Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese navigates a slow but steady decline in approval, his cautious leadership approach is increasingly under scrutiny. With rising pressures on housing, the economy, and global events, is it time for him to take the bold political risks necessary to stave off the threat of minority government?
Two years ago to the month, I wrote in this column of my despair and disgust of the impunity with which society leaders and politicians didn’t just shade the truth, but buried it six-feet deep and then gleefully stomped on it. In the past week, a couple of things reminded me of that piece and about the role truth plays in our public discourse. It reminded me how fragile our grasp on reality has become, and why that matters.
With moments of shared perspective and common ground, the weird thing about the CBS debate the debate between the two putative vice-presidents, J.D. Vance and Tim Walz, was how civil and considerate it was and (in its way) how impressive.
Despite affecting millions, systemic and event-driven poverty is rarely discussed by politicians. In a nation facing growing economic uncertainty, can we afford to continue overlooking those most vulnerable to financial and social hardship?
As the US election approaches, the focus has shifted from personal narratives to policy positions and voter strategies. Candidates like Trump and Harris have crafted compelling stories, but voters now seek clarity on the issues. With much of the debate settled, the question remains: how will these stories shape the outcome?
Almost a year after the Voice proposal was defeated, blame and recrimination are still being thrown around, and the government is still reeling from Albanese’s overreach.
In Andrew Leigh's new book, he argues that inequality matters because it threatens the sense of fairness that is central to our well-being, because inequality prevents the less well off from moving to relative affluence, weakens democracy, and erodes understanding of and commitment to the common good.
During a recent interview on his Papal plane coming back from Singapore Francis made some pointed remarks in response to a veiled question from an American journalist about the US Presidential election contest between the Democrat Kamala Harris and the Republican Donald Trump. He chose to describe the choice as between the ‘lesser of two evils’ because Harris is pro-abortion rights and Trump is anti-immigration.
Last month, Kamala Harris faced off with Trump in what may be the only debate of the 2024 race for the White House. As we revisit the event, it’s clear that the real takeaway isn’t found in the limited substance offered to voters. Rather, it’s a stark reminder of how far the standards for such political showdowns have fallen, leaving us to question the usefulness of this once-crucial platform for democratic discourse.
The Government is making another valiant effort to rein in the adverse effects of ungoverned digital platforms. But in debating such a detailed bill without the backstop of a constitutional or statutory bill of rights recognising the right to freedom of expression, there are no clear guard rails for getting the balance right.
As Australia heads toward the 2024 federal election, voters are grappling with soaring costs of living, stagnant wages, and weak GDP growth. Inflation is easing but prices remain stubbornly high. Will the Albanese government’s strategies to combat inflation satisfy an increasingly strained electorate?
1-12 out of 200 results.