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.