The Party Contest: Liberal vs. Labor

On 14 September 1978 Barry Jones (later ALP President) had incorporated into Hansard a short paper on the basic differences in emphasis between the two major Australian political parties. While Jones’ analysis is somewhat partisan, it is an informative comparison. This page reproduces the comparison and comments on it from the perspective of some twenty years later.

 

Liberal Party 1978

Australian Labor Party 1978

Comments 1998
1 Could be renamed ‘the self interest party’. The main beneficiaries of Liberal rule are essentially the voter and his/her children. The Liberal Party symbol could well be a mirror (in which the voter can see the expected beneficiary of Liberal voting) or a ladder (which the voter or his/her children can climb). Could be renamed ‘the victims party’. The beneficiaries of Labor rule will not necessarily be the voter and his/her children. The Australian Labor Party symbol could well be a pair of field glasses (because the voter may have to look some distance away to see some beneficiaries of Labor voting - non-voters, migrants, Aborigines, the sick, the poor, unemployed and ignorant) or a safety net (to prevent people from hurting themselves when they fall). Even in 1978 these statements were largely marketing hype. While Labor has a stronger social justice focus than the Liberals, Labor’s traditional heartland was working people on low incomes; who in many cases voted Labor out of self interest. Since the 1970s, the ‘middle-classing’ of Labor under Whitlam and its embrace of electoral pragmatism under Hawke and Keating have seen the party move even further towards the position Jones ascribes to the Liberals.
2 Status quo plus preserving economic gap between rich and poor. Preference for society as it is, or will be in the short term; choosing the known rather than the unknown. Now oriented but with hope of future economic opportunities for children. Liberal voting is a reinforcement of an optimistic self image. (’We’re a cut above the others in the street. We vote Liberal’.) Change plus narrowing economic gap between rich and poor. Preference for society as it should be, or will be in the long term; taking a chance on experimenting with the unknown rather than accepting the known. Future oriented but with emphasis on improved economic security now. Labor voting is a reinforcement of a general sense of community concern. Today the both parties have reform agendas and areas of conservatism; so the reform/status quo dichotomy is no longer a strong indicator of party preference. However, Liberals in general continue to accept a greater gap between the rich and poor in society (as it provides incentive). They are less convinced about the need for governments to promote equity in society.
3 Hierarchical and paternalistic: success oriented. (’We must be right - we won didn’t we?’) ‘Deference voting’: electors encouraged to trust and vote for candidates who are above them in the social hierarchy and to lack confidence in the capacity of people like themselves and to fear trade union influence. Egalitarian and fraternal: failure oriented. (’Don’t worry about losing. There’s always next time.’) Electors encouraged to have faith in candidates who are on the same level as themselves, or a lower level. Jones’ use of the descriptions: ‘hierarchical, ‘paternalistic’, ‘egalitarian’ and ‘fraternal’ is essentially marketing hype with little connection to reality. Today both parties are success oriented; and some Liberal sympathisers have argued that Labor politicians on the whole are more professional and skilled than their Liberal counterparts.
4 Leaders are virtually free of criticism if they win elections but are removed for failure (e.g. Gorton, McMahan, Snedden) Leaders are subject to constant criticism but are not removed for electoral failure

(because this is usually expected).

 This may have been true before Keating displaced Hawke in 1991. Today, the leaders of both parties are expected to win elections.
5 Pragmatic. Major policies (e.g. Vietnam War, China) change when they no longer confer any tangible benefit. Ideological. Major policies (e.g. Vietnam War, China) change when they are believed to be ‘incorrect’, irrespective of whether any tangible benefit results. Prior to the 1980s, Labour was more ideological in respect of both economic and social policy. Today, Labor remains more ideological than Liberal in respect of social policy. However, the 1990s has seen the Liberals become more ideological and reformist than Labor in respect of economic policy.
6 Claims to represent broad national interests but policies respond to small but powerful groups of sectional interests (e.g. manufacturers, mine owners, etc.) Claims to represent sectional interests (trade unions plus working class) but policies cover a broad range of national interests (e.g. education, conservation, arts and media). Lets be fair. Both parties claim to represent the national interest and both pursue policies which align with sectional interests. Both parties criticise the other for being beholden to sectional interests.
7 Attracts many traditional votes (’I've always voted Liberal’). Many apolitical voters prefer the Liberal Party because it reflects the existing community more accurately than the Australian Labor Party which is committed to political change. Liberals are supported because of what they are perceived to be (economic managers, responsible people, natural leaders, high in the social hierarchy) or what they stand for generally (prosperity, growth, capital appreciation). Because Liberals do not promise much they are not judged harshly if they do not perform well. Attracts many traditional votes (’I've always voted Labor’). Many apolitical voters reject Labor because of the policies it stands for and its specific promises of reform. Labor promises major changes and is judged harshly if it does not deliver the goods. Traditional voting patterns appear to be on the decline in Australia. Today, people are more willing to shop around with their vote. Both parties now have reform agendas and both are judged harshly by their supporters when reform is not delivered (e.g. the so-called lost years of opportunity under Fraser).
8 Fights unadventurous but highly professional election campaigns with a clear knowledge of how to exploit social, cultural, or sexual insecurity in voters and their fear of change in order to preserve the status quo. Fights enthusiastic but non-professional election campaigns based on a naive faith that a mature and confident electorate will understand and respond to its policies. While it may have been true in the twenty years prior to 1978; it has not been at all true in the twenty years prior to 1998 (e.g consider the adventurous Liberal campaigns of 1993 and 1998 in respect of the goods and services tax (GST); and Labor’s marginal seats and second preference strategies of 1990) Labor’s opposition to a GST in 1993 and 1998 was largely about exploiting a fear of change for electoral advantage.
9 Activist governments should be harshly judged because they threaten the status quo, and non-activist governments rewarded. (’No party was ever defeated for doing nothing.’) Activist governments should be supported because they challenge the status quo and non-activist governments defeated. (’We are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.’) While it may have been true in the twenty years prior to 1978; it has not been at all true in the twenty years prior to 1998. NSW Premier Wran pioneered a ’softly-softly’ reform approach which has been adopted by successful Labor governments since (most notably Hawke-Keating and Goss). The 1996 Howard-Costello Federal Budget was far more activist than any under Hawke and Keating.
10 Optimistic about the ability of individuals to advance themselves within the existing economic system. Pessimistic about the ability of individuals to advance themselves within the existing economic system. While not as absolute as Jones suggests, it is true that Labor is more concerned than the Liberals with civilising (what Labor sees as) the excesses of global capitalism.
11 Confident in the capacity of people to solve their own problems: pessimistic/cynical about the capacity of Australian institutions and systems (except traditional ones imporeted from Britain). Confident in the capacity of institutions and systems (especially new ones) to solve problems; pessimistic about personal capacity. While Labor still sees a greater role/need for state intervention than Liberal; the difference between the two parties is significantly less than it was 20 years ago.
12 Gives priority to individual benefit (e.g. private cars plus more roads) and competitive use of resources (’I drive’, ‘You drive’, ‘He or she drive. . .’) Gives priority to community benefit (e.g. public transport) and cooperative use of resources (buses, trains and trams). While the difference between the two parties is no where near as stark as these statements suggest, Labor is still more likely to value community benefit over individual benefit and cooperative resource use over competitive resource use.
13 Society is equated with the market. Society is equated with the community. An overstatement. Both parties are committed to a mixed economy. In terms of the mix, Liberal leans a little (but not much) more towards the market than Labor. Labor is a little more likely to fund community activities than Liberal.
14 Economic goal: growth and resource exploitation with heavy emphasis on maintaining levels of consumption and profit. Economic goal: restraint and resource conservation with heavy emphasis on maintaining levels of employment. An overstatement. Labor understands that employment depends on industry and a healthy growing economy. Liberal understands that high unemployment is politically untenable.
15 Identifies with retailers, manufacturers and management (small in number but economically powerfull). Consumers encouraged to support the political interests of the manufacturers rather than the interests of consumers themselves. Identifies with consumers, production workers and employees generally (large in number but economically weakunless coordinated effectively). Consumers encouraged to support their own interests against the interests of the manufacturers. In both cases these are the sectional interests (or core constituency) each party seeks to woo. However, in its search of electoral success Labor has also sought to make itself more acceptable to the big end of town. Similarly, Liberal has also sought to capture the ‘battlers’ vote.
16 Government should take a relatively non-activist role in managing the economy. Intervention should be the last resort. Government should take an activist role as a pacesetter in managing the economy. Again, much less the case in 1998 than 1978. The Hawke and Keating governments took a significantly less ‘hands on’ approach to the economy than Labor had in the past. Labor and Liberal broadly agree on the neo-classical economic consensus.
17 Opportunity is regarded as more important than security; priority given to personal economic advancement. Inflation is considered more serious than unemployment. Security is regarded as more important than opportunity; priority given to safeguarding against, and compensating for, personal economic failure. Unemployment considered more serious than inflation. In 1998 the difference between Liberal and Labor is not as stark as that suggested by Jones. Both parties are committed to a ’safety net’ rather than universalism in the welfare state; however, Labor would probably draw a slightly more generous safety net than the Liberals.
18 Australia is seen as a cultural dependency of Great Britain and the United States: the value of Australian Culture depends on recognition overseas. Australia is seen as having a significant independent cultural life of its own. Increasing the Liberals are moving towards Labor in recognition of Australian culture.
19 Patriotic feeling is mainly directed towards concepts, symbols and institutions of British origin (e.g. Imperial Honours, ‘God Save the Queen’). Patriotic feeling is mainly directed towards concepts, symbols and institutions of Australian origin (e.g. Order of Australia, ‘Advance Australia Fair’). Increasing the Liberals are moving towards Labor in terms of the symbols of patriotic feeling. However, an Australian Republic has broader support among Labor voters than Liberal voters.
20 Media should respond to market forces: greatest emphasis to be on the exploitation of commodities and reinforce the existing values in society, Media ownership should remain as it is. Media should respond to social needs: emphasis should be on information and the promotion of self-development and understanding the changing world. Therefore media ownership should be diversified. While both Liberal and Labor have supported reductions in media diversity; it remains a fair statement of the tendencies within the two parties.
21 Crime is cause by a breakdown in traditional values and retributive punishments are necessary to protect society. Crime is cause by malfunction in society (i.e. poverty, defective education) and more emphasis should be put on understanding and crime prevention than on punishment. This is a fair statement of the tendencies within the two parties.
22 Fundamental principle: enjoyment of property rights. Interference with property rights is more serious than interference with civil liberties. Fundamental principle: economic security. Interference with civil liberties is more important than interference with property rights. It is doubtful whether either party holds those suggested by Jones as fundamental principles.

The feature to emerge is that both parties have much more in common in 1998 than they did in 1978. Today, the key differences between the parties are more likely to be in the area of social policy rather than economic policy. Where there are differences in economic policy they tend to be one’s of degree rather than fundamental direction; and they tend to be driven by the sectional interests of each party’s core constituencies rather than differences in economic ideology.

Notes

Source: Barry O Jones (1978) “Them and Us/Us and Them: ALP v. Liberals”, in Henry Mayer and Helen Nelson (eds) (1980), Australian Politics: A Fifth Reader, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, pp289-291.

(Written in 1998)