Can the Greens beat Labor? The Barries test Shoebridge's big call
Barrie Cassidy and Sean Kelly have used the latest Back to Back Barries to test Senator David Shoebridge's claim the Greens can replace Labor. The Guardian
The set-up is a little different this time. Kelly is filling in for Tony Barry alongside Cassidy. The conversation was released as both audio and video under the 3 October 2026 date, with publication recorded as 2 October 2026 GMT. The audio edition is titled "Back to Back Barries: Can the Greens beat Labor? – podcast". The video edition carries the title "Can the Greens beat Labor? – Back to Back Barries podcast". The Guardian Daniel Semo is credited as producer. The series itself is described on its Guardian page as examining the strategies behind the week's politics. The Guardian
On the substance, the episode starts with the leadership change. Shoebridge defeated two women to become Greens leader in a rare contested ballot. That detail matters in Canberra. Contested ballots are unusual. Most leadership transitions are settled before the party room meets. A vote that actually goes to a ballot tells the press gallery something about internal organisation, factional alignment and the seriousness of the contest.
From there, Cassidy and Kelly turn to direction. They discuss Shoebridge's direction for the Greens and his argument that the party can replace Labor. That is the central proposition in the title question. It is framed as strategy, not process. What does replacement mean in practice, which voters does it require, and how does the party intend to get there. The episode keeps the focus on that claim rather than treating the leadership as personnel news alone.
The discussion then widens to Labor. The episode takes up what the prime minister said at George Megalogenis' Melbourne book launch. Book launches are a familiar Canberra art form. Leaders say things they would not put in a press release. The gallery listens for tone as much as text. Cassidy and Kelly parse those remarks for what they signal about Labor's own reading of the contest.
The other thread is Victoria. The episode discusses polls about the upcoming Victorian election. No more, no less. For a federal audience, state polling is rarely just about the state. It is read as a proxy for organisational strength, campaign readiness and where progressive voters are parking their first preferences.
The broader context here is why this particular Labor-Greens contest keeps returning to the agenda. Both parties fish in overlapping parts of the electorate in inner metropolitan seats while operating under entirely different incentives. Labor must hold government and manage a national primary vote. The Greens must convert concentration into representation and turn protest into persistence. A claim to replace, rather than merely pressure, Labor reframes that relationship. It moves the question from leverage on legislation to direct competition for voters, volunteers and legitimacy.
In my view, the value of this episode for professionals is not the answer to the title question. Nobody settles replacement theory in a podcast. It is the pairing of subjects. Leadership ballot, prime ministerial signalling at a cultural event, and Victorian polling data sit together for a reason. That is how Canberra actually assesses minor-party threats. Not as abstract ideology, but as leadership authority plus major-party response plus measurable shifts in a live electoral market. Shoebridge has stated the ambition plainly. Labor has responded in its chosen venue. Victoria provides an early testing ground.
Looking at what this means for the next phase, watch the language both sides use. Replacement talk imposes discipline on the Greens. Every preference deal, every negotiation in the Senate, every campaign resource decision will now be read against it. It also imposes discipline on Labor. Dismiss the claim and you risk complacency. Engage with it too directly and you give it oxygen. That tension is familiar. The names change. The structural problem does not. Cassidy and Kelly know that history. Their discussion is useful precisely because it treats the claim sceptically but seriously, which is more than most partisan responses manage.
