Has Labor found a way to fend off the threat of the Greens to their inner-city seats? Probably not, but it appears having a high-profile candidate, and relying on the Greens’ divisions, is working a treat so far.
In 2016, the Greens went all-in on Grayndler in Sydney, thinking they could knock off Anthony Albanese. In some quarters he was written off; some suggested he move seats, but Albo was having none of it. The Greens deployed huge resources into the seat, but in the end Albanese won easily. The Greens, in part, were cruelled by the disastrous candidate selection of an out-and-out Trotskyite from the NSW party’s far-left faction, which has been at war with more moderate forces for years.
In Batman on the weekend, there was no incumbent Labor MP, but the hapless David Feeney — who would almost certainly have lost the seat to the Greens had he stuck around until the next election — was replaced by Ged Kearney, who is better known than Feeney and a far better fit for Batman. Unusually, Labor actually gained from a departing MP. Parenthetically, it’s interesting that the Greens and Labor served up two strong female candidates at a time when the Liberal Party is visibly struggling to keep its female parliamentarians — there are just four female Liberal Victorian MPs and senators. Over in South Australia, Steven Marshall fielded a shadow cabinet nearly 80% male.
Much was made, including by the Greens themselves, of the internal undermining of Alex Bhathal by local enemies, but how much that actually affected her vote isn’t clear. It’s the sort of thing that gets the media and the politically engaged interested, but ordinary voters are unlikely even to have been aware that she was the target of an internal destabilisation campaign.
What it did illustrate, however, is that the most important difference between major parties and minor parties is that the big ones normally have the institutional resources and structures to cope with the factionalism and division that is inevitable within any political party (or for that matter any group endeavour). They can prevent it from undermining election campaigns, whereas smaller outfits simply don’t have the people or administrative structures to cope.
Worse for the Greens, though, was the ill-judged decision last week when Richard Di Natale tried to exploit Labor’s dividend imputation refundability policy and appeal to wealthy retirees by posing as the guardian of their shareholdings and tax handouts. Di Natale subsequently appealed to Liberal voters to back the Greens while speaking of “Bill Shorten’s attack on so many people in this community”.
For the party that has — particularly since the arrival of Peter Whish-Wilson — bolstered its economic and fiscal credentials and advanced the economic debate by championing policies such as negative gearing reform, later adopted by Labor, it was an instant shredding of carefully-won policy credibility. With their eyes on the prize of winning a second Reps seat, the Greens leadership was happy to pander to wealthy seniors benefiting from a literal taxpayer handout that costs billions a year.
It also undermined Sarah Hanson-Young, who had earlier backed the policy on Adelaide radio:
I think actually Labor has done some good work here… If you’re rich enough to put your money into shares, and to be able to distribute them across various different companies, in order to get all those [franking] credits, I suggest that you are probably not down the bottom of the pile when it comes to pensioners who are doing it tough every day.
From “good work” to “Bill Shorten’s attack on so many people” in just a couple of days.
Labor loves being able to link third party opponents to the Liberals. Their persistent attack on Nick Xenophon is that he regularly voted with the government in the Senate; now they have evidence from the Greens themselves trying to appeal to the Liberal Party base of wealthy retirees.
Expect some variant of “tree-hugging Tories” to be thrown at the Greens by Labor at the next election. And what passes for the brains trust in the Greens will need to start thinking about how to regain its policy credibility.
Holy crap Batman – you mean the Greens only need Labor to drop a Penguin Feeney in a seat to boost their numbers….?
….. And what’s going to happen to these media Joker “experts” that couldn’t tell the difference between The Penguin and a real member – that were telling us how close Batman was, to falling the wrong way? Again.
I live in Grayndler – the seat that the Greens have long regarded as rightfully theirs – as soon as Albo retires anyway. “The most progressive electorate in Sydney” we are constantly told…. It’s one of the country’s wealthiest electorates and not unlike North Melbourne, though its gentrifiers are more established – at least I the northern part. In the time I’ve lived here (since the 80s) its changed from a multi-ethnic, part industrial mixed income neighbourhood to a wealthy, white monoculture completely dominated by well-off boomers. We have already elected two Greens state MPs. Most my neighbours vote Green, at least as far as I can tell with their “Stop Adani” and “Refugees welcome here” car and letterbox stickers. However, their own children can no longer afford property here – unless they themselves are doctors, stockbrokers or property developers themselves (and quite a few are).
This is heartland Greens territory. Anywhere they have any electoral success at all will be like this (Byron Bay the slight exception in that its not inner city – that’s where they holiday or have investment properties)
So I’m not so sure that the Greens pitch in Batman to the already wealthy (and boy are they determined to stay that way!) was “pandering” or a “mistake” at all. Surely the Greens are only talking to their natural constituency.
Wealthy shareholders don’t get franking credit refunds. It only applies to relatively low-income shareholders, and the refund reduces the more you earn
“So I’m not so sure that the Greens pitch in Batman to the already wealthy (and boy are they determined to stay that way!) was “pandering” or a “mistake” at all. Surely the Greens are only talking to their natural constituency.” That’s my take on the Greens, too, Teddy, has been ever since they proclaimed themselves pro-capitalist centrists and attacked the left of their own party. Their policies are still leftist, but their public political face – their rhetoric- is aimed fairly and squarely at well heeled liberals.
Sarah Hanson-Young being fair dinkum about a tax policy rather than pollie wants a cracker gaming like Di Natale et al shows how stuffed the Greens are.
They already socked it to people whose sole income is the aged pension a few years ago supporting the Libs.
What’s a vote for the Greens worth?
Yes, it’s why I have time for SH-Y and had time for Ludlum and Waters, and for Whish-Wilson, but not for Di Natale and Bandt. Some of the Greens are there first and foremost to stand up for progressive principles and win hearts and minds nationally and improve the country, and some are there to play dinky little local political games and try and erode the ALP from the left with nary a thought for actually achieving any policy.
Di Natale leaping on the Liberal lying scare campaign on a pro-equality tax policy in the name of trying to scare voters in Batman into putting the Greens ahead of the ALP is a sackable offence for a Greens leader in my eyes. Sold the Greens’ principles down the river for votes in a byelection that wasn’t even that close in the end.
Agree Arky, Di Natale is going the way of GST Meg and we all know what that did for the Aus Dems.
A tax policy that disproportionately affects low-income shareholders, and doesn’t affect high-income earners, is not ‘pro-equality’
I would have thought the lesson from Batman to all political parties is to choose your candidates to suit the electorate and stop the practice of parachuting factional hacks into safe seats.
The reason Anthony Albanese keeps winning in Grayndler is that he has lived in the inner west his entire life – and after an earlier scare from the Greens has spent some years working on reminding the changing demographic that he is embedded with both the changing demographic and the working class origins. That’s a tightrope act that is fascinating to watch.
Totally agree on the stupidity of Di Natale’s backflip on franked dividends. He needs to reverse it if he wants to retain any credibility. It’s also irrelevant to most inner city retirees, many of whom are former teachers/academics on defined benefit pensions.
And what of the rumour that older voters received telephone calls dissuading them to bother voting, has this been traced to a source?