Something similar will operate for electoral and donations reform.

To the degree that these processes are positive, and of course they’re obviously conditional on the ALP forming government, they have the potential to move beyond purely procedural improvements to the working of Parliament (for instance, time-limited answers and supplementary questions in House of Representatives Question Time) towards a more deliberative style of policy formulation. That holds true for private members’ bills, wrongly characterised in some media as merely an opportunity for local interests to be debated. Actually the presentation and debate of bills on such issues as same-sex marriage has the potential to widen the scope of debate and policy action beyond the very narrow set of concerns walled off usually by the politico-media complex.

(As an aside, I found it extremely interesting indeed that same-sex marriage became a fairly prominent issue in the campaign through a combination of agenda setting by The Greens and civil society movements, and media attention through question and answer forums such as Q&A and the Rooty and Red Hill events.)

So I think we can definitely see signs of what I pointed to in a previous post: a real widening of the hitherto circumscribed boundaries of political debate and policy action.

We can take this one step further by advocating for a holistic approach to donations reform. It’s properly seen as not so much a corruption of the democratic process (although it certainly is) but, more significantly, a privatisation of the public commons of political action.

It’s all interlinked. The professionalisation of politics rests on the existence of career paths which take major party members from staffer to Member to lobbyist, or straight from staffer to lobbyist. “Government relations” or “public affairs” staff grease the wheels which are further oiled through donations, and the existence of Labor or Coalition aligned consultants, think tanks, economic advisors, law firms and so on. The media uncritically reports a host of advocacy research, done only because it provides talking points intended to influence the policy process through both personal contact and framing public debate. And so it goes on, making a mockery of both evidence based policy and the public interest.

If we were to ban all donations from corporate groups (including unions, as Senator John Faulkner has advocated), and utilise the Parliamentary Budget Office agreed on by the Labor Party and The Greens to validate or invalidate “studies” done by industry lobbies and thinktanks seeking to influence public policy, there’s potential for a powerful shift away from the privatisation and corporatisation of our politics.

That’s a matter of process, then, but one that holds out the possibility of enabling a more open and genuine politics.

Elsewhere: Left Flank.

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.

Parliament is only sitting for two weeks, and then won’t return until September. The delivery of valedictory speeches in the budget sitting shows that this term is reaching its parliamentary conclusion.

Let’s leave aside all the faffing about of the confected ‘Rudd’s leadership on the line’ narrative.

One little noticed facet of the recent onslaught on the government has been the virtual disappearance of Tony Abbott.

In one respect, that’s sensible politics – keep the focus on Rudd. But that may backfire, as I said earlier. It also suggests that the Coalition are well aware that Abbott’s terrible personal ratings, while not the subject of febrile media commentary, make him a liability when it comes to the campaign. Nor is their much evidence that the Antipodean ‘Party of No’ has spent much time on policy development.

So, there might be some advantage to going early. It would put a stop to the endless repetition of Rudd and doom noise, and particularly if there are attractive policy options in development, there may be advantages in catching the Coalition unprepared. And the polls may indicate volatility rather than doom for Labor.

Those are the arguments for. What are the arguments against?

Elsewhere: Richard Farmer:

There’s only one good reason why Kevin Rudd will not scurry off to the polls early in August and that’s if he thinks he certainly can’t win. Even if the prime ministerial judgement is that the prospects are a little dicey he will be encouraged to take the plunge. For delay that allowed Parliament to reconvene after the winter break would be confirmation that Rudd thinks defeat is likely and faced with that prospect his Labor caucus colleagues would start seriously thinking about the Julia Gillard option. If being thrown out even before an election is too horrible to contemplate, then it is time to get a hurry on.

So far the idea of a leadership challenge is no more than that — a vague thought in the back of the minds of those in the most vulnerable seats as they mull over all the “what ifs” about the forthcoming election. Opinion polls — the unreliable and meaningless guide that they are at this stage of the electoral game — do influence backbenchers and especially so when they are pointing in the same direction as their own interpretation of what the public in their own electorate thinks. When a young hard head such as former federal ALP secretary Gary Gray starts getting anxious, we can deduce that the message he is getting from the people of Brand is certainly troubling.

Not that even a new leader would fix the big problem that Gray has identified. Labor will go to the election advocating a super profits tax on mining whether it is a Rudd, Gillard or some-one-else led government. The best that ALP members from Western Australia and Queensland can hope for is a change or two at the fringes that will take enough heat out of this particular debate to get people thinking about other things as well.

The best way of broadening the issues of the political debate would be to call an election quickly and if Rudd was listening to my advice, he would be driving out to Government House this coming Sunday afternoon and thus neutering any talk of a caucus revolt before the next Newspoll produces a predictable next round of leadership speculation.

Update: According to Barrie Cassidy, the Coalition have been coming up with some policy ideas. Whether they’re policy ideas or thought bubbles and stunts, though, is another question.

Update: Possum has published a leaked minute which suggests options are being kept open for an August 28 election.

How’s it looking by Wednesday?

I was asked on another thread about ways the government can talk over the heads of the media. I was thinking more about this, reflecting on how yesterday’s proceedings in Parliament appeared on the tv news last night.

The 125 000 readers of The Australian, as Mr Denmore observed, are a very small proportion of the electorate. They might include every single press gallery journo, but nightly grabs on the news have some considerable resonance to publics beyond the way they were framed.

Television is still, by far, the predominant source of political information for voters.

The ‘leadership’ narrative only resulted in vision of a series of Ministers and Labor MPs strongly defending Kevin Rudd. Meanwhile, the Opposition was bizarrely warning mining companies not to negotiate with the government, as Rudd pursues a more differentiated strategy to break the unity of the industry peak body and the Coalition. It’s pretty clear to anyone who thinks for a moment that the Liberals are pursuing their own interest, not the national interest. As I’ve previously remarked, they could well be left out on a limb if a deal is reached.

One other way of thinking about the recent polls, and the drift away from Labor (but not strongly to the Coalition) is of volatility in the electorate rather than a desire to punish, or vote out, the government. If that were the case, we’d expect a much stronger swing to the Liberals. Giving Labor the chance to deliver a positive message on tv is just one way the media narrative can backfire. And it’s worth remembering, once again, what Essential Research found about derisory levels of public trust in the media.

The political conjuncture is still very fluid.

And anyone reading Dennis Shanahan today would have noticed a slight shifting of the bar. It’s certainly not out of the question that the ‘media narrative’ will still collapse in the face of reality.

This is an open thread for you to discuss the implications of his announcement, and to post links to analysis and commentary.

Elsewhere: Christopher Joye.

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that the only way voters are influenced by the debate is through the commentariat and the journosphere. I’m sure Rudd’s office took some care in researching the reach and demographics of day time tv.

The figures are in, and Glenn Dyer has them in Crikey. I’ve posted an excerpt over the fold.

Television, as Dyer rightly says, is still by far the most common medium by which voters inform themselves about politics. Most of the froth and bubble in newspaper columns is just that, when it comes to electoral impact. Kevin Rudd knows that well. He demonstrated an adept touch with relatively direct political communication in 2007, and he’s just done it again.

Abbott might supposedly be the better parliamentarian, but that pugilistic style of politicking is a major turn off for electors. Rudd’s calm persona, and his dinner table talk, is precisely what does appeal.

Forget last night, the action was earlier in the day with the worm/polliegraph dominated health debate from Canberra. Nine and its worm won that comprehensively with 274,000 viewers, the wormless ABC had 183,000, the Seven “worm”, 180,000, Ten, 63,000 and Sky News, 25,000.

Including Sky, 824,000 people watched the debate in the five metro markets. 454,000 people, or over half the audience watched FTA broadcasts with a bit of visual wiggling. Compared to the same time the day before, the audience was up 10% or so.

To put the Sky News on Pay TV audience in some context, more people watched Nine’s Go and 7TWO in Sydney during the debate than watched it on Sky. And to give the Sky audience more context, 25,000 people watched the first and last session of the Test cricket from NZ on Fox Sports.

The broadcast on four of the five FTA channels and SKY news, made the debate more than what the press gallery thought it would have been last week, just for them and broadcast on the ABC. When the debates are broadcast live with worms measuring reaction, they replace the press gallery and the heavies in it as the filters of how the debate went and who won in the minds of people watching the broadcasts, hours before the gallery opinions are published.

The Networks hijacked the debate. Ten’s share was lower than Dr Phil and Oprah usually get for the network. The best part of 3.3 million people would have seen the worms on Seven and Nine News across the country last night and the message they sent into living rooms. It again proves why TV matters most in political debate this days and what happens in parliament might be great for the 150 pollies and the various members of the gallery, but it means little outside in the rest of Australia.

So, the debate Rudd challenged him to on Tuesday will be interesting. It’ll also keep the media focus squarely where the government wants it to be for the next little while.

Elsewhere: Bernard Keane.

Elsewhere: Tigtog at Hoyden.

Update: The commentariat seems to be impressed by Abbott’s performance. By way of example, Samantha Maiden:

But the egg ended up all over Labor’s face as the Opposition Leader rose to the challenge, hurling abuse at Kevin Rudd.

Righteo, then.

Update: Bernard Keane in Crikey today:

If Abbott could spend Tuesday’s debate repeating yesterday’s dose and bagging the Government and explaining that he didn’t cut health funding, it’d be fine, but there’s now an expectation he must do more than criticise Rudd, that he must offer something positive. It obviously wasn’t in the Coalition’s planning to be producing a full-blown health policy at this stage. Rudd himself will presumably use the debate to make yet another of the many announcements about health funding that he promised back when he kicked off the health debate. If so, Abbott’s failure to produce something of substance will look particularly poor.

All of which is why, despite the alleged risks of debating your opponent, Rudd is happy to be doing just that.

Turnbull tore apart the proposed plan as economically inefficient, environmentally ineffective and unable to meet the task of reducing Australia’s emissions by 5% by 2020.

Update: Peter Martin reproduces the text of Turnbull’s speech.

THE Rudd government has an unhealthy obsession with Tony Abbott’s obsessions. As parliament prepares to resume on Tuesday for the first sitting in an election year, some Labor ministers are spending so much time reinforcing adverse stereotypes of the new Liberal leader they run the double risk of appearing to be in a panic and of actually validating his policies and leadership.

KEVIN Rudd’s emissions trading scheme is dead but he can’t let it go. Politically he should shift ground to alternative action on climate change, blame Tony Abbott for the failure of a scheme previously favoured by Liberal leaders, and use the global failure to agree on a concerted plan as a reprieve before the election.

There’s some sort of bizarre alternate reality here, where the Opposition is constantly at the centre of events, and any sort of response which doesn’t play to the ‘media narrative’ from the Government is somehow electoral poison.

It’s just nuts. I suspect, in part, it derives from a belief that if the Liberals could unite behind one leader, all would be plain sailing from there on in. In fact, as one week of Barnaby-isms demonstrates, even without leadership speculation, they’re still shambolic. I think there’s still some sort of weird assumption that the Liberals are the natural party of government, and that the electorate are finally waking up to the mistake made in 2007; hence Labor is represented as being panic stricken after a single poll where their two party preferred vote is 52-48. (John Howard’s first term government, by contrast, spent a large part of the time behind in the polls.)

So we also get a bizarre perception that Labor is some sort of immovable object, locked in behind last year’s politics, and unable to shape the political landscape. This is reinforced by constant generalisation on the basis of anecdote – “voters are concerned by debt and deficit”, “Rudd is untrustworthy”, “climate change skepticism is on the increase”, very little of which has much support in any relevant polling. And the descent of Rudd’s own approval rating from its stellar heights is seen as an avatar of doom, without any particular attempt to correlate it with the party vote.

All very odd.

Like I said early in the week, watch the political narrative change.

Tonight’s Lateline had the New South Wales National Senator, John Williams, orating about “global control” and declaiming “carbon is not a pollutant”. Then we saw Kevin Andrews, of all people, in effect refusing to rule out a leadership bid. Very hard to say which is more insane…

Earlier on LP: Previous post and discussion on the politics of the Liberals’ divisions over the CPRS.

Update: D-Day developments covered here.