The Conundrum Between Fight or Calm

There’s a popular line doing the rounds at the moment, most recently put by Kos Samaras from RedBridge Group, in a column published in The New Daily that voters across Western democracies are turning away from “managers” and towards “fighters.”

It’s a compelling argument. And to be fair, it captures something real.

When people feel ignored, under pressure, or let down by institutions, they do become more receptive to leaders who are willing to draw lines, name opponents, and prosecute a cause. You can see that energy on both sides of politics. It’s sharper, louder, and far more visible than the quieter business of consensus-building.

But I think that framing misses something important.

What’s actually changed is the environment. Social media rewards outrage. News cycles amplify conflict. Political incentives increasingly favour those who can cut through with force rather than those who can quietly deliver. In that kind of ecosystem, “fighters” don’t just exist, they dominate attention. And attention can easily be mistaken for preference.

You can see this play out in real time on social media every day.

Post something measured, fact-based, and grounded in evidence, even on issues people claim to care deeply about, and the response is often muted. Engagement drops off. The conversation is thinner, slower, and far less visible. It doesn’t travel.

Now post something provocative, emotionally charged, or outright misleading, and the opposite happens. It spreads quickly. It draws reactions, arguments, pile-ons. It creates momentum. Outrage, whether justified or not, has a velocity that facts alone rarely match.

This is where the argument needs more context.

Yes, there is a visible shift towards more combative political styles. Yes, leaders who “fight” and “name enemies” are cutting through more effectively. But part of that shift is being manufactured and amplified by the environment itself.

Algorithms don’t measure considered judgment, they measure engagement. And engagement is disproportionately driven by conflict, identity, and emotion. The more divisive the content, the more it is surfaced, shared, and reinforced. Over time, that creates a feedback loop where the loudest voices appear to represent the dominant view.

Political actors respond rationally to that incentive structure. Media organisations do too. And gradually, the public conversation becomes skewed toward confrontation, not necessarily because it reflects a deep, settled voter preference, but because it performs better in the channels that now shape perception.

That distinction matters.

Because when we look at this through that lens, the idea that voters are “abandoning” consensus politics starts to look less like a clear shift in values and more like a distortion of what we’re able to see and measure.

There is still a large, quieter cohort of voters who value competence, evidence, and the ability to build consensus, but their preferences don’t generate the same immediate reaction, so they don’t get the same visibility. They are present, but underrepresented in the noise.

So while Samaras is right to point out the rise of more combative political behaviour, it’s worth asking how much of that is genuine demand, and how much of it is a system that amplifies conflict and mistakes attention for endorsement.

Because if we confuse the two, we risk overcorrecting, rewarding the loudest voices while overlooking the broader, more durable expectations voters still have when it comes to governing.

And that’s where the real tension sits, between what cuts through, and what actually works.

𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐈𝐌𝐌𝐈𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐃𝐄𝐁𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐄𝐓 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐔𝐒𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐎𝐅 𝐑𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐋𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐑 ..

This is controversial, but it needs to be said.

The response from Labor, particularly @Tony_Burke and @jeromelaxale to @AngusTaylorMP’s immigration address was nothing short of disgraceful.

What should have been a serious, necessary debate was once again reduced to a predictable barrage of accusations, blatantly misrepresenting his position and defaulting to claims of racism and lies. That shuts down discussion instead of engaging with the substance. We must not let that happen. 

Because the substance matters.

It is a fact, backed by Treasury analysis, that some cohorts within the migration program have a negative fiscal impact over their lifetime. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make it untrue; it just makes it harder to have an honest conversation about how the system should operate.

According to The Lifetime Fiscal Impact of the Australian Permanent Migration Program (Treasury Paper No. 2, December 2021), the estimated lifetime fiscal impact includes:

- Parent visa holders: approximately –$394,000

- Humanitarian migrants: approximately –$400,000 per person 

These figures are not opinion, they come from Treasury modelling. And the report itself makes clear that fiscal outcomes are a relevant consideration when assessing migration policy.

At the same time, the report also acknowledges that fiscal impact is only one part of a much broader picture. Migration brings social, economic, and cultural benefits as well as costs. But that’s exactly the point: you can’t selectively cite the positives while refusing to acknowledge the negatives.

We are living with the broader consequences right now.

Housing is under strain. Infrastructure is struggling to keep pace. Essential services are stretched. Record levels of migration are being used to prop up headline economic figures, while the practical impacts are borne by everyday Australians.

And beyond economics, there are social expectations that cannot be ignored. A functioning migration program relies on a shared commitment to Australia’s laws, values, and way of life. It is not unreasonable to expect that those who come here respect that, nor is it unreasonable to say that those who actively undermine it, or seek to reshape it in ways that conflict with those fundamentals, should not expect indefinite acceptance.

We are even seeing this tension play out within our own parliament, where some elected representatives, entrusted to serve Australia’s interests, are advocating more strongly for overseas causes or conflicts than for the cohesion and stability of the country they were elected to represent. That erodes public confidence and fuels the very concerns many are trying to dismiss.

For a long time, I’ve held the view that family reunion visas should be limited to spouses and dependent children, not extended family such as parents. That’s a policy position open to debate, but it should be debated on facts, not dismissed with insults.

And that’s the real issue here.

Instead of engaging honestly with difficult questions, about sustainability, fairness, and national interest, we get slogans, deflection, and character attacks.

Australia deserves better than that.

Switching Off Our Energy Strength While Running on Empty: Australia’s Energy Crisis

The first wind turbine used to generate electricity was built by James Blyth in Scotland in 1887, powering the lights in his home. Hydroelectric power dates back even earlier—used in 1878 by William Armstrong to light a lamp at his house, Cragside.

Harnessing the sun is far older still. As early as the 7th century BC, magnifying glass–like tools were used to concentrate sunlight to start fires. By the 3rd century BC, the Ancient Greece and the Ancient Rome used “burning mirrors” to light torches for religious purposes.

There is a reason these early energy solutions didn’t scale in a meaningful way, they were unreliable, dependent on weather conditions, and expensive relative to their output. In response, innovators developed more consistent and scalable energy sources, most notably fossil fuels. The result was transformative, industry expanded, prosperity increased, health outcomes improved, and deaths from cold declined significantly.

Today, there are calls to rapidly phase out fossil fuels in the name of saving the planet, with a return to weather-dependent energy systems often framed as “progress.” In Australia, this has taken the form of an increasingly aggressive policy push away from coal, gas and traditional baseload power, alongside the progressive closure or restriction of key mining and energy projects that have long underpinned both domestic supply and export strength. 

Critics argue this comes with real trade-offs, extensive land use, impacts on forests and agricultural land, and pressure on wildlife habitats, sometimes affecting already endangered species. There are also economic concerns, including rising energy costs, reduced industrial competitiveness, and growing strain on manufacturing.

Recent instability in the Middle East, and conflicts that have disrupted global energy flows, serve as a stark reminder of how fragile energy security can be when nations become reliant on external supply chains or ideologically constrained domestic production. The lesson is not abstract, energy is not just an environmental question, it is a strategic one. Countries that cannot reliably produce their own power place themselves at risk, economically and geopolitically.

This is why the question of energy self-sufficiency is becoming increasingly urgent. A nation rich in natural resources, like Australia, would historically have viewed abundant, reliable, domestically controlled energy as a strategic advantage. Yet current policy settings risk eroding that advantage, replacing it with a system more exposed to intermittency, global supply chains, and infrastructure vulnerability.

What is often ignored in this debate is Australia’s increasingly fragile position on fuel security. Despite being one of the world’s largest energy exporters, Australia holds only limited domestic fuel reserves and is heavily dependent on imported refined petroleum. In any serious global disruption, whether conflict, trade breakdown, or shipping constraint, that dependency becomes an immediate national vulnerability.

The steady dismantling of Australia’s refining capacity has compounded this risk. Where the nation once had multiple operational refineries, it now relies on a small number, leaving it exposed to external shocks and decisions made far beyond its shores. Put simply, Australia produces the raw resources, exports them, and then buys back the finished fuel, often at higher cost and with less control.

Rebuilding domestic refining is not an abstract policy idea, it is a strategic necessity. A sovereign refining capability would strengthen national resilience, reduce exposure to volatile global markets, and provide a reliable buffer in times of crisis. It would underpin critical industries, from agriculture to mining to defence, while restoring a layer of economic and industrial independence that has been steadily eroded.

Equally important is the question of upstream supply. Expanding domestic oil exploration and drilling would complement refining capacity and further strengthen Australia’s energy security. Rather than relying predominantly on imported crude and refined fuels, increasing local production would provide greater control over supply, reduce exposure to global disruptions, and better leverage Australia’s own resource base.

Supporters argue nuclear energy offers a path to maintain modern living standards while minimising environmental disruption. Yet at the same time, we are witnessing the large-scale clearing of old-growth forests and the industrialisation of rich agricultural land to accommodate renewable infrastructure, transformations that are often downplayed in the broader debate but are deeply felt by regional communities and environmental observers alike.

Critics of current policy settings argue that policymakers such as Chris Bowen and Matt Kean, despite positioning their agenda as environmentally responsible, are presiding over changes that risk long-term damage to landscapes, habitats, and food-producing land. From this perspective, the question is not just about intent, but about outcomes, and whether the path being pursued truly represents environmental stewardship.

And this is where the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore. While claiming environmental virtue, policymakers such as Chris Bowen and Matt Kean are, in the eyes of their critics, driving an agenda that is fundamentally reshaping and degrading the very landscapes they claim to protect.

If this is what is being called “clean” and “green,” then it is fair to ask, who are the real environmentalists, and what, exactly, are we trying to conserve?

We Get the Politics We Choose

My recent socials post about my quandary to stay on X or leave sparked a number of interesting responses.

First, it’s genuinely humbling when people take the time to say they value what I write. As someone who loves words, and firmly believes they matter, that is one of the greatest compliments. So, thank you.

Second, there was plenty of advice, which is always appreciated.

Finally, there were repeated comments about One Nation “listening.” That’s a more complex issue. One Nation are highly effective at listening and echoing the discontent that has been building for some time. “We hear you and we’ll fix it” is easy to say, but far harder to deliver. And sometimes, it simply can’t be delivered. Too often, that part is left unsaid.

We’ve seen this before. Labor’s promises on housing, Medicare gap fees, and cheaper energy are recent examples of how easy it is to overpromise and underdeliver. The list goes on.

What we need from political parties isn’t just listening, we need honesty. A willingness to commit to what is achievable, and the courage to be upfront about what isn’t, even when it’s unpopular. We need leadership that focuses on substance, not distraction and anger, and isn’t constantly chasing approval by appeasing competing tribes.

But this isn’t just on political parties.

As voters, we need to grow up. Politics is not a game, it has real consequences for our lives, our freedoms, and our future. We should approach it with the same care and judgement we apply to the most important decisions in our personal lives.

The idea of “what do we have to lose, I’ll give them a try” isn’t a standard most people would apply to choosing a partner, buying a home, or making a major life decision, so why apply it to voting?

And while it’s often said that one vote doesn’t matter, collectively they matter enormously. Recent elections have shown just how powerful that collective decision-making can be, particularly through preferences.

I also often hear that voters don’t understand preferences or are misled by how-to-vote cards. I don’t accept that. When you stand at the ballot box, it is very clear who you are voting for. It is printed plainly in front of you.

We need to stop letting ourselves, and each other, off the hook. Governments aren’t formed by accident or political magic. They are elected, deliberately, by voters.

And that means the standard of our politics will only ever be as high as the standard we demand, and the responsibility we’re prepared to take for the choices we make.

The Hard Truth About Polls, Politics, and Us

I’ve never been afraid to speak my mind. That hasn’t always served me well, even though I make a genuine effort to be honest and clear. I suspect this will be one of those times, but it needs to be said.

Another round of polls is out, and frankly, they’re depressing. Not just because of what they show, but because of what they say about us. Either too many people aren’t taking them seriously, or too many are making decisions without really thinking through the consequences. Neither is reassuring.

And then there’s how these polls are used. They’re no longer just a snapshot of public sentiment, they’ve become a tool to shape it. Headlines are crafted to steer opinion, to build momentum, to make outcomes feel inevitable. That should concern anyone who values genuine democratic choice.

Meanwhile, the country feels like it’s sliding. That trajectory didn’t start yesterday, but it’s hard to ignore that it has accelerated in recent years. Yet despite that, current polling suggests Anthony Albanese and Labor would still be in a winning position if an election were held now. That disconnect is hard to reconcile.

At the same time, One Nation is polling strongly, not because it offers a fully formed pathway forward, but because it is tapping into something very real: frustration, pressure, and a sense that people are not being heard. “We hear you, we’ll fix it” is a powerful message. But slogans are not solutions.

We’ve seen that before. Many believed Anthony Albanese was the answer. Twice. It’s worth asking, honestly, where that has left us.

Meanwhile, the Coalition continues to be dismissed. Not necessarily because it lacks capability, but because it isn’t playing the same game. It isn’t shouting the loudest or promising the quickest fix, it’s arguing for a more difficult path back to stability.

And here’s the part that should give people pause: figures like Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan bring significant economic and policy experience to the table, experience grounded in portfolios, markets, and the real-world mechanics of how economies function. You don’t have to agree with them, but dismissing that level of economic literacy in favour of whoever has the simplest or loudest message is a risk we shouldn’t be taking lightly.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: if we keep rewarding whoever tells us what we want to hear, rather than who is prepared to deal with reality, nothing will change. In fact, it will get worse.

I don’t say this lightly, but I do say it plainly, I’m losing faith in our willingness to confront hard truths and back those prepared to act on them. Two elections in a row suggest we’re not learning. If that continues, the next one won’t just be disappointing, it will deepen the very problems so many say they want fixed.

At some point, we either start thinking more critically about who and what we’re voting for…or we accept the consequences of not doing so.

Immigration: We have to STOP putting the cart before the horse

Australia’s current immigration levels are a major issue. But those advocating simply rounding up students, temporary visa holders, or other migrants for mass deportation are being shortsighted and naïve. Quick fixes like that ignore the complexity of the system, the law, and the real economic and social consequences.

That said, we do need a robust legal framework to manage lawbreakers, troublemakers, and genuinely undesirable individuals. Those laws must be airtight and capable of withstanding inevitable legal challenges, including in the High Court. It’s not easy—but that’s no reason to shy away from addressing the problem.

The solution, however, must start at the beginning: deciding how big Australia should be as a nation. Before immigration can be effectively controlled, we need a clear, foundational answer to that question—ideally put to the electorate via a referendum. Once a national population target is established, it can guide the net migration cap, and governments must be held accountable if they exceed it. Only then does the careful issuing of visas make sense.

There are many additional nuances that must also be addressed, including:

• Skills required to meet industry needs
• Significant limits on family reunion visas (spouse and children only)
• Minimum English language requirements for all visa categories
• Ensuring visa recipients align with Australian values
• Tourism and other temporary visa purposes

These are just examples of the careful planning and legal precision required to manage immigration responsibly. Controlling who receives a visa and for what purpose is critical—and the benefits of doing so are clear.

Summary:

Managing immigration is complex and cannot rely on mass deportation or knee-jerk policies. Solutions must begin with national decisions on population size, clear visa rules, and robust, loophole-proof laws that target genuine lawbreakers while preserving fairness, economic stability, and social cohesion.

Different Ideologies, Similar Tactics: A Look at Modern Political Playbooks

Before going further, let’s set the tone. This is not written to anger or inflame. It does not equate very different ideologies. It aims to understand political tactics, how they work, why they succeed, and why they appear again and again in history.

History shows that persuasive political strategies can mobilise large groups. But what works is not always what helps. Tactics that build momentum, loyalty, and attention do not always lead to better outcomes. When we understand how these methods work, we can judge political messages more clearly, no matter where they sit on the spectrum.

At first glance, comparing Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Socialist Alliance seems odd. They sit on opposite ends of politics. One is nationalist and conservative. The other is socialist and progressive. Their policies and worldviews differ sharply.

But if we step back from what they believe and look at how they operate, some similarities appear.

This is not about equating ideologies. It is about political mechanics: the tools used to mobilise supporters, shape narratives, and gain attention.

Why This Messaging Resonates

To understand why these tactics work, we must look at the audience.

People who feel financially squeezed, culturally ignored, or politically sidelined often seek clarity and validation. When institutions seem distant and major parties feel out of touch, frustration grows.

Messages that highlight problems, blame a group for those problems, offer belonging, and promise to challenge power can be powerful.

Many people feel empowered when told, “The system is broken, and I will fix it.” Being told “we are fighting for people like you” builds connection. That emotional pull should not be underestimated.

This does not always mean supporters are irrational or malicious. It reflects a human need for agency, dignity, and recognition. When people feel unheard, movements that speak in direct, emotional terms can fill the gap, whatever their ideology.

1. Populist Messaging: “Us vs the Elites”

Both parties present themselves as spearheads of “ordinary people” against powerful institutions and perceived common enemies. 

• One Nation says it speaks for everyday Australians against political elites, bureaucrats and the media.
• Socialist Alliance says it represents workers and marginalised groups against corporations and political elites.

The targets differ. The message structure does not. Both frame themselves as outsiders fighting a corrupt or out-of-touch system. This builds loyalty and a sense of shared struggle.

2. Identity as a Political Lens

Identity is central to how they mobilise support.

• One Nation stresses national or cultural identity.
• Socialist Alliance focuses on class identity, workers versus capital, and other identities linked to inequality.

In both cases, policy debates are filtered through identity. Complex issues become stories about “us” and “them.” These stories are simple, emotional, and easy to share.

3. Emotional Framing Over Technical Detail

Modern politics rewards emotion more than nuance.

Both groups often:

• Use fear, anger, or moral outrage to energise supporters.
• Turn complex issues into short slogans.
• Repeat key phrases to strengthen their message.

Policy overview’s still exists. But in public messaging, emotion usually comes first. Detail comes later or not at all. 

4. Simplification and Repetition

• Political messaging relies on clarity and repetition.
• Complex debates are reduced to short, repeatable lines.
• Over time, repetition makes these ideas familiar and accepted.

This approach is common in modern politics. It is especially visible in outsider or populist campaigns.

5. The Outsider vs Institution Narrative

Both parties often portray institutions as biased or broken.

• One Nation criticises mainstream media, the government bureaucracy, elites and groups they perceive as the enemy. 
• Socialist Alliance criticises capitalism, major political parties and partners with those who see Australia as captured by colonisers and the privileged whites. 

This framing builds unity within the group. If institutions are seen as corrupt, then criticism from them can be dismissed. Supporters may view that criticism as proof the movement is challenging the system.

6. Media and Social Media Strategy

Provocation can be deliberate.

• Controversial comments create headlines.
• Headlines create attention.
• Attention builds recognition.

Even negative coverage can even help. Supporters see criticism as proof the movement is threatening powerful interests.

In a crowded media space, visibility matters. Sharp, emotional messages often spread further than detailed policy explanations.

The Key Distinction

The goals of One Nation and Socialist Alliance are very different. Their policies and ideologies are not the same.

What overlaps is the method:

• Provoke emotion.
• Simplify the message.
• Polarise the debate.
• Present as outsiders.
• Question established institutions.
• Use media attention, even controversy, to gain ground.

Understanding this does not require agreement. It requires recognising how influence works.

Why This Matters

If we focus only on ideology, we may miss wider patterns in politics. Looking at tactics helps us spot emotional appeals. It helps us separate messaging from policy. It helps us think more critically about political narratives.

Ideology shapes the destination. Tactics shape the journey.

Awareness is not about taking sides. It is about strengthening democratic literacy.

Powerful strategies are not always constructive.