James Campbell: Scott Morrison issues election warning about Greens
The Labor Party is desperate not to relive the horror of being in government and dependent upon the Greens, writes James Campbell.
Opinion
Don't miss out on the headlines from Opinion. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Coalition voters who are worried about the plight of the Morrison government and wondering what they can do to help it survive could do worse than send a donation to the Greens.
Over the past few weeks, as the polls have made it clear there is a decent chance next year’s election will deliver a hung parliament, Scott Morrison has been talking more frequently about the prospect of the next government being a coalition between the ALP and the Greens.
He was at it again on Friday during his visit to the Snowy hydro project, warning excitedly that Labor’s newly unveiled target of a cut of 43 per cent in the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 was merely an opening gambit “before they have even had the Greens put pressure on”.
“Under a Labor government supported by the Greens, do you think the Greens are just going to be safely happy with that?” the Prime Minister asked.
The Greens 2030 target is 75 per cent, Morrison thundered, so if Labor “have to get into that option with the Greens to form government, it won’t be 43. That will be the opening bid and it’s going to end a lot higher than that. And there’s nothing safe about a Labor-Greens government.”
Later that day, Greens leader Adam Bandt sent an email to his supporters – for some reason he seems to count me among that number – complaining Labor had “given in to the coal and gas corporations and given up on climate” and saying “We need to put the Greens in the balance of power next election to secure the climate action we need.”
There are many reasons for Coalition voters to dislike the Greens but you have to give them credit where it’s due: when it comes to the danger of a Labor-Green coalition, nobody runs Scott Morrison’s lines for him better than Adam Bandt.
The Greens must know what they’re doing here.
They’re not stupid. They know Bob Brown’s anti-Adani caravan helped to re-elect the government.
But like the trolls, they just can’t help themselves.
For Labor, the prospect of being in government and dependent upon the Greens is a horror show they are desperate not to have to relive.
Memories of the photo of the deal being signed by Brown and Julia Gillard with wattles in their lapels, looking for all the world like a middle-aged couple embarking on their second go at matrimony, still cause Labor folk to shudder.
Which is why Anthony Albanese – who was around back then, of course – has been at pains to stress that he won’t be forming a coalition with anyone.
His problem, however, is the chances are that unless the voters break decisively towards Labor next year, he won’t have a choice.
And it won’t just be a Labor-Greens government but a minority Labor government that is also dependent on the votes of a series of independents.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about the prospects of the “Voices for” movements, which are seeking to replicate the success of Zali Steggall in Tony Abbott’s old seat of Warringah and Helen Haines in the Victorian regional seat of Indi.
Some people have assumed that, because this movement is targeting Coalition seats, the MPs they elect will be more likely to support a minority Coalition, rather than a Labor government.
Fat chance.
If these independents were being run by right-wingers pissed off at the leftward drift of the Coalition, then you could pencil them in as surely as you can pencil in Greens support for Albo as PM.
But they’re not. The “Voices for” movement is obviously an astro-turfed attempt to get left-wingers elected in places where the Labor brand is toxic.
You only have to look at the seats that are being targeted to realise that.
There’s no “Voices for’ Grayndler or Sydney targeting Anthony Albanese and Tanya Plibersek, only seats held by the Liberal and National parties.
If anyone in the rich Melbourne seat of Goldstein thinks that if they vote for the former ABC journalist Zoe Daniel, who is running against Tim Wilson, there is any chance she is going to keep Scott Morrison in the Lodge – well, they deserve what they get.
In politics, as the old saying goes, ya dance with the one what brung ya, and since all of these people will be getting elected on the back of Greens and Labor preferences, that’s where their vote is likely to go.
We’ve seen this movie before – a couple of times, actually.
In Victoria in 1999, the Labor Party succeeded in helping to elect three independents in traditionally Coalition seats.
Surprise, surprise, they voted to make Steve Bracks premier.
In 2010 we saw the same thing play out in Canberra when Rob Oakeshott, who had been elected on Labor preferences, and Tony Windsor – who had first been elected in 2001 on the same basis – kept Gillard in office.
It’s more than a decade since that election but I suspect the Coalition hasn’t forgotten how potent the threat of a minority government will prove with some voters.
Especially one that is dependent on the support of Adam Bandt.
Being rich today is about much more than money
If your total household wealth is close to $600,000, you are richer than around 50 per cent of the population. See how you measure up.
Trump running out the clock while Harris swings for the fences
The polls say the race between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris is tied, and Tom Minear argues the way they are campaigning shows they have different views about what that means.