Thanks for this analaysis, Graham. The Victorian election will certainly give you plenty more opportunities to observe the pro-green demographic as it emerges.

It seems the markets and market gurus generally favour a hung parliament.
Methinks a mixture of 'no news is good news' and 'at least, do no harm'.
We could be in for what Sir Humphrey would describe as 'a restful period of masterly inactivity'.

My impressions has always been that the Labor party has always kept their distance from the greens whilst informally forming an alliance through preferences. In governing, the agenda was always Labor, with the occasional inconsequential bone thrown to the greens.

The hung parliament has changed this dynamic, with the greens having real power. The result is that many of the centrist promises that labor made to draw votes from the libs now have to be abandoned, which the libs are not likely to allow to fade from the voters' minds.

A labor / green alliance was strongly denied even in Tasmania prior to the elections because it leaves the center vacant. In federal politics, the resultant strong green agenda is alienating the conservative working class who will punish Labor harshly in the next election.

Graham

Your poll and analysis is fine but have voting intentions changed from what was seen at the last election. ie have Labor voters deserted to the coalition. I doubt that.

Soooo the obvious is that a new election would see Abbott well in front and with Oakshott's and Windsor's departure a Coalition returned for an extended period. I think we'd see the Greens relegated, over a longer period, in a similar fashion to the Democrats, and with their disillusioned labor supporters drifting inevitably, as they age to the Liberals.

The longer term will see the death of an increasingly media 'hooked' dysfunctional ALP and the Greens increasingly marginalised as the climate cools.

You might say Graham,that a really well hung parliament gives democracy gonads once again.

I guess the merits of a hung parliament largely come down to the merits of those that hold the balance of power. Afterall, neither of the major parties has got much in the way of principles. They will largely go with the flow, according to whatever will keep them in power or win them power. So they’d freely swing in the breeze in the direction of the party and/or independents that hold the power balance.

But unfortunately the Greens just don’t cut it, as far as our future wellbeing is concerned. And neither do the three amigos, it seems.

If they just had the real green agenda at heart, we could overcome some of the things that we couldn’t overcome if they weren’t the balance of power… and we could actually power towards a much better future, instead of continuing to rapidly erode our future wellbeing.

First and foremost, we could overcome our addiction to continuous growth and start to genuinely approach a sustainable society with a stable population. Now, if ONLY the Greens would do this, which really is the corestone of a real green agenda, then we could say that a hung parliament, with the Greens holding the balance, would be the greatest thing to ever happen in Australian politics.

But alas, the Greens are not really green.

The greatest chance we’ll ever have to implement some of the desperately needed changes in our political paradigm is slipping past us. This hung parliament is not looking any better at all than the previous few non-hung parliaments.

"But unfortunately the Greens just don’t cut it, as far as our future well being is concerned" and "the Greens are not really green."
Ludwig where is your evidence to back these claims. Sustainability is a corner stone of the Greens policies. The conservatives, of the right and left delude themselves that the Greens are nothing more than an aberration that will soon fade. It is my prediction that it will be Labor which will continue to fade as there true supporters feel the pinch and start to realise that there so called 'reform policies' do not work. The small ultra conservative affluent right will most likely resort to calling out the army to restore law and order, or better still return power to those that were born to rule.

I think it depends on your definition of "better", Ludwig.

>>This hung parliament is not looking any better at all than the previous few non-hung parliaments.<<

From the viewpoint "is it making a difference to the way decisions are reached", I'd say that much has changed.

It is true that our parliament has not had any previous experience of working this way, and is finding it all very tough going. Hence the "masterly inactivity" we are presently witnessing, as Grim points out.

I would strongly suspect, however, that this parliament may substantially change the way in which the electorate approaches the ballot box in future. Or at the very least, have a major impact on the manner in which electoral campaigns are structured.

Thing is, the current set-up is fundamentally unworkable, and I think everyone has realized this.

We don't, after all, have a coalition that is made up of Parties, who have declared their policy positions prior to the election, and can therefore approach post-election negotiations in a relatively structured manner.

Instead, we have a small band of mavericks, whose loyalty lies with the whims and fancies of a tiny proportion of the population, rather than with a broadly articulated and widely-recognize series of political priorities.

The place of the Independent in Australian politics is now under scrutiny by the populace at large, who - rightly, in my view - feel profoundly cheated by the result of their Party-focussed vote.

Undoubtedly this will be a recurring theme at the next election. Parties will be telling voters "look at the mess that a vote for an Independent creates", while the Independent will be saying "look how much power you will have as individuals if you elect me".

I wouldn't like to guess which way that particular stand-off will go. But it will be a sad day for "democracy" if the will of the majority becomes permanently subject to the demands of tiny, dispersed special interest groups, who suddenly find themselves with more power than they can realistically handle.

It looks as though we can expect an interesting ride, psephologically speaking.

Pericles, precisely what is the will of the majority? There is no majority. Labor has no mandate with 38% of the vote, the Coalition did a bit better with about 44% still no mandate from a majority. The Greens scored over 1.4 million votes and only one member. Some voters some where wanted blokes that suck straw and wear broad brimmed hats. I think we got what we voted for.

Absolutely, Paul1405.

>>Pericles, precisely what is the will of the majority? There is no majority... I think we got what we voted for.<<

The problem is, we aren't accustomed to handling anything except white-bread Party politics. We have even become accustomed to the eternal faction-fighting, and the occasional accidental coincidence where stated policy is matched by parliamentary activity.

What the system hasn't yet determined is how to handle the essentially "non-Party" nature of a parliament where the balance of power is vested in a handful of individuals that represent an only slightly larger handful of voters.

Pericles I agree with what you say. Maybe we have only one major political party in Australia with two factions the do as little as we can faction and the do even less faction. Our politicians should be made wear uniforms in that way we could tell which 'Party' they belonged to. Not knocking Kevin Rudd if he defected to the other side would he really have to change his thinking that much, the same could be said of the majority from both sides. I'm not unhappy with the situation that now exists, in fact it should lead to another election not to far down the track. Hopefully not until we (Greens) get a chance to stick it up Labor in NSW.

Hey Pericles, Do Australians think 'of what they can do for their country, or what their country can do for them"?
I strongly suspect the immense bargaining power of the independents will reap windfalls for their electorates, and thereby increase their majorities. Electorates with less bargaining power could well start wondering about the wisdom of party politics, and just want to join the independent gravy train.
The question becomes: do we want effective, hard working, 'noisy' politicians, always bustling around changing things -like Rudd- or would we prefer a parliament so busy squabbling with itself that it leaves the rest of us alone?
I agree Paul 1405, I also think we got what we voted for.