There are few things more entertaining in the world of politics than watching one of Australia’s main political parties airing its dirty laundry in public. This week we get to see this spectacle at its finest, as Australia’s foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, steps down from his position and challenges the Prime Minister (PM), Julia Gillard, for the leadership of the party. If he wins, of course, he will become Prime Minister. He was PM before, until 2010, when Julia Gillard overthrew him in a figurative night of the long knives. On that occasion he did not even take his position to a vote, so weak was his support, but this time around he is going to take it to a vote on Monday at 10am. That’s gripping viewing for those of us who enjoy our politics done dirty and Machiavellian, and this time, in the public eye. And nobody in Australian politics (or, probably, in the democratic world) does politics dirtier or slimier than this mob.
The vote in question is not a ballot of the people of Australia, or anything so silly. It’s a vote of the the representatives (MPs) who make up Gillard and Rudd’s party, the Australian Labor Party (ALP). For the benefit of my American reader(s), in the Westminster system that your benighted republic so sadly decided to dump, the PM is not elected by the people, but chosen from the parliament. When Australian politicians try to appeal to populism as part of this process – as Rudd is known to have done – they are referred to dismissively as “running a presidential-style campaign.” For people like Rudd and Gillard, the mere act of getting elected is something to sniff at – they are usually installed in safe seats and get an easy run into parliament. The hard work does not lie in convincing ordinary people that they might be good representatives, but in convincing their colleagues that they should be given high office. Usually this means being in parliament as a nobody for years, slowly building up the support of a faction within the ALP, and then climbing through ministries until finally you have the experience, the reputation, and most crucially the numbers to be able to backstab someone and take their job. That’s what we’ll see at its bloodiest best on Monday.
Usually all of this happens quietly behind closed doors, but for complex reasons that seem to have a lot to do with Rudd’s personality, this time it’s all being done in the open. If you believe the journalist who has done the most work on the matter, Rudd was dumped from PM in 2010 because he was losing control of the government and the policy-making process, alienating his colleagues and slowly destroying the ability of the higher offices to function. But publicly they didn’t want to smear him, so they didn’t mention any of this, although what really went on behind the scenes may have been summarized in this article from just before the coup. Because in Australian politics disunity is death, the plotters kept all the internal troubles quiet and claimed that Gillard toppled him in order to change policy direction. But by undermining the narrative of the government’s policy direction over the previous 3 years, this probably contributed to the ALP’s poor performance in the 2010 election, which saw them lose a lot of seats and forced into minority government with some independents and (shock!) the Greens. In fact it now appears that Rudd was already planning his vengeance, undermining that election campaign with leaks and “backgrounding” journalists. Since that election the media has run constant stories of leadership tension between Gillard and Rudd, who was given the position of Foreign Minister. It now appears tha a lot of that tension was being created by Rudd himself, and in recent days it reached such a peak that something had to be done. This time around, though, it looks like Gillard’s supporters intend to be frank about what happened then, and to poison the well so that nobody is willing to risk Rudd in the leadership position. They have been very publicly and aggressively bad-mouhting him, making sure that his reputation and legacy are in tatters and any election campaign featuring him as leader will be dominated by the opposition quoting his own party members’ poor assessment of his character.
Nobody does this stuff like the ALP, which is why it’s a joy to watch. Rudd’s knifing in 2010 was a shadowy business of meetings behind closed doors, over almost before we knew it had started. The last time a leadership struggle happened in a sitting ALP government was between the two greatest politicians the Westminster system has thrown up since the war: Hawke vs. Keating (whose colourful contribution to political life can be found here)[1]. But that was a tame affair compared to this, fought as it was on the basis of ability to win elections and policy vision – no one would ever claim that either of those men’s considerable personality flaws rendered them unfit to run a government. This time around, the government rests on a knife-edge of marginal seats in a coalition with free-willed independents and the battle is over personality, so whatever damage is done in this very public battle could well poison the chalice for the winner. They’re flinging so much poo that some of it is going to have to stick.
The battle is probably decided already, in reality, because it involves lining up the numbers for the caucus vote. ALP politicians don’t vote by conscience (this is explicitly banned when voting in the parliament!), they vote according to the dictates of whatever faction of the ALP they are a member of. The factions in turn are composed roughly along union lines, with different trade unions supporting different factions, and the key to success in the ALP is to get along well with your faction and to be able to negotiate deals between factions. Rudd, famously, eschewed this system in his run for PM, supposedly intending to “reform” the ALP’s systems. Gillard is a great negotiator and apparently has an inclusive style, so it’s likely that she’s been doing what all sensible ALP leaders do: keeping one eye on the opposition leader and the other eye firmly over her shoulder, on her factional “allies.” If the stories about Rudd are true, he will have alienated all the factions and will be left swinging in the breeze when it counts. Unless he has some very, very nasty tricks up his sleeve…
Many people say that this faction system is a bad idea and an undemocratic disaster, and Rudd was supposed to reform it to reduce its alleged bad properties, but I’m not convinced this is true. The ALP has been around for 100 years and the faction system has operated for at least 50 as far as I know, and in that time it has thrown up a great many highly talented politicians. Hawke, Keating, Whitlam and Chifley were all products of this faction system, as were some of the lesser, but still brilliant, members of the cabinets of yore. Any system that can produce the leadership team of Hawke and Keating, and keep them in office for 13 years, has to be doing something right. Recently the quality of the ALP reps has started to decline and there have been a few famous and regrettable mistakes in leadership (e.g. Mark Latham) but these mistakes and the thinning of talent I think might represent a much deeper problem with the ALP: its membership is declining rapidly, and its dependence on unions and an industrial working class base is no longer as relevant as it used to be, depriving it of the deep pool of talent it once had at its disposal.
It may or may not be bad for the party, but the faction system makes great theatre. This time around we are not just being shown a glimpse of the ALPs seedy inner nature, but may be offered the chance to look right into the depths of its soul. And I think that’s compelling viewing for anyone with an interest in how nasty politics can be. So grab the popcorn and gather round, kids, because the palace coup is underway …
—
fn1: I guess the third greatest is Thatcher, who probably should go at the top of the list for her singular achievements against the run of British expectations about class and gender, but she’s not as funny as Keating, not as educated as Hawke, and anyway she eats babies and her policies were crap in comparison to theirs.
Compromise and Conceit 
February 24, 2012 at 6:51 pm
It is such a fascinating thing to watch. Newsfeeds, forums, twitter, blogs all having some interesting comments (and craploads stupid comments of course).
I reckon Malcolm Turnbull put his hand up to be ALP leader on Monday he might just get the job.
More seriously, I think the ALP, or at least the front bench, have just managed to paint themselves into a corner. On one hand, the PM appointed Rudd to Foreign Minister as the best man for the job. Then 18 months later pan him as disfunctional and impossible to work with (Wayne Swan going several steps further).
.. it is fantastic theatre! 🙂
February 25, 2012 at 7:35 pm
David Marr may be saying that. But we do have to factor in that he’d walk through fire for the ALP, so it could just be him defending his preconceived notions. I won’t bother to search for an article praising Rudd’s vision and statesmanship, but we can safely assume they are out there.
As for the ALP ministers behaviour towards their own party (trashing Rudd’s government), I like your phrase “Eating their own children”, cause frankly with this level of infighting the entire thing becomes totally toxic. The loser (Rudd in the first ballot, lets see if theres a second) has a high probability of becoming another Mark Latham figure that just continually shoots their old colleagues in the back. Do you think that the Liberals care whether they run a “Rudd sucks and his own ministers confirm it” or a “Wayne Swan and Gillard sat around and watched Rome burn” campaign? I guarantee they are TiVoing every press conference that is held. They may also be increasing their medical insurance on unstoppable evil laughter related injuries.
“The last time a leadership struggle happened in a sitting ALP government was between the two greatest politicians the Westminster system has thrown up since the war”
Yeah, I suspect your biases regarding party and time period are slanting your views here.
“thrown up a great many highly talented politicians. Hawke, Keating, Whitlam and Chifley were all products of this faction system”
If you regard being able to get elected as the mark of a good politician then yeah, factions rock. Stabbing people in the back and making false promises internally really prepares you for facing the electorate. But if you think of it as producing a workable vision for the nation, then the faction system has produced 0 good PMs and 1 excellent Treasurer [1].
This is a grubby game, being played by people who are doing their level best to appear dislikeable [2]. The end result is bound to diminish the ALP for sure and Australian politics in general (and it’s not like we’re not cynical enough already).
[1] Because I don’t want to downplay the importance of the Hawke/Keating reforms, but as a PM my memory of Keating was Mabo and repeated statements to focus on Asia backed with minimal impact.
[2] Though I still hold the belief that all Australian politicians are fundamentally good people who want to help their nation and the people around them. That’s part of what irritates me when I hear Mark Latham and Anthony Albanese say that their in parliament to fight the Tories. Guys, your their to disagree and put forward a better policy vision.
February 26, 2012 at 1:22 pm
I think you’re misjudging Marr in this instance. His original article was written before the 2010 coup (in May or June, I think) and was very unpopular with Labourites – it was seen as an attack on the party. While he might be willing to walk through fire for the ALP, it’s the ALP and not individuals within it that he is supportive of, so there’s no reason to think that he would be writing an attack piece on the person most likely to lead the ALP to electoral victory[1]. I think his article isn’t consistent with allegations of bias.
I agree that the level of fighting is toxic and I think this is a sign that there’s some truth to the stories about Rudd’s leadership style. The ALP isn’t yet so stupid and low-brow that they would fling this much poo in public without a good reason – they’re risking an election loss to keep him out of the leadership, and there seems to be a fairly strong current of support for this position: yesterday the SMH had a list of the 20 most marginal seats, and 15 of them were willing to support Gillard even though at current polling they’ll lose their seats in the next election. That’s not the behavior of scared rabbits trying to protect their own ambition.
I think you’re under-rating Hawke rather magnificently in your assessment. A few things he achieved that should be considered are:
– medicare (1984)
– the accord system, delivering wage restraint and economic growth while dismantling centralized wage fixing (1983 to 1990)
– the world’s best response to HIV/AIDS, which in the Australian context threatened to become an African-style epidemic (1984 to 1989): this response is a model used throughout Asia for containing HIV/AIDS in concentrated epidemics
– reform of the education system to make it more equitable, accessible and higher quality, and to turn it into a major export industry (1986-1990)
– serious industrial reform of the sort that other countries can only dream of, including reducing tariffs and improving export competitiveness even in highly politically powerful industries like farming
and much of this done with a hostile senate! I think there are myriad other smaller things (reforming the aviation sector, expanding multiculturalism, incremental change on aboriginal health and land rights, massive improvements in arts funding, huge improvements in Australia’s hi-tech research capacity, engagement with international organizations, reform of the Australian sports sector) that could be slated home to Hawke.
If Clinton had managed to carry off just the first of Hawke’s reforms, he’d be seen as the US’s best post-war president by a country mile. The second is a miracle: a labour PM, ex-head of the ACTU, delivers wage restraint during a period of economic growth by negotiating with the unions and simultaneously manages to convince them to move to a more flexible and less centralized system of wage fixing. That’s surely the equivalent of Turnbull convincing business leaders to dissolve their boards of directors in favour of worker-run cooperatives!
I also don’t know what you’re getting at with Keating and Mabo: he wasn’t responsible for Mabo, which was a high court decision. As for minimal impact on Asia: our economy grew for, what, 15 years straight on the back of our engagement with Asia. That’s Keating’s legacy. He also saw off Hewson, which killed the notion of radical Tory electioneering for a generation, and got us the incrementalism of Howard (who achieved very little for the conservative vision he was so fond of and lost the culture wars). Obviously Liberals will disapprove of that, but from an ALP perspective (which is the perspective which defends factions, after all) this is a huge win.
The problem here is that every political party in Australia needs a mechanism for selecting a PM, since the Westminster system doesn’t allow “the people” to choose one. Even the Democrats couldn’t make a system that enabled “the people” to choose. It’s inevitable that a mechanism to do this will be grubby and unaccountable. What do the Liberals do? And is their method more publicly accountable than the ALP’s?
—
fn1: going on current polls, 18 months out from an election
February 26, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“His original article was written before the 2010 coup (in May or June, I think)”
It was published in June 2010, in the weeks leading up to Kevin Rudd getting deposed. Probably in the time period that Julia Gillard’s staff were writing acceptance speeches for her without her knowledge. So he is associated with the faction(s) that hate Rudd. That hardly makes him a prophet – it makes him a cats paw.
You’re right, I do tend to under appreciate Hawke. I tend to credit his economic achievements to Keating, which is unfair and counter-historical.
Though do you really think that a decade of growth under John Howard is Keatings greatest legacy? Both John Howard and Keating may object to Howard being called Keating’s legacy. As for seeing off Hewson? So what? A GST was still introduced later that decade (and it is a good tax). He didn’t kill radical Tory electioneering, he led to the creation of small target politics in Australia, which is a horrible impost on the national discussion.
And to say he shut down/limited Howard’s agenda is nonsense – what do you think he stopped? Mandatory white picket fences? Workchoices? One of those was never Howards policy (just his wish) and the other he didn’t stop (given it was critical in Howard’s eventual loss). The thing that stopped Howard doing anything radical was that he never had a radical agenda beyond stopping time and middle class welfare. He could practically have been a NSW Right Wing leader. Your imagination of Keating’s power is driven by unfounded fears you have of “Tory” policies. You’re just making up boogey men then talking about how evil they are. That sort of hatred of the other side is probably the most toxic thing that the ALP brings to the Australian politic scene.
The Liberals process for electing a new leader is no better in theory, but still better in practice. “Faceless men” is not a meme associated with them in minds of Australians. And if this new trend kicks off the ALP may have created a brand new internal campaigning strategy – The suicide bomber campaign. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/alps-savaging-of-kevin-rudd-is-a-suicide-attack/story-e6frezz0-1226281530822 “Elect me or I’ll make sure you lose the next election”
February 26, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Yes, Bob Hawke rocked. I think Keating is happy to claim Howard’s economic achievements as his legacy. For example, from wikiquote (in 2006):
Incidentally, whenever you run into lists of Keating’s quotes, they’re just too good to give up. Why has such colour faded from Australian politics? Consider this (in Question Time) with Hewson:
or this about Rudd, drawn from an excellent interview on the 7:30 report:
… wasn’t that your judgment of Rudd’s first year in office as well?
I think seeing off Hewson was a big deal not because of the GST (which Keating derides as “just a change in taxes”) but because of his plans to decimate social welfare – including, for example, dismantling Medicare and unemployment benefits, as well as bringing in an industrial relations policy easily as nasty as Workchoices.
I don’t think he shut down or limited Howard’s agenda; I think he stopped the liberals from considering an alternative leader who might have tried radicalism. I’ll grant you though, I could be overstating his achievements in dismissing Hewson and certainly the small target politics that Howard (and then, let’s not forget, Rudd) used are not a pleasant addition to the political landscape. So I’ll grant you that he may have poisoned the political culture through that victory. I’ll just note that a lot of Howard’s supporters (and opponents) like to claim he had a radical agenda. I don’t think he did: I think he was happy with incrementalism and obfuscation, often politically masterful (as in his handling of the Republic, which wasn’t about setting society backward, just about stalling change) and sometimes downright deceitful of his own followers (some of his statements on immigration contrasted with the way immigration numbers increased, and although he was happy to appear “tough on drugs” for the media and punters his drugs policies were actually broadly pro-harm reduction). This is why Keating characterizes Costello as a useless treasurer: because he never managed to introduce any significant reforms, and coasted along on the economy Labor built.
But maybe Keating would have got the same judgment if he’d stayed in power, coasting along on his own achievements … and maybe that’s why the ALP struggles now, because with a well-functioning economy, welfare and IR system, govt in Australia is largely about management, and it’s hard to sell a big narrative.
You say
but what do they actually do? Howard had a kind of faction around him, and part of the reason Peter Slipper has changed sides is the way he was treated by a faction of the opposition. If you want to see how dirty the Libs can be at choosing a leader, look at how they hounded John Brogden to suicide over a sexual harrassment case, so that they could install a nobody christian fundamentalist in his place, and lose an unloseable election, leaving the hyper-corrupt Carr in power for 3 more tedious years. Why? Because Brogden was a social liberal. Is this better than factional shenanigans? I think dirty backroom deals are a necessary flaw of the Westminster system, and no-one is yet to propose a superior system for backroom deals than the faction system. Incidentally, Faceless Men has a long history of use in anti-ALP politics, and to see Rudd using it really makes one question his understanding of the history of his own party.
February 27, 2012 at 6:03 am
“I could be overstating his achievements in dismissing Hewson and certainly the small target politics that Howard (and then, let’s not forget, Rudd) used are not a pleasant addition to the political landscape”
And Gillard [1], and Abbot and Beazley. No one has taken a significant reform to an election in two decades outside the GST, which was laden down with sweeteners and done in a governments first attempt at reelection [2]. Do you think any future party is going to bother showing their policies before the election?
The Australian economy now manages itself, thanks in large part to Hawke/Keating reforms of interest and exchange rates, the Howard industrial relations packages pre-Workchoices also introduces this to IR, but Rudd rolled back parts of that too and even (apparently) some of /Hawk/Keatings IR policies.
I said that the Liberals are the same in theory, but better in practice precisely because while they don’t have formal factions they do have informal ones (generally the groupings are around social liberal v. conservative and economic dry v wet). That’s why its effectively the same in theory. On the other hand they haven’t recently had a years long leaking campaign culminating in a scorched earth confrontation. The lack of formal factions also means that the Libs are a bit freer to group with different people on different issues, i.e. a social conservative work with a social liberal together on economic policy. I prefer my politics with a bit loser groupings so that there is more chance of crossing the floor and compromise – the fact that the American congress and senate can actually have parties split and work out compromises despite the vitriolic hatred of the other parties extreme is one of its few redeeming features. Image American politics if it both had the passionate hatred/disdain of the other side and ALP style inability to cross the floor?
[1] “There will be no carbon under a government I lead”, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and that is Labor party policy”.
[2] Which is why I don’t regard it as breaking a promise to never ever introduce a GST. A broken promise is when you say tax cuts are law L A W and then repeal them.
February 28, 2012 at 9:50 am
How about a carbon pricing scheme and a resource profits windfall tax? That was Gillard’s policy platform at the last election. Certainly the AGW skeptics think that carbon pricing is radical, since they think it will throw us back to the stone age, destroy industry and bring the US to its knees before China.
I’m not sure how you can say this after I show you an example of a leader being ousted by media – no challenge of any kind – and driven to suicide in the resulting media storm, then replaced with an election-losing nobody that the entire electorate hated, at a time when the sitting leader was a shoo-in to win the looming election. How is that not a scorched earth confrontation through a leaking campaign? Also of note in the comparison is that Rudd continually presents himself as outside the factions but Rudd is the only person in recent memory to have run a years long leaking campaign. It’s as if the factions were a restraint on this kind of behavior …
Convenient omission of an important word there. Are you trying to imply Gillard promised to ban carbon? What she actually promised was a carbon price in the next term (between 2010 and 2013). She ruled out a carbon tax but made clear – in campaign statements and media interviews, including a significant interview in the Australian the day before the election – that she would be legislating a price on carbon. Hmmm, how is it now that that same newspaper can accuse her of lying or going back on an election pledge? And how is it that you can repeat this tired lie? Just because Tony Abbot yells a lie repeatedly from the cover of his budgie smugglers doesn’t make it true.
February 28, 2012 at 10:10 am
“How about a carbon pricing scheme and a resource profits windfall tax”
Well, both had been announced under Rudd, then messed up. Additionally Julia Gillard [1] said that there would not be a carbon pricing scheme, there would be a a citizens assembly to discuss climate change and carbon pricing. Then she got elected, changed her mind following a deal with the greens and got labelled “Ju-liar” by her detractors.
And if you can tell me how a fixed price is different from a tax then I’ll accept their different. It’s a tax for now, moving to pricing later. Playing silly buggers with the definition of the words tax v price doesn’t change anything [3]. On a side note, I recommend not buying any carbon credits at the fixed price if you intend to hold them after pricing is introduced. Judging by Europe their value will crater.
[1] Is there a shorter form that we’re OK to agree isn’t sexist? I’m aware of claims that dislike of her is driven by sexism and I want to be really clear that 1) I don’t have a significant dislike of her as a person [2] and 2) my criticism is not driven by sexism.
[2] As opposed to Rudd who I have at various times suspected is actually a hollow man driven purely by political opportunism.
[3] Nor does the fact that Abbot has actually supported a tax before back flipping on that. Nor Howard supporting a pricing mechanism (and then changing his mind post politics).
February 28, 2012 at 5:51 pm
I always try to just refer to them all by surname. Gillard, Rudd, etc. I think it’s the standard approach and I think I usually refer to the Liberals by surname (Howard, Abbot). I think there’s definitely a strain of sexism in the public critique of Gillard (on both sides of the aisle – some of the labourites’ response to her failure to “stand by her man” is positively venomous, in a real “get lady Macbeth” kind of way) and so it’s worth putting a bit of effort to think about the way one approaches description of her work.
I don’t think this is a fair representation of the ALP’s policy at the last election. Their climate policy release, as reported in 2010, is still available online at the Business Spectator and doesn’t support such an interpretation at all:
She also makes clear that the citzens assembly won’t be the final determinant of what happens:
she said. This is also reiterated in an election-eve interview with the Australian, entitled “Julia Gillard’s carbon price promise”:
And as to debate about whether the fixed price constitutes a tax, which Gillard herself dismissed as a “silly little collateral debate,” here is the policy from the above-linked policy release:
I grant you that is a little vague, and I can’t find the details in the original speech, but it should be clear that it’s just silliness to call it a tax because the price is fixed for a short period. The full policy includes restrictions beyond the period of the fixed price (a floor and ceiling price), and it’s been repeatedly said that this is being done to offer stability to the companies that have to participate. You can’t call it a tax if it involves tradable permits, whether the price of the permits is fixed for 3 years or not. From the policy document, the Clean Energy Future Overview:
That is clearly, obviously not a tax and it is not “playing silly buggers with the definition of words” to distinguish between a price based on a system of tradable permits and a tax.
On the topic of Rudd being “actually a hollow man driven purely by political opportunism”: you always see the best in people, don’t you? Maybe you should add “vengeful and petty” in there too! Because his behavior this year has not even risen to the level of mere “political opportunism.”
February 29, 2012 at 2:32 pm
”I don’t think this is a fair representation of the ALP’s policy at the last election.”
Really? The election was called 17/7 [1], then Gillard says:
””A representative group of Australians drawn from all age groups, parts of the country and walks of life will help move us forward.”
— Ms Gillard on her plan to have 150 Australians hold a Citzen’s Assembly to move towards a consensus on emissions trading, July 29, 2010” [2]
Then after the election saying:
””The committee concluded that in view of the creation of this committee and its intended outreach work that the proposal of a citizens’ assembly should not be implemented…”
— Ms Gillard announces the end of her plan for a citizen’s assembly on climate change, October 7, 2010” [3]
Isn’t changing your mind or policies its being entirely consistent? Come on. I’m willing to say that Abbott’s “thought bubbles” (aka brain farts) are terrible and that he backflips on them. And he cops a rightful beating for only being trustworthy when making “scripted statements” but Gillard does exactly the same thing without the honesty to say she is only trustworthy when quoting policy and she is somehow more trustworthy? Nonsense. She lied. And we should hold politicians to the standard of “You said it then didn’t do it, so that’s a lie”, not a “I can find a document saying they may not do it, therefore they are exonerated.” Screw weasel word politics.
As for a “Carbon price” do you not agree that a carbon price means that the market sets the price? If the government says “The price is $X” then it’s not a price, it’s not a market mechanism. It’s a tax levied in a round about manner (in this case to more easily transition to a price). What we have is a tax that will transition to a partially market based with lots of government intervention (though I’d still accept it as a price despite that intervention).
Even in your quote she says “provided the community was ready for this step.” How did she check that without a citizens assembly? Was there a moment where she read the minds of the populace that I missed? Did I need to be wearing a tinfoil hat to ensure a proper connection between her thoughts and mine? And also ”While any carbon price would not be triggered until after the 2013 election” Again, this is just blantantly untrue. Even if you feel a need to cling to the idea that this a price, she lied about the implementation timeframe!
” Labor will also reward early action from business and industry to reduce their emissions. To do that, the government would keep emissions baselines frozen in time, regardless of when any emissions trading scheme might start, rewarding companies which restrain or cut emissions before it is implemented.”
Read it again. This doesn’t say that the price will be fixed. It says that the initial permit allocation will be fixed, so that emitters are encouraged to start cutting earlier without losing the permits they would be granted. This doesn’t say anything like what you want it to, you’re just desperate to find justifying clauses.
Nothing you’ve said offers anything more than a fig leaf of coverage. Please understand that while I was actually in favour of the carbon pricing the rubbish that you and the ALP are selling actually makes me furious. My feelings accurately reflect the emotions of the electorate – we’re broadly in favour of the idea but having Gillard piss in our pocket then claim it’s raining is infuriating. No wonder Abbott leads in the polls. If it matches your line, the entire ALP is convinced that telling the electorate they’re idiots is how you convince them to follow their policies.
Fuck it. I was probably going to vote for the ALP third last next election (above Liberals then Greens) [4]. But this sort of shit can’t be allowed to fly! The ALP must burn for its unending insults to the intelligence of the Australian populace! No! I will not look in your eyes! I will not look around the eyes! You cannot bloody hypnotise me into believing black is white regardless of how many cult member “true believers” you can get to drink the kool-aid!
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010
[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-24/julia-gillards-year-in-quotes/2769610
[3] ibid
[4] This is driven by attraction to the Liberals being founded on their economic policies. Abbott’s uncosted rejection of government policies plus other popularist policies has destroyed my faith in his ability as an economic manager. Once you get rid of that there’s not really a good reason to vote for him. [5]
[5] But burning hatred of bullshit will do it.
February 29, 2012 at 10:20 pm
She makes clear repeatedly in those statements that the citizen’s assembly (CA) is not to be an arbiter of policy or implementation timing. The ABC site you quote is itself misrepresenting the plan: it describes the CA as “her plan to have 150 Australians hold a Citzen’s Assembly to move towards a consensus on emissions trading” but h er quote itself says “to help us move forward.” This is not a firm campaign promise. Her promise of a CPRS is clearly separated from this CA plan in her own policy launch. You ask
but I would have thought the answer to this was quite clear: 11% of the electorate voted for the Greens, a record vote for a party that has a CPRS as its central platform. Not only that, but the Greens got the balance of power in both houses. Seems like an indication that the community is ready to me. It doesn’t change her core policy plan – the CPRS – at all, except that the implementation is moved forward 1 year to 2012 instead of 2013, a not unreasonable compromise given that she had to negotiate it with people who her voters didn’t elect. Had she refused to negotiate with the Greens, you’d be accusing her of lying for not implementing a CPRS. This is called “minority government – oops.” Claiming she lied about implementing a carbon tax is ridiculous under these circumstances. But funnily enough you don’t hear Tony Abbot ranting on about “Gillard lied about a Citizens Assembly!” because that wouldn’t fire up the opposition. So he chooses to lie about what she lied about, instead.
What is the price of your driver’s license? Is it fixed, or set by the market? How about the TV license in the UK? What about your passport processing fee? Is that a tax as well? What about the fixed price of a 15 minute visit to your local doctor? Sadly, he or she can’t charge you less than the Medicare fee – is that a tax as well? Your fishing and hunting license – a tax, is it, unless it’s fully tradable on the market? You don’t define something as not a price just because the price is fixed by government intervention. It’s clearly, obviously and by definition the price of a permit, it just so happens that the government is fixing the price for 3 years as they introduce the scheme and set up the system. This is pure, dishonest propaganda by Abbot, and it’s pretty rich to be complaining about hypnotising you into “believing black is white” while defending this kind of disingenuous posturing. Gillard did what she said she would do before the election, but under pressure in a minority government she dropped an irrelevant sideshow to her policy (the CA) and introduced her policy a year earlier than she said. When Tony Abbot gets down to brass tacks and starts yelling “Gillard lied about the timing of introduction of the policy she took to the election and then implemented as she said she would,” then maybe he’ll have a leg to stand on. Until then he’s just a lying foghorn in budgie smugglers.