Today’s Question Time saw some interesting tactics from the government; suspending standing orders to allow Tony Abbott to talk about health and hospitals policy. I’d be interested to hear from anyone who saw the debate, but from what I heard on the tv, it looked like Abbott was mostly in bluster mode, and Rudd quite assured. Clearly Labor believes that Abbott wants to talk about anything but health, and that his lack of command of the detail, and lack of any substantive alternative policy will work to the ALP’s credit.
So, the debate Rudd challenged him to on Tuesday will be interesting. It’ll also keep the media focus squarely where the government wants it to be for the next little while.
Elsewhere: Bernard Keane.
Elsewhere: Tigtog at Hoyden.
Update: The commentariat seems to be impressed by Abbott’s performance. By way of example, Samantha Maiden:
But the egg ended up all over Labor’s face as the Opposition Leader rose to the challenge, hurling abuse at Kevin Rudd.
Righteo, then.
Update: Bernard Keane in Crikey today:
If Abbott could spend Tuesday’s debate repeating yesterday’s dose and bagging the Government and explaining that he didn’t cut health funding, it’d be fine, but there’s now an expectation he must do more than criticise Rudd, that he must offer something positive. It obviously wasn’t in the Coalition’s planning to be producing a full-blown health policy at this stage. Rudd himself will presumably use the debate to make yet another of the many announcements about health funding that he promised back when he kicked off the health debate. If so, Abbott’s failure to produce something of substance will look particularly poor.
All of which is why, despite the alleged risks of debating your opponent, Rudd is happy to be doing just that.
Elsewhere: Bernard Keane.
Abbott’s performance during his 10-minutes of fame seemed to me dangerously close to unhinged. Neck veins enlarged, red-faced, mouth agape, voice cracking and apoplexed. He’s a very, very angry man.
Chris Uhlmann’s commentary on the 7.30 Report was that “The Leader of the Opposition spoke very well…”. Uhlmann is a one-man conga line of suckholes.
Indeed, Merc. Abbott certainly seems to have some anger issues, as well as displaying more than a bit of attention-seeking behaviour. Perhaps the parallels to Latham are quite apt.
Abbotts self congratulatory stance that imploded in his face is indicative of the tactics he will employ, tell the lie and force the Govt. to reveal the truth.Not sure if this will work, fact is, he really is a nutter, and no amount of Uhlmann wishing and hoping will change anything.
Very good political tactics by the government, but not surprising that Rudd’s speech would be much better as his would have been prepared and Abbott’s off the cuff. Though it probably wasn’t the best topic to have sprung on Abbott given his previous experience in that portfolio.
I’m not sure continuing references to Latham will in the long term be that helpful to the Labor party either – it also reminds the public that Labor has its own set of loonies who get to be party leaders.
Abbott just walked into a sucker punch that Rudd’s probably had lined up for a couple of weeks. At least.
What’s the betting Rudd will be astonishingly well-briefed?
Mercurius, you mean Abbott simply is not a sound bite, dry, spin oriented controlled politician. We can’t have that. I say the left should protest this unacceptable display of speaking without controlled spin. Anger? No. Not acceptable. Don’t get angry about the injustices in the world. Join the ALP and become a boring careerist who will do and say anything for power. Let the likes of Rudd, Gillard and Wong reduce politics even further to a controlled show without substance. And watch the pacified left applaud as they say and do nothing.
Abbott used his time to go back over an already well-trodden path: defending his patch on whether he had or hadn’t ripped out $1bn from the Health budget under his 4 or 5 year stewardship; retrospectively claiming the points for establishing a cancer clinic and a PET scanner in North Sydney; peppering his rant with a dash of the tried and tested home insulation ‘debacle’ whilst attempting to undermine Rudd’s ability to manage the Health reforms. That was it.
Mark’s earlier topic citing Abbott as carrying the can with very little established, credible policy is exactly right: Abbott was left wanting with policy-substance that could go some way to answering Rudd’s question as to whether he supports the Government’s proposals or not. Hitherto, he’s been silent.
That was the motive behind Albanese’s move: bring Abbott to the Dispatch box and get him sparring on proper policy.
Agreed Mercurius @ 2: Uhlmann’s got the blinkers on.
Spana, you’re quite correct about Abbott not being controlled. (I’m aware I’m cherry-picking, btw, but I don’t care.)
My assessment of Abbott is “unhinged”.
Indeed, David.
I’d prefer someone with the capacity to restrain their anger as a political leader! There’s a difference between passion in a just cause and aggro bullying and blustering.
All this nonsense about being “authentic” ignores what Abbott authentically is – as far as I can see – extremely self-satisfied, and desirous of imposing his agenda on everyone else.
Mark, it’s obvious to me that Abbott hasn’t read Sun Tzu, and Rudd has. (I’ve read somewhere that Rudd has a vile temper, but I’ve not seen any evidence of it.)
“Don’t get angry about the injustices in the world”
Don’t know what your problem is Spana, but a five year old could comprehend the fact that Abbott couldn’t give a stuff about ‘the injustices of the world’, unless injustice includes the fact that JWH and the coalition were defeated in 2007.
Chris @ 5, I’m not so sure the motion was pre-planned.
I seem to recall Abbott – I think in response to Tanner’s incessant citing of the 2003/04 Budget Paper – stating of his own accord that he was happy to talk about Health in order to repudiate the “$1bn claims”.
Albanese then stepped up and moved the motion: it was then game on.
Rudd then put the head down, prepped his notes, and locked horms with Roxon; hence the gibe by Abbott to “get your head out of your notes”.
“Agreed Mercurius @ 2: Uhlmann’s got the blinkers on.”
Maybe Chris Uhlmann went to the same seminary as Tony? Whatever, they share a very similar history and a loathing of Rudd and it shows.
Adrian, my problem is not with the criticisms of Abbott but with him being attacked for things that are not important. He is attacked for being angry. So what. The left cheers when angry speakers endorse their cause. He is attacked for being Catholic. So what. Rudd is religious too and would agree with much of what Abbott thinks on social issues. He is attacked for being self satisfied yet Keating is embraced, despite being the master of smug self satisfaction. The left need to attack policies, not personal characteristics. We will never like what all of our opponents or friends characteristics for that matter. That is humanity. Attacking policy requires intellect. Taking cheap shots is pointless, except if you are into personal politics
But the irony is, Spana, that most of Abbott’s criticism of Rudd is highly personalised (as is your comment about him), and very far from being a critique on the merits or penetrating policy analysis.
Judge Spana: “This Caucus has been pacified”.
Quick sidebar: yes Abbott doesn’t want to talk about Health, but they’re on the ropes economically as well. Swan delivered a couple of combinations to Hockey and Joyce going into the Autumn break which basically has them on the canvas.
“They should call it the Tony Abbott Cancer Centre” (of a clinic established in Darwin from federal funds when he was minister.
Says it all, really.
I think even Chris Uhlmann thought that was a bit off.
Rob @ 13 – I don’t think Albanese would have made such a major decision without prior consultation. Most likely the plan was to try to goad Abbott into make such a declaration and it happens that today they caught him. As was pointed out in the 7:30 report its something the Howard government tried on Rudd when he was in opposition.
Question time is pretty much just theatre and I’d guess there is a lot of planning put into daily tactics and longer term strategies.
patrickg @19… he really said that?
I can’t believe this is possible. Not because I don’t think Abbot is a prat, but because it’s so far outside of the political playbook it’s … just … brain … exploding…
Not just that, sg, there was another health facility in North Sydney (I think) that he wanted named after him. The clip was shown on the 7.30 Report.
Bernard Banton, if he were alive, would not be surprised sg.
Tone, had an empathy bi-pass long ago.
I was just watching Julia Gillard’s face as Abbott was ranting. Interesting…
Yes, remind me, how did Abbott’s major initiative in health policy reform (aka ‘that hospital in Devonport’) go?
*Snort*
let’s face it, you wouldn’t *exactly* call him a policy man, would ya. Or, if Costello is to be believed, an economic management man either.
So – what does he bring to the table again, exactly, Libs?
a budgie!
Mark @ 10 “extremely self-satisfied, and desirous of imposing his agenda on everyone else.” – Krudd to a T.
Bike riding!
I thought lefties loved bike riding.
@25 – Yes, Mark? And? What did you see, for the benefit of the DVR-impaired among us?
Grogsgamut provides a detailed run down of that, more interesting than most, Question Time.
http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/2010/03/on-qt-lets-talk-about-health-baby-lets.html
And do tell Mark. I imagine a bit of eye rolling. What else?
Nothing like Virginia Trioli on Barnaby, but a similar sentiment, I imagine.
(irresistable blast from the past)
Abbott fell back to his standard tactic of accusing others of doing something he did.
On a radio interview he had a go at Rudd for apparently sledging him in parliament and how terrible and demeaning this was, whilst all the while it was Abbott who had been sledging.
I remember when he was in government, the ABC Lateline debates where he would launch into a malicious accusatory attack against the Labor opponent and not a minute later accuse the Labor opponent of carrying out the “terrible” accusatory attack he had just carried out.
Abbott often contradicts himself and makes claims against others for things he himself does, sometimes within the same sentence, and this is either a very narrow selective memory problem or a deliberate tactic he employs. This was on full show in parliament question time yesterday and afterwards.
Spana, you make excellent points, but you are wasting your time. This blog does blind political partisanship and name-calling. It doesn’t do policy, and as for evidence-based policy, yuck, what’s that?
Speaking of name calling , I particularly liked the commenter on the previous thread who claimed in outraged tones that “Tony Abbott referring to Rudd as a bully is the kind of tactic you’d expect from the type of right-wing Howard & Karl Rove & Alex Hawke mindset you get in the Liberal party today.” Five comments earlier in the thread this person had him/herself called Abbott a “serial bully”.
This blog doesn’t do irony either, of course.
From Proof Hansard, 18 March 2010:
Mr ABBOTT:
‘What a fraud! What a phoney! What a complete fake this Prime Minister is! What a disgrace to the great office of the prime ministership of this country this man is.’
‘I suppose we cannot expect anything remotely approaching magnanimity or graciousness from this Prime Minister…’
‘Not for nothing was he known as Dr Death when he was in Queensland.’
‘Because this Prime Minister is a man who is slippery with the truth…’
‘The Premiers know that they cannot trust this man….and if his own Labor Premiers do not trust him, why should I trust him and why should the Australian people trust him?’
So Spana, your advice to TEH LEFT is “do as I say, not as I do”? How like a family-values conservative.
There is no doubt that Abbott is Latham.
Engage mouth before putting brain in gear? Tick.
Vile temper? Tick
Easily baited? Tick
Macho bully boy persona? Tick
Little wonder he has a problem with women (possibly excepting the bogans fans of mixed martial arts.)
The government will recall how effortlessly Roxon goaded him into swearing at their debate during the last election campaign. Tone is now in the spotlight every day. It will be the proverbial shooting fish in a barrel, as it proved with Latham.
Of course the comparison with Larham is not perfect. Latham was genuinely interested in policy, was not a social reactionary, and had a genuine empathy for people who live in the suburbs, being one himself.
Wozza disconnected from reality attacks this blog for apparently being disconnected from reality, and accuses it of not doing irony.
What a strange fantasy land they live in.
Interesting that some media report thought well of Abbott’s performance. The SBS news reported ‘The ex-boxer landed some punches’.
As a matter of interest, Chris Uhlmann was Paul Osbourne’s chief political advisor.
Osbourne was of course the far right-wing religious zealot who served in the ACT legislative assembly. Uhlmann himself unsuccessfully ran on Osbourne’s ticket, and was indeed once in the seminary.
Uhlmann’s position as ABC’s chief political correspondent makes a mockery of claims by wingnuts that the ABC is one great big lefty conspiracy. By the way, I don’t think that Uhlmann generally does a bad job at all.
That was certainly the ‘Latho moment’.
I do, but I’m also mildly suspicious of anyone who’s never seen on a bike except in lycra.
I think we should refrain from criticising Abbott over his passion.
As reasonable lefties we should also refrain from comparing him to Latham.
If he is being unreasonable I am sure the media will point it out in due course.
BTW Chris Uhlman is regularly criticised for being too lefty and being too light on Rudd. Which isn’t how I see it but loads of others see it that way.
It is all lies. Mr Abbott does not have a problem with women if they know and keep their place. I have been trying to place what Mr. Abbott reminds me of when he walks and his back view during yesterday’s so called debate. He reminds me of a strutting monkey
BTW I tihnk some of us need the rules reiterated.
Left winger leader shouting and getting passionate. A thug swinging out randomly. Bat shit insane. A threat.
Right winger leader doing the same. Forceful. Passionate. Fighting back.
If Abbott were to break sone hippie teachers arm in the next week the media would award him a medal.
I predict in the next two weeks a cartoon of boxer Abbott delivering a one-two combination to a weedy Rudd.
Because Aussies love a winner.
They love an underdog.
But above all…we love a bully. As long as they aren’t a nerd.
tssk said:
Strawfigure … we don’t criticise him for his passion. We criticise him for being a bozo who fails to think stuff through before uttering it, and as a result puts forward things that are either unworkable, retrograde, ignorant, specious or offensive (and sometimes all the preceding). If he simply said, for example, “I’d really like it if there were strong support for parental leave and am determined to get it” few here would criticise that.
On the other hand being passionate about doing nothing serious about climate change is retrograde and dangerous, especially when in less passionate moments he paid lipservice to supporting the (admittedly do little government) scheme on a purely political damage control basis. Lying that it is a “great big new tax” and then calling his levy not a tax marks him out as thinking his target audience is stupid. being passionate about deriding Aboriginality or homosexuality is offensive.
Why? He bears many of the same flaws. He’s arrogant, narcissistic, makes policy on the run, is a populist, mistakes fawning media for useful commentary … and will crash and burn.
The comparison is apt
“Right winger leader doing the same. Forceful. Passionate. Fighting back.”
You forgot “authentic”
Irony, Fran, irony.
@31 and 33 – amused and bemused!
Abbott isn’t passionate,he’s a zealot. Big big difference.
(OT comment, apologies)
Sam @37, one crucial difference between Latham and Abbott is that Latham and Labor were leading in the polls almost until election day. Abbott doesn’t have that cushion.
Latham’s family man reading to kids’ act (it wasn’t entirely an “act”, either – he was, dare I say, passionate about it) also got far more traction in the electorate than has Abbott’s paternal advice to his family (also not an act).
Another contrast: In personal beliefs, as I recall Latham is/was avowedly atheist or at least confirmed agnostic, in contrast to Abbott’s avowed religiousity, and when pressed in certain “in-depth” interviews Latham strenously avoided being pinned down about his personal faith (or absence of it) so as not to make religion an issue in the campaign.
None of this mattered in the end of course. Latham’s temprament sadly proved too brittle by half to handle the brutal nature of the highest-stakes politics, and Howard mastered him after an initial scare and after looking quite rattled 6 months out from the poll.
But perhaps some other parallels are more apt. Labor turned to Latham in desperation, by the narrowest of margins in a leadership ballot, no doubt some of them holding their nose at the personality flaws that they knew lurked beneath the surface, but trying desperately to rally from polling lows and get behind a last-throw-of-the-dice leader one year out from a poll.
In another parellel, many voters warmed initially to what they saw as Latham’s cut-through, plain-speaking, tell-it-like-it-is style (including a past history of salty language, which he publicly jettisoned once confirmed as ALP leader) in contrast to the grey monotone of Howard.
And throughout 2004, if memory serves, ALP two-party support squeezed out the Libs most of the time, although Latham’s personal support was far shakier, Howard won the ‘beauty contest’ preferred-PM polls much more consistently, and Latham’s personal support was more explicitly polarised along partisan lines. Is history repeating itself, this time for the conservatives?
But back to health…
Update: The commentariat seems to be impressed by Abbott’s performance. By way of example, Samantha Maiden:
Righteo, then.
Elsewhere: Tigtog at Hoyden.
Abbott’s been picking a fight with Rudd since he finished 3rd to win the Liberal leadership gold medal. Says it all really.
I notice the affect on the froth-at-the-mouth rightards is to, well have them frothing at the mouth. This is the Liberals “base”. Such a lovely bunch!
Abbott, Australia’s own Ahmadinejad.
Is it possible to see a replay of yesterdays Q.T. somehow? Sadly I missed it.
To be fair to Uhlmann, his positive coments abbott what Abbott said were around the important questions he raised which the Govt hasn’t answered yet, not the bluster. He also made it clear that Abbott had fallen for a trap set by the Government.
Abbott himself looked appalling. That’s not passion, it’s just blind yelling. Dunno if it got as much commercial coverage but it looked as bad as “that handshake” to me. Rudd could have been slightly less smug in response though, he looked just a little too pleased with himself.
Update: Bernard Keane in Crikey today:
Of course Rudd looked pleased with himself, josh. Abbott’s just fallen into a pit that was dug for him months ago … in a while, he’ll notice there are a few sharpened stakes sticking through him, and he’ll start writhing.
I belong to the Alan Ramsey school of thought when it comes to Mark Latham, that is he may have had some personal flaws (who hasn’t), but he was real, he had ideas and he was a plain speaker. Because of this, I find the backhanded swipes at Mark Latham that come from “Heavy Kevie” and members of his gang such as A. Albanese somewhat distasteful, particularly when they come with the protection of parliamentary privilege.
It would be interested to know why the pack go after Latham; but appear to be careful only do so with the cover of parliamentary privilege. Julia Gillard, on the 7:30 Report last night, was given the opporunity to take a free kick outside parliament, but opted for the “we’ve moved on ,Kerry” defence.
Wood Duck, I reckon the govt is only bringing up Latham again to enrage Abbott (and the rest of his front bench).
Only in the land of Oz? Or are all humans this collectively stupid everywhere?
Teh “Health Debate”
Is really actually about two polititions and their party political minions, in the media and elsewhere, beating up, down or around the other.
The sniping, often spiteful and ad hominen nature of so-called ‘debate’ in public fora generally in Australia could be mildly entertaining as a dark satire (except the bits where a spana-pot rants about kettles and black, when tedium kicks in). If we didn’t have to actually endure it all the time, or rely on the outcomes, or non-outcomes, of it.
Though the idea that the future of Australian hospitals and public beliefs, ideas and expectations around healthcare could rest on such an event, is too ridiculous to take seriously.
‘Politics’ appears closer to the three ring circus than ever; roll up, roll up, roll up for the fight tent eh. Winner takes all, including the punters and their money for a ride. That’ll sort everything and everybody out…
@joe2 at 33. From Grog’s Gamut’s further reporting, like a fox watching the chickens it would seem…a devastating performance.
Also a great read . Thanks for the alert ewe2@62. I have never seen anybody get into detail of Q.T. or Hansard like that before and actually make it interesting. Good onya Grog and don’t go away.
Our local Victorian 7.30 Report Statewide was taking a few pot shots at the education roll out, with the flimsiest of evidence, last night- they could find one report of cost blowouts in Victoria and a mother unhappy that child’s special school had been relocated.
Too bad the Julia blowtorch is not wide enough to burn the national broadcasters, liberal inspired, beat ups as well.
And this is the thing. Last night watching the media the only snippet I could see of the parliamentary blowup was Abbott talking about Rudd’s bullying.
Rudd might be playing the higher ground but the average Joe ain’t seeing it.
I see all, tssk.
You do Joe2. But for me the disconnect I get from this reminds me of the worst of the Howard years. I’m convinced now that Abbott could punch Rudd in the face and the media would report it as “Bully Rudd attacks Abbott’s delicate hands with repeated headbutts.”
They can try, tssk, but attempting to portray Rudd as the bully and Tone as Mr Innocent is doomed to failure. It’s a media and liberal game that does not wash.
Abbott projects all of his own nastiest characteristics onto others but it comes through loud and clear that he is just talking about himself.
I stand corrected. Not all attacks on Mark Latham are made under parliametary privilege.
I just watched Lateline (recorded from last night) and saw that outrageous self-promoter Paul Howes from the AWU (known in union circles as Australia’s weakest union) declaring his unrequited love for K. Rudd and putting us all straight on the fact that the election of Latham to the leadership of the parliametary party was a mistake, an aberation. This was despite the fact that back in the good old days of the Latham leadership, Howes was right behind him – as were more than half of the parliamentary party.
Re Abbott’s projection of his own nastiness onto Rudd – another precious YouTube moment.
tssk, I think you’re right. Perhaps Julia should have instead taken up the offer from the Member for Bradfield and, cameras in tow, taken a tour of the Gordon East Public School – complete with beaming Principal.