What do you think?
Rate this book
Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us: Vantage Point Issue 2
The sensible centre. Evidence-based policy. These are not the same. In fact, they are at odds with each other.
The scientific evidence tells us that building new gas, oil and coal mines will cause catastrophic climate damage this century. Yet politicians describe a call for the end of new mines as extreme. Likewise with online gambling, junk food advertising or incarcerating the evidence of harm is clear, but the sensible centre is defined not by evidence but by politics. Media reports on such issues presuppose that there are two sides and a centre to every debate, but evidence shows there is not. The political right thrives in such fear-fuelled, fact-free arenas, where traditional media and subject matter experts struggle to fight fear with facts.
In this essay, economist and Executive Director of The Australia Institute Richard Denniss, explores the contradiction between centrism and evidence that sits at the heart of democratic debate in Australia. He shows that when both major parties oppose reform then the position of the sensible centre becomes indistinguishable from blind support for keeping things as they are.
The scientific evidence tells us that building new gas, oil and coal mines will cause catastrophic climate damage this century. Yet politicians describe a call for the end of new mines as extreme. Likewise with online gambling, junk food advertising or incarcerating the evidence of harm is clear, but the sensible centre is defined not by evidence but by politics. Media reports on such issues presuppose that there are two sides and a centre to every debate, but evidence shows there is not. The political right thrives in such fear-fuelled, fact-free arenas, where traditional media and subject matter experts struggle to fight fear with facts.
In this essay, economist and Executive Director of The Australia Institute Richard Denniss, explores the contradiction between centrism and evidence that sits at the heart of democratic debate in Australia. He shows that when both major parties oppose reform then the position of the sensible centre becomes indistinguishable from blind support for keeping things as they are.
94 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 5, 2025
7 people are currently reading
63 people want to read
About the author
Richard Denniss
12 books44 followersRichard Denniss is the Chief Economist and former Executive Director of The Australia Institute. He is a prominent Australian economist, author and public policy commentator, and a former Adjunct Associate Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University in Canberra, Australia. Dr Denniss was described by Mark Kenny in the Sydney Morning Herald as "a constant thorn in the side of politicians on both sides due to his habit of skewering dodgy economic justifications for policy".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
September 27, 2025
A short read. If only more Australians could take time out to finish such “short” reads, we might have a little more hope for the future by effectively holding those who govern to account. 😔
October 8, 2025
i really liked this. a great articulation of a lot of the frustration from the past few years
August 25, 2025
Anyone frustrated at the exhaustion of two-party politics and the inability of our elected leaders to grapple effectively with major challenges like climate change and intergenerational inequity should read this insightful book by Richard Denniss of the progressive thinktank, the Australia Institute.
An economist and a former chief of staff to former Australian Democrats leader, Senator Natasha Stoff Despoja, Denniss is well-placed to identify the reasons Australian politics and the attendant media commentary is besotted by the so-called 'sensible centre' of supposedly pragmatic politics.
In Australia, as in other major developed democracies - two major party groupings (nominally of the 'centre-left' and 'centre-right') - squabble over irrelevancies for public effect, while conspiring together quietly not to tackle any issue which may upset powerful interest groups.
It's why both the Labor Party and the conservative Liberal-National Coalition, when in office, put up draft bills that they have no intention of ever passing into law. Instead, these 'bluff bills' serve to make it seem as if they are tackling big issues upon which the public is demanding action. When the bills fail, as intended, they can blame their opponents for being 'obstructionist'.
The media, which has an economic interest in black hat-white hat politics where there are only ever two sides to every story, laps up the confected conflict and moves onto the next story.
But Australia, like many countries, is rapidly changing. Electors are disenchanted with this cosy club and are voting in independent politicians in record numbers. While Labor secured an almost record number of seats in the recent federal election, its primary vote has not been lower in decades. Neither has that of the Coalition parties, who are reduced to a rump in the latest parliament.
All the polls suggest electors want much more effective action on climate change, yet Labor makes token efforts on renewable energy while approving massive new coal, oil and gas projects. Its defence is that it is nowhere near as bad as the other lot. Well, thanks for that.
It's the same in the defence portfolio, where both Labor and the Coalition have supported without a parliamentary vote a ruinous submarine deal with the US, in which Australia will fork out $360 billion for vessels that are unlikely to ever be delivered. Why? Because questioning our alliance with the US, even under the openly fascist Trump regime, is likely to elicit the condemnation of the still dominant Murdoch media. That voters ignored News Corp's call for them to elect the Coalition at the last election still does not seem to sway the major parties.
The ubiquity of the so-called 'gaming' industry in Australia is another area the political duopoly refuses to touch, despite polls showing more than 80% of voters want a ban on gambling advertising.
At the heart of this institutional inertia, writes Denniss, is a rusted-on devotion, among the political parties and the mainstream media, to a redundant left-right polarity for politics. As he points out, how is recognising the physics of climate change or the corruption of politics by big money 'left wing'?
"Our major political parties put significant effort into picking fake fights, and drafting bluff bills, to create the appearance of drive and determination, so they can conceal their apathy, fear of upsetting corporate interests and desire to conceal internal division," Dennis writes.
"The best way to justify inaction is to self-identify as a 'sensible centrist' who just can't get those other nasty parties to support change."
The worry is that the new Labor government, even with its huge majority that essentially gives it two terms to get major reform done, will continue sitting on its hands and playing these games of political charades. The gutlessness is galling.
Highly recommended.
An economist and a former chief of staff to former Australian Democrats leader, Senator Natasha Stoff Despoja, Denniss is well-placed to identify the reasons Australian politics and the attendant media commentary is besotted by the so-called 'sensible centre' of supposedly pragmatic politics.
In Australia, as in other major developed democracies - two major party groupings (nominally of the 'centre-left' and 'centre-right') - squabble over irrelevancies for public effect, while conspiring together quietly not to tackle any issue which may upset powerful interest groups.
It's why both the Labor Party and the conservative Liberal-National Coalition, when in office, put up draft bills that they have no intention of ever passing into law. Instead, these 'bluff bills' serve to make it seem as if they are tackling big issues upon which the public is demanding action. When the bills fail, as intended, they can blame their opponents for being 'obstructionist'.
The media, which has an economic interest in black hat-white hat politics where there are only ever two sides to every story, laps up the confected conflict and moves onto the next story.
But Australia, like many countries, is rapidly changing. Electors are disenchanted with this cosy club and are voting in independent politicians in record numbers. While Labor secured an almost record number of seats in the recent federal election, its primary vote has not been lower in decades. Neither has that of the Coalition parties, who are reduced to a rump in the latest parliament.
All the polls suggest electors want much more effective action on climate change, yet Labor makes token efforts on renewable energy while approving massive new coal, oil and gas projects. Its defence is that it is nowhere near as bad as the other lot. Well, thanks for that.
It's the same in the defence portfolio, where both Labor and the Coalition have supported without a parliamentary vote a ruinous submarine deal with the US, in which Australia will fork out $360 billion for vessels that are unlikely to ever be delivered. Why? Because questioning our alliance with the US, even under the openly fascist Trump regime, is likely to elicit the condemnation of the still dominant Murdoch media. That voters ignored News Corp's call for them to elect the Coalition at the last election still does not seem to sway the major parties.
The ubiquity of the so-called 'gaming' industry in Australia is another area the political duopoly refuses to touch, despite polls showing more than 80% of voters want a ban on gambling advertising.
At the heart of this institutional inertia, writes Denniss, is a rusted-on devotion, among the political parties and the mainstream media, to a redundant left-right polarity for politics. As he points out, how is recognising the physics of climate change or the corruption of politics by big money 'left wing'?
"Our major political parties put significant effort into picking fake fights, and drafting bluff bills, to create the appearance of drive and determination, so they can conceal their apathy, fear of upsetting corporate interests and desire to conceal internal division," Dennis writes.
"The best way to justify inaction is to self-identify as a 'sensible centrist' who just can't get those other nasty parties to support change."
The worry is that the new Labor government, even with its huge majority that essentially gives it two terms to get major reform done, will continue sitting on its hands and playing these games of political charades. The gutlessness is galling.
Highly recommended.
September 19, 2025
Dr Richard Denniss argues that Labor Party's hellbent desire to implement centrist policies is killing Australia, and after reading this essay it is hard to disagree.
"Indeed, the concepts of left and right are fundamentally inadequate when addressing the biggest issues facing modern democracies. Why, for example, are right-wing European parties more ambitious than the Labour Party on climate? And since when did freedom of speech and transparency around government spending become left-wing issues? … the idea that it is left wing to oppose public funding of nuclear power and right wing to provide free gas to foreign gas companies has no basis in philosophy, history, economics or anything else."
By forcing these issues onto an economic political spectrum where they do not belong, we have created a situation where you can be 'centrist' on issues such climate change, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Denniss uses a few metaphors, the most salient one is a house fire. 'Fact based policy' says - we need to put the fire out as soon as possible to save the house. In an attempt to be centrist and appease both sides, fire fighters set a 'fire reduction target'. See how ridiculous that sounds?
There are plenty of other examples that demonstrate that left/right spectrum is the incorrect tool to discuss many issues - what is a centrist position on slavery? Or the use of lead paint or asbestos?
This essay is particularly relevant given the news yesterday with the ALP setting a new climate reduction target of 62-70% by 2035. Science and the Greens say this is inadequate, while the Liberals say this is going too far. The result is the Labor party will claim to be governing well and seeking to meet in the middle. The reality is they have tabled a policy that ignores science and will fail to address the problem.
We are cooked!!
"Indeed, the concepts of left and right are fundamentally inadequate when addressing the biggest issues facing modern democracies. Why, for example, are right-wing European parties more ambitious than the Labour Party on climate? And since when did freedom of speech and transparency around government spending become left-wing issues? … the idea that it is left wing to oppose public funding of nuclear power and right wing to provide free gas to foreign gas companies has no basis in philosophy, history, economics or anything else."
By forcing these issues onto an economic political spectrum where they do not belong, we have created a situation where you can be 'centrist' on issues such climate change, which makes no sense whatsoever.
Denniss uses a few metaphors, the most salient one is a house fire. 'Fact based policy' says - we need to put the fire out as soon as possible to save the house. In an attempt to be centrist and appease both sides, fire fighters set a 'fire reduction target'. See how ridiculous that sounds?
There are plenty of other examples that demonstrate that left/right spectrum is the incorrect tool to discuss many issues - what is a centrist position on slavery? Or the use of lead paint or asbestos?
This essay is particularly relevant given the news yesterday with the ALP setting a new climate reduction target of 62-70% by 2035. Science and the Greens say this is inadequate, while the Liberals say this is going too far. The result is the Labor party will claim to be governing well and seeking to meet in the middle. The reality is they have tabled a policy that ignores science and will fail to address the problem.
We are cooked!!
October 11, 2025
5 ⭐️
Finished reading ... Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us / Richard Denniss ..... 11 October, 2025
Series: Vantage Point Issue 2
ISBN: 9781763662148 .... 119 pp. + Endnotes (which are references, only need to be checked if you want to follow up a particular point)
Richard Denniss shows how easy it is for the major parties to set the parameters of a debate so the arguments are around the "sensible centre" while facts and evidence can lie outside those parameters. This is a particularly useful strategy for not passing legislation which the party in power doesn't want to pass, which the people in general do want passed - while they look like they're trying to do something and other parties are blocking them.
This trick can also be deployed to argue over minor matters at great length while major issues are ignored - to the government's delight.
Denniss shows how this trickery can be practised, with examples across a number of fields including defence, housing, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, climate change and elsewhere.
He also shows he easy it is for the government to pass legislation ... if it wants to!
If my explanation isn't clear enough, read this essay. It's very clear there. It won't take long.
Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. It will change the way that you look at what governments are doing - and not doing.
Highly recommended.
Even more highly recommended: read it in conjunction with After America: Vantage Point Issue 1 by Emma Shortis, ISBN: 9781763662131
Finished reading ... Dead Centre: How political pragmatism is killing us / Richard Denniss ..... 11 October, 2025
Series: Vantage Point Issue 2
ISBN: 9781763662148 .... 119 pp. + Endnotes (which are references, only need to be checked if you want to follow up a particular point)
Richard Denniss shows how easy it is for the major parties to set the parameters of a debate so the arguments are around the "sensible centre" while facts and evidence can lie outside those parameters. This is a particularly useful strategy for not passing legislation which the party in power doesn't want to pass, which the people in general do want passed - while they look like they're trying to do something and other parties are blocking them.
This trick can also be deployed to argue over minor matters at great length while major issues are ignored - to the government's delight.
Denniss shows how this trickery can be practised, with examples across a number of fields including defence, housing, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, climate change and elsewhere.
He also shows he easy it is for the government to pass legislation ... if it wants to!
If my explanation isn't clear enough, read this essay. It's very clear there. It won't take long.
Once you see it, you'll never unsee it. It will change the way that you look at what governments are doing - and not doing.
Highly recommended.
Even more highly recommended: read it in conjunction with After America: Vantage Point Issue 1 by Emma Shortis, ISBN: 9781763662131
August 21, 2025
Economic theory made clear is Richard Dennis’s speciality and this is an excellent example. Labour has the perfect opportunity to produce some radical policies with the cooperation of the Greens but will they take it or will they simply do as little as possible?
October 4, 2025
Really interesting look at the way the Albanese Government chooses to use their political mandate - although I don’t agree with everything Denniss argues, it makes a very valid case as to the need for the Government to use their majority to push for more, instead of waiting for bipartisan support
September 8, 2025
Thought provoking and insightful in many ways, but also deeply repetitive. Still worth reading.
November 1, 2025
Essential reading! Denniss provides a scathing insight into our current political landscape, particularly regarding climate policy
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews