Prev
Next

New-look Labor is a free advert for the Greens

Sophie Trevitt

by Sophie Trevitt

13 Jul 05:40am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Asylum Seekers, Border Protection, Election 2010, Ets, Greens, Julia Gillard, Labor Party

27 comments

Gillard’s certainly been galloping, but she’s not polling too far ahead.

I come seeking enlightenment…Jon Kuldeka in The Australian.

The mad pre-election scramble for support has begun and the latest wild grab for ammunition has taken the form of a controversial refugee policy. Gillard played up to her rapidly forming image as one of the few straight talking, honest pollies when she said she wanted a “frank, open discussion” about Australia’s borders. She then proceeded to make decisions with insufficient Cabinet consultation, and indeed neglected to inform the Prime Minister of the country on which she planned to dump the sea-bound asylum seekers.

That, off the back of caving in to the big mining companies, confirming a belief in but lack of commitment to resolving climate change and a remarkable lack of progression when it comes to gay marriage, lead up to the election polls released today.

Yesterady’s Herald/Nielsen poll confirms that Labor’s sudden change of face has given it a standing change in the upcoming election. It is, however, nowhere near the sort of dramatic lead that the first post-Gillard Nielsen poll suggested as she waltzed in to a projected popularity lead of 55% to 45%. This has since shifted to a more moderate figure of 52%: 48%, indicating that whilst Labor could snake ahead in the upcoming election with a shaky 5-seat lead, it has seen a drop in support since the previous Labor election.

None of this is surprising really, but it does put Gillard in an interesting position of deciding when she should call the Australian public to the voting booths. The current talk is that the election is due for the 21st or 28th of August, but according to SMH’s Phillip Coorey there is still debate within the party about when the most opportune moment would be – proceed with caution or steamroller ahead?

Gillard shuffled into her current position as Prime Minister in a less than conventional manner. She then proceeded to tackle five of the most controversial current issues and, unfortunately, has left the public in a state of somewhat dazed confusion (a tactic well-executed by her predecessor).

To re-cap for everyone who has understandably gotten a little giddy; Gillard professed an understanding of the gravity of the environmental problems we face and then pandered to the Mining sector. She talked of the impetus to act on climate change but then asserted that she will wait for (the already established) community consensus. She declared that she wanted an end to hyperbolic rhetoric around refugees and border security and then proposed to ship off boatloads of people to a country that seemed less than willing to welcome them with open arms. Finally despite leading Australia’s history of Prime Ministers in ‘firsts’ (first female Prime Minister, atheist, de-facto childless relationship…_) she can’t quite bring herself to be a “first” when it comes to equalising all couples’ access to the perceived legitimacy and sanctity of marriage.

Oh, and lets not forget Gillard reconfirming her support for the military deployment in Afghanistan, fighting the longest most drawn out war in recent history. When actions produce undesirable consequences (like, oh, blood shed, lost of civilian lives, infrastructure damage, economic toll…) our instinct is usually to withdraw and reassess. Not with Afghanistan! Nope, we’re so enraged by the possible presence of individual terrorists (within an entire nation of peaceful civilians) that even heading towards the bloody decade mark we’re committed to keep on killing. 

The Labor party’s dilemma as to when to summon the public to the political slaughter-field therefore seems understandable. To call the election soon, would just add to the frenzy that ties the end of Rudd’s era and the beginnings of Gillard’s together in uncomfortable proximity. It would however, reduce the chance of Gillard seizing anything else politically precarious to toy with.  On the flip side, if the election were left a little longer, Gillard would have a chance to carefully extract herself from Rudd’s legacy and present herself more gradually and moderately to the Australian public.

Either way, the political window doesn’t seem any less foggy having wiped Rudd’s bureaucratic jargon aside. Instead, straight-talking Gillard has been head-butting all the big, ugly issues of the day. But, like her predecessor, she has proved highly skilled at acknowledging and placating the public, whilst simultaneously diverting any responsibility she might have to demonstrate decisive and responsible leadership.

One can only hope that the tried and tested allure of potential votes will be enough incentive for Gillard to step up on any number of issues. She could rope in a nice bundle of progressive votes if she decided to pilfer the planet a little less, treat asylum seekers a little more humanely or maybe reduce our international contribution to blood shed by a couple of gallons.

She doesn’t have to do it all mind you. Just one of the aforementioned wildly radical steps would be enough to slow that steady trickle of Labor votes to the Greens.

Most commented

27 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:48am | 13/07/10

      Yes, Gillard could pander to the extreme Green Left vote, but then she’d lose middle-of-the-road voters to the Coalition.

      The reality is that in the Australian federal voting system, everyone’s vote has to end up on one side or the other. And Greens will not give their preferences to the Coalition, so Gillard doesn’t need to be nice to them.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      08:36am | 13/07/10

      “Extreme Green!” It must be true ‘cos it rhymes!

      The only way to change the two-party system is to stop voting for the two big old parties.

      I’m voting Green. If anyone wants to see what they actually stand for, their policy documents are on http://www.greens.org.au

    • Doh says:

      09:41am | 13/07/10

      @Jeremy

      Thanks mate, reading the Green’s policies is a sure deterrent to voting Green.

    • Winks says:

      06:53am | 14/07/10

      If you vote for greens then it is a vote for Labor. The preference scheme in this country is a joke. Once a vote is made it should not be given to another party at all. This is quite a window for potential corrution and is no way at all democratic.

    • D says:

      07:37am | 13/07/10

      I believe it is too late for Labor, too little effort in the last 3 years. Gillard is part of Rudd’s failures.

      Reply

    • DD Ball says:

      08:25am | 13/07/10

      With the polls reflecting an ALP win when Gillard has performed so badly, I am left wondering what she would have to do to get the ALP to lose? My tip is she will call an election ..

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      08:51am | 13/07/10

      Jeremy, you missed the second part of my comment.

      Where will your preferences go? In the Lower House, your vote will elect either a Labor member or a Coalition member.

      I know what the Grens actually stand for. Heck, I even campaigned for them back in the Eighties, when I was naive. They stand for far-left social policies with a light green tinge.

      Reply

    • Ella says:

      01:43pm | 13/07/10

      my preferences will go wherever I direct them, thats the whole point of preferences.

    • Joe says:

      09:02am | 13/07/10

      The recent polls are showing how fickle the greens voters are. They are the only ones swinging. They get sick of Rudd and go greeen. Then a WOMAN is leader - back to Labor. Then she sounds all nasty by talking about refugees and its back to the greens.
      Rember research shows greens voters are most likely to have frequent flier and qantas club membership (think guilty yuppies - not just dirty hippies).

      Reply

    • Russell says:

      09:10am | 13/07/10

      Greens in the inner city are wealthy. They have little in common with the public housing, working class Labor voters they have replaced through gentrification. They are NOT, as conventional wisdom has it, Labor voters in disguise.

      The Greens can’t believe their luck in getting Julia Gillard. They are already casting her as the new John Howard. There’s some truth in that too, and “Howard haters” can now, after the asylum seekers and mining tax debacles, safely become “Julia haters”

      They will vote 1 Green 2 Liberals. Watch.

      Reply

    • joe says:

      09:14am | 13/07/10

      Recent polls are showing how fickle the greens voters are. They are the only ones swinging their vote. They get sick of Rudd after he becomes unfashionable so go greeen. Then a WOMAN is leader - back to Labor. Then she sounds all nasty by talking about refugees and its back to the greens.
      Rember research shows greens voters are most likely to have frequent flier and QANTAS club membership (when you think green think guilty polluting yuppies - not just dirty hippies).

      Reply

    • David says:

      05:27pm | 13/07/10

      I think you’re misreading the movement in the polls Joe.

      For a little while the Greens were polling historically high and this was examined as a shift of voters mostly from Labor due to Rudd’s various mistakes and shortcomings. With Julia Gillard ascending to leadership the voters Labor had bled to the Greens returned not Greens voters switching to Labor - the Greens are no polling around where they always poll with some fluctuation around the asylum seeker issue.

      This isn’t really a symptom of Green voters or Labor voters it represents a block of people who could be characterised as the far left in Labor who find the Greens palatable as well. These voter’s align themselves between Labor and the Greens on the basis of Labor’s activities not the Greens.

      Why? Everyone wants to back a winner and no one in their right mind think the Greens are going to win the next election (or even could do the job as many people I know who like the Green’s policies express doubts over their capacity to lead, personally I don’t know why anyone thinks any of the parties can lead - they spend more time avoiding leadership decisions than making any).

    • Against the Man says:

      09:21am | 13/07/10

      Gillard may call an election soonish but there are many ticking time bombs such as the BER/insulation debacle/health waiting to explode. It is a matter of timing to release and attack as close to the election date as possible so that Gillard has little room to maneuver and will resort to the usual Labor spin and lies to create her own undoing.

      The Greens don’t have the policies that Australians want and while it is easy to call them ‘loony’ I believe they are too idealistic for their own good.

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      09:26am | 13/07/10

      Jeremy, ‘extreme green’ doesn’t actually rhyme.

      It amazes me that people (including the left-wing activists in the MSM) seem unable to distinguish between a moderate, centre-left party like the ALP (which is actually in a position to potentially effect change) and a party of fringe powerlessness like the Greens.

      This is a democracy, you can’t get everything you want straight off the bat: there are checks and balances in place. For ‘progressive’ voters to expect Jools to suddenly implement a huge suite of ultra left-wing policies in her third week of office is immature. And it is this immaturity which leads the fringe of the broad left in Australia into the woody arms of the Greens.

      You should at least tell your Greens senators to start dealing with the government on issues. Bottom line: there will not be an ETS or carbon tax in Australia unless the Greens are prepared to support an ALP proposal.

      Reply

    • Grant says:

      11:53am | 13/07/10

      Labor centre left?  Must be a typo, you mean centre right, right?

      Labor is no longer left leaning, after KRudd came in to power, most of the moderate left leaning policies slowly disappeared.

      - internet censorship
      - environment
      - asylum seekers

    • AdamC says:

      01:10pm | 13/07/10

      On the environemnt, you may recall Kruddy tried to get an ETS up and running and the Greens opposed it. Now it’s politically dead unless a global consensus emerges. Good work on that one!

      There is no left-wing consensus on the internet filter or asylum-seekers. When you argue that the ALP’s stance is right-wing, what you actually mean is that it does not reflect your particular philosophy. I have news for you, Grant, no major political party who needs a plurality of votes to effect change is going to reflect your personal philosophy on everything!

    • dale says:

      03:59pm | 13/07/10

      I think you will find that the Greens will hold all the power in the senate

    • David says:

      05:46pm | 13/07/10

      AdamC, I think you’re thinking is somewhat too simplistic about the influence the Greens can (and by most predictions will) have, especially in the Senate. Name me a piece of legislation Labor passed during this term without negotiating with another party? You can’t because they don’t have the numbers. The Greens negotiated with Labor almost everytime they were approached and the Liberals have refused to negotiate just as often as the Greens.

      Yes the Greens opposed the ETS in a manner most describe as idealistically unrealistic I suppose. In short they didn’t see value in an ETS which would not achieve it’s intended purpose, less so after the Liberals had their way with it (and then dumped it with their leader). Now a utilitarian would argue they should have worked with Labor (in concert with the other independents) in order to try and improve it on inception and then the machinery would be in place for further refinement - unless you think the mechanism is flawed which the Greens do so the utilitarian argument for their involvement fails.

      You mention a Carbon Tax, I’m pretty sure that is exactly what the Greens want… it is Labor who oppose a carbon tax because they feel an ETS is a better approach. I wonder where the utilitarians have all gone when Labor lost any co-operation from the Liberals while the Greens still have their own policy and a willingness to pass the legislation in concert with Labor. I really can’t tell who is being ideologically unrealistic anymore to be honest, just because a party is more moderate doesn’t mean they’re more realistic or less ideological in everything they do.

      I think you’re misrepresenting not only how the ALP can ‘effect change’ and the extent to which the Greens haven’t or have been involved in the changes that have been made this term. Remember also the ALP has to want to negotiate with the Greens, it isn’t as though Labor have approached the Greens first on every issue, often they’ve only done so because the Liberals and Nationals were being uncooperative (such as on the stimulus packages).

    • Daniel says:

      09:54am | 13/07/10

      Yes it all sounds really easy and the odd man in the street often wonders why it’s so hard really? I know I do. I hope the support for the Greens hits “groundswell” proportions like it did with the Liberal Democrats in the UK. That government arrangement there seems to be working very well there. Why couldn’t something like that happen here? Australians are looking for leadership on the big issues that are of our time. At the moment all we have is political puppets that are just obsessed with media grabs and spin cycles.

      Reply

    • David says:

      06:07pm | 13/07/10

      Not sure that will ever happen. Remember the Liberal Democrats in the UK are a politically central party and are caught between the two major parties. The Greens are generally considered a solid left party and conceivably could only form a functional coalition with Labor like the current coalition in Tasmania (the Liberal-Greens coalition in Tasmania generally isn’t viewed positively these days).

    • Anna says:

      12:06pm | 13/07/10

      Great article Sophie! Really well written - hope to see you writing more for the Punch.

      Reply

    • Amber says:

      12:13pm | 13/07/10

      Joe - you are dead right - the Greenies and new Labor supporters are not the ‘hard working families’ that Joolia addresses - it is the comfortable middle class seeking to assuage its guilt while content in knowing they are never likely to be really affected by those irresponsible policies;  ie - the boat people are not likely to settle in Lindfield and a 15% power bill surge won’t impinge on the annual, family ski trip. As a result, I see the Liberal voter becoming the battler whose main interest is keeping his job, realising that while Labor and the unions purport to protect jobs, it is the Liberal Party that CREATES them. The battlers simply cannot afford to put Green/warm & fuzzy agenda ahead of feeding their families.  Only the rich can afford that. This has been the case in the US where the Republican vote is drawn from the poor south and interior, while the Democrat states are the wealthy, trendy ones, such as California, which incidentally is also broke, from spending insanely on green energy etc.
      We will probably have Labor back for another term and when we are well and truly bleeding form their ineptness, the Libs will be called back to fix everything. Always happens…strangely like our relationship with the US, actually; we love to hate them but if the need arose…

      Reply

    • hugh says:

      02:13pm | 13/07/10

      This article is an ideological piece of rubbish.

      Would the author prefer to pull out of Aghanistan while the country is still rebuilding? Or is the author a supporter of the Taliban? And as an extension, the stoning of women, children etc? I would hate to think what they would do to all those Western conspirators - think Pol Pot in Cambodia

      Regarding boat people - people just want the unlawful and life threatening behaviour of arriving via leaky boats to stop - not the actual granting of refugee visas. Also - i would like to know how the author would like us to maintain being “green” and environmentally sound, yet at the same time increase population in this country. How does the author feel about the excess water consumed by these refugees? It takes away from environmental flows - so you should be really, really upset with them (sarc)

      Regarding “consensus” on global warming - think internationally, not locally. G20 held a summit on this, and no great accord was created. You’ve also made it sound like J Gillard can single handedly solve this problem… sorry, but as much as you want this to be the case, she is insignificant. B Obama, H Jintao etc need to get together and nut that one out. Once consensus is reached on that level, Gillard will act

      While she should be worried about leaking votes to the Greens, the jump to the left you propose on the above issues are much less disasterous jump to the right if ANY of those issues you have noted get taken up. Howards battlers still exist, but they currently are voting Labor. If they move right, the election will be lost in a landslide.

      And as for gay marriage - this is a non-issue for the electorate. When it happens, it happens. It will be on the table again soon enough, just not this election. The electorate can only focus on so much at one time

      Reply

    • Graham The Great says:

      04:31pm | 13/07/10

      Maybe Australia’s two party system is not perfect.  Trouble is with the multitude of ‘self interest’ little parties almost none of them stand a snowflakes chance in hell of making a real impact and to think that by voting ‘green’ you are voting green then think again, watch where the preferences run in seats where they are lucky to poll with a percentage to make any impact.  Generally a vote for the greens is a vote for labor and so it is with a host of other small and irrelevant parties or candidates.  People need to understand the preferential voting system we have to see where their vote might end up if they don’t vote for one of the major parties!

      Reply

    • David says:

      05:55pm | 13/07/10

      Well usually if you vote for a minor party your vote ends up for a major party so I’m not sure what your point is?

      I would prefer people understood the system better and voted below the line in order to determine their own preferences but people are lazy and many Australians are rather apathetic about politics and take the quickest option possible - opening the door for backroom preference deals (which are essentially on an electorate by electorate basis) to actually make a big difference. The most extreme example of this could be considered Senator Stephen Fielding who won a miniscule proportion of the primary vote but courtesy of preference deals was awarded the seat (because Labor wouldn’t give the Green’s their votes).

      Know where you’re sending all of your votes is the only advice I can give and is something I’ll probably spout at any given opportunity until the election.

    • Press says:

      01:04pm | 14/07/10

      Your preferences go wherever *you* choose on the ballot paper.

      You don’t have to follow any Party’s “How to vote” slip.

    • Jeremy says:

      10:38pm | 11/08/10

      Yes, the “Aussie battler” class can’t afford to vote the Greens. Well asylum seekers are the biggest battlers. Australia as a developed country has a global responsibility. Just because someone was born in a different country, their lack of privilege is just as real as any so-called “true-blue” Australian’s.

      Don’t be so tribal.

      I’m voting Greens.

      Reply
 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:59PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

tory_maguire

_Tors 25 May 13 12:42PM

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi…

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 25 May 13 12:03PM

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 25 May 13 11:09AM

@benpobjie @jessadamson7 @jhwakelin kinda creepy from a high school cheerleader #misheardlyrics

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter