Di Natalie quits

Good. He was crap.

The Greens should take the opportunioty to reset away from the progressive dills that have turned the party into the useful idiots of global corporations via an open borders mania.

You can’t be “green” without controlling population growth.

QED.

Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        I expect he will end up somewhere like that.
        Di Natalie and his ilk have emasculated the Greens as a left wing , environment party.I reckon he was a liberal plant.
        I left the Greens because of Di Natalie’s leadership direction.
        Do they have anyone to move them to fight for Climate Action ?
        To take the fight to the LNP ecoterrorists ?
        They surely miss Scott Ludlum

          • bolstroodMEMBER

            Hi Rich4
            you may be right about the Greens environment cred.going back further than Di Natali
            Can I ask you your position on Climate Change ?Genuine Q
            You constantly rail against Greens and labor for betrayal,which is understandable, but I do not remember reading any criticism of the LNP from you.
            After all it is LNP which has held Government for 7 y.ears

          • I’m a scientist and knew it was coming before it came.

            I really don’t like politicians but at least LNP serve the elites. They don’t pretend to be anything else.

            Labor on the other hand pretend to serve the plebs but are exactly the same as LNP, leaving the plebs less than represented.

            Labor’s Australia’s problem because while they’re around the plebs haven’t got a chance.

      • With the obvious difference that Scotty from marketing is leading probably the most nakedly corrupt Government in living memory, whereas about the worst crime you can accuse Richie of is not aligning exactly to the hardline MB anti-immigration stance.

    • Greens hypocrisies;
      Open borders; Extremist capitalist agenda. New world order agenda whereby unelected billionaires rule.
      Mass Immigration; causes mass animal deaths, lowers working conditions leading to poverty. Pro coal, shelter unaffordable.
      Anti free speech; Equality for same sex relationships would never have happened without offensive, uncomfortable free speech.
      Supporting all “isms”; extremist capitalist agenda to divide the masses to prevent the masses from realizing who the true enemy is. The elitist rich!

      Go back to purely supporting the poor, animal welfare and the environment. Forget transgender/ black vs white, man vs women made up elitist agendas.

      • Blackbeard: You fail to distinguish between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ free speech.
        Who determines if it’s good or bad? The government of course. Because they know best. Just look at any communist government (to avoid doubt, that is sarcasm).

        • Anything that is not direct hate speech or inciting harm against anyone is free speech. So you can criticize any group, sex, race, religion, government or law openly and freely without fear, well you should only have to fear words in reply. In USA for example they are not free to criticize the military, anthem, flag or USA in anyway but they believe they have freedom. Right wing, left wing the oppressors are all the same.

          • “In USA for example they are not free to criticize the military, anthem, flag or USA in anyway”
            Since when? I’m unaware of such a law. I hear/see/read Americans criticise many of these all the time. Even flag burning is legal.

          • If you are a journalist who criticizes military veterans being accoladed in public or mention the USA flag represents murder and torture throughout third world countries you will lose your job 99% of the time at best. You may be suicided if you persist.

  1. Yes Di Natalie was bad. But I note that in recent times just about every leader we have had in politics that we think is crap, has been replaced by someone even worse. This goes for all parties.

  2. I for one am hoping this will pave the way for many within the party working for fundamental public and private policy shift. Not just in terms of immigration, but also neoliberal economics. Time will tell.

  3. reusachtigeMEMBER

    What I am most interested in knowing here is what pronouns will be declared for the new leader! Will these be declared before or after the Welcome to Country ceremony?

  4. TailorTrashMEMBER

    Sarah Hansen Young …….Time to fulfil your destiny ……..preside over the pushing and shoving jostling masses flooding iinto the burnt out landscape…..while lecturing us on why we need to do it ……rename the party too …….the Browns ……seems more apt

    • After her role with Milne (who was pushed out) in blocking the ALP carbon trading / tax schemes she will never be leader. Their roles were pivotal in bringing us the last decade of LNP – its on their heads.

      .

  5. Such an insightful post from you David!

    Personally I thought Richard did a pretty good job all things considered. Firstly, he wasn’t from the radical and splintered NSW branch, and his medical background really gave an element of professionalism that can sometimes be lacking in the Greens.

    His 2015 interview on the Bolt report stands out as a highlight. Bolt thought he was going to tear him apart but Richard turned the tables and Bolt came out looking like the fool he really is! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS_m2ogmKOY
    Like Bernie Sanders appearing in a FOX townhall, leaders on the left should be confident enough in their beliefs for the country that they are able to engage constructively with conservative media.

    Are the Greens going to be the standard bearers on population growth as an issue? I mean come on, real-politick dictates that this is just not going to happen, even if privately members know that this is an issue! The Greens would immediately be outflanked on the left by labour, and the party would implode with the various accusations of racism that would start spewing from the media and the labour and liberal parties. Addressing population growth is going to require a bi (tri?)-partisan approach.

    Looks like Adam Bandt, the only lower house Greens MP, is in the running for the leadership position.

    BB

    • BigBaka

      Out of interest, what is the difference between:

      “Are the Greens going to be the standard bearers on population growth as an issue? I mean come on, real-politick dictates that this is just not going to happen, even if privately members know that this is an issue!”

      and

      “Are the ‘LNP’ going to be the standard bearers on ‘global warming’ as an issue? I mean come on, real-politick dictates that this is just not going to happen, even if privately members know that this is an issue!”

      To me your argument reads like a compelling indictment of The Greens; that they have become just like any other party and are not led by reason, need or what is ethical. They’ve managed to hoover up the disaffected to feed their parliamentary relevance. What makes them utterly disgusting is the ability to be so pious as they do so. They are part of the problem just like the LNP and ALP and it does not matter who leads them. The Greens went off the rails when they stopped being the party of Bob Brown and abandoned ‘The Green movement’ that used to be underpinned by ecology. I’d love to vote for a real environment party that puts reason before self interest. The Greens are not that party.

        • I don’t care about immigration per se – I care about ecological footprint, sustainability and risks of high density populations to health and welfare in general. As human population is central to every environmental problem we face, I don’t care to fiddle below the meta-problem level. Population sustainability is where it is at.

          It’s all about population. If it’s not, prove that case – I’m all ears. Simply put however, we would not have a global warming ‘crisis’ with 1 billion people on the planet (not that 1 billion is any target or magic number). There is a level of environmental stress coupled to economic models that embrace population expansion and consumption that inevitably become toxic to life.

          My disgust for The Greens is their inability to even discuss the elephant in the living room when their remit suggests that they should lead that very discussion.

          The Greens want to attack the economic model and replace it due to ideological reasons dressed up as environmentalism. I’ve no love for the economic system we have, but ideology that ignores reason never works. Ideologists force-feed their dreams to inspire the lost and hopeful.

          I’m just astonished that some can convince themselves that ecological and environmental stress is independent of global and local (national) population size and growing consumption patterns. Without any hyperbole at all, I simply cannot accept the logic on offer.

          So no, I don’t have any other criticisms.

          • I don’t care about immigration per se – I care about ecological footprint, sustainability and risks of high density populations to health and welfare in general. As human population is central to every environmental problem we face, I don’t care to fiddle below the meta-problem level. Population sustainability is where it is at.

            Cool.

            So what’s your plan for “sustainable population” that doesn’t involve killing – or at the very least actively letting die – at the least hundreds of millions, and more likely billions, of people ?

            I’m just astonished that some can convince themselves that ecological and environmental stress is independent of global and local (national) population size and growing consumption patterns. Without any hyperbole at all, I simply cannot accept the logic on offer.

            Well, maybe you need to consider they haven’t, they’re just don’t consider genocide to be an option ?

            So no, I don’t have any other criticisms.

            Figured as much. Nothing to say about waste management, pollution, land clearing, land mismanagement, sustainable farming, fossil fuels, climate change, consumerism, corruption, or any of a myriad other issues.

            Just the magical “population”, that when somehow “fixed” will make all the other problems go away.

            No different to the libertarian obsession with “free” markets and how getting rid of all the rules except the ones they like will magically fix everything.

            How would your population monomania have prevented all those koalas getting slaughtered the other day ? Or the Beetrooter and “Good Job” Angus’ corruptionwater mismanagement ? Or mass land clearing in QLD, where dragging a chain between a couple of bulldozers through a forest is a fun way to spend an arvo ? Or the consequences and cost of cleaning up mine sites ?

          • “So what’s your plan for “sustainable population” that doesn’t involve killing – or at the very least actively letting die – at the least hundreds of millions, and more likely billions, of people?”

            It’s staggering that you have me fingered as a mass murderer. Sustainable populations can be achieved in nation states like Australia quite easily by balancing immigration with natural birth/mortality. Globally, education, especially for girls, is correlated with low family size. It is also strongly correlated with female longevity. Other factors include reducing wars, decreasing social disruption, increasing agricultural sustainability and fostering honest government and family support along with permitting contraception to be a woman’s choice in other nations. Challenging the rights of theocratic organisation to control the status of women also helps. A big one is directing foreign aid and investment into programs to increase quality of life and sustainability and directing exploitative capital away from developing countries.

            “Figured as much. Nothing to say about waste management, pollution, land clearing, land mismanagement, sustainable farming, fossil fuels, climate change, consumerism, corruption, or any of a myriad other issues.”

            ALL of these negative factors you list are first and foremost a product of population size and ecological footprint. What’s so hard to see?

            Look, do a little thought experiment. If population is not an issue globally or nationally (in Australia) why not increase it by 10 x or 100 x. If there is no issue, why not 1000x? Ask yourself, what happens to “waste management, pollution, land clearing, land mismanagement, sustainable farming, fossil fuels, climate change, consumerism, corruption, or any of a myriad other issues” when this happens? Isn’t it clear? There is a point beyond which ecological footprints are too large to be sustainable. That’s already happened.

            I don’t mind that you are ideologically blind if that’s important to you – you have lots of company. But please understand that when you go for the ‘mass murderer narrative’ it tends to betray that you know nothing about this issue or the solutions that align with human rights, quality of life, health, social stability, ecological stability, honest government, opportunity and human dignity. Instead, it plays to the very cliche that seems to offend you – that The Greens are Woke and irrational. It’s just not a position that can be treated seriously by anyone who bothers to understand what is driving a global crisis in ecological systems – and the solutions. This, more than anything, is the reason why The Greens have betrayed environmental politics.

            Do you know any product or article that becomes more valuable when there is an overabundance of it? Our economic system is dependent upon more people than jobs to suppress wages, maximise demand and profit. Think about what you are supporting a bit deeper. You want to end oppression by feeding the very engine driving it.

          • Do you know any product or article that becomes more valuable when there is an overabundance of it?

            Yep, I do.

            2019-nCoV.

          • It’s staggering that you have me fingered as a mass murderer.

            It’s completely un-staggering you have fingered me as saying something I didn’t.


            Sustainable populations can be achieved in nation states like Australia quite easily by balancing immigration with natural birth/mortality. Globally, education, especially for girls, is correlated with low family size. It is also strongly correlated with female longevity. Other factors include reducing wars, decreasing social disruption, increasing agricultural sustainability and fostering honest government and family support along with permitting contraception to be a woman’s choice in other nations. Challenging the rights of theocratic organisation to control the status of women also helps. A big one is directing foreign aid and investment into programs to increase quality of life and sustainability and directing exploitative capital away from developing countries.

            Yes. None of this is in contention, least of all by me (nor, I’d suggest, the Greens). So what is your point ?

            ALL of these negative factors you list are first and foremost a product of population size and ecological footprint. What’s so hard to see?

            As I said in my first post, how you intend to address population as the cause in a meaningful timeframe is what’s hard to see.

            Look, do a little thought experiment. If population is not an issue […]

            I have never even suggested that population is “not an issue”.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now