It’s very easy to stand up to the media in opposition, the 24-hour news cycle will see any embarassing gaffes or policy blunders fade into insignificance quicly. When your in power it’s different, your policies live beyond the cycle, they become the policy of government and as such are always under scrutiny by a range of interest groups, lobbyists, political parties, corporations, unions and media sources, all looking to get their share and influence the electorate to get what they are after.

I mean no disrespect to the Greens, but they will never be considered a true political force of high moral integrity (as your suggesting) unless that resolved is tested under the most demanding conditions our political system offers. I’m not saying don’t vote Greens, If that’s your preference, then by all means vote that way but personally I want to see the proof that they are ready.

PinkyOz

What I want to see is some action/concequence relations; I want to see how well they will stick to their party line under pressure from the media and public when things go wrong. For all their faults, at least the Libs and the ALP are predictable in government, and for the most part they don’t screw it up so bad that it leaves the country in a completly hopeless position (although that is debatable).

The Greens stick to their guns well and do not flip-flop like the other major parties. This has seen them come under heavy fire from the media, particularly News Ltd, for their policies on drug harm minimisation amongst other things.

With Anna Bligh’s first salvo against the LNP being a personal attack on the Borg as ’spineless’ it would appear that the State Government has accepted defeat in the war of ideas in Queensland.

If the media releases pouring out of George Street are anything to go by, here is what the Bligh Government is pushing hard this week:

1. Steam Trains and corrugated iron-roofed sheds. 26 releases.
2. Fire death statistics. 1 release.
3. Maternity services. 1 release.

Terrible stuff really.

“That issue’s gone, the laws are in place, and the laws are staying there in place, there is no issue,’’ Mr Springborg told reporters.
“It’s a furphy that some people have been dragging around based on previous statements of certain people. What’s done is done.’’

Onto the next wedge? Or maybe, rather than fear campaigns, the state government might at least try something progressive and meaningful?

And as is well known, puts his money where his mouth is.

Given the reasons why he left federal politics, it beggars belief that Santoro is influential at all.

I’m not sure that Santo has Opus Dei connections. He converted to Protestantism some time ago (I THINK he is a Presbyterian?). He definitely is strongly pro-life though and has some solid connections with that crowd.

It’s not what I’d call a particularly hard analysis of the Greens. What I want to see is some action/concequence relations; I want to see how well they will stick to their party line under pressure from the media and public when things go wrong. For all their faults, at least the Libs and the ALP are predictable in government, and for the most part they don’t screw it up so bad that it leaves the country in a completly hopeless position (although that is debatable).

It comes from the refinement of approach that only a sitting government that has had a hand in making and passing legislation can have, the Greens don’t have that exprience, and as such their policy has ’sharp corners’. The rise and fall of the Democrats should be considered our warning on how things can go wrong for minor parties, and it should be a warning to the Greens administration/leadership too.

PinkyOz

It’s the policy platform i think, its alright (good in some places, bad in others) but it’s the platform of a party in perpetual opposition, it promises everything without needing to deal with the consequences of implementation.

I don’t know what you have to be so hard on the Greens. Your description may be appropriate for them, but it’s excessively flattering if applied to the LNP.

The Greens, where to start? No offense to anyone who actually votes Greens, or to my relatives who are members of the Greens, but it’s just not my cup of tea. They’re definitely not a one-issue party anymore, but they’re not mature yet. It’s the policy platform i think, its alright (good in some places, bad in others) but it’s the platform of a party in perpetual opposition, it promises everything without needing to deal with the consequences of implementation. Maybe as a block in the senate they will start to experience this, but there not there yet.

And to be honest, a vote for the greens in QLD is a vote exhausted or thanks to relatively low Green primary votes and preferencing the other parties would just take me back to square one.

So anyway, *ahem*

In 2009 vote with your feet, a footprint guarantees you’ll make your mark on the ballot. Vote Informal! Authorized Pinkyoz for the Vote Informal Campaign, Brisbane.

PinkyOz

“QUEENSLAND’S new Liberal National Party is considering lifting Labor’s ban on tree-clearing in a move that will anger moderate Liberals and complicate plans for the Rudd Government’s carbon trading scheme.

Plans to review the ban emerged as LNP leader Lawrence Springborg blamed Liberal infighting for a poll that showed the party had failed to win over voters in the two weeks since the state coalition partners merged.

LNP strategists said that with former Nationals having a two-to-one membership majority over former Liberals in the LNP, the ban on broad-scale tree-clearing would be eased. The ban came into force in 2006 and is deeply unpopular with farmers.

LNP president Bruce McIver confirmed it would be reviewed. “This is one of those policies we will be working our way through,” he said.

Mr McIver would not be drawn on whether the ban would be scrapped. “We need to have those discussions.”

LNP Maranoa Federal Electorate Council chairman Lindsay Reardon said most former Nationals wanted restrictions on tree-clearing eased.”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24123153-5006786,00.html

Daylight savings anyone?

“Unless the party can harvest Brisbane seats from Labor it will not win government”.

The issue in Queenlsand is the “Pineapples” need an urbanite acceptable to the old Nationals. Has such a child been born yet?

what an enticing combination.

yeeeeeeeeessssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

(However, it used to be an offence under section 329A to advocate a vote that was otherwise in accordance with the requirement in section 240 to cast a full preferential vote. Section 329A was repealed back in 1998 along with the “saving” provision in section 270 that used to allow a “Langer vote” to be counted.)