Howardanoia
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Wednesday, March 7, 2007
The federal police’s ‘printgate’ raids on the offices of three federal Liberal backbenchers in Queensland has been widely reported as having turned John Howard’s attack on Kevin Rudd on its head. It is, I unhappily admit, most likely a measure of what 11 years of the Howard government has done to my head, but I cannot help but smell a rodent.
|
Is it possible that the truth is the reverse? Did Howard launch the phoney attack on Rudd’s integrity last Thursday to blunt the expected fall-out from the Queensland rorts scandal? Howard says he was officially advised of the Queensland raids by his former justice minister last Friday. But he has also admitted that the prime minister’s office was told about the raids on Thursday “night”. I would like to see the forensics and more on this, since the latter places the parliamentary attack on Rudd only a breath before the PM’s office was self-admittedly told of the prospective raids.
While ALP supporters have been busily backslapping themselves over the Newspoll results, have we, in other words, just seen the PM pull off another dark piece of political genius? The stakes are high. The ALP needs 16 seats for government and Queensland has the richest pickings, with only 8 of that state’s 29 seats currently held by the opposition. Could Howard’s aim have been to hedge the prospective corruption allegations from ‘printgate’ with the Burke allegations against Rudd, simultaneously hedging the political damage in Queensland by bolstering his support in Western Australia? Nah, the prime minister would never do that.
Update: The fallout from the story that was invented to cover the fallout from the other story continues to fallout; as the other story, the real story, appears to be ‘operation saving the Bowen byelection’.
Update: Wayne Swan is now on the PM’s tail about what he knew when and what he did about it, as Peter Beattie refers the matter to the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission and the Electoral Commission.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 7th, 2007 at 12:18 PM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Apologies. Comments and trackbacks are both currently closed.
But if that were the case, Chris, surely he’s effed up even more, because public opinion seems to have fallen even harder against Howard as a result of the Burke Shenanigans, not too mention the tosh about Campbell’s replacement’s arguably dodgier ties?
I don’t buy into this “Howard=genius” stuff. I think he is a solid – no, a good – campaigner, but a master politician? Nah. He was garbage the first time round, both in government, and in opposition. I don’t believe he was either born, or has come to greatness, so much as had it thrust ‘pon him by media looking for a catchy narrative. After all, saying, “the economy was bad when he got in, and good when he stayed in”, isn’t quite so exciting.
And, fingers crossed, if he’s voted out whilst the economy is still good, that doesn’t betoken genius, really, does it? And you know, it didn’t take a genius to see Iraq would be a mistake…
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 12:28 pm | PermalinkPerhaps patrickg, although arguably the Rudd attack mainly came unstuck because of the Campbell backfire, the mystery about which is that no-one checked with the WA LNP members prior to the assault – a remarkably unprofessional thing to do, which can only be explained by uncharacteristic Howardian ineptness or exceptional haste (I cannot help noticing that the PM was reportedly initially told that the raids would occur on Friday).
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 1:06 pm | PermalinkIt’s obvious that Howard was sitting on the Rudd-Burke grenade, waiting for the opportune moment to pull the pin. But if the timing had to do with Printgate, wouldn’t it have been better to do it the other way around – that is, allowed Rudd to get on a high horse about the Queenslanders, and then knock him down to the ground with revelations about his own corrupt connections?
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 1:31 pm | PermalinkI doubt it James, on the basis that the Queensland raids are real and the Rudd allegations hot air. A following appeal to hot air would, I think, have looked like desperation; yet it worked a treat as an advance fog.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 1:58 pm | PermalinkI think the very fact that the Queensland raids are real as compared to the fiasco of the Burke/Rudd supp-gate, will ensure that it gets strung along through bureacractic red tape, for quite some time to come. I agree James, Howard has been sitting on this attempt at a personal smear campaign. A wiser, shrewder polly would’ve waited a little longer. All sorts of people in the coalition are going to be in panic mode, shredding wildly, all sorts of stuff is bound to emerge, as the opportunists among them start destroying ten years of rorting the system! We don’t however have a wise nor necessarly shrewd polly at present, what we have is panicked rat. Anything’s possible, but I’d say if it was a deflection it blew up badly in his face.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 2:25 pm | PermalinkAnother typical hysterical conspiracy theory from Sheil. becoming par for the course. Ho hum.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 2:25 pm | PermalinkI’m glad I’m not the only one who smelled a rat.
I reckon The Rodent is cunning, ruthless and uncaring about who he sacrifices but he’s no political wizard.
He knew that the printing rort raids were about to happen 3 days hence. He knew in the abscence of any Tampa or drought breaking floods in Sydney it would be headlines with the bad smell of Lib pollies tickling peter.
He has a nice little shit file on Rudd. He knows he can out perform the Rudd-ard team on his feet in question time but that Rudd and team will outperform him with the media.
Throw the switch to chaos in the circus and see what happens. Can’t be worse than waiting to see Ruddy on tv looking angelic and condemning Libs with hand in Petty Cash Tin. Take a chance. Run the highwire walker, doing sword swallowing and fire juggling and in the lions cage, with no safety net. Sure there might be a fatal fall, possibly not, a broken leg or two will be worth the roar of the (media) crowd, and a diversion from the unfit trapeze team, tatty looking tinsel, broken fairy lights, grubby caravans and leaking tent.
Tomorrow is another day, another town, another show.
Political genius my arse.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 2:38 pm | PermalinkPlease address the issue not the author, Whysitso, or you will be deleted without further warning.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 2:58 pm | PermalinkAll my experience such as it has been – including in political offices just confirms the ‘always suspect a stuff up’ standard of political interpretation. It used to amuse me when people would attribute the cleverest of motives to something which looked pretty obviously like a stuff up – not just from the outside.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 3:23 pm | PermalinkThe assumption here for any supposition to work is that Howard knew about the raids before Thursday Question Time.
It’s definitely Howard’s absolute need to reclaim – or head off – a bad media cycle.
The attack on Rudd would definitely still be lingering without the likely unforseen Campbell involvement, and this would have (in the mind of Howard in the posed supposition at the time) stacked enough bad up against Rudd to take away the sole focus of the known upcoming bad against Howard. That part is feasible.
Costello knew about Rudd’s involvement with Burke in November, and they kept it in their back pockets until just now. Why?
It stinks of Howard, because Howard plays this way. The question of whether Howard was told before QT or after is the key.
Did it happen that way this time? Gee, Chris. Dunno. It’s a very fair supposition.
Let’s remember Howard was facing a swathe of problems and would have benefited anyway by playing the Burke card at that time. There was enough bad in the media cycle against him to have seen it played per historical style.
The other point is that Howard could not have been seen to play the Burke card after public knowledge of the raids as a catch up, or he’d have suffered more opprobrium than he did for the politics of it.
So did Howard get knowledge of the raids before QT?
Was Howard going to play the Burke card anyway?
If he was, was it luck that he played it hours before being informed of the raid? (Things can happen that way.)
That element of luck can’t be discounted outright. Nor can the possibility that Howard was told prior to QT.
Overall, I think we’ll get more of these sorts of things happening. Howard and Rudd will each undergo intense passages: this one last week was Howard’s due to a bad couple of months of media weight (starting with Rudd’s arrival being seen as the right move by the ALP, leading to Rudd’s honeymoon, leading to horrific polling for the Libs to feel, Cheney, climate change weight was in there, etc). There’s enough in that to fairly expect Howard to play the Burke card anyway.
At this stage I’d propose to leave the questions open. But it’s a fair question to ask.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 3:23 pm | PermalinkOh – and I’ll second the demurrer on political genius. Howard’s been lucky as all successful politicians have to be, he’s been very persevering, tough, determined, ruthless. He’s also had a cultural strategy which worked like a dog for most of his political life – but which upon managing to hang on to the Prime Ministership for a while has proven to be a very powerful weapon for the times. He’s got good technique – like Geoff Boycott at the crease. But he’s no genius and the idea that he is is one of those media bubbles of opinion that this country (and perhaps other s who knows?) is regularly cursed with.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 3:27 pm | Permalinkfor petes sake CS let whyisitso write what he wants. Don’t be a prat!
Howard is a POOR campaigner. in the 5 election campaigns he has beed Liberal leader in only one has her actually gained a swing during the campaign, in 2004, and that could be put down to a Borbidge effect.
I doubt your theory CS. I smelled a lot of nervousness and I am sure he didn’t want Cozzie going over the top which in the end killed it.
We ebded up that ANYONE meant only Rudd which was seen as absurd. As was the allegation that two of Bomber’s close friends were plotting against in 2005 when there was NO leadership contest real or imagined
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 3:37 pm | PermalinkThe warning stands Homer. Folks are warmly invited to express any views on the issue that they might wish, but I’m not blogging for the benefit of cs-haters who wish to get personal (or opponents who aim to vex the thread with a flood of repetitive comments, for that matter). That’s a final warning. Civility is a bottom-line. End of story. Take it or leave it.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 3:44 pm | PermalinkThe only part of Howard that can be described as in the “genius” category is his ability to talk to the people (through the media or talk back) in simple, pithy sentences, using their own vernacular, and do it with a great air of sincerity. He impresses me enormously when he is in good form (as he is on most occasions).
Howard has many other qualities of course – such as high intelligence (he grasps helpful arguments quickly and is able to use them to good effect), he has the capacity to work long hours and he is a media junkie. Rudd matches him on all of the last three qualities but does not have the same ability to communicate as Howard.
On the other hand, I believe (despite all the Burke revelations and provided there are no more awkawrd ones) that Rudd is a less devious, more transparent person. Howard appears shifty (“too clever” by half in responding to difficult questions). I could be wrong. We shall see.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 3:53 pm | PermalinkHow’s this, found on LP, rate in Howardanoia stakes?
“Howard
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 4:08 pm | PermalinkChris, you seem to be implying that Howard knew that there were going to be raids on the Liberal pollies and so he released his attack dogs on Rudd on Thursday afternoon, despite only being told on Thursday night. I know he is a clever politician but this implies he can forsee the future. Or are you saying he was told the raids were going to happen well before Thursday night and launched a pre-emptive attack on Rudd. In which case who tipped him off in advance?
How about an alternative, equally conspiratorial interpretation of events? Rudd and Queensland Govt/Labor have always anticpated that at some stage the Federal Liberals might be able to sling some mud at Rudd and so have kept these raids in their back pocket for just such an occasion. This would make Rudd the brilliant tactician.
Personally, I think Nicholas’ interpretation at #9 is the safest interpretation.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 4:22 pm | PermalinkMark, I don’t know whether Howard knew of the raids prior to the Burke-smear as a matter of fact. I am only suspicious because the self-admitted timing is so close – attack in the mid-afternoon, admitted advice of the raids that “night”. Given that the prime minister’s track record in the truth department is not exactly pristine, if I was an investigative jounalist I would be seeking proof of the timing of the advice to Howard. Your alternative conspiracy falls over, since the raids were conducted by the federal – not state – police.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 4:28 pm | Permalink“Your alternative conspiracy falls over, since the raids were conducted by the federal – not state – police”
Utter rubbish! The feds have to investigate on the basis of “information” received. “Information” planted by “I wonder who”.
All conspiracy theories are equal but some are more equal then others. I’ll back mine and we’ll see who’s right a bit down the track.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 4:59 pm | Permalinkcs – like you anyone who has worked the top level gov mean streets knows there is advice and “advice”. There is advice about advice. There is advice about advice that is about to be advised. There are rumours from impeccable sources about advice.
A nods as good as a wink to a blind horse.*
*Some might not remember that Rod Stewart used to be good.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 4:59 pm | PermalinkOn some of the forensics: the link says Howard’s “office” was told on thursday night. Which office, where? Does that exclude an individual not in the office from being told earlier? Nor does it say the AFP told Howard’s office that night, only that his office was told. Of course we should not mentioning plausible deniability here. Or more validly strange: it must have been a very late call from the AFP to Howard’s office for Howard’s office not to call Howard himself and let him know three of his MPs are about to be police raided. Do we go hmmm? Nope, instead, the Prime Minister was told the next day.
Is the AFP in the business of confirming or refuting statements found in the press as made by politicians? How much leeway does the PM’s office have when it comes to making public statements about prior AFP advice?
And what is the protocol for politicians being advised about an upcoming raid? A phone call? Formal notification? To where and, exactly, to whom?
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 5:04 pm | PermalinkChris, my alternative was a half-baked suggestion trying to show that you can come up with any explanation if you try hard enough but they will usually have some holes in them. My point is that neither your or my explanation is particularly plausible and it is easier to assume that the timing of all these events is purely coincidental, rather than coming up with complicated conspiracy theories.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 7:11 pm | PermalinkMark, it’s patently obvious that Howard and Costello have had the Brian Burke card up their sleeve for some time, and decided that last week was the right time to play it. Whether orchestrating a scandal merits the term conspiracy is something you can worry about.
The real is question is why they chose that particular moment. Chris’s theory is plausible, but that’s as much as can be said of it.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 7:50 pm | PermalinkWell call me Howardanoid because that thought crossed my mind – the investigation had been underway for six months and he may have known that, just not known the outcome e.g. that there would be a raid.
Would love to have known the contents of the “long” discussion with Campbell.
Then again that could be my cynicism.
On the other hand, if I maintain my view that federal politics is just office politics on a national stage, I have come across more than one office politician who likes to keep a bit of powder dry.
And more than one deft opportunist (and I would put Howard in that category)
I guess that means I agree with Fred A. with the caveat that I don’t buy the Howard spiel most of the time, but I can see how many would.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 8:10 pm | PermalinkPerhaps this theory is close to the mark. If you read “The Greatest Story Ever Sold” and believe that Howard and Bush are working from the same playbook then there is likely to be something in this. According to Frank Rich, one *key* reason why the US invaded Iraq was to boost Bush and the GOP – a purely domestic short term political agenda engineered by Rove! Now we know that JWH is capable of engineering fiction in the lead up to an election – my guess is that something is up and it may well be this. How else to explain the completely over the top reactions from the Libs and the Murdoch press – and sadly some of the rest of the mainstream media. They know something that the rest of us don’t yet know. BTW – has anyone asked any serious questions about why Cheney was here a week and a half ago? – this may give you a clue.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 9:17 pm | PermalinkI am unhappy with the term ‘rodent’ being applied to Howard. Isn’t this one way the Nazis described Jews? It makes anything Howard does or says seem subhuman and feral. That’s an imaginative though inaccurate picture of this man that you so clearly dislike. Equally clearly the term is designed to distort people’s picture of him with a distortion.
The post itself is a set of questions and a conjecture without a shred of evidence that nevertheless points to a very clear viewpoint. The main conjecture: ‘you smell a rodent’? Evidence? And again, what a way of referring to a person.
Whatever you think of him, John Howard himself would never refer to his worst political enemy in this way.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 9:25 pm | Permalink[...] Skepticlawyer is attracting a stream of comments following her post on International Law. Chris at Troppo suggests the Burke bucket was dropped on Rudd to divert attention from the alleged misuse of money [...]
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 9:55 pm | PermalinkI’m sorry you are unhappy Harry. Pehaps you could take your complaint up with senator Brandis, former opposition leader Andrew Peacock and former premier Jeff Kennett, colleagues who were all very fond of the PM’s nickname.
I know what you’re saying FXH, which means that the issue will probably never be able to be nailed, as discrete whispers don’t leave records. Still, a decent journalist could seek to pin the PM on who provided the actual advice to who when, precisely, and then double check with the sources. It could also be a useful ask in Question Time.
On the forensics Robert, yes, the “office” reference is another (safe) barrier away, which is useful in case of the need for deniability. Is it not also a tad odd that the PM specified Thursday “night”? By comparison, he didn’t, as far as I can see, specify the part of the day that the official ministerial advice came through on Friday. Why was he being so precise as the specify “night” and so vague as to only say “office” on Thursday, neither of which then mattered on remembering his formal receipt on Friday, when it was all being recalled yesterday?
More generally, I wouldn’t make a positive assertion of conspiracy, or orchestrated scandal if you prefer, on an issue such as this, as it would obviously be foolish to do so in the absence of the facts. I’m merely suggesting that, given the PM’s past record and the way in which the story worked out in effect, the facts may be worth following up. To those who deny the PM’s (dark) political genius, I say underestimate him at your peril, as so many have before you.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 10:58 pm | Permalinkharry – The Rodent was/is insider Lib party very common name for JWH. Jeff Kennett and Andrew Peacock had a slightly more colourful and robust set of names for him. I still have an original cassette tape of the conversation. Cassette tape, thats how old it is.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 11:15 pm | PermalinkOn the matter central to the questions raised: whether Howard knew about upcoming federal police raids on his MP’s prior to the QT Burke attack, we only have vague media reports – can anyone point to a link with clear edification on this? (serious question).
Given the vagueness of reports so far as known, via the media, as to who was notified and when, it is certainly tenable that knowledge of those upcoming raids was held by one or more persons prior to that Burke attack. That is, on the thursday morning.
It is unproven otherwise.
There is nothing to say conclusively otherwise, for instance, that Tony Nutt for example, wasn’t notified in some way on Thursday morning that raids were to take place. Nor is it unproven that Costello could have been given the nod to throw the Burke card on the table during Question Time shortly after, on account of that direction, including that the nature of that advice wasn’t mentioned to Costello: only that now is the time.
All the while, Howard may have known only that the Burke attack on Rudd was importantly now (thursday) to be done. “Now is the time,” Nutt tells him, for example. Enough said – per the internal script for things such as these plausibly deniable political plays.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 11:58 pm | PermalinkMy comment on the term ‘rodent’ stands. I couldn’t care less who uses it – Jeff Kennett or whoever. Its an inaccurate description of Howard and an unnecessarily offensive way of referring to anyone.
Yes you dislike him, so what? It doesn’t contribute to any discussion to describe Howard as a ‘rodent’ and to refer to his alleged role in a political situation as his ’smell’.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 12:18 am | PermalinkYou miss the point, I fear Harry. The conventional phrase in context would be “smell a rat”, regardless of whether the rat in question happened to be Howard. This is accepted usage, see Oxford, for “I suspect that something funny is up” or ” I suspect someone might not be playing straight”.
To the extent that you miss the functional and take a literal offence, you would be even more offended if I used the perfectly acceptable “smell a rat”. When you really think about it, I have promoted the PM from a perfectly acceptable rat to a rodent (is a ‘rodent’ above a ‘rat’? Discuss).
As it happens, with a flourish, appealing most of all for its brevity, by my inflexion, the word is able to convey both the conventional meaning of (“smell a rat”), and the identity in (“rodent”), the story; the “what” and the “who”, in one neat cut.
From a writer’s perspective, the word’s thus working double-time … and a half: the half is that it also conveys a slightly irreverent attitude, which should alert sensitive types not to read further or they might be upset.
So I’m rather pleased with it. So I guess we disagree. I would agree that the term is overused, notwithstanding its featuring role as a seamless enhancement in this particular case.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 12:31 am | PermalinkCS,
Then you are officially a prat, a politically correct one at that!
Laurie Oakes on 9 last night said the liberal office was given a hours warning of the raid.
There is more to this than meets the eye
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 7:21 am | PermalinkThere is an interesting letter in The Australian today by Greg Poropat about the Prime Minister getting advance information on AFP raids and other policing matters. In the case of the Queensland Liberals he knew, as CS says, on Thursday night – days before the media knew. I am not interested in the specific details of the case or conspiracy theories but I dislike this practice in principle. It lends itself to abuse e.g. it can lead to selective leaking of information damaging to the other side or attempts to distract from forthcoming bad news. I am not saying Howard is guilty of that: I don’t know. But I believe it is a practice which needs to be reviewed.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 8:17 am | PermalinkI do agree with Harry re rodent
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 8:45 am | Permalinkharry clarke said:
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 7:20 pm | PermalinkHarry, get a life.
Otherwise tell me if it is “Australian”
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 8:24 pm | Permalink(a) to be given a nickname by your mates
(b) to turn your back on a mate
The departure of Lightfoot from the Senate lib team would be a significant blow for ‘Sir Ratty’. Will that do? If he is forced to go independent then good bye to control of upper house. Not an unlikely scenario according to no other than Inslyders Barrie Cassidy on abc radio today.His opinion seemed to be that it would be very hard for him to explain this one away.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 9:18 pm | PermalinkI see now politically correct is equivalent as calling someone a rodent!!
Says it all.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 7:26 am | PermalinkOne all. But gee, on face value, this is on the outer edges of belief.
So why not pose the question Rudd is similarly clearing the decks for further return attacks on the Coalition? No, bugger it?
Bring on policy?
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 2:36 pm | PermalinkThe way things are going, Robert, with this new found– Costello inspired– political morality there may be no one left to create the policy. The confessional boxes must be running hot for both parties.
Abbott Tony, the most busy at present, I would suggest.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 8:41 pm | PermalinkJoe, yes, it’s quite interesting. After years of ministerial unaccountability, there is something edifying about the flush of cabinet and shadow cabinet ministers walking, or that they consider it, even. Though these are petty reasons – no balls, really – that an element of sportsmanship is entering the fray is somehow welcome. Of course, to have them go “dead on line” would be better. Not like the old days of caught and bowled, nor that we should really get used to a captain’s call for his idea of an underarm call.
Still, as silly as these later developments are. the greater public might enjoy this: that there is some sense of accountability. And as a blanket platform as we enter the tougher stuff this can only do good as it must inevitably tend to policy debate on the one hand, or style, as a valid secondary, on the other.
We’ve a much changed political interaction just now and given where we’ve been this last half decade or so overall it’s a good thing.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 10:23 pm | Permalink[...] government mudslinging. The ALP did not “start it”. Prior to reviewing Hansard, I had suspected that the government must have received a tip-off about the prospective police raids on its [...]
Posted on 18-Mar-07 at 4:45 pm | Permalink