Thank God for the Greens!

At the bash with Tim Costello the other night (here) it was good to see at least two politicians there. Costello made the interesting point about World Vision that some aid agencies say they are "not political". He said that he made no such claim and that he thought such statements were incorrect...overseas aid is essentially political and will always be so. I agree.

Costello made the point that what he thought such agencies meant was that they were not partisan.

Any way, back to the function, present there was local Federal member Andrew Southcott. I was bemused, but pleased, to see him there...remembering that two elections ago he was teed up to come to a forum that local church members were organising and obviously decided at the last moment that he couldn't be bothered. Throwing us rather into a spin I suggested to the organisers that they should just tell him that they would go ahead without him!

He actually capitulated!

Last election a similar meeting was held and there was a lot of talk about the fact that he could lose!!! So he was there feet forward.

I was entertained by the fact that many, many questioners opened their questions to him by suggesting that he was only seen in his electorate when he was on the run!!

That may or may not be true, but it was good to see him there. And it allowed Tim Costello the cue to say something about growing up in the Australia of Robert Menzies!

Also there was the spectacularly short Sarah Hanson-Young, South Australian Greens' Senator. I took the opportunity to thank her for her outspoken support of the refugee cause.

At a time when it looks as though the Labor Party is going to commit another act of treachery against the most vulnerable her voice has been steadfast. As an idealist, I recognise that they are few and far between.

Thank God for the Greens. Thank God for Sarah Hanson-Young

Who does God think should win the SA election?(i)

Yesterday I had half an hour to spare so I went and sat in the Dean's Chapel at the Cathedral and prayed for the State election. So it's all my fault! (here is why Anglicare urged us to do it)
In my last entry I made the not so bold statement that it won't really make much difference to our stability and sense of well-being whether Liberal or Labor win tomorrow.
No doubt some of us will feel disheartened (either way), but I suspect on Monday most of us will go about our normal business.
There has been much talk about people's personal religious beliefs, and in particular how this might impact on their ability to be able to carry out their role as an elected leader.
The (allegedly) non-religious seem to think that some how extraneous pressure will be brought to bear, but I think this is a bit bizarre.
I actually feel a lot happier knowing that Joe O'Flynn (it was St Patrick's day this week after all) has a coherent set of beliefs, even though I may differ in part or total. Than not-knowing that Jerry O'Grady is not religious...and I don't actually have a clue what sorts fo things he might regard as important.
I do remember being at one of those open-slather meetings some years ago when the clean-cut plants of the right were trying to expose some of the social policies of the local Greens candidates.
Most of us tend to think of Greens as being single-issue candidates. Plant more trees and save the whale sort of thing! But over the years they have taken time to develop social policies which would scandalise some and delight others. They are pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro delgalistaion of marijuana...and so on.
The plants in the audience were doing a good job of exposing some of these.
My point?
Everyone has some belief structure. At least the religious belief structure is open to examination where the private belief structure could be much more outrageous.
I am not of the opinion that we should dismiss whole classes of people because of their beliefs.
So lets have less of dismissing people just because they are 'religious'.
I will get round to telling you what is really going on...but maybe that is blog (ii)........

Not much to pick

The much awaited Boothby electoral forum, put on by the group of tired-old lefties who form the remnants of Action for World Development in the Blackwood area was last night. And all six candidates turned up. I am as unsure as ever about who I am supposed to vote for.
Craig Bossie - Australian Democrats, Was quite impressive and coherent, but frankly admitted that the Dems were after a Senate seat. The same is true, of course of Andrew Cole -Family First who nevertheless made a good fist of it, and was probably the most realistic of the lot of em. I am in no way drawn to Family First, and none of their invidious social policy was aired last night, (is it perhaps being moderated as they face political realities. To have my daughter whisper in my ear...'well it's Family \First then' was quite instructive. I think little-old-left leaning-she was saying that the he was the only one of that bunch who wasn't either a loony or a party hack.
Nicole Cornes-Australian Labor Party, who has been much criticised was OK but light on. She is obviously a nice person, but iot is difficult to see her not just doing what she is told if she gets toi Canberra. Jodi Kirkby-Greens, was to my mind good, but again they are after a Senate seat too. Very little serious environmental policy was discussed though she did askthe sitting member Andrew Southcott-Liberal, how the Government could give Indonesia $200 million to stop chop[ping down tress and then give Gunn's in Tasmania $100 million to chop them down! To be fair to Southcott he is probably at the most unpopular he has ever been. He is perceived as doing nothing much, and there became an increasing titter each time he was asked a question (and he fielded most) and said "Well thank you for that question...." and people would laugh, and you began to hear "well why don't you answer it", because for sure he is a politician and has made an art form of seeming to answer questions whilst saying nothing.
The wildcard is popular TV journalist Ray McGhee -Independent who is well-liked. But he oscillated between buffoonery and sheer impatience with both major parties and a sense of frustration with Southcott's ineptitude. He is, I suggest, inviting the protest vote but does not seriously think he will get to Canberra.
He lacks the credentials, I suggest, of other journalists like Smart Money Editor, Anthony Keane of the Advertiser who has a good economic grasp and a strong commitment to family values. I would vote for him, the parties would do well to try and woo him. But he would not be so silly as to leave my niece and my two great nieces at home in Adelaide while he had to waste time in Canberra. Woops did I just declare a bias.
My serious point, there are quality candidates around most have good reason to be suspicious of the dysfunctional nature of the political system.

Gobbledegook

The Greens are accusing Peter Garrett of talking gobbledegook over the Tasmanian Pulp Mill (here). Now this is going to happen to him increasingly up and until his party gets into power.
So two predictions are:

1. That if (by some slim chance) Labor don't win then Garrett will jump ship because he won't really be able to bring any real influence to bear from long-term Opposition. (It will be interesting to see what Turnbull does if he is consigned to Opposition for similar sorts of reasons).
   
2. If he gets into a Government, then he had better start effecting some real political clout in the environmental debate or the Greens' critique will indeed be seen to be true. I would imagine if he just becomes a stooge then (again) he will jump ship because his whole raison-d'-etre will collapse underneath him...and I would like to think that his integrity won't be able to bear that

So, to the Greens it needs to be said, you need to be patient with Garrett.
The sad reality of politics is that not every battle can be fought at each and every opportunity. If, however, when he gets some real power he then doesn't do anything...then he should be hammered