With just under two weeks left until the earliest WA election in 100 years, the main story of the campaign is a Premier trying to position himself as a strong and decisive leader, and an opposition trying to paint him as devious and arrogant. It’s all about Carps, really.
He’s devious, because calling an election only a day after Barnett became leader was like “jump[ing] into the Olympic swimming pool five seconds before the other competitors“. But if length of time as leader is the issue, then it’s his own fault that he gave up his advantage; if he’d stuck around after losing the last election he’d now be ahead of Carps in time served.
He’s devious because he’s trying to avoid CCC reports that will prove just how deep he was in with Brian Burke. He went to parties with Burke, you see. The idea that Brian Burke installed Carps as leader is one of those stories that’s both true and not-true, all at the same time. Few people were expecting Gallop’s resignation, so there was a rush of phone calls and meetings between the various party power-brokers trying to find the best solution. It soon became clear that there were very few members of the caucus capable of taking on the role, and of those, Carps was the obvious stand-out; his media experience and lack of factional alignment being the two main factors. Pretty much all of the main players agreed, and so made this agreement known to their “numbers” within caucus. While they would have looked for someone who they believed they could work with, any party power-broker worth the title would also be somewhat concerned with ability: to lead the party, to be premier, to win elections. In short, Burke may have supported the choice, maybe even actively helped it happen, but that doesn’t mean that Carps wasn’t the best/only choice anyway, and it doesn’t mean he would have lost without Burke’s help.
The obsessive focus on Brian Burke is understandable, in that it’s a short-hand and effective means of calling someone corrupt in public without getting sued. But it brings public debate down to nothing more than rumours and guilt by association. No-one has ever accused Burke of holding a gun to people’s heads. There’s been little suggestion that he works by threats and intimidation. He deals in favours, and if he’s encouraged people to break laws and cross ethical boundaries, in the end it was their choice to do so. There hasn’t, that I can remember, been any specific claims of Carps ever doing the wrong thing in the service of Brian Burke. The suggestion that he owes Burke a favour, in return for being “installed” as Premier, is slimy and unfair, but the Libs haven’t been called on to provide proof of this claim because, these days, we have always been at war against Brian Burke. Perth’s a small town, and while Burke is indeed very rich and powerful, if everyone who’s had a drink with Brian was actually in his thrall, he’d be the King of Westralia.
“No-one has ever accused Burke of holding a gun to people’s heads. There’s been little suggestion that he works by threats and intimidation.”
What? The easiest thing to Google up is a transcript of a Four Corners program which re-plays this bit of ‘phone tapping:
“BRIAN BURKE’S VOICE: Well, mate, I… I, you know, let me just say this to you. I mean, you… you wouldn’t know this, but I’m not a fuckin’ good enemy to have, and I don’t appreciate it if people aren’t up front with me.”
and also this from upper house ALP Adele Farina:
“URQUHART: “Given what he said to you about how he could affect your pre-selection, do you agree with the proposition that he was essentially blackmailing you?”
ADELE FARINA: “Yes.”
I think we can assume that intimidation was part of the Burke negotiating repertoire.
Anna what did you think of that story last week that the ALP had given up fighting for Kingsley and was going to put it’s resources into other seats. Is this punishment for the ALP sitting member who, if I remember, is a Burke supporter (same faction, received campaign donation from Brian etc)?
No, I think her bad polling is punishment for her not doing enough work to hold a seat she was lucky to win in the first place.
As far as I know, they haven’t pulled anyone from the campaign, either. Which is my point about “installing” Carps, as well. Whether they dislike her factionally or personally, the party isn’t going to pull resources from a seat they have a chance of winning.
As for Burke, I’m not claiming he’s the bestest guy in the world, and you’re right about his using threats with people like Farina. But his ability (and willingness, I’d wager) to threaten a good and popular Premier is rather more limited than a little-known upper house backbencher.
Anna,
You are right about Carps. He wasn’t the best available when Gallop quit. He is a compromise. Jim McGinty wants the job so badly it hurts, but the left aren’t powerful enough. Roberts and the right want the job but don’t have enough numbers. Carps is the compromise for both sides. And that is why he has been trying to parachute all these high profile stooges into the election – to build his own faction.
As for the links to Burke – the CCC proved the rule of never asking a question or having an inquriy you don’t know the answer to.
I am not, nor have I ever been…
…a Phil Collins fan.
Prove it
Anna,
What did you think of the Great Debate ? Barnett fell down re Buswell and Women candidates/members, and also how he will deal with Burke, Grills and Chrichton-Browne.
I’ve got a post coming in a few minutes…