Disillusionment with the major parties is epidemic.

This is translating into more support for the Greens.

Pehaps we should examine some of their policies in the public interest?

Like this one:

http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/global-governance

6. the international financial institutions that govern aid, development, trade, and transnational financial movements require extensive reform to enable them to provide global economic justice.

Would anyone like to hazard a guess on what this might mean in practice ?

Meaning of

-"Economic Justice" ?

-"Extensive Reform" ?

-Global ?

A few possibilities.

1- lobby international administrative bodies to reform so that they better serve interests and legal views wherever necessary of poorer countries and communities to prevent exploitation and unfair dealing at the hands of transnational corporations or individuals (ownership laws and rights is a HUGE problem internationally)

2- a misplaced faith in international administrative bodies as 'knowing best' and need to give them greater power and influence.

3-both

Boazy, it simply means the United Nations - or a better version of it - functioning properly, rather than the shambles it is now.

No 'one world order" conspiracy there, I'm afraid.

Nice to see that you're reading the Greens' policies though. That means you have no excuse for distorting them :)

AGIR, in the interests of "accuracy", why don't you ask the Greens those 3 questions directly?

Report back here with the answers.

Then we'll have grounds for discussion and debate based on what the Greens "really" mean regarding your 3 questions.

Otherwise it's all just opinion, opinion and more opinion based on one's political outlook, and nothing else.

Maybe I am different but I get so very happy when conservatives and ultraconservatives let fire.
For years our system worked,it has faults but conservatives had no problems when the despised DLP a splinter from ALP kept them in control.
Lets be frank I have problems with greens.
About half if not most of their votes are refugees from the ALP.
Count me in that number next state election.
I Could not ever let my preference go other than to them in the federal one.
I go into the poling booth knowing the value of my vote and just how to wring every drop out of it.
One vote one value suits me, but we would then have only two party's no independents and conservatives would forever be hurt by it.

GOOD! We have a Quorom :) we just need "factferret"(*) Pericles here to keep me in line and the world will be perfect :)

HAZZA.. I broke out into wild grins reading your post. Not in mocking, but in the sense that you spoke truth.. but it's way bigger than you said:

THIS IS HUGE aaaah.. there you go :)

Hazza said: "lobby international administrative bodies" interesting thought. What about "Lobby US bodies..corporate and administrative in the interests of a select few capitalists, who posture themselves as Socialist/Green" ?
Welcome to.....the ALLIANCE FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION. (do a wiki people)

ME (ALGORE) I founded this body in 2006 with the following "mission"

//Research in January 2007 indicated that while 77% of Americans believe that there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming, only 47% believe the link with human activity. The Alliance believes that explaining this link, and motivating people to take action, is the organization's key challenge.//

I appointed my good friend and fellow Democrat Kathy Zoi to head up this 'humanitarian...save the earth' group. In 2008, she/they received $300,000,000 to 'persuade' people of the abovementioned link.

Kathy is married to one of my other democrat mates.. Robin ROY..who happens to (innocently) own a company making 'green products' ie.. "Energy Efficient Windows" that company is "Serious Materials"

I lobbied for Kathy to become the "Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" and she now humbly serves in this capacity...for the good of mankind and...the earth.

I reject outright the claims of 'vested interest' in Kathy owning a hundred thousand dollars worth of Shares in Landis and Gyr the worlds largest manufacturer of SMART METERS.

I also reject categorically that her being one of the administrators of the $16,000,000,000 'America Recovery and Reinvestment Act' could have any impact on the value of her shares in Landis and Gyr Inc Or Serious Materials Inc Or..that they might receive special green grants under this Act.

continued....

(* "FactFerret" is now copyright to AGIR :)

cont....

I also reject categorically that me being one of the top 10 shareholders in the Chicago Climate Exchange and the European Climate Exchange has any bearing on my founding of a body (Alliance for Climate Protection)which is dedicated to persuading people of the need for cap and trade laws etc..or that such laws would HUGELY benefit my company (Generation Investements llc) which owns 2.8% shares in the European "Climate Exchange" carbon trading company.

I also reject the innuendo that my other friend MAURICE STRONG who generously and selflessly gave us the KYOTO Protocols has any private beneficial interest in Cap and Trade laws, even though he is a DIRECTOR of the Chicago Climate Exchange.(CCX)

The scurrilous charge that nations signing up for the KYOTO protocols will benefit me personally is groundless, in spite of my shareholdings in carbon trading companies which are estimated to make TRILLIONS in carbon trading..this is just vicious partisan political scuttlebutt.

My friend and colleague Maurice Strong is now focusing his attention in China... where the Tianjin Climate Exchange, a joint venture of the CCX (of which he is a director) and Petroleum China, of which my other friend Franco Bernabe is a director, (he is also the vice chairman of Rothschilds Europe); are all energetically saving the planet.

NO NO NO....there is NO connection or conflict of interest..I deny it.. deny deny deny.

That GREEN groups are part of this, is another unfounded allegation :)

WHY ARE THE GREENS RECEIVING SUPPORT ? Well.. I would hazard a guess that when $300,000,000 is pumped into "persuading" people of the reality of 'Climate Change'...that gullible people, pee'd off with major parties would look for a fresh new face?

Fact finding memo #1 to Boazy: The Australian Greens have no connection with the US-based Alliance for Climate Protection.

This is just another one of your dishonest 'bait and switch' routines, isn't it?

AGIR, how about telling us where you **COPIED** your last 2 posts from.

AlGore- honestly, there are going to be corporate lobbyists on either side of any debate- so long as the party playing 'towards its hands' so to speak actually goes in a direction of public benefit and not just straight into them instead.

An issue left WELL out of most debates as of late- climate change above all.
As far as Labor and Liberals have gone, it's been a tug-o-war between which lobbyists they'd rather work with against their longevity in Parliament.

As for Greens- seeming that they have been generally trashing most of the climate change arrangements, and have been quite consistent at separating themselves from select-businesses > public, they WILL have my support in the election (as they are staunchly opposed to my greatest gripe- extensive private control over former public property, services and infrastructure (all of which have turned to dirt).

Personally, if the Greens won, and were nagged into giving us Binding Citizen Initiated Referenda rights, there would be little to worry about. Generally most Greens policies and stances are quite sound (and I HAVE drilled Greens members about various issues), in comparison to the ratio of sound-vs-rubbish ideas I'd still pick them.

BENQ..I didn't cut/paste any of that.. unless it was clearly a quote.
I described things in a 'defense' of my name slant.

Hazza... interesting, but there is more to it than you seem to think.

The network of Capitalists posing as Socialists/Greens is mind boggling.
The Greens are only unhappy about proposed policies because they don't go far enough. The Greens approach is not to fix the enironment but to destroy "capitalist economy" and replace it with their neo marxist Socialism. Make no mistake about that.

I fear you might be supporting them only for their 'posture' rather than their deeper substance and eventual destination. Greenies will deny this unless waterboarded into honest admissions..because they know that if the truth is put out there..their support will plummet.

The whole 'Green' agenda of Climate change/Global warming is brought horribly into question by the economic opportunism and (in my view) criminality of those at the head of all things Green (Maurice Strong)

If you cannot trust the man from whom all this was coordinated.. how can you trust the science/outcome/agenda?

Would you like a detailed list of his doings ?

If a man is proven to be a scoundrel... and an insider trader,...an opportunist and a current capitalist exploiter of things 'green'...then the chances are pretty high that his 'information' is also dodgy.

Hazza.. look up AGENDA 21 and see what it is.. where it came from.. and what it would mean for society. You need to read between the soft language a bit.

Would you like YOUR property taken by a Green governed State ?

ALTERNATIVE TO GREENS.

Hazza.. if you had the choice between a socialist 132 page 'sustainable climate' bill (Greens) and a simple one page solution which guarantees true greenhouse gas reduction in OUR backyard.. and also reduced (rather than the Greens INcreased) electricity costs for YOU....which would you prefer..honestly? Specially when you cannot verify in the slighest way how your 'carbon credits' are actually used in 3rd world countries ?

-Family First
-Independant (me? :)
-Coalition (worst of the above, but better than Labor/Greens)

Depends on your own model Al ;)

Between coalition/major models and Greens models, I personally favor Greens models, as the Greens models focus more on the targets and less on the trading element.

Having said that, I would prefer NO emissions trading scheme at all and believe the entire system it proposes is just another dodgy field of investment in fabricated assets. So asking me for my support is what kind of illness I'd most rather come down with.

But tell me your own version anyway (and on that note, if you indeed are running for independent, which electorate are you out of curiosity?)

As for the Greens left-ish leaning- so far, I don't see any direct socialist-style personal property interventions on an individual basis, although I do see deep intervention of conduct, and regarding ownership and running of infrastructure (of which removing from private ownership gets my full support).
If so, feel free to point it out (in the meantime I'll read the article and put my take on it)

Hi Hazza... I must say I'm warming to this discussion

My model is very simple. (why the heck do we need 132 pages of Green BILL just for this ? ? ? OH OH...I have it.. because it speaks so much about the SOCIAL aspects and GLOBAL aspects.. grrr)

My PLAN.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3672

Tax based subsidies for Solar Panel/Grid Connect inverter systems. Subsidies would be based on bulk purchase of panels which makes the unit cost about 50% of current retail.

180w 24v panel approxh $1100-1400 each. Bulk cost more like $600.

SELF DISCLOSURE.. as I mentioned in another thread.. I am not 'in' that business but am close to it. No actual financial benefit at this point.

NO major party would go for this, because

a) Labor has vested financial interests/connections in forcing cap and TRADE on us.
b) Libs have the problem of being 'pro privatization' and profit driven. So would likely support profit making private concerns in the elec market. (BIG companies) I'm sure that when privatization occurred clauses guaranteeing the government would not shift the 'profit goalposts' too much would be there.

AM I standing ? :) Not as yet..and 'where' would be a closely guarded secret anyway.. but just look at the AEC vic marginal seats :)

Your point about infrastructure in public hands..YES YES a thousand times YES.....

[I'm even for a 'peoples bank' or some similar structure. (I must look closer at Credit Unions b4 deciding on this)]

BUT... with a strict efficiency model and NO Unionization of the workforce.. abso-bloody-lutely NONE.

The marxist GREENS would tell you about their long term plans as much as Adolph and crowd would spell out for the world their plans for Joos.

You need to know how to read the code :)

Look for

-Social Justice
-Inclusion
-Tolerance
-Fair society

in their policies.

etc and then look at Marxist idealism.

Look for "GLOBAL environmental and social justice"
code for
-REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
-ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. (ALL)

did you read that Vancouver action plan bit ?

cheers

Yep- can't argue with that, your plan IS solid
(too bad I'm NSW as you WOULD have my vote.)

Anyway, I will check out your new references and get back to you with my feedback (I'm just relieved you're one of the few people here that does their homework and brings it into the discussion- it's the least I can do).

(as for Agenda 21- so far found some summaries only generally stating a mix of getting richer nations to try to help poorer nations build green infrastructure and manage their populations (however THAT is supposed to work out). Plenty of implications although I won't jump to conclusions (although I'd assume it's the same aid procedure they always use, only this time its' donating windfarms, panels and condoms- although to be fair, they do handle aid pretty well- it's just they're useless for anything else).

I am for rich countries actively helping poorer ones develop, just so long as I know how much help we're expected to give, and to whom and for what. ;)

Boazy: << AM I standing ? :) Not as yet..and 'where' would be a closely guarded secret anyway.. but just look at the AEC vic marginal seats :) >>

Go for it, Boazy!

One of the great things about Oz politics is that any oddball who can pay the deposit can stand for election.

I look forward to a campaign based on the philosophies you've posted here over the years, under various guises. There's just so much fascinating material that your supporters and others could bring to light in such a campaign.

I encourage you to affirm your convictions by standing for election in your own name.

Boazy for PM!

Hi Hazza.. thanx 4 ur support :) in principle anyway.. notice how the very next post was an almost hysterical one by CJ threatening to 'expose' all my 'thoughts' from OLO he has gleaned over the years:)

Naughty CJ..

If I ever stood for election, it would be on the grounds of what I really think rather than what I think the voters would like me to think.

So...perhaps in the eyes of Green slime :) there would be little chance of my getting up haha.. ooooh BUT.. it's never about 'winning' is it.. it's about PREFERENCES and what deal one can make for the 'oddball' vote of hmmmm *thinks*...maybe 251 yep..that would take one nearby seat and there are 3 others where the difference is much less than that.

Oh..let's not forget McEwen.. 25votes won it for the coalition.

Greens are benefitting from ..

a) Disillusioned labor
b) Young as yet uninformed people who don't YET understand the Green slime's policies.. but.. they will.

So..... I guess that's why BB wants the voting age reduced to 16 :)

"They are dumb... they don't know about our true agenda yet... they are still idealists..LET'S GET EM"

BUT....
I'ts amazing how people's eyes bulge when you show them what is really going on in the world of 'ClimateChange/Global Warming' and who is making the bigggg $$$ from it.

Boazy: << I'ts amazing how people's eyes bulge >>

I think you're mistaking people rolling their eyes with them bulging. Not that you'd notice.

<< If I ever stood for election, it would be on the grounds of what I really think rather than what I think the voters would like me to think. >>

So what would be your problem with them reading your posts to this forum over the years?

CJ.. bless you my son :) I'd read them MYSELF.

Except..I'd add that I have now modified my style to be more 'cautious' :)

Let's face it.. if you had done the same work (and I had used the same approach) as Sonofgloin... you would have reached the same inescapable conclusions.. and agreed with my position if not my style.

I would not like to deny you my absolutely non Islamophobic insights.. so..why not have a look at the link (65:4) and vid ?
Then you are in a position to declare my statements 'phobic' or rational.

So.. I'll even apologise for my 'brazen blunt sledgehammer' approach...in the end.. a 1000 lighter taps with the small hammer will still drive in the nail that a sledgehammer will in one whack :)

I will not however apologise for my conclusions.. as most of that which I posted was not from 'me'.. (which is why I was so confident, and often angry) it was from villains (oops..SCHOLARS:) from that faith.

Now...I'm seeking to use the tap tap method in exposing the Green/Climate change scam.
I had a long convo with one of the socialist groups this morning covering quite a bit of ground..including Climate change.. G20, Gore, Strong, capitalism etc..I was mainly interested in why they are so anti 'globalization' when it seems so "marxist" to be so.

She said it was because of the capitalist elements in Globalization.
Presumably.. 'socialist' globalization is fine with her.

I can actually believe that you would, Boaz.

>>If I ever stood for election, it would be on the grounds of what I really think rather than what I think the voters would like me to think.<<

On that basis, you'd be a shoo-in, I suspect. Especially if you chose to stand in an electorate where the twang of banjo strings still echoes faintly across the creek...

And I would help - I suspect CJ might give me a hand - gathering together the accumulated aperçus of Boaz_David and Polycarp, and binding it together with the wisdom of ALGOREisRICH, in a sort of neo-Little Red Book.

Except that it couldn't be red, I guess.

Any suggestions for a title, CJ?

Sorry Boazy - not interested in indulging your latest paranoid fantasies. I've probably had enough of your "insights" for a lifetime, thanks.

Besides which, Pericles' idea looks like much more fun :)

Now let's see... how about

"Prude and Prejudice"?

"Fear and Loathing in Melbourne"?

"The 'Lyin' of BOAZ_David"?

Any other suggestions?

Al all those code words you mentioned...
-Social Justice
-Inclusion
-Tolerance
-Fair society

are misleading. These are not socialist conspiracies but an ideal for building better mutually beneficial societies. Call it win-win if you like rather than the one-sided relationships that exist currently. The UN may not be the best place, but something needs to be done to even up the balance globally - it is not happening now.

Even Conservative parties use that rhetoric.

The differences might be in how the different parties/groups want to go about achieving those goals. Or how seriously they believe in better and fairer international relations.

What is wrong with a party like the Greens, striving for fairer relations between rich and poor countries. The current state of affairs often leaves the poor not only poorer, but in many cases lumbers them with degraded environments no longer suitable for farming.

The biggest threats to freedom and democracy (more rhetoric words) is continued one-sided and imbalanced relationships with other nations. This only breeds discontent. But it keeps the war mongerers happy.

We reap what we sow.

Pelly

I'm quie aware that those words are noble in themselves.

But to me.. both sides of politics use them for their own nefarious and materialistic reasons.

Note the last 2 posts of CJ and Pericles.. see how they react to the idea of someone making a public stand on issues of conviction.

I stated that if I stood for election... I'd stand on what I believe.
Those to don't get out to the Melbourne Eastern Suburbs much and I don't think they know how 'our mob' feel about certain issues.

But then they would compile a list of things they feel are detrimental to that cause....exposing my 'darker side' :)
Well..if they want to wade though thousands of posts like a schoolboy wide eyed and plucking the wings of a fly.. that's their perogative.
But the last thing I want to do is become such a target :)
You want to know how CJ and Pericles would work ? here it is.

http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/

If you want to 'hear' how CJ or PERICLES would sound.. just look at that video where the 'ner ner' bloke gloating like a 12 yr old kid is Nick Lowles the HNH chief scumbag.

Fortunately for me ..I have no association with National Front groups :) oh..I know.. they would tie me in with the 'exlusive' brethos' :)

The difference of course is that I would bring out the same evidence which they are so loathe to examine..and it would make them look like the dills they are (if behavior is any guide)

But there are much better forums in which to make a point than making ones'self a target of HNH type campaigns.

Pelican...speaking of rhetoric :) I had a peek at Family First Web site.

http://www.vic.familyfirst.org.au/state.php

What we care about:

* Making our streets safer
* Better health care
* Improved public transport
* More affordable housing

All relative terms.

I guess that's how elections are won/lost... slogans.

People can only relate to such ideas eh.. "oh.. that damn train wasn't on time..and I was late for work"

*Improved Public transport*

Imagine this.. a serious campaign about "examining the scientific evidence for climate change and why you are being deceived" :)

Oooooooh yeah..that would fly... like a lead balloon.

Hi Boazy - I think you've got your Nicks arse-up.

"HOPE not hate" looks like a thoroughly worthy campaign that is dedicated to opposing the politics of hatred in the UK. I can see why you'd be worried if a similar campaign was mounted here.

If there's a "scumbag" in that video, it's Nick Griffin, rather than Nick Lowles. Griffin appears to be defending street thuggery by his supporters, while Lowles does a very good job of flustering the racist buffoon.

Al
True, many elections are won on grand motherhood statements or noble pronouncements - not evil in themselves.

Sometimes to solve the woes of inequity, solutions may in themselves create problems, it is not an easy task and many vested interest groups with their hand in the melting pot may taint the desired outcomes.

Most people who go into politics want to do what they think is right for their country (with some notable exceptions) even if we may not always agree. The issue comes down to how a party or candidate will go about achieving those goals and how much consultation with various groups is involved in coming to those conclusions.

Some think it good enough for a party to state their position prior to election with an indication of how they will pay for promises or policies.

Often, after the election process, there is no further accountability or involvement by citizens until the next election - that is the problem with our imperfect system. Our electoral system is also flawed allowing those (sometimes) with the lowest overall vote to win government.

The other aspect is increasing participation from the citizenry other than at election time, and how that might be achieved.

All these issues come under the banner of governance - a noble ideal in itself particularly in the international arena. How it can be achieved or even improved is indeed a tricky business but we should not stop trying because it might be too hard.

A relevant story from today's 'National Times':

<< Fickle voters desert Labor in search of greener pastures

ANDREW STEVENSON
June 8, 2010

The sudden, massive - and for Kevin Rudd, potentially catastrophic - departure of more than 1.1 million voters from Labor's camp in only three months is anything but an overnight sensation. The power and reach of the two great political tribes has been in decline in Australia for four decades. >>

http://tiny.cc/avpq8

>>> The power and reach of the two great political tribes has been in decline in Australia for four decades <<<

I can only hope the decline continues and we achieve political parties who are interested and devoted in governing for the nation. And that finally the penny will drop the our planet is not infinite and the key to sustainability is co-operation rather than exploitation.

Will be voting Greens (again) at both state and federal levels this year as I have for the past 15 years.

Yes Severin I will be doing the same.

I love the way the Greens are painted as 'something to be feared' when parties get worried about their voting base. They can't win a trick sometimes with the Conservative vote, we have some playing the socialist conspiracy card only to be outdone by the Greens as a capitalist conspiracy.

Gotta laugh.

Another excellent article about the Greens in Australia, written by the former national president of the erstwhile Australian Democrats, from 'The Drum' today:

<< It's time

Aron Paul

Both established major parties are on the nose. Diving popularity for Abbott and Rudd and a rejection of their parties by nearly one in four voters have led some, including former Democrat leader Natasha Stott-Despoja to muse whether it 'might even be time for a new political party?'

So far however, the Greens have been the beneficiary and are proving more electorally effective than their Democrat predecessors which they replaced on the cross-benches.

The surge in the Green polling to up to 16 per cent, along with the party's recent 20 per cent record in the Tasmanian election, shows that criticism suggesting the party would be unable to attract a broad base of support has proven to be unfounded. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2920791.htm

You have a rather odd understanding of what happens when you put yourself forward for public office, Boaz.

>>I stated that if I stood for election... I'd stand on what I believe... they would compile a list of things they feel are detrimental to that cause... But the last thing I want to do is become such a target... I have no association with National Front groups :) oh..I know.. they would tie me in with the 'exlusive' brethos<<

The reality is that all of your attitudes, opinions, musings, likes and dislikes will be open to scrutiny.

For example, if you are ashamed of being associated with the Exclusive Brethren, you are going to have to come right out and say it. There'll be no place for Boaz-style evasion and circumlocution out on the hustings.

The fact is, your history here alone will reveal that you have a very specific view of religious observance, a history of inflicting corporal punishment on teenage daughters, a (somewhat recently acquired) penchant for economic conspiracy theory, a set of rather firm views on immigration, a largely expedient view on international competition in your market segment, and a fascination with the policies of the BNP.

On that last topic, here's some free advice. "HOPE not hate" is a far more acceptable concept to the general public than "HATE not hope". You fell into a hole with your blind foray into the politics of Barking; don't make the same mistake, by misreading the basic decency of the general public.

By the way, did you see the Barking t-shirt on the HOPE not hate website? Cute, eh?

I've probably missed out a few areas that could be of interest, but those headlines would be tough enough to work with, even with the support of "your mob" in Melbourne's Eastern Suburbs.

Incidentally, I have no doubt whatsoever that you will stand on what you believe. But you must forgive me if I find that a source of some gentle amusement, rather than an indication of your potential for inspiring leadership.

Dear Severin and Pelican. (Green voters)

I would like to try to persuade you to choose other than the Greens.. no offense.. I don't support any of the major parties either, I do support FF but my preference would be for an Independant (who does genuinely care for both people and our place.)

I could goto considerable effort to demonstrate the Greens policies are dangerous.. but space is a limitation.

Let's explore some of their policies and see whether you see any danger signals..

POLICY E.5
1. global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.

6. the international financial institutions that govern aid, development, trade, and transnational financial movements require extensive reform to enable them to provide global economic justice.

POLICY E.6

4.all peoples have the right to self-determination.

5.developing nations have the right to economic independence and to sovereignty.

COMMENT
Do you not see something of a contradiction between E5 and E6 ?

E5 "Global Governance"
E6 "Self determination and sovereignty"

Could you 2 explain to me the primary reason for your Green support?

-Human Rights?
-Environment/Glogal Warming?
-Other?

Given the nature of mankind.. do you foresee any dangers in anything resembling 'Global'....governance?

ps..I appreciate your willingness to discuss with manners and respect :

All this stuff about independents, & minor parties will, I hope, die when the acid test, the actual vote, comes along. All this stuff is very dangerous to our stability.

We got a messy GST, costing billions to administer, because we had a bunch of twits in a balance of power at the time. Without them we would have got either a practical GST, or none. Either would have been preferable than what we got.

WE could even end up like Italy did for decades. Musical chairs in their squabbling minor parties, led to a change of government every time someone emptied a milk bottle. Latin politics we don't need.

I could not despise Rudd more if I tried. Labor really did get right to the bottom of the barrelto find that bit of slime.

I have no opinion on Abbott yet, I've had too many interesting things going on recently to bother thinking about him.

However, I would much rather one or the other of them than a lash up of fussy minors, & independents, playing god in my life. The worst thing is that minors & independents all want to "make a difference" & do not know enough to see the unexpected concequences of their proposals. Catastrophe is inevitable with all of them, whereas it is only probable with the big two.

No one can get a full idea of what an independent really stands for, on all issues, & minor parties keep changing their stripes, every time you take your eyes off them for even a minute. No thanks to either of them.

At least with the big two, we have a fair idea of what we are getting, even if it is slime

Sheesh Hasbeen... that was quite a mouthful :) (of whining bile that is)

But you made one assertion as follows: "GST Costing BILLIONS..to administer"

Can you support that assertion with any documentary evidence?

Your cynicism of the major's is well founded in my view, but your criticism of the minors may be a bit shallow.

The Major parties represent:

COALITION "Big and small Business + Farmers"
LABOUR "Working Class voters, migrants."

In both cases, my cynicism is that whichever gets into power just changes the Consultant companies they outsource their work to.. each one having a harem of 'politically correct' (for them)of companies who they groom and suckle.

Labour is all about ETS now."Emmissions TRADING Scheme"...hmmmm *looks at ENVEX* the carbon trading company run by BOB CARR!
The Greens have 132 pages of a "worse than the tax law" Sustainable Climate bill which would cost megabucks to administer also, and screw the country... I mean really screw it up. (Severin and Pelly..don't read that bit:)

Greens talk about 'social justice' is just code for unsustainable welfare and taking Australia into a global socialist network sponsored by George Soros, Al Gore (and his network of 'Green capo's)and left leaning political blocs.

All of those blokes are 'ubercapitalists' and the last thing they (and their labour flunkies here working with them) want, is to lose the power which will guarantee a capitalist reward for their newly found 'Green' screen saver skin.

Much as I hate the damn GST it remains the simplest way to rapidly raise needed revenue to repay debt.. all we have to do is say "We're BROKE..gst up to 12%" end of story.

Yell...kick...scream all you like.. it might be the only solution.

pericles.. I have a MUCH better T-shirt for BNP supporters to wear in Barking...

Imagine a picture of billy braggs with his finger in Richard Barnbrook's chest/face and in the background Braggs HUGE mansion in Dorset.

Caption.. "I support the battlers"

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.alandunn67.co.uk/bragg3.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.alandunn67.co.uk/selfportraits.html&usg=__6o4l8d2oCIlCt4tXWLXVdmoSn9I=&h=375&w=500&sz=95&hl=en&start=3&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=px8W6d2_u4XWzM:&tbnh=98&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbilly%2Bbragg%2527s%2Bhome%2Bdorset%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1

Don't worry Pericles..the Barking Dagenham story is not yet over.
Nor is the story of British Politics.

Al, I don't scream about the GST, I just don't like the bastardised version of it that we got. I understand that if we want the governments to hold our hands throughout all our lives it's gunna cost, & cost heaps.

I'd rather get government right out of life. When I was young we paid our insurances, which were a few pennies a week, & looked after ourselves.

Of course we didn't go around shoving hearts & things into all & sundry, & patching up those of us who didn't get a second hand one. This probably costs more than people dying when their bits were worn out, used to.

I don't want documentery evidence of the mess the implementation was, that would mean listening to some fool academic. What I do know is that it cost the little group of companies I ran, [just 16 employees], all the profits for a full year, just to get going. It then, & still does, cost half an administration wage, to keep it going. That, as well as a new accounting program to keep the cost down to there.

Mate, you only have to look at the damn idiots we get in local government to see that most independents are as useful as the old one about things on a bull, & local government is where most of them start. Granted they are not much worse than the party hacks in Brisbane, & Ipswich, but we have no way of really knowing that before voting.

So Al, run if you like, but I won't be helping you get your deposit back.

Speaking of a third power in Aussie politics (I'm sure somebody at least mentioned it?), I took a long hard look at New Australia. The unfortunate part is that as far as I know, they've not yet attracted enough members to register with the AEC in time for the coming elections. I'm politically interested enough to see that they have some good ideas, just not politically savvy enough to know if those ideas would work effectively.

Their web site even has a little quiz to see where your political ideologies lay. I bravely took the test and was amazed to find that according to the quiz, I fall into the camp of Socialist/Greens. Me?

I also notice that they'll give their preferences to the Greens. Check 'em out....

http://www.newaustralia.net/

Al I've been reading the Greens main policy page (finally got time away) and the closest things to what you described doesn't have anything suspicious.
-Multiculturalism seems to pledge, as measures, anti-discrimination measures for services, providing assistance to non-English speakers and abolsih "Australian Values" testing for Immigrants.
-Justice only talks about separating powers of govermnent and making all tiers (legislative, judicial) more independent from each other, abolishing compulsory sentencing, as well as aligning our justice obligations to UN and factoring in social/cultural considerations into sentencing (the last two of which I disagree with).

I've found no socialist agenda at all, besides their pro-public-funded services and anti-privatisation platform- both of which I personally support. Could you provide your sources?

Noted Hazz...sorry I didn't include links there.

Here we go :)

http://greens.org.au/node/776

Point 1. "Global Governance" (=Socialism)

http://greens.org.au/node/781

Point 4. "All peoples have the right to self determination"

Hazza.. let's say one of those "peoples" are within Australia and they happen to want to live under Sharia law ? :)

Imagine if one community has values which include old men marrying multiple small children..and FGM and wife beating, and sexual relations with captive women slaves... all of which are quite ok under Sharia (whether or not you and I see such things actually being practiced by the friendly loving monogomous Muslim family next door).

Once you change a legal framework....then people are free to practice according to their religious prinicples without the legal restraint we have currently.

Imagine complete Sovereignty/self determination for Aboriginals? or worse.. Taswegians :)

Excuse me for being thick..but I cannot see how 'Global Governance' and the Greens emphasis on 'Human Rights' is compatible with "All peoples should have "self determination".

*IMPORTANT*.. I don't know how much you have read on the areas of
-UN
-Socialism
-Human Rights
-Political Correctness
-Multiculturalism
-Marxism
-Frankfurt School
-Herbert Marcuse
-60s revolution/counter culture (USA)

FYI
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

...but it is riddled/infested/infected with Socialism. (the soft version) -the 'hard' version will come after they get control. "Global Governance"

Al
E5 "Global Governance"
E6 "Self determination and sovereignty"

I don't see a contradiction or a problem if the structures are set up to ensure fairer economic relationships for developing nations and better humanitarian and environmental caveats on (for example) mining offshore and the effects on the people of those nations.

It is possible, IMO to do that while still ensuring a nation's right to sovereignty. eg. free trade is not the great equaliser it is purported to be and I can see partly your point of forcing nations into trade relationships they find devestate their own industries/agriculture etc. Or lead to exports out of poorer nations while their own local markets and food security is adversely affected.

It is possible to marry the sovereign rights of nations with the idea of governance ie. accountability, fairness, equity and transparency ('scuse the buzz words).

We live with those two competing ideals all the time - individual sovereignty and laws to protect for the greater good ie. we can live as free men/women but we cannot steal, rape, pillage or murder without consequence.

CONT/...

Part II:
Your comment about a good Independent candidate is apt, but Canberra rarely stands independents. On occasion you might get a one-issue party in the mix - we even had the sundried tomato party at one point in protest at the ACT self-government despite two referendums opposing the decision. :)

The Greens appeal to me as their policies look at the big picture and they hold environmental concerns as a priority. Anyone who cares about the planet and human interaction would naturally be attracted to the Greens.

I don't share some of their views eg. Some aspects of drug policy (although it is not as bad as it sounds, the Greens were for a drug trial in the first instance).

Bob Brown also attracts me as a man who is sincere, honest and actually walks the walk on accountability. He is one of the few politicians who is willing to vote against actions such as rises in politician's salaries arguing for restraint while government has sought restraint from the public. No politician is perfect and no politician can ever reflect every position a voter holds but we vote the closest to our ideals.

There are too many issues to list here but overall I believe the Greens are more closely aligned with the people and less aligned with vested interest groups. Naturally the environmental bent is attractive although I remain open-minded about man induced climate change. There are other issues like deforestation, pollution, urban congestion, overpopulation, biodiversity, water management. The environment is not just about CC.

Not really Al- their "self determination' principal is only being applied to West Papua in policy.

Global governance really only boils down to nations obeying international law (should only relate to international relations- the rest of the laws are rubbish), increasing support of UN aid groups (fine), dismantling WTO and similar international bodies (good).

Anyway, as for whether Shariah groups, Aboriginal groups and Taswegians aught to get a separate state; No, yes, yes.

I do not support shariah or wahabis at all and do not want to encourage them to move to Australia and try to confiscate chunks of land, the other two I see no problem with (plus these two communities have a more solid claim to the land, being around near the start of federation and BEFORE).

Hi Pelly and Hazza

interesting feedback.

Ok..let me wax 'biblical' for a moment :) (a moment of madness?)

The idea of global governance does sound good in theory...I admit this.

That's as far as it goes though.

Take this ancient story for example.

Joseph.. sold into slavery by his brothers.. emerges as a big shot in Phaoroh's court.. running just about everything for Phaoroh.

Then.. long story short.. we read these words:

"Then..there arose a Pharaoh who did not know about Joseph" (Exodus 1:8)

"Look," he said to his people, "the Israelites have become much too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country."

11 So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh.

and so the story goes.. life went downhill for the Israelites.

In the UN we have a number of dark forces at work..where the last thing on their mind is 'fairness, justice and equality'

Some examples

-OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference a block of 56 voting nations) who want to put masking tape over our mouths if we want to take issue with Muslim men beating their wives and speak thus openly.

-JAPANESE with their lobbying and 'linked aid' to small countries to sway their vote about issues of concern to Japan (Whaling mainly)

-The ENVIRONMENT crowd.... Maurice Strong, and many others.

-MARXISTS. (they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk)

THE PROBLEM.... is where these people and voting blocks..want to 'change' so called 'international law' in ways which benefit their stakeholders.

So..any 'Global' anything results in just a bigger version of our current spat over mining tax.
In such a situation.. does anyone really think the 'little guy' will ever get heard?

I honestly don't see how true 'Global' Governance would be any less prone to corruption and spin and 'fixed' outcomes as local governance would be.
"Autonomous regions" Hazza are seldom that in reality. Look for
-Migration patterns forced on them by the 'Big Brother' government.
-Resource exploitation by the same.

See China...and mineral discoveries in Tibet.

Ultimately.. 'Global Governance' in the mind of the Greens..in my opinion is as much about 'social' as environmental. And that's what worries me.

The Greens were RABID in trying to force faith schools to employ Gay teachers in Victoria a while back.. they were held back only by the Right wing of the Labor party. (the left was 100% with the Greens)
*Pause* :)

Well, having said I already opposed global governance I really don't see the point in explaining to me why its bad when I know most of all why.

Having said that, I do not believe for one second that Liberals, Nats or Labor would for a second stand up for Australia's sovereign interests (seeing that it was Liberal and LAbor pollies that signed us up in the first place to the UN, Libs keep folding to other country's interests (especially the USA) and Labor have sold off everything Australia owned and floated our dollar). For that matter, there are only two or three parties with a staunch no-compromise policy (One Nation, Australia First) and some independents (of which do not even exist in many electorates- so to vote for them is easier said than done).

-To be honest I don't really feel other country's disputed zones are any of our business, period.

-Thirdly, as an atheist I can't honestly say I'm thrilled faith schools even exist.

I believe we are more likely to see agreement and peace made in the Middle East before the implementation of a World Government.

Too many people believe they are "right", from the religious to the political ideologues.

KH

Agree with your strategy to use preferential voting system to put the Libs/Nats/Labor in their place.

Al
We are coming at cross purposes in regard to global governance - what do you think is meant by global governance?

Without an understanding of your fears I cannot comment. I see global governance much in the same way as KH, an adherence to international laws.

Hey Pelican

I thought Ai was referring to the New World Order conspiracy that neo-cons claimed would be the result of the Copenhagen summit. Sort of a 21st C version of 'reds under the bed'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29

I'm with you and KH in that all countries have common interests and responsibilities such as fishing rights, aiding refugees and other cooperative endeavours.

Of course it's the New World Order of commie Greens disguised as capitalists!

Didn't you know they have a plan to enslave and corrupt the world by introducing gay heroin into the water supply?

Thanks Sev and Pelican.

Personally although I'm against the notion of UN or any similar body actually governing the countries of the world or having a say in how it organizes itself domestically (especially since the religious blasphemy declaration passed from a majority of hyper-religious nations pushing for it despite all the combined countries of the west opposing it), but for things that require international cooperation and issues of conservation, we most definitely aught to demand consensus among the world and set a standard of cooperation.

CJ, I'm glad you are aware that every single cultural sub-group that neocons don't like ARE in fact in a broad secret alliance to impose a doomsday scenario upon the entire world of, basically, a system of governance that Neocons don't like.