The Greens have found their answer to a political system dominated by pale, stale males…a pale, stale male of their very own. Pauline Hanson is now the only female leader amongst the major and minor parties federally.
David Shoebridge’s elevation is a reminder that you don’t have to be especially impressive to lead a political party in this country. Sometimes you just have to be the person enough colleagues can agree to get behind.
The former barrister defeated Sarah Hanson-Young and Mehreen Faruqi to succeed Larissa Waters, who stepped down on health grounds. At 55, he hardly screams generational renewal in a party that’s supposed to appeal to today’s youth.
Shoebridge has plenty of aggression. Whether he has the appeal to turn that into votes is another matter, however.
Faruqi seems distinctly unimpressed with where things landed. The outgoing deputy publicly expressed disappointment at the result, declining to seek her old job and declaring that she will pursue radical action outside ‘the constraints of the leadership team’.
Apparently the constraints become considerably more unacceptable when somebody else is leading the party.
She also complained about the selection process, only after she lost, declaring: ‘Without a member vote, we cannot call ourselves a grassroots party.’
There is a legitimate argument for members playing a role in choosing their parliamentary leader, although it does risk dividing the membership and the parliamentary party. Coming straight after her defeat, Faruqi’s whinge sounds rather like toys hitting the floor beside the cot.
Sarah Hanson-Young sent a message to supporters on Thursday night noting ‘friendships made and lost’ in politics
Hanson-Young also acknowledged the brutality of the result – cryptically noting ‘politics can be brutal – friendships made and lost, it takes all types’ – but promised to support the new leader nonetheless.
It was a more adult response from someone who understands that losing an internal contest doesn’t remove the obligation to win voters outside the partyroom.
Hanson-Young would have been the better choice. She’s been in the Senate since 2008, has substantial public recognition and understands how to attract attention beyond the rusted-on party faithful.
Her unsuccessful deputy leadership bids stretch right back to 2010 and 2012. Yet again, her colleagues have looked elsewhere for some reason.
You don’t have to agree with Hanson-Young’s politics to recognise the combination that she offers: experience, an activist edge and an ability to sound reasonable to people who aren’t already marching behind a Greens banner.
That last quality matters in the current political environment. Too much commentary about the Greens confuses what people who would never vote Green might want, with what the minor party’s potential voter base is capable of supporting.
The modern Greens are no longer just about saving the trees. Housing, inequality, Gaza and a broader assault on the economic establishment are central to their political identity.
Maintaining such support requires an appeal to the inner-city activist constituency that now helps sustain them, even if the rest of the country aren’t fans of what today’s Greens represent.
Say what you will about Mehreen Faruqi – and I believe her brand of politics is bad for the country’s public debate – but she knows her constituency
Faruqi understands this constituency. In my view, her brand of politics is bad for public debate in this country: too quick to turn disagreement into a test of moral virtue, for example.
But she would energise parts of that base, even while driving other potential voters away, especially environmentalists who aren’t radical on other issues.
So it may turn out that amongst the triumvirate of leadership candidates, the parliamentary party picked the least useful option.
Hanson-Young offered a better chance of holding the activists together while also retaining more reasonable voters: people who want a third party keeping the bastards honest, occupying some of the space the Australian Democrats once filled.
Shoebridge risks offering abrasiveness without the broader appeal of Hanson-Young, or indeed the activist energy of Faruqi.
That said, Albo already seems irritated. He described it as ‘somewhat concerning’ that Shoebridge criticised Labor when a ‘far right’ party was on the rise. How convenient. Apparently the job of the Greens is to attack Hanson while leaving the government alone.
Shoebridge could make life uncomfortable for the PM if he stays relevant.
David Shoebridge could cause trouble for Anthony Albanese. The signs are already there, explains Peter van Onselen
Labor’s troubles create an opportunity for the Greens. Voters angry with the government from the right will consider One Nation. Those angry from the left are unlikely to find Pauline Hanson an inviting destination.
The Greens should be waiting with a compelling alternative to snaffle up such voters.
Faruqi might have been too radical for this cohort, but Shoebridge risks being too bland. He says he wants to replace Labor, growing on the left the way that One Nation has grown on the right.
But winning over 11 parliamentary colleagues divided between three leadership candidates is one thing. Giving disappointed Labor voters a reason to vote Green is quite another.
That said, the ‘anyone but Albo’ bus is chock full of voters looking for anyone else to throw their support behind right now.
