November 16, 2025 • 16 mins
Anthony Albanese leads a party that no longer argues in public. Labor presents as unified, consistent, and on message.
But behind that unity is another story. One where a party once defined by its dissent and debate has become scared of conflict, to the point where its identity is formed not by beliefs, but by a commitment to staying in power no matter what.
Sean Kelly has worked up close with Anthony Albanese, and with Labor prime ministers before him. He’s been interrogating what this government stands for – and what its legacy will be.
Today, author of the new Quarterly Essay, The Good Fight - What Does Labor Stand For? Sean Kelly, on what happens when political identity is built on belonging, not belief.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Sean Kelly, author of the new Quarterly Essay The Good Fight - What Does Labor Stand For?
Photo: AAP Image/Lukas Coch
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven Am. Anthony
Alberzi leads a party that no longer argues in public.
Labor presents as unified, consistent and on message, but behind
that unity is another story one. We're a party, once
(00:21):
defined by its dissent and debate, has become scared of conflict,
to the point where its identity is formed not by beliefs,
but by a commitment to staying in power no matter what.
Sean Kelly has worked up close with Anthony Alberanzi and
with Labor prime ministers before him, and he's been interrogating
what the government stands for and what its legacy will be.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I've heard his very odd experience watching this government, which
is that something about it has always puzzled me. And
that's part of where this essay came from. I was
trying to think, what does this government believe today?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Author of the new Quarter of the essay, The Good
Fight Kewey what happens when political identity is built on belonging,
not belief. It's Monday, November seventy John, thanks so much
for coming on the show. It's great to see you again.
(01:19):
Anthony Abberaneze have recently stated that he's never seen the
Labor Party more united, and he went on to say
that that's a virtue.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
What I'm focused on is my united team that are
focused on the needs of Australians.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
When you look at the Labor Party as a stands today,
do you see unity?
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Okay? I do see unity In some ways. The party
is as unified as it's ever been. But another way
of putting that would be to say that the caucus
is perhaps the quietest Labor caucus I can remember. And
I think that does point to a couple of things
which you can frame in different ways. If you're a politician,
(01:57):
you might say, well, that's great, it's a unified party
with very little leaking, with very little descent. Great, that
allows us to go ahead with our political goals. But
I think on the other side of things, it means
that you don't necessarily have the type of debate you
need to reach the best possible solutions. So I think
(02:17):
this is really interesting if you look at it in
terms of Labour's history, there has always been, right from
its very beginnings, a struggle within Labor, and that struggle
is between idealism and pragmatism between heading for the best
possible society, which once upon a time many people in
Labor would have called socialism, by which they didn't mean
(02:40):
socialism exactly as we understand, but a form of equality
and pragmatism, the desire to win elections. And I think
one of the really strange things about Labor is that
that struggle now seems to be inaudible. It's very hard
to say whether that struggle still exists or whether the
party has started to prioritize winning elections far more than
(03:04):
anything else.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
What do you attribute this lack of internal debate and
dissent to Shore, I mean, it's very Unlabor like.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, look at it is. I think you've got a
few factors here. Firstly, you have the fact that it's
become pretty much taboo to say I am a socialist.
You know, once upon a time people could describe their
beliefs with a single word, I'm a communist, I'm a socialist,
I'm an anti communist. And with the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the death of the Soviet Union, I
(03:32):
think our landscape of belief kind of collapsed into a
flat plane. And I think that means that the Labor
Party doesn't have that very clear ideal towards which it's
heading anymore. And the lack of a clear ideal is
a problem because what an ideal does is provides a
mechanism of accountability. You can always compare yourself to that
(03:54):
ideal and say, well, look at the things we're doing,
are they helping us get closer to that thing. I
don't think Labor feels as though it has a clear
ideal which it can articulate. The second thing that's happened
is that that battle, that struggle used to go on
within the Labor Party, but at some point the Greens
came along and I think that has meant over time
(04:17):
that that ideal, that pursuit of policy purity has migrated
outside of the Labor Party into the Greens. And I
think that that is part of why you don't see
such debate within the Labor Party. And I think it's
all something that the Labor Party has almost started to
define itself in opposition to that idea of pursuing ideals.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
For the Greene Political Party, this isn't about the Australian people.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
This is about then.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
They want the issue, not the outcome. The ideal In protests,
we focus on.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Progress, and that has seen pragmatism come even further to
the fore. And so I think this means that there
is an overall difficulty in labor, which is that it's
not entirely clear what labor is trying to do anymore.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
So what's been the cost of that sort of lack
of friction within the caucus? I mean, how has it
changed the way that the Labor Party is actually governing
at the moment.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I think you can see it in certain policy areas.
The one that comes to mind most readily is gambling.
When the Party has been willing to say we will
do something about gambling, but we won't ban online ads,
which is the thing that everybody, of course has been
talking about. And I think you see the Party often
stopping short of things. You know, they'll say, we will
do something about supermarket pricing, but we will defend the
(05:37):
existence of this, calls will work soligopoly, and again and
again we see Labor Party just kind of step clear
from the strongest possible answer to things. Now, that's not
necessarily a bad thing in each individual instance, but as
a whole, I think what it adds up to is
a party that is incredibly conflict averse, and that is
actually something the party has been talking about right from
(05:59):
the start. They would boast about not frightening the horses,
by which they meant not provoking huge debates, not provoking
their opponents to come out and bash them, and that
was in certain respects successful. But I think the question
is whether over time that costs the Labor Party something else,
(06:22):
and I think it does. I think again, you come
back to this question. If it's not fighting these fights,
if it's not willing to go into battle with entrenched interests,
then what exactly is it that it cares about?
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Coming up Albanese's three great faiths, Labor, the Catholic Church,
and the rabbit. As Sean Alberanze tells us that the
party is unified under our labor hat. So to the
question what does the party currently stand for? That's the
(06:58):
heart of your essay.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Look, I think that this labor hat thing is so interesting.
Jim Chalmers described the Labor Party this year as centrist.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
Obviously, there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of
the road centrist governments like ours don't consider, you know,
we don't consider inheritance taxes, we don't consider changing the
arrangements for the family home those And.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
As Richard Datis wrote this year, you know that difficultly
with Centrists. It means you're not defining yourself in relation
to particular beliefs. You're just defining yourself according to who's
on the right of you and who's on the left
of you. You're essentially a little tugboat being tossed by
by great waves. Anthony Albanese, when I put that label
centrist to him in twenty twenty three, said we're Labor
(07:45):
and that to me sounds better, but I still think
it doesn't leave us with a much clearer sense of
what the party stands for. And I think this is
related to a trend in Anthony Albanese's rhetoric, which is
it's often to find him negative terms rather than in
positive terms, by what labor wants not to do rather
(08:06):
than what it wants to do. So you could see
this when he was talking about the Australian way during
the election campaign. It started with a determination not to
be like America, not to be Donald Trump, and it
would say we don't need to copy the ideologies of
any other nation.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Why on Earth would we try to mimic anywhere else.
We don't want a wager system where people have to
rely on tips to make ends meet. We don't want
Australian students burdened by a lifetime of debt. And we
never ever ever want an American style health system in
(08:44):
this country.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Which is fair enough, but it is saying Australia should
be as it is now, not like something else. And
he did a similar thing when he was asked earlier
this year what he meant with his famous phrase, I
like fid.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I like fighting tories. That's what I do. That's what
I do.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And he said, well, what that means is not giving
up the gains that have been made. And I think
that's a fascinating way to describe it, because it's looking
backwards as saying we don't want to give up what
has already been done, not about fighting for new things,
not about fighting for change, and that is a really
conservative framing for the Australian Labor Party, it's a really
conservative framing for any center left party, because he had
(09:28):
left parties have traditionally been about change. And I think
it's really interesting that Anthony Albanez he constantly defines himself
by reference to the three great faiths he has the
Labor Party, the Catholic Church and the South Sydney Rabbitos.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Say that I was raised with three great faiths, the
Labor Party, the Catholic Church and Chastity regul League Football
Club by my mum.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And that because what I think that really means is
defining himself by tribes. You know, it's not a set
of beliefs, it's institutions that he belongs to and supports.
I think that's interesting because it is on some level
de finding yourself in opposition rather than with reference to
a particular belief, to a particular thing you were trying
(10:11):
to do.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Alban Eazy has said he didn't know why anyone would
go into politics if they didn't want to leave a legacy.
So what do you think he wants his legacy to be.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I think he would point to two things. One he
would say, I want to leave home a universal childcare,
and that absolutely may still happen. But it is worth
noting that the progress towards universal childcare has been much
slower than the government foreshadowed early on, and the time
frame has kept slipping a little bit. But that is
(10:42):
certainly one aspect of what he would hope to be
his legacy.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Our labor government believes firmly that every child should have
the right to quality, affordable early education.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The other thing that he points to is the transition
to renewable energy, and the government believes very strongly that
this is a revolutionary thing, that this is the most
significant thing that they are doing, that it is a
huge wave of economic change, and also of course changed
the way we approach the climate.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Every assailing who knows that climate change is a challenge
we must hate together to meet for their future.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Of our environment, and.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Knows the fact that renewable energy is an opportunity we
must work together to seas.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Trying to feature of our Again. There are really big
questions about just how much Australia's emissions are falling, and
you also have to factor in the fact which the
Albanezy government basically likes to ignore, which is that Australia
is in the top five exporters of fossil fuel emissions
(11:57):
around the world. I mean, that is a staggering fact
that really should shame us as a country, but we
just don't talk about it.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
So how do you think he's going in terms of
achieving the legacy that he's hoping to build, how would
you assess that at this point?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
I think one of the great difficulties in assessing this government.
One of the reasons I've really struggled with what to
think of them all the way along and still do,
is that the nature of incrementalism, the nature of approaching
things gradually, is that the moment of judgment always seems
to be somewhere down the track. If your argument to
(12:35):
the Isralian people is we are going about things slowly,
we are accumulating small changes over time into something that
will be larger and more significant, then you can always say, well,
that moment's coming. But I think it's important to remember
that we are three and a half years in. One
of the arguments that the government makes is that the
(12:57):
reason you need to win several elections in you need
to embed changes so that the following government, the following
coalition government, can't tear them down. Now that sounds fair enough,
except that when it's applied to previous governments, what you're
really talking about is reforms that happened early. Because at
this point, let's say the government loses after three terms.
(13:19):
We're really only talking about a term and a half
in which to embed those policies. So I think that
incrementalism argument loses power the longer the government is there.
And it loses power for another reason too, which is
that you could actually look at the results and say, well,
are these things being solved. I think there's something really
(13:43):
interesting about this decision not to pick fights, this decision
to avoid political trouble. It does work in a certain way.
It means you don't get strips torn off you, it
means you don't have the media piling on your head.
These are political advantages. But I think that over time,
every prime minister's strength ends up becoming their weakness. Every
(14:04):
prime minister ends up having a quality which works for them,
and because it works for them, they lean on it
ever more heavily, and because they lean not too heavily,
eventually it ends up hurting them. And you saw that
with Gough Wicklam. You know his boldness, he meant that
he eventually crashed. Similarly, but in the opposite way. Anthony
(14:24):
Albanize's caution has worked for him. It may work for
him for a longer period, and at some point if
he doesn't learn to balance that caution with boldness in
some other respects. Then I think that caution could end
up hurting him in the same way that Whitlam's boldness
ended up hurting him.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Sean, it's a fascinating essay. Thanks so much for coming
on the Showutte talking to us about it.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Thanks so much for having me on. It was lovely
to see you again.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Sean. Kelly's quarterly essay, The Good Fight What Does Labor
Stand For? Is out today. Also in the news, a
dead lockover who will host next year's cop Climate Summit
is said to be broken this week as this year's
conference in Brazil comes to an end. Australia is up
(15:14):
against to a Kia for hosting rights, with the Albanesi
government hoping to stage the global summit in Adelaide, but
despite pursuing the right to host cop the government has
not outlined the cost, with some reports suggesting it could
be as high as two billion dollars, and Prime Minister
Anthony Alberesi as endulgs Victorian Premier Jacinder Allen's new juvenile
(15:35):
justice laws, which will allow children as young as fourteen
to be jailed for life for violent crimes. The new
measures have been widely criticized for breaching human rights obligations,
but the PM described the move as consistent with the
premier's commitment to keeping Victorian safe. We will bring you
an episode on the new laws tomorrow. I'm Daniel James.
(15:56):
This is seven a m. Thanks for listening.
I'm Daniel James and you're listening to seven Am. Anthony
Alberzi leads a party that no longer argues in public.
Labor presents as unified, consistent and on message, but behind
that unity is another story one. We're a party, once
(00:21):
defined by its dissent and debate, has become scared of conflict,
to the point where its identity is formed not by beliefs,
but by a commitment to staying in power no matter what.
Sean Kelly has worked up close with Anthony Alberanzi and
with Labor prime ministers before him, and he's been interrogating
what the government stands for and what its legacy will be.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
I've heard his very odd experience watching this government, which
is that something about it has always puzzled me. And
that's part of where this essay came from. I was
trying to think, what does this government believe today?
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Author of the new Quarter of the essay, The Good
Fight Kewey what happens when political identity is built on belonging,
not belief. It's Monday, November seventy John, thanks so much
for coming on the show. It's great to see you again.
(01:19):
Anthony Abberaneze have recently stated that he's never seen the
Labor Party more united, and he went on to say
that that's a virtue.
Speaker 3 (01:26):
What I'm focused on is my united team that are
focused on the needs of Australians.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
When you look at the Labor Party as a stands today,
do you see unity?
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Okay? I do see unity In some ways. The party
is as unified as it's ever been. But another way
of putting that would be to say that the caucus
is perhaps the quietest Labor caucus I can remember. And
I think that does point to a couple of things
which you can frame in different ways. If you're a politician,
(01:57):
you might say, well, that's great, it's a unified party
with very little leaking, with very little descent. Great, that
allows us to go ahead with our political goals. But
I think on the other side of things, it means
that you don't necessarily have the type of debate you
need to reach the best possible solutions. So I think
(02:17):
this is really interesting if you look at it in
terms of Labour's history, there has always been, right from
its very beginnings, a struggle within Labor, and that struggle
is between idealism and pragmatism between heading for the best
possible society, which once upon a time many people in
Labor would have called socialism, by which they didn't mean
(02:40):
socialism exactly as we understand, but a form of equality
and pragmatism, the desire to win elections. And I think
one of the really strange things about Labor is that
that struggle now seems to be inaudible. It's very hard
to say whether that struggle still exists or whether the
party has started to prioritize winning elections far more than
(03:04):
anything else.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
What do you attribute this lack of internal debate and
dissent to Shore, I mean, it's very Unlabor like.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Yeah, look at it is. I think you've got a
few factors here. Firstly, you have the fact that it's
become pretty much taboo to say I am a socialist.
You know, once upon a time people could describe their
beliefs with a single word, I'm a communist, I'm a socialist,
I'm an anti communist. And with the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the death of the Soviet Union, I
(03:32):
think our landscape of belief kind of collapsed into a
flat plane. And I think that means that the Labor
Party doesn't have that very clear ideal towards which it's
heading anymore. And the lack of a clear ideal is
a problem because what an ideal does is provides a
mechanism of accountability. You can always compare yourself to that
(03:54):
ideal and say, well, look at the things we're doing,
are they helping us get closer to that thing. I
don't think Labor feels as though it has a clear
ideal which it can articulate. The second thing that's happened
is that that battle, that struggle used to go on
within the Labor Party, but at some point the Greens
came along and I think that has meant over time
(04:17):
that that ideal, that pursuit of policy purity has migrated
outside of the Labor Party into the Greens. And I
think that that is part of why you don't see
such debate within the Labor Party. And I think it's
all something that the Labor Party has almost started to
define itself in opposition to that idea of pursuing ideals.
Speaker 3 (04:37):
For the Greene Political Party, this isn't about the Australian people.
Speaker 1 (04:41):
This is about then.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
They want the issue, not the outcome. The ideal In protests,
we focus on.
Speaker 2 (04:49):
Progress, and that has seen pragmatism come even further to
the fore. And so I think this means that there
is an overall difficulty in labor, which is that it's
not entirely clear what labor is trying to do anymore.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
So what's been the cost of that sort of lack
of friction within the caucus? I mean, how has it
changed the way that the Labor Party is actually governing
at the moment.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
I think you can see it in certain policy areas.
The one that comes to mind most readily is gambling.
When the Party has been willing to say we will
do something about gambling, but we won't ban online ads,
which is the thing that everybody, of course has been
talking about. And I think you see the Party often
stopping short of things. You know, they'll say, we will
do something about supermarket pricing, but we will defend the
(05:37):
existence of this, calls will work soligopoly, and again and
again we see Labor Party just kind of step clear
from the strongest possible answer to things. Now, that's not
necessarily a bad thing in each individual instance, but as
a whole, I think what it adds up to is
a party that is incredibly conflict averse, and that is
actually something the party has been talking about right from
(05:59):
the start. They would boast about not frightening the horses,
by which they meant not provoking huge debates, not provoking
their opponents to come out and bash them, and that
was in certain respects successful. But I think the question
is whether over time that costs the Labor Party something else,
(06:22):
and I think it does. I think again, you come
back to this question. If it's not fighting these fights,
if it's not willing to go into battle with entrenched interests,
then what exactly is it that it cares about?
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Coming up Albanese's three great faiths, Labor, the Catholic Church,
and the rabbit. As Sean Alberanze tells us that the
party is unified under our labor hat. So to the
question what does the party currently stand for? That's the
(06:58):
heart of your essay.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Look, I think that this labor hat thing is so interesting.
Jim Chalmers described the Labor Party this year as centrist.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
Obviously, there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of
the road centrist governments like ours don't consider, you know,
we don't consider inheritance taxes, we don't consider changing the
arrangements for the family home those And.
Speaker 2 (07:22):
As Richard Datis wrote this year, you know that difficultly
with Centrists. It means you're not defining yourself in relation
to particular beliefs. You're just defining yourself according to who's
on the right of you and who's on the left
of you. You're essentially a little tugboat being tossed by
by great waves. Anthony Albanese, when I put that label
centrist to him in twenty twenty three, said we're Labor
(07:45):
and that to me sounds better, but I still think
it doesn't leave us with a much clearer sense of
what the party stands for. And I think this is
related to a trend in Anthony Albanese's rhetoric, which is
it's often to find him negative terms rather than in
positive terms, by what labor wants not to do rather
(08:06):
than what it wants to do. So you could see
this when he was talking about the Australian way during
the election campaign. It started with a determination not to
be like America, not to be Donald Trump, and it
would say we don't need to copy the ideologies of
any other nation.
Speaker 3 (08:20):
Why on Earth would we try to mimic anywhere else.
We don't want a wager system where people have to
rely on tips to make ends meet. We don't want
Australian students burdened by a lifetime of debt. And we
never ever ever want an American style health system in
(08:44):
this country.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Which is fair enough, but it is saying Australia should
be as it is now, not like something else. And
he did a similar thing when he was asked earlier
this year what he meant with his famous phrase, I
like fid.
Speaker 1 (09:00):
I like fighting tories. That's what I do. That's what
I do.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And he said, well, what that means is not giving
up the gains that have been made. And I think
that's a fascinating way to describe it, because it's looking
backwards as saying we don't want to give up what
has already been done, not about fighting for new things,
not about fighting for change, and that is a really
conservative framing for the Australian Labor Party, it's a really
conservative framing for any center left party, because he had
(09:28):
left parties have traditionally been about change. And I think
it's really interesting that Anthony Albanez he constantly defines himself
by reference to the three great faiths he has the
Labor Party, the Catholic Church and the South Sydney Rabbitos.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
Say that I was raised with three great faiths, the
Labor Party, the Catholic Church and Chastity regul League Football
Club by my mum.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
And that because what I think that really means is
defining himself by tribes. You know, it's not a set
of beliefs, it's institutions that he belongs to and supports.
I think that's interesting because it is on some level
de finding yourself in opposition rather than with reference to
a particular belief, to a particular thing you were trying
(10:11):
to do.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Alban Eazy has said he didn't know why anyone would
go into politics if they didn't want to leave a legacy.
So what do you think he wants his legacy to be.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I think he would point to two things. One he
would say, I want to leave home a universal childcare,
and that absolutely may still happen. But it is worth
noting that the progress towards universal childcare has been much
slower than the government foreshadowed early on, and the time
frame has kept slipping a little bit. But that is
(10:42):
certainly one aspect of what he would hope to be
his legacy.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Our labor government believes firmly that every child should have
the right to quality, affordable early education.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The other thing that he points to is the transition
to renewable energy, and the government believes very strongly that
this is a revolutionary thing, that this is the most
significant thing that they are doing, that it is a
huge wave of economic change, and also of course changed
the way we approach the climate.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
Every assailing who knows that climate change is a challenge
we must hate together to meet for their future.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
Of our environment, and.
Speaker 3 (11:29):
Knows the fact that renewable energy is an opportunity we
must work together to seas.
Speaker 2 (11:37):
Trying to feature of our Again. There are really big
questions about just how much Australia's emissions are falling, and
you also have to factor in the fact which the
Albanezy government basically likes to ignore, which is that Australia
is in the top five exporters of fossil fuel emissions
(11:57):
around the world. I mean, that is a staggering fact
that really should shame us as a country, but we
just don't talk about it.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
So how do you think he's going in terms of
achieving the legacy that he's hoping to build, how would
you assess that at this point?
Speaker 2 (12:13):
I think one of the great difficulties in assessing this government.
One of the reasons I've really struggled with what to
think of them all the way along and still do,
is that the nature of incrementalism, the nature of approaching
things gradually, is that the moment of judgment always seems
to be somewhere down the track. If your argument to
(12:35):
the Isralian people is we are going about things slowly,
we are accumulating small changes over time into something that
will be larger and more significant, then you can always say, well,
that moment's coming. But I think it's important to remember
that we are three and a half years in. One
of the arguments that the government makes is that the
(12:57):
reason you need to win several elections in you need
to embed changes so that the following government, the following
coalition government, can't tear them down. Now that sounds fair enough,
except that when it's applied to previous governments, what you're
really talking about is reforms that happened early. Because at
this point, let's say the government loses after three terms.
(13:19):
We're really only talking about a term and a half
in which to embed those policies. So I think that
incrementalism argument loses power the longer the government is there.
And it loses power for another reason too, which is
that you could actually look at the results and say, well,
are these things being solved. I think there's something really
(13:43):
interesting about this decision not to pick fights, this decision
to avoid political trouble. It does work in a certain way.
It means you don't get strips torn off you, it
means you don't have the media piling on your head.
These are political advantages. But I think that over time,
every prime minister's strength ends up becoming their weakness. Every
(14:04):
prime minister ends up having a quality which works for them,
and because it works for them, they lean on it
ever more heavily, and because they lean not too heavily,
eventually it ends up hurting them. And you saw that
with Gough Wicklam. You know his boldness, he meant that
he eventually crashed. Similarly, but in the opposite way. Anthony
(14:24):
Albanize's caution has worked for him. It may work for
him for a longer period, and at some point if
he doesn't learn to balance that caution with boldness in
some other respects. Then I think that caution could end
up hurting him in the same way that Whitlam's boldness
ended up hurting him.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Sean, it's a fascinating essay. Thanks so much for coming
on the Showutte talking to us about it.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Thanks so much for having me on. It was lovely
to see you again.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
Sean. Kelly's quarterly essay, The Good Fight What Does Labor
Stand For? Is out today. Also in the news, a
dead lockover who will host next year's cop Climate Summit
is said to be broken this week as this year's
conference in Brazil comes to an end. Australia is up
(15:14):
against to a Kia for hosting rights, with the Albanesi
government hoping to stage the global summit in Adelaide, but
despite pursuing the right to host cop the government has
not outlined the cost, with some reports suggesting it could
be as high as two billion dollars, and Prime Minister
Anthony Alberesi as endulgs Victorian Premier Jacinder Allen's new juvenile
(15:35):
justice laws, which will allow children as young as fourteen
to be jailed for life for violent crimes. The new
measures have been widely criticized for breaching human rights obligations,
but the PM described the move as consistent with the
premier's commitment to keeping Victorian safe. We will bring you
an episode on the new laws tomorrow. I'm Daniel James.
(15:56):
This is seven a m. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.