@peteepie wrote:
Like any of the parties the Greens have to put up with a radical rump that damages their credibility. But in Richard Di Natale they have probably the most capable leader in their history. Popularity waxes and wains with the political climate, but for all their past relevance, I doubt the Nationals will approach the Green vote in the forseeable future.
Probably the best gauge of popularity across the board is the senate, where the Greens outnumber the Nationals 9 to 5. The Nationals only have relevance because of the big rural seats they hold in the lower house, which is fair enough and I support the way this gives country people a voice. I have no problem with the Nats, but their success is reliant upon them being a junior partner in coalition with the Libs.
Calling 2010 the Greens' pinnacle is an early call in my opinion, perhaps akin to science denialists calling 1998 the apex of global warming.
Maybe........ The problem for the Greens is they have moved away from broad policy positions which have relevance to " ordinary Australians" ( don't you love that phrase ) and backed themselves into a tiny corner of the political debate, namely an "open door policy on refugees" and "Gay rights." That's all we hear about from the Greens.
Australians have roundly rejected an open door policy for refugees through their votes for Liberal, Labor and independants who support a controlled immigration or closed door policy. Gay rights is really only a burning issue for maybe 5% of the population. Of the other 95% of the population a significant number don't want to see changes and the rest of us ( me included ) don't really give a stuff, one way or the other. Its not affecting me what gays decide to do with their lives and I have a bit of sympathy for both those who have religious reasons for rejecting gay marriage and also for gays who want the same " rights " as non gays. Basically its not going to affect me either way.
By specialising in these two very small areas of policy and voter real estate, the Greens have become irrelevant to the mainstream political discussion. There is only a limited number of voters who are passionate about Gay rights and Asylum seekers. The rest are more interested in affordable house prices, utility costs and the future employment opportunities for their kids. The Greens have not been successful in gaining any traction in these sorts of policy discussions. Probably because they are seen as a party that runs on emotion and impractical theories, rather than genuine common sense, practical solutions. I realise they occasionally come up with some good policy in these areas ( such as winding back over generous capital gains concessions ), but sorry, the truth is no-one is listening.
It gets back to my previous post. Sure the greens have around 10% of the vote compared to around 5% for the Nats, but they have been ineffectual in actually doing anything with it. I believe that's because their support base is primarily uni educated, public servant type, talkers, rather than the life educated, practical country people who support the Nats. With a support base of doers rather than talkers, the Nats have been much more efficient and successful in converting their smaller support base into real tangible policy outcomes.
3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
