Greens Tell Shorten: Keep The Bed Warm For Us

ANY DOUBT an ALP government would be a simple repeat of the Gillard disaster — dictated to and enslaved by the Communist Party Greens — has been dispelled; a feature on leader Richard di Natale in Fairfax papers finds the fringe party lining up for ministerial office in return for securing confidence and supply. The development should alarm those planning a “soft protest” vote in the belief the Greens are “harmless.” They are anything but.

There are two past articles from my archives that I want to share with readers at the outset: one, dated 19 February 2013, when then-Greens leader — the sanctimonious, pious Christine Milne — made a great show of “terminating” her party’s formal Coalition with the government of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard; and two, something I published not nine months later, as then-new ALP “leader” Bill Shorten made a refusal to support the abolition of the hated carbon tax (for which the newly elected Abbott government had an explicit electoral mandate) one of his first official postures, and as everyone knows, Shorten has since committed Labor to not one carbon tax if restored to office, but two.

The reason for this little trip down memory lane can be found in an interview between one of the better Fairfax journalists, James Massola, and current Greens leader Richard di Natale, which was published online late last night and appears in Fairfax publications across the country today.

In it, di Natale states that he would “relish” the opportunity to serve as Health minister in a Labor government — I’m sure he would — and suggests colleague Larissa Waters would make a good Environment minister.

Frankly, the only place the Greens belong is in the back of a Police van for blocking legal access to property after chaining themselves to trees, gates and so forth.

I say that in jest, but the idea of this lunatic, ultra-socialist party playing an even greater role in government than they did in the disastrous “power sharing” agreement they were indulged with by Julia Gillard should strike fear and terror into anyone concerned to see sound government delivering outcomes that optimise economic conditions, job safety, national security, and an immigration regime that doesn’t feature thousands of asylum seeker deaths, quite literally, as a cost of doing business.

Despite “a spokesman” for Bill Shorten being quoted in Massola’s piece as saying that if di Natale wanted to serve in a Labor government he should join the ALP, on one level, the Greens leader’s remarks are probably a reasonably shrewd reflection of electoral reality: already boasting just 25 of 76 Senate berths and with just 14 of those facing re-election (at a standard half-Senate poll), it is impossible for the ALP to control the Senate outright; even at a double dissolution election at which the Greens would stand a better chance of defending their present 10 Senate seats, everything would need to go the way of the Left for Labor to get close to Senate control even with the Greens.

In the lower house, Labor needs to win 20 seats from the Coalition to score a simple majority: and stripped of its key asset — Tony Abbott and the dysfunctional political apparatus overseen by Peta Credlin and husband Brian Loughnane — even that seems a difficult ask at present, whereas one (Melbourne) and possibly up to another four seats could quite feasibly be jagged by the Greens.

The only way to avoid a disastrous ALP-Greens government is, of course, a resounding win by the Coalition — irrespective of the misgivings some on the Liberal Right or in the National Party might think of new Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

di Natale has made it clear he would not countenance a “formal, permanent alliance” of the kind that exists between the Liberals and Nationals. Yet semantic presentations and the mechanics by which they are executed count for precisely nothing when weighed against the outcomes they are charged with delivering.

And where outcomes are concerned, the wish list of the Greens and the “policies” already announced by Labor under Shorten spell trouble.

Despite the hard realities of the politics of climate change and irrespective of whether you believe the alarmist warmist lobby — which disregards any fact-based evidence it disagrees with, or contradicts it, in the name of “science” — or whether you sit as a so-called “denier,” Labor is already committed to the restoration of not just one carbon tax but two, in a new regime purported to cut Australia’s emissions by 50%.

Shorten has been brutally candid that the electricity industry will be a target for a smashing hit: anyone believing any fork-tongued assurances that domestic electricity bills, already rocketing past their post-carbon tax peaks off the back of increased utilisation of inefficient, expensive, commercially unviable renewables, is delusional.

Electricity will become a luxury purchase under a restored Labor-Greens government.

The Shorten policy dovetails nicely with a raft of Greens’ demands, such as the retention of several climate change agencies currently slated for execution and a ramping up of government subsidies for the same renewables already pricing essential services beyond the reach of thousands of households.

And given the Greens’ implacable opposition to subsidised private health cover — which draws billions of dollars of extra health funding out of consumers’ pockets every year — the Shorten policy of abolishing the private health insurance rebate (which is currently obscured, deliberately, from view by Labor) is one that is almost certain to be enacted if Labor and the Greens control Parliament after the coming election.

That policy, as we have repeatedly observed, will overrun the public health system as perhaps millions dump private health insurance — impacting it through inability to cope with demand to the point of collapse.

But more broadly, the Greens’ “vision” remains a disturbing constant: and despite much of it having been rejected in the past, the same tired list of demands is set to be trundled back out in the event of an ALP election win — and we know, from Labor’s own past performance, that the ALP will simply bend over and submit to most of it, if not all.

More tax, no spending cuts, ramped-up Education and Health spending with no accountability or emphasis on efficiency, onshore asylum seeker processing featuring community release, more tax, $10 billion pilfered from the superannuation accounts of Australians, a hit at property owners through the partial abolition of negative gearing, a ramping up of capital gains tax, another hit at the mining sector, lashing out at  agricultural producers by ending the diesel excise rebate, more tax…all in the name of freeing up billions for the hard socialist spending programs beloved of the delusional Left, whilst causing irretrievable economic damage in the process and at the cost of perhaps hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Asylum seekers arriving by boat will begin drowning again as the green light is sent to those who profit from their misfortune.

Billions will be raked in despite absolutely no appreciable impact on global warming, whilst climate change is in any case an infinitely occurring natural phenomenon that is hardly going to sit up and take note of the Greens’ economic sabotage in the name of stopping it.

And when you remember the Greens are committed to the virtual disarmament of this country and a wholesale sellout of traditional friends like the US and Britain in favour of a naive, blinkered, and near-total security focus essentially predicated on trusting the Chinese, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to conclude Australia will become far less secure if the Greens ever again get anywhere near the levers of power that run it.

Sober rhetoric and conservative business attire are no substitute for common sense and sanity — commodities always in short supply at the Greens.

And when all of this is considered through the prism of actual communists in their ranks, including one national traitor and former Soviet operative — the repugnant NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon — and callous, unreasoning and unreasonable specimens such as infamous SA Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, the only logical conclusion to draw is that the Greens are literally mad, bad, and dangerous.

Yet they remain ready to jump back into bed with the ALP at the earliest opportunity, and nobody should be hoodwinked by the wink-and-nod messages being sent out by di Natale that protest innocence whilst, at root, seeking a resumption and consummation of the power-craved alliance Labor and the Greens indulged themselves with under Gillard.

Make no mistake: di Natale has used a powder puff piece in the Fairfax press to signal to the ALP that the bed should be kept warm.

Anyone who knows anything about Labor behaviour knows that should the prospect of power beckon, it will jump straight in with the Greens — and the jilted, spurned “other party” will be the millions who voted for Labor in the name of what they thought would be a better future.

Be afraid. The next misadventure in the politics of the hard Left, and its disastrous consequences, could be no further away than your next trip to the polling booth.

Greens Bullshit: New Salesman For An Unchanged Product

THE SHOCK RESIGNATION of Communist Party Greens leader Christine Milne today will — despite removing one of the nastiest and most piously sanctimonious specimens ever elected to an Australian Parliament — change very little; the Greens have shown typical disregard for the “principles” they trumpet, and whilst we wish Milne no hard feelings as she slithers away, her departure will do nothing to bring common sense or sanity to her party.

Not being a creature of the hard Left and finding socialism and communism deeply distasteful at best, I find myself with very little to say about Christine Milne on one of the biggest days of her career that is remotely positive.

Even so, I am a great believer that credit should be given where it is due: and accordingly, I wish to acknowledge her resignation from the leadership of the Greens (with the accompanying promise not to recontest her Senate berth at the next federal election) in as fulsome and enthusiastic terms as I can muster.

I never thought to hear myself utter these words, but Milne has rendered a wonderful service upon Australia today.

Milne has said she is quitting politics for personal and family reasons, and to provide her party with “generational change.” We wish her no ill will in her overdue retirement.

A relic of a bygone era when “Greens” in name actually campaigned on environmentally based platforms, Milne cut her political teeth a quarter of a century ago in a fight over a proposed pulp mill in Tasmania, and whilst she proved to be on the winning side in that contest — entering the Tasmanian state Parliament in 1989 in the washout from those events — Milne will be mostly remembered by thinking people as little more than an inflexible socialist.

And in the spirit of giving credit where it is due, it would be remiss not to observe the excellent political obituary published in The Australian by Chris Kenny, who accurately characterised her as “a snarling, negative leader” whilst cataloguing the insidiously intolerant, belligerent outpost of Soviet-style brutalism into which the Greens have evolved during her tenure as their leader.

Christine Milne was not a “leader” for her times or, indeed, for any time; the illiberal and intolerant agenda advanced by the Greens under her leadership — on industry and energy policy, welfare, taxation, defence, immigration, media policy and social matters — would, if ever (God forbid) implemented, have plunged Australia into economic ruin and social chaos as anyone to the Right of Lenin was ostracised and persecuted as “extremists,” whole industries sabotaged and dismantled, indolence and apathy subsidised and rewarded, the defence forces neutered and the country’s borders thrown open, and any voice dissenting from the line of the junta involuntarily silenced.

In fact, Milne’s greatest achievement probably lies in the fact that such a noxious platform could develop under her malevolent, malignant gaze whilst still managing to fool a not-so-insubstantial minority of the Australian public into thinking that the Greens remained, at heart, an “environmental” party.

Quite.

I must confess I will miss Milne, and whilst we haven’t had cause to talk about her so frequently since the 2013 election — the dilution of relevance that comes with an election loss will do that — I know she has entertained and enraged my readers in equal measure over the years.

We’ve paid homage to Milne’s expertise in matters of military strategy and terrorism.

We’ve witnessed her inability to control her colleagues, as they argued over whether fuel indexation was an initiative to be supported on environmental grounds, or a political sledgehammer to be deployed against the hated Tony Abbott by blocking it.

We’ve giggled as she failed to explain the distinction between a genuine conflict of interest and a political roadblock her Greens found immoveable — in more ways than one.

And we’ve felt her anger, as at least one Liberal government elected by a thumping margin found the cojones to tell her, and her deeply objectionable political outfit, to piss off.

During the 2013 election campaign — and at least in part as a result of Milne’s efforts as Greens leader at a time her party served in formal partnership with Labor in government — this column advocated for the Greens to be wiped out at the ballot box, and readers can revisit those arguments here and here. And happily, the party shed 30% of its 2010 vote, and won two fewer Senators in 2013 than it had three years earlier.

That downward movement in Greens representation could have been more, and its effects will take time to be felt on account of the rotation of Senators. But it was a good start, and that too is something Milne can take credit for presiding over.

But my favourite encounter with her in this column came almost three years ago, as Milne used an opinion piece in The Australian to turn the issue of asylum seekers into mouth-foaming rant that was part partisan drivel, part justification, and part attempt to poke her nose (and that of her party) into things that had absolutely nothing to do with her, the Greens, or Australia at all.

Like cleaning up corruption on the docks in Indonesia, for which no methodology was offered, but which would almost certainly have started a war if any Australian government attempted to implement it.

In the end, that’s just what the Greens have become under Milne’s stewardship: sanctimonious, pious, dictatorial and prescriptive, and adept at interfering in matters which wiser heads would steer well clear of.

The adage about fools rushing in where angels fear to tread is particularly apt where assessments of Christine Milne’s leadership is concerned.

And as it drew to a close today — in typical fashion — the Greens, who have long trumpeted that theirs is a party whose leadership is determined by its members, acted swiftly to install a replacement based on the votes of its ten Senators, plus sole lower house MP Adam Bandt: to the total exclusion of their much-vaunted rank-and-file constituency.

Little time ought to be expended on pondering why now ex-deputy Greens leader Bandt did not replace Milne; it may, as claimed, have had to do with the imminent birth of his first child.

Or it could simply be that Bandt did not have the support of the fruit cakes inside the Greens party room whose bidding any new leader would be obliged to perform.

But great thanks can be given to whatever higher power you believe in that Milne’s replacement was not actual Communist, former Soviet propagandist and traitor to Australia, Lee Rhiannon; similarly, the imbecilic, juvenile, staunchly socialist Sarah Hanson-Young — whose cavalier attitude toward human life was evidenced by her dismissal of more than a thousand asylum seeker deaths at sea as proof that “accidents happen” — would have made a predictable choice for a party of the far Left that, happily, was not taken.

That said, the Greens seem to have appointed a “leadership group” and, just like a football team, now have a captain (Victorian Senator Richard di Natale) and two (2) vice captains, Queensland bleeding heart and compassion babbler Larissa Waters and enigmatic Western Australian Senator Scott Ludlam.

It is to be hoped only one of these deputies is to be paid the salary loading the position attracts under parliamentary entitlement guidelines, although then again — given what good little socialists the Greens are — maybe the two of them will split it.

I had high hopes that di Natale — a doctor, far more articulate than Milne and, by virtue of his profession, arguably more intelligent — might prove a surprise packet, and actually behave like a responsible political operator bent on more than just the spread of socialism and the obliteration of anything to the Right of Andropov.

Yet already — and despite his claim to aspire for the Greens to become a party of the mainstream Left — he has shown that he will play the same cracked record on social policy as Milne did, telling Tom Elliott on Melbourne radio station 3AW this afternoon that the Abbott government was culpable for the continued presence of children in immigration detention; when it was pointed out to him that some 1,200 children had been detained under Labor (and Greens) policy prior to the 2013 election, and that 90% of them had since been released, di Natale immediately parroted the Milne/Hanson-Young line that “10% is 10% too many,” apparently ignorant of and/or oblivious to procedural considerations that must — like it or not — first be followed.

It’s an inauspicious start, if I’m being nice about it.

I can’t wait to hear his ideas on other areas of governance, but those will be stories for another day. Initial appearances, however, suggest that even with Milne departing the asylum, it remains manned by an adequate contingent of lunatics for common sense, sanity, and rational political positions to be beyond the Greens in both comprehension and application.

It does rather seem that the more things change, the more they stay the same; but from this point onward the Greens will sally forth without the venerable Milne leading the charge, and soon — belatedly, but very soon — she will no longer sit in Parliament at all.

Good riddance.

 

ISIS Terrorists: Sub-Human Filth Can Rot In Hell

ISIS, ISIL, ISLAMIC STATE, Al-Qaeda — call them what you like — are filthy, sub-human barbarians: uncivilised terrorists utterly devoid of morals, whose only agenda is to rape, torture and kill anyone in their path who cannot be subjugated and enslaved. The free world is united in its outrage at the catastrophe in the Middle East; Australia’s Greens, however, worry the terrorists might suffer wounded feelings. They can rot in hell, too.

It takes a certain chutzpah for members of Parliament to claim their own country’s armed forces could be viewed as terrorists as they deploy to deal with a “movement” whose weapons are the rape of women and children, torture, and gruesome murder, at the same time as they contend these evil creatures might be affronted by depictions of them as terrorists in their own country’s channels of public communication.

But the Communist Party Greens have done it: in deploying to the Middle East to assist a concerted international effort to deal with the scourge that is ISIS, Australia’s own soldiers are the bad guys, whilst some kind of concern should be spared for the feelings of those committing unspeakable atrocities on a rapidly ballooning scale.

“Often our forces could be seen by Iraqi civilians as terrorists,” Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilton told the Senate earlier this week, adding — somewhat confusedly — that “dehumanising and demonising our enemies is an effective tool for leading a nation to war, but this kind of propaganda won’t bring peace.”

Well, here’s a bulletin for the Tasmanian Senator, whose words in years past would have been sufficient to see him imprisoned for treason, sedition, and any number of other offences: the West is at war with ISIS — in the name of human decency, the rule of law, for the safety of the peoples whose welfare is threatened, and for what is right.

Whish-Wilson has pleaded — to the point of begging — to find some other, less offensive term than “terrorists” to refer to the ISIS forces. One can only assume he’s concerned that calling them terrorists will hurt their feelings. One is all broken up about the wounded sensitivities of terrorists, and has no truck with whining about the rights of bloody murderers when women and kids are being raped and killed in the name of “religion.”

Driven by a brand of radical fundamentalist Islam determined to impose a Sharia dictatorship based on an extremely strict interpretation of the Koran on as wide an area and population as possible — with no stated limit in terms of these objectives — the forces behind ISIS (or whatever it calls itself this week) are pure evil; these filthy, sub-human barbarians have to date “executed” by beheading at least three Westerners for the explicit benefit and consumption of the watching Western media.

These murders have served as a gruesome and macabre backdrop to the rape of thousands of civilian women and children; the torture and enslavement of thousands more; and the murder of a countless number of their own people in the name of expanding “the Caliphate” as widely and as comprehensively as possible, transcending national and even continental boundaries, and ostensibly revelling in the violence with which these goals are pursued.

So horrific are the obscenities committed by ISIS that those who have witnessed them are returning from the coalface with deeply seated mental scars that will probably persist for a lifetime; I saw an article this morning by one such journalist from London’s Telegraph newspaper, and this eyewitness account makes for compelling, and sickening, reading.

The Greens, meanwhile — horrified by the prospect that the democratic, civilised world should intervene to try to end the indiscriminate brutality and slaughter — have already tried (and failed) to argue the case for the deployment of Australian troops to be made contingent on an authorising vote of Parliament; it’s a sign of the sickness that afflicts the Senate that the system which allows little bands of fruit cakes to be elected to it on a sliver of the national vote could be used to perpetuate the rape and slaughter that ISIS is ruthlessly and remorselessly engaging in.

Make no mistake, this proposal was really about exploiting the Senate to ensure the violence and carnage in the Middle East is allowed to continue freely; the Greens — given the opportunity — would do everything in their power to stop efforts to deal with ISIS that involved sending Australian troops. The continuation of that violence and carnage would be the direct result.

Not content with this failed endeavour, however, that frightful, pious, sanctimonious figure at the head of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne, weighed into the debate yesterday as The Australian is reporting; her contribution — distilled to its core — is essentially the contention that by sending troops to the Middle East, jihadists will be emboldened to kill more people, and to recruit others to their ranks to assist in this.

Just how ridiculous the Milne position is can be easily illustrated by posing the inverse question: by not sending troops, will jihadists stop recruiting people, stop raping and torturing and killing civilians, and stop trying to spread their insidious and contemptible brand of hardline Islamic terror across the world?

I didn’t think so. About the nicest thing that can be said about Christine Milne is that once again, she has shown herself to be appallingly naive.

Sanctimonious, pious, and appallingly naive: Christine Milne. (Picture: The Australian)

Piers Akerman — the columnist in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph whose opinions so frequently and eloquently mirror my own — has ripped into the Greens over this issue today; he makes the valid point that for a party that so often seeks the succour of UN treaties as a vehicle upon which to attempt to circumvent Australian law in the pursuit of their God-forsaken socialist utopia, the Greens now refuse to heed the views expressed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon: the haughty moral indignation with which they brandish the unelected United Nations at the Australian public is disposable, it seems, when even the UN isn’t a convenient fit with their agenda.

Indeed, UN envoy Navi Pillay — a Greens’ favourite, as Piers observes, for her propensity to attack Western democratic governments — has likened the brutality of the ISIS forces to crimes against humanity.

But that little inconvenience doesn’t bother the Greens either.

To be clear, the hardening resolve of the West to respond militarily to the ISIS threat and the imminent actions to do so are not directed against the Muslims of the world, per se; hundreds of millions of Muslims seek only to be left alone to live in peace. No right-minded individual in the West has any quarrel with these people.

Yet the Islamic jihad that is rolling across the Middle East is by no means confined to a localised civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims, which was the ostensible pretext for this fight in the first place; initially focused on setting up an Islamic State in parts of Iraq, Libya and Syria, the ISIS fungus is creeping outwards on all fronts. Moderate, stable Muslim countries in the region are terrified.

Even Iran has made repeated gestures toward the United States to signal that it wishes to partner Uncle Sam in defeating the ISIS movement.

And just this week, Al-Qaeda (which is the real driver of this terrorist machine) set up shop in India, seeking to recruit and radicalise men to fight in its name, and to spread the “Caliphate” into South Asia — and, chillingly, beyond the recognised boundaries of the Muslim world.

In other words, ISIS is a global threat, not simply a regional one.

But of course, the Greens in Australia simply don’t get it.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott is absolutely correct to describe ISIS as a “death cult.” Appropriately (for once), opposition leader Bill Shorten offered Abbott Labor’s unqualified support on the ISIS challenge. US Vice-President Joe Biden vowed that the United States would pursue ISIS jihadists “to the gates of hell if necessary…for hell is where they reside.” British Prime Minister David Cameron spoke of the need for international solidarity to counter “the brutal and poisonous extremism of ISIS.” And Christine Milne and Senator Whish-Wilton have fretted about demonising “terrorists” because such language “implies a very one-sided view of the world.”

Those who would defame Australia’s fine military personnel — not least at a time when many of them will soon face the dangers of dealing with ISIS first hand — are unfit to serve in public office; the Greens are enemies of this country and its best interests. By their utterances on the question of ISIS, they have once again quite openly laid the proof of this out for all to see.

Human catastrophes of this kind tend to bring out the best in good people, whatever their ordinary flaws and differences; to this end Biden has it about right: ISIS should be hunted down as far as the gates of hell. Hell is where they belong, and where they will reside when all is done. It is the duty of decent men and women to rid the Middle East of the scourge that is ISIS — a malignant and despotic junta that threatens to engulf the entire region and, potentially, much of the world around it.

In his pursuit of ISIS to the gates of hell, however, Biden should be unsurprised upon arrival to find mounted on that portcullis a placard from the Australian Greens: after all, the Greens stand for nothing of value, and what they do stand for is reprehensible in its values, principles, and the indecent world that would result if their lunatic ideas were ever comprehensively implemented.

Who cares about hugging trees when there are offended terrorists to champion?

The regrettable truth is that this is nothing new for the Greens. They are mad, bad, and dangerous. They should be railroaded, steamrolled and ignored.

To his eternal credit, Abbott will have neither hesitation nor compunction in doing precisely that when it comes to tackling the menace of ISIS, and to saving as many of the innocent lives possible that are threatened by its evil spread.

 

 

For The Greens, What’s In A Name?

IT’S NOT SO much a surprise the Greens are considering changing the name of their party, but the motives for thinking of doing so; seemingly assured they can convince people to elect them as “a real alternative” if they were called something else, this tacit acknowledgement of the toxicity of the political brand they represent will find no panacea in a name change. In fact — perhaps surprisingly — the most inoffensive name is the one they have.

If I only had a name: it sounds like something from the Wizard of Oz.

And that’s where the Communist Party Greens belong too — in a fantasy fairyland accessible only when concussed — if they think changing the label on the packet will suddenly render them sufficiently appealing to the mainstream to barnstorm their way into government across Australia.

There was an article I read in The Australian yesterday morning that I wanted to make a point of coming back to, seeing yesterday at The Red And The Blue was given over to a candid and critical appraisal of what’s wrong with the dead horse — Joe Hockey’s budget — that the Abbott government continues to flog.

But on matters of dead horses, red herrings and false promises (and any other trite metaphor you care to use), the idea that the Greens could augment their quest for broad appeal and mainstream relevance with a name change is an opportunity for a bit of acerbic comment that is simply too appealing to pass up.

In a tacit admission that this party of the hard, hard Left has virtually nothing to do with any tree-hugging environmental concerns for which it might once have been mistaken as representing, some of its rank and file members have apparently started a debate on the party’s online Green Magazine website (no, I am not providing a link to such unadulterated rubbish) to consider changing the name because “most Australians still see the Greens as one-dimensional and many see (us) as naive and anti-industry.”

The debate has attracted the involvement of senior Greens’ figures, like the party’s NSW convenor Hall Greenland and veteran Queensland Greens identity Drew Hutton, so it’s certainly being taken seriously.

But in short, why would the Greens even bother?

Very few people are aware that the “environmentalism” movement had its genesis in Nazi Germany; set up by Adolf Hitler as an attempted foil to the Soviet Communist juggernaut that even then threatened to spread across Europe, the “original” Greens didn’t simply fail to deflect the Red Menace — they were ingested by it.

Some of those associated with the Greens in Australia (and particularly the party’s old hands like Hutton, or former federal leader Bob Brown) would likely quibble at this inconvenient reminder of whence the Greens originally were spawned.

But it’s no surprise at all that the Greens in Australia are awash with hardcore socialists, former Communists, and anyone else from the lunar left-wing fringe looking for a political vehicle upon which to mobilise.

Branded as they currently are, the Greens have themselves positioned as a “harmless” place to park protest votes, as well as offering latent appeal to those motivated by an “environmental conscience:” were the party to change its name, those tangible and easy advantages would be severely compromised.

In truth, this is a party that has little concern for environmental factors; despite the party’s ongoing rhetoric, the Greens have long been a party of the hard Left: anti-industry, anti-business, anti-family, and in favour of a long list of doctrinaire policy postures encompassing everything from higher taxes to state censorship, from gay rights to republicanism, and from advocacy for rising and expanding welfare and foreign aid spending to the eschewing of traditional allies like the US in favour of China and other socialist regimes across the globe.

And remaining mute as Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli women and children, whilst demonising Israel because Palestinian women and children are killed when the Israelis shoot back. That’s real principle.

Nothing to do with the environment at all.

It’s often forgotten, too, that Brown — in his crusade against the Franklin Dam in Tasmania in the early 1980s — was once an ardent advocate not just of coal mining and coal-fired electricity generation, but their widespread expansion in Australia: an early pointer to the elasticity of “principle” for which the Greens have come to be renowned.

Without bogging down in the detailed history of this hypocrisy (and all in the name of the environment, remember), a quick glance on the party’s website reveals great rhetoric about the Greens’ commitment to “grassroots participatory democracy” to which I have two responses.

One, the Greens are so committed to “democracy” that they conspired and blackmailed the Gillard government to introduce a policy (the carbon tax) which arguably had been the explicit subject of a reverse mandate at the 2010 election; upon the election of the Abbott government — this time with an equally if not more explicit mandate to abolish it — the Greens’ position was that they would refuse to allow the repeal bills to pass the Senate on “principle.”

Any way the wind blows, it seems, so long as it suits the ideological mindset that underpins everything else about the party.

And two, let’s suppose I go off and join the Greens (it’s tough to imagine I know, but bear with me). I get active in the Victorian branch and work to build “grassroots” support for a Greens agenda of increased consumption taxes, slashed income tax rates, a crackdown on welfare and a halving of foreign aid, as well as a significant increase in spending on Defence. In this endeavour I’m assisted by several hundred “friends” who join Greens branches in Melbourne soon after I do, and before long we have “the numbers” to prevail.

Does anyone seriously think this basic conservative agenda would ever be permitted to stand as Greens policy?

I didn’t think so. So much for the Greens’ actual commitment to “democracy.”

I could go on tearing into the Greens until the cows* come home, but I think we all know the storyline.

So what should the Greens call themselves?

My readers know I make no bones about it: the statist, socialist pinkos masquerading as tree-hugging free spirits should be called for what they are: Communists.

Apparently, options that have been considered include the “Harmony” party, the “Future” party and the “Sustainability” party — all labels that seem designed to mislead and hoodwink people into voting for them even more than the current faux masquerade in the name of trees and rivers and birds and the ozone layer.

Chardonnay drunks and bleeding heart bullshit artists will continue to vote for this odious entity irrespective of what it calls itself, because after all, the hard Left always sticks together; the old slogan of “solidarity forever” was coined in the utmost seriousness.

The Greens can change their name to whatever “mainstream” option their participatory democratic processes might settle on, but no amount of work on the brand can change the fact that they are — and will remain — a dangerous, Left-wing political machine whose insidious agenda might befit Soviet Russia or East Germany, but has no place in this country.

At the end of the day, you can’t polish a turd but you can roll it in glitter; when it comes to the Communist Party Greens, however, making shit sparkle doesn’t change the fact that it is, at its core, still just shit.

 

*Cows emit methane. The beef and dairy industries should be eliminated to combat global warming and climate change. The Greens said so.

 

 

Class Act: Politics And Dating With Jacqui Lambie

STUNTS AND BUFFOONERY are one thing, but the performance of Palmer Senator Jacqui Lambie on Hobart breakfast radio today shows how unsuited she is to anything requiring discretion, decency, or any pretence to good taste. Lambie’s declaration — that she is a gold digger seeking men with huge penises — suggests she is better suited to the pub circuit, not the Senate. Men are entitled to be disgusted. The “sisterhood” should be horrified.

It was cringeworthy, tacky, and tasteless in the extreme, but never mind that.

Rookie Palmer Senator Jacqui Lambie has shown — again — why those who have always pilloried her as a lightweight and a joke are correct in their assessments of her, and why others (like this column) who were initially prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt were mistaken. Certainly, aside from the value of her vote in the Senate, it is increasingly clear there is nothing whatsoever to recommend Lambie as a suitable person to sit in an Australian House of Parliament.

Lambie’s appearance on Hobart breakfast radio this morning was less about building her profile and “connecting” with an audience than it was about demonstrating what happens when unthinking voters lodge protest votes to avoid the fine for failing to vote at all. Those who missed it can access an audio link to the segment through this story, carried in the Fairfax press.

There is a time and a place for everything, and — to be fair — this extends to talking dirty, outlining “theories” of (in this case) men, or articulating a wish list in terms of what one might seek in a life partner if single and looking.

But those are conversations to be had behind closed doors and privately, or perhaps in light of what Lambie has had to say today, in the cold light of a grimy pub in some God-forsaken shithole at 3am when the music stops and the supply of booze has been cut off.

With no sense of either occasion or position — to say nothing of ordinary, old-fashioned good taste — Lambie seems oblivious to the fact she no longer resides in a barracks, but sits in the Senate; and that irrespective of whatever predilections or peccadilloes she may pursue privately, she is now a parliamentarian and a community leader. She needs to start behaving like one.

There is no need, for example, for a Senator to use a media platform (which any idiot would know would circulate nationally) to lament the unkempt state of her pubic mane.

But it is in the list of attributes the unsurprisingly single Lambie outlines as “ideal” in a man that she really oversteps the mark; stating that any prospective suitor must have “heaps of cash” and “a package between their legs” (also known, colloquially, as being hung like a horse) is not the kind of thing a responsible holder of office should be sharing with a public audience.

“They don’t even need to speak,” Lambie told her disbelieving radio hosts.

And faced with the prospect of being “a cougar,” as those hosts tried to line her up for a date with a man younger than her son, the fact that the fellow in question stated a) that he had inherited “a small fortune,” b) that he didn’t “have any diseases,” in response to an explicit question from Lambie to this effect, and c) that he was “hung like a donkey” all apparently conspired to make him suitable to Lambie to continue to discuss the prospect of a date is as illustrative of how far out of her depth she is in the Senate as it is of just how dysfunctional her sense of appropriate standards of conduct are.

If it were a male parliamentarian discussing the desired size of a woman’s breasts on radio, for example, or talking about the size of his own…er, endowment…he would be roundly castigated and rightly so.

And whilst some of the so-called “handbag hit squad” might deem such observations to be “sexist” or “misogynistic,” Lambie has shown herself if nothing else to be rough, coarse, and not much of a catch for any genuinely well-intentioned male.

It says much that this is the kind of thing some people in Australia find an appropriate level at which to pitch their contributions to the national polity; God forbid anyone should want to talk about standards and values of decency.

But men — decent men — are entitled to be disgusted. And Julia Gillard’s “handbag hit squad” — who, thus far, have remained silent — ought to forego their expedient cloaks of hypocritical expediency, and slap Lambie down on behalf of the sisterhood they purport to defend.

Is it any wonder non-compulsory voting is so attractive to so many reasonable people…

 

Greens’ Gripes: Tony Or The Tax Take

CHARACTERISTIC AMATEURISM and spite see the Communist Party Greens embroiled in a tug-of-war between their members and MPs over re-indexing fuel excise. They back it as a de facto pollution tax. They oppose it because giving Tony Abbott a win is the worst sin that can be committed. They back it because it’s anti-cars. They oppose it because it won’t fund public transport. If they get their shit together, the rest of us can move on.

Things were bad enough when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister and the Greens were holding her government — and the country — to ransom.

The loopy brand of hard socialism that lurks within the covers of the Greens’ platform found its way into a slew of Gillard’s legislative program; from the carbon tax to a raft of other measures (eloquently described as “green bullshit” by a British MP last year), the Greens might as well have been running the country, such was the price of their “support” for Labor in office.

Now, the rest of the country is expected to literally sit back, wait, and kill time, while the Greens change their position on legislation like they change their underwear (certain assumptions of personal hygiene taken as a given, of course).

Yes, they’re a professional lot, the Greens; not content with formulating a position on key issues and sticking it, the issue of re-indexing fuel excise appears to be a fraught one, with at least two official positions announced to date and a brawl apparently going on inside the party with the objective of forcing another reversal over the issue.

I have been reading of their exploits in the Sydney Morning Herald today, and you’d almost laugh if it weren’t so serious: whether you agree with the Abbott government’s budget or not — or even the specific measures it contains — it seems considerations about fixing the country’s finances (or even such notions, beloved of the Greens, as hiking taxes merrily and/or hitting motorists as a matter of doctrinal purity) aren’t to be allowed to get in the way of an amateurish brawl played out in full view of the public.

Their pious, sanctimonious leader, Christine Milne — who flagged support for the initiative, only to be rolled by her MPs, because the money wouldn’t be reinvested in public transport or used to cut fuel subsidies to miners, another pet hate target of the Greens — now faces a revolt from grassroots members who purportedly want the indexation restored.

In the middle of the latest round of wrangling is former (actual) Communist, NSW Senator Lee Rhiannon, who seems to be stirring up disgruntled rank-and-file members in NSW to trigger a provision in the Greens’ constitution that could compel her to vote differently in the Senate to the agreed position of the party: a move which, should it eventuate, could tip the delicate balance in the upper house toward legislating the measure depending on the eventual positions of the other, non-Greens crossbench Senators.

I’ve always believed Rhiannon — a former writer of Soviet propaganda and a fellow traveller of the USSR — has absolutely no moral right whatsoever to sit in any Australian House of Parliament, but for once that’s probably beside the point.

This really is a farce.

The fact the Fairfax piece was able to find “a senior Greens source” who, despite being too gutless to be named, was nonetheless prepared to state for the record that one of the strongest considerations in the fight over this was an aversion to handing Prime Minster Tony Abbott any kind of win speaks volumes about just what motivates the Greens, and what matters most to them.

As the story goes, the membership is “in despair” because allowing the fuel excise measure to pass would be consistent with “policy integrity,” when the best its MPs can come up with is a decision more concerned with causing personal political trouble for Abbott.

As usual, the Greens are flogging their economy-killing agenda about fuel subsidies to miners: it doesn’t occur to them that the only reason the economy kept growing at all during Labor’s tenure in office — and particularly during the global financial crisis — was the strength of the mining sector and the shot in the arm it delivered to the economy.

But mining = bad if you’re the Greens, and the fuel rebates that sector enjoys is an easy target. It doesn’t matter if you kill the golden goose and the economic benefits that flow from it so long as “mining = bad” is actioned in terms of policy outcomes. As a blatant attempt at political extortion, based on a position tantamount to agreeing to pass the excise change provided it hits the mining industry in the cojones, it gives that objective a fair shake.

Who knows what the Greens will end up doing? Or to put it more bluntly, who knows what a toad thinks? The Greens, despite lofty rhetoric and protestations to the contrary do not bring principle or decency or reasoned contributions to the political debate. They bring malice, amateurism, and a book of the hard Left whose prescriptive socialism is the last thing Australia needs.

This time, it seems they have deigned to favour the rest of us with an unedifying internal brawl — in case people didn’t realise just how far out of their depth they really are when it comes to questions of politics and governance.

Never mind the fact the budget needs to be finalised; never mind there is government to be run. And never worry — for a second — about the $4 billion the fuel excise would add to the budget bottom line. All of this is secondary to the Greens’ internecine squabbles and the contest of egos between the mostly hard-Left pinkos who constitute the Greens’ parliamentary ranks and the environmentally minded (and misguided) voters who put them there.

Perhaps the Greens can let the rest of us know when they’ve got their shit together. Maybe then (and only then, of course) the minor question of the federal budget can continue to be dealt with.

 

 

Playing With Dynamite: Greens Flirt With Double Dissolution

UNPROFESSIONAL AND AMATEURISH to the end — and oblivious to the hostility 90% of the electorate feels toward them — the Communist Party Greens have apparently wandered down a dangerous path with the explicit aim of forcing a double dissolution election over the carbon tax; it flies in the face of the fact they are in no position to force anything, and handing the government a double dissolution trigger will almost certainly backfire.

As political miscalculations go this one is an own goal of breathtaking ineptitude, and if the risk the Greens are considering does in fact detonate in their faces, Australia will be better off for the stupidity they appear determined to indulge.

The Greens are — it seems — about to wilfully make a mistake that could drastically reduce their position in negotiations over legislation, their ability to garner protest votes (and feed them to the ALP through preferences), and ultimately their numbers in the Senate.

The Guardian is reporting that the Greens are set to force a vote on the Abbott government’s bill to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation within the next fortnight, ahead of the constitution of the new Senate on 1 July; this bill — which has already been defeated once in the Senate — will hand the government a trigger for a double dissolution if rejected a second time, and that is a prospect the Greens should be contemplating with great consternation rather than merriment and delusions of potency.

We have already discussed the prospect of a double dissolution over Senate obstruction of government legislation in this column, and I stand by the assessments published in that article.

And I should clarify that in remarks I’ve made over some aspects of the budget — that if the Abbott government were to end up a one-term government, measures such as the “deficit tax” and the reintroduction of fuel excise indexation would largely be to blame — the far likelier outcome is that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his colleagues will be re-elected.

And despite mishandling both the politics and the marketing of its first budget, the Abbott government’s polling numbers are likely to begin to recover soon; already, William Bowe from The Poll Bludger has written of his belief the backlash against the budget has already peaked, and his comments of a mild swing back to the Coalition mirror my own assessment in this column almost a fortnight ago.

It is a view borne out by other commentators, as well as a trend across the reputable polls that shows a hiatus in voter movement to the Left and a weak movement back to the conservatives already becoming apparent.

These are important points, because — to be frank — the federal budget is really the only shot the Greens and the ALP have in their locker to fire at Abbott; whether or not they realise this so explicitly is another matter entirely.

Certainly, where the ALP is concerned, its ceaseless and dishonest campaign against Abbott personally didn’t work during the four years he spent as opposition leader and there are indications aplenty it won’t work now; the fact Abbott was elected at all in the face of it is a big clue as to how voters will respond to such a concerted smear campaign in the privacy of the polling booth, and if the Left is forced to continue its antics and its tactics until an election in 2016, their conduct will wear very thin indeed.

Moreover, the Royal Commission into the union movement is likely to destroy whatever momentum Labor has left after the natural recovery in the government’s stocks really takes root, and when Labor, the unions, their people and their shoddy dealings become the focus of daily political news for months on end, Labor and the Greens may very well find the opportunity presented by a botched budget effort has been squandered.

We could go into more detail on this, but I simply wanted to set the backdrop to discuss the Greens’ latest idiotic strategy and why, in the context of the political process generally, they may be setting out to (metaphorically) slit their own throats.

As things stand, the next federal election for the House of Representatives and half the Senate is due in late October 2016 (owing to time constraints I haven’t got the exact date, I’m sorry — if anyone wants to supply this through comments I’m happy for them to do so).

For both Houses of Parliament to be simultaneously dissolved and elections for all seats in both chambers conducted concurrently, the federal government must have at least one “trigger” in hand; to keep it simple for the laymen with us, this basically means a bill that has been rejected by the Senate is then re-presented to the Senate by the House of Representatives within three months of the original defeat in the upper house, and is voted down a second time. It’s not quite as straightforward as that but the explanation should be serviceable enough for those readers who don’t “live” politics in the way others among us do.

Now, it seems the Greens — under the anti-democratic Christine Milne, whose pious and sanctimonious concept of “leadership” is to explicitly pledge to disregard and ignore both the result of a federal election and any specific mandate that result may have conferred on the victorious party: in this case, the undeniable endorsement of Liberal Party policies to repeal the carbon tax and all the associated bits and pieces that go with it.

Milne has made it known that a bill to abolish one of those “bits and pieces” — the $10bn Clean Energy Finance Corporation (or “Green Loans” in the political vernacular) — is set to be voted down a second time following its initial defeat in the Senate in December.

Whilst the details of the Greens’ plans remain sketchy — and not least because the ALP has signalled it won’t decide which way to jump until it sees the fine print of the motion to be tabled next week — enough is clear to see that this is a very, very dangerous path to be wandering down for a party in the Greens’ position.

For one thing, provided the government has one or more double dissolution triggers in hand, it can call such an election at any time until six months prior to the expiry of the full term of the current parliamentary session; this is why the detail I gave in relation to when the next election is due is so important. It means that if Abbott has such a trigger in hand in July 2014 (as seems increasingly likely), he has a window up to and including April 2016 to dissolve both Houses of Parliament.

Far from pushing Abbott into a corner, the Greens would be handing him plenty of rope with which to strangle them.

Any double dissolution election — whilst ostensibly being called on the basis of the “stalled” legislation that provided the trigger for it in the first place — can be fought on anything at all; armed with the means to call a snap double dissolution over Green Loans, Abbott could then fight such a poll over union corruption, opposition disarray, the price of Siamese kittens in Peru…anything.

All of this, from a tactical and strategic perspective, means that what the Greens are contemplating is to hand Abbott, and the Coalition, complete control over the timing of an election, whether it’s for the House, the House and half the Senate or for both Houses, what the central issues are likely to be, and what the prevailing political atmosphere is at the time he chooses to call such an election.

The Greens and the ALP might think they are on a winning roll now, but in six months’ time?

The Greens’ apparent plan to do this also appears to ignore the hard fact that from July 1, they lose the balance of power in the Senate; of course, they are hypothetically able to combine their numbers with the government to pass Coalition bills, or with Labor and most of the remaining crossbench Senators to defeat them. But the direct ability to thwart and frustrate off their own bat will  have been removed as new Senators take up their seats, and the ability of the Greens to threaten very much will have been drastically reduced.

In other words, just as they cede the control over the political process I mentioned, their own position will deteriorate greatly. It isn’t a scenario bearing any signs of intelligence.

Even so, it does warrant consideration of how the Greens might fare in a double dissolution, because in spite of everything else this is the only consideration that really matters.

As I said, the Greens and the ALP might well think they’re on a home run as at today’s date and, certainly, the polls look good (but not overwhelmingly so) for them at the moment.

There is also ample evidence starting to appear to suggest the “bounce” the Left has received from the budget has peaked, and the beginnings of a correction are starting to become visible.

If the sky doesn’t fall in after 1 July (when most of the budget’s more controversial initiatives take effect) then the parties of the Left will face double the dilemma, as the natural recovery a first-term government experiences after delivering a tough budget is compounded by voters who feared the worst and who begin to return to the government when they realise those fears were unjustified.

Abbott won an explicit mandate to abolish the very measures Milne is now taking ridiculous steps to attempt to retain, and the Greens’ vote fell by more than a quarter at last year’s federal election to sit just over 8%.

And as we know, as the momentum shifts Left, both the Greens and Labor benefit; as it shifts Right, so too does the Liberal Party, the National Party, and other entities that usually preference them. (Electoral behaviour for the Palmer United Party, at this stage, is too difficult to get a grasp on to make any definitive call).

Now, this is not a prediction, but a scenario; as a hypothetical those diametrically opposed to the conservative parties and everything they stand for will be nay-saying in outraged righteousness as they look at the past fortnight’s polls, but those who are as immersed in politics, elections and electoral behaviour as I am, on both sides of the political divide, will be nodding at this point in the knowledge the horror scenario for the Greens that I outline here is just as likely to materialise as any other permutation.

If we go to the polls for a double dissolution in, say, December 2015 — essentially a year early — and the Coalition repeats or slightly improves its 45.5% primary vote from last year, there’s a good chance it could win control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Just as it’s easier for minor parties to win Senate quotas at full Senate elections, that particular door swings both ways; just as it’s very hard for any party to win 4 of 6 spots at a half-Senate election, winning 7 of 12 in a full Senate poll is a more achievable prospect provided the overall primary vote is high enough to put six of the 12 in the bag upfront in each state.

At last year’s federal election (and this remained the case in the supplementary Senate poll in WA, although I’m not going down the tangent of the distorted numbers that virtual by-election produced), candidates of the Right won four of six Senate places in WA, Queensland, and NSW, with the other states splitting 3-3 between the Left and Right. Both territories returned a Liberal and Labor Senator as well.

Had the likes of the Palmer United Party not siphoned votes away from the Coalition, thus claiming Senate spots that in all probability would have fallen to the Liberals and Nationals, the raw numbers were there for the Coalition to get control of the Senate at the general election in September.

Clearly, if the Coalition vote is in the vicinity of its September 2013 levels and the vagaries of preferences and numbers run more kindly in its favour at a full Senate poll, you’d expect it to get close to half the Senate in its own right, if not winning a slender majority.

Conversely, the Greens’ vote collapsed last year; it was still enough to win Senate spots in Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia, but those four seats were a drop from the six they won in 2010. Traditionally, the polling numbers of the Greens during a parliamentary term are stronger than the votes recorded at the ballot box, which is why their 8.5% support is currently sitting between 12% and 14% depending on which poll you care to look at.

But the Greens have gone backwards at every election they have contested in the past four years, and were this trend to continue until another federal election, then even a full Senate election wouldn’t guarantee them the bag of seats (and troublemaking clout) this stupid attempt to force a double dissolution is so obviously predicated upon.

So here we are. Simply stated:

  • The Greens are set to hand the Prime Minister a double dissolution trigger just as their own power over the Senate is fundamentally weakened;
  • That trigger can be used at any time of Abbott’s choosing during the ensuing 21 months to dissolve both Houses of Parliament;
  • Such an election may be fought over whatever issue the Prime Minister and the government care to fight it on irrespective of the nature of the blocked legislation the trigger relates to;
  • The recent electoral record of the Greens is suggestive of a party experiencing decline, at least for now;
  • The vagaries of a full-Senate election are as likely to aid the government to control the Senate as they are to enable the Greens to hijack it and cause Abbott further trouble; and
  • The prevailing mood of the electorate, whilst sullen and resentful of the government today, is as likely as not — based on historical example and current events — to again run strongly in the Liberal Party’s favour, potentially maximising the advantage the Greens are set to donate to it.

They’re not the sharpest tools in the shed, the Greens; and when it comes to matters of strategy and tactics, it’s often not possible to ascertain whether any reason or logic is involved in their deliberations at all.

One thing that is certain is that the Greens, in trying to engineer a double dissolution, are playing with dynamite: gifted the complete range of options from which to select the type of election Australia next has and a virtual two-year window in which to exercise them, if the sifting of the probabilities suggests Tony Abbott is likely to be re-elected with good prospects to either improve the Coalition position in the Senate or win a majority there, he won’t be stopping to pick daisies on his way to advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament.

From a conservative political standpoint, the Greens should be given every possible encouragement to proceed exactly as it appears they plan to.