Excellent article...

Although an ALP member, I'm not sure - but you may a have a point on the Greens...

Remaining outside the government - but exerting leverage - it probably work out better for policy outcomes... It depends on any deals made in regard to policy outcomes... Portfolios are important - but if Cabinet is going to steamroll you again and again - where does it lead?

Peter Garrett, meanwhile, has been damaged by his constant forced compromise and silence... (Cabinet solidarity they call it - in fact a way of silencing dissenting voices in the Caucus...)

Finally - I may as well mention that I have a paper on the Aus economy in OLO tomorrow (Fri)...

The paper comprises a consideration of Labor's coming-to-power, and the challenges faced since then...

Thanks Tristan.

I had initially written that the Greens would form a coalition with Labor and take a ministry - I still think that is a very strong possibility. That opened them up, in light of the economic crisis, to ditching what they had fought the election on and attacking workers, hand in hand with Labor.

A friend (whom I recently met and who was some sort of adviser to Gough) suggested "the stay out of power" argument. he is so angry with Rudd and the other ALP.

In the ACT the swing is likely to be against Labor and to the Greens. In NSW with the four by-elections on the same day as our Assembly elections, the swing is likely to be from labor to the Liberals.

Why the difference?

I went to aSsocialist Alternative meeting tonight on the nature of the ALP. We still adopt Lenin's description - a bourgeois workers party. In other words it is contradictory - its parliamentarians in the main are committed to capitalism and managing it in the interests of the bosses, yet at the same time expressing some sort of class base through the dominance of unions and the trade union bureaucracy.

My friend also mentioned he thought some of the left in the ALP here in Canberra have left the Party and are campaigning for the Greens. Don't know.

I have no illusions in the Greens since they don't have a class analysis of society - nicer capitalism seems to be what they are about - nor organic links to the class, but a sizable swing to them will express extreme dissatisfaction with the ALP and its school closures here in Canberra, its failure to address the hospitals crisis, building a road for $120 m which needs to be extended almost immediately because it doesn't do its job, attempting to locate a power station within 600 metres of homes - you get the idea.

I look forward to your article. Hopefully you talk about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall under capitalism being hot-wried into the system.

What nobody, even the author, mentions is the need for a substantial and permanent reduction in the standard of living of ordinary people, and the need to try and dig ourselves out of our enormous foreign debt before it is called in. The commonwealth government has just assumed responsibility for about a trillion of overseas bank borrowings, and overseas lenders will remember that the commonwealth defaulted on its bonds in the last depression. Any government with foresight should be planning for opening the parks to shanty dwellers as they did last time. This one could well be worse, as any attempt to revive growth will run into the brick walls of peak oil and peak food.

Nevertheless, I still think Australia is the only place to be, as it is the only country with the for vital things; food, minerals, energy, and, most important of all, a sea boundary.

I agree that the falling rate of profit is an underlying tendency in capitalist economies... This is negotiated by capital - by increasing the rate of exploitation...

This is achieved without significant resistance - so far because improved technology leads regardless to an improved standard of living...

As the limitations of 'living beyond our means' reaches a critical point - along with other factors (eg: peak oil)- there will be an impact on our quality of life - and limits to consumption...

What is important, though, is that the crisis is negotiated fairly and equitably...

I go into more detail in other papers - including today's (Fri 17th) article on the Labor government.

Dear Plerdsus

I don't think immiseration of the working class is justified or inevitable. Workers can fight to make the rich tighten their belts and for those who got us into this problem to bear the cost - both through reduced "rewards" and reduced profit share of national income.

So the reason I don't mention "tightening our belts" is because I don't believe in it for workers, or pensioners, or the unemployed, or carers, or the sick, or those wanting to be educated, or the unemployed.

With about 25% of the vote counted in the ACT, it looks like Labor 7, Libs 7 and Greens 3.

The swing against the ALP was about 10 per cent, against (yes against) the Libs about 2 per cent, to the greens just under 7 per cent and to others about 6 per cent.

My take on the figures so far is that disaffected ALP voters have gone to the greens (in the main) with a few going to others, and some people not sure about the Libs also going to others. Other include the Australian Motorists Party (what someone described as Hansonism on wheels) the Community alliance party (which looks a bit like some right wing ALpers defecting to the CAP and community figures out of various campaigns coalescing), and a strong showing for a breakfast radio announcer.

Did anyone read The Australian's three reports or opinion pieces on the ACT election today (Saturday)? Sneering ignorance as far I can see.

!U little Beauty!

Is it true poppets?.

Green's get 2 pick 4 the ACT.
;-)

And, they get 2 nego for a cabinet seat?
That's beautiful - Well done and congratulations.

Hmmm .. the poli commentators reckon they'll go with Red.

Who would u mob pick?

My pick, unless there was a compelling reason otherwise, would be Blue. Becoz, this will provide greatest contrast and definition for the Green's Image. Whereas, they wld be at risk of being blurred out of the picture with Red.

And, they must come to terms with business and thrash out solutions for the environment and everything associated with the prime $ movers. If they can generate workable solutions AND they could, they will establish new found respect for their economic credentials.

This in turn will lead to a potential bigger portion of the vote later on. And of course, they can always cross the floor and mayb take some Blues for the forest with them.
(That's beautiful isn't it computer poppets?)

And, a GreenBlue stick will b better than a RedGreen stick when it comes to dealing with *Mr Wudd et al*

I look 4ward to seeing how it plays out either either way.

DreamOn

I would think there is no way the Greens will do a deal with the Libs. Their members would go crazy; and those who swung from Labor to the Greens (which explains the over 9% swing against Labor) wanted to send a message to the ALP, but not elect the Libs.

So I think the real debate is will the greens accept a ministry and go into coalition with the ALP, or will it guarantee supply to Labor but not join the Government, allowing the Greens to criticise and vote against the ALP, from the Left. I think the latter has support among some influential Greens in the ACT. Bob Brown I think favours going into coalition.

Update on ACT election. It looks like it will be 7 Labor, 7 libs and 3 greens. The swing against Labor was above 9 per cent, the swing against the Libs about 3%, the swing to the Greens over 6% and the swing to others about 6%.

The ALP vote is about 37%, the Libs 31% and the Greens over 15%.

The swing to the Greens was, I believe, mainly a protest against Labor and its school closures, dreadful management of the health system, white elephant Gunghalin Drive Extension (which after two years of being built immediately required a doubling of lanes) and a useless public transport system. I think environmental awareness was icing on the cake for the Greens.

So my take is that there was a swing to the left with the election of 3 greens to hold the balance of power. (The swing to others, who ended up with about 15 per cent of the vote was a swing all over the place, including to very very conservative elements.)

So the electorate moves left, but the ALP, because of the peculiarities of the ACT electoral system, has moved to the right. One of the left wing ALP members in my electorate has lost his seat to another ALP member from the right faction.

This means the balance - even between left and right with the Chief Minister in the middle - is now skewed towards the right. This means the right may well punt Andrew Barr from their faction into the leadership of the Party and Government at some stage in the future, at the expense of Katy Gallagher from the left and current deputy chief Minister.

The rumour is that Bob McMullan (a local Federal ALP member) will retire at the next Federal election (in 2010) and the present chief Minister, John Stanhope, will take his place, leaving the battle for Chief Minister between Barr from the right and Gallagher from the Left. The Greens should refuse to support Barr as Chief Minister.

The Greens are debating whether to go into coalition or not.

Passy,

Interesting rumour about Jon Stanhope taking Bob McMullan's spot in Federal Parliament. I've got to say this makes sense as Stanhope was the only thing keeping ACT Labor relevant while Bob hasn't really done much for his constituents.

The resulting problem for ACT Labor is that Katy Gallagher might be seen as being too soft as leader while Andrew Barr is seen as being too hard, especially after the school closures he was responsible for.

As for the Greens, getting into positions of power will make or break them.

I saw your letter to the Canberra Times this morning and couldn't disagree. John Hargreaves is flat-footed and hopelessly out of touch.

All this is fertile ground for the Liberals to regain power at the next election given that Zed Seselja is perfectly positioned to strike.

Thanks RobP.

An alternative scenario might be that Stanhope has had enough and quits politics in say two years time and Barr takes over.

Funnily enough, I think Barr's handling of school closures will win him kudos among the right of the party in being able to carry through tough Government decisions. Funny how the right doesn't question the rationality of such decisions or the loss of community involved.

I'm not sure about the Libs. Do you think they will be electable with Young gung-ho liberals fresh out of neo-liberal school with socially very conservative views?

I just don't know. Of course anything can happen over four years. Just look at NSW. Win an election. Then implode.

While I see the vote for the Greens as being a swing by voters to the Left, I still find it hard to call the greens a left-wing party. They do not have links to the trade union movement or more generally to workers.

Let's see what they do with the balance of power in a time of economic uncertainty, if not crisis.

A further update. It is possible the Greens could win a fourth seat at the expense of the Liberals.


If this came about this would mean ALP 7, Libs 6 and Greens 4.

In terms of overall percentage votes, it would also mean the ALP is over-represented by about half an MLA, the libs about right, and the greens over-represented by 1.

The losers are the 45 minor party and independent candidates (mostly conservatives) whose 15 per cent of the vote all up dissipated during preference distribution.

The winners? The greens. This next four years - with the balance of power - will be the making (or breaking) of them in the ACT.

The Greens did win the fourth seat, at the expense of the Liberals.

So the ACT Assembly will be 7 ALP, 6 Liberals and 4 Greens.

Bob Brown in The Sunday Canberra Times refused to rule out two ministries (there are five altogether at the moment) or a deal with the Liberals.

As I have said before I think the best position for the Greens is to guarantee supply and confidence to the ALP and not take any Ministry. This leaves them free to vote against the Government on issues they disagree with them about.

The ALP here is not keen on the Michael Moore option - a minister who can disagree with cabinet and vote against the proposal, ie not accept cabinet solidarity.

I assume the talk about a deal with the Libs is bluster to get a better deal out of the ALP. If the Greens are serious about the Liberals, then they will lose a lot of supporters who specifically voted Green to punish Labor but who could never bring themselves to vote Liberal.