There is a particular kind of political disappointment that is more painful than ordinary political disappointment.
It is the disappointment of people who actually wanted you to do better.
When Anthony Albanese led Labor to victory in the May 2025 federal election, it wasn’t merely another election win. Labor secured 94 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives and 55.22 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote – the largest two-party-preferred vote for a government since 1975. It was an emphatic rejection of the Coalition and a remarkable vote of confidence in Labor.
And then something rather predictable happened.
People started expecting the government to govern.
Not merely to be better than (then leader) Peter Dutton’s Coalition.
Not merely to be less frightening than Pauline Hanson.
Not merely to avoid repeating the disasters of the Morrison years.
They expected Labor to actually behave like Labor.
And that is where some of the disappointment has begun.
The inconvenient truth about disappointed Labor voters
There is a tendency in political discussion to treat criticism of Labor as though it automatically means support for the Coalition.
It doesn’t.
A person can be deeply disappointed in Labor’s approach to Israel and Palestine without wanting Angus Taylor anywhere near the Prime Minister’s office.
A person can believe Labor has gone too far with its response to antisemitism without believing antisemitism should be tolerated.
A person can be appalled by the government’s willingness to approve or facilitate further fossil-fuel development without wanting the country governed by politicians who have spent years treating climate change as an ideological nuisance.
A person can think Richard Marles is too willing to accommodate Washington without wanting the Coalition back in charge of Australia’s foreign and defence policy.
And a person can be struggling with the cost of living while simultaneously recognising that handing the economy back to the Coalition is hardly guaranteed to make groceries, rent, electricity or mortgage rates cheaper.
These are not contradictions. They are what democracy looks like when people stop treating political parties as football teams.
And Labor should probably pay attention, because the latest polling suggests that plenty of Australians are no longer particularly impressed. Labor’s primary vote has fallen to 26 per cent, while Anthony Albanese’s approval rating has fallen to 35 per cent, with 56 per cent disapproving. The national mood is also distinctly gloomy, with 59 per cent of respondents saying Australia is heading in the wrong direction.
That should concern Labor, but it shouldn’t make us forget who the alternative is.
Israel, antisemitism and the politics of disappointment
Perhaps nowhere is the frustration among sections of Labor’s traditional constituency more obvious than over Israel and Palestine.
There is a perfectly legitimate argument that Australia must confront antisemitism. The terrorist attack at Bondi was horrific, and Jewish Australians have every right to expect protection from hatred, intimidation and violence.
But protecting Jewish Australians from antisemitism does not require abandoning the ability to criticise the Israeli government’s conduct. Those two propositions should never have been presented as mutually exclusive.
The Albanese government has introduced extremely tough laws dealing with hate, extremism and antisemitism, including increased penalties, new offences and provisions relating to organisations engaged in hate crimes. It has also established a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, headed by former High Court Justice Virginia Bell.
Indeed, the Royal Commission’s interim report found that Australia’s existing legal and regulatory frameworks had not prevented authorities from responding to the Bondi attack and that no urgent or immediate action was required in that respect.
There is therefore a legitimate debate to be had about where the line should be drawn between combating antisemitism and protecting political speech.
It is in this context that the recommendations of the government’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, have caused particular concern. Her antisemitism plan raises questions about where the fight against hatred ends and the policing of dissent begins. Recommendations including funding penalties for universities and cultural institutions, visa restrictions and scrutiny of media coverage have led critics to fear that a necessary fight against antisemitism could become an unnecessary assault on free expression and legitimate criticism of Israel.
That distinction matters. Fighting antisemitism is essential, but so too is protecting the right of Australians to question the actions of a foreign government – including one whose policies the Australian government itself is entitled to criticise.
There is also a legitimate debate about whether Labor has been sufficiently willing to distinguish between the Israeli government and Jewish Australians, or between criticism of Israel and hatred of Jews.
Those debates should be possible.
But imagine the alternative.
The Coalition has spent years moving towards a harder-edged politics of immigration, national identity and cultural conformity. Angus Taylor has already signalled that immigration will be a major priority and that the Coalition intends to take a much stricter approach to who comes to Australia and what values newcomers are expected to embrace.
And then there is One Nation.
The lesson from Labor’s disappointments should not be:
“Vote for the people who are even angrier.”
Richard Marles and the American embrace
Then there is defence.
Labor’s commitment to AUKUS has disappointed many people on the Australian left who once regarded Labor as the party more cautious about Australia’s military entanglements.
Richard Marles’ enthusiasm for Australia’s deepening military relationship with the United States has done little to reassure them.
Only days ago, Marles was in discussions with US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth about expanding the American military presence and force posture in Australia. Marles described the growing American presence as important for deterrence and stability in the Indo-Pacific.
The government is entitled to argue that this is necessary for Australia’s security.
But voters are equally entitled to ask whether Australia is becoming too comfortable with the idea that our security must be built around American military power.
That is a legitimate question.
Yet again, however, there is a rather large elephant in the room.
The Coalition is hardly campaigning on Australian strategic independence from Washington.
Indeed, it was the Coalition government under Scott Morrison that announced AUKUS in the first place.
So if you think Labor’s embrace of AUKUS is excessive, the answer isn’t necessarily found on the other side of the chamber.
You might simply end up with the same policy – only with more enthusiasm.
And then there is climate change
This is probably the easiest area in which to understand the frustration.
Labor came to office promising serious action on climate change.
Yet the continued approval and extension of fossil-fuel projects has left many climate-conscious voters wondering exactly how much of the government’s climate ambition survives contact with the mining industry.
The federal government has continued to face criticism over its support for fossil-fuel development and the fuel-tax-credit arrangements that benefit mining companies. An analysis cited by The Guardian estimated that coal companies could receive billions more in diesel subsidies if proposed new mines proceed.
And the contradictions don’t end there.
In August, the federal government agreed that Queensland data centres could use coal and gas despite its previous preference for renewable power.
Then, in September, Australia’s new national environmental agency approved a Queensland coal project that is expected to operate until 2055, provoking anger from climate campaigners.
For a voter who supported Labor because they believed climate change required urgent action, this is understandably frustrating.
But once again, consider the alternative.
Angus Taylor has already framed Labor’s climate policy as “net-zero ideology” and talked about scrapping what the Liberals describe as Labor’s carbon taxes.
One Nation goes considerably further, questioning whether human activity is responsible for climate change and supporting coal-fired power.
So yes, Labor deserves criticism.
But if climate change is your concern, moving further right is hardly a solution.
The cost of living: the issue nobody can escape
And then there is the issue that cuts through almost everything else: The cost of living.
It doesn’t matter how sophisticated someone’s political beliefs are while the cashier at the supermarket tallies their bill.
It doesn’t matter how passionately somebody supports Labor when the rent goes up.
It doesn’t matter how much they care about international affairs when the electricity bill lands on the kitchen table.
The latest ABS figures show inflation at 3.5 per cent in the year to July 2026, with housing costs up 5 per cent, food and non-alcoholic beverages up 3.2 per cent and electricity prices still a significant component of household costs.
Labor cannot simply tell people that inflation is lower than it was.
People don’t buy percentages.
They buy groceries.
They pay rent.
They fill their cars.
They pay insurance.
And if those things remain painfully expensive, telling people that the economic statistics are improving is unlikely to make them feel better.
The government therefore deserves to be judged on whether its policies are actually improving people’s lives.
But here too, there is a question worth asking:
What exactly is the Coalition offering that would make ordinary Australians better off?
Angus Taylor has emphasised lower taxes, deregulation, free markets and reducing what he describes as Labor’s tax burden. He has also opposed Labor’s approach to childcare and promised a different approach to energy policy.
Lower taxes can certainly sound attractive.
Until we ask what happens to the services those taxes fund.
Until we ask who receives the greatest benefit from tax reductions.
Until we ask whether the savings compensate a pensioner, renter or low-income family for the cost of housing, healthcare, education, transport and energy.
“Lower taxes” is not a magic spell.
“At least they’re better than the alternative”
This is the phrase that increasingly appears whenever somebody criticises Labor.
“At least they’re better than the alternative.”
And you know what?
They’re right.
That doesn’t mean Labor should be congratulated for it.
A government should not aspire merely to be less bad than the people sitting on the other side of Parliament.
It should aspire to be good.
But voters also need to understand what happens when disappointment turns into political amnesia.
The Coalition that Labor defeated in 2025 did not suddenly disappear.
The policies didn’t disappear.
The political instincts didn’t disappear.
And the ideological forces that pushed the Coalition further to the right haven’t gone away.
In fact, the current Coalition is trying to recover voters who have drifted towards One Nation. Angus Taylor has explicitly acknowledged that the Coalition needs to win back voters considering One Nation, while insisting that the Liberals aren’t trying to become “One Nation lite.”
That is an interesting political tightrope.
Because the more the Coalition moves towards the concerns driving One Nation’s popularity, the harder it becomes to argue that voting for the Coalition is some kind of moderate alternative.
Labor needs to understand why people are angry
There is a lesson here for Labor.
It shouldn’t dismiss disappointed voters as people who don’t understand politics.
It shouldn’t tell them to be grateful because Peter Dutton didn’t make it to The Lodge.
It shouldn’t assume that because voters prefer Labor to the Coalition, they will automatically vote Labor forever.
And it certainly shouldn’t assume that people who criticise the government’s position on Israel, climate change, defence or cost of living are secretly supporters of the right.
Some of them are simply Labor voters who expected more.
That distinction matters.
The 2025 election gave Labor an enormous mandate.
The Australian people didn’t give the government 94 seats because they wanted a slightly less objectionable version of the Coalition.
They gave Labor those seats because they wanted something different.
And if Labor wants to retain that support, it needs to remember what “different” was supposed to mean.
We can criticise Labor without pretending the Coalition is the answer
This is perhaps the most important point.
We should be able to say:
Labor has disappointed us.
We should be able to say:
Labor has made mistakes.
We should be able to say:
Labor is too close to the United States.
Labor is too timid on climate change.
Labor has mishandled aspects of the debate over Israel and antisemitism.
Labor has not done enough to relieve the cost of living.
And we should be able to say all of those things without somebody immediately shouting:
“So you want Angus Taylor as Prime Minister?”
No. Definitely not. That’s a false choice.
Democracy is not a binary choice between enthusiastic approval and political catastrophe.
We can demand more from Labor precisely because we don’t want the alternative.
We can criticise the government because we want it to become better.
We can tell Labor that its voters are unhappy without handing the keys to the Coalition.
And we can look at One Nation’s rise and conclude that Australians are angry without concluding that Pauline Hanson has discovered the solution.
The choice facing Australia shouldn’t be:
Labor or something worse.
It should be:
What does Labor need to do to deserve the enormous trust Australians gave it in 2025?
Because that trust was not a blank cheque.
It was an invitation.
And Labor still has time to decide what it intends to do with it.
They can start by reading the room.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
I do, I imagine an alternative – a minority Labor government, temporarily joined by truly progressive parties and independents.
Hotspringer is right, it’s not an either, or.WE KNOW the alternative of the three deadbeat parties would be a horror, but we do NOT have to put up with the least worst option..that’s why we are here.Greens and/or Independents…should have happened last time, except for the frightful Dutton.
I shouldn’t need to add..a shitful, biased media.Anyone for a Media ownership RC?
Thanks Hotspringer,
this article is littered with the phrase “the alternative”, yet there is not one word of the Greens or Independents, not one word, not a single jot.
Any discussion of alternatives to Labor that steadfastly ignores more progressive alternatives is shallow and, imo, is likely to deceive anyone who doesn’t follow politics avidly.
It is not an accurate portrayal of Australian politics.
One Nation rose from a base of about 6% to something around 28%. The Greens have a base of 12%, double what One Nation had.
Labor went to the ’25 election on the lie that ‘if you don’t vote for us, you’ll get Dutton.’ Instead of arguing the case for re-election based on their performance in their first term, Labor relied on fear. They also relied on smearing progressive alternatives to Labor – the Greens and Independents.
To knowingly and deliberately deceive people about the alternatives to Labor would be, in my opinion, dishonest.
It is not just mere “disappointment” in Labor.
Labor is knowingly destroying the habitabilty of our planet for many people through its reckless approval of new gas and coal fields. That is not disappointing, that is deadly – people are dying from the effects of climate change.
Labor isn’t just making mistakes, it is lying and deceiving the public. It is treating the Australian public with utter contempt.
It was Labor that tried to bring laws that would allow it to cloak everything it is doing in secrecy, to allow it to keep the public in complete darkness – that was too much for even the Coalition to stomach.
It is under Labor that records for FOI request denials are being set, and spending money on defending FOI denials is hitting new heights.
Labor isn’t just too close to the USA, it is handing our national sovereignty over to the USA wholess-bolless. It is not just Marles, just as it is not just Minns elevating Zionist’s interest above Australia’s interest, where is the Labor revolt against this???
Labor has pissed down the backs of Australians and told them its raining for over 4 years now. Is throwing some money Australian voters way before the next election, and they will, a sound basis to vote for them? would 6 years of shit governance ended with a cash-splash suddenly make it good enough to vote for?
It was Labor who teamed up with the Coalition to rig elections in its favour.
It was Labor who teamed up with the Coalition to nobble the NACC.
It was Labor who has automated assessments and decision-making in social services wherever it could.
It is Labor that is handing over the data of Australians to Palantir and the Trump administration.
It was Labor that dumped Australia in Trump’s illegal war against Iran, faster than any non-Gulf nation on Earth.
It is Labor giving grants to companies making weapons parts for countries committing genocide.
It is Labor undermining International law through its actions.
It is Labor, like the Coalition before it, that are demonizing refugees and sending them off to Pacific Islands.
It is Labor that is all ‘full steam ahead’ with AUKUS.
It is Labor building US bases and US weapons stockpiles on Australian soil and handing over access to Australian bases to the US military willy-nilly. It is Labor embedding Australia’s military into the US-Israel military and so putting Australia and Australian lives at the frontlines of the US aggression towards China, with all the risks that might entail.
It is Labor teaming up with the Coalition and One Nation to give ASIO the power to ‘disappear’ our children and grandchildren off Australian streets.
It was Labor who together with Newscorp and the Coalition wound up police into a frenzy and unleashed them on peaceful protestors.
It is Labor giving AI techbros the keys to the city.
It is Labor passing the laws, instituting a witchhunt Royal Commission, appointing an ardent Zionist as a Special envoy and giving her free reign over our universities and schools, adopting the oppressive and dangerous IHRA definition of antisemitism, and labelling protestors (who are actually practising social cohesion) as destroyers of social cohesion.
Labor, just like the Coalition and One Nation, serve corporations, not the people. During the ’22-’24 cost of living crisis Labor protected corporate profits and threw the people under a bus.
It is now Labor that risks polluting our water resources, effectively for eternity, through approving new fracking projects and funding gas hubs.
Labor is more than a mere disappointment, it is an existential threat to our children and grandchildren’s futures.
There’s a very good reason for that, Thommo: it is not what the post is about.
Whenever I am critical of Labor on social media platforms I am inundated with “at least they’re better than the alternative.” As discussions develop, “the alternative” – nine times out of ten – is the Coalition. The other “alternative” is Hanson. No one has ever mentioned the Greens or Independents.
Given that this article was born out of those interactions, I kept to the script.
PS: The article deals with “here and now”. Things may change in the future, but for now the only party likely to win enough seats – though unlikely – is the Coalition. Greens can’t. Independents can’t. Hanson can’t (despite some people telling me she can).
And btw, I have voted for the independent in the last four elections.
Thommo, I just noticed your claim about me/my article:
That is a very bold assertion which I fully dispute.
About half way between Thommo and Michael Taylor. I’d vote ALP mostly- anything but a tory/coalition wrecking ball government.
But as someone at another site commented a while ago, “Labor never fails to disappoint..”. Esp the “neolib” transfer.
Labor is like a dog with fleas…lobbies, lobbyists, probable off shore interference.
I’m still inclined to vote Green, out of respect for Shoebridge, or if an exceptional Indie turns up next election.
ON are just Trumpites without the brains or wit- it is hard to understand the appeal.
During WW2 the existential threat of Japanese invasion caused John Curtin to turn Australia towards USA. Today the existential threat to Australia’s sovereignty is Marles enabling “force posture” of US military elements on Australian territory. The tail is wagging the dog.
Thommo wins that argument! Meanwhile, vote PHON last. Vote LP second last. Vote Labor Third last. Vote Greens First. Or, don’t bother voting at all because if voting actually changed anything it would be illegal…
Michael, with respect, I don’t think that is a bold assertion.
How is saying ‘to knowingly and deliberately deceive people about some matter is dishonest’ a bold assertion?
To prove someone is ‘knowingly and deliberately deceiving people’ on the internet is really difficult. I think the weight of evidence against Labor, Labor’s hypocrisy and its frequent altering of its story is enough to label Labor as dishonest.
Did I label you as dishonest, I don’t believe so. Only you would know whether the things said in this article were a deliberate attempt to decieve, only you would know it was said knowing that there were other alternatives. I make no claim to have insight into your conscious thinking. Similarly, I didn’t label Denis Bright as dishonest in his last article. I did label Labor as dishonest.
What I believe I have done is raise the possibility that someone is being dishonest. This bullshit that there is no alternative to Labor other than the Coalition and One Nation has been going on for 3 years. I intend to raise that possibility every time someone makes that false claim.
Quid pro quo,
how do you justify leaving The Greens and Independents or any other minor party out as alternatives to Labor? Not one word??
Thommo, I might have read it wrong. I thought you suggested it was the article and author knowingly and deliberately deceiving people.
Did I get it wrong?
I am so sick and tired of the bullshit that is 2026 Australia. Now completely controlled by Israevil, the USA (also controlled by Israevil), the destructive threat of Hanson and of course the corporations killing the environment and gouging the country. I can’t look at what is going on anymore (I get too disapointed, depressed and angry) and seeing no light on the horrizon, I have taken the decision to move to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. I have just returned from spending over a month there. Wow what a difference. A really beautiful country with a government that is for the people and doesnt it show in a happy, content, non aggressive population.
Michael, I believe I’ve answered your question openly, honestly and fully. How about you answer my question.
How do you justify leaving out The Greens and Independents as alternatives to Labor?
Thommo, I erred. I admit that. I misread you.
PS: I’ve explained why I didn’t include the Greens or Independents in the article.
Read my comment at 3:53.
Michael, I erred too, I didn’t see the comment at 3.53, I saw the comment at 4.10 and went from there.
All good, Thommo.
We’re on the same side.
As I said above, personally would vote Green…
The government is accountable to the People, not a FERAL public service, factions, or different lobbies or the lying nutters from overseas.
Thomas Brookes, thanks for an interesting comment.
Every country has its problems, but if your assessment of a “happy, contented, non aggressive population” is correct, then that’s a pretty strong reason.
Can I suggest another trip first, just to make sure it wasn’t just “the holiday vibe”.
Good luck!
If we are going to discuss ‘the alternatives to Labor we should be discussing, not just the Coalition and One Nation, but also the Greens, Independents, Socialist Alliance and other minor parties.
It is difficult to try to collectively discuss Independents responses to the issues outlined here. There are [insert state] Socialist parties for each state. There are other minor parties, such as the Citizen’s Party, that I’m not particularly familiar with, but maybe someone else here is familiar with them. I was going to give Socialist Alliance’s policies but one webpage was claiming that Socialist Alliance was an alliance of all the [insert state] Socialists parties. I suspect that would come as news to, say, Victorian Socialists. I’m not sure what’s going on – all the more reason we should be talking about them – does anyone know what’s the truth there?
On Israel and Palestine:
The Greens, under Adam Bandt, a few weeks after Israel began bombing Gaza, The Greens moved an amendment, to a Labor motion in full support of Israel, calling for Israel to stop the bombing and to remove a statement saying “Israel has the right to defend itself” (a falsehood in regard to the occupied territories). Independents Andrew Wilkie, Kylie Tink and Sophie Scamps supported the amendment.
The Greens are calling for a stop to weapons trade with Israel, sanctions on Israel and its cabinet, formal intervention on behalf of South Africa in its ICJ case of genocide committed by Israel, along with calls for a number of actions from Israel, which Israel would undoubtedly ignore.
All of those are better than Labor’s complicity in genocide.
On Labor’s embrace of US militarianism:
Most of the Independents united to call for a public inquiry into AUKUS
The Greens: cancel AUKUS, renegotiate ANZUS, reducing reliance on the USA and strengthening regional relationships, pass War Powers legislation requiring parliamentary approval before committing Australia to armed conflicts, plus a number of measures to promote peaceful resolution of issues (there in detail on their website.)
Andrew Wilkie: (rather than try to cover all independents I’ll use Andrew as a sample of one, yeah, not ideal): a more independent security posture bolstered by, and not beholden to, international partnerships like ANZUS, the Quad and AUKUS. Critically, the decision to go to war should be one for the Parliament, not the Prime Minister.
Much better than Labor’s sychophancy as a strategy.
On climate change:
is there any need to state the policies, unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, they are all better than Labor’s betrayal of the Australian people.
Cost of living:
What Labor won’t do is apply a windfall profit tax on fossil fuel companies during crisises created by overseas wars, and they won’t reign in corporate profiteering, especially by supermarkets and banks.
What Labor does invariably either sends government money to corporations (energy rebates) and landlords (rent assistance), or has the effect of reducing public services (tax cuts).
The Greens: lift Centrelink payments, lift the pension, truly free public schooling, make price gouging illegal and divestiture for the supermarkets, free GPs, cap rent increases, dental into medicare and dirt cheap public transport.
It ain’t even close, The Greens are miles better than Labor
I actually agree with you.
In some ways, it is a sad, bitter thing to have to comment on today’s politics.
Wow!! An omnibus article in the worst Canberra Bubble tradition, that requires breaking into bits much as Thommo has done above.
The 94/150 HoR seat majority was a clarion call for deep revision of the previous nine (9) years of COALition maladministration and misgovernment, clearly showing that first three (3) years of LABOR government was insufficient to rehabilitate the nation from the self-serving damage of arguably the worst government(s) in Australian history.
The Albanese LABOR government responded by switching off, crawling into a focus group of city cellar dwellers who believe that seeing the sun through their window should occur at least once a year ….. and nothing positive happened.
Where was the enthusiasm for building a better Australia as seen under Whitlam??
A high standard I know, but the LABOR slugs went straight back to faction fighting that the unsympathetic MSM exploited to great embarrassment of all LABOR supporters. Marles, arguably the least impressive ”leader” led the charge, seeming to make an early claim to Albanese succession by forcing out two competent Ministers then parachuting into a junior ministry a Victorian toadie ”colleague” of limited public image and seemingly even less ability.
Talk about ”shoot yourself in both feet”, Marles’ role as megaphone in favour of gifting Australian sovereignty to the USA (Undemocratic Sewer of Apartheid) based on a deliberate misinterpretation of WWII history, shows that like Beetrooter he may be naturally better placed among the PHONeys, where genii like Malcolm Roberts (PHONey) are learning to read Facebook conspiracy posts.
I agree with the sympathetic excuses offered for this self-imposed LABOR ”honeymoon period” that destroyed the joys of election thrashing the COALition, however, it was the refusal to act allegedly because ”Albanese sought to become a long term PM, possibly displacing Menzies and Howard.” Not an appropriate thought, not an appropriate strategy.
IMHO there is no viable alternative to a LABOR government ….. but do we have a government or merely 194 financial parasites copying the NOtional$ by sucking the public funding teat while distributing financial largesse around LABOR held electorates??
There is no hiding the amoral pro-ZION@ZI support of Isrevil and POTUS Butcher Bibi in the genocide of Indigenous Palestinian landowners for the benefit of immigrant ZION@ZIS wanting an exceptionalist life now that PPOTUS (Pederast Protector of the Undemocratic Sewer) TACO Trumpery has ruined both America and the world economy.
Uhm ….. so where is the specialist legislation and supporting funding for First Nations people subjected to at least 150 years of community racism and government extermination policies??
There are about 170,000 Chinese heritage persons in Australia ….. where is the special envoy for Chinese people?? Why LABOR even sacked the only politician fluent in Mandarin speaking because the USA considered that he was too ”left wing”.
Life is getting in the way; there will have to be a second chapter (in the Thommo style).
NEC,
on what do you base your opinion that “there is no viable alternative to a LABOR government”?
@ Thommo: OK, I acknowledge you support for the Greens, but realistically, the number of Greens voters in any regional HoR electorate barely makes the deposit refund. The Greens, and the PHONeys, survive in the Senate because their thinly spread supporters all get to vote together.
At this time it appears that at least the LIARBRAL$ will disappear like the Australian Democrats, and the NOtional$ will vanish soon after as the yokel regional voters turn to the vacant ”policies” of the PHONeys that better suit their personal preference for not thinking about politics.
NEC,
the number of regional voters choosing The Greens or Independents does not determine whether a Greens or an Independents, or a Socialist Alliance or some combination of all three government would be capable of working successfully or not, ie. viable. There is a difference between ‘viable’ and ‘likely to get elected’.
In the ’25 election One Nation got just under a million votes, roughly half that of The Greens. One Nation just won a safe Labor seat in a state by-election. It notably, was not a regional seat, but an urban seat.
How is it that One Nation can win a safe Labor urban seat after recording roughly half the votes the Greens got at the ’25 federal election, but you say the Greens are not a “realistic” alternative to Labor based on their vote in the regions?
@ Thommo: Over 50 years experience in regional politics where:
1) the social isolation of agriculture has allowed male husbands to vote for their female wives at polling booths, (so that the wives stay home in the kitchen bare-foot preparing the evening dinner for when hubby gets home drunk from the pub);
2) where being an adulterous, alcoholic, bigoted, corrupt, deceitful, egotistical, fornicating, philandering misogynist is the combination of personal values that make the best possible candidate to represent the electorate;
3) where a drought declaration doubles the stock numbers reported in the district to double the government handout;
4) where it was considered an appropriate political strategy to telephone terrorise Tony Windsor’s aged mother simply because he had been very effective in obtaining too long overdue public infrastructure improvements to the electorate that showed the NOtional$ had not worked in an iron lung during their incumbency;
5) Where the next preference after NOtional$ is PHONeys because they are determined to send Australia further down the road to becoming a third world export economy by enriching the most self-serving politicians whom the local yokel voters admire the most and seek to emulate.
NEC,
that may be the case for New England, but Secret Garden in WA doesn’t match those characteristics, nor would any other seat in Australia, so how is that supposed to show that the Greens are not a realistic alternative?
I believe that you are missing the point. After the ’25 election, no one thought One Nation was a realistic alternative to Labor. Now, Labor is shitting itself that Labor has become just an alternative to One Nation.
I believe what One Nation did, starting from in the regions, is possible for the Greens, starting from inner urban areas. How is your response supposed to show that is not possible?
@ Thommo: Good luck with your campaign. Like Michael I encourage many of the Greens policies but doubt their ability to be more than a minor irritation to government.
NEC,
if the Greens were to form government in any shape, I’ll most likely be pushing the Socialist Alliance as the best alternative, as they are further along the path of nationalizing services like early child care and aged care than the Greens.
The Greens would be a first step in the right direction.
The problem I have with any proposition that there is only Labor, Liberals, Nationals and One Nation is that apart from Labor and Coalition supporters everyone else seems to recognize that Labor and the Coalition have not been working for the them, and if One Nation are touted as the only other alternative then that’s where they will go.
Leaving the Greens and Independents out of the discussion plays into the hands of One Nation.
If people are looking to One Nation as a rejection of the establishment, they are mistaken. They’d be better off looking at the likes of the Socialist Alliance and even further to the left. Far right parties are almost always deeply embedded in the establishment, they just claim the opposite.
@ Thommo: Fair comment. I could support that sentiment.
Far better to spend the $368 BILLION USUKA money on Australian public infrastructure that will encourage manufacturing projects and services to voters rather than throw it at the USA as a vassalage payment only benefiting Scummo with a US corporate non-executive directorship.
Perhaps Retched Mediocrity (aka Marles) has not noticed that outside the Canberra Bubble drone technology is progressing at such a rate that submerged atomic submarines are now redundant because the evolution of drones get better and improving accuracy at a mere fraction of the cost of necessarily over-engineered technologies.
An excellent article but in listing the matters of concern where Labour has misread the room I think a couple of points could have been included. The first is the failure to remove gambeling advertisements 100% from all media , an issue that has had enormous public support and the second is the reduction of removal of the rebate to higher private health insurance to those over 70.