How does Labor salvage the furniture?

[drsmith]

Neither major party is an inspiration to the public at the moment judging by the personal popularity of the leaders of both Labor and Liberal.

Labor's situation however is far worse than that of the Coalition as despite a low personal approval for Tony Abbott, Labor trails the Coalition very badly in the polls.

Political partisanship aside, it is essential that Labor remain an effective fighting force in politics for the good of the country, but I fear that is slipping away from them with the result being a disproportinate amount of power being handed to the Greens inparticular.

As short term measures to right the Labor ship, I suggest the following as a starting point;

1) Change the leader.

The leader is the face of the party and it's policy failures. I'm not sure who would be best to lead, but one person who should not be elevated back to the leadership is Kevin Rudd.

2) Put carbon (dioxide) policy back in the hands of the people as promised at the last election.

The new leader does not need to renounce carbon pricing, but rather take it to an election. An election need not be called straight away, but rather, the new leader could seek that deep and lasting community consensus between now and the next election. This would also help put the Greens and independents back in their respective boxes and hence help Labor's perception as political leaders.

3) Retain the Mineral Resources Rent Tax in some form.

This seems to have broader public support than the carbon tax and was a policy Labor took to the last election. Proceed with this one, but look to overcome any inequities created by such a rushed agreement with only the three big miners. Also, look at how the MMRT and state royalties can be merged into a single tax on efficiency grounds.

4) Reduce the influence of Labor's power sharing partners.

If the Greens and Labor alligned independents are not happy with the above policy changes (and any others for that matter) such that they would withdraw support, call an election. Labor goes down, but then, so does the power these minor players have.

Would they ultimately choose an election now with the outcome a likely Coalition landslide over the above policy changes if push came to shove ?

With many other policy areas to consider, the above is only a start and it may not win them an election in 2 years time, but to me would be the best way for Labor to start to rebuild itself into an effective political force, challenge the opposition and perhaps bring itself back from the abyss.

 

[Julia]

I agree overall. I believe they will only compound their problems if they bring Mr Rudd back, although there would probably be a short term bounce in the polls.
Certainly it seems impossible that caucus would be able to genuinely unite behind Mr Rudd.

Someone recently suggested bringing back Simon Crean. If he were to announce that the carbon tax would be delayed until it can go to an election, I think that could work.
He's fairly calm, certainly experienced, and would have way more chance of negotiating with Tony Abbott on border protection. Julia Gillard is only exacerbating her situation at present, imo, by being so openly rude to Mr Abbott. Hardly the way to go when you need someone's co-operation.

I'm also wondering if the basis for Mr Abbott's categorical rejection of the government's proposed legislative change to the Migration Act exists on the basis that if/when he takes government the following would happen.

1. Coalition wins in a landslide.

2. The new government prepares legislation to repeal the carbon tax.

3. Labor and The Greens refuse to support this.

4. Mr Abbott calls a double dissolution election, banking on the numbers in the Senate
changing to the extent that would allow him to get his own version of legislative
change to the Migration Act through.

Anyone agree/disagree that this could be the Coalition strategy?

 

[dutchie]

Neither major party is an inspiration to the public at the moment judging by the personal popularity of the leaders of both Labor and Liberal.

Labor's situation however is far worse than that of the Coalition as despite a low personal approval for Tony Abbott, Labor trails the Coalition very badly in the polls.

Political partisanship aside, it is essential that Labor remain an effective fighting force in politics for the good of the country, but I fear that is slipping away from them with the result being a disproportinate amount of power being handed to the Greens inparticular.

As short term measures to right the Labor ship, I suggest the following as a starting point;

1) Change the leader.

The leader is the face of the party and it's policy failures. I'm not sure who would be best to lead, but one person who should not be elevated back to the leadership is Kevin Rudd.

2) Put carbon (dioxide) policy back in the hands of the people as promised at the last election.

The new leader does not need to renounce carbon pricing, but rather take it to an election. An election need not be called straight away, but rather, the new leader could seek that deep and lasting community consensus between now and the next election. This would also help put the Greens and independents back in their respective boxes and hence help Labor's perception as political leaders.

3) Retain the Mineral Resources Rent Tax in some form.

This seems to have broader public support than the carbon tax and was a policy Labor took to the last election. Proceed with this one, but look to overcome any inequities created by such a rushed agreement with only the three big miners. Also, look at how the MMRT and state royalties can be merged into a single tax on efficiency grounds.

4) Reduce the influence of Labor's power sharing partners.

If the Greens and Labor alligned independents are not happy with the above policy changes (and any others for that matter) such that they would withdraw support, call an election. Labor goes down, but then, so does the power these minor players have.

Would they ultimately choose an election now with the outcome a likely Coalition landslide over the above policy changes if push came to shove ?

With many other policy areas to consider, the above is only a start and it may not win them an election in 2 years time, but to me would be the best way for Labor to start to rebuild itself into an effective political force, challenge the opposition and perhaps bring itself back from the abyss.

5. Get some new people with talent.

 

[bellenuit]

Anyone agree/disagree that this could be the Coalition strategy?

The only thing I am not sure of, Julia, is whether Gillard actually wants Abbott's support. As you said, she is going about getting it the wrong way. Perhaps that is intentional.

Could Gillard actually want Abbott to vote the legislation down? That way she can abandon offshore processing completely and return to Labor's original policy on this issue, which is onshore processing. She satisfies the Labor Left and The Greens by doing this, avoiding internal dissent or a potential split in her support in Parliament. Labor then simply blames Abbott for all the boat arrivals and the cost of onshore processing, saying this would not have happened if the coalition had acted in the national interest and supported her legislation. She can always claim Nauru would not have worked without the legislation too and there are some legal arguments that support that view (as well a several that don't support that view).

I think Abbott has blown it. He should support the legislation and hope that the inevitable high court challenge will block Malaysia as an option on the signatory issue which seems to be the only legal weakness in using Malaysia over Nauru.

It is possible that what you suggested is the coalition's strategy. However, I think it would be disastrous for Australia's reputation if a new election of both houses were to be called with the primary theme being the refugee issue. This is something that should be solved quietly and effectively, not something that should be paraded in front of the world for all to see.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

5. Get some new people with talent.

I would agree, the ALP is incestuous, one related to another, inside, or outside in the unions, and it has lost it's hybrid vigour.

gg

 

[drsmith]

5. Get some new people with talent.

As with any team that has major problems, others around the leader would also be responsible for the current situation, so, yes, it goes beyond just replacing the leader.

I'm also wondering if the basis for Mr Abbott's categorical rejection of the government's proposed legislative change to the Migration Act exists on the basis that if/when he takes government the following would happen.

Border protection is currently Labor's biggest problem and I forgot about it.

I must be getting old.

6) Adopt the Coalition's policy stance on border protection.

Everything else they have tried has been a such a failure that the best short-term course is simply a page out of someone else's book. If it does not work as well as the Coalition says, they can then legitimately share some of the responsibility.

 

[Logique]

Become connected, relevant and responsible. Labor's partners the Unions and the Greens are discredited, self-interested ideologues. The Labor movement is so dominated by power-tripping careerists that it no longer knows what (or who) it stands for.

Given free rein, would former Senator Richardson say any different?

It takes more than ambition and a good line of patter at the dispatch box to lead a nation, be it Beazley, Latham, Crean, Rudd or Gillard.

Neither Labor nor the Greens understand this. Which is why the nation will suffer until Labor/Greens are removed from power.

 

[Julia]

The only thing I am not sure of, Julia, is whether Gillard actually wants Abbott's support. As you said, she is going about getting it the wrong way. Perhaps that is intentional.

Could Gillard actually want Abbott to vote the legislation down? That way she can abandon offshore processing completely and return to Labor's original policy on this issue, which is onshore processing. She satisfies the Labor Left and The Greens by doing this, avoiding internal dissent or a potential split in her support in Parliament. Labor then simply blames Abbott for all the boat arrivals and the cost of onshore processing, saying this would not have happened if the coalition had acted in the national interest and supported her legislation. She can always claim Nauru would not have worked without the legislation too and there are some legal arguments that support that view (as well a several that don't support that view).

That's an interesting possibility, bellenuit. When I think about it, though, I just can't get it to gel. I might be totally wrong, but I do believe Ms Gillard really does want offshore processing.

Re further High Court challenges, I thought the whole point of the proposed change to the Migration Act was to eliminate this being possible.

I think Abbott has blown it. He should support the legislation and hope that the inevitable high court challenge will block Malaysia as an option on the signatory issue which seems to be the only legal weakness in using Malaysia over Nauru.

As above, isn't the reason for the legislative changes to preclude any more High Court challenges?

It is possible that what you suggested is the coalition's strategy. However, I think it would be disastrous for Australia's reputation if a new election of both houses were to be called with the primary theme being the refugee issue. This is something that should be solved quietly and effectively, not something that should be paraded in front of the world for all to see.

Sorry. I should have been more clear in my original post.
What I think Mr Abbott will do is go to the next election with the main issue being the repeal of the carbon tax. The offshore processing would be very much a secondary issue for the reason you suggest.
Then if the Coalition are elected on the platform of repealing the carbon tax, neither Labor nor the Greens would allow the legislation through, giving Mr Abbott the means to call a double dissolution election.

If he does this, of course he's taking a mighty gamble that the composition of the new Senate will allow him to get the repeal of the carbon tax through, plus also support legislation mirroring what the government is presently proposing, but substituting Nauru.

Become connected, relevant and responsible. Labor's partners the Unions and the Greens are discredited, self-interested ideologues. The Labor movement is so dominated by power-tripping careerists that it no longer knows what (or who) it stands for.

I'm not so sure that the Greens are in fact discredited, Logique, in that most of the polls show them maintaining or slightly increasing their support. Certainly 'mainstream' voters detest them, but they still have a substantial base in the affluent inner cities and academe.

 

[sptrawler]

It's funny how we are constantly trying to figure out ways for Labor to save themselves.
I for one, feel it is well past the point of saving them, the crucial issue is to minimise the damage they do in their demise.

 

[joea]

It's funny how we are constantly trying to figure out ways for Labor to save themselves.
I for one, feel it is well past the point of saving them, the crucial issue is to minimise the damage they do in their demise.

Hi.
I am starting to get a little worried that a Labor supporter will start relaying some of this good info. you are posting to Gillard.
It will probably make an impression on her to implement it and improve her polls.

But sp I hope your comment is correct.
Maybe in the next two weeks " common sense "will prevail.

Gillard seems to go in boots and all. Her stuff ups and spendings have proven that.
joea

 

[Calliope]

Hi.
I am starting to get a little worried that a Labor supporter will start relaying some of this good info. you are posting to Gillard.
It will probably make an impression on her to implement it and improve her polls.

The solution is staring her in the face. The next "real Julia" should model herself on her alter ego in "At Home With Julia." I think her popularity in the polls would get a boost.

 

[trainspotter]

Sometimes no matter how hard you bale the boat it will still get water in it. Labor is unsaveable. Let it/her sink.

 

[sptrawler]

Sometimes no matter how hard you bale the boat it will still get water in it. Labor is unsaveable. Let it/her sink.

Hi trainspotter, Labor can't even find a bilge p/p.

 

[IFocus]

I think Labor are gone and the damage will last for some time I just wished that the Coalition had a bit more talent and a serious leader Abbott will cause real damage.


Paul Kelly

This is the new structure of Australian politics. Labor is trapped in a weak centre ground that cannot hold. It has no experience of this dilemma and no strategic clue about how to manage this challenge. Rudd was destroyed, ultimately, because he was unable to fight successfully both Coalition and Greens. The same fate is befalling Gillard. It does not matter who becomes the next ALP leader, Rudd or anybody else, they will suffer the same fate unless Labor can devise a workable strategy.

The Labor Party faces a crisis of belief and structure. Since its 1996 election loss it has given priority to managing the 24-hour media cycle and short-term tactics hoping the bigger issues would resolve themselves. The one big new idea it embraced was carbon pricing. While a popular idea at first, Rudd and Gillard mismanaged the politics of carbon pricing. Rudd suffered a crisis of belief and Gillard then had to overcompensate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-a-perfect-storm/story-e6frg6zo-1226144901563

 

[Surly]

You would think they need to pick a leader who will be able to hold their seat in the next election as well as provide the inspired leadership and faction management they have lacked.

I have no idea who would be capable of both and I sure as hell won't be supporting Mr Smith in my electorate next election.

cheers
Surly