Newspoll and Essential Research both had polls last week, and since we’re probably not due yet for a ReachTEL (the last was three weeks ago), we presumably have a lean week coming up. The latest BludgerTrack update accounts for the two aforesaid polls, and they have had the most minimal of impacts on the voting intention aggregates, on which the biggest move is a 0.6% drop for One Nation. The seat projections have the Coalition up one in Victoria and Western Australia, and down one in Queensland. A new set of leadership ratings from Newspoll makes a modest addition to the established pattern of improvement for Malcolm Turnbull, with Bill Shorten flatlining. Full results through the link below.
a r
So some Republican support does the same to a ‘Progressive” and away we go for escalating tit for tat crap. I’m sure in the US of A of today it will not end well.
While not wanting to drag the Darling Range stuff here, I don’t know why anyone should actually apologise for thinking Labor could win. Of the few polls that were done, most
indicated Labor would scrape in.
The win by the Liberals is not that great. Their primary vote is only just ahead of that of Labor and the margin puts the seat in the category of “Safe Liberal” one supposes. Except, I would like to see just how many people did not show up to vote at all…and at a guess, I would put them as potential Labor voters.
While Labor saw its primary vote decline, more than half of it went to a ragtag group of minority parties, rather than the Liberals.
Labor deserved its kicking but as evidenced by the very subdued item in the local Sunday Times, not much dancing in the streets by the Liberals and they are mugs if they think this means any kind of endorsement for them at either State or Federal level.
Two pointed thing to come out of all this is that voters will not forgive stupidity and local single seat polls about as useful as a tissue in a thunderstorm.
One wonders if the the voters of Mayo have M/s Downer taped – though again, there is that single seat poll showing a huge disparity between Downer and her opponent.
-6 overnight
#weatheronBludger
CC
I’m not surprised. Probably painful to the ears 😆 😆
Seriously, it’s just joining in for a pack chorus.
lizzie: “When someone as sensible as meher baba has absorbed part of the Kill Bill theme, it will be a bloody battle for the next election with a leader as nasty as MT and his ruthless lieutenants. (No offence meant, mb.)”
None taken, Lizzie.
But I’m not at all interested in “kill Bill”. I think he is the best leader that the ALP can find right now and is likely to a good PM if he gets there. My problem is not at all with him as leader, and entirely with the policy package that Labor have put together: with Bowen leading the charge. First Whitlam and then Hawke and Keating worked so hard to rid Labor of the quasi-communistic ideology of “soak the rich”, “us versus them”, etc. And the consequence was Labor in power from 1983 to 1996: an unprecedented stretch in the history of Labor at Federal level.
Of course, Bill as leader has to take some responsibility for his policy platform. But, having followed his career over the years, he has always come across as very much a moderate. He has either concluded that he must adopt this harder line to bring the party with him, or else he has been persuaded (on the dubious examples of Corbyn, Sanders et al) that this sort of stuff will attract a majority vote at the election. Either way, I reckon it’s the wrong path for the party to take right now: particularly in opposition to a government which is struggling a bit from disunity and other problems, but which I think is ideologically more in tune with the broader electorate than Labor right now.
If I’m wrong about this, I’ll be logged on the morning after the election ready and willing to be jeered at.
I keep reading that Democrat voters tend not to turn out for the midterms, as opposed to Republicans who do. You can see Republicans and their supporters trying to gee up GOP voters by using media reports of a Blue Wave to get them to come out and vote to prevent that.
I just hope Democrat voters do the same thing: turn out!
@ Meher
Other than keeping the high income deficit levy (which Abbott introduced) and winding back some of the most egregious Howard era tax rorts what evidence is there that Labor has adopted a ‘smash the rich’ policy approach Meher?
I’d argue that there is scant evidence of a philosophical policy departure from the Whitlam-Hawke-Keating tradition.
I’d argue you’d be better off ignoring LNP and CPG ‘talking points’. They are simply crap.
Toorak@6:57am
Barney@10:01am
What is the common characteristic of Scullin, Whitlam, Hawke and Rudd. I don’t know about Scullin. But the common characteristic is that they were very popular when elected, especially with youth. I understand that ‘Preferred PM’ may not mean much but being popular leader when in opposition counts especially if the party is ALP.
The above leaderswere also trusted when they were elected.
The common theme about LNP leaders of last 40 odd years is that they were not very popular in opposition but still got elected to govern.
Make of that what you will.
Some tweets just get straight to the point.
Joe Flynn @bizzaro23
‘If you think calling someone a social justice warrior, a virtue signaler, a do-gooder or a pc lefty is an insult then chances are you are one of or all of a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe. But you are most definitely a fuckhead.’
Analysis Finds Geographic Overlap In Opioid Use And Trump Support In 2016
The fact that rural, economically disadvantaged parts of the country broke heavily for the Republican candidate in the 2016 election is well known. But Medicare data indicate that voters in areas that went for Trump weren’t just hurting economically — many of them were receiving prescriptions for opioid painkillers.
In counties with higher-than-average rates of chronic opioid prescriptions, 60 percent of the voters went for Trump. In the counties with lower-than-average rates, only 39 percent voted for Trump.
“It very well may be that if you’re in a county that is dissolving because of opioids, you’re looking around and you’re seeing ruin. That can lead to a sense of despair,” Goodwin says. “You want something different. You want radical change.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/23/622692550/analysis-finds-geographic-overlap-in-opioid-use-and-trump-support-in-2016?sc=tw
Compact Crank @ #148 Sunday, June 24th, 2018 – 11:01 am
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rising+inequality+in+australia
PhoenixRED@11:03am
What do you want to convey with that photo
“I just hope Democrat voters do the same thing: turn out!”
I think they will, but I also think they’ll think (once again) “job done” and may not turn out sufficiently in either the 2020 presidential elections or, worse and typically, ‘forget’ to vote in the midterm that really truly counts the most – the mid terms immediately after a democrat president assumes office. Witness 1978, 1994 and 2010.
Former congressman Barney Frank toured Australia in early 2016 and was very candid in his analysis – to effect ‘real change’ democrats need to win two elections in a row – a presidential election (with a sweep of congress) and the following mid terms to hold congress. If progressive America ‘got’ that basic calculus the country would be radically different from the shambles it is today.
Tanya Plibersek’s comment: “That doesn’t mean we should be unquestioning allies” constitutes the sort of feeble rhetoric that gives a free kick to the Greens and those who want to make a sound case about LibLab collaboration.
Even Turnbull drew worldwide media attention for “questioning” Trump in their first phone conversation, and that was before Trump had been in office long enough to perpetrate the dozens of egregious policies which, above all else, will hasten the global warming tipping point.
Ven says: Sunday, June 24, 2018 at 11:21 am
PhoenixRED@11:03am
What do you want to convey with that photo
*********************************************************
Ven – just a happy bunch of Rebs having a good time When I lived in the US some years back they were still fighting ‘The Blue and The Grey’ like these folks – after 150 years later. However there is something deeper in the present US that threatens to tear it apart again ….. a powder keg that just need a spark to blow the place apart ….
Our great LNP will win the seats of Longman Braddon mayo and go on to win the next election by a landslide according to Paul Murray and John Howard
If Plibersek had used amything but the most diplomatic construction when discussing a state visit of the US President we’d have it wall to wall across the news cycle
I wouldn’t understate the impact of the Turnball Government getting their tax cuts through parliament, firstly on the Darling Range byelection result, and on the upcoming Super Saturday byelections in 5 weeks.
Pre-poll votes in Darling Range were far better for Labor than the actual election day votes.
Ah, you’ve misconstrued.
The problem with Sanders isn’t that she’s a Republican. Or even a Trump supporter.
The problem is that she fronts the media on a daily basis to serve up spin and blatant lies to the American people. And is apparently happy to do so as long as she’s paid for it.
There’d be nothing wrong with singling out an equivalently dishonest democratic figurehead. Not for being democratic, but for being a lying snake. To an entire nation of people. While drawing funds from their purse.
Think of it as a way in which the public can be demand accountability from their executive figureheads. Regardless of which side they’re on. 🙂
I’d agree with that too.
The Liberals will be questioning their decision not to run in Perth.
The result in Darling Range shows the 2017 result really was an all-time high-water mark for Labor and that voters have already moved on from the failings of the previous government. On the plus side for Labor, the result most likely means that Mike Nahan will remain LOTO.
I think this is what Compact Crank means when he baldly states that Inequality hasn’t increased over the last 20 years:
Ergo, no increase in Income Inequality over the last 20 years.
However, it’s all a matter of perspective and selective interpretation and what you want to believe and what you try and convince others to believe:
And it is the part the Compact Cranks of this nation don’t want you to know about and don’t want to acknowledge.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-real-story-of-inequality-in-australia-20170729-gxlccg.html
lizzie @ #170 Sunday, June 24th, 2018 – 11:39 am
A recent headline from the UK Guardian:
“UK should cancel Donsld Trump visit, says Jeremy Corbyn”
The Labor Party don’t always need to be scared shirtless of Murdoch and Fairfax propagandists because they incessantly make up crap to throw at Labor anyway, such as the Leadershit beat up about Albo’s speech varying a scintilla in tone from Shorten’s.
Evan @ #168 Sunday, June 24th, 2018 – 11:36 am
Yes. Tactically, Labor should have supported the first 2 tranches of the tax cuts and opposed the worst one, the third.
meher baba @ #155 Sunday, June 24th, 2018 – 11:08 am
Meher
Whether you are right in you political judgement I am not sure just now, but in terms of policy, I do not agree with you.
Times have changed and the approached that seemed appropriate in 1975 are really not the right ones for today. Socialism seemed like a pretty outdated notion in 1980 and those of us on the left had to make do with social justice issues and if we were economically daring something like “commanding heights of the economy.” However the young brash neoliberals and the IPA/LNP acolytes have in a sense cruelled the pitch.
1. Privatisation of the banks, telecom, electricity etc have NOT delivered economic boom and it is fairly obvious, even to moderate voters that sale of the Commonwealth bank has increased costs while sale of Telstra has destroyed service quality and as for privatisation of utilities – white hot anger I think.
2. House prices and rents have shot up so money is just not going as far for most in the economy.
3. Incomes have stagnated. People MUST stop thinking in average incomes and think median income.
4. Australians no longer feel wealthier than the rest of the world. There was a time when international visitors – students and tourists did not seem wealthier than the locals – certainly not those from Asia or even Southern Europe. Now we have a situation where international students often school kids wear shoes costing $2000 or carry Gucci school bags. They wear pyjamas of a quality few of us would dream of – $500 at LEAST. Then there are the phones!!!! Now this must affect the sense of relative wealth of many.
Probably more important even that the actual data is the change of social attitudes which is divisive,
Now when I was young and at school/University it was socially unacceptable to show obvious wealth. everyone wore the same cheap blue jeans or ethnic tatt and no one went to fancy restaurants or drank $200 bottles of wine. Sure over in Manning House there were the David Jones set, chasing a wealthy husband but they were small in number and pretty irrelevant to most of us. This was just as true of those from wealthy private school backgrounds as for the scholarship kids. Now public display of wealth and status is all the rage. Shes, clothes, phones, resataurants etc. Inother words we have returned to the Edwardian era where public diplays of wealth and status was the norm as compared to the socialist 60s of the post war era where everyone tried to seem ordinary.
AR
All very true but it will be seen almost certainly along partisan lines. One of ‘our team’ being dissed by one of those bastards from ‘their team’.
When it comes to “fronts the media on a daily basis to serve up spin and blatant lies to the American people” Dubya’s media mouthpieces would have to have been at the pinnacle of such behaviour.
Our resident ‘Green’, Rex Douglas:
Whitlam was put in the unwinnable position of having been dismissed by the Queen
The impact of Royalty on Australians in 1975 should not be under estimated – and probably still!
So if the Queen dismissed Turnbull what would Turnbull’s chances be at the or any subsequent election?
Whitlam had won elections in 1972 and 1974, remember
Compact Crank: “OK. So the Gini Coefficient isn’t indicating rising inequality so that means they go and look at other ways of making the statistics say inequality is rising. Got it.”
I don’t know what you are specifically referring to, but this was a good article last year from one of the leading experts on the subject.
http://theconversation.com/income-inequality-exists-in-australia-but-the-true-picture-may-not-be-as-bad-as-you-thought-75221
Wilkins suggests that overall measures of income distribution haven’t shifted all that much and that the main thing that has happened in recent years is that, since the GFC, the average standard of living has been rising more slowly than in the 25 or so years before 2007, and that this is making people feel more “unequal.”
Many years ago, I was part of a group of people undertaking research on this subject, and we found that income distribution is a notoriously complex measure to interpret. For instance, the segment of the adult population with the lowest individual incomes – typically below the single rate of Newstart Allowance – is mainly comprised of full-time students. This group grew significantly between the 1980s to the 2010s which, all other things being equal, could be expected to increase the measured level of income inequality. But I think it’s fair to say that most full-time students are only transitioning through a period of low income, and – through assistance from their parents – are often living a bit better than their pure cash incomes would suggest.
We concluded back then that it was more important to look at absolute poverty than overall income distribution. And we could see that, on the whole, there was far less absolute poverty in Australia today than was the case a few decades back. The days of working families living in dilapidated housing in slum areas who are unable to afford basic necessities such as food, clothing and medical care are basically behind us. Except in some Aboriginal communities, where it would seem that lack of income is probably not the major cause of their problems.
Yes, there is still some hidden poverty in the cities, mainly among people with a long-term dependency on welfare. And young people coming into the housing market, particularly in Sydney, have a legitimate concern. But, nowadays, the vast majority of people with employment are doing ok: they have their own house or unit, one or more cars, plenty of electronic and whitegoods, are more likely than ever before to send their kids to an overseas school, a significant proportion engage in overseas travel every 1-2 years, etc.
The main thing that the indicators show these days is that the very rich – the top 1 per cent – seem to be wealthier than ever before. Which is arguably sub-optimal, not necessarily directly significant to the standard of living of the rest of the population. (Eg, because when the relative wealth of the top 1 per cent is lower, the absolute wealth of the other 99 per cent is often also lower).
And we have seen in other parts of the world that policies designed to take a lot of this wealth away from the very rich and share it among the rest end up doing more harm than good. I reckon God/Moses was onto something with the commandment that “Thou shalt not covet…”
Compact Crank @ #148 Sunday, June 24th, 2018 – 11:01 am
This took a few seconds googling
https://mccrindle.com.au/insights/blog/australias-household-income-wealth-distribution/
Or not, when it suits them.
Friday the press gallery were all waiting for her (or someone) from the administration to explain the latest following TRump’s u-turn on forced child removals. Most esp their plans for reuniting children with their families.
They sat waiting. And waiting. And waiting.
Tricot@11:04am
“The win by Liberals is not that great”
1. I believe you understand that one wins even if that person wins by 1 vote especially when LNP was smashed in the previous state elections.
2. You conceded that “Labor deserved its kicking” for mucking up candidates credentials (i.e. not scrutinising properly). Do you agree it is something similar to vetting process of dual citizenship by ALP for which 4 ALP senator/ MPs got disqualified or resigned.
But you say ALP has better vetting process than LNP and LNP just take the word of the candidates. True.
But look at the by-election results of New England and Bennelong? LNP won them easily when they were at their most incompetent and unpopular and when MT came within a whisker of being removed as PM.
On that basis you may say ALP should win Braddon and Longman. For that I point to Darling range.
My point is people have a very short fuse for ALP mistakes especially in QLD & WA.
Make of that what you will
Andrew Earlwood: “Other than keeping the high income deficit levy (which Abbott introduced) and winding back some of the most egregious Howard era tax rorts what evidence is there that Labor has adopted a ‘smash the rich’ policy approach Meher?”
OK
The proposed negative gearing and capital gains tax changes (negative gearing dates back much further than the Howard era, and Labor’s current policy re CGT is much harsher than the version Keating introduced.)
Labor wanted to quarantine the latest round of tax cuts to lower income earners.
Labor wanted to target the Medicare Levy increase to pay for the NDIS at higher-income earners (but later backed down).
Labor doesn’t want to reduce company tax.
Self-funded retirees (well, at least, those unlucky enough not to be members of defined benefit schemes of the sort that most pollies are in) seem to be a particular target of Labor: Labor first raised the ante on taxing superannuation, to which Turnbull (wrongly IMO) responded. Bowen continues to hint that Labor might want to take it further. And then came the proposed changes to dividend imputation about which we’ve heard so much.
And, of course, there’s a great deal of rhetoric coming from Shorten, Bowen et al about the “top end of town”.
It’s vastly different to the rhetoric of the Hawke-Keating era.
Jeremy Corbyn in the Guardian yesterday displayed keen sense for the obvious:
“I wouldn’t have invited him and I think the prime minister’s got ample reasons to withhold the invitation if she wants to. We need to say very clearly to Donald Trump, ‘We live in a multicultural society, we’re proud of it. Get over it and start living in one yourself’.”
This inequality thingy.
Aren’t there general measures such as housing affordability, or number of welfare recipients, homeless, unemployed, by which inequality can be measured? Gross numbers wouldn’t mean much.
Meher at 12.04
That’s not smash the rich – that is simply a fairer distribution of the wealth of the nation. The better off and wealthy will still have far more disposable income than those with much smaller incomes.
Buying the nonsense that any attempt to claw back the overly generous and demonstrably unproductive taxation benefits for the most wealthy in our society is the equivalent of arguing 200 years ago that being opposed to slavery was being anti-southerner in the USA.
Another thought for Sunday.
It’s a cliche but the 2019 election will be a very significant one. If Labor wins it will be a mandate for a significant leftward turn on tax and ir amongst other things – so if people vote for the alp it will be a real change election much like 1949, 1972 , 1983 and 1996.
If the labor party loses – then it’s clear the traditional lefty formula won’t work anymore and they’ll have to seriously examine things like prop representation, the relationship with the Greens etc.
The most obvious thing is there doesn’t appear to be a public clamour to make shorten pm. Whitlam and Hawke and Rudd there was a real sense of excitement about change coming – which isn’t there now as shown by a primary vote of 36.7%.
With the polls tightening it will be the Rocky 2 election which fighter gets up off the canvas first ? I guess with a life long machine man it’s pretty hard to engender a sense of excitement unless your a 32 year member of the Altona east branch or something similar.
Meher:
“It’s vastly different to the rhetoric of the Hawke-Keating era.”
Yeah. Nah.
The policy landscape is vastly different, ‘tis. All.
In Whitlam, Hawke-Keating the company tax rate and the top margin rate of income tax were substantially over 50%. economic growth and inflation were also much higher as well.
Keating cut tax rates that he paid for. Mainly through closing ax rorts, loopholes and taxation blindspots AND capitalising on the increased revenue flowing into treasury from economic growth. Moreover, he was not operating in an environment that has seen ade or more of substantial tax cuts already. Finally, if you want to talk rhetorics, let’s start with a Keating maxim “making the rates of tax reflect actual revenue raised, not notional rates of tax avoided”: THAT could be the title of Chris Bowen’s body of policy work. More power to him.
I mainly peruse this site sitting on the garden bench recovering from my 10km jog – and the dog refusing to talk to me
My wife is still on her morning walk
And when my wife is watching something I really do not engage in
The interest is positions of people you would assess you would not normally associate with – and the BK media run down
And some contributions have you reflecting including because of bias and entrenched positions
Simply, nothing is the same today as it was yesterday
We all change – no one is constant
Sometimes events cause you to reappraise and to reflect
I questioned my parenting 25 odd years ago
Then a Family Report was issued and, with a tear I must admit, I reasoned that just being the Dad I was was ok
I had children at a later age, past my retirement from sport and after establishing in the work place – and, of course, I had left my home State to achieve
At that time, 25 years ago my own Mother and sister questioned me on career and work place status – and income
My Dad (a replica of his Dad) responded that I was their son and that my family supported my decisions
When I remarried now over 20 years ago I flew my parents over
My mother presumed to critique who I should associate with and who I shouldn’t from our assembled guests
My Dad closed the voice down
My mother was always like that – subservient to appearance
When my Dad died my Mother presumed to say that my life had been wasted – that I could have been this or that, including to my wife and children – and she was supported by my sister
I said “Thankyou and bye”
And I added that I was the happiest and most contented I have ever been in my life, except for the loss of my Dad
That was 10 years ago
I assume my mother is still alive
A couple of years ago, hanging over the fence at a Granddaughter’s activity as a 3 year old my son said “You are doing what you have always done” and then added “You know Dad, you are my role model, always have been and always will be”
I owe something to my wife, our children and (now) our Grandchildren
Hence I contribute as I do
The irony is that financially matters look after themselves given you live within your means – and take ownership including by paying down debt
That is the lesson of retiring at 50 – it is not about aspiration and work
There is also a life to be lived – and enjoyed
The Darling Range result also shows once again that single-seat polling is pointless. It is just not possible to get a sufficiently large, properly randomised sample from such a small population to produce a polling result with an MOE that is low enough to be useful.
It also shows that voters are very happy to support minor parties – about 1/3 yesterday – especially when virtually nothing rides on the result. The Liberals were able to take advantage of this, harvesting prefs from various micro RW candidates. It was very obvious at the polling places that the micro RW’s are Lib-siblings. They cling to each other.
The other thing that is obvious is that the G volunteers are all retirees/antiques. They are in demographic dotage.
dtt: interesting post. A few thoughts.
“1. Privatisation of the banks, telecom, electricity etc have NOT delivered economic boom and it is fairly obvious, even to moderate voters that sale of the Commonwealth bank has increased costs while sale of Telstra has destroyed service quality and as for privatisation of utilities – white hot anger I think.”
The big reforms to banking and telecommunications occurred under Hawke-Keating. Younger people do not know how things were before those reforms: even older people like me forget quite often. The banks were open from 10-3 Monday-Thursday and 10-5 on Friday. If you couldn’t get to your bank on Friday before it closed you faced a cashless weekend. To get a bank loan required a humiliating level of groveling to the bank manager, who would ask you intrusive questions about your life. Trying to take money with you overseas, or transfer it when you got there, involved an incredible rigmarole. And the old PMG/Telecom/Telstra was a nightmare to deal with. Today’s open market in banking and telecommunications is, as we see, not without problems, but I find it infinitely better than what was around when I reached adulthood in the 1970s.
But I agree with you about utility privatisation: that hasn’t gone well. Privatising monopolies is never a good idea, and the admirable efforts to establish a national energy market still have a way to go before they can be considered to be fully effective.
“Incomes have stagnated. People MUST stop thinking in average incomes and think median income.”
I agree that incomes have stagnated, but that’s not primarily a problem of distribution (if at all). As I suggested in an earlier post, surely it is the actual standard of living of most individuals and households that matters most, not how that standard of living compares to that of the top 1 per cent.
“Australians no longer feel wealthier than the rest of the world. There was a time when international visitors – students and tourists did not seem wealthier than the locals – certainly not those from Asia or even Southern Europe. Now we have a situation where international students often school kids wear shoes costing $2000 or carry Gucci school bags. They wear pyjamas of a quality few of us would dream of – $500 at LEAST. Then there are the phones!!!! Now this must affect the sense of relative wealth of many”
In terms of students, I suspect you are mainly talking here about the scions of the ruling elite of that avowedly socialist society of modern China, who come to our unis as full fee-paying students. When I was back at uni in the 1970s, most international students were in Australia under some sort of assistance scheme, so of course they didn’t tend to have much ability to engage in conspicuous consumption. As for tourists, again I think the Chinese – who only began coming as tourists in any numbers in the 1990s – are inclined to show off their wealth more than most others.
And we are talking about elites: the average standard of living in Australia is still much, much higher than that in China.
“Sure over in Manning House there were the David Jones set, chasing a wealthy husband but they were small in number and pretty irrelevant to most of us.”
I suspect I was at Sydney Uni at about the same time as you. Ah, those were the days: we used to describe those young ladies – often redolent in twinsets and pearls – as being enrolled in “Marriage I” or “Marriage II.” Some of them were rather gorgeous, but way out of my league. To attract their interest, you had to hail from the leafy suburbs and study medicine or law.
Edwina StJohn @ #192 Sunday, June 24th, 2018 – 12:18 pm
Are the polls tightening? I feel they’ve been stuck at approximately 52/48 for a good, long time now.
This ABC Fact Check demonstrates that there is much debate about inequality in Australia.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-16/fact-check-income-inequality-has-it-improved/8804976
None of it points to it being a terrible problem that requires significant policy changes.
ESJ
‘If Labor wins…….’
A significant concession by you!
Thank you Edwina (you olde lefty socialist you)
AE: “Finally, if you want to talk rhetorics, let’s start with a Keating maxim “making the rates of tax reflect actual revenue raised, not notional rates of tax avoided”: THAT could be the title of Chris Bowen’s body of policy work. More power to him.”
I wasn’t wanting to get into a detailed debate about the content of these policies, but I would point out that the Hawke-Keating reforms were all based on detailed and complex analysis of the tax system undertaken by some of the great brains of Treasury and the ANU. The proposals being put forward by Labor at the moment are far more broad brush and seem to be largely influenced by the ideas put forward by the Grattan Institute, which organisation seems to me to be a long way from achieving the levels of economic policy excellence that were demonstrated by those who drove the thinking behind the 1980s reforms.
Perhaps, if they are elected to government, Labor will look to expert advice to help them fine tune these policy ideas to iron out what I see as the likely inequities (especially intergenerational inequities) and other undesirable effects. I certainly hope so.
But my main concern at the moment is the overall message that this policy platform is sending to the public, and whether this is really going to do Labor any good with the voting public come election day.
Hawke in the 1980s adopted the strategy of constantly reassuring the public that Labor in power would not seek to upset the apple cart: that it would govern for all Australians, not just its main constituency. The current leadership seem to have made a conscious choice to go with the strongest “rich against poor”approach that we have seen since the era of Evatt and Calwell: an era when, as I have suggested earlier, the average standard of living of the working class was significantly lower than it is today.
Of course there would be internal polling and other research backing this approach. A lot of published material – plus the examples of Corbyn and Sanders – suggests that a sizeable proportion of Millennials are far more attracted to a redistributive policy approach than was the generation before them at their age. So Labor’s policy platform is generating a lot of interest among that group, and perhaps – as is demonstrated within the microcosm of PB – older left-leaning people who have been inclined in recent years to switch-off from Labor and perhaps gravitate towards the Greens, or simply lose interest altogether.
Which is all well and good, but we live in a country with compulsory voting where the election is typically decided by a group of voters which is disengaged from politics and fearful of radical change. Hawke knew very well how to play to this group. For reasons I’ve posted before, I believe this group has a certain innate fondness for Turnbull, but he hasn’t been particularly good at playing to them: and they also don’t like the internal party divisions fostered by Abbott any more than they liked R-G-R.
But, if the Libs could somehow get their act together, then Labor’s policy platform could become a major target. And, if the Libs don’t get their act together, Labor will probably win, but they would have won just as well, or even better, without this policy platform. So I’m not seeing the policy platform as a plus.
But I could be wrong, and will be ready and willing to be told so on the morning after the election.