Political climate change and the politics of the climate- they may be more capricious than the earth's climate!

Fifty years ago, this week the Australian political climate was beyond febrile. A constitutional crisis led to the dismissal of the Whitlam government with the Governor-General dissolving both houses of parliament and sending Australians to their third general election in three years.

The conservative coalition of Liberal and National parties won an overwhelming victory in the 13^th December election.

Some political commentators predicted that Australian Labor Party would never recover and be consigned to oblivion.  The political climate could not have looked better for the conservatives.

Fifty years later the political climate for Australia’s conservative coalition could not be more ominous. And it’s because of the politics of climate change.

There is talk that the Liberal Party as we know it may be permanently fractured over divisions as to whether adopt or renounce the government’s net-zero emissions target for 2050.  If the Liberal Party does not split asunder, the coalition agreement may once again be torn up. The National Party has already declared its opposition to the net-zero target.

This is new territory for the conservative side of Australian politics. The Labor Party has had many famous fractures, but, like Humpty Dumpty, has been put back together again. Divided over the introduction of conscription during World War 1, a party schism led to a new conservative force, the Nationalist Party, being formed by former Labor leader, Billy Hughes. The Nationals formed a coalition with the newly formed Country (now National) Party in 1919 and were in government until Labor took office weeks out from the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

The Labor Party split again in 1931, divided by contesting views on how best to respond to the Great Depression. Labor Treasurer Joe Lyons formed the conservative United Australian Party which won office in 1931 and remained in government until 1941.  The UAP was reborn as the Liberal Party in 1944 and won office in 1949 remaining in government until the election of the ill-fated Whitlam government in 1972. During its 23 years as the Opposition the Labor Party split again over the issue of communist influence in the feverish Cold War atmosphere of the mid-1950s.

The issue of how best to respond to the politics and economics of climate change has skewered the Liberal Party for close to a generation. Beginning with John Howard in the early 2000s, successive Liberal leaders, Nelson, Turnbull, Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison and Dutton have failed to articulate a climate change policy that has satisfied the “broad church of its membership” . This collective ranges from the ‘almost Greens’ on its Left to those on its Right who see a fixed commitment to net-zero as national economic vandalism writ large.

Right now, there seems nowhere for the Liberal Party to turn. If they reject net-zero they will be castigated as a conservative rump, forever foregoing the votes of those who believe that greater action on climate change is needed. Say goodbye to the youth vote forever! A significant chunk of the Liberal party’s moderate middle aged vote has already been lost by those who have voted in the last two elections for conservative Independents whose policy priorities are focussed on climate change. Conversely, if they cling to a net-zero ambition, they will be accused of being ‘Labor-lite’ and those on the Right will drift in greater numbers to more conservative groupings.  

Australians have always gloated about the benefits of their natural climate compared to England. The comedic genius, Barry Humphries, once labelled Australia as a land blessed by “twenty-four hours of sunshine.” George Orwell once wrote of England as a land where “misty skies and suet puddings will always remain.”

Currently, their contemporary political climate is remarkably similar. Both are led by centre-left governments whose leaders have won landslide victories at elections this year and last. Indeed, English Prime Minister Keir Starmer, seemingly unable to maintain the popularity of his Australian counterpart, Anthony Albanese, invited Albanese to speak at the British Labour Party’s annual conference hoping to catch some reflected glory.

Yet, in relation to climate change the governments are poles apart. British Labour has abandoned a fixed target for net-zero. Their most successful post-War Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has renounced such a goal as unrealistic.

In Australia, however, the issue of climate change seems to be the gift that keeps giving for the Labor government and a permanent spectre for the conservatives.  Labor have adroitly been able to depict Liberal division over one issue as emblematic of a party without any connection with Australia’s secular multi-cultural society.  

Their latest leader, Sussan Ley, is seen  by many to walking the Green Mile to political extinction because she cannot weave together a convincing and unifying environmental policy. A double calamity for the Liberals looms. If they remove their first female leader less than a year after she was elected, the party will find it hard to reject allegations that it is not supportive of women.

Yet in America, rather than a dominant political culture creating a divided and weakened opposition, it appears that Republican domination has activated Newton’s third law and instigated an equal and opposite reaction.

At a time when America remains stymied by its Budget gridlock, its most famous and, politically progressive city, New York, has overwhelmingly elected its first Muslim Mayor, Zohran Mamdani. A political stripling, Mamdani, aged 34, is New York’s youngest Mayor since 1892 and its first born in Africa. His political agenda is unapologetically Left: free childcare, expanded public transportation and government intervention in markets, focussing on rental controls for housing.

The President has already mocked Mamdani as his “little Communist Mayor.” The President who made his name as a New York property developer will no doubt relish, along with his Republican party, who have moved so far to the Right that they did not acknowledge the recent death of former Republican Vice- President Dick Cheney, the opportunity to prove that a radical left Democrat agenda will fail. Democrats will be hoping that this younger incarnation of the Bernie Sanders wing of the party will catalyse a broader national appeal.

Sadly, in Australia the parlous state of the Opposition has led to a lazy government. Anthony Albanese is more interested in haemorrhaging the Labor Party than about governing and introducing significant policy change. Debt, unemployment, energy prices, rents and inflation are all growing. The only increases in employment are occurring in the Budget draining public service. The taxation system is inefficient and inequitable. There is a crippling national shortage of teachers. High wage costs and a myriad of government regulations have made Australia an unattractive investment destination. We still have the AUKUS bills to pay for submarines wmay not have the personnel to operate. Yet, nothing changes. Worse, there is no leadership about why many of our national policy settings must change.

There has been a little change in the Women’s world order of tennis. Elena Rybakina, Wimbledon champion of 2022, won the WTA End of Year title, defeating World No.1, Aryna Sabalenka in the final. Sabalenka finishes the year ranked No.1 and will come to Australia seeking her third Australian Open title.

Tonight in Turin, the eight top-ranked Men’s players begin their quest for the ATP end of year title. Two Groups of four will compete for the prize: Alcaraz, Fritz, Musetti, and, for the first time, Australia’s Alex de Minaur.  The other Group comprises Sinner, Zverev, Shelton and Auger-Aliassime. Unlike the Women’s play-off series, the Men’s will decide who finishes the Year as the world’s No.1 ranked player as there is a miniscule 250 ranking points between Sinner (11,500) and Alcaraz (11,250). Novak Djokovic qualified for the final tournament for a record-equalling 18^th time, but a shoulder injury has led him to withdraw hours after winning his 101^st title in Athens defeating Musetti in a three hour final.

That’s the thing about sporting and political longevity. Neither are automatic guarantees of success and achievement. 50 years ago the Whitlam government, 23 years in the making, was ejected from office weeks short of one full three year term of office. Arguably, its policy legacies are immeasurably greater than the current Albanese government who, given the current political zeitgeist, can confidently look forward to a decade in office. Whether Australians can look forward with equal confidence is, at best, an equivocal proposition.