It wasn’t meant to be like this.

In her 2022 study of Anthony Albanese, Katharine Murphy describes a prime minister who thought he’d be successfully managing an idealistic, collaborative and positive “new politics” that would favour the teal independents rather than Dutton’s Liberals.

Albanese seemed confident that Labor was destined for an extended period in office. Given he later appointed Murphy to his communications team, he apparently approved of her analysis.

However, even at the time Murphy’s Lone Wolf: Albanese and the New Politics was published, various commentators, including myself, queried the “new politics” scenario. While the teals may represent a new politics, it is clear that the old Liberal politics — of culture wars and denouncing Labor’s economic and climate change policies — is also still very much with us.

Labor and the Liberals are now neck-and-neck in some polls, with minority government (or worse) potentially looming for Labor. Meanwhile, Gareth Evans and Bill Kelty, key figures from the Hawke/Keating period, have excoriated the Albanese government’s allegedly lacklustre performance.

How did it all go so wrong?

Great expectations; modest reality

Some of the reasons can be traced back to difficulties addressing unrealistic expectations in Labor’s 2022 election strategy.

Albanese went to the 2022 election with a “new politics”, collaborative style agenda that sought to bring all Australians, including business, labour, indigenous and non-indigenous Australians together. It was a small-target strategy based on assumed common interests, kindness and compassion rather than divisiveness.

As a result, Labor successfully countered Scott Morrison’s populist, “us versus them” campaign strategy. However, Labor’s approach was to prove easier to implement as an election strategy than in government, as three examples show.

First, Albanese was channelling Bob Hawke when it came to bringing business and labour together. Yet, the Hawke government’s rapprochement with business was based on business being able to pay lower wages, because workers would be compensated by a government-funded “social wage” in the form of benefits and entitlements.

By contrast, the Albanese government pledged to end the wage stagnation of the Liberal years and generally increase wages. A major emphasis was placed on improving the wages of low-paid women workers. In the process, Labor tackled issues that arose from Keating’s flawed, neoliberal-influenced, enterprise bargaining model.

However, key business groups criticised Labor’s resulting industrial relations measures, including multi-employer bargaining, increases in the minimum wage, and measures designed to address precarious and contract work. The Liberals have largely sided with business critiques.

Second, Labor’s attempts to bring indigenous and non-indigenous Australians together, via the Voice referendum, fell victim to a divisive, populist campaign by Dutton and others. Dutton depicted the Voice proposal not as arising from a major national meeting of indigenous representatives but as being an elite “Canberra voice” that would give special rights to indigenous Australians that were denied to others. Furthermore, he argued that government was so focused on elite “woke” issues such as the Voice, it was neglecting Australian workers’ cost-of-living crisis. Labor’s strategy for countering right-wing populism was in disarray.

Albanese’s response to the Voice loss was to go even more “small target” in ways that alienated progressive supporters. He abandoned key commitments ranging from the indigenous Makarrata commission process of Treaty and Truth-telling, to protecting LGBTQI+ teachers and students from being sacked by religious schools. The debacle over including gender identity questions in the census was another result.

Third, international events, and other parties’ politicisation of them, have impeded the government’s attempts at social cohesion. Australian political debate has become so polarised over developments in the Middle East that the Albanese government is accused of abandoning support for Israel by the Liberals and the Murdoch press, while simultaneously being accused of being “complicit in Israel’s genocide” by the Greens and pro-Palestinian groups.

Narrative failure

As its original story of bringing Australians together has been increasingly undermined, the government has floundered when it comes to telling a clear narrative about itself. By contrast, Dutton’s relentless, focused and simply expressed negativity has been cutting through.

Part of Labor’s problem in countering Dutton is that he is targeting them for things that are often beyond their control.

For example, Dutton’s claim the government has been too distracted by so-called “woke” issues to address the cost-of-living crisis has been particularly electorally damaging for Labor. So have his claims that Labor’s renewable energy policies are fuelling inflation and pushing up the cost of living still further.

The government argues it has been providing extensive cost-of-living relief in the form of tax cuts, energy bill relief, rental assistance, wage increases, cheaper medicines and reduced child care costs. However, the problem is that such government measures are being continually undercut by inflation, price increases, high interest rates, and the housing affordability and supply crisis.

Yet, the housing affordability and supply crisis has been aggravated by decades of poor housing policy that long predate the Albanese government. Furthermore, Labor’s attempts to address it are currently being stymied by a combination of Coalition and Greens opposition, once again sandwiching Labor.

Meanwhile, the Coalition argues that government spending is exacerbating inflation and high interest rates. However, even the independent Reserve Bank, which sets cash interest rates and is also critical of government spending, has drawn attention to multiple international factors playing a role in inflation. Price increase gouging by some businesses to augment their profits has exacerbated the problem.

Furthermore, Treasurer Jim Chalmers argues that existing government spending levels have been essential to preventing Australia sliding into recession, while still enabling a budget surplus.

Chalmers has struggled to cut through in the way that Keating’s messages did. However, Keating benefited from the Coalition largely agreeing with his neoliberal-influenced “reform” agenda, despite arguing it wasn’t going far enough. By contrast, Chalmers has been facing a fundamentally hostile opposition, unsympathetic to key influences on his thought, such as Mariana Mazzucato.

Labor has also had trouble selling the government’s achievements because, as I argue in a recent book, some of the Albanese government’s most successful reform measures have been in gender equality (although much more still needs to be done). Despite women making up more than half of the population, reforms that affect women tend to be undervalued in what is still a male defined political culture. Furthermore, the working class is often conceived in terms of blue collar male employment, so benefits for women workers are not being adequately recognised. This is particularly the case in Dutton’s hyper-masculine, strongman discourse.

Mobilising gendered leadership stereotypes has been central to Dutton’s populist “us” versus “them” politics. Dutton consistently depicts Albanese as an emasculated “weak” leader on issues ranging from addressing the cost-of-living crisis to detaining asylum seekers freed by a High Court decision, and supporting Israel. By contrast, Dutton is depicted as the strong leader who will stand up for everyday Australians allegedly abandoned by Labor and the so-called elites.

This does not look like a “new politics” at all and it is a divisive, populist terrain that Labor is finding very difficult to negotiate.

Carol Johnson, Emerita Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Adelaide. Republished from The Conversation.