What do you think?
Rate this book
Quarterly Essay #100
The Good Fight: What Does Labor Stand For?
The 100th issue of Australia's leading agenda-setting journal of politics, culture and debate
In Quarterly Essay 100, Sean Kelly considers the enigma of the Albanese government. With wide yet shallow support, will it change the country? Does it have big ideas, or is it content just to become "the natural party of government"?
Kelly gives a definitive account of Albanese's political style and asks what lies behind it. In speaking to a fragmented, disengaged electorate, the Prime Minister places a high value on moderation. Often that means ducking fights with entrenched interests. But this runs the risk of embedding an ever more unequal nation, led by a government that can seem gutless.
In this subtle and brilliant essay, Kelly explores whether Labor is still up for the good fight.
"Labor has cast itself as a version of what the conservatives once the defender of the way things are. This may well appeal to large numbers of Australians, as it did in this last election. [But] Labor's task, historically, has been to change things on behalf of those who desperately need them to change." —Sean Kelly, The Good Fight
In Quarterly Essay 100, Sean Kelly considers the enigma of the Albanese government. With wide yet shallow support, will it change the country? Does it have big ideas, or is it content just to become "the natural party of government"?
Kelly gives a definitive account of Albanese's political style and asks what lies behind it. In speaking to a fragmented, disengaged electorate, the Prime Minister places a high value on moderation. Often that means ducking fights with entrenched interests. But this runs the risk of embedding an ever more unequal nation, led by a government that can seem gutless.
In this subtle and brilliant essay, Kelly explores whether Labor is still up for the good fight.
"Labor has cast itself as a version of what the conservatives once the defender of the way things are. This may well appeal to large numbers of Australians, as it did in this last election. [But] Labor's task, historically, has been to change things on behalf of those who desperately need them to change." —Sean Kelly, The Good Fight
108 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 17, 2025
28 people are currently reading
41 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
December 30, 2025
Labor is historically the party of the working class, the party of redistribution of wealth, the party of reform, the party that makes Australia a fairer country. Yet, curiously, under the current Labor government, there is only a tinge of this philosophy in the policies they have taken to the people and implemented. As the author, Sean Kelly, points out, current Labor wants to be the “natural party of government.” In reality, however, this means sticking to the status quo or, essentially, acting as a new conservative party. They are afraid of backlash, particularly from the asset and business class. Consequently, as incrementalism reigns, more and more Australians are being left behind.
For me, this essay was quite underwhelming. A perennial problem I have found with journalistic long-form writing is that some authors tend to waffle. This is one of those pieces. The first third of it, which is essentially a reflective piece on what Kelly thinks belief really is, could have been cut entirely, or at least considerably condensed. There was also too much of Kelly’s own views and life throughout the essay. I want to know what Labor believes, not what Kelly believes along the way. That said, I found Kelly’s analysis of how the enduring neoliberal zeitgeist has quashed both the public’s and political classes’ ability to imagine an alternative worldview insightful.
I think that to understand the current Labor government, one must examine their loss as Opposition in the unlosable election in 2019. Labor campaigned for many of the reforms—negative gearing, capital gains, franking credits, etc.—that Kelly proffers in the essay that Australia needs, yet he curiously glances over the lessons that were learnt from this campaign. This bold and expansive reform agenda was whipped into a frenzy of scaremongering by the Coalition, with those who would have benefitted most swinging away from Labor, believing that such reforms would ruin the budget and economy. Albanese may be incrementalist, but this may be because Australians are politically immature.
Consider subscribing to my Substack if you like what I write: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
For me, this essay was quite underwhelming. A perennial problem I have found with journalistic long-form writing is that some authors tend to waffle. This is one of those pieces. The first third of it, which is essentially a reflective piece on what Kelly thinks belief really is, could have been cut entirely, or at least considerably condensed. There was also too much of Kelly’s own views and life throughout the essay. I want to know what Labor believes, not what Kelly believes along the way. That said, I found Kelly’s analysis of how the enduring neoliberal zeitgeist has quashed both the public’s and political classes’ ability to imagine an alternative worldview insightful.
I think that to understand the current Labor government, one must examine their loss as Opposition in the unlosable election in 2019. Labor campaigned for many of the reforms—negative gearing, capital gains, franking credits, etc.—that Kelly proffers in the essay that Australia needs, yet he curiously glances over the lessons that were learnt from this campaign. This bold and expansive reform agenda was whipped into a frenzy of scaremongering by the Coalition, with those who would have benefitted most swinging away from Labor, believing that such reforms would ruin the budget and economy. Albanese may be incrementalist, but this may be because Australians are politically immature.
Consider subscribing to my Substack if you like what I write: https://callumscolumn.substack.com/
January 2, 2026
Is Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, re-elected this year in a landslide win for his centre-left Labor Party, playing a long game or is he enjoying power too much for its own sake to risk any political capital on badly needed, if electorally risk, policy change? That’s the central question is this thoughtful quarterly essay by Sean Kelly, a newspaper columnist, former Labor staffer and former adviser to Labor prime ministers.
As someone who once lived inside the bubble in Canberra, and who lived through the politically chaotic ‘killing season’ when Labor switched from Kevin Rudd as PM to Julia Gillard and back to Rudd again, Kelly is well acquainted with the risks of internal party instability and how the policy sausages are made. But he’s also particularly aware of the perennial question of legitimacy Labor must face every time it takes over the Treasury benches.
Beginning the essay with an examination of what constitutes political belief, Kelly looks at Albanese’s frequent statements about his own philosophical commitment to ‘fighting Tories’ and his dedication to the three pillars of his life in the ALP, the Catholic Church and the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team. In his opposition and backbench days, ‘Albo’ was known as a left-wing firebrand and passionate advocate for the working class.
These days, Kelly finds that the man who has brought Australia’s oldest political party in from the wilderness is effectively frozen in the policy headlights. In his second term, as much as his first, Albanese has been running a cautiously conservative agenda, cutting off the possibility of real change in any area that threatens the interests of Australia’s powerful asset rich. These curtailed changes include reducing distortions in the housing market that have locked out an entire generation from home ownership, attacking the obscene inequality between funding of private versus public schools and addressing inequities in superannuation that have turned it into a tax dodge for the already rich.
In this, Kelly draws a contrast between Albanese’s curious timidity and refusal to even argue the case for change - preferring woolly-minded ‘consensus’ - and the ‘crazy brave’ approach of former Labor PM Paul Keating. The latter firmly believed that even if he personally failed to advance big picture reforms like turning Australia into a republic, finding our future in Asia, or seriously advancing Aboriginal reconciliation, he had at least put those items on the agenda.
For his part, Albanese had a half-hearted go with the referendum to establish an Aboriginal Voice to parliament. But he bungled the politics and after the solid electoral defeat of that attempt to amend the constitution he has played completely dead on that issue or on any other significant, if difficult, reform.
Instead, his government is now running on the line that it will prevent any American-style changes to institutions like Medicare, when the fact is Australia has been running in the direction of US market individualism and extreme neoliberalism for decades.
“These are the opposite of promises to make things happen; they are, instead, promises to stop things from happening, to keep Australia as it is,” Kelly writes. “As others have noted, Labor has cast itself as a version of what the conservatives once were: the defender of the way things are.”
It is hard not to conclude that in his extreme timidity and fear of alienating the powerful, Albanese is just creating a policy stasis that plays into their hands and hastens his own political demise. In this, he has failed to learn the lesson of the most successful conservative Australian politician of the last 60 years, John Howard, who sought about changing the country when the nation rejected Keating’s vision in 1996.
In fact, in many ways we are still living in the Australia Howard created - the viciously cruel refugee policies, the upper middle class welfare of the tax lurks in housing and superannuation, the ‘deputy sheriff’ role in our deferential relationship with the US, the calculated neglect and barely concealed racism of indigenous policy, and the deliberate pitching of social policy to appease the prejudices of self-employed ‘tradies’ and white lower middle class men.
Of course, what has changed since the days of Keating and Howard is the decline of two-party dominance. Labor and the Coalition parties now each can count on less than a third of the first preference vote. In the Coalition’s case, this share has fallen into around 27%. The Liberals’ well-heeled urban voters have peeled off to Teal independents. Labor’s old left now has a home in the Greens. Lower middle class older, outer suburban and regional voters have swung to the populist right of One Nation.
The thinking in Albanese’s office is that middle-ground caution, not crazy-brave, is the only way to survive in this climate. On the other hand, Kelly’s view, and I agree with him, is that the party has over-learnt the lessons of the division of the Rudd-Gillard years and is running scared from debating necessary policy change. At the same time, Labor mistakenly continues to market its perceived success as a reformer from the Hawke-Keating era.
Once again, though, times have changed. The neoliberal era is over. The reason for the rise of the populist right globally is that people cottoned onto the bait-and-switch of policies that increased inequality and left those least able to afford it to deal with the adjustment of globalisation. But instead of taking a populist leftist view the old parties of the centre-left (the ALP here, the UK Labour Party, US Democrats), are anxiously hugging the mythical ‘sensible centre’, hewing to neoliberal policy and taking baby steps, which is effectively gets you nowhere.
“The danger with incrementalism is that it is politics as vicious circle,” Kelly writes. “You are concerned – as Albanese repeatedly tells us he is – about the public’s cynicism towards politics. This means you can’t attempt large things, because they might fail and provoke more cynicism. So you do small things that seem more likely to succeed. But because they are so small, nobody notices them – which only breeds cynicism about the effectiveness of government.”
“If Labor MPs want more from their time in government than to stay in power, this political convenience may also be a trap. They can tell themselves things are happening; that change is building; they only need to wait. But it is also possible that, on the day that they lose power, they find themselves still waiting.”
Kelly is generous toward Albanese through most of this essay, saying perhaps playing the long game will win out. Personally, I think he is a sitting duck. One can see how the next election will play out, particularly after the Bondi terrorist attack (which post-dates this essay). It’s going to be an anti-immigration election with populist grifters, racists and opportunists like Barnaby Joyce stirring up and exploiting division - with the support of their sponsors among the mining billionaires and the Murdoch media.
Australia missed the twin Brexit-Trump earthquake of 2016 that hit the UK and the US. I think we’re about to go through something similar. Old firebrand Albo needs to take the kid gloves off, go after Murdoch and the entitled rich, and start fighting dirty again.
Either that or his government faces dying the death of a thousand cuts, pointlessly seeking to appease radio shock jocks, the oil and gas lobby, the gambling industry, the banks, the billionaire media owners and the Zionist lobby. You don’t beat these people by appeasing them. You make them terrified of you.
As someone who once lived inside the bubble in Canberra, and who lived through the politically chaotic ‘killing season’ when Labor switched from Kevin Rudd as PM to Julia Gillard and back to Rudd again, Kelly is well acquainted with the risks of internal party instability and how the policy sausages are made. But he’s also particularly aware of the perennial question of legitimacy Labor must face every time it takes over the Treasury benches.
Beginning the essay with an examination of what constitutes political belief, Kelly looks at Albanese’s frequent statements about his own philosophical commitment to ‘fighting Tories’ and his dedication to the three pillars of his life in the ALP, the Catholic Church and the South Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team. In his opposition and backbench days, ‘Albo’ was known as a left-wing firebrand and passionate advocate for the working class.
These days, Kelly finds that the man who has brought Australia’s oldest political party in from the wilderness is effectively frozen in the policy headlights. In his second term, as much as his first, Albanese has been running a cautiously conservative agenda, cutting off the possibility of real change in any area that threatens the interests of Australia’s powerful asset rich. These curtailed changes include reducing distortions in the housing market that have locked out an entire generation from home ownership, attacking the obscene inequality between funding of private versus public schools and addressing inequities in superannuation that have turned it into a tax dodge for the already rich.
In this, Kelly draws a contrast between Albanese’s curious timidity and refusal to even argue the case for change - preferring woolly-minded ‘consensus’ - and the ‘crazy brave’ approach of former Labor PM Paul Keating. The latter firmly believed that even if he personally failed to advance big picture reforms like turning Australia into a republic, finding our future in Asia, or seriously advancing Aboriginal reconciliation, he had at least put those items on the agenda.
For his part, Albanese had a half-hearted go with the referendum to establish an Aboriginal Voice to parliament. But he bungled the politics and after the solid electoral defeat of that attempt to amend the constitution he has played completely dead on that issue or on any other significant, if difficult, reform.
Instead, his government is now running on the line that it will prevent any American-style changes to institutions like Medicare, when the fact is Australia has been running in the direction of US market individualism and extreme neoliberalism for decades.
“These are the opposite of promises to make things happen; they are, instead, promises to stop things from happening, to keep Australia as it is,” Kelly writes. “As others have noted, Labor has cast itself as a version of what the conservatives once were: the defender of the way things are.”
It is hard not to conclude that in his extreme timidity and fear of alienating the powerful, Albanese is just creating a policy stasis that plays into their hands and hastens his own political demise. In this, he has failed to learn the lesson of the most successful conservative Australian politician of the last 60 years, John Howard, who sought about changing the country when the nation rejected Keating’s vision in 1996.
In fact, in many ways we are still living in the Australia Howard created - the viciously cruel refugee policies, the upper middle class welfare of the tax lurks in housing and superannuation, the ‘deputy sheriff’ role in our deferential relationship with the US, the calculated neglect and barely concealed racism of indigenous policy, and the deliberate pitching of social policy to appease the prejudices of self-employed ‘tradies’ and white lower middle class men.
Of course, what has changed since the days of Keating and Howard is the decline of two-party dominance. Labor and the Coalition parties now each can count on less than a third of the first preference vote. In the Coalition’s case, this share has fallen into around 27%. The Liberals’ well-heeled urban voters have peeled off to Teal independents. Labor’s old left now has a home in the Greens. Lower middle class older, outer suburban and regional voters have swung to the populist right of One Nation.
The thinking in Albanese’s office is that middle-ground caution, not crazy-brave, is the only way to survive in this climate. On the other hand, Kelly’s view, and I agree with him, is that the party has over-learnt the lessons of the division of the Rudd-Gillard years and is running scared from debating necessary policy change. At the same time, Labor mistakenly continues to market its perceived success as a reformer from the Hawke-Keating era.
Once again, though, times have changed. The neoliberal era is over. The reason for the rise of the populist right globally is that people cottoned onto the bait-and-switch of policies that increased inequality and left those least able to afford it to deal with the adjustment of globalisation. But instead of taking a populist leftist view the old parties of the centre-left (the ALP here, the UK Labour Party, US Democrats), are anxiously hugging the mythical ‘sensible centre’, hewing to neoliberal policy and taking baby steps, which is effectively gets you nowhere.
“The danger with incrementalism is that it is politics as vicious circle,” Kelly writes. “You are concerned – as Albanese repeatedly tells us he is – about the public’s cynicism towards politics. This means you can’t attempt large things, because they might fail and provoke more cynicism. So you do small things that seem more likely to succeed. But because they are so small, nobody notices them – which only breeds cynicism about the effectiveness of government.”
“If Labor MPs want more from their time in government than to stay in power, this political convenience may also be a trap. They can tell themselves things are happening; that change is building; they only need to wait. But it is also possible that, on the day that they lose power, they find themselves still waiting.”
Kelly is generous toward Albanese through most of this essay, saying perhaps playing the long game will win out. Personally, I think he is a sitting duck. One can see how the next election will play out, particularly after the Bondi terrorist attack (which post-dates this essay). It’s going to be an anti-immigration election with populist grifters, racists and opportunists like Barnaby Joyce stirring up and exploiting division - with the support of their sponsors among the mining billionaires and the Murdoch media.
Australia missed the twin Brexit-Trump earthquake of 2016 that hit the UK and the US. I think we’re about to go through something similar. Old firebrand Albo needs to take the kid gloves off, go after Murdoch and the entitled rich, and start fighting dirty again.
Either that or his government faces dying the death of a thousand cuts, pointlessly seeking to appease radio shock jocks, the oil and gas lobby, the gambling industry, the banks, the billionaire media owners and the Zionist lobby. You don’t beat these people by appeasing them. You make them terrified of you.
December 23, 2025
Labor staffer reads Quarterly Essay #100. Fork found in kitchen.
February 25, 2026
I have never been a fan of too many words in a sentence… it’s the same old thing with The Quarterly… Labour wasting opportunity, the Libs a mess. I wish they’d find something fresh to explore. I’m fully aware the planet is burning, our politicians are corrupt and Trumps’ crazy. Give me something new or I’m cancelling my subscription! 😵💫
December 4, 2025
Sean Kelly really digests Australian politics in a realistic, but optimistic, manner. It's always captivating to read his take on how modern politics is flowing and what rivulets it might create along its path.
This is a solid assessment of Albanese's current trajectory, making it an interesting companion to Katharine Murphy's Lone Wolf Quarterly Essay. Also curious is how Kelly, an ex-Labor staffer peers in at his old workplace - there's a great moment about opening a door and the thoughts he has while the door opens - while Murphy (who surely must have known she was heading to work there) was on her way to becoming Albo's press secretary.
Ultimately Kelly leans into the same theme he sees Albo leaning into: kindness. This then makes the close of this Quarterly more optimistic than I felt it warranted. But, that's also my criticism of Albo's leadership coming through, and less my admiration for Kelly's writing.
The picture he paints of this iteration Australian Labor Party is one of a political team who is afraid of failure and one who also makes decisions based on them not being in power. So, with that in mind, this Quarterly Essay feels like it's less an essay for the Quarterly faithful reader and more an essay for Anthony Albanese himself.
Here's hoping he's an avid and attentive reader then.
This is a solid assessment of Albanese's current trajectory, making it an interesting companion to Katharine Murphy's Lone Wolf Quarterly Essay. Also curious is how Kelly, an ex-Labor staffer peers in at his old workplace - there's a great moment about opening a door and the thoughts he has while the door opens - while Murphy (who surely must have known she was heading to work there) was on her way to becoming Albo's press secretary.
Ultimately Kelly leans into the same theme he sees Albo leaning into: kindness. This then makes the close of this Quarterly more optimistic than I felt it warranted. But, that's also my criticism of Albo's leadership coming through, and less my admiration for Kelly's writing.
The picture he paints of this iteration Australian Labor Party is one of a political team who is afraid of failure and one who also makes decisions based on them not being in power. So, with that in mind, this Quarterly Essay feels like it's less an essay for the Quarterly faithful reader and more an essay for Anthony Albanese himself.
Here's hoping he's an avid and attentive reader then.
December 27, 2025
A subtle, open-minded, and deeply considered exploration of what belief, if any, lies beneath Albanese’s government and Labor’s contemporary political project. At turns despairing, impatient, sympathetic and optimistic. The essay is at its most insightful when it is at its most vulnerable, when Kelly draws connections between his own journey to understanding his guiding beliefs and impulses and the journey of Labor in defining it’s own political ideology. Underneath it all is a subtle sense of momentum - we join Kelly as he feels his way towards an optimistic, perhaps naive, conviction that the good fight is ahead.
December 25, 2025
As someone who is, to put it charitably, frustrated with the slow rate of change in the Albanese government, you might assume that I would be a natural ally to Sean Kelly's thesis that Labor has forgotten how to dream big.
In many ways, I am. Kelly rightly points out that Labor in government has an air of timidity about them, afraid of offending or colliding with politically loadbearing interest groups. This is partly informed by their recent timultous history and partly by Albanese's desire to reshape Labor's position in the political landscape, but even with explanation it is getting more and more difficult to clearly articulate what a Labor government wants to actually do with its time in office. Other than winning the next election. There is nuance behind their approach, and I'm sure that if you talked to Albanese or Chalmers they would ask us to judge their ambitions in hindsight rather than at what they see as quarter time, but the disappointment remains nonetheless.
For the sake of brevity I will refrain pointing out all the places Kelly and I agree so this review might seem more negative than , but Economics is where Kelly and I diverge and where I think a significant problem with his vision presents itself. In Kelly's view, Labor has forgotten its progressive soul. It has ripped out its beating heart, the raucus redistributive Left, and sacrificed them at the altar of monied interests and electability. Kelly uses Keating, the politician with an Artist's genius, as the emblem of a Labor man who valued ideas that far exceeded the 'possible'. Keating often stated that all Hawke wanted to do was accumulate political capital, where he wanted to spend every last drop. What was the point if you weren't in it for the big ideas?
The problem with using Keating in this way however, it that Kelly falls afoul of one the great man's most poignant critiques of old Labor: that they always confused ends with means. Kelly is happy to provide a list of which taxes he wants, and which companies he would break up, but is unable to articulate how this fixes any of the fundamental problems in modern Australia. It's the kind of bucket list you might hear from someone who thought Whitlam's one problem was that he just didn't have enough time. Its almost as if Kelly would be happy if Albanese were to do tax anything -just to be seen to be doing it - even if those things did nothing to improve the material conditions of Australians.
So yes, I think Albanese should do more, and sooner. But unlike Kelly I think Albanese would do better to finish the economic revolution that Keating started, rather than to go back to the confused and ultimately hopeless fixation on tax and spend with no thought for growth. Labor must focus growth and redistribution in equal measure.
In many ways, I am. Kelly rightly points out that Labor in government has an air of timidity about them, afraid of offending or colliding with politically loadbearing interest groups. This is partly informed by their recent timultous history and partly by Albanese's desire to reshape Labor's position in the political landscape, but even with explanation it is getting more and more difficult to clearly articulate what a Labor government wants to actually do with its time in office. Other than winning the next election. There is nuance behind their approach, and I'm sure that if you talked to Albanese or Chalmers they would ask us to judge their ambitions in hindsight rather than at what they see as quarter time, but the disappointment remains nonetheless.
For the sake of brevity I will refrain pointing out all the places Kelly and I agree so this review might seem more negative than , but Economics is where Kelly and I diverge and where I think a significant problem with his vision presents itself. In Kelly's view, Labor has forgotten its progressive soul. It has ripped out its beating heart, the raucus redistributive Left, and sacrificed them at the altar of monied interests and electability. Kelly uses Keating, the politician with an Artist's genius, as the emblem of a Labor man who valued ideas that far exceeded the 'possible'. Keating often stated that all Hawke wanted to do was accumulate political capital, where he wanted to spend every last drop. What was the point if you weren't in it for the big ideas?
The problem with using Keating in this way however, it that Kelly falls afoul of one the great man's most poignant critiques of old Labor: that they always confused ends with means. Kelly is happy to provide a list of which taxes he wants, and which companies he would break up, but is unable to articulate how this fixes any of the fundamental problems in modern Australia. It's the kind of bucket list you might hear from someone who thought Whitlam's one problem was that he just didn't have enough time. Its almost as if Kelly would be happy if Albanese were to do tax anything -just to be seen to be doing it - even if those things did nothing to improve the material conditions of Australians.
So yes, I think Albanese should do more, and sooner. But unlike Kelly I think Albanese would do better to finish the economic revolution that Keating started, rather than to go back to the confused and ultimately hopeless fixation on tax and spend with no thought for growth. Labor must focus growth and redistribution in equal measure.
February 10, 2026
If you're into Australian politics this is pretty essential reading this year. It was validating to hear someone name what has been so troubling about the Albanese Government - that to judge it properly you need to see what isn't there.
Kelly articulates well that in Australia neoliberalism has taken on a very specific and idiosyncratic form: hyper-concentrated consumer markets, large scale fossil fuel extraction, hybridised public/private healthcare and education systems, and very light capital taxation (especially but not only for real estate). This specifity in what he thinks is wrong lends helpful concreteness to his critique of Albanese. It can be easy for writers in the Canberra bubble to fall away into abstraction when talking about governments (words like 'narrative', 'character', and 'vibe' typically abound). Kelly doesn't leave you guessing about what he thinks an actually courageous Albanese Government should do.
The essay is absurdly intertextual, constantly referring to and quoting major poets, historians and philosophers - opening with a bang with a Daniel Dennet discussion and closing with a block quote from Ellana Ferrante. If you're part of the well-read PMC target market you'll have a good time getting all the references.
As someone who has been trying to work out what I believe after having my heart broken by the 2019 election loss, the Voice referendum, the 2022 inflation spike, and the recent Australian house price explosion, I found the essay helpful, and, if not exactly clarifying, at least pointing me to ask better questions.
The only deficiency, and it's not a small one, is that Kelly indulges an overly Marxist conception of politics - thinking you can solve every problem by lowering inequality. But closing the private schools won't on its own bring evidence-based phonics into classrooms, nor will reforming negative gearing and CGT on its own build more homes. But Kelly rolls every issue up into a neat and highly abstract Capital vs Labour framing that hand waves away such annoying technical details. Everything is instead a giant omni-struggle against the billionaires. As I've entered my 30s I'm much less convinced of that than when I was 22.
Kelly articulates well that in Australia neoliberalism has taken on a very specific and idiosyncratic form: hyper-concentrated consumer markets, large scale fossil fuel extraction, hybridised public/private healthcare and education systems, and very light capital taxation (especially but not only for real estate). This specifity in what he thinks is wrong lends helpful concreteness to his critique of Albanese. It can be easy for writers in the Canberra bubble to fall away into abstraction when talking about governments (words like 'narrative', 'character', and 'vibe' typically abound). Kelly doesn't leave you guessing about what he thinks an actually courageous Albanese Government should do.
The essay is absurdly intertextual, constantly referring to and quoting major poets, historians and philosophers - opening with a bang with a Daniel Dennet discussion and closing with a block quote from Ellana Ferrante. If you're part of the well-read PMC target market you'll have a good time getting all the references.
As someone who has been trying to work out what I believe after having my heart broken by the 2019 election loss, the Voice referendum, the 2022 inflation spike, and the recent Australian house price explosion, I found the essay helpful, and, if not exactly clarifying, at least pointing me to ask better questions.
The only deficiency, and it's not a small one, is that Kelly indulges an overly Marxist conception of politics - thinking you can solve every problem by lowering inequality. But closing the private schools won't on its own bring evidence-based phonics into classrooms, nor will reforming negative gearing and CGT on its own build more homes. But Kelly rolls every issue up into a neat and highly abstract Capital vs Labour framing that hand waves away such annoying technical details. Everything is instead a giant omni-struggle against the billionaires. As I've entered my 30s I'm much less convinced of that than when I was 22.
January 1, 2026
This essay is really a 'cry from the heart', an exploration of what
our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese stands for.
Sean is a long time Labor person who, in this essay, really questions
if Labor generally and our Prime Minister specifically, really believes
in anything other than being elected.
As he says towards the end of the essay:
"Albanese....avoids conflict, postpones ti indefinitely. As long as he does so, he inevitably helps those who benefit from things hewing close to their current condition".
This essay was written before the terrorist attack at Bondi. But SO much of what
Kelly unpacks you can see in Albanese's pathetic response to it.
He also explores what the meaning of the left and right is in the Labor party which is helpful for someone like me who while interested in politics doesn't come from the Labor side.
I'd like to have a follow up discussion with Sean having read this essay and explore some of his descriptors more thoroughly.
our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese stands for.
Sean is a long time Labor person who, in this essay, really questions
if Labor generally and our Prime Minister specifically, really believes
in anything other than being elected.
As he says towards the end of the essay:
"Albanese....avoids conflict, postpones ti indefinitely. As long as he does so, he inevitably helps those who benefit from things hewing close to their current condition".
This essay was written before the terrorist attack at Bondi. But SO much of what
Kelly unpacks you can see in Albanese's pathetic response to it.
He also explores what the meaning of the left and right is in the Labor party which is helpful for someone like me who while interested in politics doesn't come from the Labor side.
I'd like to have a follow up discussion with Sean having read this essay and explore some of his descriptors more thoroughly.
February 27, 2026
3.5, rounded up.
"It is true that Labor's primary vote remains low by historical standards. But this Labor government has a rare combination of advantages: a huge majority, a prime minister with decades in parliament behind him, experienced ministers, and a united party facing a confused, depleted Opposition. More may be possible than Labor has yet allowed itself to believe."
Despondency, and disillusionment, that still clings to hope, because there is no better option and as Sean Kelly aptly identifies, this Labor government has every capability to actually offer and facilitate progression, but does not care to. And inexplicably, Albanese is digging his own legacy grave by not realising it.
Unlike the other Quarterly Essays I have recently read, it is very profoundly depressing to read about contemporary political disappointment and missed opportunity in real time, without being merely interested through a sort of retrospective novelty.
"It is true that Labor's primary vote remains low by historical standards. But this Labor government has a rare combination of advantages: a huge majority, a prime minister with decades in parliament behind him, experienced ministers, and a united party facing a confused, depleted Opposition. More may be possible than Labor has yet allowed itself to believe."
Despondency, and disillusionment, that still clings to hope, because there is no better option and as Sean Kelly aptly identifies, this Labor government has every capability to actually offer and facilitate progression, but does not care to. And inexplicably, Albanese is digging his own legacy grave by not realising it.
Unlike the other Quarterly Essays I have recently read, it is very profoundly depressing to read about contemporary political disappointment and missed opportunity in real time, without being merely interested through a sort of retrospective novelty.
January 7, 2026
“Left politics carries in it the sense of what might be achieved … the history of left politics, then, is a record of failure”
It’s hard to share in the quiet optimism a tenured ALP staffer ends on. While there were moments of sharp analysis, some strong indulgences were granted. I found it hard to agree that Albanese has a “stubborn determination to persuade us that one of our national values is kindness,” for example. I did enjoy the wandering introduction about how beliefs are formed and practised.
Neither Kelly nor I are sold on the case for incrementalism in politics, but unlike him, I am lacking in optimism that the Labor of new will ever stop following the money and bending to business. Perhaps a lack of controversy from any really interesting policy changes, alongside a lack of courage, may be what it takes to become “the natural party of government.” Hope it’s worth it.
It’s hard to share in the quiet optimism a tenured ALP staffer ends on. While there were moments of sharp analysis, some strong indulgences were granted. I found it hard to agree that Albanese has a “stubborn determination to persuade us that one of our national values is kindness,” for example. I did enjoy the wandering introduction about how beliefs are formed and practised.
Neither Kelly nor I are sold on the case for incrementalism in politics, but unlike him, I am lacking in optimism that the Labor of new will ever stop following the money and bending to business. Perhaps a lack of controversy from any really interesting policy changes, alongside a lack of courage, may be what it takes to become “the natural party of government.” Hope it’s worth it.
January 10, 2026
The supreme irony of questioning what does Lsbor stand for in a QE that says nothing. Sean Kelly says nothing and goes nowhere with this. Albo is a disappointment , yet look at the implosion of Liberal and the Greens and it becomes evident that we want politics to be like us; occasionally cranky but usually complacent and satisfied with the mediocre. Labor has made some appalling calls, rewarding Marles and giving free rein on the Burrup Peninsula are but 2 of them, but better this than pushing forward to divisive actions that enable the loons from One Nation to get a toehold.
Yes, balance is a good thing but providing a fringe lunatic like Gill with a platform to respond to Marian Wilkinson's thoughtful QE on the rapacity of Woodside seems a step too far.
Come on Black Inc.I can't be alone in having wanted better for #100!
Yes, balance is a good thing but providing a fringe lunatic like Gill with a platform to respond to Marian Wilkinson's thoughtful QE on the rapacity of Woodside seems a step too far.
Come on Black Inc.I can't be alone in having wanted better for #100!
January 19, 2026
The labor party has achieved its goal of becoming the natural ruling party by cornering the LNP by becoming incredibly conservative so much so that they have nothing to use against the ALP (Stopping asylum seekers, maintaining commodified housing, strongly supporting US imperialism).
For the price of power and a desire to reach consensus the ALP has abandoned its roots of being the party of change and for the working class. Therefore they have become this soulless husk of a party that does not inspire. Even the author someone who has believed in the ALP project has become quite disappointed.
Change will be coming and right now it appears one nation is taking on that role. The progressive movement in Australia must step up and become unapologetic and courageous in its desire for change otherwise Australia will become taken by MAGA like elements here.
For the price of power and a desire to reach consensus the ALP has abandoned its roots of being the party of change and for the working class. Therefore they have become this soulless husk of a party that does not inspire. Even the author someone who has believed in the ALP project has become quite disappointed.
Change will be coming and right now it appears one nation is taking on that role. The progressive movement in Australia must step up and become unapologetic and courageous in its desire for change otherwise Australia will become taken by MAGA like elements here.
December 2, 2025
Kelly makes some great observations of the ALP, based on his inside knowledge of how things work as a former Labor staffer. But I finished the essay with the same thoughts.. why won’t the ALP adopt a Nike stance and “just do it”? The answer in my mind, remains the same… “Follow the money”. After all, it makes the world go around, doesn’t it? Political ideals are cast aside for the sake of keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. 😖
January 16, 2026
To say I'm underwhelmed by Kelly as a philosopher investigating the nature of belief would be excessive praise, but this is a great essay, *not* a great piece of technical philosophy. It's really about Kelly coming to terms with his own lifetime, with some consideration of Albo's place in history, and a bit of Labor party history. Good stuff! Unlikely to bend the arc towards justice any time soon, though.
January 21, 2026
Sean Kelly should not have written this essay, being a former Labor staffer, made it difficult for me to read and understand more about Labor. I am no closer to understanding what Labor stand for, if indeed they stand for anything, even after reading the essay.
Disappointing read and that is time I won’t be getting back.
Disappointing read and that is time I won’t be getting back.
December 27, 2025
3.5/5 This is a fair analysis of the current state of the Labor party. I agree with the vast majority of this essay, except I fear my radical tendencies put me at odds with some of the concessions Kelly is willing to make.
January 27, 2026
great essay
really does capture the sentiment of the current times so well (at least for us (kinda) lucky ones)
the tension between idealism and pragmatism
the waiting and waiting of us on the outside (perhaps we will keep waiting until when we are no longer lucky)
required reading
really does capture the sentiment of the current times so well (at least for us (kinda) lucky ones)
the tension between idealism and pragmatism
the waiting and waiting of us on the outside (perhaps we will keep waiting until when we are no longer lucky)
required reading
November 17, 2025
fantastic, probably the best thing i've read this year in the area of australian politics
December 27, 2025
The Labor government need to find Dezi Freeman if they want to be taken seriously by Australians
January 3, 2026
4.75 stars
February 10, 2026
Very spiffy but not super technical. Very curious if this shapes the narrative somewhere up the Labor party. My eyes are sparkly.
March 5, 2026
I love Sean Kelly’s Monday columns. Some interesting points made amidst some philosophical meanderings. He’s best in short form.
March 20, 2026
Disappointing
January 15, 2026
This is the most succinct and insightful discussion I have read about our present political situation and the concerns that many of us on the "left" (such an old-fashioned and outdated term, but used here because it still has meaning to many people) have about our present governments. It clearly sets out what I believe is the central theme that has defined my political lifetime. While traditional political parties argue over the details and the billionaire dominated, conservative media throws up deflections and distractions through cultural warfare, the real issue goes unchallenged. The situation of ordinary people in Australia has got worse in my lifetime and we now face social crises in areas such as health, education, child and aged care, climate change and social cohesion. These crises fall hardest on the younger generations so we are literally talking about the future of our country and our democracy. While people look for reasons in distractions, the real cause of our decline, the slavish devotion to the dogma of neoliberal economics, goes unchallenged and hides in plain sight. Both the old political parties in Australia are unwilling, for different reasons, to challenge this economic orthodoxy and it continues to wreak havoc on Australia's sense of identity and comunity. With the election of a self-proclaimed "centre left " government many of us were hopeful that finally the corrosive power of neoliberal economics would finally be challenged and reversed. This essay sums up the disappointment that many of us have felt that, while some good policy has happened, the real problem has not been addressed. For anybody who wants to understand the problems that Australia is facing in the twenty-first century, this essay is an excellent place to start.
December 6, 2025
Dennis Altman for The Conversation writes a thorough and worthwhile-read review of Kelly’s QE. Regardless of its critical reviews, I found this edition interesting, nuanced and well-grounded in history, economics, and cultural context.
January 12, 2026
An essay that doesn’t answer the question it sets for itself, ultimately embodying the criticism it makes of Albanese. Low on critical analyses and instead big on vibes, with lots of misguided assumptions about the readers. Not worth the time to read.
February 14, 2026
Some sharp and fair criticisms of the current Labor government. Kelly questions whether the cautious, incremental approach to policy will ever add up to a genuinely meaningful reform agenda. Hopefully we will get to see a bit more bravery this term.
December 30, 2025
Like the subject of the essay, Kelly's summations are open ended. The writing is in a holding pattern circling around points of progressive political history. It is ultimately a peremptory article, waiting to see where and how Albanese will take the country. This is an introduction without conclusion. The answers are 3-5 years away.
December 8, 2025
A very thoughtful exploration of the Australian Labor Party and what it stands for today.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews