At a time of global political upheaval, can Albanese really resist calls to be more ambitious?
In making the case that trust in government is underpinned by economic stability and keeping election promises, the PM is saying the quiet bit out loud: his government will push back on calls to 'show more ambition' in the wake of its thumping win.
Setting markers on what he perceives to be the limit to his mandate is, on one level, a legitimate interpretation of the election and a credible template for embedding Labor government for the next decade.
In my post-election column, I argued even this limited mandate is ambitious and wide-ranging: building renewables, new homes and health infrastructure; consolidating the care economy; mediating AI and regulating big tech.
But at a time of rolling and intensifying crises in geopolitics, technology, climate and inequality, is it enough to say this is the limit of the government's work? More profoundly, how can a government determined to occupy the centre ground be shepherded to more ambition?
The new government's approval of the long-term expansion of gas on the North-West Shelf, its neglect of the Uluru statement from the heart and the repercussions of our defence relationship with an unhinged US are causing legitimate angst.
It would be understandable and natural to respond to these positions with anger and dissent but in this new environment the traditional political pressure points are not so readily available.
Those who dreamed of progressive minority government have been sent to the sidelines. The Greens may have a Senate veto power but this will need to be exercised judiciously lest it become a proxy for frustrating the aforementioned mandate.
Add the fact that the Labor left now holds not just the leadership but a majority of cabinet positions, and the institutional mechanisms for prosecuting more progressive policy appear limited.
This operating environment lays down real challenges for progressive groups that normally lead the charge, the not-for-profits, member organisations and unions whose leaders are convening in Old Parliament House this week to survey the political landscape.
Business-as-usual campaigning driven by anger, passion and the demands of funders for quick wins risks marginalising progressives to the fringes of the national debate.
To adapt to these new conditions, progressive groups need to confront the situation as dispassionately as the prime minister.
First, they need tocome to terms with what the election was really about: a vote for stability against the chaos of Dutton, not a contest between visions of radical change but a contrast of tone and approach.
Second, they should look for opportunities to campaign alongside government where there is common ground and common purpose. The rollout of renewable energy in regional Australia is a case in point: that agenda ran the real risk of being sidelined by a lack of community social licence, which was wrongly taken as a given as advocates moved on to the next fight before fully banking the one in from of them.
Third, they need to identify the issues that are beyond the current mandate and build long-term strategies to extend the government's ambitions. To be clear, this does not mean putting the planet, poverty or peace on the backburner. But at the beginning of a cycle where the government has such a strong majority, this ambition needs to be earned not simply demanded.
The final lesson is that the vast majority of voters are motivated by their own material needs, not a broader ideological or moral imperative. Building ambition around this reality is critical in securing common cause.
It is important that the Albanese government learns the right lessons from its victory, starting with recognising that despite the arithmetic thumping, Labor's primary vote was lower than Mark Latham's 2004 disaster.
It is now easy to forget how fraught the situation was before the final run home, when there was still a real chance that the government would make history as the first one-term government in a century.
For too much of its first term it drifted from crisis to crisis, too reactive to the white noise of the Murdoch press and too ready to pick a fight with the Greens as a proof point of its centrist bona fides.
It also left it late to build a coherent story about why it was there and what it was trying to achieve. Apart from defending things like Medicare and opposing things like nuclear power, there is still a confusion about what the government is actually there to do.
Finally, while the government has the power to pass laws and allocate spending, it cannot do everything. Through the first term its tendency to hoard power left it exposed and isolated. Working more collaboratively with civil society through sharing its mission and embracing friction will only make it more resilient.
Ultimately the prime minister is right: his government, like all governments, exists as an expression of the trust of the people. Rewarding that trust by building a shared consensus to tackle our cascading crises is the only credible pathway to securing the lasting change that the moment demands.
Peter Lewis is the executive director of Essential, a progressive strategic communications and research company that undertook research for Labor in the last election and conducts qualitative research for Guardian Australia. He is also the host of Per Capita's Burning Platforms podcast
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A large pro-Palestine protest has won legal right to march across Harbour Bridge. How will the shutdown affect Sydney?
A pro-Palestine protest that plans to march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge will go ahead with legal protection after its organisers won a supreme court challenge. The court heard up to 50,000 people were expected to attend – the same number of people who marched across the bridge for World Pride in 2023. New South Wales police sought powers to move on protesters and expressed serious concerns about the disruption a large protest on the bridge would have on the city. But Justice Belinda Rigg said disruption and inconvenience alone were not enough to stifle the right to political protest and noted 'significant support for the march'. Here are some answers to questions you may have about the march, including its planned route, transport disruptions and potential risks. The ruling means protesters will have immunity from being charged under the Summary Offences Act. This includes protection from offences like 'obstructing traffic' – crucial in this particular protest. However, police will still have access to a range of other powers to stem what the court described as 'antisocial behaviour' or other types of offending. This includes showing prohibited symbols. David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the authorisation 'doesn't give people the ability to engage in all types and all forms of activism'. 'It's really important for people who do attend that they follow the directions of organisers and marshals.' There is no authority to ban protest or deem it unlawful in NSW. This is because, while there is no express right to protest in the state, it is covered in common law and by the Australian constitution, which the high court has found implies the right to freedom of political communication. The protest will begin at 1pm on Sunday at Lang Park in Sydney's CBD. Protesters will then march across the Sydney Harbour Bridge into north Sydney. Early plans shared with protesters stated the march would end at the US consulate, but this may change. The protest is expected to last several hours. The bridge will be closed to traffic from about 11.30am. Police hope it will reopen to traffic from about 4pm. They have advised people to avoid the CBD and travel in the city unless necessary. Yes, but NSW police will comply with the court's decision and say they are working with protest organisers to address issues and concerns. A significant police presence will be in the city, including officers brought in from across the suburbs. The force has said it will also use specialist resources, including the public order and riot squad and mounted police. Police have advised the public to expect significant disruptions in and around the CBD. A counter protest against antisemitism, organised by the Christian-led group Never Again is Now, will not be granted legal protection because, according to the supreme court, 'notice was served less than seven days before the proposed assembly'. The group had been planning to protest outside the Sydney harbour tunnel, close to the pro-Palestinian march. Rigg said police would have the legal power to direct this group to move on or, if necessary, arrest demonstrators for non-compliance. These powers will not extend to those marching in the pro-Palestine demonstration. The state government is yet to respond to the supreme court decision. Earlier this week, Chris Minns opposed the protest, saying: 'We cannot allow Sydney to descend into chaos.' But several NSW Labor MPs defied their premier, vowing to attend the march. Labor's Stephen Lawrence, Anthony D'Adam, Lynda Voltz, Cameron Murphy and Sarah Kaine were among 15 NSW politicians who signed an open letter on Thursday evening calling on the government to facilitate 'a safe and orderly event' on Sunday. The state opposition leader, Mark Speakman, said while he respected the freedom to protest, including with rallies and marches, 'allowing the takeover of the Harbour Bridge for a protest in the middle of the day sets the wrong precedent for the future'.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Heathrow's third runway plan is wrong – and not just because of noise and pollution
Here we go again. To say there is a deja vu aspect to the latest proposal to build Heathrow's third runway is an understatement. For reasons that are not clear, Sir Keir Starmer has determined the airport's expansion to be a key plank in the government's economic growth strategy. Seemingly, he did not take into account the issues that grounded the plans in the past, as far back as 1968 – namely, Heathrow's unfortunate and unavoidable proximity to the M25, the rivers and their valleys that cross that part of west London, the additional noise pollution, and the need for improved and costly transport links to and from the centre of the capital that will result from the vast uplift in passengers. On the constant sound from the increased number of planes landing and taking off, the prime minister will insist that great technological strides have been made in curbing the din. It is true that new aircraft are less noisy. However, they are still extremely audible, there will be more of them, and they will be flying over a heavily residential area. As for the rest, nothing has altered fundamentally, environmentally and logistically, since Heathrow last submitted a scheme, pre-Covid. Inflation means the bill is now an eye-watering £49bn. The bill, ultimately, will be borne by the air passenger, and Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world. Will the airlines and their customers stomach at least a doubling in charges? There is the thorny problem, too, of public transport to and from London. The London mayor will be expected to find a way to enable an extra 60 million people a year to use Heathrow. Transport for London is strapped for cash, struggling to upgrade the Tube network. How the additional demand will be met is not clear. What has shifted as well is the nature of air travel. Post-pandemic, business travel is down and looks unlikely to recover – that, certainly, is what the industry is saying. During the outbreak, holding meetings remotely came into its own and employers took a hard look at their budgets – Zoom or Teams often represent a better alternative in executive time and expense. That therefore raises a major doubt about one of the main claims made for Heathrow's extension. It is said to be necessary to enhance London and the UK's standing in the business world, but how, if the commercial users are not there? There has been movement too, and not of the positive kind, in attitude towards Heathrow the operator. The power outage that shut down the plum in Starmer's vision for resurgence and global acclaim was a shocking episode; it not only highlighted a neglected infrastructure but also a failure of management. Thomas Woldbye, who is seeking permission to build this national project, is the same boss who slept through the night as Britain's busiest airport ceased to function. Heathrow's reputation in the sector was already poor, but this took it to a new low. Woldbye has an idea that is different from the one previously suggested, which is to build the third runway over the M25, taking the motorway underneath – and all without any disruption to road users. This is fanciful even without a track record that hardly inspires confidence. Which raises another question. Why? Why should Heathrow as a company get to preside over the airport's improvement and reap the benefits? If we're all agreed that it is a vital national asset, holding a pivotal place in the economy, then why should the incumbent be in charge, not to mention entrusted, with its development? Those who wax lyrical about Heathrow's importance like to reminisce about how Britain led the transformation of international aviation. Boosting the airport is seen as completing that journey. It is the case that we once did. That was in the Margaret Thatcher era, when British Airways was freed from the shackles of state ownership. Thatcher did more than that, though. She enabled and encouraged competition, giving a steer to the challengers and disruptors, notably to Richard Branson at Virgin and Michael Bishop at British Midland. The newly privatised BA was forced to raise its game, and together, these three set new standards. There appears to be an assumption that Woldbye's company must be given the job. But there is another option. Surinder Arora, the self-made billionaire who has masterminded the building of leading hotels at Heathrow and other airports and is a substantial Heathrow landowner, has his own remedy. His is much cheaper, envisaging a shorter runway that does not affect the M25. It is easy to dismiss Arora. But he is popular with the airlines, he rails rightly against Heathrow's pricing, and he knows a thing or two about customer service. He also possesses heavyweight advisers in the shape of Bechtel, the US engineering, construction and project management giant. He deserves to be taken seriously. Heathrow needs a competitor. Likewise, if neither the airport operator nor Arora is selected and the third runway is again kiboshed, then surely serious thought must be given to expanding rival airports. Heathrow has been resting on its laurels for too long. As for Starmer, he perhaps should ask himself how it is that someone who professes to be forensic legally is so capable of displaying rushes of blood to the head politically. Giving Heathrow such prominence smacks of impetuousness. He's done it and has been left with an almighty headache.
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
Could this be the way Starmer placates his revolting MPs?
Keir cannot afford another fiasco like welfare,' one Starmer loyalist told me, recalling the government's humiliating climbdown on proposed cuts to disability benefits after a revolt by Labour MPs. The prime minister knows the episode showed that his way of governing is unsustainable. He is consulting people widely this summer about how to turn things round. There's a fierce internal debate taking place. In Keir Starmer's right ear, Morgan McSweeney, his influential chief of staff, tells him to focus on wooing back voters in the red wall from Nigel Farage. In his left ear, soft-left cabinet ministers urge a more progressive approach to woo centre-left voters who have deserted Labour for the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. They argue that these lost voters outnumber defectors to Reform by a margin of three to one. The soft left's allies in Downing Street want Starmer to emulate Bill Clinton, who fought back against a right-wing populist – Newt Gingrich, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives – after a rocky start to his first term in 1993. One minister admitted: 'There is a battle over the direction of the government. There is only one person who can resolve it. Keir has got to decide for himself – based on his values, who he is, who he wants to be.' The left-ear whisperers want the PM to trust the instincts that are serving him well on foreign affairs and apply them to the domestic agenda, too. Starmer appeared to be tacking leftwards when he told Tom Baldwin for the paperback version of his biography, published on Thursday: 'We have to be the progressives fighting against the populists of Reform – yes, Labour has to be a progressive party.' He has hinted that he wants to tackle child poverty by scrapping the two-child benefit limit. The PM has nodded to Labour critics who argue – persuasively – that his government has sometimes acted left but talked right, and that it's no wonder, therefore, that it gets little credit from progressive voters. He said that issues such as clean energy, nationalising the railways and increasing the national minimum wage should be shouted louder from the rooftops. 'We should show we're proud of all that,' he told Baldwin. Starmer views this as part of 'telling a better story'. But you can only tell one if you know the direction in which you are heading. The battle isn't over yet; I'm told McSweeney is not convinced about a shift to the left. His critics say the shortcomings of attacking Reform head-on were illustrated when the science secretary Peter Kyle claimed Farage was on the paedophile Jimmy Savile's side in the heated debate over internet regulation. The attack line was reportedly approved by No 10, but it backfired. It was the sort of smear we might expect from Reform. The lesson for Starmer: Labour can't 'out-Farage Farage', and the public will vote for the real thing if Labour tries to look like Reform-lite. Allies of McSweeney believe the red wall will decide the next general election, so Labour's primary pitch must be to the white working class. His internal opponents insist that trying to re-run the 2024 election triumph, McSweeney's greatest hit, will not work next time. They dispute the idea that Labour 'won' the north and the Midlands last year, saying that it reaped the benefit of a split on the right between the Conservatives and Reform, and that Labour regained seats seized by the Tories in 2019 mainly because Tory voters switched to Reform. At the next election, Farage will likely hoover up the right-wing vote. Crucially, the left vote will be split this time – inflicting deep damage to Labour unless Starmer can appeal to left-of-centre voters. He won't do that by tacking right, cutting benefits for the disabled and pensioners or aping Farage. For Starmer to win a presidential contest against the Reform leader, being the anti-Farage candidate will not be enough: he will have to offer progressive voters more than he has offered them so far. Another reason why Starmer should listen to the buzz in his left ear is that the new socialist party launched by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana will present another alternative to disenchanted Labour voters. It already has 600,000 registered supporters. Starmer won't lurch to the Corbyn hard left – and rightly so. But the sensible decision he should make this summer is that it's time for Labour to live up to its name and its values, and stop pretending to be something it is not.
