6 posts tagged “alp”
The latest Howard line: Rudd to ruin the economy like the states. I'm not sure if attacking state governments is the best plan -- at least on the eastern seaboard, where Labor state governments were uniformly returned in landslides. If people didn't like the way those states ran their economies, then explain those election outcomes? On the other hand, the Liberal oppositions the incumbents were up against were also uniformly embarrassing. This time around, In the federal arena, Rudd and co are finally presenting a coherent alternative non-threatening message, which must be enormously frustrating since that message is scarcely different from the government's own except in a few key areas in which the government won't budge for ideological reasons (e.g. industrial relations and Iraq).
My posts have been increasingly political lately, but here's one article from The Age I couldn't resist linking to: Howard declares war on premiers. Essentially Howard is trying to sheet home the blame for rising interest rates to the states to try and distract attention from the guarantees of low interest rates under a Coalition government, a 'promise' he made at the last election against Latham. Actually, the promise was that interest rates would always be _lower_ under a Coalition government, and unless we invent a time machine and change the course of history by electing Labor in 2004, we have no evidence to either prove or disprove this assertion. One could always say, look, yes, the Reserve Bank has raised rates four times since the last election, but imagine what would have happened had Latham taken the reins -- you'd be paying _half_ your income in mortgage repayments rather than the current mere third.
What is startling to me is that much of the substance (if you want to call it that) of the Coalition's case is that under the Keating government, interest rates were in double digits compared to today's historical lows. Why, if history is meant to be a guide, does that make Howard's record as treasurer which left Australians with interest rates in the 20's, not significant? Why is the polity's memory so selective? And why hasn't Labor made more of an effort in the debate on housing affordability highlighted the _proportion_ of income that is being used to pay down debt? That is a far better measure of the average household's ability to eke out an existence week-to-week than a single headline figure like the interest rate.
Actually, it looks like this argument is starting to happen under Rudd (why it didn't happen under Latham I don't know -- perhaps a distrust of the electorate understanding more than a soundbite, or worse a gimmicky video grab of a politician signing a giant novelty cheque). Hence this latest outburst which targets not Rudd, whose small target strategy has proven to be surprisingly far more effective than Bomber's was, but the states and their spend-happy ways. Which by the way is supporting another fallacy that government spending is a prime determinant of interest rates. Unfortunately, our economy is a lot bigger than the budgets of the states -- external factors beyond the control of whoever is in power, Labor or Liberal, will always play their part. I just wish someone would have the guts to explain that, rather than patronising us with simplistic models that may play well with focus groups but don't reflect the reality of a complex world. What use is democracy when a vote is an uninformed one?
Check out this transcript of Tony Abbott's interview with Barry Cassidy on Insiders. If ever you needed evidence that Tony Abbott is not Prime Ministerial material, of why people distrust politicians in general, and proof that Abbott doesn't seem too concerned at making himself look like a whiny hypocritical prick, then this pretty much nails it.
In the interview, he tries to manufacture a difference of opinion between Labor and the Liberals on the handling of the Haneef affair when there was (distressingly) none. According to Tony Abbott, when Kevin Rudd provides bipartisan support on this issue, then plainly he's being insincere and "a follower not a leader"; if he disagrees, then Abbott would no doubt accuse him of providing comfort to terrorists and being soft on security.
Then on the matter of Steve Bracks resigning this week as Victorian state premier, Abbott brands him a quitter -- obviously leaving under the pressure of being mired in the cesspool that Victorian ALP politics must consist of these days. Clearly a handsome majority in State Parliament and three election wins on the trot will do that to a political organisation. I'm sure it is not beyond Rhodes Scholar Abbott that Bracks might be quitting for genuine family reasons, and at the top of his game no less. Rather, it seems his tactic to deflect parallels between Howard's increasingly uncomfortable position as the PM who stayed too long and Bracks's graceful stroll to the exit is to go on the offensive.
No doubt Abbott relishes his role as rabid attack dog, but he must have a somewhat patronising view of the electorate if he believes we're going to swallow this kind of empty political rhetoric. Maybe the polls (to which of course he claims to lend no credence) are subconsciously cranking up his hysteria level to 11... A shame he can't or won't view issues through anything other than the prism of partisan party politics.
The 2007 election is officially saved: Kevin Rudd just rolled Bomber for the leadership. As Shaun Carney wrote in an op-ed piece (unfortunately I can't find the link on The Age anymore), Bomber only got media attention when he made one of his (in)famous gaffes. The ALP hasn't cut through on policy, and Bomber hadn't shown that he was any different a politician to the last time he was opposition leader, before the Latham experiment. The real battle now begins.
Some heady happenings in the world of politics and media today that I couldn't resist posting. First of all, Glenn Milne's alcohol and "migraine medication"-fueled assault on Crikey founder Stephen Mayne at the Walkley Awards for journalism:
I'm a big fan of Crikey, a daily newsletter that reveals some of the inner workings of the halls of power, i.e. in government and big business... generally by spouting rumour and innuendo, but more often than not hitting the mark, which is probably why Stephen Mayne and co aren't the most popular of people in some circles. Then again, from what I understand this hasn't stopped most of his targets (the press gallery, politicians) from subscribing or at least monitoring Crikey's output!
The other big news of course is Beazley being challenged for the leadership by Kevin Rudd, who is striking while the iron is hot (see my previous post on Bomber). Now, I don't particularly like Rudd who I find rather pompous and over-religious, but at least he speaks well, isn't afraid to go on the attack and doesn't have the unstable wackjob personality of a Latham. Then of course, there's Gillard who is his running mate for the deputy leadership, whom personally I would prefer as leader, but her membership of the Left faction practically rules her out of contention (at least until another day). Speaking of which, everyone seems to have been crying out for a long time for Jenny Macklin to be replaced as deputy leader, but really, the deputy leadership isn't that great for someone with leadership aspirations. I would have thought it would be more important to establish your credentials in a more visible portfolio, e.g. treasury, education or health (and these days, environment).
So, my dream outcome: Beazley gets rolled, along with underperformer Wayne Swan in treasury, and the bland and ineffectual Stephen Smith in industrial relations. This is how I would place some of my chess pieces: Rudd as leader with Gillard as deputy; Lindsay Tanner as treasurer, who has always had ideas but not the right portfolio in which to express them; and Peter Garrett in environment (which would effectively neutralise leakage of votes to the Greens in urban electorates). Then maybe in the 12 months to the next election, the ALP can stop worrying about its leadership and start formulating viable alternative policies that will help to restore the notion of a fair go (in both economic and social terms), something that seems to have been lost in the 10 years Howard's been in power.
It's so much fun playing armchair politician :).
In spite of the fact I live in the US now, I still make it a habit of keeping up with news at home. Actually, my primary source of news is still The Age (even as it slides towards more tabloid-style articles under editor Jaspan). With polling for the Victorian state election under way as I write this, I read with despair yet another article bashing poor Kim "Bomber" Beazley. Two things about Shaun Carney's analysis trouble me:
- I agree with both its arguments and overall sentiment -- Bomber must go; and
- Carney presents almost nothing new that hasn't already been said in the last 12 months, in both its arguments and overall sentiment
I make no bones about the fact that my politics lean left, and that I have despaired at how long the Howard government has remained in power. I support the ALP in the sense that they are more socially progressive, and espouse social equity and the common good more so than the dry economics-driven Coalition. But the ALP has done little to make inroads on the Howard government's failings, whether it be on the interest rates lie, industrial relations, or the relative lack of taxation relief for middle income earners.
Ted Baillieu has shown how a politician with relatively little experience on the benches can wage a competitive campaign against a seemingly entrenched incumbent like Mr Bracks. The former's ability to distance himself from Federal issues like WorkChoices (by not forcing public servants onto AWAs), while at the same time putting out attractive policy positions on public transport, water, housing stamp duty -- all hot-button issues for the electorate -- as well as on traditionally left issues such as support for same-sex civil unions, Mr Baillieu has surprised everyone at how effective he has been at making Mr Bracks work for his presumed victory.
The ALP needs a Baillieu-style rejuvenation. I respect the runs Bomber has put on the board and his long service for Australia and Australians. But the best service he could do for his country now is to step aside, remove his leadership as an issue (an issue which seemed to have died of late but was quickly rehabilitated by Kim's "seniors" moment), and let someone who can advocate new and exciting policies take the reins. (For my next political post: could Australia handle a female PM? ;))
