The political reality is that the Greens and the Democrats should merge and combine their resources.

The practical reality is that they probably won't and will fight among themselves over a couple of percent of the vote in preference to real social transformation.

Political history is the tale of recurring myopic tragedies.

Quite right Malcolm.The Greens' policies do deserve more scrutiny. For example, Mahatma Gandhi, revered for his peaceful political activism was quoted as saying:"It seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime". I wonder how many Greens supporters know this? Debate on Labor MP Candy Broad's Crimes (Decriminalisation of Abortion) Bill begins next Tuesday in the Legislative Council of Victoria's State Parliament. The Greens Party intends voting for the removal of abortion from the Crimes Act. What is very concerning about The Greens is their intention, as listed amongst their policies in their 172 page manifesto released before the last Federal elections, to "force private religious hospitals to undertake abortions". Force Catholic nuns to kill little babies? The Victorian public has a right to know The Greens entire agenda before this debate. Legalise abortion and what then? Make it compulsory for conscientious objectors to perform them?

I note your admiration for The Democrats' Lynn Allison's contribution to the human pesticide RU486 debate, the one in which she revealed she would not have been in Parliament,that unresistable Holy of Holies, if she had not aborted her baby. How much more you must admire the first woman ever to be elected to Australia's Federal Parliament, Dame Enid Lyons. She was elected after giving birth to 12 children, not having had to kill any of them to be so!

Personally I would rather Family First or even Pauline Hanson to hold the balance of power. They would be much better for our nation than the depraved policies of the Greens and Democrats.

Excellent essay.
But Runner, why on an overpopulated planet, with an exploding arms race, does everything have to be reduced to the vexing question of abortions. And reduced via the use of emotionally manipulative slogans of binary exclusions.

Human life is precious yes. But on a planet where over a billion humans already live in slums and hundreds of millions more live in grinding poverty, how many more people does humankind altogether need.

Such poverty doesnt even allow for the possibility of the growth or flourishing of the potential latent in every human being. In fact it cripples such potential all the way down the line. From the poorly nourished mothers, to the poorly nourished babies/toddlers/children.
Chronic mal-nourishment cripples the genetically programmed growth process inherent or latent in the body of each and every one of us. Once crippled the damage (or multiple damages) can never be repaired.
People thus grow up impaired or crippled in all sorts of ways, both subtle and obvious.

How many tens of thousands of babies and children die every day due to mal-nutrition and starvation?

Malcolm, I'll leave the high level analysis to denny and runner.

I wonder sometimes about the power wielded by political parties when it comes to preferences.

While in lower house polls the preference deal is fairly subtle (suggested on the how to vote card) it is pretty appalling that in Senate contests most votes are virtually locked up well before people actually cast a vote - due to the ticketing system (96% used this system at 2004 poll).

This has given rise to some anomolies, including runner's faves, Family First storming home on 1.9% of primary votes in 2004.

Can't imagine Pauline will be trying to orchestrate a similar coup.

Maybe we could fix this fundamental problem first and then worry about what sort of nuts the majority actually want in the house of review?

www.myspace.com/savethesenate

I like a gadlfy party that pokes fun at the major parties and asks difficult and real questions. And in my opinion the Greens are the only party that asks real questions.
They are sort of like court jesters poking fun at the deadly seriousness of it all.
Of course the process of government does have to be serious.

I live just outside of Melbourne. Consider the future impossibility of the place.

The same holds with local variations for many other places in the world.

It is predicted that the population will increase by a million in the next 20-30 years.
Where are these people going to live? We already have land shortages and massive infra-structure problems. The new estates on the outer suburbs are gobbling up good quality agricultural and horticultural land.
And what about the cost of land and houses?
Where will their food come from? China? The Ord River? Perhaps the moon?
Where will their water come from? We are already in a near crisis situation. World wide future wars are going to be fought over access to and control of water. World-wide major aquifers are in dangerous decline with no possibility of replenishment.

What about transport? The system(s)are already in overload. Any systems planned and built within the next few years will be over- crowded and obsolete in 30 years time---guaranteed.

It is estimated that the volume of goods coming through the the Port of Melbourne is going to double or triple within 10-15 years.
The people that live in Footscray and other inner suburbs near the freight terminals already have to put up with 3000 trucks a day. It is already a literal nightmare for them. Imagine what it will be like in 10-15 years time.

And so on.

This is a very interesting article. I agree - the Greens haven't been asked the hard questions, and the media does need to do more work here.

To me, it seems that the Greens are very good at managing the media. If you want someone to wave a protest banner in front of a tv camera, the Greens will be there every time. They're at their best when they're instinctively saying "No!" to any proposal put forward. Beyond that, though, they find it very hard to negotiate and reach a satisfactory conclusion for both parties. They just seem to thrive on conflict.

Their record in the Tasmanian parliament shows this, I think. Even during the Labor-Green accord, when they had the balance of power, they found it very hard to reach agreement with anyone, and it didn't last very long. From memory, Bob Brown and Christine Milne (both now Senators) were in state parliament for that period.

The Democrats, on the other hand, haven't been so good at getting attention in the media - they're more willing to talk than fight. As
Malcolm says in this article, the Democrats have achieved quite a bit, but haven't been recognised for it.

I think it would be a sad day if the Democrats lost their seats to the Greens, even if it would mean more drama on the nightly news.

Ho Hum

To somehow suggest that the Greens and/or Democrats are more compassionate than others when it comes to world poverty is an absolute joke. We can see how much Mr Brown cares about the sexual abuse of children in Aboriginal communities by trying to score political points from the Government. Even Mr Howard's shadow (Mr Rudd) had the decency to see something done about the abuse. The Greens/Democrats policies/philosophies on illicit drugs and the free availability of pornography has done nothing but increased the rate of abuse among black and white girls and boys. Congratulations! It is also ironic that it is often 'environmentalist' who are the most violent and seem incapable of holding a peaceful demonstration. Who r you trying to kid?

The Democrats value hard work. The Greens value being loud. That is their difference.

It's time to recognise the work the Democrats have achieved, it's time we start giving a damn about what happens to this country and start really looking at the lack of the contribution from the Greens.

I don't even know if Brown has been carrying the party, he's been carrying soundbites, an image, but what has he done? I don't believe he has ever got an ammendment passed and has only proposed 6 or so. The Dems propose almost 300 a year in recent years and of course, got a fair few passed before losing the balance of power.

They know how to work with other politicians, they really know compromise and that's important when you don't have a mandate from a majority of the population. Until everyone votes progressive, that's an important quality the Democrats have that the Greens don't.

Runner, you still do not get it do you - what it means to be an environmentalist?

Read my lips, IT...IS...NOT...ABOUT...POLITICAL...IDEOLOGY.

Liberal, Labor, Martian - can all be environmentalists.

You must know about 'light' and 'dark' greens, the latter more radical. The same can be said about 'small "l" liberals' and 'neocons', the latter radical fundamentalists and a new world order.

It is also ironic that 'fascists' are the most violent and seem incapable of holding a peaceful demonstration, remember Nazi Germany.

Runner, please do some homework on what it means to be a true environmentalist then come back and make some comment that I can value.

Thanks O&A, you've saved me saying what I was going to say. Reckon if Runner really got het up, he'd probably get a look in his eyes like a Nazi stormtrooper.

And probably like to have all the so-called Loonie Lefties banned from politics in the bargain like the Commos.

As most Lefties are academics who believe in a thorough knowledge of history, while rightist corporate cultists like Runner have never learnt the lessons of history, one can only conclude with go for it you study-minded lefties, because we need your acquired knowledge of the true tests of history so much.

Cheers-BB, WA

The Greens have a strong track record of providing a voice that balances the big, old parties. The Greens have experience in balance of power at a state level (in WA, Tasmania, NSW and Victoria), and have a track record of using this position wisely.

I'd like to see hard questions asked of the Greens about balance of power and I think that Australians will like what they hear - it's high time that the Senate can be a conscience for Australia's parliament and not just a rubber stamp.

The Greens are about so much more than environmental issues, they have a strong track record on human rights and social issues as well.

While I support the idea that all parties should be put under scrutiny, the Greens will not win the balance of power in the Senate after this year’s election. For them to do so would require the coalition to be cut to 36 senators. Given that the coalition has 19 long-term senators, this means that it would have to win no more than 17 this year, two from the territories, three from each of three states and only two from each of three states. While the coalition is on the nose, I do not see its vote collapsing that badly in half the states of the nation. It needs only 42.9 per cent to win three quotas in any state, and it does not need that in primary votes but after preferences from various micro parties.

The more likely Senate numbers will be: coalition – 38, Family First 1, Labor 34, Greens 3. Under this scenario the coalition will be able to block the repeal of WorknotcalledChoicesanymore, leaving the Labor Government no option but a double dissolution. Then the Greens would have an excellent chance of winning the balance of power because the quota will be 7.7 per cent.

Yes, lets get some hard questions asked of the Greens.

Unfortunatly all we tend to hear about is the Libs and Labor as if they are the 'be all and end all' of Aust politics.

There are a lot of voters who are fed up with the 'two party' system that we are lumbered with.
Is it any wonder that we see a rise in the number and interest in Independants?

Other than hearing the Greens say 'no' to everything, lets hear what they say 'yes' to.

For example, What Social Welfare policies do they have , what ideas do they have to offer the Indigenous Peoples of Australia.

And as Malcolm King asks, how will the Greens fund their ideas?
probabaly by bringing home the troops from Iraq.

Hey now, there is a good idea!

The Greens and Democrats have not 'got off easy' in terms of scrutiny so much as been comprehensively ignored, the former more so. How often does any Green get more than 15sec on mainstream TV or radio? When was last time you saw any govt minister publicly debate against Greens?

Closest you get is in the Senate, and Sen. Rachael Siewert was crucifying the Govt during qu.time on ?Wedn for its inept and unconstitutional NT intervention legislation. Unconstitutional asset seizure, thats not news eh, not if its Greens that raise it. So by all means lets raise the level of scrutiny, it will make a refreshing change from the neoliberalism vs. neoliberalism-lite/pepsi vs. coke/Liberal vs. Labor 'choice'.

Runner.Can Family First make water? Not just 1.88% water? But what is good for all Australians, not just Family First!

As for Pauline Hansons fried fish and chips, if your happy with cholesterol, who are we to argue!

Good article. I'm a former active Democrat supporter who like many others departed following what we saw as the GST sell out. I'm now supporting the local Green candidate. The Democrats have a lot to offer again now with the likes of Allison and Bartlett, so hopefully eventually become reinvigorated. Once burnt though, still wary, I'm hoping that the Greens if they get control of the Senate will use it in a positive way.

From George Orwell's Animal Farm.

"No question now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Power is a dangerous thing.

Yes… Yes …. Yes!

I’d like to see the Green asked the hard questions … and so too would the Greens. In fact, I’d like to see them asked any questions at all – instead of our being subjected to continual sound bites from the two majors every ten minutes.

Just ask the Greens some questions – hard, light, medium light, extra light, extra bold, medium bold, confronting, personal, impersonal, rude, obnoxious – anything will do. Somebody … just ASK them something!!

Ostensibly the Democrats are to the left of the Liberals, and the Greens to the left of Labor. But both Labor and the Liberals have drifted a long way to the conservative side of the "spectrum" since the days of Whitlam, Chipp and Fraser: the Democrats are arguably the only genuine liberal party in Parliament, whilst the Greens are unabashed socialists. Labor's Left *is* abashed :-)

The real annoyance is that Greens & Democrats compete for the same votes: anyone at all who thinks that "it's more than just the economy, stupid!" Well, that and the fact that only about 15% of the electorate falls into this category. A Parliament where Greens and Democrats faced one another from the front benches would be a cheering sight.

I'm *very* impressed by the achievements of senators from *both* parties.

I do believe King has made at least half a valid point when he says the Greens don't have much experience forming co-operative policy at the Federal level. On the other hand, they managed to co-operate well with the Keating Labor government from 1993 to 1996, while the Democrats under Meg Lees made the "dog's breakfast" GST deal, squandering the opportunity to trade a lean and mean consumption tax for compensatory liberal-but-progressive measures elsewhere such as opening the welfare trap, something Howard has long promised but never even approached (carrots and sticks are one thing, but a "hand up" is altogether different).

On the media -- you're so right Liam, the press gallery don't touch controversial parliamentary issues unless the Opposition holds them on the floor of the Reps, so of course they don't question the Greens -- giving them more attention would be the thin edge of the wedge, the fat end being a Green government!

Now if the bastards were the Greens and the Democrats kept 'em honest, I'd be pleased with the state of Australian democracy.

Didn't Bob Brown say that the coal industry should be shut down in 3 years? Surely a bizarre suggestion like that requires a bit of scrutiny. Sure, we need to something about climate change, and quick but suggestions like that beggar belief.

What MLK said.

Please, please ask the Greens the hard questions - on TV, radio, print and any other mass media.

There's just about nothing we'd like better :)

The Democrats may come over more left wing than the Labor Party BUT it must not be forgotten. The Democrats sided with the Conservative Coalition in selling Telstra which brought about the destruction of Telstra and was no longer the money spinner fot the Tax Payer. So the Democrats will always be remembered as a milk and water Conservative Party. The Labor Party also have many right wing Catholics within their ranks who are also very close politically to John Howard hence the selling of Qantas, Commonwealth Bank etc. Even though the Trade Union Movement created the Labor Party they should now dithch the Labor Party and support the Greens. Bob Brown appears to be the only true Parliamentarian who is for the people.

Malcolm King exhibits some sad prejudices: anyone who doesn't agree with ideological neolib economics ( weak government, "naff you jack" valorised selfishness ) must be a "Trotskyite".
The Greens are misrepresented as a "single issue" party, but the Democrats "Keeping the Bastards Honest" as original sole objective is ignored. However, in both cases "issue" has actually been "standpoint", a platform from which approaches to other issues develop. The brighter Democrats are from an underlyingly similar outlook to the Greens to the extent that they are a target, not of the Greens, but the dominant Elite. Sadly, ecology being a "new", scientific insight, specifically "Green" issues became signiificant creating potential "wedge" between ALL progressives ( think of the despised "liberals for forests" ).
With progressives, "economy" has ( originally ) not been viewed exclusively as mechanism for private greed satisfaction, but the utilization of resources, in a SUSTAINABLE, FAIR and RATIONAL way.
The Tasmanian Greens oppose woodchipping and pulp mills as much for corruption of Democracy as the economic wastage. So issues of personal accountability have also been involved. The Greens have attempted to "keep the bastards honest", because neoliberalism despises "community", intensly.
The Greens are accused, in a Mcarthyite fit of loathing, of opposing a "low tax, low tarrif" economy" and being against "foreign investment". Except, not against "foreign investment". Just exploitative offshore political FTA type mechanisms disguised and legitimised as "free trade".
With Tasmania, other "pragmatic" reasons relate to biodiversity, the valuable "carbon sinks" , soil and water catchment properties that carry Tasmania into the future- huge economic bases. Hence the "pragmatism" that also distinguishes Progressive Democrats from doctrinaire neoliberals.
Tasmanian sustainability as an ecological and economic entity, without buggered fisheries, agriculture, polluted air, water and soil, hence lower land values and higher costs "down stream", has been at stake.
But this is represented as failure to "compromise"( eg cede ALL to the likes of the Gunns cabal )and to "hold a gun at the head" of an actually misled community.
Who refused rational compomise- getting rid of the "science"- when asessing the Tamar pulp mill?
The Greens?
Not.

Bronco Lane must be a Green trying to sow dissent or else very forgetful. Either way, he certainly hasn't read his Hansard lately. The Democrats consistently voted against the sale of Telstra, and indeed against most privatisations, whether initiated by the Labor or Coalition.

I always thought the Democrats were to the left of the spectrum - and even further to the left than the ALP, with the Greens on the extreme end. Certainly more Democrat voters pass on their preference to the ALP than the Coalition (though the breakdown changes at each election).

As an active member of the Australian Democrats I am often asked why I don't jump from a seemingly sinking ship and join the Greens. Firstly, there is still a lot of support out there in the community for the Democrats and secondly, many people don't realise just how different the two parties are.

We both have a strong history in the areas of environment and social justice but even our approach to these two issues is vastly different. The Democrats tend to negotiate where as the Greens tend to obstruct.

I am also often surprised by how many people think the Australian Democrats are left-wing. A cursory glance at our Industrial Relations policy will prove that we are nothing of the sort. Our party has members from both sides of the fence which is why our policies tend to be moderate yet progressive.

The Australian Democrats have always been held up to a higher standard than any other political party in Australia, hence the lack of forgiveness for the handful of mistakes we have made over our 30 year history. We do not shy away from this high standard however, and we will continue to fight tooth and nail to ensure voters have the ability to choose an independent voice of reason in our Senate.

The question for me is: Have the Greens increased progressive representation in the Senate?

In the 90's I advised the Greens in Qld not to form another environmental/progressive party at the national level. I based my opinion not on the right in a democracy to particpate but on there were not enough Australian voters to support an increase in progressive representation in the Senate.

Some results of minor party/independent Senators returned:

1990 6/40 (6 out of 40 Senators elected)
1993 4/40 - 1st year The Australian Greens formed
1996 6/40
1998 6/40
2001 6/40
2004 3/40

The answer: a resounding ‘no’.

FYI...

http://www.votenuclearfree.net/

Further to Muhr H post - some Parliamentary actions taken by the ADs in relation to Telecommunications:

* Successfully moved amendments to guarantee guidelines for the location of payphones;
* Pressured the Government to ensure that the Minister kept the power to direct Telstra in the public interest;
* Pressured the Government to agree to not charging 50 cents for 013 numbers;
* Amendments to guarantee untimed local calls for customers living in rural and regional Australia at a cost of $30 million a year;
* Introduced a private members Bill to prevent carriers from introducing timed local calls for accessing the Internet. (The Government eventually adopted our position.)
* Successfully established minimum standards for Australia Post deliveries in rural Aust with any reductions requiring the approval of Parliament;
* Successfully campaigned with others against timed local calls; and
* Successfully voted to defeat a bill to make licences for broadcasting in regional areas more expensive

The ADs are updating some of their web pages so suggest you go to www.democrats.org.au later - select 'Policies' tab to check their "Track Record".

"I’d like the Canberra press gallery to ask them some hard questions - the type of questions you’d put to a party that may hold the balance of power in the Senate next year."

And you probably would be very surprised at the length and depth of their policies.

As for their not having any interests greater than environmental issues, what about their stance regarding David Hicks, or the fact that the ETU in donating $120,000 to them said that their industrial policy is better than the ALP's?

The author is not accurate in predicting 2 more Greens in the Senate. In NSW, it would take a miracle too keep Kerry Nettle in the Senate. The only reason she got voted in last election was by default as One Nation accidentally gave them preferences in NSW, and the ALP and the Democrats gave preferences to Family First over the Greens in Victoria.

Kerry Nettle needs a 20% swing to the Greens to keep her Senate position.

The Democrats in Parliament voted for the GST against their members. They have given preferences to Family First over the Greens in a number of occasions, so they are not greater than thou.

You see, the Greens have a rigid protocol where every policy has to be passed by consensus in every branch.

As for the CMEFU in the Eden Monaro, the local media has supported the CMEFU line: "A vote for the ALP is a vote against your jobs because of Peter Gareth". They put a someone who was going for pres election standing next to Peter Garreth. Someone else got the pres election, but the CMEFU still attacked the ALP saying that it was a wood chipping party.

But the CMEFU funds and backs the Greens!

This is weird, this is betrayal and I think the chippers and workers in the Eden Monaro should know the truth. The union is using their funds against the best interests of their members.

The ALP is more interested in reforming work choices back to fairness and the Greens, the Party the CMEFU backs and funds, is against wood chipping.

On the south coast, the media is trying to sabotage the ALP's chances even if it means favoring the Greens and no one on the left knows why.

Democrats and Greens together?

Bit like funny maths.

(0 + 0) = -1

Not logical or desireable.

GREENS and DEMOCRATS support TERRORISM ?

yes..its just a question. Unfortunately, when the rest of us cry out against 'radicalism' and when the police arrest people on charges of terrorism... what happens ?

Greg Barns starts defending them in court.
Greg Barns begins writing articles in OLO etc about 'Avoiding racism and discrimination against Muslims'

I imagine that even if the perpetrators of THESE outrages were arrested, Barns, Starry and gang would be defending them on the slightest 'technicality' and accusing all the rest of us of being 'racists' etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWPvuAg4HjI

If Fellow Human was ever confronted by anyone like those threateners reported in this video, and told he is an 'apostate' or.. 'bad muslim' or to 'shutup'...the first person to stand between him and they, would be me! and if push came to shove, I would unleash everything that I have at my disposal on such people in his defense.

So.. BEWARE of Greens and Democrats, beware of where they really stand, 'watch'.. who they defend, 'see' who's interests they promote.

Greens and Democrats are DANGEROUS for the very reasons found in that little vid.. they simply don't "get" where 'tolerance' of radical views will lead.
....and it will lead.. to INTIMIDATION of moderates by RADICALS.

Which radicals ?

THESE ones.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKUoxbR9mwA&mode=related&search=

Note the direct association between the following events in the mind/mouth of this radical moron

1/ Jews of Khaiber (over 1400 yrs ago)
2/ Theo Van Gogh (recently in our time)
3/ Invade Denmark, kill the danes take their wives.

Notice how he echo's surah 9:29 "May Allah destroy them" and then he relates this sentiment to "We will invade Denmark and take your wives as war booty"

Honestly, if this kind of thing happened on the streets of Melbourne, I would hope the riot squad jumped into them with battons blazing with absolutely no mercy whatsover.

Yet..if they were arrested, you KNOW who would be defending them....right ? "Greens and Democrats" Well..that's my educated and experienced opinion anyway.

C'mon BOAZ_David, we all know the real supporters of terrorism are the retired Liberal/National Party hacks at the Autralian Wheat Board: $290million paid to Saddam Hussein, right up to the start of the latest invasion of Iraq.

How many Liberal Party hacks went to jail for this treasonous support for our supposed enemy?

Zero.

At least when Prescott Bush (GWBs grandfather) funded Hitler he lost his bank for doing so http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush, but the Plutocracy is much more powerful these days.

The problem is the system that produces such a ridiculous "balance of power" situation. If each major party were to control 49% of the vote, and the Monster Raving Loony Party controlled 2%, laws would be passed only at the whim of the Monster Raving Loony Party. How dumb is that?

And Boaz... yet another of your "it is on YouTube, therefore it must be significant" contributions.

Did you notice anything else about the video while you were listening to the semi-moronic narrative - the intellectual content of which was on a par with those university students camped outside the US Embassy in London all those years ago chanting "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh!"

Did you notice the tight camera angles? How many people do you think were actually involved in this demonstration?

Did you notice the way the police politely ignored the minor commotion behind them? The way the buses were still running?

All this, with the video entitled "England - Islam Victory in Europe". If that is "victory" - a few disaffected religious fruitloops shouting slogans - then we have absolutely nothing to be concerned about, do we?

Such a fuss over so little.

Pericles misses a vital reality of our parliament which is that even when the Democrats held the balance of power, most legislation passed through the Senate, either through reasonable negotiation, resulting in better laws, or because the Coalition and Labor voted together.

This happened far more often than most people thought, and it is a common misconception that opposition parties necessarily vote against the government in the Senate. It was only when either of these parties decided to oppose the legislation that the Democrats (sometimes with other independents) had any influence.

Boazy: "Well..that's my educated and experienced opinion anyway."

And we know precisely how much that's worth, don't we?

Some examples might be useful, Mr Muhr.

>>Pericles misses a vital reality of our parliament which is that even when the Democrats held the balance of power, most legislation passed through the Senate, either through reasonable negotiation, resulting in better laws, or because the Coalition and Labor voted together.<<

GST? Telstra?

Some concept of what you mean by "better laws" would help, too.

Either way, to have a system that by its nature encourages manipulation, corruption, sweetheart deals made out of sight of the public between factions concerned more with power than with responsibility, and eminently unrepresentative of the will of the people at any point of time.

That can't be good.

Pericles,

What exactly can the minor party or independent parliamentarians do if one of the major parties will not vote with them? Drum their heels on the parliamentary carpet? Hold their breath until they turn blue? Yet somehow it is always they, and not the Opposition, who are castigated for irresponsible behavior when they successfully vote against the government. Opportunities for corruption, secrecy, lack of responsiveness to the public, etc. are far better in a two party winner-takes-all system where Big Business can buy both major parties than in a proportional representation system such as in many European countries. Just compare the figures on such matters as social inequality.

It seems that none of you, Malcolm King included, has got a clue what the Australian Greens actually stand for.

So maybe that's where you should all start?

http://greens.org.au/about/policy/

So much crap on this forum, I think I'll stop reading altogether. It's too depressing.

I agree Pericles that some examples would be good. However I'm too busy trying to finish a university assignment that I don't have time to read through Hansard at the moment. (Why did I think going back to uni was a good idea?)

However, I am aware that when Keating and then Howard attacked the "obstructionist" Senate in the 90s, I discovered that the large majority of bills were passed by the Coalition and Labor voting together, often with only the Democrats and Greens voting against.

Obviously bills like Native Title, GST and Telstra are well known because they were contentious. If they were agreed to by both parties, we'd hardly know about them (refugees, anti-terrorism laws anyone?) In these situations the government did require support which they got from Family First (GST, Telstra) Brian Harradine (Native Title, Telstra) and from some but not all Democrats for the GST.

I certainly agree that we need more rather than less openness and accountability in our governments. But in my experience, you tend not to get this when two major parties dominate the political sphere.

At the time that Howard was introducing the GST and needing one extra vote in the Senate to get the legislation through the parliament, I wrote to then Green senator Dee Margetts. I urged her to negotiate with Howard and, in exchange for her vote, to request a raft of environmental initiatives, such as no GST on solar hot water systems and domestic PV systems, concessions for fuel efficient cars, increased funding for the environment and whatever other benefits she could extract in exchange for her vote.
After several months without a reply, I wrote again. The senator then replied to me - no apology for the delay in replying - simply saying: 'We'll do things our own way to achieve our desired outcomes' or words to that effect.
The arrogance of that reply and her disinterest in achieving environmental outcomes confirmed my belief that the Greens were and still are a party of extreme left-wing, anti-development anti-capitalists, who hide behind a pro-environment facade in order to attract votes from naive but well intentioned voters who sadly believe their propaganda.
Should the Greens ever hold the balance of power in the Senate, I have no doubt that the outcome will be bad government regardless of whichever party is in power.
I'm sad to see the demise of the Democrats as they were as honest as a political party can ever be and they genuinely tried to do the right thing for the majority of Australians. The same will never be said for the Greens. May they forever remain an obscure, unrepresentative, elitist, out-dated party, of no relevance or importance to Australia's democratic system of government.

It's peculiar that the Greens have always been critical of the Democrats' political process which allowed Natasha Stott Despoja to exercise her right to vote against the GST.

Would the Greens have allowed one of their senators to cross the floor? They are an unknown quantity on so many fronts, not the least having little, if any social justice runs on the board.

Has anyone noticed that when the Greens criticise the Democrats they have to go back six or seven years to do it. Talk about living in the past. It's that sort of retrospective criticism that will alienate voters on poll day.

Natasha S-D was the Democrats last hope, and the final nail in their coffin. Her attempt to pull the Party to the centre-left was astute, considering the gaping hole in that part of the spectrum at the time. Many of the new Democrat members were of this persuasion, while Don Chipps' small "l" liberals were in decline. She saw it opening up on Labor's left as they moved centrewards. And she understood a basic principle of Life, it moves into an unoccupied niche; the Greens certainly did. But her inept leadership allowed her parliamentarians to implode the Party on national television, and she could not contain the damage done by Meg Lees and her GST. I handed out How to Vote cards for the Dems that election, and was shocked to see many people taking Liberal and Labor cards, and just shooting me ugly stares as they walked past. No one wanted Liberal Lite, it ended up the Democrats stood for nothing. Que Sera Sera.

I am hearted to see all the attacks on the Greens here. Tells me people are taking them seriously, that they are becoming a threat to the status quo. The status quo that sent my beautiful country to assault and rape another innocent people; I will never fly this Australian flag again, all I see is blood. The status quo where uber-corporations are pillaging our world, destituting nations and concentrating wealth in fewer hands. And the status quo where our people are sedated and depressed, sleepwalking through shopping malls, self-medicating with retail therapy; totally disenfranchised without even knowing it. If you don't oppose this, you silently or overtly endorse it. The only organised political opposition is the Greens. Not perfect, but in place.

I am happy to see you all attacking the Greens, because that means their victory draws even closer. As M. Gandhi said, you have ignored them (for eleven years on Climate Change), you have laughed at them (extreme/kooky/loopy Greens) and now you attack them.

Then they win.

I suppose one of the things that worries me Earthrise and Skye and Morgan Le Faye is that everytime a strident Greens party member gushes like this and starts invoking Ghandi et al, it really gives the screaming yips to the strategists who are trying to portray The Greens as normal, reasonable people.

I didn't think the article especially anti-Green and it raised some questions about balanced reporting which affects both the minor parties.

I applaud your enthusiasm though.

Hi Cheryl,

If there were strategists trying to portray the Greens as 'normal' and 'reasonable', I would ask them which definitions they were using? If 'normal and reasonable' means keeping quiet and letting things go on as they have, these strategists would be trying to whiteant what could be a positive movement for change. I certainly wouldn't vote for the Greens if they said they were going to keep doing business as 'normal', or if they were going to use the description 'reasonable' for the continued global violence and plunder the Major parties, and a good segment of the population, find 'reasonable'.

If the Greens become 'normal' and 'reasonable', they'd lose my vote. And this country would lose a whole lot more.

Hi Earthrise, loverly name. Reminds me of the Apollo missions. Was it Apollo 8 that took the pic?

This story is about done and dusted but I will add that while I applaud your radicalism, I warn you that the kind of zealot rhetoric coming from some quarters of the Greens is akin to the type of tripe put out by Hillsong and the pentacostals. It's tainted by fundamentalist thinking. There are no shades of grey.

The business of politics is to be reasonable. That's how we live together.

Hi Cheryl,

I'm embarrassed to say I didn't realise that famous photo was called Earthrise until I saw "An Inconvenient Truth", though the imagery fits well. In 2003 (just before the war), Mars was really large in the night sky. One night I was thinking how Earth would look in the Martian sky, a bright blue star on the horizon. I thought the God of War might see our 'star' as the God of Peace, though we do not deserve that title. As the Big O said, 'In Dreams', at least.

I always smile when people use the word 'radicalism' to describe my ideals. The use of the term ‘radical’ is normally an attempt to tar someone's views as extreme and unacceptable to the mainstream, which I find a little demeaning. But we are not really talking about the mainstream, where my views are more widely shared, but about the tiny minority who hold the power in our societies. To them my views are not just radical, but dangerous, because they threaten their status quo. When dealing with some of their more radical programs, to 'compromise' and deal 'pragmatically' is to join them in oppressing our fellow humanity. On some issues, there is no compromise (like rape and murder, for instance). Or global pillage and war, to extrapolate it wider.

We need red lines. This is not radicalism, because the red line is far enough away that there is plenty of room for consensus and compromise. But once government crosses one of these red lines, then We the People are duty-bound to act. If we don't, if we join the oppressors, or silently look on, we are no better. I think this is what killed the Democrats in the end, they stood for nothing; there were no red lines. I take your point about the risk of the Greens becoming dogmatic, the trick is in setting the red lines far enough out for consensus, but bold enough that when they are crossed, they stand.

If these times don't call us all to make a stand, when?