Campaign countdown: here come the Greens

John A Neve says:

07:49am | 01/06/10

Polywatcher,
Do you ever tell the truth?
Or are you that stupid you do not know how to fill out a ballot paper?
A voter can place their preferencies where ever they like eg Greens 1
Labor 101 and Liberal 102

Rob r Charteris says:

07:58am | 01/06/10

And remember a vote for the Nationals is a vote for Abbott. Although the Greens may need to widen the scope of their policies they certainly have more scope and substance in their little fingers than front bench of the opposition.

Soultrader - Rannville SA - Home of the Broken Pro says:

08:08am | 01/06/10

@John
You left wing loonies must be feeling pretty sick right about now.
How can the rest of the world not love your beloved idol Kevin?
Suck it up sunshine - you are on a hiding to nothing - And remember a VOTE for the Greens is a vote for the Far Left Labor Loonies.
Don’t you just hate it when somebody disagrees with you!!!!!!

Adam Diver says:

08:10am | 01/06/10

Ignorance is bliss but ignorance and a voice is blight on society

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:21am | 01/06/10

John Neve :  Sure , a voter is free to do that , but you know and i know that the voter does as he or she is directed to do on the how to vote card and that fact is borne out by the flow of preferences to Labor from Green voters.
Pollwatcher is telling the truth John , you owe her an apology.
A Green vote is a vote for Labor . You can keep spinning to hell and back but you won’t change the facts.

acker says:

08:29am | 01/06/10

It’s not and if you ever get to talk to some of the old cockies and farmers out the real bush you may find many of them are 2 shades of Green..National Green & Environmental Green

Super D says:

08:33am | 01/06/10

In the interest of accuracy its worth pointing out that in an above the line vote in the senate greens preferences will flow to the Labor party.

The lower house how to vote cards will also likely suggest a preference to the Labor party.

For the record I always put the Greens last.  If they ever gain any power our nation will suffer as a result.

Robert says:

08:40am | 01/06/10

If you follow any Party’s direction on their how to vote card then you deserve to have your preferences directed.
Vote The Greens and The Australian Sex Party one and two BELOW the line with the non liberal Liberals and Labor last and second last, for truly progressive change.

Jeremy says:

08:42am | 01/06/10

Total, shameless lie “polywatcher”. A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens. Which major party you preference after that is up to you.

You can tell how much a vote for the Greens is NOT a vote for Labor in how viciously the ALP - eg Lindsay Tanner - attacks them. Labor hates the Greens almost as much as the Liberals do.

A fine reason to vote for them, really.

Peter says:

08:46am | 01/06/10

I think iansands hit the nail on the head on Bronwyn Bishop’s post this morning. See below. The Libs want to scream and carry on like schoolkids in our parliament, and rant about the hated Greens but they don’t want to take self-responsibilty for the situation. Or accept that most of us haved switched off/ extremely cynical about the hypocritical spin and contempt for voters coming from the major parties.

iansand says:08:08am | 01/06/10

You are perfectly correct, Bronwyn.  We believe you.  And we believe what the ALP says about the coalition. And both sides are dragged into the slime.

You might read Mr Penberthy’s piece today on the rise of the Greens.  There is probably a connection between the sort of thing you identify in this piece and the rise of a party that, so far, at least, still seems to be connected to some principles.

Pete from Sydney says:

08:52am | 01/06/10

Damn right polywatcher, it’s also a vote against the Liberals, and if you can’t stomach Tony Abbott, and you’re sick of Steve Fielding having way to much say…have a crack at the greens…

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

08:53am | 01/06/10

Rob r Charteris :  Of course a vote for the Nationals is a vote for Abbott ,
it’s a Coalition , no secret to that open and honest fact.
What you left out of your comment was that the Greens lack principles.
Case in point , the last Queensland state election , with Labor’s Traveston Crossing Dam project on the go , the Greens directed their preference to Labor , the party committed to flooding the Mary Valley .
Ironically , the Greens main election thrust was stopping the dam project. What a bunch of spineless jelly fish , prepared to deny their principals at Labor’s beck and call.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:54am | 01/06/10

acker says:08:29am; That’s what it’s looking like in my bit of bush, the old cockies are reconsidering their vote for Nationals is a vote for Abbott. As I mentioned on another page on this site, and had a dribbling sniveling lib tell me I was drinking too much when I spoke of the discussion at my local last week, he seemed to claim ESP in knowing what was going on at my local lol. The consensus seems to be floating towards the Greens and although didn’t like Labor prefered them over Abbott. Abbott dropped further out of favor than Rudd did in the latest poll.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:29am | 01/06/10

Rob r Charteris :  Got a hangover this morning my friend . ? You seem a bit out of sorts .  Take comfort in that there is only one poll that counts
but just the same , it sure looks like being a very close result. 
Rob , try switching to Lite down at your local , it beats the hell out of talking to pink elephants about voting Green . Have a nice day Rob.

Michael says:

09:35am | 01/06/10

vote BELOW THE LINE and decide where your own preferences go

Jane says:

09:52am | 01/06/10

A vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor….don’t try to delude anyone that it is not. The vast ‘majority’ who vote Green are ‘usually’ young and politically clueless. Trendoids who follow idealism. They vote as per the HTV card. They vote as the Greens direct them too. They are not partial to Liberal/National….and Labor is second choice for them anyway. Therefore they follow what the Greens direct them too on the card…..ergo - preferences to Labor. Pretty simple really….and most of them don’t even realise a vote for Greens is actually a vote for Labor anyway. They CAN vote as they choose…( as can anyone)..reality is they DON’T.

There are exceptions to any ‘rule’....but those exceptions do not negate the overwhelming reality.
Don’t even pretend otherwise.

Rob - A vote for Nationals is a vote for the Liberals?...wow…Good pick up. ..it’s why it’s called a ‘Coalition’ dufus…...no deceit/delusion there.

This poll and Green spike is predictable. Those disenchanted with Labor are not yet ready to vote Coalition…or admit doing so.. It’s too early…..Greens spike will dissipate once they have to decide properly and look at the bigger picture. Greens are not a credible option….and is a vote for Labor by default.

The vote at the ballot box is anonymous…..what people say and what they vote are sometimes two different things

SR says:

10:29am | 01/06/10

@ Wayne Fehlhaber “[a]voter does as he or she is directed to do on the how to vote card”. In Tasmanian elections ‘how to vote’ cards are illegal. Tasmania has a (politicallY) informal Labor/Green coaltion based in this.

The Federal HOR election has its own unique problems - something to lobby your local elected Fed HoR member about - unless you like the satus quo?

Chris says:

10:41am | 01/06/10

I think it’s fair to say that most people who vote for the Greens understand the 2 party system that operates in Australia and therefore appreciate their vote being directed towards the Labor party. Personally speaking, I don’t like the Rudd government very much, but I sure as hell prefer him over Abbot!

@ Soultrader - the Labor party are centrist at best these days, if not veering towards the political right in many instances.

@ Jane - Greens voters actually tend to be highly politically aware. Just because we don’t share the same right-wing values that you might, it doesn’t mean we lack understanding.

Bryo says:

11:52am | 01/06/10

The thing I love most about the Greens is just the mention of the word sends everyone into a lather and frothing. Sure makes media funner and worth reading. Anything that rocks the major parties boats rocks mine!

Jane says:

12:12pm | 01/06/10

Chris…no, actually they are NOT. The vast majority are impressionable young naive voters who have an opinion on one or two idealistic issues and totally oblivious to the political spectrum at large.
They do this, of course, until they grow up and function in the REAL world…..

The minority who no doubt make up your circle of ‘Greens’, are self tagged morally/intellectually superior ‘activists’ and are not representative of the majority who actually tokenly vote Green.

Ask any Green voter about political issues outside the ‘box of token causes’, about other Green policy or Green stance and the bulk have no clue.

Jane says:

12:46pm | 01/06/10

Chris…so, Bryo there would be an example of your ‘highly politically aware’ Green voter you speak of….voting for Greens just because they p*ss off the other two mains?
Yeah right..Top show…...and solidifies my point.

His shallow voting mentality is more than typical of the ‘rebellious no clue Green’ and a mile away from your small circle of self tagged, self important moral/intectually superior and oh so politically aware ‘activists’.

Pfft

Gerry says:

12:52pm | 01/06/10

Jane you seem to understand nothing about the average Greens supporter, Myself and my wife of 30 years (I’m 65) will both be voting Greens at the next election as will my Adult Son for many reasons including, policy against Nuclear Power, Proper treatment of Asylum Seekers rather than treating them as a political tool.

A vote for Greens is not a vote for Labor, Left and Right is not as black and white as many people think.

Jane says:

01:32pm | 01/06/10

Hey Gerry, so, that’s you and your wife then….?..I’m sure you could cite a couple more ...but sadly, irrelevant to the vast reality.

Read my post…

“There are exceptions to any ‘rule’....but those exceptions do not negate the overwhelming reality.
Don’t even pretend otherwise.”

Oops, sorry.

Adam Diver says:

02:13pm | 01/06/10

@ Gerry you vote greens because they are against nuclear power which currently is the only viable solution against global warming. I know it has a environmental impact but so does everything.

This is why you can’t vote greens because the word practical escapes thier vocabulary. And this is why someone who openly votes greens on credibility (as oppossed to just not voting the majors or voting for the seat) loses thier own credibility here on the punch.

John A Neve says:

02:37pm | 01/06/10

Soultrader,
In answer to your question; only if they can think for themselves.
That is questionable in your case

John A Neve says:

02:40pm | 01/06/10

Wayne,
Why do you always keep infering other voters are less smart then yourself?
They don’t all live in the Smart State, Queensland is not the center of our world.

Rob r Charteris says:

03:20pm | 01/06/10

John A Neve says:02:40pm; Wafflers do that because of their own inner failings it makes them feel like somebody or smarter tham they really are. Just ignore it and eventually it will go away.

Rob r Charteris says:

04:32pm | 01/06/10

Jane says:09:52am; no let me explain it to you in real terms, I didn’t say a vote for the Nationals is a vote for the Liberals. I said a vote for the Nationals is a vote for Abbott. There is a slight different you see it’s called right wing conservative and not Liberal as we used to know it. but you obviously could understand that, and that’s why i spelt it out for you…. poor lil dear you can go get ya cupa tea now….. ooop’s who’s the dufus now tsk tsk

Robert says:

05:52pm | 01/06/10

@ Jane, Utter rubbish.

Voting below the line on the Senate ballot paper and putting number one beside The Greens while putting Labor and the Liberals last and second last guarantees your preferences do not flow to Labor.

As for the How To Vote card remark I mentioned in an earlier response to this comment that if people are gullible enough to follow ANY party’s HTV card then they deserve to have their preferences directed.

People (most) are not mindless sheep.

Jane says:

06:12pm | 01/06/10

Robert - sorry to break it to you…..but THEY DON’T.
Reality shows they don’t do that….they ( largely) mindlessly follow the card.
The fact that they ‘can’ do otherwise is meaningless when reality shows they choose not to…as they do.

Have you ever scrutineered?....they don’t do it…..and they won’t.

iansand says:

07:05pm | 01/06/10

What should be possible, and which neither major party will condone, is the ability to select the order of groups by numbering above the line.  Unfortunately that is too simple and democratic, removes choice from voters and allows the majors to control preference flows.  It takes a serious nutter (like me) to vote below the line.  Apart from working out which of a myriad of possibilities you want to put last.

Chris says:

10:29pm | 01/06/10

@ Jane - you mention that the vast majority of Greens voters are young and impressionable and imply that they don’t understand what they are voting for. I find this to be a rather large generalisation and I wonder what facts you are basing it on?

In my experience, I’ve found that many Liberal voters are small-minded people who look only at what the government will do for them. These are the same people who chose to ignore the scientific consensus on climate change and believe that the Iraq war is just and that even though hundreds of thousands of civilian dies, it’s best not to think about it because they’re just foreigners…. Many of these people are the same people who believe that all gays are going to hell (because a book written and modified by men alludes to it) and that abortion is a sin.

However, I won’t make that generalisation because I know it’s not 100% true. Although the person I’ve described may be (significantly) more likely to vote for the Libs, I know that many of their voters are actually really quite nice people when you get to know them.

I also question what gives you the moral and/or knowledge based authority to judge that your views are correct and that the views held by us “lefties” are wrong? We are just looking for a fairer world for ourselves, others and - particularly in consideration to climate change - future generations. Perhaps you consider that idealist, but I consider it a basic moral tenant.

Drew says:

02:43pm | 02/06/10

My my, the Young Liberals are out in force today. Must be a Hillsong holiday.

Rob r Charteris says:

08:02am | 01/06/10

Nice to see the elitism is still alive and well in the Liberal/National party….. yaaaaaaaaaawn!!!!! don’t ya just love this greater than thou gospel peddling dribble

watty says:

08:41am | 01/06/10

“Gospel peddling dribble”?

I presume pious Kevvies weekly Press conference outside church every Sunday could fall into this category?

persephone says:

09:13am | 01/06/10

watty

Which is far more honest and open than sneaking around to Pell’s backdoor during an election campaign and then denying you’d met with him, as TA did last election.

watty says:

10:24am | 01/06/10

Rudd more “honest and open”? You are a tragic persephone.

When id Saint Kevin going to release the fourth warning letter letter ne NEVER received on his insulation scheme.

Obviuosly you take no heed of Rudd’s hand on heart promise to remove the “cancer” of Government paid advertising before the last election.

WTF has going to see Pell before got to do with the rip off of taxpayers money being practiced by Comrade Rudd and Co?

Scraping the bottom of the barrel again?

persephone says:

10:49am | 01/06/10

watty

er…you’re the one trying to change the subject.

Rudd is honest and open about his religious connections, Tony Abbott hides them.

When TA was asked if he had met with Pell during the election campaign, he denied it.

TONY JONES, JOURNALIST (Lateline, 2004): Have you met Archbishop Pell during the election campaign?

TONY ABBOTT: Not that I can recall.

TONY JONES: Not that you can recall, because we believe that you’ve had at least one meeting with him quite recently.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, when? Where?

TONY JONES: You don’t recall that? At the Presbytery in Sydney.

TONY ABBOTT: Actually, now that you mention it, I did meet with Cardinal Pell. So what?

Just a bit different from standing in front of a church to do a presser…

Jane says:

01:03pm | 01/06/10

Hey Perse…you mean like…the meetings of Rudd and Burke?

The meetings he denied?.....the being the guest speaker at a function organised for him that he lied about saying he ‘tagged’ along to?..when his name was on the invitations? that sort of stuff? LMAO…please allow us to continue on this then…

Get a clue perse….and lay off the sanctimonious irrelevant diversions.

persephone says:

01:30pm | 01/06/10

It was watty’s diversion, not mine.

And the conversation was about religious posturing, so who’s trying to change the subject now?

Rob r Charteris says:

05:46pm | 01/06/10

persephone says:01:30pm; hold on there Tarzan’s mate is on a roll, dont stop her just yet.

MatLon says:

12:13pm | 01/06/10

Exactly.

Liberals have completely lost touch with real liberalism and are not capable of communicating anything beyond a ‘tough on asylum seekers’ policy designed to appeal to grumpy people who watch too much commercial television.

So Liberals out there, don’t want us to vote Green because you are afraid of the flow of preferences? Then man up and give us some real Liberal leadership…because I have a very hard time seeing any real liberals in the Liberal party. Just rich, grumpy old white dudes.

Jack says:

02:56pm | 01/06/10

Gary… you are spot on. Its not enough to hope that Rudd keeps sliding - the Liberals cannot put up a credible alternative, and therefore this wasteful government is going to be returned for a second term. Of course Julia to take the reins by 2011, but with her involvement in BER - that hardly fills with confidence.

Australian politics has never been in a worst state than it is right now. The fact that Krudd will actually get reappointed is a damnation.

Paul2 says:

08:14am | 01/06/10

I’d be happier if the Greens just developed a few policies that had application here on Earth.

Steely Dan says:

10:13am | 01/06/10

@ John A Neve

They do have more policies than just the environmental concerns.  The problem is that journos only look at them when the environmental issues pop up.

Macon Paine says:

11:33am | 01/06/10

@ Steely Dan

Can you please list some of the greens policies here for us?

This would be a great opportunity.

Cheers

Steely Dan says:

12:28pm | 01/06/10

You want me to list the Green’s policies in a comment?

What’s wrong with you going to their website and seeing there policies on the areas that are important to you?  Don’t be lazy, macon.  Do at least a little bit of research before the election.

Gerry says:

12:54pm | 01/06/10

They do have a very wide scope of policies,

Check their website.

YOU JOHN need to widen your scope

Ben81 says:

02:17pm | 01/06/10

Yes Gerry they sure do, and most of them are a worry. 
They want to magically make sure everyone can live in a cheap house while opening the floodgates to “climate change refugees”.  They want clean energy, yet are irrational anti-nuclear fearmongers.  They want to let school kids vote.  They want to make it illegal for the police to mention someones race when giving a description of a wanted suspect.  They claim agriculture is essential to our economy, but want to promote “organic agriculture”, and remove diesel fuel subsidies.

I could go on all day, they’re nothing but idealist protestors with no place in real world government.

Tim says:

09:22am | 01/06/10

A star performer?
Well i suppose if getting up and whinging about everything the major parties do without any realistic policies of your own is what you define as a star performer, then yes she is.
It’s pretty easy to just say we should spend more money everywhere on social issues. A little bit more difficult when you have to balance a budget at the end of the day.

Brad Coward says:

10:43am | 01/06/10

Sarah Hanson-Young a “star performer” ?  If Wilson Tuckey is the mad uncle of the Liberal Party, Sarah Hanson-Young is gobby, teenage daughter of the Greens !  Knows everything about everything, and even when you prove to her that she’s wrong….she’s still right !

Bob Brown a potential Prime Minister ?  So is Wilson Tuckey and Maxine McKew !  Scary !

Luke says:

11:19am | 01/06/10

Excellent comment Tim…
Balancing a budget IS harder than it seems…

Soultrader - Rannville SA - Home of the Broken pro says:

08:40am | 01/06/10

@Pers
Dear oh Dear oh Dear. I need some of your hooch. You seem to be constantly in a dream world.
“the fact that the program was discontinued, but am willing to argue that this was inevitable because of the unfair atttitude of the media” These are your words verbatum. A government can not govern a country reacting to adverse publicity. How shallow and peurile is that? Just because somebody doesn’t like you anymore, is no reason to throw in the towel. No wonder we have had a gutful of these mirror men and women claiming to be the Government of Australia - The Labor Party - of the people, by the people and for the people - what bull*&^t.
It is about repaying debts to their grubby faceless supporters, who have no honesty or integrity or scruples - power at all costs.

Freeman says:

08:55am | 01/06/10

Dear Persephone,
So faithful you are. You still beleive Rudd is committed to an ETS. why do you beleive? coz mr rudd said so!  Perse, just pretend for a moment Ruddy WAS actually dumping the ETS, would you expect him to admit he is dumping it? or maybe just blame everyone else for it’s failures and put it on the “backburner” and stop mentioning it to let it fall into obscurity? now, with your new insight into how team Krudd works, have a look at all their failures and backflips and you likely develop a critical view of Rudd like the rest of australia has, even the ones who would still vote for him are grumbling.

Nicole says:

08:59am | 01/06/10

Dear Pers,
I’d really love to see things from your point of view, but I just can’t seem to get my head that far up my backside. I do hope that one day you shall see the light, and wake up to yourself. I’m going to pray for you now, and will continue to do so. There is hope for you, I just know it.

Tim says:

09:02am | 01/06/10

“Otherwise: this is one poll, and if anything, it shows that Labor’s vote is steadily improving. It certainly doesn’t suggest that Labor would lose, if an election were to be held today. “

BWAHAHAHA.  Tell me Perse,  how does one reach this delusional reality you reside in?  Does it involve a magic wardrobe or ruby slippers?
Because even the most inept people out there can tell that the results of this ONE poll are nothing more than a continuing trend from the last few. Labor and Kruddo are in deep trouble, and you’re in deep denial.  Hilarity.

As for the ETS thing, blame an obstructionist Senate all you like. Fact is if Kevvy had the balls, he’d have called a DD like he threatened. The choice not to do that lay soley with him and him alone, so stop trying to shift the blame.

watty says:

09:06am | 01/06/10

I don’t think the Opposition has dropped it’s interest in the incredible waste of taxpayer’s money in the BER program.

The Auditor General’s terms of reference handed down by Gillard precluded any investigation into cost over runs and his report was thus deficient.

Surprised that Green’s Leader Bobbie Brown din’t call for a Royal Commission as that seems to be his only solution to ALL problems. .

“Unfair attitude of the media” ? Shame on them for not remaing silent on the 4 deaths and house fires.Shame on them for revealing Rudd had prior warning on the dangers in his insulation program.

At least they could have blamed Howard for that.

Why do you defend the indefensible?  Rudd has had favourable media cover butnow he is being found out he is being dumped on even by his Comrades. in the Press Gallery and his own Party.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

09:06am | 01/06/10

Heh heh heh , persephone , very risky upsetting that flow of Green preferences to your party like that. It’s their faithful puppy licks that just might keep Labor in govt.
Of course , you know and i know , there is only one poll that counts.

Daryl says:

09:25am | 01/06/10

Come on. The greatest moral challenge of our time no longer seems to be Persephone. The ETS has been shelved because the ALP realised that rocketing power prices was not a good look in the lead up to an election. The government should be looking for alternative clean sources of energy rather than slugging the consumer with another tax. What about nuclear energy? We have an abundance of Uranium and if a country like France in the built up areas of Europe can make it work. Oh but that’s right, this government has no balls to make hard decisions. “I’ll turn the boats around”, yet not one has been turned around Persephone. Sounds like a backflip to me. As for school spending, there was a parliamentary inquiry into rorting and overcharging. Labor backed builders with their noses in the trough at taxpayers expense. And I’ve got three children at school and I can tell you the Laptops are yet to be delivered! Yes insulation was a dangerous unmitigated disaster that the taxpayer is still paying for. Yes there was a backflip on over 200 childcare facilities. There was also a backflip on grocery choices - remember that election promise? Cost $23million and nothing was delivered. What about fuelwatch, is that a backflip? Then there was the pledge not to touch the private health rebate which was a massive lie!. Then the promise to reform the tax system which resulted in another tax and no reform at all. Then there was the promise to support working families which has resulted in the reduction in both the child care rebate and family assistance payments. What about workchoices - oops unemployment rate is up. What about “who do you trust on interest rates” - oops they’re up too. What about “more affordable housing” - oops prices set to rise 20%. $40+ million for a broadband network not delivered. $400K a year job for Rudd’s mate never advertised. A promise not to use taxpayers money to sell policy - backflip. Surplus blown. Record levels of foreign debt. Stealing the states GST. They’ll be rolling out Rex Connor and Khemlani next! What is your motivation for supporting this bunch of hopeless rabble Persephone? I don’t understand?

persephone says:

09:33am | 01/06/10

Soutrader

The media’s failure to report honestly on this issue created unnecessary fear and uncertainty in the minds of the public.

Hawke found that, given the inherent dangers of installing insulation, there could be no guarantee (ever) that there would be no deaths/fires caused by any scheme, no matter how well regulated, and that the media’s track record in this regard meant that any death/fire would be unacceptably politicised.

Unfortunately, I live in the real world, as does the PM, and recognise political realities.

Freeman

Well, how do you know he’s dumping it, then?

I would suggest because of media (mis) reporting of Rudd’s words.

If he can’t be trusted, then perhaps he hasn’t dumped it after all.

Nicole

how touching.

Maybe one day you’ll realise you can live your life without relying on invisible friends.

I believe what I can prove; you believe what you can’t.

Tim (although the BWAAHAHA line of argument suggest you’re Mark in one of his many incarnations…)

yes, there was a downward trend for the government, looking over several polls over a period of weeks.

The same polls are showing that this trend is falling off, with the 2PP creeping back up to Labor.

This suggests that we reached ‘peak Abbott’ a couple of weeks ago.

Rudd never threatened a DD; that was media speculation. He consistently said that he wanted to go full term.

Find me one quote (that shouldn’t be hard) where he threatened a DD.

Watty

faith, not evidence - the evidence on the BER is that the Libs can’t find any savings in this area. If there was waste and mismanagement, it would be a doozy.

Instead, not one cent of savings are identified by the Libs’ budget reply in this area.

Apparently they plan to continue this ‘wasteful’ and ‘mismanaged’ program with only a bit of tinkering around the edges.

I agree with you. It was shameful of the media and the Opposition to politicise these deaths. The evidence is that safety standards - and safety - in this industry improved because of the new regulations Garrett introduced.

Ironically, this means that, in the future, installers will be safer, there will be less deaths and less fires - but Garrett won’t get the credit for this.

Rudd has never had favourable media coverage. From the second he became the ALP leader, the media has run a series of ‘beat ups’ against him and attacked his government with a ferocity unseen in this country.

If Howard had been subjected to the same level of scrutiny, he’d never have become PM.

Wayne,

yep, and the Opposition is presently in the worst position of any Opposition party in the polls in this stage of the election cycle.

As you know, polls tend to swing back to the incumbent as an election comes closer.

And, as an election nears, Abbott’s lack of policy depth will become more apparent.

I’d expect an election result similar to the last one, which -given some boundary changes - will see Labor pick up seats.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

10:33am | 01/06/10

persephone :  Of course that could happen too pers , but the odds are against it when you look at the record of non-achievement by the Rudd govt. .  Queensland may well be where the election is decided and right at the moment Labor stinks worse than a rotting prawn.  Rudd has run from one seat to another in Qld. because he is very aware of Labor’s standing in the state which will be worst affected by the RSPT . The fact that the Bligh govt. is heavy on the nose isn’t helping Rudd , so not much comfort there either.

Elphaba says:

10:48am | 01/06/10

The ETS would not make a lick of difference to climate change, and it won’t set any standards for the world to follow.  It’s a waste.

The Opposition was right to reject it.  It’s a pointless tax.  I’m thrilled they stood their ground.

If our PM was serious about energy, he would start considering nuclear.  Use it for our baseload power and marry it with green technology.

Christian Real says:

10:59am | 01/06/10

Nicole
I would pray for you but some how I don’t think that prayers would help you.
Persephone must be really getting to all you mob,but then I suppose Nicole, that like Tony Abbott, his faithful Liberal supporters and followers also would not know the truth if it bit them on the bum.

Macon Paine says:

11:30am | 01/06/10

“Firstly, Rudd hasn’t ‘abandoned the ETS’ - he is on the record multiple times as saying he still supports it, still supports a minimum 5% cut,”
Thats true perse, he hasn’t “abandoned” the ETS he’s “shelving it” until a more politically viable opportunity presents itself. Of course he has to get elected again in the first place.
“and would sit down and negotiate a deal with the Senate if they change their mind about passing it.”
Yeah I know that dastardly senate! Or he could man up and use the double dissolution trigger he has. What are you thoughts on why he wont use the double dissolution trigger perse?
“It was the Opposition who walked away from both their election commitment to support one and their agreement with the government - ratified by the party room - to pass the legislation in the Senate.”
Stop blame shiffting. Both leaders of the Liberal party at those times are gone. The Liberals are therefore not subject to decisions made by those former leaders. Your argument has little merit.
“The Greens can also take a bit of the blame for this too - if they had voted for the amended ETS in the Senate, we’d have had an ETS in place by now.”
A bit? More like the majority of blame perse. The greens who want an ETS have actually moved to prevent us from having one because it doesn’t go far enough! This says a lot about the PM’s ETS (It sucks) and the greens ETS (Its looney).
” There hasn’t been a backflip on asylum seekers. There has been a freeze on processing some of them (which I disagree with) but otherwise the policy remains the same.”
Come in spinner! We wont call it a backflip, we’ll call it a “freeze on processing”. Why do you disagree with it perse?
” WHAT backflip on school spending? That’s just an outright fib, Penbo, and unworthy of you.’
Actually this is a good point im not sure what penbo is referring to, perhaps others can add to it. You really need to stop blaming the opposition for everything though perse, it makes you look hopelessly biased.
“I’ll give you insulation (the fact that the program was discontinued, but am willing to argue that this was inevitable because of the unfair atttitude of the media) “
Discontinued because of the “unfair attitude of the media”? You dont think too much of the public.
“and child care (although to go ahead with building childcare centres which would either be empty or send neighbouring centres broke would be irresponsible) but that doesn’t excuse the other errors”
So it was probably irresponsible to promise those 350 odd centres in the first place. Sounds like policy on the run to me.
“Otherwise: this is one poll, and if anything, it shows that Labor’s vote is steadily improving. It certainly doesn’t suggest that Labor would lose, if an election were to be held today.”
Wow you manage to draw the exact opposite conclusion of this link provided in the OP: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/voters-drop-main-parties-for-greens/story-e6frgczf-1225873768713.
Two party support for the ALP is down 8.3% since 2007 election. How can you draw “steadlily improving” from that? Only the greens have improved since 2007. Their support has more than doubled. Most likely this has something to do with Rudds embarrasing backdown over the ETS.

Nicole says:

11:36am | 01/06/10

Why, thank you Christian for your kind words. You must have got out on the right side of bed today.

Grumbles says:

11:43am | 01/06/10

Today we have no ETS. If Rudd had, had his way, we would have one now. Can someone explain how one single Australian would be better of if we were currently paying a carbon tax?

What Pers fails to note is the endless promises of the Rudd Government and his subsequent reaction to public opinion to do something completely different. Thats whats getting on the nose, Its not that we wanted an ETS, it’s that Kevin claimed it was at the core of who he was.

persephone says:

12:50pm | 01/06/10

Good lord, Macon! Did the ALP get over 59% of the 2PP last election?

I’m sorry I’ve missed it.

I’ve been living in an alternative reality, where the ALP’s 2PP was 52.7%, just a couple of percentage points higher than the latest newspoll.

Terribly disappointed I missed living in the socialist republic which exists in your reality.

In my alternative reality, Labor suffered a hit in the polls recently, which it is now recovering from.

Given that governments traditionally gain votes coming up to an election, I’m fairly sure Labor will poll at least as well as it did in 2007, and may pick up a couple of seats as a result (given boundary changes and retiring sitting members).

Tim says:

01:11pm | 01/06/10

@ Persephone, I know it must be hard for you to contemplate the idea that more than one person finds your statements to be laughable, but I’m afraid I’m going to have dissappoint you, I’m not Mark. Although I have been entertained by your regular sparring matches for quite some time now.
As a matter of fact you were the lucky recipient of my 2nd ever contribution to this site, the first ( a month or so back) going to a clueless halfwit who tried to claim that KRudd had nothing to do with the Internet Filter, and that Conroy was a Family First senator not Labor. So you’re in great company.

As to your challenge, I’m afraid the quick 5 min google search performed in my lunch hour failed to turn up anything concrete, so you might be right in that Kevin never threatened directly. Indirectly however (Via Gillard) .... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-handed-double-dissolution-trigger-as-senate-rejects-emissions-trading-scheme-again/story-e6freuy9-1225806110336

It was a threat. It was an option. It was later countered by Kevin who claimed he would prefer to serve his full term. So on the one hand we have “The Greatest Moral Challenge of our Time”  and on the other we have Kevin’s pledge to stay in power.  What ended up being more important? That’s right, the power. 
He didn’t shelve the ETS because of an obstructionist Senate, he had a potential way around that if he so chose. He didn’t, and that is the point. He chose personal power over policy principles. You cannot deny that statement no matter how much spin you use.

Macon Paine says:

01:21pm | 01/06/10

@ persephone

Woops! Thanks for pointing that out i should have said primary support!
Any chance you could actually address the rest of my post.
Or is that all you’ve got?

persephone says:

03:00pm | 01/06/10

Sincere apologies, Tim, for that gratuitous insult.

BTW, your link does show what you said it does - Gillard simply restates that the government has no intention to go to a DD on the issue.

And the reality is that a DD would be pointless. It wouldn’t guarantee the legislation would be passed, as there would be no certainty that Labor would have the majority even in a joint sitting.

It wouldn’t get the legislation in place any quicker, either, as the Constitution requires that, after the election, the legislation must go back to both houses of parliament before a joint sitting be held.

The other problem is that the government doesn’t particularly want the legislation in its current form. For a start, its dates are now impractical and need to be rejigged. It also assumes the establishment of an international market, which hasn’t happened.  The delay also means that cuts to emissions will need to be made harder and faster.

To have a DD on legislation that you have every intention of rewriting sort of defeats the purpose of a DD, which requires the legislation to be presented to Parliament without changes.

Macon

Sorry, your post was a bit long, and I haven’t had time until now…

I’ve covered your first two points in the answers above.

I’m interested in the idea - a new concept in party politics - that a change of leader means that all past policies are automatically dead in the water. Given that nobody other than residents of Warringah voted for TA, it sort of makes a joke of representative democracy.

So I take it that my local Liberal member doesn’t actually represent the Liberal party as such, but simply whoever happens to be leader at the time?

I really thought they had more importance in the party’s decision making process than that.

We agree about the Greens (hawk, spit) and Penbo’s strange assertion about a schools backflip.

How is freezing asylum seeker applications a backflip? Did Rudd ever promise he wouldn’t do it? Has anything else to do with his policies on asylum seekers changed?

I think a lot of the public, but they can only act on information given, why it is so important that the media is fair and balanced.

The childcare centres reversal is the result of the GFC and the collapse of ABC, neither of which was predictable at the time the original promise was made.

Happy now?

watty says:

09:22am | 01/06/10

Hey Cheech…quit the dreaded weed before before posting your usual drivel/dribble

As you hope for a governemnt with a “commie /pinko leaning take I suggest you take some time off in North Korea where you won’y have to worry about choice of vote.

As for you assuming the role of spokesman for Australian voters “we the voters”  this only demonstrates your total ignorance and political naievity.

T.Chong says:

09:48am | 01/06/10

Yes, good day to you too watty.
The weed is only “dreaded” if you pay too much,or youve been ripped off again buying oregano,or too much ‘baccy in the mix - tobacco is an evil drug, i draw the line at.
You need to chill. Tell you wat, watty, I’ll fix ya up this time, but you see me on payday. Sweet? 

persephone says:

08:50am | 01/06/10

Well, for a wee timorous beastie, he isn’t afraid to take on some of the richest and most powerful companies in the world.

Don’t you love being lectured about the government’s failings by people speaking in South African and American accents?

Or being told by Clive Palmer that we’ll all be ruined?

Chris says:

09:42am | 01/06/10

Well Pers are their accents any worse than Julia Gillard’s ‘Strayn’. I suppose Doug Cameron is not a true blue Aussie with his Scottish Brogue and Kristina Kenneally - hang on she is an American and a Labour Premier!!!!
As for him taking on the big boys - it is Wayne Swan doing the heavy lifting. Everytime your hero opens his mouth he mangles it so much he couldn’t sell ice to eskimos.
Leaders do not divide, Leaders do not play politics of envy. Leaders have a position and they stick to it. leaders do not bully. Leaders do not denigrate others behind the sanctity of Parliamentary privilege.
A true leaders is everything Kevin Rudd is not.

persephone says:

10:17am | 01/06/10

Chris

all proud Australians, not foreigners who fly in and tell us who our government should be and what they should do.

‘Leaders do not divide, Leaders do not play politics of envy. Leaders have a position and they stick to it. leaders do not bully. Leaders do not denigrate others behind the sanctity of Parliamentary privilege.’

I know, Howard WAS dreadful.

Chris says:

10:45am | 01/06/10

Persephone,

What a lovely Xenophobic comment you gave in reply to me - we don’t want foreigners telling us whatfor!.  Was it not our illustrious leader who travelled to China to lecture them on Human rights abuses. All I am saying is just be careful that your perspective is not lost when you drape the flag around your shoulders.
Your line about Howard is correct - he WAS, Rudd - IS. That is what is important. Most people live in the now, it would be good idea if you did the same.

persephone says:

11:28am | 01/06/10

Chris

things are getting desperate if you’re criticising me for being a patriot!

These are facts, not opinions or aspertions - the mining companies are, by and large, huge multinational corportations. Therefore their CEOs and other office holders - as well as their main beneficiaries - are not Australian. Therefore, their only interest in Australia is how much money they can make out of our resources.

Forgive me if I don’t cry tears of blood at the idea of someone living in the US or Europe having to go without a million dollars or two because the Australian government’s using that money to fund worthwhile projects at home.

Of course, what terrifies these guys is that the tax is such a good idea, other countries are already considering it.

Chris says:

01:34pm | 01/06/10

Persephone,

I do not criticise you for believing in Australia (as a dual citizen myself so do I), I criticise the use of terms such as patriotism to target foreigners in a ‘faux-flagwaving’ display that highlights more our insecurity in the global sphere than anything else. Your arguement regarding the mining companies and their corporate structures displays an ignorance that is too much to behold. You often refer (ad nauseum) about the use of facts. In this case, your facts in this argument are misplaced.

persephone says:

04:42pm | 01/06/10

OK, Chris - you think multinationals should dictate terms to our government, I think that’s the job of Australians.

Soultrader - Rannville SA - Home of the Broken pro says:

08:44am | 01/06/10

The quality of a Green Supporter - still does not know that the Labour Party is actaully the Labor Party. You don’t even know who you support.
As for the Green’s Environment Policy - In a galaxy far far away, lived a hobbit named Brown - because that is where their policies are - way out there

Steely Dan says:

10:10am | 01/06/10

‘Actaully’, Soultrader, you’d have been better off leaving Jordan’s spelling mistakes alone.

Robert S McCormick says:

10:25am | 01/06/10

Isn’t that just the problem? A vote for the Greens means a return of the ALP & now the most loathed and despised pseudo-Prime Minister this country has ever had. Just like theDemocrats before them the Greens, knowing they will never become the government of Australia, have airy-fairy, idealistic unachievable policies. This is what the minor parties do. They use their minimally, yet influential, level of power to try to blackmail governments in to doing what they want. Thankfully the Democrats had one of the few intelligent leaders in Meg Lees when she did the deal with Howard over the GST. Remember if Meg had done what the trendy, lefty we’re-so-Pure,yuppies which made up the rest of the Democrat Senators wanted and refused to pass Howard’s GST then he would have had the perfect trigger for a Double Dissolution of BOTH the Senate & Reps. At the subsequent Joint Sitting he would have been able to pass his original GST Legislation. This included everything. Fresh Meat, Dairy, Fruit & Vegetables etc. Meg using her superior intelligence saw a way to lighten the load and negotiated for all those “Staples of Life” to be exempted from the GST.
The Green’s may have some good policies but they are totally inflexible. They want it all their own way or not at all. At the up-coming Federal Election there are ways we can vote against the ALP and the Coalition without voting for the ultra-left Greens. There will be lots of genuinely Independent candidates, as opposed to the ersatz-Indepenents planted by bot the ALP & Coalition.

Steely Dan says:

11:38am | 01/06/10

@ Robert S McCormick
“Isn’t that just the problem? A vote for the Greens means a return of the ALP”
No, it doesn’t.  You can allocate preferences any way you want to.  Try and keep up, Robert.

Jordan says:

03:15pm | 01/06/10

Soultrader - Hmmmm… well the Labor seem to be ‘labouring’ at the moment. Thanks for pointing out my error. Apparently the Australian Labor party spells differently to its counterparts in NZ and UK. Perhaps it’s they - or Australians - who can’t spell? To clarify - when I say ‘I realise this will probably return labour to government’ i am expecting the Greens to form a coalition government with the Greens as I expecting a similar situation developing in Australia to that which occurred in the UK recently. I’m also half expecting Malcolm Turnbull to form his own party or perhaps run as an independent. He certainly has the dosh to make a fist of it. Whether he has the time to form a viable party is a factor making such a scenario unlikely.

With respect comments relating to the Greens, they are acted reasonably sensibly over the last 3 years. They backed the Stimulus Package and got it through. I would welcome some ‘left field’ ideas from the Greens. The same rehashed ideas from the Liberals and Labor aren’t getting us anywhere. We need new solutions. We need out of the box thinking.

Robert S McCormick says:

11:57am | 01/06/10

Steely Dan. I am well aware of the allocation of preferences options.
Have you ever worked at a Polling Booth? I have and believe you me very often those who, for the Senate, vote below the line very seldom have their ballot papers isolated and seriously scrutinised. If “! “is put below the line for the Greens, ALP Libs or Nats etc. that ballot paper is treated as if you had voted above the line! I saw this done and was told to just accept “that, that is how we do things”. The issue of preferences in the Reps or some other lower house where the number of candidates are maybe 6 or 7 is another matter. Ilive in a “safe"seat so I always vote against the sitting member and give Independents or not-a-hope-in-hell-of-winning minor party my 1st,2nd & 3rd preferences!

persephone says:

08:52am | 01/06/10

Dear ALP

Please give me a job.

I’d prefer one that pays money.

regards
Persephone

Pete from Sydney says:

08:55am | 01/06/10

Ben, great contribution mate…go back to work

Rocket Surgeon says:

09:04am | 01/06/10

So you want to work for both sides?

Andrew says:

10:24am | 01/06/10

If Persephone didn’t exist The Punch would have to invent her.

Brad Coward says:

10:56am | 01/06/10

Almost like “if Oprah didn’t exist, we’d have to invent her” !

Christian Real says:

11:37am | 01/06/10

Persephone
It appears that Wayne has got a job as being Ghost Writer to a well known Fraser Coast Regional Councillor, as long as he is not using the work computer to send his comments into the blogs on.

Ryan says:

11:42am | 01/06/10

I want to work for the ministry of propaganda too, can I have a job please.. I swear I will hold the party line and spew forth as many untruths as I can possibly. I mean I have a good one to get Kev out of the mining ad criticisms, say that he was only meant that he was going to stop rampant spending of taxpayer money on TV ads, not radio and other advertising… that way no one would be surprised buy the response.

Luke says:

11:48am | 01/06/10

Kevin really is making Persphone look silly, poor Pers still believes everything Kevin tells him, while the majority now know Kev has problems with telling the truth and his sound bites are just re-election motto’s. C’mon Pers it’s OK for you to support Labor but supporting Kevin really is a joke now.

luke09 says:

12:57pm | 01/06/10

I can’t believe this is the choice we have. A fake man, a thug and a loony tasmanian.

Robert says:

05:04pm | 02/06/10

Nick Mckim Scott Ludlam, respectivly making Labor’s Barlett and Conroy look like the loud mouth bully boys they truly are.
The Greens have leaders in spades while Labor has only one truly worth HER salt.

Robert says:

07:37pm | 02/06/10

I meant Labor’s Bartlett (David) and Conroy (Stephen)

Nick McKim is the obvious choice to take over the Federal Green’s Leadership when Bob retires (I hope that is not for a long time) with Scott Ludlam also in the running for the top job (Green’s Leadership and Prime Minister eventually).

Julia Gillard is Labor’s only competent leader apart from Lindsay Tanner but after the upcoming Federal poll Tanner will be gone.

Evan Findlay says:

10:02am | 01/06/10

That’s a vote for the incumbent government…...Labor. Just thought I would point that out.

Wayne Fehlhaber says:

05:49pm | 01/06/10

What ?  a vote for Labor is an informal vote. ?  Yeah , you got that one right Evan.

acker says:

10:52am | 01/06/10

Zeta in a hung parliament which could be on the cards Tony Windsor,  Rob Oakshott, Bob Katter plus Greens MP’s from Melbourne (goodbye Tanner) possibly Fremantle, one of the Tasmanian seats or an inner Sydney where traditional Labor voters vote Green and the Liberals preference the Greens (such as Grayndler Anthony Albanese & Sydey Tanya Plibersek)

Regardless of the House of Reps the Greens Senate numbers may increase to 6 or 7

persephone says:

10:53am | 01/06/10

Oh dear.

Kiera, please get educated before you get near a ballot box.

Voting for Greens above the line means that your preferences are allocated the way the Greens party instructs the electoral commission it wants them to be.

Under our system, for your vote to count, your preferences must go somewhere. If you want to determine where that is, you need to vote below the line (as I do, when Labor does deals with twits like Fielding).

Luke says:

11:10am | 01/06/10

Good clarification Adam…

James says:

11:01am | 01/06/10

Have you actually looked at the Greens policies?http://greens.org.au/policies they have a pretty comprehensive list and even if they achieve 10% of it they would make Australia a better country. 

Labour have demonstrated their unwillingness to tackle “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, I gave them my vote, they have been tested and they have failed and don’t even start me on the LNP who I wouldn’t trust to sell icecream.

I say compared to what we have, the Greens are a step up, even if they don’t have experience.  “Experienced” pollies are very good at saving their own necks and not much else it seems.

Tim says:

11:06am | 01/06/10

Luke,
the problem is they’re not even good on the environment as they are too ideologically driven to look at realistic solutions to environmental problems that will not cause economic ruin.
Any party that claims to be environmentally conscious whilst refusing to even consider nuclear power as an option have failed miserably.

Luke says:

11:30am | 01/06/10

Your right Tim… they haven’t done well on nuclear… i dont know why they are so against it… The science is good…
They are idealistic on the environment… but… SOMEONE HAS TO BE… in effect by being a minor party they keep people frowning at unnecessary waste, corporations having good environmental policy, and investing money in future technology…
In my opinion they have enough power as it stands… Any more means their other non-environment policies will get a greater debate and i know many of them simply to be impractical…

Luke says:

12:34pm | 01/06/10

@james….
Yes i have read their policies…
Not all of them, but alot of them…
All i see is the fact that a vote for the “environment” also means a vote for other unrelated things… Things that some people… like myself… can have strong disagreements with…
As much as i feel for the environment… i think we need a party that is dedicated to IT and IT ONLY… not these other things too…
In effect i believe the Greens have a responsibility to be more neutral on alot of non-environment matters…

Macon Paine says:

01:16pm | 01/06/10

@ James
“http://greens.org.au/policies they have a pretty comprehensive list and even if they achieve 10% of it they would make Australia a better country.”
Which 10%? Anyway thats what all parties say. Most of these policies are just pie in the sky stuff. Look at their climate change policies for example, i had a quick look and found these pearlers.
They state they want “Australia to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is feasible and by no later than 2050 with a minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020.”
40% in 10 years? And the remaining 60% over 30 years! What impact will this have on the economy? And our living standards? There is no detail at all, this is totally uncosted and irresponsible.
And this: “the reversal of Australia’s growing demand for energy through demand management and increased efficiency of supply and end-use.”
What is"demand management”? Looks like a fancy new term for good old soviet style rationing.
“Labour have demonstrated their unwillingness to tackle “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, I gave them my vote, they have been tested and they have failed and don’t even start me on the LNP who I wouldn’t trust to sell icecream.”
Yes Labor have failed spectacularly over this issue and have been trumped by “Climate change is crap” Abbott!
“I say compared to what we have, the Greens are a step up, even if they don’t have experience.  “Experienced” pollies are very good at saving their own necks and not much else it seems”
I sympathise with your sentiments but as I briefly detailed above the greens have some very dubious policies, they dont look like a legitimate alternative.

James says:

01:40pm | 01/06/10

@ Malcon I am not sure that these cuts are unrealistic to determine that you would need to do some detailed analysis. 

From my understanding of risk management you spend money to mitigate a risk to the point which the amount you spend does not exceed the cost of the damage caused by the risk. 

The best analysis I have seen by Stern indicates that 5%-20% of GDP could be effectively lost now and forever due to the impacts of climate change, where 5% of our GDP is around 60 Billion dollars.  You could argue, therefore, that we should actually spend up to this amount in mitigation every year.  I have not seen a credible study that betters Stern’s numbers.

Demand managment is nothing to do with Soviet rationing, infact it requires a market system to work.  It is a feature of smart metering, that is, you switch on high energy appliances like electric hot water when the price is cheap as in preference to when it is expensive, it is a market instrument.

Macon Paine says:

11:41am | 02/06/10

@ James
Im not going to do your research for you. If you can provide me with links to support your assertions im very happy to look at them.
Are you suggesting we spend $60B (minimum) per year on climate change initiatives? If yes do the greens have a way to obtain these funds?
As to “demand management” and im happy to be corrected about this, the wikipedia page states “entails actions that influence the quantity or patterns of use of energy consumed by end users, such as actions targeting reduction of peak demand during periods when energy-supply systems are constrained.”
So effectively does this mean that during peak periods the cost of electricity goes up? Let me put it another way, when I get home at 6pm to shower, I will be penalised (ie I will pay more) for using a hot water system during peak (when i actually need the electricity), is this correct?

James says:

02:30pm | 02/06/10

The cost of electricity is determined by the supply/demand curve, so energy traders and wholesale buyers are exposed to peak prices but so are you as they will eventually flow through to your contract, with your retailer. 

About 1/3 of the retail cost of power in Australia is due to ‘high price events’, this could be reduced by smart meters which can (with the appropriate effort and investment) manage peak demand by switching off no essential load during peak pricing events.  That is the demand management the Greens are on about not the Soviet blackout sort.

RE Managing the risk of climate change, I am suggesting we apply the same risk assessment tools the financial industry apply to other types of risk, to climate change.  To me climate change is an insurance question, similar to the defence force. 

We spend $23 Billion dollars per year on a defence force presumably to prevent or mitigate the cost of invasion, what is the likelihood of invasion (low) what are the consequences of invasion (very high). 

Now when we apply the same analysis to climate change, likelyhood of climate change (high) consequence of climate change (I would say high).  If we spend $23 billion on a defence force, the question has to be asked what are we spending much less than that to prevent/mitigate the risk of climate change.

Luke says:

05:22pm | 02/06/10

@james…
In my opinion… those small measures on “demand management” are very small compared to the overall goal that the greens wish to achieve…

Robert says:

05:22pm | 02/06/10

Yes the good old Democrats, the same Party that directed their preferences to Steve Fielding (Family First) in the 2004 Federal election along with Labor and the non liberal Liberals.
The only party that did not direct their preferences (sell out their respective voters) to the extremist Religious Right (Family First) were The Greens.

Luke says:

07:20pm | 02/06/10

@Robert
I found what the democrats brung to the senate in terms of DEBATE was much more valuable than Steve or the Greens for that matter…
As they died out… i cant see that as a good thing…
The other independants we have now really arent that valuable compared to what they were…
The Greens really arent that good at any other matter other than environment… Alot of thier time in the Senate this year has been a bit of waste in my opinion…

Macon Paine says:

08:53pm | 02/06/10

@ James

Ok thanks for that you make a compelling case but I notice the greens (correct me if im wrong) haven’t really addressed how this mitigation is going to be funded and lets be honest that is the bread and butter of this.
It’s all very well to say we spend $23B on defence so we should be spending $60B (minimum) on climate change but I suppose what most people want to know are the details of this. Where should the money come out of/ from? Will there be new taxes? Or can it be done by making realistic budget cuts elsewhere? As a Libertarian I would personally prefer to see the latter.

Robert says:

10:43pm | 02/06/10

@ Luke

http://greens.org.au/policies

Have a read, especially under the Human Rights and Democracy heading.

http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/constitutional-reform-and-democracy

Something the current major parties have failed to act on even though the public consultation earlier this year showed the majority of submissions supported at least a referendum on the issue of a bill of rights.

Public consultations are held in the interest of maintaining the facade of a democratic process, because the majority of the time the results -of consultations- are ignored and the government -State or Federal- goes ahead implementing -or not implementing- whatever policy they wish.

Nick Xenophon is probably the best and most democratically representative Indepenent Senator the Australian Senate has ever had.

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

Robert says:

12:02am | 03/06/10

Obviously I meant Independent Senator not Indepenent Senator (did not pre-read before submitting)

James says:

02:33pm | 03/06/10

@ Malcon, yes the “insurance policy” we buy against climate change will need to be very well calculated and yes it will be hard to do that calculation, but that is what actuaries do.  As to where the money comes from, it may actually come from the private sector (super funds) as we are talking about building new plant i.e. new types of power stations, rail infrustructure etc. with government providing support throught its relevant agencies, this would probably be its monetary contribution i.e. normal or slightly enhanced agency funding. 

Clearly, given the failure of Labour governments in rolling out programs, an infrustruture roll out of this kind would have to be very carefully managed.  I am guessing the private sector would be used to efficiently deliver projects and the Government would use its agencies to come up with an overall plan and support its implimentation.

James says:

11:28am | 01/06/10

On the contrary I would suggest that the Greens are the only political party on planet earth, in that they understand the risks posed by climate change and are the only party talking solutions of the appropriate magnitude to solve the problem.  The Labour party seems to live in a fantasy land where you can negotiate with the laws of physics.

acker says:

01:27pm | 01/06/10

@TIMFROMTHETOPEND says:11:01am: ...Tim have a look at the policies on the Labor website and work which ones have been shelved indefinitely

persephone says:

12:44pm | 01/06/10

monkeyt…

you forgot the lead up to the election, where the media informs us in hushed, breathless voices that the Greens are on track to win X number of seats and that their vote has increased to a point where they’ve became a force to be reckoned with…

...and then their vote goes up by less than 1%,...cue Bob Brown.

(How many times has Lindsay Tanner lost his seat to the Greens now?)

AdamC says:

01:36pm | 01/06/10

I know, Pers, it’s a constant disappointment.

I have actually moved into Lindsay Tanners seat of Melbourne, so will be putting the Greens much higher on my ballot than usual.

You are right that the media pumps up the Greens before every election. It is an easy story and the MSM love the Greens even more than the ALP (which always disappoints them by not being left-wing enough).

FFii says:

02:18pm | 01/06/10

Yes please.
I’d vote for them in a heartbeat.
Any party that promotes small government and a government that doesn’t try to run people’s lives from birth to death and promotes personal responsibility..
How inspirational is someone like Ron Paul in US?
He is amazing - what common sense !!
There are some incredible talks/ speeches he’s given (see youtube)
Australians would flock to this party in droves.
It’s really time for a party like this considering the choices on offer

Chris L says:

06:16pm | 02/06/10

Check out the Liberal Democratic Party. I looked at their website and am considering voting that way. I am definately over the two majors.

Polywatcher says:

07:53am | 02/06/10

No point in elevating Maxine McKew to a higher office. Come the next election she will lose her seat of Bennalong to John Alexander.

stephen says:

12:29pm | 01/06/10

What the hell
is LOL ?

Chris L says:

06:36pm | 02/06/10

Marie, I fully agree. Both the majors whinge about the media when things don’t go their way (even blaming Howard’s loss of the last election on the media). Neither side shows any backbone or responsibility.

Stephen, Laugh Out Loud.

Jonno says:

12:34pm | 01/06/10

I think he’s trying to say that they’ve ‘sealed’ their own fate.

persephone says:

01:21pm | 01/06/10

No, it’s just Mark - that’s his usual standard of argument.

antiperspirant says:

02:23pm | 01/06/10

Awww how sweet. Now she is giving me persona’s. I only changed the Mark to my new moniker as another Mark started up.

Hate to be misquoted. You know like saying I will stop the cancer of government advertising and then changing it all up and doing it anyway.

Or getting the little ones to run around saying the ETS debacle was every-bodies fault but Labors.

Or that I will “turn the boats back” - humanely mind you.

Ahh me o my we could go on.

You know little things like that.

Makes me so happy I have got to you pers. You deserve it.

I give Krudd 6 weeks, August at the latest. This clown is terminal.

*Walks away hummimh “I’ve been thinking about you- Londonbeat” you love it pers.

Zookeeper Tails says:

03:16pm | 01/06/10

I’m not Mark. Mark is not me. I am me. He is him. You are she. Dig?

antiperspirant says:

03:44pm | 01/06/10

I approve of Tails comments.

persephone says:

04:50pm | 01/06/10

Well, if Tails doesn’t want to be mistaken for you, he’d better lift his game.

I find it hard to believe that the punch really attracts more than one infantile commentator - much easier to believe there’s only one, using different monikers.

antiperspirant says:

09:24pm | 01/06/10

*snicker*

Backflipped on any ETS’s lately in the office pers?

ROFLMAO

When you start to get them they start to call you names.

Hmmm 6 weeks and counting for KRuddy.

Who is the pick perws. Jools? She won’t take it could lose and she knows she will only have term if she does. Who? Whats the office pool money on. I like Combet. Got a set and is mean in a sneaky way. Good potential.

Won’t backflip or kill people with insulation or compassionately open the floodgates for people to drown.

Yeh him.

Any other attmepts at intellectual gymnastics today pers? Or you done?

persephone says:

07:25am | 02/06/10

Thanks for proving my point.

Willy_K says:

12:47pm | 01/06/10

Spot on.

The Greens are hardly “Green’  they are just a loose grouping of socialists, professional protesters and haters and pot heads.

Can you imagine if they ever got in?  They would make Rudd look like Rupert Murdoch!

Chris L says:

06:42pm | 02/06/10

Saskia the Libs tried the “If you don’t vote for us you’re a stupid head!” tactic in the last election. It failed. Probably best to try a different approach.

6c legs says:

12:48am | 02/06/10

Mate, the only person to do “untold damage to the Tasmanian timber industry” was John Gay.
(with some help from robin grey and paul lennon)

The only “industry” thats had anything to do with Tassies trees for the last 3 decades was Woodchipping. BIG difference.

...say wot ya like about Latham, but he would’ve saved all those idiots who stood “shoulder to shoulder” with jwh in the Albert Hall, Launceston the financial grief that they’re going through now!

re the OP: Go Greens!

Luke says:

06:57pm | 01/06/10

A “kick up the arse”  is a HUGE waste of public funds… sorry… i’m taxed enough already…

James says:

04:10pm | 01/06/10

Out of interest, which policy in particular should we be worried about?

marley says:

07:56pm | 01/06/10

Well, I wasn’t impressed by their wish list, with no dollar numbers attached.  Personally, I’d like to own a Ferrari and have a pied-a-terre in Paris, but unfortunately I don’t actually have the money for both, or either.  The Greens have lots of lovely ideas, but nothing to show how any of these would be accomplished.

And looking at their immigration policy, which favours family reunification over bringing in skilled, productive workers, I don’t think they really have a grasp on the issues facing a country with an aging population and declining tax base. 

On international relations, they’d like Australia to support multilateral institutions, but at the same time they press for the abolition of IMF, the World Bank and the WTO.  Oh, and they want to restructure the UN while they’re at it.  Do they actually know what multilateral institutions are? 

Oh, and how about their commitment to promote sustainable international trade while abrogating free trade agreements.

These guys are all over the place.  Great sound-bite policies, with no substance - and much internal contradiction.

James says:

04:28pm | 02/06/10

@ Marley “These guys are all over the place.  Great sound-bite policies, with no substance - and much internal contradiction”.

And how is that different to what we have now or have had ever for that matter?

The opposition rarely put numbers to their policies even when the get hammered for not doing it.

But having said that many of the Greens policies will actually save Australia money in the long term especially their Energy policies.

As for the rest, they want multilateral trade agreements instead of bilateral ones, that is a good idea.

They are suggesting lobbying the UN for changes such as:

14.  support consideration, by a UN reform commission, of structural reforms such as:

phasing out the veto powers of permanent members of the Security Council;
regularly reviewing the permanent membership of the Security Council and expanding the permanent and non-permanent member representation;

restructuring the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, including requiring General Assembly approval for the enactment of certain Security Council measures such as the enforcement of economic sanctions;
establishing structures that provide a greater accountability to the peoples the UN represents;

creating a consultative mechanism composed of representatives of civil society, including trade unions, environmental organisations, professional associations and other non-government organisations;

creating an international council for conflict resolution; and
making changes to UN decision making bodies to ensure that they more democratically represent the peoples of the world.

15.  support the establishment, by the UN, of an international crisis prevention and response centre to address threats from terrorism and other conflicts, to provide rapid response peacekeeping forces, and to rapidly respond to humanitarian crises.

16.  support the establishment of an international environmental court and an environmental council at the UN, with similar decision-making powers to the Security Council to deal with environmental issues of global significance.

Most countries lobby the UN for changes, so again what is the actual problem?

On the IMF and the World bank they :

support the abolition of the IMF, World Bank and WTO unless radical reform can:

make their processes transparent;
ensure voting and other decision making processes are more democratic;
allow full democratic participation of representatives from affected communities, including non-government organisations (NGOs) representing disadvantaged groups such as indigenous people and women;
democratise and improve their dispute settlement processes;
abolish IMF and World Bank structural adjustment loans;
reorient World Bank loans away from large, capital-intensive projects; and
bring them into the broader ‘family’ of UN institutions and provide checks and balances over their power.

The World bank has much room for improvement if you look at the situation its actions have left many poor countries in.

marley says:

07:41pm | 02/06/10

James - I’m no supporter of any of the parties in Aus politics at the moment.  But the Greens come out with an inherently inconsistent set of policies - support multilaterals, but get rid of all the major ones; control pressure on the environment, but increase the population through migration and baby bonuses; promote international trade while quitting free trade agreements.  And the list goes on.

None of it makes any sense. It’s all fine words and no substance.

James says:

01:48pm | 03/06/10

I’m not sure Greens policies are inconsistant, they are ambitious, maybe overly abitious but there is a consistant theme of equity (which is a good thing right?) and sustainablity through all of their policies. The opposite of these policies are therefore inequitable and unsustainable policies.

Clearly not all of their policies are going to be implimented but new ideas are valuable in and of themselves because they promote debate which can act as a catalyst for progress.

I also don’t see the Greens supporting a baby bonus I think they support parental leave (which is not the same thing).  It is my understanding that the Greens support a sustainable population which will mean an overall reduction in the intake of new citizens, but will involve changing the ratio of refugees to migrants.

Personally, I think that Liberal and Labour offer very little to the Australian voter, they are intent on a race to the bottom in almost every policy area.

Luke says:

10:50pm | 01/06/10

lol…
You call the idealism of the greens… nonpopulist?
BLAH!

John A Neve says:

10:51am | 02/06/10

Darryl,
With views like yours, how did your ancestors ever get out of the caves?
Or is it possible, like you they never did?

Another of the rusted on Your turn, now my turn brigade, doesn’t it get boring just changing step?

Darryl Price says:

09:27am | 04/06/10

@John, a naive. Yeah thanks for that. You seem to know more about my poilitics than I about yours. I tend to skip over those submissions that rely on abuse or mere gainsaying when they have nothing else to say. My interest is in opinion, with perhaps a bit of witty repartee buried in there somewhere just to pique peoples interest. I fear my comment may have unearthed you from your hiding spot, and a little twinge of guilt prompted your response?