The Senate voting system has always been the minor parties play ground where a long succession of wannabe third party hopefuls have played out their ambitions in controlling government. From time to time, a minor party gains enough senators through either luck or good policy to hold the Balance of Power. Widely misunderstood, the Balance of Power has less power than expected as it only has effect if the two major parties oppose each other. And given that around 90%+ of legislation is passed with bipartisan support that Power only applies to the remaining 10%. As the Greens discovered recently, bipartisan support for Asylum seeker policy rendered not only their votes, but their opinions irrelevant. It was a rather harsh wakeup call to the Greens who had enjoyed an unparalleled and in many people’s view, undeserved access to government policy and power. That has all changed now.

The ALP has belatedly recognised that their alignment with the Greens, which was supposed to be a marriage of convenience, has turned out instead to be the marriage from hell. Repeated calls by labor heavy-weights to dump the Greens has been met by resistance from Julia Gillard, but even she realises that the marriage is over in everything but name only.

Despite Labor’s recent electoral gains, they have started to shed votes yet again and in any case, never got even close to the Coalition. They seem now doomed to return to the sub-thirty percent level where they have spent so much of the last two years.

But the spectre of the Carbon Tax continues to haunt Labor. Its changes to the floor price recently was a good decision, even if it was not recognised as essentially a Coalition policy. It is perhaps noteworthy that the Asylum seeker success was also a carbon copy of the Coalition policy with a couple of extras added. But Labor and the Greens have continued to declare that they would not repeal the carbon tax after the next election which they already know they will lose and lose big. The half-senate election will not produce a senate majority for Tony Abbott like Howard had in 2004. It would take a massive senate backlash to produce such an outcome. However, Labor is playing with fire in stating that they will not accept a massive coalition mandate to repeal the carbon tax. They risk a voter rebellion even within its own ranks and the outside possibility of an Abbott senate majority. But it is still  unlikely. But what has happened to the Greens vote??
When Bob Brown retired from parliament unexpectedly, it was tipped that the Greens vote would drop significantly. Christine Milne does not have the Brown charisma or the Brown political nous. She is the classic crash-through or crash politician. Unfortunately, the result has been ‘crash’. With the latest Newspoll showing the Greens on just 8%, the likelihood of them retaining all of their senate seats at the next election has dropped dramatically. Enough so that the Greens may lose their singular balance of power and have to once again share it with independent senator(s). Suddenly the bravado of rejecting the carbon tax repeal seems a little hollow. But there is another small problem for the Greens that works very much to the Coalition’s advantage.

A double dissolution for the repeal of the Carbon Tax is no empty threat and Tony Abbott has stated very clearly that he intends to use this power if necessary. Unlike Kevin Rudd’s now infamous refusal to use the DD over the CPRS legislation, Abbott has no fear of a DD election. He would easily win it and then repeal the carbon tax at a joint sitting. But the biggest problem in a DD election is that suddenly, the quota for a senator is halved from 14% to just 7% of the primary vote. Under normal circumstances, the Greens would be expected to increase their senators from 9 to as many as 12 without actually increasing their base vote. Abbott could win the battle over the Carbon Tax but lose the war by creating a senate that is simply unworkable through the intransigence of the Greens. But that may have just changed.

The Greens are now polling at just 8%. And given past electoral history, that may be inflated from their ultimate electoral votes by as much as 2%. That puts them at 6% or UNDER a quota for a senator. Normally the Greens and Labor swap preferences, but that has changed somewhat. Various state branches have selectively refused to preference the Greens and the Liberals have already discovered that preferencing Labor ahead of the Greens works out a whole lot better. So what is the outcome if labor and liberals preference each other ahead of the Greens?

In a normal half-senate election, the Greens would lose most, if not all, of their senators up for re-election. This would probably end their exclusive Balance of power But in a Double Dissolution election  - which should be a golden opportunity - they could instead be neutered if their primary vote fails to exceed 7%. They will win to odd senator or two in places like Tas and VIC but that’s about it and their power will be close to zilch.

Suddenly, everything has changed. In the bunker that is the Coalition party room, they too will have enjoyed Labor losing two points but they will be thrilled at the Greens dropping so badly. The wildcard in a DD strategy is suddenly not so scary.

The Greens have 9 Senators they'll still keep the balance of power in the Senate even if Abbot wins.

TheGreenLight wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 4:04pm:


you keep up that delusion. on 8% and dropping you may be lucky to win even ONE of the senate postions up for grabs. 8% is the level that parties of no consequence get.

Excellent post gold_medal.

gold_medal wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:11pm:








Quote:

buzzanddidj wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:



When are you switching back to Labor Buzz ?

Shane B wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:


there occasional outlier results which are corrected next time around or by other polling groups so I would like to see confirmation of this result. But it certainly without a doubt shows a massive drop in Greens support. their asylum seeker policy has cost them big time in their absolute refusal to save lives unless they got 100% of their own way. They were very clearly shown to be arrogantly dangerous and very much out of their depth in issues of national importance. They look like amateurish clowns. Christine Milne is a terrible leader.

Quantum wrote on Sep 4^th, 2012 at 5:56pm:


Most other parties have managed to work with 3rd parties in the past. The Democrats were at times difficlt but could usually be compromised with and sometimes gave superior outcomes. But the Greens really dont do that at all. They want their way or they vote against it. Gillards biggest problem in this parliament has been the greens. She needs them to get anything thru that the Libs dont like and they normally want THEIR way instead of compromise. The asylum seeker legislation was the perfect example.

But you are right, I dont see either party easily going into any form of formal coalition with another party that doesnt share their core objectives and ideology. The nats and libs have their occasional spats but they work together.