Labor at last?

It is still early days, but the signs say that Labor could well win the next federal election. Labor under Rudd looks good, the Coalition under Howard look tired and confused, and the media packs are closing in. Significantly, the leadership issue is at last working for Labor and against the Coalition.

And what an important election it is. As Kim Beazely said, the party that loses this election is in real trouble. For Labor it would be five in a row, and despite governing in all states, the threat of national irrelevance. For the Liberals, hardly a national party at all these days, it would mean the loss of their only electoral stronghold.

There are three main reasons why the Liberals are in trouble.

First, there is their own leadership: Howard is growing old and looks increasingly tired. The long-standing alternatives - Costello, Abbott, maybe even still Downer - have displayed their arrogance and distance from everyday Australia too often to be credible. The new kid, Malcolm Turnbull, seems like a better chance, but he would have to overcome the Howard-Costello legacy to establish his own style. Ministerial talent has always been paper thin in the Coalition, and now, with the leadership failing, this matters.

Second, there is Labor’s leadership: Kevin Rudd has been good, not overdoing the self-satisfaction, reasonably consistent, on the ball and orientated towards positive policy changes.

The ministers, in particular Gillard and Garrett, look fresh and ready for the big challenges, while even the machine men like Conroy, Smith and Swan look like they have their minds on the job, and not the next factional opportunity. Their federal parliamentary personnel appear almost good enough to outweigh Labor’s real problem, a corrupt, obsolete party system.

And third, and ultimately most importantly, history has turned against John Howard.

Howard was elected just as the economy was turning up, largely due to two main factors. The first was the economic reforms instituted by the preceding Labor governments. The second was the commodities boom due in large part to the most amazing economic story of recent times, the rise and rise of newly capitalist China.

Among other things, Labor’s economic reforms opened up Australia to overseas investment and structurally weakened the union movement. Both of these developments increased the possibilities of wealth creation, albeit to the overwhelming advantage of the wealthy.

This trend exactly suited Howard’s governmental priorities, and he competently pursued this agenda, to the cost of alternative concerns. Concerns like the environment or Indigenous issues; and to the cost of those less well off, like those not already owning a home, or needing effective medical or educational assistance.

Howard was further assisted when an extremely conservative president was elected in the world’s major power, the US. With the so-called “war on terror” a new “them-or-us” Cold War was launched (which also defused the incipient US-China rivalry, allowing the Chinese boom to continue).

Howard simply attached all major foreign policy to the American wagon, with profound effects for our standing in the region and our approach to such things as global warming. The war in Iraq, which brought the UK into an Anglophone troika, solidified Howard’s position, since Britain still wields powerful cultural weight within Australia.

Thanks to media irresponsibility, global problems like energy depletion, fresh water depletion and global warming were not pursued with any diligence, and so Howard, who has zero understanding of the environment, got away with doing nothing.

But history has moved on.

The Bush presidency is a dead duck; the wars in Afghanistan and especially Iraq are failures. Tony Blair will soon leave office, his reputation in ruins thanks to his support for Bush.

There is now a Democrat Congress in the US and in all likelihood there will be a Democrat president. This new political structure will have to move firmly on Iraq, terrorism, the world economy, international relations, and energy and environmental security in ways that will increasingly isolate Howard.

Global warming is now one of the two great global issues, while energy security rises steadily up the list. Suddenly the real world is squeezing out the notional world of money markets in people’s consciousness.

In Australia the “sudden” water crisis shocked Australians into a realisation that things were dire, something the drought-stricken bushies had known for some time. Meanwhile, more big storms were showing us what the future will be like, and it is not a happy vision.

There are even cracks in the economy. The Chinese-driven boom cannot last much longer, and when it goes bust the fallout will be serious. A whole generation have leveraged their lives on the assumption of reliable income, and the resulting debt as jobs go and homes lose value could be very ugly indeed. Meanwhile, the housing boom has seriously damaged the socio-economic equilibrium as a whole generation stares at the prospect of renting forever.

And finally, the emergent environment-energy crisis is placing the emphasis back on government as opposed to markets. It is interesting to see the fervid attempts to make global warming into a markets-based issue through carbon trading, but both the imminent emergency and the longer term program of amelioration will demand sustained action by the only institutional authority able to do it, national government.

Historically, the Liberals have done well in times of relative stability when the focus was on the economy, but in times of threat, Labor, with its wider political purview, comes into its own.

So the big things, once in Howard’s favour, have shifted against him.

Rudd, able in global matters and not afraid of policy-making, with the green-credentialled Garrett riding at his side, looks well set to take over and set Australia on a new path. Australia desperately needs more balanced government, able to restructure the economy as the material changes kick in, able to ensure social fairness, able to rebuild social and physical infrastructure, all in an increasingly emergency context.

This has been Labor’s historical role - taking over when things were going pear-shaped because of global changes. It happened during World War II and in the early 1980s when globalisation was first under way. With a growing Greens presence to keep them honest, Labor can get back to what it does best - nation-building through strong, representative and inclusive government.

Can Howard pull a Tampa and escape? There are no longer any easy options - immigration is largely defused, national security is running against him, same with the energy issue …

He might play the class-war card and go after Labor as captive of the unions, but no one really believes unions are serious players in national politico-economic affairs any more. Globalisation and the related structural changes have made them defensive remnants of what they once were.

No, it is shaping up like a Labor win. With Labor governments in every state, this would be an extraordinary opportunity for the country to overcome a whole raft of problems currently beset by federal-state rivalries. And the way things are going, all government needs to start working properly if we are to survive, let alone prosper.

John Howard has been the beneficiary of certain historical trends, but history has moved on. Looking back, we will see his as a time of lost opportunity.