Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Send Topic Print
NSW coalition, re: Batemans and Port Stephens (Read 73948 times)
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 33554
Here
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #60 - Feb 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 10:57pm:
Quote:
[quote]The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.


I sort of understsand this position but they have had about 7 years to make up their mind about their general or prefered direction.

They have been paying a shadow minister and a leadership team to develope policy and even went to the trouble of producing a substantial policy document which really gives little indication of what they will do.

Why would you create a policy document when you have no prefered policy to put into it?

I still do not really know what either side will do, I suspect they are both going to continue as is full speed ahead.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #61 - Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:25pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 10:57pm:
Quote:
[quote]The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.


I sort of understsand this position but they have had about 7 years to make up their mind about their general or prefered direction.

They have been paying a shadow minister and a leadership team to develope policy and even went to the trouble of producing a substantial policy document which really gives little indication of what they will do.

Why would you create a policy document when you have no prefered policy to put into it?

I still do not really know what either side will do, I suspect they are both going to continue as is full speed ahead.



They have offered a general direction, it looks lke your both just seeing what you want to see.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #62 - Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:34pm
 
] Quote:
How do you know it will be meaningless?


History repeating.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.  

Quote:
Wouldn't be hard. At least they are showing signs of seeing beyound the anti fishing bias that surrounds Labor's marine parks.


So you think the coalition will use marine parks for "addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development"?

More like they won't rely on the green placebo of marine parks while ignoring these problems.

Quote:
but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get


The bit about not abolishing any marine parks is substantial and definitely needed to be cleared up given what they said last election. The rest does barely differentiate them from Labor on the marine park front - the devil is in the detail, which they are not providing.

They have said quite a bit, eg that they will expand habitat protection zones, offer 16 million to buy out pros and a lot more. Sure they haven't drawn lines on maps, but the basis of their argument is that Labor's marine parks have little basis in science or consultation. It would not be consistent for them to claim the former and then present a detailed plan without going throught the latter.

Quote:
The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.

Just seeing what you want to see.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #63 - Feb 27th, 2011 at 9:45pm
 
Quote:
Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.
 

Youa re confused PJ.
Quote:
More like they won't rely on the green placebo of marine parks while ignoring these problems.


So the coalition are the real envuironmentalists? Are they addressing for example climate change better than Labor? Can you explain this bit:

Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Is this just meaningless drivel?

Quote:
They have said quite a bit, eg that they will expand habitat protection zones, offer 16 million to buy out pros and a lot more.


Their marine park policy says nothing meaningfull about no take zones. Does this not concern you at all, coming from the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world? It leaves things wide open.

Quote:
Just seeing what you want to see.


But that's just it PJ - there is nothing to see. Do you think that is what I want to see?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #64 - Feb 28th, 2011 at 6:21am
 
] Quote:
Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.
 

Youa re confused PJ.

Well what 'past experience' are you refering too. Why do you feel the need to be so evasive?

Quote:
More like they won't rely on the green placebo of marine parks while ignoring these problems.


So the coalition are the real envuironmentalists? Are they addressing for example climate change better than Labor? Can you explain this bit:

Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Is this just meaningless drivel?

Recognising the real problems affecting the marine environment is at least a start and puts them ahead of Labor.

PS to suggest a NSW government can do something about climate change is drivel (and also irrelevant).  


Quote:
They have said quite a bit, eg that they will expand habitat protection zones, offer 16 million to buy out pros and a lot more.


Their marine park policy says nothing meaningfull about no take zones. Does this not concern you at all, coming from the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world? It leaves things wide open.

Yes they have - they are all up for (proper) review. They have also said the enforcement will change. An expansion of habitat zones may also effect the proportion of sanctuary zones. Stop being so obtuse.

Quote:
Just seeing what you want to see.


But that's just it PJ - there is nothing to see. Do you think that is what I want to see? [/quote]

Duh, of course you want to see nothing.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 28th, 2011 at 6:42am by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #65 - Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:37pm
 
Quote:
Well what 'past experience' are you refering too. Why do you feel the need to be so evasive?


Perhaps it will help if I repost the conversation for you:

PJ: Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?

FD: I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.

PJ: How do you know it will be meaningless?

FD: History repeating.

PJ: Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.

FD: Youa re confused PJ.

Got it now? I am not being evasive. I'm just getting bored.

Quote:
Recognising the real problems affecting the marine environment is at least a start and puts them ahead of Labor.


Are you suggesting labor does not recognise pollution and global warming as a problem?

Quote:
PS to suggest a NSW government can do something about climate change is drivel (and also irrelevant).
 

It is equally stupid to sugggest that marine parks will prevent pollution, introduced species, etc. Yet this is exactly what the NSW coalition is claiming they can do.

Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Does that make sense to you? Do you think the NSW coalition can magically make their marine parks prevent agricultural runoff of foreign species? It looks to me like the marine park policy of the NSW coalition amounts to nothing more than the regurgitation of the empty headed spin coming from the anti-marine park movement. And the anti marine park movement are yet again being duped into thinking the coalition will stop marine parks. It is comical what some people will fall for - like the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world suddenly doing a backflip and opposing marine parks, even if they don't actually say that. At least Julia Gillard lied about a carbon tax. The coalition did not even have to promise you lot anything and you suddenly turn into lapdogs.

Quote:
Yes they have - they are all up for (proper) review.


Grin So naive.

Quote:
They have also said the enforcement will change.


Change how? More fishermen getting fined, or less?

Quote:
Duh, of course you want to see nothing.


No PJ. What I want to see is the coalition taking a public, principled and rational stance on marine parks. No matter what I think of the anti marine park movement, I don't think it is fair for the coalition to take advantage of them like this. If a politician is going to impliment a policy you don't like, they should be upfront about it and tell you, not promise meaningless reviews.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #66 - Mar 1st, 2011 at 6:16am
 
quote]Well what 'past experience' are you refering too. Why do you feel the need to be so evasive? [/quote]

Perhaps it will help if I repost the conversation for you:

PJ: Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?

FD: I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.

PJ: How do you know it will be meaningless?

FD: History repeating.

PJ: Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.

FD: Youa re confused PJ.

Got it now? I am not being evasive. I'm just getting bored.

I'd get bored too if I just repeated drivel.

Consider this:

- Firstly the past is not an infallable guide to the future.
- The meaningless representative bodies and their interaction with marine parks argument applies to Labor's marine parks.
- If your going to rely on the past then surely the more recent past is more reliable than something that happened two decades ago. Ie the fact recent Commonwealth marine parks showed good consultation and outcomes concerning rec fishing.  


Quote:
Recognising the real problems affecting the marine environment is at least a start and puts them ahead of Labor.


Are you suggesting labor does not recognise pollution and global warming as a problem?

They are neglecting them in preference to drawing lines on maps.

Quote:
PS to suggest a NSW government can do something about climate change is drivel (and also irrelevant).
 

It is equally stupid to sugggest that marine parks will prevent pollution, introduced species, etc. Yet this is exactly what the NSW coalition is claiming they can do.

Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out the limitations of marine parks. Now where does the Coalition say they will use marine parks to fix these problems?

Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Does that make sense to you? Do you think the NSW coalition can magically make their marine parks prevent agricultural runoff of foreign species?

See above.

It looks to me like the marine park policy of the NSW coalition amounts to nothing more than the regurgitation of the empty headed spin coming from the anti-marine park movement. And the anti marine park movement are yet again being duped into thinking the coalition will stop marine parks.

They haven't said they will stop marine parks.

It is comical what some people will fall for - like the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world suddenly doing a backflip and opposing marine parks,

Do you call 20 years 'suddenly or yet again?

even if they don't actually say that. At least Julia Gillard lied about a carbon tax. The coalition did not even have to promise you lot anything and you suddenly turn into lapdogs.

Tesky FD. Are you a bit miffed at seeing the writing on the wall?

Quote:
Yes they have - they are all up for (proper) review.


Grin So naive.

So what should they do - announce zoning with no consultation of scientific review?

Quote:
They have also said the enforcement will change.


Change how? More fishermen getting fined, or less?

Make it more lenient and understanding of navigation errors/ inadventent breeches.

Quote:
Duh, of course you want to see nothing.


No PJ. What I want to see is the coalition taking a public, principled and rational stance on marine parks. No matter what I think of the anti marine park movement, I don't think it is fair for the coalition to take advantage of them like this. If a politician is going to impliment a policy you don't like, they should be upfront about it and tell you, not promise meaningless reviews. [/quote]


Pot kettle black. The Coalition's policy is balanced and rational. Your arguments don't even show any internal logic. And what gives you the omnipetence to know of some secret agenda on the part of their marine parks?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 1st, 2011 at 7:31pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 33554
Here
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #67 - Mar 1st, 2011 at 7:47am
 
pjb05 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:25pm:
They have offered a general direction, it looks lke your both just seeing what you want to see.



The way I read it the direction is that general that it falls short of even saying which direction they are going.

The libs have many pages which boil down to we will put a hold on the current position till we get advice, that advice could be to go in any direction from dismantling the current parks to extending them to 100% of everything. While neither of these options look probable it is the range they have clearly left open.

Full speed ahead - which direction - they don't know and they don't care.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #68 - Mar 1st, 2011 at 4:20pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 7:47am:
pjb05 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:25pm:
They have offered a general direction, it looks lke your both just seeing what you want to see.



The way I read it the direction is that general that it falls short of even saying which direction they are going.

The libs have many pages which boil down to we will put a hold on the current position till we get advice, that advice could be to go in any direction from dismantling the current parks to extending them to 100% of everything. While neither of these options look probable it is the range they have clearly left open.

Full speed ahead - which direction - they don't know and they don't care.


They have offered the direction - you just can't just mindlessly repeat rubbish when there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

What do you suggest they do? And please give it a bit of thought and don't make the same post once again.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 1st, 2011 at 4:30pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #69 - Mar 1st, 2011 at 8:16pm
 
Quote:
Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out the limitations of marine parks. Now where does the coalition say they will use marine parks to fix these problems?


They criticised the operation by Labor of marine parks for failing to address those problems. Is this is a valid criticism, they obviously think they can operate marine parks in a way that does. I think it is just meaningless drivel. How about you?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #70 - Mar 2nd, 2011 at 6:09am
 
] Quote:
Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out the limitations of marine parks. Now where does the coalition say they will use marine parks to fix these problems?


They criticised the operation by Labor of marine parks for failing to address those problems. Is this is a valid criticism, they obviously think they can operate marine parks in a way that does. I think it is just meaningless drivel. How about you? [/quote]

It's only obvious to you. What is stopping them using another more appropriate arm of government? Talk about tunnel vision!

PS: how is a 'valid criticism' also 'meaningless drivel'?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 2nd, 2011 at 6:17am by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #71 - Mar 2nd, 2011 at 7:15pm
 
Quote:
What is stopping them using another more appropriate arm of government?


Nothing. It just means that their criticism of labor's use of marine parks is meaningless gibberish. They might as well complain that labor's traffic laws don't stop domesitc violence. It is not the sort of thing you expect to see in an official policy release.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #72 - Mar 2nd, 2011 at 7:40pm
 
=1299057302] Quote:
What is stopping them using another more appropriate arm of government?


Nothing. It just means that their criticism of labor's use of marine parks is meaningless gibberish. They might as well complain that labor's traffic laws don't stop domesitc violence. It is not the sort of thing you expect to see in an official policy release.

This is ludicrous, even by your usual standards. It's a fisheries policy. A subset of that is marine parks, as is introduced species, marine pollution and degradation. By the was so is funding of a rec fishing representative body and buy out of commercical fishing licences. You didn't see fit to go off on the same tangent with these did you?

Also the point is that their marine parks and their over emphasis on fishing as a threat are a distraction from these other problems.


Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 2nd, 2011 at 7:46pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #73 - Mar 3rd, 2011 at 7:26pm
 
Quote:
You didn't see fit to go off on the same tangent with these did you?


If the coalition criticised labors use of pro buyouts for example because they didn't prevent introduced species then I would also criticise them for putting meaningless gibberish in their policy. The fact that both are part of fisheries policy doesn't make it any less meaningless. We are only going off on this tangent because you tried to argue that it was not meaningless gibberish. These simple points only become long drawn out tangents because you try to argue against the bleeding obvious.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Reply #74 - Mar 3rd, 2011 at 7:57pm
 
85] Quote:
You didn't see fit to go off on the same tangent with these did you?


If the coalition criticised labors use of pro buyouts for example because they didn't prevent introduced species then I would also criticise them for putting meaningless gibberish in their policy. The fact that both are part of fisheries policy doesn't make it any less meaningless. We are only going off on this tangent because you tried to argue that it was not meaningless gibberish. These simple points only become long drawn out tangents because you try to argue against the bleeding obvious. [/quote]

The meaningless gibberish is on your part. If you want to argue about these problems then why don't you instead on harping on with this stupid construct? Don't you understand that marine parks in their present form are a distraction from the problems mentioned in that statement and that was the meaning of the phrase in question?
It's not just the Coalition that have pointed this out but fisheries biologists such as Richard Tizley and Prof Bob Kearney.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Send Topic Print