I am more than happy for Kevin to trot off o/s as this gives Julia great opportunity to shine.

They shafted the left, the unions, and now are dragging the chain on Climate Change.

They have also been, at both state and federal levels and across several decades, consistently clueless about women, whom they persist in regarding as handy if anomalous figures to whom to hand the poisoned chalices, and I have absolutely no illusions about Rudd in this regard and never did. Keating’s early-90s ambitions for women in parliament look hilarious now, in a bitter kind of way. Show me a past or present Labor politician who genuinely regards women as equals and/or who even remotely gets feminism (and I am talking about what that word really means, not the bogeyword for scaring children that it has so successfully been turned into) and I will show you someone called Joan or Julia or Carmel or Kate.

Many left-wing women who have gone elsewhere would come back to Labor like a shot if only the latter could demonstrate that they understand what century we’re in.

It’s an incident of stunning triviality. The fact that it turned up in The Australian after a dinner at which it allegedly occurred and Chris Mitchell was present should ring massive alarm bells.

Would people have discussed it if it had happened in Howard’s time? Well, if Howard was dissing Bush, I doubt that it would have made it into the right wing papers. So much for Rudd’s allegedly watertight control freakery and media management. Maybe people would have talked about if they cared to. Who knows? I don’t think I would have. It’s such an obviously pointless beatup, and wasting time on this nonsense debases public debate.

I’d also question whether you think “blogdom” (whatever that means, who comprises it?) has some sort of ethical injunction to discuss whatever crap is in the papers in some fearlessly neutral manner? I don’t know. The premises of your question seem quite confused to me. Blogs aren’t “papers of record” and nor are they impartial. That’s the whole point, surely. If the implication is that we go easy on Rudd or something, I think you’ll find lots of instances where we’ve been quite vehement in criticism on policy. And you might care to go back and look at what I’ve said about some of the things I think are politically highly problematic about his public persona and values. And on good grounds. Failing to pick up and run idiotic media talking points is a virtue rather than the opposite.

Ps – not trying to be snarky, btw. I’m genuinely not understanding what the premise of your question is. And sorry if I do sound snarky – I’ve got a throat infection and I’m in a bit of mood so I should sign off the intertubes!

As to Swan, maybe there is an expectation that people in his role should have all their figures at their fingertips. But that only exists because of the stupid media and political games played. How much attention has been given to the significance of the inflation figure? Outside the Fin Review, none, I’d suggest. What’s happening with it and the policy settings immediately affect people’s lives. Whether Swan can remember a stack of figures has no such effect.

And as to his performance as Treasurer, with respect, how do you judge it? Have you been reading his speeches? The detail of legislation he’s introduced? What’s your view on the current approach to fiscal policy? All those are legitimate measures on which to judge.

I’m not singling you out here, I’m merely pointing out that too many opinions are formed on the basis of media trivialities.

But I will say that I’ve said I like the guy, and that may colour my opinion some. You obviously don’t, but you haven’t (as far as I can tell) admitted the same. Whatever you think he did as an ALP powerbroker might be shaping your view. Incidentally, I don’t know why you do think he was nefarious in ALP internal politics. Unless everyone who is a party officer and is in the AWU is by definition nefarious. Some are, some aren’t. Surely we realise by now that wearing a badge saying “left” or “right” or whatever in party politics doesn’t equal virtue or its lack on its own?

Mark, re: your earlier scold: I couldn’t have put it better than your description, para 3 @ 24, for demonstrating non-straightforward and Machiavelli, at least enough for me. I’ll go with you about Wayne being skilled in the political arts, as communicator, strategist, but I just don’t reckon that qualifies him for treasurer, or that “fair to good marks” on the job is good enough, in that job, especially now, and especially if there’s real talent on the reserve bench. I don’t consider the job of Government/Treasurer to be like “any other sphere of life”, like you, very surprisingly, or rhetorically, seem to, to be judged by the same performance standards. I just think it’s important that they give folks and markets every reason, at every possible opportunity, to have confidence in their performance and that of their staff and protocols. Which lately the boys from Nambour and their staff ain’t. This is not Sunrise, or the Prince of Wales.
As to Joel, think about how Wayne, or Faulkner, or kev, in their best oppositional form, would have got onto the Gillian Marks scandal. Hells Bells, it gets Malcolm in it’s sights.
As to my musing whether a g20 blab type event would have got more leftish ozblog attention under Howard, I figured if it was ok to have a thread here on the subject “what future for the liberal/left blogosphere in the States in the event of an Obama win?” the same question could be reasonably asked of the situation here. I should have taken notice that thread only got half a dozen bites, and figured what that meant.

I’d also remind people of Swan’s performance in opposition. While it may annoy political junkies, constant invocation of the theme about “prosperity beyond the mining boom” and his lines on issues such as interest rates shaped a lot of the public opinion which enabled Labor to win.

And is doing a deft interview the be all and end all of a Treasurer? The implication that Swan’s confidence in public appearances might be variable means that he is not performing in his portfolio is just wrong, and it’s only made because of the trite acceptance of political frames by the media which a moment’s reflection suggests are just silly. He doesn’t necessarily have to be out there as the “great communicator” to be a good Treasurer. Again, much of this harks back to Costello’s Keating imitation. I never heard anyone demand that John Dawkins and Ralph Willis wow anyone with their oratorical skills. But both were very clever men, and in Dawkins’ case, a fairly courageous pollie (not always to good effect, but still).

I’d also remind folks that for a while after Rudd was elected, a lot of his interviews were awful – some of what he was saying was almost unintelligble.

While I’d say Swan’s inability to recall figures instantly is in reality no great loss I think it leads to a negative perception of him. Turnbull (his ego aside) seemed to be very well across his brief of Environment Minister I seem to remember him quoting very specific segments of reports on Lateline once or twice.

Personally I see the ALP as the lesser of two evils, but how long will the general public support them, especially if no real difference is achieved by the end of the second term? Or if Turnbull can make some of the mud he is constantly throwing stick?

I’d say, Kat, the ALP also faces some danger from disillusionment among those who’ve been friendly to it in the past.