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.

Protest Politics vs. the Responsibility of Governing

When the capacity, and in some cases the genuine intention, to actually deliver isn’t weighed, voters are left choosing between words and promises alone. We saw that play out in 2022, and even more starkly again in 2025.

I worry we may head down an even more destructive path in 2028. I understand why many are gravitating toward One Nation. Pauline Hanson is a compelling communicator who knows exactly how to tap into frustration and discontent. But if past performance is any guide, strong rhetoric hasn’t translated into meaningful legislative outcomes.

There’s also the practical reality of governing. If One Nation were to find itself in government, or even as the official opposition, it would likely be backed by a large cohort of first-term, largely inexperienced MPs suddenly tasked with navigating complex portfolios, national security briefings, economic management and international diplomacy.

That kind of abrupt transition would not be a harmless experiment; it could prove deeply destabilising. Financial markets react to uncertainty. International partners reassess reliability. Public services stall while new ministers learn on the job. Protest votes can send a message, but governing a country is something else entirely, and the cost of getting it wrong can be profound.

I often hear the argument that “we just need a change”, that the major parties are indistinguishable, a so-called “uniparty” offering different slogans but the same outcomes. Frustration with the political class is real. But the idea that there is no meaningful difference between governing philosophies, economic approaches, or national security strategies doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Change for its own sake is not a strategy. Real reform requires competence, depth, and a team capable not only of criticising the system, but of responsibly running it.

Many will disagree with this, and that’s their right in a democracy. But disagreement doesn’t alter objective realities. Parliamentary records, legislative outcomes, and governing experience are matters of fact. Passion can shape opinion; it cannot rewrite performance