Politics Does Australia need a new progressive political party?

[the_interloper]

A tertiary education teaches you to find, read, understand, contrast, interpret and analyse information. I don't think the top 100 searches on the internet in the US suggest a great intent to learn.

Potentially you have an idyllic view of tertiary education, I saw it more as a ticking the box exercise really, learnt some useful stuff but a lot of it was a waste of time I reckon.

 

[Deliverance]

Potentially you have an idyllic view of tertiary education, I saw it more as a ticking the box exercise really, learnt some useful stuff but a lot of it was a waste of time I reckon.

Sorry to hear that. You must have had some shit tutors and lecturers.

 

[Kram]

A tertiary education teaches you to find, read, understand, contrast, interpret and analyse information. I don't think the top 100 searches on the internet in the US suggest a great intent to learn.

Most people learn that by early high school.

 

[Deliverance]

Most people learn that by early high school.

It's a much higher level at uni. Kind of like the difference between u14s footy and seniors.

 

[Roobs321]

Most people learn that by early high school.

 

[Kram]

Hey you got there in the end guys, that's all that matters

 

[demondavey]

I see the Greens as a pro-Islam, victimhood, racist, and misogynistic party.

They have good health policy I would vote for otherwise.

That's the entire reason for the thread - give me a progressive party that doesn't support religion, racism, victimhood and misogyny. Easy votes from people like me.

Explain how a the greens are supporting racism and misogyny?

I think you’re a bit confused.

 

[demondavey]

Have you ever been profiled as a Muslim on the basis of your skin color?

Islamophobia is a term with racist connotations even though Islam is not a race.

That depends on your definition of mistreatment.

Our immigration control should discriminate against religions that are inconsistent with secular democracy.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I said we need to make peace and move on, which will take time.

Everyone gets mistreated.

Put it this way - Our secular democracy is far kinder to Muslims than Islamic nations are towards atheists. Muslim immigrants playing the victim card grates on me.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/independent-senator-lidia-thorpe-caught-in-obscene-expletiveladen-rant-outside-melbourne-strip-club/news-story/aa98857ebbbb045b71a9670feba7e6d8

I'm sure it does still happen.

What evidence do you have for that claim?

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/shes-a-very-racist-person-lidia-thorpes-dad-slams-daughter-and-claims-her-parliamentary-power-has-gone-to-her-head/news-story/e8de8d37debe8e68f8b5062aefcb465e

Being correct doesn't really offer a viable solution. I'm confident many of those who defend Muslims would agree with my assessment that Islam is a homophobic and misogynistic death cult.

That seems like an unwinnable position.

I'd rather see you explain how her advocacy for Blak sovereignty is a factor.

I see very little difference between the two.

I rarely see any racism other than 'white man bad' discussed on the SRP. It makes me think the posters here lack knowledge of other nations and cultures.

Australia is one of the more tolerant nations I know of.

Has she spoken against the mistreatment of non-Muslims by Muslims? The human rights record of Islamic nations are horrible, are they not?

The old ‘it’s not a race so it can’t be racist’ argument

 

[demondavey]

Most people learn that by early high school.

No they don’t. You know F all after high school. A lot of people aren’t even adults after high school.

 

[Roobs321]

No they don’t. You know F all after high school. A lot of people aren’t even adults after high school.

it was the kind of clueless that says plenty about the poster

 

[the_interloper]

It's a much higher level at uni. Kind of like the difference between u14s footy and seniors.

Yeah uni is a lot more intense than high school, number 1 is the lecturers/tutors care a lot less about whether people submit work or not. The teaching moves a lot quicker too, easy to get left behind if you miss a few classes.

Sorry to hear that. You must have had some shit tutors and lecturers.

Some good ones, some average ones that's for sure. To be fair I probably didn't apply myself enough, was partying a lot etc etc, i'm sure some of this is my fault.

 

[Seeds]

Labor need to differentiate themselves a lot more from the Liberals because atm it feels like whoever you vote for it barely matters. And imo should be looking after the working class.

Shouldnt parties be looking after everybody?

conservatives say exactly the same about the liberals. They look too much like labor and they need to differentiate themselves.

In a well functioning democracy the two majors parties should be fairly close together because on the major issues there is genuine consensus aboit the best path foward and tge public share commmon values.

But have our major parties coalesced around the right policies? On housing, tax, public education and the influence of religion in society in my view they have got it wrong.

 

[Gethelred]

Shouldnt parties be looking after everybody?

Why?

conservatives say exactly the same about the liberals. They look too much like labor and they need to differentiate themselves.

In a well functioning democracy the two majors parties should be fairly close together because on the major issues there is genuine consensus aboit the best path foward and tge public share commmon values.

But have our major parties coalesced around the right policies? On housing, tax, public education and the influence of religion in society in my view they have got it wrong.

Establishment bias. Over the fullness of time, regardless of whatever ideas you started with, you're going to trend towards conservative - ie, self-protecting - behaviour. You might start out a revolutionary, but if your revolution succeeds you want to protect the thing you create; given enough time, there's an institutional bias in favour of perpetuating the status quo because - and only because - it benefits you.

The parties draw closer because over time, both develop in the direction of conservativism tempered by the lobbying from the wealthier classes. Left wing ideals and unionism develops into market economics and trickledown because that gets you funded and thus re-elected.

Anything too outragous from a right wing perspective might damage profits, but it's significantly more welcome than raising taxes for any reason.

 

[Themanbun]

Being correct doesn't really offer a viable solution. I'm confident many of those who defend Muslims would agree with my assessment that Islam is a homophobic and misogynistic death cult.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are normal everyday people who simply want to provide for them and their family and have a peaceful, safe, prosperous and secure existence. They are your neighbours, your doctors, your lawyers, your construction workers, nurses, delivery drivers, chefs and so on and so forth. They are people, humans, who are part of our society and who share the same priorities in life as most of us.

I defend Muslims because comments like this, which take issue with their religion and then use it to kick them as people, hurt my friends and fellow Australians.

People criticise my religion all the time, and while I wish they wouldn't be so hostile about it, I'd be very upset if people's issues with my religion were being used to express hostility to its followers as people.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

In a well functioning democracy the two majors parties should be fairly close together because on the major issues there is genuine consensus aboit the best path foward and tge public share commmon values.

But have our major parties coalesced around the right policies? On housing, tax, public education and the influence of religion in society in my view they have got it wrong.

And there is the issue with bipartisanship, it's a double-edged sword. It can be very good when there's a consensus on keeping and strengthening programs that are providing a real benefit to the public. And it can be utterly terrible when both major parties agree on the same bad ideas. For example, both major parties backed the White Australia Policy and discrimination against First Nations people for decades. There may have been genuine consensus and common values amongst the public, but we know now that this was wrong.

I'd argue there's been a great amount of bipartisanship on economics since the 80s when Labor embraced neoliberalism and the Coalition swiftly followed. The political arguments over it since then have been mostly theatre (budget surplus fetishism, claiming the other party will give us higher interest rates). The substantial things haven't changed: market economics, privatisation, limited government, free trade, etc.

This isn't just an Australian phenomenon, the whole Western world has had the same bipartisan consensus on neoliberalism for decades. And I think right now, the whole West is really feeling the negative effects of so many years of neoliberalism: the rich get richer, the rest get poorer, houses get more expensive, public services and infrastructure decay. People feel like the whole society is in decline.

Conservative parties have no serious economic arguments against this malaise, other than blaming the poor for their own circumstances. But they don't need one. They've found a way to win votes even without an economic argument: blame everything on immigrants or "wokeness". It's working a treat because people need very little excuse to hate on those who are different from them. It's a convenient distraction from facing the real reasons for their issues.

And it's doubly effective because the "centre-left" (and I use that term loosely) parties are still brainwashed into thinking neoliberalism is the only answer. They're afraid to deviate from it and offer the people something substantially different economically. At no point have major "centre-left" parties even considered embarking on price controls in response to high inflation of consumer goods, or a massive build of public housing in response to high house prices. Instead they've offered the same failing neoliberal policies, just with a smiley face and a few more gay and brown people. Conservatives are at least making the white working class feel good for being white, but the "centre-left" are offering nothing. Is it any wonder they do poorly unless the conservatives have managed to horrifically screw up in government?

We're used to thinking of the English-speaking world, and particularly the US, as leading political trends for the whole world that trickle down to the rest just as US pop culture does. But what if that wasn't the case? What if other countries can give us a harbinger of the future because they've been through economic hard times earlier than the US has? I refer to Greece, who went through a huge amount of pain a decade ago. What were the political consequences of that? In a word, Pasokification. When the "centre-left" fails to offer any solution beyond people getting poorer, the people leave the "centre-left".

What happened after that? Well, the Greeks tried the alternative of embracing the real left, but they immediately caved to neoliberal institutions like the IMF, and got destroyed at the polls in short order. And so the voters turned to the conservatives again. At least they're open about their desire to screw the poor and protect the rich. And now that the Greeks have been thoroughly cowed by the neoliberal consensus, the "centre-left" are politically viable once again. In English-speaking rich countries, it doesn't even come to that, the left get sabotaged by the establishment, including the "centre-left", to ensure they can't depart from the neoliberal consensus. Corbyn got white-anted and Sanders was screwed out of the nomination.

So there's no happy ending here. As Gethelred said, the wealthy dictate the outcome and the common person gets screwed. Maybe in ten years we'll have enough people disillusioned by neoliberalism that they'll consider radical change.

 

[Seeds]

And there is the issue with bipartisanship, it's a double-edged sword. It can be very good when there's a consensus on keeping and strengthening programs that are providing a real benefit to the public. And it can be utterly terrible when both major parties agree on the same bad ideas. For example, both major parties backed the White Australia Policy and discrimination against First Nations people for decades. There may have been genuine consensus and common values amongst the public, but we know now that this was wrong.

I'd argue there's been a great amount of bipartisanship on economics since the 80s when Labor embraced neoliberalism and the Coalition swiftly followed. The political arguments over it since then have been mostly theatre (budget surplus fetishism, claiming the other party will give us higher interest rates). The substantial things haven't changed: market economics, privatisation, limited government, free trade, etc.

This isn't just an Australian phenomenon, the whole Western world has had the same bipartisan consensus on neoliberalism for decades. And I think right now, the whole West is really feeling the negative effects of so many years of neoliberalism: the rich get richer, the rest get poorer, houses get more expensive, public services and infrastructure decay. People feel like the whole society is in decline.

Conservative parties have no serious economic arguments against this malaise, other than blaming the poor for their own circumstances. But they don't need one. They've found a way to win votes even without an economic argument: blame everything on immigrants or "wokeness". It's working a treat because people need very little excuse to hate on those who are different from them. It's a convenient distraction from facing the real reasons for their issues.

And it's doubly effective because the "centre-left" (and I use that term loosely) parties are still brainwashed into thinking neoliberalism is the only answer. They're afraid to deviate from it and offer the people something substantially different economically. At no point have major "centre-left" parties even considered embarking on price controls in response to high inflation of consumer goods, or a massive build of public housing in response to high house prices. Instead they've offered the same failing neoliberal policies, just with a smiley face and a few more gay and brown people. Conservatives are at least making the white working class feel good for being white, but the "centre-left" are offering nothing. Is it any wonder they do poorly unless the conservatives have managed to horrifically screw up in government?

We're used to thinking of the English-speaking world, and particularly the US, as leading political trends for the whole world that trickle down to the rest just as US pop culture does. But what if that wasn't the case? What if other countries can give us a harbinger of the future because they've been through economic hard times earlier than the US has? I refer to Greece, who went through a huge amount of pain a decade ago. What were the political consequences of that? In a word, Pasokification. When the "centre-left" fails to offer any solution beyond people getting poorer, the people leave the "centre-left".

What happened after that? Well, the Greeks tried the alternative of embracing the real left, but they immediately caved to neoliberal institutions like the IMF, and got destroyed at the polls in short order. And so the voters turned to the conservatives again. At least they're open about their desire to screw the poor and protect the rich. And now that the Greeks have been thoroughly cowed by the neoliberal consensus, the "centre-left" are politically viable once again. In English-speaking rich countries, it doesn't even come to that, the left get sabotaged by the establishment, including the "centre-left", to ensure they can't depart from the neoliberal consensus. Corbyn got white-anted and Sanders was screwed out of the nomination.

So there's no happy ending here. As Gethelred said, the wealthy dictate the outcome and the common person gets screwed. Maybe in ten years we'll have enough people disillusioned by neoliberalism that they'll consider radical change.

I agree with a lot of this. But we need to be careful and not fall into the trap of belieivng that the current economic order of the west is the worst possible order and any alternative is better. There is definately a better alternative. But there are also alternatives that are much much worse. We need to advocate for the right economic change and not simply change itself. The appeal of trump for many was the he was simply different and different must automatically be better. Its not. In fact it can be worse.

 

[Gethelred]

I agree with a lot of this. But we need to be careful and not fall into the trap of belieivng that the current economic order of the west is the worst possible order and any alternative is better. There is definately a better alternative. But there are also alternatives that are much much worse. We need to advocate for the right economic change and not simply change itself. The appeal of trump for many was the he was simply different and different must automatically be better. Its not. In fact it can be worse.

'Tis fear of alternatives that got us into this mess, decades to a century ago, and fear of worse alternatives that is the earmark of conservativism.

 

[Barrybran]

And there is the issue with bipartisanship, it's a double-edged sword. It can be very good when there's a consensus on keeping and strengthening programs that are providing a real benefit to the public. And it can be utterly terrible when both major parties agree on the same bad ideas. For example, both major parties backed the White Australia Policy and discrimination against First Nations people for decades. There may have been genuine consensus and common values amongst the public, but we know now that this was wrong.

I'd argue there's been a great amount of bipartisanship on economics since the 80s when Labor embraced neoliberalism and the Coalition swiftly followed. The political arguments over it since then have been mostly theatre (budget surplus fetishism, claiming the other party will give us higher interest rates). The substantial things haven't changed: market economics, privatisation, limited government, free trade, etc.

This isn't just an Australian phenomenon, the whole Western world has had the same bipartisan consensus on neoliberalism for decades. And I think right now, the whole West is really feeling the negative effects of so many years of neoliberalism: the rich get richer, the rest get poorer, houses get more expensive, public services and infrastructure decay. People feel like the whole society is in decline.

Conservative parties have no serious economic arguments against this malaise, other than blaming the poor for their own circumstances. But they don't need one. They've found a way to win votes even without an economic argument: blame everything on immigrants or "wokeness". It's working a treat because people need very little excuse to hate on those who are different from them. It's a convenient distraction from facing the real reasons for their issues.

And it's doubly effective because the "centre-left" (and I use that term loosely) parties are still brainwashed into thinking neoliberalism is the only answer. They're afraid to deviate from it and offer the people something substantially different economically. At no point have major "centre-left" parties even considered embarking on price controls in response to high inflation of consumer goods, or a massive build of public housing in response to high house prices. Instead they've offered the same failing neoliberal policies, just with a smiley face and a few more gay and brown people. Conservatives are at least making the white working class feel good for being white, but the "centre-left" are offering nothing. Is it any wonder they do poorly unless the conservatives have managed to horrifically screw up in government?

We're used to thinking of the English-speaking world, and particularly the US, as leading political trends for the whole world that trickle down to the rest just as US pop culture does. But what if that wasn't the case? What if other countries can give us a harbinger of the future because they've been through economic hard times earlier than the US has? I refer to Greece, who went through a huge amount of pain a decade ago. What were the political consequences of that? In a word, Pasokification. When the "centre-left" fails to offer any solution beyond people getting poorer, the people leave the "centre-left".

What happened after that? Well, the Greeks tried the alternative of embracing the real left, but they immediately caved to neoliberal institutions like the IMF, and got destroyed at the polls in short order. And so the voters turned to the conservatives again. At least they're open about their desire to screw the poor and protect the rich. And now that the Greeks have been thoroughly cowed by the neoliberal consensus, the "centre-left" are politically viable once again. In English-speaking rich countries, it doesn't even come to that, the left get sabotaged by the establishment, including the "centre-left", to ensure they can't depart from the neoliberal consensus. Corbyn got white-anted and Sanders was screwed out of the nomination.

So there's no happy ending here. As Gethelred said, the wealthy dictate the outcome and the common person gets screwed. Maybe in ten years we'll have enough people disillusioned by neoliberalism that they'll consider radical change.

This is where the teals are an interesting experiment. Economically conservative but socially progressive. Obviously, many represent affluent areas so they won't be advocating strongly for things like housing affordability but it will be interesting to see if they are more or less embraced in the coming election.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I agree with a lot of this. But we need to be careful and not fall into the trap of belieivng that the current economic order of the west is the worst possible order and any alternative is better. There is definately a better alternative. But there are also alternatives that are much much worse. We need to advocate for the right economic change and not simply change itself. The appeal of trump for many was the he was simply different and different must automatically be better. Its not. In fact it can be worse.

I certainly don't think any alternative is better. For example, central planning of the economy is a proven failure. But a debate can be had on what would improve things. I think the answer might be a combination of social democracy (tax the wealthy and corporations high, use it to invest in public works and welfare), democratic socialism (state control of critical mineral resources) and market socialism (employee-owned businesses competing against each other).

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is where the teals are an interesting experiment. Economically conservative but socially progressive.

I find that a lot less interesting than you do. They're Labor without the union influence or the pretence of being economically leftist. They have a home amongst the people who are too posh to vote Labor and too well-educated to be seduced by the Coalition's bigotry and anti-intellectualism, but that alone won't get them a better position than enabling Labor or Liberal to form a minority government. And I think when that happens, it'll be a real sink or swim moment from the teals. They've mostly escaped the ire of the media and the electorate so far, but enabling a Labor minority government will have the media coming after them with a blowtorch, and enabling a Dutton Prime Ministership will permanently alienate a large section of their voters. Maybe I'm underestimating them but that looks like a no-win situation to me.

Obviously, many represent affluent areas so they won't be advocating strongly for things like housing affordability but it will be interesting to see if they are more or less embraced in the coming election.

They've captured a lot of the low-hanging fruit and there will be a swing towards the Liberals. The best outcome for the Teals would be maintaining their existing seats and winning Bradfield. I doubt they gain anything else. It's possible they'll lose a seat, but we'll see.

 

[Barrybran]

I find that a lot less interesting than you do. They're Labor without the union influence or the pretence of being economically leftist. They have a home amongst the people who are too posh to vote Labor and too well-educated to be seduced by the Coalition's bigotry and anti-intellectualism, but that alone won't get them a better position than enabling Labor or Liberal to form a minority government. And I think when that happens, it'll be a real sink or swim moment from the teals. They've mostly escaped the ire of the media and the electorate so far, but enabling a Labor minority government will have the media coming after them with a blowtorch, and enabling a Dutton Prime Ministership will permanently alienate a large section of their voters. Maybe I'm underestimating them but that looks like a no-win situation to me.

The primary difference between teal electorates and other electorates is that those in the teal electorates will be smart enough to see through the bullshit on both sides and think for themselves.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

The primary difference between teal electorates and other electorates is that those in the teal electorates will be smart enough to see through the bullshit on both sides and think for themselves.

I think you're overestimating them. These electorates are at least not anti-intellectual, but they also vote in their own self-interest and will pick whoever they feel suits that best.

 

[Carringbush2010]

(employee-owned businesses competing against each other). Allowed to in a liberal democratic society

This is the original intent and spirit of capitalism, worked well for some time before profiteering aholes hijacked it.

Consequence of 'neo' capitalism.

 

[RedStarUncle]

I find that a lot less interesting than you do. They're Labor without the union influence or the pretence of being economically leftist. They have a home amongst the people who are too posh to vote Labor and too well-educated to be seduced by the Coalition's bigotry and anti-intellectualism, but that alone won't get them a better position than enabling Labor or Liberal to form a minority government. And I think when that happens, it'll be a real sink or swim moment from the teals. They've mostly escaped the ire of the media and the electorate so far, but enabling a Labor minority government will have the media coming after them with a blowtorch, and enabling a Dutton Prime Ministership will permanently alienate a large section of their voters. Maybe I'm underestimating them but that looks like a no-win situation to me.


They've captured a lot of the low-hanging fruit and there will be a swing towards the Liberals. The best outcome for the Teals would be maintaining their existing seats and winning Bradfield. I doubt they gain anything else. It's possible they'll lose a seat, but we'll see.

Every centrist party in primarily bipartisan systems ends up in the same boat... they're a "balance" until the system requires them to decide something one way or the other, and then that decision alienates half their potential voters and they disappear. It's exactly what happened to the Australian Democrats and repeatedly happens to the Lib Dems in the UK.

I suspect it's precisely why the teals do not formalise themselves into a party and instead persist with the "community independent" tag.



I still think having more diversity of representation is good for democracy, but practicality sometimes gets in the way and it does depend on lot on the system you have.

 

[evolved2]

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are normal everyday people who simply want to provide for them and their family and have a peaceful, safe, prosperous and secure existence. They are your neighbours, your doctors, your lawyers, your construction workers, nurses, delivery drivers, chefs and so on and so forth. They are people, humans, who are part of our society and who share the same priorities in life as most of us.

I defend Muslims because comments like this, which take issue with their religion and then use it to kick them as people, hurt my friends and fellow Australians.

People criticise my religion all the time, and while I wish they wouldn't be so hostile about it, I'd be very upset if people's issues with my religion were being used to express hostility to its followers as people.

Is your religion hostile to others?