Dear oh dear, the author just completely misses the most important stuff!

This country is running into a massive crisis, first and foremost because the terrible combination of an ever-bigger population base and an ever-more damaged environment and more rapidly exploited and more rapidly exhausted primary resource base... along with an economic system that is removed from reality in allowing massive debt to build up and which is based on GDP which is calculated by adding positive economic activity and negative activity together and calling it all positive!!

All the hoo-haa about Rudd’s Big Australia recently demonstrated that there is a great deal of concern about rapid population growth, an economic system that is predicated on rapid continuous growth and a government that espouses continuous growth as the solution to everything, while it has been proven to not only not be the case but to be directly associated with some pretty major problems, such as stressed water supplies, urban sprawl, infrastructure that is not keeping up ever-increasing demand, etc, etc.

The major policy arena that the Greens should be concentrating on is as clear as it can be – sustainability, including population stabilisation, a stead-state economy and an end to ever-increasing pressure on our resource base and environment.

If this sort of policy was sold to the Australia public, it would resonate very well, and the Greens WOULD become a major political force.

But alas, the Greens are just not very green at all…. and continue to concentrate on much smaller peripheral issues…. and effectively support the liblabs with their grossly unsustainable policies!

They did well in the Federal election directly because of the protest vote factor, not because they had anything particularly appealing to offer.

They could become a major political force. I see the way ahead for them as being obvious. But it would appear that old Bob Brown, and who knows who else, will have to exit the scene before this can happen.

Our current federal parliament and the recent very close result in Victoria demonstrate the synthesis of the Laboral/Liberal parties; their parallel thinking on Economic Rationalism and other issues have left no room between them for a 'middle of the road' party like the now defunct Democrats.
The Greens offer a new dialectic. It's now up to the Labor party to decide which side it's on. For the past couple of decades, it has appeared to favour competing with the Liberals as conservatives rather than progressives.

No Grim...the GREENS don't offer a 'new' dialectic..they offer the SAME one Marx did ! thinly disguised communism!

They are nothing but Fabians.. 'wolves in sheeps clothing'....

Have a look at the image on the sheild between the two men with the hammers.

http://www.sunray22b.net/fabian_society.htm

Notice also....that mankind (the people along the bottom) are now worshipping SOCIALIST literature...and power...

I kid you not...that IS their objective.

The END of the Greens?

Let's hope so.

There will be no "end" to the Greens.

They will at some point in the future simply morph into a vaguely trendy rump of one of the existing Parties. This will still allow them to trumpet "values", but without the necessity to actually do anything constructive.

This has been the pattern in Germany, where the Greens have existed in one form or another for thirty years. They still struggle to get much more than one in ten of the voting population on their side, and have consistently discarded their "principles" whenever it happens to suit them.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. We are talking about political realities after all.

One of the problems, of course, is that they care too much about the "big" issues. Like population (thanks Ludwig) and conservation and global warming and other similarly fundamentally intractable stuff. This allows them to pontificate at length (thanks Ludwig) without the need to propose anything remotely useful or practical.

This is another reason they won't go away. There will always be an idealistic fringe group (we used to call them hippies, back in the old days) who love to tell everyone how terribly we are treating the world, and how everybody should wake up and do something about it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that either. It is important to have someone nagging all the time, like a fussy mother-in-law giving constant advice about the way you clean the house.

But thank goodness they will never actually get anywhere closer to power than as a distant voice of "wouldn't it just be great if..."

And Ludwig, if you really want to understand the impact of your anti-growth ideas, take a closer look at Japan.

http://www.economist.com/node/17492860

"Japan is heading into a demographic vortex. It is the fastest-ageing society on Earth and the first big country in history to have started shrinking rapidly from natural causes."

Let us know, won't you, which part you have difficulty understanding.

While it may be simplistic to dismiss the greens as anti-growth, they should still be dismissed.

The fact that the party's policy rants occasionally strikes a chord with voters in some suburbs is hardly a major mark in their favour - Pauline Hanson also struck a chord with voters.

The greens seem to occupy pretty much the same niche in political ecology as the all-but vanished Democrats, as a haven for the nutty and disaffected, and for voters protesting against the major parties because they cannot clear up all of Australia's troubles all at once.

There are people of principle in the greens, as there were in the Democrats, and occasionally they may have something interesting to say. But if they want a seat at the policy table they should get busy and earn it.

No Chris,

I think the end of the Greens is nigh.

Once Brown is replaced by a woman they'll lose focus on the environment and start in-fighting, replacing one leader after another ... just like the dems.

Of greater significance is that once it becomes clear that state Liberal Governments start re-focusing state finances and resources on delivery of services, and they return to previous levels, the vast majority of voters will never be enamoured with a return to the 'great social justice issues' of the spinmisters of the Labor party and their dominant union lightweights.

I think we are seening the end of the 'cult of personality' type spin, that is built on reputations espousing 'social justice'issues, of the socialists and their green mates. I don't think the voting public will ever again be taken in by the likes of Carr, Beattie and Bracks.

And isn't it great the voting public have stopped listening to the labor experts in the media.

I think overall we are witnessing the death throes of the Labor Party. It'll thrash about for a few years in the wilderness and trash one leader after another, be unable to generate any great talent from it's union and pollie staffer dominated ranks, and eventually become just another party among a miraid of minor 'rump' parties.

Gillard is already in for the chop, and nobodys talking about it ... just like with Kevin. Those that follow like Shorten and each of his heirs, will go the same way, as all they'll ever have is unworkable 'social justice ideas', personality cult and an inability to actually do anything.

<< They will at some point in the future simply morph into a vaguely trendy rump of one of the existing Parties. This will still allow them to trumpet "values", but without the necessity to actually do anything constructive. >>

What do you mean ‘at some point’, Pericles?? ( :>|

It’s pretty similar in Oz to the German experience, as far as I can tell!

<< One of the problems, of course, is that they care too much about the "big" issues >>

Whaaat?? Just the opposite!

<< Like population (thanks Ludwig) and conservation and global warming and other similarly fundamentally intractable stuff. >>

Intractable??!!??.

Well, global warming might be getting close to intractable, but population and conservation issues in Australia certainly aren’t.

Crikey Peri, what on earth do you think the Greens should be doing??

You’d apparently condemn them for trying to tackle the big issues AND for being too close to one or both of the liblabs and only dealing with small issues that don’t threaten that relationship!

Ooow dear, things is looking a bit hairy in Japan, in connection with a stable and aging population. Wow, we in Oz had better make sure that doesn’t happen to us. Let’s boost our population growth even higher than it is, open more mines, borrow more Chinese money, blah, blah. Rapid continuous growth is the answer to everything afterall. YAY!!

Keith,

In regard to your comments about Labor, what do you suggest is its best strategy?

I agree the social justice argument is wearing a bit thin, but won't the political cycle continue in the sense that people will continue to support centre-left and centre-right parties at different times, depending on the mood of the day.

At the moment, people have had enough of state Labor govts, at least on East coast.

But I don't think that either of the major parties has the right balance, besides the need to get rid of rhetoric.

I agree with your point that we need to get rid of the 'cult of personality' type spin and deal with the issues,

I support extensive debate, so if the Greens can offer a policy view of some merit, I am all for it.

How it sells itself and defies the criticism directed at some of its policies is a matter for the Greens if it wants to make wider appeal.

That's a lot of arm-waving, Ludwig.

>><< One of the problems, of course, is that they care too much about the "big" issues >> Whaaat?? Just the opposite!<<

So you care too little about the "big" issues? Or you care too much about the "small" issues?

>>Well, global warming might be getting close to intractable, but population and conservation issues in Australia certainly aren’t.<<

Debatable. The signs that indicate tractability are pretty thin on the ground, wouldn't you say?

>>Crikey Peri, what on earth do you think the Greens should be doing??<<

Crikey Ludwig, what on earth makes you think I expect the Greens to do anything?? Apart from chirp platitudes from the sidelines, that is.

For that reason, I don't "condemn" them for anything at all. In the same way that hippies were essential to the sixties, Greens were essential to the nineties.

And your content-free observations on the situation in Japan are the perfect illustration of why I cannot take you particularly seriously.

As the editorial that preceded the feature you glanced at points out:

"...a dwindling band of workers will have to support rising social-security payments, as the number of retired people grows. This will strain public finances. Ten years ago each person in retirement was supported by four in work. In ten years that burden will fall on only two workers. "

http://www.economist.com/node/17522568?story_id=17522568

Sadly, it is typical of the Green attitude, that all you can do is heckle from the back row of the stalls.

And that is also the reason why the Greens will remain irrelevant in Australian politics, except as idealistic dreamers with a dysfunctional agenda, and a propensity to make a nuisance of themselves whenever they get the opportunity.

<< Crikey Ludwig, what on earth makes you think I expect the Greens to do anything?? Apart from chirp platitudes from the sidelines, that is. >>

Haaahahhaaa, so you actually don’t have any expectations or desired direction or policies for the Greens at all. Well…. why on Earth are (or were) you criticising them then, or commenting at all on this thread?…coz they have stuff-all in the way of meaningful policies that they are actually working on (and which are not just sitting there in writing but basically going unattended), no meaningful direction and…well…not much at all really.

What on earth had led me to think that you expect the Greens to do anything? Erm, possibly your criticisms of them in your first post might have had something to do with it. Come on Pericles, it’s a bit shallow to be criticising them without offering any ideas of what you think they should be doing!

<< "...a dwindling band of workers will have to support rising social-security payments, as the number of retired people grows. This will strain public finances. Ten years ago each person in retirement was supported by four in work. In ten years that burden will fall on only two workers. " >>

So are you really suggesting that the rapid continuous never-ending importation of young workers and an ever-growing economic turnover is the answer to preventing this problem in Oz?

What about modifications to tax policy, distribution of wealth, welfare, incentives to stay in the workforce, improvements in economic efficiency and the benefits for the common citizen, etc, etc. This would all take a lot of work and meet a few obstacles along the way, but it would surely be vastly better than to just continue expanding our population and economy in an endless spiral into oblivion!

What are your solutions to this dilemma Pericles?

<< Sadly, it is typical of the Green attitude, that all you can do is heckle from the back row of the stalls. >>

‘Scuuuze me! Who’s heckling from the back row without offering anything useful here?? Hmmmm?

Keith :)

you say:

//Once Brown is replaced by a woman they'll lose focus on the environment and start in-fighting, replacing one leader after another ... just like the dems.//

If you want a living demonstration of that very thing....just have a peek at the links graham gave about "Cyberia".

Foxy is still the same, in deep denial about any view other than her own..and stone walling anyone who pushes her on this tactic.. but now..the only people she can do this with are what she might have regarded as former allies..and now they are tearing each other to shreds..I can almost imagine Morgans panicked face as he watches over the future of the Greens in microcosm :)

Curmudgeon, agree that a lot of Democrats supporters are now in the Green camp especially those who identify as liberal in social issues. But as I see it, the Greens are clearly on the "Left" in most economic issues whereas the Democrats tended to incorporate ideas from all sides. The Democrats did drift (or at least were perceived to drift) to the Left towards their last years in the Senate and coupled with the infighting, voters just went elsewhere. Unless the Liberal party splits or all the moderates are pushed out I don't think the Democrats can find a way back for a while (if at all).

keith, the problem is not that the Greens will replace Brown with a woman, it's that they will replace him with a politician (yes, Bob Brown is a politician). We have plenty of dud politicians, both male and female.

As for the sustainability debate...the first link Pericles provided mentions one important point: "Unless Japan’s productivity rises faster than its workforce declines, which seems unlikely, its economy will shrink." - We shouldn't have to continually use resources to increase productivity, but so far no alternative model has been found. Also, the article mentions Japan's seniority-based pay structure (which includes openly discriminatory hiring practices) and its (reciprocal) mistrust of Asia. Australia is in a different position, the vast majority have no qualms with people of different backgrounds and our education textbooks do not gloss over WW2 atrocities.

A large number of Japanese companies are now expanding their overseas operations in a bid to survive and remain gloablly competitive. Whether that will be enough to offset their ageing population will only be seen in a few years. One way for Australia to continue to thrive would be to find value-adding export industries. Tourism and education are not doing so well and manufacturing is a minor player.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

I think that Chris Lewis is right that the Greens will
likely be around for some time, and probably usefully so.
As Pericles alluded, I think they perform a kind of "conscience"
function for the Parliament, while providing a voting alternative
for those of us who have become disenchanted with Labor and/or
the Coalition.

The Greens are far from perfect, but as a former Labor
voter I voted for them at the last Federal election because
their policies conform more closely to my own ideals since
Labor has drifted to the Right. I can't see the Greens
coming within cooee of governing anywhere in Australia
very soon, and I think that it's good for our democracy
to have a third political force, if only to keep the other
b*stards honest (so to speak).

The Greens seem to be too Green for some, not Green enough
for others, and even Red to a few. If nothing else,
they obviously appeal to people of various political hues,
and will do so for the forseeable future. My feeling is
that they haven't reached their political zenith in
Australia just yet.

Fair question, Ludwig.

>>Well…. why on Earth are (or were) you criticising them then, or commenting at all on this thread?<<

Because the Greens present themselves as a political party. As such, they have some bearing on the shape of government in this country. I am therefore forced to have an opinion on them. Believe me, I'd rather not be so obligated.

>>Come on Pericles, it’s a bit shallow to be criticising them without offering any ideas of what you think they should be doing!<<

Not at all.

As I said, they are fulfilling a perfectly legitimate function, capturing the "planetary-guilt" vote, which they are able to do without actually having to articulate policies that are at all practical or beneficial, as they know deep in their hippy hearts that they will never be required to implement them.

And as you yourself pointed out earlier, they are conforming to the German template. If they ever do get rolled up into a major party, they will drop their principles like so many hot bricks. Parliamentary salaries are not to be sniffed at, you know.

So I don't "expect" them to do anything different to what they are doing at the moment, which is to provide a warm and fuzzy home for the protest vote of people who are unwilling to engage in the hard work of assessing real policies, but console themselves instead with the thought that their vote somehow shows that they "care".

An electoral bolt-hole that has satisfied, and will continue to satisfy, the emotional needs of around ten percent of the population.

>>‘Scuuuze me! Who’s heckling from the back row without offering anything useful here?? Hmmmm?<<

Think of it more as encouragement. Keep right on keeping "right on", brother.

But until the Greens present cogent policies that make sense and are implementable, don't expect any response other than: "Good Grief. They cannot be serious?"

Hi Chris,

My son's great-grandfather told me to be treated with acceptance and respect all I ever had to do was be true to myself. (I think Ted Beaulieu's been aware of the same attitude.)

I'm liberal and vote liberal. He was a worker and voted accordingly.

My son's grandfather didn't take his fathers advice ... for much of his life. He was a middleclass government employee and eventuallly became wealthy through his own enterprise. As he aged he fell out with his old peers. They thought him an 'old tory' and he knew they didn't know what it was to be labourite.

Dad eventually became true to himself ... without any regret.

Both my dad and grandad were very proud of me when I went into business. Granddad reckoned I'd achieved what he wanted all those years ago when he first joined the Labour Party. He was pleased I'd got out of the working class mire where he'd found himself and his family.

How many of the current crop of labor pollies and union organisers had great grandfathers, grandfathers and fathers who'd joined the Labour Party with the same goal.

How many of those forebears would now be saying to their professionally trained and wealthy descendants 'get out of the way and let labour/working people decide for themselves what's best for them and their families. Let them achieve for their families what we've achieved for ours?'.

It's not a strategy. It a renewal of ideals that's needed, and that definitely doesn't include any attempt by anyone to live others ideals. Especially the ideals of our kids great grand parents and grandparents.

I don't think the current middleclass labor pretenders can let go of their meddling in workers lives.

The greens ... who, but professional trained and academics, cares?

Now here's a question for you.

Put in order who you think the were the most effective labour PM's : a train driver, a journalist and anti-conscription activist, a Rhodes Scholar, a public service clerk, a millionaire businessman or a couple of lawyers?

yeah I know the world has changed.

<< As I said, they [the Greens] are fulfilling a perfectly legitimate function, capturing the "planetary-guilt" vote … >>

Ah phoowey!

That’s not a legitimate function at all; to take the vote of those who are concerned about the health of our planet and our future wellbeing and then proceed to do next to nothing in that sort of direction!

Pericles, I guess you would agree that the Libs and Labs are virtually the same these days, and that their political direction is NOT what this country really needs, as we head into troubled times.

The Libs and Labs are right together in one political position, while other political points on the spectrum remain unoccupied. The opportunity is there for a party to take up a substantially different position which would both be MUCH better for our future wellbeing AND would appeal to a large portion of the votership.

As an established party, with some semblance of the right sort of political philosophy, the Greens should be grabbing this enormous opportunity.

As I said in my first post, this position would revolve around the sustainability imperative, with a stable population and steady-state economy at its core. This should be very much in line with the Greens philosophy.

With people like Dick Smith, Kelvin Thomson, Bob Carr, Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe, etc, really pushing this sustainability business, with the media sitting up and taking notice at last and with a lot of support being shown in the general community, they’d be on a winner.

But alas, for reasons that I do not understand, the Groans just won’t do this.

I predict that they will be surpassed by a new party, which will fill this glaring void before too long. Perhaps the Stable Population Party will be the one: http://www.populationparty.com/ .

<< So I don't "expect" them to do anything different to what they are doing at the moment… >>

Well, I DO… well and truly!

Ring down the curtain on the Greens farce. The show is over even if the fat lady has forgotten the lyrics and is taking long to sing the fugue.

socratease

"..the Greens were also challenging the major parties on important social welfare issues scoring about 20-22 per cent as the best party for health, education and living costs (including utility bills)."

That's odd, I thought it was all the policies to appease the eco types and green voters that we've had utility bills increased, and the Greens would like to see them go ballistic.

Or did you mean, they were concerned utility bills, were too low?

Certainly Senator Milne would like to remove your utility bills completely, along with any utilities of course ..

AGIR what's the reference to graham and cyberia .. sounds interesting "If you want a living demonstration of that very thing....just have a peek at the links graham gave about "Cyberia"".

AGIR - thank's for that link to the picture of the Fabians, illuminating.

See the greens know that capitalism will destroy any fair-go Australia, with their deep religious greed which they pride themselves on riding on the backs of the workers. Quite weak really when you think about it. Yes that's right people..they sit up their with their bullwhips and feed like leaches while you get little too nothing for all your hard work.

They will grow people in hidden fields like in the matrix, just to breed there own kind of mafia, with only the big don's getting to live the good life. Their plan is, is to breed high populations so we fight among our-selves for the scraps they call fairness and equal-opportunity............so don't be fooled by the right.

Their only right..........for themselves.

BLUE

Keith,

Thanks for your last post.

Yes, I am inclined to degree with you with your question, although I can't judge which Labor PM was most effective, as I do not know much about those before Hawke.

Yes, i would agree that Labor has a lot of false prophets in its party. I cringe when i listen to many of them or read their supposed words of wisdom. I realise that many of us have our own contradictions, but Labor's use of rhetoric in recent times is a national embarrassment.

And what do we have now: an expensive national broadband with overrated benefits, and a promise for a carbon tax, although you can bet that it will not be implemented without public support for even high utility bills.

When we had a PM (Rudd) raving on about how bad past policy was and how the world should be, yet his own family benefiting much from the Howard govt's changes, I knew Labor was in trouble.

It will be interesting to see how the State Liberal governments go, and what will be the public reaction to policy change.

As i have got older an learned more about the world, i have become much more understanding of the Liberal party approach, although my last remaining concern is just how fair its social welfare policies would be.

I believe that the coming years, for various reasons, will prove the prowess of major parties, or they will all just succumb to rhetoric and the targeting of the most seats rather than policy honesty and solutions that can balance economic competitiveness and compassion.

There's a rather interesting piece in today's ALR from Michael Costa, giving his view of the reasons behind Labor's current predilection for self-destruction.

Much of it is as one would expect - a justification for the existence of Michael Costa, through the medium of slagging off anyone whom he dislikes - but there is the occasional gem.

In the Green context, this caught my eye:

"Labor will never be able to match the Greens in a rhetorical battle on so-called social justice. The Greens, with their pathological antipathy to capitalism and inherent contempt for the principles of sound public finance, will always claim that more and more are in need, and more should be done."

Which pretty much sums up my own view: a party that is long on feelgood verbiage, but woefully short on implementable policy.

The "fit" with Labor he sums up as:

"More traditional Labor voters are not supporters of Greens' policies. The Greens' policies on a range of issues, from taxation to law and order, would horrify that base. In short, Gillard has made a damaging political blunder that will haunt the party for many years to come."

These paragraphs also encapsulate the reason why the Greens will never become a significant autonomous force.

But all the time they are able to wedge other parties into self-destructive contortions, they will have a reliable base of superficial, anti-policy anoraks to keep them alive.

People of Australia, I'll show you what Capitalism has done and see for yourselves what the rich and greedy are all about.

The workers are the back bone of any nation. So keep voting them and dont blame me for your loss of everything you were told to believe in.

Remember you rich maggots..........the poor and the ripped off will come hunting for.

Its in the USA and its coming here.

People power!

We have it at 95% to their capitalist 5%..........believe it.

http://tinyurl.com/33lhcxr

http://tinyurl.com/2u73a5q

http://tinyurl.com/3afuh44

http://tinyurl.com/34oygnc

Democracy or the new Socialism or something that gives equal-opportunity for all Australians and not just for the rich...............and your dream of being one of them lol....its was never there.

You were conned like the rest of us.

Dont believe me............then your one of them.

Good luck.

BLUE

deep blue, when do you "become" rich, $100K, 200K, 500K per year .. what is rich .. if you mean $10M+ per year, then there are only a few .. and a lot of sportspeople up there

Is that who is "ripping off the workers", sportspeople .. or is it just a general, someone to hate rant, using "rich" people as a demonized target?

Rants like this about class war, are the stuff of long gone days ..

RPG....Hi....well you can cherry pick all you like, and what hate speech? This is coming here and its starting to show its face..........however....Any-thing over five to ten million is rich. Tax them and spread the wealth.... and for god sake....stop the Australian people from following the US example. You know the story of Ned Kelly........poor people will get desperate and just rob those that who are apart of the greedy........once upon a time.........all of Australia bathed together in the sun.............now the social identity has been lost and people now sit away from each other instead of together as it did.

Rich.....are in there class.

Middle class are now blended with the unemployed middle class. ( prayed upon by the above........credit card dependent and sinking)

And the poor pensioner/single dole person...........well.....and one can sleep at nights?

( I hope you have good security systems :)

There is a cycle growing here, which all will live in the poorest of living conditions.

So all living on edge and divided.............that's better you thinks?

Bring back the unions or just watch the movie that the link as provided.

Where then.......is the equal-opportunity?

Is that who is "ripping off the workers", sportspeople .. or is it just a general, someone to hate rant, using "rich" people as a demonized target?

One word...........CAPITALISM.

It doesn't work!

BLUE

capitalism doesn't work ..hmmm, but it produced computers, modern medicine etc .. yep, doesn't work .. what utter rubbish.

This is not worth pursuing, it's just stupid anti capitalism rants as posts, that are becoming steadily less coherent, using tools that are the fruits of capitalism, what hypocrisy..

This is to be expected I guess, everything the green eco types do is hypocrisy dressed up as a religion or belief

have fun blue .. how's the weather on your planet?

"have fun blue .. how's the weather on your planet?
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 1 December 2010 7:34:49 PM

lol.....not as dirty and corrupt as yours:)

I thought you enjoyed a good old rant. The Australian Greens Leader, Senator Bob Brown, said a record 1.17 million people ( AND EVER GROWING ) voted Greens at the last election, and the five Greens Senators were ready to work constructively with all parties to respond to the challenges of the new century.

"Pollution, poverty, discrimination and the destruction of Australia's forests and precious environments are the legacy of the last century and decades of greed and inaction."

"The Greens' role, beginning with this new Parliament, is to begin delivering an Australia that was cleaner, fairer and saner."

End of the greens..........what?.

Its alright RPG..........we understand.....there...there:)

And you want to talk about rants........your little buddy is the champ;;;0

No Grim...the GREENS don't offer a 'new' dialectic..they offer the SAME one Marx did ! thinly disguised communism!

They are nothing but Fabians.. 'wolves in sheeps clothing'....

Have a look at the image on the sheild between the two men with the hammers.

http://www.sunray22b.net/fabian_society.htm

Notice also....that mankind (the people along the bottom) are now worshipping SOCIALIST literature...and power...

I kid you not...that IS their objective.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 30 November 2010 8:55:02 AM

RPG!

And you want to talk about rants....Oh dear;0

BLUE

The old chestnut of:

"Capitalism is the worst system in the world, with the exception of all the rest."

Socialism:- tried and failed
Communism:- tried and epic failure along with millions dead.

Gee...... I wonder if............ Deep Blue is …........... a sock puppet....
I have to admit, I've always believed Jesus Christ was a socialist.......... at heart........
I actually find myself in the rather uncomfortable position of having to -at least partially- agree with Boaz. The Greens do have the appearance of being more a recycled dialectic than a completely new one.
Many of their views are very reminiscent of the Labor party of the sixties -seventies. Remember the Green Bans?
Australian politics has become confusing. I suppose the Libs can at least claim they have remained true to their roots of 'classic' liberalism; although some might say they were more social liberals than classics, once.
The Democrats under Chipp were definitely Social Liberals, and therefore to the right of the Labor (social democrat) party; but then Hawke and Keating starting selling off every thing they could lay their hands on (Liberalism) and the Democrats opposed them (socialism).
You couldn't fit a cigarette paper between the majors on economic policy, much less a minor party.
The putative dialectic has become rather messy of late. We still have our fanatics claiming either/or; down with the Capitalists! Or down with the Socialists! But in truth it will never be so simple again. China is nominally a socialist country, yet we have Chinese entrepreneurs and Chinese billionaires. Go figgur.
I'm betting the new dialectic will be between the Democratic governments and the bankers.
Has it occurred to anyone else that governments are in a very real sense the antithesis of banks?

Consider taxes. One of the two 'nice' things about paying taxes is, you're only expected to pay tax if you are actually making money. If you aren't making money, you can actually get tax dollars back, in the form of welfare.
Compare this to banks. If you have more money than you immediately need, the banks will give you more money. Absolutely free. Don't even have to say 'please'. But if you don't have money, they will charge you -quite steeply- for the money you need.
Bankers will quite smugly claim their profit margins are low, but this really begs the question: which would you rather, 10% of one thing, or 1% of absolutely everything?
The Govmint sold us out to the banks when it made it mandatory for everyone to have a bank account. Even welfare recipients must have an account, to receive their payments.
And the banks charge them for it.
Even though the Govmint retains the right to print money, the bulk of the money in circulation is borrowed into existence, through the banks. Even the money the Govmint itself uses.
While Europe is moving to socialise their banks, in the US the banks appear to have succeeded in taking over the govmint.
Who will win, I wonder; and is there a better (third) way?

Hi Chris,

Curtin was wartime PM. It led to early death. Chifley really was the most impressive of all Labor PMs, in my opinion. He accomplished the things working people needed at the time. His legacy still exists in their basic contribution to many of our institutions and attitudes in many areas. Only some, notable, dismantalling has occurred over the past 60 years.

He should be Australian working peoples greatest hero. The rest just don't rate in comparison.

I disagee with many of Chifley's attitudes but accept how important they are to contempory Australian working people and how they still impact on our overall society... and importantly on Liberal Party attitudes.

I think many of the Labor learderships have tried to emulate Curtin. Admirable, but most don't have his life experience of true working people and therefore miss the element of understanding acquired from a workingman's/womans life. Most wouldn't understand what it mean't to watch others kids grow unhindered while yours suffer from proper diet, secure tenure of residence, substandard medical care and education, inferior clothing etc. They wouldn't have watched their spouses struggles with all those things plus much more. Employment differences in their formulative years were truely horrific, and were similar to today, in what I call today 'longterm casual underemployment'. These are things that todays labor leaders couldn't possibly know.

The older generations of Labour Leaders understood that background experience, most had lived it.

Politically very little will change policy wise but I do think Liberal governments will be acutely aware of the need to perform in health and transport. And I believe they will for many years but eventually if they don't get the economic settings right they'll then fail. Yes probably opposite to state Labor governments that got the economy right but stuffed infrustructure and health services.

I agree with your final paragraph utterly.

Nice to chat. My e-mail is kennelly.km@bigpond.com if you ever wish for such an exchange of ideas again.

I haven't read Janet Albrechtsen's article but did she also describe the Greens as anti-environment? Pity if she didn't because my experience with the WA Greens over the past 15 years is that the environment is an expendable commodity for them if they see potential for electoral or political gain from doing so.
While most green voters are genuine and well intentioned people who look to the Greens to improve the environment, the reality is that a core group of activists (normally we'd call them powerbrokers if we were discussing the Liberal or Labor parties) have no hesitation in using the environment as just another political tool - and being prepared to have adverse environmental outcomes - if it suits their power-hungry agendas.