I’ve got no problem with contraception it’s the unreliability of people that is the real issue. And unreal expectations of excess ambition wanting it all. When does pro choice become personal dishonesty/retrospective contraception and fear of commitment for either sex?

It’s way too easy to cry gender rights in the abstract. It’s the detail of individual circumstance that trips frail humanity every time.

And there is something of an internal inconsistency for greens striving endlessly to protect nature and not have a profound regret about the wonder of human (potential) life foregone. That’s why it makes sense to be a conscience vote like the major parties.

It’s interesting that the people who raised this as a negative standpoint for the Greens were blokes - who’ll never have to worry about this, and who’ve always lived an exemplorary life of sexual responsibility???These social policy questions have overwhelming support of the community. The reason why the major parties are gutless is in the main, due to power of the churches! What happened to politicians being elected to abide by the wishes of the majority. These questions make a farce of the rhetoric over so called democray - they don’t represent our views on these issues, only their own prejudices and personal views. Nobody is forcing them to have a termination or the right to choose when to die, we just don’t want them dictating to the rest of us. They have every right to exercise their own consciences as I do; I just resent being ruled by dictators!

Barnaby Joyce has a similar attitude to his other catholic private school mates - they’re essentially immature little boys in men’s bodies. They carry on like kids in Kindergarten(I must apologize to these kids who can act with much wisdom at times?). You can pick them out - Heffernan, Abbott, Pyne, Joyce, Hockey & Minchin etc.

I’m old enough to remember when the ALP did take a stand on environmental issues, and then they went back on policy re uranium mining, and it’s been a downhill run from then. Now it’s a case of ‘anything goes’, and developers and money rule every time - well almost! I find that the Greens research prior to making a commitment against projects, and this I admire. A case in point is Killalea State Park in the Illawarra. It was the NSW Greens who tied this disgraceful saga by developers to an injection of funds(to the ALP) after every favourable decision of the NSW govt(public knowledge - several occasions - Stateline NSW) with little or no community involvement. In fact, the so-called public meeting the Minister boasted of was by invitation only? If it wasn’t such a disgraceful tragedy, it would be laughable. The Greens did the hard work, and with community protest groups, are taking the place of responsible government. This area is pristine and beautiful, and belongs to future generations, not to be sold off for a few wealthy people to holiday there in ‘apartments’ that look like school demountables(architects drawings)and will block out the beautifiul view to the beach, known as The Farm. The majority of the residents would be more than happy to contribute to the upkeep each year, but this hasn’t even been given any consideration. When did ‘god’ sell this land to the NSW govt?

I certainly hope the Greens do well in the next NSW State Election (I’m not a member either.) I believe in exercising my responsibility and privilege by voting, the Greens make it easier to comply!

The Green answer to this is that someone needs to hang onto the principled position, to continue to voice it and argue for it, especially when expediency requires other parties to compromise and sell themselves short. If no one hangs onto the notion that the right thing to do is worth arguing for then the whole game slides downstream and the principled position can be lost from sight. Sadly this is what the Greens think has happened to the ALP, especially on issues like climate change.

I’m not a Green voter - actually I don’t vote at all but that’s another story - but as a party, the Greens have one unique characteristic - principles. But for one glaring mistake about Telstra which they owned and deeply regretted, they don’t trade them for political expedience.

As I understand the nature of Green politics, it’s not just about the earth and the environment - though these were their genesis - it’s about care and responsibility. To abandon the social policies that you consider marginal to the Greens, would be to rip its heart out just as surely as would abandoning what you perceive as their core policies on the environment. Co-operation with the Nationals in areas of common interest is possible without having to enter into any Faustian deals.

It’s interesting that you don’t suggest that the Nationals should jettison any of their policies. In fact you say that the Nationals could explore policy-by-policy links with the Greens but you don’t seems to think that the Greens could do likewise. As I said, in the beginning, these sound like the views of a jaded commentator who’s lost sight of the importance of principle. Given my respect for most things you have written, I find this really disappointing.

The Greens are also characterised in some inner city areas as watermelons, and were attacked with Gusto by Howard on this in the lead up to 2004 elections. In 2007, Howard was too distracted going down a sinking ship.

It will be interesting to see if either agree they have common ground, or if they just consolidate their current niches and policies. They are both in contention for 3rd party status, but the Nats are rusted on to the Liberals, while the Greens currently have an inherent tendency to lean towards Labor.

There seems to be some confusion about why a party would have policies that will never actually be delivered and may count against them in terms of votes - other than idealists saying “because it is the right thing to do”. But if you don’t get the outcome, then surely it is not the right thing to do…

I think we do need a new paradigm to move out of political comfort zones. We need a rapid transition to a low carbon economy rather than just more lipstick on the fossil fuel pig. Politics and usual is just delivering camels like the failed CPRS and the compromised MRET. And the forests keep on falling.

I was taken aback by Heffernan’s well-informed position on our agriculture, water and food supply issues moving forwards. Yes he did almost sound like Bob Brown until he refused to entertain the idea that humans are somehow involved in creating climate change.

Again, thank you for this interesting piece.

Crikey subscription is the best hundred or so bucks I keep spending each year

The Nationals are OK with cutting down anything that grows, shooting anything that moves, and to hell with human misery via oppression etc. Progress is ripping down something and replacing it with tar, cement or a revolting high rise - on the foreshores, that should belong to all of us!

The argument making drug taking legal is incorrect - I’m in favour of decriminalising it, which is a common sense approach. The laws at present only push up the price of illicit drugs, which only benefits those bastards who are making money out of those who are hooked? Bloody stupid! It’s also class orientated. Many people take heroin and hold down a job I believe. Good career making jobs too! Very rarely hear of the kids of the rich being in jail for drug taking do you? Why? Money gets them off??

The green in Green? Not so much in NSW, for about 9 years now. Yes there is some noise every so often but the organised Left and their intense and emotionally violent caucusing have taken over the NSW Greens to the exclusion of the ecology. As far as I know it’s not the party I helped build as one of 3 first Green councillors in NSW in 1995. Where grassroots democracy was based on the genuine public push to save NSW forest heritage from the D9 bulldozer. Where the genuine leaders all knew how to spend a night in a country gaol for their beliefs and do their time on the front lines.

Yes they do a good job at times still on the green in Green here: John Kaye MP down in SE any day now to oppose burning public native forests for “renewable” energy in the RET - courtesy the abominable Eden woodchip mill.

Yes Rhiannon, Kaye and Hale MPs were outside Tebbutt’s Marrickville electorate office about the same egregious chip mill a few months back.

Yes I did see ex Senator Kerry Nettle’s mug on a SE Forests brochure recently in the NSW EDO office info stand - now running the litigation against King Coal on the Liverpool Plains black soil country.

But you can be sure there is a deep deep antipathy to anything beyond public ownership of well anything in public ownership. If the plantation sector was sold then there would be no cross subsidy to native forest chippers and they would close overnight. It won’t happen because the State Forestry agency are a CFMEU land baron.

Also NSW Greens don’t have a conscience vote on abortion and I doubt they ever will. How many of the ideologues have been in the waiting room I wonder in this conscience vote type of reality? The guy opposite bawling his eyes out. Or frozen, like Harry Dean Stanton whose pet dog got a bullet for ‘licking the butter’ in Missouri Breaks.

Yes the Nats and Green activists are known to have most in common on the polling booth on long election day afternoons. Which I suppose just means they will understand eachother the most when The End arrives.

Time for Tales of Brave Ulyssses by Cream - surely the greatest 2min and 50 sec of rock of of all time?

The areas we most differ on are accurately noted in the article above: in social policy.

But the Greens have many of their members and supporters who are actually in the party, or vote for the party, because of their social justice policies. Not primarily for their environmental policies. It would be a big ask to get the greens to just turn all those policies into conscious votes.

But maybe the logic is there: if the environment is the basis of all life, then everything else must come 2nd to issues of the environment. We say that about the economy: the environment is not a subset of the economy, rather the economy is totally dependent on the environment. Perhaps we will reach a point where we say it about social issues as well. If our stand on euthanasia is hindering real joint action on climate change… what should we do?….

The debate - if it were to take place - would be rich and colourful. A healthy reflection of democracy in action. I would not want to bet on the outcome, however.

The Nationals might have their own debate as well. But could they really ever get over the intense bias they hold against the Greens?

Perhaps groups like the country greens alliance will help bring some change over time. Let’s hope it is not too little, too late.