General Australian Politics Thread

Yeah, far too early to say. They'll need a decent leader and a sound set of policies that won't drive away moderates. But the people they've introduced on the founding team seem like a cool bunch, and much more diverse than most of parliament. While their mission statement is "it doesn't matter if a policy is 'right' or 'left', as long as it works", their policy summaries already indicate that conservatives will dismiss them as "loony leftists".

Provided that they do things right and attract the attention of people disillusioned by our current democratic process, it could potentially be the party that rips a tear in the two-party status quo. If the Progressives do actually gain traction and popularity, I won't be surprised if and when the Coalition, the Murdoch press and Labor's powerbrokers freak the fuck out and try to smear its credibility any way possible - everyone knows a new party has a good chance of gaining real power in parliament, just look at the chaos Clive Palmer and the micro-parties have made for the government, and the Progressives are following in the footsteps of another political party overseas that is succeeding. And as far as the Tories are concerned, unlike Palmer, the Progressives are far less likely to be swayed by ignorance and political favors. It would be the Greens all over again, except the Greens are still around, and the Progressives have a better brand name right off the bat.

I want to see the Progressives take enough seats in the next election to cause a hung parliament, in the case that their election campaign succeeds (though even that is rather optimistic). It would be an enormous wake-up-call for both Labor and the Coalition, and likely establish Abbot in the utterly humiliating position of a one-term PM who lost power because he was partly responsible for the end of the two-party system. Shorten would get the PM spot, but he would be forced to get the support of the Progressives for virtually anything Labor does.

Yeah, rather optimistic, I know, but right now, they might be the best chance anyone has of breaking the status quo. I'm sick of both Labor and the Tories, the Greens are stuck in a perception rut (as are the Pirate and Sex parties), and Clive Palmer and his senators are entertaining but insane and dangerous, and in many instances, disturbingly easy to sway. We need a new party that can drum up mass support and scare the incumbents.

We'll always be allowed to dream, Crono.

edited 24th Oct '14 7:44:40 AM by SR3NORMANDY

Re:Progressive party. It really depends if they have a strong leadership at this point. 'Progressive values' are so widespread you're prone to splintering at a moments notice. Let's hope Emma has grit because helping others, isn't quite as unifying a goal as personal interest and greed.

As for Libertarianism, as a political movement it supposed to be about protecting the freedoms and independence of the individual not pandering to interest groups. Tony Abbott might try to sell himself as libertarian, but his policies and and even public attitude hasn't evolved past Crony Capitalism. Dump the corporate handouts media gagging police law and maybe, maybe he'll have a chance with it.

A minor/micro party can only succeed if they have a charismatic and popular leader... Which the "Australian Progressives" clearly lack. Once that leader fades from view/leaves parliament, the party will begin to decline in various ways.

e.g. - PUP has Clive Palmer - Greens had Bob Brown (watch as they fade throughout the years and struggle with leadership and identity issues) - KAP has Bob Katter (who's irrelevent now Palmer takes his thunder as the loud, diversive member from Queensland in Canberra) - The Democrats had Don Chipp (and lasted for quite awhile after before falling to leadership struggles and losing purpose) - One Nation had Pauline Hanson

(The Nationals + LNP/CLP are a different case because they're married to the Liberal Party)

Their leadership/visability issue isn't the only thing this "Progressive" party misses. They just seem to have watered down, compromised beliefs borrowed from other parties and a boringly PC outlook on politics. Also, there are so many other parties to contend with at elections... The division of Fremantle (marginally safe Labor) had 11 candidates in 2013[a] of varying ideologies and flavours. The division of Melbourne (held marginally by the Greens) had 13 parties/candidates. It's just so over-crowded for a fourth? fifth? party to enter the lower house.

In the Senate minor parties find more success from proportional voting. This is controversial; however, with the increased focus on the Senate from the 2013 election and 2014 WA senate by-election which will likely lead to bi-partisan electoral reform in the Senate. The Motoring Enthusiast Party won a seat in Victoria from just 0.50% of the vote... Which clearly isn't appropriately democratic (representing 5,821,300 people).

I'm kind of rambling on and on but, yeah. Who knows, I could be wrong... Stranger things have happened.

[a] (KAP, PUP, ALP, Lib, Aus Christians, Protectionists, Family First, Citizens Electoral Council, Rise Up Aus, Socialist Alliance, Greens)

edited 25th Oct '14 6:16:19 AM by harriscn

Your post ignores the fact that the decreasing faith in the major two parties is a measurable phenomenon.

The PUP and the Greens have defied the endless predictions that they'd fade away in part because the major parties are increasingly seen as rubbish. I'm not holding my breath for that to change.

Reforming the Senate would put an end to Abbott passing anything in the Senate. The minor party Senators who hold balance of power aren't going to let the system that gave them their power be dismantled. Abbott is as likely to reform the Senate this term as he is to hold a Double Dissolution Election, it's just not in his interests.

edited 25th Oct '14 7:06:20 AM by editerguy

If the government were to take steps to reform Senate voting; it would likely be supported by Labor, the Greens and at least one independent (Nick Xenophon). So, it wouldn't matter about minor party Senators who hold the balance of power. Any voting reform would aim to support the three largest parties instead of micro parties such as the AMEP.

You point out the decreasing faith towards the two major parties. So what? Do you believe PUP or the Greens can believably win enough seats in the lower house to form government? Or perhaps the "Australian Progressives" who have little membership, no leadership and no money? (I can go on.) They're just like any other micro party that contests elections and will be ignored by the voter for the group that offers the greatest protest vote. Besides, in certain electorates it is almost impossible to unseat a current member. The dominance of the ALP and L/NP will obviously remain. It's quite clear PUP will fracture as soon as Palmer quits/becomes Alan Bond and the Greens will definitely fade away in time and likely be replaced by something else if the ALP continues to drift to the centre (which it will). Hey, the Democrats lasted 30 years but, where are they now?

The Deomocrats faded away before this thing where people are measurably losing faith in both major parties. Also, I don't recall the Democrats making it as big as the Greens.

At most, you can say "this is uncharted territory".

Abbott can reform the Senate, but the minor parties with the balance of power won't okay his policies after he screwed them over. Seems like an own goal.

Minor parties like the Greens influence how Australia is run without forming government in their own right, via balance of power in the Senate. Whether or not they can produce a PM is irrelevant to why people vote for them. Their influence persists because support for the two major parties is limited (and now declining).

Your analysis is flawed because you're relying on cliches about a rock-solid two-party system, even though the faith in that system (the system itself, not just the two parties) is crumbling. If people want something different, they'll likely get something different. That's democracy.

edited 26th Oct '14 3:21:49 AM by editerguy

One of the problems with modern democracy is that it's laggy as hell. Gotta wait 3-4 years for the CHANCE to get idiots out of power. >:/

Not that, say having elections every year, has its own problems...

Which is to say perhaps the whole paradigm needs adjusting, not just the frequency of voting.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

So it turns out that one Kathryn Crosby has created a second "Progressive Party" (apparently formerly named 'New Choice'), but this one is apparently centrist, possibly even to the right of Labor. (For reference's sake, her party is abbreviated APP, while the other one is TPA.) And she's complaining that the TPA stole her ideas and has now permanently damaged the brand. Nevermind that the TPA has been around for a good month and decided their logo and colour scheme independently.

Note that this is the same Kathryn Crosby who tried and failed to revive the Democrats back in 2009.

One of the comments in the article pretty much sums up which party deserves the title of 'Progressive' more:

edited 28th Oct '14 9:15:05 PM by Cronosonic

That was quicker than I expected >_<

-groans- Now everyone is going to get confused and split the votes. Good job, everyone.

Well, that stinks.

Still, I did anticipate plenty of alternative parties rising up during Abbott's reign.

Heck, maybe one will show up that eclipses all of them. More likely they will just step on each other's toes, though.

While not just name your party the Australian Centre Party? Worked (fairly) well for the Zentrumspartei.

(Sidenote: Holy hell cannot believe they still exist. Thought they ended with the creation of the CDU/CSU. How do you continue on when your party supporting the Enabling Law that made Hitler a dictator?)

Edit: I want an Australian SPD.

edited 28th Oct '14 11:41:30 PM by medicus

Keep in mind that we still have 2 years before the next election, plenty of time to sort out the mess. But I'd rather that that Progressives In Name Only go back to their original 'New Choice' name, or actually be honest and retake the name of the Democrats.

The AEC has rules to stop parties using the same name though. If Jones's folks have the numbers for registration and Crosby's don't, that's too bad for Crosby.

So when I checked that, my Google-fu got me here, where the AEC points out that where your name is "the same as, or is likely to be confused with, or mistaken for, the name of a 'recognised political party'" then you can't use it. The Guardian article shouldn't have glossed over that IMO.

edited 29th Oct '14 5:57:23 AM by editerguy

Oh, interesting.

... Well, if you excuse me, I'm gonna register with the TPA. I've been thinking about it anyway, there's a lot to like in what I've seen so far, and I've been having a delightful conversation with a law/science student (one of his main areas of focus is copyright), on reddit over possible changes to copyright and patent law that would be beneficial, hopefully those ideas might become actual policy.

edited 29th Oct '14 7:50:10 AM by Cronosonic

Direct Action is going ahead.

I feel confident in saying that anyone here that sees Palmer as any kind of saviour are as deluded as those who believed any of the Coalition's pre-election promises.

Palmer is at best a nuisance to Abbott.

He should be kept as far away from the top job as possible, apathy be damned.

Oh, I have no illusions about Palmer at this point, the guy's a complete wild card and his senators are crazy, but he's also depressingly easy for the Tories to sway.

I did not expect this, but then again I did not expect Palmer to support ETS either. He is a coal tycoon after all. None of this is as surprising as you people make it.

As for his Senators: Lambie is a complete nut, but she obediently passes the legislation Palmer wants her to; I've heard nothing from Dio Wang or Randy Muir; and Lazarus is surprisingly more compentent and level-headed then I'd thought he'd be, but he always toes the party line as well.

As you say, he is a coal baron. I expect him oppose anything that will hurt his bottom line and will tackle climate change. Including any form of carbon price and anything that suggests that his industry is hurting the environment.

edited 30th Oct '14 11:30:44 PM by IraTheSquire