“A political leader of any party is judged on the achievements of that party while they are in charge. And that’s fair enough – what else is there to judge them by?”

That was the first paragraph of the piece I wrote on the day Richard Di Natale, who today spoke at the National Press Club, was elected Greens leader. (Yes, quoting myself is probably a form of jumping the shark. It’s been a long campaign. Forgive me.) It’s a simple enough statement, but there is some complexity in that word “achievements”. What counts as an achievement?

The obvious place to start is the vote. In 2010, the hung parliament election, when dissatisfaction with both major parties was high, the Greens received a 4% swing, and just under 12% of the nationwide vote in the lower house, their best result. They won a lower house seat (for Adam Bandt, in Melbourne) and a seat, house or senate, in each of the six states. It was a significant achievement, though assisted, of course, by the various ways in which Labor and the Coalition had made themselves repellent to a fair portion of voters.

Before Malcolm Turnbull was elected leader of the Liberal Party late last year, the Greens were doing well (I’m looking at Newspoll), on track to better their 2010 result. But after that fateful day their vote dropped, just slightly. According to the last two Newspolls it is now down to 10%, having fallen further during the campaign period.

This is interesting because, just as in 2010, the major parties aren’t very hot right now. In fact their primary votes look even lower than they did in 2010. But dissatisfaction this time around isn’t flowing to the Greens; instead, it’s going to independents and others, most notably the Nick Xenophon Team.

We are over a week out from the election, and really it is too early for a post-mortem based on votes. Anything might yet happen. But the early indications are at least curious. What does it reflect? A failure on Di Natale’s part? The runaway Xenophon train sucking up all the oxygen that would ordinarily go to other minor parties? Or the constant attacks on the Greens by the men with the two largest loudspeakers in the nation, Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten?

Which brings us back to this complex question of achievements.

Turnbull’s attack on the Greens is largely an attack on Labor, made via the Greens. By reminding people of the years of minority government, Turnbull believes he emphasises his stability message, which will deliver him victory.

Shorten’s attack on the Greens is in turn driven partly by the need to defend himself against Turnbull’s attack.

But both men, and in particular Shorten, have also gone hard on Di Natale’s outfit because they perceive the Greens as a threat.

Regardless of the Greens’ share of the national vote, if they succeed in retaining Melbourne, and taking Batman from Labor’s David Feeney, then their strategy can be said to have succeeded. And of course they are targeting other seats, mostly Labor-held, in inner-city Sydney and Melbourne.

It’s this strategy that is the most fascinating thing about the Greens in this election, and providing a window on to how the party sees its purpose.

What is sometimes not appreciated in all of these debates about Labor–Greens alliances is how deeply many in the ALP hate their “ally”. This detestation comes from a fundamentally different view of politics. Labor’s view is that good can be done from government, and that winning government demands taking the centre. Many ALP members see the Greens as show-ponies, waving around policies they will never have the ability to implement, pretending to be pure while playing politics hard, foregoing the hard work of governing for the easy satisfactions of moral purity.

Many Greens, in turn, have contempt for Labor, believing it has sold out a belief in genuinely progressive politics for a chance at power. They ask what the point of winning government is if you can’t actually do anything useful when you get there? Di Natale constantly refers to Labor and the Coalition as the “Coles and Woolies of Australian politics”, with little to separate them, operating as a duopoly “coming together to lock out any competition from more progressive voices, more independent voices”. Labor and Liberal consensus on some policy areas, in particular asylum seekers, have given Di Natale’s argument momentum.

You think the two major parties hate each other? It pales next to the animosity between Labor and the Greens.

Before 2010 the Greens were largely content with attempting to influence the direction of Australian politics by the force of rhetoric, as well as actions in the senate.

What has changed in this election is that the Greens are now putting their arguments with the direct aim of increasing their representation in the lower house. Greens strategists have told the Guardian they are fighting to win eight lower house seats over the next two elections (which is different from saying they believe that is a realistic target).

And it was Adam Bandt who set the Liberal and Labor hares running with his comments early in the campaign that “There’s a prospect of more Greens getting elected to the lower house and that may then result in … as in 2010, no side wins.” Yes, the Greens would be willing to govern in coalition with Labor. And off we went.

There have been so many claims and counter-claims about the Greens and preferences by now that it is hard to keep up. Certainly many attacks on the Greens on this topic have been overdone. But in Anthony Albanese’s seat of Grayndler the party began its campaign by refusing to rule out preference deals with Albanese’s opponents. It also earlier seemed possible the party would run “open tickets”, where it does not preference anyone, in some suburban marginal seats.

These would be legitimate decisions for a party which has now decided that its best chance of influencing Australian politics is winning seats in its own right.

But of course Labor doesn’t see it that way. In its view, the Greens, by forcing Labor candidates like Albanese to work harder in their electorates and suck up resources that could be used elsewhere, and by refusing to preference Labor in every seat, make the election of a Liberal government more likely.

It’s fascinating because it’s a genuine philosophical divide. Labor believes the worst evil is a Liberal government, and that anyone calling themselves progressive should do everything they can to prevent that evil. The Greens argue that the Liberals and Labor are not that far apart, and they are entitled to do as much as they can to get themselves elected.

Perhaps oddly, especially for the Greens who are so often associated with activism, both views stem from a belief in the primacy of parliamentary politics.

For those who tear their hair out in frustration at what they see as “the left” in this country tearing itself apart, these are some of the reasons. There’s no easy resolution, no “kumbaya” on the horizon. Both cases can be argued.

So, back to achievements. If Di Natale has instilled a genuine desire in his party to do whatever is necessary to win seats, then that might be seen as a philosophical shift for which he can take credit. But in politics everything comes back to votes. If the shift translates into seats, then that will be significant, and he will be a hero to his party. But if no seats are won, and if, in addition, the Coalition is re-elected, and if that can be painted as in any way a result of his decisions, then the Di Natale years will be remembered pretty bleakly.

What actually happens in parliament will be crucial too, of course. But first you have to actually be in parliament.

Politics at its best is about ideals. But there’s no getting away from the fact that at election time, it’s all about results.

Correction: I did say it was difficult to keep up with the preference skirmishes! An earlier version of this article suggested the Greens were still considering running open tickets in some marginal seats. While this was reported as a possibility at one stage, the Greens have since announced that it will not be happening.

Today’s links