Good article, Tim. You’re absolutely correct that Labor needs to stop fretting over what the Murdoch/Costello/Stokes-Rinehart corporate media think. We all know they are simply pursuing their own self-interest, ideological agendas while rage-farming all the shit Dutton and Co. collaborate with them to produce.
As you correctly point out, the best defense for the ALP is offense, meaning it should continue with progressive reforms that benefit working class and middle income citizens. Anything else just lets the LNP and corporate media run an agenda made up solely of misinformation, gotchas, culture war tropes, negativity and outright lies.
People aren’t as stupid as the political class seem to think. Look after them, treat them with respect, protect their interests over those of an increasingly super-wealthy ruling class and eschew the tatty performative politics of outrage that is simply a disguise for the nasty politics of neoliberal greed and grift.
As I commented elsewhere, why did the media keep asking if Labor were going ahead with the Stage 3 cuts, apart from the obvious reason that they were something that definitely had to be changed !
This change marks (what should be the final) failure of Albanese's theory of "good government", put forward by advocates like Katharine Murphy, Bernard Keane and Paul Bongiorno. The government knew from the start that the Stage 3 cuts were bad policy and doubtful politics. Chalmers' reopening of the issue followed the "good government" script: examine the facts, and build a consensus for change.
But Albo squelched that, doubled down on his personal commitment, and advanced some half-baked defences of the merits of the cuts. Then, when the political going got tough, we got a radical change, determined in a matter of a couple of days, and with barely a pretence of going through Cabinet
The fact that it appears to have worked politically further undermines the Albanese theory. This doesn't mean Labor will shift sharply to the left, but I think they will be more willing to make substantial changes without endless consultation and appeasement of interest groups that will always be hostile anyway.
I expected the announcement closer to the next election but a by-election is a good litmus test. Especiallly when the majority of Dunkley voters will be impacted positively.
“dead, buried, cremated” were, the words Tony Abbott used to describe the coalition's stance on resurrecting Work Choices, the end Howard-era assault on workers' pay packets, when he was opposition leader in the late 00s. So Dutts's line is not even original.
I agree with everything you say here Tim. Except for the bit about politicians taking us into their confidence when making policy decisions. I can't think of an example where they have ever done that with a successful outcome. It's more than a left-right/Murdoch-ABC thing; politicians crave the appearance of being all-knowing, having all the answers and, perhaps most importantly, having a simple solution to every problem. To take us into their confidence, which intelligent people like your readership would see as honest, might appear as indecisive to others (I'll wager it's something the teals will NEVER do with respect to their negotiations around minority government, the accusations of 'but you said' are just too damaging). You've spoken in the past about engaging with the nutters on the right on their terms; would such a process of policy development not open the door to even more scaremongering? But I take your point in its broad sense; this IS the wall we need to try and break down. Even stating the goal at the outset ('we want a more progressive tax system') opens the gate to accusations of 'socialism' - we need to 'undemonise' words like this, so that the powerful forces on the right don't set pearl-clutching fires every time they are uttered. I think it's too late for Albanese to adopt this strategy; he should have campaigned in 2022 on the platform of rescinding Stage 3. He would probaby still have won.
Then it would have been a much simpler task. But the memories of what Morrison did to Shorten in 2019 - at the time itself said to be a repeat of Hewson losing the unlosable election in 1993 over his taking the electorate into his confdence over the GST - might just be too raw, too immediate. An open, honest polity would be great, but how the fuck are we going to bring it about?
This morning Katy Gallagher was on ABC News Breakfast saying how unfortunate it would be if Labor had to reach agreement with the Greens, Pocock, etc, on the tax cuts legislation rather than the Coalition ensuring that "the Parliament could be as one" (or words like that) on the legislation. This is not a hopeful sign.
Tremendously positive, uplifting article TD. Rounds off a day that has me now feeling quite buoyant. It started with a blisteringly honest sensible talk by Richard Denniss & Allegra Spender at the Nat Press Club, followed by reading Sean Kelly's piece in Mother Jones 'Australia vs Rupert Murodch' and now yours. Maybe just maybe this is the start of the neutering of Murdoch Media influence/dominance of politics & egregious subversion of democracy. But god how much more is there yet to do? That's something I won't write about this late at night or it'll give me nightmares. Keep your thoughts coming & we'll do our best to get your ideas out. Cheers
I would like to point out that not all the independants were running the same lines on this issue. Kate Chaney (who has been a fantastic contributor to this parliament) was strongly supportive and succinct with her reasoning behind it. Monique Ryan as well I believe.
Thanks Tim. One issue that has generated thousands of words from the "Potemkin villagers" is "bracket creep", and how the "solution" to it is to index the income tax rates by the rate of increase in prices. Talk about confusing apples and oranges! Surely if you want to index income tax rates you do it by a measure of change in incomes? Might be a bit of a problem in finding a good measure - anyone for "changes in the minimum wage"?
And how does it make sense to use the same percentage change across all brackets?
But this debate avoids the real issue. We all hope and expect that our standard of living will increase over the years, and we all realise that that will mean more government services. Bracket creep is the easiest way to pay for these services.
Good article, Tim. You’re absolutely correct that Labor needs to stop fretting over what the Murdoch/Costello/Stokes-Rinehart corporate media think. We all know they are simply pursuing their own self-interest, ideological agendas while rage-farming all the shit Dutton and Co. collaborate with them to produce.
As you correctly point out, the best defense for the ALP is offense, meaning it should continue with progressive reforms that benefit working class and middle income citizens. Anything else just lets the LNP and corporate media run an agenda made up solely of misinformation, gotchas, culture war tropes, negativity and outright lies.
People aren’t as stupid as the political class seem to think. Look after them, treat them with respect, protect their interests over those of an increasingly super-wealthy ruling class and eschew the tatty performative politics of outrage that is simply a disguise for the nasty politics of neoliberal greed and grift.
As I commented elsewhere, why did the media keep asking if Labor were going ahead with the Stage 3 cuts, apart from the obvious reason that they were something that definitely had to be changed !
This change marks (what should be the final) failure of Albanese's theory of "good government", put forward by advocates like Katharine Murphy, Bernard Keane and Paul Bongiorno. The government knew from the start that the Stage 3 cuts were bad policy and doubtful politics. Chalmers' reopening of the issue followed the "good government" script: examine the facts, and build a consensus for change.
But Albo squelched that, doubled down on his personal commitment, and advanced some half-baked defences of the merits of the cuts. Then, when the political going got tough, we got a radical change, determined in a matter of a couple of days, and with barely a pretence of going through Cabinet
The fact that it appears to have worked politically further undermines the Albanese theory. This doesn't mean Labor will shift sharply to the left, but I think they will be more willing to make substantial changes without endless consultation and appeasement of interest groups that will always be hostile anyway.
I expected the announcement closer to the next election but a by-election is a good litmus test. Especiallly when the majority of Dunkley voters will be impacted positively.
“dead, buried, cremated” were, the words Tony Abbott used to describe the coalition's stance on resurrecting Work Choices, the end Howard-era assault on workers' pay packets, when he was opposition leader in the late 00s. So Dutts's line is not even original.
I agree with everything you say here Tim. Except for the bit about politicians taking us into their confidence when making policy decisions. I can't think of an example where they have ever done that with a successful outcome. It's more than a left-right/Murdoch-ABC thing; politicians crave the appearance of being all-knowing, having all the answers and, perhaps most importantly, having a simple solution to every problem. To take us into their confidence, which intelligent people like your readership would see as honest, might appear as indecisive to others (I'll wager it's something the teals will NEVER do with respect to their negotiations around minority government, the accusations of 'but you said' are just too damaging). You've spoken in the past about engaging with the nutters on the right on their terms; would such a process of policy development not open the door to even more scaremongering? But I take your point in its broad sense; this IS the wall we need to try and break down. Even stating the goal at the outset ('we want a more progressive tax system') opens the gate to accusations of 'socialism' - we need to 'undemonise' words like this, so that the powerful forces on the right don't set pearl-clutching fires every time they are uttered. I think it's too late for Albanese to adopt this strategy; he should have campaigned in 2022 on the platform of rescinding Stage 3. He would probaby still have won.
Then it would have been a much simpler task. But the memories of what Morrison did to Shorten in 2019 - at the time itself said to be a repeat of Hewson losing the unlosable election in 1993 over his taking the electorate into his confdence over the GST - might just be too raw, too immediate. An open, honest polity would be great, but how the fuck are we going to bring it about?
This morning Katy Gallagher was on ABC News Breakfast saying how unfortunate it would be if Labor had to reach agreement with the Greens, Pocock, etc, on the tax cuts legislation rather than the Coalition ensuring that "the Parliament could be as one" (or words like that) on the legislation. This is not a hopeful sign.
Tremendously positive, uplifting article TD. Rounds off a day that has me now feeling quite buoyant. It started with a blisteringly honest sensible talk by Richard Denniss & Allegra Spender at the Nat Press Club, followed by reading Sean Kelly's piece in Mother Jones 'Australia vs Rupert Murodch' and now yours. Maybe just maybe this is the start of the neutering of Murdoch Media influence/dominance of politics & egregious subversion of democracy. But god how much more is there yet to do? That's something I won't write about this late at night or it'll give me nightmares. Keep your thoughts coming & we'll do our best to get your ideas out. Cheers
"The Murdoch Potemkin village—erected to give the Opposition the appearance of substance"......
"Paul "Revere" Kelly".....
- I am relishing YOUR relishing all of this in fine wordsmithery!
Excellent analysis again Tim.
It speaks to why so many don't trust politicians & have stopped listening
Deeds not words show intent..
Thanks.
Albanese seems to have stopped referencing the Log Cabin creation myth thankfully.
Excellent article again Tim.
I would like to point out that not all the independants were running the same lines on this issue. Kate Chaney (who has been a fantastic contributor to this parliament) was strongly supportive and succinct with her reasoning behind it. Monique Ryan as well I believe.
Thanks Tim. One issue that has generated thousands of words from the "Potemkin villagers" is "bracket creep", and how the "solution" to it is to index the income tax rates by the rate of increase in prices. Talk about confusing apples and oranges! Surely if you want to index income tax rates you do it by a measure of change in incomes? Might be a bit of a problem in finding a good measure - anyone for "changes in the minimum wage"?
And how does it make sense to use the same percentage change across all brackets?
But this debate avoids the real issue. We all hope and expect that our standard of living will increase over the years, and we all realise that that will mean more government services. Bracket creep is the easiest way to pay for these services.