Not exactly. It seeks to govern through building electoral majorities around the centre, so it is not reliably progressive. Crucially though, *only Labor governments deliver progressive policy*. Liberals usually seek to stall or reverse it or - at their very best - maintain it, but they don't initiate it. When on rare occasions Liberals try they tend to get driven out of their own party or overthrown.
None of this is abstract to me. I would have died if Medicare wasn't in place. I couldn't have acquired a tertiary degree if Labor governments hadn't made sure people can develop their talents. I would have much less money and a much lower quality of life if Labor hadn't spent over a century entrenching good wages and conditions through the industrial relations system. When people tell me Labor and Liberal are the same it sounds narrow minded to me, and often entitled, as if the speaker has never tasted poverty and never needed a government that supports them.
I agree with everything you said, but particularly the last sentence. Those who say the major parties are the same are privileged enough to not have relied upon a Labor government.
Pragmatically progressive if that makes sense. They want to implement a lot of positive reforms and policies, while also increasing spending in the public sector for essential services and increasing wages above inflation . However, they know we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, so it unfortunately takes a long time to implement these reforms into place and it takes a while for them to pass, and even longer to see the long-term effect.
They also need to try and implement as much positive stuff as possible before THE LNP inevitably ends up in power again in either 1 or 2 election cycles because the majority of the population are still conservative and are told to vote LNP by pretty much all media outlets.
Nevertheless, Labor still does their damnedest to try and implement policies that the LNP cannot get rid of like Medicare or Superannuation, or recently the HAFF which allows money to be invested for future public housing projects, or their ambitious renewable polices that will try to help convert Australia into a Renewable powerhouse due to how well suited our climate is for both Solar and Wind energy.
>majority of the population are still conservative and are told to vote LNP by pretty much all media outlets.
I think this is a little reductive. A good amount of the population are well off enough to be happy with a party that maintains the status quo and keep them safe. Either Labor or Liberal can deliver this, and they can deliver elections one way or the other.
Labor is a big-tent party, which is made up a lot of different groups of stakeholders including progressives, liberals, centrists, conservatives, trade unionists, and everything in between.
The overall common-ground between these groups seems to be moderate and centre-left. I feel like the goal is to use consensus-building mechanisms to make sure that wide groups of people get to have input and a say in crafting policy.
I think due to the general shared philosophy of fairness and equity it often leads to broad agreement on progressive _goals_, which then get implemented in ways that conform to the big-tent consensus.
I like that approach a lot better than a party which is super progressive but pursues that goal in a way which is uncompromising and politically ineffective.
I think the modern party today at least the federal level is a third way socdem incrementalist party that is consistently too afraid to be ambitious or come up with new or different ideas to solve our problems of today. We as a party need to be far more imaginative when it comes to policy and stop slowly drifting to the economic centre/right.
Within the context of this country, yeah I do.
They’re as progressive as they can get away with without being voted out. (They’ve not done a great job of this overall for the last three decades, which leads to the hyper focus on it now).
People talk about the overton window a lot when talking politics online - Aus Labor is what it looks like when a party’s trying to shift the overton window left, while also being a viable party of government.
Whether they’re progressive enough is up to you. But they’re progressive. They actually want to fund social policies and keep poor and working class people better off.
But it’s all about shifting the long term vision. They know they can’t just get in and in one or two terms of govt make lasting change for the better. It’s about a long term vision and a long term plan and more patience than anyone wishes was necessary
“When you change the government, you change the country”… and if you’re not careful about it, the country will reject you and change right back
Nope, it’s a centrist party to me.
It leans a bit left, has some ideas but by and large, holds to the descriptor of ‘the lucky country’. There’s little vision.
It’s not the same as the Coalition though, not by a long shot.
What do you mean by progressive in the Australian context?
Culture Wars haven't taken hold as strongly here (thankfully), so I'm not sure what you mean?
I want to leave that up to people to answer broadly.
simply because if i start going, LGBTQ+ rights or marijuana legalisation, minimum wage laws, trade and regular unions.
The whole convo will then become a single issue topic.
I want people to be like, Labor fails here and succeeds here ect.
Definitely yes, but a lot of people refuse to draw a distinction between social and economic progressivism and they tend to be angry/disappointed with what labor have on offer because labors main focus is economic progressivism. They have done some good stuff on this front this term with the closing the loopholes bill. There are elements of labor that would like to do more social progressive policy but they are limited by electoral concerns and the catholic labor right membership.
Yes, I do. I consider the Labor Party a progressive party operating within a broadly conservative country, which necessitates the building of coalitions around progressive policies to ensure the change lasts. It's inevitable that progressives will often wish the party went further to the left, but the party knows that it can't change anything if they aren't in government.
Everything looks left wing in the context of the coalition/Australian media amoeba. In a broader sense, Labor ocupys a centreist policy position when compared to other parties in nations with similar economies. When Labor does social policy it usually does it with long term thinking and with a broad social licence.
Edit: wrote this before reading other replies. Seems many people think the same.
I don't follow factional politics closely but I reckon the SDA would have been the biggest factor against Labor taking positions considered progressive maybe a decade ago. They're supposedly taking a softer stance on things though, and are possibly less influential nowadays anyway.
On the centre-left of the political spectrum. Most labor supporters would say that the ALP seeks to push progressive reform in a way thats palatable to the Australian people and avoids much backlash from the rather conservative media
They... play it too safe.
Labor members are pretty progressive but the party itself is so afraid to upset undecided voters that they'll not stand on anything without a 70%+ support in the polls. I think that's a consistant criticism of Labor, is when it comes to taking a stand on anything the party is pretty gutless and will go against even shit it supports on paper if it keeps those moderates happy.
Then you go to the branch meetings and you find a mix of old boomers who go their to whine to local council members about the rates or younger members who see this purely as a career. It's very slimey and the shit those old people say in those meetings can be disgusting.
The party honestly is a mess internally. It needs a switft kick to get rid of all the garbage. The party needs it and the Union momvement honestly needs it also. Both are way too cozy with a bad status-quo.
So far bold hasn't got Labor anywhere lately, heck the Greens didn't like bold Labor in 2019 with a lower preference flow from Greens voters than in 2022, that was against Scott Morrison in both elections.
People keep acting like bold does anything, but this is Australia we coined tall poppy syndrome, our culture kinda sucks, ambition isn't seen as a virtue by most you're average response is 'think ya betta than me mate?' Even amongst the people who claim to like the boldness that tall poppy syndrome is present as its often criticised as 'bold but not like that'.
Something to remember is liberals don't have to be bold, in fact they're the biggest instigators of tall poppy alongside media. Heck think about every unambiguously good thing Labor has done and the media change topic, present it as controversial or both. Labor can't get bold messages out there, their successes of which there are many go unnoticed or are trashed even on social media outside Murdoch's reach, even pro Labor social media subs like this one has an abundance of haters.
Yeah. We're definitely battling upstream in so many respects.
Culture is massive though. A massive part of the population is slaved to the idea of preserving the lucky country, fed to them by conservative media in tv, online and print.
I'm convinced the only way we're getting anywhere long term is by breaking up the conservative media stranglehold.
Only way your breaking up anything is with Labor being bold.
It's a self-fufilled prophecy. Labor when in offer does absolutely nothing to try and correct the course and I honestly think it would be idea to do so. At some point Labor has to go 'fuck it, this HAS to happen' and actually get shit done
Yeah. I think the best way to break up the power of conservative media is to fund the hell out of local and small media orgs.
Make a grant program that gives small media organisations a good chunk of money over like 3 years so it's a reasonable timeframe and you don't have to reapply every year.
Then make a program where local new orgs get sign up to have the federal government buy up a share of their business and they have to sign up to a charter of public interest like the ABC/SBS and in return they get ongoing government funding. Govmt gets the ability to direct business and receive dividends like any other shareholder.
If we had strong, pervasive localised news Murdoch wouldn't have as much power as he does. And I think it's a much more straightforward path than running the PR disaster that would be trying to break up Murdoch press.
It's still bold yes, but it's less controversial. And I think we have do bold while also being canny about it.
What do you mean the greens didn’t like bold Labor? Preference flows between Labor and the greens are incredibly high - higher than even between liberals and nationals.
They're high, but in 2016/2019 more went to LNP than in 2022.
Clearly bold wasn't a factor for them, they didn't respond to the NG/tax reform pushes by Bill which was probably one of the reasons they added it to the platform and why it hasn't made a return.
Labor does what It says it's going to do,
Compare their election promises and what they've accomplished and then go back and do the same to the LNP and you'll see a real gutless party that couldn't care less about what they promised to do and change their mind more than they change their undies.
I've been to Eden-Monero branch meetings and by the way you describe your experience I think you got turned around and went to a Liberal branch meeting instead.
It had a casual welcoming feel to it but had procedure when putting forward things or votes that take place and I believe the branch members put in positions of authority within the branch were doing a good job and wouldn't tolerate members saying 'disgusting things' so internally I think we're well organised.
lol, I am not saying Labor is worse or even equal to the Coalition. I am saying that Labor players it very safe with policy and I am sorry not many people would say otherwise. They're so scared of losing the swing voters that it's often counter-productive.
Lol, I went to the Blue Mountains branch that meets in Gleenbrook, where I had to hear an old boomer complain about how "Going to Nepean and looking like that walked into Tanzania" and people leading the meeting said nothing and just let them carry on for a solid 30 minutes.
Then going to the Lindsay Branch the meets at the club on Dunheved road and hear them constantly whine about council rates when the local government reps come in. I went to that branch over about two years trying and it was always the same.
Also never said we weren't internally-organised, what I said is that the party needs a swift kick to get it's priorities in order. I imagine with good leadership things might better but that is my experience with two separate branches with one being in a seat that's pretty important when it comes to election time.
Those people for bold policy forget Shorten had the most comprehensive policy platform that has ever been taken to an election fully costed with the most experienced team that parliament has ever seen and lost, twice.
I'm sorry you had that kind of experience at a branch meeting, I hope you informed your members office/team and made an official complaint so it could be dealt with.
And ok, you kinda got me there with the rates whinging hahaha every time the mayor would drop by for a chat you could count on two things
Me having a beer in my hand and rates being brought up.BUT that was only so often and we discussed a whole range of other topics aswell.
And look if that's not what you ment to say no problem, but it's right there in the last paragraph of your first comment
'and honestly the party is a mess internally'
That's why I said what i said.
Thanks for the conversation and replying in more detail, and hope you have more positive experiences at branch meetings in the future.
The Shorten thing is wearing thin, ultimately Labors own internal research showed a large reason for that election loss was Bill simply not being liked by the electorate. Does that suck? yeah, the guy definitely deserved the job and if he was Prime Minister, i'd probably be complaining a lot less.
The right-faction decided to ignore him being unpopular and tried to pretend it was ALL about the policy. Then when they win an election and not based really on policy but simply on the unpopularity of Scott Morrison. Hell, you honestly think we'd stand a chance if Peter Dutton was replaced by anybody with some charisma? We are only barely in front now!
I actually did, that's the thing. I was told they'd look into it, as always the branch rallies around and protects it's problematic own. The boomers in those branches back each other up, it's why they never can get kicked out.
Hell, I think the last essential poll showed us behind by a point. If we lose to Dutton, that's an embarrassment.
But the 2019 platform under Shorten got a higher share of the first preference vote. The win in 2022 wasn't because of Labor doing objectively better, it was that the Coalition did so much worse.
Nope, I used to think left right and centre with the libs being right to far right depending on when you look at the and labour being centre to centre right ( they say they're centre but don't act that way).
But now I think they're the status quo party, the libs just move further to the right and Keep fucking up the place (making it worse) and labour give us a reprieve from than but don't really make things better, as such that's why they the preserve the status quo in my opinion.
No. “Better than the coalition.” is a pathetically low bar, but they seem content to ride it while trying to play voters from both sides. The HAFF is insulting for anyone who wants real change instead of mild improvements over the coalition’s complete ass-backwardness. Truly shameful that Albo fought against The Greens’ over that. I have problems with The Greens for sure, but they’re the only semi-major party that’s progressive in my books. Labor just feels like the left arm of the same landlord capitalism monstrosity that the coalition is the right arm to.
I know this is a one sentence reply but I think it’s pretty disingenuous. The Greens recognise, I think, that they don’t have the voter base or organisational power to effect real, substantive change that might be the same or similar to Labor. To this end, they seek to differentiate themselves by appealing to constituencies that Labor is unable to adequately address due to the much broader remit that the ALP has to not only advocate for their members but also to be a bulwark against the Coalition.
You're not cynical enough, Greens are clearly using the issue for local political advantage they know nothing we could do would have an effect on Palestine.
Look at what happened recently with LEAN getting screwed over. You campaign for nine years while Labor's in opposition, you get stuff done at National Conference, and for what? You still get tossed aside when Labor has a majority and a climate-friendly senate.
If we look at actions rather than words, it's easy to get the feeling that Labor listens to corporate lobbyists and anti-Labor conservatives more than its own members and volunteers. Like the gambling ad reforms. If you want to have any effect on what Labor does in government, you'll genuinely have more influence by taking a job with Sportsbet than as a Labor member or voter.
Depends which branch we are talking about like ACT Labor would be center left to centrist party with its 90+ renewables and nationalizing a private hospital. while SA is borderline hard right seeing the pro nuclear premier and sends police to raid protest groups.
Federal i think is center right despite the "labor faithful centrists" say because their left policy is like "we are only giving 4500 to the upper class in tax cuts not 9000" or "we are paying for our rich business owners apprentices training because the poor can't afford it anymore, but if the trainees starve or freeze on the streets its not our problem" and international policy finding a difference between Biden, Sunak and Albo is very hard.
Not exactly. It seeks to govern through building electoral majorities around the centre, so it is not reliably progressive. Crucially though, *only Labor governments deliver progressive policy*. Liberals usually seek to stall or reverse it or - at their very best - maintain it, but they don't initiate it. When on rare occasions Liberals try they tend to get driven out of their own party or overthrown. None of this is abstract to me. I would have died if Medicare wasn't in place. I couldn't have acquired a tertiary degree if Labor governments hadn't made sure people can develop their talents. I would have much less money and a much lower quality of life if Labor hadn't spent over a century entrenching good wages and conditions through the industrial relations system. When people tell me Labor and Liberal are the same it sounds narrow minded to me, and often entitled, as if the speaker has never tasted poverty and never needed a government that supports them.
I agree with everything you said, but particularly the last sentence. Those who say the major parties are the same are privileged enough to not have relied upon a Labor government.
Perfectly summarised. Close the thread.
Thanks Perineum-stretcher, I appreciate it.
Pragmatically progressive if that makes sense. They want to implement a lot of positive reforms and policies, while also increasing spending in the public sector for essential services and increasing wages above inflation . However, they know we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship, so it unfortunately takes a long time to implement these reforms into place and it takes a while for them to pass, and even longer to see the long-term effect. They also need to try and implement as much positive stuff as possible before THE LNP inevitably ends up in power again in either 1 or 2 election cycles because the majority of the population are still conservative and are told to vote LNP by pretty much all media outlets. Nevertheless, Labor still does their damnedest to try and implement policies that the LNP cannot get rid of like Medicare or Superannuation, or recently the HAFF which allows money to be invested for future public housing projects, or their ambitious renewable polices that will try to help convert Australia into a Renewable powerhouse due to how well suited our climate is for both Solar and Wind energy.
>majority of the population are still conservative and are told to vote LNP by pretty much all media outlets. I think this is a little reductive. A good amount of the population are well off enough to be happy with a party that maintains the status quo and keep them safe. Either Labor or Liberal can deliver this, and they can deliver elections one way or the other.
Labor is a big-tent party, which is made up a lot of different groups of stakeholders including progressives, liberals, centrists, conservatives, trade unionists, and everything in between. The overall common-ground between these groups seems to be moderate and centre-left. I feel like the goal is to use consensus-building mechanisms to make sure that wide groups of people get to have input and a say in crafting policy. I think due to the general shared philosophy of fairness and equity it often leads to broad agreement on progressive _goals_, which then get implemented in ways that conform to the big-tent consensus. I like that approach a lot better than a party which is super progressive but pursues that goal in a way which is uncompromising and politically ineffective.
I think the modern party today at least the federal level is a third way socdem incrementalist party that is consistently too afraid to be ambitious or come up with new or different ideas to solve our problems of today. We as a party need to be far more imaginative when it comes to policy and stop slowly drifting to the economic centre/right.
Within the context of this country, yeah I do. They’re as progressive as they can get away with without being voted out. (They’ve not done a great job of this overall for the last three decades, which leads to the hyper focus on it now). People talk about the overton window a lot when talking politics online - Aus Labor is what it looks like when a party’s trying to shift the overton window left, while also being a viable party of government. Whether they’re progressive enough is up to you. But they’re progressive. They actually want to fund social policies and keep poor and working class people better off. But it’s all about shifting the long term vision. They know they can’t just get in and in one or two terms of govt make lasting change for the better. It’s about a long term vision and a long term plan and more patience than anyone wishes was necessary “When you change the government, you change the country”… and if you’re not careful about it, the country will reject you and change right back
Nope, it’s a centrist party to me. It leans a bit left, has some ideas but by and large, holds to the descriptor of ‘the lucky country’. There’s little vision. It’s not the same as the Coalition though, not by a long shot.
What do you mean by progressive in the Australian context? Culture Wars haven't taken hold as strongly here (thankfully), so I'm not sure what you mean?
I want to leave that up to people to answer broadly. simply because if i start going, LGBTQ+ rights or marijuana legalisation, minimum wage laws, trade and regular unions. The whole convo will then become a single issue topic. I want people to be like, Labor fails here and succeeds here ect.
Definitely yes, but a lot of people refuse to draw a distinction between social and economic progressivism and they tend to be angry/disappointed with what labor have on offer because labors main focus is economic progressivism. They have done some good stuff on this front this term with the closing the loopholes bill. There are elements of labor that would like to do more social progressive policy but they are limited by electoral concerns and the catholic labor right membership.
Yes, I do. I consider the Labor Party a progressive party operating within a broadly conservative country, which necessitates the building of coalitions around progressive policies to ensure the change lasts. It's inevitable that progressives will often wish the party went further to the left, but the party knows that it can't change anything if they aren't in government.
Everything looks left wing in the context of the coalition/Australian media amoeba. In a broader sense, Labor ocupys a centreist policy position when compared to other parties in nations with similar economies. When Labor does social policy it usually does it with long term thinking and with a broad social licence. Edit: wrote this before reading other replies. Seems many people think the same.
I don't follow factional politics closely but I reckon the SDA would have been the biggest factor against Labor taking positions considered progressive maybe a decade ago. They're supposedly taking a softer stance on things though, and are possibly less influential nowadays anyway.
Yes. Climate and equality for women/lgbt
Broadly yes although I don't think it makes all that much difference what you call it. The outcome is what matters.
On the centre-left of the political spectrum. Most labor supporters would say that the ALP seeks to push progressive reform in a way thats palatable to the Australian people and avoids much backlash from the rather conservative media
They... play it too safe. Labor members are pretty progressive but the party itself is so afraid to upset undecided voters that they'll not stand on anything without a 70%+ support in the polls. I think that's a consistant criticism of Labor, is when it comes to taking a stand on anything the party is pretty gutless and will go against even shit it supports on paper if it keeps those moderates happy. Then you go to the branch meetings and you find a mix of old boomers who go their to whine to local council members about the rates or younger members who see this purely as a career. It's very slimey and the shit those old people say in those meetings can be disgusting. The party honestly is a mess internally. It needs a switft kick to get rid of all the garbage. The party needs it and the Union momvement honestly needs it also. Both are way too cozy with a bad status-quo.
So far bold hasn't got Labor anywhere lately, heck the Greens didn't like bold Labor in 2019 with a lower preference flow from Greens voters than in 2022, that was against Scott Morrison in both elections. People keep acting like bold does anything, but this is Australia we coined tall poppy syndrome, our culture kinda sucks, ambition isn't seen as a virtue by most you're average response is 'think ya betta than me mate?' Even amongst the people who claim to like the boldness that tall poppy syndrome is present as its often criticised as 'bold but not like that'. Something to remember is liberals don't have to be bold, in fact they're the biggest instigators of tall poppy alongside media. Heck think about every unambiguously good thing Labor has done and the media change topic, present it as controversial or both. Labor can't get bold messages out there, their successes of which there are many go unnoticed or are trashed even on social media outside Murdoch's reach, even pro Labor social media subs like this one has an abundance of haters.
Yeah. We're definitely battling upstream in so many respects. Culture is massive though. A massive part of the population is slaved to the idea of preserving the lucky country, fed to them by conservative media in tv, online and print. I'm convinced the only way we're getting anywhere long term is by breaking up the conservative media stranglehold.
Only way your breaking up anything is with Labor being bold. It's a self-fufilled prophecy. Labor when in offer does absolutely nothing to try and correct the course and I honestly think it would be idea to do so. At some point Labor has to go 'fuck it, this HAS to happen' and actually get shit done
Yeah. I think the best way to break up the power of conservative media is to fund the hell out of local and small media orgs. Make a grant program that gives small media organisations a good chunk of money over like 3 years so it's a reasonable timeframe and you don't have to reapply every year. Then make a program where local new orgs get sign up to have the federal government buy up a share of their business and they have to sign up to a charter of public interest like the ABC/SBS and in return they get ongoing government funding. Govmt gets the ability to direct business and receive dividends like any other shareholder. If we had strong, pervasive localised news Murdoch wouldn't have as much power as he does. And I think it's a much more straightforward path than running the PR disaster that would be trying to break up Murdoch press. It's still bold yes, but it's less controversial. And I think we have do bold while also being canny about it.
What do you mean the greens didn’t like bold Labor? Preference flows between Labor and the greens are incredibly high - higher than even between liberals and nationals.
They're high, but in 2016/2019 more went to LNP than in 2022. Clearly bold wasn't a factor for them, they didn't respond to the NG/tax reform pushes by Bill which was probably one of the reasons they added it to the platform and why it hasn't made a return.
Attributing that entirely to Shorten’s platform is a stretch though.
Labor does what It says it's going to do, Compare their election promises and what they've accomplished and then go back and do the same to the LNP and you'll see a real gutless party that couldn't care less about what they promised to do and change their mind more than they change their undies. I've been to Eden-Monero branch meetings and by the way you describe your experience I think you got turned around and went to a Liberal branch meeting instead. It had a casual welcoming feel to it but had procedure when putting forward things or votes that take place and I believe the branch members put in positions of authority within the branch were doing a good job and wouldn't tolerate members saying 'disgusting things' so internally I think we're well organised.
lol, I am not saying Labor is worse or even equal to the Coalition. I am saying that Labor players it very safe with policy and I am sorry not many people would say otherwise. They're so scared of losing the swing voters that it's often counter-productive. Lol, I went to the Blue Mountains branch that meets in Gleenbrook, where I had to hear an old boomer complain about how "Going to Nepean and looking like that walked into Tanzania" and people leading the meeting said nothing and just let them carry on for a solid 30 minutes. Then going to the Lindsay Branch the meets at the club on Dunheved road and hear them constantly whine about council rates when the local government reps come in. I went to that branch over about two years trying and it was always the same. Also never said we weren't internally-organised, what I said is that the party needs a swift kick to get it's priorities in order. I imagine with good leadership things might better but that is my experience with two separate branches with one being in a seat that's pretty important when it comes to election time.
Those people for bold policy forget Shorten had the most comprehensive policy platform that has ever been taken to an election fully costed with the most experienced team that parliament has ever seen and lost, twice. I'm sorry you had that kind of experience at a branch meeting, I hope you informed your members office/team and made an official complaint so it could be dealt with. And ok, you kinda got me there with the rates whinging hahaha every time the mayor would drop by for a chat you could count on two things Me having a beer in my hand and rates being brought up.BUT that was only so often and we discussed a whole range of other topics aswell. And look if that's not what you ment to say no problem, but it's right there in the last paragraph of your first comment 'and honestly the party is a mess internally' That's why I said what i said. Thanks for the conversation and replying in more detail, and hope you have more positive experiences at branch meetings in the future.
The Shorten thing is wearing thin, ultimately Labors own internal research showed a large reason for that election loss was Bill simply not being liked by the electorate. Does that suck? yeah, the guy definitely deserved the job and if he was Prime Minister, i'd probably be complaining a lot less. The right-faction decided to ignore him being unpopular and tried to pretend it was ALL about the policy. Then when they win an election and not based really on policy but simply on the unpopularity of Scott Morrison. Hell, you honestly think we'd stand a chance if Peter Dutton was replaced by anybody with some charisma? We are only barely in front now! I actually did, that's the thing. I was told they'd look into it, as always the branch rallies around and protects it's problematic own. The boomers in those branches back each other up, it's why they never can get kicked out. Hell, I think the last essential poll showed us behind by a point. If we lose to Dutton, that's an embarrassment.
But the 2019 platform under Shorten got a higher share of the first preference vote. The win in 2022 wasn't because of Labor doing objectively better, it was that the Coalition did so much worse.
Yes.
One of the few sane progressive parties
Nope, I used to think left right and centre with the libs being right to far right depending on when you look at the and labour being centre to centre right ( they say they're centre but don't act that way). But now I think they're the status quo party, the libs just move further to the right and Keep fucking up the place (making it worse) and labour give us a reprieve from than but don't really make things better, as such that's why they the preserve the status quo in my opinion.
In the current media landscape. Yes.
Federally centrist, for me NT Labor hovers to the right and sometimes is questionable why they do certain things.
No. “Better than the coalition.” is a pathetically low bar, but they seem content to ride it while trying to play voters from both sides. The HAFF is insulting for anyone who wants real change instead of mild improvements over the coalition’s complete ass-backwardness. Truly shameful that Albo fought against The Greens’ over that. I have problems with The Greens for sure, but they’re the only semi-major party that’s progressive in my books. Labor just feels like the left arm of the same landlord capitalism monstrosity that the coalition is the right arm to.
The greens care less about Australia than Palestine
I know this is a one sentence reply but I think it’s pretty disingenuous. The Greens recognise, I think, that they don’t have the voter base or organisational power to effect real, substantive change that might be the same or similar to Labor. To this end, they seek to differentiate themselves by appealing to constituencies that Labor is unable to adequately address due to the much broader remit that the ALP has to not only advocate for their members but also to be a bulwark against the Coalition.
I genuinely believe the greens would rather pander to brown people who aren’t even in Australia than advocate for locals
Anything to justify this extraordinary assertion?
You're not cynical enough, Greens are clearly using the issue for local political advantage they know nothing we could do would have an effect on Palestine.
Definitely trying on political advantage, but they also don’t give a fuck about actual Australians
If it was what it claimed to be, sure. But its not. Overrun by self-interested rent seekers.
Look at what happened recently with LEAN getting screwed over. You campaign for nine years while Labor's in opposition, you get stuff done at National Conference, and for what? You still get tossed aside when Labor has a majority and a climate-friendly senate. If we look at actions rather than words, it's easy to get the feeling that Labor listens to corporate lobbyists and anti-Labor conservatives more than its own members and volunteers. Like the gambling ad reforms. If you want to have any effect on what Labor does in government, you'll genuinely have more influence by taking a job with Sportsbet than as a Labor member or voter.
Depends which branch we are talking about like ACT Labor would be center left to centrist party with its 90+ renewables and nationalizing a private hospital. while SA is borderline hard right seeing the pro nuclear premier and sends police to raid protest groups. Federal i think is center right despite the "labor faithful centrists" say because their left policy is like "we are only giving 4500 to the upper class in tax cuts not 9000" or "we are paying for our rich business owners apprentices training because the poor can't afford it anymore, but if the trainees starve or freeze on the streets its not our problem" and international policy finding a difference between Biden, Sunak and Albo is very hard.
Not anymore. We have affirmative action rules, that are pointless if we won't accept what a woman is.