The Greens need to get out of their own bubble and do some very serious soul searching if they are ever to have broad appeal, argues a co-founder of the Queensland and Australian Greens, Drew Hutton.

In the early 2000s the Australian Greens conducted several focus groups asking the question: who are most likely to vote for the Greens? The answer was unequivocal. Potential Greens voters were young, university educated and left leaning. That conclusion has guided Greens electoral strategies ever since and targeted seats have tended to be those that met these criteria and, because such people were a significant proportion of the voters in inner-city electorates, these were the seats that were targeted. At various times over the last few years, therefore, Greens candidates have won seats in inner-city electorates in most capital cities.

This has had what I would regard as both good and bad results. The good results are obvious. Greens have won seats, at local, state and federal levels in inner-city electorates.

The bad is less obvious but, in my view, something that should concern the party. Because the party’s policies and messaging have focused clearly on this demographic, and because the culture of this demographic has so thoroughly permeated the Greens, the party has, in effect locked itself into a constituency that is young, highly educated, left-wing and living in inner-city metropolitan electorates. Consequently, they are always in the race for these seats at election time, but other voters don’t see them as having any relevance for them.

Election results and opinion polling reveal the truth of this. The 18-34 vote can be as high as 30 per cent, especially in the inner city, but this figure drops sharply in older age groups until I could probably name the seventeen people around Australia in the over 65 age group who indicate in polls that they would vote Greens so that the overall vote is in the range of 10-13 per cent.

Similarly, the vote in inner-city electorates is often in the high twenties and even early thirties but this often drops down to single digits in country and outer metropolitan seats. If the ALP was to lose support dramatically, the Greens overall vote might rise, as it has in the UK, but, failing that, the party is likely to remain in the 10-13 per cent range for the foreseeable future and is always vulnerable to a Teal or progressive independent.

The Greens should be able to benefit from the declining public trust in democratic institutions. This decline can be easily identified and even measured. Nearly 50 per cent of Australians are now voting outside the major parties and many of these are deeply, and perhaps permanently, alienated from the traditional parties of government – the Liberal National Party and the Australian Labor party, and one in four Australians are saying they will vote for an anti-systemic party like One Nation.

Many people look at scandals like Robodebt where ordinary working class folk often had their lives turned upside down by bureaucrats and politicians who failed to understand that they were supposed to work in the public interest and then held a NACC inquiry that absolved these bureaucrats and politicians from any blame.

The process by which many ordinary people have become alienated from democratic institutions and the main parties of government has coincided – not accidentally – with the increased commodification of everyday life and the impact of neoliberalism.

The withdrawal of services like banks from communities, especially in rural and regional areas, the re-naming of the public service with the term public sector, and the market and private interest mentality that goes with that, and the seeming lack of any moral centre at all levels of government are just some of the factors leading to this alienation. The knowledge class that runs these parties seem to be oblivious to these developments and think a few policy shifts at election time will fix the problem.

All that has major ramifications for the Greens. They have policies that could be crafted to appeal across both knowledge class, that makes up about 25 per cent of the population, and the traditional working class that makes up 45-50 per cent, but are so absorbed with identity politics and so entrenched in the culture of the knowledge class that they are incapable of communicating anything meaningful to people in the traditional working class other than their utter disdain for them.

Even worse, the Greens continue in the belief that they embody a moral superiority that, sooner or later, everyone must recognise and have no idea of the dislike that many Australians, outside the party’s own cultural bubble, feel about them. The reaction by the Greens and the left generally to the rise of One Nation has been to accuse the party and its adherents of being “racists” and “bigots” without recognising that many of the issues driving this surge are ones that the Greens could easily address if they had a clearer perspective. It was not too many years ago when this would be possible but that was before a post-modern, identity politics world view came to dominate the party’s thought processes.

Firstly, the party should retain, and even increase, its stance on the environment. This means a concern not only with climate change but also with nature conservation. Australians of all sorts of backgrounds want strong policies on the environment. Secondly, they need to give identity politics a rest. Gender extremism is a huge turn-off for most Australians, especially those concerned about the rights of women and the protection of troubled children. Thirdly, they need to emphasise a love of country. Peter Mallinauskis was right; most Australians do love their country, and it is up to progressives to give that meaning – love of the unique landscapes and wildlife, our fascinating communities and vibrant cultures and our democratic freedoms. Too many progressives either dislike their country or think expressing love for it is necessarily right-wing. Anthony Albanese once used the term “progressive patriotism” but then, for some reason, dropped it like a hot potato. The progressive party that gives that term some clear, dynamic meaning, as One Nation has done from their right-wing perspective, will make headway at the ballot box with people who haven’t previously considered such a vote.

Fourthly, the Greens should make it clear they oppose neoliberalism and frame that opposition in terms working Australians can relate to, especially the imposition of the market into areas of people’s lives where it is unacceptable. The widening of the gig economy is an obvious target. Managed properly, the Greens could double their current vote but this won’t happen without some character and courage being shown by current or prospective leaderships.