Have you ever noticed pockets of socialism appearing in our society? I refer to identity politics practices that infiltrate our liberal democracy in unremarkable yet profoundly disturbing ways as what I call ‘pocket socialism’. It is time to notice and act before these practices become embedded in our society forever.

There are numerous virtue-signalling practices that have raised the ire of many a patriotic Australian. Acknowledgements of Country at every online meeting or from each speaker at a conference, forced compliance with pronouns, reducing our use of energy while politicians fly all over the world, defining a ‘woman’, and the list goes on.

Recently, I have stumbled upon new pockets of socialism that, unlike the aforementioned practices that are now embedded in most workplaces, are only in their early stages.

Much ado was made of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, but it was fine to talk about the Nature Positive Plan as if it was somehow honourable while renewables infrastructure set about destroying native animals’ habitats.

And while conservative political events such as CPAC are privately funded, left-leaning political events are frequently funded by taxpayers as if everybody automatically agreed with left-wing ideologies.

I am off to CPAC again later in the year but this time in Brisbane. My nearest and dearest asked me recently, what’s the left’s version of CPAC? It turns out that the Festival of Dangerous Ideas (FODI) is the closest thing to a leftie rival in Australia. The FODI is funded by various NSW and Commonwealth government agencies in addition to donors.

A quick glance at the program for this year’s festival confirms the opposing stance to CPAC. A Russian-American trans (pronouns they/them) journalist presents ‘Democracy is not worth dying for’. Another presenter ponders why six-year-olds don’t have the right to vote. Perhaps we should give six-year-olds driving licences and see how that turns out? (Or so my nearest and dearest mused.)

As an academic, I am all for intellectual exercises that help us think outside the box and to ponder the imponderable. When such thinking is not simply pondering but becomes a subject for activism, we ought to be alarmed when taxpayers’ funds support one side and not the other.

Perhaps we have become used to this following controversial funding arrangements supporting the Yes case at the Voice referendum…

Something else has been bothering me. Have you noticed how co-captains and co-coaches (emerging in Victoria) are starting to creep their way into our sports codes? It’s a great way to avoid individual responsibility, hence I refer to this as ‘pocket socialism’.

In auditing finances, the main rules of thumb for establishing internal controls include the segregation of duties and individual accountability. Therefore ‘sharing’ responsibility is a sure-fire way to make no one individual responsible or accountable for anything.

But what about political representation?

There is a growing movement for two people to ‘job-share’ their role as elected ‘co-representatives’. The argument goes that other forms of employment allow job-sharing, so why not representative politics?

The reason is quite simple. Because two people cannot be voted into one position and two-half incumbents do not equal one incumbent. Our political representation requires one person to be individually responsible and accountable for their political role.

That is just what may be happening in the electorate of Higgins at the next federal election. And it is all couched in terms of increasing diversity.

This is not merely a ‘dangerous idea’. Just the other day the ABC reported that two Victorians (quelle surprise), Bronwen Bock and Lucy Bradlow intend to run as Australia’s first job-sharing MPs. According to the report, they will use one office and email, split the income and allowances, and work one week on and one week off with a handover at the end of each week.

What could possibly go wrong?

The first problem is that political representation is not any job. Imagine job-sharing as a soldier… Such a proposal is ludicrous. But supporters of the proposed job-sharing MPs say they might just ‘cram their names onto the form’ and see what the AEC does.

In addition, the duo has:

‘…vowed to fight the AEC in the Federal Court if their nomination is rejected.’

This might appear farcical except for a recent court decision that has turned on its head a human norm that has existed since time immemorial.

The Sex Discrimination Act of 2013 had not been tested until recently. And the court has proven that the legislation is farcical and needs to be changed.

That is the problem with lawfare and such pocket socialism. The law is drafted, and nobody thinks much of it until lawfare brings about an outcome that defies all logic.

Beware pocket socialism and those who use lawfare to push their identity politics on our system of law and order.

I have argued elsewhere that conservative academics need to band together to fight fire with fire (metaphorically, of course). But unlike socialists, conservatives aren’t very good at working as a group. (I am sure all those who participated in group assignments at uni know only too well the inequity of the principle of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’.)

There are plenty of conservative academics in Australia although you might never know it. That’s because they tend to work individually rather than collectively.

At that’s because individual effort that is individually rewarded provides the best incentives. If you don’t believe me, just look at past attempts at socialism.

The simple fact is that socialism doesn’t work. And in a liberal democracy, sharing responsibility and accountability for an individual role in our political system is yet another attempt to undo fundamental principles of capitalism and democratic practice and to introduce collective ideology.

So beware pocket socialism. Because it’s coming soon to an election near you.