What do you think?
Rate this book
The Australian Greens: From Activism to Australia's Third Party
The Australian Greens played a pivotal role after the 2010 federal election. It ensured the Gillard minority government went full term and won its first House of Representatives seat.
But what do we really know about the Greens in Australia? Is the party really just an extension of the environment movement or a professional party, capable of influencing the major parties? This book examines the people who make the party tick. Uncovers the members and activists of the party.
The Australian Greens: From Activism to Australia’s Third Party asks whether the Greens has made the transition from a home for tree-huggers and alternative lifestylers to a party ready to work in Government.
But what do we really know about the Greens in Australia? Is the party really just an extension of the environment movement or a professional party, capable of influencing the major parties? This book examines the people who make the party tick. Uncovers the members and activists of the party.
The Australian Greens: From Activism to Australia’s Third Party asks whether the Greens has made the transition from a home for tree-huggers and alternative lifestylers to a party ready to work in Government.
- GenresPolitics
339 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 1, 2016
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 17, 2016
5★
More than you ever thought you’d find in one place about the Australian Greens. They’ve moved a long way from a loose assemblage of often caricatured tree-hugging loopy lefties to a savvy, sophisticated, (often) pragmatic political and social force.
There are still the urban latte-drinkers and Chardonnay sippers (probably sav blanc, these days), but there are a lot of practical politically experienced people at work now. And they find themselves on the same page with National Party farmers in the Coal Seam Gas debates.
I remember Meg Lees, when she was the leader of the Australian Democrats (Don Chipp’s keep-the-bastards-honest party), saying something along the lines of (not verbatim) “The trouble with the Greens is that they see compromise as a dirty word instead of as incremental change.”
You get the idea. But times have changed, and today’s Greens know how to negotiate.
The author has had a long personal history working with the Greens for 20 years, but this is no memoir. This is a heavily researched, heavily footnoted academic study, with the last 25% devoted to the bibliography, (in case there’s anything else you’d like to look up yourself). Frankly, I think he’s got it pretty well covered. Jackson is now at Sydney University in the Department of Government and International Relations.
He says he joined the Greens in 1990 after returning to Australia from the UK where he was appalled at how many people were sleeping rough in a wealthy city like London. When he came home to Western Australia, he met the Greens (WA), a new party, and still a bit different from other state parties.
“It struck me that the party could be a vehicle for good left-wing politics, encompassing both the environment and social justice, conducted in a peaceful and respectful way. That appealed to me.”
This introduces a point to remember. Different states started different “movements” with different rules and different cultures. It has taken a lot of work to amalgamate the groups to form a cohesive national party, and Jackson was there to see most of it first-hand. And the members and staff are not nearly as far-left as many people think. Many are quite centrist in their political views.
He discusses at length, including tables and charts, the different sorts of people who join (members) or work (staff) for the Greens, what they are looking for, what they’re willing to contribute, and what they hope to get out of it. Some join to fight the good fight on the ground and in the media (environment, social justice, refugees), and some join looking to get into politics and be an active part of making legislative change. That is also on-the-ground work, just a different, government ground.
There is still some original culture in place, I believe. I think I understand that most of the Greens prefer to make decisions by consensus, rather than playing the numbers (as in the latest Liberal Party leadership spill). Originally, the Greens didn’t want to elect or appoint a leader, but obviously they need an official spokesperson for the media. But the leader doesn’t rule the roost as the Labor and Liberal leaders do, again if I understand correctly.
The surveys show some interesting differences in the priorities of different age groups, different genders, and different self-identified left- or right-wing preferences. Some people are all about climate change, some about asylum-seekers, some about environmental protection, and some just want another option.
I’ve contributed to many surveys, so I know they really do ask all these questions. Nice to see someone has collated the information for the Greens.
Greens like to say they are neither right nor left but out in front, however their biggest problem remains “the difficulty of balancing policy (and movement) purity with electoral pragmatism.” If you don’t broaden your appeal to enough people, you won’t get votes, you won’t get elected, and you will have little political clout in affecting legislation. It's all very well to be pure, but if nobody is paying attention, then what?
As for the future, Jackson says:
“The Australian Greens are a green party with its base in social movements and with a middle-class core that expresses post-material values. Post-material values have been defined as a set of issues prioritising the ‘sense of community’ or ‘non—material quality of life’, ‘belonging’ or ‘self-expression’, as opposed to values that emphasise physical sustenance, safety and economic gains.”
No party can be all things to all people, or even to all members, but the Greens are certainly having a jolly good crack at it.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in finding out how politics actually works. . . from the ground (root and branch) up.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publishers for an advanced review copy.
More than you ever thought you’d find in one place about the Australian Greens. They’ve moved a long way from a loose assemblage of often caricatured tree-hugging loopy lefties to a savvy, sophisticated, (often) pragmatic political and social force.
There are still the urban latte-drinkers and Chardonnay sippers (probably sav blanc, these days), but there are a lot of practical politically experienced people at work now. And they find themselves on the same page with National Party farmers in the Coal Seam Gas debates.
I remember Meg Lees, when she was the leader of the Australian Democrats (Don Chipp’s keep-the-bastards-honest party), saying something along the lines of (not verbatim) “The trouble with the Greens is that they see compromise as a dirty word instead of as incremental change.”
You get the idea. But times have changed, and today’s Greens know how to negotiate.
The author has had a long personal history working with the Greens for 20 years, but this is no memoir. This is a heavily researched, heavily footnoted academic study, with the last 25% devoted to the bibliography, (in case there’s anything else you’d like to look up yourself). Frankly, I think he’s got it pretty well covered. Jackson is now at Sydney University in the Department of Government and International Relations.
He says he joined the Greens in 1990 after returning to Australia from the UK where he was appalled at how many people were sleeping rough in a wealthy city like London. When he came home to Western Australia, he met the Greens (WA), a new party, and still a bit different from other state parties.
“It struck me that the party could be a vehicle for good left-wing politics, encompassing both the environment and social justice, conducted in a peaceful and respectful way. That appealed to me.”
This introduces a point to remember. Different states started different “movements” with different rules and different cultures. It has taken a lot of work to amalgamate the groups to form a cohesive national party, and Jackson was there to see most of it first-hand. And the members and staff are not nearly as far-left as many people think. Many are quite centrist in their political views.
He discusses at length, including tables and charts, the different sorts of people who join (members) or work (staff) for the Greens, what they are looking for, what they’re willing to contribute, and what they hope to get out of it. Some join to fight the good fight on the ground and in the media (environment, social justice, refugees), and some join looking to get into politics and be an active part of making legislative change. That is also on-the-ground work, just a different, government ground.
There is still some original culture in place, I believe. I think I understand that most of the Greens prefer to make decisions by consensus, rather than playing the numbers (as in the latest Liberal Party leadership spill). Originally, the Greens didn’t want to elect or appoint a leader, but obviously they need an official spokesperson for the media. But the leader doesn’t rule the roost as the Labor and Liberal leaders do, again if I understand correctly.
The surveys show some interesting differences in the priorities of different age groups, different genders, and different self-identified left- or right-wing preferences. Some people are all about climate change, some about asylum-seekers, some about environmental protection, and some just want another option.
I’ve contributed to many surveys, so I know they really do ask all these questions. Nice to see someone has collated the information for the Greens.
Greens like to say they are neither right nor left but out in front, however their biggest problem remains “the difficulty of balancing policy (and movement) purity with electoral pragmatism.” If you don’t broaden your appeal to enough people, you won’t get votes, you won’t get elected, and you will have little political clout in affecting legislation. It's all very well to be pure, but if nobody is paying attention, then what?
As for the future, Jackson says:
“The Australian Greens are a green party with its base in social movements and with a middle-class core that expresses post-material values. Post-material values have been defined as a set of issues prioritising the ‘sense of community’ or ‘non—material quality of life’, ‘belonging’ or ‘self-expression’, as opposed to values that emphasise physical sustenance, safety and economic gains.”
No party can be all things to all people, or even to all members, but the Greens are certainly having a jolly good crack at it.
Highly recommended for anyone interested in finding out how politics actually works. . . from the ground (root and branch) up.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publishers for an advanced review copy.
October 7, 2022
An informative book on the historical development of the Australian Green party/ies. Perhaps could have used better data, theory, and analysis.
April 23, 2016
A fine read that I feel could have benefitted from further depth and analysis of the party's achievements and potential within the context of Australia's current economic and political situation.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews