Since the last election most of the chatter concerning
how Labor can get back into power has revolved around the need to come up with
some new big ideas. The much more pressing problem of reforming Labor’s
internal processes, which contributed far more to Labor’s loss than a ‘lack’ of
big ideas, has only been touched upon in so far as some commentators believe
Labor’s incessant infighting inhibited it from generating big ideas.
Yet this approach is misdirected. Labor does not need new
big ideas; quite the opposite. It needs to settle down and present calm, steady
leadership—that’s how it will beat the Liberal party at the next election.
Australia has always been characterised by cyclical
politics. Labor holds power when the country is gripped by reform momentum, and
the Liberals come in when the country gets scared by the pace of reforms. A
contributing factor to this cyclical politics is that both Labor and the
Liberals tend to become obnoxious if left in power for too long. The Liberals
start to turn into Victorian-era Tories, trying to purge sensible workplace
relations laws for ideological purposes (workchoices), entrench a class
division in Australia (the private school funding model) and extend benefits to
their base (medicare health rebate). On the other hand, the Labor party becomes
increasingly self righteous over time, manifesting, for the most part, in excessive
political correctness. The recent government also seemed to more and more put
union interests ahead of overall social welfare interests, something the
Keating/Hawke government was not known for.
Cyclical politics is pretty clear from the recent record.
When asked in his recent ABC interviews why he lost his last election, Paul
Keating’s replied: ‘well I think it was probably just time for a change of
government’.
Up until that point, the Liberals couldn’t win an
election because Australia was going through a process of substantial
structural reform and its citizens were content to let Labor see out its
agenda. In his second term, Keating embarked on a reform agenda including
Aboriginal reconciliation, making Australia a Republic and bringing us closer
to Asia that was a little much for Australian citizens. Howard capitalised on
this change in momentum with a message of comfort and a change of pace. His administration passed as many reforms in its lifetime (gun control and the GST) as the recent Gillard administration did in a year.
Australia had lost interest in Howard and its
increasingly backward positions by the time of the Tampa election, but that
little piece of media magic helped Howard save his Bacon. He then defeated
Latham simply because Latham was unelectable (much as the extreme Peter Debnam failed
to win in NSW despite widespread distaste for the incumbent Labor government). Howard eventually lost to Kevin Rudd who presented
himself (initially) as a safe pair of hands with a mild reform agenda to tackle climate
change and boat arrivals (he later developed something of a God complex). When Rudd failed to come through with climate policy
in his first term the Greens experienced a landslide in their favour as
citizens signalled they wanted big action (see footnote).
Gillard pursued a breakneck agenda passing an enormous
number of bills including big reforms like the Carbon Tax, Gonski School
Funding Scheme and National Disability Insurance Scheme, and tabling the
National Broadband Network, Offence Laws and Media Laws. It all became a little
much for Australia, who elected the most negative, and perhaps the most conservative,
opposition leader in history in Tony Abbot.
And now the Labor machine is trying to come up with a new
platform to win the next election. Yet that is precisely the opposite of what
they should do—the Gillard government carried out as much reform as the public
was willing to handle. The best way for Labor to win the next election is to
present as a party of capable, experienced governors who will tackle small
inefficiencies but otherwise not rock the boat. Tony Abbott is not popular,
neither are his ministers and neither is his chief of staff. The Australian
public can see that his is an opposition administration fond of the cut and
thrust of politics but incompetent at positive, constructive government. If
Labor can get away from its image as a runaway reform train filled with drivers
who keep stabbing each other it shouldn’t have any trouble winning the next
election. Focus on the fact that the Abbott administration is a collection of
nasty, brutish, petty bullies intent on trashing even the good things the Labor
party did and reviving the already backwards Howard years and everything will
be smooth sailing.
Bill Shorten has been staying under the radar in a big
way these last few months. He should stick to that tactic a while longer.
Footnote: I
cannot understand how Gillard’s media handlers did not see the golden opening
the election results presented to dishonour her carbon tax promise and still
come off a winner. It would have been as easy as: ‘I absolutely acknowledge
that I said there would be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but I see
now that was a mistake. Neither my party nor that of the opposition received
strong support this past election. In fact, the only party that received a
dramatic swing was the greens. The people of Australia clearly want action on
the environment, and a Carbon Tax is the most effective and efficient way of
doing that without putting undue strain on the economy or the budget’.
Comments
Post a Comment