As the Premiers belatedly do quite a good job of challenging the excesses of Howard’s terrible laws, I guess you have to hand it to the Beazer for wedging himself and the ALP and damaging a good political position. And letting a thousand internal divisions flower, and pissing off constituencies in a scattershot almost random fashion.
Never let a favourable position for the ALP get in the way of some wacko desire to appear to the right of the Government on national security, weirdly framed in this instance to apparently appeal to us latte lefts by opposing vilification. A dogs’ breakfast of a compromise from the Beazer, whose natural instincts on these matters are probably not remotely in the civil libertarian zone. And this is supposed to be from someone who’s got solid credentials on national security?
Beazley is the prisoner of his past. Unwilling just to oppose the laws (for fear of being seen as a small target driven opportunist) on the defensible grounds of process, lack of proportion and illiberal implication, he’s tried to exorcise another ghost - he who has no ticker - by trying to thump his chest and look tough on terror. A terrible day for the ALP. Shaun Carney is dead right - if Labor win the next election, it’ll have a lot more to do with union grassroots campaigning than the uninspirational and tactically clueless shambles of an Opposition we have to put up with.
Friendly fire may have blown parliamentary opposition to the Terror laws out of the water. Or back into its misery. Or something.
…to apparently appeal to us latte lefts by opposing vilification.
That’s exactly what he’s doing. So far, you’re the only one I’ve read say this bleedingly obvious thing. Some Kimbo with some Bracksy thrown in - no, it isn’t very impressive is it?
By the way, next time tell us what you really think!
What CL said. The ALP’s performance on this issue has been an absolute fucking disgrace, and Kimbo just pathetic.
Maybe he has been out there talking to similar punters to the ones I talk to. They are looking forward very much to the “swoop” on the alledged 60-80 Islamo-crazies as soon as the law gets through. I suspect however that this is a beat up and the swoop will not take place leaving the government on the nose for not delivering some very quick results with their new toy piece of legislation.
Personally I think Beazly looks at the poll results here and thinks, “gawd, no votes in opposing it” and then decides maybe he can win some by pretending to take a harder line and throw a bone to the latte lefties in the process.
I wonder if he instead tried to spell out some clear reasons as to why they are opposing at least part of it then the poll results might be different. While the person who the public expects to articulate the main opposition line is waffling on about how they’d make it harder but fairer, no one is really going to be convinced.
Personally I thought the Hugh White article in the SMH today made a good point, perhaps the main point, about no one actually explaining how these laws will make us safer. People planning terrorism are already commiting a crime and can be arrested, charged and detained pending trial. The problem is not being able to stop people once you identified them, we already have those laws. The problem is indentifying them in the first place.
On C.L.’s point - yes, well spotted by Kim.
The assumption that all lefties support vilification laws is of course erroneous - but I’m sure the Beazer doesn’t assume that lefties might have more thoughtful ideological and political positions than say - Anthony Albanese or whoever tells him what THE LEFT thinks!
Hope so, Naomi - but it’s still not a good look - gives commentators/ministers heaps of ammo to rant about a wedge between Beazer and the Left. You know the drill - Beazer’s not such a bad fella (pity about the ticker) but his welcome agreement with the Government on the dimensions of the present threat has been nullified by the mad socialists in his party. Blah blah blah. I’m sure we could all write Sheridan and Hendo’s ratiocinations for them (prize for working in an Evatt reference for the latter!).
Well, in that case our loss of liberty will have been entirely worthwhile, then.
Whew, I was worried for a moment.
Aren’t fantastic dimension motions the Tardis’s job?
Whenever I heard Beazley talk about terror laws, this passage always leaps to my mind:
Though in Labor’s case, I can’t see the ‘great risks’ in opposing this legislation. The election is two years away, Howard is in trouble with IR reform, there are sections of the Liberal backbench that are rumbling about these laws as well. The Coalition has the Senate, what more do Labor have to lose?
Some temporary poll numbers?
Ooh, HTML mangle.
Last bit should read:
My point being that this isn’t even Nazi Germany and yet some people in the Labor party seem to be considering throwing away hundreds of years of hard-won judicial protections on a pollster’s say so. Great risks indeed…
Get Carr to Canberra. If health permits. Nic - what’s the latest mail?
Cross the floor, I read also… but to where?
[smacks head]
Heard some coverage today about Big Kim’s 25th anniversary as a parliamentarian.
And well… oh come here you big old bear! All’s forgiven.
Carr schmarr.
I get the feeling an ALP party room revolt may be in the making. Perhaps Beazley is now on a slippery slope to political oblivion (then again with his obvious Tory leanings, they might welcome him to the Liberal Party).
We can only hope.
Carmen won’t cross the floor she just her memory that’s all
Beazley’s between a rock and a hard place on this as it’s not really his call. Essentially it’s between the PM and the Premiers and they’re largely agreed on this. ie. their heads are as vulnerable as 15 yr old schoolgirls in Sulawesi, if the fundies make good big time in Oz and no stone was left unturned to prevent it. Given that, the sop with religious vilification laws was a nice try. However, given the Brack’s Laws fiasco on this, that may only serve to undermine his latest push to curry favour with Christians
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17072920-421,00.html
Federal Labor really has no idea what it stands for or what it’s constituency is at present. It needs to rely on a debacle with IR reform outcomes over the next 2 years to have any show at the Treasury benches next election. They have to pray for a major recession/depression for that to happen and wouldn’t that be a cheerful inheritance. OTOH a bird flu pandemic might be worth praying for to liven up their chances. Spin it like Katrina perhaps? Who really wants to be at the helm if the punters start dropping like flies? With Howard’s luck, that won’t happen til after the Commonwealth Games and well after he’s enjoyed the retirement ticker tape parades. That really would wipe the smile off smirky’s puss.
In summary, I reckon it looks like a choice between smirky, or depression/bird flu for ALP hopefuls. What about a ‘Rann for Canberra’ sho.. err push? Then again Peter Lewis might be free. If he isn’t I’m sure we could have a quick whip around.
Ive been pleasantly surprised by the Premiers over the last few days. See, they actually win elections, often crushing their (admittedly miserable) opponents worse than Howard has ever managed.
They just nodded and smiled their way through Howard’s wedge hitting the media, then quietly set about knocking the worst edges of this two-bit authoritarian rubbish any ‘liberal’ should be ashamed of. Good on them. Let’s hope they hold fast. And a special *respect* out to Stanhope for not being pushed around by tinpot autocratic arseclown pretending to be a national leader.
And it must be said: when elements of the coalition backbench are actually whinging, you know you’ve got a real dog of a bill.
As for Beazer - Howard’s not even working it hard yet, and he still manages to wedge himself. Absolutely useless. He has to go. The issues are now too important to waste any more time with that man. I had that awful sinking Tampa feelign watching him speak tonight. I was sure he was going to say “we need to protect our borders….”. He’s a decent man, up against an unprincipled opportunist, who will stoop as low as he needs to go, and destroy any aspect of OZ society to manipulate the lowest common demonitator. And he just cant handle him. A bit of mongrel in the opposition leader is whats needed, as Hawke put it. Maybe angle try for a sane one this time, ALP.
Watching Beazer on the news tonight I was left thinking, what sort of person starts off by saying “we are going to make some ammendments but if they don’t get through we are going to back it as is”. What chance do ammendments have of getting passed with that attitude? He appears to be repeating his Tampa strategy - yeah we’re almost very nearly as tough or tougher as the government.
Yeah, why doesnt he accuse Howard of being weak on terror. Howard wants to let suspects go from preventative detention after 14 days, when the alternative is charging them properly with conspiracy under criminal law; putting them behind bars for years.
What? Oh right… um, sorry, there’s a problem with that. Apparently, you actually need some *evidence* to charge people with criminal offences.
Sorry to speak out of turn.
As you were.
But Beazley’s party is comfortably ahead of Howard’s in the polls (ignoring the leader approval ratings, which were of exactly zero utility for Mark Latham’s leadership) so how can you say his leadership is “dead”? Perhaps you might like to reflect on how many votes Beazley got in 2001 following 9/11 and Tampa, as opposed to how many votes Latham got in 2004 in the absence of any credible fear factor.
Not that, I might add, there is any justification for the behaviour of Howard and Beazley, but the idea that he is especially unpalatable to the electorate is a myth concocted by guilty Lemmings.
Well, for my 2c worth: I woldnt claim he’s unpopular. My problem with Beazley is that he’s Mr. 48%. A sure bet to minimise loss, but not enough grunt to win.
Perfect for a party which has seeks to be a mechanism for the distribution of opposition bench seats.
An alternative government might want someone else.
He’ll be the leader come election time, though, izquierdista. It’s pain for you as much as for the rest of us.
Gillard! Rudd for Rudder!
No… oh well.
“Ive been pleasantly surprised by the Premiers over the last few days. See, they actually win elections, often crushing their (admittedly miserable) opponents worse than Howard has ever managed.”
And how did they manage to do that Lefty? By giving the punters what they bloody well want within balanced budgetary constraints as well as responding to economic realities with world’s best practice. Remember when Federal Labor floated the dollar, deregulated finance, and began opening up Oz to world’s best/(eg Button car plans, etc) Howard has continued that on with waterfront reform, reform of the ubiquitous WST with the GST and now more IR reform. How are we doing? Zero govt debt, low inflation and the best employment in 30 years and yet we can’t stand still
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17094189-29277,00.html Nor will we. We can’t stick our heads up our bums and hope the world will owe us a living. This country can now kick arse with the best, because it shrugged off insular inward looking policies and nosewiping every runny nose that comes along. When Federal Labor recognises that, as well as getting border security and Muslim terrorism right, it will be fit for govt again. You’ve gotta break some eggs to make a decent omelette and Howard knows that implicitly. At the moment Federal Labor wants to be nice to every lost cause and squawky loser that blips across its radar screen. Perhaps it’s easier for them at State level. Here’s the money you’ve got to play with, now go figure how to divvy it out. Perhaps that’s what leftists are best at, because then they are forced to understand tradeoffs and work within them.
Actually Observa, the state labour premiers have been doing a very neat line in the privatisation two-step for years now. Thing is, Joe Public dosnt actually like it, want it, or trust it. State ALPs gets the vote every time on public services by appearing to be the side least likely to privatise (further). Even if its not especially true. The Coalition just has nothing to offer at state level, where its all about managing health and schools (never their strong suits in public opinion).
Oh, and aside from appearing to reject some of the failed offerings of the economic reform agenda, the other force keeping them safe and sound, all 8 at once, is John Howard’s incumbency. With the possible exception of QLD (where things are different, as the nats are also able to play anti-privatisation footsies), I predict no coaltion state governments until the ALP wins federally.
Shorter observa: The Blue Sky mining company ain’t gonna save us (nor will competing with India on wages)…
Lefty, they’re probably quite happy dealing with Howard. Bit hard to blame a Federal ALP govt when you don’t get what you want. IMO, privatisation has largely been about dumping the problems of the big PS unions onto private enterprise. The bus privatisations in Adelaide were typical. When one contractor was beaten at renewal tender by the others recently and its workers were made redundant, but some were offered work with the winning tenderer, Rann just shrugged his shoulders. In the bad old days he’d be stuck with them for life. This way private enterprise gets its hands dirty at rearranging the workforce and Rann is not the bad guy with his union mates. The Premiers went overboard with toll roads and tunnels it seems, by privatising natural monopolies. There’s no way you’d argue Qantas and the Comm Bank should be in govt hands these days. Same with Telstra soon. These are not natural monopolies anymore. Virgin, Jetstar, Optus and Vodaphone have seen to that.
Kim, we can compete with India on wages and have done for years. That’s because the capital we work with is far superior and hence so is our productivity generally. That is not true with labour intensive products, but who wants to sew shirts together in Oz, or man outgoing call centres these days?
I think there are some people around here who should read mumble.com.au a little more often. The knee-jerk anti-Beazleyism (and by implication, blind pro-Gillardism) is getting too much. Do you people actually want to win?
Another example of Beazley trying to out-right the Right:
Speech to the Australian Christian Lobby 29/10/05
“That organisation has a history of opposing important social reform no matter how moderate (de facto equality for same-sex couples and regulation of the sex industry), of platforming anti-gay hate (it was the ACL which organised last year’s virulently anti-gay marriage forum in Canberra), and of ignoring the boundaries necessary for a secular, multi-faith society to thrive.
The ACL’s logo of a crucifix ascendant over Parliament House should be enough to warn anyone who believes in democratic pluralism that the ACL doesn’t.” (Rodney Croome)
As I said above, I am sure Beazley would be happier on the Liberal benches these days.
Ron,
rodney Croome represents more of a minority voice than ACL!
What Steve Edwards said.
[washes keyboard out with soap]
yes steve, but does beazley?
Maybe, if Latho’s right, the Beazer has a fallback position as British defence minister lined up? Did he ever deny those rumours about a Commons seat?
I’m amazed by Beazley’s inept effort over the terror laws. He may well be in a tough position, but supporting the Government and trying to out-right Howard on this issue is typical of the man’s poor judgement. It’s like the whole border protection fiasco all over again.
When it turns out that these laws are draconian, and do trample all over everyone’s rights, Labor won’t be able to say anything. The state premiers have already made their bed by agreeing in principle to these laws sight unseen, which hasn’t helped. Now, Beazley is running around with this ‘Please protect human rights, but we’ll support the laws regardless. Oh and make them tougher while you’re at it’ mess of a position. All because of the need to be seen to be ‘Tough on Terror’. These laws won’t help one bit.
Or, alternatively, Beazley really is comfortable with the laws, and is simply revealing himself to be the Tory he always was.
‘Specific’ terror threat against Australia: PM
Don’t these things happen in perfect harmony with Howard’s announcements and laws?
And Beazley is right there as Howard’s right-hand man for the right-wing ALP:
“Opposition Leader Kim Beazley, who was extensively briefed on the threat last night and again this morning, said Labor was prepared to pass the amendment tonight if necessary.”
Reminds me of the story of the little boy who cried wolf; one day Howard will tell the truth about something and no one will believe him because of his history of past lies.
And interestingly, a day after ASIO settled out of court for wrongly raiding the home of a Sydney man and his family. Perhaps C.L. would think, given his Victorian police thing, that federal agents with drawn weapons refusing to allow the man’s wife to dress in modest clothing is showing appropriate cultural insensitivity.
And, of course, the media couldn’t have reported on this case if the proposed laws had been in force, according to the couple’s lawyer.
So, many more such incidents, no public scrutiny? Collateral damage in the clash of civilisations, C.L.?
Had a couple of thoughts about the new terrorist threat;
they found out about it WITHOUT the new laws
and
why hasn’t the govt terrorist threat level been increased?
Ron, see this comment and subsquent ones on the other thread. Might be better to centralise discussion there.
Interesting report Mark. The thing about arguing against arbitrary exectuovee power is that its *never very long* till circumstances bear out your case.
The absence of adequate judicial review is utter foolishness.