Labor has evolved hugely from the 1960s. Calwell to Whitlam to Hawke-Keating was a transformation which helped modernise a party that otherwise might have become irrelevant. In government Labor have struggled to get back to what many would deem its party values. Rudd was disappointing, largely because he ran a very conservative agenda, delivering little for the worker. Gillard did remarkably well given minority government, but the media were relentless. Albanese has lost his ticker since the referendum loss. Labor core issues are rarely at the front of debate and policy making (health and education are just not areas Labor seem to be engaging with). Marles, reportedly very bright, is symbolic of where the party is at — desperately trying to appeal to a conservative agenda.
ON are causing problems for both major parties. I’d caution both to find their identity rather than react. The worker’s party must be that if it is to survive. What that looks like in the future will require deep thought. A Labor conference with little to no debate might seem appealing for political purposes, but i suspect it makes them look out of touch and unwilling to hear from rank and file members. In a period of time where democracy is under pressure to deliver, this is hardly helpful. Should Labor wake up and listen to the community, it can easily recover. Does it want to though?
Tremendous comment, Nick - I genuinely enjoy reading such thoughtful engagement with my writing. Just adding to it, Labor seems to have become an "anti-party", much like the right-wing coalition since federation has been anti-Labor. Rhetoric of "we are not One Nation; we are not the Greens; we are not the Coalition" dominates their discourse when appealing for votes. Though it is a winning formula (the other parties are also guilty of it), it leads to general apathy towards the political system, where it's a race to the bottom of being the least bad option.
This might be your best article so far. Very readable and informative.
I’ve only ever dipped into the McMullin book (and that was in its first edition only) because whenever I did dip into it, I found it disappointing. And I know why.
McMullin seemed afflicted with a clear aversion to adequately assessing _overseas_ factors, however important those were in the ALP’s history. (Blainey’s books on Australian life never make that mistake.)
You've mentioned McMullin's rather flip reference to the New York Stock Exchange in connection with the Scullin government. Yet the results of Wall Street's crash haunted that government every day of its life, a life itself shortened and eventually ended by the Great Depression.
Even if Scullin had possessed the combined political genius of Metternich and Disraeli, Depression-generated unemployment levels eventually destroyed every Western administration except Italy's. Nobody would guess that fact from reading McMullin's book, though.
Again: take the Split. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Stalin and Mao seemed unstoppable. The Korean War seemed, after 1951, unwinnable.
In Rome and Paris, communists came very close to achieving power _legally_, as they had done in Eastern Europe. They were doing their damnedest to win over Malaya.
But nine out of 10 readers of McMullin would conclude that the Split was merely about a bunch of cranky Catholics doing their block with Evatt because he wouldn't give them three acres and a cow. Never mind that socialist parties in Italy, Japan, West Germany, and the UK were having similar internal fights on similar issues, at the very same period.
The most recent example: Whitlam and the 1970s' economic crises. Had foreign news been as accessible to Australians in 1974 as it is 52 years on, Whitlam would have fared much better in the public estimation. Because he was facing exactly the same inflationary threats that Wilson faced in Britain, Giscard faced in France, and Schmidt faced in West Germany. Not to mention Nixon and Ford in the USA.
So what does McMullin give us? Basically, little more than Michelle-Grattan-speak about Cairns, Connor, Hayden, and Who Was Up Who on the federal executive. You would scarcely suppose from McMullin that some Australians know about foreign countries.
Anyhow, enough bellyaching on my part here. I enjoyed reading your essay, as I said at the start.
Hello, I found that to be a well balanced read. Most of the points and counterpoints I would hope to see were mentioned. I have never voted ALP after growing up in a Union official parachute landing zone, but I think it is good that there is an ALP so long as we continue to have watchdogs and election cycles etc.
I still find the LNP implosion and One Nation trends a little bit difficult to comprehend. I think the oddest part is how seemingly all of a sudden young otherwise progressive people are openly talking about voting One Nation. The people I meet are not talking about migration, it is housing affordability, over taxation and a general concern that things are going too far to the left. The pendulum is always swinging I guess.
In terms of the importance of other nations, I would like to give a big shout out to the military and police of Thailand during the 1960s-1980s.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Alias :) Regarding young progressives voting One Nation, I think the numbers would be very minor, if at all. My understanding of progressivism includes the social left-wing aspects more closely aligned with the Greens and Labor Left, and to a lesser extent, Labor Right and Liberal moderates. I just can't see this cohort shifting their political vote to a party that is antithetical to such principles.
I think it would be more accurate to describe the young voter shift as comprising people who are more centrist economically, and are, generally speaking, socially wet, and who may not be particularly tuned into politics. They may instead be focused on advancing their lives and families and, seeing the current conditions, are looking at One Nation cutting through the noise and thinking, “This is a party that can bring change.”
This said, it seems like ON has reached its ceiling (~30%) in the polling. I think this will gradually go down as people realise that ON doesn't really have any solutions to the things that matter—e.g., living conditions, affordability, working rights, etc. In fact, a lot of her policies will make things worse.
The pendulum is swinging, but I think we will see it swing back away from One Nation over the next 18 months.
"Labor remains the primary bulwark against the rise of right-wing populism. Yet it may not succeed unless it realises the raison d’être of its existence:"
I don't think they understand this. If they do understand this then their response is negligible and will continue to be while we have surrendered to our American protector and continue to allow the Zionist fanatics to direct our social cohesion.
Labor has evolved hugely from the 1960s. Calwell to Whitlam to Hawke-Keating was a transformation which helped modernise a party that otherwise might have become irrelevant. In government Labor have struggled to get back to what many would deem its party values. Rudd was disappointing, largely because he ran a very conservative agenda, delivering little for the worker. Gillard did remarkably well given minority government, but the media were relentless. Albanese has lost his ticker since the referendum loss. Labor core issues are rarely at the front of debate and policy making (health and education are just not areas Labor seem to be engaging with). Marles, reportedly very bright, is symbolic of where the party is at — desperately trying to appeal to a conservative agenda.
ON are causing problems for both major parties. I’d caution both to find their identity rather than react. The worker’s party must be that if it is to survive. What that looks like in the future will require deep thought. A Labor conference with little to no debate might seem appealing for political purposes, but i suspect it makes them look out of touch and unwilling to hear from rank and file members. In a period of time where democracy is under pressure to deliver, this is hardly helpful. Should Labor wake up and listen to the community, it can easily recover. Does it want to though?
Tremendous comment, Nick - I genuinely enjoy reading such thoughtful engagement with my writing. Just adding to it, Labor seems to have become an "anti-party", much like the right-wing coalition since federation has been anti-Labor. Rhetoric of "we are not One Nation; we are not the Greens; we are not the Coalition" dominates their discourse when appealing for votes. Though it is a winning formula (the other parties are also guilty of it), it leads to general apathy towards the political system, where it's a race to the bottom of being the least bad option.
This might be your best article so far. Very readable and informative.
I’ve only ever dipped into the McMullin book (and that was in its first edition only) because whenever I did dip into it, I found it disappointing. And I know why.
McMullin seemed afflicted with a clear aversion to adequately assessing _overseas_ factors, however important those were in the ALP’s history. (Blainey’s books on Australian life never make that mistake.)
You've mentioned McMullin's rather flip reference to the New York Stock Exchange in connection with the Scullin government. Yet the results of Wall Street's crash haunted that government every day of its life, a life itself shortened and eventually ended by the Great Depression.
Even if Scullin had possessed the combined political genius of Metternich and Disraeli, Depression-generated unemployment levels eventually destroyed every Western administration except Italy's. Nobody would guess that fact from reading McMullin's book, though.
Again: take the Split. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Stalin and Mao seemed unstoppable. The Korean War seemed, after 1951, unwinnable.
In Rome and Paris, communists came very close to achieving power _legally_, as they had done in Eastern Europe. They were doing their damnedest to win over Malaya.
But nine out of 10 readers of McMullin would conclude that the Split was merely about a bunch of cranky Catholics doing their block with Evatt because he wouldn't give them three acres and a cow. Never mind that socialist parties in Italy, Japan, West Germany, and the UK were having similar internal fights on similar issues, at the very same period.
The most recent example: Whitlam and the 1970s' economic crises. Had foreign news been as accessible to Australians in 1974 as it is 52 years on, Whitlam would have fared much better in the public estimation. Because he was facing exactly the same inflationary threats that Wilson faced in Britain, Giscard faced in France, and Schmidt faced in West Germany. Not to mention Nixon and Ford in the USA.
So what does McMullin give us? Basically, little more than Michelle-Grattan-speak about Cairns, Connor, Hayden, and Who Was Up Who on the federal executive. You would scarcely suppose from McMullin that some Australians know about foreign countries.
Anyhow, enough bellyaching on my part here. I enjoyed reading your essay, as I said at the start.
Thanks for the very kind words, Robert. Also, as always, your political/historical insights are always worth reading :)
Hello, I found that to be a well balanced read. Most of the points and counterpoints I would hope to see were mentioned. I have never voted ALP after growing up in a Union official parachute landing zone, but I think it is good that there is an ALP so long as we continue to have watchdogs and election cycles etc.
I still find the LNP implosion and One Nation trends a little bit difficult to comprehend. I think the oddest part is how seemingly all of a sudden young otherwise progressive people are openly talking about voting One Nation. The people I meet are not talking about migration, it is housing affordability, over taxation and a general concern that things are going too far to the left. The pendulum is always swinging I guess.
In terms of the importance of other nations, I would like to give a big shout out to the military and police of Thailand during the 1960s-1980s.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Alias :) Regarding young progressives voting One Nation, I think the numbers would be very minor, if at all. My understanding of progressivism includes the social left-wing aspects more closely aligned with the Greens and Labor Left, and to a lesser extent, Labor Right and Liberal moderates. I just can't see this cohort shifting their political vote to a party that is antithetical to such principles.
I think it would be more accurate to describe the young voter shift as comprising people who are more centrist economically, and are, generally speaking, socially wet, and who may not be particularly tuned into politics. They may instead be focused on advancing their lives and families and, seeing the current conditions, are looking at One Nation cutting through the noise and thinking, “This is a party that can bring change.”
This said, it seems like ON has reached its ceiling (~30%) in the polling. I think this will gradually go down as people realise that ON doesn't really have any solutions to the things that matter—e.g., living conditions, affordability, working rights, etc. In fact, a lot of her policies will make things worse.
The pendulum is swinging, but I think we will see it swing back away from One Nation over the next 18 months.
"Labor remains the primary bulwark against the rise of right-wing populism. Yet it may not succeed unless it realises the raison d’être of its existence:"
I don't think they understand this. If they do understand this then their response is negligible and will continue to be while we have surrendered to our American protector and continue to allow the Zionist fanatics to direct our social cohesion.