Since commenters at LP seemingly never tire of threads about Greens preferences and inner-city Labor v. Green stoushes, I thought I should link to my latest on the role of The Greens at Pineapple Party Time, and how Anna Bligh is seeking to appeal over the party’s head to the voters, and why that might work.
Incidentally, the title is a reference to the (in)famous “Pandagate affair”. It’s actually not just an exercise in bloggy nostalgia this time (though I wore the t-shirt yesterday!), but pertinent to the situation I think!
I continue to be quite astounded that the role of OPV combined with the entrenchment of “Just Vote One” as a practice in Queensland elections is so misunderstood – given its profound implications for political strategy and for psephology both. The current “green days” theme from Bligh and Labor really goes to the heart of what the electoral landscape looks like when those two factors are in play.
Heh, 2004: back in the days when Bolt was a “respected national columnist”.
The article you’ve linked to is a good summary of OPV, but how is Bligh appealing to erstwhile Greens voters? I’m keen to know.
The single chamber is the obvious disincentive, I’d have thought, for the Greens Party. In every other State they’re likely to pick up seats in an anti-Government swing in the Upper House.
Liam, if you’re keen to know, you could always follow the link!
Labor panders to the Green vote the same way the US Republicans pander to the ‘ small government’ crowd imo. Its one of the most cynical nihilistic exercises in the worst crappy Machiavellian style of bait-and-switch politics going. The classic ‘ Big Lie’ technique in other words. And when the voters finally wake up to it then your dead. Labor is a dead duck waddling because the best thing its good at is betrayal.
If the Greens had any principles they would not even consider preferencing the Labor party here in Qld. This is because of Labor’s commitment to the Traveston Dam and a net feed in solar tarriff (the greens advocate a gross feed in). But then again, the greens arent renowned for their principles after all they preferenced One nation ahead of the Liberal Party in the Mayo by election a couple of months ago.
And in relation to them not having enough members. At the 07 election I was handing out how to vote cards at a gold coast electorate and the Labor co ordinator there was running the Greens team as well. So if the Greens do a deal with Labor they’ll get staffing help. Dont you worry.
The next-to-useless Peter Garrett being a good example.
Just what has the Greens Party ever actually done for the environment – apart from whine at the sidelines? At least Anna and Labor are actually in a position to make real, positive changes.
Alex, two things may have escaped your notice.
1. The Greens aren’t in government anywhere, so can’t do much more than agitate from the sidelines.
2. Labor governments have generally been only marginally less bad than various flavours of conservative governments on environmental matters.
Now that I’ve filled some of the gaps in your knowledge, what’s your point?
Further to DI(NR), 3. Despite being in said position, Anna (and predecessor) and Labor have not made said changes.
I read something earlier today which makes me hope Labor wins (or at least the Pineapple Party loses), though. Apparently the Borg intends to renege on the Murray-Darling deal if elected. As you can imagine, that really pleased this Green South Australian. Labor may be fucking hopeless, but at least they’re not that fucking hopeless.
@Dave Irving – actually, the Greens are “in government” across Australia. Local government.
Well, Alex, they just wrangled $300m from the simulus package, two weeks ago for ‘Local Green Jobs’ viz:
* $200 million for one-off grants to church, charitable, community organisations and local councils for pilot projects to generate local employment opportunities
* $60 million for one-off grants to projects for the preservation of built and natural heritage
* $40 million grants for building cycling infrastructure
Whats the ALP done for the environment lately?
“actually, the Greens are “in government” across Australia. Local government.”
Not in Queensland they ain’t. No proportional representation in any Qld local government.
d
Hmmm… well, the ALP would appear to have provided $300 million for the environment as part of the stimulus package. Don’t tell me a Liberal Govt. would have done that.
They would have Alex. It was a trade off to get the stimulus package passed in a senate where the govt doesn’t have the numbers.
Coalition would have done exactly the same if they needed the Greens to pass a bill.
Ah, the usual double standard.
Political pragmatism and deal making is a sign of virtue in the ALP but to be roundly condemned in the Greens.
Martin @15: that’s because The Greens have no principles, so when they compromise their pre-election platitudes it’s the desperate behaviour of effete, amoral political hacks trying to pretend they have a plan when they just want power. When the ALP are reluctantly forced to compromise their intellectually rigorous principles in order to pass useful, necessary legislation it’s a tragedy.
Or is it the other way round?
“At least Anna and Labor are actually in a position to make real, positive changes.”
Err yes. That’s the problem. When it comes to environmental issues Anna and Labor are in a position to make real positive changes and have very deliberately elected not to do so – promoting coal over renewables and massively destructive dams. I’d take whining from the sidelines over deliberate trashing quite frankly.
I’d add that many of the Greens in local government have quite a few achievements they can point to, but as Darryl points out in Queensland they haven’t been tested.
Perhaps everyone can agree that I was right about the stoush potential?
Oh yes, prime cut of stoushmeat, ALP/ Green contests.
as internecine conflict should always be
@moz – of course. The Greens Party are squeaky clean and would never do pragmatic deals. I forget that suggesting otherwise is verboten.
@ feral sparrowhawk – if the Greens Party has lots of achievements, what are they?
@ Mark – yes, definite stoush potential. I always wonder why the Greens Party doesn’t focus on the defeat of the LNP (or Libs elsewhere), rather than solely Labor seats.
@ Martin B 15 – who said the opportunistic pragmatism of Labor is a virtue?
Alex, The Greens focus on seats that they can win, just like every other party that wants to get elected. Suggesting they focus on LibNat seats is basically suggesting that they fold the party into LEAN. Hint: those who feel that that is the best approach have already joined.
This is a battle that happens regularly, and in Tasmania and NZ has had real consequences – the LibLab coalition in Tasmania and the gutting of environmentalists from the south island labour party in the 80′s and 90′s leading to some nasty anti-environmentalist policies going through.
But that also leads to good outcomes when the major parties need Green support (and are willing to accept it), so both sides vote for a compromise that works for both. Unfortunately Australian Labour parties tend very much towards the “now you bend over the barrel” approach to minor parties. This doesn’t have to happen, NZ Labour used The Greens quire regularly to get interesting policies through via private members bills even though parts of their party were vehemently opposed to them.
Alex
It is implicit in the argument that ALP amending their stimulus package on the basis of negotiations with the Greens is creditworthy on behalf of the ALP but somehow not creditworthy of the Greens.
More generally it is implicit in the argument that decisions of the Executive government is the only criteria by which political value can be judged.
Moz (and others), as I always say in these preference stoushes, it’s a question of praxis. To talk about the Greens or Labor doing anything by or against their “principles”, you have to acknowledge that they’re totally historically different entities.
The guiding theory of the Greens is to carry forward a political agenda of environmentalism (and these days, such things as political transparency) which does not require electoral success. It’s helpful, of course, but victory at the polls at the expense of this starting point is a compromise they’re unable to make. Alex, it’s also irrelevant for these reasons to talk about any Greens “achievements”—that’s not the point of their political Party. Pro-environment policy taken on by other Parties is itself an achievement for the Greens.
The guiding principle of the Labor Party, by comparison—in Shane Maloney’s words the Party which, next to itself, loves the worker best—is to carry out the political agenda of a section of society (idealised as the labour movement of industrial unionism). All other considerations are subsumed to this goal, and it follows that failure to be elected is itself a failure of principle.
It’s false to talk about Labor “just wanting power” or “betraying” its principles until you accept what those first principles actually are.
Nice summation indeed, Liam.
But unhelpful for those who prefer stoushing to dry descriptions of reality.
You’re right, wbb, I’m f&*king losing it.
May I declare, then, my desire for the next Federal election to see Lee Rhiannon fail to achieve her NSW Senate quota: a net gain for both the Federal Senate and the NSW Upper House.
Well said Liam.
And Alex – as Ive said here before: go back 110 years, and the air is then rent with the outraged cries of “workingman’s friend” liberals about these new upstart Labor candidates taking votes from their campaigns – rather than bringing down the Tories. Oh yes, and said Labour candidates “only” focused on narrow sectional issues affecting one group in society. Terrible chaps etc.
History is a circle, my friends, so dont be square.
…I dont know why I added that last bit
“May I declare, then, my desire for the next Federal election to see Lee Rhiannon fail to achieve her NSW Senate quota: a net gain for both the Federal Senate and the NSW Upper House.”
What’s wrong with Lee? Her work on political donations in particular has refocused the debate in NSW.
Coz it rained last night, you slept well, the air is fresh and you feel (foolishly) on top of the world?
Alex @6
I’m interested that to “whine at the sidelines” is a bad thing. Though the language you used was meant as a put-down, that sounds like democracy to me. Individual citizens speaking up, taking up issues, disagreeing with government decisions etc.
I’m proud to stand on the sidelines and speak up, and though I try not to sound too whiny, I’m sure it gets heard like that sometimes.
Anything you’d like to whine about, my friend?
Liam, I’m missing something in your argument. Why do you think that “a political agenda of environmentalism” does not require electoral success, but “the political agenda of the labour movement of industrial unionism” can only be achieved with electoral success?
I disagree vehemently that the point of the Green parties is not to get people elected. I can be bothered finding them now, but I believe most, if not all, Green parties in Australia have “the election of Greens to state/territory/federal parliaments” as the first objective in their rules/constitutions.
d
Darryl, of course the Greens do their best to get elected, but their purpose is also served by pushing the agenda of politics in an environmental direction—hence the desire of the Greens in QLD to link their preferences with the issue of Traveston Dam. In the 1980s, they were similarly successful by getting to then-Senator Graham Richardson on the Tasmanian dams.
By contrast, Labor, as Izquierdista has said, created itself not to push the cause of the workers through the existing Parties, but to replace them.
Where the measure of Greens success is environmentally-friendly public policy, the measure of Labor success is Labor.
[By contrast, Labor, as Izquierdista has said, created itself not to push the cause of the workers through the existing Parties, but to replace them.]
I think The Greens created themselves with this goal as well. The environmental benefits you talk about are a by-product of a lack of parliamentary representation but strong support in the community. So while they can’t always do something themselves, they wield significant clout to pressure others to do so.
But if they were created with this goal then you’re incorrect.
Oh yes, Im quite sure the Greens want to get elected too. The fact they arent regualrly in coalition govts already is merely an artifice of our non-proportional electoral systems – not some ssence to their goals. Note whereever we ahve proportional democracy, there are the Greens (Tas, ACT, Fed Senate)
My point is go back 100 years and all the things said about the Greens today were said about Labour then.
I do however think that Liams point about Green achievements being refelcted in other parties platforms is well made. The party/ movement separation in the Greens is still far more blurry than the equivalent in labour; so influence counts highly, its not yet all about power. We are still at the point of wondering whether the majors will wise up , go greener and co-opt – or stay essentialy producitivist and drive green parties into power over the next 50 years.
I tend to think the latter. It would already be true in a proportional system.
Of course, no one would suggest the Nats aren’t in it to win it. And they have a smaller support base than the Greens.
Oh and Wbb – certainly. Things seem less apocalyptic today. All illusory of course, but were entitled to those chimeras.
I’m interested that to “whine at the sidelines” is a bad thing. Though the language you used was meant as a put-down, that sounds like democracy to me. Individual citizens speaking up, taking up issues, disagreeing with government decisions etc.
Exactly Yaz, it’s emotive language. “Whining at the sidelines”, as you say, can be used about the people you disagree with exercising their democratic rights, and “pandering to the Greens” can just as well mean “recognising that some Green policies’ time has come and getting on board.” Doesn’t mean I don’t do it myself, but it should be seen for what it is, especially at election time where we get a massive dose of “Greens SCARY!!1!11!”
Those of us who would always like to see Labor lead the Left in this country – and not the Greens – should kick a little dust back in the Greens’ direction from time to time – especially when Greens get into righteous indignation mode about the unfairness of the electoral system.
The fact is preferential voting gives the Greens a fair chance. In fact, it probably gives them more than a fair chance as it gives Left Labor voters a painless way to vote Green. If Left Labor voters were faced with the tougher choice that voting Green would effectively advantantage the Liberal Party, many would vote stategically and stick with Labor.
And as for proportional representation, it would advantage the Greens, but it would also advantage the far-Right (considering how far the Libs have moved to the Right that should probably be the far-far-Right). How many votes was it One Nation got in Qld just a few years ago? One million? Sends shivers down my spine.
13,207 and one seat in 2006.
LSMS!, in Queensland, there’s no proportional representation. Rosa Lee Long won Tablelands preferentially, so it’s not really an argument against PR ballots—though your general point about its advantage to far-right parties as well as the Greens is valid.
To be sure, lsms would have been talking about ’98 when “In regional and rural Queensland, One Nation received 29.8% of the vote and won nine seats …largely at the expense of the National Party, whose vote fell by 23.1% to 27.0%.”
No doubt this is what Kev means when he says ” Once you leave the Electorate of Griffith and cross the Brisbane River you can hear the sound of banjo music”
I just invented my own word – advantantage.
My point is simply that proportional representation does make it easier for parties at both ends of the spectrum to make a breakthrough – not just the Left. Look at what has happened with far-Right parties in Europe (Austria, for example). This seems never to have occurred to Greens who rabbit on about proportional representation….though lots of things seem never to have occurred to the Greens.
Greens and One Nation supporters might think this unfair, but hey, we don’t get all we want in life. Most strong Labor supporters would love the ALP to move further to the Left on just about any issue – but that’s life.
In short, preferential voting is a happy medium between pure first-past-the-post and proportional representation – and don’t let any Green tell you otherwise!
“This seems never to have occurred to Greens who rabbit on about proportional representation….though lots of things seem never to have occurred to the Greens.”
What makes you think that increased Greens representation is the only possible reason they support PR?
It definitely could not have anything to do with the fact that it’s a far more democratic system then either FPP or PV.
I concur, Oz. I’m not sure why LSMS!thinks it never occurred to us that preferential voting privileges the loony right as well as those of us on what he clearly thinks is the loony left.
I have no problem with the Greens Party aiming to win seats. I just object to the Greens Party often “getting away” with things that Labor gets hammered over.
If the Greens Party want to get elected, then they should expect to be treated like any other political party.
This includes, for example, accepting criticisms. The Greens Party complains that they are attacked by Labor, seemingly surprised that Labor wouldn’t just roll over and give the inner city seats to them. It is legitimate for the Greens Party to target “winnable” seats, just like it is legitimate for Labor to vigourously defend them.
If the Greens Party doesn’t want the criticism, then they shouldn’t try to knock of Labor seats.
I believe it is criticism such as you can find on this site which the Greens object to.
Whether you care to acknowledge it or not, it is the Vic ALP, and in particular Step Newnham, who is creating and circulating such material.
FWIW, I agree with you that the Greens should expect this kind of behaviour when they threaten ALP seats.
It’s not a huge step from lies like “The Greens are preferencing Liberals” to lies of Devine proportions: “It’s all the Greens’ fault that Victoria burnt down. Hang the bastards from the nearest lamp post!”
Misrepresentation is – well – misrepresentation.
In fairness to the Vic ALP, they are not persecuting the Greens.
Just ask Les Twentyman.
jikajika thanks for the link@47, I missed that.
Brumby needs to do something pronto about that horrible man, pal or not.
Les Twentyman, last I heard, was in a serious way after an operation.
jikajika, perhaps “not just persecuting The Greens”.
Amusingly, some of the rightwingnuts in NZ love to call them “Liarbour”. I’m amused because it’s the sort of petty name-calling that the ALP is so fond of here, and both major parties seem to revel in it. Or to be more precise “some elements of”. Just distant enough that important people don’t have to front up and admit to it, like the Liberal party campaigners caught trying to smear Labour with fake pamphlets from an extreme Muslim group. Promptly disowned by the party hierarchy, of course.