The political reality is that the Greens and the Democrats should merge and combine their resources.

The practical reality is that they probably won't and will fight among themselves over a couple of percent of the vote in preference to real social transformation.

Political history is the tale of recurring myopic tragedies.

Quite right Malcolm.The Greens' policies do deserve more scrutiny. For example, Mahatma Gandhi, revered for his peaceful political activism was quoted as saying:"It seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime". I wonder how many Greens supporters know this? Debate on Labor MP Candy Broad's Crimes (Decriminalisation of Abortion) Bill begins next Tuesday in the Legislative Council of Victoria's State Parliament. The Greens Party intends voting for the removal of abortion from the Crimes Act. What is very concerning about The Greens is their intention, as listed amongst their policies in their 172 page manifesto released before the last Federal elections, to "force private religious hospitals to undertake abortions". Force Catholic nuns to kill little babies? The Victorian public has a right to know The Greens entire agenda before this debate. Legalise abortion and what then? Make it compulsory for conscientious objectors to perform them?

I note your admiration for The Democrats' Lynn Allison's contribution to the human pesticide RU486 debate, the one in which she revealed she would not have been in Parliament,that unresistable Holy of Holies, if she had not aborted her baby. How much more you must admire the first woman ever to be elected to Australia's Federal Parliament, Dame Enid Lyons. She was elected after giving birth to 12 children, not having had to kill any of them to be so!

Personally I would rather Family First or even Pauline Hanson to hold the balance of power. They would be much better for our nation than the depraved policies of the Greens and Democrats.

Excellent essay.
But Runner, why on an overpopulated planet, with an exploding arms race, does everything have to be reduced to the vexing question of abortions. And reduced via the use of emotionally manipulative slogans of binary exclusions.

Human life is precious yes. But on a planet where over a billion humans already live in slums and hundreds of millions more live in grinding poverty, how many more people does humankind altogether need.

Such poverty doesnt even allow for the possibility of the growth or flourishing of the potential latent in every human being. In fact it cripples such potential all the way down the line. From the poorly nourished mothers, to the poorly nourished babies/toddlers/children.
Chronic mal-nourishment cripples the genetically programmed growth process inherent or latent in the body of each and every one of us. Once crippled the damage (or multiple damages) can never be repaired.
People thus grow up impaired or crippled in all sorts of ways, both subtle and obvious.

How many tens of thousands of babies and children die every day due to mal-nutrition and starvation?

Malcolm, I'll leave the high level analysis to denny and runner.

I wonder sometimes about the power wielded by political parties when it comes to preferences.

While in lower house polls the preference deal is fairly subtle (suggested on the how to vote card) it is pretty appalling that in Senate contests most votes are virtually locked up well before people actually cast a vote - due to the ticketing system (96% used this system at 2004 poll).

This has given rise to some anomolies, including runner's faves, Family First storming home on 1.9% of primary votes in 2004.

Can't imagine Pauline will be trying to orchestrate a similar coup.

Maybe we could fix this fundamental problem first and then worry about what sort of nuts the majority actually want in the house of review?

www.myspace.com/savethesenate

I like a gadlfy party that pokes fun at the major parties and asks difficult and real questions. And in my opinion the Greens are the only party that asks real questions.
They are sort of like court jesters poking fun at the deadly seriousness of it all.
Of course the process of government does have to be serious.

I live just outside of Melbourne. Consider the future impossibility of the place.

The same holds with local variations for many other places in the world.

It is predicted that the population will increase by a million in the next 20-30 years.
Where are these people going to live? We already have land shortages and massive infra-structure problems. The new estates on the outer suburbs are gobbling up good quality agricultural and horticultural land.
And what about the cost of land and houses?
Where will their food come from? China? The Ord River? Perhaps the moon?
Where will their water come from? We are already in a near crisis situation. World wide future wars are going to be fought over access to and control of water. World-wide major aquifers are in dangerous decline with no possibility of replenishment.

What about transport? The system(s)are already in overload. Any systems planned and built within the next few years will be over- crowded and obsolete in 30 years time---guaranteed.

It is estimated that the volume of goods coming through the the Port of Melbourne is going to double or triple within 10-15 years.
The people that live in Footscray and other inner suburbs near the freight terminals already have to put up with 3000 trucks a day. It is already a literal nightmare for them. Imagine what it will be like in 10-15 years time.

And so on.