It would seem that both writers could have used the example of neoliberal policy by looking at the steamroller of privatisation. Commonwealth Bank, Energy, Water, Health etc. The people’s infrastructure!
"The real risk for Australia is that we fail to recognise the opportunity we have created for ourselves to avoid the anti-democratic mire that so many other countries find themselves trapped in."
Wouldn't it be grand if this opportunity were recognised by other countries? Headlines like "Look at what the voters are doing in Australian politics" and "the Australian movement" might just convince those commentators here who seem to suffer cultural cringe that the community independent movement is a valid one.
I agree and think there is beginning to be some recognition. The guys who do the The Rest is Politics podcast are fans, particularly Rory Stewart (though I did offer him a copy of my book and he never responded! Lol).
You might also be interested in the LSE book (free download) which is, on the whole, very positive about what is happening here. https://press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/
TD - hat's off to you/stand up & take a bow - that is one eloquent, cogent article. I, too, have just finished GM's 1/4ly essay but was particularly annoyed, I feel like you, that he continually used pejoratives to describe the state of politics and never progressed an idea further and offer solutions & discussions on what could supercede the 2 party system. GM is so much like every other MSM commentator who has a myopic view of the immutability of the 2party system - almost religious doctrine, which makes it nigh on impossible to watch even the 7pm ABC TV news bulletin. GM's doing the same as I listen to the 'The Shot Podcast Hanging the Parliament Friday, December 6, 2024 with Jo Dyer & Ronni Salt'. It's like listening to a never ending soap opera wanting to dissect the minutiae of politician's bit parts (just like Insiders) never exploring bigger questions like is the duopoly's grip on power in the best interests of the country or the best interests of its career politician's careers? How does one get to pen an essay for the 1/4ly - would you do it (with supporter's help?) which takes the discussion to the logical next step. One other thing - anybody have an idea when the term 'duopoly' was first used to decribe Australian politics & is its use becoming more common or noticeable these days amongst commentators? Cheers, great article TD, great article
I haven't listened to The Shot podcast yet but will asap. Mr Denmore's comment above will probably strike a chord with you, as it did with me. The idea that Hawke-Keating defined how politics should be done rings true with me. Still, despite my concerns with essay, I rate GM very highly: if we had a press gallery full of GMs we would be better off on the whole!
Hi TD. Yes I read Mr Denmore's excellent response & yes I concur with your praise for GM in that as a journalist he's fair in his reporting of the 'surficial state of play' but doesn't deviate from that approach. I guess in effect I am saying I like & appreciate your ideas & what you have to write. Ever thought of a 1/4ly essay?
Great piece as usual Tim! Thanks. I've not read the Quarterly Essay yet, but the points you make appear well made. I agree that I have a sense of hope again since the arrival of the community independents on the scene. They've generally been hitting well above their weight, bringing some integrity and maturity back into an otherwise pretty barren political landscape. A greater number of such independents in our parliaments, both at state and federal level, can only be a positive development. And the way in which Voices groups are popping up across the country is a demonstration of how widespread the hope is, affording opportunity for voters to broaden democracy and call out the narrow, timid, neoliberal agenda of the traditional parties.
I haven't read Minority Report but I really don't like politicians or others declaring themselves to be centrist/centre-left/right of centre etc. Is that meant to reassure others? If the balance is heavily rightist, surely you'd need to send some to the far left in order to have 'balance'?
Policies should be considered in terms of the benefits to those who most need assistance. It would involve morals.
But does school Civics and Citizenship achieve that? Why isn't straight out Politics taught in schools? (I appreciate that there's a curriculum overload). It needs to be taught from perhaps Year 4, even the basics such as Federal-State-Local governance and their areas of responsibility.
You can get on to more interesting politics in secondary school. It would generally be about Australian politics but then you can refer to different systems of government worldwide. Years ago, foreign policy was part of upper secondary Politics so more people could develop an interest in the interplay of diplomacy and antipathy between nations. Politics can involve history, geography, analysis.
But Australia generally doesn't value politics as an educational subject. Too many Australians aren't interested in the ways in which their lives are run and the ways in which they can influence change, or constancy.
The independents who ran in the last election were supported in part by educated people, appalled at how the last government was operating. The volunteers worked so hard to help good candidates achieve success.
But apart from not having the campaign funding of the major parties, the killer is elections being held every three years or less. It's difficult to maintain that momentum.
Agree with a lot of this, Peta. I really wish we had a better idea of the history of our democracy and just how innovative we have been. Also, as I have said in a few recent articles, I think we would be a lot less concerned about minority government if we realised how, historically, our parliament has been captured by the party system.
I have recently finished reading the essay as well and came away with similar perceptions. Mega George was one of the more perceptive commentators of his generation in the press gallery, but like most of them he was seduced by the Keating narrative of the purpose of politics being a process of neoliberal “reform” and there’s an element of nostalgia in everything he writes for that 1983-2000 period (culminating with the GST). Good on him for admitting to changing his mind on minority government, but there’s still a lack of understanding on his part that people’s disenchantment with politics is as much about the process - the ‘how’ it is done - as it is about the what. I also dispute his assumption that whatever changes, it needs to be positioned around ‘the centre’. This is a slippery concept and, again, betrays his 1980s-90s reform era worldview. ‘The centre’ too often refers to the corporatist method of Hawke and Keating - disastrously revived by Rudd early in his term with his ‘2020 summit’. This is the idea that successful politics is really about putting all the key players in the room and coming to consensus about a ‘sensible’ way forward - usually involving ways of asking low-to-middle-income people to work harder for less. The GFC changed everything. Neoliberalism - the idea that financial markets are some beneficent and omniscient force - is dead. The reform we need now is not from what GM calls the ‘centre’. It needs to be a radical transformation of our economy, our politics and an our energy base. The right has grasped this and it is reaching back into history to channel people’s anger through white nationalism and appeals to ‘tradition’. The so-called ‘centre-left’ is adrift (Albanese personifies it) because it still wedded to the idea that you hold power by appeasing Murdoch, the miners and the banks and cosying up to shock-jocks. No you don’t. You make those people afraid of you. You come at them with radical solutions. The reason capitalism was tamed through social democracy for 30 years after the Second World War was because the capitalist class were afraid of communism to the east. I’m not suggesting we open up the gulags again. But we need centrists like GM and the rest of the ‘this-is-the-way-it’s-always-been-done’ commentariat to feel a little bit worried about the possibility of more radical change. Because if we don’t change how we do politics from the left, we will have much uglier results forced on us by the right.
I'm glad you raised this: I was really thrown by the constant reference to the "centre" and didn't really understand what he meant. But your explanation seems correct to me and nicely set out. The nostalgia for Hawke-Keating is correct too, and it is a view I grow less sympathetic with the more time passes. I think Humphrys' book, which I quote, is a really necessary critical correction.
That entire generation of journalists have a mindset that ‘reform’ means macro-economic liberalisation,and ‘opening up ourselves to the world’ (read: hollowing ourselves out for private equity raiders to feast on our bones). They can’t imagine that reform can also mean reinvigorating our moribund political institutions, ending tax distortions that reward speculation over long-term investment in skills and infrastructure, taxing resource companies properly and investing the proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund that future-proofs our economy. Like it or not, the rest of the world is turning against globalisation and the free movement of capital. We need to claim back our sovereignty over our own resources. Currently, Albo’s one idea for reinvesting in local manufacturing skills is AUKUS, the white elephant, that ties us even closer to the sinking US empire. While the rise of the grass roots independents is welcome, I can’t see the Liberals getting blindsided again and the risk in 2024 is the LNP machine, cashed up with funds from Rinehart, Advance and the Atlas Network, will outspend them with effective scare campaigns on social media. See what happened to NZ - the right-wing ACT party trying to dismantle Maori land rights is backed by the same people who funded the No campaign in the Voice.
No. Neoliberalism is just the cracked cast in which the ALP sets its remaining credibility with the RW media as a ‘good manager’. The LNP, having been given a free pass by Murdoch and all, doesn’t have to try to pretend to still believe in the ‘centrist’ fee markets manifesto of the 90s.
Spot on Mr D: if I could add my 2bob's worth, duopoly veterans come across as a bunch of entitled careerists basking in tradition, with the 'it's my turn in the sun' attitude whipped up by the MSM. As you say very effectively:
'It needs to be a radical transformation of our economy, our politics and an our energy base....... still wedded to the idea that you hold power by appeasing Murdoch, the miners and the banks and cosying up to shock-jocks.'
I wonder sometimes if the real divide isn't between insiders and outsiders: the political class and the rest of us. I will dive into this at some point.
I heard GM speak at Gleebooks on his essay. I went in bristling that he had taken your own ideas on the rise of the Teals and the growing disgruntlement with 2-party politics. So I was interested to hear the difference between your ideas. He concentrated a lot on how both major parties see the rise of independents as a threat to 'politics as usual' and their entrenched right to be the only political class. I haven't yet read his essay, but am certain that you are the correct person to write a reply to it, to be published in the 1/4ly Essay. Go for it, Tim!
"I'd still like to see a system where the majors can agree on the problems we want to solve and then have an argument about what the best way to solve them.”
Has he had his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed since Howard got power. The Coalition are not interested in evidence based reasoning. They are into lies, smears and fears. Those tactics, not policies, have Labor cowering and allowing the Murdoch media to set the agenda. Convergence.
Keatings stance against the subs has improved my opinion of him. It is still negative for introducing neoliberalism but slightly less.
The Coalition's nuclear power policy is a complete brain fart to appeal to the post-denialists in the party. It still stops renewables and keeps fossil fuels. At least Labor are opposing that in the face of News Corpse efforts.
Now that I have read GM's essay, I came away thinking that yes, a hung parliament might be the best solution on offer going forward. Because the current situation of politicising every argument, from the Voice to the housing crisis, is what has led ordinary Australians to eschew the duopoly. If it was clear from their actions that bipartisanship led to better outcomes for Australians, then there might be no need for other parties. But the opposition, for certain, has no regard for what's best for 'all' Australians, and thus we turn to 3rd parties to keep the debate focussed on what it is better for everyone. You need to write that reply, Tim!
I'm thinking of pitching a book about all this, for after the next election, but that goes back into the history of the 2-party system to contextualise what is happening. Would be a sort of follow-up to Voices of Us, which approach the matter from a different angle.
I didn’t read the report, but I trust that Tim’s take would be accurate.
To be honest, I’m tired of people from within the “system” believing they know what’s best for voters, be it political reporters / commentators, political party hierarchies, business lobbies etc; to a tee they have their own self-interest at heart, and that is it. Their consensus appears to be that they know what’s good for us and the country, and come hell or high water, we will get it, like it, vote for it, or not! Their idea of democracy is they know what’s best for us.
Nostalgia: whether it’s about gov or the media. The biggest change is there is more light now, than in the past. People can see the result of lobbying influence, the open doors between business and regulators, retiring pollies and their post retirement employment.
I’d also say in the past journalist were too easy with “they all have the countries best interests at heart’. That is an absolute joke.
We need to get that balance right between citizens and experts/elites. We obviously need expertise to get things done properly, but it has to been in response to the actual needs and wants of voters. The way I've put it in the past, is experts for means, citizens for ends. I think it is another thing that the 2-party system, or the party system in general, mitigates against: party needs and wants end up trumping those of the citizens.
Don’t get me wrong Tim, I’m not fed up with “specialists”. One of the greatest harms our politicians have done over the last 35 yrs, is to kill off the professional Public Service that we had and turn it into an extension of the party in gov (dept heads etc, Robo Debt as an example).
Terrific response, thanks Tim. While I did find reading GM's essay useful, especially his point that governments become memorable by going for big, bold reforms, which should be obvious but something I never considered, I think you're right to point out that he was too straitjacketed (besotted?) by the two-party system to be able to imagine a new way of doing politics.
Having said that, I grew up in India in the nineties and oughties during which coalition politics was the norm and there are instances where that tempered parties across the spectrum to build broad conensus to push radical reforms but also towards the end of that era led to political posturing, infighting, and brazen corruption that directly led the way to Mr. Modi's rise who, for his first election, campaigned on the promise of a technocratic, competent, "beyond-politics" government. And we all know where that's lead us to. So I understand his concerns of a minority government completely eroding trust in democratic politics thereby leading to autocratic strongmen who promise to deliver.
Nonetheless, I'm convinced by your argument that this could lead to new possibilities. If the traditional political axes are usually social and economic, and, like you pointed out, there is hardly a difference between Labour and the Coalition when it comes to economic policies, that has led to politicians having to differentiate themselves on the social axes and leading to Culture Wars. But what if that framework too is past its due date? In this fascinating episode of The Seen and the Unseen podcast (https://seenunseen.in/episodes/2019/7/29/episode-131-political-ideology-in-india/), Rahul Verma talks about how thanks to the variety and complexity of Indian politics, there are way more axes of contestation- Centralisation vs Federalism, Caste Specificity vs Religious Unity, Statism vs De-Regulation etc. on which political parties position themselves. Perhaps the Teals are the harbingers of that change here in Australia, and I do think that 2025 will push us further in that direction- not least because of Labor's timidity and muddled actions on housing and environment.
Is that a good thing though? I personally don't think so. In an age when we want, and need, the government to go big (https://publishing.monash.edu/product/big/), more political-class power struggles will not help. Its a hard balance to strike between listening to your local electorate while also working towards a nation-wide long-term vision, isn't it?
Thanks, Sirish. Great comment and really useful to have another perspective on all this. Much appreciated. I will have a listen to the podcast you recommend: it is new to me. Thanks again.
Spot on reflection of George’s essay, well done.
Thanks, RJ
It would seem that both writers could have used the example of neoliberal policy by looking at the steamroller of privatisation. Commonwealth Bank, Energy, Water, Health etc. The people’s infrastructure!
You're right: it is almost the quintessential example of the betrayal of neoliberalism. And people have always hated it.
"The real risk for Australia is that we fail to recognise the opportunity we have created for ourselves to avoid the anti-democratic mire that so many other countries find themselves trapped in."
Wouldn't it be grand if this opportunity were recognised by other countries? Headlines like "Look at what the voters are doing in Australian politics" and "the Australian movement" might just convince those commentators here who seem to suffer cultural cringe that the community independent movement is a valid one.
I agree and think there is beginning to be some recognition. The guys who do the The Rest is Politics podcast are fans, particularly Rory Stewart (though I did offer him a copy of my book and he never responded! Lol).
You might also be interested in the LSE book (free download) which is, on the whole, very positive about what is happening here. https://press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/
They also wrote this essay: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-uk-politics-can-learn-from-australias-evolving-democracy/
Thanks for the links
TD - hat's off to you/stand up & take a bow - that is one eloquent, cogent article. I, too, have just finished GM's 1/4ly essay but was particularly annoyed, I feel like you, that he continually used pejoratives to describe the state of politics and never progressed an idea further and offer solutions & discussions on what could supercede the 2 party system. GM is so much like every other MSM commentator who has a myopic view of the immutability of the 2party system - almost religious doctrine, which makes it nigh on impossible to watch even the 7pm ABC TV news bulletin. GM's doing the same as I listen to the 'The Shot Podcast Hanging the Parliament Friday, December 6, 2024 with Jo Dyer & Ronni Salt'. It's like listening to a never ending soap opera wanting to dissect the minutiae of politician's bit parts (just like Insiders) never exploring bigger questions like is the duopoly's grip on power in the best interests of the country or the best interests of its career politician's careers? How does one get to pen an essay for the 1/4ly - would you do it (with supporter's help?) which takes the discussion to the logical next step. One other thing - anybody have an idea when the term 'duopoly' was first used to decribe Australian politics & is its use becoming more common or noticeable these days amongst commentators? Cheers, great article TD, great article
I haven't listened to The Shot podcast yet but will asap. Mr Denmore's comment above will probably strike a chord with you, as it did with me. The idea that Hawke-Keating defined how politics should be done rings true with me. Still, despite my concerns with essay, I rate GM very highly: if we had a press gallery full of GMs we would be better off on the whole!
Hi TD. Yes I read Mr Denmore's excellent response & yes I concur with your praise for GM in that as a journalist he's fair in his reporting of the 'surficial state of play' but doesn't deviate from that approach. I guess in effect I am saying I like & appreciate your ideas & what you have to write. Ever thought of a 1/4ly essay?
Great piece as usual Tim! Thanks. I've not read the Quarterly Essay yet, but the points you make appear well made. I agree that I have a sense of hope again since the arrival of the community independents on the scene. They've generally been hitting well above their weight, bringing some integrity and maturity back into an otherwise pretty barren political landscape. A greater number of such independents in our parliaments, both at state and federal level, can only be a positive development. And the way in which Voices groups are popping up across the country is a demonstration of how widespread the hope is, affording opportunity for voters to broaden democracy and call out the narrow, timid, neoliberal agenda of the traditional parties.
Thanks, Louis. You might enjoy this piece by Brook Turner, which I think does a good job of capturing the dynamism and the sort of positive change you are talking about. I found it really interesting: https://www.smh.com.au/national/teals-2-0-people-are-dying-to-express-their-dislike-for-the-majors-20241002-p5kf8v.html
I haven't read Minority Report but I really don't like politicians or others declaring themselves to be centrist/centre-left/right of centre etc. Is that meant to reassure others? If the balance is heavily rightist, surely you'd need to send some to the far left in order to have 'balance'?
Policies should be considered in terms of the benefits to those who most need assistance. It would involve morals.
But does school Civics and Citizenship achieve that? Why isn't straight out Politics taught in schools? (I appreciate that there's a curriculum overload). It needs to be taught from perhaps Year 4, even the basics such as Federal-State-Local governance and their areas of responsibility.
You can get on to more interesting politics in secondary school. It would generally be about Australian politics but then you can refer to different systems of government worldwide. Years ago, foreign policy was part of upper secondary Politics so more people could develop an interest in the interplay of diplomacy and antipathy between nations. Politics can involve history, geography, analysis.
But Australia generally doesn't value politics as an educational subject. Too many Australians aren't interested in the ways in which their lives are run and the ways in which they can influence change, or constancy.
The independents who ran in the last election were supported in part by educated people, appalled at how the last government was operating. The volunteers worked so hard to help good candidates achieve success.
But apart from not having the campaign funding of the major parties, the killer is elections being held every three years or less. It's difficult to maintain that momentum.
Agree with a lot of this, Peta. I really wish we had a better idea of the history of our democracy and just how innovative we have been. Also, as I have said in a few recent articles, I think we would be a lot less concerned about minority government if we realised how, historically, our parliament has been captured by the party system.
I have recently finished reading the essay as well and came away with similar perceptions. Mega George was one of the more perceptive commentators of his generation in the press gallery, but like most of them he was seduced by the Keating narrative of the purpose of politics being a process of neoliberal “reform” and there’s an element of nostalgia in everything he writes for that 1983-2000 period (culminating with the GST). Good on him for admitting to changing his mind on minority government, but there’s still a lack of understanding on his part that people’s disenchantment with politics is as much about the process - the ‘how’ it is done - as it is about the what. I also dispute his assumption that whatever changes, it needs to be positioned around ‘the centre’. This is a slippery concept and, again, betrays his 1980s-90s reform era worldview. ‘The centre’ too often refers to the corporatist method of Hawke and Keating - disastrously revived by Rudd early in his term with his ‘2020 summit’. This is the idea that successful politics is really about putting all the key players in the room and coming to consensus about a ‘sensible’ way forward - usually involving ways of asking low-to-middle-income people to work harder for less. The GFC changed everything. Neoliberalism - the idea that financial markets are some beneficent and omniscient force - is dead. The reform we need now is not from what GM calls the ‘centre’. It needs to be a radical transformation of our economy, our politics and an our energy base. The right has grasped this and it is reaching back into history to channel people’s anger through white nationalism and appeals to ‘tradition’. The so-called ‘centre-left’ is adrift (Albanese personifies it) because it still wedded to the idea that you hold power by appeasing Murdoch, the miners and the banks and cosying up to shock-jocks. No you don’t. You make those people afraid of you. You come at them with radical solutions. The reason capitalism was tamed through social democracy for 30 years after the Second World War was because the capitalist class were afraid of communism to the east. I’m not suggesting we open up the gulags again. But we need centrists like GM and the rest of the ‘this-is-the-way-it’s-always-been-done’ commentariat to feel a little bit worried about the possibility of more radical change. Because if we don’t change how we do politics from the left, we will have much uglier results forced on us by the right.
Well said Mr Denmore.
I'm glad you raised this: I was really thrown by the constant reference to the "centre" and didn't really understand what he meant. But your explanation seems correct to me and nicely set out. The nostalgia for Hawke-Keating is correct too, and it is a view I grow less sympathetic with the more time passes. I think Humphrys' book, which I quote, is a really necessary critical correction.
That entire generation of journalists have a mindset that ‘reform’ means macro-economic liberalisation,and ‘opening up ourselves to the world’ (read: hollowing ourselves out for private equity raiders to feast on our bones). They can’t imagine that reform can also mean reinvigorating our moribund political institutions, ending tax distortions that reward speculation over long-term investment in skills and infrastructure, taxing resource companies properly and investing the proceeds in a sovereign wealth fund that future-proofs our economy. Like it or not, the rest of the world is turning against globalisation and the free movement of capital. We need to claim back our sovereignty over our own resources. Currently, Albo’s one idea for reinvesting in local manufacturing skills is AUKUS, the white elephant, that ties us even closer to the sinking US empire. While the rise of the grass roots independents is welcome, I can’t see the Liberals getting blindsided again and the risk in 2024 is the LNP machine, cashed up with funds from Rinehart, Advance and the Atlas Network, will outspend them with effective scare campaigns on social media. See what happened to NZ - the right-wing ACT party trying to dismantle Maori land rights is backed by the same people who funded the No campaign in the Voice.
So, our primary enemy is neoliberalism?
No. Neoliberalism is just the cracked cast in which the ALP sets its remaining credibility with the RW media as a ‘good manager’. The LNP, having been given a free pass by Murdoch and all, doesn’t have to try to pretend to still believe in the ‘centrist’ fee markets manifesto of the 90s.
Spot on Mr D: if I could add my 2bob's worth, duopoly veterans come across as a bunch of entitled careerists basking in tradition, with the 'it's my turn in the sun' attitude whipped up by the MSM. As you say very effectively:
'It needs to be a radical transformation of our economy, our politics and an our energy base....... still wedded to the idea that you hold power by appeasing Murdoch, the miners and the banks and cosying up to shock-jocks.'
I wonder sometimes if the real divide isn't between insiders and outsiders: the political class and the rest of us. I will dive into this at some point.
can hardly wait - great discussion your article has elicited. Mr Denmore is on fire
Every word!
I also read the essay. Thank you for your analysis that explains my dissatisfaction about GM's conclusion.
I heard GM speak at Gleebooks on his essay. I went in bristling that he had taken your own ideas on the rise of the Teals and the growing disgruntlement with 2-party politics. So I was interested to hear the difference between your ideas. He concentrated a lot on how both major parties see the rise of independents as a threat to 'politics as usual' and their entrenched right to be the only political class. I haven't yet read his essay, but am certain that you are the correct person to write a reply to it, to be published in the 1/4ly Essay. Go for it, Tim!
Yes, we come at it from really different perspectives but I always learn a lot from GM's analysis. Hopefully it is a productive disagreement!
"I'd still like to see a system where the majors can agree on the problems we want to solve and then have an argument about what the best way to solve them.”
Has he had his fingers in his ears and his eyes closed since Howard got power. The Coalition are not interested in evidence based reasoning. They are into lies, smears and fears. Those tactics, not policies, have Labor cowering and allowing the Murdoch media to set the agenda. Convergence.
The nuclear "policy" is the perfect example.
Keatings stance against the subs has improved my opinion of him. It is still negative for introducing neoliberalism but slightly less.
The Coalition's nuclear power policy is a complete brain fart to appeal to the post-denialists in the party. It still stops renewables and keeps fossil fuels. At least Labor are opposing that in the face of News Corpse efforts.
Keating changed the conversation on the subs, didn't he? As only he can.
Now that I have read GM's essay, I came away thinking that yes, a hung parliament might be the best solution on offer going forward. Because the current situation of politicising every argument, from the Voice to the housing crisis, is what has led ordinary Australians to eschew the duopoly. If it was clear from their actions that bipartisanship led to better outcomes for Australians, then there might be no need for other parties. But the opposition, for certain, has no regard for what's best for 'all' Australians, and thus we turn to 3rd parties to keep the debate focussed on what it is better for everyone. You need to write that reply, Tim!
I'm thinking of pitching a book about all this, for after the next election, but that goes back into the history of the 2-party system to contextualise what is happening. Would be a sort of follow-up to Voices of Us, which approach the matter from a different angle.
I didn’t read the report, but I trust that Tim’s take would be accurate.
To be honest, I’m tired of people from within the “system” believing they know what’s best for voters, be it political reporters / commentators, political party hierarchies, business lobbies etc; to a tee they have their own self-interest at heart, and that is it. Their consensus appears to be that they know what’s good for us and the country, and come hell or high water, we will get it, like it, vote for it, or not! Their idea of democracy is they know what’s best for us.
Nostalgia: whether it’s about gov or the media. The biggest change is there is more light now, than in the past. People can see the result of lobbying influence, the open doors between business and regulators, retiring pollies and their post retirement employment.
I’d also say in the past journalist were too easy with “they all have the countries best interests at heart’. That is an absolute joke.
Is the future political disruption? I hope so.
We need to get that balance right between citizens and experts/elites. We obviously need expertise to get things done properly, but it has to been in response to the actual needs and wants of voters. The way I've put it in the past, is experts for means, citizens for ends. I think it is another thing that the 2-party system, or the party system in general, mitigates against: party needs and wants end up trumping those of the citizens.
Don’t get me wrong Tim, I’m not fed up with “specialists”. One of the greatest harms our politicians have done over the last 35 yrs, is to kill off the professional Public Service that we had and turn it into an extension of the party in gov (dept heads etc, Robo Debt as an example).
Terrific response, thanks Tim. While I did find reading GM's essay useful, especially his point that governments become memorable by going for big, bold reforms, which should be obvious but something I never considered, I think you're right to point out that he was too straitjacketed (besotted?) by the two-party system to be able to imagine a new way of doing politics.
Having said that, I grew up in India in the nineties and oughties during which coalition politics was the norm and there are instances where that tempered parties across the spectrum to build broad conensus to push radical reforms but also towards the end of that era led to political posturing, infighting, and brazen corruption that directly led the way to Mr. Modi's rise who, for his first election, campaigned on the promise of a technocratic, competent, "beyond-politics" government. And we all know where that's lead us to. So I understand his concerns of a minority government completely eroding trust in democratic politics thereby leading to autocratic strongmen who promise to deliver.
Nonetheless, I'm convinced by your argument that this could lead to new possibilities. If the traditional political axes are usually social and economic, and, like you pointed out, there is hardly a difference between Labour and the Coalition when it comes to economic policies, that has led to politicians having to differentiate themselves on the social axes and leading to Culture Wars. But what if that framework too is past its due date? In this fascinating episode of The Seen and the Unseen podcast (https://seenunseen.in/episodes/2019/7/29/episode-131-political-ideology-in-india/), Rahul Verma talks about how thanks to the variety and complexity of Indian politics, there are way more axes of contestation- Centralisation vs Federalism, Caste Specificity vs Religious Unity, Statism vs De-Regulation etc. on which political parties position themselves. Perhaps the Teals are the harbingers of that change here in Australia, and I do think that 2025 will push us further in that direction- not least because of Labor's timidity and muddled actions on housing and environment.
Is that a good thing though? I personally don't think so. In an age when we want, and need, the government to go big (https://publishing.monash.edu/product/big/), more political-class power struggles will not help. Its a hard balance to strike between listening to your local electorate while also working towards a nation-wide long-term vision, isn't it?
Thanks, Sirish. Great comment and really useful to have another perspective on all this. Much appreciated. I will have a listen to the podcast you recommend: it is new to me. Thanks again.