Right now Rudd has problems, he just maybe will not put the ETS to a vote.
Conservatives want nothing to do with it.
Labor voters and swingers are now unsure.
But Bob Brown is pushing for a much more intrusive scheme, one come be honest, few outside his party would support.
He clearly has a p-plan, to increase his party's vote in the upper house.
Can he do that pushing something the electorate is not buying?
I think we should have an ETS, that we in time will have.
That time could be now, with conservatives crossing the floor they did and will again, this radical in conservation clothing holds they key.
He may well be damaging his party in my view is.
What do others think?
And can greens tell me how they get their wish list filled without compromise? ever.

As far as the other parties go, we just have to compare their definition of 'sustainable':

-Two parties are primarily pushing for an ETS as far as environmental efforts go- a scheme that only interferes with market forces that simply slugs consumers of energy for more money based on what energy they use- regardless of how much or little- all for the (supposed) hypothetical assumption that people will- um 'improve their energy consumption'- which seems to now be at the minimum people are willing to compromise and aren't actually given much access to alternative energy sources; and both parties seem very enthusiastic about compensating polluting industries very handsomely- ensuring that THEY at least are 'sustained' throughout this period.

-The other party primarily advocates investment in and promotion of green power- which actually provides an alternative energy for consumers to rely on- and seem to oppose any deal that mainly exists to financially support the coal and oil industries.

Again- it comes down to what is supposed to be 'sustained'.

Belly, I’m not convinced of the need for a political entity such as the Greens. Like many minor parties they become the whores of politics. There destiny is compromise because they lack the numbers to implement their own manifesto. As a consequence, they always end up tainting policy from the other two parties.

Sustainable? Well I guess there will always be some appeal to those of us that feel conservation and the environment are important, a view I suspect most voters would subscribe to. Therefore we can suggest that the Greens are sustainable only as a minority party.

I also think that if the main parties had better “green” credentials, we might see a decline in support for the Greens Party. That is difficult however; because the mainstream parties are unlikely to offer radical enough policy to appeal to the radicalized, political fringe dwellers that chase the green votes to promote their own agenda’s.

I think this leaves the Greens between a rock and a hard place and the rest of us with compromised policy. The ETS looks like being yet another example of this

Labour has put the ETS to the vote, 3 times in fact so it is a double dissolution trigger. The outcome from putting it to the vote again seems entirely predictable - it will be struck down again. Everyone knows this, thus they know there is absolutely no reason to put the ETS to a vote again this term if the goal it to implement it.

The only reason to put the ETS to a vote again is to change the policy labour takes to the election. It appears they do want to do that. It was the product of long negotiations with the Libs, and as a consequence is a far smaller target for the Libs to hit in an election campaign.

In other words, whether they put the ETS to a vote or not has nothing to do with getting it implemented. It just a case of getting the paper work done for the next the election, nothing more.

>>Belly, I’m not convinced of the need for a political entity such as the Greens. Like many minor parties they become the whores of politics. There destiny is compromise because they lack the numbers to implement their own manifesto. As a consequence, they always end up tainting policy from the other two parties.<<

I disagree with this, Spindoc. Compromise does not have to mean you are a whore. If it's a way of getting a balanced bit of socialism and individualism into the societal mix, good outcome I say. I'd rather have that than two monoliths that are so set in their ways they never compromise. To the ordinary person, the shades of grey are just as important as the pure black and white.

On whether they are sustainable as a party, the Greens are essentially a single-issue party with lots of socialist policies thrown in. They will never rule in their own right and they and everyone else know it. They are just the counterlever to the equal and opposite on the Right. But, if they do get the balance of power, they will be in a position to broker deals.

I do like the fact that Bob Brown throws caution to the wind and says things that a lot of people agree with but do not have the cojones to say themselves. If that's all he does, then that is still a good achievement as it will make things easier for others to follow.

I don't know about you SpinDoc but I imagine the Greens' recent advertisements opposing unpopular policies like the Iraq War, NSW Power sell-offs, refugee policies and the pollie pay-rises would if anything help their popularity and show themselves as being beyond a single-issue environmentalist party filled with pinkos.

I imagine the more they lay out their other policies (the ones listed in detail on their website) in their adverts and continue to fill in the former Democrats role of "keeping the bastards honest" their popularity would continue to climb.

A play on words my thread was meant to ask can the greens hold current policys and remain a force.
I have my doubts, yes past victorys like the one that bought Bob Brown into politics have been good.
But can the dream, balance of power and continuing growth ever be.
Who thinks if greens controled policys we could live with their views on mining, exporting and useing coal?
Do not forget opersition stiffled debateon ETS, it would have been voted on last week, but was refered to inquirey.
And understand two conservatives crossed the senate floor and voted for ETS Greens against it, last time.
Greens get ex ALP refugees who give second preference to labor, will they stay green if not ETSis an outcome of greens wish not to compromise.
Now my view, and I handed out their HTV s last time, is they are bogged in ground never to be shared by enough to give them balance of power, in truth should they get it, ever conservatives and Labor may well deal them out in the upper house.
After allboth of those partys are not likely to let radical ideas get air.

>>A play on words my thread was meant to ask can the greens hold current policys and remain a force.<<

Belly,

The Greens will remain a force so long as they fill the political niche they are in now and as long as the two major parties give low priority to the environment. The big parties could shut the Greens down tomorrow simply by stealing and rebadging their ideas like the Liberals did to One Nation. Bob Brown knows this and is always trying to steer the debate into waters that are favourable to him. Politically smart, but still living on borrowed time. Once the Greens cross a certain threshold (whether that be in size or influence), the big parties will shut them down in a trice. So, no, they're not sustainable in the long run, except as a minority party as Spindoc says. And the Greens will lose their punch as the big parties absorb their ideas and integrate them into the mainstream.

I think the Greens have a good shot at becoming an actual government if they put more effort into broadcasting their other policies outside environment and refugees, because the whole 'single-issue party' is a pure myth. As are what most assumptions of their policies are by people who could never be arsed to actually spend five minutes reading them (and reading ALL party and local independent policies is in my opinion a citizen's duty- especially for those of us who can spend so much time on political forums).

Having actually GONE to the Greens Website and read their policies myself I seriously doubt the ACTUAL policies would alienate very many people:
-Of all resources, they are only entirely against uranium mining and propose banning it.
-They are against creation of new coal mines and expansion of existing ones
-The demand that mining/resource industries pay expenses to comply with most up-to-date green regulations.
-All practices must be in consultation with local communities.
Among many others. Hardly a mad path to self-destruction.

I believe the Greens newer approach of expanding into the Democrats old role and speaking up about all acts by Liberal/Labor they disagree with, they would definitely continue to improve.

How can they be sustainable when they have no substance ? It's a Billy Goat show depending on Public funding. When have they ever drummed up sufficient competence to stand on their own feet. They're just an expensive unfunny joke who constantly foil other peoples' efforts to make a living.
I'm a conservationist at heart & I support any group which tries to prevent environmental vandalism by those morons who think all this progress won't lead to massive mayhem. The Greens are just a bunch of hypocrites who use the environment as a smoke screen to bludge a living out of tax payers' money.

The government has a golden opportunity to put the ETS on hold.
From what I have been reading, because of the controversy over the
global temperatures the suggestion that they start from scratch and
try and work out just what has been occurring with temperature.
Some say they do not know whether temperatures are rising, falling or
remaining steady.
Even Prof Phil Jones of the Uni of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
now says temperatures have had no significant rise since 1995.

This is surely the time to stop and draw breadth, and wait and see.
In these circumstances it would be political suicide to spend enormous
amounts of money on a maybe if the temperature does not resume rising.

A certain number of actions which have been demanded to save CO2 are
needed anyway because of the imminent, in a very few years, of a
decline in oil production so for example to move to more efficient
cars will not be wasted.

As soon as the main parties wake up, & start to preference each other, the greens will disappear, & good riddens.

They have never been anything but spoilers, picking up on the NIMBI factor, to make a noise, here & there.

It's about time that groups like Greenpeace, & the media were charged with conspiricy, when the media are waiting with their cameras, when activists break the law, & damage property. They have obviously conspired to be there.

I don't ask these people to lead my life, or tell them how to lead theirs. I'll be damned if I'll let them dictate to me, how I lead mine. Petty would be dictators the lot of them.

Hmmm- I take it that my "actually read the policies" statement was quickly put into the 'too hard' box for many that just wanted to have a whinge.

For goodness sakes people, the time you spent typing up some childish idiotic rants and conspiracy theories that does nothing but make you look stupid, you could have actually googled a political party's website and read their stances and policies from the horse's mouth YOURSELF- IN EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME- and actually would have KNOWN what you were talking about this time.

No seriously, if you've actually read this post, don't reply to me if you don't like it, go and actually LOOK- RIGHT NOW.
The REAL policies on the Greens site, as are (surprise!) the policies on most other party webpages are fairly restrained and conservative (in the actual definition of conservative- not "omg center-right!").

And just so you know, I read EVERY party's policies if they are available online- Greens, Democrats, One Nation- every single party I have a local representative to, and every independent candidate's policies- and rank them closest to my own views to most distant.
It took ME about 20 minutes in total- basically one whole party in each ad break of the footy.

To do any less and still vote anyway is to me as pathetic as a kid taking dad's car keys and going for a drag race, despite having never taken any lessons.

We still have plenty of time before the next election to actually try to be smart next time.... maybe you could actually watch a bit of news or read some papers and watched how some of the parties actually responded to policies.

King Hazza

Before the last federal election I collated all policies from each party and independent, created a spreadsheet of all and forwarded copies to all my friends and family to assist them with voting below the line in the senate.

My then 83 Y.O. mother took the spreadsheet along with her walking frame and portable oxygen and carefully filled in her voting slips, with complete knowledge of all contenders. She said that many people arrived, voted and left while she was still completing her voting slips. I intend to do produce the same information for the next election - it is not always possible for people to access websites and read through all the material on line.

I endorse your entreaty to others to read, in particular, the Greens policies - they have certainly progressed from the one issue party of former days. They do offer a valid alternative to the dichotomy of the Libs and Labor. A look at the difference between the dearth of thoughtful constructive policies on Family First compared to the professional and progressive Greens format is very telling, the former looking like an amateur pulled their platform together from a religious right wish-list.

As usual, it seems that nobody who has commented here thus far (with the notable exception of King Hazza, and perhaps RobP) has bothered to acquaint themselves with the Greens' policies. That doesn't stop them from blathering on ignorantly about how awful and "radical" the Greens are.

As King Hazza suggests, the Greens have a broad range of well-developed policies that are only radical from the perspective of reactionaries and conservatives. They are policies designed to create a society that is able to sustain itself and the environment upon which it depends.

As far as the 'sustainability' of the Greens goes, despite the bulldust spread by those who feel threatened by them, their percentage of the vote increases with every election at all levels of government, and this is reflected in the steadily increasing number of Greens MPs, senators and councillors at each succeeding election.

This threatens the 'Tweedledum and Tweedldummer' major parties, so of course they're going to try and spread the kinds of mendacious disinformation that we see in this thread. This is to be expected, since that's the only way they know to do politics.

The Greens have a different approach, which is attracting more votes their way at every election. Obviously, I think this is a good thing for Australian politics. I'm far from alone.

This month's Tasmanian election will be interesting to watch ;)

Careful what you wish for there Hazza, you just may get your wish, & that would be disaster for you.

If half the people who currently vote green, actually read, & understood green policies, you would loose most of your senators, quick time.

Sorry King Hazza, C J Morgan I have read and understood Greens policy's, once thought well of them.
Conservation, for some is a dirty word.
Often they think every conservationist is green, not so.
Knowledge, understanding, is more than thinking and saying.
NEVER not in a hundred years or a thousand can Greens govern this country.
Explain greens defense policy's, tell me any one could sell them.
Truly tell me what a greens government would do to our economy if they put their climate change policy's in place.
In fact, one day greens will be marginalized by both potential governments.
It should be now, while opposition opposes every thing greens are just as bad.
Greens thrive on voters who want nothing to do with my mob and conservatives, and feed on those who do not understand the true increasing radical movement the greens are.
ETS has fallen, never forget it, to greens failure to support the environment as much to a lost Abbott.
The Greens by their own actions are no longer an environmental party.

Severin I am very impressed with your actions regarding voting- I think I should try to do a spreadsheet with my own acquaintances!
And though you are correct in many people not being able to access the Green's website (or the internet very much, for that matter), there is really not much excuse at all for those who have the capacity to post on a forum.

Agree CJ- although I must point out that I'm quite the conservative myself and even I'm not threatened by the Green's policies.

Hasbeen- like what? Name some.

Belly- well, if you insist I will make a hypothesis based on policies from the website you claim to have read:
What Greens industrial/environment policies would do to our economy:
Not much- mining and industry will need to add further initial furnishing/construction costs to what they already pay to ensure the facilities are energy-efficient and manage waste (which offsets the costs of more public infrastructure assisting them). General opposition to private infrastructure ownership would drastically lower costs for consumers, subsidizing green energy would be neutralized by stop subsidizing coal- as currently done. Initial installation costs of renewable energy generators are offset by the lack of need to purchase mined fuel for non-renewable generators, and lack of uranium or nuclear as part of our economy (not actually that large) would mildly cut into profits from sales overseas.
Actual attempts to get access to renewable energy device markets would actually offset the rising cost of non-renewables (whilst Labor inactivity will continue to cost us).
And they opposed the cost-only ETS plan? Good- another reason to vote for them.

Defense-wise:
-Army would be used for domestic security and occasionally peacekeeping only- which tends to mean more soldiers at home base.
-No US bases- making us a more neutral country on the world stage (including terrorism)- but potentially making us somewhat more vulnerable to attack from... er... who?

>>As far as the 'sustainability' of the Greens goes, despite the bulldust spread by those who feel threatened by them, their percentage of the vote increases with every election at all levels of government, and this is reflected in the steadily increasing number of Greens MPs, senators and councillors at each succeeding election.<<

People are looking for an alternative and so they vote Green. Mainly because they want to live in a more sustainable way and because the mainstream parties are more interested in winning elections than in governing. I voted Green for the first time in the last ACT election more as a retreat to idealism in the face of being thoroughly underwhelmed by the performance of the major parties. I'm sure I'm not alone. But mine is purely a tactical vote until such time as the major parties can make some positive progress.

The Greens have taken the place of the Democrats as being the party of idealists. But, as idealists, the only thing that worries me about them is that their ideas get out of their cage in an unfiltered and undisciplined way. The Greens are best IMO if they have the effect of slowly changing Government policy and practice. From what I can tell, they are achieving that at the current time. Although I've got no doubt the major parties will bear down on them if they do what One Nation did and get too big and are hijacked by those with radical ideas.

Alternatively King Bazza , our not so stupid comrades may see the move for what it is - a moving with the wind. The Greens-
The ultimate windowdressers with their predictable empty policies of reaction.
The point is; The Greens can identify the problem (wow)but they haven't joined the real political and science based process and worked out solutions . The careless ones could have already cost this government their credibility ( well put points on the tax).
The fact that they can't work on credible solutions makes them irrelevant in the long term . They haven't liked logging of native forests , but NOW they believe in sequestration - and NOW they don;t like bushfires but they can't stop them because of previuos policies-what are they to do? Study to show yourselves approved , join a real team focused on study and practice, or stay out of it.
A sustainable working group is one which comes up with solutions which work for both production and ecological resiliance. science in practice .
Green influences in Wongs group have come up with solutions that were never going to work . What is Rudd going to do to stop the bleeding and get some credibility back into an area that interests nearly every Australian. http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com

RobP- for me it's just the disillusionment of how apparent it was becoming that nobody in Liberal or Labor took their job seriously and had rather low esteem for the public's interest, and my move to any other party that would actually touch various issues and actually seemed to get to the point.
The Greens, among many other parties and independent candidates get a high spot on my list simply because they actually seem to take the role of government seriously- and to their credit, actually maintained a consistent stance against pollie pay-rises, ETS and privatizations- or at least specifically oppose such things in policy.
Liberal, Labor and the Nats will never recieve my vote again as they've each shown how thoroughly corrupt they are.

Hanrahan- considering the Greens policy pages specifically details how they intend to approach the various policies I'd consider that 'coming up with solutions'- feel free to go over to the site, and copy and paste any one of the approaches (lower in the page) to any policy you would like to question.
But on that note, do list the 'solutions' the other parties have come up with, and why they are better.
I wouldn't worry about window-dressing either- the major parties do little else.

And tell me, how is sequestration contradictory to anti-logging? And what 'previous policies' are stopping them from 'preventing bushfires' (that apparently other parties somehow prevent)?

I hope I can actually expect such comprehensive answers next time from some of you guys- I'm getting rather tired of hearing hearsay with spooky consequences so bad and profound they don't actually get elaboration; it's getting quite lonely for some of us being the only persons actually bothering to do any research, comparisons or even deep analysis.

Thanks King Hazza I rest my case, however claim to have read?
3.45 AM that is the time I turned this on, before leaving every morning I want to know the news before making up my mind I want to understand.
Defense, only the very lost could even think being a turtle, retreating into our shell is a safe survival idea.
Greens are radicals, hiding in conservation clothing.
As they try to run the ALP it becomes clear not in spite but in defending the wants and wishes of most Australians mainstream party's must marginalize them.
I am sure it is Bob Brown who is harming his party and changed it from conservation to the one that claims to be green.

Thanks King Hazza

I simply listed the major points of each platform for each contender, leaving the voter able to make up their own minds. Having a concise reference meant they didn't mistakenly give a prominent preference to an extremist party.

Agree with you that the main objectors to the Greens simply have not done their homework and are just repeating themselves or sound bites they have picked up from media or those whose vested interest mean they oppose a sustainable economy.

Severin- I absolutely agree with everything you just said. And I definitely like the way you structured that fact-sheet. I'll definitely follow that example next election.

And careful Belly- your post just fell right into the category of the last paragraph of my comment- and, just to elaborate how much I *have* done my homework, you might like to know that you very much CAN survive- very well- by keeping your army for defense and (sometimes) peacekeeping only- Sweden does it, Switzerland does it, and it kept them quite safe throughout World War 2- despite both being flanked by multiple Allied and Axis nations (and to extent, Soviet) alike.
So much for it 'not working'.
And before you try to throw a herring about the 'immorality' of either side or any supposed secret alliances either country had- I should point out that both countries, as NEUTRAL nations, were free to do business with the companies of BOTH sides and owed nothing else to either. And they most definitely weren't living at the mercy of anyone or maintained their neutrality by mere permission of either side, but by a staunch defensive stance- if you check out some history of these two countries.
But feel free to say it anyway, I DEFINITELY don't mind!

But just to emphasise how 'unsafe' such a policy would be for AUSTRALIA- which nations would suddenly attack us for following the policy? Indonesia? Malaysia? China? India? One of our other major Asian trading partners- each getting richer each year by its own economic improvements?
Feel free to mention whatever you like- just don't be disappointed if finding a plausable motive for either nation- based on actual research, doesn't actually occur.
But if you want to ominously allude that Muslim Indonesia is jealous of our vast stretches of (desert) housing our low population, I won't stop you.

In other words, I rest MY case- and mine is actually airtight.

First off ,
I am with you on the need/necessity for the minor parties. We need more of them . Like our congregations arguments elsewehere, I find the passion and focus within conservation greens really appealing welcome stuff. The leadership and their failure to support competency in conservation is another matter.

My point is that the great progress in conservation in this fragile country (and it has been substantial ; everybody can have a shower and our livestock industries are living in better and more sustainable ecosystems) has come, and only will come ( because its a complex care profession) at the cost and benefit of a consensus across party and rural industry custodian lines. The greens have been party to quickfix and careless accusation politics and this has helped ruin the role of career carers and scientists .
As I said, careless crap can kill - and a new home for ETS closer to Wong won't give wheels to a vehicle that never had any. Inexperienced unprofessional opinion is the scourge of current affairs driven politics -stay out of it.
As for more detail on forest/ sequestration and bush care (just another example of greens misdirected myopia) I am not going to let the cat out of the bag just yet .You are right, even the conservatives can't be trusted to move us on to better planning of the environment . Maybe sometime?
If you were a capable risk management scientist like myself you would know that a mere shift to the right words is not enough to effect better implementation. The clothes are still invisible and totally unsuitable .
The net effect of the last 20years meddling with conservation careers has been duplication and disintegration ( symbolised by the very low cost benefit of environmental planning eg NSW in particular)
Sometimes its better to wait till the whole street can see whether those in charge of the conservation agenda really know what they are doing .Hopefully, at such times you don't have to say much to get people to hear what you've been saying for years.

Sorry King Hazza but your self confidence is miss placed.
But then again resting that case will do you much better than saying it out loud.
So we shoulder arms, stay home, become a neutral country.
No treaty's no one comes to our help and we do not go the their help.
1 How many voters from both major partys would say ok to that?
2 What if say most do not understand putting flowers in our gun barrels and singing nice songs will not stop our enemy's?
Dream about minor party's, but look at the history of this country.
Know such party's fade away once they get away from the reason they exist.
Democrats stopped keeping the Ba#@!ds honest.
DLP stopped hating it party of birth.
Howard stole one nation.
Country party became the miners party, sorry they call it national but it is dieing.
Evolution of LL Liberals and Labor will continue, elections are about numbers percentages voters wants not dream time thoughts of dozens of independents who could never agree in any case.
I stand by my thought, greens are alive only because few understand the extremist/radical nature of todays Bob Brown.
Just as surely as the recent financial crisis has not resolved a housing bubble that will burst one Day.
We face a world that needs more than ever to defend its self, a horrible unwanted war may well be around the corner.
I doubt reasonable men think greens are right in laying down our defense.
About half at least of green votes return to the ALP, that number will grow massively this election.

Hanrahan I'd love to answer you but you will have to actually give me a specific statement or policy quote for me to answer; or for that matter, which policies in which areas are careless quickfixes, what's missing from them etc.

Nice Belly. I thought you'd have a hard time differentiating "Neutrality" and "flower-power-passivism"- it really says a lot.
1- How many voters would support us being neutral? I imagine quite a lot- put a referendum on whether we should join Iraq and I imagine most would oppose it- the only reason any would support it are the "Australia needs America to protect us from Indonesia" crowd.
2- What enemies? We're surrounded by pretty passive, modern and mostly democratic nations, you do realize.
But do tell- how exactly are we MORE secure from joining in Iraq? Do you really think America would let us, a country that regardless of foreign policy it enjoys a good relationship with, sitting in a strategic area, get overtaken by a (by definition) anti-western power just because we wouldn't have joined?

And do tell what the TRUE extremist nature of Bob Brown is.
And do tell what this increasing probability for a great war is too!
And it's rather bizarre to assume our defense would be worse under the Greens- considering that national defense is what they intend to use the army FOR.

Again, actual examples and analyses please- not lazy assumptions.

Private Bell dads army reporting for duty King Hazza.
Well may as well drop the sarcasm now but it interests me how some can insult others herein OLO.
For being involved in matters that control all our lives politics is just one.
KH My learning started as a kid, hungry and hopeless for a time I thought Communism was an answer.
Maturity set in early, nearly pre teenage I saw the dreadful truth.
Socialism took over, not for long, it killed its self in my head, promoting idleness.
Now long ago I saw reality my party, all big ones know we already in comparison to others have in part Socialism, look at America the fight to get Medicare.
Greens, for a while closely tied to my party, by preferences, I even hand out their HTV.
They however are not a true conservation party.
They are middle class out of touch radicals, you truly appear to think their defense policy's are salable.
You stick your verbal tongue out at me and say Belly you got it wrong.
Sorry fella you live in another world.
Do you truly think greens can ever be main stream?
Your mob has voted against an ETS because they wish to sell a far more radical one.
Never one the public will buy.
Said it before say it again they have lost all sales skills are selling rotting fish sandwich's next to a golden arches and unaware no one is buying.

Belly when are you going to realize that no amount of repeating an empty rant consisting of the Greens being "radical"/"communist" and vague implications that they disastrously "won't work" if put to government (each accusation without a single bit of proof or even vaguest attempt to get a quote) is going to change the fact that you have zero convincing arguments.
And I'll say it again- the ETS is NOTHING but a tax-rise for coal and oil-based energy producers passed down to consumers- do tell why it's SO important that we have one (or how it's supposed to clean up the atmosphere).
If the Greens keep sinking it, good for everyone that doesn't want to see their power bills and petrol fees rise even further.

You say you were captivated by Marxism when you were young but since learned the error of your ways? Good for you- I didn't, still don't care for marxism, and can clearly tell the Greens aren't Marxist.
I'm starting to doubt you've actually looked through the website at all because you had plenty opportunity to give me an actual policy quote- or better yet, a quote from an elected Greens member betraying their "true cause" on the news.

As for if they EVER form govenment- I'd say there's a good shot- as the two major parties continue to make expensive stuff-ups, force internet filters, pander to extreme religious groups and give taxpayer's money to the coal industry, while the Greens continue to promote their more recent moderateness and proximity towards the 'center' os social policy, as well as much better record of integrity and interest in public and consumer rights, they would continue to gain popularity.

It seems only people that keep buying into third-person stereotypes that they're some kind of secret flower-power socialist cartel and don't actually check for themselves to form their own assumptions that will never consider them.

Again, provide just ONE specific case that wasn't made up- or even actually address my points.
Otherwise I will only keep insisting you actually try to prove it.

Hazza, there is one major difference between the greens, & the other two.

The other two only make their stuff ups, or is that stuffs up, by accident.

The greens plan to do it.

A chinese cooley would look rich to the average Ozie, if we shut down everything you lot want to shut down.

Well TBC all I can say is , you seem a nice enough bloke and ,well , let’s just say, I have thought about giving you details , but on balance– you’re not listening . I’m sequestering discussion about sequestration because too many people are talking about it when it’s none of their business to do so.
And its not you I am really worried about , its all those graduates from the school of mere description who are watching what we are saying and have the power to plug a new word into their drip feed machine . No more on my power bills thank you !

You sound like half the country, running around talking about things you don’t understand . That put’s you in the frame as most likely part of the problem – not part of the solution . Do you respect scientists? – well let them get on with it !
Tell me then -What qualifications do you have to talk sequestration with authority?

You need ,I think , like Belly , to silence those who talk eloquently about conservation to Cabinet and replace them with someone who knows something about it . Can’t even get a pink bat right ?
Let’s face facts – The green advisors are so unaware of eco connections that they think by targeting industry they won’t affect the people. This simplicity in the world of “connections that matter “is enough to bring the house down -such ignorance of ecomia ! – a subject they claim they are qualified in ?

How predictable was it that a rational conversation about ephemeral and invisible hot air got carried away to heavenly places -the adjudicators were unqualified. Even my rationale would probably sound equally esoteric to OLO readers, but because I have tested many of the numerous interrelated gas equations over a lifetime it doesn’t stop me from having some confidence and faith in how they really work. Up there and down ere mate -its an amazing space .

Hasbeen

<< if we shut down everything you lot want to shut down >>

Clearly guilty of not researching Greens' Policies.

As KH stated to Belly:

<< Again, actual examples and analyses please- not lazy assumptions. >>

Please forgive quoting, very tired today and simply can't be arsed repeating myself.

Just watch the forthcoming Tassie election, Taswegians have been screwed over by Labor and have no reason to trust that the Libs will be any better. Watch the Greens pick up votes, watch how they work, then make some reasoned comment.

Thanks Severin, your quotes of my point are perfectly satisfactory.

And Hanranan- you would do well to read them.
If I indeed don't "understand" the issue feel free to enlighten me- or even pick one topic I'm supposedly not understanding.
Until then I take your accusations with a grain of salt.

I do trust scientists- however, as the Global Warming topic you get a lot of scientists clearly disagreeing over the issue and bringing up contradictory studies- they can't all be correct- but which ones are they?
It's the same with any issue- lots of scientists have differing views on every issue you can name.

On another note who exactly IS "qualified" in the issue of "What qualifications do you have to talk sequestration with authority?"
The persons doing it? The property-owners affected? Real-estate agents?

Just to let you know vague dismissal with hyperbole instead of examples really doesn't impress that many people who would be reading it.

KH You do your case no service shouting the same charges then telling me I'm doing just that.
Facts, honest truths matter.
Your mob are radicals, lost radicals, ETS for griefs sake is their policy too, only a harsher one, one that would kill our country's economy.
Are you refusing to see that.
Do you truly not know it?
Can you understand the impact of your coal policy's on us?
And finally do you understand more AUSTRALIANS will NEVER NOT EVER vote for your mob, than will?
How then do you get growth?
Until Bob Brown leaves, until you get policy's that understand our need for jobs, to eat, to defend our selves greens are dieing.
hasbeen you too got it right one day your side and mine will put this radical mob in the bag out vote every move let them be seen for the wasted vote they are.

The difference between you and me Belly is *I* actually substantiate my claims by specific references- something you have failed to do.
In fact, again, with the ominous catastrophe that you won't actually elaborate, after three times I called you out on it.
AND continue with the childish "oh we'll have no defense if our army only defends"! rubbish AFTER I disproved it.
Nor have you managed to share a single would-be invader, with some motives to boot.
I actually had to go to the liberty of going through hypotheticals and disproving them.
Notice the difference?

Ok, let me make this REALLY easy for you:
Tell me, the particular policies YOU know the Greens will undertake, give me a reference, and then tell me HOW they will prevent people 'eating, working and defending themselves'- if you manage to point me to the policy I missed- the "Food, employment and National Defense Abolishment Bill" I will even apologise!

If you can't find it, then maybe you should consider that maybe the Greens actually AREN'T like that and you were just hoodwinked- merely BELIEVING you're right really doesn't match up to CHECKING with a clear mind- which I can boast.

As for "more people vote against than for your party"- you should have a look at how overwhelmingly popular the Labor Party is, even during an election where the nation was SO desperate to get rid of the Liberals they sided with the next largest party just to maximize the chances of getting them out!
Go on, at least have a look at that!

Belly, old mate - you seem to be quite paranoid about the Greens.

This is to be expected of course, since the ALP have been losing members and votes to them in ever increasing numbers.

However, that's no reason for you to be dishonest. I understand that the only strategy that you dinosaurs know is to attack anybody that threatens your hegemony - but I'm pretty sure that it has the reverse effect to what you want.

I know this, because I used to be a member of the ALP until I woke up to the deeply-ingrained corruption in the party, not to mention the 'radical' shift to the right. To be quite honest, about the only thing that separates Labor from Liberal these days is the spelling.

The Greens are steadily gathering support from similarly disenchanted former Labor supporters like me, not to mention ex-Democrats and Tories who've grown consciences. No wonder you're so obviously running scared.

On the ETS - the Greens oppose the Mickey Mouse versions that the Government put up so far because they are so compromised that it they would be worse than not having one at all. To have done otherwise would have been hypocritical. Unlike the ALP and the Coalition, the Greens aren't big on hypocrisy.

CJ, by defination, 49% of the population are of below average intelligence, so it shouldn't be too hard for the greens to pick up a few votes.

Nice to see that Hasbeen's political analysis is as astute and perspicacious as ever. It's also nice that he's a self-acknowledged 'has been'.

Personally, my political preferences tend towards 'is now'.

King Hazza, please understand, this is not an intention to discredit you.
In my opinion you truly have far too much self confidence, and far too little understanding.
I note your blast about ETS then ignoring the fact you do not understand[ please do not quote the recent greens offer] greens want a far harsher one.
You prove nothing, it is ridiculous to think your defense policy is other than Alice in Blunder land stuff.
Yesterday, a man dressed as an injured police man climbed into an Ambulance and killed himself and thirty others on getting to hospital.
Iran is , it is you know, building a Nuclear bomb.
You ask what danger?
We are confronted now with a dreadful primitive idea death is a reward for murder and you think we should stay home, turn our back on agreements that we put in place after another country saved us.
I till Idle will respect C J Morgan and the greens he thinks he supports.
That however is not todays greens.
We could have a basic ETS now, greens voted against it, greens vote against much they once would have suported, tell me in what way is fielding that waste of air any less a fraud for his party's name than Bob Brown?

CJ Morgan I completely agree with you- and particularly think your take on the other commentators is likely spot-on.

Hasbeen- if 49% of the electorate are idiots- what makes you think they're not voting the Labor Party and Liberals?
You can't seriously tell me a person who supports them even after all of these years is smart (except, say, Alan Moss, wink).

Alas Belly, you ARE a lost cause. I might have actually taken you seriously if you didn't keep playing up the phony fairy-tale pacifist policy and try to mope about the ETS as if nobody told you why. Playing dumb does NOT look clever to other people reading it.

So Iran are totally going to build a nuke and launch them at Australia out of pure spite, am I correct? Did it ever occur to you that MAYBE, this started to happen ever since Iran and North Korea were added to the axis of evil- a list of countries that America has started to make up reasons to invade- and whose second-leading election candidate endorsed invading- MIGHT have something to do with it?
Think about it- a power surrounded by Nuclear nations- most Nukes held by its three 'enemies' (USA, UK, Israel)- it'll just try it luck?

The US hasn't ever 'saved us', by the way. They definitely gave a HUGE amount of manpower helping us fight Japan (who declared war against both of us because we were allies of UK and France). But I think that since then, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, a Free-Trade-Agreement, and the fact we've let them use our naval and airspace for the past few decades makes up for it?
So you say that a country must dedicate itself to overseas wars out of gratitude alone?
But didn't your Labor Party pull our troops out of Iraq?
So much for their gratitude.

What I'm amazed is you don't actually want me to show you any policies to correct you- why would that be?

PS- don't try to ignore CJs points either- although I doubt you will address them with real examples or counter-arguments either.

CJ, thanks for being so predictable. I threw out my tung in cheek statments expecting a personal attack from you.

Hazza, I did not say 49% of the population were idiots, I said they were of below average intelligence, a statistical fact. Idiots would require a much higher percentage.

Meanwhile, please stop castigating people for not understanding your policies. If your party is so incompetent it can not articulate its policies to the voter, it is certainly too incompetent to be in government, or even parliament.

As what you post here is more than somewhat different to that espoused regularly by that fool Brown, we have to wonder what they truely are.

In view of this, should we believe that most of you don't know your own policies, or perhaps, that you are worried that if you do make your policies clear, the general public will run a mile.

Better the fuzzy "save the trees" rubbish, than the truth perhaps?

Um, how is MY knowledge of Greens policies 'fuzzy' when I actually read them, Hasbeen?

If there are any I missed- be it a crazy quote from Bob Brown or something from the site, do feel free to make a quote.
If you are correct, it should be INCREDIBLY easy to find one, if not hundreds to throw on this forum.
If you can't even manage this, maybe you should actually think about it before posting.

As for policy articulation- indeed it could be better (ie advertising some of them):

Although keep in mind that aside from neither the Liberals or Labor doing much articulation themselves of their own policy (especially at election time), is the slight problem that Liberal and Labor get more screen time because they have more money (a portion of which donated).
Because the Greens and most minor parties do not accept donations- they have less money to buy screentime.

This is just going downhill- the only thing to actually talk about requires one side refusing to inform themselves and refusing to provide their own information and seemingly would rather be ignorant and accept spin info than suffer the embarassment of actually visiting the Greens site, but somehow knowing deep down inside that they're right.

And one last thing to point out- why is it that you people who claim to have visited the site have so much difficulty describing one policy?
Out of curiosity, do you people visit ANY policy pages of other parties? Ever?
Can you name, say, a single One Nation policy not related to immigration, racialism or multiculturalism (as advertised by the media)? OR a single Democrat policy? Or what the aim is for the SOS party?
If you feel you don't need to know, why do you need to post what you think of political parties here?

20% flat tax was one policy that comes to mind from one nation, across the board.
Why must you KH continue to insult my intelligence.
You bloke, let be blunt, are as lost on this subject as any one ever was.
Your problem is not me.
Go in to your bath room look into the eyes of your problem.
And gee you read policy's? goodonyamate!
I will turn of in about an hour to read another hundred pages from the full works of Banjo Paterson.
Maybe I should stay and see if I can find something about politics.
look me in the eye promise you do not have to goggle, what are these green policy's, coal exports, food imports, car manufacturing,

Sorry Belly?
I keep track of policies or statements made on the news and I *DO* Google for ALL official party websites accessible and read through them- hence how I about them.

Beyond these two measures there simply isn't any other reliable and can be taken with a grain of salt.

All of which, in my opinion, is the bare minimum that any Australian who actually intends to vote should be doing- especially if they feel SO strongly about it on an internet forum.

But at least that's one policy from One Nation.

I've noticed that there's very little substance coming from the Green haters - come on chaps, be honest: you haven't bothered to read the Greens' policies, have you?

Belly seems to be getting a little shrill in his Green-bashing, which I regard as a good sign. The True Believers are getting worried, and they can get quite nasty when afraid. I don't blame him, because that's politics, I'm afraid.

At least his heart's usually in the right place :)

C J Morgan you are not a bad bloke.
I think you are hooked on the greens you once had.
Bob Brown has always been out there, his welcome to Bush was something only a minority could be happy with.
Greens ,just look at what the voted against in the senate, are intent on growing their numbers not good government.
I n an upper house infected by a one man party known as family first but in truth as handy as an ash tray on a Harley, you mob vote with him.
It is an old tactic, never works but is often used, insult the messenger.
This country, will NEVER support greens policy's on extreme climate change wants.
Defense, trade, how do I say it without being offensive?
Greens are a home for refugees from my mob, dead Democrats and even first votes from conservatives.
And the lost few who known little about the real world.
Dream however of a greens controlled upper house, a nigh mare for good government.
I have no fear, think greens are over cooking it, may not hold their vote.
But yes in time, without a change in direction greens will force party's representing the majority to combined to make their radical thinking change.

CJMorgan:"you haven't bothered to read the Greens' policies, have you?"

Not since the dunny paper started running low. I'm not in favour of the grade of paper used - far too rough, although it does scour well. Things have never been so clean.

Belly:"You bloke, let be blunt, are as lost on this subject as any one ever was."

Oh dear, Belly. go and ask Big 'my boy needs a job' Bill for a new copy of the approved phrasebook; the one you have seems to only have one line in it.

Give it a rest anti every thing, I will never learn to put words together or spell.
But you just will never learn .

"This country, will NEVER support greens policy's on extreme climate change wants.
Defense, trade, how do I say it without being offensive?"
By actually telling me the specific policies, and explaining where they will fail, and why they fall short of 'the real world'.

King Hazza do you think I come here to do your research for you?
Do your own.
Just maybe start with climate change,you up the thread inferred an ETS was fraud.
Do not look at the greens latest offer alone look at its first reason for not voting for Labors scheme.
You truly must not use such tactics in debate,you show me yours I will show you mine.
I know this, if every voters knew greens policy's on every issue your party would halve it vote this year, and die in ten.

Yes, a 'tactic' of proving that I actually did research by bringing up specific acts/attributes to rebuke inane statements- and insisting others show theirs in the exact same way (or else if not applicable, tell them to do some research in the first place instead of making empty statements- is incredibly effective.

At this point I think I'll probably be able to take my leave, satisfied now with a rebuke for a post involving- in the same paragraph;
-complaining about having to do research to make sure you're actually right
-Saying that "insert unnamed and assumedly unresearched policie(s) are nonetheless SO bad that etc etc" and not mention a single one.

4TH march was it 8.58? King Hazza your post here in reference to ETS, Slapping the greens on the back for voting it down.
Are signs you, not I, do not understand the greens intent on this issue,
Me too however, debating with you is like riding a bicycle without wheels.
Lot of peddling no progress.
If it is just you and me here lets close the door on it.

Indeed- we've both been repeating ourselves to no avail:

You've been repeating the same vague, empty statements with 'you just don't get it' (while being very careful to avoid saying what 'it' is to prove YOU do 'get it', if there's even an 'it').

I've been repeating myself in asking you to substantiate your claims with just one single statement, and coming back empty handed.

I agree- we should wrap it up.

For the benefit of Belly and others - on the 'sustainability' of the Greens:

"Farmers cheer Greens leader"

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/farmers-cheer-greens-leader-20100323-qroi.html

That was the headline, but this is the telling section of that report:

'This was also a timely reminder of the separation of McKim's campaign from the federal Greens' ''old'' icons, Brown and Christine Milne. They did not appear in advertising and were even absent from the campaign launch, which was held on a Senate sitting day. Instead, the campaign largely focused on McKim and his soothing words: ''accountability'', ''stability'', and ''working constructively'' and ''transparently''.'

How the Greens can dump Bob Brown and the cartoon gargoyles he has a bookends at national level is what should be asked. They are just rolling their arms over bowling up the usual whales and Sea Shepherd stuff. What about the ever-slack senators doing some of the hard yards on (over)population and sustainability? After all, they have the Senate seats, the research staff and the wherewithal to do it. Bob Brown will always be a liability in Queensland.

Poor old Cornflower - so blinded by her mindless hatred of the Greens that she missed this story from last week:

<< Opposition backs call for population inquiry
Posted Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:31am AEDT

The Federal Opposition is supporting a call by the Greens for an independent national inquiry into Australia's population target. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2845475.htm

C J Morgan my starting this thread was a question I still think had Merritt.
Yes my view is clear and unchanged.
But I did not wish to taunt you, I have great respect for you and the greens as they once appeared to be.
Not now, holding the balance of power in Tassy is a test for them, and the shell of an ALP that handed them that control.
I firmly think still the increasingly radical directions that have set out on will bring them down.
ALP refugees, CJM that is much more than likely to include me come the NSW election, are using them to remind a blind and deaf state party machine times 3 maybe 4 we are the rank and file not the rank and vile.
Yet at a state level I would enjoy them having the balance in My state and the insulting remnants of my ALP shrinking to the level they worked so poorly to deserve.
Horrible thought, that fella whats his name is elected to lead 12 months before the election and even I know he is of little use.

C J

CeeJ on the back foot always lets fly with the nasturtiums. Good one CeeJ.

It was your link but you must not have read it or else you would have seen the comment I quoted above. Here it is again because you do have a habit of pretending not noticing facts that challenge your views:

"'This was also a timely reminder of the separation of McKim's campaign from the federal Greens' ''old'' icons, Brown and Christine Milne. They did not appear in advertising and were even absent from the campaign launch, which was held on a Senate sitting day. Instead, the campaign largely focused on McKim and his soothing words: ''accountability'', ''stability'', and ''working constructively'' and ''transparently''.'

That is no comfort for the Greens and especially Bob Brown, but full marks to McKim for realising what a dead weight Emperor Bob and his book-end gargoyles really are when their is work to be done and credibility is at stake.

Then you post as 'proof' of the Greens' interest in sustainability (heh, heh) yet another grandstanding call for an inquiry by the Greens and in collusion with the opposition this time. That is their 'solution', an expensive time-wasting inquiry that would only serve as an election stunt? That is what Bob does best isn't it, make calls for inquiries? Sure beats pulling out the little stub of pencil and fleshing out some practical policies.

For years the Greens have been spruiking themselves as the party concerned about the environment and 'sustainability', but they still have no practical suggestions or solutions. When it comes down to it, the Greens are all care and no responsibility as per usual and Emperor Bob Brown still has no clothes. McKim was awake to that.

Oh come on, Corny. On the back foot?

You asked a question

<< What about the ever-slack senators doing some of the hard yards on (over)population and sustainability? >>

that I answered ever so easily.

You know nothing about the Greens' political strategies. Trust me, old dear - it's all going swimmingly. Every election at every level sees an increase in Green votes and representation.

Which is of course what scares the bejesus out of reactionary old farts (and I'm not talking about you, Belly!)

As for the nasturtiums, it was you talking about gargoyles and such, wasn't it?

C J

Making it personal doesn't alter the fact that the Greens have had years to come up with some practical solutions for sustainability but they have delivered zilch.

The Greens want an inquiry on population, is that the best you can offer?

There are five Greens senators in the federal parliament:
* Senator Bob Brown
* Senator Christine Milne
* Senator Rachel Siewert
* Senator Scott Ludlam
* Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Yet despite all of that wasted remuneration, travel, cars and other benefits and the passage of years, all the Greens can do is call for an 'inquiry' on population!

What private company would put up with five of its most senior staff, with all of the research and support resources that are available to these representatives, yet they cannot do any better than ask someone else to do a review to tell them what their policies should be for one of the flagship businesses they claim to be in, viz., sustainability!

What a lurk it is to be a Greens senator and the joke is definitely on the taxpayer!

All pink and the green, well the 'green' is useful for the pretension of green militancy to get some votes, but that is all.

No wonder McKim gave Bob Brown and his cartoon gargoyles in federal parliament the heave ho, they are absolutely useless and a dead weight.

No I understand it was not me C J Morgan, 64 is not old, do tend to fart more than my share it may be the water in the Bundy.

You're sounding shrill, Corny.

Be afraid. Be very afraid ;)

CeeJ is firing off the usual personal insults as a diversion while refusing to answer the simple question that was put to him concerning the lack of productivity of Greens Senators in the Australian parliament:

"There are five Greens senators in the federal parliament:
* Senator Bob Brown
* Senator Christine Milne
* Senator Rachel Siewert
* Senator Scott Ludlam
* Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.
Yet despite all of that wasted remuneration, travel, cars and other benefits and the passage of years, all the Greens can do is call for an 'inquiry' on population!

What private company would put up with five of its most senior staff, with all of the research and support resources that are available to these representatives, yet they cannot do any better than ask someone else to do a review to tell them what their policies should be for one of the flagship businesses they claim to be in, viz., sustainability!"

On the environment the Greens continually grandstand and bowl wides to attract attention as faux green militants. No work though after all these years on producing practical strategies and solutions on such crucial issues as over-population and sustainability.

The joke is definitely on the taxpayer, because no private company would put up with grandstanding and disruption in lieu of productivity. Every time the Greens oppose for the sake of opposing and fail to propose practical solutions on such crucial matters as over-population and sustainability they fail to represent those who voted for them, let alone the broader Australian population.

Five Senators and zilch on overpopulation and sustainability, what a lousy record and a waste of taxes.

Shriller and shriller - now the poor old dear's just repeating herself. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling...."

any humble pie around C J Morgan?
Any greens about?
I need help.
NSW excuse for a government, its public servant time wasters, a minister for nothing but self interest.
Yesterday tomorrow are telling NSW Forest workers, some with better than 40 years service, contract log cutters are to also.
Wait for it, insanity, replace one third of them, and be product retrieval police, of their own log cutting contracts.
And marking out trees to cut trees to keep for wild life trees to leave as seed trees.
This issue, finally, convinces me the NSW ALP is useless, only the greens can save this states forests.
And please please do it vandalism from imported managers public servants and a dead party.

Belly

Sounds like NSW forestry might have needed a bit of a shake up. Sad but ineffective, traditional management eventually results in loss of employee jobs, unfortunately.

You must have walked into a low limb though if you think that Bob Brown could come up with anything practical. If you want a whinge, fine, the Greens are always out for a stir to get publicity. Bob would want another inquiry to grandstand, wouldn't he?

That green veneer wore thin long ago through lack of interest and attention to show the large pink rump beneath. The militant green is all spin, the Greens can't even risk a policy on sustainability and overpopulation through fear they might upset some of their supporters.

All stand back now for the Greens Number One advocate, whether they like it or not.

You're such a delight, Corny. Perhaps you could tell us which party has a better policy on sustainability than the Greens? Or which other party is pushing for an Inquiry into population?

Or were you just having a spray, as usual?

Belly - as far as I can tell, just about every arm of government in NSW is being grossly mismanaged. Why would Forestry fare any better?

C J Morgan

'Corny'? You are on the back foot again.

Apart from mentioning sustainability the Greens have no policy. Yet the Greens claim 'sustainability' as one of their flagship policies. How does that work? Where is their policy on population or on sustainability and population?

As has been said many times before, the Greens' green militancy is all attention-seeking. They have plenty to say about the Sea Shepherd and whales but zilch on significant internal matters such as capitals running out of water through Rudd's over-enthusiastic immigration policy for a 'Big Australia'.

The Greens will play footsies with the Liberals for yet another time and money wasting 'inquiry' to embarrass Labor, but the Greens can't risk a having a policy themselves on sustainability and overpopulation through fear they might upset some of their supporters. How gutless is that?

Now Corny, you didn't answer my questions, choosing instead to repeat your dishonest slagging.

No policies on sustainability?

http://greens.org.au/policies/categories/sustainable_economy

The population policy is under review in anticipation of the National Inquiry called for by the Greens last month, and supported by the Opposition.

I appreciate the opportunities you provide to direct people to actual Greens policies and initiatives.

Corn flower please.
Please do not let your dislike and bias, some of those I share, blind you.
Brown has nothing to do with NSW politics.
How crimson rude to say forests needed a shake up, well management maybe.
It is intended that those who log the forest, contractors, truck the timber, take over policing what they pay for, seed trees, wild life refugee [what trees to leave]
This is not about rarely washed protesters in tri pods in the forests.
It is about the very people who try to get away with under paying for timber ,even not paying at all, being contracted to police them selves.
A socially beneficial return was once a requirement of jobs such as forests/RTA/ Railways/Parks/local government.
The mighty fantasy that creating contracts /wealth/ will bring better outcomes for tax payers is a lie.
Unless management rolls are contracted out, only them, nothing can be gained by dreaming scheming ideas that humans are only numbers in a game seeking only profits.

C J Morgan

So what, just another repetitious link to the Greens site where there are just general statements and no practical actions whatsoever. The Greens have had years to flesh out their general statements with costed actions, but the cupboard is bare.

Again, what private company would put up with five of its most senior staff, including the CEO (cf., the five Greens senators in the federal parliament, with all of the research and support resources that are available to these representatives), who cannot do any better than ask someone else to do a review to tell them what their policies should be for one of the flagship businesses they claim to be in, viz., sustainability!"

The elephant in the room for sustainability is over-population, yet the Greens are too afraid of upsetting some of their supporters to do any better than play footsies with the Liberals, who similarly are finding the nettle to prickly to grasp.

Yet another inquiry to waste millions, how completely gutless is that? What board of a private company wouldn't sack a CEO and his senior managers for that?

Thanks again to Corny for providing an opportunity to link to accurate information about the Greens' activities and policies. If anybody wants to know what the Greens Senators and MPs are up to, they can follow the link below. I think you'll find that the Greens Senators are considerably more active than most of their bench-warming counterparts from the Government and Opposition.

http://greensmps.org.au/

What is repetitious is Corny's wilfully ignorant slagging of the Greens, and her refusal to answer the questions I put to her yesterday, i.e.

Perhaps you could tell us which party has a better policy on sustainability than the Greens? Or which other party is pushing for an Inquiry into population?

C J Morgan

Greens supporters should listen to Bob Brown's 'vision' on population and sustainability because he criticises other parties for not having a policy, yet the Greens do not have one either, only the generality of a motherhood statement that probably conflicts with their other social policies. It is all waffly and 'someone else" has to do something, but never the Greens of course.

He has nothing to offer but the request for an inquiry, NEXT year.

Then no doubt time would fly while there is endless fudging around with the brief, which would have to be general enough to let them off the hook.

So the bumfuzzling Greens senators will in the interim continue to polish the well-padded leather seats in the Senate, comfortable in the knowledge that once again they have apparently been able to avoid any specifics, numbers and costing on sustainability and population.

Again, what private company would put up with five of its most senior staff, including the CEO who cannot do any better than ask someone else to do a review to tell them what their policies should be for one of the flagship businesses they claim to be in, viz., sustainability!"

<< Greens grab last seat in return to North-West >>

http://tiny.cc/n1t7z

At 21.61% of the vote in the recent Tasmanian election, the Greens achieved their best ever result in a State election. As I said earlier in the thread, at every election at every level of government, the Greens are steadily increasing their vote and representation.

No wonder their opponents are starting to appear desperate. Bring on the Federal election!

"Bumfuzzling" ?!? Thanks for that - a new word. What does it mean, sounds like it could be fun?

I note that you still avoided answering my questions.

Be afraid, Corny. Be very afraid :)

C J Morgan

More proof you only read the headline of that link you posted earlier and didn't read the content. Otherwise you might be more concerned about the five leather polishers in Canberra:

'This was also a timely reminder of the separation of McKim's campaign from the federal Greens' ''old'' icons, Brown and Christine Milne. They did not appear in advertising and were even absent from the campaign launch, which was held on a Senate sitting day. Instead, the campaign largely focused on McKim and his soothing words: ''accountability'', ''stability'', and ''working constructively'' and ''transparently''.'

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/farmers-cheer-greens-leader-20100323-qroi.html

I take that as a fair indication that Nick McKim wouldn't have them on his board either if he was a company chairman.

Now, what about some accountability from Bob Brown and the remainder of the group of five Greens' Senators for their flagship policy 'sustainability'? Next question, does Bob Brown need more arms so he can point at more people as being responsible, but never the Greens of course?

What board of a private company would put up with executive management bumfuzzling and finger pointing in lieu of productivity on that flagship policy? Where are the specifics , strategies, numbers and costings after all of these years talking it up?

Corny, apparently you're unaware that the Greens are neither a corporation nor in government. Also, as I said previously when you speculated erroneously about the Tasmanian campaign, you obviously haven't got a clue about the Greens' electoral strategies. Suffice to say that Bob Brown and Nick McKim work very closely and well together.

Now, how about having a go at answering my questions - without trying to hide your arrant hypocrisy behind a smokescreen of ignorant slagging.

I still don't know what "bumfuzzling" means either. If you mean 'confusing' or 'obfuscating', isn't that exactly what you're doing here with respect to my request that you answer my questions?

Here's a story from 'The Australian' that I missed:

<< Queensland may give Greens balance of power in the Senate
March 27, 2010 >>

http://tiny.cc/gvffh

As Bob Brown says in the article, "This is more a result of the mainstream becoming green, rather than the Greens becoming mainstream".

CJ

Tiny link didn't work.

But, hey, finally mainstream people are getting that we have to care for the planet that sustains us. Predict greater Greens presence after next federal election.

Thanks Severin. That's weird, it works for me but they have changed the Tiny URL site... bugger. Here's the full URL in all its glory:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/queensland-may-give-greens-balance-of-power-in-the-senate/story-e6frgczf-1225846158881

Obviously, I agree with your comment.

Link worked just fine, CJ

The Greens are certainly filling the void left by the Democrats - more and more they are gaining the numbers to 'keep the bastards honest'. Even better, the Greens were not formed from an essentially conservative background, being more progressive and open to alternatives.

I can't believe Bob Brown is 65 - seems way younger, certainly his mindset is more flexible than either the rusted-in views of Rudd or Abbott.

Are the Greens sustainable? Australian politics is little more than a plutocracy without them.

C J Morgan, "you obviously haven't got a clue about the Greens' electoral strategies."

Heh, heh, did Nick McKim made you his confidant?

However the electoral strategy was as plain as the nose on your face C J. As the article you linked to says, Nick McKim deliberately kept the old Greens 'icons' - examples being Bob Brown and Christine Milne - well out of Tas during the election so McKim could talk up 'accountability', 'stability', and 'working constructively' and 'transparently'. Even a recently converted foot soldier to the Greens such as yourself should be able to nut that out. To use your overworked phrase, you are in denial.

C J Morgan, "Suffice to say that Bob Brown and Nick McKim work very closely and well together."

Goodness, should that finger tapping the side of your nose be taken as an indication that you are privy to their opinions and confidences, C J? Tell us more.

It is nonsense to assert that the five Greens senators shouldn't be accountable for their own policies and performance because "the Greens are neither a corporation nor in government" (CJM). They are responsible to the electorate not just their party and the small percentage of voters who put them there.

The cost of maintaining five senators is in the millions and that is not counting the ongoing costs of their superannuation and other benefits when they finally retire from public life. Multiply that by the years they have served and that is a significant cost to the taxpayer.

It is reprehensible that while sustainability is a flagship policy of the Greens they have yet to even define what they mean by it, let alone deliver any specifics on strategies, recommended actions, numbers and costings. Population and sustainability? Too hot and could split the Greens, run and hide behind a review and let's not even think about it before next year!

More obfuscation from Madame Bumfuzzle. She's clearly only here to slag the Greens repetitively and disingenuously. Otherwise she'd answer my questions, which would demonstrate that the major parties would score far less than the Greens on her own facile criteria.

Which is of course why she won't.

Be afraid, Madame Bumfuzzle. Be very afraid :)

Five pages of inane remarks and personal baiting from C J Morgan.

Like others before me I am out of here.

I think that's called "projection" in psychological terms, Corny.

However, I must thank you, both for providing several opportunities to link to the Australian Greens website and positive MSM stories, and also for introducing me to the quite excellent word "bumfuzzle", which seems entirely applicable to your debating tactics.

Indeed, whenever I read another contribution from you, "bumfuzzling" will undoubtedly spring immediately to mind.

Do call in again, won't you?