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)