Some of the tensions in Rudd’s governance and indeed in his Cabinet over climate change issues are discussed by Brian in this post. Brian’s thoughts could usefully be read together with Shaun Carney’s column in yesterday’s Age [via Gary Sauer-Thompson at Public Opinion]:
The central tension for contemporary Labor is the need to weave together its disparate supporting tribes and Rudd’s car plan, which co-opts concern about climate change to underpin the ALP’s more traditional working class base, tells us how he wants to do it. When Labor was last in power, under Paul Keating, it managed to hold on to most of its white-collar support base but lost office when parts of its blue-collar base, pummelled by the effects of economic deregulation, concluded it had lost touch. Since then, the white-collar left has coalesced more solidly around the Greens – an effect that has been turbo-charged by the death of the more moderate Democrats. This has two consequences, both of which make it harder for Labor to hold on to power.
I think that exaggerates both the degree to which the inner city left vote has shifted to the Greens – it’s really a Sydney-Melbourne centric view and you don’t get the same phenomenon you see in a few Sydney and Melbourne seats occurring to anywhere near the same extent in inner city Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth – and also the degree to which the potential loss of a lower house seat to the Greens would damage Labor’s ability to form government. But it might, along with the Greens’ increasing strength in the Senate, force a shift in Labor’s policy approach and political messages, which Carney argues Rudd is already anticipating with the Green car plan – a juggling act designed to placate both small g green and working class constituencies.
Incidentally, the big loser in all this is the economic orthodoxy of the Productivity Commission – as Carney rightly points out. The proponents of purist free trade economics are going to find few allies in the current political scene, with the opposition’s turn to populism. That cause is perhaps represented by Martin Ferguson, but hardly in its pure form, even if the ghost of Paul Keating is scripting his text, as I’ve been arguing, and by a few Keatingite pundits – such as David Burchell. Burchell, who’s caught the News Ltd bug of writing the same column again and again, constantly argues for a “narrative” – which comes down, it would seem, to some purportedly lofty economic reform goals. But what I found most striking about his latest column – which calls for an “participation society” – is how dated and dare I say it, New Labour-esque his ruminations appear.
The elephant in the room when it comes to grand narratives of goverance is climate change. Brian is more confident than I am that Kevin Rudd will screw his policy courage to the sticking point, but I would observe that if this Labor government really does grasp the nettle and position us for a clean energy future, then that’s far more important a mission than some neo-liberal or Third Way agenda. Without, of course, wishing to suggest that the other domains of policy are unimportant, Australia’s response to climate change under Rudd is the one yardstick by which we should judge this government. If Rudd has been thinking about the politics of holding a governing coalition together in the age of climate change, that’s welcome from my point of view.
Should’ve added and then alienated by Keating’s “luvvie” agenda. People disgruntled by Hawkeating’s liberalisation had nowhere to go. The Libs would be doing the same. But when Keating deployed Aboriginal reconciliation, Asian engagement, boosting the Arts and (to a lesser extent) the Republic and Howard slammed him – they deserted the ALP. ‘Twas a wedge between the middle class left and the blue-collar left.
>
Rudd’s quite aware of that however. A lot of people disappointed by his ‘Tory’ tendencies should probably bear in mind that he wants to reverse the perception that the ALP are chardonnay socialists and/or economically irresponsible.
Huh? How is it juggling when you bought two interest groups off with one tranche of taxpayer dollars?
Mark, I’m not sure how confident I am in Rudd screwing “his policy courage to the sticking point”, but I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt when I see him implementing pretty much exactly what he promised to do. I also think that Penny Wong is a smart enough politician to know and stick to the party line. One of the problems in assessing her commitment is that she is so good a politician you don’t know what her personal commitment is in this area.
Turns out she was virtually quoting the Ruddster. A few weeks earlier he’d given a speech to an outfit called the National Business Leaders Forum on Sustainable Development, which, ironically, couldn’t manage to sustain a website. There is a lot of info in the speech, but I’d make the following points.
First, on climate change, I’d say he pretty much “gets it”. At least as much as any other national leader I can think of.
Second, he does call for bipartisanship and the avoidance of scoring political points. He does this because of his appreciation of the gravity of the situation and the need for a long-term view.
Third, he lays out the 2008-9 budget provisions very neatly. The solar power rebates thing has been given $150 over three years to provide for 6,000 homes each year. Divide $8,000 into $50 million and you get 6,250.
Fourth, there is commendable emphasis on energy saving, but it’s not clear how far this is going to go beyond publishing a pamphlet with some guidelines. He is at least driving hard on internal saving within government. He set up a task force in March and already had an interim report on his desk by late May.
There is perhaps something of the Chinese notion of crisis being made up of danger plus opportunity in Rudd’s view of things. This is definitely how the Germans are seeing it. They intend to make money out of leading the charge.
Whether a green car is essential to that last bit, I don’t know. But Rudd is on record as saying he doesn’t want to be PM of a country that doesn’t make things. If the Productivity Commission doesn’t think he’s serious they should think again.
I think Rudd’s personal commitment to this is more important than Shaun Carney’s notion of keeping the tribes together. There may be something to that, but it’s not necessary to understanding Rudd’s motivation.
Carney quotes Rudd quoting Ford as saying that Australia is one of 14 countries that can design a car from go to woe. I understand that Australian design teams can do it faster and with less person power than it takes in Europe or the US. But they won’t be doing it long if they are designing yesterday’s cars.
Finally, Carney says:
True enough, but the question is whether the Greens will be outright obstructionist, or whether having made their point will be a bit pragmatic. I don’t think they’ll make a complete pest of themselves unless there is a really important principle at stake. But then I could be wrong.
Brian, yes it does, but Rudd won’t get it. It’s obvious that the opposition are going to keep playing the populist card – pointing to higher prices and so on – at least as long as Nelson is leader. In these circumstances, Rudd does have to think about how to “keep the tribes together” because there’d be no point doing the hard yards on climate change only to lose the election.
Just visited KeeleyNet.com to find someone working on carbonite,as a coal product that has multiple uses,and may have competitive low emissions of CO2. This stuff like a host of other ideas in combinations are pretty well almost ready for honest long term investment that takes account of worker,environment social issues too. In going to that website,as a Australian I am flustered by our government emphases on light bulbs,no urgency in compiling evidences of new designs to make them multi-useful whilst they are recyclable back as incandescents… I am flustered by the lack of experiment,or the publication of such,maybe its time ,we had a citizen’s committee to find ways of penalising any company,individual or government department that slows down the process of ,at least a monotype!
You dont have to be a terrorist to remind oneself that a large supermarket is in fact full of explosive materials.. And the resultant chemical gas mess.
Yet,once a balloon has been manufactured,it is ,in fact a potentially changeable wind bag insulator. Play around with the word insulator,could lead to electric insulators both farm and main grid.But how do use a balloon in the main electric grid that produces a beneficial result!?I ts worth asking,because,if there was a material shortage and you only had balloons!? Balloons as comparisons with inner tubes in vehicles has already been done as science fun toys. But the questions still remains what could you do with bloody balloons!
It must be a nightmare to figure out who to invest in,like the problem of the regenerative brake for trucks,but you add a component or two of hydraulics in a new way and that break maybe useful in compounding ways,physically. Tho only way forward for matters of invention that could be useful towards a lower carbon emission future are the multi-adaptable processes. A brake regenerator could keep large bridge structure from falling with the hydraulic attachments.
I liked Steve Biddulph’s optimistic OpEd of a shift to a Green-Labor polarity. (Here’s hoping, anyway).
If the Liberals keep running with ‘cheaper petrol for all’, exempting petrol from carbon pricing, etc plus uber-conservative social policy like their latest efforts to stymie equality for same-sex couples, then it won’t be too hard for Rudd to keep green leaning voters tilting his way rather than the Liberals on the basis of clearly being the lesser of two evils. One example of compulsory prefertial voting benefiting Labor. It would piss Labor off mightily to lose an inner-city Melb or Sydney seat to the Greens (not least cos they’re all held by Ministers), but it wouldn’t harm their hold on government much.
I don’t imagine ‘purist’ free trade economics will have a big fan club, but that doesn’t mean everyone will rush over to protectionism. Listening to people like Lindsay Tanner and others, I suspect a pragmatic/practical pro-market economic line will dominate except where short-term political pressures demand otherwise. I don’t know if anyone has a better label than this, but whatever you call it, I expect it will tilt closer to ‘pure’ free trade than ‘pure’ protectionism.
And personally I think the so-called green car fund looks like a terribly expensive way to deliver minimal environmental gains – that’s assuming environmental benefits rather than just subsidising manufacturing jobs is the intended result. But it will probably help a bit with both the blue-collar base and the green-leaning base.
Er, well perhaps he should look for another country to run, because Australia is very rapidly becoming a resources-only economy. Go talk to a manufacturer, exporter or tourism operator.
BTW, that doesn’t mean I think we should be building government-subsidised hybrids in Australia.
Oh that’s nice talking about the human caused climate change that has made a impact on the earth’s eco system, natural habitat and its resources. Today is the need to understand what climate change actually is and what we can do to make the planet cool. It is necessary to communicate its potential impact and focus world’s attention to show how global climate change has affected our planet and its people.
Labor waking the Razor’s Edge:
Larry chooses café life and pursuit of wisdom over middle-class security. As his Hindu mentor tells him, there are three paths to enlightenment – knowledge, service, and prayer. Larry chooses the path of knowledge, and ultimately does attain some level of enlightenment.
(Wiki pedia)
Worker security, as in all who labour & put in substantial effort based on their abilities/disabilities, is also a top priority. As is providing CHOICE by way of casting a serious eye on monopolisation & vertical/horizontal integration. Only so much money to go around so targetting can come in handy. But providing a SAFETY NET w/out holes, one that ensures prevention, re-training & managing chronic problems is the go. As is preparing for career & business shifts as the waters rise. Particularly at local level.
Good points from Mark, Brian & Andrew B. Green cars can be linked to Australian farmers in most beneficial way (think QLD). Toyota has a good reputation in my family. Safe on BRIDGES.
Even tho the corporate media in the main would like to go all frenzied like as tho Rudd were Whitlam (I think Brian mentioned this elsewhere) this couldn’t be further from the truth. He is a wise “incrementalist” IMO, but knows the important symbols to display that bring some relief to tense breathing. My HYPED reaction previously to the EU SPIN by some was a deliberate attempt to demonstrate how SOME might react…whether be conspiracy site readers of the Libertarian persuasion…or QLD ladies w/ a chip in their bonnet…or small business owners who have experienced BIG COURT overseas…etc.
Wedge-tailed eagle has special role to play. Certain Chinese talk about “patience” in an interesting way. Bob Brown has much integrity. And appeal. But goes down like hot poo in certain QLD towns & suburbs. Tho interestingly, hot poo can make for good fertiliser on farms if allowed to cool, age & be used properly in the soil. And mixed w/ water. Explanation of USE, particularly Senate-wise, plenty valuable. Provided can get thru the BUZZING of FEVER MOSSIES. On radios & morning shows. And Current (lol) affairs. And those bleedin’ LOCAL PAPERS.
I like Lindsay Tanner. I BELIEVE in him. Educated man, always learning.
phillip, balloons as in Airships are being trialled by Airship Ventures & German companies. I read recently that the Pentagon was bulding some for mass transport reasons. Not sure how reliable that source is tho. Problems obviously have to do w/ wind/storms, steerage & weight of things carried…but so much potential in time of oil madness and potential carbon/emmission taxes. I think the Corporate media caught on recently.
This is interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/16/climatechange
Oneday I hope that SANITY will prevail and disaster capitalism will become preventing disaster democracy…and at the least three tribes will build bridges, balloons, maglevs or anything else innovative but tested tried and true in order not to go to WAR.
Hiroshima mon amour.
Mark, accepting what you say at 4, I think we have a very serious problem. Wong, Rudd and co recognise that there will be short term pain for long term gain and if we don’t take that short term pain, the long term pain will be somewhere on a range from serious to catastrophic. Wong at the end of her CEDA paper (pdf) says:
It will be difficult for the Government to draw the people into this agenda of the long term interest with the opposition taking cheap populist shots at every opportunity aimed directly at the short-term hip pocket nerve.
The oppositions strategy in this is beyond ethics, worse than just criminal. They are playing cheap politics with the future of the planet and the place of our species on it.
Senator Bartlett’s got it in one.
On the bright side, it might mean the government car fleet – which winds its way onto the second-hand market fairly quickly – has a better fuel consumption and emissions profile.
I don’t have numbers for it, but I suspect the insistence of government fleets on buying big Australian cars probably increases our collective fuel bills substantially.
I think that with the green car it’s more about whether we are going to have a car industry at all that builds complete cars or abandon the scene. If so the future has to be green.
Otherwise there seem to be plenty of greenish overseas cars coming on stream.
I’ve just heard on th ABC that there was announcement in Tokyo that Toyota would build a hybrid car in Melbourne. 10,000 per year from 2010. The Govt will contribute $35 million.
Labor famously won an election they self-admittedly deserved to lose – the 1990 one – by targeting Green and related preferences. It has always amazed me that they haven’t tried this tactic again by using the Greens as allies, not adversaries. Latham badly bungled the tactics on forestry policy, but he had the right strategy.
Opinion polls consistently show green isues – especially but not solely climate change – at the top of swinging voters’ concerns, but since 1990 neither party has exploited this. Labor is best positioned for that exploitation.
On the hybrids, there goes Ford – without the government fleet sales there’s no way their Falcon, and therefore their manufacturing presence, is remotely viable. Holden at least has its tax-assisted export program.
I suppose that won’t stop the government wasting even more of our national resources trying to prop Ford up, though. Truly, the day the first Holden FC was produced was a black day for our economy.
If Toyota’s bill is only $35 million I’ll eat my hat. I’ll bet there’s a lot of hidden subsidy in this deal – it’s gonna cost us all a packet. The PC’s estimate of roughly $300,000 a year per job is about right.
200 new jobs initially. The Victorian Government is also chipping in.
There was quite a bit on RN’s The World Today if anyone wants to find the link when the transcript goes up. Gotta go.
The 35 million is probably just the upfront subsidy. Since they’ve announced that the government fleet is converting to hybrids they’re also guaranteeing demand for the cars (at most likely a very good price for Toyota).
I don’t think its the best way the government could spend its money, but from a political strategy point of view quite understandable. And takes some of the pressure off the govt in terms of petrol prices as they can say they’re doing “something”.
I feel duty bound to point out that 80+% of the “Green and related preferences” that were targetted were preferences of Democrat voters. The environment was a huge issue at that election, but the formal Green party vote was quite small as the party was very much in its nascent stages in most states. It was the highest vote the Democrats ever achieved and it was in part on the back of the strong environment focus (combined with support built around Janine Haines’ failed bid for a House of Reps seat).
I don’t really want to take on a role of Democrat defending/spruiking, but now that the party is basically dead, I feel an obligation to ensure it isn’t completely written out of history – if for no other reason than making sure the lessons we draw from history are factually based.
But the 1990 election is also a reminder of the benefit of major parties overtly earning preferences of minor party voters, rather than the view usually adopted by the media that somehow it is the parties which ‘give’ their preferences to a major party. Which is no doubt part of what Rudd is keeping on eye on with his green car announcements.
(And while I think the ‘green car’ fund is probably going to be a waste of money – at least in terms of environemntal bang for buck – switching the Commonwealth car fleet to hybrids and the like is certainly a good move.
“switching the Commonwealth car fleet to hybrids and the like is certainly a good move.”
I agree. And providing incentives for businesses to buy hybrids. Then they can eventually be sold off & picked up by other drivers second-hand. Far more affordable.