In a strange way I think the greens being in control may actually prove to be a good thing in the long term.

Why? Because once they have had their little play at running things even their live in a hole green will realize just what radicle fools they are and chances ar that they, along with the ind will be all but a forgotten Ira in politics.

My bet is the next election will set a record for informal votes.

Rechtub, can I ask you just what you think the radical aspects of the Greens are.

I have two major criticisms of them, and I bet they are quite different yours.

Mine are:

No action on continuous population growth or continuous-growth economics. This means that they just totally don’t get the imperative to achieve sustainable society. This issue is about as big as everything else put together in Australia. The Greens' lack of action on this makes a complete mockery of their supposed environmental ethics.

Secondly, Sarah Hanson-Young’s (and others) radical support for onshore asylum seekers. It is crackers. We need to stop the boats and direct our national efforts at refugee assistance into international aid programs and our offshore refugee programs.

Apart from that, the Greens are pretty much on the right track, off the top of my head right now. But I stand to be corrected.

Despite their wayward aspects, it would be a crying shame if they fell away in forthcoming elections and just allowed the Liblabs to pretty much forget about the various environmental and sustainability-oriented changes that we desperately need to make.

[This is my 4000th post on OLO! ( :>)]

Ludwig, did you miss the one world government bit, or do you like the idea of the UN shoving a hundred million drop kicks our way, for us to feed cloth & house. That should give them a great chance to breed.

Don't you like meat? Let Brownie take charge, & the cows will be gone, & we'll be vegetarians, like it or not.

A quick look at Tasmania should convince you of the level of their management ability. If it were an independent country, it would be a failed state, getting Grease style bail outs.

Hazza, how real are these things that you have listed? Are they just hearsay or exaggerations from people who hate the Greens?

Can you confirm them as being Green policies or ideals?

I’ve levelled heaps of criticism at the Greens on OLO, and indeed since I left them in about 1996, but I still feel as though we’d be better of with them in an influential position in Federal politics than without them.

Ludwig, here's a few.

Gay marriage, every mans right to hunt, fish and enjoy a camp fire.

The banning of coal production, a large portion of the life blood of our economy.

You see these greens have enjoyed the fruits of our way of life, power, roads, mod cons etc,

They communicate by means provided by the very industries now wish to shut down.

I bet they even boil the jug and use an electric toaster in the morning, before they either jump in their fuel buring car, or communicate on thier man made computer

They now wish to deny future generations, some of them greens, the right to enjoy what they enjoyed.

BTW, the reason they polled so well at the last election was due to ill informed labor voters who just couldn't bring themselves to vote liberal.

What they should have done was vote informal, which is what I tip you will see next time, especially if this minority government lasts for the full term.

I just hope they are given enough rope. They will then do the rest themselves.

I'm with Ludwig on this one, I like having them there as a counterpoint to the Lib's and Labor. At the same time I didn't mind having One Nation around, I'd not want either running things but sometimes there are issues that others tiptoe around which should be out there for discussion.

Policies at http://greens.org.au/policies

The downside of policy statements is that often the devil is in the detail and the context that policies are implemented in. I'm maybe not as trusting of the UN and other international bodies as the Greens appear to be, too much history of plays to power blocks over the years to have a lot of credibility left in my view.

I also like seeing exotic animals at the zoo when I visit regardless of the species conservation value. One of the policy goals I read where I thought, I'd rather see the focus on ensuring that the conditions at the Zoo met the animals needs.

R0bert

Underground Radicles. Was there ever another sort?

Rusty

“Why? Because once they have had their little play at running things even their live in a hole green will realize just what radicle fools they are and chances ar that they, along with the ind will be all but a forgotten Ira in politics.”

I disagree

A national economy is too important to leave in the hands of amateur zealots, as we have seen over the past 4 years, Labor have been a rolling disaster

The greens offer only a bigger disaster and I do not see why my lifestyle and life quality should suffer simply to indulge the futile and fanciful whims of morons.

At the next election the Gizzards will become history, labor will be decimated and the greens obliterated

- and that is why they are pushing an immoral tax through whilst they still have the numbers, despite the demands of the electorate to be asked, by testing the decision in an election

It's sad that people are basing the entire idea of 'green power' on the impact to the Greens party, and their entire basis of using that power corresponds to how much it might give members of similarly-named political groups an ego-trip or not;

While we're at it, let's stop our border security because Socialist countries also make a big deal about it, and abolish our banks because the Nazis banked in stolen Jewish gold.
In fact, we should be careful to abolish all private business because Richard Nixon probably liked private enterprise too;

We should never do anything for ourselves if it means somewhere, somehow, a random political advocate might get his jollies over it.

You know it makes sense!

Ludwig, I watched Brown, on an ABC news bulletin, promote one world government, with, & he stressed, one vote one value world wide.

Perhaps he has since been told to shut up for a year or two, as I have not herd it repeated, but it was loud & clear, & from his mouth.

Wasn't it Bob Brown who said that thousands of 'hand machine guns' were in the possession of ordinary Australians?

Wasn't that just a big lie?

If it was then doesn't that make Bob Brown a liar?

I also like seeing exotic animals at the zoo when I visit regardless of the species conservation value. One of the policy goals I read where I thought, I'd rather see the focus on ensuring that the conditions at the Zoo met the animals needs.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 14 July 2011 7:51:23 AM

I ever thought in this day & age people were not aware of the dreadful cruelty involved in keeping exotic animals in unnatural areas- just because some selfish people would like to go see them .

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&source=hp&q=cruelty+to+elephant+baby+trained+zoo+&btnG=Google+Search&oq=cruelty+to+elephant+baby+trained+zoo+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=3957l20362l0l23084l37l37l0l27l27l0l408l3584l2-1.8.1l10&fp=1&biw=1440&bih=587&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&cad=b

Hasbeen, that is my major problem with the whole thing at present. The concept of a UN Government... The UN at present is overpopulated with smaller and smaller Countries as Countries "Balkan-ise" (or subdivide) most of which are pushing agendas that have nothing to do with themselves, except for affecting their share of the various geo-political pie-fights, posturing to support whomever will pay them (like FIFA, with many representative nations being involved in both problems).

How this is going to fit in with the distinct dislike evinced by the Greens for foreign ownership of mining rights would be interesting to have explained. With the UN deciding things like who can dig holes where, I'd be very surprised if Australian's, let alone indigenous Australian's, could or would be any better off.

I mean, we only have to look at Timor Leste, despite the UN involvement (I'd say because of it) and despite the massive LNG/Oil reserves, the vast bulk of the indigenous population barely survives, while the small minority that mire themselves in the corruption live like kings. I'm really not interested in supporting any party that is so embarrassed at living in a developed, first world Nation (albeit one with some iniquity) that they would see the solution as being giving it all away, in order that we may seek absolution by becoming a third world nation ourselves (although, that WOULD stop the boats).

Bob Brown said this... Bob Brown said that... it's true because I heard it on TV, but I can't remember when, what program, what channel, or even exactly what he said and/or the context.

But trust me, because I've shown myself to be so impartial and credible in the past.

Rehctub, responding to your criticism of the Greens:

<< gay marriage >>

Not something that worries me either way.

<< every mans right to hunt, fish and enjoy a camp fire. >>

Well, these activities should not be open slather. You should not be able to hunt in national parks, for example. You can fish in most national parks, which is a little dodgy, I reckon. We also need to regulate fishing according to fishing stocks, pressure on individual species, etc. And we should definitely not allow campfires where there is a risk of wildfire.

It is a matter of sensible regulation. The trouble is, with more and more pressure on our natural environment, regulations are progressively getting tighter, and understandably so. It is certainly not just the Greens that are doing or espousing this sort of thing.

<< They now wish to deny future generations, some of them greens, the right to enjoy what they enjoyed. >>

No, no, exactly the opposite. They wish to allow future generations to keep on enjoying a high quality of life.

<< I just hope they are given enough rope >>

Wow, we really see this very differently rehctub. I’d like to see the Greens develop a proper sustainability strategy and take over from the dinosaur-era grossly antisustainable liblabs.

My major criticism of them is that they haven't done this. They should have done it years ago. It makes no sense for them not to have this overall plan, especially regarding their hopeless lack of criticism of continuous-growth economics and rapid population growth.

<< Bob Brown said this... Bob Brown said that... it's true because I heard it on TV, but I can't remember when, what program, what channel, or even exactly what he said and/or the context>>

I think this was the one Hasbeen was referring to:

“GREENS leader Bob Brown…This 'people's assembly' would be based on one person, one vote, one value and was being vigorously promoted in Europe and the United Nations, he said yesterday.”
http://www.theage.com.au/national/brown-advocates-for-one-world-parliament-20110629-1gqz1.html

<< I watched Brown, on an ABC news bulletin, promote one world government, with, & he stressed, one vote one value world wide. >>

Well if that be the case Hasbeen, I’d agree that our Mr Brown is a bit wonky and needs to be pulled sharply into line by his party.

So, was he saying this as a personal opinion or as Greens official ideology? It would be the former, surely.

Yeah, I’ve heard him say things too which have almost made me chuck my stubby at the TV set!

Well, that answers my question. Thanks SPQR.

PHOOWEY to a one world parliament, Mr Brown!

@SPQR:

Thanks for the link - not quite so sinister in context, is it?

"Senator Brown said a global parliament would tackle international questions such as nuclear proliferation, currency speculation, marine eco-system destruction ''and those billion people who could be fed and literate if only a tenth of global military spending was sent to their assistance''.

But such a body would not replace sovereign governments - it would have to be established with the agreement of these governments".

While such a body is probably inevitable, Brown emphasises that its establishment will not happen any time in the foreseeable future. More the pity, because a world parliament would be ideally suited to tackling climate change cooperatively, or wrestling with other global problems that have no unilateral solutions - like the refugees that seem to get people in a lather.

I think that Brown was unwise to use the terminology "one world parliament", precisely because it invites the kind of deliberate misrepresentation that we see here. Oh well, nobody's perfect!

Morgan, you people are unbelievable. You could rationalise mass murder as helping the planet. The only deliberate misrepresentation we see around here is that perpetuated by Gillard, Brown & company, & propagated by folk like you.

I read the linked article and while I disagree with what seem like some of the likely consequences of such a government it's not as extreme an idea as some.

I don't personally want the worlds billions overriding Australia's millions on what our laws should be, it's hard enough getting the governments we have now to treat people with decency and not to harm some groups to pander for targetted voting blocks of others.

R0bert

@ Hasbeen:

So you're not going to admit that your memory of Brown's words is faulty? To give you the benefit of the doubt, TV reports often only give half the story, undoubtedly so for the populist crap that appears to be your main source of information. Here's a tip: if you're going to rely on TV as the basis for your hysterical claims, verify your source before embarrassing yourself forever in public.

In my experience, anybody who denies AGW (particularly to the ridiculous extent of claiming global cooling) and also goes into histrionics about "one world government", is most likely to have a roo or two loose in their top paddock. Once upon a time you used to post interesting, sane comments, even if from an ultra-conservative position.

Lately it's all just abuse and bile. What's happened?

@Morgan

<< not quite so sinister in context, is it? >>

On the contrary –in context –it’s terrifying . Here’s the context:
1) We have the leader of the greens and govts key coalition partner declaring he’s for world govt and “one person one vote”.
2) We have “the greatest moral cause of the age” working for, among other things, world wealth and power redistribution:
http://toryaardvark.com/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/
3) We have a history of OZ govts, of all persuasions, being too eager to sign up to commitments that are not in our interests.
(none of which sounded too threatening or sinister when they were entered into!)

And this bit of fluff : << it would have to be established with the agreement of these governments">>
is right up there with whoppers like :

1) : "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead," or

2) Australia’s saving in CO2 under the Gillard carbon tax “ 0.000463933% of the worlds CO2”
is going to save the barrier reef!

@ SPQR:

Oh dear. I'm surprised you didn't throw the Illuminati in there somewhere. Like I said, Bob Brown was unwise to refer to a future 'one world parliament', because it's almost an invitation to bring the 'one world government' millennial nutters out from their usual obscurity. He specifically said that the conceptual body would operate alongside existing sovereign governments, so sorry - no "one world government", I'm afraid.

Given the lack of success of the UN, I think that such a body could replace that lumbering, nepotism-riddled bureaucracy. Certainly, in the 21st century globalised world where we are all affected by international problems that can't be solved independently, it makes a lot of sense to start talking about better means of cooperation between nations. Maybe that's Brown's intention in raising the issue now - it should perhaps be interpreted as a brave, principled intiative by a well-respected Australian political thinker.

I'd like to know how we can hope to address international problems like AGW and refugees without having an effective international body where representatives from all sovereign nations can collaborate to produce strategies upon which they agree. One of the major arguments used by those who oppose Australia doing anything about AGW is that any actions we take independently are futile unless others do likewise. It seems to me that the sort of body mooted by Bob Brown is precisely the sort of structure to facilitate such cooperation.

I know that none of that's as exciting or scary as the 'one world government' conspiracy theory to which you apparently subscribe. That aside, how do you think that sovereign governments around the world should go about dealing with international problems like climate change or the massive proliferation of refugees currently being experienced by the wealthier nations like ours?

@Morgan,
Your last comment is even more illuminati-ing (and incriminating ) than Bob’s. Reading the post I get the distinct impression that you see Bob’s error as being less that he covets world govt and more that he was foolhardy enough to talk openly of it (wiser by far to treat the electorate like mushrooms!)

And despite your assurance that Bobs favored model would not impact on national sovereignty. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that if the keystone is to be one person one vote, the sovereign nations of the West are not going to get too many things passed –and may not stay sovereign very long, either.

I do however agree with you about weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. But this can be done without pushing the dubious and divisive AGW agenda.
The Ludwig doctrine (since he was the first to enunciated it on OLO) is eminently more sensible, and saleable : Less about AGW and more about sustainable and clean living.

What solutions we eventually get --as with AIDS, Smallpox and a million other issues --will likely to be financed and engineered by the developed world and the rest of the world will ,as usual, simply free ride. Free ride and breed some more, to be all the better positioned for Bob’s one person one vote brave new world!

Morg old chap, thanks for the apology, nice to see you admit when you are wrong.

Actually it's a pity some of you twits, with enough screws loose, [you wouldn't have enough room between the rocks for roos], to follow these radical ratbags, don't sit down & take stock.

Better to be humiliated privately, as you see your folly, than continue making fools of your selves on the net.

Take a leaf out of Ludwig's book. He picked the best of what they had to offer, but dumped the ratbag stuff.

What impresses me the most about this stream is the extreme right views of rehctub, hasbeen and colrouge and others banging on about the crazy zealous greens.

What you don't realise, dear friends, is that you are far more right, of centre than the Greens are left of it. Not to mention way more zealous.

I often find it amusing even when you call the ALP leftist, when they are clearly mildly right of centre.

I suppose when you're so far right everyone is to the left of you.

I really am getting sick of ignorant extremists, left and right, making most of the noise in the public discourse.

The Greens, ALP and independents, straddling either side of the centre, seem to be making a good coalition, despite having the self-interests of the Murdoch empire to contend with.

Another one from the net.

10 Reasons Why I Voted for Bob Brown & the Greens

I voted Green because I believe oil companies profits of 4% on a litre of petrol are obscene, but my government taxing the same litre of petrol at 27..5% isn’t.

I voted Green because I believe my government will do a better job of spending the money you earn than you would.

I voted Green because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Green because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

I voted Green because I think illegal aliens have a right to free housing, health care, education, and welfare benefits – and the right to change our society to suit their cultural demands .

I voted Green because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to my government for redistribution as we Greens see fit.

I voted Green because I believe ‘enlightened, progressive’ judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

I voted Green because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people for their oil who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or frog.
I voted Green because I want to convert Australia to a ‘carbon neutral green economy’ to create jobs – even after Spain has proven the green economy destroys three times as many jobs as it creates and leads to 20 percent unemployment.
I voted Green because my head is so firmly planted up my a*se, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever see another point of view.

"I suppose when you're so far right everyone is to the left of you."

True. It all started way back when those loony latte lefties Hawke and Keating did radical right wing things to the economy to liberalise it. Things like floating the dollar and deregulating the banks.

The new Hawke Labor government had moved further to the right than the Liberals. The Liberals then became so wedged between Labor on their right and their fear of differentiating themselves by moving to the left and becoming liberal Liberals they remained impotent until Keating finally ego'd himself out.

Along came Pauline Hanson. A dream come true for non liberal Liberals. She tested her far right policies on the electorate with such success that it alarmed Howard into incorporating them into his platform neutralising Hanson at the same time. The Liberals were now free to be as far right as they liked.

Labor did not want to move back to the left and remained impotent until Howard tried to murdoch his battlers with workchoices.

So now we have a centre right government and a Howard legacy opposition who have strayed so far to the right that their perspective is unbalanced.

The Greens and independents are merely filling the void created by our unbalanced and dysfunctional political duopoly.

Now if only the odious shrilling from the extremists could be harnassed toward balance...

Ive been away for 6 weeks so am late on posting. The One World Government is a Socialist Concept of the 1960s. Headquarters were built in the old USSR during the Cold war.