It's a simple cyclic process really -- not unlike global temperature changes. Major parties run things for a while, stuff up a little bit and alienate people, so minor parties creep in. Eventually the minor parties get the balance of power, REALLY stuff things up, and the voters learn their lesson, kick them out and go back to the devil they know. One Nation, the Democrats, and now the Greens -- not to mention the Lib Dems in Britain -- all will eventually go the same way.

J.john is spending the afternoon curing cancer now that he is finished with climate change... back to reality.
The Greens are if nothing else, passionate about their ideas. While they are not running the country they can afford to be. To be a successful Government you have to be very pragmatic, but pragmatisms is not a good look to the average voter.

An interesting article.

The bit that sticks out is that nothing about the Greens seems to suit the "fairness-reciprocity foundation". They do seem to run on a dictate from on high approach unless you fit to some alternative which they approve of.

I do agree that the lib's have largely moved away from any of the small "l" stuff, Labor is all over the place and has not in my view ever got the "fairness-reciprocity foundation" part's.

R0bert

Kenny:

...You are on the mark Kenny. The best direction for a politician to follow is to change as little as possible during their term. People do not want change, they want stability: That is Gillards flaw...

Crispin, thanks for a very fresh perspective on the moral drivers of our political parties. It will be interesting to see how the next 2 years unfold and whether conservative self interest will supplant liberal social interest when polling day arrives. Minority government must be a pain for the ALP but the limp support they attracted last time was IMHO less to do with self interest than it was to do with dismay at a ham fisted leadership "transition". The Greens have (again IMHO) reached their peak of popularity and under the harsh light of day-to-day pragmatic reality will discover out just how hard it is to satisfy vested interest groups. Oh, for the simplicity of being a protest party I'm sure they'll say. We all love Bob but scratch the Green's surface and you'll see that what lies beneath just won't cut it with the marginal seats when push comes to shove. Should be an interesting few years though.

I'm still having problems with the concept of politicians having any sort of moral compass at all. There has been so little evidence of one for decades, it is even hard to imagine a time when there was one.

Of course, the basic theory is sound, at least from a high-level, top-down view of the "left/right" divide - " harm-care and fairness-reciprocity" versus "loyalty, authority-respect and sanctity". On a clear day, it is almost possible to see how these foundations may, once-upon-a-time, have influenced the policies of our political parties. But lowering one's gaze to the actual daily activities of those parties soon obscures that view.

Our politicians are, as a pack, morally and ethically bankrupt, voting on the basis of how it might impact their own job security and their own livelihood, with its obscene freebies and perks, rather than any vague consideration of their responsibilities to the country. We have over the years managed to turn their job into a personal popularity contest, with the concepts of fairness/loyalty but a distant memory.

Sadly, the idea of replacing this with a political system that values principles above venality is now impossible. We have simply moved past the point of no return, as the foxes are now in complete control of the hen-house.

Moreover, the idea that the Greens are somehow above all this is laughable. Their appeal to the public is based upon the general revulsion earned by the major parties, and not for any virtue of their own. Which would become clear, if they ever had to take on the task of formulating and producing a fully-articulated policy.

Particularly for politicians, what does pragmatisms have to do with ethics or the "fairness-reciprocity foundation" ?

IF politicians were there to participate, to contribute and to balance out the opposing claims and counterclaims they would be undertaking all these disussions on legislation through public debates in the chambers, not in back rooms.

IF Executive Government was about enforcing those rules agreed to by Parliament, then our executive branch would NOT be so busy trying to control the discussions in Parliament.

Tony Abbott attempts same control over his troops, with less success, as he does not control the lolly basket, yet.

IMHO we need our executive government to be what our constitution allows, to be chosen by our popularly elected Governor-General !

WHy will our politicians in Parliament NOT return this right to the poeple ?

Why is it that academics can never see the wood. I suppose it's their inclination to talk too much. They talk their way round & round a question, rather than look at the answer.

The main reason for the change in the Labor party is a change in income flow.

The poor wharfie is higher payed than most white collar workers, the self employed tradesman earns more than the people he works for, & the builders labourer earns more than those working at the builders head office.

This being the case there is no longer much place for the old Labor trade union. Their last refuge is the over payed public sector, or wealthy professional associations.

Of course there still some militant unions, mostly run by "hate the boss" immigrant leaders with a Scottish accent, but by & large, they are now a head looking for a body.

With the closure of our factories, the unions, once lead by the very bright factory worker, who had been denied an education, became the toy of the academic, or the "B" grade law graduate, looking for an entrance to parliament.

Just a quick glance at our current parliament will show you this is a recipe for disaster. A labor party made up of all the rest does not have much reason for it's existence, a glance at the current "leadership" will show you this.

Of course the Libs now have a problem, too. Their main reason for existence was to protect us from the percentage of radical ratbags in the Labor party. As this diminishes they had better quickly move to protecting us from the far greater percentage of such in the Greens, or face extinction, too.

If Labor can just improve it's leadership, we could end up with a Labor Liberal coalition, protecting us from the increasing number of ratbags in the Green far left?

I certainly hope so, one world government frightens the whatnot out of me.

Interesting article from Crispin Hull - I hadn't come across Haidt's theoretical framework before. While the analytical categories are by nature artificial, the various "moralities" do make some sense when applied to the Australian scene.

@ Pericles:

It's not like you to be disingenuous. Have you forgotten how to use Google?

http://greens.org.au/policies

There's a whole bunch of them there, well thought out, coherent, easy to access. They're not costed, but at 12% they're hardly likely to be implemented independently, are they?

While I share to a large extent your cynicism pertaining to politicians as a species, there are exceptions. Thus far in their development, the Greens have largely avoided the corruption endemic in the 'majors', by consciously attempting to do politics differently. Of course, the bigger they get, the more susceptible they are, which is one of the reasons that most Greens don't want the party to grow too quickly, or to gain power in its own right before it is sufficiently mature.

@Hasbeen:

While I agree with much of your take on the decline of the relevance of unions, you didn't bother to read the article, did you?

I think that we're far more likely to see a formal Laberal coalition than the One World Government of your paranoid fantasies. But even that's unlikely, despite their similarity at every salient level, given the degree to which they hate each other. Perhaps their shared hatred for the Greens might bring them together temporarily for the express purpose of destroying the Greens electorally, but shared hatred is hardly an enduring political philosophy..

I don't think the Greens will ever replace Labor as such, but we could well be witnessing the beginning of the end of the two-party system - and about bloody time, I say!

"Of course, to displace Labor, the Greens will have to evolve more from hair-shirt wearing basket weavers who meet every ounce of successful economic initiative with daunting demands for redistribution to the undeserving."

The Greens have evolved from this perception and continue to do so. Much of those perceptions are exagerrated to diminish any valuable policies the Greens put forward. Much easier to dismiss them as basket weavers to avoid intelligent discussions about policy which might reveal the opposition to be lacking.

Economic redistribution really means reducing the gap it is not about stealing from the rich to give to the poor - although that is the fear campaign put about. Why the failure to comprehend that jobs at the middle and high end are over-rated (and over compensated) while the jobs at the lower end are under-valued and thus compensated poorly. The bleatings of the 'rich' are deafening whenever there is talk of an increase in the minimum wage but senior public servants, CEOs and middle managers can continue to reap economic benefits with barely a ripple, while continuing to reduce, often, operational staff, and reaping huge bonuses to do so. It is the biggest boys club around.

Labor is not the only part to lose voters to another party, the Liberals lost much of their little 'l' vote when they moved to the Right. Many of these went to Labor and/or the Democrats.

The biggest driver to the Greens is the failure of either party to question some of the bigger issues around free trade and globalisation and the failure to address inequity in any meaningful way.

The task and test for the Greens is to be able to put their policies into action and decide on what compromises need to be made based on costings and priorities; and based on the democratic choices of the electorate should referenda form a part of a Greens Government. Every government has to compromise to some extent - tax revenue is not a bottomless pit and the wishes of the electorate have to be paramount in any viable democracy.

Before work choices John Howard had the keys to the lodge.
Few with understanding will not know he probably would still be Prime Minister with out that.
Who in 2005 saw Kevin Rudd coming, his high mark in the polls.
Labor would have walked in an election of both houses.
Only a few know he was holing of, to get maximum benefit out of the timing for such an election.
The rest is History.
Look back however to the two post Howard's leaders, and Abbott's first 6 months.
Any one doubt Labor is at its worst ever.
How about in 2 years 6 months.
It stands tall like a huge tree, Abbott is not much better if at all, but he is on path to win.
Both sides are increasingly concerned with the greens, in truth CONSERVATIVES should praise them and donate to them.
They push Labor at its worst even further down.
We will have carbon tax/ETS, we will see reforms in Labor we may not see an election victory but we live in the days that are the start of greens decline.
And too that puts Liberals in power unprepared with the wrong leader and wrong policy's Labor will return.

Ummm, polpak, section 128 of the Constitution is the only way you'll ever get a popularly elected GG, believe me. Maybe you refer to the US Constitution, they're both written on parchment and ours was modelled on theirs. :))

Disingenuous, morganzola? Moi?

>>There's a whole bunch of [Green policies] there, well thought out, coherent, easy to access. They're not costed, but at 12% they're hardly likely to be implemented independently, are they?<<

So, let me understand this.

"Australia’s natural resources must be managed in accordance with the principles of intergenerational equity, biodiversity conservation and respect for the traditional ownership of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples"

I know this isn't a "Policy", it is a "Principle", and therefore doesn't need to make any sense in real life. But these most certainly should:

"The Australian Greens will:

- ensure that environmental and social impact assessments are rigorously applied and implemented on all mining proposals and projects.
- prohibit the exploration for, and mining and export of, uranium.
- oppose the establishment of new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines
- prohibit mineral exploration and mining as well as extraction of petroleum and gas in terrestrial and marine nature conservation reserves, including national parks, wilderness areas and other areas of outstanding nature conservation value.
- establish a national mining insurance fund, based on mining industry contributions, to provide resources sufficient to rehabilitate the environmental impacts of existing mining operations.
- ensure that all new mining proposals include a fully costed and funded allocation for the restoration and rehabilitation of the impacted area(s) to world’s best practice standards.

I agree that with only 12% of the population aligning themselves with the "Principle", it would be pointless to apply any form of rigorous costing to the resultant "Measures".

But some form of "in principle" ballpark estimate might provide a vestige of credibility.

Although it wouldn't, in this case. There would be far too many noughts on the end of the dollar loss to the economy, as well as on the end of the number of newly unemployed that would result. 'Cos it isn't just the directly-employed who would lose their livelihood.

And you call me disingenuous, huh?

>>Thus far in their development, the Greens have largely avoided the corruption endemic in the 'majors'<<

But they are learning fast, ain't they, but.

In Germany, the Greens have not only now become government in the third biggest state but polls predict they could even have the next Chancellor. There is no reason why the same can not happen in Australia in the next 10 years.

The Australian Greens are attracting voters from both major parties. The trend is set to continue if the 'business as usual' attitude remains unchanged within Labor and the Coalition.

@ Pericles:

Shifting goalposts much? You said:

"Their appeal to the public is based upon the general revulsion earned by the major parties, and not for any virtue of their own. Which would become clear, if they ever had to take on the task of formulating and producing a fully-articulated policy."

I responded by directing you to the Greens' policy website, which is chock-a-block full of policies produced by the Greens, which they articulate pretty well, IMHO. They explain the principles behind their policies, and the actions they would take to put them into practice. I imagine that if enough people are attracted to those principles and actions sufficiently to vote the Greens to within some actual possibility of attaining power, the costings you now want would be made available.

Their process seems to be one of outlining issues that are amenable to Green political solutions, then outlining what they see to be the appropriate actions that they would take if in a position to do so. If enough electors agree with them that such problems and solutions exist, then it becomes appropriate to work out how to fund them.

Also, you imply that corruption is extant in the Greens. Would you care to nominate an example or two, or was it just a generalised smear?

If that is your idea of "chock-a-block full of policies" morganzola, then you and I differ so widely on the concept of a "policy statement", that there is not much point debating them.

In my view, a policy should at least stand half a chance of being implemented without causing economic and social chaos. I'm willing to concede that there are some well thought-through slogans, headlines, soundbites, banalities, motherhood statements, bromides, platitudes, vapidities and a smattering of pure cant. But nothing that would remotely stand detailed scrutiny in the real world that we live in, Australia in 2011.

Be honest, you wouldn't allow any other political party to offer such vacuous boilerplate without comment. I wonder how many of the 12% of the population that are being put forward as "supporting the Greens" have actually read any of these "policies". Few, I suspect.

>>Also, you imply that corruption is extant in the Greens. Would you care to nominate an example or two, or was it just a generalised smear?<<

It was more of a generalized smear, I guess. Not, I hasten to point out, an accusation that they take bribes, cheat on their taxes or whatever, but a generalized smear on the corruption that overtakes them all. To an observer, their performance in coalition over recent months has reeked at every step of horse-trading, rather than any assertion of any moral or ethical principle. That's the sort of "corruption endemic in the 'majors'" that I had in mind.

The sort that afflicts all politicians, in fact, once they have worked out the system.

"Doing deals" is the first step on the path to compromising principles, in exchange for power.

Of course, you could always use the defence of political pragmatism, if you like. But as you would be well aware, that would bring them back into the pack quicker than anything.

Banning corporate donations to political parties would end most of the corruption.
Morganzola,
http://skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=634578&vId=
(I know, the source is biased but the facts are there)
It all depends how you define "corruption", political parties are beholden unto their financial backers and will always act in the interests of their "stakeholders", the Greens are no different.
It just depends on whether you're comfortable with that aspect of "democracy" or not.
See I don't view a system with only around 1% of it's electors actually taking out memberships in political parties as at all democratic in the first place, it's neither "for" or "of" the people.
If parties were solely reliant on membership dues and community fundraising events we'd see a greater respect for the institution of government and a better class of candidate.

The future is written in todays published polls.
Labor went down by 3% points to 27% and the Liberals went up by 3% points to 49%.

Voters are dissing Labor and are moving to the Liberals. The Greens have peaked and will now diminish to a party of misfits in Tasmania ... until the rest of Australia refuse to fund the economically failed state.

On the mainland they will return to no representation and less than 10% of the vote.

The demise of both will really occur once people wake up to the climate cooling, which is now starting in earnest. The cooling is now starting in earnest, not the waking up. Why?

1.It is now recognised even within the warmists circles that average surface temps didn't rise between 1998 and 2008.

2. The summmer in the southern hemisphere was the wettest for at least 60 years and the concurrent northern hemisphere winter was the coldest and had the heaviest snows for over 100 years.

3. We in Australia have had our coldest Autumn and earliest snows in 50 years.

4. As the weather continues this cool period guess what happens with the warmists precious Global Average Surface Temps ... the mainstay of their argument for global warming?

yep thats right they will show a cooling ... that is ongoing with each cooler month.

The hext thing that happens is we all WAke up to this idiocy of global warming. How many people will then support a party that wants to introduce a tax on reducing emissions so as to make the Earth even cooler?

That number will be a lot less than 27% and then those people deserting labor won't be rushing to support a party that has a similar viewpoint?

Of course things might be different if/when the only other alternative eventuates: a Labor Party that dumps global warming and carbon taxing.

If the hardheads in the Labor party haven't worked that out, and assessed the lost preferences, then I'm as blue as my toes on a frosty Brisbane morning.

Sir,

The Political realignment you tray to put in evidence, may occur according to Haidt’s ‘Moral Foundation Theory’ but in your previous article to OLO (11/11/2009) you wrote that “the vast bulk of Journalists honestly try to get it right. But the media does distort”.

By extension, the moral foundation theory becomes of little import when the values it should act upon are distorted by a media who has a stake in the overall play of feelings in the ‘operetta’ of Gilbert and Sullivan.

Sir,

It is your business to help journalists refine their ‘art’ and you mix with many of them. I read The Melbourne Sun-Herald only when I want to assess the level of poison it injects in the poor people for whom that newspaper is the daily diet…Tragic!

@ Pericles:

Okay, so you don't like Greens policies as presented at their website. Don't vote for them, simple.

You're probably right that most Greens voters haven't read the policies on their website, but that's probably even truer for the 'majors' - whose policies aren't exactly well-articulated on their websites either, IMHO.

However, there's more than a million Australians who support the Greens, and that number has been steadily increasing at every election, not just the last one. Green voters are probably at least as aware of the detail of Greens policies as are Laberal supporters of the detail and costing of those parties' policies.

I suspect that the reason that more and more people are voting Green is at least partly as Mr Hull describes (and as you implicitly acknowledge), i.e. that they provide a moral dimension to party politics that is woefully lacking in the 'majors'.

Thanks for clarifying what appeared at first glance to be a baseless slur on the Greens. No, that isn't the kind of corruption I had in mind, unless you assert that engaging in party politics is inherently and necessarily corrupt. I agree that there's been plenty of examples of Labor and Coalition politicians who might support such a contention, but I'll repeat that the Greens have avoided the mire thus far.

I think it just might have something to do with that "moral dimension".

I agree entirely with Pericles;

Personally, the only thing that endears me to the Greens is that they at least substantiate in some way that they are actually expecting to do a job and manage the state;

I'm most definitely not going to give my vote to a candidate who insists that it's somehow not his/her job as a politician to actually manage the various mechanisms that keep society running- but their job to sell them to someone who will, (and still expect to be paid).

And on that note- any party that explicitly promises to oppose, halt and deny privatization, will always get my support sooner than a party that is vague about it, or has been proven to support it.

@ King Hazza:

Thanks for your post. Given that the Greens are about the only political party in Australia that advocates ending privatisation of government functions, would you vote for them, given that policy isn't costed?

Or are there other reasons you vote for them?

Nobody can fault Julia Gila rd for laying to us.She said "will be no carbon tax's in the government that I lead' this is 100% OK.She is not leading this government Bob Brown is.As sun this bunch of useless s....is send pacing better for all of us.Treating us as total imbeciles is way to dangerous.I'm wondering way we haw a Governor general,She supposed to protect Australia from people inclined to destroy our country.The enemy is in Australia.I fell sorry for the young generation and of their blindness to reality and naivety.

"Greens could replace morally wayward Labor"

How ironical! This would take some doing, as the Greens have yet to demonstrate that they have morals.

Besides. most Australians would become aware that the Greens are technology- and economics- illiterate.

Ah I have been a Bad boy, old one but Bad.
So why not go the whole hog, I vote Labor!
Good grief you say!
Get a stick and chase him under the veranda.
Right now I feel l,like a lone cowboy under a single Wagon while Multi Indian tribes surround me.
Arrows come from every side.
I too feel like I have ordered a coffee then found I am sitting in the lunch room At Murdock's press center.
Labor is not dead,yes it is not the party we thought we elected in 2007.
And it may well be some, on our front bench, would rather sell the positive than except the negatives.
Labor, today more than ever,understands it can not forever bend to Greens radicalism.
It knows any future depends on improvements overall and separatism from the greens agenda.
Brown too now knows, he has been firmly told.
Any honest, yes honest,look, without the deliberate blindness of Murdock press/control/interference in Australian politics.
At the leadership policy's direction of Abbott and some on his front Bench will see no policy's no direction no ideas.
My minds eye, honestly, see Abbott Pyne both Bishops Joice as clowns like those in carnivals endlessly turning their wide open mouths silly grins saying no no no endlessly.
Reports of Labors death are quite fun while this group are called politicians.

Belly, I almost feel sorry for you, but only almost.

Any group of people, or party who can foist upon us Whitlam, Latham, Rudd & Gillard has a lot to answer for, & no right to criticise another parties leadership.

I would love to see you real Labor types take back your party. Take it back from the arts law graduates who now control it. Take it back from the lefty academics, who have no interest in working people. Take it back from the inner city trendy elites who no longer pay any attention to the branches.

I'd like to see a labor party like the one my father voted for for over 50 years, the same one that Chifley lead.

I guess I'm just another silly old fart, longing for better times, long gone, & unlikely to return, & it was that fool Whitlam who started the charge.

Again I must confront the charge Labor is no longer what it once was.
Yes my answer is it is not.
Liberals and Nationals, once Country party too are not the party's they once had been.
Tony Abbott is no Howard and far from Menzies.
All this is evidence Australia too has changed
Hence the greens, but for now, not forever.
A look at greens statements others would call policy's, a review of the possible impacts.
And understanding of the financial and Social lifestyle of their members, will show this is no mainstream party.
I wish to address the miss use of the word Morally by our Author.
Currently Murdock press and other owned things are beginning to enter a time most knew would come.
If honesty is a result, if truth will as they say out, Morally wayward, may be a term Conservatives confront like a head on with a very big train.

I would invite fellow readers to look yet again, in every thread here and in general comments.
At the confrontation that started on my claiming the greens seem to have far too much power measured against their vote.
I find the willingness of their team leader to use terms like bias, to insult my right to hold and express, views not friendly to the Greens, interesting.
But I think Australia, must one day confront the true nature of the greens, and I ask, why the silence? why no answers? if I am so very wrong in my charges and claims then surely burying me is an easy task.
Watched BBC live early this morning, parliamentary debate on Murdock.
Read a big number of world and Australian papers,
Every one full of concerns,well not in this country.
I note, yes true, Murdock's Australian papers chant the mindless bias still, ignore or pay the briefest lip service to the roof coming down on them.
And can not stop feeling the remarkable sameness to greens responses to mine and Australia's concerns.
What is being hidden from us? by both my highlighted groups,time will tell.

I will not get my answers from the greens.
Silence, contempt, yes.
But no not answers.
So I offer a sniff of evidence.
Bad boy Belly!
In every thread such as this,every conversation about the Greens.
Every one.
A commonality seems to exist ALP/LIBERAL/NATIONAL red necks stark raving loony party, every side of politics seems to have concerns about the greens.
It is time wasting and needless.
The more Australia hears and see,s the less their vote will be.
Both party's, AA after Abbott, should sit together put a consensus set of policy's up and get the DD election over and done with.

Labor's adoption of the carbon tax is both scientifically and economically unjustified, being based instead on environmentalist dogma, i.e. it is based on a con, which some socalled climate scientists accept as science on politically correct grounds. Passage of the tax will cause massive restructuring of the Australian economy .

Labor does not have a mandate for proposing the tax - hence the widespread call for an election on the issue, particularly as the PM lied that she would not introduce a carbon tax.

Unlike the ABC and the Fairfax Press who give favoured treatment to Labor and the Greens, News Limited is doing its duty by closely scrutinising the carbon tax issue -- so much so, that Labor ministers and the Greens are complaining and calling for an inquiry into News' approach. If Labor and the Greens have a clear conscience about the climate science, why don't they take the moral approach by holding an inquiry into the veracity of human-caused global warming science, and follow this up with an election?

As both Labor and the Greens are showing a complete lack of morals by pressing on dictatorially with the legislation of the tax, one can only hope that News Limited, the climate realists, and the Alan Jones of this world maintain their opposition and press for an early election.

In the meantime, Bob Brown should be prepared for coming out into the real world and having more fire applied to his belly.