She keeps saying the current book is the last, and then there's a major political event (lately just the Coalition doing Coalition things) and she writes another.
The thing is, anyone who observed the campaign can predict a fair bit of the result of the review (if it was being honest), maybe just not the names who are specifically attached to which failings.
True - even down to the fact that they did few media appearances other than the ones with the channels they wanted to. The classic approach of people in a bubble who are eager to accuse the opposition supporters of being the ones in a bubble...
Oh, good. An easy one. They'll chicken out.
I think that the decision to bury the report... gah, I'm not a politician. Try again. I think the decision not to release the report does speak to their future behaviour. From here:
I can believe they believe that. But what can a fresh start possibly mean if they don't accept the deeper lesson, that you can't run for government on grudges with no positive plan? My bet is that something like that is in the report somewhere.
I hope it will, but fear they will. Because that's what happens. We need a reformer in charge of the Labor Party again.
I know you meant 'won't', but that inadvertently sounds like a quintessential left-leaning property owner "Negative gearing changes? Well, I hope they will but I fear they will."
You misread. I said "I hope it will, but I fear they will" Note the change in pronoun. I hope the budget will contain the some measure to address capital gains and/or negative gearing, but I fear that Labor will once again chicken out.I know you meant 'won't', but that inadvertently sounds like a quintessential left-leaning property owner "Negative gearing changes? Well, I hope they will but I fear they will."
But to the serious point of reform, well I've got words I need to type.
I think there are parallels between Australian and UK politics. We are both have had a recent large win for a left-leaning party that was as much about the right falling apart at the time, followed by a collapse of the traditional right-leaning party and a surge in a populist party. The UK is ahead of us along a similar political trajectory so we should pay attention.
I think there are is a core feature/weakness shared by Starmer's government and Albo's govt. : "labour minimalism."
Such timorousness means a cautious, gradualist, approach. But I feel the rise of One Nation here points to an electorate increasingly unwilling to accept small change in the face of growing stresses. My sister has always held gradualism as better because it's less disruptive and more controllable and more and more I see her point. But I've got a bad feeling we're entering a time when it becomes unsupportable.
This is why I'm taking the breathless reports of "One Nation is storming to victory" with a mountain of salt.
I'm not sure I fully understand. A Sky News bubble is one thing and I totally agree it was a factor in the coalition's defeat, but there are worrying polls pointing to growing One Nation support, right?
The problem is that the minimalist’s “gradual” approach has ground to a halt in the UK and is now an acceptance of the status quo. They don’t dare change anything, except for making protest harder.I know you meant 'won't', but that inadvertently sounds like a quintessential left-leaning property owner "Negative gearing changes? Well, I hope they will but I fear they will."
But to the serious point of reform, well I've got words I need to type.
I think there are parallels between Australian and UK politics. We are both have had a recent large win for a left-leaning party that was as much about the right falling apart at the time, followed by a collapse of the traditional right-leaning party and a surge in a populist party. The UK is ahead of us along a similar political trajectory so we should pay attention.
I think there are is a core feature/weakness shared by Starmer's government and Albo's govt. : "labour minimalism."
Such timorousness means a cautious, gradualist, approach. But I feel the rise of One Nation here points to an electorate increasingly unwilling to accept small change in the face of growing stresses. My sister has always held gradualism as better because it's less disruptive and more controllable and more and more I see her point. But I've got a bad feeling we're entering a time when it becomes unsupportable.
I think there's a whole discussion to be had about Labour Together in the UK, their role in even gradual change halting there and how Australia compares, no so much as an overt organization within the Australian Labour Party as a compromising ethos.
"We've been huffing our own ego farts in an echo chamber face." They wear it so well tho.
They all seem to come from the same area & same sources so I'm holding off on any panic, it's being seriously beat up by Murdoch press atm.
There's plenty of the younger GenX still struggling to afford housing etc - don't lump us with the Boomers (or just ignore us like the media does normally).
Generational divides can easily be misleading. For example, in the boomer cohort there are those who benefited from more accessible housing and (in some cases) better support for tertiary education and those who struggled for a host of reasons including a lack of social progress and social services compared to now, to put it mildly.
The Murdoch empire is all about driving opinion, not reflecting it. It’s totally disconnected from the actual public opinion, as many elections have proven. Anything said by that empire is to that end, and can be trivially dismissed as irrelevant.
Actually, an odd fact about us GenX. There were arguably fewer of us than there were Boomers. Boomer women got better educated, the pill was a thing, and the single child family was on the increase. I don't think we quite dipped below replacement, but the ratio of Bommers to GenX was much closer to 1 than the ratios either side.. So when it came time for us to inherit the Earth, as it were, there were still a lot of Boomers in the way. Plus, the Boomer generation obsession with neo-liberalism fucked up the economy for all of us.
It's almost like these generational divides are purely arbitrary, and people are better grouped together by economic class. Grouping people together on the basis of hard date differences denies that there is little difference between the experiences of a person born in, say, 1979 and one born in 1980, or even 1981.
Two ways to make housing more affordable - make the cost lower or make availability higher. The former is where these first home bonuses come from, but as you say, that amount just gets tacked on to the price of a new home and buyers lose again.
It doesn't help that renting is almost intentionally degrading in Australia. When renting back in Germany, I never had to ask permission ton have a regular pet, I was allowed to put nails into the wall, and I sure as shit didn't have a real estate agent accessing my home for an 'inspection' every three months, being able to go in whether I was home or not. Such inspections, by the way, are illegal in Germany, where renting is more normal than here.
100% - it's madness trying to group people solely by the year they were born in.
Of course it is. But on the other hand there are definitely common cultural and societal environments that will have shaped peoples' worldviews, so terms like Baby Boomers or Generation X aren't useless either - in the appropriate context.
We have already created exactly that. Sadly.
For a pretty staggering comparison, consider income poverty (defined as household disposable income less than 50% of national median) amongst retirees. If you retire as a homeowner with no mortgage, it's about 11%. For private renters, it's about 67%. About two-thirds of retiree renters are living in effective poverty.
