There’s been some discussion on a previous thread about the impact of various issues on preference allocations by The Greens. The point I was making in reviewing Anna Bligh’s “green themed” couple of days is that Labor is appealling over the head of Greens voters – in the knowledge that the party has been caught on the hop by the early poll, has a low membership, and will have difficulty covering booths in many seats. That’s compounded by The Greens’ approach in targetting a small number of inner city seats. In this election, they’re running hard in Indooroopilly and Mount Coot-tha. Despite their historically high vote in the latter seat, Larissa Waters is most unlikely to worry Treasurer Andrew Fraser. Nor do I think sitting MP (and former Labor member) Ronan Lee has any real chance in Indooroopilly.
To some degree, what is being played out here is also a bit of jostling within The Greens for Senate preselection.
There’s a bit of an irony in the media coverage of The Greens. As I was suggesting, the easiest way to get very sparse column inches is to talk preferences. But the ALP isn’t necessarily going to do much bargaining. For one thing, there are a lot of Brisbane seats where the Greens’ vote in 2006 was smaller than the primary margin between the ALP and the Liberals, and OPV has the potential to make these contests into basically first past the post races. In a culture where “Just Vote One” has become ingrained, the exhaustion rate is high, and where The Greens’ organisational deficit allows Labor to try, at any rate, to hoover up second preferences regardless of what the party or candidate recommends, preference allocation isn’t much of a trump card.
The impact of OPV is poorly understood across most of the media.
I’ve been arguing for a long time that The Greens should see state elections as more of a party building exercise rather than chasing what’s currently a chimera – winning a seat.
52 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Greens are not even contesting marginals like Cleveland and Chatsworth.
Seems to me that the party is dying, and without the choice of a third option in some of these marginals voters may be forced to go with the devil they know.
Incidentally, the title of the post is a reference to Pandagate – a long gone bloggy controversy about some Young Libs handing out fake Green how to votes in 2004. I hasten to add that’s also been done by Labor on some occasions, and to emphasise that it can only occur because The Greens can’t staff every booth in seats in which they run.
That’s not to say it should happen though. It shouldn’t.
I’m sure a similar thing happens in far Western Queensland booths too. I recall a QUT student standing for Gregory in a state election was asked if he had ever been to Gregory.
He replied,”No, but I will if elected!”
I’m no expert, but does anyone think that Anna’s “green themed” couple of days could be a pitch to the “green liberals” rather than for green preferences. What I mean is the traditional Liberal voters who don’t agree with the traditonal National policies (tree clearing etc). Some might call them the “doctor’s wives” set.
I’m no expert too, BrisbaneBulldog, which probably explains why I reckon you’re onto something about Bligh pitching for the “green liberal” vote, presumably on the basis of labor being to the right of the greens, who as we all know are watermelons: reds on the inside.
One thing: Bligh’s green theming hasn’t just been hatched. Weeks ago in South Brisbane, her electorate, we got fridge magnet propaganda, in a lovely lime green shade, “Anna’s 7 step guide to Climate Warm and Fuzzies”. She announced at the same time a lovely lot of “green” barbequeareas with the bestest views on the top of Kangaroo Point cliffs ( look at South Brisbane booth voting patterns and you’ll see why the pitch there). What she didn’t say was how clever it was to be able to finally disappear the asbestos laden TAFE building there ( which she didn’t deal with as Education Minister) using the 1.3 billion dollar ClimateSmart budget she inherited from Pete, and CoalInc, and promptly delivered to her husband when she executively appointed him Climate El Supremo, since he’d done such a stirling job at transport. Sweet huh?
I have it on good authority that liberal preferences to greens, at least in some booths in her electorate, which is about as green as it gets in first preference terms, run at greater than 50%, and that’s without any concerted appeal on the greens part to the libs, in fact despite greens overtly preferencing labor.
Mark makes the point “there are a lot of Brisbane seats where the Greens’ vote in 2006 was smaller than the primary margin between the ALP and the Liberals”: does that imply there were some/few/lots that the Greens’ vote in 2006 was *larger* than the primary margin between the ALP and the Liberals? ie If Greens>ALP-LIBS, then Greens+Libs > ALP, an algorithm which would account for Bligh being pro-active about soliciting Greenish Lib votes.
No, not many, southbrisbane. Just the obvious ones.
The only way that Liberal preferences to The Greens matter is if the Greens outpoll the Libs which has never happened. There’s some slight chance that this might occur if there’s a big backlash against the N in LNP by normally Liberal voters. That’s a possibility, though I don’t think we’ve seen any evidence that it’s occurring so far. I still think it’s unlikely that The Greens would outpoll the LNP anywhere.
I think she’s in the hunt for first as well as second preferences.
I’d also be surprised if there’s a lot of preference flow from Lib voters to The Greens generally.
“The Greens should see state elections as more of a party building exercise rather than chasing what’s currently a chimera – winning a seat.”
There’s a very difficult line to walk with Green rhetoric as a lot of supporters only get motivated to volunteer if we talk about winning. I don’t like to talk about wining Greenslopes but my wife says “why would people waste their time voting for you if you don’t even think you’re going to win?” and there’s some truth to that as well I think. “Put a Green in Greenslopes” is a pretty good slogan (if I do say so myself). “Lift the Green primary vote to 20% in Greenslopes” is a bit less… dynamic.
d
Yeah, I know, Darryl. It’s sort of the perennial dilemma for minor parties, isn’t it?
Oh, and it is a good slogan!
The booth I voted at in the last NSW election had a two party preference split between Liberal and Green. Is there anywhere like that in Queensland?
Biggest problem for the Greens in Queensland! No Upper House with proportional representation! If voters see there is a chance for a Green to get elected in an upper house that helps the vote in Lower house seats. eg. In South Australia we have a Green Member in the upper house and it is lifting the Green vote around the State.
I reckon Mark has made a mistake in extrapolating the position of The Greens in a conservative state like Queensland with no upper house to every State.
And when you say “Should see it as a party building exercise” what exactly does that mean? Organising and growing with the goal of winning seats is not how a politically party is “built”?
Oz – there’s no real chance of winning a seat at this election. My point is that there’s a lot of latent support out there outside the few seats targeted that could be turned into more active support and party membership if scarce resources were allocated more widely. A focus on policy, rather than just preferences or electoral chances, might also be useful.
None of this is news to The Greens members I know – or rocket science for that matter. Some of these problems are difficult for minor parties generally, as I said, and have no magic wand type solutions. My comments are not meant to be critical, just realistic.
It’s also true that the absence of an upper house, the electoral system and the unitary nature of the Brisbane City Council all work against The Greens.
By the way, I’m explicitly distinguishing The Greens’ position in Queensland from that in other states. I’m not sure why you think I’m doing the opposite!
I’m also very far from convinced Queensland is a “conservative state” any more, but perhaps that’s a separate discussion.
It appears I misunderstood what you were saying.
When you said this:
I thought you were talking about state elections in general as opposed to past state elections in Queensland, which actually makes more sense considering the nature of this blog.
I agree with what you’re saying and apologise for the mistake.
No probs, Oz. I was wondering if I’d made myself clear enough!
Yes, I think that “state elections” in the context of a blog just about Queensland politics refers to elections in this state.
Darryl Rosin @7 wrote:
“why would people waste their time voting for you if you don’t even think you’re going to win?”
Because if Anna can’t cut a deal with the Greens, I don’t care if she does lose. So I’ll just vote 1 Green and if Labor loses my seat, maybe they’ll consider making a deal next time. The Greens do have power, it just takes a bit more thought to exert it and demonstrate it.
Ryan, the Greens are actually contesting every seat. The party web site reflects the candidates preselected early. When I last heard, 89 nominations had been submitted to ECQ. Labor isn’t contesting every seat. Would you say that means they’re dying?
Here’s a challenge for you. Go to the Greens site and take a look at a good sampling of the candidates. Now go to one of the other party sites. Come back here and tell us whether you are impressed. I’m a scientist, and I work on the evidence, and invite you to do so too: http://qld.greens.org.au/election/candidates
Greens membership is increasing, and a lot of new support is coming from both major parties, not just Labor.
As for “Labor is appealing over the head of Greens voters”, Anna must think people have their heads in an unusual place. She has a terrible track record on the environment, and has plans to build infrastructure to double coal output by 2015. That is economic lunacy. We are moving into a world where world-wide emissions reductions will be enforced. We will never recover this investment. How anyone who cares not only about the environment or the economy could support them I don’t know.
If Ryan waits until 12 noon today, he might well find that the Greens have again nomiated candidates for all 89 electorates.
As the Greens candidate for South Brisbane, I am expecting to come second on primary votes and force a preference count to see who wins the seat. Drew Hutton polled 26% in the Gabba ward last year. I polled 21% in South Brisbane in 2006. With the LNP candidate being a National who last ran in Kepple in 2006, I would definately expect to pick up some dissaffected Liberal votes. The galaxy poll has Labor down 5% and I would expect to pick up the bulk of this and more in South Brisbane to outpoll the Nationals, sorry LNP.
Gary, can you explain the demographic changes that have occurred the last two-and-a-bit years that will allow you to outpoll the Nationals? You polled 20% primary but Anna Bligh’s margin is 18% and she won on primaries alone – and I think her ‘personal recognition factor’ will be a bit higher this time round.
I know from NSW and the last state and federal elections here that always the biggest worry about inner-city electorates from the ALP side is the much larger-than-normal amount of residential churn every three years. This means a good 20% or 30% of the population weren’t there for the last election and don’t necessarily recall the candidates. South Brisbane has had a lot of apartment building going on, but I’m not across it’s demographic at all. In Mt Coot-tha it’s the student household churn around Toowong and Taringa and the Auchenflower apartment belt.
On the churn issue using the 2006 Census data, 27.9% of the population of South Brisbane lived at an address outside of the statistical local area 12 months previously compared to 19.7% of the Qld population as a whole.
If we take a longer look and compare the 2001 Census data to the 2006 census data, 55.5% of the population of South Brisbane lived at an address in a different statistical local area in 2001 compared to the Qld average of 47.5%
If you take a look at some of the booth by booth figures from recent federal, state and council elections you’ll see a marked increase in Liberal voting in some booths compared to historical norms in South Brisbane. That’s one effect of changing demographics driven by upmarket apartment development.
Gary, how long have you been the candidate for? Last time I looked, it was a fellow called Ben, I think. Might be wrong. But I’m sure someone else was being promoted as The Greens’ flagbearer in South Brisbane quite recently.
The other point to consider wrt South Brisbane is that because the Liberal vote isn’t all that high, you could infer that it’s reasonably rusted on.
I’d really be extremely surprised, as I said, if The Greens polled first in any electorate (except perhaps Indooro).
I’d also be very wary of extrapolating from a Galaxy Poll taken at the start of the campaign to either the ALP vote in South Brisbane or to where the vote will be at the end of the campaign.
Scot and Possum, Anthony Greens website maintains that the redistribution has not affected the margins in South Brisbane. The Greens polled 26% just last year in the Gabba ward, which covers roughly the same area as South Brisbane electorate. Add on the Galaxy polls 5% swing. Add on extra because the Liberal is a National. Add on extra again because Anna Bligh has been missing in action and approving much hated developments like the Hale Street Bridge. Then add on ~50% of the Nationals preferences and most of the Independents preferences. What sort of numbers do you come up with?
Gary, I wouldn’t extrapolate what happens in local council wards to State electorates – it just doesn’t work.
We have to use the previous election as a baseline and work from there, so the Greens were on 21.5%, the Libs on 25.3% and Bligh on 51.5%.
*If* there were a general swing of 5% away from the ALP, that doesn’t mean that a 5% swing will happen everywhere, just that the average swing is 5%.
On the one hand, the LNP candidate should have some voters go elsewhere because the candidate is a Nat, but on the other hand any general swing away from the ALP should also lead to the LNP candidate gaining some voteshare – swings and roundabouts.
Bligh being Premier also gives her a higher profile in the electorate – the very thing that kept Howard winning Bennelong for a number of elections longer than would have been the case were he not PM.
With preferences, OPV means that even if the LNP came third, there is no guarantee of preference flows to the Greens in any meaningful number. The exhaustion rate would be high.
The Greens won’t win South Brisbane – I reckon the electoral math alone prevents them from even coming close.
Labor ran an uninspiring campaign throughout Brisbane in the City Council elections last year too. Lost votes and wards all over the city, so they might be a bit inaccurate as a guide for an election that will be full on.
Mark, I ran in 2006 and polled 21%. The Libs got 25% and Labor 51%. My sense of the local electorate is that there will be protest votes against both Labor and the Nationals, which will flow to the Greens. Looks like a fair chance to me that the Greens will poll first against the Nationals.
I’d still be surprised, Gary. I agree with Possum’s reasoning.
You have to remember that the same 25% of voters aren’t there in 2009, because of churn on the rolls and because people move in and out of particular columns – if you like – when it comes to voting attention. In other words, it’s misleading to treat these numbers as static, or unitary.
I’ve also been suggesting for a while that there will be some votes formerly parked with Labor going to the LNP because of the “eleven years” and “services bad” factors. Similarly, some LNP votes might go elsewhere because of a distaste for the Nats. But they’re likely to end up in the Labor column, unless The Greens get a bit of that vote as a space for a protest vote.
I think your assumptions are quite optimistic, which I suppose is natural for a candidate!
Incidentally, I doubt that it will make much difference that Mary Carroll actually *was* a Nat unless others make an issue of it. Labor – and I think from what you’re saying – The Greens – are running against “The Nationals” everywhere no matter who the LNP candidate is.
“The other point to consider wrt South Brisbane is that because the Liberal vote isn’t all that high, you could infer that it’s reasonably rusted on.”
Hey Possum, is there an interesting chart for ‘rusted-on-ness’? I’m thinking about the relationship between size of swing and the size of party vote? Eg It strikes me as unlikely (without checking) that you’d ever see a 5% swing away from the Libs in Woodridge.
(There’s a lovely term I read once, “the Bats**t Insanity Limit.”, used to describe the proportion of Illinois voters (27%) so disconnected from reality they voted for Alan Keyes over Obama at the 2004 Senate election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_United_States_Senate_election,_2004#Obama_vs._Ryan) See also Dick Cheney’s approval ratings.)
Using the current voting system of OPV when you only have one house is especially undemocratic. The voting process in the Legislative Assembly needs to be proportional or the minor parties will constantly be underrepresented despite getting 5-10% of the vote statewide. Queensland not having a Upper House gives it a unique opportunity to try a fairer voting system like the Mixed Member Proportional method in NZ, Germany and Britain.
Well I may stand corrected. The Greens will be standing in all 89 seats then?
Darryl, the closest thing for rusted ons for the conservative side at the State level in QLD is probably the 2001 election result. It probably couldn’t get any worse for them than that.
As well as no upper house thank God also that we have a big city council in Brisbane unlike Sydney with it tiny pointless councils dotted all over the suburbs. BCC gets proper media scrutiny. In Sydney you move house and have to check the street sign to see what council you are in. So Sydney councils are full of greens trying to talk about multiculturalism and drugs and other stuff that councils shouldn’t – not to mention their insane green regulations.
Also I think people are starting to get “Green fatigue”. We don’t need to send the government a protest message to do more for the environment. We all have fluro globes now and are more worried about the economy. The reality of the economy wrecking ETS is starting to hit home.
It also makes you wonder if the greens ever really existed in QLD. They are a bunch of lefty wierdos and just can’t jump to the mainstream. They can’t get the Socialists Yuppies (who pretend to care about the environment) to join their small unwashed collectives. They are a ghetto.
joelunch
I guess you are in favour of Mr Beatties’ council amalgamations?
joelunch 33, Thanks for your comments! As soon as I read them it is easy to identify you as anti-democracy and probably someone who believes in a one party state! Your own party! For your information it is called a fascist state! Queensland has had one party state before and a most evil administration it was!!!!! Political diversity is the strength of democracy! Sorry that you have NO upper house! Sorry that so many of your citiizens have no political representation. Queensland is well known for its lack of human, social and political rights! I hope things have changed because I visited it once and that was once long enough!
Mr Kane, excellent to see a village candidate here, perhaps Anna Bligh and Mary Carroll will show up too.
Tonight’s news is that Sth Bris has the highest # of candidates, 9. That should work out for you like it did for the green Adam Bandt in the Fed 2007 contest for the inner city seat of melbourne.
There were 10 candidates, the lib had the higher primary count to start with, but by the fourth pref count the green was in the lead, and went from there, in the end harvesting the libs preferences. Tanner ended up with a swing of over 16% against him, and Bandt’s 22.8, first count (pretty much where you’ll be) went to 45.3% 2pp. I’m sure you’d be ecstatic with that, and devastated to not get the final five.
You should take the figures for melbourne and show them to Mary Carroll and show her what’s gonna happen to her. (Like Sam Watson’s mob is gonna preference the nats over you… i don’t think so. His lot could get you over the line.) While you’re at it, show Mary the figures for the Brisbane Central bye (when there wasn’t a conservative candidate), and how close the green went to toppling the peel street plodder.
South Brisbane – One major problem: OPV
Um, southbrisbane, I don’t know what you mean about Brisbane Central (where I live, and I remember the campaign well!).
Grace Grace won on primaries.
Significant also was the high vote for FF (not exactly core evangelical territory in these parts) and a third of the voters not turning out to vote. Since The Greens’ candidate, Anne Boccabella, ran a strategy designed to appeal to Liberal voters, it doesn’t actually suggest that’s a productive tack for The Greens to take.
And what hutch said.
If anything, the crowded field will reinforce the exhaustion rate.
The probable outcome is that Anna Bligh will get 50% + 1 without needing a single preference.
Brisbane Central by-election results:
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/brisbanecentral2007/results/district7.html
Adam Bandt wouldn’t have even got close under optional preferential voting, which is the reason why the Green candidate is extremely unlikely to win South Brisbane. Labor’s primary vote would have to be under 45% and the Green vote above 35% for Labor to lose. It is very hard to win from second place under optional preferential voting if there is any significant gap on the primary votes.
Also, it’s not really right to say Tanner got a 16% swing against him, as you’re comparing different margins. If I had access to the relevant data, I’d calculate an artificial ALP v Grn margin for 2004 and compare that with 2007 reality (to get an ALP – Grn swing), then calculate a similar artificial ALP v Lib margin for 2007 and compare that to 2004 (ALP – Lib swing). What I imagine you’d get is a swing of about 4% from ALP to Grn, as that’s about how much the primary vote shifted (Lib barely moved).
Antony etc: has this sort of thing been done, by the AEC or whoever? I imagine it’d be a bit tricky getting the preferences of candidates who weren’t excluded.
South Brisbane – 45% ALP vs 35% Greens. We live in hope. The ex PM lost his seat last time around, and he didn’t even go out of his way to stuff up his local electorate with bridges and tunnels and overdevelopment.
last frist, Bird: Re: tanner’s >16% swing against – I’m just quoting the Gospel According To Antony, argue the toss with him.
Nonetheless, and assuming Mr Green is still reading, that Melbourne 2007 actual result, with greens coming second 2pp, does that mean for the next election in that seat, it will be Labor & Greens who are the “two candidates in each division to whom preferences of all other candidates will be distributed indicatively on election night.” ( See scrutineers handbook ). If not, why not? I know you’re ABC, not AEC, but you’ll know who to ask.
nxet: You may all be right with your faith in the “just vote 1″/OPV propaganda to save the day for Anna, but you never know, we might have an outbreak of fully fledged democracy with people re-valuing the tools they have. I’m not holding my breath, but if it’s gonna happen anywhere it’s gonna be this seat. My count of Greens posters vs TheNew&InmprovedBlighFace, is 4:1. This street had 5 “YourRights@Work” signs out for Kev, not one for Bligh. She and they are on the nose, just admit it. Whether that means the swing is on depndes on whether Kane an Caroll can talk like adults about what message they can jointly send. I note, it goes beyond traveston, and the patty cake building codes, the deal maker, the elephant, is the fact that LNP actually has stated policy they want QLD to lead in building a green economy eg their 44c/kwhr solar feedin tariff. Bligh can only match it at her peril.
As for Mark’s (#22) “Gary, how long have you been the candidate for? Last time I looked, it was a fellow called Ben, I think. Might be wrong. But I’m sure someone else was being promoted as The Greens’ flagbearer in South Brisbane quite recently.”. Isn’t their something in the Pundit’s Code of Ethics about making even a cursory effort to being a bit accurate before spouting? Get with the program Mark, it’s called google. I’ll come back to “Um, southbrisbane, I don’t know what you mean about Brisbane Central “: I don’t want to get shown the 3 para rule card.
danny, I’m not a “pundit” and this is a blog thread not an article. The whole point of blog threads is conversation and sharing information. I’m pretty sure that a bloke called Ben or something – youngish – was pointed out to me as Greens candidate for South Brisbane and had a presence on Facebook. It’s a request for clarification!
I’m sure you don’t need gratuitous advice from me, but going back to what I was saying up thread about The Greens, I’d have thought that persuading fellow electors was the way to go not a constant focus on electability. Sure, as Darryl was saying, voters need to think that a vote for a minor party isn’t wasted, but it’s wise to be realistic about one’s chances, and to concentrate on improving the vote you do have by argument and substantive presentation of policies.
I’m positive, and always have been positive, that Antony, William, Possum, etc. are right in calling South Brisbane a “very safe Labor seat”. That’s the reality, and if I were involved in The Greens’ campaign there, I’d have thought that accepting reality was a good basis for working out what an effective campaign would be, and what objectives it might serve. I really don’t know that talking up one’s chances constantly is very useful, and if party members and supporters are on the wrong track about the actual election situation, inevitably the campaign’s direction and strategy won’t be optimal.
If you are voting Green please consider how Green voters voted in last years Brisbane City Council election. They didn’t direct preferences in large numbers as Labor is becoming an environmental vandal according to Bob Brown your illustrous leader. So follow the same pattern for this Queensland Election especially seeing Labor isn’t following the Greens targets for an ETS or Garbon Reduction scheme.
Mark, yes there’s a reason the ALP will run ‘dead’ in an electorate with a sitting Nationals member and a strong independent candidate. The Tories do the same to us. But I don’t really know how OPV changes that equation.
I just want to back up a bit to something that Gary said near the top; “Anthony Greens website maintains that the redistribution has not affected the margins in South Brisbane.” – just to clarify, when I’m talking about churn (and I see that Possum and you correctly interpreted that) it’s not about redistribution but about the large transient population that lives in the inner city. As Possum showed, nearly 30% of the electorate moves out and in between elections, and over the last 8 years, it’s over 50%. The trick is on a number of levels:
- That 30% don’t remember the candidates from last time, you are starting with a blank sheet.
- They also frequently don’t get the history of long running local issues, like who opened what community facility when and why it’s being moved/closed/expanded now and who opposes it for what reasons and what it was like before the facility was there (c.f. Kings X Chamber of Commerce and the Kings X injecting centre, e.g.)
- Their connection with the area is possibly nebluous. They don’t care about the affordable public housing strategy to preserve the area’s distinct mix of tenants, they live there because work is just a short walk over the river and they like the restaurants and perhaps feeling like they are urban and “hip”.
- They can be, as Mark said, genuine demographic change, e.g. well-off suburbanite baby boomer retirees moving into apartments. (incidentally, the same class of people who love to then start complaining about prostitutes and junkies in Darlinghurst of all places :rolleyes:). New Farm and Sth Brisbane areas have much the same troubles, I’m informed.
Mark in reference to pandagate – I am ‘aware’ of a similar incident happening in a previous NSW election but it was Labor handing out fake Liberal how to votes given the labor the second preference… I am reliably informed that many Liberal voters took the nice blue how to vote card and their vote was signficantly lower than usual for that booth. It pays to look at your how to vote and who’s handing it to you!
Southbrisbane: The answer is the AEC will make a decision at the time based on past results. That decision will be placed in envelopes for Deputy Returning Officers to open after 6pm on election night. The media are told who preferences are distributed to at 6pm on election night when the data feed is turned on.
I presume it will be Labor Green, but the AEC do not tell you until the end of polling, and they certainly won’t tell you two years out.
bobbyte, I’ve seen it done at a booth with my own eyes – federal election, 1993!
Scot – the thing that gets me, as I was saying, is that some of the Greens supporters (and others) in West End:
(a) appear to forget that West End and South Brisbane aren’t co-extensive;
(b) have some sort of essentialised notion of the Kurilpa peninsula as a utopian anarchist zone under constant siege from interlopers – cf. Brian Laver and the West End News crowd.
If I were running a Greens campaign in South Brisbane, I’d avoid assuming that everyone knows what you’re on about (or cares) when you bang on about how things used to be. For one thing, it’s no way to reach out to the many new voters. A lot of the people living in the “overdevelopment” might well be potential Greens voters. But if the campaign is addressed to a narrow circle of like thinking folk, and concentrates on grandiose claims about toppling Anna Bligh – who is, er, um, quite popular, then it’s completely misguided.
Note that I’m not saying this is Gary’s approach. But it’s a mindset that’s definitely around among *some* Greens supporters south of the river.
Mark – Good points. There may be some misunderstanding going on here. I had hoped we had marketed ourselves as an inclusive party looking to the future.
What our local campaign is about is protecting the amenity of all South Brisbane constituents from West End to Coorparoo, new and otherwise, from the likely approval of 25,000 extra residents in buildings up to 30 stories. All this with no extra parks or schools or the like. I think this constitues a threat, even to the people in the already “overdevelped” bits.
Our main local policy issues are:
2 ha parkland per 1000 people, to give everyone somewhere to walk the dog or play with their kids;
20% affordable housing in new developments, to ensure everyone can live in the area, old/young/students/pensioners/etc.
world class public transport including light rail, so everybody can get around without being stuck in gridlock.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All