Spurred on, this time, by the release of 1980 Cabinet papers (resources boom #1) and remarks by Howard government Reserve Bank appointee, Donald McGauchie, we’ve had a fresh round of dire warnings of a “wages breakout”.

This, on top of the usual shrill demands for “reform” in workplace relations – it’s a given, apparently, that the Fair Work Australia Act empowers unions.

Oh really? In a very useful post at We’re All Dead, Matt Cowgill does some myth busting on the current state of play in labour market hysteria.

Among other stats, Cowgill shows that the wages share of national income continues to head downwards, and is at its lowest point since 1964.

A reasonable observer might surely think:

(a) There’s a fairly pure case of ideology in the strict sense of the word in all this hoo-hah – “common sense” which is completely contradicted by facts;

(b) Fair Work Australia actually does incorporate a lot of the thrust of WorkChoices.

The parliamentary calculus for the British election was of course different: a Labour minority government would have had a bare majority, but adding the Lib Dems to the Tory benches delivered a substantial majority in the House of Commons, bigger than that which has often enabled a single party to govern. That’s not the case here – whichever way the seats finally fall, any government will rest on a very slim majority. So, in parliamentary terms, there’s not a compelling stability case for either side.

In this parliament, each division will be key, and by-elections could change the partisan complexion of the House.

In Britain, the danger for the Liberal Democrats is that they bleed support to their left, because their main opposition in most of the seats they hold is the Tories. In other words, they’re in government with the party which could take seats from them, and opposition within those seats coalesces around Labour.

In our parliament, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott sit for seats which in their absence would be held by the Nationals, who are their major opponents in elections. Bob Katter’s electorate is different – the Nats have tried very hard to take it off him in the part, but Kennedy has also been held by Labor in living memory.

So, there’s some logic in their support for an ALP minority government, aside from the other factors I identified last night. To retain their seats, they’re better off not being embraced by their partisan enemies at electorate level.

The calculus for Adam Bandt in Melbourne is different: he can only hold his seat by continuing to fend off Labor, but, conversely, he needs to keep the support of left wing voters who would be horrified if he were to prop up a Coalition government.

The other difference with Britain is that there’s the promise of a change to the electoral system. In the medium term, Labor might have much to gain from a shift to a much more proportional voting system, given the strength of The Greens’ vote outside its former inner city redoubts. Some sort of modus vivendi between Labor and The Greens needs to be reached – the strategy of effectively taking the smaller party for granted, and hoping to reap sufficient support from swinging voters on the right clearly failed.

Another factor is that a Labor/Greens majority in the Senate which will take office next July promises a more stable environment for a non-Coalition government. But we have the intriguing position where the numbers in the House are so tight, there may well be another general election for the House of Reps in short order.

Interesting times for Australian politics.

Dobell is particularly interested in the work of Ross Garnaut (chapter 2 of the proceedings). The key finding?

There is now compelling evidence that the period of labour surplus andr easonably steady real wages for unskilled workers—supported by continuing large-scale movement of people from agriculture to industry and from the countryside to the cities—has come to an end. The implications of this change for all aspects of Chinese development will be profound.

It’s worth observing that this is, apparently, by no means a consensus position. The Economist‘s By Invitation page has several contributions suggesting otherwise: indeed, Yang Yao argues that this point is getting further away:

First, it cannot be made congruent with the fact that the countryside still has 45% of China’s labour force, but agriculture only contributes to 11% of China’s national GDP…Indeed, we find that China is moving away from the turning point, primarily because agriculture has become more mechanised and squeezed out labour.

While the exact timing may not yet be clear, sooner or later the “turning point” will be reached, and it sounds like it’s not that far away. The consequences not only for China, but the rest of the world, will indeed be profound.

Of particular interest are her comments on the contrast made between Kevin Rudd’s allegedly autocratic style of governance, and Gillard’s putative consensus approach. This also goes to the question of the reaction to the overthrow of a first term PM, and the reasons why the manner of her installation is problematic for many.

There’s lots to talk about here, but I want to focus on the question of presidential style politics.

As I said in the comments thread at Hoyden, one interesting point in terms of tigtog’s argument about the quasi-presidential system is the way Julia Gillard has gone about distancing herself and the government from Kevin Rudd. Her manner of proceeding, and the way it’s been framed, has been precisely aimed to suggest that a new leader implies a new policy direction, and to gloss over the continuities with ALP policy under Rudd which tigtog identifies (although I do think it’s significant that the rhetoric has moved rightwards so quickly). The (quickly shattered) expectations among people that policy would shift in areas like same sex marriage and the net filter also fit neatly into the presidential box.

I also think the Timor kerfuffle demonstrates that “consultative” leadership is not the panacea that many claimed it was. We can see that from the fact that the decision was obviously taken quickly, the ground not prepared, and dominated by conceptions of political strategy and spin (as with her remarks about so-called political correctness). Waiting for a “consensus” to emerge on climate change is also a recipe for inaction in the short term and disaster in the long term.

We’re also witnessing a meme emerge that it’s difficult to judge Gillard’s actions on the basis of her rhetoric, given that she will have been PM for only a short period of time before we vote. This is to ignore the fact that governance, these days, largely proceeds in train with politics, and that the public articulation and framing of policy issues is absolutely key to what then occurs. This view has the effect of focusing our attention, as we decide how to vote, more on Gillard’s personality than what the actual record of the government in which she has been a crucial player for almost three years is, and thus reinforces both the presidential “new slate” and persona driven themes. It also tends to exempt Gillard from legitimate criticism.

I think there was an element of wishful thinking in the belief by some that the ascension of a PM from Labor’s left might see an about turn on precisely the issues that many have problems with in Labor’s policy record. Similarly, I think it’s unlikely that a re-elected Gillard government would suddenly reverse course on the key areas she’s identified as needing to be “fixed” – tax, asylum seekers and climate change. I think it’s much more likely that she would proceed as she’s begun.

This goes to the concentration on personality politics which bedevils a presidential style of governance. At a structural level, Guy Rundle is right to say that Labor’s left is effectively dead. Tigtog is also right to say that Kevin Rudd’s not being a traditional Labor figure was part of his strength, and one of the reasons we had a lot invested in him, as well as a large part of the ostensible reason for his political demise. Here we are not talking about ‘Saint Kevin’, as some would have it, but about the fact that late modern Labor is not fit for purpose, if the purpose is to advance a progressive politics.

By buying into fantasies about a revival of a progressive politics under a new leader working within the same old party structure, and advised by the same old focus group and poll obsessed apparat, we’re stuck in exactly the same paradigm where politics becomes all about individuals and not about much broader trends. That’s where, paradoxically, I think a broader form of democratic input into the selection of party leaders could shift things.

British Labour has seen 30 000 new party members join since the defeat of the Brown government. That’s remarkable for a party which was viewed as exhausted by a long term in power, and which was said to have run out of ideas and impetus. It’s by no means a perfect exemplar of participatory democracy, or public reasoning, but the Labour leadership contest has enabled a real refocusing on what the party stands for. That’s what we do not get in Australia with a change of leadership, or after election defeats. If we were to discuss, and deliberate on where progressive politics should go, and how to revive the progressive impulse, instead of projecting fantasies on leaders past and present, then I think we’d be better off.

The story follows a report in today’s Fairfax papers that Kevin Rudd’s chief of staff, Alister Jordan, had been asked to take soundings among MPs on the Prime Minister’s behalf, and claims from The Australian that Julia Gillard had done herself and her party a dis-service by not initiating the challenge the paper had been talking up at yesterday’s caucus.

Update: There’s now a report on the ABC News website.

Update: The Twitter hashtag #spill is being revived… though #ruddroll also has its admirers.

Update: Kerry O’Brien says there’ll be more later on in the 7.30 Report. Meanwhile, the most astute summary on Twitter comes from RachWelsh who points out that some tweeting journos with sources are saying something is happening, and others are not.

Update: Heather Ewart on the 7.30 Report claimed that meetings were taking place between elements of the NSW and Victorian Right, and Mark Arbib is said to have defected from Rudd. She reported that Gillard is meeting with Rudd, but of course, Gillard may be meeting with Rudd to quash the unchallenge. Or not.

Update: Fairfax reports (at 7.39pm) that Gillard’s office has said “nothing has changed”.

Update: There’s very little news among all the noise. Bill Shorten is said to be one of those orchestrating the unchallenge, and the AWU has reportedly withdrawn its support for Rudd.

Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, Anthony Albanese and John Faulkner are reported to be in Kevin Rudd’s office.

Gillard is reported to be not intending to challenge.

This micro-event, it would seem, has been brought to you by the genius “strategists” who talked Rudd into dropping the ETS in the first place, setting in train his plunge in the polls. The NSW Right, as I’ve said before, knows no other response to bad focus groups than to bring on a leadership challenge. Political courage and leadership is unknown among the apparatchiks and Sussex Street types.

And we’ve also had an unprecedented campaign against the PM from the media and the mining industry. While I’d like to see Gillard become PM, the Labor Party would be insane to dump Rudd now, and nor should they.

This will be highly damaging, coming as it does just at the point when it appeared that things could be turned around for the government. If I were Julia Gillard, I’d urge Rudd to convene a caucus meeting tomorrow morning, and personally move a confidence motion in his leadership. And heads should roll in the ALP. Soon.

Update: The Punch, which is live blogging what is still the unchallenge, reports that John Faulkner between Gillard and Rudd.

I’ll repeat what I said before: if the ALP dumps Rudd now, it will be the height of stupidity, and be a demonstration of nothing but craven cowardice in the face of a media/mining industry orchestrated campaign, at a time when the polls indicate, despite a low primary vote, the ALP is still odds on to win the election.

Update: Paul Howes has just Tweeted that he’ll be on Lateline to explain the AWU’s position.

Update: Rachel Hills says it all on Twitter:

I feel like much of the anti-Rudd sentiment recently is more journalists getting bored with him than a newfound excess of crapness. #spill

Update: The Drum editor Jonathan Green on Twitter:

a certain smugness in the media at this coup by commentariat

Update: Sky News is reporting Kevin Rudd will be giving a press conference in the next 5 to 10 minutes.

Update: Lots of Tweets claiming that Rudd is about to quit.

Update: Rudd’s press conference will be televised live on ABC1 very soon.

Update: Rudd has convened caucus to meet at 9am. Gillard will be challenging. He is not standing down.

Update: Rudd indicates he will be running against faction and union domination. He is also running against the NSW Right, indicating that if he wins he will not be retreating from the RSPT, or giving in to calls for a hardline on asylum seekers. He suggested forward movement on climate change.

Update: New thread here.

It was hardly the first time a Coalition had been formed to implement an austerity agenda. The National Government of the Depression years is one exemplar.

Labour sits on the sidelines, with some doubt that its party processes will enable a left alternative to be considered in its leadership election, and its ability to present a viable opposition somewhat diminished by the wholesale adoption of New Labour themes by Cameron’s Red Tory-ism, to the degree that communitarian project has any substance.

In Australia, too, we have the spectre of public disillusion with the two major parties, but an electoral system which will minimise any expression of a desire for a third alternative, with The Greens effectively relegated to Upper House redoubts.

One of the most interesting reflections on the state of Labour in the UK, in the light of the 2010 poll, is from Jeremy Gilbert, writing in Open Democracy.

Gilbert argues that Labour avoided a wipe out because it showed surprising resilience in constituencies where an activist campaigning base persisted, and in regions where local or regional governments had been able to demonstrate the meaningfulness of social democratic initiatives to everyday lives.

In politics, Gilbert argues, content follows form:

Probably the best term ever coined to describe that strategy was Anthony Barnett’s phrase ‘corporate populism’. New Labour was based on the idea that a new kind of popular politics had to imitate the organisational and communications techniques of corporations, while pursuing a political programme which tried to align the interests of voters with those of actual corporations. When reflecting on this history, it’s striking to consider that New Labour’s full embrace of market liberalism came some time after its adoption of this approach as its own basic organisational mode.

Long before it became clear that New Labour wouldn’t break in any serious way with Thatcherite economics, while Blair still tantalised his supporters with references to Christian Socialism, ethical communitarianism, and the ‘stakeholder society’, the organisational form of New Labour prefigured the models and the value that it would later try to impose on the state, the public sector, and the country at large.

The basic organisational idea of New Labour was that the party membership were the problem and not the solution.

He further argues that the modern culture of expert messaging, organisational centralisation and Spin is broken.

New Labour only ever understood one part of the story about the decline of old political forms. While they may have been right that the 19th / 20th century model of mass political campaigning was reaching its end, they failed to notice the extent to which the coming era would present new opportunities for community-building and for democratic action, and new problems for any attempt to stifle democracy and debate. The success and growing political importance of the blogosphere and of sites like this one is just one sign of this!

A “command-and-control communications strategy” should not drive out political energies, Gilbert contends:

a complete overhaul and reinvention of the Labour Party for the 21st century is the only thing that could achieve this end. In the era of ‘we-think’ and network culture, the collective intelligence of the membership – including the 12,000 who have rushed to join now that the age of New Labour looks likely to have ended – is the greatest possible resource that the otherwise-impoverished party has at its disposal.

In our part of the world, we’ve seen the nexus between the Labor party’s aging and diminished membership and its commanding heights much fractured over recent decades. The Greens, by contrast, have demonstrated what’s possible with an activist and democratised base. But there are limits to the possible success of The Greens, under our antiquated electoral and party systems, and I think every progressive should welcome a democratisation of Australian Labor. It may not occur until the party goes back into opposition, which I hope is a long way away. But it’s a vital precondition for a revival of responsiveness and hope in our democracy, and not just for those on the left.

In the age of Facebook and Twitter, which enable millions of citizens to share ideas, to build campaigns and to communicate across great distances, the idea that a handful of professional politicians touring the TV studios of central London can be an adequate substitute for democratic politics looks clunky and forlorn.

While some of the discussion has focused on some of the more extreme scenarios about the misuse of people’s information, there’s no question that the routine use of Facebook has now become much more problematic for many. Jason Calacanis, as part of an impassioned post, provides some useful links to enable readers to understand the scope of the problem. Few might leave Facebook, but, conversely, the company’s approach to “radical transparency” has undoubtedly flayed a trust already fraying because of resistance to constant shifts in functionality.

Within the techie community, the response has been to call for “an open alternative”. Yet, here, problems of scale arise. Despite increasing attention to privacy issues from regulators, legislators and the media, Facebook’s trump card is its pervasiveness. As danah boyd comments, it’s become a “social utility”. As I’ve commented previously, Facebook is now just part of the communications landscape. While it’s certainly possible to envisage a mass of users migrating to another site, the precondition for such a ‘network effect’ in reverse would be a competing commercial entity able to raise enough capital to compete.

An open source alternative is unlikely to generate the scale necessary.

The claim from Facebook, and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, that the site is just reflecting shifts in contemporary understandings of privacy can be dismissed easily. Social norms against oversharing still exist, users modulate (or try to modulate) what content and information they want seen by various groups of others, and it’s simplistic and arrogant to claim that all would be just peachy if only dumb users could understand sophisticated privacy settings. The point, precisely, is that the company now affords users only limited choices about how open they wish to be. And Jeff Jarvis is right that Zuckerberg and co. confuse “public” with making a plurality of micro-publics.

Arguments about “a single identity” being a demonstration of “integrity” have been well skewered by Henry Farrell and Kieran Healy.

So what has gone wrong, and what can be done?

danah boyd is, again, spot on:

What pisses me off the most are the numbers of people who feel trapped. Not because they don’t have another choice. (Technically, they do.) But because they feel like they don’t. They have invested time, energy, resources, into building Facebook what it is. They don’t trust the service, are concerned about it, and are just hoping the problems will go away. It pains me how many people are living like ostriches. If we don’t look, it doesn’t exist, right?? This isn’t good for society. Forcing people into being exposed isn’t good for society. Outing people isn’t good for society, turning people into mini-celebrities isn’t good for society. It isn’t good for individuals either. The psychological harm can be great. Just think of how many “heros” have killed themselves following the high levels of publicity they received.

Zuckerberg and gang may think that they know what’s best for society, for individuals, but I violently disagree. I think that they know what’s best for the privileged class.

While she is absolutely on the money in contending that the desire to be “public”, in a certain sense, is one that isn’t open or chosen by all, and a desire that is differentially shaped by class, cultural capital and gender, she doesn’t quite put her finger on the basic issue. What we are seeing now is a result of the commodification of personality which, in late capitalism, creates value for corporates. We are all unpaid labourers in the social media industry, whose lives are fodder for the accumulation of capital. Facebook profits from our sociality.

The politics of this issue is, to large degree, shaped by the dialectical conflict between libertarian urges and their commercial capture, which is one way of reading the story of the web. But, because the root cause is that Facebook wants to monetise its ‘content’ (ie – us), a better lens with which to view the problem is a socialist or social democratic one. Facebook is a social utility, as boyd says; a communications medium, but also a public commons.

As such, we’re not in the realm of “good” and “evil” but in the realm of Capital – Zuckerberg has far less agency than he thinks he does, because his duty is to monetise endlessly. It’s not that Facebook is evil, but that it’s a private company providing a public purpose. So the inescapable conclusion is that it should either be heavily regulated, or a public entity should occupy its position. Just imagine the cries from the press if the ABC were to offer social networking as a public service, and you’ll know I’m right.

NB: Previous LP British election coverage here.

Update: Interesting piece from Seumas Milne.

The full shape of the possible deal with Labour and other parties is revealed in The Guardian‘s article.

It’s significant that while many hours have been consumed by negotiations with the Tories, Clegg and Brown met for only one hour. It’s significant for two reasons: first, it indicates that the Conservatives’ garnering of the greatest number of seats and votes is a powerful argument for them to form a government, and secondly, that the difference between the Conservatives’ position and the Lib Dem’s on not just electoral reform but also a large range of policy areas is much greater than with Labour.

In one sense, either outcome is a win for Labour. But going into opposition might actually be the better medium term result for the governing party. The scope of the task any government will face in restoring public finances will most likely ensure wide unpopularity, particularly if spending cuts are driven through by David Cameron. There’s also the real risk of a double dip recession, with growth almost at a standstill in the last two quarters, and the uncertainty in the Eurozone in the wake of the Greek crisis. Labour might be better off having the chance to elect a new leader through its electoral college processes, rather than the Cabinet anointing David Miliband or another Minister to replace Brown.

On the other hand, while Labour probably has a better chance of overcoming internal opposition to electoral reform than the Tories, a government lacking legitimacy would face hurdles in gaining popular support at a referendum. But the Tories will likely campaign against any referendum whether in or out of government. So the chances of securing the Lib Dems’ holy grail are uncertain in either scenario.

It’s both a diabolical choice and a defining moment for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems: and for British politics.

NB: Previous LP coverage and discussion of the British election can be found here.

Elsewhere: Jonathan Freedland on Gordon Brown.

Update: Election facts and figures.

Update: Gordon Brown has announced that he will step down.

What’s clear too, though, is that the verdict of the electorate is one born of mistrust of all the alternatives on offer, and the message sent is that the electoral and political systems are deeply fractured, if not broken.

It’s also clear that distaste for a long term and largely discredited Labour government hasn’t resulted in a regular swing of the partisan pendulum.

It seems to me that, in the immediate future, two options are possible:

(a) A minority Conservative government which would find great difficulty in pushing through austerity measures, and whose legislative agenda would be captive not just to other parties, but also its own backbench, or;

(b) A Lab/Lib deal or Coalition which would promise stable government for a year or two, premised on electoral reform.

In either case, a new election is likely in fairly short order, as Labour and the Lib Dems would also not command a Commons majority.

The Lib Dems face something of an invidious choice – guaranteeing supply for a Conservative regime which would probably treat them with contempt (just as the Labour minority government treated its Liberal supporters in the 1924 and 1929 parliaments) or an alliance with a party which has certainly worn out its electoral welcome, despite showing more resilience in terms of seats than many had anticipated.

The Lib Dems’ internal processes do not allow their Leader to determine which party to support without quite a complex process of consultation, which will slow things down (probably a good thing), but conversely; the pressure from the Conservatives and the media will be intense.

My suspicion is that the Labour Party will retain Gordon Brown in the short term, in part because his incumbency as PM is key to the constitutional puzzle, and also to keep their options open for the timing of a shift to a new Leader. It’s not at all clear that David Miliband, seen as a Blairite, is the best or only candidate, and the Blair/Mandelson regime left the party with quite a complex procedure for electing a Leader.

It’s all very interesting indeed, and whatever happens, it’s certain that the fabric of British politics has been rent asunder.

Update: The BBC is reporting that Nick Clegg has announced that he still believes the party with the most votes and seats should have the first chance to form the government. He may feel boxed in both by his (probably unwise) previous pronouncements, and by the fact that his party’s status quo result gives them less legitimacy. It’s also easier to represent the result as a repudiation of Labour than as an anti-Tory progressive majority, given that Labour and the Lib Dems together don’t constitute a majority.

So my scenario (a) is looking more likely. But the caveats are that the Conservatives are likely not to make much of an offer to the Lib Dems, if they offer anything at all, and that the decision is not solely Clegg’s to take. The Lib Dems’ backbench is generally to the left of its leadership, as are their grassroots activists, and the fact that this may be the party’s best shot at electoral reform may also concentrate minds.

Clegg will face some difficulty holding his own party together, whichever option is taken.

NB: Previous LP discussion of the UK election can be found here.

Update: BBC Links post to commentary on various options for cross-party pacts or Coalitions, or a minority government.

Update: Cameron has offered Clegg a Coalition, including Cabinet seats, but with a position on electoral reform described as “measly”, and an attempt to rope the Lib Dems into the Conservatives’ economic agenda. Negotiations continue, and there will be meetings of the Lib Dem parliamentary party and federal executive. Some skepticism has been expressed over whether Clegg’s party could be brought round to supporting a Tory government. There’s just a possibility that a Lab-Lib government could scrape together a majority on votes of confidence if all small parties including the DUP could be brought into the tent.

Update: The hashtag #dontdoitnick is trending on Twitter, and the outlines of an alternative to a Tory-Lib Dem pact are becoming clearer with SNP leader and Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond outlining a “progressive coalition” to introduce PR which would have a Commons majority of one seat.

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg has addressed a rally in support of electoral reform outside Parliament while Lib Dem MPs ponder Cameron’s offer inside.

Update: Andrew Rawnsley on the dilemma the Lib Dems face; one he characterises as a “nightmare”.

Update: New post here. Comments can be directed there.