As Kim observed in a recent post, the big story on Kevin Rudd’s recent BBC appearance as far as the Australian media was concerned was why he wanted to sit next to UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband rather than the Chinese ambassador. The substance of Rudd’s comments, as far as I can see (and I’m open to correction), wasn’t reported at all. It’s interesting to read Tony Blair’s former advisor and spinmeister Alastair Campbell writing in Crikey today on why Rudd created a bit of a buzz in London.
I think Kevin Rudd’s success on Sunday came from being rooted in a culture in which, though politicians will always be wary of media and vice versa, he is still able to see an interview as a place to make a series of big strategic points, not as a dull contest in which to secure a no-score draw is viewed as something close to triumph by the politicians, failure by the broadcasters, and plain dull by the public.
Let’s come back to that one.
I think Campbell has put his finger on something here:
…the gentle but firm pushing back on Marr’s opening question, which allowed Rudd to take control of the interview pretty much from then on in; and the explanation that just because the London Summit would not achieve everything did not mean it should be dismissed for achieving nothing.
Part of Rudd’s success as a communicator does, I think, come from delivering a modest and realistic message which runs counter to the normal all or nothing media perspective.
But while I have a fair degree of respect for Campbell, after reading his Diaries, I’m not at all sure the broader assessment of a contrast between political and media styles between us and the UK is accurate. Campbell’s perspective may be coloured by his own distaste for the UK tabloids and his particular beef with the Beeb. But there is no doubt that Kevin Rudd is an excellent political communicator, and it would be worthwhile in my view if analysis of his skills in this arena went beyond the observation that he knows how to repeat a soundbite.
Do you really thInk Rudd’s an excellent poltical communicator?
His style and delivery are dull as dishwater and while this doesn’t detract from the substance of what he says I’d like a bit more of the mongrel to come out of him. A bit more of the occasional rhetorical flourish not the dopey sing song rhythm he slips into once the sentence is longer than 10 words.
At least he seems to have stopped answering his own questions.
Still I like that one UK tabloid described him as a boot wearing hick who is most famous for visiting a strip joint when blind drunk.
murph the surf. Your point is a good one. Rudd is the worst political speaker I have heard in a long time. But mate, compared to Gorden Brown, Rudd sounds like Barack Obama. Brown is fair dinkum awful. You should hear the British Conservative leader David Cameron piss all over him in Primeministers Questions. .
Oh Jebus, I had been hoping that was all in my cranky old imagination.
Rudd’s job isn’t to be as agressive as the last three Labor PMs could be. Just as the job of those three PMs wasn’t to appeal primarily to the Australian working class.
Political realities change, new ways are found of doing old things. Hence KRudd is the new ALP ‘saviour’, and someone like Gillard will be the next one…
mark says:
Undoubtedly Rudd has mastered the Obama trick of dialing down the volume in order to avoid provoking outrage to both his Right and Left.
But he appears to be nothing but a communicator or facilitator for a gigantic, endless Truman Show-like 2020 conference on governance. Like Chauncey Gardiner he is just “being there” on message all the time, uttering his profound banalities to suit the audience and the times.
[STROCCHI VINDICATION ALERT]
This pretty much confirms my original prediction made both before and after the election, that Rudd is a managerial conservative in political style, and a Howard-me-too in policy substance:
I expect that Rudd-ALP will continue to play it softly-softly for most of the rest of his first term. But I am not so sure about his second term.
The evidence is mounting up that the ALP Natural Party of Government (or more accurately, L/NP “Natural Party of Opposition” theory has legs. It is highly likely that Rudd-ALP will win a resounding victory at the next federal election.
This gives Rudd some psephological breathing room to tack to the Left and suck up some GREEN votes whilst not risking losing votes to the “Browns”. So I am predicting a Rudd-ALP income tax tax-hike and carbon price/tax hike some time…in the middle-term [makes vague hand-waving gesture].
I assume that government policy will shift according to standard median voter theory of partisan alignment. A condition of this is that populist civil society (churches, unions, community groups,) exerts strong pressure on the parliamentary ALP. Othewise machine-operating political elites will just suit themselves.
OTOH, if Rudd-ALP does not shift to the Left then this strenghthens the neo-Marxist theory of policy formation. Political elites chose the path of least resistance between:
Median voter theory of partisan alignment can be consistent with neo-Marxist theory of policy formation. It all depends on the state of the class struggle, comrade.
I don’t know how you guys think Rudd ever got to 74% approval. It’s not all about speech making and soaring rhetoric, obviously. Rudd’s managed to build a lot of public support for his preferred approach and left the opposition floundering. This doesn’t happen by accident.
Keating’s rhetoric may have inspired political junkies, but leaving popularity aside, he was unable to build public support for what he wanted to do and where he wanted to take the country.
You are right Kim and Mark that Rudd is a very effective (so far) political communicator and that rhetorical flourish (and evocative speechmaking) and effective communication are quite different things. Sometimes I think that we in Australia forget that our most successful politicians (arguably unlike those in the US) have been those that have eschewed the theatrics.
I guess the residual concern with Rudd is whether he will use that effectiveness to do much of lasting significance in the area of public policy. I think the jury is out on that. Indeed there may even be some tension between high approval ratings and achieving significant policy reforms in that the latter often requires political capital to be spent.
Keating was never able to take the population with him and indeed was at his most effective when paired with Hawke (who the electorate could relate more closely with). However, for all his pomposity, Keating can still look back on his time in politics and feel satisfied that without him a number of significant, lasting reforms would never have taken place (though some on LP might not like some of those reforms).
I hope Rudd, Gillard and Swan can do the same in 10 years time….
I think there might be something in his describing it as the result of talking in a less aggressive environment, but I don’t think it has to do so much with national differences in journalistic culture. I think it may have alot to do with Sunrise where he go most of his early TV appearences.
Since Sunrise’s producers didn’t want to turn off people before their coffee with negative emotion, aggression etc., they never inclined their hosts to be aggressive. This was the same desires that made most of the show inane, but it seems in politics (combined with the deliberate choice of affable politicians like Rudd and Hockey) it seems to have been no more (or even less) inane than aggressive journalism.
That said, who else interviews pollies in longer form on TV here? Red Kezza, Laurie Oakes and Paul Bongiorno….
Maybe there is something in the fact its called “Meet the Press” rather than “The Paul Bongiorno Show”. Maybe the lack of aggression with those three comes from some kind of understanding that it’s not about them.
Anyway, I also can’t join in the mourning for the “death of public speaking”. It’s the opiate of the political junkies and a relic of the days when politics was the reserve of barristers; people trained in sophistry through debating competitions at school.
Everyone else only wants government that seems competent and says what they’re doing quickly enough for everyone to get on with more important things.
oh, and I want to tell all the pundits and junkies that what they call “good parliamentary performance” is “snide arrogant cockery” to everyone else in voter land. Just because it entertains you after a few hours of watching procedure doesn’t mean it impresses the people who are spending their time more productively
Kim your allegiance to the cause is almost as solid as Comrade Liam’s.
The popularity of Rudd may be due to all manner of things apart from his speech making and media appearances – handling the response to the GFC with quiet competence gets my respect for example.
As there is no real alternative to the Rudd government I’m not convinced his high poll ratings have any relationship to his effectiveness as a communicator.
If you put most of your audience to sleep or they switch off but feel comforted that you aren’t Mr Howard or perceived to be talking down to the audience it may get good popularity ratings while most of the general populace accepts they don’t have a clue what you are rabbiting on about .
Ms Gillard is an effective parliamentary operator but her media performances also tend to be dull and repetitive. Constantly scoring points off your floundering opponents may be pleasant but doesn’t mean you are communicating well.
You might appear to be commanding and your opponents aften add to your appeal by responding to you in ill considered or petty ways – the whole issue about Ms Liu/ chinese influence is a poor reflection on the opposition and must only confirm in many observer’s minds how out of touch the opposition is at the moment.
And good to see you back at LP OL. I was wondering about your absence recently -explaining to us why the recession we are having isn’t really a recession and why every decision the current goverment makes is always the right one.
Rather like a stock broker’s recommendations really.
murph the surf, I’m no particular fan of Kevin’s.
And your argument that there’s some sort of default nature to Rudd’s popularity fails to explain how he got to be PM in the first place. Overturning an entrenched incumbent is no easy thing. Communicating effectively has to be a big part of that.
That is a bit unfair Murph – there are a lot of instances where I have criticised government policy, and will continue to do so. And my views on the recession were always more nuanced than you are making out. I never said that a recession could be ruled out. Indeed, I said there was a lot of uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook, which there still is because the full impact of the recent monetary and fiscal stimulus has still to come through and we don’t know what effect it will have. What I did argue was that there are good reasons to believe that the recession will be shallower in Australia than in the US, UK and continential Europe. The OECD is currently projecting that GDP will decline by over 4% in Europe in 2009, and not much less in the US. The projections for Japan are considerably worse. As you are no doubt aware, house prices and housing activity have actually stabilised in the first part of the year, so despite what the Keen’s of the world think, there is yet no sign of a collapse in house prices that has been observed in some other countries. So, I’m of the view that the recession in Australia will be milder then elsewhere, though it will still have terrible social consequences of course. And of course I may well be wrong on all these counts.
As for general government policy, yes I was of the view that the government’s CPRS wasn’t perfect but that it was a reasonable compromise given the economic circumstances and the polarised views on the issue. As for other government policies, there are a great deal I do not like. I don’t like the first homeowners grant for existing dwellings, I don’t like the government guarantees on lending to commerical property, I don’t like the continual subsidisation of our automotive industry, I don’t think the education revolution is a revolution at all, our health care system still stinks and it isn’t clear that Rudd’s new federalism will do much to fix it, I think the Henry review of taxation doesn’t have a comprehensive enough terms of reference given the large long-term fiscal gap that is opening up, I think the retirement age should be increased and that the superannuation arrangements are inequitable.
Is that enough for you? Sometimes on LP I just try and offer some arguments to try and balance out some of the more extreme views of other posters. But you shouldn’t confuse that for a blind defence of the government’s policies.
Murph, I can’t speak for Labor Outsider, but I think you’ve got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to analysing the response of fed government insiders (sorry LO) to the economic downturn. In pure leadership terms they’re embracing the crisis, because they have something that looks a helluva lot like a popular mandate to do so. This isn’t a `recession, wot recession?’ mob we currently have in power.
Anyway, on PM they said that the OECD has declared that Australia’s stimulus package has been the most effective in the developed world. There’s one reason Labor is so confident.
In the mid-1980s an Aussie who had lived in London for 15 years explained to me how PM Thatcher had developed a new approach to participating in TV interviews. Regardless of the content of the questions, she would stick to her script and deliver her several points. The interviews were never conversations. He said that eventually most of the prominent UK pollies had followed her (Saatchi trained) example.
In those days the Aust and UK political cultures differed I think.
Couldn’t help noticing the assured, debonair, literate Ministers (UK) as contrasted with the footy-barracking rabble in Canberra’s Question Time. But the Oxbridge-educated Ministers were represented by the best of their quips or thoughtful interviews conducted by Oxbridge-educated reporters. It was a different world.
Since then, of course, Westminster has sunk; Canberra has reached its pinnacle as the Athens of the South.
Nickws, I can’t remember who said it, but I think there’s some validity to the analysis that Labor was somewhat adrift before the GFC came along.
I’d also point out that Labor framed the issues very successfully in the lead up to 07. Nor is the Nelson/Turnbull story necessarily all of their own making. In other circumstances, Turnbull could be quite an appealling opposition leader. That he is not is as much the work of Kevin Rudd and Labor’s political skills as the Liberal party’s own travails (and the two things are self-reinforcing).
I also agree with the distinction between Hawke as a political communicator and Keating.
The first time I heard Rudd speak, I was on the edge of my seat.
When he finished, I turned to the person next to me and said what a great speech it was.
The guy looked at me a bit funnily and said he’d found it boring.
That took me aback, and then I realised: what had caught and held my attention was the fact that Rudd was educating his audience. He didn’t just announce policy initiatives, he explained the thinking that lead to them. He didn’t speak in cliches about what was ‘Australian’ ‘unAustralian’ etc but treated his audience as intelligent people who would understand the complexities.
Now I absolutely love that, but I understand that others find it boring.
Oh dear, Ambi, I’d hate to think this is as good as it gets!
Mark, I think that at the heart of today’s narrative here and abroad is the simple, but appealing, idea that all of this the fault of the former POTUS.
Of course Bush isn’t 100% responsible (maybe 65%? Who knows) but it is a great opportunity for Labor to successfully avoid ‘owning’ the reasons for this downturn the way Keating ‘owned’ the recession we had to have. (Being a mere 18-month-old ministry helps.)
I’m actually not sure that’s there, Nickws, except perhaps subliminally. I think that “financial markets” and their responsibility for the world crisis and politicians have relatively been disconnected in the public mind.
So I reckon Brown is onto something with the theme that markets should serve us rather than the other way around.
Yup, that’s always been my impression too. I like it.
hes a bloody good liar and conman and communicates well with suckers like us