A year after the Albanese government’s election win, Labor’s strategy for its first term in office is clear.
On the issues where the Coalition has historically had an advantage, most notably economics, defence and foreign policy, Labor has adopted those policies and sought (so far successfully) to more competently implement them. On everything else — climate, health, education, human rights — Labor has pitched just far enough to the left of the Coalition to provide a point of difference while minimising the risk of losing votes on the centre-right.
Examples of the first part of the strategy are the stage three tax cuts and AUKUS, but they’re only the most prominent. As well as promising to implement the stage three cuts, the government allowed numerous initiatives of the previous government — funded for a limited time — to expire on schedule. Most notable was the low- and middle-income earners’ tax offset, which ensures the tax system will be more regressive by the end of the government’s first term than it was at the start, even if the stage three tax cuts are trimmed.
In foreign policy, as well as AUKUS, the government has outdone its predecessor in supporting the Quad alliance to contain China. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s embrace of the ethno-nationalist Narendra Modi government, and (literally) of its prime minister, goes beyond anything seen under former prime minister Scott Morrison.
The government has interpreted its House of Representatives majority as a mandate to do precisely what was contained in its election platform (and nothing more), but one major promise has been watered down and, for practical purposes, repudiated.
In 2021, Albanese promised a renewed commitment to full employment. The plan included a jobs summit, leading to the issue of a white paper on full employment. Its title echoed that of the 1945 white paper on full employment in Australia, which was the founding document for Australian economic policy during the decades of postwar full employment.
But then the jobs summit became a jobs and skills summit, with most of the discussion centring on the difficulties faced by employers when full employment unexpectedly became something close to reality. Similarly, the word “full” disappeared from what is now promised as the employment white paper.
Finally, the 2023-24 budget projected an increase in unemployment during Labor’s first term. The projected rate of 4.5% exceeds even the Reserve Bank’s estimate of the “non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment”. In contrast with Albanese’s statement that a return to 2019 conditions would be unacceptable for a Labor government, the projected rate is within half a percentage point of that prevailing before the pandemic.
Left, right and centre
In summary, Labor has taken a position in the centre-right of the Australian political spectrum, occupying a space vacated by the disappearance of the moderate Liberals epitomised by former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. On the right, the Liberals and Nationals are in dire straits nearly everywhere. To the left, Labor is fending off the Greens and independents, whose economic views are broadly in line with Labor’s but who want more action on issues such as climate policy and human rights.
While most of the political commentariat is still focused on the long-standing two-party system, urban Australia has already moved to a three-party system, in which Labor confronts a divided opposition.
The Liberals now hold only 19 seats in the metropolitan areas of Australia’s capitals, barely more than the combined total of Greens and independents. The trend is even clearer among young voters. According to the Australian Electoral Survey, about 38% of those under 40 voted Labor, compared with about 25% each for the Liberals-Nationals and the Greens, leaving about 12% for independents and minor parties.
The closest international analogue is France, where the centrist party of Emmanuel Macron in France secured 39% of the votes in the 2022 legislative election, compared with 32% for the left-wing coalition NUPES (Nouvelle Union populaire écologique et sociale) and 25% for the right and far-right. Unlike in Australia, this was not enough to secure an absolute majority.
Neoliberalism on the wane
The best way to understand these developments is that they follow from the decline of neoliberalism as a dominant ideology. For most of the time since the 1980s, politics in developed countries has involved an alternation of power between versions of neoliberalism: hard, represented by LNP, US Republicans, UK Conservatives and European conservative parties; and soft, represented by Labor in Australia, New Labour in the UK, US Democrats and European social democrats).
Since the global financial crisis in 2007-08, the failure of neoliberalism to deliver on its promises has led to the erosion of support for this comfortable duopoly. On the right, this has been manifested by the rise of demagogic leaders such as Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Marine Le Pen. On the left, traditional social democrats have lost support to the Greens and others, so there is no longer enough support to sustain two neoliberal parties.
The consequences are still playing out globally. But in Australia, it appears Albanese’s Labor Party has taken hold of the mantle of neoliberalism, with the Coalition reduced to a rural and peri-urban rump. In metropolitan Australia, Labor is facing a challenge from Greens and independents, whose positions are probably closer to the actual views of most urban voters. But enough voters still think in two-party terms to keep Labor in front for the moment.
On this analysis, Albanese’s ambition to hold office for three terms, or even more, looks quite feasible. But it will be achieved by abandoning most of the policy goals Labor previously aspired to. And as urban voters shift left, it will be harder and harder for Labor to hold on to its narrow majority in Parliament.
I have to disagree with that. I think the Greens economic views are comfortably left of contemporary Labor, who are closer to the Liberals, if anything.
The Independents are a different matter, most of them would be at home in a Malcolm Turnbull Liberal Party.
I read that sentence as the independents being broadly in line with labor’s economics. Clumsy sentence construction.
I initially had drsmithy’s reaction, but I now think LilyLulu is right: it’s the independent “teals” whose views are broadly in line with Labor — not the Greens. So, to take the ALP’s social housing plan as an example, I think only Pocock has kicked up any fuss. But LilyLulu is right that it is a badly crafted sentence.
It’s only poor sentence construction if you’re trying to interpret a meaning different to mine. 😉
This was an editorial mistake. The original text said “Greens (left of Labor on everything”). I’ll see if I can get this fixed – JQ
Albo has a direct line to the fossil fuel companies in that earpiece, telling him exactly what to say. “Smile like you’ve just received another million. Good boy”.
The problem is that Albo doesn’t have that direct line. Our (and other similar former democracies’) real problem isn’t individual politicians promoting the interests of corporations who provide them with kickbacks. That could be fixed by rounding them up and sticking them in prison.
Unfortunately it’s a formalised type of corruption at the party level that is at the root of our problems. Albo doesn’t get a cent personally from a fossil fuel company. ALP (Ltd) gets the “donations” and – I’m shocked; shocked I tell you – no single person and no group is liable for the institutionalised corruption.
The system isn’t going to change though, because most politicians rely on party affiliation to get elected. Although there are a few “rock star” pollies (the ones whose names and/or faces are recognisable by voters) in most cases voters cast their votes in favour of the party and never bother to read the name of the candidate on the ballot paper. If they were to upset their party they would have to compete with all the other non-entities on the form.
Labor will never get another federal majority.
Nor does it deserve to.
Wanna bet?
Ignoring whether it is deserving, which, given we all know life is not fair, does not tell us anything, it would (I hope) be fascinating to know exactly what facts and reasoning makes you certain Labor will never get another federal majority.
I’m pretty sure that Kimmo is referring to the ALP’s declining primary vote and the fact that the only reason they have a majority at the moment is that during the last election they, in a few seats, marginally out-polled the Greens (not on primaries but after other minor party and independent preferences were redistributed) to squeak in. The 2PP numbers don’t show it now but it was there on election night.
The decline in primaries might not continue. Maybe there’s a pendulum and the future will see the votes swing back to them. That seems unlikely though. Like their twins the Liberal Party, the ALP’s rusted on voters are literally a dying breed. By imitating the Libs’ anti-youth stance they have alienated the cohort of voters whose numbers are actually increasing.
from your lips to the gods’ ears
It is a difficult time to govern with the inequality of wealth, climate change and ecological collapse requiring massive change in many policy areas. Labor has adopted the view that minimalist incremental change will be effective and electorally successful. The science suggests failure and Labor like independents may also kill their electoral success if they continue so cautiously.
Tend to agree, chicken or the egg.
Labor IMO is safely following much of the electorate, especially urban, but which is also ageing. Meanwhile many above median age Labor supporters are retired (neither in the workforce nor a union), quite wealthy through property prices (with near or full equity) and accumulated super.
Australia is quite conservative so one does not really understand what’s the issue in relatively early days of a Labor govt.; for Labor supporters if you don’t like it, then get involved directly or ask your local member?
Sadly both the majors are fully owned by various narrow interest groups. They have no interest in governing for Australians generally. They govern for the billionaires, both local and overseas. Hence its no longer useful to even listen to them. All their speeches are basically funded advertisments written by lobby groups and paid for by billionaires.