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

[hue]

gets worse Mick, a lot of the crap that the greens publicly espouse (as opposed to the private stuff they don't want you to know) is labor policy!

Hue

[Lochmoy]

Not really sure what you are getting at here Hue and I think you are taking the mickey a bit but I will say in response that you actually need a full brain to decide who to vote for. Every voter needs to bone up on the policies of who they are thinking of voting for. It would be irresponsible not to do so.

To live in a democracy is a rare and fragile thing. Too fragile to spout cheap shots. I have read the policies of all the major parties including the Greens and I advocate others do so. It's easy to get on the internet. I think when you read the policies of all the parties there will be things you won't like. All politicians of all parties attempt to avoid scrutiny. Just don't try to work out your voting intentions from reading the tabloids. Our country deserves better.

[Stephen Georgiou]

ha
Quickest way to lose friends is to share political / religious beliefs.

Lucky we have trad archery to keep us sane!!!

[Lochmoy]

I just read the first page of this post and it terrifies me. I cannot believe how much fear exists in the hearts of the good men that have posted on this thread. I am dismayed at the depth of feeling. I would like to calm people down a little and try to bring some perspective here.

1. The Greens only get 15 percent of the vote and people who are involved with or vote for them are just as intelligent or ill informed as anyone who votes for for any other party. They simply have a different perspective on how things should be and that is their right in a democracy. Though you would hardly know it from these posts.

2, The Nationals get many more seats with a smaller percentage of the vote due to a quirk of geography. How fair is that? 15 percent of voters are disenfrancised and have no voice in the lower house.

3. If Greens get the balance of power it will not be the end of the world as we know it. Hunting will not be banned so stop freaking out.

4. I know how you feel Steve but we live in a secular society, not a theocracy. People should have a right to any religion they want but it is essential that religion be separate from the State otherwise you get situations like Iran where the theologians rule the country.

4, Finally, if anyone is getting all their information from the tabloid press, try to find other sources of information. Recently I have been reading it and I have never read such uninformed diatribe designed for sensationalist headlines simply to sell more papers. Promoting fear and loathing everywhere. Fear that seems to be leaking into this forum. I do not want to live in a country where fear rules.

And can we try to keep politics out of this forum????

[hue]

Lochmoy, Lochmoy, Lochmoy

do you think i'm that naive? i'm a political animal. i love it. i"ll be in front of the tube all night tomorrow night watching the counting!
i could give you Family First political policies verbatim if you wanted me too
what i mean to say is that i understand the game and to make an informed decision, you must have the facts and theyt are easy to find - use the net and read the policies. don't rely on a a current affair or today tonight or the herald sun or the age - but all of them and more and then weigh it all up.
it's very easy to say i don't care about politics, but these bozos are running our country and you have to be interested, you have to know. the trouble is mate, that this election is more interesting for what they are not telling us than what they are. this is the most scripted election i've ever seen in 40 odd years of elections viewing. they all seem to be saying "vote us in and we'll tell you what we'll do when we are there". the greens are a pressure group and in europe, a dangerous one - i never want to see that here - but god help us if they get the balance of power cos in their manic desire to fix climate problems, they will tax us out of existence mate.
so there Leigh

Hue

[Lochmoy]

Glad you clarified your stance Hue. Greens are not a pressure group. They are a legitimate political party and have been for some time and using emotive words like "manic" does'nt make it so. I happen to think that taxing mining companies is a great thing. Not the poor punters like us. How else are we to get the infrastructure so sorely needed in this land.

[Lochmoy]

And just out of interest. Where does this 50 percent tax stuff come from. I've never read it anywhere in the Greens policies? If I've missed it can someone direct me? Also Hue, what evidence do you have to suggest that the Greens in Europe are dangerous? I am curious to know.

Oh and on Saturday, if they announce that the Greens have get the balance of power I'll be thinking of you mate

[kerrille]

as much as i agree with lochmoy thats where it ends, it would be great if people voted on policy but they dont ie im gunna vote for joolia cos shes a woman or i wont vote for her cos she hasnt got kids and dosnt belive in god and the same can be said for tony. i vote my way after i look at all the aspects also because of past records, i couldnt vote for a certain party, so i look at them all, for the first time in my life i havent voted for a main party, i just hope the greens dont get the balance of power because i have read there policy's and they do scare me.

...nev...

[Lochmoy]

Well said Nev. At least you have informed yourself well. Fantastic.

[Mick Smith]

The thing that annoys me the most about the Greens is that they're so arrogant. They believe that they know best about everything linked to the environment, when in fact they don't. They will not listen to anyone outside their own sphere on interest on any issues. They're so self rightious and so mighter than thou, it makes me sick.

Unfortunately the Greens have managed to influence some otherwise intelligent people. I believe their power base comes from the ignorance of younger people who think it's trendy to be 'green' regardless of the consequences.

The Greens have had some good policies and I believe their heart is mostly in the right place, but I'm sad to say, they have the issue of marine parks totally incorrect. Yes, I've read and re-read their policies over and over again and I've tried to study their information sources too, but most of that side of things remains hidden to the public. I've have come to the conclusion that the Green's decision to push for massive areas of marine parks isn't scientifically based at all. It's an over simplified idealistic solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist. The obvious way of controlling the health of fisheries is with detailed management, not the locking away of huge areas of Australia's coast. The Greens have permanently lost me over this issue. I will never trust them again on any issue.

Mick

[Lochmoy]

If I were to cast my vote on my feelings about one particular issue I wouldn't be able to vote for any political party EVER as I disagree with part of every parties policy and often quite vehemently.

As for arrogance, are you seriously saying Mick that the Greens have some sort of monopoly on this? As far as "hidden" policies or dealings, well for goodness sake, the major parties are simply riddled with such things. Such is the nature of politics. To condemn a party who have almost never been able to exert the slightest real power and yet gathers 15 percent of the nations vote is a grave injustice. I have voted for Greens ever since their inception and not once have I had representation. Not once. Nor have the one million others that have voted green. That's one million Australians, locked out of any real say in things for over 15 years. So don't try to tell me how much real influence the Greens have had when we all know it comes down to seats in parliment and in particular, lower house seats.

You know as well as I do Mick that the nature of politics is one of compromise and horse trading. And so it should be as everyone who votes deserves representation. Just because the Greens might want large marine national parks does not mean they'll get it.

And boot on the other foot. I think the climate policies of Labour and Liberal are totally pathetic. Does that mean I'll never, ever vote for them. Of course not because I know that in this system, everyone eventually gets a bit of what they want because we have a very strong system.

Greens have for years based there environmental policies on sound and tested scientific investigation over many years of research. They don't just make decisions based on how pretty things might be because that is ridiculous. It so happens that our marine parks are woefully inadequate by the way but I don't want to stop you fishing or hunting ever either.

The great irony here Mick is that you should be supporting the creation of more marine parks as the research is clear that protected breeding grounds produce more fish for you to catch!


The young people I know vote for the Greens, not because they see it as trendy or cool but because the Greens give them hope. They speak to them. These are thoughtful young people and ought not to be patronised,

[Mick Smith]

Greens have for years based there environmental policies on sound and tested scientific investigation over many years of research. They don't just make decisions based on how pretty things might be because that is ridiculous. It so happens that our marine parks are woefully inadequate by the way but I don't want to stop you fishing or hunting ever either.

The great irony here Mick is that you should be supporting the creation of more marine parks as the research is clear that protected breeding grounds produce more fish for you to catch!

If you could Leigh, please provide me with a link to the Australian research which has been done on the value and effectivness of marine national parks. Please include the name of the scientists and their accreditations.

Check out this page ... http://greens.org.au/content/unhappy-fe ... -mr-abbott from the Green's website. It tells us where they got there information regarding the fishing situation in Australia. It came from the kids movie 'Happy Feet'. That's solid scientific research isn't it.

I keep asking why the Greens and the Labour Party have totally dismissed detailed management practices (including the buying out of many commercial fishing licenses) as a means of monitoring and protecting the fisheries, but alas, without any success, yet to me, this is the only logical way of doing it. Locking up huge areas of our coastline is like crushing a flea with a sledgehammer.

Don't let them fool you Leigh. You're intelligent enough to see through the 'grand visions' of marine national parks and see them for what they really are.

The Greens and by association, the Labour party too, have soiled the nest and no amount of cleaning will ever wash away the stains. I believe the responses on this thread from effected people have vindicated my point of view.

I'm just glad the election is here and we can now get back on with our normal lives, as it doesn't matter now, as what will happen will happen and we're powerless to stop it.

Mick

[muntries]

Mick, some of what you say has a valid point

I keep asking why the Greens and the Labour Party have totally dismissed detailed management practices as a means of monitoring and protecting the fisheries, but alas, without any success, yet to me, this is the only logical way of doing it. Locking up huge areas of our coastline is like crushing a flea with a sledgehammer

However some of the academic papers all tend to agree, to differing levels, that marine reserves are a useful tools when implemented correctly. Some British papers that I have read have seen increased sizes of lobster catches adjacent to marine reserves, however at the same time this meant a drop in velvet swimmer craps through predation from Lobsters, but this is the natural system at work.

As for the link, well yes that is something of an odd comparison, when there are numerous other studies and evidence to they could have used! However it doesn't say anywhere that they based their policies on Happy Feet, merely used (and wrongly in my opinion) a popular movie to push a point when they could easily have used real life examples of fisheries collapse in North Atlantic that would have been more appropriate.

I'm just glad the election is here and we can now get back on with our normal lives, as it doesn't matter now, as what will happen will happen and we're powerless to stop it.

Not if it means Abbott who has made promises to make $40m worth of funding cuts to the industry that I work in Although Labour hasn't been much cop either!!

[Mick Smith]

As for the link, well yes that is something of an odd comparison, when there are numerous other studies and evidence to they could have used!

That's my point muntries, is there in fact, numerous other studies and evidence they could have used? I haven't heard of any specific Australian studies at all and I can't accept that overseas studies are relevent to Australian conditions.

As I've said before, I'm not against marine national parks at all. I just believe that we don't need to lock up a full 30% of our coastline with them, that's all.

As for species like crayfish and crabs, I have no doubt that marine parks would give bottom species a lot of protection, however I can't say the same about pelagic fish species as they move around constantly. Recreational fishermen don't target crustations to any meaningful extent.

I could see a benefit in marine national parks if they were located in areas where fish breed, but 'nursery' areas aren't often included within their bounds. Many of the proposed marine parks will be located where they will thwart fishermen the most, places like around the major population centres. Some marine parks will be blatantly placed exactly 5 km south, 5 km north and 5 km out to sea, precisely from major coastal cities and if that's not designed to thwart local fishermen, I'll go he.

There's a lot more to this proposal than meets the eye! The Greens (and Labour too) don't seem to have any remorse over the fact that they're effectively trying to kill recreational fishing in this country and by doing so they're trying to put an end to a lifestyle that's essentially Australian by nature. It's all made far worse due to the fact that there are better coarses that could have been taken that would make everyone happy.

Mick

[muntries]

As for species like crayfish and crabs, I have no doubt that marine parks would give bottom species a lot of protection, however I can say the same about pelagic fish species as they move constantly. Recreational fishermen don't target crustations to any meaningful extent.

Spot on and this was mentioned by a few papers and considering that many pelagic species are not fully understood then marine reserves would not and probably do not offer any protection to them, research would need to be done and reserves that are species specific would need to be set up and that may need international support to establish and maintain and then we head into a great big minefield. I'm also not sure that they are that impacted by rec fishermen but are there to protect against commercial fishermen. Some marine reserves just don't make sense, such as the one along the 12 apostles, no fishing vessel would fish there anyway! Others do make sense like the sea grass reserves at Corner inlet. I think a lot of them have been established based being national icons rather than actual biodiversity and fisheries benefits. I had this issue with the federal funding being poured into projects on the barrier reef and uluru, they are already protected as icons in the mindset of Australians and overseas visitors too, that attracts lots of corporate funding but there is so many other places that are just not so sexy but are as important or more so and these just don't get the same support, purely based on votes etc. Bloody politicians!!

I probably wouldn't vote greens because they just aren't rounded enough, and having met the odd foaming rabbid greens election campaigner down the years they have kinda turned me off!

[AndyD]

Not going in to whom I voted for or feel are the least awful but one thing I know...

I love telling the "Greenies" handing out the flyers at the local voting centre "voting for the shooters party - back off...."

[hue]

and therein lays another problem, lies in the fact that a lot of the leadership of the greens are militant vegetarians and consequently their policies are directed towards this agenda - in that respect, they remind me of PETA - irrational decisions based on personnal choices.
Leigh, i never quoted percentages etc, so i don't know where that came from, but can you tell me something. all these carbon offset charges and taxes (and brace yourself if the greens get any kind of say in the senate) where do they go, who benefits from these? hope it's not some general in south america for supposedly planting forests over there:)
Hue

[Mick Smith]

Voting in this election for me was a bit like when I was a kid buying showbags at the Royal Melbourne Show. Back in those days, you would always look to see what was inside each bag before making the purchase. Some bags had lot's of yummy stuff and a few toys in them together with the odd thing that wasn't so good and other bags had lots of cheap toys and a few lollies. I could only buy one or two bags, so I had to make sure I got the best value for my limited money. None of the bags were ideal, but some were better than the others.

Political parties are a bit like showbags. Some of their policies are good, some are even great, but then again some aren't at all to my liking. You could say, that to me, the Greens showbag had a few interesting things in it, but it had something else altogether in there, something like a big piece of cat faeces ( the 30% marine national parks policy), something that was completely undigestable and disgusting to me. You wouldn't buy that showbag would you? That's why I put them last on my preferences this time, as I probably will every time into the future.

Mick

[hue]

and here's where i put my head on the chopping block
loving politics and all things associated with it....
the first time ever in my adult life, i did not register a vote - i will cop the fine!
that is my democratic right at work!
the worst part about this is there is another election in november for the state election, so we have further ******** to come in victoria

Hue

[muntries]

all these carbon offset charges and taxes (and brace yourself if the greens get any kind of say in the senate) where do they go, who benefits from these? hope it's not some general in south america for supposedly planting forests over there:)

Depends what offset provider a company decides to use. Greenfleet I think are heavy into farm forestry and plantations in Victoria, Landcare had one and that was to be directed into farm plantations and windbreaks and I knew of an organisation that was working on biochar that could be used to store carbon in soil and improve farm productivity in the process. There are some companies that were offering offsets overseas, one was in Scotland and one was seeding the oceans for some bizarre reason! I think if carbon is given a price (and there are many big and small businesses hoping so not just the mining and coal) then there needs to be regulation of providers.

[Steven J]

I tried to number below the line and put the Greens last. LOL I used 3 ballot papers and ended up numbering above the line on the last. My first try saw me get to 82 (doubled up two numbers somewhere) then on my second I got to 67, 68, 69, then started at 60 again

I have therefore decided that it is nigh imposible to number below the line in a tiny cardboard booth and without a rubber to correct your mistakes. Kylie and the kids waited outside for close on 25 minutes.

Steve

[Lochmoy]

The best thing that has come out of this forum is that we are discussing things. Maybe a bit heated at times but there is nothing wrong with that.

A few points. Sometimes I feel like I am straddling a barbed wire fence with 2 forces pulling my legs apart doing the splits. I think I am a strange breed. I approve of hunting (ferals), develop property (energy efficient of course), have owned a couple of small business but I am also an environmentalist who has worked on and off in the field for 30 years and I am very well aware of the very poor state of the environment. (example, the almost dead Coorong) If any other party had the environmental credentials of the Greens I would probably vote for them.

I don't agree with all the policies and at policy meetings I have often argued against various policies. I have handed out how to vote cards for 8 elections and the only nastiness I have ever witnessed was from the libs, family first and a few of the voters. I am sure that there have been the odd loonie Green how to vote card person but my experience has been that the greatest abuse is aimed at the Greens as in this conservative country some of the greens policies are viewed as radical. Some of them are but it's all a matter of perception.

I feel, for example, that sending our troops to fight overseas without the permission of the parliment as radical but it's a policy that both major parties agree with. I would consider endangering our climate by allowing the unfettered burning of fossil fuels as radical but both major parties are okay with this.

As for tax Hue. You are going to hate this one but some of the countries with the hightest standard of living for the average Joe like you and me have.......wait for it.....40% tax! I am speaking of course of the Scandinavian countries.

Mick, the studies I refer to are based on protecting reefs in the Philipines so you could rightly argue with me there. I'll do some hunting around for you. But Mick, the Greens will not have the power to declare 30 percent of the shoreline marine park. That would be for them the ultimate goal and are unlikely to achieve it for decades if ever. Anyway, aren't you being a tad too self interested here?

Steve, I put Family First last.

Anyway, the fun time begins. A hung parliment. And whoever said politics is boring. I probably should stop posting on this thread as I might lose a few friends and believe it or not I actually hold friendship much higher in value than political views.

[Lochmoy]

And Hue, someone mentioned 50 percent. I am not sure who. Also, the Greens do not want offsets but a price on carbon. Or, brace yourself buddy.....a carbon tax!!!!!! Quick everyone, run for the hills, it's the end of life as we know it!..................lol. How do you get those little smily things on the post. I can't work it out.

[Lochmoy]

Oh, and Hue, if you decide not to vote then you can't really complain if someone gets in you don't like.

[Mick Smith]

Hey Leigh, I seem to get the impression that you think we're having a go at you. Well, we're not. You are not the Greens. You needn't feel obliged to offer explanations for other people's mistakes.

As far as being "self interested', imagine if the Liberals got into power and they put forward legislation saying that english longbows could only be 60 inches long. Imagine too, if they couldn't give you a logical explanation as to why it is so. Wouldn't you be a little irrated? It appears that nobody else is much interested in my interests, so what's wrong with trying to sway a few voters before the election, in a bid to stave off the possible introduction of irrational policies. It's still a free country (for the time being) and I'm free to say whatever I want. Besides the marine national parks fiasco is only a small part of the hidden agendas that we're yet to see from of the various disaffected members of the Greens party. At least my self interested actions are not impinging on other people's lifestyles, unlike the Green's stupid policies.

Surely you must see that a length of Australia's coastline longer than the entire coast of Western Australia being declared as marine national parks is a bit of an overkill. If you can't see that you've been well and truly brainwashed.

We're all conversationists here on this site. The sort of people who take the time and trouble to hunt with a bow and arrow are not the sort of people who wish to plunder this countries natural resources. The Greens are not conversationists, they're preservationists and that's extremist and irrational behavour in my books.

Good luck with finding relevant (Australian) scientifically based reasons for the Greens brain fart on marine national parks. There isn't any. I've looked. No political party is perfect, least of all the Greens.

As I said before, don't take it too hard. You don't have to stick up for the Greens. There's nothing you can say that will change anyone here's opinion of them anyway. It's a pity really, as they might have been able to make changes for the good, but it now appears that they're only interested in pursuing their own hidden agendas.

Anyway, that's the end of my rant against the Greens. It's all over now. The election has come and gone. The Greens profited greatly from all the disaffected voters, who were sick and tired of the major parties and their continious bleating. I actually ended up voting for some independent dude in the house of reps that I've never even heard of before. I made sure I put the Greens last and the ALP second last on my preferences.

This will be my last word on this subject. It's over now.

Mick

[hue]

spot on Leigh, i certainly did that by not voting!
the emoticons are on the left hand side of the thread response message thingy if you want to use them.
the next year will prove to be very interesting in australian federal politics.
god help us, we have a more boring poll coming in november - a state govt. on the nose and a non-entity of an opposition

Hue

[Lochmoy]

Don't worry Mick, it is all over and I haven't taken it personally. It's politics and to be quite frank I'd rather just shoot warbow.

I defend the Greens because a lot of what is said about them is a misrepresentation of what is actually written. I support them, even though some of their policies need refining because they represent a facet of Australia that needs to be heard and even though I agree this forum is probably predominantly anti-green I also know it to be full of fair minded people and I finish with this question.

In the Australian system, a party like the Nationals can get several lower house seats with just 4 percent of the vote. The Greens this election I believe, averaged 11.4 percent of the vote nationally and gained just one lower house seat. Does that sound fair? That over 1 in 10 voters are not being given a voice? Even if you hate their policies?

On raw figures the Greens should have 17 lower house seats, not just one and in a proportional representative system they would. Like the in the upper house.

While this injustice remains, I'll support the underdog, even if (like all parties) some of their policies might be in need of changing.

I hope in the following months that the Greens demonstrate that they are not the rabid loonies some paint them to be. I hope they show themselves to be the thoughtful individuals I know them to be because if they aren't, the Australian people will rightfully kick them out. Never to return.

Next meeting I attend, I'll put your feelings to the policy committee Mick in regards to the things you mentioned and see if I can't put an alternative view and get some change happening. They are actually reasonable people. I wouldn't be a member if they weren't

I'm done on this subject.

[Nephew]

May I just take the opportunity here to congratulate all involved in this debate. It has been conducted in a very mature, respectful manner and I admire you all for that. That we can disagree so strongly, yet respect that the other bloke has just as deeply held convictions and is arguing for what he/she truly believes right is a sign of healthy democracy at work.
Well done, folks.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Don't worry Mick, it is all over and I haven't taken it personally. It's politics and to be quite frank I'd rather just shoot warbow.

I defend the Greens because a lot of what is said about them is a misrepresentation of what is actually written. I support them, even though some of their policies need refining because they represent a facet of Australia that needs to be heard and even though I agree this forum is probably predominantly anti-green I also know it to be full of fair minded people and I finish with this question.

In the Australian system, a party like the Nationals can get several lower house seats with just 4 percent of the vote. The Greens this election I believe, averaged 11.4 percent of the vote nationally and gained just one lower house seat. Does that sound fair? That over 1 in 10 voters are not being given a voice? Even if you hate their policies?

On raw figures the Greens should have 17 lower house seats, not just one and in a proportional representative system they would. Like the in the upper house.

While this injustice remains, I'll support the underdog, even if (like all parties) some of their policies might be in need of changing.

I hope in the following months that the Greens demonstrate that they are not the rabid loonies some paint them to be. I hope they show themselves to be the thoughtful individuals I know them to be because if they aren't, the Australian people will rightfully kick them out. Never to return.

Next meeting I attend, I'll put your feelings to the policy committee Mick in regards to the things you mentioned and see if I can't put an alternative view and get some change happening. They are actually reasonable people. I wouldn't be a member if they weren't

I'm done on this subject.

Pity because I was enjoying everything you said Lochy. Not stealing your thunder friend but these postings could have been from my own keyboard.

I have also suggested at other places that hunters would do well to join the Greens..and add some balance to the mix. But of course just as there are extremist Greens there are extremist Hunters. Funny, I don't get on with either.

I did not vote Greens but I certainly did not put them last. Those spots were reserved for Labor and Liberal respectively. I marked every box because be damned if anyone will decide by proxy where my preferences lay. They are probably still trying to allocate my ballot sheet.

I also think the final outcome for parliment is fantastic. What an opportunity for some actual democracy to take place in this country..probably hasn't been seen for probably 70-80 years. This is actually the way the system was designed and really intended to work...decisions made for this country often based on proper debate and winning the numbers to pass legislation not the corrupt and morally bankrupt cock crowing of "Mandate!!!"

I also believe in proportional representation, if 17% of the population vote Greens then they should hold 17% of the voting power in a democracy, otherwise it really is (actually it has been since WW2) a farce. I also think that with more ability to represent and enter into debate as a proportional force then you would actually see the more radical personalities being push out or having less influence.

The turn-taking-nest-feathering party politics of the last 50 years have seen Public assets sold, Public/Government businesses sold, the services and work forces of those public interests have been decimated, less and less open government...there should be no such thing as Cabinet or Caucus, what is done in the Australian people's name should have full disclosure. There should have been no free bail out for the financial industry. Super should be government bonds. The commonwealth Bank should be return to public hands. Telstra should be returned to public hands. NO STRATEGIC ASSET should ever be in private hands and I include power and water as strategic assets.

Anyway...basically I have voted independent for nearly 20 years now...my dad claimed it was a wasted vote and he may have not been far wrong but it was not so wasted as voting either Liberal or Labor in my opinion.

A late post, but I was impressed by you considered responses. Good on ya mate.

[Nephew]

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 ?