The Greens’ election review flew under the radar. Here’s what it said
202 comments · 92% upvoted · source · other discussions
comments
AutoModerator
hildred123
I’m proud of the stance they took on Gaza but as a Greens member who volunteers for them it was jarring for them to then treat Macnamara as a winnable seat.
Appropriate_Volume
Interesting article. I'd disagree with this point though:
Finally, while the Greens benefited from the element of surprise when they won a swathe of lower house seats in 2022, this falls away with incumbency. This means others – both political parties and third-parties – can counter them by developing more effective campaigns that learn from their success.
While this didn't apply to Adam Bandt, new MPs usually get a swing towards them (at least relative to the party average) at the next election as they become well known and gain a range of other advantages. Max Chandler-Mather had a 3% swing against him on primary votes and Stephen Bates in Brisbane suffered a 1.3% swing against him, which are quite poor results.
nath1234
They were aggressively targeted by Labor, Advance etc.
Shockanabi
Being “aggressively targeted” by competing political parties is just politics.
jelly_cake
LordWalderFrey1
They lost votes in the wrong places.
I think we can say with hindsight the Greensland victories in 2022 were a fluke. Despite winning Labor ran a poor campaign overall in Queensland they made the same mistake they did in 2019, focusing on regional seats that have drifted away, while only turning to suburban Brisbane late. They didn't in 2025, they attacked throughout Brisbane and they improved their position. In the three Greens seats they were able to push the Libs out of the 2PP and win off of Liberal preferences.
They perhaps did focus their attention too much on Palestine, and I don't think people truly bought that Labor had blood on their hands, the amount of single issue Palestine voters was very low outside of the Muslim community, and it hurt their messaging. Having said that I don't think Greens 2022 voters en masse shifted to Labor because of that. The Greens were always clear on the issue, and the amount of people who care about Israel enough but still voted for the Greens were miniscule. Still it hurt their messaging when they focused on it too much.
I don't think the likes of Bandt or MCM helped them. Progressive leaning voters want the Greens to be a check on Labor, but not to side with the Liberals for the sake of hurting Labor and making good be the enemy of perfect. The desire for ideological purity is far higher among the politicians.
patslogcabindigest
I think we can say with hindsight the Greensland victories in 2022 were a fluke. Despite winning Labor ran a poor campaign overall in Queensland they made the same mistake they did in 2019, focusing on regional seats that have drifted away, while only turning to suburban Brisbane late. They didn't in 2025, they attacked throughout Brisbane and they improved their position. In the three Greens seats they were able to push the Libs out of the 2PP and win off of Liberal preferences.
I think this is very much correct also. Labor were disappointed with their showing in Queensland in 2019 and a lot of the seats that went to them in 2025 were ones that they were targeting in 2022 but were unsuccessful. Bonner, Forde, Petrie, Dickson, Brisbane. The Greens wins in Ryan and Brisbane were incredibly marginal and took a few days to determine. Labor actually finished in second on primary vote but fell to third on the 3CP. Ryan was a historically Liberal seat and there the Greens probably benefited from the lack of a Teal candidate.
Dranzer_22
I think we can say with hindsight the Greensland victories in 2022 were a fluke.
I disagree, the QLD Greens led a very targeted continuous campaign in overlapping inner Brisbane seats from the 2016 local election to the 2022 Federal Election. They actively had a long-term plan.
In 2022, Labor got significant swings in their notional 2PP contests against the LNP in those three seats, but they underestimated the QLD Greens.
In 2025, in Brisbane they knocked the Greens out of the 2PP and won, in Griffith they knocked the LNP out of the 2PP and won, & in Ryan they couldn't get in the 2PP and lost again.
Throwawaydeathgrips
They actively had a long-term plan.
MCM posted a video to youtube about a long term plan for the Greens to win Government. They certainly had a plan.
HelpMeOverHere
You had me up until this point.
Progressive leaning voters want the Greens to be a check on Labor, but not to side with the Liberals for the sake of hurting Labor and making good be the enemy of perfect. The desire for ideological purity is far higher among the politicians.
What recent examples come to your mind when you talk about good being the enemy of perfect?
And what examples do you have of Greens SIDING with the LNP? I’m sure they voted the same way on some things, but to suggest they voted for the same reasons is a little disingenuous, don’t you think?
I can find literally any bill that has eroded our privacy and rights, any bills that granted law enforcement (and local councils) unfettered access to all our metadata and allows them to alter our data without knowledge, and any bills that detrimentally affect minor parties and independents in our elections and do you know what I’d find? LIB/LAB SIDING TOGETHER.
Perfect-Werewolf-102
I think something that doesn't appear to have been addressed, at least here, is the independent factor. The seats where swings were worst for the Greens were those with strong Climate 200 independent campaigns (and indeed if the AES is to believed they had a net gain of voters from Labor nationally and a net loss to independents)
Part of that is of course tactical voting and the massive disparity with funding, but I think the Keep Dutton Out campaign and pushes for power sharing with Labor was a massive failure since it associated them with Labor and made it harder to act as a nonaligned, autonomous third front
There is also the issue of local campaigns particularly in their stronger seats seemingly not going too well, I'm not sure if it's true but I do remember hearing MCM say they did less doorknocking than in 2022 for some reason which was likely a mistake, they also had stronger counter campaigns now that everyone else realised they were an actual threat there. And I think in Melbourne specifically there was a bit of overconfidence and Bandt may not have thought to address 15 years of anti-incumbency well enough. There is also the issue that's been partially mentioned in this article of the Greens base possibly moving out of the inner city which would be because of cost constraints etc
Known_Week_158
The Teals win because they aren't left-wing. They won because they're able to get voters who'd usually vote for the Coalition to instead vote for them because they are a more moderate opposition compared to Labor or the Greens.
The seats where swings were worst for the Greens were those with strong Climate 200 independent campaigns (and indeed if the AES is to believed they had a net gain of voters from Labor nationally and a net loss to independents)
If that's the case it says the Greens need to focus more on environment and anti-corruption - those were two of the Teals' biggest selling points - and that means moving back to a more tradition Green campaign.
but I think the Keep Dutton Out campaign and pushes for power sharing with Labor was a massive failure since it associated them with Labor and made it harder to act as a nonaligned, autonomous third front
Saying you have a common enemy shouldn't outweigh a radically different policy platform.
There is also the issue that's been partially mentioned in this article of the Greens base possibly moving out of the inner city which would be because of cost constraints etc
This means shifting their message is even more important because their core voters are more spread out and they need a wider bloc of support in any one electorate to win.
Perfect-Werewolf-102
They won because they're able to get voters who'd usually vote for the Coalition to instead vote for them because they are a more moderate opposition compared to Labor or the Greens
That's simply not the case, the majority of teal voters come from Labor and the Greens
those were two of the Teals' biggest selling points
But really this is more about messaging than policy (obviously no shortage of either of those two points in Greens policy) and the Teals very clearly presented themselves as totally independent from both major parties
Saying you have a common enemy shouldn't outweigh a radically different policy platform.
It shouldn't, but again, it's an issue of messaging
joeldipops
I don't have any insider information for you, but I suspect they did less door knocking in 2025 because their morale had been shattered by disappointing results in the BCC election and disastrous ones in the Qld State Election the previous year.
trala7
I find it so interesting that election reviews focus on the 6 week campaign and not what the party did, or in this case, stopped from happening, during the whole term between elections.
Maybe there's something in those years of actions that influenced people's votes and not just in the 6 week campaign? Strange thought I know.
brezhnervouz
challenges differentiating themselves from Labor
Might be less of a problem next time 🤔
CutePattern1098
I think the greens risk failure Believing that Albo is Starmer. The only way that’s going to work is if Albo starts fucking around with Medicare. I think the electorate don’t really care what happens overseas as long as things here are okay.
hildred123
Starmer is also quite terrible at politics itself (not policy but the wider politics of leading a party, playing to the media, making appointments etc) in a way that Albanese isn’t.
Candescence
The report does note the biggest factor that everyone basically knew - the Greens suffered from the massive rise in Labor's primary vote due to preferencing dynamics favoring the Greens when Labor is in third place. The "keep Dutton out" campaign ultimately benefited Labor more than anyone else, and the Greens basically just got really unlucky despite maintaining their previous primary vote share.
Jealous-Hedgehog-734
The review concluded the Greens’ focus and positions on...what the party called a "Astroglide" in Palestine helped their campaign.
I'd be very surprised. Bread and butter domestic issues tend to get votes. I'd say the same to almost any party in any election really.
Known_Week_158
Notably the article didn't say that it helped them expand their base of support, just that it helped them.
explain_that_shit
I’ve heard a lot of claims that a pro-Palestine position is unpopular from what turns out to be a very vocal minority - the pro-Palestine position is actually the majority view of Australians on most polls.
The arguments against it are incoherent as well - I’ve heard claims that the Greens are too obsessed with international matters in this way when they should focus on domestic issues, but a position that says we should reduce our material and diplomatic assistance and involvement in Israel, support of Israel, IS the least involved stance. You don’t hear anti-Palestine types saying that the government is overly interested in supporting Israel and should focus on domestic issues. It just reeks of astroturf as an argument.
It’s also incoherent in that opponents of the Greens also say the Greens lack a comprehensive position in relation to China, when (A) that’s not true, opponents just don’t like the Greens’ position, and (B) that’s telling the Greens to talk more about international matters and therefore less about domestic matters.
TL;DR some critiques of the Greens really aren’t worth listening to.
Known_Week_158
The Greens do have a clear policy on China. That policy is to ignore China's atrocities and not stand up to it. If you type the word China in their website, most of the top results are brief mentions in articles not focused on China. https://greens.org.au/search/node?keys=China
https://greens.org.au/news/statement-visit-chinese-premier-australia They had no issue with the premier of China visiting Australia, yet think that Isaac Herzog should've been blocked from Australia. What's the difference? And am I really meant to believe the Greens are committed to the things they said critical of China in the article when they also said that "“Improved relations between the People’s Republic of China and Australia will benefit both countries. This visit is an opportunity to improve trade relationships, ensure peace within our region, and commit to taking urgent action on the climate crisis." How will trading with China, the country threating to invade Australian allies in the region, especially Taiwan, benefit Australia? Bear in mind a Chinese invasion of Taiwan will massively disrupt if not cripple the global technology industry given how many high end chips are made in Taiwan.
Will the Greens refuse to import or build solar panels with silicon that comes from Xinjiang? You can't simultaneously not import goods from places like Xinjiang but also say you want to do more work on renewable energy.
https://greens.org.au/policies/international-affairs-and-global-cooperation They also make no mention about just how aggressive China is being, or how the only way to stop China short of going to war is a military buildup to counter China. Appeasing dictatorships doesn't work.
And how's this for some criticisms of the Greens.
What I just said about their stance on China.
https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy No mention of batteries and the only mention of dams was a circumstance where they shouldn't be built. If the Greens want net zero by 2030, there should be at least a mention of a plan to get a baseline amount of power from renewable sources (and they're certainly not going to go for nuclear energy for that baseline).
https://greens.org.au/policies/constitutional-reform-and-democracy "To replace sections 44 and 45 of the Constitution with a single disqualification on the basis of proved and undischarged serious corruption or abuse of office." The Constitution goes to detail on what abuse of office leads to disqualification, and they want to remove the line which, among other things, removes representatives that are convicted of treason. How is their proposal any better?
https://greens.org.au/policies/international-affairs-and-global-cooperation Repeatedly stating a commitment to self-determination, and yet in this page (https://greens.org.au/policies/first-nations-peoples-truth-treaty-voice) they didn't get the message that the Australians public self-determined and rejected the Voice. How can you claim to support self-determination and then ignore the voters because they didn't do what you wanted?
https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium Engaging in evidence denialism on nuclear power. They say they're concerned about safety but ignore the negative consequences of nuclear energy are brief but intense, while with other forms of energy they're spread out and harder to easily notice. If they're concerned about things being clean, how do they plan to address the emissions that come from producing renewables, or the dodgy things done to get the minerals needed for an electric transition - rare metals are not concentrated in countries with functional governments and good human rights records. And if they concern is time and cost it should've been started decades ago. Take a look at Europe. France is a major exporter of energy thanks to its nuclear power plants while Germany shut down most of its nuclear plants and choose fossil fuels over nuclear energy. The Greens notable haven't mentioned what happened when a country walked away from nuclear energy or how they think it should be done in the future to avoid a German style return to fossil fuels.
Buttermuncher04
The difference between the premier of China visiting and the president of Israel visiting is that we defend and provide weapons to one of them, you ninny.
Shockanabi
There’s a huge difference between ticking that you sympathise with Palestinians on a survey, and buying into the Greens’ position that this is an important domestic issue that we have lots of influence over, and that Anthony Albanese is directly responsible for war crimes.
PlanktonDB
Many critiques aren't worth anything, they tend to be baseless crap from Sky or Labor hacks. With questions for any evidence eliciting crickets or inane ad hominem takes mostly.
Both all powerful and utterly powerless, Schrodingers Greens are responsible for both everything and nothing in policy for decades of auspol apparently. Depending upon the context and idiotic point someone is trying to make. Often expressed all in the same thread of posts.
Only party still working on significant housing policy change. As the uselessness of anything tried so far is obvious in the continuing and worsening housing arrordabilty crisis.
Perfect-Werewolf-102
I didn't even know they had a publicly released review, does anyone have a link to the full report?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Perfect-Werewolf-102
Specialist_Being_161
Greens should pivot to the party of renters. There’s 30% of the population up for grabs
artsrc [OP]
They already do have policy support for renters more than any other party. And renters are a good voting block for them.
BradfieldScheme
Like open borders?
KonamiKing
Sodium practice bells pinecone existence hard-to-find upbeat late strong
This post was anonymized with Redact
MrBonkMeister
People keep espousing the Greens as some sort of panacea to the current shit buffet of political parties- and none of them seem to realise that where the Greens stand on some social issues is just fucking unpalatable to your actual ‘centrist’.
luv2hotdog
They tried that. They tried that with all their might
nath1234
Rental crisis has only gone worse and worse since then - so they were 100% right about it. Younger people need to realize a vote for Labor or Liberal is a vote to sabotage your quality of life forever more..
luv2hotdog
If only their policy solution to it wasn’t batshit. There’s a real opportunity there for a political party to take, but the greens used it to spell out loud and clear that they don’t care about the workability of their “solutions”. Instead of meaningfully helping solve the problem at all, they showed the electorate they are not to be taken seriously. The fact that the rent freeze they were demanding was unconstitutional was not something you had to be following politics particularly closely to figure out. Their response to this niggling little detail of their policy shortcoming was basically “lol this marketing isn’t aimed at people who pay attention anyways , keep it up fellas, don’t blink, we’re on a winner! 🤪”
They now have to live down the reputation for meaningless populism the rightly earned with that whole thing
Mitchell_54
In NSW, especially Sydney, where the housing situation is worse than just about anywhere else, the Greens chaired an inquiry opposing housing supply. They were worried about 'overdevelopment'. They are not serious actors in NSW.
Throwawaydeathgrips
Thats what they said they were doing the entire time...
patslogcabindigest
Large swings against all sitting MPs suggest that electorates entertain the idea of a Greens MP until they get one and then decide they don't want one. The increases in the suburbs are what's helped them weather the broader swing against them to make it look a bit better.
Rejecting the fairly thorough data on city professionals swinging hard against them on their activities re Gaza (Redbridge) is a bit of cope I'd say. They may gain more seats in the future but it's through attrition that they'll get them, rather than a larger campaign, unless they be more reflective. The identifying of how their targets were woefully out of touch with what was happening on the ground shows significant strategic issues in the party structure and would suggest their modelling methods in the past yielded results by fluke, not because it was a good model.
NoMoreFund
This used to not be the case - Adam Bandt got an enormous sophomore surge in his second election in 2013.
More recently Michael Berkman in QLD went from 27% in 2017 to 41% in 2020, then he lost 7.5% of that in 2024.
My prevailing theory is that many people will vote Green to improve Labor but don't actually want them to be a threat to Labor governments.
patslogcabindigest
The soft Labor / Greens voter is a very real flip flop voter. They don't really hate either party.
Throwawaydeathgrips
I think Labor could put up more of an argument against sitting Greens MPs this time around, before that a lot of it was abstract.
Instead of saying "Greens might do X" they could say "Greens DID vote with the Libs to block X".
Whether people agree with the argument or think its a fair assessment, it was a message they could deliver to people that they couldnt before, and could explain some small swings from GRN -> LAB in Green seats.
Perfect-Werewolf-102
I think that would have happened even if they'd only won 1 seat in the House in 2022 as well just since Labor moved into government, there would obviously have been far less voting against each other when they were both non government parties
Throwawaydeathgrips
Depends on how much a 1 seat win v 4 wpuld have changed the Greens attitude and determined Senate votes. Without MCM would they have blocked or delayed anything?
It depends.
authaus0
Adam Bandt consolidated his majority after he first one the seat. I'd argue a high effort Labor campaign combined with fears of a Liberal government played a larger factor.
Greens MPs are really involved with their electorates, and in MCM's case he put his own wages towards free school lunches. They run community BBQs, and their offices are accessible and friendly for things like Centrelink issues. I don't think anyone's getting turned off after the experience of having a local Greens MP.
patslogcabindigest
Reportedly the Greens didn't think Melbourne was under threat and didn't sink resources or campaigning into it until the last minute when it was too late.
As for MCM in Griffith. The man really burned his reputation among the electorate. He started out strong with what you described but the seat of Griffith is not the kind of seat that is super old school blue collar union friendly, and were really put off by the defense he ran for the CFMEU. His obstructionism on the HAFF damaged the Greens to the point Bandt hauled his arse in front of a camera to endorse the HAFF.
You can talk about the bbqs sure, but a lot of MPs do that, Labor, Liberals, Indis, it's not exactly unique, and it's not what gets you over the line. My local MP does this pretty frequently. I can't think of an electorate office who doesn't run BBQs, doesn't have accessible offices, and doesn't help constituents with basic stuff like Centrelink. Like they all do this, mate.
Perfect-Werewolf-102
What was the Redbridge polling?
patslogcabindigest
Would've been back either in the weeks leading up to the election or shortly after the election. Kos was discussing it on ABC or something, might've been one of his tweet threads. By memory the Redbridge track showed an inner city swing to Labor quite early in 2025 campaign.
justno111
What this report doesn't mention is the campaign by Labor, the Liberals, Advance Australia, Australian Jewish Association, etc etc, against the Greens. That was unprecedented in its united savagery.
A possibly bigger factor, again not mentioned, was the consensus that Dutton would be a disaster. Before the election it was perceived as almost a certainty that Dutton would be PM. That would have shifted votes and preferences away from the Greens. In the end it was a massive loss for Dutton's Liberals, not a massive win for Labor.
evilparagon
While entirely true, it’s the goal of an election review to do self-critical analysis to improve in future. While the Greens had a massive push against them from external forces, it’s not helpful for the Greens to just blame that and then not try harder in future because it wasn’t them that lost it was everyone else winning against them.
Vegetable-Advance982
Lol they concluded that their focus on Palestine helped them.
I encourage them to keep going with that
PuzzleheadedBell560
It’s hardly surprising from the party that doesn’t believe in polling.
authaus0
It literally did. They had swings towards them in highly multicultural electorates and gained thousands of younger voters. Sure, some tree Tory types were turned off but they had to go anyway
HelpMeOverHere
They lost a couple of seats but overall their vote remained solid.
2022: 12.25%
2025: 12.20%
Seems to indicate broader support to me.
trala7
Always see this but it lacks so much critical analysis.
The greens SHOULD in theory get a whole wave of new voters every election that have turned 18 since the last. Young people like the greens.
If this still happened, that means they've lost just as many existing voters to other parties. That's an issue they seem to refuse to acknowledge
Vegetable-Advance982
I think the absolute best you can say about that is it was a breakeven strategy, but in reality this was an election where basically every other non-Liberal group (independents, One Nation, Trumpets, Nats) got a bump and the expectation was further erosion of the major party vote. Holding steady in that environment is to me is a bit of a failure and indicates something went wrong. Like holding breakeven stocks in a market where everything else is going up.
And I'm pretty sure all the yelling about Palestine hurt them because it looked like they were focusing on other issues when there's a cost of living crisis
Occulto
This is a constant refrain from the Greens but electoral success is ultimately determined by how many seats you win.
Coming third consistently gets the Greens 6 senate seats. Which is nothing to be sneezed at.
But it's hardly the ringing endorsement from the electorate they seem to always spin it as, because it doesn't get them a seat at the table.
Excluding the LNP in QLD, the Nats got around 1/3 the vote of the Greens and hold 8 seats in their own right in the HoR.
HelpMeOverHere
I’m not refuting any of what you said.
What I was responding to was the claim “let them keep going”.
And all I was doing was pointing out that their support does seem to be spreading.
I’m not sure else you reconcile the near identical polling. Can you explain that?
Ya know, conservatives also said the Teals were a protest vote and they’d all lose their seats back to the Libs. How did that work out? I think they got one, and even that is still borderline. And then the LNP lost a Sydney seat to another independent.
So excuse me for not swallowing more conservative wishes as gospel.
You then talk about “electoral success” and point to the Nats holding 8 seats, but it was the Greens who got dental covered for millions of kids under Medicare. It was the Greens who got us the right to disconnect from work after hours. It was the Greens who buffed the still woefully inadequate HAFF by billions of dollars.
They seem to do alright by the Australian public, even with fewer seats than the Nats.
Is your point that we should toss the Nats for the Greens, who actually get stuff done?
Occulto
And all I was doing was pointing out that their support does seem to be spreading.
They got 12.25% in 2022 standing in all electorates.
They got 12.20% in 2025 standing in all electorates.
That's not spreading or showing "broader" support. That's literally the same level of support with variation that amounts to nothing more than a rounding error, and resulted in less seats.
It's annoying because no matter what happens, Greens paint themselves as successful, that their strategy actually worked, and everything's fine because "at least we didn't go backwards."
It's that lack of critical introspection which is the Achilles Heel of the Greens.
You then talk about “electoral success” and point to the Nats holding 8 seats, but it was the Greens who got dental covered for millions of kids under Medicare. It was the Greens who got us the right to disconnect from work after hours. It was the Greens who buffed the still woefully inadequate HAFF by billions of dollars.
You're attributing success to: "well I got some things I like."
Nats supporters point to a bunch of things their members got them because they actually participate in the process. Even in opposition, having people sit in committees that draft and negotiate legislation is significant.
All the legislation that's bipartisan and gets passed by the majors without even looking at the Greens in the Senate? That's the big players working together behind the scenes. And the Nats get their input, because their members actually get elected in the HoR. They get put on committees. They get confidential briefings from departments.
Then there's the members of parliament who can make things happen outside of the legislative process because they've got MP next to their name. Oddly enough, if I have a problem with something, my local member (not actually a Nat) still has more clout when they go into bat for me, than the Greens candidate who came third.
Is your point that we should toss the Nats for the Greens, who actually get stuff done?
No. My point is that if the Greens actually concentrated their efforts in a handful of seats and focused more on winning seats than hollow "victories" like preserving 12% vote across the country, then they'd have a bigger say outside of hoping someone needs to negotiate with the crossbench on something in the Senate.
For all the pontificating and national support, the Greens in the House have as much clout as Bob Katter. Probably even less, because Bob's been around forever and knows where all the bodies are buried.
From my perspective, the Greens need to decide whether they want to stand in elections to actually win seats, or if they want to participate only so they know how many people in the electorate agree with them.
waddeaf
Remaining stagnant while losing 3/4 of their seats including the leaders and their 2nd most high profile member doesn't seem to indicate amazing support.
The major parties primaries are going down what about the greens strategy isn't seeing an uptick with that?
patslogcabindigest
Worth noting they had an even lower Senate vote share.
miserychickkk
The greens tried to play the same weird personality cult game the US plays with Andrews in clubs with influencers and going to an election with trendy issues on social media that don't correlate with what voters are actually worried about. Last election was the first time I did not preference them #1 and it would appear I wasn't the only inner city white collar to do the same. Even their official website landing page was nonsensical, Palestine, cheap public transport (a state issue) and making assessments for ADHD and autism free (great, except that does not at all address the shortage of psychiatrists which is way more of an issue) it was a chatGPT generated election campaign. I'd hoped they had learnt from their mistakes but apparently not.
theobviousanswers
“The greens tried to play the same weird personality cult game the US plays with Andrews in clubs with influencers..”
Who is Andrews in this sentence?
miserychickkk
Imma be so real with you I've been at a work "lunch" all day and got my Victorian pollys names mixed up 😩
fresh_jorks
how could dan andrews do this to you 😠😠😠
miserychickkk
lmao fr rent free for some reason 😭 think the covid memes must be lurking in my subconscious and reactivated after the 5th glass of rosé
DefinitionOfAsleep
I think it didn't help that they wouldn't answer a basic question over one of their key policies, dental on medicare.
"Where will you find the dental specialists to cover the expected increase in visits?"
"Well the government has $300 billion to spend on subs and we think..."
Is an answer to a question but not an answer to the question asked.
SnooHedgehogs8765
A party that wont change its policies in opposition doesnt bode well for its ability to listen if ever in government.
According_Editor9244
Lucky they're in neither
cytae99
The review concluded the Greens’ focus and positions on the cost of living crisis and what the party called a genocid in Palestine helped their campaign.
This is evident in the party’s stronger performance in more working class Labor heartland seats, where cost of living pressures likely hit voters hard – such as in Fraser, Lalor, Barton and Maribyrnong – as well as in Wills, where Palestine was a leading campaign issue. Interestingly, Wills is the only target seat where the Greens’ vote grew.
No shit.
The Greens are seen as obstructionist. All the Greens have to do is not block Labor on economic issues, while smashing them for not doing enough. Labor won't kill negative gearing and make housing affordable.
Labor supports an illegal regime change war in Iran even though Iran has no nukes and agreed the lastest rounds of negotiations to never build a nuke and don't give a shit about how this still destroy COL. Labor and their supporters consistently defends Israel's genocid.
Fairbsy
All the Greens have to do is not block Labor on economic issues
So you want them to be part of the Labor party?
Eric-Arthur-Blairite
If you love Labor policies so much why do the Greens even need to exist?
Summersong2262
They're seen as obstructionist as a result of a dedicated campaign of ignoring everything they say beyond the word 'no'.
Labor mediocrity is directly responsible for poor reception amongst actual progressives.
evilparagon
Exactly. It takes two to make an agreement. If the Greens say no, it’s just as much on Labor to get the Greens to say yes. Labor are just as much being obstructionists of better legislation by constantly putting forwards piss poor efforts.
[deleted]
[deleted]
artsrc [OP]
You can fix the environment just by removing all the humans.
An environmental party needs to have a view on how humans and the environment can flourish together.
LordWalderFrey1
The problem with that is they'd be little different from minor party #26812 on the Senate ballot paper.
There is a niche for a party that is to the left of Labor and they can get 10-15% of votes at least. There just aren't as many single issue voters for the environment or science to get them over what they already are.
deadlyrepost
This is naive. As a party grows, it needs to adopt a broader agenda. If you read the actual article, the thing which has hurt them most is that the environment wasn't high enough on the agenda to cause a vote shift. A shift to the Greens "core values" likely would have cost them more, and actually standing up for Palestine has helped them.
The issue is the broader communication landscape is equally hyper left and hyper right, with young men joining the manosphere. This is where the Greens vote has lurched.
Known_Week_158
A shift to the Greens "core values" likely would have cost them more, and actually standing up for Palestine has helped them.
How? The Greens needs to make themselves appealing to more voters, and that means appealing to centre-left voters and moderating them. And going back to being a more dedicated environmental party would help with that.
Throwawaydeathgrips
As a party grows, it needs to adopt a broader agenda.
I mean, theyve grown what, 0.5% in 16 years? It doesnt seem like either an enviro focus or broader agenda are really thay meaningful.
Bionic_Ferir
My primary issue is it's okay for them to champion trans issues and social issues, however making that a core part of your platform unfortunately alienates ALOT of voters. I think they should find the 3 core main policy that poll well across a few different categories (public infrastructure, environment, industry, etc). Pick the most popular 3 for there big national campaign and than mix and match for smaller local campaigns.
Warm_Ice_4209
All thew Muslim's I know loved their rampant Israel hatred but would never vote for them due to the LGBT stuff.
HotPersimessage62
Is this report even real? The Greens’ support for Palestine helped them despite losing 75% of HoR seats? Utterly delusional and it has vibe of Josh Lees all over it.
This just pushes the argument that the Greens are nothing but the political arm of Josh Lees’ radical PAG. It’s a shame that the Greens did self sabotage when they decided to be morally acquired by the PAG.
After two decades of not achieving much, the Greens quickly became ascendant in many elections federal and state/territory between 2020 and October 2023 making real inroads in both Labor and Liberal territory. Not only has their post October 2023 transformation heavily reversed all those gains, but the PAG are actively holding the Greens hostage and it’s only getting worse.
Not every grassroots member in the party is a radical campist anti-western extremist, but those people who hold more moderate foreign policy views risk being punished by the Greens’ PAG masters. Those people are afraid to attend branch meetings, afraid to speak out and the whole thing is just terrible.
DelayedChoice
You forgot to mention PAG in the first paragraph but you got it twice in the second one so your average is still safe.
fresh_jorks
it says it helped them specifically in the areas where the electorate supported palestine and viewed it as a important political issue at the time. they're right.
It’s a shame that the Greens did self sabotage when they decided to be morally acquired by the PAG.
Not only has their post October 2023 transformation heavily reversed all those gains, but the PAG are actively holding the Greens hostage and it’s only getting worse.
those people who hold more moderate foreign policy views risk being punished by the Greens’ PAG masters
the absolute state of the pro-apartheid crowd lmao
it really is jarring watching this collaborative writing project coming from people who support a political project that identifies itself as fundamentally jewish as they construct the Protocolos of the Elders of Gaza. you'd think they'd know better, but maybe they just saw how well it worked to justify atrocities against jews and reckon it will help justify their atrocities against palestinians.
Greetings humans.
Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.