It was n’t meant to be like this.
In her 2022 study of Anthony Albanese, Katharine Murphy describes a prime minister who thought he’d be efficiently managing an optimistic, creative and positive “new politics” that would prefer the Green independents rather than Dutton’s Liberals.
Albanese sounded assured that Labor would have a protracted term in office. He appeared to approve of her research despite afterwards adding Murphy to his communications team.
But, even at the moment Murphy’s Lone Wolf: Albanese and the New Politics was published, several critics, including myself, queried the “new politicians” situation. Although the Greys does represent a new political, it is obvious that we still have a lot of the same old Progressive politics, which was one of cultural wars and opposition to Labor’s economic and climate change policies.
Labor and the Liberals are now neck-and-neck in some elections, with minority government ( or worse ) potentially looming for Labor. However, Gareth Evans and Bill Kelty, key statistics from the Hawke/Keating time, have excoriated the Albanese government’s reportedly mediocre performance.
How did it all go so bad?
Great expectations, reasonable fact
Some of the causes can be attributed to problems in implementing Labor’s 2022 election strategy’s unrealistic expectations.
Albanese went to the 2022 poll with a “new elections”, collaborative-style , agenda , that sought to bring all Australians, including company, workers, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, up. It was a small-target plan based on expected common passions, kindness and compassion rather than partisanship.
As a result, Labor successfully countered Scott Morrison’s nationalist, “us versus them” promotion strategy. But, Labor’s approach was to show easier to implement as an election plan than in state, as three cases show.
Second, Albanese channeled Bob Hawke when it came to bringing business and labor up. However, the Hawke government’s reconciliation with company was based on business being able to pay lower wages, because workers had been compensated by a government-funded” cultural income” in the form of benefits and entitlements.
In contrast, the Albanese government pledged to finish the Democratic years ‘ wage stagnation and boost wages in general. A lot of effort was put in place to raise the salaries of low-paid female staff. In the process, Labor tackled issues that arose from Keating’s weak, neoliberal-influenced, business negotiations design.
But, important business organizations criticized Labor’s resulting business relations measures, including multi-employer negotiations, increases in the least pay, and measures designed to address vulnerable and contract job. Business criticisms have largely prevailed over the Liberals.
Second, Labor’s attempts to bring Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians together, via the Voice referendum, fell victim to a divisive, populist campaign by Dutton and others. The Voice proposal, according to Dutton, is an elite” Canberra voice” that would grant Indigenous Australians special rights that other people have been denied, not as a result of a significant national gathering of Indigenous representatives.
Furthermore, he argued that government was so focused on elite “woke” issues such as the Voice, it was neglecting Australian workers ‘ cost-of-living crisis. Labor’s strategy for countering right-wing populism was in disarray.
Albanese’s response to the Voice loss was to go even more” small target” in ways that alienated progressive supporters. He gave up on important commitments, including protecting LGBTQI teachers and students from being fired from religious institutions, including the Treaty and Truth-telling process under the Indigenous Makarrata commission. Another outcome was the controversy over including gender identity questions in the census.
Third, international events and other parties ‘ politicization of them have impeded the government’s attempts at social cohesion. The Albanese government is accused of abandoning support for Israel by the Liberals and the Murdoch press, while the Greens and pro-Palestinian groups are also accused of being” complicit in Israel’s genocide” because the Middle East’s developments have polarized Australian politics.
Narrative failure
The government has struggled when it comes to telling a clear narrative about itself because its original mission of bringing Australians together has been increasingly undermined. By contrast, Dutton’s relentless, focused and simply expressed negativity has been cutting through.
Dutton’s failure to stop them from being able to control them is a part of Labor’s problem.
For example, Dutton’s claim the government has been too distracted by so-called “woke” issues to address the cost-of-living crisis has been particularly electorally damaging for Labor. So do his claims that Labor’s policies on renewable energy are raising inflation and increasing living costs further.
The government argues it has been providing extensive cost-of-living relief in the form of tax cuts, energy bill relief, rental assistance, wage increases, cheaper medicines and reduced childcare costs. However, the problem is that such government measures are being continually undercut by inflation, price increases, high interest rates, and the housing affordability and supply crisis.
However, decades of poor housing policy that predates the Albanese government have made the affordability and supply crisis worse. Furthermore, Labor’s attempts to address it are currently being stymied by a combination of Coalition and Greens opposition, once again sandwiching Labor.
Meanwhile, the Coalition contends that government spending is aggravated by high interest rates and inflation. Even the independent Reserve Bank, which sets cash interest rates and is critical of government spending, has drawn attention to several international factors that contribute to inflation. Some businesses ‘ price increases, which they use to increase their profits, have exacerbated the issue.
Furthermore, Treasurer Jim Chalmers , argues , that existing government spending levels have been essential to preventing Australia from sliding into recession while still enabling a budget surplus.
In the same way that Keating’s messages did, Chalmers has struggled to get through. However, Keating benefited from the Coalition largely agreeing with his neoliberal-influenced “reform” agenda, despite arguing it was n’t going far enough. By contrast, Chalmers has been facing a fundamentally hostile opposition, unsympathetic to key influences on his thought, such as Mariana Mazzucato.
Labor has also had trouble selling the government’s accomplishments because, as I’ve mentioned in a recent book, some of the Albanese government’s most effective reform initiatives have been focused on gender equality ( although much more still needs to be done ). In what is still a male-defined political culture, reforms that affect women tend to be undervalued despite women accounting for more than half of the population.
Furthermore, the working class is often conceived in terms of blue-collar male employment, so benefits for women workers are not being adequately recognized. This is particularly the case in Dutton’s hyper-masculine, strongman discourse.
Mobilizing gendered leadership stereotypes has been central to Dutton’s populist “us” versus” them” politics. On issues ranging from addressing the cost-of-living crisis to holding asylum seekers who have been released by a High Court decision and supporting Israel, Dutton consistently portrays Albanese as an emasculated “weak” leader.
Dutton is contrasted with the strong leader who will defend the rights of ordinary Australians who have been allegedly abandoned by Labor and the so-called elites.
This does not look like a “new politics” at all and it is a divisive, populist terrain that Labor is finding very difficult to negotiate.
Carol Johnson is emerita professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Adelaide
This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.