I didn’t get a chance to link to this post during the American campaign, but I thought that Scott’s piece at Grodscorp on why a lot of Australians get into American elections with so much fervour was a top class piece of work. Other cogent explanations were offered, but the comparative level of excitement – and entertainment – is certainly one of them:
Conversely, can you imagine Kevin Rudd standing in front of 50,000 people in a sports stadium, making a stirring speech about his dreams and aspirations for Australia, causing every person in the audience and the millions watching on the telly to feel a tingling sense of national pride and hope for their country? Can you imagine John Howard visiting an army base, attracting tens of thousands of supporters, and bringing tears to the eyes of those assembled as he spoke of patriotism and sacrifice for an ideal? Can you imagine Steve Fielding being interviewed by a news program and looking dumbstruck when asked what newspapers he reads? “Well, just the Bible, Katie,” he’d say. “It’s got all the information in it that I’ll ever need.”
Of course, just as it’s true that many Americans rightly vote not on the basis of the putative celebrity status of candidates but for compelling public reasons, we Australians do get passionate about what matters to our collective future and our lives in the political sphere. But, I think, the point retains its force.
So yesterday, Wayne Swan was accused of releasing the midyear budget review on Presidential election day to draw attention away from the projections on growth and unemployment, the media tut-tutted because he couldn’t instantly recall the inflation number and had to consult notes, and Malcolm Turnbull accused him of lacking credentials on “economic management”. Just another day in Canberra…
Elsewhere: Gary Sauer-Thompson on the mid-year economic outlook.
Elsewhere: Gary Sauer-Thompson on the mid-year economic outlook.
Cheers, Mark!
No worries, Scott!
I think he’s being more than a little hard on Rudd. Have we all forgotten the Apology speech already? Sure, other people wrote it, but Kev delivered it pretty good, and the atmosphere was as electrifying as it’s ever going to get in a nation of 20 million fairly laid-back citizens.
Not bad from Turnbull, seeing he and the smug gits in the Libtards haven’t managed an economy in recession. Every time that happens it’s up to the ALP to do the job and then be accused of being poor economic managers. Turnbull should butt out until he has something constructive to say.
Mind you, I suppose Australia should be extraordinarily proud that we have an even bigger effect on the global economy than the biggest economy in the world! Phwoar! Go Kev08!
Hear, hear Pavlov’s Cat.
But it a bit unfair. They get the cool black guy, and we get the nerd from Nambour!
Yes, and he was sinking 3-pointers (with dEEEfence all up in his grill) while campaigning with the world’s cameras on him. I wonder if he plays music – was it Romney who held a quite credible bassline during the primaries?
Hear, hear Pavolov’s Cat.
And it wasn’t just the speech: the crowds outside, the elders inside the Chamber, the welcome to country. Electrifying. He done real good. Understatement as an art.
Why, in a few decades, we may have caught up with Aotearoa…. here’s hoping.
Meanwhile Back in Australia
* will we ever see a grass-roots (and/or net-based) campaign here, as strong and disciplined as Barack’s? Or did it require that special Texan spur: the GWB Presidency?
* is it time to stop blackening the American polity as a deep reservoir of racism, fundamentalism, ignorance and apathy?
RE: Wayne’s swansonging- IMO, we have the wrong person as treasurer, unless a deliberate machiavellian strategy to protect the brains (Tanner) with the mouth is in play.
There was a delicious moment a few weeks ago when Swan was asked a bit of a technically curly question and tanner leaned across and said something to the effect “Just say no Wayne”. Turnbull picked up on it, and damned Swan by expressing at least some respect for Tanner’s relative abilities.
I reckon Swan’s best work is behind him, ie managing the riddance of the Goss government. The australasian study of parliamant (queensland chapter) review of the 1995 queensland election has of a
. That sounds like Wayne, driving the culture of the Queensland ALP, to me, but I’m just reading between lines.
I love Graham Young’s diplomacy when he writes
That’d be the infamous “internal polling” leak strategy. Funny how that skillset doesn’t work in government. I’m half expecting we’ll eventually see it’s Wayne’s plant in Rudd’s office responsible for the g20 blab. Would Australian blogdom would have been onto that story a bit, a lot even, more if it had been under Howard? What a stupid question: of course it would.
Meh, Swan couldn’t find the recently revised interest rate. Bishop didnt know the interst rate. Bore someone who cares.
I blame his minders. I’d want a friggin cheat sheet on my lectern every time I opened my mouth in this bullshit, retarded political culture of ours.
For that, I blame Costello – who managed to convince our dimitted media that remembering some key numbers (“THERE’S A HOLE IN THA COSTINGS, DEAR ELECTOR, DEAR ELECTOR”) meant you had any grasp of policy issues, let alone future trends.
Which it doesnt. Its the “feral abacus” theory of economic governance, and its moronic.
Danny, I too have been deeply puzzled by Labor’s persistent refusal to use Tanner as so many of us think he should be used. Ever since they first started talking about inserting Latham into the leadership I’ve been saying helplessly No no, you’ve got the wrong man, and am still saying it.
Can anyone who knows more than I do about the workings of the Party (ie almost anyone, but Liam would be good) enlighten me about why Tanner hasn’t been given a better run over the last ten years or so? Is this just factional crap, or is it something (even) more sinister?
It cos he’s from from the Left, the ALPs equivalent of the National party. They are kept around as they bring a consituency the main body of the party couldnt hold – and to coopt them into a wider project their consituents ideologically reject. And are then permanently marginalised and inffective in that major body.
It means he can only ever aspire to being Deputy PM.
Oh of course. Thanks, Lefty E. I have in fact had this patiently explained this to me a number of times, but I never want to believe it so I immediately forget it.
Well you know how when in extremis the body shuts done blood supply to the periphery in favour of the brain ( the selfish brain theory ), I reckon it’s like that. Lindsay is the Davros in the Dalek of the ALP, encased and surrounded by mechanical functionoids, which can be sacrificed and replaced while preserving continuity of essential cortical function.
BTW, If you’re reading this after a routine auto-google Lindsay, which I imagine all pollies do, or have someone do for them, don’t take the Davros comparaison the wrong way. And watch out for steps.
Sure Pav, not everyone takes ALP101 at Uni.
I did, and decided not to progress with the major.
PC, Tanner is Minister for Finance, a significant and senior position in Cabinet. I’m not sure it’s fair to say that he’s exactly “marginalised”—especially given the state of world finance. I’d go so far as to say that he’s Johnny on the spot.
Otherwise, yes it’s factional as Lefty E says. He’s in the Left, and though you should take Lefty’s comments on ideology with a big grain of Green salt, it’s broadly correct that his faction restricts his career path. The Left has a smaller pool of Ministries to which they can push their talent, and there are more-or-less formal conventions about the positions: Deputy Leader is the most he can hope for without repudiating his faction (as Gillard has managed to do on the quiet). Tanner has done relatively well for someone with so relatively few contacts in the union movement—though he was a State Secretary—and he doesn’t have the same kind of capital-M Machine that his comrades like Albanese and Faulkner do.
He’s going to have to perform rather well not to suffer whenever the next reshuffle occurs. To accomodate the “talent” emerging forward from Parliamentary secretariships, thinking in particular of Shorten, McKew, and Combet, there will have to be vacancies made. I know I’ve got my hitlist [cough] Marn [cough] Fitzgibbon [cough] Macklin [coughcough].
To an extent, Ambigulous: see the Your Rights At Work campaign of 2005-07. As for net-based, that awaits similar accessibility.
Danny – I think the better analogy would Dalek Kahn.
Lefty, that’s the wrong analogy. Some are inoculated, others, infected.
I quite concur (or con*cough*) with your hitlist, Liamista.
I should add I quite rate Tanner, and it bums me no less than it probably does you that he isnt Treas.
Mmmm, maybe. The big swaps I’d make on the Federal front-benches would be Ursula Stephens for Stephen Conroy in a NSW Right switcheroo, then McMullan for Macklin, and finally Debus for McClelland. I’d sack John Murphy, promote Tony Burke and find something—anything—for Plibersek in the senior Cabinet.
I should add that the more I hear about McKew as a Parliamentary Secretary, the more I rate her as a backbencher.
/meow
Yep, I’ve never thought he was actually marginalised. I just thought they were mad to elevate Latham over him as leader and then Swan over him as treasurer, but it’s always been obvious that they understand how good he is and have put him to use.
Liam’s mention of Gillard as an exception was also something I was wondering about, though. Her case has been complicated by her gender and her exceptional abilities, too.
As for your hit list: snap, snap, snap.
Ah, Julia Gillard. The exception to so many rules.
I’ve had heaps of time for Julia Gillard since I sent her an email in early 2002 or so, after drinking very heavily, berating her about her performance in Shadow Immigration. The next morning I re-read it, ashamed at the bare literacy I showed, questionable language I used and poor temper I displayed, and then was doubly ashamed when I received a short, sharp, well-argued email in reply, not from a staffer but from Gillard herself.
For that, I can even forgive being a member of the Left while voting with the National Right in Caucus.
I thought Fitzgibbon was doing ok.
And, Liam, I don’t see why you think Tanner would have anything to worry about in a reshuffle – he’s part of the inner circle, well and truly.
As to Swan, the main reason he got to keep the Treasury gig when Rudd took over was because it was essential that Rudd reached out to the Beazley supporters, and a rapprochement between Rudd and Swan was also vital in terms of getting the Labor team back together in Queensland (where Rudd’s support was very thin – because we know him best!)…
I still maintain that Swan is an underestimated politician. Strategically, he’s very good indeed, and I actually think that any reasonable assessment of his performance in Treasury should give him fair to good marks. He’s also a much better communicator than people seem to realise – he genuinely does “cut through” and has a knack for connecting with the electorate.
I should mention that I know him slightly. I also think he’s a genuinely decent person, and I’d challenge anyone who’s read both Swan and Tanner’s books to conclude otherwise than that Swan is to all intents and purposes to the left of Tanner. He is one of the few current Ministers with a genuine social democratic passion for social justice.
Again with the conspiracy theories, danny? Politics is a lot more straightforward and less Machiavellian than you think, as I’ve remarked to you before. And if you’re not happy with what “Australian blogdom” contributes, there’s nothing stopping you from joining it – I’m sure you’re aware of numerous free blogging platforms.
And on Julia – I met her way back in my own student politics days at a party in Carlton. I think a lot of the excitement I think we’re missing would have been ours had she been Leader. She’d be another PJK – but in a better way!
The main answer for the lack of excitement is compulsory voting, that’s probably why things are a bit bland. You don’t have to mobilise your base and whip them into a fervour.
It also probably helps that the US has a presidential system with primaries that allows this to occur but it’s more likely to go either way in something amazing happening or a total trainwreck.
Mark:
I agree entirely about Swan.
I am anxious for Tanner only as part of a greater pattern; pessimism of the intellect, etc.
My opinion of Fitzgibbon comes informed by my contacts separated by somewhat less than six degrees, and I am thus limited in how much I can write into a blog comment. Suffice it to say I’m not a fan.
FDB: You’re right… I looked it up and Davros is “a brilliant scientist who has demonstrated mastery of robotics, metallurgy, chemistry, artificial intelligence, cloning, genetic engineering, biology, physics, military tactics and cybernetics.” so he’s clearly hiding inside Kim Carr.
I think Tanner would make a better Treasurer than Swan. He always looks so uncomfortable when on the spot and usually delivers a foundering performance.
It may be to the ALP’s detriment if they don’t replace Swan with Tanner. If Turnbull makes Swan look like a fool to many times the Govt may risk it economic credibility.
Tanner can think on his feet, and has intelligence as well.
Kat, Swan’s often quite persuasive in interviews. I think there’s a bit of a media effects theory thing going on here – because there was so much blah about his poor performances early on, any slip up is magnified. As usual, there’s a huge double standard here. Julie Bishop made several comments on the weekend which indicated absolute ignorance of key aspects of the portfolio, but there are no “gotcha” leads on the news or in the headlines.
Mark @24, couldn’t agree more with your assessment of Swan. He has the occasional glitches, but his parliamentary performances have improved out of sight and I think he’s going from strength to strength as Laurie Oakes predicted he would. Forget being able to catch a ball on his nose which is Turnbull’s party trick, I know who I’d rather trust with the books.
Exactly, Jane.
I know I’m biased, but I can’t help thinking every time Malcolm pops up on tv he looks mightily self-satisfied. Combine that with the utter vacuity and opportunism that characterises just about everything he says, and I very much doubt the much vaunted “economic management” battle is going to be a two sided contest in the medium term.
I support the Chairman leaders thoughts on driving out the capitalist roaders!
I support Madam Gillard!
I support the Cabooltural revolution!
Wayne Swan/ Julie Bishop: One’s the Commonwealth’s Treasurer with real powers and responsibilities and the other’s an occasionally useful artifact of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy- of course there will be huge double standards.
And I’m not sure the ability to be “quite persuasive in interviews” is the essential skill/knowledge set most people would rate as #1 in selection criteria for being treasurer. PR hack maybe. The last thing we need is someone with the power to cloud better wo/men’s minds, throw them of their studied stroke as it were, quite possily for partisan motives: old habits die hard.
I’d wager a survey of what folks reckon the five accurate up-to date economic data graphs a treasurer should have at his mental finger tips at all times would include “teh interest rate”, and especially so considering it was the big local boogie man we were all supposed to worry about, Wayne’s self selected KPI, until a bigger overseas one was foisted on him.
That being said, it sounds like it was a case of of Wayne’s staff putting him in it, for the 5 raison d’erreur: “The Treasurer’s staff said that that was how it was done under the previous government”
What does it matter though, danny?
It’s completely irrelevant. In any other sphere of life, someone giving a lecture or a seminar or a presentation might need to refer to notes or a briefing book or whatever, and nobody would think any less of them. This is a completely trivial incident and the weight that is being placed on it is indicative of the poverty of political reporting and political culture in this country imho.
Right Mark, my point exactly above @ 11. Our political reporting is infantile. Its beyond and joke and something really must be done.
And I don’t dislike Swan either – he does seem to be a social democrat, and one of the few in the ALP who dares mention the word “class” these days.
Tanner’s a better performer, IMO – but whatevs. Hey, listen, here’s the ALP factions for ya: I know (and I assume Mark does too) a pair of identical twins in Brisbane. Both ALP: one in the left, one in the right (cant remember which Right faction).
Point of story: They have identical views on all political questions! The factions are often just vehicles.
Yep, and have been so since the late 80s – at the latest!
Ps – if we’re thinking about the same twins, they have identically right wing views! There’s a fair bit of that around in the Labor left.
Yep, thats them – and thats what I meant, both right wing. Though if anything, the guy in the right faction was marginally more progressive!
Agreed!
I think they’re both living in Melbs now btw.
Thanks for the tip-off! Will keep my head down round King St.
Liam at 3.33pm
Good example: “Your Rights At Work”, a very strong campaign with plenty of grass roots support.
I was in a packed-out pub for Rudd’s win and victory speech. The excitement built as it became clearer that Howard wasn’t sticking around, and the cheering and hugging exploded when the result was announced. When I left, people were literally dancing in the streets. It was an environment I had never before experienced.
Later, when Rudd read the apology, I bawled my eyes out. Many other Indigenous (and non-Indigenous) Australians did the same.
Not quite 50,000 strong, but something. A grain, perhaps, of that massive political excitement that seems to entrance us so!
In case any true believers have been distracted, the “Infamous Victory: Ben Chifley’s Battle For Coal” reconsruction is on on
Channel 2ABC 1Mark, my assessment of Swan is based solely on how he has come across to me when I have watched Question Time, or lengthy interviews with him.
He just seems uncomfortable. Tanner is usually witty and always appears relaxed. I am sure Swan is a nice guy, and may be very competent – but perception can be everything.
Regarding the so called ALP Left: This is why real left supporters abandoned the ALP long ago IMO.
They shafted the left, the unions, and now are dragging the chain on Climate Change. Eventually the wider electorate will forget how much worse the Lib/Nat Coalition were and vote them back in, especially if they promise to do more than the Govt. People may forget about non core promises.
I am inclined to think that if Howard hadn’t over reached with WorkChoices and continued to deny Climate Change he may still be in Govt. Though his ‘never had it so good’ rhetoric was clearly not appreciated by those who were doing it tough.
Personally I see the ALP as the lesser of two evils, but how long will the general public support them, especially if no real difference is achieved by the end of the second term? Or if Turnbull can make some of the mud he is constantly throwing stick?
Remember the general public are not as enthralled with politics as some here are.
Mark @32, we’re in lockstep. Turnbull seems to have been infected with that smug self-satisfaction which a certain late and unlamented (except by RWDBs)Treasurer had in spades. To paraphrase your comment, every time he opens his mouth ever more bullsh#t comes pouring out.
Pavlov’s Cat was right about Rudd’s apology “causing every person in the audience and the millions watching on the telly to feel a tingling sense of national pride and hope for their country”, but the question “Can you imagine…” would never have been asked about Whitlam, who I’m sure could imbue even a fart with enough wit, wisdom and eloquence to put a tingle in all listeners – still!
Yes, point, Dave. I was also thinking – as is my wont – about Keating’s own brand of excitement. No doubt because Whitlam and Keating are both perceived (wrongly for many reasons) as failures, we get compulsory white bread politics. Latham won’t have helped either!
I’d say, Kat, the ALP also faces some danger from disillusionment among those who’ve been friendly to it in the past.
I agree with Kat, Wayne Swan looks uncomfortable I’d go so far to say desperate in his interviews. Yet it was only a couple of years ago I was saying ‘hey this guy is making lots of sense!’ now he just kinda looks desperate. Tanner in contrast is relaxed, clear, concise and gives an excellent interview (though occasionally with a shade too much arrogance on Lateline sometimes).
While I’d say Swan’s inability to recall figures instantly is in reality no great loss I think it leads to a negative perception of him. Turnbull (his ego aside) seemed to be very well across his brief of Environment Minister I seem to remember him quoting very specific segments of reports on Lateline once or twice.
Perhaps he’s got a good memory? Lawyers often do! I’d repeat that an apparent command of difficult to recall detail doesn’t prove anything by itself if one can’t make a cogent argument.
I’d also remind people of Swan’s performance in opposition. While it may annoy political junkies, constant invocation of the theme about “prosperity beyond the mining boom” and his lines on issues such as interest rates shaped a lot of the public opinion which enabled Labor to win.
And is doing a deft interview the be all and end all of a Treasurer? The implication that Swan’s confidence in public appearances might be variable means that he is not performing in his portfolio is just wrong, and it’s only made because of the trite acceptance of political frames by the media which a moment’s reflection suggests are just silly. He doesn’t necessarily have to be out there as the “great communicator” to be a good Treasurer. Again, much of this harks back to Costello’s Keating imitation. I never heard anyone demand that John Dawkins and Ralph Willis wow anyone with their oratorical skills. But both were very clever men, and in Dawkins’ case, a fairly courageous pollie (not always to good effect, but still).
I’d also remind folks that for a while after Rudd was elected, a lot of his interviews were awful – some of what he was saying was almost unintelligble.
Speaking of noble labor failures, @44: So that’s how we got Menzies, according to Bob Ellis. Can it really be that Evatt suggested, and put it through, to make it illegal, a jailable offense, for anyone to offer so much as a tin of condensed milk to a striking miner? And can it be true that an Australian politician, of any stripe, would insist on doing what they believed was right, even though it was most likely to lose them power? If we’ve got whitebread now, that was hardtack.
Mark, re: your earlier scold: I couldn’t have put it better than your description, para 3 @ 24, for demonstrating non-straightforward and Machiavelli, at least enough for me. I’ll go with you about Wayne being skilled in the political arts, as communicator, strategist, but I just don’t reckon that qualifies him for treasurer, or that “fair to good marks” on the job is good enough, in that job, especially now, and especially if there’s real talent on the reserve bench. I don’t consider the job of Government/Treasurer to be like “any other sphere of life”, like you, very surprisingly, or rhetorically, seem to, to be judged by the same performance standards. I just think it’s important that they give folks and markets every reason, at every possible opportunity, to have confidence in their performance and that of their staff and protocols. Which lately the boys from Nambour and their staff ain’t. This is not Sunrise, or the Prince of Wales.
As to Joel, think about how Wayne, or Faulkner, or kev, in their best oppositional form, would have got onto the Gillian Marks scandal. Hells Bells, it gets Malcolm in it’s sights.
As to my musing whether a g20 blab type event would have got more leftish ozblog attention under Howard, I figured if it was ok to have a thread here on the subject “what future for the liberal/left blogosphere in the States in the event of an Obama win?” the same question could be reasonably asked of the situation here. I should have taken notice that thread only got half a dozen bites, and figured what that meant.
danny, I’ve also made the point before that reading too much into how many comments are on post x or y is fruitless. I can tell you from the site stats it got read by a lot more people than a lot of other posts. Whether people comment on it has to do with a lot of things – what time it’s posted at, what else is going on, how the thread develops, whether there’s contention about it, etc. It really is unreliable as an indicator of any level of interest or concern.
As to Swan, maybe there is an expectation that people in his role should have all their figures at their fingertips. But that only exists because of the stupid media and political games played. How much attention has been given to the significance of the inflation figure? Outside the Fin Review, none, I’d suggest. What’s happening with it and the policy settings immediately affect people’s lives. Whether Swan can remember a stack of figures has no such effect.
And as to his performance as Treasurer, with respect, how do you judge it? Have you been reading his speeches? The detail of legislation he’s introduced? What’s your view on the current approach to fiscal policy? All those are legitimate measures on which to judge.
I’m not singling you out here, I’m merely pointing out that too many opinions are formed on the basis of media trivialities.
But I will say that I’ve said I like the guy, and that may colour my opinion some. You obviously don’t, but you haven’t (as far as I can tell) admitted the same. Whatever you think he did as an ALP powerbroker might be shaping your view. Incidentally, I don’t know why you do think he was nefarious in ALP internal politics. Unless everyone who is a party officer and is in the AWU is by definition nefarious. Some are, some aren’t. Surely we realise by now that wearing a badge saying “left” or “right” or whatever in party politics doesn’t equal virtue or its lack on its own?
As to your question about the g20 thing, who knows what the answer is?
It’s an incident of stunning triviality. The fact that it turned up in The Australian after a dinner at which it allegedly occurred and Chris Mitchell was present should ring massive alarm bells.
Would people have discussed it if it had happened in Howard’s time? Well, if Howard was dissing Bush, I doubt that it would have made it into the right wing papers. So much for Rudd’s allegedly watertight control freakery and media management. Maybe people would have talked about if they cared to. Who knows? I don’t think I would have. It’s such an obviously pointless beatup, and wasting time on this nonsense debases public debate.
I’d also question whether you think “blogdom” (whatever that means, who comprises it?) has some sort of ethical injunction to discuss whatever crap is in the papers in some fearlessly neutral manner? I don’t know. The premises of your question seem quite confused to me. Blogs aren’t “papers of record” and nor are they impartial. That’s the whole point, surely. If the implication is that we go easy on Rudd or something, I think you’ll find lots of instances where we’ve been quite vehement in criticism on policy. And you might care to go back and look at what I’ve said about some of the things I think are politically highly problematic about his public persona and values. And on good grounds. Failing to pick up and run idiotic media talking points is a virtue rather than the opposite.
Ps – not trying to be snarky, btw. I’m genuinely not understanding what the premise of your question is. And sorry if I do sound snarky – I’ve got a throat infection and I’m in a bit of mood so I should sign off the intertubes!
Kat @45:
They have also been, at both state and federal levels and across several decades, consistently clueless about women, whom they persist in regarding as handy if anomalous figures to whom to hand the poisoned chalices, and I have absolutely no illusions about Rudd in this regard and never did. Keating’s early-90s ambitions for women in parliament look hilarious now, in a bitter kind of way. Show me a past or present Labor politician who genuinely regards women as equals and/or who even remotely gets feminism (and I am talking about what that word really means, not the bogeyword for scaring children that it has so successfully been turned into) and I will show you someone called Joan or Julia or Carmel or Kate.
Many left-wing women who have gone elsewhere would come back to Labor like a shot if only the latter could demonstrate that they understand what century we’re in.
Agreed on all counts Pavlov’s Cat. Personally I could imagine Julia as our first female PM, but would be disappointed if she sold out completely to the right to do this. IMO there appears to be a swing back from the right emerging and Julia may be in the right place at the right time to do great things.
I am more than happy for Kevin to trot off o/s as this gives Julia great opportunity to shine.
I see an unholy parliament of coal-eating surrender monkeys (business and some unions) attacked Garret for his “controversial” statement of the bleeding obvious: that the economy is a subset of the environment.