Aussie Politics - state of play

I really didn't want to make a comment on the election result until things were finalised, but seeing as the end looks like it's still a week away I can't really wait any longer.

Firstly, I gotta say, Aussie media is strongly biased, with News Ltd supporting the Coalition and SMH and the Age backing Labor. Personally I read the right-wing Oz because I like to see what outrageous things are being said about the Left. But you only need to switch to the other website to go from one party about to form government, to the other one having the advantage. No wonder the public are confused.

Secondly, I don't understand the desire that Aussies feel about having to form a government asap. I'd prefer an agreement between the parties that work, and which will hold for a good two to three years rather than something that'll just crash and burn within the year. And look, in New Zealand negotiations often take two weeks or more, and in the Netherlands it's been more than two months and there's still no agreement on who forms government. Patience, Australia, good things take time.

Now on to the Greens. I'm a rusted-on Greens voter, I can't envision voting for anyone else in the forseeable future. And it is because of this that I'm worried for the party as we look ahead to the next election.

With sole balance of power in the senate, it becomes very easy for one of the major parties to blackmail the Greens into voting for bad legislation, or alternatively if they don't cooperate, they can just as easily blame the Greens for inaction. Additionally, with most of the Greens coming from a Labor base, it will only take a small shift to the left by Labor and the Greens vote are at risk of collapsing.

I strongly believe that to maintain a strong status as the third party in the Australian political landscape, the Greens need to appeal to a broader range of voters. The real winning quality of the party is their social and environmental policies, and the pragmatic stance to take would therefore be to appeal to both social liberals and classical liberals.

Yet, the success of the NSW Greens in getting a senator up is that they are very heavily socialist in economic policy. Whilst Bob Brown can win votes from both social and classical liberals, the presence of Lee Rhiannon in the senate has the potential to turn off a lot of classical liberal voters. It's really a double-edged sword. As it is, the Greens already struggle in NSW, and I'm not sure that having a so-called "red-green" in the federal senate is really a good idea.

Don't get me wrong, I'd belong to what is commonly referred to as the red-green faction, that is, I believe in the ideal of anarcho-communism. Yet from a practical vote-winning point of view, I just don't see socialist economic policy appealing to the masses in this day and age. Malcolm Turnbull offhandedly attacked the Greens last month on Q&A with "there is none more pure than the impotent", yet it rings truer than it would first seem. Call it what you will, horse-trading or otherwise, but the Greens can't remain a mainstay in Australian politics if they are not willing to compromise on certain legislation.

We aren't likely to see anarchism nor communism in this country any time soon, and most certainly not a combination of both. In the meantime, I just hope that the Greens will be willing to make some sacrifices to appeal to the Liberal base. There are environmental and social votes to be gained, if only the party would take a break from offering such divisive economic policies...