Does Labor want to govern or not?

The Australian Labor Party has a unique opportunity to seize government.

The Morrison Government has locked itself into a high immigration future by declaring open war on Australian workers via:

  • Abolishing labour market testing requirements.
  • Lowering costs and speeding up approval times for importing foreign workers.
  • Expanding the skilled occupation list to include almost any role.
  • Providing all ‘skilled’ visa holders with a clear pathway for transition to permanent residency.
  • Granting ‘skilled’ visa holders priority access to flights and hotel quarantine ahead of stranded Australians.
  • Allowing international students to work 40 hours per week.

The plan to reboot immigration back to pre-COVID levels is highly unpopular across the electorate. Every time the mainstream media publishes an article bemoaning the lack of immigration and purported labour shortages, the article is inevitably followed with hundreds of angry reader comments rejecting the call.

Earlier this week, Newspoll also reported that nearly three-quarters of Australians want Australia’s international border to remain closed until mid-2022. While this is related to COVID risk, it also shows how comfortable Australians have become with stronger borders:

Australians want to keep Australia's border shut

Australians want to keep Australia’s border shut.

After spending years denying that mass immigration lowers wages, economists across the divide have also fallen into line with the public viewpoint. These include eminent Labor economists Ross Garnaut and Saul Eslake.

An even larger U-turn has transpired at the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), which for years pumped mass immigration propaganda. The RBA desperately wants stronger wage growth and it has finally admitted that to get it, the labour market necessarily needs to tighten. This means not having an extra 180,000 to 200,000 foreign workers flooding the labour market every year, as was the case pre-COVID.

In its latest Statement on Monetary Policy (SoMP), released earlier this month, the RBA noted that per capital GDP growth and wages are now on a higher trajectory thanks to the fall in immigration:

The level of GDP is still expected to remain a little below that forecast before the pandemic, mostly due to lower population growth; in per capita terms, GDP is expected to be on a higher trajectory, supported by higher per capita household income…

The longer border restrictions remain in place… the more likely that localised labour shortages could translate into some wage pressures as the economy continues to strengthen.

Most notably, the left-leaning Ardern Labour Government of New Zealand this week vowed to end low-skilled, wage crushing migration via a “once-in-a generation” reset for New Zealand’s immigration system. It flagged a significantly smaller migration intake post-Covid that focuses on highly skilled, highly paid and productive migrants that fill genuine skills shortages. This means abolishing the current low-skilled system, which has allowed businesses “to rely on lower-skilled labour and suppress wages rather than investing capital in productivity-enhancing plant and machinery, or employing and upskilling New Zealanders into work”.

The Ardern Government is now providing a clear policy process, as well as a national interest and moral leadership path to lower immigration.

In short, the political, intellectual, economic and moral ballast is now in place for Australia to pivot away from the mass immigration model that failed the nation so badly in the last business cycle.  Yet, remarkably, the Morrison Government wants to return to it without hesitation.

This is a gold-plated opportunity for Labor to win the next election in a landslide. All it needs to do is reset the permanent migration target to its historical average of between 80,000 and 100,000 a year with temporary and permanent skilled visas required to be paid above full-time ordinary earnings (currently $89,000).

Immigration reforms along these lines will resonate completely with community sentiment exhausted from years of crush-loading. The reforms would play well with working families by supporting local jobs and wages, not to mention limiting traffic. They will be received particularly well in Queensland, the power base of the federal Coalition, where Labor must make gains to win. Youth can be persuaded that they will benefit via less competition for jobs, higher wages and lower house prices. The green vote can be retained via the basic truth that lower population growth delivers better environmental outcomes across the board.

The only groups that it would offend are the business and property lobbies that favour the Coalition anyway and are generally viewed cynically by the public.

Does Labor want to govern or not?

Comments

  1. Michael Stevenson

    80,000 is still a problem if there is no diversity and no equality.

    Make it 10% max from any one country (UK, USA, Canada, NZ excluded) and max 49% males from any one country.

    Set a minimum income tax payment per year ($20,000 is good) and a minimum of $100,000 income tax paid over lifetime, or married to an Aussie with kids or a house together, to get citizenship.

    End the parental reunification visa.

    Then you can have the immigration level at whatever you like.

    • Strange EconomicsMEMBER

      Treasury announce in the news today that we don’t wan’t a smaller Australia.
      And that GDP per capita will go up with a smaller Australia.
      How can Treasury plan for growth without the old mass-immigration model? Too hard to think about.
      Their strawman arguments?
      For tourism? – Net tourism export /import is 20 billion without travel as external tourism. Where’s that spent?
      Well amazingly there is now another 20 billion a year spent on housing prices and renovations.

      Students? – (low income workers/ residence. At 40 hours per week work rights now how many lectures would they attend).
      Aussies coming home – they can build federal quarantine facilities.
      Who wants to be the Treasury Head that presided over lower GDP? A courageous idea Minister.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      You forgot to specify the Aussie they marry must be at least third generation and not Muslim.

        • drsmithyMEMBER

          To the poster who has been increasingly transparently arguing to bring back the Wh!te Australia Policy for at least a year now, but just doesn’t want to say that ? Hardly.

          • Arthur Schopenhauer

            Import people, import their Culture. In business, Culture always trumps strategy. The same goes for countries.

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            Culture is imposed from the top down. That’s why a whole bunch of enthusiastic employees can’t fix sh!t management, but good management can completely turn a company around.

            There are exceptions to this, of course, where employees (and citizens) have real empowerment. But these are exceptions, and Australia is not one of them.

            The country isn’t going to sh!t because of Sanjeev delivering Uber eats. It’s not even going to sh!t because Ahmed is running his 7-11 franchises on illegal, borderline slave labour. It’s going to sh!t because people like Scomo, Rich Uncle Rupe and Gina have power and influence.

          • I’ve seen companies with good culture coming from the top turned to shit because there were so many different cultures coming in at the bottom level that they eventually overwhelmed everyone else following the rule book at the bottom and bubbled up to the top

          • I’ve been in a great company that grew very quickly and hired in people from different companies with bad cultures and it ruined the company and turned it into another carbon copy of all other fortune 500s. So yeah wrong people and too many people and the good people leave.

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            How true – and who is at the top in Australia? Let’s turn to Michael West’s list of Dark companies to get some idea…

            I don’t think ‘people in leadership positions are collaborating with the secret j00ish cabal to destroy western civilisation’ is quite the slam dunk you believe it is.

        • Ghost of Stewie Griffin

          Smithy is just a self hating white who believes a culture that cuts off girls clitorises has just as much right to live in Australia as the people who founded it, because….. cultural relativity.

          Thanks to the endless propaganda funded by a bunch of hostile elites, funding our politicians and ‘think tanks’ and carried by a bunch of Oikophobics in our media, hating on the the dominant society is an easy way to achieve social status and differentiate yourself from the plebs.

    • Exactly / only highly skilled above average income assimilating migrants wanted.

      And shutting down our third world migrant intake & the repatriation of the 2.4 million third world unskilled migrant guestworkers on pretext visas back to their country of origin…. that should be front & centre of both parties policy.

      Isn’t the labor party’s issue that it just has no talent?

      So Scott Morrison is effectively governing in a complete vacuum of no real opposition party & no elector alternative choice?

      Look at the labor party & tell me who would be capable of even being an opposition leader, let alone forming an electable choice to Morrison liberal national.

      
👉🏾Anthony Albanese as the current caretaker opposition leader. Only given the job after the ‘surprise’ loss by Shorten / Plibersek.

      Now that Marrickville Thai brothel scandal still sits over his head. Crean using the photos to short circuit any Albanese political ambitions decades ago.

      Albanese is weak, inept, no presence and ultimately could never withstand a full election cycle & scrutiny which is why he is a caretaker opposition leader until the election cycle starts then he will be dumped / replaced quick smart.

      But who will replace Albanese?

      Other Labor leadership contenders…

      🔻Jim Chalmers
      Pushed to the front now as next in line but unknown and was only really relevant to trying to win back SE QLD. Hasn’t any experience of prime minister capability.

      🔻Richard Marles
      Vic faction. Useless and hated by his own.

      🔻
Penny Wong
      🔻Tanya Plibeserk
      Both are barking mad, and both have no real power base. The best they could hope for is some gender / gender fluidity or non white tokenistic deputy role.

      🔻Kristina Keneally
      Has the ambition and some of the right attributes but is not intelligent and is tainted goods, Eddie Obeid & Joe Tripodi’s little girl.

      🔻Tony Burke
      Grinning fool with proven history of failure.

      🔻Bill Shorten
      Sad blockhead Bill, the corrupt lawyer. 


      🔻Mark Butler, Chris Bowen, Ed Husic, Mark Dreyfus, Catherine King, et al not even capable of a shadow front bench role.
      👉🏾All 3rd tier nobodies.

      Maybe Labor will have to draft someone in?
      One of those other ex state labor premiers.

      They can’t win with their current lineup.

      • To be honest the 3rd tier nobody’s are better than the higher ups in that party from your list. They need someone from the surburban outer belt and country towns, and need to get rid of the inner city politicans from the top. Once those people have the power base and set the agenda the typical issues like population growth, overdevelopment, wages, etc would be front and centre.

        When I go into my city job I do realise how out of touch the people there working often are. The issues they care about are so far removed from the people doing the heavy lifting its a bit concerning.

  2. Labor just wanna announce some token policies to remain in 2nd place and collect their $200k wages for doing SFA.
    Heaven forbid winning the election and having to do some actual work!

    It’s the “union way” dontchyaknow

    • Labour are out of touch, Wong is calling it, Morrison is a warmonger and its all politics, nothing about national sovereignty… then MB says that Ardern is saviour (again) when NZ immigration/housing/foreign policy, in fact any measure you want to use, per head is far worse than Australia’s!

      Until Labour get real policies that we actually want, and continue to target eastern suburbs with climate change, transgender rights, etc., it says to the common pleb, of which I am one, “we are your superior, we know what’s best for you!“. And maybe they are? They rule WA!

      • GonzificusMEMBER

        As far as I can tell, Labor haven’t gone woke in WA, maybe that’s why they crushed it in the last election.
        No SJW pronoun confused pandering here.

        • Torchwood1979

          Indeed. WA is the way to go for the ALP, take note Canberra! And a good side-effect is that the Libs in WA are doing their bit for climate change by fitting into a Toyota Yaris.

      • Coorey’s take on it this morning was that Wong was pretty reasonable. We don’t need a khaki election.

        There’s a very clear distinction between sh$thouse diplomacy/war mongering and defending national sovereignty.

        • RobotSenseiMEMBER

          Yes, but a year spent defending Australia’s national sovereignty from the tens of thousands of invading Australians seems… a little peculiar.

    • happy valleyMEMBER

      Exactly, $200+ k a year for doing SFA is quite attractive. But, thanks Labor for not trying and effectively bequeathing us the ScoMo dictatorship we have to have?

  3. Lord DudleyMEMBER

    Heh… if immigration stays low, then at some stage, Australia’s epic housing bubble will fall over. And since Australia’s only trade exposed industries are commodities priced in USD (e.g. red dirt, black rocks, agricultural products), a falling currency won’t help you. There’ll be no substitution with local goods because you don’t produce any. Huge amounts of fake “wealth” will evaporate in short order. Major demand collapse.

    With collapsing house prices and rising unemployment, the mum-n-dad investors of Australia will REEEEE like they’ve never REEEE’d before!

    Given your completely hollowed out economy, your only hope to avoid a serious recession or a depression is to keep importing hundreds of thousands of people per year. Labor know this, and so they aren’t interested in changing it. There’ll be no lower immigration policy offered. It’s big Australia or bust, baby! Ha ha ha!

    • kierans777MEMBER

      Big Australia THEN bust as Sydney runs out of water (again) followed by Melbourne and other cities.

    • Nah, for all your ranting about how sh!t this country is, it’s actually pretty good and we can make stuff. I don’t think things will ever get as bad as some hope they will. We will adapt, as we did during Covid.

      • Lord DudleyMEMBER

        ” it’s actually pretty good and we can make stuff”

        Ha ha ha ha LOL! That used to be true 20 years ago. It’s not anymore. It could be true again, but first you’d need to lower costs… which you won’t do because much of your costs are directly tied to high land prices. Australia can “make stuff”, but it largely doesn’t, and won’t unless it goes through a major painful adjustment.

        And it’s not pretty good there. Professional wages stink, there are few jobs, there’s massive unemployment and underemployment, and the cost of living is truly insane.

        In the real world, Australia’s economic complexity has utterly collapsed… so no, you can’t “make stuff”. Aside from red dirt, agriculture, and knocking up new houses you have no competencies or capabilities anymore.

        https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/australia-is-rich-dumb-and-getting-dumber-20191007-p52y8i

        “On the primary metric used in the database, an index of economic complexity, Australia fell from 57th to 93rd from 1995 to 2017, a decline that is accelerating. “

        • The Complexity Index is the only metric that I want Aussie Politicians to learn.
          They need to understand exactly what this measure is telling us about our workforce and our economy before it truly is too late
          Some might say it is never too late to change but the fact is with each passing year the difficulty grows exponentially. Economic Complexity is one of these things where you don’t know what you don’t know, put in simpler sporting parlance:
          If you’re not a player you don’t know the game.
          You may say that the game can be learned from books or the internet or university or wherever, but I will stick with my analogy, if you’re not a player then you just don’t really know the game.
          So is it important to know the game? Ah yea.
          have you ever watched one of those exhibition games where a US gridiron team plays an Aussie Rugby league team, I remember seeing this once and it was a predictable farce. Why? both sides have skilled athletes so surely they can quickly adapt but not before money or interest in watching such a farce evaporates….
          And that’s exactly what it’s like trying to grow a high tech company in Australia, the politicians enjoy a good bit of comic relief watching Aussie companies attempt to grow on the global stage but at some point the giggles stop and so does the money. Why you might ask again well simply because we don’t have the depth of market / design/ manufacturing product knowledge to really know what’s required of a new product. We make some very predictable missteps which leaves the supporting polli with s#it on their shoes. From my experience once this happens they wipe the s#it off as quickly as they can and try to pretend they never stepped in it.
          The Complexity Index is one of the only measurement that tries to understand what a country is capable of and therefore by extension what’s beyond their capabilities. This is useful information if you’re a politician that’s actually interested in setting Australia on a new and sustainable course…which is exactly why this information is worthless in Australia.

        • OZ battlerMEMBER

          And the average public sector salary is much higher than the average private sector salary. Everything is arse to front in this country.
          I feel like a mug having obtained a higher education and pursuing a cut throat corporate career when I would have been better off dropping out of school at 15 and becoming an unskilled labourer in a union.

          • I would have been better off dropping out of school at 15 and becoming an unskilled labourer in a union.

            What you do to earn a nominal income is irrelevant.

            What matters is that any nominal income is used to service as much debt as banks will create for you to spend on Aussie housing purchased regardless of price.

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            And the average public sector salary is much higher than the average private sector salary.

            Maybe, but that’s because there aren’t a lot of minimum wage workers in the APS. The _typical_ public sector salary is much lower than the _typical_ private sector salary for the same job.

          • We had a bloke recently just join us from council.

            At council he was given 1 hour a day allocated to filling out his time sheet.

        • The smart jobs however are highly underpaid, highly stressful or highly insecure and it isn’t worth having them. Our risk/reward system in Australia doesn’t really favour smart jobs – in fact we usually push their wages down via immigration.

    • ““To me it seems like a blatant money grab from people who can’t vote.””
      Absolutely disgusting attitude. Why should new immigrants who have contributed NOTHING to Australia get welfare quickly?

      • blacktwin997MEMBER

        If it annoys Gabriela D’Souza then you can be pretty sure that it is in the best interests of Australia.

  4. Gee, I love that nice easy question, to start the exam. Of COURSE they DON’T want to govern. The preciously woke inner-city view they all project, is that the 17m electors should listen to them and learn, and not at all the other way around.

    This is particularly so of China, Immigration, and Net Zero, where they insist that the “uninformed” electors should hew to the prescribed United Nations perspective, or else.

    • This – for Labor to govern the leadership need to lose their inner city seats (more than offset by the gains elsewhere). Just won’t happen.

  5. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    It’d only take 30 to 40 thousand Working class Australians joining the ALP, on the basis of changing its immigration policy, to completely take over the Party and take it to Electrol victory.
    But thanks to the daily programming people receive in our Consumerist/Neoliberal society this of course won’t occur.
    Being into Solidarity and participation isn’t good for your personal brand these days.
    Totally uncool in the 1980s vernacular.

    • Lord DudleyMEMBER

      What would those 30 – 40k people do when they discovered that substantially reducing immigration long term will smash their house prices? I bet they’d REEEE like nobody’s ever heard.

      Working class Australia are all in on this. It’s why the Scotty government is a sure thing. Once Australians are told that their choices are big Australia, or for the only asset they own to drop in price, watch them vote for big Australia en masse!

  6. MathiasMEMBER

    A long time ago, Kevin Rudd wrote in one of his white papers that Labor did all the work. Labor would work hard, to grow a business ( like Commonwealth, Telstra, SEQEB, NBN or many more ) to get them on the ground. After all the back breaking work to get these organisations functional, Liberals would come along and just sell it all off in the next electoral term. Liberals would skim there 10% commission off the sale while Labor gets dumped with all the work.

    Presumably, all Liberal has to do is make money ( lift GDP ). Labor has to do both, lift GDP and find solutions for Social Inequality.

    When you look at Australias Electoral history for the past 200 years since Captain Cook landed in Australia, this Country has only ever elected 2 political partys ( name changes aside ). Those partys are Liberal and Labor ( although, I believe Liberal used to be Nationals Farmers Party at one point in history ). Of all the elections Australia has ever had, 24 have gone to Liberals and 12 have gone to Labor. This means, Liberal Greed has won at the polls on a ratio of 2:1 . Everytime Labors elected, Liberals are elected twice.

    So Labors looking at a country thats been gutted, had all its money syphoned off, high house prices, half its business’s sold off and pretty much everything you could possibly imagine. Its also got to consider that if it gets elected, Liberals will be elected twice after them. So is it worth establishing another NBN, taking on the Monopolistic Corporations destroying Australia or doing something productive that could change this country? Probably not. I think they get sick of it. Labor knows if they get elected, do great stuff then Liberals are only going to sell it off an election later.

    I think the real question here is, Is Australias Democracy broken? I’d say it is and I’d be questioning whether this can be even be recovered.

    Knowing Liberals have won two elections to there one, if I was Labor then I wouldnt want to be elected. If I did, I wouldnt want to do any work ( libs will just sell it off ) and I’d be taking the easy way out because whats the point in actually doing something in a Nation so politically hostile?

    The problem with Australia is its easier to hate and steal then it is to build. When the Australian Voters keep voting for the former, then why bother? I’d be just sitting in opposition where I dont have to do any work at all.

    Lets be honest, Whats the reward for doing anything good in this Country? There is none.

    If I was Labor, I’d start by trying to wipe out Fairfax and pretty much every monopoly thats supported all this Corruption. Kevin Rudd tried to go head on with the Miners in Australia and lost. Its hard to recover from that.

  7. MathiasMEMBER

    What do you get when the Corporations call the shots and Governments no longer have any power?

    Nigeria.

    They cant even organise Garbage Disposal because the Corporations call the shots, sell off all the Oil and refuse to give anything back to the Community.

    Its only a matter of time before Corporations get there own Defence Militia and begin using force to dictate terms to Australias Government and its people. They already dont pay taxes as it is and its only a matter of time before the Corporations start considering ‘the people’ as just a hindrance to there primary issue for profiteering.

    Im thinking if Labor wants to survive into the future and not diminish into irrelevency ( which is what they are practically doing ), they are going to have to put the boxing gloves on and start fighting the greed thats infesting this country in Australia. The problem is, that wont make you very popular and its probably going to destroy Labors reputation… even though I fear its necessary.

    If Labors not prepared to take on the Evils that are starting to infest Australia, then I suggest Labor disband and get behind one of the other political partys prepared to give it a go ( Sustainable Australia Party ). Labor wont do Australia any justice by just sitting in the background and being a pretender. Australia would be better having no opposition then a Labor opposition that pretends.

    If Labor cant do it then step aside and let someone else have a go.

    • Jumping jack flash

      In the New Economy it makes sense to vote liberal. Libs have the banks’ ears. They are seen as wealthy people, people want to be them.

      Labor is for the workers. There are no “workers” any more just aspiring rentiers.

      Hawke’s workers were the last of their kind. Besides, nobody can become eligible for the amounts of debt they need from traditional working.

      Working is for losers and the worker’s party is the losers’ party.

      • Torchwood1979

        An obnoxious rich kid once said to me “Jobs are for losers!”. Yep, I agree these are the people who really own Australia.

    • kierans777MEMBER

      … they are going to have to put the boxing gloves on and start fighting the greed thats infesting this country in Australia.

      Hear, hear.

      It’s a myth that the Libs are better economic managers. It’s time that myth was confronted head on.

      • Jumping jack flash

        Howard was very shrewd and faced with nothing really to pick on that Labor was doing wrong (apart from that *global* recession we were a part of at the time), concocted an emergency based on government debt (which had to grow as a result of that recession, as it does now) that people bought into. It was a true fabrication of facts, but it paid off and Libs are now seen as “better economic managers” to this day.

        If Albo was worth anything he would turn their own strategy onto themselves and start shouting about the high government debt to anyone who will listen, like Howard did.

        I don’t know what’s going on but Albo doesn’t say a single thing.

  8. reusachtigeMEMBER

    Oh Labor, the party of the losers. I don’t know anyone who votes for them but I assume a lot of my renters do.

    • Lord DudleyMEMBER

      Yeh, they’re the ones who complain about the agent doing the surprise property inspections. Self entitled Labor voters who think they own the place.

      As a landlord, it’s my house and I’ll check that my grotty renters are keeping my toilet clean enough any time I please.

    • Plenty of losers not voting Labor, and are quick to point out how good Scomo is, and will emphasize how much worse everything would be if Labor were in government.
      People do get screwed over by government, big business, and themselves.

  9. If yesterday’s news briefing is anything to go by, Scotty has read the tea leaves on this. Come election time Labour will get pinned again on borders.

  10. They would rather declare themselves morally triumphant and be losers. If they can declare themselves morally triumphant in their mind they can never lose a battle.

  11. SnappedUpSavvyMEMBER

    Albino and makemesick would have to actually put their political careers on the line, take a risk, so…. no

  12. Walter Berg IVMEMBER

    The question on whether the ALP wants to govern or not has been couched in different terms in recent weeks courtesy of former UK PM Tony Blair and a piece he wrote in the British New Statesman – Without Total Change Labour will die – (https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die). The local ALP have had some sort of discourse on Blair’s thoughts worthy of a moments thinking (I thought in a gloomy kind of way) yesterday here Labor MPs divided on Tony Blair’s suggestion to use right-wing methods https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/labor-mps-divided-on-tony-blair-s-suggestion-to-use-right-wing-methods-20210514-p57rwx.html

    Whether or not one likes Blair and what he stood for as British PM and subsequently (and I must confess I fairly loathe him) he makes some valid points.  There is plenty in the piece for everyone to disagree with but he is on firm ground in stating…..

    The progressive problem is that, in an era where people want change in a changing world, and a fairer, better and more prosperous future, the radical progressives aren’t sensible and the sensible aren’t radical. The choice is therefore between those who fail to inspire hope and those who inspire as much fear as hope. So, the running is made by the new radical left, with the “moderates” dragged along behind, uncomfortably mouthing a watered-down version of the left’s policies while occasionally trying to dig in their heels to stop further sliding towards the alienation of the centre.

    The result is that today progressive politics has an old-fashioned economic message of Big State, tax and spend which, other than the spending part (which the right can do anyway), is not particularly attractive. This is combined with a new-fashioned social/cultural message around extreme identity and anti-police politics which, for large swathes of people, is voter-repellent. “Defund the police” may be the left’s most damaging political slogan since “the dictatorship of the proletariat”. It leaves the right with an economic message which seems more practical, and a powerful cultural message around defending flag, family and fireside traditional values. To top it off, the right evinces a pride in their nation, while parts of the left seem embarrassed by the very notion.

    I don’t doubt there is a fair bit of appetite for some progressive socio economic policy.  But whereas he sees a divide between sensibles and radicals there is a far starker actual divide. 

    The divide is between 1.  Those who want socio-economic progressive reform…..

    Meaning:-  

    –          A far fairer slab of the economic pie for all (meaning a larger take of the economic pie for the many),

    –          Far greater government preparedness to boldly stride into the ‘market’ we have been cultivated to believe exist to address outrageous market failures

    –          An end to the conversion of social goods (houses for starters) of the many into speculative asset classes of the few(er)

    –          An end to the provision of ‘social services’ by private contractors where the only real intent of the privatisation is to get the service ‘off the books’ by politicians and the only real effect is to attach a privatised funds extraction mechanism to the public teat.

    –          An end to the array of tax avoidance mechanisms accessed primarily by the more affluent – private health insurance, novated car leases, self managed super, which cost the budget massively

    –          An end to ever increasing casualization and contractorisation being used to suppress income gains and employment conditions for those employed

    –          An end to the ransomed society for access to education, and the pretty complete deconstruction of ‘education’ the sector – which has been deformed into an expensive, less academically rigorous, tool for spurring ponznomics, temporary visas, property development etc.

    The other side of the divide is 2.  a load of essentially side issues in relation to progressive socio economic reform………

    In suggesting they are side issues the suggestion is not that they are not important but rather that prioritising them as being of greater importance than the socio economic issues will ultimately mean accepting the socio economic status quo as a given (which Blair is basically implying) and encouraging the divide up of the economic and ‘power’ spoils from that point in a particular way – a larger share for women, for LGTB, a bigger focus on climate etc.  That actually works in favour of the current beneficiaries of the economic divide.  Their current take is questioned less, they can deploy assets to shape the social discourse (and sow disharmony where needed) more, and ultimately becomes a key factor in the war waged by the 1% or 10% or the wealthier for an ever larger take of the proceeds of the economic pie.  

    Our current ALP shows every sign of accepting the economic status quo.  It is for this reason that even with a government as utterly reviled as our current government actually is, the enthusiasm for the ALP remains pretty tepid – with a very large number of people assuming that even if they do get elected the ALP is unlikely to address their needs all that much, is unlikely to meaningfully set about reconstructing the economy, and is likely to make their lives more irritating with an address of social justice concerns (and if they have male children under the age of about 20 is likely to mean those boys are treated like pariahs from the get go in the employment world into which they are about to embark unless they want to be manual trades types). Most Australians would plausibly assume any ALP government may be a touch too much like the Blair Labour government in the UK to be of meaningful positive benefit in their lives.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      Blair’s quoted passage could have been written almost verbatim at pretty much any time in the last couple of centuries (probably any point in history).

      The real problem is clearly people have stronger feelings against “the side messages” than they do in favour of “the socio-economic reform”. This is demonstrated on MB every day.

      The only people who get to set the framing of their positions are the ones in power. Everyone else is at the mercy of the people asking them their positions.

      • Walter Berg IVMEMBER

        Well the socioeconomic message is that Australia has about the worlds most heavily indebted people with amongst the worlds highest rates of casualization, being creamed for amongst the worlds most expensive energy and rent costs or shelling out for the worlds largest mortgages, all part of an economy with the worlds most profoundly bubblesque competitive position, kept in play our government redistributions from iron ore purchased by a nation with whom we are having one of the all time great ‘waking up alongside what?!’ experiences.

        The side issues generating heat – and considerable reaction against from the labour side of politics – are precisely because the ALP seemingly prioritises these to the socioeconomic issues.

        The ‘power’ you refer to is precisely that which a lot of fairly mundane people suspect will not address their circumstances if in the hands of the ALP.  And the only way they would get power is to convince those people that it would be deployed in their favour if an ALP government came to power, or for the incumbent LNP fraudster government to make even more of a balls up of governing or for the public to become so exasperated with the faux nothingness they specialise in they (the public) decide they simply have to go.

        • drsmithyMEMBER

          The side issues generating heat – and considerable reaction against from the labour side of politics – are precisely because the ALP seemingly prioritises these to the socioeconomic issues.

          One of my points is that the ALP don’t get to set the framing for which of their positions are “prioritised” more than others. They get asked about stuff and have to respond, they (broadly speaking) don’t get to drive the discussion. That is why, for example, Labor always has to justify “how are you going to pay for that”.

          (Not that I suspect it would make a huge difference anyway, as the ALP are well and truly in the thrall of neoliberalism and ultimately wouldn’t do it that much differently to the Liberals.)

          The other point, of course, is that there’s no reason why multiple issues cannot be pursued with equal levels of enthusiasm – but the real problem for lots of people is clearly not that the “side issues” are “prioritised”, it’s that they are considered issues at all.

          TL;DR: Conservatives control the narrative. That is why there’s hysteria about [checks calendar] trans rights and “Critical Race Theory” but not casualised labour and disabled people who can’t afford to feed themselves.

          • kierans777MEMBER

            The Libs and their protection racket always make the election about “the economy stupid”. So the ALP needs to go in swinging a bat at every stupid lie that is told about the economy and the Liberals “better management”.

            PS. Where’s Totes these days?

          • Why can’t Labor set the narrative? Asked question, call out the obvious BS and reframe the question.

            Do it enough – and I mean ad nauseum – and it becomes the narrative.

          • Of course conservatives control the narrative. Australian’s are culturally conservative mostly. However there’s multiple dimensions to this – you can be traditional and culturally conservative (typically right wing) and still bat for the worker, be anti-globalisation, pro-environment, etc which is typically left wing. The problem is there isn’t a “north” or “south” wing; I think most of Australia (the average voter) has moved away from both the typical left and right of old; unless you live in the inner city of course.

            The stereotypical Aussie family I believe are still outside the city centre’s mostly traditional, but also “she’ll be right”. In other words Aussie’s don’t mind a hard day’s work but they don’t like change either that destabilizes their laid back lifestyle. They want secure work, to enjoy the outdoors, have a stable paycheck/career pathway, and are lifestyle orientated – but conversely on cultural issues they are more traditional I feel than other countries given the nuclear family and suburban nature of Australia outside the city CBD’s.

            If there was a party that was pro-environment/outdoors, pro family, pro Australia, pro border protection, pro worker they would have a great shot. A party that was traditional in their “identity politics” beliefs culturally while still still seen as a responsible hand giving workers a “fair go” (left wing) and not doing things to screw them (i.e. killing their main assets value) they would be a much better shot.

            Most people don’t believe Labor (at least with its inner city leadership) and the Greens are these kinds of party. i.e. “If only the greens stuck to environmental issues” I hear all the time.

      • Walter Berg IVMEMBER

        I buy plenty of what you say, and do think the ability to set a narrative – particularly where the media is as openly pawned as in Australia – is very very limited.

        But I think in buying what you say there are two points to make which I suspect may go beyond what you want to say.

        1.       I think the ALP could go far further and far harder in establishing a narrative about them being about very considerable and fundamental economic reform.

        2.       I think that some of the side issues (or non socio-economic progress issues) – particularly immigration (the circumstances in which they come, the nationalities of the immigrants, the skills they bring and the contribution this is making to Australian economic development) which is now so openly contrary to the interests of present and future Australians and is directly related to the deforming of a once respected university sector, and some facets of quite overt discrimination against men, in the name of social justice, in the State and Commonwealth public sectors and university sector (where females comprise 65-70% of employees across the board) – are starting to get right up the nose of some parts of the electorate.    

        • drsmithyMEMBER

          I think the ALP could go far further and far harder in establishing a narrative about them being about very considerable and fundamental economic reform.

          They probably could, if they weren’t hopelessly compromised Centrists with no meaningful plans for considerable and fundamental economic reform, but it would be an absolute battle.

          Unlikely that anyone else would be able to, though. They would just be dismissed as “nutters”.

          I think that some of the side issues (or non socio-economic progress issues) – particularly immigration (the circumstances in which they come, the nationalities of the immigrants, the skills they bring and the contribution this is making to Australian economic development) […]

          I wouldn’t have classed immigration as a “non-socio economic progress” issue – certainly that isn’t the narrative pushed by the MB proprietors – but the fundamental problem with immigration is too much and too low-skill. This is largely fixable with some big dumb rules (eg: minimum salary $100k), but the real problem is nobody is interested in fixing that problem because it’s not perceived as a problem.

          […] which is now so openly contrary to the interests of present and future Australians and is directly related to the deforming of a once respected university sector, and some facets of quite overt discrimination against men, in the name of social justice, in the State and Commonwealth public sectors and university sector (where females comprise 65-70% of employees across the board) – are starting to get right up the nose of some parts of the electorate.    

          That seems like a mightily low bar for “overt discrimination against men”.

          • Walter Berg IVMEMBER

            They probably could, if they weren’t hopelessly compromised Centrists with no meaningful plans for considerable and fundamental economic reform, but it would be an absolute battle. .

            If they don’t then they are setting themselves for eternal oppositiondom.  If they cant get traction with the biggest economic downturn in generations amongst the people under the kosh as mentioned above the question must surely be asked ‘what are they here for?’ even Blair tipped his hat to political parties having no ‘right’ to exist.

            I wouldn’t have classed immigration as a “non-socio economic progress” issue – certainly that isn’t the narrative pushed by the MB proprietors – but the fundamental problem with immigration is too much and too low-skill. This is largely fixable with some big dumb rules (eg: minimum salary $100k), but the real problem is nobody is interested in fixing that problem because it’s not perceived as a problem.

            Some parts of the immigration lobby push the ‘its is our responsibility to…..’ line vis immigration any chance given in that same pawned media.  Far more parts of the commentariat have pushed the questioning immigration equals racism line, and even more have pushed the ‘immigration has no impact on employment, incomes, house prices, infrastructure crowding etc line’

            That seems like a mightily low bar for “overt discrimination against men”. .

            Any workplace of 2-1 is discriminatory unless it is questioned.  When the numbers were reversed they were certainly noted as clear indication of ‘overt discrimination against women’ and there are plenty of examples of the ‘too many old men at X classification, so some of you have to go’ instances.  If its apocryphal it is widely acknowledged (even amongst a lot of women).  The last time I was in Canberra there was a guy doing a brisk trade in windcheaters and hoodies with ‘Old White Male’ at the old bus depot markets.  

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            If they don’t then they are setting themselves for eternal oppositiondom.  If they cant get traction with the biggest economic downturn in generations amongst the people under the kosh as mentioned above the question must surely be asked ‘what are they here for?’ even Blair tipped his hat to political parties having no ‘right’ to exist.

            “What even is the point of Labor [and why does anyone support them]” does seem to be a fairly frequent question amongst us nutty progressives.

            Some parts of the immigration lobby push the ‘its is our responsibility to…..’ line vis immigration any chance given in that same pawned media.  Far more parts of the commentariat have pushed the questioning immigration equals racism line, and even more have pushed the ‘immigration has no impact on employment, incomes, house prices, infrastructure crowding etc line’

            I’m actually struggling to understand what point you’re trying to make and what disagreement we have here.

            Any workplace of 2-1 is discriminatory unless it is questioned. 

            Well that bodes ill for rather a few professions.

            When the numbers were reversed they were certainly noted as clear indication of ‘overt discrimination against women’ and there are plenty of examples of the ‘too many old men at X classification, so some of you have to go’ instances.  If its apocryphal it is widely acknowledged (even amongst a lot of women). 

            Apparently, despite the “overt discrimination” that leaves them a persecuted minority, men are still paid on average ~7% more than women the APS. I’ll take a punt that’s not part of most “numbers reversed” scenarios.

            The last time I was in Canberra there was a guy doing a brisk trade in windcheaters and hoodies with ‘Old White Male’ at the old bus depot markets.  

            You’d struggle to find a group of snowflakes anywhere more prone to persecution syndrome than comfortably well-off conservative white men, so I’m not surprised someone is making some coin selling trendy clobber to help them broadcast their oppression.

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            If they don’t then they are setting themselves for eternal oppositiondom.

            I’ll add that another problem is Labor only want to govern if they can govern outright. They have made it crystal fvcking clear they have zero interest in even working with, let alone explicitly sharing power with, the Greens or anyone else.

            But they have shifted too far right for the lefties, and will never shift far enough right for the righties. So the chances of that happening reduce with every election.

            Their strategy of abusing anyone lefty who runs against them doesn’t help their cause much either.

          • Walter Berg IVMEMBER

            Dude, Sorry I haven’t replied earlier – some of us have afternoons cluttered with bullshido elsewhere.

            For the main part I believe you and I are almost certainly singing from close enough to the same hymn sheet to suspect our voting preferences are in the same ballpark.

            But,

            Believe it or not your raising of the ‘Pay Gap’ in the APS – and the ALP’s reaction to it – is precisely the sort of thing the rest of Australia wonders quite a lot about in relation to the ALP.

            Let’s start with the APS State of the Service report to which you linked. If you had gone beyond the sentence you presumably searched for the questions mount. That site actually contains more information than required to blow away the idea that there is a ‘pay gap’ stemming from some form of gender based discrimination in the APS. Regardless of what the WGEA running some diagnostic – which does have its genesis in some pretty contentious misandry – tells you about there being a ‘pay gap in the APS.

            Shall we start with this chart here. Median pay outcomes at every APS classification level – and I would add the various state public services have the same basic dynamic. It dates from 2019 – there will be another in about 3 months. It shows median base salary for the entire APS structure. It comes from this page here – https://www.apsc.gov.au/remuneration-reports/australian-public-service-remuneration-report-2019/chapter-8-remuneration-gender

            There are no 7% gaps there. Why the gaps that are there, are there, is anybody’s guess but there are no 7% gaps there. Then (and feel free to tell me I am talking out of my backside – but please tell me how – because I once spent large amounts of time working on APS pay outcomes, when I wasn’t trying to shunt misogynist old men out the door to let the sunlight in, and presenting courses on gender equity and diversity, and working with a whole range of employee representatives and managements about how to improve diversity at all levels and awareness of diversity type issues at a management level – and I would be interested to know) factor in that it is against the law to pay two different people two different salaries in the same APS organisation according to any criteria other than the amount of work they will do, or possibly the context in which they will do it. Not just since the 2000 Public Service Act but any time forward of the early 1980s and the Hawke government.

            Still the WGEA generates data generating charts like these

            Anybody asking me what I would attribute that 7% gap that the WGEA comes up with to, my first thoughts (without having looked all that closely at APS conditions in a while) would be to scout Part time work (which women tend to look for and take up at about 4-5 times the rate of men) and the leave purchase provisions of most APS agency agreements (the old 48/52 provisions which see staff able to ‘buy’ 4 weeks additional leave while spreading the purchase over the rest of the year (or 18 months or 2 years depending on the agency) – which again tends to be accessed by women more than men, often to supplement health leave) There may also be a case for looking at the superannuation arrangements of couples – in the context of many married or partnered couples often directing the bulk of one salary to superannuation (often the woman’s) and many APS agencies offering ideal circumstances to do it through ‘salary sacrifice’ provisions in their agreements. Maybe (only maybe) this affects the APS or ABS data in some way.

            Beyond that what could there possibly be? Maybe ‘performance’ pay…… To my knowledge not a single APS agency offers it to the tune of 7% (certainly not anywhere below executive levels) and even then I would have thought any agency turning up all men performing and all women not would have an awful lot of explaining to do. Maybe up in the SES levels there are male executives getting bonuses which female executives aren’t, of sufficient volume to affect averages and data. But I surely do doubt it, and I would wager serious sums on money on there not being anything more than the 1-2% gap in median outcomes noted in the page I have referred you to. The APS – and all public services – are the one environment where everyone to all intents and purposes knows what everyone else is getting at a base salary level, and the Ministers offices know what those at executive levels are being slipped as extras. The one thing we can be pretty sure of in the APS is that there will not be a woman turning up and doing the same job for the same number of hours each week as some man and getting 7% less. Yet that is the perception the WGEA perpetuates, and you are suggesting in your use of their data.

            Unlike your assertion that somehow APS men are ‘comfortably well off conservative white men’ there are vast reams of data noting that your average APS member (including men) votes ALP or even Green, and that while they may have greater security of employment they are certainly not rolling in some sort of clover – the salaries speak for themselves at each classification, and the numbers at each classification suggest you are hardly likely to be meeting holiday in the Maldives types when you head down to Tax or Human Services. Data from the Public Service Commission has also noted a surprising number of APS men are sole income providers for households (outside the ACT). Essentially all you are doing is echoing your average IPA member or Torynuff politician in touting some mythical entitled type you know sweet FA of, and playing to some presumed, but not considered, spectre of entitlement. The simple fact of the matter is your average APS punter (particularly those below Executive Levels – where they all turn into game players) is a pretty ordinary turn up and do it kind of person regardless of their sex, and where they all know what everyone else is getting.

            And all those male ‘snowflakes’ you refer to are finding their feminised world – epitomised by this chart

            ……Is drifting away from data narrative and verification and drifting inexorably toward everyone sharing the same emotion vis the imperatives of the day – regardless of the data or any narrative or logic in how this is best addressed – which is invariably gullet fed from a Ministers office and is exhorted downwards with diminishing performance bonuses.

            Despite that hazy and specious awareness of what the ‘Gender Pay Gap’ actually represents the ALP leader was out there only weeks ago generating headlines such as Labor commits to closing APS gender pay gap https://www.themandarin.com.au/150990-labor-commits-to-closing-aps-gender-pay-gap/

            Of course when you read the article (and there is no copy of what he said on Albanese’s site) you get ….

            Labor will take action to close the gender pay gap within the Australian Public Service if it is elected to government, according to Anthony Albanese.

            At a press conference on Monday morning, coinciding with International Women’s Day, the federal opposition leader proposed four steps to close the gender pay gap across Australian workforces.

            One of those components involved addressing the pay gap in the APS, which is predominantly made up of women.

            “The commonwealth cannot ask the private sector to do something without showing leadership ourselves, and under a Labor government, we would have an audit across all of the departments of the Australian Public Service, using the Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s tools in the first year to identify exactly where these issues are,” Albanese said.

            The 2019-20 State of the Service report, released in November, noted that there is a gender pay gap of 7.3% in favour of men in the APS. While that figure has reduced from 9.1% in 2015, “there is more to be done to reduce the gender pay gap in the APS”, the report said.

            Just imagine if you will a man purporting to be the future leader, being headlined as closing something which nobody seems to know what it is. Though he is committing to funding to finding out what it is. Right at this moment there are about 150 thousand Australian public servants who know there is no pay discrimination in the APS, thinking that a putative leader touting data which nobody seems to know what it means is shredding his credibility from the feet up and isn’t that focussed on issues of substance.

          • The WGEA is a joke, the WGEA is in the business of perpetuating the entity of the WGEA. For a start the WGEA needs to close the ‘gender gap’ of it’s leadership team before it points ideologically prejudiced fingers at anyone else https://www.wgea.gov.au/about/our-team.

          • drsmithyMEMBER

            The average pay gap is presumably coming from the fact that there are (broadly) more men in higher paying jobs and more women in lower paying jobs. I haven’t bothered doing the maths, because it’s really secondary to the point that it’s quite plain to see from the graphs you’ve pasted that men might be outnumbered, but they’re clearly not being discriminated against in any way.

            Unlike your assertion that somehow APS men are ‘comfortably well off conservative white men’ […]

            Piss off. That’s two straw men in a row.

            My comment about “comfortably well off conservative white men” was quite clearly and explicitly (because it was written right after I quoted your comment creating that context) in reference to the kinds of blokes that are going to be at the old bus depot markets in Canberra buying “Old White Male” hoodies.

          • Walter Berg IV don’t waste your time with smith, over years smith has displayed a non amenableness to counter evidence of his ideological prejudiced beliefs. He will always find some way to lie to himself that he has ‘won’ the discussion or just go missing. You can tell observably as above he gets angry and tells you to ‘piss off’.

          • Walter Berg IVMEMBER

            Rogerio i have actually commented on and been commented on back and forth with Dr Smithy for quite some time. I would observe we tend to agree on more than we disagree.

            We obviously disagree on the propensity for managerial gender discrimination and its putative (or not) presence in the APS.

            No doubt he has his frame of reference, I have mine. He is entitled to his view, and I am entitled to mine.

            Maybe from here we should return to the current ALP…….

          • “But they have shifted too far right for the lefties, and will never shift far enough right for the righties. So the chances of that happening reduce with every election.”

            That’s the problem Smithy. The population I believe isn’t in either camp that Labor is in on both left and right issues. They’ve shifted too far right on worker/economic issues (no difference from Liberals), and too far left on cultural (e.g. identity politic) issues. This makes them un-electable to a lot of the electorate. At least the liberals are “right” on cultural issues is the stance I hear ancedotally from many people; they aren’t happy about the privatisations, corruption, and wage/casualisations that Liberals support but a hot button “identity politics” issue trumps this for most people since psychologically it stirs a LOT of emotion.

      • “The real problem is clearly people have stronger feelings against “the side messages” than they do in favour of “the socio-economic reform”. This is demonstrated on MB every day.”

        Those side issues are the emotive ones. Unfortunately smithy we are human beings and logic only exists to satisfy our desire, and our base programming on the whole. People remember how they feel; not what happened primarily. An issue that stirs feelings across a large section of people, whatever its importance, and that anyone is capable of having an opinion on will always trump something that requires higher order thinking. I think MB’ers know that hence they don’t want to deal with those issues – they know even putting them out there is mostly poison to real progress on a grand scale I think.

        It isn’t just an Australian problem, IMO its how we as a herd animal work. Some select individuals for some select issues may be able to reason, but as a whole the herd can’t do it consistently all the time. Hence why identity politics and distraction issues are so powerful – they are usually less complex and things anyone can understand whatever their opinion is. Economics on the other hand requires some knowledge of the world around you.

    • Detailed post, would probably align to many MB members views?

      Essentially, LNP remains in power because they were the lesser of 2 evils (aside form the die hard folk, does the average punter ever view an election through any other lens?)

      Regarding your last paragraph, I would suggest that ordinary, centrist folk are becoming more than just slightly irritated by the SJW focus. As Blair suggested, “voter repellent” is and apt description. The arrival of a critical race theory style ideology in Australian will be a gift from the gods to the LNP.

      I have been saying for years now that we are in an era of post post enlightenment. A quick scroll through social media feeds or a painful attendance at family/friend BBQs and it has become crystal clear that the style of rhetoric and dogmatic ideology that used to be synonymous with your evangelist uncle is now indistinguishable from your supposedly ‘educated’ 20 something nephew (and no, It’s not an issue of ‘ok boomer’ I’m in my 30’s!) When that is the case, everyone and everything is viewed through the lens of believer/non believer, gospel/blasphemy, good/evil. That is not an environment that fosters sustainable ‘progress’, just like theocratic regimes, it all but destroys it (quite Ironic that it’s moderate members of ‘progressive’ parties that stand accused of letting this happen!)

      In the world above, pragmatism is quickly drowned out, a pragmatist is “just a a fence sitter” and if you’re not for a cause (advocate) then you are be default against it (enabler, perpetrator) and you must be silenced, removed, punished. It’s clearly on a crescendo in the US…. it’s a slower burn here and maybe we have structural elements that prevent it reaching the US and UK levels? But my base case is that repellent partisanship still has a way to go driven by the faux SJ movement and thus the ALP won’t be returning to genuinely addressing big picture socio economic issues anytime soon.

      • kierans777MEMBER

        I have been saying for years now that we are in an era of post post enlightenment.

        So have I.

        And just like post post grunge gave the world Nicklebak, post post enlightenment will not give us anything good.

    • kierans777MEMBER

      In suggesting they are side issues the suggestion is not that they are not important but rather that prioritising them as being of greater importance than the socio economic issues will ultimately mean accepting the socio economic status quo as a given (which Blair is basically implying) and encouraging the divide up of the economic and ‘power’ spoils from that point in a particular way – a larger share for women, for LGTB, a bigger focus on climate etc.

      MLK said it better. All justice beings with economic justice. You want justice for woman, people of colour, etc. You begin by taking on the Tories with their neoliberal nonsense. That’s where Mr Third Way goes wrong. You don’t borrow golden shower economics from Tories.

      That’s why the ALP has been languishing, because it refuses to take the bareknuckled fight to the Libs on economic grounds (which incidently would lead to better outcomes for the environment too). Julian Hill has done something (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/08/how-good-is-australia-labor-crunches-the-numbers-to-answer-morrisons-question) but the ALP leadership needs to go hardcore on this.

  13. Jumping jack flash

    Who is Labor? Haven’t heard a lot from them lately. There was a while back where i think this guy called Albo(?) said some stuff that seemed to make some sense, but nothing since then.

    Media blackout maybe? Haven’t heard anything from Hanson either lately and she’s usually front and centre.

    Modern politics is all about not saying anything that can be twisted against you so i guess nobody says anything anymore. Scomo is just lucky because since he’s in the hot seat he doesn’t have to say anything to stay there except throw stuff at anything anyone else says.

    Its good to be the king, eh?

  14. Display NameMEMBER

    LNP, LAB, Greens. They are all managers now. Rusted on careerists. Right school, Arts/Law at Uni, Political Advisor, Senior Political Advisor, maybe a slot at a “think tank” and then the chance to be parachuted into a branch stacked safe seat to maybe win and ….. then work towards the next election. No grand plans, no political capital to be spent. Some of the best paid politician in the world. For what? So they can point score in parliament and spend the remaining energy trying to “win” the 24 hour news cycle by wedging their opponents. What does the party in power appear to be interested in ?

    – Stacking public service and regulatory bodies with their political mates, slowly destroying said organisations
    – Selling off any government asset they can.
    – Funneling favors and contracts top their mates shoring up post political sinecures
    – For the LNP an absurd focus on fossil fuels to the detriment of the country

    Almost all of the above results in zero value to the tax payer. The LNP are utterly corrupt, Labour just useless. Greens nutters.

    • + 1 overall
      Though I would suggest that the ALP are not ‘useless’, they are simply fighting for the chance to engage in the very same corruption for themselves and their mates which is why sweating the small stuff while ignoring bigger picture issues is so important.

  15. Ronin8317MEMBER

    To understand why ALP have become silent, you need to look at Albo’s seat in inner West Sydney. A platform of lower immigration means he ALP will win the election, but Albo will lose his seat.

    The ALP leader needs to be someone from QLD or Western Australia.

      • Arthur Schopenhauer

        Gawd no! Charmers is a Luke warm neo-liberal. A product of political patronage from Uni onwards.

    • MathiasMEMBER

      I’ve been thinking the same thing lately ;p

      NSW and VIC seem to have become corrupt. One thing thats missing from Politics these days is a little Common Sense.

  16. Did anyone hear Andrew Bragg the other day on RN re: the Indigenous Voice to parliament? I’ve never heard an LNP member be so clear-headed, balanced, sensible and pragmatic.

    It was frightening!

    c.f to when I heard Brangus Taylor carrying on about the Magic Unicorn Gas Plant to be built that will create thousands of jobs….radio off, Tool’s Undertow on (on the CD player! Like it’s 2001 all over again!)

  17. Scandinavian left wing politics realised they couldn’t keep moving and pandering to the radical left because all their good work will be wound back by the right wing. So they moved to the centre to protect what they achieved.

    Labor here needs to do the same.

    • Jumping jack flash

      I believe Labor has 2 choices. First is to become Lib-lite, which they seem to be leaning towards, and why wouldn’t they because the other choice is to become nationalist. The global neo-liberal agenda of self-loathing ruined that for everyone.

      The problem with becoming Lib-lite is that the real deal, the Libs themselves, are sitting right there. So what’s the point?

      • kierans777MEMBER

        Yep, it’s the wheel of the Labor party. Become Lib Lite to try and prove they have the “economic credentials” but miss out on government (except for KRudd) because the Libs do Libs better. So then Labor tries to actually put forward policy that addresses actual problems, but then the Libs aided by their protection racket in the MSM run scare campaigns and outright lie (2019 election). So Labor gets scared off and the wheel turns.

  18. I made this exact point in yesterdays post.

    If labour does not pivot to at least match the rhetoric of a trans-tasman ‘progressive’ folk hero then they will have, in the clearest way possible, exposed themselves as a fraudulent opposition.

    Will they? Who knows….. what we do know is that finding and fighting the next ‘ism’ boggy man makes for a far easier days work and my money is on that.

  19. I’d say the man in question is well aware of his limits and feels comfortable in the “opposition leader” role – best he could ever hope to achieve. Now just keep a low profile to make it last just a little bit longer…

  20. BradleyMEMBER

    Simple- if we can keep the vaccine roll out moving at a snails pace via general community hesitancy ( for any reason), the borders will remain closed for longer, no matter who is power. I reckon the opportunity to game this against the wishes of the growth at at all costs brigade is there. All we have to do is do nothing- delay the vaccinations and the numbers for opening up won’t eventuate until 2023 and the Ponzi beast will be slayed.

  21. Charles MartinMEMBER

    Why the hell would you want to govern, that’s too hard and people ask too many questions.
    Better to virtue signal out of yer arse all day and appose for the sake of opposing and get paid for the rest of your life.

  22. DingwallMEMBER

    Labor have realised the Libs will keep the real estate bubble pumping. So they just sit back adding to their investment portfolio and don’t give a proverbial.
    The Greens make the occasional honking noise from their idyllic beach/rainforest shack but then they look at the weekly increase to their property portfolio (knowing full well that 1,213 acres of rainforest or other “threatened biome” was destroyed for those “shacks”) and have another sip of their pornstar martini.

    • I posted about this on a Sydney based fishing website which I was a long term member of. You would think they would be concerned about the environment/ population pressures, but it went down like a lead balloon. One guy got really insulting and started following me around on other topics/ posts. He let slip one time that he was a real estate agent. After another insulting post I get the message from a moderator I was banned for ‘spamming’, then for good measure I got another message I was banned for ‘troublemaking’. Seems all they were worried about is property prices remaining high.

  23. Too busy pandering to the Greg Jerichos of the world, cucks who probably vote green.

  24. Duke_Wellington

    I thought unsubstantiated rape claims were the number one issue and the sure thing to get Labor into power – as long as we all march! Surely they should talk about rape more? Wait – did we all forget that media storm? That is unusual!

  25. Labour Australia will see how the preferred political party polls in NewZealand are affected by Labour NZs migration tightening.
    Only then will they make a move or stay irrelevant.

    Tall Poppy syndrome is much stronger in Oz politics than NZ policitics. NZ labour comms are effective but Jacinda definitely has the popular majortiy from the last election so that gives her space to be innovative on a topic which is Labours heartland, the local worker.

  26. turvilleMEMBER

    St Barbara Mines today – “Labour and skills shortages” which they clearly cannot source locally. This is only ONE example!!!

    Labour and skills shortages, along with lower grade production, at St Barbara’s Leonora operation in WA has caused the company to reduce FY production guidance from 175,000oz to 150,000-160,000oz. Based on today’s gold price, the downgrade could cost the company A$60m of revenue. (AFR)

    • RobotSenseiMEMBER

      So the economic rationalist says they could pay $59m in better wages and still turn a $1m profit.
      Do companies not like making profits?

      • Cynical snake

        You aren’t reading the release correctly, labour and skills shortages reduced production by 1oz and lower grade production by 15-25 thousand oz’s. The 2 are combined so they can push for more skilled immigrants or whatever to make more profitssssss.

  27. turvilleMEMBER

    Labor with Albo have no chance whatsoever – almost as bad as Shorten (if that’s at all possible). He should also shut down KRUDD and SWANNY – Krudd narcissistic and bitter man and Swanny the “hero of the GFC”

    • Charles MartinMEMBER

      KRudd has plenty to contribute about every election topic. Just ask him.
      I was so disappointed when Australia didn’t support him in his bid to become UN Secretary General.

  28. Don’t know if the ALP wants to govern and don’t really know if the LNP is capable of governing. I’ll vote for the spoilers….Patrick, Lambie (if I could), Hanson (if I could) etc. You need someone with zero allegience to the majors (which may rule out Hanson) who can call it as it is and follow through. Maybe then the punters will listen. And by the way,whittle away at those elected members on the fringes of the LNP and ALP who secretly despise what their parties stand for, to force change.

  29. MathiasMEMBER

    City of Melbourne records most cases of syphilis as health experts warn of ‘epidemic’
    https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/city-of-melbourne-records-most-cases-of-syphilis-as-health-experts-warn-of-epidemic/news-story/85c93b5036812988cbdcc0b63600ab15

    A hitch in the road to woman ‘having it all’? I guess now they can have syphilis too. It seems Nature doesnt approve of womans behaviour either?

    Its been interesting reading all these articles on Female Sexuality and how woman keep saying, ” We get bored of having the same old partner “. Its basically reinforcing everything I’ve been saying all along and what I’ve basically seen in marriage stats. Woman are prone to getting bored and seeking out multiple partners. It makes you wonder how many innocent men have lost there lives because “the woman was bored”? How many domestically violent men are really just a product of Female Emotional Abuse? Im willing to bet, a lot.

    Im not a huge fan of this Feminism thing. I think its really divisive.

    Its good seeing woman being honest. With how unfaithfull most woman are in Australia and how much legal cost gets lumped on men just to be attached, Im surprised any marriage in Australia survives.