You are here

The Greens will remain marginalised while they themselves marginalise and idealise

The reasons The Greens remain a marginal alternative party are:

1. They exclude those not ideologically 'green', so alienation keeps them alienated from the mainstream

2. They do not translate their idealistic ideology into pragmatic shovel-ready policy initiatives with dollar values and immediate costed implementation plans; so they remain perceived as a futurist think tank, not regarded as a real-time alternative executive government.
Take the dominant election issue of overpopulation. The Australian Greens have an Immigration and Refugee policy listed under their category 'Care for People'. But they also have a Population policy under their category 'Environment'. This categorisation may seem odd, but the logic is that population is an underlying driver of environmental damage.

I have read The Greens population policy. It logically is grouped into 'principles', 'goals' and 'measures' (or policy initiatives).

The Greens 'population principles' are about factoring the impacts on the environment and society and living standards. They recognise the issue is complex and include issues like women’s rights, unsustainable resource use, inequitable distribution of wealth and power, multiculturalism, international human rights, the shortsightedness of being driven by economic goals, the ageing population and geographical distribution.

The principles and goals are what the Greens are good at.

But getting straight to the 'measures' or policy initiatives for the 2010 election, this is the motherhood waffle, and I quote their 5 vague 'measures':

1. Support, through extensive community consultation, a population policy directed towards ecological sustainability in the context of global social justice.

2. Work to achieve a sustainable relationship between humans and the environment by taking action:
- in Australia, including planning, consultation and a whole of government approach, to improve equity in consumption levels and resource and technology use; and
- globally, to improve social and economic equity and promote programs that empower women.

3. Implement the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action as endorsed by the Australian Government (this is humanitarian immigration and relevant to refugees not population)

4. Ensure that Australian family planning programs, both domestically and overseas, are adequately funded to deliver services in the context of reproductive health programs which increase the power of girls and women to determine their own reproductive lives, and increase the understanding of men of their reproductive responsibilities.

5. Prepare contingency plans for possible large scale humanitarian migration as a result of climate change.

Translated in simple terms, the above 5 measures mean:

1. A population policy so vague as to be anything they want it to mean
2. Make population environmentally sustainable somehow, ensure opportunities are made fair for all, and empower women.
3. Implement an 1994 international obligation on refugee acceptance
4. Improve family planning education to prevent unwanted pregnancies
5. Get ready for massive future refuge intakes.

Don't get me wrong, The Greens have some good ideas and frankly they are more 'forward thinking' than the LibLabs media reactions. But I don't support The Greens per se.

The are too pie in the sky! They come across as intolerant of compromising their environmental mandate with mainstream values of liberalism and work opportunity.

If the Greens come own from their ivory tower, resolve their cultural impasses and get relevant and pragmatic - then they may stand a chance of attracting the mainstream vote.

Until then, green pigs fly!

But the Greens need to learn from past rejection. They need to recognise that evolutionary pace dependent upon protest votes is unsustainable. Laissez Faire Greenness is delaying Green credibility by the mainstream and with recent trends it may be 2050 before Greens get a leg in.

The Greens need to get real, else bring on an alternative Liblab alternative with more than a single policy platform!

The political vacuum across Australia exposed by the LibLab boomer industrial thinking, and abandoned by the Democrats and lost in the rural wilderness by the Nationals, won't wait for no party.

Australian disenfranchisement with politics will not last long. Australia's political landscape is set to change.

AttachmentSize
Image icon Green Pigs fly1.jpg9.66 KB

Comments

Gee, John, I thought they were small 'g' for green.
In fact I suspect that they are only B for Brand-name Green.
I think they are misleading, basically.
They need a new name, maybe something like, Labor Rear-guard, or Friends of the Socialist Alliance.

What we need is a Real Green Party. In the mean time I'll take the Animal Rights Party, the Radical Independents and Sustainable Population Party of Australia.

There are some 'Greens' politicians that I will vote for, but the parties as a whole are a big disappointment, a kind of institutionalised political road-block - a bit like the ACF and Environment Victoria. While we have these 'official' greens, the real on the ground greens, the people who are responding democratically, cannot get heard.

I hate to see how the Greens and the S.A. pick off real activists, flatter them into thinking they will take them somewhere, then lead them down the garden path to political dead ends - corporate sponsored all the way.

The Greens are calling for a new visa category for climate change refugees from the Pacific. They have released a policy on the Pacific, saying Australia needs to do more to live up to its responsibilities in the region.

Greens human rights spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young says Australia should do more to help Pacific islanders affected by climate change.

Climate change is predicted to bring increased numbers of environmental/climate change refugees requesting countries such as Australia open its borders.

However, according to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees from 1951, a refugee is a person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Thus, fleeing from climate change, famine, food shortages, over-population impacts does not make them "refugees" in the existing definition.

Australia of 22.2 million, with our present population tipping the limits of our carrying capacity due to our burgeoning cities, limited quality soils and water supplies, can not solve problems resulting from overpopulation, over-consumption of environmental resources, ethnic fighting and poverty that has escalated in the most populated but fertile regions on earth.

Rather than "border control" and political hysteria, we need to address the source of the flow. We need to assist peoples over life-threatening hurdles and help them live sustainably, curb corruption, and address runaway population growth through family planning.

Just how many "climate" refugees will be in actual fact be fleeing from famine and extreme environmental events all exacerbated by overpopulation?

Australia – already the driest inhabited continent on Earth – is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Maybe we Australians will need to be the "climate" refugees?

Yes, and I do not understand why, when most of our cities are on low-lying vulnerable sea-boards, that some climate-change activists seem to think that those cities will not be innundated just like the ones in Bangladesh.

Where will the Australians go?

The Greens seem to be upper middle class people with a belief that everyone lives like them. They seem to have no feeling at all for what is happening to the suburban bush and human rights among ordinary people here.

I sometimes wonder if they are just a front for the big parties.