Regardless of attitudes to the leadership dispute, politics is no longer a question of waiting for Abbott’s inevitable victory. So, for those of us who don’t desire an Abbott government, it’s now worthwhile to consider how Labor, and Kevin Rudd, should use the limited time available before the next election. Here are some suggestions, obviously preliminary
* A root-and-branch review of the Labor Party. The relationship with the union movement, the continued existence of the factional system, the relationship between the PM and Caucus and the need for MPs with real life experience, rather than party/union careerists – everything should be on the table. I’d suggest John Faulkner as the person to lead such a review. Other names that come to mind are Ged Kearney and Peter Beatty
* Take the economic policy debate to Abbott, as he did last night. Instead of Swan’s deficit fetishism we need a full-throated defence of the 2009 stimulus package, and Keynesian fiscal policy in general, and a correspondingly sharp attack on austerity
* The return to CPRS has already been announced. Since I’m part of the Authority responsible for advising the government, I’m not going to comment on the details. But Rudd should return to the attack on Abbott’s scientific and economic delusionism on this issue.
* Fix some of the worst Swan-Gillard decisions, like the refusal to increase Job Search allowance
* Scrap Gillard’s deal on the mining tax
* Mend fences with the Greens – this was one of Rudd’s biggest failings during his period as PM, and one of the things he needs to change
* Get Combet back – of all the ministers who’ve quit, he’s the only one who’s a real loss. The departure of people like Conroy and Ludwig is one of the unqualified benefits of this change, and that of Swan and Emerson a net plus for the government
Feel free to offer your own thoughts. Rehashes of the leadership debate will be deleted with prejudice.
John Quiggin 
In general agreement with all points, but particularly these points.
-Push the election back to November, why have it earlier? Electorate is sick of labor changing leaders and having a snap election, based on style rather than substance. Put runs on board..
-2020 summit review, with update + lessons learned, and involving real people rather than elite lefty know nothings. Having an internet poll for ideas, and internet vote would be ideal.
-Public purging of Shorten, plus put Howes in his box, and lock the lid. Public would respond well to a bit of revenge lynching, I feel.
NBN should be pushed harder. Coalition NBN policy indicates significant out-of-pocket expenses for fibre-to-the-node customers while delivering a doubtful product.
It would be nice to get some policy discussion from the media, particularly the ABC, who will spend every day up the election on meta issues. I’d actually like to know ALP and coalition policy details served up in English with some expert analysis. Won’t happen though.
Chinese state media is questioning the switch this morning. The main point being that the CCP feel it is al a bit of a joke, and, for 2 months only, not worth engaging with. Labor has lots of work to do.
-A review and update of the Asian century white paper, with better concrete actions, is necessary for Australia. Carr and Rudd should lead this publicly.
i think conroy is a loss personally, he knew the nbn issue back to front at this stage. His replacement is crucial and needs to be very effective in public appearances to counter turnbull’s ‘copper-magic’ nonsense.
combet is definitely a loss, though he’d have needed to shift if they tinker with the carbon tax in some way. Wong should probably return to that portfolio if they do decide to make changes.
He has to challenge the entire dishonest narrative about his stimulus programs, a full-throated defence of programs like the BER is essential imo, couple it with the future direction and reform promised by the gonski changes.
I see Prof Q’s list excludes mention of the assylum seeker issue. I don’t quite know what he can or should do about it, but I think he has to be seen to be doing something meaningful for the sake of quite a few seats.
Alternatively get used to the idea that Rudd is probably history. Combet could keep himself pure for a Gillard comeback in 2016 or earlier. If that happens Shorten, Carr and others may have played up excessively on bucks night and the wedding may be off. Better still reform the voting system so an independent or minor party candidate has a real chance of becoming PM. The coming turmoil and bloodletting is largely an artefact of the system that crowns winners rather than shares the glory.
open up government, reinforce transparency along the lines offered by former Ministers Tanner (Operation Sunlight) and Faulkner (his reforms when responsible for the public service before being put in the unlovely Defence portfolio). Can be done easily and quickly, the material is all there, just has to be implemented fully rather than only partially as it has been to date.
How can a root and branch review of the ALP happen before the election? Surely he has to focus on things that are doable between now and the election. The review can come after. Similarly, the Greens are an electoral enemy at the moment, he would be wasting his time courting them. What for, the Parliament won’t be sitting after today?
Rudd’s populism will ensure he will pull back on carbon, and on several other minor mistakes by Gillard like the NewStart one.
What would he replace the mining deal with? This is not something that will have any effect on the budget before the election. Why would he pick a fight with the miners, they would join the onslaught of attack ads. You might as well recommend exhumation of Finkelstein’s monster.
Given the word is that the election will be in August, the focus has to be on things that will make a difference quickly.
The first thing that Rudd should do is call Abbott out and challenge him to a series of debates on real policy. This will leave Abbott caught between a negative a policy free zone. Time to take the focus off the internal bickering that had infected the Gillard era
He should not only defend the stimulus but emphasise the danger of recession and the need to delay getting the budget back in balance. This would give him room to fund new initiatives e.g. sensible public transport projects (but not the usual boondoggles promoted by the states and advocates).
Definitely no root-and-branch review of the ALP at this stage. He’s got five months max to win an election!
@m0nty
I particularly agree with you m0nty regarding the Greens. I think Milne’s dour appearing personality is probably behind the 2 to 3 % loss in Green vote in the polls, and let’s face it, it’s not as if Greens preferences are going to flow to Abbott anyway. (They are also Western Sydney poison on the asylum seeker issue.) I think it can only help Rudd to be seen to be putting some distance between him and them.
Gay marriage. Abbott’s glass jaw is social issues. I know a number of younger (usually female) Liberal voters who will not vote for Abbott. Get Abbott and the usual Liberal and Independent suspects saying impolitic things in the media in the build up to an election.
@Steve On asylum seekers, I agree. I don’t have any great ideas right now, but I need to spend time thinking about it
@Monty and Alan It’s not necessary to have the review finished before the election. What is necessary is that, win or lose, Labor is radically reformed
On gay marriage, the best line would, I think, be to demand Abbott commit to a free vote. Otherwise say it will be on party lines, with Labor voting pro. As with party reform, this is for after the next election, unless its possible to have an additional sitting with a late date.
Invite Tanner to contest Lalor.
Gay marriage is indeed an obvious change. Given the time frame, economic issues aren’t going to matter much. Social issues are where it’s at.
I just hope he doesn’t descend into 2020 Summit style faffing about. Keep it simple. It’s the Mad Monk, stupid.
Prof Q: what would be the point of a half-finished review that would give the opposition a raft of talking points about division within the government? That is exactly the wrong thing to do before the election. Unity is essential prior to the election, to the extent it is possible. The more the carpet gets lifted up, the more creepy-crawlies slither out.
I’d much rather concentrate on divisions within the Libs. They have escaped scrutiny to a criminal extent in this electoral cycle, an ALP review would give the media an excuse to further ignore the extremism in the Coalition.
Crean tried that a few years back with only a small token decrease. Unfortunately, much of the party’s funding comes this way so might be a bit hard. Mind you, the coalition have their factions too but are a little more discreet.
@Tyler
Plenty in the tech industry would agree with what you say about Conroy, and disagree with JQ calling his loss an “unqualified benefit”.
He might be arrogant, and there is the whole internet filter debacle, but he has some wins too.
Some tech industry comment:
http://www.buddeblog.com.au/frompaulsdesk/thank-you-stephen-conroy-2/
http://delimiter.com.au/2013/06/26/end-of-an-era-stephen-conroy-quits-as-comms-minister/
Broad agreement, Prof.
Something Rudd should not do is be distracted from these difficult domestic issues ie. don’t try and cram in flying visits overseas. In Bob Carr’s Lateline interview last night, he said “he’s got enormous standing overseas; who do you want representing Australia at the G20 – Tony Abbott or Kevin Rudd?” OK, maybe G20 gets a leave pass, but gladhanding his mates around the world will not increase the Labor vote at home.
My idea; Rudd should Challenge Abbott to a televised debate on the policy merits of (some form of) carbon pricing versus direct action. Insist that the focus be on the policy, not the politics of how it was introduced. Nail him down on exactly what Abbott would do to achieve the specified cuts, and who would pay.
Rudd should offer ‘Education’ to Julia
Please tell me how increasing the job search allowance is good for the economy and in line with the ALP objective of achieving full employment?
Get rid of Howes
Surprised to see Gary Gray still the rampant bull this morning towards Rudd yet not resigning as Resources Minister. How should Rudd handle such an angry subordinate? Is Gray angling for a confrontation?
Per Macchiavelli, have Shorten (metaphorically) killed and the bloody corpse displayed in the square. Howe, too, if it serves.
@kevin1
I dunno: a visit to Indonesia re the asylum seeker problem (as Julia intended) might be of value. He would really have to try to sell better co-operation as a humanitarian issue (stop drownings) rather than a “we really can’t take this many people” approach.”
On the asylum seeker question, I too don’t have any brilliant ideas about how Labor can manage this issue politically between now and the election. There is a pressing need to raise the level of debate on this issue after the election, amongst other things by pointing out that the situations in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (to name a few distressful countries that people are fleeing from) are not something that any Australian government can fix unilaterally. The wider problem this raises is whether the Labor Party is any longer the kind of organisation that could wage an effective educative campaign on such an issue, even if it had a mind to.
Rudd has indicated that he has changed and now needs to demonstrate that he has changed. Otherwise the exercise might not be sufficient to win the next election.
Tired @24:
The Jobsearch Allowance ceased to exist in the 1990s. There is now simply the Newstart Allowance. Raising it would be good for the economy because it would stimulate aggregate demand. It would also improve the employability of the unemployed and underemployed by improving their physical and mental health and freeing them from the many stresses associated with being destitute. The wider goal of full employment, of course, is a matter of macroeconomic policy and of achieving desirable structural changes in the economy to enable the achievement of full employment on a sustainable basis.
Sam @22, I like that idea. The problem is finding an MSM broadcaster that’s prepared to run with it.
A root and branch review has been done both nationally and statewide a few times with little to show for it. First and foremost the ALP was founded to be the political arm of the trade union movement – it has never ever been a party for progressives. Where progressives and unionists interest coincides then they can work together but if progressives want a party of their own they can go ahead and join the Greens or form their own.
Secondly be careful of what you wish for as one American commentator (whose name escapes me right now) the open primaries has been captured by the most rabid of activists pushing out the ‘general’ membership leading to increased radicalism. The ‘faceless’ men acted as a filter to keep the nutters out.
Conroy as a minister began the NBN after failing to get the cheaper options off the ground. This piece of infrastructure will be remembered favourably with the achievements of Alston and I have already forgotten his successor. The fact that he is a factional leader makes people resent him but people often forget that the ALP has always had a left and right wing.
Furthermore the reason why Rudd was toppled and he had so little support within caucus (and I suspect that the only reason they turned to him was to try to avoid the big loss) was because he does not know how to delegate. He does not know how to manage. Has he learnt only time will tell but I doubt it. Too old and not the kind of person to reflect.
As far as taking the economic debate to Abbot. Well will Bowen be a better communicator than Swan? For everyone’s sake he better be. But far more importantly will the media allow this to happen?
On asylum seekers, Labor should place more faith in the innate decency of the majority of Australians. Admit they got it wrong in 2001 over Tampa, and they’ve been getting it wrong ever since. Give a bit of perspective to the discussion – if the USA can cope with 10 million illegal immigrants and poor countries like Jordan can care for 2 million refugees, can’t we manage a few thousand boat people?
In other words Labor is never going to win a ‘who’s tougher on boat people’ argument with the Libs so they might as well try to take the initiative and reframe the discussion. They will get support from not only the Greens, but also from lots of business leaders.
@Paul Norton
You don’t think Tony Jones would be interested in a QANDA special like that? I reckon it would rate through the roof.
@rog
Good point. Rudd needs to show his management style is different.
Sam @35, I doubt whether QANDA would be quite the right format. There was a quite good debate-format show that the ABC had in the mid-1980s, and something like that could be a more appropriate format.
@Paul Norton
Yeah, that could be right. Still, I could see an ABC special like this happening.
I know one thing Rudd should hit hard: the never ending rumblings from many in the Coalition and their IPA pals that “something has to be done” about ABC bias, and whether this will involve not only that issue, but changing substantially the ABC by privatising parts of it, or forcing it into advertising. (Under a pretence of a “budget emergency”.)
Nutty right wing Tea Party (Australian sub branch) types (who are into climate change denial and other ideologically driven belief systems) seem to be unable to get it through their heads that the ABC is popular as it is. Their dreams of demolishing it need to be exposed more.
Do we really need another review of the ALP? I think the problems have been obvious for a while, it’s more just the will to fix it.
Agree with everything else – especially on two.
@Ken_L
I very much agree. They should also repudiate surplus fetishism, withdraw the troops from Afghanistan and declare themselves in favour of same sex marriage. Really, there is plenty to gain here and very little to lose.
Caveat on my last post … I’m not a fan of the concept of ‘innate decency’ nor do I think Australians are by and large more compassionate than the citizens of any other country with comparable per capita GDP.
Well Fran no need to quibble about semantics, the point is to reframe the discussion in terms of generosity of spirit and good international citizenship, leaving the shock jocks and the Libs to look like heartless selfish extremists who have abandoned the traditional Aussie values of a fair go for all. Parallels could be drawn to the largely bipartisan refugee programs that followed the Second World War and Vietnam and the benefits that they ultimately brought to the country. Try to force Abbott to defend deeply mean-spirited, unChristian, short-sighted behaviour in other words instead of giving him free rein to do his absurd turn back the boats BS.
Oh look. Rupert has taken time out from meetings with his divorce lawyers to give guidance to The Australian via twitter as to what line should be run:
Sorry, a bit off topic, but just thought you’d be interested.
@Troy Prideaux Not another review of the Labor party. Rudd is not the person to drive this. He is too divisive a figure to lead this – it has to come from elsewhere.
There are plenty of proposals from the previous ALP reviews still waiting to be implemented, and I don’t think another review would fundamentally improve on the basically sound analyses of Labor’s malaise that those earlier reviews produced.
Lets not go back to the CPRS. It may appeal to market tragics but it is so complicated that it is hard to sell politically, requires higher price increases than offset credit trading schemes such as the RET and involves unproductive price increases in cases where the price is not high enough to drive action.
My advice would be to leave the carbon tax as is, raise the targets for the RET to levels that give us some chance of meeting the 2020 overall emission reduction targets and use other, more direct approaches.
Reading of the Obama policy shows numerous ways of driving down emissions without resorting to CPRS style schemes.
@John D
John in other circumstances I might agree with you but the ALP has demonstrated convincingly that it is never going to reform itself in an orderly process. People whose only interest in the Party is the power they obtain from office are never going to volunteer to give some of it up. The recent ICAC inquiry in NSW should surely have put the final nails in the coffin of any hopes otherwise.
Rudd is probably the only figure who might conceivably be able to force through the kind of reform that is necessary by use of power and politics, most of which will inevitably have to come from external sources. Almost inevitably, significant chunks of the traditional ALP will have to be pruned unless they leave of their own accord. It will be very messy and I would think impossible to pull off, but trying to do it without being divisive is a pipe dream.
Abolish (or at least phase-out) fossil fuel subsidies and direct the revenue to useful/popular (e.g. education (including tertiary), public transport, healthcare, etc).
@John D
Obama hasn’t actually implemented the big carbon penalty of a per unit CO2 limit on power stations. It’s not yet clear if he can do it without approval by Congress. US emissions are expected to rise in 2013 with greater coal use as natural gas reverts to historic prices.
As to the RET a report (both client and consultant have changed names) said it would cost energy users $25 bn in extra bills to 2030. There is no mood for higher power bills. My understanding is that the RET is overseen by the Climate Change Authority that includes Pr Q. However the CCA apparently faces the chop under Abbott and Rudd evidently doesn’t understand that emissions restraint cannot be painless.