Here’s a little something I wrote for today’s Crikey email but failed to get finished in time for the deadline …
The main lessons from Saturday’s ACT election and NSW by-elections can be heard loud and clear from the news headlines, and could indeed have been ascertained even before the figures came in. After suffering the two worst by-election swings in NSW history in Ryde and Cabramatta, there is no coming back for the fourth-term Labor government. The ACT election further emphasised that Labor’s state and territory governments are marching in lock-step towards the wrong end of the electoral cycle. While Jon Stanhope is likely to continue in government with the support of the Greens, Labor’s vote was down a numbing 9.3 per cent to 37.6 per cent. There were also intimations over the weekend that South Australia’s government is becoming conscious of its mortality, with talk of Treasurer Kevin Foley plotting a move against Premier Mike Rann.
The ACT election provided further support for the other recurring theme of recent state and territory elections: the growing strength of the Greens. The party is certain to hold the balance of power for the first time after its vote went up 6.6 per cent to 15.8 per cent, securing a definite three seats out of 17 and perhaps even a fourth. While the Greens’ more excitable partisans might interpret this as the tide of history leading the party on to fortune, past experience suggests a more mundane explanation. After a few terms in office, Labor governments often find themselves facing disaffection among voters of an idealistic persuasion, resulting in loss of support to minor parties and independents. The hard-edged economic reforms of the 1980s produced a bonanza for independents when Labor lost office in NSW in 1988, and compelled the Hawke government to make its famous pitch for Greens and Democrats preferences as its primary vote sank in 1990.
Now that there’s a monopoly trader in the market for disaffected left-wing votes, the Greens are presenting Labor with a perfect storm at the next round of state elections. They thus stand poised to fulfil long-cherished but never quite realised ambitions for lower house seats. Since the threat to Labor is in their traditional inner-city strongholds, the victims could include some very senior figures. In NSW, the Greens need to gain only 3.2 per cent on Labor to claim the scalp of Education Minister Verity Firth in Balmain, which Dawn Fraser won as an independent the last time Labor lost office. On current form, that would seem to be an absolute certainty. Marrickville could also go if the fall in Labor’s vote approaches double figures, which would put Deputy Premier Carmel Tebbutt out of a job. While things aren’t looking quite so grim for Labor south of the border, it’s clear the Victorian party’s vote in 2010 will not reach the landslide proportions of 2002 and 2006. That means big trouble for another Education Minister in Bronwyn Pike, who needed a feverish last-week campaigning effort in 2006 to retain a 2.0 per cent margin in her seat of Melbourne. Also at risk are Housing and Local Government Minister Richard Wynne in Richmond (margin 3.6 per cent), along with back-benchers Carlo Carli (Brunswick, 4.6 per cent) and Fiona Richardson (Northcote, 8.5 per cent).
Then there’s the risk that the phenomenon might go federal, as suggested by the recent Newspoll showing Greens support at 13 per cent. Such figures would be viewed nervously by Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner, who last November watched a Greens candidate take second place for the first time at a general election in his seat of Melbourne. This continued a trend of ominously mounting Greens support in Melbourne going back three elections: 6.1 per cent in 1998, 15.7 per cent in 2001, 19.0 per cent in 2004, 22.8 per cent in 2007. Tanner’s primary vote of 49.5 per cent kept him out of danger, but this was achieved at the peak of Labor’s electoral cycle. It’s not hard to conceive a scenario where the Rudd government pursues votes in the electorally decisive outer suburbs at the expense of the values held dear in the inner-city, which could place Tanner in serious jeopardy.
184 Comments
It will be interesting to see if any of these ministers try to move seats or retire before the next election. Could cause a whole round of preselection headaches if Tebbutt or Tanner demands a safer seat. Would the ALP hard heads demand they stand and fight, or would they sacrifice a few seats to accomodate their senior members elsewhere?
“ALP founders in a sea of Greens” – By Christian Kerr
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24521423-5013871,00.html
LABOR is struggling in a rising Green tide around the nation, with the minor party now laying claim to being a mainstream player after ousting the ALP from majority government in the ACT.
Greens victories in three of the ACT’s 17 seats in Saturday’s election came amid strong showings in NSW weekend by-elections and will force Labor’s Jon Stanhope into a minority government.
The strong showing follows the Greens reaching a record high of 13 per cent support in the latest federal Newspoll – a result mirrored in state-based polls. As Labor strategists began considering how to counter the attack of the Greens from the political Left, the Greens’ federal leader, Bob Brown, said the results showed Australians were becoming greener and thrusting his party into the mainstream.
—-
Another one of Kerr’s rants. The ACT are about to do what Tasmania did a decade ago, that is the Greens holding the lower house balance of power and being able to decide who forms government. Federal/remaining states and territories all use instant runoff voting in single member electorates. They are unlikely to win a lower house seat at a general election, and even if they did it would only be 1 or 2 or 3, with Tanner’s Melbourne the most obvious first division off the block, given that it was the only electorate in 2007 to have the Greens on the two-party figure.
The only thing that Australia-wide growing Greens support will do is put more Greens in to upper houses, and whether (for arguments sake) an upper house has 49 ALP, 49 Lib and 2 Green, or, 44 ALP, 44 Lib, and 12 Green, it won’t make a difference in terms of outcomes, being that the Greens would hold the balance of power in both theoretical scenarios. It will make future federal Liberal governments very interesting however.
Don’t get me wrong, I put Greens above Labor at the 2007 fed election, only because Labor seems to be closer to the Liberals on social issues than ever before. But Kerr is still seriously overdramatising.
bob1234
I actually disagree with your analysis. I think The Greens are likely to see Lower House seats, if not Federally then more assuredly in NSW at state level. William’s already pointed out Balmain and Marrickville, but Heffron is another chance – especially if you go by the recent local government elections. There’s also been some suggestion that The Greens might run the popular Byron Bay Mayor in Ballina and that might give them a chance there, but that’s a pretty safe Nat seat at the moment. People who like to write off the increasing Green vote as the regular protest protest that ebbs and flows often point to the Democrats, who at their hight achieved a stronger primary vote than The Greens. However The Greens have already trumped the Democrats in one regard by gaining a Lower House seat Federally.
Something that I haven’t seen anyone else mention is the significant Green vote in Lakemba in the recent by-election. Much has been made of anti-Labor swings (16% in Lakemba) but that was split between The Greens (9%) and Liberal (10%). In fact, I’d argue that The Greens got the majority of the ex-Labor vote and the Liberals got the Unity vote, who didn’t run this time, making up the difference. The Greens polling 13% in Lakemba of all places is pretty incredible considering they got 3.7% last year.
At Victorian level I can see Pike is in serious trouble in Melbourne, with the proposed East-West tunnel but not necessarly for I recall in 1999 that seat actually moved towards the Kennett Government and that was after the Burnley and Domain tunnels were built.
There is a potential sleeper issue in inner Melbourne but I’m not sure it will benefit the Greens and that is the proposed extension of clearways, I don’t see a great deal of anger in Inner Melbourne toward Brumby compared to Rural Victoria.
The Interesting thing with inner Melbourne is the large fall in the Liberal vote, in Melbourne its down by 10% or a third from where it was when Kennett was Premier.
I don’t see the Greens winning either Brunswick or Northcote
Richmond, is a tricky seat for Fitzroy and Collingwood are very strong for the Greens but Richmond itself is solid for the ALP.
At Federal level I think Tanner is safe in Melbourne.
In a month we’ll be able to see the mood of the Victorian electorate when they go to the polls locally. Is it compulsory in Victoria?
Yes its compulsory but I’m not sure which councils are up and for a political junkie to say that saids alot about local Government.
Only Problem is Victorian local councils don’t attract many identified Labor or Liberal Candidates. Only the Greens run under the banner of the party in Victoria. While Labor and Liberal run as independents.
I think you would be mad to write off Northcote and Brunswick. Demographic shits are moving them to the Greens at a furious pace. The seat of Melbourne will get harder for the Greens as will Richmond as rental prices move people further away.
You can always tell a seat under threat by the amount of media time a local MP will try and get as much media attention as possible. Fiona Richardson is an MP that is trying very very hard.
Having said that, Adamfromcanberra is right. Labor will do as much as possible to defend these seats. If you live in the areas, expect those tactics where the smearing leaflets appear where you can’t identify the authoriser etc and a hell of a lot of letter from Peter Garrett (not that he has much credibility after his last efforts).
Beamer, ALL councils are up for election
HI All,
Well I did say that the whole state thing was a cycle, so there you go.
William could we have a local govt thing in Vic as a thread, the Mayorality of Melb is interesting and there are a few Greens running around the state.??
Not that its of much relevance but there could be some ideas around inner seats, Rural votes and regional shifts. Just a thought.
Demographic shits eh Damian?
Good idea FTP! The Greens came second to Lord So last time and with him out of the picture things could get interesting.
Also Damian, the fact that The Greens run under a party banner in Vic LGA elections is what’s relevant for this thread because we can tell if Victoria follows the trend and they get a swing towards them.
Optional preferential voting might save the ALP in Balmain and Marrickville, although you’d expect the Libs to preference the Greens in those seats, at least in 2011.
But it’s hard to see what could save Tanner and Plibersek, if the Greens got their primary in those seats ahead of the Libs (say ~25%) and the current members’ primaries fell below 45%… Family First and CDP preferences maybe…
Comparing of the Senate & Reps votes suggests that Tanner has a strong personal vote in Melbourne (as another commentator noted on this blog). He has strong personal connections to an older component of the inner-city left milieu. With Labor not running an endorsed ticket as I understand the Greens would have a chance for Melbourne mayor? In 2004 the Greens ran a distant second to John So. Eventually the Greens will win seats and the Labor vote will probably fade fast in the inner-city. At some stage a tipping point will be reached, if you were young left-wing and lived in the inner city which party offers the best career prospects?
That’s a pretty cynical view, GR.
I wonder what the membership/regular voter ratio is in Australia.
If the Greens decide that negative is not always bad then a leaflet could be sent out about the statement Pike made just after the last state election about not liking (she may even have used the word “disappointed” I don`t remember) the fact that the Greens had targeted a place were progressive politics had been so strong for so long (not her exact words) (she made the statement in an interview on the ABC news).
The subtext of that statement is that she wants a safe seat like the one she initially had where there is less risk of her being thrown out and she does not have to pay so much attention to the electorate.
Imagine the fuss if a Labor MLA or MP had said that they were disappointed at the Libs for trying to win their seat.
If we didn’t have preferences, I can imagine Labor acting a lot like the Democrats in the US towards Nader after 2000.
Let us be glad that we have preferences and significant parts of the left vote aren’t split and therefore wasted.
A decent gauge of growth for the Greens in NSW was the recent election of Greens candidates in rural LGAs such as Wagga Wagga, Yass, Orange etc. If Greens are getting elected out in the sticks, then they’re doing pretty well IMHO.
Interesting fact: Did you know that the share of Greens support at the 10 odd Wagga Wagga booths within the Division of Riverina at the 2007 federal poll was over 10% (ALP is low 30s)? I reckon that’s pretty impressive. This is ute rootin’ roo shootin’ country after all.
All parliamentary member should be disappointed that someone else want their seats, that is just natural.
The not very liberal – Liberals had their problem with One Nation, and they moved back a little to the right to re-claim those constituency. They were far right nuts who thinks the liberals moved too far from the right.
The Labor is having the same problem, they moved too far to the right, and so the Greenies and Leftist who are disillusioned with the ALP now votes for the Greens. And probably quite some people who are sick of an aging ALP government who has not provided the services (NSW/WA/VIC/QLD) but who cannot vote for the Libs are turning to the Greens, A few years in opposition will help them recover these votes.
Optimistic, dovif.
Fagin – Don’t forget Cessnock! Rootin’, shootin’ AND minin’.
The biggest problem for both the Liberal and Labor parties is that once you vote Green for the first time, you make a habit of it thereafter. Trends from the last 3-4 state and federal elections prove this.
Comparisons to the rise/fall of One Nation are one dimensional.
If no one else want something then it is usually bad.
She was publicly complaining about voters in her seat being given another choice that they were anywhere near choosing.
Interesting thing about the Greens is in many cases they are picking up former Liberal and Democrat voters a good example is the seat of Melbourne.
In the 1999 state election in the seat of Melbourne the Liberal party polled about 30% the following election they dropped about 10% it all went to the Greens.
The thing about the Greens picking up support in the sticks and areas like Lakemba is it will broaden the Greens as a party which in turn will make them more electable.
As I have long argued that the Greens while travelling well need to broaden out beyond environmental and social issues into economic and infrastucure for at present the Greens are seen as opposed to most if not all development and this has in the past narrowed their support base.
In the past the Greens have defended this by claiming that thye support sustainable development but when pressed they can never justify what that is.
Maybe in time they can show what that means just as they need to move away from being seen as a high taxing party, maybe and I know Senator Bob Brown has been around for a long time but maybe the Greens need to develop a future leadership team for once Brown departs who will become the public face of the Greens.
This is all part of politically growing up.
I think that you will find that the change in Melbourne and around the state to various extents (less in liberal held seats) in 2002 was mainly two different groups of voters. With one going Labor to Greens and the other going Liberal to Labor both because Labor had moved to the right.
If the Greens abandon high taxing policies then
a, How would they pay for all their much needed policies
and
b, who would those among us who support higher taxes vote for.
Interesting point about Bob Brown, mexicanbeemer. My guess is that when Brown retires Christine Milne will become parliamentary leader. But your right, no one right now has the stature of Brown.
Regarding sustainable development I don’t think The Greens actually have problems in formulating policies in those areas. ‘Sustainable development’ in a practical example means instead of spending tens of billions of new roads and tunnels we invest in more public transport – trains, buses and rail. Instead of building new coal power plants let’s invest in renewables. The development of the harbour foreshore in Sydney is a good recent example. The Greens accept that development is necessary, but it can happen in balanced ways. Maintaining an environmental and social balance. Something like that was proposed by the architects who won the prize to plan the new development but it was scrapped by the State government in an attempt to make more money by creating more floor place. Something that you can be guaranteed from The Greens that you can’t from Labor or Liberal is that they won’t sell themselves to developers.
Anyway, so I don’t think policy formulation is an issue. I think the problem is selling those ideas to the public. Especially when an extremely crude, yet digestible, counter-argument is “The Greens will slow economic growth”.
There’s always the Socialist Alliance, Tom.
But yeah I don’t see The Greens in compromising their fairly leftist economic platform. Interesting to point out that The Greens in NZ have just done so. Their policy calls for a cut in income taxes but they suggest that could be made up by taxing pollution.
Christine Milne is too hard-faced to be the Greens leader. I think they should look towards Rachel Siewert and really promoting her. Or else give Milne a lot of media training.
Fair enough, Itep. I was quite a fan of Nettle but alas, the people of NSW didn’t agree.
I think the Greens have bit unlikely federally re: finding a replacement for Brown when he eventually retired. Richard Di Natale or Kerrie Tucker would have been sterling candidates, but both narrowly lost their Senate bids last year. Peg Putt would be an excellent replacement for Brown in the Senate, but her retirement from Tasmanian politics suggests she’s probably out of the picture. Giz Watson would be amazing in the Senate, but with two sitting WA Senators (including one utter dud), that’s pretty unlikely.
I think that – unless we can get someone spectacular up in 2010 – we’ll probably be looking at Milne, or depending on how well she can do the Natasha Stott Despoja thing, Sarah Hanson-Young from South Australia.
It’ll be interesting to see who the Greens pick as a federal leader after Bob Brown. In a few years time, the most senior Greens in the country could be a real mixture. There’ll be several senators from most states (my pick: Tas 2, WA 2, 1 each in Vic / NSW / ACT / SA), possible MHR’s in Melbourne / Grayndler / Sydney, cabinet ministers in Tas and ACT, state MLC’s, and several MLA’s in Vic (I’ll tip Melbourne and Brunswick), NSW (Balmain, Marrickville, maybe Heffron or Ballina), or possibly WA (Freo). Thing is, how do you pick one particular person out of that lot as a leader, assuming it all goes right for the Greens? One of the main things that makes the Greens different to One Nation is that they aren’t based around one person the way One Nation was around Pauline Hanson. It means the party won’t crash and burn with the loss of that one person, but it makes it hard to find a particular leader. Rachel Siewert? Christine Milne? Giz Watson? Adam Bandt? The party’s so decentralised it’d barely make sense to have a federal leader.
A thought for the NSW’ers, by the way. The Greens came second in four seats in the 2007 election; second to the ALP in Balmain and Marrickville, but also second to the Libs in Vaucluse and North Shore. They could do similar with the Nats in a couple of North Coast seats… may end up bothering the Coalition as much as Labor. That’ll be a good thing for them… a three party system looks a lot more genuine when all parties are competing against each other. It might kill that ‘Greens are just another ALP faction’ rubbish once and for all.
(And also, if the Greens come second or first in half a dozen seats, it’ll be another excuse for Antony Green to moan about the 2PP average being used in the media…
)
Oz: Yeah, I was really impressed with Nettle when I met her in person. She was pretty fiery in her support of us here on civil unions, and she was by the far most impressive representative when we had people from all the parties attending a uni forum on women in politics last year.
Her problem was that her media management was terrible, and she allowed her detractors to paint her as a fire-eyed socialist when she was nothing of the sort. If she’d succeeded in managing the press better, I think she’d have made a damn fine leader.
Is this referring to Scott Ludlam and his dopey comment about American spy bases making Geraldton a target for terrorists?
Yeah, no prizes for guessing Ludlam. His main achievement was proving that the Greens are also not immune from preselecting party hacks over useful people…
Indeed Rebecca. Her support for refugee’s was pretty strong as well.
I’m not particularly impressed with either of the new Senators, Ludlam or Hanson-Young. Maybe they’ll grow on me as they grow into there roles but we’ll see.
Heh, Keneally’s on TV at the moment. I seriously think there’s a decent chance of a 10% swing against her here going to The Greens. Pleaaaaaaaase.
Pretty damning stuff on Four Corners tonight. Wong looked completely aloof on the sale of the Bourke property.
I think Kevin has noted growth of the Greens and will deprive them of oxygen at the next Fed election: the ETS, Solar Schools, the removal of discrimination against same sex couples will have that as one part of the thought behind them.
Hanson-Young is no Stott-Despoja. Ludlam is embarassing. Have to say I was impressed with Larissa Waters during the last campaign and she’s a more inspiring choice.
Nettle was a bit of a joke but seems amazing compared to the preschoolers that are Ludlam and Hanson-Young.
There’s a hell of a room on the left of the almost dead Australian political spectrum with the liberal and labor parties effectively the same on so many levels. How much is that vote worth if the Greens don’t move any further towards the middle??? 20% – 25% max????
Maybe doing something a bit radical could open up and change Australia forever – my suggestion (as floated on RiotACT) with the chance there to form a a government here in the ACT – why not do something totally different?
Pick 3 Labor and 3 Liberal and offer to form a government with the 3 of their own, A green as Chief Minister. Work on a consensus basis – they all get to put forward policies and anything that gets a majority vote goes to the house to get voted on.
Would be messy until it got up and running but could be a way to start breaking down the 2 party system here in Australia forever. From memory there is a National Party Member in the South Australian cabinet so that is a small precedent.
True democracy, well sorta
It’s not going to happen and it’d be really contentious. The Labor/Liberal candidates were not elected to break away from their parties and form Government with the Greens.
I also reject your notion that there is no difference between Labor and Liberal… but I suppose it’s pretty popular to make that claim!
What extraordinary claims about Senators Hanson-Young and Ludlam! I’d be really interested to hear from those throwing out such broad-brush attacks why they have those feelings. They compare very favourably to such leading lights as Senators Minchin, Abetz, McGauran, Carr and many many more in the big old parties.
And, by the way, you don’t need to fear about Bob Brown retiring in the near future! He’s got years in him still, and plenty of time for an orderly transition.
Brown will be almost 70 at the end of his current term… at the end of which, Milne will be almost 60 – hardly a leadership image i think the Greens would want to project… too reminiscent of the Soviet gerontocracy of the early 1980s
MHW’s not so subtle attempt to paint The Greens as some kind of off-shoot of the CPSU had no basis in fact earlier this evening, was hypocritical and is now wearing quite thin.
I don’t really have a doubt that whoever The Greens elect as leader will be able enough to keep the party strong and as a minor party the leadership isn’t as significant as it would be Labor or Liberal.
And while Bob Brown is easily the most recognised and respected Green around, I don’t think his retirement (Weird topic because it’s not really imminent) will lose voters.
Hasn’t Bob Brown already said that this is his last term?
Mounting an argument that Ludlam and Hanson-Young can be compared favourably to Minchin, Abetz, McGauran and Carr is hardly a good argument. It also depends on what grounds you make the claim they are ‘better’.
Hanson-Young and Ludlam are political lightweights and their policy positions are completely indistinguishable from any other student activist. A large part of being a politician is being able to sell your ideas to the public. I don’t see them being able to manage this, or even attempting to manage it.
I never did that “Oz” – i merely pointed out factually that the Greens tend to attract the far left such as Rhiannon as those have nowhere else to go – except for the Teensy Weensy Socialist Labour Working Peoples’ Front of Judea
Itep, I was deliberately demonstrating how easy it is to make sweeping claims about a political figure without actually backing it up. Why do you say they are lightweights?
Scott Ludlam has over many years won the respect of many anti-nuclear and indigenous rights workers across the country through his depth of knowledge. He’s made quite a splash already in several committees, including the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties – one of the most senior parliamentary committees. Sarah Hanson-Young has clearly demonstrated political nous and ability in her actions surrounding the Murray in only a few months.
As far as their respective ability to “sell their message” goes, they’ve actually been hard at work trying to achieve outcomes!
Itep:
Not long ago, Scott Ludlum decided to help perpetuate the myth that “Japan was trying to surrender the whole few months before the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki”
No, they weren’t.
This is sort of an urban legend, perpetuated by people who want to believe in the Eeeevil U.S. It’s built on a grain of fact, which is that by the summer of 1945, some elements in the Japanese government were interested in a negotiated peace.
For example, a peace faction within the Navy seems to have given a tacit go-ahead for Yoshiro Fujimura, the Japanese Naval Attache in Switzerland, to conduct “peace” neogtiations with the OSS. This was really an attempt to find a negotiated surrender, with Allen Dulles of OSS at one end and Admiral Toyoda of the Naval Ministry at the other. However, it didn’t work… not because of American intransigence, but because Toyoda found that he didn’t have any room to maneuver within the Japanese Cabinet.
The sticking point was not the retention of the Emperor but surrender, of any sort at all, without a climactic “final battle”. The Army literally wouldn’t hear of it. Toyoda never even raised it within the Cabinet, or outside of one or two other members of the peace faction — he would literally have been risking his life to use the word “peace” in the presence of the Army.
(Why did the Army want that “final battle”? Well, in theory for two reasons: one, in the hope that it would be so bloody that it would break Allied will and force a more favorable peace — or two, that it would at least “save the national honor”. I say “in theory” because these were the arguments that the Army advanced. In fact, there was a likelier explanation: much of the Army leadership realised that they were likely to swing from Allied ropes for various atrocities. Japan, unlike Germany, didn’t have a separate political leadership that could be tried for war crimes; the military was the political leadership. So they literally had nothing to lose by refusing to surrender.)
So, the Toyoda – Fujimira initiative was strictly informal and unofficial… and it didn’t go anywhere.
Note that this was in July ‘45 — just a couple of weeks before Hiroshima.
(Side note: at one point, Fujimura was startled to find out that the Americans seemed better informed about what was going in Tokyo than he was himself. By 1945 they had broken Japanese codes so thoroughly that they were intermittently reading the minutes of the Supreme War Council more or less in real time. This just reinforces the point that, if they’d been ready to surrender, the Americans would have known about it.)
For a US perspective on this as of early July, see the Bissell Memo, which is available online at http://www.historians.org/archive/hiroshima/070745.html. In print, see Justin Libby’s “The Seach for a Negotiated Peace” and Bruce Lee’s Marching Orders, which describes US analysis of Japanese traffic in the final days.
So it’s certainly true that some elements in the Japanese leadership were unofficially sending out tentative peace feelers starting in late June ‘45. However, that’s a long, long, long way from claiming that “Japan was trying to surrender the whole few months before the Americans dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Sorry, but that’s just nonsense.
Well they’ll need a lot of work! Have you heard Scott Ludlam give a speech before? A monotonous murmur. As I’ve said previously Hanson-Young has all the political nous of a student union activist.
These people may be able to strike a chord with anti-nuclear groups, but will struggle to win the middle ground which is where they can get the most votes. Arguably the most effective minor party leaders have been those who can appeal to the common voters as well as their niche.
The Greens desperately need to diversify their talent pool from the uninspiring group of environmental/anti-nuclear activists. For a party that is keen to try and let everyone know they are not just an environmental party their base doesn’t seem to suggest this.
What I want from a left party is not just a focus on the environment, but equally a party that can strongly bring to the table advocacy on social justice, comprehensive economic policy, law reform etc.
Ludlam and Hanson-Young are poor substitutes for Senators Murray, Bartlett and Stott Despoja.
Mary, do you think the US were right to drop 2 atomic bombs on Japan?
You don’t need to put quotations around my name, “Mary Hannah Wade”.
Can o’ worms Itep.
I would argue that the Greens have been strong in that area at both State and Federal level for a number of years. But I would agree that the Class of ‘07 don’t seem particularly promising. Then again, they’ve been only been around since July.
It’ll be interesting to see the new WA upper house next year… there’s two new Greens MLC’s (Alison Xamon and Lynn MacLaren), as well as two continuing / previous (Giz Watson and Robin Chapple). Xamon in particular looks cut from a different cloth than Scott Ludlam and such… she’ll be one to watch.
No 46
Equally, was it right for the Japanese to slaughter tens of thousands in China and the South Pacific?
No 49
Apologies, South East Asia, not South Pacific.
There go the worms.
Poor worms.
And is it right for the only county that has used Atomic weapons to demand other country not have them. Yes GP there is an endless supply of empty rhetorical questions.
What a joke. People ranting about Ludlam and Hanson-Young have clearly never met them. Give them time to do their work, they’ve only been in the job for a few months. PS. Xamon was a student president, whereas before being an MP’s staff member Scott Ludlam was a long-time community campaigner. Alison’s not a hack either, but it just shows that people don’t know what they are talking about.
I’m disappointed that our east-coast candidates all missed out because they are all impressive, but Scott and Sarah will grow well into the role, and once they get a bit of media attention and some traction on their portfolios they’ll be up there with the rest of them.
I agree that the Greens will have difficulty when Bob retires replacing him, and I don’t share Tim’s optimism that he’ll go on endlessly. All parties have trouble when a long-serving leader retires, but I think people vastly over-estimate Bob’s importance. The Greens have a much larger base of state MPs, local councillors and grassroots members than any other Australian minor party has had, and all our gains have come from small, incremental increases over time. That tells me that it is no flash-in-the-pan. After all, everyone is now talking about the possiblities for the NSW Greens in 2011. NSW has always been the most independent of the national party and Bob in particular and is in a very strong position. I think we’ll do just fine when Bob goes.
His successor will depend a lot on the next election. I don’t expect he’ll quit before the next election, after which I expect to see more Greens. Whether there is a double dissolution or a regular election, Greens are hitting the ceiling federally in the smaller states (except for one extra SA senator) but have huge room to grow on the east coast, in both Houses. Since only federal MPs get a vote for the leader, that will obviously impact on that decision. But I don’t expect it will turn into a contest between two people, and if Bob was to retire in, say, 2012, only Rachel and Christine would have the experience to take over. Scott and Sarah are too young (as would have been Kerry) and anyone elected in the next election will still be getting their bearings.
I’m amazed anyone still trots out the line about “why aren’t the greens doing anything about social justice, blah blah blah”. While Shane Rattenbury has a background with Greenpeace, Meredith Hunter, also elected on Saturday, came from the ACT Youth Coalition and a career with local social justice NGOs. And if you look at the inner city Greens groups in Sydney and Melbourne who are most likely to elect local MPs, they are incredibly strong on non-environmental progressive issues. Indeed, some might wonder why they don’t spend more time talking about the environment. You can’t have it both ways.
Why are we focusing on current senators as the only possible leaders? Richard DiNatale springs to mind, as does Andrew Wilkie. There are several other Victorians available, and with a senate seat waiting to be taken…
Wilkie would be better, but that means getting rid of Milne or making him leader as soon as Bob goes.
Its all talk anyway, as far as I know, Bob is staying another term.
Another decade.
I have met both of them and it actually forms part, in fact most, of my opinion of them. The Greens still are less capable, indeed less willing, in comparison to the Democrats to push for reform in areas unrelated to climate change and the environment.
You only have to look to recent Senate inquiries to see this. For instance, in its inquiry into the Varanus Island gas explosion, looking at the Hansard you will see the only interest the Greens had in the whole issue was in relation to renewable energy. Whilst this is interesting to look at as well, there was no interest in the broader issues around the inquiry.
Interestingly, most of the policy that has been developed and pushed that is unrelated to the environment comes from one senator… Bob Brown. From Bob Brown you at least see proposals in relation to electoral reform and euthanasia, but also other issues such as junk food advertising.
From other senators, such as Milne and Ludlam… radioactive waste and renewable energy seem to be their sole interests. Whenever there are debates on you can usually tell that if it does not involve the environment or climate change no Greens senator will bother to show up to the debate.
I’m definitely of the belief that there needs to be a strong third voice in Australian politics but am increasingly dissatisfied with the alternative the Greens have been offering.
Ben:
I would support Rachel if i was voting – Christine will be too old to be leader in a few years
Rachel Siewert, in my eyes, is the most rounded and also is the most sellable to the media.
I’m of similar opinion to LTEP about the outside-of-climate-change stuff.
I spent Saturday out campaigning for Meredith Hunter, and was pretty impressed when I got to meet the woman in person. She’s precisely the sort of person the Greens need.
But there is definitely a sizable segment of the current-day Greens that is far more interested in environmentalism at the expense of social welfare. I fully expect the ACT Greens here to push things like housing energy efficiency at the expense of any social welfare goals in their negotiations over the next couple of weeks (public transport excluded because it overlaps).
I think this element of Green attitudes was best shown when the Canberra Times interviewed Caroline Le Courteur (the Green who stands to be elected if we get 4) and asked her what her main thing she wanted to push was. And you know what it was? Some forced massive-scale energy efficiency thing that, without (not mentioned) massive-scale government subsidy, would basically kill off the idea of home ownership permanently for the working and middle classes.
It’s not just her, though. Rattenbury, as much as I like the guy, was instrumental in the campaign against the construction of Molonglo. Thanks to that little piece of idiocy, we now have a major construction of new housing in an economically deprived area, which will now not have the associated jobs and services that would have gone with it , because there’s a cluster of trees in a field somewhere. It’s things like that that make me worry that it when it comes down to it, the Greens will screw the poor if it clashes in the slightest with environmentalism.
No 52
fredn, the USA is not the only country to have used nuclear weapons. Every other country that has them has tested them, in some cases with disastrous consequences. The French testing being an obvious example.
No 56
You’ve elucidated the biggest problem with the Greens. But that in itself is not all that surprising. Their entire platform is essentially the environment and discursive discourse on other issues exposes their weaknesses quite clearly.
Perhaps, if the Greens wish evolve into being the new complete left-wing party in Australia, they ought to change their name, along with their policies.
Ultimately, being called the “Greens” is far too narrow a corridor to launch a whole bunch of wide ranging policies from. It makes them sound completely focused on only the environment, not anything else.
Just a thought.
I think ‘the Greens’ are just seeing circumstances shift their way – unlikely to be looking for a name change just as climate change and environmental damage are really beginning to bite (and get traction with the media and public)…
After all, is it more important that the Greens are environmental party or a party of the left? While those left/green associations have always been made, perhaps from both an electablity and effectiveness point of view, the Greens environmental focus is the real winner – better publicity on environmental rather than ‘left issues’, and arguably more effective if they can look for sustainable solutions across any left/right divide, than a strict doctrinaire approach…
In regard to the future of mankind, world governments over the past 15 years have only really had to be right about one really big thing. Everything else was at least an order of magnitude less important. The one really big thing was not over- population, proliferation of nukes, a wonky world fiscal system, or the global transubstantiation of human meaning into consumption and materialism. Nor was it the global mass extinction event, the globalisation of diseases, failing world fisheries or the world shortage of fresh water. Nor was it the 800 million people suffering from hunger or the 5 million children dying of starvation-related illnesses per year. Nor was it cappos gone feral, or the global overinvestment in the means of mass slaughter. Nor will it be the coming depression or the coming severe recession.
All these minor issues are being subsumed by the one big thing. The Liberals comprehensively failed the one big thing test. Howard’s one line in history, as written in about 2200, will be: ‘PM Howard had an opportunity to help initiate and support appropriate global responses to climate change and failed to do so.’ Rudd’s one sentence in history is there for the writing. Is the Rudd response to date the appropriate response to the one big thing? Over 10% of the population are now voting, like, not happy about that one big thing, Kev.
The Greens face all sorts of difficulties and have the most severe shortcomings in terms of being anything like a credible alternative government. Some of the Greens are frighteningly naive and this shows when they unexpectedly succeed in becoming representatives. Their thinking hats are often on soooo crooked. So why is their vote going up? As a certain Civil War cavalry general once said to explain his victories: ‘I get there the firstest with the mostest.’ The Greens have been the firstest and the mostest on the one big thing. I reckon that is why the Green vote is going up.
BTW, on another topic in this thread, what we need is not a left party, or a right party, or a green party. We need a comprehensive triple bottom line party. Arguably, not one of the current parties fits that bill in a comprehensive fashion.
The Greens vote is going up?? It rose by 1% between the past two Federal elections and by less than that over the last two Victorian State ones.
I wouldn’t tip Wilkie as next leader.
It’s hard to go past a Tassie leader because it is by far the safest Green state, but as mentioned, Milne isn’t exactly ‘generational change.’ We’ll at least have to wait and see what the next election throws up. Maybe a Di Natale or a John Kaye or a Larissa Waters doing the Natasha thing, though giving the Greens leadership to a Queenslander is playing with electoral fire.
Boerwar
For those countries that signed the Kyoto protocal, Pollution went up more than Australia …… yeah Howard should have sign something that was worthless, China signed it, look how well they are doing in relation to pollution LOL
Rebecca, I have to take you to task on your statement that energy efficiency is somehow a socially regressive thing!
Do you realise that the Greens’ policy on energy efficiency retrofits, which I assume is the policy you are referring to, has been picked up helter skelter by ACOSS and others as the best way to achieve socially progressive outcomes simultaneous with climate outcomes. It’s also been picked up overseas as one of the leading policy suggestions for doing so.
I am really surprised that you see the equity benefits of public transport but don’t see the same (in fact far far greater) benefits from energy efficiency!
On another matter, I wonder why people feel that Christine Milne, the Greens climate change spokesperson (and my employer), should be setting aside climate change and pushing policies unrelated to her portfolio? However, if you care to look at her record, you’ll find a hell of a lot of work on broader social issues, particularly for people on the land in Tasmania and elsewhere.
Re leadership, Bob Brown is going nowhere before the next election, and Andrew Wilkie isn’t in the running. Beyond that, there’s not a lot more to be said at this stage.
I think this shift is a plus for getting action on CC. In my line of work changing the AusLink investment rules to allow federal funding of public transport would be a good start.
… and by 4.3 per cent at the WA election, 6.6 per cent at the ACT election, about 7 per cent at the NT election, and about 5 per cent in Newspoll.
The rise in the Greens vote kicked in around the beginning of this year. That is when we saw a jump in the polls. I’m sure a lot has to do with the Rudd government, that there was a sizeable part of Labor’s voting base that was interested in the Greens but afraid of helping the Liberals (since most people don’t understand the electoral system). Now that the Liberals are a rabble those people have made the jump. We’ve since seen that carried out in WA, ACT, Mayo and the NSW council elections. I expect to see another jump at the Victorian council elections. The electoral system isn’t as good for the Greens in Victoria as it is in NSW, but it has improved since the last council elections and should see a few gains.
As far as the policy focus of the Greens, of course the environment is our single biggest issue, and I can’t see that changing anytime soon. But ALL of our politicians have a solid track record of campaigning on social welfare, social justice and economic issues. They don’t get as much media attention, as the mainstream political media finds it easier to talk about the Greens on climate change or forests than on something else.
People have always liked to try and divide Greens MPs into red/green camps. People like to have a go at people like Lee Rhiannon and Colleen Hartland and Kerry Nettle for being uninterested in the environment (ignoring the fact that Kerry and Lee both became political through the environment movement – I don’t know Colleen enough) while Bob and Christine pushed through policies outside of the environmental policy sphere when they led the Tasmanian Greens in the balance of power in 1989-92 and 1996-98 respectively.
Anyone who has been in Marrickville or Melbourne during a state or federal election campaign would not seriously try and claim that the Greens only campaign on environmental issues.
Indeed, Christine’s greatest pride about her time as Tas Greens leader is achieving gun law reform, gay law reform and an apology to the Stolen Generations.
70 Apologies, William – it was actually the beginning of a longer post, but I didn’t get to finish it (work got in the way).
The Greens vote (in my experience) appears to be largely a protest vote. In ‘elections that don’t matter much’ – that is, where people are seriously annoyed with their present government but aren’t able to contemplate the other mob – the Green vote goes up. It’s a way of telling the incumbents to get their act together but it’s not meant to boot them out.
In ‘vital elections’ the Green vote doesn’t grow. People are determined to kick out the current mob and so don’t ‘waste’ their vote with the Greens. This would be my reading of why the Green vote didn’t shift between the last two Federal elections.
The nature of this vote (I’m not talking about ‘rusted on’ Greens here – which, by the way, gives us another Green colour to add to our spectrum!) means that these voters are not terribly interested in the Greens themselves – that is, what their policies are, who their candidates are, etc etc – because they’re not intending them to win the seat, let alone form Government.
When, if, the Greens actually look like they might perhaps be coming close to being ‘real’ these things will become much more important.
There’s a new Greens policy right there. Education on the voting system (say ~1hr/wk) in year 12 / TAFE / whichever kind of schooling you’re at when you’re 17. About as important as sex ed, only in a different direction. It ain’t so difficult it should be misunderstood, it’s important enough that it shouldn’t be, and that ‘throw my vote away’ line is way too common. Get on it, Ben.
As for the Greens as protest vote thing, I’d suggest looking at SA. Nick Xenophon would’ve hoovered up all the protest vote against major parties, and they still elected a Greens senator last time round.
GP (60): Actually, there is one nation that has nuclear weapons but hasn’t tested them (Israel). Also, it is unclear whether or not South Africa tested their bomb (there is some evidence that they did, but it is inconclusive) – though they of course have since disarmed.
You can say the ‘vote’ didn’t shift, that’s academic and pretty irrelevant. The outcome of that ‘not shifting’ was actually a net gain of one senator. By that logic you would also say that Xenophon’s vote didn’t shift between the last two elections since he achieved a net gain of one se
Why do you think that? It’s already been stated in this thread The Greens have come close to winning lower house seats in a number of areas. Most recently in Mayo.
I’d also suggest that there’s some difference between testing a bomb and deliberately targeting a city.
Dawson 74.
Of course the intellectuals who voted for Pauline Hanson and then Howard were up to speed with the policy details of the Libs. I wish that some of the people on this site would read their posts before they make fools of themselves. Some facts, the Green vote is the most aware vote, the most educated and the most active. Part of what you say is true, the vote does not go up as much in static elections (Where the ALP was in State office with the Fibs in Federally) The whole dynamic has now changed. I’ll say it again, the voters don’t like fed and state governments to be the same. They don’t trust pollies with to much control. So the perfect conditions for the Greens are now. Throw in the fact that most sane people accept that climate change is real and you have a very nasty storm for the olds. Finally how was the ACT result, both the majors lost ground.
One last thing, total up the number of election in the last 15 years where the Green vote has gone up and compare that to the number where it has gone down and see if you can find a trend. Ummmmm
Oh dear, I do need to make sure I spell things out!
William pointed out a series of recent elections (NT, WA, ACT) which went against my previous post. I know that WA went to the Libs and that the Libs have since gained in support (the usual trend when a party unexpectedly gains government) and I’m not into ‘protest votes gone wrong’ but I also doubt that many people, going in to vote in WA, seriously expected that Labor would lose…but anyway, that was what I was talking about – why these elections saw a rise in the Green vote.
In Mayo, there wasn’t an ALP person to vote for. In a normal election, there would have been. By elections are notoriously unreliable predictors of general election outcomes, partly because there usually IS a big protest vote involved.
I am willing to eat humble pie (in fact, I’m willing to eat almost anything…) but there is a real pattern of over hypeing potential Green votes before elections. This over hypeing also happens in the published polls leading up to elections. This suggests that either — a reasonable percentage of people who say they’re going to vote Green don’t; or the polling is somehow skewed to favour the Greens.
As for the last Federal election….that is my example of a ‘don’t waste your vote’ election, thus the Green vote didn’t grow substantially.
You missed the part where they gained a senator…?
Hi William! You must consider a ‘Family First Growths’. I look forward to that with anticipation?
Gaining a Senator – as FF can tell you – is not so much an indicator of voter support as much as the vagaries of the preference allocations.
The contention we were discussing, however, was not whether the Greens had gained seats or whether they had gained votes. A gain of 1% over the last four years, regardless of whether or not seats were won or lost, does not fit into the narrative that the Greens are becoming any sort of threat to the major parties. Of course, given 30 or so Federal elections at that rate of growth (approximately 100 years), they may become a concern.
‘but’ not ‘or’….drat.
Check out the BS the Tasmanian Premier is spewing:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24527737-11949,00.html
He calls a report by ANU showing that old-growth forests are excellent carbon sinks “bullshit” and retorts with this bit of wisdom “If you burn a tree, obviously the carbon is realised. If you turn it into a coffee table, that carbon is sequestered for life or for a very bloody long time.”
I hope someone pulls him up for that rubbish. Clearly he missed a few important high school science lessons. Calling a coffee-table a “carbon sink” is hilarious. Yeah, it’s true burning trees releases CO2 and not burning them doesn’t but no one is calling for old-growth forests to be “burned”.
The argument is that they should remain because as plants they undergo photosynthesis throughout their life that uses up CO2 and replaces it with oxygen. Coffee tables do not undergo photosynthesis.
Another way to look at it is a tripling of the primary vote every 11 years… See? Statistics is fun!
And there’s a major difference, too between turning old growth forests into coffee tables and turning them into 100,000s of copies of the Weekend OO.
Hell, Oz, you mean to say that the Greens will receive 100% of all votes by 2040? Not so sure that sounds all that appealing . . . and I like them.
And by 2051 they’ll make Hoxha-era Albanian polls look like cliffhangers!
What’s even more worrying is that they’ll get 300% some time after that!
Oz…it’s actually a quadrupling (1.74 x 3 equalling only 5.22).
More seriously, though, the Greens biggest vote jump in that time was nearly 3% (so, if this was replicated at every election, it would require at least 10 elections, or 30 years, to crack a 40% primary). They will need to grow their vote faster than this if they are to be true contenders.
I doubt that they can do this. I would expect that, the more they look like contenders, the more they will come under scrutiny. There will also be inward pressure to become more like the majors (that is, prepared to make compromises to gain votes), as more people’s jobs depend on their electoral success. As with the majors, this will put them at risk of alienating their traditional support base in order to widen their appeal.
Dawson, my goal was to point out that extrapolating political growth by looking at specific 3 year periods in one particular context is not a very good idea.
That assumption is based on the idea that the same kind of people join the major parties as join The Greens. I don’t see electoral success and keeping ones principles as mutually exclusive.
Oz…this is simply pointing out a fact of human nature and the realities of political parties.
Each MP elected employs staff, who (if they are half way decent) they care about. These staff want to stay employed. As parties grow, so do their offices. These are also staffed by people who want to stay employed.
No matter how principled a person is, losing their job as a consequence of their MP losing an election is not pleasant to contemplate.
Similarly, electoral success equals dollars. Each primary vote brings in money. In the Greens’ case, this is a major part of their funding full stop. I have already seen instances of Greens supporters quite shamelessly plugging this as a reason for people to vote for them. Unless the Greens seek other forms of funding (that is, contributions from business, unions etc), which in itself implies consequences, as they grow this money will become even more important.
Electoral success depends on wider appeal, and particularly appeal to the less well educated, less active, less aware voters (being willing to take on board the contention above that Greens supporters outperform others in these regards).
Remember: only the impotent are pure.
Dawson:
I agree – the Greens construct a philosophy of failure, which finds in defeat a form of justification and a proof of the purity of their principles
Both your arguments are essentially criticising The Greens because they have not ‘broadened their appeal’ which is a euphemism for selling out a la Labor and Liberal. I understand it may be hard to comprehend that there are people in politics who are not addicted to power and seek the job of an MP for other reasons. And by no means are The Greens the only ones.
The Greens are not trying to be Labor or Liberal and they are not Labor or Liberal. It is unlikely that they will ever become either Government or Opposition and it does not appear to be a goal. Your “electoral success means more people who’s jobs rely on electoral success” is essentially a circular argument. You acknowledge that they will receive electoral success without having a huge party machine and funds from corporations and unions. There is no reason that would all have to change.
Dawson,
I am reminded of a time when Senators Chamarette and Margetts (both Greens from WA) held the balance of power in the Senate. Gareth Evans (then the Senate leader for the ALP) approached them about passing the Budget unamended.
He made the mistake of threatening a double dissolution if they did not pass it saying words to the effect of “Only one of you will get back in a DD”. At that point Margetts and Chamarette smiled, said okay and got up and left the meeting. History shows the budget was passed with appropriate Greens amendments and curiuously, no DD.
It is actually not just about power for powers sake. You can all roll your eyes but the Greens are trying to do politics differently. If I (and other members of the Greens) just wanted to seek power for powers sake we would just join the ALP. We are trying to change the world (cue rolling eyes again:-))
Rainbows and unicorns, yay.
Luke has raised an interesting point. Most left-wing people in their formative years, let’s call them students, have to decide whether they want to go down the more ‘idealistic’ path of the real left parties or if they can deal with some slight blunting of their ideals and join Labor. The majority join Labor where their own voices become so dulled they may not have joined. But they do, for the power. And inevitably they no longer become ‘left-wing’.
The disconnect between the radicals in the student and union movements and the ex-lefties in the Labor Party and the actual policies of Labor is pretty depressing. An interesting example is the new Waverly councillor, Rose Jackson. As a high-ranking member of the student union movement she spoke out against VSU but to effectively navigate pre-selection she had to renounce that view. Like I said, depressing.
Has anyone seen Scott Bennett’s paper on the Greens for the Parliamentary Library. Given a choice between Labor, Coalition and ’someone else’ as the party best equipped to handle health & education only 3% nominated ’someone else’.
How dare the greens have a clear ideology.
Those principled bastards.
I doubt any Australians know the policies of The Greens, FF etc. on health and education.
I think most commentators are making too much of the success of the Greens. Labor and Liberal both went backwards by significant amounts. Message reads ‘you both suck’. Who else is there to vote for?
Well Brian, in the ACT there were half a dozen minor parties running as well a fair chunk of independents. Only one of them got seats.
It is completely unfair and illogical to make an assumption that a vote for the Greens is cast with no consideration of whether they want the Greens to win. For the entire ACT campaign it was clear that the Greens were in with a strong chance of winning in every electorate and that they were likely to hold the balance of power after the election. People voting Green were fully aware that their vote would likely elect a Greens candidate. If they just wanted to cast a “you both suck” vote they could have voted for Community Alliance or the Motorist Party or Pangallo or Richard Mulcahy or Mark Parton. None of them came close to winning.
That suggests that the Greens vote was a positive vote in large part for the Greens.
It is also equally absurd to dismiss the Greens as only going up a little bit at each election. Election results don’t follow a linear path. If the Greens gain 1% at an election it doesn’t mean we will keep gaining 1% for everymore. The WA and NT results showed that when the circumstances changed we were there to benefit. Our steady federal position over the last two elections, beyond re-electing Senators, put us in a strong position to benefit from left-wing disappointment in the Rudd government. That’s what you are seeing. I don’t think it’s that voters only vote Greens in elections that “matter” (what the hell does that even mean?!). Voters are more likely to vote Green when they are up against a sitting Labor government. When Labor is in opposition they can talk further to the left without having to back up their words. A Liberal government scares progressive voters into voting Labor. So the Greens don’t do as well against a Liberal government. It’s got nothing to do with whether an election matters.
Dovif @ 67
In 2200 people will be grappling with the consequences of climate change. They will not give a rat’s for who did or did not sign Kyoto. John Howard did nothing but drag the chain on climate change, so his sentence in 2200 history standard national curriculum history book will quite rightly be ‘PM Howard had an opportunity to initiate and support an appropriate global response to climate change but did nothing.’ A 2200 revisionist historian with a bit more energy might actually get around to digging a bit deeper and discover that, by dragging the chain and acting as a spoiler, Howard did worse than nothing. You quite rightly point out that other contemporary world leaders will have earned similar one line sentences in the 2200 history books.This does not exculpate Howard.
For others on the string who are working on analysing the green vote, I agree that the Greens are going to attract some of whatever protest vote is going around. But I suggest that the polls showing the very large number of people who are concerned about climate change are indicators that the Green vote is more than just a protest vote. My point is that it is reasonable to suppose that there is a solid organic connection between what people are concerned about and the trends in green voting.
OZ:
Compulsary Student Unionism should have been abolished with the rest of the “closed shop” twenty years ago
MHW, it’s not the policy that bothers me so much but the fact that one could campaign for election on a particular platform, agitate on that platform and create a support base on that platform and then change their view as soon as party HQ says so.
The Green vote has peaked as a protest vote now in by-elections, when the fate of the Government does not hang in the balance. When the next Federal and State elections come around voters will see the Greens as the single issue Party they are.
They will still win some Senate seats, but not improve their overall number, and may even decline. Kevin Rudd will dominate the election and win by a big margin.
The other likely winners are the Family First and the DLP. It will be interesting to see if FF survive Fieldings support for abortion. This support is likely to alienate his main support base. This leaves a resurgent DLP as the main threat to other minor parties. The DLP are reorganising, with a young and vibrant member base, in contrast to the ageing membership of former year. This group will appeal especially to the pro-life voters in Victoria, where there is an angry backlash against the Brumby Government, for passing a Bill allowing virtual abortion on demand in Victoria. This was a foolish move by Brumby, because it reeergised pro-life voters to support the DLP at a time when the DLP was at a make or break time. The flood of new young voters into the membership of the DLP does not auger well for the BrumbyALP. The main point of interest is, can the DLP get organised to run enough candidates. They should be able to do that in the 2 years before the next Federal and State elections in Victoria. They have already reformed branches in NSW and Queensland. Their younger membership will also be able to provide a better web site and internet access and use.
So their vote will increase at the next election, and they will be around for the forseeable future,giving Labour voters the option of having another Labor Party to vote for, with traditional Labor values ad ideals.
Ben Raue: Congratulations! Exactly what I’ve been thinking this past year or seven. Why do so many people suggest that the Green voter is a negative voter? Some of us vote Green because we love them. Olé, olé, olé.
The Green vote grows because the Left of the Labor Party believes in nothing. They now have token females and males who are wimps.Gillard once an icon now toes the right wing line, Wong, Ellis, Pillbersek and Macklin are embarrassing- watching Wong on Four Corners was amazing, just to see her stumped for answers and unable to state a view it was just incredible.. and Ellis well hate to say it she comes across as a Bimbo… Of the men well perhaps only Tanner and Albanese seem credible. In the Victorian Parliament the Left has no males who stand up to the dominate right wing faction and thus they just sit back and follow or supply factrional stackees as votes for right wing members to get elected…
The problem with the ALP is that they continuingly use the line that the Libs don’t care about the issues that matter or have policies in these areas so why should we. Or we will only have limited policies in such areas. Public transport policy is one example.
The Labor Party now sees its enemy as the Greens and not the Libs, hence at meetings i have attended members of parliament continuingly carry on about the Greens and rarely the Libs.. The problem is is that many of Labors members have become elitist and many of them work in the public service or were once employed by the public service and thus they see life as easy….
I’m with Boerwar (#103) who says that the Green vote is not just a protest vote. The ACT electorate is relatively highly educated. A whole lot of people here can see the real catastrophe of climate change coming down on us rapidly – the evidence shows far more rapidly than the most pessimistic IPCC scenarios of only 18 months ago. Neither mainstream party is taking this seriously enough.
Goodness me Goanna, are you actually witnessing the current events?
“The Green vote has peaked as a protest vote now in by-elections, when the fate of the Government does not hang in the balance. When the next Federal and State elections come around voters will see the Greens as the single issue Party they are.”
What evidence is there that it has peaked? The Greens vote is actually rising. What evidence do you point to to make that claim? Mayo? Lakemba? No one seriously believes the Greens vote has peaked. Look at the NSW council elections, ACT elections, Mayo, even modest gains in the NSW byelections (including a 10% swing in Lakemba).
“They will still win some Senate seats, but not improve their overall number, and may even decline. Kevin Rudd will dominate the election and win by a big margin.”
Not so. Labor will probably win but the margin will be lower. If there is any crossover at all in NSW from the mess of the state government, Labor federally will be hurt. NSW is the key state for Labor. In the Senate things are different. Remember at the news Senate election there are only Two Greens seats to defend. . Rachel Siewert will be safe in WA, Christine Milne as well in Tassie. That leaves SA, VIC, NSW, QLD and ACT for possible gains. If the Greens in Victoria gain another 1% (up to 11%) it would be hard for any party to gain the last seat in Victoria, including Fielding. I think he’s odds on to lose and I doubt Labor would be able to preference him again. NSW is a harder case, but if anything like that Council election vote is repeated (which I doubt), another seat looms. In QLD, I would rate the hances at 50-50. In the ACT, another Kerrie Tucker run might just do it, but it depends on the Liberals vote dropping another 3-4% (probably unlikely). SA is also a chance but I would still rate it unlikely at this stage. NT chances – nil.
“The other likely winners are the Family First and the DLP. It will be interesting to see if FF survive Fieldings support for abortion. This support is likely to alienate his main support base. This leaves a resurgent DLP as the main threat to other minor parties.”
Feilding supports abortion??? Resurgent DLP? Where? Did I miss something? One member of parliament brought about by a Fildingesque preference drip does not a resurgence make.
“The DLP are reorganising, with a young and vibrant member base, in contrast to the ageing membership of former year. This group will appeal especially to the pro-life voters in Victoria, where there is an angry backlash against the Brumby Government, for passing a Bill allowing virtual abortion on demand in Victoria. This was a foolish move by Brumby, because it reeergised [sic] pro-life voters to support the DLP at a time when the DLP was at a make or break time. The flood of new young voters into the membership of the DLP does not auger well for the BrumbyALP. The main point of interest is, can the DLP get organised to run enough candidates. They should be able to do that in the 2 years before the next Federal and State elections in Victoria. They have already reformed branches in NSW and Queensland. Their younger membership will also be able to provide a better web site and internet access and use.
Hmmm, Delusions of Grandeur. Once it loses their only member of parliament in Australia, the DLP will be hard pressed to remain registered as a political party. For years they kept running the same two candidates at every by-election. Remember the McGauran’s supported the DLP’s legal bids to stop audits of their membership( for a reason). I severely doubt that the DLP could mount a comeback. There is simply no evidence to support this. Moreover, most of their vote tends to come from ideological Labor supporters who mistake the name from the real Labor Party.
“So their vote will increase at the next election, and they will be around for the forseeable future,giving Labour voters the option of having another Labor Party to vote for, with traditional Labor values ad ideals.”
Absolutely no evidence to support this. But each to their own.
Damian -
always happy to can the DLP but where do you get the following:
‘Not so. Labor will probably win but the margin will be lower.’
There is absolutely not one skerrick of evidence to support this, and quite considerable evidence to support the view that Labor will make substantial gains at the next election.
So far the only ‘tests’ of the Federal vote we’ve had have been by elections in seats the ALP never could have expected to win.
There is no evidence at all that the State vote will influence the Federal one in any significant way. Dismal Liberal performances at the State level did not prevent Howard winning a couple of Fed elections on the trot, in some of which he increased his margin.
Local council elections likewise are not a guide to either State or Federal elections. Candidates in local elections get up on their community profiles rather than on their political allegiances (I myself have benefitted from this, with Libs and Nats voting for me as a councillor but saying they would never vote for me at State or Federal level).
I would predict Labor gains in the Senate at the next election, and particularly so if there is a sense that the Greens, minority parties and independents are hampering the Government from delivering initiatives favoured by the electorate at large (back to ‘not wasting’ votes).
Someone earlier used the example of the WA Greens making stands on principle. They weren’t reelected because of this – they were seen by enough people to have blocked or distorted too much the Govt was trying to achieve (and which had broad support). As a result, they lost their voice. It might have been better to compromise around the edges and still be relevant than be too principled and lose their influence.
Unlikely. The general perception is that the minors, specifically The Greens, are working together with Labor (More co-operatively than Labor expected) to achieve even better outcomes than what was in Labor policy. ie. Indexing the new Medicare threshold to wage growth. A Greens-Xenophon initiative.
The ‘obsctructionists’ are the Liberals. And the same people who swung to Labor last election will most likely vote Labor again in the Senate which will increase their presence at the expense of the Liberals, not The Greens. But depending on how Labor handles ETS and Workchoices (Not looking particularly promising) they risk losing more votes to The Greens.
What do you mean? They doubled their presence in WA Parliament.
When taking each election in isolation you would be correct. However, the fact that The Greens achieved significant gains in every election since the last Federal election (And there’s been a lot) and the fact their primary vote has hit record levels in the polls creates a trend that you would expect to transfer to the Federal level.
Oz – I agree Labor will increase its vote in the Senate; Damian suggested it would go backwards.
At present, I also agree the Greens are playing a largely positive role. It was an ‘if’ scenario.
Regardless, I don’t think the Green will get extra Senators at the expense of Labor (Damian’s suggestion) – but ‘ifs’ are always in play.
Reference was to WA Greens in Senate.
Ah k, my bad.
All the signs are pointing to more Greens senators in the eastern states but I think it’s pretty early. A lot can happen in two years.
Not disputing that at present – ‘at the expense of Labor’ would be my salient point there. If things continue as at present, there will be a couple of Lib/Nat seats up for grabs.
Will continue to argue, however, that Greens House of Reps members are unlikely.
Well it depends on how you define “at the expense of”.
The net loss will be the LNP and the gain will be of Labor and The Greens. But it would be like LNP -> Labor -> Green.
Damien:
QLD is the Greens’ worst performing state and in NSW the (politically) late Kerry Nettle only got 8.43% of the primary vote – a quota is 14.28% – that’s quite some shortfall!
118 Mary Hannah Wade. There is nothing sadder in Australian politics than a bitter Democrat! On current elected state and Federal Members of Parliament-Greens 24 (maybe with the luck of the Gods, 25!), Australian Democrats-1. Obviously, many people are enjoying voting for the Greens!
Re DLP resurgence.
I was not about to claim the DLP would gain a raft of seats accross the country.
But wanted to make the point, they have gone from a party with a handful of aging members, and few working branches, to a party with an influx of young members accross at least 3 states, Vic. Qld, and NSW.
They may not gain any senate seats next time, but they will now be a force to be reckoned with for many years to come.
They have come from near extinction, to be a vibrant fighting force, in just over 2 years
Peter Kavanagh has impressed many with his fight for life in the Victorian Upper House. This will transfer to votes at the next election. He has given pro-life voters a focus, and someone to vote for.
Goanna
if pro lifers are looking for someone to vote for, they have a raft of choices from amongst members of the major parties.
It was a conscience vote, after all; it’s not as if Kavanagh was a lone voice there.
yes Bernie Finn also put in a big contribution, speaking to the House for 5 1/4 hours, a magnificant effort, and also many others.
Bur Labor and LNP voters are unable to always have a choice to vote pro-life, because many candidates in both their parties are pro-abortion.
The DLP is the only party which has a pro-life policy, and prolife people know it and will direct their votes accordinly.
The DLP has been around for a long while, and has seen off the Australia Party, The Democrats, and other minor parties.
I predict that they will also see off Family First over the next few years. FF will not win any more seats in any Australian State.
I am not predicting a similar demise for The Greens, they will be around for another few years before they decline, but decline they will. I will be very surprised if the Greens are anywhere near as strong as now in 10 years time. They will have a few isolated seats in some states, maybe 3/4, againsy 21 now.
The DLP will be the strongest minor party in 10 years, and well before that to.
What has always substained the DLP and always will, are its deeply held convictions.
The Dems tried to all things to all people.
I will admit the Greens are slightly more motivated by principle, but not much
Heaven forfend that our politics should in some time in the future be reduced to whether the foetus has a soul and whether a woman should control over her own body.
The abortion wars in Australia were won and lost lost years ago. The decision was basically that if people didn’t want an abortion then they should not have to have one. Or something like that.
I don’t like the fact that religious organisations get money from the government for running schools and such thereby, inter alia, giving employment to their benighted dupes a lot of whom would not be able to get employment elsewhere and providing large numbers of sexual fodder for the predators among them. But I realise I lost that war and don’t feel bitter about it at all.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
The Greens now have 25 MPs (well technically 23 MPs and 3 MLCs-elect, with one of our 23 MPs serving out the rest of his term after failing to be re-elected). Much more than the Democrats and the DLP ever elected, even at their peaks (not including DLP members elected as ALP members).
MHW, I would argue that SA is the Greens’ weakest state, it’s just that Queensland has less opportunity to win seats. But the Greens came incredibly close to winning in Queensland (along with Victoria and ACT). And Kerry polled much higher in 2007 than in 2001, and would’ve been elected if the vote breakdown was the same as 2004. The Labor vote increased and the Liberal vote collapsed. Nothing to do with her. Of course, it will be better for us to win those seats on full quotas, but we still have a good shot in all the eastern states next time.
The DLP did not “see off” the Democrats. They managed to elect one member representing a microparty on a fluke preference flow. Maybe the Democrats will end up as a name on a piece of paper in the same way the DLP became (almost certainly, I’d say) but the DLP is no more a successful party than the Democrats. Family First is the closest the right wing has come to creating a centre-right alternative balancing out the Greens, as they have three MPs and came close in WA, but still it isn’t close. Maybe someday FF will consume the CDP and the DLP, until that happens there won’t be a significant minor party on the right like the Greens on the left.
The next federal election will see a landslide to the Rudd Government, if it continues on its current course. This will make it difficult for all minor parties in that election.
I guess the Greens will be some sort of a force whilever the environment is in danger.
Yes the DLP did fluke a seat at the last vic upper house election, as have some other parties, such as FF. But they did also miss out on a seat where they got twice the vote that Kavanagh got, because of preferences.
But they were lucky enough to get the best man possible into that seat. Kavanagh has been very impressive, and has inspired many new members of the DLP.
So the DLP can now look to the future, not the past. The injection of a younger membership will give the DLP the vitality they have been missing in recent years.
In Victoria, the DLP has sided with the ALP on over 80% of the time. The ALP heirarchy see the DLP now as more favourable to them than the Greens.
The ALP in Vic has the best of both world at the moment. They have the greens to support them on extreme left wing Bills, like euthenasia, and abortion,. And the DLP to support them on all other mainstream measures. Why would the ALP want to change this situation.
The DLP will continue to grow in strength over the next few years.
The FF will not consume the CDP, who will continue much as they are.
FF will not win another seat in Australian Parliaments.
The Democrats are of course now history
Oh, rubbish. The worst environment for a minor party is a close election. In those cases people rally to the side of one major party or another. A landslide with a Liberal Party in collapse will be the ideal environment for the Greens to perform.
Family First remains much stronger than the DLP. Fielding was a fluke, but they have managed to elect two MPs in South Australia and come close in Western Australia. It is impossible to argue that the DLP is on the up-and-up and say that FF are a flash in the pan. It’s ridiculous.
I’m not sure a landside best suits a minor party like the Greens. I think an old tire Government that has moved someway away from its core values is most likey to suit the minor parties but alot depends on the other major party.
Have the Greens peaked? I suspect they will continue to poll between 10-20% depending on the political environment. I think its possible the Greens may drop some support at the next federal election.
I say this for many people have moved to the Greens as a protest against the Howard Governments boarder protestion policies, non signing of Kyoto and several other environment and social justice issues.
The Federal Government has addressed several of these issues and the next election will be based on Economic management and this remains a Green weakness unless the Rudd Government allows Unemployment to get out of control which may feed into Green support but only if the Greens come up with policies to solve peoples problems rather than providing handouts to aid agencies to run silly Job Network providers and other feel good programs.
In many ways the Greens are at the cross roads just as the Liberal Party. The Greens have seen their support grow across ALP and Liberal Party seats over the past fifthteen years but can they maintain it or build on it.
They have conquered the Democrats vote and a large section of the ALP left and the Liberal’s Left and while this was made possible by Howard’s treatment of the Liberal wing of the Liberal Party, can the Greens keep this section.
And that is the question that will be answered over the life time of the Rudd Government for one thing I have noticed at State level is the ALP won large sections of the Liberal wing to begin with but within two terms it was safely back in the Liberal Party fold as seen by the big swings on the North Short ad Melbourne’s Eastern suburbs at the most recent State polls.
FF promote family values, and state they are strongly opposed to abortion.
Fielding recently said he was in in favour of abortion under some circumstances, and he supported a womans right to choose.
Thereby shooting himself and the Party in the foot. They also had some candidates who embarrased them at the last election for various dubious activities.
Many people with good family values will therefore turn away from the FF.
FF have tried to counter this by rebadging themselves in WA.
Not a good sign for a new party to have to rebadge itself.
DLP have got a new and growing young membership which has yet to transfer into votes. But it will happen in the coming years.
Bye the way, I believe I was the only one to predict that Peter Kavanagh would win the Upperhouse seat in Vic. Even Anthony Green said it was not possible, and he had to eat his words. Many more pundits will be doing likewise if they ignore the DLP
You’re right that the Howard government helped provide the inspiration for the Greens, but why did this help the Greens, rather than go to the ALP? I would argue that the Greens benefited from the ALP’s pisspoor response to the Howard government, rather than Howard directly. In line with this, though, my direct experience is that a lot of people who agree with the Greens agenda did not vote Green because of a desperate desire to see Howard lose, and thus to support Rudd. If Rudd steamrollers Turnbull in 2010 a lot of those people will be freed up. That’s where my point is coming from.
Greens benefit from both a weak conservative party and a tired old Labor government. We have both in NSW at the moment, but they can work separately.
I agree with most of what mexicanbeemer has written in his post
#127
I think the reason FF came close in WA was because of the candidates (e.g. ex-Liberals Dan Sullivan and Anthony Fels).
Still, I think you’re right, FF aren’t a flash in the pan, although I don’t think any merger’s on the cards anytime soon.
On the subject of the Greens and landslides, in the 2002 Victorian state election the Greens went from being a microparty to being the party with the third largest vote (larger than the National Party`s vote) but without getting any seats (although they did get close in Melbourne).
To be fair, though, there was no PR in Victoria at that point. And the Greens came close to winning seats, which is still progress. Coming close in 2002 and 2006 Victorian elections and 2003 and 2007 NSW elections are an essential step in achieving lower house wins in 2010/11.
The Greens have been threatening to win single member seats for a while now! one suspects they need to start winning single member seats soon or that could weaken their position.
Those suggesting that the next election will be a landslide for Rudd are obviously predicting that based on poll results, correct? So why limit yourself to looking at Labor’s vote. The same polls have The Greens are record highs. There’s no evidence that in the current climate (Woo, pun) Greens voters are running back to Labor. In fact, it’s in the contrary. LNP voters are increasing Labor’s vote and probably for the same reason, left-wing Labor voters are shifting to The Greens.
I think a lot of people would disagree with me but I don’t see The Greens being squeezed out in the future, but the Liberals. The Labor party continues to take more ground away from them in terms of policy and votes. The Liberals are going to sandwiched between an increasingly ‘centrist’ (I would argue right-wing) Labor Party, and parties like FF, CDP and maybe the DLP. This leaves a gap on the left which will be filled by The Greens.
Oz! I suspect since several state ALP governments have won their second election in landslides that they think the same will apply to the federal sphere.
Looking at the political landscape Rudd may increase his marjory but I can’t see him gaining more than 10 seats which would be confortable.
With how things are looking I’m starting to dealt the ALP will increase its margin.
NSW looks tough with seats like Robertson looking gone, Bennenlong will be interesting and the outer suburban seats will be close.
QLD is there anything in Qld that Rudd didn’t win last time that he could gain, both Dickson and Herbert will be Interesting but if the local didn’t win them last time I can’t see why he would win them next time.
Victoria could deliver the ALP three to four seats but could also swing the otherway with two to three going towards the Liberals.
WA is the only other state the ALP could make gains.
Hey, I’m not actually suggesting that the next election will be a landslide for Labor. I’m pointing out that the polls that show that as a potential situation also show a significant increase in The Green vote, so it’s not Green voters that are feeding the Labor victory.
I agree with the view that that a strongly polling Labor government is the best environment for The Greens to enter an election. Usual Labor voters who may be considering voting Green could do so without fearing the return of a Liberal government.
Oz! I’m aware your not predicting a landslide! I just took the opportunity to do some nasal gazing about the next election!!
Here’s some info on electoral successes of minor parties (ie. number of times they had MP’s elected to parliament and best votes). Includes by-elections:
Democrats: 65 times (ie. Federal – 42, SA – 13, NSW – 5, WA – 2, Tas – 2, ACT – 1
DLP: 15 times (ie. Federal – 9, Qld -4?, NSW – 1, Vic – 1)
One Nation: 21 times (ie. Federal – 1, Qld – 16, WA – 3, NSW – 1)
CDP (Fred Nile): 8 times (all NSW)
Greens: 70 times (assumed 3 elected for ACT in ‘08, and includes WA MP’s-elect)
(ie. Federal – 11, Tas – 26, WA – 15, ACT – 8, NSW – 6, Vic – 3, SA – 1)
Of course Greens have advantage over older parties such as DLP, since most upper houses now have PR, and state Senate reps have increased from 10 to 12.
Only 5 minor parties have managed to gain more than 4% of vote nationally in Fed elections (House or Senate) since 1945:
DLP (1955-1972), Democrats (1977-2001), Nuclear Disarmament Party (1984), One Nation (1998-2001), The Greens (2001-2007).
Best Results:
Democrats: 1990 (Senate) – 12.6%
DLP: 1970 (Senate) – 11.1% (Senate only election)
One Nation: 1998 (Senate) – 9%
Greens: 2007 (Senate) – 9%
Nuclear Disarm.: 1984 (Senate) – 7.2%
4 other parties managed to get between 2%-4%:
Communist Party: 1955 (Senate) – 3.6%
Protestant People’s Party: 1946 (Senate) – 3%
Australia Party: 1970 (Senate) – 2.9%
Family First Party: 2004 (House) – 2% (fell just short of 2% in 2007)
It should be noted that most of the CPA’s vote in 1955 was donkey vote, which they got in NSW, Vic and WA.
Protestant People’s Party?
Reading back up this thread: I don’t agree with Goanna that the DLP is on the verge of a major revival. Kavanagh’s election was a fluke, just like Fielding’s. He polled 2.6%, which is much the same as the DLP has polled in Victoria for the last 20 years. As Family First’s poor preformance in 2007 showed, getting someone elected doesn’t lead automatically to further gains. What is the social base for a revived DLP? The great bulk of Victorian Catholics have either gone back to Labor or crossed over to the Libs – they don’t need a Catholic fringe party any more. The only mobilising issue for the DLP is abortion, an issue that is no longer a top priority for most Catholic voters. Protestant anti-abortion voters prefer FF or the CDP, which are overtly Protestant parties.
The Greens on the other hand have a large and expanding social base in the young educated secular urban elite, who find the centrist pragamtism of the current crop of Labor governments unappealing. They also have any number of mobilising issues – climate change, water, uranium, GM food etc. I think the Greens will go on polling around 10% of the vote in most elections for the indefinite future. They will find it hard to progress beyond that, because they have much less appeal to the core vote of either the ALP and the Liberals.
FF are not a “protestant” party. At best they are from the pentecostalist zone and more specifically AoG. Most “protestants” would regard them as “cults”.
Surely they are a family party who represent the values of all families and thus their powerbase lies in families.
Pentecostalists are Protestants, the last time I looked.
I’ll assume Oz is joking rather than subject him to 500 words of psephological refutation.
Well played.
Re: 142
The vote of the Protestant People’s Party, was even more impressive in 1946, than statistics would indicate. The PPP was a NSW party, and gained 7.7% of Senate vote in NSW (which translated to 3% nationally). Unfortunately for them, block voting was still in place in 1946, and consequently they were denied a Senate seat. When PR-STV came into place for the 1949 elections, their vote fell from 7.7% to around 1%, so their electoral appeal was very short lived.
Despite the PPP’s, obviously quite large appeal in the mid-’40’s in NSW, I can find next to no information on this party, which is rather bizarre considering. I set up a Wikipedia entry for the PPP, earlier in the year, but nothing has really been added.
If anyone has any further info on this party (origins, leadership, platform etc), I would appreciate if they could post it.
Once again, the PPP’s vote in 1946 was mostly donkey. Like most of these groups in the 1940s, such as OPAL and the Middle Class Party, they fizzled away once the Liberal Party was established.
Donkey’s shouldn’t be allowed to vote (…sorry!)
The Middle Class Party! a little before there time you would have thought!
The non-Labor size has struggled to find one solid voice! it has formed, split, folded and reformed so many times.
Considering how volitile Unions can be its somewhat of an acheivement for the ALP to have remained for the most part one party for so long.
Yes its had its splits (1950) but generally speaking the so called Conservate side has been the one who has found staying the course harder.
Look a bit harder. They often do not regard themselves as Protestants, are not members of the WCC etc. A lot of mainstream Protestants would see their teachings as heretical or more politely as being a cult.
They will often speak of themselves as Restorationists or Charismatics.
This may surprise a lot of people but the Greens also receive a very significant Christian vote as well. In particular the more progressive parts of the church such as the Uniting Church are very vocal in their support of the Greens.
Also, if you check the preference flows in the Assembly from the WA State Election you will see that preference flows from FF to the Greens ahead of the majors are actually surprisingly high.
Adam has a point about the Greens finding it hard to get beyond 10% of the national vote
Rebecca: I agree about the idiocy in Canberra re: the new housing – it’s a good thing both of the Dunphy’s are dead – they were even worse “sacred wilderness” people than the current lot
Well, protecting the wilderness is often a good thing. I agreed with the Greens on the Gungahlin Drive Extension, for one thing; driving a new arterial road through a nature reserve when there are other available routes is, uh, not the most ideal course of action.
It’s just that there’s too many in the Greens who fail to realise that there are competing considerations, especially where social welfare is involved. Molonglo looks to me like a social disaster waiting to happen as a consequence of the (evidently successful) campaign against the construction of Molonglo Central, and the reasons for standing against it were pretty damned weak.
Mary, I don’t think 10% is something the Greens care about. The National’s never make 10% and they have lower house and upper house seats and a chance to affect outcomes.
The Greens will in time take the inner city in Melbourne and Sydney (It’s only a matter of time). That will add to the exposure of Greens policy which will lift the vote.
I have no doubt that the Greens will go above the 10% at the next Federal election. Greens do worst when Labor is in opposition as people who don’t understand the preferential voting system vote Labor. I know many Green voters who did that at the federal election.
I’m actually more interested in the lower house seats. If the Greens pick up an inner city seat at the state election in Vic keep an eye on the federal seat. I also think The Greens will finally crack the lower house seats in the NSW state elections.
It’s amazing that the Democrats never really were a serious threat except in Mayo (apart from the Senate).
When Labor is in power, Green voters return to the fold.
If the Greens get Lord Mayor in Melbourne, is this likely to do anything positive or negative for their vote at the state/fed levels?
Also, there is a possibility of a higher vote then otherwise would be expected at the next Vic state and federal elections, as they are on at almost the same time. Alternatively it could lower the Green vote as they have fewer volenteers/members to run and hand out.
Dave – The only way having a Lord Mayor would impact on other elections would be if they got up a profile for doing good or bad things. If the community responded positively to initiatives it would probably increase their vote in that area at State elections. I dunno how about Federal. More of a disconnect there.
I agree that the Greens are currently limited to a particular demographic, but I would argue that demographic is closer to 20% than 10%, and a lot of those voters still vote Labor, thus there is still room for the Greens to grow. We will hit a ceiling, at which point we may need to re-assess how we fit in the political system, but I think that will be as we poll closer to 20%. That’s the level where the LibDems in the UK and the NDP in Canada really hit their limits.
Ben:
The Greens probably should have merged with the Democrats years ago – Adam said that in the broad centre there is lots of possible votes – in the left to far left there is not
The problem there is that the Greens are not a ‘centre’ party. They are quite definitely a party of the left.
Ben @ 160 – quantifiable, or gut feeling??
Exactly. The Democrats were very much a minor party of transition. They were the first really successful minor party in Australia, but their base was contradictory and tried to bring together the left and the centre. That was essentially the cause of their downfall, and the Greens would’ve gone down with them if they’d merged.
Dawson,
There is some quantifiable evidence. Ben Spies-Butcher, who was our candidate for Heffron in 2007, did some analysis of Labor voters in the Australian Electoral Study, which found that there is a common demographic which is about 20% of Australia (concentrated in inner-city gentrified areas, but it’s not as simple as that), they predominate amongst Greens voters but include a lot of Labor left voters.
At some point I’ll try and pull it all together and put a post up about it all.
Yes, but defining a demographic and having it vote for you are two different things. It’s fine, for example, to say that the Libs ‘have’ the pensioner vote but the reality is that they don’t have it all and never will have.
So – for example – if you define your demographic as ‘under 30, professional, lives in inner city, female’, you’re going to have at least 40% of people who tick all these boxes NOT voting for you.
I’ll be interested to see your common demographic, when you pull it all together.
BTW, please take the ALP left wing….but you won’t last long if you do.
I dunno Dawson. The ALP left-wing seems to start off ok but they get bastardised by the party machine. I would think that their passion and activism would get rewarded in The Greens as opposed to being muffled in the ALP.
Also, if we’re taking 10% as some kind of Green benchmark, that figure is most definitely not restricted to the inner-city. A recent example being Lakemba.
I don’t just mean “demographic” as in economic and social things. I also mean the type of people with similar political views. They also consider people who have said they have considered voting Green but didn’t decide to do so. My point is the potential voting audience for the Greens is closer to 20%.
I did an analysis for Senator Nettle a few years back that looked at who “Green voters” were and where they lived in NSW. The purpose was to target these areas with the limited campaign resources available to her.
After an analysis of the 2004 Australian Electoral Study and using the Census it was clear to me that the key indicator was people with tertiary qualifications and people of no religion. The correlation was most favourable for the Greens when these two indicators were both present in an electorate. After the 2006 census and the 2007 federal election it is clear to me that the correlation still exists.
With all other things being equal, based on what limited research I have undertaken, I do believe the ceiling could be 20% on average across the country, if not higher.
And I do take your point Dawson 166 that knowing who your demographic is (and knowing where they live) and getting them to vote fro you are two different things. Voter inertia is a hard thing to break.
“The Democrats were very much a minor party of transition. They were the first really successful minor party in Australia, but their base was contradictory and tried to bring together the left and the centre. That was essentially the cause of their downfall, and the Greens would’ve gone down with them if they’d merged.”
There is nothing contradictory about a party trying to bridge the left and the centre – if the Greens seriously want to grow much more, that’s what they will have to try and do (which should be easier with the Democrats out of the way). Both major parties bridge a much wider space – the so-called ‘broad church’. You can’t have broad appeal with a narrow or rigid base.
If the Greens had merged with the Democrats, this might have provided a fast(er) track to bringing that about – although far from certain of course, and the pschology of it may have been too hard for enough people to stomach in both parties for it to work. Which I guess when you strip it all back is why it didn’t happen (i’m talking early 90s before the Greens seriously set about solidifying themselves as a distinct entity, not later periods when things were too entrenched).
For all the Green’s gains, they are still short of where the Democrats were ten years ago in terms of federal representation, which for people interested in the strongest representation for pro-environment parties, rather than just cheersquadding their team, is not an ideal result. The Democrats and Greens combined were in double figures in the Senate not too long ago, and with the disappearance of the Democrats, it is down to 5 – historically high for the Green Party, but where the Democrats were in 1980 (in a smaller Senate), so not exactly huge progress for political representation for the environment for 30 years worth of effort. No doubt it will grow from here, and I am not blaming the Greens for this or discounting the Greens strong growth at state and local government level (where the Democrats as a whole did very poorly over the years, apart from SA). I am just saying there’s been a lot of effort over 20 years for not much overall growth if you are talking about levels of public support and parliamentary representation for pro-environment parties. Whether it would have been stronger now if there the Greens had merged with the Democrats rather than gone their own way circa 1991 is both uncertain and academic, although I suspect it would.
Developing polling level and parliamentary representation not much different from what the Democrats had, with a more reliable, but ideologically narrower, support base, is not the same as if that level of support had never existed for a pro-environment party.
If you want to make genuine strong commitment to the environment a core mainstream political priority (which I think would be a good idea) you can’t do it with a vehicle which determinedly positions itself away from the centre.
And FWIW, in my view the cause of the Democrats downfall had nothing to do with trying to straddle the left and the centre. It was predominantly due to them blowing a hole right through the key reason that people from across the spectrum voted for them – honesty – (and failing to acknowledge that they’d done it, which made it rather hard to try to repair the damage).
Umm, I am just curious why the Nationals are not being counted as a ‘minor party’ in this discussion… or have I missed something? If they do count as a minor party, wouldn’t they be the stand-out for the most successful and most effective minor party in Australian political history?
AB @ 170
Interesting analysis. One of the issues facing the Greens as they get some power is how to apply it without ‘getting their hands dirty’. Would it be better not to apply it at all? How to make compromises that do not compromise the long term potential of the greens? Tough issues to address for them – as they were for the Nationals in the Howard Government in the past decade and in Western Australia now. Is this what you meant by the ‘loss of honesty’ happening to the Dems?
As I pointed out about the WA Greens, their refusal to compromise their principles (admittedly an admirable stance) lost them their seats and their power.
It’s the old question: Is it better to be in power, at the cost of making compromises and be able to achieve real outcomes, then not to be in power, have loverly unsullied principles but not be able to achieve anything ‘real’?
If ’saving the world’ (something I’m all for, by the way) is paramount to all else, then surely its importance outweighs the conscientious qualms of a few MPs?
Or is preserving the integrity of the Greens more important than saving the environment?
(Mind you, I have good reasons to doubt the extent of this integrity; Greens members are human beings, after all).
Dawson@173
Not sure how you can say the Greens being principled lead them to lose 2 Senators. Being in front of the Kernot Democrat bulldozer in 1996 was not a good place to be, but at the end of the day it was National preferences that finished the Greens (WA) off in that election. In 1998 Margetts would have beaten Gregg by approx. 5000 votes – until the Christian Democrats vote was counted. There pref ticket (which had the ALP #3 ahead of the Lib #3) altered the pref flow such that the ALP stayed ahead of the Greens, who went out electing Gregg, the ALP went out electing Knowles (the Lib #3), leaving One Nation stranded. The two people the CDP did NOT want elected (Knowles & Gregg) were thus elected by their preference decisions…. But the point is, the Green vote was still creeping up, 0.5% at a time. Notwithstanding Federal elections, the Greens had elected 3 MLC’s in WA in 1997 (the Democrats had elected 2 that election) to build on Scott’s election in 1993.
I would also agree with Andrew’s comments re a merger between the Greens and Democrats in the early 1990’s. I thought it possible under Powell, but not Coulter. As well, in 1992 Vallentine stepped down to be replaced by Chamarette, who was into big ‘networks’ but not big parties (she orchestrated the “NO” vote within the Greens (WA) which kept them out of the Australian Greens…), so the chances began to diminish rapidly after she went into the Senate.
And as I keep harping on about, there is a place for a ‘centre’ party in Australian politics, but the Democrats weren’t it when trying to straddle both left and centre. It would have required an even more pragmatic approach – and I don’t think either their membership or some of the MP’s (Andrew being one of them!) would have stomached that. On that, though, there is a discernible shift internally within the Greens toward the centre, pushed along by Bob Brown, which may yet create the kind of party Andrew is alluding to – of being one with a determinedly environmental core. What this means for the left of the Greens is another question…
Interesting question. There is a tension in the party between those who strongly believe in all progressive values like social justice, equality etc etc and those who argue that compromising ‘left’ policies would lead to greater representation and thus allowing the party who introduce its ‘core policies’ – presumably the environment.
Since the party is relatively undisciplined and there is no party machine, the tension will be played out between individual members at state and national conferences and it will be interesting to see how it gets resolved, if it gets resolved.
Boerwar @ 170
There’s nothing wrong or inherently damaging with ‘getting your hands dirty’. What can be damaging is if you won’t admit to others that that’s what your doing (or even worse don’t admit it to yourself). In my view, compromise in politics is fine, as long as it is ‘compromise’ in the sense of getting something less than ideal, but still moving in the right direction (as opposed to ‘compromise’ meaning betraying your fundamental ideals because you think it will win you votes or is a clever strategy).
My reference to the ‘loss of honesty’ regarding the Dems was to do with about the GST debacle.
StewartJ @ 174
I appreciate that perception is reality in politics, but your view about my view (and about the views of the majority of the Democrats’ former members too) is wrong. “Pragmatism” is another of those words in politics which means different things to different people (a bit like “compromise”), but not only am I supportive of a pragmatic approach, I don’t see much point even getting involved in electoral and parliamentary politics if you aren’t prepared to be pragmatic.
But as I said above, you should be clear and honest about what you are doing and why, not try to spin your way through difficult decisions or situations. I appreciate we have a political and media culture which has contempt for intellectual honesty, or acknowledging differences of views within a party or admitting your position is not 100% perfect in every way on every occasion, but if people don’t make an effort to change that, then it won’t.
Possibility this was a bigger issue for the Democrats than anybody else, given that honesty – a la keping the bastards honest and all that – was the central thing most in the general public identified with the Democrats, so it caused greater damage when this core value was so brazenly betrayed. But idealism and being seen as different to the big major parties is one thing that draws many people to smaller parties, so its not helpful for any of them to let that get debased, at least in the eyes of their supporters.
Being pragmatic, making compromises, etc is not automatically contrary to being idealistic (at least in how I define ‘idealism’. It is harder to do both and more of a hassle, but if you’re trying to build up something that is substantively different to the major parties, rather than just a smaller less influential version of them, I think its necessary.
All minor parties appeal to a range of people. All parties have core supporters who are small numbers compared with actual votes received. Eg ALP membership nationally might be 60,000 but votes might be 6m. Greens membership nationally might be 10,000 but votes are 1m. Many voters choose the party they are nearest to without endorsing all their policies. Plenty of Green voters don’t have tertiary education or no religeon. Plenty of Green voters would of support some Green policies – they just don’t like other parties policies more.
The potential vote for Greens currently is around 20% which can be gauged from scrutiny of votes at elections. Greens get say 10% first votes but get a similar number of voters who consciously give Greens a second or near second preference. About 70% of these voters are from ALP or other left of centre and other 1/3 are from Lib, FF or other right of centre.
These figures of course are not fixed – every day issues arise which challenge people’s views. Parties don’t own their voters. Votes in Melbourne last election – if Senate votes had been replicated in Reps for Melbourne, Greens would have been elected comfortably. Labor will need to carefully consider whether they can avoid to risk losing Tanner.
http://www.elections.act.gov.au/
Greens took a second seat in Molonglo, giving them 4 at close of counting.
ALP 7 Lib 6 Grn 4.
Congratulations to the Greens.
I’m not a Greens voter but that is great news.
No way did the Liberal Party deserve to maintain their number of seats at 7 in the Assembly given their performance over the last four years.
This year has been solid enough, but they deserved a hit after the turmoil in the Party – where most of the members cannot stand each other.
Also, because of the 9% swing against Labor, it has almost been forgotten that the Liberal vote fell by over 3% as well – a really poor result because they picked up absolutely none of the lost Labor vote. Appalling.
William.
You might like to start a Melbourne City Council thread now that the draw of the ballot has been finalised. Monday is the closing date for the registered Group preferences and final negotions take place for poll position in Melbourne’s Closing event for the Spring Carnival.
The Greens are expected to come on fourth and possible give the election to Catherine Ng. It is early days but the Melbourne City Council will play a role in the Greens fortunes and may be a precurser to the state election results in 2010.
http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com
The Greens were unfairly denied a senate seat in Queensland because of the distortion built in to the system and the way/order in which votes from excluded candidates are distributed.
If you count the 2007 Queensland senate vote as though there were only seven candidates standing (3 ALP, 3 Liberal and 1 Green) the Greens win the six seat by a margin of 50,000 votes.
The Australian Electoral Commission has adopted a policy of “Ignorance is bliss” relying on an assessment paper dating back to 1986 when changes to the Senate counting system where first proposed. Back then votes were counted manually and the system currently in place was designed as a trade off to facilitate a manual count. With the advent of computer based technology a the fallacious argument relied on by the Australian Election Commotion no longer applies.
Australia was the first country to adopt a preferential voting system for National elections. Now is the time to once again be a leader in electoral reform by adopting a reiterative computer based counting system to correct the error and distortion in the current method of counting the results of the election.
The AEC is of the view that the public trust the current system to elect their State representatives. That can only be said because most people are not aware of the distortion in the way the vote is counted. If you inform them of the facts that the election results did not reflect the voters intentions then Australians would begin to support change. Change that counts.
Candidates are excluded in order of their vote, starting with the lowest total. In what other way could they be excluded?
Ultimately the Greens will go the same way as the Democrats and The DLP and disappear forever on the Australian political landscape. Afterall not everyone can have jobs in Eco-Tourism their policies are just so way out and would see this country need up like an African basketcase.