It’s fair to say that John Howard’s Indigenous referendum plan knocked me off my feet. I suspect that this is pretty much what it was supposed to do. My first instinct was to scour Howard’s speech to find the catch. However, I came away thinking that his referendum is a genuinely good idea.
My next reaction was to ask why the ALP didn’t beat Howard to the punch? In light of Rudd’s ridiculous decision not to enthusiastically support Robert McClelland earlier in the week I got to thinking about how badly Kevin Rudd has let down the progressive left. It was a classic example of Rudd’s instinctive reaction to drift to the right whenever he is thrown a flipper. This instinct gives often leaves me with the impression his vision for Australia is simply John Howard’s Australia with Kevin Rudd as PM.
Yet, and here’s the weird thing, if Rudd’s campaigning style hadn’t forced Howard into the political fight of his life then John Howard wouldn’t be talking about the need for reconciliation with Indigenous Australians. As was pointed out yesterday in an excellent piece by Possum, John Howard’s vote bleeding has forced him to pander to the Liberal heartland, the so-called “doctor’s wives”.
Three years ago, after Howard had snatched both houses of Parliament, there is no way that I could have imagined that Howard would be launching his next campaign with a call for a referendum entrenching the place of Indigenous Australians within the constitution. By forcing John Howard to fight for the middle ground the ALP has put (at least a few) liberal issues back on the agenda after 11 years of neglect.
So now the election campaign is finally going to happen. It’s been a really long three years, but now finally the end is in sight and all those questions which have been buzzing around at the back of heads for the last few months will ultimately be put to rest.
Personally I want to know whether Kevin07 will be able to rise above the grip-and-grin politics that have got him this far. Up to now Rudd’s campaign has followed the formula for success that his state-based counterparts have perfected over the last decade. If the Howard era is to be laid to rest then Kevin Rudd and the ALP are going to have to demonstrate some real leadership and some truly inspiring policy in the coming weeks.
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop on me-tooism and Possum on those that like Range Rovers.
If Rudd wins I hope those in the ALP get a backbone and stand up to him. I doubt it though…
Peter Hartcher has a good point in the SMH yesterday- Howard and Rudd should run a unity ticket.
I’m simultaneously impressed with the Rudd team for avoiding being wedged by the world champion wedger Rattus Howardii, and disgusted by some of the me-tooism that has been necessary to avoid the wedging. For me, at this stage, the need to get rid of JWH and cronies, overtakes my desire to see some genuine Labor values in areas such as Indigenous policy, the death penalty etc. I believe Labor will avoid talking about wedgable Labor policies, and stick to mee-tooism until Nov 25 (after the election). Then I hope the real Labor policies will get an airing.
Why?
Assuming Ratty wins the election (yes, it is a mathematical possibility).
Only one of two outcomes is possible.
1. Ratty constructs a motherhood statement constitutional amendment that achieves nothing but another coat of scum to grease the tracks of Ratty’s Political Legend.
2. Ratty constructs something substantive in the way of an amendment. He then runs dead like he did on his previous Preamble. Ratty then jumps aboard the White Populist Dogwhistle Bandwagon, proclaiming, “The people have spoken!”
He is vermin. He is not to be trusted.
The reaction by soft liberals to this shows that Howard may indeed win the election.
The GG says there is little difference between the two major parties except for WorkChoices. Howard seems to want to win more than Rudd (I’ve heard more than a few people say they “admire” Howard for his determination, at the same time as saying they wouldn’t vote for him, but…); Howard’s going to continue buying votes seat by seat, announcing new “visions” that sweep the naive and credulous off their feet, and Rudd is doing what? Ducking wedges. Seems like I’ve seen this ALP strategy before, but incumbency and how different will the alternative be or will it be better, are crunch-time questions, that tend to send artful dodgers flying flat on their face.
I fear the worst.
Looks to me like Rodent wants the chattering classes chattering about anything other than Workchoices.
I predict Rudd wont fall for it – it’ll be workchoices for brekky, lunch and dinner.
A genuinely good idea?
Care to provide a reason why a meaningless statement in a meaningless part of the Constitution devised by a lying and devious crook could be a good idea FFS.
Howards symbolism does nothing for me either, mick. After his latest aboriginal land and money grab, he just wants to build the equivalent of a giant national pineapple so we can remember his latest whitey triumph.
David Ross from NT Central Land Council put things best in his comments……
“It would seem Mr Howard’s actions over 11 years belie his words. When a snake sheds his skin, he has a shiny new skin, but he’s still the same old snake, with the same old venom.”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hnyKyZXDxS3JK8k7sIVrZYEuHBKg
Not going to happen. First, soft liberals don’t matter much politically. Second, I’m sure they know by now that Howard isn’t one of them.
My vision for AUS is John Howard as PM, leading an anti-Work Choices ALP. But Rudd will do in the absence of dreams come true.
The solution to the mystery of “cross-wired politics” is that parties are converging on the “vital centre”. To do this they have to talk to their policy foes whilst tacking to their political friends. Change the ideological signs depending on party.
Howard is talking Left whilst tacking Right eg the indigenous intervention. Rudd is talking Right and will probably tack Left, wait till Gillard gets her talons into power.
The Great Convergence has been going on for decades. Initially it started on the Class War. Now it has moved to the Culture War. Politicians, as Mrs Thatcher once observed, will eventually follow the correct policy after all other options have been exhausted.
Convergance yes, but how much of this is the natural result of (and therefore the fault or achievement of) our electoral system?
jack strocchi, love your analysis of contemporary politics with a yachting theme. It makes a lot of sense. I just wish that elements of the so called “progressive left”, could try to focus their ‘angst’ on the present mad captain rather than the bloke trying to turn the bloody boat around.
Apart from the bit where you get scared by a powerful women with ‘talons’ , on board. There is some chance that our testicles will remain safe even with a female Deputy Prime Minister. And give up on the ol’ f’, as his time as PM, has passed.
Thanks , you have confirmed for all, that politics is a ‘tacky’ business.
I should also point out, referendums are nothing more than an expensive way of saying no.
Australia has had exactly two successful national referendums: one to federate, and one to give aboriginal people citizenship. I would be very surprised if a) Howard holds to this promise and b) if it would get a yes. It truly would be history making, even if the preamble is crap.
Think you have the political game plan down pat, Katz.
Rudd is a particular kind of new conservative, in some ways more conservative than John Howard. He has a deep commitment to navigating his way through power and a global view of power’s changing terrain – China, international relations, state and federal bureaucracies. John Howard’s commitment to nationalism and Anglo-Australia express an understanding of social and political power in Australia which is distinctly old-fashioned and he has so skilfully, but perhaps intuitively, manipulated these moments of transition. However, neither Howard nor Rudd have any real interest in those without power, which is one way to define the politics of the Left.
Politics has fundamentally devolved to a game about getting in. Rudd is playing this game well. If he makes no commitments about reversing his long list of “me toos” then there is a fair chance he won’t bother if he gest in. I agree that his strategy has put Howard under pressure. But this strategy has not held up in he heat of the last two campaigns. Call Howard lucky, but he could win again.
I agree with Katz & Patrickg – he is not to be trusted to deliver on ANY promise and could easily scupper a referendum – would definately in fact when all the weasel words emerge.
My main concern is that we are staring into the furnace of climate change with no real action from either Howard or Rudd. The election is a sideshow.
The main game could cost us the earth, and it looks like it might.
mikey on 13 October 2007 at 1:34 pm
Its probably true that AUS’s major party-friendly electoral system of preferential voting in the House of Reps encourages “organizational concentration” ie duopoly. The same tendency is observable in the industrial system eg Telstra v Optus, Coles v Safeways, QUANTAS v Virgin, the Banks and Insurers.
We have minor party-friendly electoral system of proportional representation in the Senate. Yet the concentration trend is also exhibited there. This is despite the fact that compulsory media funding rewards small parties and start up costs must be lower due to cheap communications.
In 2004 (the catallaxy link seems to have rotted) I suggested that a Great Concentration was occuring, observable in the political shakeout of our minor parties. I predicted that the major parties would garner in excess of 80% of the primary vote. This prediction looks set to be confirmed in this election.
Since then, on the liberal-Left, the GREENs and DEMs have fallen by the wayside. But on the “corporal”-Right the vote of the NP and ON have also fallen on hardtimes.
There has also been a convergence of policy views in both the major parties. The whole political system has shifted to the Right on cultural identity and the Left on social equity.
The concetration of parties reflects a standardization of views, and a degree of communalisation of interests, amongst voters on what constitutes good government policy. At least as regards basic public goods eg economic prosperity, national security, cultural identity, ecological sustainability, social equity.
This is what you would expect in a fairly normalized civil society with a reasonably well educated and well informed voting public. So to that extent, the political system of democratic populism is working well.
There are obviously ideologues, typically representing elite interests, who do not like this form of rational populism. They have had their chance and blown it.
‘Convergence’ could also be the result of a failure of democratic vision affecting all the liberal democracies over the past few decades. The characteristics of the malady have been described as policits that offers little more than ‘the minimisation of irritation and the moderation of expectations’.
As for Ratty’s referendum, it’s predictably vague and insubstantial. Really, what are a few words about reconciliation in the Constitution going to achieve (if it gets up)? Might as well walk across the harbour bridge.
Katz, joe2, and others dissing Howard’s referendum plan – Yes, I agree that it may be just one big symbolic show that Howard could easily sabotage. The thing is though, I think that sometimes such symbolic actions can be a catalyst for change and this is one area of government policy that is crying out for it. I don’t want to be sprouting Coalition talking points but I think that this is simply a good starting point for changing the dynamic on Indigenous affairs in Australia.
What’s more, if Howard does sabotage this he will be damned by many. He has, to an extent, now staked his reputation to this course of action. If you read his speech he was quite emphatic about the need for change to come from all political corners on Indigenous issues. To an extent I think this means that he is somewhat serious about seeing the referendum through should he win.
This is a winner for Howard as he has now outflanked the lunar-right wing xtian nutcase Rudd.
And on the Left!
Another piece of evidence for this masterful surprise left flanking move is that Howard wont build a new layer of oppressive right wing bureaucracy such as the frighteningly Ruddite ‘
‘ Department of Homeland Security’.
It’s Howard by a canter come November and Whitlamism is saved comrades!
The icing on the cake is an Oscar Wilde friendly pink PM in the wings.
Like the democrats in the US and the Blairite Labor party the ALP are now officially dinosaurs – and about to become extinct.
Come in winner!
Umm! A week is a long time in politics,and clever statements on any given hour will recede into nothingness,not always as a function of their apparent meaninglessness or as meaning to some unfolded event. To avoid being a Cosmic Muffin, requires a skill beyond that of the Baker! If two parties engage in a fight, where their history only records the flatulence of the near possible ,and, mainly often for their own sakes, the baking has a long way to go to perfect a muffin , that isnt Cosmic, but, passes all the tests of acceptance,including that of the senses..Look elsewhere my friends for default baking means too many defaults as burnt currants later on. It is likely I will taste these before you,and, you will be none the wiser.
Please stop bestowing JWH with powers he does not have.To have survived this long is certainly something to wonder about, but it is over, not even his party want him there anymore. No one had the balls to do anything about it and then tried to invent the “team”. What has happened to that? What we see now is damage control, pure and simple, how much can be saved.
Technically Labor does not need to ‘outdo’ the Coalition. The ALP platform states:
Labor values the symbolic importance of a national apology and commits to reconciliation as a vehicle for healing and justice in Australian society.
Howard is dead against a national apology. Yes, Rudd (unlike Tanner on Lateline on Friday) has not highlighted this, but maybe it does not need to.
In regards to this move from Howard to get the ‘liberal Liberals’ back, I would be very surprised if it worked.
Howard may be successful with stunts like these with a section of the electorate who is either not enganged in politics or too busy to do so, but the liberal Liberals can afford to be more engaged and informed and they will see this cynical move for what it is.
I believe Labor will avoid talking about wedgable Labor policies, and stick to mee-tooism until Nov 25 (after the election). Then I hope the real Labor policies will get an airing.
Except the problems with this are many. The number of ‘me toos’ that Rudd has made now create a situation where it defies the bounds of trust for any progressive lefty to think that he’s going to come out and proudly repudiate them all (“ha ha! Rejoice those of the left, it was all a scam to get elected!”). I think frankly believing that Rudd is going to magically transform back into something like the ALP as we knew it is naive.
Secondly from a political pragmatism point of view, it’s highly problematic. Do we really want to see an ALP PM start his term by showing which were ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises, which is what repudiating a lot of the ‘me toos’ would amount to. It would not go down well with many in the electorate.
Thirdly, the ALP are so hypersensitive to any threat of losing power after 11 years in the wilderness, I can’t see them doing anything remotely ‘risky’ in electoral terms for their first term – their first term is going to be all about getting a second term. And if that means hanging on to the bits they think the punters liked in Howard, they will – I give you 8 state “ALP” governments as evidence.
At this point Rudd has said ‘me too’ far too many times for me, and perhaps more importantly, shown an almost obscene eagerness to repudiate long-standing ALP principles and platforms in his rush to power. I was hopeful at first it was all just clever politics to avoid the wedge. Now I’m left concluding that he’s another small target centre right politician, just a lot better at it than recent other practitioners (eg Beazley).
PS –
I forgot to point out that Rudd has created one hell of a legislative mess for himself too, if he really is going to reverse some of the “MTs”. By voting with the government on everything from the despicable NT invasion, to exempting the nuclear industry from the EPBC Act, and many more pieces of atrocious legislation besides – Labor didn’t even try and move amendments on most of them. Which means that if Rudd is going to suddenly shed his wolf’s clothing, his whole first term would have to be spent trying to undo Howard legislation. Which again raises the question why he’s not paying a lot more attention to the Senate.
I refuse to believe that Rudd is merely a pale imitation of Howard until I see him in action as Prime Minister.
I hope that he his adopting a “don’t frighten the horses” strategy in order to win the election.
I hope that once he is Prime Minister we will see a Kevin Rudd who is not afraid to strongly articulate ALP core beliefs and to take on a potentially hostile Senate in order to get legislation.
I sincerely hope that pigs can’t actually fly.
Sorry for the typos – late night and early morning.
he *is.
legislation *through.
(I’m sure you knew what I meant)
myriad – I think you are basically correct in your reading of the current situation with Rudd.
Lynda Hopgood -”I hope that once he is Prime Minister we will see a Kevin Rudd who is not afraid to strongly articulate ALP core beliefs and to take on a potentially hostile Senate in order to get legislation.”
Rudd is already strongly articulating his core beliefs about what the ALP should stand for.
How or rather if he maintains control after the election for example his overriding of caucus decisions about ministerial appointments will give us a good pointer as to whether core values re-emerge or are subserviant to the
personal dictates a new labor government/leader.
My reading of Rudd? He’s playing a game for the long-term. He’s not terribly interested in policy – if the majority people are comfortable with Howard Government policies he won’t be in a hurry to change them. He’s interested in getting into power and staying there as an end in itself, much like the incumbent.
People haven’t given sufficient attention to the implications of a Liberal defeat in this election. They will not be in government anywhere. At federal level a bunch of exhausted old hacks will squabble over the paltry perks of opposition while at state level they are uniformly a joke. Not being in government anywhere they’ll have no platform to voice an alternative position on anything. No control of question time, no dominance of parliamentary committees, nobody to come out of COAG meetings and criticise the outcomes – they will be the invisible party, constantly telephoning media outlets begging for the chance to do a two minute interview on a story. Any story.
Rudd understands this (so do a few of the Libs, thus their anything-goes panic and crazy talk like Downer switching to state parliament). They can see Labor dominating politics in Australia for a generation, with Rudd as the smiling chief executive. All he has to do for it to happen is win one election. He’s not about to do anything that upsets anybody.
Once in power of course he’ll pretty much continue with the policies of the last 11 years. After all it was only Howard trying to get reformist that rocked the Coalition boat and Rudd’s too smart to make the same mistake.
We can hopefully look forward with gloomy satisfaction to the spectacle of Howard’s mob and the man himself being humiliated for their years of slimy deception and petty vindictiveness … but that’s it. That’s the sum total of the joy a change of government will bring for anyone who thinks our nation should make some fundamental changes in direction.
All Rudd will have to to to change things is to point out that there’s a crisis (or manufacture one), the blame Howard for the damage and Bob’s your uncle’s same-sex partner. It’s a trick that works for the first term and part of the second.
Ken Lovell, ah yes, not quite like this, eh?
William Wordsworth
Ken, I concur. Should Howard lose the election the Libs will very publicly destroy themselves and be out of power for a generation. Howard’s concession speech will be compulsory viewing, but after that I don’t think that much will change – especially if Labor don’t get control of the Senate.
I recall all those years ago when Howard was asked about his vision for Australia (the now famous ‘relaxed and comfortable’ quote) – he seemed genuinely surprised by the question. The game was obviously to win the election and what would happen after that had not been given a lot of thought. KRudd seems to be ‘Me Too’-ing in that department as well.
Call me a cynic, but the sky will still be blue if/when Labor win the election.
Resin Dog: Liberal party self-destruction notwithstanding, to remain in power for a generation, the federal ALP is going to have to do one helluva lot better at running the country than the state ALP govts are doing of running each state.
I think Rudd may surprise a lot of people.
He has to play the game he’s playing now to win, but once he has won it will be a different story, and a story that I believe will be good for Australia.
His past Public Service form shows that he’s a good manager and diplomatic negotiator, and this will be a big step towards tidying up Health, Communications and Industrial Relations, etc.
He’s shown, just by taking the stance he has, that he’s intelligent, so he’ll know he has to work on fairer Tax, climate change and the aged if he wants to stay in power.
And remembering that it was Labour that brought in such great reforms as Medicare, floating the dollar, compulsory Superannuation, etc, we have to add to the above that it would not be a Labour Government if there was not some major reform in the wind.
Rudd is to be commended for not being wedged or sidetracked, his first job is to get rid of Howard, and he’s well on track with that chore.
Jack
I’m with Katz and Joe2 on this one. I don’t trust Howard an inch – he’ll either release a double whammy preamble (by adding something that will completely turn off everyone (e.g. that “We’re a Christian Nation Under God”) or will spend the entire period talking down the whole reconciliation issue (thus ensuring it’ll never happen).
No, unless he’s willing to legislate the preamble BEFORE writing the writs on Wednesday, then I’d trust him as far as I can throw him (but even then, would you trust him to keep it unchanged?).
And I’m sorry Mick:
Why? What has he got to loose? He’s already announced his departure. Howard has staked his reputation on being completely ANTI reconciliation and has a history of saying one thing and doing the other (e.g. no GST) – anything for political expediency.
No, if we want real progress on reconciliation – I think we know where to turn…
GoTroppo, I do tend to agree with your argument that Howard hasn’t really got all that much to lose. Maybe you’re right, he isn’t being genuine. Either way I’d still like to see the preamble go ahead.
Generally, on reflection, I think I was being a bit obtuse in my post. I wasn’t really trying to sing the praises of Howard and condemn Rudd, but rather I was trying to point out that by taking the middle so substantially Rudd has forced Howard to play more to the left than what is his norm. I also was trying to say that I would like to see Rudd come out with a few “big picture” policies in the next few weeks.
Crap, see, I could have written that in two sentences.
*verbose mode off*
SATP – my point being that if the Libs do become a complete shambles nationally what option will we have when we decide that Kev’s on the nose? Competition in politics keeps the bastards on their toes.