The Greens’ election review flew under the radar. Here’s what it said
https://theconversation.com/the-greens-election-review-flew-under-the-radar-heres-what-it-said-277514
The Greens’ election review flew under the radar. Here’s what it said
https://theconversation.com/the-greens-election-review-flew-under-the-radar-heres-what-it-said-277514
27 Comments
>*As the two-party system in Australia continues to fragment, there is potential for the Greens to benefit more from declining support for the major parties. Doing so, however, will mean navigating complex questions and dynamics.*
So, parsing the conclusion into common language, the Greens’ review said: “*it’s complicated, we have no idea how to get voters away from any other major party, and nobody has any ideas what to do.*”
Well, that’s just fucking great for everyone even slightly to the left of Labor. No chance of anything good happening in the next election, from the sounds of it…
Report is pretty insightful with the challenges they face.
1. a decline in support from young men
2. climate and the environment not featuring prominently on the agenda
It seems insane to me that the Green party has decided to distance itself from environmental politics in favour of Palestine. The cost of living crisis being their no.1 agenda is understandable.
While I like they are tackling more social and economic issues, they really need to have a focus on climate and the environment as well.
> The report also identified numerous challenges that harmed the party, particularly when it came to retaining and winning new seats in the lower house. This included:
>significant shifts in the nature of the campaign over its duration, most prominently the increased anti-Trump sentiment leading to Labor also running hard on a “keep Dutton out” message
>changes in Greens voter demographics including a decline in support from young men, particularly in target seats
>challenges differentiating themselves from Labor
>climate and the environment not featuring prominently on the agenda
>difficulties retaining and winning new lower house seats
>the role of third parties, citing attacks from groups such as Advance.
This makes it sound like something that happened to the Greens rather than something they contributed to. A decline in support from young men is something the Greens policy and actions contributed to.
Having said that it could just be shit writing. The Conversation has gone down hill. The list says “difficulties retaining and winning new lower house seats” challenged the party’s goal of “retaining and winning new lower house seats”
What a shit article
For example, as to why the Greens failed in QLD state election “This is what played out in Queensland in 2024 when Labor effectively adopted Green-lite policies, such as 50 cent public transport fares and emulated the Greens’ volunteer-driven doorknocking methods”
Given cheaper system wide fares have been implemented by Labor in WA and Vic I wouldnt call it a Green-lite policy. Also volunteer-driven doorknocking is a core of Labor’s campaigning consistently so not sure where the Author thinks that never happened?
I’m one of the young men that is left of labor and reluctantly votes green as there is no better option, but am growing tired of the party at large and at risk of jumping ship if something better comes along. For me, the greens have a crisis in both messaging and focus. Too many politicians who come across as self-righteous and holier than thou. Goals that are noble and right but too many policies that are clearly unreasonable in either public sentiment or economic reality. Not in a federal lens but something that exemplified my issues with the party is Rosalie Woodruff leading her Tasmanian election night speech with a long preamble about the middle east…. in a Tasmanian state election. Just mind boggling the lack of awareness about how that looks to voters.
There are interesting points in here, but some of the conclusions at the end are a bit odd. Labor didn’t “emulate” the Greens with door knocking – they’ve been running very well-funded door knocking campaigns since at least 2014. Similarly, Labor’s success against the Greens doesn’t usually come from out-greening the Greens in policy, but often from capturing a very large share of the centre-left and centre vote.
This seems to be another example of Labor and the Greens not quite understanding each other, which is ultimately a big part of the reason the Greens will struggle to grow, and Labor will never be able to truly bat them away.
The Greens need a charming candidate in their party and be the leader. And also has a clear message, go out advertise themselves and talk to the concerned people.
My read on it was 2022 was a bit of a ‘false triumph’ based on exceptional luck with preference flows and last year was more a regression to the mean, and a chaotic Trump favoured a stability vote, which meant a high Labor vote. Couldn’t quite notice anything they did particularly wrong, but nothing particularly right either. They’re in an awkward spot where they can’t make meaningful gains merely being a climate protest party but broadening their message also dilutes it.
They really aught to learn from the British Greens.
Strong decisive messaging and pulling focus to the big issues
Does anyone have a link to the review instead of commentary about the review?
There’s also a lack of candidates.
I was in bennelong which had its lines changed to include lane cove, and should have a better green chance.
But the candidate came in the 11th hour and had no relation to bennelong or the area.
I want to vote Greens, but why would I choose a candidate that doesn’t even pretend to care for the region they’re representing?
One thing I found frustrating at a Greens meeting I attended was they very much promoted a “both major parties are as bad as each other” perspective.
It felt extra tone deaf off the back of Trump’s win in the US. Are they actually? Are you alienating the many people in Aus feeling favourable towards Labor compared to Liberal party at the time (as we saw in votes)?
I’m a millennial man (does that count as young anymore?) and while I continue to vote for the Greens because of their climate policies, the relentless identity politics and focus on Palestine did not help their case. Bandt really annoyed me by the end. I do hope they can take back Melbourne at the next election. (I live next door in Wills.)
David Pocock seems to be doing a good job. Ideally we start getting more like him. But maybe it’s hard outside of the ACT.
I don’t think they accounted for the economy since covid, in redistribution of their voters.
Their target demographic was forced to move further out of the inner city seats due to rental costs. While all those people were still likely to vote for them (though some certainly voted for Labor and stability), the vote was more widely distributed and therefore diluted. You might keep the *amount* of people voting for you, but if the concentration isn’t high enough in an electorate, you can’t win that seat.
Trump was also a factor, he shattered the right wing vote and they overwhelmingly voted Labor for stability. They *were never* going to vote for the Greens.
So if the right wing got smashed, the left thought the same thing, vote for Labor to prevent Dutton getting in.
One of the things not mentioned in the review but is widely known, is that they lose voters as they age. Their primary doesn’t drop, because as Millenials get older and vote elsewhere, they are replaced by the younger generations.
Tbh their perception is another big problem. They are widely perceived as obstructive in the senate and a culture war participant. In all honesty, i see them as no different to the Libs- and many greens members are wealthy children of Liberals. They have more in common than they will admit.
Adam Bandt was also personally unpopular and widely seen as arrogant.
The only difference is the Greens have *some* good policies, but leaning into Palestine was brutally stupid in a cost of living crisis and in the face of anti Trumpism- which they failed to calculate for. They are also selectively outraged by Palestine and i don’t see them even mention Ukraine- which has far wider ramifications for the world should Russia win.
The Greens are the party you give a handful of seats to, to try and make a difference. But they will never be in power and no one wants that. They prove time and again they aren’t capable. Proved by their pathetic review of thsir own failure.
One of the big problems I have with the greens is that they love to mix and match between level of governments, like councils talking about foreign policy and then federal talking about council or state issues
> climate and the environment not featuring prominently on the agenda
I’m not a greens voter but isn’t that supposed to be the heartland of the party? If they’re not predominantly THE party for the environment and climate, they’ve lost their way.
Surprised the review/article didn’t touch of the electorates fatigue with “culture wars”. People talk about how that hurt the Libs but I think it hurt the greens as well. Maybe it’s link to poor policy messaging but if all your doing is yelling about how other people are evil, then your policies about how you are going to help me get lost in the noise.
I dont vote greens any more. They are far FAR too zealous in their pursuits. They are constantly coming across as unreasonable in otherwise reasonable negotiations. Zelots are bad regardless of stance.
I am a centre left millennial man who has voted greens in the past but haven’t in the last two elections. The federal team are not serious people when it comes to reform and policy. At best they are well intentioned but ineffective, at worst they play politics at initiatives that would actually be good – MCM delaying money for housing in the last term was appalling. They delayed new homes so they had something to argue with labor about. Successful green parties do exist around the world but ours just ain’t it.
Labor climate change policy regarding SRES is a stroke of genius. Renewables have asynchronous supply problems where a large amount of energy is supply to the grid. Instead of building a new powerplant, just subside the battery and the consumer fronts the costs that will be paid back in electricity bills
It teaches people the material used to generate 1kw will generate 1 kw for the next 25 years compared to burning coal generate 1 kw and releasing mercury and other crap in the air is bad.
The world is watching to see if this policy works. A Labor policy. The greens have a wishlist and anti free market for some reason
Their overall votes were only slightly lower than the previous election, just with preferences and distribution of votes losing them the lower house seats that they had managed to gain. They can probably improve around the edges, but maybe they are close to a cap on where a party with their positioning can get to in Australia.
The Greens need to take over Labours working class faction. Getting a Business Owner and Union Rep, be a workers first party and have a strong emphasis on it. Have older farmer men as MP’s that can talk about the climate catastrophe etc.
As far as parties go, they stand for more of the things I lean towards, but there’s plenty of stuff they’re not tough enough on or I don’t agree with.
David Pocock is the closest politician to matching my overall political beliefs.
Try not having your leader dress up as a giant toothbrush to make a policy point. It only makes you look like the unhinged space cadets that people want to believe you are
So there was a move of young people out of their inner city family homes and share houses into the outer suburbs, the only places they can afford to live. Which then saw a lift in the votes in outer suburban seats and a lack of progress in the targeted inner city seats.
I was a candidate in an outer suburban seat, jumped in at the last minute, ran the whole campaign on a shoestring and had about 7 volunteers and still got a swing towards me.
In general, Greens try to hold their existing voters and onboard young people to try to grow the vote. The drop in young male first-time voters really hurt us. It wasn’t part of a global hard right swing for young men because those voters went to Labor not ON. The thinking is that young men want a solution to the housing crisis now and not after a few months of hard negotiation, that our process is simply too slow for them.
Labor’s message that we were obstructors was effective.
While a lot of their policies sound great on paper they often don’t take into account the way things actually work and get passed… but I guess it’s easy to make policies when you don’t actually have to govern anything.
They also often seem unable to compromise and come to any sort of agreement on issues and often block things that would move things in a better direction because‘it’s not doing enough’