|
March 9, 2006
It's the big project isn't it, working out how to renew the social democratic project in a globlised world.
Australia's economic and political base has been transformed in the last two decades and the future of the ALP is far from assured. We have the rise of a middle class politics of my/me which is structured on being fearful, a desire to keep the home safe, and downward envy. As long as the economy is strong they will vote Liberal. As Mark Latham observed they have contracted out economic management to the conservative Coaliton in federal elections, but they trust State Labor with their health and education.
So far the federal ALP hasn't done a good job of policy renewal whilst its been in opposition for the last decade. Mark Latham gave it a good shot whilst he was in the Shadow Ministry with education and then leader with his prosperity with purpose, but the ALP Right would have none of it. The machine men loathed Latham. They had no time for the enabling state. What they desire is a Leader who plays the machine game so they can run the show from a distance.
So here's one renewal option:
Geoff Pryor
It's the factional pathway that decides who is to be in the Shadow Ministry and merit is the last thing to consider. Its about flexing muscle, payback, and finding those who please their factional warlords. The machine men have no structured thoughts about making society better. They rely on polling and focus groups for policy direction and what they cannot control they destroy.
Here's another option: the path of policy renewal. Lindsay Tanner, who aspired to be Shadow Treasurer, after the 2004 federal election defeat, talks about the changing role of the liberal state in a period or rising prosperity at the CIS
What does he say? He says:
It's easy to overlook the impact of rising living standards, and base our expectations of government on a society which no longer exists. The state's role is changing. Our thinking needs to change too. The size of government is no longer the big issue. What governments actually do is changing. The emphasis is shifting from building to learning, from regulating to persuading, and from alleviating producer risks to moderating family income changes. Modern western societies are capitalist-socialist hybrids...Traditionally, left-wing parties have sought to expand the role of government and right-wing parties have resisted. The onus shifted in the 1980s and 1990s. Right-wing parties now seek to reduce the role of government, and left-wing parties usually resist. Yet while the battle between public and private continues, the relative balance between the two hasn't changed much for some time. The Howard Government has not reduced the role of government, but merely reshaped it to support its own political objectives.
He's right about that. It means that we to need to rethink the role of the state in light of the fundamental changes in our society over recent decades. What then is Tanner's suggestion, given that the ALP lost the support of the winners in the new economy ---those economic free agents, the contractors and consultants who just want the government to get out the way?
He outlines the current change to the state:
The Snowy Mountains scheme is a great example of the old role of government in Australia. The Bracks Government's decision to sell its shares in Snowy Hydro and use the proceeds to upgrade Victorian schools symbolises the change that's occurring. Governments' responsibility to ensure that all Australians can develop their capabilities is now more important than their responsibility to build things. The rapid acceleration in the need for learning over the past fifty years has pushed education to the centre of government activity. When most people did not finish school and few attended university, the burden on government was limited. The need for more skilled workers has grown rapidly since then, and changed the role of government in its wake.
We have the learning state. Which means what?
|
