I’m probably in the minority here (pardon the pun) but I think the Greens’ long term political future is best served by not being involved in the Labor Cabinet.
Not in this government. Wait for the next.
The Greens quite understandably want to make the transition from fringe protesters to mainstream political party. Under the astute Nick McKim they have moved more into the centre, focussing on social and economic issues, not just environmental. It has been a relatively gradual development, based on internal re-structuring and presenting a more business-like persona to the electorate.
But voters may not yet be ready for those incremental steps being replaced by a giant leap. They will be wary of Green influence and I believe would prefer to see how the Greens go supporting a government rather than being in it.
Some – perhaps most – successful changes in politics are evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The logical and careful approach for the Greens would see them go from environmental activists, to permanent minor party, to responsible cross-benchers to, finally, a partner in government. To go straight to the end game now might be counter-productive. There are three good reasons.
The first is alluded to in the above introduction. Many voters, I believe, even if they voted for the Greens, need to be convinced they can use the power effectively. By staying out of Cabinet, the Greens can demonstrate their bona fides to the public before taking the next step to a ministry (or two). This allows both the party and the public to make a judgement without it being clouded by the inevitable complexities and concessions that government brings. Just guaranteeing confidence and supply will mean enough compromises for the Greens, let alone being saddled with the disappointments decision making can bring.
The second is that the Greens have no experience of government and expose themselves to being “set up” by Labor. I say this, not to suggest that David Bartlett and his team necessarily have evil on their mind, but politics is politics (as Mr Bartlett’s outflanking of Will Hodgman in their dealings with the Governor show), and as the junior, and inexperienced, partner in Cabinet, the temptation to let the Greens take the fall for unpopular decisions might be too great for some inside the Labor camp. Yes, Nick McKim would go into any arrangement with his eyes open and he certainly is not as naive as some; but he would still be exposed and it could all end in tears. Don’t forget that, in the end, Labor have a vested interest in seeing the Green vote fall: why should they do Nick McKim any favours?
A stint supporting Labor from outside Cabinet will allow trust to develop, and when the inevitable difference of opinion do occur, then both parties can take their stand from separate tents.
Finally, there is one overwhelming very good reason why the Greens should not consummate their marriage with Labor just yet: the need to keep the Liberals down and close to out. Going onto Cabinet is too high-risk at this stage. If it doesn’t work it will be the Liberals that benefit the most – history tells us that both the incumbent and the Greens are punished at the ballot box after a minority government falls.
The Greens need to get four years of government out of Labor to prove to voters that, one, minority government can work, and two, the Greens aren’t an agent of instability. It is in the Greens’ interest for majority government not to be at the forefront of voters’ minds in 2014 and for the choice between the two major parties to be relatively even. That way they will retain the balance of power.
Going for broke now is not the way forward for the Greens. Their focus must be making the Labor minority government work, not grabbing the maximum power and influence for themselves. The less they seek now, the more they will get in the future.
As pleased with themselves as they are now right now, accept the speakership and leave it at that.
Peter Tucker was writing on his psephology blog, HERE
And, Examiner: Airdy squirms:
THE Labor Party will meet today to decide whether to include Greens members as ministers for the first time.
Yesterday the Liberals seized on comments from Treasurer Michael Aird last year that he would not be part of a Labor-Green government.
“All I can say is I will not be serving in any government that has Nick McKim or Kim Booth or any other Green in it,” Mr Aird said in August.
He could not be contacted yesterday to confirm if his opinion was still the same, but a spokeswoman for the Treasurer released a one-line statement on his behalf.
“I am not prepared to speculate on hypotheticals,” Mr Aird’s statement said.
Bass Liberal MHA Peter Gutwein said Mr Aird should resign if he did not want to be part of a Labor-Green agreement.
