I read a very interesting article by Cassandra Wilkinson this morning:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/labor-called-and-it-wants-its-base-back/story-e6frgd0x-1226421978868

"Labor called and it wants its base back"

By comparing the greens / labor relationship to the coalition / one nation. The obvious electoral benefit of a fringe party mopping up the extremist votes has to be balanced against the costs or association / collaboration with those extremist policies.

There is no doubt that having the greens on the extreme left wing has allowed labor to focus on its centre and helped put many labor MPs into parliament, however, having missed the opportunity to excise this threat, the greens have now grown to the point where they are having a serious influence in dictating Labor policy, and this is causing the conservative working class to flee to the coalition.

The reality on the ground is that the greens now command 25% of the left wing vote, and while a chemotherapy type putting the greens last in every thing might bump the primary vote, the 2pp will drop further from 44%. Also the greens are not held in quite the same opprobrium as One Nation, and it is unlikely that labor can stomp them out completely.

I think that putting the greens last in everything is a good long term tactic, but have serious doubts that Labor will have the guts to reduce its seats to a Queensland like level in the short term. If this is just "puffing" to help negotiations with the greens, the long term outlook is dire.

One would hope the Conservative side of politics in this country will agree with Labors move.
It however is true that currently just say no,to every thing is in favor in that group.
Hence Abbott has refused to even take part in talks to resolve boat refugee troubles.
Mirrored in almost every policy, see SMs own offers on NBN , little difference in current leaders of Liberal party, and the lost Greens exist, both sponsor the next deaths at sea.
Reminding us Labor mucked up,some thing few would not agree with, but for political gain refusing to be part of fixing it.
A brief look at even SMs post history and mine, will uncover our mutual distrust and dislike of the radical greens.
I ask again, is todays Australian version of the Tea Party to use Greens to harm Labor and Australia,or be part of removing the problem?

When you sit on the extreme right of politics like you SM, I suppose the Greens would appear as being the extreme left. This 'campaign' to destabilise the loose agreement we The Greens have with Labor is interesting, something I don't fully support. The campaign seems to be run by a couple of Labor mugs from the NSW right NSW Party secretary Sam Dastyari and chief government whip Joel Fitzgibbon and member for Hunter. The 'campaign' is being fueled by the conservative press led by the usual suspects the Murdoch fish wrappers.
Something of interest at the next federal election only 3 of the 9 Green senators are up again plus Adam Bandt in Melbourne. At the last election Labor relied on Green preferences in 48 of the 72 seats they won. Some basic stats for you, the Greens only have 3 senators up for re-election next time 1 each in Tas, WA and SA. We will retain Tas and most likely SA lose WA to the coalition but have a good chance in Vic and NSW to take 1 of Labor where they have 3 up, as do the coalition, who would need 57.1% to get 4 up. The coalition can realistically think they can win 3 extra senate seats 2 from Labor 1 in Tas and 1 in Qld (most likely to go to Bob Katter) and 1 from the Greens in WA. I can see the senate after next time being Coalition 36 Labor 27 Greens 10 Katter 1 Ind 1 DLP 1. The big senate winner might be Nick Xenophon. My crystal ball.
You may think 100% of Green preferences flow to the ALP, not so, with a tight HTV about 80% go Labor with an open HTV about 76-78% Labor but with a Liberal preference it can be as low as 60% to Labor. There goes a heap of Labor marginals.

You may call us extremists or other names. However, I support the Greens because I think they are on the right track in more areas than the other parties.

They agree with neither Labor nor the Coalition on the boat people. They want Australia to observe the refugee convention. Both Labor and the Coalition are willing to let that go by the by in appealing to the xenophobia of much of the Australian electorate.

The Greens are interested in our long term survival by perserving the environment which is the base of our long term survival rather than destroying it for short term jobs and corporate profits.

I am reminded of an old joke.

"Your money or your life."

"Take my life. I need my money for my old age."

The Greens are not promoting prejudice like One Nation. We are interested in our long term survival.

Daidf no longer what you want Friend Greens have never suited most Australians.
Any pretense at being a party went with Brown.
It is not spite but true most hate or dislike the greens.
A party of unachievable dreams, mad thoughts, get rid of the world bank just one.
Extremism wrapped in honey coated bread.
For a party said to be pro refugees they hold responsibility for 800 deaths.
You will see this is the start of the end,for greens, and 88 of every hundred voters are pleased.
Those votes will find a home Liberal or Labor.
Those talking of disenfranchise of greens should under stand it was an inside job.
A party wishing to rule on such a small base bought about its own decline, helped by its lost leadership unworthy of that name.

Paul,

When you sit on the extreme left wing as you do many of those in Labor are right wing. I see the labor movement as center left, the coalition as center right, those such as one nation as far right (nationalist), and the greens as far left (hard core environmentalist and far left socialist).

I do consider myself conservative but far from right wing as I do not associate with any of the nationalist tendencies. I favoring equal rights and responsibilities for individuals. I prefer small government that provides regulation to guide rather to control, fiscal conservatism, rather than the free spending of the left. etc. The socialist policies that the greens espouse have been an abject failure in Europe, and are largely responsible for the troubles they are having now.

It is not just the labor right wing that are railing against green extremism, but the left wing too. While the greens were a tiny minority supported by the intellectual effete Labor could take their preferences and essentially ignore their more ridiculous demands. Now the greens have genuine power, they are forcing some of their unpalatable policies onto labor (such as the carbon tax) which is causing them a huge collapse in support.

However, as you mentioned, the loss preferences will change a landslide into an obliteration. So I believe that Labor will not have the intestinal fortitude to follow through with their threats.

Dear Belly,

What you say may well be true. It is possible that most Australians hate, despise and don't want the Greens.

That is not an argument against the Greens or their policies.

Australia used to have a white Australia policy hating and fearing people of other races and other ethnicities.

The opinion of most Australians in my opinion was wrong then, and I think the opinion of most Australians regarding the Greens is wrong now.

I think both Labor and the Coalition are bankrupt parties whose main object is to get, keep and retain power. However, most Australians are used to voting for one or the other so the two bankrupt parties will probably continue to get, keep and retain power.

Come on guys, we do not have one left wing political entity left in Australia. If there was even one politicion who made any pretense of such they would be fighting tooth and nail to overthrow the neo-liberal free market domination of our country. Make no mistake we are being screwed on the one hand by capitalist profit making from our resource sector and on the other by flooding our retail sector with cheaply sourced imported product. Political points scoring in this country will make no change to this fundamental fact. Good luck and wake up Australia.
Den71

I find those three post extremely interesting.
My long time opponent SM, you continue to baffle me.
I dislike your one eyed views but have always considered your understanding a bit above some others.
Davidf is a nice bloke letting his heart rule his head.
DEN? not sure yet.
SM however did you want that thought to represent you?
Greens,and we both know it, are 50% Labor refugees, the senate votes has been solid but lower house always comes back to Labor.
It is an undeniable truth,Lib /Lab leaders are unwanted.
And that this boat people thing is driving us both down, how long can Abbott refuse to even talk about a solution?
BUT greens could first day of sitting, pass a bill, they kill them selves by not doing it.
We will, again, do the work your party should do, get rid of the clowns.
We must! or like Abbott abandon forever the thought politics is about the people.

SM, you say:
"I do consider myself conservative but far from right wing as I do not associate with any of the nationalist tendencies. I favoring equal rights and responsibilities for individuals. I prefer small government that provides regulation to guide rather to control, fiscal conservatism, rather than the free spending of the left. etc. The socialist policies that the greens espouse have been an abject failure in Europe, and are largely responsible for the troubles they are having now."
As I don't know you, only from your posts, what you say above does not surprise me what so ever. I don't know your age or what life experiences you have had. As a political activist I get to meet lots of different people and I come across many Liberals who when it comes to social justice issues are quite radical, please don't confuse radical in this context with extremism. However on economic issues they are rather conservative. This group are mostly young, well educated and in a good income career, living a middle class life, mostly in well to do apartments with a mortgage or high rent.
I come across lots of Labor voters who we call 'rusted on', they tend to be older, less educated, blue collar, in skilled or semi skilled employment, relatively financially secure people, living in their own home without a mortgage, who on social justice issues are very conservative. An example of a a social justice issue is gay marriage, which gets far more support from progressive Liberals than it will ever get from conservative Labor.

Dear Belly,

You have charcterised me as a nice bloke whose heart rules his head. However, I think the notion that such a thing as sustainable growth can be continued is an example of not using one's head at all.

When I go to a Green meeting I meet a lot of people who are as nice blokes as I am. I don't think I am an especially nice bloke, but I won't deny your characterisation. You have remarked that most Australians hate and despise the Greens. There must be something wrong if people hate and despise a bunch of nice blokes.

Certainly the Greens make mistakes and are sometimes wrong.

However, what of Labor and the Coalition? Australia is supposed to be a representative democracy. Labor and Coalition members do not represent their constituents. They vote as the party room tells them ignoring the wishes of their constituents, their conscience and the good of Australia and the world. You have called us a party of mad dreams and unachievable thoughts. Perhaps it is a mad dream that members should stop ignoring the wishes of their constituents, their conscience and the good of Australia and the world. Nevertheless I have that mad dream and try to be a nice bloke.

Belly,

As far as the asylum seeker policy is concerned w.r.t human rights, the difference between on shore processing and off shore processing is the access to Australian courts where virtually no one is refused. A camp in Nauru is not significantly different from Aus, where safe and comfortable accommodation is provided, with high quality health care, etc. Malaysia is another matter altogether. The UNHCR camps provide scant accommodation, little to no protection, sanitation, medical care, schooling etc. The camps are not guarded at all, because if the asylum seekers leave them, they are not allowed to work, and are beaten by non governmental militias.

Given that Juliar was the principle architect of Labor's policy of dismantling offshore processing because it was inhumane, the hypocrisy of the Malaysian solution is breathtaking. The coalition having very clearly made that point, cannot be party to the legislation proposed by Labor to completely strip asylum seekers of all rights.

On a purely practical side, the Malaysian solution is doomed to fail simply because the 800 quota (which Malaysia is disinclined to increase) is likely to be full in a couple of months. Labor's legislation would allow any government to send any one any where with no protection whatsoever, and when the Malaysian solution fails, there is nothing to stop Juliar implementing another loopy policy.

The coalition's position is that the previous policy that worked as little as 4 years ago of off shore processing in Nauru and TPVs are available today, and that irrespective of any decreased efficacy are infinitely better than what we have today. Juliar's refusal to compromise is based on hubris rather than the national interest.

As far as the greens are concerned, their policies are simplistic but have no regard for the consequences. They are like a likable drunkard, fun to be with, but under no circumstances should be allowed to drive.

I would let them drive SM, but not the car I was in.
Long ago gave up drinking with drunks.
Not much fun and not the need to be seen half silly I once had.
So I would safely be in another suburb.
I see no reason to praise the greens, last decade has unmasked them as ten party's in one bit like a long term social group, feeding different levels different versions of the truth.
Greens should note, the current war on them was not mine, the actions of two heedless women, on boat people finally woke the country up.
They want to dictate .
Lady's! while nothing you do can save you boat now, it is clear Australians do not need another pair of domineering mums.

It is obvious from the weekends machinations that the ALP has resigned itself to the fact it will be spending the proverbial 'next 40 years wandering in the wilderness', both federally and at a state level. Gillard is so toxic she couldn't win a seat on the Bong Bong council, even if she was the only candidate. Robinson will be pushing up daisies long before NSW see's Labor in power in Macquarie Street again. The pair can thank the NSW right for much of the parties woes
When I was a member of the Labor Party there were those within the party who had turned back stabbing into an art form. The right stabbed the left, the left stabbed the right, the right stabbed the right and so on and so on. Now days, no pretense is required when stabbing, Labor people just stab each other in the back, front, side anywhere at all. Just take a look at this so called conference they held over the weekend, see who was stabbing who.
Talking with Greens at a meeting yesterday, it was unamused that none of use gave a rats about what Labor decides to do with their preferences at the next election, Federal Labor can give all 3 preference votes they are going to have to the NAZI Party or to anyone they so desire, we just don't care.
It is my view, and it has been long before this Labor blow up, that we Greens should preference progressive Liberals over right wing ALP candidates, and where both Liberal and Labor are conservatives, have an open ticket. We should still strongly support the Labor left, the little there is. Like NSW and Qld Labor the Federal parliamentary party will be able to hold their caucus meetings in a phone box after the next election, all us Greens should do is make sure the box doesn't get to crowded.

I am beginning to believe that this is all about posturing. The NSW conference after all the huffing and puffing resolved not to "automatically" preference the greens. Federal Labor has been silent.

With nearly 50% of the primary vote of Labor, Labor would be obliterated if it broke up the alliance. I see that Milne is making more demands, and I guess we will see the tail wagging the dog for a long time.

Here Sir is the very bottom, of the barrel.
Tell me it is not true.
You as I do, dislike and distrust the Greens.
In fact if it was not for the benefit they indirectly give your team, you would be pleased, as I would to see them gone.
Am I right so far?
Conference said as much as it dare.
For now.
Yes SOME element of get Gillard is behind the airing of this issue.
I approve of both the get Gillard and the issue.
Glebe, little known out side NSW can get no quorum at ALP meetings!
We have ceded our roots to greens, Gillard and the lost.
But it is early, SM if it takes prefferenceing each other, making next years a first past the post election, your side too must target these fleas on democracy.
Mine, first out of the box is and will continue.
PS
Good morning

I must admit that this is playing into the coalition's hands. One of the main attacks on labor has to paint it green. This fight to differentiate Labor from the greens is putting Gillard's signed alliance with then in stark contrast.

If this fails and Labor goes back into the cosy preference deal with the greens, Abbott will have a field day. On the other hand, without greens preferences, Labor is equally screwed.

It would appear that the cancer may have grown to the point of being inoperable.

It is my opinion, to steal a Labor line, 'its time' we Greens should set ourselves a couple of objectives. 1. Double our primary vote within 5 years. 2. Form the first Green government in Australia, state or federal within 10 years.

How to achieve these objectives:

Step 1 Encourage the installation of conservative governments where ever possible. Destabilising Labor oppositions by ensuring the conservatives have maximum control and the Labor opposition is reduced to an infighting, noisy rabble, seen by votes as a nonviable alternative. Like we see now in NSW.

Step 2 Ensure Green policies have broad voter appeal, without compromising the parties core principles. Articulate policy clearly. All the time gaining support for those policies, which will translate into votes.

Sorry that there is no room for the ALP right in my opinion. No problem, they will find a home with the other conservatives.

Greens, the left wing Tea-Party.

Fortunately for all of us Paul1405, the greens are a self limiting mob. As you gain numbers you come under more scrutiny. This is your death knell. As reasonable thinking people become aware of the true policies, & the ratbagery included in the Greens, you are doomed.

I think it is all ready happening. Some saw it exposed by Brown in his last efforts, & your new lady is if anything, even worse than the red witch. This is not yet apparent to all, as most simply ignore her. Soon, if your vote increases, they will listen, understand, & run like hell from such a viscous type.

Belly, most Libs would much rather see a strong Labor government, implementing it's policies, than this useless mob, controlled by the greens that we now have. I would much rather see any real government, than this dreadful government by committee, particularly this committee, controlled by a small bunch who threaten to take their ball home if they dont get their way.

Mate this is your job. Get rid of your own garbage. The power at any cost mob you now have are legitimates. They are willing to settle for the trappings of power, while handing it to these ravers from the deep south, the greens.

I'm sorry to say I doubt your ability to get your party back from the academics & bleeding hearts, but if you don't, you are also doomed.

Arch conservatives think the whole voting world is populated by their own kind. I hate to shatter their delusion but that's not the case. There are actually thinking people who support Green policies.
These conservative types will tell you they represent the silent majority or some such clap trap, when in fact they only represent a tiny minority of vested interests.

All Greens can ever be is a thorn in the left side of Labor. Dreaming otherwise is a delusion of adequacy.

Paul,

Are you a student? I have seldom seen such naive stuff in my life:

"Arch conservatives think the whole voting world is populated by their own kind." Other than bad English, conservatives believe in small changes not the grand state driven social engineering experiments (that have failed miserably in Europe) of the "progressives". Many blue collar workers especially those towards the end of their careers need to protect what they have built up for their old age or children, and are no longer open to the "courageous" adventures of the left.

Your dream of doubling the greens vote in 5 years is just that.

SM I forgot to mention that conservatives also believe god created them as the class which was 'born to rule'.
The European problems at the moment were cause by the utter greed of capitalism, banks and other all sorts on a feeding frenzy.
Capitalism can only survive on war and division.
Thanks for the English lesson. No I am not a student, I would be a an old one if I was. Are you a YUPPIE?

Dear Paul1405,

I am also a Green. However, I think every political party has in it the seeds of its destruction. As a political party grows bigger and becomes more accepted people will join it to pursue a political career rather than to further the ideals on which the party was founded. That has happened with both Libs and Labor. If the Greens are accepted by a much larger percentage of the population it will happen to the Greens.

As far as capitalism goes it is highly flawed. However, the main alternative presented has even greater flaws. Every country formed by Marxists has been a dictatorship. Lenin reduced labour unions to mere transmission belts of the party line. Dictators stink whether their names are Lenin, Hitler, Castro or Pinochet.

I am a Green because I am concerned with what is happening to the environment, and the lack of concern for it in the major parties.

Capitalism is a form of economy not an ideology. In the Scandinavian countries it has resulted in great political freedom and a much smaller gap between poor and rich than in most countries. The Scandinavian countries also have a great concern for the environment. I prefer to follow the Scandinavian lead.

Paul,

With your wild, sweeping, and outlandish, statements, you are the poster boy for why the greens are regarded by the majority as a bit of a joke.

Hi David,

I totally agree with your last paragraph. What I am opposed to are those who wish to unfetter capitalism, believing the 'free market' will fix all, eventually. These people believe government has only a minimal roll to play in society, mostly to engage in the imposition of law and order, their law, their order, of course. people like us, are seen at best as harmless misguided fools who would block 'progress' in the name of some ridicules cause, or at worst, evil communists out to take over society. Unfortunately in Australia today you will hear reference to "the economy" a hundred time from our political leaders for ever once they make reference to "our society". Many have lost sight of the fact we live in a society and the economy serves our society, for them it is the other way around. I have long abandoned the Marxism b.s. and believe in a mixed capitalist, socialists, society where government has a vital roll to play.

You say "That has happened with both Libs and Labor. If the Greens are accepted by a much larger percentage of the population it will happen to the Greens."
That to me is somewhat elitist. It does not necessarily follow that larger mass appeal will automatically lead to the abandonment of ideals and principles. The danger is if we follow the keep small philosophy, a party for only the truly committed, then we are in danger of having our ideals and nothing else, mean while society crumbles around us. I am committed to changing society through the democratic process and that means influence in decision making which can only be obtained through the ballet box. Broader appeal, more votes, more influence

Dear Paul,

You wrote: "You say "That has happened with both Libs and Labor. If the Greens are accepted by a much larger percentage of the population it will happen to the Greens."

That to me is somewhat elitist."

That to me is completely elitist. I see nothing wrong in being elitist. I believe our function is to make the general polity environmentally conscious. If we succeed in that care for the environment will become part of the platform of Labor and the Coalition.

We can then dissolve, and I can join a group which is concerned with separation of religion and state which is another one of my concerns.

You also wrote: "I am committed to changing society through the democratic process and that means influence in decision making which can only be obtained through the ballet box."

I disagree with the above also. Influence in decision making is expressed in many ways besides the ballot box. There is writing, demonstrations and even posting to online opinion. Issues do not get to the ballot until candidates express them or there are referenda. Influence in decision making includes arousing consciousness so we can vote on them. The ballot box is one of the last stages not the only stage.

One of the errors of the environmental movement is to blame environmental destruction on capitalism. Environmental destruction follows from not taking the environment into consideration when making decisions. The Chinese Three Gorges Dam and the ploughing up of the chernozem resulting in a Soviet Dust Bowl were acts of great environmental destuction having nothing to do with capitalism. In fact the capitalist US got rid of its earlier dust bowl by following better environmental practices. The Soviet should have followed the capitalist example.

Big call there gentlemen.
Greens growing, or did you both want to say going?
12% is not most.
Saturday, against all odds, greens vote in the Victorian by election will add weight to the fact.
They are about to decline.

David, I was incorrect in saying influence in decision making which can only be obtained through the ballet box. True, one can influence decision making through other ways, "writing, demonstrations and even posting to online opinion." Contesting elections is important, The Greens actually contest more elections (seats) than either Liberal or Labor. The Greens are not just an environmental party, even though the environment is a huge part of our platform, we are also a strong social justice party. we need to present ourselves as a genuine alternative to the big two. Judging by the antics of Labor and Liberal it can not be that hard to present a real alternative.
Belly Taking a line from one of your Labor lad's to another Labor lad, at the NSW Labor name calling conference "put a sock in it!"

Paul you hand it out, so take it too.
A measure of a man to do so.
Now if you think my posts change any thing you need help.
But if you think my words are not shared by 80% of AUSTRALIANS?
Nothing can help.

Belly, of course I can take it. If the Bimbo told the Mad Monk to "put a sock in it." I could understand. When Labor's Tweedle Dum (Senator Faulkner) tell Labor's Tweedle Even Dummer (ACTU Boss Howes) in public "put a sock in it." I couldn't resist.
I see Joel Fitzgibbon is out there destablising The Bimbo. Ready for another Rudd challenge. Fitzgibbon on back Gillard last time because she promised him a plumb job
"Chief government whip Joel Fitzgibbon has reiterated his comments that political leaders who are unpopular are unlikely to survive."

I TRULY! AM ROTFL! at that my lefty seeker of dreams mate Paul.
Faulkner is both one of Labors best, and from the LEFT.
We can do that in my party, be both.
I see, feel, smell your pain, but at our age we just have to except some things we believe are wrong.
The Title of this thread can be modified and still make sense.
Try *Is the highlighting the true nature of the greens a battle Australia can afford to not win?*
Melbourne by election has given you an interesting helper.
IF Gillard was not around your chances would be zero.
Not sure what to expect, if we win she is propped up if not?

Dear Paul,

Most of us want social justice. However,what does that mean? We both belong to the Greens for apparently different reasons. You have disparaged capitalism. What would you put in its place? The Marxist countries not only were horrible tyrannies but also did not provide as good a choice of consumer products as the developed capitalist countries. As far as I can see the best examples of social justice are the capitalist Scandinavian welfare states. Since you apparently want to get rid of capitalism what would you replace it with?

David f.,

Here's a great article by Tony Judt on social democracy.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/dec/17/what-is-living-and-what-is-dead-in-social-democrac/

The feeling of well-being in society under capitalism is, in my opinion, dependent upon the extent of social democracy in play.

The first two paragraphs hit upon your theme:

"Americans would like to do things better. According to public opinion surveys in recent years, everyone would like their child to have improved life chances at birth. They would prefer it if their wife or daughter had the same odds of surviving maternity as women in other advanced countries. They would appreciate full medical coverage at lower cost, longer life expectancy, better public services and less crime.

When told that these things are available in Austria, Scandinavia or the Netherlands, but that they come with higher taxes and an "interventionary" state, many of those same Americans respond: "But that is socialism! We do not want the state interfering in our affairs. And above all, we do not wish to pay higher taxes.""

Dear Poirot,

I do not call the system which is in Austria, Scandinavia and the Netherlands socialism. They are capitalist welfare states and that is what I would like to see more of in the USA and Australia. Those systems cannot be maintained without a higher level of taxation, but I think the higher level is worth it. I think European social democracy is better than what exists in the USA or Australia. I understand socialism to mean government ownership of the means of production. In the case of public utilities, railroads, insurance and banks I favour government ownership. I am against privatisation of prisons and similar institutions. In areas where there is real competition I favour private ownership along with monitoring the operations to prevent monopolies. I think Australia with Coles and Woolies having over 50% of retail food distribution and tieins with other retail operations has allowed monopolies. I would also like to see greater separation of religion and state with no government financial support given to religious schools and no religious instruction except possibly for comparative religion in the public school. I do not think religion should use government to push its agenda, and I do not think government should control religion.

The European welfare states are in the Poo at the moment. It looks as though the house of cards is collapsing and the welfare states are being wound back.

david f.,

I don't call it socialism either. I call it social democracy...but Americans appear extremely sensitive to anything that smacks of interventionary government.

I agree with your views in your last post..

I too agree with your view Davidf, in fact I truly think for decades this country has too.
For me at least the heart of our politics's the followers of Liberalism have marched, even ran, away from the roots of the party founded by Menzies.
I often go back to him, not surprising as Labor today is closer by far to his policy's than the party he founded.
Well worth a close look at his policy's in IR education and much more.
And too, worth looking at the resemblance of the Abbott faction to Tea Party Republicans.
That Tea Party will suffer a defeat in the American election.
Capitalism has to be our foundation.
But the type we see in Europe , in my view seems near the answer world wide.
IF we look to Capitalism for wealth creation only for some we dig a hole for the whole system.
Surely we must focus not on hand outs but giving the true poor a way up.
I truly, honestly, no malice, do not think the Greens can do other than taint the good intentions of those wanting better out comes, just as surely as I think SM does not represent most Liberals, Abbott defames that word.

Dear Belly,

Tony Abbott called climate change 'crap'. He either has no perception of human effect on the environment or is speaking to the troglodytes of his party. Rudd talked about a bigger Australia neglecting the carrying capapcity of the land. Our premier of Queensland wants to increase the traffic going through the Great Barrier Reef and says that will not increase the danger to the reef. Under Gillard there has been protection of the ocean around Australia. Rudd started the chaplaincy program that was picked up by Howard.

A Rudd Labor and an Abbott Coalition are simply stenches.

You don't like the Greens. Actually there are things about them I don't like either. I think one must stay on the sidelines if one wants perfection. At the moment I think Gillard with all her flaws is the best we have of those contending for national power, and the Greens with all its flaws is the best to put number one on the ballot.

Hi David,

You wrote,

"You (Paul) have disparaged capitalism. What would you put in its place? The Marxist countries not only were horrible tyrannies but also did not provide as good a choice of consumer products as the developed capitalist countries.(agree) As far as I can see the best examples of social justice are the capitalist Scandinavian welfare states. (agree) Since you apparently want to get rid of capitalism what would you replace it with?" ( I can not answer this question as it does not apply to me.)

My reply to your comment. I am not a Marxist. In fact I believe the capitalist has a vital roll to play in our economy. The pursuit of profit is a legitimate and reasonable objective. The capitalist brings both entrepreneurial and innovative skills desperately needed in any healthy economy. These qualities are lacking in a pure socialist run society. That is not to say our society should entertain unfettered capitalism as an ideal. This would be even more abhorrent than a totally socialistic society. The excesses of capitalism are as bad or worse than any other system can bring.
I support a mix of the best qualities of capitalism with the best qualities of socialism. Government has a necessary roll to play in balancing this ideal. Government is charged with many tasks, from the mundane such as raising taxes to pay for community needs to the passing and implementation of laws for the community good. All government action is, and should be, subject to political debate. I strongly support the democratic process as paramount to establishing good government.
The Greens are on the right path when it comes to getting the balance correct.Despite those of the right who fear us. Stay strong.

Dear Paul,

One economic alternative that is neglected in both the socialist and capitalist societies is the cooperative where people own an enterprise in common and determine its policies democratically. Cooperatives counter the inherent greed in corporate capitalism and the tyranny inherent in government control. Both producer and consumer coops have a large part to play in the Scandinavian societies. Our laws discourage the formation of cooperatives. I have not seen any movement in any party including the Greens to encourage the formation of cooperatives. Corporations don't like competitive entities and governments don't appreciate entities that they don't control. However, I believe cooperatives can and have improved societies greatly.

Davidf/Paul 1405 a truth, one not to be avoided is here to see.
Each of you are greens, and in truth think differently.
Such is the nature of the greens, people, once flocked to them, but each bringing a different idea of what they joined/expected.
As you both,often, tell me of the faults of my party, but not often of yours walk with me here.
Post Rudd, is it not true the ALP has never been this low in the polls.
And in NSW maybe QLD, WA, soon SA, but underline NSW, have you ever seen my party looking this bad?
Forget policy's, I stand firmly by them, every one.
Greens are a leach party, feeding off Labor, haveing ten heads and ten sets of policy's, some quite mad.
Why are you afraid of us highlighting your true nature?
Why at Labors worst, are you not growing.
Again and again, you skip around the question, as if it is something ugly on the footpath.
WHY do far more fear your party than follow it?
Just one more question, it could have been twenty.
Is drowning at sea better than off shore processing?

Dear Belly,

Different Greens have different ideas. Sure. However, I don’t believe the differences are as great as in the faction ridden Labor Party. Actually the Labor Party is not one unified party. Right now the bankrupt NSW Labor Right is lambasting the Greens while Gillard works with them. Neither is the Coalition a unified bunch. The rural interests of the Nationals are not the same as the interests of the developers and the corporations. All political parties of any significant size or appeal are coalitions. Small parties such as the bible basher Family First, the Shooters and Fishers, the Sex Party and the Sustainable Population Party are one issue parties. The Greens like Labor and the Coalition are a real party with a number of issues. Sure, all members don’t agree on them all. What of it?

Then you ask the wrong question. You ask “Is drowning by sea better than off shore processing?” The US has millions of undocumented aliens who have come across the Caribbean Sea where some have drowned and across the Mexican border. The European Union has millions of undocumented aliens who have come across the Mediterranean Sea where some have drowned and across land borders. The US and the European Union have not found it necessary to set up detention camps in their own countries or processing centres in other countries. A better question is, “Why is the Australian government unwilling to adhere to the international Convention on Refugees?” as the Greens recommend.

The bankrupt Labor and Coalition would rather make the boat people an issue so they can appeal to endemic racism, prejudice and fear. Labor has done it with the White Australia policy which exploited fear of the Chinese. In the Nazi era Australia did not want Jewish refugees from Hitler and interned the few who got here at Dunera. The hysteria and prejudice repeat in the fuss over the boat people.

Pressing problems with the environment, jobs, education, housing etc. are ignored, and the appeal to fear and hate and the concern with getting elected override those real concerns.

I recently found the following on the web which
may be of interest:

"Neither major party has a viable policy that
can do what they say it will (on asylum seekers).
Neither major party can offer up any new perspective
or ideas. While other policies are available to be
tried, they are politically unacceptable to many
voters. So the endless rounds of accusations, recriminations
and failures will go on. The boats will keep coming.
People will keep dying. There's no end in sight."

"Different Greens have different ideas." !!

Comparing the Greens party rabble to anything serious has me ROFL. I really hadn't grasped the level of self-delusion until the last few posts. Not only do they have amazingly coherent policies on everything but also fill the vacuum left by the Democrats in KTBH. Who needs any other party?

Why anyone with a brain doesn't vote for them is a mystery.

Errr...the King has no clothes!

Looking forward to the next election, especially after seeing Hanson-Young's form on Q and A and hearing the Greens latest position on asylum seekers. OMG, just how detached from the electorate can a party get?

david f, you represent the Greens position on drowning beautifully, "accidents happen"!! Sheesh!

Davidf judging on nothing but your post history you seem a good bloke.
And just as lost as the party you are member of.
Greens are a sinking ship weighted down by policy's as unpopular as its two new leaders.
A ship of dreams those boarding come with as many ideas as waves in the sea.
Very nice to very stupid but varied.
Your quote on deaths at sea, Lexis quoted press story too are opinions not facts, BANK ON THIS a day will come, we maybe at the start, boats will stop, forever.
Your party let its self down, the death rattle can be heard, even felt.
In time you will look back and remember these days, Bob Brown took the heart , not that it was ever more than tin foil, out when he went.
It will be decade post Gillard, till a woman leads any party to victory and never for the lost greens.

Belly says, and says, and say "Greens are a sinking ship"

Belly's dream world. No evidence just wishful think on his part. Unlike Belly I post some statistics which clearly show the ALP is heading for oblivion, while at worst The Greens are holding their own.

The Primary vote:

Federal Election 2007 ALP 43% Greens 8%
Federal Election 2010 ALP 38% Greens 12%
Federal Newspoll 2012 ALP 30% Greens 12%

NSW Election 2007 ALP 39% Greens 9%
NSW Election 2011 ALP 26% Greens 10%
NSW Newspoll 2012 ALP 24$ Greens 11%

VIC Election 2006 ALP 43% Greens 10%
VIC Election 2010 ALP 36% Greens 11%
VIC Newspoll 2012 ALP 32% Greens 17%

QLD Election 2009 ALP 42% Greens 8%
QLD Election 2012 ALP 27% Greens 8%

Belly if you truly believe The Greens ship is sinking. Tell me how is the Labor Party dinghy fairing SUNK! with all hands loss.

Belly I know you will not comment on the above stats, to painful for you, but they destroy your illusion, sorry. I think the ALP's high water mark was in 2007. With all of its criminality and incompetence in the last 5 years Labor has literally lost millions of votes and is heading for oblivion across Australia. As I said Labor would be lucky to win a seat on the Bong Bong Council even if they were the only candidate.

Dear Belly,

You seem like a very good bloke, but you really seem very worried about the Greens. If they are so inconsequential, a sinking ship and nobody wants them why get so upset?

The question is where are the votes coming from for the greens?

Are they a protest vote against both parties, or are they simply cannibalizing the labor party. I believe that while a few come from the coalition, the vast majority come from the labor party. On the other side, the coalition is taking huge chunks of the middle ground voters.

The problem for labor is that to pass legislation it requires help from the greens, and the compromises it has to make does not go down with the centrist voters who move to the coalition, and the greens are seen as having power and pushing the left wing agenda, and so attract voters from the left of Labor.

Labor to reverse the trend needs to reduce the influence of the greens over their legislation and to do this needs to stop preferencing them, especially in the senate. While this will cost them 2pp votes they will win some back from the coalition. Without senate seats the greens will wither.

SM, you may find this interesting the average age of Green voters is about 10 years younger than Liberal, Labor voters. Labor voters are now relatively the same old age as Liberal voters. This is a marked change from 10 or 20 years ago. Older woman are still the Liberals strongest supporters. While blue collar men still make up the dominant mass for Labor. Many Green voters are younger first timers and older former left Labor voters with a small number of disaffected Liberal. A decline in manufacturing has seen much of the traditional Labor base diminish. As have previously strong labor sections within the public sector, teachers, health workers in particular have sacked Labor in favor of the Greens. Academia still provides mass support to the Greens.
Much of the movement away from Labor has come from those that would been seen as conservative or aspirational voters they have been by far the largest section lost from Labor to the Coalition. With the loss of base support it is going to be difficult, certainly in the short term, for Labor to regenerate, and in the long term they will need to shift back to the middle ground if they are going to pick up support. There is no evidence to show any willingness on Labor's part to embrace structural change from within to present a viable alternative. Take NSW, after a resounding defeat 15 months age you would think Labor would have done some major soul searching, looking to find where they had gone wrong. Nothing of the kind has happened and the old guard still dominates, and Labor in NSW still languishes.

So true Shadow M.

I am probably an early mover, it was Keating, the left & the greens that moved me to Howard. I still considered myself a swing voter until Brown & the new green lady convinced me I was unlikely to vote anywhere near them again. In fact If the Libs had not got rid of Turnbull I would probably be a Katter voter.

I have for years found it rather counter productive that the majors were not preference each other. I would much rather the whole horse, than the camel, the horse designed by a committee. Labor controlled by the Greens is really the worst of all worlds.

It really is a pain voting below the line for the senate, but I have done it for some time to avoid giving preferences to the radical ratbag rabble that is the greens.

My opinion is that this is the one battle that Labor can't afford to loose. Not only that, we can't afford them to loose it either. We need their alternative voice, just we need it with intelligent folk leading it. With out Labor we'd probably have even more greens.

Dear Hasbeen,

Could you answer this question for me - Had Mr Abbott
been able to win the support of the Independents and
the Greens in the last election wouldn't the Libs be
in the same situation as the current government - which
has to compromise to be able to function as a government?

I can't understand all this attack on the Greens. As David F.,
pointed out in one of his earlier posts - Today, our
politics seems to be made up of Coalitions.
The current government
is a Coalition in government. The Opposition is a Coalition
Party. Unlike Labor that in the
past won elections on their own merit - the Liberals were never
capable of winning without a Coalition with the Nationals.
At least not in recent memory.

The Greens seem to be the party most favored by new voters
who are disenchanted with the politics of the past. Perhaps
there's a message there for both parties to try new approaches
in order to attract new members. Doing things the same old
way - doesn't seem to be working for many voters any more.
Especially younger voters. And endless round of accusations,
recriminations, are old tactics that are beginning to wear
thin.

Lexi,

With Katter, the Coalition had 74 seats and only needed 2 more. Oakeshott and Windsor would have been sufficient without the greens or Wilkie.

"I am probably an early mover, it was Keating, the left & the greens that moved me to Howard."
Look, Hasbeen was once a radical. In your radical days, did you run around calling every one "comrade", waving a red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle, singing The Internationale. I can't believe it Hasbeen you voting for that bolshei commie, lefty Bob The Silver Bodgie. Surly, you must have been possessed by the evil spirit of Lenin or some such demon.
Hasbeen please don't make this indiscretion of yours public, otherwise they will tear up your membership of One Nation and there will be no more happy greeting card from Jim Saleam on the 20th April each year. Sad so very sad, I feel for you.

No matter what spin labor will put on it, and regardless who takes the seat, the result in the by election in the 'safe' state seat of Melbourne yesterday was an out and out disaster for Labor. In a seat, that is located in the middle of supposedly Labor's heartland, and one which the ALP has continuously held for over 100 years, the ALP appear to have failed to even top the first preferences, trailing the Greens Cathy Oke by about 1000 votes. All this is despite the plethora of right wing ratbags and Labor stooges in the capacity field and despite the million dollar campaign staged by the ALP and the fact that Labor is in opposition which traditionally works in that parties favor. Labor are looking at a 5% swing from the 2010 election. At best the ALP will retain the seat with preferences from the ratbag right, Family First, DLP, CDP and Labor independent stooges.
Looking forward to The Greens battle with Labor in the NSW state by election for the seat of Heffron, which has been vacated by the 'hair doo'. The Greens are running an extremely competent candidate in Mehreen Faruqi up against the ALP's crusty old Mayor of Botany Councillor Ron. Despite a 15% swing in 2011 Keneally held the seat comfortably for Labor by their standards.

I see! to win is a loss.
To out spend Labor, but using the life blood of the greens PREFERENCES to win is wrong.
Bring on the NSW one.

Belly, you are in La La Land when it comes to reading political results. Your party is struggling to hold a safe seat, in a by election, in the middle of a conservative governments term. your party suffered a 5% swing against it. The happiest person in Victoria this morning would be Ted Baillieu. The new ALP strategy to win office is on the backs of Family First, One Nation, the DLP, the happy clappers, Australia First and a micro collection of other right wing ratbags. Your leader wont be having week;y meetings with Bob Brown but rather with Jim Saleam and members of National Action. LOL.
I am happy with what is happening to the ALP, loosing its identity, jettisoning its principles as it shifts farther to the right. This presents the Greens as the real alternative to the collection of right wing parties. I can see the day coming when the second Labor split eventuates. The disillusioned Labor left will find a new home with us Greens. This time around it may not be a big bang but a slow decline. labor has been in decline for 5 years now with no evidence of any reversal.
Belly, I do not expect the Greens to win Heffron, just more of undermining Labor. it will be another test of Labor's standing in the community, or lack of.

Paul 1405 your posts are becoming more like arjays.
You both insult those who do not agree with you.
Given a new Labor leader is assured,and soon, how do you think that will impact on your party?
Talking leadership, are you aware apart from young women you new leadership is a plague on your popularity?
Given at least, half of Labors problem, other than Gillard,is Greens how will you go next year.
Are you insulting my words or fearing they may be true.