Stop Pretending
Green supporters, such as Mr Lefty need to stop pretending.
The Greens are a party like any other. They are as progressive as the ALP, and have done a deal with the devil (Liberal Party) to try to score plumb inner-city seats of ALP-Left MPs.
There is nothing wrong with this. The ALP and Liberals (and all serious parties) do preference deals to try to maximise their electoral chances.
However, the Greens want to play dirty but still shout from the high moral ground that they are still ideologically pure.
There is nothing wrong with running a split ticket. Just don’t pretend it is anything other than a deal with the Liberal Party.
If the rhetoric of “let the voters decide” was true, then the Greens would run a split ticket or open ticket in all seats. Why haven’t they?
Because they have dealt with the Liberals to secure the Liberal Party’s preferences in Melbourne, Richmond and other inner city seats, in exchange for splitting their preferences in a handful of marginal seats in the East.
Simply put, the Greens are splitters and wreckers. Rather than trying to increase the overall presence of progressive, left-wing MPs, they are specifically attempting to knock off some of the most progressive MPs currently in Parliament (which may increase the likelihood of a Baillieu Government).
By running a split ticket, they are saying that they are OK with their supporters voting for the Liberal Party - a party that has refused to ratify Kyoto, wants to build dams, introduced WorkChoices, privatised public transport, done irreparable damage to the environment and has preferenced Family First above the ALP and Greens in almost every seat.
Nothing stops the Greens from doing this. After all, all political parties need to make the pragmatic and (often) opportunistic decision to try to get their candidates elected, whatever the cost. (Afterall, the ALP has given a preference to the Country Alliance, although the Greens receive a preference before the Greens in those seats).
Greens supporters and members need to wake up and realise that the path they have taken is irrevocable. After this, the Greens can never go back to claiming that they are idealistic, ethical and principled.
jason wrote:
The Greens did deals with the Liberals in Marrickville, Leichhardt and Waverley councils to get alternate Lib/Green Mayors.
The Greens are just another political party, nothing more, nothing less.
The Editor wrote:
There was always going to come a time when The Greens would need to find a balance between ethics and playing politics. To be successful in politics (and The Greens are becoming successful) a Party must begin to play politics – that is, make calculated deals for their own benefit. The fact that The Greens are doing this shows, as Bob Brown said, that the Party is politically mature.
The ALP is squealing like a stuck pig because they are beginning to realise that they have moved so far to the right an avalanche of voters are getting fed up and voting Green. The ALP wouldn’t even blink before considering a similar deal for their own electoral gain.
I applaud The Greens on making a deal with the Liberals that will overwhelmingly favour The Greens (come on, you don’t actually believe that there is any real “likelihood of a Baillieu Government”, do you?) There is a deal but there are no Liberal preferences – only a split ticket. I hope that the increasing political maturity of The Greens will over time iron out the more radical elements of their policies. Australia needs a third force in politics, and a genuine option on the left.
alex white wrote:
Like I said, the Greens are well within their rights to make a deal with the Liberal Party. They just need to acknowledge that they cannot remain principled and idealistic while doing so.
Bob Brown always says that the Greens are a “new” kind of party, and are “different” to the “old” parties. This election, and the ones in NSW and QLD prove this to be a lie.
jason wrote:
I got so angry reading Anonymous Lefty’s post, and the adoring comments.
The Greens care more about publicity than achieving real results in NSW, but sadly the political genius of the Australian middle classes gives them support.
alex white wrote:
Tell me about it. It’s like talking to a brick wall.
Ron wrote:
No different to trying to discuss the issue with you, Alex.
When you say “they [The Greens] cannot remain principled and idealistic” then remember it also applies to your beloved Liberal Lite party.
As flagg commented at Mr Lefty’s, “The only conclusion is that the Greens are on to something good and more and more people are realising it. All this bile and smearing and fearmongering and attempting to show people how “extreme” and “crazy” the Greens are. What are you scared of guys?”
jason wrote:
Ron, we are defending seats we already hold with progressive members of parliament. The attack was launched by the Greens against progressives instead of conservatives.
liam wrote:
Agreed, wholeheartedly, Ron. Labor doesn’t pretend to be anything else but what it is, a competitor within an ongoing zero-sum electoral contest: they’re guilty of many many sins, present and historical, but preferencing hypocrisy isn’t one of them. All we’re asking is that the Greens drop either their pretence to novelty as a Party or their electoral behaviour, which is no different to Labor’s or the Coalition’s.
BSFairman wrote:
Alex - you have to remember that Mr Lefty used to belong to another party that was idealistic and above politics: The Democrats. At least back in his Uni days he was (~2000).
If Greens ever do get power they will fail quicker than a paper bag holding water. It happens at local government level where I don’t think there has been too many green local councils re-elected. The Idealism gets in the way of the Realism.
Same thing happen to Labor party in the past when it was supposedly more principled. The Whitlam government came about in three years. Chifley got in the pooh because of nationalizing the banks.
Mr Lefty (not verified) wrote:
Funnily enough, nowhere have I, or any other Green party supporter, used the words “above politics” to describe the Greens. Total strawman.
However, we have pointed out the myriad ways in which Labor and the Liberals have been corrupt in and out of office, and advocate for the Greens on the understanding that they will not be. If they are, then we’ll advocate for someone else.
I completely reject the notion that corruption is unavoidable in politics: the temptation will always be there, certainly, but if we refuse to endorse it wherever it’s found, then at least we’re not part of the problem.
Anyone who apologises for one major party being corrupt by saying that everyone else is too, is part of the problem.
PS You don’t have to be “above politics” not to be “corrupt”. Talk about a strawman.
arleeshar wrote:
Can we please put the time and date stamp back on the posts more obviously liam?
Mark wrote:
Here, here. Several of the recent changes to stoush’s formatting have been for the worse: lack of date stamps on posts is confusing, as is the use of the first few words of comments in the Recent comments on the sidebar instead of telling what post the comments were made on. The LP-style pics for each blogger are OK though, as is the increased tolerance for unregistered commenting.
Update: Cheers Liam!
Mark wrote:
I also don’t understand what the point of having my ‘reply’ to arleeshar’s comment come out at the bottom of the thread is – why even have a ‘reply’ link?
liam wrote:
We now have threaded comments, and may God have mercy on our souls.
I really like them but I remember at my old blog there was a violent reaction against them. Now that we’ve got a plurality in support (of two), dissenters can take them, enjoy them, and ask for more please, sir.
Mark wrote:
You are a legend!
liam wrote:
…and now to make them look less fugly…
liam wrote:
Totally excellent. I love it when old fights come back to life, and the Labor-Green stoush is my very, very favourite.
While they haven’t actually used the phrase “above politics” outside of Canada, the Greens have always based part of their appeal on apoliticism, Lefty. David McKnight argues that the Greens’ placing of environmentalism and sustainability at the core of their political appeal, rather than relying on other core ‘left’ issues like equality and social justice is their qualitative difference. I don’t agree, as I said above, that the Greens are any different at all from any electorally competitive Party—but then I wouldn’t, would I.
The Greens have appealed to this sense of non-left non-rightness in the recent Federal election. Here’s the true believer candidate for Higgins, using the famous twenty-year old cliché:
And while we’re here digging up the graves of dead arguments, BSF:
Petrol rationing and limits on development had a lot to do with it as well.
Mark wrote:
On a non-administrative issue, i.e. the issue of the post, I take the extraordinarily virulent hostility implicit in the comments of Alex White and Jason as indicative of the vacuousness of their position. The Greens are clearly different to the Liberals or Labor, not just in policies, but in internal structure and functional role. Pointing to the fact that they are also an electoral party and eo ipso similar to other electoral parties is a bland truism. Here is a list off the top of my head of non-policy reasons (although 4+5 might be called matters of policy ultimately) why the Greens are fundamentally different:
liam wrote:
These are ephemeral matters of regulation, not qualitative difference, Mark.
Number one will be tested in the future, as it fundamentally conflicts with the Greens’ commitment to ‘principle’, and given the lack of a Labor-style Pledge, I’d back individual Senators’ consciences every time. If the Party votes in favour of something abhorrent to the members, in favour of Australian nuclear reactors, for instance, will they bind? We saw the beginnings of this when the NSW Greens voted with the Government’s gag motion to protect George Newhouse, and were lectured by Bob Brown for doing it.
Number two isn’t Party policy, it’s a fundamental rule of Parliament and public service. You can go to prison for ignoring conflict of interest. Not just in Australia, either: the Chinese regularly execute their conflict-ridden public officials.
Number three will certainly be tested in the future. Consensus suits small Parties with cohesive memberships, and relies on implicit goodwill, similar worldview, and lack of substantial disagreement. That’ll change as the Party evolves. Ideological difference, as TISM said about growing up, isn’t a matter of choice, it’s a matter of wait and see.
Number four is a matter of definition. The Greens accept donations from trade unions, which are incorporated bodies, and from individuals whose wealth has come from corporate activity. What makes limited liability companies so evil?
Mark wrote:
Number two isn’t Party policy, it’s a fundamental rule of Parliament and public service.
I phrased that point really poorly - I was alluding to the fact that the Greens tithe their elected members heavily, whereas other parties allow elected representatives to take home pretty big sacks of cash – though, with the exception of the Nats, I accept that most politicians could probably make more in the private sector.
You raise very interesting points. There is a basic tension between the way the Greens want to operate and the fact that our political system enforces norms of political operation which are at odds with what the Greens want to do. The classic example is forcing the Greens to name Bob as a leader. It will indeed be a test to see if the Greens can maintain the discipline of elected officials by the party when those officials are legally allowed to ignore the party (I think).
Consensus-based decision-making’s a different kettle of fish. Though it will become more unwieldy the more people participate in Greens branch meetings, changing it will require a consensus that is hardly likely to be forthcoming.
What’s so bad about limited liability companies? the profit motive. Union donations are a bit dubious, but only because so many unions are in bed with the bourgeoisie.
liam wrote:
Well, on the issue of MPs wages and benefits, payment for members was a critical nineteenth-century demand of labour activists. The work of representation should be paid, and as Michael Costa famously said, trade unionists should make sure they claim their entitlements in full.
The independent tribunals that set members’ allowances are some of the best things to happen to Australian Parliaments.
I’ve always thought that there’s something of the creeping Jesus about the attitude of the Greens against money; we expect our Parliamentarians to represent our interests, not necessarily behave according to moral strictures. Who cares if an MP puts their money in the bank, as long as they do it honestly?
Save that vows-of-poverty shit for religious orders, if you ask me.
Mark wrote:
Of course they should be paid, otherwise we’d be back to the days of aristocratic hobbyist politicians – but they shouldn’t be paid more than the national average. Let representatives be representative. This is why I alluded to them being rich: if you’re richer than average, who do you represent?
This ‘oh the Greens are on their high-horse’ stuff coming from the Laborites on this thread strikes me as being in monumental bad faith: why not take the moral high ground? If it’s clear that this is the moral way to behave, then it’s good to behave that way. Or is the argument that it alienates the amoral and immoral swinging voters to be too goody-two-shoes?
liam wrote:
I can hear Beatrice and Sidney Webb rolling in their rather well-off Fabian graves right now at the idea that wealth itself is a determinant of any individual’s political practice, and I think that’s Engels doing a bit of permanent revolution in his tomb as well.
I reject the moralistic—and surprisingly economist, given your previous arguments—notion that a reduction of politicians’ pay would in any way improve the legislative result of Parliament. If MPs want to live frugally, or if they want to turn across their allowances to the Parliamentary bar, that’s up to them.
In fact, from the point of view of economism (since we’ve got that convenient mental toolbox down from the shelf), just as casino croupiers are relatively highly paid, a higher standard wage for politicians would seem to encourage honesty, as it would reduce the temptation to seek “alternative” sources of income.
As to the actual behaviour of members of Parliament, as long as they don’t commit offences, and as long as they fully declare their interests, and as long as they discharge the duties expected of them, what possible business is it of ours if they’re also hypocrites?
Mark wrote:
You know what? I’m really throwing words around wildly today, and my previous reference to economism was off-the-mark: I really meant to identify what is in common parlance called ‘materialism’, not economism qua explanation of social causes.
Still I don’t accept that my last comment was as economistic as you claim: I said that people with more money can be expected to start representing the interests of people with more money, and you take this to imply the absolute claim that people with money do not represent the interests of the poor. So sure, you can be a good socialist and as rich as Engels, but why leave it to chance? (The Webbs I would have thought are in any case a terrible example, since they believed that socialism was good for the Empire; the same attitude that today leads social democrats to embrace neoliberalism – possibly I’m misinformed about the Webbs’ politics, but this is how I remember it from first year polsci over a decade ago)
I do take this point about corruption – pay moderation only works as long as there is a hard delegate structure which means that elected representatives only vote for what they’re told to and can’t be bribed. Giving people extra money doesn’t help them perform this function. Instead, giving them less money ensures that they have no interest in doing their job other than promoting the cause of the Greens, and are there only out of passion.
liam wrote:
Yes, I wondered about that. Let’s agree to agree on the latter term.
Well, my absolute claim is that any given individuals’ commitment to political ideology is independent of the state of their own class position and personal finances—a position I’d have thought would fit entirely within the Green collectivist-ecological worldview. I did understand your comment to imply that changes in the level of payment of representatives would change the nature of representation—is that wrong?
I don’t see how you can sustain the reverse proposition, that reducing payment increases non-materialistic political motivation. I know I’m non-materially motivated by the work I do for a living, and I enjoy and believe in it, but I wouldn’t turn up for even fifteen minutes if I weren’t paid. Representatives should not, nor should any worker, feel shame in being primarily motivated to work for money. We live in an industrial age, after all.
As to the “passions” of elected representatives, the one thing I’m entirely sure of is that the vast majority of politicians currently in our State and Federal Parliaments aren’t in it for personal gain. They take the cash and super because they know they’ll be relatively unemployable when their terms are up, but it’s intangibles like the allure of power, prestige, and public service, that drives most.
Mark wrote:
Economism
Your claim: pay levels have no influence on ideology.
The claim you impute to me: pay levels invariably influence ideology.
My actual claim: pay levels demonstrably do influence people’s ideology on average, but individual results may vary.
Payment of politicos
Here, you seem to continue to impute to me the claim that people should not be paid at all for working. This is incorrect. I believe people should be paid the same as other people. Personally, I’m committed to a hard-egalitarian position that would see almost any wage differential as pernicious, but here I’m limiting my argument to that that elected representatives should only be paid as much as the people they are expected to represent – possibly in some of the richest electorates, they are, but almost all MPs are significantly better off than the majority of their constituents.
I can see why you might think I was arguing that politicians are in it for the money, but I’m not – only that they are out of touch with ordinary people because they’re too wealthy. The fact is that for most of the people in parliament, accepting an average worker’s wage would be relative to the standards of living of their associates, family members, etc. equivalent to penury. My argument is not that they should work for nothing (since, as I already said, that would exclude people who are not privately wealthy).
liam wrote:
That’s fair enough, but I still don’t agree that there’s any meaningful gain to be had in stripping the allowances of politicians, except in the raw cost savings to Government and in the fleeting joy to be had in the doing of it.
I’d argue that if the average ideology of elected politicians is divergent to that of ‘ordinary people’, it’s more likely to be the cause of their having historically voted themselves high allowances, not the result of it. Remember that they started off from zero payment. As total institutions go in altering people’s worldview, I’d rank Parliaments up there with prisons and psych hospitals.
Post new comment