Following the trends from 2000, the vote for the greens is steadily creeping up, whilst the vote for Labor is continually slipping. A decade ago, the greens were 1/15th of the size of Labor, and captured the fringe voters, whilst wielding little or no power.

Today the greens' vote is 1/2 that of the Labor vote, and seemingly dictating (and getting the credit for) the policies on the left. Gillard's attempt to garner the green vote has simply made her looking weak and shedding votes to the greens and coalition.

By 2013, Labor could have lost enough to both sides to have the coalition far ahead, with the greens appearing to be the only viable alternative.

IM SICK OF HEARING THE WORD coalition

why compare just oner part
of the green labrat party numbers
to both the coal-ition numbers

lets compare party vote to party vote
regardless of coalition that forms
the collusion to govern

no the greens will not be the next opposition
they like to hide in dark corners
playing the odds..

then slip it in
when we arnt watching

[stop trying to bait poor belly]

I think as an opposition party the Greens would be a lot better than either of the majors, as their opposition policy will actually be against policies their party is officially against, rather than merely rail against whatever the Liberal Party (oops, I meant "the government of the day") endorses on default or risk giving their enemies some publicity for actually making the right decision.
And it is this I partly blame for our ridiculously slow pace of progress over the past decade.

Having a party that is anti-privatization would be a gigantic improvement over Labor too (especially NSW Labor- they definitely don't stand for anything else but selling assets to companies their members hope to join, and helping dodgy developers bypass planning laws).

Federally they're a bit too left for me (though I'm still more inclined to vote for them)- but on the state level, in opposition (and of course Senate), that's where they're desperately needed.

I'm anti Green and for the very good reason, to me, that they are merely the old Communist Party in disguise.
Their policies are deliberately divisive or just not well thought out and they rely on popular misconceptions and never spell out how any of their grand 'plans' will work.
Example: Tidal generation of power; there are but few working tidal power stations in the world and a number of potential sites have been opposed by local Green groups on envioronmental grounds.
In Australia the best sites are on the Northwest coast but connection to the grid would be rather expensive.
Solar power is another of their hobby horses but they don't inform people of the drawbacks.
Currently they are championing Earth Hour when all are exhorted to turn the power off for one hour.
Why aren't the Greens also asking for the power that is wasted each night to also be turned off?
On another forum the Sydney Harbour Bridge lighting has been given as a prime example of such waste, yet never a peep from the Greens in the NSW Upper House, nor about the waste of lighting city buildings all night and the consequent waste of coal in the power stations.
If the Greens want to cut the emission of gases from the power stations then a cut in the amount of power used by useless lighting would be a good start.
But it might just cost a few votes and the hypocrites wouldn't want any threat to their safe income, think $$$$$ first.

The Greens are all fluff and no substance.

IMHO, we need to accept that minor parties by their very nature, need to have a “parasitic” relationship with major parties.

Historically, minor parties might have had a natural ideological alignment with the majors but this is clearly changing. As each major party starts to adopt left, centre, right and permutation factions, the more opportunities for parasitic attachment are created.

As a result the parasite is able to attach to only a factional part of the parent body, thus creating an “unnatural” parasitic relationship. We have perhaps seen an example of this following the last general election with previously centrist “independents” aligning with an attractive faction of the ALP, whilst the Greens align themselves to an ideologically different faction of the same party.

Whether or not this relationship is sustainable in the longer term is yet to be determined however, we could reasonably speculate that if the parent body cannot feed the parasite it will be forced to detach.

Regardless of ideological alignment and populism, minor parties will remain a scourge upon our democracy and the “whores” of our parliamentary system.

SM, the Greens supporting demographic is predominantly the under 25's and the conscience placating upwardly mobile inner city plebs. Yesterday I was talking to a female client of 40 and her female employee who is about 20. The client was bemoaning the current NSW state govt and looking forward to voting Lib, the employee was bemoaning the NSW govt and looking forward to voting Green. When I enquired as to why, she replied she could not abide Abbott. The employer and I just acknowledged this with a nod, understanding that she had no understanding.

Both Labor and Liberal must focus on the youth vote, a vote that is not interested in policy but rather the "perception" or "flavour" of the party. Both organizations have focused on the tertiary educated youth and left the kid in the suburbs to their own devices and they gravitate to what they believe to be "cool". Labor secured the first youth vote when they deemed “old enough to go to war, old enough to vote” but that eroded in the 90’s as the green movement was actively marketed before being foisted upon us.

Will the Greens be the next federal opposition?
What would change for the better if they were ?

"Regardless of ideological alignment and populism, minor parties will remain a scourge upon our democracy and the “whores” of our parliamentary system."
Erm, why is that exactly Spindoc?
Does that go for independents too?
What would the 'non-scourge, non-whore' parties be?

"Will the Greens be the next federal opposition?
What would change for the better if they were ?"
Individual, that would of course depend on who you ask and what they define as 'better'
For me, unless they go sour like the Australian Democrats did, we might have at the very least better access to personal Solar Panels, better protection of Julian Assange/wikileaks, and stronger anti-privatization stances.
The downside is their policies on our other energy consumption, and also refugees (though the Liberals were willing to sell out on that one themselves in order to get Wilkie on their side).

Labor and Liberal must focus on the youth vote.
sonofgloin,
In my opinion there shouldn't be a youth vote. Young adult vote yes. I believe that the voting age should be put back to 21 as should be the age of going to war. Today's youths are far more educated than the baby boomers but also far less wise.

I'm against the greens because here in Victoria their forest management prescriptions - forced upon all Governments since the John Cain Government of 1981 - have involved reducing the forest management budget so that good management cannot take place.
In 1982 there was one outdoor worker for 3,500 ha of public land. By 2005 there was one outdoor worker for 8,000 ha of public land.
Admin staff, 114 in 1982 had risen to 624 in 2005.
(Source, National Parks Act Annual reports for 1982 and 2005)
Wilderness was introduced. A draft report by the Land Conservation Council, April 1991 promotes the concept that Melbournes people didn't need to visit such areas, it was sufficient to know that they were there, locked up.
And now the water melons tell us that the planet is warming? Their super efficient PR machine tells us so, so it must be right.
Barnaby Joyce for Prime Minister. He might mix his words but he tells the truth.

King Hazza,

<<"Regardless of ideological alignment and populism, minor parties will remain a scourge upon our democracy and the “whores” of our parliamentary system."
Erm, why is that exactly Spindoc?
Does that go for independents too?
What would the 'non-scourge, non-whore' parties be?>>

Why? Because their entire existence within our democracy is based on “compromise”. They cannot govern in their own right, so they become “spoilers”, they "distort core values".

Independents too? Well of course, they are minor parties are they not?

Non-scourge, non-whore parties? Any party that has sufficient ideological electoral support to avoid having to compromise those ideological values.

"Non-scourge, non-whore parties? Any party that has sufficient ideological electoral support to avoid having to compromise those ideological values."
Well that rules out Liberal and Labor automatically if they do preference deals with the likes of the Nationals and Family First, (and they partly need to as both average about 35% of the vote), and accept donations by lobbyists.

Meanwhile the independents in power have been comparatively staunch with their demands before forming a coalition.

The only way to avoid compromise is to abolish parliament and have a directly-elected government (which is in my opinion, actually a very good idea).

And I love these calls "we need the majors to market to kiddies before the Greens get them!"
They do.
"Young Liberals"
and "Young Labor"

Maybe the moral to this story is nobody should market to the youth because the results aren't pretty?

Well, I certainly believe that there is room for a new opposition party, if only the Greens or other can get it together sufficiently to actualise strong representation of some of the nobler aspirations of the majority of the burdened, overworked, over stressed and underpaid (in terms of what your $AU really gets you) average working class Ozzie.

..

Clearly, in my mind at least, neither of the 2 major parties truly represent the interests of the majority.

..

This is evidenced most clearly by 2 things:

1. No $money$, no Justice, most of the time.

2. No $money$, no top shelf medical service, most of the time.

And yet, these two professions, are no more than vested minority interests.

Clearly, to legally enshrine full and equal access to the law and full and equal access to health services is in the majority of peoples interest.

Likewise the issue of the banks, where the poorest are penalised and made to buy the equivalent of two houses for the bank after they have finished paying for their own crappy over priced one.

..

So seriously, remember, roll back the clock to WWII and turn back those boats Tony, just like the tin pot law of the transplanted genocidal pom turned back the boat loads of Jews.

..

It appears to me that the liberal party and their supporters, then as now, simply do not care to know:

" ... the troubles of others are not our concern. ... "

I don't think the greens would be too happy becoming the next opposition.

After all, they are the de facto government now, telling the little lady what to do. Becoming the opposition would be a big step back for them.

"In my opinion there shouldn't be a youth vote. Young adult vote yes. I believe that the voting age should be put back to 21 as should be the age of going to war. Today's youths are far more educated than the baby boomers but also far less wise."

Interesting perception, individual. I'm hardly impartial, still being in my twenties, but my experience has been quite different. As a teacher, I work with a lot of baby boomers. It seems that, until recently, nobody wanted to be a teacher - when I started out in the job, the average age of a teacher in QLD was somewhere in the mid-high fifties.

Of my colleagues, it's the baby boomers who proudly proclaim that they have never voted for anyone other than Labor because "Labor looks after the working man". When quizzed on the Labor policies that look after the working man in the 21st century, they are rarely able to provide answers. I think, sometimes, that they have also missed the point when teachers ceased to be considered "working men/women".

It was also the baby boomers who were most vocal during our recent round of enterprise bargaining, who blindly followed the union directives to strike and then praised the union for an excellent outcome - one that represented no improvement on the government's initial offer and actually cost us money when we take into account the unpaid day of striking and the backpay we didn't get because the arguing was so drawn out.

I have a lot of respect for these guys - they have taught me all I know and continue to serve as role models as I develop my skills as a teacher and as an adult. I don't know that they're any wiser in a political sense, though. I put more thought into policies and governance when I was a teenager than many of my older colleagues do as they approach retirement.

VERY well said Otokonoko, I quite agree.
In this political age, subsequent generations are becoming better informed and nurtured more into a world of independent investigative research, thanks to the internet.

If anything newer generations may be a lot more wise in many ways.

King Hazza,

<<in this political age, subsequent generations are becoming better informed and nurtured more into a world of independent investigative research, thanks to the internet.>>

That is a key problem. You perceive access to the internet as a medium for the increase of “better informed and nurtured” (whatever that is supposed to mean).In reality it means that today’s generations have better access to information. Sadly, your generation sees access to information as in some way synonymous with, knowledge, intelligence or common sense. Sorry to disappoint you but all the evidence points to the exact opposite.

We have the last three generations who can’t make any sense whatsoever out of the world in which they live. That is the damage done to people like you by “information”. You remind me of the movie where the question was asked for the truth, to which the response was “the truth, you can’t handle the truth”.

The internet has destroyed your ability to rationalize, analyze, assimilate, comprehend, rationalize or create knowledge. You are a victim of information and not a beneficiary.

The modern world is full of information freaks thinking they have the answers when they don’t even understand the questions.

I FEEL THE GREENS ARE SPOILERS AND PROBABLY COMPARE MORE TO PARTIES BASED ON RELIGION RATHER THAN ANY POLITICAL LEANING. POLITICAL POWER FOR THE GREENS IS A LITTLE LIKE PUTTING A FANATIC BEHIND THE CONTROLS. GREENS ARE NOT ALL TREE HUGGERS!!

I agree Siller, but there is no need to shout, I had to turn my hearing aids off!!