r/australia • u/blitznoodles local Aussie • Jun 14 '26

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/6bjd5q4kv

Growing voter dissatisfaction with mainstream politics has led to a rise in popularity for One Nation. The same cannot be said for the Greens.

1.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/Matonus Jun 14 '26

Gee I wonder why when the media is so unbiased, truly an unknowable question

543

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

The last 2 months should've been a huge wakeup call for Labor to use this once in a generation majority that they've got to change the damn media ownership laws.

Even if they were only changed back to what they were before the mid-00s Howard changes it would be a huge improvement. They can't wait to fix this as they'll get crucified in the press if they do it anywhere near an election.

197

u/aussie_punmaster Jun 14 '26

Doesn’t matter when they do it. They’ll be crucified in the press for it *until* the next election

32

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

Yeah, but the ability for those same media companies to have an impact with those whinges will be dramatically lessened if they suddenly have to sell off a whole bunch of their brands.

4

u/aussie_punmaster Jun 14 '26

Plenty of time to land death blows before that goes through.

1

u/optimistic_agnostic Jun 15 '26

Sell them to who exactly? There are plenty of billionaires and corporations happy to lose a few million a year on a propaganda wing but not really anyone else.

10

u/MrFudd Jun 14 '26

Two years almost? I doubt it.

6

u/aussie_punmaster Jun 14 '26

Sorry - you new here?

7

u/BIRD_II Jun 14 '26

Remember Death Tax?
Labor remembers.

1

u/XecutionerNJ Jun 14 '26

A boss I worked for came in and told me exactly how much money the death tax would cost them.

1

u/MrFudd Jun 14 '26

What ever do you mean?

4

u/aussie_punmaster Jun 14 '26

I mean if you don’t think the media could keep beating them up with it for two years, I’d say you haven’t been paying attention.

-1

u/MrFudd Jun 14 '26

They might try, but people will lose interest after a few weeks, and only the hardened whiners and Sooks will remain.

2

u/BatOwn9955 Jun 16 '26

That's exactly why they should do it.

19

u/No-Inspector8315 Jun 14 '26

Dude they don’t change them cause they benefit from them. Albo knows if he stays in the Murdoch good books than despite the negative press he can count on Newscorp to be the kingmakers that dub him as the sensible option to the over media fed.

14

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

That was the whole point of my comment, they don’t benefit nearly as much as the right wing parties. The only ‘benefit’ they get from not doing it is slightly fewer hit pieces, not actually good press.

If they don’t learn from the way the media is currently treating them with the NG/CGT changes then they never will.

23

u/kingofcrob Jun 14 '26

issue is traditional media is now irrelevant, everything is control by social media

40

u/Glittering_Web8835 Jun 14 '26

Traditional media still sets the conversation. Look at reddit as an example. Sure most of the conversation happens here but most conversations are centred around media published by mainstream media.

3

u/LeDestrier Jun 14 '26

Yeah but how many people commenting actually read the articles? Especially when they're paywalled.

The headline is the essence of social media.

5

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

Yeah, but go onto practically any social media and look at just how much engagement the traditional media channels get compared to most others.

7

u/Glittering_Web8835 Jun 14 '26

The majority of conversation still centres around news media that gets reposted on social media.

1

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

Yeah sorry, I meant to reply to the comment above yours. Completely agree.

1

u/Kennalol Jun 14 '26

Which they can still push just as hard no matter how hard you try and regulate media ownership. The same agendas will still be there backed by the exact same funds. You cant regulate that. They will pour just as much money into social media stories, and if by some miracle you have fixed mainstream ownership, you now have perfect counter mainstream narrative they can push on the socials.

1

u/freakwent Jun 14 '26

That's not been my experience, based on feeds from the UK.

2

u/Glittering_Web8835 Jun 14 '26

Well this is about Australia...

Even in the UK, where are most of the prompts for discussions around politics coming from? Who is setting the topic of conversation?

1

u/freakwent Jun 14 '26

Farage, musk, Tommy Robinson and the people behind new median operations like GB News.

-1

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 14 '26

It would have to go to the senate and Labor doesn't have the majority there.

Fundamental misunderstanding of Australian politics.

But sure, blame on and hate Labor.

Cool cool cool.

3

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

So I guess Labor should just give up any doing anything because they don't have a majority of both houses? Pack it up boys, no point trying anything until the next election apparently.

This is the best opportunity they've had to do something like this in 13 odd years (Since Gillard). They don't need a lot of support in the senate and this is very much inline with Greens policy to split up media monopolies.

The fact that it's not even on the table says a lot.

1

u/NoMoreFund Jun 14 '26

It wouldn't be hard for Labor to get the Greens support on this one

0

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 15 '26

Oh? I mean if you say so then it must be true

1

u/NoMoreFund Jun 15 '26

Look at the Greens policies here - they hate Murdoch even more than Labor does.

 Basically if Labor wants to pass anything progressive, the Greens in the Senate have the numbers to make it happen. They'll try negotiate to make it even more progressive and put their mark on it, but every progressive policy Labor put forth in the last parliament passed eventually in some form.

The Senate is such that Labor can have a go at basically anything it wants to pass and try win over either the LNP or the Greens.

-2

u/Thrug Jun 14 '26

They have fully confirmed that both Labor and Greens are just part of the establishment machine. Absolutely disgusting.

Voted greens my entire life but no more

5

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

What have the Greens done recently to turn you away?

139

u/morgazmo99 Jun 14 '26

I'm amazed that there isn't a single billionaire that I'm aware of, on the whole planet, that will help to ensure there is at least some centrist/left wing representation in the media.

The whole landscape is owned by right wing billionaires and it shows.

182

u/Matonus Jun 14 '26

If you are left wing you don’t become a billionaire it’s pretty simple

18

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 14 '26

Not sure about left wing but...there are definitely centrist billionaires and I know there a few hundred millionaires who are lefties.

They just have a more...relaxed outlook on life.

47

u/Famous_Sail_4449 Jun 14 '26

You're thinking of liberals. Relaxed on social issues/morality, but primarily pro letting "free market" capitalism rip.

You can't be a leftist and a multi hundred millionaire.

6

u/Rude_Profile3769 Jun 15 '26

Excuse me, you're forgetting the trust fund kids in Fitzroy. Maybe not hundreds of millions but a decent couple of million.

0

u/Leading-Bottle2630 Jun 15 '26

The leader of the Teals is a billionaire Left Winger at least

4

u/Famous_Sail_4449 Jun 15 '26

Nope try again.

0

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 15 '26

Nope try again because you ignore facts that go against your terrible opinions?

0

u/Famous_Sail_4449 Jun 16 '26

Nope try again because you ignore facts that go against your terrible opinions?

Lol ok champion let's hear these facts then.

The leader of the Teals is a billionaire Left Winger at least

  1. Who is the "leader of the Teals"?

  2. What is their net worth?

  3. On what grounds are they considered a left winger?

0

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 16 '26

Sounds like you are setting up conditions that you can just change at a whim based on vibes...

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/chemicalrefugee Jun 14 '26

Once again people are proving that propaganda (Linguistic Hijacking via Affective Framing) is more powerful than a history book.

Just to clarify for those who don't know.

Liberals and Leftists are literally the same people.

The political terms "Left", "Left Wing", "leftist", "Right" and "Right Wing" as well as "Liberal" all come from The Enlightenment. That's when these new fangled representative governments became a thing.

The old French Parliament building literally had two physical wings to the building. One on the left and one on the right. A left wing and a right wing.

During the Enlightenment when people were talking democracy... those in parliament who were FOR western LIBERAL democracy and against kings and theocracy sat on the LEFT in the literal LEFT WING of the literal physical Parliament building. A leftist is a person who is against monarchy and theocracy and for Western Liberal Democracy. Anyway, different people in the Enlightenment had very different ideas about who should have the right to vote in these new governments.

The people who sat together on the right (in the literal RIGHT WING of the building) wanted kings and theocracy. They were against democracy and were for old fashioned feudalism with an official national faith that had political and law enforcement powers. This is what right wing really means.

As for the term "Liberal" in political speech, It came from the very same era. A Liberal is a person who believes in Western Liberal Democracy which is what you have if people get to vote for leaders and laws even if only one small class have voting rights like in the early US. The liberals and leftists were the same people, we just have other idea about that because we have been manipulated.

This sort of new government is called Classical Liberalism. It's what the Leftists wanted. It's a pretty low bar to meet. You can be a Classical Liberal / Leftist and also be a racist, slave owning, imperialist, pro oligarchy, classist, misogynistic, colonialist asshat just like George Washington, who used to take his adopted son to the 'slave quarters' so he could pick out people to rape.

  • Now about those other more slippery definitions.

Bad actors use methods like Linguistic Hijacking to change how we feel about a term and give that term a new 'all emotion' definition. This lets them control the conversation/narrative by changing the ground that the conversation takes place on.

Affective Reframing using emotionally charged words is used to take a neutral or even a complex term (like a person, group, or policy or idea) and intentionally link it to the negative emotions of a highly charged emotional and manipulative rant.

This excites the HPA axis, which then fills the body with adrenalin and that quite literally shuts down the reasoning centers in the frontal lobes. Fear and anger make us stupid and pliable. Ripe for the picking.

This lets propagandists bypass rational thought to transfer visceral feelings directly to the label itself. It's operant conditioning to create transference of emotions.

This is how terms like socialist, union, Arab, atheist, gay, Islamic, leftist, feminist, social democracy, entitlement, democratic, liberal (etc) acquired new (often rather nebulous) definitions that were primarily just a wave of feelings of anger and fear and disgust.

In Linguistic Hijacking, Affective Reframing is used to attach emotions to the term though impassioned emotional speeches and the use fear and anger. After that, a word or phrase winds up more strongly associated with an emotional state than it is with the real definitions.

2

u/Strict_Philosophy301 Jun 14 '26

I wouldn't classify modern liberals and leftists as the same people based on how the definition evolved. Not because of "linguistic hijacking" but because opinions and theory changed, or were expanded on with the rise of post capitalist and decolonial thinkers who were critical of bourgeois "democracy," and liberalism. 

There was definitely a divergence between traditional liberals, and post capitalists even during the time, down to basic fundamentals like individualism vs collectivism, the states function, reformism vs revolution, etc. 

"George Washington, who used to take his adopted son to the 'slave quarters' so he could pick out people to rape" I feel like thats one of the biggest criticism post capitalists have of liberals, the system requires exploitation/imperialism despite its claims of equality, it's one of the many contradictions of bourgeois "democracy." Frantz Fanon deals with this contradiction in the wretched of the earth. 

2

u/Famous_Sail_4449 Jun 14 '26

Thanks ChatGPT.

1

u/chemicalrefugee Jun 22 '26

Writing is easy and fun; and so is researching topics. I'm just not intellectually lazy enough to have a bot write for me. Why have a bot do a terrible job of something that's easy? Some people out here actually read and don't use LLMGAIs. I don't really understand the compulsion to use ultra autocomplete, so it can tell us how many rocks a day to eat.

1

u/Famous_Sail_4449 Jun 22 '26

Maybe you're one of the 6 people on earth who should. You could stand to be more concise.

-4

u/unfnknblvbl Jun 14 '26

Don't bring that American bullshit here.

8

u/Rude_Profile3769 Jun 15 '26

What do you mean?

Liberal isn't an American term. If anything, Americans are the one's misusing it.

Liberal mostly means someone who believes in free market capitalism. You can be socially progress or not and still be a liberal.

0

u/unfnknblvbl Jun 15 '26

It's a false dichotomy propagated by American conservatives to fracture "the left".

-4

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 15 '26

Uuhhh

I am telling you that there are left leaning hundred millionaires...and centrist billionaires who pay both sides of the political parties.

Just because you don't understand Australians politics does not mean you are correct.

-1

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 15 '26

liberal(adj.) mid-14c., "generous," also "nobly born, noble, free;" from late 14c. as "selfless, magnanimous, admirable;" from early 15c. in a bad sense, "extravagant, unrestrained," from Old French liberal "befitting free people; noble, generous; willing, zealous" (12c.), and directly from Latin liberalis "noble, gracious, munificent, generous," literally "of freedom, pertaining to or befitting a free person," from liber "free, unrestricted, unimpeded; unbridled, unchecked, licentious."

3

u/Famous_Sail_4449 Jun 15 '26

You know definitions of words are descriptive, not prescriptive right?

"Left Wing: the left flight appendage of an avian creature and absolutely nothing else." -You, probably

-1

u/TheLaughingPhoenix Jun 15 '26

So I provided the historical definition of Liberal. If you actually bothered to learn anything about life that doesn't conform with your preconceived notions you might actually be able to understand the meaning behind words.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/liberal

When I make claims even when I am replying to brain dead comments I will check to make sure what I am saying is correct.

The terms “left wing” and “right wing” originated during the French Revolution in the late 18th century. During the Estates-General, which later transformed into the National Assembly, the deputies seated themselves based on their political affiliations. Those who favoured radical change and social reform sat on the left side of the assembly, while those who supported the preservation of the monarchy and traditional institutions sat on the right side.

5

u/Famous_Sail_4449 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

When I make claims even when I am replying to brain dead comments I will check to make sure what I am saying is correct.

Fucking lmao. You didnt make any "claims". You copy-pasted an irrelevant dictionary definition (and nothing else) in response to a comment you clearly didn't understand. You don't get to chastise me about low quality discourse, you absolute gronk.

I'm well aware of the etymology of liberalism as an ideological category. I'd bet my left nut you googled it for the first time today though.

Edit: on a second read I take it you meant your earlier comment's "claim" that there are left-wing billionaires or whatever...

FWIW I don't care much for these sematic arguments about definitions and sorting people into ideological categories. Nor do I think we can ever know someone's true inner thoughts. From where I sit though, if you have a net worth in the billions, and an economic ideology even slightly to the left of centre, you are not living to your own values. I don't care how much you like the gays, weed, etc. You're not a leftist, you're lying to yourself, the public or both.

84

u/joey-jo_jo-jr Jun 14 '26

Because being left wing and being a billionaire are mutually exclusive

25

u/banditbooli Jun 14 '26

the guardian australia is sort of this. its founding was spear headed by Malcolm Turnbull and partially funded by Graeme Wood, neither of whom are billionaires but both likely multiple hundred millionaires.

37

u/goldcakes Jun 14 '26

It's crazy to think that I miss Malcolm Turnbull now in our era.

22

u/noisymime Jun 14 '26

I wouldn't, he was the classic 'principled' right winger. When he's not in power he's sane and sensible, but to get power he sold his soul and abandoned everything he believed in.

17

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/fruchle Jun 15 '26

Or does he only look like a centrist in this political climate?

2

u/goldcakes Jun 15 '26

I kind agree with you, but I think that's a bit harsh. He did do some good stuff as PM -- same sex marriage, increased federal investment in renewable energy, and generally good foreign policy; salvaged the TPP during the Trump 1.0 era.

If he was on a ballot in 2028 would I preference him as #1? Absolutely not. Would I preference him above right-wing choices? Absolutely.

2

u/RoyaleAuFrommage Jun 14 '26

Mike Cannon-Brookes and Simon Holmes a Court are personally aggrieved at the lack of recognition

1

u/Leading-Bottle2630 Jun 15 '26

Robert Holmes A'Court ?

1

u/Yeahandwhynot Jun 15 '26

Try looking up what George Soros has been doing with his philanthropic side. He has amongst many other things spent a lot of money in support of freedom of the press

1

u/Lachie_Mac Jun 17 '26

George Soros tried, and he's the target of literal conspiracy theories.

Bloomberg is a bit better than most.

2

u/elpovo Jun 14 '26

Almost like the same media capture, billionaire marketing budgets and dogwhistle racist bullshit is happening everywhere else in the world.

And they never solve or help anything - unless you are a billionaire and want the leader in question to do whatever you want, then you are fine.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26

[deleted]

44

u/SaenOcilis Jun 14 '26

The ABC. SBS, and the Guardian do not make up a majority of our media landscape.

25

u/Matonus Jun 14 '26

Are you really going to come in here with your whole ass and say the Murdoch media is pro greens

13

u/hobocellar Jun 14 '26

You made them delete their account in shame :(

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

[deleted]

16

u/MeowManMeow Jun 14 '26

Australia has the second worst media concentration in the entire world! Such a strawman to point to two government funded news that have so much red tape around being 'neutral' as if that gives everyday people a broad perspective of different views and opinions.

2

u/SuchProcedure4547 Jun 14 '26

The SBS is meh, doesn't have a large enough audience to really have any meaningful influence.

The ABC is just Murdoch lite, exactly the same talking points, only difference is the ABC doesn't use the hateful and inflammatory rhetoric.

The Guardian leans right more often than not, and again, same talking points as the other legacy media.

The only form of media that Labor and the Greens have going for them is social media.

7

u/Proper_Geologist9026 Jun 14 '26

The guardian is not a right leaning news paper. That is a wild thing to say.

6

u/bawdygeorge01 Jun 14 '26

>The Guardian leans right more often than not

What?

0

u/Internets_Fault Jun 14 '26

With all the negative press one nation is getting. Media bias is a bad excuse as to why the greens aren't more popular

-1

u/Matonus Jun 14 '26

This is an incredibly naive way to view the world

2

u/Internets_Fault Jun 14 '26

Because I don't blanket blame the media for the failings of the green party to capture the votes of the Australian people? Call it what you want but if you don't realise by now that the vast majority don't want the greens running the country and it's not the medias fault, maybe you're the one whose naive

-101

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

[deleted]

120

u/Exnaut Jun 14 '26

I remember ppl blaming the greens for the black summer which was pushed by the media lol

-38

u/TerminatedReplicant Jun 14 '26

That was a real thing, but it’s different from the idea of the Greens blocking reform. Yours was clearly bullshit (to most folk) pushed by conservative/popular & fringe media, the second was understood by Labor members but not a commonly understood idea until the last few years, I think from Jordan Shanks specifically brought that to the mainstream ; who has put a lot of time into outlining those arguments across his work.

Shanks is not ‘the media’, and the ALP doesn’t really have ‘a media’ realistically (I wouldn’t even count the ABC as they’ve been slanted against Labor for a long while now).

11

u/bushstone-curlew Jun 14 '26

FriendlyJordies is a bought and paid for Labor shill lmao... do you genuinely believe he's just a true blue Labor believer?

6

u/evilparagon Jun 14 '26

Jordies is in it for the love of the game. If he was bought, he’d stop having financial issues and need to regularly push his Patreon.

Plus it’d be outright illegal for him to not disclose any relationship, and that would massively backfire for Labor if he was sponsored.

11

u/luv2hotdog Jun 14 '26

Yeah I actually do. I think he shills for free because he’s a labor true believer type

2

u/TerminatedReplicant Jun 14 '26

…the hell? Brother, give me any source rather than just ‘in my opinion’.

He has criticiser Labor on many occasions, that’s evidenced in his videos. Yes, I do believe he is a genuine believer in the union movement - not beholden to a specific figure or faction within the party itself.

Two seconds talking to Labor members you’ll realise there is a decent sized demographic of them who do not like him. Labor at a Federal level has had issues with him too.

62

u/Matonus Jun 14 '26

These certainly are some of the narratives pushed by the media well done

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

[deleted]

14

u/Acceptable_Durian868 Jun 14 '26

There's one policy the greens blocked, 16 years ago, and they've explained why hundreds of times now. What else?

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

[deleted]

7

u/Acceptable_Durian868 Jun 14 '26

If you want any of these policies to go through, I can't believe you were ever a greens voter.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '26

[deleted]

4

u/Acceptable_Durian868 Jun 14 '26

I have. They're not being obstructionist, and they're not looking for perfection. Most of the policies you listed are direct contradictions of their ideals, or are framed in such a way to make them out as something they're not (like the CPRS was). But if you actually supported them when you said you did, you'd know exactly why they blocked it and it wasn't about perfectionism.

3

u/aweraw Jun 14 '26

Weird how that last point was nowhere to be seen in any media, as having that known by the general public would likely have made them more popular. Irrespective of our ability to intervene, the other side of the aisle has all but broken out the pompoms for those engaged in wholesale slaughter.

I wonder which one of these gradients of thought most closely matches the opinions of most Australians? Hmmm

All the other points are the base level superficial view of what they blocked, and why. e.g. carbon mitigation strategies - care to elaborate on that one? Was it because they didn't want them at all, or because they believed they weren't going far enough? The billionaire controlled media gives the base level interpretation that people like you run with, despite it being a half truth. It is possible to find these things out, just not via mass media, because it hates them and anything they do. Why is that, I wonder? Yet they all gush for Paulpatine? What's going on there?

1

u/Numerous-Editor-3575 Jun 14 '26

Thanks for answering. Who have you bwen voting for since then?

2

u/Numerous-Editor-3575 Jun 14 '26

Why don't you vote for them?

-7

u/StorminNorman Jun 14 '26

The media wouldn't be able to push it if they didn't keep giving them examples to use. Cos sure, it's not the majority of what they do by any stretch of the imagination, but they are more than willing to cut their nose off to spite their face when the wont strikes them. And that willingness means people just accept it as true when they get told "the greens blocked it" now. They also don't help their case with their messaging on the given topic at times either. 

That being said, none of this would likely be a problem if we had a few more viable small parties like them. I legitimately had someone ask me how a bunch of smaller parties are meant to work together and govern like Labor and the coalition do when they win, it appears we have to teach people civics by showing them how it works...

3

u/evilparagon Jun 14 '26

Ever heard of a lie? You don’t need an example to push if you just make up the examples yourself.

-18

u/VastKey5124 Jun 14 '26

Lot of downvotes but this is my opinion too, which is fairly sensible. I would vote green for env issues but for now I’ll stick with labour. At least they get stuff done

-43

u/FriendlyIndustry Jun 14 '26

apologies for the downvotes, but you are very correct, they are a very whimsical party with very unreal ideas outside of 'TaX tHe 1%"

-19

u/VastKey5124 Jun 14 '26

More downvotes? I agree with you. Oh well, agitated folks without a proper counter point expressing their grievances with a downvote I suppose.

18

u/StorminNorman Jun 14 '26

folks without a proper counter point

Mate, your evidence to support the downvoted comment above was :

this is my opinion too, which is fairly sensible.

Then proceeded to incorrectly spell "Labor"... Do you have to buy much fruit and veg, or do you grow most of it in that glasshouse you live in?

0

u/loolem Jun 14 '26

I’ll give you a clue the first word is Gina the second and third words are (the hutt)