Queensland election

by John Q on February 1, 2015

We just had an election in my home state of Queensland, and the outcomes will be of some broader interest, I hope. The governing Liberal National (= conservative) Party has (almost certainly) gone down to a surprise defeat, going from 78 of 89 seats at the last election to a probable 40 or 41 this time. The key issues were broken promises (particularly regarding job cuts) and government proposals for privatisation.

This can be seen either as a reversal or a repeat of the last election when the governing Labor Party went from 51 seats to 7. That election was also fought on broken promises and privatisation, but with the roles of the parties reversed (Labor had won an election opposing privatisation, then immediately announced it would go ahead).

Among the actual or potential ramifications

* The first instance of a woman Opposition Leader defeating an incumbent government at state or national level in Australia (there have been examples in the much smaller territory governments, but I think this is the first case at State level. The more common pattern has been for a woman to get a “hospital pass” when it is clear that the government is on the way out.
* At the national level, the replacement of the current conservative prime minister Tony Abbott
* The abandonment of the biggest coal mine project in Australia

Looking internationally, the outcome can be seen as a defeat for the politics of austerity and maybe as an example to suggest that Pasokification can be reversed, under the right circumstances.

Finally, I’ll link to my analysis of the asset sales, which got a reasonably prominent run during the campaign. It probably didn’t change many minds, but it helped to counter the barrage of pro-privatisation propaganda.

{ 18 comments }

1

Magari 02.01.15 at 3:42 am

For those of us w/ little knowledge of Oz politics, had Labour gone full PASOK? (Poor PASOK, you could just as easily substitute PSOE or PS in its place and effectively be saying the same thing.) I don’t recall Australia being a den of austerity but I’ve also not seen anything particularly encouraging written about your Labour party either.

2

John Quiggin 02.01.15 at 3:47 am

The objective situation is much less dire here, but the state government (otherwise pretty good) abandoned its base simply to chase a AAA rating from Standard & Poors. Same in New South Wales, along with levels of bipartisan corruption that make the stories about Greece look tame.

Labor nationally (defeated in 2013) was similarly mixed: quite a bit of good stuff, but a string of politically suicidal moves driven by an obsession with getting the budget into surplus.

3

Magari 02.01.15 at 4:30 am

Interesting. Someone needs to write a book explaining why so many major center-left parties (in France, Spain, Germany, Greece, the UK, US and, I presume from what you’ve written, Australia) all decided to eschew Keynes and/or social democracy and more-or-less make economic bedfellows with parties to their right. I’m sure it’s complicated and that there are unique qualities in each case, but the general degree of convergence is breathtaking.

4

Val 02.01.15 at 5:40 am

Magari @ 3
Yeah, very interesting question. I would think some people must have written books about this already.

My pet theory: practically, difficulty in dealing with stagflation in the 70s, combined with, culturally, a backlash against the growing success of egalitarian movements (feminism, anti-racism, anti-colonialism, gay rights, etc). This provided a ‘moment’ for ruling class white men to re-establish dominance under the guise of “free markets” + “individual rights”.

For example if you look at gender income gap in Australia: until about the mid-1980s female wages grew in parallel with political measures such as anti- discrimination legislation. Since that time, there has been lesser emphasis on legislative or regulatory measures in countering discrimination and more emphasis on women having to “lean in” ( I know that’s a more recent term but the idea has been growing for some time) accompanied by deregulation, privatisation, in broader working conditions. Net result: the gender income gap, which looked like closing in the mid80s, remained pretty stable in Australia for about 20 years and has recently got slightly worse.

I don’t know enough about multi-cultural or Indigenous issues to do a similar analysis (know a bit but not enough), though I think there would be some similar impacts from the shift from social/structural measures to “individualism”. In terms of sexuality, I think the situation is a bit more complicated, so won’t try to go into that here.

There has been some work in Australia on who, specifically, has been affected by growing inequality, I think, but I’m not really familiar with it as yet.

5

Val 02.01.15 at 5:45 am

The vanguard or spokesmen for the “ruling class white men” in my previous comment, being, of course, Chicago school economists!

6

David J. Littleboy 02.01.15 at 7:44 am

The abandonment of that coal mine project is very good news. BBC had a report on it, and it sounded horrific. Not just that we shouldn’t be burning coal (and the project would have mined and shipped and burned a humongous amount of coal), but it would trash some important coral reefs as well.

7

Sancho 02.01.15 at 8:10 am

The Australian Labor Party lurched to the right largely because it was successful in the 20th century. So many of its labour goals were signed into law that they became standard practice, and voters stopped joining unions and started wondering what the ALP was for.

The party responded by taking up the banner of economic growth and middle-class comfort, which naturally led it toward economic rationalism.

8

Magari 02.01.15 at 8:32 am

The party responded by taking up the banner of economic growth and middle-class comfort, which naturally led it toward economic rationalism.

Could you unpack that for me?

9

ZM 02.01.15 at 8:50 am

I haven’t read it, but I came across this book a while ago which seems to be about how economic rationalism was taken up in Canberra

“Economic Rationalism in Canberra:
A Nation Building State Changes its Mind
By Michael Pusey

Cambridge University Press, 1991
ISBN 0-521-33661-9

Ranked by the Australian Sociological Association as one of the ten most influential books in 40 years of Australian Sociology.

“A celebrated analysis of how economic rationalism came to dominate policy making in Canberra.” – The Age

“Michael Pusey penetrates the club of free market bureaucrats to reveal the mind, manner and machination of Canberra’s top men. He shows us something quite simple and powerful: that the modern doctrine of economic rationalism has been the increasingly dominant intellectual force shaping these men, their view of the world and the transformation of the Australian state they presided over during the 1980’s.” – Australian Society

“Australians should read and ponder what deserves to be the political book of the decade. Nobody else – friend or enemy of the Hawk government – has related the shift in its policies to our national life and history in so profound a way.” – Hugh Stretton

This is an important and challenging book, not the least for provoking a long overdue debate.” – Barry Jones

“Michael Pusey’s Economic Rationalism in Canberra must rank as the most important political intervention against the New Right carried out by an academic in recent years. Pusey became the critical public intellectual of 1991.” – Arena”

10

John Quiggin 02.01.15 at 10:29 am

Pusey is good, but the book is a bit of a mixed bag. The big contribution was to take the term “economic rationalism” out of insider jargon (where it was mostly used positively) and use it to crystallise public concern about what is called neoliberalism in other places.

Here’s a review of a rightwing counterblast

http://www.uq.edu.au/economics/johnquiggin/Reviews/Kasper&Coleman01.html

11

Magari 02.01.15 at 10:38 am

In other words, the exact opposite of “middle-class comfort.”

12

Sasha Clarkson 02.01.15 at 11:44 am

Why do so many centre-left parties abandon their base? They seek the respect and approval of their enemies, thus giving these enemies a say in their policy. In the English speaking world, foremost of these puppet masters is Rupert Murdoch. Even Alex Salmond felt the need to court him.

13

PlutoniumKun 02.01.15 at 11:51 am

Very good news, even by the standard of modern right wing parties, the Aussie Liberals seem particularly vicious and irrational.

I like that word ‘Pasokification’. I think, to reflect on comments above as to why its happened, I think there has been a long term process in nearly all countries for left of centre parties to be gradually taken over by middle class socially liberal but economically conservative careerists. For the same reason that the arts are often dominated by the children of the privileged (only they can afford the years of unpaid voluntary work needed to get a foothold), political parties of the centre and left have also tended over time to shift into the control of the children of the relatively well off. It hasn’t helped that the popularity of identity politics has allowed economic right wingers to pose as progressives by advocating anti-racism, pro-gay marriage, feminist stances while busily pursuing policies which promote inequality and/or warfare (Hilary Clinton and most of the Obama administration being particularly obvious examples).

Here in Ireland, the process seems to have been accelerated by pure old fashioned personal greed. In the last election, the Irish Labour party had the choice of going into power with the centre right Fine Gael and cooperate with austerity, or stand back and force Fine Gael into a deal with the centrist Fianna Fail – and say ‘you lot and your policies caused the problems, you can fix it’. The latter policy seemed the most sensible and obvious political strategy. Had they followed it, they would certainly now be in a pole position to be the leading party in the country. But instead, they took the first option. It would seem that the primary motivation is that most of the leadership are in their 60’s and, quite simply, wanted a shot at power, and a government pension. The lower level of ambitious careerists within the party also saw it as a way of getting a ‘proper’ job, as many were working full time for little money. It is the only really possible explanation for why they made such a bone-headed short-term political move. They are now paying the price – they are likely to be wiped out in the next election, with a rag bag of more left wing small parties and Sinn Fein taking nearly all their core vote (they will be reduced to a small, urban liberal vote base, probably less than 10%).

14

RuSsel Brand 02.01.15 at 6:10 pm

“We just had an election…The governing Liberal National (= conservative) Party has (almost certainly) gone down to a surprise defeat…The key issues were broken promises (particularly regarding job cuts) and government proposals for privatisation.

This can be seen either as a reversal or a repeat of the last election when the governing Labor Party…also fought on broken promises and privatisation, but with the roles of the parties reversed (Labor had won an election opposing privatisation, then immediately announced it would go ahead).”
And we wonder why half the population thinks like this guy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BEPHqoG_mmc

15

Dave 02.01.15 at 10:52 pm

Sasha Clarkson @12 has this EXACTLY right: “They [Centre-Left parties] seek the respect and approval of their enemies, thus giving these enemies a say in their policy.”

It is absolutely infuriating how ‘appeal to business’ is the central plank of the UK Labour Party’s strategy, a strategy that has never, and will never work. Why the hell would business back Labour rather than a party that slashes their taxes, crushes any opposition from unions, and declares them Gods among Men? This election is an extreme case where Labour’s position to stay in the EU should make the party as attractive to business, relative to the Tories, as it will ever be. And business still won’t back Labour, because the mansion tax=Bolshevism.

And, as you say, trying to chase the business vote (which is how many people exactly??) Labour will lose a big chunk of its potential working-class support (and will be decimated in Scotland).

16

Helen 02.02.15 at 2:25 am

It hasn’t helped that the popularity of identity politics has allowed economic right wingers to pose as progressives by advocating anti-racism, pro-gay marriage, feminist stances while busily pursuing policies which promote inequality and/or warfare

Yes, it’s not the fault of the powerful clinging to their power and money, it’s got to be those pesky women and darkies and gays spoiling it all for everyone … [\sarc]

17

derrida derider 02.02.15 at 6:33 am

Surprised to hear John say “Pusey is good” – no neoliberal I, but I thought his book tendentious crap. So the Treasury employs economists rather than sociologists like Pusey – shocking! Presumably the Attorney-General’s department employs lawyers instead of sociologists too – scandalous!

For overseas readers, I think the Queensland state election had little significance for Australian federal politics (much as it would be nice to think otherwise), and even less outside Australia. Certainly that government got the good kicking it deserved, but it aint exactly the beginning of the end for capitalism.

18

tony lynch 02.02.15 at 9:22 am

I reckon that event has already passed.

Comments on this entry are closed.