Most sensible thing Phillip Adams has said in a long time…
Elsewhere: PJK graces the op/ed pages of The Age, and The Beazer fires a shot or two as well.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
Are you kidding? He said almost exactly the same thing a few months before the election (can’t find the relevant link).
As for this – ‘and I know how deeply he felt about the government’s asylum seeker …. policies’….
They were his bloody policies, at least his party’s when they were in government. Why didn’t he change them then?
Lost in nostalgia, poor Philip just can’t see the extent he’s been mugged by reality.
Are you kidding? He said almost exactly the same thing a few months before the election (can’t find the relevant link).
As for this – ‘and I know how deeply he felt about the government’s asylum seeker …. policies’….
They were his bloody policies, at least his party’s when they were in government. Why didn’t he change them then?
Lost in nostalgia, poor Philip just can’t see the extent he’s been mugged by reality.
I said “most” sensible, Rob not “sensible”!
I’m a huge PJK fan but even I wouldn’t seriously advance the proposition.
I said “most” sensible, Rob not “sensible”!
I’m a huge PJK fan but even I wouldn’t seriously advance the proposition.
I’m not. I liked his mordant wit (on Andrew Peacock: ‘Can a souffle rise twice?’ – brilliant!) but he had zero leadership or management skills, and a public profile his enemies would kill for. No wonder he was known as Doctor Death – he looked the part. And by an act of unparalleled disloyalty he brought down the best leader – Hawke – that Labor had had since the war. His electoral victory in 1993 was the biggest fluke of all time, and contributed to Howard’s landslide in 1996 when the electorate realised what an enormous mistake they had made.
Have you seen ‘Labor in Power’? Keating’s only ambition was to become Leader (in the Fuhrerprinzip sense). That series revealed him unmistakeably as a bullying near-psychotic (not that I’m in any way qualified to advance that opinion in case Keating reads this and decides to sue).
Overall I’d say Keating was tprobably he worst PM Australia has ever had, exceeded only by Billy McMahon.
I’m not. I liked his mordant wit (on Andrew Peacock: ‘Can a souffle rise twice?’ – brilliant!) but he had zero leadership or management skills, and a public profile his enemies would kill for. No wonder he was known as Doctor Death – he looked the part. And by an act of unparalleled disloyalty he brought down the best leader – Hawke – that Labor had had since the war. His electoral victory in 1993 was the biggest fluke of all time, and contributed to Howard’s landslide in 1996 when the electorate realised what an enormous mistake they had made.
Have you seen ‘Labor in Power’? Keating’s only ambition was to become Leader (in the Fuhrerprinzip sense). That series revealed him unmistakeably as a bullying near-psychotic (not that I’m in any way qualified to advance that opinion in case Keating reads this and decides to sue).
Overall I’d say Keating was tprobably he worst PM Australia has ever had, exceeded only by Billy McMahon.
Rob, Mark and other commenters thrashed out the question of Paul Keating as a great PM at Troppo in January.
Rob, Mark and other commenters thrashed out the question of Paul Keating as a great PM at Troppo in January.
Sorry.
Sorry.
I don’t think you need to apologise, Rob. I think Kim was just drawing attention to the earlier discussion in case you or other readers were interested.
Time for bed for me!
I don’t think you need to apologise, Rob. I think Kim was just drawing attention to the earlier discussion in case you or other readers were interested.
Time for bed for me!
I apologise, in accordance with rule 3, more or less as a reflex action in the confident expectation that whatever I say will offend at least one of those persons here present or passing through.
I apologise, in accordance with rule 3, more or less as a reflex action in the confident expectation that whatever I say will offend at least one of those persons here present or passing through.
Thanks Kim, I think I was too new on the blogosphere to get into the January debate on Keating.
The problem with Keating is to take account of his strengths AND his weaknesses, his successes AND his failures.
I think his obscene language was disgraceful and I sometimes wonder what sort of world people want us to live in when they use means like that to achieve it.
As for his success in economic reform, he was lucky that the Liberal dries and the free enterprise think tanks had been on the job for a decade or more before he got started. And also, Bill Hayden in the Party. Incidentally someone wrote a paper to demonstrate that one of the Whitlam election policy platforms was actually more economically rational in many elements than the Coalition policy at the time. That was when the dries were still total outcasts in the party.
I suppose his greatest political success and at the same time the most destructive blow that he struck against sensible economic policy making for a very long time was his against the odds election victory in 1993.
That is why brilliant politicians (like Neville Wran and Bob Hawke) end up doing as much harm as good, and it demonstrates that politics as we know it is a zero sum game at best and more likely a negative sum game.
Thanks Kim, I think I was too new on the blogosphere to get into the January debate on Keating.
The problem with Keating is to take account of his strengths AND his weaknesses, his successes AND his failures.
I think his obscene language was disgraceful and I sometimes wonder what sort of world people want us to live in when they use means like that to achieve it.
As for his success in economic reform, he was lucky that the Liberal dries and the free enterprise think tanks had been on the job for a decade or more before he got started. And also, Bill Hayden in the Party. Incidentally someone wrote a paper to demonstrate that one of the Whitlam election policy platforms was actually more economically rational in many elements than the Coalition policy at the time. That was when the dries were still total outcasts in the party.
I suppose his greatest political success and at the same time the most destructive blow that he struck against sensible economic policy making for a very long time was his against the odds election victory in 1993.
That is why brilliant politicians (like Neville Wran and Bob Hawke) end up doing as much harm as good, and it demonstrates that politics as we know it is a zero sum game at best and more likely a negative sum game.
Rafe,
It’s a tremendous distortion to say PJK “was lucky that the Liberal dries and the free enterprise think tanks had been on the job for a decade or more before he got started”. When I read that line I half-feared a declaration that we should genuflect to Quadrant for our current prosperity.
Most of PJK’s economic reform programme was not of his creation, but he implemented and sold it, against considerable opposition from within his party and the populace. In that he completely surpassed his hopelessly inadequate predecessor as treasurer. This was a major achievement, which you write off as attributable to “luck”. For someone as interested in free markets as you, PJK should be an icon.
That’s why I’m having trouble identifying the “most destructive blow that he struck against sensible economic policy making for a very long time” in his 1993 election. I’m guessing this probably has something to do with an undeclared admiration on your part with the Fightback! programme, but this was opposed by Keating for obvious political reasons, and roundly rejected by the people.
On his language, I’ll take his salty vernacular over Howard’s dog-whistling no-speak any day. PJK’s characterisations may have been vulgar, but they resonated with truth. JWH’s mealy-mouthed mendacity is far more obscene.
It’s ironic that PJK was the person best able to explain the recent interest rate rise and comprehensively outclassed Costello in the process. At least the man was entertaining – not a virtue shared by his successors on both sides of politics.
Rafe,
It’s a tremendous distortion to say PJK “was lucky that the Liberal dries and the free enterprise think tanks had been on the job for a decade or more before he got started”. When I read that line I half-feared a declaration that we should genuflect to Quadrant for our current prosperity.
Most of PJK’s economic reform programme was not of his creation, but he implemented and sold it, against considerable opposition from within his party and the populace. In that he completely surpassed his hopelessly inadequate predecessor as treasurer. This was a major achievement, which you write off as attributable to “luck”. For someone as interested in free markets as you, PJK should be an icon.
That’s why I’m having trouble identifying the “most destructive blow that he struck against sensible economic policy making for a very long time” in his 1993 election. I’m guessing this probably has something to do with an undeclared admiration on your part with the Fightback! programme, but this was opposed by Keating for obvious political reasons, and roundly rejected by the people.
On his language, I’ll take his salty vernacular over Howard’s dog-whistling no-speak any day. PJK’s characterisations may have been vulgar, but they resonated with truth. JWH’s mealy-mouthed mendacity is far more obscene.
It’s ironic that PJK was the person best able to explain the recent interest rate rise and comprehensively outclassed Costello in the process. At least the man was entertaining – not a virtue shared by his successors on both sides of politics.
What Fyodor said.
What Fyodor said.
Rob, like a lot of people says Paully was one of the worst PM’s in History but offers no evidence to support his theory.
He as PM continued economic reform labour market deregulation in particular. The EBAs have shown greater relationship with productivity increases than the much vaunted AWAs.
The economy was in the midst of the longest recovery since the war.
He could have been Champeen if he had have had a Keating as Treasurer unfortunately he could not cope with such.
He lost big time in 96 because:
1) inflation illusion
2) promised the same thing asHewson without GST and then incresed WST by more than fightback
Rob, like a lot of people says Paully was one of the worst PM’s in History but offers no evidence to support his theory.
He as PM continued economic reform labour market deregulation in particular. The EBAs have shown greater relationship with productivity increases than the much vaunted AWAs.
The economy was in the midst of the longest recovery since the war.
He could have been Champeen if he had have had a Keating as Treasurer unfortunately he could not cope with such.
He lost big time in 96 because:
1) inflation illusion
2) promised the same thing asHewson without GST and then incresed WST by more than fightback
“Paully”??? God help us…..Is there some obscure biblical requirement that insists upon your incorrigibility in this respect, Homer? If so, why not Abo for Abraham or Mozey for Moses or Magssy for Mary Magdalene – and that shouldn’t be taken as encouragement..
Adams has been banging on about PJK ever since he realised that he’s the only ex-leader who’ll return his calls. Which is kind of sad for both of them, I guess
I think it’s worth pointing out that Adams’ assertion that PJK and Napoleon “look alike” doesn’t stand up (so to speak) given that Napoleon was a tad over 5 foot and of course, Napoleon didn’t return to national leadership from St Helena. I think Phillip probably means the return from Elba but if I recall correctly, this particular foray was not a total success and emulating it would be problematic…………
“Paully”??? God help us…..Is there some obscure biblical requirement that insists upon your incorrigibility in this respect, Homer? If so, why not Abo for Abraham or Mozey for Moses or Magssy for Mary Magdalene – and that shouldn’t be taken as encouragement..
Adams has been banging on about PJK ever since he realised that he’s the only ex-leader who’ll return his calls. Which is kind of sad for both of them, I guess
I think it’s worth pointing out that Adams’ assertion that PJK and Napoleon “look alike” doesn’t stand up (so to speak) given that Napoleon was a tad over 5 foot and of course, Napoleon didn’t return to national leadership from St Helena. I think Phillip probably means the return from Elba but if I recall correctly, this particular foray was not a total success and emulating it would be problematic…………
Geoff, I was just waiting for somoone to say he was an Apauling PM!
Geoff, I was just waiting for somoone to say he was an Apauling PM!
Just Homer’s distinctive sense of humour, Geoff!
Just Homer’s distinctive sense of humour, Geoff!
Re: Phillip Adams, I’d been hoping for an “I retire” – mais, c’est la vie!
That said, PJK was a fascinating and colourful PM and probably the best Parliamentary performer of the last 40 years. I think the problem is that dominating your opponents in Parliament does not translate well to the public. It galvanises your supporters, and it demoralises your opponent’s supporters, but it probably makes everyone else feel a bit put-off. It looks a bit like bullying.
Howard’s part-grand, part-dull Parliamentary style does none of these things. It’s left to Costello and Abbott to do most of the beating. Howard’s performances as they appear are generally more above the fray, and seem to me less likely to provoke nervousness, hatred or fear from undecided voters.
Re: Phillip Adams, I’d been hoping for an “I retire” – mais, c’est la vie!
That said, PJK was a fascinating and colourful PM and probably the best Parliamentary performer of the last 40 years. I think the problem is that dominating your opponents in Parliament does not translate well to the public. It galvanises your supporters, and it demoralises your opponent’s supporters, but it probably makes everyone else feel a bit put-off. It looks a bit like bullying.
Howard’s part-grand, part-dull Parliamentary style does none of these things. It’s left to Costello and Abbott to do most of the beating. Howard’s performances as they appear are generally more above the fray, and seem to me less likely to provoke nervousness, hatred or fear from undecided voters.
That’s a good point, Jacques – he’s not too dissimilar to Hawke in that regard.
That’s a good point, Jacques – he’s not too dissimilar to Hawke in that regard.
Name one other Australian PM who has a musical dedicated to him.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Arts/Keating/2005/04/03/1112489336326.html
Name one other Australian PM who has a musical dedicated to him.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Arts/Keating/2005/04/03/1112489336326.html
“Most of PJK?Äôs economic reform programme was not of his creation, but he implemented and sold it, against considerable opposition from within his party and the populace… This was a major achievement, which you write off as attributable to “luck”. For someone as interested in free markets as you, PJK should be an icon.”
Thanks Fyodor, I admire Keating’s achievement in obtaining some measure of reform and I usually make a point of mentioning that as a preface to any critical remarks that I might wish to make about him.
I did not write his achievement off of as attributable to luck, I merely made the same point as yourself, that the program was not his creation. Others had done the intellectual heavy lifting and copped the flak from the economic illiterates on both sides of politics for years before he got into the business of reform.
Of course it would not have been so difficult to obtain the necessary reforms, and more of them, if the climate of public opinion had not been poisoned by four groups of people, including the ALP reformers themselves. For the four groups, see http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/index.php?p=428
And for a stimulating reminder of the hate speech directed at the reformers 20 years ago,
http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/index.php?p=747
Has anyone had second thoughts since then?
“Most of PJK?Äôs economic reform programme was not of his creation, but he implemented and sold it, against considerable opposition from within his party and the populace… This was a major achievement, which you write off as attributable to “luck”. For someone as interested in free markets as you, PJK should be an icon.”
Thanks Fyodor, I admire Keating’s achievement in obtaining some measure of reform and I usually make a point of mentioning that as a preface to any critical remarks that I might wish to make about him.
I did not write his achievement off of as attributable to luck, I merely made the same point as yourself, that the program was not his creation. Others had done the intellectual heavy lifting and copped the flak from the economic illiterates on both sides of politics for years before he got into the business of reform.
Of course it would not have been so difficult to obtain the necessary reforms, and more of them, if the climate of public opinion had not been poisoned by four groups of people, including the ALP reformers themselves. For the four groups, see http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/index.php?p=428
And for a stimulating reminder of the hate speech directed at the reformers 20 years ago,
http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/index.php?p=747
Has anyone had second thoughts since then?
How many pollies can claim Rafe that an economic programme is their “creation”? Perhaps Hewson. Howard certainly doesn’t have much idea other than he wants to deregulate the labour market and favour business interests. The utter mess of the tax and welfare systems and all the proliferating benefits and deductions (baby bonusses, pensioner utility bill payments, etc etc) and the general lack of any macro-economic policy except for cutting government debt and stimulating the housing market and consumer credit suggests that he’s no economic whiz.
When has Costello ever given an intelligent address on what he thinks the direction of policy should be? He’s just a barrister with a brief.
Also, I continue to maintain the position I took on your thread about so called “hate speech”.
How many pollies can claim Rafe that an economic programme is their “creation”? Perhaps Hewson. Howard certainly doesn’t have much idea other than he wants to deregulate the labour market and favour business interests. The utter mess of the tax and welfare systems and all the proliferating benefits and deductions (baby bonusses, pensioner utility bill payments, etc etc) and the general lack of any macro-economic policy except for cutting government debt and stimulating the housing market and consumer credit suggests that he’s no economic whiz.
When has Costello ever given an intelligent address on what he thinks the direction of policy should be? He’s just a barrister with a brief.
Also, I continue to maintain the position I took on your thread about so called “hate speech”.
Rafe,
Anybody can suggest free market reforms, and plenty of people did prior to 1983. However, the real “heavy lifting” was geting it into policy and implementing the changes. Just as important was bringing his party and the country along with him. That’s leadership.
I’m sure if we were to ask him, PJK would admit that he owes it all to Popper, but that would just be his characteristic humility shining through.
Rafe,
Anybody can suggest free market reforms, and plenty of people did prior to 1983. However, the real “heavy lifting” was geting it into policy and implementing the changes. Just as important was bringing his party and the country along with him. That’s leadership.
I’m sure if we were to ask him, PJK would admit that he owes it all to Popper, but that would just be his characteristic humility shining through.
I still crack up at ‘feral abacus’ (said about Hewson) even though I don’t know if I should attribute it to PJK or his speechwriter of the time. Didn’t read Adams (haven’t for years) so will pass comment on that.
Hello Fyodor and Mark,
I gather that you accept that deregulation was necessary, and you agree with me that Keating deserves great credit for driving the process in government. What is your current view on the kind of abuse that was poured on the dries and the so-called New Right when they advocated deregulation?
Rafe, did you ever consider a career at the Bar?
In addition to my comments on your post, some forms of deregulation were necessary but the Labor government also had an appropriate regard for the social impact. Labour market deregulation was very differently handled under Labor, and also for good reason.
I simply don’t agree that robust criticism of radical economic rationalists constitutes or constituted “abuse” or “hate speech”. It’s just the cut and thrust of political discourse.
Nor is “deregulation now and everywhere” anything but an ideological position. As Hewson demonstrated, it’s rightly electorally unsaleable, and in any event, pragmatic assessment of what’s best in particular industries and markets is better than ideologically driven policy.
Two points Mark, first, do you seriously consider that the examples which I posted are robust criticism?
Second, the problem that Hewson encountered was a result of the dirty and/or economically illiterate pool played by the four groups of critics of ecconomic rationalism that I nominated.
Thirdly (a bonus) do you suggest that the oppositon to economic rationalism was not ideologically driven?
Fouthly (another bonus) if you are in favour of pragmatic assessments of what is best in particular situations, what is your argument against radical deregulation of the labour market so that workers and employers can make their own arrangements without interference from the centralised wage fixing body?
No they’re political rhetoric and bombast, Rafe, but you were selective in your choice of quotations. You could have picked out any number of measured critiques made at the time to quote, but that didn’t suit the case you were making.
I’m not sure I follow your second point.
Yes, no doubt in part, just as the proponents of economic rationalism were ideologically driven in part. That’s politics!
My argument would take too long to make but I’ll post a link presently when I locate it.
What do I win?
Rafe, I think Jim McDonald makes the case well, better than I could at this late hour:
http://www.mcdonald-assocs.com/irreforms/recon.htm
“You could have picked out any number of measured critiques made at the time to quote, but that didn?Äôt suit the case you were making.”
Do you mean all those collections of essays rubbishing economic rationalism? LOL!!! Spare my aching ribs.
Would you like to nominate which of those books you think can be taken seriously and I will have another look at it.
Besides, I still think there was torrent of hatespeak, but we may have to agree to disagree on that.