Labor’s shock election loss in May was always going to lead to hand-wringing, recriminations, and a fight over the party’s future. Now, shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers has became the latest MP to cast themselves as the pin-up boy for a “New Labor”, chastised by the lessons of the election and ready to listen.
Delivering the annual Light on the Hill address this weekend — named after one of the party’s most storied phrases delivered by one of its most storied figures — Chalmers told the true believers that it was time to change.
“We won’t win 2022 by re-contesting and re-prosecuting the 2019 election,” he said.
While Chalmers acknowledged the wrecking-ball effects of neoliberalism, he warned against reaching to a “grab-bag of defunct ideas of decades past”. It’s a dig at the UK Labour Party which, under Jeremy Corbyn, has shifted dramatically to the left. Chalmers’ remarks won plaudits in unexpected places, but also gathered some criticism from the party’s old left, pointing to Labor’s ongoing struggle to find its feet after the election.
Friends in unusual places
Chalmers’ speech was particularly well received in the same News Corp paper which has been the party’s most ardent media critic; The Australian got exclusive access to an advance copy of the speech. In a column, senior writer Troy Bramston labelled it “required reading” for Labor, arguing that “finally, someone is taking the election defeat seriously”.
Mark Latham, former Labor leader turned NSW One Nation MP offered his own gleeful advice to Chalmers on Twitter: “tell inner-city elites to piss off”.
But Chalmers’ speech was not quite the lurch to the right it was framed as. According to the Oz, Chalmers told Labor it must “seize the sensible centre”. That phrase does not appear once in the speech published on Chalmers’ website. Instead, Chalmers seems to offer no easy solutions, arguing that “the answer is neither a capitulation to the right on further liberalisation, nor a turn back to old left socialism”. He acknowledges that Chifley’s “light on the hill” is in need of recharging but, nice rhetoric aside, we’re no clearer on what that recharge is going to look like.
What we perhaps do get is a sense of Chalmers’ future trajectory. The shadow treasurer is considered an ambitious rising star who even thought about contesting the leadership in May. And as the Oz acknowledges, delivering the Light on the Hill lecture at Ben Chifley’s birthplace is “a rite of passage for the party’s future leaders”.
Where to for the ALP?
Still, the fact that the speech was so enthusiastically received by the Oz makes it hardly surprising that it got some pushback from the left. Doug Cameron, one of parliament’s last self-described socialists who retired as a Labor senator at the election, offered a scathing rebuke to Chalmers in a long Facebook post on Saturday.
“I am over the view that we can win the next election by capitulating on our principles and values and by becoming a pale imitation of the Morrison government,” Cameron wrote. “Capitulating to neoliberalism will mean the “light on the hill” will be extinguished for a long time to come.”
Cameron’s criticism comes after some growing unease among progressives at the party’s post-election positions. Since left factional stalwart Anthony Albanese took over as opposition leader, the party has appeared to capitulate to the government and voted in favour of bills it once opposed — most notoriously the Coalition’s income tax cuts.
In the days after the election, Albanese appeared to blame “attacking the rich” for Labor’s election defeat, and hinted that the party might be adopting a more pro-business stance.
But Labor’s position on what went wrong and what to do next is still unsettled. Earlier this month, for example, energy spokesperson Mark Butler called for a “ruthless and unsparing” review into the election, with none of its policies, climate included, immune for a potential reset. Just weeks later, Butler told The Guardian that the party’s policies on climate change were “unshakeable”. Meanwhile, national president Wayne Swan said the party’s election agenda, particularly around tax policy, was something to be proud of.
A review into the party’s electoral performance is currently underway, and its release could bring greater certainty about the party’s future direction. But Chalmers and Albanese appear to be paving the way for a far more “centrist” Labor — much to the Oz‘s delight.
With murdoch standing in the devils doorway just waiting to be invited in, its time the labor party forgot about that shrivelled up old right wing trickle down political deviate and just waited till he expires and grab the sensible centre and bring the voters with it, the political assassins of the labor party like shorten should now move out of the way, their ambitions came to nought and caused the loss of 2 maybe 3 elections Rudd would have won his next 2 with a reduced but workable majority and Gillard would have had a better chance by succession not assassination of a serving p/m to get and keep power for labor, no matter what excuses labor come up with for their loss in may it was the franking credits issue that killed them, all they had to do was cap it or grandfather it and introduce the changes progressivly and they would be in government right now, but Bowens arrogance and Shortens stupidity finished them, when Bowen said, “IF YOU DONT LIKE OUR POLICIES DONT VOTE FOR US” I knew they were gone, these 2 are past history and should just fade away and let the new guard take over, Scomo seems to forget he only has a one seat majority and if labor plays its hand right and the polls turn the Dutton crew will skewer him quickly especially in the event of a ministers death or sickness or retirement happening.
I do wish the ALP would stick with the wealth redistribution part of their policy suite….Apart from being slighlty less hateful towards refugees, it really was the only thing that distinguised them from the Coalition. I have to agree with Di Natali that Labor is bound to fail again if they continue to follow the Albanese method to the next election.
At the next election how about showing some conviction…you know, actually announce yourself on Adani and Coal mining but at the same time present a coherent plan to those workers who will be impacted….dont just vaguely mention Hydrogen ,go the whole hog and have a plan prepared…hard work I know but still it just might work.
Who knows, if you play your cards right it could be Albo aquiessing to a batshit crazy US president and getting the diamond encrusted feedbag fitted for a State Dinner.
Gotta love how ‘old left socialism’ is apparently the problem with the platform Biff Slotcar took to the election. Yeah, that makes sense, if you don’t think about it.
Beige Curtains’ platform was very old school socialism, remember the part in the Communist Manifesto where they demanded different tax treatment for franking credits?
Hardline leftists like, uhh, *checks notes* Bowen really screwed the pooch on this one.
Heroic policies on climate change are precisely where Labor should be standing out, offering leadership to concerned laymen of both sides. Instead, it is a vacuum of policy where Labor has been unshakeably absent. Yet it is a growing responsibility to lead, as the young reach voting age, and the headlines condemn the inaction of their elders.
Labor failed to point to the looming disasters ahead. It failed to lay out a plan for 100% decarbonisation of the economy. Instead it made an empty promise to convert 50% of Australia’s consumption of electricity to renewables. Except for its employees and the blindly faithful, every man and his dog knows that to be unachievable. Indeed, voters outside of the renewables movement view its religious connotations with deep suspicion. As Crikey’s own INQ investigation showed, the Party’s capacity to consider nuclear is crippled from within by ageing anti-science crocks left over from last century’s Cold War. The youngsters are marching; it is time to update.
Roger,
Why do you think 50% renewables are impossible? Or even 100% for that matter.
Also nuclear (I have no problem with it in principle) on the last price I can remember was about Ninety Pounds per Mw/Hr and the latest offshore windfarm being developed in the UK is feeding in @ 30 something Pounds per Mw/Hr unsubsidised. I’m a bit pushed for time currently but can dig up some exact figures if you like.
124C4U asks, why not 50% renewables? Intermittent power from renewables is useless unless it is “firmed”, that is some other source of power fills in the gaps so that consumers get electricity on demand. Consider a small grid consisting of a so-called 100% wind farm backed up by a single-stage gas turbine. Because the wind farm typically has a capacity factor of 30% (where its average generation is 30% of its nominal capacity), the remaining 70% must be generated by the fossil gas turbine. Australia’s grid is large enough to collect a variety of wind patterns, but they still would not achieve 50%. The figure is further reduced by including solar (of capacity factor 15% or so) in the mix for total renewables capacity.
The rising global need for nuclear electricity is driving the development of small nuclear reactors (SMRs), which stand to drive down the price by mass production. The first units are planned to produce electricity at $100/MWh (US), with run-of-the-mill prices expected to drop further. That price is for firmed power, not to be compared with the wholesale price of intermittent power from wind.
OK Roger I take your point re. the “firming” of the power.
To my mind this is where pumped hydro would fill the gap also if tidal power was added. even more so. Studies have located many locations would be suitable for pumped hydro at least. This would have to be backed up with a good interconnector along the Eastern seaboard. WA has its own problems.
The Nuke power price is still well above Wind power, the new one going in in the UK will produce at lower than coal prices. But then the Brits have to import coal.
Roger. I’ve lived 50 years in this country, and have come to the conclusion that the electorate here has no taste for progressive politics. There was that brief glorious dawn of the Whitlam years which were strangled in their childhood by the conservative coup of 11 November 1975, which was affirmed by the electorate (apparently). More recently, the brief ALP-Greens coalition actually took climate change seriously, and as you may remember, successfully introduced a Carbon Tax, which was costed and implemented. But then We The Sheeple turfed that government out in favour of “adults” led by that weird lizard-like personage who rode bicycles and knighted Prince Philip. It seems as if nothing but wide-spread pain will ever lead to an acceptance of progressive political ideas here.
Regarding nuclear power, I don’t believe it a viable option in Australia. The technology requires a combination of a huge consumer population and lots of water for cooling. As there are no inland waterways big enough, that scenario holds only for a few places along the coast. And that is where most Aussies choose to live and wouldn’t want one in their backyard. Maybe you should monitor that floating nuclear plant the Russians built at Murmansk and towed to the far east where it has been moored and is scheduled to be operational by the end of this year. If successful, maybe commission one for trials here, though I’m with those who believe this country to be highly placed for harvesting of solar and wind resources instead.
Iskandar , I agree with your post, however why no mention of investing in harnessing our geothermal and adding to the renewable mix ?
This link should enlighten :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Australia
Thanks Ian (and Vasco). There’s only so much that will fit in a short comment. As this column is basically about the ALP floundering and looking for relevance, talking at length about energy options is a bit off-topic. It’s something the ALP, as the alternative governing party, should be doing. They’ve done it before, and they can do it again.
Good, thoughtful post Iskandar. Thank you.
What would Ben Chifley make of the Labor party today? At first glance it would be extreme sadness and disappointment at the sad state it finds itself in today.Why oh why, he would think, have they drifted so far from Labor’s core beliefs.where has government ownership or control of essential elements of our society gone and look what has replaced it.that a Labor government could have sold the Commonwealth Bank is a black mark on the members of that administration who were responsible.Dear old Ben, who wouldn’t live in the Lodge in Canberra while he was prime minister, because, as he said,”I couldn’t have faced my fellow citizens of Bathurst if I had lived in that plce”.Dear old Ben, who uttered those mighty words,”If you believe in a thing and know it to be right, fight for it, what ever the cost, and truth and justice will always prevail”.the older I get and the more pessimistic I become, I am sure that the”mob”never deseerved a man like Ben.Vale the Light on the Hill.
Hear hear Mal !!