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.