A play on words my thread was meant to ask can the greens hold current policys and remain a force.
I have my doubts, yes past victorys like the one that bought Bob Brown into politics have been good.
But can the dream, balance of power and continuing growth ever be.
Who thinks if greens controled policys we could live with their views on mining, exporting and useing coal?
Do not forget opersition stiffled debateon ETS, it would have been voted on last week, but was refered to inquirey.
And understand two conservatives crossed the senate floor and voted for ETS Greens against it, last time.
Greens get ex ALP refugees who give second preference to labor, will they stay green if not ETSis an outcome of greens wish not to compromise.
Now my view, and I handed out their HTV s last time, is they are bogged in ground never to be shared by enough to give them balance of power, in truth should they get it, ever conservatives and Labor may well deal them out in the upper house.
After allboth of those partys are not likely to let radical ideas get air.

>>A play on words my thread was meant to ask can the greens hold current policys and remain a force.<<

Belly,

The Greens will remain a force so long as they fill the political niche they are in now and as long as the two major parties give low priority to the environment. The big parties could shut the Greens down tomorrow simply by stealing and rebadging their ideas like the Liberals did to One Nation. Bob Brown knows this and is always trying to steer the debate into waters that are favourable to him. Politically smart, but still living on borrowed time. Once the Greens cross a certain threshold (whether that be in size or influence), the big parties will shut them down in a trice. So, no, they're not sustainable in the long run, except as a minority party as Spindoc says. And the Greens will lose their punch as the big parties absorb their ideas and integrate them into the mainstream.

I think the Greens have a good shot at becoming an actual government if they put more effort into broadcasting their other policies outside environment and refugees, because the whole 'single-issue party' is a pure myth. As are what most assumptions of their policies are by people who could never be arsed to actually spend five minutes reading them (and reading ALL party and local independent policies is in my opinion a citizen's duty- especially for those of us who can spend so much time on political forums).

Having actually GONE to the Greens Website and read their policies myself I seriously doubt the ACTUAL policies would alienate very many people:
-Of all resources, they are only entirely against uranium mining and propose banning it.
-They are against creation of new coal mines and expansion of existing ones
-The demand that mining/resource industries pay expenses to comply with most up-to-date green regulations.
-All practices must be in consultation with local communities.
Among many others. Hardly a mad path to self-destruction.

I believe the Greens newer approach of expanding into the Democrats old role and speaking up about all acts by Liberal/Labor they disagree with, they would definitely continue to improve.

How can they be sustainable when they have no substance ? It's a Billy Goat show depending on Public funding. When have they ever drummed up sufficient competence to stand on their own feet. They're just an expensive unfunny joke who constantly foil other peoples' efforts to make a living.
I'm a conservationist at heart & I support any group which tries to prevent environmental vandalism by those morons who think all this progress won't lead to massive mayhem. The Greens are just a bunch of hypocrites who use the environment as a smoke screen to bludge a living out of tax payers' money.

The government has a golden opportunity to put the ETS on hold.
From what I have been reading, because of the controversy over the
global temperatures the suggestion that they start from scratch and
try and work out just what has been occurring with temperature.
Some say they do not know whether temperatures are rising, falling or
remaining steady.
Even Prof Phil Jones of the Uni of East Anglia Climate Research Unit
now says temperatures have had no significant rise since 1995.

This is surely the time to stop and draw breadth, and wait and see.
In these circumstances it would be political suicide to spend enormous
amounts of money on a maybe if the temperature does not resume rising.

A certain number of actions which have been demanded to save CO2 are
needed anyway because of the imminent, in a very few years, of a
decline in oil production so for example to move to more efficient
cars will not be wasted.

As soon as the main parties wake up, & start to preference each other, the greens will disappear, & good riddens.

They have never been anything but spoilers, picking up on the NIMBI factor, to make a noise, here & there.

It's about time that groups like Greenpeace, & the media were charged with conspiricy, when the media are waiting with their cameras, when activists break the law, & damage property. They have obviously conspired to be there.

I don't ask these people to lead my life, or tell them how to lead theirs. I'll be damned if I'll let them dictate to me, how I lead mine. Petty would be dictators the lot of them.