Albanese’s House Purchase And Labor’s Plagiarism!
A few days ago, my wife and I had lunch in a Fitzroy pub. She happened to comment that the problem with living in a place like that would be that you’d never get a park. In spite of the fact that we had – in fact – just got a park, I agreed. Then, in a strangely serendipitous moment, we walked past a two-storey terrace house with parking for two cars. Naturally I looked up the price and it was only a touch over two million…
“Let’s buy it,” I suggested.
“We haven’t got two million,” my wife pointed out, leading me to do some quick calculations and point out that, after selling our home, we’d only need to borrow a figure significantly less than a million dollars. And, while my wife was of the opinion that having recently paid off our mortgage, she didn’t want to go into to debt in order to buy a house which had more room than we needed.
Anyway, we did a list of pros and cons:
I suggested the following pros:
- It had off-street parking
- It was only a matter of metres from the pub.
She suggested the following cons:
- It added thirty minutes to her journey to work every day.
- It added thirty years to her working life in order to pay off the mortgage.
- It was only a matter of metres from the pub.
In any event, we’re not buying the house even though compared to Mr Albanese’s it was very cheap at less than half the price. I mean, what was he thinking? At $4.3 million his purchase may be more than Malcolm Turnbull paid for his house… although Malcolm purchase his some years ago. Anyway, it’s worth more than the apartment that Peter Dutton sold for $3.7 million last year, so while we can praise Mr Dutton for selling such an expensive property, Albanese stands condemned because…
Well, it’s not that he’d done anything corrupt. It’s just the optics, isn’t it? When people are suffering because of a cost of living crisis, then it doesn’t look good for the PM to be splashing money around and it’s all about how things look, isn’t it? Phil Coorey even went as far as to suggest that this was Albo’s “Hawaii moment”, comparing the house purchase to an attempt to hide the fact that Morrison was on holiday while Australia was burning… Ok, maybe just the east coast but that’s the important bit that contains the Canberra bubble, Sydney and Melbourne…
Take the recent budget surpluses. Labor have been using them to retire debt. This has attracted a certain amount of criticism because they shouldn’t have a surplus when so many people are struggling… Of course, if they were to spend the surplus helping with the cost of living, they’d attract criticism because the spending is putting pressure on inflation thanks to more people being actually able to afford things and the RBA has been raising interest rates in order to discourage people from buying things due to higher house repayments and not having a job any more.
While I do think that Labor could be using the money more effectively, I am aware of the conundrum that Labor always face. If they have a deficit, then it’s because they can’t manage money while any Coalition deficit is the result of the previous Labor government. On the other hand, if they have a surplus, the Coalition would have had a a bigger one because they wouldn’t have wasted money on unspecific things, and anyway, shouldn’t they be helping people by giving them tax cuts instead of having a surplus?
In a rather interesting development, the Queensland Labor government was accused of plagiarism by the Greens. A number of policies introduced by Steven Miles were policies that Labor had argued against when Anna Palaszczuk was Premier, leading Max Chandler-Mather to argue that this is why a Greens MP was needed, which is strange because surely Labor can steal their policies even if they’re not elected. Jarrod Bleijie, the LNP deputy agreed, telling us: “They have pinched a Greens policy that the Labor Party in parliament voted against not long ago!”
I guess this sums up the change in the Greens over the past few decades. When Hawke was elected and he saved the Franklin River, nobody complained that this was Greens’ policy. Now, even when Labor pinch their policies, instead of saying that Labor have done the right thing for once, they complain that this was their idea as though the thing shouldn’t be done unless they’ve been given credit and a release of copyright.
I mean when Labor approves coal or gas mines or when they fail to raise the rate of Jobseeker nobody in the Coalition complains, “Hey, this is what we do!”
Although they do complain when the Labor PM buys an expensive house without once using the phrases “class warfare” or “politics of envy”.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
44 comments
Login here Register here-
John Hanna -
tess lawrence -
andyfiftysix -
RomeoCharlie -
Patricia -
Harry Lime -
Rossleigh -
Pete Petrass -
Cool Pete -
Andrew Smith -
Clakka -
Arnd -
Bert -
Max Gross -
Arnd -
Anon. E. Mouse -
paul walter -
Harry Lime -
Pete -
wam -
Anonymous E. Mouse -
Arnd -
Bert -
Harry Lime -
Clakka -
Bert -
leefe -
Rossleigh -
A Commentator -
JohnyPerth. -
Arnd -
Arnd -
Terence Mills -
Arnd -
Lawriejay -
Steve Davis -
Arnd -
Clakka -
Steve Davis -
Wayne Turner -
Steve Davis -
Arnd -
Arnd -
Clakka
Return to home pageLabor is no longer a party of the left. (If it ever really was)
ROSSLEIGH
Love this, especially the lead in…hilarious ! You two must have such fun !
xxx
Labor has never been the party of the left……what ever possessed you to think otherwise. Its just a slightly more human face than the liberals. If it seems a little tone deaf at times, its because fear of being set upon with a fear campaign has stripped it of a good reason for existing and fighting for us plebs.
Rossleigh, is that the same pub that Jack Irish and his Fitzroy Lions supporting mates frequent?
Rossleigh, I know this is satire but I believe that “The Greens deputy leader, Jarrod Bleijie”, is actually the LNP deputy leader, Jarrod Bleijie.
Not that there seems to be a great deal of difference between the LNP and the Greens anymore in that they both are working to unseat labor governments, each in their own way.
Albo’s lack of judgement is astounding.Maybe he’s just confirming the inevitable,go into minority government,resign immediately,and head for Copacabana and leave governing for someone capable.Good plan.
Quite right, Patricia. I did a cut and paste with that paragraph and mucked it up. Mea culpa!
And, RomeoCharlie, no it wasn’t but the house was walking distance to there as well.
This would be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Albo bought a house because he can afford it and he needs one and now the entire Murdoch/MSM is massively butt-hurt over this fact. That they are trying to equate this with the cost of living crisis (which, BTW, I was reading the other day is actually over according to the numbers and stats) and him being somehow tone-deaf……………..and today they are comparing it to Morriscum holidaying in Hawaii while Australia burned???????????????
I bet if Dutton went out and bought a house nobody would even give a shit, nothing to see here. This is really how desperate they have become in their Trumpian world of blatant lies and misinformation. Really, what is next??? Oh hang on, Albo is going to get married so is that being tone-deaf to all those who can’t afford to have a big wedding??????
Phil Coorey is actually copying No Cred with that line. No Cred farted that a trip to Japan, which had been planned for the Prime Minister months before the election was called and which happened to be 2 days after the election was held, was Hawaii on steroids. For a law graduate, No Cred is a bloody dickhead.
I remember someone with whom I used to have arguments in my local paper claiming, “Tone the Botty has a glass of beer in a pub and is in all sorts of trouble; Bob Hawke sculls a yard of beer and is a hero.” Tone the Botty, as Minister for Women, did not have a good image. Bob Hawke sculled a yard of beer in a competition.
While I concede that it may be a poor image, Anthony Albanese bought a property to be able to stay at to be nearer to his fiancé’s family. He did NOT buy a property and inadvertently forget to add it to the pecuniary interests register (that was Michaelia Trash); he did not buy a cluster of shops and forget to declare them (that was Potty Boy). He did NOT charter an RAAF Jet to fly to the Gold Coast for a meeting and at the same time purchase an apartment (that was This Goes With This And This Goes With That At Sussan Ley).
Fact is many middle aged and retired ALP voters are wealthy due to careers, house prices and increasingly more substantive super pots; by any global standard.
Thanks Rossleigh, a reminder of the state of ludicrousness of our msm, and the desperation of the LNP and Greens.
As for various commentators bitching about Labor not (or never have been) a party of the ‘left’, hmmm, sounds like snarky aggravation – what in this day and age defines ‘left’ – it’s not just shearer’s strikes and ‘blue collar’ any more. I might just add IMHO Labor is faced with a prodigious task of addressing monumental global issues, both emerging, and left untouched by previous Oz LNP govt or attending to the though bubbles of the stupefied internecine Greens, but also the task of reforming the destructive neoliberalism extant into a positive social democracy – it has to be started from within, moving slowly and strategically to avoid being crushed by the vested interests – there’s no magic wand. So far they’re doing a pretty good job.
Clakka:
Clakka, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ve been weary about the German Sozialdemokraten since my teenage years, and sonewhat uncertain about Labor since arriving in Australia for the first time in 1986.
I did sort my politics and economics in 1992 – and simply note that the political and economic perspectives of the so-called left-of-centre, world-wide (USA, Germany, UK, New Zealand, Spain …, and, yes, Australia) are not informed by the principles which according to my strong and closely reasoned belief are applicable. Instead, Labor has enthusiastically participated in, and often decisively driven, the decades-long political mismanagement of the nation’s affairs – and none other than their treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has very recently once again reconfirmed their fundamental commitment to capitalism – albeit a “new values-based capitalism”.
What is happening now is that senior Labor types are actually deriving very considerable personal benefits from their failures to secure and advance the cause of all Australians.
Clakka, please tell: by what ethical or philosophical principle should I consider myself bound to approve and respect their personal benefitting (Albo buying an expensive big house, Shorten taking a 7-figure job in the severely stressed tertiary education sector) from their protracted mismanaging this country’s – and thereby my personal – economic affairs?
He’s getting married, found a lovely home by the sea for him and his bride, close to her family and friends, and he can afford it.
What is the problem?
Ah, he’s a LABOR Prime Minister, should be looking at social housing, maybe an RV to camp in a local car park.
“The reality is you have a bunch of Labor and Liberal property investor politicians all voting in a way that protects their access to highly lucrative property investor tax handouts in the form of negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount.”
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2024/10/16/housing-investment-conflict-of-interest
Bert:
Yeah, something like that …
If we must have leaders, let them lead from the front.
I’m not sure whether things have changed during my lifetime, or whether I’m just becoming less starry-eyed and credulous – but if politics is just played as a game for party hacks, with the top prizes being cushy first-class window seats on various gravy trains aimlessly winding their way through the political landscape, I would consider it useful if more people voiced their disapproval.
By the sounds of it, both Albo and his future bride are buying the house together.
Jodie has had a career of her own, an income of her own. So why is it assumed that Albo is stumping up the full cost of their new home.
Its more than a little patronising that the media is ignoring that Jodie is an independent and professional woman with money of her own.
Well, it IS a beat up of the lowest sort, but who can figure the imbecile optics of it? The most stupid piece of optics I have seen since Gillard got Rudd kicked out BEFORE an election.
Tin ear doesn’t begin to explain.
What angers me is that Labor is even crashing a reasonable agenda in favor of Israel and the USA. Consider the ethics?
Albo can buy his house…he can stand on his head,he can piss into the wind…it’s the fucking TIMING of it that matters.He might be a good bloke,but it doesn’t look like he’s that smart.
Well, I suppose Albo has the income that supports the purchase, if not, that might be a problem.
But as with other comments here, why push the story in peoples faces during a housing crisis?
paul w, good timing you mention Israel and housing in the one post.
I notice that US Presidential candidate Dr Shiva (Shatter the Swarm) put up a satirical post re the 2 types of people who ‘own’ real estate – the working classes (inc high income earners) and the theiving, genocidal, parasitic elites.
If you go to Google Images and type in – ‘Dr Shiva, Genocide: how to buy free real estate with no money down’ – there’s an image on the page that is a good descriptor of reality today.
hahaha when dutton was elected I wrote that not many retired coppers were worth a $1m now 20 years on, he is worth $400m all on a property portfolio. Hypocrisy rules!!!!
The media are the ones deciding the timing. If Albo and Jodie found an ideal home that was in their combined budget, were they supposed to pass it up because some attention seeking journalists might put an “optics” slant on it?
At least there is a spin off with Dutton’s poor cop to multi millionaire getting a bit of airplay.
Anonymous E. Mouse:
Just purely from an electioneering tactics point of view, is it really opportune once again to draw attention to the “Animal Farm” type hypocrisy of Labor a few months out from a federal election?
That senior Labor operatives have always found it difficult to identify and consistently walk the fine line between “Politics is the art of the possible” and “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” should be obvious to even the most casual observer of politics.
I, for one, could have done without the reminder. But here we are!
OK, if the timing is wrong, what would be a good time for the couple to buy a house they can afford?
The truth is that for some, never would be a good time to buy a dream house, near family with amazing views, perhaps a run down three bed, one bath apartment in the western suburbs would be good…. oh but then they would be depriving others of an affordable home.
This becomes an aporia.
Bert,Albo ought to know the meaning of discretion,he doesn’t have to ‘own goal’ for the shit media.
Arnd,
I have watched with interest exchanges between you and Steve Davis on the subject of the progression of politics and economics over time – very informative. And noted its well reasoned conclusion in declarations re anarchism. My only observation on that conclusion was that it seemed logical, but in reality as an m.o. unachievable because of the nature of humans.
I don’t for a moment deny an individual’s right to exercise ”snarky aggravation”, I exercise it myself occasionally, it seems to be all the rage. Seems it’s the food for sensation-seeking msm / sm as they promote envy / hostility if only for the purpose of their own pecuniary interest – in Oz, it’s a bandwagon against Labor, leaving the many stupefied dwelling in the obliterative nightmare of the Duttonate and moves towards authoritarianism, demagoguery and despotism. It’s the feckless absurdity, lack of analysis and fact-finding, and simplistic ‘bothsideism’ of the msm / sm that pumped the dross of Albo’s house purchase (not a mention of per se Dutton’s property adventures), and nearly all other matters du jour where they take the Steve Bannon advice and fill the zone with shit trying to bring down Labor so they can have installed the nincompoop LNP puppets to do the neoliberal / authoritarian bidding.
Given that Oz is a long way from emancipation from its British imperialist roots, I’m not so sure that it would elect a Mahatma Gandhi or Angel Merkel type. And the first step to affecting change, is to be elected. Given that Albo’s allotted 10 years span at or near the top is nigh, and that he’s getting married and having a broader family, what is he to do – become an elder drop-out?
I am not anti-capitalism – it is very efficient, but I observe that the way it is mostly modeled is fatal – I call it “suicide capitalism”. Thank goodness globalisation is placing a lens on past errors, and is providing hope for corrections (but for the wiles of the FRWNJs, the neocons and neoliberals and their dark and greedy backers). In the last, say 15 years, the huge errors of the late 70s – 90s have been realised, and the battles set, now reaching a fever pitch from the ‘bad guys’. It leaves (with the help of MSM / SM) a significant proportion of populations discombobulated – looking for an easy fix.
Across the world, politics, ‘right’, ‘centre’ and ‘left’ is contextual, and has much to do with the culture within which it resides, even though the imperialists and hegemonies would have it that their view of those leanings is proper. I asked the question, ”what in this day and age defines ‘left’” in the Oz context. Where you talk of your strong and closely reasoned beliefs, sorted in 1992, and cite (USA, Germany, UK, New Zealand, Spain …, and , yes, Australia) as not informed by your principles, I wonder where in the world today you could head to find a concordance.
Although many Constitutions need a fix, within the ‘democratic’ envelope which we dance, it’s the citizens that make the glue to form political parties, and from which ‘independents’ arise. And from there cyclicly casts their vote to decide who forms the parliament and government. So by us all, we’ve got what we’ve got. And from that point, I do the best I can to make my choices and try and make my way without the ambition of perfection or paradise.
People and politics are far from ‘perfect’, vive la difference. For me, at present, among the many concerns, the main one, as I said, is reform from neoliberalism to a social democracy, and in that regard, Labor seems the best available choice of who could form and manage government. That said, amongst the burgeoning complexities, I am not blind to their weaknesses. For instance, Barry Jones’ article 12 keys to Good Leadership was a good read.
If I had my druthers, I’d be in the framework of the Mondragons. But they’re not here, and I haven’t the wherewithal to get to them.
Harry, no matter what decisions Albo makes, it will be pilloried.
It’s not like he is spending government revenue buying the home with his partner, they are paying for it themselves. Probably in much the same way any other person does.
I have children and grand children who have bought desirable homes, it’s ok for them, why not for that couple.
But as with other comments here, why push the story in peoples faces during a housing crisis?
The media are pushing it, not Albo or the ALP, and precisely because there is a housing crisis and it is a remarkably effective way to further their war against the current government.
Just to throw in an obvious question or two that nobody seems to be asking:
1. Would it have been ok for Albanese and his partner to have bought the house if they’d beaten the vendor down to $3.9million?
2. Ok, if that was still too much would a house for $2.9 million have been acceptable?
3. Something under $2mill?
4. Let’s say $1.5million…
5. Ok, maybe an onsite caravan?
Albanese has a stable income as Prime Minister for the next 6 or 7 years.
Beyond that, he will have a stable retirement income.
A house on the coast is good for overall well-being
I don’t see the problem.
If the PM want’s to buy a house then who cares?
I saw on the ABC’s 24/7 news during Thursday morning that Dutton sold a number of houses giving him multi sever million dollars but nothing said.
I also saw that some Australian investors had over 100 houses!!!
So why isn’t the Australian media reporting this!!??
Over the past few years the Australian mainstream journalism has crashed!!!
WHY??!!
Clakka, thanks. For the extensive reply, and for your praise.
If, as you say, Steve and I outline well-reasoned conclusions on favour of anarchism, but these conclusions will not be realised because of human nature – then what will we realise? For how much longer will we get away with acting contrary to good reason? And what does it say about our institutions, of public administration, of higher education and research, of politics and law, if they can’t make reason stick?
What you call “suicide capitalism” is just capitalism. Your previously expressed preference for social-democracy is capitalism with varying degrees of social policy attached to it. Even the USA does attach some social(ist) measures to its capitalism to ameliorate some of its worst excesses (which is why Harris’ emphatic statement that she “is not a socialist” came across a bit ill-considered?).
And this idea about social democracy informs my commentary: a nation state, and a society where “no-one is left behind” – heard that one before? If we were living in a country where everyone has a decent affordable place to live – safe, warm, but not hot, dry, no mold, access to services, public transport, etc., etc. – you know, basic amenities in keeping with Australia as one of the wealthiest nations on Earth – my whinging about Albo setting himself up with yet another multi-million dollar abode would indeed be beside the point.
But we do not live in such a social-democratic country – which, as far as I am concerned, means that the social-democratic project here in Oz has failed.
Albo, the man who has energetically pursued, and was appointed as the most senior leader of the social-democratic project, needs to accept personal responsibility for this failure – rather than exploit the commercial dynamics of a failing real-estate market for personal gain.
JohnyPerth:
Well, apparently at least “the ABC’s 24/7 news during Thursday morning” reported it.
But unlike Albo, Dutton has never professed any commitment to the social-democratic “no-one left behind” project. Quite the contrary: he’s still stuck in “Greed is good! Ruthless exploitation will save the country, and let the dogs get the hindmost!” mode.
Which means that you can accuse Dutton of profound ignorance about how the economy and human society works (amongst many other things), but you can’t accuse him of hypocrisy. His real estate profiteering is entirely in keeping with his overall outlook.
Dutton consolidated his real estate holdings into a Family Trust of which his wife and father are directors – smart move, it keeps the prurient media locked out.
Albo and his partner identified a property that they liked, pooled their resources, applied for a mortgage and concluded the purchase.
By Australian standards that is totally unacceptable for a prime minister and he must resign forthwith.
Terence Mills:
Albo & Jodie buying a(nother expensive) house is patently acceptable and in keeping with “Australian standards” generally, and Sydney’s obsession with real estate in particular.
The question being raised by some commenters is whether it is in keeping with social-democratic standards.
What has me a little baffled is this :
Who should this have been referred to first?
ASIO?
The Governor General?
Federal Police?
The King directly?
The Pope?
or Groucho Marx?
Something is wrong here – Albo should not be allowed to buy house of his and his partner’s choice!
Charge him and sack him – the country deserves better – Potato D!
Arnd, this is one of those strange issues where I see your comment and say –Arnd is correct!
Then I see a comment from Terence and say — Terence is correct!
My guess is that Albo was between a rock and a hard place — will I decide for short-term political reasons, or will I decide for my long-term future?
He chose the long term, and good for him, but I agree that was not good for social democracy.
But look on the bright side old mate — anything that undermines the faith of the masses in the system is good.
In the long-term.
Probably the very long-term. 🙂
Steve, if in doubt, stick with Arnd!
:-))) (I’m kidding. KIDDING!! Ok?)
Look: I know I’m making a mountain out of a molehill. Albo either buying or not buying a comparatively expensive piece of real estate is not going to affect Australia’s economic reality, including housing availability and price, even the tiniest bit. Therefore, realistically speaking, the advice to just shut up about it, and turn attentions to more important issues, like AU signing up to AUKUS sight unseen, or Plibersek signing off on any number of greenhouse-intensive mining projects, is appropriate.
Otoh, Albo’s purchase is another pixel, even if just one tiny one, in the grand picture of the progressive side of politics simply not knowing what they are doing, and taking way too many things for granted: Keating’s Savile Row suits, and his condemnation of “Balmain Basket Weavers” – an entirely apposite call to make, btw, but just not for a Potts Point Pig Farmer; Jenny Macklin assuring us that she could live on $35/day; Daniel Andrews retiring on 300k p.a.; or Hillary Clinton famously denigrating the “deplorables” … – none of this looks any good, and inexorably does “undermine the faith of the masses in the system”. Which would be ok, if the masses then went ahead and discover, or build, an understanding of politics informed by anarchist autonomy. And some indeed do.
But as you well know, all too many others instinctively shy away from the responsibilities that true freedom entails, and go looking for the reassurance offered by strongmen with despotic agendas.
Arnd,
Thanks for your reply. I did refer to there being no magic wand, and that the pressures of neoliberal vested interests, and the many ordinary (voting) folk so beguiled, meant that the reform agenda towards social democracy would necessarily have to be strategic and incremental. Needless to say, Labor knew this, but learned a harsh lesson in its failure in the 2019 election by Shorten’s proposed reforms biting too deep for those vested in the system extant. Whilst Labor won the 2022 election (for obvious reasons – namely the behavior of the LNP), the combination of the LNP’s concealment of an underlying inflation rate of 6%, and its gutting and circumvention of the public service, and the huge (international) flow-on affects of the pandemic, and supply chain issues arising from the Ukraine / Putin’s Russia war brought massive strains to Labor’s agenda – yet they commenced reform immediately. Undoubtedly they were not ready for the move of the Duttonate to the Trumpian prescription of ‘flooding the zone with shit’, but found out by another harsh lesson through ‘the Voice’ failure. All this has been compounded by matters associated with the Israel / Palestine etc wreckage. Yet Labor persists.
Whilst I concede there are ‘style’ issues – my referral to Jones’s article, I am in no doubt as to Labor and Albo’s tireless commitment to Oz, reform toward social democracy, reinstatement of the public service and essential regulatory regimes, and Oz’s international obligations and diplomacy – which to say the least are currently very difficult to navigate but critically important given the interdependencies and vulnerabilities. In view of the above, I do not concede there is over-arching financial mismanagement, and my reference to suicide capitalism refers to models that are not secured by absolutely essential critical monitoring and regulatory regimes – looking at environment, resources, industry, commerce, fiscal and monetary controls, crime and corruption (domestic and international).
Where you cite Karmala Harris’s ‘I am not a socialist’ narrative, that, after McCarthyism and subsequent neocon, neoliberal blather, is a political device paying lip-service to the unique US state of paranoia which blights the world. But for the US invocation of the ANZUS treaty, and the Duttonate’s recent adoption of Trumpism, that paranoia has never applied here in Oz (except maybe during Howard’s tenure).
In Oz Labor has long led the move against imperialism and the political stupidities that accompany it, but in the process of post-WWII modernization and globalization got caught up and beguiled by the guile and wiles of neoliberalism, particularly the bs associated with privatization. As did nearly every other state in the world. The rolling ball of capture was set in motion. And Oz (unlike the ‘West’, a developing country), continuing its relief to post-war Europe, to suit its agriculture, and to line the pockets of the land barons, immigration was pushed as a stimulus to growth by demand – a system that was soon corrupted. Twinned, neoliberalism and population growth set the roots for dangerous ambition, particularly through the Howard years, turning attention away from social consciousness and adequate social services (including government housing) and the calamatous GFC in 2008. The Labor Rudd / Gillard years began restoring a social agenda, but with the aftermath of the GFC still reeking havoc, and vicious attacks from the LNP, neoliberalism rose again under nearly a decade of abject mismanagement by the LNP, leading to the social crisis, particularly of the almost intractable situation of property price skyrocketing and shortage of social housing and homelessness, on top of all the other ‘cost of living’ matters and setting in place climate change abatement transformations (likely bigger than the ‘industrial revolution’). Phenomena typical across the ‘West’.
It is no small irony that as Labor seeks to attend to these matters that we now have the Duttonate, and the Greens fecklessly blocking legislation, and making puerile attacks on Albo, alleging weakness, when in fact he is the strongest among them. Suffice it to say, the attempted beat-up on him about his new family home purchase is ludicrous gutter-crawling by the Oz msm, who with determination seeks to have the population as dumbed down as possible so they can re-furnish neoliberalism for their vested interest mates.
To say that Oz is not a social democracy is correct. But to say that it cannot be moved that way, as Labor is attempting, to me is nihilistic. And as for anarchism, as a motivating thought-tool, it has its place, but through history has never persisted, and given human’s tendency to glue themselves into groups, and / or tendency to allow themselves to be glued, I prefer a social democracy.
“But as you well know, all too many others instinctively shy away from the responsibilities that true freedom entails, and go looking for the reassurance offered by strongmen with despotic agendas.”
Arnd, there was never a truer word spoken.
Doesn’t matter what Albanese and Labor do. The Main Stream Media attacks them. The MSM don’t believe in democracy.
The MSM simple promotes – Labor bad, Liberal good.
Hence Labor should just do whatever they like, and think is the principled thing to do. Cause whatever they do gets attacked anyway.
What I don’t understand is Labor’s wimp pandering to the MSM. Labor should treat the MSM with the contempt they treat them. Refer to them constantly as “the promotional wing of the Liberal party”.
Our mediaocracy continues…
Wayne, that comment was a gem-field !
Clakka, thanks again, and I mostly agree – even if I have a greater sense of urgency.
Oh, but it has. And not just “during the Howard years”, and “for the US invocation of the ANZUS treaty, and the Duttonate’s recent adoption of Trumpism”. The anti-communist paranoia, mostly dressed up as anti-bolshevism and anti-maoism, has always been an important undercurrent of Western (including AU) politics. And in many ways, rightly so! But this paranoia, and the power politics justified by it, also have created a huge maze of international and domestic issues that need untangling and dealing with. By us. Now. Business as usual is not a realistic option.
That is one of the main ways of how I use it: as an aide to more accurate analysis, and a guiding framework to determine better policy responses.
When I first hit on anarchism as a valid outlook on political philosophy, my first reaction was a derisive “Well, how nice! But it’s never gonna happen …!” But it still has great analytical value, in a “We need to learn to chart our course by the stars, not by the lights of every passing ship” (Omar Bradley) sort of a way. Which statement is also a great reminder of the main weak point of democracy: democracy IS about setting the course of the “ship of state” by the (populist) lights of the passing boats of the citizenry – a point that both rulers and “rulees” might want to remind themselves from time to time.
Not least, because my understanding of anarchism is not only predicated on the assumption that our rulers and institutions wield powers over us that they shouldn’t, but that, quite on the contrary, they are actually nowhere near as powerful and effective as they, and many of us, still seem to think and expect.
“The emperor is, indeed, mostly naked!” And it’s not an especially pretty sight, ALP, LNP, the Greens, Teals and a few Independents all having at one another in full public view, wearing only stretched, stained and threadbare Y-fronts.
There was one most important benefit I recognised in anarchism thirty years ago: namely as a conceptual response for the progressive side of politics to the incessant “small government” demagoguery by the forces of the reaction. Remember Ronnie Reagan’s “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”. I would have loved for someone on the progressive side of politics to retort:
If nothing else, that quote demonstrates Margaret Thatcher’s disturbing inability to distinguish between society and government – an inability that haunts both sides of politics to this day, and one to which anarchist concepts would be a great corrective.
But this has not happened. The progressive side of politics is firmly, unshakably committed to the eternal necessity of government as curative to all social ills, in a “We know best what’s good for you, and we will give it to you whether you line it or not!” Which attitude raises hackles even when they actually do know what they’re doing. But when they don’t, it makes for mutinous tendencies very quickly. Which is what the Trumps and Duttons of this world capitalise on.
Hence, the immediate practical use of anarchist principles is as analytical tool. But pause a moment: if anarchism were to inform policy for the next hundred years or so, I imagine that our progeny might stumble onto its realisation, in an incidental and inadvertent sort of way?
Karen Middleton offers some nuanced reflections on the “Man buys house. So what?” insouciance affected by some commenters here and elsewhere. And she does so without the anarchist baggage that I habitually attach to my posts, which might make her opinion a bit more relatable.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2024/oct/19/with-many-australians-facing-a-fractured-future-albanese-faces-a-problem-much-bigger-than-his-43m-house
Arnd,
I appreciate your “sense of urgency”. And that we can agree on the use of ‘anarchism’ as a tool for demonstration and analysis. To me, it equates to what is actually happening in the mischievous push to and notions of declining faith in ‘democracy’, and what Karen Middleton in her article calls ”a profound unease and acute sense of intergenerational insecurity”.
It seems to me that there is nothing new in reactions. History’s writings are mostly made from such wranglings. The advance and failures of technologies, cyclical obliterations, the resort to blame, the reinvention / reshaping of gods, demons, hells and paradises as a way of covering actions and inactions, fears of lack of control over natural desires, and notions through subjective consciousness that humans ought be supreme and not part of, but above nature.
Such propensities will of course be grist for the mill of politicians, despots, demagogues, clerics, rulers and pretenders. So they can get points on the board in their quest to hold the levers and proceed with extraction. They will press for haste, no time to waste, with a reactionary discourse manipulating those propensities, at the same time assuaging any guilt by talking of a duty to the future and the protection of individual’s inheritance.
That humanity has dwelt in such abstractions does not seem to have done much to achieve any sustainability. Yet there is a persistence, piling abstraction upon abstraction, achieving little but a vast complexity of irreconcilable abstractions whilst nature takes its course. But it seems in parallel those that observe nature and its cause and effect continue to achieve. At first of the macrocosm and our place in it – much to the chagrin of the collective beguilers and power chasers. And over recent times, ever increasingly, the microcosm, where the true answers to our earthly sustainability lie, and with it an understanding of our real interdependency and vulnerabilities.
As such, perhaps we have reached the point where looking over our shoulders at history combined with living in the now of the unfolding microcosm has brought us to a profound unease and acute sense of intergenerational insecurity. Yabber-yabber and absurdity seemingly peaking, perhaps we are in and facing further ‘necessary’ anarchism that will drive us back to natural desire, love and constructive communities?