Politics Does Australia need a new progressive political party?

[Johnny Bananas]

The Greens need a rebrand and better strategy to not give the media and other parties any ammunition to go after them.

They've built up a brand over 30 years that's now very well-known. Walking away from that is hard when you don't have money to advertise the new brand with. Even if their current brand and image is off-putting to many, in politics, it's much better to be hated than to be irrelevant. A party or independent politician can only begin to change anything if the voters remember who they are first.

As for the media and other parties, if they can't find easy ammunition, they'll just invent a lie to use instead, like their US counterparts did with Obama. And even if they didn't, it's very difficult to keep a party room of significant numbers so disciplined and clean that there's no ammunition to use against them.

 

[Seeds]

Sorry Seeds, but you're wrong.

Right wing politics and economic theory is all about letting the rich maintain their 'correct' position atop pre-existing hierarchies. The earliest writers who correspond to conservative or right wing positions wrote how aristocracy needed to jump on and transition to mercantilism to ensure they didn't lose their position due to the rise of wealth as currency; before that, it was land and asset ownership conveyed via titles and passed down through inheritance that conveyed wealth and power.

Because of this, the right will seek to justify any and all attempts over the fullness of time to enrich themselves because it's seen as the system working as intended. Sure, there's a few vague gestures in the direction of democracy and throwing a few sops in the direction of the non monied classes, but when these people get money they are forever fighting that losing battle against the system confirming that yes, they are the right people to be in power and yes, I do deserve this money and gifts and priviledge and all the wealth and perks that come to me. There's a reason proper RW types kick up a fuss about regulation and red tape, and it isn't due to government excess. It's about the limitations over the 'correct' application of power and its expression; in short, it limits what the 'correct' people can do with their appropriate position within the hierarchy.

Think about it. If you view hierarchies as both natural and appropriate and the only way unjust outcomes can occur is if the 'wrong' people get a hold of the levers of power, why wouldn't you place barriers between those 'wrong' people and those who you view as the 'right' ones? Why wouldn't you prevent scrutiny? Why wouldn't you ensure that you can pass your wealth and position to those you view as worthy of it, instead of the democratic scrum?

Stack that constant subversion of democratic systems by right wing ideals on to system entropy and bureacratisation, and what you get are those in power who are fighting within themselves to resist the pull towards personal enrichment (which, if they're honest, is a half hearted rearguard at best anyway) and a system that a) insulates them from any voices that would question whether that personal enrichment is a bad thing, b) actively advocates that power and its use for personal gain is perfectly fine; "you're the right person for the job, of course you need to get something back for it", and c) surrounds them with opportunities to do it, legally.

I agree with this in part. Although belief in natural hierarchies bestowed by birth is more 1880s conservatives then modern day conservatives. Today right wingers believe hierarchies are deserved due to merit rather than natural order. However they are mistaken because in reality hierarchies today are derived not just from merit but a combination of merit, luck and in some cases still birthright and social connections unfortunately.

Nonetheless what i propose still fixes a big driver of corporate influence on politics (a political system that needs funding from lobbyists ends up doing what lobbyists want regardless of the principles of elected government officials). It just doesnt fix all of the problems. Poor Ideology and misinformation about the actual role of merit is also part of the problem. I was too simplistic in my previous post and ignored part of the problem.

 

[Seeds]

Interesting!

Would that be with a higher GST type tax or would it be targeted towards purchases/sales over a certain value for certain categories?

EG any car sold for more than $40,000 accrues an extra %?

Do you then need government departments monitoring and auditing all sales to ensure the $39,900 sales are legit?

Or would it be focused more on things like shares and property?

Again, would a threshold need to be met or is every Tom, Dick & Harry paying the extra tax when they buy and sell on the $2 a trade CommSec app?

My focus would be more on removing capital gains discounts and taxing wealth above a certain threshold.

 

[Gethelred]

I agree with this in part. Although belief in natural hierarchies bestowed by birth is more 1880s conservatives then modern day conservatives. Today right wingers believe hierarchies are deserved due to merit rather than natural order. However they are mistaken because in reality hierarchies today are derived not just from merit but a combination of merit, luck and in some cases still birthright and social connections unfortunately.

But that's precisely the point, Seeds: nothing has changed for conservatives. The rhetoric was always superfluous to the defence of the hierarchies in place. The other stuff has always been extraneous; they seek out rhetorical flourishes to defend that which they already believe anyway.

Let's be clear: humans aren't logical creatures, and our use of logic and/or ideology is usually to support that which we already think or believe.

Nonetheless what i propose still fixes a big driver of corporate influence on politics (a political system that needs funding from lobbyists ends up doing what lobbyists want regardless of the principles of elected government officials). It just doesnt fix all of the problems. Poor Ideology and misinformation about the actual role of merit is also part of the problem. I was too simplistic in my previous post and ignored part of the problem.

Hmm...

For all that I'm hard on you sometimes, you're entirely too hard on yourself here. The difference in our views entails that you think the systems as the currently stand are retrievable, and chart an entirely reasonable course to get there. I don't think the current system is going to be able to prevent a collapse in future, Seeds.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because you got some pushback. Just because I don't think something will work is not a reason not to try it.