[Swagman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-07/milne-defends-greens-after-attack-from-nsw-labor-secretary/4116486

Greens leader Christine Milne has defended her party's policies as mainstream after a Labor powerbroker called on his party to dump the Greens to the bottom of preferencing at the ballot box.

New South Wales Labor secretary Sam Dastyari says Labor must send a clear message to the electorate and distance themselves from the Greens, who he has described as "extremists not unlike One Nation".

The NSW Labor secretary told The Weekend Australian that the Labor Party must stop treating the Greens like family and place them last in preferencing in seats where it is in Labor's best interests to do so.

Mr Dastyari, who leads the faction which counted former senator and Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib among its numbers, will move the motion at next weekend's New South Wales conference.

His comments come after Victorian Labor yesterday decided to preference Family First ahead of the Greens in a state by-election for the seat of Melbourne.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard owes her minority government in part to an alliance with the Greens, who helped give her the numbers to take power after the 2010 election.

However, Labor's relationship with the Greens has proven to be somewhat of a poisoned chalice for the Prime Minister, whose negotiations with the Greens included having to back-flip on her promise not to introduce the hugely controversial carbon tax.

Senator Milne was central to those negotiations and says the "outburst" from Mr Dastyari could hurt Ms Gillard at the ballot box.

She says the Greens represent mainstream views and Mr Dastyari's comments are an "attack on the Labor base".

Senator Milne also pointed the finger at Labor's powerbrokers, saying "the faceless men are a part of the Labor disease ... not the cure."

"Labor Party people across the country will be horrified to think that if they vote for Labor they don't know if they will be electing a Coalition person or a Family First person," she said.

"What it shows is the faceless men in the Labor party do not have any principle any more, or any idea of what Labor stands for other than winning office.

"I think this attack from Sam Dastyari is actually an attack on the Labor base."

But Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury says the Greens hold very different values to the Labor Party.

Mr Bradbury says preferences are a matter for the state organisation - but the parties are not the same.

"I didn't receive any preferences from the Greens at the last election, and I'm certainly not out there canvassing or expecting anything from them in the future," he said.

"We will stand on Australian Labor Party values. That's what we're about and that's what we're delivering in Government."

Keeping "extremism" in check

Mr Dastyari said he could not see how the Greens had "any chance" of keeping the extremist elements within the party in check after Bob Brown's departure.

"The Greens are to the Left what Pauline Hanson and One Nation are to the Right, and they share ridiculous, albeit different, economic agendas," the NSW Labor Secretary told The Weekend Australian.

But Senator Milne says Labor are aligning themselves with the real extremists by preferencing the conservative Family First ahead of the Greens.

"That's where the extremism is in Australian politics and the Greens actually represent mainstream values and mainstream opinion," she said.

New South Wales Greens MP John Kaye says the party does not rely on Labor preferences.

"Sam Dastyari is clearly looking for some relevance and the standard tactic is to beat up on the Greens," he said.

"The reality of preferencing the Liberals, Family First, the Christian Democrats is not only unprincipled for a party that claims to be progressive, but it's also not in their best interests."

Greens "extremists not unlike One Nation"? Took a while but the True Believers have finally figured that out?

Labor has its own bunch of social conservatives that don't gel too well the Greens "mainstream" policies it seems.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Lets compare the "extremism" of both parties: One Nation championed issues that had a significant but minority support base. Off the top of my head, I'd say opposition to multiculturalism was their greatest single policy platform. Yet while there is a consistent and vocal support base for this, polls showed consistently through the 90s (when one nation was most active) majority support for multiculturalism. Compare this to the policy platforms of the Greens. Every issue that they champion that I can think of - action on climate change, onshore processing, gay marriage, euthenasia, mining-profits tax - every single one of these maintains majority public support.

Greens "extremists not unlike One Nation"? Took a while but the True Believers have finally figured that out?

Well if you look at the core values and ideology of the labor party, the Greens are pretty similar. Of course labor no longer follows their core values, but spend their entire time competing with the liberals for the centre vote. Is this what we consider as "non-extreme" now? A party that ignores the majority of the electorate and focuses only on about 10% of voters? The contempt to which the major parties have been treating the majority of the public can only succeed for so long, and the desperate measures both parties are prepared to take to maintain the public's thoroughly undeserved patience and goodwill towards them is clear to see. They are relying heavily on the entrenched "two-party" mindset, and the irrational fear many people have of abandoning this. And we see here in this article one of the tried and true tactics the major parties use to cower the electorate into sustaining this two-party mindset: demonize the parties that actually stand up for the public's beliefs as "extremist".

[Rojik of the Arctic]

What surprised me is how long it is taking for the ALP to realise that the Greens are their real enemy and not some sort of half mates that they can work with. The Greens are the party it will lose votes from its base to, not the Libs. The Libs figured it out with One Nation quickly and moved to marginalise them - not because they fundamentally disagree with them but because One Nation was going to take votes from them if they were allowed to gain traction.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

What surprised me is how long it is taking for the ALP to realise that the Greens are their real enemy and not some sort of half mates that they can work with. The Greens are the party it will lose votes from its base to,

ALP had figured this out quite some time ago.
The Greens have been a hated force in the ALP for many a year. It’s just that ALP until now have seen them as the lesser of two evils. Also, they’re in a difficult position, if they go to hard at the Greens in term of criticism they can’t but help alienate their left-wing base anyway.

[Swagman]

A bit of Déjà vu for the ALP and its DLP split back in the 50s.

Social conservatives that couldn't stomach the infiltration of'extreme' lefties into both the party and unions.

[Notorious B.i.G.]

Not really. In fact nothing like it. No Déjà vu at all
DLP split from the ALP, Catholics splitting from the ALP because of communist agitators.
This time, it’s a left of centre party formed on its own rising in popularity with post-materialist voter base that happens to be siphoning off some support from the ALP (and Liberals mind you too). There is no chance of the ALP splitting. In fact there is more chance of a splintering of the LNP lead by Turnball.

[Dave]

One Nation arose in response to important concerns which must be addressed.

The same is true of the Greens.

Labeling them as extremist, while not entirely untrue, is just a way for the status quo parties to maintain their grip on power without addressing the very important issues raised by One Nation in the past and the Greens today.

[Swagman]

Not really. In fact nothing like it. No Déjà vu at all
DLP split from the ALP, Catholics splitting from the ALP because of communist agitators.
This time, it’s a left of centre party formed on its own rising in popularity with post-materialist voter base that happens to be siphoning off some support from the ALP (and Liberals mind you too). There is no chance of the ALP splitting. In fact there is more chance of a splintering of the LNP lead by Turnball.

The ALP has a radical left faction with members more readilly alligned to Greens ideaology than the ALP. The only reason these Rads are in the ALP is that as mad socialists they would have Buckley's chance of gaining political office.

The danger (or IMO improvement) in the ALP letting the dogs out onto the Greens is that these dissatisfied radical lefties may feel more at home in the Greens than the ALP.

This action on the Greens is a message to the ALP 'Rads' that they can POQ to the Greens or STFU. Any defection to the Greens is an equivalent situation to the DLP split only in the opposite direction.

[AVT]

What surprised me is how long it is taking for the ALP to realise that the Greens are their real enemy and not some sort of half mates that they can work with. The Greens are the party it will lose votes from its base to, not the Libs. The Libs figured it out with One Nation quickly and moved to marginalise them - not because they fundamentally disagree with them but because One Nation was going to take votes from them if they were allowed to gain traction.

This is a good analysis, the Libs caught on to the threat from ON very quickly and as a results stemmed the bleeding and then adopted parts of their policy that was most attractive to the electorate, hence side lining them. Labor until now has been happy having Greens preferences as they have not ever been likely to start seeing success in the lower house, until last election that is. Now they have copped on to the real threat to them ever being able to rule in their own right again and they are starting to adapt. The question is, is it too late?

[colliric]

The ALP has a radical left faction with members more readilly alligned to Greens ideaology than the ALP. The only reason these Rads are in the ALP is that as mad socialists they would have Buckley's chance of gaining political office.

The danger (or IMO improvement) in the ALP letting the dogs out onto the Greens is that these dissatisfied radical lefties may feel more at home in the Greens than the ALP.

This action on the Greens is a message to the ALP 'Rads' that they can POQ to the Greens or STFU. Any defection to the Greens is an equivalent situation to the DLP split only in the opposite direction.

If that means Wong goes, GOOD!

Eventually the VLP had to be listened too... They've been saying this since the last federal election saw Tanner's seat go... Brumby's criticism still remains the most cutting of the lot... he called them "The devil" and ment it too. Daniel Andersen discription of them as 'aliens from space' shows to me that the Federal Labor Party is in comparison still a little softer on the Greens. I consider the Victorian view to be what the Labor party really already thinks, and the federal view is still held back by the need to keep them on side till the next election. Gillard hasn't spoken what she really thinks of the Greens for almost a year now....

This is a good analysis, the Libs caught on to the threat from ON very quickly and as a results stemmed the bleeding and then adopted parts of their policy that was most attractive to the electorate, hence side lining them. Labor until now has been happy having Greens preferences as they have not ever been likely to start seeing success in the lower house, until last election that is. Now they have copped on to the real threat to them ever being able to rule in their own right again and they are starting to adapt. The question is, is it too late?

Labor turned on the Greens in the 2010 Victorian state election and effectivly stopped any chance the Greens had of increasing their vote to the point of winning seats. So that was probably when Labor, the Victorian arm at least, woke up to the Green threat. Bob Brown responded by saying the Greens were never going to do preference deal ever again(which obviously had an effect on the NSW state election, and some say on Brown's position as Greens leader too) as he was smart enough to realise Labor had done the deal then proceeded to call his party in the media "The devil(Wink Wink, that means Labor voters, you shouldn't be preferencing them and that's our real postion on the matter)". The threatened to take 3 labor seats in the election, and the VLP leadership finally grew an anti-greens backbone.

The Victorian Liberal party copped a bath(most of you interstate probably arn't even aware of) in the media over the Bandt affair and Bailleu also had to strongly respond on behald of the Liberal party(in general). Most of the election coverage in all of the papers was about his response. The Herald sun treated his response as if the Liberal party had just won the AFL Premiership.... Big front page articles and big pictures of Ted looking like he was declaring triumphant victory over the opposition.

Abbott actually came down here and told Ted to consider preferencing the Greens if it was going to help the Liberals take government, and actually publically distanced the Federal Liberal party preferencing from the State preference deals. That's right Tony actually defended the Bandt deal and subsiquently also the Greens. What a diffrence 2 years of minority government can make, I doubt he would do that today.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/green ... 1n1yo.html

Oh and Gandalf... that was Michelle Grattan(as well as obviously Bob Brown, and Adam Bandt being quoted) saying the Liberal Party worked with Labor to lock out the Greens of the 2010 election....

So much for your "it was all in your head Colliric" nonsense....

We have seen over the last year the incredible spectacle of Labor in Victoria and around the country begging Tony Abbott for help for them to win seats including in inner-city Melbourne.

'I think there are a lot of Labor voters around the country who are pretty disturbed by this growing willingness from the Labor Party to preference the Liberals above the Greens and effectively do a dirty deal between Labor and Liberal to swap preferences.

P.S.
I've merged all my three posts into one big one.

[ness31]

While I disagree with the Greens on their stance to off shore processing, I wouldn't call them extreme. It's a shame they've been so uncompromising to date. But what one person calls uncompromising, another would call principled.

As for this Dastyari character, I read somewhere he was an Iraqi migrant. What's his position on the whole off shore/on shore processing? Just curious....never heard of him here in WA. Is he a faceless man too?

[Swagman]

While I disagree with the Greens on their stance to off shore processing, I wouldn't call them extreme. It's a shame they've been so uncompromising to date. But what one person calls uncompromising, another would call principled.

Whitlam once said about the Democrats that it was easy to have principles when one has Buckley's of ever being the Govt (or something like it)

As for this Dastyari character, I read somewhere he was an Iraqi migrant. What's his position on the whole off shore/on shore processing? Just curious....never heard of him here in WA. Is he a faceless man too?

He's a state (NSW) ALP faceless man I believe, but as a New South Welshman I hadn't heard of him before this little outburst either......

[Diogenes]

What surprised me is how long it is taking for the ALP to realise that the Greens are their real enemy and not some sort of half mates that they can work with. The Greens are the party it will lose votes from its base to, not the Libs. The Libs figured it out with One Nation quickly and moved to marginalise them - not because they fundamentally disagree with them but because One Nation was going to take votes from them if they were allowed to gain traction.

Actually, the Greens then would be holding the ALP to ransom, wouldn't they? Because most people who believe in Labor are also inclined to believe in the greens party as well, but the people who vote for either would expect that the Greens would still hand over their seats to form a majority for the Labor government (I hope I said that right :s) and the greens party is definitely seen as a "cool" vote, so that's where they get their votes from - from young people like me who like dope smoking and dreadlocks and Steve Irwin and are in it for what they connect with hash. In that case, I might add, bad decision for quitting, Bob Brown. I think you are giving your party more credit than it is due.

This is a good analysis, the Libs caught on to the threat from ON very quickly and as a results stemmed the bleeding and then adopted parts of their policy that was most attractive to the electorate, hence side lining them. Labor until now has been happy having Greens preferences as they have not ever been likely to start seeing success in the lower house, until last election that is. Now they have copped on to the real threat to them ever being able to rule in their own right again and they are starting to adapt. The question is, is it too late?

Actually, I just wanted to point out how typical this is of the Liberal party, or actually, typical of John Howard. Good old Johnny... I've still got to read that Lazarus Rising of his, I have it on the shelf.

[Swagman]

the greens party is definitely seen as a "cool" vote, so that's where they get their votes from - from young people like me who like dope smoking and dreadlock

.......does that mean when you grow up and your teeth & dreadlocks fall out from being a pot head that you'll reject the trendy Green rentacrowd and find gainful employment and pay some income tax to help pay for their pork barrelling ways?.. (Yes the debt being accrued by your comrades now is just a future income tax for you)

[Diogenes]

.......does that mean when you grow up and your teeth & dreadlocks fall out from being a pot head that you'll reject the trendy Green rentacrowd and find gainful employment and pay some income tax to help pay for their pork barrelling ways?.. (Yes the debt being accrued by your comrades now is just a future income tax for you)

Dutifully, sir, by the time my teeth will have fallen out I'd expect myself to be retired and joining these tax funding and pork bellied ways you speak of

[colliric]

Obviously those saying the Labor Party won't survive don't realise the party survived a simular threat from the Communist party in the 50s, and it's likely a simular groundshaking split that will see the party survive(in the long term) is in the works over the next few years. Would not be suprised if Labor takes the position of poaching their best and slightly more conservative talent like they did to the Democrats before them. Heck I think they already did that once before by getting in first concerning Peter Garrett...

[GandalfTheGrey]

Would not be suprised if Labor takes the position of poaching their best and slightly more conservative talent like they did to the Democrats before them.

you mean Cherryl Kernot? - she only joined labor because she was having an affair with Gareth Evans.

[colliric]

you mean Cherryl Kernot? - she only joined labor because she was having an affair with Gareth Evans.

They still got her... and then that party "stalled" went into a spiral, crashed and burned....

Natasha should have stayed leader, removing her was another electoral mistake and only made the "stall" worse(She was popular... not in the party room, but popular to the public). Frankly I considered voting Democrat when she lead the party.

I wonder if the Greens made the same mistake in pressuring Bob to retire(which frankly they clearly did after fighting him on the preference deal issue during the NSW election, because he promised the Greens would never ever deal again after Brumby called them the "devil").

[Notorious B.i.G.]

I don't think it was leader change that killed the Dems.
It was compromising on the GST. Meg Lee’s pretty much killed the party doing that. It was a slow decline from there because of the longer terms of the Senators.

[colliric]

I don't think it was leader change that killed the Dems.
It was compromising on the GST. Meg Lee’s pretty much killed the party doing that. It was a slow decline from there because of the longer terms of the Senators.

It was already in decline when that happened.... It's like saying the apex of the decline was the start, when in fact it wasn't.

When Kernot left that's when it looked like the party "keeping the bastards honest" lost it's moral compass.

Kernot didn't need to ripp on the party verbally, her actions spoke more than words could ever say, both about her opportunist character and which party she percieved as actually being able to do something.

Labor is probably already fishing for a Greens equilivent... heck getting Garrett to join the party was them getting their hand first on a door they knew the Greens would have loved to have been knocking on had they known he was interested.