In the wake of the punditariat’s latest game of deconstructing each parliamentary interjection by The Great Pretender and wistfully wishing his incoherent comedy lines on the public, it’s worth taking a step back and asking whether - even if you think Peter Costello’s schtick is remotely worthwhile - it matters.
Andrew Bartlett points out:
I remain to be convinced that being the best performer at ‘throwing the switch to vaudeville’ does much on its own to attract public support.
Kevin Rudd didn’t defeat John Howard because he had a lot of witty putdowns in parliament. Nor did John Howard win against Paul Keating in 1996 for this reason. Indeed, one could argue that this fixation with Keating’s apparently unchallenged ability to dominate the arena during Question Time was a key reason why so many commentators argued he still had a chance of winning in 1996, well after the electorate had already decided they’d had enough.
Exactly.
Paul Keating knew himself that his aggression in Parliament was a negative with the public, even if it caught the limited attention spans of the press gallery. Hence the move to a more “dignified” Prime Ministerial persona, and the restriction of his appearances in Questions. The opposition, of course, did all they could to bait Keating at every opportunity, knowing full well that mastery of put downs and witty insults translated into a perception of unlikeability and overweening arrogance. And they want to promote Costello because he’d project a similar image? No wonder people talk about a media disconnect.
Agree totally.
The press gallery’s praise of Costello as a masterful parliamentary performer was mystifying to us mere mortals on the receiving end of the telly. Especially if we happened to be an evil union member. I remember on a few occasions him letting loose with vitriolic hatred on such things, me bemused and thinking “WTF? Piss off!”
He played a lot of silly games in parliament, wafting off into some kind of la la land parallel universe of hyperbol and leaving the audience at home behind in his thought stretches. Pretty much all thinking he was a smart arse wanker.
Whistling past the graveyard Kim?
Oh no. Not another Costello thread.
Look, the guy is politically dead. Kaput. Deceased. Passed-on.
For a fuller explanation see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTSAFcLXqYY
Kim, I have agreed with you before about Costello, and I’m not stopping now. He was so over-rated by the press gallery -even St Matt Price seemed in his thrall. Having performed stand-up comedy myself for 20 years, I feel qualified to comment on Costello’s ‘humour’. In reality, his schtick was usually some flaccid pun, or cheap mimickry. Nothing creative about his so-called wit. And he telegraphed his punchlines. He’d be howled down by hecklers in most of the pubs, clubs and mining camps I’ve worked.
Keating sometimes overcooks it, but I loved his one-liner about Costello’s luck in inheriting a booming economy: “He was hit in the arse by a rainbow.”
Craig Mc, I certainly hope so.
Ozymandias, to adapt a phrase, he’s no Paul Keating. A lot of his delivery was fairly consciously modeled on Keating. But as you say, without the wit, verve and inventiveness with language.
Before Keating (BK), Treasurers did not have the high profile in the media that they have now, because we used to talk about other things than that sacred abstraction, the Economy … Costello then modelled himself on Keating and on it went for another bloody decade…one brave man standing tall against against an entire opposition scrum…at least in the small minds of the small men in the press gallery.
This time around when the spotlight hits Swannie, the same tall tough rhetorical genius is not apparent, and thank cripes for that. Instead, the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard is the tough talker with rhetorical flair, and this has the peanut gallery completely confused. Ha.
Come on, Keating didn’t turn up at Question Time because he couldn’t be bothered, not because of some great strategy to keep his parliamentary Mr Hyde persona away from a frightened public. What utter shash.
Whatevs, Howard C. Go read some history.
Constructive and not in the least bit derisory. Cheers.
Maybe a better strategy would have been to do his job and alter how he performed. But, alas, no. His judgement cometh, and that right soon.
Howard C, I apologise if I was snarky, but you’re asserting something as fact which is just wrong and just a recycled Liberal talking point.
And I agree with Kim. I was around at the time, and I don’t need a history book.
Keating backed off Circus Time because he was simply too good at stripping his pathetic opposition to shreds, which the right wing punditariat at the time was spinning quite effectively as “arrogance”, and this line was getting some traction in voterland.
(I remember the very day I overheard a bunch of women in a cafe musing tentatively about his so-called arrogance, it seemed to come from nowhere, unless you looked at the gutter press and listened to talk-back).
IMO Keating made a big mistake in backing off with his savage parliamentary rhetoric, because we also lost much of his Big Picture stuff which was inspirational at the time (and still is).
But he did it under advice from pollsters and inside advisers like Gary Gray - and he has since more or less said so, his detestation of “political advisers” having only grown over time.
Arrogance - an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner
Bullseye. The strategy was to hide Keating’s arrogance rather than aim to alter it. Considering some of the left’s opinions about leaders on the right (eg Jeff Kennett), it seems they don’t mind the means as long as the ideology is acceptable.
But I digress. I have heard stories about Keating staying at the Lodge rather than coming in to Parliament House, and working ridiculously short days. One of the reassuring parts of Kevin Rudd is we know he is working hard. Some of you may not find that reassuring, as Rudd sweats the little stuff and comments on everything. I’m more reassured that he may not miss stuff.
But this whole theme is a digression. Keating proves that one doesn’t have a correlation on the other.
Holding up the morale of the troops in Parliament with such performances is not irrelevant to how a party performs in the public arena, but it certainly isn’t definitive.
“I have heard stories about Keating staying at the Lodge rather than coming in to Parliament House, and working ridiculously short days.”
And who told you these stories Howard C? His dog?
Gary Gray!
I’m pretty sure there was some stuff in the Don Watson book, which takes pride of place on my bookshelf. Been a while since I read it, though.
It’s funny that a pass into the press gallery is a caste signifier, seperating orthodox media from bloggers. It’s a pass that takes you into a rarerified world, the only place in Australia more isolated from middle Australia than the floor of parliament.
It always bemused me that “good parliamentary performer” meant “entertaining the press gallery”, when voters (and then a minority of swinging voters) will get their parliamentary images from 4 seconds on the evening news, 4 seconds in which one of three impressions can come through, and no more.
a) calm, competent (which is why Rudd pays so little attention, he doesn’t want any emotion)
b) flustered or angry, incompent
c) Cock.
Funny how the last is the holy grail for the most out of touch people in the community.
Having worked inside a parliament, the best performers are those who actually make the best contribution to debate. Question time doesn’t really come into consideration.
But in terms of accountability, the government has to turn up and do its thing.
yes but listening to rudd drone on and not answer the same question twice is boring. i actually fell asleep in the car listening to question time; luckily gillard’s shriek woke me up, but only to hear her throw out the same nonsense about interest rates as rudd had for the past fortyfive minutes.
the opposition must be real sadomasochists to ask rudd the same question twice, and then ask gillard. with only a brief interlude from the labor backbench about nation building - and i thought they were talking about iraq!
please, give me keating and costello any day, just abolish question time and let them do an hour of standup, the speaker can be the straight man.
Now what we really need is a return to the parliamentary standards of the late 19th century NSW parliament - regular adjournments for fist fights, a horsewhipping on the floor of the parliament over one members’ seduction of another’s wife, etc. Let’s give taxpayers some entertainment value for their money.
“Let’s give taxpayers some entertainment value for their money.”
Annabel Crabb agrees with you.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/annabel-crabb/if-only-our-mob-could-say-boo-to-a-moose/2008/09/02/1220121234590.html
Cato - for the sake of the safety of road users, do not put PNN on the radio while driving.