Comments on: Burney barney with Greens in Canterbury

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 09:57:37 +0000

Hi you wonky folks, my nsw election coverage is here:

election nsw 2007

As an ex Green, elected local council 95-99, some said (yes on the Liberal side) I had the numbers for next mayor of Waverley, member of that party 93-2000, in a post Green Party vocational existence on ecology and community media:

No one mentioned these points:

1. The Greens are constitutionally bound to promote amongst their reform platform of 4 principles the one about “grassroots democracy”. Even allowing for pursuasive MP ‘leaders’ etc this is critical in a very practical sense re How To Votes. It’s NOT HQ, Parliamentary wing, or even State Delegates Council that decides (a) what the script will be on the HTV (b) who pays for them. This is all down to the local group if only for budget reasons. Thus cynics miscalculate to say “funny how” this area trade off with that area. That’s Big Party thinking inapplicable to Green constitutional framework. I’m sure you all know too the level of sympathy to a rival candidate is multifactorial – are they a bastard/bitch locally, monstered by their leadership policy, strong willed like Barnaby or wimp like … oh you know most backbenchers. What local and broader issues are cooking etc. It’s real game of tattslotto collating up all the local Green group outcomes and Lee Rhiannon MLC Greens is simply reporting an aggregation of local parallel decisions with her spin. It might be chaos but it’s also democratic.

2. The Greens are meant to be ideally based on a fundamental political value being sustainability of the environment (hence the colour, not pink, red, purple or whatever). The corresponding profound political values of the ALP are fair recognition for labour done via solidarity projects, and for Liberal party the core value of individual freedom to develop ones full potential unfettered by govt or collectives. These are all great truths and need to be mediated with eachother, and of course their champions beg borrow and steal from the other: Not least dangerous sea rise threat from climate change on 7.30 these last two nights, I reported months ago:

Global Warming

Lastly, with all due respect for Linda Burney’s deceased husband Rick Farley who I know more about, I think its bordering on reverse racism to think a black female can’t be right wing, or a lousy candidate. That’s just emotional duress. Fortunately she is neither and deserves the preferences in my humble view but she can’t deny being in the ALP doesn’t involve huge compromises in terms of social and environmental justice. I would much prefer hearing what she has achieved this last 4 years than superficial symbolism.

(Hope the links work)

By: Alister

Alister — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:57:48 +0000

I want to correct something that Mick said (10 March 2007 at 2:59 pm).

Alex: In Victoria the Greens didnt preference Labor in marginal seats in exchange for Liberal preferences in Melbourne and other inner-city seats.

Strange definition of "marginal" that includes no seat with less than a 4.8% margin. To suggest that Monbulk, with an 8.3% margin, was anything other than safe beggars belief. The simple fact about Liberals directing preferences to the Greens in inner city seats (that the Liberals will never win) is that it makes Labor work harder to retain them, which takes away from Labor's campaign to win other marginals. The Liberals are much closer to Labor than the Greens (as the upper house preferencing shows). Nevertheless, it's still in their interests to direct preferences our way over Labor to distract Labor. In the end, Bronwyn Pike got up with Family First directly preferencing her, and leaks from the Liberal preference cards. Given that, I'm not sure how we're suddenly all the bad guys for trying to win seats on preferences from people we don't agree with. It's good enough for Bronwyn (and good luck to her).

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 00:01:13 +0000

This sort of stance is only to be expected in the political climate of today. If Labor wants universal Green preferences, they’ll have to stop screwing them over and handing seats that would have gone Green to Family First or the DLP. It is the height of hypocrisy to screw the Greens over in the interests of political pragmatism and then expect them to continue to give all their preferences regardless.

By: philip travers

philip travers — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:01:18 +0000

[Comment deleted, URL in commenter ID that could not possibly belong to commentor deleted - Moderator]

By: suz

suz — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:38:57 +0000

It is a problem because those who legitimately support matters associated with Aboriginal concerns are constantly finding they,aborigines,are letting themselves down,and still insist on some sort of forced acceptance that they are different.

It’s such a damn shame those Aboriginals keep letting you down by insisting that they are in any way different from you.

By: David Jackmanson

David Jackmanson — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 01:31:25 +0000

As they grow…the policy set they [the Greens] serve up will be clearly distinguishable from the ALP and the Libs. If Labor wants to bitch about it fine. But they should realise that they are not entitled to preferences and preferential treatment from a party with whom they compete sometimes visciously.

Not a fan of the Greens, but this is elementary political logic, and a perfectly reasonable position for any political party to take.

By: leftist sock puppet

leftist sock puppet — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:13:26 +0000

Well, that’s offensive. You don’t like her because she doesn’t behave the way you think Aborigines should? Or is it that she has the hide to be good looking too?

She’s only been standing up for indigenous rights, the arts and environment for, ooh, let’s see, 30 years. She’s let nobody down.

I’m glad she is, after all, getting Greens preferences.

By: joe2

joe2 — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:16:09 +0000

Well said Adrien, though I disagree about policy. Greens actually have policy that is clearly and carefully stated.

A stark contrast to Liberal and Labor. The Pepsi and Coke of Australian politics… more bubbles and real thing.

By: Adrien

Adrien — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:30:16 +0000

Some of the comments here I reckon are telling of a misunderstanding of what the Greens actually are.
>
Many people in the ALP believe, when it’s convenient, in the honour of the left-right divide. There’s a clear line and the good guys are on this side. They expect, as their right, therefore that ‘progressive’ parties such as the Greens should direct preferences to them during election time. We’re all on the same side. Curiously they forget about this when directing preferences away from the Greens to Family First, the DLP etc. They forget this when vigorously campaigning against them in marginal seats.
>
Hypocracy aside, the Greens are a different political party with roots in a different aspect of politics that is distinguishable from the class/economic differences that characterise the Labor/Liberal split. At the moment the Greens are a young party and the disparate collection of individuals who make it up I don’t believe have yet expressed their full purpose in policy terms. As they grow they will do so and the policy set they serve up will be clearly distinguishable from the ALP and the Libs.
>
If Labor wants to bitch about it fine. But they should realise that they are not entitled to preferences and preferential treatment from a party with whom they compete sometimes visciously. They should also face the fact that despite the ‘nice lefties’ from the inner-city (oh brother) ALP governments still routinely let voters down when it comes to ecological issues and even when it just boils down to respecting the wishes of the constituency. If the ALP spent more time thinking about the right thing and less of the mechanics of vote-collecting, numbers getting and how to roll the opposition, they wouldn’t be experiencing this bleed to the Greens.

By: Ed Lewis

Ed Lewis — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:57:26 +0000

Strange that, except for the earlier discussion on coal, there’s hardly any comment on the NSW elections aside from the third-rate issue of preferences.

A fair bit of this discussion is probably mischief making, some probably by Labor supporters and some by Liberals, in the hope of scaring a few votes away from the Greens.

Until we get proportional representation in the lower house in Australian elections, as in Germany and some other European countries, we’re stuck with the preferential system, which is a long way better than first past the post.

Direction of preferences is an entirely mechanical issue, usually involving holding the nose and selecting a second, third, etc choice. It involves just that, and no compromise of policies.

As an active Green, I favour a second preference to Labor because Labor is a lesser evil than the Liberals. That doesn’t mean it’s not an evil, just a lesser evil.

So much for preferences. Ho hum. For anyone seriously interested in politics, the Greens’ policies are here.