It certainly was an interesting result. The Greens had an obligation to their voters to form a government with one of the two majors. The GG did the right thing in maintaining the status quo and in recognising the fact most people voted for a Left of Centre outcome.

The Greens may have to compromise in some areas but hopefully they won't do a Garrett and compromise on essentials. They may just help keep the bastards honest and put the emphasis back on social reform, which will be a big improvement on the status quo.

The Electoral system is Tasmania is a flea ridden Dog...No other way to describe it.
With only 5 Electorates, they are far too big. One stretches from Hobart in the south right up to Bass Strait... What do People in Brighton, near Hobart, have in common with Farmers in Sheffield...? Nothing actually!
In fact that Electorate looks like a Dumb Bell...... Those interested in Political History will know what that means.

"..the Greens locally are not as shrill or dogmatic and manipulative as Tasmania’s Federal Green senators, Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Brown and Milne helped to destroy the previous Tasmanian experiment in Labor-Green power sharing of two decades ago."

That is a fair assessment and I agree and the problem from now on is how to keep the federal Green senators from interfering to make party politics the issue rather than the effective, enlightened government of Tasmania for the benefit of citizens, regardless of political preference. There are similarities with the Brisbane City Council which for years was able to get a lot done through cooperation of elected members concentrating on matters of importance without regard to their party membership. It is only in recent years that party politics has wasted council time and frustrated ratepayers.

What the federal Green senators need to realise is that voters become very irritated very quickly with politicians who find that playing politics is preferable to making an earnest, positive contribution to the parliament. Tasmania has too few elected representatives for any of them to have the luxury of goofing off or sitting back 'keeping the bastards honest'.

If Tasmania was a seperate and sovereign country that had to use it's own output and taxes to run itself - would the voters have behaved this way? (not for long!)

Is it because they know regardless of what they do, the commonwealth will prop them up?

So they can go back to play eco activists versus developers or whatever stupid games they play, and it means nothing. They can all squabble at someone else's expense - what fun!

There are no repercussions, well, except for taxpayers on the mainland.

It's all make believe, irresponsibility and pretend, kindergarten games and petty hatreds dressed up as society.

The Current greens leader is as radical as those that came before him, such as his idol, Bob Brown. McKim said of Brown and his own illegal protests in the forests:

"Shortly after the Franklin, I was involved in the blockade at Farmhouse Creek and was arrested while protecting our magnificent forests from clear-felling. It is a personal disappointment to me that this issue is unresolved 20 years after I sat in front of the bulldozers. It was at Farmhouse Creek that I first met a man who had a profound effect not only on my life but on Tasmania's history. I refer of course to Bob Brown, now Senator Bob Brown, a man of honesty and integrity who is not only a role model to me but is one of the world's foremost environmentalists and human rights advocates."

Whilst McKim went into the slick field of advertising before entering Parliament and knows how to present an image on TV, his maiden speech paints a picture of a radical committed to the aims of Brown and Milne version of the old style greens, check it at http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ha/ISMcKimNick.htm

Only in the bizarre world of Greg Barns would the ALP be considered centre.
Still, I remember Bob Brown calling John Howard an extremist because he didn't endorse same-sex "marriage".
I guess it's all relative to the commentator's own stance.

Greg
A good balanced article and I agree about the need for Greens to walk the talk on balance. I have no doubt that this team has the capacity to do it. In fact they are already showing up the inadequacies in the two major parties for holding reasonable dialogue and taking on issues objectively. Fancy the churlish line from Bartlett referring to the Greens as the devil. Move on and use the collective talents for better outcomes.
I was however concerned with your reference to forests. 25% of Tasmanians voted Green with few not beleiving that the the CFMEU has the majoy parties bluffed. There aren't many jobs in Forestry! It is a myth promulgated for political gain. Logging native forests is a major issue and unless addressed will continue to be counter productive to the greater opportunities around tourism, food production and a global untarnished image that will become an economic engine far bigger than commercial forestry.

I am pretty hopeful that Greens/Labor coalition (or whatever it ends up being called) will work. The greens of today are very different to the emerging party of the 1980s - and so is the ALP in Tasmania. I think it would be a mistake though for the ALP to offer a ministry or for the greens to accept one.

Cornflower
You don't have to sit back to keep the bastards honest. Action and integrity are not mutally exclusive.

It is entirely possible to be proactive and contribute positively without losing integrity on matters of governance, corruption and self-interest, something of which Tasmanians have had to endure for far too long.

Only in the bizarre world of Proxy would the ALP be considered leftist.

But I agree on one point, it really does depend on the stance of the commentator.

pelican,

Where did I state that action and integrity were mutually exclusive? I would say though that any party that takes advantage of being in opposition to merely oppose is doing all voters a disservice and not delivering good value for money.

Nick McKim's electioneering and his 2010 election night speech emphasised a new era of positive, constructive politics with politicians working together, not advancing their own interests or their party's but working together for the good of Tasmania.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/20/2851595.htm

That sounds like something completely different to the old (reactive) clarion call of the Democrats that they would 'keep the bastards honest', which in any event they quickly forgot, much to the dismay of the late Don Chipp.

Nick McKim has promised to roll his sleeves up and participate fully in the business of governing, which is not such a bad idea, but novel for the Greens. He appears aware of the wastefulness and limited future of being the dead hand of the old guard in Canberra. He will have an ongoing battle to maintain that separateness.

Cornflower I may have misunderstood your intent in your other post.

I interpreted your comments in reference to "keeping the B's honest" (as coined by Don Chipp), could only be done in isolation from the actions of governing.

In this case the Greens have a perfect opportunity to contribute as well as being in a historically unique position to continue as a 'watchdog' in a front row seat.

We might hope that this arrangement will bring some transparency and compromise on matters of the environment (but not limited to the environment) as well as an end to dodgy dealings. (That may be a bit too optimistic but one can live in hope)

The one thing you are fogetting is that Tasmania was the First place in the world (I am pretty sure) to have Greens candidates elected to parliament. They are not 'copy-cats' of European models.

As for the nasty assessment of their predecessors, remember that originally they were activists who decided that it was worth working within the system as well as outside. The first elected Greens MPs still behaved like the activists they were. Over time the party has realised to have more influence they must behave more like politicians. It is a natural progression.

also don't assume that forestry will be a background issue, the one thing that voters respect about the Greens is that they actually stand for something - and stick to it. They don't flip and flop about with their policies depending on the mood of the poll of the day like the two major parties do.