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.

As one of the Greens who filled in this questionnaire (and several before), this article is so fundamentally biased that I will not contribute in future.

This sort of polling has an air of science to it and is little more than the writer's opinions. I will defend his rights to express his opinions but not when they are claimed to be built on mine.

Why are Greens 'messianic'? Is it messianic to have strong and consistent views?

He goes on: "Either Australians will be converted to Greenness, or the party will self-limit around these levels. The latter is more likely." Where did that conclusion come from? His survey?

There are several other such non survey based comments.

I note Greens have been overrepresented in this survey. Well with luck others will follow my example and solve that problem.

Gavin Mooney

Graham, your suggestion that Green's policies are on the left of the political spectrum is mistaken. Concerns about the environment are not susceptible to left/right classification--conservation issues have been an agenda of conservatives as well as others for as long as I can remember--and I'm well over sixty. The rest of their policies are neither Marxist nor anarchist. In Europe they would be classified as ranging from centre-left to middle of the road. They may be to the left of the ALP, but that is because the ALP has lost its soul in its attempt to regain votes.

There has been an attempt by certain less than pleasant commentators to shift the perception of the spectra of political views, and to characterise straightforward and sensible views as extreme. (It is in any case an absurdity to suppose that a view must be or even is likely to be wrong because it is extreme.) I am sorry to see you tagging along.

Fellow OLO punters will recall Gillard's Extreme slur against dear Bobby Green, thus:

"BOB Brown has brushed off Julia Gillard's criticism of the Greens as an extreme party, dismissing the attack as "product differentiation".

The Greens leader today denied his party posed a threat to Labor, despite plummeting support for the government on the back of its carbon tax plan." http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12298&page=2

Sharing many of the same voters and therefore competing for them will cause increasing wedges between Labor and the Greens

- that I only hope widens.

However if the Coalition comes back in, there is no why the Coalition will cancel the Carbon Tax - they may just rename it.

Tax revenue is the lifeblood for any Governing Party to buy votes.

Pete

Quite so, guy. I think that this article reveals more about confirmation bias than it does about the Greens. There's more to qualitative data analysis than dressing up opinion with a facade of 'data'. I've said my bit on the other thread about this article.

Rather than copy & paste, here's the link:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4573#118425

I think that the survey results are pretty right but the conclusions are off the beam.
I for one vote Green because it is the best choice out of a poor three on offer.
I am sure that many others are in the same boat and would vote for a more non-focused party if it where available.
I agree with Jay Of Melbourne, that “The Greens would get my vote, and no doubt that of many more "average" Australians if they ditched the fluff.”
They will, I think evolve into a more moderate party and leave out the “fluff” giving them more appeal to the “man in the street”.
Of course they will always attract the ire of the devoted Lib/Lab voters who have been brainwashed into believing that anything other than “their” party is wrong.
I also believe that as the crisis of peak oil and global warming get more pressing, more “middle way” voters will turn to them.
I think that if the Liberals do obtain power, it will be their last throw of the dice.
They do not have any real answers to the problems that we are facing other than “business as usual”.
After a full term of that, voters will turn away in droves looking for a better alternative. If Labour can change it’s spots, reinvent it’s self into a genuine working mans, environmentalist party, they will be, with the Greens the two parties left to fight it out.

ozbib

I have always found protestations of the Greens as being extreme left puzzling also.

Conservation appears to have lost its meaning to which I would add libertarianism - both terms have been co-opted for political/self interested purposes rather than to apply to preserving the environment which sustains us and true freedom of thought, speech and life choices.

It is not mere whim that Bob Brown urges voters to select their own preferences. If the Greens are here to stay, hopefully they will remain above the vested interests of right and left wing politics and continue to provide some balance and rationality.

We needed a start on reducing fossil fuel dependency and cleaning up pollution, we now have a start.

Very politely expressed, Graham.

>>This probably insulates them from some of the cost of living pressures and gives them the liberty and inclination to pay attention to more long-term issues such as climate change, without undue concern for the financial cost of measures like a carbon tax or ETS.<<

Case in point of course is Germany, that European "economic powerhouse" with a high level of Green-ness in its political make-up.

http://www.spiegel.de/flash/flash-21034.html

Current Green support runs at a fairly steady one-quarter of the population, in a country that is insulated from the kind of economic woes that beset Greece, Portugal and other fiscal laggards.

While it is tempting to dismiss this as the politics of "let them eat cake", there is a fundamental issue involved.

Which is the ineffable smugness that comes from being "right".

Of course we should work towards renewable energy sources. Of course we should make every effort to protect the environment. Of course we should respect diversity.

But what is often overlooked is that to so very many, these remain in the category of luxury items. Their first thought is to ensure their survival now. Today. For themselves and their immediate family. Later, when this has been achieved, they feel able to think about broader survival issues, and the more distant future.

It is of course the job description of the young to be idealists. Just as it is the responsibility of the mature to be pragmatic. What happens with Green-ness is that the idealist young are joined by the economically-independent mature who, having succeeded in carving out their financial niche, feel free to "become young again" by aligning themselves with the idealism of youth.

The Greens will always be with us, while we are a prosperous nation. Mind you, if they succeed with some of their more fiscally-destructive initiatives, this might not last long enough to be itself sustainable.

Which might itself be the supreme irony of Green politics.

I don't know if Bob Brown's recent Press Club address is still up online but he definitely didn't come off as what we call a "Leftist" with all his talk of trade protection, the rights of farming families and small business people in the regions etc. If anything he's talking an "Old Labour", Anti globalist type of line.
I've got family members who are in the Greens, one is a founding member of a regional branch, none of them are Leftists, they were Liberal voters and one moved over from the Democrats when the Greens first got moving.
I've never met a "Green Leftist" most of the young Leftists I encounter seem to be more interested in a blend of Socialist Alternative street theatre and the "Lifestyle Anarchist" scene, which doesn't sit well with the mostly older, conservative Greens.
There's a pretty good Anarchist E-Zine out of Sydney called "The Wolves At The Door", there's an article entitled "Untangling the Knots",I don't endorse all of what's suggested therein but the points about expelling Liberal ideas from movements for change are probably something older Greens organisers need to hear if they're going to be attracting new blood from the under 30's.

BTW the addiction to the "fear porn" of catastrophic climate change is another really unappealing characteristic of some Greens spokespeople,pessimism won't win any converts.
@ Gavin, if you're unnerved by the "messianic" aspect of Green politics it's probably not for you since this "higher purpose" is the "hook" of the whole movement.

Pericles

>> Mind you, if they succeed with some of their more fiscally-destructive initiatives, this might not last long enough to be itself sustainable. <<

Please elaborate on the Greens fiscally destructive initiatives.

According to the Greens Economic Policy:

"The Australian Greens want:

an economy that meets human needs without unnecessarily damaging the natural environment.

full accountability of government and corporations to the broader community.

an equitable taxation system that generates the revenue necessary to fund public services at the appropriate level of government.

international trade regulations that ensure human rights and that protect the natural environment.

industry policy and major infrastructure decisions to be consistent with national environmental and social goals.

industry assistance, and the granting of tax concessions, that align industry development with national goals."

The Greens are not and have not been for many years now a single issue party.

I find more to agree with than not in the Article.
I come from a far different back ground than those who form the Greens voters.
Well maybe not some.
I am an ALP member and now an ex Trade Union official, Unionist for life.
Right now, and it is our own fault, the ALP is at its lowest.
Claiming it is not true is to lie.
Not since 1972 has Labor been elected with more promise more expectation.
Yes in my view we are both contributing to our own problems about 60%of the blame.
And blind to the impacts of self interest Australian media is not unlike N O W in its determinate to have headlines.
Yes 6% are refugees from Labor, intent on returning the ALP forever to the other side of the house.
They are Socialists but far from realists.
I mix with the ordinary folk timber workers road workers incomes far less than the greens.
Do not forget they never ever will vote green.
Shattering for Greens as it may be very many more Australian would never consider voting for them.
My party, in my view, has good -policy's poor delivery some times .
I warn my party, as a member of the NSW right, must be three of us left, another NSW is unwanted.
Concentrate not on what we are doing right.
Watch what we do wrong,let the public understand let you understand greens repel voters not attract them.
Be ALP or be gone.
Average ALP members want to see us no longer used by these people.

I think you have spelled them out quite neatly, Ammonite.

>>Please elaborate on the Greens fiscally destructive initiatives.<<

Starting with: "an economy that meets human needs without unnecessarily damaging the natural environment."

"Meeting human needs" and "not unnecessarily damaging the natural environment" are not policies. They are merely pious wishes.

An economy that meets my needs as a thoroughly urban Sydneysider might not be the same as that which meets the needs of a basket-weaver back of Nimbin. If your objective is to turn me, metaphorically speaking, into a basket-weaver, in my terminology that is fiscally destructive.

And what might appear to be "unnecessarily damaging" to one, might be "necessarily damaging" to another. This includes tourism, of course, where the desired profile of a Green tourist is one who doesn't actually go there at all, in case they break a twig.

Looking down the rest of your list, I fail to see any that is anything more than a motherhood-statement wish list for a "nicer" world. When they are actually applied to specific policies, they become less nice, and turn into vindictive class-war weapons of mass self-delusion.

Here's one.

"an equitable taxation system that generates the revenue necessary to fund public services at the appropriate level of government."

Whose "equity" do we apply? What is an "appropriate" level of government?

That is the primary reason that the Greens are seen as a left-wing organization. Every indication is that public servants (who, naturally, work for the public "good") are worth more than industrialists, who are merely grubby capitalists feathering their own nests.

>>The Greens are not and have not been for many years now a single issue party.<<

Then they need to hire a far better PR agency, to correct the image.

Are Greens allowed to hire PR agencies, or is that too grubby also?

The difference between Green and left-wing parties is pretty simple really. Left-wing parties want to take wealth away from the rich in order to redistribute it to the poor. Green parties are more democratic: they want to take wealth away from everybody.

I note in the article the truism that greens exist in bigger than normal numbers here and in all such forums.
I do not spell well am what I am, my unionism was in no way leftist I am a product of the Labor right, my union bought about the Labor right.
Constant referrals to leftist unions, ignores the fact only some are.
Only one union and one branch of another are ever to be likely fodder for the greens.
The Infamous Destroyer of unions good name the CFMEU.
And the lost total Marxist Victorian branch of the electrical trades union.
The 22% who are in unions are no more inclined to Socialism than leaping from tall buildings.
I however must hight light the Public Service Association , no union in my view, is home to middle/high income failures so they may be greens.
I see here, known greens, claim bias, and invite readers to see my thread about preferential voting and one from another about greens and Labor in general comments.
I have put myself in temporary exile from that section.
But truly honestly feel my right to think what I wish was questioned.
By? Green contributors.
Remember my ALP for every green you please you drive an ALP two away.
Time comes to face the polls think Australia think double dissolution.
Be Brave Be Labor and it will bring reward

'It is of course the job description of the young to be idealists. Just as it is the responsibility of the mature to be pragmatic. What happens with Green-ness is that the idealist young are joined by the economically-independent mature who, having succeeded in carving out their financial niche, feel free to "become young again" by aligning themselves with the idealism of youth.'

Indeed Pericles, A very sound summary.

I liked some of the contradictions in the Greens 'motherhood statements' pointed out by this Green voter...

Point's 4, 5 and 10 crack me up...

In the party's policy statement on International Relations, measure 25 states the Greens would: "require trade agreements to be multilateral, reviewable by Parliament and to include clauses on the observance of human rights and labour laws, health and safety standards and environmental standards, to ensure that trade is not conducted at the expense of manufacturing and rural workers' or consumers' rights or of environmental sustainability."

But how would this work in practice, given the almost universal exploitation of manufacturing and rural workers outside the developed world? Would Apple products be banned because of the appalling conditions under which Foxconn employees work in China? Would textile, clothing and footwear imports from Asia likewise have to cease until companies such as Nike stopped running virtual slave factories in countries like Vietnam? Does the party have any modeling suggesting how much trade could no longer be conducted with such restrictions in place?'

'Does the Greens' desire for 'closer involvement and cooperation with the countries of South East Asia,' run counter to the inevitable tensions created by paradigm changing policies such as the one above, tying trade deals to working conditions in other countries, or, for instance, the goal of wanting 'self determination for the people of West Papua,'? Hardly a statement likely to engender 'closer involvement and cooperation' with any government in Jakarta? The point here is that many of the governments you are seeking to be more closely involved with, are direct beneficiaries of the exploitative arrangements you want to end.'

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/what-about-bob-20110627-1gnq3.html#ixzz1Rlps6EPZ

The underlying resentment in the electorate about the influence of the Greens under the current minority Labor government, will surface at the next election.

There is a bubbling anger that a party representing 12% of the population, whose candidates are often elected on major party preferences can have such a major and disturbing influence on policy in this country, while Liberal voters who make up almost 50% of the voting population are being ridiculed and scorned.

The Greens and the independents, who themselves represent only a small sectional interest, have had an inordinate say in the lives of people who would be unlikely to ever vote for them.

Despite this, the Greens, drunk with power obtained by the chance coincidence of a hung parliament and a Labor leader who will demean herself to hold on to government, fantasize about being a major political party forgetting the chance occurrence which have given them so much power.

No, the Green experiment is over and will end in tears for Bob and Co. who will be involved in a bitter intra-party battle to oust him after their dismal display at the next elections.

A single-interest party, promoting full legalisation of drugs, would, potentially, achieve that aim (not in the mood to argue the toss on the policies atm), while significantly harming the "uni student" & "protest" components of the Greens primary vote (especially if it was 'above the line'). Couple that with the soon to be shown inability of the Greens to effectively govern with Labor, and a large proportion of voters will desert the Greens.

Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that the outcome of demonstrating that the Greens are incapable of effectively working with the ALP to govern the Country, is a long period of Liberal Party dominance. The consequences of that, the return of "WorkChoices" (under whatever "new" name), etc. will do more to rebuild the traditional "ALP" than can be achieved without such serious consequences to employees.

It's all good, we are going to be out of the Iron export business in about 40-50 years, less if the Liberal Party (or Right-wing Labor) get their way.

AH yes, that Labor right insult again.
Understand, common sense, are not products of formal education.
This question can not be truthfully answered without proving my point.
If Labor has lost its way in following voters to the right.
And if the greens are the new left, [as opposed to my view the very lost] why do they only have 12% of the vote.
Truth is Socialism was abandoned by the average worker by the end of the 1950,s.
Here is my point, those I live and play shoulder to shoulder with will never vote green.
Greens exist only on the apathy of both sides of politics.
Having found a way, the Senate, to with very much minority votes exert power over the majority.
12% have power given to them by majors to have power over 88%
For just a while, forget the heated anti ALP rubbish, understand had Abbott and he tried, VERY HARD, won green support he too would be seen as Browns man.
88% should be asked BY BOTH SIDES to never.
Not ever preference greens
And we should remember our current system need not forever be our only one.
Get rid of the senate and let our votes count only once, no preferential voting.
Link the greens to Labor but I remain interested how many middle Australians ,from both sides share my concerns.
I MUST highlight once again, the fragility of the green contributors , not all, but those who seemingly want me to not say what I think.
Surely akin to book burning censorship.
I fear for free speech as more from every side insist only their views have Merritt.

Belly,

What exactly can Bob Brown do in the Senate if one of the major parties is not prepared to vote with him and the other Greens? Drum his heels on the Parliamentary carpet? Hold his breath until he turns blue? If the major parties can't cooperate in the public interest, this is hardly the fault of the Greens.

You need to have a look at the US to see how first past the post voting works in practice. People are forced to vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils, because a vote for a minor party is wasted. Government is even more dominated by corporate interests than it is here. Voter turnout is low, as it is in the UK, where they also have first past the post, and many people never bother to vote at all. Our compulsory voting system can only compel people to show up, not to cast a valid vote. It is likely that first past the post would be even more oppressive here because of party discipline.

I must say I'm quite appalled at those here who are advocating various shonky schemes to try and keep the Greens out of parliament, as if the millions of Australians who voted for them aren't entitled to democratic representation. This is the kind of device usually employed by far Right totalitarian parties, and I'm astonished to see Labor true believers and others who claim to be of the Left advocating such tawdry and unethical practices.

It appears that, not only have the two traditional 'majors' merged ideology such that they are almost indistinguishable in real terms, but they are focusing more attention on trying to destroy the Greens than on trying to find common ground for the sake of democracy and the country's future. It seems to me that many in Labor have become afflicted by the Tory 'born to rule' disease - if they keep up the current approach we could again go back to a 2-party system, except it will be the merged Tories and Greens rather than against Labor.

We should all resist being manipulated by ALP and LNP shills, who after all between them are responsible for any problems that Australia faces due to poor governance. The system should be made more democratic, not less so. A major step in that direction would be the creation of Multi-Member Electorates, the introduction of Proportional Representation and of Optional Preferential voting in all States.

Of course, such an outbreak of democracy in Australia would undoubtedly be fought tooth and nail by the 'born to rule' Laberals.

Graham says the Green voters are more affluent/educated and this gives them the buffer zone and insight to deal with long term issues such as climate change.It is alleged climate change via CO2 Graham,which is far from being proven.They are also educated into a particular way of thinking,motivated by what feeds them,just like the so called climate scientists at the IPCC.

Dear Morganzola,

The results of the last election showed the dissatisfaction of Australian voters with the two party system. The Greens are here to stay - and will wield a strong influence (along with Independents) -
especially if there is no change in the Liberal leadership. If Mr Abbott struggles to articulate nothing more than his usual slogans
and his breathtakingly threadbare policy platforms voters will again
see no reason to support him and his party. The fact that he wants to be PM is simply not a good enough excuse to vote for him.

As for Labor? The PM needs to convince doubting voters that her policy will work. That over the next 30 years, more and more countries will discover how to reduce global emissions. We're already lagging behind.
Many people imagine a wasteland if carbon is taxed. The truth is -
we will become a wasteland if it is not. Yes, the Greens are here to stay indeed!

The next double dissolution election will determine the future of the Greens.

And the sooner Abbott calls one the better.

What shonky schemes? WE as a Nation need to have a vote/plebiscite on whether to continue the War on Drugs. Simple as that, there are massive numbers of serving police & judicial officials around the world that are more than happy to stand up and say the war cannot and never will be won, we are merely p*ssing good money after bad while subjecting the entire population to the consequences of our action/inaction(s). Drug addiction is real, regardless of how much drugs are banned, and is not declining. In fact Police & Governments cite these statistics to show why we need to invest more and more money in the WOD. I'm very surprised that Greens wouldn't admit that.

The totalitarian outlook with regard to mining, fishing, hunting, etc. spouted by the Greens and the smug statements that they will be the next major player, grates with a LOT of people. The Greens have YET to achieve anything in Government (except for the Carbon Tax & the ALP is the one that will pay for that and will own it), they have come in with no policy, no demonstrable mandate to implement on behalf of the majority. The ALP has real achievements to point to, whereas the Greens do not.

One factor the Greens are going to have to consider, extremely carefully, is their own negativity to the policies of others. Yes, they may get appeased at present, but if the ALP loses several elections purely as a result of kowtowing to them (a real possibility), the chances of EVER getting offered part of Government again is slim indeed. On top of that, the Greens were a nuisance, an amusing annoyance, someone to give preferences to before the Liberals. I suspect that has just changed, without ALP preferences in the Senate (and lower house), standalone election prospects will drop alarmingly. That is before the Greens start to split along factional lines and the infighting begins.

@ Custard:

I wasn't talking about your idea, which if successful you think would split support for the Greens. It's a pity wou "weren't in the mood" for policy in your last post, because you know that the Greens already favour decriminalisation of recreational drugs, which many of their supporters (including me) would extend to legalisation with regulation.

Under preferential voting they'd undoubtedly end up with each other's preferences anyway, which is a good example of how preferential voting works to produce a result that most voters can live with. I'd certainly preference your party, and I imagine most Greens voters would too - because we have common interests at some level.

I disagree with your assessment of the Greens' ability to work with other parties. If you use the ALP as an example, Rudd absolutely refused to work with the Greens on the ETS or even discuss it with them, so it failed. In the case of the Carbon Tax, Labor under Gillard has learnt something from Rudd's hubris, and included the Greens in formulating the Carbon Tax legislation, which is set to pass. I'd call that measurable progress in working together, wouldn't you?

I may have missed something along the way, but is there in existence somewhere a Greens policy that, rather than just wafted around as another slab of pious holier-than-thou motherhood, has been fully articulated and fully costed?

I'd be interested to see one, even if only as light relief from the overwhelming smugness.

Come on Lexi mate, perhaps 12% of Ozzies showed their dissatisfaction with the 2 party system, although I would argue it was perhaps 8 % plus another 4% showed their dissatisfaction with little Julia. It was in no way the Australian voters.

This is the real injustice of our system. 88% of Ozzies are getting policies they do not want, because of our crazy system, & a few ratbags in control of Labor, trying to cling to power.

Now don't be silly Pericles, you know none of them have a discipline that involves arithmetic, they could not be Greens if they did. They are not much worse than the Labor of today on that count.

What does worry me much more, is their now expressed desire to give our sovereignty to the UN, or some similar world government. We may be ruled by a misguided elite today, as it is, but that would be nothing to how we would be ruled by a world government

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/07/12/1226092/719393-aus-news-file-federal-newspoll-110712.pdf

Looking at these latest polls, it looks as though it is only the one party that is being abandoned. As is the price on carbon.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mps-sent-to-class-to-clean-up-behaviour-20110711-1haxp.html
This Scathing report did not come from the Murdock press.
It is not Tony Abbott's spin.
When I,a firm ALP member reported the state of my party and Government, for over 2 and a half years, posters thought I was being unfair.
Some of those posters here in this thread are quite wrong.
The deep black hole my NSW ALP has found its self in, justified by their awful actions, the very worst in my party's history.
DID not bring reward for the greens
Tell me, how much did most here know of the Racist vindictiveness of the Anti Jewish bans by the green controlled Marickville council.
Labor is on the very edge of the hole NSW has begun the long climb out of.
Other links could have been posted, from this same paper.
Showing the greens excepted much worse than they, in the name of their Triumphalism refused to pass in the last Parliament.
I again challenge, firmly strongly honestly,the very idea if greens are so fragile, even one who has read the death sentence of Labor in a thread on that carbon price.
Have they the right.
Now or ever to muffle others views.
In time beginning at the next federal election, a decline in the green vote will be proven.
Those who oppose greens are not weird but middle Australia, on getting a leader my party will not be used as the only path to power by middle to high income Socialists

Yes, but once you have most or a large group of a party wanting to work with someone else, you have a chunk of a party refusing to do so. That equals factionalism, get factionalism within a party and parties dissolve rapidly (like the Democrats).

As to the concept, it is really rather simple. Destroy the "black market" by getting rid of demand. The only way that can be affected is to legalise, but legislate/regulate the sale thereof (http://www.leapaustralia.org/; http://www.leap.cc/; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8393838/War-on-drugs-has-failed-say-former-heads-of-MI5-CPS-and-BBC.html). The current approach has failed, miserably.

Then again, I honestly don't think the Greens have the intestinal fortitude to stand on/behind the principles involved. This is a major National Issue, we spend considerably more on fighting this war than we do on the War in Afghanistan and the casualties from all causes are also significantly higher.

Morganzola wrote:

>> The system should be made more democratic, not less so. A major step in that direction would be the creation of Multi-Member Electorates, the introduction of Proportional Representation and of Optional Preferential voting in all States.

Of course, such an outbreak of democracy in Australia would undoubtedly be fought tooth and nail by the 'born to rule' Laberals. <<

It is for the above reasons, that I agree with the continuation of preferential voting where possible. It does at least give us more than the mere yammering of two voices.

Those who are in favour of a two-party system, could you please give justification for such restrictions of the democratic process?

Thank you.

In the article we respond to I have neglected to address a point.
One that hurts me, but can not be rebutted unless I lie.
GY said greens will still be around, but on the opposition benches.
That sadly is true, I am sure the mentioned 6% are not true greens, but protesters against Labor occupying the only ground voters will except from a party wishing to govern.
I contend and believe, fully honestly totally, that for every Labor voter going green in protest,every single one.
One votes liberal in shame and discust at the perception Labor is bending to the greens.
I know I have lost Friends,some I valued, but my thoughts ideas wishes will not be pushed.
Ammonite ,not sure if you have lived here under other names, but on my recent conversations with you I felt it time wasting.
Yes the greens can say our current system is more democratic, point to England following us, maybe.
Spend the time, some of you forming the Crows council at least answer my often asked question.
IS it TRUE more Australians dislike greens than vote for them.
Did your lower house man get in on Liberal preferences.
What power will the greens have AFTER they have driven the ALP out of government.
A double election of both houses much more than likely [ in my view wanted] will give you no more than 4 Senate seats.
The constant near hysterical defense by greens against honest opinions is an attempt to stop debate about a party more Australians fear than we once feared the idiot one nation.

The following website may be of interest:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/11/carbon-tax-we-had-have

BTW: Did anyone watch "Q and A" last night?

At long last we have a leader - we can all be proud of.
Onya Julia!

Pericles,

Greens policies can be found here:

http://greens.org.au/policies

Very specific and well articulated and covering a broad range of issues.

Sure, they're not costed. Either are the Coalition's in reality. (Here, for balance: http://www.liberal.org.au/ )

The one thing I will point out, is that the Green policies haven't been changing direction with every poll that comes out, to the extent that the major parties' have.

And at least the ALP are sticking to their guns on the battling climate change. Abbott wanted an ETS, then didn't believe in climate change, and now wants to axe thousands of public service jobs to fund tax cuts and a vague and unarticulated direct action policy.

Lexi, I totally agree. Gillard's performance was well above expectation and I am sure she won over support from many who doubted her ability to lead and govern.

"CSIRO or Alan Jones?" Perfectly sums up the AGW debate for me.

It is time for me to fall on my sword.
Indeed it may well take self disembowelment in the Japanese style to undo my wrongs.
In a thread that see,s charges of bias used against its Author, hardly on first sight, or even considered review in the nature of any day in the Murdock press.
I, bit choke up here, let fly, with,dreadful person that I am, my truly held opinions.
A practice the Greens, rightfully, insist, only some should have.
Here and in other threads I have magnified my crimes by asking totally offensive questions.
You will see here and in general comments those questions met with verbal back turning and no answers,as indeed they deserved.
In begging for forgiveness I offer for the last time these questions/statements
Is it true more Australians dislike/distrust the greens than vote for them
Is it true Labor is finding voters leave to vote green and conservative because they are unhappy with Labor/green interactions
Was the single green in the lower house elected on Liberal preferences.
How many marginal senators won via preferences.
Supplementary, if preferences did not exist would the greens.
While watching, hoping, the Murdock thing grow, I here by admit to being rude enought t hold firmly to ,my opinions even rudely insisting greens too are accountable.
Sorry but answers would be good.

Previously I asked:

>> Those who are in favour of a two-party system, could you please give justification for such restrictions of the democratic process? <<

No one willing to attempt to justify the stranglehold a 2 party system has on the democratic process?

That progressive parties and independents are needed to provide a more democratic system?

No takers?

Just denigrate the Greens for working towards a cooperative, sustainable technology future.

Australia the lucky country, we're gonna need it.

You miss the point, Ammonite.

>>Just denigrate the Greens for working towards a cooperative, sustainable technology future.<<

Nobody, as far as I can see, is denigrating the Greens for "working towards a cooperative, sustainable technology future". Because that is purely aspirational motherhood, and everybody wants to live a long, happy and healthy life.

It is the manner in which they approach it that I have serious difficulties with. The underlying theme appears to be i) destroy everything that creates wealth and ii) replace it with... ummm, errr... something else. Oh, and iii) wear a sanctimonious smirk as you do so.

It isn't a matter of loving the two-party system. It is the fundamental absence of a credible alternative that leaves us in the policy-sludge that we presently experience. Yours is the "anything must be better than this" argument, which in this instance, I cannot accept.

Pericles

Not claiming the Greens are perfect, but they are streets ahead of the DLP, or other more narrow viewed political groups, National Socialist for example.

You prefer that we only have a 2 party system? A choice that is mostly right-wing or even more right-wing?

You claim that the Greens policies are uncosted, neither are the Liberals, go take a look on their website.

You don't get the point, having lost sight of what a democracy is about.

My question is answered by? questions.
Who cares if it is true more Australians distrust or dislike the Greens than vote for them.
Who is concerned our current system, put Wilkie in the house after he finished third on first preferences.
Who cares that he and Xenophon [sorry about the spelling] sit as single issue road blocks.
Who is concerned at the Triumphalism of the lower house green who rode in on Liberal preferences.
And who understands and equally is concerned, that ALP preferences put our mortal and forever enemy a DLP Senator in the house.
Who is telling me, who shares my concerns? that the ALP/LIBERAL COALITION can trust its fate to voters but Greens and small party's would be unfairly/undemocratically treated if we got rid of preference voting.
No answers will come to me, so to this list my answer is ME I am concerned, see true insult to majority's wishes in greens
I think Tony Abbott is trading, protected maybe more,by Murdock press.
But too riding on the back of both these truths, Australians are for now, being use but repelled by greens.
Look truly at the so called policy's see the very real impacts, question, yes do so, why my questions get no answers.
I will stay in exile from general comments for a time, but remember it is only on line greens out number realists

Wen the rats take over what you do -cal the exterminator cal a election.
get the lying b...from the office save Australia.
Women in high management position are usual's very observant and responsive this b...is inclined to destroy our economy and our likelihoods. Se ling our country to our competador chasing the farmer from the land and macing us to pay trough the nose for farmers product.

I used to employ that argument when I was seven, Ammonite.

>>You claim that the Greens policies are uncosted, neither are the Liberals, go take a look on their website.<<

That sounds remarkably like "I know I shouldn't tied a tin on kitty's tail, but my brother did too"

What makes uncosted Green policies more acceptable than Liberal uncosted policies? They are both highly-polished fictions, designed only to confuse and mislead the public.

>>You prefer that we only have a 2 party system? A choice that is mostly right-wing or even more right-wing?<<

No, I don't. But the lack of talent, intellect and practical nous in the current pair does not automatically make a third stream attractive. They need to be in some way demonstrably more capable than the other two. Surely that isn't too much to ask?

In fact, surely it should be embarrassingly easy to achieve.

>>Not claiming the Greens are perfect, but they are streets ahead of the DLP, or other more narrow viewed political groups, National Socialist for example.<<

There you have it. The Greens are better than the National Socialists. What higher accolade could they possibly aspire to, I wonder.

>>You don't get the point, having lost sight of what a democracy is about.<<

Two Winston Churchill quotes spring to mind. The first is that old chestnut:

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"

He said that in Parliament. In a less guarded moment, he also said:

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter"

When all there is on offer as "policies" is a handful of soundbites, catchphrases and motherhood statements of the bleedin' obvious, designed simply to attract the attention of that average voter, we trash the democratic system to oblivion.

And on the topic of Churchill quotes, here's one of his that perfectly describes the current attraction of The Greens to the bemused electorate.

"When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber."

Parties like the Greens have been around for a couple of hundred years at least...

Activists and Activism are the pursuits of fools and the gullible bt being a gullible fool is not an offence, nor is casting a vote for Foolish Activism.

Of course the left has been the breeding ground of such follishness....

Marx foresaw his revolution happening in UK (and not in backward Russia), possibly lead by Charterists formenting a mass uprising...


Just as it is true that half the population are below average intelligence, so too some of those folk who are intellectually challenged will become the gullible supporters of cynical Green and other "Watermelon" politicians.

The danger occurs if ever they get real power... then lunacy follows and decades of dissent and oppression follow -

in the name of the "Greens" or "Bolsheviks" or fellow travellers omnipotent right to press a jackboot into the windpipe of democracy

In one thread here Greens are compared with Nazis, in this one they're Bolsheviks. I particularly like this logic:

"Just as it is true that half the population are below average intelligence, so too some of those folk who are intellectually challenged will become the gullible supporters of cynical Green and other "Watermelon" politicians."

If "some" intellectually challenged folk vote for the Greens and Independents, then it follows logically that most of the "intellectually challenged" vote for someone else, i.e. Labor or the Coalition (or One Nation, DLP, Shooters Party, Fundies First etc).

It's really hard to work out what the Green-haters are on about, except that they hate the Greens irrationally, and think that they're 'Nazi Bolsheviks'. Maybe it's because they're not all that bright themselves, and don't know the difference.

Whatever the reason, they're starting to become quite shrill.

I'll take that one Morganzola.
Lenin and Hitler both envisioned a revolution with specific aims, they both ditched the "wingnut' elements of their parties when they were no longer needed or became bothersome.
If the Greens were serious contenders they'd do the same.
For one thing Marxism has no place in a multiracial society, so why are Marxists still tolerated in our political system?
Also people accused of being Marxists are always actually Marxists, there is no such thing as a "Nazi" or "Neo Nazi" because the NSDAP membership was closed in the early 30's....there is no "Nazi Party" yet Marxist parties and organisations are still abundant.

Not sure I can use your name here Morganzola, see I have been a bad boy, said what I truly think.
I promise here now true, not to say what I think of Col or any fool who lays Nazi or the like claims.
Gee however I am holding my hat over my heart, being as respectful as any Damn fool who thinks the ALP is on the way back.
HIGHLIGHT you came back to defend your middle class team.
May I again ask, you know the ones, green in lower house Wilkie on running third Senate often home to one issue fools, why?
Promise my shame is well, saying what I think, maybe I am quite mad.
Why would first past the post no preferential voting be undemocratic for greens and minor party's.
If they had the following they would win, or are my maths wrong?
Sorry not sure a working class person has the right to question the puff pastry policy's of such as your team, to fear them and their impacts.

"Parties like the Greens have been around for a couple of hundred years at least..."
Which is precisely why we no longer shove 5 year old children up chimneys.
Why we work a standard 40 hour week or less, instead of 60.
Why slavery was abolished.
The simple truth is, it is and always has been the radicals who drag the centre kicking and screaming into the future.
I see no reason why the Greens have to be in any way 'better' than the other parties. They just have to offer an alternative. Some of their ideas will inevitably be judged by history as bad.
And some will be judged as being so obviously right that it will be hard to understand why contemporaries couldn't see it; apart from the simple fact that to a conservative, change is bad.
History will always be the ultimate judge. The trick is, trying to make decisions that will make future generations look back kindly on us.

Pericles

What Grim said.

You brought up the claim about costing, when it was thrown back at you, you tried to trivialise it.

Greens are here to stay, because we need an alternative to continued draining of our natural resources, a big-business monoculture that strangles innovation and true competition and successive governments that are more motivated by retaining/achieving power than governing for the long term of Australia's future.

Morganzola “It's really hard to work out what the Green-haters are on about, except that they hate the Greens irrationally, and think that they're 'Nazi Bolsheviks'. Maybe it's because they're not all that bright themselves, and don't know the difference.”

I know how “bright “ I am and don’t care how dull you are

the thing to remember is

the last big experiment in “social engineering” ended, in tears back in 1989 when, after 70 years of mass murder, mass starvation and repression (from religion to colour of socks) for the collective.

The same collectivism which the greens activists are always promoting,

where we all have to do as the greens tell us

of course, the greens will always tell you they are different

But like dearest Margaret said

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

same truth applies to collectivists of any hue….

Yesterdays Red Bolshevik is todays Tree hugging Green…. Hence the “Watermelon” term…

Green on the outside, Red on the inside….

And those few genuine enviro-greens, are merely what Lenin called his “useful idiots”

The only thing the greens have not got up to are the mass starvations and killing fields of their past manifestations
But the path from “activist” to “despot” is a very, very short one


I see it as a moral responsibility to ensure no one is left ignorant of the real horror which runs beneath environmental activists who today think they are entitled to trample over other peoples property and stick nails in trees to cause injury to forest workers using chain saws…. Tomorrow they will be rounding people up for mandatory green “re-education” ….

I see grim still clings to illusion that all good things come from socialism and ignores the fact that Lenin and Stalin managed to starve every “child chimney sweep” and their ebtire families in the Ukraine because their political were suspect.

Be careful what you wish for Grim.. it may end up even worse than your chosen login

Col while I throw my rocks in the same directions it will never be in support of you or your world that stopped existing about the time I was born.
I take offense at the theft here of my birth right and life long actions.
It was LABOR/UNIONS that made those gains.
IN measures depth of greens failure to understand, IT IS TRUE working class people are more likely in Numbers to vote conservative than green.
Hold your breath, stamp your feet, but it is also true, so very true.
More Australians dislike even hate the middle class Socialists, the lost greens.
I highlight, Labor is at its lowest, votes are going? not green but LIBERAL.
Greens threaten every gain they cheekily claim by putting them selves and Labor in opposition.

Having exiled myself from general comments section for a while I came here.
Not to insult the greens, I am no saint, I in my history in OLO been guilty of that, and falling for baits over reacting.
I felt, some maybe most,think I am being fragile. Greens want to be free from views such as mine.
We roll around down there insulting and being insulted.
But for me the final straw was in my view, being warned if I stopped saying those things I would be spoken to again.
Sorry but no way will I be censored.
Right now, remember this, Australia faces massive fast moving change Bob Brown, no mate of mine will be behind it.
AN inquiry into our press/well Murdock will do.
So very many who post here get the infamous crap in Gillards words not truth and post rubbish, we all can do better
After Murdock's fall I at least can only be hung for having my own views, no the ones he makes for some.
We could talk about the greens for years, without needing to lie or for that matter dream.
Labor, gee Gillard is looking good, is on the way back.
My questions to greens here and down below never got answers That to me says we have reason to doubt be concerned just how shallow are these folk.
EVERY charge EVER put about my party saw me rebut them.
Silence? do not pull the wool over your own eyes, this country has to look at every single greens policy and find out just what they mean and what are the impacts.
Remember Labor has never been worse Liberals, not greens prosper.
Divide and Conquer, has meaning
I give up looking for answers but note it is a funny party claiming to seek the middle ground is afraid to answer questions.

Once again the 'stern' Col Rouge -despite his chosen moniker- demonstrates his remarkable inability to view any political discussion in any other terms than absolute black or pure white.
I wrote of 'radicals', Col, not socialists. I would suggest one of the most radical politicians on America's Capitol Hill would be Ron Paul, and the best of luck to him in auditing their Fed.
As a dedicated member of the Austrian School, I doubt even Col Rouge would call him a socialist.
Once again (for the umpteenth time) I am not, nor have I ever been a socialist. As a small businessman, I quite like capitalism. It's corporatism/post capitalism I'm afraid of.
Also for the record, I have never voted Green, largely because of their socialistic tendencies (and partially because I find some of their conservation policies a little naïve. In this I'm inclined to agree with a lot of Pericles' views -but not all).
Come to think of it, I can only recall voting Labor once (for Gough. Just once. Don't regret voting for him, don't regret voting against him.)
Despite never having voted for the Greens, I still believe they have an important role to play in political discourse, and if they were in danger of extinction I probably would vote for them.
Fortunately, it appears I won't have to.
Next time I vote, I think I'll go with Antiseptic (and you can take that either way).
I'm going to vote for the candidate who stands for their constituents, rather than their own nest.
The one who values honesty, integrity and loyalty to the people who pay their wages, rather than their own ego and ambition.
And until they show up, I will proudly put a big fat zero against all the other candidates' names.

Bolshevik means "one of the majority", it was a term coined after the split in the SDLP.
In terms of a meaningful comparison the Greens would fit very neatly under the "Menshevik" label, the smaller more Liberal minority faction.
The German National Socialists had "Green" policies but they still went the way of all socialist governments, militarisim, police state, dictatorship.
I'm not seeing anything that even alludes to those ideas in the Australian Greens.
They're far too Liberal and bourgeois to be "Bolsheviks" and they tolerate too many undisciplined idiots and troublemakers in their ranks to compare to the NSDAP.

Jay of Melbourne "I'm not seeing anything that even alludes to those ideas in the Australian Greens.
They're far too Liberal and bourgeois to be "Bolsheviks" and they tolerate too many undisciplined idiots and troublemakers in their ranks to compare to the NSDAP."

Give them time

the "Power" will soon go to their heads and then it is

"Re-Education Camps" for car drivers to be taught "allowed Green thinking"

Actually Jay, I disagree with you. The Trostyites and fellow travellers infiltrated the Enviroment Movement decades ago and have been nudging it along ever since.

They have recruited enough "Useful Idiots" to present the front-of-house stuff and now sit in the background determining strategy.

Simply because USSR failed does not diminish the zeal of power-crazed obsessive compulsives of the left to "prove" the superiority of their despotic views.

Just as Gizzards is imposing a Carbon Tax, without taking it to the Electorate, so too Greens will abuse any power they get, perverting it to impose their so called "collective values" on real people

Hmmm, Col,
I've heard first hand, eyewitness accounts of Trotskyites, Maoists and other Lunatics being frog marched out of Greens meetings.
...but then I've gone to the polling place on election day and seen those types handing out Greens how to vote cards.
The NSW Labor party is talking about doing background and psychological tests on candidates and senior post holders, the Greens will have to do the same to be taken seriously.
You can't let nutters or provocateurs into an organisation for a start, they have to be shown the door immediately and their names and description circulated to all branches. It's also a fact that you do get bona fide psychopaths gravitating to groups and trying to take over or just mess with people's heads, this happens at every level of society, as anyone who's been involved in a club or community association knows.
We really have to move past hysterical Anti Communism and it's opposite, hysterical Anti Racism.
Bringing up things like CHEKA and the Holodomor doesn't lead to a good place.
I appreciate the fact that the search for truth necessarily leads one into the dark places and that the truth seeker needs to undergo trials which would make the average person recoil in horror but what can you tell people about the journey?
A comrade sent me this the other day:
'I went into the dark heart of the beast and coming back the light shone brighter still' 'A successful voyager into places unknown returns with incredible tales, treasures of all kinds, and most importantly a map; the greater part of which is not marked'

Neither Left nor Right but Straight Ahead. That was the slogan of the German Greens and applies just as much today as we move between the old Left/Right paradigm and the values voting approach of the new generation of voters. The Australian Greens are different from the European Greens who came out of the New Left/Cold War/anti nuclear movement in the 1980s when I was involved with them there. However it's obvious that the Australian Greens, being more Deep Green ideologically than Light Green, are going to remain in favour of Safe Energy, given the Iroquois dictum of thinking how a decision will affect someone seven generations ahead - why do we need to leave our radioactive sarcophagi for them just because of our green for energy NOW ? It's not just renewable energy, it's conservation and efficiency too.

As Australian politics moves to the Centre and Labor Right/Liberal Wets become the same, that leaves the hard nosed Right(in Tasmania that = Eric Abetz") on a wing, with the Greens as the other option, which will include some of the Old Left/New Left. Sounds a good choice to me. It will take some years and the real strength of the Greens is at a local level until we shift the voting system to be more democratic as with Hare-Clark in Tasmania's Lower House.

Thank you for this article. It has backed up my belief that those pushing the Greens Party agenda really are not in touch with the lower end of town after all. The fact that essential services including health and education does not register with them really takes the cake.

Sure, I want people to respect the environment. We should live in harmony as much as possible. The Greens Party agenda is only affordable by the Mad Left though. Sadly for them, when we're all too broke to afford a carrot to eat due high bills, they'll go bust from no money being redistributed and they can have the poor life they love to romanticise so much.