Prime Minister Julia Gillard has agreed to a swag of demands from the Greens as part of a formal deal to join forces as Labor tries to secure a parliamentary majority.

Gillard and Brown "lock it in". Photo from @abcnews

Immediately I can see two benefits:

1. It firmly places Labor on the left-of-centre, and hopefully halts any further march towards the centre-right (a la the US Democrats). Most of the policy agreements and reforms are positive, and incidentally, many of them are ones that Labor tried to get through the Senate over the last two years but were blocked by the Libs + Fielding.
2. It creates accountability for the Greens political party – who have been looking to get more credibility as a mature political party for some time, and now will face real scrutiny, not only by the media and blogosphere, but also from their own supporters.

The deal is ultimately a pragmatic one by Bob Brown et al. The Greens Party extracted as many concessions as they could from Labor – which is perfectly acceptable for a political party to do – while not getting everything. The fact that some pro-Greens tweeters expressed dismay that there was no agreement over a carbon tax (for example, or same-sex marriage) demonstrates that the biggest challenge facing the Greens Party is to meet expectations.(It is one that Kevin Rudd faced, and failed to meet.)

Now they have a formal deal which involves responsibilities as well as rights, they will face the hurdles of delivering for their constituency while navigating the politics of the possible.

This isn’t really a new thing. Labor has been tackling this particular problem for over a century.

What do you think? Good move? Bad move?

Related posts:

1. Lessons from the (Modern) Prince, Part 4: Understanding the Greens in Tasmania
2. Election Diary, Day 3: the wisdom of Tim Dunlop
3. The first Green in the House of Reps?

That is all. Thank you.

Related posts:

1. Some semi-live blogging of SA and Tas elections
2. Some useful Google tools
3. Great news for Tony Abbott: Liberals’ economic credibility trashed

A pro Republican renewable website aimed at rejuvenating their grassroots.

As Republicans, we face a choice.

Either we can spend the next several months — or years — trying to figure out what just happened, excusing our defeat away as a temporary blip or the result of a poor environment, and waiting for Barack Obama to trip up. Or we can refuse to take this defeat lying down, and start building the future of our party now.

The Tea Party is Over

A grassroots reaction to the conservative Tea Party, tracking extremism and threats of violence.

Patriot Majority PAC is working actively in 2010 at the grassroots level to defeat Tea Party candidates across the United States. Patriot Majority is also putting together a tracking program of Tea Party activity nationwide to monitor outbreaks of actual violence, threats of violence or other types of extremism.

Ten Things You Can Do To Win A Political Campaign

An article in The Nation with some tips for progressive campaigners

The 2010 midterm election cycle is in full swing, with right-wing pundits predicting a Congressional turnover just as sweeping as the Gingrich revolution of 1994, while the left is mostly hoping a loss of seats won’t damage Obama’s presidency as badly as the GOP’s triumph did Bill Clinton’s. So what should grassroots activists and candidates do? Consultants have made campaigns seem like rocket science, but they aren’t. The basic formula is “50 percent + 1 = power,” but there are a lot of ways to reach that goal. Malia Lazu, Mel King Community Fellow at MIT, has come up with ten things progressives can do to build a campaign for candidates who deserve to win.

Next Labour: Winning the battle of ideas

David Milliband’s nomination speech for the British Labour Party’s leadership.

We need to begin with why we lost. The essential problem was simple. In a change election we were perceived to be defending the old order. Future is the most important word in politics; but we looked out of time.

Understand this, and we can rebuild. Be brutally honest about it: for too many people, we were not the people’s party that was created 100 years ago, but the politicians’ party. We were perceived by too many voters, our people, as out of touch.

Canadian Liberal Party: Victory Fund

The Canadian Liberal Party is one of two progressive parties in Canada.

Engagement starts here

Building trust and policy that Canadians care about takes time and money. The Victory Fund is the simplest and most affordable way to support the Liberal Party and helps us pursue our ambitious goals both nationally and locally.

Related posts:

1. How the Tories lost the unlosable election
2. Tomorrow, we fight on
3. Engaging the progressive grass-roots in the UK

I’ve also already voted – on Tuesday – joining over 12.5% of my fellow Australians who voted before Saturday. (I voted Labor, in case you were wondering, both in the House of Reps and the Senate, above the line.)

There are lots of reasons for this.

Labor’s climate change policy isn’t the best, but it is the only policy that will set us on the right track. The Greens Party’s carbon tax is a terrible idea, and the Liberal Party don’t even believe in climate change. I hope that once the new Senate comes in, we can accelerate introducing a price on carbon, but the sad reality is that until mid-2011 we won’t see any major movement here. (Although there will be, and should be more, investment in renewable energy technology and infrastructure.)

Labor’s industrial relations policy is superior, although there is unfinished business. The Fair Work Act – with a few exceptions, minor and major – is an excellent set of IR laws that improves workers’ rights and makes it easier for workers to get union representation. It’s committed to abolishing the ABCC and removing the coercive powers.

On education, Labor has met its commitments to higher education – indexing funding, and accepting most of the Bradley Reviews. It has come through with funding for the VCA. It abolished full-fee places. It’s increased funding for innovation, research and made it easier for low income students to get to uni. Compacts could be a concern, but that’s a local issue mainly. Labor has committed to legislating academic freedom. On early childhood, primary and secondary, it’s done the right thing with increasing funding, and – MySchool aside – it’s heading in the right direction with things like the national curriculum. Trade training centres in schools are a great idea, although I don’t support demand-driven TAFE funding.

Labor acted during the Global Financial Crisis to protect jobs and stimulate the economy. The Keynesian approach was the right approach, and we are now the envy of the world. Tens of thousands of Australians have jobs thanks to Labor’s policies. I bought a new watch with my $900. Labor has also started to roll out the National Broadband Network – the next generation of broadband technology that will take Australia into the 21st century.

On equal rights (I’ll post in a few weeks about same-sex marriage), Labor has removed discrimination from 82 pieces of Commonwealth law affecting same-sex couples, including superannuation, health, social security and more. In Victoria, Labor introduced the relationship register.

Labor apologised to the Stolen Generation and committed to the Close the Gap principles. I’ve written about the Intervention here.

On asylum seekers, Labor is committed to a regional solution, which I’m informed is supported by many refugee rights and advocacy groups. Labor abolished temporary protection visas and the Pacific Solution, as well as mandatory detention.

On social security, Labor will increase superannuation from 9% to 12%, and introduce (an admittedly limited) paid parental leave scheme. It’s also increased funding for mental health and public housing.

On health, Labor has increased funding for hospitals by 50% and that will mean 1000s of new nurses and doctors. I think the GP Super Clinics are a great idea and I hope more open.

In just 2 and a half years, Labor has made some enormous changes to undo the decade of damage caused by John Howard. We all wish Labor could have done more. The reforms of the last two years hopefully will continue to last for generations. Children today will benefit from the things happening now.

The other day, I spent a few hours calling people in a marginal seat. It was very rewarding and worthwhile and I think everyone who supports a political party (no matter what one) should make these calls. It is politics in the raw – you hear from people directly what issues they are concerned about. You hear good stories, you hear bad stories and you hear from people who are really doing it tough.

Without a doubt in my mind, Labor deserves to be returned to Government tomorrow. That’s why I have voted for Labor in Batman (the safest Labor seat in Australia) and that’s why I voted above the line for Labor in the Senate.

I’ve also put my money where my mouth is. I’ve bet $300 that Julia Gillard will win tomorrow. This is based on the polls, my gut feeling, the doorknocking I’ve done, the leafleting, and the phone calls.

Related posts:

1. Labor won’t go to a double dissolution election
2. Election Diary, Day 3: the wisdom of Tim Dunlop
3. A case for reforming the election of Labor leaders

I have pointed out in the past that there was that high year a few years ago and the warming, if you believe various measuring organisations, hasn’t increased … the point is not the science, the point is how should government respond, and we have a credible response.

Tony Abbott, 4 Corners

It seems that Tony Abbott has taken as his main scientific advisor on climate change the discredited denialist Ian Plimer – a geologist by training. Abbott has ignored the advice of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology – two leading climate research institutes – as well as the Australian Academy of Science’s report on the science of climate change (released yesterday, link is a pdf).

Even if you only read the summary of the AAS’s report, the findings are pretty clear:

The global average surface temperature has increased over the last century and many other associated changes have been observed. The available evidence implies that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause. It is expected that, if greenhouse gas emissions continue at business-as-usual rates, global temperatures will further increase significantly over the coming century and beyond.

We need to rapidly stop carbon pollution in Australia and show some leadership in transforming our economy into a 21st century, low carbon economy. If Tony Abbott became Prime Minister – a job he is woefully unqualified for – it would be a disaster for our environment and our economy.

Related posts:

1. The economics of climate change
2. Great News for Tony Abbott: Tony Abbott is not a tech head, doesn’t understand economics either
3. Great news for Tony Abbott: Liberals’ economic credibility trashed

For the last three weeks, Tony Abbott has refused to accept a debate with Julia Gillard on the economy (or any other issue). Labor has responded by running ads highlighting Tony Abbott’s economic record – a personal history of former bosses and Liberal Ministers expressing complete lack of confidence in Abbott’s financial nous.

Newspoll shows that the Liberal Party’s 12 point lead on “handling the economy” has been reduced to just 1 point.

The Opposition Leader responded to criticism of his economic credentials by declaring “under the Coalition, debt will always be lower and deficits smaller”.

It is voodoo economic statements like this that has contributed to Tony Abbott turning Liberal gold into Liberal mud. When ever he is asked about the size of deficits or interest rates, Abbott comes out with ludicrous statements that most Australians can clearly see is farcical.

The polling also shows that Labor is breaking through with its message that its stimulus package helped safeguard Australian jobs during the Global Financial Crisis.

Related posts:

1. Great News for Tony Abbott: Tony Abbott is not a tech head, doesn’t understand economics either
2. “Carefully scripted remarks” scandal is great news for Tony Abbott
3. Good news for Tony Abbott: Off the deep end on climate change

One of the comments on the article was by a purported swinging voter wrote about how they made up their mind:

As a swinging voter myself, I am neither influenced by handouts, nor swayed by smear campaigns. I have a whole list of issues which are important to me, some more than others. My decision will be made on balance of policy, long-term track record, and evidence of personal convictions and values which are as similar to my own as possible. This way, my elected representative is more likely to negotiate on issues as similarly to me in the same discussion as possible, guided by similar values.

From my experience, there is not just one kind of swinging voter, but several.

In my view, the notion of a rational, self-interested swinging voter who assesses the parties policies like two competing brands of toilet bowl cleaner claims about whiter bowls and 99% germ protection, simply don’t exist.

The commenter quoted above, from the sounds of things (and I have no way of knowing other than gut feeling) has likely made up their mind well before the poll – probably even before the election was called. The idea of being a “swinging voter” may just be a way to internally justify their decision of who they are supporting, and since they don’t have any strong ideological or political connection to the party they have come to support, they justify it on the grounds of “making a decision on balance of policy, long-term track record, etc”. These people may see being a swinging voter as a kind of political virtue.

Swinging voters to me appear to be people who from one election to another change which party they vote for. They do not feel strongly wedded to a political party, and they are fundamentally uninterested in politics.

The “real” swing voter – the one that the political parties are trying to capture – are very disengaged from the political process, and who have no connection to a party. There are many politically disengaged people who just automatically vote Labor or Liberal when it comes to election time. But there is a significant section of the voting public who don’t pay any attention whatsoever to politics and make up their mind some time in the last week of the election – possibly even the day before or the day of the poll itself. These swing voters are so disengaged that they often lack the most basic knowledge of the electoral process or information about the parties – for example, I’ve heard people (seriously) say, “Tony Abbott? He’s the Labor one, right?” It is often impossible to influence how these people vote – which is why I suppose so much attention is paid to the parties’ how to vote cards on election day.

Other “swing” voters are “protest voters” – who normally support one or another of the major parties but for whatever reason (generally one or two specific policy announcements) have decided to “send a message” by voting for a minor party. Historically, this is where a significant chunk of Greens Party votes have come from – both Labor and Liberals registering a protest vote on issues like refugees, climate change or gay marriage. However, these aren’t really swinging voters, because their second preference is typically “locked in”.

I was reading about some research recently about swing voters that suggested that there was also a group of swing voters who “vote against” the favourite. This is the “underdog effect” – where voters with no strong affiliation will vote against the candidate who is perceived to be the likely winner. There is also a subset of people who always vote against the incumbent government.

Finally, there are swinging voters who are self interested, but not in a rational way – that is, they don’t seek out all the facts and weigh them up before making their decision. They vote based on the limited information that seeps through into their daily lives, which often may be filled with disinformation. Similarly, they will often have one or two important policies that will affect their decision – such as interest rates, private school funding, boat people and immigration, or disability care (if they are a primary carer). Thus, in the last week of the election, as their minds turn to who they will vote for, they will take an impression of which party services their policy area “the best”.

Ultimately, I think the art of identifying a swinging voter is very much an art, rather than a science. There is loads of demographic information about what a swinging voter looks like. Where they live, what their income is, how many kids they have, etc. But since they are fundamentally disengaged, it’s difficult. It’s further compounded by the group of people who say they are undecided or swinging, but who really aren’t. Similarly, the number of swing voters is inflated in polls because people want to avoid “buyers remorse” – that is, regretting their vote in the last election

I know that I’m not bringing anything remarkable to the discussion about swinging voters – and someone who’s worked at the coalface of a campaign may point out that I’m completely wrong.

Related posts:

1. Election Diary, Day 3: the wisdom of Tim Dunlop
2. Britain’s first internet election?
3. Election Diary, Day 1

Tony Abbott repeatedly said “I don’t claim to be any kind of tech head in all of this”, basically admitting he didn’t have the faintest clue about his own policy. After all, no one expects him to have a technical knowledge of broad band policy, but he should be able to speak knowledgeably about it when interviewed on the teevee.

However, the problem with Tony Abbott is not that he “doesn’t claim to be any kind of tech head”. The problem is that he doesn’t have a basic understanding of economics.

There’s been a lot written about his lack of interest on economics – both John Hewson and Peter Costello have spoken about it – and all of his public statements (such as his budget reply calling on Australia to follow New Zealand’s lead – into recession) underscore that this is a man who would be a danger to Australia’s economy.

Tony isn’t helped by the fact that neither Joe Hockey or Andrew Robb are credible on the economy either.

Related posts:

1. Great news for Tony Abbott: Liberals’ economic credibility trashed
2. Joe Hockey doesn’t understand productivity: Great news for Tony Abbott
3. “Carefully scripted remarks” scandal is great news for Tony Abbott

A more likely scenario is that the blunt and sometimes nasty coverage in News Limited newspapers of the government in general, and Julia Gillard in particular, is the collateral result of dumbed-down editorial values rather than any vitriolic campaign motivated by political or proprietorial preference; of visceral editorial decisions made mainly by middle-aged male editors whose job is to stir up controversy, attack stereotypes, beat-up small incidents, enrage disaffected voters, impinge on priavte lives and incite readers in an age of uncertainty for newspapers and their future.

(No online link.)

My view is that this is wishful thinking.

News Limited has form, and you only need to look at the exceptionally hostile anti-Labour stories that were run in the UK in the lead up to the British election.

Ahead of the General Election, reports revealed that Murdoch’s Sun newspaper had done a deal with the Conservative Party. Why? It was good business sense, because the Tories were willing to allow Murdoch to further monopolise broadcasting and media in the UK by permitting the tycoon to fully take over BSkyB.

There’s no evidence that a similar deal or arrangement exists between the Murdoch press and the Liberal Party, but history suggests that Tony Abbott and the other scions of John Howard would not act to stop the further control of Australia’s media by the Murdoch and Packer empires if a chance arose.

(This all of course ignores the rampant mis-reporting and outright lies that has gone on in The Australian‘s coverage of the Building the Education Revolution – all of it blatantly anti-Labor.)

Related posts:

1. The Labor-Greens deal
2. Labor won’t go to a double dissolution election
3. Election Diary, Day 3: the wisdom of Tim Dunlop

The leaflet is available on the Election Leaflets website, but I’ve put the image below.

If you can’t read the list of dot points of so-called Greens Party achievements, I’ve typed them out.

• 10,000 local green jobs in the economic stimulus package
• Fuel efficiency incentives for luxury cars
• An extra $30 a week for pensioners
• Flexible working hours for carers
• Inclusion of the Exclusive Brethren businesses in the Fair Work laws
• $50 million for public health
• Protection of youth allowance payments for gap year students
• Continued Medicare funded dental treatments for patients with chronic illness
• Protection for thousands of win and solar jobs by fixing the renewable energy target

The Greens leaflet also claim that “we don’t oppose ideas for the sake of political point scoring”.

This piece of propaganda is particularly breath-taking.

The Greens Party is trying to take credit for Labor Party programs and policies, based (as far as I can see) solely because they voted for them in the Senate.

The leaflet also ignores the fact that the Greens Party senators voted against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme – the major piece of legislation that would have put a price on carbon emissions.

UPDATE

I suppose I should also point out that if the Greens Party is going to claim these things as their achievements on the basis that they voted for them in the Senate, then they should share “credit” with the other Senate parties that also voted for them.

Since the Greens Party doesn’t have a majority in the Senate, and doesn’t even have a majority if they vote with Labor, perhaps Bob Brown should note that either the Liberals or both independent senators (Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding) need to support legislation for it to pass.

So, are these “No Pokies Party” achievements too?

Related posts:

1. Alan Kohler shows he doesn't know about politics
2. Dear Richard
3. The Labor-Greens deal