When it appeared likely that the Libs might win in WA, much of the commentary focused on how a non-Labor state government would play havoc with Kevin Rudd’s “cooperative federalism”. As with so much political analysis around the traps, this is lazy commentary shaped by myths and cliches and not by reality. Rudd’s “ending the blame game” theme was always somewhat tentative – people seem to forget the stick and carrot approach never went away. Indeed, it was explicitly highlighted before the election with regard to health and the possibility of a Commonwealth hospitals takeover. Implicitly, it’s raised its head as “argy bargy” on issues such as IR, education and water, among others. The feds still have the power of the purse strings, and this and the fear of breaking ranks among Labor premiers, and being seen to do so, is a very effective method of shaping outcomes while maintaining the political high ground.
A possible Barnett premiership would shift the dynamics somewhat, but Barnett would still have considerable incentive to cooperate. Rudd’s template for COAG reform comes from the 90s when Liberal premiers such as Kennett, Greiner and Court worked with Labor premiers such as Goss and Paul Keating’s government.
It’s also worth remembering that Rudd’s “ending the blame game” promise was explicitly defined as a response to the “coast to coast Labor” scare. A Liberal state government or two would allow Rudd to sharpen the almighty Narrative some, as well as enabling him to adopt a somewhat tougher political persona, just as Labor will probably benefit politically from Liberal Senate obstructionism. It would be very far from the disaster some short sighted commentators with short memories seem to think it would be.
…
So you’re saying he never really meant it, ’twas just a bit of canny campaign rhetoric, or dare we say it, spin?
Indeed – the Libs get something of a free swing when it comes to the many tiers of government” blame game while Labor holds both Canberra and all the states and territories. If the Libs and/or Nats also have a stake in the debate, they arguably have greater incentive to co-operate in Rudd’s reform agenda.
Jeepers,
haven’t the different tiers of govt always had to talk to each other? Brumby has held out on the Murray-Darling agreement, despite being a bruvver. In this area, it’s too hard to generalise. Specific circumstances and special interests will occasionally come into play.
cheerio
It would be very far from the disaster some … think it would be
At a political level it would indeed be a blessing in disguise for Rudd. I’m not so sure that’s true if you look at policy outcomes, though. Historically State governments of a different political hue from other States and the Feds have been prone to play the wrecker (mainly to posture for local consumption as “standing up to the socialists/tories in Canberra”). Just ask anyone involved in Comm-State relations back in Joh’s day.
The looming disaster for Labor is not to be measured solely in election results.
It derives from the Xtian nonsense embodied in Arse-clowns like Obama, Tony Blair and Kruddy. It derives from the obvious love affair Chairman Krudd and Gillard have with authoritarian-socialism-with-Asian-characteristics. And it derives from continued slavishness to disgusting institutions like the Monarchy, Industrial cops, the ASIS, ASIO and large parts of the AFP, Catholic and wealthy private schools, a terminally corrupt military and the sickening US alliance – in short the virtual
‘ Anschluss’ of what was once a slightly more progressive and independent democratic-socialist project worthy of support with the dregs of colonialism.
It’s an identity crisis as much as an existential one Mark. The prognosis must be negative even if ways and means are found to ‘do-a-Howard’ ( maddingly once again!)
with the federal scene. Please someone make it stop! The center of politics has become a planet eating BLOB!