Excerpted from today’s Crikey email: [This story follows up this post]
There are important implications of the number and range of seats in play in the House of Representatives contest for decisions about the allocation of preferences in the Senate.
Sources from the Labor Party and senior figures in the Greens have a story to tell about how this dynamic is playing out in the Queensland Senate contest. I have been told that Queensland Labor has shifted campaign resources towards seats held by the Coalition by more than 8%. Labor’s position in more marginal seats is so secure at this stage of the game that there is little need to worry about preferences at all. So the party is going hunting for Family First preferences in outer suburban and regional seats which are poised on a knife edge.
Swinging voters in these seats are very much the targets of Rudd’s message on the cost of living and housing affordability, and many are also the social conservatives formerly known as “Howard battlers�. Securing Family First preferences is perceived as a significant message to them reinforcing Rudd’s Christian image, over and above the value the preferences themselves may have.
Although a week is a very long time in politics this close to the calling of the election, sources from both the Greens and Labor confirm that preference negotiations between the two parties have stalled, with the Labor machine men believing that a deal with Family First promises to bring much more gain for the ALP in the lower house.
Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett has often emphasised that Senate preferences are not allocated primarily on the basis of ideological compatibility but rather on very concrete calculations about what the minor parties can bring to the table. Nor, as the current negotiations in Queensland demonstrate, are they necessarily focused on the Senate contest at all, but rather on who can deliver in closely contested house seats.
Making predictions about how the Senate numbers will fall is often akin to tea leaf reading in the absence of the final preference allocations. Nevertheless, internal party polling I’ve been briefed on shows the Greens still in a good position to win a seat in Queensland – with Larissa Waters’ primary around 7% and Andrew Bartlett’s around 5%. Of course, a favourable distribution of the Labor surplus would seal the deal for the Greens, but Labor are much more interested in harvesting the ripe pickings available in allegedly safe Coalition Reps seats.
Whatever the headline value of the pontification of the pundits on the polls, the real story about what’s happening in this contest is better told by observing where the parties are putting their campaign cash and what calculations on preferences are being made. Notwithstanding the current “media narrative�, it’s a tale of woe for John Howard.
The real question for me is what utter screwup will the Victorian ALP manage this time around? The utter geniuses have handed seats to Family First and the DLP in the last Federal and State elections, so they’re really going to have to do something special to top that.
Larissa Waters sounds like a gated community on a canal behind the Gold Coast.
Larissa Waters’ primary around 7% and Andrew Bartlett’s around 5%.
5% + 7% = 12% - just short of a quota. Since I expect only one minor party Senate candidate, they might as well preference each other.
Does anybody know what impact, if any, Hanson’s United Australia Party preferences will have in Qld.?
OF course, the fact that the ALP is perfectly happy to ACTUALLY give preferences to Fundies First (and directly lead to the election of conservatives like Stephen Fielding) is part of the reason they’ve been muddying the waters by attacking the Greens so viciously for daring to have some split tickets. (Something the Greens only do when the ALP refuses to swap preferences with them.)
Will Labor make sure its voters know that their preferences are going to fundies? Bloody oath they won’t.
Senate votes should permit numbering above the line.
MrLefty, as you know perfectly well, the Greens’ split tickets are only one side of a two-sided decade-old retaliation festival between our two Parties. Playing the innocent is getting a bit old, especially since I think you love the argument as much as I do.
Furthermore as Mark is arguing, Senate preference negotiations are not conducted in an upper-house vacuum or an ideological one. Labor needs lower house preferences in marginal seats. If the Greens could deliver them, the deal would be done already.
“Hanson’s United Australia Party”
That’s what she called her party? The UAP? Jeez…
“only one side of a two-sided decade-old retaliation festival between our two Parties.”
What are you talking about? The Greens are happy to preference the ALP, and often do so even despite the ALP preferencing others first. All the Greens are asking is that a progressive party preference the other progressive party in the fashion that its voters clearly would prefer.
What percentage of ALP voters really wanted to vote for Fundies ahead of the Greens? The only reason the ALP was able to get away with it is that ALP voters who couldn’t be bothered voting below the line were willing to trust the party to distribute preferences in a way compatible with what most ALP voters would want. Which clearly wasn’t the case.
The screwage is clearly one way.
If voters are sensible, they’ll stop trusting the ALP with their #1 above the line vote. (Fortunately for Fundies First, most voters don’t pay enough attention to realise what’s being done with their vote, so the ALP will probably repeat the 2004 tactic indefinitely.)
MrLefty, if they “clearly” preferred their preferences to go in any particular direction they’d vote BTL. All else is speculation. I’d *hope* that there were more Green-leaning ALP voters than Christian Democrat-leaning ones, but then I hope a lot of interesting things.
On this blog Mark, and especially Kim, have written a great number of posts pointing out just how definitely non-progressive a Party the Federal ALP is, and I can’t help but agree. As long as Labor’s rampant modestism continues, the Greens have to make a case for preferences based on utility, not common feeling.
(I support, by the way, your and Lefty E’s call for optional ATL preferencing. Works a treat in NSW).
In regard to Labor preferences, one shouldn’t forget that its quite possible there won’t be any Labor surplus available to be distributed. If the final seat in Qld comes down to Labor vs Democrat or Green (as it did in NSW in 2004 for example), then Labor preferences become irrelevant. This is the likely scenario if the most recent Morgan Qld Senate poll reflects the final vote (which it may well not of course). Naturally no one can be sure, so every one would like Labor preferences just to maximise their chances. If Family First does direct to Labor in the Senate as part of a deal, it will almost guarantee 3 Labor seats (and thus some surplus preferences which may help Dems or Greens in their battle against the Coalition for a seat), but the deal may only involve Family First preferences going towards Labor in some key marginal House of Reps seats, rather than the Senate.
Depending on how well coordinated Family First on a national level (which is reaosnbly well from my experience), it may also be that an agreement involves Senate preferences from Labor in just some states where they would be of most value (such as SA where Family First will poll highest), in exchange for preferences in House of Reps seats which are of most importance to Labor in other states (such as Qld). From memory, Labor’s Senate deal with Family First in 2004 only involved Victoria and Tasmania, which were also the two states where the Liberals were most likely to fall short of 3 seats (prior to Latham Labor’s forestry induced vote crash in that region)
It’s most likely that will happen, although it’s yet to be agreed. But as you say, it’s just short of a quota and just short isn’t good enough if preferences aren’t coming from elsewhere, or if ALP and Coalition have already got their 3 seats each.
Cliff, Ms Hanson’s party is called “Pauline’s United Australia Party”, with the registered abberviation of “Pauline” (which is probably what she will choose to have written above the line). Her preferences could well be critical - last time they assisted in getting the Liberals the extra Qld seat that gave them control of the Senate.
Of course, if Hanson polls as is suggested in the Morgan poll (around 6%) and gets preferences from people like Family First, Fishing Party and a few others, she may fall short of winnning but lock up a lot of conservative leaning votes, which might spell trouble for the Coalition if their votes drops below about 2.5 quotas. In some scenarios, a higher Hanson vote could help deliver both 3 Labor seats and a Democrat or Green seat, and only 2 Coalition (as it did in 1998 when David Oldfield polled about 10% primary vote). (assuming the Coalition still puts Hanson last - if they don’t they could well help her win the seat)
I’m sure plenty of other people - not least the Greens - will point out very loudly where Labor preferences are going if its happens to be towards Family First. The fact that “Greens only do split tickets when the ALP refuses to swap preferences with them” is just an admission that the Greens’ decisions are influenced by self-interest as well as ideology, the same as almost every other party - which is fine, but one shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
By advocating split tickets in ‘retaliation’ for not getting preferences, you are in effect saying that if Labor won’t favour the Greens, then you should provide a better chance for John Howard to stay in power. If you’re going to take a position that is more favourable towards John Howard, you shouldn’t complain if people point out that that’s what you’re doing - the same as people who preference Family First can expect it to be pointed out by people who think this is a bad thing.
“All the Greens are asking is that a progressive party preference the other progressive party in the fashion that its voters clearly would prefer.”
A lot of Labor voters, indeed Labor members, are closer in their world view to Family First than the Greens.
Andrew , in your own case, wouldn’t it be better to join the Greens and talk swiftly of a love union? No, maybe not a dreaded ‘union’. Anyway, if you were the no1 Green candidate in QLD, my suspicions are, a progressive member would be a shoo in for the Senate to defeat the Howard mob where it is really needed. In the Upper House.
Despite being a Green voter, I would have voted for you up there. Not that an ‘if’ helps much. Anyway, good luck and hope you keep blogging regardless of the result.
By advocating split tickets in ‘retaliation’ for not getting preferences, you are in effect saying that if Labor won’t favour the Greens, then you should provide a better chance for John Howard to stay in power.
I don’t agree Andrew. An equally legitimate argument is that if the Greens find out that Labor is preferencing FF - something that in the Senate may well contribute to the Liberals hanging on to their Senate majority, I think it can be equally argued that the Greens choosing to preference neither of the big L parties is them doing what they can to diminish the role of their preferences helping a conservative political party.
It’s also not like (out of the major) parties there is anywhere else for Green preferences to go, so splitting the ticket is hardly just a ‘retaliation’ move. While I agree with you that the Greens are increasingly making hard-nosed preference decisions like other parties, I think you need to recognise that they are also decreasingly claiming any kind of high moral ground over it.
Finally, I think the Greens have a strong case when it comes to progressive ideals in not rewarding Labor for bad behaviour. If the ALP don’t want to act like a progressive party but would prefer to play hard-nosed and preference FF, why should the Greens reward that behaviour? To me it’s frankly a relief as a progressive vote to see the Greens starting to stop expecting the ALP to act along any kind of principled lines when it comes to preferences. That level of naievity has been rather grating. Better they do the best deals they can, because that’s sure as hell what every other party, your own included, is doing.
In sum, characterising it as just ‘retaliation’ is a rather shallow interpretation of what are long and intensive decisions being made by the Greens.
FWIW, while I’m a Green voter, if I was in Qld you’d be getting my first vote.
MrLefty, the preference thingo usually makes my daydreamy head spin but I must say your rpeated explanations in the blogosphere of its ins and outs do concentrate the mind and are unequalled in clarity and decency.
I would seriously suggest you think of writing a FAQ piece on it. It would be enormously useful to Greens supporters, poll booth workers, etc, who debate this among themselves and with local candidates each election time. I know from experience on polling booths in NSW, Greens supporters, and members, are asked about it a lot. The issue is raised in the MSM too at every election with much the same misleading arguments and feints - from the ALP particularly.
There is quite a history now of facts that can be drawn on to counter the traditional distortions, the most typical of which have been faithfully reproduced in some of the ALP and Democrats members’ comments above.
It would be fantastic if you could write something we could use, MrLefty.
You are beyond disingenous LIam - ALP hack - The Greens have made it abundantly clear to all ALP wheelers and dealers that they are prepared to prefernece the ALP across the board in al lower house seats if the ALP preferences the Greens in the Senate. The ALP are, as always., playing funny buggers.
The ALP preference negotiators have to be the biggest pack of idiots. They’d negotiate with Thatcher if it would get them over the line. Making a deal that delivers power is one thing, but doing it at the expense of principles is another. The fact that the ALP is willing to negotiate a deal with a religious fundamentalist right-wing party is a clear indicator that the party is morally bankrupt.
The ALP paints themselves as a party that stands up for unions and minority rights yet constantly panders to neoliberals, anti-communists (DLP) and evangelical Christians in an attempt to win whatever the cost. I’m not sure I’d feel comfortable voting for a party so willing to sell its soul.
They can’t actually preference neither in the Senate. Parties, Greens included, are required by law to lodge a group voting ticket that allocates preference flows for all candidates.
They can’t actually preference neither in the Senate. Parties, Greens included, are required by law to lodge a group voting ticket that allocates preference flows for all candidates.
Sure, which is precisely why I take issue with Andrew’s comment. I think the essence of Andrew’s argument, if you’ll allow me a segueway for a sec, is to equate the Aus. Greens as the same as the USA Greens - recalling that the USA Greens (now) notoriously didn’t ultimately support Gore, peeling off 5% of ‘lefty’ votes.
But the difference between Bush and Gore was night and day in terms of left vs right. Gore would have been the most progressive US President ever, arguably. But the difference between Howard and Rudd gets smaller every day. We all understand the small target strategy, but at this point Rudd has such a thumping lead in the polls he can “risk” showing the left of the ALP that it’s not worth jumping ship to the Greens - you know, by actually releasing some progressive policy, or not saying ‘me too’ as the Howard Gov’t escalates its level of human rights, desparate to get a rise out of Rudd. By saying ‘me too’ Rudd is pandering far more to the right than is acceptable as policy.
Which brings me to preferences. If Labor does a deal with FF for Senate preferences, if the Greens preference Labor and it falls short of a quote, the Greens will be preferencing Family First over itself - which is not only utterly stupid in terms of both internal and external politics, but diametrically opposed to Green principles. The Green’s challenge is simple: if you really are a progressive party, one of the principles is having some - so preference us.
Labor carries on like its found commies under the bed.
In the absence from common sense and principle for the ALP, all the Greens can do is preference all their minor party favourites first, and then hope that’s enough to disperse the preferences amongst enough candidates to stop FF getting a quota.
Anstey, I notice that as usual you haven’t read what I wrote—which is that if Greens lower house preferences in QLD were worth anything to Labor, the Senate deal would be signed, framed, and sent to the pool room. Sadly, Labor has to look outside the aggregate vote of the Left to win a majority.
Ronnie, it’s not Labor’s job to make preference deals which make people feel comfortable.
Andrew Bartlett: thank you for your last two paragraphs.
Another dynamic at work here is that Labor governments with conservative leaders and conservative technocratic backroom bozos are, nonetheless, Labor governments. As such they have constituencies with expectations that they will act like Labor governments, and they usually cannot openly and directly repudiate those constituencies and expectations without renouncing their claim to be Labor governments. It is therefore very useful for a conservative technocratic Labor government for there to be a circumstance which is prima facie beyond its control, in the form of an upper house with a non-left majority, in order to have an excuse for not living up to those expectations.
An example occurred c.1990 when the Hawke Government had had to publicly promise the ACTU that sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act would be repealed, even though privately its leading figures were committed to a “business-friendly” agenda. On that occasion the lack of a Labor majority in the Senate, with the Democrats holding the balance of power, provided a hole for the Labor government to crawl through to a final outcome in which sections 45D and 45E remained in place with some Democrat amendments to allow secondary boycotts for environmental and consumer protection purposes, and Labor could tell its union supporters “We tried to do what we promised but those Democrat so-and-sos wouldn’t let us.”
Also, a conservative Labor government would probably want to avoid a situation after July 2008 in which the only conceivable Senate majority it can form is in alliance with the Greens because the Coalition adopts a stance of outright opposition to Labor legislation in order to force it into such an alliance and frighten its more conservative supporters. Keating’s blather about reconciliation has obscured the fact that his government really didn’t want the Mabo legislation to go through in the form in which it eventually did, and that the final Act was basically “the reconciliation we had to have” courtesy of Democrat and Green amendments and negotiations and Coalition intransigence.
That had occurred to me, too, Paul.
Makes it very easy for Rudd to say to the left (both within and outside Labor), “sorry, but we’ve got to get things past the Senate”.
Rudd will not abolish legislation against secondary boycotts. If there was a moment for it the moment has passed, and a Labor Senate majority after the next election or the one after will not change that.
As far as “behaving like a Labor government”, that could mean anything really. Nationalising the banks, denationalising the banks; the Labor Party giveth and it taketh away. You show me any policy triumph in a Labor government, and I’lll show you both an equal-and-opposite travesty (and an equivalent triumph passed, however unwittingly, by the conservatives).
Mark, you’ve gone into detail about the contest on the left between Bartlett, Waters and Labor#3 - what about on the right between Boswell, Hanson and Family First?
Spiros said:
Not the ones I know. Family First (when you can actually find out what the really stand for) are homphobic, anti abortion, anti same sex marriage, want cheaper petrol, and frequently vote with the Howard Government. I have heard heaps of Labor supporters say that depise the deal that was done in 2004.
Paul, you said:
I don’t agree. They have done this at least twice now recently (Fed 2004, Vic 2006) and look like they will do it (preference a right wing conservative party) again. For them, the end completely justifies the end - which is to get elected at any cost. Afterwards, meaningless assurances are given to the worker bees that “it was a mistake” and that “it won’t happen again”. This is Labor realpolitik.
Andrew, many Greens go with open or split tickets when Labor and Liberal parties continue to morph into the same beast. Its happening again with Rudd backsliding on work choices, the indigenous intervention, carbon capture & sequestration etc. I think a majority of Australians want to see the end of Howard but people that really want to support Labor should do just that - either as members of voting for them. Other parties have their own platforms, and don’t have to preference Labor with a blind hatred for Howard.
I think it is better to educate people about choosing where there preference goes, or better still, go to optional preferential in LH & Senate to clean up the whole mess.
The Shoppies strand of the ALP are pretty much all these things (except maybe the cheaper petrol thing, although the Qld ALP government still subsidises petrol to the tune of 8 cents a litre) - and the ALP’s policy is still anti same sex marriage. However, I would agree that the majority of ALP supporters are much more likely to favour the Greens than Family First.
However, I’m not talking about the relative merits of the Greens, Family First or Democrats. If I were, I would simply state that every damn party and candidate in the country should preference the Democrats ahead of everybody - especially in Queensland - eschewing all self-interest and purely on the basis that I am so much better than everyone else put together. However, it may be that not everyone (anyone(?)) shares this assessment.
More seriously, I could put a perfectly credible argument as to why the ALP would find it easier to work with Democrat Senators as opposed to Green Party Senators. There may also be some benefit to an ALP government to have a couple of different ‘excuses’ to draw on as to why they can’t push through some policies they don’t really want to, as Paul N was suggesting. All these factors no doubt play some role. However, the bottom line for either major party is getting into government. If the ALP thinks doing a preference deal with Family First will win them more preferences than they would lose in primary votes and ‘lost’ preferences from Greens or Democrats which they would have got through a similar deal, then chances are they will do it.
To try to remove it all from all our preferred partisan positions, perhaps everyone should just ask themselves this simple question:
If you had a choice between the following two scenarios, which would you pick?
(1) An ALP victory, with a couple of Family First Senate seats at the expense of Green or Democrat Senate seats, or
(2) Howard staying in power, but a couple of extra Senate seats to the Greens or Democrats.
I appreciate some will say this is a false choice (I’m not convinced of it either), but it is a simple way of demonstrating the core question the ALP is asking itself - what preference deal will deliver them the most House of Reps seats (and thus the best chance of winning government)? Does anyone seriously suggest that they would reduce their chances of winning government just because it will increase the chance that a couple of seats in the Senate will go to a party they don’t like as much?
I should also note that Labor preferencing Family First in the Senate in no way guarantees that Family First will win seats. Their primary vote will still be very low - I doubt it will get over 4 per cent anywhere except SA - and you still have to be very lucky to win from that low down.
I think more relevant scenarios are:
(3) A Labor victory, the Liberals and Family First controlling the Senate (at the expense of Green and/or Democrat Senate seats)
(4) A Labor victory, with the Greens (and maybe Democrats) having the balance of power in the Senate.
I think (4) would be the best outcome. The end of the conservative-extremist-moronic Howard Government and the right leaning ALP tendencies held in check.
(3) would stifle Labor. I don’t think they would really enjoy playing the “we would really like to if only the Senate would let us” game.
Then there is the interesting question of exactly how effective Family First preferences are.
In the Victorian 2006 state election, Family First voters are among the least likely voters to follow their party’s how to vote card.[link PDF]
About 50% of ALP voters followed their party’s ticket, but only 21% of family first voters followed the FF ticket. Greens voters followed the Greens HTV 31% of the time.
The Labor Right argument that there might not be many Family First voters is correct - polls put them at 1 - 2 per cent. But they are wrong on the effectiveness of their preference direction capability.
By contrast, in 2004 seats where the Greens ran open tickets the flow of Green preferences to Labor fell by 7 per cent - Greens decisions on direction of preferences can move up to 700 votes in some marginal seats.
Methinks the Labor brains trust needs a brain transplant. They are too clever by half. Maybe they just get off on playing russion roulette?
I would prefer scenario (4) too Peter. However, the core question for Labor is not what’s the best Senate composition if Labor is in government, it’s what gives them the best chance of being in government. If doing a preference deal aimed at scenario (4) also means a lesser chance of being in government (or even a smaller win and hence a smaller buffer to defend at the following election), they will go with scenario (2). They will do what they think will win them the most House of Reps seats
Please realise I am not suggesting a preference deal with Family First IS Labor’s best chance of winning. I have strong doubts about this, and it is obviously not in my interests to encourage them to do this or think this. But I accept that they have access to infinitely more research and data to assess this than I (or any us here) do, and that may be a view Labor comes to based on that data.
If Labor does do a preference deal with Family First, it won’t be because they hate the Greens, or their a bunch of homophobic right-wing fundamentalists, or even that they think it would be better to have Family First in the Senate rather than Greens or Democrats - it will be predominantly that they think it gives them the best chance of winning the most House of Reps seats. So even though the Greens would be pissed off (as would I) and screaming betrayal and vengeance, I wouldn’t take it personally. As should be obvious, the Senate is not the main game to them.
And again it should be stated that a preference deal where Labor and Family First swap preferences in the Senate is far from a guarantee that Family First would win a seat. Indeed, on the figures in the most recent Morgan Queensland Senate poll, Family First preferencing Labor in the Senate instead of Hanson or the Nats could give Labor 3 seats AND actually help deliver a seat to a Democrat or Green too (thus taking a seat off the Coalition, which is critical in rebalancing the Senate makeup)
If Labor does do a preference deal with Family First, it won’t be because they hate the Greens, or their a bunch of homophobic right-wing fundamentalists, or even that they think it would be better to have Family First in the Senate rather than Greens or Democrats - it will be predominantly that they think it gives them the best chance of winning the most House of Reps seats. So even though the Greens would be pissed off (as would I) and screaming betrayal and vengeance, I wouldn’t take it personally. As should be obvious, the Senate is not the main game to them.
Ah, but Andrew, in Tasmania last Federal election, the FF candidate Jacqui Petrusma nearly got the last Senate spot ahead of Christine Milne, even though Milne had a comparatively high primary vote (around 10 from memory) whereas Petrusma’s was around 1-2% from memory. Why? Because Tas ALP doyen Michael Field expended enormous effort setting up a preference deal specifically aimed at keeping Milne out.
So when you say ‘Labor….don’t hate the Greens’, I have to tell you, some of them really, really do. I’ve spoken to them personally and heard it from their little mealy mouths.
Given how big and consistent the swing is to Labor right now, it makes absolutely no sense for them to be focusing on getting an even bigger lower house buffer. What they need is a Senate they can work with as we all know that a Coalition controlled Senate will obstruct as much as possible. I know you’re not saying it makes sense, but hey if you get a chance to talk to any of them, please point out that demoting the Senate in their thinking is positively asinine.
And btw, I’m getting a bit tired of the ‘Greens are too hard to work with’ argument. I respect the Democrats and I’m really hoping you (collectively) rise from the ashes as it were this election, but as a big hansard-reading nerd and general political junkie, there is ample evidence that the Greens are just as good at responsibly holding balance of power - WA right now anyone? Milne and Siewart in particular have worked closely with many across the Senate in the last few years, you included. What’s also forgotten is that one of the reasons that the Greens have difficulty working with others is because the ‘others’ in question have such a pathological hatred of them, Brown in particular, that they give every impression they’d prefer to sacrifice their first born than work with them. So again it’s at least 50% up to the ALP to learn how to play well with others.
I think the “can’t work with Greens” line is dodgy too Andrew (and partisan). It is also a line that Labor sources are putting around (see below).
The Greens have held balance of power with Labor governments (Tas lower house,1990, 1996-98) and WA (upper house 2001 to present day). Most of the time this has worked well, but in Tasmania Labor had some big dummy spits when they couldn’t get some of their pet logging projects through.
The Greens currently share balance of power in Vic, and it has been interesting to watch Labor throw hissy fits when they don’t always get their way. Labor is even putting out the quite ridiculous line that the Greens have formed an alliance with the Liberals, but this is really only being done to shore up inner city seats (like Melbourne).
Some in the Labor right (eg. Stephen Newnham) really fear and hate the Greens, possibly even more than they hate the Labor left, and have embarked on a crusade to discredit them. There really is a surplus of hate and dirt in Labor party factional politics and a deficit of decency.
I don’t think you really can leave ideology out of the mix either - look at this piece about Labor flirting with Family First [link] in spite of Family First refusing to commit to vote to wind back Work Choices - which one would think is a core Labor issue. Apparently it isn’t any more.
There are undoubtedly people in the Labor Party who either have a world view which is fundamentally opposed to that of the Greens (e.g. the Shoppies and others from the Grouper or ex-Grouper Right) or who are part of the Captain Ahab faction of emotional anti-environmental revanchists (Michael O’Connor, Martin Ferguson, Michael Thompson, Peter Walsh, The New City, Michael Costa).
Then there are people in the ALP whose world view is actually very close to that of the Greens (e.g. Tanya Plibersek, Anthony Albanese, Lindsay Tanner) who have the misfortune to hold Lower House seats which the Victorian and NSW Green Party organisations, in their wisdom, believe can be won by Green candidates. I will say no more at this time than that I believe a fruitful inner-party discussion can be had about the ways in which intense Green versus Labor contests for such seats fit into the bigger picture of realising the Green vision for Australia and the world.
Ronald, consider the clout that Joe de Bruyn has in the ALP and how there must be at least ten members of the current federal caucus that he
ownsmentors, and shut up.Including Rudd, Peterc. It takes the political sophistication of a seven year old to assume that Rudd won’t can these policies, just not in some dramatically counterproductive Whitlamite way.
First, Peterc, you assume that any other Democrat but Andrew B can win. The only other Democrat with half a chance would be if Stott Despoja changed her mind. There is not really a lot of difference between Labor was-a-Senator-and-will-be-again Jacinta Collins, and Family First. On a lot of issues they’d be to the right of someone like Nick Minchin.
At this election we are talking about Senators elected in 2001. The default result for each state was 3 Coalition Senators, 2 Labor and 1 Dem/Green. It’s inconcievable that the voting public, having given Howard a Senate majority last time, will simply hand a majority to Rudd. In some states it’ll be 3 Labor, 2 Coalition and 1 other; in Queensland I hope it will be 2 of each major party, Andrew Bartlett and don’t care who else.
Apart from probably Christine Milne the Greens are useless at the busywork and horsetrading of the Senate. I hope that Trot from NSW gets punted and will be voting accordingly. Like Andrew, I think a Labor-Family First deal will be all about getting votes currently parked with the Liberals to go with Labor. FF will be full of disillusioned Liberals.
God help us all if WA, now or any other time, is some sort of model of good governance. Hasn’t slid into the sea yet, so everything’s peachy!
So, people who have to work with Brown all the time hate his guts while he relies on those as far away from him as possible (WA, anyone?) to keep him there. Brown’s as old as Howard, isn’t he?
Labor in Victoria were squeezed by the Libs and DLP on one side and the Commos on the left. When Labor go into opposition again this will happen again, except replace “Commos” with “Greens”. Newnham is trying to get in first but it’s like hating the tide - you can hate it all you like but it’s coming in, baby.
Myriad said:
No doubt, just as some Greens hate Labor and the Democrats, some Democrats hate the Greens, and plenty of Left and Labor people have hated the Democrats for decades. I have heard plenty of gleeful comments from some of the above celebrating the anticipated demise of the Democrats, and more than one suggestion that preferences should be directed away from the Democrats to ensure a stake is put through the party’s heart so there is no chance of rebuilding. but I wouldn’t seek to ascribe the views of a few individual members of other parties to the party as a whole.
All I am saying is that such hatreds are not the primary factor driving Labor’s decision. Every single Labor party MP in the country might have a hatred of the Greens so deep in keeps them awake at night, but they would still do a preference deal with the Greens if they thought it would give them the best chance of getting into government (and thus the same applies to Family First). It is not about you, nor is it about me, it is about them - the fact that they might take what enjoyment they can get along the way from the discomfort of others is neither here nor there.
PeterC said
I didn’t say people “can’t work with the Greens.” I said I could build a credible case that Labor would find it easier to work with the Democrats than the Greens (a case I then didn’t bother to make because my point was this isn’t what is motivating Labor anyway). But it is not a “line” - there is an obvious case to be made that the Democrats on the whole are more likely to be closer to the ALP in policy terms than the Greens on many issues, even if only marginally in some areas.
In addition the record shows quite unambiguously that the Democrats have been far more prepared to work with the major parties on an issue by issue basis. In contrast, the Greens on the whole have not, and also have a regular habit of slagging the shit out of anyone else who does (which I can personally attest to, having been the direct recipient on any number of occasions - not least being told I was responsible for the ‘the most disgusting sell-out of the Australian environment and laws to protect the Australian environment that this Senate chamber has ever seen’). The Greens of course have a perfect right to have taken a position of not working with other parties to reaching compromise agreements - on many issues I have taken a similar approach, but on a case by case basis rather than almost continuously. But if someone decides to take such an approach, you can’t blame others for pointing it out - especially when one gets criticised more often than not when one takes the opposite approach.
I would also say it seems to be partly a matter of personal style or preference, rather than a party wide strategy or mentality. Some Green Senators have been far more inclined than others to work with other parties. But it really is off-topic, as it has very little to do with what will happen with Labor’s Senate prefernces (which I will remind people once again may not even end up being distributed in Queensland)
Apart from probably Christine Milne the Greens are useless at the busywork and horsetrading of the Senate.
Apparently Siewart, who almost single-handedly started the investigation into AWB, is invisble?
I hope that Trot from NSW gets punted and will be voting accordingly.
Me too.
God help us all if WA, now or any other time, is some sort of model of good governance. Hasn’t slid into the sea yet, so everything’s peachy!
So…. any actualy substance to this? My point was that the Greens hold the b.o.p in the WA upper house, and have used it maturely and well.
So, people who have to work with Brown all the time hate his guts while he relies on those as far away from him as possible (WA, anyone?) to keep him there. Brown’s as old as Howard, isn’t he?
Your point rather eludes me as stated, but anyone with even a remote familiarity with Tasmanian politics can attest to the fact that hatred of Brown is a sport, regardless of whether people have met him or actually worked with him. Abetz for example hates Brown for existing. It goes far beyond some sort of ‘clash of working styles’. Which is why Michael Field practically galloped out of retiermet to try and stop Milne gettintg elected - yet even you recognise she’s highly effective. This state still has a significant number of cars driving around with a stucker that say “save a job, shoot a greenie” - name me one other political group or organisation that it would be acceptable to display such a sticker.
Which is why I must still disagree with Andrew that deals and relationships on preferences even at the national level are ‘not personal’ or that personal feelings aren’t a driving facto when it comes to the ALP & the Greens. I think emotion is very much part of the equation, and not nice ones. I’d like to think it’s all cool-headed realpoliticking, but I remain unconvinced. Bottom line either way is that it’s increasingly unlikely that the ALP will preference the Greens in QLD or anywhere else.
eh - apologies for all the typos. in a hurry
I’ll forgive the typos, but Brown will have to get in the queue behind me - I want an apology for Eric Abetz.
Liberals for Forests achieved a hell of a lot more than the WA Greens.
Andrew,
I would like to see you get re-elected, I think you have been a great Senator.
But it seems the Democrats are keen to abandon the long tradition of minors preferencing each other ahead of the majors in their desperation to stay in parliament.
I think the simple arrangement of Greens and Democrats swapping to each other ahead of the majors would suit both but it seems that Lyn allison in Vic has other ideas. Let’s hope commonsense will prevail.
The Family First vote is actually looking very weak - they got no spike in the recent Vic byelections even though the lame Liberals didn’t even run candidates.
I don’t agree there is that there is an obvious case to be made that the Democrats on the whole are more likely to be closer to the ALP in policy terms than the Greens on many issues, even if only marginally in some areas.
I think that many Democrat policies align more closely with the Greens. Look at Lyn Allison just doing a re-hash of Christines Milne’s EASI (energy efficiency) policy. At a local level in 2001 and 2004 elections, Democrat candidates in Melbourne have directly pitched for the Green vote saying “we were the original environmental party” (despite Meg Lees’ deal on GST).
Also, I don’t have the stats but I think that Democrats more often than not vote with the Greens in the Senate - like they did recently on the limiting global temperature rise by 2 degrees (that Labor and Liberal both voted against).
I want an apology for Eric Abetz.
for, or from?
Peterc - I’m not going to get into a Democrats vs Greens debate (not here on this thread anyway), so I shan’t argue with you about who was first or best at what. But it is self-evident that the Democrats were the original environment party, as they were in existance well before the Greens, particularly when you are talking about a national political party - the GST had/has nothing to do with this (speaking as someone who stood up and voted against it). But then seeing I’m the one responsible for the “the most disgusting sell-out of the Australian environment and laws to protect the Australian environment that the Senate chamber has ever seen”, what would I know about the environment anyway?
I don’t dispute there is a lot of similarity between Democrats and Greens or that the two parties. My apologies if i wasn’t clear - I was not suggesting the Democrats are closer to the ALP than they are to the Greens, I was just indicating that the Democrats are closer to the ALP on most issues than the Greens are. I do have the stats and the Democrats vote much more often with the Greens than apart from them - that is not really the issue when we are talking about relative closeness to the ALP.
Anyway, I agree Family First’s vote will be low in most states - I’ve said that a number of times already. I am sure the ALP is also well aware of this, and won’t make a preference deal unless they think it will deliver them something of substance - which may be why we are talking about Qld in this thread, as I suspect that will by FF’s second strongest state after SA.
I don’t disupte that malice may enter into things to some extent, but I simply do not believe that the ALP would sacrifice a chance of victory just because of spite or personal enmity (the modern ALP anyway - it may have been different in the past). However, people are human, so the more people step aside from the escalation of vitriol, the less peple’s judgement on these decisions risk being distorted by such things (which might be what Paul Norton is alluding to in his last comment).
I suggest you wait and see what happens before you start criticising. I don’t know for sure what will happen in all states, I can only be sure about Qld and I obviously can’t even say what will happen there until its decided. You’ll have plenty of opportunity to complain about anything you don’t like once decisions become public. However, I presume you wouldn’t advocate a strategy for the Greens that would make it harder for them to win seats, so I think attacking other parties for trying to win seats is not a sufficient ground for criticism.
For.
For.
Ha! On what grounds? I regularly run into Abetz in a professional capacity, and he has never failed, not even once, to build into what he’s saying an attack on the Greens - Brown in particular. Like the current affairs segueway watch on Chaser, Abetz has never failed to deliver some pungent and unnecessary derogatory comment on the Greens. I’ve been quite frankly astonished at the level of bile he carries on the issue, and his relentless pursuit of it.
so that would be a no.
I am not criticising outcomes as nothing is finalised yet. I concur about the need for less vitriol and attacks. Interestingly. at this point the main source is a couple of really nasty anonymous hate sites set up to smear the Greens. While they may not be formally endorsed by Labor, it seems like some not so nice Labor folk (such as S. Newnham) are directly implicated with at least one of them.
I would expect the Liberals and Lindsday Tanner to trot out more anti-Greens propaganda in due course; its become standard practice for them.
Even though both Rudd and Howard are now falling over themselves picking up Greens policy on climate change - after years of denial (Howard) and inaction (Rudd) on both.
Raising dodgy preference deals is a task we should all take on so that the voting public is better informed. I intend to put some effort into this.
The only strategy I advocate for the Greens (and all other political parties for that matter) is to maximise their chances of election without resorting to smears, lies, innuendo and clandestine deals. Staying congruent with party policy is also a good idea. In short; play nice and be honest. I realise this is aspirational - and that it doesn’t really fit with how a lot of party folk operate.
Senators getting elected on less than 2% of the primary vote is clearly a major flaw in the system - they don’t even get their deposit back from the AEC (the threshold is 4%) .
Myriad:”save a job, shoot a greenie”
It seeems this sort of suggestion in public is ok in Tasmania, not at all seditious, if they can have bumper stickers with it, so
Along those lines, in response to
Myriad:”I regularly run into Abetz in a professional capacity”
… could you change jobs M, say to bus driving, and keep up the good work.
Re the bits and pieces above about the Greens’ actions in the Senate - useless or otherwise - Crikey declined to publish a full response to Christian’s anti-Green rant the other day, but you can read it here.
It’s very kind of people to be so nice about Christine Milne, but you can’t pretend the others do nothing…
No, it’s not a sufficient ground for criticism in itself. Let me try to formulate the ethical issue here in general terms.
Party X participates in an election with the aim of attempting to win as many seats as possible in order to advance its aims and principles. No problem so far.
In a preferential election system, Party X believes it can maximise the number of seats it can win, and therefore its ability to advance its aims and principles, by enter into preference deals with other political parties whose aims and principles differ to a greater or lesser degree than those of Party X, knowing that such deals may have the effect of assisting the election of candidates from one such party at the expense of candidates from another such party.
If the deal entails preferencing Party Y ahead of Party Z, and the aims and principles of Party Y are closer to those of Party X than are those of Party Z, agains this is unproblematic.
Where it becomes problematic is when Party Y’s aims and principles are further removed than those of Party Z from the aims and principles of Party X. In this situation Party X has to balance the gain (in terms of advancing its aims and principles) from having additional candidates elected on the strength of Party Y preferences against the loss (in the same currency) of Party X preferences electing candidates from the party (i.e. Party Y) which is more adverse to the aims and principles of Party X.
Additional considerations are:
(a) the strategic importance of the respective positions to which the various candidates may be elected as a result of the preference deal (e.g. do an extra 2 Lower House members for Party X which simply swell a majority which would have been won anyway more than compensate for the election of a Party Y Senator which changes the balance of power in the Senate);
(b) the respective probabilities of Party Y preferences electing Party X members and vice-versa;
(c) whether the aims and principles of Party Y are so repugnant to those of Party X that the latter should repudiate any preference deal or comparable kind of arrangement which could substantially assist or legitimise Party Y (there is a political party contesting the Senate in Queensland which arguably fills this bill).
Yes, Christabelle Chamarette and Nadia Margetts weren’t exactly irrelevant in the Senate vote on the Native Title Act in 1993, although I must say that I think Bob Brown erred in allowing Malcolm Turnbull to persuade him to vote to set in train a republic debate which Howard was always going to orchestrate to get the outcome we eventually did (and Turnbull and the ARM were bigger fools to acquiesce in Howard’s orchestration because it had the effect of excluding the direct election option from serious consideration).
What is with all these anonymous leaks from the Greens and the ALP? Why won’t they put their names to it?
The only person who has been upfront and bothered to explain to the people the processes and back-room deals involved has been Andrew Bartlett.
Thank-you Andrew.
Myriad, that’s not how preference deals work. Preferences are allocated by the list of preferences on the ballot, not which party’s pile they’re currently in and who that party preferences next.
If the tickets were (and assuming all votes were ticket votes above the line):
Greens: Greens, ALP, Democrats, Family First
ALP: ALP, Family First, Democrats, Greens
Family First: Family First, ALP, Democrats, Greens
Democrats: Democrats, Greens, ALP, Family First
and the Greens got eliminated, their preferences would flow to the ALP and then if the ALP were eliminated, the originally “Green” votes would flow to the Democrats while the originally “ALP” votes would flow to Family First.
The only way the Greens could preference Family First over themselves is if the Greens ticket looked like this:
(some parties), Family First, Greens, (some more parties).
I don’t think there’s ever been a party to preference another party above itself on an above the line voting ticket.