Well, everybody seems to think Rudd won the debate fairly convincingly.
But perhaps the most interesting thing said all night wasn’t even at the debate, it was as the Greens “People’s Forum”, which they liveblogged:
Q from the web: Would it be preferable to compromise on a position of principle or force a double dissolution.
A: The Greens will not compromise on principle, but have to face the fact that we will not be in government.
The Greens have generally had a more aggressive stance on the Senate powers than the Democrats did. What difference might this make if the election results in them having the balance of power?
Bob Brown has been articulating what seems a pretty clear and sensible position – first in his National Press Club speech, and then in last night’s forum. The goal seems to be to dispel the concern that they will be extremists who will block anything they don’t like until the double dissolution comes – a perception that Lyn Allison seemed to be trying to feed on Meet the Press yesterday.
His use of WorkChoices as an example suggests that they will compromise on details, provided the end result is legislation that is closer to their principles than it would otherwise be – so, while they want WC dismantled, they’ll accept Labor’s “WC Lite”. The question is how far they will be willing to compromise, and if there are particular issues (e.g., environment) on which they won’t budge at all. However, on those types of issues Labor and the Libs might circumvent them by coming to their own agreement.
You probably wouldn’t see a repetition of the Democrats’ GST fiasco, for starters.
I think it would be different, though perhaps not so much.
I personally think that a successful amendment is sometimes (though not always!) better than no amendment at all, and also that were the balance of power thrust ‘pon the Greens, as it were, they would find themselves developing more nuanced and three dimensional policy (and otherwise) responses to some issues they have hitherto been very black and white on, without necessarily sacrificing things close to the constituency’s heart.
In the unlikely event of a minor party forcing a double dissolution (ethically dubious and politically suicidal), the Senate quota drops to with a few points of minor parties’ primary votes. The Greens would almost certainly win a seat in every state and perhaps two in Tasmania. If the government wanted to pass a bill (that the Greens were opposing) so badly that it would seek a double dissolution, it would come back potentially facing 7 Greens Senators.
Kind of like pouring water on Mogwai.
The Greens answer is a lie. The Greens are politicians. They will compromise on principle if they have to.
If the Greens hold a balance of power with at least one independent-minded Coalition member, and on or two others on the cross benches, it is very unlikely that they will be in a position to force through anything that Labor absolutely doesn’t want.
Other than Work Choices, almost every Labor position is so close to the Coalition that they may not need Green votes to win (with a few exceptions like ratifying Kyoto, if that needs to go to a vote). However, to avoid being seen as toadying to the right too much, I would hope that a Labor government would be willing to compromise some with Greens.
The most likely outcome is that the Senate will again become the House of Review, in which more meaningful debate will occur to build a majority.
The Democrats initially had a policy of not blocking supply. They realised soon that it was their main bargaining power however when holding the balance of power. I expect the Greens will behave the same in a similar position. Any minor party that gets the balance of power in the Senate will probably use the Democrats as a template of how to act in that position.
It was said of the Democrats that while you couldn’t buy them, you could rent them by the hour.
With Greens, it’ll be a 15 minute quickie.
It is funny that we should only be discussing what the Greens would be doing with the balance of power in the Senate. The Greens would have to operate with ever more dexterity in their dealings with the major party in power and their identical twin in opposition. It is a relatively new challenge that might come about – I hope. We do have experience, though.
At the same time we do have some history to compare scenarios with. The Democrats should not be too quick to scare people away from voting Green. People may also be scared of voting Democrat. People remember whether or not minor party or independent Senators succeeded in obtaining good outcomes. The GST was a disaster for the Democrats because the Prime Minister succeeded in bullying them. We are still paying the price. I am still arguing with liberals that in hindsight the GST has been truly dreadful, as it rewards undesirable behaviour.
Negotiation should mean that all stakeholders gain some of what they want because they are willing to trade off some of what they originally wanted. The major parties are actually the people who lack these skills. It is common in both major parties for these operators to apply ‘the Glasgow kiss’ whenever they are losing the argument. It is they who lack nuance and negotiating skills. They are too accustomed to getting their own way.
As Robert Merkel says, we would have a very unhappy constituency if the Greens brought on a double dissolution every time they were being bullied. But electors would also be unhappy with their government. So, there are risks for them too – and they know it. Electors would be very unhappy if they voted for what they saw as the only principled party and found that the Greens gave in too easily or were too willing to cut unprincipled deals. It’s a tough call but the Greens are not the only players. I expect whichever major party wins this election to test our principles very early in the game.
Regards
Willy Bach
Greens candidate for Griffith
Haven’t the Greens been feeding on the carcas of the Democrats, but would at some point be forced into a similar position to the ‘Dems GST fiasco’ if they get the balance of power? Sam Cliffod says we probably wouldn’t see a similar situation with the Greens, but why not? What would they do differently if the same situation arises?
The Greens cannot “force a double dissolution”.
It is up to the government of the day, whether Coalition or Labor, to decide whether it is in their interests to risk their majority in the Reps in order to seek to achieve a workable Senate.
The most the Greens, or any other party with the balance of power in the Senate, can do is to oppose a bill at least three times to give the governing party the trigger, should that party want it, to call a double dissolution.
ohmigod Spiros
you Greek boys are such studs! 15 minutes, eh? that’s very long by Aussie standards…
Katz makes a good point. We should stop thinking that a double dissolution would be due to the Greens. Major parties with much more power and their own agendas will determine whether to go to a double dissolution if it suits them and will attempt to blame it on the Greens. It is unlikely to suit them, but they will use this rumour to scare people, hoping to limit the Greens vote. We must always credit them with agency, at least.
The Greens should not be spooked. The public should not allow themselves to be bullied and lied to. If someone sidles up to you at a polling booth and tries to look all worried about how “the sky will fall in” if the Greens get the balance of power, just remind them how irresponsible and arrogant the Howard government became when they got power in the Senate. Tell the ‘worry-bead’ that you remember Worst Choices and other outrages, like the legislation that had to be passed the same day it was introduced. Tell them you are not taking any more chances like that. Tell them you are buying insurance.
Willy Bach
Greens candidate for Griffith
It’s worth remembering, folks, that Greens in balance of power is no new thing. Greens have held or shared the bop in WA for ten years, held it in Tas for years, with both Bob and Christine at the helm, and share it now in SA, NSW and VIC. In each case, progressive legislation has been passed and nowhere has the sky fallen.
Richard Denniss’s piece in Online Opinion back in August is worth a read, as is Christine’s in Crikey a while back.
. . .and the evidence from the Greens having the BOP in WA is that they are as useful as tits on a bull.
A bit unfair on Democrats and Greens here by neat word reducing expressions that interpret and characterise. Many human problems have occured since Howard lobbed in,take it easy, the Democrats had a problem at the time of the GST sure, but look at the expenditure and waste of the Liberals and their priorising of matters, including the advertising budget.The Democrats have had nothing at all to do with this.And as a individual I couldnt spend money like that.Neither Could the combined membership and supporters of Democrats and Greens in the manner Howards Government has. A clean fight please, as much as can be, after all do not dispute the fact The Democrats would like to see Howard go..under their own direction,and maybe more aggressively than The Greens,accept maybe some people may still vote for the Saint..Why poison yourself completely if the poison and fight has to be continued again,outside the now of the next boring weeks.
I would think Kevin Rudd, if he is a good and honest man, is praying for a Greens-controlled Senate, because it would let him do the right thing while still blaming the Greens for whatever political and budgetary costs are involved.
This would allow him to implement some very important long-term climate change policies (forget the “clean coal” crap) and maybe give him the excuse for a complete withdrawal from Iraq (Howard’s criticism of Labor’s half-hearted policy was spot-on here, much as I hate to admit it).
NB: a typo in the main post:
= it was AT the GREENS’ …
Razor, maybe you can provide us all with some clear examples of where Greens have “compromised on principle”? Your own troll-like contributions here tend to be as useful as farts in an elevator, so something a bit more tangible would certainly be appreciated.
great points Gandhi…per usual.
Now got a guest post up on GreensBlog from WA Greens MLA Giz Watson here.
Further to Tim’s post on the Greens having the BOP in WA, below is a statement by Giz Watson MLC on the subject, hopefully an indication of what we’ll see federally:
Ten years in the balance
The WA Greens have been in the balance of power in the Legislative Council (Upper House) since May 1997 to the present day. For the first 4 years that balance was shared with the Democrats. In the last 6 years we have exercised it in our own right. I have been a Member of the Legislative Council for the Greens continuously over this period and have both seen and been a part of the outcomes of this balance of power.
1997 was the first time in the history of the Legislative Council (over 100 years) that the Council became a fully functional house of review – neither a rubber stamp for the Government of the day nor a block on progressive legislation.
Despite claims that the Greens would block Bills, be disruptive, promote extreme policies and that we would use our position irresponsibly – this hasn’t happened.
In fact the combined Greens/Labor numbers has resulted in a period of unprecedented law reform. WA now has some of the best laws providing equality to gays and lesbians; we have legalised abortion and provided choice to women; supported vote equity in the lower house; and significantly improved workplace laws.
Another impact has been to block negative proposals – e.g. the inappropriate development of the heritage listed Sunset Hospital site, selling off part of Whiteman Park for housing and threats to close the Drug and Alcohol Authority.
Similarly we have used our position to insist on thorough scrutiny of legislation via the Standing Committees of the Parliament (often despite Government opposition) and significantly improved numerous Bills. For example with Greens in the balance of power social justice provisions were inserted into the School Education Act.
We continue to support small, local businesses and played a vital role in the referendum that rejected de-regulation of retail trading hours.
There have also been marked improvements in Parliamentary processes. Having a third party in the balance of power has meant, instead of the feared chaos predicted by conservative commentators, there has been a significant change to increased negotiation and sharing of information between all parties. Our emphasis on consensus, participation, respect for other members and restraint from personal attacks has greatly affected the business of the Council. Similarly we are respected (even if sometimes it is grudgingly!) for our integrity and the fact that we don’t cross trade across issues but consider each matter on its own merits.
On environmental issues the Greens have been key to the protection of significant areas of forest and the ending of old growth logging. WA remains free of GM crops largely as a result of a Greens led inquiry by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Public Affairs and significant community opposition. Ningaloo reef was protected from a massive marina development and the Government has backed away from supplying Perth’s water from the Yarragadee aquifer. The Greens now are driving the debate with Bills in the Parliament on a mandated renewable energy target for WA, water conservation targets and a ban on uranium mining.
The Greens MPs have played by the rules. At the same time we have not been afraid to challenge some of the antiquated procedures and pushed for more family-friendly sitting times, shorter speaking times and greater accessibility for the community to Parliament and its processes.
- Giz Watson MLC, Member for North Metropolitan Region, WA
The evidence from WA is that Liberals for Forests achieved ten times more than the Greens.
Garbage. They’d be pains in the arse, just like they were in Tasmania. No sensible person believes that Kerry Nettle would be capable of policy analysis and negotiation.
To answer the question at the head of this post, imagine you are in a car being chased by a dog. What would the dog do if it caught the car? Patrickg and tim seem to think the dog would instantly learn to drive, stay within the speed limits, preserve the no-claim bonus and let people in when changing lanes. I think this is a mistake, and that there are greater challenges than letting the Greens make the same claim on power that Peter Costello makes: oh come onnn, it’s my turn now!!!!!
Indeed Willy, what a shame that your historical examples contain no examples of where Green Senators have done this. Your challenge is not to demonstrate that things could be worse: your challenge is to prove how things could be better, and that your people are the ones to do it.
Members of upper houses tend to be party hacks who can’t convince voters to elect them to the lower houses. They’re wheeler-dealers. The prevalence of bipartisan votes by the major parties shows you that they can horse-trade when they have to. By contrast, Brown and Nettle and the rest of them impress people like you by standing on the sawn-off stump of some once-mighty tree and declaiming “no!” and “this shall not stand!” and “we must stop this!”, etc., while shirking committee work and debates in order to call press conferences to declaim “no!”, etc.
It does not do to blame others for your own shortcomings. The Greens have no reputation for quid-pro-quo because any compromise is a sellout in their/your eyes, as demonstrated by this very prissy fnal sentence:
Yep, it’s all about you.
Once again: it takes two to tango, and if there’s a double-dissolution trigger owing to Greens intransigence they will have to bear some of the blame – including the loss of an opportunity to make other changes. This might be inconvenient for the Greens but it’s not bullying or lying to say that you simply haven’t made the case how you’ll make things better.
I’ve never changed my vote on account of “sidling” and I don’t know anyone who has. There’s plenty of passive-aggressive behaviour within environmental movements – remember, the more caring-and-sharing the outward mission of an organisation is, the more vicious its internal politics.
I have always enjoyed the Greens’ firm stand on principles. I, like them, hold to the axiom that principles cannot be compromised, only abandoned.
However, as to how those principles are put into action is another matter – then there is room to compromise. Better to get 70% or 80% of something than 100% of nothing.
A DD ’cause of Greens intransigence, the Greens causing a DD, etc. wrong way round. If the ALP win with anything over 52 ttp, the landslide word will be bandied about. IF Kevvie then gets the customary honeymoon then he will be riding high in the polls esp if the smirk is across the floor from him. if that honeymoon and the smirk are still there 18 months into an alp govt, then Kevvie will be looking for a reason to call a DD.
“What difference might this make if the election results in them having the balance of power?”
Some prospect of some progressive policy getting through?
Note no-one asks the ALP or the Liberals if they’ll be prepared to compromise with the Greens, it’s expected that compromise will only go one way.
I hate that any party who wins, even if only by a razor thin margin of the 2PP claims they’ve got a “mandate”. If Rudd calls an early election to consolidate his popularity, it will be going against the call for four year fixed terms. Unless, of course, he calls the early election with the referendum question on the cards.
It’d take some serious thinking to figure out how to have four year fixed terms without having eight year terms for the Senate (far too long if you ask me), though. Perhaps both houses can serve simultaneous four year terms and we can later move to a simpler, unicameral Additional Member System.
The GST is a useful political weapon for others to use against the Democrats, but it is also not a representative one – which is precisely why it was/is so contentious within the party itself. It is useful as an example of how disagreements over a balance of power decision can be seriously destabilising for a party, but I don’t think its really very useful for examining balance of power itself. There have been literally hundreds of other balance of power decisions the Democrats made over the years, almost none of which were very contentious (within the party anyway) – you’d have to go back to the early days of the Hawke era for another seriously contentious one (also over tax, as a matter of coincidence). There were a few others where there were split votes on the Senate floor, but not splits in the sense of people getting seriously narky at each other.
Sam’s outline of the electoral mathematics of a double dissolution indicates there would little political risk in the Greens knocking back legislation under threat of a double dissolution – thus there would be no great need for them to consider how ‘principled’ they should be in holding out against letting through legislation they are uncomfortable with. When principle and self-interest coincide, there’s not really much of an issue. It’s when principle and self-interest conflict that things get more uncomfortable.
Regardless of the various shots people may wish to have at the Democrats, that party built up a sizeable number of double dissolution triggers (maybe about 6 or so – my memory is a bit hazy) during the life of previous Parliaments, mostly (tho not solely) around Workplace Relations issues such as unfair dismissals, secret ballots and the like (back in the days when Labor used to oppose these things too).
However, there was a far larger number of Bills which the Democrats let through, often with significant amendments – again including a large number of Workplace Relations laws.
As the piece by the WA Green MP in the comments above shows, balance of power is often not overly hard – the other major party opposes something, so you get a chance to tack on something you think is good and desirable as the price for letting the government get their Bill. Or you get to play on the Opposition desire to make life uncomfortable for the government of the day to get their agreement for extra accountability measures. To use just one example from a few years ago, for reasons I can’t remember, the ALP decided to oppose a sugar levy Bill of the government’s. The Democrats supported the Bill anyway, but weren’t going to let it through until we could get something extra which would make things even better – in this case a funding package to improve water quality from cane farms in the catchment of the Great Barrier Reef.
From what I know, the WA Green MPs have done a reasonable job most of the time that balance of power opportunities have come along (which is not as often as people might think). Mind you, I would love to hear a coherent explanation of how it could have been a principled decision for the WA Greens to force the WA Labor government NOT to put in one vote-one value into electoral system for the WA Upper House, and to retain a gross malapportionment instead.
However, we are talking about the balance of power in the Senate here, not a State Upper House. One can look at what is being said now about what approach the Greens would take if they were regularly in a balance of power position in the Senate, but one should also look at their record of action in the Senate over the last decade.
The record of what the Greens have actually done in the Senate, as opposed to what Bob Brown is saying now, is that they have rarely negotiated, and more to the point regularly slagged off the Democrats for doing so. This may well change should the Greens regularly be in the sole balance of power, but it certainly would be a change.
When I helped negotiate and support the strongest national environment laws Australia has ever had, it was short of the ideal I would have liked. But it was clear the government would go no further (and would possibly slide backwards if there was much delay), and the result was undoubtedly better than the existing very limited laws. As Sofa says, “better to get 70-80% of something than 100% of nothing.”
Bob Brown’s constructive response to this use of balance of power to negotatiate a compromise outcome was to say that I was responsible for “the most disgusting sell-out of the Australian environment and laws to protect the Australian environment that this Senate chamber has ever seenâ€?, not to mention being a “comprehensive sell-outâ€? who was “giving authority for the pulverising of forestsâ€?, “supporting the chainsawsâ€?, “giving stamp of approval for the destruction of forestsâ€?, “in the cockpit of the bulldozers and with their hands on the chainsawsâ€? and “signing a death warrant for the forests.â€? Oh, and “weak-kneed, pathetic and quisling-likeâ€?, and a “wet-behind-the-ears sell-out merchantâ€?.
It was doubly refreshing to then see Bob Brown use the laws which resulted from that “comprehensive sell-out” which “signed a death warrant for the forests” to launch successful court action to stop logging of some old growth forests in Tasmania. And to campaign for those laws to be used to stop the Pulp Mill and to stop the Traveston Dam in Queensland.
The one thing that will make life much easier politically for the Greens should they end up with a sole Senate balance of power is that they won’t have another party attacking them and trying to wedge them from the left all the time when they do think about making compromises.
Having said all that, one of Meg Lees’ favourite justifications for the GST deal was the line that “80% of something is better than 100% of nothing”, and accusing those who voted against it (like me) of carping from the sidelines opposing everything and being irrelevant. So it is worth making the point that the “something” you get 80% of actually needs to be a good “something”, not just any old “something” so you can say you are relevant.
I think a better guide to use for balance of power decisions is whether or not the final result amounts to a net positive, or a net negative – where this line actually is on any particular issue can still be a matter of dispute of course. Indeed, in a policy sense, there is a reasonable debate to be had as to whether the GST overall actually was a net negative or a net positive (I think it was negative myself, but there are pros and cons). The real problem on that occasion was the disconnect between what the position of the party on the GST was perceived to be by many of their voters and members, and what was actually done very suddenly after just a few weeks of negotiating.
and just to correct Cam when he said “The Democrats initially had a policy of not blocking supply. They realised soon that it was their main bargaining power however when holding the balance of power.”
The Democrats have always maintained a policy of not blocking supply – this has not changed. I reiterated it as a key pledge just a couple of months ago. The Democrats have never been in a position to bargain with supply anyway, as no Opposition has ever threatened to oppose supply since 1975. I should note that “supply” is not what it used to be – the majority of Commonwealth spending is now via standing appropriations, which is not touched by supply Bills (usually defined as the Appropriation Bills). It would still make life very difficult for a government were supply to be blocked, but not to the same scale as 1975 – at least administratively, the effect on the markets may be a rather different matter in today’s deregulated world.
Andrew – if, as seems likely, the Democrats do not survive into the next few years, would you consider following your erstwhile colleague Janet Powell and joining and standing for the Greens? Apart from some minor tribalism disagreements that inevitably come from competing for a similar space in the spectrum, I think you and they have more than a bit in common.
It’s hardly the time to consider that Jeremy, given I’m currently running to retain my seat as a Democrat, and the Greens are trying their hardest to defeat me.
I doubt they’d want me in any case – I can’t see why the Greens would want someone who their leader believes is responsible for the most disgusting sell-out of the Australian environment of the 20th Century. After all, the Greens will not compromise, on principle.
Sorry, I should also make clear the reason why I mentioned the stuff about there being examples in the past of a whole range of double dissolution triggers piling up is to reinforce the point that a number of commenters were making – it is not parties in the Senate that bring on a double dissolution, it is the government of the day.
The Senate decides whether or not a piece of legislation is acceptable. If a government wants to test that a second time for the purpose of creating a double dissolution trigger it can, and if the Senate still decides in such circumstances that the legislation is still unacceptable, then it is solely a judgement for the government as to whether they wish to use that as a reason to call an election – if they decide not to, there’s nothing the Senate can do about it (except block supply I suppose, which is a very different thing).
Of course, the possibility that an election may be called over a piece of legislation may influence the judgement of some in the Senate – legislation passed after a double dissolution (which has only ever happened once in our history, in 1974) is passed unamended, and the Senate may decide it is wiser to accept a (less undesirable) amended version of a Bill, than reject it entirely and risk it being passed unamended following an election. Judgements about the likely result of such an election obviously would influence the decision in this case – so blocking the GST Bill would not have been a problem, as the chances of a double dissolution election that was fought specifically on whether it would pass unamended would have been unlikely to go well for Mr Howard, given he had barely won the 1998 election in the first place. Blocking a major piece of legislation soon after a new government is first elected (such as a workchoices repeal Bill for example) would be a different matter.
“It’s hardly the time to consider that Jeremy, given I’m currently running to retain my seat as a Democrat, and the Greens are trying their hardest to defeat me.”
Fair enough, excuse the impertinence. I doubt they’re trying their hardest to defeat you, and I presume the two parties are swapping preferences (you are, aren’t you?), but it was rude to dismiss your party so bluntly.
Still, if that does happen, I’d hope that you and Brown could work something out: he might get excitable about the environment, but I’d hope that there’s not really that much lasting antagonism between the two of you.
Andrew, the frequency that you bring up the exchange as reported by you between yourself and Brown is frankly starting to make you look petty. I’m not saying that what Brown said was right, but the number of times and places you like to bring this up looks rather like a schoolboy running around telling tales behind someone’s back.
You and Brown have been in the Senate at the same time for how many years now? Never had a polite or complimentary exchange then?
The fact remains that no matter what concessions you wrung out of the major parties on the EPBC Act, it remains an incredibly flawed and weak act – I know because I work with its implications and needs re: enforcement almost daily. It’s nowhere near world’s best practice, and it was frankly an incredible surprise to all that Brown was able to get a win under its auspices in court – because it certainly wasn’t designed by the major parties to do that. The fact that Brown’s victory was able to be over-ridden by a stroke of the pen demonstrated that amply.
As for you pointing to Brown attempting to see the EPBC act actually used to stop environmentally destructive developments, your point is nonsense. What, you expect him not to use the existing laws because? The fact that he does actually shows he’s far more a realist than your attempt to paint him otherwise.
The fundamental flaw in the EPBC Act is that is still allows a great deal of Ministerial discretion, as is amply evidenced by the absolutely trivial number of times it has been fully utilised to (god forbid) actually stop a proposed development on the grounds of significant environmental impact, versus the literally thousands of referrals of projects that have either sailed through unchanged, or had minor conditions placed upon them. So all any person worth their salt can do faced with this as the only federal act available is appeal loudly for the Act to be actually meaningfully applied.
Your “poor little Democrats being attacked by the Greens” routine also ignores the fact that you rather lost your gloss of a principled and courteous party when you decided to do preference deals with Family First ahead of the Greens – but then apparently are hypocritical enough to expect the Greens to retain a normal level of respect for your own party.
Perhaps more importantly, it’s sad to see you deliberately omitting the many times I know from Hansard and other sources that you and other members of your party have worked together with the Greens, the most recent outstanding example being on the Northern Territory Invasion, and the fact that in your attempts to paint the Greens as unable to compromise, you have to deliberately omit the work of Senators Milne and Siewart in particular, who have demonstrated amply, and on public record just how good they are at negotiating and utilising the Senate system cooperatively and effectively. But Brown as more of an idealistic politician makes an easier target eh? Even as politics goes, it’s not a particularly smart move. If you want the Dems to survive you’d be better off lining up fewer enemies, not more, and looking to preference swap.
I hope the Democrats survive, I really do. The country needs more political diversity, not less. But if you do, I hope you put down the wormwood and gall at some point.
With all due respect, Andrew Bartlett, you suggest that the Greens are more inflexible than the Democrats – as if that were a bad thing!
You’d rather not use the GST debacle as an example, but it remains (certainly in voters’ minds) the benchmark for compromise. And the real problem with that historic compromise – regardless of arguments for and against the GST – is that the Australian public had made it clear, over and over, that they did not want the GST. So it was not just a case of compromising Democrat principle, but of selling out the broader public.
OTOH the Greens’ major policies on current issues – like the environment, Iraq, and IR laws – are both principled and popular enough to think that they would enjoy public support if they stood their ground on any one of them. The Howard years have seen a surfeit of “economic rationalism” but the tide has turned. I think there is now a real hunger for some principled, idealistic and genuinely visionary government.
People accuse the Greens of acting as the “conscience” of government (again, as if that were a bad thing). But after 11 years of morality-free greed, corruption and unaccountability, it’s time for Australia to admit that their “conscience” was right. We sold our souls for a flatscreen TV and a cement-rendered wall. Now we want our self-respect back.
Andrew, I think if the Greens and the Democrats ended up sharing the balance of power this would be as good as either having it in their own right.
Labor can’t get control of the Senate It’s important for everyone to understand that Labor, which has 28 Senate seats now, cannot win a Senate majority of 39 seats at this year’s election even if they win government.
It is critical that a conservative fundamentalist opposition (e.g. Liberal, National, Family First bloc) don’t get control of the Senate as they will thwart a lot of significant legislation ranging from taking real action on climate change to repealing unfair WorkChoices.
I think the Greens would negotiate across a range of issues – all their policies are in the public domain so no great surprises there. The balance of power is just that – it takes one of the old parties (Liberal bloc or Labor) to agree to get anything up. Of course some in the Labor party would like to have everything their own way as they are basically xenophobic. I think some real extremists lie cossetted in the ranks of both old parties. They will run their scare and fear campaigns based on nonsense – this is the nature of the beast – and normal negative PR tactics.
The Senate operating as a proper house of review (rather than as a rubber stamp since 2004) is essential for a healthy democracy. Let us hope this eventuates.
I would like to congratulate contributors for coming through this difficult discussion and arriving at some constructive points from which we can all learn.
I have great respect for Andrew Bartlett and I would advise him that ‘the man who is fighting for his life’ is not such a good look. None of us should say things in the heat of the campaign that we might regret later. I am sure there would have been lots of occasions when there was constructive and very civil cooperation in the Senate, as Myriad pointed out. Larissa Waters is an excellent Greens candidate for the Senate. Competition is inevitable and we have to leave it to the voters to decide.
Jeremy is rather premature in goading Andrew to join the Greens. But after the election, who can tell what might happen? It really isn’t helpful to speculate at this point.
My earlier point was that this whole balance of power discussion had resulted from major parties trying to scare voters: Peterc says, “I think some real extremists lie cossetted in the ranks of both old parties. They will run their scare and fear campaigns based on nonsense – this is the nature of the beast – and normal negative PR tacticsâ€?.
As Andrew Bartlett says, “to reinforce the point that a number of commenters were making – it is not parties in the Senate that bring on a double dissolution, it is the government of the dayâ€?. I made the same point about the agency of the major parties. The dreaded double dissolution will only happen because a recalcitrant and intransigent major party wants to bring it on, because they see it being to their own advantage – and never otherwise. We should be there to mention this to the media every time the machinators are out tossing the 1080!
Peterc says, “Andrew, I think if the Greens and the Democrats ended up sharing the balance of power this would be as good as either having it in their own right�. I think this is sensible too.
Myriad says, “I hope the Democrats survive, I really do. The country needs more political diversity, not less. But if you do, I hope you put down the wormwood and gall at some point�. I know Andrew Bartlett is reading this and the Greens Senate campaign. People really do want to see a range of views expressed. I suggest that Andrew tell people that voting below the line is challenging but doable for a determined voter. This is better than a replay of the heated discussion you once had with Bob Brown.
The result we all want to see is that, “The Senate [will be] operating as a proper house of review (rather than as a rubber stamp since 2004) is essential for a healthy democracy. Let us hope this eventuates�. Thanks to Peterc for encapsulating this.
Willy Bach
Greens candidate for Griffith
Myriad – I am hardly “telling tales behind someone’s back” if I’m saying it publicly. It is not a personal attack on Bob Brown or the Greens. I am surprised you take it as such. All I am doing is repeating his view. Given the repeated insistence that of course the Greens would negotiate and compromise, it seems perfectly reasonable to highlight their record towards others who have done so.
I raise this example far less often than the usual litany of Democrat-bashing talking points you manage to squeeze into your comment – smearing the party as unprincipled whilst running the “I really hope you survive” line. I’m not “lining up enemies”, I’m simply describing a fact – if that fact makes you uncomfortable, I’m sorry, but attacking the messenger doesn’t negate the fact.
I have never said the EPBC Act is perfect, but I strongly assert it is far better than what was there before – which is what balance of power negotation and compromise is all about.
I am somewhat surprised that you assert that Bob Brown is more idealistic than Christine Milne and Rachel Siewert, and the apparent negative correlation you posit between idealism and constructive cooperation. This doesn’t accord with my view, I’d have to say.
As for your suggestion that I’m “deliberately omitting” their work, please grow up. This thread is about balance of power – neither of the two Senators yo name have been in the Senate in a balance of power situation. Rachel Siewert’s sterling efforts and constructive approach in particular demonstrate that one can achieve a lot even without balance of power, but that is a different topic which describes a situation which doesn’t create the same difficult judgements that balance of power sometimes throws up.
Gandhi – yes I am suggesting that being inflexible is a bad thing. Although, I am not saying the Greens will necessarily be inflexible if they hold balance of power (and neither are they for that matter).
If the Greens hold balance of power on IR and were to “stand their ground” on their policy as you suggest, then they won’t support Labor’s partial watering down of Workchoices – leaving us with the current laws (and probably a double dissolution). Mind you, I’d be surprised if they did block this, despite their past Senate record on IR, but that would be the consequence if they were “inflexible.” (Personally, I think the average person would be far more comfortable with the Democrats’ stance on IR than the Greens’, as it is much more centrist, but the average person also wouldn’t know what that stance is, so its a bit academic really.)
As for your comments on GST, you won’t get any argument from me – if you think I can be a bit narky on occasion towards the Greens, you should get me going on Meg Lees. My point was simply that its not a good case study for the general use of balance of power because it was an aberation from the norm in a number of ways (not least the amount of poor judgement involved compared to most other occasions)
Peterc – such a Senate scenario wouldn’t trouble me. Personally I think there are extremists present in most parties, which is why process can be just as important as policy – extreme outcomes are usually not good (except in extreme situations perhaps), and good process tends to neutralise extremism.
I don’t like what the programme does to my paragraphs, so I hope this makes sense to readers.
Andrew, I guess the difference between “standing your ground” and “being inflexible” is largely in the eye of the beholder! For example, some people think John Howard is bravely standing his ground in Iraq.
Andrew,
your posts about Brown/EPBC/balance of power don’t come across as you ’stating the facts’ they come across as you holding a personal grudge against Brown for using some pretty strong language in regards to the compromise negotiated on the EPBC. I’m glad you didn’t mean them as a personal attack, but as this is the third thread I’ve seen you bring it up in, felt compelled to say something.
In that light, isn’t it just as much a ‘fact’ that the Dems did a preference deal with FF over the Greens? – and I’ll ask as a more pertinent follow-up on a thread about Senate balance of power, to ask if you’re contemplating doing the same again? I think frankly if you’re going to come into a thread and assert from your experience that the Greens might muck up balance of power, you at least need to expect questions and probing about the Democrats. And if you can’t tell, I think what most progressives would really like is to see the sniping stop and the two parties work together.
As for your suggestion that I’m “deliberately omittingâ€? their work, please grow up. This thread is about balance of power – neither of the two Senators yo name have been in the Senate in a balance of power situation. Rachel Siewert’s…
And once again Christine Milne disappears entirely from your response, which I can’t help but question as I know you’re far too well versed not to know that she was involved in not one but two state government balance of power situations, first with the Labor government in the 1989 Accord, and then later in the 1990s in a balance of power situation with the Liberal government. So your argument is at best inconsistent – Milne’s experience is if anything, even greater than Brown’s, yet you only focus on the latter. I also think that saying that Siewart’s experience and efforts sort of ‘don’t count’ because it’s not been BOP is a bit shallow – not least when you consider that the Government’s current slim majority of one has seen the ALP and minor parties able to woo Joyce across the floor once, and attempt it several other times. There’s no reason or evidence to suggest that Siewart would suddenly change styles if in BOP is there?
I have never said the EPBC Act is perfect, but I strongly assert it is far better than what was there before – which is what balance of power negotation and compromise is all about.
And I agree Andrew, but I also equally agree with anyone who points out that as ‘improved’ as it might have been (and I sincerely thank you for doing your best), it’s ultimately a crock – so while I don’t support Brown personally abusing you (which is certainly how your conveyance of the issue comes across, not as some calm reporting of the ‘facts’ of Brown’s position), I can equally agree with him that the act fails our environment and our future.
I am somewhat surprised that you assert that Bob Brown is more idealistic than Christine Milne and Rachel Siewert, and the apparent negative correlation you posit between idealism and constructive cooperation. This doesn’t accord with my view, I’d have to say.
Interesting to note – perhaps I didn’t express it well, what I was trying to say is not that Siewart and Milne don’t have ideals, but rather they are much more apt IMHO at utilising the Senate than Brown. I like Bob, but I do think he has his weaknesses – what he is good at is putting his own livelihood and personal courage on the line, in instances such as the Wielangta court case. There are few if any politicians who can hold a candle to him in terms of his willingness to put his money where his mouth is, but that doesn’t mean he’s as good at the business of Senate negotiation. So that’s a long-winded way of saying I think you have a point albeit a limited one when talking about Brown, but it’s rather diminished by the fact that the Greens are much more than Bob Brown alone, despite the lazy mainstream media protrayals otherwise.
It’s obviously up to you whether you wish to believe that I’d be extremely sad to see the Democrats go from the Senate and federal politics in general this election. What I can’t fathom though is this – I can read your posts and see two levels – ie sharp criticism of the Greens but also a constructive person underneath – apparently you’re not able to fathom the same when you are the one on the recieving end. I am quite comfortable offering both criticism and support for the Democrats, and if you’re foolish enough not to be able to understand that this can be consistent and doesn’t make someone disingenious or your foe, your loss.
Andrew, Sorry, was incorrect on supply. I meant that the early Democrats under Chipp would not vote down money bills, while later Democratic Senators did not see money bills as off limits.
Incidentally I agree with money bills being voted down as within Senate power.
“The GST is a useful political weapon for others to use against the Democrats”.
Not to mention that it’s been done to death. Minor parties that aren’t prepared to compromise (particularly those holding the balance of power) don’t deserve the position.
If the Greens federally are anything like their Victorian brethren then they’ll be voting with the Coalition at every chance they get.
“If the Greens federally are anything like their Victorian brethren then they’ll be voting with the Coalition at every chance they get.”
What drivel. The Greens in Victoria only vote with the Coalition on scrutiny measures that Labor opposes because it’s in government – ie, an inquiry into poker machines. Oh, and on non-protection “protection” measures like Labor’s “we’ll let the minister decide whether to have a nuclear plebiscite” bill or not. (IF you look at the figures, the ALP and Coalition have voted together about 70% of the time too.)
Seriously, anyone in the ALP spreading the fundamentally dishonest line that the Greens are somehow in cahoots with the Liberals should be ashamed of him or herself. I don’t know if Dave from Albury falls in the category of dupe-r or dupe-e, but he’s flat-out wrong.
I’m sure I never mentioned cahoots, just voting record.
Robert m\Merkel, another way of putting it
Improbable but not impossible.
Andrew Bartlett and any Greens lurkers here:
The clear winners out of any conflict between the Australian Democrats and The Greens will be timeservers and rubberstamps put up by the Lib-Lab-Nats combine.
Very good Myriad – unload another comment full of sniping, while saying you’d “like the sniping to stop”. Gotta love it. I’ve had 16 years of people telling me the two parties should make an effort to work together – if I went through all my experiences of what I’ve encountered when I’ve made those efforts, I’d be typing until Xmas.
But thank you for your sincere thanks for my efforts at delivering a crock – it is good to see your supportive side coming through.
Also my apologies for making the same point on three different occasions. I should have realise that only pointing something out once is sufficient.
Unfortunately I’ve already stated my views about what should and will happen with preferences this time on far more than three threads – just on this website alone, let alone on many others where the same question repeatedly gets asked – so I best not repeat it yet again lest I be accused of being petty.
I would appreciate it you could identify the place – on this thread or anywhere else – where I’ve said anything remotely approaching the words “Rachel Siewert’s experience and efforts don’t count”. This is almost 100% opposite of my own beliefs, so I’d like to go back and correct the record if I’ve written it anywhere.
I’m well aware that Christine Milne was in the Tasmanian Parliament – this thread is about balance of power in the Senate. I don’t know why it’s my job to give a full rundown of the parliamentary history of every Green MP ever, just to avoid of being repeatedly accused by you of some sort of deliberate omission. I haven’t even mentioned any Democrat MP, why should I have to detail all the Greens? I may as well ask you what’s your agenda in refusing to mention Kerry Nettle, or why have you deliberately failed to mention the record of the Greens in the NSW Upper House.
My sole point, which you seem to be unwilling to accept, is that when people say that they will negotiate and compromise constructively if they hold the Senate balance of power, it is not unreasonable to look at their past attitudes and actions towards others who have done just that. I can detail plenty of other examples beyond the one I described, but it would seem that if I do, it will just inflame people who will think I am unfairly attacking the Greens, holding personal grudges, being full of gall and wormwood, etc.
I am quite comfortable offering both criticism and support for the Greens, but if you’re not able to understand that this can be consistent and doesn’t make someone disingenious or your foe, then there’s not much point my continuing to make the same point, just so it can meet with the same response.
Andrew Bartlett:
Hope you get back in. You are definitely worth feeding …. which is more than can be said from some of the people you see inside the chamber pretending to be Senators or said for some of those aspiring to become synthetic imitation Senators.
It would be nice too if one of the wasters of space and oxygen was replaced by a Green. Replacing the whole lot would be nice but, given our dodgy electoral system, unlikely just yet.
Andrew,
you wrote about Rachel Rachel Siewert’s sterling efforts and constructive approach in particular demonstrate that one can achieve a lot even without balance of power, but that is a different topic which describes a situation which doesn’t create the same difficult judgements that balance of power sometimes throws up.
from which I interpreted you as saying ‘Rachel’s good, but whatever she’s done doesn’t translate to being in a BOP sitation. You’d note if you weren’t too busy trying to take as maximum offence as possible from what I typed that I put ’sort of don’t count’ in paraphrase to indicate a general sense, and asked you a question to clarify.
I’m well aware that Christine Milne was in the Tasmanian Parliament – this thread is about balance of power in the Senate. I don’t know why it’s my job to give a full rundown of the parliamentary history of every Green MP ever, just to avoid of being repeatedly accused by you of some sort of deliberate omission. I haven’t even mentioned any Democrat MP, why should I have to detail all the Greens? I may as well ask you what’s your agenda in refusing to mention Kerry Nettle, or why have you deliberately failed to mention the record of the Greens in the NSW Upper House.
The point, which I think you are only too aware of, is that when you comment on how the Greens would respond to being in BOP, you only specifically talk about Bob Brown. Which makes your argument more than a little rubbery. Then when this is pointed out to you, you continue to cherry pick. I haven’t mentioned Nettle because I personally think she’s a bit of a git and clearly the juniour Green member in all senses – although apparently not so much of one that she couldn’t work cordially with other women Senators from the Dems, Libs and Labor to support the RU486 bill. You are welcome to extend my reference to Nettle to the NSW Upper House Greens, who are not good at compromise. Fortunately they don’t represent the whole party – any more than you would assert, I presume, that Meg Lees did with the dreaded GST deal. Also as Nettle is most likely to lose her seat, Nettle is the least likely to be involved in a BOP situation.
My sole point, which you seem to be unwilling to accept, is that when people say that they will negotiate and compromise constructively if they hold the Senate balance of power, it is not unreasonable to look at their past attitudes and actions towards others who have done just that.
I think that’s extremely reasonable, which is why your cherry picking of only your experience with Brown grates. You carefully never mention Milne’s experience in 2 BOP situations which is more than Brown’s own – or the fact that in her relatively short time in the Senate she’s successfully got the major parties to vote for two critical inquiries for eg – and never mention unless asked that Rachel Siewart has shown good understanding of how to use the Senate system. Hell, I’d think your argument was more robust if you’d thrown in Nettle, criticisms and all!
Ps- Andrew, point to where I’ve either ’smeared’ or ’sniped’ – ad hominen attacks aren’t nice.
If it is in relation to bringing up the preference deal with FF, it’s factual record that is clearly relevant to a thread like this, and if the Greens had done a deal with FF to try and out-compete the Dems, I’m sure you’d be throwing that into the mix yourself.
This is a re-run of the Stalinist “Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites” canard of the 1930s and its later variants along the lines that Soviet and Eastern European dissidents and reformers were “in league with US imperialism”, and the Spartacist League’s line of 1980 that those leftists (like myself) who opposed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for left-wing reasons “placed themselves in the camp of US imperialism and barbarous Islamic reaction”. It is also not a million miles removed from the Right’s claim that those leftists and liberals who are concerned about the current anti-terrorism laws and their misuse in cases such as that of Dr. Haneef are “supporting the terrorists”. And Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s claim that all those who opposed his government’s gross violations of democracy and accountability were “communists”. Need I go on?
Paul, feel free to go on. The Greens have sold themselves as a protest party for a long time, which is fine if you are in a position to stick to your principles without stuffing up the running of government. If the Greens hold the balance of power they will need to learn to compromise, holding the government to ransom so you can remain politically ‘pure’ does not lead to good outcomes.
Dave, what are your opinions based on? They read like cheap shots like Labor is taking in seats where they are directly threatened by the Greens. How about some evidence to back up your claims?
Peterc:
And if Dave From Albury does come up with a truckload of rock-solid evidence and a busload of credible witnesses, will you then scream “Anectdotal!! Anectdotal!!”? [Just asking].
Robert Merkel:
If The Greens and the Australian Democrats can be set at one another’s throats then the same bunch of timid rubberstamps will sneak back in and we will all be the poorer …. and that would make any questions about The Greens holding the Balance Of Power merely academic.
I recall that the WA Greens (Dee Margetts and Christabel Chamarette) acted as if they held the balance of power in the Senate after the ‘93 election (they did hold it if the ALP got the Dems on side). Can one draw any conclusions from that experience?
Peterc, if I sound like I’m spitting out Labor soundbites I can assure you it’s purely by coincidence, this part of the world is so rusted on that no political party bothers trying to tell us anything.
I too recall the WA Greens in the early 90’s being fairly obstructionist.
As I said above, the Greens have been selling themselves as a protest party for some time now, they are appealing to a constituency that does not want to compromise. This leads to a rejection of realpolitik, which is unfortunate because our system of government at present simply cannot operate without it.
I think that if they hold the balance of power the Greens will be difficult to deal with and they will vote against the government (whoever it is) because they will be scared stupid of being seen to have a “Democrat’s GST Moment” undermine their support. Either they are a protest party or they aren’t, either way they will lose some of their support once this is tested in a meaningful way.
Evidence: John Brumby “I invite anybody to go through the upper house voting records, the fact of the matter is … the Green political party has voted with the Liberal Party 68 per cent of the time.” – http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=416145
I, for one, am very glad that the Greens are sticking it to the ALP in Victoria over gambling etc.
And this “why can’t we all be friends” line is inane. We are talking about power over people’s lives. Not whose shout it is next.
Politics is a desperate struggle because the stakes are awful.
WBB:
Indeed!
That is why successful politicians can win valuable co-operation without confusing it with being lovey-dovey. That is why successful politicians can achieve their overall objectives without either compromising their aims or being fanatical and unnecessarily obstructive.
Much as I would like to see The Greens [and the Democrats and Hanson too] displace the Nat-Lib-Lab duds whose party loyalty has done so much harm to Australia, it just won’t happen.
The Greens have only themselves to blame for their image as being over-aggressive rather than robust, for being stick-in-the-mud rather than resolute, for being politically naive rather than reliably consistent, for being noisy rather than progressive …. and, to top it off, for appearing selfish rather than compassionate..
There’s been a lot of talk in this thread about how the Greens might “hold the government to ransom” so they can remain politically ‘pure’ (as Dave from Albury puts it) but of course that kind of scare-mongering can only be tested in practice when and if the Greens ever get such power, and when/if such situations arise.
So how about a test case? I doubt Bob Brown would want to comment on a hypothetical like this, but let’s assume that the Greens insisted on a complete 100% withdrawal of Australian forces from Iraq (leaving Afghanistan out of it for now). Would a Rudd government allow it? Of course Howard would not, but what about Costello?
If the government wanted to force a dissolution on this particular issue, would the Greens cave in to pressure? If they stood their ground, would the ensuing media circus be ultimately detrimental to their public support? Would it destroy them as a party, or be the making of them as a credible alternative government?
They would certainly have my support! Half the country would probably deride them as self-righteous fools, but I think an extended public debate on this particular issue would certainly work to their advantage, and ultimately a sizeable portion of the other half (40% maybe?) would be strongly supportive.
If the Greens do get such power, I hope they use it courageously.
(NB: If only the US Democrats showed a bit more spine in such matters!)
Dave from Albury:
Unlike federal politics, it is a common occurrence for ALL parties to vote together on state legislation. Brumby is being disingenuous – the ALP has voted with the Liberals more often than the Greens, but mostly they all vote together. I recommend you look up the voting record for yourself instead of relying on Brumby. It gives a much clearer picture of how state legislation works.
Vic ALP is upset that the Greens have not fallen into line behind the ALP, but instead called them to account on gambling and the process for a nuclear plebiscite. Now the ALP are trying to pressure the Greens into falling into line by convincing voters that the Greens and Libs are in bed together. In short, the state ALP are threatening the Greens with the line: ’support us unconditionally or we will tell voters you support the Liberals’.
It is simply not true, and more importantly, it is anti-democratic. If the fed Greens behave in the Senate as the Vic Greens have, then we will see the restoration of the Senate as a house of review.
Here’s the voting record for all parties in the Vic Legislative Council to September 2007.
Dave,
Thanks for the link. It reports the Labor attempted smear campaign to paint the Greens as supporting the Liberals in some sort of right wing conspiracy mish mash. Bizarre really, when the likes of Lindsay Tanner were previously accusing the Greens of being “far left extrements” in 2004. Now to save his own bacon, he has done a backflip and and is now accusing the Greens as being the opposite (along with Brumby).
Labor in Vic really are struggling on quite a few fronts – spending 2.9b on a desal plant while still allowing logging of water catchments. Spending 9b on a tunnel freeway link that will encourage more cars, trucks and green house gas emissions and building now significant new train lines. Setting a VRET and emissions target, then approving the construction of another brown coal power station . . . Now they are using WorkChoices to kick the nurses out of an justified pay rise. Brumby = Kennett.
Reading through the article, there is an interesting quote from Greg Barber (Greens MLA):
For the Greens reponse to Labor’s lies, the % has gone up – see [link]
Don’t confuse Labor’s political attacks on the Greens – based on outright lies like “the Greens prefernce the Liberals” – with reality
Regarding realpolitic – the Greens voting for progressive Labor bills and opposing their undemocratic ones and their avoidance of public scrutiny – I think demonstrates a degree of political realism and practical politics.
Not sure why you think the Greens should be either a protest party or not one. This is a false dichotomy. The Greens policies and ethos are based on the four pillars of social justice, enviroment, democracy and peace. Some of this involves protest – eg. against Labor & Liberal inaction on climate change – and some involves releasing polices on matters ranging from energy efficiency through the health and public transport services funding.
No point supporting the old parties as they are morphing into the same animal in this campaign now clearly dominated by “me tooing”.
Having said that, Howard has got to go – and Rudd will be slightly better on climate change (but not WorkChoices!)
Gandhi, it could never come to that. Even if we do achieve balance of power, the Greens could never dream of ‘insisting’ on anything that both the major parties oppose so vehemently. It would just be ignored.
The power of holding the balance is in extracting concessions on issues which are up for grabs, or negotiating additions in exchange for something else. There’s no way the Greens could hold out for a completel withdrawal from Iraq in exchange for anything. Bob has already made it clear, for instance at the Press Club, that we are well aware that there is likely to be nothing we can do to actually close down the uranium industry in Australia, since both parties support it so strongly.
Tim, you say:
But then you concede:
What’s to stop you nominating a complete Iraq withdrawal as that “something else” and then holding up Senate legislation (even un-related stuff) until you get your wish?
Am I really the only person in Australia who would support such action? A million Iraqi people are dead since we invaded, lest we forget.
Think about it for a second, gandhi.
A balance-of-power Party can only hold up legislation for which there is not bipartisan agreement. If the Government and Opposition agree, there’s no power in the balance to take advantage of.
Should Labor be elected in November with a majority-free Senate, the Greens would only be blocking those Bills which did *not* have Opposition support. They’re most likely to be the ones also important to the Greens agenda—repealing WorkChoices, for instance.
Ghandi, just think for bit why it’s called “balance of power” rather than “supreme sovereign power” and I think you’ll get the picture.
Sorry folks, I did my back in last night and I’m on painkillers, hence the unusually shallow thought processes. I’ll shut up now.
By the way, did you do the beautiful line drawing in your gravatar? It’s very special.
My three and half year old daughter recognised it as a picture of “that good man from India on those books you have”.
Sure, great drawing, but in any case that’s a pretty snappy 3 year old!
Apologies re: spelling too, Gandhi.
Thanks guys, I’m afraid I just googled for the image. I know it’s a presumptuous moniker but I’ve found it useful when trying to get my pacifist ideas through to people who have little concept of such things.
Final thought on a Greens balance of power:
Heh.
Well, all I know, gandhi, is that you’ve been irrepressible in your opposition to the invasion of Iraq. It’s the biggest political issue in this country by a mile since Vietnam (along with climate change) but it just don’t get the attention it should be. We’ve helped kill a million people – and yet it drops off the radar. Stunning, really.
I admire your resoluteness.
As do I. The tenacity of a staffy with a mouthful of postman. Umm.. evil postman who deserves it for some reason.
I’d like to see you let poor ol’ Timmy D off the hook, though.
Thanks for the kudos, folks. I don’t think it is “resoluteness” – just sheer bloody-minded anger.
As for poor Timmy, who still spikes my occasional well-intended comments to his blogs, well… that’s probably even further off-topic than this back-slapping nonsense!
But while we are at it, I would sincerely like to thank Andrew Bartlett for taking the time to post his informative thoughts here: now that is real participatory democracy in action!