Greens increasing influence in Australia

dynamick

First ever Green elected at a general election to the house of representatives is Adam Bandt.

The result looks like being a near straight tie between Liberal coalition and labour with a couple of independents, a green and an ex-green (andrew wilkie) holding the balance.

In the senate, the greens will hold the clear balance of power.

Australia's position in climate change negotiations is likely to change now.

Scofflaw

dynamick wrote: »

First ever Green member of the house of representatives is Adam Bandt.

The result looks like being a near straight tie between Liberal coalition and labour with a couple of independents, a green and an ex-green (andrew wilkie) holding the balance.

In the senate, the greens will hold the clear balance of power.

Australia's position in climate change negotiations is likely to change now.

Good to hear that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sulmac

For those interested, live election coverage of the Australian election can be found here.

bmaxi

Oh great! Now Australia is f*cked too.

Einhard

bmaxi wrote: »

Oh great! Now Australia is f*cked too.

Maybe if people had listened to the Greens a little earlier then the massive environmental problems we're currently facing might have been somewhat mitigated. It amazes me how many mainstream practices were once the sole preserve of the Greens, who were mocked and ridiculed as hippies for them. And now that the Greens are yet again one step ahead in embracing environmental best practice, they're castigated and condemned once more. I s'pose they must derive some satisfaction from being consistently correct at least...

GSF

So they have gone from 0 to 1. They should achieve a majority in about 300 years at that rate.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Looking into the pallid glow of my energy saving lightbulb makes me think that it was all somehow worth it.

Eliot Rosewater

As can be seen here, the Green Party (and by extension the Green movement) has gone into disrepute, which I think is unfortunate, personally. Even if you don't believe in Climate Change, the increasing cost and shortening supply of non-renewable hydrocarbons, combined with the booming population of the Earth, poses a sustainability challenge that a certain sympathy towards the environment will help to alleviate, in my opinion.

The key, really, is tying your government policy to the environmental aims. Even though I think that externality taxes are a better kind of tax, the Carbon Taxes introduced by the Greens did not have me overly pleased. Firstly, the people of this country already pay a vast amount of tax on energy, and this amount, I imagine, adequately compensates for the social cost of non-renewable energy use. Secondly, I don't think that the Carbon Tax is even ring-fenced towards projects aimed at off-putting the environmental damage of carbon emissions. I'm sorry, but I just fail to see how giving Carbon Tax revenue to, say, workers in the HSE, actually helps the environment.

(Something in that paragraph could be wrong, of course, and any refutation or confirmation would be welcome.)

So either the Green Party have an actual problem (poor policies) or a PR problem (can't communicate the benefits of their good policies). I'm weaning myself off of the car (easy), and I'm even trying to limit my meat consumption to once every two days (very hard!), but that doesn't mean that I'll support any 'auld Green Party. They have to have Green policies that are actually effective and that strike a balance between environmental concerns and socio-economic concerns.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think the small-tax small-spend government mantra is at odds with environmental sustainability, whatever Mr Gormley thinks.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As can be seen here, the Green Party (and by extension the Green movement) has gone into disrepute, which I think is unfortunate, personally. Even if you don't believe in Climate Change, the increasing cost and shortening supply of non-renewable hydrocarbons, combined with the booming population of the Earth, poses a sustainability challenge that a certain sympathy towards the environment will help to alleviate, in my opinion.

The Green Party - and indeed the green movement more widely - has never really been "in repute" in Ireland, though.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The key, really, is tying your government policy to the environmental aims. Even though I think that externality taxes are a better kind of tax, the Carbon Taxes introduced by the Greens did not have me overly pleased. Firstly, the people of this country already pay a vast amount of tax on energy, and this amount, I imagine, adequately compensates for the social cost of non-renewable energy use. Secondly, I don't think that the Carbon Tax is even ring-fenced towards projects aimed at off-putting the environmental damage of carbon emissions. I'm sorry, but I just fail to see how giving Carbon Tax revenue to, say, workers in the HSE, actually helps the environment.

(Something in that paragraph could be wrong, of course, and any refutation or confirmation would be welcome.)

It was fundamentally, I think, a sop to keep the Green Party happy, since all that really happened was that a rise in excise duty on fuel was rechristened as a carbon tax. By itself, it had almost no impact, and was entirely in line with previous rises in excise.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So either the Green Party have an actual problem (poor policies) or a PR problem (can't communicate the benefits of their good policies).

Or, to be fair, they have good policies but have to compromise with the major party of government - or indeed with what the electorate are willing to tolerate.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm weaning myself off of the car (easy), and I'm even trying to limit my meat consumption to once every two days (very hard!), but that doesn't mean that I'll support any 'auld Green Party. They have to have Green policies that are actually effective and that strike a balance between environmental concerns and socio-economic concerns.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think the small-tax small-spend government mantra is at odds with environmental sustainability, whatever Mr Gormley thinks.

Since the Greens in government have hardly given rise to any taxes outside expectations set in the Celtic Tiger years, in a period in which the government revenue shortfall is very large, it seems that Mr Gormley may even share your views.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zambia

Kevin Rudd promised a lot on the green front and folded like a cheap suit. Chances are people simply decided if they wanted a green tinge to goverment they may have to actually vote Green.

As of yet we still dont have a clear winner, at 71 seats each between labour and liberal and 76 needed to win. The independants will pretty much decide this.

Sorry I think there is only 4 seats left.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

I think this has more to do with the disillusionment of the two main parties than an advocation of green policies. They have some good ideas and alot of the people who I talk to like the greens, then again I am living in one of the more lefty hippie areas of Sydney. They should cut stuff like this though. They want to make 'intersex' an official gender!? I think that is some of the stuff that turns a lot of people off them.

Zambia

Adam brandt has vowed to back Labour no surprise there.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure - while the Australian Greens may prefer to refer exclusively to the 'free market', the fact is that whatever economic system you use, an industrial economy will generate greenhouse gases to the extent that the problem is either unknown or ignored.

I suspect, though, that they're just overstating the fact that there doesn't seem to be non-regulatory solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Its unlikely that they're proposing to substitute a command economy, given that there is really quite a lot of room between a free market and a command economy in which to arrange things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dynamick

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As can be seen here, the Green Party (and by extension the Green movement) has gone into disrepute, which I think is unfortunate, personally.

The greens have massively increased their vote in this election from 7.8% to 12%.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Even though I think that externality taxes are a better kind of tax, the Carbon Taxes introduced by the Greens did not have me overly pleased.

That's very normal. People often support a policy in theory but draw the line when it comes to paying for it. By signing up to Kyoto, Ireland already had a carbon tax, paid out of general taxation. Consumer carbon tax simply collects that tax according the amount each person pollutes, leaving the general taxation money to be spent on something else. As we have a 20bn deficit gap to plug, the quarter billion raised by carbon tax will be a small contribution.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And, for what it's worth, I don't think the small-tax small-spend government mantra is at odds with environmental sustainability, whatever Mr Gormley thinks.

I agree

Zambia232 wrote: »

Kevin Rudd promised a lot on the green front and folded like a cheap suit. Chances are people simply decided if they wanted a green tinge to government they may have to actually vote Green.

Yes, Rudd lost power over the abandoned carbon tax and mining tax and the maladministered home insulation scheme.

GSF

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obviously they have never been to Eastern Europe in the 1980's.

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Green Party - and indeed the green movement more widely - has never really been "in repute" in Ireland, though.

Would it be fair to say that the attitude towards the Greens previous to 2007 was simply apathetic? Now, it is openly hostile. There has been a change.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It was fundamentally, I think, a sop to keep the Green Party happy, since all that really happened was that a rise in excise duty on fuel was rechristened as a carbon tax.

If that's the truth then I think it was a terrible decision. All the annoyance that people direct towards fuel tax increases was basically funnelled at one member of the coalition as opposed to the coalition as a whole. If they have kept the Party happy then it has been at the price of less power for that Party down the line.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, to be fair, they have good policies but have to compromise with the major party of government - or indeed with what the electorate are willing to tolerate.

Absolutely. I always agreed with the Greens going into coalition with Fianna Fail for that at least gave them the chance of actually implementing some of their policies. But this short spell in Government will cost them dearly in the long run. So even though the decision of 2007 gave them more clout in the subsequent five years, over a period of, say, thirty years, they have lost power.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since the Greens in government have hardly given rise to any taxes outside expectations set in the Celtic Tiger years, in a period in which the government revenue shortfall is very large, it seems that Mr Gormley may even share your views.

Well, what does Mr Gormely say?!

[Mr Gormely] also opposed the principle of a low-tax economy. “Seán Healy [director of Social Justice Ireland] is absolutely right. The idea that you have to be low-tax to be competitive is wrong. We can be competitive in the technology area and other areas but it doesn’t mean you have to be a low-tax economy. All of the evidence from all over Europe shows that is not the case,” he said. “I would like to aspire to the same sort of model you have elsewhere. If you look at what they do in France, in Germany or in the Scandinavian countries, that is the sort of model I aspire to.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0609/1224272125517.html

That standpoint doesn't seem to be motivated by his environmental views, mind.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran

Even if you don't believe in Climate Change, the increasing cost and shortening supply of non-renewable hydrocarbons, combined with the booming population of the Earth, poses a sustainability challenge that a certain sympathy towards the environment will help to alleviate, in my opinion.

I will agree with you on this. I see nothing wrong with reducing waste, finding non-polluting sources of energy, or a lot of other less-damaging things done to the environment. Even if you don't believe the Global Warming malarky, there's no harm to be done in making a few concessions to the planet's well-being.

The key, really, is tying your government policy to the environmental aims

What turns me off the Green party for the part of it is that the government policy seems to be being tagged onto environmental aims, not that the environmental aims are an equal part of the government policy. It's almost like everything is second to the environment. (But hey, it's the 'Green Party', so I guess it's what the name says on the tin) The daftness of Minister Gormley's E900 sur-tax on those evil, gas-guzzling commercial vehicles is a case in point. "Let's do this because it's good for the environment, and we'll sort out the reprecussions on everything else later". That is not going to endear you to people who want a more balanced approach.

The complete distaste for nuclear power is another one. "No, we won't let nuclear-powered vessels dock in our ports. But smoke-belching diesel or turbine powered ones are fine." OK, I got it. Once every several decades there has been a nuclear incident, with only one, very poorly maintained, second-rate facility having a noteworthy impact. But considering how much of today's power is being done by fossil fuels, it seems to me both strategically and environmentally stupid to do something like the Green Party in Germany did and force the cancellation of nuclear power plants and go with building new coal ones instead.

The other part of it, for me, is that one would have thought that environmentalism would have been fairly neutral on the political spectrum. I mean, really, whether you recycle your household waste or have solar panels on your roof is pretty independent to whether you favour a strong military or believe that social welfare is too high. Yet the Green Party can not really be considered centrist. Their social and economic policies are definitely out on the left hand side. This automatically alienates them from half the population which puts an automatic cap on their prospective voter base and by extension, their capabilities for growth. There is very much a prospective market for them. Particularly in the US, but if they want to tap into it, they need to move right.

NTM

Eliot Rosewater

Manic Moran wrote: »

The complete distaste for nuclear power is another one.

Indeed. I was recently a delegate at the London International Youth Science Forum, where the consensus seemed to be that nuclear fission energy was necessary as a stop-gap solution between our fossil fuel consumption now and fusion nuclear energy in the future (which is at least 30-40 years away). Of course, the issue with waste is not ideal, and fission itself is unsustainable over more than a hundred years, but we still have to admit that it is the least worst solution currently on the table.

Green activists hide behind false gods like wind power and live in an alternative reality to that of science. It is unfortunate when their damaging views are actually put into practise (as in Germany).

Manic Moran wrote: »

Once every several decades there has been a nuclear incident, with only one, very poorly maintained, second-rate facility having a noteworthy impact.

Exactly. A cursory reading of, say, the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl will inform one that management at the plant was atrocious and the kind of safety measures present in Western plants were simply non-existent. Yet some activists still hold on to the "Chernobyl card".

(Last summer I was Berlin and I joined an anti-nuclear power march, just for fun. Near the end there was a large column of tractors, with one protester atop this column carrying a coffin with "Chernobyl" written across it. My friend wondered how much damage they had done to the environment by driving three hundred inefficient tractors from the countryside into Berlin city centre.)

Manic Moran wrote: »

The other part of it, for me, is that one would have thought that environmentalism would have been fairly neutral on the political spectrum.

That's quite a good point. Of course an environmental party would have to assume some economic policies to support their aims, for example, externality carbon taxes. But, in Ireland at least, they could market themselves as being a complement to the mainstream parties. "Vote for us and we'll turn whatever coalition we're in environmentally friendly."

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately the right wing doesn't give two hoots about the environment beyond the unavoidable lip service. So it's not like there's much choice.

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

Unfortunately the right wing doesn't give two hoots about the environment beyond the unavoidable lip service. So it's not like there's much choice.

Way to utterly miss the point. There is nothing about right or left wing which requires, or is contrary to, a somewhat sensible evironmental attitude. The Green Party advertises itself as being the party which is going to take the best environmental attitude. Being environmentally friendly is required for its existance. The Green Party has chosen to be left wing. This is not required by its attention to the environment. It could be right-wing and environmentalist if it chose. It could be centrist and environmentalist if it chose.

NTM

Zambia

There you go

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/funny-stuff/news//blog/chasers-real-reason-people-voted-green/20100825-9muv.html?anchor=424784

I agree its sad when the only green road to travel veers left.

Example you want to save the planet cool but refugess need to be allowed live in your house.

ei.sdraob

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Exactly. A cursory reading of, say, the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl will inform one that management at the plant was atrocious and the kind of safety measures present in Western plants were simply non-existent. Yet some activists still hold on to the "Chernobyl card".

Well Chernobyl really was (is actually its other reactors are still running to this day) a very badly designed plant whose main aim was to generate fuel for nuclear weapons we could follow the lead of the India here in Ireland and build thorium based reactors, which is plentiful, cheap and doesnt result in weapons grade stuff

Speaking of "command economy" earlier, I hope the Greenies here on board dont miss the irony of Chernobyl being constructed (and the mess somewhat cleaned up with hundreds of thousands of conscripted "volunteer biorobots") under a planned centrally commanded economy
and that it was the fateful Homer Simpsonesque decision by bureaucrats to run tests on a nuclear plant with safeties off (yes however badly designed there were safeties)

The Greens have no choice but to gravitate towards the left authoritarian side of the axis, since a planned command economy suits their aims quite fine. And it attracts certain types of bright people to the "cause", as Hayek has noted "specialists" have a tendency to want tightly planned/controlled economies and sympathize with socialism since they often seek perfection and do alot of planing in their narrow line of work (engineering for example) but dont realize the negative impact on society that their otherwise good intentions might have if implemented on a nationwide scale and often recoil in horror when their plans are fully implemented since it leads to other results

As @MM above pointed out there really is no need for a green movement to be aligning itself as they do, after all their aims are environmental right?

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Way to utterly miss the point. There is nothing about right or left wing which requires, or is contrary to, a somewhat sensible evironmental attitude. The Green Party advertises itself as being the party which is going to take the best environmental attitude. Being environmentally friendly is required for its existance. The Green Party has chosen to be left wing. This is not required by its attention to the environment. It could be right-wing and environmentalist if it chose. It could be centrist and environmentalist if it chose.

NTM

I agree with you partially, in that, protecting the environment SHOULDN'T be a right or left issue. Sadly, the real politic doesn't seem to bear this out.

If you look at the issue of the environment and conservation, any time laws are suggested or debated the staunchest opposition tends to be from the right. Quite consistently so. (Though the right in Europe are far less militant about this than in America).

Climate change is a great example of this. Despite the mounting and overwhelming evidence, as well as broad agreement within the scientific community, the strongest skeptics (at least those with the highest profile) seem to be right wing pundits, or "scientisits" associated with right wing think tanks, opposition too seems to come largely from the right (though I was disappointed with Obama's u-turn on off shore drilling)

I think you are wrong in that there is very much a link between general political philosophy and environmental consciousness.

The right generally tend to come from a "pro business," standpoint. And in my opinion the philosophy of the right seems to put the short term benefit of the individual over the benefit to society. It's a philosophy that seeks to maintain the status quo more often than not and help the 'haves,' stay that way.

Since environmental legislation can often result in restrictions on how businesses do or should operate it is often perceived as affecting short term profits. (eg: you can't keep dumping your waste in that river, or spewing out endless CO2 from your factories without some kind of consequence) And this results in the repeated opposition that we see from the right to environmental causes.

Conversely, I feel that the left wing (not extreme left) philosophy is one that tries to consider the long term benefit to society and is concerned more with fairness and equality than keeping the rich rich. I could be completely wrong about this but I don't think it's a coincidence that people who are generally concerned for the welfare of others also happen to be the ones who care most about preserving the environment.

The left does not believe in unchecked capitalism and this seems to parallel the necessity of environmental protection regulations.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the most pro-environmental standpoints come consistently from the left.

Scofflaw

Manic Moran wrote: »

Way to utterly miss the point. There is nothing about right or left wing which requires, or is contrary to, a somewhat sensible evironmental attitude. The Green Party advertises itself as being the party which is going to take the best environmental attitude. Being environmentally friendly is required for its existance. The Green Party has chosen to be left wing. This is not required by its attention to the environment. It could be right-wing and environmentalist if it chose. It could be centrist and environmentalist if it chose.

That's not quite true, though. Environmentalism fits well enough with traditional conservatism, but if we take as some of the characteristics of the modern right wing the following:

1. support for the status quo
2. nationalism
3. strong property rights
4. little regulation
5. individualism
6. self-reliance
7. support for religion
8. support for industry
9. philosophy of man vs environment
10. open-ended economic growth

we can see that there will be an inherent conflict with the solutions required for environmental problems:

1. changes in the status quo
2. trans-national solutions
3. limits on property rights
4. more regulation
5 & 6. communal rather than individual action
7. secular
8. limits on industry
9 & 10. sustainability

Further, while solutions to environmental problems can come from the market, they can only come from the market once the market has been shaped appropriately by regulation, and that means an increased role for the government.

There's certainly nothing stopping someone right wing being pro-environmental, but the solutions to environmental issues do not in general sit comfortably with the right wing attitudes outlined above. Nor has the right wing yet been very forthcoming with solutions to environmental problems - they have generally preferred to oppose them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, but as you said you're a right-wing libertarian, so only some of that is applicable in your case. Libertarians are still only a minor part of the right wing, though.

donegalfella wrote: »

A collectivist future that gives us fewer property rights, less freedom, and more regulation will be an unmitigated disaster—not only for the planet but for the people that live on it as well.

Yet again we see the environment used as a Trojan horse for a collectivist future, with a big government telling everyone how to live their lives.

While there are people using a Green agenda to advance what is essentially a left wing agenda, it's no more the case that they're characteristic of the movement than racists and religious nutters are of the right.

If you can suggest solutions to environmental problems that stem from right wing principles, suggest away - otherwise, I think you're demonstrating my point that right-wing rejection of the solutions on the table causes paralysis in the face of the problems.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Manic Moran

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's not quite true, though. Environmentalism fits well enough with traditional conservatism, but if we take as some of the characteristics of the modern right wing the following:

1. support for the status quo
2. nationalism
3. strong property rights
4. little regulation
5. individualism
6. self-reliance
7. support for religion
8. support for industry
9. philosophy of man vs environment
10. open-ended economic growth

we can see that there will be an inherent conflict with the solutions required for environmental problems:

1. changes in the status quo
2. trans-national solutions
3. limits on property rights
4. more regulation
5 & 6. communal rather than individual action
7. secular
8. limits on industry
9 & 10. sustainability

Further, while solutions to environmental problems can come from the market, they can only come from the market once the market has been shaped appropriately by regulation, and that means an increased role for the government.

There's certainly nothing stopping someone right wing being pro-environmental, but the solutions to environmental issues do not in general sit comfortably with the right wing attitudes outlined above. Nor has the right wing yet been very forthcoming with solutions to environmental problems - they have generally preferred to oppose them.

To respond to those.
1) Given the goings-on here in Left Coast California, I don't think you can say that arguing against the status quo is purely the domain of the right wing. It just depends where the status quo is, and where it's looking to go.
2) That wonderful symbol of trans-national environmentalism, Kyoto, was opposed by both Democrat and Republican presidents because it wasn't trans-national enough. You can argue that the US should have abided by it regardless of what China or other countries may have done or not done, but isn't that 'national'?
3&4) Every property right has limits, that's accepted by everyone, ditto regulation. The two are connected. The question is where those limits are. True, rate of advance is probably going to be slower under a more 'centrist-acceptable' policy, but that's where you have to realise that environmentalism must be part of a balanced policy. If that means cutting back on some other particular left-wing program to make room for environment money, for example, then so be it.
5&6) I think you mis-take the self-reliance emphasis on the right wing. If that were the case in the larger picture, how would you explain that most police, military or firefolk are conservative? When it comes to helping others, they're putting their money (and lives) where their mouths are. On issues where an individual action is impossible to be effective, they'll play. Conservatives are not against communal responsibility, they just draw a line on where they think certain individuals should be aided.
7) Which has what to do with environmentalism? I know plenty of religious persons who care about the environment.
8) Again, go back to 3&4. It is to be pointed out that environmentalism is an industry in itself, makes a bit of money. As regards the limits on industry, yes, there are expenses and hassles involved in being environmentally sensitive. That doesn't mean to say that they are unsurmountable. For example, reduce the overage required by other legislation in order to allow companies to spend more on the environmental issue.
9) Man 'vs' environment, or man 'in' environment? Hunters tend to be conservative, for example, and go over to the hunting forum and suggest to them that they don't know much about what keeps the environment running sustainably. Certainly pride is taken that we, man, have evolved to become masters of the planet, that we have tamed weather, plants and animals and even left the boundaries of our little ball of dirt. That doesn't mean that a conservative is going to take opportunities to destroy the planet just to show he's boss.
10) Not mutually exlusive. You can have sustained growth.

Further, while solutions to environmental problems can come from the market, they can only come from the market once the market has been shaped appropriately by regulation, and that means an increased role for the government.

'Increased' or 're-prioritised'? Therein again is the problem. Let's say you have a left wing party, A. Then you have a left wing party with all the same left wing policies, plus environmental ones, B. Then you have a centrist or right-wing party with environmental policies, C. A and C are going to be closer to each other in terms of the scope of government role than B is.

NTM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Scofflaw wrote: »

9. philosophy of man vs environment

You have Bear Grylls: Born Survivor to thank for that!

ei.sdraob

Memnoch wrote: »

Conversely, I feel that the left wing (not extreme left) philosophy is one that tries to consider the long term benefit to society and is concerned more with fairness and equality than keeping the rich rich. I could be completely wrong about this but I don't think it's a coincidence that people who are generally concerned for the welfare of others also happen to be the ones who care most about preserving the environment.

Hey take the pink shaded glasses off

I care about the environment but at the same time i strongly feel that the current Green movement is going arseways about achieving its aims and more importantly,
I am highly apprehensive of any "movement" (especially with a strong socialist smell) which tries to restrict liberties and foster a planned/centrally controlled economy in the name of fuzzy goal on the road to sheepdom, whether it be saving polar bears or creating living space for an Aryan race

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed he does.

amused,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed he does.

amused,
Scofflaw

I know he might not be your cup of tea @Scofflaw

But you might find the following paragraph interesting

Hayek wrote:

Nor can certain harmful effects of
deforestation, or of some methods of farming, or of the smoke
and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property
in question or to those who are willing to submit to the damage
for an agreed compensation. In such instances we must find
some substitute for the regulation by the price mechanism.

But
the fact that we have to resort to the substitution of direct regulation
by authority where the conditions for the proper working
of competition cannot be created, does not prove that we should
suppress competition where it can be made to function.

Yes that was written by him in 1944 on the economic subject of externality which the Greens of course try to address via carbon trading

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

I know he might not be your cup of tea @Scofflaw

But you might find the following paragraph interesting

Yes that was written by him in 1944 on the economic subject of externality which the Greens of course try to address via carbon trading

I do find it interesting, and don't have any particular disagreement with it (I did initially, but that's because I read it wrong!). On the other hand, I don't see that Hayek is disagreeing with externality pricing there at all - indeed, I suspect he'd be entirely happy with carbon trading as something that allowed competition to operate within the regulatory framework. Most Greens, of course, aren't - they'd mostly prefer simple regulation, since carbon trading seems to them to offer a "right to pollute".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Memnoch

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hey take the pink shaded glasses off

I care about the environment but at the same time i strongly feel that the current Green movement is going arseways about achieving its aims and more importantly,
I am highly apprehensive of any "movement" (especially with a strong socialist smell) which tries to restrict liberties and foster a planned/centrally controlled economy in the name of fuzzy goal on the road to sheepdom, whether it be saving polar bears or creating living space for an Aryan race

There might very well be people on the right who care about the environment. What has been previously pointed out on this thread and I would like to re-iterate is that they have yet to suggest a realistic solution to current environmental problems and their modus operandi seems to be more to minimise the extent of these problems and thwart any attempts at addressing them.

For example, this ludicrous idea that we should just sit back and wait for the "free market" to generate a technological solution. I've no problem with a technological solution, but we don't have one right now and who knows when we will have one, in the mean time we have to use the tools we have to minimise any further damage.

As for liberty. We do not and should not have unrestricted liberty in all things.

We do not for example have the liberty to stab someone or shoot them or rob them. We similarly should not have the liberty to pollute without restriction and considering the state of the environment and the risks resulting from continuing damage to it, these restrictions need to be robust.

The idea of paying someone to pollute on their property is flawed and narrow as:

1) It is still pollution and still harmful to the environment.
2) The effects of pollution aren't simply restricted to the area in which the pollution occurs. eg. Acid Rain.

Essentially the "liberty to pollute" infringes on the liberty of the rest of us to enjoy a clean and healthy environment.

I'm also not a fan of carbon credits or trading for the reasons outlined by Scofflaw above.

ei.sdraob

Memnoch wrote: »

There might very well be people on the right who care about the environment. What has been previously pointed out on this thread and I would like to re-iterate is that they have yet to suggest a realistic solution to current environmental problems and their modus operandi seems to be more to minimise the extent of these problems and thwart any attempts at addressing them.

For example, this ludicrous idea that we should just sit back and wait for the "free market" to generate a technological solution. I've no problem with a technological solution, but we don't have one right now and who knows when we will have one, in the mean time we have to use the tools we have to minimise any further damage.

As for liberty. We do not and should not have unrestricted liberty in all things.

We do not for example have the liberty to stab someone or shoot them or rob them. We similarly should not have the liberty to pollute without restriction and considering the state of the environment and the risks resulting from continuing damage to it, these restrictions need to be robust.

The idea of paying someone to pollute on their property is flawed and narrow as:

1) It is still pollution and still harmful to the environment.
2) The effects of pollution aren't simply restricted to the area in which the pollution occurs. eg. Acid Rain.

Essentially the "liberty to pollute" infringes on the liberty of the rest of us to enjoy a clean and healthy environment.

I'm also not a fan of carbon credits or trading for the reasons outlined by Scofflaw above.

Its interesting that you have no belief in companies and people tackling climate change in a competitive environment (and yes regulated environment)

Yet somehow you have faith in a centrally planned and controlled organisation run by bureaucrats (or god forbid, politicians) to address this issue, as was already pointed out earlier in thread planned economies are a disaster for the environment

The solutions to climate change will not come from politicians but from ordinary people, engineers, scientists and companies pursuing profits (yes you can make a profit and be good to the environment) in a competitive framework

Btw we do have technological solutions available now, its called nuclear power, and unlike the Greens I strongly believe its the only option over the next 30-40 years that can wean us off oil/coal/turf as baseload cheap electricity generation until renewables and "smart" grids take over (if that ever happens)

Thats one huge problem me and others have with the greens, yee say that climate change is important and we need to act but put on blinkers when it comes to using technologies we already have as a bridging measure

As for liberty please don't strawman me :rolleyes:
You could have plenty liberties within the Rule of the Law and constitution of a state
But there is a difference between creating a framework for competition in green companies to flourish and inovate and creating a centrally controlled economy with 5 year targets of XYZ, the first is fine by me the second is communism

Scofflaw wrote:

I do find it interesting, and don't have any particular disagreement with it (I did initially, but that's because I read it wrong!). On the other hand, I don't see that Hayek is disagreeing with externality pricing there at all - indeed, I suspect he'd be entirely happy with carbon trading as something that allowed competition to operate within the regulatory framework. Most Greens, of course, aren't - they'd mostly prefer simple regulation, since carbon trading seems to them to offer a "right to pollute".

well climate change wasn't exactly an issues during WW2 but its interesting that the subject of pollution being recognised and mentioned, Yes its seems he would have no issues with carbon trading provided its done in an environment which produces competition, neither do I

but I do have an issue with the Greens here in Ireland introducing these taxes at the worst possible economic time, and more importantly since climate change is a global problem not having everyone else on board,
us here in Ireland busting our balls in an expensive exercise of "de-carbonising" at this point of time is rather pointless while the Chinese build a new coal plant every week.

Memnoch

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Its interesting that you have no belief in companies and people tackling climate change in a competitive environment (and yes regulated environment)

I have no problems with companies tackling climate change in a competitive environment. The more people seeking solutions to the problem the better. But the fact remains, we do not have a solution now. And we do not have the luxury to spend 10-15-20 or another 30 years inventing one while we continue to rape the environment. Also where are the finances for this going to come from?

Yet somehow you have faith in a centrally planned and controlled organisation run by bureaucrats (or god forbid, politicians) to address this issue, as was already pointed out earlier in thread planned economies are a disaster for the environment

I don't really have faith in anything at this stage. And there is a difference between increased and robust regulation and a completely planned economy. And whatever the planned economies of the past the environment is completely different today. Rather than throwing out the generalisation of a planned economy or how they were so disastrous for the environment in the past why don't you look at the specific measures proposed by environmentalists to tackle climate change and please explain how these will destroy the environment, otherwise it feels like a straw man argument to me.

The solutions to climate change will not come from politicians but from ordinary people, engineers, scientists and companies pursuing profits (yes you can make a profit and be good to the environment) in a competitive framework

This is a false argument. I've never said that the solutions should come from politicians so please don't make that my standpoint. The solutions will of course from from engineers and scientists. And it is my impression that the general consensus right now is to cut emissions, hence ideas like the Kyoto Protocol. As well as the EU convention on climate change (I'm not sure if that's the right title) that involved 1800 scientific experts from around the world?

Btw we do have technological solutions available now, its called nuclear power, and unlike the Greens I strongly believe its the only option over the next 30-40 years that can wean us off oil/coal/turf as baseload cheap electricity generation until renewables and "smart" grids take over (if that ever happens)

Considering it would take AT LEAST 10 years to build a plant it's hardly the quick stop gap you declare it to be.

Also Rebecca Solnit thoroughly dispantles the nuclear argument far better than I ever could: http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/316

But there is a difference between creating a framework for competition in green companies to flourish and inovate and creating a centrally controlled economy with 5 year targets of XYZ, the first is fine by me the second is communism

Call it communism or socialism or murderism or anything else you want. But this is the pattern I see repeatedly for the right. If solutions to problems are going to cost corporations money, those solutions are opposed and dismissed in this fashion. And this comes back to the point about why Greens end up leaning left. And why the right does not have a good reputation when it comes to the environment.

but I do have an issue with the Greens here in Ireland introducing these taxes at the worst possible economic time, and more importantly since climate change is a global problem not having everyone else on board,
us here in Ireland busting our balls in an expensive exercise of "de-carbonising" at this point of time is rather pointless while the Chinese build a new coal plant every week.

And this worst possible economic time was created by your beloved free market in all its unchecked glory for greed.

Scofflaw

But there is a difference between creating a framework for competition in green companies to flourish and inovate and creating a centrally controlled economy with 5 year targets of XYZ, the first is fine by me the second is communism

This is the nub of how you're entirely wrong. By setting a target of x emissions the government sets up a target for companies and individuals to meet - along with which goes a set of regulatory sticks and carrots.

To be a "centrally controlled economy" the government would need to also be stating how exactly each company was to meet that target, which they're not. Simply having a target for emissions of a particular type in a market economy over x many years is not the same as the Communist "5 year plans", which were detailed blueprints for the command economy already in place - the difference is so radical it's almost impossible to imagine someone confusing the two - yet here we are.

Without a target and regulatory sanctions of some kind, there is no incentive whatsoever for private companies to try to achieve emissions reduction. None, zip, zero. That's something even Hayek could see. To do so is simply to impose an additional cost on a business for no end other than a general social good which you would do better to leave to your competitors.

As to the argument that we shouldn't be doing this right now because we have a recession - ridiculous. The costs of doing nothing now must be borne multiplied bat some future date, and it's ludicrous to imagine that at that future date there will be no such argument possible - again, we can at every point shelve action in favour of waiting until times are better, but every time we do so the costs of the necessary action grow greater.

We as countries are so wealthy that to talk as if doing something about climate change through emissions reduction would reduce us to poverty and starvation isn't merely ridiculous but farcical and idiotic. Instead, we are talking about a very very small sacrifice of GDP growth if we take action now - and now is when action needs to be taken. Unlike many other issues, the problem of climate change is not more easily soluble by waiting, nor reversible after waiting - the longer we fail to act for, the more damage is already going to happen, however deeply we finally cut emissions.

Finally, climate change is a problem where any cut in emissions is useful. Even if Ireland were the only country in the world to cut emissions, it would still be worth doing.

regards,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Memnoch wrote: »

I have no problems with companies tackling climate change in a competitive environment. The more people seeking solutions to the problem the better. But the fact remains, we do not have a solution now. And we do not have the luxury to spend 10-15-20 or another 30 years inventing one while we continue to rape the environment. Also where are the finances for this going to come from?

Arggh its like banging head against wall, we have clean, cheap and reliable non carbon producing technologies today. its called nuclear, stop flipping ignoring the technology already available but being held back by green nutcases,
1-2 small plants would do this country fine for the 30-40 year span with some redundancy too and being able to export while allowing plenty of time for renewables and the grid to ramp up

instead in this country we will continue to generate majority of our energy from fossil fuels well into next 3 decades

Memnoch wrote: »

I don't really have faith in anything at this stage. And there is a difference between increased and robust regulation and a completely planned economy. And whatever the planned economies of the past the environment is completely different today. Rather than throwing out the generalisation of a planned economy or how they were so disastrous for the environment in the past why don't you look at the specific measures proposed by environmentalists to tackle climate change and please explain how these will destroy the environment, otherwise it feels like a straw man argument to me.
.

Ah yes all previous planned and tightly controlled economic experiments just didnt try hard enough :rolleyes:
This time it be different, promise

Memnoch wrote: »

This is a false argument. I've never said that the solutions should come from politicians so please don't make that my standpoint. The solutions will of course from from engineers and scientists. And it is my impression that the general consensus right now is to cut emissions, hence ideas like the Kyoto Protocol. As well as the EU convention on climate change (I'm not sure if that's the right title) that involved 1800 scientific experts from around the world?

but we still dont have the framework in place to create a competitive environment in this country, the ESB (for whom i worked in the past) is still the big elephant in the room, with an obvious conflict of interest for the government, not to mention Board Gas now ...

Memnoch wrote: »

Considering it would take AT LEAST 10 years to build a plant it's hardly the quick stop gap you declare it to be.

Considering that it takes so long thanks to beuracratic red tape :rolleyes:

If we start now could have a plant by 2020 replacing Moneypoint (1GW) down by Shannon (which is due to retire then) which currently burns mountains of coal, i recommend you pay a visit there, its quite a plant
oh and as added bonus the highest capacity grid connection in the country is right there already so no more spend is needed.

Memnoch wrote: »

Call it communism or socialism or murderism or anything else you want. But this is the pattern I see repeatedly for the right. If solutions to problems are going to cost corporations money, those solutions are opposed and dismissed in this fashion. And this comes back to the point about why Greens end up leaning left. And why the right does not have a good reputation when it comes to the environment.

I have as little time for the conservative right as i do for the whacky left, my political compass is well to the south of both on a different axis

What you described is a problem of organisations lobbying governments, something that the Left is not immune from either, one just needs to point at the trade unions holding this country ransom last year

A problem which is easily solvable by legislation, but of course neither left or right want this since preventing lobbying would affect funding sources

Memnoch wrote: »

And this worst possible economic time was created by your beloved free market in all its unchecked glory for greed.

Actually it was created by central banks controlling and pissing about with the money supply (as they are doing now on a larger scale sowing the seeds for the next crash)

but either way carry on my friend, its understandable how you would miss the elephant in the room when wearing pink coloured glasses

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

This is the nub of how you're entirely wrong. By setting a target of x emissions the government sets up a target for companies and individuals to meet - along with which goes a set of regulatory sticks and carrots.

To be a "centrally controlled economy" the government would need to also be stating how exactly each company was to meet that target, which they're not. Simply having a target for emissions of a particular type in a market economy over x many years is not the same as the Communist "5 year plans", which were detailed blueprints for the command economy already in place - the difference is so radical it's almost impossible to imagine someone confusing the two - yet here we are.

I can obviously enough see the difference, but I highly doubt the Greens (well the Irish power crazed kind) can and will/are trying to direct us down a path we rather not go.

While I agree that there needs to be regulation, it should be minimal and only go as far as to create a competitive environment, free of harmful distortions (like the solar subsidy in Spain, which once dried up killed the industry which grew to rely on it)

As for carrots and sticks, please stop there, The Greens here in Ireland have proved that they are only capable of producing sticks but no carrots

Scofflaw wrote: »

Without a target and regulatory sanctions of some kind, there is no incentive whatsoever for private companies to try to achieve emissions reduction. None, zip, zero. That's something even Hayek could see. To do so is simply to impose an additional cost on a business for no end other than a general social good which you would do better to leave to your competitors.

You are wrong on above. There is an incentive in a competitive system, If company A can produce widgets 20% more efficiently due having better energy conserving equipment in its plant it will have an advantage over a competitor, and so on

Hayke might have been comfortable with the idea of carbon trading if he was still around as a mechanism to provide correct market signals, and so am I, but its apparent that the Greens mistrust this market oriented mechanism and want more control and power. Thats where he would have parted way with you since for the Greens its not about creating a level playing field but about direcly and indirectly controlling all aspect of our lives and work for the sake of the environment. It is this totalitarian streak in the Greens that makes them so dangerous, yes they might have good intentions but its a slippery road to hell

Scofflaw wrote: »

As to the argument that we shouldn't be doing this right now because we have a recession - ridiculous. The costs of doing nothing now must be borne multiplied bat some future date, and it's ludicrous to imagine that at that future date there will be no such argument possible - again, we can at every point shelve action in favour of waiting until times are better, but every time we do so the costs of the necessary action grow greater.

Hey where was the Greens long term thinking when they signed up to NAMA instead of pulling out and leading to an elections
Where's the Greens plans for tackling the waste in the public sector and welfare?

Im sure the future generations would not be cursing at the Greens for driving in their electric cars (thats if they could afford them) past a countryside littered in windmills on their way to a long day at work (thats if they get a job!) where most of their money would have to be taxed in order to repay needless debts being ran up by current government

Scofflaw wrote: »

We as countries are so wealthy that to talk as if doing something about climate change through emissions reduction would reduce us to poverty and starvation isn't merely ridiculous but farcical and idiotic. Instead, we are talking about a very very small sacrifice of GDP growth if we take action now - and now is when action needs to be taken. Unlike many other issues, the problem of climate change is not more easily soluble by waiting, nor reversible after waiting - the longer we fail to act for, the more damage is already going to happen, however deeply we finally cut emissions.

Finally, climate change is a problem where any cut in emissions is useful. Even if Ireland were the only country in the world to cut emissions, it would still be worth doing.

regards,
Scofflaw

Yes any action is better than nothing of course, but once again we are made to bear the costs at the worst possible time, while the likes of China (and economy that is centrally controlled, planned and directed with the worst aspects of capitalism mixed in) is ignoring the issue and making all our efforts pointless

How about the Greens concentrate on getting this country out of the mess, that they partially helped to drive us deeper into instead of wasting time on things like hunting.

The current FF/Green government will cost the country €62-74.6 billion euro between bank bailouts and NAMA alone once off, not even counting the welfare and PS problems

THATS ALOT OF MONEY!

~10 billion alone would build
* Spirit of Ireland type storage station
* ITER type fusion research reactor
* cover the better part of the country in windmills

Yee had your chance to walk away from Fianna Fail and lead to an election, saving the nation billions of euro, but no :rolleyes: the desire to stay in power overrides any environmental aims, and for that the Greens will not be forgiven


And finally if climate change is so important, then why the complete refusal of the Greens to even acknowledge nuclear power as a bridging option? as demonstrated in this thread

Macha

ei.sdraob wrote: »

~10 billion alone would build
* Spirit of Ireland type storage station

Pipe dream. Storage station of the proposed size would not work. Besides, the latest version they're peddling doesn't even connect into the Irish grid!

ei.sdraob

taconnol wrote: »

Pipe dream. Storage station of the proposed size would not work. Besides, the latest version they're peddling doesn't even connect into the Irish grid!

Yeh I was a bit sceptical about that but hell at least its more imaginative than handing dozen billion over to a nonbank

dynamick

ei.sdraob wrote: »

While I agree that there needs to be regulation, it should be minimal and only go as far as to create a competitive environment, free of harmful distortions...

All taxes and subsidies act to distort markets. Sometimes these distortion are desirable. The market for plastic bags is now distorted by the bag tax, but the countryside is no longer festooned with white bunting on every fence.

As for carrots and sticks, please stop there, The Greens here in Ireland have proved that they are only capable of producing sticks but no carrots

Remember the problem with the spanish solar subsidies, you mentioned? Well subsidies or carrots all run the risk of promoting a less than optimal technology. For example, if we susbidise biodiesel, we run the risk that biodiesel turns out to be a poor technology, whereas if we tax petrol, the market will react by encouarging people to invest their own money in a number of competing technologies, allowing the market to decide which is best. Eco taxes often turn out more effective at changing behaviour than subsidies and lead to more market driven outcomes. You seem sad that the greens haven't promoted more subsidies as if this means that they are ungenerous. However, governments are not being generous when they spend the people's tax money on subsidies. Some subsidy programs have been run of course such as the warmer homes scheme, the greener homes scheme, the home energy savings scheme, electric vehicle grants and so on.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

You are wrong on above. There is an incentive in a competitive system, If company A can produce widgets 20% more efficiently due having better energy conserving equipment in its plant it will have an advantage over a competitor, and so on

You are equating emissions and energy efficiency. In fact some types of emission can be reduced by filtering or other means without a change in energy inputs. All companies will tend to pollute if it is legal and saves them money. These are negative externalities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hayke might have been comfortable with the idea of carbon trading if he was still around as a mechanism to provide correct market signals, and so am I, but its apparent that the Greens mistrust this market oriented mechanism and want more control and power.

Here we have two assertions without proof and an argument based on an appeal to motive. Much of the green agenda is focused around market oriented solutions such as carbon trading, pay by weight waste and water metering. All political parties seek power either to further their ideological agendas or (where they have no ideas) simply to enrich and aggrandise themselves.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

...for the Greens its not about creating a level playing field but about direcly and indirectly controlling all aspect of our lives and work for the sake of the environment. It is this totalitarian...dangerous...slippery road to hell

All government actions whether green intentioned or not affect our daily lives. Think of income taxes, deregulation of taxis, smoking in pubs, planning permission, cigarette taxes, labour laws everything affects us. You have to pay 4c extra on petrol because of the carbon tax and while you can hunt deer with a gun you can't do so with a pack of dogs. Not exactly a collectivist dictatorship, is it?

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Hey where was the Greens long term thinking when they signed up to NAMA instead of pulling out and leading to an elections

NAMA and the bank recaps are consequences of the guarantee scheme which was passed by a super majority in the dail by fine gael and fianna fail. From Sep 30 2008 we were liable for 440bn of bank debts. Why would the greens pull out of government to hand power over to an opposition who were voting for the guarantee scheme? Once the guarantee scheme was passed, the banks had to be saved at all costs. AIB and BoI were carrying about 200bn a piece of liabilities and by 2009 it was clear that both were insolvent. As the state is continuing to function and managing to borrow money on international markets and none of the banks have collapsed, the policy has been a success.

Where's the Greens plans for tackling the waste in the public sector and welfare?

Welfare and public sector pay rates have been reduced through several politically unpopular moves such as removal of christmas bonus, 4% cut in welfare rates, pension levy and pay cuts. Half a billion is now being recouped in fraudulent welfare repayments annually. Welfare and Finance are not run by green ministers.

Im sure the future generations would not be cursing at the Greens for driving in their electric cars (thats if they could afford them) past a countryside littered in windmills on their way to a long day at work (thats if they get a job!) where most of their money would have to be taxed in order to repay needless debts being ran up by current government

I can't follow this sentence. The bulk of government debt is being run up to overpay welfare and public sector pay rates agreed to by previous governments since 1997 when the greens were not in power. The portion of future national debt attributable to the financial meltdown will depend on the outcome of NAMA and the future value of our AIB and BoI shareholdings.

How about the Greens concentrate on getting this country out of the mess, that they partially helped to drive us deeper into instead of wasting time on things like hunting.

Animal welfare legislation proposed in the current dail was modest and ought to have been passed in a morning. Instead this was the issue that backbench ff'ers chose to revolt on. The opposition will always support backbench revolts in the hope of toppling the government and having their turn. As a result we had 2 months of ludicrous debates about a stag law that affected 200 people and dog breeding regulations that had been introduced by a previous fianna fail minister.

The current FF/Green government will cost the country €62-74.6 billion euro between bank bailouts and NAMA alone once off

Gurdgiev doesn't show how he estimates these numbers in his blog post. I presume he has done so in the past but I haven't seen it. I see he is now estimating 12-19bn for NAMA whereas last year he was quoting 40bn.

When assessing whether an expenditure is worthwhile you need to compare with the alternatives. NAMA and the bank recaps may be expensive but what would be the cost of defaulting on government guarantees, allowing a run on the main banks, shutting down all domestic lines of credit to all irish companies?

~10 billion alone would build
* Spirit of Ireland type storage station

try as I might, I can't find anything good to say about this insane proposal.

* ITER type fusion research reactor
* cover the better part of the country in windmills

covering the country in windmills would not be a good thing. You know about baseload and interconnect capacity?

And finally if climate change is so important, then why the complete refusal of the Greens to even acknowledge nuclear power as a bridging option? as demonstrated in this thread

All Irish political parties oppose nuclear power. The greens are the most likely to switch policy for climate change reasons and there is already a growing faction of support for nuclear within the greens led by Lovelock in this article http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm

As the greens have promoted 2 new large electricity interconnector projects to the UK, Irish consumers will increasingly be using nuclear power. Meanwhile the UK is commencing a new nuclear power program.

Richard Tol from the ESRI argues that nuclear is not right for Ireland as we will be replacing Moneypoint too soon to allow for the design & construction of a nuclear baseload provider. Also nuclear power is not easily dispatchable so it doesn't match wind power well. Perhaps the Brits will build a nuclear power station in NI and we can just use that.

dynamick

To get back on topic...

Adam Bandt of the Greens has signed a deal to support the Labour Party:
http://greens.org.au/greens_labor_deal
(it doesn't seem that good to me - lots of promises of committees & commissions)

Also Andrew Wilkie has now signed a deal with Labour:
http://images.theage.com.au/file/2010/09/02/1901438/img-0902165356-0001.pdf?rand=1283411050047

What's impressive is that he turned down a deal with the conservatives who offered him $1 billion to build a new hospital in his constituency. Not a Jackie Healy-Rae.

Labour now need 3 independents to reach a majority while the conservatives need all 4. I believe all the independents are ex conservatives.

On Betfair, Labour has moved from 2nd place to odds on favourite to form the next government.