast the conservationists conserve things, most notably rivers and trees (especially trees in areas that also have dammable rivers or minerals).

Both have similar passion but have an entirely different view of how the world ought to be. Perhaps strangely, the dominance of the Greens has effectively turned the engineers into capitalists. Where once their objective was to break even financially whilst creating employment, now there is blatant pursuit of profit. Greens are also somewhat more profit motivated than you might expect, much of their opposition to some activities officially being based on lack of profit as key (or in some cases only) concern.

It won't change until there's a sufficient event to force it. In all seriousness, over the past year or so I've started to think that the Tasmanian Government might literally end up going bankrupt at some point. Seriously, it's not something I'd previously considered as a possibility but I do think it's at least possible going forward from this point. I won't say too much, but I'm absolutely certain that unsustainably high revenues are being received from some government businesses and yet still there's a budget deficit. Once those excess revenues fall in a heap, and that they will is virtually certain, well that's when I think things could turn nasty in a big way.

The Greens will have their era, especially in Tasmania, just as everything else before it has also had its' era. It's hard to predict the future, but conservation itself is now hitting the limits of constant growth.

 

[noco]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

I've been wondering a bit about the Aust Greens lately, by the way, ever tried shortening that to "Aussie Greens"? Somehow it just doesn't roll off the tongue.

Now that the good senator Brown has retired, there's a chance for the party to redefine itself. Senator Milne can't run for all that many miles more, and I see much substance in the current crop of elected representitives, so the question is: what next?

I disclose membership thereof. Haven't turned up to any branch meetings or other events for a while.

Rather than bag the (#@P! out of them which believe me, would be easier for me to do than most of youse, dear readers, I would point out the following:

yes, they're elitist, cliquey, up-themselves and utterly disinterested in the Australian mainstream. Just tell me again how that makes them different from the political class in general? Except that the established parties are better at pretending otherwise?

for all their faults, they are the only party for which the concept of "the future" is part of their fabric. Tell me again, what is "the future" like in the eyes of the Lib-Lab-Nats?

somewhere in their ranks I think, are people for whom gay rights is not the most important item on the national agenda. I look forward to meeting one such, one day. I don't expect to meet anyone (else) in the party who thinks much of the gay rights agenda is a load of self-righteous and non-sensical hogwash.


rant, rant; mutter mutter.

P.

It is hardly worth while responding to you as you are so naive about the Greens agenda and idiology.

Have you ever wondered why they are called the "WATER MELON PARTY"?

You will see that they are green on the outside but very RED in the middle and RED stands for COMMUNISM.

They now have Tasmainia almost bankrupt and are relying on a bigger slice of the GST cake to keepthem afloat.

Communism stands for nationalising everything that is owned by busness and private individuals. Is that what you want?

If you like living under the communist banner, I suggest you migrate to Cuba, North Korea, China or Russia. You will soon want to come back to good old Australia.

 

[Calliope]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

It is hardly worth while responding to you as you are so naive about the Greens agenda and idiology.

You are a bit hard on him noco. It was a courageous decision for him to come out of the closet.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

I never understood what was behind Milne's decision to separate from the ALP until today.

Richo's article in The Australian hits the nail on the head.

The Greens have walked out on her as well. Christine Milne is showing all the signs of this becoming one of those infamously vicious divorces. Who knows what the Greens will choose to endorse when legislation is brought forward to the Senate. Already the aforementioned billion dollar program is under threat and a hostile Senate is the last thing a desperate PM trying to demonstrate stability really needs. It is hard to imagine the government was getting worse but that now appears to be a certainty.

My guess is they will oppose any further ALP legislation and make the parliament further unworkable with the ALP unable to pass some of it's vote catching legislation.

The ALP are really between a rock and a hard place now.

And Newspoll comes next week again.

gg

 

[drsmith]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

My guess is they will oppose any further ALP legislation and make the parliament further unworkable with the ALP unable to pass some of it's vote catching legislation.

They'll haggle with Labor as they have done throughout this term. It's now just done under the bed instead of in it. It's less comfortable for sure, but they'll still try and milk what they can out of Labor's remaining time in office.

The next Newspoll will hopefully be the final nail in Julia Gillard's prime ministership.

 

[Country Lad]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

My guess is they will oppose any further ALP legislation and make the parliament further unworkable with the ALP unable to pass some of it's vote catching legislation.

That poses some interesting situations. Labor can't get a couple of pieces of legislation through the Senate. To show she is still in charge, Gillard threatens a double dissolution.

Then there will be some interesting decisions to be made.

Will Labor, out of political spite, go ahead with the double dissolution which will end in tears for them?

Will the Greens back down knowing that if they don't, they will then lose the balance of power?

Will Abbott be able to stop smiling?

Cheers
Country Lad

 

[drsmith]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

Will Labor, out of political spite, go ahead with the double dissolution which will end in tears for them?

Not with Julia Gillard continuing to lead the circus.

For an extra 5-minutes in office, she'll be on her knees to Christine Milne as she was to Bob Brown and the independents over the carbon tax.

Senator Milne said she had told Ms Gillard "the Government had broken its agreement with the Greens" and there was "no point" in continuing to have regular weekly private meetings.

But she said her door would remain open to discuss specific legislation.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...f-faith-in-labor/story-e6frg6n6-1226581505299

 

[Julia]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

The next Newspoll will hopefully be the final nail in Julia Gillard's prime ministership.

I'm not sure why you're hoping for this? Gillard as PM gives the Coalition a much better chance of winning than would Kevin Rudd who seems to the the only other option they're canvassing.

I can't see them reinstating Rudd for several reasons:

1. Most of them can't stand him and simply couldn't work with him especially given the hubris he would
display if they begged him to come back as saviour.

2. The Coalition would have perfect ready made advertising from the grabs taken from his colleagues as they
sought to justify knifing him with their assertions that he was a control freak, the government was totally
dysfunctional etc etc.

3. They would look more pathetic than they do now.

4. The electorate would quickly be reminded of why they disliked him when they again experienced him
as leader and his 61% preferred leader would diminish.

Richo was saying this morning that Mr Rudd thinks he can win the election for Labor. Richo did not agree.
PS With loyal acolytes like Richo utterly dissing the Labor Party, they don't need the input of the Opposition.

 

[Calliope]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

With loyal acolytes like Richo utterly dissing the Labor Party, they don't need the input of the Opposition.

Enter.....the drover's dog.

 

[drsmith]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

I'm not sure why you're hoping for this? Gillard as PM gives the Coalition a much better chance of winning than would Kevin Rudd who seems to the the only other option they're canvassing.

Anyone, anything please.

It might bring about an earlier election.

 

[noco]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

Anyone, anything please.

It might bring about an earlier election.

+ 1 Doc. One just has to use a calculator on $100,000,000 borrowed each day until the 14th September plus the interest owing on it.

An early election please.

 

[Julia]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

Anyone, anything please.

It might bring about an earlier election.

+ 1 Doc.


An early election please.

And if there were to be an early election with Kevin Rudd as Leader, and Labor were to win it (remember that many voters have failed to warm to Mr Abbott), how would you feel then?

We have endured the government for two and a half years. Another few months, with Ms Gillard as Leader, should not be beyond the tolerance of any of us if the result is a defining defeat for Labor.

One just has to use a calculator on $100,000,000 borrowed each day until the 14th September plus the interest owing on it.

Having the Coalition elected to government isn't going to magically make Australia's financial obligations disappear.

 

[drsmith]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

And if there were to be an early election with Kevin Rudd as Leader, and Labor were to win it (remember that many voters have failed to warm to Mr Abbott), how would you feel then?

What's on the nose with Labor is not only Julia Gillard, it's also the brand.

Whether it's Kevin Rudd or anyone else, a leadership change would be about minimising the damage to labor itself, not winning the election. That may not be the thinking in Kevin Rudd's head, but it is the reality.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: Australian Greens discussion

What's on the nose with Labor is not only Julia Gillard, it's also the brand.

Whether it's Kevin Rudd or anyone else, a leadership change would be about minimising the damage to labor itself, not winning the election. That may not be the thinking in Kevin Rudd's head, but it is the reality.

Rudd's numbers have fallen in caucus in the last 24 hours.

He will need more than a miracle to get up.

Meanwhile the Greens can white ant the left of politics by blocking ALP legislation.

How life pans out.

gg