So as your correspondent may have suggested once or 50 times recently, Labor has crossed over — and some (well, many) of its supporters from the left are finding it hard to deal with. This is manifesting in a series of not particularly effective attacks on Labor’s determination to be a party of total capital, which work on the false presumption that there are left allies within Labor to join the attack. There’s more than a touch of melancholia to some of these encounters, the inability to end a mourning process and let a dead attachment go.
This may continue for some time. But it would be better if it could be got through quickly and a new strategy formed. That’s easier said than done. Labor is the only progressive party capable of government, and for a long time progressives’ relationship with it has had a mild sleight-of-hand quality: they get in on a mainstream platform, and our program, semi-acceptable to a larger group, comes in with it. Without Labor, the left is face to face with the fact that our program hasn’t busted through for decades, and that it has now retreated pretty much to the boundaries of the knowledge class.
The most obvious course is to join, or to more actively support, the Greens, or a smaller party to the left — although only the Victorian Socialists, in Victoria, offer an option that is not a fairly closed revolutionary party. The Greens remain the main game. But this is where many people long associated with Labor find certain things hard to contemplate — no matter how much one makes the point that the Greens are a social democratic party with a specific environmental concern, but otherwise with a policy framework firmly on the left and to the left of Labor.
So what’s the barrier for so many in making this final shift? Quite aside from accepting the changed status of a minority party, it’s a matter of cultural style. The Greens now present the knowledge class at its most concentrated, and it is not always a pretty or appealing sight. Any social class when concentrated in a party can present an unattractively rigid vision of humanity.
Not only is the knowledge class no exception to this, but its adoption of a social moralising role has turned it into a clerical class, with much recent focus on social legislation, behavioural control, etc. This is a difficult image to dispel, even when Claudia Perkins (Adam Bandt’s partner) circles the Midwinter Ball as a goddess, the member for Melbourne on her arm like a grinning, black-suited goblin who conjured her up from twigs, spells and belladonna.
The important thing that anyone contemplating the current political layout must consider is whether the usually more technocratic and censorious image of the Greens, open-necked white shirts and wooden earrings, is a necessary or contingent part of the party and the movement. After all, the Greens have been several different parties over their 50-year history and prelude, with various influxi. Initially, as the United Tasmania Group, and the Tasmanian and WA Greens, they were the political wings of environmental movements, understood as subordinated to activism. When a full national party was established, a section of the non-Labor left — the so-called “watermelons” — rushed in and gave the party its modern structure.
The third wave, from around 2005 or so on, has comprised politically active members of the rising knowledge class, with a stronger focus on social, cultural and identity issues — doing well from Julia Gillard’s repudiation of same-sex marriage, for example. There is now no reason for there not to be a conscious fourth wave, which brings new emphases, styles and approaches to the Greens.
What would a cohort of former Labor or Labor-identified people bring to the Greens? If they’re leaving because of Labor’s two-sided action on fossil fuels and emissions — as well as its refusal to lift benefit rates and its unwillingness (though this may change) to really start taxing corporations and the finance sector — then they, you, will bring an emphasis on the planetary emergency as one created by capitalism (among other forces), whose other expression is rising inequality and the steady decline of social services and infrastructure. Though most will be from the knowledge class, they will be from wider provinces of that large class.
Currently, the group that’s heavily represented in the Greens is what you might call the “cultural elite” section of the knowledge class. Representing no more than 10-12% of the population, it dominates the jobs that produce the culture people consume, or the state and corporate policy that shapes our lives. For such a group, the cultural issues around identity, speech, gender, sex, colonialism, etc, are not only non-negotiable — they’re also part of a whole that can’t be divided up.
The destructive attitude to nature leading us to trash the planet can’t be separated from an attempt to lay down the law on what human nature is, and so on. Truth be told, many of the “third wave” Greens, though they care about the climate emergency, were far more drawn by the sort of politics that occurs around cultural issues. We’ve reached the sad point where many of the brave activists slogging it out in the Tarkine or the ravaged central highlands of Victoria wouldn’t identify with the Greens at all.
The Greens need a fourth wave of people whose jobs are a little bit less at the centre of cultural self-fashioning, whose demands make it inevitable that they will be militant progressive identitarians. With the highway to the heart of Labor washed away, the only game, in terms of party politics, is to build towards six, eight, 10 lower house seats, and make it more or less impossible for Labor to govern without confidence and supply from outside.
The Labor conditions that made a three-seat gain possible in Brisbane (a fanatically pro-brown state Labor government) have now been generalised. Plugging planetary crisis together with inequality and decline, and pushing identity and other questions into third place — and with a more pluralist and open conception of party values — will be the only way in which the immensely difficult task of extending into more class-mixed seats will be won. There will then have to be a few internal stoushes to refight some recently lost battles around party values, platforms and democracy.
This is a long game, with a lot of weird things that could happen along the way. But Labor-identified leftists who still baulk at the step must ask themselves: will you feel, in five years’ time, that you were a fool for hanging on and believing that things might come good? And if so, why not make the move right away? It’s over baby, mourn it and move on, or it will become a stone in your heart that no magic can bring back to life.
Will you be joining the Greens? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Those rusted ons who call themselves left seem to be what is equivalent to an abusive relationship with Labor, they somehow can’t seem to get out. Nothing is going to change if you stick around, those who’ve cut the cord and/or those who subscribe to more left philosphies need help to move the dial. Labor has shown it won’t move to you!
I love this article. It’s well thought out and compelling BUT (and it’s a big but) the death of “left” Labor is a little premature. The 2019 agenda was quite progressive under Shorten and right now it’s a bunch of people who have adopted certain positions, won, wondered why they won and are surveying the landscape and wondering how to sell progressive agenda while keeping the votes of suburban centre right voters. As always. I’ll wait and see. At least until after first bloody budget.
And there’s nothing more “rusted on” then a member of the clerical class scolding other Australians
What cause for any hope when Labor seeks to remove stay at home isolation payments for those with no sick leave???
Brilliantly put.
I’m phoning the divorce lawyer in the morning.
Well put, Guy. I am one of those disillusioned voters.
I joined the Green’s campaign, for the recent election, hopeful of some positive Government “action”, for a change. My ideal outcome was a balance of power for the Greens / Independents in both houses, after 10 wasted LNP years.
I feel now utterly disillusioned by the gutless approach by Labor particularly with the financial issues facing us. Why do they allow hundreds of billions ripped from our country yearly for many decades, all OUR STUFF, for virtually no royalties, and we subsidise these multinational parasites to boot. Madelaine King’s rabbiting on about “sovereign risk” is laughable should Australia clamp down on this obscene colonial relic.
Newfoundland discovered substantial O&G reserves, within the last coupe of decades. They admired the Norwegian model, and required a 70% royalty payment on output profits. The O&G majors refused the deal, and departed. Shortly thereafter, they were back, agreeing to the required conditions. The profits are so enormous, despite the royalties, the deal could not be passed over, Effect of “sovereign risk” = none. We, in Australia, could do the same.
Labor have, in 100 days shown us where their priorities lie, with some good things, and some showing utterly gutless dodging of the hard decisions. It is easy to penalise the population, but the real fight lies at the door of the multinationals. I worked in the O&G industry most of my working life, from Asia to Norway. I know how they operate. They are ruthless in pursuit of profit. Should the Australian populace not benefit from their enormous profits??? A rhetorical question, obviously.
In short, corruption is not to be tolerated. Yet we’ve copped it all our lives, minus a couple of years in the 70s.
Oh, and Gillard, but you can’t really thank Labor for being held to account in minority government.
Softly, softly catchee monkey.
We need a party that’s an old-fashioned working class centered party, that cares about whether all of us have enough money to live on as its main value. Not sure where that is at the moment, between identity politics in the Greens, and five-house-owning Labor members in parliament
The problem with that idea is that there is no longer an ‘old fashioned working class’.
A combination of structural change in the economy destroying much of manufacturing and other unionised jobs and a shift to more aspirational views of themselves in the more affluent Australia of recent times means that very few people would see themselves as anything other than middle class.
The Greens programme is well to the left of Labor, and social democratic. The idpol stuff doesnt preclude it; can either be ignored or struggled against
+1 But you should note that it can’t really be ignored because it dominates every single meeting. Sometimes you have to tolerate the intolerant in the short term.
If anyone “let” the ALP legislate only 43%, Emma, it was VS just as much as AG.
I think there might be a bit of an argument about what constitutes ‘working class’ nowadays. If working class is determined by income, then there is a whole cohort of tradies who, in the old definitions, fit into upper middle class while a lot of people in admin, retail and the like would be working class. I’m not sure the old class system designations work anymore in a world where jobs and money are global.
Interestingly, when someone like Jacquie Lambie, who appears to be genuinely old fashioned working class, gets into power, the new style of left wingers hate her. They are fine as long as she, and others like her, toe their ideological lines, but if she says things they don’t like she is immediately written off. I think this is a very real challenge in the way that the supposed left presents and manages itself now. I have spent long enough working in organisations with supposed left wing ideals to know that they are full of s***, and I have nothing but contempt for them and the people who work for them. Nothing sours one quicker on the left as it presents now than watching a staff and boards of management refuse to employ people who come from the class of people to whom they provide services. Or indeed, having to listen to the oh so nice people from inner suburbs with their nice shiny left wing credentials earnestly explain to you why there should be no social housing built in their nice streets.
Lambie does good stuff and bad stuff, but let’s remember: she and Tyrell were elected on Lib prefs, and Lambie gave them stage 3 tax cuts. Now she’s talking down sector bargaining. Etc.
Re working class; yes, asset levels and wage levels make internal class divisions pretty wide….
Lambie gets criticised for siding with the Liberals against workers, the poor and unemployed. Which she does fairly regularly, even though she might talk a different game in public.
Greens rhetoric and policy would suggest that “caring about whether all of us have enough money to live on” is a fairly key agenda item.
If the median Australian voter was on the left, you’d be damn sure that the political parties would be aiming at that mark. Maybe we need a Make Left-wing Politics Populist Again movement where the power of social movements can take on real and significant social ills that affect a majority. Otherwise it’s just an academic exercise of conscience with little meaning and relevance to the people asked to vote on the issues
What about the idea that parties lead the voters, rather than following them?
That would require an engagement in politics that most Australians don’t have.
Doesn’t the very premise of the article above show that it’s the other way around?
I think you have that backwards.
Ca. 2/3 of the population just vote for their team. They are entirely lead by the party.
Fortunately this percentage is shrinking every election. Only a generation ago, it was more like 3/4.
People may “vote for their team” but that really doesn’t say much about how the political parties define what they believe in. The latter point is a stronger claim, and requires more evidence.
i.e. if we think Labor can make people believe in left wing causes by declaring themselves as supporters of left wing causes requires evidence. Why didn’t Labor do better in 2019 when they had somewhat progressive taxation policies? After all, they said we should believe in them.
I’m not saying that parties define what those people believe, I’m saying they’ll vote for their party even if their party’s policies and actions no longer align with their personal beliefs.
Because the alternative would be voting for The Other Side or, even worse, a Minor Party.
This is why they come up shocked/horrified/dismayed/disgusted when their party doesn’t act the way they thought it would.
Exhibit A would have to be the ABC’s Vote Compass, wherein Labor voters who inputted the things they “believed” in were told they should vote for the Greens, and started claiming VC was biased against Labor / for the Greens.
I’ve mentioned that a few times, is quite funny that the Laborstans blame the vote compass and not Labor for moving to the right.
We need mixed member electorates, then we’d have a lot more greens in parliament and Labor wouldn’t be scared to go back to that party for the worker
Some people will, sure, for the reason you gave. Fully agree with that. But I don’t think that’s what wins elections, nor keeps people happy with the party in question.
What percent of the public believed removal of franking credits was a “retiree tax”? What percent believed they would lose their utes and weekends etc etc?? Media promulgation of LNP disinformation was so OTT rife in 2019 that I began to read up on propaganda techniques in pursuit of solutions and spent election night praying that Labor could eek out a victory despite it.
Why do we assume, despite research on things like some voted for Kennedy as they liked his hair and the obvious and terrifying power of emotional manipulation – ‘The election was stolen!’ ‘He’s not trying to protect your health, he’s Dictator Dan!’ etc etc that choices are necessarily rational? As Guy has wisely said (paraphrase): ‘The right flourishes by convincing voters to vote against their own interests.’ If they genuinely understood policies would they do this???
Let’s aim for under 50% for Lib/Lab, <25% each.
I don’t want to be led.
Kel S. I think the 21 May election did sort of reinvigorate left politics, but diluted with a lot of ‘as long as I don’t suffer a detriment’. And Guy’s observation that Labor after 2019 adopted a view that social good can only be done by wooing capital (ie a capitulation in respect if the power of government) is, I think, right. Perhaps the ‘left’ needs to ‘rebrand’ (please excuse the hipster corporate language) as ‘social equity’ and more directly appeal to the humanism in most people, even executives of Woodside, BHP, the banks etc when they are at home. It may have been forgotten, but corporations, for all their corrupt influence, cannot vote.
The Labor party has tabled a simple straight forward Renewable Energy policy, (admittedly not well argued) – it requires Renewable Energy Sources all over Australia to be connected to an Australian Wide Grid,(possibly a Circular grid), on the premise that there will be either Wind or Solar or Tidal Hydro available 24/7, or very close to 24/7 with very small storage required.
Simple, Easy, – although with considerable cost . the which would be recouped by the enormous savings of using generators that don’t require fuel, the enormous employment and upskilling of the Oz workforce, – and providing a Purpose, – the opening up of huge areas of fertile soil that currently languish only because No Water.
What does the Green party, or a significant percentage in power positions do?
1/- no more windfarms on the tops of hills, or where there is any wilderness, despite that wind farms do not damage Wilderness except for the access roads, – a very small percentage, a position also held by Bob Katter..
2/- no solar panels in deserts, – it may change the balance in the desert, 3/- no Tidal Hydro in the ocean, – some unknown element may be adversely affected despite open research and discussion..- maybe it will cause the moon to collide with the earth, (which will happen anyway but on much immensely greater time scales).
Look at the Green policies, – free solar to the poor, use lots of Lithium batteries (that will only last 10 years before requiring replacement) etc. – not an interlocking well planned future but stop gap short term idiocies, – fine, subsidise the poor, – I am one, but not by giving them/us subsidised coal/gas derived power, – the main requirement for general change, to ensure the future of most of life on Earth is to change the Fuel of the electrical Generators, from Fossil to Renewable.
The ‘Humans need to be removed’ extremist wing of the Greens (but which refuses to lead by example..) would happily destroy the Earth ecosystem in the name of “Conservation”.
I do not believe that most people voting Green actually know that, although it is not hidden, but folk wanting to vote Green need to consider that extreme element of “Humans have to go” despite that it would take the animals and plants with.
Geoff, could you give some links to those Greens policies?
I agree, there is green opposition to putting wind turbines in particularly sensitive areas, without environmental assessment – eg Robbins Island – and to putting large-scale solar in areas where it is opposed by indigenous people. But that sure leaves plenty of space for wind and solar!!!
Detailed Greens policies on the topic are here:
Working Copy – 2030_Powering Past Coal & Gas (greens.org.au)
Spot on, Rundle.
It’s easy to break the Labor habit: some of us ‘fell in love’ with the party we wanted it to be rather than what it has become. Romance over. Next…!