The ‘Hulk effect’: has the electorate gotten angry and turned Green?
Crikey intern Michael Carter writes:
Cardinal George Pell is worried about it, but almost everyone has accepted the inevitability of a Greens balance of power in the senate following the election. But what would this peculiar shade of green really look like post-election?
For an Abbott-led government it could be a disaster, a permanent millstone around the Coalition’s policy neck; on refugees, climate change and a large range of social issues. For Gillard, the effect would be two-fold: it would likely remove the more radical cross-bench in the form of Steve Fielding (it looks increasingly like the venerable senator won’t be back for another term) but could cause a major block in the legislative pipeline on some issues.
While the government and the Greens are more alike on social issues than a Coalition-Greens dalliance, it must be remembered that the Greens helped the Coalition block the government’s ETS bill several times. Let’s think about that: a party that desperately wants reduction in carbon pollution blocked one of the first reduction schemes of its kind in the world. This is the sort of unusual thing that could happen more often if (or when) the Greens hold the BOP.
A precursor to this possibly uneasy relationship can be seen in the aftermath of the Tasmanian state election. Tasmanian Greens leader, Nick McKim, was dubbed ‘the king maker’ and duly played out his role. In the United Kingdom election, Nick Clegg too played the role for the Liberal Democrats. Yet Bob Brown will not tread quite the same boards as the two prince ‘Nicks’. Brown is banking too heavily on what could be termed the ‘Hulk effect’: the electorate being angry and turning inexplicably green.
Where the Greens’ power will lie is in making or breaking bills and, more than this, forcing the major parties’ hands on a range of issues close to Greens’ heart. The Greens will be policy king makers, masters of bills and Brown’s office will be busier than it has ever been. But they’re not there yet.
The most recent Newspoll has seen the Greens’ primary vote decline from the comparative stratosphere of 15% to 10% post Gillard. At the last election the share was 8%.
Andrew Bolt states that it’s “[m]arvellous to see the irrational vote so divided”. Yet the poll perhaps shows that previous voter dissatisfaction with Rudd translated to the Greens, which is more worrying for the Coalition.
Perhaps the hulk effect isn’t happening as quickly or as widespread as first thought. The electorate has taken a collective breath and followed it with a valium or two.
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.
*Sigh*
It would be so nice to see a rational objective factual article about the Greens.
Reading this article in isolation one would be left with the impression that the Greens sided with the Coalition on ETS – I don’t know if this was intentional, it certainly isn’t correct. The Coalition wanted a weaker ETS or preferably none at all. The Greens wanted a stronger ETS or preferably a better structured bit of legislation. So they both opposed the legislation but for opposite reasons and both true to their colours.
Perhaps you meant to say that the Greens stayed too green when you think they should have changed to a funny shade by getting on board with Labors proposal. In any case it is a moot point as the Greens didn’t have the numbers to get the legislation through anyway.
Roger that fredex. There are biased articles for and against either the Coalition or Labor, biased articles against the greens and objective factual articles on precious little.
Alex H, the Greens have their own agenda and that is good for the parliament and the electorate at large. All I wanted to say is that they voted against an ETS. Even wanting a stronger scheme, this is strange on any view. Perhaps with the balance of power the Greens can shape a more suitable piece of legislation for their purposes. One that they would view as appropriate to pass.
No CI they voted against that particular ETS for easily understood and explained reasons [see first comment by Alex H].
Throughout your essay your choice of words and images is far from objective.
For example, ‘peculiar’, ‘unusual’, ‘king maker’, ‘hulk effect’, ‘angry’, inexplicably green’.
We can see where you are coming from too easily.
And where you are going to:
“Perhaps the hulk effect isn’t happening as quickly or as widespread as first thought. The electorate has taken a collective breath and followed it with a valium or two.”
Look you have a marvellous resource available on site, Possum’s numbers and analysis.
Why not look at it?
If you do you will see that the only party to perform consistently above its results at the ’07 election is the Greens.
The ALP and COALition have gone up and down, generally down in the case of the COALition and are currently at a point where both are below their results at the last election.
The Greens are above their election result, currently by about 2%, and have gained support from both the majors.
Instead of using the word ‘inexplicable’ try to figger out why.
Its not hard.
@ Crikey Intern
>>> All I wanted to say is that they voted against an ETS.
No it wasn’t.
>>>Even wanting a stronger scheme, this is strange on any view.
No it isn’t
As other have alreasy pointed out, the worse-then-neutral take-it-or-leave-it option offered by the Rudd Government to the Greens, whose commitment to an effective emission reduction scheme was obvious to all concerned, has been discussed innumerable times in Crikey already.
In any case, in this Parliament, the Greens and ALP combined did not constitute a voting majority in the Senate.
Grasp this part of history, and the next part of history might be more constructive and successful for all concerned.
fredex, at the third last paragraph I both quote and link to the most recent Newspoll and also point out that the Greens are currently polling a primary vote of 10% from a result of 8% last election. The line “Perhaps the hulk effect isn’t happening as quickly…” is a reference to the factual polls. I also mentioned the reason I thought the Greens voted against an ETS in that form in my last comment. Taking a word like ‘peculiar’ or ‘unusual’ out of context is, of course, going to change things. It is ‘peculiar’ on any view, I think, that a Greens party would vote against ETS legislation just as a general event; in general terms. What an ‘unusual’ turn of events this all is. I think that’s the proper context. Not to get too pedantic but ‘king maker’ really is a term in general usage and was used a lot in reference to Clegg in the UK elections quite rightly I think.
Thank you Fredex – I think Crikey need to be a tad more discerning who they employ as interns… maybe leave your Young Labour or Young Liberal membership card at the door eh?!
as for the CPRS / ETS, as fredex stated there were many wide & varying reasons for why the Greens did not support it, all of which they have clearly stated and backed up with evidence that the proposed ETS was just a license to pollute & keep business as usual…
Syd Walker, a vote doesn’t cease to be a vote because it doesn’t amount to a majority. This was not about passing the bill, rather, it was about voting for or against a significant piece of legislation. The ‘hulk effect’, I think, was very apparent there for a while in the polls – with the Greens rising to a record 15-16%. This has gone down to 10% for the moment. Let’s see what happens and whether a Greens BOP can deliver what I think it can in the house of review.
You’re a little bit incoherent there CI.
Take a breather and a valium and try to figger out what is going on out there in voter land.
Fredex, Fredex, Fredex.
You were doing so well until you spelt figure as figger in two separate posts. Once is understandable, twice is just lazy!
Interesting that you mention his holiness Cardinel Pell, Channel 10 news are pushing the damage, ( and hence the electability) of Gillard due her being a non-believer…is her faith or the lack of such going to impact the result?
@fredex
Don’t be such a douche
fredex, what does ‘figger’ mean? I’m still trying to figure it out. The article was coherent and my comments have been also. Hope you enjoyed the piece!
Its slang for ‘figure’, as in analyse etc..
Instead of throwing hands in the air and saying ‘its all so peculiar’.
No I didn’t enjoy the piece at all.
I found it boring as I think my opening comment suggested.
Its an exercise in anti-Green spin, using pejorative adjectives and negative images to create an impression of the author’s choice.
Instead of trying to focus on one well trodden muddy path, the ETS, you may wish to consider the impact on ALP and COALition voters of the following issues and figger out how they might be pulled towards the Greens.
Conroy’s filter
Iraq/Afghanistan
Leadership spills
NBN
Health in general
Same sex marriage
Secular vs religious
Private vs public health and education
The NT invasion
Immigration and refugees
Probably others [note: I left out the environmental issues, cos the right love to portray the Greens as a single issue party, you can add them if you wish].
Cos [thats slang for 'because'] there is not much doubt, as looking at the polls will show you, the Greens have attracted support from both major parties and are the only party to have consistently increased their support since the election.
Up to yesterday the only party to be in positive growth territory.
Sorry CI [thats not an apology, its an expression of disappointment] but your piece only moved me to a *sigh*, your attempt to justify it prompted the later comments.
Wow, everyone getting very hoity-toity about this. I can almost hear the snorts of derision through my monitor.
Discussion (?) about the green’s rejection of the ETS aside, I think CI was correct on what was the major thrust of his article – the potential for the Greens to hold the BOP (something I think may be a positive force in Aus politics). Having seen the tempering effect the Lib-Dems are having on the Cons in the UK (where I live) – although in a coalition context, which would not likely be repeated with the Greens – I think having a party with the Greens’ position on various social issues could be helpful.
The ACT had an election back in 2008 in which the Greens played ‘kingmaker’. People always seem to forget that when they talk about hung parliaments….I guess Jon Stanhope and Meredith Hunter aren’t as well known as David Bartlett and Nick McKim.
You could look at some of the policy outcomes that have occured over the past 2 years in the ACT if you want to make predictions about what might happen in the federal sphere.
Rudd sends out an adviser to check whether MPs support him. Gillard is offended. This triggers the most extreme leadership coup in the history of the ALP. Media and Crikey readers applaud.
Greens invite the Rudd Government to engage in a dialogue on the ETS. Rudd Government ignores them. Greens vote against a weak, even counterproductive ETS. Media and Crikey readers go apeshit.
Rupert Murdoch orders another ivory backscratcher.
On a positive note, Michael Carter, I for one appreciate your willingness to respond to critics with follow-up comments.
That’s all too rare in Crikey, IMO.
As fredex pointed out, there are many examples of the constructive role play by Greens senators during the Rudd Government period in working for better legislation where the Coalition, aided by a confused senator on the cross benches, was being obstructionist. Knocking back the ETS was likewise constructive. The Greens were pursuing a real carbon reduction strategy by proposing taxing CO2 production rather than supporting a token reduction of 5% by 2020, when the science indicates this would be a waste of time. The Rudd Government refused to negotiate with the Greens. In that context, your paragraph on the ETS is rather simplistic and leads to the perception of an anti-Green bias, which permeates the major media. Omission also adds to that perception of an anti-Green bias. You omit to mention that the Greens make policy and legislative initiatives. The Climate Change Bill is the only comprehensive proposal to manage climate change on the table in the Parliament.
Syd Walker:
That’s true; credit where it’s due. The worst offender is Bernard, who seldom ever responds to commenters. And even then, it’s only to swear at them.
But yeah, our intern host has done nothing to refute you or fredex. I’m getting pretty sick of the Greens being so obviously misrepresented.
The Greens have the same corporate color scheme as BP
Mack! Really!!
Mack the Knife:
Well that seals it then – the Greens must be in bed with Big Oil.
What’s your point exactly?
Seriously … any sensible brand manager of a polluting primary industry will instinctively coat themselves with as much oil-based green paint as they can lay their hands on. BP especially. Note how only a few years ago they changed their logo from that of a shield to something resembling a flower? Who’s mimicking who now?
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.