Some interesting analysis, imv, particularly when it comes to the rise of Gen Z and the diversity within that generation. For example,
Every year, the electorate that made the old duopoly possible shrinks, and the electorate in which the Greens poll in the 30s grows. Over time, this should aid the Greens in the seats where progressive Gen Z concentrates, which is to say the inner urban seats they already contest and a widening ring of middle suburban seats with heavy renter and student populations. The generational tide is the strongest structural argument that the Greens’ long plateau eventually breaks upwards.
But even here, a qualifier is required, and it is an important one.
Gen Z is not only the most left-leaning generation in Australian history. It is also the most diverse. A very large share of this cohort are the children of migrants, or migrants themselves, and through migration alone that share will keep growing. The overseas born and second-generation component of Gen Z behaves differently from its Anglo and established counterpart. It leans left, but it leans Labor.
The greens arse relentlessly attacked by low brow media and they just suck at countering it. labor has mainstream visibility and money from whoring themselves to lobbieists, plus a bit of “well my dad used to be a union man” stuff.
The greens and green voters just suck at talking to uneducated people, but most of the country that would agree with their policies aren’t people with uni degrees who sit about debating policies. They had some like Max Chandler snd Scott Ludlam who seemed to get that you’ve gotta tap into the anger and mock the establishment a bit.
It’s tricky though, because the more poncy greenies get upset if you start doing it.
🤣 LMAO
I understand they need popularity to get votes and power. But they block and sacrifice mediocre reform for popularity. For example with Max’s favorite, the HAFF, investments need time in the market to grow, delaying it for ~8 months at 10% (2024-25 nominal returns %pa) is 0.66 billion forfeit. I’m not saying that all of that would have been invested in housing, rather than fund growth, but it definitely can’t now.
So how much is the popularity worth? And if they can compromise their strategy for votes for even mediocre reform in a reasonable time, how can we believe they will act different with power?
From their actions rather than their words, It seems to me they are pandering to people want reform, whilst halting the mediocre reform that is happening anyway without them. Because they know the people they are pandering too won’t check their homework. And we are supposed to trust that it will flip and they will be able to negotiate change later?
No, Greens voters are wide awake to what is happening. They just don’t give a shit about mediocre major party “reform” that won’t meaningfully change anything about their lives - that’s what gives Greens senators the license to block legislation. This idea that they’re somehow betraying their supporters is a Labor attack line that has little basis in reality.
The HAFF would in no way benefit me personally, nor would the negative gearing and capital gains tax changes since they will take some time to do anything, so I agree.
I also agree it wouldn’t betray their supporters, I imagine most are well off enough that these changes can be easily sacrificed for the hope of something better.
I think these are policies that are better than, actually nothing. I recognise that there are those less fortunate that they may be just enough to tip the scales for some. I don’t feel good sacrificing them because I thought it didn’t go far enough.
Well yes and no. As Kos explained in the article, The Greens voter base is a mix of older and younger educated voters. For the young cohort, who are less financially stable, it’s generally the opposite - they see hardline opposition, even at their own expense, as the only realistic path towards serious major party legislation that will actually have a positive impact on their future. People sometimes make the mistake of assuming low income voters as desperate and willing to take the first hand out they can get, but they also have nothing to lose. That mentality is also why those on the right are willing to gamble with One Nation.
Well it wasn’t blocked in the end, it passed, with good concessions.
This position that they’re obstructionist is weak. They got better outcomes. That’s exactly why I voted for those Green and independent senators and I’ll do it again too.
That said, the Greens and the indies at the end of 24 passed a lot of bills, some in my mind they shouldn’t have.
Note also that anything really good, like those tax concession changes, don’t get a lot of obstruction.
Labor needs to produce better policy.
Honestly this. It’s pretty frustrating to constantly see bitching and moaning about the greens being obstructionists and “making the perfect the enemy of the good”, but labor somehow gets a free pass to just propose dogshit policies.
Worse still, their people go on with some shit house excuses. They can’t pass good policy apparently, until they have the needed majority. This was on things like the media inquiry we wanted.
Now they have the majority and friendly Senate, they can’t because the media would slaughter them.
But when it suits these people, boy can Labor produce great policy.
To be fair, they did…what should be expected of them and fixed the tax concession issue in on housing.
The Greens are better by every metric. Even foreign policy now. Wong worked out real fast that Shoebridge wasn’t Michaela Cash and dumped her shit back on her.