Labor’s challenge is not simply to defeat One Nation or win the next election, but to move beyond a centrist settlement that has become skilled at gaining office while losing sight of transformative purpose.
The Australian’s recent profile of Don Farrell asks whether Labor’s most influential strategist can save the party from the rise of One Nation. It is an understandable question. Farrell has become one of the most powerful figures in Australian politics, a master organiser, factional leader, coalition builder and election strategist. For decades he has helped shape Labor’s direction, nurture its leaders and define its political instincts.
Yet the question itself may point in the wrong direction.
The deeper issue is not whether Don Farrell can save Labor from One Nation. It is whether the political settlement that Farrell represents has become part of the problem Labor now confronts.
This is not really a story about Don Farrell. Nor is it uniquely Australian. Farrell is the local expression of a much larger global phenomenon. Across the western world, labour and social democratic parties have produced their own versions of Farrell: figures who concluded that the path to power lay through the political centre, through moderation, discipline, pragmatism and reassurance. Britain had Peter Mandelson and New Labour. Germany had the managerial wing of the SPD. The United States had the Clinton Democrats. Similar traditions emerged in New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere.
The personalities differed. The logic was remarkably similar. The great challenge facing labour parties, they argued, was no longer confronting capital but adapting to globalisation, economic liberalisation and changing voter expectations. The task became winning elections by occupying the centre ground rather than mobilising voters around transformative economic projects.
Initially, the approach appeared successful. But over time it produced what might be called power without power.
Social democratic parties continued winning elections and forming governments. They occupied ministerial offices, controlled budgets and passed legislation. Yet many of the deeper economic forces shaping people’s lives remained largely untouched.
Housing became less affordable. Wealth became more concentrated. Secure employment declined. Asset ownership increasingly determined life chances.
Young people found themselves locked out of opportunities their parents had regarded as normal. Governments changed. The direction of travel often did not.
This is the paradox at the heart of modern social democracy. It possesses political power while appearing increasingly unable or unwilling to challenge the structures producing insecurity, inequality and discontent.
Farrellism represents the Australian version of this settlement. Its strengths are obvious. It values discipline, competence and electability. It understands the mechanics of power. It recognises that parties cannot change society unless they first win government. These are genuine virtues.
The problem is that a political strategy can gradually become a political philosophy. The centre begins as a tactic. It becomes an ideology. What starts as pragmatism slowly evolves into managerialism.
Questions that once concerned power, ownership and economic structure become questions of risk management. Political debate narrows. Ambition becomes dangerous. Caution becomes wisdom. Electoral success becomes the principal measure of achievement. Politics increasingly focuses on retaining office rather than redefining what office is for.
This helps explain why Farrell’s declaration that “wokeness is the enemy” may ultimately be less significant than many believe. The suggestion is that Labor’s difficulties arise because it became too progressive, too preoccupied with identity politics, too detached from mainstream concerns. There is undoubtedly some truth in the observation that cultural politics can alienate voters and distract parties from broader economic questions.
But what if woke is not the principal problem?
What if the deeper problem is the centrist settlement itself? After all, the long decline in Labor’s primary vote did not occur during an era of radical socialism. It occurred during decades of moderation. The rise of One Nation did not emerge because Labor became excessively left-wing. It emerged during a period when social democratic parties across the Western world embraced markets, reassured business and largely accepted the economic assumptions of the neoliberal age.
The timing matters. Housing unaffordability was not created by woke politics. The concentration of wealth was not created by woke politics. The decline of secure employment was not created by woke politics. The growing sense of economic insecurity among many working Australians was not created by woke politics. These developments unfolded during the very period when centrist politics was at its most dominant.
This is why One Nation should be understood less as a cause than as a symptom. It reflects voters who increasingly feel that the system is not working for them, that neither major party understands their circumstances and that politics has become disconnected from everyday economic realities.
The response from much of the political establishment is to recommend more of the same: more discipline, more caution, more movement towards the centre. In other words, more Farrellism. Yet perhaps the opposite conclusion should be considered.
Perhaps the challenge facing Labor is not that it has been insufficiently centrist. Perhaps it is that it has spent so long managing the existing order that it has forgotten how to imagine a different one.
The numbers point to the dilemma. Labor once attracted close to half the electorate as first-preference supporters. Today it governs with roughly one-third. It remains capable of winning office, even winning landslides, but increasingly through preferences, electoral efficiency and the fragmentation of its opponents rather than through commanding mass first-preference support.
This is not evidence of collapse. But neither is it evidence of renewal. It is evidence of a party that has become highly effective at acquiring and retaining power while struggling to rebuild the broad social coalition that once sustained it.
That is the real meaning of power without power. Not the absence of authority. The absence of transformative purpose.
Farrellism may not be the enemy. Indeed, many of its instincts remain politically useful. But there is a growing possibility that it is no longer the solution. The challenge confronting Labor is larger than defeating One Nation or winning the next election. It is whether a party founded to reshape society can recover the confidence to do so again.
Because the greatest danger facing social democracy is not that it loses power. It is that it continues winning power while forgetting what power is for.
Stewart Sweeney
Stewart Sweeney is a writer and public policy advocate with a longstanding interest in the evolution and future of capitalism. He migrated from Scotland to Adelaide in 1975 to work with Premier Don Dunstan on industrial democracy. A former academic and trade unionist, he continues to contribute to public debate on economic justice, democratic reform, and sustainable development. His work reflects a deep commitment to the common good and the role of public purpose in shaping Australia’s future.