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).