I think Howard is a small-picture politician, who’ll see the pulp mill issue in terms of how it will swing votes in Bass and Braddon. That’s not a criticism – just my perception of how Howard thinks. I think Turnbull is a broader thinker, who worries about the national perception, but also doesn’t want to lose his seat.

I don’t think Howard is really worried about losing his seat. winning the election is, understandably, what matters to him, and what will determine his place in history.

But it’s still not impossible for the coalition to win the election, while Howard loses his seat. That situation would be fascinating, and unprecedented.

William sorry for my excesives. I also tone down some of my comments (214, 222) in the sober hindsight of the morn.

Some astute reasoning there, I would say. The Greens had a clear role in being the “Left Ballast” as the Labor party was shifting right to re-capture the Blue collars now living in mansions and sending their kids to private schools.

Most commentators admit that Latham was a liability in many ways but he most seriously damaged the Labor party politically. A lack of understanding of core demographics would have shown him that some of the fastest growing areas of Australia are dominated by outer-suburban developments with many newly affluent tradies… choosing to send their kids to low-mid fee independent schools. Thus the “private schools hit list” was as much a death knell for winning this group as the ill-fated forests push was irrelevant to them (Doctor’s wives aren’t abundant by any means).

Now, there is a serious issue with the Greens, of the same type that Pauline’s One Nation party faced on the right, they are a group of barbarians. I most certainly don’t mean that in the derogoratory sense, simply that they are many “tribes” under the one disaffected banner.

In the 1990s, with the fall of many socialist powers, the shrinkage of the parties in democracies led to retreat, largely under “Green movements” which became politicised. These parties were now far more left than the previous non-political movements and policies blended many old-school socialist ideals. Some “greens” (small g) weren’t (and still aren’t) happy about this but felt that it was a necessary evil to finally find their voice democratically.

Over time, majors (worldwide and in OZ) have had to become environmentally aware, so the ennvironmental message is diluted. Still most extreme in the greens but most parties now have a solid platform. With the wind out of their sails, some (small g) greens have retreated to the politics of the ALP.

This may explain the stabilised but lower Green vote (6-8%) since 2004, nowhere near the 10% desired. Subsequent State elections since 2004 have also been disappointing for the Greens. If this continues, it will go the way of ONP, with the loudest voices causing splits and fractures. The recent call for the unions to go Green is an example of this. Many Greens find the industries represented by trade unions as some of the greatest causes of wildlife destruction, erosion, contaminated waterways and greenhouse emissions. Very strange bedfellows indeed, despite the “left” politics of both..

This election will be interesting as a barometer of the future of Green influence in our politics.

As to splitting into 2 parties, it wouldn’t work – the power of the ALP/Coalition in being able to blanket the media and advertising means there is a need for progressives to band together to get a word (or advert) in edgeways. And as to dropping the environmental platform, well, you’re right Bert, that aint happening any time soon, if only because its one of the 4 principles of the party. That said, many Greens MPs do spend a lot of time campaigning on health/education/welfare etc, but it has more to do with the philosophy than anything else – our relations with each other also determine out relations with the environment – if we think we can exploit each other we wont worry about exploiting nature etc.

2. The Greens need to be seen to be more then single issue.
The problem is that the Greens are good with the environment message so use what little coverage they get putting that message across. The media generally also usually only ask a Green MP to comment on enviro issues.
The options I can think of are both very difficult.
a. Drop the enviro issues and run on the other stuff. (If voters aren’t aware that the Greens are pro-environment, dont know how anything will change that) There are way too many greenies for this to happen anytime soon.
b. Spit the party in two. The Greens and the Welfare/Education/Health Party. Make an allience. Not enough members, funds, etc.

Sorry about being off topic, but until these two things change, the chances of the Greens getting more then 2-3 reps and 6 senators per election is virtually impossible.

Richard, you and I and everyone else knows that in politics the choices are often between the lesser of two evils. ‘Twas always thus, and thus shall always be. (Apologies to ‘Dead Poet’s Society’.)

If the Greens vote conservative, especially Howard conservative, they are only going to further seriously damage their cause. There is no realistic alternative for them but to support Labor in the lower house (if only via preferences), and make their protest vote in the upper house where it might actually count. Any other position is self-defeating, in both the short and long term. And I bet 90% plus of Greens voters know that, and will vote accordingly.

Not saying I like that situation, but it is the truth about the current Oz politial scene.