brisk@aussie.zone 2 days ago
It’s disappointing to see that an article with such a flaky premise is written by the political editor of Crikey.
The shift from purely environmental policy to a broad progressive platform that he ascribes to Adam Bandt was complete when Di Natale was party leader, possibly before but I’m not doing the research that this editor should have done to check.
Marginally more controversially, while I think Labor was probably successful at painting the Greens as “obstructive” over the HAFF, they did exactly what they should have; they voted against bad policy, negotiated with the government and got a hell of a lot better policy passed. What else could the job of a minor party possibly be?
Most controversially, I don’t think the author is even wrong about the misalignment between who traditionally votes Greens and who their policies have the biggest impact on. But, the idea that they should tailor policies towards their voters instead of, you know, maintaining anything resembling ideological integrity, is a gross “realpolitik”-style attitude that our political landscape could do without.
Ilandar@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Yes, as a long-term Greens voter I completely agree that the shift happened under Di Natale, not Bandt. He (Bandt) is getting dumped on because, until now, no one other than long-term Greens voters were even aware that these issues existed. The media mostly ignores The Greens, and when they have reported on them it has generally been under the context of consistent growth. A single election where that growth appears to have stalled and suddenly everyone acts like it is a crisis for the party that must be related to Bandt’s recent leadership.