Labor: still bearing the scars of the Howard years, needs defeat
|
This is not much short of a total disaster for Federal Labor, which less than a year ago was contemplating a 100-seat representation in the House of Representatives. Rarely has a party so comprehensively and swiftly obliterated a huge electoral advantage. The switch to Julia Gillard has failed to secure victory, and there’s a real chance Labor will, as Daryl Melham predicted to Bob Hawke months ago, have burnt through two leaders in a short space of time. There is much blame to go around, and go around it will. The powerbrokers who replaced Rudd with Gillard must now face the consequences of their actions; the best that Mark Arbib, Karl Bitar, Bill Shorten, Don Farrell and David Feeney – and extra-parliamentary figures like Paul Howes – can say is that they didn’t lose outright, which they believed they were sure to under Kevin Rudd. But the thoroughly inept conduct of the Labor campaign suggests that if Rudd was the problem, he wasn’t the whole story, not by a long stretch. Labor kicked off the campaign with a 10-point lead, according to some polls. Gillard’s own performance, noticeably lacking in the “cut-through” which has hitherto been the most significant characteristic of her political persona, must bear some responsibility. The perception — partly fed by her confected “real Julia” break-out, and partly by her own demeanour — is that she allowed her campaign managers to impose on her a formulaic presidential campaign style that cut her off from voters. If true, this played directly against Gillard’s strength, which is direct engagement with voters and a feisty political persona that had proven extraordinarily popular with voters until her elevation. And Kevin Rudd, who spurned the opportunity to inflict a double dissolution election on the Coalition on climate change in favour of, ultimately, refusing to face the great moral challenge of our time, must carry the can for a disastrous inability to work out how to respond to Tony Abbott’s relentless negativity. But this loss – and it can surely be described in no other way – is also a last victory from beyond the political grave for John Howard. Howard so damaged Labor during his years in power, inflicted such psychological damage on Labor, that they have given the impression for most of the last three years of having a sort of collegial Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, characterized by nervousness, a tendency to jump at their own shadow, and second-guess how their opponents could outsmart them. Labor never outgrew the mindset of opposition, never realized what was needed to lead the nation, because it remained – and remains – deeply scarred by its experience during the Howard years. Labor is a timid, lackluster version of the party of old, and even if it had been returned to power – as it might yet be by the Independents – it appears too timid to be able to exercise genuine leadership, preoccupied as it is with how its opponents might exploit it. The best long-term result for Labor would be defeat. If it clings to power, the purge of apparatchiks and inept political operators that is necessary for a competent, purposeful political entity to re-emerge will not take place. The same outfit that lost this election will go to the next, and there is no reason that voters will like it any more than they did yesterday. It’s not certain that defeat will result in such a purge either — the main perpetrators are safe in their Senate eyrie. But it will drive home to the Labor Caucus just how badly they have been led. |
|
|
|
16 Comments
Not really. Rudd was medically sick but because it was a gall bladder digestion problem which can be notoriously cryptic he didn’t manage it properly, suffered mood swings, anger management issues.
He had to be replaced in the big job for his own health. Perhaps he has got the cure now. I politely asked David Marr was he surprised about the gall bladder thing last Friday night at a book launch and he was. Said his old mum had the old fashioned operation - far more invasive, so he knows a bit about the topic.
If so given Rudd’s experience and smarts that’s all to the good. Hemay be an asset again one day. Gillard remains as smart as ever even if her election night speech giggles at the start had a touch of the Russel Rees’s about it (fronting 4 Corners in awe of the power of the Black Saturday fire, when a funereal tone was far far more appropriate).
Actually it is that giggle that may yet come back to haunt her as near worst political judgments she has made, where her instincts are usually so good with the oratory. In truth it was a time for strength and and earnest concern at the damage not a look at me moment.
Oh on the gallbladder thing - it can be fatal if it ruptures, hence the snip.
Sure, clear out the ALP apparatchiks, but you need someone to replace them. Someone has to do the work.
That seems a big challenge for the party now, to find people for whom politics isn’t their only life but who are able and willing to dedicate their life to politics.
I feel sorry for the ‘faceless men’. They are putting in without the glory, only the blame. I disagree with their values, but acknowledge their passion. The left could do with some more of that.
The problem we have is that the public and the media demand big policies, dramatic action, otherwise government is “timid” and “doesn’t stand for anything”.
But if things are generally going ok, and they mostly are at the moment (apart from climate change), where do the big policies and dramatic action come from?
What exactly are/were Labor supposed to have been championing? I have yet to hear anyone say. The Greens/Left always say Labor should be championing workers’ rights and the environment, but the environment is obviously the Greens platform, and most people seem reasonably comfortable with the current state of play of workers’ rights vs workplace flexibility.
There are lots of little things - micro economic policies, modest social reforms etc - and the government has been doing exactly these things, but they’re not big enough for the commentators, and hence not big enough for the punters.
The only thing that will reengage/reinvigorate politics will be when things go so far off the rails that the need for dramatic action is obvious. ie politics in this country now requires a serious crisis or threat in order to mobilize political action. It doesn’t seem possible to have steady-as-she-goes political management of the small stuff, even though that is exactly what we want when there isn’t a disaster looming.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
BK you are on to something here.
There are a number of major psychological issues involved in the whole mess for labour a mess which defies understanding till one superimposes a potent theory like the one your genius diagnoses - the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - “last three years of having a sort of collegial Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, characterized by nervousness, a tendency to jump at their own shadow, and second-guess how their opponents could outsmart them.”
I was detecting another psychological phenomenon also (or likely more than one), one which would have been a little toxic when sitting alongside yours and one that is very humanly common and commonly engaged in with deep denial before during and after especially by powerbrokers and apparatchiks bought on when that somebody dares to be far too popular, especially innocently and when they can’t take all the credit for it.
Hidden and extraordinary toxicity is so underestimated so often. Smart people can’t conceive the presence of extreme toxicity when it’s clear that its presence would actually harm the perpetrators also. Psychology tells us that idea has no protective or defensive power.
Why do we have to go to opposition to work out our issues, yet the rabble that is the Liberal party gets to slide back into government without a postive policy?
The issues within the ALP are nothing that can’t be solved with strong leadership from the top of the parliamentary party. The hung parliament will have sent the necessary signals - the lessons will be learned.
I agree with Jackol that “steady as she goes ” is what is needed — NOT great visions to raise expectations. It may be boring for the media but they are not running the country — or are they?
And Keane has ignored the hidden anti-female attitude of so many men in all levels of society which is why we have to get more women into top positions in business as well as Government.
Victoria did very well and Gillard was certainly the factor in saving so many seats and gaining others. Tasmanian swing to labor appears to show that Tasmanians have got over the Greens.
SA and WA didnt move much — only NSW and even that was only a natural swing back after 2007. Queensland was and has always been the problem for Labor.
This is the sort of shallow crap served up by political commentators throughout the election. I’m starting to think I might have made a mistake subscribing.
The combination of a heavily biased MSM, including the ABC, and the hemorrhaging of Labor’s primary vote to the greens and in response to campaigning by groups such as GetUp, has almost delivered Government to the most thuggish, reactionary politician this country has produced in recent decades. He will return to the Pacific solution, he will scrap the NBN, he will revisit unfair work practices, he will implement a harsh regime to make those on welfare suffer.
Queensland has reverted to type, attracted to Abbott’s Hansonite agenda. Parts of Western Sydney have been equally in thrall to the hate messages.
The debt and deficit fear drum has also been beaten relentlessly, with the acquiescence of a lemming like media train that has played a huge role in determining the outcome of the election.
GetUp preached a soft left line relentlessly, playing into the hands of the far right. The naivety of their strategy is there for all to see. Yes, the soft left vote swung to the greens, but how does this help the cause of progressive politics when you enable a reactionary fear monger like Abbott to crow about his electoral success?
By direct intent or by default, a large number of Australians have opted for a return to fear and division. They say you get the politicians you deserve. What does that tell us about the maturity of our emerging national consciousness. We are on the verge of becoming the soft rump of the reactionary ‘tea party’ set that is turning politics in the US very ugly. It will not be much prettier here if Abbott takes the reins. His misogynistic pseudo religiosity and manic physical self-flagellation makes my skin crawl.
The psychological disorder lies in thinking its ok for a major political party to have as the centerpiece of its electoral pitch the punishment of a few miserable refugees. It beggars belief that in the 21st century our body politic can be so trivialized. Can I suggest a few ‘journalists’ might benefit from a stint in the wilderness to re-discover their bearings!
The apparatchiks will take a well deserved flogging now. They either got it wrong or their solution didn’t work. Doesn’t really matter. What matters now is that there is an end to poll driven leadership and policy development.
This can be done if the membership of the party assert their authority, and do the necessary work, in the policy making forums and ensure that Labor has policies that they can take to the people that deal with the issues of concern to the people.
Then all that has to be done is to ensure that the politicians have the courage and strategic capacity to put policies into place.
Indeed, to misquote Mel Brooks - apparently for 3 in 5 of us - “Labor stinks” - and more seem quite happy to vote informal rather than validate a system that has no relevence to them, because none of the parties presently “represent” what they believe in.
Three years ago “Labor” did - winning an election hamsomly on that strength - but not now.
Look at the the Greens - up until yesterday, “one in 10(?)” of us have voted for them for years, and how many seats, in our system of government, did they hold, representing “us”? Aside from Tasmania - and their system of government is far more representative (if not “sustainable”?) of voters wishes, but “the powers that be” in their finite wisdom and self-interest have deemed “that” to be too hard to administer.
@Kraken
Really ecxcellent summary.
I too am in disbelief at the looming prospect of Mr Tony being my PM. Cultural cringe, here we come.
There sure are some bitter ironies floating around all this: the Greens have indeed helped to put a political clone of Howard just one hanging seat from government, but if Rudd hadn’t tried to totally shut them out over the ETS then none of this needed to happen. Even as late as Abbott’s rise to party leader, Rudd could still have gone to the Greens, ironed out a position and taken us to a double dissolution with his government and his prinicples intact. I’d like to think he could have walked it in…but maybe that’s wishful thinking.
So now, through Rudd’s intransigence he’s boosted the Greens, the Greens have nearly annointed Abbott, and the thinking public are left going “WTF”?
But Bernard’s dead right about what this election means: Australia moved to the left, except the biggest irony is that may well mean we end up with a dilapidated old conservative party and an energiser bunny in a hair shirt for its leader running the country.
God, no!
Any political journalist worthy of the profession should, instead of hand wringing about the result, be doing some due diligence on all the candidates - their pecuniary interests, share holdings, criminal records, health, relationship “issues” etc - you know, what they should have done DURING the election instead of rehashing the “What about Rudd” story, which only displayed their pathetic ignorance of constitutional law and Realpolitik. One or two scandals, as is usual in the first year of a new government, could upset the numbers even after a minority government is formed, and imagine the possibilities if bye elections had to be held in key marginal seats.
Kraken
I don’t agree with your dissing of Bernard criticism of the Labor apparatchics, but your analysis of Abbott is brilliant.
There seems to be a tendency for many to focus their criticisms on labor for selling out, while ignoring the disturbing mediocrity and ethical bankruptcy of the Coalition. The most profound part of Howard’s legacy was to make the craven exploitation of the weak and vulnerable politcally acceptable.
This doesnt even rate a mention in the MSM anymore - its just taken as a given. In fact if you watched the increasingly stomach turning ‘insiders’ program on ABC yesterday you would be forgiven for thinking Abbott was a poltiical visionary and genius. Apparently good politics now is all about running a ‘disciplined’ campaign’ and staying ‘on message’.
Yes, Australia’s moved to the left, but the public, courtesy of the MSM, thinks its moved to the right…..
Collette Snowden, you have stated it crisply. Please could the media ,save for a few exceptions, wake up to themselves and take a long look in the mirror, then go back to their textbooks and make a fresh start.
Note the puerile questions being put on the street this morning( Monday) who do you blame? etc, etc