Let’s paraphrase one prostitute and apply the quote to a group who are hawking their wares to the highest bidders. They would say that, wouldn’t they – the precious response from the gaggle of Greens yesterday.

The shrubhuggers were stroppy at Crikey’s Wednesday report that Labor figures think a preference deal with Family First would make more sense than getting into bed with the Greens. The talk is around. The Australian has heard something similar, too. They covered the yarn yesterday.

Labor are looking at a deal with Family First because they’d like to be able to pass their legislation if they’re in government. Labor is yet to recover from their experiences in coalition with the Greens in Tasmania in the nineties. The Victorian ALP are telling their federal friends about how the Greens in the Legislative Council prefer voting with the Libs.

The Greens are chasing cash by flirting with trade unions that embarrass the ALP. And they’re maintaining the traditional prerogative of the harlot – power without responsibility. The Greens will always just be a minor party. The ALP may be trying to run the economy. That means they’ll have a careful balancing act to play on workplace relations.

If Labor wins the election, they are unlikely to have a Senate majority. They will be unable to change WorkChoices without the support of other parties. The Libs won’t want to see their baby slaughtered. Family First would probably play ball – Steve Fielding talks sense on the subject. But the Greens?

Greens leader Bob Brown says they will negotiate with Labor on IR. This will be a change. Normally the Greens take a strong stand, instead of talking. The Greens oppose many workplace relations measures that Labor supports – a unitary system, secondary boycott legislation, restricted right of entry, very restricted right to strike, restricted awards, the ABCC carrying on and continuing with AWAs under transitional arrangements, to name just a few.

There are a few fundamental differences here. The Greens surely can’t negotiate on secret ballots if they oppose them and Labor is in favour. The Greens can’t negotiate on secondary boycotts if they oppose them and Labor supports. The same of restricted right of entry. The Greens oppose WorkChoices. They also oppose Labor’s workplace relations policy. So how can they negotiate? The Greens also seem to be – publicly, anyway – ignoring unfolding Senate trends and their possible irrelevance in preference negotiating.

Most of the minor parties lean to the right, or are huntin’, shootin’ and fishin’ groups that are unlikely to preference the Greens. The big parties may simply ignore the Greens and chase these groups when they design their preference harvesting strategies.

The Greens may end up in the same position as One Nation a decade ago. They may get respectable enough primary votes, but end up preferenced last. Without the preference flows, their seven, eight, even nine per cent primary votes won’t get topped up. They won’t make quota. The Greens know this. That is why – privately, at least – Green insiders admit that they are worried about the re-election of their NSW Senator, Kerry Nettle.

Finally, there will be another important factor at play at the election. The 1993 poll ended up a referendum on the GST. You voted Liberal if you wanted one, and Labor if you didn’t. Support for minor parties plummeted. This year, voters will be deciding if they want John Howard or no. They’ll vote Liberal if they do and Labor if they don’t. The minors will be squeezed again.

The Greens aren’t dumb. They know all this. They know they’re in trouble if the other minor parties preference other minor parties ahead of them. They know they’re in trouble if most voters treat the election as a referendum over who will be PM.

That’s why so many squealed so loudly yesterday.