THE POLITICS OF GRIEVANCE

One of the easiest jobs in politics is being a mouthpiece for the aggrieved

Find something people are angry about. Tell them their anger is justified. Promise to fix it. Then repeat back whatever grievance your audience already believes.

It’s a low-risk strategy, particularly when you’re speaking to a tribe that rarely questions whether the promises are realistic, affordable or even possible.

The elections of 2022 and 2025 demonstrated how powerful grievance politics has become. Voters across the political spectrum increasingly reward politicians who offer certainty, simple answers and someone to blame.

This tendency is not unique to any one party or ideology. The temptation to mobilise anger rather than solve problems exists across the political spectrum. But wherever it appears, it carries the same risk: reducing complex issues to slogans, scapegoats and impossible promises.

The danger is that we appear to be heading further down that path. If current trends continue, the politics of 2028 may be even more dominated by outrage, simplistic narratives and promises that cannot realistically be delivered.

What is far harder is addressing the underlying causes of people’s frustrations. Harder still is explaining that complex problems rarely have simple solutions, that government has limits, and that not every demand can be met without trade-offs.

Anyone can promise everything. Governing requires choosing between competing priorities, accepting constraints and being honest about what can actually be delivered.

Yet despite these realities, grievance politics continues to flourish. The rise of One Nation in the polls suggests it remains a powerful force in Australian politics.

But politicians alone cannot explain its success. Demand matters as much as supply. Why are so many people drawn to movements built around opposition, resentment and anger?

Some political actors undoubtedly recognise that outrage attracts attention. A grievance can become a headline. A headline can become a movement. Social media rewards conflict, algorithms amplify outrage, and audiences are often more engaged by anger than nuance.

For some, grievance becomes a pathway to influence, followers, donations, votes or power. Whether consciously or unconsciously, there is an incentive to keep audiences angry, because anger is highly effective at holding attention.

But the appeal of grievance politics runs deeper than political strategy.

Grievance politics offers coherence, energy and a sense of belonging. It provides simple explanations for complex problems and clear villains on whom responsibility can be placed. The psychological rewards are real.

The problem is that when identity becomes built around opposition, it becomes dependent on conflict. When one grievance is addressed, another must be found. When one enemy disappears, another must be identified. The movement cannot rest because its sense of purpose depends upon the existence of something to oppose.

Social media intensifies this dynamic. People can become so immersed in a constant stream of outrage that they rarely stop to question the claims being presented to them. Information is filtered through tribal loyalties, reinforcing existing beliefs and making critical examination less likely.

The deeper challenge, then, is not simply rebutting claims or defeating particular parties at the ballot box. It is rebuilding a political culture that can provide meaning, identity and solidarity without requiring an endless supply of enemies.

Because grievance politics is easy. It demands no trade-offs, no difficult conversations and no accountability for outcomes. It only requires a new target whenever the old one loses its usefulness.

That is why it flourishes.

And that is why it is so dangerous.

𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐎𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦

Sadly, much of what passes for political discussion online today is driven less by facts than by tribal loyalty, outrage, and selective morality. Too often, people apply one standard to their opponents and another to those on their own side.

I’ve been critical of Liberal and National MPs just as I have been of Labor, the Greens, One Nation, and Independents on a range of issues. But I’m not going to “stick the boot in” simply because social media demands outrage, especially when actions taken by political opponents have merit.

Nor am I buying into the argument that a party “should have done something years ago” without acknowledging that circumstances, competing priorities, legal constraints, and public pressure evolve over time. Governments and oppositions deal with thousands of issues simultaneously, not just the one dominating headlines or fuelling outrage on social media at any given moment.

Those on the conservative side of politics are often quick to condemn dishonesty, hypocrisy, or moral failings when they come from the left, yet many turn a blind eye when the same behaviour exists within their own ranks, sometimes even defending or justifying it. I won’t do that.

Principles only mean something if they are applied consistently, regardless of which “side” benefits.

It is for that reason that I find it extraordinary that some in the “tribe” attack the Liberals and Nationals for attempting to address issues within the Sex Discrimination Act, while completely ignoring those who actively blocked or undermined those same reform efforts. When that happens, all semblance of reason is lost and the debate becomes purely tribal.

A lot of the commentary also betrays a basic misunderstanding of how Parliament actually works. Governments and oppositions deal with thousands of pieces of legislation, legal constraints, and competing national priorities at any one time. No party has the capacity to progress every issue simultaneously, and policy inevitably moves when pressure, evidence, and consequences reach a tipping point, not when social media demands it.

What is even more striking is the selective morality at play, where some are quick to condemn one side while actively promoting another in the belief they will “fix it.” In doing so, they ignore, overlook, or excuse serious issues, including support for a convicted pedophile and rapist, and representatives who have breached AVOs multiple times. You cannot credibly claim to stand for women’s safety while selectively ignoring serious harm when it is politically inconvenient.

Yet Australia’s stability has never depended on unanimity or moral certainty. It has depended on restraint, proportion, and a shared commitment to rules that outlast any single cause. Until recent years, we largely thrived on disagreement and competing viewpoints within a framework of mutual respect. That maturity allowed crises to be managed and institutions to hold without collapsing into chaos.

Increasingly, that is being replaced by warring tribes. When reason is absent, everything becomes outrage and identity politics. When reason prevails, crises are managed, damage is contained, and institutions continue to function as intended.

Being the voice of reason is not about ideology or anger, nor about chasing the loudest crowd. It is about judgment under pressure, choosing what is right over what is easy, and holding principle even when it is politically inconvenient. It requires composure, not reaction, and a willingness to focus on solutions rather than feeding outrage for its own sake.

Hard times do not weaken a country when met with restraint and fairness. They strengthen responsibility and reinforce social cohesion. That is how trust is built.

A politics without reason slides into division and performative outrage. A politics guided by reason resists that pull, values proportion over theatrics, and remembers that unity is earned through fairness, restraint, and respect, not slogans.

We are not going to fix anything by retreating further into tribal thinking. If we are to get out of the hole we are in, it requires people willing to stand against their own “tribe” when necessary and choose reason over reaction.

So spare me the feigned morality, the double standards, and the political cultism that now dominates these debates.

One Nation Has NOT Copyrighted Basic Commonsense or Policy Imperatives

Hanson supporters, and even Hanson herself, are claiming Angus Taylor is “stealing” One Nation policies. No, he isn’t. This is a misplaced argument. He is expanding on policy positions the Coalition has been developing and taking to elections well before this budget reply.

Yes, Pauline Hanson and One Nation have been talking for years about immigration placing pressure on housing demand. That is true. But they did not invent the argument, nor do they own it.

The Liberal Party and the broader conservative movement have long argued for:

• managed migration in the national interest
• linking population growth to infrastructure capacity
• reliable and affordable energy
• support for mining, gas and resource development
• lower regulation and opposition to expanding climate bureaucracy
• housing supply reform and infrastructure-led growth

These positions reflect longstanding policy debates shaped by common pressures that confront all governments: cost-of-living pressures, housing affordability, population growth, infrastructure constraints, fiscal limits, demographic change, and global economic conditions. These pressures inevitably force all major parties to grapple with similar issues, even if they frame or prioritise them differently.

John Howard regularly spoke about immigration needing to match Australia’s capacity to absorb population growth while maintaining infrastructure standards and social cohesion. Tony Abbott repeatedly argued energy policy had to prioritise affordability and reliability over ideology.

Peter Dutton took the migration-and-housing issue directly to the 2025 election campaign, proposing lower permanent migration and arguing Australia should not bring in more people than it can house. Angus Taylor is now expanding on that framework with additional focus on housing supply and economic capacity.

And the numbers explain why this debate has become mainstream.

In 2024–25 Australia recorded net overseas migration of around 306,000 people while only about 175,000 homes were completed. The year before, migration was about 429,000 against roughly 178,000 homes built.

That gap places pressure on rents, housing prices, infrastructure and services. Recognising supply and demand realities is not uniquely “One Nation policy.” It is basic economics.

One Nation supporters may argue the Liberals are “copying Hanson,” but acknowledging these pressures does not make the underlying policy direction exclusive to any one party. The real distinction lies in how each party chooses to respond, what they are prepared to fund, and who ultimately bears the cost.

And “commonsense” is not, and never has been, the exclusive property of Pauline Hanson or One Nation.