No one with half a brain would vote Greens would they ?

[Len]

For the Vics on here who will be voting soon I thought I should let you know that it is Greens policy is to ban hunting, Its in plain English on their web site.

[Nephew]

And that's the point at which they blow it! I find myself concurring with some of what they have to say, but how on Earth you can consider y'self "GREEN" yet be against hunting ferals is beyond comprehension to me! It just seems like such a contradiction!

They have no parliamentary presence up here and I can't see that changing anytime soon. With time on our side, once again I say...- perhaps if we were to join and steer policy at branch meeting level now before either of the majors need them to form Govt.? (Oh! The idea of the Nats having to ditch the Libs, dissolve the LNP, and form coalition with the Greens to win Govt is deliciously, painfully {to them} bizarre! Priceless! ) We would have to be smart about it, like if we joined En Masse they'd pick it straight away, but in dribs and drabs over a couple of years, maybe?

It's YOUR democracy, get involved and influence it! Voting against just isn't enough if you're fair dinkum! Policy formation in parties like the Greens are driven by membership consensus, use this to our advantage, I say!

[Chase N. Nocks]

The Greens have many good policies and some idiotic ones as well. Quite a few of these policies are more personality driven than common sense driven. Some idiotic policies are accepted automatically by many members because they are seen as extensions to good policies, motives or ethics.

For instance, battery hen farming is one of the most humanely devoid practices on the planet and I would not hesitate to sign a petition from the Greens or PETA to have it banned. But some will see hunting as an extension of the afore mentioned cruelty. They are making the most simple and unsophisticated extentsion to a broad category of animal exploitation and cruelty.

There are many people who are vegetarians which I can respect when it is consistant with a core belief of not doing harm. It is not a path for me, however I do actually eat less meat than ever before because I disagree with many modern animal farming practices. From factory farming techniques to the use of steroids and phamacuticals in animals. I like meat and I see nothing wrong with eating meat. But it can be procured in a wrong way.

An intelligent Greenie IMHO, would be one based on a similar mold to Hugh from the TV series "River Cottage". Meat eater, hunter for the table, environmentalist, community driven, animal welfare advocate.

There are some things I disagree with the Greens heart and soul about, gun ownership and hunting are the two that spring most readily to mind. On the other hand I agree plenty of their other policies.



Moreton, the sale of my and my children's assets without my specific permission is nothing short of theft in my opinion and in fact is so against the future well being and benefit of this nation that it should be viewed as an era of treasonous representation. These were the things that my parents and grand parents worked for and built. They were taken away for a once off bargain sale. The revenue lose, job loses and downgraded or exported customer service, the lack of reinvestment and proper maintenance etc etc etc.

I have no doubt that if Telecom was still government owned the bush would have Broadband or equivalent system operating by now. We once had a telecommunication system that even impressed the the best engineering countries on earth. Now you could probably get a better service in Mexico. Captain Bligh is the latest grub to jump on the bandwagon.

[jindydiver]

Can anyone explain to me how administrations, always temporary no matter how long they manage to cling to power ( eventually every Govt. loses office), get the right to sell what is not theirs to sell, without at least putting it to plebiscite ?

Because what we have in Australia is just the illusion of a democracy. We all get to vote so we think we have some power over what happens

[Len]

And that's the point at which they blow it! I find myself concurring with some of what they have to say, but how on Earth you can consider y'self "GREEN" yet be against hunting ferals is beyond comprehension to me! It just seems like such a contradiction!

Moreton, apparantly the Greens want to control ferals but sterilizing them so they can't breed

[Nephew]

And that's the point at which they blow it! I find myself concurring with some of what they have to say, but how on Earth you can consider y'self "GREEN" yet be against hunting ferals is beyond comprehension to me! It just seems like such a contradiction!

Moreton, apparantly the Greens want to control ferals but sterilizing them so they can't breed

Now, THERE'S a practical solution!! Do they propose to offer counselling for the poor young would-be feral Mum forced to forsake her life's purpose?

I mean... honestly! I won't argue with anyone who tells me they love and wish to preserve, as far as is practical, the bush. I feel the same and admire the dedication of say..."Bushcare" or "Men of the Trees". But this is as crazy/funny as P.E.T.A 's "Sea Kittens", for Petes sake! How does any party expect anyone to take them seriously if they offer this kind of proposal with a straight face?

I will say, though, that if the Greens do win seats in state parliaments around the country, and more than the one the have in the Federal House of Reps (By the way, when did "Federal" replace "Commonwealth" in the national lexicon?) they will HAVE to move to the centre if they wish to retain those seats. Gaining acceptance amongst the mainstream may well be the best thing for bringing them around...well not to our way, they will never do that, but at least less "Nazi" in their approach.

[Nephew]

Moreton, the sale of my and my children's assets without my specific permission is nothing short of theft in my opinion and in fact is so against the future well being and benefit of this nation that it should be viewed as an era of treasonous representation. These were the things that my parents and grand parents worked for and built. They were taken away for a once off bargain sale. The revenue lose, job loses and downgraded or exported customer service, the lack of reinvestment and proper maintenance etc etc etc.

I have no doubt that if Telecom was still government owned the bush would have Broadband or equivalent system operating by now. We once had a telecommunication system that even impressed the the best engineering countries on earth. Now you could probably get a better service in Mexico. Captain Bligh is the latest grub to jump on the bandwagon.

Chase, I agree with every single syllable, mate! Selling Q.R. freight was a real kick in the guts along with all else that witch has done! When I lay all her policies out in front of me, not just the sale of assets owned by the people, but social policies as well, I'm certain I can see a pattern that tells me she has an agenda to marginalise a certain type of man...the type that are comfortable in their masculinity, enjoy traditional male pastimes and pursuits and feel no need to pretend to be "Snags" or "Metrosexuals" ... and selling ports, forest industries and Q.R. freight does nothing to convince me I'm just being paranoid, either!

[GrahameA]

Hi Craig.

...Federal House of Reps (By the way, when did "Federal" replace "Commonwealth" in the national lexicon?) ....

Never or 1885 - depending on how you want to look at things. Look up "The Federal Council of Australasia Act". The Commonwealth of Australia is the name of the country. The bicameral government in Canberra is the "Parliament of the Commonwealth Parliament" or the "Federal Parliament" or "The Parliament".

The Constitution however says:

CHAPTER I.

THE PARLIAMENT.

Part I .- General.

Legislative power.
1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth."

A good read which I recommend to you. http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/1stRd.html

[Nephew]

G'Day Grahame,
Of course- "Federation"... "Federal" , it makes sense. Here I was thinking it was a fairly recent example of the Americanisation of "'Strine"! What's your thoughts on the latest outbreak of theft and sale of our assets?

Thanks for the link too, Mate, that's my reading for the night covered!

[Nephew]

Where's Stickbow? I'm HANGIN' to hear HIS opinion of the Pirate Capn' Bligh... and her policies!! Greens, too! (After spending a week out West with him, I bet I could make a fair prediction of what those opinions would be! )

[Stickbow Hunter]

Where's Stickbow? I'm HANGIN' to hear HIS opinion of the Pirate Capn' Bligh... and her policies!! Greens, too! (After spending a week out West with him, I bet I could make a fair prediction of what those opinions would be! )

As you know mate, our views about Anna and the greens are much the same so no need for me to say more.

Jeff

[Nephew]

Oh, what a dud! I was hoping you'd really cut loose on this one!

[GrahameA]

Morning Craig

Of course- "Federation"... "Federal" , it makes sense. Here I was thinking it was a fairly recent example of the Americanisation of "'Strine"! What's your thoughts on the latest outbreak of theft and sale of our assets?

Do not discuss Politics or Religion - it is a "No Win" situation.

However, since today is such an auspicious day - 5th November - the day that we (well some) celebrate the only "honest man" to enter Parliament a couple of comments.

As long as they operate within the bounds of the Constitution then they are operating within their powers. In Aus' the issue is not what Governments do but rather the what the voting public lets them do. If people are happy with their elected representatives they vote them back in, if they are not they vote someone else in. The blame lies not with the elected members but with the voters.

[dawallace45]

All that money spent on a election and no bugger worth voting for , what a waste

David

[Nephew]

Morning Craig


However, since today is such an auspicious day - 5th November - the day that we (well some) celebrate the only "honest man" to enter Parliament a couple of comments.

HAH! Took me a little while- I was looking to find when Chifley or Curtin entered parliament, then I thought "Nah, Grahame is being more mischievous than literal on this"... and that's when I thought of Guido (Guy) Fawkes! Well done Grahame, onya!

[dawallace45]

Politics is such a dirty game that it's always been my opinion that any one who really wants to get into it should under no circumstance be allowed to have power

David

[GrahameA]

Hi Craig.

Morning Craig


However, since today is such an auspicious day - 5th November - the day that we (well some) celebrate the only "honest man" to enter Parliament a couple of comments.

HAH! Took me a little while- I was looking to find when Chifley or Curtin entered parliament, then I thought "Nah, Grahame is being more mischievous than literal on this"... and that's when I thought of Guido (Guy) Fawkes! Well done Grahame, onya!

Yes. He said he was going Parliament to blow it up and that is exactly what he tried to do when he entered it. As I said - an honest man.

IMHO - the biggest issue with government is that the majority of people do not understand how it works (and are not interested, disinterested, uninterested or apathetic). As an example think of all those people who "rabitted on" when Rudd was replaced by Gillard claiming that they had voted for Rudd not Gillard. The reality being that the only people who voted for Rudd were those in his electorate.

[Nephew]

Yes, I gave up saying "Only if you live in the electorate of Griffith"
Anyway, sorry to hijack your thread Len! Back to the topic at hand.

[Lochmoy]

Sorry to correct you Len and I am happy for you to show the error of my ways but I read through every Green policy and the only thing I could find about hunting was banning duck shooting. Something I happen to agree with by the way for purely an ecological point of view.

I also discussed at length with my local Victorian Greens candidate the matter of hunting and this is from the horses mouth.

The Greens encourage the hunting and destruction of all feral animals, including deer, due to their wholesale destruction of the environment. In fact they were nearly in some sort of accord with a hunters group except on the issue of deer hunting. The Greens want deer eradicated but hunters wanted to keep the populations going for game.

The sterilization issue is not related to the Greens but I have heard studies being done in relation to using viruses as a vector to sterilise foxes. This is certainly not in the Greens policies.

What some of the writers in this thread need to understand is that if they were to read the policies of the other parties they just might find they don't agree with a lot of them either. It puzzles me that anyone should condemn a party on the basis of one or two things they disagree with. If that is the case you might as well just do a donkey vote as you'll probably think that no one is worth voting for.

Our democracy in Australia ain't perfect but you can get involved like I do instead of standing on the sidelines carping. I'd much rather live in an imperfect democracy than a "perfect" dictatorship.

[MattW]

As for not voting for a party based on your disagreement with one of their policies, it really depends on the policy, and how closely or directly it effects you. If a party has a raft of fantastic policies, but also have a policy to ban hunting, then I will not vote for them, no matter how good the rest of the policies are.

The big issues for me are the ones curtailing personal freedoms. Unfortunately most of the big parties are all for this, so I find it difficult to vote for any of them. I usually vote for a smaller party, or independent, who's policies I agree (mostly) with. At the end of the day, due to preferences, my vote will probably end up with a major party, and which ever is espousing the least repugnant policies will get it. Remember you are voting for who will represent you best in your electorate, thats all you can vote on.

As for banning duck shooting on environmental grounds, there are alternatives to lead shot (and they are used in some countries). I do not personally hunt ducks, but this is an example of a policy I disagree with, it is a restriction of personal freedom and is easily invalidated on environmental grounds (with the use of non-toxic shot, mind you some people would howl about it because they would have to get a new barrel for their shotgun).

Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth.

[Roadie]

I'm voting for the Country Alliance Party, We have to look after the FARMERS,we need food and who gives us that. I did my time in the Army, put my life on the line for my country, so as far as i'm concerned its my democratic right to carry and bear arms in the pursuit of my sport, Hunting. I will definately not vote for anyone who is Green. Long live the pleasures of hunting & fishing for in my case my Grandsons to do.I need some one to leave my Guns & Bows to. Cheers Roadie.

[Nephew]

Hmmm, look as much as I love the hunt and would hope we have the liberty to do so forever...if a party had a raft of policies that would genuinely be good for society and are fair to those that have been neglected in past policy, yet would restrict my right to hunt...well I'd have to put my desire second to what's best for the many, y'know? I wouldn't like it, but would feel it's the only responsible action to take to me. The choice of which way to vote shouldn't always be based on "What's in it for me?" but "What's best for MOST folk" in my books, just part of being a responsible adult voter. Having said that, let me say that I'm talking about ME here, I'm NOT professing to know what others should do, or how they should vote. Please don't be offended, there are no fingers being pointed here, 0k?

[Len]

Sorry Lochmoy but I read it myself on the greens own website, they want to ban recreational hunting. Its in plain English.
In fact they say its a priority to end recreational hunting.

[Lochmoy]

I combed through the website. I can't find it. What section is it under?

[Lochmoy]

Moreton, what you have just posted is exactly the way I see it. That if the raft of policies are good for the community and you agree with most of them then your own personal desires might sometimes have to come second for the best community result.

If indeed it is the Greens policy then you can always join the party and try to get rid of it! MOST GREENS THAT I HAVE MET HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH HUNTING FERALS AND EATING MEAT AND WEARING LEATHER CONTRARY TO WHAT PEOPLE THINK. Policies can change. The level of commitment and sacrifice that members put in to keep the party going and resist the sledging of all and sundry is awesome. I am expending energy defending the greens because I know it's worth it. I do see both sides however.

Some greens may be misguided as in all groups but they dig deep to help others and for that I will support them as there motives do not stem from selfishness.

Freedom doesn't mean to be able to do just anything. At times to live amongst each other we all curtail various freedoms. Most of give up the freedom to speed on the highway or push to the front of the line. Freedom is always relative.

[Lochmoy]

True to my word Len, I have met with Greens contacts and have voiced my concern over the idea of the Greens policy of banning recreational hunting. Those that I spoke to stated that they are actually in support of the hunting of feral animals as they consider them a threat to Australia's unique wildlife. I pointed out that this is a contradiction of their stated policy. They agreed and are looking at adjusting this. They are opposed to duck hunting as they are native animals however they see the anomaly in their policy and that it needs tweaking.

This is where an individual can have an effect on the policies of a grass roots political parties like the Greens is. I have requested that I be a part of the discussions into this policy and they seem favourable to this. They want input from the public.

So the message is, if you like a lot of the Greens policies but some of them really irk you, then get in there and get involved. It certainly can't hurt. Many hunters are what I would call true environmentalists and understand the bush so your input would be welcome.

[Mick Smith]

They are opposed to duck hunting as they are native animals

Hi Leigh

I honestly can't see why the Greens have simply dismissed the possibility of duck hunting on the grounds that they are native animals. It's rings of dogmatic idealism to me, for them to believe and say something like that.

Don't ducks need to be controlled and managed just like any other species, particularly when their numbers reach critical levels? Why not control duck populations with modern management principals (including hunting), rather than the issuing of 'control permits' (where ducks are still shot) as happens currently in other states where duck hunting has been banned?

All the idealism in the world will not restore Australia's wildlife to what it was before prior to European occupation. Nowadays we should contend with wildlife issues based on individual species requirements, not in simple black and white, or native v's introduced.

We have a very strange notion in this country about what we should and shouldn't hunt. What do you think people hunt in nearly every other country in the world? They hunt their native species and there's nothing wrong with that, just so long as it's done scientifically and with the best wildlife management principals.

To simply place a 'blanket ban' on the hunting of all native animals is something unique to Australia. Some Australian natives do need to be managed and hunting is an excellent way of doing this.

The duck species that are commonly hunted in Australia are not in any danger of becoming extinct. Their numbers vary greatly between good years and bad years. In good seasons they have the ability to multiply to huge numbers quickly and in bad years they die off in huge numbers. In some areas, high duck populations can cause all sorts of problems, problems varying from outbreaks of botulism, to the total decimation of rice crops.

The ducks of Australia may appear to be low in numbers in certain areas from time to time, but you need to take into consideration their fantastic ability to migrate freely to areas of the country where conditions suit them. They are totally different to old world waterfowl in this regard.

Duck hunting could be likened to having an apple tree and harvesting the fruit, whereas banning duck hunting could be likened to having an apple tree and then allowing the fruit to rot on the ground. Duck numbers will self adjust all by themselves, given time, between good seasons and bad. However they will do lots of damage before their numbers decline after good seasons. Hunting simply reduces duck numbers before nature does, as well as providing a huge recreational and food resource for many people.

Duck hunting is also a traditional activity, as traditional as any. Many duck hunters share a tradition which goes back many generations. I have hunted ducks with with my father, as he hunted ducks with his father and so on. Who gives the right to anyone to stop all of this without any valid reasons?

Personally, I don't hunt ducks anymore, but I would hate to see the practice banned purely on the grounds that it offends some people's ideals, people like the Greens, who have no idea of what's happening in the real, practical world at all, people who judge matters totally on emotional and idealist grounds, particularly when this only represents a very small portion of the criteria required to make a balanced and rational choice.

Leigh, you've said in the past, that if you're not satisfied with what's happening within the Greens, why don't I join them in an effort to make my mark? My answer to that is, I don't approve of pedophelia either, but I have no intention of becoming one, just to voice my protest. No, I will simply continue to voice my opinions from afar and I will continue to fight the Greens at every opportunity. Long live the 'Country Alliance' party I say!!!

Mick

[Lochmoy]

Mick, where have you been?

I agree with most of what you say and the debate in the Greens is by no means ended in regards to duck hunting. You would be a great asset to voice your views on policy and you don't have to be a member to do so. The Greens seek input from the public but to use peodaphelia as an analogy is a bit over the top. I will choose to take it as a bad taste joke. Very bad taste.

If you had any idea at all about the basis of Greens policy, you would know that they are based on decades of scientific data and not simply on misplaced idealism.

All I can say is that yelling from the sidelines is easy. What I am doing is hard but on your behalf I will express your views also as they are legitimate. However I do wonder where such extreme emotions and antipathy towards the greens comes from. Esspecially when I am trying to demonstrate that there is a great willingness amongst them to engage with people to make their lives better and to change policies when and where needed.

[Mick Smith]

Thanks for the reply Leigh. I think the biggest error that you're making personally, is thinking that the Greens can represent all things to all people, when obviously they can't. The major position holders within the Greens gives me a very good indication of where the party truly stands. People like Lee Rehannan (whatever the correct spelling is) is now a person of high standing in the Greens and she's also the founder and chairwoman of the 'Coalition for gun control', which is an extremist group. It's seems to me that all the people with extremist views, who haven't been able to inflict their particular view on the world onto the rest of us, have now flocked to the Greens party, where they think they will finally get someone to listen to them.

The pedophilia remark was in poor taste perhaps, but I didn't in anyway say that any members of the Greens were that way inclined. It was a poor analogy, but it was written with a 'tongue in cheek attitude' though.

I know you quite well Leigh. I know that your heart is in the right place. I know that you are committed to a good cause. Unfortunately I can't say that for other members of your party. You seem to be able to see the otherside, but I doubt very much that the more influential Green officials have that ability what so ever.

You know as well as I do that certain 'scientists' can be employed to confirm just about any result that you might happen to be looking for. Take the tobacco industry for example. I truly believe the Greens are working to set idealist agendas and they simply use whatever pseudo scientific results that might support their case. Take the marine national park, so called, scientific studies for example, the basis of the Greens scientific research wasn't even done in this country. How can that be construed as being factual?

The extreme 'emotions' and 'antipathy' as you call them, are a natural result of being told what's best for everyone by people who simply just don't know. The major support for the Greens comes from impressionable young inner city students, etc, who have no idea of what happens in the real world and they don't really care either. They support decisions about things like marine national parks and banning duck hunting without knowing any more that what they're told by the Green's psuedo scientists. They have no interest in ever going to the places effected and they don't give a stuff about the diseffected people involved either.
Without these misguided 'trendy' young impressionable voters, the Greens wouldn't be a power in Australian politics. In other words, the Greens, in my mind, are a group of people who are high on ideals, but they're also totally lacking in 'hands on' common sense and experience of life.

Now, take the Country Alliance party for example. This party formed as a direct result of the threat being imposed to the way of life for many country people by the Greens, who are typically big city orientated. It has vertually become a city v's country scenerio, reflecting the ideals of the two groups in conflict. The Country Alliance party is a lot different to the Greens though. They have hands on experience on what works and what doesn't. Take the local Country Allicance candidate for example, his name is Bernie Leen. A few years ago, when some problem arose at lake Connewarre and Reedy lake, where the growth of weeds, etc stopped the usual water flows into and out of the system, causing a huge growth in the numbers of carp and the associated damage they cause to increase, Bernie Leen, with the relevant authorities approval, took his own heavy machinery into the lake and fixed the problem himself and at his own expense. He didn't do it for the public recognition. He did it because it was a job that needed to be done. Can you supply an example where the Greens have done anything along these lines? I am in no way affiliated with the Country Alliance party, but I do support their views entirely.

I think we are just going to have to disagree on our politics Leigh. You seem to be fully locked into the Greens ideals and I'm certainly opposed to them as they stand at the moment. I can still appreciate your principals without having to agree with them.

Mick

[aroadik]

2 people I like, and 2 opinions that I have a lot of time for, interesting to see where this goes, cheers Pete.