Meet the people who’ll hold the balance of power in 2011…
|
All polls currently suggest the Australian Greens are on track to record their highest ever vote on 21 August. The Greens are almost certain to hold the balance of power in the Senate from 1 July 2011. In a two-part piece, Crikey looks at the party poised to become Australia’s third political force. In 2007, the Greens attracted 7.8% of the national vote in the House of Representatives and just over 9% in the Senate. They performed most strongly in Tasmania and the ACT. Their best effort in a major state was just over 10% in the Senate in Victoria. The current polling suggests the Greens are poised to improve on that result. Newspoll says the Greens’ current level of support is 12%; Nielsen 12%; Essential 13%; Galaxy 13%. The Morgan poll, which was the first to pick up the slow rise of the Green vote last year, has them currently sitting on 10.5%. Newspoll, Nielsen and Essential and, to a lesser extent Morgan, all tell the same story: the Greens vote peaked in the polls in early-mid June as Labor’s primary vote collapsed, but fell back as voters returned to Labor before and after the removal of Kevin Rudd. That fall appears to have stabilized just before the calling of the election, leaving the Greens with a significantly higher level of support than in 2009. Much of the rise has been attributed to disgruntled left-wing Labor voters switching to the Greens out of disillusion with, first, the Rudd Government’s disappointing CPRS, and later its shift to the right on asylum seekers. Essential Research polling found the Green vote to be significantly softer than that of the major parties, an impression confirmed when the Greens’ peak — at one stage in Newspoll they reached the dizzying height of 16% — passed and much of that support returned to Labor. Even so, as we close in on 21 August, Greens support is sitting well above levels recorded at the last election. Whether that polling position translates into a similar performance on 21 August, however, must be doubted. As Antony Green has noted, now that the Greens are being separately identified in pollsters’ questions, polling may well overestimate the Greens’ support, when previously it had underestimated it. And the Greens, like all smaller parties, will struggle for coverage now that the campaign has started as the media concentrates on the presidential-style campaigns of Labor and the Liberals. The Greens will be also heavily outspent by the major parties in advertising during the campaign, although the disparity is unlikely to be as great as in 2007, when Labor and Liberal hurled $40m worth of advertising at each other. The 2010 campaign is a decidedly leaner affair. Financially, the Greens are far more reliant on their party membership than the major parties. They claim to have “around 10,000 members”. By some estimates that’s around a quarter of the major parties. Others say the jealously-guarded membership number of the Labor and Liberal parties are much lower, particularly when it comes to active members. The Greens almost certainly have a far younger membership as well, with both major parties and especially the Liberals carrying a lot of retirees in their branches. Last election year, 2007-08, the Greens only earned $1.1m, including over $640,000 in membership fees and state contributions. The party garnered less than $300,000 in donations. However, they recouped over $4m in electoral funding. This, Bob Brown noted in a plea for more federal donations earlier this year, had almost entirely been returned to the party’s state branches. Greens candidates still reflect the party’s traditional base in the public sector. Teachers, both secondary and tertiary, are the largest occupation among Greens House of Representatives candidates this year. Doctors, lawyers and social workers and community activists are also well-represented. A number of local councilors are also standing for the Greens, who can now draw on representation at all levels of government and in all states except Queensland. There are 22 state Greens MPs – although they are all upper house representatives or in electorates with forms of proportional representation, like the ACT and Tasmania. It’s no coincidence that those are the two jurisdictions where the Greens hold the balance of power. However, the Greens have been more successful in NSW and Victoria at local level, with more than 80 Greens local councilors in those states — although primarily in inner urban areas. There are over 100 Greens at local government level throughout the country. The party has, within limited areas, developed a significant presence within Parliaments and council chambers. Tomorrow: the Greens most likely to enter Federal politics on 21 August… |
|
|
|
17 Comments
This whole “Balance of Power” nonsense is precisely why systemically the preferential voting system is a failure. You vote, and at the end of the day at best, and more often than not, we end up with second-best in charge; but they then are held to ransom by a mere handful (or part thereof) of clowns as the result of a trace of votes from some backwater. Should go back to square one and do what the French do and improve from there if possible: all in and if no +50%, then the top two run off in a second vote. The ‘Greens’ so favored by many in the Media it appears are nothing but charlatans and snake-oil merchants.
And as the campaign rolls on, expect more and more cheap shots from the major parties and their cheerleaders - witness Howes last week, Henderson today, 4 panellists and implanted audience members on Q&A last night.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Mahatma Gandhi
…and another cheap shot by Ramble!
I agree Ramble, the balance of power is wrong. How can a minority have the potential to weild so much power. The only thing more scary than Joolia Goolard is Bobby Brown and Christine Milne. Anyone listen to her on Q&A last night - she made Richo seem moral.
And this differentiates them from other politicians how, Ramble?
I’d determined to vote Green for the upper house some time ago, to stop the government of the day having free reign with such things as the internet filter, but now I’m seriously considering voting for them in the lower house. Both the major parties are on the nose as far as I’m concerned, a change to a 3 or more party system might be an improvement.
Ramble, you are missing an important point: In the lower house voting the preferential voting system is precisely giving people that 2nd vote without the cost of a 2nd electon. If no one gets 50% of the vote, the person or party with the least votes is dropped off, and their number 2’s become number 1’s and are redistributed. That continues until someone has 50% plus 1 of the vote. So if people took responsibility for their own preferences (which they should do!) then they are effectively casting their 2nd vote for a major player by preferencing.
You also overestimate the power of the so called “balance of power”. When the two major parties vote the same way on the overwhelming majority of bills, a small party with the “balance of power” is not holding everyone to “ransom” (to use your word). When the coalition vote with Labor on 70% of all bills, it is they who are exercising the “balance of power”. When others do the same on the minority of occasions when the coalition wont, then yes, they are acting as “the balance of power”. But do you really believe it holds the country to ransom? The 3 greens in the Victorian upper house, are “the balance of power” (when the coalition is not), and tell me: how has that ruined Victoria? How has it held the state to ransom?
You are repeating nonesense that is sprouted by the major parties who are annoyed that they can not just do whatever they wish with a Senate that serves as a rubber stamp for their policies. The senate was always meant to be a house of review. Our system if not perfect, but it does allow for a 2nd look at the legislation going through it.
Ramble seems a bit confused on several fronts. The “held to ransom” line can only refer to the Senate where you would claim it undemocratic if >12% of the nations voters prefer someone else.
On the lower house, we can agree that our preferential system is lousy but perhaps for contrary reasons. For me it unfairly entrenches a two party system whether or not more than 29% of voters don’t want it or either party. (see my article: abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2907567.htm
For all intents and purposed our preferential system works like a run-off system (as in France and many places) but avoids the cost and inconvenience of going to the polls twice. It would still entrench a two party system, indeed like our preferential system it is specifically designed to do that. Hurray, you may say. I don’t know how much more evidence than the current debacle and the previous 12 years of Howard do-nothing government, to show you that it ain’t working anymore. Once the two parties figure out how to stay in power without actually doing anything, all motivation for doing anything is out the window. Voila, nous sont arrive. Using strictly french Cartesian logic, the only thing we can do about it is give some power to a third party. The upper house is imperative but it seems so too is the lower, since Labor continue to pretend that they can govern without any negotiation with the Greens next term.
The notion of ‘Balance of Power’ is wrong. The Greens would never get anything heard if Labor and Liberals work together to pass legislation. It’s fairer to say it will be a minority senate.
The Greens will in my view gradually build their support base and become the third party we so desperately need. Things will only change when they knock off one of the other two, but I ‘m not sure they’d want to govern even if they had the chance.
We need the Greens - they are the real opposition in this country. Real alternative policies and vision. Progressive and passionate. Intelligent and insightful.
Have you noticed that when a Greens Senator is speaking they are usually dealing in facts - not the tired and trite “moving our nation forward” etc lines trotted out by both the major parties.
At least we know what the Greens stand for: Gillard and Abbott are unreliable and unfathomable.
The other interesting thing about the Greens is that they do not accept corporate donations and so are not owned by the corporations as are the other two parties, and also, of course, far less chance of corruption of the type which is currently occurring in NSW and Qld.
Lefties such as I am encouraged by the movement of left wing Labor people to the Greens, which makes them not only a credible environmental voice but also, apart for Socialist Alliance, the only opposition to the increasing hegemony of the large corporations over every aspect of modern western life.
It is always assumed that the Greens are picking up because of refugees and the ETS. In my case I am seriously considering them because they are the only party who will give my son the same rights as his brother.
Yes Jim Michael and Zut, I agree with you all but unless the Greens field a candidate in every lower house seat they cannot govern and never will be thje truly viable force they are in Europe.
‘There are 22 state Greens MPs – although they are all upper house representatives or in electorates with forms of proportional representation, like the ACT and Tasmania.’
The WA MLA for Fremantle ( Adele Carles) was a Green until she resigned from the party recently.
Lorna - you must have seen a different Q&A to me last night. I thought she made more sense than anyone else on the panel. I’d love to see her and her ilk with more power.
What she didn’t do Malcolm was demonstrate how she would enact her wish list. Politics is the art of the possible. The greens have demonstrated they will not compromise. Until they have broad public support they will continue whistling in the wind while Labor and the Libs split the spoils.