… So, KRudd did some truth telling on Qanda tonight.
That should shake things up a bit.
Elsewhere: Grog’s Gamut.
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo is an Australian group blog which discusses politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
» SUBSCRIBE to LP updates.
What’d Hamlet on the Brisbane say? I have no interest in churning through a 58 minute clip of that show to get to the good parts (and I actually do want to hear Manne comment on the British archive dump).
Made some comment on Saturday Salon.
Will just repeat one of them.
Gillard will not sleep well tonight.
Rudd would be a better PM, rather than the visionless Gillard.
He’s playing with her mind, the way he did with Howard’s. More power to him. Given her current performance she certainly deserves it.
Why the surprise at Rudd telling the truth. So far as I recall, he always did as Opposition Leader and PM (though no doubt some RWDBs will come up with examples where he did not.) It was one of his refreshing differences with JWH.
I wasn’t indicating any surprise, Paul…
Oh, sorry Kim. Was referring to analysis in the GG link, and his comment on the reaction of the audience. Should’ve made that clear.
I think all the speculating is silly, if painfully natural, but GG actually makes a point that breaks through the silliness for me:
Yeah. Labor loses the next election as badly as 2004 or worse, as per the ever demanding CW, then it’s not impossible most of the turks walk away from federal Labor politics, because they all know in their responsible little hearts they deserve better, they could have amassed small fortunes working for Mac Bank or chairing Super funds during this whole bloody time they’ve been pandering to the hippies-who-will-never-know-the-simple-joy-of-being-Aussies. And now the comms are going to keep Labor out of power for a decade.
A Rudd v. Chris Bowen for Oppo leader contest? Damn, I can see even Paul Howe declaring he’s a friend of
OceaniaRudd and has always been a friend of Rudd.Of course none of this should ever happen.
It was a step up in tone, this Q and A. Even Julie Bishop put on a better face, perhaps because of the better company.
IR is the sort of issue where need more of this sort of thing and less of the tabloid rubbish of recent times.
I think there is hope for Rudd, yet. Also, I can’t see that Bishop could do worse than Abbott and the Minchinites.
Robert Manne and the priceless Louise Adler demonstrated the value of having sober, knowledgeable communicators on the panel instead of some of the zombies and yahoos that have appeared recently. And Jones remains on top of his game.
What a contrast to the following Latteline and the foul interview of Bob Brown, who retained a quiet dignity in the face of Ally Brown’s rabid Murdochist hectoring.
None of it will ever happen. I can’t believe that people believe it could. The comparison with Howard coming back is weak because Howard always enjoyed a lot more support within his party than Rudd ever did and will ever do. Rudd had some good qualities as a leader and some bad. Unfortunately I haven’t seen any evidence that he has learned many lessons from the mistakes he made as leader, especially on the personal management front. Besides, on the truth telling front I wonder why he hasn’t admitted that many of his own personal staff also wanted the ETS junked? As always, what politicians don’t say is more important than what they do.
Shades of Peter Beattie’s confessional bravura for me – a deft performance.
I think politicians of all stripes might want to take a good hard look at Rudd’s approach tonight and consider that sometimes telling it like it is can be much more effective than trying to avoid the question or to spin away from the question.
On the down side, I guess we can expect Federal Labor leadership rumblings to be whipped up in the media and by the Opposition for the next week or so.
Greg Hunt was shrilly yelping “Labor’s divided!” on Radio National this morning but there’s no mention of the fact that the Libs equally knifed Turnbull over the issue and that Abbott won the spill by only a single vote.
Rudd just told the truth (or at least part of it). The idea that there’s 100% agreement in cabinet over everything is laughable.
However I’ll point to something that Greg Jericho says about Gillard “just quietly she is pushing for [a carbon price] a hell of a lot harder than Rudd ever did” which I would say is true. We are going to get a carbon price, something that Rudd did not deliver.
To my ears there was no implicit challenge from Rudd, he just had an eye on history. It was nothing more than an extraordinary mea culpa in a very public sphere.
Gillard is not perfect, and the speech last week was ridiculous. The polls now are meaningless while the coalition is making sound and fury about everything and nothing. Dumping Gillard for Ruddbot mk2 is suicide. The current arrangement is fine enough – and it is apparently getting us the carbon price we have to have – but you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
In the meantime let the opposition expend their energy on Teh Crazy. They can vent and howl and lie and fling their own shit all they like, but they’ll still look like the baboon’s arse they truly are at the very end.
I didn’t see Q&A but heard a fair bit of the Rudd bits replayed on Newsradio and Radio National this morning. To me the main message is that Rudd is happy in his own skin and working for the team to keep the dreaded Abbott away from the levers of power. Frank, honest and refreshing.
What he is not is bitter and twisted, scheming and trying to undermine Gillard, which is what the press tend to believe of him. They can’t get their mind around the genuine resilience of the bloke, who by the morning after he was topped had decided what his best course of action would be and has pursued it without guile ever since.
There’s nothing in the leadership thing, much as the press will like to believe.
Rudd has principles and decency, qualities the media do not have nor understand. Hence the hateful campaign to besmirch and destroy him spearheaded by the worst offenders in the media, News Ltd and Their ABC.
Rudd thinks he is being a clever Dick by destabilising Gillard. This will just make his caucus colleagues [sic] hate him even more, if that is possible.
Rudd knows, and has admitted, that he got a very, very big call, very, very wrong. Wrong on a national scale. Mistakes that big don’t come often, but there’s no recovering from them IMHO.
Yes, we all “make mistakes”, we’re all human — but one doesn’t have the luxury of making mistakes that big as PM.
He has paid the price. And, sorry as it makes me to say it, the fact that he got such a big call so wrong is why, objectively, he shouldn’t occupy that chair again. Regardless what I believe to be his many admirable personal qualities — you just can’t make a mistake that big as PM and entertain the possibility of being PM afterwards…
I’ve been looking for the bit in Q&A where Ruddy said something about practical advice given him by Geoff Kennett. It was to do with giving yourself time to stand back, reflect and communicate. Sounds as though he’s more or less admitting he did none of these things as PM and simply rode the juggernaut of office.
The drubbing he took in the media for being a hubristic, arrogant, and detached Prime Minister, difficult to access, as far as cabinet members were concerned was rightly deserved and I think last night he admitted as much. I think his young-gun advisers probably took him down the wrong path and gave him no time to think about what he was doing, as they were keen to simply press ahead (as all young people are).
I well remember him choking back tears at the press conference when he was dumped and the sheer bloody minded and selfless, will power it took him to get past what was obviously a deep personal disappointment, and probably the greatest personal disappointment one could suffer in political life. But in that crucible of suffering I saw a great leader being born.
The coalition have lately been talking up Ruddy in order unnerve Gillard (one would presume). They needn’t have bothered, Rudd has already sniffed the wind. Should the opportunity arise, he’ll make a better PM now for his mistakes and subsequent personal suffering.
he’ll make a better PM now for his mistakes and subsequent personal suffering.
This has to be a piss-take.
Like the Bourbons, Rudd has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. His current behaviour shows that.
Imagine, if through some uber-miracle, his party called on him to come back and the electorate endorsed the recall. He’d be insufferable to the power infinity.
At the moment, in fact ever since she took over, anybody would be better than Gillard, who face it has been awful. Everybody is waiting for the moment when she really lets go, becomes the leader they all imagined her to be. Eventually the realisation will set in that with Gillard, this is as good as it gets.
Bring on Combet and dump the pretender.Wonder if Rudd would go at deputy PM on a combet ticket, lol.
anybody would be better than Gillard
Tony Abbott? Sophie Panopoulos? Bronwyn Bishop? Christopher Pyne?
OK, Liberals excluded.
Kevin Rudd? Really?
Craig Emerson?
Mark Arbib?
Bill Shorten?
Thomas, one more leadership change (read: PM change) would be fatal for not just Gillard but for Labor. Enter Abbott to the Lodge, with all that entails.
Regardless of the quality of Gillard as a leader, or of any of the other potentials, if Labor changes leaders before the next election, they will be guaranteed to lose and lose even worse that they would with Gillard as leader – especially in NSW.
Windsor, Oakeshott and Wilkie have done a deal with Gillard. Not with whoever happens to be the Labor PM, but Gillard personally.
Oakeshott in particular could be looking for an excuse to get out.
If Rudd (or anyone else) rolls Gillard in the morning, they’ll be Opposition Leader by afternoon tea time.
Mercurius – well Gillard got that call wrong as well…
Sam @ 21 – IIRC when the independents were negotiating with Gillard they did mention that it would have been a lot easier if Rudd was still leader as he had kept in communication with them while he was PM.
Though I’d agree with the rest of the people saying its not going to happen, if the party does dump Gillard they’ll go for someone new.
You stupid asses, there is no leadership spill or any attempt at destabilisation by Rudd. Readings of Rudd’s words last night are just plain wishful thinking by a press (and a section of blog commentariat too, it seems) that’s obsessed with nothing more interesting than beauty contests and football commentary. FFS.
Sam at 13:
Isn’t this a good thing in the ALP caucus? Isn’t this what the Hawke era had, a bunch of over-competitive and arrogant arseholes all trying to get their own way?
In the immortal words of Anthrax, when asked what kept their (now defunct…) band together:”Hate.”
Maybe a bit of disagreement and strife is essential for good policy-making…
In no particular order:
1. Gillard is an absolutely egregious leader. My stomach tightens when I hear her speak. I’m very glad I exhausted without preferencing her or Abbott.
2. As egregious as she is, it would be mad with knobs on for the ALP to consider dumping her now. No replacement could ever hope to get a serious hearing and we would replay the NSW 2011 election. They would burn two leaders and the talent pool just isn’t that big. They have to go to 2013 and hope that people think they have done reasonably well and/or the opposition is simply mad, which is quite possible. If they lose, then Rudd could well be a contender.
3. Rudd’s performance last night on Q&A was very strong. It was as engaging a performace as I’ve ever seen from him — and perhaps as likely to elicit support as was his first post-dumping press conference — at least amongst people of vaguely liberal sentiments. He seemed like a mensch instead of a embittered latham-style ex-leader. It seemed very much like a chat over dinner, and i say that as someone who was/is not one of his fans and was scandalised at his lack of acumen in office. Part of the reason he looks good of course is that everyone else amongst his fellow conservatives just looks dreadful.
4. Wasn’t it fabulous to have Louise Adler on the panel? I had only the vaguest of notions about her warrant to be there — something to do with book publishing IIRC, but she spoke as much sense on refugees and carbon pricing as anyone on Q & A that I have heard. Kudos to her.
What Tyro said @ 23. Talking about Rudd and leadership prospects is a waste of key strokes.
I have to agree with Sam here. Kevin Rudd was gracious, honest and polite. There seemed to be little evidence of the awful attributes that are constantly pinned to him by the press. I saw no evidence of sneakiness. What I saw was a former leader, a great foreign minister and the complete opposite of the likes of Mark Latham. given the opportunity to dish on his fellows he took full responsibility.
Of course reading this through the looking glass of the media I know this is all a trick. It’s the whole opposites thing. Seeing his measured performance last night and comparing him with Abbott I might be tempted to see him as a great leader. But the narrative must be that Rudd is a blowhard, more bitter and short tempered than Latham (the absence of evidence IS evidence.) And of course Abbott for all his faults is of course genuine and authentic.
I’ll go read some News Ltd blogs now as some sort of political rosary to stop me thinking good thoughts about Rudd.
I only hope *Gillard* at least learns Rudd’s lesson: dont prevaricate on major announced policy, and dont listen to people (like for example, Gillard herself) engaging in headless chook style panic flipflops at the first whiff of bad polls.
He was our Hero, then our Hamlet – now our Banquo. The reason he’s a particularly unsettling ghost is that he actually beat the Tories straight up, with a majority.
Heh.
The current PM pushed the previous PM to dump the CO2PRS and is now pushing a CO2 Tax about as incompetently as an Italian WWII desert campaign – following the breach of Cabinet confidence last night by Rudd, I really wonder if Gillard isn’t one of the ones in the ALP Cabinet who don’t want a bar of this dog’s vomit – perhaps she is a secret denier.
If Rudd had any chance of making a come back to the Leadership he really put a full stop to that last night. I think he had maybe one friend in the Parliamentary ALP before last night, let alone anyone who would vote for him. As of thismoring I would think he is about as popular as phosgene. Well, at least they will be even keener to see him off to the UN. WIN-WIN for Rudd – Sorry World.
As for the Newspoll out this morning – I feel like I am 21 again. (No – not hungover and broke)
No suprise to see the usual suspects with some sort of axe to grind rushing to judgement.
Yes, the same people who told us what a nasty person Rudd was to work with, and how absolutely disastrous that internal polling was. Must be so much better now, I’d imagine.
I thought that on Q&A Rudd appeared to have genuinely learnt something from the ordeal of last year, and unlike some of the vindictive and cynical media, was not consumed by bitterness.
Of course Gillard is a major flop, but no point in getting rid of another leader at this stage. If Labor lose the next election it may be positive for them in the long run.
The Golden Rule is that Rudd’s motives are never pure.
Never. Never ever. Never ever ever.
That Gillard is a failure (so far, but probably irredeemably) doesn’t change the Golden Rule.
Hey tssk @ 27, that’s just the line that Alison Carrabine was trotting out on ABC radio this morning. When the host said that Rudd showed courage in admitting his mistakes, Carrabine, adopting her best pontificating tone, told us that it doesn’t take courage to ‘dump on your leader’.
Whatever Rudd did to large sections of the media pack, they’re never going to forgive him.
It’s a Golden Rule for whom? Speak for yourself. And here’s another Golden Rule: “Never say ‘never’”.
It certainly doesn’t take courage to dump on your leader just for shits and giggles.
Well, journos have to write about something, don’t they? As do we all, bloggers anyway. The commentary here says as much about those writing it as anything else.
I prefer Brian’s take on this, and what Mercurius had to say rounds it off for me.
Rudd is fortunate, as is Australia, that he has the chance to serve in another major role, and one that particularly suits him and his many talents.
I have no doubt at all that for Julia Gillard the time of his going from the top job was not of her choosing. I still have high expectations of her, and hopes for her, mystified as I am by those recent comments on the Greens.
He wasn’t dumping on his leader, except in the eyes of those with an axe to grind.
“No replacement could ever hope to get a serious hearing and we would replay the NSW 2011 election.”
Except for maybe Kevin Rudd, Fran? But I agree there can be no leadership spill in the next 12 months, the ALP is too pathetic at present to muster the energy to do any terribly much than lick its wounds.
But it sounds pretty unanimous, Gillard is woeful.
Maybe Rudd will come to the rescue to get a Mad Abbott out of the Lodge?
Rudd vs Turnbull?
Except for maybe Kevin Rudd, Fran?
No … not except for him
I hear Alison Carrabine on ABC Sydney and keep thinking she needs to eat more prunes.
Now, which press is it exactly that keeps telling us about the sinister plans of Kevin Rudd?
Rudd said that he was faced with a hostile senate, that had rejected the legislation twice, and that he tried to find a “middle way through” while waiting a couple of years to try again. He did not mention the DD option suggesting he was up against a hostile and cowardly caucus.
I wish Jones had asked what Rudd meant by that “middle way”…possibly similar to Obama’s strategy: can’t get carbon trading through a hostile congress, but let’s push a few pro-environmental regulations through under the radar, and wait for the next election…Rudd had the APS onside and might have achieved a fair bit in a couple of years, like extra funding for renewables and energy conservation etc.
Bloody media obsessed with Rudd “apologising” and incapable of asking the interesting questions when the moment arrives…
Nah, Rudd was totally dumping on Julia. By not dumping on her. So so subtle. See also Rudd guilty of drowning puppies by virtue of him er….not drowning puppies. But he so would do it!
I can has Bolt’s chair on Insiders now?
For those with an axe to grind…grab a bit from the Q and A transcript showing him doing that. You can even isolate it out of context. No cheating by cutting and pasting the words out of order!
Wasn’t it fabulous to have Louise Adler on the panel?
Oh really? I thought she was an idiot who knew nothing about anything and kept insisting on stupid sound-bite tabloid crap that is so common to QandA. Her questions and answers were generally rushed, facile and ignorant. Her and Julie Bishop might not as well have been there.
“I still have high expectations of her, and hopes for her, mystified as I am by those recent comments on the Greens.”
Patricia – the ALP is being killed in the polls – lowest 2PP vote for years. At this rate the Fed ALP will go the way of the NSW ALP at the next election. If an election was held today the Coalition would romp it home – the ALP would lose seats and the independent seats would almost all return to the Coalition.
Gillard recognises the problem – and she’s pursuing a two pronged strategy;
1. Push ahead with a carbon tax to distinguish herself from Abbott’s inaction on climate change, and
2. Put the boot into the Greens who are causing the same problems for the ALP that One Nation caused for the coalition. It’s crucial for a mainstream party not to be associated with a party of extremes. It was necessary evil to tie-up with the Greens to form government – but now Gillard realises the high price the ALP is paying for being associated with a nutbag like Bob Brown
Kevin Rudd apart from his failure on the CPRS was heading for a dumping because he just cannot deliver politicalese on his feet. He is boring when he starts talking details, and not because he is not in command of the substance, becuase he just cannot project interest for the audience.
Howard was offensive for his arrogance, Rudd was avoidable for his droll delivery. Gillard is marginal for the political grooming that has been forced upon her, natural Gillard is very well worth listening to. Albanese is just weasel like. The only front line politicians that I can listen to at length are Milne and Bligh. Giddings also presents well. Gail Kelly has a style well worth cultivating… thoughtful, measured, informative yet still personal.
I must say this new narrative about the Greens is a cracker. Just say over and over and over that they are dangerous extremists and voters will start self-censoring them out of their minds.
I agree, Andrew. I think that Gillard should do more to bring Christine Milne to the foreground to help deliver this Carbon message. Milne has no problem hacking through the garbage that Abbott throws up and will fall apart with a well delivered sustained attack, Gillard on the political Abbott and Milne on the no substance Abbott. We would get to see a few more of those frame freezes of his and he would be finished.
@17
I’ve come to the same conclusion re: Gillard, she is a hollow vessel. Reflecting on the Whitlam oration and her admiration of “tradies” it came to mind that, in my experience, these were some of the most ignorant, over-consuming, politically disengaged, self-centred members of the community. All these people want from the govt is another tax break.
Meanwhile, if you earn a high income and miss out on the middle-class largess but still vote Labor because you believe they are the party of progress and equity, your labeled an un-Australian sophisticate. I don’t think Rudd would have sunk to these levels and I think Rudd’s speeches and writings on these topics show up the intellectual poverty of Gillard. She is without ideas.
All these people want from the govt is another tax break.
This is completely false and a vile slur on tradies.
Do you think they are that shallow?
They also want their first home owner’s grant, their baby bonus, their family tax benefit, the private health insurance subsidy and their private school fee subsidy.
Did not see Q&A, but I doubt I missed much.
Were there “gotcha” moments happening again?
There was the usual ABC radio headlines this morning about Labor in crisis, heading towards electoral oblivion….etc.
It is an interior dialogue we are being presented with, a widely subscribed-to discursive anomaly, to be sure, but it aint information, or facts, or news.
Patrickg said of Louise Adler:
For instance, what? I missed the first five-to-eight minutes but she sounded pretty good.
Sam @48, they also want the abolition of speed limits and the removal of red lights at pedestrian crossings.
I think Laura Tingle nailed it in the AFR a couple of weeks ago when she said that Gillard was suffering from a perceived lack of legitimacy and moral authority, flowing from the manner of her ascendancy to the prime ministership.
With his every appearance – Banquo-like, as Left E accurately observes – Kevin Rudd he reminds us of the circumstances of his slaying and the lost promise of what now seems in retrospect a more hopeful 2007.
For now, there is something in the state of Denmark we call the Australian Labor Party. And I very much doubt this will end without further bloodshed.
@51
And the abolition of petrol excise, more V8s.
@43
As for point 2, well that’s why I find the idea of voting for her party so repulsive, of course she doesn’t care what I think, and thus I’d be a mug to vote for her. In fact I would probably be better off voting for the LNP if all I care about is “what’s in it for me”. I didn’t but maybe I should and I’ll follow Gillard’s advice and just snatch what I can.
I thought one of the really interesting bits was Rudd’s comment about right wing factional heavies looking over the left shoulder of caucus voters with threats of no preselection at the nrxt election if they didn’t follow the factional line. Dis Rudd imply by that, that there were quite a few people who wanted to keep him as PM but were blackmailed out of it?
Rudd’s comments on the factions were more interesting than those he made about the ETS. He acknowledges that Labor’s members are its greatest strength, and that the factional system is totally corrupt. But as PM, he tried to break the faction system not by strengthening the role of members in the party, but by trying to centralise power around the Prime Minister. Like the negotiating factions and the much-derided NSW Right’s dependence on focus groups, he was ultimately responsible for throwing up more bureaucratic defences against the input of members on policy, leaving the party paranoid and uncertain about how it was to derive its social legitimacy and “vision”.
If you had been faced with a hostile Senate, a negative Opposition and extreme demands from the Greens, Grace Pettigrew @40, would you seriously consider a Double Dissolution as a sensible option or would you defer the legislation on the CPRS until at least some of the cards were falling your way.
I think that Rudd made the correct decision to defer (not scrap)until 2013;trouble was the caucus blinked.
I’d also like to add Rudd’s very silly refusal to negotiate with the Greens over an ETS. Remember Bob Brown saying that Rudd didn’t meet with him once?
I love in (in a snarky sort of way) how Gillard is simultaneously being bagged here for doing nothing and standing for nothing. At the same time, she’s being bagged for dragging Labor’s primary so low because of the carbon tax. What would you prefer her to do about it, drop the carbon tax?
I’m also reflecting on the seriously nasty hatred for that group called the “tradies”.(PatrickB and Sam, I’m looking at you). Greedy, selfish, illiterate and nasty pigs that they are. I’m going to make a horrid confession that I come from a family of “tradies”. Gasp! Will anyone here ever speak to me again? Guess what? – they voted Green last election. None of them fit into your really seriously stupid stereotypes. Yet, people talking like that on this thread do neatly fit into the equally egregious stereotype of inner-city latte drinkers. Can we get to a point where this name calling is recognised for what it is? Ignorant and counter-productive.
Paul 51,
and the piece de resistance: they want to Stop the Boats!
I agree, Fine, but don’t forget either that in the Senate he would have needed The Greens + Xenophon + Fielding, and/or some Coalition defectors. Not an easy ask.
Yep Fine, you see it!
40, just the same, it was a remarkable event to witness a politician attempting to humble himself. Even fifty percent of the truth is an improvement on what we usually get from them.
Patrick B’s adhominem on Adler is something of Boltian proportion, abusive as it is false.
@55 – the DD is the tool to overcome a hostile Senate. So, I wish they would stop complaining.
It’s going to get really interesting when the Greens think they have the balance of power. Maybe the Nats will become the BOP because the Greens are too extreme.
For Fran@50 on Adler.
This rather terse exchange between Louise and Kevin Rudd was, for me, the real story of the evening. Adler was quite rude in dismissing, almost shouting down, the most valid point he was making.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3176092.htm?show=transcript
It might have been a perfect opener into a wider discussion of the media part in the downfall of Rudd and the clear difficulties of introducing new ideas and thought.
That seems to be the great taboo subject on any forums of this type in our country right now. So as usual, it was just, ‘move along please’.
Sorry Joe2 but I’m with Adler on that one. Her objection was reasonable. Rudd didn’t come down in the last shower. He rose to prominence as a media tart. He left the ABC board that Howard rigged in place. He had less excuse to complain than most people about how it went out.
@Kim
On the contrary — it was very easy. In July 09 he was in an absolutely dominant position. He could have explained to the coalition that he meant to carry out his 2007 mandate and implement Garnaut exactly as he had recommended without significant industry compemnsation. He would consult with them on minor details — for two weeks — but otherwise they could take it or leave it. “Leaving it” meant that he would resubmit under s57 and then got to a DD before the end of the year, meaning that a whole bunch of coalition senators and Fielding would be out of a job nearly 2 years early. We now know that this would have taken out Nick Minchin — one of Abbott’s key supporters. The coalition, which was then recovering from Godwin Grech and way behind in the polls would absolutely have caved, but if they hadn’t, the ensuing election, run on Rudd overcoming the GFC and pushing to carry out his promise against an opposition who hadn’t accepted 2007 would have secured a clear majority in both houses. Simple.
And then RSPT could have come next as Henry came out in December.
Could Rudd have stared down Arbib and Bitar at that time? Absolutely. He could have gone to caucus and challenged them to either roll him, reminding them of their condition in NSW, and pointing out that if they did, he would make it his business to wreck their chances at any ensuing election. There’s no way that they’d have had the nerve to take him on at that point. Once they had backed down and he’d got his way, he could have sent Arbib off to the backbench for a stint.
Carpe diem as they say. Rudd’s problem was that he blinked. He stared into the abyss and noticed that it was staring back. His courage and acumen failed him.
Even later though, he had better options. Had he announced in February 2010 that as the senate of 2004 had effectively sought to overturn the mandate of 2007 he meant to test that mandate in the election he planned to hold in the latter half of the year. At that election, he could have continued, the ALP will present a plan to put a price on carbon much as Garnaut had proposed it, to be implemented no later than FY2011-12. The opposition and others can please themselves. He could then have negotiated with The Greens for a suitable scheme. He could have left the RSPT in the chamber — for ongoing consultation.
Again, there can be no doubt that had he called a double dissolution in July-August, he would have secured a clear majority with The Greens in both houses, and had it available immediately. The opposition would have had nothing to run with.
What cruelled him with the uncommitteds was his apparent loss of nerve but it also emphasised that the power lay not with the PM but with sleazy NSW-based factional powerbrokers that were very much on the nose in NSW. That meant that Julia Gillard got almost nothing positive out of the switch and when it became clear that her policy was about overturning almost every worthy program associated with Rudd, while hanging onto the ones that were most controversial — mandatory detention for example — it was the government that had nothing to run on. Between them Rudd, Gillard and Bitar/Arbib managed to make Abbott look credible, just.
The year from July ’09-June ’10 was undoubtedly one of the more bizarre years of Australian politics largely because the ALp managed to snatch defeat and abject failure from the jaws of a swingeing victory. The numbers opposed to them in the Senate were more apparent than real and the ALP chose to jump at its own shadows.
Well said Joe2. Of course Tony Jones didn’t want to pursue that particular line of questioning, obsessed as he is with ‘gotcha’ questions and tomorrow’s headlines.
So presumably you would have had the ABC Board rigged by Labor, instead, Fran? Charming.
Real change on that front has been attempted and may even be achieved on that front- a truly independent board comes into being in June- and you see that as failure. Not likely you have any more insight than Adler, I would say.
Last night’s Q and A was absolutely rivetting. Kevin Rudd was back in a big way. He was fresh, he was articulate, he was warm and very intelligent. A reminder of what could have been and also what Australian politics has been reduced to, given recent events.
I also love the timing of his appearance.
For months and months we’ve had sharks like Barrie Cassidy and Paul Howes publically pouring their venom on Rudd – even writing books to describe their hatred (yes, I know it’s a strong term, but I do mean hatred) for the man.
Of course he also faced criticism from News Limited as well as the ‘faceless’ men and the nameless back-benchers
Through all this, Kevin Rudd has never really fought back.
So he waits for the NSW election – waits for the Labor Party to implode – waits for the bad guys to be identified and written about….
waits for Julia to tank…waits for his own popularity to rise somewhat…
and then casually breezes into QandA looking shiny and clean. A reminder of how the bad elements of the Labor Party execute their own, without mercy or foresight.
Kevin appeared as the master of grace and humility. Oh, how I love the perfect revenge.
“He rose to prominence as a media tart. He left the ABC board that Howard rigged in place. He had less excuse to complain than most people about how it went out.”
Don’t you just love the ‘media tart’ line, trotted out as though no-one else in modern politics is a obsessed with media opportunities and spin FFS. Yet for some reason it’s aa character flaw with Rudd. Ever hear Abbott referred to as a ‘media tart’?
And he wasn’t complaining, just explaining the reality.
@ MP yeah you might be on to something there. Dish best served cold, don’t get mad, get even, an’ all that…
Joe2, Labor rigged the ABC/SBS boards by simply doing nothing at all about them after they got back in in 2007.
This, contrary to assurances same of them gave the public when in oppositions. As far as I know, the ABC staff member is still not back on the board (correct me if I’m wrong)
Who do you think would terrify them so much, that they wouldn’t even act on an issue where a change would be in their own interests?
Joe2 tried the following strawman:
Not at all. I’d have restored the staff position and then ensured a board that had significant competence/expertise in the various areas within which the ABC needed to deliver services.
What folks like Albrechtson brought to the ABC’s capacity to deliver quality services is hard to see. Mark Scott has been an abysmal failure in his time — so much so that it’s fair to describe ABC News & Current Affairs as yet another arm of the Murdochracy. The Howardistas were appointed for just this purpose. Today, on their ABC, one isw as about as likely to hear nonsense as read it in the OO. Rudd didn’t author the decline of the ABC but his depraved indifference made him an accessory after the fact to the trashing of a worthy institution.
Thank adrian. It is just extraordinary that Adler imagines that all a P.M. needs to do is advocate their cause “eloquently”. I remember quite well Rudd out and about on Faine etc when all that he said was ignored by media except, as you say, some trivial ‘gotcha’ crap.
Combet put out a press release recently about the stuff up Hunt has made on soil sequestration figures on Lateline.
All was ignored, just like the Hunt bumbling performance in the first place.
I didn’t watch this Q&A but if anyone needs any reminding about why those “extremist Greens didn’t negotiate with Rudd/Labor” the reality was Rudd refused to even speak to Bob Brown during the last 12 months of his primeministership.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/greens-leader-bob-brown-hasnt-been-able-to-meet-kevin-rudd-since-april-last-year/story-e6frgczf-1225881639580
That goes along way to explaining why Rudd was unfit to be PM, it’s just unfortunate that Gillard has taken the party even further to the Right than Rudd did. Both have been crap.
The ABC was as every bit as instrumental as the OO in the media campaign of destruction of Kevin Rudd.
And I’m not sure it will be a much cleaner outfit even with the departure in July of a couple of the remaining Howardistas from the Board. Because the ABC has certainly been sowed throughout with fifth columnists ideologically hostile to the concept of public broadcasting. It’s being whiteanted from within, hence the cries of anger, frustration, disappointment, ridicule from more and more of what was once the ABC core supporters.
@57
Look I’m not one of your socialites either it’s just that I don’t think that all tradies are as enlightened as you family. And don’t be so easily offended, comments re: selfishness aren’t aimed at an particular tradie, more at the over consuming, bombastic category.
And what about Gillard’s stereotyped brickie v lawyer opposition? Utter rubbish.
@60
Sir you offend my honour, I didn’t say anything wrt Adler and now you have smeared me with Bolt seepage. I demand satisfaction.
I think Fran’s DD scenario would have been likely but it would have strengthened the Greens in the senate and increased their respect. It seems Labor preferred to protect their Senator Fielding. Getting the RSPT was not worth the cost of improving the Green’s electoral position
Actually, paul, a DD would more likely have weakened our Senate position. The quotas are much smaller, and you would end up with the Greens being squeezed by the Libs and the ALP at one end, and random numpties like Fielding at the other.
Yes, Patrick B, you are rightfully and righteously justified in your mortification, “you” are actually Patrick G at #42. You will never forgive me, ay de me, ’tis sad.
As I recall Antony Green’s analysis, DI(NR) The Greens, especially in a tight preference swap situation, would have done slightly better under a DD, at the expense of the minor parties. It’s worth recalling that Fielding only made it in because the Vic ALP and Democrats chose to preference FF ahead of The Greens. Had they not done that, The Greens would have romped it in.
FB, Your posts have been very helpful, but I do concur with De Molay’s qualification, #72.
Thinking on it, I do recall an article by Rudd in the Age a fair while ago, where he joined with the righties in labelling the ABC a “collective”.
Was fear of Murdoch the only reason they didn’t move to salvage public broadcasting after they regained power in 2007?
They just don’t like “broadsheet”, any of them.
Where HAS Conroy been hiding lately, btw?
Kevin Rudd has done the greatest damage to Julia Gillard through the best means possible. By being very competent, polite and gracious.
This is when the ‘faceless men’, hacks and sundry media scum dearly wanted him to engage in a fight and to dirty his name further. Rudd’s response was to provide what very few in the Labor party has been able to provide. A highly competent performance and a wining over of the public. Devastating.
If Gillard and co were to attack or demote Rudd now it would in the public mind be an undeserved and spiteful attack without cause of merit. It would tank Gillard’s personal approval levels into the dirt.
Yes indeed, TP. If Rudd were the unmitigated bastard that certain people are intent on portraying him as, we would surely see a glimpse of it, particularly at times such as this.
Listening to Rudd last night it seemed to me that he was very much implying that he was facing an internal ‘revolt’ (gillard, swan, bitar, arbib et al) if he were to go ahead with the CPRS.
It also seems very much from the context of statements last night that not only were Swan and Gillard vehement in their desire to halt the CPRS but also were of the group that wanted it shelved permanently.
Gillard’s policy on carbon reduction during the election was the pathetic citizens council or whatever that was even weaker than Howard’s attempt at policy. These two items indicate that Gillard with some others are either not in the CC GW camp or believe Australia need not take action.
But the irony is of course when it comes to HER keeping hands on power she turns to a carbon policy, because of the Greens. Maybe this is part source of her vitriol toward them of late.
You’re all forgetting that Rudd wasn’t brought down by scrapping the CPRS – he was brought down because he got sold a dog by Ken Henry and Wayne Swan in the form of a RSPT – one of the worst thoughtout pieces of tax policy this country has ever seen. By all means impose a super tax on resource companies – but don’t try to nationalise 40% of the mining industry!!!! Idiots. Wayne Swan has a lot to answer for – I wonder if he and Rudd are on speaking terms.
“I’d have restored the staff position and then ensured a board that had significant competence/expertise in the various areas within which the ABC needed to deliver services.”
Fran, Conroy has had legislation to restore the staff position and provide an independent body to choose board members before parliament where it has been blocked by the ‘no party’ – looking after their good friend Maurice Newman who had previously resigned from the board over the very issue of a staff position.
Get real. You as ruler is power beyond parliament.
Although I’ve never been a great fan of Rudd, I thought he presented well on Q&A last night. I even thought his mea culpa seemed genuine.
Having said that, Jacques @ 72 reminds me of why I thought he was an arrogant twerp who deserved the boot.
Joe2 said:
Odd that Conroy doesn’t get your strawman then … anyhoo …
It should have been done first thing he got in. If they’d blocked it, put it a second time and have a DD trigger up his sleeve. That would have come in handy in July 2009. Let’s not make excuses for them.
Agreed CJ but even an ‘arrogant twerp’ can learn. Too late now but he’ll make a finer foreign minister than some I could name.
I still think his hands off the ABC board policy was admirable if somewhat naive.
In my misguided way I still see his as a political tragedy. Undeservably crucified in my eyes. But more balanced people keep telling me he was ‘worse than Whitlam.’
Whereas the right Honorable John Howad was father to the nation and wrongly cheated out of doing a longer innings than Menzies.
“Let’s not make excuses for them.”
Not “excuses”, Fran. It’s reality, just like Adler, that you stridently oppose.
Joe 2, do you have even a remotely credible answer at to why the staff member wasn’t returned, despite no legal impediment to this for the government?
You’ll swear on a stack of bibles it wasn’t cowardice, buckling under undue influence from vested interests or neo McCarthyism that prevented this simple doable and tacitly promised thing?
“Joe2, Labor rigged the ABC/SBS boards by simply doing nothing at all about them after they got back in in 2007.
This, contrary to assurances same of them gave the public when in oppositions. As far as I know, the ABC staff member is still not back on the board (correct me if I’m wrong)”
Yep, Paul@69 you are wrong on the former-’rigging and doing nothing’ but not on the latter…no staff member. See my comment@86 for the latter. Conroy has tried but been blocked in parliament in his wish to re-introduce a staff member.
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/89359/Guidelines_Appointments_to_ABC_SBS_Boards.pdf
But hell, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good gov. bash. It works for Fran and quite a few others, here.
Fran, my god you love the double dissolutions. Can I point out that the track record of double dissolutions helping incumbent governments is pisspoor? Australians hate early elections, and double dissolutions doubly so. Calling a double dissolution for such a minor issue as changing the ABC board would have put Abbott in charge.
“Calling a double dissolution for such a minor issue as changing the ABC board would have put Abbott in charge.”
I dunno John. All you would have needed was Louise Adler and Fran to “eloquently” explain it. Tones would have been dead meat.
John Edmonds wittered:
Gosh but you’re silly. The power under s57 doesn’t require the government to campaign on the basis of the DD trigger. It’s just a matter of having the chamber loaded. Obviously Rudd would have campaigned on the ETS, having a steady hand on the tiller and business certainty through the remainder of the GFC, the government’s remaining health reform program etc. etc …
In this case the early election would have worked since there was a clear mandate, majority support and the opposition would have repudiated their prior position.
And yes he could then have set about repairing the ABC.
Joe2 piled Pelion upon Ossa as follows:
Classic handwaving. You make no substantive claim and then assert that your non-substantive claim is reality and that Adler and I are against it.
You’re the one inhabiting the Twilight Zone. All that is needed is the theme.
“Joe 2, do you have even a remotely credible answer at to why the staff member wasn’t returned, despite no legal impediment to this for the government?”
Paul, for the final time, legislation needed to be passed by both houses of parliament before a staff member could be appointed. Not just a ministry decision- otherwise Conroy was quite prepared to make it.
Night Fran, thanks for making me sleepy.
Not campaigning on something you used to trigger a DD reeks of sophistry. DD’s are the Australian political equivalent of using a nuke, you need blatant and obvious reasons for calling them down if you don’t want to be seen as cheap unstable cynics. Even at the peak of climate change support in Australia I never got the sense from my non politicised friends and relatives that climate change legislation was that important – they supported it, it would be nice, but that is all.
All people involved in politics need a tattoo reminding them that most people hate hate hate early elections, and that semi-plausible lies or truths will not change their mind.
Joe2 announced:
Ah … that must explain the impaired cognitive function you’ve shown here.
John Edmonds tried:
That objection would not have lasted five minutes. Rudd said it was the great moral challenge. He promised to act. The Liberals had said they wanted to act and yet would have squibbed. Conditions would have been perfect.
The Liberals wouldn’t have had the nerve to force the issue. They’d have hoped Rudd screwed the pooch and have consoled themselves with the idea that they weren’t going to interrupt an opponent making a mistake. They would not have staked their influence and senate power on winning from there.
Conditions would have been perfect within a very small part of Canberra. Elsewhere people would have gone “eh, that’s not as big a deal as they make it out to be, what’s a double dissolution? – it’s an early election, oh bugger that!”
Oh, all this tealeaf reading by the pro-Rudd-Gillard-Green and anti-Rudd-Gillard-Green commenters here is very good news for ‘Q&A’. That show understands what material it needs to sell to its audience—Oprah-ism for slender-fingered sophistiscates who wouldn’t be caught dead watching Oprah.
Ah yes, the ‘nationalise 40% of the mining industry’ line.
That’s economically illiterate bullshit, you know that, right?
Sadly it appears to have been given credence by the otherwise well-educated Tim Colebatch in The Age soon after the details of the RSPT were released last year. I must email him to get an explanation for him repeating that stinker.
Andrew, I accept that anonymous internet commenters like yourself are gullible enough to believe that a tax is the same thing as a government takeover of something (I’m sure you believe the PAYE and GST charges you pay have resulted in roughly half your personal body being ‘nationalised’) but guys like Colebatch shouldn’t fall for that kind of braindead nonsense.
Adler was wrong to say that the CPRS just needed better elucidation.
The clearer people became on what it meant the less they liked it.
Same is happening now with CPRS II.
Until Turnbull wrests control of the Libs back from the brown shirts, climate policy is dead in this country.
Waste of time trying to pin the blame on Rudd, then Wong, then Gillard etc etc.
RE Joe 2′s response to FB and myself concerning the ABC staff member, I googled up first, the Christian Kerr article, 17/10/2008 in the OZ, “ABC Staff board spot restored”, which commencing, claimed that government risked conflict with the (Maurice Newman) board,”…after restoring the contentious ABC staff member to the public broadcaster’s board”.
Following that, a trip to Crikey and Margaret Simons’ numerous articles on this subject. Finally a phone conversation with an influential member of Friends of the ABC.
It seems the problem boils down to two things.
That since the days of board stacking even ABC staff and Friends of the ABC have wanted the problem of board apointments including the staff member to be dealt with legislation cast in stone, that like Armageddon, is definitely eventually coming, as a sort of “permanent becoming”.
I was very insistent in a phone conversation, in finding out if the fiat powers for board appointments were nonetheless still in place, as they had been before 2007. Several times, I was told “yes”.
So, regardless of the stalled legislation, this (to me)specific and unrelated matter to the wider question of appointments, could have deal with years ago!
As Kerr and others pointed out, the problem rested with Newman and the government was too timid to take him on. With people mollified by the promise of obviously cleaner legislation on the matter, the noise has died down and the legislation and some appointments have been conveniently stalled or lost in a never-ending pipeline?
At Crikey, I see that Mr Denmore, also, has written on these issues.
Can some one throw a rock on his roof, in order to ask him to offer LP readers some sort of definitive take on this long standing issue, were he to be of a benevolent frame of mind to do so?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/how-rudds-ets-was-killed-from-within-labor-ranks-20110405-1czw7.html
wbb,
you’re obviously not watching the same program as I. Turnbull won’t be ‘wresting control of the Libs back from the brown shirts’ any time soon. With more finality than Rudd he has lost the leadership of his party.
Makes you feel sorry for all those upper north shore voters who vote green, doesn’t it. Well maybe just a little bit. But that’s the two-party democratic system for you…
Jacques de Molay,
Lindsay Tanner, there was a man with integrity and ability.
Rudd can never ever beat the media narrative.
So I watched QandA and thought that Rudd had taken responsibility for dropiing the ETS.
Not so.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudds-blame-game-ruffles-alp-feathers-20110405-1d2zg.html
Which colleagues? Or is this a version of that old chestnut “some people say…”
That’s right. As…as…as…hang on who said that? No names yeah? And this article damages the ALP more? Well Rudd is the only person named in the article. Yeah. Let’s blame him. (Razor and Sam and others. This is the article you need to cite cite cite everywhere. Talking point ‘if even a leftist rag like the SMH can see Rudd’s true colours etc.)
I finally get it. Accepting responsibility is not accepting responsibility. And refusing to dish dirt on your boss is a subtle way of doing just that. How dare Rudd not go into a Latham style fit of pique! How dare he be so rude by being so polite! It’s so passive aggressive!
John Edmond @ 99: “most people hate hate hate early elections”. Where is the evidence for this? I have never seen any.
I am with Fran, Rudd should have used the nuclear option, like Whitlam did in 1974 to great effect. The promise of a greener senate would have enabled him to stare down the cowards in his own ranks, and campaigning on climate change would have energised the electorate, and possibly produced some useful coalitions on the left.
Now, we are all down in the cesspit with the denialists and going nowhere fast, hanging out for a greener senate in July.
Nickws @ 103, I’ve characterised Q’n'A as Big Brother for pseuds, but I like your comparison as well.
“I am with Fran, Rudd should have used the nuclear option, like Whitlam did in 1974 to great effect.”
Grace, don’t get Fran started on the “nuclear option” she is even more fond of that than the double dissolution.
He should have done this, he should have done that. Well he didn’t and more fool him. He’s bagging Julia, Julia’s being coy, Swanny can’t be found, Julias bagging the greens, Bob’s in charge. Great
Heh tssk, read that SMH article and thought exactly the same thing.
But you see, these Canberra insiders have the benefit of great insight denied to us mere mortals.
As I said earlier, whatever Rudd did to offend the delicate souls of the Canberra press gallery, they’re never going to forgive him.
From http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3176092.htm?show=transcript
How the hell does this statement turn into Rudd blaming others?
Still it’s worked. Some of my mates over the past 24 have been talking about how disgusting it was that Rudd was dishing on Julia and the ALP again.
Way too much speculative and impromptu commentary in politics these days. Political journalism has been infected by the negative aspects of blog-culture.
Journalists feel the requirement, without any evidence, to offer interpretations of underlying motives based upon personality and private ambitions. This is then the stuff that inevitably dominates the headlines as we are all suckers for the narratives of rise and fall; sin and redemption; et bloody cetera.
Who wants to read Brian’s Climate Clippings when we can read the tea-leaves about Rudd v Gillard day in, day out.
Policy is diabolically difficult in this political climate. Policy requires much back and forth, but when that back and forth is immediately characeterised as flip-flopping and lying, politicians are paralysed by fear of media attack, polling outcomes and ultimately their own support base turning upon them in panic.
We haven’t worked out how to balance the requirement for transparency with the need for complex messy decision making.
So far democracy is decidedly uncertain that it is enjoying the benefits of the new saturation media.
Rudd blew it, big time, but at least he has the self- honesty to know it.
Let’s not rewrite history here. I know more than one person who, on the basis of personal experience, descibed him as “the manager from hell” and a “toxic boss”. For a start, he spent the whole of his incumbency in a sleep deprived state – as he himself implied in that interview. He surrounded himself with “young guns” whose principal qualification for the job was that they too were willing to go without sleep. He had no time for common courtesy. He couldn’t set priorities – absolutely everything was ultra-urgent. And finally he was all tactics, no strategy – there was no sense, for all his talk of “narratives”, of where he wanted the government to be in three years time. A huge contrast to Howard who, however distasteful his politics, was an excellent manager, looked far ahead and was impeccably thoughtful and polite to those around him.
Yeah I’m disappointed with Gillard too, but she has been dealt a far weaker hand than the Grand Slam one that Rudd absolutely butchered.
Derrida …
What you say rings true (though I’m going to demur on your defence of Howard as manager as it is OTT here) …
Rudd was very probably the most cerebral of the people who held the top job since Whitlam, but what he had in IQ he lacked in EQ. He gave every impression of someone who thought that if he grasped some abstruse point, then everyone else should too, and if they didn’t that was their problem. He gave no hint at all that he accepted that one of the most important parts of the job of being PM is to translate the vision underlying your program into a language and timeline most can follow. He had no grasp of the need to do things one step at a time in time windows most people can understand.
I always wondered why he didn’t make it his business to do monthly reports to the nation summarising the topics of the month, dealing with letters from correspondents, foreshadowing where the government was headed, short, medium and longterm. Perhaps there could have been some useful graphs or images or film clips. Ideally, the ALP would have paid for it and it would run for a maximum of 15-20 minutes. He needed both to set the agenda and be its principal source of data if he was to counter the weight of the Murdochracy against him.
“Kevin Rudd has done the greatest damage to Julia Gillard through the best means possible. By being very competent, polite and gracious.”
TP – Because the whole point of being Foreign Minister is to damage the PM’s standing. How pathetic that you see this as a good thing. Your irrational hatred of Gillard is showing.
PatrickB@75: “And what about Gillard’s stereotyped brickie v lawyer opposition? Utter rubbish.” Of course it is. So, why use the same stupid form of stereotyping yourself? I’m not being offended on behalf of my family. I just see such ignorant stereotyping as appalling, no matter who it’s applied to. I also suspect that there are some people who just find it improper that some blue collar workers earn a lot of money. Don’t they know their place?
The Government is teetering and Rudd has decided to destabilise it even further. Does he really think that this behaviour will result in him getting the call from the caucus?
“Come back Kevin, we need you”.
Bizarrely, I think he does believe it.
He thinks he’s untouchable because Gillard is just a by-election away from being an ex PM. If he pushes hard enough though, he might just push her into sacking him as FM and daring him to resign from the Parliament.
Loved Shorto’s interjection at Uhlmann last night: “Sorry to interrupt you there with an answer”.
They wanna give that guy short shrift every time.
I don’t think Rudd is trying to stabilise the government. I think he’s supportive of Gillard and is putting the party above himself.
He’s really in a no win situation.
Go on Q and A and be seen as destabilising and “lording it up in front of the media/he just wants attention” etc etc.
Refuse to go on Q and A and then what? “Kevin Rudd is sulking” etc etc.
So on Q and A despite being baited over and over he took full responsibility and even talked about his own character flaws. Pity that in Australia this sort of introspection is seen as a weakness. Unlike the “still not sorry” attitude by others in government. Or even worse “let’s put this behind us, the window has moved on etc” attitude.
It’s getting to the point where even Jesus would have issues running on a left wing platform.
It seems, as Fran says, that Rudd lacked the EQ to match his IQ and that he couldn’t or wouldn’t comprehend, as wbb said, that constantly dancing to the the beat of the 24-hour media cycle would leave him (and his pitiable staff) burnt out and ineffective.
The question in my mind is how much of this is about Rudd’s idiosyncracies and how much is due to the non-stop noise and second-guessing and instant analysis that the always-on media cycle has created? It’s undoubtedly a bit of both, but I would tend more to the latter than the former.
Anyone who’s read Don Watson’s biography of his time with Keating knows what hard work PK was as a PM. And there are plenty of anecdotes of Hawke’s monstrous ego in office. The fact is you have to be a certain sort of human being to run for, win and maintain public office. The necessary singlemindedness always means something is compromised in the process of getting there.
In the case of both Keating and Rudd, it was a lack of patience with fools and a sort of imperiousness that alienated a lot of people. Rudd’s problem seemed to be that he tried to do it all on his own, as you would expect with someone who froze out the factions. And he might have succeeded more with learning the power of delegation and building support bases.
But I would still argue that the current relentless and microscopic media scrunity requires an an almost superhuman sensibility that would have eluded most former PMs, particularly those before Hawke. The constant noise and prefabricated, instant and public theorising about the political machine as an end in itself would have destroyed even Menzies.
I’m still of the view that Rudd has a moral authority and legitimacy – stemming from his unequivical 2007 election victory – that Gillard desperately lacks. And the morass our politics has become owes much to that.
Yes, in the eyes of people like Sam, accepting responsibility and admitting mistakes is destabilising the government.
God save us from the pious and self righteous!
Anybody who watched Q&A without prejudice would have found it difficult to come to the conclusion that Rudd wants to be PM again.
As it seems to have become relevant to the discussion – this
Interesting article, myriad. Labor certainly did every silly thing they possibly could in negotiating an ETS.
They developed legislation that was so counter-productive that it was just about worse than no policy. Consequently, the Greens couldn’t support it.
They wanted to wedge the Libs with it, but ended up giving themselves a reverse wedgie when the Libs dumped Turnbull for Abbott. And ten Labor dumped the whole idea.
Would they have managed to get the numbers in the Senate with good legislation as Milne suggests? I dunno. But, going to the Senate with bad legislation was useless. So, it all came tumbling down.
Ultra ROFLMAO.
It is a good article myriad74 because it is a message of hope. We have fortunately dodged the Rudd/Turnbull devised scheme and have a very good chance of a system that will actually achieve a cut in emissions rather than a gift to polluters.
I cannot understand all the doom and gloom and harking back to what might have happened if Rudd did such and such…d.d. etc. He didn’t, nothing happened, we were lucky, so now let’s get on with bringing in a carbon price.
The stars are starting to line up for it, as they have already for some other neat legislation like broadband, yet people seem stuck in constant mind fuxxing about some useless ‘might have been’.
Agree with your general point, joe2, but I think part of the reason is that Gillard has been such a major disappointment on a number of levels. Also the media’s inability to take anything Rudd says at face value or with a modicum of good faith is getting increasingly irritating.
Mr Denmore also sums up another significant factor:
Christine Milne’s take on Rudd’s mistake: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55386.html
@119
OK, I don’t like stereotypes either. How ever it appears that Gillard’s advisers and most of the advertising industry do. Anyway it appears that Shaun Carney has made up his mind:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/second-tilt-at-the-top-job-20110405-1d2us.html
Hi Joe2 – haven’t had a chance to talk to Christine about the ‘genesis’ if you like of this article (eg she might have been approached to write the Greens’ perspective after Rudd’s statements on qanda), but to be clear I do know we’re not dwelling on the past but very much focussed on making the MPCCC work – so I agree with you mostly.
I think people’s points about Gillard’s legitimacy etc are also natural public commentary but for the most part for myself I’m too darn busy to think on it too long & hard or engage, immersed as I am in the nuts and bolts of particular campaigns of ours (right now the Tasmanian Gunns pulp mill & the threat of Asian honeybees are things I’m particularly working on).
I figured I’d link to the article given where the thread had gone. But to pick up Fine’s comment, the other to be made I think is – here’s hoping for not repeat of some particular mistakes; it’s unlikely Australia is going to get another chance past this one to get some decent policy on climate change, and it’s something the Greens are very aware of.
Joe2,
There is a myth emerging here that the new Gillard scheme will do more to reduce emissions than the Rudd CPRS scheme would have if implemented.
There is no evidence to suggest that this will be the case. AIUI, Gillard is considering the same emissions targets that Rudd’s CPRS had. The salient difference (hopefully) between the schemes (leaving aside the fixed-price transitionary period) is the allocation of compensation between consumers and producers.
That will not make the Gillard scheme any more effective at reducing emissions, just more equitable at spreading the pain.
As an aside, did you see this poll. 66% support a carbon price with compensation.
I’m quite bemused about this kerfuffle. Notwithstanding some pertinent commentary here, the entire story as far as the MSM and ABC are concerned is the intra-Cabinet argy bargy about the CPRS – but not on the basis of whether or not the scheme was the best response by Australia to AGW, rather exclusively about its effect on the government’s popularity.
Of course the Coalition’s probably just as guilty of prioritising electoral appeal over effective measures to ameliorate AGW, but it would be useful if somebody other than the Greens would actually get real at the parliamentary level about climate change. Instead, the major parties pussyfoot around the confected sensibilities of a largely ignorant electorate.
Rudd has a moral authority and legitimacy – stemming from his unequivical 2007 election victory
I call bullshit. Nothing depreciates faster than the legitimacy from an electoral victory, even within a parliamentary term. And since the people have subsequently spoken, less than 12 months ago, what happened in 2007 is neither here nor there.
I honestly don’t get this meme that Rudd has moral authority and Gillard has none. Can someone explain the logic to me, Please?
Fine 136, it’s because Gillard got to be Labor Party leader by challenging Rudd for the job, stabbing him in the back in the process.
Whereas Rudd got to be Labor Party lader in a completely, morally superior, way. He challenged Beazley for the job, stabbing him in the back in the process.
The difference is obvious.
I also think it is just nonsense, Fine.
Sam, if the people spoken, they seem to have said that they couldn’t really decide.
I maintain the broad electorate was, and remains, extremely disquieted about the manner of Rudd’s assassination. And all the problems the ALP now is contending with stem from that.
I think Gillard, most likely because she is a women, is being held to higher standard. Costello, for instance, was mocked mercilessly for not having enough gutse to do what she did.
It’s politics ffs!
Sam & Joe, we’re in danger of replaying old, and somewhat bitter arguments. But, yes – neither did I understand why it was okay to depose your leader if it took several attempts over a long period of time (a la Rudd), but it was dreadful if it was done quickly and efficiently.
Gillard now seems to lack both ‘authority’ and ‘empathy’. I raise a sceptical eyebrow.
Yes, joe. She lacks authority (she’s a woman). She lacks empathy ( she’s a really piss-poor woman). Lose-lose situation.
Mr Denmore, I’m sure there are people who didn’t vote Labor because they were appalled by the way Rudd was treated. OTOH, I know people who voted Labor precisely because Gillard was leader.
But, the broad electorate? Megalogenis has an interesting interpretation of state-wide voting trends in his QE. He argues that you could see the 2010 result as one of resource-based states versus non-resource states. This points to the RSPT as a key issue. He also points out that the further south you head down the Eastern seaboard, the better Labor did. Certainly, if the Labor vote which occurred in Victoria, SA and Tasmania had been replicated Australia wide, Labor would have won easily.
I think the 2010 result has myriad explanations. The Rudd/Gillard fracas is one of them, but isn’t definitive.
@141
I’d say she lacks authority, buggered if I know how’d you evaluate empathy from this distance. You may be sceptical about the former but she did come to the PMship in very unusual circumstances and only just managed to hang on to power with the help of partners that she now claims are unrepresentative of Labor or indeed Australian values. It’s not a healthy situation if only for the fact that it allows someone like Abbott to continue way past their use by date.
And really, Mr Denmore, “Rudd’s assassination” – I thought you were better than that.
Nickws “Ah yes, the ‘nationalise 40% of the mining industry’ line. That’s economically illiterate bullshit, you know that, right?”
Errr, actually no Nick, it’s not. The RSPT was nothing like PAYE or GST – so I’m afraid that comparing it to those taxes just highlights your lack of understanding.
The key feature of the RSPT that turned it into government equity ownership rather than simplay a tax was that the government intended to refund share in both the profits and the LOSSES of the projects….. simply bizarre.
Anyway – that’s off topic…. my main point stands. The attention on this thread is all about Rudd being deposed because he made a mistake backing down on the CPRS. That’s rewriting history… he was desposed because he was the fall guy for a horribly constructed tax that Henry and Swann should be blamed for.
More correctly, Rudd was deposed because Rio Tinto, BHP Billiton, Xstrata and News Corporation insisted upon it.
The deal that Gillard subsequently stitched together to forestall an election-eve revival of the miners’ ad campaign will subsequently cost the country $60 billion in taxes that could have built schools and hospitals.
But yep, she got over the line, just. And yep, it’s a Labor government. Well, a minority Labor government. Well, a minority Labor government that really is no different to what John Howard served up.
Hurrah!
Even allowing your parameters Andrew, that would not amount to “nationalising 40% of the mining industry”. It would amount in extremis to the Commonwealth being a royalty partner willing to share some of the downside risk in mining operations. The Commonwealth would remain unable to “sell” any stake to a third party, nor would it have had rights to exericse discretion over mining operations, trades, the composition of the baord, dividends or any other matter associated with equity holders.
While the mining industry could expect to have relatively lower profits at times of high commodity prices and relatively higher profits if commodity prices crashed, disposable equity would still have remained entirely in private hands, albeit that it would not ceteris paribus, have been worth as much.
Personally, I didn’t much like the structure of the RSPT. I’d have preferred it be a straight tax on windfall commodity prices, (it could have been called the Anomalous Profits tax) with the benchmark for each commodity in each market set by a running average price over 20 years. Distinctions and allowances could be made between spot prices and longterm contract prices.
Plan is only at the halfway point though. The Coalition must get back in. It’s what the voters want. Or should want.
It’s almost there though. The massive risk that the Greens and the ALP could form a coalition of it’s own now is totally wrecked. All they need do now is goad the PM into trashing the Independents and they won’t even need an election.
Mr Denmore
If she hadn’t stitched that deal together, the Coalition would almost certainly have won the election and there would have been zero mining taxes to “build schools and hospitals.”
Interestingly, on the mining tax, I saw our Premier, Barnett, on TV sheepishly saying that the state had not seen much of a spike in local engineering contracts despite all the mining activity. This was after 7:30 had shown a clip of him saying that every workshop in the state would be humming. So it seems we’re not getting the benefit of construction and we won’t be getting much extra from the extraction.
If Rudd was rolled because of the CPRS then we have missed a very large opportunity to put something away for the future. This was obviously the intent of the CPRS. I think Keating’s banana republic statement needs to be revisited but as a comment on countries that sell off public resources at bargain basement prices.
Exactly, I & U at 149.
Rudd’s RSPT was never going to happen. It’s another example of the way he couldn’t manage his own legislative program.
The RSPT was a great idea. But like many things in the Rudd/Gillard governments, it was poorly communicated and blighted by lousy process.
The mining industry itself had asked for a profits-based tax. But as with the CPRS, Labor got too clever and thought it could use the issue as a wedge.
Had they concentrated on good policy for its own sake, the politics would have looked after itself.
“Rudd’s RSPT was never going to happen.”
How can you be so certain? I mean there was quite a bit of support for it in the broader community, perhaps even in Western Sydney. I could just as easily assert that if the FPLP hadn’t made such a mess of itself and taken up the challenge of selling what was fundamentally a good, nation building idea then we would have had a mining tax. And at least I’m offering some kind of rationale for my assertion.
PatrickB,
I think you mean the RSPT, not the CPRS.
In fact, the Rudd RSPT plan was to fritter away the RSPT proceeds on corporation tax cuts. But, I agree, it should used to save for the future.
@154,
Bugger yes, RSPT. As to frittering away, well that’s one characterisation but, to use a cliche, and too many sub- clauses, politics is the art of the possible, it’s a quid pro quo. If the net effect was to get more from those finite holes in the ground then I reckon it’s a good deal. And dropping corporate tax rates could have stimulated some activity in the non-primary industry sectors, something that we really need.
PatrickB, why I say that is because I think Labor has totally lost its talent for believing in and selling policy which is even a little bit difficult. Rudd mishandled it dreadfully; hence it was never going to happen.
@156
OK, but I’d say he wasn’t helped by the shallowness of his colleagues. Efforts were made to explain the tax but I do wonder if the likes of Albanese, Conroy, Bitar, Gillard, Roxon and the rest would have the wherewithal or passion to prosecute the case. And perhaps Rudd felt this way as well.
PatrickB, I agree it wasn’t just Rudd’s fault.
I & U Commented:
Of course, there was always the possibility of running a campaign based on “the high price of Abbott”.
How many schools and hospitals will Abbott give up to suit Twiggy Forrest?
How much debt will Abbott accumulate to pay off the Rolex Revolutionaries?
Why is Abbott stealing from [smiling kindy kids] to pay Palmer?
Who should rule the country? The people or the Big Miners?
I’d have loved an election fought under those slogans.
Fine and PatrickB,
this is still a v. big problem for Gillard, don’t you think? Very real issue wrt. the lack of talent on the front bench.
Mr Denmore said:
Here I disagree. While the CPRS certainly was used as a wedge, the RSPT was an unconvincing attempt by Rudd to undo the damage he suddenly realised he’d done by dumping the CPRS. Sadly, he had already discarded the high moral ground. He could have had both but when he dumped the first he also forfeited the right to play fast and loose with the second.
What he should have done, in December 2009, when Henry was submitted, was to have released it publicly. He could have indicated his interest “in exploring ways for the Australian people to obtain a better share of the fabulous but finite mineral wealth that lies beneath our soils” and to ensure that “the recognised problem of the two-speed economy was dealth with” and that we were a society that not only “dug up stuff and sold it but also engineered things as well” . That said, “it ought to be the beginning of a national conversation on structural reform which obviously we as a community are not going to have the time to work through before the election takes place later this year.”
The Christmas/Summer break would have followed. It would have been left out of the budget. He and Swan could have had behind the scenes talks about “principles” with the big miners and others. The powder would have been kept dry and Rudd could have focused on getting the ETS up after he won, perhaps in August 2010.
Much simpler.
@160
Yes, see the Mark’s latest post.
Fran @161,
I agree. That is basically what Gillard has done with carbon pricing. Announce the principles first. Let the opposition and big business shout and scream until they run out of things to say. Then, and only then, will you start to get your message across.
Rudd did this with neither the CPRS nor the RSPT. Nor health reform for that matter. In terms of process, he was a total incompetent.
How is this any more about government ownership than the previous state based _crown soil_ licensing scheme?
The original draft of the RSPT was not ‘nationalisation’. It was the same old leviathon-is-present-in-your-dirt policy Australia has always had in this field.
So much for your understanding of these things. You realise that genuine nationalisation of industry is the kind of thing that the corporations power of the constitution severely limits, don’t you?
Next you’ll be saying negative gearing in houses is nationalisation.
So, Fran, I take it your interest in the facts of these things doesn’t stem from making offhand references to policy that’s basically political-rhetoric-disguised-as-accounting?:-)
Nick asked:
Indeed. You will have noticed the enthusiasm and insistence with which, inter alia, I ask that things be called by their right names. That very much applies to important concepts like socialism, tax, equitable interest and nationalisation.
Somewhat related, indpendent political observer Malcolm Farnsworth calls on Julia to follow protocol and sack Rudd now. for failing to observe a breach of the Cabinet principle of collective responsibility.
Look here for more.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55430.html
I’ve never heard of this before but I must defer to wiser heads. Aparently there is no choice but for Rudd to be sacked or for him to step down. (Can someone here explain to the rest of us this breach of protocol in layman’s terms?)
That’s easy tssk.
Protocol is that the ALP must do everything possible to lose power. Thus, sacking Rudd will force a by-election which the ALP will lose. Mission accomplished.
Just remember, this is the only protocol that really matters.
Thanks Adrian. Writing to the GG write now. Exciting!
tssk,
He (apparently) broke one of the oldest rules in the book – Thou shalt not breach Cabinet confidentiality.
Every rule of precedent is that he should resign or be sacked. I think adrian’s reason is why that has not happened. He holds Griffith with an 8% (or so) margin, but at least some of that may be personal following. If he resigns then there is a chance that the ALP will lose the seat, meaning government would change without the need for a general election.
“He (apparently) broke one of the oldest rules in the book – Thou shalt not breach Cabinet confidentiality.
Every rule of precedent is that he should resign or be sacked.”
One prob., Andrew. It was a different government.
2nd problem, Andrew: he didn’t actually breach any confidentiality. IIRC, he said that some of the cabinet wanted thim to lose it, some wanted delay, some wanted to push through, and he made the wrong choice. So, nothing we didn’t already know.
No names, no pack drill.
Well, if Rudd breached Cabinet confisentiality, I guess that’s the end of politicians
a) writing their memoirs.
b)talking to historians
c)lodging their papers in the National Library.
d)etc, etc.
Different Government. You know, the one where we had some-one belonging to the ALP as leader.
@12 Cuppa said:
“Rudd has principles and decency, qualities the media do not have nor understand. Hence the hateful campaign to besmirch and destroy him spearheaded by the worst offenders in the media, News Ltd and Their ABC.”
Rudd nailed his principles to the mast when he stated that action on climate change was the greatest moral question of our time.
That was a quite unequivical statement and he used it in pushing for his CPRS. He further claimed that people who denied MMGW where detrimental to the interests of their children and grandchildren. (My wife was quite incensed by that particular statement.)
Nobody could deny the stridency of Rudd’s advocacy.
When one has principles one stands by them when they come under attack otherwise they are just disposable rhetoric or empty words.
When the Copenhagen conference collapsed the writing was on the wall for the CPRS. Support for it tanked and the hardheads of the ALP could see the developing problem. Rudd was prevailed upon in cabinet to “postpone” the scheme until after the next election and he caved into that pressure. Did he stand and fight? Who knows? He set aside his stated principle to pursue electoral success. He demonstrated that his talk of principle was just empty words reflecting the popular opinion of the time.
Rudd has no principles and he has demonstrated that for all to see. He lost all credibility when he abandoned his position on climate change. He then went into terminal decline as far as his personal polling was concerned until his position became untenable.
He lacked decency in the way he treated people so the hardheads did not have to do too much convincing of the caucus to dump him. He was only useful while electorally popular.
So Cuppa, he demonstrably lacked any principles and decency and everybody understood that very clearly. His only use now is to be a number in the parliament to save the government’s majority. He will continue to use all his principles and decency to take advantage of that position.
He is not a nice piece of work.
“Different Government. You know, the one where we had some-one belonging to the ALP as leader.”
Funny how so many around here were calling for his gutse and a move to Julia, when he was leader, now hate hers.
I don’t know about anyvody else on LP, Joe2, but Julia has turned out to be somewhat different from what was expected of her at the time, so in retrospect Rudd looks great.
And, joe2, I sort of feel that she conned me, and I/m pissed off, you know? I don’t mean her stupid no carbon tax promise. That was never going to be a goer for anyone given the state of the world environment, or the idiocy of the East Timor Processing Centre. That was just fool’s gold from the very beginning. I mean, generally, as to what she actually stood for. If I wanted a Greens-bashing, welfare perescuting, neo-con PM I would/ve given my preferences to Abbott.
Some reading of interest, Paul?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/55436.html
I miss Tim Dunlop.
He just nails it.
Moreso here, tssk….
I’ve been totally confused by the debate over Kevin Rudd and his motives in responding as he did on Q&A. Even Grog has elicited quite different responses in me. Initially he seemed to reflect my own view of him as a basically decent guy caught off guard in a necessarily open forum, pressed to give more detail than he perhaps at heart knew was wise. Reading Grog
on Monday night I agreed with him and liked the way Rudd talked……on QANDA A few days later he seems to see it quite differently with a headline proclaiming There’s no “team” in Rudd, but there sure as heck is an “I” in Kevin with commentary attacking Rudd for his deviousness and ill intent, still failing to take full responsbility for his admitted error of judgement.
So if even Grog seems conflicted I can understand that same conflict of emotions and polarisation of opinion expressed around this latest furore over Rudd.
What I do find very hard to understand is the bitterness and hostility expressed here on this site about Julia Gillard and her supposed role in bringing about Rudd’s fall. No one has the full story. There may have been leaks, but there are still no names and all is speculation. I still see her as a basically loyal and able deputy, certainly with ambitions in the future, who watched the chaos developing around Rudd and his increasing incapacity to deal with the situation. She took on leadership at a time not of her making. It is the considered judgement of a man like Tony Windsor that she more than any other can be trusted to keep her word, and to steer this government and country through difficult times. And so far that trust has been vindicated, whatever the entrail reading of her every pronouncement may suggest.
This is just the desperation of certain interests who realise that when the Greens take over balance of power in the senate the world isn’t going to end, like they’ve been pretending it will.
Well, sucked in stoopid right-wing opinion makers, from July of this year your going to have a lot of faces on your eggs. People will see you for the idiot$ you are.
“It won’t be long now…”
THE NBN IS KEVINS BABY: HE CAN SAY WHAT HE WANTS AND GET AWAY WITH IT BECOZ LABOR OWES HIM THE WORLD!!!
[triple repetition deleted ~moderator]
YES, JOE, IF THE GREENS PLAY THEIR CARDS RIGHT THEY WILL CEMENT A WELL DESERVED POSITION IN THE GREATER VOTING PUBLICS MIND! … especially with a lacklustre Liberal Party/Leadership for policy idea comparison!
“What I do find very hard to understand is the bitterness and hostility expressed here on this site about Julia Gillard”
She dissed the Greens. On this blog, that is unforgivable.
Na. She sold out the Labor Party, which is particularly unforgiveable for Labor supporters here or anywhere else.
I don’t think Kevin was implying on Q&A that Julia had wanted the ETS dropped completely. After all, when he addressed Caucus on the morning of his removal, he pleaded that the Govt not change course on three issues… (e.g. “don’t swing to the right on asylum seekers”).
But IIRC no mention of CO2. If the incoming leadership duo had previously argued for dropping the ETS, wouldn’t he have expressed some worries over that possibility??
Certainly some journos think that lovely, decent, principled Rudd is angling to get rid of the red-headed she-devil.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/second-tilt-at-the-top-job-20110405-1d2us.html
I got around to watching Q&Q. There’s no doubt in my mind that Rudd was undermining Gillard in the most pernicious way. He’s very good at the homespun, folksy stuff.
And Mr Rudd says he’s not
But you’ve got to remember that Mr Rudd is the most devious, pernicious and ‘disgruntled’ politician ever.
Whatever he says, whatever you may think, he should never ever be given the benefit of any doubt, and nothing he says should ever be taken at face value.
For example the SMH describes him as the ‘disgruntled’ former PM. I thought that he was exactly the opposite on Q&A, but I was wrong because he is so good at the ‘homespun, folksy stuff’ that he deceived me totally.
I won’t get conned again by this devious man.
Adrian whetever you think of Rudd personally, his appearance on Q&A immediately set up media attention on the leadership issue. He knew that was going to be the case. It’s being purposely disruptive, when he didn’t need to be. Does Labor really need to be putting out media fires about who the leader will be? Isn’t this just a freekick to the Libs?
So if he goes on Q&A and refuses to answer the questions, can you imagine what the headlines would have been?
He accepts full responsibility, doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know and appears relaxed and happy in his new role. But I now understand that it’s all an act thanks to the Canberra insiders aka the Canberra press gallery and a few blog commentators.
Or perhaps you are saying that the FM should not make any media appearances.
OMG Rudd does it again! Look at http://www.smh.com.au/national/me-pm-again-forget-it-says-rudd-20110408-1d6xc.html
The relevant bit.
And there we have it. He rules out a comeback thus not undermining Julia.
Of course we know what that means. By answering the question in such a straight forward way we know that he’s obviously planning a comeback and he’s trying to undermine Julia.
Let’s look at that quote again in greater detail.
See! If you know the Da Vinci Code it’s all clear!
“Asked whether he had ruled out a comeback attempt, Mr Rudd responded: “That is not a faint prospect of a possibility.”
Tssk, no need to delete words from that quote. The “that” he is referring to in the answer is the ruling out of a comeback not the comeback itself. “Let’s just get a bit real about all of this” LOL
Adrian, why does he need to go on Q&A? It’s not mandatory.
Yes I quite agree, it’s really outrageous that a Foreign Minister should go on TV to answer questions from the audience. Whatever next?
It seems LP’ers are reaching a consensus that indicates that Rudd’s comments were neither as altruistic as we first thought, or totally unfair.
I thought he was at the mercy of conflicting impulses- if the worst one prevails he may cost Labor government and ruin his own reputation. However, if he is gaining better insights into how he himself operates as a human being, we could have a stronger Labor team, or more to the point something less malfunctional than Abbott and his fellow troglodytes.
The comment at 184 is unhelpful. The Greens are seldom discussed logically and fairly by their opponnents as the personalised, contentless slagging they have copped from both Labor, Liberal and the Tory press over the last fortnight indicates.
Can be tough for a politician when such an individual talks sense. Look what’s just happened to Joe Hockey over comments he made concerning family trusts and tax dodging.
Adrian, either Rudd was using Q&A to destabilise Gillard, or it was using him to do the same thing. Neither option is helpful. Sometimes the best thing to do is to shut up.
“Adrian, why does he need to go on Q&A? It’s not mandatory.”
Fine, he should be able to go on whatever show he likes. Just because media wants to run these games all the time why should pollies need to avoid situations where they might get questions.
Would you have had Turnbull not go on Faine today because leadership questions might arise and undermine Abbott?
Maybe he was ‘using’ Q&A to show that Australia has a competent Foreign Minister and to answer questions about the theme of the show – foreign affairs.
Since his Julie Bishop was appearing, it was entirely reasonable that he would too, since that is his policy area. Imagine the fuss that would have been made if he’d refused.
I think you’ve been consuming and accepting too much MSM bullshit.
But, Adrian that isn’t what got all the publicity, is it? What got all the publicity is the notion that he’s undermining Gillard. I’ll assume for a moment that he didn’t mean to. Surely, if you’re using a little bit of media nous, you think about how an appearance is going to be read and you make a considered judgement about how an appearance will play to the media?
If Rudd wasn’t purposely destabilsing Gillard, then he was being very naive and silly.
“He’s playing with her mind, the way he did with Howard’s. More power to him. Given her current performance she certainly deserves it.”
And look at PB’s comment back at #2. Do you really think it’s appropriate for the Foreign Minister to be playing with the Prime Minister’s mind? Paul doesn’t seem to think he was innocently talking about foreign affairs. But, apparently this destabilisation is a good thing. Just as long as Gillard gets her comeuppance, I suppose. And there I thought Gillard and Rudd were meant to be on the same side.
I think Rudd and Julia are on the same side. It doesn’t matter what Rudd says or doesn’t say, if he appears or if he doesn’t.
The media narrative will always frame him from now to eternity as cunning, undermining and angry. Very angry.
Because the absence of evidence of a behaviour or trait is framed as evidence.
I’ve heard it over and over and over. His lack of anger and his self control on Q and A is apparently direct evidence that he’s angry and out of control.
I’m convinced that the end game is to drive him out of politics.
“I’m convinced that the end game is to drive him out of politics.”
Which would, of course, bring down the government.
So driving him out of politics is not quite the end game, tssk. But you are definitely on to something.
Exactly. It’s just amazing how many ALP supporters buy into this narrative.
“And look at PB’s comment back at #2. Do you really think it’s appropriate for the Foreign Minister to be playing with the Prime Minister’s mind?”
Fine, I have noticed that PB is not what you would call a fan of J.G.
On that basis, I would not necessarily accept his opinion as definite fact. It maybe, that he is just relishing any, imagined or otherwise, evil that might come her way.
Qualification. I have not been a fan of Gillard’s since the Whitlam Oration.
Before that I was ambivalent about her, but prone to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Nor do I exactly relish evil falling on Labor pollies.
So her “current performance”, you refer to @2, was actually her Whitlam Oration, was it Paul?
I gotta say tssk, you crack me up. LMHO.
There’s another piece on the Drum by Chris Uhlmann condeming Rudd for always turning the spotlight on himself, and hi-jacking the media cycle etc etc…
well Chris, stop writing about him…. duh!!!
tssk, Adrian — and don’t ever forget how ANGRY!!! Rudd is. He’s really ANGRY!!! David Marr told me so!
Watch how ANGRY!!! he is, behind that relaxed demeanour, the unguarded body-language, the chipper smile, the cheery bon mots…it’s the classic behaviour of someone who is really…ANGRY!!!
Indeed Mercurius. In this new bizarro world of opposite land Mark Latham must be the best zen master in the world.
It makes absolutely no difference whether Rudd goes on qanda or any other tv or radio show or not. The media response will be exactly the same.
HE’S UNDERMINING GILLARD!!!!!!!!, the headlines and opinion pieces will screech.
Rudd goes to the toilet-HE’S UNDERMINING GILLRD!!!!!
Rudd has porridge for breakfast, changes his socks, wears a wedding ring, drives a ute-HE’S UNDERMINING GILLARD!!!!!
joe2 @ 207.
I really have no idea, and I’m far too bored with your responses to this to bother cecking the dates to find out. I feel like this turgid stoush has been going on for days (it probably has), almost weeks.
My position is simple. Gillard is far too far to the right and she deceived people by presenting as being from the left of the ALP. That aside, she just doesn’t have the ability to do the job and she should be re[;aced by some-one who does have. Don’t ask me who. There’s so little talent in the ALP at the moment iy is hard to say. Maybe they could move Christina Keneally over opr – shock/horror, put a genuine left winger in the job.
“I really have no idea, and I’m far too bored with your responses to this to bother cecking the dates to find out.”
Fair enough, Paul. I will not engage with you on the matter any further than this.