Tasmanian Greens – take power by staying out of government
‘You can trust us – we will never be in government’- that was the rather unusual boast of the KKE in Greece in the recent and ongoing general strike. It’s been a cardinal point of the party (it’s the Commies) that any attenpt to form a coalition under capitalism would lead to a role of managing capitalism – and thus advancing the very people they sought to defeat, quite aside from attendant splits etc.
It’s not a boast one would suggest for the Tasmanian Greens, but as they decide what the frik to do, it’s worth thinking about. Faced with the enormous pressure to support a party in government or even enter coalition, they should refuse.
Instead they should invite a general budget proposal from each major party, guarantee their support for that vote (and the initial confidence vote) only, and only if they conform to that proposal in its essence – and then announce that they will take every other issue on its merits.
This is the place and the moment for the Greens….
….to stand up for their historic role and take the long view. A decade ago, to wipe them out, that old Maoist Jim Bacon reduced the size of parliament, thus raising the quota, and chainsawed out the cross-benches in the old parliament. The Greens went down to a single seat and everyone wrote them off. Now they’re back with the same number of seats they had in the larger parliament.
That triumph should determine a clear strategy – to assume they have a real chance of electing a Green premier within two or three elections, and being the lead party of government.
For that to even be possible, they need to utterly resist being stampeded by the suggestion that the only role of a party is to be in government as soon as possible. They need to utterly avoid being drawn into the process of managing a state without being able to assert or enforce a programme. If they become the junior partner of a government selling inadequate reforms on health, education, forests, agriculture etc , they will kill themselves stone dead, and eventually split down the middle.
They need to understand what many in the Greens – lacking a left political background – don’t understand. That oppositionality is absolutely necessary during some historical passages. The party is constituted on the premise that our whole way of life is killing the planet – it would be futile for it to become the goup of schmucks responsible for saving an unreformed system from its own chaos and the mendacity of its supporters.
Have the courage to say no. Work on the assumption Tasmanian people of all political stripe are intelligent enough to see that reserving the right to oppose while supporting the less worse programme for the purposes of governance is not contradictory – it’s the beginning of addressing the fact that the majority of people, from farmers to the urban poor, are unrepresented in this system.
There is no upside to being in government as minor partners – if you genuinely believe that the scale of change we need is massive. And all that it offers is the temptations of power – vanity, acceptance, doing the admin shit work, and foregoing the role of being a campaigning party . That’s been the sad fate of the Greens in the Victorian upper house, and it’s not an exercise to be repeated. If the Greek KKE isn’t wholly to be emulated, they know a thing or two about bang for the drachma.
So think clearly, because once again, the whole world is watching.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
This article does highlight some aspects of the dilemma(s) currently facing the Greens in Tasmania, but the following quote is way off line:
The Victorian Greens are not in government – as a “minor partner” or in any other way. I have no idea about their current levels of vanity or shit work, (although I am sure they are still a “campaigning party”). But having seats in an Upper House does not usually provide a chance for any smaller party – whether it be the Greens, the Democrats or the Shooters in NSW – to be part of government.
The decision/s the Greens in Tassie currently face are very different (although obviously not unprecedented for them – in Tasmania in the previous century or more recently in the ACT).
It is entirely possible that the Greens in Tassie could decide to agree to support one of the other parties to form a government whilst still reserving the right to support or oppose each individual piece of legislation on its merits – or seek to get their own legislative proposals passed through the Parliament with the support of either of the other major parties.
The Greens may also refuse to be part of a formal coalition, but if they follow Guy’s advice and also “refuse to support a party in government” then all that will be achieved is another election.
In the absence of a very unlikely coalition between Labor & Liberal, this fundamental matter of who to give support to form government – and under what circumstances – is something the Tassie Greens will soon need to make a decision on.
Guy’s suggestion to “invite a general budget proposal from each major party, guarantee their support for that vote (and the initial confidence vote) only, and only if they conform to that proposal in its essence – and then announce that they will take every other issue on its merits” doesn’t really acknowledge that an Executive government – with Ministers tasked to administer that Budget and the other laws Parliament passes – has to be continually in existence, including over the many periods when Parliament isn’t sitting.
A majority decision has to be made by the Lower House of the Parliament to determine which party or parties (or even individuals) will be supported to form a government. That Lower House (and of course, entirely separately, the Upper House) can then decide whether or not to support each subsequent piece of legislation or other questions put forward for their consideration totally on the individual merits of each matter. But the government/Executive still needs to be able to maintain the confidence of that Lower House.
This is a fundamental matter which cannot be avoided or devolved to a daily or weekly question of which pieces of legislation (or competing Budget proposals) the Greens might like.
Whatever path the Tassie Greens decide on will have its risks, but it should also have some big opportunities to make advancements not only on key Green policies, but also on the more effective operation of parliament and politics in that state.
And really, important though it is, the “whole world” won’t be watching what the Greens do in Tasmania. It will be unlikely enough to get the interest of many people in the rest of Australia – any more than most people outside of WA have paid much attention to how the National Party are going following their decision to support the Liberal Party to form government over there after their most recent election (or any more than they’re following what’s happening in Greece at the moment – much as maybe they should and as valuable and insightful as Guy’s reports are)
Andrew, all due respect, i did say that a minimal support model would also require an initial confidence vote. Here’s the passage:
“Instead they should invite a general budget proposal from each major party, guarantee their support for that vote (and the initial confidence vote) only, and only if they conform to that proposal in its essence – and then announce that they will take every other issue on its merits.”
As long as the Greens continued to vote confidence in the governing party – even after theyd just helped shoot down a piece of non-budget legislation – an election would be avoided, and a government would stay in place.
The crucial thing would be to reverse the process now, and make labor and liberal petition them for their support. A bit of audacity would be the go. All due respect, the conscientuous recitation above of all the reasons why something can’t be done strikes one as going in the wrong direction.
As to the Vic Greens – no, i don’t think they’re in government. But they have taken admin roles, and no i dont think theyre a very campaigning party, politically.
As to the whole world watching – amazingly not all 6 billion people are. But you know very well what i mean. I can assure you that a Green party getting 21% of a vote, and having the balance of power for second time in 15 years, in a one-time backward state, is something that a lot of people are watching.
Come on Andrew. Art of the possible old son.
Even without being minority partner in a Government, the Greens face a crucial period for the next term. I’d draw somewhat of a comparison here to the Democrats. One could certainly argue that they never really recovered from the passing of the GST that seemed to irrecoverably split the parliamentary party and support base (of course there were other factors involved in the demise, which AB would be much more knowledgeable than me about!).
The Greens don’t at this stage face a single major issue like this upon which they have to choose between pragmatism and principle; for most major issues in Tas politics the Greens position is clear and unwavering. However, there will clearly be a number of more minor issues that the Greens would be uncomfortably passing legislation on, but at the same time realise that at least a significant part of their current and potential future support base wouldn’t disagree with.
At some point the Greens need to demonstrate that they really can Govern, not just oppose. GR argues that the time is not now, and that may well be right, but the time will (hopefully) come at some point. The transition will be difficult to manage and will either make or break the party.
From afar, McKim looks a good leader and one who wouldn’t be out of place taking the reins from Brown at Federal level at some point.
Thanks Guy.
I’m all for art of the possible – probably too much so for some people’s comfort. I just felt your piece didn’t quite portray what exactly is (and isn’t) possible.
I don’t see a problem with the Tassie Greens making Labor and Liberal petition them for support (as long as they don’t look like they’re getting off on being able to make the big parties squirm). Whatever mechanism gets the best policy outcomes is fine. But the political challenges after they’ve said which one they support. That mob will then form the government, and the Greens will have to navigate the reality of having been responsible for putting them there.
At some stage, the Tassie Greens will have to say they support either Labor or Liberal to form a government (as they did in the ACT after the last election) (and did with mixed success twice in Tassie in the 1990s – once each towards Labor and Liberal). Depending on the type of agreement – especially if they don’t wish to have any Greens get Ministries – they could then deal with each piece of legislation on its merits (which is basically what is happening now in the ACT).
That’s somewhat different to the impression I got from your article of what you were calling on the Greens to do. It’s not appropriate for me to publicly give the Tassie Greens advice, but I agree with you that being a junior partner in a government (as in holding Ministries) has its long-term dangers. Karlene Maywald in SA could probably attest to that at the moment (although her context is somewhat different to the one Tassie Greens are now in).
(from memory I think the ACT Independent Michael Moore was able to be Health Minister in an ACT government, whilst reserving the right to oppose some government measures – that might have worked OK for him, but being an Independent is very different to being a party that is trying to continue to build its power and support base)
Lots of opportunities (and thus dangers) here – and I don’t have a problem with your calls to be bold.
As for what a “campaigning party” is, I suppose that’s all relative. Thinking a bit more about what you would probably consider a ‘campaigning party’ to look like, you’re probably right. But compared to most other Australian examples, they’re not devoid of a campaigning component.
Guy
Nice article. Unfortunately it presupposes that the Greens think “massive changes” are called for, and there’s not much evidence of that. You certainly won’t hear Nick McKim call for any massive changes. The Greens ran a very safe conservative campaign, talking about cost of living issues and parliamentary procedure, while staying away from forestry and explicitly renouncing their former (rational) approach to drugs. As a result they lost a lot of votes on the left (especially to Andrew Wilkie) while gaining the votes of a lot of people who are sick of labor, but would never vote liberal.
“It’s not appropriate for me to publicly give the Tassie Greens advice”
Why not Andrew?
Because I’m publicly known to be a Greens candidate at the coming federal election – and thus it is not ideal to have a Green candidate giving specific public advice to Greens in a completely different state and context.
I think it is reasonable for me to express views which are (hopefully) informative about politics and policy, but I don’t want to be represented as giving public advice to colleagues within my own party.
The Greens need to approach without Greed or Fear. Greed (for power) could lead them to compromise their independence. Acting out of fear (of exercising the power the situation has given them) will inevitably disappoint their followers and loose them momentum. This situation has already happened in the ACT and the solution the ACT Greens negotiated is a good starting point.
See: http://act.greens.org.au/documents/alp-greens-agreement.pdf
This grasping of the nettle and some luck (the GFC bailout largesse) has produced good progress for the ACT (and the Greens reputation as a steady pair of hands).
“They need to understand what many in the Greens – lacking a left political background – don’t understand. That oppositionality is absolutely necessary during some historical passages. ”
Waffle couched in patronising 1970s Trotspeak is still waffle. Unconnected to empirical reality. Be an idea to find out something about Tasmania first. Tas has been ruled forever by the LibLab octopus. Everything in Tasmania is relative. As inbred as Fitzglebe, where who edited Scripsi in 1987 still matters. This time round the Greens have sucked some votes from a tatty 12 year-old ALP govt. There’s no sea-change. All the Tas Greens can do is curb the worst excesses of LibLab developmentalism. They’ve got a better chance to do that now and they surely understand the dangers of both cooption and isolation.
Go back to summarising UK news Guy.
The only way to really influence government policy is to hold ministerial office. The Country Party realised this early on.With 19-20 developmentalist votes in parliament the only way to achieve your goals is to influence this voting bloc. There may be a tactical case to refuse ministerial positions as part of a strategy to polarize public opinion and attract votes from your rival party which is what early Labor did. But I doubt Tasmanian Labor will go the way of the Liberal protectionists. Communist parties were largely able to prevent cooption of their ministers.
Given that the policies of the Alp and the Libs are more similar than the Greens, it makes sense for them to not join a Govt. On anything of substance (in Tas read logging/Guns) the Alp and libs are the same.
Andrew
It may not be the ‘impression’ you got from my article, but as my quote made clear, I had already dealt with the issue of supporting a party in giovernment by an initial confidence vote, and then taking each bill on a case-by-case basis. You didn;t get that impression because you didn’t read my article carefully enough, and twould be best to acknowledge it.
David, I suspect you’re right. Should that occur, and the Greens simply morph into being a lime-shaded ALP left contingent, then they’ll snatch defeat from the oesophe…osephe…oesephe…the throat of victory.
Frank, I’ll go back to UK stuff. You go back to your health professional and get an adjustment on those dosages.
Gee Guy, you’re doing a stellar job of dispelling stereotypes about sneering elitist lefties, following on from your work dispelling the notion that AGW is a global leftist conspiracy by wondering where the Marx or Mao of Global Warming was.
With friends like that, Causes don’t need enemies!
Hi Guy -
Patronising 1970s Trotspeak it may be, but I actually agree with you that “oppositionality is absolutely necessary during some historical passages”. The question is whether this is one of those passages, & I’m inclined to think it’s not. The big barrier to more people voting Green seems to be fear of instability, & a chronically oppositional stance isn’t going to do anything to assuage that fear. The Greens need to demonstrate that minority government doesn’t mean instability, & that I think requires some sort of formal agreement with one of the major parties. (For a variety of reasons I think that party should be the Liberals, but in this context that’s a secondary issue.) There are pros & cons as to whether they should take that to the extent of accepting ministries (if they’re offered, & they probably won’t be), but given that they’ll be held responsible to some extent for what the govt does anyway, they’d probably be better off at least getting some ministerial experience & the associated credibility. It doesn’t seem to have done the German Greens any harm – I’d rather be them than the Greek Communists, anyway.
Guy, clarifying the thrust or content of an article is part of what comment threads are for. Both the quote you provide and the wider content where you seem to be suggesting the Greens do something radically different.
Your quote suggested (to me) that were advocating an approach where the Greens guarantee support to one of the major parties to form government just for the initial conscience vote and the accompanying Budget, but refuse to guarantee ongoing support for that government. This would be a radically different approach (but also close to unworkable)
However, your responses indicate you are just talking about doing something similar to what the ACT Greens have recently done (and also the Tassie Greens in the 1990s for that matter). And whilst that is a worthwhile approach, there is nothing radically different (or even radical) in it, which goes against much of the tone of your piece.
Basically, the Tassie Greens can adopt a similar approach to what the ACT Greens did – or they can try to negotiate a situation where they get some Ministerial spots, which would tie them more closely to the government, but give them more direct power in some areas. Both approaches have their political and policy risks and opportunities, but both have been done before.
However, if it makes you feel better Guy, I concede that you are the masterly writer expressing your views with laser-like precision, and I am a person who needs to work on my comprehension.
Andrew
I’m just asking you not to spend 400 words correcting something that is already there in thee article. I would have thought it was obvious that once you commit to a budget programme and an initial confidence vote, you then extend confidence to the governing party between then and the budget – even if you vote down every specific non-budget bill they bring to the floor in between.
Yes, i’m aware this is not a new tactic – the one mildly new suggestion I had was that the Greens make the other parties petition them with concrete proposals, rather than being reactive. I think being oppositional and supporting a governing party in order to have something to oppose, is different to being a non-cabinet supporter of a government, which is quite the wrost of both worlds. Got to be a bit quicker off the mark son, this isn’t the remedial class.
Charles, I agree there are arguments in favour. But i think the type of party one is has to be factored in. An MOR party can do what you say, but the Greens are a transformational one. Electorally, the problem of coalition is that what you gain from participation, you lose from disappointment within your base and – especially in a hare-clark system – splits.
Actually, one longer-term strategy would be to support the Libs, to demonstrate once and for all to Labor that they have to deal with the Greens honestly, and not take the vote for granted.
Bogdanovist, it’s not sneering, it’s called arguing, you wimp. As to avoiding the hard red image, um, it’s a weird thing to be told by a leading Bolshevik….
im a very simple minded person, not knowing alot about politics, but knowing alot about economics. In my opinion, The Greens should not make any sort of alliance with the other parties to form a govt. They should force another election and make the parties earn it. The Greens are clearly getting the votes/seats to be a force in politics, whether it be state or federal. To join forces would be like selling their souls. Now should be the time, where they build even further on the success of their party, with the view of being a big party themselves within the next decade or so. Is it possible that the greens can take office in their own right in the next 10-15 years?? of course it’s possible. They are half way there, but to form an alliance now would put a halt to that. Im Not a Greens voter… infact i am a traditional liberal voter in Victoria.
Guy, as you say it’s not a new tactic – which why I don’t understand all the tub-thumping ‘seize the day’ rhetoric you surrounded it with.
Why would you suggest that the Greens “need to understand what many in the Greens – lacking a left political background – don’t understand” when it’s a tactic or a path which the Greens themselves have already adopted in the past? Or are you suggesting that even when they’ve done this previously, they haven’t fully understood why it was a good idea?
I tend to agree that there are some potential long-term benefits in shifting perceptions about the Greens somehow being Labor aligned. Risks as well of course, and I don’t know how much weight the troglodyte right have amongst the Liberal’s state Parliamentary line-up.
But anyway, they seem smart enough to assess all the risks and opportunities in front of them and take a relatively long-term view.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.