NZers and Aussies: Switching it up

[Paxter]

I’m more than happy for the Liberals to double or triple down on their religious conservatism. The 2021 census showed that 39% of Aussies reported having no religion - up from 22% in 2012 and 30% in 2016.

If that trend continues, numbers won’t be on the Coalition’s side for much longer.

[Jeor]

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

I’m more than happy for the Liberals to double or triple down on their religious conservatism. The 2021 census showed that 39% of Aussies reported having no religion - up from 22% in 2012 and 30% in 2016.

If that trend continues, numbers won’t be on the Coalition’s side for much longer.

Well, yes and no. Organised religion is in decline and a more progressive zeitgeist is becoming more ascendant, but the fate of organised religion is not a strict corollary for conservative politics. Traditionally, the Coalition (and most other conservatives worldwide) rely on three main legs of a stool - national security, economic management, and social conservatism. Decline of organised religion will weaken the third one, but the other two are still around.

It's why it's so important for Labor to be economically competent. If they can demonstrate that, then that takes away a big chunk of the Coalition's supposed appeal (though to be fair the Coalition had ample opportunity to show its economic credentials, and didn't really do it in the last government). National security isn't on the agenda as much with the electorate, though again Labor has shown more progress there than the Coalition has.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Jeor

[The Anti-Targ]

You don't have to be religious to be socially conservative. If you only look at the hot button issues like abortion and LGBTQ you will mostly find religious conservatives in opposition to progressives. But when it comes to the T aspect of LGBTQ you have plenty of non-religious people who are, basically, conservative when it comes to the trans people / rights. I think this is possibly why conservatism has pivoted to hammering the trans community rather than the LG community, there is less of a religious/non-religious divide in that identity politics space. If you can get people who are mostly progressive on social issues except for the trans debate and a few other issues to hold their noses on the areas on which they are progressive, then you can still have a three-legged stool.

Drug policy is another social area where you don't have to be religious to be a conservative, war on drugs kind of person.

[karaddin]

Can we please not act like this shit has been broadly successful here. They have faced major backlash from their own voters when they've tried to make transphobia the main issue in actual elections, and that shit has also hurt the Greens in Victoria when they've put up TERF/SWERF types.

Yeah the scare mongering over safe schools worked a few years ago but that part of the culture war has not been effective for them other than that.

[Skyrazer]

27 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Can we please not act like this shit has been broadly successful here. They have faced major backlash from their own voters when they've tried to make transphobia the main issue in actual elections, and that shit has also hurt the Greens in Victoria when they've put up TERF/SWERF types.

Yeah the scare mongering over safe schools worked a few years ago but that part of the culture war has not been effective for them other than that.

This

Libs tried to import some of the culture-war bullshit from the US and it blew up in their faces. We just don't swallow that kind of nonsense here - people want to see real issues being addressed, not shit being made up about teachers trying to screw with kids over traditional genders in classrooms or whatever the fuck is the new RJSJW weekly outrage.

I really get annoyed when some try to make things like LGBTQ crap and abortion front and center issues. It just turns people off.

[karaddin]

And some of it just comes down to the compulsory voting thing - they already have all the voters that would buy into it so it hasn't helped them come election time.

Funny you said this though

5 minutes ago, Skyrazer said:

people want to see real issues being addressed, not shit being made up about teachers trying to screw with kids over traditional genders in classrooms or whatever the fuck is the new RJSJW weekly outrage.

I was just saying to brook I think the most effective framing for the coalition is when they position themselves as the adult in the room. Unlike things like the culture war, this doesn't need people to actually think ill of Labor - they can be well intentioned but simply misguided about the hard realities of governance. The culture war is the opposite of that, they're a big evil that's trying to corrupt your children etc etc.

For the people that buy into it, it's a very strong motivator but it's hard to convince more than half the population to actually think that way. It absolutely did not position them as the adults for the north shore Sydney electorates last election.

[Paxter]

16 hours ago, Jeor said:

Well, yes and no. Organised religion is in decline and a more progressive zeitgeist is becoming more ascendant, but the fate of organised religion is not a strict corollary for conservative politics. Traditionally, the Coalition (and most other conservatives worldwide) rely on three main legs of a stool - national security, economic management, and social conservatism. Decline of organised religion will weaken the third one, but the other two are still around.

My point is that there is not much product differentiation happening on the first two points. Leaving the third in play as the standout feature.

[Skyrazer]

A positive take from the Vic election though is that it has revealed how impotent the Murdoch press is becoming.

The amount of vile articles the Herald Sun was releasing attacking Dan Andrews in the lead up to the election was absolutely appalling. It was even worse than the Fed election and the election result was a collective hard slap in the face for the Murdoch press. Seems we've gone past the peak for News Corp here in Aus and hopefully it's all downhill from here on out.

[Jeor]

9 hours ago, Paxter said:

My point is that there is not much product differentiation happening on the first two points. Leaving the third in play as the standout feature.

Yes, that's true enough. I think the Coalition needs to tackle the first two legs - national security and economic management - as they seriously undermined themselves on that front in the last administration. China obviously tried to freeze us out while ScoMo was in power, although AUKUS was an achievement, but I think the electorate wants more quiet strength rather than lots of rhetoric playing out. Economic management was left by the wayside, there needs to be some reform and a plan for the future which includes investing in things that matter (and not just cutting taxes).

Labor can continue to do well by positioning themselves as the adults in the room. They're outplaying the Coalition comfortably in foreign relations and social progressiveness but the economic management is the one they really want to get right. Jim Chalmers seems pretty clued up and it will be interesting to see what his first proper budget looks like in May. There is definitely work to do on the budget and usually the first year is the only time you can actually do anything remotely controversial, it's also the only time he can blame the Coalition for the bad state of accounts, so it will be indicative of how ambitious they are.

[The Anti-Targ]

Meanwhile NZ Labour having been handed a poisoned chalice of gaining an absolute majority in the 2020 election is doing a pretty good job of failing to be the adult in the room on the "tough on crime" and economy front. Not because they are saying stupid, immature things but more that they don't seem to be saying anything.

Case in point, a worker at a small dairy (do you call them dairies? small convenience stores / corner shops) was stabbed to death by a robber. Robbing dairies and ram raiding various types of shops (after they are closed) has become the talking point about crime for most of 2022. But this was the first case where a worker has been killed. The tragic death of this person was the spark that lit a bit of a fire with dairy owners and has escalated demands from the govt and police.

I am not victim blaming so please forgive how I put this if it appears to be so. The victim was not killed in the store. The robber held up the store and made off with the cash register drawer without violence, definitely a serious crime not to be dismissed. But at the point the robber left the store no one had suffered any injury. The murder took place 100 metres from the store after the worker pursued the robber and confronted them at which point the knife came out and the worker was fatally stabbed. The worker, no doubt, acted according to how they believed they are expected to act, so I don't blame him for leaving the shop and chasing after the robber. What I question is why the worker felt compelled to chase after the robber, instead of just calling the police and leaving it to them. Are these workers being told by their bosses they need to try to stop robbers from taking stuff? Retail workers should be told first and foremost to never but themselves in harms way for the sake of potentially violent people making off with cash or goods. Human life is way more important than some paper or other inanimate stuff, if this person left the store because they felt under some sort of obligation to take matters into their own hands then some workers are being unconscionably put upon to deal with violent criminals.

The worker in question was looking after the store while the owners were on holiday overseas. I can imagine him feeling like he's letting that family down with the store being robbed on his watch. But these workers can't be expected to take on that kind of burden, if they do then there will be more serious injury or death for something that is not the worker's fault, when the employers need to make sure worker safety is paramount. I don't want to blame the employer for having unfair expectations, since there's no evidence of it. I'm just saddened that this worker lost his life because he did something he should not have felt the need to do, so his death is made more tragic by the fact it would not have happened if he'd stayed in the shop and just dialled 111.

[Paxter]

Speaking of conservatism, the Nats are already out of the gates against The Voice / constitutional recognition. Pearson was pretty upset about it, noting that a number of Nationals MPs had previously supported the idea. Apparently the rise of Nampijinpa Price is a major reason for the change of heart.

I am a bit worried that the referendum is likely to be scheduled for next year but Australians aren’t being warmed up to the idea. A lot will depend on the Liberals, who I’m expecting to play spoilsport (again). There hasn’t been a successful referendum in Aus in my lifetime. And of course, Australians voted against recognition of Aboriginal people in the Preamble to the Constitution (amongst other changes) back in ‘99.

ETA: Albo made an impassioned plea in support of The Voice today. Not sure anyone is listening. 

Edited November 30, 2022 by Paxter

[Jeor]

The success criteria for an Australian referendum is notoriously difficult (national majority, and then majority of states i.e. 4 of 6 states). The constitutional authors probably intended it to be quite hard and for issues that might or might not affect individual states, I guess they needed a state criteria in there. For the Voice's sake it's a pity the Territories don't get a say as I'm pretty sure ACT and NT would both come out in favour and then you would have only needed three of the remaining six states.

I think there is some legitimate concern about the lack of detail. Admittedly you can't have a referendum on a full piece of legislation, but how they frame the question will be very important. I'm supportive in general on the Voice but am curious to know some more parameters about it.

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

I think there is some legitimate concern about the lack of detail. Admittedly you can't have a referendum on a full piece of legislation, but how they frame the question will be very important. I'm supportive in general on the Voice but am curious to know some more parameters about it.

The wording in the Con is likely to be very high-level and will refer to more detailed enabling legislation. 

And Murdoch and co will try to convince you otherwise, but the detail exists. Happy reading!

ETA: Oh and there were a few delicious articles out there today alluding to the bind that Dutton now finds himself in. He will be desperate to campaign against The Voice with every fibre in his body, but private polling seems to indicate that The Voice is quite popular in the Teal seats...

Edited December 1, 2022 by Paxter

[Jeor]

3 hours ago, Paxter said:

The wording in the Con is likely to be very high-level and will refer to more detailed enabling legislation. 

And Murdoch and co will try to convince you otherwise, but the detail exists. Happy reading!

Yes, by necessity the referendum wording will have to be quite general. Are they able to link it to specific legislation? That would be good, otherwise essentially the high level can still be interpreted whichever way politicians want (as much as there are guiding documents out there, they can be amended post-referendum if not specifically mentioned). 

There's more detail there than I would have thought, still a bit of grey, for example, one of the functions of the voice is:

Quote

Shared decision-making: a Local & Regional Voice and representatives from all levels of government would work together to set the strategic direction and operational priorities to improve policy, program and service delivery outcomes for communities in the region. It covers mainstream services, programs and funding, as well as those targeted to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. − The scope of shared decision-making could vary between regions, according to capability, readiness and community preferences. − It is likely to be a gradual and iterative process, with each Local & Regional Voice shaping its own approach in partnership with governments

This could mean a lot of things; it's hard to know what "working together" means and the scope of services, programs and funding is very large given it covers mainstream services too.

However, overall, after a brief skim it looks okay, if there is some more specific stuff attached to the referendum wording so as to give it some binding direction.

[Paxter]

11 hours ago, Jeor said:

Yes, by necessity the referendum wording will have to be quite general. Are they able to link it to specific legislation? That would be good, otherwise essentially the high level can still be interpreted whichever way politicians want (as much as there are guiding documents out there, they can be amended post-referendum if not specifically mentioned). 

Yeah absolutely - what you are describing is precisely the ALP's position. There won't be a reference to a specific Act, but the new wording will grant powers to create legislation governing The Voice.

For example (draft amending text for the Con released by Albo):

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

 

11 hours ago, Jeor said:

This could mean a lot of things; it's hard to know what "working together" means and the scope of services, programs and funding is very large given it covers mainstream services too.

For the Local and Regional Voice, a lot of this will simply be codifying existing practice. My old employer (the NSW Dept of Communities and Justice) routinely uses principles of co-design to work with Aboriginal communities in relation to the design of services, programs and funding. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Paxter

[The Winged Shadow]

Hey Sydney peeps, we are having a meetup on the 30th of December if anyone is interested  (hint @Jeor @ithanos ). Not sure if we got any new sydney peeps on the board these days, but everyone's welcome (even other states, or countries!).

Plan is to have some arvo drinks + dinner somewhere around Newtown (venues tbc). PM or post here if you are keen. Currently got Brook, Karaddin, Horza, Screaming Turkey and myself, and a couple of tentative.

I haven't been here in ages, when did we merge with the kiwis, feels so dirty

 

[Paxter]

23 hours ago, The Winged Shadow said:

I haven't been here in ages, when did we merge with the kiwis, feels so dirty

We are just acknowledging the seventh state of Australia :P. 

I'll be around in Syd in late Feb and will try to rally the troops then as well. Enjoy the December bash everyone. 

Hoping to see you in Canada sooner than later too, TWS. 

[The Anti-Targ]

I know right, bloody kiwis pushing themselves into places they don't belong. Let Taupo erupt and wipe the lot of them out like Vesuvius did to Pompeii. Best contribution NZ could make to global warming is for Taupo to explode to buy the world some time by causing a few decades of global cooling.

Speaking of which, I was there on the weekend. Saw the cracks on the shoreline caused by the 5.6 quake the week previous, and the line of pumice about 20-30m in from the shoreline marking the extent of the tsunami wave caused by the quake.

[Paxter]

I have been a part-time critic of Albo's government to date, but he has a pretty decent track record so far, at least where his base is concerned:

• New IR regime - more power given to unions in sector-wide negotiations 
• Minimum wage - submitted a higher bid to FWA, resulting in a 5.2% increase
• Anti-corruption commission - new body established (NACC)
• Climate change - new target legislated
• Energy - new price caps announced that producers hate (and may have long-term negative impacts), but retail and business customers will enjoy

Most of these are "around the edges" changes that don't fundamentally change much from the previous government. But they are mostly defensible and pretty easy to sell politically. 

Edited December 14, 2022 by Paxter

[The Anti-Targ]

More on the annoying Kiwi front, Albo's govt gets some props indicating improving the pathway to full permanent residency and citizenship so that people who have been working and paying taxes for year and decades in Aus can benefit from govt assistance when they need it.