It is difficult to get excited about the coming national elections in Australia. John Quiggin is advocating a vote for the Greens and so do I. I think urgent action is required around the world to address the climate change problem and Australia should share the costs of doing this. Neither of the major political parties has a credible policy on climate change. My disgust with Tony Abbott is so complete that for the first time in 30 years I won’t be voting for the conservatives. I am still waiting to see what the parties will offer in the leadup to the election and what their respective local candidates say about the climate issue to see where my second preferences will go. I think Abbott is an unprincipalled opportunist and ignorant in the extreme but will defer my judgement of Gillard until she has performed the role of PM for a while. Her historical involvement in Labor waste, her support for abandoning the CPRS and her current reluctance to act on climate change all count against her. Her advocacy of a Timor solution to the problem of migration queue-jumpers without getting the agreement of the East Timor Government seems simple stupidity. She looks relatively good partly because the Coalition alternatives seem so disasterously weak.
Apart from climate change a strong primary vote for the Greens will force the major political parties to recognise the extent of general environmental concern in Australia. On climate change policy I agree with John Quiggin that a Green’s style carbon tax will, at least, get policy-makers to the starting post. It is important to do that since once an initial price on carbon is set it can be gradually ratcheted up.
A good outcome for the Liberals would be a decisive thrashing and a move to reinstate Malcolm Turnbull as leader. This seems a pipedream but stranger things have happened in Australian politics. A 20% primary vote for the Greens would spur things along. The Labor Party is a historical anachronism that is putting on a facade of respectability through a lurch to the bureaucratic right. Gillard seems to be a Kevin Rudd figure who mangles her words less. Labor’s politicians are less competent administratively than those in the Coalition and its policies largely replicate those of the incompetent conservatives. In the longer-term Labor is an irrelevancy but currently voters have a poor choice set.
Update: The economic policy views of the Greens have been queried in the comments so I thought I’d post their website here. Their economic policies are here. Their pro-industry policies cause concerns as do their opposition to VAT-style taxes (it was the Democrats who stuffed up Australia’s GST) but overall not terrible.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Denyse Skipper – RSS, denyse skipper. denyse skipper said: Voting Green: It is difficult to get excited about the coming national elections in Australia. John Quiggin is ad… http://bit.ly/bwFf37 [...]
I don’t know about their economic policies, but on civil liberties the Greens have been excellent. So I agree – go Green!
As usual, there are serious drawbacks whichever way you vote – you really do feel like the ballot needs a “None of the above” option.
But I agree – I disagree with quite a lot of specific Green policies, and perhaps even more than their policies their rhetoric. But they’re an honest lot, and they are the only ones serious about our childrens’ future.
It is a free country so by all means vote on a religious conviction. But don’t for a minute think the science supports the current climate hysteria from the Greens. You should grab Mark Lawson’s new book when it comes out next week – you’ll probably learn plenty.
“A GUIDE TO CLIMATE CHANGE LUNACY – bad forecasting, terrible solutions”
http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7&products_id=135
MAGP, Who is Connor Court? This is the publisher who produced Plimer’s garbage. Indeed they seem to specialise in climate delusionism and George Pell. See:
http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/.
Their editorial board includes a lot of the IPA/Quadrant types – James Franklin – UNSW, Sydney; John Roskam – IPA, Melbourne; Marita Winters – Catholic Inquiry Centre, Sydney; Hugh McGinlay – Rainbow Books / Mosaic Resources.
Dr. Simone Battiston – Swinburne University.
Errr…and you talk about voting on the basis of ‘religious conviction’. I prefer the science to this bunch of no hopers.
That’s a bizarre editorial board. The last one your list is a lecturer in Italian. Obviously climate physics is a new hobby area for him.
I looked through pretty much all the Greens policies on their website. I found myself agreeing to most things in most policy areas except the economic area where I disagreed with almost everything. But I will vote Green as my first preference. Can’t decide on the second pref either. Don’t want to vote for Labor (last time I voted Green and Labor second). If Turnbull was leader I’d vote Liberal as even a first preference but with Abbott as leader it is pretty tough though I like him on what I’ve seen of his personality more than Gillard.
David, the reason you might agree with all Greens policy except their economic ones could be because good social policy usually costs money.
“Apart from climate change a strong primary vote for the Greens will force the major political parties to recognise the extent of general environmental concern in Australia.”
The majors already do recognise the general environmental concern but it’s a $64000 question of what to do about it. Left green quantitative controls have failed miserably to date to have any meaningful impact and have largely degenerated into rent seeking and special pleading as our graduazzi parade conspicuous compassion for the environment as deep cover for clawback and plundering any progressivity in the tax system. While I can applaud Brown for voting with the Coalition against the CPRS on the grounds of massive free handouts to existing users, not to mention a theoretic pipedream, where is their consistency when it comes to environmental pork everywhere else from wind, solar and hybrids to rainwater tanks, garden mulch and worm farms? Just more pink pigs with makeup is now Harry’s call. Well no doubt that and Dreamtimers hankering for some hippie past until it actually impacts their lifestyle, power bills or the next OS trip. Crack down and impose it all on those horrid, dark Satanic millowners and that’ll fix it all. The same graduazzi who think AGW skeptics are delusional but can’t see the epitome of Blairs Law in the great gathering of minds at Copenhagen. Just ask the Friend of the Chair what he thinks of them all now?
When Nic Gruen asks here-
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2010/07/09/tax-reform-redux/
1.Where am I wrong and why? (Trolls, take it easy)
2.What have I left out. What else should be here?
at the risk of being a troll I explain market green policy to him. Pretty radical stuff by the sounds of it. You know, a bit of Bob’s carbon taxing, Julia and Wayne’s resource taxing and sudden desire to lower company tax, while presumably Tony will be all over no income tax.
Yes folks, a constitutional marketplace where all men are created equal and face the same level playing field on price, with soc sec taking care of the bottom end and an ANWT for the top end of town and then leaving us all to get on with it and Gaia to enjoy the benefits of the only game in town- properly constituted, level playing field price that works every minute of every hour of every day and doesn’t flex off, go on hols or LSL in between the latest quantitative brainfarts.(first they came for the plastic shopping bags and then the gladwrap and then..) Perish the thought eh graduazzi brains and snouts?
[...] Harry Clarke I think urgent action is required around the world to address the climate change problem and Australia should share the costs of doing this. Neither of the major political parties has a credible policy on climate change. My disgust with Tony Abbott is so complete that for the first time in 30 years I won’t be voting for the conservatives. [...]
Kevin Rudd was their quintessential emperor with no clothes to be mocked and how obvious it is now to the hitherto sycophantic mob that he was always starkers. So much more comfortable to blame it all on Rudd now and ‘move forward’, rather than face up to their own collective guilt, but deep down there’s a residual disquiet that Rudd really took the fall for all their silly foolishness.
The adoring mob were as naked as Rudd and the current crop of would be emperors, not because they can’t appreciate the environmental problem but because they won’t be honest with themselves about the solution. Instead of facing up to the glaringly obvious that carefully constituted price is the only solution to achieving broad behavioural change, they persist with the delusion that green handouts to the faithful will largely do the trick, with little or no sacrifice in lifestyle. Basically business as usual with feelgood pork and offsets for the chosen ones. Apart from the usual picking winners problem (home grown hybrid Camry anyone?) it quickly runs into the fallacy of composition and nasty deficits. Then it’s chop the solar scheme(good God every man and his dog is jumping on), pink batts, green inspectors and green loans and who can we soak for some quick readies to paper over this mess.
Why do we continue to live the great green lie that a bunch of public servants with clipboards should man every servo to check everyone’s weekly allocation(don’t laugh givem time)and that’s their same solution to the MDB and water, when we’re supposedly not all too busy taking the day off work running around our backyards with pots and pans because its raining. More water in the world than land let alone oil but when the price of oil went $35-$150-$70 there was no shortage of petrol but the MDB was mud and still we have to listen to these nutty left green quants with their clipboard solutions to Gaia’s problems. It’s all that ghastly Rudd’s fault you know but thankfully we’re all moving forward again. That’s not just Gaia you hear gagging.
[...] John Quiggin – The Case for the Greens. Harry Clarke – Voting Green [...]
So much for voting Green and their global ETS-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704258604575360821005676554.html
And as for their sudden conversion to straight carbon taxing (the Quigginses, et al), how on earth will they get anywhere near a price of $275-$750/tonne without serious offsetting tax cuts we may well ask-
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1161
Ask but you won’t get any answers from these watermelons.