Earthrise,

I am quite capable of distinguishing between what I would like to happen and what I think will happen. What is obvious to you is not obvious to me.

If my choice is only between a coalition-controlled Senate and one in which the Greens have the balance of power in their own right, I would choose the latter. As a matter of general principle, I would prefer the balance of power to be shared by more than one party. However, in the particular circumstances of Labor’s rather weak IR policy, I would prefer the Greens to hold the balance of power alone because that would put pressure on Labor to strengthen its IR policy, something a balance of power held by Family First would not do.

What I would prefer or nor prefer does not affect my judgement about what I think will happen. The Greens will not win the balance of power in this election because the coalition has the advantage of numbers in long-term senators, and even though, as you say, it will be punished by the voters for its misuse of Senate power, its vote will not drop far enough for the Greens to win the necessary number of seats to gain the balance of power in their own right. The correct strategy for the Greens is to preference Labor in every House of Representatives seat as a necessary step in bringing about a double dissolution, which will give them an excellent chance of winning the balance of power in their own right.

I never make assumptions about fellow posters in my comments.

Chris C,

I cannot make assumptions about you that you did not put in your post, I don't know you at all. But I can judge what you wrote, and I stand by my judgement. There is no way you can say with any degree of certainty that the Greens 'will not' win the balance of power, this is what I used in making the call that your judgement is flawed and subjective. I am not saying they will, here is the difference. I agree that it will be difficult, but considering the factors I stated (Liberal backlash, not wanting to give Labor too much power, Climate Change), I think there is a fair chance. The Libs have long-term Senators, but they are also loosing half of them to re-election. If the backlash is that great, this number could be slashed. Labor will pick up a bag, the Dems will be lucky to get one now Natasha S-D isn't running, and I think Family First have flattened out.

I agree that the Greens should do a lower house/Senate swap, and the Labor hacks I have spoken to agree. But you see if the Libs retain the Senate, Labor has someone to blame when the country still goes down the toilet. With Labor in every State and in Canberra, 2010 could be a disaster for Labor, and very good for the Greens. Labor may not want to have the Greens playing a constructive role in the balance of power, and them taking all the blame for the mess we are going to be in.

Tricky election, which is why you should never say never.

Hey Chris,

Just reading the Australian today, and came across an article about Union displeasure with the new Labor IR policy. Union bosses are considering advising their members to vote Green in the Senate, due to their more traditionally Labour IR policy. Even if half of Union members vote Green in the Senate, this could be over a million votes.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22331384-601,00.html

How's your prediction looking?

Earthrise,

Thanks for the article reference. My prediction is still looking pretty good. Not many unions will back the Greens over Labor, and not many unionists would take their advice if they did.

However, for the purpose of the argument, I will accept that the Greens vote does rise dramatically. It makes no difference to the Senate balance of power. To win it, the Greens have to take seats from the coalition, not seats from Labor, which is where the seats would come from if unionists switched their votes from Labor to the Greens.

For the Greens to win the balance of power, the results in three states have to be Labor 3, coalition 2, Greens 1. A result of Labor 2, coalition 3, Greens 1 would leave the coalition in control of the Senate.

Never say ‘never’ (except in the command, “Never say ‘never’”), but I am confident in my prediction. We will find out soon enough.

There are more people watching the dialog here than you would imagine - it is very illuminating. Please continue as both sides of the 'debate' have opinions to be considered and will formulate outcomes of future decisions.
Thanks to you all.

Okay Q&A, just a thought. Isn't the Greens snuggling up to the radical Unionists a bit risky?

Might alienate the traditional Greens voters - the conservationists and doctors wives.

Maybe though Labor, if it does win the election with a Green contolled Senate would welcome the chance to push through a more radical agenda, while blaming the necessity of that on the Greens.

Some elements in Labor might get what they want, and the Greens would get all the bad press - or good press if it works out.

The Greens would definitely be a better option for Labor than a coalition controlled Senate.