In the final two months of 2023, the Australian political landscape was plagued by negative bias campaigning tactics similar to those of Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. It is unsurprising, considering that negativity is a core element of their political philosophy. They appear incapable of recognising any positive aspect of their opponents’ policies whatsoever.

Regrettably, political negativity can be a highly effective tool. If enough mud is thrown, some of it will eventually stick. Today’s hard right does not settle for merely a handful of mudslinging; they go for bucketfuls.

For example, the government was targeted by conservative mudslinging when they failed to anticipate the High Court’s ruling on refugees. This failure was shamelessly exploited by Peter Dutton et al, who placed politics above proper political conduct. They prioritised the politics of damaging their opponents over helping to solve an exacting problem.

As night follows day, the Australian right-wing press decided on some good old leader bashing, with the Prime Minister being the target of their excrement. The conversation became about refugees, and Dutton became the superhero of far-right politics.

That the problem demanded some very considered legislation mattered not to an opposition out for the kill. Dutton got what he wanted. A bill well short of considered thought. A bill that wouldn’t survive a High Court challenge.

Dutton was offered a viewing of the legal advice he had received on the subject on Sunday, 3 December, and to this day, they have yet to bother to set their eyes upon it.

Following his inglorious defeat of The Voice referendum using negativity bias, Dutton applied the same tactics to the High Court decision.

Negativity bias is now permanently engrained in what once was an adversarial but fair democracy where lies were said, but consequences risked. Now, lying is tolerated within the endless bounds of ‘Trumpism‘, where truth has negligible importance because negativity and ignorance prevail.

You believe whatever you want. It is unimportant because conservatives and their media tarts reinforce their bullshit all the time.

The Prime Minister and his Ministers must weave into their answers to questions (any question) something that refers to the LNP’s incompetence while in government. Goodness knows there is a mountain of dreadful instances to choose from. Reinforcing the LNP’s failure in office should be an automatic response within any answer.

It is well-known how negative Tony Abbott was in opposition. So much so that it was responsible for him becoming Prime Minister. They called him the best Opposition leader ever. Subsequently, he was a failure in the top job.

We know negative bias works, but how?

Research shows that we react more strongly to negative stimuli. We think about negative things more frequently than positive ones and respond more strongly to adverse events than equally positive ones.

“Research has also shown that people tend to focus more on the negative across a wide array of psychological events as they try to make sense of the world.”

We also tend “to pay more attention to adverse events than positive ones” and learn more from negative outcomes and experiences. We also make decisions based on negative information more than positive data.

The “bad things” grab our attention, stick to our memories, and often influence our decisions. Additionally, studies have shown that:

“… negative news is more likely to be perceived as truthful. Since negative information draws greater attention, it also has greater validity. This is why bad news garners more attention.”

Politics

“Differences in negativity bias have also been linked to political ideology. Some research suggests that conservatives may have more robust psychological responses to negative information than social democrats.

Some evidence, for example, has found that people who consider themselves politically conservative are more likely to rate ambiguous stimuli as threatening.”

Such differences in the negativity bias might explain why some people are more likely to value things such as tradition and security. In contrast, others are more open to embracing ambiguity and change.

If you go to the link provided, you will find a more comprehensive explanation of negative bias. However, I have given you something to think about. Moreover, we must all adjust to the fact that negativity plays a vital part in the election of a government. The reality is that a large cohort of folk thrive on scandals. They prosper on negativity. They believe they are always told the truth even when it is demonstrably not the case.

Our only recourse is to tell the truth; sometimes, more is needed. We must remind everyone of how dreadful the Coalition really was.

Within my social media circle and in the news reporting I read, there is growing support for the view that Dutton and the LNP are ripe to win the next election.

This assumption is based on views that Labor has done nothing about the cost of living or that Prime Minister Albanese travels too much and interest rates are too high. Of course, our debt needs to be lowered; asylum seekers should never have been released, and we need to spend more on infrastructure. You can add to that the cost of renting, and more houses need to be built.

Andrew Bolt is certainly confident of a Labor loss (isn’t he always?):

“The Coalition under Peter Dutton could actually win the next election.”

He then advised they needed a reshuffle and suggested they bring back former prime minister Scott Morrison. Yes, he did. Check it out. It really is difficult to take Andrew Bolt seriously.

Or Shadow Attorney General Michaelia Cash, who says that:

“… the Government’s handling of the High Court overturning indefinite detention proves they are ‘hopelessly’ out of their depth.”

Right-wing columnist Gerard Henderson, writing for The Australian (paywalled) was quick to blow Dutton’s trumpet:

“Despite all the naysayers decrying his decision for the Liberals to campaign against the voice, Peter Dutton has been vindicated and is looking strong in the lead up to the next election.”

These astonishing predictions came after The Voice Referendum and Labor’s decision to let some refugees with bad records into the community following a high court decision and before the Court gave its reasons.

Is it possible that at this time in the election cycle, the Coalition is indeed in a position to win in 2025? My first reaction is to say, “no chance”. After all, it was only a short time ago that Morrison lost on May 21 2022, after almost a decade of corruption, immorality, disgrace, continuous scandals, poor leadership, and lying. Keeping up with all the controversy and poor decisions was a daily grind: Lack of action on climate change, a poor response to the pandemic and the tragedy behind Robo debt are just a few.

Is the electorate ready to forgive them and return the same people to office within one term? In normal circumstances, you would say no; they wouldn’t, but I confess, we live in strange times.

Let’s look at where people say Labor is vulnerable, remembering we are some ways out from the next election.

1. The subs deal (a Morrison leftover) has been unpopular. Only time will tell by how much, and there is lots of it. I also disagree with this decision. However, I don’t think it is a front-of-mind issue.

2. Regarding the next tax breaks (another Morrison leftover), people think the money could be better spent other than handing money back to the wealthy. But to break a promise of such enormity. A broken promise for the greater good takes guts. Do it, Albo.

It really is starting to become glaringly obvious that Stage 3 is not just an unfair tax cut that gives massive cuts to the richest, it is also very, very dumb economics. https://t.co/DLqYOXck3L

— Greg Jericho (@GrogsGamut) November 21, 2023

Make some big decisions. Negative gearing is nothing more than a tax rort for wealthy investors that reduces housing affordability. Get rid of it.

3. The cost of living. Coles, Woolworths and others control the cost of living more than any government. Fuel is controlled by external forces. Allow more competition.

4. High interest rates. No government controls interest rates. It is as accurate as that.

5. Albo travels too much. It is in our own interest that he does. It has also been shown that he travels roughly the same – or less- as other recent PMs. Most of it has been restoring the damage done by the previous Government. China, in particular. Labor has restored our trade, which was almost destroyed by Morrison. Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will attend the COP 28 Meeting in December.

6. Release of asylum seekers. The Government obeyed the High Court of Australia. The Court has yet to release its reasons for the decision. The legislation passed thus far could be more explicit but can only be so once their reasons are known.

Further news on this story was exposed in The Guardian on November 21. Five of the 93 people affected by this month’s high court decision on indefinite detention had already been released into community detention by the Coalition.

7. Cost of renting. A carryover problem from the Morrison Government. A decade of doing nothing.

8. Build more housing. But both are being addressed, if not to everyone’s satisfaction.

9. Spend more on infrastructure. Yes, but now is not the time. It would make inflation much worse.

10. The Voice referendum. It was a bad loss and poorly sold, but it isn’t an election breaker. The conservatives not only destroyed “The Voice” but also any chance of us ever becoming a republic.

11. The economy. In answer to a question during Question Time, the Prime Minister said:

“Let’s compare our economy, I’m asked about international comparisons of our economy and how it’s going,” “Our unemployment rate is 3.6 – lower than what we inherited; our participation rate is 66.7 – higher than what we inherited; our gender pay gap is 13 – lower than what we inherited.”

Mr Albanese said manufacturing jobs and women employed full-time were higher than what was “inherited”. His time expired.

And let’s remember the enormous debt Morrison left behind.

Labor’s record in office so far might appear bland, but a glimpse at their website tells a different story.

For example, on November 23, Albanese announced his government would “rapidly expand investment schemes for clean energy projects.”

i. Robodebt. People will be reminded that somebody must be responsible. Who might it be? Scott Morrison, Marise Payne, Malcolm Turnbull, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and/or Stuart Robert?

How damaging would it be during an election campaign?

Would you again put the same people in charge of policies similar to Robodebt?

ii. Many other Cases are before the NACC:

“146 referrals are pending triage. 53 referrals are currently in active triage, and 181 referrals that have been triaged are currently under assessment.”

Some, like Robodebt, will be open to the public. So, a constant stream of bad news stories will emerge from the NACC.

iii. Despite current events, Peter Dutton is still the best thing Labor has going for it. Outside of being tough on immigration, he has little going for him. A personality transplant might be a good idea. He carries a load of baggage.

iv. The Guardian Essential Survey of November 14 showed Australia at its pessimistic best, but I suspect this pessimism will have a brighter smile by the time of the election. Most people felt Australia should stay out of trouble between the superpowers and the war in the Middle East.

Most folks surveyed thought interest rates would go up again and rent would continue to rise. The price of petrol is decided overseas and not by our government.

The new social cohesion report released around the same time was also “sobering“. Katherine Murphy reports that:

“After the polarising voice referendum campaign, amid rising community tensions over the Middle East war and sustained anxiety about the economy, shows little appetite for frivolity.

v. This same apathetic view of the world, like rust, is spreading throughout the community. From its governing position, Labor is well-placed to combat the conservatives’ attacks on institutions and the future of life as we know it.

Importantly, continues Murphy, this:

“… new research suggests many Liberal and National voters are in a severe funk now Labor is in power.

“The number of people in this cohort who say they are pessimistic or very pessimistic about Australia’s future also increased by 27 points.”

If that’s what their supporters think about the future, I wonder what they think of Dutton as a leader. Is he just another Abbott, good at spewing out negative thought bubbles but never able to transition to Prime Minister?

The LNP is a coalition of political parties that took an extraordinary toll, over almost a decade, on our institutions and democracy. They are nothing more than a coalition of capitalistic shysters more interested in the top than those in need and have never apologised for the most deplorable period of governance in Australian political history. For example, see this list of lies that Scott Morrison told during his tenure as Prime Minister. Then there is this list of Peter Dutton’s lies about The Voice.

Am I to believe that the LNP under Dutton, without even a climate change or energy policy, will right all their wrongs when they didn’t even confess to Robodebt (or all the other falsehoods and acts of corruption)? Are they really a serious contender to become our next government after only 18 months?

Many conservatives believe that they have the power to shape society in a way that benefits the elite. They see themselves as the superior class, adhering to the principle of the aristocracy or the ‘betters’. They believe that they are natural leaders and the best suited to rule. They feel entitled to all the benefits that society creates as a reward for their superiority.

Considering that we live in a more complex and scientifically advanced world than ever, it seems unrealistic to expect the LNP, with its Luddite principles, to guide us through these complexities. Since the May 21, 2022 election, Labor has been busy correcting the mistakes made by Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison. Fixing the country’s economy may take years.

Sorry, I cannot swallow this nonsense. Andrew, Michaelia and Gerard should get a grip on themselves.

Anyway, Coalition strategists would know victory next time for them is a huge ask. First-term governments federally very rarely lose.

They tell us very little, but we are still fascinated by them. Me included. At this time in the election cycle, polls suggest zero about who will win the next election, but people believe they do.

They only tell us what people may be thinking at the time of their collation. Opinion polls, especially so far out from an election, only guide people’s thinking and do not indicate how they might vote.

Take the latest Newspoll, published in the Australian, for example. The Poll Bludger’s analysis of it says:

“… the latest Newspoll has Labor’s lead at 52-48, in from 54-46 at the poll conducted from October 4 to 12 in the lead-up to the referendum, from primary votes of Labor 35% (down one), Coalition 37% (up two), Greens 12% (steady) and One Nation 6% (steady). This is the narrowest two-party Newspoll results since the election, eclipsing two of the last four results, which had it at 53-47.

Anthony Albanese’s ratings have taken a tumble, down four on approval to 42% and up six on disapproval to 52%. The net rating of minus 10 is substantially weaker than his worst results for the term of minus one, likewise recorded in two of the previous four polls. Peter Dutton is at 37% approval and 50% disapproval, respectively, up two and down three on the previous Newspoll result, but equal to the previous poll. Albanese’s lead as preferred prime minister is now 46-36, from 51-31 last time.”

What can we take from these figures so far from the next election? Just what has Dutton done to deserve the public’s support? Well, nothing comes to mind. What Newspolls do is provide Murdoch newspapers with a solid base from which to attack Labor. They create stories around their polling that are of little substance or importance.

So, the possible reasons for change are:

1. After 18 months, the Australian public has forgiven the LNP for its decade of rotten, appalling governance and is considering reinstating it at the next election.

2. People are happy to forgive Dutton for his past vulgar indiscretions and are beginning to think that even with his appalling record, he would make a better Prime Minister than Albanese.

That’s a bit like Trump might end up in jail but would still make a better President than the squeaky-clean Biden.

3. The people have tasted Labor and don’t like it.

4. The latest polls reflect the current economic conditions – the cost-of-living pressures and the slowness of change.

5. The poll slump was a judgement on how damaging The Voice referendum was to Labor. And it is a good enough reason – for some – to kick them out.

The slumping polls show how damaging the heavy defeat of the Voice referendum and continuing cost of living pressures have been to Albanese and Labor. There is little Labor can do in this regard. Anything that would help at a personal level, like cash handouts, cannot be considered because it might add to the inflation problem.

It is pretentious to think that everything other than the facts is to blame for Labor’s poll slump.

The price of oil has increased dramatically because of two wars. The cost of food has risen by the size of overgrown pumpkins, and inflation is being helped by price gouging and profiteering from some major retailers. Increased rents are a hangover from the Morrison period, but Labor is blamed.

High-interest rates are, of course, affecting homeowners and buyers. Some of whom would never have experienced such an imposition on their budgets.

All of which Labor has no control over.

Although factually wrong, the Coalition convinces people that Labor is responsible for everything affecting them – even a shortage of intelligence.

Despite its slip in the polls, it is impossible to believe that the Australian public could be gullible enough to elect a government that performed miserably for almost a decade. Especially when it still has amongst its members some of the most devious, suspicious and corrupt men and women ever to have walked the plushness of the green carpet that so adorns the House of Representatives.

Let us remember that during an election campaign, Labor will continue reminding the electorate of all the corruption under the LNP – the lying of Abbott and Morrison. There is enough scandal to fill the first three weeks.

Do these current polls tell us who might win the next election? No, they only give us a snapshot of what people are currently thinking.

Labor has performed admirably since coming to power. Albanese and Wong have worked tirelessly to enhance our standing in the world, and restoring our relationship with China has been a highlight.

Despite the economic evil of inflation, Labor is or is committed to:

• Supporting Australians with the cost of living with cheaper childcare, cheaper medicines, extended paid parental leave, energy bill relief and fee free TAFE.

• Investing record amounts into Medicare and bulk billing.

• Building new homes, investing in affordable housing and making renting fairer.

• Tackling climate change by legislating to reduce emissions.

• Managing the economy and creating jobs in challenging times.

It is thus incomprehensible that these polls mean that the LNP has a good chance of winning the next election. They are what they are – a reflection of today’s worldwide economic environment. It will change over the next eighteen months.

A day or so after Newspoll published

Also out today was the latest federal poll from RedBridge Group (paywalled), which has Labor’s two-party lead at 53.5-46.5; the message is repeated over and over. Support went from 54.1 to 45.9 in the pollster’s previous result from early September. The primary votes were Labor 34% (down three), Coalition 35% (down one), Greens 14% (up one) and others 17% (up three).

And The Roy Morgan poll showed that:

“… the Coalition leading Labor on a two-party preferred basis for the first time since the 2022 election, at 50.5 per cent (compared with 49.5 per cent for Labor), up 4.5 per cent.”

What follows is from my post earlier this year, and without risk of repeating myself is still relevant today:

In the time that has elapsed since May 21 2022, not once have I heard from the lips of a conservative politician any form of regret or apology, even remorse or shame. On the contrary, we have been served a recipe of poached platitudes, banalities and lies.

To listen to them is like listening to those who cannot express themselves adequately and repetitively mumble, “but we were still born to rule”.

People will, over time, forget their crimes of corruption, the scandals and their men of mad – destructive political beliefs and decisions – of inequality toward women and lack of equality of opportunity. These have been identified in various media over the years and will now be investigated by the NACC.

Of course, the best thing Labor has going for is Peter Dutton himself. On all accounts, he thinks there is nothing wrong with the party he leads. Its philosophy, its morality, its trust, its economic credentials and its equality.

Peter Dutton is so disliked by all and sundry that he couldn’t win an election if he started now.

Having said this, it must be noted that there is much to do. Labor’s first year has also seen many challenges.

Inflation is a problem, as are interest rates, the cost of living is higher than it should be, and housing and rents are also high. Most of this mess the Government has inherited from the LNP. Much of it has come from events beyond Labor’s control. The war in Ukraine and now the Middle East, and let’s not forget the Pandemic.

Labor is fulfilling its significant commitments; others are a work in progress, and some are on hold pending the release of reports.

I am not convinced that, as these polls suggest, the LNP are in a winning position. Go tell the Teal independents that they will lose their seats.

1 Who but a devotee of Trump would say such a thing?:

“I have just called President Trump to say this: “Stay strong and keep fighting, sir! The nation is depending upon your resolve. We must exhaust every available legal remedy to restore Americans’ trust in the fairness of our election system.”

That anyone could, over time and after the evidence obtained showed otherwise, still believe that there was some sort of conspiracy that voting machines were rigged would have to be considered as mentality unhinged as Trump himself.

Later, the same man was one of 147 Republicans to contest the results in key states; even after a pro-Trump mob attacked Congress on January 6, a riot developed, and we now know that it was linked to nine deaths and hundreds of convictions. But that is not all. That the Republican Party has placed yet another Christian literalist at the cusp of power is frightening. At a time when the Democrats are trying to restore a broken democracy that was almost destroyed by a cognitively impaired Donald Trump, it is unbelievable. To elect a Christian literalist as Speaker of the House when all this is taking place is an American madness.

2 He is a devout Evangelical Christian who literally believes Romans 13, which says, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.”

Which, in its stupidity, more or less says that you may as well not vote because it is God who places people in authority, not you. Or you are being manipulated by God.

“The Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority … each of you, all of us,” he said.

3 The same man has claimed that a “‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society.”

4 He once worked for the “Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF),” a designated hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks US extremists.

5 The ADF is accused of supporting the:

“… re-criminalisation of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ adults in the US and criminalisation abroad; defended state-sanctioned sterilisation of trans people abroad; contended that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to engage in paedophilia.”

Rev Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, executive director of the Campaign for Southern Equality, said:

“Johnson has made a career out of attacking the LGBTQ+ community at every turn. His positions are out of touch with the clear majority support for LGBTQ+ equality in our country.”

6 The newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives has little respect for our changing climate:

“He has questioned climate science, opposed clean energy and received more campaign contributions from oil and gas companies than any other industry last year.”

7 He is firmly anti-abortion. Last year, when Congress removed the right to abortion, he celebrated “a historic and joyful day.”

8 He is against divorce. In 2016, as he ran for Congress, he told the Louisiana Baptist Message he had:

“… been out on the front lines of the ‘culture war’ defending religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and biblical values, including the defence of traditional marriage.” [He is an advocate for ‘covenant marriage.’]

9 Allegedly, he believes that mass shootings are caused – among other things – by the teaching of evolution.

Who is he? He is Mike Johnson

A “little-known Louisiana Republican” who champions Donald Trump and believes the last election was rigged. His emergence as the latest speaker is noted by his staunch opposition to all things considered progressive.

Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog Accountable.US, called Johnson:

“a far-right extremist who led a desperate attempt to subvert democracy … [who] boasts a voting record deeming him one of the most extreme members of the Republican conference.

“A Speaker Johnson means more of the same from the Maga [pro-Trump] majority: pointless partisan political stunts, peddling dangerous conspiracies and ultimately undermining American democracy.”

Around the world, we are at a point in time in our history where ‘change’ demands it be listened to. Where the events of recent times scream for it. It only requires a voice to order it on behalf of the people. American conservatives will soon have to realise that for the good of the country, their politics will have to change. That they cannot resist change in the foolish assumption that they can make permanent that which makes them feel secure. They must realise that change is, in fact, part of the very fabric of our existence.

But what is it that occupies the minds of men and women of the American conservative right that they need to be so malevolent in their thinking? The power of wit, truth and persuasion with reasoned thinking and argument no longer suffices. That sledgehammer thinking will win every fight. What is it in the backgrounds of these people that causes their narcissism, their inability to accommodate difference or equality?

In my 10+ years writing for The AIMN, the world has changed significantly. Governments worldwide have shifted to the right or have other undemocratic systems, from forms of grey communism to outright dictatorships.

The rise in the advocacy of female equality is fighting a brave fight, while men are blindly chasing everything narcissism offers. But are we becoming better nations, more caring, more equal, more just and less corrupt?

In Australia, I care about how we are managed as a society, including those things necessary for social cohesion. All communities are controlled by laws, systems or regulations, including the philosophy of whatever party is in power at the time.

The word ‘manipulated’ is used repeatably in my text to emphasise the point, so read on and please contribute to the comments section.

I contend that the world changed significantly in the period of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. There was an abrupt turn to the right of politics, which worsened people’s lives. The conservatives within their parties sprang into action and also headed to the right. When one looks back, it not only changed our lives, but it opened the doors to mass manipulation.

In debating some of the following issues with colleagues and friends, I have also noticed and agree with the observation that:

“… the Fox [and Sky] viewership is marked by a sort of collective personality disorder whereby the viewer feels almost like they’ve been let into a secret society.”

In the US, President Reagan took away responsibility for social services from the Government budget and gave the money to the churches to do what the bureaucracy did. Religion entered politics, and the US political system slowly fell apart.

Conversely, in England, Prime Minister Thatcher determined that there was “No such thing as society”, and their country also began to fall apart. Thus began the days of the two-income family. A decline in marriage with more divorces, bigger houses, and empty hearts. And a proliferation of kids with single parents. Ask any state schoolteacher, and they might suggest that around 70% of their pupils come from single parents.

Poverty has increased worldwide to the extent it is today, yet those of a conservative ilk insist they have done nothing wrong; “American exceptionalism still exists“. Later, an era of Trumpism developed when the masses became manipulated to the point where one wondered if they were ever educated.

Yet he hopes to overcome many lawsuits and have another crack at the presidency. His lies and hatred for those who desire equal opportunity and fairness know no bounds. He is manifestly the most incredible narcissist in the world of politics.

“Because they mistakenly believed in their own righteousness,” Churches have manipulated people into believing love and morality are exclusively religious.

They never allowed their own immorality to stymie their self-righteousness. Added to this, the manipulation of minors by some men of the cloth was exposed, and the whole world turned against them.

We have become obsessed with celebrities and the media, who – with the help of the media – manipulate us into believing that people of little virtue, talent or character are somehow important. More often than not, they have acquired notoriety through wealth or influence.

The battle for wealth, whether corporate or individual, has intensified and divided us into sections: those with and those without.

We have been manipulated into competitive living (making money for money’s sake) while, at the same time, we have forgotten how to laugh or even volunteer. Now, what was the name of that family across the road? We need to comprehend the difference between manners and civility.

Well, our kids don’t. Narcissism is rife, and men are particularly prone to it.

Enormous advances have been made in medicine, and future discoveries will increase enormously. Artificial intelligence has arrived on many fronts. They will further change a world now stressed out with advances in technology.

More drugs are available for many illnesses, but the large drug companies manipulate who gets them and the price paid. The vaccines for the COVID-19 pandemic are a case in point. A vaccine was found in record time, but the wealthiest nations were the most advantaged.

Acquiring a wage has become a necessary function of survival or at least having a reasonable standard of living.

There is much less wellness. Mental illness, at last, has been recognised. Still, men have succumbed to domestic violence, where men manipulating women has become a pastime, resulting in at least one death each week in Australia.

Record amounts of money are thrown at the problems, but no evidence of success results.

Australian Aborigines are a case in point. The voters were so manipulated at the recent referendum that they were confused between right and wrong or didn’t know the difference.

“If you don’t know, vote no.” (Seriously.)

The right of politics manipulates women to maintain a perceived physical, academic, corporate and sexual dominance. History records their manipulation and the ongoing incompetence of extremist right-wing Government. Those of Howard, Abbott, Dutton and Morrison. In Australia, we have experienced the extremities of these men, their ignorance and corruption, to the point that their parties should not be allowed to stand in the next election in their current form.

People may live longer but, in my observation, are less happy, and the incidence of mental health has become a social problem.

We mumble a lot without saying much, we seldom love meaningfully, and the joy of sex has degenerated into casual opportunism where women are manipulated.

It is a time of enormous profits, little leadership, shallow thinking and superficial relationships. It is a time in which technology is making extraordinary advances, but our intellectual reasoning seems only able to appreciate its capacity for good with the word ‘profit’ attached.

We are conquering outer space and diseases yet polluting our environment and souls. We have been so foolish as to allow ourselves to be manipulated by the fools who, once proven wrong, repeat the dose at every opportunity.

We allow ourselves to be manipulated by exaggerated, flamboyant rhetoric designed to heighten a sense of alarm or simply gain our attention. Think Andrew Bolt, for example.

The First Nations referendum was another example of this nefarious manipulation of our democracy. The uneducated on this crucial matter was exploited with propaganda to vote no, and its unfairness was wrong, but the conservatives say it’s just politics. They always do.

Unscrupulous people manipulate our social behaviour, and the young fall victim to the persuasive influence of debilitative drugs.

We know beyond doubt that climate change has surpassed all predictions, yet few countries remain concerned. Gloom is upon us because they lust for power and wealth.

And the purity of our playtime, our sport, has been manipulated by the corrosive effect of gambling money and drugs.

And the cheats, in turn, manipulate us with their lies.

Because of the rise of far-right Neoconservatism, I am currently reviewing my thoughts on the future.

One thing that stood out in the result of the Voice referendum is that being totality negative has little chance of winning back Government for Peter Dutton and his Coalition of conservative misfits.

But he seems to think otherwise. He plans that if he can make Albanese look less incompetent than people perceive him to be, then in some peculiar way, he could win the next election.

Sure, Albanese had no choice other than to take the blame for a failed referendum campaign, but thus far, he is doing so with a credible mix of accepting Dutton’s unfairness with the required dignity of one who carries an unjust loss.

Will the loss be of any consequence at the next election? They will both go into it carrying baggage. The Liberal National Parties’ decade of corruption will burden Dutton, and Albanese will shoulder the defeat of the Voice referendum, which has left him a slightly diminished figure. He will also have to overcome the power of Murdoch’s media.

The Prime Minister now also finds reconciliation and Indigenous recognition wrecked for the foreseeable future, but he must do some urgent repair work between now and the upcoming election. His opponents, ostensibly the Liberals, will take every opportunity to take him down with political opportunism and negativity.

Rick Morton described Dutton on “The Voice” last week as “not being a serious person.” I am still defining what that description of the leader of the Opposition does for the reader, but its simplicity sums up the man incredibly well.

The merits of any particular argument seem oblivious to him. His only interest is how much damage his negativity can impact on his opponent. Remind you of Tony Abbott? It does me. Even reminds me of Trump.

Albanese will take the blame for this defeat, but Dutton will carry the more significant long-term failure. In one hit, he has eliminated the possibility of any referendum (including the Australian Republic) being passed well into the future.

That the Prime Minister has to take the blame for the loss is grossly dishonest, given that Dutton always intended to blame whatever proposal Albanese put up.

The same week, The Australian (as reported in Crikey) suggested that:

“Albanese had been insufficiently bipartisan was particularly high-octane nonsense – there is literally nothing that the prime minister could have proposed that would have drawn Coalition support.”

The Prime Minister could have proposed that they give their donations to the Libs at the next election, but the Coalition would not have supported it. That’s because they always had “NO” campaigns in reserve. Campaigns funded by mining magnates and wealthy right-wingers and fueled by malignant racists online.

Sooner or later, a rumour will start that Albanese was gullible (probably by Murdoch), a poor campaigner who produced the wrong question. He, of course, lacked judgment and should have pulled out when he had the chance.

For its part, the YES campaign will be cast as ineffectual, and had it been better and wiser, it might have negated the racism and intolerance of Dutton on the NO side.

Now, back to Dutton.

Can he overcome his acute unlikability? If he is to have any chance of winning the next election, he must undertake a personality makeover. The only state to show any endorsement of him is Queensland. That’s understandable, given his grouchiness of the authoritarian leader. It’s a Trump style that Australian conservatives seem to be adopting en-masse.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

Any damage to Albanese from his part in the YES campaign will have disappeared by the time voters cast their votes. The state of the economy, jobs, the cost of living, our health and how much tax we pay form most of the decision-making in any Federal election. The rest is the likeability of the leader, and there is little of that for Dutton.

And that election remains half a term away. But the recriminations for failure won’t be limited to Labor.

“The damage to Albanese needn’t be permanent. Not a single vote cast at the next federal election will be dictated by perceptions of his poor Yes campaign. Instead they’ll be decided on the same basis as elections are always decided – on economic management, on jobs, on the cost of living, on health, on tax. And that election remains half a term away. But the recriminations for failure won’t be limited to outside Labor. There’ll be plenty of criticism, some scathing, of Albanese from within – and question marks about his political judgment. The referendum result might not be high in voters’ minds at the next election, but the resulting disunity might.”

Dutton may have won the battle with a win that will damage the country for the next fifty years, but he has certainly lost the war. Leaders of the Trumpism ilk possess some ingrained brattish disposition for doing wrong.

They are men who have never really grown up and are never likely to. They also contain personality disorders that see victory through the prism of scaring people, using racism, fear-hate language, invoking resentment and turning unpolitical matters into political arguments. To argue that they are just using robust politics is nonsense.

In the referendum for fairness to Aboriginals, if Albanese provided no detail, Dutton provided no substance. His campaign was:

“… based entirely around a conspiracy theory of an elite plot to do something bad – never really articulated – to white Australians. But he and the No campaign didn’t need substance. It just needed fear, and downward envy, and the repetition of the claim that a Voice was “divisive”, when Australia is now divided more than ever before as a result of its success.”

None of it gave any indication that leadership was being birthed.

He continued down the Trumpian pathway on the Ray Hadley show, telling his friend Ray that:

1) Labor had allowed 105,000 asylum seekers into the country while experts pointed out that 94,260 had turned up on his party’s watch,

2) He thought Albanese was obsessed with drumming up distractions to The Voice,

3) He felt Albanese had “long forgotten about the workers” – making the Liberal party “the party of the Australian worker today.” Odd, then, that the party of the workers is dead set against new legislation providing equal pay for labour hire workers and creating minimum conditions for gig economy workers. The self-declared worker’s champion rationalised this obvious inconsistency by observing these reforms (benefiting workers introduced, paradoxically, by a prime minister who had forgotten the workers) would be “another wet blanket over small business … at a time we can’t afford it.”

Katharine Murphy had some excellent responses to Dutton’s statements. Firstly:

“Dutton was like an exploding fire hydrant, theories and feelings pouring from him. Stand up and fight. Repeat 12 times.”

And this gem:

“This opposition leader makes things up regularly, sometimes several times a day, with growing confidence. He’s fully intent on shaping his own reality, and why wouldn’t he be? Dutton’s accusations and inventions are amplified much more often than they are factchecked, parsed or decoded, because there is so much bollocking and barracking in the public square, people can’t see the bullshit.”

The only conclusion to be reached is that the conservative parties have witnessed and confirmed just how well the tactics of division demonisation work, and conspiracy theories, like Australians, are the victims of an elite plot.

Although very well known, Peter Dutton isn’t very well-liked. Sullenly negative with a dour spirit, he gives the impression his only interest is in obtaining Government and the power one can derive from it. Examine his history; all you get is negativity with a touch of toughness or bluff.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

It would help if he could persuade disengaged voters, but does he have the leadership qualities to win back the necessary teal seats or convince voters the incumbent Prime Minister needs to go?

Opposition Indigenous Australians spokesperson Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has “warned the Prime Minister that he should be looking over his shoulder.” However, history tells us that the defeat of a referendum tends not to result in any lasting damage to the governments that call them.

(You may have read a lot about Rupert Murdoch recently, but read on.)

Hatred is a terrible word. It is a word that carries the most terrible intents, from murder to warmongering. In the name of hatred, terrible atrocities are committed. People butchered. Words weep at the existence of such an expression. However, it serves a purpose as a word of last emotion. In its name, a woman is murdered every week in Australia. In its name, hate is used for many purposes, including the desire for power and wealth.

Hatred is particularly offensive when it is used by the wealthy for their own enrichment. Rupert Murdoch, in the course of accumulating his wealth, has never shied away from using it.

Most of us have little desire to ruin people’s lives in the totality of an expected human lifespan. We all can inflict stress, trauma, hatred, violence and lies on others to satisfy hatred when it seeks an outlet for expression.

An innate part of being human is the capacity to inflict hatefulness on others. It is used by the rich and powerful to subjugate others.

The recently retired 92-year-old head of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, is a significant player in this methodology.

News Corp is best described as a conservative social engineering project disguised as a news media company.

For over 70 years, Murdoch has inflicted his particular brand of indecency on a singularly energetic cohort of individuals responsive to his refined and perfected methods of inflicting misery. He has successfully dulled the minds of millions throughout the Western world.

From this shrivelled-up body of a man came an affinity for social engineering in the name of money. It included the infliction of stress, trauma, hatred, violence, lies and the destruction of people’s lives.

The American columnist Mike Royko said of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers that they are trash: “No self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped up in one of them.”

On his retirement as executive chairman of News Corporation, it would be easy to concentrate on his achievements. He has indeed broken his share of legitimate news stories, even if he has used smut, innuendo and lies to do so. He has employed many people and shaken the hands of the most important.

Heaping praise on him would cast a shadow over his heinous actions. He found that journalistic opinions sold more than facts. That tits on page three did the same. That controversy and lies sold papers when journalists omitted the truth.

Murdoch has control of so much media: newspapers, radio stations, websites and TV networks. If he is to leave a legacy, it must undoubtedly be that he was one of the greatest influencers of his time.

He persuaded people that life is about perception. Not what it is but what we perceive it to be.

The truth is that no other person has had a more disastrous influence on Western democracy than the departing head of News Corporation. No other single individual newspaper proprietor has so “poisoned” our collective minds to the point where our ability to reason has been taken from us.

No public figure (except Trump, maybe) has done more to erase any understanding of the climate crisis facing all of us.

No media tycoon has used every methodology available to erode endorsed social safety nets to advantage capitalism.

The Herald Sun, The Australian, Fox News, The Sun, the New York Post, and many other soiled publications carry the weight of his propaganda.

He assassinated any editorial goodness and replaced it with a coating of news hatred that took his mastheads to new depths.

The Murdoch media have titled democratic elections by elevating baseless fake opinions to the front pages and then disguising them as news.

He has tilted a bias in favour of one party over another, with disastrous leaders with disastrous consequences who have endeavoured to destroy their own democracies. In the eyes of many, Murdoch is a monster.

Donald Trump, Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson, Tony Blair, Liz Truss, David Cameron, Tony Abbott, and John Howard – were all endorsed by Murdoch and given the required publicity.

They were all willing to do his favours in return because that’s what building wealth requires. “Political power is temporary“, as Murdoch’s is dynastical and lasting.

This sullen man allegedly disseminated anti-vaccine nonsense during a global pandemic while quietly receiving one of the first available injections.

But that’s his style, as noted by Dave Milner in The Shot:

Indicators of the wretchedness beneath his carapace were apparent early on, long before he mass disseminated anti-vaccine tripe during a global pandemic while quietly receiving one of the first available jabs; long before Fox News lost a $787 million lawsuit against an electronic voting company, Dominion, for knowingly spreading baseless lies and conspiracy theories about the US election being stolen, directly leading to the violent and deadly insurrection on the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021.

When Murdoch left Australia, he left behind a dysfunctional fourth estate. Still, his career took off in the UK. He helped Thatcher rout the unions, and a cruel temperance descended on Britain’s political reality.

Milner continues:

In 1989, when 96 football fans of Liverpool FC died in a crowd crush at Hillsborough stadium, a tragedy caused by the actions of overzealous local police, his newspaper The Sun punched down at grieving families, blaming the victims for the tragedy. He caused immense hurt among the survivors for no reason beyond wanting to sell more newspapers than a balanced, accurate account would – a pattern that has remained true throughout his entire career. Following the tragedy, The Sun was driven out of Liverpool. To this day it is not welcome within the city limits. Having a newspaper driven out of town with pitchforks for its wretchedness is an achievement few in media have ever pulled off.

Or how in 2011, when his largest UK masthead, the News of the World, was closed down after it emerged his employees were illegally hacking the phones of celebrities, politicians, and the grieving parents of a missing child.

That Murdoch’s journalism is held in such low regard by so many is plain to see. It would help if you look at the culture in which they thrive. It is one in which profit is placed before any other consideration.

So much for Rupert Murdoch’s claim that “there are no climate change denialists in News Corporation. “ This mob are full of lies. Yet they control 70% of Australian print media. Time for #MurdochRoyalCommissionhttps://t.co/xXTg6k0Lid

— Office of Kevin Rudd, 26th PM of Australia (@MrKRudd) January 14, 2020

A final word fom Milner:

In 2001, Murdoch’s Fox News poured fossil fuel on the US invasion of the Middle East and ramped up anti-Muslim sentiment post 9/11. He pressed those same fear, racism and xenophobia buttons in the British populace as they jumped over the Brexit cliff in 2016; and is pushing them again in Australia today, as we face a referendum on whether we should listen to Indigenous people before we tell them what to do. His language is fear and hatred, suspicion of difference, deference to money and scorn for the weak and powerless, and far too much of the world has adopted this as its native tongue.

And on top of all this, he uses his media in all its forms to ‘assassinate’ those of opposing views (generally political).

Now, he has chosen to hand over the reins to his son, Kendall Roy Lachlan Murdoch (better known as ‘Lachlan’). He is the chosen one to take over from the master of misery.

Few will mourn the departure of Rupert Murdoch, of whom I have only sparsely written. He may be gone (though he will be lurking in the background as “chairman emeritus“), but the edifice of his evil remains, and NewsCorp will now continue with an heir who might be worse than Rupert. Lachlan is, after all, “His father’s pawn“. That is a worrisome thought.

One of his first moves was to nominate former PM Tony Abbott to the Board of News Corp. Abbott would have little to offer in terms of leadership. He was a failure at that. He did, however, have expertise in the delivery of gutter politics. Therefore, he will be well suited to a seat on the right of Lachlan.

To say l hate the man Rupert Murdoch and others of his ilk would be a bridge too far. The capacity for hate is not within me, and to do so would only suggest like-mindedness.

@TurnbullMalcolm on Murdoch: "“I say this without any sense of hyperbole: I do not believe that there is any individual alive today that has done more damage to American democracy than Rupert Murdoch. You might say [he’s] Australia’s deadliest export.”

— Mike Carlton (@MikeCarlton01) September 22, 2023

There’s a myth created by the Coalition as far back as I care to remember and perpetuated for many years since, which is nothing more or nothing less a tale. A born to rule one.

The myth is that the Conservative parties are better at managing the economy and the nation. I shot the money myth down in the article Who are the best managers of the economy? in 2019. Then I went further with a piece titled The Masters of Scare. Notwithstanding those two slap downs, I followed up with Which major political party is more qualified to embrace urgent change?

This time, I’m more specific about the new world of Artificial Intelligence and which philosophy is best qualified to manage its implementation. However, before we decide which of the major parties is best suited for this momentous task, we have to do two things.

The first identifies what changes artificial intelligence (AI will) make to our society, and the second is each party’s philosophy or ideology.

“Artificial intelligence is the science of making machines that can think like humans. It can do things that are considered “smart.” AI technology can process large amounts of data in ways unlike humans. The goal for AI is to be able to do things such as recognise patterns, make decisions, and judge like humans.”

I found this in an A1 Superhuman email newsletter:

“Doctor With great power comes great responsibility, as the saying goes. And according to a new report, Meta and Google may have developed tech so powerful that they had to shut it down and keep it to themselves. However, recent AI developments could make the technology widely available very soon.”

In a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute conference on Thursday, 14 September, Australia’s top military leader, ADF chief Gen Angus Campbell, warned that:

“… democracies will be vulnerable to “truth decay” as artificial intelligence tools eventually leave citizens struggling to sift fact from fiction.

This tech future may accelerate truth decay, greatly challenging the quality of what we call public ‘common sense’, seriously damaging public confidence in elected officials, and undermining the trust that binds us.”

How Artificial Intelligence is being used and in what areas

Examples are Health, Retail, Military, Manufacturing, Banking, Life sciences and the Public Sector.

As technology progresses, so will artificial intelligence:

“Over the next ten years, AI will become increasingly complex and sophisticated.”

“Technical advancements in this field will likely focus on creating general intelligence that rivals or surpasses human capabilities.”

It will undoubtedly be a prelude to 40 or more years further on.

There is no area of our existence that technology will not dramatically change.

The ideology of Conservative political parties

What is a conservative?

I know I have put the same question before, but I have expanded a little more here:

Conservatives believe in free markets, individual liberty and traditional values. Change is anathema to them and should be advanced incrementally, typically in science, politics, or religion. They believe the role of the Government should be to provide people with the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Lower taxes, less regulation, reduced spending, balanced budgets and religious freedoms are part of the Conservative ideology.

Note: Contrary to what they believe, they, the far-right, now seek to control us.

Conservative policies generally emphasise the empowerment of the individual to solve problems. And they are cautious about change or innovation, typically in science, politics, or religion. They stick to tradition and institutions.

They believe that free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs, and higher living standards than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.

The right supports the separation of church and state but allows its conservative views to affect its legislation in practice.

What is a neo-conservative?

Neo-conservatism goes back to the 1930s; however, it identifies with George W. Bush in its modern form.

Bush embraced unbridled capitalism, corporate greed, and literalist Christianity to form modern-day neoconservatism.

Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and others added global superiority, believing American exceptionalism was above the rest of the world in every aspect. Donald Trump completed the assortment of capitalists who would make America great again.

But a society and its traditions can only endure if it can also change.

What is a social progressive?

Social democrats (the left) believe in:

“Government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The Government must alleviate social ills, protect civil liberties provide health services and individual human rights, thus believing the role of the Government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.”

And that:

“Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business. Progressive policies generally emphasise the need for the Government to solve problems.”

Social progressive democrats believe that a market system in which the Government regulates the economy is best. Unlike the private sector, the Government is motivated by public interest. Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.

The left also supports the separation of church and state: free health and a move to free education. The common good and that change is attached to progress.

Summary

What, then, are the rudimentary differences between the two doctrines? The difference is between individuals’ rights and the Government’s power to make worthwhile change. Those on the left believe society is best served when the collective, through the Government, can improve culture.

Those on the right believe that:

“… the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role – and especially the power – of the government is minimised.”

We are now entering a period of even more significant change. The second Enlightenment brings with it artificial intelligence. Society must decide which political party is best placed to see its introduction.

Let us look at the qualifications of the two major parties

The Greens and others of English Liberal philosophy might argue their case for inclusion, but we only have two possibilities and a minority Government.

By scrutinising the historic social reforms of Australia’s major parties and comparing them, we can determine who is best qualified to take us through this period of change, including political, social and economic reforms and the ethics that might accompany them.

The Left side of Australian politics until now:

Has implemented the following reforms or policies that have directly contributed to change for the better.

A National Health Scheme, a National Disability scheme, compulsory superannuation, a National Broadband Network, Paid Parental leave, major educational reforms, a price on carbon, equal pay for women, the Aged Pension, Mabo and the Apology to the Stolen Generations, plus of course the Hawke – Keating major economic reforms that gave the country 25 years of continuous growth.

Labor’s platform

To protect workers who could lose jobs to AI:

“The platform pledges Labor will enact rules to protect against harmful uses of AI while focusing on “lifting national productivity and competitiveness and supporting the development of new businesses and ideas that can improve the lives of Australians.”

The ‘right side of politics has implemented the following: Howard gun buyback, the GST that benefited the rich, increased immigration after the Second World War, and Harold Holt introduced a bi-partisan referendum that gave Indigenous people the right to vote in 1967.

And there, I have to stop. The Liberal Party website provides a list of achievements in Government as distinct from significant policy reforms. Here is the list for you to judge for yourself.

The Liberal Party AI Platform

The Coalition Government has a comprehensive strategy to make Australia a top 10 data and digital economy by 2030.

Note: Its policy only talks about artificial intelligence in terms of economics. It is much more than that. The death of truth is at stake. National security will be at risk.

In a world where science, technology, and information progress so quickly, change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making, with its own inevitability.

Conservatives oppose change and are wary of science and intellectualism. Never was this so evidenced by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Governments. Almost ten years of comprehensively rotten Government leaves the writer in no doubt about who is the best party to take us through this period of significant change.

The ALP, demonstrably, is best prepared to take us into this new world of the future: artificial intelligence.