Prime Minster Anthony Albanese’s recent speech to the UK Labour Party Conference in Liverpool put trust front and centre. He argued that centre-left governments build lasting social change by delivering on their commitments and staying in office long enough to do so. “Delivering change is more difficult than demanding it,” he said. “Working within the system is tougher than railing against it.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addresses the UK Labour Annual Conference in Liverpool during his visit to Britain.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer
The message was well received by his UK Labour allies, which won a bigger majority than Albanese’s ALP, but are now losing ground to Nigel Farage’s Reform Party. It is believed that if a UK election was held today, Reform would be well-placed to win it. Reform has tapped into frustration over stagnant real wages, declining public services and migration. In response to complex policy questions, Reform offers a simple solution: control the borders first, fix the rest later.
Policy delivery is the key to rebuilding trust. Populism thrives when elected governments are perceived to be unable to solve complex problems. Albanese’s point is that trust isn’t just a virtue. It is a political strategy. It is built on delivery, not slogans. “Our work is measured in deeds,” he said. “And it depends on delivery. On change our citizens can see.”
That’s easier said than done. A major problem that governments face in addressing complex policy issues is that the perceived costs of reform are often concentrated, while the benefits are more diffuse and take time. Importantly, many of the costs are not simply economic. They are often tied to perceived impacts on culture, identity, amenity and social status.
Take affordable housing. In Australian cities, it is notoriously difficult to negotiate planning rules for medium-density housing in well-established inner-urban areas. As a result, much new housing development has been on “greenfield sites” a long distance from city centres, far from jobs, social services and community amenities. Young people in particular, want to live closer in, nearer to cultural events and nightlife, and in proximity to higher education campuses and good public transport.
Loading
The NIMBY/YIMBY divide is real. State governments and inner-city councils are dealing with the schism between those opposed to the densification of inner-city areas and those who see their viability as requiring significant population growth. Each side accuses the other of selfishness, but this is not simply about money or lifestyle.
Critics of developments argue that inner-city communities have evolved distinct cultural ecosystems that are threatened by out-of-scale developments. In Sydney, advocates of change point out that young people are being driven out of places like Glebe, Balmain, Newtown, Darlinghurst and Bondi, and that these areas will wither and die, and lose their cultural attributes, if people from all social backgrounds do not have the opportunity to move in.
Melbourne is seeing similar tensions in suburbs like Brunswick, Northcote and Fitzroy, where heritage overlays and community resistance have slowed down medium-density development. The result is a patchwork of policy and a growing divide between those who want to protect the past and those who wish to build for the future.
