Tristan,

while we have the odd disagreement, I much prefer reading your pieces when compared to some of the leftwing rubbish produced in the major newspapers.

While I do not want to claim to be an authority on what is good or bad writing, I think your pieces are improving in terms of reflecting some of the complexity out there.

Whether we agree or not on all matters, it is indeed the battle for resources that makes the difference.

Forget the crap over third ways. A great society will indeed be judged about how best it distributes its resources to balance compassion and competitiveness.

This is the key for the left, to demonstrate why certain trends can or will not work.

Good luck with the quest, I certainly do not disagree with your sentiment, although I will long argue that it is a lot harder than what some would have us believe.

Tristran, I actually think the outcome of the election is a fantastic opportunity for so-called LEFT and RIGHT mindsets to reflect on the reality they have been presented with by a (somewhat sullen) electorate. I cannot agree with your conclusion that the media was biased in favour of the RIGHT mindset over the LEFT mindset. I observed a media singularly obsessed with the 10 second grab, not much else. Perhaps you place too much emphasis on the effect of the media on the voting intentions of the punters. I suspect most had made their minds up some time ago. Finally, I think you are being a bit of a sissy not encouraging the ALP to really kick into itself over the debacle it has permitted itself to become embroiled in lo these last few months. Some retribution at the appropriate level (e.g. public flogging of the fools who directed the PM switcheroo) would no doubt help restore some faith amongst the seriously perplexed former ALP supporters out here in the boon docks.

As usual, Tristan, you need to try to get a grip on reality.

The miners spent "hundreds of millions of dollars" campaigning against Labor? Nonsense. Gillard interrupted the miners' ad campaign shortly after it began. The junior miners resumed advertising only in the last week or so of the campaign.

Labor, the unions, GetUp and the rest outspent the LNP by at least four to one, almost all of it personal attacks on Tony Abbott.

<<Great sections of the media came on board to assault Labor>> Nonsense. You mean all those hacks who had been describing Abbott as "unelectable" from the time he won the leadership? Women's Weekly gave Gillard a front cover promo, replete with digital enhancements and other media ran the pix, too. But that was Fake Julia, I guess.

<<Everything Labor did most of the mainstream media put a 'negative spin' on it.>> What do you suggest? They shouldn't have mentioned two weeks of leaks from one or more of Rudd, Gillard, Swan and Tanner? Nobody need put a "negative spin" on that.

<<It is extremely important that despite what's happened progressives cannot afford to let the Right determine the historical narrative. The Left and Centre-Left need to continue to contest this narrative vigorously by arguing that there was a need for a progressive stimulus, progressive tax reform, and for infrastructure investment, and how such policies resulted in positive outcomes.>>

Which particular "positive outcomes" did Labor deliver, Tristan?

The BER rorting of billions of dollars? Four deaths and more rorted billions through Garrett's insulation program? The "green loans" debacle? Useless wind farms and solar arrays at a cost of millions more? The NBN without a business plan or cost-benefit analysis?
The $900 cheques that stimulated poker machine revenues and Chinese television manufacturers? The proposed "people's assembly" to decide climate policy? Or the $300,000 salaries for four kommissars to tell them what to think? All the extra boats? I could go on.

Labor couldn't campaign on its record. They had over-promised and delivered virtually nothing. And they had a "new" PM who was complicit in every bad decision.

Tristan

The ALP is about to tear itself to pieces. The only reason it hasn't done so yet is that it is desperate to retain power and is trying to present a facade of unity in an endeavour to get the independents to return it to power.

Can you imagine the Labor caucus meetings with Arbib, Shorten, and Rudd? Then throw in Gillard whose authority is absolutely shredded. Add to the mix those labor MP's who have been without influence over either of the former rivals. Underline all this with state based angst and hostilities against both NSW and Queensland (well there is so few of them now it might not matter too much) members. Throw in the viciousness of some of the personalities. Then factor in that there is no longer anyone of the stature of Faulkner to curb things. Add a huge slice of inexperience.

Mate it would be worse than a Friday night p...up down at the old 'painters and dockers' Balmoral pub.

I reckon those that aren't talking to one another are either abusing or scheming. Whatever, there is little prospect of any sort of team approach within the ALP, until all the ratbags from the NSW right are removed ... and there is scant possibility of that occurring.
Take a look at who the NSW right has installed as leaders. Keating, Beazley, Latham, Rudd and Gillard. Name one that over a period has naturally appealed broadly to Australians?

Good luck with your leftie ideals. Though I'm sure you've got buckleys of cutting through in today’s totally pragmatic and ideologically stuffed up ALP. The rest of us are merely dismayed that the great Labor Movement of the past, that of our parents and grandparents, has descended to such a level of spit, spite and s..t.

It now really is the Party of the dregs of the middle class. It is no longer made up of people who are true to themselves. Nobody with self-respect can possibly be proud of it.

Tristan,

I think Keith is on the ball.

Your best shot is to write in a way that appeals to all parties and all voters. While its sounds impossible, this aim should be the hallmark of good scholarship.

I actually voted Liberal in the House (first time) because I believe that Labor was indeed hopeless. On the day, it was hard given my past, but i thought of the rhetoric and waste.

The line that Labor knows best is indeed bs, as is the line that only social democrats can save the day.

Also Tristan, the Coalition, while opposing the economic stimulus package, is on the record to say that it too would have also gone into debt, albeit $20 billion less ($180b instead of $200b). turnbull indicates this.

Ken: Opinions differ, but this source suggests a $100 million mining industry 'warchest'.

see: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2943169.htm

Others say more; but even though - as you say - the main campaign was pulled as the government backed down - the damage had already been done.

Chris: You suggest there's 'only' a $20 billion gap between the level of Labor's and the Coalition's proposed stimulus. (ie: the the Coalition would have gone into debt too, in the context of $180 billion versus $200 billion) That in of itself undermines the Coalition's posturing on debt; it demonstrates clearly that they were engaging in a 'fear' campaign, playing loosely with the facts.

Yes there was some waste; but when you consider the above context; you can sense something of the real perspective. And you have to balance against the drive to get the stimulus 'out there' as quickly as possible.

What profiteering on the back of the BER program shows, though, is that perhaps we should establish some kind of government-owned public-works authority; one which doesn't have profiteering as a motive in the first place. Yes it's against the 'common sense' of the age we're living in; but considered on its merits I think the idea has merit.

Tristan,

The figures that came out were that the mining industry spent $7m on advertising. The hundreds of millions was speculation by a journalist. The correct figure has been in the media from before the election, and I find it difficult to find an honest motive for you ignoring it.

Your claim that the ABC was biased against Labor because it focused on the leaks (which demonstrated that Labor was more about spin than substance), is somewhat naive. The Libs strongly asserted that Labor's campaign was more about spin than substance, and this "proof" was a lot more than a side issue.

It is incomprehensible why anyone would prefer the liberals over Labor, but it is precisely because their credibility is shot, and while your article tries to put a positive spin on it, the reality is that only after a couple of years the public have shown Labor the door.

Tristan,

with all due respect, distorting the truth is a habit of many politicians from all sides.

As for you defending the waste, you should know better. Take the HIP, the four deaths could have been avoided. The Rudd govt gave little consideration to warnings from the CFMEU. If you are true to your Labor values, then give them heaps rather than rely on your team sport mentality.

And i am sick to death of leftists telling me that progressives only come from the left. I am passionate about the issues as well, and I can tell you that good ideas and decency has no political alignment. In fact, the biggest bs artists and hypocrites I have met indeed come from the left, although many on the left are a lot better than i will ever be in the contribution they make to society.

Remember good ideas and good argument will appeal to all people from all sides of politics. While we all have our own bias, we can all be stimulated to think, as long as the argument is good enough.

sure, loyalty is important, but I was disgusted by the home insulation scheme. I am disgusted about the four deaths that may have been avoided with a bit more foresight and listening to key players.

That is why I wanted to support an alternative government to give them a go

Chris; yes home insulation was handled awfully by the government. But if there was already insufficient regulatory oversight, then it's reasonable to suggest that what really happened is that accidents occured in the context of activity of an unprecedented scale. But yes - Labor was in government: the Rudd Labor government was responsible.

But there's also the question of whether those referring to the home insulation charities - whether they were really about accountability; or capitalising for their own political gain.

If you wanted to talk about culpability - responsibility for injury and death, we could refer to the Howard govt's support for the war in Iraq: and the horror and tragedy that has been reaped as a consequence.

But I'm not throwing accusations at you personally. In fact I see your engagement with the conservative parties has having potentially positive ramifications. From what I've seen of your writing here at OLO. you seem to have a moderate social justice agenda. And if any of that rubs off on the Conservative parties, that would be a good thing.

Tristan,

I would not give the time of day to anyone that did not believe in a better world.

All i am saying is that no one has a monopoly on truth or the 'right' way given that any emphasis on compassion also must give adequate attention to competitiveness. In other words, it is not just about how the world should be, but how the world is.

Tristan,

I also stated in Quadrant that going to war in Iraq without a UN mandate was one of the worst decisions ever by liberal democracies

BTW - some people seem to think I am not critical enough of Labor. But as I think is reflected in this article, I actually would have liked the Greens and Wilkie to have extracted more concessions - even though I understand 'time is of the essence' for both Labor and the Coalition to achieve a majority.

Gillard looks set to implement dental care reform, but we have yet to see movement on education where the Greens wanted $2billion. And there is insufficient movement on disability services, aged care and welfare - which are core concerns for Wilkie.

I'm interested in outcomes here - especially for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. More policy movement from Labor certainly would have been welcome - as current circumstances actually open up possibilities, here, which wouldn't have occurred otherwise.

That said, it seems Wilkie has been talking to Xenophon on restrictions on pokies; which is reasonable when you consider the real-world issue of people left destitute as a consequence of gambling addiction.

Perhaps such an agreement has occurred as a consequence of discussions in the context of Xenophon's support in the Senate being crucial for the first months of a minority Gillard Labor government - should that be what we end up with.