How Labor made Abbott electable
Saturday, 31 July 2010
How did this man become electable?
One of the first things that Gillard did when she entered the House as Prime Minister was to go over to Tony Abbott and say “Game on”. The message was clear. Now Abbott faced a real challenger to deal with his political attack on the government.
Since when was Abbott a threat? For most of this government, Abbott has been seen as unelectable. Obviously there has been some re-writing of this by some commentators. Gerard Henderson pointed out recently that latte drinkers have continually underestimated Tony Abbott. Clearly, as Mumble discovered, Gerard also enjoys a drop, having ruled out in 2007 the chance of Abbott ever becoming leader. Hold the froth.
Abbott didn’t seem that sure himself. Readers may recall Abbott’s highly unusual stabs at the leadership this term. The first, after lauding his “people skills” to widespread laughter, he withdrew before the vote (so Nelson could beat Turnbull). The second he ran for the leadership, then called it off, then called it back on again when Hockey’s candidacy collapsed. Even when he won, it was widely felt that this was more about taking advantage of the inevitable period of grace for a new government for the Liberals to focus more on their ‘values’, than winning votes. This “long game” seemed fair enough given Abbott’s remarkably mediocre approval polling from the public for a new opposition leader.
Nevertheless some of the media went through the motions of pretending it was “game on” again, as they did for Turnbull, especially as Rudd’s polling started to flounder. But after the public made its view clear through the worm during a typical Abbott performance in the health debate against Rudd, that quickly faded. Even as Rudd’s polling continued to drop, he still comfortably out-polled Abbott and no serious commentator thought Rudd would actually lose against Abbott, and certainly neither did that reliable fount of perceived wisdom, the betting market. But Abbott seemed really finished after Gillard took over. Whatever one thought about Rudd’s dumping, pitching Abbott against Gillard was supposed to have been a master-stoke, as it would bring out all the worst in Abbott in contrast. She would wipe the floor with him just as she did every Friday morning on Nine.
Yet when Gillard took over, something strange started to happen. Abbott’s approval rating started to creep up, even if initially, the Coalition’s polling did not. As this didn’t fit in with the narrative, it was largely ignored by the media (except for naughty Gerard trying to pretend it had been like that all along).
Partly, it was because of the dumping itself. While nobody seriously thought that Labor would lose the coming election, least of all the punters, Labor apparently did. However, despite Labor portraying this in electoral terms, rather than the grasp for power it really was, it was not that convincing. It’s probably doubtful that even the Liberal faithful believed it when Abbott told them that Howard rang to congratulate him for getting the greatest prize of any opposition leader, a Prime Minister’s scalp. In fact, it is likely that part of the reason Abbott was talking both himself up, and the party’s electoral chances (“famous victory”), was to shore up his position in the party, as his macho tactics were looking less appealing against Gillard than they were compared to the increasingly waffling Rudd.
But then Labor started to change tactics. Firstly we had the backflips. If people were doubtful that Abbott’s political agenda was really a threat to the Rudd government, Labor set about confirming it in everybody’s mind by giving in on all the areas where Abbott was making his case. The mining tax was too excessive after all. Abbott was right.
More importantly, Abbott was definitely right on border protection. It was an urgent issue that Labor needed to address (even though, as Gillard was saying in the same breath, the numbers were small, but Gillard could understand why people were worried about it … even though it was nothing to really worry about … etc. etc.)
By making a big issue about border protection, Labor solved an important problem for Abbott. Abbott had based his agenda on a myth that it was actually able to be implemented as Howard was supposed to have done. While asylum seekers may have become an issue for some, the practical difficulty of doing anything about it meant that Abbott would struggle to make a case of doing anything about it either, other than to hark back to a mythical past. Even claiming that Howard stopped the boats, couldn’t really deal with the scepticism that governments could really do much about it.
Labor set about helping Abbott by pretending it could. As the East Timor solution fell apart, Ministers like Smith tried falling back on the Ruddesque “no silver bullet” formula, but it was already too late. Labor’s insecurities about what was happening in its heartlands had taken everyone back to the Howard fantasy that Australia decides who comes anywhere near its borders (as no other country can). And no one can do Howard fantasies better than Abbott.
But this was nothing compared to what Labor would then do to help on Abbott’s biggest problem - the issue he had found himself coming to the leadership on, but that he had to distance from as soon as he did – climate change.
Climate change was a big vote loser for Abbott and highlighted the dilemma of Abbott’s project of upbraiding ‘values’ that even Howard realised in his final months had gone past its sell-by date. It may have made Abbott look ‘hard’ to the Liberal faithful, but through association it made Abbott look a little out to lunch and irrelevant to everyone else. What Labor did on this issue was extraordinary.
Here was an issue on which Labor’s position was not only popular, but still regarded as principled, and, crucially, since the fall of Turnbull, distinguished it from the Coalition. Yet Labor not only managed to walk away from it, but, through the Citizen’s Assembly, turn itself into a joke in the process.
The thinking behind climate change, and how Abbott was regarded as a serious threat was revealed in Hartcher’s discussion around the nerves that were over-taking Labor in the run up to Rudd’s dumping. At one point, even at this stage, Gillard was apparently proposing a ‘bipartisan approach’ with Abbott on climate change, effectively giving him veto over one of the government’s most important programs. Not only would this have been impossible with a leader that couldn’t even let Turnbull back in for the lack of room for a compromise, but rejection would have turned Labor into a joke even earlier than it did.
At the end of the day, Abbott did have an effect. His bravado and ‘values’ made little political sense in themselves, but fed into a Labor party becoming increasingly insecure with no real roots at home and a lack of support abroad. Over the course of the campaign, those insecurities have now even turned inwards to the Cabinet, summed up by Swan’s admission of lack of control over the leaks the other night and Gillard’s bizarre public threat to expel cabinet members who defy confidentiality after the election (what about now?). Now with some polls turning sour, they can only get worse, especially if a certain Queenslander recuperates quickly and starts reminding other Queenslanders what happened, leaving the rest of us to think about what could happen after 21 August that had, only a few weeks ago, been unthinkable.
Posted by The Piping Shrike on Saturday, 31 July 2010.
Filed under Key posts, Political figures, TacticsTags: Abbott, Climate change, Gillard, Rudd
Comments
50 responses to “How Labor made Abbott electable”
Leave a Reply
You are right on all counts. This is an own goal of huge proportions by the power brokers of the Nsw right who managed to remove all the healthy organs (Tanner and Rudd) and leave a huge tumour. This Frankenstein now may let a known fool be elected PM! What a howler! It is only early days but climate change may claim yet another leader. Why is it so hard for all these dumbos to come up with a real policy shrike?
No base in society/ no clue what’s going on/ need the media, focus groups to tell them – or, in this case, even Abbott!
Shrike
What I don’t understand is that an Abbott Govt would be much worse and would take the country backwards. No NBN, forgo $10.56 bil from MRRT,raise taxes, reintroduce Workchoices in another name and certainly mismanage the economy (which hasn’t fully recovered) especially if there is another financial shock (china slowing?).
Today’s Nielsen poll is a worry. Gillard to lose the unloseable election??
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by David Jackmanson, Matthew Lee, declank, leLaissezFaire, Tad and others. Tad said: How the ALP undid itself, by the always-fascinating @thepipingshrike : http://bit.ly/93kZHq #ausvotes [...]
The leaks could be coming from the liberal party’s dirty tricks office. Something like this happens every campaign. Remember Ralph Willis and the fake letter? Gresch and the fake email? Penrith and the fake posters? Only this time the ‘mole’ has excelled himself. This is a gigantic media beat-up of a type never seen before in the histry of Australian crap. Written by hacks at the behest of vested interests. Consumed by an electorate of idiots more interested in raising the level of their cholesterol and intake of saturated fats than watching confectionated theatre on the other three channels. Providing rich entertainment for cigar-chomping executives in the boardrooms of the nation. Creating crises of confidence for the machiavellian puppetmeisters. Exposing the tawdriness of their masters’ political egos. A pox on this stupid process. We need a one party, democratic system. I’m switching off and going out.
But will I vote for a man with such big ears? Never!
Well, there is no way in hell Abbott would be considered remotely electable if he wasn’t backed by a feral media. It is the media who’ve spent the last 12 months promoting Abbott, glossing over his absolute incompetent economic knowledge and that of his treasurer and finance minister. It is the media who’ve blatantly sung the song of the Abbott and his motley crew that rather than saving the nation from a recession and big unemployment numbers, they ‘wasted’ billions of dollars and put us in debt. They’ve blatantly given little attention to Labor’s achievements and promoted Abbott’s debt and deficit mantra, blasted Labor’s ‘wasteful’ stimulus packages as ‘failed policies’ and ignored the fact that these same projects kept the nation working and businesses functioning.
While the media have been busy promoting Abbott, it has at the same time railed against Labor for not getting its message out when it is the media who drowned it out.
Then, to top it all off, it is the media who waged the anti-Rudd campaign relentlessly enough that it finally resulted in his destruction. It was the media speculating ad nauseam that Julia Guillard should replace Rudd until it became a thought entrenched out in the electorates. The only thing is, they overdid it and then were gobsmacked when Labor caucus gave them their wish which threatened to derail their Abbott for PM campaign.
Now, as the campaign looked like it might be going okay for Julia, we have the Laurie Oakes ‘bombshell’ and the leaks affair. Naturally, as intended, there is widespread speculation and fingers pointed to Rudd and Tanner. Oakes and Hartcher declare the leaks are coming from within the government and people ignore the fact that there are public servants working in all government departments and staffers attached to ministers. Does it not seem plausible that there is yet another Godwin Grech there somewhere?
It will serve the Australian people right if they do happen to elect Abbott. Anyone for a big GST hike? (excused, of course because they must pay off Labor’s great big debt.)
Agree with all this, but why the whole WorkChoices thing? I’m a union member and even I don’t think Abbott is stupid enough to touch this again. The scare campaign is actually turning people off Labor because it shows we are clutching at straws!
Labor done screwed the pooch, and some of them will still not have worked out why on their death beds, as Prime Minister Kelly O’Dwyer hosts a valedictory dinner for Liberal legend, Sir Tony Abbott.
Seems to me like just another case of the failed Messiah complex and the revenge of the ungrateful dead. The new ‘Ozzie’ messiah got a few runs on the board but he didn’t achieve the miraculous ‘ton’ as promised. Time to look for another saviour but all thats available is an Abbot.
I think you underplay the significance of the leaks in the polling turnaround. Most people don’t pay any attention to issues, and will heppily vote on pure gut feeling alone. The leaks against Rudd and Gillard show these voters that the ALP is more interested in its own internal squabbles than in delivering any agenda. And they’re right.
Oh I very much agree. The leaks (both ways) have done Labor damage as it has exposed the instability at the centre of the government.
But it needn’t directly make Abbott look better. What I am l looking at here is what is behind Abbott’s rising approval rating and increasing credibility as an alternative, that was not evident when Labor was polling this bad in June.
Janice, fair enough on the media but Labor figures have been feeding them for months. It wasn’t a government official who gave Bolt internal party polling.
‘P.S’ …..
‘What I am l looking at here is what is behind Abbott’s rising approval rating and increasing credibility as an alternative, that was not evident when Labor was polling this bad in June.’
Shrike … Garrett comes to mind here, in a previous incarnation …. ‘Short memory, must have a …’
Time and distance ……. seems the electorate has a SHORT attention span / things move on rapidly/people are quick to forget (some ? )crap, such as ‘work choices’
It’s a shame the labor strategy to throw mega-bucks at the global crisis, is so easily derailed as the ‘usual’ labor mismanagement / keenness to throw money away, when they’ve almost certainly made the fall much easier /able to repay the debt as quickly as the opposition ……..
The crap in the oppo_sition are real oppor_TUNISTS (aren’t they ? )
The double dissolution over climate change that should have occurred is reason enough to question the nous of all participants on the labour side of politics.
This would have quite rightly decimated the liberals and left the greens in control of the senate.
Unfortunately for the factions in the ALP it would have cemented Rudds dominance.
The big question is how and why did Rudd allow the chance to slip by????
A guess at the thinking: Rudd’s an international kind of guy. Thought China, US would let him down on GW. Worried consensus over climate change would fall away. Thought Abbott would implode over time and be seen ‘risky’. Didn’t bank on the dead hand of the party rising (but then didn’t we all?)
The electoral system means that if they had had a DD before july 1st this year, the senate terms would have been dated as starting from July 1st 2009. They would have got a half-length term.
Has anyone noticed how abc insiders has gone so pro-liberal over the last 2 years? How people like bolt and ackerman were building up gillard at every opportunity? Why? Obviously to tear rudd down. Now they’ve switched to tearing gillard down. This has been a whole-of-term tactic. More fool the alp tactics machine to have fallen for this trap. The libs tactics under abbott and his media supporters have been brilliant this cycle.
Piers was even more bizarre than usual. There was a lot for the anti-Laborites this week though.
If Labor loses the election, the party will tear itself apart – as it should.
Labor no longer has a reason to exist, the Capital Vs Labor class wars no longer relevant to the majority of people – only to the old industrial working class as represented by Paul Howes.
But this still leaves a hole at the centre of Australian politics that neither major
party is filling.
The Liberals have moved so far to the right, I question their suitability to govern. Abbott is a train wreck waiting to happen, which makes his curious position in the polls even harder to fathom.
I would wager that on coming to office, the Libs would sack Ken Henry and start meddling with the RBA – whose truth telling over the non-existent debt “problem” upset the economic illiterates in the coalition.
Then you will see the financial markets taking interest in Australian politics again – and not in a good way.
Gillard is strongly ahead as preferred PM. The latest Newspoll (50-50), shows the election could go either way. If Gillard shows some passion and empathy and ditches the robotic approach, she can still win. A lot of voters who may be considering supporting Abbott will baulk at him in the voting booth. Gillard needs to show conviction to get over the line.
Keating held on to his Preferred PM all the way up his defeat in ’96, so not sure if that means much. I don’t think Gillard has much of a prgram to be ‘conviction’ about. The only thing to do is terrify everyone about Abbott.
Mr D, I don’t think the Libs have moved to the right, they are simply run by someone who has been mouthing off about an agenda he can’t bring in – any more than Howard could.
with the god and sinful living card about to get an airing the LNP needs to be careful Tony doesn’t morph the party into a latter day DLP (Howard had Bradman Tonys got Santamaria).
‘Labor no longer has a reason to exist’
I’d argue that Labor’s raison d’etre has always been to offer a communitarian counter to the individualist, free market extremes of Liberal ideology. My guess is it will continue to perform that function, particularly as the Coalition veer further and further to the right. Whether the presence of the trade union movement will remain the core element of that communitarianism remains to be seen.
Abbott was unpopular because he was all negativity; dragged Rudd down and himself with it. In Gillards brief honeymoon his ratings also levelled out, even drifted up; people were relieved to be free of the relentless negativity. Now the campaign puts him on an equal footing as alternative PM and that’s always worth a few per cent. Actually he’s on a more than equal footing as the media has turned on Labor’s vacuity (rather than the Libs): partly as Labor has foolishly played on Lib soil and made itself the issue; mostly as the media hunts in a pack, injects itself as the third force when the other two are listless.
Election is won or lost when voters have confidence in the competency of whichever party to run the economy or country. Labor has been pissed weak on defending their achievement through the finacial crisis despite plenty of praises from economists and financial anylysts they still the the Libs pound them.
‘Moving forward’ Julie said on the debate that there is not much difference between her boder protection policy in relation to handling the asylum seekers, and now she wants a tea party with 150 people to yarn about how much more it should cost to boil the tea.
Meanwhile honest Tony fair dinkum policy on climate change is “it’s a load of crap.
Are the Labor strategists members of the Liberal party? Don’t Labor want to win? And it’s not ‘border protection’, it’s ‘control and managing’ the flow of refugees in more effective and orderly way idi… why should people vote for you if you are no different to the action monk?
Looks like the best things for voters to do on 21st of August is to hug some trees and draw some bongs.
How come Labor does not raise the issue that the Libs want to sell Medibank Private, that will mean there isn’t much competition to keep the cost of health insurance down. Also when Abbott cut health funding as featured in Labor ads, it should be noted that funding was cut while the population was increasing a lot causing congestion and long waiting list.
If only Gillard did not delay on climate change, it can be the key breaker in the poll since the two parties are acting so much alike the voters can hardly see the difference.
They should not way for the world to agree on target reduction because each country is different, like China which do a lot more on green energy than the US and Australia and consume 5 times less carbon than Australia on per capita basis while they still have to develop to lift millions out of poverty. What they could do is agree to have green or carbon rating on products and allow for countries to place tariffs on non-green and partial green products if such products did not get the carbon tax in their country of origin. That would create a level playing field and also everyone will try to reduce carbon emission to minimise cost.
TPS, I suspect we are down to mere partisanism, a sort of tribalism. Piers was basically saying he doesn’t like anyone from side A, he likes them from side B.
That he can barely stitch together a reason for doing so is why the system is no better than football teams competing.
You may prefer Collingwood or Parramatta, but at the end of the day, there is no inherent virtue in any side winning, and the perceived ability is down to the individuals on the team, and how they played on the day.
But why are people so apathetic? They just lie down and get walked all over. They don’t even try to change anything, or fight for themselves. What changed to our society that people stopped joining political parties, and unions, and activist organisations?
I don’t think it is a problem of apathy. The old politics have just run their course. It’s the political class that’s dysfunctional, not the electorate.
I think being careful not to blame the electorate is going to be important for what is now coming.
Where’s the new politics to take it’s place, then? And the class struggle isn’t over, it’s never over.
Exactly John – basically there isnt any new politics, only attempts by individual leaders/governments to detach themselves momentarily from their political bases. But inevitably they are drawn back to the reality of a political system still basically divided along the lines of business versus workers; market versus community; the profit motive versus sustainable work relations etc etc.
That’s why Labor are now turning back to focus on the economy and the hip pocket nerve – as they should have done as soon as Gillard became leader. With the return to conservative laissez-faire excess under Abbot the old realities will be clear again for all to see.
Adamaite- you don’t seriously believe the 2 major parties represent “The workers” and “business” do you????
There is no new politics. Politics 101, when I did it at Uni, was about how people organised into interest groups, and interest groups mobilised support for parties that shared their views.
Business no longer needs a single party to achieve its aims, and workers can no longer get their wages worked out by a union or the party made up of unions. They are just as well off going to some bureaucrat to have their wages fixed. Just as Keating ordered.
Abbott doesn’t believe in laissez-faire. The government he was last in was the highest taxing in Australia’s history, and their record in interfering in the economy legendary.
The Libs believe in very big government – with them in it. They prefer smaller government when they aren’t in it.
Remember too, Australian “conservative” and US “conservative” are different beasts. We don’t do tea bags or Palins or that rubbish.
And what passes for Christian fundamentalism comes more from Catholicism than small-town bible thumping – and you’re just as likely to get it from Conroy or Richo or the rest of the crazy NSW Right as you are from the Taliban in the Liberal Party.
Riccardo – Interesting points. I agree that things are no longer as clearcut as in the past. However, my use of the terms relates more to what seems to be the basic ideological self-perceptions of the two parties and the way this functions to shape their position on core issues.
The Liberals long ago united around a hardcore economic rationalist, free market ideology when they froze out the wets in the 80s. Howard’s subsequent ‘reform’ agenda was all about maximising the role of the market (hence big business as the dominant market actors)in the economy while reducing the interference of the public sector in ‘natural’ market processes. Anyone working in the public service at the time can attest to their zealotry in this regard.
Similarly, if I’m not mistaken, the Coalition’s opposition to the ETS and the mining tax (apart from being a useful political strategy) is in significant part, justified in terms of their potential to undermine the proper workings of the ‘free market.
With regard to Labor, it is interesting that, if you want to join the party you are still required to join a union if there is one in your workplace. i.e. Labor self identity still implies, at base, identity with the union as the representative of the workers. And of course, this translates into major structural influence in terms of representation of unionists in the political arm of the party and over policy formulation.
The media is not scrutinising what Australia would be like under an Abbott Government. The media reminds me of the woman who used to sit by the guillotine and knit while watching beheadings in the wake of the French Revolution, with little regard for consequences. They treat the election like a football match where one team scores own goals and the other makes a miraculous comeback. In a sports mad country, it’s quite an effective strategy for influencing an election. Meanwhile, they push out the “voters aren’t stupid” mantra to con people into thinking they make intelligent choices.
Riccardo & Adamite – my point exactly.
On an economy-wide scale factors of production have shifted (less factories, more service industries, more foreign direct investment), and thus the political alignment has shifted.
To me, the new politics is the ideological differences on how to manage a 21st Century (knowledge-based) economy, not a 20th Century economy
For me, the interesting question is on the nature of politics itself. If sectional interests are no longer being pursued in the political arena, what does politics become?
What we see here are political parties trying to find a justification for themselves rather than the agenda of anyone else. Even at election time, they are still struggling to focus on the voters rather than themselves. Then we have parties like the Greens that only reinforce the view that parties should not represent sectional interests and are evil if they do.
TPS, what do you see the Greens as representing. There is a consensus they are no longer ‘single issue’ and maybe not even a ‘protest’ party, but they are a long way from representing a broad block of society.
Paul of Berwick, that’s what interests me. Would we be better with authoritarian democracy driven by technocrats (eg Singapore) simply because the population itself can no longer organise around the previous issues.
Remember the previous incarnations were Protectionism v Free Trade, and before that the Established Church v its opponents. People forget the British “Lib Dems” are the old Whigs.
At the core of the ‘old politics’ is business and unions pursuing sectional interests in the political arena.
I think the Greens are a reaction against sectional interests pursuing such a political agenda. In Tasmania they were a reaction against the sectional interests of business and unions in that they both had an interest in pursuing logging. So opposition to logging was also a way of attacking the old busniness/union politics that was still very prevalent in Tasmania.
I know some readers will disagree, but I see the Greens as more attacking the old than mobilising the new. One sign of this is that they constantly get caught up in the agendas of the other parties – and are criticised by their own supporters when they do.
The biggest issue to attack the old sectional interests was climate change which is why Rudd was so comfortable with it – and why Gillard is not.
‘Would we be better with authoritarian democracy driven by technocrats’
Riccardo – Sounds a bit like Plato, only rule by technocrat kings rather than the philosopher kings. The latter model came to mind as a possible alternative the other day when reflecting on the fact that this election might turn on marginal voters’ views of who can best manage the boat people issue!
I tend to think the Greens have the potential to build a broad based following around the politics of sustainability – but how they would develop the infrastructure for a major third party organisation is the big question given the structural alliances already built by Labor and Liberals around the Unions and big business.
Howard’s battlers were conned and co-opted for a while until Work Choices, and the middle class welfare every time the election until interest rates and inflation were pushed up to unsustainable level. But this election seems to be replaying the same theme of cultural war all over again. It’s the working class in the marginal seats against the latte sipping and the tree hugging darkies lovers. It possibly explain why Labor and Liberal have been so desperate to copy each other to become almost indistinguishable clones.
I agree, Abbott has always been a very reactionary, conservative, right wing politician. He does however model himself on Joh Howard who modified these elements of his politics to make himself more electable.
Fascinating interview with Mark Aarons on Lateline last night.
Aarons’ argument seems bizarre – Everyone else in politics is doing the same thing but Labor, somewhow, should be the exception and stand by their precious principles.
Wasnt it that sort of attitude which helped to keep Labor in the wilderness for over 20 years before Whitlam.
Yes there was a lot wrong with what he was saying but I thought the process of how the Right undermined the reputation of a Labor government was interesting.
‘Abbott has always been a very reactionary, conservative, right wing politician’
It is Gillard and the ALP wamkers who are the reactionaries. Other than that your description of Abbot as being Conservative and right wing is correct, but it is also correct of a large majority of Australians, including the very brightest and best. That is why all the upper class areas in Australia vote Liberal by a huge amount.
We don’t want to be ruled by people who represent shithole seats like Lalor. This is mainly because the people in those seats sheepishly keep voting Labor and getting nothing out of it.
either way you look at it here were two people who ousted the previous leaders of their own parties and then proceeded to bag the other side without really giving any of us their vision for this country. People have had enough of this bull and our political system is in need of a re-think.
The strangest thing Abbott said was that the Labour party has lost its majority, like this was some kind of triumph for him and his party which didn’t have the majority either for that matter.
,,there were three people who met on a hill a catholic, an atheist and a homosexual…
Bob Carr in his book described what the Labor Right actually believed in for a time – putting it in the possibly fictional words of Barrie Unsworth “I just want schools and hospitals”
Oddly enough, a last vestige of Catholic Laborism – helping the Church to help the poor. No environmentalism, feminism,liberalism, socialism of the left.
Richo could at least be said he believed in ‘whatever it takes’ to get into power so that schools and hospitals could be subsidised…but Aarons is suggesting that Arbib and Kitar aren’t even interested in that.
Could it be that they’re not from the Irish or Italian tribes that set up the Labor Right?
We forget how it colours Labor Right thinking. You don’t need equal pay for women – the wife should be at home while the man is out working, his union ensuring he gets enough pay to support them.
You don’t need abortion – the more kids the better.
You don’t need trendy modern ideas like replacing hospitals with community care – you just need lots of unmarried women or nuns running around on very low pay to care for people at the bedside.
And you sure don’t need a free internet – can’t have the kids seeing all that filthy stuff the priest warns us about (let’s not mention the priest’s own predelictions)
And don’t worry about global warming – we just need a few national parks with some fluffy animals to show the kids. Otherwise keep those working men digging coal and logging, and supporting those wives and dozens of kids and priests.
We forget the DLP was a Victorian thing, in NSW the Santamaria thinking just stayed internal to the party, in the largest bloc. What ever it takes is just code for ‘we don’t want socialism, we only want schools and hospitals, so we will trade our Left allies policies off to ensure we get elected.’
The split was everywhere but NSW, actually. Queensland split pretty hard as well.
Very true, although in QLD Catholic Laborism seems to have found a quicker home in the National Party, where the Schools and Hospitals could have added to the list the rest of the Santamaria agenda: the small holdings, the agricultural marketing boards, the resistance to abortion. I think Bjelke was a red herring so to speak, an evangelical who misled peoplke into thinking all of Qld was. I would suggest Qld was writ in Santamaria’s image much more than anywhere.
And agrian socialism left the genuine socialists in Qld very lonely men indeed. People forget about Red Ted and just how Qld ALP once depended on poor rural folk for its survival. There was no ‘inner city’ nor manufacturing belt to provide a solid ALP base.
[...] things have moved on. Here Manne is giving in to the same brilliant strategy that saw Julia Gillard legitimate every anti-migrant slogan Tony Abbott could conjure up – and almost lose the election in the process. Secondly, Manne misses how the coercive [...]