We all know that I love a bit of stoush. But this is just silly.
More here, here, here and here.
Now, if you have a mind to look into this a little further, read here, and you’ll see that local decisions are made locally, and that they are made by the people in the local group. Not by the candidate, and not from “head office”. The Greens don’t have a head office that makes policy decisions from on high. Believe it or not.
And here’s the thing about party politics – the guy who does the right thing for the party isn’t always popular locally, and the guy who does the right thing locally isn’t popular with the party (and doesn’t get preselection). That is, in “traditional” parties – the Greens work a little differently.
Let’s look at a little issue in the Ryde electorate (where I will vote in the state election).
The Lane Cove Tunnel.
I am against it for two reasons. Because a) I believe the money would be better invested in public transport instead of profiteering “public/private partnerships”, and b) because the emissions from the tunnel should be filtered.
I went so far as to speak at a Ryde Council meeting in favour of independent air quality testing both before and after the tunnel opened. I pointed out that taking air quality studies provided by the developers at face value was akin to taking advice on lung disease from tobacco companies. Apparently this had never occurred to the three Labour councillors. Michael Butterworth, Gabrielle O’Donnell (the less said about her the better), and Nicole Campbell (who works as an environmental scientist, natch), all argued passionately against air quality testing. Why? I can’t say, but I can’t help thinking that it may have something to do with the fact that it was a Labour government that signed off on the tunnel, and it was a Labour government that made the tunnel happen – and decided that we didn’t need filtration to protect us from the evil cancer causing fine particles.
Now, I could be wrong. These people could be kind to animals, old people, and the underprivileged. But I haven’t seen it. So the thought of preferencing Labour in the state election was pretty far from my mind. And I suspect the decision was similar in all the seats that were being complained about.
Here’s a little tip for anyone who wants Green preferences. Think globally, act locally.

from one of those articles:
“Marrickville could also be lost to the Greens, he said. “I am very disappointed with the Greens’ decision. It imperils the Government in … seven key seats,” Mr Iemma said.”
So Iemma is upset with the Greens because they have given themselves a chance of winning a seat, instead of making sure that Labor defeat them. Of course, I’m not sure what the story is in Marrickville, but if that’s actually what Iemma said, and it means what it sounds like it means, just how wrong-headed is this guy?
LikeLike
… from another article:
“The Liberals yesterday decided to pull preferences for the Greens over the drugs policy, effectively guaranteeing Labor the seats of Balmain and Marrickville.”
So it seems the Greens _have_ actually given the seat to Labor, by sticking to their principles. Treating drugs as a health and social issue, gives users a chance to get off the drugs. Throwing them in jail just exposes them to more drug use, and pushes them into the hands of big time dealers and crime rings.
LikeLike