>when you sit with people, night after night, and give them the space to talk about what actually matters to them, the picture that emerges is striking in its consistency. Australians want the same things. They want to be able to afford a decent life. They want healthcare and education that works. They want their kids to have a future. They want kindness and fairness. They want to know that their neighbours are OK.
>**And they want a government that governs: that legislates and regulates in the public interest and stops letting only the powerful dictate terms.**
>**The values of care, compassion, looking after your neighbour, and giving everyone a fair go are not sentimental relics or cliches. Only people who are disconnected from ordinary Australians think they are.**
>[…]
>So we are now in a race: the first progressive party that presents a broad, overarching vision of what a properly social democratic Australia would look like *materially*, would, quite simply, dominate the Australian political consciousness.
>This is the party that can most clearly and*calmly* explain what life would *feel* like with genuinely universal healthcare, properly funded education, aged care and childcare run for the public good rather than private profit, and adequate housing.
The issue is that PHON are economically right-wing, that’s why Gina Rinehart supports it (so it is a party that lets the powerful dictate terms), so exactly how can you say this is what PHON voters want when they’re going for the most right-wing and, to be frank, most hateful option?
How exactly is a party that says “there are no good Muslims” giving everyone a fair go? How is comparing immigrants to cattle (btw most of Australia is first or second generation immigrant) showing “the values of care, compassion”?
1 Comment
I thought this was an… interesting article
>when you sit with people, night after night, and give them the space to talk about what actually matters to them, the picture that emerges is striking in its consistency. Australians want the same things. They want to be able to afford a decent life. They want healthcare and education that works. They want their kids to have a future. They want kindness and fairness. They want to know that their neighbours are OK.
>**And they want a government that governs: that legislates and regulates in the public interest and stops letting only the powerful dictate terms.**
>**The values of care, compassion, looking after your neighbour, and giving everyone a fair go are not sentimental relics or cliches. Only people who are disconnected from ordinary Australians think they are.**
>[…]
>So we are now in a race: the first progressive party that presents a broad, overarching vision of what a properly social democratic Australia would look like *materially*, would, quite simply, dominate the Australian political consciousness.
>This is the party that can most clearly and*calmly* explain what life would *feel* like with genuinely universal healthcare, properly funded education, aged care and childcare run for the public good rather than private profit, and adequate housing.
The issue is that PHON are economically right-wing, that’s why Gina Rinehart supports it (so it is a party that lets the powerful dictate terms), so exactly how can you say this is what PHON voters want when they’re going for the most right-wing and, to be frank, most hateful option?
How exactly is a party that says “there are no good Muslims” giving everyone a fair go? How is comparing immigrants to cattle (btw most of Australia is first or second generation immigrant) showing “the values of care, compassion”?
Also, Labor still wins TPP.