An excellent article, which encapsulates much of what I've personally written here in response to some of the more outlandish disinformation posted on On Line Opinion about the Greens. Full credit to On Line Opinion for publishing it, although I suspect it could well turn out to be another troll-fest.

I find it interesting that Nils von Kalm says that it's the Greens' "core principles of social justice, peace, democracy, and environmental concern" accord with his Christian principles that attract him to the party - they accord with mine too, but I'm certainly no Christian.

We also share annoyance at the tendency for some people to tell outright lies about the Greens and their policies, even when their mendacity has been pointed out repeatedly. As von Kalm says, such lies are often taken at face value by the credulous, who then repeat the lie often enough that it attracts the veneer of truth.

I've resolved to limit my interaction with the negative spin doctors and hateful liars who engage in this process, to refuting their lies whenever they do it. Unfortunately though, there are far too many out there who are more receptive to lies that suit their prejudices, than they are to truth that might cause them to reappraise some basic assumptions.

"We also share annoyance at the tendency for some people to tell outright lies about the Greens and their policies"

Now you know how Liberal Party members feel, and other parties when they are the brunt of lies, and fear campaigns - get used to it.

The amount of effort that goes in, from the ALP, to massaging and developing negative campaigns, against for instance Tony Abbott is astounding and they have their own tame media accomplices, like the Channel 7 "reporter" who doctored some tapes from Afghanistan to change the message of Tony Abbot's comment. The same "reporter" who begged Juliar to tell the media how she wanted them to behave, it beggars belief that he is not an ALP stooge.

The ALP are the masters of spin and misdirection, and if they turn their sights, even obliquely on the Greens, you will feel it.

They don't even have to do it directly, they have many instruments, like tame journalists, the ABC, Getup and the AYCC and many other, "useful" tools, who all have shady funding lines.

Regardless of the stated policies of the Greens, it is the behavior of their leadership, their public facade, that they will be judged by, you may find that unfair, but such is life.

Bob Brown likes to have things both ways, like complaining about big donors to political parties, while he takes a donation of over $1M .. hypocrisy in any politician, is seen as the values of the party being reflected.

So Greens talk one way bit behave another .. their leader sets an example. What was their policy on donations again?

People's behavior is not ignored because you have a wonderful manifesto, to think it will be, is completely naive.

You can't demand people only look at the parties policies when it suits you, they are merely "guidelines", the public and private behavior of the representatives or even party members, let alone voters, will be held as indicative of Green "policy" and goals.

Nice attempt at a pre-emptive strike, morganzola, to label any criticism as lies, and those who disagree with you as spindoctors.

>>We also share annoyance at the tendency for some people to tell outright lies about the Greens and their policies... I've resolved to limit my interaction with the negative spin doctors and hateful liars who engage in this process<<

What the Greens need more than anything is someone within their ranks to ask the hard questions about the effect of their cosy idealism. Because they appear unprepared to take criticism from outside their own closed-loop coterie.

The priorities in this article are interesting. The lead-off complaint that the author has is... injecting rooms. As a headline policy this has its pluses and minuses. But it is certainly not the most worrying aspect of Green policy.

What next? Those "preference deals". Where do they appear in the list of Green policies that the writer recommends we examine? There are 43 headings in that list. Not one says "preferences".

Third on the list is the economy, where Mr von Kalm selects a couple of marginal items with which to make his only genuine point: the Greens are Compassionate. Like Christians.

In doing so, he falls into the trap that tends to claim all enthusiastic idealists, which is self-contradiction.

On the one hand we are told what various polls demonstrate that 86% would like "more aggressive regulating activities of national and multinational corporations", 75% "believe that large or foreign corporations are more powerful than governments" (whatever that signifies), 59% want "a levy on bank profits", 80% support "a crackdown on tax loopholes" and so on.

But apparently, we are to eschew such populist leanings. Quoting Leslie Cannold...

"Stop replying to our every ill-informed, over-hyped whinge with well-versed empathy and solicit a heartbeat from our better selves"

Precisely.

As the writer himself points out:

"We are like the adolescents who demand their own way regardless of the consequences"

That's the problem with idealism. If your only objective is to occupy the moral high ground, you remain aloof to reality.

I don't know if this makes me a troll or not but I found this article a bit sad and naive to be brutally frank. If you are so thin-skinned that you cannot operate within a political system that works on the assumption that you live or die based on your ability to secure the support of a majority of voters to your cause then perhaps politics is not for you. The Greens can always revert to being a protest vote or they can engage in intelligent (and properly costed) economic debate so that the voting public can gain a better understanding of what a Green Government would deliver by way of living standards (these standards can take a variety of forms but economics living standards cannot be ignored). Marginal electorates decide elections. Populism obviously works in some forums (and Bob Brown is a keen exponent of populist politics) but I suspect most people in those all important marginal electorates will only support Green policies as long as they don't see it putting them out of work. If you doubt that then you are even more naive than I thought.

PS, how to vote cards and preference deals. The Greens could always say "we don't do them" if they wanted to be totally pure of purpose. They know as well as anyone in the voting caper that how to vote cards have a huge impact on the voting decisions of people who accept them from party hacks at polling booths.

Ah yes, some good old Greeny censorship and threats of "action" by CJ, hey isn't this what good old Bobbie Brown is up to now, doesn't like criticism, or questioning of any kind - complained about the ABC questioning him, now wants News Ltd and the Daily tele in Sydney hushed.

CJ, you guys are all the same, love handing it out, hate having to take it .. the Greens are like any other political party, full of people who are good and bad, suck it up, you will have to suffer criticism, and sometimes .. nasty things will be said!

The Greens and their lackies, need to learn some tolerance. The days of slagging off and getting away with it are over.

Ok Nils an evaluation.

One world parliament. That should be enough for any thinking person to see the hob nailed boot, hiding in the green fairy floss.

Well, that didn't take long. Any other suggestions mate?