Politics Does Australia need a new progressive political party?

[offtherails9]

The US has no political left and there barely is any in Australia either now. Your internet algorithm has cooked you, dude.

Absolutely they do have a political left, I'm not interested in internet algorithms or Murdoch media, the sense of superiority in your post is pretty lame to be honest, dude.

Does the people a party attract delegitimise the party, or the policies etc?

Having said that, if One Nation was a racist party, with racist policies. If it represented the majority of Australians, does their racism matter in a democracy?


In my opinion, the reason One Nation attracts 'racists', is because they do actually pursue 'racist' policy. They are also incredibly reliant on 'culture war' issues.
So are they voted for, for their 'racist' policy? Or are they voted for, for their angle on culture war issues?



For example. They would be considered a party heavily in support of 'white men'. And in action of reducing the 'harm' and 'attacks' on 'white men'.
But is that a culture war issue, or is it a 'real' issue?

I think broadly the categorising of something as a 'culture war' issue, is subjective. And it mostly depends on if the person values the issue or not.

Interesting questions!

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Absolutely they do have a political left, I'm not interested in internet algorithms or Murdoch media, the sense of superiority in your post is pretty lame to be honest, dude.


Interesting questions!

Your post was full of US culture war crap, dude. Maybe read a book or talk to some humans instead.

 

[offtherails9]

Your post was full of US culture war crap, dude. Maybe read a book or talk to some humans instead.

Awesome man, I'm commenting on some stuff that I see online (which are valid human opinions, I'm sorry if that's offensive to you) and also what I experienced when talking to dozens of Americans across the entire country when I was there last month, just because your little circle may think one way, that doesn't mean it's the truth, dude!

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Awesome man, I'm commenting on some stuff that I see online (which are valid human opinions, I'm sorry if that's offensive to you) and also what I experienced when talking to dozens of Americans across the entire country when I was there last month, just because your little circle may think one way, that doesn't mean it's the truth, dude!

They are certainly opinions. Not anything based on reality though. You've got to be pretty badly down the rabbit hole to think that US election was won because the Democrats went to the left. lolololol. Culture war nonsense.

 

[offtherails9]

They are certainly opinions. Not anything based on reality though. You've got to be pretty badly down the rabbit hole to think that US election was won because the Democrats went to the left. lolololol. Culture war nonsense.

I think me saying far left was probably a bit of an exaggeration, but the democrats are definitely left. The term culture war makes me cringe.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I think me saying far left was probably a bit of an exaggeration, but the democrats are definitely left. The term culture war makes me cringe.

They aren't at all left. The only reason why you'd think they are is if you've been consuming internet culture war nonsense.

 

[evolved2]

Sounds more like we just need to remove the LNP. They've been attacking those things for years.

We're not going to remove them without providing a better alternative for conservatives to vote for. The teals maybe?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I see the Greens as a pro-Islam, victimhood, racist, and misogynistic party.

What specifically makes you see them this way?

 

[evolved2]

What specifically makes you see them this way?

The Greens platforming racist senators like Mehreen and (former senator) Thorpe speaks volumes. Obviously the SRP loves those types, but finding popularity for their views outside of this place is a bigger challenge.

I don't even expect you to agree with my assessment that they're racist.

How do you feel about the two people I've mentioned?

Anyone who plays the victim card for Islam is dubious. It would be fascinating to see Mehreen's views about the wrongs conducted in the name of Islam.

 

[Deliverance]

We're not going to remove them without providing a better alternative for conservatives to vote for. The teals maybe?

I think conservative voters are quite happy for governemnt to attack Medicare, workers rights etc. They don't want an alternative.

 

[evolved2]

I think conservative voters are quite happy for governemnt to attack Medicare, workers rights etc. They don't want an alternative.

I sincerely doubt it.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The Greens platforming racist senators like Mehreen and (former senator) Thorpe speaks volumes. Obviously the SRP loves those types, but finding popularity for their views outside of this place is a bigger challenge.

Okay. I think when society heavily discriminates (informally) against Muslims and First Nations people, anyone standing up for those groups in a way that isn't trying to coddle the feelings of mainstream Australia (which is largely White and Christian or secular) will be viewed negatively. If you choose to call that racism that's up to you.

All I'll say is, financial and political power in Australia largely doesn't rest with these groups, but with the mainstream. So even if someone believes those two are racist against White and Christian/secular people, the impact is very different to the racism that Muslims and First Nations people endure.

I don't even expect you to agree with my assessment that they're racist.

Good, because I don't.

How do you feel about the two people I've mentioned?

I'm not that impressed with either of them, though I feel Thorpe was never going to get a fair portrayal in our society.

Faruqi is a landlord and shouldn't have been preselected for that reason. Outside of that, she's okay I guess, but nothing special. I'm sure there are others out there who can give the perspective of the Muslim community in a more charismatic and persuasive way.

Thorpe is playing by entirely different rules to the rest of Parliament. While I have sympathy and a level of respect for the cause she's representing (Blak sovereignty), it isn't one that's politically viable in a democratic society where the overwhelming majority of people are not First Nations. It also won't gain a fair hearing in a media landscape that is largely owned by the wealthy, who are adamantly opposed to any transfer of resource wealth to the Traditional Owners of those resources. Whether or not that's on Thorpe's agenda, that is what the rich and powerful fear from the Blak sovereignty movement and they won't take the risk.

So the mainstream media will only ever report negatively on Thorpe. They'll also report glowingly on their preferred First Nations politicians, who are always from the major parties and carefully toe the party line, and therefore can be relied on not to propose anything threatening to either the wealthy or the average White suburbanite. The major parties wouldn't want to lose their big money donations or make voters uncomfortable after all.

The fundamental reason why I voted Yes to the Voice, despite thinking it didn't go far enough, is because I thought it might have become a forum to air the grievances about economic and social justice for First Nations people that would practically never get media or political coverage otherwise. They only have an advocate in parliament now because the Greens effectively sacrificed a Senate seat to the Blak sovereignty movement, by selecting someone who is a Blak sovereigntist first and a progressive second.

And I mean sacrificed, because while she was a Greens Senator, Thorpe was a millstone around the Greens' poll ratings. And I don't think that was entirely due to dislike of her bringing up First Nations grievances, but also because she's just not a very charismatic or disciplined politician. She unnecessarily courted controversy for stuff entirely separate to Blak sovereignty. I will say that there's a real double standard for this when a drunken mess like Barnaby Joyce can get away with all kinds of nonsense and the public and media forgive him every time, but Thorpe doesn't get the same leniency. But even adjusting for that double standard, Thorpe has serious issues as a politician.

I used to be a Greens member. One of the points of contention I had with others in the party is that some of them seemed to act like Thorpe could do no wrong, and every negative aspect of the media coverage was down to racism. (I wouldn't say the majority believed this, but some). That's where I drew the line. Yes, she was never going to get a fair portrayal, but she didn't help herself either. Unfortunately, if you represent a stigmatised minority, you have to be impeccably well-behaved and free of scandal, like Obama, or you'll get excoriated by the majority for your sins.

Anyone who plays the victim card for Islam is dubious. It would be fascinating to see Mehreen's views about the wrongs conducted in the name of Islam.

In what circumstances do you feel she played the victim card for Islam?

 

[evolved2]

Okay. I think when society heavily discriminates (informally) against Muslims and First Nations people, anyone standing up for those groups in a way that isn't trying to coddle the feelings of mainstream Australia (which is largely White and Christian or secular) will be viewed negatively. If you choose to call that racism that's up to you.

All I'll say is, financial and political power in Australia largely doesn't rest with these groups, but with the mainstream. So even if someone believes those two are racist against White and Christian/secular people, the impact is very different to the racism that Muslims and First Nations people endure.

Islam is not a race and I don't treat it as such.

One of my primary reasons for opposing the Greens is their treatment of Islam as though its a race.

Other than the right to believe, religion should have no special rights. You're not special or a victim just because you believe in superstitious nonsense and others call you out on it.

How many nations haven't been conquered? Australia is not unique, our indigenous are not unique in that respect either. It's time we find a way to make peace and move on.

If you're a Muslim who chooses to immigrate to Australia, you're not a victim!

Good, because I don't.


I'm not that impressed with either of them, though I feel Thorpe was never going to get a fair portrayal in our society.

Why not?

Many First Nations people have been accepted and cheered on by Australians. Take Cathy Freeman for example.

Faruqi is a landlord and shouldn't have been preselected for that reason. Outside of that, she's okay I guess, but nothing special. I'm sure there are others out there who can give the perspective of the Muslim community in a more charismatic and persuasive way.

I feel her story of immigration to building houses on her own land is empowering.

Thorpe is playing by entirely different rules to the rest of Parliament. While I have sympathy and a level of respect for the cause she's representing (Blak sovereignty), it isn't one that's politically viable in a democratic society where the overwhelming majority of people are not First Nations. It also won't gain a fair hearing in a media landscape that is largely owned by the wealthy, who are adamantly opposed to any transfer of resource wealth to the Traditional Owners of those resources. Whether or not that's on Thorpe's agenda, that is what the rich and powerful fear from the Blak sovereignty movement and they won't take the risk.

I view her as a mixed race woman who hates her whiter half. She could have been a unifying voice, yet chose another direction. She's the other side of the coin to Pauline Hanson afaic.

So the mainstream media will only ever report negatively on Thorpe. They'll also report glowingly on their preferred First Nations politicians, who are always from the major parties and carefully toe the party line, and therefore can be relied on not to propose anything threatening to either the wealthy or the average White suburbanite. The major parties wouldn't want to lose their big money donations or make voters uncomfortable after all.

Disagree. Thorpe is the (female/non-white) equivalent to Barnaby - both are 'victims' of predominately negative media attention, and for similar reasons.

Thorpe's drunken racist outburst is hard to ignore, isn't it?

The fundamental reason why I voted Yes to the Voice, despite thinking it didn't go far enough, is because I thought it might have become a forum to air the grievances about economic and social justice for First Nations people that would practically never get media or political coverage otherwise. They only have an advocate in parliament now because the Greens effectively sacrificed a Senate seat to the Blak sovereignty movement, by selecting someone who is a Blak sovereigntist first and a progressive second.

And I mean sacrificed, because while she was a Greens Senator, Thorpe was a millstone around the Greens' poll ratings. And I don't think that was entirely due to dislike of her bringing up First Nations grievances, but also because she's just not a very charismatic or disciplined politician. She unnecessarily courted controversy for stuff entirely separate to Blak sovereignty. I will say that there's a real double standard for this when a drunken mess like Barnaby Joyce can get away with all kinds of nonsense and the public and media forgive him every time, but Thorpe doesn't get the same leniency. But even adjusting for that double standard, Thorpe has serious issues as a politician.

What makes you think Barnaby gets more leniency?

I used to be a Greens member. One of the points of contention I had with others in the party is that some of them seemed to act like Thorpe could do no wrong, and every negative aspect of the media coverage was down to racism. (I wouldn't say the majority believed this, but some). That's where I drew the line. Yes, she was never going to get a fair portrayal, but she didn't help herself either. Unfortunately, if you represent a stigmatised minority, you have to be impeccably well-behaved and free of scandal, like Obama, or you'll get excoriated by the majority for your sins.

The racism card gets pulled out more frequently than it should. It's like the boy who cried wolf story...

My son, who is mixed race white Australian/South Asian, has only ever complained about racist treatment from South Asians.

In what circumstances do you feel she played the victim card for Islam?

Every time she mentions Muslims/Islam as being the victims of white Australians reminds me of nations being called racist for closing their borders due to Covid19.

She does so frequently too. Islam is the next cane toad.

It's hard to believe any progressive party promotes Islam, yet here we are.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Islam is not a race and I don't treat it as such.

And yet, Sikhs have been attacked by people thinking they're Muslims. Now why would that be, unless there was confusion amongst the ignorant because they were gauging whether someone was Muslim based on aspects of appearance, including skin colour?

The reality is, Islam often gets associated with non-whiteness, leading to non-Muslim non-white people being profiled by others like Muslims get profiled. (And the flip side is that white Muslim communities like Albanians and Bosniaks often escape this profiling).

One of my primary reasons for opposing the Greens is their treatment of Islam as though its a race.

How have they done this?

Other than the right to believe, religion should have no special rights. You're not special or a victim just because you believe in superstitious nonsense and others call you out on it.

Do you feel mistreating people (who have committed no crime) because of their religion is acceptable?

How many nations haven't been conquered? Australia is not unique, our indigenous are not unique in that respect either. It's time we find a way to make peace and move on.

This sounds an awful lot like telling people to grow up and get over it. People who are suffering generational cycles of trauma and dysfunction brought about by the destruction of their ancestors' culture and way of life, and later ancestors being stolen from their parents, often forced into unpaid labour. I don't think that's something that's very easy to move on from, or everyone would have done it by now.

If you're a Muslim who chooses to immigrate to Australia, you're not a victim!

Are you saying Muslims who have emigrated to Australia have never been mistreated here?

Why not?

You need to make a case as to why someone is racist rather than asking me why I don't think they're racist. Cite examples of their racism and I'll respond.

Many First Nations people have been accepted and cheered on by Australians. Take Cathy Freeman for example.

Does that mean racism against First Nations no longer exists? I'd say that mainstream Australian society likes the First Nations people who make them feel good about themselves as a people or as a nation, and often looks down on the rest. I wonder how well Freeman would be treated in parts of Australia if she weren't a well-known athlete.

I view her as a mixed race woman who hates her whiter half.

What evidence do you have to support this view?

She could have been a unifying voice, yet chose another direction. She's the other side of the coin to Pauline Hanson afaic.

I'd argue that sometimes the divisions already exist, and in those cases, a unifying voice is a distraction, trying to paper over the cracks instead of drawing attention to them so they can be filled and rectified. I think she's correct with many of her assertions about the monarchy and the state of Australian policing.

Disagree. Thorpe is the (female/non-white) equivalent to Barnaby - both are 'victims' of predominately negative media attention, and for similar reasons.

You're welcome to disagree, but perhaps you could explain how Thorpe's advocacy for Blak sovereignty is not a factor in her portrayal in the media.

Thorpe's drunken racist outburst is hard to ignore, isn't it?

I'll agree it's bad behaviour unbefitting of a politician.

What makes you think Barnaby gets more leniency?

The man has made a drunken ass of himself in public and in parliament multiple times, and disgraced himself by impregnating his staffer while married. That isn't and shouldn't be a stackable offence, but my recollection the initial media storm died down very quickly, after a couple of months it was rarely mentioned again. I doubt a woman in that position would have got off that lightly, there is still plenty of sl*t shaming in our media.

The racism card gets pulled out more frequently than it should. It's like the boy who cried wolf story...

If you say so. I don't know that any one person is the arbiter of what is and isn't racism.

My son, who is mixed race white Australian/South Asian, has only ever complained about racist treatment from South Asians.

I am South Asian myself and I've only ever received racist treatment from white and East Asian people. Everyone's got their own story.

Every time she mentions Muslims/Islam as being the victims of white Australians reminds me of nations being called racist for closing their borders due to Covid19.

She does so frequently too. Islam is the next cane toad.

It's hard to believe any progressive party promotes Islam, yet here we are.

This isn't promoting Islam, it's defending Muslims who are being mistreated through no fault of their own. Do you believe when anyone in politics is in favour of the rights of transgender people, they are promoting being transgender? Or are they simply looking to ensure transgender people can live in dignity and peace?

 

[Gethelred]

I think me saying far left was probably a bit of an exaggeration, but the democrats are definitely left. The term culture war makes me cringe.

Why do you think the American Democrats are left wing? What about their economic policies makes them left wing?

 

[CM86]

Many First Nations people have been accepted and cheered on by Australians. Take Cathy Freeman for example.

(For this post: Us, We, Our etc is talking about Australian generally. They, them etc is talking about Aboriginal people. It's deliberate because it helps to underline the 'us vs them' I'm representing in this post. This isn't an attack on whoever is reading this post. It's a discussion).


There is a huge difference between being entertained by someone, and respecting someone.

While we get value from 'them' we will allow 'them' to continue.
It's often in line with a "don't bite the hand that feeds" view point.

Australia will support Aboriginal people, while they are 'beneath' us.
If they are quietly providing us value, mostly through entertainment, we love them.
But they are only there and only successful because 'we let them be'.

So the moment they start having any form of power or influence that doesn't align with our existing positions, they've now bitten the hand that feeds.
If they call us out, or push to make themselves our equals... We no longer love or support them.
Now we are angry at them. How dare they resent us after everything we did for them!

We supported Adam Goodes for years! We cheered him on, we gave him awards. We let him become so successful and wealthy... and he turns around and calls us racist?? How ****in' dare he!​

Goodes in the real racist. And in fact he's the most disgusting player ever in the AFL.​

And of course it's nothing to do with him calling out racism. We are only upset with him for sliding and diving. And pulling out the racism card. Also he attacked a child!​

And yes it just happened to coincide with him calling out racism.​

And yes there was a lot of openly racist hate towards him.​

But we aren't racist... We just care about the integrity of the AFL... or children, or keeping politics out of sport or something, wait what were we talking about again?​

Oh yeah, Goodes. No he's just so ungrateful!​

A man can be sexist and still love his mum, wife and daughters. He can have favourite actresses etc.
Sexism isn't about liking or disliking any particular person. It's the ideology behind believing one class is unequal to another.

Racism is the same.
You can love people from different races. Through family, friendship, partners, wife/husband etc.
But you can still have the ideology that one class is unequal to another. "One of the good ones".
As long as they stay quiet and support you and your positions you can accept them, because they're "not like the rest of them"


“But You Are One of the Good Ones”: A Short, Personal Insight into Racism in the UK

As I've grown, I have cut people off who I grew up side-by-side with because of their comments. I've realised I have been the token friend, the mate that meant they could say something racist and follow it up with, “How can I be racist? My best mate is Pakistani!”.​

I tend to call the racism I have encountered ‘quiet racism’.​

 

[CM86]

We all accept that you can be a certain race, and be racist towards your own 'race'.
We've all heard the anti-white lines "some white people just hate being white, and hate anyone who's white" etc.

But when it comes to confronting our own prejudices. Suddenly that goes out the window.

How can I be sexist, if I married a woman?​

How can I be racist if I have black friends?​

It's this disconnect and this inability for us to self-reflect, that is helping the rise and acceptance of racism, fear and hate.

And if you cannot get people to self-reflect or reevaluate, I don't know how to combat this rapid rise in right wing extremism.

 

[faible]

Why do you think the American Democrats are left wing? What about their economic policies makes them left wing?

Seems most people don't actually know what 'left' or 'progressive' actually means in any real terms, so just regurgitate stuff from the conservative media and political parties.

The Dems have a couple of socially 'progressive' policies in that they're supportive of gay marriage and not rampantly discriminating against trans people. That's about it. There's nothing particularly economically progressive to be found there. They're generally more conservative economically than our LNP is.

The ALP would be far left by US standards but aren't overly progressive in any real sense on a universal scale.

The Greens are the 'progressive' party that actually has a meaningful representation, I doubt most people who think they're far left have read much - if any - of their policy platform though. As there's not a whole lot that wildly radical.

Policy Principles and Aims | Australian Greens

greens.org.au

I suspect if you disconnected policies from any kind of party allegiance a lot of voters would agree with Greens policy proposals. Take Banking and Finance for example, most voters would likely agree the banking and finance industries are problematic and need to be 'better'. The below is the Greens proposal for that:

Banking and Finance | The Australian Greens

<h2>Principles</h2> <p>The Australian Greens believe that:</p> <ol><li>Australia’s banking sector is among the most concentrated in the world, and requires Government intervention to ensure this does not harm the community, customers or taxpayers.</li> <li>A well-regulated, competitive and...

greens.org.au

1. To require banks and other financial institutions that are beneficiaries of express or implied government guarantees to contribute to a financial stability fund in recognition of the support that they receive.
2. To minimise ATM and other access fees, so that banks do not profit from people accessing their own money.
3. To encourage or require lenders to provide suitable financial instruments for the establishment of long term finance for projects that will have a positive social, economic and environmental benefit.
4. Ensure monetary policy decisions are made by people more representative of the community and that they are accountable to the elected government and parliament.
5. Effective regulatory supervision to enforce prudential regulation for Australian banks, and other financial institutions.
6. Prudential regulation to be strengthened to ensure effective transparency and reduction of systemic risk.
7. To implement reforms designed to ensure that the culture within financial institutions does not lead to excessive risk-taking behaviour or otherwise create a risk to financial stability.
8. An effective international regulatory regime for banking to ensure system stability.
9. The Australian government to implement programs to improve Australians’ financial literacy and finance sector participation.
10. To establish a public superannuation fund based on ethical investment principles that is accessible to all Australians.
11. The establishment of a publicly-owned bank.
12. To promote competition in the banking sector and provide support for not-for-profit organisations such as credit unions and building societies.
13. Regulation of financial advice services to ensure impartiality, transparency and protection of consumer interests.
14. The size and scope of financial institutions to be regulated to protect consumers, reduce market concentration, and reduce systemic risk.
15. That government, communities and other banking organisations encourage and support First Nations owned and operated financial institutions in Australia

They also have a pretty substantial proposal for economic reform, once again I suspect a lot of people would find a lot they support if they saw the same proposals without the Greens tag on it.

Economic Justice | The Australian Greens

<h2>Principles</h2> <p>The Australian Greens believe that:</p> <ol><li>A prosperous and sustainable economy relies upon a healthy natural environment. Economies exist within, and are dependent upon, natural systems. Environmental stewardship is, therefore, central to sound economic...

greens.org.au

People complaining about the status quo, refusing to vote for anything but one of the two majors because of media stereotyping is silly. Especially given our voting system is actually setup to allow for you to vote for independents or minor parties and not have your vote wasted.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

They also have a pretty substantial proposal for economic reform, once again I suspect a lot of people would find a lot they support if they saw the same proposals without the Greens tag on it.

I've heard it suggested that a new progressive party is needed because the Greens brand is treated with such prejudice that good policies they propose will automatically be opposed by the public because of who is proposing them.

But I'd ask, what stops the same fate befalling any new progressive party? Why would the media not attack them incessantly to poison their name in the public consciousness too?

 

[faible]

I've heard it suggested that a new progressive party is needed because the Greens brand is treated with such prejudice that good policies they propose will automatically be opposed by the public because of who is proposing them.

But I'd ask, what stops the same fate befalling any new progressive party? Why would the media not attack them incessantly to poison their name in the public consciousness too?

Nothing, you've nailed exactly what will happen.

The Greens are pretty moderate policy-wise for the most part these days, yet they're framed as some kind of extremist political party since that tricks heaps of people in to not voting for them or even looking at their policies.

Our voting system is one of, if not the best in the world for allowing you to vote for minor parties or independents. People need to take advantage of it and not let the two majors and the media trick them in to blindly supporting the ALP and LNP duopoly.

People should look at who else is on the card in their electorate and see what they're about. That's not even just for progressive voters; if you're conservative then check out the Teals.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Nothing, you've nailed exactly what will happen.

The Greens are pretty moderate policy-wise for the most part these days, yet they're framed as some kind of extremist political party since that tricks heaps of people in to not voting for them or even looking at their policies.

I think the only reason this hasn't happened to the teals yet is they're relatively new and not an existential threat to most rich people, just the ones heavily invested in coal (who can all see what's coming anyway). I don't think this will last forever though. If there's a hung parliament and the teals back Albo for a second term, it will be open season on them in the media.

Our voting system is one of, if not the best in the world for allowing you to vote for minor parties or independents. People need to take advantage of it and not let the two majors and the media trick them in to blindly supporting the ALP and LNP duopoly.

I'd argue that a winner-takes-all system like we have in the lower house still has its issues and gives undeserved representation to the major parties. I prefer Ireland's system, which is quite similar to that used the ACT and Tasmanian legislative assemblies where there are multi-member electorates, except Ireland doesn't have the same number of MPs for every electorate.

Even New Zealand has a system that is more proportional, despite their lack of preferential voting.

Still, we have a pretty good system, miles ahead of the US, UK or Canada.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't think we need a new progressive political party, it is the Greens, their policy sentiment is the best bar none.

Bar none!

I've read most of their policies, they don't explain the how.

For example, their banking and finance 'policy' does not outline the how. It just sprouts excellent sentiment, even utopian, given 'capitalism' has been hijacked by elites I don't see a solution unless we go to a social economic model, which ultimately will end up the same. The elites will get all the gravy and we'll get nothing, like always.

'Community participation and civil society'

After reading it, the impression I get is that we don't live in a civil society, well umm sorry but I'd confidently argue we already do, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

1. Marginalised groups to be provided with support and resources enabling them to participate in consultation and deliberation processes.

Shouldn't that be everyone? Not just minority groups, I mean for a party that spruiks inclusion, this screams exclusion of everyone else.

1. Governments to provide free and timely information to citizens.

This is extremely vague, again, I applaud the sentiment but there's no how.

I could dig deeper and outline the not listing the how, but how much real estate do I need to make this point?

In b4, 'but the two majors don't tell us how, they just tell us we're going to' - well if you want to oust the duopoly then you need to be undisputedly better (which I believe they could be).

More importantly, what has been outlined earlier in the thread is the 'culture war outrage' from the greens that turns the majority off. Same as spud head, he turns the majority off with his 'woe is us' bullshit.

Just as important, blocking bills to find the perfect that defeats the good - ish.

If they were to eliminate the emotive bullshit, political point scoring (or more importantly point losing) like blocking bills, and actually how they're going to achieve their sentiment (read policy), they'd likely get the bulk of the vote.

So to the op, no we don't need another progressive party, the one we have are genuinely compassionate about minority groups and are advocates for DEI, they by and large want for a better Australia for everyone (almost)

What we need is for the Greens to eliminate their failures, like having divisive members like Thorpe and actually outline how they're going to achieve their exceptional sentiments (read policy).