Have you ever wondered how Bob Brown got elected

[Aaron_C]

At three times the price, and four times the timeframe, that it would cost the private sector to build the same infrastructure ... and a goodly percentage of that infrastructure is NOT what is required.

True, but there has to be an impetus for the private sector to invest in the infrastructure in the first place. Particularly on things of such a large scale like a rail link or NBN, this impetus simply isn't there, which is why the government steps in.

 

[our obsession]

Interesting read here about Bob Brown:


The most ----------* man in Australia Greg Bearup (October 17, 2011).

Excerpt only:

The woman stood in the house of Representatives to claim she had come to Canberra to bring some common sense as a "mother of four children, as a sole parent and as a businesswoman running a fish-and-chip shop". It was the afternoon of September 10, 1996, and Pauline Hanson, for better or for worse, was being hailed as the new force in Australian politics.

At the same time as Hanson wittered on about how good Aborigines in Australia had it, an openly gay man with no children stood in an almost empty Senate to deliver his vision. In his deep and reassuring voice, like rain on a tin roof, Bob Brown outlined the enormous challenges we faced living on a planet collapsing under the weight of human activity. "The future will either be green," he stated, "or not at all." Hanson's speech sparked a bushfire, while his was barely reported, and now all that remains of her is a charred stump.

Political Reality

It's the Greens, led by Brown, that are the new political reality in Australia, a seemingly permanent, menacing force for the once cosy two-party system, mauling Labor's left flank and gnawing away at softer morsels of conservative flesh. In 1996 fewer than 350,000 Australians voted Green in the Senate. By the last election, that had grown four-fold to almost 1.7 million votes, compared to 4.5 million for Labor and 4.9 million for the conservatives. The Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate with nine senators and a crucial seat in the lower house.

Fewer than 350,000 voted green, by last election grown four fold, 1.7 million votes.

The Canadian scientist and conservationist Dr David Suzuki describes Brown as a global treasure, up there with "Mandela and the Dalai Lama - a person of the greatest integrity and courage, a person who has inspired others through his lifetime commitment". Conversely, the Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce says behind Brown's public image as a "benevolent uncle" there's a "ruthless, pragmatic, artful politician", while the Liberal senator Eric Abetz says he wrecked the Tasmanian economy and is now causing the same havoc on the mainland.

There's venom in Abetz's voice when he talks of Brown. The veteran political commentator Alan Ramsay says this is typical, as Brown is widely loathed by politicians from both major parties. "He represents everything that they are not," Ramsay tells me. "He is a man of conviction, a thoroughly honest man, a man of principle. They see in him what they want to be and they hate him for it." Ramsay adds, "The big put-down is always, 'Oh, Bob Brown, he's too f...king good to be true.' They all want to find a dark corner there somewhere - well, there isn't any."

Sounds about right on the money Alan...

 

[eKwatee]

I found this on another forum but thought it would be perfect in the Bob Brown thread. It could almost warrant a thread for itself.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that SOCIALISM would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.


These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

 

[our obsession]

Matthew, tilting at windmills...

Reminiscent of John Howard, his Quadrant talk..as pointed out in Hamilton's Politics of the Past and the Future, (Parliament House 2006)

The Right

The Prime Minister’s speech at the 50th anniversary of Quadrant provides an
opportunity to assess the state of political debate in the nation. Howard argued that the great battle between right and left continues despite the fall of communism in Europe.

Pro-communist influence, he believes, has marched through the institutions and from there still exercises its nefarious influence.

Like those who gather around Quadrant, Howard is haunted by the ghost of past ideological conflict.

Others look around and wonder where this enemy is that Howard and his fellow-travellers at Quadrant are fighting.

Someone should tell our (now EX) Prime Minister that the Cold War is over; and that he won.


But an ideological warrior needs enemies and if there aren’t any he must invent them.

So we are 2012 and same old, same old...(for some.)

 

[our obsession]

Dazz:

political analyst Antony Green

Had the good fortune to meet and speak with him up in Canberra last trip, a slightly built guy, brilliant analytical mind, great knowledge of politics. Lot of fun.

 

[Deltaberry]

It's a flaw in the system and a legacy issue left behind because we are a federation of the states.

The Americans fixed their system and you can't hold their President to ransom in the same way. Far superior system.

 

[lizzie]

Personally I think we should get rid of the states and just have one big happy country.

 

[our obsession]

Personally I think we should get rid of the states and just have one big happy country.

I realise the humor Lizzie, but also did you happen to catch this?

Visionary and realistic: Brown's global parliament


Excerpt only:

It is hard to be a political visionary. The first suffragettes, fighting for women's right to vote, were seen as a fanatic minority. The first anti-slavery activists were seen as crazy extremists. The first white anti-Apartheid advocates in South Africa were seen as traitors. History, however, has a very different view of these people.

Senator Bob Brown's support for a world parliament has recently been criticised. History, I believe, will see him differently: a realistic and far-sighted global leader, an inspiration to future generations.

Brown has not just stated his support for a world parliament, he also actively advocates it. The debate in Australia that followed his speech at the National Press Club conveniently ignores that Brown and the Australian Greens aren't alone in doing so. In fact they are part of a growing global movement that is supported by a truly cross-partisan alliance. In October 2010 Brown joined over 700 members of parliament in signing an international appeal. The appeal calls for the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly. This appeal is endorsed by many distinguished individuals such as Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a former UN Secretary-General; Mike Moore, a former head of the WTO and former New Zealand prime minister; Vaclav Havel, former Czech president and over 200 university professors.

A UN Parliamentary Assembly is envisaged as a first pragmatic step towards the vision of a parliament of the world. The European Parliament, the Pan-African Parliament and the Latin American Parliament, the Swiss National Council and the Argentinean Congress, amongst others, have called for this new body during the last six years.

The idea of a Global Parliament is not new. In 1947, Albert Einstein wrote that "selection [of UN delegates] by governments cannot give the peoples of the world the feeling of being fairly and proportionately represented. The moral authority of the UN would be considerably enhanced if the delegates were elected directly by the people".

Albert Camus, wrote that "The only way out [of international dictatorship] is to place international law above governments, which means... that there must be a parliament for making it, and that parliament must be constituted by means of worldwide elections in which all nations will take part".

Bob Brown's public support for a global parliament came under immediate attack in Australia. Chris Berg (July 13, 2011, The Drum, "Brown's global parliament: scary proposition") wrote that Brown's idea of a world parliament was "scary", "undesirable", and probably unrealistic.

Unfortunately, like others, Berg's article confuses world parliament with world government

Thoughts?

 

[Ideo]

Chris Berg and the Institute for Public Affairs or whatever they are calling themselves now.

Now that's an unbiased thinktank.

 

[our obsession]

Chris Berg and the Institute for Public Affairs or whatever they are calling themselves now.

Now that's an unbiased thinktank.

...so what of the idea Ideo? I don't know much about it, any thoughts apart from the think tank bias?

 

[Ideo]

...so what of the idea Ideo? I don't know much about it, any thoughts apart from the think tank bias?

It was directed at those bleating on about left wing think tanks.

Every organisation has a bias. We only get upset when it doesn't agree with out own bias.

As for the idea, I can see the merits in an idealistic, naive way. Unfortunately, the reality is that competing national interests will always be competiting national interests. Combine this with the egotism that comes from religion and it is simply unworkable from a practicial position.

That being said, International Law is simply not strong enough and not enforceable enough. Even in something like cross-boundary pollution more work needs to happen to make it effective. And the enforcement needs to be improved. But, once again, it comes down to how workable the system becomes.

 

[our obsession]

It was directed at those bleating on about left wing think tanks. (Yeah, I realised)...but I really wanted to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks very much, interesting.


Every organisation has a bias. We only get upset when it doesn't agree with out own bias.

As for the idea, I can see the merits in an idealistic, naive way. Unfortunately, the reality is that competing national interests will always be competiting national interests. Combine this with the egotism that comes from religion and it is simply unworkable from a practicial position.

That being said, International Law is simply not strong enough and not enforceable enough. Even in something like cross-boundary pollution more work needs to happen to make it effective. And the enforcement needs to be improved. But, once again, it comes down to how workable the system becomes.

How workable, yes. Crucial.

 

[Ideo]

The list of issues is pretty long and complex.

1) Traditional/customary rights. Would the wording of the UN Declaration on Human Rights be brought across? This would lead to a minimum of a 2 tier system in most countries except for areas of western europe. It would also lead to a dramatic shakeup of how wealth and resources are distributed, especially in those countries that were settled/conquered by the Spanish.

This would have a flow on impact on how land access and land rights were established, and would need to be region specific, which kind of undermines the underlying premise of an internal legal system. For example, you cannot apply Australian Aboriginal customary law to indigenous Peruvians. Two vastly different systems relating to vastly different cultures. The basis of each culture is completly different.

2) The north/south divide. This would be especially an issue in areas of development/pollution. Why should the countries in the "south" (moving away from the developed/undeveloped paradigm) be restricted in the development that they can go throw because the north has decided that it is bad for the environemnt? It is essentially damning them to an eternity of being economically, and be extension, socially, behind.

3) Established powers. Do you really see the US/China/Russia power block giving up any of their power?

Just some idle musings I guess.

 

[Aaron Sice]

Welcome to the new democracy, where the "1" above the line goes to someone you didn't vote for.

 

[Ideo]

You do know you can direct your own preferences, right?

Or is it just the typical lazy she'll be right approach that then leads to whingeing and moaning when the party of your preference directs your preferences in a way you don't want?

 

[Dazz]

the party of your preference

....which was the Australian Sex Party in your case, as I recall....

 

[Ideo]

....which was the Australian Sex Party in your case, as I recall....

I live in Warringah. I was one of the 2,075 people that voted that way.

I could not bring myself to vote for Abbott as I am opposed to much of what he stands for. The Greens annoy me as they are too idealistic and too prescreptive in their approach, and the ALP did not deserve my vote. Proudly voted for them in 07 though. The only other party was the Australian Secular Party.

I'm sorry if you disagree with the fundamental principles of democracy.

 

[Dazz]

No no, you go right ahead.

Voting for this guy at a Federal election....good choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97YnGQE1q6M


You didn't waste your vote at all...true democracy right there.

Pardon me whilst I completely dismiss any serious thought you might have in the future.


I see he got completely smashed by Tony Abbott federally, then, not to give in, went up against Barry O'Farrell and got completely smashed in the NSW state election. Choice.

 

[Ideo]

Ohhhh, snarky much? I guess true democracy where people don't vote for your team scares you.

I have the choice to "waste" my vote. I don't have the choice to not vote (but that is a whole other argument).

I am glad that he didn't get in. But I am also glad that I am not forced to vote for the two major parties. Surely looking at policies and the general approach of the party and finding which one disgusts you the least is the sensible way of doing things, rather than simply blindly voting for a major party because it's what you always do. Or, just voting for the Greens as a blind third choice.

It's also interesting to note that a lot of the supporters of the party of the individual get a bit scared about social liberalism...

I'm not sure why you are so threatened by this, but it is amusing.

 

[Deltaberry]

I realise the humor Lizzie, but also did you happen to catch this?

Visionary and realistic: Brown's global parliament


Excerpt only:



Thoughts?

Grandiose statements?

Doesn't take much to make meaningless statements that you know won't be implemented in your lifetime or probably for the next 200 years. That's the good thing about being in his position - he can make random statements and not be judged on it or made accountable for.

He might as well say his campaign policy is to establish a Universe Capital, A Spaec Peace Keeping Force and a Galactic Senate.