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 
@John D
I tend to agree that it would be better to leave the “carbon tax” alone, bearing in mind, of course, that it automatically becomes an ETS in 2015 anyway. Going straight to an ETS now would reduce, rather than increase, the cost, but would also reduce the effectiveness of the scheme as a behaviour changer.
if Rudd had an agenda, he would have said what it was last night.
Ignore the greens because they have no where else to go, and their preferences will not help elected any labor senators.
go left, go left plays into abbott’s hands. It refights the battles that caused rudd to suffer a 28% drop in voter approval in 2 months, which was why he was dumped in 2010
KR needs to reconnect effectively with the many low-income voters we’ve lost in recent years – and they are universally unaware of how much Abbott’s policies will cost them: Lowering the tax-free threshold, taking away the low-income super topup, and parental leave that pays rich Mums more.
This demographic is also intractable on asylum seekers, and I don’t have a solution other than to make a start on developing a regional agreement with Indonesia etc – if KR can win on this issue he’s a miracle worker, and Labor’s in with a chance.
This is the one issue on which KR should take the strongest stand, and argue that the science is settled, and that we have to act now – once people accept this they will see that Abbott’s policy is nonsensical and disingenuous.
Ken_L:
The decent thing to do, contra the opinion of the conspicuously compassionate, is to maintain a harsh system of deterrent that stops people getting on boats and attempting to make it to Oz either directly or by country hopping.
As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, 100,000 to 200,000 Vietnamese drowned or were killed by pirates when they fled Vietnam. The exodus caused a huge pirate industry to develop with resultant rape, murder, theft, boat burning and drownings on a grand scale.
A silly policy of opening the door to illegal arrivals at the very same time as the rest of the world is putting up the barricades could potentially result in a boat exodus from the Greater M-E, Sri Lanka etc with accompanying piracy and death on a hitherto unimaginable scale.
I’m really sick and tired of hearing immature voices on the left talk about relaxing border control and treating illegal arrivals humanely without feeling any need to think thru the inevitable consequences of their proposals.
As I see it, there is no outside solution to the intractable conflicts that exist in many parts of the world. In Europe Protestants and Catholics spent a few centuries slaughtering each other before they learned to get along. Other constantly feuding parties, like Sunni and Shia, will need to sort themselves out in their own way.
I am quite sure that bourgeois politics has nothing new to offer us now. I intend both common meanings of “bourgeois politics”. That is;
A. Politics dominated by the commercial, financial and industrial interests of capitalism; and
B. Politics characteristic of the middle class and marked by concerns of self-interest, material interest, social respectability and general parochial mediocrity.
Without defeating the source of our civilizational malaise, capitalism itself, there is no chance of correcting any of its consequent problems.
When the catastrophic mess capitalism is creating becomes fully manifest, people will not only demand change, change will be mandatory for survival.
He should make a priority of targetting who the ALP chooses to run in seats, especially “safe seats” such as those being vacated by various members of the cabinet.
* In particular, he should actively aim to bring in a large number of women candidates in seats where they have a (very) good chance of winning. Putting women candidates in safe seats would show that gender equality is really a top ALP priority. This would feed into and boost so many other issues too.
* He should also actively try to recruit talented candidates who are not currently politicians or political aides, people who come from other jobs who have valuable new skills and perspectives to bring into politics.
@Mel
Not sure on those numbers but even if they are much smaller, it’s a horrible toll. You seem not to be asserting that the outflows were of people who would not have qualified for protection yet you also seem to be advocating “a harsh system of deterrent that stops people getting on boats and attempting to make it to Oz either directly or by country hopping.”
Assuming your policy had been successful everyone, including those who failed to drown or experience the brutality of pirates would have endured what they were, quite legitimately, seeking protection from. I’m wondering how that can be rational. People make judgement calls all the time about where their best interests lie. Sometimes they are mistaken but in the end, it is their call. We have to assume that they know their interests better than we do — particularly in cases where the putative harm is beyond our shores and our ability to change facts on the ground.
I don’t accept for a second that the oft-repeated concern over loss of life at sea from the mouths of those driving this policy has a shred of integrity. It’s mere eyewash designed to ease the sensibilities of those who in their heart of hearts know that Australian policy is being driven by putatively murderous xenophobia and cultural angst. That’s why the policy is called “border security” and not “refugee protection”. If one wanted to reduce drowning
OOPS … posted too early ..
If one wanted to reduce drowning, one would devise equitable arrangements for burden sharing, fly or convey successful applicants here from major aggregation points, process speedily and allow people awaiting a ruling to work and live here until a determination was made. That this is not done gives the lie to the policy, which, as Gillard acknowledged in mid-2010 — was designed to assuage fears about queue-jumping, especially in realtion to welfare benefits.
@Nathan
So people unlike him then?
Pr Q said:
What Rudd should do is run against the ALP machine.
The 800lb gorilla in the living room of psephology is why Gillard was so unpopular. And why
Rudd is so popular by comparison. The answer is Rudd is anti-machine, whilst Gillard was pro-machine.
At the heart of the ALP’s demoralisatoin is the corruption of political process by machine apparatchiks, such as Richo. Gillard’s behaviour in back-stabbing her colleague and back-sliding on a core election promise was classic ALP machine politics. The ALPs division and ministerial merry go round contrasted vividly with the stability of the Howard era.
Intuitively, if Rudd has one thing going for him, its his hatred of, and alienation from, the ALP factional heavyweight machine operators. This is the secret of his popularity in the general public, especially amongst L/NP voters. (Likewise Turnbull is not loved by the L/NP machine, which helps his chances in the general public, especially amongst ALP voters.)
Inductively, there is evidence that the federal ALP’s precipitous decline under Gillard was strongly correlated to its massive electoral wipe-outs in NSW & QLD.these were states in which the ALP machine had become a juggernaut devouring the state’s resources and credibility.
I have to concur with
2010 data crunching of NSW & QLD state voting trends, which show factors that ALP political disgrace has driven the federal ALP’s voting decline:
Corrupt & devious Machine politics put the ALP on the nose in long standing state government (WA, NSW, QLD). Those three former ALP states were the places where Gillard vote plunged lowest, relative to Rudd.
With Rudd back at the helm he has a chance to plunge a dagger into the heart of the machine. But he is proclaiming the new Rudd, kinder & gentler. Not the kind of guy who will lead a root-and-branch reform of his colleagues party base.
So I predict that the Rudd-ALP will lose the election, but perhaps only just.
The greatest pro-Rudd bounce will be in NSW, QLD & WA, the three states where the ALP machine did the most damage eg Obeid, Bligh, Burke.
Jack Strocchi @61, I largely agree with that analysis. Where I would suggest that some nuance is required is in relation to WA. Under the leadership of the decent Geoff Gallop WA Labor recovered strongly during the Noughties, and even in 2008 WA Labor only narrowly lost the State election. The more recent precipitate decline in WA Labor support may need to be explained in terms of other factors.
Mel @55:
Could I respectfully suggest that there are factors currently at work in “the Greater M-E, Sri Lanka etc” that are more powerful drivers than any “silly policy” that any Australian government might pursue?
It is the beginning of end with the return of kevin747.
Rudd said in the house that one factor influencing the election date is the G20 summit.
Giving the choice of strutting the world stage as a bit player and staying home to make the case for re-election, Rudd747 knew what was more important.
The issue was labor was seen as shallow.
Remember the real Julia episode? Did anyone doubt who the real bob, real Paul, or real John Howard were. Would anyone have any doubt that Kevin747 is the real Rudd?
An article in Business Spectator opines that a hastily convened ETS will see the carbon price drop to $6 leaving the household sector overcompensated. This sounds like a free-for-all for emissions but a month or two back Climate Spectator opined that the effective carbon tax incidence was 10% or in effect $2.30. Note there are huge exemptions such as 94.5% for smelters.
What would be worse is linking to the abysmal EU trading scheme with its free permits and generous use of dodgy if not fraudulent offsets. Actually our emissions have barely moved for the last 30 years, perhaps not so bad in light of high immigration. However the DCEE factbox says the aim is 80% absolute cuts by 2050 so we are way off track. Then again DCEE may go under the Abbott government so the point is moot.
If Kevin Rudd makes getting more serious about climate an election issue I’d be very pleased. And very surprised because the perception is that Labor has sufferred for pushing ahead with carbon pricing; for the sake of popularity I expect Rudd will draw back rather than push forward on the issue. As Gillard probably would have done had she won without need for Greens support. I would like to be wrong but doing the least that can be gotten away with looks like it will remain the priority for mainstream politics of both persuasions and it will only be the rhetoric that differentiates them.
@Hermit
Several government frontbenchers have made it pretty clear they are planning to bring forward the ETS phase of the carbon price. I agree that it would be a retrograde step, particularly since the existing price is not an unreasonable impost on the economy and does appear to be having some influence on emissions.
On my reading of the legislation, it looks like it could be done without requiring an Act of Parliament, so I expect it’s what we’ll be getting.
With carbon tax you are supposed to know your revenue in advance and with ETS you know your emissions in advance for the included sectors. However the numerous get-out-jail cards make a mockery of those objectives. If we get a quickie ETS and it allows the use of certified EU carbon credits some big emitters will no doubt
a) firstly plead for free permits on the grandfathering principle
b) secondly buy $3-$5 credits rather than pay the current debit price.
The theory behind offsets is that the CO2 has been sucked up by sustainable basket weaving in remote mountain villagers somewhere. A bureaucrat felt they practised restraint therefore they should sell their unused emissions entitlement. Needless to say global CO2 keeps rising in absolute terms.
Fortunately the greenhouse gas inventory people take no notice of this sham so we could have a decade of busy looking ETS dealings with no discernible dip in emissions. Weirdly from past comments Abbott seems to understand this better than (what’s left of) the ALP.
One little think Labor can do is to get all its remaining high profile people to get their faces on TV during the campaign. For this to happen, Rudd may have to take days off 🙂
Maybe if asked questions on particular portfolios, Rudd can refer the press to the appropriate minister. It would go a long way to re-assuring people like me that Rudd has changed his style.
Risking moderation I’ll give links to a couple of bizarre sources of offsets used by emitters in the EU ETS and possibly a future Aussie ETS
Slightly less dirty coal
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/19/865471/in-the-crazy-world-of-carbon-finance-coal-now-qualifies-for-emission-reduction-credits/
CFC extortion that should simply be banned
http://www.eia-international.org/china-threat-to-vent-super-greenhouse-gases-in-bid-to-extort-billions
Paul Norton:
May I suggest that you don’t really know what you are talking about. Things are not as simple as the populist Left claim. Unlike most folk who comment here, I have family connections with asylum seekers. I have an intimate knowledge of how the system works and how it is easily gamed.
Watch this Dateline program about Sri Lankan asylum seekers. The interviewed prospective (and failed) asylum seekers state very clearly that they are economic refugees. Some of them think that on arrival in Australia they will be given jobs and accommodation and cash payments ranging up 100,000 rupees!
Also note how the film crew was free to film at its leisure and how Tamils speak openly to them. This would be impossible if the Sinhalese were engaging in some type of campaign of mass extermination.
Sri Lanka now is much the same as Vietnam post the Fall of Saigon. In fact it is arguably much better as nothing like 1-2.5 million people are being placed in re-education camps. Obviously some Tamils have been interned, killed, tortured post the war but only on a comparatively boutique scale.
The Hazara in Afghanistan are a different matter as there Pashtun cousins seem to be intent on liquidating them. This is an intra-Musl1m conflict and Australia shouldn’t be part of it other than perhaps to plead with the OIC to get off its ass and fix it.
I have absolutely no interest in Australia heading down the British route, which now involves 1,500 forced marriage investigations each year, several hundred Musl1ms being investigated or already convicted of terror offences and the establishment of informal no-go zones for gays, loosely clad women etc…
I have never voted conservative in my life but if Labor changes tack and decides to bring Londonistan to Oz, I will vote for Abbott.
Paul Norton @ #12 said:
The fact that WA ALP had to resort to selecting a mildly depressive Green as an antidote to Brian Burkes WA Inc shows that Gallop was the exception that proved the rule: voters sympathise with social democratic policies but are antagonistic to ALP machine politics.
Voters loathe the ALP machine, and appreciate ALP leaders who share their antipathy. Unfortunately ALP leaders who loathe the ALP don’t tend to last long. Gallop quit & Rudd is Lazarus with a double bypass.
Its possible that WA may have passed some sort of Right-wing politico-economic threshold given the power of oligarchs combined with the large number of blue collar mining workers on $100k +. Maybe Sydney to, given the number of $1,000,000 + property holders.
OTOH, the continued polarisation of resource distribution works against a stable L/NP voting coalition. The Right-wing parties needs the odd ethnic crime wave, illegal immigration surge or fundamentalist terrorist attack to keep the their voter turnstiles clicking over. It’s depressing how liberals are so obliging as to provide for their needs in this respect.
Bob Carr speaks truth to flower (people).
My enthusiasm for Rudd has just doubled.
Keven 24/7 was back on the business news, calling on china to speed up FTA talks. Lecturing other countries is not a policy announcement or a fresh start.
Mel @71:
As the numbers of asylum seekers (by whatever mode of travel) are much smaller than the numbers that come to Australia through the immigration program, Australia is at little risk of being turned into Londonistan by people in leaky boats, whatever the asylum seeker policy settings.
Gee, that’s an excellent list Prof. Quiggin.
They are on their last chance.
The business with refugees is an issue that is long over due for raising with an ill-informed and psychically- massaged public.
Rudd would be just the man to explain the underlying circumstances of refugees and appeal/evoke the forgotten notion of fair go.
Four years in a centre, then hidings because of reaction to the stress induced through it, then another fourteen months in can for eventually protesting it, is the pits for a society that once considered itself civilised.
Ignoring the Carr-wreck of an interview yesterday, people can understand the problems that also will come as TNC interests with a vested interest in the detention system there may be, but a simple change in the balance of visas could be an unprovocative start, to end exponentially over extended detention and its effects as to a special category.
Unlikely though it may be, the current foreign minister could try to persuade his buddies in Washington that international “policies” that increase refugee flows by the million for the basest of motives might also be finally subject to humanitarian-oriented review.
@Jim Rose
You’re sounding very shrill in recent days Jim just like Tony A, who’s also sounding nervous and a bit flat. Feeling a change of the wind?
Paul Norton @25:
“Australia is at little risk of being turned into Londonistan by people in leaky boats, whatever the asylum seeker policy settings.”
Wrong. The pool of potential boatpersons is almost unlimited. You can’t simply ignore the historical evidence and make claims like that. Or at least you shouldn’t.
Whoops, Combet’s outta here as well (although for personal reasons, he says.)
There are an awful lot of Labor people leaving, but with the amount of emphasis on how the leaders run campaigns these days, I find it hard saying how much of an electoral effect it may have. If people other than union and party hacks get some pre selection, it might be seen as a positive. Not everyone from a non political background does particularly well, though, as Peter Garrett illustrates.
@steve from brisbane
Well he had some medical issues last month, and seems to be pretty straight. Losing your political colleagues might have tipped him over the edge, rather than “leadership” per se. Peter Garrett was not non-political: as well as his music, leadership in the NDP and ACF is committed activism.
BTW, I agree with your previous comment that Rudd going to Indonesia is a good move, because it is directly linked to a big domestic issue.
@kevin1 rudd is already following the script that turned voters of gillard and rudd 1.0
Hartcher’s column today on rudd and his need to stop talking about abbott and make the case for labor
@Jim Rose
Got any quotes from your “famous” wise old owls to back up your impressions? Not very persuasive when you have to do the thinking by yourself.
Mel @78:
Here is the historical evidence of total migration to Australia since 1945, and numbers of boat arrivals to Australia since 1976. The former has always dwarfed the latter, and has always had a much greater influence on Australia’s demography.
Whilst the pool of potential boatpeople may be almost limitless, actual boatpeople only represent a trickle from the pool. Of course it is possible that events might turn the trickle into a flood, but the sort of circumstances that could cause that take us back to my comment @63.
Jim Rose, pointing out Abbott alone is 90% of the- substantial- ALP case.
Most governments ignore the opposition leader because that lifts his profile. Some never even mention the opposition leader for several years in a row.
Whitlam ,fraser, hawke, keating and howard made positive cases
Paul Norton @ 33:
“Whilst the pool of potential boatpeople may be almost limitless, actual boatpeople only represent a trickle from the pool.”
Sheesh. Very few VN boatpeople made it to Oz by boat. Most made it to Malaysia, Indonesia etc. These folk had some expectation that they would be resettled in first world countries and indeed over one million were settled- indeed the first wave of arrivals was prima facie acepted as genuine refugees by the resettling first world countries.
Estimates vary for the the number of VN boatpeople but 1.5 million is a common estimate with 200,000 to as many as 400,000 deaths at sea from drowning, thirst, pirate activities etc…
Now look at what your fellow Green Fran Barlow is proposing:
I note that on the very few occasions that “progressive left” commenters actually propose anything at all they end up proposing something like Fran’s idea.
Now what do you think might happen under such a radically revised incentive structure? Do I really need to spell it out?
QED.
Mel @86, it seems that we agree that very few VN boatpeople made it to Australia by boat. As the link I provided shows, very few asylum seekers from all sources have been making it to Australia by boat in recent years – certainly relative to the overall immigration stream. Since you have chosen to focus on the historical case of Vietnamese refugees, I think we would also agree that there were events occurring in and around Vietnam during and immediately prior to 1975-78 (the peak period for Vietnamese boat departures) that were bigger factors in their decision to depart than Australia’s immigration and refugee policies at the time.
Paul,
In the 25 years I’ve associated with the VN community I have *never* met a single person who escaped from VN in fear for their life. I’ve met ex-SVN who were horribly maltreated or tortured in the re-education camps and others who’d had most of their wealth stolen etc.. but that is as bad as it gets.
The exodus from SVN was mostly about escaping the crushing and unremitting poverty the North brought to the South when it tried to introduce soc1alism and the associated rules and corruption that made it impossible for people to earn a decent living. You need to remember that even during the war, many folk in the South had a very decent standard of living and there was a wealthy middle class. The middle class collapsed into poverty only *after* the war.
The mass exodus from the South would *not* have occurred if the SVN people felt they had no prospect of making it to the West. The impoverishment of the South set the conditions that made people think about fleeing; the likelihood of making it to the West from a refugee camp in Indonesia etc made folk act on what would otherwise have remained a dream.
I’m just amazed by the naivety on display here.
Many of us keen on carbon pricing will be disappointed with the talk of accelerating the transition to a floating price from the current fixed price phase of the ETS. In addition, there is concern on the right especially that accelerated introduction of a floating price will see the price fall to under $16 and perhaps under $10 per tonne CO2e — with a consequent hit on revenue since returning to the old tax structure would be politcally disastrous. (This is a point that the ALP should stress, given Abbott’s ‘blood oath’ on the abolition of the “carbon tax”(sic)).
One attractive option for resolving these difficulties is as follows.
1. PMR**d announces accelerated transition to an ETS on July 1 2014 — undercutting Abbott’s campaign.
2. From this date, all fuel subsidies on fossil oil based products are abolished.
3. From this date, the tax deductibility for business purposes of all fossil carbon fuel inputs (excluding fuel used directly as part of a manufacturing process such as steel, etc) will begin to be phased out at 15% per annum and be abolished entirely on July 1 2020. At that time businesses will need to meet these costs themselves.
5. Free carbon permits in EITEs will be abolished. Henceforth, all permits will need to be purchased.
4. The government will monitor the costs of this transition and where this can be shown to have prejudiced the real incomes of people beyond the existing compensation given in relation to the fixed price period, the government will adjust transfer payments to ensure that the poorest 60% of the population is not worse off.
The package could be sold as a move to a more transparent and loophole free system of carbon pricing without subsidies.
The regulatory measures on tax treatment of fossil energy inputs would not require Senate approval and the increase in taxable income amongst businesses should fill the hole without requiring a change in tax scales.
“Can readers point to policy initiatives from the current Parliament that Rudd (and his radically reshaped ministerial team) should be expanding on (or, alternatively, dumping).”
I take the reference to ‘Parliament’ to include all members from all parties and independents.
‘Productivity’. Prof Q has written on this topic. In addition to the arguments he presented, I believe to have reasons for suggesting that one way to increase ‘labour productivity’ is to not destroy productive work. This idea, I suggest, involves a microeconomic reform from the bottom up, rather than the top-down approach of the neo-liberal (naïve market economic-economic rationalism-corporatism). Specifically, I have in mind:
1. Workplace bullying. The terms of reference of the parliamentary committee are http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ee/bullying/tor.htm .
The recommendations are in http://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=ee/bullying/tor.htm
It seems to me the difficult areas remain unresolved (compensation, penalties, uncoordinated legal system, cost of legal system). A game theoretic approach might provide useful insights in how to minimise prescriptive legislation (eg mediation) while maximising deterrence (I have in mind the ‘boiling in oil result’).
2. Devolution and KPIs. Devolution is the name given to decentralisation of decision making on the level of an organisation (eg schools, universities, some other public sector institutions, unions). The policy of devolving more authority to school principles, including incentive schemes, is an example. I suggest this policy is to be reviewed. As is evidenced by the Gillard government, setting a KPI (balanced budget within x years), is silly because the government does not have complete control over the outcome. Similarly, setting KPIs for teachers is silly because the teachers do not have complete control over students’ performance. The term ‘indicator’ is wrongly used as ‘measurement’.
3. Environment. Travelling time to and from work, working and living in an air or noise (or both) polluted environment uses up mental and physical energy that is not available for productive work.
A specific recommendation is the decision on the location of a second major international airport in Sydney.
4. Simplifying commercial contracts. Saves time for people and reduces legal costs to business (fewer lawyers).
5. An examination or an inquiry into the productivity of lawyers and accountants would be interesting.
6. An examination or an inquiry into the productivity of corporate ‘leaders’.
Superannuation.
At present the compulsory superannuation system is prescriptive regarding the contribution and the behaviour of superannuation funds as well as that for self-managed funds.
I believe this system should be reviewed because the presriptive legilsation is onerous without providing financial benefits to the subjects (people) commensurate to the compulsory nature of the scheme. Moreover, not all people benefit equally.
Taxation. I understand the ATO is currently following up on the off-shore leaks (tax havens). According to the newpaper reports I’ve come across, the ATO is too gentle.
ghg emissions (carbon pricing). I am not convinced linking the local carbon price to the EU ETS from 2014-15 onward is a good idea because many countries within the EU have a list of additional quantitative restrictions on pollutions and complex programs to reduce energy consumption. Moreover, their economies as well as natural environmental conditions are very different. A periodically reviewed tax may be better for Australia. Notwithstandin the apparent peak in the mining boom having been reached or passed, the mining industry in Australia remains much more important in aggregate than in the EU for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, some if not most mining projects involve long planning horizons. Relative certainty of carbon pricing seems to be important. Furthermore, the cost of organising a carbon market in Australia is non-trivial (think of pay rates in the finance industry) and it could be avoided.
‘Unemployment benefit’ (now ‘new start’). Please start afresh on this one.
One new policy I would propose that would contribute to the reform of the media debate would be a ban on Ministers or ALP politicians or their staffers talking off the record to journalists. Much of the bad press Governments get results from off the record briefings. The press of course would go ballistic, so it would probably be safer to only implement this policy if Labor wins at the next election.
But if it could be implemented it would result in a radical change in what the media reports. Instead of their current focus on reporting the latest gossip they would be forced to discuss policy.
@Mel
Can I ask others more knowledgeable than me to explain why they use “soc1alism” and other permutations of what are trigger words which apparently lead to some negative consequences? I’m genuinely unclear about the process and outcomes of sticking to the original word, which is obviously preferable as an authentic expression of meaning.
@Fran Barlow
And Fran, can I also ask for your guidance on this, eg. “PMR**d” for Prime Minister George Reid PM whose position expired in 1905.
@John Goss
John, have you ever been involved in a political campaign? It is not a debating salon.
@kevin1
Kevin1, the word soc1al1sm contains (by coincidence) the word c1al1s, which is the name of a medication which is often promoted online and consequently which triggers spam filters.
Sorry – that should be “which is often promoted online and consequently triggers spam filters”.
@Tim Macknay
thanks Tim, now I understand what was going on when Bali street punks tried to sell me C**lis and V**gra recently.
Rescued from moderation. Note that the asterisked words, spelt out, will trigger the automoderation filter. The same, amusingly but annoyingly, may happen with soc**lism – JQ
@Fran Barlow is there any point to a carbon price this low?
My comment, slotted at #40 p2, is still in moderation. Could it be because of two links?
Agree Fran Barlow, there must not be surreptitious retreats from taking on action on real-world issues.
The science is in. As with refugees, there are quite simple, practical measures that can be done, the symbolism is important and married to practical action should offend no reasonable person.
Kevin Rudd has broached some of the issues already in public, as with Single Parent Benefit and must now press forward without even a blink of hesitation, the old paradigms are mental straight-jackets killing healthy civil society, although the public CAN see reality when some thing snaps the hold of the dominant line.
Reminds me, tonight’s 4 Corners.
What is this barbaric almost poor laws mentality that has crept in this century?
Why have people finally swallowed the Tony Abbott undeserving welfare line?
The cases examined showed up with individuals displaying similar symptoms to long term asylum seeker detainees, wtf!!