I admire Julia Gillard and always have.
Those who’ve been around here for a long time, and have long memories, might recall that I was backing Gillard enthusiastically when Kim Beazley’s leadership was on its last legs.
I welcome and celebrate her as Australia’s first woman Prime Minister.
I don’t welcome the way she got there. But more than enough has been said already on that topic around here of late. Later on in the week, I’d like to take some time to ponder the significance of her leadership for the feminist cause. But in the meantime, I’ll just recommend reading two interesting perspectives – from Anne Summers and Shakira Hussein.
So, as we adjust ourselves to the shock of the new, I think it’s worth taking some time to reflect on Kevin Rudd.
Andrew Elder writes of a big social change in Australia and other countries – the rise of insecurity at work and the fall of jobs for life. I don’t agree with the conclusions in his post, and politics has always been an insecure profession by definition. But a prevailing climate of insecurity encourages a culture of individualism and negates an ethics of care, which must have complex and profound implications for politics.
To me, watching Kevin Rudd’s farewell press conference on Thursday reminded me of the way we increasingly experience all manner of adverse experiences in our personal and collective lives, fluid and risky as both are. They come to us as the embodiment of our forebodings, as a nightmare made flesh, and the more we are disconnected from our fellow humans, the more disaster seems like a traumatic and inexplicable verdict on our endeavours.
In a workplace culture, for instance, where suspicion reigns, and goalposts constantly shift, organisation charts morph manically around us, people come and are disposed of at will, and trust is at a premium, we often don’t know how our performance is really perceived, and this lack of genuine dialogue can inspire a looming paranoia we try to put out of our minds.
I think Kevin Rudd may have been the wrong person for the job of Australian Prime Minister in these mad and maddening times.
I think, without equivocation, I was wrong to see Julia Gillard as best placed to lead the Labor party against John Howard in 2006 and 2007. Kevin Rudd, whose persona was reassuring at a time of insecurity and fear, proved an expert and successful campaigner. He also unlocked a Pandora’s Box of hope. The sentiment of anticipation and the euphoria of change was the leitmotif of the summer of 2007 and 2008, culminating in the Apology to the Stolen Generations on February 13.
There were some fine moments for our country, and balm for our collective soul.
The tragedy of Kevin Rudd, and I think it is a tragedy in the truest sense of the word, was that he was probably not well equipped, despite his image as a methodical bureaucrat, to manage and bed down change. The oscillation between poetry and prose wasn’t the old saw of “campaign in poetry, govern in prose”. Instead, moments of rhetorical (and I think, sincere) ambition resolved into a mountain of paper and procrastination.
In the end, it would seem that Kevin Rudd withdrew within himself and sought to retreat to a comfortable inner sanctum. That indicates, I think, that he fell victim to fear, and perhaps to recrimination over his failure to seize the moment on a climate change election. I think his experience at Copenhagen must have also been very frustrating for him personally.
I think the job he set himself, and that we who supported him wanted him to perform, may be beyond anyone’s capacity. The socially disconnected political machine can indeed keep itself ticking over, but the problems modernity has created really are diabolical, and incapable of being resolved easily through the governing modes of modernity.
I feel for Kevin Rudd because I think in the last months of his Premiership, he was deeply alone and no one reached out to him as a person. All this stuff about lacking ‘Labor mates’ ignores the fact that these ties are mostly surface deep, and that the culture of politics is a disposable one, a machine that rips up its cogs, rearranges them and recomposes them according to forces greater than any one agent can control.
When we can’t trust each other, when loyalty becomes a slogan, when commitment gives way to convenience or the narcissistic needs of the isolated self, we are all truly islands. In a world where many social ties are fluid and lightweight, we have created dysfunctional and deeply dehumanising structures which threaten to crush us.
The cynicism of the “hard heads” is a protective and defensive mechanism. They too know, in some corner of their being, that orienting oneself according to supposed pragmatism provides no safe haven. The Real will have its revenge.
I don’t think any of us, no matter how strong our character, could have stoically endured the relentless drumbeat of negativism and personally hurtful press hysteria Rudd faced, nor the feeling that all we had worked for was as nought compared to the next poll. I hope something changes before Julia Gillard confronts the same insane pressures.
If we really look into our hearts, we are all Kevin Rudd. We are all unable, to greater or lesser degree, to manage the competing demands of our lives, and to close the gap between the desire to do good and the realities of a chaotic and unmanageable world. And it all takes its toll, which can be a terrible one in the true sense of that word.
We can only achieve anything if we start to care more.
Often, we only know what we have when it’s gone.
I want to wish Kevin Rudd all the very best personally. I’m not proposing him for “canonisation”, but I think he’s a good man and not some sort of ambition-bot. I think that should be very clear. And I hope that Australia will continue to benefit from his undoubted talents. I also hope he takes real solace in the good he has done, and can attain some peace outside the maelstrom.
Excellent post, Kim. And very sociologically astute. Couldn’t agree more.
Enoch Powell famously said that all political careers end in failure.
There’s a number of ways of looking at that. Our goals or ideals always outstrip our achievements. But in the crazy crucible of late modern politics, what people are denied is the chance to work steadily and methodically towards them. Rudd’s plight might be a bit of a metaphor for that too.
And I think it goes back, among other things, to the enormously heightened pace of politics and thus the the enormously truncated time we give people to achieve what we demand of them. Disraeli’s greasy pole is much more slippery now. It is just like in the workplace – constant pressure to perform, and to talk up the ability to meet all sorts of crazy goals that have to be met yesterday, and people with real talent get chewed up and tossed out, while the mediocre time servers who specialise in navigating the storm tossed seas thrive – for a while.
Excellent post, Kim. And very sociologically astute. Couldn’t agree more.
Enoch Powell famously said that all political careers end in failure.
There’s a number of ways of looking at that. Our goals or ideals always outstrip our achievements. But in the crazy crucible of late modern politics, what people are denied is the chance to work steadily and methodically towards them. Rudd’s plight might be a bit of a metaphor for that too.
And I think it goes back, among other things, to the enormously heightened pace of politics and thus the the enormously truncated time we give people to achieve what we demand of them. Disraeli’s greasy pole is much more slippery now. It is just like in the workplace – constant pressure to perform, and to talk up the ability to meet all sorts of crazy goals that have to be met yesterday, and people with real talent get chewed up and tossed out, while the mediocre time servers who specialise in navigating the storm tossed seas thrive – for a while.
Well said, Kim.
Politics in Australia also seems to be about the media and journalists. Once they decide anyone in politics has to go ………… there is a vicious campaign to remove them. And the various parties just hang off that ….. or hang on that (depending who is providing the inside information to the media).
A lot of what the Rudd Government did was right, but poorly executed. I think Kevin Rudd was the most intelligent PM we have ever had, a good and humane man with a vision for a better Australia and a better World. However, he was not a team player ….. and (rightly, as it’s turned out) did not trust those he worked with. Surely his colleagues (eg, Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard) could/should have gained his confidence and trust?
I have high hopes for Julia Gillard, but the way her elevation was executed
leaves her very tarnished.]
Well said, Kim.
Politics in Australia also seems to be about the media and journalists. Once they decide anyone in politics has to go ………… there is a vicious campaign to remove them. And the various parties just hang off that ….. or hang on that (depending who is providing the inside information to the media).
A lot of what the Rudd Government did was right, but poorly executed. I think Kevin Rudd was the most intelligent PM we have ever had, a good and humane man with a vision for a better Australia and a better World. However, he was not a team player ….. and (rightly, as it’s turned out) did not trust those he worked with. Surely his colleagues (eg, Wayne Swan, Julia Gillard) could/should have gained his confidence and trust?
I have high hopes for Julia Gillard, but the way her elevation was executed
leaves her very tarnished.]
‘I think Kevin Rudd may have been the wrong person for the job of Australian Prime Minister in these mad and maddening times. ‘
On the contrary Rudd was and probably is the best person for the job of Australian PM, outside of the old paradigm of incestuous factional politics which Gillard is in fact embedded. Rudd was a chance to break from that, and maybe why his popularity was so stellar for so long.
I think this piece as we see elsewhere is taken prisoner by some MSM memes and the memes propagated by those ALP that don’t like Rudd and also to aid justification to dumping him.
Character assasination of Rudd shouldn’t be used to help rationalise and justify his dumping and enbahnce the qualities of Gillard, that is in part inspired by adulation of her.
Rudd the non political politician was an experiment the public wanted and probably still want. To be sure Rudd’s type will come again and be highly popular and electable. People are entirely cynical of two party politics and the factionalism within it, where leadership is for the benefit of factions and not populace.
Just what involvement did the mining industry have within the ALP to bring about the opportune demise of Rudd? And is Gillard aware of it in any way?
In the USA you can see a turn away from standard poltics of left and right, GOP and Democrat. People are sick of it as not representing their interests.
Gillard will be highly popular for a while, but being a standard politician, no matter how competent, will bring her back to the field, and it will again take an inspiring type to fend off the inivitable rise of alternatives in the Liberal Party.
‘I think Kevin Rudd may have been the wrong person for the job of Australian Prime Minister in these mad and maddening times. ‘
On the contrary Rudd was and probably is the best person for the job of Australian PM, outside of the old paradigm of incestuous factional politics which Gillard is in fact embedded. Rudd was a chance to break from that, and maybe why his popularity was so stellar for so long.
I think this piece as we see elsewhere is taken prisoner by some MSM memes and the memes propagated by those ALP that don’t like Rudd and also to aid justification to dumping him.
Character assasination of Rudd shouldn’t be used to help rationalise and justify his dumping and enbahnce the qualities of Gillard, that is in part inspired by adulation of her.
Rudd the non political politician was an experiment the public wanted and probably still want. To be sure Rudd’s type will come again and be highly popular and electable. People are entirely cynical of two party politics and the factionalism within it, where leadership is for the benefit of factions and not populace.
Just what involvement did the mining industry have within the ALP to bring about the opportune demise of Rudd? And is Gillard aware of it in any way?
In the USA you can see a turn away from standard poltics of left and right, GOP and Democrat. People are sick of it as not representing their interests.
Gillard will be highly popular for a while, but being a standard politician, no matter how competent, will bring her back to the field, and it will again take an inspiring type to fend off the inivitable rise of alternatives in the Liberal Party.
The Second World War ended with Winston Churchill as a hero, but then he was voted out immediately post-War. Perhaps Kevin Rudd can take some solace in this. Kevin was briefly a hero for bringing Labor out of the wilderness and also for pulling us through the GFC relatively unscathed.
I agree that the timing and manner of Rudd’s removal was unconscionable. I also think that Julia Gillard will make a very good Prime Minister. I hope that Kevin Rudd can be accommodated in the party in a meaningful role.
The Second World War ended with Winston Churchill as a hero, but then he was voted out immediately post-War. Perhaps Kevin Rudd can take some solace in this. Kevin was briefly a hero for bringing Labor out of the wilderness and also for pulling us through the GFC relatively unscathed.
I agree that the timing and manner of Rudd’s removal was unconscionable. I also think that Julia Gillard will make a very good Prime Minister. I hope that Kevin Rudd can be accommodated in the party in a meaningful role.
@1 and 2 – Thanks, Mark and Marion.
@3 – Thomas Paine – I’m unable to see how what I wrote could reasonably be construed as either “character assassination of Kevin Rudd” or dominated by “MSM memes”. You’ve obviously completely missed my intention and meaning.
@1 and 2 – Thanks, Mark and Marion.
@3 – Thomas Paine – I’m unable to see how what I wrote could reasonably be construed as either “character assassination of Kevin Rudd” or dominated by “MSM memes”. You’ve obviously completely missed my intention and meaning.
@4 – Tosca, your last paragraph encapsulates exactly what I too think very succinctly.
@4 – Tosca, your last paragraph encapsulates exactly what I too think very succinctly.
Thomas Paine, my take is that your thoughtful but obviously disillusioned comments, #3 reinforce Kym’s points.
Kim talks of the “the drumbeats of negativism…hurtful press hysteria” and within that context Thomas Paine rightly echoes this in his comment about “character assasination”, the “memes of the NSW Right”, factionalism, corporate and press interference, etc.
In the end its difficult to know if blame needs to finally be assigned in a situation where events have exacerbated a personality clash and been exacerbated by one.
What people miss is that it was resolved last week, quickly and now Gillard gets her chance through Rudd showing the sort of statesmanship shown in his concession to Gillard. A bit raw, that and could only get to watch it days after he gave it; the experience will be one for the books for him- and it could could stand him in good stead for future service to ours and his country, now that we know him better, as to character, when he’s finally had time to settle and recover. Or maybe he’ll just be happy back in the real world and out of the cesspit of politics, once he thinks about it enough.
It’s unfortunate that government has been captured by elements amongst the worst in the ALP. Gillard is Labor’s last real hope, if the unique set of thinking and communication skills she brings to the table can’t get good government up, despite the Bill Ludwigs, Shortens and Fergusons,et al, then the decade spent in opposition last time will seem like a moment compared to the eternity next time.
Thomas Paine, my take is that your thoughtful but obviously disillusioned comments, #3 reinforce Kym’s points.
Kim talks of the “the drumbeats of negativism…hurtful press hysteria” and within that context Thomas Paine rightly echoes this in his comment about “character assasination”, the “memes of the NSW Right”, factionalism, corporate and press interference, etc.
In the end its difficult to know if blame needs to finally be assigned in a situation where events have exacerbated a personality clash and been exacerbated by one.
What people miss is that it was resolved last week, quickly and now Gillard gets her chance through Rudd showing the sort of statesmanship shown in his concession to Gillard. A bit raw, that and could only get to watch it days after he gave it; the experience will be one for the books for him- and it could could stand him in good stead for future service to ours and his country, now that we know him better, as to character, when he’s finally had time to settle and recover. Or maybe he’ll just be happy back in the real world and out of the cesspit of politics, once he thinks about it enough.
It’s unfortunate that government has been captured by elements amongst the worst in the ALP. Gillard is Labor’s last real hope, if the unique set of thinking and communication skills she brings to the table can’t get good government up, despite the Bill Ludwigs, Shortens and Fergusons,et al, then the decade spent in opposition last time will seem like a moment compared to the eternity next time.
Cheers, Kim. Luvverly work!
I’m sure Rudd will have some “peace outside the maelstrom” crying into his tens of millions with Therese (but what about the rest of us?!)
I don’t mean that nastily, but it does leaven the personal dimensions of this tragedy somewhat, don’tcha think (same goes for Turnbull!!)
Cheers, Kim. Luvverly work!
I’m sure Rudd will have some “peace outside the maelstrom” crying into his tens of millions with Therese (but what about the rest of us?!)
I don’t mean that nastily, but it does leaven the personal dimensions of this tragedy somewhat, don’tcha think (same goes for Turnbull!!)
I can agree with a lot of what you say about the crises of modern politics and the crisis of representation, both of a mediated sociality as well as of democratic politics. But I am puzzled by the sympathy for Kevin Rudd and the willingness to not merely absolve him of personal responsibility but produce him, and us, as an archetypical “victim” of a dominating system or as a subject-free persona, c.f. “we are all Kevin Rudd”. Speak for yourself! Rudd spent a lifetime learning to operate and work within the system as he found it.
I can agree with a lot of what you say about the crises of modern politics and the crisis of representation, both of a mediated sociality as well as of democratic politics. But I am puzzled by the sympathy for Kevin Rudd and the willingness to not merely absolve him of personal responsibility but produce him, and us, as an archetypical “victim” of a dominating system or as a subject-free persona, c.f. “we are all Kevin Rudd”. Speak for yourself! Rudd spent a lifetime learning to operate and work within the system as he found it.
good post. so’s your “campaign in poetry, govern in prose” analogy.
good post. so’s your “campaign in poetry, govern in prose” analogy.
It’s not often that you hear wisdom on sports talk, but I was in the car yesterday listening to coach Neil Craig describe how he is dealing with AFL team Adelaide’s unexpected fall from top 4 candidate to potential wooden spooner.
“Overcommunicate”, he said. “Talk to everyone, players, the board, the supporters. When everything is up, there is less of a need to talk, but when you’re down, people are nervous and worried. So I call what I do am doing that time, overcommunication.”
This was not happening in Canberra with team ALP, and most astute observers could see that.
There is a need to maintain a few simple narratives about governance and policy, that prepare the ground for policy. If the two get mixed together, like the importance of acting on climate change and the CPRS, then you end up with the risks attendant with policy being conflated with the benefits of avoiding the original risk, or for some, the need to downgrade the original risk to reduce the case for the policy. Communication on these types of risk, where self-interest can swamp the policy arguments, is critical.
In the past couple of days we’ve heard JG alter some of these narratives. Some comments have suggested that if she, Swan and Tanner had all agreed on broad policy directions with each other before, then she was either lying then or now. This is rubbish. Communication of complex risk into simple political messages to underpin a policy strategy is the art of modern politics in a risk society. This is the craft of the modern professional politician. You may not always agree with the message personally.
But we’ve just also seen a situation where the risk has been amplified by a frenetic and shallow media cycle, some back room plotting, poor communication and policy wonkishness to bring down a Prime Minister. It’s not isolated from the loss of Nelson and Turnbull and the ascendance of Abbott.
Perhaps Rudd could have turned it around (‘m not confident he would have), and I don’t excuse the way he was removed. I hope he stays in politics and learns (as Howard undoubtedly did), because he is smart. I hope JG can keep getting good policy advice from her colleagues, but right now is the best candidate around.
It’s not often that you hear wisdom on sports talk, but I was in the car yesterday listening to coach Neil Craig describe how he is dealing with AFL team Adelaide’s unexpected fall from top 4 candidate to potential wooden spooner.
“Overcommunicate”, he said. “Talk to everyone, players, the board, the supporters. When everything is up, there is less of a need to talk, but when you’re down, people are nervous and worried. So I call what I do am doing that time, overcommunication.”
This was not happening in Canberra with team ALP, and most astute observers could see that.
There is a need to maintain a few simple narratives about governance and policy, that prepare the ground for policy. If the two get mixed together, like the importance of acting on climate change and the CPRS, then you end up with the risks attendant with policy being conflated with the benefits of avoiding the original risk, or for some, the need to downgrade the original risk to reduce the case for the policy. Communication on these types of risk, where self-interest can swamp the policy arguments, is critical.
In the past couple of days we’ve heard JG alter some of these narratives. Some comments have suggested that if she, Swan and Tanner had all agreed on broad policy directions with each other before, then she was either lying then or now. This is rubbish. Communication of complex risk into simple political messages to underpin a policy strategy is the art of modern politics in a risk society. This is the craft of the modern professional politician. You may not always agree with the message personally.
But we’ve just also seen a situation where the risk has been amplified by a frenetic and shallow media cycle, some back room plotting, poor communication and policy wonkishness to bring down a Prime Minister. It’s not isolated from the loss of Nelson and Turnbull and the ascendance of Abbott.
Perhaps Rudd could have turned it around (‘m not confident he would have), and I don’t excuse the way he was removed. I hope he stays in politics and learns (as Howard undoubtedly did), because he is smart. I hope JG can keep getting good policy advice from her colleagues, but right now is the best candidate around.
Kim, nice going. In terms of context I hadn’t thought further than the insanity of the Kev-hatin’ media campaign, but you’re right, of course, it’s part of a wider craziness. He, like Obama and Angela Merkel and all sorts of other beleaguered leaders, was in what’s essentially an impossible position and it’ll be interesting to see how Gillard deals with the kinds of forces you’ve described.
Marion, with respect, I think you’ve got that back to front; you can’t gain the confidence and trust of someone who is inherently mistrustful. Gillard’s loyalty has been a byword in Labor for years, and in this case it held until she discovered — by reading about it in the paper, which must have been the last straw — that he did not trust her. It’s obvious that something happened on Wednesday morning to change the whole game, and I think that’s what it was; Shorten et al were looking for a chance and suddenly there it was. My theory is that Rudd brought this down on himself (people aren’t using the word ‘Shakespearean’ about this for nothing; it’s classic) by sending Alister Jordan around to check up on people. Yes I know this is fairly usual. It’s not what he did, it’s the way that he did it.
I’ll say this again: any professional woman over 40 has experienced what it’s like to be invisible, unvalued and taken for granted in the workplace while the boss focuses on his trusted golden-boy protege*, and there usually is one. Mostly women sigh and roll their eyes and put up with that. But when the golden-boy protege is used as an instrument of insult, it all gets a bit out of hand. All reports say that Gillard was extremely upset, and she doesn’t look like an easily upset person to me.
NB the date of that article I’ve linked to. And NB in particular the phrase ‘Kevin and Alister against the world.’
Kim, nice going. In terms of context I hadn’t thought further than the insanity of the Kev-hatin’ media campaign, but you’re right, of course, it’s part of a wider craziness. He, like Obama and Angela Merkel and all sorts of other beleaguered leaders, was in what’s essentially an impossible position and it’ll be interesting to see how Gillard deals with the kinds of forces you’ve described.
Marion, with respect, I think you’ve got that back to front; you can’t gain the confidence and trust of someone who is inherently mistrustful. Gillard’s loyalty has been a byword in Labor for years, and in this case it held until she discovered — by reading about it in the paper, which must have been the last straw — that he did not trust her. It’s obvious that something happened on Wednesday morning to change the whole game, and I think that’s what it was; Shorten et al were looking for a chance and suddenly there it was. My theory is that Rudd brought this down on himself (people aren’t using the word ‘Shakespearean’ about this for nothing; it’s classic) by sending Alister Jordan around to check up on people. Yes I know this is fairly usual. It’s not what he did, it’s the way that he did it.
I’ll say this again: any professional woman over 40 has experienced what it’s like to be invisible, unvalued and taken for granted in the workplace while the boss focuses on his trusted golden-boy protege*, and there usually is one. Mostly women sigh and roll their eyes and put up with that. But when the golden-boy protege is used as an instrument of insult, it all gets a bit out of hand. All reports say that Gillard was extremely upset, and she doesn’t look like an easily upset person to me.
NB the date of that article I’ve linked to. And NB in particular the phrase ‘Kevin and Alister against the world.’
Right on Kim! The hero nerd has no satisfactory end script. The thought of suitable recompense being a Ministerial post, maybe Foreign Minister, doesn’t quite cut it for me. Something missing there and anything less takes it further away. For what he achieved I’d give him a holiday and then the same prize as the drover’s dog.
Right on Kim! The hero nerd has no satisfactory end script. The thought of suitable recompense being a Ministerial post, maybe Foreign Minister, doesn’t quite cut it for me. Something missing there and anything less takes it further away. For what he achieved I’d give him a holiday and then the same prize as the drover’s dog.
True, and it’s not just a recent thing either: Cabinet collective responsibility is a long-established tradition in the Westminster system. For some reason Gillard is being held to a different standard than every Cabinet minister before her.
True, and it’s not just a recent thing either: Cabinet collective responsibility is a long-established tradition in the Westminster system. For some reason Gillard is being held to a different standard than every Cabinet minister before her.
Looking at this from a slightly different angle, Climate Change, according to the most recent Lowy poll, has 86 per cent of Australians still believing that climate change is an issue that needs addressing,and more than half of those believe it is urgent.
Julia Gillard can’t afford to leave action on this until 2013.
So far, lack of action on Climate Change has claimed four scalps – Howard, Brendon Nelson, Turnbull and Rudd. Abbott will obviously fail on this same issue, so Julia had better move quickly and take up the Green’s offer to get some appropriate and effective moves made pronto.
So, will she choose to go to bed with the Greens or with the Big Miners? She cannot be seen to be bed-hopping by the voters, even though she is a single woman. I suspect she will cosy up to both groups with hints of vaguely good things to come, and delay any real decisions until after the election. Then, I sadly suspect, she will let the miners have their way with her – payback for putting her into the position of PM.
Looking at this from a slightly different angle, Climate Change, according to the most recent Lowy poll, has 86 per cent of Australians still believing that climate change is an issue that needs addressing,and more than half of those believe it is urgent.
Julia Gillard can’t afford to leave action on this until 2013.
So far, lack of action on Climate Change has claimed four scalps – Howard, Brendon Nelson, Turnbull and Rudd. Abbott will obviously fail on this same issue, so Julia had better move quickly and take up the Green’s offer to get some appropriate and effective moves made pronto.
So, will she choose to go to bed with the Greens or with the Big Miners? She cannot be seen to be bed-hopping by the voters, even though she is a single woman. I suspect she will cosy up to both groups with hints of vaguely good things to come, and delay any real decisions until after the election. Then, I sadly suspect, she will let the miners have their way with her – payback for putting her into the position of PM.
This is a beautifully written post. But still, I’m with MH. I didn’t approve of the way that KRudd was dispatched, but I did think that he brought it on himself to a large degree. My Dad and I were saying that he reminded us of one of Dad’s crazier bosses – not actually a bad person, but in the workplace, a person who didn’t take advice from others, who was arrogant and disconnected from those under him, and who kept piling new initiative upon new initiative instead of cleaning up the mess of the ditched or failed initiatives behind him. Another friend said KRudd reminded him of the Pointy Headed Boss from Dilbert.
Yes, I do feel rather cynical about the role of the press, about the sudden switch of approach. My criticism is about the great contrast. If KRudd had all these flaws, why did we not hear about them from the beginning? There was all this immensely positive press – it seemed he could do no wrong. Why did the press suddenly break ranks? Maybe it’s just human nature: one person breaks, and suddenly everyone else follows. I knew about KRudd’s personality flaws, but I waited and waited to see how he’d perform, hoping that he’d do well. And I was disappointed in the end. Still, I did feel sad at his ignominious dethroning, just as I would for any human being who had to face disloyalty of this sort.
This is a beautifully written post. But still, I’m with MH. I didn’t approve of the way that KRudd was dispatched, but I did think that he brought it on himself to a large degree. My Dad and I were saying that he reminded us of one of Dad’s crazier bosses – not actually a bad person, but in the workplace, a person who didn’t take advice from others, who was arrogant and disconnected from those under him, and who kept piling new initiative upon new initiative instead of cleaning up the mess of the ditched or failed initiatives behind him. Another friend said KRudd reminded him of the Pointy Headed Boss from Dilbert.
Yes, I do feel rather cynical about the role of the press, about the sudden switch of approach. My criticism is about the great contrast. If KRudd had all these flaws, why did we not hear about them from the beginning? There was all this immensely positive press – it seemed he could do no wrong. Why did the press suddenly break ranks? Maybe it’s just human nature: one person breaks, and suddenly everyone else follows. I knew about KRudd’s personality flaws, but I waited and waited to see how he’d perform, hoping that he’d do well. And I was disappointed in the end. Still, I did feel sad at his ignominious dethroning, just as I would for any human being who had to face disloyalty of this sort.
I give her until Wednesday until the press turns.
Listening to the Insiders right now as Tony Abbott effectively wedges Julia
I give her until Wednesday until the press turns.
Listening to the Insiders right now as Tony Abbott effectively wedges Julia
@kika #15, would you use the “go to bed with” and “bed-hopping” analogies if the new PM was a man?
Also, Gillard is not single – she has a partnership of long standing, they’re just not married.
@kika #15, would you use the “go to bed with” and “bed-hopping” analogies if the new PM was a man?
Also, Gillard is not single – she has a partnership of long standing, they’re just not married.
Rudd’s problem (one of them anyway) was that he really wanted everyone to like him, and was afraid to make decisions that might make some people dislike him. (I think he was surprised by the reaction to the RSPT.) Yet at the same time he acted badly to people around him, ensuring that they wouldn’t like him.
I heard on the weekend from a good source that he was on the phone constantly to Dennis Shanahan, of all people, trying to win him over.
The problem with this approach is that it is not possible in politics to get everyone to like you and some of the people who don’t like you will hate your guts simply because of the party you are in, or the way you comb your hair, or whatever. These days, with blogs, that reality is made stark with the stupid, the ignorant, the uneducated and the malevolant all getting their say on the internet for everyone to see. Look at the News Ltd blogs. It’s enough to make you doubt the merits of the universal franchise.
John Howard didn’t care that not everyone liked him. He understood it’s not necessary. All you need is enough votes to win an election. I hope Gillard understands this too.
Rudd’s problem (one of them anyway) was that he really wanted everyone to like him, and was afraid to make decisions that might make some people dislike him. (I think he was surprised by the reaction to the RSPT.) Yet at the same time he acted badly to people around him, ensuring that they wouldn’t like him.
I heard on the weekend from a good source that he was on the phone constantly to Dennis Shanahan, of all people, trying to win him over.
The problem with this approach is that it is not possible in politics to get everyone to like you and some of the people who don’t like you will hate your guts simply because of the party you are in, or the way you comb your hair, or whatever. These days, with blogs, that reality is made stark with the stupid, the ignorant, the uneducated and the malevolant all getting their say on the internet for everyone to see. Look at the News Ltd blogs. It’s enough to make you doubt the merits of the universal franchise.
John Howard didn’t care that not everyone liked him. He understood it’s not necessary. All you need is enough votes to win an election. I hope Gillard understands this too.
tigtog,
Gillard’s “partnership of longstanding”?
“Longstanding” in the 21st century means…?
Is that the one with Mr Mathieson from 2006?
Or the one with Mr O’Connor? Or the one with Mr Wilson? Or the one with Mr Emerson?
Has wikipedia got it right?
And to all the generous commenters here at LP, thank you for the many, many fascinating insights into Australia’s political life.
tigtog,
Gillard’s “partnership of longstanding”?
“Longstanding” in the 21st century means…?
Is that the one with Mr Mathieson from 2006?
Or the one with Mr O’Connor? Or the one with Mr Wilson? Or the one with Mr Emerson?
Has wikipedia got it right?
And to all the generous commenters here at LP, thank you for the many, many fascinating insights into Australia’s political life.
Rudd wanted to end neo-liberalism without critical examination of the articulation between neo-liberal political philosophy and capitalism. Without that analysis the task was liable to turn into a hopeless mess which is exactly what happened.
Gillard will end the same way because the connection between privileged sections of the workforce (those employed by the mining and extractive industries), who are overwhelmingly male and very well paid, is akin to that between a suckling infant and his mother. There is no class antagonism between mine owners and mine workers despite the sorts of bollocking, masculinist rhetoric that the mining unions go on with. They’ve lined themselves up with the bosses against the planet and the rest.
Yeah, go girl.
Rudd wanted to end neo-liberalism without critical examination of the articulation between neo-liberal political philosophy and capitalism. Without that analysis the task was liable to turn into a hopeless mess which is exactly what happened.
Gillard will end the same way because the connection between privileged sections of the workforce (those employed by the mining and extractive industries), who are overwhelmingly male and very well paid, is akin to that between a suckling infant and his mother. There is no class antagonism between mine owners and mine workers despite the sorts of bollocking, masculinist rhetoric that the mining unions go on with. They’ve lined themselves up with the bosses against the planet and the rest.
Yeah, go girl.
tigtog @ 18 – the whole “in bed with” analogy is a well worn one. Not just in text but in videos – how about this advert about Howard and Rudd being in bed with the miners?
I hope that people won’t be calling similar things sexist just because we have a woman PM now.
tigtog @ 18 – the whole “in bed with” analogy is a well worn one. Not just in text but in videos – how about this advert about Howard and Rudd being in bed with the miners?
I hope that people won’t be calling similar things sexist just because we have a woman PM now.
@Chris, one iteration of “in bed with” – maybe just a reflex thing. To continue with “bedhopping” and “have their way with her” – I don’t buy either of those as being commonly aimed at male politicians – not that I’ve ever heard.
@Chris, one iteration of “in bed with” – maybe just a reflex thing. To continue with “bedhopping” and “have their way with her” – I don’t buy either of those as being commonly aimed at male politicians – not that I’ve ever heard.
I am so angry with the way in which Prime Minister Rudd was dumped from his post. My theory is that the continued undermining of his position and authority and his popularity was done by the forces in his party.
From the commentaries in the press it appears that the people who participated in the dumping of the ETS were the very same people who also engineered his downfall. This is what makes me very angry. In my opinion, neither is there any honour in this episode nor is there any legitimacy.
I am so angry with the way in which Prime Minister Rudd was dumped from his post. My theory is that the continued undermining of his position and authority and his popularity was done by the forces in his party.
From the commentaries in the press it appears that the people who participated in the dumping of the ETS were the very same people who also engineered his downfall. This is what makes me very angry. In my opinion, neither is there any honour in this episode nor is there any legitimacy.
And because I have not read this anywhere else: Governor-General Quentin Bryce was wearing a purple, green and white corsage during Julia Gillard’s swearing-in. It clashed mightily with the GG’s stunning yellow outfit so it must have had some sort of symbolic meaning…
And because I have not read this anywhere else: Governor-General Quentin Bryce was wearing a purple, green and white corsage during Julia Gillard’s swearing-in. It clashed mightily with the GG’s stunning yellow outfit so it must have had some sort of symbolic meaning…
tigtog – its a pretty obvious extension of the analogy when a politician jumps from supporting one group to another. I’d be amazed if it hasn’t been used before on a male politician. You could probably run an art exhibition based just on cartoons of australian politicians in bed with each other and/or lobby groups. Let alone comments made on blogs about say $POLITICIAN and the coal industry/big business/greens/unions.
tigtog – its a pretty obvious extension of the analogy when a politician jumps from supporting one group to another. I’d be amazed if it hasn’t been used before on a male politician. You could probably run an art exhibition based just on cartoons of australian politicians in bed with each other and/or lobby groups. Let alone comments made on blogs about say $POLITICIAN and the coal industry/big business/greens/unions.
@tigtog – I thought the kika post was an obvious joke on language. In any case the link between idiom and denotation is definitionally not strong, hence a reading as ‘sexist’ is drawing a long bow.
@tigtog – I thought the kika post was an obvious joke on language. In any case the link between idiom and denotation is definitionally not strong, hence a reading as ‘sexist’ is drawing a long bow.
On the topic of the post, and on claims that Rudd has been retrospectively canonised, a typically sour piece from David Burchell. Apparently the intertubes are full of unbalanced wild romantics, and only journos and commentators and true Labor Real Aussies have their feet firmly on the ground:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/real-people-dont-get-besotted-with-prime-ministers/story-e6frgd0x-1225884965639
On the topic of the post, and on claims that Rudd has been retrospectively canonised, a typically sour piece from David Burchell. Apparently the intertubes are full of unbalanced wild romantics, and only journos and commentators and true Labor Real Aussies have their feet firmly on the ground:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/real-people-dont-get-besotted-with-prime-ministers/story-e6frgd0x-1225884965639
Kim, a PS to mine @ 21 I’m sure that you would have made the same comment whoever took over from Rudd in these particular circumstances. There seems to me however there’s an undercurrent to the commentary on Gillard’s ascent to power even from people who genuinely admire her. They expect a woman to behave differently.
.
Kim, a PS to mine @ 21 I’m sure that you would have made the same comment whoever took over from Rudd in these particular circumstances. There seems to me however there’s an undercurrent to the commentary on Gillard’s ascent to power even from people who genuinely admire her. They expect a woman to behave differently.
.
grace @ 26, the quality is not good, but it looks OK to me.
grace @ 26, the quality is not good, but it looks OK to me.
@30 – Patricia WA, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest that some will view, intentionally or otherwise, Gillard and her actions through a sexist prism.
But I want to make it clear that I am not making any criticisms of her conduct personally. I find the actions of the “hard heads” and “machine men” highly distasteful.
@30 – Patricia WA, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest that some will view, intentionally or otherwise, Gillard and her actions through a sexist prism.
But I want to make it clear that I am not making any criticisms of her conduct personally. I find the actions of the “hard heads” and “machine men” highly distasteful.
I heard this morning that the media turned on Rudd because his media unit pissed off all the media hacks.
I heard this morning that the media turned on Rudd because his media unit pissed off all the media hacks.
Further to Mark@29
“He had a particular carefulness in the knitting of his brows, and a kind of impatience in all his motions…” Well we knew what to expect there.
Further to Mark@29
“He had a particular carefulness in the knitting of his brows, and a kind of impatience in all his motions…” Well we knew what to expect there.
“In bed with” is a unisex political term, and used often to describe male politicians and big business (or unions) behaviour together. Inherently (hetero)sexist, perhaps, with a subtext that “female” behaviour is derogated to male. But hardly new in the context of being applied to Julia…
…what short memories we have? Remember the Rubbery Figures? Resplendent with Bob Hawke in wigs as Keating’s mother? Or their falling-out depicted as spousal abuse? Or the whole (male puppet) cast in bed together?
That said, I found it more than a little creepy when I heard Tony Abbott over the weekend, referring to Gillard’s RSPT proposals as “screwing the mining industry”. Haven’t heard a Leader of the Opposition use that term much in public…
“In bed with” is a unisex political term, and used often to describe male politicians and big business (or unions) behaviour together. Inherently (hetero)sexist, perhaps, with a subtext that “female” behaviour is derogated to male. But hardly new in the context of being applied to Julia…
…what short memories we have? Remember the Rubbery Figures? Resplendent with Bob Hawke in wigs as Keating’s mother? Or their falling-out depicted as spousal abuse? Or the whole (male puppet) cast in bed together?
That said, I found it more than a little creepy when I heard Tony Abbott over the weekend, referring to Gillard’s RSPT proposals as “screwing the mining industry”. Haven’t heard a Leader of the Opposition use that term much in public…
A great, compassionate post and some excellent contributions. Roger Jones and Pavlov’s Cat are closest to my views, though I can feel some sympathy for many.
Thomas Paine’s post @3 especially fascinated me.
“Rudd the non political politician was an experiment the public wanted and probably still want.”
That may well be what he strived to be, and he may be a bit ahead of his time. In my view, however, it was a big factor in his downfall. I don’t think it’s possible to do politics without entering the bearpit. Sure, you can have hatchet people to do the really nasty jobs, but you still have to be prepared to get your hands dirty and bloodied occasionally.
Some of the things he did or attempted might have been idyllic but they were damned stupid politically. To take a favourite LP Aunt Sally: the ABC. It couldn’t be clearer that in news and management, Howard (after a couple of failed attempts) had emasculated it. Rudd’s solution? At some distant time as Board members retire or die, replace them with ‘non-political’ appointments. I assume he intends the same with management, even when you’ve got one senior executive claiming that there is a credible alternative to current climate science (and by inference we need to cover alternative views). So many people here have deplored the ABC’s trivialisation of the news and even climate change. I’m surprised the dots haven’t been connected. Until Howard’s handiwork is reversed, that’s what we’re going to get.
I was equally dismayed by his appointment of Dolly and Tip to sinecures. With the AWB thing and $ currency speculation, neither had unblemished public records anyway. But more to the point, both were fiercely partisan warriors. Appointing them won’t heal political differences, but it will annoy your own supporter base. Tim Fischer is different, being closer to the ideal, like say Barry Jones of being admired and respected on all sides.
Those type of things were disappointing but not enough to lose support. But Rudd’s reluctance to fight back that led to real problems. And oddly it was Abbott, who many of us regarded as not much more than the village idiot on his public performances, that first realised and took advantage of this flaw.
Abbott got away with outrageous hyperbole and bull in claiming the home insulation scheme was costing lives. That should have been shot down but was not. Instead, Abbott even had a minor win when Rudd moved Garrett aside. Why? He got away with similar on schools and was no doubt lining up health next. You can’t just leave a thug like that to set the agenda. It’s like going into a footy match in bare feet when everyone else is wearing spiked boots. Of course you’re going to get hurt.
I will respect Rudd for ridding us of Howard, for the unconditional Apology and for getting us through the GFC with barely a scratch. But he was in danger for the next battle.
A great, compassionate post and some excellent contributions. Roger Jones and Pavlov’s Cat are closest to my views, though I can feel some sympathy for many.
Thomas Paine’s post @3 especially fascinated me.
“Rudd the non political politician was an experiment the public wanted and probably still want.”
That may well be what he strived to be, and he may be a bit ahead of his time. In my view, however, it was a big factor in his downfall. I don’t think it’s possible to do politics without entering the bearpit. Sure, you can have hatchet people to do the really nasty jobs, but you still have to be prepared to get your hands dirty and bloodied occasionally.
Some of the things he did or attempted might have been idyllic but they were damned stupid politically. To take a favourite LP Aunt Sally: the ABC. It couldn’t be clearer that in news and management, Howard (after a couple of failed attempts) had emasculated it. Rudd’s solution? At some distant time as Board members retire or die, replace them with ‘non-political’ appointments. I assume he intends the same with management, even when you’ve got one senior executive claiming that there is a credible alternative to current climate science (and by inference we need to cover alternative views). So many people here have deplored the ABC’s trivialisation of the news and even climate change. I’m surprised the dots haven’t been connected. Until Howard’s handiwork is reversed, that’s what we’re going to get.
I was equally dismayed by his appointment of Dolly and Tip to sinecures. With the AWB thing and $ currency speculation, neither had unblemished public records anyway. But more to the point, both were fiercely partisan warriors. Appointing them won’t heal political differences, but it will annoy your own supporter base. Tim Fischer is different, being closer to the ideal, like say Barry Jones of being admired and respected on all sides.
Those type of things were disappointing but not enough to lose support. But Rudd’s reluctance to fight back that led to real problems. And oddly it was Abbott, who many of us regarded as not much more than the village idiot on his public performances, that first realised and took advantage of this flaw.
Abbott got away with outrageous hyperbole and bull in claiming the home insulation scheme was costing lives. That should have been shot down but was not. Instead, Abbott even had a minor win when Rudd moved Garrett aside. Why? He got away with similar on schools and was no doubt lining up health next. You can’t just leave a thug like that to set the agenda. It’s like going into a footy match in bare feet when everyone else is wearing spiked boots. Of course you’re going to get hurt.
I will respect Rudd for ridding us of Howard, for the unconditional Apology and for getting us through the GFC with barely a scratch. But he was in danger for the next battle.
Well said Don. This is a pretty good summary.
Unlike most of the operators, one got a sense of Rudd as really believing in notions like “the struggle of ideas” and “the wisdom of the public” and the idea of being able to separate the political and partisan from the professional.
These ideas are so quaint that almost nobody could believe they could be held by anyone in this day and age — leave aside a fairly cerebral PM. So he successively looked weak or vacuous or cowardly or disingenuous or cynical or naive or as standing for nothing. His greatest assets turned out to be flaws (as far as political survival was concerned. I don’t know if Marr was right and Rudd was driven by rage, but if he was, one could forgive Rudd if the above irony drove him to rage.
Of course, no movement in battle can abide a leader who gives these impressions to those who are tooled up for battle in a take no prisoners fight. Rudd couldn’t fight for climate mitigation or making the miners pay more from within such a paradigm. He had to be prepared to go in botts and all and take no prisoners. In a kinder gentler age, he could have been something, but as one is not in prospect, we needed someone else.
I thought they should have waited until after the election, but it seems it is working out OK (partly because Rudd helpfully surrendered, as was his wont) so the gamble has paid off. Certainly, if (improbably) the ALP loses, they won’t be able to blame him.
Well said Don. This is a pretty good summary.
Unlike most of the operators, one got a sense of Rudd as really believing in notions like “the struggle of ideas” and “the wisdom of the public” and the idea of being able to separate the political and partisan from the professional.
These ideas are so quaint that almost nobody could believe they could be held by anyone in this day and age — leave aside a fairly cerebral PM. So he successively looked weak or vacuous or cowardly or disingenuous or cynical or naive or as standing for nothing. His greatest assets turned out to be flaws (as far as political survival was concerned. I don’t know if Marr was right and Rudd was driven by rage, but if he was, one could forgive Rudd if the above irony drove him to rage.
Of course, no movement in battle can abide a leader who gives these impressions to those who are tooled up for battle in a take no prisoners fight. Rudd couldn’t fight for climate mitigation or making the miners pay more from within such a paradigm. He had to be prepared to go in botts and all and take no prisoners. In a kinder gentler age, he could have been something, but as one is not in prospect, we needed someone else.
I thought they should have waited until after the election, but it seems it is working out OK (partly because Rudd helpfully surrendered, as was his wont) so the gamble has paid off. Certainly, if (improbably) the ALP loses, they won’t be able to blame him.
An interesting post, and Don Wigan made some intersting points. I think that you’re right about Rudd’s inability or unwillingness to fight back, and many suggested that he should have done something about the ABC.
It doesn’t exactly coincide with Marr’s driven by anger bullshit, though.
An interesting post, and Don Wigan made some intersting points. I think that you’re right about Rudd’s inability or unwillingness to fight back, and many suggested that he should have done something about the ABC.
It doesn’t exactly coincide with Marr’s driven by anger bullshit, though.
adrian, I’ve had that Marr essay for weeks, and still haven’t managed to read it. I doubt if I’ll bother now.
adrian, I’ve had that Marr essay for weeks, and still haven’t managed to read it. I doubt if I’ll bother now.
@20 maman, oh ffs, would you refer to someone as a “newly-wed” if they’d been married for four years?
What’s your point? She’s living with a bloke = she’s not single. It’s irrelevant whether she’s lived with other blokes previously.
@20 maman, oh ffs, would you refer to someone as a “newly-wed” if they’d been married for four years?
What’s your point? She’s living with a bloke = she’s not single. It’s irrelevant whether she’s lived with other blokes previously.
Thanks, everyone, for your observations on my using phrases such as “in bed with”. I’m female and a feminist, and meant my wording to be humorous, as well as descriptive of the situation. Certainly did not mean it in any sexist way.
However, I will be more aware in future, about the possibility of subconscious sexism, even within myself. Just goes to show how deeply we can be programmed even when we (ie I ) think we’ve moved beyond it.
Thanks, everyone, for your observations on my using phrases such as “in bed with”. I’m female and a feminist, and meant my wording to be humorous, as well as descriptive of the situation. Certainly did not mean it in any sexist way.
However, I will be more aware in future, about the possibility of subconscious sexism, even within myself. Just goes to show how deeply we can be programmed even when we (ie I ) think we’ve moved beyond it.
In many ways climate action typified what was wrong with the Rudd approach. Rudd would not have had a crisis when he deferred the CPRS if he had been able to point to the climate action that had been taken while the work on the CPRS had proceeded. Instead, he didn’t have enough short term action in progress to start driving down emissions. He had even let the RET scheme inherited from Howard fall behind and did nothing about fixing the problem that let the price of credits fall below the level required to justify further investment. Sure there were some initiatives taken but none of these were large enough to stop emissions growing let alone getting reductions on target.
The second problem is that the impact of the CPRS was to be deferred until after the next election. At times you felt that the coming election was to be all about asking for support to do the things that were promised at the last election.
The third problem was that Rudd didn’t fulfill his overview role. It was obvious for a long time that CPRS was becoming increasingly complex and almost impossible to sell while trying to compete with a master of the ‘great big lie about anything”. A leader’s key role is to stand back and warn Wong that she was becoming so buried in the details of the CPRS that she had lost sight of the politics and, more to the point, what the Labor party was supporting was serious climate action rather than a particular solution.
Finally, all the homework was being done on a particular solution – so when it became obvious that CPRS should be deferred there was nothing about the alternatives. Homework should have at least been done on carbon taxes and direct action.
The final problem was that Rudd tried to buy support by offering subsidies that were not justified. In the past Australians have supported hard action from the likes of Frazer, Hawke, Keating and Howard without lots of bribes. Rudd was starting to do the same thing with the RSPT before he went.
In many ways climate action typified what was wrong with the Rudd approach. Rudd would not have had a crisis when he deferred the CPRS if he had been able to point to the climate action that had been taken while the work on the CPRS had proceeded. Instead, he didn’t have enough short term action in progress to start driving down emissions. He had even let the RET scheme inherited from Howard fall behind and did nothing about fixing the problem that let the price of credits fall below the level required to justify further investment. Sure there were some initiatives taken but none of these were large enough to stop emissions growing let alone getting reductions on target.
The second problem is that the impact of the CPRS was to be deferred until after the next election. At times you felt that the coming election was to be all about asking for support to do the things that were promised at the last election.
The third problem was that Rudd didn’t fulfill his overview role. It was obvious for a long time that CPRS was becoming increasingly complex and almost impossible to sell while trying to compete with a master of the ‘great big lie about anything”. A leader’s key role is to stand back and warn Wong that she was becoming so buried in the details of the CPRS that she had lost sight of the politics and, more to the point, what the Labor party was supporting was serious climate action rather than a particular solution.
Finally, all the homework was being done on a particular solution – so when it became obvious that CPRS should be deferred there was nothing about the alternatives. Homework should have at least been done on carbon taxes and direct action.
The final problem was that Rudd tried to buy support by offering subsidies that were not justified. In the past Australians have supported hard action from the likes of Frazer, Hawke, Keating and Howard without lots of bribes. Rudd was starting to do the same thing with the RSPT before he went.
It seems that Rudd followed a similar pattern of avoiding confrontation and offering bribes of one sort or another in many of his conflicts.
In a curious way, even his response to the Pacific Viking standoff seems similar to the mangled handling of the CPRS.
No clear annunciation of policy position, no line in the sand, just endless bribes until the other side was satisfied that they had extracted what they wanted. The end result looked like effective capitulation in each case.
Don Wigan @36, great post. Agree with your summary: “I will respect Rudd for ridding us of Howard, for the unconditional Apology and for getting us through the GFC with barely a scratch. But he was in danger for the next battle.”
It seems that Rudd followed a similar pattern of avoiding confrontation and offering bribes of one sort or another in many of his conflicts.
In a curious way, even his response to the Pacific Viking standoff seems similar to the mangled handling of the CPRS.
No clear annunciation of policy position, no line in the sand, just endless bribes until the other side was satisfied that they had extracted what they wanted. The end result looked like effective capitulation in each case.
Don Wigan @36, great post. Agree with your summary: “I will respect Rudd for ridding us of Howard, for the unconditional Apology and for getting us through the GFC with barely a scratch. But he was in danger for the next battle.”
Well Kevin’s got the holiday I hoped for @ 13 and on the re-election of Labor, with the subsequent verification of Julia as PM ,we will learn just what the Party feels the hero and destroyer of the detestable Howard will earn for his effort. I hope it reflects that fantastic, soul lifting moment in time.
Well Kevin’s got the holiday I hoped for @ 13 and on the re-election of Labor, with the subsequent verification of Julia as PM ,we will learn just what the Party feels the hero and destroyer of the detestable Howard will earn for his effort. I hope it reflects that fantastic, soul lifting moment in time.
Kim, the point I was trying to make was that politics is relatively secure – once you get in there’s a good chance you’ll leave on your own terms – compared to other jobs. 1000 Liberal staffers were unemployed in 2007 and probably 150 of those were re-employed by Xmas, and even then on lesser pay. Compare this to an abattoir or a TCF factory and cry me a fucking river.
Kim, the point I was trying to make was that politics is relatively secure – once you get in there’s a good chance you’ll leave on your own terms – compared to other jobs. 1000 Liberal staffers were unemployed in 2007 and probably 150 of those were re-employed by Xmas, and even then on lesser pay. Compare this to an abattoir or a TCF factory and cry me a fucking river.
Question for Kim. Do you support scab labour? Yes or no? Gillard does and she has clearly stated her intention to use scab labour. Given this do you fell she has any right to be a representative, let alone Prime Minister of an ALp government? Is Gillard any better than Howard given her anti union attacks?
Question for Kim. Do you support scab labour? Yes or no? Gillard does and she has clearly stated her intention to use scab labour. Given this do you fell she has any right to be a representative, let alone Prime Minister of an ALp government? Is Gillard any better than Howard given her anti union attacks?
Just to follow up on my post, and on the points made by Kim and Thomas Paine: the occasion found the man. There’s others that argue convincingly that the hubris of ramming through Workchoices sunk Howard. It was a critical turning point, as was fatigue at Howard’s Oprah-like opinions and presence on anything and everything.
But Rudd gave Labor a credible look. And his life and achievements were too considerable and too uncontroversial for him to be Swiftboated. Then there was the remarkable high personal popularity, sustained for so long when almost monthly the pundits were predicting the end of the honeymoon.
Like Thomas Paine, I believe that this was to do with his attempt to be apolitical. And it was such a contrast to Howard, who was political about everything. Howard lived for politics and although he did not have a natural public aptitude he went on working relentlessly, gradually wearing down rivals and learning from every mistake.
Howard had a long history of anti-unionism, masked a little behind a facade of ‘industrial relations reform’. It went down well with his business supporter base. But for Howard it was always about the Lab-Lib combat. Destroy the union movement, who provide the money and the organising for Labor, and you drive a stake through Labor.
Rudd was such a welcome antithesis of this attitude: his popularity was warm and his decency and aims seemed fair and just.
The trouble is that you can get away with an apolitical approach in local government, and even state government to a point. I grew up in SA where the long-serving Liberal Premier, Tom Playford was something of this type. It’s not often that you get a Liberal Premier nationalising electricity and running the most effective public housing in the country.
But I can’t see this translating to national politics too easily. By necessity at that level it is combative. It took Abbott to drive a hole in the apolitical approach.
… But heck we were lucky that that hard-driving micro-managed approach was in place when facing the GFC.
Just to follow up on my post, and on the points made by Kim and Thomas Paine: the occasion found the man. There’s others that argue convincingly that the hubris of ramming through Workchoices sunk Howard. It was a critical turning point, as was fatigue at Howard’s Oprah-like opinions and presence on anything and everything.
But Rudd gave Labor a credible look. And his life and achievements were too considerable and too uncontroversial for him to be Swiftboated. Then there was the remarkable high personal popularity, sustained for so long when almost monthly the pundits were predicting the end of the honeymoon.
Like Thomas Paine, I believe that this was to do with his attempt to be apolitical. And it was such a contrast to Howard, who was political about everything. Howard lived for politics and although he did not have a natural public aptitude he went on working relentlessly, gradually wearing down rivals and learning from every mistake.
Howard had a long history of anti-unionism, masked a little behind a facade of ‘industrial relations reform’. It went down well with his business supporter base. But for Howard it was always about the Lab-Lib combat. Destroy the union movement, who provide the money and the organising for Labor, and you drive a stake through Labor.
Rudd was such a welcome antithesis of this attitude: his popularity was warm and his decency and aims seemed fair and just.
The trouble is that you can get away with an apolitical approach in local government, and even state government to a point. I grew up in SA where the long-serving Liberal Premier, Tom Playford was something of this type. It’s not often that you get a Liberal Premier nationalising electricity and running the most effective public housing in the country.
But I can’t see this translating to national politics too easily. By necessity at that level it is combative. It took Abbott to drive a hole in the apolitical approach.
… But heck we were lucky that that hard-driving micro-managed approach was in place when facing the GFC.
True, Don, but hard driving with not quite enough micro-management probably gave us the insulation debacle.
True, Don, but hard driving with not quite enough micro-management probably gave us the insulation debacle.
Spana
Calling parents who are given their labour to further their kids education “scabs” is not going to win you too many friends.
Spana
Calling parents who are given their labour to further their kids education “scabs” is not going to win you too many friends.
Ossie,
I am not talking about parents. I am talking about attempts by education departments at the request of Gillard to hire unqualified people such as backpackers to break teacher union workbans. This was the ALP and Gillard in tory mode. They did not go down the track of using parents. They tried to turn unemployed teachers and backpackers into scabs to ram through her right wing education agenda. Just like the waterfront.
As I have said, Gillad is a Thatcherite. The difference is that she pretends to be freinds with workers and unions and then will crush them. At least Thatcher was upfront.
Unionists should neve vote for a scab labour supporting PM.
Ossie,
I am not talking about parents. I am talking about attempts by education departments at the request of Gillard to hire unqualified people such as backpackers to break teacher union workbans. This was the ALP and Gillard in tory mode. They did not go down the track of using parents. They tried to turn unemployed teachers and backpackers into scabs to ram through her right wing education agenda. Just like the waterfront.
As I have said, Gillad is a Thatcherite. The difference is that she pretends to be freinds with workers and unions and then will crush them. At least Thatcher was upfront.
Unionists should neve vote for a scab labour supporting PM.
Like Bob Hawke breaking the pilots strike with American pilots? Better find a new anti-Gillard angle Spana. Hey, you might have to resort once again to the “a childless woman has no right to be education minister” diatribe you resorted to a while ago…that’d at least be a more honest representation of why you dislike her so, wouldn’t it?
Like Bob Hawke breaking the pilots strike with American pilots? Better find a new anti-Gillard angle Spana. Hey, you might have to resort once again to the “a childless woman has no right to be education minister” diatribe you resorted to a while ago…that’d at least be a more honest representation of why you dislike her so, wouldn’t it?
This is getting mighty tedious. Best to check The GG to see what I should be thinking.
This is getting mighty tedious. Best to check The GG to see what I should be thinking.
Saint Furious,
My point is that people respect people in positions making decisions if they have experience in the area. My point about Gillard being education minister is nothing to do with her being a woman and I would make the same point about a man in the same position if he did not have kids. The point is about not having kids. Gillard or a childless man may be excellent economic managers, excellent foreign affairs ministers, excellent environment ministers but to have someone who does not have children makng decisions about a portfolio largely dealing with children and parents is not a good thing.
Most parents know that many of their single friends have no idea about children and that is fair enough. So we probably would not ask their advice on parenting. Same with Gillard. We don’t stick someone with no financial knowledge in charge of treasury. Why would you stick someone with no parenting knowledge in charge of a portfolio where they want to tell us what to do with our kids and what to do in our schools. Sorry, just not credible, man or woman.
As, for finding another anti Gillard angle, okay, let’s try.
1. She is pro war in Afghanistan. A war waged for US power with high civilian casualties.
2. She has been joint decision maker with all decisions of the Rudd government so can’t claim to be different
3. She is a product of backroom deals and ALP factional politics. As an ex ALP member I know this is as dirty as it gets.
4. I believe she will sell out to the mining industry and lessen their contribution to Australia. In other words, I bet she will give them bigger profits than Rudd.
Furthermore Saint Furious, I am not arguing that the rest of the ALP are against scab labour. The ALP has a long and dirty tradition of adopting tory tactics and crushing unions when it suits. Anna Bligh in Queensland had made this an artform. Gillard is just another ALP figure who will pretend to be friends with the unions to help her get elected then abandon them. Not fit to be PM.
Saint Furious,
My point is that people respect people in positions making decisions if they have experience in the area. My point about Gillard being education minister is nothing to do with her being a woman and I would make the same point about a man in the same position if he did not have kids. The point is about not having kids. Gillard or a childless man may be excellent economic managers, excellent foreign affairs ministers, excellent environment ministers but to have someone who does not have children makng decisions about a portfolio largely dealing with children and parents is not a good thing.
Most parents know that many of their single friends have no idea about children and that is fair enough. So we probably would not ask their advice on parenting. Same with Gillard. We don’t stick someone with no financial knowledge in charge of treasury. Why would you stick someone with no parenting knowledge in charge of a portfolio where they want to tell us what to do with our kids and what to do in our schools. Sorry, just not credible, man or woman.
As, for finding another anti Gillard angle, okay, let’s try.
1. She is pro war in Afghanistan. A war waged for US power with high civilian casualties.
2. She has been joint decision maker with all decisions of the Rudd government so can’t claim to be different
3. She is a product of backroom deals and ALP factional politics. As an ex ALP member I know this is as dirty as it gets.
4. I believe she will sell out to the mining industry and lessen their contribution to Australia. In other words, I bet she will give them bigger profits than Rudd.
Furthermore Saint Furious, I am not arguing that the rest of the ALP are against scab labour. The ALP has a long and dirty tradition of adopting tory tactics and crushing unions when it suits. Anna Bligh in Queensland had made this an artform. Gillard is just another ALP figure who will pretend to be friends with the unions to help her get elected then abandon them. Not fit to be PM.
Well a quick scan of The GG told me via that nice Mr Shanahan that Gillard came to bury Rudd not to praise him yesterday. Since Mr Shanahan has been right about everything else to do with ALP politics lately, this must also be true.
I was also told that the miners have given what is laughingly still known as the government until Friday to come up with a compromise.
I’m so pleased that The GG is not anti-Labor any more.
Well a quick scan of The GG told me via that nice Mr Shanahan that Gillard came to bury Rudd not to praise him yesterday. Since Mr Shanahan has been right about everything else to do with ALP politics lately, this must also be true.
I was also told that the miners have given what is laughingly still known as the government until Friday to come up with a compromise.
I’m so pleased that The GG is not anti-Labor any more.
Spana
They did not go down the track of using parents. They tried to turn unemployed teachers and backpackers into scabs to ram through her right wing education agenda. Just like the waterfront.
Now that is one of the silliest, most ideologically-misguided things I have read in a very long time.
You are wrong on every level.
The AEU tanty was not “industrial action.” It was yet another Brezhnevesque turn by the AEU. All you people can say is “nyet, nyet, nyet.”
You are not industrial labourers. You are a state-employed teachers. Your presumption to count yourself among class struggle and political action such as the waterfront dispute is risible. Actually it is so daft, it can’t even be insulting.
The waterfront dispute involved the state using its violence against blue-collar trade-unionist workers to:
1.Assist capital (Patrick) take away financial entitlements and conditions – hard-won over a century of union solidarity and fight. Yes, the members of the MUA were going to be much poorer,than they already were.
Nobody was sacking any teachers; and of course the state was a player. It pays you.
2. Reith and Howard used all the violent powers of the state to thwart the workers. They sanctioned the training of workers to replace the MUA in Dubai.
Nobody was setting up off-shore training facilities to train a replacement teacher workforce. In fact, the government was relying on any old joe. Supervising NAPLAN tests is baby-sitting.
3. The AEU’s actions were completely inappropriate for a union. The tests do not concern teachers pay and conditions. It is not for trade unions to presume they have the authority to disrupt the state becoming more transparent, by providing information it has, and parents very much wish to access. It is none of your business.
I have supported much teacher industrial action in my time. But on this issue, you made fools of yourselves. A big tick for Gillard from me and many others, for ignoring you.
As a parent, I would have fully supported Gillard unleashing the dobermans and german sheperds on you lot.
Spana
They did not go down the track of using parents. They tried to turn unemployed teachers and backpackers into scabs to ram through her right wing education agenda. Just like the waterfront.
Now that is one of the silliest, most ideologically-misguided things I have read in a very long time.
You are wrong on every level.
The AEU tanty was not “industrial action.” It was yet another Brezhnevesque turn by the AEU. All you people can say is “nyet, nyet, nyet.”
You are not industrial labourers. You are a state-employed teachers. Your presumption to count yourself among class struggle and political action such as the waterfront dispute is risible. Actually it is so daft, it can’t even be insulting.
The waterfront dispute involved the state using its violence against blue-collar trade-unionist workers to:
1.Assist capital (Patrick) take away financial entitlements and conditions – hard-won over a century of union solidarity and fight. Yes, the members of the MUA were going to be much poorer,than they already were.
Nobody was sacking any teachers; and of course the state was a player. It pays you.
2. Reith and Howard used all the violent powers of the state to thwart the workers. They sanctioned the training of workers to replace the MUA in Dubai.
Nobody was setting up off-shore training facilities to train a replacement teacher workforce. In fact, the government was relying on any old joe. Supervising NAPLAN tests is baby-sitting.
3. The AEU’s actions were completely inappropriate for a union. The tests do not concern teachers pay and conditions. It is not for trade unions to presume they have the authority to disrupt the state becoming more transparent, by providing information it has, and parents very much wish to access. It is none of your business.
I have supported much teacher industrial action in my time. But on this issue, you made fools of yourselves. A big tick for Gillard from me and many others, for ignoring you.
As a parent, I would have fully supported Gillard unleashing the dobermans and german sheperds on you lot.
Teachers around the world think they are the vanguard of the revolution. It’s a joke.
Teachers around the world think they are the vanguard of the revolution. It’s a joke.
Good grief Spana, get a grip!
Still, of Abbott ( Rudd can’t be considered for obvious reasons ) or Gillard, who would you rather have in charge of the country?
I say this as someone who agrees with your worldly propositions as to the general fallibility of the world in these times, thru venal and down to corrupt and violent and we (OZ) are better off than most.
Its true. Gillard is the conservative choice. The rational, unfazed, small “c” choice, in fact, when Abbott’s head-banging Conservatism is the only alternative apart from the Greens.
Beggars aren’t choosers…
Good grief Spana, get a grip!
Still, of Abbott ( Rudd can’t be considered for obvious reasons ) or Gillard, who would you rather have in charge of the country?
I say this as someone who agrees with your worldly propositions as to the general fallibility of the world in these times, thru venal and down to corrupt and violent and we (OZ) are better off than most.
Its true. Gillard is the conservative choice. The rational, unfazed, small “c” choice, in fact, when Abbott’s head-banging Conservatism is the only alternative apart from the Greens.
Beggars aren’t choosers…
Ever met any teachers sam? Having worked with some over the years, I can say that without doubt they are one of the most conservative groups you can imagine. Most of them are more concerned with super than anything vaguely political.
But like ossie, you don’t want to let reality intrude on your opinions.
Ever met any teachers sam? Having worked with some over the years, I can say that without doubt they are one of the most conservative groups you can imagine. Most of them are more concerned with super than anything vaguely political.
But like ossie, you don’t want to let reality intrude on your opinions.
Thanks for that, Ossie. Puts it in perspective.
Spana, I doubt if you’re as ancient as me but one advantage of age is a good memory over a long time. If unhappy with the ALP, and I’ve been detached from it since the Tampa ambush and cave-in in 2001, feel free to go elsewhere. But the DLP? Seriously?
I haven’t taken much notice of them since they lost relevance in the 70s, but unless they’ve undergone a huge change I’d doubt you’d find working-class justice there. This group, with some justification I agree, did their best to keep Labor out of office through the Menzies-Holt era. There sticking point, according to McManus, was Labor participating with the communists in Unity Tickets for trade union office.
These went quickly once Whitlam and allies started to wrest control from the old Victorian Left-Joe Chamberlain control of Labor. Whitlam also enabled Labor to accept State Aid to private schools, another DLP grievance. He risked and nearly lost his leadership position fighting against the expulsion from Labor of Grouper Brian Harradine.
So by the time Whitlam came to office there was no substantial reason for the DLP to oppose Labor, particularly to a government so committed to reform. Yet what did they do? Linked up with the Coalition forces to oppose just about everything put up to the Senate, finally joining up with Snedden to oppose the budget and force an election. They were wiped out at the 74 double dissolution election.
I think you may need to look elsewhere for a party of relevance to your concerns.
Thanks for that, Ossie. Puts it in perspective.
Spana, I doubt if you’re as ancient as me but one advantage of age is a good memory over a long time. If unhappy with the ALP, and I’ve been detached from it since the Tampa ambush and cave-in in 2001, feel free to go elsewhere. But the DLP? Seriously?
I haven’t taken much notice of them since they lost relevance in the 70s, but unless they’ve undergone a huge change I’d doubt you’d find working-class justice there. This group, with some justification I agree, did their best to keep Labor out of office through the Menzies-Holt era. There sticking point, according to McManus, was Labor participating with the communists in Unity Tickets for trade union office.
These went quickly once Whitlam and allies started to wrest control from the old Victorian Left-Joe Chamberlain control of Labor. Whitlam also enabled Labor to accept State Aid to private schools, another DLP grievance. He risked and nearly lost his leadership position fighting against the expulsion from Labor of Grouper Brian Harradine.
So by the time Whitlam came to office there was no substantial reason for the DLP to oppose Labor, particularly to a government so committed to reform. Yet what did they do? Linked up with the Coalition forces to oppose just about everything put up to the Senate, finally joining up with Snedden to oppose the budget and force an election. They were wiped out at the 74 double dissolution election.
I think you may need to look elsewhere for a party of relevance to your concerns.
Brian @48: “True, Don, but hard driving with not quite enough micro-management probably gave us the insulation debacle.”
Are you sure it was a “debacle”?
The biggest component of household energy costs is heating and cooling. Insulation must be by far the cheapest way of lowering household energy consumption.
Installing insulation employs unskilled labour, so virtually anyone can do it with minimal training during an economic downturn. (By contrast, installing solar PV requires a qualified electrician with a special ticket.)
Fewer people died per installation during the insulation program, than before the program.
In what way was it a “debacle”, other than the government failing to handle Abbott’s grandstanding and dog whistling?
Brian @48: “True, Don, but hard driving with not quite enough micro-management probably gave us the insulation debacle.”
Are you sure it was a “debacle”?
The biggest component of household energy costs is heating and cooling. Insulation must be by far the cheapest way of lowering household energy consumption.
Installing insulation employs unskilled labour, so virtually anyone can do it with minimal training during an economic downturn. (By contrast, installing solar PV requires a qualified electrician with a special ticket.)
Fewer people died per installation during the insulation program, than before the program.
In what way was it a “debacle”, other than the government failing to handle Abbott’s grandstanding and dog whistling?
Elise, in fairness to Brian, among our most thoughtful posters, he may have meant the Assessors Program, some problems of which were mentioned in the Senate today and covered on ABC TV news. The impression I got was that that part was certainly not micro-managed well (so touche, Brian).
I take your point regarding “debacle” in other aspects of home insulation. Especially concerning deaths and safety issues, this was by and large Abbott’s overblown hyperbole. It was disgraceful that it was run with a straight face in the media. As Possum pointed out, all of the areas complained about were State responsibilities. However, Rudd’s decision not to shoot it down, and then to move Garrett aside, gave it legs.
Elise, in fairness to Brian, among our most thoughtful posters, he may have meant the Assessors Program, some problems of which were mentioned in the Senate today and covered on ABC TV news. The impression I got was that that part was certainly not micro-managed well (so touche, Brian).
I take your point regarding “debacle” in other aspects of home insulation. Especially concerning deaths and safety issues, this was by and large Abbott’s overblown hyperbole. It was disgraceful that it was run with a straight face in the media. As Possum pointed out, all of the areas complained about were State responsibilities. However, Rudd’s decision not to shoot it down, and then to move Garrett aside, gave it legs.
Don Wigan @61, stepping back from the specifics, better half and myself have mused several times in the last year about the government approach to using the stimulus package to address climate change. It had many useful elements, but seemed to be put together clumsily.
Instead of announcing that every eligible household could have virtually free insulation, and thus swamping the existing market and experienced installers, why didn’t they put more emphasis on a wider climate change stimulus?
For example, they could tell people clearly that they would be eligible for a rebate (to some maximum value) on a range of alternative energy saving systems, including e.g. insulation, solar HW, solar PV, retrofit lighting (CFL &/or LED), double glazing, etc. Then say that they must undertake a household energy audit to be eligible (as was done for the Green Loans program).
This way, the stimulus money would be spread over a number of industry sub-sectors, without overheating an individual micro-industry. Spreading the load should lessen the risk of fly-by-night dodgy brothers muscling in on honest businesses. Training programs would not be overstretched. It would also get households thinking about different ways in which they can save energy and reduce their carbon footprint. And it would allow them to chose which method best suited their particular situation.
The stimulus program could then have been wound into an ongoing Green Loans program, which gradually reduced as targets were reached. Not that difficult, surely?
It is not as if the ideas haven’t been floating about, and tried in some form. It just doesn’t seem to have been put together and sold well as a systematic strategic response to the twin problems of the GFC and CC.
Shame really. The general concepts were already there.
Don Wigan @61, stepping back from the specifics, better half and myself have mused several times in the last year about the government approach to using the stimulus package to address climate change. It had many useful elements, but seemed to be put together clumsily.
Instead of announcing that every eligible household could have virtually free insulation, and thus swamping the existing market and experienced installers, why didn’t they put more emphasis on a wider climate change stimulus?
For example, they could tell people clearly that they would be eligible for a rebate (to some maximum value) on a range of alternative energy saving systems, including e.g. insulation, solar HW, solar PV, retrofit lighting (CFL &/or LED), double glazing, etc. Then say that they must undertake a household energy audit to be eligible (as was done for the Green Loans program).
This way, the stimulus money would be spread over a number of industry sub-sectors, without overheating an individual micro-industry. Spreading the load should lessen the risk of fly-by-night dodgy brothers muscling in on honest businesses. Training programs would not be overstretched. It would also get households thinking about different ways in which they can save energy and reduce their carbon footprint. And it would allow them to chose which method best suited their particular situation.
The stimulus program could then have been wound into an ongoing Green Loans program, which gradually reduced as targets were reached. Not that difficult, surely?
It is not as if the ideas haven’t been floating about, and tried in some form. It just doesn’t seem to have been put together and sold well as a systematic strategic response to the twin problems of the GFC and CC.
Shame really. The general concepts were already there.
Elise, I’m aware of a post Robert did with lengthy commentary that yielded an assessment in line with what you say. I didn’t follow this in great detail, but I did wonder whether Rudd properly assessed the warnings he was given that bad stuff could happen and as Don says there did seem to be problems with the assessors program.
But in the end what did him the most damage, I think, was Rudd going down to mingle with people with his notebook in front of parliament House and assuring people that he heard them and then down the track cancelling the whole program leaving many small businesses high and dry, PLUS doing this with no personal explanation as to why it was necessary. This cemented in people’s mind that the program was a stuff up, whether it was or not, and that he was too gutless to front up and explain why he couldn’t deliver on his personal promises.
I thought at the time this was a very bad look, but it’s possible I missed something.
BTW a few years ago I heard a long documentary treatment on RN of a case where a worker fell 10 metres onto concrete in a demolition site where the workers were working without harness. The first person on site was actually the company lawyer, who rearranged the site before the authorities got there to make it look better for the employer. All this in full view of the workers, with their mate lying dead on the concrete with blood on the floor.
One of the workers, who were threatened to silence, told the dead worker’s dad what happened at the funeral wake. He wrote a book about his pursuit of justice, which was successful in the end but was unbelievably difficult and took years.
During the program a union rep gave stats on deaths in the building industry, which were disgraceful.
I do some work for some folks who used to be in the business of industrial cladding, that is, putting the external skin on industrial buildings. They told me about attitudes to safety in the industry here (bad) as compared with South Africa (much worse), so I’m under no illusion as to whose responsibility it was to send young workers into a ceiling to apply staples with live electricity under the insulation sheeting.
Elise, I’m aware of a post Robert did with lengthy commentary that yielded an assessment in line with what you say. I didn’t follow this in great detail, but I did wonder whether Rudd properly assessed the warnings he was given that bad stuff could happen and as Don says there did seem to be problems with the assessors program.
But in the end what did him the most damage, I think, was Rudd going down to mingle with people with his notebook in front of parliament House and assuring people that he heard them and then down the track cancelling the whole program leaving many small businesses high and dry, PLUS doing this with no personal explanation as to why it was necessary. This cemented in people’s mind that the program was a stuff up, whether it was or not, and that he was too gutless to front up and explain why he couldn’t deliver on his personal promises.
I thought at the time this was a very bad look, but it’s possible I missed something.
BTW a few years ago I heard a long documentary treatment on RN of a case where a worker fell 10 metres onto concrete in a demolition site where the workers were working without harness. The first person on site was actually the company lawyer, who rearranged the site before the authorities got there to make it look better for the employer. All this in full view of the workers, with their mate lying dead on the concrete with blood on the floor.
One of the workers, who were threatened to silence, told the dead worker’s dad what happened at the funeral wake. He wrote a book about his pursuit of justice, which was successful in the end but was unbelievably difficult and took years.
During the program a union rep gave stats on deaths in the building industry, which were disgraceful.
I do some work for some folks who used to be in the business of industrial cladding, that is, putting the external skin on industrial buildings. They told me about attitudes to safety in the industry here (bad) as compared with South Africa (much worse), so I’m under no illusion as to whose responsibility it was to send young workers into a ceiling to apply staples with live electricity under the insulation sheeting.
It might be worth noting, Brian, that two Queensland companies which employed workers in the insulation scheme are now being prosecuted for criminal negligence.
It might be worth noting, Brian, that two Queensland companies which employed workers in the insulation scheme are now being prosecuted for criminal negligence.
Brian @63: “Elise, I’m aware of a post Robert did with lengthy commentary that yielded an assessment in line with what you say.”
I must have missed it. I don’t check LP every day, and don’t read all threads.
If there was a similar assessment by Robert and/or others, then that is great news. Maybe many others have similar thoughts, and a phoenix may yet rise from the ashes of the aborted programs?
Brian @63: “Elise, I’m aware of a post Robert did with lengthy commentary that yielded an assessment in line with what you say.”
I must have missed it. I don’t check LP every day, and don’t read all threads.
If there was a similar assessment by Robert and/or others, then that is great news. Maybe many others have similar thoughts, and a phoenix may yet rise from the ashes of the aborted programs?
Mark, that’s right and it is certainly worth mentioning.
Elise, I think it was this post. I didn’t read the whole 126 comments.
I haven’t yet complimented Kim on her most excellent post, but we expect no less from her.
Mark, that’s right and it is certainly worth mentioning.
Elise, I think it was this post. I didn’t read the whole 126 comments.
I haven’t yet complimented Kim on her most excellent post, but we expect no less from her.
Brian@63: Very good points. The hasty and unexplained abandonment (or postponent?) was never explained and that alone justifies your usage of “debacle”. The policy might not have been, even though elements of it were rushed, but the retreat certainly was – as it was with ETS.
The reality is that the politics under adversity were handled poorly. I think it was this that led to the collapse in the huge popular support for Rudd, not so much his turning his back on climate change.
Great post listing his achievements today, Brian. What a remarkably complex story. No wonder we’re having trouble coming to grips with it all.
Brian@63: Very good points. The hasty and unexplained abandonment (or postponent?) was never explained and that alone justifies your usage of “debacle”. The policy might not have been, even though elements of it were rushed, but the retreat certainly was – as it was with ETS.
The reality is that the politics under adversity were handled poorly. I think it was this that led to the collapse in the huge popular support for Rudd, not so much his turning his back on climate change.
Great post listing his achievements today, Brian. What a remarkably complex story. No wonder we’re having trouble coming to grips with it all.