Skip to main content
Advanced search
The Point - home
DonateSubscribe
HomeWhat's NewOpinionOff the ChartsExplainersFactcheckAbout Us
The Point — home
DonateSubscribe
The Point — home
Advanced search
  • Home
  • What's New
  • Opinion
  • Off the Charts
  • Explainers
  • Factcheck
  • About Us
DonateSubscribe
Subscribe
  • Home
  • What's New
  • Opinion
  • Off the Charts
  • Explainers
  • Factcheck
  • About Us
The Point - home
Privacy PolicySitemapComplaints & CorrectionsNewsletter

The Point recognises the ancestral connections and custodianship of Traditional Owners throughout Australia. We pay respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and to Elders past and present.

©2025–2026 The Point, an initiative of The Australia Institute

OPINION

‘Unable to get out of its own way’, Albanese’s Labor is looking in the wrong direction

Once upon a time, it was assumed that progressive voters, even if they were gritting their teeth, would fall behind Labor to block the Coalition and One Nation from winning power.

Amy Remeikis

Amy Remeikis

Mon 2 Nov 2026 08.14 AEDT

Democracy & Accountability
‘Unable to get out of its own way’, Albanese’s Labor is looking in the wrong direction

Albanese must realise he needs some Green voters if he is to beat the Coalition. Photo: AAP Image/Susie Dodds

Once upon a time, it was assumed that progressive voters, even if they were gritting their teeth, would fall behind Labor to block the Coalition and One Nation from winning power.

It seems a lifetime ago, but it was only a little over a year ago. Labor’s last election campaign – like the one before that, and the one before that – was that only a vote for Labor would stop the Coalition.

As One Nation began rising in the polls, the message switched to only a vote for Labor would keep the Coalition-One Nation parties, the “throup-a-lition” if you will, from winning government.

One Nation is now a legitimate electoral force. The only question left in Victoria is whether or not the Coalition governs in its own right or with One Nation (which hasn’t stopped Opposition Leader Jess Wilson from adopting increasingly conservative positions, including banning phrases like “globalise the Intifada” but not phrases like “Islam is a cancer”, for reasons she doesn’t care to explain). In NSW, the major parties are already spooked and that election isn’t until March.

While the impact of One Nation has focused on what will happen to the Liberals in Australia’s most populous state, most people forget that NSW Labor is already in minority and can’t exactly afford to lose any seats if it wants to retain power and, from there, workable pathways to passing legislation.

Then we get to the federal sphere, where Labor spends more time demonising the Greens then it does its official opposition and One Nation.

This is business as usual for Labor, at least since the mid to late-2000s, when it made the switch to wanting product differentiation from the Greens. That was later driven by Coalition electoral attacks, exploiting middle Australia’s then scepticism over any vaguely progressive-sounding policy.

The Coalition’s scare campaign worked so well with Labor that the party spent the next few decades acting as if working with the Greens would be the worst thing that could potentially ever happen to it.

This is ridiculous for many reasons, the main one being that for the most part, the Senate make-up means that both the Coalition and Labor work with the Greens all the time. But the Senate usually gets quarantined from these sorts of defensive messages.

Get our newsletter

Quality research, analysis, explainers and factchecks from experts you can trust.

Labor spent more than $1m to unseat the Greens’ Max Chandler-Mather in Queensland. Photo: AAP Image/Lukas Coch

Labor fell into the habit of demonising the Greens as a matter of course. After successfully ousting Max Chandler-Mather (which came with a $1.3 million price tag as Paul Karp at Politico revealed, along with another $1.3 million spent in the nearby seat of Brisbane to unseat Stephen Bates), Anthony Albanese – primed from disagreements with Greens-aligned students at university – has largely continued the habit.

One wonders, at what point does senior Labor leadership remember that, to hold seats, Labor also needs to appeal to Greens voters?
And that Coalition-lite isn’t going to do it? Because the idea that progressive voters will continue to grit their teeth and vote Labor, after it was gifted a historic majority and, if it so wished, a progressive pathway in the Senate and to date has done the least possible it could with it is, frankly, a fairy tale.

Much like UK Labour did under Keir Starmer, Labor is now trying to shape two messages for voters. One – that a Coalition-One Nation government would be very bad for the country. And two – that no one can take the Greens seriously.

That may have worked for voters who were able to kid themselves that the bare minimum Labor had offered in its first term was hampered by a hostile opposition and threatening polls. Midway through this second one, there is no excuse.

Labor’s main focus is trying to win back those soft voters who have cleaved off to One Nation. But much like the UK Labour voters who began flirting with the Greens, it’s not so much other party policies that have voters looking elsewhere but that there is nothing to keep them with Labor.

While Labor could once pretend that voting for the Greens would mean the Coalition would come up the middle, it now has to find a way to convince voters looking elsewhere to put it higher than One Nation or the Coalition. The easiest way to do that, as the British party has done with some early success, is to actually appeal to voters by offering some product differentiation from, not just itself over the past 4½ years, but the Coalition, and start offering progressive policies and positions.

So far, Albanese’s Labor seems unable to get out of its own way. The Greens don’t need to replace Labor – if the party keeps going this way, it’ll do it itself.

Amy Remeikis is a contributing editor for The New Daily and chief political analyst for The Australia Institute

This piece was first published in The New Daily. Read the original piece here

Related Articles

OPINION

Going Digital: The People Formerly Known as the Audience

By Margaret Simons

This is an edited extract of 'Going Digital: The Transformation of the ABC' by Margaret Simons, published by Black Inc Books and available from the 3rd of November in all good bookshops.

Democracy & AccountabilityBooks
Going Digital: The People Formerly Known as the Audience

OPINION

Changes to Australian election laws have a major party skew

By Bill Browne

Recent and proposed changes to electoral laws at both the national and state levels risk perverse and unfair outcomes. Sometimes these are called “unintended consequences”, but that is too generous to politicians who are often fully aware of what they are doing.

Democracy & Accountability
Changes to Australian election laws have a major party skew

WHAT'S NEW

Minns Government to cap election poster sizes but stops short of six-sign limit

By Tegan George

The NSW Government has committed to restricting the size of election posters but stopped short of committing to a proposed six-sign limit within 100 metres of polling booths ahead of the March 2027 state election.

Democracy & Accountability
Minns Government to cap election poster sizes but stops short of six-sign limit

OPINION

‘Very, very stupid debate’: How we’re being played for mugs

By Amy Remeikis

It’s probably best for most people’s mental health that they are not forced to consider the hypocritical and ever-shifting grasping positions of Australian politics. For the most part, politics has the power to do good. Also for the most part, the way politics in Australia is played is very, very stupid.

Democracy & Accountability
‘Very, very stupid debate’: How we’re being played for mugs