Friday, June 16, 2006

Why don't the Greens and the Democrats join forces?

I was a write in member of the Dems for a few years before joining the ALP after the October election of 2004.

I liked the Dems policies and back when I joined them I considered their 'watchers' role to be important.

I moved the Labor because I realised I despised the coalition government and now was the time to pick sides.

The Greens and the Dems appeal to the same educated left of centre base. Least that's my reading of it. And in the 2004 election the Dems unfortunately preferenced against the Greens in most senate tickets - since they were largely appealing to the same small segment of the populace.

The Greens are on the ascendant. And I wish them the best of luck. So maybe the Dems, whose policies are pretty much in line with the Greens, should consider a merger. Become the Australian Democratic Greens party or something. Present a united educated leftist front instead of having to battle each other and strip votes away and allow dickwads like Fielding to get up.

Of course I an an ALP man now. But if someone had to have balance of power in the Senate I'd rather it be Greens and Dems that the Coalition any day of the week. And a merger just might help that happen if the ALP are unable to get control of the Senate (which I doubt).

8 comments:

  1. Here's some policies:

    "We believe: in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples"

    "in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association"

    "in a just and humane society"

    "in equal opportunity for all Australians"

    "in preserving Australia's natural beauty and the environment for future generations."

    Sound words indeed - they're from the Liberal party though. (Hilarious.)

    Some talk the talk...

    But yeah, sad to see Demmies wilt away - but lost faith is lost faith. I can't imagine Greens would accept any change in position by soaking up Democrats, but I doubt there'd be any. And you are right, it is folly to play preference fisticuffs with policy twins.

    If I were to vote for a major party in the upcoming state election - it'd be Liberals, in federal: Labor. (After all pros and cons).

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No ... they can't be. Going to check it...yep, it's true.

    Hey, can we get them for false advertising?

    I take it you'd preference one before the other as outlined?

    I once voted for Kate Carnell. But then her government killed children with flying hospitals and drunk drove into a ditch then fled the scene.

    But hey we all got failings. I masturbate on occasion. Sometimes to music.

    'Tor-e-ador, Torreeeyyaaadddooorrr ...'

    ...and so forth

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm a big fan of the dems, but I can't see them joining with the greens any time soon - at least not on the basis of respective polilicies at the last election.

    The Greens and Dems had some overlapping policy, to be sure, but not as much as you would think - basically coming down to the fact that the dems had policies, and the greens didn't.

    I mean, obviously, the greens had some policies, but they were not particularly well thought out; completely impracticable on the whole and anathema to the _vast_ majority of the Australian public.

    In turn, I think this highlights why they will never join forces: though they're shooting for the same demographic, they have very different aims. The Dems are there to make an accountable, yet functioning senate. Their policies are - in my opinion - on the whole well thought out, but they always reflect a sense of realpolitik.

    The Greens, on the other hand, have trouble accepting or respecting that - rightly or wrongly. They are not in the senate to work with whomever is in power so much as draw a line in the sand.

    I can understand the need for both - the pragmatic and the dogmatic, but in this respect I think the two parties are irreconciable and any union would result in a fragile coalition contstantly verging on fracture and easy to open to ridicule (And let's face it, neither party, particularly the dems, need any more of that...)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Eh. The Dems are spent. Sad but true. They were my party of choice, back when, but after their near-suicide (kinda like shooting yourself in the brain but not actually dying), all they've been able to do is slow the Greens down. (Not very effectively of late).

    And frankly I don't think masturbation is grounds to stop voting for someone. It's about the policy and the management, right? So that little admission won't change whether I vote for you, HM :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting points Patrick.

    Of course, it doesn't help when the conservative press attack the Greens in every election as whacky thin skinned communists. It's hard to cut through the hate to get to the substance of what they actually propose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. True Mikey, for example the whole ecstasy pill thing last election.

    The problem is, the greens have policies that really are ridiculuous. They're trade policy was basically arguing that we return to the incredibly high tariff rates and protective barriers we had up in the sixties (no joke).

    Aside from the fact this would be in opposition to about a hundred things we've signed since then, it completely ignores the economic realities of today, and the fact we've floated our dollar. It would plunge us into a recession almost overnight.

    Crazy bastards, stuff like that is pointless, but complicated policies are never popular I guess (cf. Beazley scrapping AWAs cause reinstatement of the no disadvantage test is too complicated to explain.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think the main problem with interpretating Greens policy is that it is all going to be introduced overnight and we're all going to die.

    ReplyDelete