Tim’s essay is a bit of a paradox. On the one hand, he argues that the Greens are compromising their support base by pursuing votes. And on the other hand, he frets about the need for the Greens to increase their vote, or ‘disappear’ like the Democrats.

I realise the point is really about whether to compromise or not to compromise. However, the solution of retaining a ‘radical voice’ is questionable, as is the suggestion that they develop ‘alternative media networks’. Being a party of protest becomes ephemeral and reactive; it swells the party ranks in the short term, but does not allow for long-term planning or stability. Also, the Socialist Alliance, for example, has never compromised its stance, and it has a brilliant and popular alternative publication in The Green Left Weekly, yet its electoral strength remains a low single digit percentage.

My feeling is that the Greens need to come off the back foot and be a lot more aggressive towards the mainstream media. They need to publicly ‘out’ the MSM on its unethical and dishonest treatment of the Greens to date. (Journalists have admitted to me in private that the Greens have been treated badly by their profession, despite the fact that many are sympathetic to Greens policies.)

Also, the worldwide green industry is set to become the major economic player of the next twenty years – and, to borrow a well-used neo-liberal scare tactic, those who are slow to embrace it will be left behind. With the main parties now accepting the inevitability of climate change (albeit superficially), the Greens now need to move on from their old policy of raising awareness on environmental issues to a policy of selling an economically sound sustainability package that is accessible to the general electorate.

@Aimie, I assumed this on your frustration, but it is good that you are taking another look at their policies again. The health and harm mimimisation policies are fully backed by all the drug and alcohol experts, especially St Vincents Hospital. They work on the coal face of drugs on the street and are so frustrated at how dysfunction the health system is in its attempt to making a difference: lowering the use of drugs and the number of people using them.

The websites written by Senator Brown and Nettle, are comments as the "spokespeople" from their own point of view.

The actual policy drives the party, much to the frustration of Bob Brown, and for this reason, the Greens can never be like the Democracs. You will not have a situation of elected people taking power into their own hands. It is clearly against the Greens way of doing business. Everything is agreed by the party, usually by consensus. So far there is no number crunching, branch stacking or any elected person in office taking power into their own hands.

From the humble beginnings of Bob Brown, the anti nuclear movement, the people against the third runway (NSW), the Quakers (WA). Various people who just wanted to be practicle without the usual sleeze in politics. They are clean, so I guess the media doesn't like boring real people.

If anything, this is a fresh change from what the major parties have to offer. Good Policy cannot be sold by bad politics, and good politics cannot save a party from a bad policy. Overall, I think they have a good forward thinking balance.

I agree with MLK, after talking to radio people in 2UE, I was surprised to find that a few well known shock jocks there are avid Green supporters. Talkback radio is done with a persona, and people forget performance from reality. So that may come as a surprise to you. Some Daily Telegraph journalists vote with a different hand than what they write with too.

As someone whos worked activly to support the Greens in the past, and someone who will continue to support them in the future, I would just like to point out how difficult it is to gain a foothold in politics outside of the big two.

Labor and Liberal have millions of dollars to spend on advertisements. They have the bennefit of thousands of members nationally. Paid staffers, many MPs, backbenchers, ministers and the like. Often the media, when presenting an issue, will present "both" sides of the issue by interviewing a Labor polly and a Liberal polly, while the Greens and the Dems never get a look in.

Meanwhile, both the majors will use the Greens as a whipping boy and attack them mercilessly, while the Greens no-corporate donations policy prevents them from raising the dough to counter the massive advertising budgets of the big two. In the Marrickville by-election in 2005, the local Greens group were forced to return their largest campaign donation ($2500) from the local pub, as it breeched the donation policy.

It is very difficult to raise a profile beyond a protest. The Greens must work harder, but the forces arrayed against them should be acknowledged.

As much as I have admired Tim Anderson’s commentary on some issues in the past, It’s clear this article is well below par.

Firstly the idea that no other Green candidates stand a chance in the upcoming election besides Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle is plain wrong.
Recent polling and past state and federal electoral results show that Scott Ludlum in WA and Richard Dinatale in Victoria are actually looking more likely than Kerry Nettle in NSW. Kerry’s chances really depend on chance, a combination of preferences and where the leftover votes from Labor will fall. Outsiders are the Green candidates in SA and QLD but with preferences and luck they too are in with a chance, especially given the death of the democrats. One poll even rated a second Senator in Tasmania as an outside chance.

The big problem with attempting to make out that the Greens are now irrelevant is that Labor voters need them in the Senate. Without a Greens Senate balance of power Labor will not be able to pass legislation. With only a half senate election it is mathematically impossible for Labor to gain a majority, hence the Greens are the only hope of altering workchoices and any other liberal nastys labor voters may care to want to change.

As others have pointed out in this forum, it’s very easy to bag the Greens as either too radical or too soft. The Murdoch papers do it all the time

Dear Scrubba - I didn't say the Greens were irrelevant, just that I feel they are playing a losing hand. The polls show their support is weakening. I also would like to see them get the balance of power in the Senate (far preferable to a Lib-Nat OR a Labor majority) but I'm almost certain this isn't going to happen - best wishes - Tim

The reality of this election is we have a coalition with control of the Senate or the Greens and maybe family first.

The Greens whether you like them or not are minor players and do have viable policies to strike a balance in the Senate.

Im from Queensland and am impressed with the Greens candidate Larissa Waters. www.larissawaters.net . If I had to choose between a liberal, labor, National or family first, this intellegent woman would win hands down.

Anand