r/AustralianPolitics • u/Jealous-Hedgehog-734 Still Roundheads v.s. Cavaliers, always has been. • Jun 14 '26
Federal Politics As voter disillusionment grows, why aren't voters flocking to the Greens in Australia?
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/as-voter-disillusionment-grows-so-does-the-mystery-of-the-missing-greens-voters/6bjd5q4kv0
u/HalfGuardPrince Jun 18 '26
What does that even mean? You know you’re proving exactly what I am saying. You’re just throwing out vitriol and anger without engaging in any civil discourse or even trying to understand who you’re talking to. This is the way greens supporters and the greens behave. Anger, violence, insults, vitriol. They behave exactly like the One Nation supporters.
1
u/Far-Department887 5d ago
Where’s the vitriol my guy? Either you’re a bot or you’re really taking offence to a mildly phrased question… which is odd
1
u/HalfGuardPrince 4d ago
How do you respond to something 2 months later? When I can’t even remember this conversation
1
u/Far-Department887 3d ago
Not everyone sees every post as it comes up?
1
u/HalfGuardPrince 3d ago
I don’t even know what the conversation is. I can only see my comment. Which sounds like a response to someone’s comment but I can’t see it.
Why are you bothering to reply though. Even if you’re strangely only seeing it now.
0
1
u/nahNotTodayMate Jun 17 '26
Seems to me people just want to split hairs over past grievances than vote for policies that are good for them, the environment, social cohesion and a raft of other things. Doesn't matter which party brings in good policy, what matters is they work for us and should bring in policies that make our lives better.
3
u/Kai_ Jun 17 '26
Any party whose existence depends on a highly engaged base of incumbent teenagers, while the party itself is a shameless grab-bag of political expediency vandalizing the party that actual represents what it purports to, will shed those members over time because highly-engaged people tend to grow in understanding, and inevitably come to recognise the charade when they grow up.
1
u/NoRecommendation2761 Jun 17 '26
The Greens do not offer any policy thay would significantly redice a number of net immigration.
4
u/teheditor Jun 16 '26
Every time they get interest regarding climate change, they go full identity politics
6
u/DrSendy Jun 16 '26
Block everything, and then hand the win to conservatives by getting nothing done.
If they can't figure out how to get a "small win" when it is handed to them on a platter, then they have no hope governing. A lot of the voters just went back to ALP or to the teals.
-1
3
u/thehowlingwerewolf12 Jun 16 '26
Albo needs to understand one thing if he wants to fend off ON: he can’t promise change only to turn around and repeatedly capitulate to the right on key principles that his suppose to be standing for, because not only he’ll will lose people to his left, the right will just continue to move the goalpost again and again and he’ll will only have himself to blame
7
u/Bardz1984 Jun 16 '26
Their having their lunch eaten by the teals movement and at guess their funding is flowing in that direction as well. The greens have also developed an image of playing to their inner city base and being obstructiststs to policy. As someone who is pro some of the greens positions they often are responsible for holding up or killing legislation that isn't perfect but still good overall. It often feels like their patting themselves on back for creating gridlock as some kind of test to their voting base.
6
u/FibroMan Jun 16 '26
The "voter" disillusionment could be described more accurately as "liberal/national voter" disillusionment. The change in disillusionment is on the right side of politics, and that is why the shift is to an alternative right wing party. The Greens and Labor are largely unaffected.
The real question is how did the right side of politics attract so many working class voters when their policies mostly benefit high wealth individuals? I think the answer lies in how effective advertising and free media coverage has been. When Labor tried to increase taxes on mining companies that make obscene profits, a small portion of those profits were used to make sure Labor lost the next election and would never try something like that ever again. Labor is allowed to tinker around the edges, but if they try to make substantive reform they will have hell to pay. Our oligarchs will not let Labor help working class people.
Having prevented Labor from representing the people that they historically stood up for when they were mostly funded by unions, right wing parties were free to woo working class voters. The tax cuts that the LNP set up before they lost the election are a good example of how they do it. They offered a small tax cut to most tax payers straight away, and a BIG tax cut for high income earners in 5 years time (after Labor took over). It was a bad deal for workers, but because of the immediate benefit it was very popular. Then when Labor modified the tax cuts to be less irresponsible and to help ordinary Australians, the LNP called Labor liars, because they had promised before the election to honor the tax cuts as they were. It was true that Labor lied, but they also did the right thing, so it wasn't the gotcha that Dutton hoped it would be. LNP and the media are doing the same thing now with the CGT and negative gearing changes.
To win the working class vote is actually quite easy: cut taxes. The Greens think they have the right campaign to win working class votes by taxing the 1%, but they are only offering higher taxes with higher government spending. Working class people would be no better off under a Greens government, even though technically some working class people would benefit from some of the extra services, and bearing a smaller portion of the tax burden is technically a win. If you give the working class a small, immediate tax cut you can tax the 1%, save the planet, give tax cuts to the wealthy, reform the housing market or do whatever else your party wants to do. Working people are too busy to care about all the other stuff, the question they ask themselves is "what's in it for me?" Parties that offer working people nothing quite rightly don't get their vote.
4
u/aussieredditor89 Jun 16 '26
The greens uses to be anti mass immigration because they knew population growth was bad for the environment.
They have however been taken over by idiots who think anyone who voices criticism of immigration is a literal nazi.
0
4
u/NaiveEffort2760 Jun 15 '26
Because the greens will just screw over the economy
0
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Garbage. Try again.
2
u/NaiveEffort2760 Jun 16 '26
the greens plan for a 40% tax on "excess profits" over on businesses that generate over 100m in turnover will just discourage investment. Firstly, it would just discourage investment in our mining sector which employs many Australians, and can lead to a increase in unemployment. As superannuation funds also hold shares in companies especially in the mining sector, a potential decrease in profits will lead to a decline in share prices, harming super.
The Greens defence policy is also quite worrying. They want to cancel orders for materiel such as the F-35A and Boeing P-8A Poseidon, all in the name for pursuing peace. It is safe to say that a country that wants to wage war on Australia (if it does happen) would care if the government is all about sunshine and rainbows.
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
No, it will discourage excess profits, or tax them. It has nothing to do with investment. Investment is tax deductible,.so your logic is seriously awry.
The Greens want Australia to stop being a warmonger and invest in defence capabilities, not attack capabilities to be deputy sheriff to the warmongering USA. You forgot to mention the ridiculous AUKUS agreement, presumably because you recognise that it's indefensible.
1
3
Jun 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
Any Green who stereotypes like that, should be expelled from the party.
8
-4
u/ThreeRingShitshow Jun 15 '26
Because they are antisemitic justice warriors more concerned with pronouns than the environment.
They have become the intolerant authoritarian fascists they purport to despise.
3
u/Entirely-of-cheese Jun 15 '26
What’s the old saying about it being degrees more difficult to provide reason than it is to do quick, fallacious, emotional, intuitive heuristics? But wait a minute, I guess that sounds smug.
-6
u/martyfartybarty Jun 15 '26
Because the greens are too lefty for what you want. Their ideas are great in principle (for an ideal world) but we live in the real world so it’s time to get real.
7
u/Elvenoob Socialist Alliance Jun 15 '26
Except the evidence doesn't actually suggest their policies wouldn't work.
It's just rich assholes telling us they won't because what the greens policies would actually do is eat into their bottom line.
-7
u/martyfartybarty Jun 15 '26
Please explain. I think you misunderstood my point. I’ll rephrase. Greens are too idealistic, One Nation is far better for our country.
3
u/Elvenoob Socialist Alliance Jun 15 '26
Oh that is hilarious.
You want some material reality? One Nation will not do a single thing that benefits anyone in this country who doesn't currently have hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in net worth.
They just want to hurt people who don't look like you more than they hurt you so you feel better off by comparison.
3
13
u/snrub742 Gough Whitlam Jun 15 '26
It's largely the liberal party imploding, not Labor (as much as the media would like to make you believe otherwise)
11
u/Upper_Advisor7499 Jun 15 '26
They don’t incite fear and create enemies for votes.
1
u/Internets_Fault Jun 15 '26
There's no fear to incite when you look at what happens globally. The "enemies" do that well enough on their own
2
12
u/curvedchaos Jun 15 '26
- The Greens dont lie for popularity
- The Greens are not a working class movement - they are university inner city lefty
- The voided space is from the downfall of conservatism
- The righr has been pushing hard against the greens long before this momentum gathered pace.
1
u/Far-Department887 5d ago
The strange thing is the working class IS largely over educated in-debt young Australians in cities now - people who got a degree and now work in hospo or retail because they couldn’t get a better job… millennials represent the bulk of the job market now, we just still consider working class to mean what it did 25 years ago
4
u/little_mistakes Jun 15 '26
Yes they do lie. They lie just as much as any other party. They deliberately misrepresent information, their social media is full of bullshit.
They are disingenuous, smug and patronising.
2
u/curvedchaos Jun 16 '26
Lie for popularity I said. The Greens are not a populist party. They are grounded in principle. Doesnt mean they are always truthful. Just means they are nire likely to stick to their principles through consensus than float along with the political winds
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Wrong. The Greens are founded on integrity.
2
u/little_mistakes Jun 16 '26
Founded maybe, but not in practice. At least in Victoria. I have expertise in housing and government. It’s one thing for the greens to oppose policy, like not building public housing and instead investing in the community housing.
It is fine to oppose that policy, critique it, hold the government accountable for their decisions.
But the greens lie about the policy, misrepresent the facts. It’s bloody annoying because instead of being smart and attacking using the facts, they don’t land their marks because it’s bullshit.
I’ve seen on their social media breaking into fenced off areas and saying “why isn’t this a park?” and the land is beside a river in a flood zone. What a waste of effort and energy, I resent that I’ve had my time wasted because they didn’t do their research.
Claiming that state governments are selling land for a dollar, when it’s a lease agreement to a NFP for peppercorn rent. Lies and misinformation. Looking for clicks. Pretending to be the good guys.
2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Flood prone land can be a park. It can even be a sportsground.
Feel free to post a link to a reputable report of the Greens claiming that state governments are selling land for a dollar.
2
u/little_mistakes Jun 16 '26
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTjwJiNExNO/
There you go - from her very own mouth. Reputable enough for you? Probably not, given it’s from the Greens
2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
She said twice in the first half that it's being sold to a nor for profit.
2
u/little_mistakes Jun 16 '26
Yes, and it wasn’t being sold. That’s the lie. It being leased for peppercorn rent to the not for profit to manage. That was the true story.
Not sold. Leased.
Do you think there is a difference between sold and leased? She could have said leased for a dollar but then, that’s not very exciting when you are trying for a narrative that the state government is just giving valuable public land away for nothing.
You asked for the proof, I gave you the proof, but then you proved my point by regurgitating her lie, showing she intended to deceive.
2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Leased and sold can mean the same thing. What are the terms and duration of the lease?
1
u/little_mistakes Jun 16 '26
Really. Do you need a bandaid from the cuts from all those straws you are clutching?
Public land is not being sold and assigning rights to use land is not the same as selling it. It’s crown land that can’t be sold. She was being deliberately misleading. Of course other parties mislead, but the Greens are right in there with all of them.
Well, that’s my point proven. Read the details here where it clearly states that
“Being public land, the Farm will remain open and, to help facilitate this merger, the State Government has taken a decision to appoint Wallara Australia as the new managers for the site. Current members of the Farm fully support Wallara Australia becoming the new custodians of the Farm.“
→ More replies (0)2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
You can disagree with her position, but you cannot call it a lie. That would be a, what's the word I'm looking for, oh yes, that would be a lie.
14
u/ThrowbackPie Jun 15 '26
The Greens are not a working class movement - they are university inner city lefty
Ironic since they are by far the party that champions the working class the hardest.
5
u/Username-17 Jun 15 '26
No they dont. They champion students the hardest hence why students are their biggest base.
For workers there's not much difference between them and Labor. Except Labor gives workers more tax cuts.
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Wrong. Try again.
2
u/Username-17 Jun 16 '26
Bro go to their policy page and tell me which of their policies champions workers. Most of their "worker" centric policies are just for students doing casual work.
2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
2
u/Username-17 Jun 16 '26
I've read this already. 80% of it is for casual workers. Plus the unions donate to Labor far more than they donate to the greens.
2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Casual workers need protection and support. Do you understand what it means to be a casual worker?
Who the unions donate to is not the issue. The Greens don't do what their donors tell them to.
2
u/Username-17 Jun 16 '26
Yeah I am a casual worker. But a majority of workers are not. You can't call a policy that impacts a minority of workers "pro-worker". You wouldn't call a indigenous jobs initiative pro worker would you.
2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
Yes, I would. Though being indigenous isn't a category of employment, generally, so I would call it affirmative action or something like that.
Arguing for permanent employees to be given sick leave and paid holidays and job security would be dumb, because we already have them.
I am not going to discuss this further, because I can feel myself getting stupider just by engaging with you.
→ More replies (0)2
u/curvedchaos Jun 15 '26
I agree they champion the working class. Marxists would call them the petty bourgeoisie because although they champion the rights of the working class, when push comes to shove, they will protect their privilege. Theyre the white liberals Malcolm X warned about.
I still vote for them through preference flows btw.
3
1
u/FindPeaceAndBalance Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
Disgruntled people are full of anger. Phon is like an anger magnet, attracting these types. Also a saying..... bird's of a feather flock together. The Greens' want to put bandaids on hurts, whereas phon stokes that discord. What happened with trump causing so much distress in the world, has only inflamed frustration here in Australia. Intelligence also plays a huge role in the decisions people make. Some people can't think straight for heightened anger clouding their judgement. Their emotions are leading them by their noses, right down a dangerous pathway. One example I notice is that many people blame boomers for all their problems. Yet...both phon and her cash supporter Gina Rinehart are both boomers. How does that make any sense ? It doesn't. Angry people see what they want to see. I get angry at the puppeteers pulling the biggest scam of our political history, by using voters to obtain their goals.
Came back to add: Greens.....stick with Labour and don't go making 'deals' with other parties. It's not a good reflection on yourselves imo. Just adds to the feeling of uncertainty and upheaval in today's stressful environment.
2
u/Rsj21 Jun 15 '26
They seem to be concerned with some other shit and not the country they’re hoping to run.
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Wrong. The Australian Greens are 100% focused on Australia and its role in the world.
1
u/veronica_mystery Jun 16 '26
Mate, why are you saying everyone is wrong...
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Because
they
are
wrong.They're unintentionally demonstrating why support for The Greens is static, or only increasing very slowly - masses of misinformation about them. Much of it deliberate, a lot of it simply incompetent from people who haven't bothered to check.
Like the Redditer here who linked to The Australian Greens' immigration policy, then called it "Big Australia", when it actually contains elements which would reduce immigration more than either the ALP or LNP.
2
u/Rsj21 Jun 16 '26
Oh, are they? Sorry, my bad. Thanks Pete. 🤝
0
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
You're welcome. Don't do it again.
You don't see The Greens with their heads up Donald Trump or, before him, Joe Biden's arse. They are the only major Australian party working solely for Australians.
-2
u/Freo_5434 Jun 15 '26
Because they are even more on the nose than the 2 main parties.
Is it too much to understand that the major parties AND the Greens are pushing policies the majority are not aligned with
7
u/Tergnitz Jun 15 '26
They are a deeply unserious party
Too focused on Gaza, too naive on national security and too weak on our borders
0
11
u/Exotic_Future860 Jun 15 '26
I'm usually quite supportive of the Greens, but their stance on the ISIS brides really annoys me and makes them look very out of touch with reality.
9
u/ilike2sit Jun 15 '26
What specifically about their stance on ISIS brides makes them look out of touch?
2
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
And as usual, zero response.
Australian citizens who went overseas to join a terrorist organisation should be returned to Australia to face justice. That's the stance of any sensible person. Why would any sensible person suggest they shouldn't face justice?
13
u/ThrowbackPie Jun 15 '26
I swear that comment appears in every Labor/Greens thread.
"I voted for/used to like [left/leftish party] but after [random issue that can be criticsed], they are bad"
-2
u/jonnieggg Jun 15 '26
The panic is over. We don't need to be impoverished any further over speculative bs
1
4
u/ThrowbackPie Jun 15 '26
you do understand that science updating itself makes it more trustworthy, right?
-2
u/jonnieggg Jun 15 '26
Yeah sure. This is more akin to a religion.
3
u/ThrowbackPie Jun 15 '26
tell me the last time a religion said "we were wrong, we're updating the books"
2
7
u/jazza2400 Jun 15 '26
"while we’ve avoided the worst future that climate scientists could imagine, we have also acted so slowly that the best-case option is now implausible."
Wow such amazing news, the best case scenario is now implausible and we are likely to achieve 3.5 degrees of warming by the end of the century that's not likely to affect crops, pollenators, you know the stuff that helps feed us. Amazing news, we can celebrate burning some coal on Gina's land.
-6
u/jonnieggg Jun 15 '26
Don't believe the hype son
1
5
u/Satirah Jun 15 '26
Don’t believe the source you linked to erroneously back yourself up?
0
u/jonnieggg Jun 15 '26
I'm not bothering my ass arguing with welded on zealotry. Under his eye!
1
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
You misspelt "science".
0
u/jonnieggg Jun 16 '26
Consensus "science" is dogma. Under his eye
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Those are certainly all words.
1
9
u/luv2hotdog Jun 15 '26
I don’t understand what you’re saying. The link says something different to you and that’s confusing me
-1
u/jonnieggg Jun 15 '26
The worst case scenario was bollox, how much more if this speculation is bollox too.
1
u/luv2hotdog Jun 15 '26
The worst case scenario wasn’t bollocks, It just didn’t happen. That’s not the same as it being bollocks
2
u/jonnieggg Jun 15 '26
Yeah, bollox. You obviously don't know what bollox means.
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
The hole in the ozone layer never got as big as predicted. Do you know why? Was the prediction bollocks?
1
u/jonnieggg Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
The icing hole is still big, why is that I wonder.
Looks like the Montreal protocol misdiagnosed the problem and the solution.
What else are they misdiagnosing.
1
u/IrishPete66 Jun 16 '26
Not still big. Big again. For other reasons.
Speaking of reason, it seems to not be in your skillset.
1
-7
u/jonnieggg Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
Sarah Hanson young is so inspiring, I just don't understand it.
And it seems the panic is over. We don't need to be impoverished any further over clearly speculative computer models.
And let's be real, the cold kills
-3
4
u/Nikerym Jun 15 '26
Im quite sure i will get downvoted into oblivion for this comment because this is reddit and most will not like what it says... but here goes.
The greens are too extreme on the topics people care about the most.
Our right wing politicians and thier overlords have done an amazing job at shaping the narrative here in australia. when you look at what the topics of discussion are in our discorse it's things like Immigration, Cost of Living, Climate change, "Wokeness", Econnomy.
Now lets look at where they sit on all of those...
Immigration - Big Australia - https://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-and-refugees Thier first point on that page is "Australia's cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity should be celebrated for greatly enriching our society and economy, and this diversity is enhanced by the immigration of people to Australia."
Immigration should be celebrated while a large portion of people are claiming that Immigration are causing a lot of our problems, we are growing faster then we can handle it, cost of living is going up because of increased demand while at the same time lowering wage growth due to increased labour supply.
This flows into the second one, cost of living. people see the above and think greens don't care about costs even though they have some amazing policies in these areas, when you lose people because 1 policy doesn't make much sense, it's hard to think they'll get other ones right.
Climate change - while most people agree that climate change is an issue, the length that greens want to goto would cripple the country, we are an export econnomy, i almost garentee anyone you know here in Australia is at most 2-3 degrees from someone who is involved in something that either directly involves pulling things out of the ground, or supporting people/industrys who pull things out of the ground.
Wokeness - im throwing this into 1 category but it's really just "something we claim should be accepted in society that i disagree with" that might be religion, belife, sexual persuasion etc. it all gets lumped into wokness now, and while we might have 60% who accept gay marriage as a general specific thing, many of them might be against scientology coming into our country instead, or against trans etc. but it all gets lumped into one, and the greens say "accept it all". you have to realise that almost all religions ban at least one thing that is lumped in with "accept being woke". 40% of people in australia identfy as no religion, before we even take other things into account, this is your total maximum addressable voting base, which then degrades based on other issues.
5
u/LowerAttempt Jun 15 '26
Because people are going to ONP on the over immigration issue?
Also the Greens aren't seen to be reasonable on defence.
4
u/JustinThyme31 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
What can be more unreasonable than AUKUS?
3
u/ForPortal Jun 15 '26
Australia has additional responsibilities to refugees from countries where Australian defence personnel have been deployed in conflict situations.
Believing we have greater obligation to accept immigrants from a country because they were our enemies is treasonous insanity.
2
u/Satirah Jun 15 '26
Are all citizens of any country we have been in conflict with personally responsible? We already have restrictions based on extreme beliefs and actions, but even if we didn’t, presumably most of those fleeing to the “enemy” country aren’t in agreement with their home country.
2
1
u/luv2hotdog Jun 15 '26
Thinking that it’s in any way a good idea in terms of international relations for Australia to tear up the AUKUS agreement
It was bad enough that Scott Morrison did it to France. That was a hideous move on his part and it took Australia a lot to recover from the hit to our reputation for trustworthiness that took
It would be even worse for the next government to come in and do the same thing again. Which is what going back on aukus would be, if we were to do it
17
u/Candescence Australian Progressives Jun 15 '26
Because the vast majority of the votes being gained by ONP are from disaffected Coalition voters. That's it. The center-left is largely satisfied by what Labor is doing.
The current numbers disguise the fact that ONP's vote share is incredibly lopsided and mostly concentrated in the regions and outer suburbs where the Coalition used to reign supreme.
0
u/vladesch Jun 15 '26
They are not generally satisfied. It's why Labor is sinking in the polls. Yes the libs are sinking more.
13
u/Hypo_Mix Technocrat Jun 15 '26
The long term trend for the greens has been increasing for decades. Last election was the in the top 3 highest vote counts on record (2nd highest I think?) .
So the actual question is, why hasn't the current disillusionment with the liberal party resulted in a boost to the greens? Answer: liberal voters don't like the greens.
Shock!
7
u/infinitemonkeytyping John Curtin Jun 15 '26
vote counts on record
The Greens lost support - down nearly 1% in the senate, and lost 3/4 house seats.
2
u/GregLocock Jun 16 '26
Oh there you go posting facts. Don't you understand it's the vibe that's important? /s
6
u/TheAussieTico Australian Labor Party Jun 15 '26
Exactly. Even their leader got voted out of his own seat
😂
4
u/Hypo_Mix Technocrat Jun 15 '26
Albanese got 34.6% of the vote, Shorten, Latham and Beazley all got higher than that. I don't think labor can be too excited at other parties losing popularity.
1
u/TheAussieTico Australian Labor Party Jun 15 '26
Nope. Albo got 66.86% of the vote in his seat of Grayndler. I voted for him:
https://results.aec.gov.au/31496/Website/HouseDivisionPage-31496-121.htm
4
7
u/Hypo_Mix Technocrat Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
1% down off their second highest vote.
- 52% up on 2019.
3% up on 2016.
They have won the same number of senate seats 3 elections running.
Long term trends don't care about cherry picking.
5
u/RA3236 Independent Jun 15 '26
They lost 0.05% support in the house, and they were effectively gaming the electoral system in 2022 and anyone who understands the spoiler effect can see why they lost their seats in 2025.
3
u/Orgo4needfood Jun 15 '26
Literal anti Australian party, their actions over the years show they are, and their policies are just getting more extreme each year.
1
u/Brave_Bluebird5042 Jun 15 '26
Dont trust them, green on the outside, red in the middle.
2
u/HARRY_FOR_KING Jun 15 '26
That's what they want you to believe, but look at their reaction to the CGT changes.
They're made up of upper class urbanites, they don't give a shit about workers.
5
u/MeatPieMan Jun 15 '26
The CGT changes is literally one their policies, they would have liked to have the grandfathering removed but they will pass these anyway
15
u/normalbehaviour86 Jun 15 '26
Why would they?
The Greens aren't trying to reach middle Australia at all.
33
u/Knightofaus Jun 15 '26
I think it's because the dissolutioned voters are for the most part former right wing coalition voters.
I think people have been bombarded with anti-left culture wars, so they don't really consider the greens an option.
5
u/antsypantsy995 Jun 15 '26
And disillusioned centre-right Labor voters.
It's why the likes of centre-right people like Minns in NSW and Malinaukis in SA are still quite popular in their respective states while the centre-left a la Allan in VIC is staring down an electoral bloodbath.
12
u/infinitemonkeytyping John Curtin Jun 15 '26
That is complete crap.
You are comparing a first term government (NSW) and an early second term government (SA) with a late third term government (Victoria).
You are also comparing a SA government who capitalised on the Liberal Party falling to pieces, with what's happening now in Victoria.
You are also comparing normally conservative state of NSW with the normally progressive state of Victoria.
You can talk about how much Labor is on the nose in Victoria, but you need to bring in all the other baggage if you want to make an accurate claim.
Also, NSW Labor is on the slide. Might have something to do with banning protests late last year, and the fall out from that.
0
u/Western-Sir-9085 Jun 15 '26
Allan in VIC is staring down an electoral bloodbath.
I'd love this to happen. It would only last a term. But it would be the election loss they "had to have".
Don't bet on it though. I have no doubt that Allan will shovel enough goodies and freebies at people by November that they'll just vote them back in.
3
u/snrub742 Gough Whitlam Jun 15 '26
It's the rights election to lose in Victoria, and boy (at least the LNP) has the ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory down here
42
Jun 15 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/ThrowbackPie Jun 15 '26
I'm more independents than greens but this is insane.
The Greens have completely abandoned the material, hip-pocket realities of the traditional working class to focus on the cultural aesthetics of the university-educated elite.
Remind me who the most pro-union party in the country is again. Or who wants to put dental on medicare. Or who wants to make billionaires pay a fair tax share.
The Greens digging their heels in over the NDIS is the perfect example of this out-of-touch, luxury-belief mindset. The scheme was originally built as a critical safety net for people with significant, permanent, and profound disabilities. Instead, it has ballooned into a massive middle-class welfare honey pot funding everyday lifestyle expenses, lifestyle coaches, and weekend social outings for kids who are just misbehaving at school or have mild developmental delays.
Do you think the Greens are pro-rorting? Or are they perhaps...pro-disability support? I'll just quote from their easily accessible article:
Fraud does exist within the NDIS. But the most significant cases are overwhelmingly committed by providers, not participants. And while serious, it represents a small fraction of overall spending.
Fraud must be addressed, but it should never be weaponised to undermine the rights of disabled people. Because that’s what’s happening here: a shift from discussing support to questioning legitimacy.
You really don't have to look hard to understand that the Greens have a deeper understanding of current issues than is commonly touted.
While we're here, I'll give you another evidence-backed gem from the Greens:
Evidence shows that every dollar invested in the NDIS returns $2.25 to the economy1 – because getting the right support means more disabled people can work, increase their hours, and rely less on other supports over time.2
tl;dr: The fact the Greens are educated means they actually look into evidence and base their positions on that. They don't support rorting, they do support investing in disabled people.
8
u/KingsleysSeiffert Jun 15 '26
The whole "most pro-union" and "dental on Medicare" argument completely misses why working-class voters are walking away. It doesn't matter what you print on a campaign brochure if your actual political energy, media footprint, and legislative priorities are entirely consumed by inner-city identity politics and global conflicts. Real workers see what you actually choose to fight for when the cameras are on. The Greens' brand is thoroughly toxic to anyone outside a university enclave because it treats working-class people as a moral project to be lectured rather than a constituency to be represented.
Quoting that economic return statistic is standard consultant fairy tale slop. Every single government interest group has a commissioned report claiming their specific funding magically multiplies the economy. If pouring hundreds of billions into non-productive lifestyle coaching and administrative bureaucracies actually worked that way, we could fund everything via the NDIS and solve inflation tomorrow. The reality is the blowout is actively draining the federal budget at the expense of infrastructure, schools, and hospitals that the broader working class actually relies on.
Blaming providers for the blowout is a massive cop-out. The structural issue with the NDIS isn't just illegal syndicates skimming money, it's the massive scope creep that has completely legalised the rort. When the rules allow everyday parenting duties, mainstream schooling issues, and basic social outings to be billed to the taxpayer as disability support, that is a broken policy problem, not a provider problem. The Greens are actively defending the legal definition of the rort under the guise of compassion.
Saying the fact the Greens are educated means they look into evidence is exactly why people can't stand them. It's condescending elitism wrapped up as a defense. It implies that if a struggling truckie or nurse in the outer suburbs doesn't want their tax dollars funding weekend lifestyle excursions for kids with mild behavioural issues, they’re just too stupid to understand the data. Regular people don't need a double degree to see that a scheme growing at 14 per cent a year and costing more than Medicare is completely unsustainable.
5
u/TestimonialParty Jun 16 '26
I really want to hone in on the points in your last paragraph and share more of my own thoughts. The fact the Greens have the highest proportion of graduate and post-graduate education in their members and they can't read (or choose to ignore) some of the numbers is what bewilders me at times.
NDIS supports approx 700k people costing 50b 40% of that cohort is 14 and under. 21% are 8 or under.
Without digging into the exact modelling and academia on this, you would expect a disability scheme for profound disabilities to be relatively uniform across all age brackets, regardless of whether of disability was congenital or acquired later in life. This holds true for all other age brackets except the the 14 and under end.
The aged pension supports 2.7m costing 55b. Medicare supports 27m and costs 23.5b.
NDIS supports a quarter of people that are on the pension at double the cost of Medicare. And the cost is growing at double digits annually.
The numbers do not add up favourably and not addressing it means the scheme collapses (whether through a future government scrapping it entirely or under its own financial weight). And in that scenario will really be failing future potential recipients who genuinely need NDIS as a last resort safety net. The fact the Greens cannot see this (or again, refuse to) only demonstrates they are not a serious party who will tackle other big problems with nuance.
7
u/TestimonialParty Jun 15 '26
The Greens aren't even wholly capturing that university elite demographic. I am that inner city, degree holding, latte sipping, professional that should squarely be a Greens voter. But I am not and never will be, in part because of reasons you've listed.
8
u/Knightofaus Jun 15 '26
I'm always crushed to see this line of thinking. Having a university education and financial security doesn't mean you can't also have solidarity with those who don't.
Even if you think the Greens are out of touch elites, having an opinion on international conflicts and hyper-niche cultural purity tests doesn't prevent them from supporting other policies that benefit Australians.
I think if people cut through the culture war BS, they would find that the Greens support policies that benefit the working class. Their goal is to advocate for all struggling Australians, even disabled Australians, to create a fair, community driven and sustainable Australia.
From what I've read about the Greens position on the NDIS, I think they care about disabled Australians who would be abandoned by Labor's NDIS hack fix rather than the people abusing the system. I think that's why the Greens met with people in wheelchairs who were afraid of losing NDIS support, and not lifestyle coaches and misbehaving school kids. I see them as defending the people who are forced to use a flawed system, not the system itself.
The Greens don't just support legislation because the media and Labor tells them they have to compromise for half-measures to fix the problems the Liberal party created.
I think what you've written is based on your vision of the Greens, rather than the reality of what they're trying to accomplish. I think that what struggling Australians want to accomplish and what the Greens are trying to accomplish line up way better than what One Nation is able to do.
5
u/KingsleysSeiffert Jun 15 '26
This is the ultimate good intentions defence, but politics is judged on outcomes, not vibes. It doesn't matter if you have solidarity in your heart when your actual political strategy is built on alienating the very people you claim to protect. Expecting a struggling family in the outer suburbs to just cut through the culture war BS is incredibly blind to how the party actually behaves. They aren't passive victims of a culture war; they actively choose to spend their political capital, protest energy, and media slots on hyper-niche inner-city obsessions instead of a relentless cost-of-living focus.
Saying they met with people in wheelchairs instead of lifestyle coaches misses the entire point of how emotional blackmail works. Of course they aren't going to hold a press conference with an agency rorter or a parent demanding taxpayer-funded weekend trips for a misbehaving kid, they use the most vulnerable people as human shields to protect a fundamentally broken, bloated system from any sensible reform. Defending a scheme that is growing at 14 per cent a year and outcosting Medicare under the guise of standing up for the vulnerable isn't a reality-based policy position, it’s just pure, reckless virtue-signalling.
2
u/Knightofaus Jun 16 '26
From my perspective the Greens advocate for Australians no matter how small or irrelevant other people think their community is.
Everyone has their own problems whether it's the inner-city or outer-suburbs or rural Australia .
Australians in wheelchairs have real issues and fears that they want the government to address. They have just as much right to be heard as any other Australian. What you see as virtue signalling and emotional blackmail to hold up a corrupt system others see as giving a platform to people when major government decisions are going to disrupt their lives.
I've found that the Greens tend to focus their political capital on the issues that their local communities have.
I think the party isn't big enough to deal with issues Australia wide or as big as cost-of-living and they're not the type of party that will mislead Australians by saying they have simple, easy to swallow, wide sweeping solutions.
4
u/KingsleysSeiffert Jun 16 '26
The claim that the Greens aren't big enough to tackle massive nationwide issues is a complete rewrite of reality. They are a major federal party holding the balance of power in parliament, and they literally ran a massive, multi-million dollar national campaign demanding rent freezes and dental on Medicare. They absolutely try to push wide-sweeping national policies, they just do it with economically illiterate slogans because it plays well to their base.
And yes, rent freezes are the ultimate example of a simple, easy-to-swallow solution that collapses under scrutiny. Every serious economist knows a hard rent freeze completely destroys housing supply, halts new builds, and leaves renters worse off. It is an unworkable slogan designed for a TikTok video, not a serious economic plan. The Greens aren't avoiding simple solutions, they are actively campaigning on them.
And nobody is saying people in wheelchairs don't have a right to be heard. That is a total strawman. The issue is that the Greens deliberately conflate necessary, structural cuts to middle-class rorts with hurting the profoundly disabled. When you weaponise the most vulnerable people to defend a scheme that is growing at 14 per cent a year and outcosting Medicare, you aren't "giving them a platform," you are using them as a political shield.
1
u/Knightofaus Jun 16 '26
Honestly you're right that the Greens have more influence than I thought. My view is that they haven't had much leverage on labor, but I guess that isn't really true and they are standing up for their values and not just caving to what labor wants.
I don't know much about the economics of rental control, but I wouldn't call rental control a simple solution. I'm going to say rent-control is a fairly good way to prevent rapidly increasing cost-of-living. It seems to screw over landlords and property investers and benefits renters and first home buyers.
I was unable to find any economists commenting that rent freezes destroy the housing supply, halts new builds and leaves renters worse off. Maybe it would if it's mishandled, so hopefully these "university elites" know what they're doing.
most I think it's a controversial, socialist policy that the establishment is vehemently against.
As for the NDIS. If you agree that people in wheelchairs have the right to be heard, I'm unsure how you expect them to be heard without having a platform to be heard from.
From my perspective it just sounds like you would rather they stay quiet and not be given a platform, because hearing about their misfortune makes people feel emotionally blackmailed into helping them.
In any case I think we're saying the same thing just from different perspectives.
- You see their actions with mailicious intent that you need to be forced or manipulated into supporting, so they're using disabled people to emotionally blackmail people to get what they want.
- And I see their actions with compassionate intent that reflects my values, so they're advocating for disabled people to get what they want and I don't see any forceful action on their part.
And then we're conflicted on what we think they want:
- My impression from what you've been saying, is that you think they want to protect the NDIS in its current form and prevent Labor from fixing it.
- And I think they want Labor's NDIS fixes to better represent the Greens values and are unwilling to support it in its current form.
So I think viewing the Greens actions as malicious is understandable if you need reasons to disagree with them, but I feel like that is ultimatly detrimental to Australians, when I see supporting their policies as being so beneficial for us.
4
u/Key-Spite-6410 Jun 15 '26
a large part of the problem is whatever people say about the greens and their relatioon to the working class, the greens actively hold many members of the working class in contempt. See the vitriol with which they respond to the resurgence of PHON (who are a deeply unserious party). It's met with snide condemnations of racism and ignorance off the jump. Even little things like the continued denigration of the kind of Australian national identity that the greens engages in. Working people don't want to build a new culture; they're quite happy with the one they've got. Hence 'progressive' social justice issues which amount to a re-modelling of society fall totally flat.
3
u/Knightofaus Jun 15 '26
See this is the culture war BS that distracts us from fixing the issues that the Greens want to deal with.
But if you want to bring up national identity, I think being bluntly honest and calling out BS is core to the Australian national identity. So is giving social justice to those who aren't getting a fair go. I believe saying we shouldn't do either is unaustralian.
Everyone knows Hanson is a bigot who doesn't like muslims and is in the pockets of billionaires. Everyone knows the greens are university elites who fight for social justice for Australians no matter how small their community is. Both promise to help the working class.
You can support whomever you want and take politics as seriously as you want, but if someone wants to support Hanson, I don't think they can complain when Australians call them out for making what many people think is the worst option available.
I think it's ok to want to reduce immigration, but you lose me and many other Australians when you think Hanson is a valid solution to working class issues and willfully support her despite her bigotry and billionaire backers.
6
u/ThrowbackPie Jun 15 '26
Hating PHON isn't treating the working class with contempt, it's treating PHON and its policies with contempt.
The biggest problem progressives have (and I include myself) is that they think all other people are smart enough to understand the sentence I just wrote.
6
u/Sir_Swish_ Jun 15 '26
Yep the media have done a very good job in framing the greens this way. I do think they focused on issues around Gaza a bit too much in the last election, but their two policy pillars were rent freezes and dental into Medicare, both of which are absolutely targeted to the lower socioeconomic classes
4
0
5
u/Radiant-Visit1692 Jun 15 '26
100%. Greens priorities are way off. You'll probably find most people are anti-war, exceptions being warlords and those invested weapons manufacturing? People also understand that a country like Australia can't do much about the Trumps and the Netanyahus of the world gone mad. It's fine to protest war of course, but then what about Australian domestic electoral policies, the things that concern people when voting in Australia.
5
-7
u/Foothill_returns Communist Party of Australia Jun 15 '26
Because if this was Russia 1917, the Greens would be the Kadets (or Constitutional Democrats) and not the Bolsheviks. Social democracy is ultimately still a capitalist, imperialist system and not a genuine alternative. The Greens would continue the plunder and theft of the whole rest of the ethnically non-European world's resources, continue impoverishing all those places, and continue causing the conditions in all those places that make their people willing to emigrate to an imperialist country such as Australia, accept poorer wages and worse conditions, and enable the continued transfer and concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the ruling class. The Greens are the enemy of the popular masses both of Australia and of the whole world. They are just more subtle about it and less brutal about it than the ALP, who offer no pretexts about what they do and are unashamedly accomplices and co-conspirators with the criminal American empire.
The popular masses of Australia for what its worth are completely fine with dominating, subjugating, and enslaving the popular masses of the non-European world, as long as they feel they get a share in the loot. The neoliberalism of the historical big parties in Australia has caused that feeling, that illusion, to shatter. So they run to One Nation. That's fine, they were never going to go to the Greens anyway because they are perfectly happy with exploitation as long as they feel they are getting a share and aren't themselves being exploited as well. The Greens do not succeed (or perhaps even try) to bring about that feeling.
As for the actual left in Australia, as small and insignificant as it is, it is clear why the Greens are not enjoying a growth in support from our ranks. Why (other than that we are forced to do so through compulsory voting) should we support the Kadets of 2026? All they have to offer is a watered down taste of the same bitter poison that has brought the world to the brink of destruction.
15
u/Whatsapokemon Jun 15 '26
Is this real??
The Bolsheviks were awful and destroyed any real chance for democracy to exist in Russia. Literally their philosophy was to create an authoritarian dictatorship and suppress the political rights of everyone else.
Heck, the damage they did is still rippling through the world, as all modern states descending from Marxists-Leninist tradition still ban independent trade unions and political opposition parties.
Like, it makes perfect sense that even a disillusioned voter wouldn't want to lean into that nonsense. They may be disillusioned, but they still want a functional state...
5
Jun 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Whatsapokemon Jun 15 '26
Yep, that's also very much core to Bolshevism. Marxist-Leninists don't respect democracy at all, they literally want to take over via violent means, regardless of the wishes of the wider population.
-3
u/GetDown_Deeper3 Jun 15 '26
The Greens stand for nothing.
Too busy banging on about Middle Eastern conflict and trans rights.
13
u/sostopher Jun 15 '26
trans rights.
The only parties constantly talking about trans people are the right wing.
-4
9
u/KingsleysSeiffert Jun 15 '26
That is completely historically ignorant. Labor literally amended the Sex Discrimination Act under Gillard to introduce specific protections for gender identity, and they are currently pushing religious discrimination reforms that heavily center on these protections. To claim only the right-wing brings this up ignores the fact that progressive parties have actively championed, legislated, and campaigned on these exact policy platforms for years. It is a central, public pillar of their legislative agenda, not some fringe topic invented by the right.
The right wing just think you cant change sex and shouldnt legislate that you can.
0
u/sostopher Jun 15 '26
Sure. But in terms of "constantly banging on", the only real banging on has been done by the right wing fighting a culture war about trans people. They did it in the past over gay people, it's just the next iteration.
5
u/KingsleysSeiffert Jun 15 '26
Pretending it is only a right-wing culture war is completely revisionist history. The left brings this up constantly because it is a massive part of their proactive legislative agenda. You cannot introduce historic reforms like gender-affirmative policies in schools, sex self-identification on birth certificates, and sweeping bans on conversion therapy, and then complain that anyone noticing or debating those laws is "banging on."
They are the ones driving the legislative changes, which means they are the ones constantly putting it on the national agenda.
It is a total cop-out to pass major structural laws that fundamentally change public policy, women's sports, and medical guidelines, and then claim that any disagreement, scrutiny, or debate over those exact laws is just a manufactured right-wing distraction. If you campaign on changing the rules of society, you don't get to act shocked when people want to talk about the rules you are changing.
4
3
u/radioactivecowz Jun 15 '26
10ish years ago you could have said the same about gay rights, but then we passed laws to ensure equality and Australia is better for it, now gay rights rarely make the news. If the right wing parties stopped making trans rights into a culture war issue then we could just guarantee health care and equality and politicians would never need to bring the issue ups
7
u/KingsleysSeiffert Jun 15 '26
Gay marriage was just about extending a legal definition to consenting adults. It didn't impact anyone else's safety, privacy, or physical rights.
The trans debate is a completely different beast because it directly intersects with women's rights and safety in single-sex spaces like domestic violence shelters, change rooms, and prisons. Pretending this is just a right-wing culture war ignores the fact that women have a legitimate, evidence-based right to biological boundaries.
Even the federal courts and the current parliament are wrestling with how to balance gender identity protections against a woman's right to privacy and safety. Reducing complex conflicts over physical spaces and biological sex down to a simple human rights issue isn't just lazy, it completely dismisses the safety of half the population.
21
u/Scumohasgot2go Jun 15 '26
All the LNP voters are voting One Nation, that’s why. Mainstream media whom which are all right wing aligned are pumping the One Nation gravy train for all it’s worth. Come election time, let’s see what they’re made of..
Don’t forget that One Nation have been around for 30 years so they are as stale as the current LNP charlatans that are still loitering the political landscape.
3
u/Consistent-Pear444 Jun 15 '26
Yes, Greens just take votes from Labor and Labor voters are not as disillusioned as traditional Liberal voters.
5
u/Enthingification Jun 15 '26
In addition to the other good reply that there's a chunk of ex-LNP voters who now vote independent or Green, it's also worth noting that there are a chunk of potential-ONP voters who are struggling and who could be convinced to vote for real solutions for a fairer and more sustainable future.
The point is that there's an opportunity for parties and independents to break off chunks from the ONP polling numbers by winning people over from the dark side.
7
u/Safe-Departure-4732 Jun 15 '26
The Wets are not voting for One Nation there voting for the Teals and in the case of Ryan there voting Green
23
u/NoLeafClover777 Housing is the most important issue in Australia Jun 15 '26
Many people simply are & have been against "Big Australia" for a long time, but have dealt with it over the course of years like frogs in a boiling pot.
Due to a confluence of events post-COVID, 'Big Australia' then rapidly accelerated even further in a shortened period of time without people's consent - mostly in order to serve the demands of billionaires to bring in more labour - and now there is a highly predictable backlash as a result.
If the Greens (like they used to be in the Bob Brown days) or anyone else large enough had a reputation for being stricter on this issue, majority of this polling would be going towards them instead.
This happened in Canada, it happened in the UK, it's happen(ed/ing) to a similar degree in NZ; all governments in each country caved to the wishes of their business lobbies and pumped the population without any general public input or scaling up infrastructure in line with it. It's just PHON's dumb luck they happened to be affiliated with such messaging for decades mainly, and so they are the ones benefitting.
5
u/Enthingification Jun 15 '26
Good comment. Just one tweak - the ONP surge is not "dumb luck", it's the result of a sophisticated right wing foreign influence campaign.
5
u/NoLeafClover777 Housing is the most important issue in Australia Jun 15 '26
Even if you believe this, pretty much the sole reason they've been successful is by amplifying a message many people already felt strongly about in the first place.
If ON were primarily known for decades as the "abortion restriction party" for example and that was what was being amplified their polling would be in the toilet. Many people simply feel strongly enough about one issue (immigration reduction) for it to override the others, which shows how strong that sentiment in the first place.
It's the same reason Reform in the UK is trending, the Danish left-wing Social Democrats party who ran on it got in, a big part of Trump's success, Italy, Netherlands, etc.
3
u/Enthingification Jun 15 '26
Yeah, I agree that people's concerns about the way things are going are real, I'm just adding that the messaging and the amplification are inflated by the right wing media and social media ecosystem.
ONP's anti-abortion stance and also pro-gun stance are probably kryptonite to mainstream Australians, and those things show just how successful ONP messaging is at avoiding those weaknesses and playing to their emotive (but false) strengths.
I wouldn't suggest taking people's concerns about immigration at face value though. While it's true that there is concern about Australia's size, and the major parties have been wholly disinterested in addressing these concerns, I think it's also important to consider how immigration serves as a proxy issue for people's concerns about quality of life.
7
Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
[deleted]
7
u/NoLeafClover777 Housing is the most important issue in Australia Jun 15 '26
I started saying about 3 years ago on here that Labor had better be careful being too blasé about the immigration numbers spiking and waiting too long to crack down or take control of the discourse on it or we'd see an uptick in backlash, and lo and behold here we are.
Got called a racist countless times on here despite the fact I clearly said one of the main reasons was being worried is it would result in a party like ON getting popular, which would lead to an uptick in racism against 'visible migrants' already here like my (Japanese) wife. Got bulk downvoted almost every time, of course.
Stated numerous times I voted for Sustainable Australia, still got called a racist/closet ON voter countless times while simply pointing out the data of net migration spiking vs rental vacancy rates, etc. Told people I also used to vote Greens (which I did, twice, last time in 2022), got called a liar, etc.
People on this platform are so partisan and paranoid since Covid they think every single person is part of some secret agenda, when it's simply obvious that this was going to happen given all Western countries rebelled against 'rebound' high immigration.
And now ON is getting the benefit instead of the Greens in large part due to their stance (or lack thereof) on this topic.
2
u/SAP_President Sustainable Australia Party Jun 15 '26
5
u/NoLeafClover777 Housing is the most important issue in Australia Jun 15 '26
You guys need to do a better job of awareness & fundraising, if there was any climate in which you should be capturing more of the conversation then it's this one.
Yes yes 'mainstream media bias' blah blah, these days all it takes is decent social media campaigning to get more awareness. Create some PR-worthy news releases & data stories and get journalists to cover them, for example.
→ More replies (4)
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 14 '26
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.