Raising jobseeker is not 'fiscally sustainable’? Sorry, but that is flat out wrong | Greg Jericho
Raising jobseeker is not 'fiscally sustainable’? Sorry, but that is flat out wrong | Greg Jericho
Never fall for the line that lifting people out of poverty and reducing inequality is a task too complex or costly to undertake
You're viewing a single thread.
Labor will never significantly increase the payment while the chance of it being used as a successful scare campaign by the Coalition remains. With our short election cycles and Labor's inability to consistently win elections, their priority will always be mitigating the "Labor cannot manage the economy" myth before helping people.
And also because they're entirely complicit evil cunts. Just slightly less evil than the Dutton button.
I don't know about that. Portraying Labor as cartoon villains is a pretty pointless oversimplification and only increases the level of anger in the electorate. Here is a good article explaining the concept of political capital and how Keating's government "spent" theirs on controversial reforms they believed in. Albanese's government tried something similar with the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, failed miserably, and are now concerned with limiting any further damage the Coalition can inflict on them prior to the next election. If Albanese wins a second term then I think it's possible his government might be more ambitious on social welfare than they have been to date.
How many terms should be required for a government to effect meaningful change though. Your argument about limiting damage will also apply to their subsequent terms as living standards continue to fall. I think their lack of ambitious policy supporting social welfare is more about their underlying belief systems rather than having their hands tied.
That article itself explains the shortcomings of the concept of political capital in the 2013 political environment, and I think those shortcomings have only grown over the decade since it was written.
I also think there's an additional issue at play today that wasn't present (or at least wasn't as significant) in 2013, which is a deeper sense of discomfort with the overall status quo of politics. A sense of unhappiness that may be reason that taking more bold action, accompanied with a sufficiently strong explanation, could be much more viable than it would have 20 years ago. This isn't necessarily incompatible with the theory of political capital; it could be described as a factor that significantly reduces the political cost of implementing those policies. But it does just add more on to why discussions of political capital are less valuable than they would have been in Keating's day.
Didn't Labor bring in things like Medicare, Superannuation, NDIS (Not the crappy version it is now) as well as attempt to do various other ambitious projects but failed. But no they are evil /s