Neoliberalism in the swinging outer suburbs

I think nothing said here lets Western Sydney or Melbourne off the hook. These electors seem to be moving toward the [ same Vote against your self ] position as the US tea party republicans.

Two points made by the author gave me pause. First, here in Canada, we are extremely nervous of a real estate bubble burst. As well, the "jobs are becoming less secure" situation is a reality across most of the western world. I think that suburban voters in Australia would be wise to consider both of these tenuous "improvements" when they go into the voting booth.

Perhaps the electorate is simply growing up or evolving. People are no longer finding security in tribalism but in the improved economic conditions that have evolved over recent decades. I suspect the levels of education are such these days that electors are no longer easily conned and do not depend on what the tribe decides. The Australian electorate has historically got it right and not made many mistakes in its choice of government. Unfortunately some governments (of both major party persuasions) have let the electorate down disastrously and paid the consequences, the Gillard ascendancy and the Howard demise being perfect examples of what the electorate resented in their choice being ignored by the party machine. The Australian electorate is perhaps the most astute in the world, perhaps partly due to compulsory voting, and I think usually gets it right. I doubt that it is as complicated as many commentators seem to think. However, studied commentary does make for good literary and intellectual exercise!!!!

The articles are very interesting thank you

Labor does not stand for anyone but their 'selfie' We know clearly what the liberals stand for and always have. The libs have also moved on left issues, they are have cashed in on the utter selfishness and stupidity of the typical Labor branch stacking, back stabbing, jobs for mates. What could have been memorable history of leadership has turned the "true beleivers' away for good. Sadly Im one of them.

A very perceptive essay, Luke - and I'm a free marketeer! A couple of comments. 1) In spite of the media spin implying otherwise, WorkChoices was not free-market: despite some good points, it was overall a massive & burdensome package of regulation. Disturbingly, the Coalition, in its labour regulations platform, now seems more intent on being anti-union than pro-free market. (It is possible to be not anti-union, not anti-business, and yet pro-free market at the same time - e.g. almost everyone forgets that the earliest t.u.s were pro laissez-faire.) 2) The reason why competence and not doctrine is, as you rightly say, a key issue today is that a doctrinal consensus has emerged, since the Hawke/Keating era, punctuated by the fall of communism, that market capitalism is not the dread bogeyman that Labor traditionally held it to be. Wealth-making per se is not a zero-sum game in which one man's gain is another man's loss, as Marx and the socialists had insisted (though Doug Cameron and some of the Greens will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the fold on this.) Labor, though, is yet to realize that this has implications for its confused allegiance to "egalitarianism" (equal rights or equal outcomes?), which confusion in many ways actually impedes the accomplishment of social justice. Human society is not an ant colony. Each of us humans, from the smallest zygote, is a unique creation, gloriously unequal to anyone else.

The age-old struggle between the ‘haves’ and the ‘nots’ will always prevail. What we are seeing at present is that many of the children of the former ‘nots’ have up-graded and find themselves closer to being among the ‘haves’. Many of the ’nots’ of the past belonged to the Irish-Catholic communities, and this gave them added cohesion , since most of the ‘haves’ were Protestants. Now many of the leading ‘haves‘ are also Catholics, so this issue has lost its influence. The ‘Us’ and ‘them’ divisions will always hold sway, but the make-up of who belongs to which group will continue to evolve.

Sorry, you've said it all in a nice way, Luke, but you are basically saying that these people are greedy and self-interested. You mention asylum seekers in your opening, but then avoid that issue in favour of talking about how the Coalition is seen as 'philosophically coherent' and 'competent'. What explains obsession with being as cruel as possible to asylum seekers? And I disagree with you that the ALP is out in front on that one. Also, I don't think that voters in outer suburbs are particularly educated on these issues: manufacturing would have suffered under the Coalition too, make no mistake. It's because the issues are far broader and more complex than that e.g. the car industry here is just not financially viable because our population is too small (there is a lot written on this, particular, problem for Australia). And, where is climate change in this election? Again, I can only see that the good, cashed up and smug voters of outer suburbs (and other parts of Australia too) just can't be bothered worrying about all that when to do so might cause them to hesitate from buying that new flat screen tv...

I am not sure that Scott Morrison would agree that "the ALP has lurched to the right of the Coalition on boat arrivals." Unfortunately they have still lurched to the right. The article is disappointing because it does not explain the depth of the social structure of our society.

Western society as a whole has been influenced by the "Greed is good " philosophy of the 1960,s. In the old days governments and businesses thought long term. loans were paid back over a long period. One put money aside for regular maintenance and depreciation One put money aside for such expenditure as long service leave and sickness benefit. These days people think short term. Superannuation was brought in to ensure that pensions were paid for out of reserves not current taxation. business do not lay money aside for depreciation but bodies involved in public utilities take out short term loans to pay for upgrades which are charged to the customer. Countries like Greece made the mistakes of paying over generous pensions out of tax receipts that did not exist, while letting the rich avoid tax.

'The ALP has lurched to the right of the Coalition on boat arrivals' is a very ignorant statement! Wait till Scott hears about that, and what he does post Saturday!

The more complicated politics appears, the simpler it it really is... I now believe the notion of "free market" is obsolete. It's a matter now of WHO controls the market - big corporations? small businesses/farmers? governments/unions? If big corporations get their way - market freedom diminishes just as it would if radical unions/governments had they way. So isn't it just a perennial tug-of-war between one side and the other?

Williams' treatise reminds me of the late I.F. Stone, the legendary Washington (DC) correspondent, who questioned how (any) social revolution can come about when one half of the population want to be like the other half. The people of Western Sydney, the neocons, transcend educational/social barriers within a capitalist framework. That's how Capitalism works. It has nothing to do with vision or national identity. Abstract ideals are the province of future thinkers. They have no place to be in the minds of those who live in the wilds of outer suburban fringes. Sad as it is, in the context of nationhood etc., that's the way it is. These are not the meek who'd inherit the earth. these are the predators who will eventually consume themselves and drive their species into extinction. It will not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen.

Williams' treatise reminds me of the late I.F. Stone, the legendary Washington (DC) correspondent, who questioned how (any) social revolution can come about when one half of the population want to be like the other half. The people of Western Sydney, the neocons, transcend educational/social barriers within a capitalist framework. That's how Capitalism works. It has nothing to do with vision or national identity. Abstract ideals are the province of future thinkers. They have no place to be in the minds of those who live in the wilds of outer suburban fringes. Sad as it is, in the context of nationhood etc., that's the way it is. These are not the meek who'd inherit the earth. these are the predators who will eventually consume themselves and drive their species into extinction. It will not happen in my lifetime. But it will happen.

It is a pity that residents who see well fed designer clothed people arriving at will by boat without visas are maligned .Isn't it reasonable that our country has the right to manage our borders and ensure that our resources are directed to fairly helping genuine refugees and our many Australians who need special help too

Luke seems to forget that a lot of the "hard workers" would have lost their jobs during the GFC if it hadn't been for the ALP's efforts to stimulate the economy.

Some very good points raised about the meaning of "free market". As the author of the article please let me clarify what I meant by this in relation to Workchoices. Workchoices deregulated the settting of worker wages by removing the no-disadvantage test - this meant wages/conditions in new employment relationships were determined predominately by market forces. Moreover, the worker-employer relationship became a private contractual arrangement with very limited intervention (for pay and conditions). It is in the context I refer to Workchoices and the free market - not the entire Workchoices legislation per sa (which many have suggested actually was not productivity enhancing because it was overly regulatory in other ways).

“People ... are less interested in symbolic politics, social justice or 'social engineering' than good jobs, a strong economy and less Government regulation...” It seems to me this applies to the whole electorate, just that you are noticing it in the outer suburbs because they are changing from Labour to Coalition. This just demonstrates the narrow focus on self, the lack of a broader vision of the long-term good of Australia, let alone the planet. I sympathise with Alex Njoo, who states: “these are the predators who will eventually consume themselves and drive their species into extinction.” People are focussed on the immediate benefits to themselves. So they don’t see value in trying to help the planet pay for overcoming global warming. There will be no economy if the planet fries, but people don’t believe it will happen, or don’t care because they think it won’t affect them. No-one has explicitly placed the politics in the context of our faith. But I believe this narrow-mindedness; self-destructive selfishness is a symptom of the growing loss of faith in our post-Christian culture. When people no longer hear, let alone believe that we should love our neighbour as ourselves, there is a growing estrangement from neighbourliness and a loss of community; a growing “what’s in it for me” attitude, and it is obvious where we are headed. Labour and the Coalition are two peas in a pod. The Greens appear hostile in their attitude to people of faith. All of them are reacting to the electorate’s attitude, certainly not leading it. To be Catholic is to be disenfranchised even if you are a voter. But that is a small thing compared to watching the planet become slowly uninhabitable because a majority of people won’t do anything about it, and being helpless to do anything about it yourself. But pray.

As an older Australian, I see young people who take for granted all the hard won benefits that we fought for, eg. Equal pay, four weeks holidays per year, health care and education for all no matter what your financial status, a standard of living, freedom of association and religion. I realised by observing and dialoguing with younger persons that satisfying their every whim was not in their best interests or that of our society. I think my age group fell I into the trap of indulging our young to make up for the shortfalls in our own youth. So in a sense we too only thought ''of what our country could do for us, not what we could do for our country"(J.F.Kennedy).

This article seems very short-sighted, but I don't want to blame the author. His views simply reflect the neo-liberal mantra that has held sway since the 1980s. If anything, I blame my generation, the baby boomers, many of whom traded their community-focussed values developed during the 1960s-70s for the selfish values promulgated under the Thatcher/Reagan/Hawke/Keating/Howard hegemony - "It's all about me". Our parents seem even more selfish, with their gold cards and ignorance of the fact that they will be, collectively, the most materially priveleged older generation in Australian history in terms of government welfare. As one who has not benefited greatly from this neo-liberal hegemony but know many who have, I see many of my generational contemporaries becoming selfish materialists. How about the suburbanites who are doing it tough? This article fails to address the fact that Australia has become a far more unequal society in the last 30-plus years, despite its affluence.