A crucial point is that, while there was always tension within the parties over the choice between adhering to ideological principle and seeking the middle ground, there was no doubt until the 1970s about where the two parties stood relative to each other and to the median. Labor was the party of initiative seeking a more equal society and a larger role for the state, while the conservative parties sought to slow down what seemed to be an inexorable move in this direction.
The rise and fall of neoliberalsm has changed this. First, Labor adopted (a slightly softer version) of neoliberalism and implemented much of the neoliberal program under Hawke and Keating. Then, the decline of neoliberalism following the GFC left both parties floundering, fighting mainly over culture war issues and different forms of identity politics. These processes have greatly eroded the hold of traditional party affiliations.
Note that this isn't true in the US where Republican self-identification has left Republicans whose personal views may be moderate on many issues incapable of breaking with Trump. Combined with FPP it's produced arguably the most toxic version of the two-party system ever seen.
JQ - all well & good but what are your thoughts on what TD is writting here & that is the subversion of parliament for betterment of parties & not the country's best interests. You will know about the history of the evolution of the duopoly, (whereas I being a non-expert has a very rudimentary understanding), & was it at some time a fair system or as TD writes here has it just been corrupted more recently?
'We don’t have to call for abolition, but it is important to recognise that simply allowing one of two parties to share almost total control of the federal parliament between them on an alternating basis, in perpetuity, is a recipe for corruption, increasing the likelihood that vested interests will be favoured over the will of the people. Which is exactly what is happening now, as is evidenced by shortcomings in everything from housing to mining policy, from aged care to unemployment benefits, policies that have a direct effect on the quality of life of the nation.'
In broad agreement with all this, even though I would say, in regard to welfare, that even Labor has always preferred to, as Marsh says (paraphrasing Frank Castle), "preserved principles of advanced liberalism, targeting individuals in categories of need, rather than in introducing universal benefits." Still, expansion of the welfare state was largely down to Labor and they have always been the party of innovation and progress. Also agree about the toxcity of the US system, and not just bc of the current state of the GOP. But worth noting that our system has always produced a much stricter form of party discipline than either the US or Britain which I don't think serves us well and is likely part of the reason party support is falling. And obviously, it undermines the chances of a functioning minority govt, as it is more or less designed to do.
Labor's strict party discipline was valuable in its day. First, when Labor was a third party and needed to be able to deliver a bloc vote on the tariff issue to whichever of Free Trade and Protection offered the best deal for workers. And, though with higher costs, holding the party to its core beliefs when leaders defected to the other side.
But now, party discipline means obeying the leader when they demand a vote against commitments spelt out in the party program. And the Liberals, who used to boast about not imposing party discipline, have gone the same way.
Maybe change is coming, but I’m pretty bloody certain that both L, LNP and most of the bought media is going to do whatever they can to limit the diminishing of their power. Can’t have the plebs deciding how the country will be run.
Must say it’s good reading about the history of the federal parliament and getting an “education” on the expectations of how the parliament would operate, Vs how the “ignorant” media keep bleating about a hung parliament. I can’t wait for it to happen.
'Minority government' is perhaps a more apt description than 'hung parliament'. It reflects the fact that the parliament still functions, it's just the 'government' (as determined by the duopoly system) cannot necessarily determine the fate of legislation - through the House of Representatives, at least - on its own.
Hi Mercurial, yes, the outcome of a hung parliament is a minority gov having support of the crossbench, but the media go with the “omg, a hung parliament, what will happen to gov?” drama.
I would love a minority gov where the gov of the day (be it L or LNP) can’t get legislation across with the connivance of the opp party, but have to have support of the crossbenchers. I guess that’s almost an impossibility to achieve.
Interesting analysis once again Tim. I'm dismayed but not surprised at how the media is bleating about the "dangers" and "chaos" of a hung parliament. As you've stated before they are a major part of the problem. If my memory is correct parliament functioned quite well... the dysfunction was within the parties. I hope the trend continues with the drift away from the 2 party system.
I don't think the underlying support for either major party--essentially a particular notion of a party of labour and a party of capital--can ever return, so it seems almost inevitable that support for those parties will continue to fray. Can they reinvent themselves into new sorts of mass parties? I really doubt it, and as I keep saying, even now, we have a floating third of the electorate that will likely never land with Labor or the Coalition. They won't always land with community independents, but they aren't going back. That's why I think it's important that we stop thinking in two-party terms and adjust to the idea of minority govt as just government,
We have become spectators; every so often we are allowed to cast our vote but that is about the extent of our participation. Joining a political party to get more influence is also not the answer - here too discussions are stage managed. But we are beginning to develop alternatives. If this article resonates with you then perhaps have a look at
"Australia Together" is Australia's first long term national community futures plan, being built for Australians by Australians. Read the Vision, Directions ..
Unless you have a massive party machine and can draw donations from people who want 'your sort of politics' you are pretty well stuffed. Money has completely corrupted US democracy and with first past the post, new ideas are excluded or allow the bad guys to get in. The so called 'Teals' had a benefactor to assist in the media costs while working hard on the ground.
The legacy media is losing power but not fast enough. They consider themselves to be players, not reporters. The bent money is now being poured into social media to spread lies, smears and fears, being the staple of right wing politics.
In the US without compulsory voting it is a big job getting people out to vote. In Australia the big job is cutting through to people who get their information from sound bites designed to inflame passions, not interest in alternative policies. I used to have an idea of forcing the media outlets to provide 'public service' free policy announcements from candidates as a condition of their licences instead of mindless ads pushing buttons and filling corporate media coffers but that time has been passed by new media.
A very timely piece given the very likely outcome of the forthcoming federal election.
I have long held the view that our modern politician is a professional politician whose loyalties are divided three ways, not just the two. I believe that a professional politician is loyal first of all to their own career, second to their party and, a distant third, to the people.
The arguments put forward by our parliamentarians that a 'hung parliament' is a bad thing is seriously wrong for all the reasons you describe. However, I particularly despise it because it implies that the voters got it wrong!
A crucial point is that, while there was always tension within the parties over the choice between adhering to ideological principle and seeking the middle ground, there was no doubt until the 1970s about where the two parties stood relative to each other and to the median. Labor was the party of initiative seeking a more equal society and a larger role for the state, while the conservative parties sought to slow down what seemed to be an inexorable move in this direction.
The rise and fall of neoliberalsm has changed this. First, Labor adopted (a slightly softer version) of neoliberalism and implemented much of the neoliberal program under Hawke and Keating. Then, the decline of neoliberalism following the GFC left both parties floundering, fighting mainly over culture war issues and different forms of identity politics. These processes have greatly eroded the hold of traditional party affiliations.
Note that this isn't true in the US where Republican self-identification has left Republicans whose personal views may be moderate on many issues incapable of breaking with Trump. Combined with FPP it's produced arguably the most toxic version of the two-party system ever seen.
JQ - all well & good but what are your thoughts on what TD is writting here & that is the subversion of parliament for betterment of parties & not the country's best interests. You will know about the history of the evolution of the duopoly, (whereas I being a non-expert has a very rudimentary understanding), & was it at some time a fair system or as TD writes here has it just been corrupted more recently?
'We don’t have to call for abolition, but it is important to recognise that simply allowing one of two parties to share almost total control of the federal parliament between them on an alternating basis, in perpetuity, is a recipe for corruption, increasing the likelihood that vested interests will be favoured over the will of the people. Which is exactly what is happening now, as is evidenced by shortcomings in everything from housing to mining policy, from aged care to unemployment benefits, policies that have a direct effect on the quality of life of the nation.'
In broad agreement with all this, even though I would say, in regard to welfare, that even Labor has always preferred to, as Marsh says (paraphrasing Frank Castle), "preserved principles of advanced liberalism, targeting individuals in categories of need, rather than in introducing universal benefits." Still, expansion of the welfare state was largely down to Labor and they have always been the party of innovation and progress. Also agree about the toxcity of the US system, and not just bc of the current state of the GOP. But worth noting that our system has always produced a much stricter form of party discipline than either the US or Britain which I don't think serves us well and is likely part of the reason party support is falling. And obviously, it undermines the chances of a functioning minority govt, as it is more or less designed to do.
Labor's strict party discipline was valuable in its day. First, when Labor was a third party and needed to be able to deliver a bloc vote on the tariff issue to whichever of Free Trade and Protection offered the best deal for workers. And, though with higher costs, holding the party to its core beliefs when leaders defected to the other side.
But now, party discipline means obeying the leader when they demand a vote against commitments spelt out in the party program. And the Liberals, who used to boast about not imposing party discipline, have gone the same way.
Maybe change is coming, but I’m pretty bloody certain that both L, LNP and most of the bought media is going to do whatever they can to limit the diminishing of their power. Can’t have the plebs deciding how the country will be run.
Must say it’s good reading about the history of the federal parliament and getting an “education” on the expectations of how the parliament would operate, Vs how the “ignorant” media keep bleating about a hung parliament. I can’t wait for it to happen.
You're right, I reckon, Dennis. The status quo will not go quietly.
'Minority government' is perhaps a more apt description than 'hung parliament'. It reflects the fact that the parliament still functions, it's just the 'government' (as determined by the duopoly system) cannot necessarily determine the fate of legislation - through the House of Representatives, at least - on its own.
Hi Mercurial, yes, the outcome of a hung parliament is a minority gov having support of the crossbench, but the media go with the “omg, a hung parliament, what will happen to gov?” drama.
I would love a minority gov where the gov of the day (be it L or LNP) can’t get legislation across with the connivance of the opp party, but have to have support of the crossbenchers. I guess that’s almost an impossibility to achieve.
Interesting analysis once again Tim. I'm dismayed but not surprised at how the media is bleating about the "dangers" and "chaos" of a hung parliament. As you've stated before they are a major part of the problem. If my memory is correct parliament functioned quite well... the dysfunction was within the parties. I hope the trend continues with the drift away from the 2 party system.
I don't think the underlying support for either major party--essentially a particular notion of a party of labour and a party of capital--can ever return, so it seems almost inevitable that support for those parties will continue to fray. Can they reinvent themselves into new sorts of mass parties? I really doubt it, and as I keep saying, even now, we have a floating third of the electorate that will likely never land with Labor or the Coalition. They won't always land with community independents, but they aren't going back. That's why I think it's important that we stop thinking in two-party terms and adjust to the idea of minority govt as just government,
brilliant, bravo. This is something to rally behind. Well written TD, perfect. Thank you
We have become spectators; every so often we are allowed to cast our vote but that is about the extent of our participation. Joining a political party to get more influence is also not the answer - here too discussions are stage managed. But we are beginning to develop alternatives. If this article resonates with you then perhaps have a look at
Australia Together
Australian Community Futures Planning
https://www.austcfp.com.au › australia-together
"Australia Together" is Australia's first long term national community futures plan, being built for Australians by Australians. Read the Vision, Directions ..
Yes, love that; we are nothing but spectators, how true lololol.
Funding campaigns and the media must change.
Unless you have a massive party machine and can draw donations from people who want 'your sort of politics' you are pretty well stuffed. Money has completely corrupted US democracy and with first past the post, new ideas are excluded or allow the bad guys to get in. The so called 'Teals' had a benefactor to assist in the media costs while working hard on the ground.
The legacy media is losing power but not fast enough. They consider themselves to be players, not reporters. The bent money is now being poured into social media to spread lies, smears and fears, being the staple of right wing politics.
In the US without compulsory voting it is a big job getting people out to vote. In Australia the big job is cutting through to people who get their information from sound bites designed to inflame passions, not interest in alternative policies. I used to have an idea of forcing the media outlets to provide 'public service' free policy announcements from candidates as a condition of their licences instead of mindless ads pushing buttons and filling corporate media coffers but that time has been passed by new media.
We wait with bated breath for the promised reforms. Will be an excellent test.
A very timely piece given the very likely outcome of the forthcoming federal election.
I have long held the view that our modern politician is a professional politician whose loyalties are divided three ways, not just the two. I believe that a professional politician is loyal first of all to their own career, second to their party and, a distant third, to the people.
The arguments put forward by our parliamentarians that a 'hung parliament' is a bad thing is seriously wrong for all the reasons you describe. However, I particularly despise it because it implies that the voters got it wrong!
Exactly, and how dare they say they won’t work with the crossbench!