Free at last

July 28, 2007 10:38 PM

As of yesterday, Dr. Mohammed Haneef was released from jail, amidst speculation that his incarceration had been unjust, and is on his way back home. It is believed that once he is ready, there will be a lucrative deal waiting for him if he wishes to tell his story (pdf of his transcript of detention), but for now, his wife, Firdaus Ashriya, is happy to have her husband back home.
posted by hadjiboy (45 comments total)

Probably the most pathetic thing about the whole sad story? The federal Labor party's complete and utter lack of bollocks on the issue. Fucking little girls. It's depressing that we need to get them elected, but things are going to completely suck when they are.
posted by Jimbob at 10:51 PM on July 28, 2007

"We're all human" is such a vapid and cavalier statement for the cop to give that it begs for a more incisive interpretation like "hey reporter, give me a fucking break; haven't you ever failed to frame someone?"
posted by Tuwa at 11:24 PM on July 28, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

We're going to have to withdraw benefits from these people until they learn how to handle responsibility. They're only children, really, but they have to learn that there are no free rides in the 21st century.

This would have the side-effect of stopping PR types from hanging around Canberra and fooling the pollies into wasting the money we give them.

I've got nothing against them. We all love seeing the mob packed into their big cars with their colourful yellow ties marking one of their tribal rituals, but at the moment they're swaggering around like they own the place.
posted by emf at 11:45 PM on July 28, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Racial profiling, Doctoring while Pakistani.
posted by IronWolve at 11:58 PM on July 28, 2007

Amazing that he was locked up for so long just for being related to a suspected terrorist, especially considering the special flights whipped together to ship the extended Bin Laden family out of America after 9/11.

(and the simcard connection? c'mon, it only makes sense to leave a working simcard behind with friends or rellies when leaving a country for another where that card won't work)

Anyway, Jimbob, you do know which party* consistently challenged the government (and the opposition) over Haneef, don't you?

* disclaimer: party member
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:01 AM on July 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Too right I do, Ubu. Praying to Buddah they get the balance of power in the senate.
posted by Jimbob at 12:03 AM on July 29, 2007

Buddha.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:19 AM on July 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

How do they say "nifonged" in Australia?
posted by three blind mice at 12:34 AM on July 29, 2007

And so ends another disgusting episode in the political history of my country.

Jimbob, UbiRoivas, I'm with you - this working class lifelong Labor voter finds himself no longer able to vote for them, and will be voting Green / Democrat / assorted left-wing nutjobs / Labor / assorted right-wing nutjobs / National / Liberal, in roughly that order, next election.

(Jimbob, why limit your hopes to the Greens holding the balance in the Senate? Give them a good crack at the House of Reps!)
posted by Pinback at 1:08 AM on July 29, 2007

"[Immigration Minister] Kevin Andrews says Mohammed Haneef's decision to leave Australia before the appeal only raises more questions about him :

'If anything, that actually heightens rather than lessens my suspicions'."

As the Rev. Spooner may have said, "what a cunch of bunts"...
posted by Pinback at 2:14 AM on July 29, 2007

Amazing that he was locked up for so long just for being related to a suspected terrorist.

UbuRoivas, so apart from the very dodgy SIM card "link", that was the only other reason?

Wow.

Nice call JimBob. Talk about Liberal-Lite.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 2:16 AM on July 29, 2007

Yes, it's depressing that Federal Labor didn't speak up more on the whole Haneef affair. And yes, it would have been such an enormous boon to them now with all that has come to light. But keeping their traps shut and choosing their words wisely was absolutely the right strategy.

Make no mistake... Howard was planning to wedge Labor when he (no doubt) instructed the Immigration Minister to revoke Haneef's visa. At the time, all we (the public) had to go on was the word of the Federal Police that Haneef had links to the Glasgow bombings. With that fairly heavy charge weighing down upon someone, what votes were there in protecting an alleged terrorist?

Absolutely none.

And while I will absolutely agree with anyone who says that that is utterly depressing and incredibly cynical way of looking at something that is, and should be first and foremost a civil rights issue, the fact is Howard saw in Haneef a Tampa style issue that had all the potential to knock Labor down a few points in the opinion polls and maybe even destroy their electoral chances as had occurred in 2001 when Labor spoke out against the Government's heavy handed response to Tampa.

And while it was clear even to me that this charge of 'recklessly providing a SIM card to a terrorist organization' was an incredibly flimsy charge against Haneef, the very simple politics of the situation was, at the time, "The AFP says this guy is probably a terrorist and anyone who dares to protect him is soft on homeland security." That is how it would have played in a media landscape peppered with loud mouth right wing columnists and 5 second soundbytes that cannot get across the massive complexities that need explaining in such a case as this one.

So again I must repeat that you should not make the mistake of thinking that Howard/Andrews did what they did for any other reason that to try and wedge Labor. And in that regard, Labor did absolutely the right thing, politically speaking, in refusing to be wedged. They're still riding high on the polls, this is frustrating the Government and unlike 2001, victory still seems imminent.

As a Labor supporter who strongly believes in civil rights and who was, like many of you, nonetheless disappointed that Labor did not speak out more, I am certain that this strategy, which helps ensure victory when Howard calls the election, is not indicative of how a Rudd Labor Government would govern. Once you're in Government, it won't matter what Bolt, or Henderson, or Ackerman or Shannahan have to say. You will be able to, by and large, control the agenda and make the kinds of principled stands that we would all have liked Labor to have displayed in these last few weeks.

In Government they will be able to revoke the anti-terrorism laws. They'll finally do something meaningful on climate change, destroy Workchoices and make the welfare sector fairer once more. They'll bring some sanity back into Australian politics. And best of all, fuckers like Howard, Ruddock, Andrews and that petulant bastard Downer will be reduced to the kind of Opposition bickering that always takes place in the term following the election of a new Government.

Labor will, no doubt, continue this strategy of playing it safe and, I am sure, will finally end this reign of terror we currently live under. I am certain a Rudd Labor government will put the heart back into politics here and will wind back the right wing agenda in this country in a way that we have been calling out for for the past 11 years.

But if you vote for anyone else in box #1 other than Labor just because you were disgusted by the notion that Labor refused to play right into John Howard's hands (especially the Democrats, who are nothing more than liberal Liberals), then you risk that future and risk another term of that sanctimonious fuckwit Howard and his cronies.

But hey, if that's what you want, then be my guest.

In closing, I am incredibly overjoyed that Haneef is free and that this reverse-Tampa has hurt the Government and shone light onto a set of laws that I've been screaming out against since they were first introduced. I'm just sad that the man had to go through all of this, and that we live in a country where Labor must play it safe to avoid the 3 minute hate that would have been inevitable had they done anything else.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:40 AM on July 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Effigy, we do have preferential voting. Nothing risky about voting green then labour then liberal.
posted by polyglot at 2:51 AM on July 29, 2007

Or to put it another way... what's the smarter choice? Making a stand on principle (only to be almost certainly savaged by your enemy and their supporters) or playing it safe so you can get into a position where you can put those principles into practice.

To quote the great Labor icon Gough Whitlam "What good are principles if you haven't got the power to put them into practice?"
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:53 AM on July 29, 2007

Exactly. And if Labor starts to see that more and more of their vote is coming via Greens preferences, they might not try to pull the bullshit they did with Tasmanian forests last week. I'm probably moving to Tasmania in a couple of years. I'd like there to be some trees left standing there when I do.

I know, I know, "they have to do this to get elected, it's political strategy", but when they're so deep in the pockets of Gunns et al. I doubt we're going to see any miraculous changes of policy if they win government.
posted by Jimbob at 3:18 AM on July 29, 2007

"In Government they will be able to revoke the anti-terrorism laws. They'll finally do something meaningful on climate change, destroy Workchoices and make the welfare sector fairer once more."

They'll only be able to do that if the conservatives lose control of the senate which is far from assured.

As wonderful as it would be for the current government to be kicked out of office, Labor having to sacrifice their principles to do so is nothing to celebrate. When you get to the point where it's more important to get elected than to stand up for what you believe in you are only marginally less disgusting than the liberal party. They are the lesser of two evils, nothing more.
posted by theothersteve at 3:19 AM on July 29, 2007

"Calwell's... courage in opposing the Vietnam War is remembered with admiration in the Labor Party."
Wikipedia

Where's Labor's principles gone? I'll have to stick with the Greens until this 'small target' nonsense is buried.
posted by emf at 3:22 AM on July 29, 2007

The Greens are a political party in the same way I'm Consul of Rome.

That is to say, laughable so.

We're simply a two party system, and like America will continue to remain that way as it serves as the simplest way to go about things. Why make life more complicated for Joe Bluecollar in the Western suburbs?
posted by oxford blue at 3:23 AM on July 29, 2007

theothersteve: "They'll only be able to do that if the conservatives lose control of the senate which is far from assured.

As wonderful as it would be for the current government to be kicked out of office, Labor having to sacrifice their principles to do so is nothing to celebrate. When you get to the point where it's more important to get elected than to stand up for what you believe in you are only marginally less disgusting than the liberal party. They are the lesser of two evils, nothing more."

See the thing is I agree with pretty much everything you say there. But I'm more than prepared to bottle up my disgust for a few months if it means the end of Howard and his goons and, almost certainly, a fairer and more socially just Australia.
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:26 AM on July 29, 2007

In any case, this is hardly going to swing Joe Bluecollar to vote for another party.
posted by liquorice at 3:27 AM on July 29, 2007

Oh I'm all for a two-party system, oxford blue. The Greens can be the "left", The Democrats can be the "right", and Piers Ackerman can have multiple painfull heart attacks and vomit up bile. This is the stuff dreams are made of. I shouldn't be drinking like this on a Sunday night
posted by Jimbob at 3:41 AM on July 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

I am woefully ignorant of anything but the broadest outlines of Aussie domestic politics so ignore this as you see fit, but Effigy2000, your argument struck me as very similar to the whole New Labour debate we had in the UK when in looked like we'd be stuck with the Tories forever, so a lot of principles were compromised to focus on the prize of power.
For my money, this was a mistake as the Labour Party's subsequent record in government shows this strategy is strongly habit-forming and having once ditched yourself of the burden of principles it seems many are reluctant to shoulder it again.
posted by Abiezer at 3:59 AM on July 29, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Abiezer: "I am woefully ignorant of anything but the broadest outlines of Aussie domestic politics so ignore this as you see fit, but Effigy2000, your argument struck me as very similar to the whole New Labour debate we had in the UK when in looked like we'd be stuck with the Tories forever, so a lot of principles were compromised to focus on the prize of power.
For my money, this was a mistake as the Labour Party's subsequent record in government shows this strategy is strongly habit-forming and having once ditched yourself of the burden of principles it seems many are reluctant to shoulder it again."

Bah. You can't convince me that New Labour in the UK would have been more conservative than the Conservatives, although I do concede that Blair's Labour government was pretty darn conservative.

My point is that I'm certain a Rudd Labor Government here would be somewhat conservative, but no argument you can muster will convince me that they'll be just as (or more) conservative than Howard and his government. No matter how conservative they end up being. Labor will be more socially fair than Howard could ever wish to be.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:14 AM on July 29, 2007

After a long spell as a political skeptic, and then a political cynic, I've finally come full circle to renewing my belief that the things people do to gain power are the very things that make them unfit to wield it.

Both Labor and Liberals are unfit for the responsibilities they seek to shoulder. No 'lesser of two evils' casuistry can redeem either. Rudd is going to be a horrible PM - albeit possibly horrible in a different way from Howard.

Twenty million people live in this country. There must be 150 extraordinary men and women whom we can elect to the House.

We are fond of saying that the system is busted, but the system is only ever as good as the people working within it. We need better people.

What qualities does a member of parliament require? What experience? What personal abilities? Surely it is possible to obtain some kind of loose consensus on this. We may never have had good leaders, but something within us seems to recognize bad leaders.

Why can't we actively recruit our representatives from within each electorate? Why do we settle for the choices we are offered - this parade of ambitious, vainglorious men and women who owe their first allegiance to a set of cramped policy cliches they are pleased to call a party?

I think we are in dire need of a mystical government. I don't mean a superstitious government - there's more than enough of that already. I mean a government of people with a fully integrated view of society. A government of people who can 'see the world in a grain of sand' and all that.

Until then I'm sticking to independents.
posted by Ritchie at 4:18 AM on July 29, 2007

Ritchie: We are fond of saying that the system is busted, but the system is only ever as good as the people working within it. We need better people.

The system is busted on many levels. Preferential system + no proportional representation in the lower house makes it very difficult for anything other than an effective 2 party system to emerge (illustrated by labor+coalition receiving less than %80 of the primary vote, yet holding a much higher percentage of the seats in the lower house). Factionalism in the major parties makes it basically impossible for a person to reach a position of influence without selling out.

The best thing you can do within the current system is to direct your primary vote to a minor party, preference the major party whose policies are least likely to make you vomit, and (most important of all) make sure you vote for the minor parties in the senate so that the government of the day (with their %40 "mandate") doesn't get away with murder.
posted by theothersteve at 4:59 AM on July 29, 2007

Why can't we actively recruit our representatives from within each electorate?

I always thought politicians should be elected a bit like jury duty; here's my grand plan:

- For each electorate, select a random group of six people to run from the voters within that electorate. People can be excluded if they have a valid excuse.
- Give them a set budget to campaign with.
- Also offer the option of "None of the above" on the voting slip...if "None of the above" wins, you have to hold a by-election with all new candidates.
- Pay the person who gets elected reasonable compensation, a bit more than they would be earning in their every-day job.
- When the next election comes around, that person gets put back on the ballot, along side five new random contenders.

There are probably fifty reasons why this is A Very Bad Idea, but I can't think of too many at the moment.
posted by Jimbob at 5:14 AM on July 29, 2007

(Oh...I guess I never considered how the people who got elected would form government / opposition, and appoint cabinet positions. I guess it's all possible without parties, just messy.)
posted by Jimbob at 5:15 AM on July 29, 2007

The Greens are a political party in the same way I'm Consul of Rome.

That is to say, laughable so.

We're simply a two party system

oxford blue, you may know that we operate under a preferential voting system. you may also know that the greens have been attracting increasing proportions of the primary vote with every passing election, from people disenchanted with liberal cynicism and labor spinelessness. in the recent nsw state election, for exampel, the greens in my area came within a whisker of stealing the safest labor seat in the country - marrickville, labor heartland. whitlam's old seat, i understand.

the thing is that the two major parties *cannot* afford to ignore green preferences. we may only have a handful of senators, but the preference deals mean that greens policies must be respected by the major parties if they want our preferences, and in marginal seats...hey, ho, let's go renewable energy, or else!
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:17 AM on July 29, 2007

example. that was obv' a tpyo.
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:19 AM on July 29, 2007

Unfortunately, Effigy2000, I've given this a lot of thought - it's not just a knee-jerk reaction, though I will allow that it's probably a sign of greater despair and cynicism.

The way I described exactly your attitude to a friend earlier tonight, before I'd even seen this thread, was being like the salesman's spiel of "yeah, sure it doesn't do what you want now - but wait till you get it home and install the latest updates, then it'll do exactly what you want!".

Problem is, in the 30 years since I was first able to save up my pocket money and start buying my own things, I've learned that that's almost always a lie; it's almost never true. Once the sale has been made, the promise is never kept. Toys never quite did what they promised on the box; those promised firmware updates to make it work in Win2k never did eventuate; and the extended warranty turned out be not worth the paper it was written on.

I'm sick of buying pups from lying salesmen, so I'm treating the Greens or Democrats as the lesser of all the evils (even though I well remember the traitorous deals the Dems have done in the past). Part of me still contains a spark of hope that the system should work, and a belief that voting properly rather than abstaining is a right, a privilege, and a necessity in a functioning democracy.

The more cynical part of me would just like to see the look on their faces if they actually won ;-)

(Oh, and I've had to put up with Kevin Rudd as my local member for several years now. The man's a dick...)
posted by Pinback at 5:34 AM on July 29, 2007

I'm most interested in seeing Kevin Andrews' role in this tawdry affair being put under the microscope. At present it appears he has sought cover in the 'secret further info given to him by the Federal Police' as justification for his continued (very arrogant) refusal to reverse Haneef's visa decision. Given the hugely public nature of this whole embarrassing debacle, that seems very much like a brazen attempt at hiding a stupendous political and moral gaffe in fear of the consequences.
"Get ya gear off Kevin, it's time for your colonoscopy."
posted by peacay at 5:54 AM on July 29, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

You are 100% correct Effigy2000, Labor would have been on a hiding to nowhere with this, and peacay I agree, What IS the secret evidence that Andrews supposedly has?

1) The government is taking a battering in the polls

2) The day a newspoll is released is the same day that the government has a cabinet meeting

3) That afternoon Andrews calls a press conference to announce the Haneef detention and vis revocation.

I smells a rabbit being pulled out of a hat, a very stinky rabbit.

The affair is dispicable.
posted by mattoxic at 6:01 AM on July 29, 2007

To quote Delmoi: "We fucking suck".
posted by strawberryviagra at 6:04 AM on July 29, 2007

And Effigy is correct - wedge politics. Rudd is playing it the only way he can.

I think there's another 4 years of wilderness left for the left in this country - Greens/Democrats, whatever. WA is looking bad for Labor (dissolving AWAs didn't go down well there), NSW/Vic is maxed out, that means more seats need to be won in Queensland and SA.

It's still a very long shot.
posted by strawberryviagra at 6:09 AM on July 29, 2007

Alan Ramsey:

Andrews's statement was an abject admission. What it conceded is that essentially all of what the Government has been doing ever since Rudd seized the Labor leadership eight months ago has been to incite election-year division and save Howard's ageing hide.

Read it. The desperation is obvious. So is the Government's frustration that it cannot bring Rudd to heel and Labor to turmoil.

The Andrews statement said, in full: "Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have today said that they believe the Australian Government has acted in 'good faith' and 'handled appropriately' the cancellation of Dr Haneef's visa. The Australian people deserve more than cheap talk from Mr Rudd and his deputy. They deserve to know exactly what action Mr Rudd would take if he became prime minister. It is not good enough for Mr Rudd to simply say 'me too'.
posted by strawberryviagra at 6:15 AM on July 29, 2007

You are right I think strawberryviagra, though people are getting sick of Howard, people have stopped listening, when it comes to putting pencil to ballot, people will go the devil they know. Rudd has yet to articulate a clear difference, and seems to be too clever by half by maintaining a small target.

It would be well for the Libs to get reelected, the economy is going to turn, and people need to realise that Howard is not the economic genius that they think. Howard has only ridden on the coattails of a world wide resources boom.

If Australia didn't have shiteloads of iron ore and coal to dig up, we'd be fucked.
posted by mattoxic at 6:21 AM on July 29, 2007

Too true.

It really fucking shits me that we have this commodity boom, and a Government with no imagination - not helped by a population of morons, whose children - you guessed it - will be uber morons, as a direct result of the start of this paragraph.
posted by strawberryviagra at 6:31 AM on July 29, 2007

oxford blue, you may know that we operate under a preferential voting system. you may also know that the greens have been attracting increasing proportions of the primary vote with every passing election, from people disenchanted with liberal cynicism and labor spinelessness. in the recent nsw state election, for exampel, the greens in my area came within a whisker of stealing the safest labor seat in the country - marrickville, labor heartland. whitlam's old seat, i understand.

the thing is that the two major parties *cannot* afford to ignore green preferences. we may only have a handful of senators, but the preference deals mean that greens policies must be respected by the major parties if they want our preferences, and in marginal seats...hey, ho, let's go renewable energy, or else!

Sure, but I would argue this does not ultimately affect the inherent duality of the system.

I think the Greens are in a similar position to the unions, etc, in that are they really going to give their preferences to the Liberal party? The Nationals? Labor is the only close match, and I can't see the Greens seriously risking a Liberal landslide by giving their preferences to non-Labor party.

Perhaps in certain socio-economic groups that Greens are becoming more popular, but arguably they are decades away from getting real and lasting mainstream public support.

Joe Bluecollar thinks the Greens--the hippies--care about the environment much more than they do jobs, the economy, national defense, and even some social policy (not everyone wants gay rights, etc. We are still a somewhat socially-conservative nation, or so it seems). He isn't likely, given the current state of Howard produced economic FUD, to risk having his payments rise, etc.

I can understand your hope, but realistically I don't feel the political landscape moving under my feet. I maintain once a bipartite system, always a bipartite system (with a wildcard thrown in perhaps). I'd like to be proven wrong, and perhaps when elections roll around I will, however...

(You say 'our'--In the interests of full disclosure, and sorry if I missed this, but what is your relation, if any, to the party?)
posted by oxford blue at 8:05 AM on July 29, 2007

I'm most interested in seeing Kevin Andrews' role in this tawdry affair being put under the microscope

A Howard Government minister take responsibility for something? Yeah, wake me when that happens.
posted by Jimbob at 8:09 AM on July 29, 2007

Racial profiling, Doctoring while Pakistani.

He's Indian, not Pakistani.
posted by madman at 2:08 PM on July 29, 2007

but what is your relation, if any, to the party?

i disclosed this in my first comment here. greens party member, altho only really active around election times.

I think the Greens are in a similar position to the unions, etc, in that are they really going to give their preferences to the Liberal party? The Nationals? Labor is the only close match, and I can't see the Greens seriously risking a Liberal landslide by giving their preferences to non-Labor party.

overall, you are right: preferences tend to flow to labor above the coalition. however, as a grassroots party, it varies from seat to seat. in some cases, preferences are simply exhausted: neither labor nor coalition receive recommended greens preferences, depending on what the local candidates propose to do about local environmental issues.

in any case, you're talking lower houses. a balance of power in the upper houses is always on the cards, especially as people voting for major parties downstairs will often hedge their bets with a green vote upstairs - since the democrats imploded, we've basically become the party trying to "keep the bastards honest".
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:54 PM on July 29, 2007

Anyway, Jimbob, you do know which party* consistently challenged the government (and the opposition) over Haneef, don't you?

Wait, I know the answer to this one: it's the Australian Democrats!

(* former party member.)

Having a preferential voting system in the lower house is a good thing, it creates stable government. Proportional representation in the upper house is a handy counterweight. Nearly al of the time this system has worked (post the rise of the ADs) - it is merely a bit of an accident that the upper house is currently with the government, which has allowed such terrible laws to be put in place. The balance of power is a good thing, and it should be restored to the minor parties after the next election.

But there's absolutely now way in hell I'd want the Greens (or any other minor parties) forming executive government as they currently are.
posted by wilful at 10:10 PM on July 29, 2007

Well, I'm not completely adverse to the idea of "minor parties" forming government. Here in the Northern Territory, the Labor party was basically a "minor party" for, what, about 30 years from when they gave the place self-governance. The local CLP supporters always said "Labor has never been in government here, they wouldn't know how to do it!". Then, suddenly, Labor got elected. And the CLP continued with the bullshit - "This place is going to fall apart, Labor has never been in government, they don't know how to do it!"

...two terms later, and the place hasn't fallen apart. Things are proceeding as well as they might be expected to (and the CLP have been reduced to a total of four MLAs...)

And there's plenty of precedent for Greens to form part of governing coalitions elsewhere in the world (Germany, for example). And even in Australia - they did it in Tasmania with Labor for a while, if I recal correctly, before they all conspired to destory the proportional representation system. I don't think there's anything uniquely special about Labor or Liberal that makes them good at governing. And I don't think there's anything inately wrong with minor parties that would prevent them from forming good governments...I just don't think it's likely in the lower house federally right at the moment.

Oh, and I hope the Democrats survive this federal election, I really do. I hope some sensible folk vote for them. I don't think they exist up here...but the Greens do, although given that we've only got two senators, getting them elected will be even more difficult than usual.
posted by Jimbob at 8:10 AM on July 30, 2007

And there's plenty of precedent for Greens to form part of governing coalitions elsewhere in the world (Germany, for example)

*ahem* - Latvia.

wiki: In February 2004, after the breakdown of the four-party government, Indulis Emsis was appointed to form a new government and became the first Green prime minister. His minority government was forced to resign in the fall of the same year. A new coalition government led by the People’s Party took office, in which the Green Party was involved as part of the Unions of Greens and Farmers.

Well, that's the kinda churn you get in countries without stable two-party systems, but the Latvian Greens have been part of ruling coalitions, and Emsis, I think, goes down in history as the first ever Green Prime Minister.
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:19 AM on July 30, 2007

The Greens seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. They're told they can't govern because they're a "single issue" party. But they do have other policies, and when they speak up on them, they're told they're supposed to be caring about the environment and nothing else.
posted by Jimbob at 8:25 AM on July 30, 2007