The Australian Greens party

bellenuit said:

Isn't Brown's tribute much like Abbott's in that he is claiming Hawke was more Green than perhaps the traditional Labor supporter. Said more subtly of course. I wonder if the left will be as indignant about that.

Click to expand...

There is no mention of Hawke being a Greens unlike that drop kick Abbott.

Labor are meant to be champions of the environment if only the Greens still were.

IFocus said:

There is no mention of Hawke being a Greens unlike that drop kick Abbott.

Labor are meant to be champions of the environment if only the Greens still were.

Click to expand...

Not in actual words. But my point is that the tribute is based on political issues that are Green related and makes no mention of anything else.

Smurf1976 said:

I wonder about cause versus effect in that?

Eg someone with postgraduate qualifications is also more likely than the rest of the population to have a high income and to be engaged in a white collar professional occupation. I assume (but have no data to confirm) that such people are also more likely than average to live in their state's capital city.

So is the link to voting Greens due only to their education or is it also due to these other factors?

Note that I'd query the same with regard to other parties too. Is it the lack of education which links directly to voting One Nation? Or is it other circumstances which link to both a lack of education and voting One Nation? There's a difference there yes.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The book "Freakonomics" revolutionised my thinking along these lines, highlighting the prima facia statistical case can not be taken at face value.(forgive the subtle but intentional tautology)

bellenuit said:

Not in actual words. But my point is that the tribute is based on political issues that are Green related and makes no mention of anything else.

Click to expand...

Agree Bellenuit there is no politics in the statement just recognition of Hawkes achievements.

I feel the point made is that Hawke was inclusive which was understood and appreciated across the board. Mandela's book "Long Walk to Freedom" encapsulates this angle that few ever possess.

bellenuit said:

Isn't Brown's tribute much like Abbott's in that he is claiming Hawke was more Green than perhaps the traditional Labor supporter. Said more subtly of course. I wonder if the left will be as indignant about that.

Click to expand...

I'll simply observe that in some of those Hawke era environmental debates, including but not limited to the Franklin, Bob Brown was the most well informed person involved bar none.

Well informed about economic matters that is, a point very few grasped for the next 20 years and which still eludes many today.

With the death knell for Australian manufacturing having already sounded several years prior, there was simply no point worrying about how to supply resources to feed it. A point that Brown grasped at a time pretty much nobody else did, or at least publicly admitted.

IFocus said:

Agree Bellenuit there is no politics in the statement just recognition of Hawkes achievements.

Click to expand...

Recognition of his Green compliant achievements only is politics. The broader community views Hawke as having achieved far more than those few niche issues and they would probably not even include any of them in the top 5.

bellenuit said:

Recognition of his Green compliant achievements only is politics. The broader community views Hawke as having achieved far more than those few niche issues and they would probably not even include any of them in the top 5.

Click to expand...

There was nothing to do with being Green compliant I was a young man at the time, mates of mine flew from WA to get arrested in the Franklin, Hawke did not have to do any thing it was a state issue but he felt strongly about the case / environment issue nothing to do with the greens and acted as he should have.

Note Fraser did the same with Fraser Island he also was no Green.

IFocus said:

There was nothing to do with being Green compliant I was a young man at the time, mates of mine flew from WA to get arrested in the Franklin, Hawke did not have to do any thing it was a state issue but he felt strongly about the case / environment issue nothing to do with the greens and acted as he should have.

Note Fraser did the same with Fraser Island he also was no Green.

Click to expand...

Fraser was a Green supporter in his last years.

https://greensmps.org.au/articles/malcolm-fraser-man-who-stood-his-principles-his-whole-life

In 1989 the Hawke government called for a billion trees to be planted in ten years.

I wonder how many actually were ?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...ion-trees-in-the-battle-against-soil-erosion/

Interesting to see John Hewson endorse Sarah Hanson Young, as did Malcolm Fraser.

explod said:

Fraser was a Green supporter in his last years.

Click to expand...

I've no particular interest in re-running the debate about dams in SW Tasmania here but a few points of relevance as dot points:

*Fraser did offer Tasmania compensation to not proceed with the dam. That offer was substantially better, in terms of both outright $ and other benefits, than the one ultimately received from the Hawke government.

*For the record, my personal view which may surprise many who've read my various posts is that the right decision was made in not building the dam but the wrong decision was made with respect to alternatives. The ideas that were around for alternatives circa 1980 were superior or at least equal on every measure compared to those ultimately implemented from 1983. That they were off the table at that point came down to politics on all sides having made them impossible but they made far more sense from a purely rational perspective and conservationists, Labor and at the federal level Liberal were all amenable earlier in the debate.

*The debate ran for just over 3 years and 8 months from the public announcement of the proposal through to it being scrapped following the High Court decision. That effectively wrecked 2 state premiers, resulted in the election of Tasmania's first ever majority Liberal government, and was until recently often stated in those terms to highlight how extreme it all was given the underlying issue was simply how to generate electricity. The point being that such a long debate over the issue borders on the ridiculous.

*We have now had a national debate over the same underlying question, power generation, running more than twice as long and which has played a factor in the downfall of 4 Prime Ministers.

*In the event that Labor wins tomorrow with something less than a serious landslide that could fairly be increased to 5 PM's given that the climate issue would almost certainly account for part of any swing toward Labor.

*A decade ago anyone suggesting that a debate about electricity would see the demise of any Prime Minister or that it would even be considered a national issue would likely have been laughed at for suggesting an idea that, until it happened, would have seemed rather far fetched to most.

*The original proposal has turned out to have a use environmentally in terms of the data that was collected indeed that same data is still collected today and done so by the same organisation that previously proposed to put the place under water. It's done with the relevant external approvals, since there's some minor impact within the World Heritage Area to be doing that sort of thing (eg landing helicopters etc), and the primary use of that data is now in relation to climate change research. There are few examples globally of wild rivers which have been subject to over half a century of constant data recording and that's where the value lies.

*As a more general comment, and I have actually put this to the test on several occasions, it was an issue over which practically everyone had an opinion but few understood the detail.

The biggest barrier to rational debate is when things take on a religious-like manner and that's what happened with that one and much the same seems to have happened over the same underlying issue today at the federal level. A lot of entrenched views that the answer is coal / nuclear / gas / wind / hydro / solar / batteries or whatever but start talking hard facts, and by that I mean environmental ones not just engineering and economic ones, and it's met with anger not reasoned argument.

Progress, on anything, is much easier when you can have a rational discussion without the "religious" aspect to it all. If we could do that with the climate issue then we'd be half way to fixing it by now.

Could you just imagine Tony Abbott telling this joke. The reaction from the left would be so full of invective because it includes so many taboo views that it would take the ABC a week to relate it all. But coming from Hawke, the left, as usual, are at their hypocritical best. They have nothing to say.

Nice joke!

Onya Hawkey.

Can't see Malcolm Fraser telling that joke, or Turnbull for that matter.

bellenuit said:

Could you just imagine Tony Abbott telling this joke. The reaction from the left would be so full of invective because it includes so many taboo views that it would take the ABC a week to relate it all. But coming from Hawke, the left, as usual, are at their hypocritical best. They have nothing to say.

Click to expand...

I think its more generational than left right which I get really tied of, my kids give me a hard time about my jokes and I would think I am a long way left of most here.

SirRumpole said:

Interesting to see John Hewson endorse Sarah Hanson Young, as did Malcolm Fraser.

Click to expand...

When I go to vote soon, I will vote strategically to keep Hanson Young in the Senate.Always planned to.

From our leader today:-

"I’m honoured and excited to have been re-elected as parliamentary leader by my colleagues. I thank them for the trust they have placed in me.

I am so proud of our party’s achievements and the strong role the Greens have played in shaping the national debate, and I am confident that we will once again be a driving force in responding to the major challenges that confront our nation.

First and foremost on the Greens’ agenda in the new Parliament will be tackling the existential threat of dangerous climate change and ensuring that no one is left behind as we undertake the transformation of our economy away from dirty, polluting fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas to a clean, green, jobs-rich economy powered by renewable energy.

Many Australians are struggling with the rising cost of living, job insecurity and growing inequality. Our determination to secure a safe climate future for our kids and grandkids, and to create a fairer and more equal society, go hand in hand.

In 2016 we began a conversation with our membership over how the leader of our parliamentary team is elected, and how that process can better reflect the rapid growth our party has experienced over the last two decades. I am very pleased with the level of positive engagement this conversation has generated within the Party, and the federal team and I look forward to this discussion continuing.

We’re facing three years of a Morrison-led Liberal government. A government already horse trading with One Nation to pass tax cuts that will send billions to the highest income earners at the expense of everyone else, and at the expense of public services that benefit all of us.

We’re seeing a warming climate and a government that is more interested in propping up a declining coal industry than making the investments that will create 180,000 new jobs in clean energy.

The role of the Greens at every level of government has never been more important, and I look forward to working with all of you in the weeks and months ahead.

Yours,

Richard"

So what's the gos @explod ?

Will Greens go for another lunatic Marxist like DiNatale? Bandt? SHY?

Someone else not quite so embarrassing?

What do you think?

I heard him talk explod.
His boys at that age that he felt he had to quit or miss their childhood and not give enough support.

Predicted Adam Bandt would take over.
Seemed pretty confident that the Greens would have 20% of the vote within two elections, maybe the next one. Pointed out what happened in Germany.

Mentioned Newscorp also.