Fake Greens convinced they’re on a good thing

Via Guy Rundle whose grasp of political realities is slipping away:

The simple version is that the Greens had a good election in the Senate and a disappointing one in the House. Before the elections there were dire predictions of a Senate disaster, with the possibility that they would suffer both a solidarity-drift back to Labor and fall down the preference tumble at the hands of hard-right and “anti-system” parties. There was talk of losing three Senate seats, sending them back to six and thus fulfilling centrist media’s greatest dream: that the Greens will be just like the Australian Democrats.

That didn’t happen. Across the country, the Greens had an aggregate swing to them of a round 2%. That was made up of around 1.3% swings in NSW, WA and Tasmania; a small 0.3% swing against in Victoria; a 2.5% swing in Qld; and a 5% swing in SA. The SA swing is presumably their share of Nick Xenophon’s old vote, and the Queensland heft from anti-Adani Labor voters.

Overall, the oomph allowed them to hold all their nine Senate seats, though they didn’t gain any. When they suffer 2% swings against, the mainstream media construct this as a disaster. When it swings towards them, it goes largely unremarked upon.

…the results show that the Greens are still in the hunt for their switched strategy of running after liberal middle-class seats across the country — something Scott Ludlam had been arguing as a strategy for years before the switch. They need a very achievable 5-7% gain, minimum, to be in the hunt. And 10-15% to be on the safe side. With cultural and demographic shift, and a bit of a party sort-out, there are about six to eight seats in the immediate (i.e. next 12 years) sights.

These possibilities are emerging as the Greens are having a new surge in Europe. The movement appears to be renewing, not failing.

In other words, the Fake Greens recaptured some lost vote as other parties disintegrated. They did almost no damage in the bourgeois seats they targeted and the gains achieved were very obviously temporary based upon Malcolm Turnbull’s execution.

The party is also the epitome of what cost Labor government via Quexit in north and west of Sydney and Melbourne” arrogant, progressive, open borders nut jobs unable to grasp that the deplorables want their country back.

There is no doubt that the context is spectacular for a green revolution. Major parties have failed. The environment is dying. Civilisation is quite literally doomed without it. The Fake Greesn should already be a major third party.

I am a natural Greens voter for all of these reasons, and I share their progressive views. Yet they repulse me physically.

Why? Because their open borders, global government obsession is horribly hypocritical as an environmental destroyer and rabid class war. And it has about as much chance of coming to fruition as Guy Rundle has of being invited to be guest of honour at Davos.


  1. Thank you for the interesting analysis. Do you think Labor put too much effort into getting Greens voters to switch to Labor, and not enough effort into getting Coalition voters to switch to Labor?

    • Maybe Labor should start getting Labor voters to vote for them by, oh I don’t know…Cutting immigration, not self flagellating over the ethnic makeup of union ads and getting some talent out front.

    • No I think that Labor put too much effort into the parental immigration program and thats what did for them, there was not enough 3rd world immigrants to over turn the voting.

  2. HadronCollision

    I’d be very interested in thinking about what would happen if their policy – this will never happen of course – was to cut net migration substantially to its long term average (or even below temporarily) – whilst increasing foreign aid, real refugee intake whilst dealing with the economic imbalances and corruption, ie gas reservation

    A wholllllle lotta vested interests would align against them but I wonder, with a proper B2C marketing campaign, how they’d go.

    Be interesting to see the demographic swing toward them….

    • Interesting concept there. How they even convince the people who vote for them escapes me, and I’m also naturally suatainable view on life, but I could never vote for them as they contradict all the things they say they stand for IMO. Most of them are bat sh1t crazy as well and pretty vicious to their own members. It’s a global mystery what they are really about, but it’s partly do what they say, and you don’t have a right to reply. My local council is exactly like this and are green at the expence of the rate payers…quite happy to be given a new Merc every year though, plus OS study trips which we must benefit from…not.

      • HadronCollision

        I’m simplifying of course, but if their focus was
        environmental protection (fed EPA etc etc)
        just transition to renewables
        Fed ICAC
        Gas cartel busting
        Any other anti corruption measures (AML enforcement etc)
        Making everyone pay their fair share of tax
        Jobs and income (net migration reduction helps)
        Being reasonable on economic matters
        Speaking strongly about all the stuff the LNP and Labor can’t
        Anti CCP intrusion etc etc

        Will never happen but

      • @hadron
        Hoosier sort of policies could win just about win any parity an election! But vested interests won’t allow such sensible (for Australians long term future) policies, unfortunately.

    • It was interesting there was barely a peep about federal ICAC in the election run-up.

    • It would be interesting to see the Greens offer a “deal” of some sort where they ask for a reduction in net migration to neutral population in conjunction with an increase in the intake of refugees or better yet, ending on offshore detention.

      – broad support in the Australian community for reduced migration levels which might win them some votes and prove that they can ‘reach across the aisle’ – Greens win
      – elimination of the harsh (and I think, un-Australian) treatment of refugees – particularly as Australia participates in bombing some of their homelands – refugees win
      – splits the One Nation vote – everyone except ON wins
      – neutral population target roots the migration policy in terms of objective environmental and economic grounds which as a principle works fairly well across political parties and ends the constant virtue signalling from all parties – win for the intelligence of the political landscape + ends the despair over the ‘deplorable’ vote (ON, PUP etc.)
      – have the political credentials to broach the topic without the irritating calls about racism
      – have form on this with comments from Bob Brown calling for skilled migration intake to be reduced in 2010 (Sydney Morning Herald) – Bob Brown is generally well liked (at least within that side of politics) and reminds people that the Greens are meant to be about environmentalism
      – the security theatre of offshore detention costs billions and most of the refugee applicants come via plane anyway – makes up for the Federal revenue decline by cost savings (we know the Federal revenue decline is false economics given that the States then have to pick up the infrastructure spend, but this helps neutralise the debate)

      Doubt it’ll happen but might be worth writing a few letters to MPs (regardless of your political affiliations) and I say that as a Sustainable Australia member.

      (Apologies for lapse of my MB membership – been an expensive year)

  3. The Green vote in Germany is attributable to one video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y1lZQsyuSQ
    which called for the destruction of the CDU and caused it’s leader, AAK, to have a tantrum over free speech which has caused a political storm in Germany. Rundle’s link to Euro-Green success is fallacious and a misreading of the differences and hypocrisies of Australian Greens.

  4. Who are we kidding – there is absolutely nothing Green about the Fake Greens. At least with Bob Brown, it was a safe bet that he had put on gumboots at some point at tramped around in the wilderness.

    With the inner city progressive cultists, how many of them would know how to put up a tent on a camping trip? No really, does anyone think they have ever been to ‘the great outdoors’… ever? Did you pack the spf100?

    There is this coward I know. Thinks has a great business brain, and always has advice. Never actually done anything, but convinced knows whats what – the guy has been virtue signalling so long, pretty sure he believes that what he says. The funny thing: no one actually talks to him about business, because everyone knows he is full of sh!t.

    I think that is what happens to inner city greens – everyone knows their opinion on everything. And no one wants to engage with their nonsense. So no one ever tells the greens they are muppets.

    Silent Australian my ar*e. More like, silent because could not be f’ed talking to a progressive, as its a deeply unpleasant experience.

    • HadronCollision

      interesting. YOu can be progressive socially without being a loony big Australia, constantly signalling on SJI like the fake greens you talk about

      the sunscreen reference is just weird.
      I mean I wear spf50 and zinc on a 5h bike ride
      or 20k run
      or surfing
      or out doing hours of fencing by hand
      or slashing paddocks


      • I was trying to be facetious. The idea was the ‘fake greens’ would likely overdo and get double the recommended strength. Maybe i should have gone with spf 1000 to make it obvious. my bad.

    • But Sarah and her children got to see some whales!

      So much for caring about one’s carbon footprint.

  5. HadronCollision

    Have youse seen this?


    The Morrison government will divert migrants to key areas, establish a dedicated fast-rail office and push back against Treasury’s reliance on immigration to boost economic growth and tax revenue.

    Dubbo! Aren’t they nearly out of water!
    Chinese speaking scuba instructors for FNQ! Great work whilst the reef is still there (which this govt is busy facilitating the destruction of)

  6. DominicMEMBER

    Has anyone else noticed how just how much the fake Greens actually hate democracy. In their eyes the votes of the deplorables shouldn’t count. If they had their way, every citizen would be subject to a ‘virtue test’ before being granted their voting cards.

    • Oooh – I know this one. The four castes are: (a) elites, (b) technocrats, (c) deplorables, and (d) untouchables incels.

      Every time I see a female cultist wearing ‘problem-glasses’ (everyone knows what i’m talking about too!), I remember that they think it makes them look smarter. Its a fashion aped from the early 20th century Jewish intellectual class.

      On the list of ironies, there are few more stark incidences of good intentions leading to hell.

  7. This article is spot on. The Greens have some good environmental policies, but then they negate them with their “open borders nuttery”. Population is our most serious environmental problem, both globally and locally, because it acts as a multiplier for so many others. This papers calculates that 75% of historical greenhouse gas emissions are due to population growth and only 25% to more per capita consumption. Not surprising when there are 8 people now in the global population for every person alive in 1800.


    One of the Greens candidates was spouting on the Guardian that immigration doesn’t contribute to higher emissions because the people who immigrate are already well off. See, however


    which shows massive increases in the ecological and carbon footprints of Chinese migrants. Not to mention that we are taking a lot of migrants from countries much poorer than China.

    Don’t put population deniers anywhere but last.

    • This papers calculates that 75% of historical greenhouse gas emissions are due to population growth and only 25% to more per capita consumption.

      That is an eye opening statement for me.

      One of the Greens candidates was spouting on the Guardian that immigration doesn’t contribute to higher emissions because the people who immigrate are already well off.

      Load of garbage. The Indians who move to Dubai are only a short flight away while the Indians who move to Sydney are a 12 hour flight away. That is 12 hours of jet fuel consumption vs 3 hours of jet fuel consumption when they fly back for a holiday.

      Immigrants who could only afford a motorcycle in the third world, come here and work for $10/hour and buy a car that pollutes way more.

    • @Tania – This is a sign of total ideological capture. The Fake Greens ideology is impervious to critical review – it is rusted on as that’s how it gets its inner city seats. It’s their political survival strategy. Their life preserver.

      In other articles they apparently aim to take pressure off the environment by creating mega cities of dog boxes – while their leader lives on a farm near Colac and enjoys amenity that the proles will not be permitted in their Brave New World. Still other propaganda tells of how going renewable in Australia will mean that mass immigration is the new Nirvana as we are somehow reducing global carbon emissions – when the facts are diametrically opposed to this. And starkly so.

      Sustainability used to drive Green policy. Now days the starting point is the ideological fixation on mass immigration as a symbol of their virtue – they will happily give away the amenity of others to promote their faith. Any environmental policy must be made up to fit as they put the telescope up to their blind ecological eye. Fantasy, propaganda, tears and a pathological fear of armies of Nazis and racists laying siege to inner city cafes is used as a smokescreen to hide the fact that population size IS the issue, always has been, and that the Fake Greens have betrayed any pretence of being evidence-based.

      You can drive a bulldozer through the gaps in the tripe their elected members trot out. Anyone who bothers to do 10 minutes of reading on ecological footprints and climate change can see that the Fake Greens have filled a political niche that has less and less to do with environment and much more to do with identity politics. They have become part of the problem, not the solution, as a nation divided on class, race and urban-rural life cannot act collectively.

      The Greens remind me of TV evangelists in the USA who require a blind faithful to sit in the audience with their minds in neutral and faith-based belief turned up to 10.

      • DominicMEMBER

        Direct and to the point. If you don’t mind I’ll copy and paste this to (variously) share with my local Greens member and any other ‘interested’ parties.

  8. This is good analysis – especially these bits:

    “The party is also the epitome of what cost Labor government via Quexit in north and west of Sydney and Melbourne” arrogant, progressive, open borders nut jobs unable to grasp that the deplorables want their country back.

    There is no doubt that the context is spectacular for a green revolution. Major parties have failed. The environment is dying. Civilisation is quite literally doomed without it. The Fake Greesn should already be a major third party.”

    Overall, if a Green party at this juncture is stuck as a minor 3rd party they are a total political failure. Their brand of politics is contributing to the growing urban-rural and class divide that is setting like cement around their party’s political feet. Identity politics and social justice platforms that appease inner city residents will never go mainstream and are part of a universal political speed limit akin to light speed – something they can never attain.

    Such politics is lazy and belongs in the inner suburbs for all time. A true Green Party would have done the hard yards in rural communities and appealed nationally – like how the Greens began.

    I’m also a “natural” Green voter turned off by the hypocrisy, lack of substance and above all their cowardice in not taking up the population/sustainability mantel. They have given people no place to go but to the far Right and then moan and squeal at the very politics they have helped create.

    • I’m another natural Green voter (and one time Green voter) who would now prefer to set them all on fire.

      The bush is my church. And these hipster fools who never go there want to destroy it with their stupidity and virtue signalling. They’ve been taken over by nutters and have become a generic mad SJW issue party, and have nothing whatsoever to do with environmental issues these days. They sooner they circle down the political toilet bowl and get flushed away, the better off we’ll all be.

      • Political Draino could be in the form of the rise of a real environmental party or the ALP finding the intelligence to return to example of Bob Hawke who used the Franklin Dam issue to cement environmental street cred. Something has to give and I think that the Fake Greens will end up as the blood donors for a party that seriously takes them on for their 10% of the vote.

        It’s a no brainer. The ALP needs a proper environmental policy that has vision for new industries in rural electorates – not just tax reform. Problematically the ALP is so bereft of talent (as are all of the major parties) that they would not recognise it even if they were flogged over the head with such a policy. They are suffering from decades of recruiting apparatchiks from university politics; not an engineer or scientist has come near to an ALP leadership role in decades. But these political zombies are in need of vision like the ‘Snowy Mountains Scheme’ (or 10 of them) but don’t want to listen to anyone capable of building one. To do so they have to admit that their sort of politics has failed and it was the Barry Jones type that could have rescued the ALP from itself 30 years ago. The ALP is still at war with people who might be too smart and not want to work in the dirty little club environment that is pretending to support “the worker” whilst waging a systematic war on them.

        If the ALP recruited technically and scientifically competent members they would be seen as a bigger enemy than the LNP.

    • I emailed SAP President, William Bourke, suggesting they go with a name change, such as Reduce Immigration Party. No reply.

      Given their limited resources, they need to focus on the Senate (either Tasmania or Queensland), and build their profile and political influence from there (reduce immigration number by x amount if you want my vote to pass a Bill). Go with a name that will capture votes at the point of the ballott paper (free advertising!). People get stuck when thinking of the 4th, 5th or 6th box to tick.

      Get in the Senate, then go for the Lower House.

    • If they had the cohones to do this, well … they would not be SAP would they? And I say this as someone who voted for them in the recent election.

  9. Mystic MedusaMEMBER

    Agree with a lot of this – I’m vegan and I’m pagan, innately progressive and should be a Greens voter. I would be happier to pay more taxes to help fund visionary and innovative policies for the environment, economy ETC. I contacted my local Greens candidate last election and they said their key concern was Palestine. Some of the Euro Greens have fantastic policies.

  10. drsmithyMEMBER

    An article highlighting the policy differences between the Australian Greens and the various Euro Green parties could be enlightening.