Albanese can now define patriotism beyond the Anzacs and the Wallabies
Albanese's adoption of progressive patriotism can help reset. When we talk about patriotism, we shouldn't have to explain that it needn't be aggressive. Or that nations needn't be defined by race or blood.
In today's Australia, the new default should be that patriotism is a love of country that is democratic and egalitarian. It is something that includes those of different races and backgrounds. It is not about an insistence that we are better than everyone else; it is about a belief we must live up to the best of our traditions.
Loading
Understood in this way, patriotism is by no means owned just by one side of politics. Australians can love this country in more ways than one. Some of us will instinctively think less about our democratic traditions and more about a connection with the land or family. We don't need to agree on everything about what makes our country special. But the civic character of patriotism – a commitment to the country as a citizen – can unify us all.
There can be a clearly defined progressive patriotism, however. For an Albanese Labor government, patriotism can power a renewed centre-left in the tradition of Labor nation-building.
This is the tradition followed by Labor reformist governments. When at their best, these governments were guided by a belief in modernising Australia and a politics of the common good – and by an ethos of fairness, equality and humanity. This thread ran through the governments of Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating, and can be glimpsed in later Labor governments led by Rudd and Gillard.
Many contemporary policy problems call for such an approach. Nation-building, after all, is about more than physical infrastructure. A nation is more than just a collection of roads, schools and hospitals; it is ultimately defined by its culture, its institutions, its citizens. Whether it is the economy, health, housing, climate or social cohesion, these concerns all implicate projects in building a nation.
Albanese should learn from the experience of his recent Labor predecessors. Although Kevin Rudd became prime minister promising new leadership, he struggled to tell a coherent national story. Julia Gillard faced a similar problem, weighed down by the demands of minority government.
Albanese can learn, too, from his first term in office. One of the reasons the Voice referendum failed was because not enough Australians saw a Voice to parliament as something that benefited all Australians. It was a painful reminder of how reform can only succeed if built on some common ground.
With his political authority unquestioned, Albanese has an opportunity to craft a nation-building agenda. The significance is more than just national. At the moment, parties of the centre-left are struggling to find compelling alternatives to Trumpist populism. In many countries, they are failing to find ways to connect with disillusioned constituencies who are angry at elites.
It certainly feels that way here in the UK. Faced with the alarming rise of Nigel Farage's Reform Party, Labour's Prime Minister Keir Starmer seems to be plotting a different course to Albanese. Previously, Starmer has spoken in support of a patriotism about belonging and inclusion. Recently, though, he has grimly warned that the UK risks becoming 'an island of strangers'. He has insisted Britons must 'take back control of our borders' and close a 'squalid chapter' of rising immigration.
Clearly, not all those on the centre-left who take up progressive patriotism can get it right. But Australia may be showing how it can be done.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
33 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Q+A's cancellation is the mercy killing of a show that no longer got us talking
It's often sad when a much-loved show comes to an end, but it's much sadder when a show trickles to termination long after the love has faded away. The ABC's cancellation of Q+A will be viewed by many as the merciful culmination of a long drift into irrelevance, but it would be unfair to let the passing go by without acknowledging that there was a time when it was bold, vital viewing, capable of generating real excitement, discussion and outrage, and of setting the political agenda. The eye-catching point of difference for Q+A when it began in 2008 was the running of selected tweets on screen while the show was in progress. It was a gimmick, but a stroke of genius for a show looking to create buzz and connect a watching community each week. It brought another dimension to TV-watching as hardcore Q+A -ers fought fiercely each week for the honour of getting on screen. Fans often commented that the show was 'so much better when no politicians were on'. I never agreed. Episodes without them produced much civil, intelligent discourse, but lacked the fire politicians generated with their presence. Some were loud and opinionated and deliberately put on a show. Others came over all sweet and reasonable. Or they just played the straight party-line bat, repeating the approved talking points. Whatever method they chose provided great grist for the mill: whether the audience was giving a standing ovation or participating in a social media feeding frenzy. When the program was at its best, it did spark proper, serious conversations. But it also was showbusiness. Everyone remembers John Howard getting a shoe thrown at him in 2010, and that incident provided exactly what people wanted from Q+A: the feeling you were witnessing something unique; that those who weren't watching had missed out. The mostly left-leaning audience loved the chance to reaffirm their loathing of Howard. Those on the right got their jollies decrying such vulgar violence. One of the show's greatest controversies was when the Abbott government boycotted it after it allowed former terror suspect Zaky Mallah to sit in the audience and ask a question. This set off furious debate over the rights and wrongs of letting Mallah on the show, but that was what Q+A was for – creating a space for people to argue over what was right and wrong. The show's best moments were always a result of the willingness to take on the risks of live television and the placing of big, combustible personalities in proximity. Some were one-off instances of unpredictable drama, such as when GetUp director Simon Sheikh fainted on air, or the interruption to the broadcast resulting from students staging an in-studio protest against panellist Christopher Pyne. Others were moving moments that became bigger stories, taking on a life of their own after the hour was up, like when Victorian man Duncan Storrar questioned politicians about tax cuts for the rich and the plight of low-income Australians like himself. To some, Storrar became a hero, but he was later targeted by media outlets digging into his past. At other times, the show shone simply by being the ring in which ferocious and sometimes hilarious verbal brawls were staged – between Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Jacqui Lambie, Bob Katter and Josh Thomas, and many others. Over the years, Q+A lost the ability to spark anger or argument, or get people talking the next day, or set the political agenda that week. One of the reasons was that it stopped aiming for enjoyment. Even on a show with pretensions to political significance, entertainment matters – you can't be significant if nobody's watching. The switch from Monday to Thursday night, later reversed, didn't help. Moving the show to later in the week robbed it of the feeling it was the kickstarter for that week's public debate. The 2019 loss of original host Tony Jones – whose calm control and flashes of wry bemusement ('I'm going to take that as a comment') endeared him to many but infuriated others who found him smug and either too opinionated or not opinionated enough – was a blow from which the show never recovered. As time passed, the novelty of the tweets wore off, and the panellists' spats started to seem tired and predictable. 'Don't watch the Bad Show' became the social media motto, as the program tried a little too hard to engineer memorable confrontations. Without popular engagement, the claim to be dictating the national conversation rang hollow, and even the attacks on the show's perceived biases or submission to vested interests started to drop off because nobody was paying attention any more.
The Age
37 minutes ago
- The Age
Q+A's cancellation is the mercy killing of a show that no longer got us talking
It's often sad when a much-loved show comes to an end, but it's much sadder when a show trickles to termination long after the love has faded away. The ABC's cancellation of Q+A will be viewed by many as the merciful culmination of a long drift into irrelevance, but it would be unfair to let the passing go by without acknowledging that there was a time when it was bold, vital viewing, capable of generating real excitement, discussion and outrage, and of setting the political agenda. The eye-catching point of difference for Q+A when it began in 2008 was the running of selected tweets on screen while the show was in progress. It was a gimmick, but a stroke of genius for a show looking to create buzz and connect a watching community each week. It brought another dimension to TV-watching as hardcore Q+A -ers fought fiercely each week for the honour of getting on screen. Fans often commented that the show was 'so much better when no politicians were on'. I never agreed. Episodes without them produced much civil, intelligent discourse, but lacked the fire politicians generated with their presence. Some were loud and opinionated and deliberately put on a show. Others came over all sweet and reasonable. Or they just played the straight party-line bat, repeating the approved talking points. Whatever method they chose provided great grist for the mill: whether the audience was giving a standing ovation or participating in a social media feeding frenzy. When the program was at its best, it did spark proper, serious conversations. But it also was showbusiness. Everyone remembers John Howard getting a shoe thrown at him in 2010, and that incident provided exactly what people wanted from Q+A: the feeling you were witnessing something unique; that those who weren't watching had missed out. The mostly left-leaning audience loved the chance to reaffirm their loathing of Howard. Those on the right got their jollies decrying such vulgar violence. One of the show's greatest controversies was when the Abbott government boycotted it after it allowed former terror suspect Zaky Mallah to sit in the audience and ask a question. This set off furious debate over the rights and wrongs of letting Mallah on the show, but that was what Q+A was for – creating a space for people to argue over what was right and wrong. The show's best moments were always a result of the willingness to take on the risks of live television and the placing of big, combustible personalities in proximity. Some were one-off instances of unpredictable drama, such as when GetUp director Simon Sheikh fainted on air, or the interruption to the broadcast resulting from students staging an in-studio protest against panellist Christopher Pyne. Others were moving moments that became bigger stories, taking on a life of their own after the hour was up, like when Victorian man Duncan Storrar questioned politicians about tax cuts for the rich and the plight of low-income Australians like himself. To some, Storrar became a hero, but he was later targeted by media outlets digging into his past. At other times, the show shone simply by being the ring in which ferocious and sometimes hilarious verbal brawls were staged – between Yassmin Abdel-Magied and Jacqui Lambie, Bob Katter and Josh Thomas, and many others. Over the years, Q+A lost the ability to spark anger or argument, or get people talking the next day, or set the political agenda that week. One of the reasons was that it stopped aiming for enjoyment. Even on a show with pretensions to political significance, entertainment matters – you can't be significant if nobody's watching. The switch from Monday to Thursday night, later reversed, didn't help. Moving the show to later in the week robbed it of the feeling it was the kickstarter for that week's public debate. The 2019 loss of original host Tony Jones – whose calm control and flashes of wry bemusement ('I'm going to take that as a comment') endeared him to many but infuriated others who found him smug and either too opinionated or not opinionated enough – was a blow from which the show never recovered. As time passed, the novelty of the tweets wore off, and the panellists' spats started to seem tired and predictable. 'Don't watch the Bad Show' became the social media motto, as the program tried a little too hard to engineer memorable confrontations. Without popular engagement, the claim to be dictating the national conversation rang hollow, and even the attacks on the show's perceived biases or submission to vested interests started to drop off because nobody was paying attention any more.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
Mark Bouris rails against Labor's controversial super, unrealised gains tax; issues alarming message to young Australians
Millionaire and businessman Mark Bouris has cautioned younger Australians to be aware of the dangerous risks posed by Labor's contentious super, unrealised gains tax, stating 'every young person' in the country 'should be worried'. Labor's plan to double the tax rate from 15 to 30 per cent on super accounts over $3 million looks set to pass both houses when parliament resumes in July, with the Greens expected to join with Labor in the Senate to ram the legislation through. However, the plan, which also targets unrealised capital gains has attracted a myriad of critics including top fund managers, leading economists and former Treasury officials who have argued the policy is reckless and unprecedented in nature. Despite Treasurer Jim Chalmers repeatedly claiming the policy will only affect 80,000 Australians or 0.5 per cent of the population, industry magnates have outlined that due to the threshold not being indexed with inflation, millions of young Australians could fall victim to the tax in the coming decades. In the latest episode of his Mentored+ podcast, Mr Bouris outlined that young Australians should be extremely concerned by the tax proposal, and that the super accounts of Australians starting work today would eventually be ransacked as a result. 'The people that are going to be affected by that the most is anyone starting work today, any new young person,' Mr Bouris said. 'So, if you're a young person saying this is great, because the rich people are going to transfer the wealth across to the younger people, you will be transferring it to your kids and it's going to keep going like that forever'. The businessman who is best known for founding Wizard Home Loans, Australia's second largest non-bank mortgage lender also said that older Australians had struggled to amass superannuation savings with a low tax rate, and that the tax hike would only make things harder for younger Australians. 'Every young person in the country should be worried about this, and I'll tell you why: because every old person in the country has experienced building their superannuation up with only 15 per cent tax rate from day 1, for the last 30, 40 years'. 'We've had this, all of us had this fantastic low-tax situation with the money we earn in our super fund,' Mr Bouris said, adding that young people who accumulate more than $3 million worth of assets "will not have the same benefits that everyone else had had'. Former Labor Prime Minister and chief architect of compulsory superannuation Paul Keating is reportedly incensed by the policy, telling industry super executives and union leaders last August the plan was 'unconscionable', and that it would turn superannuation into a low-and middle-income pension scheme. Mr Bouris said the former ALP Prime Minister, who introduced compulsory superannuation in 1992 'must be feeling completely demoralised and probably to some extent betrayed' by the reforms, stating that Mr Keating had long argued for government to refrain from imposing excessive levies on super. 'All (Labor's changes) is going to do is put more strain on government when people retire, because people are not going to retire with enough money because they are going to be paying too much tax," he said. 'So if you're a young person and you're saying, 'Oh, this is great', because you're gonna get rich people to transfer the wealth across to the younger people – uh-uh." From July 12 the majority of Australian workers will have 12 per cent of their wages paid to a superannuation fund, representing a 0.5 per cent increase from the current threshold.
