Chris Dickinson is a member of the Greens. He oversaw the creation of the TV and radio ads for the party at the 2008 WA state election. He is also on the committee of Sustainable Energy Now, and has worked with Rotary on humanitarian projects in Afghanistan and Bali. The opinions in this essay are entirely his own.
While the Greens remain a lot smaller than the two major parties, they are clearly no longer a fringe group. The Greens vote nationally was about 12%, whereas the Liberal Party’s vote was about 30%. Think about that for a minute. It is sobering to realise that the Greens primary vote was almost half that of the Liberal party’s – a party whose leader aspires to the prime minstership.
Historically, the Green vote has risen at every election. If the trend continues, significant numbers of seats could start falling into Green hands at the next poll. We could be headed for a result in 2013 that puts this one in the shade.
Of course, that’s a mighty big “if”. Extrapolating from a linear trend is always perilous. But neither is it ridiculous to do so. For those who say that surely, something must stop the rise of the Greens, the inevitable question arises: what, precisely, will cause the trend to peter out?
There are three factors that suggest that the Green vote will continue to grow. Firstly, there is the demographic issue. Scott Steel at Pollytics has written persuasively about the declining demographics of Liberal party support. The Liberals are increasingly the party of older Australians, with Labor the party of the middle aged. But just as Liberal support is demographically declining among the middle, so to is Labor support among the young. It is the Greens who are the party of the 18-25 demographic. The trend was clearly apparent at the polling booth I manned in Inglewood, as the party workers played a good-natured game of “spot the voter”. Old: Liberal. Middle aged: Labor. Young: Greens. The correlation was quite visible.
Once, the Liberals would argue that people just naturally got more conservative as they got older, and that the Labor voting youth would turn to them as they matured. It didn’t happen, at least not to the extent needed to rescue them. Labor will be making the same mistake if they assume that today’s youth are merely Labor voters in-embryo. The long term demographic progression that is sealing the fate of the Liberal party will also happen to them if they continue to ignore or obfuscate the issues that matter to people coming into adulthood in the 21st century.
Secondly, there is the simple fact that with increased electoral success comes increased access to funding and greater media attention. Success builds on success. Having run the Greens radio and TV campaign at the last WA state election, I can testify to how frustrating it can be for a minor party to try to get its message out. Journalists only want to hear about the major parties, and those parties have every incentive to protect their comfy duopoly. With an increased vote, the balance of power in the senate and a hung lower house, the Greens have already noticed a marked change in media attention.
Thirdly, and most importantly, Green issues such as global warming, peak oil, biodiversity, sustainability and so on, will only become more important as this decade progresses. This is the crucial difference between the Greens and the old Australian Democrats. Ultimately, the Greens exist to address certain real-world problems, and we aren’t going anywhere until those problems are solved. We have just suffered through what many have called the “Seinfeld Election”, the election about nothing. And yet, never have matters so grave been on the table, only to be ignored by those who would claim the leadership of our country. Australia will face some very hard choices in its near future, only made harder if we continue to postpone them. Ultimately, Green policies will have to be implemented if our way of life is to survive.
The coming decade will be a make-or-break time for Australia and the planet. Looking forward, there are only four possibilities:
- The Greens win power nationally and implement the policies the necessities of the day require.
- The old parties wake up, and make the Greens irrelevant by adopting their policies on the major issues.
- We fail to address global warming and peak oil, and condemn ourselves to an economically and environmentally impoverished future.
- By an unforeseeable miracle, all the world’s scientists are wrong and the oil corporations are right. Global warming does not exist, oil wells spontaneously refill themselves, biological resources are infinite, and the planet will support infinite growth by forming new continents as we need them.
I don’t want to make a bet on which possibility is the most likely. But I know which one is the least likely to come true.
I would expect Labor to be first to try to undercut the Greens by adopting our policies, but I could be wrong. At my booth, at the end of the day, I was asked – quite seriously – by the Liberal representative what they could do to attract more Green preferences. A conversation about the deep and real links between conservative thinking and conservation thinking ensued. There is a Green-Conservative vote out there, should they ever chose to cultivate it.
So, where do the Greens go from here? Clearly, emerging from minor party status will bring many challenges during the life of this parliament.
There will be the interpersonal challenges of moving from a party room of five to one of ten, including a lower house member. There will be organisational and staffing changes needed to cope with a larger party, and with the increase in federal funding that comes with our increased vote. We will have to face the political challenges that come with greater media scrutiny and increased attacks from both sides.
At the party meeting I attended this weekend, it was clear that people were doing a lot of thinking about these challenges. The Greens totally understand that we are at the cusp of moving from minor to major party status, and that this will take a lot of thought and care. The recently signed “Labor-Greens Alliance” is a good start, I believe.
I personally welcome the increased scrutiny of Greens policies. But there are fair attacks and false ones. And that brings me to what I believe is the greatest danger the Greens will face in the coming parliament.
One of Labor’s gravest mistakes in government was to refuse to challenge the Howard/Costello policy narrative. On issue after issue after issue, Labor hid its good works like a shameful stash of porn under the bed. It was taken as axiomatic that good economic management consisted of having a budget surplus and therefore having a deficit, even in a downturn, was bad management. This idiotic straight-jacket prevented Labor from benefiting from its successful stimulus package. When Wayne Swan announced that Labor would quickly lead the country back to a “surplus”, he killed any hope of running on the economic stimulus which saved us from a major recession. Labor was sheepishly apologising for its most successful policy. They had nothing to answer Abbot’s bogus deficit scare campaign. It was painful to watch.
I believe that falling into this trap is the greatest peril for the Greens. Make no mistake, now that we are in a semi-partnership with Labor, the pressure will be on for us to act like a “serious, grown up party” and adopt the all-deficits-are-bad paradigm. We must tear up all our policies to protect the holy surplus! This pressure is already being felt. A Greens senator I spoke to recently responded that “the Greens will get caned if we are seen to be economically incompetent”. Of course, the senator was right about that – but the solution is to re-educate the population on what economic competence means, not to lock ourselves into the cage of wingnut Costellonomics as Labor has done.
The same applies to other issues, such as refugees, the Aboriginal Intervention, and welfare quarantining. The Greens will come under pressure to change ourselves to fit “political realities”. But the whole purpose of our party is to change those realities, until political reality and actual reality align. Right now, the two are badly out of touch. After all, if you accept the current paradigm – that budget deficits are always bad, surpluses are always good, house prices must perpetually rise, refugees are a threat, people on welfare are lazy and immoral, mining is the essential foundation of our economy, fighting terrorism is more important than our civil rights, markets do everything better than government, and that those markets operate best when there are no rules – then you cannot change anything of significance.
Confronted with these zombie ideas, the Greens have got to stand firm. Effective politicians don’t follow the polls, they change them.
Hmm, Ok yes that’s a good analysis of the situation, just one thing though, the Liberals had a primary vote figure of 43%, not 30% or anywhere even near it. The ALP had 38% but even then I wouldn’t have said “Almost half of their vote”.
Look, I know we all want to beat the Libs with a knobbly stick until they crawl into whatever bottomless pit from whence they came, but that is not an excuse for ignoring facts to enhance an argument. To be honest your had made your point even without such a statement so beyond mud flinging, I really don’t get why you did it.
That’s a bit ordinary. Be interesting to see if the msm takes Green policies as newsworthy IF their influence does rise above that of the defunct Democrats who incidentally had similar election figures to the above, the election before they disappeared.
Dear heavens. Kim’s comment is gutting. What on earth are you doing publishing material with fundamental errors like that in it? While I agree that the Greens will have to develop some profile on economic management it might be better, while they are doing this, to hammer away at significant and readily identifiable nature conservation issues because mistaking the Lib’s national vote for 30% does not inspire confidence. I agree that the Greens ought to increase their parliamentary presence over time and certainly hope they do. However, relying on evidence of deepening ecological crisis to drive that vote, which it will, is no substitute for well argued policy right here and right now. That policy, though, needs to address the situated reality (ie, the material interests)of sections of the electorate to whom the Greens do not currently appeal. Getting the numbers right would be a necessary step in that process.
Coalition may have 43% but the Liberals have 30%.
@1 – the Liberal party primary is currently sitting on 30.44%, The Greens on 11.76%.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/HouseStateFirstPrefsByParty-15508-NAT.htm
The Coalition primary of around 43% includes the Nationals, LNP and CLP as well.
@PinkyOz, you are looking at the Coalition figure, not the Liberals figure. The author is being most precise.
“Dear heavens. Kim’s comment is gutting. What on earth are you doing publishing material with fundamental errors like that in it..”
akn it is you who has breakfast all over your chin. Look closer at who is the author of the piece!
His comments about The Greens being pressured to “fit in” are spot on…one only has to look at the sad case of Peter Garrett – speaking of whom…is he still alive? Did he stand in the election? How can such a big man be so invisible?
@Kim/@Gianni, we crossed! I find it fascinating that the Liberals have come to so strongly dominate the Coalition that even people on a site like this forget that 1/3 of the CLN vote comes from the junior partner parties.
@9 – It’s interesting to reflect that no one was given a chance to vote for the Liberal party in Queensland, tigtog. I would fully expect, over time, as some of the MPs and Senators who began their political lives as Liberals and Nationals retire or are defeated, the LNP to become much more of a distinct entity. Already, everyone in Queensland knows that the Liberal leadership has just about zero influence on the decision making processes of the LNP organisation – ie the complete failure to get Peter Dutton preselected for Macpherson when he tried to run away from Dickson. The LNP also ran a fairly distinct campaign in Queensland (albeit a more successful one than the Liberal campaign in NSW and Victoria, for instance).
And just by the by, a parallel to the federal election in the Newspoll for Queensland out today – almost twice the vote that State Labor has lost since last year’s election going to The Greens than swinging to the LNP:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/lnp-unable-to-capitalise-on-blighs-losses/story-e6frg6zo-1225916105557
Chris Dickinson’s claim that “the Liberal Party’s vote was only 30%” only works if you presume that nobody in the state of Queensland voted Liberal, as their candidates ran under the banner of the LNP. In other words, nobody who voted for Peter Dutton in Dickson, Teresa Gambaro in Brisbane, Warren Entsch in Leichhardt, Jane Prentice in Ryan etc. etc. considered themselves to be voting for the party headed nationally by Tony Abbott. If you believe that, then the rest of this piece is eminently believable.
I note that the author is from the advertising industry. With the use of such a methodology to manipulate data to make what would seem a fairly minor rhetorical point, I’m not at all surprised. Perhaps next we’ll see people in white lab coats on TV ads quoting these figures.
“A Greens senator I spoke to recently responded that “the Greens will get caned if we are seen to be economically incompetent”.”
This is an extremely alarming thing to hear. The Greens will get caned if they are seen to be the “progressive” face of right-wing economic policies. For proof, see the recent fates of the Greens in Ireland and the Czech Republic, as well as the trajectory of the Liberal Democrats in the UK.
Ok fine, my mistake, but it’s still deceptive. The author is asking us to replace the word ‘Liberal’ with ‘Coalition’, it is designed to inspire the image of the conservatives that puts them so far behind as to be unelectable. I’m sure even the most deluded Liberal realises that the cannot form government in their own right as things stand, and exactly who would say that a 1% incrase in party vote represents a terrible result?
It’s a half truth, its asking us to ignore the history and contect of australian politics to take a cheap shot at one of the parties. An unnecessary cheap shot too, considering the article presents an argument that explains why they are in trouble beter without resorting to misdirection.
I’m sorry, it’s just a bit dishonest, and I can’t stand that.
It’s not dishonest. You just did not read it correctly. What is dishonest is Chris Pyne on Lateline spouting the crap that they got more of the votes and that the new government is illegitimate.
Its a bit hard for the Greens to claim they stand for “honest politics” unlike the “old parties”, and then be trying the kind of thimble and pea trick that would get called out in a Student Council meeting, let alone national politics. It doesn’t inspire confidence in terms of an ability to actually implement policies.
PinkyOz, are you suggesting that you are better placed to define the Liberal party than, say, Tony Abbott is? That’s what you seem to be saying.
I’m sure if the Liberal Party had meant to stand candidates in Queensland they would have done so. I’m also sure that if they wanted to repudiate their ties to “The Coalition” they could do so in seconds. They fact that senior members of the Liberal party regularly emphasise their party’s ties to that coalition makes me think that they’re well aware of how the system works, and exactly how large their place is in it.
If we want to play silly buggers with statistics, it could be argued that because about 20% of Greens voters preferenced the Liberals over Labor in the last election, then 20% should be subtracted from the Greens’ figures for the total number who would support a Labor/Greens alliance, as they may well have preferred Adam Bandt to side with the Coalition and Bob Katter.
The point remains that no one’s interests are served by undergraduate trick to manipulate data to produce the findings that best serve your own argument. Given that one of the greens’ core claims is to be above the cynicism of the “old parties”, it is disappointing to see such stunts being indulged in.
Skip: there are many opportunities for the Greens to be economically responsible without being right-wing. They can support “nation-building” infrastructure like the NBN. They could give the nod to the next stimulus package if the world goes into the second dip of this recession. In Queensland, they can oppose Labor’s useless privatisation policy and also target its architects: Bligh in South Brisbane and Fraser in Mt. Coot-tha.
Speaking of which: this is a lovely set of number in Bligh’s own seat.
Until recently I was a member of the Greens, and served on the NSW party’s federal election campaign committee in 2007 and 2009-10. Chris’ contribution rings true in terms of some of the debates we had within the party in recent years.
Apart from some very pragmatic organisational concerns, the main tension Chris correctly describes is between an adaptation to the mainstream and what is an essentially utopian program of radical reform. He writes that one possible outcome of the rise of the Greens is: “The Greens win power nationally and implement the policies the necessities of the day require.”
The “utopianism” (my word for it) derives from a lack of analysis of power in society, presuming that winning a parliamentary majority is enough to drive through significant reforms against the wishes of powerful sectional interests (particularly those of the capitalist class). You can see the limits of such an approach with Rudd’s RSPT, a very mild reform, and the massive campaign run by a very small number of mining magnates. Of course one part of the ALP’s backdown reflected lack of political courage, but there was also the fact that brute class power was wielded by these thuggish billionaires in economic, political and ideological frames. How that can be resisted is a real question, but one the Greens eschew.
The Greens remain silent about power because the party generally accepts the idea that you can simply run the existing state for quite different ends if you win enough votes. They also reject the idea of fundamental conflicts between social groups with differing social interests (e.g. classes), instead seeing the problem as lying with the incorrect values or ethics of various social actors (or society more generally). Hence the call for a “new Green ethics”, as if moral persuasion will make capitalists no longer act like capitalists.
There is a strand in Greens thinking, probably most prevalent in the NSW party, that still holds that it will only be with the backing of powerful grassroots social movements that the power of the elites can be challenged, and Greens policies implemented in any serious way. The continued success of the party in the electoral arena and the weakening of its connections with social movement activism in recent years has left this view isolated and the parliamentary utopianism in a stronger position.
Just saying.
I think the author’s point about the way the Greens can expect to be treated is beautifully illustrated by the responses here, with a bunch of commenters misreading a sentence, focusing on that sentence over the substance of the post to try and pull a “gotcha,” then trying for a thread derail when they’re shown to be wrong.
The Greens can look forward to a lot more of this over the next few months, and it’s going to reach fever pitch when they get the balance of power. What fun.
My mistake(s): PinklyOz’s comment not Kim’s and the number incorrect in anay event. Not awake when reading the post. Dear Pinks: don’t do that to me. Some of us rely on others!
You still managed to spin that mistake very smoothly into an existing narrative about Green incompetence and idealism, though, didn’t you akn? Maybe you need to take a look at the assumptions you’re making when you read things about the Greens, and ask yourself how they’re helping you.
19: “Skip: there are many opportunities for the Greens to be economically responsible without being right-wing. They can support “nation-building” infrastructure like the NBN.”
Absolutely. I sincerely hope that’s what the Senator meant. I rather suspect they were using “economically incompetent”, like “economically illiteratue” to mean what it has meant to professional politicians and media managers since the 1970s: left-wing.
As the author of this piece, I have to say that it has certainly been interesting to see the reactions so far! As Tigtog above says, I was being very deliberately precise in my vote-percentage figures. I think it is both revealing and instructive to realise how relatively small the Liberal party is, especially when they routinely disparage the Greens as a “minor party”.
A party does not have to have half the primary vote, or even anywhere near it, to exert significant power in our political system. Likewise, it is meaningless to claim that if the other members of the coalition did not exist, they would all vote Liberal – even if true (and I don’t believe it is), the same could also be said of the joint Labor/Greens vote.
But while I intended to shake people’s perceptions a bit with those primary vote figures, I do hope people read the rest of the article.
Without knowing who advises our executive on economic issues, can I suggest we spend some of the booty on some top level advice on what a sustainable economy will look like, how it will affect the average person and how to make the transition from our Growth economy either before another crisis or opportunistically during one. Perhaps John Quiggin?
We can’t put a price on carbon without linking it to import tariffs, assistance for the disadvantaged and saying where the money will be spent and how it will benefit Australia.
moz @ 17 – Of course not. Obviously the Liberals are the Liberals and they did indeed take 30% of the PV. but it’s not really important in terms of the Australian political environment. The Libs are part of the Coalition, the Coalition vote as a block (generally), as if acting as one party. That is reality, focusing down on the Liberals themselves (even as the lead party of the colaition) is not wholely relevent when comparing party support.
akn @ 22 – Ok yes, I was a bit harsh, but I’m a little tired of the double standard, everyone is capable of misrepresentation, not just conservatives or progressives or anyone in between. If we are genuine in wanting to collaborate between competing interests we should not degrade ourselves to trickery or deceptive commentary and analysis.
May I humbly suggest that both sides have now made their point about the 30% figure, and ask that we move on to the substance of the post?
The Greens seem to me to be in a position similar to that of the Democrats at their peak. My hope is that they stay there, where they can exert considerable influence on whichever major party is in government, but I think it is fantasy to believe they can go much further. My fear is that their agreement with the ALP marks the first step down the Meg Lees gotta-be-in-the-main-game-now road which leads quickly to impotence and internal fragmentation.
The Greens have a problem getting talented representatives – the one on our local council is a completely unhinged obstructionist who is simply a joke. Most of their parliamentary representatives are unknown quantities and they will face a major challenge when Bob Brown finally goes. The homophobes in our community, especially on the conservative side, consistently underestimate how much personal respect Brown has acquired over the years with his quiet courage.
In short, the Greens can be a powerful influence on policy if they keep focused on their strengths and have good people in leadership positions (which is largely a matter of luck). If they aspire to Chris’s option 1 and take concrete steps to achieve it, they’ll quickly slip into irrelevance. They would be much better served by keeping well distant from either of the major parties, and they should do everything they can to kill the emerging perception of a Labor/Green coalition.
@27 – I’ve made the point several times that it’s getting more and more likely that the Coalition won’t act as a bloc. Those paying close attention would have noted the LNP bitching about its representation in shadow cabinet, and acting for all intents and purposes in this regard as if it were a wholly separate party. I’d also be not in the slightest bit surprised this term if the Nats start to fracture away. Power is glue, or the prospect of it, but if it recedes, I think there’ll be more instability and fluidity on the right side of politics.
Also, Kim, 20 year olds like Wyatt Roy can exhibit quite significant shifts in their political positions in response to significant formative experiences. I say watch that space!
I don’t thik that’s fair Ken. If you use councillors as your guide, there’s a lot of unsung heroes and a lot of trash on all sides.
But looking at the new federal parliamentarians – Adam Bandt, Richard Di Natale, Lee Rhiannon, Larrisa Waters and Penny Wright – there is a lot of talent there. I don’t know anything about Penny but I’m very happy to have all the others in there.
Back to the topic of the post. Part of the potential flaw in the demographic argument is that there are lots of people like me who voted Green this time, but usually voted Labor, and who might interestingly be more inclined to return to the ALP if, under the influence of The Greens, it governs in a more progressive fashion.
I’m 38 – I don’t know if that makes me middle aged!
Kim I think pondering the question speaks for itself …
Uh, Kim, woudn’t that create a bit of a problematic feedback loop? You voted green to aviod the worst of the ALP, then when it looks like the ALP is running well you switch you vote back, allowing the worst of the ALP to come forward again. Woudn’t it make more sense to stay with the reformer and keep out the bad element?
I’m with you on the demographic thing though, It’s more of a way to describe the trend rather then a driver of it. Maybe it more like having the mindset of the young (ie. Lib/ALP politics doesn’t work, so I will try something different), which is good news for you, because you think younger then your age.
@34 and 35 – Yeah, I think you’re both right! It would make more sense to keep voting 1 Greens, 2 Labor…
I agree with Kim @ 33 — this is also a test for the ALP. Can it rise to the challenge of a new kind of politics and convince the people who voted Green for the first time to come back? Or will it prove itself to be unable to adapt to the new situation and work with the Greens, thereby strengthening the Greens further. It’s a paradoxical situation, and the ALP is not helped by the fact that the very people they now need to come back to them have been driven out of the party over the last two decades, and so are not within the tent to advocate for change. From what I can see in NSW, it’s further complicated by the fact that most of the ALP members who are most threatened by Greens in their electorates are also the best in the ALP, from a left-green point of view. In my electorate, that’s true at both state and federal level.
sg @23: I spent election day on the booths for The Greens in fact. Being a supporter, however, doesn’t mean abandoning critical capacity. Do that and you reduce politics to partisan shouting for footy teams.
As it stands I reckon Dr Tad’s analysis, written as a past member, about the lack of ciritical thinking within the Greens about class power and a naive belief that leopards can will their spots to change, is probably accurate.
PinkyOZ: The coalition got 44%, not the Liberal party. Even then the “coalition” result probably included the WA Nationals even though they are definitely not part of the coalition. The AEC primary vote count Gave 30.4% to the Liberal party, 9.13 to the LNP, 3.73% to the Nats and 2.52 to independents.
Even if you include the old Liberal component from the LNP, the Liberal party would have got less primary votes than Labor compared with the combined Greens/Labor party primary vote of 49.75.
John, I am really happy to let the whole PV thing die, I’m satisfied with the explanation Chris gave as to why he went the way te did, even if I don’t agree in full. And while my argument is more around the political landscape that creates the coalition as a ‘logical’ party, Kim’s point on how stable the Coalition is also quite valid.
Oh, and you missed the CLP, not that it would effect the numbers all that much.
There most certainly is a “Green conservative” constituency, but unfortunately many Greens seem uninterested in pursuing it. They’d prefer a fringe “Green Left” approach – as some of the comments here make clear. While that’s the case, I think the Greens will never become a major party.
While I agree that people can get too hung up on modest deficits, the fact is that whether governments should be funded wholly by current taxpayers or partly by future ones is a question quite independent of what we think the role and size of government should be. The former is mainly a technical question, the latter mainly an ideological one. Confusing them conflates short term political interests with long term goals – as the US Republican “deficits don’t matter” line shows.
I reckon that, whatever the theoretical optimal intergenerational trade-off is, having low levels of government debt in the good times gives you a big margin to increase it in the bad times without spooking your creditors (bad times, of course, being precisely when creditors are most easily spooked). I don’t think that’s in any way inconsistent with a progressive – even socialist – agenda and I think it’s what recent experience shows in spades.
John D @ 40
I’ve done a quick tally based on AEC data of all the first preferences of the identifiable ALP-aligned parties (SA, SEP, Comms, Greens, Dems) and persons (i.e the three Indies backing the ALP) and all the Coalition-aligned parties (eg FF, ON, DLP, CLP, LNPQ, LDP, NATS, Climate Septics) and persons (i.e Katter) and excluded all I couldn’t work out … (e.g. carers alliance, Building Aust, Aust First, Sex Party, Secular Party) in the HoR.
This gave a total of 6.301680 million for the ALP aligned parties and individuals and 5.875655 million for the Coalition-aligned groups. Split 2PP this would give roughly 51.74 to 48.25.
Interestingly, the current 2PP is 50.03 to 49.97 in favour of the ALP. The ALP leads by 6577 votes, not that at 88.54% complete, it ought to be that relevant. Others seem to think it is.
(updated: 9/09/2010 11:02:19 AM.)
“There most certainly is a “Green conservative” constituency, but unfortunately many Greens seem uninterested in pursuing it. They’d prefer a fringe “Green Left” approach – as some of the comments here make clear. While that’s the case, I think the Greens will never become a major party.”
As I mentioned above, the Australian Greens are not the first Green party in the world to face this dilemma. Every time international Green parties have attempted to reach right and achieve crossover success, they have fallen into an electoral abyss, abandoned by their disgusted base and ignored by the world’s Turnbulls, who are nothing if not ambitious and thus always better served by a major party with established connections. This is an empirical question, no longer a theoretical one. Turning right kills Greens.
To be fair, in the Kevin07 election, Labor did talk about a budget balanced over the business cycle (not that most of the electorate knew what that meant) rather than a “no deficit” policy as advocated by conservative forces during the 42nd federal parliament. The no deficit policy is pure idealism and is far too restrictive on an executive government to “manage” economic conditions. I’d say that it is so idealistic, that it goes far and beyond any idealism in the Greens policy agenda. I wish there were reasonable debates on the fiscal balance, but the chances of that are so close to zero that I’ve lost all hope of it.
Like Kim, I’m not convinced by the generational argument. Even though I’m a young(ish) person who usually votes ALP 1 (I voted Greens 1 this time, but I wouldn’t have if it was a Greens ALP contest in my seat), I accept that the generational thing is a reasonable descriptor of the current state of things. But parties and the political landscape are far too changeable to use that descriptor to predict the growth or demise of any party.
skip, it’s also worth noting that a number of “right green” parties have been established and vanished without trace. I recall the NZ “Progressive Green” party failing to get 1% of the vote when the “rabid left wing looney” Green party get 10% or so. The former party is gone now.
Dd said:
It rather depends on what you mean by pursuing a green conservative constituency If by this you mean dumping matters of equity, nolo contendere in relation to bigotry and xenophobia, endorsing the right of enterprises to embezzle from the commons via the creation of externalities, then I’m very happy that Greens are not pursuing thses things. This is the ALP’s side of the street. I can’t imagine why there’s a need for another ALP or another Coalition party that wants to clear slightly less land.
If you simply mean that we should be welcoming to those who are sympathetic to our overall agenda and explore ways in which constituencies hitherto loyal to the Nats/Libs might see more in common with Greens than the right, then I’ve no problem with that. The issue of tariffs/protection is one that might be interesting. Sitting beside Katter at Q&A, Christine Milne raised issues that I’ve noted here in the past about compliance with proper labour and environmental standards for example.
I should add that I don’t agree that it should be the principal aim of The Greens to become a governing party in its own right. Not only is such a result improbable in practice, but the effort to contrive such a result would be disorienting.
Rather, it ought to be the aim of The Greens to educate the population and improve the rigour and scope of public policy discussion, and via that means, to force a realignement of mainstream politics in the direction of greater equity, political legitimacy and sustainability. How that affects the standing of The Greens as a political party is a secondary question.
Well, if Bob Brown’s latest activities are correctly reported by an ever biased press, it seems the first thing on the Green agenda is to threaten the Labor minority Government’s stability by being stupid enough to do a deal with Abbott on parental leave.
Hasn’t taken long to get back to the unreality of the days of Snugglepot and Cuddlepie, has it. (Assuming the report is not some media lie.)
I’m in my early 60s and glad to see I do not fit into the normal voting demographic, nor does my partner. We have both voted Greens now for at least 12 or so years.
I voted Liberal and held office with them until 1982 (I left because of JWH even back then), voted ALP & Democrats a few times before moving to the Greens.
I can’t see my vote ever going back to the ALP at this stage, and NEVER will it go back to the Libs.
I hope the Greens push through marriage equality over the next term of parliament as this is the last legal step of many in reaching for full citizenship rights for non-heterosexual people and one I would like to see before I carp it.
How does that threaten stability? Does parental leave legislation somehow equate to a vote on confidence?
Paul Burns:
Bob Brown said this morning, twice (the second on a clarifying challenge about PPL), that he did not propose to put measures that “would add to the budget bottom line” and that he was focused on non-money measures.
He did mention however that he thought it was worthwhile idea for superannuation to be paid on PPL. Presumably in that case, he’d seek some sort of revenue offset (a levy on companies?)
The one thing he did mention specifically was the temporary position of the opposition in banning support to the Japanese whaling fleet from Australian facilities.
oh, and what’s the term or explanation for crusty old greens that look at Bob and co as the younger generation? Hanging round here I’m starting to feel old, I need to go back to t’auld country and visit the retirment home greenies again.
In the past the Greens have had some success at “redefining reasonable.” They have done this by arguing for positions that are well ahead of mainstream. A reasonable medium term strategy for a small party that doesn’t have the balance of power.
The Greens should be considering changing their strategy with the aim of using their new found power to get results now.
There is certainly a need to get some serious climate action started now while allowing committees to dribble on about putting a price on carbon and long term policies. We should be focusing more on 2015 targets and what needs to be done in the life of this parliament to meet these targets.
At the moment I see the Green’s obsession with putting a price on carbon, other specific solutions and long term targets as something that is holding back real climate action rather than helping.
What really counts is the amount we emit over the next forty years. With a few caveats it doesn’t really matter from a climate point of view how we bring emissions down. Decisions about whether to put a price on carbon, put a price on clean or whatever should be based on what has the best chance of being accepted and converted to real action.
Equally, there is no logical reason why, for example a gas fired transition to clean electricity should be rejected without considering the practicalities and costs of the alternatives.
John D said:
But it does matter when we bring them down and more importantly, when we stabilise atmospheric concentrations and at what figure. We must save the Arctic permafrost and marine phytoplankton and it’s hard to see how that can be done if concentrations exceed 425ppmv and stay there. These are tipping points both in terms of emissions and sinks. If we aren’t stabilised and reversing by 2030, look out.
If you are driving towards a cliff edge, it’s good but not adequate to slow down. Stopping is essential. Given that we have been warming since 280 ppmv “stopping” in this context means reversing.
Fran @ 49 makes very good sense.
I have lost count of the times I’ve seen “scary” attached to Greens policies and we are now in a better position to correct that sort of thinking.
If one of the major parties adopted all of our Principles, Goals and Measures we could all go back to tree hugging and basket weaving secure in the knowledge that we and our descendants are in good hands.(irony)
John D @ 55 makes some good sense too and the Greens have a plan for large reductions in emissions without a price on carbon.
In terms of the “economic debate”, the Greens have increasingly accepted mainstream economic rationalist ideas. Bob talking about Budget bottom lines and the repeatedly expressed wish to be “economically literate” reflect this. These notions fit well within a neoliberal framework that has seen state spending purely in terms of enabling private capital as opposed to delivering social or environmental outcomes. I’ve done some work looking at the basic philosophies behind Greens’ economic views at Left Flank here:
http://left-flank.blogspot.com/2010/08/greens-economics-1-ecological-ethics.html
http://left-flank.blogspot.com/2010/08/greens-economics-2-problem-with-problem.html
http://left-flank.blogspot.com/2010/09/greens-economics-3-greens-go-to-market.html
The “price on carbon” stuff has been driven by Christine Milne’s office since 2007, when she embraced cap & trade as the best way to cut emissions without subjecting her policy to serious internal debate (the relevant document, “Re-Energising Australia” seems to have been removed from the Greens MPs website recently).
It is really an attempt to seek a capitalist-friendly way of achieving climate action. Despite its apparent pragmatism I think it is the flipside of the Greens’ policy utopianism. Because that approach avoids the question of confrontation with powerful interests, it hopes instead to *convince* them that doing the right thing is in their interests.
Milne has repeatedly argued that “in a crisis the people with the best ideas can win a hearing”, by which she means that a climate crisis will see Greens policies adopted by powerful elites who normally reject them. But that means moulding policies that look friendly to those elites.
Climate action certainly doesn’t require market solutions to work. And nor are markets necessarily more “efficient” than direct state intervention in achieving outcomes. But they are more “efficient” at delivering profitability, and this is the confusion the Greens have fallen into.
I am 68 and I cannot remember the Coalition ever accepting that they lost. They have always been bad losers and are of the belief that they did not lose, the voters made a mistake. The have never accepted, no matters what the numbers are that Labor has any legitimacy, The Coalition have always played the role of spoilers in opposition. They violently play the man instead of offering any constructive scrutiny or alternative options. They have begun already and I hope others like me see it as boring. As Mr. Hockey said this morning, “it has started”. He is right for the wrong reasons. He and his party also have not heard what the people have said.
Hi all, Chris Dickinson here again. I’m sending this from my work email during my lunch break, so I have to be brief.
I agree with Fran @49 above, that the Greens do not need to aim to become a governing party in their own right. If that is what happens, well and good, but the crucial thing is that they get practical action taken on the big issues of our time. Speaking for myself (as a strong Greens supporter) I would count it as a victory if the Greens lost the next election – so long as it happened because the major parties had stolen all our key policies! The whole point is to get our issues into the mainstream. Winning government is secondary. Likewise, I don’t support the Greens in a tribal sense. I support them because they are the party that most closely agrees with my beliefs, as a practical mechanism to move them into the mainstream.
Secondly, Fran @53 makes another good point (she usually does…) with her quote from Bob Brown about the “budget bottom line”, which is a wholly fictional construct that is strangling our political discourse. The pressure to fit into the Lib/Lab/MSM script is very real. I hope the Greens can find a way to change the script in time.
Fran @56: I don’t think we are at cross purposes here. If the concern is reducing the amount we emit over the next 40 yrs it is much easier to act early than leave it late. For example, a 10% reduction in emissions right now reduce the 40 yr figure by 10%. Procrastinate for 10yrs and a 13.3% reduction is required to achieve the same end. This is why I keep prattling on about the desirability of replacing coal with combined cycle gas ASAP. If we got started setting up the contracts to do this now we should have the contracts in place before the end of 2012 and almost all coal fired retired by the end of 2015. Which reduces the 40 yr emission figure by about 26%.
Fran @56: I don’t think we are at cross purposes here. If the concern is reducing the amount we emit over the next 40 yrs it is much easier to act early than leave it late. For example, a 10% reduction in emissions right now reduce the 40 yr figure by 10%. Procrastinate for 10yrs and a 13.3% reduction is required to achieve the same end. This is why I keep prattling on about the desirability of replacing coal with combined cycle gas ASAP. If we got started setting up the contracts to do this now we should have the contracts in place before the end of 2012 and almost all coal fired retired by the end of 2015. Which reduces the 40 yr emission figure by about 26%.
Dr Tad@58: Interesting comments on why Christine Milne has been supporting put a price on carbon.
Politicians seem to have this touching idea that business favors free markets. True for the financing and speculation industry who can move quickly to profit from price changes.
Not so true for investors in things like power generation that take years to pay back the investment. What they want is as much price and sales certainty they can get. This is why I keep arguing for the use contracts for the supply of cleaner electricity backed up by regulations that give them sales certainty.
Salient green: Details on the Greens have a plan for large reductions in emissions without a price on carbon?
If Bob brown Supports Abbott on PPL, he gives Abbott a stick to beat Labor about the head with. That is what’s stupid. By all means disagree with the ALP, so long as you’re not agreeing with Abbott. The Rabbit will take advantage. Lets not forget many people underestimated Abbott’s political skills. We ought never do that again. They are very highly honed. Give him nothing!
Chris Dickinson said:
Also, the point, (for those of us who are outside the mainstream and likely to remain outside of it for the foreseeable future) of joining an activist party like The Greens is to have a space with like-minded persons to work out good policy and tactics to achieve worthy goals, and not to be drained by cynical politicking and horsetrading or mundane hackwork.
We know we are going to be ignored by mainstream politics most of the time, but that is bearable if we feel ourselves to be part of a distinctive and ethically robust movement. You don’t need to get 52% 2PP to feel that, and if aiming for that means giving up one’s ethics then one has to wonder why one would bother. I could join the ALP right now if I were happy to rub shoulders with reactionaries and apologise for pandering and corruption.
@ 63, from memory the plan was 40% cuts by 2020 by 1,ending deforestation, reforestation and improved farming practice, 2, major energy efficiency reforms, 3, major investment in public transport and rail, 4, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies into low carbon energy generation.
Haven’t time to dig up the original, if it’s still available, but I have a pdf titled Re-energising Australia which goes into more detail on those 4 planks but this document includes a carbon price and an 80% by 2050 target. This document could be available at Christine Milne’s website.
I think the parties are in a progression that parallels the demographic shifts.
Labor under Hawke and Keating established itself as a centre right party. As its demographic diminishes the Coalition will continue to move to the right until it falls off a cliff.
Perhaps it’s related to that saying about young people who aren’t left wing lacking a soul – as a late 40s Green voter I must lack sense
There is a gap for a party to the centre left replacing Labor and so far the Greens are candidates to fill it. I see no reason why we couldn’t have a Green government but we’ll need more honest scrutiny of Green policies instead of the scaremongering we’ve had so far. The coming parliamentary term is an opportunity for people to see if the Greens measure up.
Fran @65: well said.
No wonder I don’t vote,after reading what has been left at this blog.As an example of wishy washy Loch Ness monster,I don’t know wether anyone here retains in one’s memory any factual accounts at all.I was looking at the Sydney Morning Herald videos, when the matter of helium came up and its relationship to glass fibre optic cable.Am I being a little bit cynical when I say there have been Green supporters opposed to natural gas and thus ,perhaps the production of our very own fibre optics!? And I feel like punching anyone in the head who will decide from the basis of some arsehole demographics ,that being a certain age represents a certain voting pattern.As someone who had a statement in a unpublished letter to an editor used by the Greiner Liberals to use as slogan,without my consent or approval..this demographic stuff outrages me.And if Brown has been using that to try to win elections,to me, its akin to not minding your own business.That attitude of mine is the reason up to now I have supported gay and homosexual rights,as well as the people I know of that non description because they don’t describe themselves in that manner.So you all react to this prick from W.A. like it is an intelligent assessment of attitudes at voting with whatever is paraded as a choice.Hasn’t ever occured to you lot, that there are people,and I know quite a few,who vote for various parties and still feel some contempt for their own choice!? Voting does not bring out the best in people,because of how the individual rather than the demographic description,means the relationship of priorities in voting seems outrageous.That is vote for the nation, self,community, job security,clean environment,kids, financial security,other peoples’ needs,business needs, charity at home or for overseas and all and everything else.To make a marketing demographic idiot to be taken seriously means the LP is losing its marbles,like the rest of the individuals in this nation.
Thanks Anthony
One might add to a consideration of the counterfactual. If, in an attempt to court the kind of electoral support that would underpin effective leadership of the executive branch, The Greens simply discarded policies and attitudes with the potential to subvert this end, how might one expect those left behind to do.
There would be three basic options:
1. Leave the party and recommit to the project The Greens are doing now
2. Leave the party accepting that the Green project was unviable or not maintainable and simply try to disengage as much with politics as needed to avoid thinking unhappy thoughts.
3. Accept the new paradigm, engaging in escalating cognitive dissonance as the party becomes transmogrified into a party for all practical purposes the same as the ALP. One day, in Animal Farm-like way, one discovers that one has become the very thing one opposed when becoming a Green, and one is lying and dissembling and slandering people honoring the principles one long ago believed in and denying simply to avoid pain. However successful the new paradigm Green party was, the party would have been a vehicle for the political and cultural destruction of people who took the politics of equity, sustainability and political inclusion seriously and a roadblock to new people taking up the cause. That just can’t make sense.
Clearly, even in the “best case” scenario, the victory will be pyrrhic. I’m not of religious inclination but a biblical reference I recall from the days when I was a catholic probably says it as well as any can:
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)
1b. The Greens compromise with a committee on climate change. Post-July 2011, we still don’t see a carbon price, and they remain lame duck.
2b. Factors conspire to destroy The Greens reminiscent of the Democrats.
3b. Realising we already failed to address global warming and peak oil, we attempt to adapt. Greens idealism fails and military-style oligarchy rules to ensure the rich are protected from the worst affects.
4b. The miracle of Armageddon.
SG @63: 40% reduction is both practically and politically achievable if the Greens don’t get bogged down on particular solutions and accept that the softness of the current support means minimizing price increases is important. I was concerned that the Greens were going to latch on to studies that propose a 100% switch to renewables by 2020.