Why the Greens are wrong to argue against blocking supply

The Greens have consistently argued since the budget was presented against blocking supply in the senate. This means that the Greens are planning to vote for some of the important aspects of Abbott and Hockey's budget (while blocking others).

It is true that blocking supply would result in significant social upheaval but the Greens' arguments against doing so are disingenuous:

* "Blocking supply would not necessarily lead to a new election"

That's true, but it is hard to imagine any other outcome (if you make the fair assumption that the Abbott government wouldn't respond to a senate decision to block supply by seriously amending the budget to make it palatable).

* "The most reliable and most rapid way to force a fresh election on the Abbott Government is by a double dissolution election"

Not true. It is a very unreliable way to get a new election. It certainly wouldn't "force" one. In fact, no matter how many double dissolution triggers there are, in the current circumstances you'd have to say that a double dissolution is extremely unlikely! It most certainly would not be "rapid".

* "The Greens are ready to block every cruel measure in the Abbott Budget."

Not true. Lots of "cruel measures" - such as funding cuts to the ABC and CSIRO and many others - are incorporated into the appropriation bills. If the Greens vote for the appropriation bills, they are voting *for* those things!

Socialist Alliance: Why we should block the budget