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.

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.

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.

It’s very kind of people to be so nice about Christine Milne, but you can’t pretend the others do nothing…

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).

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.

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).

It’s very kind of people to be so nice about Christine Milne, but you can’t pretend the others do nothing…

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.

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%) .

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 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).

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 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, or from?

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).

Liberals for Forests achieved a hell of a lot more than the WA Greens.

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.

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.

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.

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 think the “can’t work with Greensâ€? line is dodgy too Andrew.”

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)

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.

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 owns mentors, and shut up.

… 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 …

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.

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.

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.

And btw, I’m getting a bit tired of the ‘Greens are too hard to work with’ argument … WA right now anyone?

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!

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

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?

Some in the Labor right (eg. Stephen Newnham) really fear and hate the Greens, possibly even more than they hate the Labor left

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.

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.

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.

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.