It’s not easy being… oh, you’ve heard that before? The Greens either had the best election ever or it was a total disaster; they are either a vital part of a future progressive coalition or the perpetual never-weres.
This is not the first time that the Greens have been hit with this sort of wacky reasoning, from both within and without the movement. They drive people wild, themselves included, in a way that many people find hard to understand. For those of us who support them — amongst other movements — it would be hilarious if it weren’t so infuriating.
The simple version is that the Greens had a good election in the Senate and a disappointing one in the House. Before the elections there were dire predictions of a Senate disaster, with the possibility that they would suffer both a solidarity-drift back to Labor and fall down the preference tumble at the hands of hard-right and “anti-system” parties. There was talk of losing three Senate seats, sending them back to six and thus fulfilling centrist media’s greatest dream: that the Greens will be just like the Australian Democrats.
That didn’t happen. Across the country, the Greens had an aggregate swing to them of a round 2%. That was made up of around 1.3% swings in NSW, WA and Tasmani; a small 0.3% swing against in Victoria; a 2.5% swing in Qld; and a 5% swing in SA. The SA swing is presumably their share of Nick Xenophon’s old vote, and the Queensland heft from anti-Adani Labor voters.
Overall, the oomph allowed them to hold all their nine Senate seats, though they didn’t gain any. When they suffer 2% swings against, the mainstream media construct this as a disaster. When it swings towards them, it goes largely unremarked upon.
Yet this was an important election for the Greens to do “well enough” in — a quarter century after the party came together as a national outfit, with the founding leaders now departed from leadership of the organisation, the party has acquired continuity, with a projection into the future.
Hard-earned, because results in the House did not live up to expectations. In Victoria — whose slight Senate dip probably indicates saturation — the party pivoted away from the inner-north, to the inner south-east, with Julian Burnside running in Kooyong, Jason Ball in Higgins, and Stephanie Hodgins-May in MacNamara (formerly Melbourne Ports).
They fell short in all. The hope that MacNamara’s boho areas around St Kilda and Prahran would give a majority did not eventuate; with the departure of right-wing Labor MP Michael Danby, Labor’s vote went up. In Higgins, Melbourne’s inner-east, the swing to the left was around 8%. But it all went to the parachuted-in Labor candidate, hot-shot lawyer Fiona McLeod. The Greens’ Jason Ball, despite a valiant campaign, went backwards with a 2% swing against, gaining 22%.
In the ACT, where there were hopes that the new seat of Canberra might be a Melbourne-style knowledge-class seat, veteran Green Tim Hollo gained a 23% to a 40% primary for the ALP.
Thus it’s clear that at the moment there’s around a 22.5% vote for Greens candidates in these mixed knowledge/professional/bourgeois seats. In Kooyong, Burnside, on 21%, became the losing two-party preferred candidate, with preferences from “teal” candidate Oliver Yates and the ALP to take Josh Frydenburg down to a 55-45 result. In Higgins, Ball was on 23% to Labor’s 28% primary. In Canberra, Hollo had 23% to the Liberals 28% — although the Liberals have long since abandoned the practice of preferencing the Greens to raise hell.
But the results show that the Greens are still in the hunt for their switched strategy of running after liberal middle-class seats across the country — something Scott Ludlam had been arguing as a strategy for years before the switch. They need a very achievable 5-7% gain, minimum, to be in the hunt. And 10-15% to be on the safe side. With cultural and demographic shift, and a bit of a party sort-out, there are about six to eight seats in the immediate (i.e. next 12 years) sights.
These possibilities are emerging as the Greens are having a new surge in Europe. The movement appears to be renewing, not failing. But to take advantage of it, the Australian Greens will need to renew themselves. The subject for tomorrow’s piece: “It’s not easy being…”
Oh, you know it?
Tomorrow: what the European election results say about the Greens’ chances.
I think the Greens have two key challenges that are inter-related. First, they have to extend their demographic base out into the bush. They need to stop being seen as a city-based party that wouldn’t know a gum tree from a koala. Their natural enemy is the Nats: that’s who they need to be winning votes from, not Labor.
Second, they need to find some way to simplify their messaging, which is no easy task, I grant you. The Libs can offer tax cuts: simple, everyone understands. Labor can offer wage increases: once again, simple and everyone understands. The Greens offer: climate change, a concept that requires a knowledge of statistical modelling in order to fully appreciate and, consequently, is a phenomenon that is still being denied today by a significant percentage of society.
No wonder they find it hard to cut through. Especially in the 15 second sound bites of modern elections and especially in the bush, where knowledge of statistical methods tends to be less common.
Longer term, they need to become a party that offers a viable alternative to consumption-driven capitalism. We desperately need a party that can articulate such a new vision for our society. That vision will never come from the Libs or Labor, and if it doesn’t come from the Greens then they will only ever be seen as Liberal or Labor lite and not the third way that we need so badly.
Some (e.g vegan activists) will think it heresy to suggest that the Greens should cultivate (!) links with farmers and graziers. But anyone who watches the ABC’s Landline program (should be compulsory viewing for urbanites) would know that there are very many people in rural Australia who are very environmentally conscious and translate that into their everyday agricultural practice, and who are very aware of the impacts of climate change. There is scope for the Greens to work with those people who should be their allies not their enemies and provide an alternative to the Nats. I think Natale has the ability to bridge that gap.
‘Lock the Gate Alliance’ has been doing this and showing the way, but as you say, there is already room for much more collaboration and there will be more as disasters due to Coal mining and climate change increase.
Also the minimum or no tilling grain growers. Lots of farm folk are very environmentally aware and actually practice if rather than eulogise about it. Others don’t give a shit.
I had to laugh about Danby being described merely as labor right. He wasn’t called the member for israel for nothing. The member for partisan jewish interests is more accurate. His electorate appears to be saying good riddance.
Wentworth has a new member for that now and he’s Liberal and a climate change denier trying to re-badge as a moderate.
Whereas Scamma is one of the Eretz Israel brigade so no change there following the departure of the Member of Haifa Ports.
I’m with you Jim. Landline is great viewing, and yes, many farmers are serious greenies at the coalesce.
I wish them all well.
Fark. Coalface. Why doesn’t spellcheck recognise coalface?
If the Greens take votes of Labor, that is a problem for the Labor party, Many of these “knowledge/professional/bourgeois” seats are either Liberal held, or have a high primary liberal vote (like 40%). It is much easier for a Green to get up in one of these seats by chipping a few percent off both the major parties and slipping to second place, getting elected on Labor preferences, than it is for them to knock off a Labor incumbent (especially since the Libs will almost always put Green last).
I suggest you read this article and them may like to re-examine your opinions on the Greens opposing Labor rather than the Coalition.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/jun/02/labor-and-the-greens-have-to-join-forces-for-the-climates-sake
I read the article, and it is about joining forces. I thought that Brisbane was one of the better chances for the greens to get up, a repeat of Maiwar at the state level, and should have been more prominent, at the same time to say that Griffith is a Labor seat with 30% of the primary vote is a bit of a joke. Maybe it’s time the Labor party fought the LNP rather than the greens
They may yet lose a Senate seat, when final preferences are allocated
One could publish a 100 page B6 pamphlet on this topic with no difficulty at all. Graeski (above) makes a few
good points but, with all due respect, do not represent the situation at all well.
In no particular order the Greens have their own internal struggles complete with the public laundering of
their collective underwear; no real surprise there because all parties are similarly compromised. The difference, for the Greens, are the specific issues from gender-balance to the policy on transvestitism (or whatever).
Climate change is relativity straight forward topic. Similarly for the rather serious waste (plastic products
and chemicals) that are being jettisoned into the oceans. The implications for even the next generation (current 10 year olds) are significant : world – wide and are not difficult to convey. The standard media does not have to be utilised and to utilise the standard media risks gross misrepresentation of the matter.
This week there has been a good deal of well-intentioned drivel over the appointment of a failed Premier to the
Shadow bench for the alleged purpose of combating Dutton. This kind of bozzo-ism is, inter alia, the very product that confines the Greens to the loony bin; well before someone in the Green Party proceeds to dribble about (so called) safe schools and the undermining of Border Control.
As it stands, it would appear that the Greens are closer to Neo-Lib than to the perceptions of coal, jobs
and neo-populism and hence the preferenceing, at least, in the inner cities. di Natale (and others) would be
well advised to flick through Xi Jinping “The Governance of China v.II) that has just been published (in various
languages). The emphasis there is very long term; 50+ years whereas 18 months is the best that one can hope to expect in regard to policy (unless its about tax) in Australia.
Working conditions given the trends to piece-work or working conditions in the age of robots or off-shore service industries and a UBI for the lumpen prols (estranged from drugs) would be a good beginning. A thorough investigation for an energy policy with no preconceived prejudices would also be a useful contribution along with initiatives for rapid public transport and developing regional Australia etc.
Lastly, good farmers (for the last few thousand years) have been good (and conscious) environmentalists. As for environmental policy of the Greens with regard to agriculture some professorial advice would not go astray.
But for what it is worth (as I have conveyed previously) I have yet to encounter ONE intelligent OR informed Greenie who is scientifically literate but I have been assailed by mantra yappers who are either synonymous with O.N. (but whistling a different tune) or religious nutters. That they are regarded, correctly, as religious nutters (for the country as a whole) is entirely their own fault.
“One could publish a 100 page B6 pamphlet on this topic with no difficulty at all.”
On behalf of B1 and B2 could I say enough already.
Which would fit into a Crikey reply box. I await the product with some anticipation but the detail (spectacularly deficient with any Greenie manifesto) will occupy the space in a B6 publication.
The Greens will never be a player of any size in the Reps for as long as we don’t have a proportional representation election for members to our house of legislation.
To be candid, Klewso, P.R. would favour O.N. considerably(!) but would do little for the Greens. The raw vote for the Greens is fractional for the electorate as a whole but something like 25% (a tad less) for O.N.
Its not about P.R; at least not for the Greens.
Like the Senate?
We KNOW that the Australian disposition is to elect a government for the Reps and (in general) put their opposite numbers and ancillary ding bats into the Senate in the vain hope of keeping the bastards, in the Reps., honest.
Pity that the Australian character is not possessed of sufficient fortitude to put ONE party into the Reps AND the Senate with NO ancillary ding bats. That approach WOULD be representational(!)
For the Greens the chief problems seem to be their way of choosing Leaders and their vicious infighting – characteristics of Far-Left politics everywhere.
De Natale is a product of the neo-Stalinism which seeks to criminalize the free speech of the people the Greens hate. They give it an Orwellian label – ‘hate speech’.
What is it really? Well its speech that the Greens hate to hear, or which comes from people they hate.
That includes just about everybody to the political right of Malcolm Turnbull – which is about half the population – and all the ‘quiet Australians’.
Association with intimidation and violence such as farm invasions; shouting down and harassing academics; egging and head butting politicians they hate in the public square: all goes way back to the far Left in the sixties and seventies which was then copying the likes of Mao’s cultural revolution fanatics and other Stalinist fellow travellers.
As long as the Greens keep doing what they do, they will be forever consigned to support from 10-12% of our voting population which are Stalinists and inner city virtue signalling useful idiots.
I ought to have consulted you prior to posting my reply of June 4, 2019 at 14:54.
I don’t think that it is at all unfair to describe the Green movement in Australia as a bunch of disaffected zealots with contradictory objectives. GR has written on this point from first-hand experience in previous articles.
Always a pleasure Kyle…I wish I had the time to match your learned dissertations.
What an utter load of rubbish.
Please ,stop with the’quiet Australians’ gobshite. The U.K. Had the’shy Tories’ and the US the’thick majority’. Self interest, as Paul Keating noted, is always the favourite in any race..
I have grown weary pointing out that there is more than a slight difference between ‘perceived’ self interest and the real deal – the recent election being an exemplar.
I think you will find it was a former Premier of NSW (twice in fact) Jack “the big fella” Lang but Keeting is known for is innocent plagiarisms.
I have no love for Keating the crass class traitor but he always acknowledged that that quote was from his mentor/hero, the Big Fella.
I cannot recall any recent users of it – since the (s)election – who gave attribution when they, usually, mangle it.
Are you seriously saying the Greens are the party for ex Stalinists? You can’t be serious surely.
I refer you to an article that gives a breakdown of who voted for whom from Essential Research.
48% of voters knew for whom they would vote before the announcement of the Federal election.
”There were also splits between voters with different levels of education or professional qualifications.
24% of voters without professional or higher education qualifications paid no attention to the political pitches
While those who were educated and informed were a small 7% who tuned out.
People with university-level qualifications were more likely to have paid a lot of attention during the campaign (30%).
Which category do you think Greens voters fall into?
More like “Useful Idiots” 1984AUS
Stalinism (aside from its mass murder) was a system of thought control backed by State force – terror.
You had to be very careful what you said, because it expressed a thought and only a very narrow band of thought was allowed, or you could be denounced as ‘an enemy of the people’.
This is the pattern of ‘Green’ political action.
Those who have views such as ‘climate scepticism’ or ‘strong border protection’ or oppose ‘religiously inspired terrorism’ can be denounced as ‘hate speakers’ and have their ‘very existence’ regarded by some fellow travellers as ‘offensive’; or have their views suppressed by threatening to criminalize their expression (deNatale on Bolt).
Now some people on the Right and all on the far- Right talk nonsense, just as some on the Left and all on the far-Left talk nonsense.
As a little thought experiment; imagine that “rivers will never flow again” (followed by the 2011 floods and 90%+ dam levels on the East coast for several years) Tim Flannery lived in a world where his proven nonsense claims were criminalized as a form of ‘climate denial’ by say a Far Right Government. The Stalinist MO would see Tim lose his job, his family intimidated and impoverished and Tim put to useful work in a ‘re-education facility’ which dug up uranium ore in central Australia.
We have already seen a milder form of this ‘Stalinism’ with JCU’s sacking of Prof Peter Ridd, thankfully remedied by the still independent Judiciary of Qld which found in his favour on all counts by applying the objective standards of free speech and academic freedom.
Thankyou for once again demonstrating the severe lack of credible information many who believe the nonsense you’ve repeated here.
Its not difficult to identify articles written for The Guardian and Crikey that are NOT creditable. Supplying a link from thin air is hardly “evidence”. It would not be difficult to scan the archives of Crikey to find articles (by GR in the main) that illustrate the dissension within the Greens with regard to ethos and policy.
The rectification for the Greens is in their own hands and numerous suggestions have been made in the last 24 hours. It is open to the Greens to select one or three items of policy and provide a definitive approach (including costings etc) to a long term solution. Then the party just MIGHT be taken seriously. However, such a programme has never been adopted by the Greens on any topic.
Secondly, if you have read no history or sociology then you are only undermining yourself if you presume to mention, so called, “creditable sources”. flylindy, 5 June 5, 2019 11:16 has history on his side which can be illustrated with little difficulty.
As an aside, with regard to free speech, we have the Falou phenomenon. Falou is by no means the first; merely the most salient.
And Some people from the so called centre talk lieing drivelling nonsense. And some people who are on no professed political side, speak nonsense as well….. this kind of response, opinionated, partisan, pseudo-researching, with a lopsided take on ‘cultural Marxism’ is again nonsense
From an article in The Guardian Australia:
”The perceived priorities among people who voted for Morrison are returning the budget to surplus (57%), job creation (53%) and maintaining border protection (52%).
When asked to nominate where they got information about the election, just under half (47%) of voters said television was their primary source. Television was followed by online news (15%) and social media platforms (11%).”
How’s that working for you now the Coalition stacked RBA has come out with its cut rate and the facts are now out there for those who were sucked in by the TV ads and the Murdoch press, those that think the Greens voters are Stalinists FFS.
I guess you don’t bother to read articles that cause you grief.
Like these from Crikey:
https://uat.crikey.com.au/2019/06/04/reserve-bank-looks-to-jolt-alleged-strong-economy-with-rate-cut/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2019/jun/04/the-government-should-feel-a-great-deal-of-shame-at-this-astonishingly-low-interest-rate
Yes Maoist radicals, that’s what one thinks of with Richard Di Natale