"... Effective leaders articulate a compelling vision and strategy, align stakeholders with clear values and standards, and deliver measurable outcomes... "
I wish I could identify a contemporary politician or one from the last 20 years that displays these attributes.
Where are the grand nation building visions:
- The Voice - killed in agony.
- Undo some privatisation in telecomms, energy, roads to remove the profit motive.
- A meaningful housing policy - not band aids and policies that actually help increase the price of housing.
- What do we want a multicultural Australia to look like? ie 1950/1960's Australia, transplanted New Delhi, Americas 51st state, Chinese vassal state etc or can we stand up and define our future?
I can only think of Mabo; Hawke/Keating economic reform and joining the global economy (in retrospect a big step in neo liberalism's globalisation); Medicaire; Howard ending widespread gun ownership; NDS (But needed a different structure). I guess there are many smaller things that happened like same sex marriage; Franklin River; non-nuclear policy etc. (I am a migrant of 25 years so don't know all of the history)
Unfortunately politics is now a career with a golden package at the end of it. The entrenched two/three party professional political class does not serve the community any longer and the sustained adversarial (name calling, lying, belittling etc) by the parties of the respective oppositions is total off putting. Hence the rise of the independents - and I wish them strength in the forthcoming election.
To be blunt, I don’t understand how anyone could give their first preference to anyone BUT an independent. It seems to me that political parties are mostly about subverting democracy, not enhancing it.
Not really. I was mostly referring to the two main parties. Their members will say all sorts of stuff to get your vote, but once they have it, they toe the party line. An example: https://blotreport.com/2023/07/19/the-system-politicians/
Fair point - I just wish people bothered to make the distinction. The implication too often seems to be that ONLY independents will solve the problem - without dealing with the near impossibility of forming government under the Westminster system with a parliament consisting only of independents.
I think it's more to do with issues like donations and media pressure than parties per se.
I don't know if violence can be ascribed to a failure in leadership as much as a failure to pursue positive policies.
The guy who filmed himself attacking the image of a candidate was clearly seeking to pursue his right-wing causes, and we don't know if they were for a major or minor parties on the right. But is his violence attributable to any flaws in the stances of right wing party leaders (Dutton? Hanson? Palmer?), or to the flaws in their policies where they have nothing constructive to offer?
My theory is that the mediocrity of the campaign is the more likely main culprit. Both major parties have become intensely focused on some kind of median (suburban) voter, but are seeking to appeal to that voter in emotive and insubstantial ways, rather than in practical and substantial ways. This smallness from the major parties turns the election contest from a positive contest of ideas to a negative 'we're better than the other guy' contest. And that mediocrity fails to tangibly address the needs that people have.
As a result of all of that, it appears to me (and I don't have evidence to back this up unfortunately) that campaigns nowadays are less positive and more negative in their messaging. Of course people hate negative campaigning, but the parties do it because it, not only because it works, but also because it's all they can do if they're not going to craft and explain positive policy platforms.
So the result of this flaccid major party politics is an excess of negativity in society, and it is in that context that breeds ill will.
Another minor observation would be political contestants who've become so opposed to one another's existence that they refuse to acknowledge the others' legitimacy, and hold their politics in contempt. It's also a breakdown in societal norms that accept a fair electoral contest. This view is probably a prerequisite for any individuals who might engage in violence.
That's my theory anyway. Critiques of any kind are welcome.
"... Effective leaders articulate a compelling vision and strategy, align stakeholders with clear values and standards, and deliver measurable outcomes... "
I wish I could identify a contemporary politician or one from the last 20 years that displays these attributes.
Where are the grand nation building visions:
- The Voice - killed in agony.
- Undo some privatisation in telecomms, energy, roads to remove the profit motive.
- A meaningful housing policy - not band aids and policies that actually help increase the price of housing.
- What do we want a multicultural Australia to look like? ie 1950/1960's Australia, transplanted New Delhi, Americas 51st state, Chinese vassal state etc or can we stand up and define our future?
I can only think of Mabo; Hawke/Keating economic reform and joining the global economy (in retrospect a big step in neo liberalism's globalisation); Medicaire; Howard ending widespread gun ownership; NDS (But needed a different structure). I guess there are many smaller things that happened like same sex marriage; Franklin River; non-nuclear policy etc. (I am a migrant of 25 years so don't know all of the history)
Unfortunately politics is now a career with a golden package at the end of it. The entrenched two/three party professional political class does not serve the community any longer and the sustained adversarial (name calling, lying, belittling etc) by the parties of the respective oppositions is total off putting. Hence the rise of the independents - and I wish them strength in the forthcoming election.
100 % agree with you. Well said.
Let's keep working on changing the system for the better.
Onward we press.
To be blunt, I don’t understand how anyone could give their first preference to anyone BUT an independent. It seems to me that political parties are mostly about subverting democracy, not enhancing it.
And how have the Greens "subverted democracy"?
Not really. I was mostly referring to the two main parties. Their members will say all sorts of stuff to get your vote, but once they have it, they toe the party line. An example: https://blotreport.com/2023/07/19/the-system-politicians/
Fair point - I just wish people bothered to make the distinction. The implication too often seems to be that ONLY independents will solve the problem - without dealing with the near impossibility of forming government under the Westminster system with a parliament consisting only of independents.
I think it's more to do with issues like donations and media pressure than parties per se.
Yep. We sure as hell need to at least severely limit political donations and to severely limit election spending.
I don't know if violence can be ascribed to a failure in leadership as much as a failure to pursue positive policies.
The guy who filmed himself attacking the image of a candidate was clearly seeking to pursue his right-wing causes, and we don't know if they were for a major or minor parties on the right. But is his violence attributable to any flaws in the stances of right wing party leaders (Dutton? Hanson? Palmer?), or to the flaws in their policies where they have nothing constructive to offer?
My theory is that the mediocrity of the campaign is the more likely main culprit. Both major parties have become intensely focused on some kind of median (suburban) voter, but are seeking to appeal to that voter in emotive and insubstantial ways, rather than in practical and substantial ways. This smallness from the major parties turns the election contest from a positive contest of ideas to a negative 'we're better than the other guy' contest. And that mediocrity fails to tangibly address the needs that people have.
As a result of all of that, it appears to me (and I don't have evidence to back this up unfortunately) that campaigns nowadays are less positive and more negative in their messaging. Of course people hate negative campaigning, but the parties do it because it, not only because it works, but also because it's all they can do if they're not going to craft and explain positive policy platforms.
So the result of this flaccid major party politics is an excess of negativity in society, and it is in that context that breeds ill will.
Another minor observation would be political contestants who've become so opposed to one another's existence that they refuse to acknowledge the others' legitimacy, and hold their politics in contempt. It's also a breakdown in societal norms that accept a fair electoral contest. This view is probably a prerequisite for any individuals who might engage in violence.
That's my theory anyway. Critiques of any kind are welcome.
Thoughtfully argued. Thank you.