For me it's not so much the form but a question of the organisational structure underpinning the form. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet I guess.
Great article. I welcomed Labor's housing reforms in the recent budget. However, I was dismayed when Albanese publicly stated that they were, in part, a response to temper the rise of One Nation. Why not actually pursue reform because of Labor's supposed ideological principles, including making social and economic conditions fairer for working people, rather than because of electoral calculations? How cynical is that?
Great question! They just seem to have lost faith in that sort of politics. Plus I think it is driven a bit AA's personal demons of having spent so much time in Opposition. Which I get, but it does become very transactional rather than reforming.
That our politicians double down on self interest, while capitalism and the world order implodes tells us all we need to know. The conclusion is deflating given our options at the next election will not advance our capacity to adapt. The majors will continue to become irrelevant but where are the progressive alternatives?
I think they are fighting a system that makes it hard for them to emerge, though you'd have to say there are some green shoots forcing through around the world. But just look at the pushback progressive Dems get, not just from MAGA types, but from within their own party! We have the same thing.
Yes it will take time and agree the shoots are there. Keep voting them out I guess but something more radical might be needed globally given time is running out on climate. Thanks for your great contribution Tim.
Great article Tim and encouraging work in London. That this is still a political football is diabolical, but when it comes to Trump, add it to the list of destruction.
The challenge for me is that you've diagnosed a problem of power, then prescribed participation. The community-building stuff is attractive, but I struggle with how it gets us from one to the other. Participation only becomes genuinely political when people can organise sufficiently to impose costs, shift resources or force decisions that actually CHANGE things.
That presumably requires some combination of unions, political parties, community organisations and whatever else we can invent. The problem is that I have bugger-all confidence about how we do that in a society that has spent fifty years becoming atomised, individualised and, frankly, pretty fucking narcissistic.
I’m not immune to this. I believe in solidarity while enjoying being left alone and avoiding meetings full of annoying people with bad opinions. Work's also taught me the annoying counterpoint: collective institutions are slow, procedural and frequently irritating because collective decision-making is slow, procedural and irritating.
In darker moments I suspect it will take a significant material crisis to make collective solutions unavoidable. But crisis doesn’t always break left, especially when the people with the money, access and institutional power are already much better positioned than the rest of us. It can produce solidarity, or fascism, scapegoating and hoarding. COVID was hardly encouraging, and climate change hasn’t done the trick yet.
Which brings me back, reluctantly, to your community stuff. Maybe that’s the necessary groundwork: building some capacity for collective life before things get properly ugly. Because waiting for the apocalypse and hoping everyone suddenly becomes a socialist seems a fairly shit organising strategy.
Don't disagree with any of this and struggle with the same issues. And arrive back at the same reluctant point: you just have to meet people where they live and build on that. Again, I don't think the processes are linear; it has to be everything, everywhere at once, with the occasional convergence. This is where I think there is a place for leadership, though I try to avoid that sort of individualist sort of analysis. But it is another necessary element and it (leadership) has to emerge from the very processes we are talking about: not be imposed.
Tim, I’m too tired today to solve leadership! 😫 I do wonder whether we’ve professionalised politics to the point where anyone with an actual burr in their personality gets filtered out.
The Garland/ Cleary types matter for that reason. Not because they’ve cracked the organisational problem, but because they’re recognisably people before they’re brands. They can carry anger, eccentricity and actual conviction without immediately turning it into grievance theatre or a focus-grouped slogan.
Maybe that’s some of the missing connective tissue. Enough difficult, embedded, recognisable humans in enough places, and then see whether they can find each other before a consultant arrives with a five-point plan (see: Teals).
And absolutely think professionalisation of politics is a huge problem: another aspect of the same problems we've been talking about. Which is another reason I'm in favour of sortition as way of putting people in positions of governance, or at least, providing input into same.
We also need to recognise the distinction between professionalism and expertise. And thus between means and ends. As I've written, "Having command of the means – the expertise – doesn’t give you a right to determine ends. In other words, while it is important to get the technicalities of implementation right and to recognise that experts have a role to play, it is ordinary people who should have the final say about what the goal is."
The current state of our governance system is the inevitable result of 100+ years of competitive electoral oligarchy. This system totally relies on the benevolence of the "representatives" who are elected, because there is only one day of restricted "democracy" every 3 or 4 years.
If we had democracy, the governors would resemble the governed. Over the last 100+ years, the body of governors has crept slowly in this direction - we now have more or less correct proportions of women and men! We don't seen to have many other demographics represented accurately, which leads me to think that perhaps this system favours those people who have the necessary conditions to spend their lives raising money and campaigning. 🤔
Edit (addition): I neglected to mention that of Australian's full Federal Parliament of 226 MPs and Senators,about 5% of them have declared no property ownership at all. It's interesting that these are the people that we have uniwttingly charged with creating policy and legislation regarding housing and property ownership.
Indeed. Some in the community independents movement are too strongly wedded to the 'independent' part, as some kind of virtue in its own right. Power will require coalition, at least, and probably something stronger. And that will require compromise. Deals will have to be struck. But these should involve the engagement and consent of the community.
Yes, it is important not to undermine the bottom-up aspect of the original Voices Of concept that saw so many "independents" emerge and be elected (and re-elected).
Bravo TD, bravo. Superbly crafted essay. 'Keep writing, whatever you do just keep writing' (adapted from Yul Brynner's message from beyond his grave)
Great article. I think there needs to be some sort of structure for popular participation still and mass parties achieved this at their best.
They did, but I wonder if the form hasn't reached its use-by date? Not sure what effectively replaces it though....?
For me it's not so much the form but a question of the organisational structure underpinning the form. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet I guess.
Great article. I welcomed Labor's housing reforms in the recent budget. However, I was dismayed when Albanese publicly stated that they were, in part, a response to temper the rise of One Nation. Why not actually pursue reform because of Labor's supposed ideological principles, including making social and economic conditions fairer for working people, rather than because of electoral calculations? How cynical is that?
Great question! They just seem to have lost faith in that sort of politics. Plus I think it is driven a bit AA's personal demons of having spent so much time in Opposition. Which I get, but it does become very transactional rather than reforming.
That our politicians double down on self interest, while capitalism and the world order implodes tells us all we need to know. The conclusion is deflating given our options at the next election will not advance our capacity to adapt. The majors will continue to become irrelevant but where are the progressive alternatives?
I think they are fighting a system that makes it hard for them to emerge, though you'd have to say there are some green shoots forcing through around the world. But just look at the pushback progressive Dems get, not just from MAGA types, but from within their own party! We have the same thing.
Yes it will take time and agree the shoots are there. Keep voting them out I guess but something more radical might be needed globally given time is running out on climate. Thanks for your great contribution Tim.
The climate thing is particularly scary in that it has been framed as some sort of indulgence. I thought this by the mayor of London was interesting, given recent weather events in Britain and Europe: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/aug/08/burning-summer-climate-denial-green-policies-sadiq-khan
Great article Tim and encouraging work in London. That this is still a political football is diabolical, but when it comes to Trump, add it to the list of destruction.
The challenge for me is that you've diagnosed a problem of power, then prescribed participation. The community-building stuff is attractive, but I struggle with how it gets us from one to the other. Participation only becomes genuinely political when people can organise sufficiently to impose costs, shift resources or force decisions that actually CHANGE things.
That presumably requires some combination of unions, political parties, community organisations and whatever else we can invent. The problem is that I have bugger-all confidence about how we do that in a society that has spent fifty years becoming atomised, individualised and, frankly, pretty fucking narcissistic.
I’m not immune to this. I believe in solidarity while enjoying being left alone and avoiding meetings full of annoying people with bad opinions. Work's also taught me the annoying counterpoint: collective institutions are slow, procedural and frequently irritating because collective decision-making is slow, procedural and irritating.
In darker moments I suspect it will take a significant material crisis to make collective solutions unavoidable. But crisis doesn’t always break left, especially when the people with the money, access and institutional power are already much better positioned than the rest of us. It can produce solidarity, or fascism, scapegoating and hoarding. COVID was hardly encouraging, and climate change hasn’t done the trick yet.
Which brings me back, reluctantly, to your community stuff. Maybe that’s the necessary groundwork: building some capacity for collective life before things get properly ugly. Because waiting for the apocalypse and hoping everyone suddenly becomes a socialist seems a fairly shit organising strategy.
Don't disagree with any of this and struggle with the same issues. And arrive back at the same reluctant point: you just have to meet people where they live and build on that. Again, I don't think the processes are linear; it has to be everything, everywhere at once, with the occasional convergence. This is where I think there is a place for leadership, though I try to avoid that sort of individualist sort of analysis. But it is another necessary element and it (leadership) has to emerge from the very processes we are talking about: not be imposed.
No wonder people give up!
Tim, I’m too tired today to solve leadership! 😫 I do wonder whether we’ve professionalised politics to the point where anyone with an actual burr in their personality gets filtered out.
The Garland/ Cleary types matter for that reason. Not because they’ve cracked the organisational problem, but because they’re recognisably people before they’re brands. They can carry anger, eccentricity and actual conviction without immediately turning it into grievance theatre or a focus-grouped slogan.
Maybe that’s some of the missing connective tissue. Enough difficult, embedded, recognisable humans in enough places, and then see whether they can find each other before a consultant arrives with a five-point plan (see: Teals).
Indeed.
And absolutely think professionalisation of politics is a huge problem: another aspect of the same problems we've been talking about. Which is another reason I'm in favour of sortition as way of putting people in positions of governance, or at least, providing input into same.
We also need to recognise the distinction between professionalism and expertise. And thus between means and ends. As I've written, "Having command of the means – the expertise – doesn’t give you a right to determine ends. In other words, while it is important to get the technicalities of implementation right and to recognise that experts have a role to play, it is ordinary people who should have the final say about what the goal is."
The current state of our governance system is the inevitable result of 100+ years of competitive electoral oligarchy. This system totally relies on the benevolence of the "representatives" who are elected, because there is only one day of restricted "democracy" every 3 or 4 years.
If we had democracy, the governors would resemble the governed. Over the last 100+ years, the body of governors has crept slowly in this direction - we now have more or less correct proportions of women and men! We don't seen to have many other demographics represented accurately, which leads me to think that perhaps this system favours those people who have the necessary conditions to spend their lives raising money and campaigning. 🤔
Edit (addition): I neglected to mention that of Australian's full Federal Parliament of 226 MPs and Senators,about 5% of them have declared no property ownership at all. It's interesting that these are the people that we have uniwttingly charged with creating policy and legislation regarding housing and property ownership.
Another argument in favour of sortition, I would suggest.
Indeed. Some in the community independents movement are too strongly wedded to the 'independent' part, as some kind of virtue in its own right. Power will require coalition, at least, and probably something stronger. And that will require compromise. Deals will have to be struck. But these should involve the engagement and consent of the community.
Yes, it is important not to undermine the bottom-up aspect of the original Voices Of concept that saw so many "independents" emerge and be elected (and re-elected).