Already our PM is arrogantly attacking the Greens and claiming that being asked questions in QT is disrespectful. Most media is attacking the Greens and wondering how the poor coalition will recover. the uniparty will ensure corruption is never held to account.
I heard Don Farrell oozing hubris on the radio this morning about the Greens, so it seems like Labor are _already_ drawing the wrong lessons from their election victory.
Agreed. looks as though it will be exactly as I feared, Labor will claim a mandate to do nothing and to continue kicking the most vulnerable of us, although the intense classless attacks on the Greens was a surprise to me. It seems Dutts is getting in on that action, showing they truly are a uniparty as far as the power to govern is concerned.
Thank you Tim for the article an analysis, particularly on the point of the primary vote.
At the end of the day, despite the overwhelming evidence that the LNP’s plan was not fit for purpose, more than 65% did not vote for the ALP. At this rate, the ALP will still receive fewer first preferences in 2025 than they did in 2007. Albanese’s statements to the Senate speak to his disdain for other parties that have achieved representation. Hubris and arrogance can easily set in at the point of greatest triumph.
It speaks to more about how more Liberals switched their votes to Labor, and far the ALP has moved to the right to occupy the space the LNP once held.
Much has been said about the virtues of Australia’s preferential voting. If you are one of the 33% that did not vote for either major party, your preferred candidate got squeezed out. The Greens especially have run in a system that the major parties created for their own benefit, and suffered what can only be described (in the lower house) as a devastating blow.
The results this election will be among the most disproportionate in history. Parties like the Greens need to bring proportional representation into the conversation. Until then their ‘target seat’ strategy will remain fraught as the major parties team up to crush them every time.
I'm one who voted other than the ALP - but my preference was always going to be for the ALP - even though I wanted the Independent to get up - but just not possible in my electorate. Which is why we have a preference system - for the party which is not the worst. I'm happy with the ALP being the victor in this election - but I am not happy with all ALP policy positions - as I was not in their last term. But it's up to me to keep sending suggestions to my local member about how he and the party might govern with greater fairness and social justice - for the people - not big business/foreign corporations (such as salmon farming in Tasmania, coal or gas extraction), but for public education and Medicare, etc.
I suspect a lot of people feel this way, Jim. I don't really have a problem, in a given election with Labor winning outright, even if it's not my preferred option. I do have a problem with a system where 35% of the vote gives you 60% of the seats (roughly). Or 12% of the vote gives you no seats. Which is not to cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome--this is how our system works--just to say we could do better.
I think you're right that this should reopen discussion of a more proportional form of representation for the lower house. I suspect it will do the opposite: obviously the government won't be interested.
Thanks Tim. I agree. The ALP is giddy with their landslide as it has exceeded even their greatest expectations. Now anyone else who won a seat must ‘get out of the way’ because the party which received less than 35% of the vote says so.
No party will dismantle the system it co designed with the other major party to benefit itself. With their collusion on the electoral bill it will be even harder to mount a challenge in single member electorates.
I think we have also seen the limitations not only for the Greens but the community independents too. Despite an increase in the Independent vote nationwide, the gains were muted by a consolidation of the major parties preferencing each other.
My argument is that such a landslide should never be allowed to happen again. The parliament’s lower house is not reflective of the diversity of opinion across Australia.
No, they won't be interested. The question for us is, how can we make our system more representative without needing the permission of the political class? I think the community independents have given us a good part of the answer, even if Labor are rampant at the moment.
Agree very much John, but I can't see the LNP and Labor ever agreeing to proportional representation. It would rob them of the chance of ever forming majority government. I think a more grass-roots solution is needed, one the people can build without needing the permission of the political class.
Hi Brendan I agree with you. Electoralism can only get us so far. I think grassroots is important and it should exist alongside a vigorous campaign.
But what needs to change is the rhetoric about ‘you can’t waste your vote’. This plays right into the major parties propaganda about the system they designed. You can participate in the system but also critique it.
If 12% of the population voted Greens and got (Ryan pending) almost zero representatives then they may as well not have voted. It all went back to the major parties. If the Greens at this stage serve to just give preferences back to the ALP in the lower house, the ALP is laughing to the bank and they won’t ever listen to the concerns of Greens voters in their seats.
Rather than a triumph for the ALP, it's more a triumph for the 2-party system in the Reps. No doubt the Libs will be expecting it'll be their turn next (even if a few years off now), since it's 'their right' to be the alternative government. Right? But imagine, for a fleeting moment, if lots more public policy was created by citizen assemblies.... Aukus and nuclear energy would probably fall off the agenda. Something different and long term might actually be done about the govt-generated housing debacle. Perhaps, just perhaps, the idea that we must grow our economy and our population for ever might finally get questioned. Crazy talk from lefty loonies? At the very least, we could back the idea of formally embedding citizen assemblies and other forms of deliberative democracy in public policy making. See https://cafsa.org.au/conf for a great conference on this coming up on June 14 in Adelaide.
I so agree with this. The opportunity cost of this sort of result will be felt deep in our democratic bones as--as you say--the distortions and habits of the two-party system are enforced at the cost of th sort of improvements you mention.
I agree totally Peter. We can create some sort of local citizen assembly in every community if we want to. We don't need anyone's permission - just the involvement of our neighbours. Look at the pressure some Republicans in Congress are receiving at their "local town hall" meetings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lXWNWzmtc
We could elect a "town hall" - or multiple "town halls" - in every electorate and hold our MPs to account.
Thanks Tim. 35% definitely isn't a mandate to do anything. As for the private sector being the ones to provide good quality, energy efficient housing for everyone - rubbish. As a government you could set and stipulate standards, including designs, materials, contributions of developers to infrastructure such as public transport and investigate the financial status of a company before they are granted anything plus expect construction to be complete within a particular timeframe...
But why can't a government build public housing. What is 'afffordable' or 'social' housing? Absolutely nothing is expected of the private sector.
I thank the Greens for putting pressure on the government to do more about housing. The ALP's housing futures fund was insulting - how much longer can homeless and housing stressed people wait for something to happen? And never trust a government to invest in stock markets; it's gambling with public money for uncertain returns.
I'm sorry that the ALP won so overwhelmingly.The last government needed the pressure applied by the Greens and Independents to get something done (and that includes the reduction in HECS debt). Hopefully all those who helped campaign for the minor representatives will keep a bit of pressure on the new government if it begins to smell.
I guess this result means we get to see Labor's true colours. As I said in the piece, I hope I'm wrong in my suspicion that they won't deal with these issues.
Well said Peta. I love how our PM who (this is a little-known fact) grew up in a housing commission home, won't touch public housing with a barge pole now. It's all about letting private developers make more money. In the 50s and 60s governments of all stripes built affordable housing, not as a last resort, but as housing for anyone who couldn't yet buy their own home. This was just what governments did then. Along came the neo-libs and now public housing is never heard about. Even Albo has gone quiet on his origin story now since he bought his beach house...
Relieved to see the end of Dutton but bitterly disappointed that this government has a majority, a hung parliament would have forced Labors hand on the environment, climate change and housing.
I'd agree with Emergent City ‘it’s time for a massive, sustained investment in public housing’ (and various thoughtful housing models including intergenerational housing as discussed by Savannah Fishel today on ABC RN). We also need a cultural to shift to make greater housing density acceptable over the entitlement to space, and the concomitant demand for unsustainable infrastructure amongst sprawling suburbs. The Guardian reports that on average 'Australians now build and live in the biggest homes in the world’.
But as you say Tim, vested interests are unlikely to tolerate any real progressivism. And as Branko Milanovic argues we, in most Western countries, live in an economic system of Shareholder Capitalism which whilst it has ‘led to tremendous economic progress over the past decades’, it has ‘equally brought about major social, economic, and environmental downsides. ….. rising inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity; increased tensions between the haves and the have-nots; and above all, a mass degradation of the environment.’ This is the same argument, more or less, put by Chris Hedges about the Trump ascendancy: the progressives (liberals) have failed in the US due to their support/maintenance of Shareholder Capitalism, resulting in the current Trump chaos.
I don’t see any successful movement towards Milanovic’s preferred system of Stakeholder Capitalism too soon. I don’t see Hedges call for an uprising in the US gaining momentum. But I do like Peter Martin’s reply about raising ‘citizen assemblies’ and deliberative democracy. I guess that is a form of Stakeholder Capitalism. Perhaps from the rubble of Trump we’ll be able to claw back a little more for the rest of us, down the track.
God I hope Labor dont get too cocky. Surely there are talented advisors and old heads who still have some say in the party to cool the heels of the incoming ministry. 3 years is a very short time(unfortunately) to point our nation in the right direction, especially with regard to public housing supply when all States have let the stocks deplete and wait lists blow out of control.
'Twas interesting to hear earlier today a news report (ABC radio) describing winner/losers in the Labor faction carve up. Dreyfus & Husic were likely to go from cabinet. Wow I thought, what a way to run a country, nothing about wanting to do what's best for a nation. Just what's best for the egos of factional warlords and settling debts.
Aye to your closing paragraph:
'To put it in my own terms, progressivism in these circumstances will rarely be about prioritising the needs of community over those of business—of being the sort of government that would, for example, build public housing sans the private sector. The progressivism we have on offer is likely to only ever be about managing the demands of vested interests, eking back incremental gains for the rest of us, within a framework the vested interests are willing to tolerate.'
My attempt at a pithy, witty phrase to encapsulate my thoughts to what was needed at the 2025 election 'Dump the duopoly' was according to my wife and family in their least critical description, confusing.
Post election dissection now with Labor back in charge, I thought this was apposite:
'Australia: still a duopoly until there's minority'.
I can't believe the unbridled glee displayed by so many Labor supporters over the losses of the Greens. People I thought were caring left wingers are making statements about the Greens that sound just as nasty as the smears the Liberals directed at Labor.
When I point out how much of Labor policy is right wing neoliberalism they keep telling me I'm wrong then repeat neoliberal talking points back at me about market investments. 'Left wingers' who jump on me when I suggest that gambling on the stock exchange is not a suitable way for a government to 'make money' they declare it is not gambling and insist it is sensible 'investment'. Funny how people panic about their superannuation every time the market hiccoughs. All those superannuation and government funds chasing stocks and shares are artificially inflating stock prices and don't the corporate executives love their large bonuses based on rising stock prices.
I unfortunately have a long memory (short term sometimes dodgy) and still remember wondering why on earth Paul Keating wanted us to gamble our pension money on the stock exchange and now I suppose I understand why. He had no interest in left wingers like myself.
I am glad we don't have another disgusting Coalition government but going from constantly outraged under the Coalition to sullenly disappointed under Labor is not enough of an improvement.
The hatred of Greens is really something, isn't it? I've had similar experiences. I mean, I think the Greens need to do some self-examination and rethinking--particularly outside the cities--but what party isn't this true of? Anyway, the hatred is baked in and so is the hubris apparently.
The hatred of the Greens is horrifying. Chandler-Mather contrasted Albo's comments toward him with Albo's gracious words about Dutton. Said it all, really, about who Albo's real enemy is. And what had Chandler-Mather actually said to Albo that was so "offensive"? Asked him how many homes he's negatively geared or something? Poor Albo.
Thanks Tim. I agree entirely that more progressive government from Labor is unlikely.
This week I asked a former (state) Labor MP If he thought there was any chance a reinvigorated Federal Labor government would make and execute policy realistically addressing the immense dangers and complexities of climate change and environmental collapse. I also asked if the seriousness of these issues was understood by Labor. He replied that they are understood by those that matter, but they will not be properly addressed because it’s just too hard to beat the vested interests. It’s better to stay in power doing what little you can than to really fight for the national interest. The problem is, this is not a pro-democratic sentiment. How will our democracy fair under the enormous stresses of ecological collapse? It’s not a question our politics is interested in considering. Albanese’s triumphalism over the Greens failures is, in large part, relief at not having to be constantly reminded of this.
If they are not willing to take on the vested interests after a win like this--including the collapse of the Libs and the demonstrated pwerlessness of the Murdoch media--then it will never happen. It's a true-colours moment, in other words.
This is sharp and necessary. Labor’s win isn’t a bold new dawn. It is the long tail of Keating’s vision finally whipping around to crown itself. A triumph not of progressive politics, but of middle-class asset worship. Superannuation, housing as wealth, a neutered Fair Work system and the quiet burial of any notion that the state exists to serve the public. The revolution already happened. What we’re living through is the afterparty, and the bouncers are only letting in landlords.
Albanese telling the Senate to "get out of the way" while pledging to let the private sector fix housing is just the latest in a long line of managerial declarations dressed up as vision. Thirty-five per cent of the country voted for him. That is not a mandate. It is a fragile plurality held together by preference flows and an electorate that mostly wanted to punish the alternative. The only thing flimsier than Labor’s primary vote is the fantasy that private developers will ever solve a crisis that directly benefits their bottom line.
We know the solution. We have known it for decades. A parallel public housing system, built at scale, designed to meet need, not generate profit. Still, none of that will work unless we confront the rotting core of the problem: the tax system. As long as negative gearing and capital gains concessions continue to reward housing as a speculative investment, there is no pathway out. Any serious reform must start with dismantling the policy settings that have turned housing into Australia’s most dependable wealth extraction scheme. Under the current system, only the ideologically rigid or financially naive opt out of the housing market. Everyone else is playing the game because the rules make them fools not to. That is not a glitch. It is the point.
As one of the fools choose to not exploit the game, I'm equal parts frustrated and angry.
Public housing is now seen as fantasy. Investor welfare is treated as economic common sense. What passes for housing policy is little more than a loop of meaningless slogans about supply, innovation and partnerships. This is not reform. It is real estate astrology, repeated until nobody remembers there was ever an alternative.
Yes, it is satisfying to watch the Liberal Party unravel. Their collapse has been a long time coming. Still, this is not victory. It is simply a handover. Labor has inherited the controls of a system that protects capital and punishes need, and they have shown no real interest in changing course. The rest of us remain locked out, watching through the glass, while they toast one another with our rent.
Albanese needs to stop gloating. he didn't win, the electorate recoiled from Dutton. Not a mandate at all.
Yes. Obviously not being Dutton is an even bigger vote-winner than not being Morrison.
I fear Labor will draw the wrong lessons from this, though.
Already our PM is arrogantly attacking the Greens and claiming that being asked questions in QT is disrespectful. Most media is attacking the Greens and wondering how the poor coalition will recover. the uniparty will ensure corruption is never held to account.
I heard Don Farrell oozing hubris on the radio this morning about the Greens, so it seems like Labor are _already_ drawing the wrong lessons from their election victory.
Agreed. looks as though it will be exactly as I feared, Labor will claim a mandate to do nothing and to continue kicking the most vulnerable of us, although the intense classless attacks on the Greens was a surprise to me. It seems Dutts is getting in on that action, showing they truly are a uniparty as far as the power to govern is concerned.
Thank you Tim for the article an analysis, particularly on the point of the primary vote.
At the end of the day, despite the overwhelming evidence that the LNP’s plan was not fit for purpose, more than 65% did not vote for the ALP. At this rate, the ALP will still receive fewer first preferences in 2025 than they did in 2007. Albanese’s statements to the Senate speak to his disdain for other parties that have achieved representation. Hubris and arrogance can easily set in at the point of greatest triumph.
It speaks to more about how more Liberals switched their votes to Labor, and far the ALP has moved to the right to occupy the space the LNP once held.
Much has been said about the virtues of Australia’s preferential voting. If you are one of the 33% that did not vote for either major party, your preferred candidate got squeezed out. The Greens especially have run in a system that the major parties created for their own benefit, and suffered what can only be described (in the lower house) as a devastating blow.
The results this election will be among the most disproportionate in history. Parties like the Greens need to bring proportional representation into the conversation. Until then their ‘target seat’ strategy will remain fraught as the major parties team up to crush them every time.
I'm one who voted other than the ALP - but my preference was always going to be for the ALP - even though I wanted the Independent to get up - but just not possible in my electorate. Which is why we have a preference system - for the party which is not the worst. I'm happy with the ALP being the victor in this election - but I am not happy with all ALP policy positions - as I was not in their last term. But it's up to me to keep sending suggestions to my local member about how he and the party might govern with greater fairness and social justice - for the people - not big business/foreign corporations (such as salmon farming in Tasmania, coal or gas extraction), but for public education and Medicare, etc.
I suspect a lot of people feel this way, Jim. I don't really have a problem, in a given election with Labor winning outright, even if it's not my preferred option. I do have a problem with a system where 35% of the vote gives you 60% of the seats (roughly). Or 12% of the vote gives you no seats. Which is not to cast any doubt on the legitimacy of the outcome--this is how our system works--just to say we could do better.
I think you're right that this should reopen discussion of a more proportional form of representation for the lower house. I suspect it will do the opposite: obviously the government won't be interested.
Thanks Tim. I agree. The ALP is giddy with their landslide as it has exceeded even their greatest expectations. Now anyone else who won a seat must ‘get out of the way’ because the party which received less than 35% of the vote says so.
No party will dismantle the system it co designed with the other major party to benefit itself. With their collusion on the electoral bill it will be even harder to mount a challenge in single member electorates.
I think we have also seen the limitations not only for the Greens but the community independents too. Despite an increase in the Independent vote nationwide, the gains were muted by a consolidation of the major parties preferencing each other.
My argument is that such a landslide should never be allowed to happen again. The parliament’s lower house is not reflective of the diversity of opinion across Australia.
No, they won't be interested. The question for us is, how can we make our system more representative without needing the permission of the political class? I think the community independents have given us a good part of the answer, even if Labor are rampant at the moment.
Agree very much John, but I can't see the LNP and Labor ever agreeing to proportional representation. It would rob them of the chance of ever forming majority government. I think a more grass-roots solution is needed, one the people can build without needing the permission of the political class.
Hi Brendan I agree with you. Electoralism can only get us so far. I think grassroots is important and it should exist alongside a vigorous campaign.
But what needs to change is the rhetoric about ‘you can’t waste your vote’. This plays right into the major parties propaganda about the system they designed. You can participate in the system but also critique it.
If 12% of the population voted Greens and got (Ryan pending) almost zero representatives then they may as well not have voted. It all went back to the major parties. If the Greens at this stage serve to just give preferences back to the ALP in the lower house, the ALP is laughing to the bank and they won’t ever listen to the concerns of Greens voters in their seats.
Thank you for an excellent analysis.
Informative & astute.
In total agreement also.
FYI - the Keating/O'Brien interviews are on iView (if they are the ones you are after).
Thank you. I will have a proper look there.
Rather than a triumph for the ALP, it's more a triumph for the 2-party system in the Reps. No doubt the Libs will be expecting it'll be their turn next (even if a few years off now), since it's 'their right' to be the alternative government. Right? But imagine, for a fleeting moment, if lots more public policy was created by citizen assemblies.... Aukus and nuclear energy would probably fall off the agenda. Something different and long term might actually be done about the govt-generated housing debacle. Perhaps, just perhaps, the idea that we must grow our economy and our population for ever might finally get questioned. Crazy talk from lefty loonies? At the very least, we could back the idea of formally embedding citizen assemblies and other forms of deliberative democracy in public policy making. See https://cafsa.org.au/conf for a great conference on this coming up on June 14 in Adelaide.
I so agree with this. The opportunity cost of this sort of result will be felt deep in our democratic bones as--as you say--the distortions and habits of the two-party system are enforced at the cost of th sort of improvements you mention.
well said
I agree totally Peter. We can create some sort of local citizen assembly in every community if we want to. We don't need anyone's permission - just the involvement of our neighbours. Look at the pressure some Republicans in Congress are receiving at their "local town hall" meetings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lXWNWzmtc
We could elect a "town hall" - or multiple "town halls" - in every electorate and hold our MPs to account.
Thanks Tim. 35% definitely isn't a mandate to do anything. As for the private sector being the ones to provide good quality, energy efficient housing for everyone - rubbish. As a government you could set and stipulate standards, including designs, materials, contributions of developers to infrastructure such as public transport and investigate the financial status of a company before they are granted anything plus expect construction to be complete within a particular timeframe...
But why can't a government build public housing. What is 'afffordable' or 'social' housing? Absolutely nothing is expected of the private sector.
I thank the Greens for putting pressure on the government to do more about housing. The ALP's housing futures fund was insulting - how much longer can homeless and housing stressed people wait for something to happen? And never trust a government to invest in stock markets; it's gambling with public money for uncertain returns.
I'm sorry that the ALP won so overwhelmingly.The last government needed the pressure applied by the Greens and Independents to get something done (and that includes the reduction in HECS debt). Hopefully all those who helped campaign for the minor representatives will keep a bit of pressure on the new government if it begins to smell.
I guess this result means we get to see Labor's true colours. As I said in the piece, I hope I'm wrong in my suspicion that they won't deal with these issues.
Well said Peta. I love how our PM who (this is a little-known fact) grew up in a housing commission home, won't touch public housing with a barge pole now. It's all about letting private developers make more money. In the 50s and 60s governments of all stripes built affordable housing, not as a last resort, but as housing for anyone who couldn't yet buy their own home. This was just what governments did then. Along came the neo-libs and now public housing is never heard about. Even Albo has gone quiet on his origin story now since he bought his beach house...
Relieved to see the end of Dutton but bitterly disappointed that this government has a majority, a hung parliament would have forced Labors hand on the environment, climate change and housing.
I'd agree with Emergent City ‘it’s time for a massive, sustained investment in public housing’ (and various thoughtful housing models including intergenerational housing as discussed by Savannah Fishel today on ABC RN). We also need a cultural to shift to make greater housing density acceptable over the entitlement to space, and the concomitant demand for unsustainable infrastructure amongst sprawling suburbs. The Guardian reports that on average 'Australians now build and live in the biggest homes in the world’.
But as you say Tim, vested interests are unlikely to tolerate any real progressivism. And as Branko Milanovic argues we, in most Western countries, live in an economic system of Shareholder Capitalism which whilst it has ‘led to tremendous economic progress over the past decades’, it has ‘equally brought about major social, economic, and environmental downsides. ….. rising inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity; increased tensions between the haves and the have-nots; and above all, a mass degradation of the environment.’ This is the same argument, more or less, put by Chris Hedges about the Trump ascendancy: the progressives (liberals) have failed in the US due to their support/maintenance of Shareholder Capitalism, resulting in the current Trump chaos.
I don’t see any successful movement towards Milanovic’s preferred system of Stakeholder Capitalism too soon. I don’t see Hedges call for an uprising in the US gaining momentum. But I do like Peter Martin’s reply about raising ‘citizen assemblies’ and deliberative democracy. I guess that is a form of Stakeholder Capitalism. Perhaps from the rubble of Trump we’ll be able to claw back a little more for the rest of us, down the track.
Peter is doing good work in this regard and yes, citizens' assemblies etc would be useful tools for that sort of of stakeholder democracy.
God I hope Labor dont get too cocky. Surely there are talented advisors and old heads who still have some say in the party to cool the heels of the incoming ministry. 3 years is a very short time(unfortunately) to point our nation in the right direction, especially with regard to public housing supply when all States have let the stocks deplete and wait lists blow out of control.
We'll see, I guess, but I suspect many of those old heads are part of the problem.
I am still with you and your analysis - and yes, yes, yes to public housing...
Brilliant TD.
'Twas interesting to hear earlier today a news report (ABC radio) describing winner/losers in the Labor faction carve up. Dreyfus & Husic were likely to go from cabinet. Wow I thought, what a way to run a country, nothing about wanting to do what's best for a nation. Just what's best for the egos of factional warlords and settling debts.
Aye to your closing paragraph:
'To put it in my own terms, progressivism in these circumstances will rarely be about prioritising the needs of community over those of business—of being the sort of government that would, for example, build public housing sans the private sector. The progressivism we have on offer is likely to only ever be about managing the demands of vested interests, eking back incremental gains for the rest of us, within a framework the vested interests are willing to tolerate.'
My attempt at a pithy, witty phrase to encapsulate my thoughts to what was needed at the 2025 election 'Dump the duopoly' was according to my wife and family in their least critical description, confusing.
Post election dissection now with Labor back in charge, I thought this was apposite:
'Australia: still a duopoly until there's minority'.
I'll keep this to myself. Cheers
The Husic dumping is everything that is wrong with factional governance. Wonder what Andrew Leigh thinks about it?
why in the blazes is Andrew Leigh still a member? Can someone organise a webinar with him for a frank & honest chat? Dying to know.
I can't believe the unbridled glee displayed by so many Labor supporters over the losses of the Greens. People I thought were caring left wingers are making statements about the Greens that sound just as nasty as the smears the Liberals directed at Labor.
When I point out how much of Labor policy is right wing neoliberalism they keep telling me I'm wrong then repeat neoliberal talking points back at me about market investments. 'Left wingers' who jump on me when I suggest that gambling on the stock exchange is not a suitable way for a government to 'make money' they declare it is not gambling and insist it is sensible 'investment'. Funny how people panic about their superannuation every time the market hiccoughs. All those superannuation and government funds chasing stocks and shares are artificially inflating stock prices and don't the corporate executives love their large bonuses based on rising stock prices.
I unfortunately have a long memory (short term sometimes dodgy) and still remember wondering why on earth Paul Keating wanted us to gamble our pension money on the stock exchange and now I suppose I understand why. He had no interest in left wingers like myself.
I am glad we don't have another disgusting Coalition government but going from constantly outraged under the Coalition to sullenly disappointed under Labor is not enough of an improvement.
The hatred of Greens is really something, isn't it? I've had similar experiences. I mean, I think the Greens need to do some self-examination and rethinking--particularly outside the cities--but what party isn't this true of? Anyway, the hatred is baked in and so is the hubris apparently.
The hatred of the Greens is horrifying. Chandler-Mather contrasted Albo's comments toward him with Albo's gracious words about Dutton. Said it all, really, about who Albo's real enemy is. And what had Chandler-Mather actually said to Albo that was so "offensive"? Asked him how many homes he's negatively geared or something? Poor Albo.
Thanks Tim. I agree entirely that more progressive government from Labor is unlikely.
This week I asked a former (state) Labor MP If he thought there was any chance a reinvigorated Federal Labor government would make and execute policy realistically addressing the immense dangers and complexities of climate change and environmental collapse. I also asked if the seriousness of these issues was understood by Labor. He replied that they are understood by those that matter, but they will not be properly addressed because it’s just too hard to beat the vested interests. It’s better to stay in power doing what little you can than to really fight for the national interest. The problem is, this is not a pro-democratic sentiment. How will our democracy fair under the enormous stresses of ecological collapse? It’s not a question our politics is interested in considering. Albanese’s triumphalism over the Greens failures is, in large part, relief at not having to be constantly reminded of this.
If they are not willing to take on the vested interests after a win like this--including the collapse of the Libs and the demonstrated pwerlessness of the Murdoch media--then it will never happen. It's a true-colours moment, in other words.
So, there... We have our answer and we see Labor’s true colours. Marles wins the day and timid mediocrity governs the country. Pathetic.
This is sharp and necessary. Labor’s win isn’t a bold new dawn. It is the long tail of Keating’s vision finally whipping around to crown itself. A triumph not of progressive politics, but of middle-class asset worship. Superannuation, housing as wealth, a neutered Fair Work system and the quiet burial of any notion that the state exists to serve the public. The revolution already happened. What we’re living through is the afterparty, and the bouncers are only letting in landlords.
Albanese telling the Senate to "get out of the way" while pledging to let the private sector fix housing is just the latest in a long line of managerial declarations dressed up as vision. Thirty-five per cent of the country voted for him. That is not a mandate. It is a fragile plurality held together by preference flows and an electorate that mostly wanted to punish the alternative. The only thing flimsier than Labor’s primary vote is the fantasy that private developers will ever solve a crisis that directly benefits their bottom line.
We know the solution. We have known it for decades. A parallel public housing system, built at scale, designed to meet need, not generate profit. Still, none of that will work unless we confront the rotting core of the problem: the tax system. As long as negative gearing and capital gains concessions continue to reward housing as a speculative investment, there is no pathway out. Any serious reform must start with dismantling the policy settings that have turned housing into Australia’s most dependable wealth extraction scheme. Under the current system, only the ideologically rigid or financially naive opt out of the housing market. Everyone else is playing the game because the rules make them fools not to. That is not a glitch. It is the point.
As one of the fools choose to not exploit the game, I'm equal parts frustrated and angry.
Public housing is now seen as fantasy. Investor welfare is treated as economic common sense. What passes for housing policy is little more than a loop of meaningless slogans about supply, innovation and partnerships. This is not reform. It is real estate astrology, repeated until nobody remembers there was ever an alternative.
Yes, it is satisfying to watch the Liberal Party unravel. Their collapse has been a long time coming. Still, this is not victory. It is simply a handover. Labor has inherited the controls of a system that protects capital and punishes need, and they have shown no real interest in changing course. The rest of us remain locked out, watching through the glass, while they toast one another with our rent.
Just noting for everyone the update to the Emergent City piece.