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.