Coalitions and the Coalition, part three

(If you haven’t already done so, first check out part one and part two.)

We’ve talked here before a number of times about the analogy between the Liberal relationship with the Nationals and Labor’s relationship with the Greens. Debates over the former go back more than a century, to the days of the UAP and the Country Party; the latter is a more recent issue but no less acrimonious.

Substitute One Nation for the Nationals and the comparison may be even more pertinent. These days Liberal-National relations are often reasonably harmonious, with only occasional outbreaks of conflict. Labor and the Greens have a much more difficult time of it, with at best low-level co-operation and at worst something that could be described as deep mutual loathing. But the choices that have confronted Labor are very similar to those now facing the Coalition as it deals with One Nation.

Often it has to do with preferences. The Greens generally preference Labor, but with occasional exceptions so as not to be taken for granted (although their voters usually favor Labor regardless of what the how-to-vote card says). Labor professes outrage whenever Greens preferences don’t go its way: it has an entitlement mentality about Greens support. But it doesn’t always reciprocate – on several occasions Labor preferences have been directed to minor right-wing parties ahead of the Greens, most notably with the election of Family First’s Steve Fielding to the Senate in 2004.

To the best of my knowledge Labor has never actually preferenced the Coalition ahead of the Greens, but it has often been urged to do so (by the Coalition itself, of course, but also by a range of pundits) and it appears to treat it as a live option. The Greens are sufficiently unpopular in many quarters that one can easily imagine some future Labor leader saying, in relation to a particular election or perhaps a particular candidate, that the Greens were just too extreme and should be kept out even at the price of possibly assisting the Coalition.

The Coalition, on the other hand, has moved in the opposite direction. After a period at the turn of the century in which it consistently preferenced Labor ahead of One Nation, it now not only expects One Nation preferences – its sense of entitlement is easily the equal of Labor’s – but also directs preferences its way in return, even in the absence of anything that could be called a deal.

As we saw in the Farrer by-election, that’s not just a matter of preferring One Nation to Labor. The far right also gets the nod ahead of centrist independents: a contrast to Labor’s normal practice, in which Teals and other centrists generally get preferences ahead of the Greens. And while Labor’s tactics may not be the product of deep thought (petty feuds and tabloid pressures often seem to be more important), it at least seems to give the issue some genuine consideration, of the sort that has recently been lacking in the Coalition.

Labor is not, however, usually asked to rule out (or in) forming a coalition with the Greens, most probably because Greens strength is largely confined to upper houses. In an election where the Greens are polling at no more than 12 or 14%, it’s clear that they won’t emerge with more than a handful of lower house seats. That means that, firstly, the chance of them holding the balance of power is slim, and secondly that in the event they were needed as coalition partners for Labor it would be a very unequal affair.

The exception is Tasmania, where proportional representation in the lower house means that the Greens elect a delegation commensurate with their vote. There, Labor is constantly faced with demands that it swear in blood that it will not enter a coalition with the Greens; it regularly makes the promise and then tries to evade it. The media’s obsession with the issue can be foolish, but Labor has mostly itself to blame for having helped demonise the Greens in the first place.

In places like Victoria the Coalition now has to confront the same question. With One Nation polling in the mid-20s or higher, coalition with it will not be a matter of taking on a very junior partner: if it’s to happen at all, it will be a serious partnership in governing, and the Coalition cannot expect to avoid saying anything about how it would approach that prospect.

And as I said the other day, it gets worse. Labor has never had to worry about whether it would be willing to serve in a Greens-led government, but on present trends there are going to be places where a One Nation-led government is a serious possibility. Would the Coalition consider joining it, or would it prefer to deal in some way with Labor? The current disarray on the subject is only a taste of what could be coming.

Despite its efforts to make life difficult for itself, Labor generally has an easier time. Unlike One Nation, the Greens are capable of producing pragmatic leaders who understand the give-and-take of negotiations. While they are to some extent an anti-system party, they have policies and goals that can in principle by compromised over – they are not just “the irrational made vocal”. Lending a voice to One Nation will be a much scarier project.

(There probably won’t be a part four, or at least not for a while. In the meantime the Victorian Labor Party has got itself into all sorts of trouble over the leadership, so we’ll have a look at that tomorrow or Wednesday.)