For Followers of Australian Politics: Julia Gillard as Australian PM in 2007

[hexicus]

Most importantly there is the Tasmanian coalition government--a real coalition where the Greens have ministers in Cabinet under a Labor premier, not the situation at Canberra where Bandt is no more than a cross bencher. If the most temperamentally conservative and (formerly) anti-Green Labor state branch can come to that form of detente then Richo et al aren't doing a very good at influencing the party leaders.

This has been getting an airing in The Australian every few days lately. The idea is that by keeping the inner-city types happy by siding with the Greens, to alienate 10X that number in the suburbs who are more interested in interest rates than global warming. Tasmania is hardly a good example of that, since the forestry (and other rural sector) policy is so important.

I think another aspect is that so long as the Greens were unelectable LAbor was happy to preference them. Now they have someone in the House of Reps they are a threat and need to be attacked. They are clearly not interested in a coalition like the Nationals and Liberals have managed.

 

[Magniac]

This has been getting an airing in The Australian every few days lately. The idea is that by keeping the inner-city types happy by siding with the Greens, to alienate 10X that number in the suburbs who are more interested in interest rates than global warming. Tasmania is hardly a good example of that, since the forestry (and other rural sector) policy is so important.

The crazy attacks on the Greens have been getting a run in the Oz, constantly. It's not the paper it was even ten years ago.

Tasmania is worse than 'hardly a good example' for their point of view, it's an utter catastrophe that the state Labor party most rooted in smalltown primary sector labourism can quietly work together with environmentalist pols in office. If you think that provincial bluecollar demographic David Bartlett's caucus represents is somehow less anti-greeny than the solid burghers who live in mortgage belts in the big cities then I want what you're smoking.

And I have a feeling the Tasmanian experiment hasn't made it onto the op-ed pages of the Australian much since the government was formed. That's evidence they just don't want to address.

I think another aspect is that so long as the Greens were unelectable LAbor was happy to preference them. Now they have someone in the House of Reps they are a threat and need to be attacked.

I don't see how anyone can make this argument in the face of the reality of senate and PR preference deals. In the electorates of the lower house there has always been bad blood, but that's just not the main playing field of the Greens in Canberra, or indeed in most states.

It might sound realistic to you, but please, show us how Labor is going to start prefencing the Coalition in senate elections when the Greens are winning up to, if not more than, 10% in every state and territory.

All this talk about how Labor must fight the Greens ignores the fact that for thirty years the ALP has been dedicated to having a 3rd party balance of power buffer in the senate. The ADs were that buffer, but they're gone now, so it's the Greens who get preferenced before the conservatives (and I was amazed to find that the preferences went straight to them).

People are looking at the obvious friction that exists between the ALP and Greens and wishing that the occasional ugliness that exists there will explode into fullblown ideological war. It's not going to happen. Which I guess sucks if one looks upon the Greens as a new form of totalitarianism.

They are clearly not interested in a coalition like the Nationals and Liberals have managed.

That would be because the Lib/Nat Coalition is old and impossible to replicate (and once again, what about the Tasmanian example?) And remember, there is a pretty important movement of RARA independents who have had quite a bit of success running against the Coalition by appealing to the discontented bush. I don't think Bob Brown is crazy about giving people to his Left an opportunity to start their own party dedicated to fighting a 'sellout' Green party.

 

[Cook]

I think another aspect is that so long as the Greens were unelectable LAbor was happy to preference them. Now they have someone in the House of Reps they are a threat and need to be attacked. They are clearly not interested in a coalition like the Nationals and Liberals have managed.

Yes, while they were playing in the Senate Kindergarten they could act silly and everyone ignored them, now they’ve decided to play in the Lower House they’re going to discover just how rough the big kids can be.

The crazy attacks on the Greens have been getting a run in the Oz, constantly. It's not the paper it was even ten years ago.

What attacks?
They’ve had the longest political dream run imaginable. Up until now no-one’s payed the least attention to them.

 

[hexicus]

Well, we obviously see things a little differently . I'll respond to a couple of bits.

The crazy attacks on the Greens have been getting a run in the Oz, constantly. It's not the paper it was even ten years ago.

The Australian is, in my opinion, the most thorough and well researched paper in the country. If it shows its ideology at times then I can compensate - much as I do when I watch the ABC who occasionally seem like the propaganda arm of the Greens.

All this talk about how Labor must fight the Greens ignores the fact that for thirty years the ALP has been dedicated to having a 3rd party balance of power buffer in the senate. The ADs were that buffer, but they're gone now, so it's the Greens who get preferenced before the conservatives (and I was amazed to find that the preferences went straight to them).

People are looking at the obvious friction that exists between the ALP and Greens and wishing that the occasional ugliness that exists there will explode into fullblown ideological war. It's not going to happen. Which I guess sucks if one looks upon the Greens as a new form of totalitarianism.

The ALP is dedicated to getting and keeping power. If that means having a third party in to take a majority away from the Coalition then thats what they will do, obviously they would rather have their own seats.

Finally, those who support the Libs are not hoping that ALP and the Greens will get into a war. They are hoping that the ALP will keep on trying to accomodate and reconcile with the Greens. The view is that they are inherently unelectable to more than 10-15% of the population, so if the ALP try to meet them half-way then the ALP becomes more unelectable.

Anyway, back on topic, how would a Gilliard government have affected the Green vote in 2010? I would assume it would go down, as there would be less of a protest vote against Kevin Rudd and the handling of his toppling.

 

[euromellows]

The ALP is dedicated to getting and keeping power. If that means having a third party in to take a majority away from the Coalition then thats what they will do, obviously they would rather have their own seats.

Finally, those who support the Libs are not hoping that ALP and the Greens will get into a war. They are hoping that the ALP will keep on trying to accomodate and reconcile with the Greens. The view is that they are inherently unelectable to more than 10-15% of the population, so if the ALP try to meet them half-way then the ALP becomes more unelectable.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem for Labor is their traditional blue collar workers who are socially conservative against the trendy inner city university educated who are finding the greens more appealing.

Anyway, back on topic, how would a Gilliard government have affected the Green vote in 2010? I would assume it would go down, as there would be less of a protest vote against Kevin Rudd and the handling of his toppling.

I think this depends entirely on how the ETS issue is handled. The ALP is only really interested in retaining power these days and there are many issues they would happily drop if it meant an ounce of controversy. The ETS is the best example of that, particularly if you have Abbott as opposition leader. In OTL Gillard strongly encouraged Rudd to drop the ETS, and I suspect if she were leader and the opposition pursued her on this issue she would also drop it. The end result would probably be the same in terms of swings to the Greens. Ironically in this scenario some other member might be waiting in the wings to take Gillard out as leader. Not sure who, their best performer (Combet) is still a little too new to appeal to competency (although he does show good promise).

 

[hexicus]

In OTL Gillard strongly encouraged Rudd to drop the ETS, and I suspect if she were leader and the opposition pursued her on this issue she would also drop it. The end result would probably be the same in terms of swings to the Greens.

You are right, I had forgotten that. I guess this means that the Greens would probably be in about the same position as in OTL.

 

[Cook]

In OTL Gillard strongly encouraged Rudd to drop the ETS...

I doubt Gillard would announce a policy like the ETS to begin with without thoroughly checking its’ impact, political and economic.

She’d certainly not announce it using ridiculous terms such as ‘the greatest moral imperative of our times’.

 

[euromellows]

I doubt Gillard would announce a policy like the ETS to begin with without thoroughly checking its impact, political and economic.

Gillard was a very vocal supporter of it until early this year. Remember the 'delay is denial' lines. Also Gillard has a poor track record of policy on the run (medicare gold, cash for clunkers, the citizens assembly and the infamous epping rail link in nsw). I do not think she would be any different in these circumstances.

In addition to that the ETS was more or less a bipartisan issue in 2007 as John Howard first proposed it and Rudd adopted it. Howard stipulated it would only come into affect if there was agreement internationally. Rudd foolishly pursued it when in government so he could take it to the Copenhagen summit. He also wanted to split the opposition about it. Unfortunately for him it backfired on both fronts. Copenhagen was a disaster politically for him. With the removal of Turnbull and the election of Abbott it was twofold.

I think Gillard's political instincts would still pursue this issue. It is possible Gillard would have more ticker and take the issue to a double dissolution election in early feb 10 as a result of the coalition blocking the ets in the senate. A double dissolution she could win (like Rudd could have).

Shed certainly not announce it using ridiculous terms such as the greatest moral imperative of our times

Agree that Gillard would not leave herself so politically exposed as Rudd did on this issue.

 

[Magniac]

Yes, while they were playing in the Senate Kindergarten they could act silly and everyone ignored them, now they’ve decided to play in the Lower House they’re going to discover just how rough the big kids can be.

Only those obsessed by political appearances over all else could possibly think that the senate doesn't matter. John Howard winning a majority in the senate in 2004 was a nightmare for the real Labor Party, not this pretend Labor Party of guys so tough they can walk over bindi eyes.

They’ve had the longest political dream run imaginable. Up until now no-one’s payed the least attention to them.

{Shakes head}, Cook, I know serious governing`n'shit is a hard act to follow, and it's not as cool as political soundbyte theater is, but the Greens most certainly did make a controversial, much criticised impression in the last term before they even dreamed of having Bandt on the Reps crossbench keeping Labor in power. Their opposition to the ETS was a major reason for Rudd reaching out to Turnbull, which lead to Turnbull getting knifed by his own party, which in turn probably lead to Rudd getting knifed by his...

Well, we obviously see things a little differently . I'll respond to a couple of bits.

Yes, indeed.

The ALP is dedicated to getting and keeping power. If that means having a third party in to take a majority away from the Coalition then thats what they will do, obviously they would rather have their own seats.

So much for this idea that the ALP will no longer exchange preferences with the Greens in future, but thank you for pointing out the shear utilitarian value of Labor automatically preferencing the Greens in the senate and those other parliamentary chambers which are elected using proportional representation.

I doubt Gillard would announce a policy like the ETS to begin with without thoroughly checking its’ impact, political and economic.

If you mean she may have put in on the backburner in order to appease the Rightwing factional power brokers and the old school pollution ministers (some of whom are actually quite Leftwing), then maybe.

If you mean that she would have done a much better sales job than Rudd with a similar cap`n'trade policy, merely because she has the pulse of the zeitgeist, then, well, not really. I support her as PM, but I'm careful not to attribute unusual brilliance to her.

She’d certainly not announce it using ridiculous terms such as ‘the greatest moral imperative of our times’.

"The consequences of inaction are ultimately threatening for our planet... the price of inaction is too high a price for our country to pay."

Yeah, that like totally disarms all the people who didn't like Rudd using the M word* (and I'm pretty certain Gillard did use strongly moralistic terms to describe climate change while in Opposition--but of course that was all about hitting the Howard government, not necessarily about putting herself forward a true believer in this cause.)

Finally, those who support the Libs are not hoping that ALP and the Greens will get into a war. They are hoping that the ALP will keep on trying to accomodate and reconcile with the Greens. The view is that they are inherently unelectable to more than 10-15% of the population, so if the ALP try to meet them half-way then the ALP becomes more unelectable.

The Coalition point of view is just not that Machiavellian. Or even well thought out.

No, the Libs are actually genuinely freaking out over the fact that they can now elect communist, babykilling Greens in inner city electorates, if they so choose to direct those preferences to them. The election of Bandt on their preferences genuinely angers them, moreso than it pleases any desire they have to use him as a political wedge against Gillard.

If they were following your logic they would have happily preferenced the Greens again in last month's Victorian state election, purely to force Labor to have to admit that a minority ALP government supported by dreaded Green crossbenchers was a possibility.

They didn't. And the decision not to do so was based on both tactical and ideological reasoning.

Hell, if Baillieu hadn't won the election he would now be boasting of the fact that it's better to lose than it is to win against an opponent with the help of a Green anti-Labor surge. As it is this article says that Baillieu was/is adament the Coalition's electoral strategies don't need to include hurting Labor by preferencing the Greens, they (the Libs/Nats) can win elections without 'resorting' to that.


*Which I'd forgotten about. Given that quote blind I might have attributed it to anyone from Lee Rhiannon to Ian Macfarlane--though obviously the mad monk wouldn't have said it. Or he wouldn't have said it without then backflipping on it.

 

[Cook]

{Shakes head}, Cook, I know serious governing`n'shit is a hard act to follow, and it's not as cool as political soundbyte theater is, but the Greens most certainly did make a controversial, much criticised impression in the last term before they even dreamed of having Bandt on the Reps crossbench keeping Labor in power.

Well I’ll bow to your clearly greater insight into the workings of the Labor Party. After all you did so well Back in February:

Rudd doesn’t have a faction to back him and relies on his electoral popularity for authority in the party. If he’s seen as no longer an electoral advantage he’ll be shown the door.

This isn't true, and sounds a lot like a weak argument advanced by a Simon Crean follower I read about (so much for it being associated with prescience). Just because he isn't a born-and-bred factional man like Keating it doesn't follow that Rudd isn't a serious ALP Rightwinger.