Howard lost me when he used retrospective legislation to over-rule the high court, thus placing himself above the law. By moving Australian boundaries he placed refugees outside the law thus giving them the same status as Jews in Nazi Germany.

From that point the government of the day was (to me) Howards Fourth Reich. And now I see the present opposition as the remnants of Howard's Fourth Reich.

I hope that at some point both parties will agree to outlaw retrospective legislation.

Not everything a government does is good, but neither is it all bad. I would like to see a new Liberal party that has a complete break with Howard/Turnbull/Costello et al that can be an effective opposition to be believed by the people. One that opposes what needs to be opposed, but aids what needs to be done. Blind opposition to everything is no way to earn respect and a chance at being the next government. Nor is the politics of fear that seems to dominate in the present 'Liberal' party.

Daviy
Looking at past history it will be a good decade before the tories can get rid of the deadwood and renew themselves. In the meantime Labor gets a free run (which is always bad) and we get to see the idiotic infighting of the opposition ala howard/peacock, hewson, downer et al (which is always good or at least funny).

'Voters at the last election voted for “change”'

This is a debatable statement.

The only "change" voters seemed to be seeking at the last election was, to put it bluntly, "somebody who isn't actually John Howard, but seems just the same".

The 2007 Australian Federal election should not be confused with the 2008 US Presidential Election.

The opposition candidate in the 2007 Australian Federal election did not run on a platform of change. Indeed, Kevin Rudd ran a not-so-subtle message of being a safe continuation of the Howard government: What was continually referred to as Rudd's "Me too-ism".

If this wasn't the case, why else was there the furore over Peter Garrett's "once we get in, that'll all change" gaffe?

Australians in 2007 voted for more of the same, just with a new face; and, the conspicuous celebrations of the media's tame leftists (witness JJJ's heavy rotation of the Herd's absurd "The King is dead") aside, they got it.

Now that labor is rampant, and the "recession" has given Rudd an excuse to ditch all his promises of fiscal discipline, we will have the euphoria of a huge spending spree.

In a few years with resultant hang over, we will return to the party that might not have the same feel good approach but can be relied on to balance the books and put the economy back on its feet.

Howard spent a decade paying off the credit card and putting a bit aside. KRudd is going to max it out in 2 years.

NSW labor in boom times managed to max the debt with nothing to show for it. Krudd will do the same on a bigger scale.

Bureaucratic is spelt...bureaucratic.

What exactly is the evidence that Australians are progressive by nature? Ever heard of the White Australia Policy (seventy-two years of that, from Federation in 1901 to 1973?).

While in NZ nudity is tolerated on any quiet, non-urban beach, for which reason the country has no need of officially sanctioned nudist beaches, here, beach nudity is by default explicitly illegal - and every time someone nominates a nudist beach for the Sunshine State, it gets fiercely voted down by the locals with much bandying of the perjorative "perverts". How remarkably progressive. One could go on, and on, and on, with examples in the same vein, both major and political, and minor and anecdotal.

I would suggest 'socially conservative, populist-Labourist' as a more truthful descriptor of the overall national sociopolitical character.

Wow! An Australian Democrat advising another party on their policy development, & how to enhance their electoral prospects.

Aron Paul (the author) wrote, "The evidence is that the Greens have been painted into a left-wing corner and the majority of Australians, while progressive, are also famously suspicious of anything smelling of ideological extremes."

How are the Greens 'ideologically extreme'?

The only way the Greens can possibly be viewed as approaching any extreme is if we accept the defined bounds of political opinion as in any way normal, when in fact nearly all opinion within those bounds would have been considered at least to the right of the centre until the early 1980's.

The Greens could have easily massively lifted their vote simply by occupying much of the ground that had once been occupied by labour, but has long since been sacrificed on the altar of free market dogma.

They could have so easily campaigned against privatisation, a policy for which neither the Labor Parties not the LNP would have had a leg to stand on, but they refused to.

They could have pushed for a real full employment program and for in general, the abandonment of neo-liberal economic dogma, but didn't.

In fact, they didn't campaign properly even on environmental questions.

The Queensland public would have learnt from reading Greens material very little of wholesale rape of the Queensland environment by the Labor Government (largely supported by the LNP) or of Bligh's ecological criminal plans to triple coal exports by 2030.

It's because I anticipated this, that I stood as in independent.

Although my vote was not high (163 votes or 0.65% of the 25,194 formal votes cast - see http://virtualtallyroom.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/results/district56.html) largely thanks to a blatantly unfair Brisbane newsmedia, I think my reasons for standing were sound. If I had more resources and had not faced such outrageous censorship, I see no reason why my vote should not have been a good deal better.

For more information, please visit http://candobetter.org/QldElections http://candobetter.org/QldElections/MountCoot-tha

Democracy requires not just a functioning government, but a functioning opposition to drive government forward in the competition for the public vote. While there is no broad based progressive alternative, government will continue to feel little pressure where it counts - at the ballot box on election day.

This is probably why the Democrats have not one seat in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. They haven’t got a clue what Democracy really is. The two party system, and the abolition of the Common Law, have given us just a little better government than communism. Under the Common Law, the phrase man proposes God disposes was, given complete effect by a system of Godly courts. When the Democrats voted to abolish the prayers said every day in the Parliament of the Commonwealth in complete magnificent isolation, God may have been unpleased. They are all gone.

Democracy is really a system of courts. The High Court of Parliament is only one. In the only democracy to survive from 1297 to the present day, the courts of Parliament had to enforce their laws through the grass roots community courts, held in parishes all over England. Under communism, and the fascism of Nazi Germany, grass roots community courts were abolished. The franchise guaranteed by the Magna Carta was curtailed and the right to vote confined to once every three years.

In occupied Ireland, the English had Stipendiary Magistrates, and in the United States the colonies revolted when the same freedoms enjoyed by the English were not extended to them. In occupied Australia we got democracy with the Australian Courts Act 1828. One Court (Parliament) abolished democracy in New South Wales with the Supreme Court Act 1970. The Parliament of the Commonwealth ( another court) abolished democracy with the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and High Court of Australia Act 1979 and no Australian has had a vote on bad laws in Australia between elections ever since.

The Constitution is a Christian document guaranteeing democracy. The democratic system of local courts with real grass roots political power to veto bad laws must be restored

Agree democracy requires not just a functioning government, but a functioning opposition to drive government forward in the competition for the public vote.

More important for democracy is our need to repair our faulty process [Constitution s.128] by which the electorate may on occasion decide whether or not to instruct their representatives on particular issues.

This the Democrats deserted, preferring comfortable liason with the major parties, which contributed considerably to their failure, their purported commitment, to "keep the bastards honest".

.

"How are the Greens 'ideologically extreme'?"

Umm... because they believe government should control everything? Because they believe productive activity is evil? Because they believe in the sacrifice of human lives to their self-deifying belief in their own supposed power to speak for super-human natural values? Because they think human use of natural resources is morally evil? Because they think it's not okay to shoot a crocodile, but is okay to shoot a man to stop him shooting a crocodile? Because they think government can and should control the world's ecology and climate by passing tax laws? Because they are a pack of nasty fascists?

The post from Ding Ah Ling above is a classic example of "ideological extremism". Not one of his/her claims about the Greens is based on their policies. Rather, it is a mindless rant sourced entirely from Ding Ah Ling's narrow imagination.

The Greens' actual policies are located here:

http://greens.org.au/

Also, it's fascinating to see the least successful candidate for election to the seat of Mt Coot-tha at the recent Qld election offering advice to the Greens about how to lift their vote. The Greens candidate attracted 5,815 votes (23.08%), compared to his 163 (0.65%). The media weren't any kinder to the Larissa Waters than they were to James Sinnamon, so I guess there must be some other reason for the difference.

http://virtualtallyroom.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/results/district56.html

Christopher, what I wrote wasn't so much intended to "(offer) advice to the Greens about how to lift their vote" as it was to:

(1) show up how ludicrous it was to label the Greens as 'extreme'; and
(2) explain some of the reasons why I decided not to participate in the Greens' campaign.

Christopher, I think that anyone who had read my post and followed the links back to my site would already have already worked out that there was a large dispartiy between my vote and Larissa Waters' vote.

Some of the reasons for the disparity are:

(1) Larissa had a large number of volunteers helping her whilst I largely worked on my own.
(2) Larissa had already stood as a Senate candidate in 2007 so woud have already been well known;
(3) At least 3 (possibly 4) brochures wer put into every letterbox in Mount Coot-tha. This included a colur folded double-sided A2 size brochure. I was only able to print and distribute 1,400 double A4 folded brochures, half into letter boxes and half in person.

I have pointed out that the treatment of the Greens by the newsmedia was poor, but are you trying to suggest that Larissa got as little coverage as I did?

I got no newspaper coverage as far as I am aware, two token mentions on the ABC, but absoluely nothing that woud have allowed listners to know anything about me and one five minute interview on radio 4ZZZ FM.

I knew at the outset that there was a serious risk that my vote would be low, but that I don't see that as a reason not to stand.

I have already challenged you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=81#59334) to state why my reasons for standing (see http://candobetter.org/node/1121) were not sound, but you have failed to do so.

CJ Morgan

So the Greens don’t want to control everything, they just want to control
the air http://greens.org.au/node/764
the water http://greens.org.au/node/800
the land http://greens.org.au/node/761
the seas http://greens.org.au/node/783
what farmers can grow and how they can grow it http://greens.org.au/node/797
the distribution and abundance of species http://greens.org.au/node/761
primary, secondary and tertiary industry http://greens.org.au/node/786
Any and every human action that might affect ‘the environment’, namely, everything: http://greens.org.au/policies
etc. etc. etc.

The Greens are totalitarian fascists, what I have said is fact, and what you have replied are lies.

But it gets worse. The state of total government control of the economy and ecology that the Greens dream of, can only result in utter environmental and economic chaos: http://mises.org/story/1675
which is why that happened last time this deluded and destructive belief system was tried,
but their economic illiteracy prevents them from understanding why socialism just keeps on failing

Er, Ding - the Greens no more want to "control" anything than does any political party that has a coherent set of policies. Thanks though for posting links to some actual Green policies, rather than your spittle-flecked characterisation of them. I encourage others to click on the links and read the policies for themselves.

Undoubtedly anybody who does so will notice that they don't in any way resemble your hysterical claims about wishing to "control" the water, land, seas etc.

As far as your "totalitarian fascists" claim goes, do you actually know what those terms mean? You claim that the Greens are both socialist and economically illiterate, but you certainly haven't provided any evidence for either in your rabid ranting thus far.

Until you do, I think I'll relegate you to my 'wingnut frootloop' category of OLO members. Don't anticipate further interaction until you learn to make a logical argument that cites actual evidence that supports it.

CJ

Maybe you're being a tad harsh on W-A-L here. We all make mistakes, such as the typo in the title of the following Chuck Berry video.

Please enjoy as much for Chuck as for the inimitable Rolf Harris, and thank you for inspiring me to locate this little gem. (Ancient, yes, but still very pertinent, given it was recorded in response to an attack of the wowsers).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MLBfwblps8&feature=related

CJ, do you really believe any of this stuff you post?

Much as most of the greens try to control them selves enough to not enunciate their real desires as policies, they fail often enough for some of us to see through to the truth.

So I guess you're another that doesn't have the capacity to actually address Greens policies, rather than spout mindless slogans, Hasbeen?

Admit it, old son - you haven't read the policies to which Dingbat kindly provided links, have you?

Whilst Christopher has rightly rebuked Wing Ah Ling for evidently not informing himself about the Greens' policies, I think he also needs to follow his own advice.

The most striking example is where after a debate that has gone on for over six months over unanswered questions about the 9/11 terrorist attacks Christopher has yet to demonstrate to anyone that he has read and comprehended any of the material from the 9/11 Truth Movement (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82#59400 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0).

After almost 7 months, the reasons why Christopher still insists that the US Government's (several) explanation(s) for the 9/11 attacks must be accepted uncritically remain a mystery.

I think that after about 7 seconds of exposure to James' obsession with "9/11 Truth", any sane reader would agree that daggett/James Sinnamon was extremely lucky to achieve the electoral success that he did in the recent Qld State election.

I love democracy and free speech :)

I think that the people have well and truly spoken to the least successful candidate for Mt Coot-tha, but he seems deaf to what they've said.

It comes as no surprise that Christopher has yet again failed to respond substantively to previous points:

As far as I know, no single candidate -- not even the supposedly 'extreme' Greens -- stood on the broad range of issues that I stood on, including:

1. Opposition to privatisation;

2. Opposition to the Queensland Government's policy of population growth (i.e. cramming several more millions mostly into concrete boxes in SEQ the coming decades);

3. Opposition to Premier Anna Bligh's plans to triple the exports of Queensland's climate-changing coal exports by 2030;

4. Opposition to plans to build a massive Chinese-government-owned polluting, atmosphere-warming aluminium smelter on the wetlands to the north Bowen

5. Opposition to plans to utterly destroy the Bimblebox nature refuge (http://www.bimblebox.org/) with a massive open-cut coal mine;

6. Opposition to the destruction of farmland on the Darling Downs with coal mines (http://friendsoffelton.blogspot.com)

7. Opposition to the Traveston and Wyaralong Dams;

8. Legislation to make access to water a basic human right as proposed by Maude Barlow;

9. Opposition to rent-gouging and land speculation;

10. Legislation to make access to decetnaffordable housing a basic human right;

11. A comprehesive government sponsored program of full lemployment costed by Professor Bill Mitchell of the Newcastel University at $9billion per annum (http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/);

12. etc.

I would like to know what reason Christopher has to believe that more Mount Coot-tha electors would not have supported those policies if I had not been so completely censored by the Brisbane newsmedia.

My vote was actually comparable to a number of other independents who stood in the Queensland elections (see http://virtualtallyroom.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/results/summary.html#20 ). I think it is likely that those who did significantly better had more resources, faced less censorship and had a higher community profile to begin with, but I fail to see how not having those advantages and not being able to force the media to give you coverage is a reason not to take a stand on those critical issues if no other candidate is prepared to.

(Of course the Greens, on paper, also support 1, 3, 6 and 7, and possibly others, (...tobecontinued)

"Progressives fled, and even supposedly conservative Queenslanders stayed away from the merged entity in droves big enough to deliver victory to a Labor government that by rights should have been on the nose."

Droves big enough ...? If just 3,000 votes in marginal seats had swung to the LNP, we'd now have Premier Springborg.

CJ Morgan said
"Not one of [Wing Ah Ling's] claims about the Greens is based on their policies."

As I have shown, all of the claims I made are based on the Greens' policies.

I proved your statement false. You then didn’t deny it, but changed tack.

Now you deny that, by policy on something, the Greens mean to control it. But policy is what you intend to use police to control. Policy means control.

All those Green policies are statements of intention to control the use of those resources by illegalising it, except under certain conditions subject to political decision-making. To deny that policy on a resource is intended to control it is simply more lies.

You then retreat to saying that it's no worse than other parties who intend to control the same things. This continues to beg the underlying question, which is, whether government should continue to approach closer and closer to total control of the economy and ecology.

Your socialism is proved by the fact that you presume that the social problems arising from the scarcity of a given resource can be solved by government ownership and control of resources of that resource, and of resources in general.

Your fascism is proved by the fact that, to the extent that private property is to be permitted to continue to exist, it is to be strictly on conditions of over-riding supervision, direction, and price-fixing by government.

Your totalitarianism is proved by the fact that you believe that any given individual freedom or private property should be forcibly subjugated to a supposed greater good based on the prerogative of the state to own and control all resources.

Your economic illiteracy is proved by the fact that you have not refuted, or even understood, the arguments that prove that what you are suggesting are anti-social, destructive, delusions based on fallacies and errors that were demonstrated nearly a hundred years ago: http://mises.org/econcalc.asp

You have failed to understand why socialism must necessarily lead to greater environmental destruction.

(continuedfromabove) ... but apart from 7 did not provide any of these issues with the state-wide publicity that I believe they should have.)

---

Wing Ah Ling wrote, "As I have shown, all of the claims I made are based on the Greens' policies."

You've shown nothing.

You have not quoted one direct word from the Greens' policies.

As I have said, I have my own concerns about the Greens' policies, but at least they are based on an actual understanding of those policies and not my imagination.

Daggett
The Green policies I cited sufficiently evidence the arguments I made.

You are merely retreating into denial and invincible ignorance.

Wing Ah Ling wrote, "The Green policies I cited sufficiently evidence the arguments I made."

If the Greens stand condemned by Wing Ah Ling as "totalitarian fascists" who want to control every aspect of everybody's lives without Wing Ah Ling having directly quoted a single word of theirs, then I guess two (or more) can play the same game:

Wing Ah Ling steals from his grandmother to pay for his gambling habits (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8736#138506).

Wing Ah Ling embezzled Student Association funds to pay for visits to a brothel (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8559#135473).

Wing Ah Ling bribed his examiner to pass his final exams (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8604#136334).