<< Back to article
“If it was designed to rally the Green troops it probably did the reverse.“ Thanks for your suggestion, but “the troops” can speak for ourselves.
I was at a gathering of disappointed Greens supporters and we were buoyed by Peg’s defiance. After the last Federal election, the “old parties” as Mr. Lester so well describes them, realised the Greens could be a serious threat and promised to show them what the real world of win at all costs was like. They made good on their promise this time round. All the rhetoric and spin in the world, no matter how eloquent or erudite, will not cover up that fact. Peg’s message was that “the troops” were bloodied, but not bowed.
The simple truth (for what it’s now worth) is that many people are scared that any change to the status quo will make it impossible for them to pay for their mortgaged to the hilt homes and stop the phone calls about their maxed out plastic. Honest John created that situation, and a whole swag of self interest exploited it during the campaign. It was just too easy. Mr. Lester’s political science degree dissertation, whilst entertaining, really is an exercise in obfuscation. It seeks to gloss over the extent of the pervasiveness of the win at all costs ethic increasing infecting Australian politics – and that’s saying something! The Greens didn’t play that game, and in that they failed.
Really dumb I suppose?
I’m simple so I just don’t understand some of the things I saw during the election anywhere as well as Mr. Lester does. What shocked me most was the extent to which Labor and Liberal voters directed their preferences to each other. But then I have never understood the right wing labor mindset, let alone how any working person could vote Liberal. How is it that a labor party sees itself having more in common with conservatives than progressives? Why is it that the Labor Party always seems to fight its friends more viciously than it does its enemies? Or have I missed the real point: is it really that we have long memories and personal enmities count for more than just about anything else?
Can we expect to see the Women’s Weekly article about the Premier’s home beautiful any time soon? Gosh, I wish I had a political science degree!
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 02:28 AMLester’s column is not surprising.
It came as no surprise to anybody that Lester left the Mercury - where he was chief political writer - to join the ranks of Labor spin doctors in the Premier’s department.
As for Peg Putt’s election night speech, not having heard it I can’t comment. But even if it was an inappropriate speech for that occasion, is that a worse or lesser misdemeanour than an election result being bought by eight of the state’s most wealthy entrepreneurs ... ?
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 02:49 AMCongratulations Michael on your observations of the Greens campaign and Peg’s speech.
In defeat acceptance, humility in victory even greater humility.
Because of this simple mantra Rene Hidding might well have saved his leadership on Saturday at least until a time of his own choosing.
Wheras in her speech Ms Putt showed her true colours; not green, not red or even rainbow. Black with hate and emerald with envy. Any other party leader after a dispaly such as Ms Putt’s would resign but we know that this is not the way of the Green’s and shows as you have so correctly notes a lack of maturity as not only indvidual politicians but as a party.
One thing that all the Green’s clearly forgot and Peg clearly forgot most of all is that the next campaign starts on the evening the last campaign finishes. Thus Peg’s speech may very well have cost the Greens votes in 2010 now that would be an achievement, wouldn’t it?
A friend of mine speaking on Monday, he had voted Green for the first time in his life on Saturday he then said never again. Greens 0 - Liberals 1 and no Peg I didn’t make that up.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 03:02 AMMr Lester says he was “a political staffer” but he should have gone further to say that he was one of the main political spin- doctors for state Labor, and that fact helps us get his cunning comments into context.
Mr Lester cleverly takes to history with the spin-doctor’s airbrush by condemning Peg Putt’s tally room speech. By doing so, he effectively criticises someone who’s had a leg broken for not walking properly.
As if Peg was going to congratulate what happened last Saturday!
Democracy is precious Mr Lester. Tasmania has a long and putrid history of attempted robbery of democracy by the corporate elite (perhaps the Rouse Royal Commission rings a bell?), and suspicions are that a similar thing happened last Saturday. This makes people grieve, and feel pain deep inside. Far from “vitriol and nastiness”, Peg told it like it was, and like it will be again.
To cut to the chase…So much of this debate would have been avoided if there were proper and transparent political donation disclosure laws in this state. Labor (and Liberal) consistently stomped on this idea when the Greens pushed for it. I wonder whether Michael would have shat out the honey-coated spin to make tasty this disgusting pill?
Peg showed she is a human being who still believes in things, Michael. I’d suggest you check your pulse.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 03:13 AMSome good points, Nick, but this argument will never be resolved because each side starts from such different premises. You can’t succeed in politics without being tough and nasty. Too many Greens are too principled to win. You either play the game and cop the shit or you play a different game. At the moment the Greens say they want to play the game, but they want to use the sort of rules that involve decency.
I have a theory that the Greens will only succeed politically when their leaders have been found to be corrupt. Can’t see that happening with the present lot.
By the way, Cassandra, the ALP in Tasmania has always been more conservative than the Libs. Things are only just starting to change because of the Abetz-Ferguson-Hidding factor.
Posted by Justa Bloke on 25/03/06 at 03:58 AMMichael Lester’s summary of the political mistakes of the Greens is very helpful and should be accepted graciously by this party in preparation for the next election.
However the quality of ‘immaturity’ is a characteristic owned by all parties and a good portion of the electorate. It’s just that it expressed itself in different ways at this time.
People don’t want change and yet we’re going to have it anyway. Ice caps will melt, islands and shorelines will become inundated. Fossil fuels will continue to be dearer and less accessible in a short time frame.
Here’s where Labor and Liberal immaturity lay: they refused to offer a form of Government or platform that addressed our challenges for the change we WILL face in any realistic form, scale or timeframe.
The public still have their heads in the sand.
Whilst the world is going full swing behind the development of many more nuclear power plants under the rationale of addressing our CO2 crisis Tasmanians choke from the heavy smoke of mega scale old growth forestry burnoffs this Autumn.
Those in power see a nuclear world as a means of retaining their grip on it. A deceptively easy way to maintain the status quo. But it will usher in even more centralisation of power and control. We’ll see even more authoritarian governments and more subversive forms of fascism. We’ll be worried about terrorist attacks on these plants.
Those who think it won’t happen here, think again.
Howard will go nuclear.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/beazley-howard-will-go-nuclear/2006/03/23/1143083904384.htmlPosted by on 25/03/06 at 04:04 AMAmid the avalanche of vitriol that has spewed forth on this website from frustrated Green supporters since Saturday’s election, Michael Lester’s piece offers a beacon of sensible, considered commentary that should prove a model for the type of level-headed debate to be encouraged on Tasmanian Times.
It seems to me that the Greens and their supporters spend far too much time critiquing the major parties and not nearly enough time considering exactly what alternative they hope to offer to the Tasmanian people.
This is something that seems to make them unique from the major parties. The ALP and Liberals generally respond to electoral rejection by doing their soul-searching (and subsequent self-mutilation) internally and within the relatively safe confines of ‘the family’. Cheek was duly blamed for the Libs 2002 disaster, Hidding will go the same way for Saturday night’s result and no doubt if Labor had gone down on the weekend, the internal Labor blame-game would have squarely focussed its energies on one Paul Lennon.
But what we have seen from the Greens through Ms Putt’s speech on election night and its aftermath, has been an extraordinary scattergun of attack-at-all-cost self justification that in the cold light of day is going to achieve nothing for their own internal recovery as a party, nor their standing within the broader Tasmanian community.
Don’t get me wrong, a lot of the politics thrown at them during the campaign was damn ugly, but surely on a balance, the attacks on the Greens were no more or less a factor in the election outcome than the strategic and unrelenting smear on Paul Lennon’s character over many months, not just the couple of weeks of the official election campaign.
Indeed, I wonder if perhaps the specific attack on the Greens policies generated from a bunch of Christian weirdos got more coverage than its otherwise worth because the Greens chose to make such an issue out of it in the last week of the election campaign, thus taking the media’s attention away from other more pressing concerns of the campaign.
But I wonder, are the Greens really so self-sycophantic that they cant accept that they were just simply out-campaigned by more professional, resourced and aggressive rivals in this particular election?
Are they really so arrogant to not consider the obvious flaws in their own campaign strategy, most of which have been correctly identified by Michael Lester?
Really, the manner in which Peg Putt handled the Minority Government and supply issues was painfully clumsy, the way they back-flipped on major policies like Spirit 3 was amateurish and the silly stunts like Cassy’s cigarette packets were pathetic.
I think nearly every Tasmanian who genuinely values the democratic process recognises the legitimate role the Tasmanian Greens have in our Parliament, I know I do.
But I wonder, how well served are we by a Party that seems unable to accept its own flaws, let alone present a clear position of what role it strives to play in the democratic process?
Over the last four years, the Green parliamentarians have endeavoured to present themselves as a legitimate mainstream player and a realistic alternative Government.
They have allocated portfolio responsibilities, spoken out on all mainstream issues and endeavoured to present positions in all areas of policy, including those of which the Greens are not traditionally known for. They have also presented an annual alternative budget, something the main opposition party seemed unable, or unwilling, to do.
Now they need to ask if all this was really worth the effort. Did the Greens really swing any votes from the major parties because they were able to boast a glossy-covered alternative budget? Would they have perhaps achieved a better outcome on Saturday if they had put their energies and limited resources into consolidating that extra support they got in 2002, rather than playing make-believe-government?
Did they just get ahead themselves and overestimate the reasons why so many more people voted for them in 2002?
One thing they must do now is fix up their policies. Because what they released during the election campaign was rubbish. A bunch of one-and-a-half, two-page policy statements filled with a neat-mix of motherhood statements and fringe initiatives (largely lifted from like-minded interest groups) is not a serious policy alternative for the broader Tasmanian electorate.
I had a good look at a number of their policies during the election campaign and found it amusing that often the accompanying media release announcing a new policy initiative was longer than the actual formal policy statement!
I hope the Greens do allow the bruises of Saturday night to heal with the passage of time and sombre reflection. Because make no mistake, Tasmanian democracy will soon need – and want - them back bigger and better than ever.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 04:33 AMThe respondents (1,3,5) to this excellent article exemplify the gulf between Greens zealotary and the rationalist approach to politics. Zealots have an incapacity to see the world through other people’s eyes. This explains the inability to process the range of reasons underlying the Greens performance in this last election. If it didnt go the zealot’s way, then it must have been rigged - a good proportion of Tasmanians must have an inability to analyse the messages throughout the campaign and have been unduly influenced by ‘dark’ forces.
The simple truth of this election is that the swingers, many of whom might have been soft Greens, swung back towards the traditional parties marginally. The choice was a majority or minority Labor government. The electorate chose the former - the Greens should get over it and then get on with it if they want to stay alive as a political party.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 04:54 AMWhile I am an environmentalist and I agree with most Green policies, I find the anti-nuclear position rather strange.
By opposing nuclear energy the Greens are effectively supporting black and brown coal fired electricity generation, which is responsible for nearly 40% of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Nuclear energy does create a waste issue as far as spent nuclear fuel rods are concerned, but we live in a vast country and have the technology to store this negligible waste for thousands of years, so why not do it?
Brenda perhaps you’d like to explain how nuclear energy reinforces the position of those already in power? How on earth does nuclear energy “usher in even more centralisation of power and control”? Finally, can you give an example of a single government that has become more authoritarian due to its development of nuclear power?
Having worked in the energy industry for some years and having a good level of understanding on the topic, I must disagree with the Greens on this issue. Nuclear energy is safe for the population and safe for the environment. Australia has vast uranium reserves with which to operate nuclear power plants.
Wind and solar are great technologies but are just not viable at present for base-load electricity generation. Each wind generator will create 1 megawatt of electricity when operating at its peak. Now consider that electricity demand in Tasmania once reached 1727 MW and has hit 12 000 MW in NSW. It would take one one hell of a lot of wind farms to run our country and unfortunately there is no positive correlation between wind speed and electricity demand.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 05:18 AMSurely the picture in the Mercury of a heavy handed goon dealing with a solitary protestor at a rally would have influenced undecided voters more than all the political spiel put out by Michael Kent or any one else.
How many of the public read and take notice of political advertisements from any source?
A picture is worth a thousand words!!
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 05:20 AMYes, yes, Brenda. All very well. But what do you do with those heads that are in the sand? Chop them off? Our rights and our future will be trampled on because most of us know that we can’t prevent this, and so have decided to enjoy life in the short time remaining.
Our rights include the right to be wrong and the right not to care.
There are enough trees etc left to last what’s left of my lifetime. Global warming won’t be serious for a couple of decades. Gunns pays dividends half-yearly. A State Parliament runs for four years max. Whatever I owe posterity posterity can try to collect (if there is a posterity).
My apologies to Mick Lester for the typo in my earlier post. Comparisons to neither Mr Evers, Satan nor Father Christmas were intended. All three of those gentlemen are in it for the long haul.
Posted by Justa Bloke on 25/03/06 at 05:54 AMIrrespective of Michael’s status as a political spinner or whatever, I find his post a far more balanced and reasonable assessment of the position of the greens than Toby’s earlier rant that blamed the greens lack of success on everyone and everything but themselves.
Unfortunately, the greens take the view that those that don’t vote for them are wrong, brainwashed and have their heads in the sand. They assume that their votes went to Labor or Liberal because they support 100% of the policies of that particular party.
Think again boys and girls. There are green policies with which they agree and there are Labor/Liberal policies with which they disagree. Perhaps it may be that the total package offered by the greens is a greater evil than the total package of the alternative.
The electorate is smarter than they think.
And Brenda, the doom and gloom you preach of ice caps melting and islands/shorelines being inundated is the type of bullshit hysteria that makes people think the greens are a bit on the loony side and encourages them to vote otherwise, depite some good policies the greens may have.
Mother Earth has been warming and cooling since the dawn of time. Our influence in the present is barely a blip on the radar. You don’t need to relocate to the top of Mt Wellington to avoid the incoming tide just yet.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 06:30 AMWhat is wholly missing in Mr Lester’s analysis is any context. While the Green campaign was not a work of genius, their worthiness for office must be considered relative to that of their opponents.
Whatever Peg Putt’s shortcomings, she is not an obvious crook, nor a serial liar, nor a palpable dolt, nor the agent of an enterprise bent on liquidating much of Tasmania’s natural environment as a salvage product. Her opponents were most or all of these things.
Start your analysis from there, Mike.
John Hayward
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 08:45 AMLabor insider asks why the Greens can’t accept they were “simply out-campaigned by more professional, resourced and aggressive rivals in this particular election”.
Well, the Greens do accept that. The Greens know they do not have the same resources as their opponents and they do not play the aggressive tactics of their opponents.
The Greens do not want to play dirty and Peg’s statements are reflective of that.
Labor insider says the Greens policies are “rubbish”. He/she should give us some examples of particular policies he/she thinks are “fringe initiatives”.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 09:08 AMI’d like to add my agreement to the sentiments expressed in posts 7,8,9,11 & 12.
Just in case any greens staffers or pollies read the ideas of others to work out where they are going wrong, I have some more food for thought…
1). As previously mentioned, the shrill demonisation of others for your lack of success is poor form. A bit of introspection is in order. Peg Putting (I couldn’t help it) her foot in it regarding the blocking of supply & deputy premiership has just as much to do with them losing votes as the Exclusive Brethren. Perhaps a new leader is worth considering?
Just give it some thought.
2). The Greens proscriptive approach to things leaves me a little cold & a bit more suspicious about what gov’t would be like with them at the helm. I don’t think this has ever been mentioned in the wash-up but it is a concern to me & a large number of people that I have spoken to on the subject.
3). I like V8 powered cars. I just do. I dislike being harped at that I should ride a pushbike because we are about to be washed out of our chairs at Knoppies by the melting polar ice cap. I would really dislike that outcome because my tobacco would get wet & it would dilute my beer. However, I really can’t see it happening & I can’t pull a big burnout on a pushbike.
4). The position taken by some Greens supporters (the hippy type) that the world is on the verge of environmental disaster & that we require desperate measures in order to stave it off just doesn’t wash with me. It is these types that cloud my opinion of the Greens in general. You know, they’re kind of whiny & a bit irrational with moral superiority issues. I’m sure that I’m not the only person that feels this way.
5). How about considering a bit of a change of image. More than suits & haircuts. Get rid of the name ‘Greens’ & pick something more representative of a (hopefully) maturing party with broad progressive policy base. This may have the secondary benefit of shedding some of those earnest patchouli wearing types that p*ss me off with their exhortations to attend this rally or that.
There’s many people like me out here who are disillusioned Labor supporters. We’re not to keen on gov’t irresponsibility either. We would like to support the Greens but can’t as long as we think you’re a little bit loopy. Change your culture, tap into us & you’ll vastly improve your vote next time. How far do you want to go?
Declaration: I voted Green in Denison because I wanted to see a minority Labor Gov’t. I was also at the Greens do at Hadleys on Sat night. This only served to reinforce my opinion.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 09:41 AMThe argument that Labor Insider seems to employ, which I’ve heard repeated ad nauseum this week, is that any smear campaign waged against the Greens was a) merely part of the political cut-and-thrust to which any party seeking election might be exposed and b) that any grub campaign conducted against the Greens needs to be placed in perspective besides the “strategic and unrelenting smear” on Paul Lennon’s character over recent weeks/months etc.
Some points to jog everyone’s memory: Lennon presided over the single most embarrassing and obfuscatory excuse for a press conference I have ever had the misfortune to witness, in the days after the removal from office of Richard Butler. While his government was negotiating with PBL to grant Betfair a licence to operate in Tasmania, Lennon blithely accepted a significant room upgrade at PBL-owned Crown Casino; as Premier of course he is entitled to an upgrade, but to accept one during such negotiations surely tested the bounds of political common sense. And then, dare I mention it, we have Reno-gate. These are all issues which have resulted from Lennon’s own actions--no dirt-digging, no smearing.
Are we, as decent upstanding Tasmanians, expected to let such folly pass unremarked? And this is from man who has considerable political and financial resources in his corner--including, it seems, the advice of several very experienced former journalists, many of whom should surely have known a little bit better.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, isn’t it?
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 10:31 AM#15: OK Paul, you can come out now ;-)
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 12:34 PMStop being vague and circuitous cameron and trying to be 20/20. This thread is for green questioning not posturing.
And scottrod makes a lot of sense.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 01:42 PMThe only things I would say about ‘that speech’ is that I could hardly hear a word of it.
Peg was drowned out by the heckling.
The Laborials can’t deny that they ran a negative campaign. But whatever Peg had said, or whatever she should have said, she was going to be booed and harassed.
It was the most shameful, pathetic and immature display I have ever seen in my entire life.
Welcome to politics in Tasmania indeed!
Go on Laborials, tell me that was acceptable!
Of course, I won’t be able to take anything you say seriously from that point on.
Also let me make it clear -I wouldn’t want the support of people like that.
I was there. I haven’t got a single positive thing to say about Rene. BUT I didn’t heckle, shout, boo or carry on like a child who’s after an icecream. I let him have his say. Same for Paul.
Sore losers are we?
I’d rather that than arrogant and childish winners.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 02:07 PMSo scottrodd, do think there would be no problem if everyone on the planet drove V8 cars?
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 02:20 PMCome-on Mr Lester, fair suck of the sav. Yes the Greens did make some stuff ups - but how about the equally long list of Labor and Liberal campaign gaffs.
I think we all can see see that Tasmanian Labor took the “how to win any any cost” approaoch straight out of the John Howard election handbook. Ridiculous claims about house values dropping by $70,000; public servant redundancies; Scottsdale timber mill closures, pulp mills moving to China, blah, blah, blah… I was actually waiting for a boatful of refugees to come sailing up the Derwent only to be met by a flotilla of gunships.
There is no doubt that this poll was a victory for fear and loathing. Psychologists (and spin doctors) know that money is a great motivator. Conversley threats to financial security are a great fear generator. Particularly in Tasmania with a limited job market and where getting/holding a job is more about your social (and political) networks, people fear for their financial security - the old Howard Mortgage Belt Strategy - works a charm. Cassandra is 100% correct. People dont like change. Even with the health system in dissaray, one must remember that the DHHS still employs about 11,000 Tasmanians - on average thats almost 45,000 family members or close to 10% of the states population that are dependent on the $1.1 billion health budget to pay their mortgages - do you really think they are going to upset the status quo to achieve nicer policy outcomes?
At the end of the day, people are primarily worried about their immediate wealth (mortgage and job) and the well being of the children. A well-funded fear campaign on these two issues is bound to pull the psychological voting strings. Joe public doesnt give two hoots about policies and politics - whats in it for me and why should I move out of my comfort zone? Its all about pitching to your audience.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 02:38 PM“We are living beyond the Earth’s limits. All the planet’s resources like water, air, land, plants and animals are being used faster than nature can replace or repair them.
The world is getting warmer, too. The way we live puts lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which isn’t good for us or the planet.
You can do your bit to help protect our future”
Guess who says this? No, not some Greens hippy, but the Tasmanian Government. They also suggest “reduce my car trips by 2 per week and use my car more efficiently”. It’s at http://www.up2me.com.au/
Funny, when the Greens say things like that, people call them loony, but no-one says anything about the Labor Party saying the same thing.
Posted by on 25/03/06 at 03:56 PMSorry, Mr Toad, I forgot myself. The Greens have to be perfect, don’t they? Everyone else can stuff up until the cows come home--or the chickens come home to roost.
Posted by on 26/03/06 at 01:22 AM“Joe public doesn’t give two hoots abouts policies and politics...”
That sneering dismissal of the intelligence of the electorate is the continuing failure of the greens’ elitism.
The electorate is smarter than the greens think. That’s why “Joe public” doesn’t support them.
Posted by on 26/03/06 at 02:37 AMThe 3 (or 4) hard-working Greens should keep the passion and integrity they are know for.
They should just go about their business as usual except when it comes to the media. They should consider every word carefully before it leaves their mouths in the presence of journalists. Most journalists cannot afford to write in order to better the world - they just have to rush through a story that will sell newspapers or give good footage in order that they keep their jobs.
Issue written press releases and stick to the script when interviewed! Don’t rant in public - I believe it is justified at times - but rant in private. Australians are suspicious of passion and many Tasmanian voters are from a generation which idolises leaders and they insist on remaining blinkered against all the odds. This generation believes that men should run everything and women should put on a clean apron before hubby arrives home and should smile prettily at all times.
They would not vote for the Greens - unless perhaps if Peg or Nick could help them with their prescription problems or such over a cup of tea and a scone. This generation is worth supporting as much as possible but a huge percentage of them would never vote green, and especially for a group led by a female.
The yuppies would accept a female leader if she was under 30, and looked like Stott Despoja. But she would still be expected to lower her voice and act with decorum at all times.
The overly-moneyed and the overly-unionised will vote for their old parties regardless of the actions of their politicians and lack of policies for the long-term. Of course men make the best leaders as far as these groups are concerned - hence the moustache remark of Lennon’s. Which pollies topped the poll for Labor - can Michelle quickly grow a moustache?
It is impossible to try to please everyone in a conservative state like Tasmania - and with so few Green politicians to do the work - it would be much more productive for the Greens to stay focused on environmental goals, but speak out (quietly) about all community concerns, and of most importantance, cultivate a public face - as both Liberal and Labor have done - but without the same level of blandness.
A prime example of maintaining a public face was demonstrated when the tensions in the Liberal Party led to the famous black eye, and then there was the time, a few years ago, when all the stories were circulating about cash paid to a party - cash that was stored in the refrigerator in a red sock and such like. But the voters kept voting as they always had because it is easier to vote as one’s forefathers voted, plus the media chooses its favourite party each election year and slews its coverage accordingly.
The Greens shouldn’t turn into yuppies as suggested by Scottrodd. He/she should consider a world where every driver drives a V8 - one for every Chinese, Indian and Indonesian person for example, added to those already out there. Such petrol guzzlers for the world population wouldn’t be sustainable. Of course if we had cars utilising alternative fuels as the Greens are suggesting, with governments fleets leading the way for change, there would be less reason for the USA, supported by us, to invade oil-rich countries, plus more people could afford to run cars.
Keep plugging away Greens - keep a rein on what your pollies and new candidates say in public and pat yourselves on the back for all your wonderful work in bringing conservation issues before the public. It ain’t broke - don’t fix it - just repair. And tell the professional spin people to .... ..., quietly and in private of course, to join their colleagues in Liberal and Labor camps.Posted by on 26/03/06 at 06:16 AMBarry - I have to take issue with your comment 22. I spend some time in rural Tasmania and it is dotted by alternative types wishing to get that back-to-nature thing.
However, many of these have vehicles, and to be picky, old vehicles that would use leaded petrol. Also at work, my Greens-leaning colleagues drive in from their rural shangra-las daily.
When I question them on the ecological damage that is associated with ‘living in the bush’ and driving cars (no car-pooling), especially old inefficient cars, I get the brush-off. They are adding to the ecological degradation at the margins of human civilization as well as global warming, but they don’t seem to ‘get it’.
I think the single biggest ecological disaster for Tasmania was for town planners to allow small blocks in or near bush settings. Another is not to enforce air quality standards from the cars we drive. A further one is the lack of concessions for car pooling or use of public transport.
Posted by on 26/03/06 at 06:21 AMI agree with you Super.
Posted by on 26/03/06 at 11:00 AMOh dear…
OK. I’ll deal with the hysteria post by post.
POST 19 TR). ‘Sore losers are we? I’d rather that than arrogant and childish winners’.
What can I say…POST 20 BB: “So scottrodd, do think there would be no problem if everyone on the planet drove V8 cars?”
I Don’t think that was my claim was it? Do you think every one would be better off if your tye-dyed hemp trousers were shipped here by 3rd world needy types in pedal powered airplanes made of recycled newspaper?
See the logic in your argument?POST 22 BB (again):’blah blah blah’
I never claimed to support the Labor party position. (Take a deep breath and read my post again). Perhaps they’ve been suckered into thinking they need to address the shrillings?POST 23 Cameron: Refer to response to post 19.
POST 25 TOTT: Well, you know a bit about journos and their motivation don’t you. For the betterment of argument I’ll leave it at that.
‘The Greens shouldn’t turn into yuppies as suggested by Scottrodd’.
Shit, I must’ve been dozing as I waxed lyrical about how the Greens would be better off in suits, drinking Coronas and jerking each other off ‘cause I sure don’t remember typing it. Maybe you weren’t paying attention you old activist you.Remember Turn off the Telly: I voted Green. They, or anyone else shouldn’t be above criticism. Or aren’t you an anarchist?
DECLARATION: For the benefit of those that only read to the part where they see something they disagree with: I VOTED GREEN.
Posted by on 26/03/06 at 05:11 PMNote: Have a look at the composition of unleaded fuel and the effects of the stuff that’s in it. is it any better than leaded?
Considerably worse seems to be the opinion of those that are in the know (scientists).
Are any of these so-called solutions to our considerable problems better than the problems themselves? Lets look at the facts outside of party political divisions.
It’s tricky and way beyond the simplistic Brethren are bad, we are good sh*t. This is my point.
Attending rallies at the lawns and harping at people don’t change nothin’. Refusal to accept that people can think for themselves won’t change nothin’. Taking the high moral ground can’t change nothin’.
It boils down to facts. Tell people something true - no spin, no bullsh*t, intuitive fact. They’ll listen.
The Green stance reminds me of the attitude taken by the elite in the UK in the 1700s. ie. the rabble can’t be trusted to make the right decision. Make it for ‘em.
The Greens position is elitist. This is my belief, but I will be convinced otherwise. (can anyone do it without quoting stats or calling me a nazi?)
Why not just try to listen and allow for the fact that you may not be correct on all occasions. Don’t take criticism personally (it actually helps the rest of us) and don’t be so f*cking sanctimonious. It’s really annoying.
We’re offering suggestions here.
Ad hominem arguments and quoting of irrelevant statistics are a waste of time.
Think policy.
Think about how to push the Green platform beyond rhetoric and platitudes that appeal to lefty protestor ideals. Our (common)wealth will never be communalised.
Fact: Simplistic solutions to complex problems are why you have no support in the greater electorate. Figure out an actual workable alternative. No ideal world crap, just doing it with what we’ve got.
Hints: Pluralism. Logic.
Posted by on 26/03/06 at 06:56 PMMichael,
Get ready to duck again!!!!
Posted by on 26/03/06 at 09:54 PMScottrodd, I didn’t say you claimed that everyone could drive V8s but I want to know whether you think it would be a problem… The logic behind my question is that it seems you think you have the right to drive a V8, and if that is the case then I presume you would not deny anyone else that right? And where would that lead…
In general, do you believe anything about the need for environmentalism, and therefore anything about what the Greens stand for?
I also did not say that you supported the Labor position on their so-called ‘blah blah blah’ website but I did try to point out that maybe the Greens policies are not that silly, they are actually mainstream but they get attacked because the Greens are saying it.
Can you give an example of a Greens ‘simplistic solution to a complex problem’?
Posted by on 27/03/06 at 06:41 AMre post 27 - Barry, you are so disarmingly reasonable!
Posted by on 27/03/06 at 07:47 AM“I think the single biggest ecological disaster for Tasmania was for town planners to allow small blocks in or near bush settings...”
On the contrary, this is the only close example of the ability of Tasmanians to co-exist with nature.
Take a look at Preolenna and other communities in on the North West Coast (now dominated by huge industrial monoculture tree plantations). The small blocks there are mostly providing the only real areas of native forest on private land left.For further reference read:
Vandana Shiva
Recovering the Real Meaning of Sustainability
p.191 True sustainability demands that ecological principles be incorporated into production processes to reshape them. Conservation has to be a BASIS and FOUNDATION of PRODUCTION. It cannot be an addendum.and
Traditional western development denies co-existence of these economies under our existing definition of ‘sustainable development’. Categories made up are:
a.. human settlements
b.. wildlands
c.. productive forestsPeople are pushed out of forests to have wildlife and biosphere reserves. While diversity is protected in these set-asides ‘productive forests’ are based on the traditional logic of uniformity
and market orientation, symbolised by monocultures of fast growing species. It matters little that, in nature’s economy and people’s economy, commercial fast-growing species are often unproductive or even counter-productive...”Fortunately we see now that the Tasmanian Greens have finally moved toward the concept of the sustainable co-existence of nature with conservation production in their new forest plan.
Posted by on 27/03/06 at 11:05 AMBrenda - this coexistence stuff is a nonsense. Human inhabitants adversely affect ecosystems - often in many seemingly invisible but accumulating ways. Even folk living in these areas and trying to do ‘good works’ end up manipulating and altering local ecology.
I am not talking about farm lands per se, which are usually not subdivided, rather the release of smaller blocks, particularly in bush settings.
The best thing we could have done is to have locked them out for development and reduced the numbers of humans in these bush settings.
The people who live in these often have well-meaning motivations but end up impacting and changing ecology at these margins.
We should have land for farming and the rest of us should be living in towns and cities - those great human inventions - and stay away from the bush.
I like rising petrol prices as it will not only stimulate new energy industries but will also force people back into towns and cities.
Posted by on 27/03/06 at 12:48 PMYou need to take a trip out into rural Tasmania. Small holders are actually engaged in forestry and agriculture. They grow native forest and they may have a few sheep, cows, chickens etc.
Farming is an activity that requires human habitation where it takes place.
The damage done to Tasmania is the implementation of a ‘farming’ model that involves huge scale, a handful of absentee landholder corporations and the inevitable rape and pillage - and incredible waste - of natural resources that goes with such a framework. This is beefed up exploitation mostly funded by the Australian taxpayer.
Posted by on 28/03/06 at 03:50 AMGreg Price said:
“..Nuclear energy is safe for the population and safe for the environment. Australia has vast uranium reserves with which to operate nuclear power plants.
Wind and solar are great technologies but are just not viable at present for base-load electricity generation. ..”
Could you provide some evidence of the nuclear industry’s safety, Greg?
Barking Toad said:
“And Brenda, the doom and gloom you preach of ice caps melting and islands/shorelines being inundated is the type of bullshit hysteria that makes people think the greens are a bit on the loony side and encourages them to vote otherwise, depite some good policies the greens may have.Mother Earth has been warming and cooling since the dawn of time. Our influence in the present is barely a blip on the radar. ..”
Could you provide some evidence for your assertions BT?
Posted by on 28/03/06 at 10:50 AMGoogle it Brenda - there’s plenty of scientific opinion contrary to the green doom and gloom.
If it’s too hard, start here and follow some links :
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
I don’t slavishly follow all opinions that may be contrary to yours but like some balance. Maybe if you browse it might open your mind too.
If you can’t take the blinkers off then I guess you’ll just have to camp atop Mt Wellington and wait for the tide to come in. Contrary to popular warming opinion it can get cold up there though.
Posted by on 29/03/06 at 04:05 AM
