Australian Labor Party Without Official Trade Union Link

Or more correctly, an Australian centre-left social democratic party, without official trade union links

(Btw, this probably belong in before-1900, but the POD could conceivably be very early 1900's so I put it in this form).

What would Australia be like with such a party.

I am thinking of Australia having a European style social democratic party, with no official link with unions but instead being largely financed by them (like the relationship between Liberals and business OTL).

Australia, along with the UK and NZ are the only nations to have major labour parties, with an official link, so the ATL party is the 'default' pattern so to speak.

Basically in the ATL rather than left-of-centre thought coming out of the unions, I would assume it would instead be coming out of the universities, more of an 'intellectual socialism' so to speak.

How would this affect the success of the ATL Labor Party (or whatever it would be called). I suggest it would be more successful as it would have a much wider appeal to the middle-class (there would be no image of it being beholden to militant unionists).

Also, I think it would affect the structure of political parties in Australia. The OTL ALP is one of the most centralised parties in the world. I think that the ATL ALP would be far more decentralised, no strong organsational wing, no Pledge, etc. This because I can't see a party dominated by middle-class intellectuals wanting to be bound by the '36 faceless men' as Menzies put it, which OTL Labor was until the late 1960's.
 
You'll have to completely crush the unions, during the strikes of the 1890s & ensure they never rebuild, in order to stop the ALP taking its place in Australian politics. Consequentially, whilst the Unions are strong, especially for the first 50 years of Australia as a nation, the ALP will be likewise strong. Different story these days, but still not irrelevant.

There has also often been an alternate leftish party, & I don't mean the socialists nor communists, of one form or another in Australian politics. And often it's been a more "intellectual" type party. A couple I recall are the Australia Party, the Australian Democrats, & these days The Greens (although granted they've not always been "left", but they certainly aren't on the right side either). But to get such a minor party, especially with an "intellectual" clique or persona about, to become a major party, means there'll have to be a change to Australian culture, where anti-intellectualism runs rampant.

Other than that, both Isreal & Fiji have strong Labour parties which aren't necessarily directly linked to union movements wanting political representation in parliament. Maybe you could look towards them for some ideas as, although they may share the same party name & vauge leftist alignment, they aren't labour parties in the UK/AU/NZ sence.
 
You'll have to completely crush the unions, during the strikes of the 1890s & ensure they never rebuild, in order to stop the ALP taking its place in Australian politics. Consequentially, whilst the Unions are strong, especially for the first 50 years of Australia as a nation, the ALP will be likewise strong. Different story these days, but still not irrelevant.

There has also often been an alternate leftish party, & I don't mean the socialists nor communists, of one form or another in Australian politics. And often it's been a more "intellectual" type party. A couple I recall are the Australia Party, the Australian Democrats, & these days The Greens (although granted they've not always been "left", but they certainly aren't on the right side either). But to get such a minor party, especially with an "intellectual" clique or persona about, to become a major party, means there'll have to be a change to Australian culture, where anti-intellectualism runs rampant.

Other than that, both Isreal & Fiji have strong Labour parties which aren't necessarily directly linked to union movements wanting political representation in parliament. Maybe you could look towards them for some ideas as, although they may share the same party name & vauge leftist alignment, they aren't labour parties in the UK/AU/NZ sence.



Will agree with you mostly, in the sense that the anti-intellectualism of Australian culture is likely to be a factor against any particularly 'intellectual' sort of party.

However, I don't agree that you you would have to crush the unions to allow a different sort of centre-left party to develop. I'm thinking here of the types of social democratic parties that developed in say Sweden or Germany which don't have a trade union link. However these nations have VERY powerful unions.

All you need basically I suppose is instead unions to feel that they can control the centre-left party via financial support rather than needing say the 50% representation at National Conferences that they currently have.

The very centralised structure of the ALP is rather an anomaly even among Labour Parties. For instance, the British Labour has a tradition of (even with its union links) of individual MPs being sponsored by particular unions. For instance if this occured in Australia in the NW of Tasmania I would assume an ALP candidate would be sponsored by forestry union, whereas say in Broken Hill an ALP candidate would be sponsored by a mining union (which are now both the CFMEU I think but in the past it wasn't). It would interesting even on this point alone to ponder how this would change industrial relations policy in Australia; perhaps we would get a more 'sectional' industrial relations system, rather than our historically very centralised one.
 
Will agree with you mostly, in the sense that the anti-intellectualism of Australian culture is likely to be a factor against any particularly 'intellectual' sort of party.

However, I don't agree that you you would have to crush the unions to allow a different sort of centre-left party to develop. I'm thinking here of the types of social democratic parties that developed in say Sweden or Germany which don't have a trade union link. However these nations have VERY powerful unions.


Well you kind of find an answer here, for your position, wherein you can keep the unions but Australia loses its anti-intellectualism. Having said that, it's probably easier to lose the former, rather than Australia's anti-intellectualism streak, as that pretty much came out with the First Fleet. The unions, meanwhile, didn't come along until the 1880s. So crushing them, during the Great Strikes of the early 1890s as the POD, is an easier option IMHO.


All you need basically I suppose is instead unions to feel that they can control the centre-left party via financial support rather than needing say the 50% representation at National Conferences that they currently have.


That's certainly been one of the latest reforms to the ALP. It's also quite possible to have it even lower if the unions aren't a major player in establishing the party.


The very centralised structure of the ALP is rather an anomaly even among Labour Parties. For instance, the British Labour has a tradition of (even with its union links) of individual MPs being sponsored by particular unions. For instance if this occured in Australia in the NW of Tasmania I would assume an ALP candidate would be sponsored by forestry union, whereas say in Broken Hill an ALP candidate would be sponsored by a mining union (which are now both the CFMEU I think but in the past it wasn't). It would interesting even on this point alone to ponder how this would change industrial relations policy in Australia; perhaps we would get a more 'sectional' industrial relations system, rather than our historically very centralised one.


There's a couple of reasons why the ALP is so centralised - one of which is due to the very nature of Australia itself. We are a rather centralised nation, focused on either Melbourne or Sydney, unlike the UK & elsewhere where there are several centres of focus, although admittedly this is changing of late. But for the foundation period from 1901 to say WWII, the rest of Australia (including Canberra which wasn't even built until the 1920s) overly didn't matter.

The other thing is, as you've pointed out, has been the central role unions have had in the ALP. So again, lose the unions & the structure of the ALP will signficantly change as a result, particularly along the lines you're suggesting I would imagine.
 
Just another thought on this topic. Regardless of the likelihood of this ATL what would it's effect be on the policy and electoral success of the ALP? Assuming as a given that it remains a left-wing social democratic party.

Also given the power of the organisational wing of the ALP (especially up to the 70's and at least in theory to the present) and assuming that this continues how would it change the internal politics of the ALP? Just read an extensive article about how many senior figures both in the organsational and parliamentary wings of the ALP value the union representation (50%) at national conference as it is said that the union 'bloc vote' is more static and reliable than the sub-branch vote. How would this alter the politics of the party if sub-branch delegates were to have 100% representation at conferences.
 
Just another thought on this topic. Regardless of the likelihood of this ATL what would it's effect be on the policy and electoral success of the ALP? Assuming as a given that it remains a left-wing social democratic party.


Depends on the dates, I'd dare say, but I'd imagine there would be a swing away, especially at the start, from practical issues such as workers rights, fair pay & conditions, & so forth, to more philosophical leftish issues. So indeed there maybe no White Australia policy, which originally was about protecting jobs than anything else, which would be a bonus, but conditions & pay for local workers, regardless whether they be shearers, dockers, factory workers, et al, will probably be a lot worse over a much longer period of time.



Also given the power of the organisational wing of the ALP (especially up to the 70's and at least in theory to the present) and assuming that this continues how would it change the internal politics of the ALP? Just read an extensive article about how many senior figures both in the organsational and parliamentary wings of the ALP value the union representation (50%) at national conference as it is said that the union 'bloc vote' is more static and reliable than the sub-branch vote. How would this alter the politics of the party if sub-branch delegates were to have 100% representation at conferences.


Well it could end up with the ALP behaving & looking a lot like the Australian Democrats - considering they seem to shift ground & policy positions as often as the wind blows. If so, then the ALP may have ended up like the recent demise of the Australian Democrats, fade into the dusty pages of unread history books, whilst never making any long term major impact upon Australian politics &/or society, culture, tradition, etc.
 
Depends on the dates, I'd dare say, but I'd imagine there would be a swing away, especially at the start, from practical issues such as workers rights, fair pay & conditions, & so forth, to more philosophical leftish issues. So indeed there maybe no White Australia policy, which originally was about protecting jobs than anything else, which would be a bonus, but conditions & pay for local workers, regardless whether they be shearers, dockers, factory workers, et al, will probably be a lot worse over a much longer period of time.






Well it could end up with the ALP behaving & looking a lot like the Australian Democrats - considering they seem to shift ground & policy positions as often as the wind blows. If so, then the ALP may have ended up like the recent demise of the Australian Democrats, fade into the dusty pages of unread history books, whilst never making any long term major impact upon Australian politics &/or society, culture, tradition, etc.


True. However I've often thought that an social-democratic ALP without a trade union link would be better able to represent large groups of people. For instance, it would be seen as more acceptable to 'professional' people, ie doctors lawyers and even some small businesspeople far earlier than this occurred OTL. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Swedish Social Democrats, etc.
 
True. However I've often thought that an social-democratic ALP without a trade union link would be better able to represent large groups of people. For instance, it would be seen as more acceptable to 'professional' people, ie doctors lawyers and even some small businesspeople far earlier than this occurred OTL. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Swedish Social Democrats, etc.


This could be very true in the current era, but of course the ALP has reformed itself of late to reduce the strong union representation & control over Labor policy making. A perfect example of this is the current state govt wont to sell off the power generators in NSW. The unions are dead set against it, but the Labor government has given them the finger & is selling them off anyway. Mind you, & you heard it from me hear first, the ALP will probably get thrashed at the next state election because of it.

The thing is, though, Australia was a different place 100 years ago as the ALP consolidated its position in Australian politics. Regardless of all the claims of egalitarian nonsense that went on back then, Australia was (& still is to some degree) two distinct classes. People thus either affiliated themselves with the workers or the others. Well naturally the working class is going to strongly orbit the up & coming unions who, in turn, created & supported the ALP for the great bulk of the last 100 plus years. This is somewhat reflected in our two party political system, ie, the Labor & Anti-Labor parties. So unless this two class Australian societal structure/culture is avoided, I really can't see how the ALP won't come to dominate politics as it has since Federation.
 
This could be very true in the current era, but of course the ALP has reformed itself of late to reduce the strong union representation & control over Labor policy making. A perfect example of this is the current state govt wont to sell off the power generators in NSW. The unions are dead set against it, but the Labor government has given them the finger & is selling them off anyway. Mind you, & you heard it from me hear first, the ALP will probably get thrashed at the next state election because of it.

The thing is, though, Australia was a different place 100 years ago as the ALP consolidated its position in Australian politics. Regardless of all the claims of egalitarian nonsense that went on back then, Australia was (& still is to some degree) two distinct classes. People thus either affiliated themselves with the workers or the others. Well naturally the working class is going to strongly orbit the up & coming unions who, in turn, created & supported the ALP for the great bulk of the last 100 plus years. This is somewhat reflected in our two party political system, ie, the Labor & Anti-Labor parties. So unless this two class Australian societal structure/culture is avoided, I really can't see how the ALP won't come to dominate politics as it has since Federation.


I would agree with you as such. I have another thread similar to this (Labour Party as Natural Party of Government in UK) in relation to British politics, which is about how British Labour could have become the UK's natural party of government in the 20th century rather than the Tories.

Basically the idea was that if UK Labour had picked up a lot of middle class votes (as well as the working class) this could have occurred. The same in Australia too. My idea was that this could have occured if ALP left-wing policies were slanted to help the middle class as well as the working class a lot earlier than in OTL. For instance the ALP's social welfare policies were always targeted towards helping the poorest-of-the-poor. In many European nations social welfare helped the middle and even upper-middle class as well, ie percentage of previous income pension and unemployment benefits etc.

Also many nations particularly say Sweden, developed a much larger public sector workforce much earlier than Aust. This has the advantage of creating a large group of voters who have a natural self-interest in increasing public expenditure. For instance if we have a more British style system of healtcare (ie many more salaried or government-employed GP's) doctors may be more in favour of left-wing govts (more like OTL teachers, etc).

All this is a bit off-topic but just a few ideas on how the ALP could have melded middle-class onto its working-class support.
 
I would agree with you as such. I have another thread similar to this (Labour Party as Natural Party of Government in UK) in relation to British politics, which is about how British Labour could have become the UK's natural party of government in the 20th century rather than the Tories.

Basically the idea was that if UK Labour had picked up a lot of middle class votes (as well as the working class) this could have occurred. The same in Australia too. My idea was that this could have occured if ALP left-wing policies were slanted to help the middle class as well as the working class a lot earlier than in OTL. For instance the ALP's social welfare policies were always targeted towards helping the poorest-of-the-poor. In many European nations social welfare helped the middle and even upper-middle class as well, ie percentage of previous income pension and unemployment benefits etc.

Also many nations particularly say Sweden, developed a much larger public sector workforce much earlier than Aust. This has the advantage of creating a large group of voters who have a natural self-interest in increasing public expenditure. For instance if we have a more British style system of healtcare (ie many more salaried or government-employed GP's) doctors may be more in favour of left-wing govts (more like OTL teachers, etc).

All this is a bit off-topic but just a few ideas on how the ALP could have melded middle-class onto its working-class support.


Whilst I don't disagree with any of this, just a couple of points. The first is Edmund Burke's observation about political systems. It's hard to simply transfer one nation's political system to another without the historical context taken into consideration. In this instance, in regards to Australia, whatever the Swedes did is really foreign to the Australian experience as there was no historical connection between the two. Britain, on the other hand, is another matter. But Britain, unlike Australia, already had the whigs in place catering for the liberal/left wing minded population, but in Australia such a leftish party never really had firmly establised itself yet (granted they were around, but completely undisciplined as a party).

Similarly, in going with this historical context, Australia didn't really have such a homegrown public service or professional subclass which had any dominate position in society. Furthermore we didn't even have full independent government here, at the time in question, where such a situation could foster such an important subclass of public servants & professionals. Instead most basically came from Britain & where either appointed or seeked employment. Few were locals with the interest of locals at heart.

Consequentially it really comes back to the point who of the local population is going to be able to establish & nourish a leftish party. Well that's whoever can organise themselves first. And that comes back to the unions. Now things could have changed, at this initial stage, if the colonial governments during the 1890s, had done one of two things: either destroy the unions completely or actually sat down with them & negotiate an agreeable settlement to their members demands. Either way could have seen the unions in a postion where the OTL option of gaining political representation, by forming a political party, in the colonial parliaments was unlikely. So, as I said before, you've got to stop the unions forming the Labor Party as once that happens I don't think any other leftish party, be it intellectual, middle class, or otherwise, is going to replace the dominant position of the OTL ALP.

Other than that, it also comes down to the Australian class structure of 100 years ago, as I mentioned before. Almost all the workers were union members, by Federation, & their families were more than happy to support them. Well, when this situation takes place, & you've got a high percentage of the Australian population thus affiliated with unions, the ALP hence has a huge automatic voting block, unlike any other political party at the time. So again, if Australians hadn't gravitated towards a recognisable class indenity, ie the Working Class vs the Others, then sure the ALP would never have grown into the party that it had & another social-democratic party could well have truly developed instead.
 
Whilst I don't disagree with any of this, just a couple of points. The first is Edmund Burke's observation about political systems. It's hard to simply transfer one nation's political system to another without the historical context taken into consideration. In this instance, in regards to Australia, whatever the Swedes did is really foreign to the Australian experience as there was no historical connection between the two. Britain, on the other hand, is another matter. But Britain, unlike Australia, already had the whigs in place catering for the liberal/left wing minded population, but in Australia such a leftish party never really had firmly establised itself yet (granted they were around, but completely undisciplined as a party).

Similarly, in going with this historical context, Australia didn't really have such a homegrown public service or professional subclass which had any dominate position in society. Furthermore we didn't even have full independent government here, at the time in question, where such a situation could foster such an important subclass of public servants & professionals. Instead most basically came from Britain & where either appointed or seeked employment. Few were locals with the interest of locals at heart.

Consequentially it really comes back to the point who of the local population is going to be able to establish & nourish a leftish party. Well that's whoever can organise themselves first. And that comes back to the unions. Now things could have changed, at this initial stage, if the colonial governments during the 1890s, had done one of two things: either destroy the unions completely or actually sat down with them & negotiate an agreeable settlement to their members demands. Either way could have seen the unions in a postion where the OTL option of gaining political representation, by forming a political party, in the colonial parliaments was unlikely. So, as I said before, you've got to stop the unions forming the Labor Party as once that happens I don't think any other leftish party, be it intellectual, middle class, or otherwise, is going to replace the dominant position of the OTL ALP.

Other than that, it also comes down to the Australian class structure of 100 years ago, as I mentioned before. Almost all the workers were union members, by Federation, & their families were more than happy to support them. Well, when this situation takes place, & you've got a high percentage of the Australian population thus affiliated with unions, the ALP hence has a huge automatic voting block, unlike any other political party at the time. So again, if Australians hadn't gravitated towards a recognisable class indenity, ie the Working Class vs the Others, then sure the ALP would never have grown into the party that it had & another social-democratic party could well have truly developed instead.

I agree with you about Edmund Burke's observation about not transferring one nations institutions on another. However, until the 1980's (for instance) it would have been said that Nordic style corporatism could never work in Australia, but then we got the Accord under Hawke?

What I'm basically trying to get at on this thread is not that the unions not develop a political voice, but that they develop a relationship to the ALP similar to that between the Liberals and business (ie control via pulling the purse strings, so to speak, but no representation at conferences etc). Quite early on, once they started to get significant membership, unions become quite significant financial entities, so they could use their finances to control the ALP rather than an actual legal link. I think this is quite plausible.

Also in the long run I think it may be better for the union movement. Without the union link, the ALP would always have to fear a possible defection of funds to other parties. A pragmatic Liberal leader (regardless of their real ideological tendencies) would be willing I assume to 'pork barrel' a few concessions to particular unions in return for donations I am sure. I know I shouldn't use other nations as examples, but it isn't totally unknown for unions overseas to on occassion support conservative governments, especially the more non-ideological 'tamer' ones (the SDA in Australia springs to mind as a possible Aust example in this ATL).

Actually just as an AH exercise in itself this is a interesting point to ponder the effect this would have on the structure of Aust politics. Despite the many differences (ie Parliamentary system and our more left-leaning politics) I can see Aust politics becoming at least slightly more 'Americanised', ie more of a 'pork barrel' nature, with policies tailored to particular interest groups, rather than a monolithic unions VS business split. Still a left-right dichotomy in regards to parties, but you would probably find the parties are more odd mixes of coaltions of self-interest, changing their allegiance from time-to-time, rather than the more solid blocs we have historically had.
 
Top