Why Labor Must Keep “Backup Beazley”
Posted by Jacques Chester on Saturday, December 2, 2006
There’s a joke name for Kimbo that has sometimes done the rounds in Liberal Student circles. “Backup Beazley”, he’s called. When all else fails, Kim will plug the gaps until the next aspirant gets the numbers. Once they lose, it’s back to Kimbo.
I remember when Mark Latham was elected suddenly. I was - quite funnily enough - at a Liberal Student function in Melbourne, surrounded by fellow tory tykes, little libs and professional politicos of both state and federal politics. Latham was an unknown factor to a lot of Australians, but we knew him as aggressive, energetic, pushy and seemingly born for politics. A lot of the chatter was about how difficult it would be to beat Latham. But what I sensed beneath the standard banter about rallying behind Howard was a carefully masked sense of relief. Thank God they chose Latham! He’s fucking nuts!
But Kim? Kim keeps coming back. He’s like Dr Who or a soapie character. Nothing seems to kill him dead. He seems to have bottomless reserves of patience and comebackitude. He reminds me of another famous opposition leader, one who eventually made it all the way to the top.
John Howard, of course.
Even I am old enough to remember some of what for Liberals must have been very dark years indeed: years of horrible seesawing infighting, both ideological and personal. Before Howard came back to beat Keating by being Anything But Keating, the very idea that John Howard was destined for a historical run in the top job was quite laughable. The very notion required people to wear tight girdles, lest their sides split permanently.
John Howard is proof of nothing else but this: determination and patience pays. These days it is fashionable to paint him as a kind of political svengali, and in fairness he is very switched on. But let’s not forget that he slew Paul Keating PM with the help of important political allies, such as Paul Keating PM. Let’s also not forget that he said of himself in jest that yet another comeback would like Lazarus with a triple bypass. By now Lazarus has grown a 400HP titanium alloy heart and discovered modern grooming.
Another conundrum is how people say Labor is “lacklustre”, that it lacks direction. But oppositions have ever been thus. Governments always tend to look better organised. They always have answers to everything. When Alexander Downer appeared on the 7.30 Report to talk about the Cole Report, he had every potentially negative span of text committed to memory. I very much doubt he read it and took notes by himself. Most likely it was broken into sections and handed out to aides. “Read this, find anything remotely negative, and find a reason why it’s taken out of context whenever quoted”. When the Government has a manpower ratio of hundreds - even thousands - to one, it’s very hard to make headway.
All of which leaves the question of why Labor should keep Kimbo unanswered. Here are my reasons:
- Kevin Rudd is unelectable. People have compared him to a school prefect. I think this is unfair to school prefects, some of whom can develop personalities if given intensive alcohol therapy. I found it particularly laughable that he talked about having a “fresh new style”. I take classified ads on the phone, and frankly he reminds me of the local mortician. That’s not fresh style you smell, guys, it’s formaldehyde.
- Labor’s standards for leadership are nuts. This has been widely canvassed elsewhere. If anyone anywhere so much as sneezes during a poll question about ALP leadership, shadowy figures start counting numbers and impatient backbenchers decide that their itchy nuts indicate It Is Time. John Howard has been through incredibly rough patches, and been very openly accused by his own deputy of being a Big Fat Liar re: leadership succession. Yet nobody hits the phones very hard, or at all, if he tracks down for month, or 2, or 24. It doesn’t help that Labor backbenchers seem to receive the Australian’s opinion page as Holy Writ. Remember: these are the same merry band of idiots who talked up Bronwyn Battleaxe Bishop, remember? Who talked up Mark Madman Looniebin Latham, do you recall? I suspect you’d get better results throwing darts at a dartboard, or indeed journalists at a dartboard.
- Kim Beazley is damn smart. If he was a knife he’d be so sharp that he’d cost $29,999 in only 472 easy payments and you’d get a free set of steak knives into the bargain. Putting aside my very deep ideological and policy disagreements with Beazley, I think he would make a much better successor to Howard or Costello than Rudd or Rudd’s Liberal doppleganger Nelson. Furthermore I actually trust Beazley more than I trust anyone else in Parliament to be honest to his own principles and the nation. I can’t warm to his frontbench though.
- Finally, most importantly, Kim can win. A lot of voters have warmed to Labor’s crusade against WorkChoices, the War on Terror is starting to trend against the Government, house prices in sensitive outer suburban areas are apparently beginning to obey gravity again - it might not last for long. Politics is fickle, but there is an ironclad rule to which voters adhere: longevity matters. Stability matters. It is one thing for a party to have internal challenges. It is another thing entirely to change leadership everytime somebody farts too loudly.
And so Kim must stay. Let the front bench be shuffled. Let great care be taken in selecting the frontbench, because Howard has lower house heavy hitters in Abbott & Costello. But for the sake of common sense, for the sake of robust opposition, for sake of decency, for the sake of the national good, and if nothing else for the sake of sticking up for good, qualified blokes over smoothtalking blowins, Labor must stick to Kim Beazley when Monday rolls around.
ShareThis
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 AM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
53 Responses to “Why Labor Must Keep “Backup Beazley””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The rant of a rusted-on, self-admitted Tory hack.
Beazley has well and truly had his time and done what with it? If he was ever going to make it to the lodge, he’d have done it by 2004. He failed twice, got shafted once and is about to get shafted again judging by what the pundits are telling us. The message is crystal clear.
Kevin Rudd is an experiment, as Latham was an experiment. Such experiments simply must take place for the party to mature and move forward. It’s currently stuck in the late `80’s-early `90’s. To adopt new ideas, new approaches and face the challenges of accounting for the Howardian lack of attention to our economy and societal structure. The Howardian clique is tired and disconnected from the electorate, interested only in holding onto power without understanding why. Labor has much to offer Australian society, least of all being a return to at least a minimalist degree to a more egalitarian society. One which isn’t driven by fear and loathing, xenophobia and Americentric head-nodding.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 9:11 am | PermalinkBeazley’s gotta win. The main reason being it’ll be one in the eye for that dead shit Ramsay.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 9:55 am | PermalinkEnough with the experiments, get on with winning.
I agree with much of what Jacques said.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 11:54 am | Permalinkif you look at the last election then Howard has been awfully wrong on Iraq, economic policy, environment, eduycation , welfare etc whereas the nuts man was on the money.
Funny about that.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 1:41 pm | PermalinkRudd could conceivably be drawn as Howard’s nemesis, except for some notably absent things. Those things could prove disastrous for Labor, and the country, in the short term, if Rudd gets in. It could also prove heroically successful (a perception, in the face of Howard’s so-called invincibility).
Let’s look at some similarities.
They are both focused and driven. Both have an inherent need to install an agenda, rather than being just a career politician. Each has the discipline, and the detachment, to speak in phrases which establish the necessary point, which don’t compromise them, and which show they’ll not be drawn further than they wish. (Note: this would be the very first time Howard has faced such an opponent!).
They are non-charismatic. They each seem to know this, so it’s about what they say and how they say it. In other words, not relying on charisma, they are forced to cut it with the electorate on the power of substance. Now, Rudd has had bugger all chance to expound this of himself, but for the very little he’s had, he’s done a remarkable job amongst prattlers and rabblers. That indicates a very strong level of self belief, ambition and talent. Rudd’s substance has been largely an attack, but he’s managed to go further by presenting a vision and points of difference in the little room given and those are well worth looking at. Rudd’s made a lot of sense and showed substance on those two occasions. The point here is the electorate is used to the bland Howard, and Rudd needs only to match substance for substance and he’s a chance. Further, I think the electorate may be wary of the ‘celebrity charisma politician would be’. If Rudd’s boring, that could be a good thing out there.
Beazley misses on all the above counts.
So with Rudd in you have two weird little guys. The electorate may write that off as the usual for dickhead pollies and so it would come to style, substance and coverage.
Rudd appears to me to be as ruthless as Howard. I think the guy’s a bit scary, for what is not perceivable or observable about him. The difference then in campaign combat is that Howard has no problems going low, whereas Rudd though equally ruthless seems like he wouldn’t. That would indicate a showdown - the once and for all showdown so many have wanted - where Rudd ruthlessly takes on Howard for the latter’s standards and bullshittery.
The quick point on substance which would change the campaign narrative would be Rudd redefining the debate in terms of “do you want the market to serve you, or you to serve the market”. That threatens to be an ideological battle, one Howard has been urgent and desperate to avoid (because it blows his cover). Such a battle has the power to gel interest around a new leader and gives a real chance for election.
We come to the points of experience and time within which to become known. On experience, it could be argued that the electorate has altered considerably in recent years, moving from a mindset which once had one long term job as its core or base, to a mindset of the casual many-jobs-a-lifetime core. That is, there might have been a subtle change in the electorate which allows for a short term in a job being acceptable. On: time to establish - well, if Howard goes early Rudd is probably cooked. If not, the short time for Rudd to become known is offset by the intensity of Howard’s recent rush of agenda, and then we come to Rudd’s substance yet again.
So we arrive at what’s missing. Does Rudd have the political nouse of Howard? Doesn’t seem to be, given Howard’s is entirely unique (again, though, without real opposition - a dream run. Notably, though, when Howard is pushed as Latham happened to do several times, Howard ducked and buckled. So who really knows?). Going back to Rudd’s landmark speeches outlining his sensitivities to where Labor can pick up or reclaim ground - the centre - this is in direct conflict with others who believe Labor must go more to the ‘right’, so who knows. If Rudd reckons he does, we’ll see what nouse he has. It’s fair to question it now, though.
Does Rudd know how to package himself attractively? (Hey.. Howard did; let’s get this into perspective. If he can, anyone can. It worked initially, and then became a work of excellence politically). Does Rudd have enough time to walk that path, to find his electoral feet? Or will Rudd remain shackled to the sniping component of his image? Will the statesman come to the fore within him, which appears to be there, or will he just straight out bomb?
Would Rudd have a united, disciplined team?
In conclusion, if Rudd proves able to instill alternative substance into the debate, undergoes sufficient makeover after (and from) arriving in Opposition power, takes Howard on and call Howard’s plays with equal ruthlessness, and combine and inspire a proper team, Howard will be facing his first disciplined and capable opponent ever. The electorate may well be seeking change. How much change and where Rudd will prove himself savvy or not. If he is savvy, and given the above, notwithstanding external factors, it’s toe to toe and nemesis time.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 2:50 pm | PermalinkJohn Howard is actually quite charming when he wants to be, and has a pretty snappy sense of humour. It just doesn’t fit the media template that “John Howard is Boring”, so it all gets edited out come news time.
From what I’ve seen of Rudd trying to be funny, it just comes across as Rudd trying to be funny. Beazley at least is bombastically (ha!) cheerful, and I think that Latham’s early polling showed that you can’t beat Howard with Howard Lite. You need someone a bit different.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 3:36 pm | PermalinkTrue, Jacques. Howard can be irritatingly redeemingly endearing on the rare occasion. Rudd has shown nothing at all, which is offputting. What does the disconnected or wider electorate want, though. Perhaps to those of us who engage in politics, we’re oversensitive to the foibles of the politicians, when the wider electorate is not. A sense of humour would be desirable, widely, one wuld have thought, leaving Rudd short on that one.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 3:45 pm | PermalinkRecycle Uncle Kim! Urgh … you’ve got to be kidding. Hand the turkey a big stick to hit the coalition and he’ll cheerfully shoot himself in the foot. As a taxpayer who pays for this retread, I demand value for money … cut him loose.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 3:56 pm | PermalinkI read books and I think and I vote.
Go Rudd.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 3:57 pm | Permalink(and a lack of identification with sport is a loss for him, too)
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 3:59 pm | PermalinkIt’s funny how opposition leaders get assessed.
What I mean is this. Being considered a head prefect or a fat loser or whatever really doesn’t matter much once you’ve got the top job. No one assesses Howard on the basis of personal charisma, which is obviously just as well for us all. In fact, here in Australia, it’s almost the other way around, a love-to-hate or at least willing-to-hold-in-disrespect kind of thing. Bomber’s long words, Rudd’s prefect personality, Howard’s sleaze, these all more or less do the trick. It’s not a personality contest, and everyone, more-or-less, more-or-less knows it.
Except when evaluating opposition leaders - for some crazy reason, they are meant to be inspiring. I’m not really sure why. Maybe everyone believes their leadership challenge spiel to the party. Maybe it’s just nature abhorring a vacuum, again.
Opposition leaders don’t win elections, governments loose them. Governments have so much ability to control the agenda that they are almost impossible to dislodge. Unless they really screw up, governments loose elections when the economy goes down the tube. So, other than economic luck, the quality that makes a pm is discipline. That is, personal discipline, keeping the team on the job and out of trouble, and, economic discipline, keeping the economy moving, preferably on the upswing around election time.
Both Beazley and Rudd are disciplined and capable enough for the job. Whether you like this or that about them, neither appear to have serious personality flaws. Beazley looks to me to be be made for the job - more than made to be opposition leader - and Rudd would certainly grow into the position. Either would do well, fairly quietly, and be at least as hard to dislodge as Howard. The problem is for them is getting in, and neither can do that themselves.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 4:23 pm | PermalinkSports and humour do not a politician make. Take Keating, for example. The man’s idea of sport was a trip to Amarni’s for a new suit and humour…….well, he got away with murder in the insult stakes during Question Time, many of which have made it to classic status, so I guess humour is in the eye of the beholder. Your Bannerman will settle for someone who will take Howard on and beat his skinny arse.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 4:34 pm | PermalinkThe point of personality arises in terms of their ‘electability’ - which Jacques invokes in point 1 above. Consider the lesson of Latham: regardless of what they say now, many pundits and journos backed Latham, but quietly behind the scenes the Libs knew all along that Latham was unelectable.
Beazley is problematic because he is without vision. He’s had ten years to give it to us, and hasn’t. Further, he’s reported as being divisive behind the scenes, and that he doesn’t command team leadership, which for all his good points leaves him at a loss in government. These are the things voters seem to sense about him.
Contrastingly, Rudd appears to have the ability to take Howard on, and alter the debate. This creates the occasion (as Latham touched upon a little bit) for Howard to make mistakes, permitting the losing of election scenario. Hence, I believe a strong visionary standpoint: solid alternative ground the electorate likes and respects, from which to unsettle and attack the incumbent (rather than mere blustery criticism), is vital in governments losing elections. Rudd is showing serious signs of being capable of this.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 4:37 pm | PermalinkJacques, Kim Beazley has loomed large (forget it Homer) throughout much of my adult life and I’ve got absolutely no idea what he believes about anything much. He’s an affable, avuncular bloke with a good mind, a passion for military history and probably inclined towards a lazy read on the verandah if fate and family history hadn’t delivered him to where he is now.
Rudd is an irritating, bloodless technocrat with more than a little of the martinet in his makeup, but he’s also formidably focused and relentlessly ambitious. Ideally, you want a fusion of the two but that’s obviously not what’s on offer. In terms of their relative ability to create a new social democratic vision for Australia - no contest.
Kim booms out his platitudinous mush (now with new, improved confected outrage) but you know he’d rather be relaxing with a few drinks, gourmet snacks and the new John Keegan.
When he roared about his determination to “rip up Workchoices” to the half-empty
MCG, I found myself wondering what he actually thought that a decent IR policy for Australia in 2006 would look like. I doubt that we’ll ever know.
I also think that Julia Gillard would make an infinitely better deputy leader than Jenny Macklin whose sole achievement has been to survive all the leaders for who she has deputised - by deserting them at the moment critique.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 4:54 pm | PermalinkFrom what I’ve seen of Rudd trying to be funny, it just comes across as Rudd trying to be funny.
Behind the Ruddster’s serious-minded public persona, he has a wicked (and, not uncommonly, very earthy) sense of humour. A side-effect of his gifted ear (being multi-lingual and musical - what a contrast with our deaf PM!) is that he’s also a riotous mimic.
Go the Ruddster …
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 5:00 pm | PermalinkPeople are missing the whole problem with Labor. We know what the Labor Party is against, but what do they actually stand for? At least Whitlam, Hawke and Keating all stood for something. The funny thing is that both Rudd and Gillard have your standard cookie-cutter Labor background. Whitlam inspired them, they worked for State politicians and they did some token private sector experience while they worked on their pre-selections! Is this really the best the Labor Party can do in 2007?
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 5:34 pm | PermalinkPersonally I think that I’d prefer a reluctant Prime Minister. I’d prefer leaders who were moved by a sense of duty and not by a sense of entitlement, glory or manifest personal destiny.
I’d prefer a Cincinnatus to a Cicero.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 5:43 pm | Permalink“what a contrast with our deaf PM”
I see the far left is prepared to abandon political correctness if the subject is hated enough by them! I think the correct term is audiologically challenged Chris.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 8:02 pm | Permalink“,,, they worked for State politicians and they did some token private sector experience while they worked on their pre-selections!,,,”
Rudd had 3 years with KPMG as well as diplomatic corps experience (2nd secretary). Gillard had a similar length of time with Slater Gordon, fairly big time practice in the legal fraternity - got to partner status, I think.
A bit more than token experience, Matt Marks.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 8:41 pm | PermalinkThe issue of experience could prove the key area of downfall, ultimately. My point above in relation to it is a way long shot. Given the Libs ability to purvey fear, ‘experience’ could be seen as Labor’s once again “blinded to reality” moment upon a Liberal win. It will take a powerful agenda to over-ride what will no doubt be negative impression.
The real positive which lays with a Rudd leadership is that he can rip into Howard big time. Latham had to go tame (lame) because of his bad boy history. Rudd really tearing into Howard could in fact enhance Rudd’s reputation.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 8:58 pm | PermalinkThis is what i said on Andrew Leigh’s blog:
‘Andrew, searching for Federal ALP problems in quantitative polls or even betting markets will still only produce numbers and probability - which is great - but it is qualitative research that can provide a sense of direction. I’d also suggest that the two-term strategy makes sense - but they need to start concentrating on getting their ‘credibility’ factor up and not just seeking to push up the TPP vote in the short term. Credibility can only be gained in my view by putting out policy (with a bit of vision) - and putting hard decisions on the table.
Beazley has always relied to much on keeping a government accountable but never really sets his own direction: I recall you wrote something called ‘Oppositions need propositions’.
To be fair - I’ve not lived in Australia since Rudd was put on the front bench - so I don’t know him very well. But I think he seems quite interested in policy - certainly more so than most. He seems sane as well. In many ways he is way better than Latham (even if he he is touch dull - the paradox hey).’
If you think Labor can only win in two-terms as opposed to one - then it will be very hard to conceive of Beazley running in 2010 as well. Given Rudd will take over after 07 - why not now.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 9:13 pm | PermalinkHaving vacillated for a couple of days, I think I agree with Geoff Honnor’s assessment. But not without trepidation. You know how they say that the key to acting is sincerity; if you can fake that you’ve got it made. With politics the essential characteristic you have to learn how to fake is humility. or perhaps a better way to put it is, as Bryan Palmer suggests, you must have the common touch. Bob Hawke was hardly humble and didn’t pretend to be, but he had both the common touch and charisma. Howard hasn’t got any charisma, but he’s got the unassuming suburban accountant/unthreatening uncle (”you may not agree with him but you know where he stands”) schtick.
Even Costello has almost eliminated the smirk from his public appearances, so I’m hoping Rudd can dampen down the smug, know-all school prefect demeanour. It shouldn’t be impossible for a bloke of his obvious intelligence and discipline. If he can’t, then Labor is stuffed. But then they’re stuffed with Beazley anyway, so it’s worth a try. He’s not going to implode like Latham, the worst that will happen is that people conclude that he’s a smarmy little prig that they won’t vote for in a million years.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 9:21 pm | Permalink“I’d prefer a Cincinnatus to a Cicero.”
Beazley is neither. He’s more like a Falstaffian version of the Prince of Wales. Born to rule, probably happier doing something else but too fearful to let go of it lest he appear to be the self-indulgent quitter that he pretty much is, by inclination.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 9:27 pm | PermalinkSupposing it’s true that voters see Rudd as bookish, cold, aloof, superior and all that, this is not necessarily a problem. Bob Carr had those charasteristics. He didn’t seem especially electable at first, but won three elections, established a huge majority, and made himself unassaiable as leader. I think Rudd will do better than Beazley because he appears more diligent, organised, energetic and well informed.
My only worry is that Labor as a whole looks chaotic, replacing or nearly replacing the leader before two consecutive elections. It would have been so much better if they’d brought on Rudd as soon as Latham broke his stumps.
Posted on 02-Dec-06 at 10:07 pm | PermalinkReally, while this may appear as stating the bleeding obvious, at the heart of this is the fact that Labor no longer knows what it stands for. It has no heart, no centre, no connectivity to source. While Rudd and Tanner have stood out as presenters of a new path, Beazley has, it has to be said, been a known known. And while he has also presided over this period of shattered loss of way, it’s not his fault entirely.
Realistically, this points to a two term rebuild under new leadership. (Sadly).
The thing which will change that would be if voters are really jack of the current government. Counteracting that will be Liberal’s fear campaign and the simple fact they can go to the bottom of the barrel yet again during campaign intensity when Labor cannot. That’s the time the disconnected take note of it all, raising interest from a mild pitswell of disgust for the lot of them. Given also the power of perception, the Lib’s can point to a shitload of ‘positives’ which will be placed verbatim in the media.
The Beazley people have every right to wish for the continuance of the status quo, as the known known is the only antidote for a hate campaign. These hopes must surely have been dashed already by the erosion of what would be a narrow win. Should Beazley win, the intensity of the campaign may over-ride the current sentiment of loss of authority. But even then there is the provident issue in the public mind that Labor doesn’t know what it stands for and is not worthy of a vote.
For those of us seeking change, we find in the prospect of it reason for excitement and hope, and, importantly, great opportunity - avenues all of political nourishment. We are seeking that nourishment. But the punters out there are not. They do their voting thing as a simple result of much flurry. We live in the flurry, they don’t. What is that simple thing, and who can safely claim it now?
Fuck it.
This would be bearable except for the massive changes which, as Labor has rightly said, can be best checked (as in, at least, run a check over) before they are allowed to be set rampant. Even Liberal supporters must acknowledge the massive changes the Howard Government has undertaken have been hastily built and poorly debated - shove it together, ram it through, guillotine and go. This needs a check somewhere, and Labor is right to say so, as the Liberals themselves are without balance, lost in their own lust.
There is cause for hope, however, with either Rudd or Beazley. But it will depend entirely (but for the unforseen extremes: terrorist attacks etc) on the voters having had a gutful of the current government.
The question remains unanswered: why did not Labor seek to establish its heart so long ago. A visionary, commanding leader might have pulled it off. But it’s so complicated, for times they have changed enormously and swiftly. Some, for instance, say the future for Labor is in new technology, in the continuance of the individual’s thrusting celebration of its new self: more! Some, in complete contrast, say it’s a return to the glue which holds us all together.
But the fact is those things are not in conflict necessarily. The fact is Labor has been a puddle of voices musing one way or t’other using these uncertainties as excuses to make it all factional and personal. That’s travesty is equal to and reflected by the Liberal’s rampant abuse and radicalism.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:37 am | PermalinkTrackback.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 10:02 am | PermalinkGeoff,
How about paying attention to what Beazley says and does rather than repeating Dennis Shanahans nonsensical talking points?
Beazley has been more consistent than Howard in his policy positions over the last 10 years. Against AWAs, for unions/collective bargaining (apart from a brief Smith-inspired aberration last year). For a more progressive tax system. Resistant to hardline welfare reform. Mildly protectionist on trade. Some vacillation, but broadly for action on climate change. A consistent supporter of Medicare. These have been the near unvarying positions of Beazley, on the big issues. Those who take an interest in his ministerial career know hes a moderate reformer, who believes in cautious gradualism rather than radical change.
Attack Beazley for the things he believes in, his temperament, his waffle - whatever, if you want to, but if you really don’t know what he believes in at this point, the fault is yours.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 11:02 am | Permalink“Those who take an interest in his ministerial career know hes a moderate reformer, who believes in cautious gradualism rather than radical change”
Which reforms is he moderately in favour of Leopold?
Being “for unions and collective bargaining” isn’t an IR policy, it’s a debating point. Is he totally opposed to individual contracts? If not, under what circumstances would he see them being applicable? Does he support gay marriage? What about civil unions? What would he do for Medicare? What does he think that a progressive tax system looks like?
The only point I’ve heard him make about climate change is that he believes in it and is opposed to nuclear power stations.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 4:46 pm | Permalinkactually Geoff EBAs were and are an IR policy.
Market based with productivity benefits. Imagine that.
There appears plenty of policies in a generalised form in the website.
If you want specifics before an election campaign then you haven’t been around.
Nielsen have ALP 56% tomorrow in 2PP.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 5:45 pm | PermalinkDamned good reason to get rid of the leader. Should be 60%!!
Homer, you - and Leopold - miss the point entirely. I couldn’t give a stuff about “specifics before an election campaign” or whether EBA’s are a Labor policy. I’m interested in what Beazley thinks. You don’t know any more than I do. That’s the problem.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 6:22 pm | Permalinkthen my dear Geoff go read his speeches.
That should tell you.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:02 pm | PermalinkBeazley has had the long! opportunity to establish in the public mind all manner of policy. He’s had the opportunity to draw to public attention the fullness and intensity of what Howard’s government has done. He’s done neither. On the later opportunity, the little that’s been drawn to public attention has been achieved through initiative either within the media or within the Liberal Party itself.
No one is saying Beazley hasn’t put out some policy. But who really knows what that policy is? And the times when Beazley did put out policy that made it to the public mind (obtained weakly), he did so mostly after extensive criticism that he’d not done so.
It is that loss of opportunity which really hurts. He has not taken the initiative that his long near-decade of opportunity provided him.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:05 pm | PermalinkRobert if he has done neither how come the ALP have been leading handsomely in the polls all this year?
You are talking through your hat.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:09 pm | PermalinkName the policies which the public are endeared to?
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:11 pm | PermalinkShow me the polls that are bad for the ALP.
One never knows for sure which policies connect sometimes focus groups convince pollies but even those are suspect.
If the ALP have been leading in the polls and would win given the margin of error in most polls Beazley must be doing something right.
Only a halfwit would say they could be doing better.
What do people want 60% 2PP
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:18 pm | PermalinkName the pool of policies from which you think the public would draw their choice of endearment from?
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:20 pm | Permalinkthe greatest policy Robert as at any other time is that the public is sick of Howard and the rest and Beazley is a safe pair of hands.
My guess is that the last time I heard about focus group research IR had bitten and Iraq merely made the anti-Howard vote firmer.
Environment isn’t good for the government either
I might add again it is a complete myth that changing leaders means they can’t win the election.
I am merely amazed at some much rubbish been spouted about a ‘bad’ poll which showed the ALP primary vote falling 4% yet no explanation was around for it.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:26 pm | PermalinkI appreciate your sentiments, BBCB. But people have to know what they’re voting for - a “safe pair of hands” and “sick of Howard” does not give them enough information. That’s the reason why Beazley is in real trouble within the Labor Party, finally, tonight.
Yes, he has a lot going for him. But the public need more than mere sentiment when making decisions about their life.
Let’s put Rudd to the test if he gets in, which is likely. Let’s see if he slams policy on the public table and let’s see if the public takes notice. Let’s see if we can talk about alternative policy in the ’sphere, finally.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:31 pm | PermalinkGimme a break.
What policies did Howard have when he won in a landslide in 96?
Very little but we didn’t care because he wasn’t Keating and the Government was tired and listless.
It is similar now. It is a myth that an Opposition needs a wonderful set of policies to win Government.
In the main you need a tired Government. We have got one.
You need an energetic Opposition to pounce on government mistakes and illuminate them.
They only half do that properly.
Given all that the polls say the ALP has been doing very well yet for some unknown reason they are either ignored or not understood
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:38 pm | PermalinkFair enough - almost. Howard in fact released policy after policy before getting in, but he did so (as an initiative not done before, which infuriated the journos) within an hour or two of news deadlines. Each policy trumped the next, in terms of getting a public run, so that the previous policy was not properly assessed.
I understand what you’re saying though. Should Rudd do the same, he’s a chance in the circumstances.
By the way, have you seen this?
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:43 pm | Permalinkgo back to Iron Mark,
People got to know him like him but got confused on the policies despite them being clearly enunciated.
I find it incredible most people thought the ALP were spending more money than the Libs when they clearly had a much stricter fiscal policy.
On Howard those policies did not come out until the election.
People forget those landmark speeches were howled down at the time, rightly, as waffle.
I will go on the record that the people want a change of Government but won’t vote for incompetence.
Beazley they trust and in Rudd they will like the energy and intelligence.
After the election the party will be ‘unified’ for the public until after the election.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 7:53 pm | PermalinkIf they win ,no worries, if they lose o oh!
Yes, Howard gave headland speeches, and the policies were released during campaign time, and did not bear scrutiny. Along with the ‘policies’ Howard and his team released a cover note, and it was the ‘info’ in this which was played on air and in the press, verbatim, as they have to do, being “news” - and all they had time for. It was the beginning of Howard’s subterfuge and political nouse. I recall it because the public swallowed the lines and it was shonky and crook - but all they wanted was a reason to change. Howard gave them the right reasons.
Please consider a moment however that while everything you say is true, the public were given (albeit horrifically) clear alternatives as to what they would get with Howard in power.
At least, what they were led to believe and what they thought they’d get.
What did you think of those figures as read by Hartcher?
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 8:00 pm | Permalink“then my dear Geoff go read his speeches.
That should tell you.”
I haven’t got any appetite whatsoever for swimming through a vast ocean of platitudinous mush in the remote hope of finding a pearl of wisdom, Homer.
Neither has the Australian electorate.
He’s a lovely bloke and everything but he needs to do be doing something he really enjoys.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 8:34 pm | PermalinkSimians choosing simians, a recipie for disastermuss.
Here’s your simple options.
*blinks*
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 8:51 pm | PermalinkThe irony is that he’d really enjoy being PM.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 10:02 pm | PermalinkI am not convinced ‘it is Leadership stupid’ it is a question of ’substance stupid’. The ALP has little stomach for debate and that is unlikely to change with either. The ALP malaise is probably even greater than the Libs in the 80’s, as the Libs in the 80’s were actually fighting over direction, even if that was also based in a personality clash of Howard v. Peacock.
I am not sure there is much difference between Rudd and Beazley, but say in another context there was a heck of a lot of difference between Blair and Kinnock say.
As I said before, the direction needs to be longer term, and may not be immediately popular - but should be only directed at generating ‘credibility’. The ALP needs to have 70% of people thinking they arer credible and will take hard decisions.
Why not start the debate on offset co-payments for non-essential Medicare: it fits the bill perfectly. the savings could be plowed back into services or alternatively given back as tax credits to the low and mid incomes or pushing out the 30% rate.
Follow it up by promoting school choice for all families as a goal.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 10:18 pm | PermalinkCorin, good stuff and let’s see how Rudd-Labor would deal with Medicare.
Ruminating, of course. But on your overall point, there’s something about Rudd from his recent forays talking up Labor’s opportunities which speaks of a real sense of vision. And there’s something about him observably which speaks of a follow-up log of policy ideas which, observably, similar to Howard he’s careful in covering up, lest he not take each step publicly and Partily incorrect.
On that score, there’s reason to keep an eye out for Rudd expounding on where he believes Labor’s fortunes lay, given he’s broached that already, which if elected and given the short time frame would come soon. This would represent an early stage in the presentation of such a vision. Again, we’ve learned lessons from Howard, Crean, Beazley and Latham, and Rudd if elected would be high-tuned to stepping carefully given his ambition and discipline. Whether he’d remain mistake-free is another thing.
Health would necessarily be a part of all of that.
The ALP malaise is probably even greater than the Libs in the 80’s, as the Libs in the 80’s were actually fighting over direction, even if that was also based in a personality clash of Howard v. Peacock
Within that, too, might be reason to keep an eye on a Labor Rudd. Howard came through that to instill a major agenda, and there’s no telling yet whether Rudd is any less keen or capable. Gee, having said that though don’t we come to Howard’s divisive methods and low go’s - has he lowered the standard for following PM’s or will others leverage off that for political gain by raising theirs? That’s where Rudd is going to have to be good. (And in one term to get elected PM!). But he’s given other indications he’s as least as capable as the earlyish Howard (though publicly deried as dorky, was reputedly quite ruthless then).
That is to say Rudd has already outlined in brief his direction for Labor. The similarities with Howard are interesting. What has changed in this comparison is how quickly the world has changed. What is uncertain is whether those changes mean that the more things change the more they remain the same, which would require a return to a more collective/social/compassionate (remember that, in/from Labor?) need, or whether Labor has to adapt itself to those changes and “move with the times”.
Bloody awful dilemma, as you remark - but Rudd reckoned he’s got the call on it so let’s see.
Hesitantly, there is some reason for optimism with Rudd in this regard.
Posted on 03-Dec-06 at 10:53 pm | PermalinkRobert,
your memory is incorrect.
His landmark speeches were well before the election based on certain themes.
They were so memorable I forget completely what the theme was he was talking about when I went and heard him.
As far as medicare is concerned it should only cover those who cannot afford medical insurance. It should never apply to those who can afford it.
Geoff,
Posted on 04-Dec-06 at 7:14 am | PermalinkI cannot believe a person of your intellect is saying in effect I am to lazy to find out and I want to complain about it at the same time.
BBCL. The “headland” speeches were possibly even before he was Opposition Leader, and dismissed as mere motherhood statements saying nothing; certainly they were well before the campaign. My wording above is perhaps misleading. And one of those policies Howard submitted to the Australian people seeking election for the Prime Ministership was about making ministers in his government more accountable and setting higher ministerial standards.
Why people could not see even then the bloke was a shonk is disappointing, though they hated Keating blindingly, and Howard portrayed himself then as the man with the very simple answers, to take things slow and steady, not rock the boat, time to catch their breath that sort of thing after the hurling PM Keating left the electorate behind. Behind that false mask was an extreme radical. Rudd is a bit disconcerting in that regard as well.
Posted on 04-Dec-06 at 7:30 am | PermalinkNo the headland speeches were made after he was Opposition leader.
They were motherhood speeches although to be generous it is hard for Oppositions to make other than motherhood speeches.
His election policies were put together very quickly and were very hard to analyse and exposte were never policies anyway.
Two last things if a poll has the ALP at 56% then it can hardly be said the ALP cannot cut through.
I am concerned that he has a medical condition that is hindering him.
He makes too many errors to say it ain’t so.
Have a look at both the 98 and 01 election campaigns and he was very disciplined and did not make silly errors.
Posted on 04-Dec-06 at 8:26 am | PermalinkAnthony Byrne, Caucus returning officer, via News Radio:
Rudd 49 d Beazley 39
Gillard only nomination for Deputy.
Frontbench spill on Thursday, current frontbench to remain till then. Unsure what happens to Beazley between now and then - does he get to keep frontbench status? We’ll know by Question Time at the latest.
Senate:
Evans unopposed for leader
Posted on 04-Dec-06 at 9:59 am | PermalinkConroy unopposed for deputy leader
Here is Kevin Rudd’s article in The Monthly, October 2006. On a super quick skim for now, and with risk of being misleading, about two thirds of the way down might interest some if pressed for more time.
Posted on 05-Dec-06 at 3:14 pm | PermalinkHere is the second of Rudd’s articles, November 2006, pointing to his ideas for where to move Labor, and a bit of a critique on his opponent. Dialogue on this has probably already happened on the net, but for the sake of the thread, it is included.
Posted on 08-Dec-06 at 3:06 pm | Permalink