However, the position of deputy Labor leader requires a heavyweight. Richard Marles may be treasured by his faction, but he is virtually unknown and lacks the clout to make things happen. In Defence he couldn’t make an impression on a soft silk cushion.
In 2016, Trump received 63 million votes (three million fewer than Hillary Clinton, but he had an electoral college majority). In 2020, Trump received 11 million more votes (74 million). But the Democrats increased their 2016 haul from 66 million to 81 million – or 15 million more. That Trump was gobsmacked by his defeat is to a degree understandable given that his 2016 vote increased by 17 per cent. Alas for him, the Democrats found even more new constituencies, increasing its vote by 23 per cent.
It’s a reminder that the Trump machine still exists. But Australian politics is different, not least because of compulsory voting. At each new election, there are new voters, and statistics suggest that Labor captures more of them, in two-party preferred terms, particularly because Labor (and the Greens) are judged better than the Coalition on climate change policies.
But this is a long-term trend, not necessarily one that will alone tip the next election. If Albanese is to become prime minister, he must win votes that were cast for the Coalition in 2019. He would like to retrieve the votes of Queensland and Hunter River mining workers who fear that Labor is selling them out. It is doubtful, however, that these are enough. Labor badly needs converts in the outer suburbs and in semi-rural constituencies that could turn marginal Coalition seats into Labor ones.
It may be helpful if the message on climate were bundled in a package about Labor having a plan to create new economy post-pandemic jobs, particularly in areas that will be put under pressure as a result of the inexorable march away from hydrocarbon energy, polluting businesses and regions that are already suffering from climate change. But it is no mere matter of marketing, or slogans, or the cunning switching of messages according to the audience. Nor can it be a matter of de-emphasising the importance or significance of the climate change issue: that will only play into Morrison’s hands.
Two other points worth mentioning. Much of the talk of “cutting through” failures seems based on the idea that Labor is hopelessly behind in the polls. It is not. It lost the last election narrowly, and the government has a majority of only one.
Whatever credit voters give Morrison or the government for the pandemic or economic management, the gap between the parties seems to be one or two per cent. The circumstances may favour a presidential-style Prime Minister, but at an election, the leaders are on more equal terms. Morrison will then be open to attack, particularly on probity.
Second, there is a definite agenda, on the part of some in Labor, to be rid of Albanese, a member of the emotional left. At the moment it resembles the relentless undermining of Bill Hayden by Graham Richardson and others in 1982 who wanted Bob Hawke. There is no person of the calibre of Hawke in the current ranks, and the disloyalty can only hurt Labor in the short term.
Labor stands to gain more votes by being fair dinkum about climate action than it does by fudging the choices. Most of the voters they need to impress want clarity, not obfuscation, honesty, not slogans.
There’s another practical problem with the reshuffle. The last Labor minister able to develop an effective whole-of-government approach to jobs and industry, education, skills and infrastructure was Simon Crean, about 30 years ago.
His working nation and other policies, mostly under Paul Keating, were effective because of his strong union background and contacts, and because of bureaucratic structures and personalities experienced in labour market programs. Richard Marles, the Labor deputy leader, with the super shadow ministry designed to be all things, does not have Crean’s background, experience or political skills.
He is obviously treasured by the faction that put him into the deputy leadership. But he is virtually unknown to the electorate and lacks the reputation, clout or obvious strength of personality to make things happen. He may improve with experience, but putting him in his new place (from defence, where he couldn’t make an impression on a soft silk cushion, in spite of opportunities begging) is hardly putting a heavyweight, a professional, or a solid practical thinker into the job.
If Labor were firing with all its engines, or if Albanese had the self-confidence, he should be bending Bill Shorten to the task he has just given Marles. That has personal and political risks for Albanese, but he has little to lose and a Lodge to win.
John Waterford AM, better known as Jack Waterford, is an Australian journalist and commentator.
Comments
20 responses to “Polls will narrow, especially as Morrison is open to attack on issues of probity”
Hello Jack: You say that come the election it will be a man-on-man between Morrison and drover’s dog. Morrison is irrelevant. The drover’s dog will be up against the off-the-wall Murdock assassin-communicators, Pete Costello’s voice of reason assassin-commentators and Kerry Stokes protecting his gas investments. The two-person theory is something media communicators tell themselves to numb the guilt of marginalizing Labor opposition. They did it to Crean, Beazley, Shorten and now Albanese. They slipped up with Rudd because he was too clever but they got him in the end. What about the ABC? I began watching This Day Tonight with Bill Peach in the mid 60’s. They’re no Bill Peach!
One has to agree that Labor has plenty of opportunities here, but seems unable to capitalise on them. One example is the Hunter Valley. Labor’s Fitzgibbon is the Hunter Valley coal man, believing that by protecting the workers in the coal industry, he is protecting Labor’s share of the voters. He may very likely be wrong.
What one would have expected is a plan from Labor of how to convert an area relying on coal extracting into an area of modern technology without coal (and saving the environment and water tables in the process). There is no doubt that coal is on the way out, in spite of the nonsense spouted by the LNP.
Such a plan should clearly outline what changes are planned and how they will be implemented. It should in particular show how the migration from coal workers to alternative technology workers would take place.
Then this plan should be advertised and sold on a nationwide basis, as it would relevant to other areas as well (WA, Queensland, Victoria).
If there is such a plan, it has been successfully hidden. I have not heard of it. The only way to convince the voters is to present such a plan clearly and forcefully and not cave in to the general BS emanating from the conservatives in the LNP. Of course, there is no evidence that the LNP has considered such plans. It has generally managed to “govern” without any clear plans at all.
So ALP, show us you have the wherewithal and the energy and the guts to stand for something important, (somewhat) revolutionary and meaningful. Become the old activist Labour Party again! In that way you may well be voted into government.
With due respect to Richard Marles, I suggest he is deputy leader principally as reassurance to the United States Government and intel agencies that a Labor Govt would not stray from Five Eyes. He takes reliably pro-Five Eyes policy positions, i.e. he follows the script from Washington, on every policy issue. That is his weakness and his strength. He is probably invulnerable. Albo should think about abolishing the position of Deputy Leader – it is unnecessary, he already has a Shadow Cabinet of competent senior ministers.
Yet Labor have never had a better opportunity in years. Especially as Morrison cuts back on JobKeeper and JobSeeker.
They have to cut through with clear and distinct policies and expose the fake that Morrison is. Authenticity is the key, because the impression we get from Labor is ‘what do they stand for as a team?’.
They have no better example than Joe Biden who clearly opposed Trump’s policies on climate change , damage to environment, Coronavirus action, focus on science, dealing with matters like BLM and racism, women in government, bringing the US together, quieter and more rational diplomacy, supporting his people with desperately needed aid, a plan for getting the US out of its mess, calling Trump out for the fake and egoist person he was during his term in office, and just with sober and easily understood straight forward talk.
Morrison appears to headed for an early election because he knows his popularity will run out as he cuts back on Covid-19 payments to workers. His labyrinth of cronyism could crash as well, and internationally Biden will not accommodate his pro-Trump stance on a number of things, particularly climate change. He’ll try to use what cash there is left to pork barrel and buy an election again, but his luck is wearing very thin. He’s currently developing yet another personality where he keeps putting himself in the place of being the caring and compassionate one, the good cop, but his party and cabinet are doing the opposite. It is really still the same method he used back in the last election where he only presented himself while his party stayed largely silent and out of the way. It’s how he controls the show. He’ s probably the least authentic prime minister we have ever had who runs a sideshow at every opportunity. He can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
No, not all of the time but but 85% who have minimal interest in issues political according to a Guardian survey after the last election are still there and are no better informed one would think. Other surveys at the time suggested that 20% made a final decision in the voting room and what politician’s name, other than Trump’s, would spring to the popular mind? It would have to be Mr. Popular who will again form a one man band as did Menzies in the woeful 50s and 60s. Like others, I ridiculed that policy free daggy dad persona but, in the end, it was brilliant. Talk about knowing an electorate.
Terence, I think the insecure, whiny, always defensive persona opposing Morrison – and the cruel light shone on it by the LNP-supporting media – was more influential in the last election result.
Good analysis George (and Jack). My problem is much as it would have been had I been a US voter. I would definitely have had to vote against Trump, whom I utterly loathe, but would have done so holding my nose because I am concerned about some woke aspects of the Dems. Here, I will definitely vote against Morrison, but holding my nose because I don’t trust Labor any more. I don’t believe they really stand for anything. They can’t be authentic about anything. As a friend of mine says, “Always be sincere, even if you have to fake it.” Labor can’t even fake it. It depresses me to be so cynical.
When I look back a few decades to when I was more ardent about Labor, I wonder whether it’s because I was young and naive, or whether the party has really debased itself (though not as much as the LNP). Probably a little of both.
I think the talent has moved on barneyz. There’s no Hawke or Keating waiting in the wings of Labor (and isn’t it pathetic that Kevin Rudd is the only Labor figure to bask in the gaze of enthusiastic public approval in the last 30 years). Those in the ALP who yearn for a career in politics come up against a contrary media and a fearful electorate. So why would you put yourself through the sort of humiliation suffered by Shorten and Albanese?
True, Mercurial. But part of the problem to me is that both sides promote mostly factional organisers and party apparatchiks to stand for Parliament. When I first started voting nearly 50 years ago candidates had life experience outside politics as teachers, lawyers, farmers, businessmen or whatever. Much healthier.
True, Mercurial. But part of the problem to me is that both sides promote mostly factional organisers and party apparatchiks to stand for Parliament. When I first started voting nearly 50 years ago candidates had life experience outside politics as teachers, lawyers, farmers, businessmen or whatever. Much healthier.
For me my respect for Labor started with Whitlam. He introduced a range of excellent policies at the time, so much so that it was like a renaissance after so many years of conservatism, and Australia being a mini and anachronistic version of England.
He had the guts to pull us out of Vietnam, (I would have been thrown into the lottery to go if he had not been elected), made education free in a country that suffered from a lack of it, introduced Medibank (Medicare), started mediation between white Australians and indigenous Australians, brought about significant social change, especially for women, and recognised that multiculturalism was of benefit to this country.
I would say that the IPA as the think tank behind Liberal governments, has spent all of the years since trying to destroy everything he did.
With such rapid change he was surely destined to not last long.
I’m waiting for another leader like that from Labor, but as close as possible will do.
I came back to Australia after having lived in Europe to see Hawke win, and to a great extent it was because he took a stance on the Tasmanian “No Dams” (in pristine wilderness) issue. There was no Green Party then. Hawke was hardly perfect, but his period in office in my view brought Australia as close as it has ever been to being a country with a distinct Australian identity and culture to be proud of. He also understood something about how to make business and unions work together, rather than each party taking sides for one side or the other.
I agree that Labor have problems right now in terms of people being able to assess what they stand for. We seem to be off on another election cycle now since there has been talk of and early election. I hope they clarify their position on where they stand, and become far more authentic.
BTW I am always encouraged when we can agree on issues beyond China.
Strange, George. We get quite cross with each other over China, and seem to agree on everything else. 🙂
I’m sure if we met or knew each other, there would be far more in common than not. The good thing about you, despite the differences we have over China, is that you are always willing to come back with respect, often accept very graciously when facts prove you wrong (and not just with me), and you are also willing to continue the relationship even if people like myself don’t always agree with you. That’s the sign of a mature mind that ultimately respects the views of others, and their right to say what they say.
George! What an encomium! Almost, you unman me. I love you too. 🙂
As I’ve said before if we were the US + Australia and China we could very likely sort things out.
True. A bit of good will goes a long way.
https://t.co/lljdL8Fyeg?2Ixxwv
Hello George: Good analysis. But I do not think Labor will cut through. The media siren against them is too loud. We, the Australian people are not that attentive. Before the last election I thought the old Media was losing its power and Shorten had a good chance but I was wrong.
Yes I would agree with you, but I think more people are pulling away from Murdoch’s dominance, not to say that Nine Entertainment newspapers are any better these days. They have clearly shifted to becoming part of the Liberal cheer squad these days.
I guess the only consolation is that Annastacia Palaszczuk got back in in QLD even though all of that state’s major newspapers are controlled by News Corp. Jackie Trad was targeted, and she lost, but she was not replaced by an LNP or right wing minor party candidate – instead a Greens candidate.
Hope you are right.