An open thread where, at your weekend leisure, you can discuss anything you like.
(Prefer to join a more focussed discussion? Try our recent roundtables for recent lively discussions or browse our archives for topics of interest)
Life, Culture and Politics from BrisVegas
Larvatus Prodeo was an Australian group blog which discussed politics, sociology, culture, life, religion and science from a left of centre perspective. more»
los frist?
I see the tragedy of the Italian cruise liner disaster is an opportune time for Tony Abbott to try and score a political point:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-20/abbott-in-stop-the-boats-gaffe/3784554?section=sa
He was bounced on teev news tonight for that one, also.
That could be something we hear more of at the next election campaign. Lucky for him it’s only a soundbite not video.
Which way for Andrew Wilkie? And how long will it go on for?
So, Tony Abbott is sticking to his ‘tow back the boats’ plocy as an obvious pitch to certain sectors of the electorate. I sense the mentoring hand of one John Winston Howard:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ill-turn-back-every-boat-says-tony-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226249863706
whoops: ‘policy’
If the Mad Monk every parks his lycra’d posterior on the Treasury Benches, then the RAN will find itself dealing with many scuppered refugee craft. There will be nothing that the RAN can tow back to Indonesia.
Instead, both Navy personnel and boat people will be subjected to much increased stress and danger on the high seas.
Silly, silly Mad Monk.
Wantok @ 5 – if the ALP decide to match his policy of turning all the boats around he’ll have to resort to threatening to get the navy to sink all the boats just to be more extreme!
Yesterday was the first tough hill climb sections of the Tour Down Under here in SA with the public having first go in the morning. On the tv news Abbott was interviewed before the start and said with bravado that at the end of this stage and its climbs a beer might be called for. Remember this is the same Abbott who on the last day of the federal election strode to a bar somewhere in voterland and in front of cameras ordered a shandy made with light beer!! Now can you imagine what the feral msm would have done with this if it was a Mark Latham or Kevin Rudd for instance. Has there ever been a more kept political leader in our modern political history?
I’m still waiting for word on who was the Australian diplomat present in the cell when Mamdouh Habib was tortured.
Life the price of a front page
Gillard has broken her promise to Wilkie so he has withdrawn support for the government. Now we can see why they so desperately wooed Slippery Pete.
The ALP will need to have a good hard look at itself when back in opposition and clear out all these hollow people.
Jacques: if Slippery Pete hadn’t defected, things may have played out rather differently.
Would Wilkie really have been prepared to withdraw support for the government if it meant an Abbott government? Would Oakeshott and Windsor be prepared to vote against the pokie package under those circumstances?
All that said, appalling policy outcome.
The pokie backdown is a huge gift to the opposition with Wilkie now saying that Gillard broke her promises to him. I very much doubt that the trial will lead to any permanent changes no matter what the outcome. It’s pretty unlikely that we’ll have another hung parliament and under normal circumstances you won’t get the ALP to vote against its own financial interests.
And I don’t see how they expect a trial to work very well in Canberra with Quenbeyan just a very short drive across the border. Or maybe that’s the point!
Any Cwth attempt to limit the damage done by pokies to people’s lives would have been a micromanagement albatross around the government’s neck.
Labor got two years on the Treasury Benches out of its slow waltz with Wilkie. Now Gillard can move on only slightly scathed by the experience. Politically, the alternative would have been much worse.
According to the ABC:
I can understand Wilkie’s frustration but, if the legislation he wanted was put and defeated, it would have been unlikely for any anti-poker machine action to have taken place during this parliament. Gillard should be praised for what she appears to be going to achieve and avoiding the pressure to make empty token gestures.
Abbott is painting himself as a prize hypocrite for attacking Gillard’s failure to fully support Wilkie while promising to block the legislation if it is put up.
Katz I think Gillard is much more than “slightly” scathed by this. Any shred of credibility she had left has gone. And it was brave of Jenny Macklin to have been at her side for the announcement – I think Jenny will be tainted somewhat from this …
Mandatory pre-commitment, to which Wilkie is wedded, is an administrative/technological white elephant. There are many more cost effective and creative ways to limit the damage done by pokies most of which go to the addictive/entertaining qualities of the machines. Turn off the sound for a start and then limit the screen size on future machines. After that just limit the amount that can be bet in a single bet.
Said Fran Barlow on 24 November 2011, the day that Pete Slipper slipped into the Speaker’s Chair:
The above is the edited version. The whole thing can be found on the LP archives.
Hey Fran, whaddya say now?
Wilkie’s conditional withdrawal of support for the Government proves two things – he wasn’t really serious about getting his reform through and he is in the ALP’s pocket regardless.
If he really wanted his preconditions met then he wouldn’t put conditions on his withdrawal of support.
Makes me ashamed to have to admit to having served with him in the Army given how weak a charachter he has shown himself to be.
Chris: what financial interests are you talking about. The ALP owns a number of clubs around the country and as I understand the couple of clubs the party owns in Canberra are voluntarily adopting pre-commitment technology. I doubt there would be a great deal of resistance in other clubs owned by the ALP elsewhere.
The most Wilkie could expect from the government was a good faith effort to get manditory pre-commitment through the parliament. The fact is, Gillard simply can’t make MPs who aren’t members of her party vote the way Wilkie would like and it was unreasonable to expect that she ever could.
On the plus side, limiting the amounts of money that can be withdrawn at venues with pokies is a meaningful reform.
What we’re seeing at the moment is a PM with no understanding of the moral authority that the office both offers and requires. Right now Wilke owns pokie reform. If reform is necessary and important, then the last 18 months should have provided Gillard to make the issue her own, control the agenda and be seen to stand for something other than political expediency. Howard achieved this with gun control against many from his own side and then reaped the rewards of this moral victory for the remainder of his prime ministership.
Similarly with boats and refugees, Gillard has constantly looked for political wins instead of a moral position to stand and fight for. Gillard has chosen to be about boats, people smugglers and border protection, rather than about men, women and children fleeing persecution and war. The vast majority of boat arrivals are legitimate refugees. The method by which they arrived should be secondary concern. We all might detest Abbott’s turn back the boats policy aired today, but if stopping the boats and people smugglers is the bipartisan perspective, the Abbott is the one displaying a moral authority.
The PM continues to hand Abbott every opportunity he needs and more. No wonder the electorate has no belief or faith in her. A spill cannot come soon enough to save this government from itself.
Ginja @ 20 – pokies venues are source of donations for the ALP. I’ll believe it when I see it wrt them voluntarily implementing the precomittment.
Troyski @ 21 – I don’t think a spill will occur anytime soon now. Gillard is doing exactly what the ALP right want her to do. This all about Gillard staying as PM no matter the cost.
akn @ 18 – I’m all for $1 bet limits, but that isn’t going to happen either. Neither is changing the addictiveness of the machines which would be very difficult to regulate in practice. Mandatory precommitment would probably be less effective than $1 bets, but Wilkie’s proposal always allowed for machines to not have to have the precomittment changes as long as the there was $1 bet limit on the machine. Now we’re just left with a trial the results of which will be ignored and nothing will change in the long term. A big win for the pokie venues.
Chris @22 Agreed. Unfortunately what the ALP right want and what the federal labor party needs to stay in government are mutually exclusive.
In the big picture Labor losing Wilkie on confidence is no worse than the Democrats failing to stop Nader from running as a minor party candidate for the White House ’04 and ’08. Sure, there’s a risk that the drama queen might bring everything down on top of us, but it’s just as likely the forces of political darkness will triumph regardless of his impotent-but-pure shennanigans.
Now, losing him on legislation that he obviously would have voted for if his pet project had got up, that’s more troubling.
Luckily it looks like the Greens reserve the right to to call him out on any such bullshit.
Any idea where the pokies pre-commitment trial is notbeing held? Addicts want to know.
What a joke of a PM.
Not one of the ” Territories ” I’m guessing, with the lax laws on weed and p0rn. Gillards seat perhaps?, not likley.
Once again, Im staggered less at the ALPs lack of principle and gumption, but more at their newfound lack of pragmatism.
The was a POPULAR reform. The opponets were noisy and well-funded, but lacked one essential ingredient: any signifcant popular support whatsoever.
The public backed this stuff to the nines. it didnt have to be mandatory pre-committment, $1 max would have been fine.
How many noisy campaigns from an unrepresentative group of rich opportunists, nakedy pushing their own self-interest (to clear public disadvtange) can this govt back down to?
And now, they’re back to a one vote buffer, after 10 minutes of enjoying two.
Hopeless. Sadly (since I believe they’re better than that) It also plain makes them look like a worthless bunch of opportunist shits.
In the political calculation, I guess Gillard decided that Slipper in the speaker’s chair will be less of a turd to deal with, than Wilkie on the cross-bench.
Whatever, this reflects badly on everyone involved.
Ohh maybe a stock-market pre-commitment laws? (gambling right?)
Or maybe lotto ” pre-commitment laws”
Twoup? geegees? dish-lickers? Scratchies?
A trial at least, please Jules!!!
[ sarc]
Yes, Sam @19 it looks like Labor should trade their current advisors for Fran.
Gillard is right in saying that manadatory pre-commitment legislation would not have got up (Windsor and Oakeshott would not have supported it) and surely, without a trial period to prove efficacy – or otherwise – it would have been very shoddy policy.
I note that our Tone is calling it a backdown but remind me: what was the coalitions policy ? Oh that’s right they didn’t have one.
ummmm, there’s still the long-running story of the union official and the prostitutes which might affect the HoR numbers, no?
@33
No, the stacked FWA are onto that, any time now, wait by the radio.
How long has it been? 3 years?
Takes time to let the sun shine in.
Ambi@32: My understand is that it’s unlikely to come to a head before an election is due anyway.
Ginja’s point is a good one – though we don’t know what the state of the negotiations were with Windsor, Oakeshott and for that matter Katter and Crook.
I’d also be interested to hear Windsor and Oakeshott defend their position in public.
Sam asked of pokie reform and the ALP …
I concede that I overestimated the political acumen of the ALP. It’s hard to understand someone who can’t stop hitting himself, but that seems to be the ALP’s thing these days. They seem determined to drive away their supporters by ensuring that only the tribal can stomach supporting them.
It’s one thing to be pro-business, but every now and again, you’re supposed to pretend you aren’t. Pokies was an absolute freebie.
I don’t think its even a pro/anti business thing. There’s plenty of businesses which are adversely affected by pokie addiction.
I don’t understand the gnashing of teeth over the pokies reform. Apart from the media reaction but this was going to be always negative. Leaving off the two-bit psychoanalysis of the Gillard government and its alleged gimmes and so forth. The clubs lobby was prepared to die in the ditch over this; whatever the popularity of the pokies reform its easy to create a stench about any reform no matter where the support lies (mining tax anyone?).
So what exactly is the problem with getting the data anyway? Apparently now taking stock of the evidence is to be poo-pooed before launching into some massive reform package, if it doesn’t fit your preconceived ideas of what to do about the problem? Note that all new poker machines have to have the devices fitted if not activated. It’s actually a sensible reform done in a considered manner. Wilkie was always after a single-issue stunt and came to the table with the solution (and the dates for delivering the solution) pre-decided. I say good luck to him, but why should actual good governance be hostage to a single-issue like this?
Tyro, I haven’t personally made a study of what to do about the gambling issue and the efficacy of Wilkie’s proposed reforms, but I heard an academic with expertise on the matter a couple of days ago. He definitely wasn’t in Wilkie’s corner and from memory said we need the trial inter alia.
Wilkie said he had the numbers, Windsor said he didn’t. I’m inclined to believe Windsor.
I don’t think Wilkie’s ‘withdrawal of support’ means much. I can’t imagine him bringing the Gillard government down in favour of an Abbott one. If he forced an election he would be consigning himself to almost certain irrelevance. He’s not that stupid.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/how-wilkie-rolled-the-dice-and-walked-away-a-loser/story-e6frezz0-1226250251681
Having just read the whole article, that sounds like classical insiders claptrap, Jacques, in that I can’t work quite out what its trying to tell us, but it certainly likes to trumpet its ‘connection’ to ‘labor insiders’ with its secret machination revelations etc. I’m now even sure what the article is deciding to label as “the narrative” – the assertion its “all about Kevin” (what?) or whether it’s the penultimate paragraph, which is the _actual_ narrative the media (and after a fashion, commenters in Sat. Salon) have been blasting all weekend.
The problem @ Tyro is that the Government is only the government because it made a deal with Wilkie. If it could not deliver, then it should not have made the deal.
On that basis, it has had control of Parliament fraudulently. The government has had a problem with the ‘broken promise’ of the carbon price, however, its legitimate defence in that situation is that the public delivered a different parliament that meant it could not deliver. However, that excuse does not apply in this case. When Gillard made her deal with Wilkie, she KNEW what parliament she had to work with.
The Murdoch press has made much of the rather tenuous case for Ju-liar on the basis of the carbon price. They are going to have a field day with the real dishonesty over the Wilkie deal.
Furthermore, any monied up group out there can now see that this government is spooked by well funded campaigns, and will fold if enough pressure is brought to bear. This means that as a government it is now much more limited in its ability to govern than even its slim parliamentary majority would indicate. It now cannot pass laws that might offend any major interest group.
The ALP is stuffed and stupid.
Oh, and I don’t have a particularly hard opinion on the particular issue of problem gambling either. This is about trust in government and in having a government that can actually govern – not one that I cannot trust nor which cannot pass laws against powerful lobbies if it is in the interest of the country.
Tyro Rex @ 38 – one of the fundamental problems is that the ALP is also addicted to the pokies revenue. For example, in the ACT in 2010 they received a total of about $1m in funding and donations. Over $600,000 of that came from the Canberra Labor Club.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-02-01/alp-reaps-club-windfall/1925330
What self respecting party die-hard is going to voluntary give up such a large proportion of their funding? The hung parliament was a unique opportunity to force the ALP to do the right thing that you would expect them to do if they didn’t have a conflict of interest. Its not like there has been no research or experience around the world in what is being proposed. They for example *know* that a $1 bet limit will affect a very small percentage of the population.
There will be no pokie reform regardless of results of the trial unless we’re lucky enough to get a hung parliament again with someone like Wilkie having a lot of influence. And even then how could they trust the ALP to keep their word now?
I think there’s little doubt that if they did not have the extra vote in parliament the ALP would have found a way to get the legislation through parliament. Even if it mean giving some of the independents something they won’t have to now (or can use for something else).
Tyro asked:
Damage over time; loss of credibility;
If your house is on fire, you try to put out the fire rather than model different responses. The Productivity Commission looked at this question and determined that MPC was the most plausible approach. Further ‘trials’ are simply a stalling tactic, designed to subvert support for the end goal of the program, and buy the clubs further cash with which to halt reform.
More to the point though, it doesn’t really matter whether MPC would be measurably better than some other combination of measures in assisting those spending more than is advisable on poker machines. The perception is that once again, the regime has gone weak at the knees in the face of a concerted campaign by a bunch of rich parasites — this time one towards which even conservatives felt ambivalence and who were supported only in order to politically attack and weaken the regime on Tea Party grounds. With the successful campaign by Big Dirt to avoid sharing the wealth ($22million) and the now successful campaign by Big Spin to keep milking (for the moment) lower middle class or plebeians of their discretionary cash ($9million) we can now work out how much the overheads of protecting privilege are. That there is such an overt link between money, media and privilege on the one hand, and public policy on the other is probably a useful piece of learning, and something we on the left ought to point out as often as is needed, but it’s still highly offensive, much like any dark corner of existing arrangements are.
One thing coming out of this whole mess is that it makes contemplating an Abbott-led regime measurably less repulsive, since the alternative seems merely to be a slightly differently painted vehicle to the same destination, cheered on by only slightly different people. The regime as it stands seems determined after all to have its fate determined not by people who feel the calls of equity and humanity, but an alliance between the ignorati and shills of the right and their own tribals.
One might add that since this reform is not a money bill, it might have been introduced in the Senate, where it would have passed and then moved to the HoR where then Oakeshott and Windor could then have worked out what they wanted to do.
And Fran, it would be interesting to see what would happen if Xenophon did that.
Marks you seem to be living in a parallel universe. Julia Gillard knows that Wilkie’s expensive and unproven mandatory pre-commitment scheme won’t get through the Reps and more to the point the technology may not even bring about the desired result of discouraging addicted gamblers from spending all their money on gambling. She has sensibly suggested a trial to see if the strategy actually works. My only question is why the ACT with its porous borders, why not Tassie where Andrew Wilkie can see it in operation on home ground.
Wantok, I guess we will see over the next few months whether or not the Murdoch press will make capital over it then, as I predict from my alternative universe.
Similarly, we will see over the next year or so whether or not any other well funded interest groups decide to burr up if the government dares to challenge any rent seeking…in your universe or mine.
Like I said, if in my alternative universe, Julia could not honour the deal, she should not have made it…even if your objections were valid in any universe.
Yes damn Julia for not knowing which way the other independents would go on this issue years before it came to the crunch. What was she thinking?
The mandatory commitment trial is in the ACT for two reasons: 1) Canberrans will always vote Labor, with a pinch of Green, and 2) it will fail, as pokie players head for Queanbeyan (if the Queanbeyan Leagues Club doesn’t have a big sign outside saying “Visitors Welcome”, it soon will.) The report on the ACT trial has probably already been written: too expensive, too intrusive, uncertain benefits etc, all of which might or might not be true, but that is hardly the point, is it?
If Gillard genuinely was interested in the data she would have put the trial in Tasmania as the Productivity Commission recommended. But there are marginal seats in Tasmania.
Gillard has played Wilkie for a fool. She strung him along for as long as she needed his vote in the Reps, and as soon as she didn’t, she cut him loose. As for this excuse that she couldn’t get the reform through the House, that’s a good ‘un. If that is true now that she has one more vote than she did pre-Slipper, it was even more true between July 2010 and November 2011, when she was taking pokie reform ever so seriously – but of course then she needed Wilkie’s vote. Now that she doesn’t, she’s discarded him like a used condom.
We’ll see how the politics play out. Greens voters will be outraged of course, but their votes are coming straight back to the ALP as preferences. Gillard no doubt figures more people are going to switch their votes from the Liberal/National Parties than the other way around. Maybe. I suppose she must have some internal polling research to back this up; she isn’t that reckless or stupid, or maybe she is – who knows?
One thing is pretty certain though – the narrative from the government between now and the election will be a big move to the Right to recapture the lumpenproletariat vote. Don’t hold your breath waiting for gay marriage.
Gillard
Who intends to cease to vote for or preference Labor because Gillard took Wilkie for a ride?
*Cue crickets*
Meanwhile, marginal seat bogans and battlers may even find it in their hearts to vote Labor now that they are free to tip unlimited money into their favourite slots. These folks have clearly bought into the conceit that gaming elevates them to the status of pillars of the community. No one ever went broke by flattering Aussie wood ducks.
Labor are still rank outsiders but Gillard’s dumping Wilkie has kept them in the game.
@Mindy Come on, this was her job. Gillard became Prime Minister though making deals with the independents. She should have found out from O&W then, let alone last year during the lead-up to the introduction of this legislation. And odds are she probably did; something changed.
Katz asked:
Misses the point. What this shows is that the government’s promises mean little if there is the prospect of a well-connected and resourced interest group trolling them. It basically encourages anyone who can frame their trolling in populist terms and can spend several million dollars to get into bed with the Murdochracy and do it. From this point forward, no government MP can imagine any policy is safe. And where there is doubt, there is endless scope for FUD-style campaigns which cannot be dismissed.
That means that nobody with a stake in a policy outcome can be remotely confident that even the modest things promised will be delivered, even if they are popular. That in turn means that while one might, for one reason or another, prefer the look and feel of an ALP-led regime, most ALP-inclined people won’t feel greatly aggrieved if the regime falls. So when the ALP tribals get out on the hustings, a lot of people will simply shrug their shoulders, on the basis that it’s all just spin.
Had the regime made it clear that it would if needs be, die in a ditch on this one, then they win forever all those, not only all those for whom this is a big deal, but anyone who wants some other policy outcome in some area that the ALP might be persuaded to support. The determination of the regime to force this through even where the opponents squeal like stuck pigs forces the opponents onto the defensive. The opposition sounds less relevant to policy, and thus its PR game becomes harder since the media is less interested in starting news items with “the Opposition says …”
The mere counting of votes lost/gained radically underestimates the significance of this policy retreat.
Bollocks to that, Fran. The image of the ALP in the media is already rock-bottom, why pander to that claptrap? They are in the spot of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. Get on with governing, I say, and damn the torpedoes.
“The mandatory commitment trial is in the ACT for two reasons: 1) Canberrans will always vote Labor, with a pinch of Green, and 2) it will fail, as pokie players head for Queanbeyan (if the Queanbeyan Leagues Club doesn’t have a big sign outside saying “Visitors Welcome”, it soon will.)”
Exactement! Long ago – in the days when the National Capital Development Commission ruled Canberra with an iron fist – pokies were banned completely in the ACT. And the Queanbeyan Leagues Club was the biggest game in town. Deja vu….
Tyro said:
It’s not merely the image in the media that is the problem, but the credence non-tribal people attach to it. The commercial media will adapt itself to whatever story is easiest to write that is consistent with selling advertising space, and the ABC will follow. If what “the opposition says” seems moot, because the government always does what it has promised to do, then that it what it will substantially write.
As with war, in politics, retreating carries at least as many hazards as advancing. A decision to retreat necessarily opens breaches in one’s front line, threatens to leave parts of one’s forces exposed or confused, and forces risky decisions on timing of withdrawal. If you can force your opponent to retreat, they rather than you wear these risks. On the pokie issue, if there could have been no doubt about the regime’s intention to get this done before the election, there would have been those in the LNP advocating retreat, and therein lies the opportunity to make them appear a disorderly rabble in the middle of an election on an issue where much of their base thinks there is a problem. This neutralises the issue for them.
It’s the ALP that is doing that.
So it would appear that the Duntroon-trained former ONA intelligence officer has been out-manouvered by the former Australian Union of Students activist and Socialist Forum operative. Back in the day, Officer Wilkie may well have had access to a file on Comrade Gillard. So a win of sorts to the Victorian Socialist Left and possibly to Bernie Taft and his erstwhile revisionist wing of the CPA.
Nope. It grasps and places the point into the appropriate context, unlike this:
Only those with an obsessional martyr complex and those fundamentally devoid of a sense of proportion would choose to “die in a ditch” over pokie reform. Such a gesture is akin to self-immolation over Myki (Melbourne reference.)
This issue wasn’t even a blip on the Labor radar until Wilkie foisted this state issue onto Federal politics.
All those hot for pokie reform would be better served self-immolating on the steps of their state parliaments.
A reformed pokies addict said this morning, when bemoaning the apparent backdown on immediate mandatory pre-commitment legislation, that when she was gambling she needed a physical barrier to stop her and she saw mandatory pre-commotment providing this.If the urge is so strong then i imagine these folk will turn to online gambling to get their fix. As with alcoholics it’s got to be one day at a time with good support mechanisms and willpower I just cannot see MPC solving this problem.
Andrew Wilkie has done more than anyone to actually set back the cause of pokies reform than anyone, through his attempts at calculated political blackmail. The idea of this hypocrite going on about taking a stand against “backroom deals”, when his influence is entirely the result of a backroom deal that lasted until there was found to be a way around him, is nauseating.
Given his form, and given the way the numbers shape up in the electorate of Denison, I not be in the least surprised to see him make a deal with Tony Abbott in the next six months. And again, he will present it as being based on the purest political principles under the sun.
Well Katz, if you cannot agree that there is an issue with trust – ie if someone makes a deal (public, and not behind closed doors) and the government just walks away, then we must just agree to disagree.
If you cannot agree that having caved into the pokies lobby, that the government is now a target for almost anyone with some money behind it, then we will have to agree to disagree on that too.
There really is not too much point getting heated over it, because the consequences will start to hit home (or not if you are right) in the next few weeks – we will see it in the polls if it is something of import, or not.
Mind you, the recent elections in NSW and the UK where people repudiated the wanky petit bourgeois – even when the oppositions were pretty awful ought to have woken people on the left to the dangers of control by backroom dills whose political strategic thinking comes from a few years of ‘dungeons and dragons’.
Let’s just see what the polls bring.
I’d like you to read more accurately. I did state @ 15 that Labor would be “slightly scathed” by this experience. By definition, therefore, I believe that Labor does have “an issue” in this matter. But by comparison, I believe this “issue” is less troublesome than the perception of micromanagement elitist wowserism that would inevitably attend any attempt to act out of good faith to Andrew Wilkie.
There is room for argument about the relative levels of political damage resulting from these courses of action. If you want a straw man to kick around for arguing otherwise, please do not tack my nym on it.
Terry
get off the fence. Tell us what you really think about Andrew Wilkie.
I don’t think he has done the cause of pokie reform any harm. Nothing was going to happen before the hung parliament; nothing is going to happen now. You can’t get less than nothing. Pokie reform is like the ninth lane on Sydney Harbour Bridge to fix traffic congestion, something that gets talked about once per generation and then forgotten about for 30 years.
There’s only one way to have no problem gambling with pokies, and that is to not have pokies, as Western Australia does not. And that only works because no one there is going to drive 40 hours across the Nullarbor Plain to play the pokies in Broken Hill or Adelaide.
It’s time to move onto the next Good Cause. This one is a busted flush.
Chris: I think the ALP would be more than happy if the pokies lobby kept out of politics altogether.
Predictably, the anger here is focused on Labor, ignoring one small fact: there are not the numbers in parliament to pass the reforms Wilkie wanted. The anger should be directed at the crossbenches. Wilkie argued that there were some Coalition MPs who would have voted for the reforms – I think we can treat that with the scepticism it deserves.
Katz: much as it pains me to disagree with anyone defending Labor, I suspect there is actually a high level of support for pokie reform outer-suburban seats (lots of people have had personal experience with the problems pokies cause). And let’s have less talk at LP about “bogans” – leave the classism to the Tories.
Ginja, I don’t doubt that there are many who’d support effective reform. One question is whether the Feds, as opposed to the states, can enact effective reform. Another question is whether those supporters outnumber the opposers.
I regard “bogan” to be a cultural term signifying choice and aspiration rather than one signifying economic class. Just like “battler”, which drew no objection from you.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/prolife-push-in-labors-ranks-20120121-1qbaq.html#ixzz1k7yRgRXG
Wantok@47: “sensibly suggested a trial” … are you aware that the Canberra trial is 10km from Queanbeyan, New South Wales, and will be impossible to gauge anything from? Gamblers will simply head across the border.
Of course Gillard wants a trial in Canberra … guaranteed to fail.
Ginja @ 64,
I suspect your ALP apologia would be more appreciated at a place like Poll Bludger but aside from that the fact is Gillard broke her promise to Wilkie. As “insiders” have suggested this was killed by the Labor Right which is why Gillard didn’t even have the courage to introduce the bill to see if it got up or failed.
This issue about “trust” is a *completely* made up media narrative; an absolute rhetorical device without foundation. Its one that harks back to the so-called carbon “tax”, and Gillard promising to introduce a price on carbon, “but i rule out a carbon tax”, and the completely successful rhetorical move by the ultra-Tories to pain the Green Energy Future plan as a “tax”; despite it’s fixed-price component being shorter than the previous, defeated, scheme.
Nice to see such Tory bluster so well internalised by so many LP commentators.
So the PM is supposed to know, when forming government, what issues will become big during her tenure? She is supposed to be able to predict that for reasons of their own, other politicians would decide not to support pokie reform and that she would not have the numbers in Parliament. There is absolutely no possibililty that the Independents may have indicated that they were willing to discuss it. No, the only possible explanation is that she gave Wilkie an undertaking that she knew she couldn’t deliver on. FFS. Maybe when Wilkie is sitting powerless on the cross benches he might come to understand the value of give and take. But somehow I doubt it.
A deal is a deal.
Mindy @ 70 – she would have known when making the deal with Wilkie that the changes were going to be controversial and that she would have to give the other independents something in exchange for their support. She’s meant to be the great negotiator isn’t she? She’s not even wiling to put the legislation to the parliament to force the independents to take a public position.
What she didn’t count on was poor polling and the threat of getting rolled as PM.
Mindy, do reallybelieve that Gillard acted in good faith from the outset? I don’t, because there is an alternative hypothesis, that is cleaner, more plausible and entirely consistent with Gillard’s 30 year political career: she simply strung Wilkie along while she needed his vote, and hardly a second longer.
Unlike others, I am not outraged by this, but I am surprised that so many apparently politically savvy people are surprised.
The naïveté is touching though a little disturbing.
No Sam I don’t actually, but nor can I believe people acting as if Gillard is the only politician to have ever done this. It’s politics people. John Howard promised the entire country there would never ever be a GST and look where that got us. Why is Gillard suddenly supposed to be the only politician in history who doesn’t do politics? Don’t worry, that’s a rhetorical question.
Yep, she’s just as deceitful as Howard. That’ll look good on those re-election posters.
James Packer’s investment in Karl Bitar appears to have paid dividends.
Mindy – I think you’re omitting the election in between where Howard changed his mind and went to the election promising to implement a GST. That’s exactly what politicians should do when making major shifts in policy. Not that Gillards promise was to the public. But people accuse Abbott of being willing to do anything to form government. It’s pretty clear now that Gillard is in the same boat.
Well she is a politician, why is everyone so surprised?
Yep, looks like we’ll be forced to choose between a leader who lies about her intention to do good stuff and a leader who’ll keep his promise to do bad stuff.
Katz, remember, only if it’s written down. Remember Tony is the one who admitted to spinning whatever bullshit seems convenient at the time, live, on national TV.
Entirely different set of standards, you know, for the chick (to answer Mindy’s rhetorical question).
Think, think! Why would Tony Windsor, a man who isn’t going to stand for parliament again, say he is opposed to Wilkie’s idea?
Because he knows that rural independents can’t go against the wishes of their local leagues club member voters. This is bigger than just him or his mate, this is about the electoral survival of their political movement, such as it is.
Screw Andrew Wilkie if he expected Gillard to strongarm Windsor and Oakeshott into damaging their own cause over what is sadly nothing but a secondary issue.
Y’all are kidding yourselves if you think Labor has gone out of its way to betray Saint Wilkie here. Not only were they merely facing up to the reality of the numbers in the House, in doing so they were acknowledging that the RARA independents have their own needs.
Funny thing is this is really just Wilkie rewriting the terms of his ‘contract’ with the government, not tearing it up altogether.
Yet I still fear he will become uncooperative on bills he otherwise would have supported. He’s already made noises about the insurance rebate.
If he really is off the leash because of MPC then his priorities are all wrong.
Oh, but comrade, don’t you see the betrayals are all interlinked (yet funnily enough the successes are all orphans)?
I simply ask the question: how was it ever reasonable to expect the prime minister to deliver the numbers in parliament on this issue when the numbers simply weren’t there.
I know that’s a silly question, because when it comes to Labor it seems few ever stop to ask themselves if the party is being held to a fair standard.
Katz: lots of people would cheerfully admit to being a battler, not many to being a bogan. I’m not saying I’ve never been guilty of classism myself – like racism and sexism, none of us are completely innocent – but I hate hearing put-downs like “bogan” from comrades. And I suspect that most voters in outer-suburban seats have a more sophisticated understanding of problem gambling than the media would have us believe.
If the numbers were never in the Parliament, and perhaps they weren’t, how did Gillard manage to tease Wilkie for a year and a half that she was serious about pokie reform? Presumably if Pete Slipper hadn’t slipped into the Speaker’s chair, she would still be teasing Wilkie.
Maybe Wilkie heard what he wanted to hear?
Sam, that “teasing” language is sexist and uncalled for. Wilkie was no sap in this little play –> he had a sword of Damocles hanging over the Gillard government all year, and he positively relished it –> he made this issue into a make-or-break for the government, when by giving an inch he could’ve moved forward a mile with legislation that Windsor and Oakeshott would also get behind. By playing hardball, he provided the government with a motive to look for a path of lesser resistance. And so Slippery Pete proved to be their greasy ticket out of Wilkie’s casino.
Look, I’m not chuffed about it, but, excuse the pun, this is Gillard’s team cashing in their chips with Wilkie, because since they’ve deposited king turd into the Speaker’s chair, they don’t need Wilkie’s vote. Wilkie is principled and sincere, but also obstinate and not a little petulant, and he is playing this for all it’s worth (since he knows now that he’s got nothing, nothing, on the government) –> so he might as well go down with as much high dudgeon as he can muster.
Wilkie enjoyed his year of holding a sword of Damocles over the head of the government, and he extracted so much sweat that they decided to look elsewhere. A busted flush, indeed…
Katz @ 78 – I think at the next election I’ll take the latter. After voting for the Greens first anyway. Keep voting for the ALP
when they do this and they’ll continue to take the preference flow for granted. Vote them out for a term when they pull stunts like this and hopefully they’ll learn. A bit of short term pain for long term gain.
Besides at least with the ALP in opposition the parties will stop competing for the most inhumane refugee policy.
Mercurius said:
The former can easily be read as the latter. Whatever else I think of Wilkie, it’s clear to me that he takes public policy seriously and acts on that basis, and for mine, that makes him much more appealing than most people in the parliament, and everyone in both the cabinet and shadow cabinet.
The ALP would have benefitted greatly if they’d stuck to the deal they struck with him, making a virtue of necessity. Wilkie has really lost nothing, but the government quite a bit of skin.
Mindy said:
There’s no reason he should. Once Gillard decided to discard her undertaking, there was little he could do and remain principled but what he has done. Doubtless, she relied on that. It would have been all give and no take.
Katz said:
Again, you miss the point. They’d have been choosing to die in a ditch over their credibility and their claim to be able to run the parliament. This is an admission that they are not in charge of their own house and are deceitful into the bargain.
Had the Indies blocked them or failed to support the move and it had failed, they’d have had an excuse, but they showed lack of mettle as well as acumen.
Wilkie has lost nothing? He’s been made to look naive and gullible; his entire policy program for this term is in the shredder; and his political strategy has been gutted. He has gone from being the man who could blow the government up at any time to complete irrelevance.
This is losing nothing?
“Wilkie has really lost nothing.”
Oh, I don’t know about that. How about a sporting chance of Labor and/or Green preferences at the next election?
Very simple prediction that; now, both parties would rather have any other non-tory in that seat if there’s even the slightest chance the next HoR is also a hung parliament.
Sam @ 89 – they will still need to go to Wilkie to get legislation through if they can’t get the cooperation of some of the other independents. He hasnt really lost any leverage. The turning point was Slipper becoming speaker not Wilkie withdrawing support.
Incidentally this is not about not being able to get the independents on side to support the legislation. It would have been fairly easy for the govt to guarantee the continuing community donations of the pokie places in the independent’s electorates. So for those communities it would have been risk free change – they get their social stuff funded regardless. I suspect the real problem is that Gillard could not guarantee that her own MPs would vote for the legislation. Or even that she would be around as PM if she didn’t back down.
Nick said:
He will have them in any event. There are no non-LNP folks in Denison that could get above Wilkie and The Greens and giving their preferences to Socialist Alliance would scarcely fly. They’d not be any kinder than Wilkie, but would in any event probably be eliminated before the ALP.
Sam said:
No. Gillard has made him look like a man of principle. He comes off as the good guy, whereas she is a mere plaything of unaccountable forces, and thus weak and shifty. That was true before this, but this makes it harder to ignore.
Fran Barlow @ 86 – 92
All of that, yep. Gillard proves without a doubt that she’s just another wheeler dealer playing to the rich c…
And some of you think we should praise her for that?
Ah, but this is pro-Labor spin. Not that I disagree with the substance. But it in no way refutes my comments about the bind Windsor and Oakeshott have found themselves in. (And just how keen is the colonel on these pokie club funded social programmes, anyway? Surely at some point he must have gone after them as being a deal with the devil, as I know Tim Costello has. He’d do it again under.)
The fact is that clubs in the NSW rural electorates are hyper-prone to falling for the scare campaign, and they would happily take out their anxiety on those two and all future independent candidates.
I am glad Gillard has decided not to take Wilkie’s advice to fight to the last rural Independent over this. Destroying RARA Indy electoral infrastructure for a policy that would only be reversed under an Abbott govt, that is not reform I can believe in. That’s a free kick to the friggin’ National Party.
Labor and the Greens preferencing each other before the colonel, that’s not rocket science, Fran. If you think it’s desirable he become some kind of pro-choice version of Harradine who gets to hold a lifelong safe seat, in the Reps, well, I don’t see the appeal there.
AFAIC he’s made the prospect of a Green member for Denison downright palatable to Gillard and this monolithic ‘right’ people here are so keen on. This one isn’t indispensable.
Nickws @ 94,
I think both Windsor & Oakeshott know they won’t be there after the next election so I’d suggest this all had far more to do with Labor MP’s in marginal seats getting weak in the knees despite the fact they’re only in govt because of Wilkie.
From the horses mouth:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/craig-thomson-undermines-julia-gillards-reason-for-breaking-her-pokie-promise-as-her-plan-was-improper-policy-making/story-e6freuy9-1226250774602
Fran 92
Whether or not Wilkie is really a man of principle is not the issue. For the past 18 months he has conducted his negotiations with the government by making public threats that he would bring down the government if he didn’t get what he wanted. And now he hasn’t got what he wanted and he can’t carry out his threat, very much like the school yard bully whose bluff has been called. Wilkie has been made to look like a loud mouth – or a carpet salesman who is dabbling in politics – who not only can’t deliver but has been out thought, out fought and out played by the Prime Minister.
Nonsense.
Slipping Slipper into the Speaker’s chair strengthens Labor’s hold on government. Yet again, I’m misrepresented about the reputational effects of this volte face. Yes, damage is done, but less than if Labor had remained true to Wilkie.
In politics, you die in a ditch only if there is no alternative and only if you think that such a gesture will burnish your reputation in battles to come. Tory peers were famous “Ditchers” who in 1911 were prepared to flirt with mutiny to prevent permanent erosion of the prerogatives of the House of Lords. These “Ditchers” thought that they had no alternative to what was ultimately a self-destructive course of action.
This is certainly a very different predicament to the courses of action available to Gillard. For one thing, pokie reform does not loom as a existential crisis for Labor. This issue will blow over, leaving virtually no trace even in the medium term, like home insulation.
THE ALP and Wilkie are done. This as well as the mining tax debarcle show that the ALP have no spine. All you need to get your way is a good press campaign and you can overrule any government.
I really don’t know what’s worse now. From my personal political viewpoint I have the choice between
The Liberals who will act counter to my personal philosphies and interests. In their defense they actually believe in what they are doing.
The ALP who will say that they will act in accordance to my personal philosphies and interests but will then turn over at the drop of a hat and do the opposite to what they pupport to believe and ask their supporters to deal with it.
At least I still have the Greens as an option and I’m guessing that ALP voters will split their vote between the Greens/Independents and the Libs giving the Libs an easy victory next election if the Gov-Gen doesn’t shut this government down at the behest of the
Daily Telegrapher…will of the people.Correct me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t the PM promise Mr Wilkie to introduce certain pokies legislation? She couldn’t promise it would be passed.
So why not introduce it?
Perhaps she didn’t want it to pass??
Or was she told that some ALP backbenchers could cross the floor and vote against the Bill, exposing her government as “weak and divided”?
Ambigulous, I do believe you’re onto something important. If the legislation had been introduced, and lost for want of sufficient crossbench support, neither Mr. Wilkie nor anyone else could have accused the PM and the government of bad faith.
However, having spent Saturday afternoon and evening in a NSW country town in a marginal Labor electorate where every pub and club in town was displaying propaganda warning the Labor MP against voting for legislation that would “hurt our community”, I’m inclined to think that said Labor MP (perhaps) and others would have preferred not to have been placed in a position where they were expected to vote for such legislation.
Given then that we have to accept the wisdom of the clubs that decreasing gambling in clubs is harmful to Australian society will we now see a push for pokies in clubs in WA? After all, there’s now the twin arguement that society is being held back in WA and that the WA State government should look at reforming their club laws to give them equal footing with the eastern coast clubs.
Crikey speculates that it was in fact one of Andrew Wilkie’s fellow independents who pulled the plug on pokies legislation:
The Libs are in a pretty sweet place. If they can convince Slipper to resign the parliament is theirs.
And if they could make a rocketship out of boiled sweets, they could fly to the moon!
Essential Research poll finds: “Further questions relate to mandatory pre-commitment, with support at 62 per cent (one point higher than when they last asked the question in October) and opposition at 25 per cent (five points lower)”
This is what I mean: its not the lack of principle, its the staggering lack of electoral nous that truly defines this Labor govt, as opposed to prior ones.
Good point by Crikey’s Bernard Keane:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/01/23/gillard-duds-wilkie-and-whats-left-of-her-own-credibility/
Exactly! What a dismal strategy they adopted. If Wilkie was going to fail, let him. I’d say the NSW ALP was in fact concerned it might succeed. As Crikey also pointed out – the ALP owns a lot of the ACT pokies. Now it looks like a conflict of interest to hand the funds over for the trial.
Big win for Craig Thomson though. Hooray!
Yup, as soon as I mention the fact the two Indies consider themselves to be part of a longlasting grassroots movement that they are compelled to nurture, this of course is ignored, as it does not compute in the metro mind.
Makes me wonder. Is it the surprising success of modern Labor/Green cooperation that makes certain Leftwingers want more daring reform (i.e. the amelioration of one of the worst sins of consumer capitalism is just the job for the govt that started the ball rolling on carbon pricing), or is it just that they feel the need to find a new betrayal to complain about?
‘If they can convince Slipper to resign the parliament is theirs.’
Nah. Wilkie enjoys shafting Howard’s successors too much. He’ll back them on confidence.
However, he will enjoy putting the pokies reform back on Gillard’s desk, in that event
Another reason why the ALP has been blundering dunces by not letting him fail on a vote in the parliament.
On a positive note check out Assoc Prof Charles Teo’s Australia Day address in NSW in a few minutes on ABC 24. I had the (last minute) honour and opportunity to attend this speech in person and it was inspirational. Spoiler….he recieves a standing ovation at the end!
Transcript here http://www.australiaday.com.au/whatson/australiadayaddress2.aspx?AddressID=30
NickWS said:
It seems that there people from whom one normally expects sense have parted company with it in this thread. Now I’m as happy to swing at Gillard as anyone, and rather more than most. I struggle to see what’s worthy in her. Yet as this is a place where the mind as well as the viscera are to be served, perhaps a thought experiment is in order.
Let’s imagine for a moment that we are in late August 2010 and in Gillard’s position. Let’s assume that all of her political or ethical shortcomings, real or imagined have been wiped clean. Let’s ignore how the ALP got itself into the position it was in after the results came in. That’s not going to aid this thought experiment. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Gillard gets it into her head that from now on, she wants to be honest and ethical in her dealing and is also possessed by the idea of protecting, if not actually advancing, the interests of people on the less advantaged side of the average wage, and would like to contest the election in 2013 as a government that had delivered that outcome.
In order to get to that point, she has to win to her side an independent called Wilkie who is keen on capping the losses of people on modest incomes spending more than is consistent with their best interests, and those of their micro-communities. She’s not sure she can deliver what he wants, but she is broadly sympathetic to the end, and figures that as horsetrades go, at least this is one she can defend in public. It’s far better than your standard porkbarrel. She’d like to say “I’ll do my best to deliver” but Wilkie isn’t going to accept this. He knows how the ALP works and knows that that is a loophole through which a PM can do a triple twisting somersault with enough time to wave at the crowd. He knows that if he doesn’t give her an objective target — get this done by this time — it will be all words and no follow-up. Her own colleagues will simply point out that she’s not bound to do anything.
What does she offer?
She promises to deliver unless things go badly south in terms of political support. They agree a timeline for garnering support for the measures he wants, a list of responses to the most likely special pleading from the Clubs and a mechanism for tracking how it’s all going. They agree that by September 2011 legislation will be ready. They also agree that if support in marginal ALP-held seats (i.e. those on margins of les than 3%) for the proposed measures falls below 50% by this time, that would constitute “going south”. Equally, a failure to secure the support of a sufficient number of the cross-benches would qualify.
In this latter case, “Plan B” (which they agree to keep secret until such time as the “going south” clause is in play) involves fall-back measures. ATMs in and near clubs without mandatory pre-commitment don’t allow withdrawals of more than $250. The spin iterations on the machines are altered so that they take 15 seconds longer. Machines must be configured to only $1 per spin bets. Payouts are capped at $250. These measures are phased in over 2013-2016. The first clubs to be comply will be those with the highest social impact — i.e. the most disastrous ratio between the average income in the postcode of the club and its adjoining suburbs and average monthly losses — the highest third first, followed by the next and then the last. Any club can opt out by accepting mandatory pre-commitment on all high impact machines. This is introduced in the Senate and the HoR is challenged to vote it down.
This is a deal with which Wilkie could surely have lived in August 2010. It’s also a deal which the clubs would hate, and it would divide them and the LNP. One suspects that the Indies would have been hard-pressed to say no.
Even if it was voted down though, assuming Gillard stuck with the deal, would have had a good faith defence, and Wilkie wouldn’t have had a case, because then “best effort” would have been defined and thus satisfied.
Perhaps there are other ways in which Gillard might have acted honourably, but it seems to me that this is where an examination of Gillard’s conduct should start.
I think you assume too much about Wilkie, Fran.
Robert Manne reckons its time to return to Rudd:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/why-rudds-return-is-labors-only-chance-of-survival-20120123-1qdym.html
I’d love a return to Rudd but the press would tear him to shreds.
Besides, I think he’s happy in his current portfolio.
I think Rudd is the only way they’ll win the next election. But that’s not important to key plotters: Gillard losing to Abbott is a key chapter in Shorto’s 2016 book ‘how I became PM’
The next election is gone. Its a question of who is a ‘save the furniture’ leader for Labor.
Lefty E I reckon if Rudd came back the Labor party would be horrified at how many votes they lost in the ACT/NSW bits where Fed Public Service workers and their families live.
Yes, but the QLD vote would improve greatly. Its too late for Labor in NSW anyway. And ACT really is ‘meh’ territory.
The problem is that Rudd is a micro-manager and the PS seized up because no one could make a decision because it had to be run past Rudd first. So not only had he pissed off the media, he also pissed off all his Ministers. So even if Rudd did come back before the election he would still have time to remind everyone why they got rid of him in the first place and it would all happen again.
dear editor
from your piece: “Kevin Rudd has reportedly been nudging and winking MPs, particularly in Queensland and New South Wales, that he would throw Willkie overboard and neuter the attack by Clubs Australia”. thanks for that; i read every rumour of rudd’s return with silent glee & hopeful anticipation. i suppose you’re already onto robert mann in today’s sydney morning herald, but in the spirit of “one good turn deserves another”, i’ll risk redundancy & offer a lazy link to it> as being the last thing i read before yours that stimulated feelings of glee & hopeful anticipation. two in one day’s like a record.
yours sincerely
alfred venison
No, the problem I’m afraid is that Gillard’s a dud. Never seen as a legitimate leader for obvious reasons. Never established legitimacy because key decisions simply reinforced the manner in which she gained power.
Forget Rudd, although he could save some of the furniture.
Welcome Tony Abbott PM, brought to you courtesy of the ALP.
And this people….this is why I was worried when Turnbull was chucked.
So. How long does the ALP have left? I’m guessing Feb-Mar. When is the cricket/tennis done with? Because that’s when it will happen.
Feb/Mar? Is that when Bob Brown will be toast, tssk?
They’ll see out the term but obviously no chance of being re-elected.
Crikey have an ‘exclusive’ Greens Senator Scott Ludlam thinks the govt might have been hacking his iphone, seems a touch paranoid as people who move in these circles tend to get but you’d hope it’s not true:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/01/24/greens-mp-fears-phone-was-hacked-in-wikileaks-exchange/
Jacques @ 124 – there was a carrier update for iPhones that has been rolling out since Applebaum talked in Ballarat (before his Melbourne talk) that Ludlum attended. Its most likely that this has been the cause of the problems as those who accepted the carrier update have been having battery life issues. What else the carrier update does you never know
Applebaum has attracted a lot of attention from the FBI etc in the US and he has reasonable reasons to be paranoid. I was mildly surprised that he managed to get a visa into Australia.
His talk at Linux.conf.au is worth watching:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMN2360LM_U&feature=plcp&context=C33d05ccUDOEgsToPDskJDNYBsW1FWRIuE5hpmctr0
I do find it rather disturbing that the police are able to request meta data information from telcos about anyone without a warrant. Where meta data is stuff like your location reported by your phone at anytime or who you were talking to. Given there were over 240,000 requests like this just from the police (this doesn’t include security agencies) its pretty clear its not being restricted to “war on terrorism” scenarios either.
Thanks for the great link Chris!!! Great content.
It’s on!
Bligh calls election for March 24
Gee, the “Friends of Science in Medicine” are pretty closed minded or greedy, 1 of the 2.
opps ,try;
http://m.smh.com.au/national/tertiary-education/scientists-urge-unis-to-axe-alternative-medicine-courses-20120125-1qhtm.html