Tag Archive for 'John Howard'

Rudd one year on

Well, having opened a thread that perhaps proves that Ute Man is still out there but not actually supporting Emo Man, it behoves me, I guess, to have a bit of a say about the tenure of the Rudd government to date. To some degree all these sorts of anniversaries are somewhat artificial, as you can easily see in the United States with the fetish of the “first hundred days”. Governments will eventually be judged by the electorate in due season, as Kevin Rudd would say, and as almost all politicians intone (particularly those who are dissatisfied with their contemporary popularity), in the end they will be judged by history - whose verdict is perhaps as mythical as the Judgement of Paris, but never mind that. However, as I was suggesting, if politics and public discussion is cruelled by the vagaries and obsessions of an ever shorter media cycle, a year really is a long time in government, and it is worth taking stock.

It can also be interesting to compare first term governments at this stage of the electoral cycle, and here the obvious contrast - despite all the media beatups - is the absence of major scandal and ministerial resignations compared to both the Hawke and Howard governments. That doesn’t, of course, imply that all the Labor ministers are fabulous, but it is worth observing.

One of the things that’s interested me in the discussion that had already began quite a while before we reached the actual milestone is that in both comments on this blog and in conversations with some friends I’ve seen the sentiment expressed that simply avoiding hearing a daily litany of horrors from the Howard crew is Rudd’s greatest achievement. It might, and no doubt will, be objected that - “lefties would say that, wouldn’t they?” But I think there are a couple of points here. First, there is no doubt that a government with a more humanitarian tinge and an appreciation of propriety and ethics is to be welcomed, and that sentiment - along with the promise keeping - will be a contributor to Labor’s continuing lead in the polls. Secondly, I think The Howard Years has been interestingly timed to stimulate some comparison and to reinforce the whole sense of relief that we don’t have that turgid mob to kick around any more.

But, again, one thing that wore out the Coalition’s welcome with the electorate was the constant “rabbits out of the hat” and the whole bag of divisive tricks, along with the internal ructions and the cockiness of ministers. I agree that the Liberals are still playing at the same game in many ways. John Howard was elected in 1996 as a safe pair of hands and the Libs were “the party of order”, if you like. By the end of their fourth term, they looked like the risky and unsafe proposition and Kevin Rudd’s calm demeanour undoubtedly contributed much to Labor’s victory. WorkChoices was also probably the biggest single mistake the Coalition made, and the related apprehension that worse would follow and more leadership instability also condemned the Howard government to defeat.

But what of policy, and that shibboleth beloved of the punditariat, “the narrative”? Continue reading ‘Rudd one year on’

Open Rudd government first anniversary thread

I’m sticking to my no politics on the weekend rule, and have a busy day tomorrow, so I’m going to save up my thoughts on the first anniversary of the defeat of the Howard government and the election of the Rudd Labor government for later on. But there’s no doubt that there will be a fair bit of discussion about it, so please feel free to use this thread for posting links, and making any observations you may have. I think it is a useful milestone to place the government’s performance in some sort of perspective that’s deeper and less transient than the everyday trivialities of most political commentary.

Update: Here’s my take, focusing more on politics than policy. Graham Young looks at the deficit issue. An Onymous Lefty emphasises the Not Howard issue. At Crikey, Bernard Keane wishes everyone a Happy Kruddiversary and readers weigh in, and Scott Bridges writes in New Matilda.

Update: Andrew Bartlett notes the anniversary and the fact that it happily coincides with the long over due removal of statutory discrimination against same sex couples.

LP sets the media agenda on Turnbull!

That’s a bit of irony, by the way! But I was interested to see Crikey come out with this:

But you get the sense Turnbull also gets worried whenever he’s out of the headlines for any length of time. In politics, sometimes a low profile can be useful. Sometimes it’s best to let attention focus on your opponents. But Turnbull may not have worked that out yet.

That’s actually what we’ve been saying for a very long time, most recently in this post.

What I’d add to it is that Malcolm also doesn’t realise that people aren’t all that enamoured of politicians constantly being in their face. That was one of the big things that played against Howard last year - people finally got sick of all the ranting and raving, the constant “changes of the national conversation”, bombastic personal attacks, etc, etc. This is why Kevin Rudd’s measured and calm style works politically - he’s positioned as the safe pair of hands, and the opposition come across as the permanent politicians. And guess what? (As KRudd might say) - Australians don’t like politicians as a rule.

Howard’s back!

Almost a year after the former Dear Leader lost the election and his seat of Bennelong, the ABC is “heavily promoting” (something of an understatement) The Howard Years. Will we never be quit of this man? Personally, I intend to watch Good News Week. I’m sure this historical record will mainly be emblematic of the deep sense of self-satisfaction the various interviewees have, and their propensity to knife each other - all the froth and bubble that went on beneath the iron grip that Howard had on all of them. Does anyone care all that much now that it’s history? You tell me.

Meanwhile, the man himself is running out of places to hide. The US no longer offers such a congenial political climate for John Howard, although there’s still Fox News for him to appear on.

Continue reading ‘Howard’s back!’

More on Nixonland; of cultural politics and culture wars

In a previous post on expectations of whether an Obama win will reshape politics and end the culture wars, I briefly discussed Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland, which I read recently. The title, incidentally, comes from a passage in a speech by Adlai Stevenson in the 1956 Presidential election, when the Democrats played on Eisenhower’s recent heart attack to stir up fears of Nixon becoming President - convinced as they were that attacking the genial Ike himself would be in vain:

Our nation stands at the fork in the political road. In one direction lies a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland. America is something different.

Perlstein emphasises the dissonance between Stevenson’s claims to high minded political virtue and his own tactics:

The courtly type, he couldn’t campaign directly against a dying war hero; instead he ran against the man who might replace him. And he did it in a singularly uncourtly fashion. He wrote his friend John Kenneth Galbraith, the (courtly) Harvard economist, “I want you to write the speeches against Nixon. You have no tendency to be fair.” Galbraith acknowledged that as a “noble compliment.”

There isn’t much evidence that Stevenson’s “jeremiads” helped his cause much. His loss to Ike in 56 was comprehensive, and its dimensions were greater than those of his first defeat in 52.

In another excellent book on Nixon, in this case on his various images in the American cultural imagination, David Greenberg emphasises that liberal attacks on the Republican’s devilish character tended to backfire. Nixon’s Shadow highlights the genuineness of the identification between Nixon and many voters, and debunks the claims that such identification was nefariously produced by artifice. Artifice is one of the perennial political arts. Continue reading ‘More on Nixonland; of cultural politics and culture wars’

SMH Death Spiral - Emissions Trading Edition

Oh dear. Anyone who’s still getting their ‘news’ from SMH needs their head examined:

Subsidy for bulbs wasted:
THE flawed scheme to cut greenhouse gas abatements by giving away lightbulbs has squandered an estimated $60 million of NSW taxpayers’ money, the State Opposition says….

An assessment of the scheme by the Opposition has found that NSW Greenhouse Abatement Credits issued by the Government have been largely wasted. It was claimed initially that as many as 80 per cent of the lightbulbs given away were installed. But later surveys found most households never installed them, and that only four out of 10 of the lightbulbs were ever used.

‘Later’ being the operative word there, rather than ‘recently’. The changes to the installation rate occured after an audit in 2006, sending all the businesses operating under the Demand Side Abatement Rule to the wall. Despite insistent pleas for transitional arrangements until a national scheme could be brokered, none was given and around 1000 people lost their jobs in companies like Neco and Easy Being Green. Some forms of structural adjustment are more equal than others…

The real story here is the upcoming ‘Super Saturday’ of by-elections. (Guy Beres has an excellent analysis). Continue reading ‘SMH Death Spiral - Emissions Trading Edition’

John Howard: media tart?

Remember how John Howard said after he lost his seat of Bennelong and the top job that he wouldn’t be providing a running commentary on politics?

He’s over in LA at the moment on his rounds collecting meaningless awards from obscure American right wing think tanks. If you happen to be in the neighbourhood, you could have attended a “gala dinner in Brentwood” with the PM - for only $1000 a plate. But don’t panic if you missed out! His reflections on “Remembering Munich: the Legacy of Appeasement” will be featuring as part of the American Freedom Alliance’s program for another couple of days. I’m sure we’re all proud that Howard has been selected as a recipient of the Winston S. Churchill Medal of Freedom.

While in California, Howard couldn’t resist giving an interview to media start up Pyjamas tv. You can watch it here. Streem reports:

During the interview, Mr Howard touched on the Iraq War, commenting that the media was hesitant to cover it because of improving conditions.

Really? While violence is down, the conditions for “winning the war” stipulated by the Bush administration are very far from being met, according to a very comprehensive article by Peter W. Galbraith in the New York Review of Books.

Governor-General “not especially bright”, columnist claims

There’s an extraordinary rant from Christopher Pearson in today’s Opposition Organ, beginning with a big spray against Quentin Bryce. Let me just observe that her opinion that the reserve powers can be codified is a respectable one, and that Pearson is committing a significant fallacy when he conflates that opinion with the analytically separate question of the political feasibility of such a change to the Constitution.

The actual occasion for his condescending twaddle seems to be a lamentation about the ideological unsoundness of the Liberal Party leadership:

Until recently, it would have been hard to imagine a candidate with Bryce’s limitations and ideological baggage winning the level of broad acceptance within the conservative wing of the political class necessary for her to function as governor-general. Indeed, since Brendan Nelson, Julie Bishop and Malcolm Turnbull could not be described plausibly as conservatives, it may not be safe to assume that Bryce does enjoy that kind of acceptance. In less than a year, the values for which John Howard, Peter Costello and Alexander Downer provided so formidable a bulwark are no longer taken for granted in the Liberal Party room.

More power to Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott appears to be the suggestion. Yep, they’re electoral gold. Attack Rudd from the hard right, urges Pearson.

Continue reading ‘Governor-General “not especially bright”, columnist claims’

Malcolm Turnbull finally ends the Howard years?

One theme that’s come up in commentary on several threads about the Liberal leadership here is that the political suicide of Brendan Nelson has the potential to put the Howard years to bed at last. One other sign of this is how underwhelming and plain boring many of the “revelations” in Yesterday Man’s Memoirs have been - who really cares now about the accumulated ressentiment of a decade and a bit of internal treachery under the Dear Leader? (Howard’s poisonous human legacy, of course, lingers, as last night’s Four Corners demonstrated). Peter Costello is now history, and if he hasn’t acknowledged that, then the man is a greater and more self-serving fool than even most of us suspect. His book launch - presumably televised still today - is a sideshow.

Malcolm Turnbull needs to give up on placating all those who still long for the departed Howard’s firm hand. The Liberal Party needs to eschew stunts and populism and restore its tattered economic credibility (which was actually junked by Howard and Costello themselves - that was obvious enough in last year’s election but now it’s plain as day). It also needs to move with the times and take a responsible position on an ETS and trim its sails to fit the socially liberal winds that have been blowing - unsniffed as they were by the Tony Abbotts and Nick Minchins of the world.

But Turnbull is completely capable of squibbing all this. He may mistake the need to placate the diehard Liberal Right and “defend the legacy” as necessary pragmatism. If he does, he might be safer at the despatch box, but he will be repeating the same mistakes that brought Nelson down. Though without the jam and baked beans.

Turnbull’s selection of a Shadow Cabinet will give us a big clue as to how he’s going to shape the Opposition. Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Climate Change Minister in particular. And make no mistake, he has to shape the Opposition, not try to keep all its factions happy. A very difficult balancing act indeed, because the structural faults in both the party and in its electoral position haven’t been magicked away.

Elsewhere: Some more analysis from Sam Clifford at Public Polity. Update: And more from Pavlov’s Cat.

Blogosphere roundup: More commentary from Possum, Politically homeless, Andrew Bartlett, Corporate Engagement, Musings of an inappropriate woman, Road to Surfdom and Woolly Days.

Another one for the blog roundup: what it feels like for a boi.

Wait, there’s more!: Joanne Jacobs, The Poll Bludger and John Quiggin.

Costello memoirs: Bored now?

I’ve got a question about the Costello memoirs. Is anyone going to rush down to the bookshop today and hand over $55 of their hard earned for a copy? I mean - courtesy of the neverending promo show - we now know $weetie doesn’t like Janette, Malcolm, Barnaby or Little Johnny, thinks Tony Abbott is two faced, and that he wanted the leadership handed to him on a platter. And that the election loss was all Howard’s fault, or all Jackie Kelly’s fault, which comes to the same thing really, doesn’t it? And of course all this is such a surprise! Is $55 worth the punt that we might find out that The Great Pretender also wants revenge on Bruce Billson or Wilson Tuckey or Peter Lindsay or someone?

Boycott the thing, I say!

Continue reading ‘Costello memoirs: Bored now?’

Peter Costello’s legacy

The Fin Review ran today with a cover story on Peter Costello’s legacy - not on the Liberal leadership but as Treasurer. It appears to be an article of faith - based on a questionable analogy about the supposed damage a move away from Paul Keating’s legacy did to Labor in opposition (and one, incidentally, pushed by PJK himself to journos and commentators) - that they have to hug John Howard close to their chest. So Peter Costello is routinely dubbed by Liberals as “Australia’s best Treasurer”.

The IMF didn’t think so. The Fin has obtained leaked Treasury documents prepared for discussions with IMF officials last year. The upshot of the story can be summed up by its tagline - “Peter Costello’s fiscal policy was potentually more damaging than any other period since the Whitlam years”. IMF wonks were deeply concerned about a stimulatory budget and fiscal policy at a time of economic over-heating, and the article by Paul Cleary concludes:

… from 2003 onwards, Costello executed a sustained expansion of fiscal policy during a sustained upswing in the economy. Looking further back, his predecessors had only engaged in such a policy during recessions. The result of this outbreak of bad policy in the last years of the Howard government is likely to be a long period of inflation and weak economic growth, and it may take some considerable time, and pain, to get the balance back in the right order.

Continue reading ‘Peter Costello’s legacy’

So it was all about promoting his book…

Hardly surprising, I must say, to read that Peter Costello has dumped on Howard in his book and has also ruled out standing for the Liberal leadership. What a petulant and self-indulgent performance.

What if they held a History War and nobody came?

Now that the Howard gubbermint is ancient history - except in the memoirs of the ghost of Peter Costello who wants you to know that Howard LIED six times and failed to hand him the leadership on a platter (ps. don’t waste your 55 bucks on his stoopid book - it’s been scooped, and that’s about it, except Pete WAS TEH BEST TREASURER EVAH! and could have singlehandedly sorted the international credit crisis) - there’s very little force, I’d have thought, in a claim that “the history wars have been revived”. A claim made by the usual suspects - particularly Dr Kevin Donnelly - that teh Communists have their hands on the history curriculum under a Labor Government. Read all about it here - in Crikey - by Jeff Sparrow - who skewers this nonsense without even raising a sweat, I suspect. As you were. No narrative here. Look away. There’s commies under your bed though.

Continue reading ‘What if they held a History War and nobody came?’

On the futility of arguing about Hayek, or what’s in a name?

Club Troppo’s Don Arthur and I started a correspondence by email about some of the issues I raised in my post the other day about neo-liberalism and thinktanks, and the very rapid Blairisation of the Rudd/Gillard agenda (which has certainly become even more evident in the interim with the latest instalment in the “education revolution” and the momentum that some liberal and libertarian bloggers are correct to assume is building up towards vouchers in all forms of education). I don’t want to try to represent Don’s side of the discussion, but I did want to talk about a few things that I put to him, and thank him for the very stimulating opportunity to clarify my thoughts.

One argument that’s often raised by liberals in denying that talk of neoliberalism makes sense is the claim that the state is still large as a percentage of GDP, that Howard did redistribution, and so on. That’s a point that Andrew Norton often makes, in claiming that there’s a degree of social democratic consensus still embodied in the governing practices of the Australian state. John Quiggin has made the same, or a very similar point, from a different political position. There’s some truth in this, but only some. No, Margaret Thatcher didn’t succeed in rolling back the state very far. But expecting her to is to make a false assumption - that the ideological objective only has meaning insofar as it achieves its ostensible aims. What she was actually doing was building up a stronger state in some areas to contain the damage from its withdrawal from some areas. You need a strong state to attack the weak, basically.

Continue reading ‘On the futility of arguing about Hayek, or what’s in a name?’