Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Are Bill Heffernan and Bob Brown the same person?
|
Talk of the Nationals leaving the Coalition — as they threatened to do yesterday — is perpetual, dating back to their time as Country members — damn that doesn’t work in the plural — and their occasional partnerships with Labor, notably in Victoria in the 50s. As with the behaviour of most co-dependent spouses, it is mostly flounce and theatrical suitcase packing and the occasional half-hearted suicide attempt. If you want to know what being a Liberal party leader of the Coalition is like, go out with an actress. But as time moves on, that ritualised threat is acquiring more oomph for the simple reason that the whole political ground on which the Coalition is based is splitting in several different directions. Famously, the Coalition has always been an obvious stitch-up between a right-wing pro business party, and a bunch of agrarian socialists happy to impose raw capitalism on the urban working class. That could actually bumble along, as long as the economy was at the centre of political life, and everything else was marginal. But now it ain’t. The environment is, for the simple reason that everyone understands, at some level, that the environment is not just this or that Potoroo species, but the basis on which life is possible. The people at the sharp end of this are rural Australians, their whole communities under threat from both environment and economy. Whether it’s the global competition to crops that cannot compete on the world market without subsidies — but upon which whole communities rely — the increasing conflict between mining and agriculture, as in the black earth country of NSW that Billiton wants to dig up, salination, water supply, the madness of a century of thirsty crops — rice and cotton — on a dry continent, both Nationals and rural Liberals are faced with the unpalatable truth — that they cannot regard nature as a “given”, an apolitical category of life whose solidity can be assumed. Nature is now culture, and politics, in the sense that our survival and prosperity depends on the continuous reconstruction, restoration and management. To think that way is to consider nature as a dynamic system of many intersecting levels of action, acted on by, and acting on, humans. In other words, Green politics. No matter how they wiggle out of it, representatives of rural politics are in Green politics, because the screw-up of the environment has got so bad that it’s vomiting back on the people who depend on it. However, culturally, in the establishment of their identity, rural Australia depended on precisely not acknowledging that truth for a long time. They inherited a Judeo-Christian, promethean, idea that you made meaning by taming the wild earth, making it work for you. To have to face up to the fact that a salinated river cannot simply be worked around, but must be fixed, or that miners and farmers are not on the same side, that no matter how hard you work there may be no market for crops grown cheaper elsewhere, is not only galling — it directly attacks a sense of who people are. The first reaction to a crisis of identity is hysteria, and under that heading file both Pauline Hanson and Barnaby Joyce. The latter may be more cogent than la Hanson but his mix of climate change scepticism, bursts of social conservatism — supporting student union funding of sports only, because “ratbags” would take over all the other services — and the whole plain-speaking act is the last gasp of a very old politics, in which a whole range of attitudes could be expressed as a single passage. There ain’t no such package no how no way anymore. The Nationals have a road back from extinction, and it’s to leave the Coalition and offer the Liberals looser support in a government scenario based on a range of tougher conditions that emphasise the distinctive conditions and challenges of rural Australia — an agenda which demands a mix of free market politics, protectionism, social democracy and some hard Green thinking. They should then challenge Libs in rural/regional seats precisely on those differences — and/or persuade Libs such as Bill Heffernan to join them. Heffernan’s eye-popping interview on Lateline the other night made clear that the fissure in right politics doesn’t run through the parties, it runs through the individual pollies — someone like Heffernan sounds identical to Bob Brown when he gets onto topics he knows something about, like water supply and global agriculture. The Nationals could then explore policy-by-policy links with the Greens, since their respective platforms on a whole range of issues sound increasingly similar anyway. Years ago the canny hook up between the late Rick Farley at the NFF and Philip Toyne at the ACF created a category busting alliance that prompted a giant leap in Australian environmental policy and practice in a dozen different fields. It’s time for that to happen again, but if the Greens want it they have to change too, and wind up the whole watermelon party routine — green outside, red in. Their championing of human rights and being the only party early and often to talk back to China is admirable, but that and their whole left liberal baggage of euthanasia, abortion policy etc, is the mirror of the Nats’ dilemma — a take it or leave it inner urban new left package delivered late from the 80s. The Greens should simply dump their social policy per se, take it off the books, and proclaim that on a whole range of issues these are simply conscience votes. It should be possible to imagine in the near future, a Greens senator who is, reasonably and constructively, anti-euthanasia, opposed to drug decriminalisation and anti-abortion. If the Greens truly believe that the whole ecosystem is under imminent threat then they should redefine these other issues as outside their programmatic politics. On that basis, a new and more creative politics is possible — one where people can acknowledge their differences while working on solid common ground, outside of zombie categories. But it will take real leadership from both parties to achieve it. I’m confident the Greens have it if they want to. Can the Nats produce something other than carnival acts and invisible men? |
|
|
16 Comments
Re Country Members not working in the plural. It works with a southern usa accent - think Yosemite Sam. I Remembers!!!
I have said for a long time that the Greens and the Nationals have a lot in common. We both want to care for the earth. We both want to protect the water supplies and see them natural and healthy. We both want the earth to produce food for the long run. We dont want healthy soil to be lost. We might not agree on the best policies to get to the shared goals. But the shared goals are real.
The areas we most differ on are accurately noted in the article above: in social policy.
But the Greens have many of their members and supporters who are actually in the party, or vote for the party, because of their social justice policies. Not primarily for their environmental policies. It would be a big ask to get the greens to just turn all those policies into conscious votes.
But maybe the logic is there: if the environment is the basis of all life, then everything else must come 2nd to issues of the environment. We say that about the economy: the environment is not a subset of the economy, rather the economy is totally dependent on the environment. Perhaps we will reach a point where we say it about social issues as well. If our stand on euthanasia is hindering real joint action on climate change… what should we do?….
The debate - if it were to take place - would be rich and colourful. A healthy reflection of democracy in action. I would not want to bet on the outcome, however.
The Nationals might have their own debate as well. But could they really ever get over the intense bias they hold against the Greens?
Perhaps groups like the country greens alliance will help bring some change over time. Let’s hope it is not too little, too late.
Hey Guy, as Bob Ewell would have said ‘I remembers’. Anyway, I watched the interview and as my lovely wife stared in growing horror at the realisation that Heffo was making sense, I looked across at her (thinking, aren’t you lovely) and said ‘Don’t worry, any moment now he’ll switch to let’s develop Northern Australia’ and right on cue, so he did.
That is not going to happen on the Green side, and fortunately so. Focusing on the environment at the expense of every other aspiration is never going to be politically popular, and nor should it be. The Greens are better off continuing to move towards being a broader, social democratic party and aiming at the left of Labor. That doesn’t mean narrowly focusing on the so-called latte issues, but putting more emphasis on social services, workers’ rights and redistribution of wealth.
I had a good listen to Cream’s ‘We’re going wrong’ on Youtube reading this one.
The green in Green? Not so much in NSW, for about 9 years now. Yes there is some noise every so often but the organised Left and their intense and emotionally violent caucusing have taken over the NSW Greens to the exclusion of the ecology. As far as I know it’s not the party I helped build as one of 3 first Green councillors in NSW in 1995. Where grassroots democracy was based on the genuine public push to save NSW forest heritage from the D9 bulldozer. Where the genuine leaders all knew how to spend a night in a country gaol for their beliefs and do their time on the front lines.
Yes they do a good job at times still on the green in Green here: John Kaye MP down in SE any day now to oppose burning public native forests for “renewable” energy in the RET - courtesy the abominable Eden woodchip mill.
Yes Rhiannon, Kaye and Hale MPs were outside Tebbutt’s Marrickville electorate office about the same egregious chip mill a few months back.
Yes I did see ex Senator Kerry Nettle’s mug on a SE Forests brochure recently in the NSW EDO office info stand - now running the litigation against King Coal on the Liverpool Plains black soil country.
But you can be sure there is a deep deep antipathy to anything beyond public ownership of well anything in public ownership. If the plantation sector was sold then there would be no cross subsidy to native forest chippers and they would close overnight. It won’t happen because the State Forestry agency are a CFMEU land baron.
Also NSW Greens don’t have a conscience vote on abortion and I doubt they ever will. How many of the ideologues have been in the waiting room I wonder in this conscience vote type of reality? The guy opposite bawling his eyes out. Or frozen, like Harry Dean Stanton whose pet dog got a bullet for ‘licking the butter’ in Missouri Breaks.
Yes the Nats and Green activists are known to have most in common on the polling booth on long election day afternoons. Which I suppose just means they will understand eachother the most when The End arrives.
Time for Tales of Brave Ulyssses by Cream - surely the greatest 2min and 50 sec of rock of of all time?
Guy - As far as I recall, the Greens, unlike LibLab & Nats, do NOT enforce a party line. However the idea that a sentient, bi-pedal would not advocate drug decriminalisation and other ‘social justice’ principles is just errr… old thinking?
ar - yeah i know they dont enforce policies, but they still have them on the books. i think they should just dump them as policies and draw in a wider group of people
I don’t agree with the attitude re the Greens and their “social policies”. The fact is, that an overwhelming number of Australians agree with pro choice re abortion, and they also agree with pro choice re euthanasia. In the high 70% margins I believe?
I find it amazing that the Greens policies on the environment are criticized, when it was Bob Brown who started the campaign against the Franklin River being damned; also the Pulp Mill, uranium mining, logging old growth forests. What’s your problem Guy? The ALP used to have some principles re the environment, but not any more. Like the Coalition, they get into bed with those who don’t give a toss about the present let alone the future. As long as it’s an opportunity for huge profits now, who cares about the koalas or trees or lakes or rivers or??
The Nationals are OK with cutting down anything that grows, shooting anything that moves, and to hell with human misery via oppression etc. Progress is ripping down something and replacing it with tar, cement or a revolting high rise - on the foreshores, that should belong to all of us!
The argument making drug taking legal is incorrect - I’m in favour of decriminalising it, which is a common sense approach. The laws at present only push up the price of illicit drugs, which only benefits those bastards who are making money out of those who are hooked? Bloody stupid! It’s also class orientated. Many people take heroin and hold down a job I believe. Good career making jobs too! Very rarely hear of the kids of the rich being in jail for drug taking do you? Why? Money gets them off??
Can they still decriminalise at the same time?
Guy, extremely well done. Thank you for this piece.
I was taken aback by Heffernan’s well-informed position on our agriculture, water and food supply issues moving forwards. Yes he did almost sound like Bob Brown until he refused to entertain the idea that humans are somehow involved in creating climate change.
Again, thank you for this interesting piece.
Crikey subscription is the best hundred or so bucks I keep spending each year
The Nationals under Joyce are certainly lurching towards the lunatic right in denial, and erratic to boot.
The Greens are also characterised in some inner city areas as watermelons, and were attacked with Gusto by Howard on this in the lead up to 2004 elections. In 2007, Howard was too distracted going down a sinking ship.
It will be interesting to see if either agree they have common ground, or if they just consolidate their current niches and policies. They are both in contention for 3rd party status, but the Nats are rusted on to the Liberals, while the Greens currently have an inherent tendency to lean towards Labor.
There seems to be some confusion about why a party would have policies that will never actually be delivered and may count against them in terms of votes - other than idealists saying “because it is the right thing to do”. But if you don’t get the outcome, then surely it is not the right thing to do…
I think we do need a new paradigm to move out of political comfort zones. We need a rapid transition to a low carbon economy rather than just more lipstick on the fossil fuel pig. Politics and usual is just delivering camels like the failed CPRS and the compromised MRET. And the forests keep on falling.
Guy, I was with you right up to that jaded, pejorative characterization of the Greens social policy as left liberal baggage. It says a whole lot more about your views of the importance of these issues than the true value of them to the Greens.
I’m not a Green voter - actually I don’t vote at all but that’s another story - but as a party, the Greens have one unique characteristic - principles. But for one glaring mistake about Telstra which they owned and deeply regretted, they don’t trade them for political expedience.
As I understand the nature of Green politics, it’s not just about the earth and the environment - though these were their genesis - it’s about care and responsibility. To abandon the social policies that you consider marginal to the Greens, would be to rip its heart out just as surely as would abandoning what you perceive as their core policies on the environment. Co-operation with the Nationals in areas of common interest is possible without having to enter into any Faustian deals.
It’s interesting that you don’t suggest that the Nationals should jettison any of their policies. In fact you say that the Nationals could explore policy-by-policy links with the Greens but you don’t seems to think that the Greens could do likewise. As I said, in the beginning, these sound like the views of a jaded commentator who’s lost sight of the importance of principle. Given my respect for most things you have written, I find this really disappointing.
I agree with everything Guy Rundle covers in his excellent article - except his suggestion that Greens should simply dump their social policy per se. Although a Greens member for about ten years, I have always, even as a swinging voter, strongly supported euthanasia, drug decriminalisation and abortion. Indeed it was The Greens fair social justice policy that persuaded me to join this progressive party.
Now a retired primary producer, I love the land, but am all too aware that the Judeo-Christian ideology of the Nationals, as aptly described by Guy Rundle, is destroying our life support systems. However, this Greenie can never relinquish my social conscience to accommodate stultified policies based on ideological fairytales.
Peter, about your line “There seems to be some confusion about why a party would have policies that will never actually be delivered and may count against them in terms of votes - other than idealists saying “because it is the right thing to do”. But if you don’t get the outcome, then surely it is not the right thing to do…”
The Green answer to this is that someone needs to hang onto the principled position, to continue to voice it and argue for it, especially when expediency requires other parties to compromise and sell themselves short. If no one hangs onto the notion that the right thing to do is worth arguing for then the whole game slides downstream and the principled position can be lost from sight. Sadly this is what the Greens think has happened to the ALP, especially on issues like climate change.
KAYT DAVIES - I agree with you Kayt. In relation to a woman’s right to choose, I wouldn’t support the Greens if they opted out of taking a stand on this issue, or the right to die either. The fact is, that both the ACT and Victoria have decriminalized abortion; and this was due to persistence, commitment and hard work initiated by women in most cases, although there are great blokes who support them. It’s been removed from the British Criminal Code for 40 years, so why it’s still a crime(except for certain circumstances - of which you have to rely on those unknown to you, who don’t give a damn about your personal circumstance anyway?) in most of this country, I don’t know. It’s damned stupid!
It’s interesting that the people who raised this as a negative standpoint for the Greens were blokes - who’ll never have to worry about this, and who’ve always lived an exemplorary life of sexual responsibility???These social policy questions have overwhelming support of the community. The reason why the major parties are gutless is in the main, due to power of the churches! What happened to politicians being elected to abide by the wishes of the majority. These questions make a farce of the rhetoric over so called democray - they don’t represent our views on these issues, only their own prejudices and personal views. Nobody is forcing them to have a termination or the right to choose when to die, we just don’t want them dictating to the rest of us. They have every right to exercise their own consciences as I do; I just resent being ruled by dictators!
Barnaby Joyce has a similar attitude to his other catholic private school mates - they’re essentially immature little boys in men’s bodies. They carry on like kids in Kindergarten(I must apologize to these kids who can act with much wisdom at times?). You can pick them out - Heffernan, Abbott, Pyne, Joyce, Hockey & Minchin etc.
I’m old enough to remember when the ALP did take a stand on environmental issues, and then they went back on policy re uranium mining, and it’s been a downhill run from then. Now it’s a case of ‘anything goes’, and developers and money rule every time - well almost! I find that the Greens research prior to making a commitment against projects, and this I admire. A case in point is Killalea State Park in the Illawarra. It was the NSW Greens who tied this disgraceful saga by developers to an injection of funds(to the ALP) after every favourable decision of the NSW govt(public knowledge - several occasions - Stateline NSW) with little or no community involvement. In fact, the so-called public meeting the Minister boasted of was by invitation only? If it wasn’t such a disgraceful tragedy, it would be laughable. The Greens did the hard work, and with community protest groups, are taking the place of responsible government. This area is pristine and beautiful, and belongs to future generations, not to be sold off for a few wealthy people to holiday there in ‘apartments’ that look like school demountables(architects drawings)and will block out the beautifiul view to the beach, known as The Farm. The majority of the residents would be more than happy to contribute to the upkeep each year, but this hasn’t even been given any consideration. When did ‘god’ sell this land to the NSW govt?
I certainly hope the Greens do well in the next NSW State Election (I’m not a member either.) I believe in exercising my responsibility and privilege by voting, the Greens make it easier to comply!
Well Liz you are generally right, but as I said NSW is different to other State parties of the Greens because they don’t support a conscience vote on abortion. I am also pro choice but as I tried to say obliquely above - from the moral position of having been in the waiting room, coping with an unreliable partner who decided on retrospective contraception.
I’ve got no problem with contraception it’s the unreliability of people that is the real issue. And unreal expectations of excess ambition wanting it all. When does pro choice become personal dishonesty/retrospective contraception and fear of commitment for either sex?
It’s way too easy to cry gender rights in the abstract. It’s the detail of individual circumstance that trips frail humanity every time.
And there is something of an internal inconsistency for greens striving endlessly to protect nature and not have a profound regret about the wonder of human (potential) life foregone. That’s why it makes sense to be a conscience vote like the major parties.