NSW election: New beginnings at Sussex Street?

March 29th, 2011

At long last, after all the slightly nutsy talk in the media about “recall elections” and what seems now like an endless litany of scandals, the people of New South Wales have spoken. Save for at the margins, what they had to say wasn’t surprising, but that’s because the performance of the government induced them to scribble down their rightful invective on speech cards several years ago. It is difficult to recall an election campaign in recent Australian political history that has been quite so one-sided, quite so predictable. The obvious conclusion to the election hung heavily in the air during the campaign, with the major players saying their pieces to camera knowingly, like trainers before a horse race agreeably fixed in advance.

Following on from Kim’s initial round-up then, what next, for NSW Labor? Rank and file supporters of the party in New South Wales have been repeatedly slapped around the head by the state parliamentary party during the course of the last few years. We’ve been left on a hiding to nothing, often vainly defending the practically indefensible. Despite the fact that a number of good, hard-working MPs have been unfairly swept away in the carnage, it’s hard not to feel a sense of closure and relief in the election aftermath, as if the gloriously democratic detox that has long been needed has finally arrived. The people’s doctor has arrived in Sussex Street clutching a kit bag full of tennis ball-sized suppositories, and although what has ensued hurts, bloody hell, they sure are needed.

Let’s first consider the state of play. Yes, Labor has been routed in the Legislative Assembly, and stands to hold just 21 of the chamber’s 93 seats at best – around 22% of the house. The good news is that some very talented people have been retained: Linda Burney is safe, and at this stage it seems relatively likely that both Carmel Tebbutt and Verity Firth will keep their seats for the party. John Robertson is a somewhat polarising figure, but there is little doubt that he the kind of person capable of cutting through in his attacks on the O’Farrell Government. Nathan Rees and Kristina Keneally, despite their strong association with the problems of the last four years, are clearly capable political operators and the electorate holds no great personal disdain for either of them.

The question of who will lead the party will no doubt dominate the media shortly (it is likely to be Robbo), but strangely enough I don’t think who leads is particularly important. What is important is that the party makes an honest and open effort to reflect on the mistakes that it has made during the last eight years, perhaps through a public consultation process, involving both rank and file members and indeed the general public. The image that many people have of Sussex Street at the moment is a kind of malignant kleptocracy; this image needs to be smashed and remade through a transparent program of reform. If not now, with plenty of time to play with and nothing to lose by embarking on a period of controversial change, then when?

Former Assistant General Secretary Luke Foley MLC and Bob Hawke have already indicated a worthwhile starting point for consideration: the 2010 ALP National Review Report delivered by Bob Carr, Steve Bracks, and John Faulkner. The NSW branch’s very young, worryingly malleable General Secretary, Sam Dastyari, has already hinted that the reform of the party structure in New South Wales is needed, including the factions. All three are on the money, but need to go in quick and hard on internal reform: building a united policy front can wait. Contrary to what Tony Burke has suggested, policy doesn’t matter a fig right now. It is irrelevant. If NSW Labor wants to have any hope at all at even being competitive in 2015, it needs to first make a fist of the hard internal reforms that are long overdue, while the wounds inflicted by the electorate are still fresh and the polls don’t matter.

More broadly, what I would like to see is the party actively asking for the public’s involvement in setting in train its internal reform program. This physician is clearly incapable of healing itself alone. Whoever is eventually anointed as Opposition Leader should extend a hand to the people who have just rejected them, and humbly ask for their help in reforming the party, in rehabilitating a party organisation that is spluttering and wheezing under the myriad pressures being brought to bear on mass political parties in the 21st Century. The membership “amnesty” suggested by Dastyari is hardly going to bring anybody back: the party clearly needs to reach out to new people. It sounds incongruous and unlikely, but as part of a program of “new beginnings”, I think the time could well be ripe for a party membership drive, perhaps with reduced-price memberships and more of an emphasis on having the sorts of candid “by-the-barbie” interactions that this party desperately needs to start having more of with ordinary folks.

In short, there has never been a better time for reform and renewal within the NSW branch of the Labor Party. A rebranding of Sussex Street is only going to work if the product being sold to the people over the next four years is fundamentally different; more of the same “faceless men”, big party miasma just won’t cut it with people anymore.

ELSEWHERE: Shaun Carney rather optimistically heralds the end of “Richo-style” politics and Eddie Obeid has a retrograde crack at defending the indefensible.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Schools funding: beyond the dog’s breakfast?

March 10th, 2011

The funding of schools has for over fourty years been a source of strident debate and sectarian conflict in Australia, the subject of a seemingly inexorable blame-game fought between the Federal and State Governments, and a fight for resources waged by mostly well-meaning advocates from both the government and non-government school sectors. It is a conflict inflamed by the reality that the education of Australia’s children – the people who will eventually forge the nation’s future – is what is at stake. Terrorism, climate change and crime might be the topics du jour that tend to be splashed across the front pages and in the commercial news, but it is arguably the national response to the challenges facing our education system in an increasingly globalised world that can make the most substantive difference to Australian society in the coming decades.

It is in this context that Julia Gillard, as the former Minister for Education for the Rudd Government, announced the commencement of a Review of Funding for Schooling back in April 2010, with the aim of defining an approach for funding schools beyond 2013. The terms of reference for the review are fairly broadly-defined, and are available here [PDF]. This review is scheduled to report before the end of 2011, and public submissions to the review close at the end of this month, on Thursday, 31st March 2011. You can make a submission to the review online here.

As the most significant public review of schools funding in Australia undertaken since the epoch-defining Schools in Australia report delivered by the Whitlam Government’s Australian Schools Commission Interim Committee in 1973, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that the results of this review really matter. The review process represents a once-in-a-decade opportunity for the Federal Government to shake off the policy squibbing of recent decades and embark on a program of serious educational funding reform.

Such reform, if it is to be serious, must deliver a needs-based funding model that has equity at its heart, and it must also consider the prospect of constitutional change. The “elegant” silence of Australia’s creaking Constitution regarding who is explicitly responsible for doing what has laid the foundation for the dog’s breakfast of schools funding arrangements that we enjoy today. The Federal Government finds itself by convention responsible for the majority funding of non-government schools, whilst providing GST revenue to the State Governments to majority fund public schools across the country. It is a system ripe for political manipulation, fostering an environment in which anyone with a gripe about schools can blame anyone for anything, and everyone can, in a manner of speaking, still be right.

Timed as they are, the recommendations of the review panel seem likely to prove a formative influence on Gillard Government’s re-election platform heading towards 2013. Collectively we can only hope that the review panel proves bold enough to make fair and far-reaching recommendations, but certainly as individuals we can all do our bit by having our say based on our frustrations and our personal experiences with the nation’s schools before the end of the month.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

David Cameron hearts archaic voting systems

February 22nd, 2011

Over here in the United Kingdom, the creaking FPTP (First-Past-The-Post) system of voting still operates; voters in general elections are forced to nominate only their most-preferred candidate, a solitary smudge in a box. It’s easy to see how such a system can result in fairly undemocratic results in tussles between more than two serious candidates: as the number of serious candidates in a ballot increases, FPTP forces a serious division of the vote, ultimately delivering victory to candidates with potentially only a minority proportion of overall electoral support. It is a system that decisively favours larger, more-established parties at the expense of smaller ones, and it is not surprising in this context that the Liberal Democrats made electoral reform one of the cornerstones of their campaign in the May 2010 UK general election.

The begrudging promise of a referendum on the alternative vote or “AV” system of preferential voting reportedly sealed the Coalition deal for David Cameron’s Conservatives with Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats in the election aftermath. The referendum, which is to be held on Thursday 5th May 2011 as a kind of royal wedding after-party for psephologists, will cast the two Coalition partners decisively against each other in what looks set to be an intriguing political tussle. From an Australian perspective it is particularly intriguing, because as the anointed international standard-bearers for preferential voting, Westminster-style, it looks like we will be stuck in the crossfire for the duration of the debate!

The first serious volleys were fired late last week, when Nick Clegg and David Cameron set out their opening arguments for voting for and against AV, respectively. David Cameron made special mention of the Australian example several times in his speech launching the “No” campaign. His approach? Never let a good argument get in the way of a good slur:

When it comes to our democracy, Britain shouldn’t have to settle for anyone’s second choice.

And this argument that no one really wants it, it’s as true abroad as it is at home.

Only three countries use AV for national elections: Fiji, Australia and Papua New Guinea.

In Australia, six in ten voters want to return to the system we have – first past the post.

This is both sleight of hand and an egregious slight; playing on the relative size and remoteness of all three countries mentioned, and slimily “hiding” Australia in passing between Fiji and PNG. What really are you saying about Fiji and Papua New Guinea, Prime Minister, by being so careful to mention them first, and last? They are the countries you want people to remember and associate with AV, aren’t they? I’d also be interested in hearing the basis for the “six in ten” figure mentioned. Does anybody seriously believe that there is any realistic popular support whatsoever for a regression back to FPTP in Australia?

The British Prime Minister also takes the time to explain why preferential voting is the reason for the relatively high number of safe seats in Australia (?) and furthermore, why it is to blame for “obliterating minor parties” down under. Evidently nobody told him about the rise and rise of the Greens, or the notable success of independents and minor parties in recent years, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

He goes on to trash Australia’s electoral system, calling out the fact that it took seventeen days for a government to be formed at the last federal poll, and noting that on voting day ”voters are lectured at polling stations by party apparatchiks with ‘How to Vote’ cards.”. I’m not necessarily a fan of “how-to-vote” shenanigans outside polling booths, but it is a nonsense to describe the process as “lecturing”; in practice, it is little more than froth and colour. It is also disingenuous of Cameron to spin the speed of confirming the last federal election result as indicative of what happens in preferential voting systems generally. September 2010 was hardly exemplary of recent federal election results in Australia – practically all of which were decided with brutal speed and on the night (indeed, called by Antony Green a few hours after the close of polls, quite frequently).

I’d like to think that the Prime Minister isn’t going to take this rubbishing of Australia’s electoral system lying down. She might start by making gentle mention of that most thoroughly democratic of British institutions, the House of Lords.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Redrawing the political map in Africa

February 9th, 2011

What is the largest country in Africa, geographically?

African continent-en

If you said Sudan, you would technically be correct, but not perhaps for very much longer. The results from a referendum vote held in Southern Sudan in early January are in, and close to an amazing 99% of participants voted for independence from the North. Clearly, unlike Australians, the Southern Sudanese know how to embrace national and constitutional change! Assuming that the formal declaration of independence for the South is made as planned on July 9th, and Sudan’s territory is formally divided, the often violent tensions that have existed for decades between the Northern and the Southern peoples of Sudan will have a new dynamic, Algeria will have a new claim to fame as Africa’s largest country, and Africa will have its 54th nation-state (as yet, unnamed).

The referendum has come in the midst of what has been a volatile but hopeful period for Northern Africa, what with the still unfolding demonstrations against President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and the recent popular uprising in Tunisia. Human Rights Watch reports that recent reciprocal protests in Khartoum and other towns in the North of Sudan resulted in violent reprisals by security forces and the prolonged detention of numerous activists.

The referendum result and its aftermath may also figure as a turning point in the International Criminal Court’s efforts to indict Sudan’s President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes in the Darfur region; a warrant for al-Bashir’s arrest was issued way back in March 2009. Despite campaigning actively against the secession of the South, President al-Bashir has indicated that he will respect the referendum result; a decision that some will cynically attribute to his desire to release some of the international diplomatic pressure being brought to bear on his presidency. The African community and the West are already disinclined to force the issue politically and bring al-Bashir to justice; if al-Bashir facilitates the peaceful secession of a large chunk of his own country, they will be even less inclined to act.

Needless to say, the region looks set for political volatility for the months and years ahead, as the fledgling “South Sudan”, dominated by Christians and tribal groups, seeks to negotiate a lasting peace and oil-sharing agreements with the predominantly Sunni Muslim North. Sudan has been wracked by internal turmoil for decades, and this new development represents both a tremendous opportunity for the Sudanese and a geopolitical threat for the broader region; China’s continuing robust support of the al-Bashir regime and the recent political instability in North Africa are cases in point.

This referendum result may well come to mean a lot more to us than a mere redrawing of the maps.

ELSEWHERE: The Southern Sudan Centre for Census, Statistics and Evaluation has a shattering factsheet [PDF] outlining the profound sociological issues faced by this fledgling state. It’s worth reminding ourselves in this context of the apparent views of the Opposition Leader on the situation in Africa.

Crossposted at Larvatus Prodeo.

God save your Queen?

January 27th, 2011

In honour of Australia Day, the 2011 NSW Australian of the Year, Larissa Behrendt, has had an opinion column full of heart-warming bonhomie about “national values” published in the Sydney Morning Herald. It’s quite difficult to disagree with Behrendt’s sentiment and the positive prism through which she views our people and our sense of nation; particularly on a day like today. There are lots of objectively laudable things that Australians tend to do as a people and ideals that we represent through our actions that collectively, we should probably all be a bit prouder of. Our determination to reject the recent flood crises and our willingness to dip into our pockets to help out those affected are contemporary cases in point.

On the other hand, being a bit constructively critical now, our handling of the republic issue over the course of the last decade has been poor. Despite some dubious recent polling and some unhelpful dithering over timing, support (e.g. Newspoll [PDF]) for the constitutionalisation of an Australian Head of State is strong and has remained strong since the 1990’s. In what is beginning (after all these years) to seem like an Australia Day variation on Godwin’s Law, Behrendt issues a call for a move to a republic in her column, but she does so with philosophical kid gloves firmly on:

At the time Australia became a Federation, it was a very different country to the one it is now. It had different values, including its embrace of a White Australia Policy, women were excluded from public life and Aboriginal people from mainstream society. The national conversation about a republic is an opportunity to define ourselves by new values through a process of inclusive nation building.

While there is some fearsome juggling of issues going on at the moment on the front benches of the Gillard Government, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments of 2009 Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry; in this age of near-universal multi-tasking, the government damn well should be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time”. The rationale for delay is flimsy and unedifying. Waiting on the resignation or death of the Queen is a curiously morbid and cowardly way to approach a profound issue concerning our national identity. Must we meekly wait for the “mother country” to cut a few more emotional strings for us before we will deign to tackle the issue ourselves, as a proud and independent people?

As even the Barmy Army have realised, an Australian republic is laughably beyond due. Its time (surely? please??) to exhume the models, dust-off the arguments and restart the process anew, starting with a plebiscite reaffirming the nation’s desire to have its own Head of State.

The alternative, well… doesn’t speak too highly of us really, does it?

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Be kind, rewind, rollback, dissemble….

January 19th, 2011

In the years immediately after the 1998 Federal Election, at which John Howard’s Coalition successfully won a mandate for introducing the GST, Federal Labor got stuck in a real policy communication rut. Sure, there was quite a bit of popular opposition to the new tax, and there were some very good reasons for Labor to continue to fight against it. Unfortunately for Labor supporters and indeed Kim Beazley’s political aspirations, as the years ticked by and Australia headed towards the 2001 election, the catch-cry of “rollback” started sounding regressive, tired, and somewhat unappealing to the average punter. One started to get the sense that the core premise of Labor’s economic platform was to take the country back in time three years, chronologically if not literally. Not really a good look, unless you’re Marty McFly.

And so it seems to be with Tony Abbott and the NBN. His mumblings are starting to sound like his policy on our telecommunications future is “rollback”; to regress, to move backwards. His latest hysterical suggestion to drop the NBN like a hot potato because of the floods seems patronising and misguided; a cry and a gasp for a headline. What right-minded government, having secured a mandate for an infrastructure project at two separate federal elections, and having already signed numerous contracts binding the nation to agreements to the tune of billions of dollars, would dump the project at the first sign of unexpected external financial issues, or at the suggestion of their political opponents?

One wonders what Shadow Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull really thinks about the National Broadband Network, and his leader’s cock-eyed approach to opposing it. What one doesn’t wonder is what Julia Gillard thinks about the Coalition’s “duh….rollBACK!?!!” broadband policy for the years heading toward 2013. Two thumbs up?

Crossposted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Towards conservative oligopoly; east and west

December 31st, 2010

State political journalists in New South Wales are doing it tough just at the moment. Generating vaguely interesting material from a government that most people have written off and an Opposition that assumes (correctly) that it will dawdle into government in March 2011 must be pretty challenging. Even the disturbing developments surrounding Premier Keneally’s proroguing of parliament seem like a footnote to a book that was published and swiftly remaindered a year or two back. Most ordinary folks one talks to apropos of nothing are weary of politics, but when it comes to politics in New South Wales, they are livid. The trail of disappointments, petty infighting, incredulous scandals and broken promises has not just served to damage the Labor brand, but smashed the democracy brand altogether. The credibility of democracy in New South Wales is pretty much sub-zero; democracy as a celebration of mediocrity.

The most recent [PDF] bi-monthly Newspoll from early December painted a frankly disastrous picture for Premier Keneally and NSW Labor; Labor is sitting on just 39% of the two-party preferred vote – and a primary vote of just 24%. The pain that Labor feels is undoubtedly going to be sharpened by the optional preferential voting system that we have in New South Wales, whereby electors are able to exhaust their preferences in the lower house if they wish. One gets the feeling that there are going to be quite a few voters out there who cast a vote for a independent or minor party and neglect to preference either Labor or Barry O’Farrell’s evidently vision-free Opposition. Given the general ill-feeling out there in the electorate, it is difficult not to see this mentality strengthening O’Farrell’s hand and his grip on a massive parliamentary majority.

Interestingly enough, it is not just New South Wales where it seems that the conservatives have a whip hand in state politics. Anna Bligh’s team is struggling in Queensland. Ted Baillieu has of course recently lead the Coalition into power in Victoria, slightly surprisingly. A recent Newspoll [PDF] in Western Australia has Eric Ripper’s Opposition on the ropes, with Labor commanding just 29% of the primary vote and 42% on two-party preferred. Western Australia is arguably a unique case; although we always like to assume that people treat state and federal politics separately, it is difficult not to view politics in the West through the prism of the great mining tax kerfuffle that Federal Labor have yet to find a wholly decisive resolution to. I don’t think there is much doubt that some of the unseemly scuffles that Rudd and Gillard have been trying to fight through during the last couple of years have oozed into the consciousness of people weighing up their vote at a state level.

In New South Wales, of course, we will have a resolution first. In my view, the best argument for a vote or preference for Labor is that democracy in the state stands to be damaged further if the O’Farrell Opposition are gifted a monstrous majority by political circumstances. I’m not sure its in the interest of people in any state for a government to be crushingly controlled by any one party or coalition. The mandate that Barry O’Farrell will have, presuming his team takes power in March 2011, will be a mandate borne out of the chaos of the previous government, and hardly an ounce of his Coalition’s political ingenuity or vision. This hardly augurs well.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

On philosophies of giving

December 17th, 2010

It’s that time of year again. A time when we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, embark on a consumerist frenzy, get together with family and friends, set out milk and cookies for the patron saint of Coca-Cola, or at least some of the above. It’s probably a good time of year to reflect on giving; how we like to give, how much we give, and whether or not we’re each individually giving enough back to society.

Read the rest of this entry »

Inequality: what price a banker?

December 9th, 2010

As a public policy issue of note in mainstream Australian politics, inequality has exited (stage right!) in recent years. It remains one of those elephants in the room that is seemingly too big, too controversial, and just plain too difficult to tackle head on.

Consider the hectic Rudd and Gillard years since 2007. Amidst a period of uncomfortable vacillation on climate change, the cutthroat machinations surrounding the leadership of Federal Labor, and of course the formation of Julia Gillard’s minority government, I guess we really shouldn’t be that surprised that inequality has not figured prominently on Labor’s agenda-setting radar. It’s obviously not an issue that Abbott’s retrograde Coalition are concerned by, and while its probably fair to conclude that Labor is concerned about it, Team Gillard are still wrestling with much of the same sack of policy vipers that they were when they were called Team Rudd earlier this year.

Perhaps it is a function of the Con-Dem(n) age of austerity here in the UK or the sharp contrast that exists between “the City” and the rest of the economy, but inequality is getting some serious mileage in the British media at the moment. In Britain, inequality even has a public visage; a target. In case you didn’t know, inequality personified is a middle-aged, preferably portly (but jackal-like will suffice) man in a business suit, who works in management or in the financial sector in London. We might well call him “Inequality Man”. He is just the sort of person who not only has a football star salary, but can credit the loosely regulated, now part-nationalised banking sector for the lion’s share of his wealth. It is this “cross-over” that makes “Inequality Man” such a potentially effective pawn in the fight against economic unfairness.

Those unfortunate people who were hit hard by the GFC, or have a friend or a family member who was, may not care too much about inequality, but it’s a sure bet they can see the economic justice inherent in the sorts of salaries that management and financial sector professionals are still pulling. Danny Dorling, Professor of Human Geography at Sheffield University, provided a timely reminder in The Observer a week ago of just how the average salaries of different professions has changed in the UK between 1980 and 2009. The evidence suggests that the pie is getting bigger, with (for example) the average salaries of cleaners rising from £4,503 in 1980 to £31,807 in 2010 (~706% increase), nurses from £5,044 to £29,431 (~583% increase), and teachers from £6,505 to £35,121 (~539% increase). Most people who would consider themselves “of the left” would contend that these salaries should be higher still, but when it comes to inequality, the real problem is the comparative increase in salary for corporate executives. The average salary of a FTSE 100 CEO is £4.9 million, up from £85,000 in 1980, which represents a somewhat extraordinary 5765% increase.

Dorling, also author of Injustice: Why Social Inequality Persists, asks the obvious question about value for money for society:

Why should an excellent brain surgeon receive “only” 0.5% of a top banker’s income? At the peak of excess a top banking boss can receive £40 million in renumeration. 0.5% of that income is a salary of £200,000 a year, which is just about the possible range of top surgeons’ salaries. You can have 200 excellent brain surgeons, and quite a few more average ones, all for the cost of a single man in a suit running a large bank in Britain.

It remains to be seen whether or not Labour leader Ed Miliband will take the bait on this issue – but its hard to believe that the majority of people would not agree that some form of action is warranted. To what extent can we say the same about the situation in Australia?

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.

Nick Clegg, progressivism, and New, New Labour

December 1st, 2010

Nick Clegg, latter-day UK Deputy Prime Minister and the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Democrats, is in the thick of some truly interesting times in British politics. Coalition life has been generally smooth for him and his party since the May 6th election, but it is also proving politically disfiguring, particularly if recent polls are to be believed.. He and the Liberal Democrats are at grave risk of being cast betwixt and between the fashionable, small-l liberalism of their philosophical cloth and the considerably less fashionable fiscal brutality being spearheaded by Chancellor George Osborne. In recent months, whatever it is that the Liberal Democrats believe seems to have been subsumed by this war that their senior Coalition partners are waging on the national debt. Are the billions of dollars of mooted public sector cuts really a function of necessity given the fiscal climate, or are they more just an expression of the Conservative Party’s base political wants after a decade in the political wilderness? It would be naive to suggest that there is not a bit of both in play.

On Tuesday last week, Clegg delivered the Hugo Young lecture at Kings Place in London, at the invitation of The Guardian. In the lecture, Clegg grapples with the question of what it means to be “progressive” in today’s political environment. We can hardly be surprised that he has spent some time considering this topic; this is a question that threatens the very identity of the Liberal Democrats as a party. Can the Liberal Democrats really still be thought of as “progressive”, locked as they are in a kind of Faustian pact with the Tories?

It is an important question for Clegg and indeed the broader party and their supporters, and it will only become more important as the electoral cycle plods inexorably towards 2015. Clegg’s intellectual mechanism for dealing with the question and to defend his left flank is to divide “progressives” into two lumpen camps; “old progressives” and “new progressives”. Labour, of course, are cast off as embodying the “old progressive” cause, and the righteous Liberal Democrats hailed as the future of progressive politics in Britain:

The need to make choices is revealing an important divide between old progressives, who emphasise the power and spending of the central state, and new progressives, who focus on the power and freedom of citizens.

There’s some clear sleight of hand and over-simplification being employed here, particularly as Clegg goes on to define exactly what he perceives the differences between old and new progressives to be:

Old progressives are straightforwardly in favour of more state spending and activity.

Old and new progressives also take a different approach to tackling poverty and promoting fairness. Old progressives see a fair society as one in which households with income currently less than 60% of the median were to be, in Labour’s telling verb, “lifted” out of poverty.

For old progressives, reducing snapshot income inequality is the ultimate goal. For new progressives, reducing the barriers to mobility is.

New progressives want to reshape the tax base fundamentally, towards greater taxation of unearned wealth and pollution, rather than of people.

In essence, “old progressivism” just happens to be all the stereotypical centre-left viewpoints that one tends to associate with social democratic parties in the 1980’s. which Clegg projects onto modern Labour. “New progressivism” (in case you didn’t know), just happens to be all the middling, individual-centric rhetoric that Clegg no doubt perceives his party as uniformly believing in and Labour as uniformly opposing. “Political pluralism”? Why that’s conveniently a “new progressive” concept, exemplified, of course, by Clegg’s conservative coalition. Distilling this even further, we might well conclude that the Deputy Prime Minister is trying to cast himself as a Blairite, and position his party as a kind of “New, New Labour”, in league with the old enemy.

This theme is reflected by Clegg’s willingness in his speech to agree with Ed Miliband and Labour on values, but not on policy mechanisms for implementation. On the one hand, he expresses his agreement with Miliband’s recent observations that the United Kingdom is a “fundamentally unequal society” and that “for some people, the gap between the dreams that seem to be on offer and their ability to realize them is wider than it’s ever been before.” He goes on to scoff at Miliband’s attachment to the top 50p income tax rate, conveying all the while that he thinks that Labour’s heart is in the right place but its head is trapped in the past. It is a bold, but ultimately defensive stretch to the left, and a futile one while Clegg still has his stronger leg planted in David Cameron’s hack and slash Conservative camp.

Just where do these Liberal Democrats stand? If the Deputy Prime Minister is to be believed, they are sticking to the middle of the road come what may, and stand to be slowly crushed between the hulking semi-trailers of the major parties during the next five years. It is not good enough for Clegg to stand with the Tories whilst proffering the occasional olive branch to the left. The voters that matter to Clegg and his party are going to want to see something in the Lib Dems that distinguishes them from the Tories as this term rolls on; gentlemanly argreements with Ed Miliband on a few philosophical debating points aren’t going to cut it.

Cross-posted at Larvatus Prodeo.