 |
| The cats and the dogs. Image by Webdiary artist Martin Davies. www.daviesart.com |
“What Labor supporters need is a dose of nerve. Labor has actually got a bloody good chance of winning the next election regardless of who is leader. The polls don’t disagree – Howard doesn’t disagree. The only bunch of fools who disagree are the commentators in the left. Seems to me they need to put Prozac in the water supply.” Stephen Blackwell
***
G’Day. The possible politics of Howard’s Senate referendum idea is still working itself out in my head and I’ll write about that tomorrow, with your comments. In the meantime, here are your thoughts on the Beazley-v-Crean contest. With one exception, they’re all so depressed and depressing I’m hoping this is rock bottom for Labor. No doubt reflecting Webdiary’s readership, not one contributor backs Beazley. You must be a bunch of lefties!
I’ll kick off with something positive from Stephen Blackwell, then Webdiary columnist Polly Bush finds famous political quotes in history to help us comprehend the Australian political craziness over the last week. Contributors are Terry O’Kane on debut, Luke Webber, Clement Girault, Meg Rayn, Wallace, Simon Gerathy, Russell Sherman and John Thornton.
The numbers look solid for Crean, so I predict a desperation strike by Beazley, either a mega-mea culpa for mistakes last time round or even a juicy policy proposal to convince the left – now solidly behind Simon – that he’s given his small target an indecent burial.
FYI, I’m on Late Night Live tonight talking about the Labor leadership.
***
Raise the Titanic
by Stephen Blackwell
Why is everyone so terrified by this leadership contest? The level of doom n’ gloom emanating from the ranks of the left over this is staggering. Labor supporters seem convinced that this is a disaster. Have things really gotten so low? If so, Howard has won.
But sorry – he has far from won. Beazley – Crean: Oh come on! Have we forgotten just how much buffoonery there is in politics? Do we need to care to the point of self destruction which buffoon is in charge? As the last elections showed – democracy is very unpredictable. It is utter vanity for one person – Howard, Beazley, Crean – to claim that it is or will be “himself” who will “win” an election.
What Labor supporters need is a dose of nerve. A bit of, dare I write, the positive.
Labor has actually got a bloody good chance of winning the next election regardless of who is leader. Does that statement really sound so ridiculous? If so – why?
The polls don’t disagree – Howard doesn’t disagree. The only bunch of fools who disagree are the commentators in the left.
Seems to me they need to put Prozac in the water supply.
***
No heart, only head
by Polly Bush
Warning to John Howard. As Lord Acton put it, “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Dissatisfied with merely announcing he’ll remain on as Prime Minister until kingdom come, Howard seems on target to ensuring just that with this latest proposal.
What a week. Looking back over the last seven days, many federal politicians would be able to sympathise with Harold Wilson’s famous words: “A week is a long time in politics”. It was a week that saw the spotlight bounce from one major party’s leadership tensions to the other major party’s leadership woes. It was also a week that many saw political parallels in history.
Early last week, when Peter Costello was asked whether he would rule out challenging John Howard, the Deputy leader chose his words wisely to mirror that of Howard’s response to the question 19 years earlier. Both men spoke of their history of loyalty to the party.
It just goes to show that what goes around comes around. Foraging through some of the great quotes about power and politics, it can also be said that history repeats itself.
On the issue of loyalty, Costello could take the words of French philosopher Jean de La Bruyere to heart, who said “party loyalty brings the greatest of men down to the petty level of the masses”.
Perhaps Costello wasn’t the only main player last week to reflect on the past. Chasing Menzies in the history books, General Howard may have turned to his pin-up boy in making his decision to stay on.
Sir Bob once said, “A Prime Minister exercises his greatest public influence by creating a public impression of himself, hoping all the time that the people will be generous rather than just.”
In his private meeting with Costello to inform him of his decision, the Prime Miniature could have echoed the words of another little fella, Napoleon I. On divorcing Josephine, Napoleon was said to have said, “I still love you, but in politics there is no heart, only head.”
Jump to the party room meeting where Howard announced his decision to stay on, and the Prime Minister could have quoted assassinated US Senator Huey Long, with, “I looked around at the little fishes present and said, ‘I’m the Kingfish'”.
Costello would have found no relief in soaking in Jean Paul Sartre’s words, that “it is always easy to obey, if one dreams of being in command”. The tired looking 45-year-old Treasurer would also not appreciate Giulio “Mr Italy” Andreotti’s take, that “power wears down the man who doesn’t have it”.
With the Man of Steel looking invincible in the polls, Howard’s decision shouldn’t have been a great surprise. Still, he planted a seed of doubt a couple of years ago by saying he’d consider his future on his now pending 64th birthday.
Superman told the party room his tribute to the Beatle’s Sargent Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band song was a mere case of having “run off at the mouth”. Flying so high, the PM didn’t have to worry about former UK Chancellor Norman Lamont’s ‘politicians prayer’ of “may my words be soft and low, for I may have to eat them”.
In his already famous press conference, Costello also indicated he would be doing less swallowing of words by expanding the net of political comments when he said, “I think my colleagues will expect me to contribute on a wide range of issues, which I intend to do.”
In response to this, Howard said, “I think a deputy leader has a right to talk fairly broadly. We all have an obligation to – myself included – to talk consistent with government policy.”
This is polite speak for the words of Margaret Thatcher, who once said “I don’t mind how much my Ministers talk – as long as they do what I say.”
Howard also said he sympathised with Costello’s disappointment, remarking, “At no stage did I have any desire to visit any kind of humiliation or inflict any kind of pain on Peter.”
Advice for Costello can be sought from writer Thomas Love Peacock, who said, “A sympathiser would seem to imply a certain degree of benevolent feeling. Nothing of the kind. It signifies a ready-made accomplice in any species of political villainy.”
On the issue of political villainy, look no further than the Federal Labor Party. It demonstrates former MP and now London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s take, that “being an MP is not really a job for grown-ups – you are wandering around looking for and making trouble”.
Federal Opposition Leader (for now) Simon Crean would appreciate former Thatcher minister Alan Clark’s words, which state, “There are no true friends in politics. We are all sharks circling and waiting for traces of blood to appear in the water.”
There seems to be an abundance of sharks circling the choppy waters of the ALP at the moment. But choppy waters subside, and the sharks and the little fishes and the roosters should be aware of this. As Harold Wilson said, “Hence the practised performances of latter day politicians in the game of musical daggers: never be left holding the dagger when the music stops.”
While Crean and Beazley both scramble to feed the sharks for next week’s showdown, they should both heed Lyndon Baines Johnson’s vocational expertise with his comment, “If you’re in politics and you can’t tell when you walk into a room who’s for you and who’s against you, then you’re in the wrong line of work.”
Crean could also take note from Les Murray, when working out how best to tackle the slightly leaner and definitely more meaner Beazley. As Murray put it, “Never wholly trust the fat man who lurks in the lean achiever and the defeated, yearning to get out.”
In announcing his challenge for the leadership, Beazley tried to pitch himself as the clearer communicator, which is funny considering as leader, he was often criticised for deflecting issues onto himself due to his choice of language.
The man that brought ‘boondoggle’ into the Australian vernacular had the country again checking their dictionaries when he said last week, “Simplicity is one of those things I need to carry around with me as a talisman”.
In response, Simpler Simon could find inspiration from two old feuding British PMs in Benjamin Disraeli’s depiction of William Gladstone, and describe the two-time loser as a “sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity”. Whatever.
Or alternatively Crean could take on Paul Keating’s words, swapping twice for thrice when he said of Andrew Peacock, “does a souffle rise twice?”
For many people, the choice between a Beazley led Opposition is much of a muchness to that of a Crean led Opposition. In the words of J.K. Galbraith, it demonstrates that “politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.”
On Simon versus Kim, Peter Costello said he wouldn’t comment on “who’s better, or should I say, who’s least worst”. For the not so heir apparent, the problem for the Federal Labor Party is “they don’t know what they stand for”.
Costello could have continued down this path with some brilliance from Spike Milligan, when he queried, “One day the don’t-knows will get in, and then where will we be?”
As the battle of the don’t-knows nears, one thing is certain. From the words of actor Will Rogers, “The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other.”
***
Terry O’Kane
I am a latecomer to Webdiary and have just read yesterday’s Same old Beazley not worth another try, and your April piece backing him, Time for Labor’s Fightback!
I am a former ALP voter from a working class background, however I cannot in all conscience vote for the ALP at present because of my disgust at the pragmatism and lack of principle shown by the ALP leadership.
I would caution those in the ALP caucus pushing Beazley to consider not the perceived popularity of Beazley over Howard but exactly what distinguishes a man like Beazley, whose political beliefs as demonstrated by his pathetic efforts on education (in particular the funding of private schools), Medicare, and most deplorably the asylum seeker issue, show a singular lack of courage and a startling lack of belief in the supposed core principles of the Labor party.
Simon Crean must take a large portion of the blame as well, however I take great heart from his budget reply. Perhaps I am grasping at straws, but his distancing of the ALP front bench from the grip of the NSW right also showed some “ticker”. I for one cannot decide why the NSW ALP does not come clean and join the Liberals; it would be a merging of the small government “true believers” which could only delight the big end of town.
The left is under attack from many directions. The lack of true diversity of opinion in the mainstream media combined with the curious fascination that journalists have with the minutiae of the machinations in Canberra robs the people of real discussion of issues of importance.
The divestment of public institutions and the transfer of their assets and revenue earning capacity to the private sector have been pushed by both the Liberals and ALP. It is time that the ALP starts to recruit people with some diversity of background and not simply court law school graduates with ambition and flexible political beliefs.
Until the ALP starts to show a preparedness to lose an election on issues of principle I and many of my like will be voting Green.
My father is a former shearer and union organiser with a strong commitment to the ALP. He and many like him are heartbroken and infuriated by the actions of Labor under Beazley. I note that both leadership aspirants have fathers who were ministers in the Whitlam government. Surely the ideological divide between the Whitlam years and the current ALP is cause for concern to both these men.
For the future of the ALP I hope that Crean’s budget reply came from the heart and that Beazley fades into obscurity. As for me I’m voting Green till I see some commitment to social justice, compassion for the refugees and a willingness to fight Howard.
***
Luke Webber
I’m pleased to see that I’m not the only one frustrated with Beazley’s blank lack of understanding. I was stunned and dismayed when he commenced his challenge by claiming that he’d “won the campaigning” in 2001. If he intends to campaign in the same way for the next election, he can bloody well bugger off back to Bunbury as far as I’m concerned.
If Beazley could show us a Labor leader prepared to lead, and to espouse unpopular policy because it’s *right* he might win my vote, but a small-target Beazley prepared to sacrifice long-held Labor principles just to avoid alienating the bigots and rednecks isn’t going to impress anybody.
C’mon Beaze. Show us some ticker, or go home!
***
Clement Girault in Marrickville, Sydney
We’ve got a morally corrupt Labor Party and two highly unpopular characters fighting for its leadership. Would it be conceivable for Senator Bob Brown to challenge both Crean and Beazley? A fantasy, no doubt, but perhaps Labor, the Greens and even the Democrats could agree to a marriage of convenience?
A similar alliance of Ecologists, Socialists and Communists swept into power a few years ago in France. Granted, these parties divorced a couple of years later and were then swept out at the following elections (the right-wing Gaullist coalition played the immigration / insecurity card and won – sound familiar?). Before the divorce however, France was led by a Socialist prime minister and featured a government with, notably, a Communist transport minister and an Ecologist ecology minister. Would such arrangement be feasible here in Australia? Or am I just dreaming?
Margo: Yes.
***
Meg Rayn (nom de plume)
As a permanent resident in Australia I am expected to pay taxes and to otherwise behave myself according to the usual laws of the land, but I am unable to vote. This is probably a blessing in disguise.
I remember being astounded when I first came over here in the 80s that should I become a citizen, my ‘right’ to vote would then become the property of the Australian government and failing to exercise that ‘right’ would subject me to a fine. It’s a strange and personally abhorrent concept to have a mandatory vote as part of the democratic process. Luckily however, it would seem that I am not really missing out on anything significant, the days of any pretence at a civilised and democratic government seeming well and truly over.
I left Britain when it became obvious that the Tory government was continuing, after something like 11 years, to wreak absolute havoc on the country’s welfare and that if I were to continue to live in that country I would be expected to pay further for the privilege via the infamous “poll-tax”.
It seemed to me at the time that the country’s citizenry were perfectly prepared to roll over and play good dog to their Tory masters. Should the dogs get out of hand and decide to go and find a new owner the Tory masters could always redefine their territorial boundaries, as Mrs Thatcher demonstrated on more than one occasion. The dog would get to know, usually once it was too late to do anything about it, that in spite of changing addresses it was still controlled by the same old owner.
It seems to me that the equivalent Australian dog has no owner at all. Certainly no owner who will consistently admit to being responsible either for or to the dogs.
The present owner rules in the old steel (sic) hand in the velvet glove manner. Should the dogs protest they are told to get back into line and that they are being “un Australian”, whatever that means. They are required to be ‘dogs of war’ but are unable to protest freely against it. They are also lied to consistently but are still expected to play the good dog role at the end of the day.
And as for seeking another owner, one who will treat them better? Well, having found one brave soul prepared to stand up for them the dogs suddenly find themselves with ringside seats to a show guaranteed to damage the one brave soul even if he manages to stay in the ring.
And why? Has this other contender suddenly thrust himself back into the ring because he regrets having not looked after the dogs properly on previous occasions and wants to make amends? Nah. He wants the ownership. The limelight. And failing that he wants to make someone pay.
He offers nothing. He shows not the slightest interest in any of the dogs. He fails to articulate a single word which might lead to any dog believing that he has anything on his mind apart from pulling down the one owner showing an interest. He indulges in pack behaviour unworthy of any decent dog. He has, to use the Australian term, become a mongrel.
Simon Crean deserves to be given, again to use the Australian idiom, “a fair go”. The only energy Beazley has shown over the past six years is this sudden ability to indulge himself in the most destructive and divisive way conceivable. To dress this up in terms of this being the only possibility of resurrecting the Labor party is dishonest and insulting and assumes a lack of intelligence and a complete loss of memory on the part of the Australian electorate. (Also the non electorate!)
Every dog should have his day, however this particular dog has had several and peed on them all. He should not be given a third chance and shame on any caucus member who participates in allowing him to do so.
I read Web Diary regularly and I appreciate your dedication to the right of free speech. I particularly enjoyed Tony Kevin yesterday.
***
Col Wallace
Sooner or later, the grotty instincts of self-preservation will kick in, and the Australian Labor Party will re-emerge as a viable electoral force.
But what a sorry bunch are we who hope Monday’s ballot will be that watershed moment in recent ALP history, when leadership is reconciled with policy direction and those of us still awake to Australian politics might once again rest easy knowing the ALP is still the party of fairness and equity. Or whatever useless piece of party jingoism Simon or Kim attach to the hearse this time around.
It will take another loss before Labor fathoms the resentment felt towards Beazley for his five year crusade into waste, ruin and the slimy fingers of Howard, and the blood-thirsty goons who nailed him on an alien scare.
It will take annihilation under Crean before the ALP gets an inkling of the public’s distaste for the factionalism which produces such an obviously unsuitable candidate as he. Or dumps Barry Jones as party president for Greg Sword.
You get the feeling the ALP has gained a vigour for defeat. They are thick. Watching the ALP is, to paraphrase Lou Reed, like a dirty French novel: Combines the absurd with the vulgar.
They choose to hold a leadership challenge in the weeks when Howard and the Liberals are more vulnerable than in any time since 2001. The case for war against Iraq is collapsing amid scandalous headlines in the UK and the USA. Philip Ruddock is awarding visas in return for political donations. The PM has humiliated his deputy and his deputy is already working against him. He picked a protector of pedophiles as Governor General, and insisted for months there was nothing wrong with that.
It shouldn’t be so hard for Labor.
John Howard represents the dark side of the Australian character. You see Howard’s Australia in the cheap, racist jokes of cheap television contestants. It’s John Howard who represents the ugly, Anglo, born-to-rule mentality heard in every abusive rant by Lleyton Hewitt, and every racist or homophobic sledge by an Australian cricketer.
John Howard’s Australia is suspicious of Asians, Arabs, ragheads, and especially those Indonesians and the Malaysians, who could invade at any minute.
That lingering hatred in all those stifling suburbs. The sense of pervasive waste amid the fibro shacks and the asbestos. That someone else is to blame for the inequality in Australian life, be it the menacing fiction of Lebanese gangs, or the Aborigines making land claims. And what of those Golden Handshakes? How can I get one?
Lincoln said: God must have loved the common people – he made so many of them.
The country is twitching with the most grotesque displays of privilege and wealth, and yet Canberra can never cough up much more than mucus for the commoner. That’s John Howard.
Above all, it is John Howard who is the most disgusting and morbid example of the relentless political animal, working day and night to wipe out anyone in the political system concerned with fairness, accountability and compassion.
Labor what are you doing?
***
Simon Gerathy in Aotearoa, New Zealand
Surely this is about what kind of Australia we want. Yet Labor has for years now not enunciated that vision.
Governments lose elections, only as long as there is a viable alternative. Labor hasn’t provided it. Beazley is part of that legacy. The public has recognised this fact twice already. He has never demonstrated the characteristics of all true leaders – vision and guts. Howard must be gleeful at the thought of a visionless, gutless wonder coming back to ‘lead’ Labor.
If the caucus votes Beazley, they will go down in history as supporters of a proven loser. Crean is the only realistic hope of Labour winning the next election.
For Crean to win he must do the hard yards and get party policies back to core Labour principles, then paint the picture of the alternative vision for the country. He needs to demonstrate intestinal fortitude, and have the courage of his convictions to believe in the Australian people – most of whom think there is a more humane way, a better way. Labour needs to show what it means to be an Australian. At present only the Greens have any kind of alternative vision but it is too radical for most, so far.
***
Russell Sherman
I was inspired by your Webdiary yesterday, however you forgot to add to the equation the power of the commercial media, something which has seen the Labor Party compromise its values to get a fair go in the media. In short, if you have a leftist-type policy, the media is all over you like a rash or you don’t get heard.
That’s why it’s a joke that Alston is requiring the ABC to prove it is unbiased – compared to what I wonder? The bias in favour of the Liberals at Channel 9 and 7 etc is so obvious it’s scary; and they get away with it night after night.
The media and its backers have the real power in our society (and world) and Labor knows it and is being felled at the knees by it. As a result, it’s a difficult juggling act between holding onto your values and playing the media game. Hence, the friction between Left and Right in the Labor Party.
I believe not enough people in Australia try to educate themselves about politics, and most are reliant on the commercial media for their political knowledge. As for why people aren’t advocating Labor in the pub, I think it’s because they don’t want to be seen as going against the dominant ideology of the day or week – it’s a lonely position to go against the shock-jocks and other commercial media. People want to be winners or associated with them, it’s human nature.
If there was a free and unbiased media, if the commercial media was scrutinised like the ABC, then we may see some positive changes for this country. This is where our political leaders’ focus should be, for the health of our democracy, which under the current circumstances is a farce.
***
John Thornton
There was a time I thought Kim Beazley would make a fine PM. That view disappeared with him at the last election. The small target, the lack of ticker in not opposing the attacks on asylum seekers, medicare, education and health funding.
The problem is the ‘ticker’ is still a problem. He didn’t even have the guts to come out and publicly declare he wanted the leadership back. His supporters had to do the dirty work for him.
I’ve never felt that Crean has been given a fair go either by the media or members of the ALP since he was elected to the leadership. And let’s not forget, he was elected unopposed. If these people felt he didn’t have the goods, why didn’t they propose an alternative after the last election instead of white-anting him from day one.
The biggest criticism of Crean is that he’s not connecting with voters. Apart from Gough Whitlam, I cannot recall one opposition leader, Labor or Liberal, in the last 30 odd years who did connect with the voters. We are constantly reminded by media and politicians that governments get voted out not oppositions elected.
At the moment, the two party preferred voting intentions show 51% to 49% Liberal over Labor. Not a bad effort for someone who allegedly is not connecting with voters. For an opposition to win, however, the voters have to believe there is a viable alternative government. For voters to believe there is a viable alternative government they have to see good policy. Simon Crean’s budget reply was excellent. It outlined a series of policies that differentiated Labor from Liberal. And in spite of what Costello would have us believe, it outlined costings that would still leave the budget in surplus.
Voters also have to see a united party and that is obviously Labor’s biggest challenge at the moment. I find it interesting that among the backers of Beazley are a number of people who have aspirations for the leadership themselves.
Finally, what does Labor stand for? I agree Margo, that the party needs to revisit its past to rediscover what it stands for and how it can translate that into a vision for the future.
Re-establishing Medicare is a good start. The public have already twigged that John Howard is not telling the truth about Medicare.
You made an interesting point that whether people liked Howard or not, they’ve always known what he stands for. And everyone knows that he would like nothing more than to be rid of Medicare. The voting public are not stupid either, and it is interesting to note that even though Crean’s polls didn’t improve much, the gap between the Government and Opposition did and it happened AFTER Howard’s Medicare announcement and Crean’s Budget reply.