>>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.<<

People are looking for an alternative and so they vote Green. Mainly because they want to live in a more sustainable way and because the mainstream parties are more interested in winning elections than in governing. I voted Green for the first time in the last ACT election more as a retreat to idealism in the face of being thoroughly underwhelmed by the performance of the major parties. I'm sure I'm not alone. But mine is purely a tactical vote until such time as the major parties can make some positive progress.

The Greens have taken the place of the Democrats as being the party of idealists. But, as idealists, the only thing that worries me about them is that their ideas get out of their cage in an unfiltered and undisciplined way. The Greens are best IMO if they have the effect of slowly changing Government policy and practice. From what I can tell, they are achieving that at the current time. Although I've got no doubt the major parties will bear down on them if they do what One Nation did and get too big and are hijacked by those with radical ideas.

Alternatively King Bazza , our not so stupid comrades may see the move for what it is - a moving with the wind. The Greens-
The ultimate windowdressers with their predictable empty policies of reaction.
The point is; The Greens can identify the problem (wow)but they haven't joined the real political and science based process and worked out solutions . The careless ones could have already cost this government their credibility ( well put points on the tax).
The fact that they can't work on credible solutions makes them irrelevant in the long term . They haven't liked logging of native forests , but NOW they believe in sequestration - and NOW they don;t like bushfires but they can't stop them because of previuos policies-what are they to do? Study to show yourselves approved , join a real team focused on study and practice, or stay out of it.
A sustainable working group is one which comes up with solutions which work for both production and ecological resiliance. science in practice .
Green influences in Wongs group have come up with solutions that were never going to work . What is Rudd going to do to stop the bleeding and get some credibility back into an area that interests nearly every Australian. http://cuttingedgeconservation.blogspot.com

RobP- for me it's just the disillusionment of how apparent it was becoming that nobody in Liberal or Labor took their job seriously and had rather low esteem for the public's interest, and my move to any other party that would actually touch various issues and actually seemed to get to the point.
The Greens, among many other parties and independent candidates get a high spot on my list simply because they actually seem to take the role of government seriously- and to their credit, actually maintained a consistent stance against pollie pay-rises, ETS and privatizations- or at least specifically oppose such things in policy.
Liberal, Labor and the Nats will never recieve my vote again as they've each shown how thoroughly corrupt they are.

Hanrahan- considering the Greens policy pages specifically details how they intend to approach the various policies I'd consider that 'coming up with solutions'- feel free to go over to the site, and copy and paste any one of the approaches (lower in the page) to any policy you would like to question.
But on that note, do list the 'solutions' the other parties have come up with, and why they are better.
I wouldn't worry about window-dressing either- the major parties do little else.

And tell me, how is sequestration contradictory to anti-logging? And what 'previous policies' are stopping them from 'preventing bushfires' (that apparently other parties somehow prevent)?

I hope I can actually expect such comprehensive answers next time from some of you guys- I'm getting rather tired of hearing hearsay with spooky consequences so bad and profound they don't actually get elaboration; it's getting quite lonely for some of us being the only persons actually bothering to do any research, comparisons or even deep analysis.

Thanks King Hazza I rest my case, however claim to have read?
3.45 AM that is the time I turned this on, before leaving every morning I want to know the news before making up my mind I want to understand.
Defense, only the very lost could even think being a turtle, retreating into our shell is a safe survival idea.
Greens are radicals, hiding in conservation clothing.
As they try to run the ALP it becomes clear not in spite but in defending the wants and wishes of most Australians mainstream party's must marginalize them.
I am sure it is Bob Brown who is harming his party and changed it from conservation to the one that claims to be green.

Thanks King Hazza

I simply listed the major points of each platform for each contender, leaving the voter able to make up their own minds. Having a concise reference meant they didn't mistakenly give a prominent preference to an extremist party.

Agree with you that the main objectors to the Greens simply have not done their homework and are just repeating themselves or sound bites they have picked up from media or those whose vested interest mean they oppose a sustainable economy.

Severin- I absolutely agree with everything you just said. And I definitely like the way you structured that fact-sheet. I'll definitely follow that example next election.

And careful Belly- your post just fell right into the category of the last paragraph of my comment- and, just to elaborate how much I *have* done my homework, you might like to know that you very much CAN survive- very well- by keeping your army for defense and (sometimes) peacekeeping only- Sweden does it, Switzerland does it, and it kept them quite safe throughout World War 2- despite both being flanked by multiple Allied and Axis nations (and to extent, Soviet) alike.
So much for it 'not working'.
And before you try to throw a herring about the 'immorality' of either side or any supposed secret alliances either country had- I should point out that both countries, as NEUTRAL nations, were free to do business with the companies of BOTH sides and owed nothing else to either. And they most definitely weren't living at the mercy of anyone or maintained their neutrality by mere permission of either side, but by a staunch defensive stance- if you check out some history of these two countries.
But feel free to say it anyway, I DEFINITELY don't mind!

But just to emphasise how 'unsafe' such a policy would be for AUSTRALIA- which nations would suddenly attack us for following the policy? Indonesia? Malaysia? China? India? One of our other major Asian trading partners- each getting richer each year by its own economic improvements?
Feel free to mention whatever you like- just don't be disappointed if finding a plausable motive for either nation- based on actual research, doesn't actually occur.
But if you want to ominously allude that Muslim Indonesia is jealous of our vast stretches of (desert) housing our low population, I won't stop you.

In other words, I rest MY case- and mine is actually airtight.