The Coalition intends to give The Greens their last preference in all Victorian lower house seats, a change from their normal policy of preferencing Labor last.
This significantly reduces The Greens’ chances in seats (at least 2, perhaps up to 6) that they appeared likely to take from Labor in Melbourne.
This very clever own-goal by the Libs means that the ALP doesn’t have to choose between preserving the seats of a few cabinet ministers from being replaced by Greens lower house MPs, and concentrating its resources on fighting the Liberals in Lib/ALP marginals – which it would’ve had to do if the Libs had preferenced against their old enemy. It would’ve had to decide between concentrating on fighting the Libs and risking losing some lower house seats to the Greens (which wouldn’t stop it governing, but which would lose it some ministers), or fighting on two fronts. Now it doesn’t. Now the risk of the ALP seriously damaging itself in order to hold back the Greens is greatly reduced.
Presumably, from the point of the Liberals, it’s a high stakes gamble on a Coalition majority. For the opposition to win, they need to take 13 seats from Labor, rather than rely on Labor losing some to The Greens.
Update: Both stories are pay-walled, but Crikey writers William Bowe and Charles Richardson believe that The Greens are still in with a real chance in Melbourne and Richmond.
But remember wise Guru Antony say:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/11/implications-of-the-liberals-putting-the-greens-last-in-the-lower-house.html
A win/win for The Greens who have forced the parties of neoliberal managerialism into an obscene public embrace.
It actually looks as if the libs put ideology before pragmatism.
Noip #3, that was the view of Dr. Nick Economou on ANC News Radio this morning. He also mentioned that a number of business associations in Victoria have been pressuring the Liberals to adopt this stance. On the other hand a report in the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that there may have been an element of payback by the Libs over the Greens negotiating with Labor about swapping Lower House marginal seats preferences for Upper House preferences.
Whatever the truth of the matter, this change by the Liberals is something I’ve been expecting to happen sooner or later, and I don’t think wiser heads in the Greens would have assumed that it would never happen. It’s neither a robust nor a resilient political strategy to be reliant over time on the actions of another political force with which one fundamentally disagrees.
With a PR system, politicians, and the voters, would be spared all this nonsense.
Yep, Labor’s chances of holding a majority just improved markedly. Apart from the electoral calculus, Bracks’ rhetoric can now become much more populist on things like laura norder – he won’t have to worry about “bleeding hearts” on his left. To see what I mean take a look at hew Labor in NSW dealt with these issues back in the days when they were politically competent.
From this distance the Lib’s decision looks very much an unforced error.
Noip #3: it’s the obvious thing to do ideologically. This way they get to drag the ALP towards their positions.
I wonder how much this is due to seeing the ALP swing towards The Greens in an effort to chase their base? It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that the traditional contested middle effect was being usurped by a contest over the green/left “middle” between The Greens and the ALP, with the consequent drift greewards not favouring the Liberals at all. If Pauline Hanson can work this out the only shock is that it’s taken the (self-proclaimed) smarter party so long to respond.
I suspect it will, however, have the effect of handing the election to the ALP. The key point for me is that Greens voters rarely follow the how to vote card anyway, so it’s actually up to the Liberals to convince Green voters to preference them above Labour. And good luck with that.
How this plays out remains to be seen – if you were the Liberal party would you put any resources into these seats now that you have freed upo the ALP to defend its marginals?
The only way this can pay off for the Liberals is if they ignore these seats and go hell for leather after the marginal seats.
this leaves an opportunity for the Greens to run a local patriotism line as the only party that actually cares for the inner city
“Grand coalitions” only serve to harm the positions of the major parties in the long term. Although this is not a grand coalition, this serves the Greens’ interests very well in that they can now put out the line that the majors are trying to shut them out of the political process.
This nonsense about preferences now actually makes me rather glad for the optional preferential voting system. I expect the Greens, Liberal and Labor to not direct preferences to each other at all at future state elections.
Ideology has risen, Lazarus-like, from its grave.
The Libs have paid the Greens the compliment of recognising that they are now a permanent and threatening presence in electoral politics.
The Greens have achieved the transition from useful electoral wedge to dangerous threat to the political and cultural status quo.
The Greens will continue grow in popular support. In the not-too-distant future one major party or the other will have to decide whether to join the Greens in a coalition or whether to form a coalition with its traditional enemy against the Greens, or to form a minority government.
Finally, politics is interesting again.
All this fluff from Greens’ partisans on this blog that this is good for the Greens is preposterous. They were going to win four seats in the lower house and maybe hold the balance of power. Now they are going to get nothing, zero, nil, nada, zilch and and nought. I hope Brian Walters hasn’t given up the tenancy on his rooms in chambers quite yet.
The Greens might well grow in popular support, but getting the absolute majority in the inner city seats that they will need without Liberal preferences will be a huge ask.
John Quiggin has a post about a recent speech by Paul Howes in which the latter deplores the absence of new ideas in the ALP. He engages in vague hand-waving about the absence of Labor think-tanks as effective as the HR Nicholls Society *cough*. It never seems to occur to him or the ALP in general that the Greens are actively proposing new ideas, and that this might possibly explain why so many people are actually voting for them.
Sam, we’ll see. It’ll be very interesting to see if there are actually any Liberals handing out HTV’s in the inner city, given that they are desperately short of volunteers.
Howes has plenty of ideas. The problem is, they are all bad.
The Greens could also win with a vote in the low to mid 40s if they get sufficient preference drift, and come in first place ahead of the ALP. There might be some overestimation of how significant the Liberal vote actually is.
I imagine that The Greens would also make a pitch directly to those inner city Liberal voters.
Ken Lovell: are you suggesting that the people with new ideas are going to The Greens with them rather than the ALP? If so, I agree. If not, let me suggest it
I’ve got a friend in LEAN (the ALP enviro wing) and they really seem to be struggling. I found their protest/direct action thing other day humorous – what a shock to see the ALP protesting something using direct action techniques like that!
Robert 13, the absence of Liberal HTVs isn’t going to get the Greens over the line. Liberal voters by inclination are not going to preference the Greens. It is only when they are persuaded/directed to by their party’s HTV card that they do so.
This whole Liberal preferencing saga shows up the inherent instability of three party politics in a preferential voting system. The usual ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ logic doesn’t work because in this case each party’s enemy is their enemy too.
If Howes has any ideas, good or bad, I’d like to hear them.
As distinct from meaningless waffle.
Same applies to Karl Bittar or any of the other non-entities that Labor seem to be stuck with these days.
In the short term this is a win for Labor. But, they’re still left with the essential dilemma of how to prevent a significant block of their long term voters making the permanent switch to the Greens.
In the short term it means the Libs lose this election. But, perhaps they look a bit more genuine in their disdain for the Greens.
Sam, inner-city Liberal voters are a funny lot. My guess is that (like Greens voters) a fair number will make their own minds up with regards to preferences, and would have regardless.
I don’t know, it seems to me that the Libs are acting relatively rationally if they’re assuming a minority Labor Government supported by the up-to-six Greens would be worse for them than a majority Labor Government. After all one of the more convincing Greens arguments (though I don’t necessarily agree obviously) in the inner-city seats is that they’d be a force to push a re-elected Labor government to the Left.
I don’t know if I agree, either. The various incarnations of the conservatives in Australia (Liberals, Nationals/Country Party, UAP, Nationalists etc) have done pretty well out of being the anti-Labor clearing house. Is it too Hegelian to look at a two-Party westminster system as a fundamental relationship of dependence?
Robert, if the Victorian Liberal inner city voters preference the Greens in significant numbers, let alone enough to elect any Greens candidates, I will streak around Flemington race course next Melbourne Cup day — during the race.
That was certainly the experience in Grayndler in the last Federal election where the Libs directed preferences to the Greens. And even then a significant minority of about 1/3rd of their voters still put the Greens last.
There is of course one way for the Greens to win seats. And that is for them to win over enough Labor voters that Labor comes third. The Greens would then be elected on Labor preferences. That might happen one day, but that day is still a long, long way away.
Of course this is a bad thing for Greens, how could it possibly not be. I prefer this situation, not because I dislike the greens, but because it’s far more honest and principled of the Liberals to tell people to vote for the people more like them than the people less like them.
Liam #23:
That was also what I observed in the Victorian State seat of Richmond in 2002 when I was campaigning and scrutineering for the Greens candidate. Roughly 30 per cent of Liberal voters ignored the official HTV and preferenced Labor ahead of the Greens.
Be that as it may, the Liberals’ decision has definitely put a hole in our chances of winning seats like that in this Victorian State election, but I also repeat my previous view that (a) this was bound to happen at some stage and (b) hopefully the strategic thinkers in the Victorian Greens have factored this scenario into their longer-term calculations.
@21 –
No
If I were Adam Bandt, I wouldn’t be counting on winning the necessary three elections to get my pension.
Most Liberal voters would probably support the state of Victoria retaining a AAA credit rating, which would not occur if The Greens’ public transport policies were implemented:
http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/11/14/does-the-greens-public-transport-plan-cut-it/
Terry, in fairness to the Greens, all parties, at election times, propose public transport projects which a) would cost a fortune if implemented and b) they have no intention of ever implementing.
In the short term, this Lib preference decision will delay Greens representation in the LA.
But in Victoria we have an LC that is elected with a modified PR system. It is inconceivable that the Greens will fail to achieve the balance of power in the LC this time round.
Thus, whichever party occupies the Treasury benches will have to deal with an important Greens presence in the LC.
Does anyone still think that the Greens are merely a temporary political phenomenon that can be burned off with some tactical preference swapping? If so, you’re dreamin’.
Yep, the Greens almost certainly will take BOP in the LC.
I must confess, I was wrong: I wouldnt have given you tuppence for the chances of the Libs actually doing this, even after Howard spoke up.
From their perspective, its really quite daft. Now the ALP can attack them head on, with full resources, in the suburban marginals.
Oh well, its your funeral Libs!
*scratches head*
Paul, though it’s obviously not my place to speculate on what the Greens’ strategic decisions could or should be, or how much priority you should give to the task of winning lower-house seats at the expense of other political goals, I wonder if you could take inspiration from Rosa?
Indeed, Katz and Lefty E nothing likely to change in the upper house. Greens will maintain BOP.
And a seat or two in the lower house will be a bonus. It was always going to be unlikely that they would capture BOP below.
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2010/11/legislative-counci-preference-tickets.html#comments
Sam,
I see your point about it being a likely setback for the Greens in terms of actual LA seats. I also agree that it would come one day (I was thinking next election) so as a Greens voter I am undismayed about this – at least we all know where we stand, and I am slightly impressed by the Libs for having some principles (because I hate preference-swapping and all that negotiation).
Anthony Green (aka all-wise and knowing psephologist) still puts the Greens as a chance in Melbourne and Richmond. I know that in Melbourne at the recent Federal election only about 1.5-2% separated the ALP and Green primary vote, so I am not sure the days of the ALP preferences electing the Greens are really so far away.
QFT…
It’s kind of weird how this is being looked at as the death knell for the Greens. If The Greens don’t win any lower house seats – and I think they actually will still win one or two, so look out for Sam next November on the home straight – then they will just continue on through the next term to the next election with their upper house representation (with sole balance of power if Antony Green is to be believed). Big ol’ mean Wibwools taking their preferences away has little impact in the larger scheme of things. Patience is a virtue The Greens know well.
As others have pointed out, theer are long term benefit for the Geeens in this: it clarifies that the real ideological gap is no longer ALP v LNP.
This move (major party preference close-out) worked on One Nation: but they were a disparate, and ultimately disorganised and ideologically confused mob, playing off ressentissment.
It wont work on the Greens, who are global, organsied, tightly reflecting major political trends, whose politics have what I would call a material base in now unavoidable issues of sustainability.
People still thinking of the Greens as some sort of protest vehicle have views that are about to date – rapidly.
Lefty E, I would be very cautious indeed ascribing consistency to any political party’s supporters. Whilst I broadly agree that the greens represent a more cohesive ideology than some other parties, my own party-related experience has been that it never pays to underestimate the broadness of the tent.
People vote for all sorts of reasons, and the Greens – like every other single party out there – is undoubtedly made up of a significant proportion of ‘protest’ votes. Protesting different things certainly, but protesting nonetheless.
Update: Both stories are pay-walled, but Crikey writers William Bowe and Charles Richardson believe that The Greens are still in with a real chance in Melbourne and Richmond.
Sam@22: “if the Victorian Liberal inner city voters preference the Greens in significant numbers, let alone enough to elect any Greens candidates, I will streak around Flemington race course next Melbourne Cup day — during the race.”
Sam, what’s your thresholds for “significant numbers” and your boundaries for “inner city”?
d
Ah, but Izquierdista, there have been lots of people who’ve smashed Labor and Liberal safe majorities without those—you could hardly call Ted Mack’s, or Peter Andren’s, or Clover Moore’s outfits organised or reflective of any major political trend. What’s stopped the Greens emulating their success? The three Independents in Canberra at the moment all sit in seats which wouldn’t go to preferences without their presence.
I agree, the Greens are a lot more disciplined, serious and well-organised than the Democrats or One Nation. But mightn’t that be a negative for many voters?
Darryl, “inner city” means the electorates of Melbourne, Brunswick, Richmond and Northcote.
“Significant numbers” I will define as decisive in the election of Greens candidate. Antony Green can be the arbiter of “decisive”.
Liam #41:
Very good question, and a very important one.
The Australian Greens have experienced nothing like the boom in voter support experienced by One Nation in 1998 or, less dramatically, by the Democrats in some Federal elections. The pattern of growth has been slower. Nonetheless it has been consistently upwards in every Federal election from 1993 onwards.
Looking back on it we can regard One Nation (in particular) as an example of a “bubble party” – a lightning rod for all manner of disenchantments and ressentiment, but an “organisation” which did not have the organisation, the maturity, the ideological coherence or the processes for managing rapid electoral growth and its consequences.
Some Green parties overseas have also fallen prey to the “bubble party” syndrome – the UK Greens quite spectacularly after their bloom of support and membership in and after the 1989 European Parliamentary election, to some extent Die Grunen in Germany in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Getting back to Liam’s question, I had an article published in the November 2006 edition of the Australian Journal of Political Science in which, amongst other things, I answered that question in the affirmative and noted that there is a large number of voters in Australia, perhaps around a third of the electorate, who probably like Greens policies on the environment but would have a lot of trouble with Greens policies on social, economic and international issues. This, however, is probably unavoidable if the Greens are to continue to attempt to be a serious party with clearly stated positions on the full spectrum of public policy issues rather than a single issue or protest party.
“there have been lots of people who’ve smashed Labor and Liberal safe majorities without those”
True Liamista – but not ‘consistently’.
The growth of the Greens is slow and steady – for which Id say the parallel is more the early Labor parties, rather than ONP or Dems (though the ‘cap’ on the GRN vote willl kick in sooner than for labor – it hasnt peaked but I cant see it ever being one of two majors, rather, it will create a permanent tri-party system). Paul’s right – they’ve never expoded onto the scene like Hansonism – but thats actually reassurring for members. Such forces are a flash in the pan (ONP) – or like the Dems, and unstable concoction of exiles from both the majors with major factions that split under pressure.
Back to the prefs: as Antony Green points out, there’s no logical reason to beleive the Libs will actually *hand out* these HTVs in the four inner-city seats. I stil think 3 seats to GRN (Northcote was neer going to fall, even with Lib prefs). And Upper house BOP too.
There’s a lot of rewriting history about the Democrats going on. They were super-steady from the late 70s to the late 90s, until they suicided over the GST.
Everyone is forgetting Albert Park, where the presence of a cashed-up, high-profile independent may push either he or the Greens Party past the ALP, and then getting elected on ALP preferences.
BTW, I hand out Liberal HTVs, but have never followed one. Looks like I may just follow one on November 27.
While I don’t disagree about the slowness or steadiness of the Greens’ growth—Izquerdista, if you’re looking back to the growth of the Parliamentary Labor Party as a story of steady gradual growth, you’re reading different sources to me. I read the 1890-1916 period, from the first labour leagues up to the split over conscription, as an immensely volatile period in political history. There was nothing consistent about early Labor, and even the notorious Pledge discipline was a battleground.
The ALP burst onto the scene like a badly packed firecracker, sparks flying in all directions, exploding and burning and destroying and remaking everything it touched.
Sam #45:
Well, not really. They got 9.4% of the vote in 1977, dropped back to 5% by 1983, up again to 11.3% in 1990, then crashed to 3.8% in 1993, then up again, then down – all before the GST deal. The Greens have been much steadier, increasing their vote at each of the last four elections.
Well, Im reading them as a progression from ‘workingman’s friend’ liberals, to small colonial labor parties, progressing to opposition benches, bit of fizz around 1899 in QLD, contesting the “single issue” label all the way, contesting the “youll undermine the existing progressives” tag all the way, to the govt benches, 15-20 years later, after a lot of false starts, and even some minority govts with liberals. Quite a few parallels!
I do however agree that the parallels are stronger in other Anglo jurisdictions – the ALP was certainly more of a bolter than UK Labour, eg.
Other issue is that Democrats had no local government representation so little grass roots exposure and capacity for campaigning
Chuck 48; yes, but internally the Dems were stable, remarkably so considering the cast of characters they had.
HC, if you’re talking about Serge Thomann in Albert Park, I think you’re quite right. He’s a very high profile figure locally and will do well.
Fine
As an Albert Park electorate resident, the stuff from Thomann appears well resourced, and he appears well supported.
If the Liberals can sustain a 35% primary vote, things could get very interesting with the Greens aspiring to about 20% primary vote, leaving 45% for the ALP and Thomann (and FF & Sex Party). Even if that broke 30/15 to the ALP, Thomann could get the Green above the ALP, leaving the Green to be elected regardless of Liberal preferences.
Interesting HC. I agree he’s well-resourced, so it will be interesting to see what occurs. I’m just next door to you in Prahran.
Logical, simply the “Laboral” (or Libor if you prefer) party duopoly trying to protect itself. Bit like Coles and Safeway, same products same prices.
In the case of the political parties, same policies, same looting of our money to give to the ‘big boys’ (I am so looking forward to the doubling, even quadrupling of water and energy prices).
A few, very few, differences at the margins, heck the Liberals are even promising more trains than Labor (they won’t deliver of course, destruction of public transport is a solid consensus between both parties).
Anyway who want to govern Victoria now, since whoever is in power will take all the political hits from our coming economic collapse?
@OldSkeptic (and others who peddle the same line)
Ask any unionist in Western Australia about the differences between Labor and Liberal. The Liberals under Barnett are currently reintroducing WorkChoices at a State level.
While you may not like Labor and wish they were more progressive, to say there is no difference (like Coles and Safeway) is utterly spurious and shows a real lack of historical and political understanding.
To peddle this line – which has been around since Year Dot – diminishes the person who says it.
The progressive side of politics is stronger for this piece of news.
All of this exposes how the Greens have cynically been complicit with a Liberal tactic to weaken Labor. Hopefully, now Labor can concentrate resources on winning genuine marginal seats. And progressive inner-city Labor MPs will still have a voice in the ALP caucus.
Let’s hope the Libs can be shamed into doing the same thing in NSW and federally (after all, the likes of Kevin Andrews can’t argue that the Greens are Godless Reds while his party quietly gives them preferences).
“Greens have cynically been complicit with a Liberal tactic to weaken Labor”
How, by consistently preferencing Labor? (Does it bother you that your main point is complete nonsense?)
Back live at the game: its important to note that nobody has any real idea how Lib voters preferences flow when the party says ALP over Greens, as its never happened before.
So that ’80% of Libs follow the card’ figure being put about may be right – or completely wrong. It’ll be interesting to watch.
Its difficult to see the Libs angle here: in fact, its so counter-productive for them, my best guess is developers have made substantial donations to their campaign conditional on doing it.
I see Antony reckons Greens are a shoo-in for BOP in the VIC upper house. That’ll do me fine; though I’d reckon two of Melbourne, Brunswick and Richmond will still go Green.
P.S. Alex White – brilliant!
It’s good to see someone else has joined in the sisyphean task of raging against tweedledee-tweedledum-ism.
How anyone could live through the ideological assaults of the Howard years and still say there is no difference between the major parties is simply beyond me. I can only guess that old habits of mind from the cold war years die hard among certain sections of the left.
Come again, Lefty E? Consistently preferences Labor? Most Greens supporters consistently preference Labor, the same most certainly cannot be said for party itself.
As I said, Labor would have had to withdraw money and resources that should be going to fight the common enemy – the party of Jeff Kennett. Or do Greens supporters think inner-city Labor MPs and candidates should, in a gentlemanly fashion, hand their seats to Greens without a fight?
Forget Laboral, what about Griberal or the Libeens – to describe the insidious Molotov-Ribbentrop-style electoral pact between the Greens and the party of John Howard and Jeff Kennett?
Having just broken whatever that rule is about invoking the Nazis in an argument I will retire to the sin-bin.
This is extraordinarily good news for The Greens. They now have firmly consolidated underdog status, in significant inner city seats, just weeks away from the election. Your stuffed, Ginja, mate!
So, running in elections is somehow ‘cynical complicity’ now? that point is just silly dude! And the party is highly consistent in pref’ing ALP. Shame ALP isn’t as reliable: Country Alliance? They’re hard right nutters.
The progressive inner city vote: use it or lose it.
The Labor Country Alliance preferencing is indeed, ugly.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/11/15/warning-steve-fielding-coming-to-a-town-near-you/
So you’re a Libeen, too are you joe2?
Why do all you people here think the Libs were preferencing the Greens, if not to weaken Labor and the broader progressive side of politics? Did they suddenly develop an affection for inner-city Green candidates?
Though it took being hit over the heat with a blunt instrument, the ALP has finally woken up to the fact that it can no longer take inner-city seats for granted. Part of the problem has been that progressive ALP MPs are forbidden by caucus rules from speaking out too much, and so inner-city voters don’t see them fighting for the causes they care about.
People on the Left – like Doug Cameron – are now starting to publicly chafe against this. So I wouldn’t be so quick to write the ALP off in inner-city seats.
Na, Ginja, Green first then Labor. You just bring out the worst in me.
“Libeens”.
Ginja, using your impeccable logic, I assume you’d agree that today’s news means “a vote for the Liberals is a vote for Labor”?
That’s now a fair slogan, right? And unless Im mistaken, in Ginja world this means the ALP is cynically complicit.
(Or does this line of reasoning suddenly sound a bit demented and puerile to you?
Does anyone know how the Greens work out their preference deals?
If the article I linked to @64 is correct they must have rocks in their heads to have held out on preferencing Jacinta Allan and thus blowing any chance David Jones had in the upper house. Maybe loons in inner city Melbourne organise this kind of thing?
“ALP sources told Crikey this morning that the deal with Country Alliance in Northern Victoria will mean the ALP’s Kaye Darveniza will snag the fifth upper house spot instead of Greens candidate and former Bendigo mayor David Jones”
Knowing the VIC ALP brains trust, the next thing we’ll hear from ANOTHER loony tunes right wing extremist
“…it would’ve worked if our vote hadn’t collapsed!”
joe2, my understanding of how we do our preference deals is that we try to maximise our chances in the upper house. Winning the federal seat of Melbourne is just gravy. (Hey, if the Libs are that stupid, why not take advantage of it?)
That, David, I cannot understand why the Greens would hold out on giving preferences to Labor, Allan, in the lower house when it appears to have stuffed up the Green, David Jones’, position. He might have slipped in.
While a Labor minister, it seems strange they would wish to cut her down as her seat will go liberal, if anything. The Greens will be well behind in Bendigo East.
Make that first sentence@71 begin with “therefore” rather than “that”, please, lord.
I can’t speak for why they’ve done something particular in Victoria, joe2 (being South Australian), but my understanding is that we only “direct” preferences (in the expectation that most Greens voters will do what they want anyway) when there’s a specific quid pro quo.
Let’s face it, most people who put Greens at 1 will put Labor at 2, because a Coalition govt is the worse of two evils.
I’d be predicting that Barry O’Farrell will go “Just Vote One” in the NSW State election, given that the Libs couldn’t care less who holds a clutch of inner Sydney seats given they got a 25% swing in Penrith this year, a result consistent with by-election swings in Sydney Suburban seats for some time.They will, however, string The Greens out for as long as possible to see if they are prepared to make overtures to the Coalition to preference them ahead of Labor. This raises the possibility that no-one will get to 50% 2PP in seats such as those held by Carmel Tebbutt and Verity Firth.
David, 20% of Greens voters in the Federal seat of Brisbane who voted for Andrew Bartlett in the last election gave their preferences to the Libs over Labor, proving to be enough to give the seat to Teresa Gambaro over Arch Bevis.
DI(nr) in NSW the Greens I’ve spoken to make the constant claim that preferencing decisions are made at the local branch level, not centrally, and only ever on the basis of policy. For what that’s worth.
Terry at #74, by definition one candidate will *always* get to 50% 2pp once you exclude to the last two candidates. If what you mean is that there’ll be a three-corner contest in inner-city Sydney seats without any candidate getting a simple majority then yes, we’re already there, and have been for a while now.
Now all we need is for Labor to grow up enough to do the same thing, [preference the libs], & we might get the fairies returned to the bottom of the garden, where they can do less harm.
Paul Howes is a sellout to the big miners. He removed Rudd at the direction of his corporate mates.
When the corporates can buy union leaders you may as well kiss your arse goodbye
VEC study of Melbourne inner city voters suggests none of them – even the Libs – follow HTVs at all.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/state-election-2010/howtovote-cards-awaken-the-rebel-in-innercity-voter-20101115-17uga.html
“Surprising figures published by the Victorian Electoral Commission show that at the 2006 election, most inner-city voters – including most Liberals – ignored how-to-vote cards and wrote their own preferences. …it found that less than 50 per cent of voters followed the party how-to-vote cards. Only 49 per cent of Labor voters did so, 48 per cent of Nationals, 46 per cent of Liberals and 31 per cent of Greens.”
This partly explains the Libs apparent decision to volunteer to lose the election – the implications of HTVs are rather less than they might appear in these 4 four seats.
On this basis, I think the Greens will take Melbourne and Richmond quite easily. Not ruling out Brunswick. Northcote was probably never going to fall.
Liam said:
DI(nr) in NSW the Greens I’ve spoken to make the constant claim that preferencing decisions are made at the local branch level, not centrally, and only ever on the basis of policy. For what that’s worth.
It’s worth quite a bit because it’s true. The Greens parliamentary team can make a general recommendation, but if a local branch decides to go its own way, there’s no mechanism for overturning it, apart, one supposes, from cutting off the branch.
That said, the prospect of a branch being radically at odds with the parliamentary team is tiny.
But Fran what happens for the upper house ballot and the group voting tickets (about which to be fair I have the same dim view as Izquierdista)? Surely the preferences can’t go out to each and every branch for ratification before submission.
The constitution of the Australian Greens requires that for Federal elections, lower house preferences are decided by the local branch. Senate preferences are (from memory) left to the States’ councils or conferences or what-have-yous.
Within the state and territory branches, practice varies but in general the decisions are made at the level appropriate to the chamber’s apportionment. That is, in a state like NSW where the whole state is one electorate for the Legislative Council, it’s made a state level. In Vic, where there’s regional electorates, it’s made at a regional level. (I’m speaking about a general principal here, actual practice in those states may be different.)
There is nothing to stop branches from choosing to engage in collective bargaining with their comrades and to delegate their powers to a negotiating team, with or without caveats and decision points.
d
In the case of my branch, at least, we were more than happy to hand our preference nogotiations off to the state / federal negotiators. The alternative would have involved sitting in a room negotiating directly with a number of people who make my skin crawl.
Fair point David.
My take on the issue at The Drum: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41120.html
@LeftyE (58)
“How, by consistently preferencing Labor?”
You live in a fantasy land if you think that is true.
In the preference negotiations Labor offered to preference the Greens Party above the Liberals in every seat in exchange for getting lower house preferences in every seat.
A straight swap that would have “locked out the Liberals”.
The Greens never offered more than 15 seats in exchange. In return they asked to be #2 everywhere.
Furthermore, the Greens were negotiating with the Liberals. Labor never negotiated with the Liberals on preferences. Labor only spoke to other parties after the Greens Party negotiations broke down.
This is hardly surprising that Greg Barber – leader of the Greens Party – negotiated with the Liberals. Afterall, he has a cosy relationship with them in the Upper House, where he votes 70% of the time with the Liberals.
Aside from having a generally miserable disposition and too many people with pretentious hypenated surnames, the Greens do add something to progressive politics – in upper houses. But trying to knock off the most progressive lower-house members of the ALP is just dumb politics.
As I (and others) have said before, Ginja @ 86, just how much have those progressive ALP members achieved since the Whitlam Interregnum?
*crickets*
“Labor never negotiated with the Liberals on preferences.”
They certainly did – publicly, via the media. Brumby made a major campaign of it! Dont you watch the news?
Progressive voters respect the individual ALP Left members (eg Tanner) but can apparently see what the ALP Left cant or wont: they are locked in a permanently losing position within the right-dominated ALP, and simply don’t deliver.
Its a shame, but like I always say, those ALP Left members have choices: they should stop wasting their time as a minority in a non-progressive party and join the Greens. We’d have Tanner et al in a flash. Quality candidates!
“This is hardly surprising that Greg Barber – leader of the Greens Party – negotiated with the Liberals. Afterall, he has a cosy relationship with them in the Upper House, where he votes 70% of the time with the Liberals”
Yes I believe this is the ALP’s preferred spin tactic to try and discredit the Greens. Somewhat desperate isn’t it?
Their problem, however, is credibility and keeping a straight face when they makes such claims.
Because the ALP votes with the Liberals somewhere between 68-73% of the time you see.
I forget the exact number but basically the ALP and the Greens vote with the Libs, or the Libs vote with the ALP or however you wish to phrase it, about the same number of times.
So the quote above is misleading because it is cherry picking and leaves out the bits that reflect equally on the ALP [and the Libs too].
Naughty!!
The Liberals would rarely vote with the ALP because when it does decide to support or “not oppose” legislation, a division is unlikely.
Hannah’s Dad: yes, that figure is one invented by the ALP by excluding all votes in which the ALP & Libs voted together.
i.e its complete crapola!
Which is natural and to be expected considering all Parliaments deal with a large amount of process legislation and uncontroversial amendments. You’d find that in a decent proportion of that percentage you’ve mentioned the Greens voting with other crossbenchers, left- and right-wing.
The question is how often the Greens in an upper house with a Labor government vote with a conservative opposition; I think it’d be about the same as than in upper houses they vote with Labor oppositions. There’s no reason for crossbenchers to behave like caucusing members of a Government. That the Greens in Victoria (and NSW) happen to find themselves frequently voting on specific Bills with an Opposition whose general politics they don’t share is just an unhappy accident.
This ALP attempt at smearing the Greens has been around for a while.
Last time it popped up I saw this website which I presume was a response to the ALP spin.
http://www.howtovote.com.au/greens_vote.html
Liam’s explanation above shows why the ALP smear is just that, an attempted smear, and the site linked goes on to detail that the important consideration is the nature of the legislation.
Just to confuse the issue further [and confusion is one of the aims of spin is it not?] here is another telling [?] statistic from the link which itself links to a record of the voting history of the parties for those who like to count.
“Labor has voted with the Liberals 27 times out of 37 divisions (73%)
All three parties have voted in unison 27 times out of 37 divisions (73%)”
Silly, isn’t it?
But I suppose we can expect more of similar.
Liam, that’s happy accident. Sheesh, not everything has to revolve around The Greens losing.
Aside from foreshadowing an imminent push from Ginja’s sub-faction of the Left to purge all Lomax-Smiths, Coutts-Trotters and Nelson-Carrs from the ALP, this comment seems to be suggesting that it’s OK for the Greens to seriously contest Lower House seats as long as we’re not getting more than 20 per cent of the vote, but that once we start exceeding that threshold we should run dead, or not even run, in those seats. No serious political party is going to act in such a way, and in any case it’s an impertinent demand for one political party to make of another.
Moz, I meant an unhappy accident for the Greens and Liberals/Nationals, who can’t find it pleasant in either case to share a single side of a division. I mean: what Alex White’s saying is true, whatever the numbers—in the upper house, with a Labor government, crossbench Greens have to form common cause with conservatives to amend or reject legislation. There’s no getting around that situation.
That’s a very odd link, HD. Singling out a set of months in 2006-2007 and only looking at non-government business originating in the LC(!?) is hardly likely to give you a good indication of voting patterns, and 37 divisions is a very small sample. If that’s all they’re doing they’re the laziest upper chamber on the planet—the NSW LC would have that many divisions any given sitting week.
I should note that I’m not speaking with any specific knowledge of the Victorian Legislative Council or of the election. I’m just a interested observer from across the Murray.
Yeah I have no knowledge of what goes on in Vic either Liam, I find them a strange mob over there.
I was just pointing out that its possible to play silly numbers games with party votes in a parliament and thats what the ALP is trying to do here and in the past [hence the website - has to be about the Upper House cos thats where the Greens are] in an attempt, pretty darn clumsy, to smear the Greens and probably smear themselves accidentally in the process.
I find this Greens/ALP split a bit sad actually.
I was lokking at the “Big Footy” site recently and some turkey, ALP apparatchik or similar I presume, has a post claiming the Greens are anti-football.
It really does make the ALP look desperate, next they’ll be on a netball site claiming the Greens hate netball, disagree with surfing, don’t drink latte whatever.
Anything.
Silly stuff.
If there’s anything more tedious than these seemingly endless ALP/Greens stoushes it’s the linking of the words Labor and progressive in the same sentence bereft of the word not.
Greens have a miserable disposition? The ones I know appear to have a fairly sunny demeanour. I believe this comment springs from the right-wing stereotype that all lefties and environmentalists MUST be miserable hair-shirt types. Oh it is to YAWN. Get out and meet some people, instead of relying on cartoons!
Read “the education of a Young Liberal” or the Monthly article on the young Libs a couple of years back to see some truly miserable specimens who only appreciate power and numbers and who have concept of what constitutes an enjoyable life.
..should read, *no* concept of what constitutes an enjoyable life.
And what Liam said. Of course the Greens sometimes vote with the oppositon in the Leg Council – if they didnt, no-one would be holding government to account.
You’d find the same if the Libs were in power: except then it would be ALP and Greens imposign the crutiny.
this is what upper houses are for, btw. They’re not *just* easy electoral sinecures for ugly hacks you couldnt actually wheel out in front of voting punters.
The bloke on Big Footy says he’s a Green supporter.
By the way, I’m the other bloke on Big Footy – the blogger who didn’t write that article.
Hannah’s_Dad said:
Regrettably, that’s not true. I’m very anti-football (where this means elite football) and indeed anti-elite sport getting state support at all, but I’m not aware of any other Greens who are.
Indeed, Bob Brown is pushing the case for anti-siphoning rules to be stregnthened to make football more accessible.
“[holding government to account] is what upper houses are for, btw. They’re not *just* easy electoral sinecures for ugly hacks you couldnt actually wheel out in front of voting punters.”
No, upper houses are reactionary institutions that exist to make sure the ‘excesses of democracy’ are held in check. Multi-party representation and the lack of a government majority at all stages of the legislative process is what holds a government to account. Let’s have proportional representation in the Assemblies and abolish the councils.
d
“That the Greens in Victoria (and NSW) happen to find themselves frequently voting on specific Bills with an Opposition whose general politics they don’t share is just an unhappy accident.”
Not at all. What it in fact means is that the Liberals are to the left of the ALP on many questions/issues/bills proposed by the Greens.
Philomena, I don’t know about Victoria, but that is certainly not the case in the NSW upper house and on Greens private members business least of all.
@ 88 David Irving
Well, to name just two things: introduction of the Human Rights Charter in Victoria, and the decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria.
Of course, Labor-hating, bile-spewing internet trolls like you, I’m sure, will come up with some snide, nasty snearing repudiation of these two progressive acts.
@ LeftyE 89
The Greens Party negotiators Luntz and Greg Barber sat in a room across from the Liberal Party negotiators and tried to do a deal with the climate denying party whose shadow attorney general equated homosexuality to spina bifida.
Labor never did that.
You say that “they did through the media”, which is a grudging, spiteful way of admitting that the Greens Party leader Greg Barber sold out the so-called progressive mantle of the Greens Party.
Let’s talk about what Labor has achieved.
In addition to the two things I mentioned in my earlier comment (human rights charter, decriminalisation of abortion), Labor has increased funding for hospitals and schools.
What’s more, Labor enacted a law that mandates 20% reduction of carbon pollution by 2020 – a bill that the Greens Party did not attempt to amend at all.
Of course, I’m sure Labor-haters like you will snearingly brush these real accomplishments off.
@Darryl Rosin
Hear hear. Let’s abolish Upper Houses, which as you rightly point out are historically the house that blocks legislation from democratically elected popular governments (typically of a Labor persuasion).
AW @ 108, I’m stoked that those things have come to pass in Victoria.
I’m not a bile-spewing, Labor-hating troll, btw – I only stopped voting for the ALP after Hawke’s first term. (That’s when it became obvious that, Federally at least, Labor were no longer a progressive party.)
Very heavy and unnecessary, Alex. You should have mentioned changes to Legislative Council voting that has allowed Green representation, as well.
Darryl Rosin @ 105, I’ve got to take you to task. The upper houses aren’t a brake on democracy since the property requirements were removed (possibly before you were born).
For an example of how well uni-cameral Parliaments work, I give you … Queensland! (Particularly in the Jo years.) Queensland might be improved by proportional representation, or some sort of Tasmanian-like system, but I doubt it.
In the NSW upper house the Liberals have recently been supportive of The Greens when they have sought the release of papers from the government. These are motions which don’t have to go to the other house. This is how much of the information about the City Metro cost blowouts came into the public view, as well as a lot of the negative assessments of the Tilegra Dam proposal in the Hunter Valley.
David Irving, you do touch on an important point: how do we know left-wing ALP parliamentarians are being faithful to progressive principles in the party room when caucus rules constrain them from speaking out in public?
In the old days, before inner-city seats were gentrified, it was probably the case that MPs had more informal contact with their constituents, and could give a sense of whether they were genuinely passionate about progressive causes or just a hack. Perhaps the problem is that these days MPs don’t get to meet their busy constituents as oftern. I don’t know what the answer to that is.
The point that I – and I think Alex White – are trying to make is that I completely understand how progressives can get impatient for Labor to move faster on things. But that doesn’t mean you can’t credit Labor from the many things it’s done. To take just one example, how many people at LP know that low-income tertiary students will receive an extra $2,000 a year from next year? Just one of hundereds of progressive changes. But apparently the ALP is only deserving of contempt and cynicism.
…oftern?
These Greens/ALP stoushes would be enlightened by looking at a Venn diagram representing the political views of the potential supporters of both parties. Sure, there is some overlap, but the average Greens voter does not see the world in the same way as the average Labor voter.
The Greens have no particular duty to sacrifice themselves for Labor’s cause, especially when the don’t believe, quite rightly, that many of the issues they want addressed through political means will be properly addressed by Labor governments.
I’m by no means a Greens supporter but it strikes me as pretty silly to suggest that all progressives should fall in behind Labor just because they are a bit left of the Coalition and have a greater chance of winning government. Under a similar line of argument one could have said that the early British Labour Party should have run dead when their movement threatened the Liberal Party because they were more progressive than the Conservatives.
… which, of course, was pretty much the argument of the British Liberal Party at the time!
Thanks for casting the light of reason onto our little flame war, LO.
From the way Greens direct their preferences (about 80% ALP), I think it’s clear that while, as a group, we’d prefer an ALP govt to a Coalition one (with the possible exceptions of NSW & SA where a change is necessary in the short term), we’d just like to have some influence over policy, pushing them in a progressive direction.
@David Irving 119
There’s a big difference between what you say in your 119 comment, and the line that “there is no difference between Labor and Liberal” or “Labor is no longer a progressive party”.
I’m entirely comfortable with the Greens political party campaigning for parliamentary representation. It is a mature political party. It should be able to take the scrutiny and criticism.
To say Labor hasn’t achieved anything, or has sold out or is no better than the Liberals is not only grossly untrue, but is basically irrational anti-Labor hate.
What’s more, it denigrates that hard, selfless work that thousands of rank-and-file Labor members do on a daily basis to keep the Liberals out of government, push progressive policies and actually achieve real reform.\
The reason why so many progressive reforms have been brought about by Labor is because of the tireless work of Labor rank-and-file activists who are (strangely enough) also members of the community. The Rainbow Labor activists are also GLBTI community activists. The Labor for Refugee activists are also activists in the pro-asylumn seeker groups. Activists in the Labor Environment Action Network are also environment activists in community and climate action groups around Australia.
If the Greens Party wanted to grow the progressive political pie, I would prefer them to target Liberal marginal seats like Kew and Caulfield. However, if they target Labor held seats, it is dishonest for them to act shocked and surprised when Labor decides to stand up for those seats that it has represented for decades. The Greens Party may be gaining support in some areas, but that does not give them a divine right to win.
@Kim 118
As it turns out, UK Labour’s line that if you want to keep the Tories out, vote Labour, not LibDem has proved correct. The LibDems always had more ideology in common with the Tories than with Labour.
“However, if they target Labor held seats, it is dishonest for them to act shocked and surprised when Labor decides to stand up for those seats that it has represented for decades. The Greens Party may be gaining support in some areas, but that does not give them a divine right to win.”
Sure Alex – but whats the point of this comment? There wouldn’t be a single Green in the country who’d “expect” otherwise.
Greens are running candidates in 88 seats – there ability to target certain seats will be limited by resources and the people on the ground in a specific local community. They are clearly trying to maximise there vote across the board.
Choosing seats at the convenience of the ALP is a somewhat bemusing thought.
@Darryl – have to agree: lower houses are the “brake on democracy” these days, based on single-member districts that advantage major parties is a way that is completely disproportionate to the first prefernces of voters. Tas and ACT excepted.
But your view of upper houses is a bit dated to the property franchise era: in the absence of lower house proportionality I think they’re ace these days. Would hate to see them abolished unless, as you say, we have proportionality in the lower house.
@Alex, above: you really are carrying on with silly nonsense on the prefs issue my friend.
1. hypothetical for you… would the ALP be above preferncing Libs if the Greens were threatening in Kew etc? In return for inner-city prefs? As if! And one day we might be. I think the ALP would do that in a second.
2. By contrast, the truth is – and you know it, and tbe Libs know it – the Greens have given the Libs absolutely squat over the years, literally one-eighth of bupkiss. Instead, the Greens have relied on the Libs pursuing their own self-interest in underminging the ALP. Never offered much in return, never had to. Seems times have changed now, and teh Libs have realised teh Greens are a serious ideolgical and political enmemy.
The Greens will have to adjust to that, but In a way, its a form of flattery. Green cant be ignored any longer. I welcome it.
DINR@113
And I see your Queensland and raise you with every provincial legislature in Canada, which are all unicameral.
With respect to PR, had the seats in the Qld Parliament had been allocated proportionally, Liberal party would have been the larger coalition party until 1977, so there would not have been a Premier Joh. (if you’ll forgive the outrageous counter-factuals :^)
And if Qld had a Legislative Council, what do you suppose it would have been like? Given all sides enthusiasm for manipulating the electoral system to their own advantage, do you really think they would have permitted an Upper House to be controlled by non-government parties?
The ‘review’ functions of the Councils are important, but I can’t see the reason for locating those functions in an entirely separate chamber. Enlarge the Lower houses, and entrench multi-party representation and minority (for want of a better term) government to embed the review function there. Easier, simpler, cleaner and gets rid of all those arguments about what responsibility a Government has to the second chamber.
d
A number of straight out lies have been stated on this thread above. Speaking personally I never sat in a room with the Liberals negotiating any deals, but that doesn’t stop Alex White making the claim – even in the face of the clear fact that the Liberals have preferenced his party above my own.
More substantially, the ALP’s spin about offering to preference the Greens in return for 25 seats leaves out one crucial point. The offer was conditional on us putting them ahead of all independents, as well as the coalition. The ALP knew full well we would never agree to this. The idea that the Greens would support the ALP ahead of progressive independents with whom we agree on most things is ridiculous, and the ALP knew it. They put this up as a stalling tactic while they went off and negotiated with Country Alliance.
My take on factors influencing the Liberal’s decision: Liberal, Nationals and Labor converge to shut out Greens
The reality is that Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition are two sides of the same coin.
Labor got onto its big business mates and used them to persuade the Liberals to put Labor ahead of the Greens.