The Forum > Article Comments > Down and out with the non-Labor parties in 2009 > Comments
Down and out with the non-Labor parties in 2009 : Comments
By Aron Paul, published 1/4/2009On the centenary of the two-party system, we need to revive a progressive liberal opposition.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 5 April 2009 6:48:52 PM
| |
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) Posted by daggett, Monday, 6 April 2009 8:21:15 AM
| |
"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. Posted by Rossko, Monday, 6 April 2009 9:24:48 PM
| |
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. Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Tuesday, 7 April 2009 11:55:36 AM
| |
(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. Posted by daggett, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 11:34:44 AM
| |
Daggett
The Green policies I cited sufficiently evidence the arguments I made. You are merely retreating into denial and invincible ignorance. Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Wednesday, 8 April 2009 2:56:06 PM
|
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.