The Race to The Bottom, and why it might be a good thing

For quite a while now, progressives across the country – along with the tiny handful of actual journalists left – have been commenting on the ‘race to the bottom’ between Labor and the Coalition. From refugees and censorship through to how fast to bend over for the big mining companies, Labor has been mounting an unashamed invasion of the Coalition’s traditional territory.

Some hoped that Gillard taking the helm would mark a change in this respect. Most were sorely disappointed.

It shouldn’t be terribly surprising that not much changed. The simple – and arguably unfortunate – truth is that Labor can comfortably stake out a claim on Coalition territory without worrying about losing votes from those alienated by it’s growing conservatism. These people will vote for the Greens, Sex Party, an independent, or whoever else is available and not rabidly conservative. But when it comes down to preferences, so long as Labor is careful not to pass the Coalition in it’s gleeful race to the bottom, Labor will still come out ahead. It worked fantastically in 2007.

But this is not 2007.

The seat of Melbourne is traditionally Labor heartland. At the 2007 election, the post-preferences vote between Labor and Liberal was 72-28. But the Liberal party wasn’t in the final 2 party preferred count. The Greens’ Adam Bandt was. For the first time in the seat’s history, it was marginal (55-45). That was 2007, when Bandt was up against a resurgent Labor party, with an incumbent member of the shadow cabinet (Lindsay Tanner) as his Labor adversary. Wind forward to 2010, and Tanner is retiring. Labor has been under pressure throughout its term over a range of controversies, and “Brand Gillard” has only mitigated those problems so much. As evidenced by an incredibly active and lively campaign on behalf of the Greens, there is a real chance of the Greens picking up a seat in the lower house.

This will certainly be a worry for Labor. But based on their posturing, it seems to be an acceptable risk. They’ll still get the majority of preferences from Green and other minor party voters scared off by (She-)Howard-Lite. And even if Adam Bandt does enter parliament (and ends up holding the balance), there’s Buckley’s he would help the Coalition form a minority government. For all Labor’s conservative posturing, it’s still (mostly) posturing, and hasn’t burrowed to the heard and nested as it has with the Coalition. Bandt decides who forms government? Labor just re-postures (making many of its own happier), and forms government. The Coalition would need to give a gold-medal-winning gymnastics performance to get Bandt onside without the Nationals getting seriously butthurt.

From a Realpolitik perspective, it’s a masterful strategy. It’s virtually impossible for Labor to lose government because of it (even if they might be trying their hardest to do so in other areas), and they get their hands on a sizable chunk of the Liberal party’s “wavering bigot” and “screw everyone else” demographics.

So where’s the silver lining?

Melbourne: Adam Bandt might not cost Labor government this election, but a Green in the lower house has the potential to completely reshape the future of Australia’s political landscape.

The idea that Australia has a ‘two-party system’, and that a vote for a minor party is a wasted vote is a hugely popular one with the major parties. As long as people believe this, they’re much less likely to vote for one of the minors or an independent. Because who wants to waste their vote? It’s a sentiment that has some merit in countries like the United States, where the predominant voting system is first past the post. There, votes not cast for the two biggest parties don’t (in effect) count. But in Australia, it’s bullshit. The only reason there are two dominant parties is because the parties have excellent marketing (sadly abetted by a sizable dose of stupid). We have preferential voting, which means we can vote for who we want to be in parliament, and then indicate which party we’d least like in government. And regardless of how your preferences land, even if you’re the only person who votes for a candidate, your vote counts.

Adam Bandt and the Greens can help people realise this. Once they do, a lot more people will feel free to vote for minor parties and the gates will open for a shift of power away from the major parties. At subsequent elections, we could see many more seats than just Melbourne under threat from the Greens or other minor parties. The two most likely outcomes in that situation are both good for Australian progressives. We could end up with more than just the one minor party MP in parliament, and increase the odds of minority governments being formed with progressives holding the government by the short and curlies. Alternately, Labor’s current tactics stop working. They would not longer be able to rely on getting the flow-on votes from progressives, and be forced to moderate.

Either way, rabid conservatism’s hold over our government takes a hit. If you’re not happy about that, at the very least we’d have more dynamism in our democracy, better representation and better oversight. And that can only be a good thing.

Unless you’re a hardcore authoritarian, in which case: sucks to be you.