There’s an interesting piece in Crikey today from La Trobe University Professor of Politics Judith Brett reviewing the first year of the Rudd government. As those who’ve followed her writing on politics would expect, she particularly focuses on leadership, and argues that Kevin Rudd has shown some deftness in moving between different leadership styles according to necessity. She also suggests that some of the “small picture” stuff – all the various Watches – may have been a micro-focus that was useful electorally but is now being discarded as attention turns to the big questions of national leadership.
In discussing the endless question of “the narrative”, she sharply observes:
Disillusion was setting in, as it always does when the hopes and idealisations released by a change of leader come to terms with the fact that the leader is only a man after all. This impatience though was much more apparent amongst the policy elites, the journalists and the opposition, than the general public. Rudd’s approval ratings stayed high. It seemed as if the general public has been willing to give the government some time to tackle what are very complex and difficult policy problems.
I think that’s spot on.
I think the area where there is little to show so far is the COAG agenda. It remains far from clear that the Rudd government can get the sorts of reforms it wants in health and education by persuading the Labor states to the wisdom of their position. This is most apparent in schools policy, where a long period of trench warfare loom between Julia Gillard and the state education bureaucracies, backed strongly by the teachers’ unions, over the question of reports on school performance in the state system. There also appears to be a stand-off on who should be driving change and funding for hospitals.
I would like co-operative federalism to work, but the signs so far are not great. I secretly suspect they may not mind dealing with more than one non-Labor state government (and not just NSW).
So, Mark – is this where we start to get to the “Core” vs. “Non-Core” promises, then?
Well, I think its pretty obvious that Federal Labor has set itself up with too many complex challenges to discharge before the next federal poll. Some of these projects are naturally just plain too big for our three year election cycle. It will nevertheless be interesting to see how the public interprets the Rudd Government’s record in a couple of years when it really comes to the crunch. So long as there is the sense that some of the bigger proposals are genuinely in train and more or less on track, maybe the government doesn’t need to deliver very much tangible at all by 2010.
Of course some election promises are going to only be half done by then. And there might be one or two things that aren’t going to be done at all (e.g. the much maligned net filter that will probably die a horrible death during pilot – fingers crossed).
Is it just me or does Stephen Conroy stand out as an especially bad pick?
This could prove dangerous with a shark like Mal about.
It’s a hard task so surely it calls for one of the best and brightest.
Conroy is neither.
Call me blinkered but I’ve barely noticed the difference in either polity or policy.
Of course Rudd’s made a few symbolic gestures to appease the Left-liberals. Sorry to children taken by the post-colonial version of DOCS, winding down nearly empty detention centres, a few eminently worthy females appointed to top jobs.
People seem to have forgotten that Rudd’s first calendar year was half-taken up with the second half of Howard’s last fiscal year. Mr “I’m a conservative just like Howard” hasnt changed much in essential govt programs inherited from Howard. The remote indigenous intervention remains.
The LN/P have changed much more than Rudd. As I predicted the Australian polity is so boringly normalised that there is an irresistible pressure to converge to the populist Centre. The Libs have dropped their insane obsession with stripping away industrial awards. And made a half-hearted committment to Kyoto. Pretty much where most punters sit.
The big test for Rudd will be the politics of climate change. I will be very surprised if he moves very far and fast on the ETS. (Unlike Howard on the GST.) He strikes me as too cautious – a natural diplomat – to make any bold moves ahead of public opinion. Most likely he will draw it out and water it down through death by a thousand inquiries.
Lets face it, signing Kyoto was done in order to fulfill our formal international obligations and keep the political pressure on the PRC and IND. Our carbon profile wont make a substantial difference one way or another to the globes carbon concentration.
I’m always puzzled by the auto-pejorative use of the word ‘symbolic’. Anyone would think symbolism was neither effective nor important. I wonder what Jack and others would say if Rudd decided it was time to change the Australian flag.
No I don’t.
After 25 years of flirting with neo-liberalism, under the dark clouds of the biggest financial and economic collapse for three generations, marginal voters of the First World have sought shelter under the Keynesian-lite umbrella.
Rudd never expected this until last September when he was thoroughly terrified by some apocalyptic forecasts. Rudd’s first response was to offer selected Australian financial institutions a bottomless supply of bail-out money. Rudd turn out to be the opposite of a fiscal conservative.
Nevertheless, Rudd is a social conservative. He has propped up a social structure based on debt. Australians are the biggest private debtors on this planet. Australians’ lifestyles — the project that Rudd is prepared to spend everything to preserve — would collapse were Australian banks to lose even a small part of their creditworthiness.
Rudd’s big picture project is to ensure that Australia continues to look like Neighbours for the foreseeable future.
Does that sound modest?
Hang about and watch how much that will cost. Whitlam’s cultural revolution will look like small change by comparison.
Australia is about to discover how much it costs to keep up appearances.
6 Pavlov’s Cat Nov 30th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Symbol’s are “important” alright, as a complement, not substitute for “effective” agency. Symbolic identities evolve to sanctify the enduringly useful or beautiful. For the useless and ugly we have profanities.
The Left-liberals fuss and bother about saying Sorry to the descendants of mostly dead folk for controversial actions taken long ago. Whilst stuffing up the administration of live folks in the here and now. Thats why that Push attract “auto-pejorative” profanities from some short-tempered quarters.
Meanwhile the Australian flag stands for an agency that has worked effectively for most of those who swear loyalty to it. Changing it, especially to suit the whims of fashion-victimized Left-liberals, would diminish the identity of a thing worth fighting for. Which is a kind of sacrilege.
But that’s the game, Katz. What’s the alternative?
Giving into the inevitable end?
Some things are inevitable. Many aren’t.
Whitlam’s answer was to “crash through, or crash”. People are still talking about Whitlam and he has left an indelible mark upon Australian culture.
Whitlam had a mission for change, rather more than even many of the folks who voted Labor expected. But there was a wide expectation for change in 1972.
In 2007, beyond tipping Howard out of Kirribilli House, not much expectation of change motivated Labor voters.
If one suggested to Rudd that he ought to attempt to “crash through”, his response would be “To where?”
Rudd is a managerialist. As far as he is concerned, Australia has already arrived. He sees his job is to keep Australia where it is.
Rudd’s key constituency is folks struggling with a mortgage. He inherited them from Howard. Howard and Costello encouraged these folks to bury themselves under a mountain of debt. Rudd’s mission is ensure that they suffer as few consequences as possible for their life choices. And he is prepared to spend an enormous sum of money to do it.
Leftists used to think that there are other ways of spending those resources.
Katz
But do we have the same dire need for radical change in 2008 as we did in 1972?
Smiley,
How much did we “need” in 1972?
In 1972 a largish minority wanted some of the change Whitlam had in mind. Whitlam achieved change in the face of much opposition.
Much of the social change Whitlam enabled is now generally accepted as hugely beneficial. Even Howard either didn’t want to or knew he could not unravel Whitlam’s reforms.
Tony Blair made a virtue of longevity. I’m not sure that longevity is a quality that is consistent with the qualities that are often found in reform governments.
I’ve been having debates with some of my leftwing comrades about how much Rudd has actually done. Sure he hasn’t done near enough of what many of us probably would like. A lot seems to have been done quietly and unannounced and inevitably these seem to have been some of the really good things (eg in immigration policy) done with no fuss or banging of drums and ringing of bells. I’m still making up my mind on Fair Work Australia. He seems to have done little to stop the persecution of building workers or the harassment of staff in the tertiary sector. Some tertiary peoiple I know say they were in the front line of Howard’s “reforms”. I believe them, but I don’t have personal experience of this.
As a disabled pensioner I do have the impression Rudd is trying to stop the marginalisation of the disabled. This is excellent especially for those disabled people who do not have the education or mental stability or family support to fend for themselves against the depredations of government.
“… or the harassment of staff in the tertiary sector.” Actually Paul, the Rudd govt quietly abolished HEWRRS (Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements) a couple of months back. A lot of the really creepy Howard-era nasties for Uni staff are now in the bin, where they belong.
Rudd doesnt make a fuss of some of these things, nor do the press.
I give credit to Rudd for repealing up some of Howard’s small-minded and mean-spirited programs and provocations.
Sometimes it is good to go back to the way things used to be.
But a more general question is whether the Left have exhausted the achievable agenda of progressive change.
Is this as good as it will ever get?
It’s a minor point, but I do wish they’d stop decorating policy with ditzy little titles full of dodgy grammar. It’s like putting synthetic bows on your underwear.
PC – at least it wasn’t WorkFair Australia!
At least it wasn’t Work Fair – Less Disgruntled Employees.
Meanwhile the Australian flag stands for an agency that has worked effectively for most of those who swear loyalty to it.
Indeed JAck. Hit on the head old bean, the head. It’s high time this country went back under the auspices of the British Navy.
.
Let’s call Gordon Brown and tell him to send the RN tout de suite.