If the Greens gain the 'balance of power', we are in big trouble. It should be remembered that only 12% of the Australian voting public is dysfunctional enough to support the Greens and, therefore, they have no business dictating to a government or the majority of Australian voters just because of our ridiculous preferential voting system, and the general laziness and lack of interest by too many voters.

Forget all the preference 'deals'; put the Greens at the bottom if you want to maintain democracy in Australia.

I find myself in agreement here with Leigh, which is unusual and refreshing.

I have strong concerns about the Greens. They do not have high calibre candidates and are still cursed by the feral red tag. They are riding on a protest vote which is fair enough but they don't have the performers of say Chipp, Haines, Kernot or Stott Despoja.

It was the Democrats who had in their constitution that they would not block supply as Chipp, et al saw the damage it did to the social fabric of the nation. Even so, the Democrats were never tested on this.

While I don't share many of his views, Bob Brown has always struck me as a highly ethical person and, as such, would not make a decision to try and block supply lightly. However, the other Greens senators do seem dangerously close to the "barking at the moon" level of madness. And the NSW MLC that's likely to become a senator shortly has some leadership ambitions - and she is even whackier. If Bob Brown held the balance of power alone, it wouldn't worry me. What a pity he couldn't have got Nick McKim and/or Cassie O'Connor into the Senate to ensure the Greens have some gravitas, some intellectual grunt and some capacity to work constructively with whoever is in government.

It's worth remembering that the Coalition's blocking of supply was not what put a permanent end to the Whitlam government; it was their landslide victory in the election that followed. Any government which puts itself in a position where it would lose an election that was held at that moment SHOULD lose office. It is the government's job to do what the people want. If the people are wrong then the government can seek to educate or persuade them, but ultimately it is their job to do as they are told.

IF the Greens bring down a Gillard government for no good reason then the Greens will be so thoroughly hammered in the next election that they would end up where the Democrats are now. If they bring it down for a good reason then it should be brought down. A new election is a hell of a lot cheaper than a culpable and incompetent government.

Greg,
I must have missed the party authorization bit on this one. Good old fear mongering and anti Green propaganda...
Even you can do better.

My Greg, you should be studied in a laboratory.

Over the past ten years you've evolved from naught but a sincerely snotty, ignorant, pouty, bigoted, sanctimonious git, to gradually a willfully dishonest spin-doctor salesman (albeit a rather low-caliber one- and probably still all the above issues).

Also, I like that little bit at the end about 'the virtue of compromise' to try to still justify the fact that your old party, the Democrats, went corrupt and sold out to the big boys over Telstra and try to offset credit from the Greens on count of the fact that they've been a little better at living up to the principles they claim to have (let alone turning on their founding warcry "keep the bastards honest").

I have always wondered how someone as yourself could ever get qualifications to be in law- now your starting to show a possible reason why.