Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Why Labor lost

By Marko Beljac - posted Tuesday, 29 October 2013


What might we say, firstly, about the proximate contingent causes for Labor's election loss?

Putting aside the flood of qualitative, interpretative, analyses for the moment a good empirical place to start would be with exit polls, which in part tell us not only how but why people voted the way they did. According to the Climate Institute both climate change and the carbon tax were not very significant electoral drivers (5% and 3% respectively singled these out). The main issues were the economy and jobs (31%), cost of living (15%) and healthcare (13%). Asylum seekers was but the fifth most important issue (7%).

Among Coalition voters specifically 40% nominated the "stronger five pillar economy" policy of the Coalition, 24% the "end of waste and debt", and 18% "stopping the boats."

Advertisement

Very little can be found here regarding the leadership ructions within Labor; it is not even a category. It is important, nonetheless, because Labor, to a significant though not total degree, was seen as a having a highly dysfunctional party. The instability at the top fed the notion that Labor were incompetent economic stewards in globally fragile economic times.

Objectively, there are no reasons why Labor should be seen as woeful economic managers compared to the Coalition. Labor was more prepared to stimulate a fragile economy, was more prepared to move beyond the resource based two speed economy, and was more prepared to create an economic framework anticipating the future transformation of energy generation. To all this we might add that the Liberal Party hardly had any policies for voters to warm to; the five pillar policy was nothing but a melange of empty slogans that would have done Tony Blair and George W Bush proud.

On economic management perception, not reality, was critical.

The great tragedy of this, naturally, is that there was no crisis in the Labor Party following June 2010 over the leadership. Julia Gillard overwhelmingly enjoyed the confidence of her comrades in caucus. A massive campaign waged by the corporate press, especially the Murdoch press, in association with Kevin Rudd continually destabilised her leadership.

The corporate media, with the conniving participation of Rudd, successfully created the perception that Labor was a dysfunctional party facing perennial crisis over its leadership, and it was this corporate agitprop, again with Rudd in tow, that had most voters perceiving that Labor were poor economic managers.

Though debt and deficit were important for Coalition voters in reality the differences between the two sides was slight; both were committed to returning the budget to surplus as soon as possible in accordance with the dominant neoliberal consensus. Labor was so committed to this that only until the very end of its term in office did it put, temporarily, the objective aside, but only after agreeing with the neoliberals for years that this was a crucially important policy objective, certainly more important than redistributing wealth in an increasingly unequal Australia.

Advertisement

The policy back flip, at best, was too little, too late and, at worst, fed the perception of poor economic management.

Structurally, one of the most significant issues is that labour movements pretty much everywhere are weaker and corporations, and the parties that represent their interests, are stronger. This is a structural condition throughout most, if not all, of the Western world.

Nicholas Reece, a Public Policy Fellow at the University of Melbourne, correctly observed that "in most advanced democracies, left of centre parties have lost their electoral mojo."

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

9 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Mark Beljac teaches at Swinburne University of Technology, is a board member of the New International Bookshop, and is involved with the Industrial Workers of the World, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union of Workers (community) and Friends of the Earth.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Marko Beljac

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Marko Beljac
Article Tools
Comment 9 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy