So it turns out that in Tasmania’s post-election saga it was Greens leader Nick McKim, who seemed to have played the coolest hand up to that point, who blinked first. By signalling that, in the absence of other alternatives, he would support a minority Labor government (even one that refused to talk to him), he gave Labor leader David Bartlett and governor Peter Underwood the necessary cover to send Bartlett to parliament next week as premier, despite his promise to resign.
It’s in many ways a logical outcome. If neither side is willing to deal with the Greens, it makes sense for the incumbents to stay put until something new happens. Moreover, distribution of preferences has shown that Greens voters did on balance favor Labor over the Liberals, although by a narrower margin than in the past. But it’s not at all clear that it was in the Greens’ interests to reveal their decision so soon.
McKim’s goals were twofold: to lure either or both of the other parties into dealing with the Greens as serious partners, or, failing that, to force them to support each other in parliament, thus presenting the Greens as the real opposition. By trying a little too hard to force the Liberals into negotiations — something that was never likely in the short term — the Greens seem to have missed the chance of achieving the second goal.
As I (and others) have said before, for the Greens’ long-term future it’s essential that they demonstrate an ability to work with the Liberals — otherwise Labor will always take them for granted.
Paradoxically, putting Labor back in government could be the best way of achieving that, since the Greens and the Liberals will both be in opposition and their common interest may eventually draw them together.
But one of the important lessons a party has to learn if wants to play in the major league is that short-term and long-term interests can conflict. In the short term, many Greens are deeply apprehensive about being seen to co-operate with the Liberals in any form.
That’s especially the case on the mainland. In Victoria, where the Greens have hopes of winning lower house seats at this year’s state election, there is a palpable fear that any Greens-Liberal accord in Tasmania would be used by the Victorian ALP against them.
This may be a misunderstanding of how smear campaigns work: as has been demonstrated in the past, truth is by no means an essential ingredient.
Two years ago, the Victorian ALP had no qualms about telling voters in the Kororoit by-election that “A vote for Les Twentyman is a vote for the Liberals” — which could best be described as a bare-faced lie. Even if there is no Greens-Liberal agreement, their opponents may simply invent one.
But it does mean that the Tasmanian Greens could well reassess their position after the next year’s round of elections (federal, Victorian and New South Wales) is over. If by that point the Liberals are tiring of opposition, and if Bartlett’s promise to “put the past behind us and build trust” turns out to be as hollow as many expect, then new possibilities could present themselves.
It’s almost laughable isn’t it – if it wasn’t so tragic.
For all to see exactly what they get when they vote for the Left of politics.
They have no honor, no morals, no principles – just a rabid desire for power.
If nothing else, this Machiavellian political episode played out so deftly by Labor & the Greens will hopefully bring to an end to the recent surge for those Green misfits.
Blind freddy could have told you that the extreme left will never deal with the right.
Michael, I come to correct your misapprehension: analysis does not mean a toxic spray from your asshole. One definition of analysis is “breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it”. One reason I come to Crikey is that its standard of analyst is generally higher here than on Fairfax or Newscorp.
Banal strawman arguments are not an acceptable substitute.
Sadly Michael your modus operandi is becoming fairly clear to everyone – sit on the site and leap out from under your right wing rock to ensure your anti left spray is every articles first comment.
In most cases I have seen your comments are made up more of ideological smoke and mirrors rather than informed debate.
Out of the three parties you can hardly say that it is the Greens who lack principles. The most common complaint you hear about them is that they stick too narrowly to their principles and hold them so dearly that they would give up power rather than break them – in terms of the environment especially.
Sadly the lack of moral compass or principles is starkly evident in all of the current state and federal liberal and labor parties (none of which can really be distinguished from each other currently).
Bartlett looked more like humpty dumpty rather than Machiavelli over the recent few days as his party tried not to knife him in disbelief at his apparent relinquishment of power.
The ongoing challenge for the Greens is the reality of political life – you can’t always get what you want. Compromise is an inevitable political reality though it generally sends a loud section of our community into apoplectic rage. The Greens have succeeded in winning support through their firmly held principles which makes them look attractive and morally superior to their opponents. That’s until they actually win enough support to wield real power. Then they will begin to suffer the problems of their rivals, alienating supporters disappointed in policy decisions. They risk being accused of “no honor, no morals, no principles – just a rabid desire for power” as opined by Michael. So it looks to me like they are desperately manoevering to avoid any political accountability as that is when the game will be up and they will go the way of the Democrats.