Today Michael Costa said what everyone other than the ideologically delusional has been saying for years.

From the Australian:

>> Costa said Julia Gillard must confront the Greens to save the Labor Party and stop practicing the politics of appeasement with the far-Left.<<

>> Costa slammed the "voodoo politics" that has allowed ALP policy to become a slave to focus groups, and calling for abolition of the "diseased" NSW Right faction, Mr. Costa writes in The Australian Literary Review today that Labor must also confront entrenched union power.<<

>> Mr Costa blames Kevin Rudd's incompetent management of the fiscal stimulus program for "throwing away decades of hard work" by Labor governments, citing the Building the Education Revolution cost blowouts and the pink batts program. And he warns the Prime Minister she must confront the Greens. "Labor must reframe the debate to focus on the destructive social and economic consequences of Greens policies," Mr. Costa writes. "The Greens need to be confronted rather than appeased.<<

Will Australia wake up to this ideologically driven travesty of a partnership of the Labor/Green coalition. Will Labor they realize that power at any cost will destroy their credibility as one of two alternatives for government in the future?

I said the same thing hear for 5 years, last two days have seen me told I am anti union/Labor for my views.
Now Costa, remember please, is no golden boy, he rode to power from the trade union movement and promptly forgot it.
Not alone there but he is mostly very right here.
LABOR MUST distance its self from the minority's that kept it out of power, or will do so .
Greens are no answer for those who leave Labor, in fact they are middle class radicals or blind followers of radicals unaware of the true shade of greens.
Parliament would be better served by both major sides combining to defeat greens intentions, then together, crafting a double dissolution election.
Greens have 12% top of the vote and twice that at least who do not want them in the house.

Belly,

A little factoid that might interest you is that if you look at the per capita earnings of the various supporters the greens are the highest earning, even more so than the liberal, which explains their rich inner city roots.

So rich people are, by virtue of their salaries, not entitled to share concerns for the environment. Many Greens earn modest or low salaries. I suspect if you look at the donations to the ALP or the Coalition you will see much bigger interests at play.

Nevertheless, salary levels do not determine one's credibility as environmental issues go, it is altruism and concern for the future of this planet upon which we all depend regardless of salary levels.

Costa has got it wrong, the ALP should be about representing the people not dictating policy based on political expediency or pandering to any party factions.

Democracy isn't about the party but about the people. Some politicians forget just who they are representing. Focus groups are flawed because they are not representative of the majority - taking a sample vote does not a democracy make.

I am aware, say it often greens are middle to high income.
Some what like Labors Chardonnay left.
Love to see the north shore [Sydney toffs ]arrive at conference in a VW Combi van.
As hard as it is for some, my party comes first the DLP kept us out of power while pretending to be the true Labor party.
Those who vote green may well do so too.
I would cuddle a koala, even if it scratched me,but not a death adder.

Pelican,

A $2000 p.a. increase in utility bills is a huge issue for someone earning $50 000 p.a. but less so for someone earning $500 000.

Most of the greens come from the rich inner cities.

How did the greens fare in the country or lower salary outer suburbs?