Derek Barry at Woolly Days has written a comprehensive post on this year’s Queensland Budget. Suffice it for me to state that I agree with his conclusion:
Queensland’s 150th budget is much like the 149th that came before it. It is a carefully crafted grab-bag of token initiatives, old solutions and outright bribes that paper over the economic cracks but do little to address the State’s longer term needs: how to move to a 21st century economy as the population grows daily older. It will take a government with a lot more vision than the cautious Anna Bligh/Andrew Fraser to deliver on that promise. Such a government is nowhere in waiting in Queensland, however.
Monday saw the release of a Galaxy Poll which further reinforced the plight Queensland Labor finds itself in. Anna Bligh’s dissatisfaction level is now 69%, and in an echo of recent federal polls, The Greens’ primary has surged to 16%, which is a stunning figure for them in a state where their vote has never been as strong as elsewhere. The 2PP figure, because of the pollster’s method of allocating preferences, actually improves for Labor, but this is deeply misleading, as optional preferential and a culture of ‘Just Vote One’ lead to a high exhaustion rate, making many seats effectively first past the post contests.
The poll found 85% opposing Bligh’s asset sales. Labor had been hoping for a circuit breaker with ructions and defections from the LNP, but all their hopes look likely to be in vain until and unless something is done about either the privatisations and/or the party’s leadership. Neither is likely, so we’re still looking at the first conservative government in Queensland since 1998.
Funny had been thinking about Anna Bligh and Queensland and NSW, since someone has asked me to write a thread starter elsewhere (WD) involving Rudd’s current op poll problems. To think that people like Fraser, Bligh, Iemma, Tripodi and co can jeopardise an entire political party, hence the future of a country and communities that need a healthy Labor party, thru selfish and egotistical devotion to discredited ideologies like neoliberalism and the lure of corrupt money, it is little surprise to find out that Rudd’s position is deteriorating in Queeensland, as evidenceof bad faith trickles thru.
Rudd himself has no cause to complain tho; he is as wedded to the cranky rightist ideologies of state Labor politicians as any of them and the public has woken up to the cowardice and timidity. They are rebelling, as with Howard in 2007, where they also reached the stage where, realising the game of improvement of civilisation was lost, sort to ensure those responsible were dragged down too, since hope for the future was gone and the game became instead focussed on issues of retribution.
Funny had been thinking about Anna Bligh and Queensland and NSW, since someone has asked me to write a thread starter elsewhere (WD) involving Rudd’s current op poll problems. To think that people like Fraser, Bligh, Iemma, Tripodi and co can jeopardise an entire political party, hence the future of a country and communities that need a healthy Labor party, thru selfish and egotistical devotion to discredited ideologies like neoliberalism and the lure of corrupt money, it is little surprise to find out that Rudd’s position is deteriorating in Queeensland, as evidenceof bad faith trickles thru.
Rudd himself has no cause to complain tho; he is as wedded to the cranky rightist ideologies of state Labor politicians as any of them and the public has woken up to the cowardice and timidity. They are rebelling, as with Howard in 2007, where they also reached the stage where, realising the game of improvement of civilisation was lost, sort to ensure those responsible were dragged down too, since hope for the future was gone and the game became instead focussed on issues of retribution.
Whence comes this opposition to asset sales? Are the populace that wedded to gummint ownership; or do they see it as an admission that the state’s finances are buggered and thus oppose attempts to fix it as a pox on Labor for getting Qld into such a situation; or because Anna Bligh unveiled this plan so soon after the election?
Personally I can’t care less whether the state owns the trains or the ports, and I dunno why everyone around me seems so passionate about it.
Whence comes this opposition to asset sales? Are the populace that wedded to gummint ownership; or do they see it as an admission that the state’s finances are buggered and thus oppose attempts to fix it as a pox on Labor for getting Qld into such a situation; or because Anna Bligh unveiled this plan so soon after the election?
Personally I can’t care less whether the state owns the trains or the ports, and I dunno why everyone around me seems so passionate about it.
Jethro, who owns vital infrastructure is important; you don’t want to see something as vital as health care, for example, in the hands of profiteers rather than doctors or others who see medicine as a means for human improvement rather than an opportunity for a quick buck. The film classic, “The Third Man” dealt with the implications of the sort of breakdown I’m thinking of.
The point is, if you own a car worth a thousand and it’s sold by someone else for five hundred, you are out of pocket.
Like wise, if politicians sell off at cheap “mates” rates, maybe for a bribe of some sort, your rail, road etc (you pay tax don’t you?) is devalued and you effectively are out of pocket thru YOUR sponsoring of bent big business and politicians, especially when private operators lacking ( thru legislative change, the accountability of government in a deregulated environment, then cut services to make up the shortfall for their own profit at your expense.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want some of these people being handed something I have a share in, that is also incidentally vital to my survival,in effect somethingimportant turned over unilaterally by cowardly politicians behind my back, to benefit precisely those who have or would, rip me off.
Jethro, who owns vital infrastructure is important; you don’t want to see something as vital as health care, for example, in the hands of profiteers rather than doctors or others who see medicine as a means for human improvement rather than an opportunity for a quick buck. The film classic, “The Third Man” dealt with the implications of the sort of breakdown I’m thinking of.
The point is, if you own a car worth a thousand and it’s sold by someone else for five hundred, you are out of pocket.
Like wise, if politicians sell off at cheap “mates” rates, maybe for a bribe of some sort, your rail, road etc (you pay tax don’t you?) is devalued and you effectively are out of pocket thru YOUR sponsoring of bent big business and politicians, especially when private operators lacking ( thru legislative change, the accountability of government in a deregulated environment, then cut services to make up the shortfall for their own profit at your expense.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want some of these people being handed something I have a share in, that is also incidentally vital to my survival,in effect somethingimportant turned over unilaterally by cowardly politicians behind my back, to benefit precisely those who have or would, rip me off.
It really is astonishing — not merely because she ought to have taken a look southwards into the demise of Morris Iemma/Costa over privatisation for a portent of her future along this path, but because she actually ran against privatisation when she pitched to be re-elected.
What’s bizarre is this. If we lefties were to write her policies for her, they’d be rejected as scaring the horses. Yet instead, she devises a policy, which, just as in NSW, she knows nearly everyone (but especially those who voted for her)opposes and implements it anyway in violation of her promises. Whose favour is she winning with this? If there is anyone, they aren’t going to be impressed enough to switch sides and support her.
I’m not into metaphysics, but if I were I’d be attributing “the power of capitalist ideology” as the best explanation of her tilt at political oblivion.
Going down to honourable defeat at the hands of the wealthy elite as the standard bearer of all things admirable to lefties would at least allow you to work one side of the street and be a hero ever more. A warm inner glow may not be much, but it’s something.
Jumping ship to embrace the elites and virtually guaranteeing being slaughtered as a result is simply a policy without an upside. Her latest shame in appearing to side with Cl;ive Palmer crowd just makes her especially repulsive. She must be really determined that even rusted on ALP voters should abandon the party. The question is — why?
I just finished re-watching the first X-Men movie. Maybe she’s another Mystique. The real Anna Bligh was killed off and replaced with a right wing mutant. Right now, that’s about as good an explanation as I can dream up.
It really is astonishing — not merely because she ought to have taken a look southwards into the demise of Morris Iemma/Costa over privatisation for a portent of her future along this path, but because she actually ran against privatisation when she pitched to be re-elected.
What’s bizarre is this. If we lefties were to write her policies for her, they’d be rejected as scaring the horses. Yet instead, she devises a policy, which, just as in NSW, she knows nearly everyone (but especially those who voted for her)opposes and implements it anyway in violation of her promises. Whose favour is she winning with this? If there is anyone, they aren’t going to be impressed enough to switch sides and support her.
I’m not into metaphysics, but if I were I’d be attributing “the power of capitalist ideology” as the best explanation of her tilt at political oblivion.
Going down to honourable defeat at the hands of the wealthy elite as the standard bearer of all things admirable to lefties would at least allow you to work one side of the street and be a hero ever more. A warm inner glow may not be much, but it’s something.
Jumping ship to embrace the elites and virtually guaranteeing being slaughtered as a result is simply a policy without an upside. Her latest shame in appearing to side with Cl;ive Palmer crowd just makes her especially repulsive. She must be really determined that even rusted on ALP voters should abandon the party. The question is — why?
I just finished re-watching the first X-Men movie. Maybe she’s another Mystique. The real Anna Bligh was killed off and replaced with a right wing mutant. Right now, that’s about as good an explanation as I can dream up.
Anna Bligh is incompetent. She knows it. She has run the state out of money. Despite he past 5 years being a windfall of mineral royalties, the Qld govt. is out of money.
She knows she has no hope of reelection. She lied in the election campaign. She was scornful of how bad were the policies campaigned by the opposition party, even though most policies she produced the day after the election were “worse”.
Even before the election she was looking to her future. She has no future in politics or with the ALP. If she sells state assets at attractive rate to the corporate sector, she is shoring up a handful of (several hundred thousand dollar per annum) company directorships.
Qld is being sold, to ensure her personal finances are set up for life.
Anna Bligh is incompetent. She knows it. She has run the state out of money. Despite he past 5 years being a windfall of mineral royalties, the Qld govt. is out of money.
She knows she has no hope of reelection. She lied in the election campaign. She was scornful of how bad were the policies campaigned by the opposition party, even though most policies she produced the day after the election were “worse”.
Even before the election she was looking to her future. She has no future in politics or with the ALP. If she sells state assets at attractive rate to the corporate sector, she is shoring up a handful of (several hundred thousand dollar per annum) company directorships.
Qld is being sold, to ensure her personal finances are set up for life.
Not that I’d be so forthright SATP but that is very plausible. Thatcher policies, used by Kennett and ,of late, rejected rightfully by most, is an incomprehensible policy for a Labor government to propose. There had to be a motive and it could hardly be to win an election.
Not that I’d be so forthright SATP but that is very plausible. Thatcher policies, used by Kennett and ,of late, rejected rightfully by most, is an incomprehensible policy for a Labor government to propose. There had to be a motive and it could hardly be to win an election.
Look, I don’t like the privatisation, but an economist I trust says it’s the only thing they can do to keep a line of credit going. They can’t increase tax, they gave up those powers to the feds, and cutting spending only slows down the economy.
Look, I don’t like the privatisation, but an economist I trust says it’s the only thing they can do to keep a line of credit going. They can’t increase tax, they gave up those powers to the feds, and cutting spending only slows down the economy.
The privatizations are a mixed bag. I can see no real point in the state owning pine forests or staying in risky business ventures that may tempt future governments t prop them up because of the political implications.
However, privatizing cash cow monopolies does not make sense. For example, it would have made more sense for Bligh to attack her deficit problem by lifting the haulage rate on the coal lines instead of making a one off sale of rail and stock to someone who will rush in and lift rates “to cover something they claim the government didn’t tell them.”
Privatization should be treated on a case by case basis if we are to avoid the equivalent of the John Howard Telstra blunder.
The privatizations are a mixed bag. I can see no real point in the state owning pine forests or staying in risky business ventures that may tempt future governments t prop them up because of the political implications.
However, privatizing cash cow monopolies does not make sense. For example, it would have made more sense for Bligh to attack her deficit problem by lifting the haulage rate on the coal lines instead of making a one off sale of rail and stock to someone who will rush in and lift rates “to cover something they claim the government didn’t tell them.”
Privatization should be treated on a case by case basis if we are to avoid the equivalent of the John Howard Telstra blunder.
Thanks, Mark – and you improved my draft.
I actually wrote “much like the 149 that came before it” with Raymond Evans ‘A History of Queensland’ in recent mind.
However I really don’t have the evidence to support such an assertion so 149th is much better!
Given their continued squabbling, I don’t think an LNP victory is an inevitability and if Labor change their leader or their mojo then the next election will be up for grabs again.
Thanks, Mark – and you improved my draft.
I actually wrote “much like the 149 that came before it” with Raymond Evans ‘A History of Queensland’ in recent mind.
However I really don’t have the evidence to support such an assertion so 149th is much better!
Given their continued squabbling, I don’t think an LNP victory is an inevitability and if Labor change their leader or their mojo then the next election will be up for grabs again.
I suspect john @ 7′s economist friend is somewhere near the money. Qld is one of two states (the other is Tasmania, I think) that lack a triple A credit rating. Probably the State Treasury told Fraser and Bligh that asset sales were the only chance of getting it back.
I heard a woman from Standard and Poors talking about it today. She said that selling assets won’t necessarily get the triple A back. It would depend on how much they got for the assets and whether they used the proceeds to pay down debt or to build more schools and hospitals.
I suspect john @ 7′s economist friend is somewhere near the money. Qld is one of two states (the other is Tasmania, I think) that lack a triple A credit rating. Probably the State Treasury told Fraser and Bligh that asset sales were the only chance of getting it back.
I heard a woman from Standard and Poors talking about it today. She said that selling assets won’t necessarily get the triple A back. It would depend on how much they got for the assets and whether they used the proceeds to pay down debt or to build more schools and hospitals.
Brian, #11, does this mean “they” are raamping up for a Cameron type expropriation and whoever gets back/in here is going to face pressure to “do a Niemeyer” on this country?
By “expropriation, I mean service cuts, debt- fixation, privatisation and all the other old nostrums that also failed?
Brian, #11, does this mean “they” are raamping up for a Cameron type expropriation and whoever gets back/in here is going to face pressure to “do a Niemeyer” on this country?
By “expropriation, I mean service cuts, debt- fixation, privatisation and all the other old nostrums that also failed?
Paul, the opposition LNP do seem to be obsessed with debt and balanced budgets at the earliest possible moment, haven’t ruled out privatisation, just this batch of privatisation, and seem to be promising to spend more on infrastructure, health, education, police and just about every other damned thing.
This doesn’t augur well for a coherent economic strategy or for the public service, where they will no doubt see imaginary waste to be cut.
Paul, the opposition LNP do seem to be obsessed with debt and balanced budgets at the earliest possible moment, haven’t ruled out privatisation, just this batch of privatisation, and seem to be promising to spend more on infrastructure, health, education, police and just about every other damned thing.
This doesn’t augur well for a coherent economic strategy or for the public service, where they will no doubt see imaginary waste to be cut.
Fran @4 raises the important question of why Labor governments recklessly pursue policies that are hated by their own voter bases. If the NSW experience is anything to go by, it is a matter of the unholy alliance between senior bureaucrats, ministers and the private sector that convinces them. But that isn’t enough of an explanation.
My view is that the neoliberal era (especially from the early 1980s onwards) has seen an erosion of the ALP’s institutionally-linked base in the working class through a number of mechanisms, including: the contraction of employment in traditional heavily-unionised industries, the alienation of trade union bureaucracies from their members through getting tied up with the state during the Accord years (and vainly dreaming of a return to the same through the Howard years), the weight of set-piece retreats and defeats for organised workers through the 1980s and 1990s further allowing the ALP leadership to believe it could act nakedly in the interests of capital and get away with it, and the pervasive intrusion of market ideology into every sphere of life (most powerfully in elite circles, where ALP politicians love to travel to imagine they have real power).
Neoliberalism among social democrats has meant rejecting class ideology and seeing that “what is good for capital is good for everyone”. The resultant hollowing out of politics into a technocratic, managerial approach to the economy has opened the space for Labor politicians to see their role reduced to enabling private big business interests and trying to buy off the masses with the crumbs. Hence their increasingly alarming slide into an entitled culture of business patronage (see the NSW corruption mess, for example, not to mention the issue of corporate donations more generally).
Under the neoliberal regime, when there are no longer class interests to promote (however imperfectly the ALP has always done that), then apolitical patronage and deference to “the markets” (or “the ratings agencies”) is all that is left.
The current mood of the electorate suggests that such an approach may be nearing its use-by date. But two questions remain:
(1) Is the ALP even capable of returning to some older style of social democracy? I think that the answer, in the absence of a revived base, is probably not.
(2) Can the ALP be replaced/overtaken by a better politics? That’s something I addressed in my Greens essay (discussed on LP earlier this week, and now up in full on the Overland website). Surely all of us on the Left should be thinking about what we think does need to be built to fill the gap left by the ALP’s degeneration. It may be a cause for dismay, but it also opens new spaces and potentials.
Fran @4 raises the important question of why Labor governments recklessly pursue policies that are hated by their own voter bases. If the NSW experience is anything to go by, it is a matter of the unholy alliance between senior bureaucrats, ministers and the private sector that convinces them. But that isn’t enough of an explanation.
My view is that the neoliberal era (especially from the early 1980s onwards) has seen an erosion of the ALP’s institutionally-linked base in the working class through a number of mechanisms, including: the contraction of employment in traditional heavily-unionised industries, the alienation of trade union bureaucracies from their members through getting tied up with the state during the Accord years (and vainly dreaming of a return to the same through the Howard years), the weight of set-piece retreats and defeats for organised workers through the 1980s and 1990s further allowing the ALP leadership to believe it could act nakedly in the interests of capital and get away with it, and the pervasive intrusion of market ideology into every sphere of life (most powerfully in elite circles, where ALP politicians love to travel to imagine they have real power).
Neoliberalism among social democrats has meant rejecting class ideology and seeing that “what is good for capital is good for everyone”. The resultant hollowing out of politics into a technocratic, managerial approach to the economy has opened the space for Labor politicians to see their role reduced to enabling private big business interests and trying to buy off the masses with the crumbs. Hence their increasingly alarming slide into an entitled culture of business patronage (see the NSW corruption mess, for example, not to mention the issue of corporate donations more generally).
Under the neoliberal regime, when there are no longer class interests to promote (however imperfectly the ALP has always done that), then apolitical patronage and deference to “the markets” (or “the ratings agencies”) is all that is left.
The current mood of the electorate suggests that such an approach may be nearing its use-by date. But two questions remain:
(1) Is the ALP even capable of returning to some older style of social democracy? I think that the answer, in the absence of a revived base, is probably not.
(2) Can the ALP be replaced/overtaken by a better politics? That’s something I addressed in my Greens essay (discussed on LP earlier this week, and now up in full on the Overland website). Surely all of us on the Left should be thinking about what we think does need to be built to fill the gap left by the ALP’s degeneration. It may be a cause for dismay, but it also opens new spaces and potentials.
Tad offers a description of the evolution of ALP governance over the last 25 years or so which sounds eminently plausible. For a time of course it was not only plausible from the POV of the ALP managerialists — it allowed them to hold office, with all that entailed. In this case the two most important enabling conditions — achieving office and a conception of a plausible framework within which governance could be carried out applied.
Of course, the first of these had a use by date — that being the point at which the people profiting most from the ALP’s defection to their side saw the marginal advantage of having the ALP in power rather than the Liberals approach zero. One the ruling class had got all it could realistically hope for and large sections of the populace, abandoned by their party, had become the cultural prisoners of the right, then the means to eject ALP governments in favour of even more rapacious regimes was available. By 1996 “labour market reform” had run its course and the key fractions of the boss class were after a carve up of remaining public sector assets in their interests — hence the Howard regime.
Howard of course knew that the ALP’s soft underbelly was on the city margins and that the way to take these voters hostage was to encourage both involvement in the equity and housing markets. It worked an absolute treat, as he combined rightwing populism, xenophobia and what has come to be called the neoliberal vision as needed. Even those with a profound unease at the overall direction could not ignore measures that would prejudice their equity or make debt service harder or raise petrol prices for those commuting the crazy distances each day to the urban heartland. It’s easy to get a vision of these angry, bitter and frightened people, trapped in their cars 10 times per week for rather more than an hour and often 2 hours at a time, clinging to their “dream homes” on the fringe, listening for want of anything better to rightwing ranters on the radio about the evils of boat people or interest rate rises and those damnded socialists and trade unionists. While the strategy was not without risk — Howard admitted that petrol prices were hsi BBQ-stopper — it was good enough to get him over the line again and again. In 2001 this strategy paid big time, joining boat people with terrorists and fealty to the US alliance, brilliantly wedging the ALP. No wonder so many Liberals believe in God!
From that point forward, the ALP was forced to conclude that the only route back to office entailed signing on to swear their love for the mortgage-belt and shock jock fringe. Having authored “micro-economic reform” in the 1980s and smashed their base, they had forged the paradigm which would delimit their next tilt at power. Latham was the clearest expression of where this had gone, and yet in the end, as the Tasmanian episode showed, even he hadn’t got it. The pincer movement of “who do you trust?” (sic) and the desire to strip mine the forests got Howard one more election. Perversely, Howard’s workchoices wedged him rtight back, sionce that same mortgage fringe became worried about how loss of penalty rates would affect their ability to service mortgages, and doubtless many saw that cutting youth wages would saddle them with topping up the money needed to meet their kids’ basic social needs. Watching your kids get screwed around and unfairly dismissed by an employer was never going to play well perhaps especially in mortgage-belt land.
I have to say that on the whole, I lean towards pessimism about the possibility about the ALP being “overtaken by a better politics” any time soon (i.e. in the next five years). We are entering a substantial period of global political and economic instability and that rarely plays well for progressive politics. people tend to reach for verities — whether they know the phrase or not, the all that is solid melts into air is not something people who like solid stuff are keen on. Some combination of rightwing populist angst and cognitive dissonance is likely, IMO. Whoever rules will have to adapt to that cultural framework.
It may well be that parties like The Greens retain a larger base of support, but as has been noted often enough, they are captive voters. They can’t act independently but need the ALP to their right in power to do anything of substance in a perversely symnbiotic relationship — a kind of good cop bad cop routine in whcih the voters decide which is which.
In the much longer run, I think we ought to be pushing for solutions that separate the formal parts of politics from the major parties — I’ve raised sortition as an idea on a number of occasions. We need to break party control over the terms in which discussion is conducted and create, if it is possible, a mass political diaspora which is not a ready to hand vehicle for boss class rule. If we can start that process early enough we may be able to claw back space for a more communitarian vision of public policy while making it harder for the parties to play the fear and angst game. This isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the kind of un-worked-out populist angst that is likely to be the context within which we will have to work and we might just be able to steer it away from xenophobia and beggar-my-neighbour towoards something lasting and progressive. Maybe.
Tad offers a description of the evolution of ALP governance over the last 25 years or so which sounds eminently plausible. For a time of course it was not only plausible from the POV of the ALP managerialists — it allowed them to hold office, with all that entailed. In this case the two most important enabling conditions — achieving office and a conception of a plausible framework within which governance could be carried out applied.
Of course, the first of these had a use by date — that being the point at which the people profiting most from the ALP’s defection to their side saw the marginal advantage of having the ALP in power rather than the Liberals approach zero. One the ruling class had got all it could realistically hope for and large sections of the populace, abandoned by their party, had become the cultural prisoners of the right, then the means to eject ALP governments in favour of even more rapacious regimes was available. By 1996 “labour market reform” had run its course and the key fractions of the boss class were after a carve up of remaining public sector assets in their interests — hence the Howard regime.
Howard of course knew that the ALP’s soft underbelly was on the city margins and that the way to take these voters hostage was to encourage both involvement in the equity and housing markets. It worked an absolute treat, as he combined rightwing populism, xenophobia and what has come to be called the neoliberal vision as needed. Even those with a profound unease at the overall direction could not ignore measures that would prejudice their equity or make debt service harder or raise petrol prices for those commuting the crazy distances each day to the urban heartland. It’s easy to get a vision of these angry, bitter and frightened people, trapped in their cars 10 times per week for rather more than an hour and often 2 hours at a time, clinging to their “dream homes” on the fringe, listening for want of anything better to rightwing ranters on the radio about the evils of boat people or interest rate rises and those damnded socialists and trade unionists. While the strategy was not without risk — Howard admitted that petrol prices were hsi BBQ-stopper — it was good enough to get him over the line again and again. In 2001 this strategy paid big time, joining boat people with terrorists and fealty to the US alliance, brilliantly wedging the ALP. No wonder so many Liberals believe in God!
From that point forward, the ALP was forced to conclude that the only route back to office entailed signing on to swear their love for the mortgage-belt and shock jock fringe. Having authored “micro-economic reform” in the 1980s and smashed their base, they had forged the paradigm which would delimit their next tilt at power. Latham was the clearest expression of where this had gone, and yet in the end, as the Tasmanian episode showed, even he hadn’t got it. The pincer movement of “who do you trust?” (sic) and the desire to strip mine the forests got Howard one more election. Perversely, Howard’s workchoices wedged him rtight back, sionce that same mortgage fringe became worried about how loss of penalty rates would affect their ability to service mortgages, and doubtless many saw that cutting youth wages would saddle them with topping up the money needed to meet their kids’ basic social needs. Watching your kids get screwed around and unfairly dismissed by an employer was never going to play well perhaps especially in mortgage-belt land.
I have to say that on the whole, I lean towards pessimism about the possibility about the ALP being “overtaken by a better politics” any time soon (i.e. in the next five years). We are entering a substantial period of global political and economic instability and that rarely plays well for progressive politics. people tend to reach for verities — whether they know the phrase or not, the all that is solid melts into air is not something people who like solid stuff are keen on. Some combination of rightwing populist angst and cognitive dissonance is likely, IMO. Whoever rules will have to adapt to that cultural framework.
It may well be that parties like The Greens retain a larger base of support, but as has been noted often enough, they are captive voters. They can’t act independently but need the ALP to their right in power to do anything of substance in a perversely symnbiotic relationship — a kind of good cop bad cop routine in whcih the voters decide which is which.
In the much longer run, I think we ought to be pushing for solutions that separate the formal parts of politics from the major parties — I’ve raised sortition as an idea on a number of occasions. We need to break party control over the terms in which discussion is conducted and create, if it is possible, a mass political diaspora which is not a ready to hand vehicle for boss class rule. If we can start that process early enough we may be able to claw back space for a more communitarian vision of public policy while making it harder for the parties to play the fear and angst game. This isn’t necessarily inconsistent with the kind of un-worked-out populist angst that is likely to be the context within which we will have to work and we might just be able to steer it away from xenophobia and beggar-my-neighbour towoards something lasting and progressive. Maybe.
Queensland Labor has become so arrogant and out of touch that I doubt policy even matters to many people. Bligh and Fraser both draw pretty negative reactions. There seems to be a culture of deceit and spin. Bligh speak like everything is an advertisement and Fraser just seems arrogant and likes to belittle his opponents. People have turned off Labor and I don’t think they will even listen. I will be doing the optional preferentioal thing and making sure the ALP box is left blank. Basically anyone but Labor will be better.
Queensland Labor has become so arrogant and out of touch that I doubt policy even matters to many people. Bligh and Fraser both draw pretty negative reactions. There seems to be a culture of deceit and spin. Bligh speak like everything is an advertisement and Fraser just seems arrogant and likes to belittle his opponents. People have turned off Labor and I don’t think they will even listen. I will be doing the optional preferentioal thing and making sure the ALP box is left blank. Basically anyone but Labor will be better.