James Massola and the SMH doing what Leigh Sales and the ABC oddly failed to do: to lift the rug and inform the public on the factions at work in the Greens,

<Greens leadership change: What really happened behind the scenes
May 7, 2015

Former Greens leader Christine Milne had been considering her future for six months before deciding to quit, and held discussions about her exit with Greens Party founder Bob Brown.

Fairfax Media understands new leader Richard Di Natale, former deputy Adam Bandt, and immigration spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young led the push for a leadership change in the party.

Mr Bandt and Senator Milne had had a strained relationship for some time, while Senator Hanson-Young had challenged Senator Milne for the deputy leader's role as far back as 2010.

Some Greens, angry at how just one-hour's notice was given for the leadership vote, believe that if Mr Bandt had faced Senator Di Natale in a ballot, the result could have been as close as 6-5 or 7-4 in the 11-member partyroom.

While Senator Milne's decision to resign surprised many, she had discussed her future with family, friends, former staff and other members of the party in the lead-up to the announcement...

Some members insist that Senator Di Natale, and Senators Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam - who were elected co-deputy leaders, were tipped off ahead of time by Senator Milne to spoil Mr Bandt's chances.

Senator Milne and Senator Di Natale have repeatedly refused to say whether or not that is true, however the new leader did confirm that the change of leadership had been on his radar for some time...>

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/greens-leadership-change-what-really-happened-behind-the-scenes-20150507-ggvwqm.html

‘morning all,

There seems to be some sort of neural problem afflicting progressives. Not a Beta Blocker but a Reality Blocker.

Is there really a sentiment that accepts that Christine Milne has resigned to smell the roses, spend more time with family, blah blah blah?

For pities sake folks, get real. She and the rest of her faction got shafted. The Greens have split because they sense change in the breeze, particularly public sentiment for the Senate. The Greens have no choice but to do a “Democrats” and clear out the more radical nay-sayers.

Milne and her mates are still living in the glory days of the Gillard era and has not been forgiven by the electorates. Unless you count one seat in the lower house as forgivness?

With a steady 11% of the vote and more competition from other minor party’s, they have tanked politically unless they can remain relevant in the Senate. They must now be part of any solutions and also differentiate themselves for both the ALP and other minor party’s. Basically they have to pick a side for the next election. They have just done that and it isn’t the ALP.

Expect much more “co-operation” in the Senate. Expect this to end any hope that Sarah-two dads may stop “pouting” and that she too may soon make a “sniffing the roses” announcement?

Congratulations to Richard Di Natale!

Richard Di Natale has emphasised that -
we've got a country that's going backwards,
we're taking a hatchet to social context to
decent income support to healthcare system, to
education, as a society we can afford to pay for those
things - we've just get to make some choices...

It's not about small government or big government -
its about decent government.

Mining subsidies, tax concessions in superannuation and
multinational tax avoidance were listed as potential
sources of revenue.

He sounds like a worthy successor to Bob and Christine!

Foxy,

As long as he doesn't start to address us as "Fellow Earthlings"!

The Greens are NOT modelling that openness they demand of others though. Also from the SMH (Judith Ireland,May6,2015),

<But when it was time for questions, the press pack was not as interested in flying Greens or morality.

When did Milne tell the party she was resigning? Did some senators get a head start on others? Why was the whole thing so speedy?

Both the former and current leaders danced and danced around the questions.

"I'm not going to go over who said what to whom, who voted in what way, what discussions were had," Di Natale offered.

When that didn't prevent five more similar inquiries, he finally observed - with just a pinch of annoyance - "look, someone may have been disappointed with the outcome. Surprise, surprise, that's politics."

In other words, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen>

However the original questions remain unanswered:

What is the explanation for the ABC always treating the Greens with kid gloves?

Is it as simple as an informal editorial policy that favours 'progressive' social policies?

I see that the venom is still being spat by the supporters of the liblabs, they really love to hate.
The Greens must really frighten the excrement out of you. Well when you have people with integrity entering Parliament it shows up the ability of the dross that is there already.

"plotters who knifed Greens leader Christine Milne"
Don't judge the Greens by the ethics (or lack of) of the liblabs.

"What is the explanation for the ABC always treating the Greens with kid gloves?"
Maybe because they are not doing any harm to anyone?