Both establishment parties exit weaker, extremists and gatekeepers rule the day
The election result and its aftermath are not the only topics to talk about in the wash-up from this marathon campaign, which managed to be both boring and bizarre at the same time. The trigger for the election was the Australian Senate’s two-time rejection of government plans to recreate the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) – a body charged with policing (and curbing) militant trade-union behaviour. Incredibly, these plans, which were largely opposed by the electorate, were barely mentioned during the election campaign, even by the Liberal-National coalition government that championed them.
This speaks volumes about Turnbull’s campaign. Despite being the incumbent prime minister, he somehow always seemed to be campaigning like a challenger, half a step behind and unable to take the lead or set the agenda. It would be a mistake to think this was due to the inspiring vision set out by his Labor rival, Shorten. On the contrary, Labor’s campaign strategy amounted to little more than repeatedly claiming that national public-health body Medicare would be privatised under the current government – a claim Turnbull predictably denied.
That the campaign came down to a ‘yes, he will’, ‘no, he won’t’ slanging match is indicative of just how intellectually vacuous Australian parliamentary politics has become. When giving speeches on Saturday night, both leaders spouted the usual platitudes, neither offering any real vision for the future of Australia. Winning elections has become an end in itself, rather than a means to realise a particular political vision.
A toxic brand is an altogether more fundamentally existential problem. In the 1990s, the rise of the Greens, took Labor below 40 per cent on first preferences, but it held in the high 30s through the darkest days of the early 2000s and then the Gillard years.
The fact that it hasn’t managed to scrape back above 35 per cent in what is claimed to be a very favourable political environment should be extremely worrying to those in Labor who can think strategically.
Before moving to bury the other great myth that has emerged from this election, let me note the truly extraordinary success of Kevin Rudd in 2007. And which makes even more bizarre the decision of the party to dump him in 2010 over polls that showed him still a winner.
Of the five or so "kingmaker" MPs who are likely to make up the cross-bench in the Lower House, two are tipped to lean towards the ruling Coalition, two towards Labor, and the position of the fifth is unknown.
As voting continues this week, the precise makeup of the 150-member Lower House - which determines who forms government - remains uncertain. The ruling Coalition could yet win a slim majority but is expected to end up with fewer than 76 seats, which will leave it - or even Labor - scrambling for the support of the independents.
It is unlikely the parties will enter formal deals with the independents, who could agree to back the ruling party in no-confidence motions and crucial budget votes.
Nonetheless, the continuing confusion has led to speculation the Lower House may be unworkable and that another election may be required.
It’s pretty obvious that, while ONP’s vote surged on Saturday, support for right-wing populism never really went away. Fears of globalisation and social change continued to bubble just under the surface. Parties under Katter, Palmer and others reaped what Pauline had earlier sown in 1998. Now it’s Hanson’s turn to harvest.
But it’s critical to note that today – just as 20 years ago – only a (significant) minority of ONP supporters were motivated by race and immigration. Most were, and still are, mainly driven by economic dislocation and a sense of being passed by. So it’s little wonder one in 11 Queenslanders voted for Hanson in the Senate. Support for some ONP candidates in provincial Queensland approached a more daunting 20 per cent...
More worrying for ONP opponents is that Hanson in 2016 is a different operator from 1996. Hanson 2.0 has seen her initial wide-eyed naivety replaced by cynicism, aggression and media savvy – prison, media excoriation and nine election defeats tend to make one more resilient – all buttressed by a potentially bigger, better organised and better resourced party machine.
No comments:
Post a Comment