Hmmm- I take it that my "actually read the policies" statement was quickly put into the 'too hard' box for many that just wanted to have a whinge.

For goodness sakes people, the time you spent typing up some childish idiotic rants and conspiracy theories that does nothing but make you look stupid, you could have actually googled a political party's website and read their stances and policies from the horse's mouth YOURSELF- IN EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME- and actually would have KNOWN what you were talking about this time.

No seriously, if you've actually read this post, don't reply to me if you don't like it, go and actually LOOK- RIGHT NOW.
The REAL policies on the Greens site, as are (surprise!) the policies on most other party webpages are fairly restrained and conservative (in the actual definition of conservative- not "omg center-right!").

And just so you know, I read EVERY party's policies if they are available online- Greens, Democrats, One Nation- every single party I have a local representative to, and every independent candidate's policies- and rank them closest to my own views to most distant.
It took ME about 20 minutes in total- basically one whole party in each ad break of the footy.

To do any less and still vote anyway is to me as pathetic as a kid taking dad's car keys and going for a drag race, despite having never taken any lessons.

We still have plenty of time before the next election to actually try to be smart next time.... maybe you could actually watch a bit of news or read some papers and watched how some of the parties actually responded to policies.

King Hazza

Before the last federal election I collated all policies from each party and independent, created a spreadsheet of all and forwarded copies to all my friends and family to assist them with voting below the line in the senate.

My then 83 Y.O. mother took the spreadsheet along with her walking frame and portable oxygen and carefully filled in her voting slips, with complete knowledge of all contenders. She said that many people arrived, voted and left while she was still completing her voting slips. I intend to do produce the same information for the next election - it is not always possible for people to access websites and read through all the material on line.

I endorse your entreaty to others to read, in particular, the Greens policies - they have certainly progressed from the one issue party of former days. They do offer a valid alternative to the dichotomy of the Libs and Labor. A look at the difference between the dearth of thoughtful constructive policies on Family First compared to the professional and progressive Greens format is very telling, the former looking like an amateur pulled their platform together from a religious right wish-list.

As usual, it seems that nobody who has commented here thus far (with the notable exception of King Hazza, and perhaps RobP) has bothered to acquaint themselves with the Greens' policies. That doesn't stop them from blathering on ignorantly about how awful and "radical" the Greens are.

As King Hazza suggests, the Greens have a broad range of well-developed policies that are only radical from the perspective of reactionaries and conservatives. They are policies designed to create a society that is able to sustain itself and the environment upon which it depends.

As far as the 'sustainability' of the Greens goes, despite the bulldust spread by those who feel threatened by them, their percentage of the vote increases with every election at all levels of government, and this is reflected in the steadily increasing number of Greens MPs, senators and councillors at each succeeding election.

This threatens the 'Tweedledum and Tweedldummer' major parties, so of course they're going to try and spread the kinds of mendacious disinformation that we see in this thread. This is to be expected, since that's the only way they know to do politics.

The Greens have a different approach, which is attracting more votes their way at every election. Obviously, I think this is a good thing for Australian politics. I'm far from alone.

This month's Tasmanian election will be interesting to watch ;)

Careful what you wish for there Hazza, you just may get your wish, & that would be disaster for you.

If half the people who currently vote green, actually read, & understood green policies, you would loose most of your senators, quick time.

Sorry King Hazza, C J Morgan I have read and understood Greens policy's, once thought well of them.
Conservation, for some is a dirty word.
Often they think every conservationist is green, not so.
Knowledge, understanding, is more than thinking and saying.
NEVER not in a hundred years or a thousand can Greens govern this country.
Explain greens defense policy's, tell me any one could sell them.
Truly tell me what a greens government would do to our economy if they put their climate change policy's in place.
In fact, one day greens will be marginalized by both potential governments.
It should be now, while opposition opposes every thing greens are just as bad.
Greens thrive on voters who want nothing to do with my mob and conservatives, and feed on those who do not understand the true increasing radical movement the greens are.
ETS has fallen, never forget it, to greens failure to support the environment as much to a lost Abbott.
The Greens by their own actions are no longer an environmental party.

Severin I am very impressed with your actions regarding voting- I think I should try to do a spreadsheet with my own acquaintances!
And though you are correct in many people not being able to access the Green's website (or the internet very much, for that matter), there is really not much excuse at all for those who have the capacity to post on a forum.

Agree CJ- although I must point out that I'm quite the conservative myself and even I'm not threatened by the Green's policies.

Hasbeen- like what? Name some.

Belly- well, if you insist I will make a hypothesis based on policies from the website you claim to have read:
What Greens industrial/environment policies would do to our economy:
Not much- mining and industry will need to add further initial furnishing/construction costs to what they already pay to ensure the facilities are energy-efficient and manage waste (which offsets the costs of more public infrastructure assisting them). General opposition to private infrastructure ownership would drastically lower costs for consumers, subsidizing green energy would be neutralized by stop subsidizing coal- as currently done. Initial installation costs of renewable energy generators are offset by the lack of need to purchase mined fuel for non-renewable generators, and lack of uranium or nuclear as part of our economy (not actually that large) would mildly cut into profits from sales overseas.
Actual attempts to get access to renewable energy device markets would actually offset the rising cost of non-renewables (whilst Labor inactivity will continue to cost us).
And they opposed the cost-only ETS plan? Good- another reason to vote for them.

Defense-wise:
-Army would be used for domestic security and occasionally peacekeeping only- which tends to mean more soldiers at home base.
-No US bases- making us a more neutral country on the world stage (including terrorism)- but potentially making us somewhat more vulnerable to attack from... er... who?