Which bed to jump into indeed.

Bartlett's Labour has indicated it will step down rather than form a minority government with the Greens.

The Liberal Leader Will Hodgman's pre-election promise to get tough on eco-terrorists will also sit badly with the Greens as it could conceivably result in them having to be complicit in prosecuting the pinup girl whose wild accusations cheerfully broadcast by the ABC (that shining gum trees poison the water of a country town) terrorised the populace and doubtless delivered the Green's balance of power.

The ABC's Australian story crew also utterly doused itself in inglorious ordure with its abrogation of the community's expectation that the ABC might actually indulge in reason-based reporting, rather than what can only be their negligience or bloody mindedness.

What fun.

Another good example of wedge politics.

The greens are seen as the far left, and the liberals made a great effort early in to paint Labor with the green brush. After the hiding in 2004 Labor had no choice but to distance itself from the greens with a pledge not to form a coalition government with them, and to try and take the central ground.

However, with insufficient seats to govern in its own right labor now can only form government with either a coalition with the liberals or the greens. It would prefer the greens, but going back on its word would tag labor as liars and pernanently paint them with the green brush. This might get them power for the next 4 years, but would cripple them in many future elections.

It will be interesting to see what results.

Glad to see the Greens gaining ground in Tasmania. Hardly unsurprising given the shenanigans surrounding the forest industry.

Have to admit I was rooting for Independent candidate Andrew Wilkie in Denison - not sure how the results stand at the moment. Wilkie left the Greens (as reported) due to internal disagreements. He would be a great addition to the Tasmanian Parliament in keeping the B's honest.

It is still a bit early to claim that the ALP, and Liberals won ten seats each and greens 5, as the electoral office is waiting 10 days to receive final postal votes. After that they then start cutting up the preferences that could see a voter's 5th choice of 10th elected. So it could be possible to be a 10,10,4,1 result or a 11,10,4, the four being the victorious greens who might or might not increase their current 4 seats!

Even with 5 seats the greens do not have a mandate for their policies, prior to the election they claimed 80% opposed the environmentally neutral modern pulp mill, despite only getting 20% they now claim the pulp mill is dead, yet it is supported by both the Liberals and the ALP.

Prior to the election the greens claimed that over 60% opposed current forest management in Tasmania, with 26 academics from the University of Tasmania quoting a poll conducted by the PR company of Get Up and the Wilderness Society to justify demands to tear up the Regional Forest Agreement between the Commonwealth and the State Government.

This agreement locks up 3 million hectares of Tasmania in National Parks and ecological reserves, with half being high conservation value forests.
Yet this massive reserve system, at levels almost 5 times greater than set by the IUCN and WWF, is condemned by the greens who demand that all industrial timber harvesting be banned from the State's forests.

Instead they have adopted the 2004 policy given to Mark Latham with disastrous results as there 'new' blueprint. By doing so, they have ignored Kevin Rudd's commitment to the RFA and have ensured that the current Tasmanian election is no reason for either the Commonwealth or Tasmanian governments to enter into grubby back room deals with this minor party.

More Green - it's a Beautiful thing.

..

I would remind people that Bob Brown won convincingly on the basis of science, evidence and fact in the matter of the RFA not adequately protecting the 3 species in question.

Following GreenBrowny's victory, j.howard and some other vile slime simply rewrote the RFA to state that it was protecting these species, the case was appealed and the rest is history.

Seriously, what a pitiful joke. No science, no reason, no logic, flagrant disregard for reasonable principals of law etc

To go to court, win on the law of the day, only to have the law changed and the case over turned with the added penalty of incurring an infestation of wig parasites to boot is LAUGHABLE australia!

As previosuly said, it is what I call the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom.

..

RussiaToday recently reported that since '95 or '97 some 35% of the thickness of the north polar cap has melted reducing its thickness considerably, as evidenced by core samples from memory.

All nearby nations of course are scrambling to get a piece of the resources which will become more accessible and how best to preserve certain fish stocks who have no regard for lines on maps is being considered.

Point being, because of the grip these foul conservative morons have on the political process, media etc the reality of materiality that science reveals is often hidden from the public.

Even if people choose to vote for their own vested interests, people should be thankful that the Greens, along with the likes of CSIRO, the bureau of Met and eminent scientists world wide are actually prepared to illuminate scientific realities.

Seriously, only a fool would believe a frothing at the mouth closet catholic like abbot and his liberal party on issues of global security.

I'm seriously thinking of moving to Tasmania. Their electoral system is so much more democratic than Queensland's :)