The Greens

[Chadwiko]

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.

Why are you shouting?

 

[Forward Press]

I understand the depth of the hatred for the Greens by some, but having your primary vote shrink by less than half a percent in the House of Reps is hardly a spectacular collapse. It is simply due to the Wills/Melbourne redistribution and the disaffected Lib voter in those four Greens seats flocking to the ALP instead of the Greens (understandably), as the primary reason for the Greens possibly ending up with 0 in the House of Reps, not a repudiation of their obstructionism or anti-Israeli stance or wokeism or whatever political agenda you subscribe to.

They are near certain to have 6 Senators, which would have been their primary aim especially since the ALP have a substantial majority government. Even if Bandt survived in Melbourne, he would have had little influence in the House.

The Greens may also be better off having a different leader anyway, think Bandt has reached his use-by date.

 

[Caesar]

The Greens may also be better off having a different leader anyway, think Bandt has reached his use-by date.

Who? And let’s try to be realistic, the Vic and Tas Greens can’t install whoever they want any more

 

[RedStarUncle]

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

Going back to pre-2022... pretty much all of them.

Prior to the Teal independents, they were mostly safe Liberal seats where the Greens polled almost as well as Labor. Rather than the Greens taking the next step and being competitive with Libs in those seats, 2022 saw Teals come in instead and offer a more appealing version of green to win the seats.



Maybe the Greens would never have been able to cross that bridge... but certainly they won't with a Teal alternative ahead of them. And the flow-on is more Teals in a greater variety of seats taking votes off the Greens.

It's not so much about the seats... it's about why the Greens vote didn't go up this election. I think it didn't go up because of Teal voters. If the Teals form a party and run Senate candidates, that's when it becomes a potential real problem for the Greens.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Going back to pre-2022... pretty much all of them.

Well I disagree strongly with that. The only one that the Greens were a threat in was Kooyong, and that was by picking a candidate in Julian Burnside who didn't really fit the mould of the rest of the party, and went on to make statements that flirted with sexism, so that would have annoyed a lot of his voters and volunteers had he actually been elected.

Prior to the Teal independents, they were mostly safe Liberal seats where the Greens polled almost as well as Labor. Rather than the Greens taking the next step and being competitive with Libs in those seats, 2022 saw Teals come in instead and offer a more appealing version of green to win the seats.

There are some areas where it's paradoxically better to not do what it takes to win the seat, because what a party need to do would be so incongruous with their base policies and values that they'd no longer be the same party. If Labor did what it takes to win Maranoa in this day and age, they wouldn't be recognisable as Labor. Similarly, the Greens would have had to completely throw out their economic messaging to win more than one of the teal seats.

It's not so much about the seats... it's about why the Greens vote didn't go up this election. I think it didn't go up because of Teal voters. If the Teals form a party and run Senate candidates, that's when it becomes a potential real problem for the Greens.

The reason I disagree with this is, the Greens and Teals are targeting different economic segments.

The Greens may win the votes of some upper middle class people (probably nouveau riche rather than inherited wealth), but fundamentally their economic message is about a better deal for the poor and strengthening the rights of employees.

The Teals, on the other hand, do not have that same focus, and their economic views seem to be more favourable to the upper middle class, including small business owners.

And I think this is fine, it's better when voters have more choice. Note that part of the appeal of Teals in the lower house is their localism, not just ideology. That can translate to a Senate seat in a place like the ACT which is geographically small, but can it work in a bigger state? Even if it does, I'm not sure it's the Greens who would primarily suffer unless they're in a contest with the Teals for the last seat. The Liberals would probably have a harder time hanging onto their or third seat in each state.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Maybe Bandt can complete his sequel to his thesis " Work to Rule"

 

[fletchisgun]

Wills is an interesting case study. There seems to be a swing to labor in the most southern booths(that have been redistributed from Melbourne). Some may argue this is demographic change with students being priced out but it appears fairly significant (10-15% decline in primary vote). Then in the north of the electorate there has been a strong swing to greens which can most likely be attributed to muslim communities changing in support of Palestine. So it appears their stance has both won and lost them voters. It'll be an interesting to see (if the conflict has died down) if in three years they can hold on to the new muslim voters they've attracted.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Well I disagree strongly with that. The only one that the Greens were a threat in was Kooyong, and that was by picking a candidate in Julian Burnside who didn't really fit the mould of the rest of the party, and went on to make statements that flirted with sexism, so that would have annoyed a lot of his voters and volunteers had he actually been elected.


There are some areas where it's paradoxically better to not do what it takes to win the seat, because what a party need to do would be so incongruous with their base policies and values that they'd no longer be the same party. If Labor did what it takes to win Maranoa in this day and age, they wouldn't be recognisable as Labor. Similarly, the Greens would have had to completely throw out their economic messaging to win more than one of the teal seats.


The reason I disagree with this is, the Greens and Teals are targeting different economic segments.

The Greens may win the votes of some upper middle class people (probably nouveau riche rather than inherited wealth), but fundamentally their economic message is about a better deal for the poor and strengthening the rights of employees.

The Teals, on the other hand, do not have that same focus, and their economic views seem to be more favourable to the upper middle class, including small business owners.

And I think this is fine, it's better when voters have more choice. Note that part of the appeal of Teals in the lower house is their localism, not just ideology. That can translate to a Senate seat in a place like the ACT which is geographically small, but can it work in a bigger state? Even if it does, I'm not sure it's the Greens who would primarily suffer unless they're in a contest with the Teals for the last seat. The Liberals would probably have a harder time hanging onto their or third seat in each state.

If the Greens don't want to try to appeal to a broader range of voters... that's fine. No-one should be judging their performance on lower house seats won is all I'm saying because unless they're going to try and appeal to Teal voters, they'll never win more than a handful.

Which means they're a party looking for Senate seats only. And they realistically need to be hitting 10% or more in each state to nab those seats.


If you look at Teal seats... typically you'll see (prior to the Teals) Greens at about 15% battling not far behind Labor on the high-teens or low-20s. Teals bridged that gap at the expense of both, and Greens now typically poll 5-10%.

I 100% agree that doesn't automatically translate to a Teal Party running in the Senate. But if you are in the Greens, you'd have to be concerned and planning for the fact that it could.



Greens result this election is not a bad result for the Greens. But the fact they haven't grown any deserves reflection. And my suggestion as someone with no reason to know if I'm right or wrong... is that millennials preferring to vote for Teals rather than Greens as they get more wealth and have families is the thing limiting the Greens from growing.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If the Greens don't want to try to appeal to a broader range of voters... that's fine. No-one should be judging their performance on lower house seats won is all I'm saying because unless they're going to try and appeal to Teal voters, they'll never win more than a handful.

I wouldn't necessarily say that. Teal voters tend to be concentrated in wealthy electorates, but plenty of electorates are not wealthy. Their focus issues of housing affordability and climate change will affect poor electorates more than rich ones.

Which means they're a party looking for Senate seats only. And they realistically need to be hitting 10% or more in each state to nab those seats.

That's an odd conclusion, after you've just implied they're capable of winning a few seats (and they demonstrated that in 2022).

If you look at Teal seats... typically you'll see (prior to the Teals) Greens at about 15% battling not far behind Labor on the high-teens or low-20s. Teals bridged that gap at the expense of both, and Greens now typically poll 5-10%.

The Greens were not going to win those seats anyway without fundamentally changing what their party was, so it's preferable that they go to the Teals rather than the Coalition. There's room for multiple actors in politics.

I 100% agree that doesn't automatically translate to a Teal Party running in the Senate. But if you are in the Greens, you'd have to be concerned and planning for the fact that it could.

Of course, they'd be silly not to. I just don't see the Teals as an existential threat to Greens Senate seats when they target different groups of people.

Greens result this election is not a bad result for the Greens. But the fact they haven't grown any deserves reflection. And my suggestion as someone with no reason to know if I'm right or wrong... is that millennials preferring to vote for Teals rather than Greens as they get more wealth and have families is the thing limiting the Greens from growing.

Yes, and the problem is this conclusion can by definition only be applied to seats where the Teals were running. That doesn't cover most seats, it doesn't cover the seats the Greens were incumbent in, nor to my knowledge does it cover the seats the Greens were targeting for gains (Macnamara, Wills, Richmond).

 

[faible]

If the Greens don't want to try to appeal to a broader range of voters... that's fine. No-one should be judging their performance on lower house seats won is all I'm saying because unless they're going to try and appeal to Teal voters, they'll never win more than a handful.

Which means they're a party looking for Senate seats only. And they realistically need to be hitting 10% or more in each state to nab those seats.


If you look at Teal seats... typically you'll see (prior to the Teals) Greens at about 15% battling not far behind Labor on the high-teens or low-20s. Teals bridged that gap at the expense of both, and Greens now typically poll 5-10%.

I 100% agree that doesn't automatically translate to a Teal Party running in the Senate. But if you are in the Greens, you'd have to be concerned and planning for the fact that it could.



Greens result this election is not a bad result for the Greens. But the fact they haven't grown any deserves reflection. And my suggestion as someone with no reason to know if I'm right or wrong... is that millennials preferring to vote for Teals rather than Greens as they get more wealth and have families is the thing limiting the Greens from growing.

Greens and Teals aren't really the same aside from both generally supporting action on climate change.

Teals are basically the centre-right position the LNP should probably be, where they're pro-climate action, mildly socially progressive and economically conservative, where Greens are a bit more (without being radically) to the progressive left socially and economically of the ALP.

Saying their vote is interchangeable is missing a lot of detail.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

 

[Festerz]

The usual hubris from SHY.

And it now looks as if the Greens Leader has lost his seat as well.

 

[Chief]

The usual hubris from SHY.

Why?

And it now looks as if the Greens Leader has lost his seat as well.

 

[Grin]

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.

That’s a bit shouty

Edit:

Why are you shouting?

Maybe it’s just something pro genocide Murdoch drones do

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The usual hubris from SHY.

And it now looks as if the Greens Leader has lost his seat as well.

Hubris?

 

[fletchisgun]

That’s a bit shouty

Edit:

Maybe it’s just something pro genocide Murdoch drones do

'Pro-genocide Murdoch drones'

You realise sympathy and compassion for Palestinians (and anger at the Israeli government) isn't mutually exclusive with disdain for anti-semitism?

 

[Grin]

'Pro-genocide Murdoch drones'

You realise sympathy and compassion for Palestinians (and anger at the Israeli government) isn't mutually exclusive with disdain for anti-semitism?

You realise that sympathy and compassion for the victims of genocide (and anger at the Israeli government) isn't anti-semitism?

 

[Grin]

In response to those who mindlessly believe everything the MAGAt media orders them to:

Crossroads21 findings dispels myth about Greens and antisemitism - The Jewish Independent

thejewishindependent.com.au

 

[fletchisgun]

You realise that sympathy and compassion for the victims of genocide (and anger at the Israeli government) isn't anti-semitism?

Of course I realise that. Criticism of Israeli war crimes isn't anti-semitic per se. But the behaviour from the Greens often does transgress into racist tropes and the entire Jewish community are genuinely traumatised by their rhetoric.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...nny-leong-antisemitic-trope-octupus-greens-mp

Do you think this was acceptable? Have Bandt and co made any effort to reach out to the Jewish community? Do you think it's acceptable to platform people like Clementine Ford who've posted messages celebrating Yahya Sinwar-the orchestrator of October 7? How do you explain the Jewish community's overwhelming disdain for the Greens? Or is an entire racial group just a bunch of hysterical genocidal maniacs?

You can be appalled by Netanhayu's depravity AND appalled by anti-semitism. You don't have to pick one.

Regards from a MAGA-Hating, Murdoch-Hating, 'woke inner-city leftie' anti-racist (Jews included-Apologies!)

 

[Grin]

Of course I realise that. Criticism of Israeli war crimes isn't anti-semitic per se. But the behaviour from the Greens often does transgress into racist tropes and the entire Jewish community are genuinely traumatised by their rhetoric.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...nny-leong-antisemitic-trope-octupus-greens-mp

Do you think this was acceptable? Have Bandt and co made any effort to reach out to the Jewish community? Do you think it's acceptable to platform people like Clementine Ford who've posted messages celebrating Yahya Sinwar-the orchestrator of October 7? How do you explain the Jewish community's overwhelming disdain for the Greens? Or is an entire racial group just a bunch of hysterical genocidal maniacs?

You can be appalled by Netanhayu's depravity AND appalled by anti-semitism. You don't have to pick one.

Regards from a MAGA-Hating, Murdoch-Hating, 'woke inner-city leftie' anti-racist (Jews included-Apologies!)

Hi James. Is that article seriously the best 'proof' you have, as you fall over yourself to regurgitate the Murdock 'Genocide is cool. The Greens are racist' line.

Here. Let me help you out:

 

[PJays]

What did the Greens do wrong though?

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

The Greens are wreckers.

Look at the last couple of years in Victoria:

- Blowing up the Yarra council

- Delaying Labor's federal housing bill by 12 months, potentially stopping thousands of people getting into homes

- Promoting anti-semitism. Attending divisive rallies. Contributing to social incohesion with the Gaza/Israel issue.

- Booting out several long-standing, senior party members in Victoria for holding feminist beliefs

They're just an idealistic, overly ideological imitation of Labor's ambitious agenda (environmentalism, social equality, workers rights).

But they add in extreme nonsensical elements (social divisiveness, ridiculous and unworkable policies on economics and tax).

I don't understand how they get so many votes.

Perhaps this is simplistic, but in my mind, the majority of Greens voters are young people who haven't been around long enough to understand what they're voting for, and are being hooked by 30 second tik-toks.

 

[Gough]

Can you really wreck a system that's already broken?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

- Delaying Labor's federal housing bill by 12 months, potentially stopping thousands of people getting into homes

Labor shouldn't have put forward such a stupid policy as capping the distribution at $500m a year (if the fund earned that much to begin with). That wouldn't have built many homes and they refused to negotiate. The Greens are not a rubber stamp for every hare-brained policy Labor concoct.

- Promoting anti-semitism. Attending divisive rallies. Contributing to social incohesion with the Gaza/Israel issue.

Oh no, we wouldn't want to take a stand on something, some people might disagree and that contributes to the dreaded "social incohesion"!

Basically, you want the Greens and not take a stand on anything controversial.

- Booting out several long-standing, senior party members in Victoria for holding feminist beliefs

You misspelled "transphobic".

They're just an idealistic, overly ideological imitation of Labor's ambitious agenda (environmentalism, social equality, workers rights).

The same Labor party that boasts about opening new coal and gas projects, failed to implement marriage equality when they had the chance and disavowed the CFMEU while continuing to take their money.

But they add in extreme nonsensical elements (social divisiveness, ridiculous and unworkable policies on economics and tax).

Which policies specifically on economics and tax are unworkable?

I don't understand how they get so many votes.

I mean that much is clear, you have no real idea what the appeal of the party is. Here's a hint, they're taking stances backed by evidence rather than just by popular opinion.

Perhaps this is simplistic, but in my mind, the majority of Greens voters are young people who haven't been around long enough to understand what they're voting for, and are being hooked by 30 second tik-toks.

That's pretty condescending. You're getting old and out of touch. What if the young were more politically aware than your generation was at the same age, and know exactly what they're voting for because their survival may be at stake?

The interwar generation are about to disappear, and boomers have already started to die off. Millenials and younger generations are now a majority of the population. Perhaps you should try and understand them or you'll just get more out of touch as you get older.

 

[PJays]

. The Greens are not a rubber stamp for every hare-brained policy Labor concoct.

But they supported it eventually. They knew it was good policy- and helped achieve the Greens own stated goals.

What was the point of the delay again?

Oh no, we wouldn't want to take a stand on something, some people might disagree and that contributes to the dreaded "social incohesion"

Basically, you want the Greens and not take a stand on anything controversial.

This deserves its own post.

You misspelled "transphobic".

Therein lies the problem.

Most people see it as a complex issue of competing rights. The Greens see one side and excommunicate anyone who disagrees.

That was my point about the Greens. Ideologues.

Are you trying to make my points for me?!

The same Labor party that boasts about opening new coal and gas projects

They rubber stamped 10 renewables projects for every 1 coal/gas...

Which policies specifically on economics and tax are unworkable?

All of them?

Millenials and younger generations are now a majority of the population. Perhaps you should try and understand them

I'm a millennial....

 

[PJays]

"social incohesion"!

As promised....

Virtually all Jews see Israel as a legitimate country, and many of them see the country of Israel as a core part of their identity.

Many Jews think Netanyahu is a war-mongering idiot, believe Israel is guilty of human rights abuses, and think the West Bank settlements should stop immediately. But they all support the existence of the country itself. It’s the only Jewish majority country.

When you call for the destruction of that country, you are being antisemitic.

Let me be very clear.

“End the war in Gaza” = NOT antisemitic.

“From the river to the sea” = antisemitic.

Attending rallies with chants of “from the river to the sea” and not calling it out = antisemitic.

Obsessing over Islamophobia and not giving comparable airtime to antisemitism = antisemitic.

Cosying up to one ethnic/religious group and completely ignoring another = stoking social divisions.

(Especially when the 2nd group is being persecuted in our own country).