The Greens should have split

Via Domain:

Former federal Greens leader Bob Brown held talks with a group of NSW Greens MPs about forming a new breakaway party as the civil war inside the state branch reached boiling point.

The discussions, which were continuing among the MPs as late as last December, advanced to the point that designs for a party logo and website, as well as party branding as “Green independents”, had been canvassed, sources told the Herald.

Upper house MPs Cate Faehrmann, Justin Field, Jeremy Buckingham and Dawn Walker met Mr Brown in August to discuss the prospect of forming a new environmental party amid a deepening ideological rift within the NSW Greens.

Mr Brown confirmed that the option of a split was discussed at the meeting, describing them as “general discussions”, and said he had counselled the group to instead push for reform inside the party.

They should have split. It would have given the polity an option for a real green party. The irony is the “Independent Greens” would have been the lefties. As opposed to the awful Fake Left rump, that is really right wing given it cares an awful lot more about boosting urbanisation profits via mass immigration than it does the environment.

Now there’s no green nor left party at all and it’s future is grim.


  1. reusachtigeMEMBER

    These communist parties, like the Labor party, should be banned! Our democracy runs perfectly as a two party system therefore we really only require the great Liberal party for city people and the country-man’s party, the Nationals.

    • AAA+++ but letting them operate shows the world what they’re really worth……a small percentage points of their I.Q., if that! And consequently, why they will NOT even hang on to one lousy seat in the lower house….HE HE HE

      • reusachtigeMEMBER

        Well was anyone really making profits out of those fish? Probably not, so it’s no real loss. There’s a lot of profit and cotton and rice though so I don’t even think there is an argument to be had on this topic.

  2. The Greens should have just booted out the open border dopes and identity politics nutters and reclaimed the brand. Right now it appears the only ones that don’t see the brand as a paradox are the Greens.

    • The greens “brand” was never about the environment. It was about inner city types virtue signalling. When they started it was the environment that was the latte set’s issue of choice. As the hot button issue moved to social justice so to did the greens and their policies. The problem is thinking the greens where ever truly an environmental party, the environmental stuff was purely secondary.

      • respectively disagree. The Wilderness Society, which was the foundation for the Greens as a political party, was entirely about the environment and they were involved in nearly all of the most important environmental protests and achievements in the late 70s and through the 80s. Bob Brown was a founding member of the Wildness Society.

        When the W-C evolved into the Greens, it did retain this core purpose for quite a while. But it has, over time, been corrupted from these original core principles by those that you describe

      • The Greens that evolved out of Tasmania was an environmentalist organisation that was crystallised by the Gordon below Franklin dam project. That political party for first couple of decades held a policy platform to stabilise Australia’s population. This didn’t change until the rise of Pauline Hanson.

      • You’ll never have an environmental Party when people’s standard of living is dropping. Try asking someone with no plumbing in India if they give a toss about Climate Change. As Morgs mentioned in a comment below we are stuffed because the only way to raise standard of living at the moment is to continue to ruin the place.

      • Andrew, I agree to a point but it sounds like you’re also conflating economic growth with standards of living.

        The MB team regularly make the point that GDP growth fuelled by immigration is degrading standards of living. So the wrong type (or source) of growth = both declined SoL and environmental degradation.

        The ‘no-growth’ movement emphasises economic growth through productivity and innovation. It is possible, but probably not while the neo-liberal brain-bug infects the western world.

      • @C.M
        The greens core supporters where always inner city trendy voters, and while these voters supported the environment so to did the greens. When that changed the greens followed.
        The party was never corrupted, it simply continues with it’s core values. The problem is it’s name never reflected what it’s supporters were actually interested in.

        I think you’ll also find that the standard of living of the immigrants is massively increased by our immigration fuelled gdp growth. For current Australians not so much.

      • C.M.BurnsMEMBER

        i dont know how old you are BJ but I can assure you that through the 80s, the core supporters of the greens were not the inner city types. In fact, “inner city latte” types wasn’t even a thing in the 80s; it’s almost an entirely new demographic driven by age and asset accumulated wealth.

      • Based on there were no core supporters of the greens in the 80’s(early 90’s really) and becoming social justice nutjobs has quadrupled their support.
        You can assure me all you want, but I remember all the virtue signalling about the environment from back then, it just wasn’t labelled that at the time.

      • Follow up, since inner city wasn’t their support and I can’t actually find it easily, what seats other than city electorates have the greens actually ever won?

        And for the final bit of fun. The greens party we are discussing didn’t exist until the 90’s so not sure what relevance the 80’s has at all?

      • C.M.BurnsMEMBER

        “”The first Greens party was registered in 1984, but the Greens NSW did not take its current form until 1991, when six local groups in New South Wales federated as a state political party. Greens candidates have run in every federal election since 1984, when a single candidate ran in the federal Division of Sydney.””

        I was mail box dropping how-to-vote cards as a kid in the 80s, as my uncle was a founding member of the Wilderness society in NSW. He and his scientist / environmentalist mates would run in nearly all local and state elections, especially those which were being affected by environmental issues (dams, logging, water pollution etc).

      • Based on there were no core supporters of the greens in the 80’s(early 90’s really) and becoming social justice nutjobs has quadrupled their support.

        I’m sure their left-wing policy base with things like liveable welfare, comprehensive public services, anti-privatisation of public assets, ICACs, industry regulation, strong workers rights and electoral reform while the traditional left-wing party went gallivanting off to the right, had nothing whatsoever to do with their increasing popularity, despite those things happening at the same time.

        It was all just gay marriage. Yup.

      • “I’m sure their left-wing policy base with things like liveable welfare, comprehensive public services, anti-privatisation of public assets, ICACs, industry regulation, strong workers rights and electoral reform”
        Can you please explain how these policies relate to a raised middle finger to a suggestion that sydney is full?

      • Can you please explain how these policies relate to a raised middle finger to a suggestion that sydney is full?

        Why ? It has no relevance to either my point or yours.

    • The Greens were almost entirely absorbed by the Nutter Borg. There were hardly any sensible people left to kick out. Those few people are now wisely self-extracting.

  3. They are done as a party but as a rural voter I’m double celebrating the death of the Greens and the Nationals.

    Both of them absolute self absorbed wankers that hate anyone in the bush. A pox on both their houses.

    • I agree, the modern ‘not-Greens’ have taken no time to understand the regions and the problems they face. The regions are crushed by city (and foreign) rentseekers that take their productivity for a song, all with a wink and a nod from the major parties. In the end disgusting commercialisation of the environment by greedy opportunists becomes the norm, viewed as a path to the only riches there are left. Rip all the trees out, dredge the rivers, mine the beautiful places, it’s all that’s left to do.

    • In my rural area, our Green MLC, I think, is very good.
      None of this virtue signalling.
      Environment. And people.

  4. I would have thought the Victorian election would be a wake up call. The Liberals lost badly, but the Greens were smashed. The Greens ran a terrible campaign and were thinking that they could get a ministerial position. The Labor government’s green credentials are severly lacking other than subsidising a few wealthier households to put solar panels on their roof (why not just put them on all our schools instead – better value for money) and a few wind farms.
    The federal Greens will be smashed this coming election as well and this blog has pointed out the reasons why many times. We really need a proper environmental party that opposes the destruction of the natural environment and wants to take steps to improve the natural environment. This is where Sustainable Australia Party can fill the void and campaign to improve the lives of Australians and the natural environment.

    • I should have added that the LNP has no environmental credentials. Sad state of affairs really and why we need a proper environmental party.

      • Part of the backlash causing the split in the conservatives is a group who understand that strong environmental policy can (and should) be part of conservative policy.

        We do desperately need a serious environmental party.

      • Here is the thinking of Dr Peter Phelps, NSW MLC and Liberal Party Whip on what the Environment is, from the Hansard;
        “What is the environment? It is an ill-defined, amorphous, quasi-religious mass with no intrinsic dollar value but is instead invested with a completely spurious, bogus emotional value”.
        No wonder the Reef and the Murray/ Darling / Murrumbidgee rivers are dying from greed and neglect.
        I agree with you that we need a fair dinkum environment Party , the NSW Greens were overtaken by the Gay rights and Social Justice activists some years ago, not that these issues are not worthy, but they are not environmental.
        I have read that in the fallout of the Buckingham sacking hundreds of Greens members have resigned and not a few preselected candidates are now running as independents.
        According to the SMH report Brown says there is no mechanism in the Australian Greens rule book that would allow them to accommodate a break away NSW Greens group.

    • LOL. Yes, the party that wants to build more coal power stations and thinks climate change is a vast conspiracy is clearly the environmentalists choice.

      • Latham is on record being opposed to the population ponzi, identical to the thoughts of Bob Brown on the same issue

    • Yeah, ironical isn’t it – the greatest and most effective environmental policy of all, to stop the massive Third World immigration program into Australia, is fiercely opposed by the Greens !

    • From April 2018 by Lynette Keleher, former Greens councilor and former member: “”The internal sabotage that doomed the Greens campaign for Batman and the party’s treatment of Bhathal, a powerful woman and Greens figure who inspires many, is the public evidence of what many passionate and committed Greens members already know, that our party is overridden by a abusive and bullying internal organisational culture. And that racism is rampant in the party and embedded in its processes and structures.””

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      Apparently a couple of Alex Bhatha’s crimes where: a) standing in front of someone at a conferrence. b) unfollowing someone (I assume a Green staffer or similar) on Facebook.

      The party culture seems to be dominated by a group of thin skinned histrionic personality disorder sufferers.

  5. Been banned for a while.

    Great to see everything I’ve been saying about labor and Greens for ten years is just a given now.

    Most of Australia’s problems come back to these two party’s abandoning their historical core roles.

  6. Mark Latham: Gladys Berejiklian’s worst nightmare
    [Mark Latham could finally get a Labor government elected.

    Labor’s favoured son handed the 2004 federal election to John Howard by pushing his naive party into the eager arms of the greens. Now, Latham hopes to decide the NSW election by sanitising the atavistic tendencies of his new party, One [email protected]

    “We’re not allocating preferences to anyone,” Latham said at a One [email protected] campaign launch this week in Goulburn, where Liberal MP, minister and almost-Packer mother-in-law Pru Goward is walking. “My feedback is that Labor should be the firm favourite to win the election.”

    Promoted by Latham’s wealthy, elite-hating media mates – Mad Mark and 2GB’s Alan Jones’ co-curriculum activities include a cookbook – One [email protected] and independents could break NSW’s brittle politics.

    The government rules by five seats. A statewide poll this week put One [email protected]’s support at 6 per cent, enough to get Latham elected to the upper house, and put a nasty dent in Coalition support, which is running even with Labor.

    Latham coos about “Australian values”. Education, urban planning and transport are his touchstones.

    Asked about immigration, Latham played up “white flight” in Sydney’s western suburbs from immigration-driven congestion. There was no explicit Muslim baiting. The issue is electoral gold for Latham, and so potent that Berejiklian is ignoring business pleas for more labour and retreating towards the One [email protected] position.

    Latham’s candidates seem dangerously sane.

    Demonstrating that a few Labor Party lessons stuck, Latham picked up Orchard and a couple of other disgruntled Liberals to run One [email protected]’s local campaign.

    The weirdest thing Orchard said – apart from declaring he didn’t want to be a well-paid government minister – was to threaten what sounded like a witch burning outside Berejiklian’s office.

    “If we need to descend on Parliament with torches and pitchforks, we’ll do it,” he told supporters at the Tattersalls Hotel on Wednesday.

    The pub is on Goulburn’s main thoroughfare, which used to be the road from Sydney to Canberra. Latham left Canberra 14 years ago, and wants to return in triumph to Sydney, where he sees a chance of holding the balance of power in the upper house and lording it over his enemies, whom he is adroit at recruiting.

    But the more candidates labouring for Latham, the easier it will be for him to fill a 4.55 per cent quota needed for an upper house seat.]

  7. You really need to break free of the absurd Left-Right paradigm, Leith. I know it’s easy and familiar, but it means you have to introduce the notion of ‘Fake Left’ and pretend that One Nation supporters are magically the same as laissez-faire capitalists, etc. You’re saying the some Greens are right-wing now, solely based on support for mass immigration – wtf, this is getting stupid now.

    Just stop using these aburdly-fitting terms. Come up with your own terms and perhaps add a permanent link to a glossary, or just don’t use them, rather use more descriptive terms. e.g. coolie/working/middle/upper-middle class; inner-city/urban/rural; cosmopolitan/nativist, traditional/liberal, tradie/university-educated etc.

    Tell me, is Mark Latham right-wing or left-wing? You’d say traditional Left I guess. Well, what the hell is that? Working class, socially conservative => many people consider that pejoratively/deplorably ‘right-wing’ now.

    I’m willing to help you with this, or review/offer feedback on what you come up with.

    • Sorry bud but you miss the point. All of your terms describe social not economic phenomena. Marxist thought has a much better grasp of power politics than your new fangled rubbish.

      The Tampa Greens are right wing becasue support for the mass immigration model is direct support for certain forces of production. The rest of their waffle is superstructure to me.

      Latham is clearly centre-left with class consciousness and a touch of traditional economic natioanalism. That he embarks on foolish crusades in identity politics does not change this bedrock ideology.

      The irony is your own ideology is bankrupt and you don;t even know it.

      • Wait a minute. I thought the Greens’ inferred support for high immigration was based on their identity politics/social beliefs ?

        Worth noting as well is that you could have high immigration supported by lefty economics if you were also pursuing productive full employment policies backed by strong workers rights, rather than neoliberal, wage-suppressing labour exploitation ones.

      • sorry, but you’ve missed the point. the point is to use descriptive, accurate terms in common usage, rather than invent new terms and spurious justification for misuse/shoehorning of terms.

        why are you attacking my ‘ideology’? were you drunk when you wrote this?

        do you really think ‘class’ is not an economic term? geez… all these terms have relevance when looking at economic patterns of behaviour.