Labor’s task – unite behind Shorten, and do it quickly

It was supposed to be an exercise in participatory democracy. It was supposed to show the country that the Australian Labor Party was open and inclusive when it came to deciding who its leaders would be. Most of all, it was supposed to be a signal that Labor had moved beyond the kind of factional manoeuvring that had turfed out two sitting Prime Ministers.

It captivated news cycles, drawing attention away from the new Abbott government as pundits tried to find the flaw in the system, and waited with bated breath for attack-type electioneering that never materialised. The campaign between Bill Shorten and Anthony Albanese was civil to the point of being almost boring. The two men praised each other’s record in Parliament, and refused to be drawn when invited to criticise. If anything, they were in danger of being seen as too similar.

The procedure was simple – the candidate who achieved an overall majority of votes would be elected leader. That majority was composed of 50% of Federal Caucus, and 50% of rank-and-file membership votes. In theory, this would achieve the most representative result, and silence those critics who insisted that Labor was entirely at the mercy of its factions, ignoring the membership.

There was an inherent problem in the procedure, however. If the caucus and the membership voted different ways, and the Caucus vote was ultimately the deciding factor, the result could easily be seen as a sign that nothing had really changed. For the procedure to be seen as truly ‘representative’ and free of factional politicking, the new leader needed to be elected via the rank-and-file vote. It’s all in the perception.

Unfortunately for Labor, the new leader – Bill Shorten – was elected on the Caucus vote. His numbers broke down this way:

Caucus vote: 63.9% (55 of 86)
Rank-and-file vote: 40% (12,196 of 30,426)
Overall vote: 52.2%

It’s absolutely clear that Shorten did not have the confidence of the rank-and-file – and with the new procedure effectively weighting the result such that one Caucus vote is roughly equivalent to 350 membership votes, it’s fair to say that this system does not provide a clear picture of the party’s wishes. Nor is it necessarily truly representative. Unless the rank-and-file overwhelmingly votes against the Caucus, their preferred candidate has little chance of gaining the leadership. More likely, factions within the Caucus will continue to exert control.

These flaws leave Labor entirely vulnerable to attack from the Coalition government, on grounds with which the latter are entirely comfortable. The situation is worsened by the election of Bill Shorten, who is perhaps irrevocably tainted by his past actions. His ties to the unions are, perhaps, the least of the problem. Labor has always drawn much of its strength from the union movement. His role as the prime mover in removing first Kevin Rudd, then Julia Gillard, from their positions as Prime Minister, however, is far more damaging to Labor in Opposition.

Bill Shorten, the new Opposition Leader

Bill Shorten, the new Opposition Leader

The attack ads and speeches write themselves. Labor has handed the Coalition a perfect way to avoid scrutiny. Take the asylum seeker issue, for example. Let’s say Shorten holds a press conference criticising the government over its high-handed attitude towards Indonesian sovereignty. Immigration Minister Scott Morrison need not answer any charge Shorten might bring – he has a script available to him to deflect attention onto the ‘ongoing disunity’ within Labor.

It’s already happening. Within minutes of the announcement, Jamie Briggs fronted the media. As expected, he called on Shorten to vote to repeal carbon pricing – but on the heels of that came the first test of the new script, courtesy of the media. What did Briggs think of the fact that the Caucus and the rank-and-file had voted differently? Briggs obligingly picked up his cue, and the rest was entirely predictable.

Of course, none of this speaks to Shorten’s ability to lead Labor. There’s no reason to believe he will be anything but a good leader – and, however flawed the new system, he was properly elected. The problem is entirely in the perception, and manipulating perceptions is a key strength of Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his front bench. Shorten is vulnerable, and there’s every reason to think Abbott will exploit both his history and the leadership ballot result. Had Albanese been elected, there would be no such opportunity for the Coalition, but there is little point in wasting time on counter-factuals.

In the coming days, Albanese’s action will go far towards countering any message of disunity. He’s seen as perhaps the most loyal of Labor’s front bench, putting the party first and wearing that loyalty on his sleeve. There’s no doubt he will attract a great deal of media scrutiny, looking for any sign that his support for Shorten is anything but unconditional – and it’s extremely unlikely they’ll find one.

The heavy lifting cannot be purely left to Albanese, however. One of Labor’s major failings, both in government and during the election campaign, was its inability to clearly communicate its message. It’s true that the media had largely written the narrative, often without even speaking with Labor – or had discounted the party entirely. It’s also true that the Coalition embraces the tactic of ‘repeat something often enough and others will come to believe it’. Nonetheless, Labor did not – and perhaps could not – cut through, and the election result was partly of its own making.

Now, in Opposition, the party has an opportunity to rehabilitate its image – but it must be a party-wide effort. With Shorten as leader, an uphill battle has become that much harder. Labor needs to do everything possible to bury Shorten’s history – not deny it, not attempt to explain it away, but to drown it out with a show of unity that is not undermined by disgruntled factional members or damaged by strategic leaks. (And no, this doesn’t mean Kevin Rudd. People really need to get over it.)

Above all, Labor needs to do it quickly. It can’t afford to let the government gain any momentum with a disunity message – it has to take the fight right up to the coalface of policy, and show itself entirely unmoved by the insistence that it has no choice but to fall into line with the Coalition’s platform. If the party falls in behind Shorten and sticks to its stated principles, it can become an extremely effective Opposition.

If it doesn’t, it will only have itself to blame.


6 Responses to Labor’s task – unite behind Shorten, and do it quickly

  1. JenniferGJ says:

    I really appreciated your writing this year. Just now I have seen a report on The Guardian Australia re Nicola Roxon’s speech. It is the first mainstream media I have seen in a long while which reflects the journalistic values I grew up with in the 1970s. Of course, it is not mainstream in Australia yet is it?

  2. […] As the excellent blog, The Conscience Vote, says elsewhere: […]

  3. […] As the excellent blog, The Conscience Vote, says elsewhere: […]

  4. ALP should also keep in mind that media portrayal of any given situation or occasion is not the way things necessarily are in fact. Rudd & Gillard gave far too much credence to media distortion by accepting loaded questions without pointing out the leading question line. Shorten must correct any such media headline-seeking and insist that credibility is as necessary for reporters as it is for politicians.

  5. Sandra Searle (@SandraSearle) says:

    Perhaps there was a tendency for the rank & file members to think that after what happened to Julia Gillard, that the new leader of the ALP should not carry any baggage into that leadership.
    I too was one of those people, until I listened to a good many of the debates. It was only then that I changed my mind. The reason being is that Bill Shorten actually presented as a better statesman like person. Anthony Albanese is a person who I have admired because although he voted for Rudd at the 1st challenge to JG he actually appeared to support her 100% during her leadership.
    This, to me, means that he really does, like Bill Shorten have the Labor party’s welfare at heart, pure & simple.
    It is now up to all of those people who believe in the values of the Labor party to get behind them & support them especially when they are doing a good job. If we don’t like some of their policies, then it is also up to us to lobby our local members & try to make the internal changes that are required. That means that more of us need to join, so that we can actually make a difference.

  6. The membership ballot is a game changer. Regardless of the weightings or the outcome, prospective labor leaders now need to front up to the rank-and-file members and put their case. When the tearful lesbian couple asks if the candidate will let them get married, at a forum of 400 voters, that candidate will give an answer that is consistent with the constituency’s values. When a candidate must face real people in this way, not just representatives of interest groups, it’s much harder to scare them into becoming more conservative. Knowing that they must one day explain themselves to the membership base may even give portfolio holders with future leadership aspirations pause before they take positions which are inconsistent with the membership base’s values. The membership-wide vote for leader could just be the one thing which encourages the party to be as brave and progressive as the community members which make it up, rather than being prodded to the right by analysts, pollsters and interest groups. I am hopeful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: