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.
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.
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.
Right, that’s why the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse. I accept that it’s not a term anyone would use to self describe and it’s not an accepted part of neutral political discourse, but it’s nonetheless a useful term.
Strictly showing, regressive should mean specifically undoing earlier progress. Which captures a lot of Trump’s actions. Rolling back rights on abortion, undoing advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, going back to a very 19th century style of treating non-white people.
But in other aspects, I’d say he’s being straight-up authoritarian, in a way that doesn’t really sit anywhere on this spectrum. Passing all these tariffs could be described as regressing to pre-WW2 economics, but going about it by ignoring the law—which actually requires congress to set tariffs—is not progressive, conservative, or regressive. That’s just authoritarian. Openly threatening companies & countries to extort them for bribes (see: Apple’s gold watch, Qatar’s jet) is just corrupt authoritarian behaviour.
You’re illustrating my point - that assertions about how Labor is really a conservative party, are subjective and unhelpful.
the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse
Apparently half of voting Americans would disagree with you, as they seem to believe Trump’s changes will make things better.
My original point is, an assertion that Labor is a conservative party is essentially a “both sides” argument, which discourages people from engaging with politics. Admittedly, it’s less egregious in Australia given that we have preferential voting, but it’s still an annoying Americanism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Right, that’s why the term regressive. It’s the opposite side of conservative from progressive. For changes, but ones that make things worse. I accept that it’s not a term anyone would use to self describe and it’s not an accepted part of neutral political discourse, but it’s nonetheless a useful term.
Strictly showing, regressive should mean specifically undoing earlier progress. Which captures a lot of Trump’s actions. Rolling back rights on abortion, undoing advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, going back to a very 19th century style of treating non-white people.
But in other aspects, I’d say he’s being straight-up authoritarian, in a way that doesn’t really sit anywhere on this spectrum. Passing all these tariffs could be described as regressing to pre-WW2 economics, but going about it by ignoring the law—which actually requires congress to set tariffs—is not progressive, conservative, or regressive. That’s just authoritarian. Openly threatening companies & countries to extort them for bribes (see: Apple’s gold watch, Qatar’s jet) is just corrupt authoritarian behaviour.
You’re illustrating my point - that assertions about how Labor is really a conservative party, are subjective and unhelpful.
Apparently half of voting Americans would disagree with you, as they seem to believe Trump’s changes will make things better.
My original point is, an assertion that Labor is a conservative party is essentially a “both sides” argument, which discourages people from engaging with politics. Admittedly, it’s less egregious in Australia given that we have preferential voting, but it’s still an annoying Americanism.