Voters at the 2019 federal election were essentially left with a choice between conservative obstinance or centrist obstinance. In times of severe uncertainty, reluctant voters will elect what they’re used to. And, between 1996 and 2022, Australia will have lived through 20 years of conservative Coalition government shared between the Liberal and National parties.
The success of the Coalition
Since 1996, the ALP has only won one election outright. Yes, this is partly because of a global tendency towards a more hostile form of conservatism, but the Liberal Party has also historically benefited from something that Labor has long refused to consider: a coalition.
In fact, the Liberal Party has never formed government on its own. The Liberal Party’s predecessor — the United Australia Party — governed in its own right between 1931 and 1934, before establishing a coalition with the Country Party (later known as the National Party). The UAP was reformed into the modern incarnation of the Liberal Party by UAP leader Robert Menzies in 1945, and the Coalition has remained ever since.
Why form a coalition? The Coalition, as we know it today, was arranged as a way of ensuring government in the event of a hung parliament. The arrangement was first wielded at the 1946 federal election, at which the Coalition only narrowly lost to Labor. Off the back of this overall positive result for the newly formed arrangement, Menzies confidently took the Coalition to the 1949 election and won.
The Liberal Party so much favours a coalition approach that when John Howard won the 1996 election outright for the Liberal Party, they chose to continue as a coalition.
Is this an option for Labor?
Labor has won government plenty of times, but a lot has changed since it last won a majority in 2007. Once upon a time, the ALP was inseparable from the improvement of workers’ rights. Today, the ALP is the party of focus groups and opinion polls.
Labor has drifted to the centre. It has developed a wishy-washy view of raising Newstart, taken insufficient action on addressing impoverished funding for public schools, and ignored best advice on developing a Green New Deal that includes a jobs guarantee in order to transition to renewables in a way that is fair to workers’ job security. Meanwhile, poor and working-class Australians face a gamut of threats.
Labor has alienated large sections of its base, and this has cultivated a meadow of right-wing micro-parties (One Nation, Clive Palmer’s conspicuously named UAP, and Cory Bernardi’s Australian Conservatives) whose preferences create a daisy chain right back to the Coalition.
Much like the Greens and the Nationals, it is entirely possible Labor will never again form government outright. Between 2007 and 2019, the Labor and Liberal primary voter bases have largely flat-lined or declined.
|
Primary votes |
2019 |
2016 |
2013 |
2010 |
2007 |
|
Labor |
4,254,541 |
4,702,296 |
4,311,365 |
4,711,363 |
5,285,882 |
|
Liberal |
3,548,567 |
3,882,905 |
4,134,865 |
3,777,383 |
4,506,236 |
This raises the question: should Labor fight fire with fire and form a coalition? Based on raw primary numbers, it is certainly an idea worthy of serious consideration.
Forming a coalition is not a sign of failure. In Aotearoa (New Zealand) neither of the two major parties has won an outright majority after proportional representation was introduced in 1996. Interestingly, both the major parties in Aotearoa have since formed coalitions and governed at different times. The configuration of the coalitions on both sides of NZ politics is not historically static. The centrist New Zealand First Party has formed governing coalitions with both major parties at different elections.
At the 2017 federal election, a three-way coalition was formed between the Greens, New Zealand First, and Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party. This alliance has been able to introduce significant reforms — like abolishing New Zealand’s equivalent of NAPLAN, and laying the groundwork for a complete overhaul of the welfare system.
Who to choose…
The obvious starting place would be a working alliance with the Australian Greens — a party formed by dissident Labor members in the 1980s. This could potentially create a left bloc that annexes the balance of power held by Centre Alliance, and draws power away from far-right parties like One Nation and Australian Conservatives.
A coalition with the Greens would be a much more pragmatic and effective way of distributing resources and maximising reach. It also brings more voices to the table and prevents a party’s policies becoming too insular — something the ALP desperately needs if it wants to reinvigorate the progressive vote as opposed to rusting itself onto the centre.
The Greens and Labor did have a formal alliance between 2010 and 2013 in the Gillard minority government. However, the alliance was ended by the Greens when the ALP failed to take action on taxing multinational mining companies.
Now, as the Coalition government names its new ministry, the Labor Party has continued looking inward for direction and picking fights with the Greens on the internet.
The Australian Greens are not perfect by any means, but the ALP could learn something from the grassroots community that has informed Greens policy: raise Newstart, abolish the robodebt scheme, and defund private and independent schools in order to return billions of dollars of funding to resources-poor public education. Not to mention the raft of ideas that the two parties agree on.
If the ALP is serious about ever being in government again, it needs to look at a coalition as a serious possibility. Labor should know better than anyone that there is power in a union.
If Labor and Greens were a coalition, it would take Labor from 67 seats to 68. Not enough to form government. Surely The Greens should be expected to get 5+ seats before anyone else is expected to consider a formal coalition with them?
Ben – who knows how many extra seats Labor and the Greens may have got if they had worked together, instead of against each other?
Great article Dan – your work, plus the Guardian article today about conservative parties around the world becoming zombies bereft of decent ideas to keep their neoliberalism alive, makes a compelling case for a progressive coalition.
How many seats did the Libs or Nats win due to a split Labor/Green vote? If there aren’t any or many, then there’s no upside for Labor.
If The Greens were able to take seats from the Libs or Nats, rather than a single previously ‘safe Labor’ seat, then a coalition would make sense for Labor, but The Greens haven’t shown the ability to do that yet.
Ben, if Labor had supported the Greens in seats like Kooyong and Higgins, then the Greens could well have won the seats. Similarly, if the Greens had supported Labor in seats like Macnamara, Wills and Cooper, then Labor would have more flexibility and resources to target more important seats like those in Queensland.
Exactly and you can add Boothby to that list. Point is, in the broad sense, Labor and the Greens are more natural allies than enemies and together they should reflect on their common long term goals including the best way to achieve them. Albo, please make an appointment with Dr. Natale for a good long lunch, you both have so much in common.
At present the ALP is having enough trouble keeping to its stated policy on the ratios and roles of women. Working with the Greens would be quite beyond the mediocre men busily keeping themselves in the power positions.
Many women, including me, are sick of this gender balance obsession. I will go for the right person for the job, every time, regardless of gender.
Nonsense. Aligning with the Greens is political suicide when they have to attract the voters who swing between ALP and the Liberals in order to win government.
Yes Phen…the Greens are NOT the solution for Labor…they are the problem!
No matter how much I would like it to be different, the voters of this country are, at best, centre to centre-right…in the majority of cases.
We have just seen the perfect example of this in the 2019 election, where Labor’s economic and climate change policies were absolutely correct FOR THE COUNTRY, but fiercely rejected by voters from the centre and centre-right because they don’t like change…particularly if it affects them as individuals…so those most in need for whatever reason can piss-off! Charming people!!
Spot on! Left leaning politics must work together if this country if going too achieve the changes it desires.
The marginal SA electorate of Boothby is a perfect example. There were 4 candidates that leaned strongly right. The sitting member Michelle Flint (Liberal or better described, Conservative) 48,023 1st preference votes, United Australia 1,955 votes, Fraser Anning 801 votes, Rise Up Australia 568 votes. A TOTAL OF 51,347 1st PREFERENCE VOTES.
On the Left we had Labor 36,570 votes, The Greens, 12,145 votes, Animal Justice (who urged Flint be thrown out) 2,467 votes, Trevor Jones an Independent with an obviously left leaning cause 2,679 votes. A TOTAL OF
53, 861 VOTES. Overall there was a strong left wing swing and yet a right wing candidate now holds the seat. I’m sure everyone of those who voted for left candidates are now bewildered. If ever there was a case for a Labor strategist to study a seat and determine what happened, it’s Boothby. The people wanted left and they got right, with an increased majority. A quirk in Australian democracy.
You might start with the reality that around 20 per cent of Greens voters routinely preference the Liberals above Labor.
And, in the example cited, not all the voters for right wing minor parties would have preferenced Liberal over Labor. The figures will be on the AEC web site soon enough. Nothing mysterious here, no royal commission required.
I’m not suggesting anything mysterious is happening. It’s obvious there is a leakage of Green votes to the Liberals. What both leftist parties need to do is find an the answer to the question why? I’m quite sure Labor doesn’t receive 20% of National votes. The end-game is winning power so you can achieve, or even partly achieve, ambitions. That won’t happen if labor and Green keep sniping at each other and pursue small, narrow minded objectives. A single independent candidate has more hope of achieving goals than Labor and Greens if they don’t respect each other and work sensibly together. That doesn’t mean a coalition, it just means close cooperation in achieving the broader long term cause. Labor and the Greens have so many ideals in common but what’s the point if they don’t work together.
Your point about a Royal Commission is just dumb! No wonder we have a right wing, conservative government in power.
If the Royal Commission throwaway line offended, my apology, but I can’t see the connection with having a right wing government in power.
For the record, when there are three-cornered contests (very few these days), Labor DOES get about twenty per cent of National preferences, but only ten per cent of Liberal preferences in said contests- not that it ever changes the result. This is especially the case in states like WA and Victoria where there is historical anti-Liberal antipathy from the old Country Party.
It also pertinent that in the Higgins by-election when Costello left parliament and Labor did not run a candidate, it was very clear that not all Labor voters shifted their vote to the Greens. It just cannot be assumed that all Labor voters will be onside for a Labor/Greens coalition.
In the interests of peaceful coexistence, Andrew, I attach an article elaborating on some of the points in my response.
https://insidestory.org.au/is-the-enemy-of-my-friend-always-my-enemy/
Durack and Forrest are so safe for Liberal, disenchanted voters know their protest 2nd preference vote, or any other preference vote for that matter, will have no consequence on the outcome. Pearce is less safe but I don’t think its ever been anything but Liberal. On there other hand Boothby has been winnable for a few elections. It’s in Divisions like Boothby that Labor and the Greens have to be a lot smarter if they’re ever going to go to Canberra as more than vociferous observers.
OK, then it will be interesting to see the breakdown of preferences in Boothby when the AEC releases full details, look forward to re-engaging on it.
I having to say that living in Melbourne, I have friends on both sides of the ALP/Green divide, and each side would regard the conservatives as the ideological enemy but the ALP or Greens as the organisational enemy. Probably much work to be done.
Some Green voters preference Liberal because they want to send a message to the Liberals to do something coherent about environmental issues. They won’t trust Labour or the Greens not to bring the house down around their ears.
Well that’s naivety in the extreme and a waste of a vote. Conservatives have one goal, to rule and protect the status quo.
Dan, I think you are dreaming. The ALP would surely occupy a more right wing position if it ever managed to form a coalition with the Greens and I can’t see any government taking $s away from private and independent schools in the foreseeable future.
Kel, the topic has been hammered to death but the private school funding matter is less about preference than about “reality”. Let’s assume (i.e. a hought experiment) that an edict was issued to the effect that all private schools would be be shut down from Dec 20 2019.
Could the government cope with the resettlement of students from Feb 2020 – and the answer is “not a hope”. At the very least the infrastructure of the existing private schools would have to be utilised.
Now, we’re back at square one : where the government is obliged to offer free schooling to the end of secondary in any event. Where the government “subsidises” a private school or provides funds to a State school for the student” is merely a bookkeeping entry.
As to the reason for private schools appearing from the early 19th century such is another topic.
It’s not “merely” bookkeeping.
Even if the bottom line is the same, there are issues of fairness and social cohesion.
.mmm, with all due respect I wonder if you are aware of the origin of private schools in Australia (from circa the 1830s); for that matter elsewhere (British Empire and beyond) in the world
As I conveyed, the matter amounts to another topic but if you are interested take a look (by way of an example) of the essays of Archbishop Mannix written in the 1920s (and subsequently) and who did know something about ethnic minorities.
As to “fairness” : good luck in a society with even a trace of capitalist practice. As to cohesion : just look through the window. Glance across any newspaper tomorrow to ascertain the degree of social cohesion in YOUR community.
If the bookkeeping equates then such is the most we can anticipate. The remainder is idealistic sentimental drivel.
Countries with virtually no private schooling, like the Scandinavians, seem to do better on those measures.
You probably mean the Finish Education. Finland is an EU country but not, strictly, an Scandinavian country. I have a friend who has secured a scholarship at one of the universities in Finland to undertake a MA in Education. Not bad for a Chinese national.
As part of the entrance requirements she was obliged to write a good deal on the Finish system by compare and contrast. Mandarin has no articles (but it does have reference and “measure words” to signify flatness, size, ownership and quantity) or tense as the Germanic and Romantic languages express tense.
To this end I was prevailed upon to offer assistance with grammar by way of proofing which is a life-long problem for Asians; similarly abysmal for native English speakers under 50 come to that.
Suffice to observe that it isn’t as you presume and the matriculation standard for Scandinavia, in particular, (less so in Finland) varies a great deal. Its a topic in itself.
Back to the real world, Scandinavia (including Finland) has its own problems with a distinct lean to the Right over the last 15 years.
Having made that point the Scandinavian tax system is much more equitable but I anticipate Australia adopting their tax code well prior to their education system and that will NOT be any time soon.
As an aside, it was pointed out to Hawke that the kibbutz system fell over over matters of “difference” . Begin explained the failure of the system. Ego got in the way of collectivism in regard to education and educating children.
Kyle, are you aware the British system has no resemblance to the Australian system. Around 5-7% of prior tertiary students attend private schools. In Australia the figure is in the mid 30s. My very English wife couldn’t believe how different and inequitable the Australian system is. She went to an English Grammar school. In England Grammar schools are not private.
My reply to Andrew Malzard of 30May19 10:45 am
> are you aware the British system has no resemblance to the Australian system.
Having taught A-Level (CIE & Edexce/Pearson) STEM-type subjects along with some Economics and History in the PRC for quite some time, [including HoD Maths] I believe I can clam some familiarity with the Brirish (English and Scottish) systems. As an aside I’d rate the matriculation systems as : Irish, Scottish and English in that order.
Forty odd years ago universities (i.e. the real ones in Oz & NZ) were replete with those who had attended private schools but only 5% of those who commenced high school proceeded to university. Interesting to note that the the private schools also had the highest rate of drop-outs to BHP, AMP, the banks etc.
Now, one does need a (watered-down) BCom. The main reason for the high drop out rate was the absence of discipline. Within a disciplined environment the private school brigade was fine.
> My very English wife couldn’t believe how different and inequitable
> the Australian system is.
.mmm, don’t get me started on the Oz/NZ high school system (unless you can arrange for 5,000 words with Crikey). Its being more Americanized every year. NAPLAN is now a farce (and has been so for upwards of a decade or more).
> In England Grammar schools are not private.
Quite. Frankly, the 11+ had some real value and I think there ought to be an exam at the end of yr9 and another at the end of Yr10. THEN, and only then, could one proceed to Yrs 11 & 12. The universities would have fewer students but there would not be the whining as to standards.
The aside that I expressed, originally, pertained to Shirley Williams and her campaign to destroy the Grammar school as such.
I attended an Anglican private school from 1958-1966 and there was no govt funding then, came with Whitlam feeling sorry for Catholics I think.
No, it started in 1964, quite a long time before Whitlam:
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/CIB9697/97cib2