The Greens

[evolved2]

I’m actually with you on much of that but the decider for me is that, whatever my perception of the Greens getting bogged down in issues that I personally consider irrelevant, they are the ONLY candidates taking seriously the issues that are of the utmost urgency.

EG climate, housing, environment, widening economic inequality.

The Greens are streets ahead of anyone else on these crucial challenges.

Democracy is about electing the least worst candidate (was that Churchill, yet again?). On those issues I’ve listed above, I’d say the Greens are absolutely the least worst option, and arguably the straight out best.

So I can live with them getting het up about land rights for asexual potoroos.

Valid points as usual.

Whether we agree or disagree, I see you as one of the good guys here.

 

[Saint]

The biggest voting issues for me are genocide, housing/CoL and climate. Only the Greens are proposing to change anything in any of those areas. The ALP/LNP are pursuing policies which will make all 3 worse. Some Teals are proposing addressing a couple of them.

Sphynx. On housing, the rent freeze I don't think is good policy. But only the Greens are proposing Govt investment in housing (which, as you pointed out, doesn't have enough investment with only the private sector funding and that's going to get worse for poor people as housing continues to become less affordable (and less profitable).

Sphynx, your proposed taxes on the wealthy are also Greens policy (not the wage restraint bit). There has been such a shift in profits from wages to wealth, I don't think now is the time for wage restraint.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Valid points as usual.

Whether we agree or disagree, I see you as one of the good guys here.

Same, mate. Respectful debate.

 

[Sphynx]

The biggest voting issues for me are genocide, housing/CoL and climate. Only the Greens are proposing to change anything in any of those areas. The ALP/LNP are pursuing policies which will make all 3 worse. Some Teals are proposing addressing a couple of them.

Sphynx. On housing, the rent freeze I don't think is good policy. But only the Greens are proposing Govt investment in housing (which, as you pointed out, doesn't have enough investment with only the private sector funding and that's going to get worse for poor people as housing continues to become less affordable (and less profitable).

Sphynx, your proposed taxes on the wealthy are also Greens policy (not the wage restraint bit). There has been such a shift in profits from wages to wealth, I don't think now is the time for wage restraint.

Thanks for the response.

Yes - I know that wealth taxes are a greens policy. It's just that the revenue (i don't believe) will not be re-distributed in the way I'd prefer to see it.

This is where my economic views split with the far left....

The greens will use that revenue on things like huge social and environmental initiatives.

Im pro climate initiatives, but I'm a climate realist rather than a climate warrior.

Any green and climate investment needs to be a benefit multiplier for revenue through industry.

I.E if we want batteries. Make sure we aren't offshoring the natural resources and refine, process and we make them here.

If we want solar, invest in the local industries to make the photovoltaics and parts.

I would be more inclined to use income from wealth re-distribution to fix some of the bogged down institutional government policies in housing. I'd offer stamp duty savings for young buyers (not at the expense of the state budget bottom lines, would be a compensation scheme). Government back low interest loans for fixed terms, access to deposit initiatives etc etc.

Now this would be my first preference before going anywhere wage restraint. Which is clearly a real problem with cost of living.

However, wages ARE a massive problem. I know this is a difficult discussion and politically sensitive. However we have never been in a more global market than we are today. We can't just talk about wages from a local perspective, we have to compare it on a global level. They are uncompetitive.


Infrastructure of any type has economically been a slam dunk investment multiplier of 1.3-1.5x. It generally means local jobs, local supply chain, local materials, local buisness.

The investment only works predicated on this belief. Then you have to factor the cost blowout themselves.

It's a house of cards in the real world. I see it first hand, it is criminal.

We have outsourcing at levels unimaginable 10 years ago. We have massive %'s of the largest infrastructure projects in the country coming straight in from overseas, we have shelf companies from these same regions fronting themselves as "Australian" companies even on a micro level you wouldn't have believed 10 years ago.

Now this isn't profiteering or capitalist, margins are extremely slim. This is actually government driven. Their cost base and their budget constraints are so cooked they are forcing this back into the market.

Because we have cost-lock factors on wages, the only thing they can turn to is supply chain and services. It's been sharpened and sharpened and sharpened over the last decade to a sickening level on this side of things, this is where we are with globalisation of services and supply. Wage growth has gone unchecked. Unions, unchecked (not their fault, they are doing their job...)


It's all OK because our average dad from Cragieburn is on his $130/hr on a Saturday, so he's happy, the unions are doing their job... ALP all the way in the voting core....optics are fine.

But the entire investment model from a government one is being decided on a false economy. It's completely poisoned. Then you add the cost blowouts which magnify it


It's extremely worrying from someone involved in it.

 

[Saint]

Thanks for the response.

Yes - I know that wealth taxes are a greens policy. It's just that the revenue (i don't believe) will not be re-distributed in the way I'd prefer to see it.

This is where my economic views split with the far left....

The greens will use that revenue on things like huge social and environmental initiatives.

Im pro climate initiatives, but I'm a climate realist rather than a climate warrior.

Any green and climate investment needs to be a benefit multiplier for revenue through industry.

I.E if we want batteries. Make sure we aren't offshoring the natural resources and refine, process and we make them here.

If we want solar, invest in the local industries to make the photovoltaics and parts.

I would be more inclined to use income from wealth re-distribution to fix some of the bogged down institutional government policies in housing. I'd offer stamp duty savings for young buyers (not at the expense of the state budget bottom lines, would be a compensation scheme). Government back low interest loans for fixed terms, access to deposit initiatives etc etc.

Now this would be my first preference before going anywhere wage restraint. Which is clearly a real problem with cost of living.

However, wages ARE a massive problem. I know this is a difficult discussion and politically sensitive. However we have never been in a more global market than we are today. We can't just talk about wages from a local perspective, we have to compare it on a global level. They are uncompetitive.


Infrastructure of any type has economically been a slam dunk investment multiplier of 1.3-1.5x. It generally means local jobs, local supply chain, local materials, local buisness.

The investment only works predicated on this belief. Then you have to factor the cost blowout themselves.

It's a house of cards in the real world. I see it first hand, it is criminal.

We have outsourcing at levels unimaginable 10 years ago. We have massive %'s of the largest infrastructure projects in the country coming straight in from overseas, we have shelf companies from these same regions fronting themselves as "Australian" companies even on a micro level you wouldn't have believed 10 years ago.

Now this isn't profiteering or capitalist, margins are extremely slim. This is actually government driven. Their cost base and their budget constraints are so cooked they are forcing this back into the market.

Because we have cost-lock factors on wages, the only thing they can turn to is supply chain and services. It's been sharpened and sharpened and sharpened over the last decade to a sickening level on this side of things, this is where we are with globalisation of services and supply. Wage growth has gone unchecked. Unions, unchecked (not their fault, they are doing their job...)


It's all OK because our average dad from Cragieburn is on his $130/hr on a Saturday, so he's happy, the unions are doing their job... ALP all the way in the voting core....optics are fine.

But the entire investment model from a government one is being decided on a false economy. It's completely poisoned. Then you add the cost blowouts which magnify it


It's extremely worrying from someone involved in it.

I don't think manufacturing here is realistic for some areas. Unless the Federal Govt subsidised it at-scale (and maybe they should/could).

But solar employs a lot of installers. Large renewables projects are the same as big infrastructure projects. A lot of the cost is in quarried materials, installation of roads, footings etc. The blades are made overseas, but made from mostly Australian raw materials (our iron ore becomes Chinese steel towers which we then buy back). If only the manufacturing of Australian raw materials into steel is off-shore (why can't it be mandated through Whyalla/Kembla).

The other problem for Australia is protection of our relatively fragile natural environment, which might put additional costs on things like solar panel and battery manufacturing which China doesn't do.

But realistically, the ALP and LNP don't have the vision for such programs. If you want jobs in renewables, it'll be the Greens which are more likely to deliver it than any major party. It would be right up most of the Teals' alley, except none of them are from working-class electorates which would benefit.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I get it — and maybe at this point I’m just digging in to prove a broader point. But what genuinely grates me is the piling on framed as exposing deception, when so much of the outrage is built on misquotes, exaggerations, or outright fabrications.

Let’s be clear: some of her comments absolutely warrant criticism. The "one-bedroom" reference was borderline — she clearly painted a picture that didn't reflect the full context of her situation. She should have disclosed her ownership, no question. Were some of her comments deceptive? Absolutely.

Posters lobbing in with "how is this so hard to understand" aren't understanding my point. I understand theirs perfectly. I agree with it to a point.

But what I take issue with is the disproportionate character assassination that’s followed.

Go look at the language being used across this forum:

"willfully lied to the Australian people"
"represented herself as a renter struggling to break into the market"
"described herself as someone trying to save for a deposit like other young voters"
"she traded on the premise of being a struggling renter"
"painted a picture of a battler while being a landlord not once but twice"
"used her 'renting' status as a means to claim she knows the struggle of saving a deposit for a home."
"She Lied"
"she traded on the premise of being a struggling renter just like the rest of you"
"she stated she is an average renter."
"Hamer is not a disadvantaged renter living on the bread line like she represented"
"When the claim is "I know what it is to be a renter" the implicit subtext it is trying to evoke is that of being a "battler"
"she’s implying that by renting out of choice she understands the plight of people who have no choice but to rent"
"tried to pretend she was a renter"
"but I wouldn’t then lie about being a renter to get votes"
" It's a slap in the face by a potential politician to claim they know the struggles of renting when they own two properties."

Now here’s the thing - I’ve now read and listened to the actual source material, and there are only two or three quotes directly from her on this topic. The rest is media editorialising — language written by journos at The Age, AFR, etc. Not words that came out of her mouth.

Words like “struggling”, “battler”, “average renter” — those aren’t hers. People are projecting subtext, then turning around and accusing her of deception. That’s not holding someone accountable, that’s gaslighting. It’s taking vague phrasing, attaching assumptions to it, then declaring those assumptions as fact.

I’m not saying she’s beyond criticism. I’m saying we need to criticise her for what she actually said and did, not for what we’ve decided she “must have meant.”

And for a crowd that’s usually pretty skeptical of media spin, it’s been amazing watching some of the same people swallow a narrative wholesale without questioning how much of it is constructed.

If we’re going to have a go at her, fair. But let’s at least stay tethered to the facts while we do it




View attachment 2276954


View attachment 2276967


View attachment 2276963



View attachment 2276955


View attachment 2276959

View attachment 2276957


View attachment 2276958

You have a very good point.

While being one of those criticising Hamer - not for owning a property, that is anyone’s right, hence why I think the criticism of Mereen Faruqi is unwarranted - but for reportedly suggesting that by choosing to rent she understood the plight of those with no choice but to rent, I confess that my knowledge of the controversy is entirely gleaned from these pages.

If the anodyne statements you’ve quoted above are the sum total of her public comments on the matter, I think everyone has to admit they’ve engaged in a pile-on.

But if anyone can furnish further quotes from her, table them and let’s examine them.

 

[Sphynx]

I don't think manufacturing here is realistic for some areas. Unless the Federal Govt subsidised it at-scale (and maybe they should/could).

But solar employs a lot of installers. Large renewables projects are the same as big infrastructure projects. A lot of the cost is in quarried materials, installation of roads, footings etc. The blades are made overseas, but made from mostly Australian raw materials (our iron ore becomes Chinese steel towers which we then buy back). If only the manufacturing of Australian raw materials into steel is off-shore (why can't it be mandated through Whyalla/Kembla).

The other problem for Australia is protection of our relatively fragile natural environment, which might put additional costs on things like solar panel and battery manufacturing which China doesn't do.

But realistically, the ALP and LNP don't have the vision for such programs. If you want jobs in renewables, it'll be the Greens which are more likely to deliver it than any major party. It would be right up most of the Teals' alley, except none of them are from working-class electorates which would benefit.

Agreed in things like textiles etc, but there's a few obvious caveats

Defence - You can't offshore local defence manufacturing, particularly when built around exportable products. Look at Rheinmetall and Hanwha's investment in local manufacturing plants in Aus. It's not a perfect model, but it's a start.

Countries will pay a premium for our labour, QA and manufacturing processes when it comes to missiles, drones, planes, guns, ammunition (if we can expand autonomous production).

If we can mimic other countries like S.Korea in terms of defence exports etc has the potential to be 3-4x the size of our education exports. And it's at our rates. We need more revenue streams that aren't completely underwritten by immigration (i.e students)

Defence and defence profiteering is obviously right sided policy, I understand. But it's why I'm a neoliberal and not a Green. And I'm only coming from the defense industrial complex and improving our economy and this in Australia's interests, not war mongering. Plenty of Australia's defense spending is never shot in anger.

The other surrounds downstream resource processing. Which you touched on.

China can't refine cobalt and graphite on the scale they do if they don't have it.

Nobody can purchase refined uranium if we simply don't sell it to them.

We have a massive % of the worlds lithium supply.

We control world iron ore supply to the most part.

There's numerous industries where we control what happens, because we control base supply.

If we want to manufacture it, we can, and it will simply dictate global knock on costs.


No private firm in their right mind would invest in Australian manufacturing over a 3rd world country when it comes to this, the government can, because it's essentially subsidized by the multiplier benefits to everything else that comes with it with tax revues, jobs, social benefits etc etc.

But your initial comment around manufacturing not being "realistic" is part of the issue. We are uncompetitive in a global services marketplace, which is a very big problem moving forward. It's why wages is a hard discussion point, but needs to be a practical one.

 

[Carringbush2010]

A failure to connect with the voting public in an environment that's ripe for left wing politics.

They have some good policies they're unable to sell because of their fixation on unpopular ideals.

Did you read the article? Adam Bandt, Lidia Thorpe and Pauline Hanson rank as Australia's most unlikable politicians.

And?

Just coz they're unlikeable doesn't validate their non existence. Like any other small party or independent, without them then it's even harder to keep the govt to account on their policies.

May as well just a 100% duopoly of labor and liberal then.

 

[Saint]

Agreed in things like textiles etc, but there's a few obvious caveats

Defence - You can't offshore local defence manufacturing, particularly when built around exportable products. Look at Rheinmetall and Hanwha's investment in local manufacturing plants in Aus. It's not a perfect model, but it's a start.

Countries will pay a premium for our labour, QA and manufacturing processes when it comes to missiles, drones, planes, guns, ammunition (if we can expand autonomous production).

If we can mimic other countries like S.Korea in terms of defence exports etc has the potential to be 3-4x the size of our education exports. And it's at our rates. We need more revenue streams that aren't completely underwritten by immigration (i.e students)

Defence and defence profiteering is obviously right sided policy, I understand. But it's why I'm a neoliberal and not a Green. And I'm only coming from the defense industrial complex and improving our economy and this in Australia's interests, not war mongering. Plenty of Australia's defense spending is never shot in anger.

The other surrounds downstream resource processing. Which you touched on.

China can't refine cobalt and graphite on the scale they do if they don't have it.

Nobody can purchase refined uranium if we simply don't sell it to them.

We have a massive % of the worlds lithium supply.

We control world iron ore supply to the most part.

There's numerous industries where we control what happens, because we control base supply.

If we want to manufacture it, we can, and it will simply dictate global knock on costs.


No private firm in their right mind would invest in Australian manufacturing over a 3rd world country when it comes to this, the government can, because it's essentially subsidized by the multiplier benefits to everything else that comes with it with tax revues, jobs, social benefits etc etc.

But your initial comment around manufacturing not being "realistic" is part of the issue. We are uncompetitive in a global services marketplace, which is a very big problem moving forward. It's why wages is a hard discussion point, but needs to be a practical one.

The same argument is happening in the USA.

The fact is that because of relative wages betweeen Australia and the developing world (and cheap transport costs) is that a lot of manufacturing (the vast majority of it) will be in the developing world, to supply the developed world.

If we want to subsidise Defence (we should) and agriculture (we don't need to) that's great. But do we really want to subsidise energy (solar panels and wind turbines)?

Are people really demanding jobs in Lithium processing to the point that Govt should subsidise it?

I don't think suppressing wages is realistic. Minimum wage in USA is $7 (a third of Australia) and they can't sustain manufacturing even in a much bigger local market. I don't think it's realistic or beneficial to subsidise manufacturing unless it's critical. Anything else would be wasteful. Steel is an example. I think subsidising two steelworks here is important, but if 80% of our steel is produced in China, that's not a problem.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I get it — and maybe at this point I’m just digging in to prove a broader point. But what genuinely grates me is the piling on framed as exposing deception, when so much of the outrage is built on misquotes, exaggerations, or outright fabrications.

Let’s be clear: some of her comments absolutely warrant criticism. The "one-bedroom" reference was borderline — she clearly painted a picture that didn't reflect the full context of her situation. She should have disclosed her ownership, no question. Were some of her comments deceptive? Absolutely.

Posters lobbing in with "how is this so hard to understand" aren't understanding my point. I understand theirs perfectly. I agree with it to a point.

But what I take issue with is the disproportionate character assassination that’s followed.

Go look at the language being used across this forum:

"willfully lied to the Australian people"
"represented herself as a renter struggling to break into the market"
"described herself as someone trying to save for a deposit like other young voters"
"she traded on the premise of being a struggling renter"
"painted a picture of a battler while being a landlord not once but twice"
"used her 'renting' status as a means to claim she knows the struggle of saving a deposit for a home."
"She Lied"
"she traded on the premise of being a struggling renter just like the rest of you"
"she stated she is an average renter."
"Hamer is not a disadvantaged renter living on the bread line like she represented"
"When the claim is "I know what it is to be a renter" the implicit subtext it is trying to evoke is that of being a "battler"
"she’s implying that by renting out of choice she understands the plight of people who have no choice but to rent"
"tried to pretend she was a renter"
"but I wouldn’t then lie about being a renter to get votes"
" It's a slap in the face by a potential politician to claim they know the struggles of renting when they own two properties."

Now here’s the thing - I’ve now read and listened to the actual source material, and there are only two or three quotes directly from her on this topic. The rest is media editorialising — language written by journos at The Age, AFR, etc. Not words that came out of her mouth.

Words like “struggling”, “battler”, “average renter” — those aren’t hers. People are projecting subtext, then turning around and accusing her of deception. That’s not holding someone accountable, that’s gaslighting. It’s taking vague phrasing, attaching assumptions to it, then declaring those assumptions as fact.

I’m not saying she’s beyond criticism. I’m saying we need to criticise her for what she actually said and did, not for what we’ve decided she “must have meant.”

And for a crowd that’s usually pretty skeptical of media spin, it’s been amazing watching some of the same people swallow a narrative wholesale without questioning how much of it is constructed.

If we’re going to have a go at her, fair. But let’s at least stay tethered to the facts while we do it




View attachment 2276954


View attachment 2276967


View attachment 2276963



View attachment 2276955


View attachment 2276959

View attachment 2276957


View attachment 2276958

Funny how STILL these posters are not getting it.

STLL ignoring the media using language to exaggerate what is basically a non story. Only doubling down on hamer.

If I were you I wouldn't bother, those who oppose wanna die on this hill for what IDK or they're so ideollogically blinded they can't see it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

While being one of those criticising Hamer - not for owning a property, that is anyone’s right, hence why I think the criticism of Mereen Faruqi is unwarranted - but for reportedly suggesting that by choosing to rent she understood the plight of those with no choice but to rent, I confess that my knowledge of the controversy is entirely gleaned from these pages.

Thanks for your honesty and finally realizing the point.

NO ONE is barracking for hamer here, just pointing out the media is complicitly over exaggerating to paint a picture, when it is basically a non story.

Same with Faruqi, everyone piled onto Faruqi but NO ONE held the media to account for their hyperbolizing her situation.

So what is Faruqi supposed to do, coz she's a savvy investor she's not allowed to speak on behalf of those doing it tough in the housing market? She's all of a sudden some dishonest hypocritical self interested liar now?

^This is what the media does, problem is like the last few pages NO ONE blinks an eye at the media, it's all about 'hamer disingenuous'

If the anodyne statements you’ve quoted above are the sum total of her public comments on the matter, I think everyone has to admit they’ve engaged in a pile-on.

The media has succeeded then.

But if anyone can furnish further quotes from her, table them and let’s examine them.

How about we put it to bed, it's been a nothing story blown up out all of proportion.

 

[mrherman]

Did chuckle at this bit, so pretty much all of them own property, unsurprisingly.

Most of them publicly declare no property ownership, despite owning it inside of a trust.

Who knows how many more would be on this numbers if companies and trusts and spousal ownership amounts were counted,

Compare this to the Amelia Hamer "scandal". Makes it an even more of a laughable beat up.

aside from a few, they are all as bad as each other, its who ever screams, virtual signals the most & pretends to care the most are the greens and ALP, as they usey as prey the uni student, migrant, or low so economic , people who are lost, finding there feet or just want a roof over there head, to be elected. most of the greens electorate areas are inner city, alp in migrant areas former working class areas

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I’m not saying she’s beyond criticism. I’m saying we need to criticise her for what she actually said and did, not for what we’ve decided she “must have meant.”

And for a crowd that’s usually pretty skeptical of media spin, it’s been amazing watching some of the same people swallow a narrative wholesale without questioning how much of it is constructed.

If we’re going to have a go at her, fair. But let’s at least stay tethered to the facts while we do it

I find it very strange that you've said this, and included the below screenshot from an article in The Age...

View attachment 2276967

...but stopped there instead of continuing on, since the article goes on to post this quote:



And she was very specifically talking about being able to buy a house, as seen in this clip of the same interview:



Hamer is 31 years old. She is a young person. She has talked about how hard young people have it trying to buy a property, and represented herself as a renter without mentioning her landlord status. And that would be fine if she had said "I have been fortunate enough to buy a property, but I empathise with the young people who feel like that's impossible for them, and I understand how hard it is to be a renter as I'm renting too currently". But she didn't. By taking up that grievance and not telling the full truth, she gave the impression she was equating herself with those young people she speaks of. And by hiding her status, she deceived people. You can't absolve her of this.

 

[Saint]

I find it very strange that you've said this, and included the below screenshot from an article in The Age...


...but stopped there instead of continuing on, since the article goes on to post this quote:

View attachment 2277353

And she was very specifically talking about being able to buy a house, as seen in this clip of the same interview:



Hamer is 31 years old. She is a young person. She has talked about how hard young people have it trying to buy a property, and represented herself as a renter without mentioning her landlord status. And that would be fine if she had said "I have been fortunate enough to buy a property, but I empathise with the young people who feel like that's impossible for them, and I understand how hard it is to be a renter as I'm renting too currently". But she didn't. By taking up that grievance and not telling the full truth, she gave the impression she was equating herself with those young people she speaks of. And by hiding her status, she deceived people. You can't absolve her of this.

"I was lucky enough that my parents could help me out because I come from old money, but not all of my friends and cohort are in the same position".

She's desperately trying to hide the fact that she comes from privilege, so I understand why she hadn't mentioned she owned property, but if she's going to present it in this way, she shouldn't be surprised that people call out that she happens to own multiple properties.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Very grubby anti-Greens tactics from Advance.

Two sexual assault accusers say right-wing group Advance 'weaponised' their claims without their consent

Advance refused to take down anti-Greens ads quoting sexual assault accusers after being told they didn't consent to the use of their claims.

www.crikey.com.au

 

[Gralin]

Advance are very grubby, no surprises there

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I've lost some enthusiasm for the Greens lately. It's not that my political views have changed, it's more that I've come to the conclusion that the party are failing to effectively sell their values to the electorate and create a positive impression with people.

Whether it's their fault or not, I feel like the Greens as a brand are heavily distrusted by at least half the population, and no matter how good the ideas they come up with, they don't have the credibility to turn them into a legitimately popular movement. I think that lack of trust and credibility isn't going to change at least until Gen Z become the most populous generation, many boomers die off and half of Gen X hit retirement age.

That doesn't mean I've turned towards Labor. Recently, Bernie Sanders counselled US leftists to run for office as independents rather than as Democrats. While that's partly due to the Democrat establishment being useless and out of touch, it's also because the Democrat brand is utterly poisonous in half of the US, and an independent could be free of that baggage.

And they wouldn't have to be beholden to a party line either. Last year a union leader named Dan Osborn ran to be a Senator in the very conservative state of Nebraska, on a platform of leftist economic policies, libertarian social policies and conservative policies on illegal immigration. He still lost to the Republican, but only narrowly.

And maybe that's the way the left has to go for now, to build up credibility. Immigration is an issue that has to be discussed like adults, not pretending it's purely positive but not indulging in xenophobia either. But I don't see the Greens ever being interested in having that conversation, even if it can help them sell leftist economic policies to the average person.

So I hope an independent like Osborn emerges instead, to do to the Greens what the Teals are doing to the Liberals: having the conversations the established parties don't want to.

 

[Gralin]

I've lost some enthusiasm for the Greens lately. It's not that my political views have changed, it's more that I've come to the conclusion that the party are failing to effectively sell their values to the electorate and create a positive impression with people.

Whether it's their fault or not, I feel like the Greens as a brand are heavily distrusted by at least half the population, and no matter how good the ideas they come up with, they don't have the credibility to turn them into a legitimately popular movement. I think that lack of trust and credibility isn't going to change at least until Gen Z become the most populous generation, many boomers die off and half of Gen X hit retirement age.

That doesn't mean I've turned towards Labor. Recently, Bernie Sanders counselled US leftists to run for office as independents rather than as Democrats. While that's partly due to the Democrat establishment being useless and out of touch, it's also because the Democrat brand is utterly poisonous in half of the US, and an independent could be free of that baggage.

And they wouldn't have to be beholden to a party line either. Last year a union leader named Dan Osborn ran to be a Senator in the very conservative state of Nebraska, on a platform of leftist economic policies, libertarian social policies and conservative policies on illegal immigration. He still lost to the Republican, but only narrowly.

And maybe that's the way the left has to go for now, to build up credibility. Immigration is an issue that has to be discussed like adults, not pretending it's purely positive but not indulging in xenophobia either. But I don't see the Greens ever being interested in having that conversation, even if it can help them sell leftist economic policies to the average person.

So I hope an independent like Osborn emerges instead, to do to the Greens what the Teals are doing to the Liberals: having the conversations the established parties don't want to.

Our Overton window is a massive issue for them, they're seen as extremists by many

That said they're also part of the system and there is a limit to what sort of change they can really enact that way.

 

[Cookie]

MC-M can get back to wearing short pants. Didn't take long for the electorate to wake up to the immature goose.
The Peter Principle was proved again.

 

[Caesar]

Big questions for Bandt this morning

Dropping seats is less of an issue than the continued stagnation of their primary vote

 

[tricknologist]

Poor smug Maxy. Maybe playing politics with the HAFF was a bad idea.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Positive swings in all states in the Senate (not ACT where Dave Pocock picked up some of their votes).

Over a quota in 4 out of 6 states and close enough in NSW and Qld that their Senate seat isn't in doubt.

Stable vote only slightly down from a record high last time out in HoR seats.

Probably most of the votes they've lost are a result of Teal independents becoming a credible option in a lot of electorates.



Yes they'll lose 2-3 seats (possibly 4, which would shape as a bad result) but realistically they only had those seats due to unique circumstance in 2022 of voters really wanting Morrison out but some not being convinced on Labor. Now that Labor established a level of trust and Dutton was a further lurch right..... Greens are a victim of the circumstances that favoured them in 2019. Can't call that a slam on their policies and performance.



I'm not a Greens supporter... but a rational analysis doesn't play out a disaster for the Greens. They've maintained their vote levels as the main third party and had a bit of a correction in terms of a surprise HoR presence in 2022.



Bandt has been hurt by some redistribution in Melbourne... and if that costs him his seat, that becomes a bit of a problem for the Greens. They could panic and flip the script on where they see themselves in Australian politics. But they shouldn't, because the numbers if not the result have been good form them in 2025 coming slightly back from an all-time high in 2022.

 

[hamohawk1]

What happened with Bandt in Melbourne? Notice mention of redistribution but would've expected this to stay a greens seat for years to come.

FWIW i always thought he did a good job, seemed genuine about progressive issues.

 

[Grin]

Big questions for Bandt this morning

Dropping seats is less of an issue than the continued stagnation of their primary vote

As a baked on Green, I couldn’t agree more. There’s some very big questions.
I’m trying to look on it as an opportunity, but only if we take a good hard look at ourselves

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

What did the Greens do wrong though?

The only party pushing for progressive policy and got punished for it.