Paul, regarding asylum seekers; the Greens’ policies are just TERRIBLE!

I find it just so unbelievable that my old party, for which I was a state candidate in 1995, can develop a position which I so vehemently disagree with!

An open-door policy with no offshore processing and no mandatory detention is just a recipe for disaster! It would just open the floodgates! It would lead to the most massive civil unrest.

Their position, as so often promoted by Sarah Hanson-Young, really does just leave me wide-eyed, agape and slowly shaking my head in total disbelief!!

This is the position I would love to see the Greens adopt:

End onshore asylum-seeking decisively. Regain control of our borders.

Increase our intake of the most needy refugees through our formal immigration program to ~26 000, about double the current level, within a net zero immigration program.

Considerably increase international aid, particularly targeted at the causal factors of refugeeism and at sustainability.

Whilst very fond of the *Greens,* a fact about which I make no secret, I am also rather eclectic in my political views,

(and love parrots and look forward to taking my girls down to the S/W W.A. town of Denmark to see if the Purple Crowns are still in some of their old haunts from the time I was but a nipper)

and even despite the depravity of the LNP, do not find them to be entirely devoid of merit.

For instance, as they at times i.m.o. "telegraph" more than they say (and I find merit also in Bruce Lee's Jeet Kune Do - "absorb what is useful") I believe that the likes of *Belly* and *Shadow* (and others) do the *Greens* a great service by alerting them to the likely eventualities if they continue on their present course.

That's not to say that the wheat is not to be separated from the chaff ..

In *Shadow's* case, the amount of times that I have read some of his/her one liners days in advance of public broadcast, only to hear the EXACT same lines repeated on Capital Hill and similar is a matter about which I no longer bother to count.

And having worked as a microtab analyst for a number of years I have some insight into the mechanism by which they collect the views of the public, and took interest at that time regarding those views that they published and those that they did not. ..

as for now, well, tis a sensitive area and to speak overmuch could have unwanted consequences. Of course, that's not to say that all polls are accurate (especially as they rarely insist on double entry when keying up the data) however ...

t.b.c.

I personally have read a bit of the science of global warming and associated issues and believe, based on my interpretations thereof that indeed the need to reduce our emissions is vital however, as said, it is not the what of the matter that concerns me, but rather the how.

To reiterate, my view as to the best course of action for the *Greens* is only to impose something like the carbon tax and associated measures when the public as a majority mandate it.

As my grandfather was fond of saying (a runner up rhode scholar even with pneumonia and most excellent pathologist)

" ... If you feed out enough rope, they'll eventually hang themselves ... "

..

This whole carbon tax affair has been badly handled and in my paranoid moments has the distinct stench of "man trap" about it, but by all means take that with a pinch of salt.

I.m.o. all the *Green's* have to do to really set themselves apart is to say something like:

" ... as regards global warming etc, whilst we strongly believe "bt" for big trouble because of "p" pollution requiring "s" as a solution etc we will not, despite our power to do so, force this upon you until such time as the majority of you are in agreeance. ... "

If not .. well time will tell, but I would have the *Greens* in for the long term.

..

*Belly* why is the view of the A.M.A. not sufficient for you re the abuse of children by your party in the shadow of the LNP?

..

As for you *Runner* I note based on my interpretation of some of *Pell's* comments during Q.A. recently that even he is not in favor of inflicting such prolonged and hellish circumstances on some of the most vulnerable.

Why not instead just advocate to withdraw from the convention, and make up your own rules regarding same?

Ahh DreamOn, you’ve got me (a mad birdo) dreaming about eclectus parrots at Iron Range. Brightly coloured and very loud. And purple-crowned lorikeets with their high-pitched squeals high in the canopy of the karri forest, and Denmark in WA, with which I have a strong affinity.

----

Further to my last post:

That’s ~26 000 per annum.

Paul, the Greens’ humanitarianism is enormously misguided, IMHO.

Yes they should definitely be strongly humanitarian. Yes they should be very concerned about refugees. But there are much better ways of doing it than facilitating onshore asylum seeking, for goodness sake!

Aaah, yes, the Eclectus parrots - greens and reds and blues ... whom the early naturalists did not even recognise as the same species initially if I do not misrecall?

..

My grandparents owned quite a significant amount of land down there in the day and ran pol-herefords mainly, and also had the block on the left where you turn into *Green's Pool* behind which, from memory, was where *Harry Butler* shot a doco, which included the beautiful pitcher plants.

Carefully, carefully, before one reaches for the sweet nectar in that particular pot.

Dream On you let fly with that Pedophiles shot again and seem rather niggledy in the last few threads.
Have you enjoyed a drink before posting.
Self confidence is a great thing in the right hands.
Not so good if miss placed.
I like your mind Ludwig, my garden is progressing well, the bottle bush now close to 7 meters in flower again.
The best flowers talk,screech in fact eastern Rosella's and scaly breasted.
Others too.
White tipped black cockatoos join in as they fly over morning and just before dark.
Pink and Grey galas hang upside down on the front power lines so I am used to galas D O