The Rudd ascendancy has prompted me to do a fair bit of reading on British New Labour’s record, both in opposition and in power, which has been enlightening for more than one reason – believe it or not, Gordon Brown is a rather fascinating figure. I’ve been musing over why, after an initial campaign from the punditariats at The Australian, led by moderniser-in-chief Paul Kelly, for the ALP to ditch its opposition to WorkChoices, there’s been so little discussion of the obvious comparisons between Rudd’s newish Labor and the British experience. Over at the ABC’s election opinion website Unleashed, I’ve had a stab at teasing out some of the reasons for this puzzling lacuna in political debate. I’ve taken a look also at some of the differences and similarities between Rudd and Blair’s strategies in opposition and in the election period. There’s a lot more that could be said about all this, and I intend to say a bit more in a planned sequel to that piece on what New Labour in government portends for a putative Rudd government.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Yes, wasn’t Labor going to be utterly destroyed by The Narrowing if they didn’t adopt every economic position advocated by Chris Mitchell? People weren’t going to view Labor as “serious” unless they promised to back Business against Labour?
Actually, what ever happened to “Serious”? Did the commentariat finally come to the realisation that calling somebody “not Serious” where they did not agree with the (“inside beltway”) orthodoxy leaves you very open to widespread ridicule by the unwashed?
Actually, speaking of fully imported American political slang being used by Australian political journalist’s to signify hipness, in some sort of weird throwback to the 60s “cultural cringe” – will I need to read The Washington Post to get a 3 month lead time on the GG’s interpretation of Labor, or will I now be able to read the Spectator? Hopefully they’ll understand that a Britischer perspective on New Labor (as exemplified by KRudd) is far more relevant than transposing a Democrat/Republican narrative to our fair shores.
O dear…I promise in future not to call anyone Ashley.
Blair had an easier task upon election in the relations between the Parliamentary British Labour Party and the British trades unions.
It is remarkable, for example, that Blair faced little pressure to repeal the Thatcherite Employment Act 1982. British unionists accepted this initially very controversial legislation as settled law. Rudd, on the other hand, faces the political hot potato of what to do with WorkChoices. I’d be surprised if the Australian union movement accepted this as settled law after a Rudd victory.
ATM the Australian labour movement has been very well behaved over this issue, clearly determined not to frighten the Me-Too horses.
Clearly collective bargaining will return as a hot issue. The union movement will press Rudd for repeal of parts of WorkChoices.
Moreover, the Australian union movement continues to be nostalgic for central wage fixation and the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission. This is a resource the like of which was never available to the British labour movement.
Thus a large lacuna in the Australian debate is the absence of the Australian labour movement saying loudly what they really want from Rudd.
The Employment Act 1982 was 15 years old by the time that Labour came to power in Britain. It was settled law. And it had served the rid the British trade union movement of internal pests, such as the print unions.
WorkChoices is a mere 18 months old.
What the Australian trade union movement wants is to be rid of Howard and be rid of WorkChoices which is Howard’s weapon, all 1000 pages of legislation and regulation of it, to destroy the Australian trade union movement. If Howard gets a chance at WorkChoices II, he may well succeed.
What positive things does the Australian labour movement want from Rudd? They’ll start thinking about that on November 25. The relationship with the Rudd Government will be difficult to predict. Greg Combet could have played the Bill Kelty role, but he will be in Parliament.
So very true, Katz. Though, strangely, you are one of very few to even say this.
And for committed trade unionists it’s a lonely place to be, in this political vacuum. The Left of the ALP is where? Yes, yes, I know it has been all but tamed or silenced or expunged. In the old days we would have heard from them, but not now. Ah, such is progress and democracy. And which is why so many trade unionists will be voting for the Greens.
Spiros, Rupert Murdoch used that Act in 1985-86 to smash the powerful print unions, an outcome that was part of series of deliberately plotted, tragic setbacks for the British labour movement, including the earlier defeat of the miners, and later the dockers, and others.
The union movement in Britain has never recovered from these series of events. The broader labour movement has never recovered. Which explains why the union movement and British Labour Party haven’t managed to repeal the Act and the working class has far less protection today and British Labour in government has been such a disaster and will continue to be unless something changes. Its record is what we can expect from a Rudd government. But unlike the BLP, which has a Left, we don’t, so expect things to be a lot easier for Rudd than Blair or Brown. The only opposition will in the Parliamentary system will come from the Greens unless the ALP can grow a Left.
Murdoch did pay a price for his victory, though. The Wapping debacle hurt his empire, his papers, how they are perceived then, and to this day, even by those who aren’t familiar with this history. It’s a continuing effect. And it has partly stayed his hand in treating his current employees as ruthlessly as he would prefer because of the price paid in the bloody British print workers’ battles of the mid-80s.
Darn. Wrote a really long reply but it got stung by a Wordpress error (probably a good thing)
I think my main points were:
Spiros is right about the timeline of the anti-union laws (ie. when Blair got the leadership after John Smith’s death, industrial relations was not a key battleground as it is here and now). If it was perhaps the right wing faction would not have gained such ascendancy.
A similarity between the Labour win in 97 and the Rudd campaign now is a national mood to purge an out-of-touch Tory executive.
Another similarity is the dropping of ‘old Labour’ values, and adoption of pro-business neo liberal ideals, a promise to improve social conditions, egalitarianism, cut out sleaze and support a strong welfare state (but in actual fact not doing that much, e.g. entrenchment of underclass, lack of House of Lords reform, cash for peerages, inaction on the NHS)
A difference is the Australian unions are stronger and closer to the Party than the British ones were after Thatcher.
Another difference is that (perhaps because of the electoral system), Australian Labor is not such a ‘broad church’ as British Labour. (Can’t imagine major backbench rebellions on controversial votes like new uranium mines – will there be a vote?!!) and don’t see the diversity from old skool leftists like Skinner and Galloway to right-wing spinmeisters and fat cats like Mandelson and Ed bAlls.
Good of Fanny Robin to mention the Wapping dispute – I see a major telling sign as being Murdoch’s anointment of Rudd, almost exactly a decade after he did the same for Blair.
In sum: I hope Rudd doesn’t win the majority that Blair did; I hope that the Labor Right is not as harmful as they have been in Britain; I hope that there will not be the same obsession with spin, style over substance, burying bad news, hounding of civil servants to their grave etc.