Writing publicly means living with the chance you will be a hostage to fortune. But I wrote in March that: “While Shorten has attempted to draw parallels to Bob Hawke’s style of leadership, the best comparison may instead be with a UK Labour government that never was: the unsuccessful campaign and platform of Ed Miliband in 2015.”

On 18 May, like many progressives, a sense of an incoming Labor government was replaced by shell shock that seemed to parallel what happened in Britain in 2015. The salience of a campaign mobilised against taxation, swings in regional and outer suburban electorates and the inability of Labor to cut through despite conservative chaos and division must prompt some deep reflection.

There is a risk superficial debates on tax will overshadow the bigger challenge we face

One immediate reaction has been a push by some for Labor to abandon its policies on franking credits and negative gearing. The 2019 Per Capita Tax Survey showed a growing individual aversion to paying more tax yet an abandonment of revenue raising creates the conundrum of what social democratic governments can achieve if there is no money. We know Australians want more and better public services – Medicare, the NDIS – but the connection in people’s minds between how to pay for those and what a tax regime looks like is broken, with conservatives working hard to break it further every day. Australia is already a low taxing economy with a highly targeted, albeit limited, welfare state.

Though neither Shorten nor Bowen came from Labor’s left wing, there is a reason their offer was like British Labour’s in 2010. With an abandonment of redistributive social spending, what could Labor offer to voters that the Coalition could not? Undoubtedly progressives will debate what happened for some time, but there is a risk superficial debates on tax will overshadow the bigger challenge we face, the interlinked crises of inequality, democracy and the climate.

Australia is becoming a more unequal country. Recently the ABS released data shows high-wealth households have seen substantial gains while those at the bottom have received barely anything since 2013. We also seeing growing geographic divides between parts of Australia, between capital cities and the rest of their states. Where you live affects not just your opportunities in life but access to basic amenities and services all citizens should expect.

This growing inequality not only hampers social mobility, it is corrosive to our democracy. In December last year, the Democracy 2025 report found the lower a person’s income, the less satisfied they were with how democracy works. An increasing number of Australians do not believe it matters whether Labor or the Coalition wins power because they do not trust either party and do not believe government will do anything to improve their lives.

Australians’ faith in politics has collapsed – how can we reimagine democracy? | Tim Hollo Read more

It is of little surprise the 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer found only 42% of Australians trust government. Years of cuts have run down public services, making basic interactions increasingly difficult despite the efforts of remaining staff. This, along with a growing disregard for politics, has encouraged a sense that individuals can only rely on themselves and should maximise their share. We saw it in the election, an outcome that should deeply concern anyone who believes government must play a significant role in averting climate catastrophe.

The extent of distrust limits the scope for the government action needed. With less than 12 years to limit temperature rises to 1.5C, it requires bold action on all three fronts at the same time: to reduce inequality, rebuild trust in democracy and decarbonise the economy. The timing and scale of change needed means a carbon price alone is insufficient.

As progressives, our offer must be underpinned by a story that taps into the public mood and offers something people want and can see would improve their lives. We will never win unless we also convince the electorate we will deliver a materially better future for their families and communities. Rhetoric of scarcity only encourages mistrust and individualism. Nor will a shopping list of policies create the political space to wind back the changes that will make Australia’s tax system less progressive than at any point since the 1950s.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘The timing and scale of change [in the climate] needed means a carbon price alone is insufficient.’ Photograph: BBC NHU

While a Green New Deal has generated excitement, to many Australians, it is a meaningless term. We can draw on our history, that of postwar reconstruction, to shape our own equivalent that ensures full employment and reconstructs a country whose public services and infrastructure have been run down. The transformation needed in a decade is possible, we did it in the aftermath of a destructive war in the 1940s and can do it again.

It also requires orienting away from extractive models of economic development and embracing ideas such as community wealth building with a practical and common sense resonance in regional and outer suburbs we must win. It rejects a race to the bottom on taxes, wages and conditions, and encourages money being kept locally using institutions based in the community.

This all requires a greater role for the state, but it must be responsive and more democratic. Rebuilding trust must not only encompass the usual suggestions of campaign finance reform, but a broader democratisation to ensure people have a direct say in public institutions and in their workplaces.

Progressives also need to act at every level of government. While the commonwealth has the revenue, the scope of its power is constrained by the constitution. Creative thinking at a state and local government level is needed to reduce inequality, rebuild trust and decarbonise the economy.

None of this can be done while progressives look inwards or avoid electoral politics. We must not be the tribute band who play the greatest hits to an ever-dwindling audience who turn up regardless. To succeed, we need to break down silos between movements and engage more broadly in the community, outside existing political networks. With time running out, rather than despair, the only option for progressives is to work with where people are at, with more focus and determination than ever before.