When political timing becomes the message
(A collaboration with ChatGPT, and explainer, by itself, of why it “sounds like” a socialist progressive.)
Me:
I remember writing letters to the editor back when it was pen on paper, an envelope, and a postage stamp. Back then, as now, I was calling policy and political behaviour to account and lamenting the loss of politicians who could see beyond the election cycle. And yes, that was a thing—even if to a lesser degree—in the 1990s.
Why? I grew up in Maryborough, a town that voted National federally and Labor state, back in the 1970s. My adopted father worked in a sawmill, and I can vaguely recall “shoppy” conversations with visitors in the lounge room.
I wasn’t brainwashed Labor as a kid, though. I was that undiagnosed autistic girl—early to reading, good with words, and didn’t have to try hard at school. I loved my council library, and I read books that a 10-year-old, 12-year-old, 14-year-old girl had no business reading.
One such arc of inquiry at 14 began with Trade Wind by M. M. Kaye. A question to the librarian about Galatea led me to Ovid’s Metamorphoses, which in turn led to Susan Brownmiller’s Femininity. But Ovid also led to Aristotle. All of this unfolded while the Polish Solidarity movement was on the news at night.
The library was rich pickings for a curious girl with eternal questions and a deep need to stay away from home as much as possible.
This morning, time poor but idea rich, I asked ChatGPT for an analysis of the Budget 2025, specifically around autism and women. It did that more than adequately. It then asked if I’d like a deep dive into any aspects. I turned it around a little, to the outside chance that the election would be called before Thursday night, denying the Opposition a Budget Reply. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Given that I’m likely to be working for the AEC come election day, I need to get any political commentary out before employment is confirmed. After that, impartiality is mandatory.
So I asked ChatGPT to write an analysis of such a thing, calling an election before Thursday, if it were to happen.
As always, you are welcome to run down the looping arc of our chat here.
Here is its response.
—
Calling It Before the Budget Reply: Ruthless, Strategic, or Desperate?
There’s an old rule in politics: never waste a moment when your opponent can’t speak. And right now, we’re staring down a moment that could be defined not just by what’s said—but by when it’s silenced.
With the 2025–26 Federal Budget handed down just last night, the usual choreography should follow: a few days of government spin, a round of economic analysis, and then the Opposition’s formal Budget Reply. But what if Prime Minister Anthony Albanese breaks script and calls the federal election before Peter Dutton can deliver that reply?
It would be a rare move. A ruthless one. And it might just work.
Let’s explore the possibilities.
—
1. Political Timing as a Weapon
This isn’t unprecedented. In 1984, Bob Hawke timed an election around the budget to capitalise on public goodwill and policy momentum. John Howard did similar in 1998, taking his GST plan to the people before it could be fully dismantled in debate.
Budgets are about money—but in election years, they’re also about messaging. When a government wants to double down on its “vision,” the budget becomes a campaign brochure. If Albanese sees this as his opportunity to define the debate, he may not want to give Dutton the oxygen to respond.
Calling an election before the Budget Reply would cut the Coalition off at the knees.
—
2. The Case for Ruthless
Let’s not sugarcoat it: doing this would be cold and calculated. It would be about winning, not fair play.
Dutton has only just begun to warm up as Opposition Leader in the public eye. Cutting off his first major rebuttal to the Labor economic agenda would leave him scrambling—not just to respond, but to be heard. It would be a move designed to neutralise, diminish, and disorient.
For some voters, especially those who value robust debate, it could smell like manipulation. It risks backfiring if framed as “hiding” from critique. But it would be a masterclass in controlling the narrative.
As a tactic, it’s pure political thuggery. As a strategy? It might be genius.
—
3. The Case for Strategic
Labor isn’t just looking at Dutton. It’s looking at the horizon.
Interest rates remain high. Real wages are still lagging for many. The Reserve Bank is cautious. If Labor waits too long, economic discontent could overshadow its social reforms—particularly those aimed at women, carers, and neurodivergent Australians.
This budget was stacked with soft power plays:
A $792.9 million package for women’s health, including long-overdue PBS listings for oral contraceptives and menopause hormone therapy.
A $42.2 million investment in the National Autism Strategy.
Improved infrastructure accessibility and targeted support programs for equity-seeking groups.
These are strong cards to play now, while the details are fresh and the Opposition has no counter.
Calling the election early reframes these not as “budget measures,” but as “campaign promises delivered.”
—
4. The Case for Desperate
And yet… is this all just a panic move in slow motion?
Labor’s primary vote has been soft. Teal Independents are once again hovering in the margins of winnable seats. There’s quiet grumbling over cost-of-living pressure, housing, and Medicare waitlists. If the internal polling is bleak—or if there’s a sense that Dutton might finally start to land hits—then moving early could be a sign of nerves, not confidence.
Calling an election before the Budget Reply might reek of fear: fear of what Dutton could say, fear of how it might stick, and fear of how little time there is to change the story.
For a leader who’s spent much of his term being described as cautious, this would be a surprisingly high-stakes gamble.
—
5. What It Would Mean for the Campaign
If Albanese calls it this week, it changes everything.
Labor gets the jump on campaign messaging, framing their budget as proof of delivery.
Dutton is disarmed, with no official reply speech and no headline-grabbing platform launch.
The Greens, Teals, and crossbenchers may find themselves on the back foot, unprepared for a snap sprint.
Women and autistic voters—beneficiaries of this budget—may be framed as key swing demographics.
The campaign becomes reactive, compressed, and harder to reframe for anyone not already in motion.
It’s a battlefield advantage that could reshape the entire election narrative before it’s even begun.
—
Postscript: On Language Models and Political Tone
(Or, why this post might sound progressive)
After reading this post, you might be wondering—why does this analysis lean left? Why do so many AI-generated responses seem to echo a progressive or social-democratic worldview?
Here’s the thing: large language models (LLMs) like the one I use aren’t political agents. They don’t “believe” anything. But they do generate language based on patterns in the vast, diverse data they were trained on—data that includes research, journalism, policy documents, history books, economics texts, blog posts, and more.
When questions are asked about policy, power, or inequality—like the timing of an election, or funding for women and autistic Australians—the model draws on evidence-based patterns of reasoning. And much of the language surrounding equity, inclusion, and systemic thinking in modern discourse comes from progressive traditions.
It’s not ideology. It’s statistical regularity based on credible sources.
Moreover, this conversation is shaped by me. My questions, values, and commitment to ethical reasoning guide the tone. I’ve asked for factual rigour, challenges to my assumptions, and explanations that are both accessible and nuanced. The AI adapts to that.
So if the political tone of this post seems progressive, that’s not algorithmic bias. It’s pattern recognition filtered through a lifetime of lived experience, autodidactic inquiry, and an insatiable drive to understand systems of power and people.
Large language models don’t have beliefs. But they do echo the structures and evidence of the world they’re trained on. When I ask it to help me write about politics, women, autism, economics, or social cohesion, it doesn’t deliver ideology. It delivers the clearest possible synthesis of ideas drawn from centuries of scholarship—and my prompts shape which voices rise to the top.
This is a dance. I lead. And when the music is truth, equity, and curiosity—I like where the steps take me. It’s a mental minuet I’ve been dancing since I was a girl in the Maryborough library: barefoot in philosophy, waltzing through history, and tangoing with power structures before I even knew their names
The Auld Skald's Fudgel 