Why Gillard could lose: It's an ‘economic rent’ election

above: the author Gavin Putland

Guest post by Gavin R. Putland of Prosper Australia. 


Prosper Australia is a self funded NGO (non government organisation), inspired by the economic justice that can be achieved by distributing the wealth produced from land amongst the entire community.

See: http://www.prosper.org.au/

nb: pls also check out our earlier articles relevant to the Australian Federal Election;

Click 'Left Focus' at the top of the page; and scroll down for analysis on the election, and the policy issues at stake!

AND ALSO: If you enjoyed this article PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

In this article - on the eve of the 2010 Australian Federal Election Gavin Putland argues that if Julia Gillard loses that election it could be as the consequence of Labor 'taking on' powerful economic interests.  Here's hoping that isn't that case!! - but this account of the influence of economic rent in Australia is well worth reading.


Charles Richardson (Crikey, Aug.17, item 15) offers three rules on federal elections. The second rule, which held in the last six out of nine cases, is that first-term governments are re-elected (albeit with a reduced majority, according to the first rule). The third rule, which held in the last 12 out of 13 cases, is that close elections are won by incumbent governments.

These rules point to a Gillard victory on Saturday. So does Malcolm Mackerras's whimsical law of electoral history, which has held in two out of two cases to date, and which states: “Winter elections are always called by Labor Prime Ministers who are always rewarded by the vote of the people on polling day.”

However, a Gillard victory August 21 would defy a much older rule, which says roughly: “Those who upset the tables of the money-changers get crucified.” In terms of Australian electoral history, the precise statement is:

Of the major parties, only Labor has been courageous/foolhardy enough to contest federal elections on a platform of increased taxation of economic rent. In three out of eleven cases, it has lost.

So what is economic rent? Let's begin with the most general definition, which also happens to be the most relevant to the present election campaign, and then look at special cases that figured in past campaigns.

What accountants call “profit” includes the necessary return on capital (“normal” profit), without which an industry will not attract investment. Competition tends to reduce the return on capital to the normal level.

Sustained super-normal returns therefore indicate some sort of protection from competition; for example, the exploitation of land, petroleum, coal or iron ore enjoys such protection because the supply of the resource — at least for any given quality and accessibility — is limited. The benefit of that protection is economic rent. So normal profit is a cost of production, while economic rent is the surplus after all costs, including wages and normal profit, have been paid.

Hence a tax on economic rent, unlike a tax on wages or normal profit, is not a cost of production, but merely cuts into the margin by which the protected price exceeds the necessary cost. If the tax is implemented so as not to reduce the expected rate of return below the normal rate (where “expected” is meant in the statistical sense), it does not deter investment.

A profit-based resource-rent tax (RRT) estimates the economic rent of a natural resource as the margin by which accounting profit exceeds normal profit. To minimize the impact on the expected rate of return, and hence on the incentive to invest, the tax on super-normal profit must be offset by a tax credit for sub-normal profit.

Under the aborted “resource super profits tax” (RSPT), unused credits were to be refundable with interest at the 10-year federal bond rate, which was assumed to be the price of the risk that Parliament would repeal refundability of existing unused credits. On that heroic assumption, the same bond rate was to be the allowance for normal profit, because a more generous allowance would amount to a minimum-risk return above the minimum-risk interest rate.

Whereas the RSPT made insufficient allowance for normal profit, the existing company tax makes no such allowance at all. Therefore, had the mining companies been concerned about maintaining Australia's ability to attract investment in mining, and not about defending their economic rents, they would have campaigned against the existing company tax, not the RSPT.

Under the existing petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT), which has the same 40% rate as the RSPT, unused credits are not refundable, but are carried forward at a more generous interest rate after a correspondingly more generous (and more realistic) allowance for normal profit. So the obvious answer to complaints about the RSPT was to turn it into a clone of the PRRT. There was no need to reduce the 40% rate. That the mining companies focused so heavily on the rate is further evidence that they were more jealous of their economic rents than of their necessary profits.

Gillard's “minerals resource rent tax” (MRRT), with its effective rate of 22.5%, is a partial sell-out to the rent-takers. But by comparison with the status quo, it is an increase in taxation of economic rent. Tony Abbott, of course, opposed the RSPT and opposes the MRRT. So Gillard is promising to increase taxation of economic rent while Abbott is promising not to. According to the precedents, that means Abbott will probably win.

Why only “probably”? Because the PRRT was Labor policy at the time of the Hawke landslide of 1983, was announced during the Hawke government's first term, survived an apocalyptic advertising campaign by the oil companies, and was a point of difference between the parties at the 1984 election, which Hawke won. Since then, however, the Superannuation Guarantee has turned even low-paid workers into (among other things) small shareholders in mining companies, so that they can be duped into thinking of themselves as shareholders first and workers second. That makes life harder for Gillard than for Hawke. Moreover, the PRRT was in Labor's platform for the 1977 and 1980 elections, which Labor lost.

In principle, the economic rent of land can be captured by a profit-based RRT with a deduction for normal profit. In practice, however, as the value of land per unit area tends to be a smooth function of location, it is more convenient and more accurate to value land from real-estate transactions. This method is used for land tax and site-value rates, which might be described as valuation-based RRTs.

At the 1910 federal election, the Labour Party (as it was then called) under Andrew Fisher won majorities in both houses of Parliament on a platform of introducing a federal land tax, with a £5000 threshold and with no exemption for the family home. As the alternative sources of federal revenue at that time were indirect taxes, it was as if Kevin '07 had won by promising to abolish the GST in favour of an all-in land tax.

The federal land tax was duly introduced in the Fisher government's first budget, and remained in force until it was abolished by the Menzies government in 1952. Restoration would be difficult because the rise in the rate of home ownership — from 40% in 1947 to 70% in the 1960s — produced a large majority of voters who could be beguiled into thinking of themselves as land owners while downplaying their interests as consumers, workers, and land users.

Restoration of the tax remained Labor policy until 1964, when the tax was unconstitutionally omitted from the published version of the party platform without any authorization from the 1963 national conference. It was never reinstated. (Clyde Cameron told the story in the speech “How Labor lost its way”, delivered at the opening of the South Australian headquarters of the Henry George League on May 13, 1984.) The elections lost by the Labor Party while the restoration of federal land tax remained in its platform were those of 1954, 1955, 1958, 1961 and 1963.

Land and natural resources tend to appreciate due to growth in effective demand. Capital, in contrast, normally depreciates due to wear & tear and obsolescence. If the real value of an asset rises, it induces production of more such assets until competition enforces the usual depreciation — unless, of course, the assets cannot be produced or their production is protected from competition. So a capital gains tax (CGT) overwhelmingly captures economic rent rather than normal profit.

The last leader who sought a mandate to increase or extend CGT was Kim Beazley, who in 1998 proposed to raise an additional $200 million per annum by bringing pre-1985 assets into the CGT net. Only capital gains accruing after 1999 were to be taxed; but that didn't stop opponents from branding the tax “retrospective” — just as the RSPT was branded “retrospective” for taxing future super profits of existing projects.

On ABC radio in Brisbane on October 1, 1998, Beazley declared: “The only retrospective tax in effect in this election campaign is the retrospective impact on savings of a thirty billion dollar GST... If you're in a room with a gorilla and a chihuahua, on whom do you focus? You focus on the $30 billion gorilla, not the $200 million chihuahua.” Beazley won the popular vote (two-party preferred), but failed to win a majority of seats. Australia got the gorilla.

The introduction of the CGT by the second Hawke government was not a departure from the rule, because Hawke did not fight an election on it, and because the package was sweetened by the elimination of double taxation of dividends, including those from corporations whose “profit” was mostly economic rent.

The spectre of CGT figured in the 1980 election campaign, for which Labor had the PRRT in its platform. In a TV debate with Primary Industries Minister Peter Nixon, Labor's Senator Peter Walsh was asked about Labor's policy on taxing capital gains and inherited wealth. According to his memoirs (Confessions of a Failed Finance Minister, Random House, 1995), Walsh gave the standard response which had been stated in the party platform, and which had been repeated by Shadow Treasurer Ralph Willis a few weeks earlier, namely that a Hayden Labor government would review the tax system. In the hands of the Coalition parties and the Murdoch press, in the last week of the campaign, this non-answer was transmogrified into a wealth tax on the family home, and cost Bill Hayden the Prime Ministership.

The MRRT, like the PRRT, targets economic rent. If the PRRT was the motive for hobbling Hayden, the phantom tax on the family home was the means. The MRRT is certainly a motive for hobbling Gillard. We can expect the means to become apparent in the last days of the campaign.

The money-changers in the Temple of Jerusalem were protected from competition: they had the monopoly on the supply of the only coinage in which pilgrims could buy sacrificial animals. So at times of high demand (like Passover), they could rake in more silver than they paid out. The difference, less the cost of coining, was their economic rent — for which Jesus branded them thieves. It doesn't matter that Gillard is no messiah, no prophet, and no saint: she is threatening the tables of the money-changers, and they will crucify her any which way they can.

The Crisis Down-Under - Joseph Stiglitz

Above: Renowned Economist, Joseph Stiglitz

In this article Joseph Stiglitz praises the efforts of the Australian Labor government in warding away recession as a consequence of the Global Financial Crisis. (GFC)   Stiglitz is one of the most respected economists in the world; and his endorsement ought mean a lot for Australian voters considering economic management as a key issue in deciding their vote.

With permission I am linking to this article.  After an introductoruy excerpt I am providing a link to the full version at pre-eminent opinion website 'Project Syndicate'.  'Project Syndicate' owns copyright rights to the article.  For permission in reproducing this article write to:  distribution@project-syndicate.org.

Although not given permission to reproduce the article in full, I believe is it critical to 'get the message out': the Liberals' fear campaign on debt and spending is deceptive to the core.  Their policies would have seen Australia into recession.  I encourage readers to follow the link at the bottom of this excerpt to have access to the full version.


CANBERRA – The Great Recession of 2008 reached the farthest corners of the earth. Here in Australia, they refer to it as the GFC – the global financial crisis.

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister when the crisis struck, put in place one of the best-designed Keynesian stimulus packages of any country in the world. He realized that it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk that the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place.

Rudd’s stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries. But, ironically, attention has focused on the fact that some of the investment money was not spent as well as it might have been, and on the fiscal deficit that the downturn and the government’s response created...
 
For the rest of this article follow the URL below!
 
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz128/English
 
nb: Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in Economics. His latest book, Freefall: Free Markets and the Sinking of the Global Economy, is now available in French, German, Japanese, and Spanish.

AND ALSO: If you enjoyed this article PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Abbott a threat both to fairness and prosperity

above: Australia's Federal Parliament House

In this article Tristan Ewins considers the coming Australian Federal election, incuding what the consequences of an Abbott conservative government would be in terms of social justice and economic prosperity.

As the 2010 Australian Federal election nears the future of our nation hangs in the balance. A few months back many would have thought the prospect of an Abbott Coalition government unlikely at best. Labor was riding high in the polls: credited with navigating our way from the dangerous shoals of recession. And the government had done this with an eye to social justice, not only reforming pensions, but also buoying consumer confidence with direct payments to those on welfare and low incomes.

As opposed to the conservatives, Labor looked to the future; with a promise to build the National Broadband Network, laying the foundations for the future knowledge economy. By comparison, in this regard the conservatives have been short-sighted and opportunistic.

Further: the Abbott ascension to Opposition leadership initially underscored divisions amongst the conservative parties, and their lack of substance and credibility on climate change.

But since then – and for some months – it has been mainly downhill for Labor.

There were issues that had weakened the government for some time, but Labor's re-election chances remained strong.

The home insulation and school infrastructure programs are now widely believed to have been poorly managed. In reality, though, the school infrastructure program added to the stimulus when it was needed most; and for many schools the product of the expenditure has been of real value: its benefit long-lasting. Genuine shortcomings in regulatory oversight were partly the fault of public servants who should have advised the government, but the government could not avoid responsibility for flaws in policy implementation.

As a consequence, the conservatives have been able to make up ground on the theme of “competency” outside any values context.

More recent developments, however, have threatened the survival of the Federal Labor government.

The mining industry fear campaign over resource rent taxation had saturated the media, marking a turning point with Labor put decisively onto the defensive. Suddenly Rudd’s leadership was seen as a liability, with a ‘fresh start’ perceived as the only way to stem the haemorrhaging of the government’s support.

With Julia Gillard now catapulted into the office of Prime Minister, Federal Labor’s support in the polls appeared to firm. Gillard thus resolved to take advantage, and seek for herself a mandate, calling an election for August 21.

But since then Gillard’s proposal for a ‘Citizens Assembly’ to work for consensus on climate change has been interpreted as indecision. Further, Abbott has whipped up groundless fear over debt (Australia’s government debt is amongst the lowest in the world), and has outflanked Labor in trumping the government with commitments to aged care and mental health funding.

Finally: Sensational leaks from within the government have overshadowed policy debate, and for many the removal of Rudd has left a bitter aftertaste.

Importantly, here, areas of the media are to blame for focusing on this drama of leaks from within the government, and even an intervention from Mark Latham: when in the public interest they should have been focusing on substantial policy debate. (across the spectrum, and including the Greens)

The ‘bigger picture’ – what’s really at stake

But there are broader concerns at stake in this election: and neither the government nor the Opposition seem to be planning ahead more than maybe a term or two. Labor’s commitment to the National Broadband Network, school infrastructure and increased employer superannuation contributions are very notable exceptions. (although the problem of a two-tiered Aged Pension remains with regard to superannuation – as always) And as we will see, Labor’s policies are more sustainable in a social sense over the long term.

To begin, there are structural fiscal challenges associated with the ageing of Australia’s population, and what this means for health, aged care and welfare: with flow-on effects elsewhere, including transport infrastructure and education.

At the outset, therefore, it is important to note Abbott’s commitment to cutting the tax base beyond what is sustainable, including effective cuts in overall Company Tax beyond what has been promised by Labor, and the scrapping of the Resource-Rent (ie: mining) tax that rightly gives taxpayers a share of the benefit from exploitation of minerals and other resources that belong to all of us. As a consequence, increases in employer superannuation contributions would also be dropped under an Abbott government. http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbott-says-libs-wont-increase-super-levy-20100504-u7a3.html

Further, Abbott’s parental leave plan promises to direct what sparse budget funds remain away from where they are needed most: welfare, health, education; in a move that will effectively see those on lower incomes subsidising those on higher incomes. Specifically, the program would “cost more than $8 billion during its first two years”, and a mother on an income as high as $75,000 would receive six months leave at full pay. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2972436.htm

Australia needs progressive tax reform, with the aim being to support an expanded social wage to ensure certain ‘baseline’ needs are met for all of us. This must encompass health (including aged care), welfare, education and other areas such as communications and information, social housing, social recreation facilities and transport.

Without reform, as the proportion of our population outside the taxable labour market increases, shortfalls in social services will become increasingly critical. Here also a ‘two-tiered’ and polarised system comprising the market and a residual public social wage will deepen: what John Kenneth Galbraith encapsulated with the term “private affluence, public squalor’.

The crisis is further compounded by a rising cost of living: especially in areas such as water and energy – where the public are now paying the price for privatisation. And with high property prices the impact of interest rates when they rise is magnified as a legacy of the Howard-era housing bubble, with home ownership now out of reach for many.

To put none too fine a point on it, without progressive tax reform there just won’t be enough public money.

So public hospital waiting lists will worsen; dental care will remain inaccessible for many, and there won’t be enough money to include crucial medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Public education will continue to be chronically under-resourced as compared to privileged private establishments.

Insufficient public funds, here, will undermine even the meagre liberal principle of ‘equal opportunity’; disadvantaging less-privileged citizens, and failing to provide for the demands of an ever-evolving economy.

And again: whatever short-term commitments Abbott makes on mental health; a dwindling pool of public funds under the Liberals will translate into savage austerity elsewhere. An example of this is Abbott’s dumping of plans for ‘Super Clinics’ which would take pressure from desperately over-stretched public hospitals. Or else mental health commitments will themselves be fudged on over the longer term.

Other consequences could include insufficient public funds for infrastructure such as roads and public transport.

In keeping with this logic, we may see a further deepening of the ‘user pays’ principle. Where access to such infrastructure and services takes this form, and is levied at a flat rate, those on lower incomes are again disadvantaged or even excluded entirely.

Tendencies towards labour market polarisation also mean that there are many who are adversely affected by this deepening of ‘user pays’, especially in the absence of a sufficient social wage.

What we certainly don’t want in this country is a slippery slide towards an American-style polarised labour market, with the material needs and rights of citizens undercut further as a consequence of only-threadbare social services and protections.

And again: a strong social wage is necessary to provide a fair baseline with regards access to services and amenities; and to make up for distributive injustices that arise as a consequence of unequal bargaining power amongst workers in the labour market.

Abbott in strategic play regarding some of our most vulnerable

Abbott has provided strategic policy announcements in areas of special concern to the public. Although the overall picture under Abbott would be one of savage austerity, the would-be Prime Minister has attempted to trump Labor with announcements of funding for mental health and aged care.

In aged care the Opposition has pledged a “$935 million package” including “21 days of convalescence care for around 20,000 eligible patients at a cost of $300 million”, “$14 million for pet therapy programs”, and “$12 million to promote wellbeing and funding for companionship programs.” http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/01/2970226.htm

And in mental health Abbott has promised a $1.5 billion package including “800 new hospital beds”, “$440 million for the creation of 20 Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centres” and “$225m would be allocated to build 60 Headspace services - treatment centres for young people.” http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top-stories/tony-abbotts-mental-health-strike/story-e6frg12l-1225886499800

Importantly, though, experts remain critical. Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) spokesperson Yvonne Chaperon has highlighted insufficient wages for qualified aged care nurses, with the consequence of many skilled professionals leaving the system. In turn, this leaves aged care facilities with an insufficient skills mix. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/01/2970226.htm

And Australian Medical Association (AMA) president Dr Andrew Pesce has slammed Abbott’s proposal to cut Labor’s $98.4 million in incentive payments for GPs to provide services in aged care homes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/01/2970226.htm

This is an area of desperate need for those in aged care.

In the bigger picture it is well worth noting that the Australian economy is valued well over AUS $1 Trillion.

The commitments of the major parties seem paltry in this context. Quality of services in aged care and mental health fall way short of the real human need, and that needed to uphold human dignity for our most vulnerable. Across the political spectrum parties are ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel’ for desperately needed funds in these and other critical areas: but few confront the need for progressive tax reform to turn the situation around.

Nevertheless and again:, despite shortcomings Abbott appears so far to have ‘trumped’ Labor in these sensitive areas. In effect he is challenging Labor on its own traditional terrain of Health services. Labor cannot afford to cede this terrain: the consequence of doing so would be to lose crucial credibility and support.

Perhaps the best response would be for Labor to announce a National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Such a scheme would need to be implemented in a fashion which valued and promoted the human worth and social participation of recipients. And in freeing up crucial additional funds, further action would become possible: reform of pensions and disability services: as well as commitments to mental health and aged care.

Conclusion

There are many reasons to vote against Abbott in the coming election: and not only those already alluded to in this essay.

Abbott has no credibility on the environment, having famously proclaimed that “climate change is crap.” And despite the conservatives’ emphasis on internal ALP division, the Liberal Party itself remains divided – as Malcolm Turnbull and others remain philosophically committed to a price on carbon. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bullshit-20091207-kdmb.html

Further, Abbott remains committed to the spirit of WorkChoices, despite proclaiming the policy “dead”. http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/shades-of-latham-in-abbotts-ir-stunt-20100720-10i4t.html

As Abbott himself stated “the word WorkChoices is dead”. But even if a Liberal government did not change the existing legislation, it could legislate outside that framework, effectively circumventing it regardless. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/17/2956429.htm

Crucially, Abbott is ‘running scared’ from a debate with Julia Gillard on the economy. Wanting to rely on pre-existing prejudices in the electorate, the last thing he wants is to provide Labor a platform from whch to spruik the ‘good news’: recession avoided as a consequence of Labor stimulus, interest rates low, and investment in education in infrastructure essential to the future of our economy. And then there’s Labor’s National Broadband Network (NBN), and its crucial role in paving the way for the future knowledge economy.

Abbott’s claim to greater ‘competency’ in managing the economy doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. And anyway: politics concerns values: matters such as distributive justice and compassion for the poor and oppressed that run deeper than “technocratic management.”

Finally: as we have considered in depth here already, Abbott is attempting to deceive us with a “sleight of hand” on austerity. He wants us to focus on conservative initiatives on mental health and aged care: but in doing so he wants to distract us from savage austerity elsewhere – health, education, infrastructure, welfare – cuts that could spiral into the tens of billions.

Labor is not yet committed to tax and social wage reform of the scale that this author is fighting for. But the difference between Labor and the Conservatives is tens of billions in austerity, the abandonment of crucial infrastructure such as the NBN, an uncertain future on industrial relations, and an outdated neo-liberal economic outlook that would have seen Australia into recession if Abbott had had his way.

Vote 1 for Labor; or for the Greens: but for Australia’s sake put the Liberals and Nationals last.

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.  see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Also this article will be re-appearing in On Line Opinion on August 10 - pls feel welcome to comment and discuss these issues there and then as well! :))

Election Fiction versus Political Reality

above: the author, Justin George

In this article, Justin George considers the shallowness of discourse surrounding the 2010 Australian Federal Election.  Spin and trivia overshadow political substance, obscuring the narrowness of choice between the main parties.  But regardless, rather than counselling resignation the author calls for mobilisation and hope.


by Justin George

The vacuousness of the current Australian election is the culmination of several trends that have been shaping and directing Australian politics over the last 15+ years.

From the time of the ALP brokered ‘Accord’ between unions and business to allow for the introduction of Hawke and Keating’s free market reforms, to the push to the right and conservatism of the Howard years that resulted in a jingoistic and antiquated form of nationalism and political dialogue, Australian politics and political parties have drifted to the right of the political spectrum for the last twenty or more years.

The ‘wilderness’ years of the ALP during the Howard reign, saw it completely shake itself of any meaningful remnants of its past as a worker’s party. To share power in modern Australia requires appealing not to working class interests or improving the daily lives of the majority of the population, but to ensure and secure the wealth, privilege and power of those at the top-Corporate Australia.

Both the ALP and LNP have moved away from their traditional, ideological bases. The disconnect of the ALP from any meaningful popular working class base is mirrored by the trade unions themselves as both have sought power over true representation.

The Liberal Party under Howard moved away from the principles of classical Liberalism, where concepts of freedom, justice and minimizing the intervention of government in people’s lives emerged from a rich theoretical heritage, to a Liberalism that serviced the economic realm solely. This was combined with a social conservatism that abandoned Liberal notions, outside of economic policy, completely.

The result has been a politics in Australia that is firmly framed by the right, with a two party dominated system where both parties rely upon and pander to business for financial support to replace the lack of meaningful popular bases within the country.

In a feedback loop, each party has moved more to ensure business support and funding. The further disconnected they have become from traditional bases, the further their reliance on business has become. This in part also explains why both parties have needed to embrace the rhetoric of populist politics to camouflage their policies’ true benefactors.

All of this has been driven by the current corporate media environment we see in Australia today. In this environment only two companies own and control all the nation’s major newspapers and television stations. The result, here, is that only one nationally available newspaper is published - run by billionaire Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch’s media empire spans the globe reflecting his rightwing, neoliberal position via a cynical form of crass populism.

As media ownership becomes concentrated and as people’s spare time becomes more pressed, the pressures on politics and media are to strip away meaningful debate. Exploration of ideas, of policies and their merits, are forsaken in favour of sound bites, catchphrases and the more entertaining clash of personalities.

The economic structure of corporate media also drives this process. A focus on profit rather than providing a public service to the population drives the current media model. A general rejection of intelligent and challenging programming that does not assume a lack of intelligence on behalf of its audience has seen a rise in sensationalist and vacuous news and current affairs coverage that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

The dumbing-down of news, and particularly politics, to a circus - a real life soap opera of personalities - makes for splashy headlines and easy to produce but highly rating television segments and news programs. This strategy is designed to increase audience ratings - which then enable television stations to sell advertising time or space at higher rates. This facilitates - for the right price - the meeting of a captive audience to a company’s particular product or service.

Politics then becomes another profitable media extravaganza: cheap to produce and to market, but yielding excellent returns. Finding or developing a political narrative rather than political content and meaning becomes the primary focus. In this manner we see elections being a clash of personalities and special interest stories: of Julia Gillard’s husband; of Tony Abbott’s sporting pursuits; the drama of Kevin Rudd being pushed out of office- the ‘who said what to whom’. If a narrative line plays itself out, or a more exciting or controversial narrative can be found then the story changes quickly and like Orwell’s memory-hole the previous issues or stories are quickly forgotten.

It is this framework that politics and political parties - especially during an election - pander to. Rather than challenge the reduction of important issues and ideals to mere soap, political parties cater to it.

Hence we have ‘Moving Forward’ vs ‘Real Action’. Hence we have debates so heavily scripted that the purpose of having a debate is itself lost. This is visible in both parties’ policies, especially the craven and ugly narratives being played out regarding asylum seekers, immigration and all the fears and resentment it carries. Policies like that attract headlines and vocal support from Murdoch’s lackeys and shoulder shrugs or mild handwringing from the Fairfax media.

This corporate media environment facilitates the appearance of difference between the parties. By removing the need for meaningful difference, news media helps enable the appearance of difference via its soap opera narrative coverage. In another cyclical process, the shift of Australian politics towards the right has also driven the media to find stories and divisions where few actually exist. As the parties become similar on what matters, media coverage spends more time on the remaining superficial differences.

Both the ALP and LNP are parties of business: only the degrees vary. To compete, the ALP moved to the right. Now out of power, the LNP has found it necessary to move even further to the right. In an attempt to not be undercut, the ALP, with Gillard at the helm, has sought to trend its policies even further to the right again.

The ALP seeks to mask its politics with an appearance of concern for ‘working families’ and the like. The Liberal-National coalition isn’t restricted by such niceties. The fundamental policy and ideological substance shared by the two remains the same.

The lack of difference then sees debate centring on how much, if any, tax should be placed on the mining industry. Or which market driven response to climate change is preferred. Or who can be the most ruthless to desperate people arriving from war-torn countries.

The debate is not on whether the market is fundamentally flawed in addressing climate change, which is an effect of the wasteful inefficiencies of the market that now threaten environmental collapse.
The debate does not centre on whether the mining industry should be nationalized with public control deciding how profits are distributed for public benefit.

The debate does not centre on the fact that our military, or our allies, are directly responsible for the destruction that forces people to flee their homes in leaky boats.

Such a politics would require principles and courage, a respect for democratic notions.

The mining tax ‘furore’ especially demonstrates the increasing vulnerability of our meagre democratic processes to big business and media manipulation. The modest attempt by Rudd Labor to cut into mining companies’ profits, and therefore their power, was responded to by an industry threat to remove the government from power via a 200 million dollar media assault.

This highlights how all parties involved pursued their own interests and forgot about the Australian people. The ALP kowtowed to the mining lobby, avoiding a campaign against it during an election year. The mining companies obviously were seeking to maintain their exorbitant profits, not caring about the environmental and other costs that come from practices. The media not only received a situation that could be easily framed into an appropriate narrative, it also was happy to receive the money from the mining companies for the advertising space to protest against the tax.

The difficulty of a principled, truly democratic and participatory Australian politics emerging is thus evident. If introducing substantive changes that seek to shift power from corporate Australia back to the Australian population were introduced it would face challenges much greater and widespread than witnessed with Rudd’s mining tax.

It is in this manner that both parties are parties of corporate Australia. To challenge their masters would see them removed from political power either from without or from within as we have seen recently. The result then is an interconnected race towards a hollow democracy lacking in real choice or democratic participation, driven by image instead of substance.

However, just as the problem is a web of interrelated issues, potential solutions also rely upon addressing these interconnections. Addressing the corporate strangle hold on Australian politics involves in the short term refusing to participate in the two party system. Voting for independently funded parties helps undermine the two dominant parties’ power base. If third parties are successful, election reform and parliamentary reform could bring about an end of the two party system in favour of proportional systems such as those in Europe where a range of political actors shape policy rather than merely two.

Media ownership reform is needed. Australia has the least diverse media ownership in the world. TV and newspapers provide a vital role in educating and informing people about what is happening in their society, a vibrant media means a healthy democracy.

Reject sensationalist news media. Turn it off or don’t purchase it. Demand meaningful content, and support small independent operations that provide critical information about those in power. Democracy means informed citizenry.

In the longer term, corporate, market economics must be seen for what it is- inherently anti-democratic, environmentally unsustainable and unreformable. Our economic, political and media realms all need active popular participation, with processes that engage people, facilitating democratic input and direction on how we organize our lives, how we make decisions, the principles that guide those decisions and the media that reflects, questions and analyses those decisions.

Further, we need a politics that addresses the needs of a majority of the population; and that seeks to empower the population; engaging them in the political process rather than one designed to create apathy and cynicism.

It is easy to be cynical in the modern world. To do so often feels like rebellion, but it merely masks an acceptance - and thus a complicity - with the world as it currently stands, and those small few who benefit from it. Elections remind people of this reality: of how little say we have in the current workings of power.

That, however, can be changed in both the short and long term. It requires demanding more from those in power; critically engaging in politics; rejecting cynicism in favour of principles such as democratic participation, equitable outcomes, and sustainability.

In doing so, Australian politics still holds potential be filled with substance: such as to improve and enrich our lives rather than maintaining the current state of popular disillusionment. In promoting popular mobilisation and hope: a better world remains possible.


Justin George is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne and Participatory Society Advocate. His writing can be found at http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/movingpast

nb: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.
see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

Strategic issues for the Left: and What agenda for Labor in 2010?

above: the author of this article, and editor of 'Left Focus', Tristan Ewins

In this article Tristan Ewins looks at the strategic issues facing progressive political forces, including the dynamics between the most radical and more mainstream wings of the broad Left.  Further, he considers the specific policy issues challenging the Australian Labor Party with the 2010 Federal election swiftly approaching.  The analysis is focused upon the Australian Left, but the themes are also crucial for the global movement.

Political activism is a process of challenge and discovery for many. Some are drawn to predominately Marxist organisations and their focus on grassroots social movements, while others are ‘drawn to the coalface’ of mainstream politics - involving themselves in the Greens or student Labor.

In reality there are lessons to be learned from all these many varied channels.

Organisations on the radical Left have often been the first to ‘trail-blaze’: leading and mobilising progressive campaigns. Communists in Australia were the first to campaign for indigenous rights, against the Vietnam war, for a social welfare safety net during the Great Depression, and against the White Australia Policy.
By contrast, parliamentary Labor has often found itself in a difficult position: unable to lead debate as a consequence of electoral pressures, and pressure from ‘the big end of town’.

And regardless of the many shortcomings to be found in Marxist traditions; these traditions retain insights of value to those willing to consider them with an open mind. We might include here an appreciation of the economic cycle in capitalism, tendencies in capitalism towards monopoly which actually undermine competition, and the Marxist call for working people to ‘win the battle of democracy’ in the fight for a fair society and a democratic economy.

On the other hand, organisations on the fringe Left often exhibit a damaging sectarianism both towards each other, and against potential allies in the Labor Party. While they are in a position to lead progressive campaigns without the kind of compromise which arises in electoral ‘real-politic’, sometimes hostility towards progressive Labor activists undermines the potential for a ‘broad front’ against social injustice.

This failure to engage with Labor activists in the context of progressive campaigns – or deterrence faced by Labor activists in the face of hostility - means that those Labor supporters will have limited experience when it comes to grassroots activism. This then flows through to the culture of the broader Labor Party – which is a bad thing for all of us!

This sometimes-hostility between Labor and the militant and revolutionary Left also means that neither side learns the lessons which can be drawn from mutual engagement. One such lesson is that both the militant and/or revolutionary Left and the ALP can – in a way – complement each others efforts.

We will return to this later.

In popular culture, Labor is often referred to as a ‘Centre-Left’ party, with the Conservative parties referred to as ‘Centre-Right’. One of the most important lessons to be drawn here is that the ‘centre’ is always relative and contested.

Many on the Conservative side of politics would like to press the political milieu – and thus ‘the relative centre’ in Australia much further to the Right: cutting government expenditure on infrastructure and social services; destroying protections for workers; failing to recognise injustices such as those suffered by indigenous Australians.

And there are many of us in the ALP, Greens and other tendencies who would like to press the relative mainstream to the Left: in favour of a more progressive taxation system funding first class social services; and also in favour of greater rights for workers, more investment in ‘closing the gap’ for indigenous peoples, and to advance the cause of a mixed and democratic economy.

But the ALP specifically is an electorally-focused party. It is a party which must respond to and take account of electoral pressures if it is to attain and hold government.

The consequence of this is that there are two levels of struggle we need to take account of.
Firstly there is the electoral context. In this sense the ALP must aim to be part of a successful electoral bloc.

While groups to the Left of Labor can officially and more freely campaign according to their values and build grassroots movements without much in the way of compromise, the ALP and even the Greens need to tailor their policies and their message to their electoral base.

Because the relative centre has shifted to the Right in recent decades – often (unfortunately) with prominent figures in the ALP helping to lead the way, the consequence of changed expectations is that even if parliamentary Labor wants to advance a more progressive agenda, they must temper their message.
With the Greens now to the Left of Labor, they campaign for the support of a narrower demographic – and thus can take a stronger line when it comes to emissions reduction, tax reform, social expenditure, and other areas.

The bottom line in this electoral contest is that ultimately Labor, the Greens, and any other forces on the ‘broad left’ form an ‘electoral bloc’: compromising together on policy (ie: ‘give and take’) in the event a Labor government is formed.

The aim of such a bloc ought be to push to the limits when it comes to policies on economic democracy, social justice and expansion of social services, environmental sustainability, tax reform, the rights of labour and other areas. But as an electoral bloc we need to recognise that mainsteram parliamentary parties cannot push these limits further than what is electorally sustainable.  (although that is not to say that social movements cannot mobilise and act independently)

Most importantly here - the policy limits of such a bloc are themselves set by a broader cultural struggle: a struggle which is in some ways more important that the electoral contest itself.

At this point it might be instructive to consider the case of Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was an Italian Marxist whose ideas continue to be relevant for non-Marxists and Marxists alike. As against a ‘war of movement’: the kind of ‘lightning seizure of power’ as occurred in Russia 1917, Gramsci held that often a ‘war of position’ would be more practical.

Such a ‘war of position’ is more of a long and protracted contest – taking shape throughout institutions, workplaces and the cultural sphere. It comprises a long fight for ‘hegemony’ which can potentially be adapted for a liberal and democratic context. Indeed, such a context is preferable, as opposed to the kind of brutal and desperate struggle that occurred in Russia 1917 and the civil war which followed.

As inferred, therefore, the cultural struggle – the struggle for hegemony – must be at the core of any movement for progressive social change. This struggle takes place in our classrooms, our newspapers, academic and popular journals, political websites and online networks such as ‘GetUp!’, with union campaigns – and yes also with radical campaigns on the Left pushing the limits beyond where parliamentary Labor can afford to tread.

The point here – regarding complementary roles for both Labor and the revolutionary and/or militant Left – is that they can take different positions in the broader fight for change. In the electoral struggle Labor can achieve office – and thus a level of influence – that more overtly radical forces cannot. The more overtly radical Left, on the other hand, can lead the cultural struggle and push the boundaries of debate, mobilisation and political action beyond what parliamentary Labor can manage as a consequence of the demands of electoralism.

Ultimately in this context there are realities we must take account of. It may be uncomfortable for a mainstream electoral party to face, but the truth is that Australian and world politics are dominated by ‘the big end of town’. The wealth of what some call ‘monopoly capital’ is so great and so concentrated, that few dare challenge their power – or even openly recognise that this concentration of power is a problem – for fear of an economic and political backlash.

Within popular forums – including those on the ‘broad left’ - we need overcome this fear to identify ‘the elephant in the room’. We may not want anything like a ‘Stalinist command economy’ – but we should want to deliver economic power meaningfully into the hands of ordinary people.

Importantly, there is reason to suppose that Rudd Labor is not ‘pushing the boundaries’ as far as it could get away with; and unions meanwhile are not taking enough of an independent position to lead debate when it comes to the rights of workers.

The cause of health care reform – moving to Federal funding - is an important example here. By increasing the Federal Government’s tax base progressively by as little as 1 per cent of GDP, we could mobilise such resources (over $10 billion) as to make great inroads into hospital waiting lists – without putting pressures on elderly and other patients whose premature release could lead to death. Some of these funds could also be devoted to improving the quality of care in aged care facilities.

And by increasing the tax base on top of this by an extra 0.5 per cent of GDP, we could afford welfare reform – giving a ‘fair go’ to job-seekers and students.

Over the long term, Labor could aim for the kind of advanced welfare state and social wage as prevails in countries such as Sweden, Holland and Denmark. Labor could begin with a ‘three term plan’ (including the current term) to expand desperately-needed public expenditure by as much as 4.5 per cent of GDP over that period.

Meanwhile: the Henry Tax Review could provoke such debate so as to open the way for further tax reform. Labor could reform the ‘tax mix’ to give a fairer go to those on lower and middle incomes – shifting the tax burden instead to those in the top 20% of incomes.

Such reform would focus on a base narrow enough for distributive objectives, but broad enough to provide a real boost for revenue and social wage expenditure.As part of this process, the tax free threshold could be lifted, benefiting those on lower incomes, with increases and restructuring with regard to higher brackets covering the cost. And HECS – the ‘Higher Education Contribution Scheme’ which affects tertiary students – could be restructured – including a repayment threshold that is increased and indexed in real terms.

In addition to this a ‘disability insurance scheme’ could raise revenue vitally needed for some of our most vulnerable: and in such a fashion that seems to be ‘common sense’ and even self-interest for ordinary Australians.

And anticipating global demand for wireless broadband into the future, Rudd Labor could also push investment in public infrastructure in that field. Under conditions of global (ie: universal) demand for both wireless and fiber-to-the-home networks, after all, arguments about competition are rendered redundant.

On top of this, arguments could also be made about consolidating a mixed economy in areas such as banking and social housing. A public-owned bank could enhance competition, countering the logic of oligopoly and collusion, and providing bank services to even the poorest on the basis of need. And expanded social housing could correct the ‘housing bubble’, making home ownership and rental more realisable for those who are struggling to find a place for themselves in a tight market. Infrastructure modernisation is also crucial in the context of a growing population, with urban and regional consolidation.

Finally, Labor must deliver basic rights to workers; making good its promise that no worker be worse off under Award modernisation, while supporting pattern bargaining for its next term; and restoring the real wages of Australians on minimum incomes.

There are many in the Labor and Greens grassroots who long for more radical change. Economic democracy, for instance, should be extended via a variety of mechanisms including mutualism and co-operatives – but we will not focus on this for today.

The kind of policy ideas already dealt with here, meanwhile, ought comprise something of a ‘minimum program’ for Labor from now and on into the next two terms of Federal Labor government – with support from the Greens in the Senate. Such ideas should form the basis of a ‘common ground’, uniting the ALP Left, Right and any independents behind an achievable program for change.

Moving to our conclusion, it is also critical for Labor and other activists to acknowledge that the parliamentary party is not ‘the be-all and end-all’. Party membership must be made meaningful and rewarding for the grassroots. Here, grassroots organisations could also enjoy more freedom to lead debate on crucial issues of social justice than enjoyed by the parliamentary party.

Following on it ought be noted that there are times when civil disobedience is a vital element of any meaningful and genuine liberal democracy. Responses to social injustice could legitimately include the defence of a picket line to protect the jobs and entitlements of workers, or ‘sit-ins’ and political strike action to resist a war of aggression - or demand public housing for the homeless – whose condition is genuine and desperate. These causes activists can uphold at the grassroots level beyond the scope of the parliamentary Labor party, and other parliamentary forces.

The coming Federal election comprises a vital test for Labor, the Greens and others on the broad left.
If as an avowed Christian Abbott claims to genuinely care for the most disadvantaged he must support a bipartisan consensus to ‘fix’ the public health care crisis, deliver high quality aged care for all in need, provide shelter for the homeless, and improve the welfare safety net – including elimination of poverty traps - even if it means some (relatively moderate) increase in tax.

Instead - Abbott’s opportunistic opposition to tax reform, as a means of funding desperately-needed infrastructure, welfare and services – suggests a level of hypocrisy – a weakness which could be exploited by Labor, the Greens and the broader Left.

With so much at stake one other thing is also clear: it is a contest we cannot afford to ignore.

Tristan Ewins

The author is an RMIT Politics PhD student, freelance writer and grassroots Labor Party activist.

AND ALSO: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material.



see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

'Battlelines' - what’s Tony Abbott really about?

 

above: an image of Tony Abbott

 

Tristan Ewins searches for the 'real Tony Abbott' interrogating the arguments and values presented in the Australian Conservative Opposition Leader's 'manifesto', "Battlelines" from a progressive perspective. 

AND ALSO: If you enjoy this article PLS join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565

By Tristan Ewins

For those interested in understanding the political thinking behind the politically-resurgent Tony Abbott, they could do worse than to read about the “Abbott agenda” as proclaimed by the man himself in his manifesto, Battlelines.

Abbott begins by proclaiming himself “the pragmatist”. “Ideology”, after all, has become something of a dirty word in western democracies - associated with such “evils” as socialism: compared with which neo-liberal practice is “objectively” sound economic management (please note the irony).

By contrast Abbott portrays his “pragmatism” as a fluidity of policy responses to political and economic contingency: but for which conservative values remain fixed. And in this context - Abbott sees conservatism in the sense of respect for Western traditions and institutions as both wise and practical.

For Abbott “Ideologues want to impose their values on others” while “pragmatists want to solve … problems as long as the cure is not worse than the disease” (p.xi).

While this is a clever piece of rhetorical posturing, critical minds might point to the dominance of neo-liberal ideology in Australia and world-wide without care for the real world consequences.

Interestingly, Abbott raises the opposition between compassionate conservatism and the kind of ruthless neo-liberalism that cares nothing for the social consequences of austerity (pp.xii-xiii). Here the author juxtaposes the “[single-minded] cutting [of] public expenditure … striving to deliver smaller government” to “compassionate conservatism, stressing solidarity with those who are doing it tough” (pp.xii-xiii). By this reckoning the “social fabric … has to be respected and preserved”, while individuals should enjoy such circumstances that they are “empowered, as far as reasonably possible, to live the life that he or she thinks best” (p.xii).

Abbott’s proclaimed support for those doing it tough might be traced to the influence of the Democratic Labor Party (DLP) early on in his life. While the DLP helped shut Labor out of government for decades, and to this day retains a socially-illiberal outlook, its Catholic origins were such that there remained a measure of compassion for workers, and for the poor (p.10).

Regardless of whether this stance is a political ploy, or whether it echoes Abbott’s true sentiment, Abbott is captive to the Liberal political machine. The Opposition has tried to undermine the stimulus without regard that this would compromise the recovery from the global financial crisis. They have fear-mongered about tax and trade unions. Ruthless neo-liberalism remains the dominant current within the parties of the Australian Right - and should the Coalition be elected later this year, it is very likely that this would be reflected in policy.

This opposition between “compassionate conservatism” and what I call “ruthless neo-liberalism” is one that Abbott attempts to dispel later on, but for those of us interested in interrogating the contradictions of the Australian Right, the issue demands greater attention.

We will return to this theme later.

Abbott attempts to mould an image of conservative and liberal impulses as interlocked and complementary. He emphasises this again and again.

But there are other conflicts at work also. Even within the broad gamut of liberalism, there is division between social liberalism (concerned with social justice) and economic neo-liberalism (utterly indifferent to it).

For Abbott there is the practical imperative to reconcile competing currents in the parties of the Australian Right to present the kind of “united front” needed to win the confidence of voters. And there is also the need for Abbott to pitch his message broadly, to maximise his support base.

For his own part, Abbott does not show respect or recognition for many of the marginalised and the oppressed. He speaks of his experience in student politics: mocking his then-rivals on the Left as being typified by an outlook of “Land Rights for Gay Whales” (p.12).

There remains within Abbott a sense of injustice - perhaps even outrage - at the marginalisation of Conservative forces within the broader student political sphere at that time. As he writes: “the student paper wouldn’t print conservative arguments” (p.13).

Fast forwards to today and the Conservative parties in government passed legislation (so-called “Voluntary Student Unionism”) which hindered student self-organisation, and especially the position of the Left. This also had the added impact of draining the lifeblood of student culture from campuses all over the country.

Here, it must also be emphasised that the position of the Left has itself been broader than the “identity politics” held up to ridicule by Abbott. Student poverty and the imposition of increasingly onerous fees have for decades been flashpoints of concern for the student movement.

Perhaps student culture and organisations should have been more inclusive. But the extreme outcome of voluntary student unionism which, in effect, shut down student organisations was never a legitimate answer.

Abbott attacks unions often in Battlelines raising that same “bogey” which has figured in conservative fear-mongering in Australia since time immemorial.  But workers need self-organisation to have the industrial strength to bargain effectively and maintain wages, conditions and rights. Weakened unions, combined with deregulated labour markets means exploitation and a poor deal for workers.

WorkChoices took away unfair dismissal provisions; took away the “no disadvantage test” in enterprise bargaining; removed the right of workers to withdraw their labour except under the strictest of circumstances; and outlawed “pattern bargaining”. Removal of the right to pattern bargaining in itself promised a race to the bottom in wages and conditions for Australian workers.

It says something of the real underlying sources of economic and political power in Australia that much of the WorkChoices agenda has been maintained by Rudd Labor- despite broad opposition among the public. The legitimate electoral power of ordinary Australians has not been able to stand against the economic power of an aggressive employer lobby.

The only hope ordinary Australians have of reversing the long-term trend is to organise independently. But the critical point, especially with a Federal election looming later this year, is that Abbott cannot be trusted on industrial relations.

Labor is torn between its union base, and the pressure applied by employers, but the Conservatives and neo-liberals still want to crush the union movement, and will not be nearly as inhibited. Should the Conservatives get their way, ultimately there would be no labour movement to resist their agenda into the future.

Conservative disdain for the rights of workers in Australia dovetails with a broader scepticism about social and distributive justice. Abbott makes the usual noises about “soaking the rich” only being able to be taken so far (p.80). And for Abbott spending cuts were justified in order to “allow lower taxes” and “give more incentive to people who could create wealth” (p.81).

But the truth is that under the Howard government - in which Abbott was a key Minister - the tax mix became increasingly regressive. There was the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Massive superannuation concessions were provided which mainly benefitted the wealthy, and there was regressive restructure of income tax; with the tax free threshold remaining fixed. These policies impacted against those on lower incomes.

Low taxes and small government do not necessarily mean a “bigger economic pie”. All workers create wealth regardless of incentives in the form of tax cuts. In reality, it is possible to gear the economy to something approximating full capacity without gross exploitation, a gutted public sector, or ever lower and more regressive taxes.

In the coming Federal election Labor could do worse than to challenge the Liberals on the issue of distributive justice, engaging with Henry Tax Review recommendations, and restructuring the tax mix in favour of most Australians - especially for the most vulnerable.

Abbott himself is incredulous that families on combined annual incomes of $150,000 are considered “rich”, and thus opposes means-testing benefits such as the Private Health Insurance rebate (p.94).

But most families are not receiving incomes in this vicinity. To provide for the educational, welfare, infrastructure and health-related needs of ordinary Australians - and especially the most vulnerable - restructuring and targeting the social expenditure mix could be vital. And for deep and meaningful progress, tax reform would need to target a broad enough cross-section to fund the necessary social expenditure programs.

In his “manifesto” Abbott concedes that Australia’s conservatives were wrong to oppose Medicare. As long as bulk billing is not “absolute” or “total”, there remain, as he says, “price signals in the system” (p.143). But government subsidies make most general health services affordable for all. Basically “collective consumption” via Medicare works better and is fairer than the free-for-all of US-style health care system.

In the same spirit, Abbott needs to be open minded about social wage expansion. Provision of “universal dental care through Medicare”, which Abbott identifies as having cost $4 billion if it was implemented in 2007, should receive bipartisan support (p.144).

While Abbott identifies such a program as being very expensive, a practical Opposition Leader would not obsess about small government (p.144). The Australian economy, after all, is valued at well over $1 trillion. Rather, they would realise that collective consumption provides better value for taxpayers and consumers, and provides access on the basis of genuine need for people who would otherwise be excluded.

Should Abbott genuinely prefer to adopt a “compassionate conservative” persona - as opposed to one of “ruthless neo-liberalism” - he could do worse than engage with these issues, and break the taboo against progressive tax and social expenditure reform.

Drawing to the conclusion of this critique, it must be conceded that there are many dimensions of the “Abbott manifesto” that I have not covered. But I will try and make some observations prior to closing.

In Battlelines Abbott continues to support positions which could be at best described as controversial for the Australian public.

He tries to justify Australian participation in the Second Gulf War despite questions surrounding its legality, and the false pretences (for example, “weapons of mass destruction”). And he does not acknowledge the terrible and enduring human cost.

He supports increasing the retirement age to 70 without recognising the difficulties this would mean for manual workers, or for older Australians to re-skill. This is also aside from the “human dimension” in this context. Even if taxes must rise to support an ageing population, after a lifetime at work older Australians should have the freedom to develop their human potential. Possibilities include study, civic activism, engagement in creative arts, and quality time with family.

He supports “punitive welfare”, especially “work for the dole”, appealing to “dark and judgmental” tendencies in the electorate. This is without addressing the failure of student payments and job search allowances to provide even for the bare necessities. And when students work part-time to support themselves the distraction could compromise their study.

He lauds the centrality of civil society as opposed to the state, yet he provides no account of the Howard government’s bullying of charities, threatening to revoke their tax-free status should they criticise government policy.

For those desperately ill who cannot afford potentially life-saving medication not included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), he refers to their pleas as “political blackmail” (p.5). What price a person’s life?

Truly practical politics would balance collectivist and individualist impulses and currents; and would balance and mediate between civil society and state.

By contrast, it is neo-liberal ideology which blinds the Conservatives - and to a lesser extent Labor - to the benefits of a democratic and mixed economy; a strong social wage and progressive tax system; and robust protections for the rights of workers.

But again, and in conclusion: should Tony Abbott fully embrace the “compassionate conservative” persona over that of “ruthless neo-liberalism”, this could precipitate a “political sea change” of benefit to workers, and also for those most vulnerable.

THAT would be a worthwhile legacy.

Battlelines by Tony Abbott, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, Australia, 2009.

and again: If you enjoyed this article pls join our Facebook group - to link up with other readers, and to receive regular updates on new material. 


see: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=58243419565