After listening to the annoying rhetoric of Rudd, Gillard etc., there has to be somewhere that the thinking “bigger picture” voter can put his or her vote. The Greens are now well established and should be that place. Although taking on social issues, it does not matter that the party arose out of the Franklin River campaign. The historical connection is important and the name should remain even if environmental issues become secondary to social issues [as they must if the party is to grow].

The author is right when he says the party should take bold stands and not play politics by forming alliances. By adhering to unshakable principles, the party has the potential of getting the votes of 20% of the country [i.e. just about everybody who listens to the ABC].

Remember! A vote for a party which can never be in government is not a wasted vote as the party collects a government subsidy on each primary vote - and with the money can mount a more successful campaign next time round

I'm non party political but firmly left and find myself supporting policies rather than parties which leaves me little alternative other that Green or independent.
I agree with Tim's assessment and sincerely hope the Greens take note and follow policy direction in preference to snuggling up to Labor....
Look what that has done to Peter Garrett !! He now stands alongside Kevin Rudd whilst Kevin delivers pale green excuses for not pressing ahead with a real green agenda.

One can only hope that the electorate will see through the veneer of Kevin Rudd's alternative to John Howard for what it is; A dishonest betrayal of Labor philisophy to woo the Corporate sector and gain power. Labor will not 'snuggle up to the Greens' because they don't want a hung parliament where the Greens become Labor's Shiralee.

There will be no Green future without an honest Green Party that fine tunes and develops it's social platform with the welfare of a peaceful,sustainable world as it's main plank.

I think Tim makes some good points.

However he doesn't mention the rise and rise of climate change as a concern of the public.
With the LibLabs both supporting corporate welfare to the fossil fuel industries of $10 billion per year, their pale green distractions such as loans for solar panels are just window dressing, but probably sufficient to fool most voters.

This is where The Greens should concentrate their limited campaign budget: not only to point out their seriously green solutions but to make the public aware of the LibLabs' contrasting deception.

A corollary message should be to educate people about preferences so more understand they can vote 1 Greens and still get Rudd up with their second preference.

The general population of Western powers are slowly beginning to realise the errors of their ways in electing leaders who insist on increasing the population and consumer spending in order to expand the economy which in turn keeps the top 1% of their Worlds most powerful figures bathing in the lap of luxury whilst the rest of the 99% exist in worsening conditions the further down the "heap" they live.

People are demanding more from politicians in relation to water, food and climate, but have nowhere to turn in Australia. Being an opposition leader is an incredibly difficult job and Rudd will do whatever he can to grab power from Howard. He juggles a fine line between conservation and more of the same tired old Howard liberalism that continues to pander to "big business."

The Greens were once seen as radically different, but at a time when that same difference compared to other parties was too much to contemplate voting for. Now, when people are starting to realise the World is doomed without major changes to the way Governments do "business", the Greens seem like a spent force. They simply haven't listened to the people. They could have changed some policy such as their drugs agenda (which was/is extremely unpopular) as well as some of their other wierd and wacky policies and gone on to form a respectable opposition party, but now it seems we're left with just one of two choices. Bit like "Deli Choices" really. Same old chicken dressed up with a thin layer of artificially flavoured sauce.

Part two:

We need young people to step forward and instead of attempting to clambor to the top of the heap, set their sights on a new wave of politics and policies. Infiltrate the political parties and give us something we can all aspire towards. A brighter future with conservation in mind. A World whereby our children and future generations can live and live peacefully. A World without an exploding population and reliance on dwindling oil supplies.

The Greens could have gone down that path, but sadly, I believe that unless inspired young people take over the conservation mantle, the Greens are destined to go the way of the Democrats.
Wildcat.

Much as I'm a fan of Tim's I think the Greens are very unlikely to take ground in the upcoming election no matter what they do. Australia is tired. We have had ten years of one of the most radical governments in our history. We are working longer hours, many of us are in hock up to our eyeballs, we have had an illegal war pushed on us, Howard has played on every division in society, etc. etc. Is it any wonder we are worn out?

The Greens to their credit have been outspoken in the anti-war movement and civil Liberties, but I think many people now see them as part as the whole worn out tape recording as Howard throws a ball and they react to it.

Labor has a new feel to it and promises something different and a return to a less conflicted time. Cant say I blame the electorate for wanting a breather.