Labor postmortems

Labor’s post-election debriefing has been entertaining.

As usual the silliest contribution has come from Barry O Jones. Oh, I know he was a quiz champion, and has written well received books, but, really, as a political thinker the man is an idiot.

Who else but Barry would think that, having just lost an election to a more conservative opponent, the solution is to swing further away from the centre.

Doug Cameron for one. Doug thinks the ALP needs to stick close to the unions to preserve it’s ‘brand’, and, coincidentally, to give Doug some much needed relevance.

As I understand this theory, it is that if the voters are offered a choice between an open economy, free trade Labor party and a Liberal party offering the same, they will go for the real conservatives, ie the libs. Hence, the smart move for Labor is to differentiate themselves from the Libs , and create a strong Labor brand by adopting public positions at odds with middle ground policies.

This is, of course, nonsense. It is nothing more than an invitation to shore up a stranglehold on minority support. In terms of ‘brand’ it is like Coke being happy with, say, thirty per cent of the drinks market. Fine for Coke, who would be happy with that, not much use if you need fifty per cent of the market to be successful.

It is also at odds with recent history. Hawke and Keating both won elections as the leaders of an open economy, free trade, de-regulating Labor party of the consumer.

In all fairness, Hawkee won the first one by being Hawkee, and by not being Fraser or Whitlam. You may recall that the punters had been cured of Whitlamism by exposure to the Whitlam governments, and had never really liked Malcolm either, voting for him only becaue he wasn't Whitlam.

Hawkee,the punters loved, as he loved them;; though not quite as much as he shared their love of Hawkee.

And really, Keating only lost when he abandoned his emphasis on the importance of running a good economy and ongoing economic reform, and embraced the politics of the warm inner glow.

Labor’s challenge now is to convince people who have voted for Howard that they should change their minds and vote Labor next time. Sadly for Labor, there are more of them than last time, and many of them have now voted for Howard four times.

Telling them they are morons for having done so is unlikely to persuade them to change their future vote.

No, the answer is to do what Gough did between 1969 and 1972. Gough developed polices which addresses the needs of those voters who generally decide elections in Australia.

And who are they?

Well, they’ve been called Menzies forgotten people, Gough’s swinging voters, and Howard’s battlers.

They live in outer urban suburbs of our big cities, in regional centres, and up and down our coastal strips. They are small business people, they are lower level public servants, blue collar workers, independent contractors, and domestic demons, like me.

They are generally good people, hard working, tolerant, good natured, generous, happy to help out in times of need but protective of their own. They are ‘old Australians’, migrants, Asians, Euros and Skips, Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Buddhist and Muslim. They are generally not political activists, and are not often part of the political debate.

The biggest problem Labour has is they have no dialogue with these people. Indeed Labor apparatchiks despise them. If you have spent any time at all with Labor insiders you will have observed the sneers.

An example of the disconnect; every Labor adviser I speak to quotes economists to prove that the present unfair dismissal laws have no effect on the employment of additional staff by small business. Every small business proprietor I speak to disagrees. The Labor people can't be convinced, but hey, who would you believe?

Let's remember, Gough took on those in the party who favoured the politics of class and envy and division, and insisted on state aid for independent schools. He proposed that the federal government step in and fund the sewering of outer suburbs, as state and local government had failed to do so. He favoured opening opportunities for all, not just for those dedicated as outsiders. He fought hard to make the party a party of broad appeal. He and Mick Young made it electable after years in the wilderness.

Hawke and Keating did the same. They supported consumers ahead of entrenched interests, be they business or unions, and we are still reaping the benefits.

Oh, and anyone who doubts the benefits of banking de-regulation or the privatisation of Telstra has a memory problem. Obviously they can’t recall the pre-bankloan interview, or waiting weeks for Telecom to install a phone.

Hawke was strong on national security, and a vigorous supporter of the US alliance. He stood up to the party and backed George H Bush in Gulf War 1. He was a strong and unequivocal supporter of Israel.

You see, even recent history supplies us with the lessons which can take us out of the wilderness.