Is this the end of the Greens?

[Navy_4_life]

In 2010 the Greens entered into a power sharing arrangement in their heartland of Tasmania. 4 years of Government and now they don't have enough seats to be recognised as a political party. Before the election they talked about being the opposition party in Tasmania - now they don't have enough seats to be a party!

In 2010 they also entered into an arrangement (not a Coalition) with the Federal ALP. This led to their vote reducing at the 2013 election.

It is clear that the Greens were a great protest party. But as soon as they get into any sort of power/influence the general public realises their policies don't work and abandons them. Or is it just that the Greens have strayed from their environmental mandate embracing leftist causes like asylum seekers, gay marriage etc?

So I ask what is the future for this party? Will they rebound over the next few years and become the third force in Australian politics? Or will they whither and die?

My personal view - they represent immaturity - people too stupid to grasp reality and live in the real world. They are idealistic, lack personal responsibility and hypocritical. I think within 10 years they will be lucky to hold a seat in any parliament in Australia.

However, that is just my view - I am interested in your thoughts as to:

1. why the massive reduction in their vote?
2. what mistakes have they made that have caused this reduction?
3. what do they need to do to become the third force in Australian politics?
4. what policy changes should they embrace?

 

[Bradesmaen]

Increased their vote in the recent SA Election. The greens are here to stay as the population changes from being old to young.

 

[crackerjack4X4]

I use to vote Greens until about 2005

Then I met a few of the loonies at a small rally over an environment issue I felt strongly about. To most of the loonies, the environment was secondary to all of the other far left wacko ideas they had.

One of the loonies was raving on about there should not be any borders for any country and that we should all be free to roam the earth at will. WTF!!!

 

[crackerjack4X4]

Increased their vote in the recent SA Election. The greens are here to stay as the population changes from being old to young.

Young people grow old as well and most of them grow a brain as they age.

 

[jethro11]

They are idealistic, lack personal responsibility and hypocritical.

Does this separate them from any other political parties?

 

[Bradesmaen]

Young people grow old as well and most of them grow a brain as they age.

And that is why many people are disillusioned with current politics.

My personal view - they represent immaturity - people too stupid to grasp reality and live in the real world. They are idealistic, lack personal responsibility and hypocritical. I think within 10 years they will be lucky to hold a seat in any parliament in Australia.

Anyone who isn't a conservative is seen as a left wing nut job of the greens who wants to bring in communism. Pathetic attitude to have just because you have a difference of opinion. Oh well it won't be long until I can be vilify you because this is words in a political debate.

 

[samFFC]

Ludlam quite likely to increase primary vote again this election. Most federal polls showing primary vote recovering from 2013 lows.

Having said that, there are certainly clear issues for the Greens. Why can't they to and past 15% primary vote?

If they got there, then that would signal a real shift in the populations perception, and could tip them over and beyond.

No doubt perception is a massive issue. Many (most?) people would regard the Greens as economic vandals/idealists/illiterates (or combination).
However,

1. They were the only party to submit their platform fully to the PBO for costing. I didn't see any commentary suggesting their platform was unsustainable or impossible based on the PBOs findings. On the contrary, both ALP and Coalition are regarded as economically sensible, despite both having significant black holes or policies regarded as fiscally unsustainable.

2. Govts of both stripes have thoroughly squandered the opportunity to utilise higher tax revenue and cyclically low expenditure during the past decade, to put towards improving the decades-long issues in Australia, including improving the viability of rural Australia, youth and elderly unemployment,
neglected public transport infrastructure and availability, Indigenous health and education gaps, the complexity of the tax code, the altogether lack of entrepreneurial spirit and innovative drive, etc.

Yet despite a number of policy advancements made by the Greens in economic policy, they are not good communicators of this narrative, and thus the narrative remains narrow, to the detriment of the party at the ballot box.

The Greens have this decade to establish an economic identity and more favourable narrative, or they may miss their opportunity to maintain their position in Australian politics.

 

[crackerjack4X4]

Yet despite a number of policy advancements made by the Greens in economic policy, they are not good communicators of this narrative, and thus the narrative remains narrow, to the detriment of the party at the ballot box.

Look at Tassie. An absolute basket case thanks to the greens. they are economic vandals/idealists/illiterates.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Look at Tassie. An absolute basket case thanks to the greens. they are economic vandals/idealists/illiterates.

Tasmanian economy is a basket case because they dont have any good industries. They cant have a serviced based economy and the timber industry needs subsidies to barely survive. Nothing to do with the greens.

 

[samFFC]

Look at Tassie. An absolute basket case thanks to the greens. they are economic vandals/idealists/illiterates.

I don't recall the Greens ever having a Tasmanian Premier, or Treasurer - do you mind naming them? I could be wrong.

 

[crackerjack4X4]

Wake up and smell the roses kiddies.

 

[radiojake]

There are some real deadshit morons who like to post on the internet at times

 

[Todman]

Once the ALP finally decide to put the Greens last then we will see them wither to around the 5% mark.

Looking back to 2007 and there were posters saying that the Libs were toast. There would be two parties, Labor and the Greens. I had a laugh then as both parties are on the same side of the political spectrum.

 

[Navy_4_life]

There are some real deadshit morons who like to post on the internet at times

Yes thanks for giving us an example of one by posting on this topic

 

[samFFC]

Once the ALP finally decide to put the Greens last then we will see them wither to around the 5% mark.
.

How would Labor preferences cause a halving of the Green primary vote?

 

[Colin D'Cops]

Some of the key players from their 'party' have said some hilarious stuff. Time after time.

Not unlike any other party, though. No big loss if they're done and dusted.

 

[Todman]

How would Labor preferences cause a halving of the Green primary vote?

They don't get enough primarily to get elected, so if the ALP cut the preference flow they will shrink. Libs already put them last.

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Wake up and smell the roses kiddies.

Hippy

 

[Maggie5]

Hopefully there will always be a third party. Imagine what politics will be like if we only had the two.
Greens started going down slightly when Brown retired and at the moment leaderships is not as strong but still have support.
Think they will be around for awhile.

 

[samFFC]

They don't get enough primarily to get elected, so if the ALP cut the preference flow they will shrink. Libs already put them last.

So they may not get elected as readily, but won't affect their primary vote, at least not in short term. In fact, I would say that a big "hoo-ha" about ALP preferences Greens lower would actually help raise the profile of their candidates, as it did for Bandt in 2013.

And you'll find the Libs would rarely put the Greens last. For example, at this WA Senate election, they are putting ungrouped Independents last. They also often preference One Nation last , as does Labor.

 

[Todman]

So they may not get elected as readily, but won't affect their primary vote, at least not in short term. In fact, I would say that a big "hoo-ha" about ALP preferences Greens lower would actually help raise the profile of their candidates, as it did for Bandt in 2013.

And you'll find the Libs would rarely put the Greens last. For example, at this WA Senate election, they are putting ungrouped Independents last. They also often preference One Nation last , as does Labor.

2010 Vic state election, Greens expected to take four seats off Labor, but Baillieu put Greens last and they got none.

 

[Andre]

I doubt they are going to die off, but the Greens have a 'natural' ceiling. Most Australians sit somewhere within the Centre-Left to Centre-Right spectrum for how they vote. I use that Centre-Left / Centre-Right to cover both economics, social and any other policy areas. The Greens appeal most strongly to those on the Left, further than where a majority of votes can be won. The last few years of power sharing with the ALP at various levels have exposed people to their non-environment policies and those majority CL to CR voters haven't been impressed with them.

The 10% or so 'hard Left' voters are still going to stay with the Greens. The Greens conundrum is to grow their vote beyond that core they need to take away votes from the ALP. They aren't going to win over too many Coalition voters. Outside of a few half hearted swipes their focus is on attacking the Coalition. The Greens could make life hard for the ALP by doing preference deals directly with the Coalition. E.g. preferenced in inner city seats they have a good chance in, in return for preferences in marginals the Greens have no chance in. Of course that risks alienating their hard core supporters who see the Coalition as anti-Christs (or anti-something since most are also anti-christian). Unless they find away around this they'll remain on the edge of power. Every now and then the ALP will fall for including them more, until they get burnt and back off, but until they go all guns on the ALP and shift enough votes that the two parties are something like 20% Greens, 30 - 35 ALP where they can't be ignored, they'll remain the new age Democrats.

 

[samFFC]

2010 Vic state election, Greens expected to take four seats off Labor, but Baillieu put Greens last and they got none.

You were talking about ALP preferences, not Liberal.

And for the record, 2013 Federal Election, Libs put Greens "last", and they held their seats in Tasmania and SA (Hanson-Young somewhat against the odds). They also added a seat in Victoria that they didn't win in 2007. And then Ludlam "won" the re-count, to hold his seat. That is obviously pending, but Abbott's policy of "Greens last" will yield them either the same number of Senators as before, or one more, depending on if Ludlam gets back in.

In addition, Bandt had a massive first preference swing towards him. So clearly this policy was very successful !

 

[Freo Big Fella]

There's going to be a really interesting generational change in the Greens once Milne retires.

Ludlam and the WA branch (particularly guys like Brad Pettit in Freo and the other ex-murdoch crowd) are very similar in outlook to the European Green Parties: very focused on how the movement approaches the bigger picture: sustainable communities, modern urban development, further change in alternative energy etc. They actually attempt to engage with groups that other elements of the party see as "the enemy" - Robin Chapple has usurped Labor to become a key point of contact for unionised mineworkers in the Goldfields, for instance. You could throw guys like Di Natale and Whish-Wilson under this banner as well.

Wheras their NSW reps in particular seem to be dominated by the types that crippled the left in the nineties - single issue campaigners, people obsessed with irrelevant identity battles and those really depressing throwbacks who can't accept that the Cold War is, like, over man. The types who write off the electorate as too stupid to do the right thing and vote green, without engaging with them to find out why they struggle to appeal to more than 10% of the electorate.

Then you throw in someone like SHY, who strikes me as the type of political leech that would be equally at home in the ALP if the circumstances had suited her better. Witness her efforts with the SA Green preferences that got a second Family First Senator elected above a second Xenophon rep. Because getting one up on a political enemy is more important than anything.

I see Bandt as a bit of a wildcard, but their leadership will never be in the Reps anyway.

 

[telsor]

They'll make a bit of a comeback, but long term, I don't see much hope for them.

They comeback will come in WA, where the by election swing should get them their seat (back), and because after the last election saw a major swing to 'minor' parties (or more to the point, voters saying a pox on all their houses, which in other countries would have been reflected in a low turnout rate), the entrenched parties are planning to change the electoral laws to ensure that can't happen again.

Longer term, they're 'stuck' with the public perception that they're the 'looney/far left', and while people might like their ideals on some levels (and even to have some influence), the vast majority clearly want a more practical group in charge. That leaves them stuck as a (largish) fringe group, and eventually all groups without hope of 'real' power all wither away/get replaced (or effectively absorbed like the Nats).