Why the Labor Right is off-beam on the Greens
There has been much to amuse in the Labor Right’s attack on the Greens over the last week, culminating in a flurry of attacks over the weekend: Paul Howes lambasting the Greens for advocating such pastimes as dancing over competitive sports for kids, thereby presumably at a stroke alienating the entire ballroom dancing competition community; John Robertson (remember him?) joining in, apparently forgetting the Greens were more diligent in supporting his head-in-the-sand stance on electricity privatisation than most of his own party; the febrile comparison by Sam Dastyari — general secretary of that politically deft outfit, NSW Labor — to One Nation.
The participation of union leaders like Howes and Tony Maher, who joined in on Twitter, was intriguing, given the Greens are far more protectionist than the parliamentary wing of Howes and Maher. In April, for example, the Greens not merely supported the government handing out yet more wasteful assistance to the automotive industry, but wanted to explore ways to prevent a future Coalition government from removing it. For a leader like Howes, who prides himself on advocating measures to protect jobs, having a crack at the Greens looked a little perverse.
Howes complained of the Greens “cannibalising the progressive vote”. Putting aside that under preferential voting, cannibalising votes is very tricky to achieve, it’s worth taking a proper look at how realistic the Labor Right is being in demonising the Greens.
The problem with the thesis that Greens voters are just Labor left-wingers lured to the Greens by the Siren-like singing of Kumbaya is that it has at best only been true for the last couple of years. The state-by-state picture varies, but the rise of the Greens from a nonentity party garnering 2-3% of the Senate vote in 1998 to the balance of power party now was primarily because of the decline of the Democrats. In state after state, Senate votes show that the self-immolation of the Democrats was accompanied by the rise of the Greens: whether disgruntled Democrats voters shifted directly to the Greens or not, the Greens have replaced the Democrats as the home for third-party voters.
In South Australia, the Democrats stayed higher for longer, because of the party’s historical strength there and, likely, the popularity of Natasha Stott-Despoja. That kept the Greens vote lower there for longer. In Tasmania, where the Greens have been much stronger for longer, the Democrats had already declined by the late 1990s, but Brian Harradine attracted a stronger third-party vote than the Greens. It was only his absence from the ballot in 2001 that saw the Greens vote surge into double figures. Elsewhere, the decline of the Democrats in the Senate vote mirrors the rise of the Greens.
Same in the House of Representatives in NSW. In 2001, the Greens were only slightly ahead of the Democrats across NSW, but both were below 5%. In 2004, the Greens nearly doubled to 8% and the Democrats practically vanished. In Anthony Albanese’s seat of Grayndler, the Greens shot to over 20% of the vote in 2001, increasing their vote by about the same margin as the Democrat vote fell. Ditto in Tanya Plibersek’s seat of Sydney. In Victoria in the House, the Democrats were slightly ahead of the Greens in 2001 but were on around 6% of the vote each. The Democrats have since becomes asterisks while the Greens vote has doubled.
The electoral establishment of the Greens was built on the wreckage of the Democrats, not by siphoning off left-wing voters from Labor.
That only really applies to 2010, when the Greens rose to levels of support beyond those achieved by the Democrats. In NSW, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia, the 2007 election saw the Greens basically matching, or only slightly bettering, the levels of support achieved by the Democrats in 1998 in the Senate. But in 2010 they burst through into double figures, even in South Australia.
According to Essential Research, which consistently gives a lower voting intention to the Greens than Newspoll, the Greens have sat on 10-11% since the 2010 election, unaffected by the carbon price, asylum seekers or Bob Brown’s departure. If maintained, it’s the electoral basis for an ongoing presence in the Senate of 10-12 senators. If for nothing else, Labor will have to get used to dealing with the Greens in the Senate, regardless of who’s in government.
What halts the Greens are strong swings against governments. The Greens’ federal vote went backwards in NSW in 2007 in the House of Representatives. It only rose by 0.7 percentage points in Victoria. The NSW and Queensland state elections show that the Greens struggle when the electorate is gunning for the incumbent. To amend the cliché, when the swing’s on, it’s on against minor parties. On that score, maybe the Labor Right will achieve its goal of halting the Greens momentum at the next election by handing Tony Abbott a landslide.
That of course points to Labor’s real problem: if there’s been any “cannibalising” of the progressive vote by the Greens, it’s now been replaced by a massive shift of Labor’s vote to the Coalition. The Labor Right may lament Labor voters who’ve shifted to the Greens, but even if Labor won all of them back, plus all of the third-party voters who moved to the Greens with the demise of the Democrats, it won’t save the party from annihilation; it’s the much larger number of former Labor voters who are now parked firmly with the Liberals that are the problem.
And Labor, as Sarah Hanson-Young pointed out in a succinct summary of the problem yesterday, is the odd one out of the major parties and the Greens. There is no lack of clarity about what either the Greens or the Liberals stand for, and little gap between the parties’ bases and the parliamentary parties’ policies (this is one of the reasons why neither is moving on asylum seekers). But there is little clarity about what Labor stands for. There’s plenty of talk about “fairness” and “working Australians” but no visceral feel about what the party’s core values are, the sort of values that mean voters don’t even have to think when they wonder about what a party stands for.
Lecturing both third-party voters and disaffected former Labor supporters about how stupid they’re being supporting the Greens probably isn’t the smartest way to attract their votes. But doing it when they don’t have a clear idea what Labor values are guarantees failure.
The whole thing is an exercise in appealing to middle australia to return to labor. The proposed motion for the conference is to not ‘automatically put Greens first in preference negotiations’ which they never did anyway.
They would never hand the coalition more Senate seats, maybe one day but not in 2013. They will continue to preference Greens in the Senate, but maybe not in the house (until a Greens candidate gets close enough to knock off a liberal member).
Good luck to em.
How has a massive shift of Labor’s vote to the Coalition occurred?
Howard pulled a three card trick to confuse the ra_cists and get their vote.
First he demonised boat people and by doing so he pretended to be hard on immigration but his government allowed in more immigrants than any other government.
The refugee issue is too hard to be solved but the Labor party need to do a Howard. Let them in and show how hard they are by decreasing the number of official immigrants by a fraction more than the number of refugees that we take.
The debate has become quite Orwellian but don’t be confused. What our political parties are doing is seeking the ra_cist vote. I don’t like immigration much anyway as it takes opportunities from younger Australians. If we need a worker, train up our own young and if there is no one willing, try the tried and true method of upping wages and conditions. It will always work. Be hard on immigration – point at howards numbers and hey presto you have your support back. But Labor are fighting a losing battle by pretending that it is concern for refugees and not racism that is driving voters. They should wake up and get with the real world on this. It will be a game changer if they can.
I don’t have time to search for the data now - but having seen it first hand while scrutineering - the other problem with the “Greens stealing the left” hypothesis is that the Greens have a significant preference flow the liberals. More to the ALP, to be sure, but not as much as it used to be. A surprisingly large number of people vote 1 Green 2 Liberal.
If they were siphoning off far left votes the preference flow to the ALP would be stronger. If they are taking democrat votes, like Mr Keane suggests, the preferences would be more evenly split - like they are
Does Paul Howes believe he has not done enough to damage the Labor party in the last 25 months, is this why he’s hellbent on being more divisive?
What are “Labor values”?
Both major parties and the media love to say that Labor are left or centre left, the other side of politics (to the Liberals), etc.
But if we compare what Labor have done, continue to support, and want to do, with all the other OECD countries, on pretty much all counts Labor is seen to be a party of the right.
Perhaps the most important measure is taxation. Australia is already well below the OECD average for percentage of GDP raised by tax. Labor are proud that with their last budget taxation as a percentage of GDP will be the lowest for 20 years. Lower taxes result in less spent on government services.
So Labor is a successful party of the right.
Social issues paint the same picture. How many other OECD countries had a government that was working towards banning all x-rated content from the internet? How many other OECD countries have their ‘progressive’ party against gay marriage?
Labor has also failed miserably on climate change. How many other OECD countries are still funding freeways instead of public transport, taxing petrol as little as Australia, maintaing huge fuel subsidies for companies, not keeping up with worlds-best-practice for efficiency standards (cars, housing, etc).
Part of the campaign over the last weekend has been to paint the Greens as extremists. But comparing Labor to other OECD countries shows that Labor are the extremists, and much of what the Greens want is close to the OEC average.
I wish the Greens would campaign more on these real differences. Labor and the Greens are very different. Lets make these differences clear and let the voters decide.
Labor’s problem is a continual shift to the right. Whatever success such a strategy might have in the short term is far outweighed by the long term consequences of the entire debate being framed in right wing terms and the apparent concession that Labor’s previous, comparatively left wing positions are stupid. Guess who’s the main beneficiary? It ain’t the Greens.
As Sam says, one of the worst things about Labor’s lurch to the right is that most public discourse is now framed around acceptance of right wing views.
Taxes must be lower.
Boats must be stopped and offshore processing is the solution
5% reduction in carbon from 2000 levels by 2020 is the ‘solution’ to climate change.
etc etc
Also both major parties have been battling to subsidise working families/Howard battlers to win votes, whilst those in real need (but who are not swinging voters in marginal seats) get ignored.
Re” There is no lack of clarity about what either the Greens or the Liberals stand for, and little gap between the parties’ bases and the parliamentary parties’ policies “
Whilst I have no problem accepting that there is clarity about the Greens I cannot agree to same about the Liberals unless it is their policy to be racist, demonise boat people, destroy working conditions and lie about being competent economically
The thing that puts me off Labor these days is they just seem so out of touch with “the people”.
Julia needs to organise “Peoples Forums” to work out what they (Labor) should already know. They really do need to seriously take a look at the reforms suggested John Faulkner, or they are seriously screwed…
Spot-on Bernard.
What a laugh the Labor NSW right are. They call the Greens extreme. This mob of Labor hacks represents the extremity of self-interest, wedded to nothing by power and perks. They didn’t get the name of the NSW disease for nothing.
The Labor Right in NSW have never liked the Greens and never liked the fact that Labor has had to be in coalition with the Greens over the past couple of years to survive as a government. But that is a fact and they should be more grateful. I think the coalition with the Greens has been largely successful. Progressive reform has been achieved, maybe not perfect, but what ever is perfect in politics? The Carbon Tax, the Mining Tax, health care reform, education reform etc all achieved by Labor with Greens support. Some in the Labor Right seem to be living in the past, in the days when Labor could govern without having to negotiate with the Greens but those days are long gone. Labor may never govern again after the coming Federal Election if they cannot maintain a coalition with the Greens and Independents. If we want the Greens to negotiate in good faith and to treat Labor with respect, Labor must treat the Greens with respect.
@Sam & Michael
Your synopsis is 100% & the likes of Howes, Shorten & others seem to be on the corporate payrol.
I can personally speak for Shorten in particular when he stitched up a deal with 2 mining companies without the consent of it’s members in which he was the organiser. At this point I defected to the Greens that was many years ago, alot of people would have swapped to Coalition just to vent their anger, but this would prove to be the ultimate sin and cost them dearly, and it has since that time,
The miners would love to have Shorten at the helm if Labor took office again.
If you want to make some money at the bookies put some money on (Shorten) leading the ALP I can guarantee it, part of his reward for selling union members out.
The social policies of the Greens mirror a lot of what Labor’s used to look like many years ago. Labor are selling themselves out to the right wing & I’m sure they are ignoring the messages from the Labor heartland.
There are a lot of powerful organisations sending their lobbyists to Canberra these days & Labor has been damaged as a result. The amount of deception that is apparent should alert people to wake up & make a change, (the fraud that is called the Coalition) has only been able to gain some momentum because of the apathy of many. I have also seen the need to make a stance environmentally, things like coal seam gas will cause real damage to our aquifers & we will literally be drinking & eating poison because this ground waters is also used on food crops.
I also worry a little when Bob Brown retired & wonder if it didn’t have something to do with the “Business oriented Greens” entering the party!!
To vote Labor these days is like voting for the branch of the Coalition, to vote the Coalition is the ultimate demise of the average working men & women in this country. People need to be able to see past the “veil of bullcrap that is the mainstream media” to make a wise desicion.
The Truth is all of the LNPs, Labors and Greens politicians have their bodies snatched by aliens. It’s their way to torture the public before they completely take over the country.
What we need now is a military coup. We need to quarantine these politicians and start afresh.
It’s time like this that we need a benevolent dictator to get rid of the mediocrity and useless squabbles. Let’s pray for light to come.
Sounds good.
You nominating yourself Apollo?
The labor right. Throw out a capable, liked leader, and put in one whose legitimacy is so compromised she can’t lead properly. Oh, yeah, real frickin’ geniuses. Howes and shorten should be kicked out of the party. Sellouts.
Haha, thanks for the kind suggestion ROHAN. I don’t have military connection and don’t plan to come out of retirement, I enjoy the quiet life at the farm with my pets and try to look after our health.
Better leave the ginormous task to someone young and vigorous.
Labor administrators really needs to learn from years of conservative coalition dispute without repeating it. When the conservative vote is fractured between multiple parties, Labor gets in. When the conservatives organise a coalition which presents a united front, Labor is far more likely to lose. You have to be thinking something really really smart about Senate preferences in order to forget a simple lesson like that.
I’m with Zut.
Why Labor politicians -the elected ones - put up with loudmouthed know-nothings such as Howes is unfathomable.
Howes and his ilk should stick to their paid jobs, ie helping their members, and leave the politics to the professionals. He has caused enough trouble in the past couple of years to last a lifetime.
If ever I get the chance to vote against him, he will be right down the bottom of the list along with the Fred Nile Party and the other dolts.
.
Bernard you should also concede that the 2 major parties collude with each other to keep the 2 party status quo, with Labor being consistently infiltrated by big business interests.
To a small degree you can see this also happening in the Greens as the financial cartels also identify the rising power of the Greens, as already pointed out on an earlier post.
They want a vote to become “orphans” …..?
In the lead up to an election there can be no surprise that “Marketplace Differentiation” is taking place.
The Greens can survive on their own and they are hurting Labor.
For all intents and purposes The Greens can abandon Labor all together now that the major legislation is now passed.
The parties are marshalling for battle.
Until now Labor has always governed as a single, major party.
Whereas, except for Fraser in 1975. the Liberals have always ruled a minority government.
Imagine the divisions in the Coalition ranks if a large number of commentators started calling for a Single Conservative Party at the federal level?
Abbott can never manage such an enterprise, but surely the Queensland result is encouraging?
Now tell us why a Labor-Green Coalition is “Not Good” and the standard minority Liberal rule
“coalition” is just pefectly marvellous.
If the conservatives are so deserving of government why can’t they do it as a single party.
Labor has managed it but the “Coalition”, by definition can’t manage themselves.
Greens, get out on your own, there is a wilderness of unoccupied political territory out there, especially at the grass roots.
@Hamis.
The Greens have not formed a coalition with Labor - as is well know The Greens sometimes vote against Labor.
What has happened is that in return for some things (e.g. putting a price on carbon), the Greens have promised to support Labor in confidence votes in the lower house (which means that Labor could form government).
So this is very different from the Liberals and Nationals who have joined to act as one government.
@Hamish,
If Labor disinergrates there is room for a new grass roots party to pave the way, (I wonder if this new party would be another dupe for the Coalition??)
Either way you would see a huge ground swell of support for the Greens!!!
It’s pretty clear to me that the two majors have no endearing traits. The apathy towards Assange is the public display of their private contempt for whitleblowers and truth seekers.
As for business influence within the greens, why the problem? Is it because it challenges public perception whilst undermining a perceived line of attack? Is it because it makes it a lot harder to criticise the greens without the usual pejoratives? Suck it up majors. The greens are supportive of policies that encourage competitive business practices, rather than supporting the anticompetitive behaviours oligopolies exhibit with support from the two majors.
The ALP completely ruined prospects for social justice through their behaviour. If Abbott gets in next year, I will be in no doubt who is responsible. For a man like him to win will demonstrate how bad the ALP really are.
The Greens vote is highest in some of the richest areas of the country (Balmain, Byron Bay, Newtown and inner Melbourne).
The Labor Party should forget seats like Grayndler and Melbourne. There is no point in losing every other Federal seat just to try and win these two.
Greens support is around 12% nationally. It rises to 24% (Grayndler) and around 30% in Melbourne (which the Greens won on Liberal preferences) In Grayndler 24% was enough for the Greens candidate to demand a recount, but then he had the preferences of the Liberals too.
But if Labor really is aiming as low as 12% – it will continue with its destructive fantasy that these people are Labor voters. They are not, and never will be.
John Bennetts, you ask:
“Why Labor politicians - the elected ones - put up with loudmouthed know-nothings such as Howes is unfathomable”.
Not really. The AWU faction controls the preselection of many Labor members. That is, the loud-mouthed know-nothings actually put them where they are and are well able to take them right out again. Could it be clearer?
Michael, the voter perception, aided by the MSM, is that there is a defacto coaltion between Labor and The Greens with the “overpowerful” minority, Greens tail “offensively” wagging the Labor dog.
That perception is now ingrained and won’t bear correction with the “facts”.
The Greens are a grass roots, not a Senate, party and do not need to follow any Democrats GST style, compromise path to obscurity forsake of so-called relevance.
As a founder Member of the Australian Greens, three years into membership of The NSW Greens, I can tell you that The Greens can absorb a great deal of criticism without very much damage at all.
They get it all the time.
In the coming the election line-up they need to be occupying the broad , unoccupied political ground.
Single -issues, like the environment, have never suited their broader, four principles.
Politicians are a small minority among around 20 million people. These political allsorts exercise way too much influence. They will continue to do that, until we do more than chatter about how unhappy we are with the very ordinary representation we have. Edward James
If Labor moves any further to the right, it must end up on the far left? This nonsense is just that - nonsense, and it’s offensive to thinking people. What they’re saying, is that anyone who votes for The Greens is loopy etc. At the 2010 Election, one in about 6 people voted for the Greens - hardly a small number of ‘loopy’ supporting people! They just keep reminding me why I stopped giving them my first vote years ago.
What a petulant immature little man Paul Howes is, and how offensive! He treats us like we’re idiots! As someone else said, hasn’t he caused enough grief? Funny how the women in the union movement don’t carry on like the men - notice that (apart from more recent happenings, such as Kathy Jackson?). The ASU and the President of the ACTU etc? Too smart, and too damned busy getting on with it to waste time and insult peoples’ intelligence by such rubbish!
@Hamis,
IMHO the problem with The Greens is that their campaigning is focussed on their supporters.
The letterbox leaflets from each party sometimes looks the same. All say they support “better education”, “protecting the environment and acting on climate change in an economically responsible way”, “better public transport”. etc etc
Once a voter has seen recognised the difference between Liberal and Labor spin and what the Greens support I agree that these voters can hear lots of criticism and not be taken in by the spin against The Greens.
But where the Greens fail is that they don’t campaign to those who voted Labor or Liberal last time. These are the people who need to be shown the difference between what the Greens support and the reality of Labor and Liberal. And these potential new Greens voters are still influenced by the spin from the main parties and the MSM usually ignoring the Greens.
@Klewso
If indeed they are an alien pod, the Coalition must have beamed Abbott in from the planet moron.
Would love to see Greg Combet defect to the Greens, he is the only member there with any integrity.
I forgot, Howes & Shorten also got beamed in from the planet “traitor”
On that other thread ,Weekend Australian 2004 headline “Wilderness Society Turns on The Greens”.
Weekend Australian 2012 headline “Faceless Men Turn On The Greens”.
Aren’t the Wilderness Society the Greens’ “Faceless Men”?
Labor have seen their support eat away at both ends and are desperate.
The issue for Labor is that they are seen as dishonest l i a r s. It starts from the snake head at the top, as we all know
“Would love to see Greg Combet defect to the Greens”
I don’t think that will happen, Owen Gary.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-09/combet-distances-labor-from-greens/4117706
Dear Suzanne Blake
Your phrase “The issue for Labor is that they are seen as dishonest l i a r s” .
A couple of things. Just because something is seen a particular way doesn’t make it true and to be honest if there was any balance in the media it wouldn’t be the wider perception. It’s just that Abbotts cheers squad ( aka News Corp) help push the line. Lets face it give the ethical standards of that group no wonder you follow them.
Next “dishonest ;iars” Please tell me when there are honest liars? See, you can’t even get the phrasing right ( or should that be write?) given your intellectual ineptitude.
So there we have it. Labour is seen to be liars, according to you, which isn’t particularly true where as you are actually dishonest as has been proven.
BTW are you working in Queensland?
Will people really fall for the argument I’ve constantly hearing today that with the Greens and ALP relationship, it’s all been give and take with the ALP doing all the giving and getting nothing in return from the Greens?
This stoush with the Greens seems quite bizarre. Labor is going to need all of the help it can get. And they should remember what being too clever by half with preferences gave us in the past, e.g Senator Stephen Fielding.
@SB - And the government of which the current Libs etc were part of, were as pure as the driven snow? Taking the high moral ground? What a joke you are, but who’s laughing?
How’s your convenient amnesia today? I think if it continues you should seek medical assistance!
@Hamis Hill - the Greens must be very turned on.
SB and others are not sanctioned to answer questions such as should coaltions such as the Nats and Libs be replaced by a single conservative party.
But imagine the disarray among conservative ranks were they forced to front up together?
“The Coalition” is a joke, minority, Liberal rule with the Nats getting shafted time and time again.
Where do you think the federal independents come from?
Why would anyone want to foist that on The Greens?
@STEVE777 - Perhaps Labor is doing this, so that if they’re tossed out at the next election they can blame it on the perception, that they’re too close to the Greens - that abbott and co kept on and on about it, blah blah!
What’s the Greens doing for Labor? Keeping them in Govt might just do for starters? How many of Abbott stunts (50 something) in the House of Reps had a majority of just one vote??????Adam Bandt?
I know that it’s hardly ever mentioned if at all, but Julia Gillard said in an interview with The Australian a day or so prior to the ‘10 Election, that she wanted to ‘put a price on carbon in the first term of a Labor Govt’? So, who worked and worked together getting the now in place Legislation to the Parliament.
Can I please go on record now and say, that if people vote for Abbott and his racist/ugly/xenophobic/anti worker/yankee following/enemy of the poor and struggling, the results will be horrific! You were warned, and when and if it happens, and we get WorstChoices mark 2, don’t whine to me - I’m not interested - at all!
Owen Gary @ Monday, 9 July 2012 at 2:43 pm
Well said, echoed my own thoughts. By the number of appearances that Shorten has made on Q&A recently (see Clarke & Dawe’s sketch where Brian thinks John (as Shorten) is really the host) and elsewhere someone somwhere is grooming Shorten - he appears suave, credible and has (mostly) all the answers at his fingertips, which are sure signs of the Next Great Hope. His history is well -known and much of it (as your example points out) isn’t all that pretty. He is the obvious next [arty leader when Gillard either resigns or is bumped off.
As to Labor being “cannibalised” by the Greens Party, only a well right of centre cadre could come up with so obviously a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from the real gaping wound that is bleeding support to the Fiberal/ Noalition. In one sense Howes and Dastayari had no choice since they would have had it made very plain to them that if they alienated those voters who’d gone to the Fibs they would be looking for a job tomorrow. But don’t look to the mainstream media outlets in this country for analysis with any kind of rigour, you have to look to people like Bernard Keane for that.
The irony is there is still plenty of potential for further drift from Labor to Greens if they keep this up.
I helped the Greens out on two booths during the last federal election. At one, Julia Gillard turned up with her retinue. One of the ALP advance guys sidled up to me while we were waiting for the circus to arrive and said “The Greens are like Labor in the 70s”. I thought he was having a go but his follow up was “That was the last time we had principles”. I spent the next 10 minutes explaining Green’s policies to his son with dad’s approval.
I spent the night scrutineering in an inner city Melbourne electorate (not Melbourne). You couldn’t have found a more disheartened bunch of scrutineers for the ALP, despite winning the seat. We gave them a bit of a hard time about the bullshit ALP campaign against the Greens and they were completely embarassed. The only reason they still supported Labor was that the ALP attracted more votes. They may not be active volunteers for too much longer.
Of course this was all in Melbourne which isn’t at all representative of Australia. Like the past the rest of Australia is a foreign country.
It reminds me of why my father votes greens. He calls them “mungbeans” however he votes them because “at least he knows what they stand for” but he will never in a blue fit vote libs whom he says he also understands. But he’s mystified on labor, despite being a moderately conservative working class old dude.
And that neatly sums it up. People are inherently attracted to “leadership” and obvious moral stances. They recognise it in the tories, and can recognise it in the greens, but nobody , seemingly even ALP reps , seems to know what the labor brand is selling anymore, except perhaps “fuck tony”. This leaves them deeply vunerable to hostile parties filling in the gaps in peoples understanding of them with nonsense.
If I could give any advice to the ALP, its this;- Small target was a disaster policy in opposition. For an incumbent, its a self induced bloodbath.
“There is no lack of clarity about what either the Greens or the Liberals stand for,”
I have to correct you on that Bernard. I’ve got a fair idea what the Greens stand for, including now implacable stupidity on the asylum seeker issue, but I only know what the Liberal Party stand against, which is everything.
Due to lack of scrutiny by somebody, (who is it who is responsible for fearless scrutiny of the power elites in a democracy - can’t remember, starts with ‘m’)
all I know is that the coalition are against a mining tax and against a carbon tax, with absolutely no way of paying for it.
Oh, and turning the boats back.
Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“The issue for Labor is that they are seen as dishonest l i a r s. It starts from the snake head at the top, as we all know.”
Welcome back Susan. If it is all just about lying, why was JHoward able to get away with it all that time? He invented ‘non-core promises’.
As usual, your analysis is a few cupcakes short of a morning tea.
@Holden Back, most crikey posters seem very turned on, but not very focussed.
Amazing! As soon as you lower taxation and give more money to the day to day worker the Greens condemn it. Yet all they do is seek subsidisation from the taxpaayer.