The demographic of Green voters – rich but destined for extinction

Thanks to a link from the tireless Lorenzo, the token Fascists on the ABC (Duffy and Comrie-Thomson) interviewed ex ALP Senator John Black who has compiled a demographic profile of the supporters for the various parties. Here is the transcript. For the Greens…

Well, they’re certainly rich, there’s no doubt about it, that the greens are the richest group of voters in Australian politics. The poorest of course are the National Party voters…

And then it gets quite interesting: females in their mid 40s with no kids, female professionals. Religion: other. They’re atheists, agnostics, there’s no religious faith there. And then you’ve got other age groups, female age groups, in their 50s with no kids. And then you’ve got graduates in society and culture type courses. Then you’ve got 40-year-old women with no kids. Then you’ve got male professionals, people who work in arts and recreation. Field of study: architecture and building, that’s another one. Field of study: eduction, industry education

So you’ve got arts type graduates working in education, you’ve got professionals and overwhelmingly you’ve got no kids. And then you get down into the country of birth, green voters are overwhelmingly born in other countries, they’re internationally qualified, people born in the USA or Canada or Singapore, what have you.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to The demographic of Green voters – rich but destined for extinction

  1. Infidel Tiger says:

    So you’ve got arts type graduates working in education, you’ve got professionals and overwhelmingly you’ve got no kids. And then you get down into the country of birth, green voters are overwhelmingly born in other countries, they’re internationally qualified, people born in the USA or Canada or Singapore, what have you.

    A stunning reason to end immigration this instance.

  2. Chris M says:

    That is why the Godless trash are pushing for homosexual adoption, gives more opportunities to fiddle with kids (at least their minds anyway).

  3. New Gold Dream says:

    I’ve heard John Black suggest in other contexts that Greens voters are disproportionately female but I’ve never seen him attach a figure to the remark.

    I would be curious if anyone knew the proportion?

    The fact that the more children a woman has the less likely she is to vote Green is fascinating.

    Basically when you have a look at the charts, as I did, of women by age, for example, we have a situation where if a woman has two children or three children or more, they simply don’t vote green. … But if they have no kids, their support for the Greens remains strong right up until their 60s. If they have one, their support for the Greens doesn’t start until their late 30s, but if they’ve had two they’re lost to the Greens.

    I guess they take the view that providing fodder for the coming environmental apocalypse is pointless and selfish.

  4. Infidel Tiger says:

    I think we can safely call bullshit on “think of the children” and “I’m doing it for my grandchildren”.

  5. Myrddin Seren says:

    Eric Kaufmann with an engaging little demographic hypothesis:

    “It’s not that religious fundamentalists are having more kids. It’s that secular women are having fewer.”

    http://www.sneps.net/research-interests/religious-demography

    And lo – the Browns, Hamiltons and Marrs and their female fellow-travellers shall eventually go quietly into the night, leaving what as their legacy ?

  6. FDB says:

    “I think we can safely call bullshit on “think of the children” and “I’m doing it for my grandchildren”.”

    It is possible to care about future generations without their necessarily being one’s own offspring.

    I know! Fucking bizarre, but that’s Greens for you. Weirdos.

  7. Sinclair Davidson says:

    It is possible to care about future generations without their necessarily being one’s own offspring.

    weirdos – luckily they don’t breed either.

  8. Peter Patton says:

    It is possible to care about future generations without their necessarily being one’s own offspring

    My first response to this is “you’re weird dude”. I just don’t get what that could mean, on what basis you argue this…

    The desire to protect one’s children is so obvious and visceral, and so obviously only consumes people, once they have that child.

  9. Yobbo says:

    http://www.sneps.net/research-interests/religious-demography

    And lo – the Browns, Hamiltons and Marrs and their female fellow-travellers shall eventually go quietly into the night, leaving what as their legacy ?

    This study assumes that religion is as hereditary as IQ or Red Hair, which is ridiculous.

    Most of the Atheists living today were raised in religious households, but later decided to become atheists of their own volition.

  10. MarkL of Canberra says:

    FDB:

    It is possible to care about future generations without their necessarily being one’s own offspring

    Agreed, but how much of that is actually genuine in the constant stream of narcissistic, feel-good, look-at-me-I-am-so-progressive nanny state guff continually vomiting forth from green propaganda?

    When Bob the Brown hatter says’ “it’s for the moppets of the fyooochar, dearie” it’s a load of bollocks. It’s propaganda.

    So yes, I am sure that there is a small number of greens to whom your comment applies, but the vast majority are spewing purest BS. If they were worried about the future, why do they glom on to the latest envirodoom scenario? Why don’t they have kids of their own and INVEST in that future? Why are they to be trusted on the point when they live lives so self-centred?

    MarkL
    canberra

  11. 2dogs says:

    “no kids”

    The right wing is, at its core, about personal responsibility. There is no more persuasive argument against the left than the personal responsibility of having one’s own children.

  12. Mitch says:

    Andrew Norton’s been talking about familist policies for a while now, and the inevitable resentment he expects thse to create among the childless. Sounds like the Greens are offering the best (or at least best marketed) outlet for this.

  13. adam says:

    FDB speaks with the logic of a teenager, with a mind closed to the adult world of personal responsibility. I struggle to believe selfish greens honesty give a lick about the awful breeders children. They certainly don’t care about their parents.

  14. daddy dave says:

    FDB, you’re completely right. It’s entirely possible for childless people to care about the future of the human race. However, you’re missing the irony.
    Come on, admit it’s ironic, and worthy of a couple of snarky comments.

  15. Peter Patton says:

    dd

    I have seen a mother jump between her two year old and a brown snake. Not sure if she would do that for some random ‘member of the human race’, let alone one not born yet. 😉

  16. Samuel J says:

    These greens do not care about future generations. Oh sure, they say they do. But their policies condemn future generations to poverty and the dark ages. The greens are the Taliban and Khmer Rouge rolled up in one.

    If our ancestors had adopted the precautionary principle so beloved of the greens, we would be suffering higher rates of poverty, considerably lower living standards – our lives would be short, nasty and brutish.

  17. daddy dave says:

    I would be curious if anyone knew the proportion?

    According to an August Newspoll, 12 percent of males and 15 percent of females supported the Greens as their first vote. Which is somewhat lopsided, but not huge.

  18. GP says:

    I have conducted an extensive survey of the green demographic at my workplace and have identified these charcteristics in him them:
    1. Narcissistic.
    2. Transcendent (in their own minds).
    3. Envious & resentful (the only reason others become rich is through illegal or immoral means. Not by hard work, or being smarter. Laziness or lack of talent are apparently not factors in their own non-achievement).
    4. Don’t object to private property (excepting that which is not owned by them).
    5. Spruik about communism but haven’t read Marx.
    6. Think all Americans are stupid but Caddies, Chevies and Mustangs are OK.
    7. Happily spend thousands of dollars on personal indulgences but bleat & bitch about $50 for Tamiflu (because the Gov. should pay for it).
    8. Parrot Quote Jonathan Green, Guy Rundle etc ad nauseaum.
    9. Despises bank profits but own shares in banks.
    10. Thinks CEOs of large concerns shold not earn more than $500,000
    11. Thinks all public servants are honest, hard-working and focused on the best interests of all.
    12. Believes the ABC is an oasis of forthright probity in a desert of deceit.
    13. Frame their distemper about those who are richer than them in terms of those who are poorer than them.
    14. Denigrate those who are poorer than them.
    15. Do not respond well to the word ‘Hypocrite’.

    This list is not exhaustive.

    Cheers all.

  19. Hugh says:

    Actually, FDB, the Greens prove it’s possible to feign care about future generations, and not give a fig about classes of existing humans. Thus, the Greens are singularly pro-abortion (even late-term), pro-euthanasia, and (with the notable exception of Christine Milne – kudos to her for an at least partial dissent) pro-embryonic stem cell research.

    It’s also a bit hard to fathom that the Greens were so morally indignant and high-sounding about alleged harm to aboriginal “Stolen Generations” when they are now so willing to legally institute “Gay Marriage”, which will create another stolen generation: sons and daughters routinely precluded from the human good of growing up in the community of their natural fathers and mothers. This deprivation was – according to the Greens – an intolerable, unforgivable abuse of human rights when it (allegedly) was applied on merely racial grounds to aborigines. But it’s perfectly acceptable when mandated by gay preferences. “Go figure”, as the Yanks say.

  20. This study assumes that religion is as hereditary as IQ or Red Hair, which is ridiculous.

    True, but I think they mean that religious parents are a predictor of religious children, to some percentage amount. Fancy mathematics types call this a “markov chain” and it can be used to estimate how things might transpire over time.

  21. JC says:

    and (with the notable exception of Christine Milne – kudos to her for an at least partial dissent) pro-embryonic stem cell research.

    She most likely didn’t understand it, Hugh. She probably though it referred to refugees, as the word cell was used and she would have thought it was about detention centers.

  22. Infidel Tiger says:

    GP – I think I know that guy.

  23. Yobbo says:

    Andrew Norton’s been talking about familist policies for a while now, and the inevitable resentment he expects thse to create among the childless. Sounds like the Greens are offering the best (or at least best marketed) outlet for this.

    The LDP is the best outlet for this. The greens though, are the natural home of childless people who don’t understand economics.

  24. Peter Patton says:

    Hugh

    when they are now so willing to legally institute “Gay Marriage”, which will create another stolen generation: sons and daughters routinely precluded from the human good of growing up in the community of their natural fathers and mothers.

    Dude, it ain’t no legislature doing this. Civil society is leading on this one.

  25. Peter Patton says:

    Yobbo

    In fact, The Greens is primarily a vehicle of class warfare by the non-mercantile bourgeoisie. They are trying to snatch the State from the mercantile bourgeoisie in order to capture the fiscal levers of power to redirect taxation – and thus political/cultural power – to themselves.

  26. THR says:

    The problem with stereotypes is that they’re going to be wrong sometimes. In this case, they’re going to be wrong often. Many of the Greens voters I know have kids, low- to middle-income jobs, and live in the outer suburbs. Then again, I’ve met Nationals members who were young, urbane, and had excellent personal hygiene.

    The personal responsibility argument actually works in favour of the Greens in this instance. If you believe seriously in ‘personal responsibility’, and you also believe in climate change, then it stands to reason that you’d vote Greens. Also, the centre-right party in power in Australia for 11 years threw ‘personal responsibility’ out the window, encouraging everybody with functioning genitals to pork for pork. For years, singles and the childless got nothing from the major parties, so it’s not surprising that these groups might drift to the Greens, if only out of self-interest.

    Finally, despite Kevin Andrews’ silly rhetoric, the Greens are not remotely ‘Marxist’, and do not approach any problem or policy through the prism of class warfare. They appear to be set up in such a way so as to preclude such warfare, and to be a ‘broad church’, so to speak.

  27. Peter Patton says:

    THR

    Of course you are correct on the problems with stereotypes. I go even further, and always start with the premise of confirmation bias. However, all these recent revelations about The Greens are the opposite of stereotypes. They are based on hard data about their membership, their parliamentary candidates, and their supporters. The demographic data being revealed shows a movement that is very, very statistically distinct.

    Many of the Greens voters I know have kids, low- to middle-income jobs, and live in the outer suburbs.

    Given we are talking about systematic mass data, your “many” (how many again? ) would be included in the data. YOU may know many, but it seems you operate in a minority niche of The Greens movement. For example, would you be able to give us the primary vote and preferences for these “outer suburb” downmarket Greens voters, of whom you know so many?

    Finally, despite Kevin Andrews’ silly rhetoric, the Greens are not remotely ‘Marxist’, and do not approach any problem or policy through the prism of class warfare

    OK, we could have had a beautiful moment if you’d made two sentences of this. Ah, fuck it, we still can.

    Finally, despite Kevin Andrews’ silly rhetoric

    THR, will you join me in hand in hand, for a walk through the daisies off the yellow brick road, as we serenada each with with Joe Smooth’s Promised Land?

    Brothers, sisters
    One day we will be free
    From fighting, violence
    People crying in the street

    When the angels from above
    Fall down and spread their wings like doves
    And we’ll walk hand in hand
    Sisters, brothers, we’ll make it to the Promised Land

    You and I
    We’ll walk the land
    And as one, and as one
    We’ll take our stand

    During this minuet, I shall whisper

    “KA is Australia’s Most Appalling Person and has been for the past 3 years at least?”

    Just in the nick of time before we felt icky, Smooth’s riff would end. I would compose myself, and say. And as for your

    the Greens are not remotely ‘Marxist’,

    KKKomrade, you are either:

    1. Lying
    2. Inexplicably ignorant of the International Socialist/Communism entryism led from NSW. Indeed, if you would like to make a gentleman’s wager, I argue that THE great political slag match for the next 5 years is between Bob Brown and Lee Rhiannon.

    and do not approach any problem or policy through the prism of class warfare

    Now, that notre danse intime est fini allow me to remind you of THE key things we have learnt here:

    1. The Greens are unbelievably the party of class privilege.

    2. The Greens have already succumbed to the entryism of Red Diaper Baby class warfare obsessives.

    Maybe you need to recheck your in with the right mob. 😉

  28. daddy dave says:

    Future generations don’t exist, by definition.

  29. MarkL of Canberra says:

    How can anyone have missed teh deliberate, planned and orchestrated takeover of the NSW greens by the hard left as exemplified by Lee Rhiannon and that mob?

    I mean, seriously?

    MarkL
    canberra

  30. Peter Patton says:

    Yes, I do worry that the wretches might be exploiting poor old THR as a Useful Idiot! Again! 🙂

  31. TimT says:

    The personal responsibility argument actually works in favour of the Greens in this instance. If you believe seriously in ‘personal responsibility’, and you also believe in climate change, then it stands to reason that you’d vote Greens.

    No it doesn’t. The Greens response to climate change seems to be phasing out oil and gas rapidly, and not allowing the use of nuclear energy, preferring the so-called *alternative* energy sources – which will not work to provide the baseload power for a nation, now or for a long time.

    Voting for the Greens on the basis of policies that do not work but which sound superficially pleasing and make you feel good is not being responsible. It’s being stupid.

  32. TimT says:

    Oh look, another argument about climate change. I’ll see you in another 500 comments or so…

  33. Peter Patton says:

    Tim T

    Actually, it is more about class.

  34. FDB says:

    “FDB speaks with the logic of a teenager, with a mind closed to the adult world of personal responsibility. I struggle to believe selfish greens honesty give a lick about the awful breeders children. They certainly don’t care about their parents.”

    The logic of a teenager? Irony, thy name is Adam. Who exactly are these “selfish greens”? Do you mean “people who vote Green”?

    Because I am one, and so are many of my friends with children (actually the trendy inner-city lefties I know are breeding like rabbits at the moment), and what’s more to suggest that I don’t care about my parents is bizarre and kinda offensive. I care about them a great deal, and they raised me very well indeed.

    Perhaps you are just not very intelligent, and haven’t given much thought to your words? If so, I forgive you.

  35. FDB says:

    GP and Hugh – my last is an adequate reply to your fatuous nonsense too.

  36. adam says:

    Comprehension is not your strong point. Not your parents, the parents of the next generation. The people alive today that you wish to subject to loon policies to leave them broke and in the dark.

    As for intelligence, you admit you vote green and you were unaware that the greens are Marxist. I’d warn against questioning the intelligence of others.

  37. THR says:

    1. Lying
    2. Inexplicably ignorant of the International Socialist/Communism entryism led from NSW. Indeed, if you would like to make a gentleman’s wager, I argue that THE great political slag match for the next 5 years is between Bob Brown and Lee Rhiannon.

    Hysterical shrieks of ‘entrism’ are not a proof that the Greens are Marxist. If the latter word means anything at all, it must refer to class analyses, and the goal of workers controlling the means of production. The Greens don’t tick either box. In particular, the Greens try to be inclusive by shying away from class analyses.

    Actual studies on the Greens, as opposed to your ‘vibe’, suggest that Greens voters have two sources at their core. The first is the environmental movement, which has been around for decades, and the second are disaffected ALP voters. See here for instance:

    http://web.overland.org.au/previous-issues/feature-tad-tietze/

  38. FDB says:

    “I’d warn against questioning the intelligence of others.”

    Who started that again? Heed your own warning champ.

    I’d warn against pig-ignorant calls of misanthropy on the basis of party allegiance. Particularly the party which clearly cares more about individual rights than the others put together.

  39. . says:

    Individual rights makes you a misanthrope?

  40. FDB says:

    Dunno how you got that so arse-about Dot, but you did.

  41. Steve Edney says:

    You got to take this demographic analysis of John Black with a grain of salt given he was using it to predict than due to the mining tax green voters would flock to Tony Abbott and give him a fifteen seat majority.

  42. Rococo Liberal says:

    The Greens are not Marxist: they aren’t smart enough for that. They are commerce-hating totalitarians.

  43. Peter Patton says:

    Hysterical shrieks of ‘entrism’ are not a proof that the Greens are Marxist.

    I did not say The Greens are Marxists. I said that since The Greens first gained traction in Oz politics, they have also become a fertile incubator of Marxist entryists, such as Lee Rhiannon.

    I part agree with you

    that Greens voters have two sources at their core. The first is the environmental movement, which has been around for decades, and the second are disaffected ALP voters.

    No question there is a huge sincere, authentic, passionate Green movement globally, including Australia. There is also no doubt that Bob Brown built a genuinely environment-focused Party. However, those virgin days have been deflowered.

    Absolutely, no question much of The Greens recent growth has been disaffected ALP voters. But I am suggesting they have followed the Marxist entrists, especially to the incontrovertible extent that ALP leakage is from its left

    Now, on top of the non-ALP Marxists, and ALP Left converts, there has also been a reasonable amount of leakage from both the Coalition and Labor non-left, for, as you say, primarily environmental reasons. Let’s face it, there are millions of people who are 100% convinced they’re grandkids are going to fry, and if The Greens are only game in town, then that’s where they have to go.

    If the latter word [Greens are Marxist] means anything at all, it must refer to class analyses, and the goal of workers controlling the means of production. The Greens don’t tick either box.

    Part correct. My thesis is that the Marxist entrists are only reaching critical mass now, 20 years later. They just got their 1st Senator. How long has it been since we’ve had a fully blown commo in the Parliament!? But also Marxists in 2010 have not emerged from the New Left splinter or the pomo wasted years as pristine as the day they first read

    Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!

    Don’t forget at the last election both the ETU and even the fricking CFMEU bank-rolled The Greens to a large and consequential extent.

    In particular, the Greens try to be inclusive by shying away from class analyses

    Unfortunately this means that up until very recently, The Greens had absolutely no intellectual depth. I still have idea how that silly SA woman even got pre-selection, let alone voted in! As you well know yourself – as you’ve seen at LP and other similar – that there are very few Leftists under 40 who would even know what “class analysis” is. But those that do have been energized by Rhiannon, and so expect things to hot up intellectually going forward. Let’s get one thing straight, while Bob Brown ain’t no bourgeois, he sure as hell ain’t no proletarian messiah.

    But the real class action The Greens represent is a movement of the non-mercantile bourgeoisie/upper middle class against that mercantile bourgeoisie – and/or its agents – who currently run the State. They want the power to control fiscal policy so they can redirect tax to feather their own their own ideological nests and pockets.

  44. TimT says:

    But the real class action The Greens represent is a movement of the non-mercantile bourgeoisie/upper middle class against that mercantile bourgeoisie – and/or its agents – who currently run the State. They want the power to control fiscal policy so they can redirect tax to feather their own their own ideological nests and pockets.

    This is blindingly obvious in so much of the ads/publicity they put out, which overwhelmingly present Greens voters as urban, Anglo-Saxon, middle class professionals. They talk about ethnic diversity and inclusion but really they just represent the establishment talking to the establishment.

  45. Peter Patton says:

    Tim T

    That is because as THR says, the current leaders of The Greens don’t understand they are prosecuting warfare. Every time, they come out bragging about university-educated they all are, and every photo taken with their lovely white skin and orthodontically-nurtured white teeth, the more they look like the way they say the Tea Party looks. 😉

  46. Peter Patton says:

    They have a completely racist view of Aborigines; very Frank Brennan.

  47. . says:

    “How long has it been since we’ve had a fully blown commo in the Parliament!”

    Warren Snowden, Kim Carr…

  48. THR says:

    I think it’s mistaken to believe that Greens are the ‘non-mercantile bourgeoisie’, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument that you’re correct, and that Greens are all public servants, academics, and the like. When did such a class constitute ‘the establishment’?
    Look at things a little more soberly, and you’ll see that the Greens do not engage in class warfare of any kind, directly or indirectly. They don’t even engage in class critique. They believe in the market, and in market solutions to problems, but they believe that this market ought to be subject to more fiscal intervention than say, the Liberals. Nonetheless, this is a matter of degrees, not of qualitative difference, irrespective of what Kevin Andrews and Bolt may have you believe.

  49. Entropy says:

    let’s assume, for the sake of argument that you’re correct, and that Greens are all public servants, academics, and the like. When did such a class constitute ‘the establishment’?

    Hahahaha! If that is not the establishment, what is?

    “They believe in the market, and in market solutions to problems, but they believe that this market ought to be subject to more fiscal intervention than say, the Liberals”

    Simplified: We will beat the market into submission until it does what we demand!

    You really are a comedian, THR.

  50. Hugh says:

    FDB: “Fatuous nonsense?” So I’m take it, FDB, you’re asserting that the Greens are in fact anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-ESCR, and anti the legalised deprivation of natural parentage for children through the legal recognition of “gay marriage”? I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised on this score: go ahead and liberate me from my fatuity.

    Or perhaps you’re saying that directly killing extant very young and very old and/or depressed people, and robbing future children a priori of their right to parenting by their natural father and mother is straightforwardly consistent with care for future generations, and that it’s “fatuous” to believe otherwise? Again, be my guest.

  51. Entropy says:

    I wonder if the researchers noted the cars that greenies drive? Bet they are disproportionately European.

  52. THR says:

    Hahahaha! If that is not the establishment, what is?

    You seem a bit confused.

    The Establishment: Banks, industrialists, politicians, the churches, the military.

    Not the Establishment: white collar workers, nurses, teachers, researchers, minor civil servants, hippies and environmentalists.

    Simplified: We will beat the market into submission until it does what we demand!
    Maybe. But it’s more or less what both major parties have been doing for years, with the only difference being one of degree. As I pointed out earlier, the Coalition threw billions at people merely for breeding. They also picked winners by funneling hundreds of millions to select industries, subsidising a range of industries.
    As I said, there may be a difference in priorities and emphasis, but the differences are largely quantitative.

  53. FDB says:

    Sorry Hugh, piling on more fatuous nonsense is hardly going to help.

  54. Yobbo says:

    Look at things a little more soberly, and you’ll see that the Greens do not engage in class warfare of any kind, directly or indirectly. They don’t even engage in class critique.

    Tell that the every single Greens-voting poster on LP, who have 4-6 posts a week decrying “Bogans”.

    What is a bogan? It’s a working-class Australian.

  55. Peter Patton says:

    Yobbo

    Tell that the every single Greens-voting poster on LP, who have 4-6 posts a week decrying “Bogans”

    Even worse about those LP Greens. Did you ever visit Margo Kingston’s Webdiary back in the day? It was a real eye-opener for me, as I had no idea there were still so many international socialists and communists around, and that they were STILL obsessed with Jews.

    Well, over the past 6 to 12 months there has been a steady tricle of these internatuional socialist anti-Semites from the Webdiary to LP. Thus, the average age of posters is now about 60. 90% of these new LP posting Greens are precisely the entrist I am talking about.

    Is it coincidental that at the last election the two leading LP Useful Idiots for the ALP threw their lot in with The Greens. The tone and rhythm of LP has changed. It is now distinctly early baby-boomer, unashamedly and unreconstructed Marxist, and ALL now vote Green.

    This story has already moved beyond what is being reported, and has even further to go still.

  56. Hugh says:

    Perhaps you should heed your own wise counsel, FDB.

  57. Pingback: The Future of the Greens at Catallaxy Files

Comments are closed.