It’s like Hayley’s Comet has come early. The once-in-every-75-year appearance of a periodic comet is an easy reference to rarity, and current ratings for the Albanese government’s economic management fit the bill. Anthony Albanese and his Treasurer Jim Chalmers have untied the Gordian knot that’s been a perennial problem for Labor in government and opposition.
Labor’s curse was present in the decades leading up to the last visit of Hayley’s Comet in 1986 and pretty well has been ever since.
Any poll reading demands caution but this week’s Resolve Political Monitor in the Nine papers does provide seldom-seen, eye-catching results.
On economic management, Labor had a nine-point lead (rated as a better performer by 37% of respondents, to 29% for the Liberals) and had a five-point advantage on managing the country’s finances. Performing best on jobs and wages — 45% to 22% for the Liberals — is expected, given Labor’s usual strength in this area.
However, the result that really demonstrates how Albanese and Chalmers are owning the economic debate is the indication of who is best placed to keep the cost of living low. On this metric, Labor has a formidable 12-point lead — one in three Australians say Labor is best on this front while just one in five give any credit to the Liberals. In a historic and contemporary context, these are remarkable numbers.
For the party long regarded as the best to manage the economy, the price is still being paid for the Morrison years — and the aftermath is steep. The failure of Peter Dutton to make any inroads on this front points to an untethered economic understanding and lack of competence seldom seen during the past half a century.
Dutton is not helped by Angus Taylor, who is the weakest Coalition economic spokesperson since Julie Bishop’s few months in the job more than a decade ago.
Labor’s superiority on all these numbers has increased in the months since the election — through a budget that warned of tough times ahead, sustained rhetoric from Dutton about broken promises in energy prices, and general gloomy national and global outlooks.
The probable reasons for these findings include the non-threatening, inclusive nature of the Albanese government — an ambition in which the prime minister takes pride — and the best-in-government communications skills of Chalmers.
The treasurer has shaken off any traces of the bad lessons all politicians learn when told to stick to the talking points. He explains things in relatable and easy to comprehend ways, he has a natural authenticity and can easily show empathy. He’s also one of the smartest custodians of the Treasury portfolio in our nation’s history.
Anyone who’s spent time with Chalmers knows of his broad and eclectic reading interests — and not just contemporary political and economic theory and practice. The summer before the last election he took in Mark Braude’s The Invisible Emperor: Napoleon on Elba, a thriller and physiological exploration of one of history’s best-known characters.
Chalmers’s “big brain” approach to politics and government will be closely examined when The Monthly publishes his 6000-word essay next week. The ambitious essay covers how Australia might recover and reemerge from the rolling crises of the 2020 pandemic and its economic and health fallouts.
These are the big themes: a series of global crises — the GFC, the pandemic and the current energy and inflation shocks — leave us more vulnerable to uncertainty and upheaval.
Discussing these ideas with Crikey as he moved between Australia Day events on Thursday, Chalmers highlighted the policy and leadership vacuum of the past 10 years, which he reckons don’t just threaten to leave people behind but place democracy itself in danger.
While he’s working on the first proper Albanese government budget, due in May, Chalmers has three overarching priorities: energy and climate, technological change and opportunity, and how we reform and improve the caring economy.
He sees all of these as central to one of his many policy passions: the future of work. Chalmers wants to find out where the jobs are going to be and what they will look like.
Just as financial deregulation was central to the reform agenda when Hayley’s Comet was last in the sky, energy and industry policy are the foundation of much of what’s required today. Chalmers says Australia needs “a blueprint for building prosperity in the post-pandemic era” by better aligning our values with our economy.
“This can be achieved through getting the clean energy transition right, making smarter investments in skills and training, recognising the centrality of well-being to our economic success, and restoring and renovating our democratic and economic institutions,” he told Crikey.
Along these rivers of policy and innovation flow the possibility of job opportunities, the health and well-being behind a reimagined care economy, and the opportunities of technological change.
In Chalmers’ thinking, all this can fit into a story about the other lesson from the most recent set of crises: supply chains.
Throughout the economy and reaching overseas, there are massive unmet needs exposed by the lack of raw materials and value-added goods during the first months of the pandemic.
Chalmers thinks that with enough imagination, cooperation between public and private sectors and reshaping and reforming markets to make them work for people, tomorrow’s challenges can be met.
Of course, there will be some massive demands — money for new programs in service portfolios like health and housing as well as the bill for what’s likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime shopping list for defence.
Labor strength in economic management and competence has been hard to achieve, manifesting itself rarely. However, on the hierarchy-of-needs scale, these are what the community wants before permission is granted to smell any other policy roses.
Holding on to the mantle of best economic manager is done through constant care and consideration. Given the myriad crises abroad in 2023 — dubbed a poly-crisis by economist and historian Adam Tooze in his newsletter Chartbook — the degree of difficulty in the year ahead couldn’t be steeper.
If Chalmers and his colleagues can maintain community support for economic and financial management through this year they should be well pleased — and possibly thinking of an early-ish election.
“The government may have overcome a problem that has plagued Labor for decades: not being recognised as the party of better economic management.”
Only because the economic illiterates, the LNP have said so and the Media has almost always sycophanticly parroted them. after all its easier to do that than your own research.
Then this ‘to keep the cost of living low’ wedge constantly spruiked by media with think tank input and used to keep government on a path of cutting costs, budgets and taxes according to Anglosphere Zeitgeist, especially Oz, UK and US.
However, it also suggests that Australians have been conditioned to know the price and cost of everything, but the value of nothing?
the weakest Coalition economic spokesperson since Julie Bishop... Are you forgetting Barnaby Joyce?
On a more serious note, the item in the Age about PWC pointed to massive corporate tax avoidance. If this money could be recouped, it could be of help.
Hit the dishonorable SoBs with Insider Trading penalties.
Canning the stage 3 tax cuts would help even more.
It would. But this government will never do it. Albanese and Chalmers have spent years saying they would die in a ditch to defend the stage three cuts. They’ve dug themselves into a hole they will never escape.
So large a hole that the rest of us are also stuck in it.
“Whoever one votes for, government always wins. If it could change anything, voting would be illegal”.
As a national Barnaby J was never the opposition economic spokesman!
As Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction from 8.12.2009 to 25.3.2010 has mixed billions & millions and set running the lame hares of ”sovereign debt failure”.
Oppositon finance spokesman Barnaby Joyce has been contradicted by shadow treasurer Joe Hockey and denounced by the government for claiming Australia is getting to a point where it can’t repay its debt. Feb 10,2010
Halley’s comet, Not Hayley’s.
Dennis has always worried me… now it’s confirmed (!)
PS to Dennis the Menace – once every 76 years (not 75) and correctly it is “Comet Halley”
It’s so lame when cliches or catchphrases are used to try to demonstrate erudition without the slightest understanding of their meaning nor origin.
Charmless is so bound by the dogwood bark of neolib nutbaggery that he could/would/dare not think beyond its noxious nostrums.
He is no Alexander who, BTW, didn’t ‘untie the Gordian Knot‘ – he slashed it with his sword, no stickler for convention nor propriety he.
The ox-cart that is our 3rd World economy continues to rumble along the deep ruts worn into the One True Path of exploitative rapacity so beloved by the BigAr$ed end of town.
Top second para, Outis, can I nick it? The Chalmers that Atkins perceives is in some kind of parallel universe to the skittish neoliberal virtue-signaller that I see. Whose every move seems to enrich the rich and impoverish the environment.
Here’s another “metric” where Jim’s miles ahead. He’s already bid immigration up to 300,000, 67% ahead of the astronomical 180,000 that Josh was already pegged on.
Thanks, feel free. (I thought that the Alexander allusions might be too arcane.)
Charmless’ BigAustralia™® B/S at the behest of the BCA should be the death knell for any latte luvvies who persist, in the face of abundant evidence‘\_(°~°)_/`, that ‘Labor’ is worth a pinch of the proverbial.
Perhaps the only thing the LNP did well and they only partly did it deliberately was cut immigration. We’re not ready we haven’t worked out how to live minimising waste yet and business has to pay to train people if they don’t want taxes that incorporate free education.
off thread ,sorry.
Good to see credit going to where credit is due.
Good to hear, and well deserved; the long-term economic incompetence (and corruption) of the Coalition would be difficult to overstate, so Labor did not have to clear a very high bar to out-perform it, but it’s good that the public has noticed at last. After several decades.
But what does this suggest for the Stage Three tax cuts? The economic case against only gets more glaringly obvious. Greg Jericho’s article in The Guardian, 12th Jan, ‘A new ‘build your own budget’ tool reveals just how bad the stage-three tax cuts are’ is a fine example. But it’s obvious that Labor is politically cautious. Very cautious. So it seems likely that Albanese and Chalmers will see the public support they have now, be very pleased, and choose not to rock the boat when things are going well by breaking their promise to implement the cuts. If the public likes what Labor is doing now, best to carry on doing it, they will be thinking. Ironically, if the public took the opposite view and was unhappy with Labor’s direction, that too would be used to argue against changing position, because if things were goping badly Labor cannot take any risk of making it worse with broken promises. I do not see any way Labor will halt the Stage Three tax cuts, no matter how bad they are for the economy: the political argument will win every time.
Was it a promise? Might it help if we started referring to “reluctantly supported a policy” instead of “made a promise”?
More than a promise, if anything. Labor voted for the tax cuts (showing direct support, rather than abstaining, which could be called ‘relucant support’), Labor formally re-affirmed its support for the cuts during the last election, which makes it an election promise equal to any other made by Labor, and Labor has several times repeated that support. Labor has dug the hole it is in and it is still digging.
I seem to remember Labor voting for the tax cuts while clearly expressing reluctance. (Because, of course, they were inseparably linked to measures which Labor wanted passed. Scomo being what Scomo was).
Yes, you’re right in that it has become what’s known as an “election promise”, but has the word “promise” ever been used by Labor?
The Coalition has often accused Labor of only providing reluctant support. Labor always denies it. Whether it should be called a promise or a commitment looks like hair-splitting. Albanese was crystal clear before the election that Labor would make no changes to the cuts. Chalmers said then this would create “certainty and stability” around tax arrangements and he has reaffirmed that position this year.
If it’s reluctant support, then it is in the same category as the reluctant support Kevin Rudd’s Labor gave to the ghastly and destructive Northern Territory intervention by Howard’s government before 2007 election. Once Rudd had the election out of the way and took power, his government continued and expanded the intervention for years, doing far more damage than Howard had managed in its initial stages.
You don’t recall Rudd running smack bang into the GFC?
And you don’t recall that Australia was one of the very few First World Nations that was barely touched by it.
What is the link between the GFC and the Northern Territory intervention? Do tell.
They litterally keep saying those exact words ‘they will not break an election promise” with regards to the tax cuts. They keep promising this over and over again.
Yes- it is a fiction that it was ever an ALP ‘promise’. Sinking S R has a real problem with this- of course a clever, agile Govt needs to do what is required, not be so scared of the Murdoch/LNP lies and BS!!
Is a promise made under duress not able to be broken??
Or “when the circumstances change ……..
To quote an Economist who still runs rings around the modern mob.
What duress? Ha ha ha. This is absurd. Labor was entirely free to choose its position. It was not under any duress at all. It simply calculated its short-term political advantage. And that is why it will stick with the cuts. It will continue to calculate its short-term political advantage.
‘…the public support they have now‘ probably includes support for scrapping stage 3, and no doubt Labor is doing a lot of private polling to determine the level of support and how it’s changing, if at all. I agree that they’re cautious, too cautious most of the time, but it may be that the cautious approach here will be the one that is fiscally cautious. ‘Where is the money coming from?’ has long been one of the simple catch-cries of the LNP and their media sycophants, giving simple colloquial expression to the idea of their alleged superiority in ‘managing money’. I think there is a very strong chance that the stage 3 cuts will be abandoned or heavily modified when Labor actually have to ask themselves that same question – Modern Monetary Theory notwithstanding.
Could be so. I’d be much happier if I could believe, as you seem to, that Labor sees this as an economic question. According to the Australia Institute:
But what does any of that matter compared to saving Albanese and Chalmers the embarrassment and the political cost of not doing what they have said, over and over again, they will do? They have made every effort to weld shut every escape hatch. In federal politics no dollar price can ever be too high when it comes to saving face.
Your scenario would not be at all surprising if it materialised. But the question is always complex for Labor as they’re going to be damned either way. However, Murdoch’s influence is waning; the economic criticism from slightly more responsible media will likely outweigh the almost irrelevant finger-pointing of the Libs. Being seen as economically irresponsible, and favouring the high income set, is also a political cost for Labor to contemplate.
The only reason to change direction is the dismay that you aptly describe. Who owns the narrative the Neoliberal media owners [and Labor may just be economic rationalists too] or the politicians and the public.