Australia’s conservatives fought and lost the weekend election on the “make America great again” (MAGA) hill. The historic win of progressives, less than a week after a similar result in Canada, showed that rhetoric in the vein of US President Donald Trump is no substitute for cohesive policies.
Instead of convincing voters it was the best choice to address worsening domestic concerns and deal with a changing economic order, the Liberal-National coalition’s flirtation with the MAGA brand failed spectacularly and delivered a historic second term in a landslide for Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s center-left Labor Party.
It was an indictment of the damage from Trump’s agenda, in particular tariffs that are crippling world trade.
There are parallels with Canada, where Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal Party won, despite being on shaky ground, prompting former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation in January. And in a stinging rebuke, Australia’s opposition leader Peter Dutton lost his own parliamentary seat, like Canada’s Conservative Pierre Poilievre.
The opposition’s flirtation with Trump’s MAGA brand was not the only reason voters delivered Albanese such a decisive victory, but it was the final nail in the coffin. Instead of laying out a comprehensive agenda and articulating policies on crucial domestic matters like the cost of living, housing affordability and climate, it chose to highlight second-tier non-issues borrowed straight out of the culture-war playbook. They failed to resonate with an electorate where for the first time Millennials and Gen Z — who cannot get into the property market, are passionate about the climate and buckling under student debt — were a larger voting block than Baby Boomers.
Offering little hope to those voters, with just an expensive nuclear-power policy as an alternative to the ruling party’s renewable energy agenda, fell flat. An antagonistic tone toward China, a key Australian trading partner, also did not land, despite rising security concerns.
Labor ran a disciplined campaign that offered hope while acknowledging difficulties ahead. Albanese’s government was united, scandal and corruption-free, offering stability at a time of global uncertainty. He refused to foster politics of division (in a classy act that reflected this, he assertively shut down the crowd about to boo Dutton during his victory speech: “No, no. What we do in Australia is we treat people with respect.”)
Labor’s campaign stuck to top-tier issues and offered a clearer vision of the future.
As house prices hit another record high and a share market slide sparked by the Trump tariffs eroded personal savings, voters saw right through the coalition’s attempt to lean on MAGA antics, prompting some to refer to Dutton as Trump-lite.
In one of the campaign’s more startling moments, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, the opposition spokesperson on indigenous affairs, called on voters to “make Australia great again.” Photographs emerged of Price wearing a MAGA cap. The high-profile opposition senator was also tapped for a government efficiency role to make cuts to the public service if the coalition won, that drew parallels with the Elon Musk-led DOGE. A policy ordering public servants back to the office ended up being scrapped after backlash.
Then there was the appeal to culture wars. Dutton attempted to make Welcome to Country — cultural protocols that show respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders at meetings, gatherings and events — an election issue; he referred to the national broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, as “hate media,” and called for “one flag,” pushing back against the display of the Indigenous flag, which is now common in Australia, including atop the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
It was a tone-deaf campaign that failed to read the mood in the electorate.
Nikeeta Bhatia, a 24-year-old voting in the Sydney upper North Shore electorate of Bradfield, once one of the safest Liberal seats that looks like it will be flipping to an independent, spoke for many. Her two top issues were paying off her student debt while saving for a home deposit.
“Entering the property market also doesn’t seem like an achievable goal to strive for anymore,” Bhatia told me before casting her vote.
One of the coalition’s major housing planks, to let first-home buyers dip into pensions for a deposit, “will only cause issues at retirement age,” she said.
The coalition will be soul-searching over how to emerge as a modern conservative party after a dismal campaign. It sunk the Voice referendum aimed at giving greater political rights to First Nations citizens in 2023 with its elevator pitch: “If you don’t know, vote no.”
This time, it needed a laser-focused message attached to a clear road map.
Labor faces challenges. It must deliver on its promises while being fiscally prudent — S&P Global Ratings warned the country’s “AAA” sovereign credit rating might be at risk as election campaign pledges could result in higher deficits, debt and interest costs.
However, if it can perform in its second term the way it has during the campaign, it will have proven the voters right. That it is best placed to steer an economy whose 30-year “miracle” is in jeopardy and understands a younger generation is crying out for significant policies, at a time constituents around the world want leaders who can engage with a recalcitrant US.
Andreea Papuc is a Bloomberg Opinion editor. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS