If you need any more evidence that the two-party system is cooked, look no further than the not-so-grand coalition that came together to preference power over people in the federal parliament last week.
These days the Liberal and National parties have taken to condemning modern Labor as “socialist” and some of its policy “communist”.
Meanwhile, the prime minister has labelled the three parties of the right the “Noalition” as the Liberals and Nationals increasingly align with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
They hate each other. Yet apparently, needs must.
And in plain sight this last week, we have seen a more profound and perhaps permanent realignment as both government and opposition prioritise political survival over community concern. They could choose to better collaborate to meet the moment. Instead, they choose to swallow their hatred of each other to safeguard their collective mediocrity.
In at least three instances Labor and the Coalition united to defy the clearly expressed desire of voters; on gambling, on disability and on the power of the digital companies.
On the recommendations of the Murphy report, on the NDIS and on media diversity, Anthony Albanese chose to deal in the dark with Labor’s nominal “enemy” rather than with a crossbench that had proposals better reflecting what the public want and could have provided an alternative pathway to a majority in the Senate.
On gambling, Labor purports to have done more than any other government before it.
Spare me.
You don’t get to skite about something being better than nothing.
Voters across the spectrum remain sickened at the literal death toll from gambling harm, the women and children hurt, the money sucked out of their communities into the coffers of largely multinational gambling companies, big sport and big broadcasting.
They know this deal made between the major parties provides a half arsed ‘solution’.
What we are witnessing, as the vote share of the major parties continues to decline, is the emergence of a new political pragmatism that could ultimately compound the very loss of trust – and voter support that the legacy parties are trying to subvert.
It is the uniting of the parties of an establishment that is increasingly out of touch with and alienated from the electorate. As they play a game of whack-a-mole on thorny problems that communities want solved; gambling ads, gas taxes, the money and power behind big tech, combining their numbers to neutralise the niggles is a neat albeit short-term solution.
In the case of gambling, the Coalition claims that it “strengthened” the reform package with its tweaks, which are even less ambitious than those Peter Dutton proposed before the last election. The government gets to claim some level of groundbreaking bipartisanship to help it sleep at night.
It is a not-so-grand coalition of right and “left” along the lines of what we have seen on and off for decades in Germany, for example, but now struggling to satisfy that country’s voters and to fend off the AfD rise from the extreme right.
There may be a warning here: “Dance with the one that brung you” is a phrase borrowed by Ronald Reagan and others from American slang for sticking with those who helped you achieve your goals.
Remaining Labor voters are unlikely to be impressed with their elected representatives conspiring with political opponents they are repeatedly told are the enemy of the interests of working Australians in defiance of their expressed wishes.
Likewise, disappointed Liberal voters, dissatisfied with the direction, behaviour and record of a party they had supported habitually are likely to be further disenchanted as they see them lining up with their opposition to defeat their wishes.
Such a coalition of convenience will reinforce the sentiment that the “system” has nothing for them any more; the big end of parliament lining up with the big end of town conspiring with each other rather than working for them.
It is the ultimate display of self-interest.
No wonder support for the majors is down to about 50% in total; no wonder some everyday Australians are choosing anger, in the form that One Nation represents.
Others, seeking representation free from vested interests are leaning independent to provide the transparency and accountability that they’re looking for.
Labor also likes to make big claims about transparency, and yes, it is crystal clear what is going on here.
If democracy is in essence a contract between people and power, that contract is broken.
We will all wear the consequences.
-
Zoe Daniel is a three-time ABC foreign correspondent and the former independent member for Goldstein
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion
Facts Only
* The Liberal and National parties have condemned modern Labor as "socialist" and some of its policy as "communist."
* The prime minister has labeled the three right-wing parties the "Noalition," noting alignment with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
* Labor and the Coalition united in at least three instances on gambling, disability, and the power of digital companies.
* Anthony Albanese chose to deal with the crossbench rather than pursuing proposals that reflected public desires or provided an alternative path to a majority in the Senate.
* The text mentions recommendations from the Murphy report, the NDIS, and media diversity.
* The Coalition claims it strengthened gambling reform with its own adjustments.
* Voters are reportedly sickened by the death toll from gambling harm and financial extraction into multinational companies.
* Support for the major parties is cited as declining to about 50% in total.
Executive Summary
Recent political developments show a realignment among major parties, with the Liberal and National parties criticizing Labor as "socialist" and "communist." The prime minister has labeled the right-wing parties as the "Noalition," noting alignment between Liberals and Nationals with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. This dynamic suggests a tension where political survival appears to supersede community concerns.
The text points to instances where Labor and the Coalition united on issues such as gambling, disability, and digital companies. Furthermore, Anthony Albanese is noted for pursuing specific policy paths, such as regarding gambling, the NDIS, and media diversity, which contrasts with crossbench proposals or public sentiment. The analysis suggests that this consolidation of interests reflects a prioritization of collective stability over addressing voter desires.
Ultimately, declining vote shares among major parties are linked to this emerging political pragmatism, which involves uniting establishment parties to address thorny issues like gambling, gas taxes, and big tech in ways perceived as short-term solutions. This trend reinforces a narrative that the established system is failing to represent the electorate's concerns, leading some voters toward alternative expressions of anger or independent representation.
Full Take
The narrative describes a shift where political actors prioritize political survival over community concerns, resulting in a "not-so-grand coalition" between establishment parties. This process involves mutually suppressing antagonism—such as the Liberal/National alignment with One Nation—to safeguard perceived collective mediocrity. The text suggests that this pragmatism, exemplified by uniting on specific contentious issues like gambling and big tech, compounds a loss of public trust in the system itself.
The underlying pattern is one of self-interest driving political action, where major parties align with each other rather than the electorate. This mirrors historical dynamics observed in other contexts but is presented here as a specific breakdown of the contract between power and the people. The implication is that when governing bodies prioritize internal cohesion over external representation, it erodes legitimacy.
The caution regarding the "Dance with the one that brung you" phenomenon suggests a potential future where this convenience-based alignment entrenches a sense of disenfranchisement among voters who feel ignored by the established structure. The move toward independent voices reflects a demand for transparency and accountability outside this perceived compromised consensus. The core question emerging is whether short-term political stability achieved through internal compromise can withstand long-term erosion of democratic trust when dealing with fundamental societal harms.
Sentinel — Human
The text functions as a highly opinionated political commentary that synthesizes recent party alignments to argue for political pragmatism over partisan conflict, exhibiting a strong, discernible human voice.