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.
22 Comments
No1@aussie.zone · 15 pts · 1d
An entirely unscientific and more like a vibe:
Taleya@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 1d
They also had a few collapses of their own, some literal punchups and a pedo
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 11 pts · 1d
The greens are 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.
G_M0N3Y_2503@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 23h
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?
Ilandar@lemmy.today · 5 pts · 19h
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.
G_M0N3Y_2503@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 18h
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.
Ilandar@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 15h
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.
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 18h
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.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 15h
🤣 LMAO
Cherry@piefed.social · 10 pts · 1d
IMO Gen Z being mostly left is a myth. You get boomers who are left and young that are right. Assuming makes an ass out of you and me.
The truth is Aus has been a very wealthy and affluent country and there are still a lot(from all age ranges) looking to ‘conserve’ that hence the dominance of the liberals in the last 20 years. Shooting down shorten and that glimmer of progressiveness for a corporate sleeze Scott Morrison tells you everything about how a majority values. House prices and coal. That’s why the greens can’t get a foothold. I think greens have had some great policies in the last few years but I find people spout green values but vote the opposite.
Ilandar@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 1d
I don't understand the use of the world "tactical" to describe former Greens voters switching to Labor in response to the threat of One Nation. In how many seats were The Greens so competitive on primary votes that they threatened to dislodge Labor? Even if this phenomenon was theoretically possible, it would have occurred at a time when One Nation was not seen as the major threat they are now. One Nation had a +1.44 swing at the last election, they were still largely irrelevant at that time and could not be the cause of this Greens vote plateau.
MisterFrog@aussie.zone · 10 pts · 1d
Yeah, also, unless the voters don't understand the voting system, why would a ideological greens voter put Labor first, when they can just preference them second?
Tactical voting isn't really much of a thing in Australia, in my opinion and unless someone has strong evidence that people are doing this, it's very a tall claim to say people are leaving the Greens for Labor to protect against One Nation.
Ilandar@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 1d
Presumably because they think The Greens will receive more primary votes than Labor, but will then lose on preferences to a centre-right or right wing candidate (since a left Greens candidate is less likely to receive a consistent preference flow from the rest of the electorate than a more centrist Labor candidate). So the thought would be to primary the mainstream appeal Labor candidate with the hope that this ensures the seat does not fall to an even worse option. Antony Green explains it in more depth here, using the example of Labor voters voting for teal independents to take down Coalition seats.
As I said, I'm not sure there's evidence of Greens voters actually being in a position to do this in a seat that would simultaneously have a realistic threat from One Nation. If such a phenomenon exists, it's not "tactical" voting at all but just, as you say, people not understanding the voting system.
Taleya@aussie.zone · 3 pts · 1d
90% of the time its people steeped in us politics forgetting how preferential voting works
PeacefulShadows@aussie.zone · 6 pts · 22h
Because they don't make outrageous claims. Because they don't promise completely undeliverable outcomes. Because they don't blame thy neighbour for all your problems. In short, because they're too rational.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone · 5 pts · 1d
Because Labor is nowhere near as bad as people make them out to be. They are not like the US Democrats, they are a party by and for the trade unions. The Greens policies generally fall into one of four camps:
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 18h
They’re paying Palantir to boot people off the NDIS and scrounge money for AUKUS subs.
They’ve sold us out to the US and Israel.
They have betrayed the country.
We now know why Shorten left.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 15h
No they're not
The NDIS itself is WILDLY unsustainable, no need for you to scrounge for excuses:
But the cost tells an even starker picture. At the time of the 2015 intergenerational report, Treasury expected the federal budget cost of the NDIS to sit between 0.6 per cent and 0.8 per cent of the Australian economy for decades to come.
Even using the larger figure, that would have meant a cost of around $23 billion in the coming financial year and $28 billion at the end of the decade.
Instead, by the time of the first Albanese budget, the projections for those same years were $59 billion and $100 billion, respectively. By the year 2032, the cost was projected at $128 billion — more than four times the Abbott-era expectation.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-25/how-the-cost-of-the-ndis-blew-out/106604488
Israel no, I don't think they've done anything with Israel, afaik the only barest of links even here is that Australia makes a spare part for the F35 program which is hardly selling out
US on the other hand yeah :\
stylusmobilus@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 1h
Yeah they are
No, that’s AUKUS and we could stop giving pointless tax cuts no one wanted and tax gas exports reasonably.
Yeah, we’re working out what it actually costs to give disabled people dignity of life. What costs were borne by parents and carers before. What it costs to give a disabled person choice over who cares for them and how it’s done.
$23 billion? That’s one and a half years taxing gas exports.
Even with the upper figure, we can afford it. We’re a rich nation.
Now put those numbers against the submarines. Ones we have not got yet, or will get.
Israel yeah. A royal commission into antisemitism? Fuck outta here.
Honestly, the only thing weaker than a Labor politician is a Labor voter.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 15h
You forgot the most important one:
pilaz@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 14h
Because getting third parties to be more competitive requires getting a better system than a Westminster/FPTP electoral system.
echo@lemmy.today · -6 pts · 1d
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1d
Unlike One Nation?