William Bowe, aka The Poll Bludger, has an interesting take on the pro-Greens trend apparently evident in recent elections, about which there’s been a bit of talk around the traps. It’s been most evident in the ACT election on the weekend, where The Greens secured a 6.6% swing in their favour. I wonder to what degree this might be an artefact of the ACT’s election system, where there’s a much more transparent representation of voters’ preferences, and thus, conceivably, a greater incentive to vote for a non-major party.
Of course, the ACT isn’t exactly a population representative of Australia. Nevertheless, there may be, as Bowe suggests, some tea leaves to read for inner city Labor held seats federally and in states where Labor is really on the nose. (I’ve qualified the statement about the trend with “apparently”, largely because I think that far too much can be made of comparable results in distinct jurisdictions and similarly, I don’t accept that all the remaining Labor state administrations are in as much trouble as the NSW government. I suspect there’s a significant degree of error – something like the ecological fallacy – committed by NSW-centric media and political commentators extrapolating far too readily from what’s around them locally to other parts of the country.)
The two explanations for The Greens’ increased success in vote gathering tend to be posited – that they hoover up “disaffected left-wing votes” and that there are largely positive reasons based around issues and the party’s own profile and image which are attracting more voters. The two, of course, aren’t necessarily incompatible, though political journalists tend to present them as if they are. I strongly suspect there are some soft Liberal and swinging votes going to The Greens, and for a range of reasons. Here, it would be very useful to have some good focus group research rather than endless voting intention polls. So while I know we’ve got our share of both Labor and Green partisans around here, I’d be very interested in hearing from people who feel less identified with either the ALP or The Greens about what might sway their voting choices, and also from those who are more directly involved in party politics in anything they’re picking up from campaigning (without the partisan hats on!)…
Update: A post on this topic from Andrew Bartlett.
In Queensland – Lawrence Springborg will put off a lot of urban Libs who won’t might think about voting for Anna Bligh but can’t stomach most of her MPs & especially front bench (eg. Spence) – which I think goes some way towards explaining the positive trend in recent polling. Although the danger for the Greens will be to what extent they become victims of their own success. If they continue to take on board people like Ronan Lee who clearly joined the party for opportunistic reasons then their Activist base will splinter and urban Libs/swinging voters (and also ALP folk I guess) might start to see the Greens as a party for ALP regos and opportunists rather than a party with a genuine ideological backbone or a relatively safe place to park a protest vote given the unlikelihood of it ever having real power.
Rather – …who might *think* about voting for Anna…
Blackberry & BCC buses don’t make for smooth editing!
Yr a reasonably objective sociologist Mark – so why limit yrself?
Why not include input from those who know that the Greens are fatally flawed – but nevertheless might still be willing to utilize these tactically ‘useful idiots’ in order to tweak democratic-socialism leftwards?
That is towards libertarian-socialism make. Why chain yrself to a corpse?
The scary thing about the Greens is that they have the best of intentions (intentions make excellent pavers). They are often correct about things such as a no nuclear power agenda. Then they go on and ruin it by mouthing empty slogans such as “Solar not Nuclear”. Thus they lock the doors upon artificial geothermal systems; for example. “Who needs Geothermal when we have pure energy from the sun”. Thus the greens mantra is basically ignorant posturing. They come across as too lazy and too mired in some post modern and shallow fantasy world to really examine matters. No-where in any of their extensive posturing on Solar power have I seen a proper and scientific analysis; all is given – good is assumed. The fact that there are major major problems involved in the injection of more than a few percent of our energy requirement from solar is totally ignored by these enthusiasts. In fact the entire greens ouvre -apart from some rather good stuff on the environment is riddled with anti scientific cant.
Huggy
Something I probably should have mentioned in my post was the impact of optional preferential voting, which NSW and Queensland has and Victoria doesn’t. Basically OPV makes it harder for the Greens, because a lot of Liberal voters exhaust where they would otherwise put Labor last. If not for OPV I might have gone so far as to suggest Anna Bligh herself might be in trouble in her seat of South Brisbane, which is the one state seat the Queensland Greens have been known to fantasise about winning.
Well I think the ‘apparent’ trend to the Greens is real.
Gradual progress perhaps but nevertheless real and increasing in significance. I suspect they have increased their percentage vote at all elections, state and federal, in the past few years [that can be checked] and have shown steady progress in opinion polls particularly since ‘07.
The graph is ever upwards albeit a gentle slope.
I’ll suggest a few mundane reasons why, apart from the obvious growing appeal of their policies particularly in the light of climate change, workNOchoices, indigenous affairs et al.
One mundane reason for this success includes that the logistics of continuing to succeed are running in their favour. Money is starting to flow.
As a party that relies largely on membership funding and small donations rather than the largely anonymous donations that the big 2 receive [and kudos to Faulkner for his reforms there] funding campaigns has been difficult. For example my budget for one federal electorate 2 elections ago was $500 total. At that election Family First spent more on TV commercials than the entire budget for the Greens in that state. The near 1% increase in the Greens vote nationwide last election [and I think it was even higher in the Senate] was a monetary windfall and has enabled a higher public profile since.
With more Senators and increased reps in the states comes parliamentary support staff, offices, funding and resources which enables a greater reach into the community, better than previously.
In SA the Greens were virtually invisible prior to the last state election, media releases were largely ignored. Whilst the media still prefer to turn a blind eye to the Greens that has become harder since and the Greens are getting greater publicity and public attention.
As their vote has grown I suspect the FF jibe of calling the Greens ‘extreme’ has been diluted, in fact I would reckon the name callers have been exposed as the real extremists. A 10% nationwide vote, more than the Nationals,FF, Democrats [who?] and the ‘others’ combined, has shown that the Greens are a growing force and cannot be ignored so easily.
I’m not overly optimistic about the future, I wouldn’t get carried away, I reckon progress will continue to be slow with perhaps a hiccup or two and probably not the continued strength of last weekend.
But they are here to stay and cannot be ognored or derided as easily as before.
[Oh and the so-called 'opportunistic' factor is well under control here in SA, there is a rigourous selection process in place that has stood the party well recently.]
Put me in the “hoovered up, disaffected” category. My vote went to the Greens when Beazley went to jelly over the Tampa. It went green in the last council election here because Labor didn’t run and some real wierdos did so I wanted to vote diametrically opposite to the bible thumpers that were proferred. I went independent in the last state election (NSW) because the local sitting independent isn’t a redneck and keeps his religion to himself. The vote probably would have been green if the sitting member was Labor (New England we’re talking about).
I’m not sure I’d bother much with Greens policies or expect them to become a major force though – just not economically pragmatic enough which has been stated well enough in earlier posts here. They’re a backstop against religious nutbaggery, corruption and stupidity.
I frankly think its a greater concern for quality of life in our cities, and the bankrupt, near-braindead lack of imagination from State Labour adminsitrations about this.
People can SEE the cities population are growing, and what are ALP adminsitrations doing? Building more freeways. That moron Brumby today, after a lot of agitation here about the need for upgrading public infrastructure – which is just blindingly obvious common sense – actually had the stupidity to say “well, with the financial crisis a lot of these will be on hold”.
This is why he will lose the next election, caned from left and right for his lack of foresgiht.
Of course – he’ll find the dollars for a new freeway., Probably tomorrow. Its banckrupt – and I suspect, plain corrupt thinking. Idiocy this unmoving can only be paid for by special interests.
I’ll make it real simple: even car owners need better public transport. Its the ONLY thing that will ultimately cure congestion. New roads dont.
Which is my response to Huggybunny – the Greens is increasing because ALP policies on urban life are so unrealistic, impractical, out of date, and plain faith-based or ideological. The Greens approach simply makes more sense to increasing numbers of people, and is more evidence-based.
prof. rat @ 3 – I’m interested in input from all quarters – and preferably, as I said, input that’s relatively agnostic vis a vis the relative merits of The Greens as a party from a partisan point of view – temporarily agnostic at least, and more attuned to why they’re becoming more electorally appealling, and to whom.
As to democratic socialism/libertarian socialism, I’d also be interested in the degree to which either participative and/or socialist impulses are present in The Greens as a party, but perhaps that’s a topic for another thread.
Mark @ #9
But that’s the problem, I think: what is the political space that the Greens are filling – or see themselves as filling (and these are two different things).
The potential for the Greens depends very much upon what political tack they take. Will they shift further right in an opportunist grab for seats without fighting to change the political landscape too much overall, or will they capitalise on the space opened up by the rightward drift of the ALP (and the consequent alienation of much of the union movement – and more to come)?
Even if the second is the case, there is still the question of whether they will simply begin to “fill in” for a social democratic party, or whether the compromises involved will lead to a splintering of their more radical parts.
I think there is the scope for the Greens to grow, but it falls into these two camps.
Either they try to take a centre-left tack (as opposed to the ALP’s general centre-to-centre-right politics, with the unions as the major qualifier here, and even that is onyl partial) and try to simply fill the space vacated by Labour;
Or they try to fill this space, and dislodge unions form labor and become a genuine social demcratic party, or even deomcratic socialist (left, far-left or centre-left are all options, depending on the balance of forces).
Moving further right poses serious challenges which harms their radical base (the people that in a large part have built, and still build, the Greens) in the hunt for more votes. This – and an anti-socialist sentiment – has been a strong tendency in parts of the Greens (and has been since inception as a federal organisation, when they kicked out the SWP), and Bob Brown and people around him are central players in this. The end result could be as ugly as Die Grünen in Germany.
The real question – to my mind – is to what degree the Greens recognise the importance and power of the unions, and the degree to which they could make real inroads into them, while also carrying the enviro flag ( a quick look at the AMWU’s Climate Change policy, or the ETU support of the Greens in the Federal eletcion, should show this – although the former also had a significant socialist input).
If they don’t capitalise on Rudd’s (essentially) anti-union politics, they run the risk of cornering themselves like the democrats did.
I tend to think that the Greens are fatally flawed (and the argument of “neither left nor right, but green” is a symptom of this failure), but they have the potential to play a vital part in rebuilding the left in Australia in a way that hasn’t been seen for some time. A potential, mind you, which might not be realised for the reasons above.
I kinda agree with most of that, Wombo, but I’d just emphasise again I’d like the primary focus of the comments to remain on what’s happening currently with their electoral appeal. However I don’t want to be too restrictive!
That’s the point, though. Electoral appeal is a fickle thing.
The ETU in Victoria (and other unions) have thrown money and support at the Greens, largely because of their opposition to WorkChoices. But the Greens continue a line of not antagonising the “blue-greens” (disenchanted Liberal voters, and perhaps even some more conservative Labour voters), rather than consolidating themselves on the political spectrum.
Part of this has been a position of not taking unnecessary positions, to avoid antagonising people, and hence to gain electoral favour as incumbent governments and incompetent oppositions bleed all over the carpet.
But for the reasons noted above, this is an unsustainable strategy.
Hannahs Dad – there is incremental growth, but it is so glacial that it will take about 30 elections (or 120 years) for this to put the Greens in a winning position.
So their vote grew by 1% between the last two Federal elections and by less than that between the 2002 and 2006 Victorian State elections.
I get annoyed with the hype leading up to EVERY election, where the Greens spruik that they’re going to hold the balance of power, win 10 Lower House seats etc etc…then comprehensively don’t, to have exactly the same lines trotted out in the media next time around. There doesn’t seem to much scrutiny by the media of these claims.
As an ‘on the ground’ political operative, the Greens vote is still mainly built on protest voters. Because their vote is reactive rather than attractive (if you get what I mean) it tends to be based on the desire to punish rather than the desire to support. This means that (for these voters) the Greens don’t have to have policies at all, let alone have these scrutinised in the way a major party expects to be – voting for the Greens is simply a way of voting for ‘AN Other’ rather than an endorsement.
As for John Brumby not working according to an evidence base, Lefty E, whew!! Quite the opposite. Perhaps his evidence doesn’t agree with your evidence (and I expect, with Treasury and all the other Depts busily collecting information, he has more evidence than you or the Greens) but my knowledge of JB is that if the evidence isn’t there, he’s not interested.
Over the years since the fifties at least, the Aust political landscape has been one of two major political parties (and I don’t count the Nats as a separate party) and one minor one – ‘to keep the bastards honest’.
First it was the DLP, following their demise, it was the Aust Democrats, and now the Greens are filling in that vacuum. (With a flirtation with One Nation – I am sure that many had private thoughts of jumping with Pauline Hanson).
I would be surprised if the Greens were more than a loose coalition of people with actual green convictions, and with those who are disaffected with the Government of the day and simply cannot bring themselves to vote for the Opposition.
Then why is Brumby such a complete drongo on public transport infrastructure, given the plain projections on population growth, Mackenzie?
Im sure Brumby gets ‘evidence’ on the questions he is interested in. That does not make his approach “evidence-based”.
The ALP will lose its inner-city seats to the Greens because their hidebound urban policies are failing to move with the times. Turst me, peoplem can see the transport infrastructure groaning – and whne Brumby does nothing, it just seems perverse, inane, out of touch, wrong, dim, rudderless, clueless, and completely impractical.
Business as usual aint working.
I think Melbourne (state) is probably lost already, and possibly Richmond as well. Long term the Greens will have ambitions for Northcote, Brunswick, Prahran and Albert Park.
The existence of a conservative ALP government is the ideal breeding ground for Greens support, as displayed by their massive vote increase in 2002. Once the ALP loses office, most of those Green voters will recognise the Liberal Party as “the real enemy” and flock back to the ALP.
I think by and large it does vary from administration to administration. To take the example of the NSW Government, I think there will be quite a strong tendency in 2011 for leftish Labor voters to give the Greens their first preference and possibly not preference Labor at all, should the Rees Government fail in its attempts to portray itself as a competent administration. In this scenario, one or two inner city seats are bound to fall to the Greens.
On the other hand, I think things could trend slightly the other way federally in 2010; if the Rudd Government does a good enough job with pursuing climate change and “soft” social issues over the next couple of years, I would not be surprised if it nabbed a few primary votes back from the Greens.
Hmmm …
“I’d be very interested in hearing from people who feel less identified with either the ALP or The Greens about what might sway their voting choices”
I guess that might mean people like me, I don’t identify well with either the ALP or the Greens, but I don’t identify with the Libs, Nats or FF either. I’m just that cynical about the whole lot of them. Ok, It could just be me, but I’m noticing an ever increasing negative focus of some Greens advertising, and it ‘appears’ that Bob Brown is getting increasingly personal in attacks against Labor, It’s like they got to 10% primary vote and thought “Well enough or trying to sell our values, let’s start deriding everyone else’s ideas”.
Personally, I don’t trust major parties, they skew results against deserving candidates (whoever they are, or wherever they went depending on your viewpoint), ensuring that the smallest number of people control the largest part of Australian governments. The Greens just appear to be modeling themselves up into a major party, willing to sell principal for cheap populism, why should I vote for them when I already have 2 parties that can provide that service?
PinkyOz
Self declared Green partisan obviousl –
but I am slightly gobsmacked that no-one has mentioned at all that Australians have consistently shown that they are very concerned about climate change, voted in federal labor with CC being one of the key issues, and are now watching Labor at all levels fail to meet voter aspirations/expecations on it.
I’m in Tas, which is quite different, but on the ground we are watching more voters across the spectrum who self-nominate climate change as a key issue for them taking a look at the greens.
IOW, I think comments dismissing the rise in recent votes for the Greens as only disaffection are pre-emptively and probably erroneously dismissing the fact that this may also reflect a longer term shift, not a once off protest vote.
To some degree it is a longer shift, myriad, in that The Greens are getting a vote that wasn’t going to them a decade ago. The question, though, and this point has been raised by Marks @ 14, is to what degree they’ve occupied a place in the political system where “not a major party” sits. It would be interesting to know how much churn there is in The Greens’ vote – that is, people voting for The Greens at one election who have never voted for them before and may never again, to be replaced by others who… etc. That was very high for the Democrats – around 40-60% if memory serves. That was their big problem – they were in effect a place holder for disaffected votes, and they couldn’t hang on to them once particular reasons for disaffection were mitigated. I’d be surprised if that occurs to the same degree with The Greens, because they’ve got something of a sharper image than the Democrats, but it must to some, and they must know it, because some of the campaign material actively goes fishing for this sort of vote.
If South Australia is any indication of what is happening elsewhere in Australia then the ranks of the Greens are increasing by the day off the back of disaffected Laborites. I’m not just talking about voters here; I know of a number of former Labor Party members who resigned and went off to join the Greens. I suspect that the more Labor drifts to the right, then the more people the party will lose to the more genuinely left-wing Greens.
One of the things that has been quite evident over the past couple of state and federal elections has been the dramatic increase in the number of people handing out how-to-vote cards for the Greens at country booths – something that was almost unheard of twenty years ago. The country areas of South Australia is where Labor is really in danger of losing its supporter base, especially as green issues become more and more dominant in these electorates.
Oh, and not running a candidate in Mayo didn’t help the perception that Labor doesn’t give a shite about the country. I suspect that a lot of those 30% or so of Labor voters who went Green or green independent may never come back and that it will from now on be a Liberal v Green fight in Mayo.
The Greens best road forward would lie in establishing themselves as the preferred party on government services health and education this would enable them to appeal to centre-left rather than just left voters. Labor inner-city MPs are on borrowed time once the Greens win these seats Labor’s vote would rapidly decline as labor’s on the ground infrastructure and social networks are ageining fast. Precedent here is rise of the Country Party once it won seats from the Nationalists these seats were not regained. Young politically ambitious people on the left in inner-city locations will be pulled to the Greens rather than the ALP.
The Greens will win inner city safe ALP seats instantly when they can reliably attract and keep the preferences of Liberal voters, either through preference deals with the Party or campaigning. For the forseeable future, seats like Melbourne and Richmond, and Balmain and Marrickville, will be three-cornered, not two-sided contests. I’ll be interested to see how the Greens will embrace their Tories while also appealing to left- and centre-left voters.
Wombo’s point is well-made. The Greens’ members of Parliament and their partisan base is somewhat disconnected to their voters—Greens partisans generally have a staunch orientation to non-environmental Left causes such as trade unionism, feminism and disarmament. Their potential voters, less so. How Greens campaigns can reconcile the potential support both of the CFMEU/AMWU/ETU/etc. and of small business low-tax NIMBY-green folk is going to be an increasing problem.
/labor-stooge
With difficulty, I’d say, Liam.
That was really The Greens’ problem in the Brisbane Central by-election caused by Peter Beattie’s resignation. The candidate, Anne Boccabella, was definitely in the local activist category and made an awful lot of her background as a small business person and launched attacks on the Labor candidate, Grace Grace – who was a prominent unionist as secretary of Unions Qld. I know this turned off a number of union friendly voters who were disillusioned with state Labor, but it didn’t succeed in attracting enough Liberal voters – the Libs didn’t run a candidate.
Including myself, I should add.
I was leaning towards voting for The Greens, then I went to a public meeting and I was really put off by her rhetoric that sailed very close to being anti-union, and also the assumption – which she confirmed in conversation with me was her view – that being a small business owner demonstrated a disposition to take risks, etc, and which came across to me as an argument for the superior virtues of the petit bourgeois as opposed to us sad sack workers. So I voted for Grace.
In the federal election, The Greens’ candidate for Brisbane seemed to me to be a policy free zone and concentrated on telling her own personal story of (I thought somewhat undirected) activism, accompanied with attacks on Arch Bevis for being a politician, which I also found distasteful. I’m disinclined to vote for someone on the grounds of their claims about their own personal virtue, and on denigration of their opponent. So I voted for Arch.
I have voted #1 the Democrats and The Greens in the past in lower house contests at federal and state level.
The following figures show that the previous big surge in the Greens’ vote occurred largely in the first three to four years of the millennium:
Federal elections:
Year House of Representatives (%) Senate (%)
1993: 0.40 0.81
1996: 1.74 1.66
1998: 2.14 2.66
2001: 4.96 4.38
2004: 7.19 7.67
2007: 7.79 9.04
Queensland state elections
Year Legislative Assembly (%)
2001: 2.5
2004: 6.8
2006: 8.0
NSW State elections
Year LegislativeCouncil (%) Legislative Assembly (%)
1999: NA 2.9
2003: 8.2 8.6
2007: 8.9 9.1
Victorian State elections
Year Legislative Council (%) Legislative Assembly (%)
1999: 1.2 2.2
2002: 9.7 10.9
2006: 10.0 10.6
The three main factors contributing to the growth of the Green vote in this period can be fairly readily identified, i.e.:
(a) resurgent interest in environmental issues (as measured by memberships of environmental movement organisations, salience of environmental issues in elections, and public opinion surveys);
(b) the Tampa effect on Labor members and supporters;
(c) the decline of the Democrats.
The first of these, and something like the second of these, may well be at work in the most recent upsurge in Greens support but I wouldn’t be surprised if Mark’s suspicion about soft Liberal and swinging voters being in the mix was correct, and agree that we need some good focus group research to shed some light on what’s currently going on.
I agree with your agreement with me, Mark. I suspect the Greens suffer particularly from this kind of irreconcilable politics because their campaigns rely so heavily on word-of-mouth.
The other unmentioned issue is that of levels of Government. Unlike the majors and traditional local Independents (like Andren, Katter, and so on) whose appeal seems to be relatively constant across levels of administration it seems to me that the Greens’ appeal radically increases the more local the level of Government in question.
I’m not sure why it has been easier lately for the Greens to win votes at the Council/Shire level than for Federal or State seats—apart from the matter of PR, obviously—but it is definitely a factor. Why would the same area vote for a Green mayor but not a Green lower house cross-bencher?
That has never made sense to me.
Sure, thats a good point Liam, though Im not sure how big the “small business low-tax NIMBY-green folk” consitunency actually is.
I cana say that the Greens hardcore number crunchers (and yes, they have em!) estimate 10% of their support are ex-tories who would never vote ALP in a bazillion years. Thats 1.5% of the electorate, and frankly, thats government for left-of-centre parties when things are tight.
I am also a bit suspect of theories that try to apportion Greens support as a “protest vote”. That strikes me as a legacy of the days when Greens may or may not have continued as a force. fact is they are now an establshed party and these shofts are better seens as “swings” – as they are between major parties.
eg Rudd converted a number of swingin voters last election. Is that really best viewed as a “protest vote” against the Libs? Id call it a swing – which will have permanent (electoral/ demographic shifts) and impermanent (07 election specific) components.
The Greens vote is basically rising over time, and the Democrats are not nec. a good analogy, IMO – as theres are a concrete and identifiable material set of concerns driving Green politics.
Also, its just an electoral fact that the more highly educated are over-represented in Green support. Thats neither here nor there in most respects, in my view – but it DOES bear upon the idea of impermanent “protestors” just parking their vote temporarily by way of an ill thought-out, reactive up-yours to the majors. Id suggest the Greens have fewer of these than most parties.
The distinction, Lefty E, as I suggested @ 20, lies in the composition of the vote across time. The Democrats were unable to hold on to many votes from election to election and really didn’t have a “base”. That won’t be the case with The Greens, but their aim has to be to convert votes which swing at one election for reasons that essentially don’t have that much to do with them (*though they do need to establish that they’re a respectable vehicle for such voters*) into votes that might have a better chance of sticking. That’s easier said than done.
The number that we really need – it may be in the AES but I haven’t got time to check this morning – is the churn number from election to election. Since The Greens, as Paul demonstrates, have reached a sufficient level of support across several elections to disaggregate that figure, we should be able to work out a lot from a time series.
Guy, I don’t seem to recall a stunningly brilliant performance by the Rudd government on “soft social” issues yet…
The apology was a win. The effective killing-off of mandatory detention was a win. But he’s hardly the second coming of Don Dunstan.
Lefty E wrote:
My guess is that it is too small to measure. Worse than that, the you’d need a “small business, low-tax, NIMBY, green, OK with gay marriage and ‘liberal’ school teaching, non-religious-conservative” types of which in Australia there are exactly none.
I think you’re downplaying the amount of people who voted for the Democrats in the Upper House, but were solid small-l liberals. Once the Dems bolted for the left, those people deserted them. Others were unhappy with Meg Lees’s contribution to workable government, as left for the Greens. Either way, nearly all of the Dems’ voters were unhappy with something they did.
I also don’t think you can downplay the effect conservative Steve Bracks had on increasing the Green vote in Victoria in 2002. There was also a dearth of other candidates because the election was called on the earliest possible day.
I still say the ideal conditions for a large Green vote is a conservative ALP government.
Yes, just to clarify, Mark: I’m sure that’s a component of any given Greens vote, and it would be interesting to know.
I guess Im suggesting that its probably smaller component of the Greens vote than not just that of the Dems (could a party possibly be set up for a higher churn factor?
), but probably than the two majors.
eg NSW state by elections seats last weekend. That’s fierce temporary churn. Thats high protest only component.
After all, what are our classic two party ’swingers’ but folk who dont ’stick’ after moving once?
In nay case, the partical implication for the ALP are that they only have a short window to take those people back. Or it will be game over! Some non-pissweak enviro polcies would seriously demonstrate the Green base vote.
Interesting you should mention that, Lefty. I was in Ryde and scrutineered.
Though the Greens how-to-votes directed a [1] only, a good quarter of the Greens (at my booth) voted preferentially and a large majority directed them to the Liberals.
The Green vote in the ACT benefited from disgust with both a bungling ALP goverment and a very unlikeable opposition. Also there was an unusually poor field of independents this year. Ya gotta remember, too, that the ACT has the most politically literate electorate in Australia; one that regularly distinguishes national and local issues. I wouldn’t read too much into this result.
I don’t consider myself especially left wing – quite the reverse on a lot of economic issues, in fact. But I mostly vote Green these days. That’s partly because of the presence of the worst type of social conservative in both major parties and partly because I’ve gradually come to believe the Greens are right on the big picture of the environment – we can’t go on as we are indefinitely. I suspect I’m far from alone.
I do get annoyed at their frequent economic illiteracy, and even on the environment they can be pretty silly (eg the kneejerk reaction to the word “nuclear”, and the fondness for feelgood gestures that don’t change the big picture).
Intersting Liam. Does that suggest ex-Lib voters also peeved at their own party? Or ex-ALP voters who couldnt go Lib first, but really wanted to punish the NSW ALP?
On this: It is a fact well-known to Greens number crunchers that their voters are the least likely to follow HTV orders of any party. Goes back to the highly educated over-representation issue. Thats why I always laugh when the ALP makes up nonsense about pref deals with Libs. A – its always complete crap; and B- even if they did, Green voters would ignore it.
“Australians have consistently shown that they are very concerned about climate change, voted in federal labor with CC being one of the key issues, and are now watching Labor at all levels fail to meet voter aspirations/expecations on it.”
So Myriad, your own “hypothesis” regarding “growth” of the “greens” is increased atmospheric CO2?
Now where have I heard that before?
How many of you are there that vote Greens because you believe that their overall policy framework is the one most geared towards meaningful personal freedom for all? Or is that just me…
huggybunny @ 4 – It’s clear you’ve never actually spoken to any Greens or read any of our literature. If you had, you’d realise that most of us like the idea of geothermal energy.
However, nice straw man.
One of the reasons I voted Green was that they are the only socially progressive party left, with both Labor and Liberal parties dominated by socially conservative people nowadays. Also in the ACT there’s basically no way that the government can do that much harm to the economy (with all the federal government jobs), so its not a bad place to have a bit of an experiment. Life in The Bubble should get a bit more interesting over the next few years with the Greens having so much influence.
We could well be seeing the reprise of the politics of a century ago, where Deakin-style liberals are squeezed between conservatives and Labor. In this scenario, the Greens take inner-city seats and the Libs take the ‘burbs. This is the NSW Labor vision taken to its logical endpoint, now that Rees is just twisting in the breeze.
The Greens are right to fill the hole left by the Democrats, where earnest policy nerds get into the Senate and toil away and join the dots which lead to a big story. The Dems were past masters at this: it was Janine Haines’ true legacy, just beaver away and you build credibility over time. Kernot and Stott Despoja kicked this model to death, and now Milne and Siewert have taken it and outmanoevered past-it Brown and that silly Trot from NSW.
The Greens would be mad to embrace the far left, they are polling poison just as much as the far right (oh yes). Wombo, you might be frustrated that the Greens won’t stay bought when the ETU bullyboys lob cash at them, but it is a smart strategy to become everyone’s second preference.
My point here isn’t that they should embrace the far left (despite my own politics, and preference that they do so), nor that they “stay bought” by ETU “bullyboys” (and better bought by them than the “bullyboys” of Capital, I say).
Rather, my point is that the “centre space” is not viable in the long term (the Dems got a good run, but times have moved on a bit, and the Greens aren’t really “centre” anyway). A strategy of simply seeking preferences while ignoring the real gap to Labor’s left they could be filling (and which much of their base belongs to) is a mistake.
So, yes, the Greens are currently riding the concern over climate change and disaffection with the major parties, but can that last? That’s the question.
“Greens aren’t really “centre” anyway”
They would be if we were in many continental European nations. Indeed, many of their policies aren’t hugely different those of what are considered conservative governments in many Scandinavian countres.
FDB, I can’t get into your link from work, alas. So if I’m missing an amusing joke, forgive me.
I think my point is that sustainability is the key issue of the time, whether people call it that or not – climate change is the ‘visible’ sustainability crisis, and polling has shown that the Greens are the most trusted party on the issue – which I think is worth picking up as a reason for increasing vote as much as major party discontent etc.
I think you could also make a plausible argument that the Greens are now treated as a much more credible force by the media, which means more (at least) neutral rather than negative media coverage etc. I think there’s few who would argue that climate change, and in particular Christine Milne’s work on climate change, has played a significant role in this. And Andrew E is right to point to the work of Milne and Siewart in the senate. It will be interesting to see which working style Hanson-Young and Ludlam follow – brown’s or milne/siewart, but I can hazard a guess.
There’s no doubt that unlike the Dems, the Greens have a decent rusted on base in most states. In Tas I’d say it’s about 15%.
Unlike others, I don’t see the need for the Greens to appeal at once both ‘left’ and ‘right’ if you like as particularly difficult, once we get our messaging right, not historically a strong point (and one of the reasons I tip my hat to Milne’s skills in this area). The Greens actually do have a coherent and logical view for the future if given half a chance, that places government and private industry in a logical context of sustainabilit & social justice in particular. Sure you can point to the fringes of the party like “the Trot” but I’d argue even an astute observor of the NSW Greens in the upper house there would have seen quite a shift in style and attitude.
Finally, there’s no doubt that the Rudd Gov’t current disenchantment with the union movement is paying big dividends to the Greens, not least because it’s meaning that union members have for the first time been encouraged by their leadership not just to vote Green but to look more closely at the policies the party has on offer. And as I’ve found many a time, when people actually stop listening to the constant stream of misinformation and ill-informed bullshit printed in the media and other sources about the Greens, and read the policies, they are usually pleasantly surprised.
Wombo, the reason the space to the left of the Labor Party is a gap is because people keep trying to go there and falling off.
As I mentioned above, the inner city seats the Greens want to win are going to be three-cornered contests for the forseeable future. The Greens need people both to vote [1] Green, and [1] Liberal [2] Green to win them. Associating the Green brand with chuckleheads like Dean Mighell would be—there’s no other way to put this—the closest thing to stamping “if you’re conservative please don’t vote for us” on every leaflet.
Myriad – I’m not sure I’d describe it as an amusing joke, so don’t stress.
For what it’s worth I broadly agree with what you’ve said.
Attracting the second prefs of Lib voters isn’t really that big a shift from the grassroots nimbyism of much urban Greens’ activism. I worry about the long-term health of the party from a coherent policy perspective though. Sustainability, itself a nebulous term, MUST be the overriding consideration surely, and yet ‘amenity for existing residents’ is so often the driver of the leaflets and placards in my corner of the world.
David Irving (NR)
David, I am sure some Greens do like geothermal energy, the problem is that the moment you try to discuss these things with them they go all Solar Solar Solar mantra insane.
We desperately need an alternative to coal fired generation (and nuclear). The last Green I discussed these matters with gave me a spiel on the remnant radioactivity of the old granite rocks that generated the heat in the first place.
He then moved on to the need to defile the earth by drilling holes in it! Geeez gimme a break!
My argument is that too much of the Green agenda is driven by emotion and moral certainty not enough by science and rational inquiry.
If they would get down to it and produce scientific and rational arguments instead of feelgood mantras they would be unstoppable.
Huggy
Well, Liberal voters, by contrast, are rather more likely to follow their party’s HTVs. And naturally, the Libs see it as in their own interests to make life tough for the ALP where the Greens stand a chance. No surprises there.
Upshot is: the Greens don’t have to work to attract Liberal voter prefs at all. The Lib hierarchy simply offers them up – in their own interests.
All this goes to how difficult matter for Green parties to balance certain alleged constituencies – it aint that hard really!
Says oh so Liberal Antonio @ Oct 20th, 2008 at 9:47 pm- the guy that gave the green light to close down (with force) the Cardinal Newman Society at the University of Queensland. Earlier this year it had stalls outlining pregnancy-support options for women and they were disgustingly reprimanded, threatened with disaffiliation and faced formal disciplinary proceedings and all this from the great Liberal Antonio of UQ. Antonio, you are very fortunate that LP (and in particular Mark Bahnisch) are intelligent enough to take on all posts. And to take on differing points of debate. Unlike you, they see reason.
Huggybunny, that is not Greens party policy. Check out any of our websites and you’ll find vocal support for a broad range of renewables, including geothermal.
Interesting and informative discussion, folks! Useful to see how we are viewed out there.
For what it’s worth, I think one of the key reasons for our increasing levels of support is that, contrary to the ever-popular line that we are economically ignorant, people are realising that the political / social / economic model as promulgated by the old parties is failing. We need to try a different approach, the Greens provide a different approach. It’s starting to make sense to a lot of people.
Huggybunny, I repeat: you obviously haven’t bothered to read any Greens policy documents (or, for that matter, listen to any of, say, Christine Milne’s speeches). You’re basing your opinion of all of us on one random monomaniac (who actually happens to be right about solar, if you include solar thermal, but that’s a side issue). You can’t trust the MSM to give you an accurate impression of what the Greens are actually about, yet that’s what you seem to be doing.
I think in general a lot of major parties and traditional political forces have been relying lazily on the sections of the MSM, and its hostility to the Greens. I mean the Herald Sun, for example, just comes up with complete rubbish about he Greens, which they know is complete rubbish, and print it in a po-faced way in the days leading up to elections. Its a strategy to minimize the vote.
I see the ALP as much the same – they just front up and routinely lie about “pref deals with the Libs” in the days before a poll.
With respect, some of the comments here come from that, erm, tradition.
Problem is – fewer people are buying it every time. Yarra council has been dominated by Greens for ages – it wont be long before these inner city seats fall to the Greens.
Adam Bandt for Lord Mayor of Melbourne!
Interesting debate, even though again I dispute arguments about Greens’ lack of understanding on economic issues. A lot of those would come from discussion with individual grassroots Greens members on issues that most people, whether they are unaffiliated voters or grassroots members of any party, wouldn’t have a well-thought-out position. That doesn’t mean that the party’s position isn’t clear and well thought-out. I’d argue that on energy issues our policy is firmly science-based, much moreso than Labor or Liberal.
Liam said that the Greens will win win inner city ALP seats once we start getting Liberal preferences. I’d remind you, though, that we came close to winning Balmain and Marrickville in 2007 with no Liberal preferences. If the swings away from Labor and to the Greens we saw last Saturday in Sydney are replicated in 2011 in those seats they will fall to the Greens without Liberal preferences. Melbourne is a different story. Also, in the longer term seats like Ballina and Coogee could turn into contests between the Coalition and the Greens, with Labor coming third, and those will be much simpler than races against Labor.
Liam: From your scrutineering, do you have an estimate of what % of lib first preference voters preferenced green 2? Last time I scrutineered, in an admittedly highly soy milk eco chino area, with lots of local “development” issues, a bit more than 50% of libs preferenced green, so it’s not necessarily in lib voter DNA to go all strangelove at the thought of ticking the green box.
I’m with you re: greens needing to “reliably attract and keep the preferences of Liberal voters (and) interested to see how the Greens will embrace their Tories while also appealing to left- and centre-left voters.”
Someone will have to plausibly articulate a “common values of conservationists and conservatives” dialectic, ie heritagism.
Labor can pretty easily be made to look like self-serving barbarians at the gates, their idea of heritage is a dead tree in the middle of nowhere, and outdated sectarian hegemonies. n the other hand, my real estate agent co-short-blacker tells me that in that industry the green demographic is known as “alternate rich”.
Speaking of outdated sectarianists with obscene cultural power: Did anyone see Merri Rose point the bone at Bill Ludwig last night?
O
FDB, I agree on the aesthetic NIMBYism -for eg, while I think that wind farms, like all major developments, should be placed to ensure that they don’t have a major ecological impact such as chopping up hundreds of (rare) birds, I despair of the people who think we can save the planet and at the same time preserve their aesthetic view of what a landscape should look like.
So yes, the Greens, like every other political party, have their own particular brand of supporters who actually could threaten our existence at any given time and need to be well managed, but not bullied / factionalised etc.
While there are certainly different strains of thought and what passes for it in the Greens, we are still (thank whoever) faction-less as yet. The reliance on consensus decision-making plays a big part in this I think, even though like any other decision-making system it is open to abuse and it happens at times. It does make it very hard for a single group to hijack however.
On the policy front, I’m more positive actually. With the leap to party status at the national level, the increased attention and offers of assistance we are attracting as a party from respected specialists in their fields, and the (despite the fondness we have for concentrating on the wacky members – ’cause of course no other party has those, let alone writing policy!
) high number of educated members who participate in policy development from their area of expertise, I’d predict we go from strength to strength in this area. What has been lacking too often has been specific initiatives – which is why the Tas Greens Alternative Budget is such a good idea, and makes them the only opposition party in the country to do it, I’d point out.
but enough spruiking from me
No, you didn’t, Ben. You’d have won them easily with Coalition preferences, but in 2007 the ALP won a fairly large plurality of votes in both.
Balmain: 39% ALP, 30% Green, 24% Liberal.
Marrickville: 47% ALP, 33% Green, 13% Liberal.
I agree, sadly, about 2011. I suspect Bega might start getting big Green turnouts as well.
Danny: no. For obvious reasons I was not looking at where the Liberal preferences were going, only the Green, Democrat and Independent ones.
Heh.
/sectarian-labor-stooge
Ben is right. Balmain and Marrickville may well be won by the Greens without wayward orthodox Liberal votes.
All sorts of people including trade unionists, anti-imperialists, anti-racists, etc., will quite happily even vote first preference Liberal such is their anger at the ALP. Like most human creations, the Greens are doing ok, but largely unfulfilled potential. Their electoral support is in no way reflected in the efficacy of local or state Green party organisation or the calibre of candidates. Pickings are slim because of generalised political disengagement, demoralisation and competing priorites. Any candidate with a history of local community involvement – and local government is the most successful arena for the Greens – always has a big headstart. There also is a dearth of in any way adequate arenas in which people interested in or supportive of the Greens electorally can voice their opinions or discuss policy and the local Green group meetings in community halls or pubs are never going to entice well just about most people these days.
“enough spruiking from me”
Well, certainly in my case – you’re preaching to the albeit sceptical choir.
Jinmaro, Ben said that the Greens nearly won the seats outright in 2007. As I have shown, they did not.
We know from the AEC website that 22.03% of the Green vote went to the Nationals in Lyne. That is 1483 preference votes from the 6731 which were distributed.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionDop-13827-130.htm
Benjo @ 49
What are you talking about? This is a thread about why people seem to be voting for the Greens. How does what you are talking about got ANYTHING whatsoever to do with this topic?
I don’t have the power to shut down any club at UQ and furthermore to my understanding the Newman Society continues to exist at UQ. Personally I am very strongly in favour of women’s control of their own fertility. However I am not a decision maker over any of these matters in any way.
I can only guess that you are another Ronan Lee pro-Life fanatic annoyed with the Libs out at UQ.
Back on-topic, incidents like this only reinforce why the Greens have to be very careful about the bedfellows they keep otherwise they risk alienating their Activist base who would never vote for a pro-Lifer in a fit.
Not saying; just asking: there seems to be a lot of suggestion that the Green voter is a negative voter. ie votes by default; is this correct? Surely there are people who vote for the Greens-because they love them. OK I’m naîve.
Prof Rat – I’m not sure where the line drawn between democratic and libertarian socialism is. I do recall once, in a discussion of gender imbalance in the party’s backrooms, there was an acknowledgement that the Greens try to solve problems by creating regulations to a fault. This was advanced by someone who promptly drew up affirmative action protocols even tho’ the problem wasn’t one solved by such a policy.
. Hello?
.
Something about the Judean Peoples’ Front confusing the moving of motions at meetings with consequential action comes to mind.
.
The AFC has a lot of public servants et al in it. I’d wager a lot of these people would have some knowledge of the ethics, or lack thereof, amongst mainstream parliamentarians. The Greens, criticize their policies and I do, are quite civic minded. They actually turn up for work when they’re supposed to. They also decline to take donations from vested interests (altho’ I think they’ve jumped in bed with unions) and attempt to see good government obtain.
.
I’m not sure if this is still current but it used to be that 20% of their votes came from the Right. Still true?
.
I think you’d have to get the demographic stats and compare it in different electoral jurisdictions to begin to to get the whole picture. A lot of young people today evince an ideology that displays concern for the world’s poor and the ecology. That might be a reason. There’s disillusionment with the mainstream parties especially the ALP, another; and of course there’s the little matter of killing the planet.
.
Might have something to do with it.
.
I still reckon that if the Greens don’t start putting serious thought into actual policies that will work in the real world and create a sustainable economy then their vote is sure to go down when the mainstream appears to be taking the problem seriously and doing something about it. Considering the influence of unreconstructed leftists (who’re probably behind the increasingly cozy relationship between Greens and unions) I’d wager that it might become a fringe party of socialist idealists.
Para 1) You only had to see and hear the ALP’s Minister for
Environmental Rape and PillageNatural Resources & Water doing his best “Fat Bastard” impression on 4 corners last night to know why Qld Labor is reviled: what constituency does he thinkplays to anymore, is this Joh, the Undead edition?
Para 2) Maybe southerners wouldn’t be so coy about publicising the fact that an ex Goss treasurer is chairman of the biggest water pirates of all, Cubbie, and will be quite happy if the massive capital raising for their planned even-more-water-intensive expansion comes from China, who have a pronounced habit of eventually “vertically integrating” ( aka hostile takeover) projects they are stakeholders in: see west australian iron ore company Midwest. Talk about selling the farm, some greens/nats anti-dirty-deals-labor common ground could be found there. And there’s the cynical dog-whistling of beattie’s tree clearing legislation, which had loopholes by which ‘an area as big as Tasmania could be cleared without a permit’. even most nats supporters would have been embarassed by those craven excesses.
Para 3) But where they will really come together is highlighting how qld treasury is Old King Coal’s bitch, and damned be the tree and crop huggers that get in the way. There’s plenty of queensland country towns’ folk that will testify that where coal goes, relative poverty follows, the whole fly-in fly-out-urban-cowboys with big toys thing that is modern mining doesn’t do a lot of good for the towns, rather just distorts prices and turns the natives into a class of working poor.
Arguments about the Greens only winning inner city seats on the back of Liberal preferences are somewhat misleading, because that’s how the ALP won the state seat of Melbourne in 2006 – on the back of Liberal and Family First preferences. Melbourne’s not a three way contest, whether state, federal or local. It’s not immediately clear who’s preferences got Labor over the line in the federal seat, but it’s probably Liberal and/or Family First again. There wasn’t a majority in the federal seat either (just! – although I’d contend a swing against Labor in a change-of-government election isn’t something they’d be happy about).
I have an obvious interest in Melbourne specifically, given that’s where I live (and stand, in the case of local government).
Lets just not mention Family First, preferences, and Victoria in the same pixellated space, hmmm?
The Greens aren’t perfect, and are still forming in some ways. But they are a product of unmet need, and great public concern about the environment. My own view is our two major “productivist” parties are constitutionally incapable of meeting the new challenges – and certainly not in the generation in which major change is needed, ie the next 30 years. Hence the new party. Its a product of scarcity in the political market of ideas, if you will.
People vote for the Greens because they don’t support business-as-usual on greenhouse pollution. Simple as that.
Alister – Arguments about the Greens only winning inner city seats on the back of Liberal preferences are somewhat misleading, because that’s how the ALP won the state seat of Melbourne in 2006
.
How’s that?
.
Just because the ALP did it doesn’t mean the Greens didn’t.
It’s used – as can be seen above – as a tactic to delegitimise the possibility of us winning seats, particularly lower house seats. The reason why I think it’s misleading is that Labor win on Liberal/FF preferences too.
Alister, it’s not delegitimisation of the Greens winning seats, it’s delegitimisation of the Greens winning seats as a Party of the pure Left. Correctly, I might add. When you win Balmain and Melbourne it’ll be through anti-Labor sentiment, and I don’t think you should shy away from that.
Hell, the Labor Left has struggled to win seats for a hundred years even with the support of friendly trade unions, the grudging support of conservative ALP folk and head office’s money, which like all cash, has no smell.
Why should the Greens be above courting conservatives?
Liam, I agree that Balmain and Melbourne will largely be anti-Labor sentiment. Votes have got to come from somewhere, after all. So what’ll it be if we pick up Brighton one day?
Cynical career AlPers can huff and puff and spin all they like but the simple fact is that the ALP today is neither progressive nor left and little to no different to the Liberals. I’ve lost count of the number of leftists, even Marxists who preference Liberal over the ALP and this has been going on for years particularly at state level.
I hope the ALP loses office in NSW in two years five months. They are complete crap.
Champagne? Or at least a locally-produced Yarra Valley sparkling white? Good luck to you.
Thank you for expressing it better than I could. In universal suffrage, ballot papers are fungible.
Labor surely couldn’t risk losing Lindsay Tanner, he’s the back room boy they rely on to do the adding up, and then hand wayne a budget that gives them economic credibility. Even Malcolm Turnbull is a fanboi. What can they do if Melbourne gets really unsafe, parachute him somewhere? I don’t think so, they’ll just have to green up, per 1990 hawke, which would be a good result.
To the extent anti urban-over-development is a green issue, Anna Bligh’s spectacular about farce on Northbank was telling, especially the way they played it reads “The Beattie/Bligh gov’t was out of step with 93% of concerned people, and did everything it could to subvert their wishes”.
It all adds up, and no matter how much hand-on-heart environmental platituding is done as the election comes around, it’ll be a matter of “What big promises you’ve got Grandma, All the better to fleece you with”.
Is there a (betting) book yet on Anna Bligh pulling the plug on Traveston? What odds?
I guess the point I was making is that there are more Labor voters in Labor held seats, but that our vote in Liberal held seats is rising too, and it’s not necessarily at the expense of Labor votes.
Move Tanner to Batman, and dump ‘Marn’.
Win-Win.
“Move Tanner to Batman, and dump ‘Marn’.”
I like your thinking: would that be to send a “we dumped marn because he’s too coal friendly” message to green voters?
Surely, given the brains trust that gave us family first, such an elegant, bold and beautiful act would be beyond them.
A lot of people don’t need the reminder, but some do, so let me just remind people that the purpose of this thread is not for ALPers and Greens to do the partisan slag each other off thing.
I am a green voter (and ex candidate) too.
Of the top 20 federal lower house seats (in terms of Greens vote), there are more ALP seats than Liberal in the top ten, and more Liberal seats than Labor in the 11-20 range.
LeftyE has hit the nail on the head with State Labor being on the nose. We have a water minister in Victoria (Tim Holding) building a pipeline to steal water from the Murray Darling basin for Melbourne, and building Australia’s biggest desalination plant, while still allowing logging in water catchments.
Plus they are building freeways and coal fired power stations like climate change doesn’t exist and spending bugger all on public transport and cycling.
The Liberals on all these issues would be no better, or possibly even worse.
So I think this is why people are voting green – there is a paradigm shift towards dealing with issues like climate change that could cost us the planet. The Greens have policies to address this, while both major parties are putting different coloured lipstick on the pig.
Confining myself to evidence: Have a look at the last half of Penny Wong on this weeks 4 corners “Buying Back the River” and tell me it doesn’t look like either Wong is not across water, or is going soft on Bligh, by allowing a gigantic Nats-ish gouge.
Where’s that leave Australians who are aghast afraid and ashamed at the death of the Murray-Darling but with Greens? Looking at who’s pocketing the money perhaps, the Brown Paper Bag theme being one which the Greens have picked up, at least locally, and might very well be playing well.
What is it with the ‘Brumby spending bugger all on public transport’ meme? His government is responsible for the expansion and improvement of rail and bus services in a way not seen for decades.
e.g. reopening of country rail lines closed by Kennett; upgrade of Ballarat line; buying back the Wodonga rail line from the private company Kennett sold it to, to enable its upgrade; purchase of extra rail carriages for Melb; etc etc.
The population, in the meantime, has risen far more dramatically than ANYONE predicted and the usage of public transport has as well. There is no way a government could have prepared for this (especially coming off the low base Kennett left) but to claim that the problem has been ignored is just ignorant.
Oh, of course – the major upgrades happened in country Victoria, which in the Green voters world isn’t important but where most of their policies have the greatest impact.
Until the Greens realise that there’s a world beyond inner party seats, no, they’ll never make it as a major (or even influential minor) party.
mckenzie, what’s the ratio of dollars spent on public transport vs on roads? Has that increased at all since Kennett?
I also wonder, if there are caps on immigration, how can the population have risen far more dramatically than anyone predicted? I don’t know what Green’s immigration policy is exactly, but I’d like to think it’s based around the idea that you don’t let in more people than the natural and built environment can reasonably support.
And that realisation will have to include stepping up to the mark and being quoted with a position, a policy, a plan, a vision, anything except selective silence, on inconveniently here & now bedrock societal issues like the sacking of a thousand Ford workers, or mitsubishi’s closure, if they are to be massively trusted with the treasury benches.
It’s hard to imagine how that amount and level of policy work can get done, for a robust, comprehensive and convincing party platform, when there is no natural source of deep pockets to fund a party machine, like the majors have in 20th century business and industry, and 19th century unions.
Which may very well be an essential part of the discrete charm of the green bourgeoisie, being perceived to be above that sort of compromising grubbiness.
Population hasnt increased “more than anyone predicted”. It was all predicted; its just that nothing was done. Except build new roads. They are trapped in an archaic, car-oriented mindset and cant escape. The electorate needs to bust them out with a good spanking.
That pathetic list of what Brumby has done on public transport is just more efficiently described as “bugger all”, MccKenzie, thats why people do. Its a time saver. There is no “etc” to your list, so drop that. They’ve bought hardly any new carriages and trains, brought even fewer new services online, and some perfectly good trains 20 languish in railyards. The rail services are overloaded. And the rail track is getting worse. And what’s Brumby’s reponse – to tamp down expectations of major investment in infrastructure because of “TEH FINANCIAL CRISIS”. Huh? Isnt Rudd arguing the opposite?
Oh, and if you imagine rural and regional Victoria is happy with their level of public transport services, you may be hallucinating. I admit V-Line has a thrilling air of danger that might appeal to some – but not the mainstream.
And in any case, they arent suffering from major population increase (quite the opposite)challenging infrastructure , so try to keep on topic.
Check the eastern freeway am. Its bumper to bumper. Right next to a logical light rail or tram corridor to the eastern suburbs which could link to exisiting city lines.
People DO realise these things take time, its just that with Brumby, you dont get the sense he’s interested in anything but failed car-based futures of increased congestion. There’s no vision, just excuses.
I give Brumby props for the Choice legislation, but if I sound pissed orf, its actually because I fear he will lose the next election owing to a lack of vision, and then we’ll have the Libs. Which will be worse.
Without getting into any debates about where Green votes come from, I think folks thinking about voting waver between voting with their conscience and voting with their hip-pocket. Often the hip-pocket wins out but when the conscience-hit becomes too big (Will my grandkids even have a functioning eco-system), then I think many people at least consider changing their vote.
And if they know anything, then it is that the Greens will try doing something about climate change. It doesn’t even matter if the policies are effective – as many people know, most policies are merely attempts at moving in the right direction (witness Rudd and Swan’s demolition of non-bank investments, with their bank guarantee) – what matters more is if they look plausible up front. And I think many Green policies do.
Why should the Greens be above courting conservatives?
.
Because as you say they’re a party of the Pure Left. David McKnight’s book argues for some realignments of the political spectrum. This isn’t too far fetched. When you read a self-described Catholic Conservative, like Andrew Bacevich, talking about US foreign policy pretty much along lines that Noam Chomsky would approve, arguing for global nuclear disarmament and asserting the environment as the #1 political issue of the 21st century then you can see McKnight’s notions made concrete.
.
There’s also something very old-school about admonitions to live within one’s means and so forth.
.
However altho’ Bacevich is as liberal as his values allow he’s still a conservative. He has misgivings, for example, about gays and women serving in the armed forces. (Reasonably expressed, not hysterical or bigoted in any way). As the Greens are the champions of the so-called Luvvies’ agenda there will be conflicts. Perhaps insurmountable ones.
.
For myself I’d like the Greens to try and get past the ideological spectrum’s standard alliances. I think, for example, that it’s essential to realize that sustainability will be helped by private enterprise and markets in certain ways (in others not so). Environmental politics is concerned with matters of a different scale from class conflict.
.
That’s why I tend to vote Greens by way of the liberal, secular Right. Sending a message that won’t get read. For the Reps since I live in a safe seat, I always vote for everyone else first. Don’t make it too easy for the SOBs.
“the Green agenda is driven by emotion and moral certainty not enough by science and rational inquiry.”
without wanting to sound overly cynical, I think the evidence is fairly clear that you’ll get more votes by appealing to emotion than rationality. And moral certainty – i.e. be 110% certain that your party is 120% right about everything and every other party is 130% wrong – is pretty much required as well. Whereas if you’re being properly scientific, you always need to keep open the possibility that you are wrong, and continually test alternative theses.
Of course, the two aren’t totally mutually exclusive and it helps if the foundation of your emotional appeal does have some rational underpinnings.
The Greens are reasonably well placed to build their base vote a bit further in many states and possibly winning a lower house seat or two here and there. Although this is still a long way from the promised land of ‘major party status’ which all smaller parties dream of now and then, it is still a very credible performance. Being a ‘third party’ in a two party system is a pretty arduous road. I expect their vote will ebb and flow depending on circumstances, but at present there’s no reason to think it will seriously diminish anytime soon. Bob Brown’s retirement – whenever it happens – may challenge that view, but I’m not convinced.
Any party that wants to build a solid support base above a few per cent has to juggle the tensions of appealing to different constituencies. The bigger the voter base, the ‘broader the church’ needs to be. There will always be some tension for the Greens between trying to seriously consolidate the more doctrinaire left wing vote and trying to broaden their appeal to capture some of the ’small l’ liberal vote that the Democrats used to get. But the major parties get away with appealing to various groups of voters who have less in common than they do differences – hell, they fit them in within a single parliamentary party room – so in theory there’s no reason why a smaller party can’t do the same, apart from the major hurdle of convincing people to vote for a third part in what is still portrayed and perceived as a two party system (and the related inequalities in finances and media space)
Queensland may present a particular possibility for the Greens, depending on how metropolitan based liberal voters perceive the merged, Springborg led Liberal National party. If city voters do feel the LNP is just the National Party in new clothes, the liberal-leaning voters may be more willing to give the Greens a look, either because they’re the sort of liberal who never likes voting Labor, or they just don’t want to vote Labor this time because of the ‘tired or arrogant’ perceptions that can always beset a government that’s been in power for over a decade. There’s not a lot the Greens can do about how people perceive the LNP, but how well they are able to appeal to such people is very much in their hands. Though the optional preferential voting system will likely make it harder for them to break through for a win.
It all keeps making me think it would have been far better if the Greens had merged with the Democrats in the early 1990s, broadening that base by combining the better elements of both parties, rather than striking out on their own and having to reconquer some of the same ground. However, that’s all rather academic now.
Andrew – It all keeps making me think it would have been far better if the Greens had merged with the Democrats in the early 1990s, broadening that base by combining the better elements of both parties
.
Yeah I always wondered why you and Natasha Stott-Despot (sorry old student hack joke, can’t resist) didn’t do that. What’s the story there?
.
You are aware of course that you can do that now? The base broadens when the base broadens.
.
The Greens have a self-imposed hurdle that’s part of their appeal: they won’t get into bed with the usual corporatocratic vested interests. Ye cannae be
proconsulPM of Oz until His Magnificent Omniscience, the Grand and Holy Emperor Rupert the First and Last approves of ye.“Yeah I always wondered why you and Natasha Stott-Despot (sorry old student hack joke, can’t resist) didn’t do that. What’s the story there?”
I’m talking 1991, Adrien (or more accurately, I’m mostly NOT talking about it because I really don’t feel like talking about it). That was before NSD came on the scene and I wasn’t exactly in a position of high influence then either (not that I think an NSD/me framework is a very accurate way of looking at it all anyway).
This was before the Greens started to really coalesce into a single political entity. While the idea was floated off and on many times since, this was the time when it was discussed far more seriously and at a much higher level than any other. Plenty of reasons why it didn’t happen, but seeing I’m not talking about I’ll stop talking about it. As I said, all academic and ancient history anyway.
Fair ’nuff Andrew.
.
.
Politics. What deep wounds it inflicts. Stott-Despot was ‘91 as well.
.
I reckon she might be back sometime.
For some reason my post in response to Liam disappeared into the ether. I said that the Greens came close to winning Balmain and Marrickville without Liberal preferences. The margins in those two seats is 3% and 7% respectively, easily marginal, without Liberal votes. That’s what I meant. We don’t need Liberal preferences to have a good chance of winning them. With Liberal preferences it is all over.
Given climate change is finally on most ppls agendas nowadays it’s not surprising Greens are doing well. People understand that the Greens are the only party that really gets climate change.
There is no difference between Liberal and ALP on environment now that Howard has gone back under his rock. They are as good and as bad as each other. Neither really believes it is that serious.
I dunno, I reckon quite a few of the Nats, it’s deep rural constituency, get it all right. What they each choose to do with their knowledge can be a a different matter, though there are signs they are listening to each other about the environment, and inevitably, climate change, and the need for buiness to not continue to be done as usual.
An example of an ostensibly unnatural Green/Nat chimaera starting to emerge, like an accident waiting to happen, is in the sub/terranean conflict of interest between farmers/ rural landholders and the coal carpetbaggers that have evil state-sponsored plans for what’s under their soil. (Details are buried in a previous monster alp-greens defection/ascension thread before it was given colourist cease and desist instruments of torture notice by self-confessed “/sectarian-labor-stooge” LP elements.)
Re: LNP/Greens mutual base broadening: Witness Qeensland’s Gympie Nat MP, championing the “No Dam”-medness of the Mary River, on natural heritage values. You might have expected it would be the Greens keeping Government environment ministers’ honest with FOI requests, but again it was the Nat that nailed Lindy Nelson-Carr for misleading parliament, and an earlier environment minister, Rod Welford, for interfering with National Parks management contract tendering. It begs the question: Ronan Lee.
People understand that the Greens are the only party that really gets climate change.
.
.
Yes and no. The Greens are formed around the principle that industrial society wrecks the ecology much faster and deeper than previous economic systems. The theory behind AGW is actually quite hard to comprehend however. And it is still an hypothesis. We’re not 100% certain that we’re the cause of the warming. However there’s a whole slew of other problems to do with industrial impacts: food depletion, toxicity etc that the use of fossil fuels exacerbates. My view is that the will to change the energy economy is a good thing regardless the truth of AGW.
.
However I’m not sure the Greens have designed an adequate alternative policy to the mainstream parties, that said:
.
Neither really believes it is that serious.
.
Good point. The ALP and the Libs are set up along class lines that have little to do with the wholistic impact of all consumers on the environment. Yesterday I read, in one of the rags that today passes for a newspaper, that the Kyoto compliance policies of the govt are going to raise public transport costs and leave drivers free. I’m not sure of that soundbyte’s veracity but if true it’s ludicrous. A artifact of the govt eager to be seen to do something whilst at the same time not rocking the boat. The result will be that people have an extra reason to use cars, not to mention the onslaught of stagflation. Well done Kevvie.
.
Still it figures. A cursory look at Euro-policies viz AGW shows that they are using the cap n’ trade shenanigans to exempt industries like aviation from the costs that they’ve made such a contribution to creating in the first place. It’s a scam.
.
Carbon tax, flat rate 5%. Everybody. But of course that’s a relatively market orientated policy and we don’t want that do we?
I dunno, I reckon quite a few of the Nats, it’s deep rural constituency, get it all right. What they each choose to do with their knowledge can be a a different matter,
.
Yeah. They learned the hard way. However the Greens are adamant that the National party is the Enemy. A leftover of an outdated political spectrum.
.
I’ve worked out in the Australian fruit basket. I’ve also worked on permaculture farms. On permaculture farms they dig into the sides of the waterways. It cuts down on the evaporation. Eventually we’ll need to do that in cities and farms. But of course being really stupid monkeys we’ll live it until it’s (almost?) too late.
.
Rednecks and hippies unite?
Update: A post on this topic from Andrew Bartlett.
Who are these Nats who are enlightened on climate change? I plough through piles of media releases from National Party federal MPs (Ron Boswell is the worst) who seem on the verge of being complete climate skeptics.
Ben: How long can ron boswell stay around? After all he’s 68, he isn’t part of the future. Taking your point: See above reference to Gympie Nat, though perhaps more immediate environmentalism, ie the Mary River. He could and should be pressed on CC.
What I was thinking about was more the Nats rural constituency, agricultural communities, and the shifts in consciousness there, which the mp’s will have to pick up on to survive. Obviously it’s all been given a hurry on by “the drought”. Or is it “the new climate”, there’s the rub. May I respectfully suggest you don’t just read press releases, read what the constituents read, the rural press, like “The Land” masthead, you’ll see stories like Farmers versus mining on the Darling Downs ” pop up, and there you’ll see grassroots (ptp) activity leading pollies by their electoral survival nose:
The Greens could do far worse, if they haven’t, than to notice that there has been a widely and enthusiastically supported rural, (that is in often national electorates), organisation called Landcare that’s been banging on about catchments and conservation and sustainable agriculture for 20 years or so. They are making the rubber meet the road with “Landcare CarbonSMART®.. Australia’s leading not-for-profit carbon trading organisation”. They’ve managed the rednecks meet hippies thing, with both National Farmers’ Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation on board. I note from their FAQ: “Landcare Australia also receives assistance from the NSW, WA and Victorian Governments” No Beattie/Bligh $$?
I’m perfectly aware they have “issues”, I just think it could and should be a fruitful area for the Greens, to move beyond the latte issues beltway. Will the Greens for instance have someone at the November 3 – ‘Mining Land Access Information Road Show’ at the Felton Hall, in a Nat electorate, ground zero for the battle where the coal industry gets legitimised because it can now directly be made there into a car fuel, in this case dimethyl methane. Which if you think about it is a very scary prospect GHG wise, coal enabling cars. And there’s worse: up in Emerald theres a pilot plant for coal-> diesel via burning the coal underground. So it’s like, diesel in, diesel out, for less per barrel than via oil.
Latest ACT count has Greens looking good to take 4th seat, from the Libs.
This is a fantastic result, and will put the Greens in government!! (probably with support from another party called the “ALP”).
But seriously – first Green Ministers likely here. Huzzah! And best of all, the LIBS actually went backward in this election. Lost a seat!! HAHAHAH!! In this climate at state/territory level! What an indictment.
Savour the moment LE, I suppose 2 votes over le Couteur is looking gooder than 2 votes under. Go you good things.
ACT will be first Carbon Neutral jurisdiction perhaps? Maybe via a few acres of regular sunshine like now powers 3500 homes in ArnieFornia, at around 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, built in only 7 months by Ausra, a company established last year by former University of Sydney solar research pioneer Professor David Mills who left Australia after failing to attract support from the Howard government for his world-first solar thermal technology. They’ve got a contract for supplying 120,000 more homes.
How many homes in ACT?
Great link Danny. I remember him leaving to California.
Look at the scoreboard, ‘coal sequestration’.
Result confirmed! ALP 7, Libs 6, Green 4.
Welcome the third major, folks.
That is great news Lefty E.
Some clever person, whose name I cannot remember, alerted us all here to this possibilty, very early in the piece. They may have been regarded as rather over optimistic, if I recall correctly.
danny, that article is not even close to the mark in claiming that a 5MW is the biggest CSP plant in the US – bigger ones were built back in the 80’s (and are still in use), and the biggest single one I think is Nevada Solar One at 64MW (there are two even bigger ones in I think Spain and Israel). They could’ve said it’s the biggest in the world using flat mirrors though.
Cheers Wiz. Actually what I’d like to find out is how much it cost, and what sort of area is needed, for that small town size installation.
They say it’s a 5megawatt plant for the 3500 homes, which sounds a bit conservative cf average Australian usage , but in the ballpark. Renewable Energy Development Initiative (REDI) grant records show that Solar Heat & Power Pty Ltd, (Ausra predecessor, essentially same collector technology) installation at Liddell is rated similarly 5MW, and they got ~$3.25 million, so that presumably gives the order of investment necessary. So that’s 3.5 mill-ish for 3,500 homes, more than 1 Kw per home, for ~$1000 per home. Well within the bounds of the $8K per 1 KW rebate we have. Like really within, almost an order difference. So if individuals were able to put their rebate towards these utility scale installations, we’d be getting a lot more bang for the rebate buck. Sound right?
I suggest that the seriousness of the ability of a party to form a government (whether at a council or state/federal) level will change the attitudes to it – the motivvation to vote for the Greens will be different where there is a bipolar ALP/Coalition political environment vs a multi-polar environment.