The green fix is on in Victoria

THERE is method to the Liberals preferencing Labor at the state election.

UNLESS you are a member of the Liberal Party living in Melbourne, it is hard for most people elsewhere to understand the sense of frustration many Liberals feel about their party's preferences helping deliver the Greens their first House of Representatives MP at a general election.

Understanding that angst goes some way towards understanding the party hierarchy's decision to preference Labor ahead of the Greens at this month's state election, a decision which will almost certainly cost the Greens a bag of lower house victories.

But it could also be the difference between a weakened Labor government, fighting parties on the Left and the Right, losing power; or John Brumby narrowly being returned as premier. That is a risk the Victorian division of the Liberal Party is willing to take.

Since Adam Bandt was elected as the Greens' federal member for Melbourne, he has raised debate on issues such as the validity of the war in Afghanistan, gay marriage and he is now hopping into Joe Hockey's banking reform territory.

All the time he paints Liberals as the enemy, the very party he has to thank for the career he is now embarking on.

Liberal Party faithful could have forgiven the conservatives' role in delivering such representation to the Greens had doing so also denied Julia Gillard the one extra seat that helped her form government.

But because that didn't happen, and Tony Abbott fell tantalisingly short of claiming the prime ministership, when it came time to determine preference flows in the Victorian election, enough was enough.

The Greens were sent an unequivocal message: take the Liberal Party for granted at your electoral peril.

But it would be a mistake to assume the decision to preference Labor ahead of the Greens is a united one in the upper echelons of the party. John Howard supports it, Peter Costello doesn't. Abbott appeared to be on Costello's side when he addressed the Victorian campaign launch on the weekend, telling those assembled that it isn't the Liberal Party's job to save Labor from its left-wing base.

Much debate lies ahead before other Liberal divisions, including federally, take the same decision Victorian Liberals have.

Despite Liberal Party preferences all around the country flowing to the Greens ahead of Labor at the last federal election, few deals were struck where Greens put the Liberal Party ahead of Labor on their how to vote cards. In other words, the conservatives got nothing for helping the Greens to their best federal election result.

Take, for example, a seat such as La Trobe, again in Victoria. The defeated Liberal MP from the last election, Jason Wood, is a noted environmentalist.

He lost by the barest of margins, without any help from the Greens, who preferenced the Labor challenger ahead of him.

There are tactical and strategic reasons to preference or not preference the Greens, and the decision not to in Victoria will soon need to be followed up with a decision in NSW where an election is due next March (although in NSW preferences are optional).

Tactically, preferencing the Greens forces the Labor Party to send resources into their otherwise safe inner-city electorates.

At the Victorian poll that includes seats such as Melbourne, Richmond and Northcote. Federally it includes electorates such as Melbourne (already lost), Batman, Sydney and Grayndler.

In WA the Greens picked up the once safe state seat of Fremantle at a by-election when Jim McGinty retired after the Carpenter government lost power.

The more money Labor is required to throw at seats under threat from the Greens, the less is available to target marginal seats, which should make it easier for the conservatives to pick them up, and thus easier to form government.

But strategically the longer term interests of the Liberal Party may not be served by blindly preferencing the Greens and not getting anything for it. That at least is the argument being used in Victoria. By refusing to do so in Victoria, in future negotiations the Greens may have to give something of political significance back to the conservatives if they want to win a preference deal, such as reciprocal preferencing arrangements. But many Liberals just don't think that will ever happen: the ideological divide between the two parties is too great.

Even if a deal wasn't struck, and the Liberal Party's decision not to preference the minor party simply contributed to the waning of its influence in the Australian polity, that could be a useful thing for the conservatives, too.

It may mean Labor isn't under as much pressure on its left flank, but it would reduce the variety of voices attacking the Liberal and National Parties.

Then there are the purely ideological reasons why Liberals should refuse to preference the Greens. Conservatives like to highlight the radical agenda the Greens pursue: death taxes, decriminalising drugs and the latest being no fees for ATMs.

By refusing to be complicit in the election of Greens (refusing to preference them) Liberals can claim the high moral ground. That high ground could be politically useful in attacking the Labor Party for its closeness in dealing with the Greens. Such benefits, however, are less quantifiable than damage done to Labor when the Greens take seats off them.

Before other Liberals decide whether they will emulate the tactics in Victoria, they will wait to see what happens on polling day, not to mention how the Greens react to the roadblock put in front of their growing success as a movement.