Who’s inside the Coalition firewall?

If only I knew how to use Photoshop …

About 3 weeks ago I pointed out that, although the MSM polls had Labor way in front, the overall trend (at least up to July) seemed to have the Coalition on track for a very close election result by late November or early December. However, there’s been an awful lot of polling water under the bridge since then. As Bryan “Ozpolitics” Palmer observes in commentary to his 2 party preferred aggregated trend graph:

If the remainder of the polls for September are similar, the Coalition will have dropped three points since its July peak, and it would be five points off where it should be if it is be electorally competitive by the end of the year.

The trend lines and the moving averages tell a consistent story: the Coalitions claw back has stalled.

Moreover, Howard is highly unlikely to have gained a “bounce” from the APEC summit either. As Andrew Bolt (who’s campaigning for Howard to quit or be deposed) put it on ABC TV Insiders yesterday:

ANDREW BOLT: But, Brian, I think for the voters though, APEC was one; about security nightmare in Sydney, B; about the Chaser’s stunt, and C; about Rudd speaking Mandarin, and D; about Bush making a bit of a fool of himself. How does that help the Liberals?

Of course, publicly available quantitative polls aren’t necessarily a terribly reliable guide to future political fortunes; averaging the trend of polls with relatively high error margins is arguably only a little better than reading tea-leaves. Close analysis of reliable qualitative research potentially provides a much clearer guide. Usually that sort of research never reaches the public domain, which is why the major parties generally have a much better idea how they’re faring than any media pundit. However, readers may recall that internal Crosby/Textor research for the Coalition was leaked a couple of months ago (I’d be fascinated to know by whom and why). Strangely, no-one in the mainstream media bothered to look at the research closely. Now, blogger “Possum Comitatus” has done the job that should have been performed by a chronically lazy MSM. He/she has a superb analysis of the current federal political situation, based heavily on the Crosby/Textor research. It’s a must read, and one of the finest pieces of political blogging I’ve seen. The conclusion:

The Coalition is running a firewall strategy, but a firewall strategy that is ten points deep and without having a financial capability to defend a wall of seats that thick.

Firewall strategies fail nearly everywhere they are used by a government to defend incumbency but they have succeeded when the aim is not win the election, but to simply save the party an enormous defeat.

Clearly there is a firewall strategy in place, but equally clearly, it is just too many points and seats deep for the finances available to run it effectively.

Howard has conceded the election, but he hasnt told his backbenchers, he hasnt told his marginal seat holders and the only question left to answer is which seats the Liberal leadership has actually decided to sacrifice and which ones will be properly funded in the firewall.

All this twaddle about the election being a circuit breaker is simply for Coalition internal consumption. The Liberal leadership knows theyve lost, theyve conceded the election (which is why they are running a firewall strategy) but theyre in the unenviable position of not being able to tell their own marginal seat holders simply to prevent a riot breaking out and turning a defeat into a political execution.

Presumably, senior Ministers like Costello, Downer, Abbott and Nelson are well aware how bad the situation really is. Most likely Costello would do slightly better than Howard if they jointly tapped him on the shoulder, if only through the honeymoon factor. Presumably none of them have the guts to do so, because none of them want to be the recipient of a leadership “hospital pass” from John Howard. The alternative, however, looks increasingly like electoral annihilation on a massive scale, a defeat from which the Coalition won’t recover for at least a decade, especially given that all its State branches without exception have been moribund for years. Although Howard richly deserves this ignominious fate, it certainly won’t be a positive thing for Australian democracy if the Coalition is indeed crushed federally to an extent where it can’t even form a credible opposition.

PS – Graham Young persuasively makes the contrary case that changing horses at this late stage would make things even worse.

About Ken Parish

Ken Parish is a legal academic, with research areas in public law (constitutional and administrative law), civil procedure and teaching & learning theory and practice. He has been a legal academic for almost 20 years. Before that he ran a legal practice in Darwin for 15 years and was a Member of the NT Legislative Assembly for almost 4 years in the early 1990s.
This entry was posted in Politics - national. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
71 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris Lloyd
Chris Lloyd
14 years ago

…electoral annihilation on a massive scale, a defeat from which the Coalition wont recover for at least a decade..

I hear a lot of pundits make claims along these lines. The theory seems to be that oppositions can only wrest back support in small chunks. But is there any empirical support for this assertion? I am not even sure that the assertion is logically self-consistent. If the opposition can achieve a landslide victory then oppositions manifestly can get big swings. If the ALP can get a 10% swing in their favour what law of human behavour says the coaltion can’t do the same next election?

It starts to sound a bit like the data showing that men have sex out of wedlock more often than women – in a heterosexual world the average number of illicit couplings is exactly equal.

Caroline
14 years ago

And the Coalition especially in this last term have been a boon for democracy?

I’m disinclined to count the chickens, but am hoping that they get completely annihilated and are unable to get a word in sideways for at least a term or two or three. Abbott, Ruddock, Nelson, Andrews–utter, utter creeps.

observa
observa
14 years ago

“it certainly wont be a positive thing for Australian democracy if the Coalition is indeed crushed federally to an extent where it cant even form a credible opposition.”
Piffle! If the people want wall to wall Labor in droves they’re damn well entitled to get what they want. If the Libs can’t offer a decent alternative, or are seen as out of touch, they deserve to be consigned to the political dustbin. Family First or the Greens or whatever can do their job if they’re no good.

Robert
Robert
14 years ago

Chris, you’ll find evidence in just about any group situation that where there has been a strong grip on the leadership of it, and that leadership situation ends or disintegrates (for whatever reason), all hell breaks loose. Voices which were subdued or ineffective immediately raise up in rabble, and the negatives take fly whereupon accusations and blame fly with them. This is headed off, but only to some extent, by creating a natural succession. In the absence of that, as new leaders try to make their case, there follows naturally a lack of direction of the group or Party, because direction comes from leadership. If the LNP loses this one, you can bet the infighting, instability and lack of direction – even to the extent of questioning of the actual validity of its existence – leaves it a trainwreck shambles for a long, long time.

And be sure there is no natural leadership character in waiting, other than Turnbull, who, if he somehow manages to obtain the top job in that situation, would be hard-pressed to hold his own party together let alone restate the cohesive direction of them, and who is far too inexperienced politically to establish anything like a winning agenda. It would be so disruptive in fact that he’d be better off not going near the top job for a heck of a while.

So you have a naturally devastating and disruptive situation at hand when a leader goes, settled in part only by strong leadership in time – with the latter tonic entirely absent from the Liberals: the leadership cupboard is bare.

With that naturally in evidence in the first term, the voters are not going to tick them back in.

On Howard – very interesting interview on 7.30 tonight, worth pulling apart to show his visionless manner of running the country in that it’s a grab-bag of pointers to it, but that it’s all been done before and we’re sick to death of him (and that he doesn’t get that). Still, this is topical today: “Look, the leadership issue was dealt with last year. My party overwhelmingly wanted me as leader.” Howard the wonderful. Blame all the others in the party mate, it’s not my fault I’m a shocker!

Richard Green
Richard Green
14 years ago

I think the best hope for Australia and democracy would be utter annhilation. Something less risks the Liberal party surviving, but remaining as sick and useless as all its state branches.
We can really only hope that being utterly, entirely and unambiguously crushed can help in the creation of a new party that might provide credible opposition. The only other hope would be a complete shift of Labor under Rudd to the centre right territory traditionally held by the Liberals and the rise of a new centre left party (or Greens).
In either case, I don’t think the current organisation can provide much hope.

observa
observa
14 years ago

Anyway it was inevitable that a long period of stable Govt under a strong leader would fall into disarray for some time as it adapted to new realities. Besides the likely Federal election result will release a lot of conservative talent to start concentrating on the obvious problem of the States and the pendulumn will begin to swing back again. This will no doubt be aided and abetted by wall to wall Labor with no place to hide from rectifying the problems they have raised as most important and immediate. Talk’s cheap in Opposition, or with other levels of Govt to buckpass to and blame, but that won’t be an option at all for Labor soon. I reckon Beattie has seen that clearly.

And Caroline, you don’t get to be in Govt by pleasing everyone all the time and the longer you’re there, the more toes you’ve trod on, or upset their owners. Everybody remembers every Govt fault, slip, slide or backpedal, whereas Oppositions get to wipe the slate claen so regularly. Are federal Labor going to bring back the MUA rorts on the wharves, ditto the construction industry, rollback the GST, abolish offshoring, bring the troops home by Xmas and introduce Medicare Gold? Not on your nellie they’re not the creepy liars eh? All forgotten with the fresh face of Mr Squeaky and his shiny new team.

James Farrell
James Farrell
14 years ago

Chris, the relevant consideration is not that a majority in the House of Reps has to be won in small increments, but rather that landslides don’t happen after a single term, and rarely after just two (Whitlam being the only post-war exception). So, if Labor win a large majority, they’ll probably be there for three terms; whereas, if they win a small majority, the Coalition could back sooner.

Whether Ken is right that a switch to Costello would make the difference between these two scenarios, is a separate issue.

observa
observa
14 years ago

“Whitlam being the only post-war exception” an interesting point in itself. There is no guarantee that a Rudd team could not turn out like the Whitlam Govt and a big majority could quickly go to their heads after the initial period when Rudd is God. Labor didn’t spend so long in Opposition because they were dripping with talent and ideas and what Opposition they do face will be experienced and savvy. Then there’s the factions to be satiated, rather than the best person for the job. Labor have raised some mighty expectations too, with some uncomfortable tradeoffs that Howard has been wary of. Take the following example. Rudd wants to quickly sign on to Kyoto with those cost burdens to be dumped on families suffering from ‘his’ housing affordability crisis. In costly Sydney we now know they’re going to suffer power blackouts within 5 years, unless a new power plant is built immediately. This, after the NSW Govt have given Bluescope Steel a very friendly exemption from Kyoto with a Newcastle steel mill. Does Iemma build a nuke plant or what? Same in SA with Olympic Dam expansion for Mr 60%. In SA I am constantly reminded(radio and newspapers) how fickle popular support for certain shibboleths evaporates when the punters are told they can only bucket water on their precious gardens. ‘Not happy Rann!’ Desal plants don’t run on Kyoto promises either and nowhere to buckpass any longer. Not happy with water shortages, hospital waiting lists, housing affordability, power blackouts, or the outcomes of schools?- Blame Labor soon! Jeez you should have heard Crows fans bagging their coach and club admin on KG & Cornsey’s footy radio show this arvo, after he lifted them to 2 successive prelims and was God. How quickly the mighty have fallen without rising expectations satiated now. Labor have made some big promises with some ugly tradeoffs in Govt and nowhere to duck. We may be about to live in interesting times.

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

A really off the wall suggestion here. If the Libs do get almost terminaly terminated (which I find unlikely – there’s too many vested interests, funded and networked together behind the scenes for them to vanish with a whimper or a bang) and the Labs get intrenched as the natural centralist party of power, then why don’t the Greens and Nats join forces to form the populist agrian-socialist fuck the city suits counterweight party? Can’t say I’d vote for them but I’d defend to the death the rights of others to effectively vote for more than one party.

Then the Libertarians and Family First can hook up (they both believe in the sanctity of personal beliefs over majority rule) as “The Third Man Through The Door”.

And a tiny but well formed Democrats rump (Andrew Bartlett and maybe a couple of others) as an unbeholden to anyone and true oversight body.

Even if this doesn’t make sense, it still makes fun.

Robert
Robert
14 years ago

Nabakov, at some point, by sheer force of rationale, the human individual being the greatest thing on earth and the fundamental factor of group (family) as a philosophical base of its own has to be found to be flawed and unworkable. At some point, the Liberal Party philosophy as now constituted will surely end. Big changes are afoot, but when.

Your thoughts are supported by common sense vision, and the question is only when. Australia is placed for some very serious Party political changes – but the wheels move oh so slowly, given we live but one lifetime.

We’ll see it though.

observa
observa
14 years ago

Here’s another curler. Suppose the country shoppers and would be kebab shop owners decide to start coming again, to the point of hijacking another rescue ship? (Personally I think it’s a certainty they’ll test the new Govt’s purported warm fuzzy credentials here) The punters know only too well what policy works and so will the Opposition. Welcome to Govt, tough choices and treading on uncomfortable toes. What do you think Mr Squeaky will decide? Some popular tarnish or lonely principled shine? We’ll see.

observa
observa
14 years ago

“Nabakov, at some point, by sheer force of rationale, the human individual being the greatest thing on earth and the fundamental factor of group (family) as a philosophical base of its own has to be found to be flawed and unworkable.”
And so they can ultimately fall safely into the warm bosom of Osama or Marx eh Robert?

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Ken

“The alternative, however, looks increasingly like electoral annihilation on a massive scale, a defeat from which the Coalition wont recover for at least a decade, especially given that all its State branches without exception have been moribund for years.”

Ken , that’s about right. It would take about a decade to claw back to government save a whitlam type disaster for Labor so there’s is nothing anusual in what you say in that sense.

The decade thing is intersting : it seems a government takes about 4 election cylces to accumulate enough people to hate them so much that they don’t ever want to see their faces again.

I guess it will be the libs in 2017. Sounds like an anfully long time.

Robert
Robert
14 years ago

Not entirely sure what you mean by that, observa. What your framing speaks of is the simplistic national conversation current ‘leadership’ has made of us. You may wish to open up your views from this, which would be enjoyed.

The phrase quoted speaks of a Party born of a time (1944) which had immediate goals, where the individual was afforded value and provided strength from real leadership at the time.

As that philosophy sits today, it is found lonesome, disregarding of the human being’s place within the environment, and disregarding of the other factors which perform the value of a successfully functioning group – the ‘glue’, in base, if you will. Nor the big one: relationship. To hold the individual as the core power of your philosophical standpoint, disregards by definition and ultimately practice the other great powers we live by; at least, it diminishes them to unworkability.

Even the Libs, grown by the above early times to believe in the born-to-govern thing, must come to acknowledge that corporations, as one major Party instance, are collectives – that even though constituted by individuals the core factors that make the difference (and not discounting individuals and their unique skills and qualities) include much more than what they’re constituted on – relationship, team-personship, the ‘things’ that flow back and forth between individuals [to be super quick] and their collective position amongst other similar, collectives..

To diminish our human relationship to ourselves, each other, our groups (collectives) and the planet within which we live as fundamentally supported by the human ‘individual’ is, while politically and expediently saleable to some extent in these latter times, effectively and ultimately worthless.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Ob

it’s over. Look to the future. In 10 years we may have a small government, low tax, get out of our faces opposition. They need time to coalesce. I’ve waited for 5 years for the small government types to appear.

Mayeb next time they could have a woman as the leader.

Chris Lloyd
Chris Lloyd
14 years ago

Ken and James. It seems a testable theory. Does the number of terms in government depend on the size of the initial majority and how much? I might just have a proper look at this. The first counter-example that came to mind is Gough – as James pointed out.

I accept that the disjunction of moving from government to opposition destablises a party for a period at least. But you should be able to regroup within three years! And there are worse things than losing government. Nothing could have been more devastating that the Latham debacle in 2004 and many wrote the ALP off three years ago. Yet here we are predicting the demise of a man and party that seemed unbeatable just 12 months ago in the pre-kev era.

Chris Lloyd
Chris Lloyd
14 years ago

..and Ken, I neglected your points about the coalition not having the resources to combat an incumbent ALP. Let’s not forget that the ALP’s financial backers in the unions are no longer the financial force they once were. I don’t reject your point but I don’t think it is a major determinent. Basically, it seems hard to accept that the main pro-business party will not be able to raise enough cash to be an effective opposition.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Robert says:

“Australia is placed for some very serious Party political changes – but the wheels move oh so slowly, given we live but one lifetime.”

Look around the political landscape. Australia is littered with socialist parties of one stripe or another. We don’t need more of them. The coalition sells itself as socialist lite. Every single party in the parliament is a Hodge podge of socialist groupings. You disagree? The coalition’s spending is higher than when they took office.

We don’t need any more of these sorry critters..

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

And so they can ultimately fall safely into the warm bosom of Osama or Marx eh Robert?

Well Osama is 13th century and Marx is 19th century. We are now living in the 21st century full of happening shit that utterly spins out Osama and makes Marx hit around 2,500 rpm in his grave. And you’re still stuck in the early 1980s.

This why people like you no longer matter as any kind of driver, supporter, enabler, imaginer, enhancer or even entertainer for an informed polity today. Just another pointless old fart(“look at me”)snarker without even the saving graces of wit or genuine provocation.

You’re too lukewarm and pissweak to even be a quality curmudgeon.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

they had a 3% swing, Chris. Despite the majority the libs had it was a statisitcal dead heat in my book- meaning the next election was up for grabs. it was statisical dead heatr despite latham’s as a headwind.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

nabakov

I didn’t understand ob either, but i wouldn’t be casting stones if I were you. in fact i was you I would be on my knees mailing Ken to delete that missive of yours because quite honestly it is an embarrasmment.

If you honestly think the greens and the agrarian sociatlists, family first and the libertarians could make political coupling you must be living in some parallel universe.

The chance of Hillary and GWB dropping their spouses, finding true love as a married couple and Hillary winning the GOP primaries would happen before your suggestion…. and that’s an understatement.

Robert
Robert
14 years ago

Chris, you are presuming that a recently denounced government will regroup, with full and distinctive leadership and direction, within three years.

It’s a human thing. Imagine the power of ambition which has swelled within the members of the LNP, as of now. Take Howard out, do you imagine that sacrifice and effort as these ambitious people have made to be immediately subservient to something a new (an other) leader tries? What’s Downer’s view? Abbott’s? Costello’s? Bishop’s? Whose power of vision, team leadership, style, is the greater? Give one the job, and you’ll see another regard what they’re doing is poor and they could do better. One of these mutterers will have a go, another will contend or wish to contend, or – certainly – not wish to see themselves subservient to that sort of leadership for the better part of their career.

Take all that rubbish to the next election, and watch it get rightfully rejected.

Watch then the same cycle of negatives, blaming, and “I can do better”.

That’s two electoral terms.

Compile all that into a cohesive platform as a vision to run the country and you’re talking a long task ahead. Add to that, that whatever good they do in Opposition – underfunded and without media and incumbency power – has to overcome the edict that governments lose elections and Oppositions don’t win them. So whatever they achieve in this horrible circumstance, if they achieve anything, is worth ten out of a hundred, unless the Labor Government buggers it up – and even then, it’s uncertain what they’ve done will be found by the electorate to be worthy.

Ken’s comment about a decade is, under these circumstances, conservative.

cs
cs
14 years ago

I rather enjoyed Nabs comment, JC. What’s with this setting yourself up as all round blog critic routine? Speak for yourself pal. How are you Nabs, old soul?

observa
observa
14 years ago

Oh I’m well aware it’s over for a Howard Govt and the new one will be much the same, meetooism, but similarly lacking any overarching economic ethos, while addressing some of the public concerns on Workchoices, Iraq and GW. Most of the latter will be tinkering around the edges of course, given the realities and tradeoffs involved.

Had to chuckle at the report on Business Lateline tonight with news of the report on Iemma’s desk to privatise the State’s electricity assetts, in order to fund the new power station. The unions were frothing already, but privatisation or blackouts is a no-brainer decision, after the Federal election of course. Govt always has a bad habit of mugging sacred party political shibboleths and their factional interest groups by such reality.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Cs

You’re asking me that question when you’re doing the same thing you’re criticising me for. What Seinfeld segment was that in because I am sure George was asking Gerry a simlar question at one time.

cs
cs
14 years ago

Hey JC, I love the smell of a backtrack after midnight.

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

“If you honestly think the greens and the agrarian sociatlists, family first and the libertarians could make political coupling you must be living in some parallel universe.

The chance of Hillary and GWB dropping their spouses, finding true love as a married couple and Hillary winning the GOP primaries would happen before your suggestion. and thats an understatement.”

Speaking of parallel universes, what exactly do Hillary and GWB have to do with my whimsical observations about current Australian political trends?

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Cs

Hey JC, I love the smell of a backtrack after midnight.

Meaning?

If you’re going to be so tribal all the time please wear the loin towell and carry the spear. It would be far more honest and transparent.

I was as much a “blog critque” with Nabakov as Nababov was a “blog critque” with obs. I am as much a “blog critique” as you are with your last comment to me.

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

Youre asking me that question when youre doing the same thing youre criticising me for.

You’d even lose an arguement with a mirror, wouldn’t you, poor old joe?

How are you Nabs, old soul?

Travelling rather well these days, old chap. I’ll be popping up to Sydney again in early November. And feeling thirsty from the flight no doubt.

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

I can see the business card now.

“joe cambria: blog critique
Have attitude: it does not travel well
Ask about my special auto-fisking rates”

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

So cs, should I pack my “loin towell” for Sydney? I’ve heard rumours about what you giddy hedonists get up to in Tinsel Town.

observa
observa
14 years ago

Interesting too to see how our new Howard with Hair will handle some real global warming-
‘Only a week earlier, Sarkozy brought French policy into alignment with the United States, warning, “Iran with a nuclear weapon is not acceptable to me. I want to underline France’s total determination on the current plan linked to increasing sanctions, but also being open to talks if Iran chooses to respect its obligations. This initiative is the only one that can allow us to escape an alternative that I can only call catastrophic: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.”‘

The likelihood of that threat is discussed fully here-
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/II11Ak02.html

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Nabs

What trends? Let’s try to be civil here and leave the past buried in the thread of doom.

How do you think their could be a marriage between the nationals/ the greens and the family first party/ LDP.

The family first party is essentially an old rump of the the DLP which has more in common with the Labor right/ Liberals. It’s a party that essentially is discriminatory in intent acting as a pressure group to soak everyone else in favour of families. Libertarians despise that sort of interest group behaviour.

The greens and the nationals have nothing in common and would end up killing one another at the first meet. The greens policies would essentially destroy australian agriculture. Take a look at their policies. you have to be quick tough because they keep hiding them everytime they get some heat. Seriously, they just take them off their website without an explanation. Meanwhile the nationals are the greedy parasitic party of Australian politics that have glommed on the the libs and ruined any chance of them being the small government party their manifesto says they are.

Andrew B is essentially a socialist left laborite who ought to join the ALP and save his seat. No criticism of him , but that’s what he is.

As I said, every single party in the OZ parliament is basically socialist which makes that side of politics very heavily represented.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Ob

He will do fine. He’s not the dude you should be worried about. I worry about a good part of the front bench.

However, we keep hearing Rudd is a ruthless prick which is actually music to my ears as it means he won’t support dead wood for long. That’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned. The more ruthless the better.

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

So weird dude, what bit of

A really off the wall suggestion here.

don’t you understand?

And anyway, do you not agree that both the Greens and Nats see managing the carrying capacity of Australia’s land as the key issue and that both Libertarians and Family First believe political solutions should be shaped first, foremost and throughly by their personal beliefs based on unverifiable and/or unproven doctrines rather than by incremental community consensus?

No need to respond, I’m just fucking with the heads of you and poor old joe like a cat with a couple of ping pong balls. Punctured ping pong balls now.

observa
observa
14 years ago

Yes I’m not worried about Rudd JC and he’ll have quite a free hand for some time. Recalling the dramatic conversion of Sarkozy over Iran(well France actually), I wonder if another form of global warming was discussed and agreed upon at APEC. Was Rudd briefed about US intentions there? He was very silent on the discussions with Bush, apart from some throwaway mention of discussions about China, NK and Taiwan.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

No, I see the greens as anti-development in almost every way. Take a look a their agric policy and see what I mean. They would red tape almost all land use to death.

here: http://www.greens.org.au/election/policy.php?policy=9

See how you think that would fit with the nats.

———————————–

Family first came out to the churches. As I said they’re right wing labor/libs with a religious bent.

Libertarians:

why do you think free market/ max civil liberties are untested? they are tested every time you compare a socialist heap like say South America to oursleves…. or a hong kong that was a poverty strikcn port city in the early 60’s to what it is now.

Every place that tends towards freedom and the rule of law is basically wealthy while the opposite is true of those places that tend the other way.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

“promote organic agriculture”

That’s one of their policies Nabs. It was figured out that if the Greens were successful in turning this place to organic farming we would need equal of Victorian land area to produce the same ouptut.

However their policy to prevent further land clearing would mean would would either starve or begin to import food.

Their policies just don’t make any sense at all.

cs
cs
14 years ago

Nabs, November, we must really try to do. Love to catch up.

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

No, I see the greens as anti-development in almost every way. Take a look a their agric policy and see what I mean. They would red tape almost all land use to death.

here: http://www.greens.org.au/election/policy.php?policy=9

See how you think that would fit with the nats.

Jeez, you’re a fucking kneejerk idiot joe. Did you actually read what you linked to? No, of course not.

At least read this
http://www.nationals.org.au/About/Policies/balanced_development.asp
http://www.nationals.org.au/About/Policies/environment_and_conservation.asphttp://www.nationals.org.au/About/Policies/primary_industries.asp

Can you see any major differences of principle between the Nats and Greens over managing our environment? I can. The Nats use the term ‘sustainable’ more than the Greens, call more strongly for the use of alternative energy sources in non-metropolitian regions and put forward policies which would require not just more red tape but major overhauls of Federal statutes.

But having read through all the various Green and Nat policies about living and working with the land, I do take back my comment that what I proposed was a whimisical suggestion. Now I think it’s a definite serious political goer. The Greens and Nats really do seem to have more in common with eachother about treating our land as a long term economic resource to be properly managed that either the LibLabs or LabLibs.

Still wouldn’t vote for the Greens or Nats but by crikey if they worked together on this issue the way their policy statements mesh so well, they’d be one very effective, well connected and influential single issue party.

promote organic agriculture

I can tell you’ve never been on a working farm in RARA for a long time. One of working farmers’ favourite grumbles is the constantly rising cost of fertilisers and pesticides. Also at what point does “promote” suddenly equal “force”, “demand” or “legislate”?

In fact, print out the Greens policy above, drive into the countryside, stop at the first working farm you see, hand it to the first bloke or blokess you see getting off a Massey-Ferguson and ask ’em what they object to. Or even better, print out the Nats policies too, remove the headers from both, and ask’em to guess which party.

However their policy to prevent further land clearing would mean would would either starve or begin to import food.

We already export the majority of our agricommodities (Victoria alone accounts for 13% of global dairy product trade) while comfortably providing enough food on the shelves here. Given Australian population growth rates and the fact we have the most productive farmers in the world, that situation is very unlikely to change over the next few decades – climate change excepted – but as your sort likes to point out, why we’ll just cross that bridge when we come to it. Fortunately for our farmers, both the Nats and Greens are already thinking ahead here.

Also nowhere do the Greens call for a blanket ban on land clearing, rather an “end to broad-scale native vegetation clearing” and native vegetation now covers a very small percentage (barely two figures)of our potential arable land.

You are behaving exactly like the feral greeny rent-a-crowds you say you hate. All of you just want a motivating hate object, never mind the reality of how things really work in the real world.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

Don’t be silly nabakov:

It’s late and I’m busy, but I will deal with your missive tomorrow sometime.

Nabakov
Nabakov
14 years ago

Its late and Im busy, but I will deal with your missive tomorrow sometime.

Let me rewrite that for you poor old joe.

“Fuck! Why do they always use facts! I’m being challenged again to justify irrational conclusions based on links anyone can read and that I provided. What was I thinking? Head hurts. Again. Make excuses. Just stepping out for a breath of fresh air. Taxi! Come back tomorrow with a whole bunch of nitpicking and OT responses that I hope will steer the thread away from me being busted again as mouth first, mind second. Oh yes, also make note to self to call interlocuter a stuppid moran. That’ll show everyone who’s winning here.”

Judith M. Melville
14 years ago

Who’s inside the Coalition firewall? If the Prime Minister has his way, it will be John Howard & John Howard & John Howard & John Howard………..:)

Caroline
14 years ago

Go Maxine you good thing.

Caroline
14 years ago

There is a slight hurdle to get over re Nabakov’s suggestion– being, the average cockie HATES GREENIES–VEHMENTLY. Primarily because traditionally they have fought and won and stopped farmers from ‘clearing’ pasture. Lots of old school farmers love nothing more than to climb aboard their D9’s and bulldoze ‘useless’ scrub. It provides a welcome reprieve from the monotonous rounds of checking cows, sheep, fences, weeds, dams, sowing acres, spraying acres, praying for rain, praying, for it stop raining, and is a form of albeit, destructive, stress management. Many are still in the mindset where they believe the Government ought be paying them to turn the place into a desert.

Other than that major stumbling block, its not a bad idea. RARA could certainly do with a bit of ‘Green’ policy, afore it becomes even more of a toxic wasteland but they may need a name change. Old hatreds runs deep and long in RARA and time brains moves slowly.

Jc
Jc
14 years ago

“Jeez, youre a fucking kneejerk idiot joe. Did you actually read what you linked to? No, of course not.”

Sure I do, I know the green policy manual from head to toe. Whats obvious is that you dont. But not to worry because most people who vote for them don’t either or if they did, they ought to be reviewed by a shrink to determine sanity.

————————-

Shall we fisk? Lets. I know how you enjoy it and I promise to be gentle this time.

“Can you see any major differences of principle between the Nats and Greens over managing our environment?”

Umm yea. The nats use of the term (sustainability) has a far different meaning to the Greens. The greens consider anything less than pristine and untouched ought to be barely tolerated. Meanwhile the nats consider the term to mean rational land use practices that dont degrade land to the extent that it cant be used for agricultural purposes and dosent adversely affect the neighbours. The meanings have very different connotations, you boob.
——————————————-

The Nats use the term sustainable more than the Greens, call more strongly for the use of alternative energy sources in non-metropolitian regions and put forward policies which would require not just more red tape but major overhauls of Federal statutes.

Ummm I presume they are referring to things like wind farms. Yes, the nats like the idea of wind farms because the return per acreage rises as a result of lease agreements.They’ll prostitute themselves for any buck coming their way. How does the reference to policy overhaul make them similar to the greens? We need a little elaboration here please.

———————————————
But having read through all the various Green and Nat policies about living and working with the land, I do take back my comment that what I proposed was a whimisical suggestion. Now I think its a definite serious political goer.

So in just a few comments we have moved from the whimsical, and abusing me for taking you seriously the point where you think this is a serious proposition! Ok, but I think you’re being a litl implusive and effusive here when what’s needed is a hard headed approach to analysis and review.

Nabs, you abused me at first for taking you whimiscal idea seriously. Now it seems your catigating me for taking your opinion to be whimisical.. Lol. This sounds more and more like a Seinfeld skit dontcha think? You’re Kramer by the way.

Heres a thought! Why dont you write to both party presidents and see what the response is. You never know your chances in a big city, nabs. Or this case a big country.

——————————————-

The Greens and Nats really do seem to have more in common with each other about treating our land as a long term economic resource to be properly managed that either the LibLabs or LabLibs.

Please see above the differences in terminology.
——————————————–

Still wouldnt vote for the Greens or Nats but by crikey if they worked together on this issue the way their policy statements mesh so well, theyd be one very effective, well-connected and influential single-issue party.

Dont be silly, they would be throwing things at each other in the first party meeting. I guarantee you there would be a split after the first party meeting.
—————————————–

I can tell youve never been on a working farm in RARA for a long time.

I can tell you I have, seeing me family owns one of these horrid things.
————————————

One of working farmers favourite grumbles is the constantly rising cost of fertilisers and pesticides.

Yes I believe the price is up about 100% as my family member’s been whining about it all year.

——————————

“Also at what point does promote suddenly equal force, demand or legislate?”

With the greens? Pretty much their entire policy manual would land you in the clink if you didnt obey them. They define the term authoritarian. The rump of the party is former hard line commie groupings that glommed on to the environmental movement. Not all, but a good number are.
————————————-

In fact, print out the Greens policy above, drive into the countryside, stop at the first working farm you see, hand it to the first bloke or blokess you see getting off a Massey-Ferguson and ask em what they object to.

Why do that as I see my family often enough. What do you want me to ask him? The first thing he would like to know is what happens to pesticide use under the Greens? When I tell him that the price would fall to zero he would try and high five me. However when I later tell him that most presticides under and a Brown and Kerry Nettle Government they would probably be banned he could quite possibly have a stroke in between tearing up the policy book and throwing it in my face.

Or even better, print out the Nats policies too, remove the headers from both, and askem to guess which party.

He knows the nats policy inside out. He thinks that owning a farm gives him the automatic right to demand zero tax and a handsome stipend for life, which is the same as every other agrarian socialist.
——————————-

We already export the majority of our agricommodities (Victoria alone accounts for 13% of global dairy product trade) while comfortably providing enough food on the shelves here.

Yea, by imposing, er sorry promoting organic farming it would mean that only people in Toorak and the rich suburbs of other capital cities would be able to afford three meals a day.

———————————-

Given Australian population growth rates and the fact we have the most productive farmers in the world, that situation is very unlikely to change over the next few decades – climate change excepted – but as your sort likes to point out, why well just cross that bridge when we come to it.

Nabs, look dude I have already told you. If we imposederrr promoted organic farming in Oz we would need to clear the equivalent of the state of Victoria just to make up for the lost production. Why don’t you believe me? I hate it when you’re like that.
————————

“Fortunately for our farmers, both the Nats and Greens are already thinking ahead here.”

I know. The nats are always thinking of ways to steal from the cityslickers.They sure are forward looking that way. It now seems to be a genetic predisposition. I am just more than a little concerned with the Greens “forward thinking” as we could end up starving to death.

Dude, try cutting a coupla trees down with the greens around and see what sorta reception that would get. Shall we try it, mr. Lumberjack? You first.

———————–

“You are behaving exactly like the feral greeny rent-a-crowds you say you hate. All of you just want a motivating hate object, never mind the reality of how things really work in the real world.”

“Thems” are angry hostile words , nabs, Hatefilled in fact.. I dont hate anyone. I see the Green policy manual and try not to larf.

Heres a little more to chew on. Under green agricultural policy

Enemy Combatant
Enemy Combatant
14 years ago

“Judith M. Melville said:
Whos inside the Coalition firewall? If the Prime Minister has his way, it will be John Howard & John Howard & John Howard & John Howard..:)”

From inside Possum’s Firewall, General J. Winston Howard is directing his political Galipolli. All the officers are well-supplied and bunkered. When the whistle blows, El Rodente expects that ALL Non-Core Coalition parliamentarians will do their duty.

David Rubie
David Rubie
14 years ago

If the Liberals lose and the leadership thing spirals out of control (as it most likely will given the lack of succession planning), I’m not sure what is stopping the party getting shunted further to the socially conservative right. All those delightful chaps like Alex Hawke and Tony Abbott will be banging endlessly about no-fault divorce and bringing back the death penalty and national service. That, more than anything, will make them unelectable for a long time.