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


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.


RSS 2.0

Kevin: the morning after

By Tim Anderson - posted Wednesday, 7 November 2007

With so much attention focussed on the Rudd-Howard show, Australian politics has been trivialised, even more than usual. But personality politics obscures issues that will have to be faced, after the election. What will we wake up to, with Prime Minister Kevin?

Progressives have become obsessed with the ‘get rid of Howard’ campaign to the point that they speak little of the issues; while the oligarchy and many of its hangers-on seem resigned to a change, on the basis that it will be ‘business as usual’.

Many harbour the fond illusion that a real contest lies ahead; but it seems pretty certain that Kevin Rudd will be the next Australian Prime Minister. The polls are clear and consistent. As if to underline the cynicism of the system, the day after the polls were called, and before a single candidate had registered, the corporate media had their ‘election guides’ published, explaining the choices available: Howard or Rudd.


Even that limited choice is all but made. The impending Labor victory raises two questions: how could this happen? and what difference will it make?

The answer to the first question is not too difficult to discern. Howard’s regime has been the most hated for many years, pushing through unpopular policies of privatisation, war, corporate subsidy and the destruction of civil rights.

Yet the uncritical support of a powerful, indoctrinating corporate media, and the weakness of the political opposition gave Howard his dream run. After all, from the point of view of the big investors, Howard had delivered on taxes, subsidies, protection from the costs of environmental protection and industrial laws. In Australian media terms, no major scandal (the wheat board bribery affair), gross abuse of power (indefinite jailing of refugees) or gross criminal activity (the slaughter in Iraq) ‘stuck’ to the Howard regime.

However Labor under Rudd finally managed to capitalise on the hatred of Howard while apparently cutting some specific deals with the small, unelected groups that control the major banks, mining companies and media groups, and thus dominate Australian policy.

In Australia’s two party system, Labor’s task has become a little more complicated in recent times. Since the 1970s Labor strategists had known they had to not only put together a coherent package for the public, but to sell this to a significant section of the corporate elite.

With no real wish to confront the economic powers, Labor knew it could not afford to alienate the bulk of the investor class, as had happened in 1974-75, with disastrous consequences for the Whitlam Government. The corporate media, backed by finance and mining groups, would crucify them.


This lesson was fresh in the minds of the Labor leadership in 1981, for example, when (in opposition) the executive abandoned the party’s ‘no uranium mines’ policy. The explicit reason was that the investment groups (‘finance markets’) would not accept it. The banks thus ‘out-voted’ Labor’s membership. Hence Labor’s strange ‘three mines’ policy. Then in 1984, with banking ‘deregulation’, the Hawke Labor government allowed the banks to set their own interest rates. Again, in 1985 and after a media campaign by the mining companies, the Hawke Government reneged on its 1983 election promise to introduce national Aboriginal land rights legislation. The recent collapse of Labor’s ‘three mines’ policy is entirely consistent with the Labor leadership’s priority for investor groups.

However with the takeovers, mergers and institutionalisation of major investor groups from the 1990s on, capturing the support of just one section of these groups was no longer an option. All the Australian banks had acquired the same major shareholders (currently led by J.P. Morgan) and these banks were in turn heavily cross linked to the strategically important mining companies. Kevin Rudd had to impress a far more unified group. He seems to have done this.

Labor’s fortunes in the media and therefore also in the polls turned a corner with Kevin. One of his first tasks was to visit Rupert Murdoch in New York; showing the appropriate direction of ‘lobbying’. Next Rod Eddington, a member of both the News Ltd and the JP Morgan boards was quickly badged as Kevin’s business adviser, and introduced him to the Business Council of Australia.

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

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

30 posts so far.

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

About the Author

Tim Anderson is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Tim Anderson

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

Photo of Tim Anderson
Article Tools
Comment 30 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy