First rate critique of the dilemma facing the Greens and by extension the rest of us. I have been thinking a bit lately about my historic annoyance at the "power" of the swingers in the marginal seats. Funny how history eventually proves the importance of such fail-safe measures.

I predict a short-lived mainstream appeal for the Greens, a return to the 2 party paradigm with small protest parties playing a role commensurate to their electoral appeal.

I say this only because I cannot see how a consensus-obsessed organisation can survive the purge required to become an actual party of Government.

I think this was an excellent quote that sums up the Greens essential problem: "They should be smart enough to know that their policy document is not practical."

Yet they continue to push it forward, despite the lack of practicability. Whenever ideology triumphs over common sense there is a big problem coming.

Who knows – either the greens deal with the problems of governing a nation or become increasingly irrelevant or despotic. The time of being the virtuous few fighting the evil empire has ended. They are now part of the problem.

Over the years I have watched a number of failing farms go through a cycle of destruction. The physical environment suffers from neglect through the lack of resources of money and time to manage the environment. The social environment is destroyed as hope is lost and resources for living ebb away.

It is time to deliver – but what will be delivered? Mere words don’t ‘bring home the bacon’.

It may turn out that the ALP realises it is not the play thing of those drunk on power, the faction leaders and influence peddlers. The Greens are ultimately astro turfing – grassroots remains with the question what life will I inherent my children and their children? Failing farms that destroy the environment and don't have economic resources are not the answer.

Will the ALP answer that question or continue to be the tool of powerful egos serving their personal agendas – even if those agendas are wolves in sheep clothes.

Of the many articles concerning the Greens lately, this has to be the most speculative. The only 'facts' in the article are anecdotal and are mostly quite obviously incorrect.

For a start, 'consensus' is not the same as 'unanimity'. Formal Greens decisions are rarely unanimous, but most commonly by consensus - which in practice means that the motion (or whatever) is discussed and debated until a compromise is reached with which everybody can live.

Which means that Adrien Stewart couldn't be more wrong about internal debate. It certainly happens, at times seemingly interminably, in an effort to reach a consensus position. I've seen them go on for days... which leads to a glaring omission: if consensus can't be reached and time is of the essence, then the matter goes to the vote like any other political party. The difference is that it's seen as a last resort, when people can't agree.

I can only conclude that Mr Stewart's time with the Greens was very short, and that he spent most if it with one eye and ear blocked. He obviously never got around to familiarising himself with any of structural and procedural documentation that actually are the rules and philosophy of the party - which is the richer for his departure.