George H. W. Bush was famously incapable of projecting what he termed “the vision thing” in his unsuccessful campaign for re-election in 1992, but at least he knew what he needed to, but couldn’t, do.
I noted the other day that Dennis Shanahan was something of a barometer for the current state of the ‘political narrative’. I should have remembered that an even better one, whose often indecipherable columns frequently seem to be pure stream of consciousness, is Malcolm Colless.
Writing today in The Australian, he seems to think he is delivering some sort of killer punch:
Returning from Copenhagen, where he failed to make any ground, Rudd calmly began unveiling a whole series of new visionary canvases depicting future challenges around issues such as health services, population growth and the need for greater productivity to support an ageing community.
One thing that impressed me about Rudd on Q&A last night was that he quite rightly conveyed the message that the government, any government, can’t fix everything. That’s surely just truth, but Tony Jones response in the interchange on the alcopops tax and the drinking age showed the media reflex where the government is expected to have solved every problem yesterday in spades – “But then they’re just drinking something else”. As Rudd pointed out, the stats actually show a fall in alcohol consumption in younger demographics, but apparently that’s immaterial if a policy measure which has some impact doesn’t act as if it’s a magic wand?
What, exactly, is wrong with debating what sort of infrastructure, skills and services are needed for a growing population now? If you stop to think about it outside the drum beat of the political narrative, it’s a hard question to answer.
Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election, in part, because he could articulate a longer term vision. John Howard didn’t have one for even a single term, let alone one for the nation. What sort of Australia would Tony Abbott like to shape? We simply don’t know, if we were to go on his current public statements. His timescale is the eternal now, the cost of milk, today’s political opportunity, a soundbite from question time. Lost in the endless stream of applause for his being “pugilistic”, “authentic”, “interesting”, etc. is any debate about what he might actually do as Prime Minister, let alone any public debate on what are urgent questions which we must address as a nation.
Sure, Rudd can be criticised for raising expectations about a quick fix to the health system. But why are so many so critical when he actually does have to negotiate his way through a complex policy domain with multiple stakeholders? What would Tony Abbott’s “decisive” or “direct action” on health actually imply? Do any of the commentators even stop to think about what the answer might be?
Surely Mark the whole essence of conservatism is a belief in the desirability of incremental evolutionary change? Conservatives dismiss the whole vision thing as an impossible project which will inevitably create more unanticipated problems than benefits. It follows that their vision of the future is framed in terms of moral virtues and values. It’s not one that calls for government programs.
Of course Abbott and company aren’t true conservatives and so their platform tends to be somewhat opportunistic and incoherent. But at bottom I think their idea of the state’s role is simply to preserve existing patterns of privilege and power in society. Any other measures they say they support are reactive responses to perceived electoral necessities.
I’m not so sure about that, Ken. Conservatives normally want to articulate what they want to conserve – so we did have a ‘vision’ from John Howard – “relaxed and comfortable”, blah blah. And as Abbott ought to know, ideology doesn’t tend to win many elections in Australia. He knows he needs to dent the image and standing of the government. But that can get a lot more dented than it is now, and they could still survive on the risk/unknown factor. In other words, if he were able to persuade a majority that the country is “on the wrong track”, in polling terms, he’d still need to paint some sort of picture of what the country on the right track would look like.
That’s even before we get to the less electorally focused point that if he is serious about government, it really does behove him to have some sort of considered opinion on some of the most important questions facing the country!
That vision, as presented, was to do everything exactly the same as John Howard, while not actually being John Howard. Nothing more.
He’s kept his promise to not be John Howard, but that’s about as far as the vision went.
Don’t get me wrong Mark, the last thing I want to do is defend Abbott’s mob and obviously he was a desperation choice by his colleagues. My point was that creating a vision for CHANGE comes hard to the Coalition – well for most politicians these days, I suspect – most of whom are very happy with things the way they are. At least Labor has the remnants of a social justice agenda to draw on, but the other side haven’t got anything much except their self-declared expertise in management and administration (which of course is pretty funny, given most of them have never managed so much as a corner store).
Craig, I would totally buy your reasoning there if it wasn’t for things like the apology, ratifying Kyoto, the immediate changes made to mandatory detention, and the proposal of a state-owned broadband network – just to name a few issues where Rudd has differed very sharply indeed from Howard.
I’m not saying Rudd’s perfect, or indeed some kind of opposite to Howard in each and every respect. But he clearly – however incrementally – has a very different vision of Australia’s direction and, more importantly for me at any rate, the motivation of why we would want to move there.
I’ll take a guess and say one where girls remain virgins until heterosexual marriage, and then become good little housewives doing the ironing and bearing children.
I think a lot of people can see the vision of the current lot.
“Putting greenies, workers, foreigners and woman back in their place.”
My Grandfather hated the ALP and was a bolted on Lib supporter. He’d be spinning in his grave if he was unfortunate enough to know about this mob.
I’m not sure your median punter in 2007 wanted much that was new.
To the extent they wanted change, they wanted something old — notably an end to WorkChoices. In a formal sense Rudd was the conservative.
Mostly, the Coalition lost its credibility in the mind of your marginal punter as a government capable of administering a polity of aspirational prosperity. Your marginal punter didn’t buy the Coalition’s assertion that Labor would make more difficult the task of servicing of a mountain of personal debt.
Indeed, WorkChoices tended to magnify the threat of that debt.
The Libs were held hostage to Howard’s reputation and the Coalition were victims of their success in transforming a mining boom windfall into a wild, debt-driven consumer boom.
So far, Rudd and Swann have been very good at engineering a soft landing for the Australian economy and its debt-stressed punters.
I think that they are through the worst of it. However, ETS threatens to derail the gravy train and is looming as an electoral liability for Labor.
You forgot WorkChoices, but policies are not visions. None of these were big enough to qualify as nation changers.
Also I don’t think the ALP’s policy on immigration was any different to the coalition’s – 2001 was a lesson they didn’t need again. Of course they’ve reneged on it since, but that’s not what they presented to the electorate.
“None of these were big enough to qualify as nation changers.”
No, I guess not. If you are in charge of the deeming nothing would ever make the grade.
And now for whatever landing will be engineered for debt-stressed Australian governments. Hopefully it’s softer than the PIIGS’ will be. Anyone can avoid an immediate recession with a long enough line of credit. Now comes the repayment pain.
“Anyone can avoid an immediate recession with a long enough line of credit.”
And you don’t have idiots, coming from the side, blind enough not to realise that confidence means everything when lining up the borrowings.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/09/2814351.htm?section=australia
Has it escaped your notice that even on the bleakest forecast, by world standards the Australian government is in need of only a very short line of credit?
Surely Barnaby must get the chop after todays effort. Opposition is one thing, but economic sabotage is well beyond the brief.
Mark: “Do any of the commentators even stop to think about what the answer might be?”
Was discussing this very point with better half in the car last night. In particular, the points that we have an aging population, declining productivity, increasing healthcare costs, and increasing pension liabilities for retirees who are not self-funded.
This is not really our area of expertise, either of us, but even we could see it is a sizable future problem. It is not obvious that the government or the would-be government have any really viable answers.
Not intending to be brutal, but a rapidly increasing proportion of retirees who aren’t contributing income tax, and need pensions, and need increasing healthcare, and may need many times the current number of nursing homes and palliative care, will be a financial drag on the system. Since they are watching pennies, many/most retirees will also not be buying new cars, appliances, furniture etc, and thus are not major contributors to the retail sector.
In the past, there was an unwritten understanding that each generation looked after the previous one, via taxes that went into pensions and health support. Our parents paid taxes to support the grandparents, and we in turn supported them in their old age. That was the original deal. Unfortunately the whole thing seemed to depend on a Ponzi scheme of having more children than zero population growth would dictate, in order to have a sustainable ratio of taxable workforce to retirees.
We have now buggered up that Ponzi scheme by reducing the population growth. So now our generation may have to support the parents AND support ourselves.
When you look at the median age for the different countries (e.g. The Economist “Pocket World in Figures”) those with older median ages have lower productivity growth and lower GDP growth figures. Aussies aren’t the oldest cohort, but we are getting up there. It would seem that countries with a higher proportion of retirees to taxable workers would be likely to be less productive and have a smaller GDP growth. That is indeed what the figures seem to indicate.
So, how to keep the system going? Firstly we could try to get the Ponzi scheme running again by calling for a Big Australia – asking people to have more kids, and importing more young immigrants. Of course, family reunion policies mean that they may bring grandparents and aunties and uncles with them. Thus you have a relatively inefficient increase in taxable population. We have a limit to the rate of importation before we get social cohesion problems, as Rudd/Swan have publicly acknowledged.
Alternatively, exhorting Aussies to have more kids (Costellos, 1 for mum, one for dad and one for Oz) may eventually work in terms of taxable population and maintaining the Ponzi scheme. However, this means a relentlessly increasing population with the attendant pressures on infrastructure, water, power, carbon footprint, housing, etc.
We could just continue the Ponzi scheme and hope for the best…???
Alternatively, we could increase the taxes, whether by GST, ETS, or whatever other clever scheme. The burden might exceed the tolerance levels of the taxable population, once all the baby boomers retire? The Gen-Y’s and subsequent cohorts may not feel for continuing the old unwritten formula? They seem to be rather free spirits, who prefer to stay at home and be supported themselves, while they party-on for a couple of decades. Perhaps they may not be overly keen on hard graft (heavy taxation) to support the oldies, simply because there are not enough of them to go around?
The only one left, from our car trip musing, was increasing the productivity of the workforce, which gives more tax dollars from companies and individuals. Well, duh, the data for other countries suggests that increasing median age goes with declining productivity increases. Nevertheless, this concept seems like the most promising lever to pull, but not sure how?
Unskilled migration may increase the working population but may not contribute to productivity increases, and they may actually need a lot of support to get going. Changing the mix to more skilled migration will help. Useful but not sufficient.
Agrarian paternalistic populations can increase productivity by: increasing mechanisation on the farm, economy of scale, migration to the cities for manufacturing jobs, increased industrialisation, adding skilled females to the workforce, increasing manhours, delaying retirement age, etc. China is doing that now. The asian tigers did it before them. We did it ages ago.
What else is there?
High value-add industries! Australia doesn’t know how to do this trick yet.
We really, really need to look at how to value-add, and whether there are new sectors with productivity potential. All the other options seem relatively poor alternatives, in view of the size of the challenge.
We’re drifting off thread, but $170B+ isn’t “only a very short line of credit”. How many budget surpluses does that represent? And, no, it doesn’t make me feel better to compare ourselves to fiscal basket cases around the world.
To get back on topic, I think Rudd’s only vision is a world where all celebrities accept Krudd as one of their own, everyone agrees he is the most popular boy at school, and grand monuments will be dedicated to officious functionaries. Hoping beyond that is a recipe for disappointment.
All well and good, Craig, but by that standard you can’t argue anything Howard did was a nation-changer – and he had 11 years to do it in. Rudd’s early days.
Nation-changing in the sense you imply would – I argue – largely be anathema to the electorate. I can only think of Whitlam in the last 40-odd years, and look what happened to that govt.
no craigmc, a recipe for disappointment is the application of your nasty little line of invective to political analysis. You think the apology and ratifying kyoto are “policies” not visions? Ditching workchoices is about a vision of how Australians should work, not just a policy – and every vision needs a policy to back it up. Your view of this is just resentful sniping, nothing more.
I guess you must have been the bully at school, right? Because that would explain your frothing at the mouth at the thought of a nerdy guy like Rudd being popular with the electorate. What else could explain the kind of small-minded petty viciousness in your last comment?
Our public debt is insignificant at around 15% of GDP. Our capacity to pay the debt is excellent. And the public sector being in deficit during a global recession is nothing to be ashamed of. I know it makes conservatives feel all hairy-chested having a surplus for the sake of it, but it is NOT good policy.
Check the CIA’s public sector debt rankings here.
Our overall net foreign debt, though, is significant at around 60% of GDP and is overwhelmingly in private hands. This doubled during Howard’s term in office.
The old are averse to change. And typically conservative.
The old are typically wiser than the young
Errrhmm,Peter @ 20. I must take exception to that comment, this old sheila is only adverse to change that is not for the better.
And now with the prospect of this years election I have to say that changing to the Opposition is not going to be a change for the better if the rantings of the mad monk and his cohort of loonies is any indication of their idea for our future.
For all that I feel disappointment with the current Govt. the alternative as being narrated by abbott is truly scary.
Perhaps Howard was aiming for a greater sense of self reliance and entrepreneurship across the nation – we’ll need to wait for his memoirs to get his side of it. Otherwise I don’t disagree, but I was only differing with Mark’s hypothesis, that Rudd was elected partly for his long-term vision.
Agreed (that must be a first, eh?). The brochure always looks good until you see the fine print. See Hope & Change for another example.
we’d have to wait for his memoirs? The man strutted the national stage for 11 years enacting policies to suit his vision and we have to wait for his book to guess what it was? I’m sure you were equally forgiving with Keating…
Whatever happened to that 20/20 thingy that Rudd organised shortly after theb election? Just a photo opportunity with Cate?
Has anyone actually done a stocktake of the actions that came from that?
Only if you’re an “intellectual” conservative – an Oakeshottian. But this is a conservatism of means, not ends; of journey, not destination.
You might look at it this way. Suppose I told you that I believed the ultimate goal I seek is only to be achieved through incremental, stepwise changes that can be explained and sold to the public in small pieces. That these changes will be allowed to settle in and become accepted political wisdom before I push for the next change.
If I am at a Labor conference, I will be called a Fabian. If I am at a Liberal conference, I will be called an Oakeshottian (or alternatively, a tedious wanker).
Incidentally, the labels of “Conservative” and “Progressive” aren’t very meaningful. Both are trying to push changes toward a fantasy world — the first to a world that never really existed, the other to a world that never will.
signed, Kevin’s Mother.
“Sure, Rudd can be criticised for raising expectations about a quick fix to the health system. But why are so many so critical when he actually does have to negotiate his way through a complex policy domain with multiple stakeholders? What would Tony Abbott’s “decisive” or “direct action” on health actually imply? Do any of the commentators even stop to think about what the answer might be?”
I think the concern Mark is that Rudd’s attention span seems to be short. He seems to set out multiple visions (climate change as moral challenge, education revolution, evils of neoliberalism, ending the blame game, etc) without developing a clear path to meeting that vision. It is of course true that implementation is difficult when there are multiple stakeholders and the government does not control the Senate, but I think the problem runs deeper than that. When policies are unveiled they are sometimes worthwhile, sometimes not, but almost always fall short of the vision that he set out at the beginning of the process.
As I’ve said before, assuming the government wins the next election, the second term is going to be critical for determining whether Rudd is remembered as a good PM or not. His visions need to be translated into concrete, worthwhile reforms. We don’t need another caretaker that says the right things (a la most state premiers) without matching words with deeds. We need a guenuine leader that isn’t afraid to spend some political capital on policies that we can believe he actually cares something about.
haha, just like every good bully, Craig invokes the image of the nerd hiding behind mummy’s apron strings.
Is it really so hard for you to offer an honest appraisal of the work of someone you don’t agree with?
When old-aged pensions were introduced, not that many people actually turned 65. Those who did were usually poor. Small population + poverty + relatively cheap welfare program = everyone feeling fairly pleased.
Now of course almost everyone born in the last – what – 50 years will reach that magic 65. Suddenly this is not a small budget item.
It also does not help that in the same period other welfare programs have expanded similarly, though for different reasons. In the 50s all welfare recipients of any kind were supported by approximately 20 employed men each (not being sexist, but it was the 50s). Nowadays the ratio is closer to 5:1 and worsening.
Peters @ 20 and 21, I’m reasonably old (nearly 60), and I’m not even slightly conservative. I embrace change (for the better), and I reckon I’m wiser than some (but not all) young people. (Of course, I’m of the generation that invented sex, drugs and rock’n'roll … )
I think you’re both wrong, frankly.
I find myself in partial agreement with Craig Mc.
I disagree about his wish-fulfilling fantasy about Howard. And how could you believe what he writes in his memoirs in any case?
But on Rudd CMc gestures towards the truth. Rudd’s vision thing was the necessary counterfeit of a vision that was ritualistically necessary for the liturgy of democratic politics.
And as I suggested above, the punters may have demanded Rudd’s liturgy, but the marginal voter probably didn’t want Rudd’s vision prayers to be answered.
So, no sincere vision and no genuine faith — a political shadow-play.
Yes, rather flippant. Greed is generally the barrier to change, not age. Still, it makes you wonder when Rudd wants to raise the drinking age to 21 – just feels like a classic “I know better” line from the “adults”.
Kevin Rudd;s challenge (and hopefully not “the greatest moral challenge of our time”) is not to be a kind of Peter Beattie on the national stage, or worse, a Bob Carr. I mean, i quite liked Peter Beattie, but he was definitely a huckster who kept squibbing big challenges, aided and abetted by persistently weak oppositiom.
Back on the debt question, what the Australian government has in total debt is racked up each year by the countries that are in trouble, like Greece. There is no comparison.
Sg, maybe knock it down a notch in accordance with the comments policy – we can disagree with each other without the invective, surely?
Indeed, LO, this exactly the thing that worries me. I also agree with your point that the second term will be critical for Rudd, what with the current senate arrangements. I hope we see the Rudd who signed Kyoto, acted on the GFC etc rather than the Rudd who produced a flawed CPRS, rumbles about health to no effect and commissioned the 20/20 conference.
Peter, I can remember when the drinking age came down from 21. Too late to do me any good, I was just lucky not to have got busted for under-age drinking.
Frankly, it wouldn’t be too bad an idea to raise it again, but (to use a cliche) you can’t put the genie back into the bottle.
Seems Abbott’s vision is some kind of economic nightmare as foretold by that highly innaccurate National Party psychic, Barnaby Joyce. Just goes to show, you can’t believe everything people foretell?
btw, given his immensely irresponsible statements to day, can Joyce be charged under Howard’s sedition laws and be locked away somewhere. You know, the Howard vision thing on how to deal with your political enemies or people who are unAustralian?
@28 – LO, I largely agree with that.
Rudd actually has a reasonable story for not having achieved much in the way of big picture reform:
(a) GFC got in the way;
(b) Need to be cautious in the first term;
(c) Lack of plausible Senate majority/Liberal obstructionism, etc.
In addition, I think a lot of people underestimate the real difficulties of changing very entrenched structures. Abbott might preach “decisive action”, but if the Feds took over health tomorrow, nothing much would be different (and it’s just risible to suggest devolving management of hospitals to local boards would magic away the management/coordination/skills/costs issues); not to mention that rhetorical pronouncements were actually placeholders for “decisive action” under Howard.
How could you ‘fix’ health without compromising? It’s just a nonsense. Blundering in and kicking heads and taking over hospitals? Look at that Tasmanian example… Similarly, a lot of the attacks on the ‘Closing The Gap’ stuff are misguided. Sending in troops and pronouncing an ‘intervention’ didn’t bring about some instant transformation in Indigenous welfare, and op/eds won’t ‘end dependency’ etc etc.
Is the Murray/Darling system ‘fixed’ after Howard announced it would be out of the blue in early 2007 and committed 10 billion odd to it…
Similarly, the Howard government’s own ‘education revolution’ (phonics! national curriculum! no more postmodernists!) largely came to nothing, and was always going to, because they didn’t have the will to do the hard yards of policy work, and actually getting the people who have to implement it to do so, but preferred leaking to The Australian and organising supportive Quadrant articles, etc.
Anyone who’s actually had to work on policy in a real world context knows how limited and difficult change actually is.
I don’t disagree with you, though, that a bit more focus from Rudd would be good. But I would rather like people to compare his government’s performance to the Howard government’s, and to realistic measures, rather than have the sort of silly journalistic perspective I criticised in the post – as if it was all so easy.
It’s also worth mentioning that we didn’t end up with the nation Keating envisaged us being… and he was hardly afraid of ‘decisive action’ or pissing people off. I suspect the Keating government is as much of a counter-example to Rudd as Whitlam was to Hawke.
All this stuff needs to be put in perspective.
sorry patrickg, but I think the best counter to playground attempts at psychoanalysing politicians is to apply the same methods to the commenter…
I get a general impression that Rudd is a bit of a disappointment, but this doesn’t mean he has no vision, just that he’s cautious and/or timid about enacting it. It’s worth bearing in mind that this is pretty much the promise that he took to the election – that he had ideals (about Indigenous issues and AGW, for example) but would advance them cautiously, bringing the public along instead of riding over them. This seems to be pretty much what he did.
It’S pretty funny to imagine howardistas complaining that he has no vision when, for example, one of their first criticisms of an apology to Aborigines is that it’s not practical – i.e. it has too much vision and not enough policy.
It’s remarkable how quickly the goalposts have shifted! Just a few years ago people were decrying the constant ideological conflict, Rudd offered to tone it down and now we have complaints he lacks vision…
“But I would rather like people to compare his government’s performance to the Howard government’s, and to realistic measures, rather than have the sort of silly journalistic perspective I criticised in the post – as if it was all so easy.”
No, it isn’t easy. But again, one of the ways in which we judge leaders is to ask ourselves who managed to achieve great things despite the inevitable difficulties and obstacles that come with governing a complex modern democracy. You also have to remember that Rudd has set himself up for the criticism in a way by over-promising. Nobody forced him to call his education reforms a revolution. Nobody forced him to say that climate change was the great moral challenge of our times. Nobody forced him to write an essay on the perils of free markets and neoliberalism. Nobody forced him to promise evidence based policy.
Look, I worked for the guy. I understand the difficulties of his position. I also understand that some of the criticisms in the MSM are unfair.
But I also understand the flaws in his approach to governing. If his rhetoric had been scaled back to match the progress he expected to make, he would probably be criticised less than he is. If he gave up trying to be all things to all people he would probably be respected more. Surely we can judge him for not meeting the standards he set for himself? Surely we can hope for more than just a moderate improvement from the previous government?
So far, I have been disappointed.
I don’t think we’re too far apart, LO.
Anybody able to tell me what Rudd’s number one, highest priority is for his government? Because I haven’t been able to keep up.
“Anybody able to tell me what Rudd’s number one, highest priority is for his government?”
I suggest it’s ‘don’t let the Liberal party find stable ground’. How has Mark described it? ‘The accumulation of political capital for its own sake’?
d
“we’ll need to wait for his memoirs to get his side of it”
So you’re naive and gullible as well as inept at presenting an argument (not to mention a very poor tipper of US election results).
sg @ 40, you’re right. Things have changed dramatically since 2007. Quite apart from the GFC and an obstructionist Senate getting in the way of progress remember that Rudd is a process man. Wasn’t the Opposition deriding his scores of reviews and consultative committees in 2008 as all talk and no action? Reports from same are in, have gone beyond green papers to white and the legislative process seems to have been applied to many second and third tier issues quite apart from big ticket items like dumping the Pacific Solution and Work Choices.
Just think of the consultative work done by Gillard and her team in rationalising awards and setting up the Fair Work arbitration system. It wasn’t just a slash and burn job on Work Choices. There was restructuring at both state and federal levels. If Rudd needs to take over the hospitals as he promised he will seek a mandate for it at the election and then set about what he sees as necessary and due process of consultation on how best to administer a federal system.
sg also wrote “I get a general impression that Rudd is a bit of a disappointment.”
It might be more accurate to say that many people are feeling disappointed. The problem for Rudd, as on a different scale for Obama, is not that he has broken promises but many people’s unrealistic expectations have not been met and they feel that promises have been broken. Add to that the unscrupulous and dishonest sloganeering of the Opposition about broken promises and untrustworthiness and you get that pervasive feeling of disappointment inflated further by the MSM.
What an ungrateful lot we must seem to Rudd. It’s astonishing how he maintains his cool as he did the other evening with those petulant adolescents having a go at him for being so untrustworthy and breaking so many promises! He defended his record quite well though and I thought his vision for Australia as he expressed it to them was pretty solid too. A sound economy, jobs, good infrastructure, health and education system and the rest will be up to us. A bit like a good mum and dad, really. Here, we’ve fed and clothed you, straightened your teeth and educated you. Now, off you go and have a good life!
And it is already not half bad!
PS DI(nr) please stop talking yourself into premature old age. Fifty-nine is not reasonably old. It is still reasonably young!
‘Perhaps Howard was aiming for a greater sense of self reliance and entrepreneurship across the nation – we’ll need to wait for his memoirs to get his side of it.’
CraigMc @ 23 there’s no need to wait; Howard is on record years ago as wanting Australia to become like the USA, with every worker a little entrepreneurial risk-taker. To my knowledge he never explained why he thought this was a good thing; he seemed to become infatuated with the USA following September 11 2001 and has been an uncritical admirer of the Bush/Cheney version of America ever since.
Must admit I never understood what this Vision thing is about.
Governments have to manage immigration, education, environment, economy, health etc. Each of those core responsibilities comes with a vision or direction inherent in the political stance of the party in power. Who has time for an off-topic Vision?
And who’s asking them for one? What would be an eg of a Vision that anybody would vote for? And how would said vision be legislated?
Wbb – vision should be thought of as more of a narrative or theme that connects the different elements of a government’s agenda. Something that helps voters to understand how the party wants to shape the future through institutional and policy changes and why their vision deserves the voters’ support.
@Jacques
There is something in that idea, but there is still an essential difference in one very important aspect of personality – the Openness To Experience axis. “Conservatives” tend towards the rejection of any acknowledgement of cultural diversity in defence of social stability, “progressives” tend to embrace such diversity in the hopes of social improvement. At the extremes, one looks at anarchy and chaos “out there” and wants to create a fortress against it, the other looks at a toxic rigidity “in here” and wants to lance the boil. Most people are not at either extreme, but those extremes skew the narrative and provide a framework within which the Overton Window shifts.
LO, can you provide an example of a PM who has displayed more of the vision thing than Rudd and how they got their vision across to the voters?
Er, Whitlam? Chifley? Curtin? Perhaps even Menzies?
By using radio and newsreels in the case of the latter three, and TV ads etc in the case of Whitlam. (Menzies didn’t come over well on TV.)
In my opinion, governments shouldn’t get obsessed with the vision thing.
Keep the economy plugging away, neither too quickly or too slowly, and work to fix the bigger problems as they arise.
Keep away from thinking about “vision” and “our legacy”.
Vision? Well, Tony’s a re-visionist. Judging by yesterday’s performance in his party room he’s a revivalist too!
As someone whose specialisation is in environmental policy and politics, I am constantly reminded of the extremely limited understanding which political journalists have of the environmental policy problems which underscore those environmental issues which become politically noteworthy. I don’t think it’s drawing too long a bow to say that whilst it is perhaps most obvious in relation to environmental policy problems, this limited understanding on the part of political journos extends to many other complex public policy problems and what governments can reasonably be expected to do about them.
tigtog — good point about personality types. So perhaps we need three parts to the model: ends (the policy goal), means (how to achieve the goal) and drive (the deep-seated psychology that shaped the goal).
Or is that drive actually the ends?
Paul Norton @ 55 Isn’t that what Rudd has to offer though, an understanding of the complexity of public policy problems and the political nous to tackle them? It astonishes me that he is holding up so well in the polls with the MSM interested only in headlines and their next story rather than the slow and steady progress which marks real reform. The tortoise and the hare come to mind.
@53
Why do assume that keeping the economy plugging away and having a vision are mutually exclusive?
I think the “vision” obsession distracts governments from doing what they are good at, which is keeping the country moving and not stuffing up.
When governments start thinking about a “vision” for Australia, it firstly assumes that Australia is broken, which it ain’t, and that is needs some grand, overarching theme where right overcomes wrong and Australia is reborn into a new Golden Age.
Governments should recognise what they can and cannot do, and operate accordingly.
1975? Since 1975, Labor has been terrified of having a vision. (Floating the dollar etc., ain’t a vision.) And did anyone ever expect the modern Liberal Party to have a vision – well, I suppose a return to the White Australia policy is a vision of sorts – but I mean a real vision? I certainly didn’t.
@59
If you define vision as having a longer than medium term set of goals then it would seem to be impossible to run anything without it. The development of the North West of Western Australia would never have proceeded if incremental change wasn’t given some initial impetus by someone having some motivation to want to develop it. I don’t think you scheme is valid in the real world.
I don’t think your assumption that all vision is premised on the notion that something is broken and must be fixed is valid either. I’d say you’re showing your bias.
I thought Abbott was a vision, or do I mean a sight, yesterday in lycra? It’s irresistable……
Tony’s a revisionist
A revivalist to boot.
He’s revving up the Liberals
With every photo shoot.
I really don’t like lycra.
Fluro green just makes me puke.
The election is for PM not a biker.
Margie! Time to press that business suit!
Why did Whitlam have vision? But Rudd only has policy? It’s a nonsense distinction.
Whitlam
Education Revolution
Fixing health
Ending White Australia
Getting out of Vietnam
etc
Rudd
Education Revolution
Fixing health
Ending Temporory Protection Visas
Getting out of Iraq
National Apology
Signing Kyoto
Tackling Climate Change
Ending Workchoices
etc
PatriciaWA @54: “Judging by yesterday’s performance in his party room he’s a revivalist too!”
Someone said Abbott was channelling Obama, with “Yes we can…”
Perhaps he was really channelling Tomas the Tank Engine, with “I think I can, I think I can…”?
wbb @ 63,
)
I see your point. But does Rudd inspire you the way Whitlam did/does. Not me he don’t. (Maybe Ratty weren’t in lon enough?
“One thing that impressed me about Rudd on Q&A last night was that he quite rightly conveyed the message that the government, any government, can’t fix everything.”
Indeed Mark.
BTW, don’t ya just luv how this media empire mob are Libertarians & intense “big government bad!” scrutineeers and free traders, free marketeers one moment…
and pro-big government when handing out rebates to prop up the private sector and pro-expensive wars the next?
Opportunism.
N’
Paul Burns @65: “But does Rudd inspire you…”
To put a positive spin on Rudd’s efforts, perhaps it is the uninspiring effect of steady, cumulative growth types of investment, versus gambling or speculative investment on a long shot?
Financial research has suggested that speculative investors always do worse in the long run, compared with more conservative investors who use a Buffett style of investment strategy relying on cumulative growth.
The speculators probably have a more exciting life, with thrills and spills to keep their adrenaline running on overdrive. It is vastly less “inspiring” to patiently tend something which is growing cumulatively with smaller, more reliable increments!
Like patiently growing a garden from small plants, versus a landscaping company charging like the Light Brigade to install fully-grown specimens. Da Da!! All done in one fell swoop. We’d like Rudd to deliver us the latter…
I agree about the inspirational thing, Paul Burns.
But the times are different.
Politics is too finely balanced now. Both parties contest the middle ground because they know that’s what it takes to win power.
In Whitlam’s day, it was a stark choice – and the ALP rode a seachange in public opinion – a change that because it was uncharacteristically rapid and exuberant quickly proved unstable and things quickly settled back to the middle again.
Rudd does not want the ALP to enjoy a quick flirtation with an over-excited public – he wants to groom a serious monogamous relationship with us. Dull but steady.
It’s the only way to fly now.
Well, I wouldn’t want to show bias – absolutely no one does that here.
Maybe I’m just getting caught up in the language, but to me vision is inextricably connected with legacy, and that is for ego and nothing else.
If we need to develop a part of the country, or commence a huge infrastructure program, then let’s decide on what to do, and get to doing it.
I’ve advocated on my blog for the complete replacement of level-crossings. That’s pretty “visionary”, but I’d rather see it as good policy that will help traffic on both public and private transport.
But what we get in Victoria is slick advertising. It’s all part of the plan (vision).
Rudd is a christian administrator, a moralistic regulator….”middle ground” and “that’s what it takes to win”…i don’t see any middle i just see a monumental shift from the middle to the right since the 1980s…there is no longer a “middle”.
Hence, IMHO, those who dismiss Abott as a wingnut miss the point – he stands a really good chance in my view, as he’ll re-pull rightist issues as far further right as he can….the odinary bloke with a vision for ‘stralia that’s common sense driven and roots out the elitist mamby pamby pinkos..verses…an administrator.
A social democratic vision and and a strong, honest stand from the actual left of the ALP (not Rudds pretend left) would challenge and re-invigoarate Australian politics. But methinks thats 20 years away at least.
PatriciaWA@62 reports on the vision in lycra. Thanks for that, it reminded me of something I had forgotten – that group in the Liberals who thought of themselves as the BSD’s (big swinging dicks) who would roll the then leader. Well the leader got rolled but Mr.Rabbit’s appearances in speedos and yesterday in lycra clearly showed that he was not one of the BSD’s but apparently one of the LHD’s (little hanging dicks).
Howard Cunningham,
Replace all level crossings??? They’re a most potent force for raising the average IQ of the population.
Stablizing climate change requires vision and as we can all clearly see, it’s a huge coalition fail.
wbb @ 68 – great metaphor! Rudd as the groom wanting to have a “serious monogamous relationship with us” and by contrast you see Abbott as the flirt. Or perhaps the seducer who will have his fling and leave us holding the baby?
I think that was actually “the little red engine who might”, Elise.
Patricia WA@74, trouble is, before Tone comes any where near me, I feel used.
I’m with Barnaby when it comes to Abbott, Patricia WA.
It’s not a sexual relationship at all, we believe.
Howard C said:
Hmmm … not visionary as I understand the term, but supportable. Let’s put them under the rails with at least 4.4 m clearance.
I’d argue that Whitlam moved the middle measurably leftward. He brought about large and until now irreversible reforms. The Libs were forced to concede that a new consensus had formed.
The Libs have nibbled away at the Whitlam Settlement ever since but large parts of it remain intact.
WBB is correct about the relationship between the leaders and the led in the matter of reform. It is suicidal for governments to far exceed the wishes or expectations of the marginal voter.
Yet, the ALP is supposed to be the party of reform. Rudd has compensated for that contradiction by ramping up reformist rhetoric. Only the committed minority get angry. The rest know that Rudd isn’t being serious, only earnest.
Ah yes, el oso @ 71, how could we have forgotten them so soon?
Julie’s nice, she’s coaching me
In politics from A to Zee
She is Tony’s Deputy
He told her “Help our Barnaby”
I’ve got an accountancy degree
So I understand about LSD
That used to be our currency
But what’s does she mean by BSD’s?
I’ve swotted up the GFC
Learned all about bank guarantees
So why must I sit quietly
To stop LSDs and BSDs uniting to get rid of me?
I agree, Katz. But emphasise that the left-movement Whitlam’s legacied is in change to the political infrastructure – rather than in the minds of the people themselves.
Medicare exists. That is a great left achievement but will forever be vulnerable to right erosion as the middle voter bounces around the center.
And if Medicare didn’t exist, it would today be an almighty political task to get it up. The minds of the people are happy with stuff that exists – whether it is right or left. They probably sit on the center-right when it comes to new reforms.
Maybe Vision is simply when you manage to move political change at a greater rate than normal. (Hard to do and it’s not playing the percentages.)
Katz, you’ve lead me to argue myself into stating that Whitlam had vision, now!
Yes WBB, it is an interesting historical question whether Whitlam thought that he and his government were effecting permanent and significant change in the consciousness of the Australian people.
Did Whitlam think that he was presiding over the creation of a new natural majority, or did he care less about that than striving to pilot major reform through the political process regardless of the electoral consequences.
I recall eating in a restaurant in downtown Melbourne in 1974. At the next table was Peter Willensky, at the time one of Whitlam’s top mandarins. As we eavesdropped furiously Willensky was regaling his lunch companion with the thesis that he considered the Australian people ripe for a major cultural revolution.
Did Willensky really believe this? Did Whitlam ever believe it?
I know that in 1974 I didn’t believe it.
It is one of those occasions that one regrets being correct.
Eric said “A social democratic vision and and a strong, honest stand from the actual left of the ALP (not Rudds pretend left) would challenge and re-invigoarate Australian politics. But methinks thats 20 years away at least.”
Er…. that would be the Greens Eric. The ALP can’t afford to get distracted by the social democratic vision thing and remain electable.
Andrew…don’t be silly..the greens are not left..they are green. They often pretend to be left, clearly they’ve got you fooled.