With a Queen as the head of the Monarchy of England, Quentin Bryce as Governor General for Australia and Julia Gillard as elected Prime Minister of Australia; it is easy to assume that gender inequality in Australia is dead and buried. Wrong. Similarly the assumption could be made that because Barack Obama is the elected president of America, racism no longer exists on its soil. Racism and Gender inequality follow similar lines however the line of gender inequality is not always clear. In fact “students are more willing to accept the reality of racism, heterosexism, and class inequality than sexism” (Copp and Kleinman 2008). In light of the Royal Wedding a few weeks ago this event and the overwhelming interest from the general public proves that socialisation of gender inequality is still alive and well. The Royal Wedding included socialised stereotypes; girl meets her prince charming, commoner marrying into money, a breathtakingly beautiful bride, girl becomes a Princess and many more. Two billion people around the world watched this extremely lavish affair. American’s, in large numbers, were amongst the two billion watching across the world however they are not a part of the monarchy. So what’s the connection? The public have been socialised to want a fairy tale life and happy ending. If we look closely at the Royal Wedding Princess Catherine’s happy ending includes the following; obeying her husband (even though this word was omitted from the vows, who is she kidding?), living off Prince William’s “families” money, reproducing another heir to the throne and remaining beautiful always. It is true society has come a long way in fighting the battle of gender inequality however it is still present in every aspect of our lives; predominantly work family and the media. It is the taboo topic of the twenty first century. This crippling view that females are a lesser species is an accepted notion because it has been socialised within us to an extent that it is almost as natural as our sex. This issue is becoming so big that the United Nations have “created a new entity for gender equality and the empowerment of women” (Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi 2010). The Global Gender Gap index was introduced by the United Nations to combat the harrowing problems that gender inequality still creates. Remarkably, Australia is placed 23rd on the list of countries that possess gender equality, falling behind New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. However, most alarmingly Australia is lagging behind Philippines, South Africa, Latvia, Trinidad and Mozambique. So where are Australians going wrong?
Broadly speaking, a male and female stereotype within the work arena is still as present as it was one hundred years ago. In recent times there has been an injection of individuals challenging these work/gender lines, for example male nurses, however, the distinction of gender associated with certain careers still remains. The stereotypical female roles include; shop assistant, nurse, administration and cleaner to name a few. These roles are cheerleading roles; all careers that play a supporting role. The conventional male roles include; trade, mining, factory workers, transport drivers, finance sector and politics. If you compare the two, the male careers are predominantly more profitable then the female careers. In Australia, women’s wages fall well below the national average. Women are also faced with the impediment of promotions for their life choices. Employers are reluctant to promote women of a certain age as they are more likely to start a family and leave their employer which can be a heavy burden on a company. Across the board, females are paid less than their male counterparts when undertaking the same roles. Research conducted by NATSEM for the Commonwealth Bank of Australia recently produced some alarming results in the disparity between males and females; females “earn up to 26% less than men and face a period of just 20 years of peak earning, compared to 40 years for men” (Cassells, et al. 2011). This is not taking into account the impact on a female’s superannuation. Sexual harassment and the overbearing sexism is another issue women face within the workplace. For example the case against David Jones (CEO Mark McInnes) who was sued for sexual harassment in the workplace. Ms Fraser-Kirk, the victim, approached David Jones management about Mr McInnes’ behaviour however was merely told how to deal with this behaviour when it arose again; “In failing to act early on McInnes's behaviour, DJs effectively condoned it, which seems only to have entrenched in the former executive's mind that his behaviour was permissible because he was kicking goals for the company in terms of profitability” (McIIwraith 2010). This neglect of a female’s right is riddled throughout small and large corporations.
Women are still leading the way with their contribution to unpaid work. This involves jobs around the home that are conducted without a monetary reward. The traditional expectation that a male comes home from their hardworking job to find their dinner on the table unfortunately still exists. This does not mean that males don’t participate in unpaid work, as gendered unpaid roles include mowing the lawns, washing the cars etc however the percentage is still heavily tipped towards the females. Within a family, the gender lines are deeply reinforced. This socialisation process begins at a very early age. From the moment a child is born they are associated with a colour; blue or pink. As they grow older, female toys are associated with gender roles; shopping, cooking, playing with dolls. Male toys include trucks, cars and tools. In fact, Mattel, Barbie creators, now a billion dollar company “sells about 10 million Barbies and 20 million accompanying outfits annually” (Furze 2008). It is generally the woman taking maternity leave to look after their newly born child. If a mother does return to work immediately she is faced with public scorn, as she is not home to look after her child. There has also been a strong stigma with mothers placing children in day care while they return to work. Day cares “can command fees of up to $125 a day” (Martel 2011). As day care prices rise, it is nearly impossible and pointless for mothers to return to work. Domestic violence against women is another strong issue that occurs within the family domain. Feminist’s theory believe that it is a sociological problem; males are sociologically trained to believe that they are superior and females inferior. “The more unequal women are compared to men in a society, the more likely men are to be violent toward women” (Yodanis 2004).
Since the release of the book “Men are from Venus and Women are from Mars” it has been heralded as supporting sociological views of gender that inhibits equality. That the species are inextricably different, not just biologically, but also internally; this influences how we think about gender. Feminists have been stereotyped by the media as; lesbian, butch, hairy legged monsters. Even Julia Gillard’s ascension as Prime Minister of Australia was an attack against feminism and women; claiming females are voting for Julia based on her gender and not on her political ideologies. Julia Gillard might be Prime Minister; however, this certainly doesn’t mean a win for feminism. A female as Prime Minister may do more damage than good. Ms Julia Gillard will be another example of a woman conforming to a male society. It is impossible for her to expose her feminist ideology without sidelining male and females alike who unfortunately the majority in Australia. In a very humorous article written by a Kathy Lette, a UK writer, she claims “Julia Gillard is not just a woman; she’s an unmarried, childless, proudly undomesticated feminist agnostic — who also happens to be shacked up with a hairdresser. In the land of cold beer and untrammelled misogyny, this is about the worst kind of human being possible” (Lette 2010). Unfortunately true, however, Lette received a backlash of Australian’s disagreeing with her sentiments. Media plays an important and pivotal role on gender inequality. Unfortunately the media is a double edged sword when it comes to gender equality. The media will always produce what the general public are interested in. After all the media relies on viewing, hits and readership to survive. The problem is that the general public, from birth, are socialised to associate themselves with gender stereotypes.
There is one place, however, that Australia came in first along with twenty two other countries; Education (Hausmann, Tyson and Zahidi 2010). Yes, Australia is one of the forerunners for gender equality in Education. Could this be that women are striving for fairer pay conditions and feel this is the only avenue to prove themselves as equal? I have outlined where gender inequalities still exist within Australia, however, there is one vital piece of the equation that I have not touched on. Female inequalities aren’t necessarily reinforced by males. Throughout it may seem I have ostracised males as the inhibiting factor behind gender equality; in some cases this is true. Bridging the gap doesn’t necessarily just involve males, it also involves females. Females can be the most critical of other females that are pushing the sociological boundaries of gender. If all females banded together and stood up for their rights to be treated as equals, these problems would be diminutive.
Bibliography
Cassells, Rebecca, Annie Abello, Yogi Vidyattama, and Linc Thurecht. NATSEM Univeristy of Canberra. March 15, 2011. http://www.canberra.edu.au/centres/natsem/publications (accessed May 10, 2011).
Copp, Martha, and Sherryl Kleinman. "Practicing What We Teach: Feminists Strategies for Teaching about Sexism." Feminsit Teacher (University of Illinois Press) 18, no. 2 (2008): 101-124.
FLI. "PM Julia: Atheism, Adultery, Feminism and Fabianism." Family Life International Australia. July 0, 2010. www.fli.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Julia.pdf (accessed May 7, 2011).
Furze, Brian and others. "Foundations." Chap. 4 in Sociology in Today's World, by Brian Furze, Pauline Savy, Robert J Brym and John Lie, 391-419. South Melbourne, Victoria: Cengage Learning Australia, 2008.
Hausmann, Ricardo, Laura D. Tyson, and Saadia Zahidi. The Global Gender Gap Report. Statistics, Switzerland: World Economic Forum, 2010, 1-334.
Lette, Kathy. "Strewth! There's a Sheila running Oz. And guess what? She's a feminist... and a Pom." Daily Mail. June 25, 2010. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1289391/Julia-Gillard-Theres-Sheila-running-Oz-Shes-feminist--Pom.html#comments (accessed May 9, 2011).
Martel, Elinore. "Care or Career?" Sydney Morning Herald. January 19, 2011. http://www.smh.com.au/money/planning/costs-pose-a-tough-call-care-or-career-20110118-19uv9.html (accessed May 1, 2011).
McIIwraith, Ian. The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH). August 2, 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/business/djs-may-rue-mcinnes-payout-20100802-112zm.html (accessed May 10, 2011).
Yodanis, Carrie L. "Gender Inequality, Violence Against Women, and Fear; A Cross-National Test of the Feminist Theory of Violence Against Women." Journal of Interpersonal Violence (Sage Publications) 19, no. 6 (June 2004): 655-675.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Do the Liberal and Labor Party offer the same package in different wrapping?
As most of you may know I made a relatively quick exit out of Real Estate 9 months ago and did not manage to continue on with this blog. Whilst spending time within the class room I have stumbled across some important Social and Political issues that I would like to continue to share. Please feel free to unsubscribe as this blog will be completely unrelated to Real Estate. I hope you enjoy the read and keep in mind all "Views" expressed within the blog are from my "Desk" and therefore my opinion only.
The first Hung Parliament since World War 2 was the result of the 2010 Australian Federal Election. It is easily argued that the result reflected the indecisiveness of both major parties, adopting the same beliefs and packages; with different wrapping paper. Both major political parties have moved closer to the centre of the political spectrum, wary of straying too far left or right. Leadership now plays a pivotal role in the success of a party as their political ideologies are focussed around populism instead of radical and progressive views. To understand how both parties have evolved to represent the same political ideologies, it is imperative to research both major parties political history and their original ideologies from their inception and the changes both politically and socially they have adopted. The Labor Party’s roots were formed through a strong association with the Trade Unions and the collaborative minor parties formed the Liberal Party opposing the Democratic Socialist Labor Party. When both major parties were formed they had very strong radical views targeting only specific interest groups. Leaving those roots behind, both parties now try to cater for every political interest group, straying away from their core beliefs and selling the same product to the electorate.
Predominantly left-wing, the Labor ideologies were derived from Democratic Socialism. The origins of Labor came from the Trade Unions, principally transport, agriculture, maritime and the mining sectors. Their plight and reason to search for better rights for workers was pursued through politics and the need to make appropriate changes. Still prevalent today is Labor’s association with the working class people. Another avid supporter of the Labor Party, upon inception, was the Roman Catholic Church as it had very strong links with the working class sector. It was during the 1890’s that shearing and maritime strikes occurred claiming better rights and pay for its workers. The only way forward was to have political representation to pursue these rights. It wasn’t until 1910 that Andrew Fisher led the Australian Labor Party to a world first ALP majority government. Some of the policies they supported were based around the ideals of the Trade Unions; better wages for workers and better working conditions. Labor’s relationship with the Trade Union has been a tumultuous one; torn between the demands of the Trade Unions and businesses. Existing within the party from very early on, the Labor Party always “had a left-wing and a right-wing.” These supporters of the left and right wing became formal factions in the 1970’s.
Gough Whitlam was a strong leader in the 1970’s that implemented instrumental changes away from Labor’s grass roots. Trying to take a leaf from the Liberal’s, he made a rather difficult transition to a similar style of government of his opposition; this is referred to as a catch-all party type. This won him the election in 1972. The formal change was from a Democratic Socialist Party to a Social Democratic Party. An example of this was when Ben Chifley tried to nationalise all banks in the 1940’s in comparison to the 1980’s when the Labor government did the opposite in privatising the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the deregulation of controlled industries. There were other changes within the party which occurred due to social changes. For example, “The Australian White Policy”. It wasn’t until Chifley adopted an immigration program in the 1940’s that this changed. The Hawke & Keating Government offered some very different ideals to what the Labor Party originally endorsed; Hawke said “that Labor was not changing its principles, merely changing the means of implementing those principles’. So delegates, this conference is not a conference about ends. It is a conference about means'” in making reference to privatising Australian airlines, in particular Qantas. There is no doubt the Labor Party’s ideologies have changed somewhat from their early roots. As recent as the 2010 election result with the hung parliament, there was a strong swing to Green voters. John Howard claims the “record level of support for the Greens in the August election was made up of disaffected Labor voters.” Labor’s movement from their original roots have been witnessed through the Labor factions which could be a reason for tension within the party. Not only does the Labor Party have to cater for all voters, they also have to sustain their working relations within their own party. These factions are divided up into three groups; Left, Centre Left and Right on the political scale. “One of the greatest concerns of any Labor government is supporting labour policies without alienating other sectors of the community” , as well as the factions within their own party. For example the protest vote against Labor to the Green’s is already causing tension within the Labor caucus to target the voters that have turned to the Green’s; “Ms Gillard continued yesterday to resist overtures by the Left faction for Labor to broaden its policies in order to win votes back from the ascendant Greens.”
The foundations of the Liberal Party started out as minor parties that were anti Labor Party. These parties were classified as ‘Non-Labor’. The Non-Labor Party opposed the socialist ideologies of the Labor Party on issues like; expansion of “government owned enterprises.” The word ‘Liberal’ was founded upon the concept of Liberalism; Liberalism meaning free from government control and individual rights. It wasn’t until 1942 that Robert Menzies presented his famous speech which epitomised the Liberal ideals. The Liberal party’s ideals were; freedom for the individual, free trade, privatisation of services, laissez-faire economics, the opposite of everything that the Labor Party represented. Liberal’s broad ideals started from banding together as minor parties that were anti Labor to form one united party. The party was representative of the vast range of people that opposed Socialism and Labor ideals. Robert Menzies speech called the “Forgotten people” was exactly that, targeting a group of people whose needs had been politically ignored. This can be recognised as the birth of the “catch-all party type” . The Liberal Party needed to recognise what it was about Labor party that differentiated them; mostly it was free trade and this did not change until the 1970’s. The Liberal doctrine consequently was very broad in comparison to the Labor doctrine. It needed to outline certain ideals however wasn’t restrictive on what the party could and couldn’t do. It must be clearly noted that the Liberal Party was formed in opposition to Labor ideals. It was Robert Menzies that said, “The new party must be seen as progressive and not reactionary.” Social influences favoured the nature of the Liberal Party in the 1950’s through the Cold War and its Communist and Socialist agenda.
By the 1970’s there were two schools of thought within the Liberal Party; Liberal Socialism and Economic Rationalism. Social Liberals were eventually forced out of the party during the 1980’s; around the same time the Labor Party adopted some strong Liberal ideals. Adopting economic rationalism placed the Liberal Party further to the right in opposition to Labor moving closer to the centre. Because Liberal was based on the foundations of opposing Labor they soon found themselves in a quandary when Labor started moving closer to the centre. The Liberal Party relied on its “electoral distinctiveness” to win elections. Due to the Liberal Party’s broad ideals, the party’s success relied on its leader. The Liberal Party by and large has a large following of supporters when there is a strong leader in office. In 1980’s there was a push for deregulation following other countries western ideologies and this forced many of the Social Liberals out of the party. It wasn’t until John Howard in 1996 re-adopted “a moral and social conservatism” for his campaign that once again we witnessed the Labor and Liberal Party’s become increasingly similar. The landslide win by the Liberals was thought to have something to do with Labor moving away from its core beliefs; “abandoned its core constituency – the ‘battlers’ and working class outer suburban families” . Howard began to lose steam to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. In his third term, he targeted the One Nation voters by adopting a policy of strong border protection. John Howard embraced certain ideals that went against political liberalism through the introduction of detention centres for asylum seekers. It has recently been noted that “the Liberal Party has lost its way on the economy, and on its own ideology. In less than three years, they have squandered eleven years of economic achievements by the Howard government, and now they're doing their best to wreck the National Reform Agenda.” The Liberal Party is currently under threat of populism however they do not stand alone.
Finally this takes us to the 2010 Election. The Labor Party’s conflict within the caucus saw the demise of a Prime Minister during his first term. Kevin Rudd’s adoption of a very socialist perspective in wanting to implement a mining tax, upset factions within his party and saw his demise. This “civil war” inside their party created many problems during their 2010 election campaign with leaks from within the Labor camp. The different beliefs within both parties created confusion in the public; this could be the reason for very broad policies on both the right and left of politics. Then we come to the Liberal Party, who as previously discussed, relied heavily on opposing the Labor Party ideals. What happens when the Labor Party’s ideals have become so broad they have adopted the same principles as their opposition? There is nothing for the Liberal’s to oppose. Abbott is slammed for populism however if Labor has accepted Liberal principles what else is he left to do? If their policies are increasingly similar it then comes down to the leader, which judging by the result of the election neither Abbott or Gillard seem to have what it takes; Laurie Oake’s referring to them as “political pygmies” . John Howard; love him or hate him, creates a reaction – an example of this is the “shoe throwing incident” on Q & A. It is only through reacting that we are able understand and establish our own beliefs. Both parties have moved far away from their original ideology nevertheless this too may be a reflection of the voting public. The public is now more educated. They not only look at how a government affects them directly, they also look at human and social justice issues. What we expect and what we want from our government is extremely broad. There is no possible way one party can cater for all of this. Parties are slowly becoming obsolete and the public is now looking for visionary leaders. The strong surge in voting towards the Greens proves what the public is most concerned about, environmental issues. I am sure by the next election we will see an environment push by both major parties.
From the inception of the two major parties (Labor and Liberal) to now, they have in essence become a “catch all party type” with Labor primarily straying away from their original roots and meeting Liberal at the centre of the political spectrum. Outside influences such as the Cold War and the rise of Neo-Liberalism has forced Labor in particular to stray from their original Trade Union roots. “Electoral distinctiveness” that the Liberal’s once relied upon is now in effect non-existent as Labor has adopted many of their ideologies. It is inevitable that both major parties will present similar policies in fear that they will lose votes by straying too far to the left or right.
The "View" from my desk.
Bibliography:
Abbott, Tony. “Press Conference, Canberra - Election 2010; parliamentary reform”, Tony Abbott Federal Member for Warringah, 24 August 2010 http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/InterviewTranscripts/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7668/Press-Conference-Canberra--Election-2010-parliamentary-reform.aspx
(Accessed: September 4, 2010)
Atkins, Dennis. ‘John Howard's memoirs wrong about Greens vote election landslide’, Courier Mail, October 26, 2010, http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/john-howards-memoirs-wrong-about-greens-vote-election-landslide/story-e6frerff-1225943434479
(Accessed: 29 October, 2010)
BBC Home. ‘The ideology of the Australian Labor Party’, 16 August, 2001, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A593200
(Accessed: 29 October, 2010)
Coorey, Phillip. ‘Gillard patches up rift with Labor Factions’, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 27, 2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-patches-up-rift-with-labor-factions-20101026-172et.html
(Accessed: 29 October, 2010)
Howes, Paul. ‘Desperate Liberals Dump Ideology’, The Australian Workers Union, 31 October, 2010 http://www.awu.net.au/200926_2.html?H%7CA%7C200926%7C
(Accessed: 1 November, 2010)
Menzies, R., ‘The Forgotten People’, Menzies Virtual Museum, 22 May, 1942, http://www.menziesvirtualmuseum.org.au/transcripts/ForgottenPeople/Forgotten1.html
(Accessed: 27 October, 2010)
Oakes, Laurie. “Gillard ushers in the era of farce”, Herald Sun, July 24, 2010
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gillard-ushers-in-the-era-of-farce/story-e6frfhqf-1225896276726
(Accessed: August 7, 2010)
Woodward, D., Parkin, A., Summers, J. ‘Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia’, Pearson Australia, 2010, Pp. 3-545
Word IQ, 2010, ‘Australian Labor Party Definition’, http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Australian_Labor_Party
(Accessed: 27 October, 2010)
3AW 693 News talk. ‘Shoe thrown at John Howard’, 25 October, 2010, http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/shoes-thrown-at-john-howard/20101025-17103.html
(Accessed: 1 November, 2010)
The first Hung Parliament since World War 2 was the result of the 2010 Australian Federal Election. It is easily argued that the result reflected the indecisiveness of both major parties, adopting the same beliefs and packages; with different wrapping paper. Both major political parties have moved closer to the centre of the political spectrum, wary of straying too far left or right. Leadership now plays a pivotal role in the success of a party as their political ideologies are focussed around populism instead of radical and progressive views. To understand how both parties have evolved to represent the same political ideologies, it is imperative to research both major parties political history and their original ideologies from their inception and the changes both politically and socially they have adopted. The Labor Party’s roots were formed through a strong association with the Trade Unions and the collaborative minor parties formed the Liberal Party opposing the Democratic Socialist Labor Party. When both major parties were formed they had very strong radical views targeting only specific interest groups. Leaving those roots behind, both parties now try to cater for every political interest group, straying away from their core beliefs and selling the same product to the electorate.
Predominantly left-wing, the Labor ideologies were derived from Democratic Socialism. The origins of Labor came from the Trade Unions, principally transport, agriculture, maritime and the mining sectors. Their plight and reason to search for better rights for workers was pursued through politics and the need to make appropriate changes. Still prevalent today is Labor’s association with the working class people. Another avid supporter of the Labor Party, upon inception, was the Roman Catholic Church as it had very strong links with the working class sector. It was during the 1890’s that shearing and maritime strikes occurred claiming better rights and pay for its workers. The only way forward was to have political representation to pursue these rights. It wasn’t until 1910 that Andrew Fisher led the Australian Labor Party to a world first ALP majority government. Some of the policies they supported were based around the ideals of the Trade Unions; better wages for workers and better working conditions. Labor’s relationship with the Trade Union has been a tumultuous one; torn between the demands of the Trade Unions and businesses. Existing within the party from very early on, the Labor Party always “had a left-wing and a right-wing.” These supporters of the left and right wing became formal factions in the 1970’s.
Gough Whitlam was a strong leader in the 1970’s that implemented instrumental changes away from Labor’s grass roots. Trying to take a leaf from the Liberal’s, he made a rather difficult transition to a similar style of government of his opposition; this is referred to as a catch-all party type. This won him the election in 1972. The formal change was from a Democratic Socialist Party to a Social Democratic Party. An example of this was when Ben Chifley tried to nationalise all banks in the 1940’s in comparison to the 1980’s when the Labor government did the opposite in privatising the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and the deregulation of controlled industries. There were other changes within the party which occurred due to social changes. For example, “The Australian White Policy”. It wasn’t until Chifley adopted an immigration program in the 1940’s that this changed. The Hawke & Keating Government offered some very different ideals to what the Labor Party originally endorsed; Hawke said “that Labor was not changing its principles, merely changing the means of implementing those principles’. So delegates, this conference is not a conference about ends. It is a conference about means'” in making reference to privatising Australian airlines, in particular Qantas. There is no doubt the Labor Party’s ideologies have changed somewhat from their early roots. As recent as the 2010 election result with the hung parliament, there was a strong swing to Green voters. John Howard claims the “record level of support for the Greens in the August election was made up of disaffected Labor voters.” Labor’s movement from their original roots have been witnessed through the Labor factions which could be a reason for tension within the party. Not only does the Labor Party have to cater for all voters, they also have to sustain their working relations within their own party. These factions are divided up into three groups; Left, Centre Left and Right on the political scale. “One of the greatest concerns of any Labor government is supporting labour policies without alienating other sectors of the community” , as well as the factions within their own party. For example the protest vote against Labor to the Green’s is already causing tension within the Labor caucus to target the voters that have turned to the Green’s; “Ms Gillard continued yesterday to resist overtures by the Left faction for Labor to broaden its policies in order to win votes back from the ascendant Greens.”
The foundations of the Liberal Party started out as minor parties that were anti Labor Party. These parties were classified as ‘Non-Labor’. The Non-Labor Party opposed the socialist ideologies of the Labor Party on issues like; expansion of “government owned enterprises.” The word ‘Liberal’ was founded upon the concept of Liberalism; Liberalism meaning free from government control and individual rights. It wasn’t until 1942 that Robert Menzies presented his famous speech which epitomised the Liberal ideals. The Liberal party’s ideals were; freedom for the individual, free trade, privatisation of services, laissez-faire economics, the opposite of everything that the Labor Party represented. Liberal’s broad ideals started from banding together as minor parties that were anti Labor to form one united party. The party was representative of the vast range of people that opposed Socialism and Labor ideals. Robert Menzies speech called the “Forgotten people” was exactly that, targeting a group of people whose needs had been politically ignored. This can be recognised as the birth of the “catch-all party type” . The Liberal Party needed to recognise what it was about Labor party that differentiated them; mostly it was free trade and this did not change until the 1970’s. The Liberal doctrine consequently was very broad in comparison to the Labor doctrine. It needed to outline certain ideals however wasn’t restrictive on what the party could and couldn’t do. It must be clearly noted that the Liberal Party was formed in opposition to Labor ideals. It was Robert Menzies that said, “The new party must be seen as progressive and not reactionary.” Social influences favoured the nature of the Liberal Party in the 1950’s through the Cold War and its Communist and Socialist agenda.
By the 1970’s there were two schools of thought within the Liberal Party; Liberal Socialism and Economic Rationalism. Social Liberals were eventually forced out of the party during the 1980’s; around the same time the Labor Party adopted some strong Liberal ideals. Adopting economic rationalism placed the Liberal Party further to the right in opposition to Labor moving closer to the centre. Because Liberal was based on the foundations of opposing Labor they soon found themselves in a quandary when Labor started moving closer to the centre. The Liberal Party relied on its “electoral distinctiveness” to win elections. Due to the Liberal Party’s broad ideals, the party’s success relied on its leader. The Liberal Party by and large has a large following of supporters when there is a strong leader in office. In 1980’s there was a push for deregulation following other countries western ideologies and this forced many of the Social Liberals out of the party. It wasn’t until John Howard in 1996 re-adopted “a moral and social conservatism” for his campaign that once again we witnessed the Labor and Liberal Party’s become increasingly similar. The landslide win by the Liberals was thought to have something to do with Labor moving away from its core beliefs; “abandoned its core constituency – the ‘battlers’ and working class outer suburban families” . Howard began to lose steam to Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. In his third term, he targeted the One Nation voters by adopting a policy of strong border protection. John Howard embraced certain ideals that went against political liberalism through the introduction of detention centres for asylum seekers. It has recently been noted that “the Liberal Party has lost its way on the economy, and on its own ideology. In less than three years, they have squandered eleven years of economic achievements by the Howard government, and now they're doing their best to wreck the National Reform Agenda.” The Liberal Party is currently under threat of populism however they do not stand alone.
Finally this takes us to the 2010 Election. The Labor Party’s conflict within the caucus saw the demise of a Prime Minister during his first term. Kevin Rudd’s adoption of a very socialist perspective in wanting to implement a mining tax, upset factions within his party and saw his demise. This “civil war” inside their party created many problems during their 2010 election campaign with leaks from within the Labor camp. The different beliefs within both parties created confusion in the public; this could be the reason for very broad policies on both the right and left of politics. Then we come to the Liberal Party, who as previously discussed, relied heavily on opposing the Labor Party ideals. What happens when the Labor Party’s ideals have become so broad they have adopted the same principles as their opposition? There is nothing for the Liberal’s to oppose. Abbott is slammed for populism however if Labor has accepted Liberal principles what else is he left to do? If their policies are increasingly similar it then comes down to the leader, which judging by the result of the election neither Abbott or Gillard seem to have what it takes; Laurie Oake’s referring to them as “political pygmies” . John Howard; love him or hate him, creates a reaction – an example of this is the “shoe throwing incident” on Q & A. It is only through reacting that we are able understand and establish our own beliefs. Both parties have moved far away from their original ideology nevertheless this too may be a reflection of the voting public. The public is now more educated. They not only look at how a government affects them directly, they also look at human and social justice issues. What we expect and what we want from our government is extremely broad. There is no possible way one party can cater for all of this. Parties are slowly becoming obsolete and the public is now looking for visionary leaders. The strong surge in voting towards the Greens proves what the public is most concerned about, environmental issues. I am sure by the next election we will see an environment push by both major parties.
From the inception of the two major parties (Labor and Liberal) to now, they have in essence become a “catch all party type” with Labor primarily straying away from their original roots and meeting Liberal at the centre of the political spectrum. Outside influences such as the Cold War and the rise of Neo-Liberalism has forced Labor in particular to stray from their original Trade Union roots. “Electoral distinctiveness” that the Liberal’s once relied upon is now in effect non-existent as Labor has adopted many of their ideologies. It is inevitable that both major parties will present similar policies in fear that they will lose votes by straying too far to the left or right.
The "View" from my desk.
Bibliography:
Abbott, Tony. “Press Conference, Canberra - Election 2010; parliamentary reform”, Tony Abbott Federal Member for Warringah, 24 August 2010 http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/LatestNews/InterviewTranscripts/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7668/Press-Conference-Canberra--Election-2010-parliamentary-reform.aspx
(Accessed: September 4, 2010)
Atkins, Dennis. ‘John Howard's memoirs wrong about Greens vote election landslide’, Courier Mail, October 26, 2010, http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/john-howards-memoirs-wrong-about-greens-vote-election-landslide/story-e6frerff-1225943434479
(Accessed: 29 October, 2010)
BBC Home. ‘The ideology of the Australian Labor Party’, 16 August, 2001, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A593200
(Accessed: 29 October, 2010)
Coorey, Phillip. ‘Gillard patches up rift with Labor Factions’, The Sydney Morning Herald, October 27, 2010.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-patches-up-rift-with-labor-factions-20101026-172et.html
(Accessed: 29 October, 2010)
Howes, Paul. ‘Desperate Liberals Dump Ideology’, The Australian Workers Union, 31 October, 2010 http://www.awu.net.au/200926_2.html?H%7CA%7C200926%7C
(Accessed: 1 November, 2010)
Menzies, R., ‘The Forgotten People’, Menzies Virtual Museum, 22 May, 1942, http://www.menziesvirtualmuseum.org.au/transcripts/ForgottenPeople/Forgotten1.html
(Accessed: 27 October, 2010)
Oakes, Laurie. “Gillard ushers in the era of farce”, Herald Sun, July 24, 2010
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gillard-ushers-in-the-era-of-farce/story-e6frfhqf-1225896276726
(Accessed: August 7, 2010)
Woodward, D., Parkin, A., Summers, J. ‘Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia’, Pearson Australia, 2010, Pp. 3-545
Word IQ, 2010, ‘Australian Labor Party Definition’, http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Australian_Labor_Party
(Accessed: 27 October, 2010)
3AW 693 News talk. ‘Shoe thrown at John Howard’, 25 October, 2010, http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/shoes-thrown-at-john-howard/20101025-17103.html
(Accessed: 1 November, 2010)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)