all for good critique of labor from the left. but you don't have to do bogus electoral analysis. you can just say you don't like the policies, you know, it's allowed https://www.jacobinmag.com/2021/02/australian-labor-party-alp-right-faction-neoliberalism

i'm sympathetic to some nuances of the arg - i think that labor's structural reforms in the 80s and early 90s led to changes in workforce structures that probably did undermine its union/worker base over the long term

but the long term impact of this structural change in the australian economy is one thing, very different to suggesting simplistically that labor parties are unpopular because of their current neo-liberal policies.

why then are people voting for further right neo-liberals instead, in a context of compulsory and preferential voting, if they object to right-wing neo-liberalism. it doesn't make a lot of sense.

is the author going to bother to address this?

why ignore the fact that fed labor has always performed badly, even more so prior to the neo-liberal turn? labor was out of office for 23 years prior to whitlam. they were then thrown from office in a landslide after a few years, for perceived excess spending & radicalism

literally the only sustained electoral success in federal australian labor history was hawke and keating in the 80s and 90s, the very period being trashed here for bad politics. wouldn't that inspire at least some nuance and reflection in the analysis?

workchoices was just a gift from tories - a highly unpopular change that could harm many workers. actu & labor responded brilliantly.

that campaign was about preserving the status quo, and scaring people of change. that's powerful, but not a frame the left gets to have often

the part about kevin rudd & "populist rhetoric"... hmmmmm. it later defines populist as "clear identification of an enemy".

what? this is the opposite of kevin07.

he was the most rhetorically bipartisan "let's all come together" politician i know of

rudd's centrepiece election ad led with him literally boasting about being an "economic conservative"

the campaign strategy was for rudd to present as a younger, fresher john howard but without workchoices, for a country that basically liked howard

at the same time, kevin rudd was arguing john howard was too weak on budget discipline, that "this reckless spending must stop".

shadow finance minister lindsay tanner was complaining about excess middle class welfare and demanding john howard cut the top marginal tax rate

i share some views with the writer, but this analysis is extremely bad. either delusional or disingenuous. sorry!