The Greens have broken through. They are a potent force that will have a casting vote on contested legislation until 2017 at the earliest. They have won their second ever Reps seat and may yet win a third, and will have nine senators. It is a result that only the party’s greatest optimists hoped for. Far from wilting during the campaign, the Greens vote solidified. Come polling day, they walked the walk electorally.
The most important question for the Greens now is how much of yesterday’s 3.6% swing in the House of Reps and 3.9% swing in the Senate was driven by disillusionment with Labor, and how much was genuine attraction to the Greens, and therefore more likely to be long-lasting.
The consensus is likely to be that it is primarily disaffected Labor voters. But they’re now Green voters, and they may like it.
It’s a slightly academic question in the Senate, because the Greens are likely to have the balance of power there for six years, such is the strength of their performance yesterday.
But in resolving that question lies the key to just how far the Greens can go in creating a genuine third force in federal politics. The breakthrough win by Adam Bandt shows Labor has much to be fearful of in inner-city electorates. Labor now has a real problem with its reflexive strategy of veering to the Right on key issues, confident preferential voting will deliver the votes of disaffected supporters back to it. That may now cost it seats, even if it assumes it can rely on the Adam Bandts of the world to never back a Coalition government.
But the Greens are also working hard to develop a regional presence. The Greens’ second-biggest Senate swing, 5.5%, and biggest Reps swing, 5.15%, was in Queensland. Rachel Siewert and Christine Milne have been working hard on rural issues. On a number of issues like food security and coal mining in agricultural areas, the Greens have strong appeal to rural communities. Only on water is there still an ideological divide, although the complexities of water mean the Greens have common cause with some in the MDB.
There are some challenges for the Greens. A bigger party room — it will double in size after July 1 — is likely to lead to more divisions, especially once they take over as the balance of power party in the Senate.
And the Greens will now face the full fury of the mainstream media. They are no longer a distraction, playing with the fairies at the bottom of the garden. They are now a clear and present danger to the status quo. Expect News Limited to commence an aggressive campaign against the Greens, every bit as dishonest as the one it waged against the ALP when in government. Expect the business media to talk endlessly of ‘sovereign risk’ and the threat to jobs and investment posed by the Greens (and by the balance of power independents in the Reps).
It will be ugly, but the Greens expect no less. They’re taking on the major parties and politics-as-usual and, for the time being, momentum is with them.
I agree that the Greens will be subject to attack by News Corp and other big businesses, but that doesn’t make them vulnerable to attack from the right. First, Green voters are least of all to be persuaded by the conventional mass media and by capitalists’ threats of strikes. Secondly, there is nothing better calculated to unite the sandalariat than continuing attacks by such obvious right wing bogies.
YOUR Comment i.e. ” Expect News Limited to commence an aggressive campaign against the Greens, every bit as dishonest as the one it waged against the ALP when in government. ”
My question: Why is News Limited allowed to get away with dishonest behaviour when the general public is not.
If Joe Bloggs went around saying the things about our politicians that News Ltd said, I would be in court for defamation.
Why is News Ltd exempt??
Is it not time for legislation to be put in place, which would ensure that the media must be able to substantiate any claims that they make DISHONEST OR OTHERWISE.
I feared all that as one of the first 3 Green councillors elect in NSW. But as I often tell new councillors – all that grovel community activism IS the skills base for bigger and now for sure BIG politics.
Sure they might have some spills. But look at the two WA senators Siewert and Ludlum. You go and see them in person at a forum – impressive people the majors would be very lucky to have. For all the sledging of Rhiannon she is highly competent and effective at group process. Hence the smears generally.
She in particular has achieved more than her mother could and perhaps now might think about writing her own script as all emancipated adults must – emotionally, intellectually, spiritually and of course politically.
For me the big question for the Greens is how they apply the one of 4 principles – grassroots democracy. Because that calls up the tension of respecting community views but also gate keeping access to their branch machine and party power structures.
My successful political approach at Bondi was to mediate Libs and Labs because they had the big block votes. But it’s a big workload. In Rhiannon’s case she will have trouble acknowleding the shopkeeper class but they are a big block of citizens that Alan Jones runs around silly in his parrot like manipulations. But if a NSW green senator wants to be successful they must open their mind to the opponents and the other or be stereotyped as a watermelon.
Perhaps its as much about style. I found common diplomatic ground with a lib councillor who was an accountant for CSR, another private detective, others I forget. But I still mostly voted against their policy. But I was just as ruthless at ALP dishonesty and they appreciated that on a personal level alot. And it created respect. Soon every ward wanted their own pet green.
And that folks is how is should be done.
BK said “And the Greens will now face the full fury of the mainstream media”
I think they got the worst last week. From Christian Kerr (the old watermelons shtick), Hartcher (tomatoes not watermelons!), M. Devine in a particularly vicious and stupid piece (I only broke my vows and read it after reading Richard Flanagan’s eloquent rebuttal and total demolition of La Devine on ABC Unleashed).
I believe their policies are easier to defend and are consistent, because they actually believe them. So when they explain them they do not have to resort to all kinds of obfuscation like both Lib and Lab do. Admittedly their policies have mostly not been probed beyond the surface. And at least now they will have to be given more respect when these debates come along. And Wilkie, will he stay out of the tent for long? Maybe but it is lonely and in reality, despite his spats, he can bring some more heft to them.
And they have Bandt and Richard di Natale (ok they also have Rhiannon, probably).