Sometimes I think that Sussan Ley and the Liberals’ big problem is that Labor has stolen their clothes.
The very first sentence of the article is an absolute banger. The problem with Labor under Albanese is that it completely lacks any ambition. It’s a conservative party afraid to actually do anything, lest the regressive party use it as a cudgel against them. After the 2022 election, you could make an argument that this was necessary. They had a slim majority, a complex Senate to work with, and they spent their political capital on the Voice referendum, which sadly failed. But after the last election with a massive lower house majority and an extremely friendly Senate—if they’re trying to get progressive policies passed—Albanese has no excuse.
It’s a shame this article continues the old lie about Gillard’s carbon “tax” (that was actually an emissions trading scheme)
I dislike this perspective of how our purportedly progressive party is actually conservative. It’s very USA.
Pretty much by definition, the centre is between our two major parties. One is left of centre and one is right of centre.
It’s fine to think that the left of centre party is not progressive enough for you. It’s even fine to declare that according to whatever metric they’re actually conservative, but it’s kind of irrelevant because … in the only metric that matters they’re left of centre.
In the past I would’ve liked to have a reformist party - keen to kick ass and take names or whatever, but with the global lurch towards fascism and conservatism, and the myriad of problems around climate change, I think there’s a lot to be said for a left of centre party with a steady hand.
I think it’s also true that their campaign policies were fairly vanilla, and people voted for those vanilla policies. You can just dial up the progressive policies when you have a mandate to right a tight game.
I agree that the voice debacle was a real shame. A shame that it didn’t get up but also a shame that it cost so much capital.
Pretty much by definition, the centre is between our two major parties
I strongly disagree with this relativism. I’m going to evaluate parties based on how their policies actually play out. Conservatism wants to keep things how they are, or advance only very, very carefully. Actual progressive parties advance progressive ideas.
Whitlam was progressive. Hawke slightly less so. Gillard less again. By the time we got around to Albanese, Labor has lost all its progressive credentials, chasing the LNP to the right, as the LNP transitions from a centre-right conservative party to a far-right regressive one and Labor follows to fill up that conservative gap.
also a shame that it cost so much capital
The evidence is that it didn’t actually cost all that much capital, in the long run. That people opposed it, but that they seem to have respected Albanese’s guts for trying, and don’t hold it politically against him or Labor in the broader sense. The mistake the LNP made at the last election was assuming that you were right and it did cost Labor a lot of political capital. The LNP’s only strategy was “double down on our anti-Voice tactics which worked so well.” And look how that paid off for them. It was natural for them to be wary of doing anything else big in their last term after the failure of the Voice, but after their overwhelming success (in seats gained, at least) at the last election, I think we can comfortably put that aside.
I strongly disagree with this relativism
Sure ok but that doesn’t change the reality that items arranged on a spectrum are arranged relative to each other.
If you want to reassure yourself that the items on the spectrum are too far to the right then you may do so, but it’s not a very useful assertion to make.
It’s a spectrum, but not an arbitrary one. They’re arranged relative to how much change. If the amount of change is close to zero, that’s conservative. It doesn’t matter where other parties sit, or how popular they are. Labor, under Albanese, is a very conservative party, because it has been highly resistant to change. Maybe you think that’s a good thing, and everything about Australia’s society and governance is exactly as it should be, so conservatism is the right approach. I’d disagree with you, but that would at least be intellectually honest. But if you do think we need to improve: to do a better job of providing housing, healthcare, and education etc. to vulnerable populations, to take serious action to reduce the impact of climate change, or to oppose genocides committed by countries we call our allies, then you are by definition, progressive, and Labor is not adequately representing those beliefs.
They’re arranged relative to how much change. If the amount of change is close to zero, that’s conservative.
Did you just make that up according to your own thoughts on progressive vs conservative ?
Umm, no? That’s what the words mean. Conservatives conserve the status quo. Progressives want society to progress.
So, by that definition Trump is a radical progressive president, probably one of the most progressive in history, given the raft of changes he’s implemented in such a short time and the nation’s rapid progress towards fascism.
I wouldn’t call the senate “extremely” friendly. I wouldn’t even call it “friendly” after the HAFF.
As for the rest, I think recognizing Palestine took up far more political capital than you think. The Americans OWN us, and have a history of couping Labor leaders that step out of line even for minor transgressions.
The HAFF happened in the previous Senate, so it’s not directly relevant. But it…got passed? In fact, it got passed after being greatly improved. That’s a good thing. And that’s exactly what I mean by saying that the Senate is friendly if Labor is trying to be progressive. If Labor is trying to pass the exact kinds of lazy milquetoast bs this article is talking about, then yes, the Senate will be less friendly.
I think recognizing Palestine took up far more political capital than you think
I don’t. The average person has been strongly on Palestine’s side for a long time now, regardless of what the media might say.
Speaking of being ambitious and progressive though…recognising Palestine is great, but it’s a largely symbolic move. What we actually need to do is (1) stop the arms trade with them, and (2) put the same kinds of sanctions on them that we have for Russia. At least as long as there are Ministers in their Government who have loudly and proudly stated genocidal intentions, they should be treated as a total pariah state.
The HAFF was passed unamended after being delayed for 6 months, and the actual housing it was supposed to build was delayed further by the uncertainty. The Greens blocked it with ridiculous demands like increasing the funding to address housing stress instead of the homelessness it was supposed to, an unconstitutional national rent-freeze, or reforms to capital gains and negative gearing that lost Labor two elections before they promised not to change it.
The Greens see Labor’s pragmatism as evil. They see Labor as fundamentally evil just like the LNP.
As for Palestine. Yes it was popular and yes it was just symbolic, but it has the potential to piss off the Americans and doing that consumes a lot of domestic political capital (because of American influence in Australia). Australia is more subordinate to America than most thanks to the LNP being willing and eager to sell out our sovereignty, we can’t really break rank alone on Israel, never mind how many time’s Labor has had to publicly condemn Hamas making cutting off military aid to Israel a domestic political nightmare.
Once Ireland stops arms trade with Israel, then Australia could plausibly consider doing it. Until then it would 100% get Labor couped.
The HAFF was passed unamended
Oh ok, so we’re just making up lies now? Geez, I get that you’re a Labor fanboy, but this is getting ridiculous. Sometimes, Labor just objectively did the wrong thing. And their slow reaction to the Greens’ quite sensible improvements to the HAFF is one of those times.
You’re technically correct. I assumed this one amendment was passed in February and was to correct a typo, but looking closer it was in September. Still, this amendment was to basically move forward a report on the outcomes. I wouldn’t call that greatly improved, hell I’d say it makes it worse since it will turn the HAFF into a political football when the report shows barely any improvements due to the delays caused by the Greens (6 months + uncertainty) and the long-term nature of the HAFF.
Can already smell the media gearing everyone up to vote for the liberals again
And so what are labor going to do about it? It will be likely close to a decade of labor being in power and at the half way mark they have done absolutely nothing in the backdrop of world wide discontent. I have no doubt Alabnese is going down in history as one of the most useless PM’s in history.
So you didn’t actually read the article, then?
Its criticism is of Albo not going far enough in the progressive direction.
The idea is to make it seem like they’re doing nothing, doesn’t matter whether that’s from a progressive or conservative perspective. Take for example how the press basically ignored all the good Queensland Labor managed to do before they were ousted.
Any specfic policy he does propose is too radical but apart from that he is afraid of reform.
I think thats the angle they are going for.Whaling is the entire reaosn he.won. The tepid attmepts by Shorten to be progressive when he lost to ScoMo being why
