YouGov, which for a while was reporting every three weeks, returns from a break with its first federal poll in seven weeks (though not yet on their website), showing Labor with a 51-49 lead on two-party preferred compared with 50-50 last time. Labor is up one on the primary vote to 31%, with the Coalition steady on 38%, the Greens down one to 13% and One Nation down one to 7%. Anthony Albanese is up one on approval to 42% and down one on disapproval to 52%, while Peter Dutton more than recovers after a slump last time, gaining four on approval to 42% and falling five on disapproval to 46%. Albanese holds a 45-37 lead as preferred prime minister, in from 47-36.
The poll also offers the government the sobering finding that 73% were unable to name a government initiate that had made them financially better off, with only 10% nominating the tax cuts that recently took effect, followed by 7% for energy rebates. It was conducted a little over a week ago, from July 12 to 17, from a sample of 1528.
Sandman says:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 3:24 pm
Good to see word searcher Giles moved from Immigration and Burke given the nod there as I suggested on PB a few days ago. Giving him Home Afffairs
—————————————
Probably should have been one minister with both portfolios from the beginning
Arghhh I see; theres never a time to criticize Labor.
Labor adopting Coalition border policies? Thats good.
Labor backing down on housing reform to help support affordable housing? Thats good.
Labor backing down from supporting the Republic? Thats good.
Labor supporting more coal and gas fields? Thats good.
On and on and on it goes… I wonder if theres a lesson here as to Labor shifts to the right on policies, as to why its losing progressive voters…
Also I love the catch 22 for negotiating with the Greens.
Either the Greens dont want to negotiate, or when they do Labor should ignore it as a stunt.
Bravo!
My last weary word with you on this subject Lordbain.
You say Labor should continue arguing for the republic and not worry what the Coalition does.
There is not one referendum in Australian history which has passed without bipartisan support.
What do you suggest? That Labor hold a referendum on the republic anyway? It would go down, just like the Voice referendum, and set back the republican cause for at least 10 years.
That may sound noble, but I’m not into being noble; only doing things that work.
I speak as a passionate republican by the way, but the way to an Australian republic is by winning over conservative Australians. Not an impossible task, but one more likely to work than performing meaningless gestures.
Scottsays:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 3:11 pm
Tricot says:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 2:27 pm
Dutton was hidden during majority of the by-elections because he is not a campaigner , Dutton only appeared in a very safe QLD LNP held seat
=================================================
Where i have on good authority, he did no “fingerpainting with children” while there. Which i’m told means, we can’t read anything into him being there.
So Henry, how is Labor backing down from the Republic them “persuading voters”?
How is this such a difficult concept for some people… if you back away from a policy, it looks weaker to others, not stronger.
FFS…
Max Hyphen’s list always contains things that spell political doom for a Labor government in an Australia that has been subjected to – and conditioned by – 30 years of Howardism.
Some generous souls on bludger criticise Max Hyphen and the Greens Political Party for being merely naive purists. This criticism is incorrect. In truth Max knows exactly what he is doing: the fact that the list of ‘demands’ always include things that Labor cannot do without losing support at the other end of the spectrum from where the Greens are situated – but contain folk whose support are still vital for Labor to achieve a majority of votes in a majority of seats [and in fact vital for labor to achieve even just enough seats so that it could still rule in a minority government with the Greens and Teals in the actual driver’s seat – which seems to be promoted as the actual ‘plan’ to ‘hold Labor to account’] – is not a flaw, but a feature of The Greens Political Party’s MO. These demands are no more than an invitation for labor to walk into a political trap.
Why? Because The Greens Political Party wants labor destroyed. They are prepared, probably rejoice, at the prospects of decades of bunyip tory misrule, because ultimately that’s what it will take for the prols, the woke and the hipsters to finally rise up and deliver the glorious revolution that Australians (except for right thinking trots) never knew they needed. Marxist electoral theory 101: the centre must fail first before the left can defeat the right in a glorious Gotterdamarang like show down.
Well said Andrew.
O’Neil appears to have gone from gone from Home Affairs to Homeless.
She has been good with the cybers so it’s a shame to see her lose that portfolio.
I’m not sure I would want the Housing portfolio. There’s not a lot that can be done at the federal level and there are no easy fixes*. Meanwhile, you have the Greens on the left flank demanding things the feds don’t have the power to delivery.
* I think cracking down on the number of short stay rentals, as suggested here by Rex, would help significantly with rent prices and bring down inflation. However, I doubt the federal government has the constitution power to do this.
Do you consider your posts are in “good faith” this afternoon, Lordbain? If so, no wonder you don’t think I post in “good faith”. Obviously not partisan enough. No surprise considering the party I voted for disbanded earlier this year 🙂
As requested by Cat in the Joe Biden threat, here are the Marsh Family: https://www.youtube.com/@MarshFamilySongs/videos
And here are a couple of their performances:
“Suella Braverman’s Wrong” – Marsh Family adaptation of The Wellerman & Drunken Sailor sea shanties
“All Of The Prices Have Gone Up (But We Can’t Pay That)” – Meat Loaf classic adapted by Marsh Family
Andrew Earlwood has covered the situation well in his post at 3.39.
The Greens are every bit as dependent on an ongoing conflict as is their darts board poster favourite Netanyahu.
Griff, how is pointing out that Labors shift to the right is causing them to lose voters on the left not in good faith?
How is pointing out that backing down on policy such as the Republican movement weakens said movement not in good faith?
Why is it that pointing out that the Greens are open to negotiations (contrary to the narrative spouted here) not in good faith?
How is it I spent lunch praising the ACT Labor party for adopting Palestinian recognition and being anti apartied not in good faith?
You know whats funny? If Labor were to adopt more left leaning policies… do you know which party would suffer? The Greens.
Here I am stressing for Labor to do things to the detriment of “my team”… and thats seen as not being in good faith.
Good faith is a broad term that’s used to encompass honest dealing… and I am nothing but honest in my dealings with this thread.
But hey, somehow backing down on policy is a way to support it, so maybe acting in good faith now makes one acting in bad faith… who knows
Lars Von Trier says:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 9:21 am
Redbridge: as griff likes to say nothing to see here , same pattern etc etc
___________
Unlike other recent polls, I see Redbridge as different to trend. Coalition are up on primaries. Let’s see if this is a one off or not.
Lordbain says:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 3:51 pm
Griff, how is pointing out that Labors shift to the right is causing them to lose voters on the left not in good faith?
How is pointing out that backing down on policy such as the Republican movement weakens said movement not in good faith?
Why is it that pointing out that the Greens are open to negotiations (contrary to the narrative spouted here) not in good faith?
How is it I spent lunch praising the ACT Labor party for adopting Palestinian recognition and being anti apartied not in good faith?
You know whats funny? If Labor were to adopt more left leaning policies… do you know which party would suffer? The Greens.
Here I am stressing for Labor to do things to the detriment of “my team”… and thats seen as not being in good faith.
Good faith is a broad term that’s used to encompass honest dealing… and I am nothing but honest in my dealings with this thread.
But hey, somehow backing down on policy is a way to support it, so maybe acting in good faith now makes one acting in bad faith… who knows
________
So much help to Labor! To the detriment of your own party even! Considering you are arguing with Labor supporters on here, it must be so frustrating for you that they do not understand how much “good faith” you are providing. Never mind, they will understand one day, surely? 😉
Anthony Albanese moves Clare O’Neil, Andrew Giles and promotes Malarndirri McCarthy in cabinet reshuffle
https://amp-abc-net-au.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/104141974?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17221461641008&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2024-07-28%2Fanthony-albanese-reshuffles-cabinet-clare-oneil-andrew-giles%2F104141974
“Good faith” is the order of the day. 🙂
Albo says the Housing Minister did a good job and promoted her!
Err massive homeless,housing starts gone backwards and a rental crisis all own goals by labor.
Out of touch Bill Shorten torching labors vote will continue whenever he appears daily almost in major media.
Policies are duds shifting a few Ministers a good idea but long way to go.
Griff, lets make something clear… I dont give a shit who puts forward the policies I like; I dont care if the parties color is green, or red, or teal, or rainbow.
If a party puts forward the policies I support, then I support that party.
If that party stops supporting policies I support, I look elsewhere.
If Labor adopted more progressive policies, and it meant the death of the Greens… then I would be happy. Because at the end of the day, one of the worst practices in a democracy is the barrack for the team, and not the policy.
Labor used to be the “team” whose policies were best aligned to me; this changed.
The greens currently best align with me (ignoring socialist parties that dont (currently) have a hope in hell in influencing policy); this could change.
So yeah, as much as you might be sarcastic, it is exhausting when people take it as an attack on Labor, when its me pointing out systemic Labor weakneses, and how Labor could actually regain some left wing voters… but hey, thats a little more complicated then “GrEeNs BaD”, so its ignored by the usual suspects.
Andrew Giles was regrettably removed because he’s not a big enough bastard. The electorate wants a bastard in that portfolio, not someone who actually tries to do the job responsibly. Tony Burke’s not a bastard either but he knows his way around an argument.
Labor isn’t attractive to left wing voters because it is currently not a left wing party, it’s that simple. If their political calculus says they have to stay in the centre to keep the largest proportion of their voters or whatever way they wish to reason it then that’s fine but they shouldn’t be surprised when their left flank proceeds to abandon them.
“ Griff, how is pointing out that Labors shift to the right is causing them to lose voters on the left not in good faith?”
_____
Whether made ‘in good faith’, or not, the criticism is nonetheless stupid and wrong.
Labor hasn’t ‘shifted to the right’ – it has simply sought to govern from the centre. It would probably come as a shock to many, but Labor has – for all of its post pre-war depression era governments done exactly that as its MO. It has to operate within the window of what constitutes the political centre as a party of government.
Even (especially) ‘The Whitlam Program’ which formed the foundation of all progressive political reforms at a federal level for the past 52 years was drafted explicitly for the Whitlam Government to govern from the centre. No more self destructive internal debates about state aid to non government schools – killed stone dead by Gough. No politically poisonous plans to nationalise the banks, or socialise vast swathes of the economy: ‘the program’ bypassed all of that.
Look – I do not have a problem with The Greens criticising Labor for being centrist or incrementalist. Or for not being pro refugee or pro Palestinian or pro renter enough. In fact a left of centre party dedicated to such ideals is much needed in the country.
No: the issue is – and has always been for the Greens Political Party’s existence – their MO of picking certain issues out and making them ‘demands’ for negotiators on all other issues. Particularly when the selection of ‘demands’ are made for the sole purpose of creating trouble for labor in the political centre.
THAT tactic gives me the shits, because if The Greens Political Party actually believed in achieving public progress when they simply wouldn’t set up barriers for any progress being achieved. Yet time and again, they go out of their way to do exactly that. On purpose, and for the obvious motive of trying to make Labor fail. Even if it risks yet another lost decade to tory misrule.
It is also so self defeating. Every time Max Hyphen makes it a ‘demand’ that Labor abolish negative gearing and the capital gains investment deduction it forces Labor to once again ‘rule it out’ in a MSM where the hacks are only looking for Labor ‘gotcha moments’ to feed into the LNP’s propaganda model. This in turn means that the day upon which Labor can actually afford to circle back to something like its proposed reforms from 2016-19 is delayed.
Lordbain hates incrementalism. But the issue is not whether incrementalism is right or wrong. The issue is the Greens Political party’s unwillingness to accept that in the broader Australian political environment their ‘demands on Labor’ simply shift the Overton window of what is possible further and further away from their stated goals. Which is, as I said before, actually a feature of their own political MO, not a flaw. Which is why I hate them. They are not naive ‘innocents abroad’ but nasty trots dedicated to the political incapacitation of Labor.
AE, how can you honestly look at the modern Labor party and not say it has shifted to the right?
Hell, since Rudd the only way the Labor party has shifted left is on same sex marriage (and even then theres the cockups with Labor basically seeking to use a slightly modified Coalition religious discrimination act).
Seriously, since Rudd how has Labor shifted left?
Lordbain says:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 4:07 pm
Griff, lets make something clear… I dont give a shit who puts forward the policies I like; I dont care if the parties color is green, or red, or teal, or rainbow.
If a party puts forward the policies I support, then I support that party.
If that party stops supporting policies I support, I look elsewhere.
If Labor adopted more progressive policies, and it meant the death of the Greens… then I would be happy. Because at the end of the day, one of the worst practices in a democracy is the barrack for the team, and not the policy.
Labor used to be the “team” whose policies were best aligned to me; this changed.
The greens currently best align with me (ignoring socialist parties that dont (currently) have a hope in hell in influencing policy); this could change.
So yeah, as much as you might be sarcastic, it is exhausting when people take it as an attack on Labor, when its me pointing out systemic Labor weakneses, and how Labor could actually regain some left wing voters… but hey, thats a little more complicated then “GrEeNs BaD”, so its ignored by the usual suspects.
________
This is where we differ. I vote for the party/individual that aligns to my policy preferences. But I am also able to recognise that I am too far left of the Australian electorate. And one needs to be in power to enact policy. So better to have a left-leaning centre party in power than right-leaning, as some progress is better than none. Assuming you wish to retain a participatory democratic system of course 😉
Andrew Charlton appointed a special envoy for cybersecurity and digital resilience – he’s a bloke on the way up, and well qualified too, former economist and small business owner.
”
Andrew_Earlwoodsays:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 3:39 pm
Max Hyphen’s list always contains things that spell political doom for a Labor government in an Australia that has been subjected to – and conditioned by – 30 years of Howardism.
Some generous souls on bludger criticise Max Hyphen and the Greens Political Party for being merely naive purists. This criticism is incorrect. In truth Max knows exactly what he is doing: the fact that the list of ‘demands’ always include things that Labor cannot do without losing support at the other end of the spectrum from where the Greens are situated – but contain folk whose support are still vital for Labor to achieve a majority of votes in a majority of seats [and in fact vital for labor to achieve even just enough seats so that it could still rule in a minority government with the Greens and Teals in the actual driver’s seat – which seems to be promoted as the actual ‘plan’ to ‘hold Labor to account’] – is not a flaw, but a feature of The Greens Political Party’s MO. These demands are no more than an invitation for labor to walk into a political trap.
Why? Because The Greens Political Party wants labor destroyed. They are prepared, probably rejoice, at the prospects of decades of bunyip tory misrule, because ultimately that’s what it will take for the prols, the woke and the hipsters to finally rise up and deliver the glorious revolution that Australians (except for right thinking trots) never knew they needed. Marxist electoral theory 101: the centre must fail first before the left can defeat the right in a glorious Gotterdamarang like show down.
”
Greens political party are not only going down but it is quite probable they are taking LP with them.
How and why?
Trump told a group of people of a Christian club that they have to only vote only this time and they won’t have to do it in future (or something similar).
If Dutton gets elected something similar could happen here. A person, who was ready to do racial profiling, is capable to do anything.
Griff, same point I made to AE applies for you; you say you want a centreleft broad appealing party. Thats fine… and yet Labor has shifted right on pretty much every policy piece save same sex marriage over the last few decades, and its hardly broadly appealing when its losing votes to the flank.
Also, and heres the real point of contention… some issues cant wait for a incrementalism approach, and still others have piss poor market based approaches that wont work.
Labors housing fund? Not nearly enough to address the housing crisis.
Labors continued support of gas and coal? Directly contrary to whats needed to address climate change.
Continued tax rorts for the rich during a cost of living crisis and the buget with systemic shortfalls? Labor promises to do nothing because they got bitten in 2019.
Thats cool, they dont need to have progressive policies… but as mj pointed out earlier, this means more and more progressive voters will look elsewhere.
Lordbain says:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 4:26 pm
Griff, same point I made to AE applies for you; you say you want a centreleft broad appealing party. Thats fine… and yet Labor has shifted right on pretty much every policy piece save same sex marriage over the last few decades, and its hardly broadly appealing when its losing votes to the flank.
Also, and heres the real point of contention… some issues cant wait for a incrementalism approach, and still others have piss poor market based approaches that wont work.
Labors housing fund? Not nearly enough to address the housing crisis.
Labors continued support of gas and coal? Directly contrary to whats needed to address climate change.
Continued tax rorts for the rich during a cost of living crisis and the buget with systemic shortfalls? Labor promises to do nothing because they got bitten in 2019.
Thats cool, they dont need to have progressive policies… but as mj pointed out earlier, this means more and more progressive voters will look elsewhere.
______
If some issues cannot wait for incrementalism, then what to do? Do you think The Greens will be in a position to dictate their policy? Let’s examine the possibilities:
1. Coalition majority in both houses – Greens lose
2. Coalition majority – Negotiate with Labor or independents in the Senate. Greens lose
3. Coalition minority – Negotiate with teal independents in House of reps. Negotiate with Labor or independents in the Senate. Greens lose
4. Labor minority – Negotiate with teal independents in House of reps. Negotiate with Coalition or independents in the Senate. Greens lose
5. Labor majority – Status quo.
6. Labor majority in both houses – Greens lose
The only way I see Greens winning is if Labor is in such a minority that they are still able to form government over the Coalition, but the teals do not suffice to pass legislation in the Lower House. Is that the plan? How likely is that? A shame we have to wait and block any incrementalism in the meantime.
” while the former housing minister, Julie Collins, will step into his former portfolio of agriculture, along with fisheries and forestry and small business.”
Good to see our local member recognised for her good work in housing and given an important portfolio.
Griff, I would make 2 arguments (shocking I know).
1st, the current situation is literally the best position for the Greens to try and implement their positions, or to shift labor policies to the left. Again, as much as it may annoy certain people here… Labor refuses to negotiate on policy, so it wont get past.
Secondly, the incremental policy improvements you claim Labor are attempting to make… I would argue are hardly improvements.
From tax breaks to housing developers, to an expansion of gas field production, to continued tax breaks for private education facilities, to ensuring that religious organisations can continue to discriminate on the basis of faith, to backpaddling on the Republic, on Palestine, on the Voice… again, where is the progressive incrementalism?
Also heres a question I keep bringing up and people seem to ignore… why does Labor play by the rules of only passing policies that will survive the coalition… and meanwhile when ever the coalition gets in power, they do what ever the fuck they want.
There’s an often unwritten maxim in Australian politics – The less the Greens like Labor the better will things go for Labor. The Greens despise Labor. They resent Labor’s success. They hope for Labor’s defeat and the angle for it at all times. The greater Labor’s victories, the less reason is there for the Greens to exist.
Lordbain @ #828 Sunday, July 28th, 2024 – 4:43 pm
Oooh! … Oooh! … I Know! …. Pick Me! … Pick Me! 🙂
P1, have you got a proposed answer?
So Lordbain is a Green? No wonder he is not making sense. Greens and common sense parted ways when Bob Brown retired.
Lordbain @ #830 Sunday, July 28th, 2024 – 4:50 pm
Would it be … because the COALition puts up policies that Labor would really like to, but don’t have the balls to actually do so?
I’m wondrin’ if the problem with The Voice was that Labor wasn’t bold enough?
Let’s set the scene: Labor’s voters are made up of their patricians [who get the good jobs] the Rusties [who get the satisfaction of seeing everyone else miss out too] and their Lumpen Proles, whose only reading matter is an ALP HTV once every few years, and form the numerical bedrock of the Party..
Now, Labor didn’t I.D. itself with The Voice, so Lumpies voted Racist, which was entirely predictable.
Having Greens wearing turqoise t-shirts with rainbow colors handing out HTVs wasn’t helpful either.
The Dutton masterstroke, imo, was handing responsibility to Advance Australia, who wore black t-shirts with a red NO.
Talk about collecting negative energy!
So, was it deliberate?
I say, that’s Conspiracy Theory talk.
Albo is just a dud promoted way beyond his ability.
“ AE, how can you honestly look at the modern Labor party and not say it has shifted to the right?”
Because I simply don’t view the profession of democratic politics through the prism of left vs right ideology. I view it through the lens of building practical outcomes that further public progress vs reactionary obstructionism. This is the core of the Laborism. Ever since the movement began. To the extent along the way it was ever a ‘socialist’ outfit it was a brand of socialism without ideology – which is why ‘true socialists’ have always oscillated between trying to take it over from within (and purge the ‘non pure’ from it) and trying to destroy it from the outside.
You say ‘Labor has shifted to the right’. You are entitled to that POV. For my money however, to the extent that it is true, that merely reflects a shift in the political overton window in australia. Because ever since Whitlam’s ‘The Party, The Platform, the People’ modernisation of the party process commenced in the late 1960s, Labor has always sought to govern from the middle. Whitlam ended two and half decades where Labor got stuck navel gazing over ideological issues whilst the Australian populous simply walked on by.
The actual problem for modern Labor – especially in 2024 – is more subtle and nuanced than some ‘left’ vs ‘right’ ideological hill fight. Having chosen pragmatism over ideology, Labor needs to demonstrate that it can take people with them by achieving actual progress. The small target no risk approach doesn’t really give enough reason to vote FOR Labor, especially when the constraints in the economy (inflation, labor and supply chain constraints) do not give much wriggle room for Labor to rapidly fix the decades of tory misrule problems it now faces. Or quickly address the ‘cost of living’ crisis it inherited.
For example Max Hyphen wants massive uptake in public housing construction. ‘NOW’!!! Sounds great. Definitely on the right track ideologically.
Unfortunately the real world 2024 constraints are thus: housing has been the prime responsibility of states, who stopped doing public housing decades ago. The construction of public housing needs the release of land for development (predominately and traditionally another state area of responsibility). Public owned construction companies like the old NSW Landcom need to a structure, staff and an abundant supply of qualified tradies. Of which there are none. Importing these opens up another battle front on immigration. Topping all that off – transcending all things in mid 2024 – doing all of that rapidly will simply provoke the monetarists in the Reserve Bank to clobber us all with another round of interest rate hikes, thus defeating all progress that could have been made. These are the reasons why it is inexcusable to make ‘public housing now’ a demand for agreement on other legislation being passed. Of course, it is not naivety but bastardy on behalf of the Greens as to why it makes these sort of ‘demands’. A feature, not a flaw of their MO. A pox on them.
Lordbain says:
Sunday, July 28, 2024 at 4:43 pm
Griff, I would make 2 arguments (shocking I know).
1st, the current situation is literally the best position for the Greens to try and implement their positions, or to shift labor policies to the left. Again, as much as it may annoy certain people here… Labor refuses to negotiate on policy, so it wont get past.
Secondly, the incremental policy improvements you claim Labor are attempting to make… I would argue are hardly improvements.
From tax breaks to housing developers, to an expansion of gas field production, to continued tax breaks for private education facilities, to ensuring that religious organisations can continue to discriminate on the basis of faith, to backpaddling on the Republic, on Palestine, on the Voice… again, where is the progressive incrementalism?
Also heres a question I keep bringing up and people seem to ignore… why does Labor play by the rules of only passing policies that will survive the coalition… and meanwhile when ever the coalition gets in power, they do what ever the fuck they want.
________
Well if you think that the Labor policies that The Greens are blocking are actually worse than the status quo, then I can see why you think that it isn’t progressive incrementalism. I happen to think the housing policy, the superannuation changes are both better than what exists currently.
I don’t mind Greens asking to negotiate. It is closer to my policy preferences. My concern is that they don’t ask for more. They ask for something different. That is new policy, not improved policy. That is poor negotiation. I can see why Labor doesn’t go for it. They are protecting their interests i.e. to stay in power.
As for why does Labor play by the rules? It is the Whitlam sprint vs Hawke/Keating marathon. I think the reversal of the carbon tax and the rejection of the taxation policies at the 2019 election both influenced Labor towards the marathon. Albanese also spent first term political capital on the Voice referendum. a political mistake. It comes back to the fact that we are living in a country with a more conservative electorate than us.
Lars Von Trier
Continues to call for each electorate seat polling ,
Lars Von Trier will have to wait until 2025 federal election day to start seeing the polling for each electorate
Socialism without ideology… ah, your one of those people…
What is it with “pragmatists” claiming that it isnt an ideology, when it very obviously is.
Also, I imagine the Greens are pushing hard on housing… because its a need for alot of people?
Gosh darnit, why wont people be patient, and just… live on the streets I suppose? As someone who lives in the ACT, the idea of the homeless or housing insecure simply… waiting… is criminal.
Puff, you new here or what? Its not like iv hidden my current party allegiance…
Andrew_Earlwood @ #834 Sunday, July 28th, 2024 – 4:54 pm
He did indeed. Sadly, you only tend to get one person with so much vision and fortitude per lifetime, and we have had ours. All that’s left in Labor is neoliberal dross.
P1, dont you see how an event that occurred half a century ago should be what determines policy?
Fuck me, can we stop pretending this is the same Australia as Whitlam? As Fraser, as Hawke, as Keating, hell even as Howard? Hell, it isnt even the same Australia as 2019; the demographics have changed, the world has changed.
And yet somehow Labo continues to fight as if its the last war…
Further to my post at 4:54pm:
I don’t see Labor losing any Lumpies at the looming Poll, let alone any Rusties, but this latest Redbridge indicates someone’s leaving, so i’d say it’s the Swinging voters heading for the exits.
The lesson is there from the 3 Term/3PM Liberal Governments, 3 years is the new 2 Terms.
It’s interesting that Labor has capitulated on a republic referendum.
It shows a pitiful weakness and lack of any confidence in one’s own political skill.
Lordbain @ #839 Sunday, July 28th, 2024 – 5:02 pm
Silly me, I remember when Labor actually stood for something. But then, I suppose I am old.
I think it’s time for Chalmers to launch a leadership challenge.
Albo just doesn’t have IT.
Agree with an earlier contributor regarding using a referendum as a means to consider an Oz republic as was killed stone dead by Dutton’s bastardry at the time of the Voice.
Labor will not go near any kind of referendum in this or its next term, and the LNP will never offer up such a choice.
Fortunately, the Royals are becoming a circus and their relevance to Oz – perhaps even to the UK as it stands – will come to mean less and less.
Like the monarch’s visage on our notes/ coins/stamps, these will disappear as will the actual notes, coins and stamps themselves.
Certainly there will be vestiges…..The navy will cling to HMAS but like the kangaroo on the RAAF roundel, the reference will just be a trinket left from a by-gone age.
I guess there will always be an Abbott type throw backs to the ancient times, but like Abbott these too will disappear.
Lordbain. I am thinking you are not actually very bright. You have misunderstood the essence of just about everything I’ve written this afternoon. P1 and you should get along like a house on fire.
Of course 2024 Australia isn’t 1966 Australia, BUT that fact in fact underscores Whitlam’s main political point about Labor’s raison d’etre, which he summarised in a single aphorism: “Contemporary relevance, comrades!”
Welcome back Puffy.
It wont be a challenge Rex, it will be I’ve decided to retire after a late night meeting with a factional delegation telling me to retire.
Rex….If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Despite you many exhortations/wishes/desires/hopes about Albanese going, I think you will still be singing the song again and again and again….for a long time to come.
All leaders have a shelf life but Albanese, as things stand, still has the confidence of his party and by and large (though perhaps sullenly) of enough of the Oz electorate for another term come April of next year.
AE, the feeling is more then mutual… but then if I gave a damn about the views of someone like yourself with your world view, I would wish to be 6 feet under! 🙂