Anyone following the alleged scrutiny of the reasons for the Labor Party’s parlous performance in the federal election would have noticed that NSW Labor Right figures – most prominently, Paul Howes – were running a bit of a campaign to further sink the boot into Kevin Rudd (“It was the leaks! He was rude to David Feeney!”) and Julia Gillard herself (attacking her staff as a proxy). Karl Bitar ran an excellent campaign, a good government lost its way, etc, etc.
It might have finally occurred to serving pollies and perhaps even Howes (whose ambitions are surely not served by being the ubiquitous spokesperson for all the thought bubbles that pass for strategic thought among Labor righties) that trashing the serving Foreign Minister, who by all reports has been behaving impeccably, is a bad idea. Rudd, after all, is the third most senior Minister in a Labor minority government.
Richo, of course, is still at it, as is Michael Costa, the former Treasurer of New South Wales, in an extremely long piece for the Australian Literary Review yesterday. Costa’s article also moves onto the new ground favoured by some Labor righties – attacking The Greens, and pouring scorn on the notion that the ALP should be doing anything socially progressive.
He picks up on the Paul Kelly-esque cliche of “reform”. Constant micro-economic reform (“permanent revolution, comrades!”) would apparently deliver Labor sound and lasting majorities. Forgotten, of course, in all this, is that it was not things like privatisation that provided the backbone of the electoral support that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating enjoyed, but rather things like the social wage, Medicare, improved services.
John Howard’s much trumpeted bipartisan support for neo-liberal initiatives by the Hawke government gave it political cover, and it was only when John Hewson offered the whole neo-liberal kaboodle as holy writ in Fightback that Labor’s social democratic voice clearly trumped “endless reform”. John Howard’s correct political perception in 1995 and 1996 was that there was very far from any appetite for further upheaval in the name of buzz words like productivity and flexibility among the electorate. When he forgot that with Work Choices, he paid the price.
And path-breaking reforms such as the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act under the Hawke government never seem to make it into the canon of “reform” this mob trumpet.
Costa is living in a fantasy past.
Speaking of which, Mark Latham, in today’s Fin column, offered the observation that Julia Gillard is “a dud”. Latham seems to support her removal, but then decries the NSW Right for maneouvring towards it. Chris Bowen will be Prime Minister next Christmas, Latho opines. Whether or not there’s anything in his claims of dark plots by Mark Arbib and co. to tear down the leader they installed (and Latham does offer the precedent of the Nathan Rees/Kristina Keneally switcheroo), it does seem as if the NSW Right is engaged in a desperate search for federal relevance, as it sees the apocalypse approaching in its own state redoubt.
So we have weirdness like “senior Labor figures” (so says the press gallery) such as Steve Hutchins, of whom no one much apart from Christian Kerr has heard, launching a debate on “nuclear power”. Good luck with that one.
Tony Abbott, wisely, has been restraining his own troops from jumping on the nuclear bandwagon.
Latham foresees some sort of machinations which would enable the NSW bovver boys to dump Julia Gillard yet retain the support of the Independents. They can’t really believe that, can they? That’s just Latham, isn’t it? But we’re one year and one day into the Liberal leadership of Tony Abbott. Who could have foreseen where politics is at now on 2 December 2009? Still, you really would think that some lessons might have been learned from the fallout of tearing down Kevin Rudd.
Elsewhere: Andrew Elder.
Update: Grog’s Gamut.
Mark Latham thinks Julia Gillard is a dud?
Who’s the serving PM again, Latham?
He didn’t make the obviously available point that her support for his leadership proved she lacked political judgement!
Update: Grog’s Gamut.
The rest of you really should quarantine our State at the banks of the Murray and the Tweed, you know. Stop the septic madness from infecting the rest of the country.
As to uranium, or gay marriage, or the rights of asylum, or anything contentious, let’s have open debate on any topic the Right would care to choose on Conference floor. As long as they bind on it, and don’t go running for leadership privilege, the cowards.
Jesus… I’ve just read Costa’s column. That’s a level of brutal hypocrisy I don’t think I could reach to, not with a four metre pool brush.
Both Gillard and Abbott will be gone before the next election.That is money in the bank.
It will be Shorten and Turnbull representing their parties. Abbott will never be P.M.and his dumping will be the catalyst to clear the decks.Latham is a tool, but he right about one thing, Gillard is a dud.
Heh, so we’ve moved from the conservatives disingenuously raising nuclear power to wedge the Labor Party when in a spot of political bother, to the Labor Right disingenuously raising nuclear power to wedge the Labor left when in a spot of political bother (Liam or others, feel free to correct me on the factional nuances, but I gather this is the basic situation).
Another three years and it’ll be the Labor Left trying to wedge the Greens on the issue
I skimmed Costa’s piece. I need a shower. He really is a very poor excuse for a human being, and he couldn’t reason his way out of a wet paper bag.
He should reflect on the fact that people like me (and I don’t think I’m unusual) stopped giving Labor our first preference at both Federal and State elections after Hawke’s first term.
I was at a BBQ at my mate Ian’s place many years ago, and Johnny Quirke rocked up. (He and Ian have known each other nearly forever. We were all at uni at about the same time, and Ian and John taught together.) I think it was around the same time as Albert Langer was running his Tweedledum and Tweedledum “vote 1 2 2 2 2″ campaign that got him banged up yet again, but it may have been a few years earlier than that. John reckoned my vote would end up with either Labor or Liberal whatever I did. I pointed out that that was not the case in the Senate.
Senator Bishop (WA) has a solid push for nuclear power in the punch today.
Actually, considering the toxicity of the NSW Right they didn’t do too badly at the federal election:some losses, but piddling in comparison with Queensland. But whether this was due to the machine (doubtful), the campaign (also doubtful), Gillard, the choice of candidates, the opposition quality or some combination has yet to be determined.
But all other evidence suggests that everything they touch turns to ashes. While the rest of the Labor Right in Australia is hardly renowned for deep thinkers, I think even they would have picked up on that.
I can’t see it happening. But then I didn’t see the Rudd coup coming either…
Razor, do you have a link?
Latham still hasn’t recovered from his mental illness, apparently.
Here, Rob and Razor.
And you’re right, RM, it’s not about energy or the environment, it’s about smashing the Left, an ingrained habit that kept them in power within the ALP for fifteen to twenty years.
They just don’t realise why it might not work any more.
Rather unfortunate that bilious types like Latham and Costa keep getting airplay really. I’m not sure they have a great deal of value to contribute anymore – their burbling spleen fluids excepted of course.
In Costa’s piece yesterday, that I previously described as unmedicated writing, he argues at one point that Gillard has made a tewwible mistake in allowing her agenda to be captured by The Greens in coalition. He clearly fails to grasp that the alternative for Gillard and Labor was…opposition!
This guy is a turkey.
Many years ago, during a period of his hospitalisation for a matter unrelated to his mental health, I had the opportunity to twist the needle in his fat arse while giving him a necessary injection. Out of compassion and common decency I chose not to which is now a matter of regret.
nuclear power is not a goer unless you have a price on carbon.
The party which wants to do that doesn’t support nuclear power but the party that does support a price on Carbon does support nuclear power.
Go figure
Costa. Wasn’t he the NSW anti-Labor politician who wanted to privatise NSW’s electricity. Latham is just a joke. I suppise on a dull news day he gives Murdoch more shit to throw.
Re: nukes. I’m all for them so long as the waste is buried within a 150 km radius of the plant that produced it. That means that the lucky electorate gets both the plant and the waste. That oughta do it.
Question about the costing of nuclear power, does costing usually include?
- cost of decommissioning
- security for the decommissioned plant over the long term (what time period?)
- cost of disposal of waste and security over the long term
Dennis Glover is making sense in today’s OO.
And in other news Daniel Andrews is the new Labor leader in Victoria, to no-ones surprise.
People like Costa are truly amazing creatures. They possess powers of self-delusion I cannot begin to comprehend. Let’s see, they’ve:
- Presided over a catastrophic decline in the power and influence of the Australian trade union movement;
- Made NSW Labor a national joke and condemned it to a long period in opposition, any potentially competent leader having already had a shot at the job;
- Overseen a staggering turnaround in support for a federal Labor government in three short years.
And on the basis of that record of uninterrupted failure and ineptitude, they have the temerity to preen and strut and lecture us about the way forward for the ALP.
Costa epitomises the current train-wreck marketing approach of the MSM: publish lots of stuff by people everybody despises, in the hope they’ll all read it so they can point and laugh. I’m sure Costa is quite cynical enough to co-operate voluntarily; he’s one of those weird individuals who seems to relish being the object of ridicule and hatred.
It’s always been a hallmark of the right – the more they are reviled by progressives, the more they smirkingly wallow in self-congratulation. It’s a pathetic legacy of those fights against the commies they heard about at the knees of their right-wing mentors. Pissing off the left is their sole interest in life; a sorry substitute for a constructive agenda or ideology.
Doug,
Nuclear waste? No problem it will be stored on Aboriginal land. Why do you think they have land rights?
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/aboriginal-site-nominated-for-nuke-waste/2007/05/25/1179601635076.html
“MARK COLVIN: The Federal Government has announced plans to repeal legislation which could force the Northern Territory to accept a national nuclear waste dump”.
“It looks increasingly likely that waste will be kept at a remote pastoral property on Aboriginal land north of Tennant Creek. It has been offered to the Federal Government as a possible site. But there’s debate about whether Aboriginal custodians have been properly consulted.”
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s2828142.htm
It is ironic that LP advocates a price on carbon that makes nuclear power viable but doesn’t want it any price.
Catallaxy doesn’t believe in a carbon price which means nuclear power is not viable but wants nuclear power.
Must be something in the water Mr Burns
One of the downsides of the current prominence of the Greens is that every embittered has-been who can punctuate is being allowed op-ed space to either bag us or bag those in the ALP who want to engage sensibly with us. Exhibit B: Charlatan Cheryl in yesterday’s SMH.
Let’s not forget which Australian Democrats leader spiked the promising negotiations between the Greens and the Democrats over a possible merger and set the Democrats on a course of confrontation with the Greens which the Dems eventually lost out in. Let’s also not forget where said Democrat leader’s real loyalties lay at the time she set the Democrats on this course.
Low spark, you must be new around here.
I wouldn’t propose to speak for all LP contributors, but I’d be more than happy if a serious carbon price was coupled with the setup of an appropriate regulatory structure permitting domestic nuclear power. And went on the record on this, repeatedly, which you can find in the archives.
Yes, the Catallaxian position you characterise is nonsense.
Another NSW Labor MP pulls the pin taking the total now to 18. Rats and sinking ships comes to mind.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/frank-sartor-quits-parliament-20101203-18iq9.html
Costa was (and possibly still is) preaching his scorched-earth approach to Public Works at the University of Newcastle.
He scored an Associate Professor gig there, at their “Competition Policy Research Centre”.
It represents the ultimate Sussex St. spiv’s dream, doing multi-billion dollar deals with engineering companies that involve using the State’s utilities as if they were their own property.
Kind of like a big version of the Monopoly board game.
It’s easy to say that “nuclear power won’t be viable without a carbon price”, but by that logic absolutely nothing is viable to replace the coal status quo.
Nuclear power is the lowest cost of the environmentally sound energy sources to replace coal with. (http://bit.ly/gZXjBz)
@Huggybunny: Talking about how Australia should manage the radioactive waste we have at the moment, from industry, medicine and research, has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power, which does not exist in Australia at present and may or may not exist in the future.
In my question above I forgot to add in insurance costs re nuclear power. Does anyone have a reference that can answer my question?
Let’s not forget which Australian Democrats leader spiked the promising negotiations between the Greens and the Democrats over a possible merger
Well I had forgotten completely about that.
It wouldn’t have worked anyway. As marriages go, it would have busted much quicker than Greg Norman’s with Chris Evert.
It comes as no suprise that nuclear power advocates usually fail to answer the kinds of question that Doug is asking, since realistic answers would render nuclear power less than viable on many levels.
The notion that nuclear power is the cheapest alternative to coal is a laughable fantasy only achieved by ignoring the reality of nuclear waste.
This paper presents a sobering analysis of the nuclear industry in America: The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why America Should Choose a Clean Energy Future Over New Nuclear Reactors
Doug asked:
Which insurance costs did you have in mind. Nuclear plants, like all other businesses, carry public liability.
Please be careful in your answer, not to specify liabilities that no other business could meet, at equal risk.
“Low spark, you must be new around here.”
It’s Homer Paxton, Rob.
Doug (#19),
Yes, Yes and Yes. Apart from anything else, accounting rules require that all of these need to be disclosed in any and every annual report. If you are interested, you can go to any private or quasi-private (government owned ones are often exempt from this disclosure) nuclear plant operator’s annual report and get the figures. An example would be note 27.3 in EDF’s annual report – bottom of page 32.
Your second question, on insurance, is a little trickier. All of the producers will have standard public liability insurance up to some very large figures – but it is often argued that, in the event of a major problem this insurance may prove insufficient. I do not know if that is your position, but if it is the same could be said of any company handling toxic chemicals or harmful pollutants. Coal producers, for example, may be responsible for global warming and all the many thousands of deaths that have directly resulted from that industry. It is difficult to work out how they could pay for that.
Yes, it is conceivable that there could be an accident that causes more damage than even the best insurance policy could cover – but that is true of most things. The risks need to be evaluated and checked before proceeding, but as we have no way of telling the future we have to go with the best we can at the moment.
On the evidence I have seen nuclear energy is one of the options that we should be considering. If you have hard data that indicates we should not be doing that I would like to see it.
Doug says: Question about the costing of nuclear power, does costing usually include…………….
I suggest we just take the NBN approach, Doug. That nuclear power is beneficial as an article of faith, and that the long term benefits justify the investment.
Yuo worry too much about details.
akn@15
unmedicated writing ……tis a wonderful metaphor for the very worried Right.
Kim, something tells me that the reason for Howes coming out and attacking Rudd publicly is because it’s actually the AWU man who has no future in federal politics, not Rudd (whadda they gonna do, organise a stack in Griffith from south of the Tweed?) The NSW Right is an organisation that has traditionally been centred on Sussex St/’Unions NSW’/the state & federal caucuses, not Australia’s Worst Union. Howes may well’ve had his ticket stamped ‘not to be promoted’ and not even the Kremlinologists would know about it yet.
As for the broader picture if I had to guess I’d say the ‘faceless men’ were only ever good at sticking together when they had the ability to set themselves a great task, such as rolling a first term PM with a big majority. And now a minority govt under their chosen new PM who just happens to hail from the opposite wing of the party? Nothing good can come of causing trouble there.
No, they’ve most likely retreated into their subfactional warrens, and individually each has come to the decision they should be good little inclusive policy makers who are utterly above mischief (hence Arbib’s moves on gay marriage). Informing Howes that, sorry cobber, the numbers just aren’t there for a safe federal preselection, that would fit into the picture, IMO. (I should also note that David Feeney is probably toast at the next election if he can’t do better than third spot on the Labor senate ticket, as the Vic Greens are here to stay in upper house elections. If he goes down then hopefully the gallery will do their ‘questions are tonight being asked about’ routine vis-a-vis the inevitability of Shorten’s claim to the succession, even if they have to use gallery logic to push that narrative.)
I don’t see how either Latham or Costa could possibly represent any legitimate entity in the ALP, regardless of whatever shitty humans both are capable of being. Though it all makes for good speculation.
NickWS
Add to Senate ticket, a possible similar scenario for SA. The natives no longer take il capo dei capi’s fiats as gospel.
Dennis Glover is on the money as usual.
I think of Keating, Latham and Costa as belonging to their own tiny, highly ideological faction. The common thread of all three is that they have been a disaster for their party electorally (and that is probably understating things).
Costa’s privatisation plans, which, like Anna Bligh’s in Queensland, he didn’t feel the need to take to the electorate before the election, have wrecked the state party.
I remember Keating saying when Labor was in opposition that Labor needed to forget about the base and offer big tax cuts. Thankfully, Labor had the sense to ignore that advice. And how did Labor eventually get back into government? Work Choices and climate change, largely – in other words, by campaigning on issues important to its core supporters. And, guess what, those issues turn out to be pretty popular.
Labor would do well to ignore the advice of all three dinosaurs and move on.
To be fair to Keating, he did actually win the ALP another 3 years in office – hardly a disaster.
True, Martin B. But in 1993 he was running against an opposition that had laid out detailed plans for an extreme neoliberal agenda, including, of course, a GST of 15%.
In 1996, Keating was defeated massively. Somehow, though, many commentators have forgotten that fact.
If the likes of Latham or Costa are so interested in neoliberal “reform” all well and good – they should go and create their own party. But they’d have about as much chance of getting above 2 or 3% of the vote as they would have had of winning a rank-and-file preselection.