Labor vs Greens: A Contrarian View?

[tcpip]

I have just returned from a Collingwood-Fitzroy meeting of the ALP with the ominous title "Labor vs the Greens". The chief speaker was Jane Garnett, a state MP and national vice-president who recently wrote a rather unsophisticated piece on the Greens. The speech was mainly the sort of platitudes you'd expect; how wonderful Labor was and how evil the Greens were. Most of the comments and questions afterwards followed this line, bar one wise individual who pointed out how Labor was absolutely trounced in Queensland and New South Wales, and it can be hardly expected that the Greens were at fault for that.

I was given the opportunity to speak and mentioned that for several years now I have been advocating a coalition between Labor and the Greens. I reminded the audience that the Greens are not an Australian phenomenon, but rather an international movement. I also pointed out that the Greens are not going away; they draw their votes from an inner urban middle class (an objective basis) with a social liberal ideology (a subjective basis) - just as Labor draws its votes from the working class with a democratic socialist ideology. My final remarks were that there was virtually nothing to be gained by Labor going to war with the Greens. Even if the campaign to do so was wildly successful it halved the Greens vote, that would provide Labor 1% in the 2PP stakes - Labor needs to win back working-class people who have gone to the Coalition instead. Win 5-6% of those voters back, we're back at equal pegging.

I prefaced my introduction that I felt that I was probably in a minority of one at the meeting. Mathematical analysis, whilst inevitably true, is often little competition against ideological faith. As I left the pub, I confess I felt very disappointed; predicting from the numbers that the Labor Party would be in permanent opposition without an alliance with the Greens did not go down so well. Or so I thought; several people came out afterwards and thanked me for standing up; not only for having the courage to give a contrary view, but for giving one that actually that had analysis, and was correct in its conclusions.

The Labor Party cannot govern without an alliance with the Greens. The Greens cannot implement their policies without a Labor government. Despite the bad blood between the two, that is why they need to form a coalition. Unfortunately, I suspect it will only be after a devastating loss at the next Federal election that the leadership of Labor and the Greens will come to this realisation.

Nota bene: A piece by Alex White was also circulated at the meeting; I have had the opportunity to engage in some comments on that.

Comments

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

suspects the same.

Bad as it may be for Australia, in my view progressives need to engage in renewal and such a period may force that.

(me, I'm lucky: I was never a Marxist ideologue and was aware of environmental issues before many of the Greens were born...and I do not think we should ignore the left of the old Democrats. The Greens pretty much filched their social policy ideas, historically)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

suspects the same.

I so hope that I am wrong on this. But the impression I'm getting is to the contrary, mainly because of course the Greens are a threat to left-wing ALP members - so that those who should be telling the ALP right to back off are actually encouraging the madness (and I mean that in both senses of the word).

It's painful to watch, and the results of an Abbott-led LNP government are going to be unbelievably destructive.

There is of course, even a worse possibility - that the dispute continues after an Abbott election.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

To be frank, no Greens I have met have been a threat to knowledgeable Labor Left member, because they're not knowledgeable on social issues. They really have not been. They can name them, mostly, but they cannot present or justify them clearly.

Obviously some must be knowledgeable, but this (together with one-issue shouting and the readiness to fling ad hominens rather than debate), are why I did not join them. And I was highy disappointed by that.

Of course they're a threat to old Stalinests whose only ideas are all about straight, white blue collar men's gender-stereotypical work, but who isn't?

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

(adding to my own remarks): of course I may be suffering from visions of the Branch Of Yetseryear, and have had very bad luck.

Whatever the internal culture of either party, what actually matters is the electorate and how it responds.

[blarglefiend.livejournal.com]

They're a threat to Labor Left MPs and would-be MPs rather than members. That much is clear enough from the electoral returns.

Albanese and Plibersek may be safe enough for now, but what of those who come after them? I expect there's a certain amount of loyalty to them in their electorates, just as there was to Tanner here in Melbourne, and without that personal loyalty it's a lot easier to vote Green if you're wavering.

(Also? The typical grass-roots Greens member today is someone who only recently got interested in politics. No surprise they don't have the same background as the typical ALP Left member.)

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The typical grass-roots Greens member today is someone who only recently got interested in politics. No surprise they don't have the same background as the typical ALP Left member.

Both this comment, and that of ruth_lawrence does re-emphasise what I've been banging on about the class-based affiliations of the Greens and the ALP respectively. The Greens do represent a growing demographic - middle-class, professional, tertiary educated, and they do have an ideology of social liberalism. This may mean they can be sympathetic to working-class concerns they're not really going to 'get it' in the same visceral manner that many Labor people do. But rather than letting this became a complete blocker to any sort of activity of the two parties in their common interests, it can be an advantage if they embrace this sort of specialisation with a view of using these core competencies as a resource for united action.

Personally (and I guess I can be personal about this in my own journal), it does put me in a ticklish position. From a contemporary perspective I'm very much in the Green camp in terms of demographics, but my background is so firmly working-class (indeed welfare class) that it quite an unshakeable part of my being.

Perhaps it unsurprising that my politics have ended up anarchist; a liberal critique of socialism, and a socialist critique of liberalism.

[blarglefiend.livejournal.com]

My own background is working-class-turned-managerial, at least so far as family is concerned. My parents are solid life-long Labor people, and I'd probably have joined the ALP myself if it hadn't seemed like the general membership thing weren't kind of vestigial. The Greens are still pretty grass-roots based in a way that the ALP seems to have lost.

I do wonder if the types of people who wind up as Labor MPs aren't very similar to the types of people who wind up as Greens MPs: they're all tertiary-educated, many are lawyers, most were active in student politics, and the ones who weren't practising in a middle- or upper-class profession prior to entering Parliament were instead working in the political system one way or another.

Not a lot of Ben Chifleys around these days, which is a damned shame!

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Aha! I am the scion of a family of autodidacts who tended to be skilled artisans, and a scholarship girl. The kind of folk who went to talks at the Mechanics' Insititute and joined libraries, back in Scotland and then here.

Yes, I think the ALP and Green paliamentarians -indeed most of them of any kind- are likely to be similar in background: law, commerce. I don't see these backgrounds as ideal at all: we have far too many of those. Student politics are not how they once were, either.

[ruth-lawrence.livejournal.com]

Oh, right, *them*. Bunch of lawyers and managers these days, aren't they?

The reasons I won't be voting Greens are

(1) the members I've seen and heard generally know little but think they know a lot, which comes from (2) snobbery and could lead to them easily putting aside social policies for ordinary people, for expediency's sake.

I have given them my primary vote n the past.

[horngirl.livejournal.com]

I hope to hell it doesn't happen, but I concede the odds aren't good - if an Abbott-led Coalition wins the next election, I will cry.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Check the sidebars on Pollytics for the probabilities. I suspect the gap will close as the election approaches as well, and of course "the long run" view is positive as well. But overall, to use Gramsci's phrase, "I'm a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will".