_{If this email has been forwarded to you, sign up here}

There’s a simple choice when it comes to changing the world - either go for the big reform or settle for less. Unfortunately, choosing the right path is often difficult.

We used to talk about the spectrum of politics simply, and illustrated it by drawing a line from right to left. In Australian politics it looked like this:

Green - ALP (Left) - ALP (Right) - LNP Moderate - LNP Conservative - Nats

Anthony Albanese hated it. The Greens were always causing trouble, out there on the left and potentially alienating people who would otherwise vote for him. He thought their strategy was wrong because it was too extreme for them to get elected. So why, he wondered, couldn’t they just see they needed to stop their extreme demands and stop stealing his votes.

Back in the 80’s (when Albanese was receiving his political education) Labor grandees insisted that, “only the impotent are pure”. What they meant was that to grasp power, you needed to be ‘realistic’. This meant dumping any policy that wasn’t popular, even if it was otherwise right.

This background is relevant today because Labor - well Albanese, anyway - has decided balancing the budget is more important than risking the ballooning cost of the NDIS. He’s quite prepared to dump the Greens and ally with the Liberals to make budget cuts.

That means the Greens will be locked out of decision-making, because the coalition’s votes will be more important as far as the PM’s concerned.

Albanese’s playing hardball. That’s why we don’t have a timeline for the introduction of General Supports yet: Canberra and the States can’t agree on who will pay for costly hospital reforms, and so the PM’s refusing to sign until these are added into the mix.

The problem for the Greens is that Albanese is not interested in doing a deal with them. They’re having minimal influence because he sees them as an enemy, rather than a potential ally.

There is a way to achieve specific objectives, but it means being specific about the ask and a willingness to trade to get results. This means thinking about politics differently.