Breaking the Binary: Why Australian Politics Serves the Wealthy, Not You

The Left-Right Charade: How We Got Stuck in a 200-Year-Old Metaphor

Left vs. Right is about as useful as describing Australia’s climate as ‘hot’ or ‘cold.’ Sure, it’s technically true—but it tells you fuck all when it comes to the lunacy and duplicity of modern Australian politics. Nonetheless, we continue to cram our entire political discourse into this reductive binary, as if complex policy positions can be neatly sorted into one of two buckets like some sort of ideological Marie Kondo experiment gone horribly wrong. Just vote for the things that bring you joy and you’ll be ok, right? Wrong. This binary thinking does more than just oversimplify—it actively undermines our capacity to engage meaningfully in a political process that requires patience, nuance and understanding.

The whole left-right dichotomy stems from the seating arrangements in France’s National Assembly during the 1789 Revolution. Supporters of the king sat on the right, while advocates for revolutionary change parked their asses on the left. That’s it. That’s the origin story of our entire political taxonomy. A fucking seating chart. Yet somehow, this 18th-century French interior design choice morphed into political gospel, spreading across democracies worldwide like an intellectual pandemic. What began as a spatial metaphor hardened into dogma, with an ever-expanding list of positions and policies forcibly wedged into one side or the other, regardless of how poorly they fit.

Australia’s major parties inherited this binary with all the critical thinking of the same nation that has an economy built on digging big holes in the ground. We label Labor as “left” (those commy fuckers) and the Liberals as “right,” (FASCIST!!) despite both parties traditionally huddling so close to the center they’re practically spooning. By global standards, our political “extremes” would barely register as mild disagreements in many European parliaments, even through Dutton would like to plant his flag close to the Trump end of the sepctrum. So let’s dig in a little more into what that means for our politics and the truth of the whole charade.

The Spectrum’s Dirty Secret: It’s Not a Line, It’s a Hall of Mirrors

The political spectrum doesn’t just oversimplify—it actively warps our understanding of where parties actually stand. In theory, the “left” champions equality, collective welfare, and progressive social values, while the “right” advocates for tradition, individual liberty, and free markets. But in Australia, this breakdown is about as useful as a environmental activist at a salmon genocide. Labor, our supposed “left” party, privatised industries under Hawke and Keating, embraced offshore detention under Rudd, and currently approves fossil fuel projects under Albanese. Meanwhile, the “right-wing” Liberals introduced Medicare (Fraser), gun control (Howard), and the NDIS (Abbott). The spectrum treats these parties as ideological opposites when they’re really just slightly different management styles for the same neoliberal status quo. It’s confusing as fuck right? But that’s by design.

This one-dimensional model completely ignores the authoritarian-libertarian axis that might explain why Pauline Hanson’s xenophobic populism (socially conservative, economically interventionist) and David Leyonhjelm’s gun-toting libertarianism (socially liberal, economically laissez-faire) are fundamentally different beasts, despite both being lumped into “the right.” The Nationals claim to represent rural interests but consistently vote for policies that gut regional services. The spectrum fails spectacularly at capturing nuanced positions on climate action, First Nations rights, or housing affordability—issues that slice across traditional left-right boundaries with all the precision of a drunk man wielding a chainsaw.

Consider how we position the Greens and One Nation. Both parties are labeled as “extremes” on opposite ends, yet this framing is reeks more than a pair of Tony Abbots budgie smugglers. The Greens’ policy platform—strong action on climate change, expanded social services, and human rights protections—aligns with mainstream positions in numerous developed democracies. Meanwhile, the curly haired choades over at One Nation peddle conspiracy theories that would make your QAnon uncle blush.

The result of all this fuckery isn’t political clarity—it’s a funhouse mirror that distorts our understanding of who stands for what and why it matters. It’s all about dumbing down just enough for you to vote in their interest (and the interest of those they truly represent).

The Hidden Purpose of the Spectrum: Concealing Class Warfare

While we’re busy arguing about whether a policy is left, right, libertarian, authoritarian, pescatarian, presbytarian or what-ever other multi-dimensional political axis you want to apply, something far more fundamental is happening beneath our noses.

The systematic transfer of wealth from ordinary Australians (and ordinary people across the world) to the already wealthy.

The left-right spectrum isn’t just inaccurate; it’s a deliberate smokescreen that obscures the true political reality: class warfare disguised as culture wars. Over decades, Australia (among other countries that have snorted the neo-liberal blow) has hoarded wealth so dramatically that Robin Hood would need an army of merry men just to make a dent in the inequality spreadsheet.

Worldwide, the richest 1% now own more than half the world’s wealth , while real wages have stagnated for decades and housing affordability has collapsed faster than a sandcastle at high tide. Yet somehow, we’re still debating whether raising JobSeeker by $20 is fiscally responsible—like arguing about whether to use a teaspoon or tablespoon to bail water from the Titanic.

Credit where it’s due: the Albanese government has made commendable efforts to put some cash back in Aussie pockets. But let’s not mistake these crumbs for the loaf that is owed. It’s a pittance compared to what Australians deserve, let alone what’s actually required to address the gaping wound of inequality that’s been festering for generations.

This widening inequality isn’t a bug in the system—it’s the feature. Both major parties have overseen the dismantling of worker protections, the privatisation of public assets, and tax policies that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. Labor might talk about “working families” while the Liberals champion “aspirational Australians,” but their economic policies differ in degrees (fractional) rather than direction. Meanwhile, poverty in Australia has become as invisible as it is pervasive. Over 3 million Australians, including 750,000 children, live below the poverty line. Do you know how disgusting that is? The lucky country right? Lucky for who? That’s the question you need to be asking yourself.

The spectrum serves those in power by dividing those without it. Instead of working-class Australians recognising their shared economic interests and organising across partisan lines, we’re encouraged to fight over whether trans kids should play sports or whether saying “Merry Christmas” is culturally insensitive. It’s divide and conquer and laugh all the way to the Chairman’s Lounge, executed with clinical precision by political strategists and media outlets owned by the same billionaires benefiting from this rigged system. The next time you hear a politician framing an issue as left vs. right, ask yourself: who profits from this framing? Who benefits from the status quo? Because while we’re battling over symbolic culture war horse-shit, the wealthy are laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts. And guess what? They don’t give a fuck whether you vote Labor or Liberal—they’ve already bought both.

How to Vote Like You’re Not a NPC: A Step-by-Step Guide

First, recognise that your vote isn’t about tribal affiliations but about challenging and ongoing class warfare waged against ordinary Australians. When evaluating policy, strip away the ideological packaging and ask who actually benefits financially. Budget measures trumpeted as helping battlers often contain hidden advantages for the wealthy. Infrastructure projects often funnel money to party donors through lucrative contracts. Housing affordability measures frequently boost property developer profits while offering nothing substantial for renters or first-home buyers.

Tools like They Vote For You reveal what politicians do when they think nobody’s watching. Beyond their crafted public personas, their voting history reveals their genuine priorities. Albanese might cultivate his everyman image and Dutton may attempt a moderate facade, but their legislative records tell the authentic story.

Second, track the money trail with relentless determination. Resources like OpenCorporates and the Democracy 4 Sale database expose the flow of corporate donations. This explains why policies benefiting most Australians - wealth taxes, public housing, universal dental care - struggle to pass parliament, while corporate tax cuts receive enthusiastic bipartisan support.

Leverage Australia’s preferential voting system to disrupt the duopoly serving the wealthy at public expense. Your ballot offers more than a binary choice between two neoliberal management styles. It represents your opportunity to support candidates genuinely challenging economic inequality. Through strategic preference allocation, you can back parties committed to economic justice without throwing away your vote.

Remember this. A class war has been ongoing for decades, but only one side has been actively fighting. The wealthy have mobilised their resources, media control, and political influence to advance their interests. It’s time for the rest of us to enter the battlefield with equal determination.

Burn the Spectrum (But Keep the Ashes)

The political spectrum isn’t a guide—it’s a fucking leash. It’s a collar fastened around the neck of Australian democracy, keeping voters obediently tethered to a narrow band of barely acceptable discourse while the actual machinations of power operate in the shadows. Every subscription to this paradigm is a resignation to the status quo. And what is the status quo? Worsening wealth inequality. Increasing cost of living. Deteriorating public education standards. Further privatisation of assets that should be your birthright to access. The neoliberal shit-show goes on, and on, and on…

You might think this seems a little far-fetched. But Australia is arguably at the beginning of a path that countries like the US and UK have already traveled much further down. It might not feel catastrophic for you today, but it will certainly be much worse for your children tomorrow. The hollowing out of public institutions, the concentration of media ownership, the capture of regulatory bodies by corporate interests—these aren’t conspiracy theories, they’re documented realities happening in slow motion right before our eyes.

So, next time a politician claims to be moderate or sensible, ask yourself: moderate for whom? Sensible for what? If the answer is mining lobbyists and keeping Murdoch happy, maybe it’s time to vote like your life depends on it. Because guess what? It fucking does. Climate collapse, housing affordability, healthcare access, Indigenous justice—these aren’t abstract ideological questions. They’re real crises affecting real Australians right now, and they demand more from us than mindlessly picking Team Red or Team Blue based on vibes and three-word slogans.

Democracy is not a fucking Netflix series where you can just passively watch while scrolling through your phone. It’s a battlefield where your absence is a surrender to those who profit from your apathy. So put down the remote, pick up your weapons of critical thinking, and join the fight for a future that doesn’t belong exclusively to billionaires and their political puppets. Because the alternative isn’t just more of the same—it’s the slow suffocation of everything worth saving.

---

Banner image by Black Forest Labs

Model: Flux Ultra v1.1

Seed: Random

Prompt: Murky and ominous, minimalist abstract political allegory. Left side features interconnected vague circular and shapes in soft blue tones representing community, cohesion and collective welfare. Right side displays ascending rectangulr structures silhouttes of crumbling civilisation in muted red hues symbolizing individualism, wealth accumulation and unsustainable economic growth. A single sinuous line, gradually thickening in the center, runs horizontally through the composition, connecting yet dividing the two sides. Background gradient shifts from cool light blue (left) to warm light red (right) with subtle noir-like shadows. Slight film grain texture overlaid to enhance the cynical, conspiratorial mood. Dark wispy elements in the center suggest the obscuring of class dynamics. Sharp contrast between geometric precision and atmospheric unease. 16:9 ratio, digital art style with stark minimalist aesthetic.