Thursday, 26 March 2015

Guardian video Greens v Labor in Newtown

I just want to pick up on a point that Penny Sharpe makes at around the 1m24s mark.

Penny Sharpe "There is an issue around the Greens wanting to contest against progressive Labor candidates and that's what they choose to do."

This is a point that I've heard Labor make on several occasions, also in relation to Tanya Plibersek here in Sydney.

If Labor wanted to protect their progressive candidates they would:
a) adopt more progressive policies, then progressive voters would be more willing to vote for them.
b) allow their more progressive candidates to vote against Labor's more conservative motions in parliament and allow more debate and see that as a strength rather than a weakness.
c) put those most progressive candidates in slightly less progressive electorates and use their considerable resources to shift voters to the left in those areas. Put Penny in, say, Strathfield. and let the Greens have a clearer run in Newtown. Then the Greens would support Labor in parliament anyway in any progressive motions they wanted to pass. The end result would be that the progressive motion would pass, and that should be the only thing that matters, not the name of the party that voted for it.

No comments:

Post a Comment