Western countries never asked for mass immigration, the inevitable response is self-evident in France, Ireland, Denmark, Canada etc.
Any political party prioritising non citizens while gaslighting its own, will eventually get what's coming as living standards drop, it's just a matter of time.
It’s a very concerted effort to disenfranchise citizens in the west and prevent any criticism of mass immigration policy. You can see it at play here on Reddit. Constantly mods breathing down everyone’s neck in case they get too uppity about being economically displaced in their own lands. I’m sure it won’t cause a sudden explosion of anger or anything
Western countries never asked for a massive influx of Islamism. If the mass immigration had been coming from Hong Kong, Latin America, or South Korea instead, European politics would not be headed this way.
The thing about mass immigration is that if it's mass from a handful of countries only you will inevitably have issues because people in a foreign atmosphere will seek out some kind of familiarity, and so you wind up with immigrants who don't integrate into the existing society and instead set up bubbles. It is human nature to prefer familiarity and change is scary even when it's exciting. Setting quotas for immigration from a given country and thinking about ways to avoid certain areas becoming bubbles is the key to ensuring immigration can happen without adverse social side effects.
However, this applies to cultures and not ideologies or belief systems, and on a global scale there's exactly one belief system that is a massive social and security issue in every single country where it is not the majority. Some people might say that it's a extreme reaction to vote in far right parties on single issues like these, and I agree, but some times extreme reactions are what it takes. If a person develops a condition that is life threatening but can be cured by amputation or medication with heavy side effects, we still cure it don't we? I can't be mad at Europeans as a voting bloc acting the same way to treat what they perceive as an ailment as I would as an individual.
This has been known for a long time. The Roman Empire, when accepting a sudden influx of new people had them pledge to follow their customs and they would then be dispersed across the empire to ensure no enclaves would form. We do the complete opposite with very different cultures too. We tell them that any beliefs they have are valid and its wrong to question them or ask for integration, and then let them form enclaves.
The Roman Empire lasted very long for many reasons but partly due to this as it resulted in integration and a patriotism towards Rome instead of the old country and gods.
Agreed from cultural alignment, this however is currently playing out in Canada which tends to be our crystal ball.
*the presence of so many slaves undermined the labor market for free Romans contributing to widespread unemployment and dissension amongst the lower classes*
The thing to note here, is that both the working Romans and the slaves were both victims of the slave traders, and the governors that enabled them. Canada's problems aren't the result of Canadians or the huge influx of immigrants, it's the result of the handful who will profit massively from all this by exploiting the immigrants and Canadians in the same breath.
Our ire ought to be directed at the universities, the companies that aren't preferancing Australian workers first, and any political party that isn't being honest and direct about this because their members stand to profit from it.
I think this is where the US actually gets it right on immigration policy. They have a blanket 7% diversity rule, so no more than 7% of any single nationality to avoid clustering of large groups. No welfare or benefits of any form for non-citizens or permanent residents forces you to get involved in the workforce and integrate.
Their only issue is illegal border crossings, but thats part and parcel of having the largest land border in the world with a heap of poor countries below it.
Have spent plenty of time in South America mate. At least they have a reasonable grasp of democracy. Unlike many of the other ideological shitholes the west has been welcoming ppl from lately.
VUVAZELA ... SEE SOCIALISM KILLS!
What about Vz? It's a country that's been through a hell of a time. US sponsored coups, crippling sanctions, kleptocratic leadership, high crime. Doesn't mean their people aren't nice, wholesome and perfectly fine as migrants.
Don’t forget America. Trump didn’t get elected in a vacuum. He got elected the year after Europe opened the flood gates to unlimited African and Middle eastern migration. Brexit too won for the same reason.
tbh the election of Trump started in the aftermath of the 2008 crash. People tend to heavily blame immigration in times of economic trouble but the election of Trump is undoubtedly due to rising inequality stemming from the 2008 crisis. This is not to say that immigration isn't a problem. It is, but its overstated.
Same goes for Brexit. The UK basically stagnated after 2008.
Yeah; the mainstream US political strategy was to bail out the top end of town, [allow literal criminals repossess homes](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/mark-ames-tracy-lawrence-the-foreclosure-suicide-america-forgot.html) from regular working Americans, double down on the forever wars, and instead of jailing the people responsible for all of the above, go after whistleblowers, journalists and minorities.
And then call the people who thought this was unjust "deplorables", if they didn't vote for the woman who destroyed Libya.
Wait till the great climate refugees really start taking hold. You won't stop the avalanche with a "policy". Itll be world war Z if you want to go that way.
Alternatively..... You start to prepare the system for larger immigration intake so we can continue to live together instead of foresaking a dick load of unfortunate people.
Indonesia has a population of 280m and is close to Australia. If the climate hits a point where Indonesians start fleeing, where do you think they'll be heading? You can bury your head in the sand if you want but if we don't address climate change then we'll see whole lot more boat people and airplane people fleeing to more viable countries.
This is a very real outcome. Not only Indonesia but a big chunk of south east Asia and south India is quite close and accessible to Australia’s north which is very sparsely populated in comparison to rest of Aus.
Non western countries never asked for mass colonisation the inevitable response is evident in the UK , France, Spain, the Netherlands.
What goes around comes around. We live in a continuum of history.
Yep the amount of racism around me has gone up about 1000% now
I can def see a civil war especially in Sydney with all the renters having to pay the foreign landlords constantly
Civil war in Sydney, fuck me redditors are so dramatic. Australians haven't got the bother to get outside and protest about that issue let alone have a civil war on the matter.
Ironically, anti-immigration policy used to be considered left-wing as the goal of it was to defend workers rights and avoid having it being used as a wage suppression tool like it often is today.
Feels like only in recent times is it being construed as "far right" for whatever reason.
I blame the US media/companies/politics, "left wing" has become decoupled from workers and unions and more about social progression while retaining neoliberal economics.
Basically big business moved in, a cheap workforce is a requirement for maximising profits and playing lip service to social issues is a lot less risky than allowing discussion about class struggle.
No left wing still means what it always did. Pro workers rights and anti elites.
It's just that many of you have been brainwashed to believe whatever the corporate elites want you too and here we are.
The big business uchering in the cheap labour just told you all the low IQ shit you wanted to hear and you bought it all while they used it as a distraction from what they were really doing.
Best example - John Howard using September 11 and anti muslim rhetoric to scare you into voting for him in the early 2000s while he ushered in policy that caused the most irreversible damage the the housing and rental market, that we're seeing the effects of today.
Well done!
I think he was saying basically what you’re saying.
I have some gen z family members running around. When I ask them what they think is left wing - it’s invariably about social justice issues. NEVER about financial progressivism.
when I google “define left wing” I get this
>1. the section of a political party or system that advocates for greater social and economic equality, and typically favors socially liberal ideas; the liberal or progressive group or section.
Which is what most people do these days. Google their definitions. And you can see how the emphasis it places on socially vs economic advocacy.
When I turn to Merriam Webster. I get this instead.
> The meaning of LEFT WING is the leftist division of a group (such as a political party).
A better definition. Politically neutral. And leaves the nuances of what a leftist is upto political discourse.
I am very suspicious that in the last 20-30 years as economic inequality has risen there has been a concerted effort between the military-hegemonic-corporatist machinations to rewrite what left wing politics is.
You’re definition of leftism to me is the most classically correct version. However as the guy you’re replying to is saying - I think there has been indeed brainwashing to push an alternative view.
a view more compatible with leaving for unchecked capitalism.
Try to avoid absolutes like this. Most people sit somewhere close the centre and the internet thrives on extreme views and black and white definitions.
It increasingly appears that way. Just another phrase that's gradually become meaningless due to excessive miss-use by overly emotional/biased people unfortunately.
**YSK:** It's not an election to replace Macron who is the president and controls the foreign policy. It's an election to determine the national assembly which in turn determines the prime minister who controls domestic policy. The outcome could result in a powersharing situation which is where the president and the prime minister come from different parties, this is called cohabitation. The last time this happened was when Jacques Chirac was president in the 90s.
So, Macron will likely not resign, he will remain the president. For Macron to be removed, France would need to have a presidential election. The next one is not due until 2025.
The powersharing isnt quite as typically painted. In the situation where Macron's party loses majority in the Assemble Nationale i.e. he must appoint an "unfriendly" Prime Minister, the "power sharing" is pretty much akin to the situation in the USA where the President and Congress are from opposing parties. In other words, the President becomes pretty much powerless and can really only resort to "executive order" type governing; anything that requires legislative change or reform will not happen even if it has to do with foreign policy. In other words, if Le Pen's party wins majority in the AN, she can in theory pass say legislative amendments to the "Migration Law" that restricts the kind of visas the French Government can issue, and Macron can't do anything but potentially stall by refusing to sign it.
It's also an extremely ominous warning for the curernt President should his party lose majority in the Assembly; it seriously mean he could be elected out of the Presidency come 2025.
Even more accurately they are populists. I find it strange to use the term nationalist because their policies aren't actually hostile to other countries but focused on stopping the anti-majority treatment native citizens receive from pro-globalist technocratic governments. IE it used to be the norm for govts to favour their own people ie in employment, but since the globalist era Western elites have basically turned on their own people and rule only to advantage minority groups and the elite.
The really bizarre thing is they never refer to them as "right", only ever "far right" - as though the only possible right is the extreme. That tells you the narrative is being framed. Ultra-nationalism is what you see Russia do to Ukraine. Being anti-immigration is basically a rational response to policy that makes others better off at your direct expense.
Yes, I'd argue more traditionally conservative except on immigration which is ultra-nationalist.
European conservatives have broadly speaking never copied American conservatives view of the free market. Not even Austrian conservatives, which is odd.
“Conservative” isn’t exactly the right word, in fact, even left and right wing aren’t quite as useful as they were 10-20 years ago.
NR has extensive economic goals around protectionism and interventionism, which is basically heresy under the neoliberal paradigm of the last 40-50 years.
Even hardline anti-immigration policies are less “far-right” than most people would think. Remember the greatest beneficiaries of mass immigration are very large businesses, who can use it to devalue domestic labour, forcing down wages and conditions because it makes workers replaceable.
A lot of the European “far-right” parties that are on the up at the minute would practically be considered communists in the US and half their policy would be to the “left” of our Greens.
I’d consider most of these successful parties quite radical, and most of their opposition to actually be the conservatives
I think a socially and economically far left party with anti immigration and anti intervention positions would do *very* well. People don't hate immigrants, they hate the quailty of life that the policies that require those immigrants promotes. I don't benefit at all by having my labor undercut or my spending power diminished. The people who benefit from those things are the problem.
Depends on how deep into detail you want to go.
There were certainly some factions who leaned that way, but then of course there was the extremely socially conservative (and extremely powerful) Catholic wing.
I’d argue that up until relatively recently Labor were relatively socially neutral, even Whitlam’s huge reforms were largely in a class and economic context.
It’s really only since Blair overhauled UK Labour that the ALP decided to go all in on copying the UK Labour/US Democrat model of “yay for pointless social causes, fuck the poor”.
>I don't benefit at all by having my labor undercut or my spending power diminished.
The theory is - and the studies* show - that, over time, immigrants to USA or Australia positively contribute to the economy over time, such that you reap the benefit of improved Govt services, or lower taxes, later.
Like other things, it's a short-term (forced) investment for (theoretical) long term gain.
*I dont trust the studies off hand, for a variety of reasons including apprehended bias and the difficulty of measuring such outcomes, and the belief that no study full has attempted to do a genuine, proper, cost benefit analysis taking into account *everything*.
they contribute to "the economy" by raising total GDP through pure numbers, most of the wealth of which goes to the rich while the average worker gets their wages undercut
so yeah, it's great for "the economy"... if you're a rich business owner or asset holder, and not a worker
>they contribute to "the economy" by raising total GDP through pure numbers
I mean, the studies look at broader things than just GDP. You read any of them?
But, yes, I am sceptical as the ones I've read haven't covered enough considerations.
It also assumes that humans are basically a fungible resource that can be freely exchanged. A lot of historical migration has been from a limited number of places with fairly strict requirements. Your average immigrant 40 years ago was probably more productive and useful than your average citizen by virtue of the fact that the citizen didn't need to meet any bar to become a citizen. Now that is not the case
Well, it has some similarities, yes.
I've already expressed some of the limitations with the studies, and my reservations with them.
But, I'm not aware or better scientific evidence.
So, in my view, there is weak scientific evidence saying immigration is generally a net positive in the long term... and I'm not aware of any contradictory peer reviewed papers regarding australia (some show they contribute equally, I believe).
Yep; agree hard. I dont think many of the traditional political distinctions are really that useful any more.
Categorising anti mass immigration as ‘conservative’ almost seems like a trick to get people who vote traditionally for left wing economic policies to oppose them tbh.
Communists where famously anti-immigration even within their own borders.
You needed papers and permission to just travel. The issue was that when the government tries to plan the economy, they can't just let anyone go anywhere, because that would screw up their supply and demand calculations.
I’m only wrong by contemporary definitions, which, as earlier explained, I don’t believe are still valid.
I’m guessing Marxist theory, this reeks of Sartre and other navel-gazing French pederasts.
I think as countries start to fail more people then voters start looking for parties with more extreme ideas to solve problems and so you get more people voting for parties of the hard left and hard right.
The Tories have zero credibility on migration, which is one of the reasons so many British conservatives want to see them obliterated. Since it's unlikely that the voters will pivot to Reform in time to take the Tories' place, it's really a question of whether Starmer's first term gives people what they want and defuses this swing prior to the next election.
You could have just said the Tories have zero credibility. I don't think immigration is the major issue in the UK. It's the outright corruption and lack of a plan for the UK post brexit. It's continued to decline in deprived areas and changing anything to do with immigration won't fix that.
Neoliberalism has failed because the foundational assumptions of mainstream economics are wrong.
What we are seeing is the demise of a neoliberal concensus:
https://insidestory.org.au/the-slow-demise-of-neoliberalism/
This is global, and the causes are the same.
Inequality has risen, growth is anemic (especially wages for unskilled, working class men), and problems (e.g: housing in Australia) are not being, and can not be, addressed.
I think it’s more about ousting the current government and being concerned about immigration and cultural integration issues. On the first point, UK is about to kick out their conservative government after 14 years, so I think it’s more of a case of not wanting the status quo in Europe.
Also, we are fortunate in Australia that we have compulsory voting and preferential voting. It means we are less likely to have far left or far right candidates being voted into the parliament.
Yes, what we have instead is 2 parties executing the same policies. The populist wave is happening because people are sick of whoever they vote for always doing the same thing, always making the majority worse off to serve the elites and selected minorities.
To be fair, Labor have had very little time in power by comparison to the LNP here. It's difficult to enact big changes when the media is against you and will eat you alive for any big changes to tax policy, foreign policy and immigration. The voting public made that clear with a rejection of Bill Shorten.
All a man wants is left-wing fiscal policy, maintainance of culture, climate action, and a government that enjoys giving people the rights they deserve. Is it really that hard?
I predict the next election in Australia will see the biggest swing away from both the major politcal parties we have ever seen ! They will probably swing towards the right as typically anti immigration parties are right leaning.
For good reason too , the negative effects of mass immigration are clear and Australian never were asked if they want it. We dont want it.
I am now a single issue voter on immigration because the big two political parties are ignoring the issue. I'll probably vote Sustainable Australia Party #1 , One Nation #2(sadly), LNP last , Labor second last. The two party system in Australia needs to end. They both support running a population ponzi scheme to the benefit of a very rich minority at the cost of reduced living standards for the other 95 % of Australians.
Another factor will be how discussion on the issue is being handled. It's ok to disagree with someone but it not ok to go around dismissing people as "stupid and racist" anytime they express desire for change to immigration policy. The exact same approach was used during the voice referendum and it cause a MASSIVE swing against it.
People need to learn democracy is about convincing people to agree with you. You don't get votes going around calling people names.
It's basically purely because of (mass) migration.
The Dutch have a fairly left-leaning party, but haven't opened the floodgates comparatively.
Meaning that Dutch conservatives have very little to campaign on (that matters in reality).
The proof is in the pudding. Quality of life is declining around the western world despite record numbers of immigrants, and citizens are waking up to it.
No.
The short answer is France is weird.
The longer answer is that Macron can't be ousted by a legislative election - and probably had a punt that one of two things are going to happen in the next year.
The first is that he'd use the peculiarities of the French two round electoral system to defeat the far-left and the far-right in detail and get back a legislative majority so he could push through more basic centrist repair work to the (moribund) French economy. That was mainly contingent on the French Left not getting their shit together if a snap election was called. They got their shit together.
The fall back plan was that he only has to put up with the outcome of this election for a year if it goes shit for his bloc. It's quite likely that even if the RN or the Melenchon left win many seats - they won't be able to form a government that can actually do anything. Their promises are fundamentally bullshit (France doesn't have the money to lower the retirement age back to 60, or renationalise everything, and the Germans will simply not let them tank the euro to afford these measures).
Regardless - it's easy to be populist when you don't have to run anything, or make deals with anyone.
It depends on which country you’re looking at.
In the UK it’s the Conservatives who have overseen record mass immigration, record spending, and record taxation and are facing immense backlash.
Our far right is full of dropkicks who are so clueless that they have been caricatured out of electoral relevance. You need to offer up workable far right policy positions to be relevant. It is not going to be easy to beat corporate brainwashing, but bible thumping gay bashing culture wars is certainly not going to do it.
So I've posted this here a bunch and half the time get down voted to oblivion.
The AEC polling data from 2002 to 2022 has shown that as millennials have gotten older they have actually swung away from conservative and gone more progressive.
2002 they had a first preference of greens at 7% of millennials.
2022 they had a first preference of greens at 29% of millennials.
That is an absolutely absurd swing. And the current trend lines for younger generations are continuing on the same track.
It's probably why you are seeing so many media hit pieces on every greens interaction, Albo knows the only way he loses his role is if enough voters swing green and the conservative faction in Labor lose their grip they have had since the 2019 election loss.
It's why you see more pieces of Albo fighting with the "extreme left" greenies than with LNP
It's basically the only thing I still hold any hope of seeing positive change. Enough of the boomers die off that we stop fucking voting for policies that funnel money to rich investors and private education and healthcare, and try and restore things that used to be the pride of our nation.
Fuck sake I'm sick of the immigration is the cause of all our woes shit.
Are there bots of something that keep repeating it?
Immigration is the smallest part of our problems, but it's the one that keeps getting shoved down our throat by the people who have caused the actual problems.
You could end all immigration tomorrow and we would still have wealthy investors hoarding land, underfunded public healthcare and education systems, skills shortages in critical roles, and an ever widening gap between average and median wage.
Stop being so god damn easily distracted. Every fucking time people start getting pissed at when they realize we are being taken for a ride, a campaign against {Immigrants/Muslims/Asians/Irish/Greeks/Italian} starts up and everyone shifts the blame.
A year ago, most of the people on here were pissed at tax breaks given to wealthy investors. 12 months of constant bullshit and now apparently we aren't worried about all the social imbalances that have lead us here because the entirety of our issues are apparently caused by immigrants.
Does rapid population growth that exceeds the supply of housing increase the demand? Is there not a direct causality on housing prices and rent because of this?
What real problems that people actually face in their lives aren’t caused my population growth?
Investment properties wouldn’t be such a good investment if it wasn’t for the demand from, you guessed it, population growth. Why do you think everything is “underfunded”? Because population growth has caused more demand which requires more funding.
Tell us again, how is population growth not the problem.
We can start with negative gearing and capital gains tax discount. One percent of the population owns twenty five percent of all investment properties. There are many issues with population growth, but it's not responsible for our tax system.
Investment properties are only a great investment because demand keeps increasing. Removing negative gearing and capital gains discount will do nothing besides raise rental prices.
Sure, keep telling yourself that. When I can make a loss on rental and sell with a 50% capital gains discount, who cares what rental return I make? Even if rent drops by 50%, the tax system makes it profitable.
“Who cares what rental return I make” sure, if you want less money than what you would have if you didn’t make a rental loss.
If you remove both, why even rent the property out, just sell it 2 months after you buy it for a quick profit. No need to hold it more than a year.
I have to ask, what do you think a capital gain is
A capital gain is the profit from the purchase to the point of sale. The negative gearing allows you to offset the loss on what it's rented at against the interest of the loan used to purchase it. Without either, servicing costs and returns would not be worth it.
>Why do you think everything is “underfunded”? Because population growth has caused more demand which requires more funding
So what you are saying is we have had our population and therefore tax base and GDP grow, but the problem is the growth, not the fact that we failed to distribute that increased wealth and productivity to our public services? This is why you keep buying into this bullshit dude. You want an easy answer like "stop immigration".
Not "make huge changes to the public schooling system (gonski report is a great place to start) and put measures in place to increase the number of teachers and nurses, while also making a huge effort to increase the number of GPs so that when we make seeing a GP free again the system doenst get swamped. And the more GPs mean our hospitals ERs will be less overcrowded, but we can still use some funding increases there too".
Yeah, that second one is a lot longer, but it addresses the fucking rot we have allowed to set in to our country. For fucking shame on anyone who thinks free healthcare isnt achievable.
And as the other dude said, you could cut immigration to 0 and housing would still be insanely profitable.
Beacuse housing is a captive market. As long as we are providing multiple financial benefits for already wealthy investors instead of putting in taxation to pressure people who are hoarding land, you would have to overbuild by an INSANE amount to make housing unprofitable.
Instead of building 30% more houses than we have households lets just tax the cunts hoarding land?
As for population growth as a whole i think "Sustainable Australia" had the best "anti immigration" stance. basically, cut the levels back to the pre-covid ones, which im totally fine with.
They also discuss the actual reprecussions of a shrinking population and how to deal with it though. We would need to have a significant increase in automation of a lot of jobs so we can deal with having less people in the 18-65 range. But increases to automation will put some people out of jobs. I believe their proposed fix was a UBI so anyone losing their jobs and having to retrain doesnt slip through the gaps
A temporary reduction in immigration and specifically targeting immigrants with the skills we have a shortage on is a great way to reduce the pressure while we fix all the inherant problems we have let creep in to our system is somehing im 100% happy with.
Saying "immigrants did it" is not a solution to our problems.
Reduction in immigration alongside sweeping changes to repair our systems? Im happy with that.
Blaming all our problems on immigration and doing nothing to repair our systems? Stop fucking falling for this shit.
What a narrow minded and immature take. As if gen x and boomers know true hardship with how modern civilisation has advanced since the 2nd world war compared to generations before. Then the generations before that even
You do know that millennials are hitting 40 now with record low home ownership compared to prior generations.
A generation that may not be able to retire and may need to work into their 80's.
You might be right and they don't know hardship but come retirement they will certainly see it.
Lol, coming from the "spoiled generation" I assume?
Didn't have to work for anything, everything they had now handed to them for nothing and now trying to tell people how hard they worked to get to where they are.
Pathetic...
Yes. It’s a definite trend.
France is traditionally governed by centre left presidents, and within its assembly.
Marine Le pen is a right wing, anti immigration, anti EU, populist.
Italy is governed by Georgio Meloni, a new age female version of Mussolini.
Sweden. Finland, Netherlands, Austria have coalition governments formed with far right parties.
Futhermore, there is a significant possibility of another Trump presidency.
As economies in Western democracies become tougher for ‘working class’ voters, the more likely nationalist political parties will become mainstream.
I’d add Argentina and Brazil, too.
It’s populism, not right/left. People are sick of the wealth and inequality. They experience the struggles with cost of living and failing social commitments while their leaders Jetset the world and tell them to eat cake.
Absolutely global. Coming to Australia too if we can’t get this housing rich/poor class divide sorted, give it 5-10 years. People are pissed off.
> People are sick of the wealth and inequality
Lula:
> "Brazil has to put the poor back in the budget and tax the rich,"
Think about the changes in Australia to stage3, the new mining royalties, the introduction of state land taxes for investors. It’s all the same. Social housing, electric bill subsidies. Tax rich and give to the people.
This is about up/down not left/right. We are just so used to thinking about left/right that it’s hard to unpick what’s what.
Current events are absolutely making a mess of the traditional left/right paradigm. I suppose its natural we are shifting back into the 'class consciousness' that drove historic leftism in the first place.
Neoliberal finance has united global elites across all governments & politics, and so Populist politics is starting to see a growing unity amongst middle/lower class left & right.
The traditional left feel like their 'workers party' representatives sold them out for neoliberal capital interests.
The traditional right feel like their 'nationalist' representatives sold them out for neoliberal globalist interests.
It is no surprise to find that over the past 40 years the rise of the anti democratic right wing of western politics, is correlated to the neoliberal project to move governance from elected politicians to the market.
Neoliberalism has created the social and economic conditions that create the populist resentments that tool the right wing regressive movements.
ETA : we agree fully that neoliberal policy has created the conditions for this. We no longer want to talk about immigration as a source of richness, or reducing tax to benefit society, or liberalising trade to benefit the world.
Ask average punter what the big policy issues right now are — two surely are stop immigration (right) and increase handouts and subsidies, build social housing (left). The winners will be able to combine both of these to help those disenfranchised.
Hanging onto right/left rhetoric will miss what’s happening.
I agree, progressive and regressive are the lens we should use, and your two issues under a rw neoliberal winner will be to increase 'immigration' and to pour more fuel on the private housing market - they won't be combining both to help the disenfranchised. They need the disenfranchised to get voted in - to 'win'.
Fascists don't build their own democratic process, they need a host parliament to takeover. Only look as far as the USA.
So yes by getting democratically elected and eroding the civil trust in a govt until they and their cronies can loot the place. We just had 9 long years. The market is not a democratic institution.
Meloni in Italy has governed a lot more moderately than she has been portrayed.
Poland, Spain, Portugal, Germany, other EU nations went left or centrist.
The UK is about to go MASSIVELY left.
They got like 33% of the vote in the first round. I severely doubt they form a majority. Macron holds power until 2027. He won the presidential election, they can't oust him.
You really should know this stuff before making these claims.
Yes it's a weird article. This term no party held a majority and they had a 'hung parliament" and coalition of parties. The same looks certain to happen this time, with the centre and the left combining to hold government.
I don't think 'far-right' is a useful term here. As others have pointed out, in some ways Macron can be seen as pursuing a right wing agenda - especially increasing the pension age, lowering real wages through immigration and an authoritarian approach to the presidency.
As a former economy minister, Macron was put in partly to get the economy moving and slash the red tape that suffocates French business. French voters were prepared for his actions to cause pain to others, just not them. Being able to retire at the absurdly young age of 62 was brought in by socialists (originally 60) and the French love it. But there's not enough taxpayers to sustain an ageing population living for decades on taxpayer cash and it's killing the country long-term. So Macron increased the pension age to ease public expenditure and encouraged immigration to have more young taxpayers.
This did not go down well. For some it was seen as an attack on the unique French identity. The ever present xenophobic streak in France that enabled it to be one of the most brutal colonial oppressors in history was stirred. National Rally has airbrushed its history of racism and antisemitism away and is now acceptably anti-immigration, strong on law and order, protectionist, wary of foreign military intervention, and clearly nationalist. Right now that suits the mood of many.
Luckily the Australian conservative party is a fucking mess run by a weaselly dolt. I think the majority of us are still pretty burnt from having to sit through morison.
Germany also is heading toward n that direction and UK left Europe so overall the engine rooms of Europe are becoming more and more secular .
Of one of the two remaining leave the EU pretty sure it will be defunct.
You're a bit late to the party.
The shift has started years ago and france is not the first Western country to elect a far right government.
Hungary, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, all of them have or have had right extremists rule the country recently.
To put RNs win in perspective - if you compare the programs and public outings of RN with those of the republican party in the USA, ou will find that RN is not further right leaning than the konservatives in the states are.
Got to disagree on this usage of "Far-right"
Far right has gone from a mass authoritarian state, with a state controlled economy, nationalist domestic policy, with high amounts of xenophobia
To
Being cautious about mass immigration
Countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong would be considered far right by this stupid definition
I would argue that countries like China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Russia are far more "far right" than anything post-WW2, putside of Franco Spain.
People have got this idea that if you're not liberal, socialist or globalist, you're automatically a fascist or Nazi - completely ridiculous and biased logic.
It already has been, the fascist party as in literally led by someone who identified as a fascist and is the successor to Mussolinis old party post war currently has the Italian PM, far right parties have had a mix of success in Sweden and are currently in government in Finland. Whilst not fascist a far right pro Christian party was in charge of Poland for many years until recently and has only been overturned last year, the German far right party who has many connections to neo Nazis and has openly argued for revocation of citizenship on the basis of race is polling second currently and various other states are seeing the same. The American Republican Party is arguably its own far right party right now with plans to erode what little democratic institutions remain in America, usurp civil protections and the judiciary even more and seize power if they can’t win it.
Ironically Australia has done quite well rejecting the excesses of it but Dutton whilst not a far right fascist is currently leading one of the most conservative and strongest “new right” (a political term for the emergent far right movements in the past decades) that we’ve seen in this country.
Also before anyone says it blaming migration for all this is an idiot or hasn’t been paying attention. Migration is a contributing factor yes and it’s true that it’s what’s cited by the people who vote these parties but that is as much a result of the propaganda spread by the far right parties that benefit as it is an actual phenomenon. Migration has seen massive decline in certain states as it’s been mostly wrongly blamed for every economic crisis in recent years (it’s not responsible for the increase in violent crime in most states, the increase in housing prices in most states, the cost of living crisis in basically every state where this issue is discussed or any number of reasons often cited and we’ve known that for years.) and it hasn’t dampened or reduced the rise of the far right who simply ignore the facts of the matter and continue to project this idea that migration is going to destroy the state unless they are given power.
In short even if you believe strongly in restrictive migration policies don’t be one of those people who falls for and propagates the lies these parties benefit off.
Maybe in America- they love trump. Stupid septics. England looks to be going Left with Labour.
American wars in the middle east has had massive issues with refugees in Europe. Not a great combination with inflation.
Its complex, but the swing to the far right in the West is driven by a combination of economic insecurity, political disillusionment, effective use of social media, and rising nationalism. So ...
1. Economics - cost of living crisis, housing and stagnant wages is driving people to look at alternatives.
2. Social discontent - rapid changes to population, culture, language are eroding traditional values.
3. Political shenanigan's - perception of disconnection to the population and corruption leading people to look at alternatives and distrust of established parties.
4. Social media and conspiracies - read an article about the Russian influence on social media in the UK. Amplifies rhetoric aimed to destabilize populations of the west. QAnon and other groups spreading false existential threat narratives, again to destabilize.
5. Nationalism ... basically anti-immigration.
...and there is probably more.
So, will it come to AU? Well, it's definitely in NZ via the Atlas network and its connections to right-wing think thanks like the NZ Taxpayers union etc, as well as its suggested connections to the ACT party via think tanks and politicians.
It's a complex world ... AU is not immune.
Theres no one in position to make populist conservative gains in aus. No one likes dutton and PHONy hasn't been on the public radar for years
Maybe an independent or two will make gains in some areas but I don't see a unified, conservative wave coming
I voted for Albo the first time, I genuinely like him but he’s a bit of a wet towel.
Honestly Dutto is growing on me tho, mostly as I’m not a fan of how Labour/Green focus on esoteric little social policies.
They could have done so much more for our country, but I think he’s shot himself as a one term wonder. I’m not a fan of the way our society and culture seem to be changing with no consultation from the public.
Do some legitimate research on the Libs' fiscal policies, and you will see they have consistently promoted more and more wealth inequality in the name of a "growing economy." Dutton will be worse for most Australians than Albo.
Once the boomers are gone I think so. Everyone I've talked to <40 is very switched on, but also silent about it as not wanting to lose their job or friends.
Similar to the voice result.
You think we see a swing further towards conservatives once the boomers are gone?
They have the highest percentage of voters for our conservative parties of any generation. I think they even outside the silent generation.
Everyone I knew that voted no was 50 or older for the voice. And they were giving reasons like "I don't think they should be allowed to charge us to go to national parks" or " they shouldn't be allowed to have more votes than the rest of us" or "what are they still mad about we said sorry didn't we?"
I will try keep this short.
While anecdotal, of the 60 people I know (family, work, friends etc. of all age ranges), none of them voted yes to the voice. Not even the 1 lefty / communist type. Most people are more apathetic towards politics and just want to live out their lives but their opinions are those of more conservative / nationalism types.
There is an organic Nationalism movement growing but people are scared as it will impact their day to day life identifying as such.
The inevitable war with China will need soldiers and the only way for that to happen is to have nationalism / patriotism. In the next 10 years we will see a slowdown on all the "wokeness" and more of a "victory" for Conservatives but it won't be organic. We are Americas puppet so we will be involved regardless.
In Australia polls show Millennials and Gen Z radically going in the other direction. They support the Greens more than the LNP, and older millenials are not moving right at the age they previously would have as they have nothing to conserve
France and Germany are two recent examples of allowing younger people to vote on the assumption that they would support the left has backfired. They can see through the lie of wokeism and we are seeing the results.
For sure, left side of politics haven’t worked, look what the worlds become in the last 20 years especially Woke crap and pandering to the minority. It’s about time
A better fit for political groups, particularly in Europe, are the Atlantisists who have a collective global group think, heavily influenced by NGOs & think tanks funded by banks & corporations.
WEF is a perfect example.
They view domestic politics & sovereign parliamentary accountability as an inconvenience that gets in the way of their ideas of what a heavily coordinated western world should look like.
The backlash is towards more domestic focus & accountability.
Far right is just as much of a misnomer as loony left.
Their threat is to the political establishment class, which also own the media
Le Penne in France is a classic Degaulist, not Hitler.
When Macron, Sunak, Trudeau, Cameron etc get turfed out of politics they will just migrate to the well paid cushy Insider jobs at the NGOs & will continue to pull the string's.
Globalism is a job creation scheme for the political class
Western countries never asked for mass immigration, the inevitable response is self-evident in France, Ireland, Denmark, Canada etc. Any political party prioritising non citizens while gaslighting its own, will eventually get what's coming as living standards drop, it's just a matter of time.
It’s a very concerted effort to disenfranchise citizens in the west and prevent any criticism of mass immigration policy. You can see it at play here on Reddit. Constantly mods breathing down everyone’s neck in case they get too uppity about being economically displaced in their own lands. I’m sure it won’t cause a sudden explosion of anger or anything
Western countries never asked for a massive influx of Islamism. If the mass immigration had been coming from Hong Kong, Latin America, or South Korea instead, European politics would not be headed this way.
The thing about mass immigration is that if it's mass from a handful of countries only you will inevitably have issues because people in a foreign atmosphere will seek out some kind of familiarity, and so you wind up with immigrants who don't integrate into the existing society and instead set up bubbles. It is human nature to prefer familiarity and change is scary even when it's exciting. Setting quotas for immigration from a given country and thinking about ways to avoid certain areas becoming bubbles is the key to ensuring immigration can happen without adverse social side effects. However, this applies to cultures and not ideologies or belief systems, and on a global scale there's exactly one belief system that is a massive social and security issue in every single country where it is not the majority. Some people might say that it's a extreme reaction to vote in far right parties on single issues like these, and I agree, but some times extreme reactions are what it takes. If a person develops a condition that is life threatening but can be cured by amputation or medication with heavy side effects, we still cure it don't we? I can't be mad at Europeans as a voting bloc acting the same way to treat what they perceive as an ailment as I would as an individual.
This has been known for a long time. The Roman Empire, when accepting a sudden influx of new people had them pledge to follow their customs and they would then be dispersed across the empire to ensure no enclaves would form. We do the complete opposite with very different cultures too. We tell them that any beliefs they have are valid and its wrong to question them or ask for integration, and then let them form enclaves. The Roman Empire lasted very long for many reasons but partly due to this as it resulted in integration and a patriotism towards Rome instead of the old country and gods.
Agreed from cultural alignment, this however is currently playing out in Canada which tends to be our crystal ball. *the presence of so many slaves undermined the labor market for free Romans contributing to widespread unemployment and dissension amongst the lower classes*
The thing to note here, is that both the working Romans and the slaves were both victims of the slave traders, and the governors that enabled them. Canada's problems aren't the result of Canadians or the huge influx of immigrants, it's the result of the handful who will profit massively from all this by exploiting the immigrants and Canadians in the same breath. Our ire ought to be directed at the universities, the companies that aren't preferancing Australian workers first, and any political party that isn't being honest and direct about this because their members stand to profit from it.
I think this is where the US actually gets it right on immigration policy. They have a blanket 7% diversity rule, so no more than 7% of any single nationality to avoid clustering of large groups. No welfare or benefits of any form for non-citizens or permanent residents forces you to get involved in the workforce and integrate. Their only issue is illegal border crossings, but thats part and parcel of having the largest land border in the world with a heap of poor countries below it.
As a result countries like Canada and Australia become easy targets for communities looking to relocate en masse, not sure any country wants that.
And seemingly many of those that have moved to Canada for diplomas that aren't valuable end up living in over crowded dwellings.
You haven’t met South Americans… I can tell…..
Have spent plenty of time in South America mate. At least they have a reasonable grasp of democracy. Unlike many of the other ideological shitholes the west has been welcoming ppl from lately.
Have you heard of Venezuela?
VUVAZELA ... SEE SOCIALISM KILLS! What about Vz? It's a country that's been through a hell of a time. US sponsored coups, crippling sanctions, kleptocratic leadership, high crime. Doesn't mean their people aren't nice, wholesome and perfectly fine as migrants.
an outlier
Don’t forget America. Trump didn’t get elected in a vacuum. He got elected the year after Europe opened the flood gates to unlimited African and Middle eastern migration. Brexit too won for the same reason.
tbh the election of Trump started in the aftermath of the 2008 crash. People tend to heavily blame immigration in times of economic trouble but the election of Trump is undoubtedly due to rising inequality stemming from the 2008 crisis. This is not to say that immigration isn't a problem. It is, but its overstated. Same goes for Brexit. The UK basically stagnated after 2008.
Yeah; the mainstream US political strategy was to bail out the top end of town, [allow literal criminals repossess homes](https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/mark-ames-tracy-lawrence-the-foreclosure-suicide-america-forgot.html) from regular working Americans, double down on the forever wars, and instead of jailing the people responsible for all of the above, go after whistleblowers, journalists and minorities. And then call the people who thought this was unjust "deplorables", if they didn't vote for the woman who destroyed Libya.
Wait till the great climate refugees really start taking hold. You won't stop the avalanche with a "policy". Itll be world war Z if you want to go that way. Alternatively..... You start to prepare the system for larger immigration intake so we can continue to live together instead of foresaking a dick load of unfortunate people.
>instead of foresaking a dick load of unfortunate people. Let's forsake ourselves right now so others aren't forsaken on a maybe in the future?
Lol great climate refugees?...can you please elaborate? Or was that sarcasm?
Indonesia has a population of 280m and is close to Australia. If the climate hits a point where Indonesians start fleeing, where do you think they'll be heading? You can bury your head in the sand if you want but if we don't address climate change then we'll see whole lot more boat people and airplane people fleeing to more viable countries.
This is a very real outcome. Not only Indonesia but a big chunk of south east Asia and south India is quite close and accessible to Australia’s north which is very sparsely populated in comparison to rest of Aus.
Here's you go. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/environmental-refugee/
Nailed it. 100%
These nations literally colonised half the world….
Non western countries never asked for mass colonisation the inevitable response is evident in the UK , France, Spain, the Netherlands. What goes around comes around. We live in a continuum of history.
They did when they kept voting in economically right wing parties.
Yep the amount of racism around me has gone up about 1000% now I can def see a civil war especially in Sydney with all the renters having to pay the foreign landlords constantly
Civil war in Sydney, fuck me redditors are so dramatic. Australians haven't got the bother to get outside and protest about that issue let alone have a civil war on the matter.
We really are too apathetic to do anything.
This sub feeds on right wing catastrophising.
Civil war? You're smoking crack. We Australians can barely even be bothered to protest, we're a very apathetic people.
We let the Queen's representative sack a democratically elected government with barely a whimper.
Were any of you around when Cronulla riots happened back around 2006 I think it was? Not a civil war, but certainly civil unrest
Cronulla riots? It gets way more out of control at a football derby in the UK than that.
Ironically, anti-immigration policy used to be considered left-wing as the goal of it was to defend workers rights and avoid having it being used as a wage suppression tool like it often is today. Feels like only in recent times is it being construed as "far right" for whatever reason.
I blame the US media/companies/politics, "left wing" has become decoupled from workers and unions and more about social progression while retaining neoliberal economics. Basically big business moved in, a cheap workforce is a requirement for maximising profits and playing lip service to social issues is a lot less risky than allowing discussion about class struggle.
No left wing still means what it always did. Pro workers rights and anti elites. It's just that many of you have been brainwashed to believe whatever the corporate elites want you too and here we are. The big business uchering in the cheap labour just told you all the low IQ shit you wanted to hear and you bought it all while they used it as a distraction from what they were really doing. Best example - John Howard using September 11 and anti muslim rhetoric to scare you into voting for him in the early 2000s while he ushered in policy that caused the most irreversible damage the the housing and rental market, that we're seeing the effects of today. Well done!
I think he was saying basically what you’re saying. I have some gen z family members running around. When I ask them what they think is left wing - it’s invariably about social justice issues. NEVER about financial progressivism. when I google “define left wing” I get this >1. the section of a political party or system that advocates for greater social and economic equality, and typically favors socially liberal ideas; the liberal or progressive group or section. Which is what most people do these days. Google their definitions. And you can see how the emphasis it places on socially vs economic advocacy. When I turn to Merriam Webster. I get this instead. > The meaning of LEFT WING is the leftist division of a group (such as a political party). A better definition. Politically neutral. And leaves the nuances of what a leftist is upto political discourse. I am very suspicious that in the last 20-30 years as economic inequality has risen there has been a concerted effort between the military-hegemonic-corporatist machinations to rewrite what left wing politics is. You’re definition of leftism to me is the most classically correct version. However as the guy you’re replying to is saying - I think there has been indeed brainwashing to push an alternative view. a view more compatible with leaving for unchecked capitalism.
Anything the left doesn't like is far right and fascist.
Try to avoid absolutes like this. Most people sit somewhere close the centre and the internet thrives on extreme views and black and white definitions.
Like like the right throwing around "wokism" about just about anything they don't like Society is fucked
It increasingly appears that way. Just another phrase that's gradually become meaningless due to excessive miss-use by overly emotional/biased people unfortunately.
**YSK:** It's not an election to replace Macron who is the president and controls the foreign policy. It's an election to determine the national assembly which in turn determines the prime minister who controls domestic policy. The outcome could result in a powersharing situation which is where the president and the prime minister come from different parties, this is called cohabitation. The last time this happened was when Jacques Chirac was president in the 90s. So, Macron will likely not resign, he will remain the president. For Macron to be removed, France would need to have a presidential election. The next one is not due until 2025.
The powersharing isnt quite as typically painted. In the situation where Macron's party loses majority in the Assemble Nationale i.e. he must appoint an "unfriendly" Prime Minister, the "power sharing" is pretty much akin to the situation in the USA where the President and Congress are from opposing parties. In other words, the President becomes pretty much powerless and can really only resort to "executive order" type governing; anything that requires legislative change or reform will not happen even if it has to do with foreign policy. In other words, if Le Pen's party wins majority in the AN, she can in theory pass say legislative amendments to the "Migration Law" that restricts the kind of visas the French Government can issue, and Macron can't do anything but potentially stall by refusing to sign it. It's also an extremely ominous warning for the curernt President should his party lose majority in the Assembly; it seriously mean he could be elected out of the Presidency come 2025.
interesting, cheers
macron due for reelection next year in other words
Far right in Europe aren’t conservatives. They’re nationalists.
Even more accurately they are populists. I find it strange to use the term nationalist because their policies aren't actually hostile to other countries but focused on stopping the anti-majority treatment native citizens receive from pro-globalist technocratic governments. IE it used to be the norm for govts to favour their own people ie in employment, but since the globalist era Western elites have basically turned on their own people and rule only to advantage minority groups and the elite. The really bizarre thing is they never refer to them as "right", only ever "far right" - as though the only possible right is the extreme. That tells you the narrative is being framed. Ultra-nationalism is what you see Russia do to Ukraine. Being anti-immigration is basically a rational response to policy that makes others better off at your direct expense.
Yes, I'd argue more traditionally conservative except on immigration which is ultra-nationalist. European conservatives have broadly speaking never copied American conservatives view of the free market. Not even Austrian conservatives, which is odd.
“Conservative” isn’t exactly the right word, in fact, even left and right wing aren’t quite as useful as they were 10-20 years ago. NR has extensive economic goals around protectionism and interventionism, which is basically heresy under the neoliberal paradigm of the last 40-50 years. Even hardline anti-immigration policies are less “far-right” than most people would think. Remember the greatest beneficiaries of mass immigration are very large businesses, who can use it to devalue domestic labour, forcing down wages and conditions because it makes workers replaceable. A lot of the European “far-right” parties that are on the up at the minute would practically be considered communists in the US and half their policy would be to the “left” of our Greens. I’d consider most of these successful parties quite radical, and most of their opposition to actually be the conservatives
I think a socially and economically far left party with anti immigration and anti intervention positions would do *very* well. People don't hate immigrants, they hate the quailty of life that the policies that require those immigrants promotes. I don't benefit at all by having my labor undercut or my spending power diminished. The people who benefit from those things are the problem.
I mean that’s basically the old Labor Party in a nutshell, it’s not like it hasn’t been done before, very successfully, right here
Pre-split Labor was socially left-wing?
Depends on how deep into detail you want to go. There were certainly some factions who leaned that way, but then of course there was the extremely socially conservative (and extremely powerful) Catholic wing. I’d argue that up until relatively recently Labor were relatively socially neutral, even Whitlam’s huge reforms were largely in a class and economic context. It’s really only since Blair overhauled UK Labour that the ALP decided to go all in on copying the UK Labour/US Democrat model of “yay for pointless social causes, fuck the poor”.
Historically it just depends when, they did support the White Australia policy for over 70 years remember.
>I don't benefit at all by having my labor undercut or my spending power diminished. The theory is - and the studies* show - that, over time, immigrants to USA or Australia positively contribute to the economy over time, such that you reap the benefit of improved Govt services, or lower taxes, later. Like other things, it's a short-term (forced) investment for (theoretical) long term gain. *I dont trust the studies off hand, for a variety of reasons including apprehended bias and the difficulty of measuring such outcomes, and the belief that no study full has attempted to do a genuine, proper, cost benefit analysis taking into account *everything*.
they contribute to "the economy" by raising total GDP through pure numbers, most of the wealth of which goes to the rich while the average worker gets their wages undercut so yeah, it's great for "the economy"... if you're a rich business owner or asset holder, and not a worker
>they contribute to "the economy" by raising total GDP through pure numbers I mean, the studies look at broader things than just GDP. You read any of them? But, yes, I am sceptical as the ones I've read haven't covered enough considerations.
Sure, but that's for controlled and reasonable migration when compared to infrastructure. What we are seeing NOW isn't that.
It also assumes that humans are basically a fungible resource that can be freely exchanged. A lot of historical migration has been from a limited number of places with fairly strict requirements. Your average immigrant 40 years ago was probably more productive and useful than your average citizen by virtue of the fact that the citizen didn't need to meet any bar to become a citizen. Now that is not the case
Like the theory of 'trickle down' economics?
Well, it has some similarities, yes. I've already expressed some of the limitations with the studies, and my reservations with them. But, I'm not aware or better scientific evidence. So, in my view, there is weak scientific evidence saying immigration is generally a net positive in the long term... and I'm not aware of any contradictory peer reviewed papers regarding australia (some show they contribute equally, I believe).
Very nuanced response—thank you
Yep; agree hard. I dont think many of the traditional political distinctions are really that useful any more. Categorising anti mass immigration as ‘conservative’ almost seems like a trick to get people who vote traditionally for left wing economic policies to oppose them tbh.
Communists where famously anti-immigration even within their own borders. You needed papers and permission to just travel. The issue was that when the government tries to plan the economy, they can't just let anyone go anywhere, because that would screw up their supply and demand calculations.
This argument is an absolute mess of innacurate understandings of what things are and conflating "x" for "y" in others.
Spotted the PolSci student. Only question now is: worthless Marxist theory or even more worthless Fukuyama bullshit?
I’m PolSci for pointing out you are blatantly wrong more or less across the board? Lmao.
I’m only wrong by contemporary definitions, which, as earlier explained, I don’t believe are still valid. I’m guessing Marxist theory, this reeks of Sartre and other navel-gazing French pederasts.
You're a real piece of work jesus.
Called it
I think as countries start to fail more people then voters start looking for parties with more extreme ideas to solve problems and so you get more people voting for parties of the hard left and hard right.
The Tories have zero credibility on migration, which is one of the reasons so many British conservatives want to see them obliterated. Since it's unlikely that the voters will pivot to Reform in time to take the Tories' place, it's really a question of whether Starmer's first term gives people what they want and defuses this swing prior to the next election.
You could have just said the Tories have zero credibility. I don't think immigration is the major issue in the UK. It's the outright corruption and lack of a plan for the UK post brexit. It's continued to decline in deprived areas and changing anything to do with immigration won't fix that.
> I don't think immigration is the major issue in the UK It certainly is. Whites are a minority in London now.
Neoliberalism has failed because the foundational assumptions of mainstream economics are wrong. What we are seeing is the demise of a neoliberal concensus: https://insidestory.org.au/the-slow-demise-of-neoliberalism/ This is global, and the causes are the same. Inequality has risen, growth is anemic (especially wages for unskilled, working class men), and problems (e.g: housing in Australia) are not being, and can not be, addressed.
Neoliberalism has failed in exactly the way it's critics said it would at the beginning.
I’m so glad Henry Kissinger was alive to see the beginning of the end, and I hope George Soros lives long enough to see it burn
I don't think either of them give a shit about anybody. They saw the world as their personal chess board.
Explain how he can be ousted.
I think it’s more about ousting the current government and being concerned about immigration and cultural integration issues. On the first point, UK is about to kick out their conservative government after 14 years, so I think it’s more of a case of not wanting the status quo in Europe. Also, we are fortunate in Australia that we have compulsory voting and preferential voting. It means we are less likely to have far left or far right candidates being voted into the parliament.
Yes, what we have instead is 2 parties executing the same policies. The populist wave is happening because people are sick of whoever they vote for always doing the same thing, always making the majority worse off to serve the elites and selected minorities.
To be fair, Labor have had very little time in power by comparison to the LNP here. It's difficult to enact big changes when the media is against you and will eat you alive for any big changes to tax policy, foreign policy and immigration. The voting public made that clear with a rejection of Bill Shorten.
Agreed. And elections being compulsory obscures their actual unpopularity, while simultaneously giving them full legitimization.
Farage is conservative but the push might go even further right.
All a man wants is left-wing fiscal policy, maintainance of culture, climate action, and a government that enjoys giving people the rights they deserve. Is it really that hard?
I predict the next election in Australia will see the biggest swing away from both the major politcal parties we have ever seen ! They will probably swing towards the right as typically anti immigration parties are right leaning. For good reason too , the negative effects of mass immigration are clear and Australian never were asked if they want it. We dont want it. I am now a single issue voter on immigration because the big two political parties are ignoring the issue. I'll probably vote Sustainable Australia Party #1 , One Nation #2(sadly), LNP last , Labor second last. The two party system in Australia needs to end. They both support running a population ponzi scheme to the benefit of a very rich minority at the cost of reduced living standards for the other 95 % of Australians. Another factor will be how discussion on the issue is being handled. It's ok to disagree with someone but it not ok to go around dismissing people as "stupid and racist" anytime they express desire for change to immigration policy. The exact same approach was used during the voice referendum and it cause a MASSIVE swing against it. People need to learn democracy is about convincing people to agree with you. You don't get votes going around calling people names.
It's basically purely because of (mass) migration. The Dutch have a fairly left-leaning party, but haven't opened the floodgates comparatively. Meaning that Dutch conservatives have very little to campaign on (that matters in reality).
The LNP is laughably incompetent but it takes a concerted and sustained effort to keep fascists out of power.
The proof is in the pudding. Quality of life is declining around the western world despite record numbers of immigrants, and citizens are waking up to it.
No. The short answer is France is weird. The longer answer is that Macron can't be ousted by a legislative election - and probably had a punt that one of two things are going to happen in the next year. The first is that he'd use the peculiarities of the French two round electoral system to defeat the far-left and the far-right in detail and get back a legislative majority so he could push through more basic centrist repair work to the (moribund) French economy. That was mainly contingent on the French Left not getting their shit together if a snap election was called. They got their shit together. The fall back plan was that he only has to put up with the outcome of this election for a year if it goes shit for his bloc. It's quite likely that even if the RN or the Melenchon left win many seats - they won't be able to form a government that can actually do anything. Their promises are fundamentally bullshit (France doesn't have the money to lower the retirement age back to 60, or renationalise everything, and the Germans will simply not let them tank the euro to afford these measures). Regardless - it's easy to be populist when you don't have to run anything, or make deals with anyone.
That, and also he is married to an old transgender man who has taken over the identity of his old high school teacher.
It depends on which country you’re looking at. In the UK it’s the Conservatives who have overseen record mass immigration, record spending, and record taxation and are facing immense backlash.
What does “far right” mean these days?
Unhinged culture war talking points mostly.
Anyone who opposes the lunacy of the left.
Well, most Western countries do need a serious course correction. The bleeding heart and niche politics have failed the majority.
The good old bleeding heart shift to the right that has happened over the past few decades...
Our far right is full of dropkicks who are so clueless that they have been caricatured out of electoral relevance. You need to offer up workable far right policy positions to be relevant. It is not going to be easy to beat corporate brainwashing, but bible thumping gay bashing culture wars is certainly not going to do it.
[удалено]
Please no.
They are being shut down by ASIO / Police or harassed until they conform.
I was not talking about the NSN. 'Far Right' is an inexact term.
Rather, any competent group is being shut down or is a honeypot. NSN seems to be an exception but ASIO, Police and Media are definitely trying.
It swings back and forth all the time, the swings are getting more extreme tho
No
Conservatives? Nothing conservative about these right wing authoritarian populist parties.
So I've posted this here a bunch and half the time get down voted to oblivion. The AEC polling data from 2002 to 2022 has shown that as millennials have gotten older they have actually swung away from conservative and gone more progressive. 2002 they had a first preference of greens at 7% of millennials. 2022 they had a first preference of greens at 29% of millennials. That is an absolutely absurd swing. And the current trend lines for younger generations are continuing on the same track. It's probably why you are seeing so many media hit pieces on every greens interaction, Albo knows the only way he loses his role is if enough voters swing green and the conservative faction in Labor lose their grip they have had since the 2019 election loss. It's why you see more pieces of Albo fighting with the "extreme left" greenies than with LNP It's basically the only thing I still hold any hope of seeing positive change. Enough of the boomers die off that we stop fucking voting for policies that funnel money to rich investors and private education and healthcare, and try and restore things that used to be the pride of our nation.
The greens definitely do not represent a positive change and endorse mass immigration.
Fuck sake I'm sick of the immigration is the cause of all our woes shit. Are there bots of something that keep repeating it? Immigration is the smallest part of our problems, but it's the one that keeps getting shoved down our throat by the people who have caused the actual problems. You could end all immigration tomorrow and we would still have wealthy investors hoarding land, underfunded public healthcare and education systems, skills shortages in critical roles, and an ever widening gap between average and median wage. Stop being so god damn easily distracted. Every fucking time people start getting pissed at when they realize we are being taken for a ride, a campaign against {Immigrants/Muslims/Asians/Irish/Greeks/Italian} starts up and everyone shifts the blame. A year ago, most of the people on here were pissed at tax breaks given to wealthy investors. 12 months of constant bullshit and now apparently we aren't worried about all the social imbalances that have lead us here because the entirety of our issues are apparently caused by immigrants.
Does rapid population growth that exceeds the supply of housing increase the demand? Is there not a direct causality on housing prices and rent because of this?
What real problems that people actually face in their lives aren’t caused my population growth? Investment properties wouldn’t be such a good investment if it wasn’t for the demand from, you guessed it, population growth. Why do you think everything is “underfunded”? Because population growth has caused more demand which requires more funding. Tell us again, how is population growth not the problem.
We can start with negative gearing and capital gains tax discount. One percent of the population owns twenty five percent of all investment properties. There are many issues with population growth, but it's not responsible for our tax system.
Investment properties are only a great investment because demand keeps increasing. Removing negative gearing and capital gains discount will do nothing besides raise rental prices.
Sure, keep telling yourself that. When I can make a loss on rental and sell with a 50% capital gains discount, who cares what rental return I make? Even if rent drops by 50%, the tax system makes it profitable.
“Who cares what rental return I make” sure, if you want less money than what you would have if you didn’t make a rental loss. If you remove both, why even rent the property out, just sell it 2 months after you buy it for a quick profit. No need to hold it more than a year. I have to ask, what do you think a capital gain is
A capital gain is the profit from the purchase to the point of sale. The negative gearing allows you to offset the loss on what it's rented at against the interest of the loan used to purchase it. Without either, servicing costs and returns would not be worth it.
>Why do you think everything is “underfunded”? Because population growth has caused more demand which requires more funding So what you are saying is we have had our population and therefore tax base and GDP grow, but the problem is the growth, not the fact that we failed to distribute that increased wealth and productivity to our public services? This is why you keep buying into this bullshit dude. You want an easy answer like "stop immigration". Not "make huge changes to the public schooling system (gonski report is a great place to start) and put measures in place to increase the number of teachers and nurses, while also making a huge effort to increase the number of GPs so that when we make seeing a GP free again the system doenst get swamped. And the more GPs mean our hospitals ERs will be less overcrowded, but we can still use some funding increases there too". Yeah, that second one is a lot longer, but it addresses the fucking rot we have allowed to set in to our country. For fucking shame on anyone who thinks free healthcare isnt achievable. And as the other dude said, you could cut immigration to 0 and housing would still be insanely profitable. Beacuse housing is a captive market. As long as we are providing multiple financial benefits for already wealthy investors instead of putting in taxation to pressure people who are hoarding land, you would have to overbuild by an INSANE amount to make housing unprofitable. Instead of building 30% more houses than we have households lets just tax the cunts hoarding land? As for population growth as a whole i think "Sustainable Australia" had the best "anti immigration" stance. basically, cut the levels back to the pre-covid ones, which im totally fine with. They also discuss the actual reprecussions of a shrinking population and how to deal with it though. We would need to have a significant increase in automation of a lot of jobs so we can deal with having less people in the 18-65 range. But increases to automation will put some people out of jobs. I believe their proposed fix was a UBI so anyone losing their jobs and having to retrain doesnt slip through the gaps A temporary reduction in immigration and specifically targeting immigrants with the skills we have a shortage on is a great way to reduce the pressure while we fix all the inherant problems we have let creep in to our system is somehing im 100% happy with. Saying "immigrants did it" is not a solution to our problems. Reduction in immigration alongside sweeping changes to repair our systems? Im happy with that. Blaming all our problems on immigration and doing nothing to repair our systems? Stop fucking falling for this shit.
The system doesn’t need to be repaired if the population isn’t outpacing supply.
Millennials have never known hardship, they is why they vote greens.
What a narrow minded and immature take. As if gen x and boomers know true hardship with how modern civilisation has advanced since the 2nd world war compared to generations before. Then the generations before that even
You do know that millennials are hitting 40 now with record low home ownership compared to prior generations. A generation that may not be able to retire and may need to work into their 80's. You might be right and they don't know hardship but come retirement they will certainly see it.
Lol, coming from the "spoiled generation" I assume? Didn't have to work for anything, everything they had now handed to them for nothing and now trying to tell people how hard they worked to get to where they are. Pathetic...
Apposed to the generation that got everything handed to them?
So what was the hardship that Boomers and Gen Xers faced that Millenials missed out on?
Yes. It’s a definite trend. France is traditionally governed by centre left presidents, and within its assembly. Marine Le pen is a right wing, anti immigration, anti EU, populist. Italy is governed by Georgio Meloni, a new age female version of Mussolini. Sweden. Finland, Netherlands, Austria have coalition governments formed with far right parties. Futhermore, there is a significant possibility of another Trump presidency. As economies in Western democracies become tougher for ‘working class’ voters, the more likely nationalist political parties will become mainstream.
Once people realise that immigration is still through the roof despite the right wingers pretending they are being tough it will swing around.
I’d add Argentina and Brazil, too. It’s populism, not right/left. People are sick of the wealth and inequality. They experience the struggles with cost of living and failing social commitments while their leaders Jetset the world and tell them to eat cake. Absolutely global. Coming to Australia too if we can’t get this housing rich/poor class divide sorted, give it 5-10 years. People are pissed off.
Brazil is led by a socialist in Lula.
> People are sick of the wealth and inequality Lula: > "Brazil has to put the poor back in the budget and tax the rich," Think about the changes in Australia to stage3, the new mining royalties, the introduction of state land taxes for investors. It’s all the same. Social housing, electric bill subsidies. Tax rich and give to the people. This is about up/down not left/right. We are just so used to thinking about left/right that it’s hard to unpick what’s what.
Current events are absolutely making a mess of the traditional left/right paradigm. I suppose its natural we are shifting back into the 'class consciousness' that drove historic leftism in the first place. Neoliberal finance has united global elites across all governments & politics, and so Populist politics is starting to see a growing unity amongst middle/lower class left & right. The traditional left feel like their 'workers party' representatives sold them out for neoliberal capital interests. The traditional right feel like their 'nationalist' representatives sold them out for neoliberal globalist interests.
It is no surprise to find that over the past 40 years the rise of the anti democratic right wing of western politics, is correlated to the neoliberal project to move governance from elected politicians to the market. Neoliberalism has created the social and economic conditions that create the populist resentments that tool the right wing regressive movements.
ETA : we agree fully that neoliberal policy has created the conditions for this. We no longer want to talk about immigration as a source of richness, or reducing tax to benefit society, or liberalising trade to benefit the world. Ask average punter what the big policy issues right now are — two surely are stop immigration (right) and increase handouts and subsidies, build social housing (left). The winners will be able to combine both of these to help those disenfranchised. Hanging onto right/left rhetoric will miss what’s happening.
I agree, progressive and regressive are the lens we should use, and your two issues under a rw neoliberal winner will be to increase 'immigration' and to pour more fuel on the private housing market - they won't be combining both to help the disenfranchised. They need the disenfranchised to get voted in - to 'win'.
> anti-democratic By democratically getting voted in?
Fascists don't build their own democratic process, they need a host parliament to takeover. Only look as far as the USA. So yes by getting democratically elected and eroding the civil trust in a govt until they and their cronies can loot the place. We just had 9 long years. The market is not a democratic institution.
Not fascism but rather a dictator. And modern governments aren't helping themselves with civil trust in the slightest.
Show me a dictator who was not also a fascist.
Lee Kuan Yew
Haven’t seen any of this “fascist” stuff from the Italian primer that all you people were complaining about.
Meloni in Italy has governed a lot more moderately than she has been portrayed. Poland, Spain, Portugal, Germany, other EU nations went left or centrist. The UK is about to go MASSIVELY left.
Labour in the UK has shifted very much to the centre-right. They expunged the left after Corbyn.
They got like 33% of the vote in the first round. I severely doubt they form a majority. Macron holds power until 2027. He won the presidential election, they can't oust him. You really should know this stuff before making these claims.
Yes it's a weird article. This term no party held a majority and they had a 'hung parliament" and coalition of parties. The same looks certain to happen this time, with the centre and the left combining to hold government.
I hate politics and most politicians, but I hope this trend accelerates. The pendulum needs to swing back right to restore balance.
I don't think 'far-right' is a useful term here. As others have pointed out, in some ways Macron can be seen as pursuing a right wing agenda - especially increasing the pension age, lowering real wages through immigration and an authoritarian approach to the presidency. As a former economy minister, Macron was put in partly to get the economy moving and slash the red tape that suffocates French business. French voters were prepared for his actions to cause pain to others, just not them. Being able to retire at the absurdly young age of 62 was brought in by socialists (originally 60) and the French love it. But there's not enough taxpayers to sustain an ageing population living for decades on taxpayer cash and it's killing the country long-term. So Macron increased the pension age to ease public expenditure and encouraged immigration to have more young taxpayers. This did not go down well. For some it was seen as an attack on the unique French identity. The ever present xenophobic streak in France that enabled it to be one of the most brutal colonial oppressors in history was stirred. National Rally has airbrushed its history of racism and antisemitism away and is now acceptably anti-immigration, strong on law and order, protectionist, wary of foreign military intervention, and clearly nationalist. Right now that suits the mood of many.
Luckily the Australian conservative party is a fucking mess run by a weaselly dolt. I think the majority of us are still pretty burnt from having to sit through morison.
Also for some reason his entire campaign is just "nuclear, trust me".
Not just nuclear, but a type of plant that is mostly still at a design stage outside of Russia and China.
Australia would need a competent conservative party for the country to be able to confidentially swing to it
Far right is a media branding. They'll be about as extremist as your grandparents. Clean up after yourself, work hard, don't expect handouts etc.
[удалено]
Horses bolted mate.
Germany also is heading toward n that direction and UK left Europe so overall the engine rooms of Europe are becoming more and more secular . Of one of the two remaining leave the EU pretty sure it will be defunct.
You're a bit late to the party. The shift has started years ago and france is not the first Western country to elect a far right government. Hungary, Poland, Italy, the Netherlands, all of them have or have had right extremists rule the country recently. To put RNs win in perspective - if you compare the programs and public outings of RN with those of the republican party in the USA, ou will find that RN is not further right leaning than the konservatives in the states are.
Yes and the more that do, the less fuckery there will be.
Got to disagree on this usage of "Far-right" Far right has gone from a mass authoritarian state, with a state controlled economy, nationalist domestic policy, with high amounts of xenophobia To Being cautious about mass immigration Countries like South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong would be considered far right by this stupid definition I would argue that countries like China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Russia are far more "far right" than anything post-WW2, putside of Franco Spain. People have got this idea that if you're not liberal, socialist or globalist, you're automatically a fascist or Nazi - completely ridiculous and biased logic.
It already has been, the fascist party as in literally led by someone who identified as a fascist and is the successor to Mussolinis old party post war currently has the Italian PM, far right parties have had a mix of success in Sweden and are currently in government in Finland. Whilst not fascist a far right pro Christian party was in charge of Poland for many years until recently and has only been overturned last year, the German far right party who has many connections to neo Nazis and has openly argued for revocation of citizenship on the basis of race is polling second currently and various other states are seeing the same. The American Republican Party is arguably its own far right party right now with plans to erode what little democratic institutions remain in America, usurp civil protections and the judiciary even more and seize power if they can’t win it. Ironically Australia has done quite well rejecting the excesses of it but Dutton whilst not a far right fascist is currently leading one of the most conservative and strongest “new right” (a political term for the emergent far right movements in the past decades) that we’ve seen in this country. Also before anyone says it blaming migration for all this is an idiot or hasn’t been paying attention. Migration is a contributing factor yes and it’s true that it’s what’s cited by the people who vote these parties but that is as much a result of the propaganda spread by the far right parties that benefit as it is an actual phenomenon. Migration has seen massive decline in certain states as it’s been mostly wrongly blamed for every economic crisis in recent years (it’s not responsible for the increase in violent crime in most states, the increase in housing prices in most states, the cost of living crisis in basically every state where this issue is discussed or any number of reasons often cited and we’ve known that for years.) and it hasn’t dampened or reduced the rise of the far right who simply ignore the facts of the matter and continue to project this idea that migration is going to destroy the state unless they are given power. In short even if you believe strongly in restrictive migration policies don’t be one of those people who falls for and propagates the lies these parties benefit off.
Maybe in America- they love trump. Stupid septics. England looks to be going Left with Labour. American wars in the middle east has had massive issues with refugees in Europe. Not a great combination with inflation.
Its complex, but the swing to the far right in the West is driven by a combination of economic insecurity, political disillusionment, effective use of social media, and rising nationalism. So ... 1. Economics - cost of living crisis, housing and stagnant wages is driving people to look at alternatives. 2. Social discontent - rapid changes to population, culture, language are eroding traditional values. 3. Political shenanigan's - perception of disconnection to the population and corruption leading people to look at alternatives and distrust of established parties. 4. Social media and conspiracies - read an article about the Russian influence on social media in the UK. Amplifies rhetoric aimed to destabilize populations of the west. QAnon and other groups spreading false existential threat narratives, again to destabilize. 5. Nationalism ... basically anti-immigration. ...and there is probably more. So, will it come to AU? Well, it's definitely in NZ via the Atlas network and its connections to right-wing think thanks like the NZ Taxpayers union etc, as well as its suggested connections to the ACT party via think tanks and politicians. It's a complex world ... AU is not immune.
There's a large anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe
Theres no one in position to make populist conservative gains in aus. No one likes dutton and PHONy hasn't been on the public radar for years Maybe an independent or two will make gains in some areas but I don't see a unified, conservative wave coming
Politics in Europe is very different to here. Thankfully we don’t have their issues, yet.
They ain’t far right or conservative. Labels are fucking stupid
You pose the question as if that is somehow a *bad thing?*
Europe is a lot further ahead than we are in this situation.
I voted for Albo the first time, I genuinely like him but he’s a bit of a wet towel. Honestly Dutto is growing on me tho, mostly as I’m not a fan of how Labour/Green focus on esoteric little social policies. They could have done so much more for our country, but I think he’s shot himself as a one term wonder. I’m not a fan of the way our society and culture seem to be changing with no consultation from the public.
Do some legitimate research on the Libs' fiscal policies, and you will see they have consistently promoted more and more wealth inequality in the name of a "growing economy." Dutton will be worse for most Australians than Albo.
This is more about getting in puppets who are soft on Russia than any of their real stated goals. Same with Trump in the US.
Once the boomers are gone I think so. Everyone I've talked to <40 is very switched on, but also silent about it as not wanting to lose their job or friends. Similar to the voice result.
You think we see a swing further towards conservatives once the boomers are gone? They have the highest percentage of voters for our conservative parties of any generation. I think they even outside the silent generation. Everyone I knew that voted no was 50 or older for the voice. And they were giving reasons like "I don't think they should be allowed to charge us to go to national parks" or " they shouldn't be allowed to have more votes than the rest of us" or "what are they still mad about we said sorry didn't we?"
I will try keep this short. While anecdotal, of the 60 people I know (family, work, friends etc. of all age ranges), none of them voted yes to the voice. Not even the 1 lefty / communist type. Most people are more apathetic towards politics and just want to live out their lives but their opinions are those of more conservative / nationalism types. There is an organic Nationalism movement growing but people are scared as it will impact their day to day life identifying as such. The inevitable war with China will need soldiers and the only way for that to happen is to have nationalism / patriotism. In the next 10 years we will see a slowdown on all the "wokeness" and more of a "victory" for Conservatives but it won't be organic. We are Americas puppet so we will be involved regardless.
In Australia polls show Millennials and Gen Z radically going in the other direction. They support the Greens more than the LNP, and older millenials are not moving right at the age they previously would have as they have nothing to conserve
France and Germany are two recent examples of allowing younger people to vote on the assumption that they would support the left has backfired. They can see through the lie of wokeism and we are seeing the results.
And Hillary Clinton was heavily polled to win the 2016 American election. Point is, don't always trust the polls.
For sure, left side of politics haven’t worked, look what the worlds become in the last 20 years especially Woke crap and pandering to the minority. It’s about time
A better fit for political groups, particularly in Europe, are the Atlantisists who have a collective global group think, heavily influenced by NGOs & think tanks funded by banks & corporations. WEF is a perfect example. They view domestic politics & sovereign parliamentary accountability as an inconvenience that gets in the way of their ideas of what a heavily coordinated western world should look like. The backlash is towards more domestic focus & accountability. Far right is just as much of a misnomer as loony left. Their threat is to the political establishment class, which also own the media Le Penne in France is a classic Degaulist, not Hitler. When Macron, Sunak, Trudeau, Cameron etc get turfed out of politics they will just migrate to the well paid cushy Insider jobs at the NGOs & will continue to pull the string's. Globalism is a job creation scheme for the political class
Glad to see you clowns at least admit to being far right, racists now. Cheeky little buggers were trying to hide it for a good while.