Sunday, August 29, 2010
What do the greens and the independents have in common?
It's 30th August and we have a hung parliament with at least 3 independent reps (IR's) with a very clear history of seeking to represent people-- not parties . (The way the parties talk you would think Parties represented the people ) .
You mean there are only 3 people who really seek to represent their people in Federal parliament ? No wonder our current structural hypocrisy called democracy is not taken seriously by the major parties or the people.
The talk from true independent reps has got to do our democracy some good - lets hope it lasts a while !
The two groups above agree about the primacy of the environment, but disagree substantially about what to do about it . One group majors on theory , the other majors on practice .
Can we really regard the green party as independents ? If disunity is death, then not talking about real differences is death also. As Oakeshott said last week "The sky will not fall in if we disagree. Obviously news to the chicken little gallery .But how will greens fair when their will is tested ?
The greens on the other hand are clearly a party whose unity and ability to open disagree has yet to be tested. What would Brown Milne and Brandt really agree on ? They claim to be a broad church, but on some issues of policy they are clearly quite partisan. Parliament last year assented to the reinforce the traditional view of marriage-
The greens unity, as far as one can tell e , is based on the sharing of great and good intentions. Sounds fine on the surface but that famous old fabian Shaw would have none of the pretence of unity between greens and labour because the only effective political force is one with its feet firmly on the ground . The greatest evil is done in the name of the best intentions ( book of that name by Shaw .
More importantly Labor lost power cause it lost its way on the very matters that Labor and greens share. There is more than a little disunity there-- hidden by "the best of intentions" talk .
The Greens would claim they now have their feet on the ground in Melbourne. The centre of the city they have . They can clearly win more seats in the city, but what does it mean ?. What it means is that the city is more worried than the the mixed economies are about green issues . The city would run out of supply in a few days if IR's weren't willing to share any more, but Brandt is not going to talk about that .
The tough stuff of ground truthing is not what Adam Brandt is wanting to talk about - he's not talking realistically about grass roots action on environment but that "can of worms" that only cities can invent - "the need for government to do everything" -carbon taxes He's not talking action for the people in his electorate but action by the government for the worriers in his electorate; He's not talking justice for the people in his electorate but just a few people in all electorates who he is trying to represent. More confusion and clouds to prevent a clearer picture.
Until the greens can cut it where it counts in real world environments their electorate wins seem to be misresenting the onground issues . After all, what would the centre of Melbourne really know about how to save the ground around them? The greens amy represent the fears of those in the electorate in the cities but would the greens really know how to save the worriers? ?
You mean there are only 3 people who really seek to represent their people in Federal parliament ? No wonder our current structural hypocrisy called democracy is not taken seriously by the major parties or the people.
The talk from true independent reps has got to do our democracy some good - lets hope it lasts a while !
The two groups above agree about the primacy of the environment, but disagree substantially about what to do about it . One group majors on theory , the other majors on practice .
Can we really regard the green party as independents ? If disunity is death, then not talking about real differences is death also. As Oakeshott said last week "The sky will not fall in if we disagree. Obviously news to the chicken little gallery .But how will greens fair when their will is tested ?
The greens on the other hand are clearly a party whose unity and ability to open disagree has yet to be tested. What would Brown Milne and Brandt really agree on ? They claim to be a broad church, but on some issues of policy they are clearly quite partisan. Parliament last year assented to the reinforce the traditional view of marriage-
The greens unity, as far as one can tell e , is based on the sharing of great and good intentions. Sounds fine on the surface but that famous old fabian Shaw would have none of the pretence of unity between greens and labour because the only effective political force is one with its feet firmly on the ground . The greatest evil is done in the name of the best intentions ( book of that name by Shaw .
More importantly Labor lost power cause it lost its way on the very matters that Labor and greens share. There is more than a little disunity there-- hidden by "the best of intentions" talk .
The Greens would claim they now have their feet on the ground in Melbourne. The centre of the city they have . They can clearly win more seats in the city, but what does it mean ?. What it means is that the city is more worried than the the mixed economies are about green issues . The city would run out of supply in a few days if IR's weren't willing to share any more, but Brandt is not going to talk about that .
The tough stuff of ground truthing is not what Adam Brandt is wanting to talk about - he's not talking realistically about grass roots action on environment but that "can of worms" that only cities can invent - "the need for government to do everything" -carbon taxes He's not talking action for the people in his electorate but action by the government for the worriers in his electorate; He's not talking justice for the people in his electorate but just a few people in all electorates who he is trying to represent. More confusion and clouds to prevent a clearer picture.
Until the greens can cut it where it counts in real world environments their electorate wins seem to be misresenting the onground issues . After all, what would the centre of Melbourne really know about how to save the ground around them? The greens amy represent the fears of those in the electorate in the cities but would the greens really know how to save the worriers? ?
# posted by journeymanj @ 9:38 PM 
