Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. For evidence, look no further than this morning’s Age, and a story by Paul Austin on further plotting by the Victorian ALP against the Greens:
“Senior ALP figures, furious at the Greens’ assault on the ALP’s inner-city heartland, want Labor’s election review panel to look at ways to destroy the minor party’s prospects of winning seats in the lower house.”
Caveat first: this could easily be no more than some loose talk among a few disgruntled Labor people (Melbourne MP Bronwyn Pike is the only one quoted by name), amplified into a story by The Age’s war against state Labor — which seems in no way to have been appeased by the latter’s electoral defeat. Indeed the attitude of The Age, a generally left-leaning paper, is itself symptomatic of the opinion shift among the educated class that has also led to the rise of the Greens.
But the fact that such a story comes with even superficial plausibility is a measure of Labor’s Green obsession.
Much post-election commentary has cited the Liberal Party’s decision to preference Labor ahead of the Greens as one of the turning points of the campaign. So it’s not surprising that the question might be raised within Labor as to whether they could duplicate the trick and preference the Liberals.
But a moment’s thought should reveal the problem with this. As I pointed out a month ago, the great strength of the Liberals’ position was that they had no fundamental interest either way in the fate of the Greens: they could cheerfully treat the whole issue as symbolic. Labor has no such detachment.
Liberal strategists could assume that their voters regard Labor and Greens as enemies, so the decision between them was always pragmatic.
For Labor voters, however, the Liberals are the enemy but the Greens are potential if unruly allies. To preference the former against the latter would risk mass disaffection.
The problem would be compounded if Labor preferences were to actually elect Liberals ahead of Greens — already likely in the upper house, and possible one day in the lower house. That would be just making a gift of seats to their opponents, exactly as if the Liberals were to preference Labor ahead of the Nationals — something not even the most fanatical anti-Coalitionists have suggested.
Austin’s story starts by referring to the Greens’ “role in the Brumby government’s shock defeat”. The problem, however, was not the Greens but the way Labor reacted to them. It was Labor’s own choice to pour money and attention into its inner-city seats instead of the suburban marginals; if that indeed cost it the election, it has only itself to blame.
A look at the figures suggests that Labor was hurt not by the Green vote being too high, but too low. Statewide, the Greens gained 1%, but in the 12 seats Labor lost, the Greens went backwards by an average of 0.5%. It looks as if many Greens voters were scared back to the Liberals — votes that otherwise might have ended up with Labor as preferences and could have helped it hang on to the seat or two it needed.
But Labor’s anti-Greens movement is consumed by two inappropriate analogies: One Nation and the DLP. Their hope is that the Greens can be destroyed the way One Nation was, by a concerted attack from the major parties; their fear is that the Greens will keep them out of office for decades the way the DLP did.
Neither makes sense. One Nation was a classic protest movement, appearing out of nowhere and vanishing almost as quickly, while the Greens have slowly built an infrastructure and a voter base over 20 years. The DLP was a tightly disciplined party that took traditional Labor votes and delivered their preferences to the Liberals; Greens voters, however, are notoriously resistant to doing what they’re told, and most of their preferences go back to where they came from.
Ironically enough, many of those now attacking the Greens from within the ALP would themselves have lined up with the DLP 40 years ago, including representatives of the ex-DLP unions readmitted to the ALP in the 1980s. But that just shows again that what appear to be debates about tactics are more often about a party’s identity: is the ALP to be a progressive party or not?
If the answer is to be no, then the drift of its left wing to the Greens will only accelerate. If yes, then some sort of modus vivendi with the Greens will have to be reached.
Indded a most level headed comment. The thing to note is that the other result of the ALP fixation with fighting the Greens is that in a band of very safe ALP seats the Green vote increased by substantial amounts – that is my impression from a quick inspection of Anthony Green’s excellent web site. Charles will no doubt tell me if I am wrong.
I don’t understand why the ALP needs to tear itself apart hanging on to a couple of inner city seats. They should walk away and concentrate on looking after the less well off.
These seats are un-winnable now that gentrification has forced the ALP base out. Sydney’s Balmain already has one Liberal booth. The strongest Liberal voting parts of the inner west are its most gentrified enclaves, (includes North Newtown).
The real action is elsewhere, in the regions and outer suburbs. The Greens and the Liberal vote is largely interchangeable anyway, both groups are affluent and come from the same social background. The issues which excite the local Green activists and councillors passions relate to property rights and keeping the bogans out. Nimby campaigns, often against affordable housing. One recent one in Leichhardt was against students Students!
There nothing for the ALP in such rarified places. The Vic Liberal preference deal was an aberration, it won’t happen in NSW, where the optional system means it doesn’t have to either.
In 2007 in Balmain, where the Libs issued a Vote Liberal only card, most Liberal voters who did think for themselves and numbered all boxes preferenced the Greens. 85% of them.
Very interesting analysis, and comments.
@ Russell – the ALP don’t want to be a party of/for the battlers. They want to live in nice suburbs and be voted for by ‘nice’ people. Truly divided, and sadly not knowing what they stand for any longer, except to be in power and hang onto it.
Very, very sad.
@DGH – Yes, you’re right; the biggest Green gains were in the belt of safe Labor seats north & west of the city. Look at Derrimut (up 8.9%), Footscray (8.7%), Pascoe Vale (4.0%), Preston (6.5%), Williamstown (8.3%). But in the safe Liberal seats and the suburban marginals their vote was stagnant.
@Russell – Electorally I think that would make more sense for Labor: not to walk away from the inner city entirely, but to accept that its heartland has to be elsewhere and that the Greens are going to win some inner-city seats, and then deal with them as a minority party in the same sort of way that the Liberals deal with the Nationals.
@P’duck: True enough. As a matter of social class, the apparatchiks of the ALP are much closer to Greens voters than they are to ALP voters. That’s why their identity crisis is so acute.
It looks as if many Greens voters were scared back to the Liberals — votes that otherwise might have ended up with Labor as preferences.. I just do not understand this comment, esp as most Greens would have originated in left circles (PACE those who would say that Labor is no longer ‘left’) though I agree that many are trending to tory nimbyism.
Incidentally One Nation was not ‘destroyed’ but placated, the Rodent adopting most of its voters’ demands.
If anyone still imagines that there is mnuch to choose between the two wings of the Laberals, just recall how they ALP & tories have in the past colluded with preferences, giving us FF, the DLP (recently arisen from their unquiet grave) and keeping out a the NDP stood a baldy rock singer in 1984 and almost achieved a quota in the Senate but the preference stitch up elected a National instead. Wonder what happened to him?