February 25, 2012

Bob the opportunist

I've no doubt Gillard believes Bob Brown owes her something.  She'd be wrong.  (As always.)  The bodies aren't even buried and Bob seizes the moment:

If people don't want a Liberal government they should vote Green rather than the mess that is Labor - that's the blunt message from Australian Greens leader Bob Brown. 

"It's Greens if you are concerned about Abbott, because Labor has temporarily left the field of responsible government," he said.

"It's up to them as to how well they get back onto that field after Monday.

"The Greens intend to continue to be a force for stability."

Senator Brown positioned his party as a credible alternative to the coalition, saying the main point of difference was that the Greens had found savings to cover the cost of everything they wanted to do.
If you don’t want any of them, vote for us – Bob Brown


  1. geoffff8:58 PM

    This is the great risk. Labor voters who have defected but can't bring themselves to vote for Abbott (who can blame them?) will fall into the trap of voting for the Greens.

    A strengthened Greens party is too horrible to contemplate. It will split the country European style.

    There is only one way to meet this national threat. Both Labor and the Liberals must direct preference to each other ahead of the Greens. I think the Liberals will do that anyway. For sure there is work being done on the ALP from within to do the same thing. Surely they must see the Greens are a worse threat to the country, and their party, than the Liberal Party?

  2. A near and present danger, to us all.

    Yes, after the Vic state election, the rest of the Liberal parties around the country finally figured out that they gained nothing by doing deals with the Greens (Ted won, having refused to preference them).

    You think the ALP is that smart?

    Gillard sold the Labor heart and soul to the Greens, for no reason - it wasn't needed - to form the minority gov't. She and the party boast that this was demonstration of the wonders of Julia, her enviable negotiating skills.

    No Geoff, the ALP aren't nearly smart enough.

  3. I must admit I've been masochistically rubbing my hands at the prospect - it would split the ALP's vote quite nicely while doing very little to the coalition vote.

  4. Greens and Greens supporters seem to be rather hyperbolic when talking about their favourite party. I remember during the last federal election one excitable Greens supporter talking about the hung parliament result, saying neither of the major parties won, it was a win for the Greens.

    The Greens had high hopes for the NSW election, too, didn't they? Result: one Greens lower house MP, in a previous safe Labor seat. Hardly the stunning result they were looking for.

  5. You're not wrong with the rubbing of hands, Tim.

    The old adage about lying down with dogs, and something about flees, comes to mind.

    As do snowflakes and images of hell.

    The ALP vote will be sliced and diced from every angle.

    And yes, funnily enough, it won't result in the Greens gaining lower house seats. That's Brown's conceit: that he will become the opposition, or the ruling party.

    The Greens only survive in the Senate, and much like the Democrats*, have only been successful because of the original leader. Once Brown dies (I'm assuming he won't retire), the Green vote will collapse. That's the problem with basing something on the presence of a charismatic leader (or cult figure, which for Brown is more apt description).

    *Although the Dems did do real good, actually wrote policies, put in the hard yards and were a genuine political party, not a cause. On the other hand they gave us the affair between Evans and Kernot.