It's a simple cyclic process really -- not unlike global temperature changes. Major parties run things for a while, stuff up a little bit and alienate people, so minor parties creep in. Eventually the minor parties get the balance of power, REALLY stuff things up, and the voters learn their lesson, kick them out and go back to the devil they know. One Nation, the Democrats, and now the Greens -- not to mention the Lib Dems in Britain -- all will eventually go the same way.

J.john is spending the afternoon curing cancer now that he is finished with climate change... back to reality.
The Greens are if nothing else, passionate about their ideas. While they are not running the country they can afford to be. To be a successful Government you have to be very pragmatic, but pragmatisms is not a good look to the average voter.

An interesting article.

The bit that sticks out is that nothing about the Greens seems to suit the "fairness-reciprocity foundation". They do seem to run on a dictate from on high approach unless you fit to some alternative which they approve of.

I do agree that the lib's have largely moved away from any of the small "l" stuff, Labor is all over the place and has not in my view ever got the "fairness-reciprocity foundation" part's.

R0bert

Kenny:

...You are on the mark Kenny. The best direction for a politician to follow is to change as little as possible during their term. People do not want change, they want stability: That is Gillards flaw...

Crispin, thanks for a very fresh perspective on the moral drivers of our political parties. It will be interesting to see how the next 2 years unfold and whether conservative self interest will supplant liberal social interest when polling day arrives. Minority government must be a pain for the ALP but the limp support they attracted last time was IMHO less to do with self interest than it was to do with dismay at a ham fisted leadership "transition". The Greens have (again IMHO) reached their peak of popularity and under the harsh light of day-to-day pragmatic reality will discover out just how hard it is to satisfy vested interest groups. Oh, for the simplicity of being a protest party I'm sure they'll say. We all love Bob but scratch the Green's surface and you'll see that what lies beneath just won't cut it with the marginal seats when push comes to shove. Should be an interesting few years though.

I'm still having problems with the concept of politicians having any sort of moral compass at all. There has been so little evidence of one for decades, it is even hard to imagine a time when there was one.

Of course, the basic theory is sound, at least from a high-level, top-down view of the "left/right" divide - " harm-care and fairness-reciprocity" versus "loyalty, authority-respect and sanctity". On a clear day, it is almost possible to see how these foundations may, once-upon-a-time, have influenced the policies of our political parties. But lowering one's gaze to the actual daily activities of those parties soon obscures that view.

Our politicians are, as a pack, morally and ethically bankrupt, voting on the basis of how it might impact their own job security and their own livelihood, with its obscene freebies and perks, rather than any vague consideration of their responsibilities to the country. We have over the years managed to turn their job into a personal popularity contest, with the concepts of fairness/loyalty but a distant memory.

Sadly, the idea of replacing this with a political system that values principles above venality is now impossible. We have simply moved past the point of no return, as the foxes are now in complete control of the hen-house.

Moreover, the idea that the Greens are somehow above all this is laughable. Their appeal to the public is based upon the general revulsion earned by the major parties, and not for any virtue of their own. Which would become clear, if they ever had to take on the task of formulating and producing a fully-articulated policy.