There have been so many people queuing up to decry the Greens’ choice of Clive Hamilton for Higgins, that one immediately starts to look for a counter-argument.
The argument itself, first: Higgins is the one of the foremost ’social liberal’ (or doctors’ wives) seat in the country. It was one of the few seats which swang towards Labor in 2004 on the strength of Mark Latham hugging Bob Brown (which was of course a disaster everywhere else). Most of its voters are
tertiary-educated people who see climate change scepticism as a rural pathology pure and simple. A dapper, eastern suburbs, moderate, candidate arguing that climate change, humanitarian refugee policy and reconciliation are vital issues for liberal-minded people…well, the sky’s the limit. Such a candidate could head towards a 30% primary.
Hamilton is a passionate man whose Green politics have led him on a journey to an explicitly metaphysical conception of radical cultural change. To many in Higgins, he’ll look like the weirdo egghead in year 12 at Carey, the one the english teacher liked to talk to.
And the vote will suffer.
Maybe. But it may also function as a useful test of exactly how seriously people take climate change. If Hamilton runs a good campaign what he’ll do is this – say to the voters, look you’ll hear all sorts of weird shit about me. Forget all that. Use me to send a message to both parties – your children’s future depends on us really addressing climate change. The world depends on it.
What if the weirdo egghead crypto-communist can break the 20% mark? In Higgins? Or the 25% mark? What then?
One thing the pundits forget is that Higgins is writers festival country. Writers festivals are their morris dancing, their corroborrees. And Hamilton is a star of the writers festivals. It’s possible, just possible that the pundits – for whom reading is the occasional Andy McNab – haven’t realised the degree to which there’s a Green base within these seats.
Which will make the Higgins contest a litmus test of the relationship between politics and culture in this country.
Go you great big Green-Brown bears.
21 Comments
Does anyone (except W.Tuckey) really think Hamilton is a “weirdo egg-head cryto-commo”? He’s a noisy propagandist reminiscent of an old-time crusading Protestant parson…
Guy said:
Not alot – because Labor isn’t running a candidate, some random nobody could run for the Greens and be expected to crack 35%, simply because the ballot paper would have “Some Random Nobody” next to the Green label.
If Clive only manages to get 20% it would go down as one of the biggest political failures in Australian electoral history. Jesus Guy – you’re killing him with low expectations!
If the Liberals lost Higgins it would go down as one of the biggest political failures in Australian electoral history.
Unfortunately for The Greens, unless we win, or close to it, what we do will just be a small footnote in electoral history.
And Guy, thanks for starting a thread that has a much nicer title
It wouldn’t really Michael because by-elections produce these sorts of big third party results when one of the majors causes deliberate mischief by not standing. It gives an electorate a chance to flick the bird to the party that usually holds the seat without it having any real consequences – Cunningham is a good example.
I’m not saying that if the Greens only get 20% of the vote that this would not be an extremely disappointing result for the Greens.
A stuff up by the Greens is not anything like the significance of John Howard loosing his seat, or Costello’s successor loosing what should have been an easy win. And a stuff up in Higgins this by-election is only of real significance if somehow it effects the Greens vote at the next election.
The exciting thing about having Clive as our candidate is that we have the potential to do much better than usual. If this remained a clean election, I’m sure we would do well. If one side starts spending big on mud throwing then things become less certain.
So by all means say 20% mans that we stuffed it, but keep it real and don’t say it would be “one of the biggest political failures in Australian electoral history.”
Fair enough Possum, you may be right on the 20% etc levels. The danger for the Greens in nominating Hamilton is – as per the conventional wisdom – he’ll get a penalty for some of his more outre opinions, that will make him a disappointing runner. The win would be that an uncmpromising campaigner on climate change can get, okay, a third or thereabouts from the Libs.
The value of having Hamilton run is that he’s an articulate and media savvy campaigner who can given the key issues a very important airing (specially given the focus Costello’s old seat will have). Its the same value as having a Greens candidate even when there are not big political stakes in other seats, excetp more given the focus on this one. That is – the debate gets widened just a chink to include a whole lot of discussion on issues that may not always crack the same kind (or quality) of coverage usually. Hamilton can turn the focus on the pathetic-ness of the coalition’s climate stance and get their shoo-in candidate sweating somewhat on that, while at the same time drawing votes from people in the libs camp who hate labor but at the same time probably hate Nick Minchin and the other denialist pointy heads in the coalition camp. Best thing Hamilton could do would be to invite Wilson Tuckey over for a climate change debate at the local church hall, maybe Crikey could sponsor it- and we could find out just where Ms junior liberal star sits on the denialist spectrum. He mightn’t get close to getting elected but he can show both libs and labs up for what they are on climate change-ie part of the problem, obstacles to real change and fundamentally a threat to us all, not part of the solution.
So when can we expect Clive to move into his electorate?
Clive has said that he will move to live in the electorate if he wins.
Obviously he will be spending lots of time before the election.
Hamilton has no intention of moving.
And hedging his bets in this regard makes him a textbook political failure….and nothing more than a Party stooge.
The fact he represents a party so bereft of policy and rationality says more about Clive than he would probably like.
But in elevating Clive, Certified Political Genius Bob Brown severely underestimated the people of Higgins who joyously revel in their high consumer lifestyle.
They are hardly going to be lectured to nor represented by a political greenhorn (LOL) and visceral misanthrope who is prone to making irrational predictions and statements about subjects on which he is significantly under-qualified to pass comment.
But maybe that was the point.
Either way this comedy just writes itself.
Most Perculiar Mama, you have proven that you really are most peculiar.
Your statement that Clive has no intention of moving has no basis in fact.
You are entitled to your opinion that Greens policy is bad, but unsubstantiated smears on Clive’s integrity just wastes everybody’s time.
How well Clive does or doesn’t do in Higgins is the sideshow.
The real damage he’s doing is turning off potential Greens voters elsewhere in the country – ones who care about quaint notions like freedom of expression.
caf,
See
http://greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/greens-remain-concerned-over-internet-filter
Your freedom of expression is safe.
It isn’t just the Internet filter. Clive’s comments on a range of related issues are suggestive of an underlying moral authoritarianism that I am not at all comfortable with.
Remember that Clive is standing as a Green, not as an independent.
So Clive is now representing Green’s policy (just as Peter Garrett represents Labor) and not what he said before.
The difference between Clive and Peter Garrett is that Clive can passionately talk about the most important issues (climate change, asylum seekers, etc) from the heart as well as the head. Clive has not had to sell his soul.
If the act of endorsing changes the endorsed, it is equally true that it changes the endorser. Which is to say that while Labor acquired at least a temporary daubing of rock-star cool, the Greens are set to acquire a tinting of imperious curmudgeon.
“…Your statement that Clive has no intention of moving has no basis in fact…”
Really.
I don’t think so.
Most Peculiar Mama,
If anyone said that if elected, Kelly had no intention of ever going to Canberra to attend parliament, what would you think?
It is not impossible that she would choose to do this.
But even though I am opposed to many of her policies, I can’t imagine how warped my mind would have to be to make such a ridiculous accusation.
I guess that you live with what I can’t imagine, which as I said before, really does make you most peculiar.
3 bases of popular support for the Greens: the electorally focused left libertarians (Luntz, Raue etc.) + the overpopulation/sustainability focus (Doug Cocks, Charles Birch, CSIRO’s Future Directions etc.) + post-materialist social critics (the children of Jim Cairns perhaps who would have once been Christian social gospelers of the Ernest Burgmann type). Hamilton appeals most to the last. A major Green electoral breakthrough can’t be based on the left libertarians alone. People should read Tony Harris’ book on the ALP left and Greens in Sydney in the 1980s.
O’Dwyer at least lives in the electorate.
Does Clive even know where Higgins is?
Too bad Tim has pulled out.
The split luvvie’s vote would have heaped further humiliation on the electoral loss by Australia’s favourite ‘climate’ zealot.
Having met Clive in Higgins, and our discussion including talk about the feel of the public towards the Greens in the different areas of Higgins (I was the candidate last time), I can assure you that Clive does know where Higgins is.
Most peculiar to ask such a silly question.