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.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Wouldn’t it be easier if the ALP for example returned to being a party for the working class?

Coming up with policy that reduced the demand for housing, actually taxed the tax dodging gas and mining companies, stopped the bleeding dry of ordinary citizens through tax, invested heavily in education and health. Weren’t the ALP in the past the party that drove progressive policy?

I echo the sentiments of another poster who mentions the media ignoring the greens or focusing on any policy of theirs they can to whip up hysteria, as what would happen with any new party.

Lastly, haven’t the ALP and the coalition recently been supporting each other to make it more difficult for newer parties and independents to raise money?

I feel like ALP has spent 40 years pivoting away from "working class" "socialist" economic policies. I don't know if they could genuinely walk it back, but I'm pretty sure enough of their wealth and stature comes from big business for them to not want to walk it back even if they could.

Their big problem is that the working class... now with no reason to get excited about the economic policies of the ALP... is increasingly likely to look at right-wing parties on social topics.



As you say... any party that comes in with more progressive policies is usually shouted out by the media, who want to maintain the two parties centred around two sides of a similar neoliberal economic position. Usually those new parties are easily tarred with "extreme" social left-wing policies... the Greens definitely sit left and the media are doing everything they can to paint the Teals as equivalent to the Greens.



I do wonder what it would look like if a party came in with genuinely socialist economic policies and positions, but with very centred social policies. My gut feel is they would still fail because:
1) Even though we're not as bad as America, being tarred with the "socialist" brush would scare off enough voters
2) Enough economic policy has been painted over time as social policy (private health and education, "climate change" related decision-making on energy policy, etc.) that left wing economic policy would have you painted as the "new greens" regardless of where you stood on social issues.

 

[DangerousD]

I feel like ALP has spent 40 years pivoting away from "working class" "socialist" economic policies. I don't know if they could genuinely walk it back, but I'm pretty sure enough of their wealth and stature comes from big business for them to not want to walk it back even if they could.

Their big problem is that the working class... now with no reason to get excited about the economic policies of the ALP... is increasingly likely to look at right-wing parties on social topics.



As you say... any party that comes in with more progressive policies is usually shouted out by the media, who want to maintain the two parties centred around two sides of a similar neoliberal economic position. Usually those new parties are easily tarred with "extreme" social left-wing policies... the Greens definitely sit left and the media are doing everything they can to paint the Teals as equivalent to the Greens.



I do wonder what it would look like if a party came in with genuinely socialist economic policies and positions, but with very centred social policies. My gut feel is they would still fail because:
1) Even though we're not as bad as America, being tarred with the "socialist" brush would scare off enough voters
2) Enough economic policy has been painted over time as social policy (private health and education, "climate change" related decision-making on energy policy, etc.) that left wing economic policy would have you painted as the "new greens" regardless of where you stood on social issues.

What makes something a socialist policy?

Actually taxing the big mining and gas companies isnt socialist, fining them when they do huge damage to the environment is also not socialist.

Its like anything can be labeled socialist or left wing if it goes against a powerful interest.

 

[DangerousD]

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.

Ok re brand is not realistic but a refresh on tactics.

I have always maintained that great ideas/policy are irrelevant if you don’t get people to support them.

So a little of something good is better than nothing of something perfect.

I’ve seen many times greens policy that I agree with but alienates a big portion of the voter base, which means the policy is overlooked.

There is two major parties, both of which I feel have lost their way and need a whack, all the Greens need to do is present as a better option than either

 

[evolved2]

Ok re brand is not realistic but a refresh on tactics.

I have always maintained that great ideas/policy are irrelevant if you don’t get people to support them.

So a little of something good is better than nothing of something perfect.

I’ve seen many times greens policy that I agree with but alienates a big portion of the voter base, which means the policy is overlooked.

There is two major parties, both of which I feel have lost their way and need a whack, all the Greens need to do is present as a better option than either

The Greens need a whack too. It's fair to lump them in with the ALP and LNP.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I have always maintained that great ideas/policy are irrelevant if you don’t get people to support them.

I agree.

So a little of something good is better than nothing of something perfect.

But what does that mean in reality? This line of thinking has been used to lie to people that they can't have perfect, when they could if Labor were less timid.

I’ve seen many times greens policy that I agree with but alienates a big portion of the voter base, which means the policy is overlooked.

Such as?

 

[Deliverance]

Their vote % and number of seats has been steadily trending up. If they get stuck on the mid teens, they may need something new. But it's tough, as a lot of Aussie voters are backwater dwelling, lowly educated rednecks. As with all modern advancements, education is key, but how to educate the uneducated? Look at America and how few adults can read. How can they possibly understand policy and how or relates to societal benefits? They don't, they just read twitter rants about pets being eaten and decide their vote.

 

[Carringbush2010]

as a lot of Aussie voters are backwater dwelling, lowly educated rednecks.

Opinion.

 

[Seeds]

The Greens need a whack too. It's fair to lump them in with the ALP and LNP.

Out of interest. In what way would you lump them with the others?

 

[Deliverance]

Opinion.

~20% of Aussies don't finish high school. A lot more don't have tertiary education. Backwater has various meanings and plenty live in thise locations. So those two are facts. Redneck has loose definitions and no way to measure, so yeah, I'll pay that as opinion.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

~20% of Aussies don't finish high school. A lot more don't have tertiary education. Backwater has various meanings and plenty live in thise locations. So those two are facts. Redneck has loose definitions and no way to measure, so yeah, I'll pay that as opinion.

Pretty loose sense of the word facts. Rage bait is probably more accurate.

 

[kickazz]

A strong progressive opposition is in the best interests of Australia, and we have none. The Greens struggle for any media relevance unless they're proposing unpopular identity politics and victimhood. I see them as the other side of the coin to One Nation.

A political party that promotes secularism, multiculturalism, freedom of speech, employee rights, wage growth, and doesn't exert a lot of energy engaging in unpopular cultural wars (as both extremities tend to) would probably rake in a lot of votes.

Any thoughts?

In short, yes.

I'd add to your list, not toadying up to the fossil fuel industry.

Tax the wealthy more, spend on government initiatives. Keynesian approach. Focus on wages not middle class welfare.

As for identity politics, go back to the two identies that really matters, the haves and the have nots.

 

[Carringbush2010]

~20% of Aussies don't finish high school. A lot more don't have tertiary education. Backwater has various meanings and plenty live in thise locations. So those two are facts. Redneck has loose definitions and no way to measure, so yeah, I'll pay that as opinion.

I don't know how accurate your claims are, regardless labelling jan and joe public as backwater dumb is probably putting a lot of mayo on it.

I disagree with your opinion.

 

[Kram]

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

 

[evolved2]

Their vote % and number of seats has been steadily trending up. If they get stuck on the mid teens, they may need something new. But it's tough, as a lot of Aussie voters are backwater dwelling, lowly educated rednecks. As with all modern advancements, education is key, but how to educate the uneducated? Look at America and how few adults can read. How can they possibly understand policy and how or relates to societal benefits? They don't, they just read twitter rants about pets being eaten and decide their vote.

I suspect we've never been more highly educated as a whole. A tertiary education doesn't get you far these days.

 

[DangerousD]

I agree.


But what does that mean in reality? This line of thinking has been used to lie to people that they can't have perfect, when they could if Labor were less timid.

The housing plan that Labor needed support passing the senate and the Greens dragged it out for ages, pushing for amendments, the policy whilst not perfect was a hell of a lot better than nothing, their tactics delayed this policy for months.

Their criticism over Labor’s policy to reduce people HECS debts another.

We had the Labor party come up with sensible policy on negative gearing tax reform a few years ago and get smashed at the election, I even as an investor thought it was balanced, but it was useless as they didn’t win and that’s how I feel about the Greens policies, good in theory but easily dismissed in brinksmanship of politics.

Such as?

The abolishment of negative gearing, I fully support and agree this needs to be changed but talk of abolishment straight away alienates a huge % of voters, where a policy of restricting negative gearing, limiting negative gearing and grandfathering exisiting investments, takes the ammo out of a lot of the scare campaigns.

The abolishment of the CGT discount, again change is needed but again lots of people will vote with self interest, so their policy could limit the discount, or have restrictions on the discount, like you only get it if you rent the property out to a long term tenant and not short stay rentals.

Abolishing all HECS debts, whilst I’m a supporter of free uni in some instances, abolishing debt that people voluntarily entered in to alienates other parts of the community causing people to push back out of spite, they could easily go with a policy of abolishing indexation, meaning people won’t think they are getting a free ride and then could expand that to include tax deductions for in demand courses.

 

[RedStarUncle]

What makes something a socialist policy?

Actually taxing the big mining and gas companies isnt socialist, fining them when they do huge damage to the environment is also not socialist.

Its like anything can be labeled socialist or left wing if it goes against a powerful interest.

Labels, like "socialist", are in general a really good way to argue against something within even having to consider it on its own merits. Are higher corporate taxes and greater social welfare systems a good idea? Let's not discuss them... let's tar them with the term "socialist" and then argue about 80s Eastern Europe, or Venezuela, or whatever.

I'd love to see a party own that economic position of higher taxation and greater limits on wealth and the ideal of reducing economic inequality. I don't know if they'd succeed... because I don't think we really have a yardstick for a genuine political player pushing those ideals:
- ALP don't push those ideals
- Greens, to an extent, push those ideals but combine them with social policies that put off a large portion of the electorate
- Minor left-wing parties don't carry enough backing to make a fist of it

The last point is probably the most telling... we'll never have an economically left-progressive party because politics requires money, and those with money don't want an economically left-progressive party.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I do wonder what it would look like if a party came in with genuinely socialist economic policies and positions, but with very centred social policies.

There is a German party called the Sara Wagenknecht Alliance that's trying to do something like this, though I'd argue they're socially conservative rather than centrist, as they're against immigration and trans rights. It'll be interesting to see how they go in the February election.

 

[DangerousD]

I'd love to see a party own that economic position of higher taxation and greater limits on wealth and the ideal of reducing economic inequality. I don't know if they'd succeed... because I don't think we really have a yardstick for a genuine political player pushing those ideals:

• ALP don't push those ideals
• Greens, to an extent, push those ideals but combine them with social policies that put off a large portion of the electorate
• Minor left-wing parties don't carry enough backing to make a fist of it

I don’t even think parties or a party have to embrace that position, in terms of taxing the gas and mining companies we don’t have to be high taxing, we just have to be taxing.

In regards to education and uni costs they don’t need to be free, just a lot cheaper

If health and Medicare is funded more, wait times come down, people get better outcomes.

Housing policy slightly change to reduce demand.

So many things just need to be funded more or tweaked to put us back on track, I don’t see anything radical required to change our direction

 

[Deliverance]

I suspect we've never been more highly educated as a whole. A tertiary education doesn't get you far these days.

It does give you the ability to read, understand, analyse and interpret complex information.

Pretty loose sense of the word facts. Rage bait is probably more accurate.

People have issues if they rage at that.

 

[the_interloper]

I suspect we've never been more highly educated as a whole. A tertiary education doesn't get you far these days.

A tertiary education teaches you about a specific topic or discipline, for things like engineering etc it should lead to a high earning career, many degrees don't though.

With the internet anyone has the ability to learn a lot about any subject basically if they are compelled enough to, so yeah I agree humans are about as knowledgeable as they've ever been.

 

[Deliverance]

A tertiary education teaches you about a specific topic or discipline, for things like engineering etc it should lead to a high earning career, many degrees don't though.

With the internet anyone has the ability to learn a lot about any subject basically if they are compelled enough to, so yeah I agree humans are about as knowledgeable as they've ever been.

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