Politics Does Australia need a new progressive political party?

[evolved2]

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

Which is far more logical than the old 'critising a religion is racist' argument.

 

[.Shotties.]

Most people learn that by early high school.

The Venn diagram of people who make this statement and people who disprove it is a circle.

 

[kickazz]

There needs to be a freshening of the language around progressive politics.

Any thought of higher or new taxes or public spending and the word "socialist" gets thrown around and people start thinking of the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s.

Yet we had high taxes and public spending in the west after the Great Depression and WW2. Roosevelt's "New Deal" not only had practical aspects but he also used the language to define "freedom" in a different way to what the neoliberals have done for four decades now. Thing is, the 50s through to the 90s / 00s saw some of the best economic times for the vast majority in the West - ever. Yes it got bogged down in the 70s and neoliberalism was probably needed temporarily to revive things, but since then, the wealth has continued to trickle ...... <not where they said it would>

Yet say the word New Deal or Keynesian and the average yobbo out there wouldn't have the foggiest idea what you are on about. Is it time for a party to come out and own these phrases? Even call themselves the Keynesian Progressives or something like that? At first, most folk wouldn't know what it meant, but I think it stands a better chance that some might learn, rather than the current "herp derp socialism"

 

[Gethelred]

There needs to be a freshening of the language around progressive politics.

Any thought of higher or new taxes or public spending and the word "socialist" gets thrown around and people start thinking of the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s.

Yet we had high taxes and public spending in the west after the Great Depression and WW2. Roosevelt's "New Deal" not only had practical aspects but he also used the language to define "freedom" in a different way to what the neoliberals have done for four decades now. Thing is, the 50s through to the 90s / 00s saw some of the best economic times for the vast majority in the West - ever. Yes it got bogged down in the 70s and neoliberalism was probably needed temporarily to revive things, but since then, the wealth has continued to trickle ...... <not where they said it would>

Yet say the word New Deal or Keynesian and the average yobbo out there wouldn't have the foggiest idea what you are on about. Is it time for a party to come out and own these phrases? Even call themselves the Keynesian Progressives or something like that? At first, most folk wouldn't know what it meant, but I think it stands a better chance that some might learn, rather than the current "herp derp socialism"

I feel like the rhetorial flourishes that work for the right - pretending that there's no such thing as truth in order to defuse claims around electoral interference and/or other misdeeds; poisoning the well around terms that are used against them (CRT, dogwhistling, fascism/fascist); seeking to deliberately mislead as many people - won't work on the people in the same way, or even a different way.

No, what needs to happen is a realignment of the left at the bottom, a separation of the working classes from those that purport to speak for them. A class revolution, but one that recontextualises workers leadership as servants of their people rather than a leader of a movement, that is more than willing to be radical and bombastic and brutally honest.

 

[kickazz]

I feel like the rhetorial flourishes that work for the right - pretending that there's no such thing as truth in order to defuse claims around electoral interference and/or other misdeeds; poisoning the well around terms that are used against them (CRT, dogwhistling, fascism/fascist); seeking to deliberately mislead as many people - won't work on the people in the same way, or even a different way.

No, what needs to happen is a realignment of the left at the bottom, a separation of the working classes from those that purport to speak for them. A class revolution, but one that recontextualises workers leadership as servants of their people rather than a leader of a movement, that is more than willing to be radical and bombastic and brutally honest.

Yes all good points.

Perhaps the class divide is much more on assets now than income, too.

Australia has now had a few post war generations to accumulate wealth, and the correlation between income and wealth is not as close.

 

[Gethelred]

Yes all good points.

Perhaps the class divide is much more on assets now than income, too.

Australia has now had a few post war generations to accumulate wealth, and the correlation between income and wealth is not as close.

I suppose a redefinition of the worker's struggle is also something that is necessary. We've moved beyond Marxist criticism without a popular intellectual equivalent economic equal to put forth in its place. The closest we get is Keynes, and Keynes is just good modelling coupled with a notion to take advantage of the differences between individual worker incomes and nation level incomes. That it leads/provides funding for the variety of left wing programs does not immediately entail that it's left wing, just that it works.

We need to redefine what it means to be left wing and left leaning, and we need to rebutt attacks on the progressive flank: I might not agree with everything everyone within my movement has to say, but **** you if you think that will distract me from the fact that you own me, own my life, own my house, own my work. **** you if you think you should get away with owning me by turning me against my own kind.

The emphasis needs to be on the second half of that message, where - right now - it feels like the emphasis is on the first.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

There needs to be a freshening of the language around progressive politics.

Any thought of higher or new taxes or public spending and the word "socialist" gets thrown around and people start thinking of the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s.

Yet we had high taxes and public spending in the west after the Great Depression and WW2. Roosevelt's "New Deal" not only had practical aspects but he also used the language to define "freedom" in a different way to what the neoliberals have done for four decades now. Thing is, the 50s through to the 90s / 00s saw some of the best economic times for the vast majority in the West - ever. Yes it got bogged down in the 70s and neoliberalism was probably needed temporarily to revive things, but since then, the wealth has continued to trickle ...... <not where they said it would>

Yet say the word New Deal or Keynesian and the average yobbo out there wouldn't have the foggiest idea what you are on about. Is it time for a party to come out and own these phrases? Even call themselves the Keynesian Progressives or something like that? At first, most folk wouldn't know what it meant, but I think it stands a better chance that some might learn, rather than the current "herp derp socialism"

Those terms sound too academic or historical to be suitable. I think simpler terms like "justice" could work.

I also think that what the right are using very effectively to weaken the bonds of class interests is nativism. Tell the average person they're victims of foreign villainy and they'll often believe it due to the fear of the unknown. And so I think the left would do well to co-opt some aspects of nativism without being xenophobic. If the right can influence people using the negative side of nativism (e.g. "foreigners are evil and taking your jobs"), what if the left could influence people using a more positive side of nativism? (e.g. "helping Australians first", "jobs for our children")

 

[Carringbush2010]

what if the left could influence people using a more positive side of nativism? (e.g. "helping Australians first", "jobs for our children")

I think most on the moderate left think this way, problem is that the irrational progressives will view this as demonizing other minorities, when it isn't.

Of course, muddoch media will report it as 'lefties bagging aussies' and the culture war ensues on social media, like here.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Absolutely.

There is a new party based on centre conservatism called democracy first that is championing a return to the centre for the conservatives with policies much more in line with older style Liberal party ideals and rejection of cronyism, living in big businesses pocket and having people in power who have actually done something in their lives outside of being a career politician.

The left needs a new democrats party.

So how did they do in this election?

 

[Seeds]

There needs to be a freshening of the language around progressive politics.

Any thought of higher or new taxes or public spending and the word "socialist" gets thrown around and people start thinking of the Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s.

Yet we had high taxes and public spending in the west after the Great Depression and WW2. Roosevelt's "New Deal" not only had practical aspects but he also used the language to define "freedom" in a different way to what the neoliberals have done for four decades now. Thing is, the 50s through to the 90s / 00s saw some of the best economic times for the vast majority in the West - ever. Yes it got bogged down in the 70s and neoliberalism was probably needed temporarily to revive things, but since then, the wealth has continued to trickle ...... <not where they said it would>

Yet say the word New Deal or Keynesian and the average yobbo out there wouldn't have the foggiest idea what you are on about. Is it time for a party to come out and own these phrases? Even call themselves the Keynesian Progressives or something like that? At first, most folk wouldn't know what it meant, but I think it stands a better chance that some might learn, rather than the current "herp derp socialism"

Keynesianism is just about how to deal with economic cycles and prevent downturns. Both major parties adopt keynes these days when a downturn looks on the cards. Its not about fundamental reform like fixing the housing market or changing the tax system to put a much greater emphasis on taxing wealth/luck or shifting to clean energy.

We need a party thats upfront and announces its about real reform and not bandaids or cash hand outs. This will come with some pain. But i think a lot of people are now ready for this.

 

[kranky al]

So how did they do in this election?

2025 Federal Election - AEC Tally Room

Tally Room - The Official Election Results

tallyroom.aec.gov.au

Can’t see snything

 

[Johnny Bananas]

2025 Federal Election - AEC Tally Room

Tally Room - The Official Election Results

tallyroom.aec.gov.au

Can’t see snything

I checked their Facebook page, it appears they ran candidates for the Senate under the banner of the Fusion Party. Fusion didn't get more than 0.04 of a Senate quota anywhere.

The reality is that even though the major parties are losing vote share, there's still only enough political oxygen for about six or seven political entities in Australia: Labor, the Coalition, the Greens, One Nation, the Teals and various local figures across the country (Katter, Lambie, non-Teal independents, Xenophon in the past).

I don't think it's impossible to carve out a position in this landscape, after all the Teals have done it recently, but it's extremely difficult. As I've said before in this thread, It requires exploiting a popular grievance that the established parties don't care that much about (eg climate change, reducing immigration), as well as money and media attention.

And you need both. Money without a real grievance to exploit is the Clive Palmer way, which burns bright for a period and then quickly collapses. A grievance to exploit without money is the fast track to irrelevance and making up the numbers on the ballot. The Teals succeeded because they exploited the grievance of the Liberals not taking climate change seriously and used the local community candidate factor. But most importantly, they had Simon Holmes a Court's cash.

The problem for any progressive movement seeking to do to Labor what the Teals did to the Liberals is, where will the money come from? The Greens have made it as far as they have with volunteers rather than money, but are probably reaching the limit of that approach now. So anyone seeking to do better than them in the House of Reps, needs the sort of money the Greens don't have.

 

[kranky al]

I checked their Facebook page, it appears they ran candidates for the Senate under the banner of the Fusion Party. Fusion didn't get more than 0.04 of a Senate quota anywhere.

The reality is that even though the major parties are losing vote share, there's still only enough political oxygen for about six or seven political entities in Australia: Labor, the Coalition, the Greens, One Nation, the Teals and various local figures across the country (Katter, Lambie, non-Teal independents, Xenophon in the past).

I don't think it's impossible to carve out a position in this landscape, after all the Teals have done it recently, but it's extremely difficult. As I've said before in this thread, It requires exploiting a popular grievance that the established parties don't care that much about (eg climate change, reducing immigration), as well as money and media attention.

And you need both. Money without a real grievance to exploit is the Clive Palmer way, which burns bright for a period and then quickly collapses. A grievance to exploit without money is the fast track to irrelevance and making up the numbers on the ballot. The Teals succeeded because they exploited the grievance of the Liberals not taking climate change seriously and used the local community candidate factor. But most importantly, they had Simon Holmes a Court's cash.

The problem for any progressive movement seeking to do to Labor what the Teals did to the Liberals is, where will the money come from? The Greens have made it as far as they have with volunteers rather than money, but are probably reaching the limit of that approach now. So anyone seeking to do better than them in the House of Reps, needs the sort of money the Greens don't have.

Well with the next funding laws laberal have seen off any threat….

 

[Freomaniac]

Random thought on here. The democrats from the late 1970s to early 1990s were the 3rd biggest political party in Australia. They were not left wing or right wing .

They were in the centre. At their best they got 1 million votes in a federal election. Not bad numbers at the time.

Greens got 1.8 million votes in the 2025 election. You would think that would mean 5 to 10 seats. But nope only one seat they won.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Random thought on here. The democrats from the late 1970s to early 1990s were the 3rd biggest political party in Australia. They were not left wing or right wing .

They were in the centre. At their best they got 1 million votes in a federal election. Not bad numbers at the time.

Three things killed the Democrats. Firstly, Labor moved to the political centre under Hawke and Keating, and entered the niche that the Democrats were occupying (and left a gap on the left that the Greens eventually filled). Secondly, once they came to a serious dilemma like the GST, picking a side alienated half the people who voted for them. Thirdly, scandals and Cheryl Kernot alienated the other half of people who voted for them.

Greens got 1.8 million votes in the 2025 election. You would think that would mean 5 to 10 seats. But nope only one seat they won.

That's why single-member electorates aren't that representative. The Greens' vote isn't as heavily concentrated into a handful of electorates as the Nationals' vote is, especially when their inner city strongholds are becoming increasingly unaffordable and forcing out a lot of renters and first-time property owners who vote Greens. Despite this, the Greens have still managed to win lower house seats, which is something the Democrats never managed to do.