Via Ken at Surfdom, here’s Labor’s response to the “state of emergency”:
Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says a Labor Government would create a bi-partisan ‘war cabinet’ to deal with the national emergency in indigenous communities.
When the Labor primary vote dips in the next poll, Kevin from Queensland who’s here to help by trying to outfox Howard from the right, it’ll be those who give a stuff about land rights and real solutions not confected militarist rhetoric, who’ll be deserting you. Why was Beazley dumped again? Anyone?
Where’s the courage, Kevin? Was Paul Keating right? Been summoning some emergency focus groups this weekend, have we? Or channelling Lloyd George or something?
The Rudd Labor Party deserves to lose this election.
If it hadn’t been for WorkChoices, buddy, you couldn’t even count on a preference from me now. Wedge, meet target. Same dynamic as Tampa - the left deserts Labor, and swinging voters return to “strong leadership”. But, honestly, it took Beazley longer to cave, and he did it with more embarrassment. Mr Howard is a very clever politician. But Mr Rudd stands for nothing. Perhaps technocratic process? Or his own ego. Who knows?
What would Rudd’s hero Dietrich Bonhoeffer have done? Someone who knew about war, and principles? Even unto death?
I await Rudd’s publication of a Kennedy-esque Profiles in Courage tome, a la Gordon Brown. It seems de rigeur now for Labo(u)r leaders who totally lack any.
As an ALP Member, I’m also very upset about how Rudd rolled ovver to Ratty, but I fully understand why. It’s the simpole fact that if Rudd showed ANY type of hesitation in not supporting it, the Libs and the MSM wouild’ve painted him and the ALP as a Haven for “Kiddie Fiddlers” So he was damned if he did, damned if he didn’t act - perfect Wedge politics from the KIng of Wedges.
I Wish Rudd had the Balls of Alan Carpenter to tell it as it is and say that Howard’s Plan is an Election Stunt.
But I think the real reason is that Qld Politicans have this big Moral Hang up and Sex and Aboriginals - no doubt formed by Decades of Joh.
Bugger that, Frank. That’s the Beazley excuse. What about some actual leadership? The guy’s got popularity to burn, and a ready audience prepared to listen to him. He’s in a very good position to put a principled view. No, it’s just pathetic.
Sorry? Andrew Bartlett?
I think what we’re seeing here is the real Rudd.
I agree, but in the modern US style of Electioneering and Media in this Country, it would’ve been Electoral Death if Rudd made such a stand - The Govt Gazette in particular and the Howard Barmy Army would be running TV ads depicting Rudd as failing to “protect the little buggerised Indigines”
That, I’m afraid is the real world.
And the Government Gazette onslaught has damaged Rudd how so far, Frank? I’m not buying it.
Failure of courage, failure of leadership.
And I’m afraid, revealing his true colours as a small little conservative man, a bureaucrat and a fixer, not a leader.
I meant to say God-Fearing Pollies
No doubt pandering to those “Soft Labor” and Swinging Voters - aka the God-Fearing Folk
Well, I hope there’s enough of them around. He’s lost my vote.
Ahh, but this is different - it’s “KIDDIES BEING MOLESTED”, which touches the moral outrage of Joe Battler in Voter land a lot more than WorkChoices. Why do you think nearly all those letters to the editor are praising Ratty for “Doing Something for those “poor abused kiddies”
And did you noticed how pilloried Jon Stanhope was when he dared use the R Word to Ratty ??
As I said before, this is modern politics- it’s all about the raw emotional value - Measured and Careful solutions are bad.
Super Ratty has prevailed.
All that may be true, Frank, but I’d rather have Jon Stanhope as Prime Minister than Kevin Rudd if that’s the case.
So would I, or Alan Carpenter, two “No Bullshit” type ALP leaders, but alas the Right have control on who gets elected leader.
Mind you Rudd was clever about the extra AFP officers, as it exposes how under resourced they are etc and the more recent pressure on the troops in Iraq, as it may in a roundabout may force Ratty to withdraw trrops from Iraq and re-deploy them to the NT.
Hate to intrude on this gruesome ideological love fest. But you guys need a reality check.
The bi-partisan consensus on military intervention in NT Aboriginal communities is no failure of leadership by Rudd. Or wedge by Howard.
This is a democracy. The majority have long wanted a tough love authoritarian govt policy towards unruly minorities.
This is because it would be good for the minorities to have proper authority. And the majority would be spared the clean up costs of social pathology.
Had Rudd opposed Howard he would have lost a pile of votes from the culturallly nationalist but fiscally statist working class. The Battlers, if you like.
So Rudd is doing what democratic leaders do: obey the wishes of the majority.
Perhaps Howard is leading from example? LOL !
Hawke regrets child poverty comment
June 16, 2007 - 6:55AM
Twenty years after pledging no Australian child would live in poverty, former prime minister Bob Hawke says his comment is one of his biggest regrets.
…….”We set ourselves this first goal: by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty,” Mr Hawke said on June 23, 1987 at an election campaign launch
…….Mr Hawke said his government gave more money to low-income families, but instead of spending it on their kids, some “p…ed it up against the wall”.
And how many people like you, climbing up on their high moral horses, will it take for Howard to win the election by default?
On this one I have to disagree Kim. Rudd has to stand firm…if he moves to the Left on this issue he’ll be seen as too soft. Labor will be murdered. I think he bona-fidely hopes the Aboriginal communities will receive some assistance…& i’m sure he’ll be on the ground checking out & promoting the more successful communities & chatting to the First People Community Leaders…gettin’ advice…& will bring up firmly & articulately any stuff ups by the Fed Govt. And there is bound to be some considering their incompetence on social issues & the media/blog scrutiny. I imagine there are more than a few sweaty armpits in the Cabinet room these days.
The Govt. are probably thinking they might sneak over the line w/ this ’smoke & mirrors’ act, but imho, they’ve moved too early…& should’ve immediately extended the prohibition & policing of ’sexual abuse of children’ aspect to all welfare recipients, going by the feedback i’m getting from swing voters.
Plenty of entanglements & news to come yet. Interesting dvlpts. overseas might also damage Howard & Co.
As for Andrew Bartlett, he’s got my vote for the Senate…but I’m all the way w/ Labor for the Reps.
Oh ye, of little faith…;)
Agreed. If Howard truly is playing ‘wedge’ politics the last thing to do is play into the game.
Rudds a details man… he’d be aware of the political risks as much as the reality of the problems.
NO need for Rudd to polarise things further. Give him a few days , let him see the detail of the plans and talk to those on whom it will impact.
A vote for the ‘greens’ or anything but ALP is a vote for Howard.
You are reading too much of the ‘Australian’ and believing it. Rudd is differentiating the ALP’s stance on the problem, by having a bipartisan approach, however his (or someone’s) choice of “war cabinet” is so American. Perhaps the average person has come to accept this language.
Ahh Kim, you’re doing Howards work for him! This is the attitude that may well see Howard ride triumphantly to a fifth term. This is why Howards tactics continue to work and why he keeps using them.
I wonder how you’ll feel the morning after the election if you wake up to discover that Howard is PM - still? I’m sure Green issues will get a really good run then!
Sometimes in real life you have to make a choice between which alternative you like least. Otherwise its cutting off your nose to spite your face.
BTW - Rudd has handled this about as well as it is possible for an opposition leader to. And where is Bob Brown anyway?????
Kim, I think you are as duped as Rudd on this issue, because you’ve fallen for the bait that Howard wants you to take. I.e. to leak Rudd’s ‘base’ away.
I agree with Tyro and Pre Dawn. If you are looking for a ditch to die in, politically speaking, then John Howard will be more than happy to provide that ditch. This issue is unlikely to be a major vote turner in the long run anyway for the same reasons that have allowed this disgraceful situation to develop in the first place. General voter apathy towards indigenous health issues and problems.
Yes, Kim, I think pragmatism is called for on this issue, however it might stir up unpleasant memories of Beazley’s rollover on Tampa. The public disgust at the attacks on children in the Northern Territory is so acute and the issue so “live” that the debate is currently being pitched at the symbolic level.
Any attack that Rudd might make now on Howard for trying to make a wedge out of this will be construed as putting process above outcomes, even if the outcomes that Howard is proposing are nothing more than quick fixes. So Rudd needs to pledge broad support now and argue over the details later. The issue is then neutralised and we are less in danger over getting into a debate about an issue that no-one wants politicised.
As to withdrawing your vote for Labor over this, well that would only prove that the wedge has worked. This is not an issue to die in the ditch over.
You can still vote Greens, preferencing Labor. If enough of us do this, perhaps they’ll get the message that the ‘attack from the right’ strategy is losing them support.
Andrew Bartlett is the only choice for the Queensland Senate IMO. Great man
Kim, because we have a preferential system you can put the Greens first and Labor second and you can send a message without helping JWH, but the sentiments expressed in your post remind me very much of American Naderites circa mid-2000.
We all know how well that worked out…
Do we know the Greens’ view of all this yet?
Kim’s reaction is a proof why Howard’s strategy may be working….although not as much as Tampa.
As I have stated in my blog and in a response of the ‘Tampa 2007′ in this blog the beauty of Tampa for the Coalition was that it was able to lower the ALP’s primary vote because it caused angst in two key ALP’s constituencies. The ‘educated left’ for better words (you know, the ones that right wing commentators variously refer as ‘caffelatte set’) because Beazley was seen as being a ‘me too’ leader that was following Howard’s draconian policy (which was not entirely true) and by the ‘battlers’ who already were wary about Labor’s attachment to multiculturalism and were lead to believe by Howard that Labor would allow any asylum seeker to queue jump into Australia (also not true).
The mistake by Beazley was that he unresevedly supported Howard on the Tampa in Parliament (he said that Labor would not object to the Government’s actions at this time or something) when he realised how draconian the whole thing was it was too late. The left ALP voters got pissed off because he kowtowed to Howard. The battlers were pissed off because they thought that the ALP wanted to alllow any evil queue jumper in, and of course the change of direction from Beazley made him look undecisive (flip flop).
This policy has also the potential to dissafect the left (as Kim’s reaction has shown). However Rudd is playing it softly. I also think that the Howard’s policy stinks. But I also agree with others tat if Rudd stood out in Parliament condemning the policy he would have been a Tampa version II. The whole attention would have been on why he did not want to protect the children from pedophiles.
The problem with these policies is that the emotion takes over, and the detail gets left behind. Remember that with Tampa the whole story was about these people wanting to cheat to get in Australia. The detail about why they wanted to come, the tragic individual stories, and (afterwards) that most of them got granted refugee status anyway got washed away in the blaring of shock jocks and so called ‘current affairs’ programs.
The fact Kim is that you probably are very well informed and read widely and get into the detail. But would the average voter get into the details of whether Federal control of 40 community town areas for 5 years make any difference at all to housing standards, or the justice of Aboriginal parents living in remote communities having 50% of their welfare benefits withheld to ensure that their children are fed.
The average punter has either no time or no inclination of getting into this. Having Rudd (or heavens above Mackin..isn’t she the shadow Aboriginal minister?) getting into the detail about the injustice would be washed away by emotive picture of kids and the government say ‘Rudd want these kids to be continued to be abused”.
I left the ALP partly because of Tampa. However we must recognise that the ALP is a party that needs to get votes from a wide variety of people. People that we may not want to touch with a ten foot pole. The Greens can be happy with the feeling that they will never form government and can ‘afford to be pure’ as Gough once said.
I know this isn’t news to most on the website, and hope this post isn’t out of place or character with this thread.
below is what I posted to Crikey last Friday (unpublished)…
The blog-thread Friday and today covers several key points:
This is “classic” Howard.
Labor (led by their media advisors, or Rudd himself) fear they are “wedged” if they respond with anything but full unconditional support. Both the Government and media personnel looking for a great sensationalist, anti-Labor headline will leap on Labor if they raise any reasoned discussion disputing on either the message or the action plan.
The minor parties have more room to breathe reason into this as they (think they) have less to lose. In fact I think in the long term Labor has more to lose (i.e. the election) by unquestioningly supporting this. But there’s the moral and ethical wasteland media-led polity. It’s good to see some other state and territory leaders questioning the motives.
The Government will greatly improve the next polls, and the media and Government will leap all over this as a sign that “Action Man” Howard is the only one capable of tackling the “big issues” challenging Australia.
Voting (or polling) against Rudd and Labor is exactly what the timing and delivery of this “National Emergency” was all about. As per the discussion on ABC’s “The Insiders” if this was a genuine emergency a 24-hour delay to bring others into the process was not an issue. It was all about switching the media attention to the Government’s agenda on the last sitting day and dominating the Winter Break.
I know that some letter writing campaigns has already started to Rudd’s office against his support of Labor taking a more reasoned approach that kow-towing to Howard.
Yeah well,I have to pour cold water on a lot of you about this but,wether some of you realize it or not a lot of Australians would rather the Aborigines were sent out to the desert a very big fence put around them given some spears and forgotten about.
I think you may find though you might not like it much that the above is true,and I think it applys in all states to a greater or lesser degree I know in WA where I am if the Aborigines vanished off the face of the earth tomorrow no one would give a stuff.
I,m sorry if you find this not to your liking but in the main its the truth
Three points, Kim.
It wasn’t his political stances, I assure you.
Personality politics and frontbench jockeying were far more important than the symbolics during the leadership battles. The FPLP don’t think of leadership tussles as battles for the #1 spot, they think of them as contests to decide entire frontbenches. And that’s not to mention the issue of his health.
Quite wrong. In the hard-left seat of Sydney, for instance, the Labor primary vote grew. The “Left”, if one exists outside stereotype and hyperbole, was as welded tight to the ALP in 2001 as it could possibly have been, Tampa and Operation Relex ensured the polarisation; it was Labor’s middle-aged conservatives who voted Liberal—the ones who would never vote 1G2ALP in a fit. In any case, if I recall correctly, the Coalition’s jump in support came on immediately after the World Trade Centre attacks, well before Tampa.
It’s a compulsory preferential ballot, you *have* to preference. Unless you live in a safe Greens/Independent electorate your lower house ballot will eventually be counted in the 2PP.
One point, Alex:
Ahhh, the Greens vote. The ultimate in exculpatory symbolic gestures. C’mon everybody, hop in—the water’s tepid.
If you vote Green statistics indicate that only about 0.75 percent of your vote comes back to the ALP. You are therefore increasing Howard’s chances of getting back in, but if your happy to have that on your conscience then so be it.
I guess here in Victoria this hasn’t intruded on our conscience too much and I look forward to catching up with some colleagues who do a lot of work on indigenous policy issues soon. But doesn’t this strike you as a most illiberal action? I can’t wait for research fellows at the IPA and CIS to start attacking this as they would if they stuck to their free market principles.
The truth is dealing with entrenched social ills (or in old language classic class discrimination) is a chicken and egg scenario. The key question is is there a case to intervene in this manner to comabt social ills, and if so is the intervention going to lead to a repressive law and order response, or a real whole of government issue to address aboriginal health needs and economic development? If its the latter then I think most progressives, despite misgivings about the authoritarian methodology, can support it. If its the former, then this could be a tragedy in the making.
I’m sticking with Rudd and Labor - cause I vote on more than one issue.
I’m sorry, Chris, what? You do understand how to count a lower house ballot, don’t you, distributing the preferences *at full value* as each exhausted candidate is excluded? Assuming that neither Labor nor the Coalition candidate win an outright majority of first preferences, then 1 Green 2 ALP = 1 ALP.
The point as I argued badly was that the votes of the kind of Left that looks for symbolism and leadership are not required for a change of government. They’re spoken for.
I *think* Chris means that only 75% of second preferences end up being distributed - because 25% are cast in electorates where first prefs alone give someone the majority.
It’s another smart move from Howard…. and will probably help close the gap with Labor, but whether it’s going to be enough I don’t know.
‘Solving’ the Aborginal problem is obviously highly complex… and these simple measures are not a full solution. But the genius of Howard is that it is almost impossible to disagree with what he’s proposing without sounding stupid or uncaring. More policing, health checks, banning alcohol and porn… how can anyone rationally disagree with that?
The simple message is spot on - everything else we’ve tried hasn’t worked to date… and to do nothing whilst kids are being abused is not an option. Let’s get tougher on law and order (always resonates well with the mainstream) and fix the short term problems whilst we think about what to do for the long term.
How could Rudd do anything other than support Howard on this? If that means that you’ll vote Green at the next election - then fantastic, mission accomplished!
Yes, Chris, the vote retains a value of 1. By all means, vote Green and preference Labor - it does truly send a message to those campaigning, poll-driven people who are making calls like this.
I share Kim’s disappointment that Rudd didn’t choose to use his great popularity to put a bit of nuance and intelligence into the debate. I agree that it shows that he is not a great leader.
However, for the same reason as Latham would not have been as bad, had he won, as everyone is saying with “hindsight”, this is not everything. Parties lead government here to a greater extent than they do in the US. We aren’t voting for a President (yet). I have not yet lost faith that the entire Labor FPLP has decided to give up and enact Howard’s plan should they win.
As many have said here - it is a democracy, and we do have to take 50% 1 of the population with us. So Rudd does have to balance that thought. But that doesn’t mean sitting back saying “Oh, the polls”. It means that we also have a duty to bring people with us, by persuading them. It doesn’t mean that we can’t also voice our views as part of that democracy.
Perhaps, FDB, but it’d still be wrong to say:
If you vote 1 Green 2 ALP, or in any formal way in which your Labor preference is higher than the Coalition’s, you are in no electoral way increasing the chances of a Liberal majority in the Lower House.
I’m all for cynical Labourist shilling, being a mindless managerialist technocratic drone myself, but it does need to be factually correct.
Yeah, FdG, I should have said “I *think* one of the misapprehensions Chris seems to Laboring under is….”
Put it this way, Howard is on a hiding to nothing with Rudd’s reaction to the emergency policy.
If Rudd does the pragmatic Right-wing me-too and supports Howard then the other shoe drops for conservative nationalist cultural policy. HOward nudges the politico-cultural system as a whole a bit more to starboard. Larva-Prodders are even more marginalised.
If Rudd does the “principled” Left-liberal thing and opposes Howard then border line ALP voters with conservative nationalist sympathies tip into the LN/P column. Rudd risks losing the election.
So either way Howard wins: on ideological policy or on electoral politics. Check. No wonder the Cultural Left is tearing its hair out!
Actually Fiasco, I’ve never voted Labor, and was just suggesting a strategy for Kim.
In terms of ideology, I see little or no difference between the two major parties.
Kim
I have a very ‘materialist’ (that is Socialist, not multiculti) left-wing mate who is torn by the issues you raise. Because if Rudd wins this election with his current antagonism towards working class people and trade unions, Rudd will say “Stuff them, I won the election without them, they can choke on their hairy butt-cracks.” Though I imagine his Cristian puritanism might inhibit his language.
Firstly, while it’s disappointing to see Rudd collapse into line with Ratty on the issue, there might not have been much of a choice. As has been said before, he’d be damned for being a right-winger by following and damned for giving succour to abusers by not - and, given that he has one eye on the polls at all times, he’s considered it better to piss off the few occupying the moral Everest rather than the many who’d rather castrate paedophiles. However, what he needs to do now is to try and steer the response back from the extreme edge that Ratty has taken, while still being hard on the central issue of abuse. Maybe running a line of “OK, I’ll pledge support for medical checks on ALL children, regardless of race, in every disadvantaged area - Willmot, Broadmeadows, Inala, Elizabeth, Chigwell…” will show the policy for the racist stunt that it is.
Secondly, I’ll give the reasons why I’ll still be supporting Labor going into this election:
* It’s easy for anyone to stick to an ideological line when they have no chance of putting it into practice,
* I’m sick of The Greens claiming to be above political brawling, only to kick it off in order to cannibalise Labor, and
* The real enemy doesn’t sit on the Opposition benches, so why the hell attack it?
I’ll be voting the same way I did last time:
1 - ALP
2 - Your Voice (yes, Richard Frankland is running again, apparently)
3 - Greens, then everyone else (bottom being Santas, Libs and Fundies in that order.)
Oh my wording was alittle clumsy to be sure but only about 70-80% of people who vote Green put Labor higher in their preferences then the Liberals.
So the idea that every vote lost by Labor to the Greens comes back at full value is not correct.
I hear this all the time and its just not correct. Ask the kid with no meal breaks in their first ever job that there is no difference. Tell that to the people on housing waiting lists in Victoria, who now have hope because new housing stock is being built. Tell that to the people of Morwell whose town was devestated by the Liberals privatisation of the SECV.
Say you disagree with both the idelogical underpinnings of the ALP and the Liberals, but to say there is no difference, well thats just ignorant.
Perhaps many people here don’t know about electoral returns. Your first preference is of high importance because you are not only directing your vote to that candidate, but they then have the chance (if >4% or so) to obtain electoral funding and have possibly a better campaign next time. IMO, Labor don’t deserve another cent of taxpayers money towards their campaign. Neither the Liberals or Nats for that matter. But that is the choice you make when you tick a box No. 1.
So for those who think a vote 1G 2ALP is the same as 1ALP, then explain why we should be funding stupid ALP ads, like that of Rudd seen recently.
Kim wrote:
I think this part of your analysis is flawed, Kim.
In order for swinging voters to desert Labor they’d have to care about the issue Howard is running hard on.
As I said in another thread, this is quite different from Tampa and its effect on voting intentions is likely to be negligible.
What made Tampa so potent was the threat of the ‘other’.
That element simply does not exist with this issue. People are likely to forget about this in a few days as it has no tangible or even perceived effects on swinging voter’s lives.
Too early for writing Rudd off Kim, as I’ve said.
You’re still wrong, Chris. What part of “Votes carry at the value of 1″ don’t you understand? A 1G2Lib/Nat vote is a vote lost to the Coalition, not the Greens.
Austin, the Greens are in no danger of losing their AEC funding allocation. As you can see, they got more in 2004 than the Nationals—but surely a better reason to vote Green would be that you agree with their policies and would prefer a Greens candidate to be elected above the candidates of the other Parties? That’s a far more justifiable point of view than that of someone who’s trying to game the system.
In Australia, under compulsory voting and compulsory preferencing, it simply isn’t an effective method of exercising power to argue for 1G2ALP. Those votes just *aren’t* votes Labor needs to worry about.
It’s been a long time since we’ve had a decent Internecine Left Battle. Thanks Kim, and thanks everyone. You’re warming my black heart.
The trouble with policy by focus group is voters can’t tell you they like polices you have never talked about.
Rudd should have said had the balls call this an election year stunt. They should have dug up every last report on the issue (god knows there are a million of them) and asked the government what they did in response to each and every one of them.
Rudd should have said up front, the only way to fix this issue long term is through education and bringing up a generation of aboriginal kids with the confidence and expectations to get more out of life from than their parents have. Link parent welfare payments to school attendance and genuine funding for quality education with smart things like lunch and breakfast served at school.
All this would have been alot easier if they actually had these policies in place before Howard’s stunt.
Who cares about the headlines in the GG or Daily Telegraph? I know its hard to believe but voters see through them. We have watched week after week of bad headlines for Labor result in good poll numbers. In my opinion getting bashed by the media for policies that people agree with or at least respect only helps you.
ABoriginal kids die at three times the rate of non aboriginal kids.
Full report at the end of the page.
I’ll add my voice of disagreement with Kim.
Another example that hasn’t been raised is the Tasmanian timber workers. I’m sure they got a better deal by white anting Latham and helping Howard to be re-elected.
I think that expressing the disappointment that comes from Kim, et. al. only helps to encourage the view that the no-conservative parties are divided. That’s not to say I disagree with the views, just that there is a time and place to express them and that time is not now.
At the end of the day, this is how I see it. There are ONLY two options: Howard or Rudd. Nothing else. Who will do better? The one who’s support base includes Pauline Hansen, or the one who’s support base includes the “Latte Set” (sorry for the stereotyping). I’ll pick Rudd, and leave any criticism until he’s in power and really able to make a difference.
I would suggest others to hold his feet to the fire AFTER he’s PM and not before.
Fozzy:
I doubt it, considering they effectively voted for WorkChoices. Paul Norton, your expertise is required here, I believe.
That’s ridiculous. The leadup to an election is probably the most effective time to express political points of view.
Well, except for all the other parties and candidates.
Forgive me if I find that completely defeatist. Howard’s a ‘genius’ so the best Labor can do is react to his agenda as best it can. Why not just run up the white flag now and admit Labor can’t win until Howard dies?
How would it be ’stupid or uncaring’ to condemn Howard’s absurd ’send in the troops’ response as totally inconsistent with the express recommendations of the report that triggered it? Why would it be so politically impracticable for Rudd to point out that the very first recommendation in the report proposed a joint approach with the NT Government and extensive consultation with Aboriginal communities? A recommendation that Howard has explicitly rejected in favour of his ‘my way or the highway’ tough talk.
If Rudd can’t get an alternative strategy across without sounding like an apologist for pedophilia then he doesn’t deserve to hold high office. These arguments that ‘Oh we can’t disagree with Howard on social policy he’s such a clever wedger’ are nothing but craven cowardice. They suggest that Labor learnt nothing whatsoever from the Hanson experience and is still convinced that half its suport base is all in favour of a bit of racism. Well if that’s so I’m with Kim on election day.
To win the election Rudd needs more than an electorate that sullenly dislikes Howard’s mob. He needs people out in the community enthusiastically explaining how Australia will be a much better place under a Labor Government. I’ve yet to hear such an argument.
Interesting discussion. I was also disappointed in Rudd’s reaction - it was a relief to see people like Stanhope and even Peter Beattie raise a few objections to Howard’s reaction.
Anyway, Howard’s way will undoubtedly run into problems pretty quickly. And I notice that the article about this does not make it into the list of most-viewed SMH articles - indicating to me that most people are not interested or feel despairing about the issue.
How can anyone not agree with the broader sentiment behind this intervention, to address problems and child abuse in Aboriginal communities. The devil of this plan wil be in the detail. That is where this intervention will begin to get flaky. Rudd has played this right, agree with the broader sentiment and wait and see on the detail.
What Ken Lovell suggests is the classic nothing to lose greens response being applied to one the major parties who need to in fact catch the middle ground, not disaffected greens voters. Political naivety mixed with a dash of death or glory. Some people cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that the electorate has shifted to the right in the past eleven years and to shift it back compromises will have to be made.
What you say is valid Ken, but it assumes that we have a media that will fairly and impartially communicate Rudd’s message. This is simply not the case, and this fact cannot be ignored or wished away. The Howard cheer squad, including large sections of the ABC would take great pride in attempting to destroy him on this issue, and it doesn’t matter how well he presents his ideas, most of the media would go completely loony.
Kim:
I doubt that thousands of Christian Conservative Lib supporters are deserting the Coalition because he has (so far) been against banning abortion, or legislating for the teaching of Intelligent Design. Abbott still seems just as rusted on to Howard as ever. I guess those RWDB types seem to better understand that politics, and the path to power, sometimes involves compromise.
When I noted Rudd’s reply in parliament I thought: “nervous times, the ALP will lose a few percent, but at least he’s dealt himself into the tent, where he can start chipping away at the nuttier excesses of the Emergency Plan, and show how Prime Ministerial he is in the process.” If he had launched a condemnation of the plan I would have thought: “maybe we’ll be a chance in 2010″.
I disagree with the facile criticism of Rudd being a Howard mini-me. Given their very different life and spiritual experiences I think Rudd’s approach to any social welfare issues would not start from the “malingerer, pick yourself up, burden on society” basis that infuses so much of Howard’s philosophy.
You mightn’t like Rudd’s instinctive reaction to a grenade that has been hurled through his window, but at the end of the day would you rather have him or Howard guiding indigenous policy?
Only the impotent are truly pure, but maybe you’ve become comfortable with that. (Sorry for the strong language, but I’m frustrated with the predictable reactions, from all sides of the debate, that this most obvious of wedge issues has engendered).
So far, I suspect the only group whose vote might change out of Howard’s latest wedge is the cultural left, whose views Kim reflected.
The bottom line is that for the mass of the electorate, Aboriginal affairs is not an issue that would change their vote. But it might if Rudd appeased the educated people and pointed to Howard’s duplicity.
By backing the broad thrust of Howard’s ‘plan’, Rudd takes the wedge out of the issue and defuses any risk of being seen to be soft on paedophiles. I can assure you that Murdoch’s mercenary hacks would have had that story in the transmit basket ready to go.
If the major priority is helping the innocent children, which everyone agrees on, Rudd is doing the right thing, particularly since he can fix the details when he takes over government within 3-4 months.
In the meantime, ahead of the formal campaign, he can put together a nice line of attack on all the issues that suddenly became ‘emergencies’ for Howard in an election year - Aboriginal hardship, climate change, education, access to broadband etc; etc;
These questions can be put to voters: “If these issues are all so critical, as we believe they are, why has it taken Howard 11 years to address them? And what does it say about the substance of his plans when they emerged overnight without any community consultation?”
Rudd might also ask: “Which would you prefer: a government that seeks quick-fix, band-aid solutions to problems and judges those fixes purely for short-term political advantage? Or a government that has a long-term vision for Australia and works back from there to create lasting, sustainable AND practical policies that align with that vision?”
The latter.
Labor published its policy on ‘New Directions: An equal start in life for indigenous children’ just last month. If it’s a ‘lasting, sustainable and practical policy’ why isn’t it being expounded in response to Howard’s military solution?
All these comments advocating realpolitik and you have to make compromises and so on are more of the same stuff that got Labor where it is today … standing for nothing except the very thing it rightly accuses Howard of, namely expediency in pursuit of office.
Err… I think the point was missed.
“The funding rate for the 2004 election was 194.397 cents per eligible vote.”
So in the 2007 election, depending on where you cast your first preferences, about $2 of public money flows to that candidate (provided they are over 4%). Pauline got $200,000 last time! I think it is important for people to know that their money is distributed in this way.
Under this system about $35mil went to the Major parties, neither of which I would give a cent. And I don’t.
Yes, your order of preference is important to the final result, but your first preference determines the future of Australian politics under these funding arrangements.
I’m not suggesting that The Greens will miss out on this funding, I’m just saying that when you put a 1 next to a major party unnecessarily, you need to know that you are throwing away your small contribution to the diversity of Australian politics.
Ken Lovell, you were voting green before this as you have stated so many times on so many other forums. This issue has reinforced your view rather than changed it, hasn’t it.
Your welcome to all your romantic notions and “standing for things” and such like, but excuse the rest of us if we choose to deal with the practicalities and compromises involved in voting in a two party system.
Nice to see the Victorian ALP Central Executive (circa 1966) is alive and well, Kim.
If you can;t see that you;re doing exactly what Howard wants you to do on this issue, well, you’re not half as intelligent as I always thought you were.
And as for your gratuitious reference to Boenhoffer, I would have thought you might have known that in joining the German Resistance, he was compromising his belief in non-violence in order to win a greater battle. Pertinent, wouldn’t you say?
I’m not sure the comparison shows what you think it shows, Luke. The Victorian Steering Committee-controlled Executive in the era before Whitlam/Cairns’ Federal intervention was a failure not because they were ‘principled’ or uncompromising, but because they were just not very good at the job of picking candidates and winning elections. The British Labour Party was very competitive in the Wilson era with broadly similar policies.
The Victorian ALP also lost lots of elections because the Victorian electoral system didn’t work on the principle of one person-one vote, and privileged the National Party’s seats, but that bit of the Bolte ascendancy gets glossed over.
The Coalition does *not* care about the votes of people who will never vote for them, nor about their behaviour, nor about their arguments. Is that so hard to understand?
Anyway, the sellout/standup dichotomy is as old, old, old. The Party that wins the election coming up will win it not because they had transcendent big-picture vision á la KenL or because they were willing to compromise their beliefs for structural gain á la Kapunda: they’ll win it because they won fifty percent of the seats plus one in the House of Reps. Do it as 150 separate by-elections, whatever.
Spare us. Or, perhaps, have the RTA make an ad about it.
[ahem] I mean the Country Party, of course.
Disagree, Fiasco. State Aid and such issues cost the ALP dearly becasue of the VCE.
Again, fundamentally disagree. The usual suspects berating the Howard government comes across wonderfully positively for JWH out in Normal Punter Land.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I’d love to think that swinging voters out there know who their local candidates are, what their stances are and how well or otherwise they represent their local constituencies….but I’m afraid they don’t. Our national elections are now quasi-presidential contests fought at a national level on leadership and Party policy.
Not sure how you think FdG is disagreeing with you on that last point, Luke. His point had nothing to do with local candidates.
Luke, I think you’re drawn overly to the concept of a society of masses and an homogeneous electorate. Both are fictions.
In such a model, the National Party’s rural pork would have no purpose, nor would any local member giving a speech to the Kickatinalong West Public School’s Third Term Fête. Minor Parties and local Independents would not have the slightest significance—yet, they exist and thrive.
There’s no place in the Presidential model for people like Andrew Bartlett, Brian Harradine, Pauline Hanson, Peter Andren, Clover Moore, Steve Fielding or Barney Whatsisname from Queensland.
Does it border the Strocchiverse?
—SIGNAL (CLASSIFIED PG)—
FROM: ADM DAGAMA
TO: LPHQ
POSITION: ZUGZWANG
—TEXT AS FOLLOWS—
COMMENT AUTOMODERATED
MACKERRAS REPORTS DOOM AND DISASTER
WE ALSO AWAIT THE RETURNS FROM EDEN-MONARO,
L’ETAT, C’EST MOI
—ENDS—
I’m still yet to make up my mind whether I’ll vote 1 Labor or the Greens in the Lower House this year. I live in a Labor seat and it won’t make too much difference, but I am conscious of the desire to register my distaste at the Great Rudd Moving Right Show.
I think the question is - at what point do “lesser of two evils” arguments become unsustainable.
I didn’t vote Labor 1 in the Tampa election.
I’m also not sure that I find all the pragmatic rhetoric on this thread all that reassuring.
I agree, Mark, and I think some of the claims of “pragmatism” have missed the point about what pragmatism actually entails.
Pragmatism is agreeing to compromises when there aren’t enough people who agree with your whole aim to get it done. That is, working with the system and the opportunities you have, rather than those you wish you had.
There are a few people on this thread - no, not all - who seem to be advocating “pragmatism” without actually understanding the system they’re trying to be “pragmatic” in.
Pragmatism has absolutely nothing at all to do with deliberately choosing not to criticise, or seek to change, on the grounds that you’re fairly sure you won’t win. Debate, fight, then compromise when and if you have to.
Voting Green, and preferencing the Coalition, because you don’t think Rudd is progressive enough is completely and utterly stupid. Voting Green and preferencing Labor because you want them to know that you don’t agree with them entirely is a perfectly valid decision.
I for one will still be voting Labor. But that won’t stop me from saying that I wished Rudd’s response was otherwise.
In this you are wrong. Before around 1950/51 there was a real problem in Victoria with seats in the country being weighted above those in the metropolitan regions. It was largely the work of Thomas Holloway who reformed the electoral system for the lower house and in the process largely split the conservatives allowing Labor to win in 1952.
Labor was then split in 1955 and a combination of Bolte’s Liberals routing the Country Party in regional seats and DLP preferences in the City he won office. Labor did not win in Victoria until 1982.
You can’t blame the electoral system on Bolte - his predessors largely fixed up the most galring problem
I’ll be doing the same, but perfectly understand why Mark & Kim feel the way they do, but as I said earlier If Rudd had gone in too far the orther way, he would’ve been painted by Ratty & his Ra Ra Squad as a “Friend of teh EVIL kiddy fiddlers”, or to paraphrase The Who in Tommy - an “Uncle Ernie”, who’s “Fiddlin’ About” with the lives of these “Poor Little Indigines”.
MInd you, Rudd has questioned the role of the AFP doing the work of State Police.
Totally agree with all that, Anna.
I think this thread, and the comments thereof strike at what I think is a weakness in the Australian political system.
Overall the way Australia votes its governments have a lots going for it. However it tends to favour two big blocks which cannot fully represent the aspirations of some voters.
The example with Kim and others here who are on the left, have only the ALP as the only realistic alternative to the current conservative regime.
There is dissonance (and there will be more in the future) in relation to the ALP and its constituencies. This is particularly hard for the ALP because these have very different views.
We saw that when Latham went green in Tasmania and disaffected the timber workers. We saw it during the Tampa and to a lesser extent now with this Aborigines policy with the more ‘left voter’.
We can vote Green, but under the Federal system it would require a political earthquake for that Party to have enough support to win government.
Unlike in political systems where a more proportional representation is used and small parties can be invited to govern in coalitions, in the the Australian Federal sphere they can only criticise on the sidelines. (coalitions can be unstable, but that’s another story).
So we lefties have to go for the ALP as a ‘near enough’ party. Not as good as we would hope but much better than the alternative.
That’s true, Guido, and the lack of direct democracy in the selection of parliamentary representatives compounds it. The US primary system allows for a lot more citizen involvement from a range of ideological perspectives. Of course, there are other reasons why the US electoral system is pretty flawed.