Showing posts with label Australian Greens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Greens. Show all posts

10 November 2010

What Does the 'Labour Movement' Actually Mean?

NSW Left winger Senator Doug Cameron made an interesting intervention when he claimed being in the ALP under the final months of Kevin Rudd was like having a ‘political lobotomy’, with MHRs and Senators allegedly acting like ‘zombie MPs’.

Like Greg Combet, who has called for Labor to ‘redefine itself as progressive with the core value of equity, social justice and compassion’ Cameron is concerned the party is losing ground to the Greens.

He called for the Left in the party to be able to ‘speak effectively to progressive people who are looking for a vision and a strong strategy for progressive policies.’

However, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald:

New party rules introduced by Mr Rudd, which were designed to present a united front by stopping MPs from speaking against a Caucus position, worked in the government's favour early on but ended up costing the party.

‘There are many people within the Labor Party holding strong progressive points of view and progressive voters don't know this,’ he said.

‘The pledge system and the party system just puts a blanket over every different point of view.‘Everything is focused on the spin and on the take of the day and long
term strategic policy decisions suffer because of that.’

Prime Minister Julia Gillard said in response to the Senator's comments that she made it clear to Caucus she wanted more debate and new ideas about policy direction. But the pledge system would stay, Ms Gillard said.

One of the reasons that Australian politics is the most rigid in the world is the because of ‘the pledge’: the promise that ALP members make to uphold the party platform and to follow decisions made by Caucus.It is this practice that has provided Australia with the most rigid party system in the Westminster world.

This may have been appropriate once upon a time where one centre left party opposed a single coalition of the centre right, but may be less appropriate now.

As we have previously observed:

The ALP voting coalition has hitherto consisted of self identifying members of the labour movement, people with English as a second language, income transfer recipients, public sector workers, the arts sector and high income professionals who are both secularist and internationalist in orientation.However, the Greens message - guided by the so-called ‘four pillars’ (ecological sustainability, social equality and economic justice, grassroots democracy and peace and disarmament and nonviolence) is apparently more amenable to a ‘progressive’ middle class constituency than one put out by a regimented party with 50% union control designed to represent the ‘labour movement’ and achieving social justice primarily through the improvement of working conditions and changes to the wages and salaries system.

Despite winning the federal election, the ALP looks like they are going through the introspection usually undertaken by the losing side.

Eyes now turn to Victoria, where the Greens could get up to 19% of the vote and a number of seats in the Legislative Assembly – possibly even holding the balance of power.

This will mean the ‘quo vadis’ question being asked with increased vigour.

As Labor voters from the ‘moral middle class’ feel able to vote Green the traditional ALP ‘upside down coalition’ of social progressives and the traditional ‘working class’ is now under great strain.

Rather than claiming to be in favour of ‘equity, social justice and compassion’ (which sounds as meaningful as being in favour of ‘truth, justice and the American way’) Labor will need to redefine what ‘the labour movement’ – the concept that permitted the representatives of labour and those who wished to express solidarity with the working class to operate within one political party - means in the 21st century.

This would be advanced by open public discussion of policy and political options – the idea of smothering debate may not be helpful.

Antony Green has observed that the NSW ALP now has the same voter share as the party had in 1904, with the current mob possibly being the last ‘in its own right’ Labor government in the state.

If the Party gets the redefinition of what the ‘labour movement’ means wrong, this could be their fate everywhere.

29 April 2010

The Australian Greens - the new Country Party (or perhaps a bit more?)

Tasmania has just held an election.

After achieving 20% of the popular vote and 5 seats in a 25 seat Assembly, and deciding to prop up a minority Labor administration, the Greens now have a seat in the Tasmanian Cabinet – an Australian first.

This follows an agreement by the Greens Party in the ACT to support a minority Labor Government contained in a document perilously close to looking like an old fashioned coalition agreement.

The Greens there were able to strike their agreement after winning over 15% of the vote and 4 seats in a 17 seat legislature.

Whilst these are outcomes obtained in parliaments elected via proportional representation they could portend the future of legislatures constituted by single seat constituencies.

As demographer Bernard Salt has noted there is a social and economic division between those who live in the inner city and those who live on the city's edge:

…... I am suggesting that there is almost a regionalisation of wealth, income and culture based on urban geography.

Battlers, migrants and assorted low-income earners who formerly lived in the inner city are now being flung out, as if by some centrifugal force, to the city's edge.

What is left in the inner city is an odd coalescence of tribes - namely students, singles, couples, dinks, gays, expats, corporates, divorcees and, most important of all, the professional and entrepreneurial classes.

And to this lot I might add the entertainment, information and media glitterati. As a general principle, none of this class would ever think of living more than 10km from the city centre.


The ALP voting coalition has hitherto consisted of self identifying members of the labour movement, people with English as a second language, income transfer recipients, public sector workers, the arts sector and high income professionals who are both secularist and internationalist in orientation.

However, the Greens message - guided by the so-called ‘four pillars’ (ecological sustainability, social equality and economic justice, grassroots democracy and peace and disarmament and nonviolence,) is apparently more amenable to a ‘progressive’ middle class constituency than one put out by a regimented party with 50% union control designed to represent the ‘labour movement’ and achieving social justice primarily through the improvement of working conditions and changes to the wages and salaries system.

So, why could the Greens be the new Country Party? As the bulk of the Country/National Party votes tend to be geographically clustered, so similarly much of the Green vote is clustered in the inner city.

They are on the cusp of winning seats at state level such as Marrickville and Balmain in NSW; Melbourne, Richmond and Northcote in Victoria; and at federal level, (as Lindsay Tanner is only too well aware) seats such as Melbourne.

Recent opinion polls indicate that at state level (in particular) the ALP primary vote is dropping.

For example, the most recent polling in Victoria suggests that for the first time in a long time the Liberal/National primary vote (38%) is higher than the ALP primary vote (37%).

A hung parliament here is not unthinkable.

The Greens vote is at 14%.

Given the decline of long term state Labor governments and an increasing perception of the Greens as a legitimate party of government many ‘progressive’ voters may consider that a primary vote for the Greens is not wasted and vote for them in such numbers they can break through and win seats.

Now, it must be said it is difficult to believe that Greens rank and file members would endorse an arrangement with the Liberals.

What’s left?

Drawing on the ACT/Tasmanian precedents, a party prepared to prop up a larger party, capable of winning specific concessions for the interests they represent.

Just like the old Country Party.

One final observation.

As the current British elections are demonstrating, the old two party system is breaking down with voters on the ‘progressive’ left prepared to leave Labour for the Liberal Democrats.

Who knows? If the Greens can internally make the jump from party of protest to party of government, perhaps the Greens can assume a similar role in Australian politics.

We live in interesting times.