An Australian Response to Tony Blair: ‘Convergence Politics is not the Answer’

above:  Tony Blair urges Bill Shorten to 'return to the centre'

By Tristan Ewins

The ‘Weekend Australian’ (8/10/16) quotes former Labour British PM, Tony Blair as urging Bill Shorten to tack “back to the centre”. Typically, Blair holds that the occupation of ‘the centre ground’ is crucial to building a significant-enough constituency to carry an electoral majority. And that regardless of this ‘it is the right thing to do’. Furthermore, Blair contends that Australian Labor must not only “talk to its core constituency”. (ie: we might reasonably assume he means ‘the traditional working class’).

Blair also warns of the danger of unions becoming a small ‘c’ conservative force: mainly fixated on the public sector, and unable of grappling with the nature of today’s private sector – where unions have long been in decline.

Finally, Blair makes the usual assertion that parties of the ‘centre-left’ must be about ‘growing the [economic] pie’ – with the implication that ‘dividing the cake more fairly’ runs contrary to this.

British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is dismissed as ‘ultra-left’, with Blair raising his head as the champion of the globalist, cosmopolitan ‘third way’ ‘social democracy’ popularised by Giddens and others. Importantly: ‘globalisation’ is not some single, homogenous phenomena. There are desirable aspects of ‘globalisation’ as well. Though specifically, here, we are concerned with its neo-liberal guise; including how that applies to world investment and trade.

To briefly engage with some of Blair’s contentions before moving on:



There is truth in the observation that organised labour must ‘return to the private sector’. Indeed a strong foothold in the public sector could provide a base from which solidarity could be extended to less-secure private sector workers in the midst of industrial upheavals. Furthermore, Labor’s legacy of labour market deregulation must be reconsidered ‘at the lower end’ – with the aim of ending the exploitation of various workers in areas as diverse as child care, aged care, cleaning, retail, hospitality and so on.

Labor’s ‘natural constituency’ – the broader working class – is still very much in the majority (if one focuses on the social relation of wage labour, as opposed to peoples’ ‘self-identity’). Labor’s difficulty is not the dissolution of the working class: but the development within it of various conflicts and contradictions. Including conflicts of ‘consciousness’ and ‘identity’.

For example: there are residual delusions on the part of some white collar workers that they comprise ‘the middle class’ ; which are reinforced by social democratic reluctance to actually speak of ‘the working class’ – and elucidate what that really means today. Also: there is the supposition that ‘Labor’s base’ can be taken for granted – and that it’s ‘the swinging middle’ that really counts.

Class loyalties do not necessarily shift straight away – but over generations. Surely the United States shows the consequences where the US Democrats have long spoke only of ‘the middle class’, and could not bring themselves to prioritise discussion of ‘the working class’. They did not deliver workers from the ravages of deindustrialisation and ‘the neo-liberal version of globalisation’. And demagogues such as Trump have filled the vacuum. Trump does not represent workers’ interests; and this could be made apparent if only the Democrats would rise to the occasion. Similarly, Labor must overcome and heal the internal divisions within the Australian working class to promote a social democracy which appeals to the interests of the majority of voters.

Also admittedly: Unions are not ‘essentially progressive’ even if their class location positions them to effectively promote the interests of the majority of the labouring masses (as against a minority bourgeoisie). German unions, for instance, were central to mobilising the war-effort in Germany in 1914 ; and beforehand had turned against more radical elements who had traditionally led the Social Democrats, and who would come to oppose that conflict. That war decimated German social democracy, and also the German working class.

Revisionist socialist scholar and parliamentarian Eduard Bernstein also warned that specific unions had the potential to become ‘corporate interests’ who furthered their own dominance of particular markets and industries without prioritising the position of the broader working class and labour movement, and others amongst the disenfranchised and oppressed.

In Australia, meanwhile, (with a much different phenomenon) some right-wing unions have promoted agendas of privatisation and economic neo-liberalism; and some (such as the right-wing ‘Shop, Distributive and Allied’ union – or ‘SDA’) have at times abandoned their own members’ interests in order to secure industry coverage (and hence political power within the Labor Party) due to collusion with employers. Sometimes unions are seen as vehicles for political power and political careers, as opposed to being primarily vehicles for workers’ interests, and social democracy.

That said: these instances should not be taken as ‘typical’ of the Australian labour movement. Despite legitimate misgivings about The Accord years and their aftermath, for example, Australian unions waged a vigorous campaign against the Howard Government’s regressive ‘Workchoices’ industrial legislation. They are still capable of representing and mobilising their members, and of waging successful campaigns.

With regard the old shibboleth that neo-liberal economic policies are required to ‘grow the pie’: something ‘traditional social democracy (supposedly) is not positioned to do’ , we might make another series of observations. The Nordics have demonstrated that it is possible to build a robust public sector and welfare state; with saturation levels of unionisation ; and a culture of solidarity. In the ‘golden age’ of the Swedish ‘Rehn-Meidner’ economic model, this combined effective full employment with low inflation, and the extension of welfare and social services. If not for a series of tactical errors, economic democracy might also have been entrenched through the ‘Meidner wage earner funds’ initiative during the 1970s and 1980s.

In fact, today it is ‘the systemic imperatives of capitalism’ and capitalist Ideology that stand in the way of fulfilling the personal and social needs of humanity. Amidst greater abundance than has been known ever before in human history, we are informed repeatedly that we must ‘tighten our belts’. Welfare and social services are progressively cut. Education is for ‘industry needs’ and not ‘the development of human potential’. And of course ‘the user must pay’ (though this is taken to mean students; and not the corporations who benefit from the various skills and aptitudes which are developed). Improved life expectancy is seen as a ‘curse’ rather than a ‘blessing’. So the retirement age is pushed upwards incrementally. The elderly are made to feel they are ‘a burden’ , and working class people are expected to exhaust their assets and savings to pay for ‘aged care’ which denies them dignity, comfort or happiness.

Alongside an increased age of retirement, the intensity of labour increases. Capitalism demands growth into new markets to preserve its own stability; but with ‘globalisation’ (just for now interpreted as the expansion of international trade; though it has other interpretations) reaching its limits, markets for consumption depend on increasing the sheer volume of labour (and hence purchasing power). Though casualisation shows it does not always work out that way (‘capital mobility’ is another aspect of globalisation; as is the rise of a ‘global culture’ that emerges via improvements in communications technology; Marx himself had observed the emergence of a ‘world literature’ as early as the 19th Century).

Where technology does not improve productivity, instead productivity is tied to that intensity of labour. In Australia today improvement of wages and conditions are largely ruled out without such productivity improvements. Hence for a great many wages and conditions stagnate or are rolled back. Organised labour is vilified. The working poor are even played off against the vulnerable welfare-dependent with ‘the politics of downward envy’. In response the Left must promote a politics of respect and solidarity.

A move back towards a social democratic mixed economy could stabilise national economies and the world economy over the short to medium term as a consequence of superior cost structures. But this is eschewed for reasons of Ideology, power, and private greed. Instead trade agreements are deployed to break down any ‘barriers’ preventing the fullest possible exploitation of potential markets by multinational corporations. ‘Natural public monopolies’ could stand to be criminalised (ie: sovereign governments could be sued); as well perhaps as ‘market distorting’ initiatives which may promote economic democracy (for example, any scheme providing assistance to co-operative enterprise of various sorts). Amidst all this ; and even after the cataclysm of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis – Tony Blair and ‘The Australian’ are still trying to sell us ‘neo-liberalism with a human face’.

From the outset it is also worth observing that historical traditions other than ‘modern third way social democracy’ have also claimed the ‘centrist ground’ (for instance Catholic ‘social Centrism’ in Germany, and the Swedish ‘Centre Party’). Defining ‘the centre’ is fraught with possible confusion. As opposed to a linear ‘left-right spectrum’ a ‘political compass’ accommodates both economic egalitarianism AND personal and collective liberties. But Blair is employing a more ‘traditional’ left-right spectrum.

Hence Blair’s ‘centrism’ is confusing: sometimes comprising a mish-mash of liberal and authoritarian positions. Hawkish foreign policy; rejection of class struggle; embrace of economic and cultural globalisation; according to some interpretations implementation of ‘punitive welfare’ and labour conscription; and effective rejection of a traditional mixed economy in favour of privatisation and what we have come to know as ‘neo-liberalism’.

Also importantly: ‘the Centre’ is always RELATIVE. A political party which makes a habit of ‘passively occupying’ ‘the middle ground’ rather than striving to RE-DEFINE and shift it resigns itself to a passive or even reactive response to social issues and conflicts.

Under Hawke and Keating – who Blair praises profusely – Australia moved decisively to the Right on many fronts– embracing small government, privatisation, deregulation, dilution of progressive taxation, rejection of class struggle; widespread deindustrialisation ; and so on. Whereas Blair followed Hawke and Keating, Australian Labor in turn followed Blair. The consequence was a ‘rightward-spiral’ which was the undoing of social democracy and labourism as we had known them.

In a further article in ‘The Australian’ by Troy Bramston (8/10), poet, W.B.Yeats’s ‘The Second Coming’ is taken very much out-of-context. The title proclaims “Things Fall Apart – The Centre Can’t Hold’. Bramston is very much with Blair, fearing the decline of the ‘centre-left’ as a consequence of a more unambiguous left-turn by Corbyn. Corbyn (and perhaps by implication, Shorten) are portrayed as wanting ‘a return to the past’ rather than ‘progressing forward’. Ironically this implies the in-some- ways similar notion of a ‘progressive teleology’ as proposed by Hegel and Marx; and more recently by Fukuyama. ‘Neo-liberalism’ is upheld as ‘the progressive and objective direction of history’: in a way which denies historic choice; and the meaningful contestation of history by social actors.

The problem with Blair is that his position is very much one of ‘convergence politics’. ‘Convergence on the centre’ actually dissolves genuine ‘centre-left’ politics as we once knew them. Whereas democratic socialists once claimed ‘the centre left ground’ – roughly halfway between liberal centrism and the unambiguously revolutionary Left traditions; today ‘convergence on the centre’ is the undoing of meaningful democracy. It is the undoing of meaningful choice.

As French social theorist Chantal Mouffe has insisted ‘convergence politics’ ‘empties out’ democracy by denying real choice and democratically-mediated conflict as a consequence of ‘a rush to the Centre’. It is worth briefly considering her position – and that of critical theorist, Jurgen Habermas – to critique the ‘Blair-ite Third Way’ from different perspectives.

Whereas Habermas supposed a ‘deliberative democracy’, with the pursuit of a ‘perfect speech situation’ – or ‘communicative rationality’, Mouffe does not believe rational exchange and engagement can resolve all differences and conflicts. Still strongly-influenced by Marx, though, Habermas continues to suppose a ‘historical telos’; which will be realised through ‘communicative action’ (ie: rational engagement, argument and deliberation by social actors). Importantly, as opposed to Blair, Giddens, etc, Habermas was optimistic enough to suppose that this process would ultimately lead to socialism (realised via communicative rationality and not only through ‘traditional’ class struggle; hence some divergence from Marx’s original position).

Both Habermas and Mouffe are radical Leftist democrats, however; and BOTH Habermas’s ‘communicative action’ and Mouffe’s ‘Agonism’ reject ‘centrist convergence’. What is notable with Mouffe’s position is essentially that history is not assumed as ‘having a fixed direction’ (or ‘telos’). And as opposed to traditional Marxism, neither are particular social actors (such as the working class) assumed to have any ‘essential and fixed historic mission’. For Mouffe history is contested by social actors who articulate ‘counter-hegemonic strategies’. History is not pre-determined but rests on our CHOICES. Though Mouffe does accept that despite this capitalism has systemic imperatives and ‘logics’ that no isolated individual can challenge.

Here ‘meaningful choice’ – central to democracy – must mean a robust pluralism. But as opposed to older notions of class struggle, Mouffe’s ‘post-Marxism’ insists that:

“within the ‘we’ that constitutes the political community, the opponent is not considered an enemy to be destroyed but an adversary whose existence is legitimate.”

And most preferably these assumptions must cut both ways! (though it will not always be the case) Importantly, Marx argued for the dissolution of the bourgeoisie as a class; that is the dissolution of particular social relations – as opposed to the wholesale murder of human beings as occurred under Stalinism. But Mouffe insists an ongoing and legitimate place for pluralism, and hence appears to reject Marx’s notion of communism as ‘an end destination’ (or to put it in Marx’s own words, ‘the end of pre-history’).

So Mouffe assumes mediated conflict as being central to meaningful democracy. And the silencing of dissident voices by ‘third way, cosmopolitan, neo-liberal globalism’ could perhaps even lead to a technocracy – governance by ‘experts’ – and rejection of the proper place of democratic conflict.

Effectively siding with Blair, ‘The Australian’ has predictably embraced ‘neo-liberal globalism’.

Shorten has ‘been taken to task’ for a very modest step back towards traditional social democracy and labourism. Under Shorten there has been talk of enforcing corporate taxation and effectively tackling ‘corporate welfare’. There is talk of holding the banks accountable. ‘Small government’ is no longer explicitly endorsed (though neither is ‘big government’). “Trickle-down” is rejected.  In the ranks of Labor there is some talk of tackling obscene superannuation concessions which feather the nests of the unambiguously wealthy (to the tune of tens of billions annually) at the same time as vulnerable pensioners are vilified by the Conservatives for the sake of ‘budget repair’. But Shorten still insists on ‘budget repair that is fair’.

None of this is particularly radical! But as the Anglosphere and parts of Europe continue to turn Left in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis the voices of Conservatism and neo-liberalism have become more shrill. Modest reversions to ‘traditional social democracy’ are ‘fought tooth and nail’ as they ‘set a bad example’ which may provide a ‘turning point’ away from neo-liberalism, and the prioritisation of corporate interests in economics and trade policy. Bernie Sanders has seen the rise of a distinctly Left politics ‘into the US mainstream’. Accused of ‘ultra-Leftism’, in fact British Labour Opposition Leader, Jeremy Corbyn is also reverting to more-traditional Labour perspectives on the mixed economy, rights of labour; affordable education; and support for progressive tax; with a commitment to the NHS (National Health Service); as well as a rejection of ‘Hawkish’ foreign policy. This ought not be seen as ‘going backwards’ – because (contra-Marx) there is no objective definition of what ‘progressing forward’ actually means anyway.

With his warnings of ‘impending doom’ for British Labour – as well as the need for a ‘policy correction’ by Shorten in Australia, Blair does not seem to perceive the shift Leftwards in parts of Europe, and even the ‘Anglosphere’ itself. Ironically it is Blair who is ‘looking backwards’: to the 1990s – when ‘the historical moment was his’. Similarly ‘The Australian’ looks back to the ‘reform era’ where Hawke and Keating to a significant degree liquidated much of what had before-hand passed as labourism, social democracy and democratic socialism in this country. That’s not to say ‘Third Way’ theorists cannot strategise such as to set the agenda once more. But such success in the past is no guarantee of success today or in the future.

So history does not stand still. Over a quarter of a century after the fall of the Soviet Union neo-liberal triumphalism is beginning to wear thin. The Stalinist nightmare is fading from living memory; and the Democratic Left is finally re-emerging from behind its long shadow. Bernie Sanders has brought the American democratic socialist Left ‘into the mainstream’. McCarthy-ist hysteria is largely in the past. And despite defeats, parties like Syriza and Podemos have heralded the return of the Democratic Left after years utterly eclipsed by a ‘Third Way consensus’ in European social democracy.

Again: Amidst all this Shorten’s tentative shift to the Left is very modest. And hand-wringing by Blair and ‘The Australian’ that Shorten Labor must ‘return to the Centre’ clearly demonstrates how narrow a political milieu certain interests, as well as ‘the media establishment’ would have us choose from. ‘Convergence on the Centre’ denies politics; denies pluralist, democratically mediated conflict; and denies real democratic choice.

Nonetheless; Mouffe’s ‘Agonism’ suggests the possibility of a new pluralist democracy – where the democratic Left and the democratic Right accept each others’ ‘right to exist’ – and indeed their ‘legitimacy’ in the sense that voters and citizens must always be posed with real choices in order for democracy to flourish. And that certain liberties are necessary to overcome alienation; and socialists perhaps should even think of their adversaries here.

Perhaps therefore the Left could accept a place for Conservatism in a pluralist democracy; and on the basis of an inclusive public sphere; a more ‘level playing field of ideas’. But in Australia the monopoly mass media is dominated by figures such as Murdoch and Rinehart. The monopolists think they are in control and beyond effective challenge. Hence they do not discern any compelling pressures to accept a more inclusive public sphere; or say ‘active-critical’ civics and citizenship education curricula which also promote ideological and political literacy, and hence informed and participatory citizenship. Some would argue when the opportunity comes the advantage must be pressed. And so long as the Conservatives are not willing to accept the democratic and authentically pluralist principles promoted by the likes of Chantal Mouffe – then perhaps they have a point.

Also ‘social rights are human rights’. No less essential than civil liberties. And ideally should be constitutionally enshrined. Even though these matters should nonetheless be deliberated upon freely. There is the challenge of balancing the aim of ‘pluralism’ and hence ‘openness to change’, while striving for a ‘baseline consensus’ of liberal and social rights which is acceptable to the various social actors. Habermas believed this (and ultimately socialism itself) could be achieved via ‘communicative action’.

In many parts of the world ‘the tide is beginning to turn’. PERHAPS once again the future belongs to radical social democracy.

US Presidential Debate illustrates the Policy Divide between Trump and Clinton

 

Dr Tristan Ewins

This week’s US Presidential Debate was interesting in a number of ways.  The economic debate in particular was of concern to this observer.  In summary, it was framed with the opposition of Trump’s traditional neo-liberal emphasis on ‘trickle down’ Reaganomics, deregulation, and sweeping corporate tax cuts.  By contrast Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric was suggestive of mild social democracy or social liberalism – which has ‘learned certain lessons’ from the GFC.   Important talking points for Clinton included winding back regressive prohibitive user pays in higher education , improving the minimum wage , and promoting US interests via international trade deals. This was mildly encouraging – and perhaps a sign that a small but symbolic portion of the Sanders policy agenda had been ‘taken on-board’ in order to mobilise the disillusioned ‘progressive masses’ that had been so inspired by Sanders’ break from the ‘Democratic establishment’: which for many was actually seen to be part of  the problem.

Unfortunately what was left unsaid, here, was that the interests of US-based transnational corporations have seen US policy makers (influenced by the dominant corporate lobby) pursue trade agreements which disadvantage even traditional US allies such as Australia.  As with the Trans Pacific Partnership, the right of social democratic governments to maintain natural public monopolies in the interests of the people they represent practically stands to be ‘criminalised’ in the name of ‘free and open markets’. Here there is neither a market nook nor cranny that is spared exposure to the transnational corporations.  And the relationship between the corporate lobby and the US political class is almost a ‘symbiotic’ one.  Of course the eagerness of Australian policy makers to expose our economy to TPP must also be questioned.  Perhaps this is seen as ‘the price we must pay’ for coming under the US security umbrella.

Clinton also argued the case that ‘trickle down economics’ and radically small government had failed Americans as per the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis – and that Trump’s desire to ‘go into economic policy reverse’ was an unacceptable risk for the country, and indeed the world.  As per usual, Clinton also emphasised the struggles of the US  middle class when compared with ‘robber baron capitalists’ (where it was implied Trump himself fell into that category) Although Clinton did not use the expression specifically.

But the refusal of mainstream Democrats to speak to – and speak of – the working class-in their ‘mainstream’ electoral discourse provides Trump with an opening.  Here his arguments against deindustrialisation may resonate with desperate workers who are willing to try anything to secure their futures.  Though his ‘solution’ of stemming the flow of manufacturing and other jobs by deeply slashing the taxes of corporations would necessitate a decay of infrastructure, welfare and social services – where the connections between these just don’t seem to be grasped by much of Trump’s support base.  

Trump takes advantage of desperation and the sense of abandonment by many US workers with a shameless opportunism that may yet win him the ‘top job’ in the White House.  He argues as if government should be run like his own personal business.  Though it is interesting to observe that the very impetus for infrastructure projects to come in very significantly over-budget (a phenomenon he pursued relentlessly) is linked with privatisation. Parasitic corporations trying to maximise their returns ; where the sense of ‘the public good’ is lost all but entirely.  Private prisons which abandon rehabilitation and support unnecessarily-severe sentencing in favour of ‘growing their businesses’ are perhaps the most appalling example.

Clinton also argued a strong case in favour of a big investment in renewable energy: and whereas Trump is a ‘climate sceptic’, Clinton’s strong position, here, was perhaps indicative of her imperative of winning over Greens voters whose votes might be ‘wasted’ on the Greens Presidential candidate, Jill Stein.  For progressives this comprises a testing dilemma: protest against the Democratic National Committee’s appalling attempts to undermine the campaign of Bernie Sanders ; or to ‘swallow the bitter pill’ ; and admit that if Clinton is in any way ‘the lesser evil’ , then she is the ‘lesser evil’ by a very significant margin.  A big vote for Stein would make a Trump victory certain.  Though it would build a case for electoral reform – making a genuinely ‘multi-party democracy’ really-viable.

But as Clinton argued: can we trust Trump with the US nuclear codes?    Can we trust him as ‘commander in Chief’ of the world’s pre-eminent super-power?.  (though progressively under challenge from a rising China ; and from an emboldened bloc or  ‘strategic partnership’ centred on Russia and Iran)   And can we really trust him to enforce nuclear non—proliferation?

In conclusion, though, Trump actually made some telling points on foreign policy – despite the fact more broadly that he is ‘not to be trusted’.  For example the disaster of the Iraq War ; and of the regional destabilisation and escalated conflict that ensued. In Australia the lesson for us is that we must never allow such a war to ensue – with our participation and support – without even allowing a parliamentary debate.  And maybe a parliamentary vote. That is one area where the Greens actually make good policy sense.

In the debate Trump seemed ‘energised’. He spoke with apparent enthusiasm – compared with which Clinton’s demeanour was ‘steady and deliberate’ but also ‘buoyant’.  However: there was no ‘knockout blow’. The campaign is only just beginning – and has more than two months yet to run.  

Clinton’s choice of Tim Kaine as Vice-Presidential running mate was also suggestive that Clinton was intending to appeal to the ‘policy Centre’ more so than the ‘unambiguous Left’.   Again: with two months to go, though, there is still the potential prospect of more progressive policy announcements.  The Sanders campaign mobilised millions: especially amongst the young. Clinton would be well advised to go further in remobilising those people. 

And as for the Sanders campaign: socialism is increasingly ‘coming in from the cold’ in US politics.  As Sanders argued – his ‘defeat’ was not the end of the story.  Unlike with the earlier Obama campaign, the intention is that the movement itself will persist ; and continue to build and campaign openly.  While 2016 is not the year for Sanders, perhaps 2020 – or maybe 2024 – will see the resurgence of the US social democratic and democratic socialist Left.   Sanders will perhaps be seen as ‘too venerable’ by then ; but surely for him it was very much about the movement ; the policy agenda ; and a ‘political sea change’ in the US with the resurgence of a distinct and mainstream Left.  And the Democratic National Committee must surely realise that it needs to change its ways – lest the broader Party divide openly against itself.  With the consequence of a clear run for the Republicans – unless they too experience a similar debilitating split.  (not impossible given what we have seen this year)

Here’s hoping for a Clinton victory: and that we may be pleasantly surprised with more favourable policy announcements from a Clinton campaign which realises the imperative of mobilising the movement mobilised itself before-hand by Bernie Sanders.

Amidst discussion of White, Male Privileges Social Class has been relegated to 'The too -hard Basket'

Dr Tristan Ewins

Dear Readers:  For this week I thought the following letters were interesting in light of Trump's appeal to parts of the white American working class and underclass.   The discussion is also interesting on account of the modern Left's neglect of class after having fully embraced Identity Politics.  Both were sent to 'The Age' at the date indicated.  Once more, neither were published. 

Parts of been slightly extended on account that I no longer have to limit either to 200 words for publication in the Age.  Upon submission both were 200 words or less.

Duncan Fine (16/8) portrays Senator David Leyonhjelm's case against Fairfax on account of the Racial Discrimination Act as ludicrous.  Indeed white men do enjoy certain kinds of privileges which need to be understood and recognised in context to provide a fair go for women and minorities.  And Leyonhjelm is not being serious apart from trying to 'test the boundaries'.  But on the other hand surely vilification on the basis of gender or race should always be taken seriously. There are contexts, here, where emotional and social harm can be visited upon those usually considered to be privileged. Further, where once we heard of the dominance of ‘rich white men’, these days the element of class is conveniently ignored.  Economic stratification and the class system under capitalism are ‘conveniently relegated to the too hard basket’. In the United States  working class white men have become increasingly propagandized by the forces of social reaction.  And to a significant degree this has occurred under the watch of a Democratic Party – which until Bernie Sanders’ Presidential campaign had overwhelmingly failed to address their class interests. Indeed many seem to have no issue with terms like ‘poor white trash’.  Human liberation requires reciprocal human solidarity ; and this is not exhausted by the categories of race and gender.

In his article (21/8) Paul McGeough laments the cynical attempts of some to form a kind of ‘white racial consciousness’ ;  and the danger that such a project will be exploited to promote an agenda of racism, or even white supremacism.  But does ‘consciousness of whiteness’ have to take such a form?   What if instead we were talking of a kind of ‘critical consciousness’ that recognised the injustice of past privileges of ‘whiteness’ ; but which also recognised the double standards and dehumanization that goes with middle and ruling class putdowns of ‘poor white trash’ and the like?  As well as recognising pre-existing forms of class exploitation and oppression. Where past privileges are fading, and where white working class and under class people experience various kinds of disadvantage, contempt, and even vilification, perhaps it is time to develop new kinds of solidarity –between working class people entirely regardless of ‘race’.  But also recognising the specific injustices faced by economically disadvantaged ‘white’ communities. Unlike class relations ‘whiteness’ cannot (and of course should not) be ‘abolished’.  So for human liberation disadvantaged working class and under-class ‘white’ communities need to join in solidarity with other oppressed communities in a common struggle for mutual recognition, respect, inclusion, and liberation.

Unpublished Progressive letters to The Age and the Herald-Sun over recent months

Above:  Bob Hawke's policies of 'Consensus' and 'the Accords' were popular vote winners - But not all of those policies' long term ramifications were positive


What follows are another series of letters - sent by myself (Tristan Ewins) to The Age, The Herald Sun, and QandA over the past few months.  Again: none were published.

Dr Tristan Ewins

Is a new ‘Hawke-ian’ Consensus ‘The Way Forward’ in Australia?

“Mark Kenny (11/7) looks forward to a new, ‘Hawke-style’ consensus – nutted out between employers, unions, welfare groups.  As opposed to the “partisanship” and “populism” recently on-show. But the Accord Era was in some ways only made possible by a particular conjuncture of union coverage, mobilisation and capacity to deliver. In any case, the wage restraint that was delivered by organised labour was rewarded only with modest social wage measures. (not with transition to some Swedish model)  Employers won-big under Hawke and Keating. Their support was of assistance in Hawke’s assumption of power. But as industrial demobilisation took hold, union militancy became  reviled.  The hope of union policy influence was steadily quashed as demobilisation meant unions had not-enough to bargain with.  Today organised labour still declines slowly; and many employers see no interest in multi-lateral compromises which offer unions a meaningful ‘seat at the table’.  We are left with ‘convergence politics’ based on neo-liberalism, technocracy, cosmopolitanism and globalism. What we really NEED is deep pluralism and authenticity in politics.  Where democratic conflict is an accepted feature of liberal/social democracy. Where labour, welfare, environmental and other movements join together in solidarity with a broad ‘counter-culture’ or 'counter-hegemonic historic bloc'.”

What are our priorities on gender equality?

Jessica Irvine (‘The Age’, 24/7) argues advancing women’s interests and the economy involves making men feel “less confident” and to “sense…their…limitations”.   She sees men’s competitiveness and over-confidence as shutting women out, helping precipitate disasters like the Global Financial Crisis.  Women’s and men’s learned behaviour may be a factor: so long as we don’t resort to ‘attributing a bad essence’.  But perhaps more importantly capitalism involves instability, waste, crisis, painful ‘corrections’.   Is the ascent of women to positions of power within capitalism an answer to this?  Or is it a problem with the dynamics and resultant priorities of the capitalist system itself?  It is right to elevate women’s position in the labour market, public life, in sport – with the aim of ‘flux’ around the point of equality. If our principle is equality, though, we should also be concerned with the decline of men’s participation and performance in education. Also, for most women, labour market regulation and social wage enhancement could be more substantial than ‘a woman in the US Federal Reserve’. That is: “lift up” and respect ‘traditional women’s vocations’ in nursing, aged care, retail, hospitality, tourism, teaching, cleaning, child-care.  We need solidarity between women and men to  ‘lift us all up’, and not leave anyone behind.

 

Economic Inequality in Australia

Social research by the ‘McKrindle Group’ (Herald-Sun, early August  2016) observes increasing inequality between Australians. The top 20% have 12 times the income of the bottom 20%. And the top 20% have 71 times the wealth of the bottom 20%. There are many causes.  The impact of labour market deregulation on the lower end.  Threadbare, punitive welfare.  A weaker labour movement.  Prevalence of part-time, insecure work.  Retirements are pushed back until 70 ; and for some the intensity of work increases to increase profits, and expand markets and purchasing power - which prolongs the viability of capitalism.  Outcomes we get from labour markets and the inheritance of private wealth are not always fair.  Some skilled workers (eg: aged care nurses, child care workers) are exploited because private labour markets cannot sustain more without government subsidy. Some do unpleasant work, perhaps with unsocial hours. (eg: cleaners) – But this is not factored in where ‘demand and supply’ for skills rules. This unfairness shows why we need a ‘social wage’,  ‘social insurance’ and welfare state – financed through progressive taxes.  And also labour market regulation and labour union rights - to prevent unfair outcomes.  Hence the centrality of the principle: “from each according to ability, to each according to need”.

 

Loneliness amongst the Aged ; and Aged Care Priotiries

James Bartholomew (‘The Age’, 29/7) identifies the scourge of loneliness amongst the elderly: and the responsibility of family to ameliorate that.  But this is not solely a private responsibility. Just as charity cannot replace welfare for want of resources, neither can all families manage alone without assistance.  A National Aged Care Insurance Scheme would surpass ‘user pays’ for Aged Care, improving the quality of care, while provided from an egalitarian Levy.  There would be ratios for Registered Aged Care Nurses, as well as for other Aged Care workers. Standards would be upheld not only in areas like food quality, but in resident health, satisfaction and happiness, and access to communications and information services and technology.  To tackle isolation, social interaction would be facilitated for a variety of interests -  both for those in care, and those at home.   And combatting the trend to suicide—which mainly affects men. There would be home visits, and greater mobility ; with social outings, travel vouchers and associated services. Finally, pensions must be increased to end deprivation– and financial support given when dealing with unforeseen emergencies. (eg: a broken washing machine)   Yet all this would require billions ; so is undoable without tax reform.

 

From a Discussion in Facebook on Choice in Disability Services and Aged Care

I'm potentially well-disposed towards allowing Not-for-Profits to offer services alongside the public sector. IF they do a good job. (but the public sector must be a viable choice also) The problem is - a) that ALL the providers need enough funding to provide the services at a very good level of quality ; and b) that aged people and their families benefiting from the Scheme need the flexibility to move between providers without significant disadvantage. That is: if there's a strong element of user pays that neutralises the very 'choice' schemes like NDIS are supposed to provide. It means people with limited means have no 'practical choice' in reality where user-pays mechanisms are onerous..... So what we're talking about is getting rid of the old user pays mechanisms - which could run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands. Perhaps there could be a small co-payment just to encourage people to think carefully about their choices. And progressively scaled to capacity to pay.  But that would have to be utterly negligible when compared with the existing system. To be acceptable the new system would have to overwhelmingly rid itself of user-pays mechanisms ; leaving nothing but a 'functional co-payment' - whose role is not to FUND the system ; but only to encourage careful choices.

 

On the issue of Debt in the Economy

Ron Fischer (Herald-Sun Letters, 3/8) points out that without mechanisms of debt the economy would no longer function.  To elaborate: debt is often necessary to get a concern started. And certain kinds of investment (sourced from debt) have a multiplier effect on productivity. Take investment in certain kinds of software (eg: accounting, word processing) – or investment in skills-development– with improvements in the pace and quality of production thus ensuing. ‘Priming the pumps’ in various ways: direct payments to consumers; government fiscal policy including investment in infrastructure and services – can also have a stimulatory effect, boosting confidence of investors and consumers alike.  Welfare itself can contribute as those thus-dependent spend a greater portion of their incomes on necessities. Austerity on the other hand (cutting spending, services, welfare, infrastructure investment) can have a deflationary and contractionary impact.  That said: debt cannot expand forever – though the real problem in Australia is household debt rather than government debt.  The economy needs structural change so we are able to address household debt without declining living standards. Industry policy to create high wage jobs with a ‘flow on’ or ‘multiplier’ effect which creates additional work based on the ensuing consumption.  And re-establishment of ‘natural public monopolies’ and other investments in areas like socialised medicine – which actually improve consumption power through more-efficient service provision.   For example the social democratic Nordic economies contain health costs to about 9 per cent of GDP . While In the US private sector coverage is 40% - but health costs make up 18% GDP!  (Lyons, McAuley, 2015)  Australia is ‘in the middle’ here – but can definitely do better!

 

Refuting the claim of ‘Mediscare’ : ie: Why the Liberals really are about privatising Medicare

(to ‘The Age’ and the ‘Herald-Sun’)  The message from much of the media approaching the Federal election was that the erosion of universal healthcare in Australia did not comprise ‘privatisation’. Privatisation was narrowly defined as ‘selling an asset off’. Labor’s message was therefore deemed a ‘scare’. Yet upon reflection Labor’s implicit definition of privatisation is legitimate. Medicare is a relatively modest scheme of socialized medicine by some international comparisons:  providing for the costs of a variety of consultative services and procedures publicly.  Nonetheless, Medicare contains national health costs radically compared with the overwhelming dependence on private health cover in the United States. The danger, though, is that we are developing into a ‘two tiered’ health system in health as in education. With increasing degeneration into Galbraith’s ‘private affluence, public squalor’. This - accompanied by growing out-of-pocket expenses - would be both inefficient and unfair: an expression of the principle of privatisation as opposed to socialisation.  But Medicare must be extended as well as defended. Medicare does not include dental and physiotherapy , or medical aids like glasses, hearing aids or prostheses.  We need a reforming government which provides for this through the progressive reform and extension of the popular Medicare Levy without austerity elsewhere.

Hanson’s Pitch: as ‘an Ordinary Australian’ against ‘Left Elites’

Watching QandA it appears to be a deliberate strategy from Pauline Hanson to appear inarticulate;  'kind of naive';  an ‘outsider’ amidst so-called ‘elites’.- There are people who can identify with that ; and when we attack Hanson in some ways they just identify with her even more.  It makes her look like 'the victim'. Pauline Hanson’s 'comeback' was stirred up in sections of the media ; appearances on morning television etc.  Thankfully, her party is not strongly organized. It is built around a 'personality' and will fade again when she leaves the political scene. Also, thankfully her organization perhaps detracts from the 'United Patriots Front' and similar extreme-right groups... Perhaps it detracts from a full-on ideologically-committed and violent fascist organization.  But the fear and disrespect she sows nonetheless disrupt the cohesion of our society.  The best place to start for progressives is to acknowledge and address the insecurities that Hanson and other Right-wing forces take advantage of.  Exploitation of foreign workers undercutting local jobs. Confusion in the wake of the erosion of ‘traditional’ Australian identity and communities.  Pockets of isolation, insecurity, and exclusion.  A failure to engage with those affected; dismissed casually as ‘bogans’. (perhaps itself a ‘class-based put-down’)

A Question to QandA for Sam Dastyari that was not Used

Senator Sam Dastyari ; You are on record identifying $31 Billion yearly in Corporate Tax Avoidance. But earlier this year Bill Shorten announced policies which would wind back only $2 billion of this over four years. Why has no political party moved to wind back a significant proportion of Corporate Tax Avoidance? ALSO: With US Company Taxes up to 39% - would Labor reverse Company Tax cuts so business 'pays their fair share' for infrastructure and services they benefit from?

Labor needs to Develop Stronger Policies and Mobilise Early to Beat the Liberals Next Time

 

 

 

 

The Following is an internal view of where Labor needs to lift its game for the next Federal Election ; in terms of Policy, Strategy, and mobilisation of its Rank and File.  NON-Labor people  (Including Greens Activists)  may be interested in the broader implications for Australian politics.  And there are areas of possible shared ground on Policy between the ALP and the Greens.  The election demonstrated that currently ALP and the Greens still need each other to maintain an electoral bloc capable of displacing the Liberals.....

Dr Tristan Ewins


It's upsetting when some of us in Labor complain about "unaffordable" "pie in the sky" Greens policies. The Greens' policies were more ambitious than Labor's policies, yes. And perhaps were less credible as a consequence of their lacking access to quality costings. But at the end of the day the difference between Labor and the Liberals is perhaps around one per cent of GDP annually. (also add other policies not related to spending – like support for penalty rates) And the 'unaffordable' Greens policies maybe add up to in the vicinity of one to two per cent of GDP/year more than ours at the most. (these are just rough estimates though I admit)

The problem with the Greens is not 'unaffordable' policies. That's 'Liberal-Speak'. It’s rhetoric which can rationalize opportunism on austerity for instance. It’s loaded-rhetoric which ‘locks in’ small government.

The real problem for the SL is that Greens gains are losses for the ALP Left within the PLP (Parliamentary Labor Party): affecting our policy influence as far as policy is determined by Cabinet. (or the Shadow Cabinet as it is for the time being) And a common accusation is that sometimes the Greens distort facts on Labor Policy to achieve that.

But despite claims to the contrary, people who were insisting that we needed Greens preferences to win were proven right. We cannot escape from the fact Labor and the Greens need each other.

So for the most part "big spending" promises are 'not the problem'. Promoting incremental extension of social insurance, social welfare and the social wage - should go without saying for Labor. We did not go far enough on tax reform and superannuation concessions reform. Yet nonetheless it was the most promising economic platform we've promoted in years. By this I mean it was the first election in years where we had not locked ourselves arbitrarily in to a policy of holding spending and tax down as a proportion of GDP.  

Probably  we retreated on policy in the face of bad responses in focus groups and polling. (take our retreat on Aged Care funding)  This suggests that while we began selling our message earlier than usual, we could have began even sooner. Because selling a message which challenges 'common sense' Ideological assumptions (as Gramsci may have put it) takes time and effort. (especially with a hostile media)   Our aspiration should be to raise social expenditure and investment by perhaps 2.5 per cent of GDP upon taking government after the next election.  (maybe more if you factor in cutting superannuation concessions)

If people want evidence of the need to begin campaigning early then look at the disinformation on Medicare privatisation in the media and from the Liberals. Privatisation was narrowly interpreted as ‘selling an asset off’. Labor’s message was therefore deemed a ‘scare’. Yet upon reflection Labor’s implicit definition of privatisation is legitimate. Medicare is a relatively modest scheme of socialized medicine by some international comparisons:  providing for the costs of a variety of consultative services and procedures publicly.  Nonetheless, Medicare (and the PBS – Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme)  contain national health costs radically compared with the overwhelming dependence on private health cover in the United States. The danger, though, is that we are nonetheless developing into a ‘two tiered’ health system in health as in education. With increasing degeneration into Galbraith’s ‘private affluence, public squalor’.   The more this progresses the more entrenched the situation becomes ; and the more divided the country grows on the basis of social class.

This - accompanied by growing out-of-pocket expenses - would be both inefficient and unfair: an expression of the principle of privatisation as opposed to socialisation. 

But Medicare must be extended as well as defended. Medicare does not currently include comprehensive dental, podiatry and physiotherapy , or medical aids like glasses, hearing aids or prostheses.  We need a reforming government which provides for this through the progressive reform and extension of the popular Medicare Levy without austerity elsewhere.

It’s also notable that we sold NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) well in the past. But we can't sustain an argument that improved social wages and social insurance can be provided without significant tax reform elsewhere. $7 billion from negative gearing and Capital Gains Tax concession reform was important. (adding up to 0.4% of GDP)  At least we were somewhat on the front foot. And Labor’s defensive stand against $50 billion in Company Tax cuts was crucial to its message ; and to a revolt in sections of the electorate against ‘corporate welfare’.

But I think we can and should do better. It requires planning and arguments put well in advance. It requires promoting a public debate which challenges peoples' assumptions about the desirability (or undesirability) of 'small government', low taxes, the importance of social investments, social insurance and so on.  It requires a party of activists – mobilized to a significant degree throughout the whole electoral cycle.

In short: we need an ALP with a vision reconceiving of a 'forward march of labour'. An idea of what 'progressive' actually means. That is 'how we want to progress things’. And that must mean an extension of social insurance and the social wage ; an emphasis on public infrastructure and services ; a more progressive tax system - and so on. Which takes real resources- Hence the emphasis on tax reform.



But both sides capitulated to short-term opportunism on superannuation concessions - which will be costing tens of billions to benefit the rich and the unambiguously well off. With the new parliament it is to be hoped that the impending $50 billion bill for superannuation concessions will drive policy by necessity. And Labor can use its position in the Senate to ensure these changes are fair for middle and lower income Australians. Hopefully Xenophon can be convinced of this also. His votes will be crucial. Also thankfully while Labor did not develop a strong enough policy, here, at least at the early leaders’ debate Shorten kept his options open on future reform. Turnbull by comparison locked into ‘no further reforms’. It will be interesting to see if he sticks to that.



The Liberals will accuse us of being 'big-spending'. But that is rhetoric we need to refute vigorously. My personal ambition was to see Labor increase tax and related social expenditure by maybe 2.5% of GDP in its first term. (that that is considered 'radical' shows how far we've regressed in this country from anything like social democracy)

But even increasing progressive tax and associated expenditure by 1.5% of GDP (or $24 billion/year out of a $1.6 trillion economy) in a first term Labor government would be meaningful. That should be ‘the policy floor’ – which we resort to only if necessary - and below which we compromise no further.



Crucially: there are vulnerable people who need our help sooner and not later. That includes the elderly, the ill, the disabled, the poverty-stricken, and the long term unemployed for a start. This requires tens of billions new spending to be meaningful.

With Shorten’s election campaign appearance on QandA, he was confronted by an aged pensioner who argued that an unforeseen contingency (eg: a broken washing machine) could send her broke. In other words, that it may come down to a choice between paying bills, seeing the doctor, or feeding oneself. Shorten conceded there was ‘nothing he could do’. Which probably translates as: ; ‘internal polling shows people don’t want higher taxes’ or that they ‘resent pensioners’, and hence Labor was ‘cutting some of the most vulnerable loose’. We have to do better than this next time. And the way we do that is through a solid campaign footing for a full three years between now and the next election.



But keep in mind that's in the context of a $1.6 TRILLION economy. We're talking about affordable reforms that the media and Conservatives will portray as 'radical' and 'irresponsible'. The Liberals especially don't want to compromise at all on their 'small government, neo-liberal, laissez faire' Ideology and agenda. No matter what the cost to vulnerable and disadvantaged Australians.

In fact we need to develop a public debate about how low social spending and how small the public sector are in this country - and why moving closer to the OECD averages - even if only gradually - would be a good thing.

I have argued to increase spending and taxes by roughly 2.5% in the past.  I don't think we can just transplant the entire Swedish model over two or even three terms. But I do think gradual progress is possible. And depending on unforeseeable circumstances perhaps it could be less gradual.  (history is interspersed with ‘watershed’ moments which had not been predicted)

Let's say we had a pool of $40 billion extra a year to work with out of a $1.6 trillion economy. (ie: 2.5 per cent of GDP) And then maybe cut superannuation concessions by around $15 to $20 billion to start as well. (out of approximately $50 billion)

With that we could do a great deal if not all of the following:   

·         Fully Implement the Gonski education reforms, and NDIS

·         reform and extend Medicare into dental, prostheses, optometry, physio, psychology, podiatry ; cut waiting lists ; stop the encroachments of increasing co-payments

·         increase investment in public and social housing

·          implement a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme

·         reform Mental Health with more proportionate resourcing of the sector and policies to tackle mental-health related early mortality – with perhaps 300,000 Australians suffering schizophrenia, for example,  dying 25 years earlier than the general population. ;

·         introduce a Universal Basic Income (UBI)  as proposed by NSW Labor policy activist Luke Whitington, and begin eliminating poverty.

·         also fund various infrastructure projects publicly as opposed to creeping privatisation- with the consequence of passing efficiencies on to the broader economy.

·         top up local government with federal funding - redistributing resources to help local government in working class and disadvantaged areas to provide better quality services and infrastructure.

·         Pay for a reparations component of a Treaty with indigenous Australian peoples

 

·         Implement a trial 'co-operative incentive scheme' to support the development of co-operative enterprise in Australia  - supported by tax breaks, cheap credit, advice., and in some instances government co-investment

·         Reform welfare payments – Aged, Disability, Sole Parents; Student Allowance; Carers etc; increasing by $50/week plus inflation perhaps over two terms

 

·         Finally we could reform higher education and make the HECS system far more progressive. Raise the minimum repayment threshold for a start.   And implement Industry and Labour Market policies which bring us closer to full employment: with a big boost to the Budget bottom line.

What's important over the next year or so it that we adopt the posture necessary to promote the next wave of reforms in what they used to call ‘the forward march of labour'. ALSO even in the wake of our election loss we should still aim for a Company Tax rate of 30 per cent or higher and not back down from that. (ie: whether in government, or vetting legislation in the Senate)  Because it is both necessary and reasonable for the corporate sector to contribute to the services and infrastructure it benefits from. The alternative is neglect - or otherwise 'corporate welfare'. 

Sam Dastyari’s estimate that corporate tax evasion is costing $31 billion a year is also relevant here.  And you would think Labor needs a stronger policy than it took to the last election.  That is: Labor’s policy only aspired to claw back $2 billion of this over 4 years.

Labor desperately needs a sense of what its professed ‘forward march’ comprises ; and why that is desirable and right.  Let’s begin a debate sooner rather than later: moving Labor onto ‘the front foot’.  This means shifting straight away to a ‘permanent campaign mode’ based on ‘solid but partial mobilisation’ through the activism of our rank and file.  (full mobilisation throughout the entire electoral cycle could prove exhausting, however)  Also we need to implement an early release of ambitious policies which our activists and supporters could mobilise around.  We don’t want to be pressed again to retreat on crucial policies (for example Aged Care funding)  due to public fears re: the presumed need for a Budget surplus and low taxes – as occurred in the recent federal election campaign.

A non-binding ‘policy conference’ some time over the next year could also help mobilise the enthusiasm of Labor’s rank and file ; inspiring innovative policy development to drive Labor towards the next federal election.  Contrary to Bowen this Conference should not replace the binding ALP National Conference which determines Labor's Platform.

Turnbull by the Narrowest Margin - And Why a Return to Abbott and Conservatism is not the Answer for the Liberals

Much has been made of the so-called Labor 'Medi-scare' Campaign.  But reflection suggests Turnbull has only himself to blame for pandering to the 'big 'C' Conservative' wing of his Party - with the profound disillusionment from liberal-minded voters who were originally so encouraged by the departure of Abbott.  For the same reason 'a return to Abbott' is not the answer for the Liberals. In the end the Liberals did not 'tack to the Centre' after all.  And if the Liberal Party swings Right chasing after the votes of the Hansonites that will only provoke further disillusionment from the 'liberal relative Centre' voter demographic.

  

Dr Tristan Ewins

 

With the cliff-hanger/apparent-Liberal victory in the 2016 Australian Federal Election there have been calls from Conservative quarters for the removal of Malcolm Turnbull.  The argument goes something along the lines that because Turnbull abandoned the Liberal base he was punished accordingly.  And that a more decisive Liberal victory would have been possible under Tony Abbott.

Certainly the cross-benches will likely be volatile.  The Government could expect to be put into difficult positions on gambling regulation (Xenophon), law reform and legal euthanasia (Hinch), protectionism (Katter), and totally-unworkable policy objectives based on xenophobia. (Hanson)   Cathy McGowan will probably tend towards to the liberal Centre.  Lambie can be unpredictable – but also in some ways progressive on the economy. (take her support for a financial transactions tax)  She also opposes Same Sex Marriage. 

The Greens will quite possibly enter into negotiations with the Nick Xenophon Team to link their agendas in the context of balance of power in the Senate. The hope is that they will oppose austerity and regressive re-casting of the tax mix – leaving fair tax reform as the only remaining option for budget repair.  (though some are saying the Conservatives may respond with a new election)  But the Greens have failed to pick up new Lower House seats from Labor.   In the Lower House Wilkie can be depended upon to be critical, consistent and progressive – as past experience shows.

 

Already there are arguments to the effect that a hung parliament threatens Australia’s AAA Credit Rating.  The arguments can be summed up in that the various sectional interests will get in the way of ‘hard headed action on budget cuts’.  Though again: few are considering the genuinely-existing alternative of budget repair without austerity – on the basis of progressive tax reform.   Budget cuts also threaten the infrastructure and services the economy craves: resulting in something of a ‘false-economy’.  If possible Labor needs to link-up with Xenophon and the Greens in the Senate to progress the agenda of budget repair without austerity. 

Those Liberals who aren’t braying for Turnbull’s blood are indignant about the so-called ‘Medi-scare’ from Labor.   Yet the reality is that the fear out there in the electorate goes back to the 2014 Hockey Budget ; with its various Medicare co-payments, and other ‘cuts to the bone’.  Labor’s efforts here were nowhere near as objectionable, say, compared with the Howard-Era Liberal government’s ‘children overboard’ panic,  or more recent talk of a ‘war on business’; and so on.  In fact Labor’s interpretation of Medicare privatisation is entirely reasonable if realised as opposition to the winding back of socialised medicine in this country. That the Federal Police are being deployed apparently as a Liberal political asset is perhaps a threat to our democracy.

Turnbull’s alleged ‘Centrism’ is not the cause of the ‘political-near-death’ of the Federal Liberal Government. Turnbull had extensively compromised in order to keep the big ‘C’ Conservatives within the so-called ‘big house’ that is the Liberal Party.  He compromised on same sex marriage ; and on climate change and refugees.  He made billions in inhumane and profoundly regressive cuts in areas like Aged Care.  As opposed to the line being drummed up by Andrew Bolt and other arch-Conservatives : if anything it was sheer disappointment from the ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ demographic in the broader electorate that resulted in the hung parliament. 

Talk now of a ‘new Conservative movement’ – and hints from Bernadi of a ‘new Conservative Party’ illustrate a bitterness within the Liberal Party that goes back to the palace-coup against Abbott.  Regardless of this –any new Conservative movement will need to navigate the contradictions between Liberalism and Conservatism.  For self-espoused Christians heartless LNP policies on defunding an Aged Care sector already characterised by regressive user-pays mechanisms - need to be rejected utterly. Hence ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ have cause to oppose ‘Austrian School-style small government’ and its human consequences.  While small ‘l’ liberals have cause to fear regressive Conservative encroachments on civil and even industrial liberties.   Perhaps the Liberals could even learn from the example of the post-war (1950s) German Christian Democrats and their aim of 'a social market economy'.

By tearing themselves apart the various LNP Liberals and Conservatives may well prove themselves unready for government.  But would a Liberal Party freed from its right-wing once again embody the spirit, say, of Don Chipp; of the later Fraser ; or even the critical disposition embodied by internal critics such as former Liberal leader John Hewson?  Would it become a ‘small ‘l’ liberal party?  Could the Liberal ‘Wet’ faction re-emerge somehow from oblivion?  Or would the LNP  still adhere to ‘large ‘L’ economic Liberalism – leaving dominant narratives of austerity, privatisation and laissez faire untouched?   Turnbull’s capitulation to the ‘big ‘C’ Conservative’ right-wing of his Party during the campaign suggests the latter scenario is more likely.  As they do tend to embrace 'big 'L' economic Liberalism as opposed to 'small 'l' liberalism'.

 

There was talk under Turnbull of the Liberals ‘shifting to the Centre’.  But remember that the Centre is always relative ; and what matters most is the substance which prevails beneath the relative labels.  Moves amongst parts of Australia’s ‘liberal establishment’ (eg: in Fairfax) suggests all-too-ready a willingness to ‘settle’ with the Liberalism of Turnbull ; even when much of it proved to be compromised and hollow.

The real problem with the Turnbull campaign was its shallowness.  That is, the shallowness of mantras of ‘jobs and growth’, and the incredibility of the notion $50 billion in Company Tax cuts  (and even more over time) would ‘trickle-down’ to benefit everyone.  And this at the same time as the government proclaimed a ‘Budget Emergency’.  This was not small ‘l’ liberalism. It was the spirit of Reagan and Thatcher.

It wasn’t political and social liberalism that ‘did Turnbull in’ with a ‘near-political-death experience’.   It was laissez faire : with the LNP apparently having learned nothing from the overwhelming public rejection of the attempted hard-line Hockey Austerity Budget of 2014.


(Postscript: A friend in the Labor Party cautioned me that an open split in the Liberal Party could have bad ramifications long term. He argued that at least the LNP is not radically nationalist and openly accepting of racist Ideology. And who knows what might fill any vacuum? Though I still think LNP members need to reflect seriously upon two policy fronts : The incompatibility of heartless neo-liberalism and attacks upon the vulnerable with the 'compassionate conservatism' some Christians would like to profess ; and the infringements upon civil liberties arising from 'Big 'C' Conservatism' in this country. We need the Liberal Party (and hence the whole relative political milieu in Australia) transformed as a consequence of pressures on both these fronts.)

Our next post will consider the dilemmas facing Labor following the election outcome.