Labor must ask serious questions on policy and values

It is appreciated that people need a reasonable degree of discretion in terms of determining personal needs structures. But 'collective consumption' delivers massively in the area of pharmaceuticals consumption, as exemplified by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or 'PBS', and could deliver in other areas as well –infrastructure and goods like water and energy for example – which are becoming more unaffordable following effective privatisation. Again, public infrastructure like ports, roads, public transport and communications should flow from the public purse where the state's superior rate of borrowing and not-for-profit stance can deliver a better deal.

Water, ports, communications, transport infrastructure - should be re-socialised – to reduce overall cost-structures. In other areas, for example energy, some kind of 'market' should still exist but in the context of a public monopoly provider. This solution is much more affordable, but still retains an incentive to regulate usage

The "Welfare State'" is often taken in a catch-all sense which covers all of this, but for now think of the tax-transfer system and the need to support vulnerable Australians. Newstart is the area of the most dire need but a 15% increase in other pensions can also be justified as can support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

A National Aged Care Insurance Scheme should be implemented, in response to the Royal Commission, to provide high quality services on demand both for at-home and residential care without the onerous user-pays policies which send 'consumers' broke. Essential features include high quality food, quotas, a registered nurse on-site always, training in the handling of dementia, at-home packages on demand, rehabilitation and exercise on-demand, regular GP visits, private rooms and, where possible, meaningful every-day interaction and outings instead of just seating people down in-front of TVs all day. Similarly, for those 'at home' action to combat loneliness is crucial.

More public housing – perhaps interspersed with private housing to avoid stigma – is necessary too in order to tackle homelessness and housing stress. But large scale public housing projects should also be considered – also providing quality amenities - laundries, pools, common rooms, internet connectivity – which people can respect and appreciate.

Austriamanages a high level of public housing well – with very positive results. Indeed, over 60% of Vienna's population live in public or social housing. It is the legacy of the interwar revolutionary Social Democrats, at the time officially of a Marxist but not Bolshevist disposition, who prevailed in Vienna in the 1917-1934 period and who took government with a more modest agenda in the post-war period.

Eugene Quinn argues the following outlining the difference in culture regarding public housing in Vienna:

People here are used to the communal spaces of the social housing estates and are very comfortable living next to someone from a different background, And because people are not crushed by their rents like in other major cities, they have a bit more time to be creative, to study, to get involved in community work.

Apart from these areas, Labor also needs to take a strong line against the Coalition's 'Ensuring Integrity' union-busting laws. Some in the Left dislike John Setka. But more is at stake here than one man. We are talking about the strategic position of the entire movement. Which the Coalition well knows. And Labor must acknowledge that as well.

In short, inevitably there must be a policy review. But let's be careful about dumping good policy. Sure, let's hone our message and our central focus. We need a tactical campaigning review, perhaps more than a 'root and branch' policy review overall. If we cannot at least reverse Morrison's overall tax cuts in a progressive way – focusing on tax cuts for the well-off – then we concede defeat. That would mean conceding an Australia which retreated from anything recognisably social-democratic , and headed towards the divisions and insecurity we see in the US for example.

Importantly we must embrace the message of progressive tax and its implications rather than running away from that debate. Trying to be 'everything to everyone' and not increase the tax burden on virtually anyone – means we have no way of funding reform at the end of the day. But an openly progressive agenda would give the vast majority an incentive to vote Labor.

It is nonetheless appreciated that 'middle income' is not the same as 'middle ground', and some disillusioned voters are embracing a 'centrism' which is largely right-wing in practice. Labor's response must be tactical, appealing not only to interests but also to values. A liberal response on social values, and stronger action on climate change can also detract from any 'small 'l' constituency' for the Liberals and pressure the Liberals to reform their own outlook so shifting 'the relative political centre'. Labor must contest values in the economy as well as the 'culture wars' and its relative neglect here has marked a defeat for Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism in this country.

One thing is certain. Nothing is gained from a 'culture of policy defeat'. Labor must find a way to effectively campaign for government without compromising its values and reason-for-being.