Excellent article Graham.

However, I do see the ambit of the greens expanding to cover the left wing socialists, and eating into Labor's union base. In this area there is sufficient ground for expansion without having to resort to Realpolitik.

My main concern with the Greens is not their environmental bias but their myopic views about nuclear power as a solution for emissions reduction and thus climate change and their, almost religious, belief that renewable energy will deliver the emission reductions needed.

I suspect the first has its present roots in the “ban the bomb” movements of the 1980s when anything nuclear (particularly post Chernobyl) was considered bad. Clearly, many of the current Greens parliamentary leaders would have been influenced by this. The second is more difficult to understand but sounds like religious zeal. Renewables tick the green box and, on paper, seem to be able to negate the need for nuclear power to get rid of dirty coal plants. These two factors might also be attributable to the left of the Labor party.

If the current Green voters are indeed younger and better educated then there is hope they will not be as ideologically biased against nuclear power and may, more quickly, recognise that renewable energy is struggling to make the grade on emissions reduction. I think this may be the Achilles’ heel of both the Greens and the Labor left.

As part of the 28% I feel that OLO is in a very useful position to gauge what the future of the party might be. The analysis was excellent and as accurate a summary as might be found anywhere in Australia.

I invariable answer the survey questions in the same way, but my conclusion is that OLO is not finding out enough. How much of that 28% was born Australia? How much of those born here have lived in other countries for significant periods? I ask that because what is self evident in Europe often isn't even thought of here, and covers a wide gamut of matters, all of which have a bearing on the environment.

We have two baying dogs; climate change and peak oil. Either one of these could devastate us. I'll go for oil, although the certainty of climate change is a frightener.

Neither has been acted upon until yesterday. We now have, because of the change in politics, a framework in which to change the energy policy picture. At last we have a process that removes uncertainty in clean technology investment. And critically, its structure is taken away from the whims of politicians who look backwards. Individuals are no longer the decision makers. Watch ARENA.

It matters what Bob Brown says, but it matters even more what the rising leaders in the Greens say because they will inherit the challenge and they know that absolutely.

It takes courage, but key issue is to lead without fear. Brown does that.

The Greens are only "Left" in the eyes of people who don't know what a "Right" party really looks like.
Green politics is a mix of primordial concerns like tradition, nation,conservation of the environment and biodiversity etc all coupled to a higher ideal and a "worldcentric" faith.
We don't have any real Right Wing movements such as the Nouvelle Droit or European New Right in this country so there's no image in the minds of the nation of what these tendencies look like or to what ends their platforms could be put.
The Greens would get my vote, and no doubt that of many more "average" Australians if they ditched the "fluff", the Meathead Left issues like Refugees and Gay Marriage.

I'm an "erstwhile Labor voter" who worked as an economic policy adviser for by far the best Australian government of recent years, under Bob Hawke. It's been all downhill since Keating's first challenge, and the 2007 onwards ALP Government has no appeal whatsoever for those who appreciated the Hawke government's ministerial depth and commitment to soundly-based policies in the broad public interest. It's salutary that two ministers who were not in the first rank of the Hawke government, Ferguson and Crean, are among the few credible and sensible ministers in the present government. Gillard's placating of the Greens bolsters them to the severe short- and long-term detriment of the ALP.

I think your analysis of the Greens is reasonable, the one hope is that the ALP and Coalition will concur that it is in their own and the national interest to preference the Greens last, which should reduce them to a Parliamentary irritant rather than a disaster.

I believe the greens are the best weapon the coalition has.

I have seen the coalition in a demise for some years. Less than half the voters actually liked John Howard, & it was only the ability of Labor to pick bl00dy awful leaders that kept him in power.

The current leadership of Labor shows no reduction in this ability to pick lousy leaders, although Rudd had the ability to disguise how bad he was, & benefited from the public desperately wanting him to be good.

Now we have the Greens feeling their oats, & starting to shout some of their more radical policies from the roof tops, a lot of fussy green tinged voters & Labor voters are going to run away from the combination of the 2, just as fast as their little legs will carry them.

The demise of the Democrats came from that silly Scott Despoja thinking she was a major force to be reckoned with. Seen as too big for her britches, she killed the party, after her they were just bleeding out. Brown is bad enough, but some of the Green ladies appear to be planning a rerun of her efforts.