This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/greens-election-protest-party
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Greens' election: from 'protest party' to protested against | The Greens' election: from 'protest party' to protested against |
| (8 days later) | |
| When Julia Gillard referred to the Greens as a "party of protest" back in February, she wasn't being complimentary. The then prime minister was picking up on a theme relentlessly run by opponents of the Greens, both in politics and in the media, during the last parliament, when the party allied itself with Labor to form a minority government. Some went further – journalist Andrew Bolt has labelled the Greens everything from "insanely anti-Israel" to inept at economics to having ideas "as fashionable as MySpace". | When Julia Gillard referred to the Greens as a "party of protest" back in February, she wasn't being complimentary. The then prime minister was picking up on a theme relentlessly run by opponents of the Greens, both in politics and in the media, during the last parliament, when the party allied itself with Labor to form a minority government. Some went further – journalist Andrew Bolt has labelled the Greens everything from "insanely anti-Israel" to inept at economics to having ideas "as fashionable as MySpace". |
| In 2010 the Australian called for the party's electoral destruction. But while many crude and trite descriptions of the Greens have been bandied around in recent years, Saturday's election result is proof to some observers that Gillard may have been on to something. Moving from the sidelines of political life to the heart of government decision-making hasn't helped the Greens electorally. Nationally, the party's vote is down 3.3% on 2010, with an alarming 8% drop in Tasmania, the state of its birth. Tellingly, the Greens are in government with Labor in the Apple Isle, exacerbating the unease among some voters at their political arranged marriage on their national stage. The Greens point to the fact that they have achieved their electoral goals, namely the defence of Senate seats in South Australia and Western Australia and the euphoric victory of Adam Bandt in Melbourne. The party also looks likely to add to its Senate roster, with the election of Janet Rice in Victoria. But the party has also lost its grip on the balance of power in the Senate and with a clear Coalition victory in the lower house, Bandt looks rather stranded as a lone Green voice. The party of protest has become, on one view, protested against. "There were so many candidates and parties in this election that the Greens had to compete hard for the protest vote," said Dr Narelle Miragliotta, political lecturer at Monash University and a close observer of the Greens. "Their partisan core support has remained in place, but they've lost people who are disillusioned with Labor. The core voters aren't unhappy, but others are very unhappy with the minority government. The arrangement clearly hurt Labor, but it has also hit the Greens." The Greens' sought to find a clear point of difference with Labor and the Coalition during the campaign and were provided one with the Rudd government's "PNG solution", under which asylum seekers are processed and resettled on Papua New Guinea. Miragliotta said outrage among progressive voters over asylum seekers "saved" the Greens' campaign, giving the party a clear message to help lure disaffected Labor supporters. But the party, tainted by the last parliament despite its many achievements – dental cover in Medicare and carbon pricing being the two treasured Green-influenced reforms – and swamped by minor parties, saw its vote severely squeezed. "Ultimately, the electoral system in Australia is designed to support two main parties," said Miragliotta. "The parliament is majority-focused by its nature, more so than in other countries. People are generally comfortable with minor parties having the balance of power in the Senate, but we saw the mood shift when the Greens were seen to be interfering in the lower house." He added: "Australia has rusted-on supporters for the two major parties. We seem to be comfortable with the opposition saying no to things, but we then question the legitimacy of minor parties doing the same." | In 2010 the Australian called for the party's electoral destruction. But while many crude and trite descriptions of the Greens have been bandied around in recent years, Saturday's election result is proof to some observers that Gillard may have been on to something. Moving from the sidelines of political life to the heart of government decision-making hasn't helped the Greens electorally. Nationally, the party's vote is down 3.3% on 2010, with an alarming 8% drop in Tasmania, the state of its birth. Tellingly, the Greens are in government with Labor in the Apple Isle, exacerbating the unease among some voters at their political arranged marriage on their national stage. The Greens point to the fact that they have achieved their electoral goals, namely the defence of Senate seats in South Australia and Western Australia and the euphoric victory of Adam Bandt in Melbourne. The party also looks likely to add to its Senate roster, with the election of Janet Rice in Victoria. But the party has also lost its grip on the balance of power in the Senate and with a clear Coalition victory in the lower house, Bandt looks rather stranded as a lone Green voice. The party of protest has become, on one view, protested against. "There were so many candidates and parties in this election that the Greens had to compete hard for the protest vote," said Dr Narelle Miragliotta, political lecturer at Monash University and a close observer of the Greens. "Their partisan core support has remained in place, but they've lost people who are disillusioned with Labor. The core voters aren't unhappy, but others are very unhappy with the minority government. The arrangement clearly hurt Labor, but it has also hit the Greens." The Greens' sought to find a clear point of difference with Labor and the Coalition during the campaign and were provided one with the Rudd government's "PNG solution", under which asylum seekers are processed and resettled on Papua New Guinea. Miragliotta said outrage among progressive voters over asylum seekers "saved" the Greens' campaign, giving the party a clear message to help lure disaffected Labor supporters. But the party, tainted by the last parliament despite its many achievements – dental cover in Medicare and carbon pricing being the two treasured Green-influenced reforms – and swamped by minor parties, saw its vote severely squeezed. "Ultimately, the electoral system in Australia is designed to support two main parties," said Miragliotta. "The parliament is majority-focused by its nature, more so than in other countries. People are generally comfortable with minor parties having the balance of power in the Senate, but we saw the mood shift when the Greens were seen to be interfering in the lower house." He added: "Australia has rusted-on supporters for the two major parties. We seem to be comfortable with the opposition saying no to things, but we then question the legitimacy of minor parties doing the same." |
| Bandt, the Greens' deputy leader, said there would be an inquest into the party's campaign. "I'll certainly be urging colleagues to looks at how we engaged with voters in Melbourne. I hope that serves as a template for us over the next few years," he said. "There was a crowded field in the last few weeks of the campaign. I think we had a good message, but getting that message out there is another thing. Me and [party leader] Christine Milne were never going to go on to the radio and twerk." Both Bandt and Milne admit that Labor's unpopularity has "rubbed off" on the Greens and counter this by pointing to an increase in their vote in some inner-city electorates, such as Batman in Melbourne. But this success feeds into another often-repeated charge, that the Greens are a party of latte-sipping urban hipsters rather than one of the suburbs and rural areas. The Greens' support is certainly lopsided, slanted towards the young and city-dwelling, and there remains frustration within the party that it cannot break the stranglehold of the Nationals in some regional electorates, given policies on climate change, health services and transport it feels should play well to country voters. In many respects, the Greens brand has been decided for them by the major parties and the media – a common curse for minor parties. Party staffers tell the Guardian that their campaign was generally well-run and focused on key messages – asylum seekers, climate change, environmental protection – that energised its core voters. But some grumble that resources were diverted to key inner-city seats such as Grayndler, which the Greens had little hope of winning this time around, rather than focused on broadening and raising the overall vote. "Looking at international examples, it is hard for Greens to diversify support," said Miragliotta. "In Australia it's even harder as voters have strong allegiances. The best hope for the Greens is for one of the major parties to basically explode and disappear." Another theory behind the Greens' drop in support is the change in leadership since the last election. Bob Brown, seen as the spiritual leader of the party, was a familiar, well-regarded drawcard for voters. In his stead, Milne was handed the unenviable task of leading part of an unpopular minority government and dealing with a series of increasingly hysterical attacks on the party from sections of the media. Milne is an intelligent, articulate leader – her visible anger at the PNG deal was an unusually raw moment during the campaign – but a very different one to Brown, who was heavily involved in the campaign but has now pledged to take a step back from the Greens. "Her performance grew as the election unfolded and she really hit her straps in the final weeks of the campaign," said Brown. "I got terrific feedback about her. She didn't get the coverage of Rudd or Abbott, but in retrospect it's a good thing I left when I did, to allow the Greens to reshape. "Fear of an Abbott government left people hanging on to Labor rather than go Green. But we now have the most rightwing government in living memory and we'll be well placed in the next election. The Greens have real talent in their ranks, none of the dead wood in the Senate you see in the other two main parties. "In a few years' time people won't remember the vote count. They'll be counting heads. And there's a good Greens team of 11 in parliament who will be very competitive at the next election." Still, there are whispers of generational change within some Greens circles. Bandt and Sarah Hanson-Young, the senator from South Australia who is tipped to retain her seat, have been mentioned as possible leadership contenders. Bandt is having none of it. "Christine has done extraordinarily well in guiding the Greens during a minority parliament," he said. "Others can speculate about leadership. A big part of the reason I won this seat is Christine's leadership. That's just not on the radar for me." | Bandt, the Greens' deputy leader, said there would be an inquest into the party's campaign. "I'll certainly be urging colleagues to looks at how we engaged with voters in Melbourne. I hope that serves as a template for us over the next few years," he said. "There was a crowded field in the last few weeks of the campaign. I think we had a good message, but getting that message out there is another thing. Me and [party leader] Christine Milne were never going to go on to the radio and twerk." Both Bandt and Milne admit that Labor's unpopularity has "rubbed off" on the Greens and counter this by pointing to an increase in their vote in some inner-city electorates, such as Batman in Melbourne. But this success feeds into another often-repeated charge, that the Greens are a party of latte-sipping urban hipsters rather than one of the suburbs and rural areas. The Greens' support is certainly lopsided, slanted towards the young and city-dwelling, and there remains frustration within the party that it cannot break the stranglehold of the Nationals in some regional electorates, given policies on climate change, health services and transport it feels should play well to country voters. In many respects, the Greens brand has been decided for them by the major parties and the media – a common curse for minor parties. Party staffers tell the Guardian that their campaign was generally well-run and focused on key messages – asylum seekers, climate change, environmental protection – that energised its core voters. But some grumble that resources were diverted to key inner-city seats such as Grayndler, which the Greens had little hope of winning this time around, rather than focused on broadening and raising the overall vote. "Looking at international examples, it is hard for Greens to diversify support," said Miragliotta. "In Australia it's even harder as voters have strong allegiances. The best hope for the Greens is for one of the major parties to basically explode and disappear." Another theory behind the Greens' drop in support is the change in leadership since the last election. Bob Brown, seen as the spiritual leader of the party, was a familiar, well-regarded drawcard for voters. In his stead, Milne was handed the unenviable task of leading part of an unpopular minority government and dealing with a series of increasingly hysterical attacks on the party from sections of the media. Milne is an intelligent, articulate leader – her visible anger at the PNG deal was an unusually raw moment during the campaign – but a very different one to Brown, who was heavily involved in the campaign but has now pledged to take a step back from the Greens. "Her performance grew as the election unfolded and she really hit her straps in the final weeks of the campaign," said Brown. "I got terrific feedback about her. She didn't get the coverage of Rudd or Abbott, but in retrospect it's a good thing I left when I did, to allow the Greens to reshape. "Fear of an Abbott government left people hanging on to Labor rather than go Green. But we now have the most rightwing government in living memory and we'll be well placed in the next election. The Greens have real talent in their ranks, none of the dead wood in the Senate you see in the other two main parties. "In a few years' time people won't remember the vote count. They'll be counting heads. And there's a good Greens team of 11 in parliament who will be very competitive at the next election." Still, there are whispers of generational change within some Greens circles. Bandt and Sarah Hanson-Young, the senator from South Australia who is tipped to retain her seat, have been mentioned as possible leadership contenders. Bandt is having none of it. "Christine has done extraordinarily well in guiding the Greens during a minority parliament," he said. "Others can speculate about leadership. A big part of the reason I won this seat is Christine's leadership. That's just not on the radar for me." |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
Previous version
1
Next version