The Greens

[Grin]

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.

This is a really good analysis, but they got a lot less of the young vote than they thought they would.

 

[Chadwiko]

Big questions for Bandt this morning

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

I'm a Greens voter and while I'm disappointed that they'll come away from this election with a net-negative in HoR seats (final tally remains to be seen, but they had 4 and at best they'll come away at this election with 2), I think the death-riding of the Greens by many today is overblown.

Let me explain, as briefly as I can (which will likely end up being very long);

Long story short: I think this election was just historically weird. But I don't think the Greens failed.

We've got huge numbers of Liberal voters who voted Labor purely because of Dutton's personality, and the perceived backslide of the LNP into US-style, Trumpist culture war politicking which was never going to play well in the Australian electorate where we have compulsory voting.

It's still not finalised, but it seems that nationally the Greens will have picked up 12%~ of the national vote. Considering the huge swings to Labor and the Teals, holding on to their vote share is nothing short of miraculous for the Greens. It's important to remember that the Greens have only had a 12%~ voteshare since the 2022, which was their best ever performance. It's been slowly growing over the last 20 years, bit by bit each election;



So if the Greens, in this historically weird 2025 election, can maintain their vote-share, that should be looked as a success in many ways.

In the Senate, they didn't lose any seats, and will come away just as strong in the Upper House as they were in 2022.

Unfortunately they lost those Brisbane Lower House seats, but I genuinely don't think it's a result of any significant rejection of Greens politics or policies. For example, in 2022 the Greens got a total of 382,900 votes in QLD. While counting is still underway in QLD for 2025, it looks likely they'll either repeat that figure, or at the very least come close to it (the AEC and ABC currently report a -1.3% swing away from the Greens in QLD).

So if roughly the same number of people voted for the Greens in 2025 as voted for them in 2022 in QLD, why are they going to lose 3 seats in Brisbane? Because, as I said, this is a historically weird election. Liberal voters either voted directly for Labor, or preferenced Labor above the Greens, which is... unprecedented. Liberal voters by-and-large decided that they would prefer Labor and Albo over Dutton, and didn't want to risk an Albo minority government.

In Bandt's own seat of Melbourne, it seems like people under-estimated the impact that the redistribution/redrawing of the electorate boundaries would have. As a reminder, the redistribution meant the Melbourne electorate lost parts of Fitzroy, Carlton, and Brunswick to the Wills electorate (which is a big part of why that race is still too close to call too). Antony Green back in 2024 suggested this move would lower Bandt's margin from 10.2% to 6.5% in front of Labor. In an election that's had a huge swing towards Labor, that's significant.

But again, I don't see this as a repudiation of Bandt or the Greens in general. It's just the reality that occurs when you have such an overwhelming surge in votes for one of the two major parties.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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

You mean holding out for a deal that would actually see some houses built? Yeah, what a smug bastard.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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.

Yeah handing over $80,000 of his own parliamentary salary to help the homeless - so juvenile.

 

[schneebly111]

This is a really good analysis, but they got a lot less of the young vote than they thought they would.

Labor made fee free TAFE and a reduction in HECS debt a key point of their campaign. Now while the Greens have policies that benefit students even further young people may have seen the ALP as a more achievable win so have their first preference to them.

 

[SuperSub17]

A large chunk of the situation in Brisbane is down to just how horribly the Libs have performed. It’s a bit of a quirk with preferential voting in marginal three-way seats - the Greens really need Labor to finish 3rd to be any sort of realistic chance of winning themselves.

Yes they are down 1-2% of the primary in each of their three seats which isn’t ideal, but you could give all of those votes back to Bates and Chandler-Mather - plus a few extra % for good measure - and it still wouldn’t touch the sides with the order the way it is.

 

[Grin]

A large chunk of the situation in Brisbane is down to just how horribly the Libs have performed. It’s a bit of a quirk with preferential voting in marginal three-way seats - the Greens really need Labor to finish 3rd to be any sort of realistic chance of winning themselves.

So true. When Labor finish 3rd, their preferences flow to the Greens. When it's Liberal, they favour Lobor.

 

[swingdog]

I'm a Greens voter and while I'm disappointed that they'll come away from this election with a net-negative in HoR seats (final tally remains to be seen, but they had 4 and at best they'll come away at this election with 2), I think the death-riding of the Greens by many today is overblown.

Let me explain, as briefly as I can (which will likely end up being very long);

Long story short: I think this election was just historically weird. But I don't think the Greens failed.

We've got huge numbers of Liberal voters who voted Labor purely because of Dutton's personality, and the perceived backslide of the LNP into US-style, Trumpist culture war politicking which was never going to play well in the Australian electorate where we have compulsory voting.

It's still not finalised, but it seems that nationally the Greens will have picked up 12%~ of the national vote. Considering the huge swings to Labor and the Teals, holding on to their vote share is nothing short of miraculous for the Greens. It's important to remember that the Greens have only had a 12%~ voteshare since the 2022, which was their best ever performance. It's been slowly growing over the last 20 years, bit by bit each election;

View attachment 2305240

So if the Greens, in this historically weird 2025 election, can maintain their vote-share, that should be looked as a success in many ways.

In the Senate, they didn't lose any seats, and will come away just as strong in the Upper House as they were in 2022.

Unfortunately they lost those Brisbane Lower House seats, but I genuinely don't think it's a result of any significant rejection of Greens politics or policies. For example, in 2022 the Greens got a total of 382,900 votes in QLD. While counting is still underway in QLD for 2025, it looks likely they'll either repeat that figure, or at the very least come close to it (the AEC and ABC currently report a -1.3% swing away from the Greens in QLD).

So if roughly the same number of people voted for the Greens in 2025 as voted for them in 2022 in QLD, why are they going to lose 3 seats in Brisbane? Because, as I said, this is a historically weird election. Liberal voters either voted directly for Labor, or preferenced Labor above the Greens, which is... unprecedented. Liberal voters by-and-large decided that they would prefer Labor and Albo over Dutton, and didn't want to risk an Albo minority government.

In Bandt's own seat of Melbourne, it seems like people under-estimated the impact that the redistribution/redrawing of the electorate boundaries would have. As a reminder, the redistribution meant the Melbourne electorate lost parts of Fitzroy, Carlton, and Brunswick to the Wills electorate (which is a big part of why that race is still too close to call too). Antony Green back in 2024 suggested this move would lower Bandt's margin from 10.2% to 6.5% in front of Labor. In an election that's had a huge swing towards Labor, that's significant.

But again, I don't see this as a repudiation of Bandt or the Greens in general. It's just the reality that occurs when you have such an overwhelming surge in votes for one of the two major parties.

I also wonder how much of it is the Greens competing in seats that don't necessarily suit them.

Look at Wills. Basically, it's split in half. South of Bell Street is Greens, north of Bell is Labor. I was watching when Sam Ratnam was 1/1.5 points up and Broadmeadows hadn't come in yet. Basically, as soon as that did, the seat shifted strongly to Khalil.

 

[Cookie]

Yeah handing over $80,000 of his own parliamentary salary to help the homeless - so juvenile.

What's juvenile was his getting into bed with the CFMEU.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What's juvenile was his getting into bed with the CFMEU.

Well I still think his good work far outweighed his errors of judgement.

He got Labor to cough up some money to actually do something about housing, which is way more than the initial policy they presented was ever going to do.

This is what worries me about Labor’s massive win. If they were prepared to try to gaslight the nation on such an important policy when they had such a slim majority, what sort of absurd Orwellian policies are they going to try to put past us now?

 

[Gralin]

current numbers
Labor 34% 85 seats
Libs 20% 15 seats
Greens 11.9% 0 seats
Independent 7.6% 8 seats
LNP 6.8% 15 seats
ON 6.2% 0 seats
Nats 4.2% 9 seats

talk about a wide difference in return

if 12 % of the population nationally want greens and get 0 seats and 4.2% want the nats and get 9 seats

well it just shows how our system isnt representative

i know the greens run in a lot more seats than the nats and how our system works but the reality is outside of the senate half the country ends up not getting represented by who they voted for

and no this isn't a request for first past the post either

just a comment on how the greens getting 12% of the vote is seen as a failure when the reality is our system doesn't actually work that way

 

[Cookie]

Well I still think his good work far outweighed his errors of judgement.

He got Labor to cough up some money to actually do something about housing, which is way more than the initial policy they presented was ever going to do.

This is what worries me about Labor’s massive win. If they were prepared to try to gaslight the nation on such an important policy when they had such a slim majority, what sort of absurd Orwellian policies are they going to try to put past us now?

Call it what you like. They now have a clear mandate to do almost anything.
However, what's missing is an effective opposition, and that is not good for any democracy. The Greens will control the Senate which is a good thing but there is a danger of legislation becoming stuck in a revolving door between the house and the Senate.
Prime opportunity for new leadership and direction for the Greens.

 

[schneebly111]

current numbers
Labor 34% 85 seats
Libs 20% 15 seats
Greens 11.9% 0 seats
Independent 7.6% 8 seats
LNP 6.8% 15 seats
ON 6.2% 0 seats
Nats 4.2% 9 seats

talk about a wide difference in return

if 12 % of the population nationally want greens and get 0 seats and 4.2% want the nats and get 9 seats

well it just shows how our system isnt representative

i know the greens run in a lot more seats than the nats and how our system works but the reality is outside of the senate half the country ends up not getting represented by who they voted for

and no this isn't a request for first past the post either

just a comment on how the greens getting 12% of the vote is seen as a failure when the reality is our system doesn't actually work that way

What you are calling for is proportional representation which is most of the EU.

Basically no party will every get a majority so you always get coalition negotiations after every election.

So it’s basically the Australian Senate in the lower house.

It does seem to produce more centrist and establishment governments as parties need to negotiate. Even now in Europe centre left and centre right are going into coalition with each other to keep the far right out. An Australian equivalent would be if the ALP and the Teals/Moderate liberals aligned to keep the Greens and One Nation/rest of the LNP out of power.

 

[Gralin]

What you are calling for is proportional representation which is most of the EU.

Basically no party will every get a majority so you always get coalition negotiations after every election.

So it’s basically the Australian Senate in the lower house.

It does seem to produce more centrist and establishment governments as parties need to negotiate. Even now in Europe centre left and centre right are going into coalition with each other to keep the far right out. An Australian equivalent would be if the ALP and the Teals/Moderate liberals aligned to keep the Greens and One Nation/rest of the LNP out of power.

yes proportional representation I think is a good thing

Majority governments only help the 2 major parties and their donors

I live in a very safe liberal seat which means we get **** all and no matter what they do their candidate gets re-elected without really trying

I don't get any representation in the HOR and I shouldn't have to move electorates to get it

of course we won't change because the majors will vote as a block to stop erosion of their advantage as we've seen them do at every opportunity so far

 

[schneebly111]

Prime opportunity for new leadership and direction for the Greens.

Di Natalie was better than Bandt. His background as a doctor and GP made him more palatable to middle Australia than a guy who published a thesis on “Marxist Legal Theory”.

I’d be looking at Whish Wilson or Shoebridge for leader.

 

[Cookie]

Di Natalie was better than Bandt. His background as a doctor and GP made him more palatable to middle Australia than a guy who published a thesis on “Marxist Legal Theory”.

I’d be looking at Whish Wilson or Shoebridge for leader.

You said the most powerful word in the political dictionary - middle. If they go with Bandt again, they're ****ed.

 

[Caesar]

I'm a Greens voter and while I'm disappointed that they'll come away from this election with a net-negative in HoR seats (final tally remains to be seen, but they had 4 and at best they'll come away at this election with 2), I think the death-riding of the Greens by many today is overblown.

I wouldn’t be silly enough to say that this weekend's result shows the Greens are in decline (or even that it was particularly bad). One could argue (as you have) that they are solidly building and consolidating.

But when you look at the broader context of the other parties and across multiple elections, it is a bit concerning in terms of what they're consistently not doing.

From 2007 to 2016 the success of the Greens was really built on being THE alternative to the major parties. When the major PV dropped or rose, the Greens PV would move in the opposite direction roughly 75-125% of that number.

But then that relationship broke down - in 2019-2022, the Major PV cratered by 8.55% but the greens only captured 2.02% (23% of the drop, roughly the same across both elections). This is election is even worse - for I think the first time ever, the major PV has declined and so has the Greens PV (albeit marginally).

In 2019 and 2022 you could argue that they had shifted focus from increasing their general vote share to specific local contests, and that made sense given the results. But that argument holds less water this time around, as they have gone backwards on both fronts.

It feels like there is a seismic realignment in Australian politics happening - a once in a century opportunity for a third party - and the Greens have been caught napping. They are no longer the automatic ‘other choice’ - haven’t been for almost a decade. Are they just there to pick up votes when Labor are on the nose, or do they aspire to more than that? At some point they need to decide.

Teals and other independents are eating their lunch. Unless they change things soon, they will lose what might be their best (or even only) opportunity to make the jump into becoming a party of government.

 

[RedStarUncle]

This is a really good analysis, but they got a lot less of the young vote than they thought they would.

This is a fair counter-point to my initial comment. They didn't go 'backwards', but they probably also did expect to go 'forwards' and that didn't happen either.

So that combined with seat losses probably leaves Greens supporters a bit deflated. But I think ultimately it's a good result for them.



Completely anecdotally... I think that the Teals hurt them more than anything else. GenZ voters might go to the Greens, but Millennials who start shifting a little bit less extremist but still don't want to vote Libs or Labs have a palatable alternative to the Greens. They almost have the same problem as LNP... they can chase more centrist votes by abandoning culture issues, but would risk alienating their core base (and source of most active publicity and support) if they do it.

 

[Grin]

This is a fair counter-point to my initial comment. They didn't go 'backwards', but they probably also did expect to go 'forwards' and that didn't happen either.

So that combined with seat losses probably leaves Greens supporters a bit deflated. But I think ultimately it's a good result for them.



Completely anecdotally... I think that the Teals hurt them more than anything else. GenZ voters might go to the Greens, but Millennials who start shifting a little bit less extremist but still don't want to vote Libs or Labs have a palatable alternative to the Greens. They almost have the same problem as LNP... they can chase more centrist votes by abandoning culture issues, but would risk alienating their core base (and source of most active publicity and support) if they do it.

Agree with all of that, and a big reason the Greens lost those 2 or 3 seats is that the LNP did so shit, they finished 3rd in those 3 corner contests, behind Labor and the Greens. LNP preferences favour Labor over the greens. Labor’s very much favour the Greens over the LNP

 

[Chicken Treat]

Some hardliners also providing the melts

It was da joos.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Completely anecdotally... I think that the Teals hurt them more than anything else. GenZ voters might go to the Greens, but Millennials who start shifting a little bit less extremist but still don't want to vote Libs or Labs have a palatable alternative to the Greens. They almost have the same problem as LNP... they can chase more centrist votes by abandoning culture issues, but would risk alienating their core base (and source of most active publicity and support) if they do it.

Which seats did the Greens aim to win that the Teals won instead?

 

[DaRick]

Some hardliners also providing the melts

It was da joos.View attachment 2306039

Shows that horseshoe theory isn't complete bullshit.

It's people like this who make even many committed ALP voters believe that the Greens are a bit fringe.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Di Natalie was better than Bandt. His background as a doctor and GP made him more palatable to middle Australia than a guy who published a thesis on “Marxist Legal Theory”.

I put it to you that this take comes from living in a politically engaged bubble, and middle Australia actually don't give a toss who leads the Greens, and couldn't name them to save their lives, let alone have any clue what they get up to outside of politics.

The Greens do not have the advertising budget to compete with the major parties, so their leaders do not become household names to anyone who isn't strongly politically engaged or living in the leader's electorate. They appear to have realised this and started using what budget they do have to narrowcast to specific electorates (mostly inner urban, except Richmond) and demographics (young people and renters). That doesn't cover a lot of middle Australia.

The goal seems to be building a base in what will end up becoming middle Australia, as the population ages and becomes steadily more urban.

I’d be looking at Whish Wilson or Shoebridge for leader.

Whish-Wilson is almost a non-entity, he has no profile even amongst Greens supporters, let alone any kind of wider media profile. And since you complained about Bandt's thesis making him out of touch with middle Australia, I'm surprised that you consider Lee Rhiannon's political heir to be a suitable choice. Going for yet another middle-aged white man in glasses certainly won't make anyone with a passing interest in politics take notice, either.

What I think will happen is Larissa Waters becomes leader, and then moves to the lower house to contest Ryan once Elizabeth Watson-Brown decides to retire.

 

[fletchisgun]

Clearly they’ve (Like the libs) leant too hard into culture war issues. The majority of the electorate realise that Adam Bandt is not capable of solving the most complicated geopolitical issue of the last 2000 years, and their advocacy has overstepped the mark in undermining social cohesion. They could have been a progressive voice for Palestine without embracing some of the loony left anti-semites. If an overwhelming majority of a race think you have a race problem you usually do. Many Australian Jews are extremely progressive, hate Netanyahu, the settlements and the continuation of the war, yet also can’t stand references to ‘Jewish tentacles’ and implicit endorsements of Hamas’ actions.

 

[Caesar]

Di Natalie was better than Bandt. His background as a doctor and GP made him more palatable to middle Australia than a guy who published a thesis on “Marxist Legal Theory”.

I’d be looking at Whish Wilson or Shoebridge for leader.

If your problem with Bandt is he’s ’too Marxist’ then you really don’t want Shoebridge - he is probably the biggest socialist in the federal caucus.

It always amuses me when people bring up Bandt’s PhD because in reality he is a reasonably moderate guy by Greens standards. The fact he has some Marxist credentials has probably actually pulled them towards the centre, as it has given him some currency with the party’s redder factions.

I am not sure who fulfils that role in his absence.