It seems that historically and even unto today, Australians seem to mainly base their political votes on one main thing: $$$$$
Voting pendulum seems to swing heavily when this is factored in, less so other matters like voice, integrity, climate change, defence etc when compared to money. Aussies really love their money and seems to have followed News Corpse’ narrative that Labor are bad money managers (which is a short-sighted and surface analysis). If Labor did more cost of living relief right away, it would only add to long-term inflation because government spending would be over the top, but if they only tinker with things, people keeps thinking the government isn’t doing enough. It seems they can’t win (well, not until News Corpse’ influence dies off anyway).
Labor could really gain some ground if they put more focus on the ‘money’ aspect of it (not that I fully agree with it) to appease the electorate and to rubbish Dutton and co’s baseless gaslighting about the economy and Labor.
Frankie you make a good point. It was always doomed because they’re have always been voice of Aboriginal committed in regards to Howard days. I personally have to come to think that. Having them recognised in the condition without the voice element would have made it more better.
I don’t think it was the fact he held the Referendum as promised, it was HOW he did it. He pushed the Yes vote obsessively to the point he was trying to guilt and bully people who were opposed. It would have been fine for him to support a yes vote but he also needs to govern for everyone and he crossed a line IMO. Also he seemed totally preoccupied with the Voice over all other issues for much of the time and that didn’t play well to many. It was possible for him to hold the Referendum without it becoming all consuming. He mishandled it quite badly IMO. It’s not the end of him in my view but it certainly did some damage. He’s still a thousand percent better than the alternative.
This is largely a modern phenomenon that we can thank the Howard era for - reforms that made a wider group of Australians “wealthier” have resulted in a greater level of skepticism towards future reform because it may impact what they already have (or their ability to grow it).
Some focus on cost is not a bad thing though - but it needs to be a two way street
Can’t believe I’m about to say this but during the SSM plebiscite, whilst it was clear Turnbull was gunning for a Yes vote, he did it in a fairly inoffensive way and catered for the other side indirectly by saying things like ‘use your right to vote for an outcome’ which I think resonated more with people than just saying something like ‘If you don’t vote yes, you’re a homophobe or something’.
Although with Albo I think credits should be given to him for moving on quickly from it as soon as it became clear it was a No vote for the voice. He said he respected the choice of Australians and did not pursue it anymore.
A stobie pole would be better than Potatohead and that says a lot about the opposition quite frankly: Full of extreme right wing nutters more interested in coal and culture wars than actual alternative policies.
It’s not just the yes campaign (although it was a perfect example), unfortunately the cultural left wing in this country as a collective can be it’s own worst enemy at times with the way they try and get their message across (patronising people and being quick to put labels on those who might be hesitant or disagree with their views). Sadly this drives a lot of people towards the right and only strengthens the likes of Dutton and Hanson.
We’ll see it again in a few weeks too with the Groundhog Australia Day debate and associated protests making it’s routine annual appearance.
As far as the Albanese government goes, they are in a bit of an awkward spot with the ever increasing political gulf between the inner city (where the Greens are a big threat) where cultural and identity politics is the big issue of the day and outer suburbia and regional areas where cost of living pressures and the economy are much bigger issues (with less interest in cultural/identity issues).
Chasing the inner city vote too much runs the risk of alienating a lot of their more centrist/centre-right voters and pushing them towards the Coalition, while at the same time giving up on the inner city vote would run the risk of giving more seats to the Greens.
I note that the union movement too seems to be pivoting towards social action as a major priority, particularly of late with their support/endorsement of Palestinian groups and the BDS movement in some cases. With how strong the union movement is within the Labor Party this does suggest to me that this will continue to be a big influence on the party as it determines it’s future direction.
From another angle, it seems that in terms of political ideology, they might be squeezed from both directions but that puts them as a fairly centrist government then, right?
There are some seats that fit into this category but would never vote Coalition in any cases (Western Sydney, Melbourne, Southern Brisbane, Outer Northern Adelaide etc). What it might do is drive further votes to the coalition but more so in the Coalition held outer-suburban seats (Longman, Dickson, Petrie etc). Yes some seats like Werriwa, Blair, McEwen, Lyons and Gilmore are quite vulnerable but there is hope if Labor pushes forward with more economic reforms.
The inner-city votes on the other hand are a huge threat to the existing Labor strongholds in inner-city areas. Couple that with a few of Labor’s own seats having a huge Jewish population (McNamara for example) and you could see the tide turn against Labor towards the Greens and Teals. And if Dai Le’s new party gains ground in Western Sydney then Labor’s influence would all but diminish whilst the cross bench becomes more powerful.
I would say they are currently a centrist government, but walking a delicate tightrope at the moment (and not doing too bad a job of it in recent months), however I can’t see how this can be sustainable for them in the long term especially if political polarisation as a whole continues to increase.
I guess this comes down to the question as to whether or not it’s inevitable that some of these seats will eventually fall to the Greens regardless of what Labor does. I get the sense that a lot of inner city voters don’t like doing things by halves and will always lean towards someone who will promise stronger/radical action on the issues that matter to them over a more pragmatic approach.
I can’t see any seat with a large Jewish population going to the Greens with the way they’ve responded to the Palestine issue. Definitely the potential for a Teal independent though.
If these areas feel neglected or ignored enough I’d never say never, especially if the Coalition manages to get their act together. What does help Labor a lot though here is that the Coalition doesn’t exactly have a great track record of getting their act together.
The thing is a lot of these electorates (e.g. McMahon, Chifley, Werriwa, Greenway, Macquarie etc) would’ve voted for the Coalition when they won in landslides of 1996 and 2013 (when the Coalition was somewhat of a credible alternative, mind), but never did, and could’ve voted for them every time the Liberals won but didn’t. It shows the power of Labor in these areas and frankly even if Labor has taken some of them for granted, the nature of those communities can’t stand the Coalition and their policies towards refugees and their xenophobic attitudes, which to them means more than just money-related issues. Add to that the Coalition’s hardline stance for Israel whilst virtually ignoring Palestine, is not going to bode well for them in these ‘red-wall’ electorates.
From memory, most of the Green votes that got the 3 Brisbane seats over the line were protest votes against the Liberals and Scomo (although in all fairness, if you wanted Scomo out, wouldn’t you vote Labor instead of Greens?). Next election the Green votes will probably cede by quite a bit. They’d never win Ryan and Griffith back but Brisbane is likely.
Electorates like Wills, Cooper (who had a bit of a celebrity candidate in Celeste Liddle) and Higgins have a very strong Greens vote but they’re balanced by the multicultural diaspora located in the outer fringes of these electorates which is a strong Labor base that will always help Labor. Add to that McNamara has that strong Jewish population (Josh Burns himself is Jewish IIRC) so I can see Greens support dropping if they keep going pro-Palestine and Anti-Israel. But Labor’s growing pro-Palestine stance might not hold well either.
Labor’s tone in recent times have been more pro-Palestine if anything. But this fence-sitting manoeuvre of theirs isn’t going to win anyone over since the Coalition are staunchly ‘Israel good, Palestine bad’, whilst the Greens are ‘Palestinians are angels, Israel is the devil’ which is pulling votes on both sides. What honestly can they do?
Labor has kinda wedged themselves between a rock and a hard place on this one. Intially I’d say their response was pretty close to the Coalition with their condemnation of Hamas but they’ve slowly becoming more pro-Palestine as it drags on (led by the factions on the left).
I don’t know what the solution is for them on this one- there’s such ferocious passion on both sides of this debate that a middle ground seems nearly impossible to achieve.
And the problem with this debate is that people have taken sides without even thinking about the others. The Coalition says Israel is suffering without referencing Palestinians, whilst the Greens and co are condemning Israel for atrocities when the root cause of it was Hamas that’s actually Palestinians. Facts get muddled.
The reality is (and is something taken by Labor until recently):
Whilst peace was never really long-term, it existed until October 7.
Hamas (a terrorist organisation no less) was the first to attack Israel in this round, which should be universally condemned and indeed Israel has the right to defend itself.
Israel’s intent to fight and bring down Hamas is a good one, but their all or nothing approach results in killing innocent Palestinians to the point where there is a humanitarian crisis at the moment, all the while Hamas is still active and fighting. Had they eradicated Hamas effectively with minimal loss of life, Israel probably wouldn’t be getting a bad wrap.
Labor’s issue at the moment is that they’ve got a big multicultural base but with that there’s opposing forces between the Jewish population and large Middle Eastern, Muslim base that forms their stronghold in places like Western Sydney. Add to that you’ve also got a lot of Labor MPs on opposing sides of the argument (Josh Burns, Mark Dreyfus are Jewish, Ed Husic, Anne Aly are Muslim etc). It makes it hard to have that middle ground when their own caucus is divided on action and stance.
Can’t disagree with that. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that needs to be eradicated at all costs. But that doesn’t give Israel the pass to do whatever they like to the detriments of those Palestinians who oppose Hamas and have nothing to do with the politics of it all.
I’d say McNamara will be an easy pickup for the greens if Josh burns doesn’t take a stronger pro-Palestine stance. I think a lot of the millennials and gen z in the seat that thought Josh was progressive enough last time will be pushed to vote green next time. And he only scaled over the line in 2022. Being Jewish does not always mean pro-Israel, in New York the Jewish areas are very progressive, Melbourne might be the same.
One thing that does strike me as curious with the amount of progressive support for Palestine in this country- given the brand of conservative Islam that a lot of Palestinians and their allies in the wider the Middle East (such as Iran and Saudi Arabia) subscribe to, any future hypothetical Palestinian state is unlikely to be overly welcoming when it comes to the other issues that matter to progressives such as LGBT rights, womens rights, tolerance of minority groups etc.
If there’s anyone here that is socially progressive and pro-Palestine, I am genuinely curious as to how you are able to reconcile the two positions.
I do wonder if this is worth splintering off into it’s own thread although on a matter such as this it is potentially fraught with danger given the passions involved.
The housing crisis is creating a class divide in this country. If you’re young, you pretty much need to have parents who own their home and who are willing to help you out with a deposit to even have a chance of getting a foot in the door. If your parents aren’t well to do (or rent themselves), well, you’re basically screwed. So many older people are also being screwed over too especially if they’ve never been in a position to buy their own home, housing insecurity is a scourge affecting all ages and not just a youth issue.
Our cities are pretty much at capacity as it is and urban sprawl has gone too far already. Increasing the number of apartments/higher density developments would be a big help but strata title and body corporates are a big turn off.
The Morrison government failed to hand over some national security-related cabinet documents from the time of the Iraq war to the National Archives of Australia for potential public release.
In a statement issued on Monday, the department of prime minister and cabinet revealed that the previous government had failed to hand over all of the 2003 cabinet documents, including documents prepared for the national security committee of cabinet, to the National Archives of Australia in 2020.
The department says the missing records were found on 19 December 2023. The department jointly inspected the records with the archives on 22 December 2023.
It will take some time before they can be considered for potential release. The material will need to be examined by security agencies and other relevant bodies and may still be deemed exempt from release.
I still think the term is appropriate when we reach a point where your family background determines what opportunities you get in life over and above anything else (which we are just about at now in my view).
Socialism is also far from dead, after reaching a nadir in the 1990s and early 2000s it’s become very trendy with today’s youth, who feel betrayed and left behind by capitalism. That’s a problem capitalist governments need to address with some urgency, as today’s youth feel that the current system has failed them and they lack a sense of belonging to this country (especially if they can’t ever afford to buy their own home).
Hence why I think the Singapore model works so well for housing, no one could accuse Lee Kuan Yew of being a socialist and yet he recognised the importance of a sense of belonging and having a home to call one’s own and came up with a program that lowered the barrier to homeownership and greatly improved the quality of life of Singaporeans.
I think this sums up the cause of the issue quite well.
In my view it’s up to the major parties to change their approach and put forward policies that deliver a sense of security on things like housing and employment if they wish to survive in the long term. The Coalition in particular especially runs a real risk of becoming a minor party in a generation’s time if they don’t change their messaging and approach.
I’d have to respectfully disagree on this one. It’s tough being young these days and ever more so post Covid especially with the dire lack of housing and broken social safety net. That delivery person in Thomastown is quite possibly living in that Uber at this point.
When I look back to the previous generation and compare it to now, for sure they had their fair share of difficulties. Interest rates of 10-20% would have been painful no matter how small the loan. There were recessions that drove unemployment to painful highs.
But there were a lot more measures in place back then to help ease the pain- unemployment benefits were more sufficient to cope with the cost of living and public housing was an option for the average person and not just those who meet certain criteria.
Having said that, it’s not just young people affected by these issues, this is a crisis affecting all ages but young people are disproportionately impacted as it is the majority of the cohort that is struggling.
Since then we’ve regressed back to something akin to the 1880s/1890s and 1920s/1930s, with so many people homeless or in insecure housing.
This is a problem that does not require anything as drastic as Soviet or Chinese style socialism to solve- that would result in an even worse situation as we’ve seen countless times in history- but the current neoliberal model of capitalism in place today is now a proven failure and as discredited. We need to look at what worked in the past to resolve similar situations.
Education is sorely lacking in this department, certainly at a high school level the Soviet Union/Eastern Bloc was a topic that barely got a mention at all in my experience (that was 10-15 years ago but I doubt it’s changed much).
I’d say it’s not a minority in Melbourne these days, it’s become pretty mainstream and ever growing. Even in regional areas this has grown significantly in the past 5 years.
For some, that’s a feature and not a bug. A vocal section of overly online communists seem to think the rich and super-rich deserve all the pain and trauma they can get.