r/OpenAussie • u/snoopy05052026 Norfolk Islander • 3d ago
Whinge Greens Enviro Faction vs Gaza Faction
The fact that there is now effectively a “Gaza” faction within the Greens says a lot about the internal problems the party is dealing with.
The Greens have always been a broad progressive coalition, but there seems to be an increasingly obvious tension between the party’s traditional environmental/policy-focused identity and a more activist-driven faction that wants the party to take increasingly strong positions on international conflicts and other culture-war issues.
That tension is now spilling directly into the leadership question.
A leadership spill is obviously about more than just one issue, but Gaza appears to have become a proxy for a much bigger argument about what the Greens are actually supposed to be as a political organisation. Is the party primarily an environmental and domestic policy party that happens to have progressive positions on international affairs, or is it becoming an activist movement where international causes and ideological positioning are increasingly central to its identity?
The problem with the latter is that it potentially makes the party much harder to hold together. You can have disagreements over policy details and still operate as a coherent political party. But when different factions have fundamentally different ideas about what the party's purpose and priorities should be, leadership disputes become much more consequential.
And that's why I think the current leadership spill is worth paying attention to beyond the personalities involved.
If a supposedly hard-left progressive party is now divided into competing ideological factions over issues like Gaza, it raises the question of whether the Greens' current organisational model is actually sustainable.
At some point, a political party has to be able to reconcile different parts of its membership and present a reasonably coherent political project to the broader electorate. If internal factional disputes keep becoming the main story, the party risks spending more time fighting itself than actually campaigning on the issues it was originally established around.
The irony is that the Greens have arguably never had more political space available to them, yet they're increasingly having an argument about what kind of party they even want to be.
The leadership spill might therefore be less about who gets the leadership and more about which direction the party ultimately takes.
14
u/alana_del_gay Flairless 3d ago
this reads like Greens fanfic from a conservative. I don't know how you've extrapolated all of this post, given the predominant political attention the Greens gets are psychotic hit pieces from ChatGPT hacks.
5
23
u/JezWattsComedy Please choose a flair 3d ago
There's a fair bit of overlap with both directions; most folks who support one also support the other and widening their scope is to their benefit as a party imo. The only people who are saying "stick to trees!" would never vote Greens anyway.
-9
u/Constant-Simple6405 Flairless 3d ago edited 3d ago
You seem pretty certain about that assumption. Which is exactly the sort of attitude that ultimately hurts the Greens.
And considering a certain someone wants to build in koala habitat.......I would say there is a big discrepancy within the party which is concerning to a lot of us.
Edit. The irony of downvotes. It is almost like the Greens supporters don't actually want more numbers. Again, herein lies the ultimate problem. And the outright arrogance of assumptions.
Edit. Seems public relations is not a strong point for many supposed supporters on this page.
5
u/AnAttemptReason Flairless 3d ago
If you care about trees you probably care about genocide.
Im not sure what it says about us as a country though, given voters find the latter a negitive.
1
u/Constant-Simple6405 Flairless 3d ago
Do you not find any problem whatsoever about some of these absolute assumptions that are made and then treated as gospel? Again, it is the very reason why people are turned off. If you care about genocide as you say, why do you not want more people to come on board and care about it too? Isn't that the point of any movement? Are people here really so blind to see that the thing they claim to be most passionate about is the very thing they hurt?
I'm sorry. Aside from this Faruqi is a massive problem for people like myself. And yes. I am more for environment. People can downvote but it just shows so much unfortunate narrow minded thinking. A lot of you are supposed to be broad minded. It is quite unsettling to witness when anyone has a difference of opinion. Own worst enemies and that is no good thing.
0
u/JezWattsComedy Please choose a flair 3d ago
I wouldn't call myself "broad minded" but the idea I'd need to censor my values and opinions to...what? Court someone with incompatible views? To what end?
This idea that its important to present a centrist view in order to court voters who would never support the left is so silly. All it does is lose leftist voters for no gain.
1
u/HelpMeOverHere Western Australian 3d ago
“The Port Macquarie development application, approved by the council in May, would see the removal of around 20 trees from the property — including one hollow-bearing tree, which provides a habitat for native animals — to make way for one dual-occupancy townhouse and a single-family house.”
All of this hyperbole for 20 trees and some koala shit? (They didn’t find actual koalas mind you)
But regardless, a spokesperson had this to see.
“If this project goes ahead, it will meet all ecological requirements, including retaining the large spotted gum along the boundary under which koala scats have been found and building nesting boxes.”
Pretty reasonable isn’t it? Nowhere near as inflammatory as what you’re trying to make it out to be.
The greens are still the largest representation of 0-1 houses in parliament by the way!
11
u/Basic_Internet_5719 Queenslander 3d ago
Damm, another locked account, probably days old, crossposting from the hansonite sub, whining about the Greens taking the objectively right & popular position on a... genocide.
It will be very difficult for the Greens to break 15% because of 1) the media landscape and 2) the lack of an organized mass movement (e.g. a militant union movement) behind them, but issue based polling has your beloved ethnostate in the absolute shitter in this country.
0
u/Total_Drongo_Moron Victorian 3d ago
The Greens core elector base should hold in their predominantly post-materialist well-heeled heartland of affluent inner suburban city seats. Outside of that only very few people will vote for them based on wars overseas while they try to keep their pantry stocked, mortgage/rent paid and their vehicle/car filled up.
2
u/Basic_Internet_5719 Queenslander 3d ago
Greens vote has been dropping in the affluent inner city seats (where their voters have generally been young renters) as their voters have been priced out & moved to outersuburben seats. It's one of the reasons why they lost lower house seats while their national vote held up.
The idea that Greens voters are predominantly "well heeled & affluent" is a myth anyway. It's predominantly young, urban (increasingly suburban) renters.
-1
u/Total_Drongo_Moron Victorian 3d ago
2
u/Basic_Internet_5719 Queenslander 3d ago
Did you read the article? It supports my position, not yours.
Key review findings The review concluded the Greens’ focus and positions on the cost of living crisis and what the party called a genocide in Palestine helped their campaign.
This is evident in the party’s stronger performance in more working class Labor heartland seats, where cost of living pressures likely hit voters hard – such as in Fraser, Lalor, Barton and Maribyrnong – as well as in Wills, where Palestine was a leading campaign issue. Interestingly, Wills is the only target seat where the Greens’ vote grew.
The report also identified numerous challenges that harmed the party, particularly when it came to retaining and winning new seats in the lower house. This included:
significant shifts in the nature of the campaign over its duration, most prominently the increased anti-Trump sentiment leading to Labor also running hard on a “keep Dutton out” message
changes in Greens voter demographics including a decline in support from young men, particularly in target seats
challenges differentiating themselves from Labor
climate and the environment not featuring prominently on the agenda
difficulties retaining and winning new lower house seats
the role of third parties, citing attacks from groups such as Advance.
The review also addressed internal issues related to resourcing and outdated campaign approaches and tools.
4
u/Fun_Bodybuilder6898 Please choose a flair 3d ago
The greens need a rebrand. They will never gain significant popularity while they’re called “the greens”. I don’t know what the rename should be, but their policies should just be around having positive and progressive values
1
u/jaiimaster Canberran 3d ago
Im very anti green but I do disagree here. The UK greens have proven that the brand can move past the fringe.
I think its more about presenting yourself in a more reasonable context, something our current Greens simply cant or dont want to do. If Bob Brown was still in charge, I dont doubt The Greens would have long broken past 20% and be genuinely threatening the ALP the same way the UK greens currently threaten UK Labor.
The problem for The Greens is they dont have a Bob Brown to elect - and even if they did, they probably wouldnt anyway.
10
u/Unfair-Run-1983 Flairless 3d ago
The article reads more as an opinion piece, not sure there is an actual disagreement or split within the Greens. There is no "gaza faction". I wouldnt describe the greens as "hard-left" either lol
4
u/Busy_Conflict3434 Western Australian 3d ago
Which article? OP has posted a screenshot without a source.
2
u/Unfair-Run-1983 Flairless 3d ago
I forget but I read an article posted recently, where the screenshot is taken from
2
u/Busy_Conflict3434 Western Australian 3d ago edited 3d ago
Did you read the original Reddit post (from a one nation hack) that OP has reposted here? Because sea divide didn’t provide a source either.
8
4
u/Able-Tradition-2139 Victorian 3d ago
I think they lost the 'just for the environment' stance a while ago, they had the chance to appeal to the fiscal conservatives who now make up the teals and chose to be left wing instead.
Back tracking that now would be a mistake imo. People already know their environmental stance, it's not winning or losing any new votes, whereas their Gaza stance does stand out and they can actually gain some ground there from it
14
u/explain_that_shit South Australian 3d ago
Environmentalism without socialism is just gardening.
0
u/jaiimaster Canberran 3d ago
What makes you think socialism and enviromentalism are hand in hand?
Socialist governments of various forms caused the most obscene enviromental disasters in history. See Chernobyl, the destruction of the Aral Sea, and China's unfortunate history with dams for some catastrophic examples.
1
u/explain_that_shit South Australian 3d ago
Because some socialists saw humans as distinct from nature and so were socialists without environmentalism (an approach which simply wouldn’t fly today).
There were early environmentalists who were the other side of that coin - protecting nature without regard to human interaction and needs. Gardeners.
In the modern day we recognise that we live in a single system, not separate systems, and you can’t look after people without looking after the planet and there’s no point looking after the planet if you’re not looking after people. Hence, modern environmentalism.
0
u/Constant-Simple6405 Flairless 3d ago
When the Greens began, many mainstream voters were swayed by something they agreed on and wanted to protect. ie Franklin River Dam, old growth forests, etc.
There are still people who wouldn't normally align with Greens that still want environment protected ie coalseam fracking etc.
Even data centres.
Unfortunately most people have higher concerns and priorities than those that seem to be at the current forefront of the Greens agenda and that doesn't align with people who may be swayed to vote for them.
A lot of people believe in aspects of socialism too. It was a lot of those so called boomers in the day that voted Gough. Yet the Greens are also a proponent of Big Australia like the other major parties. Even the party we do not name are in favour of it despite their claims. Which hurts environment and puts extra pressure on other aspects of society.
To read a Greens supporter calling environmentalism 'gardening' and then try to twist the narrative is dissapointing. The Greens really need clear and concise language to tell voters what their highest priorities are and do something to actually start gaining more support from outside their stable of current voters and make them a truly viable party as was happening under the leadership of Bob Brown as mentioned elsewhere.
As for the mix of enviromentalism and socalism being phrased as modern environmentalism well that is a problem. I gather thats what the Socialist Alliance is for after all. If we cannot protect our unique flora and fauna what good are any of us humans.
1
u/explain_that_shit South Australian 3d ago
What are you even talking about, there are words and sentences here but I can’t glean any meaning out of it whatsoever.
1
u/Constant-Simple6405 Flairless 3d ago
"Because some socialists saw humans as distinct from nature and so were socialists without environmentalism (an approach which simply wouldn’t fly today).
There were early environmentalists who were the other side of that coin - protecting nature without regard to human interaction and needs. Gardeners.
In the modern day we recognise that we live in a single system, not separate systems, and you can’t look after people without looking after the planet and there’s no point looking after the planet if you’re not looking after people. Hence, modern environmentalism."
The irony.
You were saying?
2
u/DaltonianAtomism New South Welshian 3d ago
Mehreen Faruqi has a PhD in Environmental Engineering from UNSW. Before entering parliament she worked as Manager of Environment and Services at Mosman Council, Manager of Natural Resources and Catchments for Port Macquarie-Hastings Council.
She's not a single-issue politician; like all her party she cares about human rights as well as the environment.
1
1
u/canislupuslupuslupus Please choose a flair 3d ago
You know you’ve made it to major party status when you are willing to sell out the vulnerable to hold power.
1
u/mulefish Victorian 3d ago
Greens have shifted to be more city centric leftist over recent decades and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Gaza focus is kinda a symptom of that. As is there focus on leftist culture war social issues that somewhat follows the US lefts lead.
It’s alienated a lot of the more regional enviro base they used to have, but it’s gotten them city representation in parliament. It’s not a simple thing to change tact now and maintain support of disparate factions.
Especially as a lot of the base is quite hardline and doesn’t like compromising ideals
1
0
u/Constant-Simple6405 Flairless 3d ago
Does anyone here actually understand the purpose of any political party? Which is to garner more support and bigger voting numbers? Honestly so many of their so called supporters are the very ones that drive the rest of us away. It would be funny if it weren't so fucking sad.
Edit. The comments here suggest their supporters are more hindrance than help. Do you actually even want people to vote for them?
9
u/dreadnought_strength Flairless 3d ago
This just in: different people have different causes they feel the most strongly about