Lidija Ivanovski

Lidija Ivanovski writes about politics for The Australian Financial Review with a through-line of explaining how party strategy, communication and culture-war battles shape what voters hear and feel. Drawing on experience as a former Labor adviser, she focuses less on day-to-day process and more on how leaders frame economic and social policy, which messages cut through and where they misfire. Her work sits at the intersection of federal politics, tax and economic reform, and the anger and identity questions that fuel contemporary populism.

Election campaigns and party strategy

A recurring strand in Ivanovski’s coverage is the internal dynamics of major parties and their campaign strategy, especially around elections. On The Australian Financial Review’s Fin podcast, she is a regular voice in episodes that dissect leadership calls, such as Angus Taylor’s “big move”, the threat posed by One Nation and the broader electoral landscape. She joins political editor Phillip Coorey to analyse moments of Coalition turmoil, including episodes framed around “Coalition chaos” and the decimation of the opposition, treating party splits as strategic problems rather than just drama.

Her writing extends that focus to how parties try to define opponents and themselves through campaign material. In one column referenced in letters to the editor, she argues that “Labor election ads will tell voters what Price thinks of” contentious issues, highlighting how advertising is used to crystallise an opponent’s stance in voters’ minds. She also covers the rapid rise of One Nation and similar parties, examining how leaders like Pauline Hanson tap “fed up” sentiment by saying what major parties will not, and why that anger-oriented messaging resonates with disaffected voters.

The emphasis is consistently on messaging choices, audience emotion and the strategic logic behind them.

Economic policy, tax reform and political messaging

Ivanovski’s politics coverage is strongly anchored in economic policy and tax reform, but always with an eye on how it is sold to the public. In her piece on Anthony Albanese and tax, she argues that the prime minister “must sharpen the tax message to counter the outrage memes”, showing how social media narratives and simplified grievances can overwhelm a complex reform agenda when the language is loose or defensive.

She treats tax debates not just as technical fights over rates and thresholds, but as contests over fairness stories and the emotional frames that stick.

Her writing on Jim Chalmers’ economic summit and tax reform plan similarly explores what is at stake politically as well as economically, asking what makes a reform package sound “ambitious” to voters and whether the government’s narrative can sustain that ambition. She interrogates how economic summits, budget measures and tax proposals are positioned as either responsible long-term planning or short-term grabs, and what that positioning means for the governing party’s credibility.

Across these pieces, she distinguishes herself from a generic economics or politics reporter by concentrating on language, symbols and audience reaction rather than only policy detail.

Culture wars, identity and free speech

A significant portion of Ivanovski’s work sits on The Australian Financial Review’s “Culture wars” and “Freedom of speech” strands, where she examines how identity questions and speech debates are weaponised in politics. In a column cited in reader correspondence, she argues that “Ley’s Liberals must not listen to Tony Abbott on gender quotas”, using that internal Liberal Party dispute to explore broader questions about representation, party culture and the political costs of resisting structural measures for women. The focus is on how conservative parties manage their own base while responding to public pressure over gender and inclusion.

Her “Freedom of speech” writing asks “Will restricting speech buy Australia the safety it craves?”, looking at the government’s proposed crackdown on hate speech and the criticisms it attracts. Here she balances security concerns against democratic norms, showing how legislation around speech can become a proxy battle over national identity and values. In another culture-wars piece, she reports on a new book about the John Howard era that is branded “regrettable” and “slammed for errors”, using the dispute to show how historical narratives are contested and how interpretations of the recent past feed current political fights. These columns mark her out as someone who connects the symbolic fights over gender, history and speech to their concrete impact on parties and elections.

Housing, immigration and economic fairness

Ivanovski also writes on the politics of housing and immigration, again focusing on how blame is allocated and how fairness is framed. In a widely discussed column referenced in letters pages, she contends that “Immigrants didn't cause Australia's insane housing market”, challenging scapegoating narratives and redirecting attention to structural factors and policy choices.

Her treatment of the issue combines economic reasoning with political analysis, showing how easy targets are chosen and why some explanations gain traction despite being misleading.

By pointing out who benefits from particular narratives about housing stress and who is unfairly blamed, she adds a justice and accountability dimension to standard housing coverage. This reflects a broader pattern in her work: she is interested in how economic pressures are translated into political stories, and which groups are cast as villains or victims in those stories.

Global power shifts and emerging markets

Beyond domestic politics, Ivanovski occasionally writes on international developments where geopolitics intersects with economic and political narratives at home. In an “Emerging markets” piece titled “BRICS summit heralds arrival of new world order”, she explores how the growing weight of the BRICS bloc signals a shift in global power and what that might mean for established economies and their political debates.

Her angle connects the summit to questions of economic security, influence and the stories political leaders tell about Australia’s place in the world.

This willingness to situate Australian political arguments within a changing global context adds another layer to her commentary. It shows she is attuned to how external economic and geopolitical trends feed into domestic policy choices and campaign messages.