Friday 23 July 2010

A vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens - Chris Forsberg

Cairns political commentator Chris Forsberg, ponders the purpose of supporting your party of choice this election.

The 'Who Will You Vote For' CairnsBlog survey results to date [Entsch 37% / Turnour 23%], seems pretty accurate at this stage of the campaign.

I have no doubt that Wazza will womp back-in. This doesn't mean an Abbott government - Leichhardt will be one of a handful of seats the Coalition will claw back - breaking the 40 year old mould wherein litmus-test Leichhardt always goes with the winning party.

Only Entsch could achieve this break in recent tradition.

The Fishing Party, at the 2007 last Federal election, 're-branded' itself as the Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party. They will be contesting the 21 August election for the Senate. Their candidates are Gold Coast businessman Keith Douglas and Cairns orthopedic surgeon Dr Mike Mansfield.

The reason for the name change is as follows: Whereas a citizen's ‘Right to Fish’ has long been under threat from extremist environmentalist agendas - more recent violations of civic rights have impacted on a much wider range of outdoor and recreational activities. This includes access to National Parks and 'crown land' for campers, bushwalkers and horse and trail-bike riders. Indeed, the Tablelands former forestry areas, long favourite horse-riding destinations, are about to be declared 'verboten' to the equestrian folk.

Fraser Island, another example, for decades a popular 4WD 'beach highway', is about to cop a ban on 4WD vehicles, trail and quad bikes etc. - following a few fatalities in recent years and supposed environmental damage.

Also severely trashed of-late, property owners rights.

A farmer or landholder can no longer chop-down a tree or alter the course of a creek on his/her own land -indeed, he/she no longer owns the rain water that falls on his/her own land - it's been deemed property of the state.

There's a long list of civil rights that are under increasing threat.

Parental rights - you can no longer smack your child in a shopping mall without some 'do-gooder' reporting you to the 'Child Safety' authorities. Privacy rights - telcos and government agencies routinely refer your address information to other agencies.

Even the right to free speech looks like being buttoned up by internet censorship.

Seriously, our rights are being undermined assiduously at this time - with Labor pandering to the Greens with countless, very dubious 'environment initiatives' for the express purpose of securing Green preferences at the looming Federal poll, and the state election in 2012.

The success of this civil-rights-violating Labor-Green arrangement was demonstrated yesterday, with the announcement that each will preference the other for the 21 August poll. Their joint claim that this will occur in "selected seats" - and the Senate - is itself duplicitous.

In fact, Labor will preference the Greens (and vice-versa) unilaterally, in all seats - and in all Senate situations.

Hence, a vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens.

Labor have miscalculated badly with the political assassination of Kevin Rudd, because Queensland is the key state, the critical state, to Gillard retaining office.

There is most-certainly a State of Origin vibe at play here. Bananaland voters will punish Labor for knifing one of their own. That Kevin Rudd was a meglamanical control-freak who alienated just about every one in Canberra - certainly all his Labor 'comrades', even school-chum Wayne Swan - is not known to the Queensland public.

Queenslanders are rightly pinged-off that Rudd was axed by faceless faction players and union heavies, and Ms Gillard acting under their instructions - and will turn-on Labor in a way that the ALP should have seen coming.

Abbott's only chance is this inevitable anti-Gillard swing in Queensland - 'Queen Julia' is absolutely blitzing them in South Australia, ACT, Victoria and Tasmania, holding her own in NSW 'news-polls' - and WA, which is anti-Labor always, doesn't have enough seats to influence the final outcome.

As with the Rudd-slide in 2007, Bananaland will determine the winner - and there will be a substantial anti-Labor 'retribution' vote across our state - because Kevin Rudd, for all his faults, was a Maroon, a Canetoad, and the first Bananaland-born PM ever.

As Tony Abbott himself said on Sunday "You can't trust Julia Gillard - Kevin Rudd did - and look what happened to him."


Dr Jecer said...

Forgot this bit....

Written and authorised for the Liberal Party by C. Forsberg, Cairns.

Destiny said...

This is not commentary - it's advocacy.

Andrew Williams said...

likes this.

chris forsberg said...

chris forsberg responds to comments
thus far:-

To Dr. Jecer: NO Doctor, I loathe
the Liberal Party (which is now
the LNP in this state, for which my loathing is equal and undiminished) - my reference to
'Wazza Entsch' as winning Leichhardt' is purely a comment
on the most likely outcome on
21 August. Like countless
FNQ voters, I have respect for
Mr. Entsch, regardless of his
party affiliations.

To Destiny: You're correct, it
is 'advocacy' We're all entitled to our political opinions.

To Al: Sorry Al, NO shite at all
is contained in this crock - it's
largely factual.

To Andrew: Thanks - glad you liked

chris forsberg

CRAG said...

Be aware that if you Vote for Greens-Labour-Liberal you are voting for the same faceless puppeters who control all the Political Puppets - call them PP not MP.

Genuine Independents(not fakers) are the Community's best hope in the corrupted political system.

:John: Babet Community Reformation Action Group (CRAG) www.crag1.webs

Stacey OBrien said...

A farmer or landholder can no longer chop-down a tree or alter the course of a creek on his/her own land -indeed, he/she no longer owns the rain water that falls on his/her own land - it's been deemed property of the state."

Chris...altering a creek just because you have the good fortune for it to run through your land has caused so many problems.... Chris....that creek belongs to the animals, fish and people who rely on it. It belongs to the downstream environments, the hydrological processes and the EARTH. How many of the flood problems we have here are the result of changes made to the course of the once beautiful little creeks that ran through Cairns? All those drains....were once stunning healthy creeks, but cane farmers in their wisdom have reduced them to rubbish drains, and the council still does too.

Farmers should be stewards, and have no right to ruin an entire creek system just because they can. Get a grip.

Bryan Law said...

Chris raises some important points here. The ALP, and some sections of the Greens, are effective Stalinists when it comes to using the power of the state to force citizens to their will. At the same time they have little understanding of rural farmers, workers (and anyone really who doesn’t own a beach-house and keep a professional urban practice for their income). They do a good fear campaign, ala Orwell.

Big business are the only players that Labor doesn’t attempt to constrain, apparently because they’re such good political donors.

Greens leader Bob brown has a far better appreciation of how to build community action through mutual empowerment, and his advice is to ignore the preference deals and vote below the line in the Senate. However even the Greens are infested by technocrats who get a thrill from anti-democratic back-room deals.

Both major parties are on the nose in this election. Both “spin” while failing to deliver on good policy, or even honest debate. Today’s KillHard plan for climate change is a contemptible avoidance of responsibility.

I’ll be following Bob Brown’s advice, and I’ll be hoping the Stalinists presently running the Queensland Greens are brought under control by that party’s grass-roots.

Denis Walls said...

Chris, you are way off mate!

1. In the House of Representatives: The Greens have an agreement with the ALP where How-to-Vote cards, which SUGGEST that voters put the ALP ahead of the LNP, will be handed out in some but NOT ALL Queensland seats. Ultimately, it is up to the voter where they want their preferences to flow because they are the ones who have to number every box. It does not lock voters into a party controlled preferencing arrangement.

2. In the Senate: Greens have not made any commitments to any party about how they will direct their preferences. The above the line agreement with the ALP commits the ALP to putting the Greens #2 on their Group Voting Ticket, meaning the Greens get their Senate preferences - not the other way around.

On the Senate card, you can of course be master/mistress of your own destiny and fill out the full ticket below the line.

chris forsberg said...

chris forsberg responds to comments
from Stacey O'Brien, Bryan Law and
Denis Walls...

Stacey: It is true that long-past
cane farming practices despoiled creeks - and we can only take the
cane industry's word that they have
cleaned-up their act in recent years.

The argument as to who 'owns' creeks and streams that run through
properties is an old one - but it
is the case that landholders generally perceive that their 'property rights' are inclusive of their 'right' to draw
water from them. The
claim that the water belongs to 'animals, fish, humans downstream, the hydrological processes and the earth' has more
than a whiff of Green gobble-di-gook.

Famers generally are custodians
of their lands, and do what they can to preserve the environment,
albiet that this may not have been
the case 20 or 30 years ago.

You can be assured that the Fishing & Lifestyle Party, the
subject of the item you've queried,
is committed to sustainable agricultural and environmental

For Bryan Law: Thanks for your
observations - even I would draw the line at calling Green technocrats 'Stalinists' - but
your comment on Bob Brown's claim
that he would hope that voters
determined their preferences for
themselves relates to the blog from
Denis Walls, who is making the same

So DENIS - you're an experienced
political player who is fully
conversant with the electoral process - and you know as well as
I do that less than 10% of senate
votes are placed below the line...

Green Brown may well publically
recommend below-the-line voting -
privately, he's hoping that Green
voters follow his party's How to
Vote card - above the line. As
they will.

As you're in your party's loop and
I am not - I accept your contention
that "the above-the line agreement
with the A.L.P. commits the A.L.P.
to putting the Greens Number 2 on
their group voting ticket, meaning
the Greens get their senate preferences, not the other way 'round".

Thanks Denis for that clarification,
which confirms my very point - a
(senate) vote for Labor is a vote
for the Greens.

chris forsberg

Syd Walker said...

There seems to be a determined attempt to misinform readers about the workings of the preferential voting system.

An above the line "vote for Labor" in the Senate is NOT a vote for the Greens.

It's a vote for Labor, first and foremost.

It's true that any Labor SURPLUS votes - after a given number of Labor senators are elected with full quotas - will be directed towards the Greens.

That may help elect more Greens Senators. And thank God for that! It means more talent in the Senate - as opposed to foolish people, such as Senator Fielding, who was able to slide into Parliament in Victoria with few primary votes but a swag of Labor preferences.

Labor's decision at this election to preference the Greens in the Senate is one of the more principled things it has done.

Having learnt its 'Fielding lesson', Labor has chosen to advantage principled progressives over egotistical idiots.

That's progress.

Curious said...

Fraser Island .... is about to cop a ban on 4WD vehicles, trail and quad bikes etc. .... GOOD!

you can no longer smack your child in a shopping mall ..... GOOD!

A farmer or landholder can no longer chop-down a tree or alter the course of a creek ..... GOOD!

That's another independent off my list ..... NEXT!!


Steve Brech said...

When people fill out each box on the House of Representatives ballot paper each individual voter writes in the number. No one can allocate the preferences other than the voter themselves.

When Labor and The Greens agreed to a preference deal all it amounts to is a suggestion. Every voter is required to fill out each box.

If I chose to put '1' for an Independent candidate, eventually, I'm also going to allocate my 2nd, 3rd. 4th (and so on) preference's to Labor, The LNP & The Greens so in fact every vote is a preference unless you happen to put a "1" next to the winning candidate.

God said...

I am not a politician and there are certain things regarding preferences I don't clearly understand. However, I am a conservationist and say this to you Denis Walls and other Greens: You need to grow up and stand on your own. When you stop sleeping with the socialists (ALP) you will get my respect and my vote.

stacey said...

"The claim that the water belongs to 'animals, fish, humans downstream, the hydrological processes and the earth' has more
than a whiff of Green gobble-di-gook"

I am a Labor supporter, because my beliefs are more socialist than radically green and I think your remarks whiff of capitalist redneck misinformed dribble :)

However, what you actually said (dispite the silly emotive reaction one may have) is that farmers should be allowed to wreck natural water courses.

My "claim" is serious, please define "gobble-de-gook" in an intelligent fashion. Do you mean groundwater, ecology and the human race rate below farmers intrinsic rights to pollute water SYSTEMS? Or perhaps that downstream wetlands and the ecology of riverine environments should have no protection from what happens upstream?

Before you carry on anymore perhaps you should actually go and learn about politics a little more. You will find that the most radical "greenies" are those that are advisors to the government, not in the green party anyhow.

Water does not belong to any one race, creed, species or party pusher, and caring about hydrological SYSTEMS has nothing to do with party politics. No one should have the right to ruin a creek.

I think ruining watercourses is one of the most ugly thing humans do.

nowayhozay said...

Everyone knoows the greens do deals to get their preferances just look at the last state election .
Wild rivers announced straight after labors win ,stuff the greens they are shifty bastards and labor sells out its supporters !

Chris Forsberg said...

I can't respond to Syd Walker's contribution, as no-one ever won an argument or debate on an environmental issue with Syd ! I respect Syd's views and the passion with which he holds them.

Nor can I comment on any observation or command from "God" - who would dare ?

If Curious is happy to let his/her right to raise and discipline) children in the manner he/she
thinks fit get taken-over by anonymous 'authorities', that's his/her problem.

Steve Brech accurately describes the voting system pertaining to candidates for seats in the House of Representatives - but the procedure for Senate voting is very different. As the Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party is
contesting ONLY the Senate, Steve's comments are irrelevant to the subject at hand.

STACEY, however, has advanced a valid point. Stacey says that "water does not belong to any race, creed, species or party-pusher" - and this claim is worthy of consideration, as it raises the question: 'To Whom Does the Water Belong ?'

Stacey, 'well-watered' land costs more than dry land - the purchase price of freehold land that carries a creek or stream is markedly higher then the purchase price of dry land.

Precisely as 'absolute water-front' / beach is much pricier than land well away from the
sea and sea-breezes. Any land-holder who pays a premium for 'watered' land is reasonably entitled to draw water from that creek or stream - even if he/she is not claiming specific, personal ownership of the creek or stream itself.

Virtually all agriculture relies on this concept - notwithstanding dubious government claims of 'ownership' to all running waters – and rainwater.

Ownership of freehold land is inclusive of certain property rights - and it's these rights
that are under threat from excessive, extremist
environmentalist demands.

Without getting in to the nitty-gritty of the current 'sustainable population' debate, the fact is that Australian agriculture must feed 22 million people at this time - and the Green agendas are placing national food security at serious risk.

The notion that we can import food – and let Aussie agriculture die-on-the-vine - is nonsensical and, in the longer term, potentially dangerous. Stacey, common-sense dictates that the human population is the first priority - a fact overlooked by too many enviromentalists, who are worshipping what has become a new 'religion' - 'Planet Earth'.

This is not "redneck-capitalist-dribble' -it's nothing more nor less than a balanced, common-sense approach to what the nation needs.

We all want to 'look-after' the environment - and to greater degree farmers and fisher-folk
do exactly that. The alarmist allegation that farmers and fishers are 'despoiling the environment', advanced as it is with religious fervour by extremist enviro-nazis, is without foundation in fact.

Granted, there will always be a few enviro-vandals who do the wrong thing - but be assured they are doing less damage to the overall welfare of the nation than are the extreme Greens....

In simple summary - 'the people' are a higher priority than the trees - but a balanced approach, as advocated by the A.F & L.P., will ensure that the country prospers as it's environmental assets are preserved.

Bryan Law said...

The discussion has moved beyond mere Greens “Stalinism”, with Stacey and Chris moving into a debate about caricatures of “Green” issues.

The threats against farmers don’t come from the greens, but from market forces deployed in corporate interests. The current example is foreshadowed in the Burnett region of central Queensland – where test bores drilled for coal seam gas are contaminating the artesian basin water on which primary production depends. “Don’t sell the cattle”!

Around the cities and regional centres, urban growth is driving the alienation of productive land, and a creek incorporated into a suburb tends to be obliterated more than disturbed. I have an agronomist friend who tells me that Australia will import more food from poor countries as we allocate productive land into urban or industrial processes that return more profit than farming.

Therefore farmers must be turned into Greens allies if we’re going to retain habitat.

Similarly farmers must be turned into Greens allies if we’re going to manage all the lands and waters disturbed by macro impacts like global warming. Stacey ought understand that the modern choice is not between maintaining “nature” or allowing “development”. Rather it’s about how to manage the existing consequences of change so that “nature” is able to sustain in new systems that harmonise with human best practice.

Tracey appears to trust government apparatchiks and technocrats to tell us all what to do. I don’t trust those people at all, given their huge ignorance of, and disconnect from “nature”. Farmers know more about the land, and have a clue.

BTW Chris, you may be right that Denis Walls can’t match Stalin’s strength of character, but Jon Metcalf makes a perfect Beria.

Syd Walker said...

You're the only one who keeps banging on about Stalin, Bryan.

What is it with this obsession? Have you read a book about him? Or are you hanging out with Trots?

So you think Denis Walls = Stalin and Jon Metcalfe = Beria.

How fascinating.

Do you predict Jon's eventual arrest by Denis loyalists, followed by a secret show-trial and execution?

I guess your point is Jon played a role in keeping you out of the Greens. You seem to equate your exclusion from the Queensland Greens with the Great Purges of the Stalinist USSR in the 1930s.

Even by your usual standards for hyperbole that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Rumpled Stilt Skin said...

Denis, mate! I can't believe you're joining Chris, Syd and Bryan in one of their mutual meat-pounding sessions.

As Bob Hawke put it, indulging in unproductive activity.

Shut down the 'puter, grab your hat and head outside. There's a real world out there!

Denis Walls said...

Hello Rumpled Stilt Skin

I appreciate your concern over the issue of unproductive endeavour but I only made one pretty short post correcting Chris’s spiel on preferences. If there are 29,000 regular visitors to CairnsBlog as Mike says then it’s worth getting it right.

Re-the early to mid-20th century system of government in Russia, I won’t bother responding to Cairns’s very own Yogi Beria who, as we all know, thinks he is smarter than the average Beria.

Hard to shut down the ‘puter during an election mate but managed to grab my hat, bins and camera and step outside into the wonders of PNG recently to see 20 different species of birds of paradise. The pics gladden my heart when Yogi starts comparing me to one of the 20th century’s great mass murderers. Give me your email and I’ll send you some of the best snaps.

All the best, Denis

Jim said...

The bluff that has been used on farmers by government has overtaken common sense. Once you own a parcel of land and the government accedes to your ownership? It's yours to do with it what you will. The precedent? 'The act of Succession; William and Mary'. Common law supercedes all other forms of law.

Ohh, and the Greenie buzzword of 'Wetlands'? Call it by its proper name, please. It's a bloody swamp.


stacey said...

Just to set the record straight.

I did not actually reply to this blog in the first place, Michael reposted my comment from facebook, (which is rude) because I objected to the notion that farmers should be allowed to divert watercourses. How that was interpreted as "using" water is too silly for words.

Quick biology lesson for Jim... wetlands/mangroves/freshwater lakes are where the BABY fishys are born.... they rely on the water coming from UPSTREAM.

But do any of you actually care about future generations of fish or humans?

Michael P Moore said...

Stacey, all content on Facebook is public, not private.

There is a clear message on the CairnsBlog Facebook page that messages / comments posted there can (and often are) automatically reposted to the relevant CairnsBlog story.

Both the Blog and FaceBook, along with Twitter social networking sites, are all digitally connected, and cross posted.