Yes, and if anything you may be understating the Liberal dilemma.
It seems to me the ground they traditionally occupied has largely been ceded to Labor in recent decades, particularly from Abbott onwards. Even if they returned to their roots they might not gain much traction, especially considering that same ground is now also hotly contested by independents.
Arguably their crossroads moment occurred under Turnbull. If he'd had the gumption to face down the Nats, including if necessary ending the formal coalition, the Liberals might have been re-energised, almost reborn. Far too late now . . .
Fair points. The Libs have basically outlived their usefulness, though various elites still require them as vehicle, one way or another. To which end, I think @amyremeikis asks a key question in her latest piece: https://amyremeikis.substack.com/p/will-labor-end-up-rehabilitating
I think the short answer to Amy's question is yes. Because neither of the major parties have the organisational imagination to deal with the shifting political landscape. They'll do everything in their power to maintain the status quo since it's all they know and they can't adapt to a changing environment, so that would include ensuring the Liberal party continues to stagger along, zombified, to maintain the illusion that the duopoly lives on.
But honestly we shouldn't wring our hands over this too much; Labor investing its energies in keeping the Libs on life support only means that minor parties and independents will continue to dig beneath the supposedly rock solid foundations of the two party system and come up through the flooring when the whole thing collapses 🤷♀️
"They lost millennials and gained Gen X: more prosaically, they lost voters in their late thirties/early forties and gained those in their twenties. That's not a formula for growth"
Typo I think? Do you mean gained gen Z? Or, lost millenials and gained older gen X voters in their fifties?
TD: your posts always are a PMU -'pick-me-up' (Remembering the canned soup brand of the '70s).
Hell yeah: 'Just adding: Wouldn’t it be nice if our new political landscape included more opportunities for ordinary to voters to, not just speak, but to be heard?'
May I add to the Citizen's Assemblies discussion:
This was a (brilliant) discussion on ABC/Nick Bryant's Sat. Extra on the day of the election. The state of democracy in Australia was covered and based on this I followed up and found out about the newDemocracy organisation.
I'm over the wall-to-wall news coverage of the Lib/NP split & their pathetic quest to reamin relevant. As you write:
'It matters because so much of our discourse—not to mention our institutions—are organised around the presence of this coalition. Its absence will have to be dealt with'.
Absolutely, but in the interests of community sanity I hope it's dealt with ****ing quickly! Cheers
I'd actually argue we are past the experiment stage and just need to instigate them. There is ample international evidence and a minority government may have been open to doing something. I doubt landslide-Labor will. The real blocking point for me is the junction between the process and outcomes being implemented. Like a lot of things: we probably have to stop waiting for parliaments and just do them at a community level.
I see trialling a citizen's assembly at federal level as a politically optimal way to implement it.
Even for a PM who might be thinking of implementing an assembly (I'm talking generally, not referring specifically to the current PM), they have to sell this idea to the 99% of Australians who don't know what it is, why it's necessary, and it's worthwhile.
The point is that human laypeople aren't actually very good at imagining how much better things could be. So framing an assembly as a trial enables Australians to see and / or experience what this idea is all about before anyone needs make their minds up about whether they think it's a good idea or not.
A trial can also inform the size and shape of an assembly in a more permanent form, so it could actually improve it in implementation.
That all said, I agree with you that a Labor Party that considers themselves to be the rightful governing party isn't at all likely to be interested in a reform that sits outside partisan politics, so we have to figure out a way to do it without them.
In fairness, the Coalition breaking--and hilariously, getting back together--or whatever it is that they're doing, is a big story. And important. But I take your bigger point. I just wish there was more discussion of the what the split really indicates: the complete collapse of that side of politics as a parliamentary force; that capital and the right more generally will need a new--or reformed--vehicle for electoral success. That this is unlikely to happen in the short term. That this means the whole nature of our politics has changed and its new shape is not yet apparent. Etc Etc
The word that was missing the dot on the 'i' was incompetence.
This is the campaign where the Liberal Party aimed for the suburbs with flawed policies while seeking to regain the cities on entitlement - and lost both. The split in the Coalition makes sense now in that the National Party has a base (but represent them poorly) but the Liberals don't.
The Liberals will obviously try to recover, but commentators need to set some objective criteria about what their rejuvenation might look like if it were to be successful. Will they acknowledge and show contrition for their failings? Will they reform their party processes and funding to demonstrate integrity and transparency? Will they develop comprehensive, evidence-based policies? Will they actually seek to represent people, or just Gina?... Or will they just show every pretense that they've reformed, but none of the substance?
What matters most at this point is how the next parliament might operate given that the nominal opposition is so lost and so incapable of being a genuine alternative government. Amy Remeikis made a comment on a podcast recently (at least a week ago, before the split) that the concept of the opposition needs a rethink in light of the political shifts that have occurred. It makes me wonder if and how the various crossbenchers should be stepping up in any kinds of informal ways to fill the void of the Coalition collapse?
As for the rest of the political realignments, Alex Fein commented on the recent Shot podcast that the Labor swing had a large soft component, so it'll be interesting to see how satisfied that cohort of voters might be over the next term.
The Greens have appealing policies but a brand that has been disfigured by the major parties and by the media. They could potentially be the opposition to the right-sided Labor if they could find a way to break through that.
And independent campaigns also look to remain relevant and competitive, but need to find more ways to break through too.
The citizens assemblies discussion sounds really good. Pity I can't attend. I wonder if they'll stream it?
I liked Nicholas Gruen's recent statement about his support and advocacy for citizens assemblies - the one simple trick (he believes) to save democracy. And if he doesn't see much or even any change in his lifetime, it will still have been a worthwhile effort.
Little reference seems to be made in election commentary to the rank terror of a Dutton/Trump win reflected in Greens voters backing the lesser of two evils ( old story) namely ALP
Yes, this reminds of the quote I used the other day from Alex Fein: "people despised Scott Morrison and were eager to get rid of him. They were terrified of Peter Dutton." I think you're right: Labor picked up a lot of votes on the back of this concern.
That's interesting. To me it didn't feel that consequential, despite the unexpected outcome. I guess it feels like the continuation of a trend, with a particular uptick. A bit like 2022. Though, I think was right to compare it to 1993: another hold-your-nose-and-vote election. Regardless, I see what you mean.
Yes, and if anything you may be understating the Liberal dilemma.
It seems to me the ground they traditionally occupied has largely been ceded to Labor in recent decades, particularly from Abbott onwards. Even if they returned to their roots they might not gain much traction, especially considering that same ground is now also hotly contested by independents.
Arguably their crossroads moment occurred under Turnbull. If he'd had the gumption to face down the Nats, including if necessary ending the formal coalition, the Liberals might have been re-energised, almost reborn. Far too late now . . .
Fair points. The Libs have basically outlived their usefulness, though various elites still require them as vehicle, one way or another. To which end, I think @amyremeikis asks a key question in her latest piece: https://amyremeikis.substack.com/p/will-labor-end-up-rehabilitating
I think the short answer to Amy's question is yes. Because neither of the major parties have the organisational imagination to deal with the shifting political landscape. They'll do everything in their power to maintain the status quo since it's all they know and they can't adapt to a changing environment, so that would include ensuring the Liberal party continues to stagger along, zombified, to maintain the illusion that the duopoly lives on.
But honestly we shouldn't wring our hands over this too much; Labor investing its energies in keeping the Libs on life support only means that minor parties and independents will continue to dig beneath the supposedly rock solid foundations of the two party system and come up through the flooring when the whole thing collapses 🤷♀️
"They lost millennials and gained Gen X: more prosaically, they lost voters in their late thirties/early forties and gained those in their twenties. That's not a formula for growth"
Typo I think? Do you mean gained gen Z? Or, lost millenials and gained older gen X voters in their fifties?
Thanks, will fix
Also, what is the subtitle "Senator Paterson's sneer to run as an independent" all about? Is that an artifact from somewhere else?
Ha, no. Just a joke about how deep the split within the conservatives parties are.
Was about to comment on that confusing statement.
TD: your posts always are a PMU -'pick-me-up' (Remembering the canned soup brand of the '70s).
Hell yeah: 'Just adding: Wouldn’t it be nice if our new political landscape included more opportunities for ordinary to voters to, not just speak, but to be heard?'
May I add to the Citizen's Assemblies discussion:
This was a (brilliant) discussion on ABC/Nick Bryant's Sat. Extra on the day of the election. The state of democracy in Australia was covered and based on this I followed up and found out about the newDemocracy organisation.
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/saturdayextra/how-healthy-is-australia-s-democracy-/105243846
https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/
I'm over the wall-to-wall news coverage of the Lib/NP split & their pathetic quest to reamin relevant. As you write:
'It matters because so much of our discourse—not to mention our institutions—are organised around the presence of this coalition. Its absence will have to be dealt with'.
Absolutely, but in the interests of community sanity I hope it's dealt with ****ing quickly! Cheers
Gavin, that ABC radio discussion was indeed brilliant, thanks for sharing the link.
Iain Walker does an excellent job in arguing for this concept - especially as a trial, a necessary experiment.
it was indeed. I'm hoping with fingers crossed that this eventuates
I'd actually argue we are past the experiment stage and just need to instigate them. There is ample international evidence and a minority government may have been open to doing something. I doubt landslide-Labor will. The real blocking point for me is the junction between the process and outcomes being implemented. Like a lot of things: we probably have to stop waiting for parliaments and just do them at a community level.
Yep, I'm all for this - I'm committing all my energy into being proactive & implementing reforms. Lets do it. Anyone suggest groups etc to get behind?
I see trialling a citizen's assembly at federal level as a politically optimal way to implement it.
Even for a PM who might be thinking of implementing an assembly (I'm talking generally, not referring specifically to the current PM), they have to sell this idea to the 99% of Australians who don't know what it is, why it's necessary, and it's worthwhile.
The point is that human laypeople aren't actually very good at imagining how much better things could be. So framing an assembly as a trial enables Australians to see and / or experience what this idea is all about before anyone needs make their minds up about whether they think it's a good idea or not.
A trial can also inform the size and shape of an assembly in a more permanent form, so it could actually improve it in implementation.
That all said, I agree with you that a Labor Party that considers themselves to be the rightful governing party isn't at all likely to be interested in a reform that sits outside partisan politics, so we have to figure out a way to do it without them.
I will have a listen to that, thanks, Gavin. Genuinely sorry I can't attend the SA event.
I want to know how come LNP are hogging news and Labor is unheard on the ABC ?
In fairness, the Coalition breaking--and hilariously, getting back together--or whatever it is that they're doing, is a big story. And important. But I take your bigger point. I just wish there was more discussion of the what the split really indicates: the complete collapse of that side of politics as a parliamentary force; that capital and the right more generally will need a new--or reformed--vehicle for electoral success. That this is unlikely to happen in the short term. That this means the whole nature of our politics has changed and its new shape is not yet apparent. Etc Etc
The word that was missing the dot on the 'i' was incompetence.
This is the campaign where the Liberal Party aimed for the suburbs with flawed policies while seeking to regain the cities on entitlement - and lost both. The split in the Coalition makes sense now in that the National Party has a base (but represent them poorly) but the Liberals don't.
The Liberals will obviously try to recover, but commentators need to set some objective criteria about what their rejuvenation might look like if it were to be successful. Will they acknowledge and show contrition for their failings? Will they reform their party processes and funding to demonstrate integrity and transparency? Will they develop comprehensive, evidence-based policies? Will they actually seek to represent people, or just Gina?... Or will they just show every pretense that they've reformed, but none of the substance?
What matters most at this point is how the next parliament might operate given that the nominal opposition is so lost and so incapable of being a genuine alternative government. Amy Remeikis made a comment on a podcast recently (at least a week ago, before the split) that the concept of the opposition needs a rethink in light of the political shifts that have occurred. It makes me wonder if and how the various crossbenchers should be stepping up in any kinds of informal ways to fill the void of the Coalition collapse?
As for the rest of the political realignments, Alex Fein commented on the recent Shot podcast that the Labor swing had a large soft component, so it'll be interesting to see how satisfied that cohort of voters might be over the next term.
The Greens have appealing policies but a brand that has been disfigured by the major parties and by the media. They could potentially be the opposition to the right-sided Labor if they could find a way to break through that.
And independent campaigns also look to remain relevant and competitive, but need to find more ways to break through too.
The citizens assemblies discussion sounds really good. Pity I can't attend. I wonder if they'll stream it?
I liked Nicholas Gruen's recent statement about his support and advocacy for citizens assemblies - the one simple trick (he believes) to save democracy. And if he doesn't see much or even any change in his lifetime, it will still have been a worthwhile effort.
Yep, Nicholas will be at the event and he has been a consistent advocate. We talk about it a lot and l like how he thinks about the matter.
Little reference seems to be made in election commentary to the rank terror of a Dutton/Trump win reflected in Greens voters backing the lesser of two evils ( old story) namely ALP
Yes, this reminds of the quote I used the other day from Alex Fein: "people despised Scott Morrison and were eager to get rid of him. They were terrified of Peter Dutton." I think you're right: Labor picked up a lot of votes on the back of this concern.
This election felt like the second-most consequential in my life (the most consequential being 1972). I reckon that explains the Labor landslide.
That's interesting. To me it didn't feel that consequential, despite the unexpected outcome. I guess it feels like the continuation of a trend, with a particular uptick. A bit like 2022. Though, I think was right to compare it to 1993: another hold-your-nose-and-vote election. Regardless, I see what you mean.
I feel it was so consequential because _no-one_ wanted Temu Trump, in much the same way as everyone wanted Vietnam to end in 1972.
Yep, that's true. Even I'm surprised at the level of the reaction against him.