Labor are no longer a progressive alternative

I am a realist about the fact that the party I most often vote for is one that never has to balance a budget, deliver on its promises, manage the administration of government or compromise on its ideals: as Gough Whitlam once said ‘certainly, the impotent are pure.’ And so, despite Labor being bitterly disappointing on issues such as offshore detention, them being the least worst option of our two major parties means I have always willed them on to win, the same way I barrack for Hawthorn when they play Collingwood. After their capitulation on tax policies that have significant implications for equality in Australia, though, Labor’s total lack of will or ability to advocate an alternative vision means that conservatism has won the next election even if the Coalition loses. The relentlessly negative campaigning and denigration of our political discourse by Abbott and Morrison has proven so effective that Labor has lost the nerve to make the case for meaningful policy reform, and have become beholden to their desire for popularity above all else. 

Look, I get it. It might be the right strategy for Labor to make themselves a small target at the next election after their attempt to sell a kind of New Deal was destroyed by a brutal fear campaign (though obviously having an uncharismatic leader with some skeletons in the closet also didn’t help). It’s unlikely any Labor voters will switch to the Coalition as a result of this policy change. Albanese clearly intends to ram home a single message at the next election, and with ‘they had two jobs!’, he seems to think he’s struck upon the right slogan to do that. 

When the other mob offers to lower taxes, persuading Australians that they shouldn’t is difficult. We seem to think our incomes are ours by right, earned by hard work alone, never mind the contributions of the government that enable us to do so. While the benefits of government expenditure are difficult to pinpoint and appreciate, the PAYG line on payment summary is much more tangible and visceral. Even if voters agree in principle that health or education should be better funded, the disconnect between cause and effect can mean they are unwilling to pay for it. 

For these reasons, I’m of the opinion that Labor would have done better to propose a stimulus payment of $1000 a year to every Australian adult and child (which is what we’ll all be paying for these tax cuts), and explicitly frame this as an alternative to the tax cuts. This modest version of a basic universal income would be far more equitable, and would stimulate the struggling retail sector better, given low income earners have a more immediate incentive to put the money back into the economy to pay for day to day necessities. It would also not disproportionately benefit men. The basis for ‘aspiration’ as a driver of economic growth is frequently overstated by those who seek to perpetuate the myth that ‘success’ (in the capitalist sense) is determined by talent and effort. As Jericho writes, the salary ceiling in several professions makes the stage 2 and 3 inaccessible to many. 

These tax cuts will form part of a suite of fiscal policies that entrench inequality and that have made it virtually impossible for young people to enter the housing market without a contribution from the bank of mum and dad. Labor’s modest and grandfathered changes to negative gearing have also been abandoned, along with changes to capital gains tax and franking credits. To pay for these policies which will haemorrhage billions upon billions of dollars, Labor have reverted to the political Magic Pudding of heralding a tougher approach to taxing multinationals, which is one of those things that sound great but will likely prove difficult in practice. 

One of the main motivators for voting Greens is it is emerging as the only viable way of pulling Labor back to its roots. Consider the Batman (now Cooper) byelection, where pressure of losing to the Greens forced them to preselect a strong progressive candidate in Ged Kearney. Eventually, I would like to see these parties at least consider a coalition. Australia’s two party system has meant coalition governments have historically not been necessary, but they are quite common and seemingly functional in Europe.