News Ltd: people who voted for other parties now keen on the Greens

Good news for the Greens from their big supporters at News Ltd:

Some 62 per cent of voters said the Greens, who helped design the carbon pricing package, had too much influence in Parliament and just 30 per cent thought they were “working effectively” with Labor in the “best interests of the community”.

Given that the Greens’ vote at the last election was about 13%, that means that there’s a whole lot of people who voted for other parties who are apparently now pretty keen on them. 38% of the electorate – 25% more than voted Greens last time – think they should have either the same or more influence in Parliament. And 17% more than actually voted for them think they’re working effectively and in the best interests of the community.

Good signs for the Greens’ vote, you’d have to say.

And yet the same paper keeps telling me they’re about to be destroyed…

ELSEWHERE: The right-wing media, fresh from demanding that Australia do nothing until we produce more carbon emissions than a nation with 59 times more people, have applied their rigorous “what difference can we make” logic to other issues. The Herald Sun demands that shopppers no longer have to pay for goods from Coles, since individually none of us make a significant difference to their profits. And The Australian has called on Australians to stop paying tax, since individually each of our contributions are such a tiny proportion of overall government revenue. And Andrew Bolt has called on his readers to stop clicking on his web site, since each individual hit makes him hardly any money at all.

UPDATE: And the Liberal Party are promising to go back to preferencing Labor directly again, to make sure that the 1.5 million Australians who vote Green have precisely no representation in the ironically-named House of Representatives.


7 responses to “News Ltd: people who voted for other parties now keen on the Greens

  1. There should be no elections either as individual votes don’t make any difference. Come to think of it, collectively we are so selfish, narrow minded and short term thinking, even as a group we don’t make a difference.
    I weep for the sheep of this country.

  2. narcoticmusing

    Aww cheer up notasheeple; the narrower people think, the more wild even reasonable claims sound. This way you always get to be the rebel. You want to be cool, right?

  3. Jeremy, you always say positive things about the Greens. Do you have anything substantially negative to say about them?

  4. I do occasionally criticise them. They’re a bit too much preoccupied with the environment for my liking. But I’m pleased that I don’t have anything substantially negative to say about them, because if I did, if there were a real problem with them that bothered me significantly, then I suppose I’d have to start looking for another party to represent me.

  5. Me too – the Greens are yet to disappoint. Yet. Now that they are part of the governing coalition, there is a danger of a sell out to power, which I’ll be keeping an eye on. If they start down the same road as the Democrats and compromise their core values, then it’s Hasta la Vista Baby!

    I’d disagree that the Greens are preoccupied with the environment though. It’s a big part of it, but they cover other progressive causes too – marriage equality, anti-war, social services, privacy, etc. They were the only ones opposing the recent ASIO bill that was rammed through by the major parties, for example.

    The lack of oxygen given by the media is the main problem with the Greens communicating its broad policy base. It suits the powerful to tar the Greens as tree-hugging hippies, because there is a sizable voting bloc of old farts who still blame the hippies for not being invited to the good parties in the 60’s. It’s simplistic and stupid. But that’s the media for you.

  6. And in somewhat related news…

    …News Ltd has discovered the uncrossable line. When you make readers taste a little bit of sick in their mouths (hello Ms Brooks), you may have gone a bit far.

    I do occasionally criticise them. They’re a bit too much preoccupied with the environment for my liking

    Thats why I threw my lot in with Patten – but I vote green if she doesn’t run a candidate.

  7. “Thats why I threw my lot in with Patten – but I vote green if she doesn’t run a candidate.”

    I can’t vote for the ASP because I don’t know if they’re conservative or progressive on economic policy. Are they pro or against more funding for public schools and public health? Or do they prefer tax cuts?

    They’ve avoided making a call so they get votes from lefties and libertarians. But I’d rather know how my representatives will vote on those issues.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s