Disingenuous, morganzola? Moi?

>>There's a whole bunch of [Green policies] there, well thought out, coherent, easy to access. They're not costed, but at 12% they're hardly likely to be implemented independently, are they?<<

So, let me understand this.

"Australia’s natural resources must be managed in accordance with the principles of intergenerational equity, biodiversity conservation and respect for the traditional ownership of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples"

I know this isn't a "Policy", it is a "Principle", and therefore doesn't need to make any sense in real life. But these most certainly should:

"The Australian Greens will:

- ensure that environmental and social impact assessments are rigorously applied and implemented on all mining proposals and projects.
- prohibit the exploration for, and mining and export of, uranium.
- oppose the establishment of new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines
- prohibit mineral exploration and mining as well as extraction of petroleum and gas in terrestrial and marine nature conservation reserves, including national parks, wilderness areas and other areas of outstanding nature conservation value.
- establish a national mining insurance fund, based on mining industry contributions, to provide resources sufficient to rehabilitate the environmental impacts of existing mining operations.
- ensure that all new mining proposals include a fully costed and funded allocation for the restoration and rehabilitation of the impacted area(s) to world’s best practice standards.

I agree that with only 12% of the population aligning themselves with the "Principle", it would be pointless to apply any form of rigorous costing to the resultant "Measures".

But some form of "in principle" ballpark estimate might provide a vestige of credibility.

Although it wouldn't, in this case. There would be far too many noughts on the end of the dollar loss to the economy, as well as on the end of the number of newly unemployed that would result. 'Cos it isn't just the directly-employed who would lose their livelihood.

And you call me disingenuous, huh?

>>Thus far in their development, the Greens have largely avoided the corruption endemic in the 'majors'<<

But they are learning fast, ain't they, but.

In Germany, the Greens have not only now become government in the third biggest state but polls predict they could even have the next Chancellor. There is no reason why the same can not happen in Australia in the next 10 years.

The Australian Greens are attracting voters from both major parties. The trend is set to continue if the 'business as usual' attitude remains unchanged within Labor and the Coalition.

@ Pericles:

Shifting goalposts much? You said:

"Their appeal to the public is based upon the general revulsion earned by the major parties, and not for any virtue of their own. Which would become clear, if they ever had to take on the task of formulating and producing a fully-articulated policy."

I responded by directing you to the Greens' policy website, which is chock-a-block full of policies produced by the Greens, which they articulate pretty well, IMHO. They explain the principles behind their policies, and the actions they would take to put them into practice. I imagine that if enough people are attracted to those principles and actions sufficiently to vote the Greens to within some actual possibility of attaining power, the costings you now want would be made available.

Their process seems to be one of outlining issues that are amenable to Green political solutions, then outlining what they see to be the appropriate actions that they would take if in a position to do so. If enough electors agree with them that such problems and solutions exist, then it becomes appropriate to work out how to fund them.

Also, you imply that corruption is extant in the Greens. Would you care to nominate an example or two, or was it just a generalised smear?

If that is your idea of "chock-a-block full of policies" morganzola, then you and I differ so widely on the concept of a "policy statement", that there is not much point debating them.

In my view, a policy should at least stand half a chance of being implemented without causing economic and social chaos. I'm willing to concede that there are some well thought-through slogans, headlines, soundbites, banalities, motherhood statements, bromides, platitudes, vapidities and a smattering of pure cant. But nothing that would remotely stand detailed scrutiny in the real world that we live in, Australia in 2011.

Be honest, you wouldn't allow any other political party to offer such vacuous boilerplate without comment. I wonder how many of the 12% of the population that are being put forward as "supporting the Greens" have actually read any of these "policies". Few, I suspect.

>>Also, you imply that corruption is extant in the Greens. Would you care to nominate an example or two, or was it just a generalised smear?<<

It was more of a generalized smear, I guess. Not, I hasten to point out, an accusation that they take bribes, cheat on their taxes or whatever, but a generalized smear on the corruption that overtakes them all. To an observer, their performance in coalition over recent months has reeked at every step of horse-trading, rather than any assertion of any moral or ethical principle. That's the sort of "corruption endemic in the 'majors'" that I had in mind.

The sort that afflicts all politicians, in fact, once they have worked out the system.

"Doing deals" is the first step on the path to compromising principles, in exchange for power.

Of course, you could always use the defence of political pragmatism, if you like. But as you would be well aware, that would bring them back into the pack quicker than anything.

Banning corporate donations to political parties would end most of the corruption.
Morganzola,
http://skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=634578&vId=
(I know, the source is biased but the facts are there)
It all depends how you define "corruption", political parties are beholden unto their financial backers and will always act in the interests of their "stakeholders", the Greens are no different.
It just depends on whether you're comfortable with that aspect of "democracy" or not.
See I don't view a system with only around 1% of it's electors actually taking out memberships in political parties as at all democratic in the first place, it's neither "for" or "of" the people.
If parties were solely reliant on membership dues and community fundraising events we'd see a greater respect for the institution of government and a better class of candidate.

The future is written in todays published polls.
Labor went down by 3% points to 27% and the Liberals went up by 3% points to 49%.

Voters are dissing Labor and are moving to the Liberals. The Greens have peaked and will now diminish to a party of misfits in Tasmania ... until the rest of Australia refuse to fund the economically failed state.

On the mainland they will return to no representation and less than 10% of the vote.

The demise of both will really occur once people wake up to the climate cooling, which is now starting in earnest. The cooling is now starting in earnest, not the waking up. Why?

1.It is now recognised even within the warmists circles that average surface temps didn't rise between 1998 and 2008.

2. The summmer in the southern hemisphere was the wettest for at least 60 years and the concurrent northern hemisphere winter was the coldest and had the heaviest snows for over 100 years.

3. We in Australia have had our coldest Autumn and earliest snows in 50 years.

4. As the weather continues this cool period guess what happens with the warmists precious Global Average Surface Temps ... the mainstay of their argument for global warming?

yep thats right they will show a cooling ... that is ongoing with each cooler month.

The hext thing that happens is we all WAke up to this idiocy of global warming. How many people will then support a party that wants to introduce a tax on reducing emissions so as to make the Earth even cooler?

That number will be a lot less than 27% and then those people deserting labor won't be rushing to support a party that has a similar viewpoint?

Of course things might be different if/when the only other alternative eventuates: a Labor Party that dumps global warming and carbon taxing.

If the hardheads in the Labor party haven't worked that out, and assessed the lost preferences, then I'm as blue as my toes on a frosty Brisbane morning.