Unskilled labour
Browsing the news today I came across this article.
Instantly I smiled as I thought it referred to his skills crisis. Finally, I thought, he is realising that as Mr. 37%, he is woefully unskilled as a future Prime Minister and more importantly- unelectable.
Sadly, there is no such story. Instead it’s a piece inviting me to listen to the Labor party’s response to the budget.
Dutifully I listened- then very quickly wandered off. In my under whelmed state I went searching for something of substance from someone of substance. My search took me to the ABC’s 7.30 report from 8 May 2006, where in a recent interview Kerry O’Brien and former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating meet. Whilst I am aware that the majority of Australians were not saddened by Paul Keating’s demise in 1996, I was. Once I had distracted myself from fantasising about a Kerry and Paul boy-sandwich, and I read the transcript, I realised why I can’t abide the feckless Beazley. Compared to lichen and lint he comes across as insipid and uninspiring. I want a Labor leader who has leadership qualities and can manage presence and passion.
I need a leader (and a party) who will not be frightened by the coalition’s campaign against them. Someone who can convince Australian voters that they can vote out the mendacious HoWARd (or Costello) government and it will be the right thing to do.
This is what Paul Keating’s advice is:
“First of all you take him [John Howard] on. John Howard had the highest interest rates in Australian history – 21 per cent bank rates in 1982. What did he leave? He gave us a huge recession and 11 per cent inflation. We had interest rates peaking at 18 per cent, but we came out of it with 1 per cent inflation. I mean, we had stagflation under Howard. We had stagnant growth and inflation.”
I know Keating is gone. But why not Julia Gillard? She’s a talented politician poised and primed for consideration of the ALP leadership.
Please, anyone, but the bomb- Beazley.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Suki mused; “Once I had distracted myself from fantasising about a Kerry and Paul boy-sandwich…”
Umm, what makes you think you’d be invited to that party? At very least, Paul would certainly be overlooking you. 😀
May 12th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Once I had distracted myself from fantasising about a Kerry and Paul boy-sandwich
Pleeeease, some of us are on lunch hour!
May 12th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
The Bomber Replies…
“Other ‘Budget Reply’ round-ups available from MrLefty, Suki and Polemica.”…
May 12th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Suki, I reckon that Beazley deserves a go – even with all his faults – next year. After that, if he does not perform well, a leadership spill is definitely on the cards.
A change in the leadership at this point would only confirm criticisms that Labor is unstable and unfit for government. I’m sure some out there would argue that they are unfit for government regardless, but I am quite sure Australia would be a nicer (or slightly nicer) place with Beazley as PM and the rodent and his friends out of there.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Guy,
Kim’s had a go. He’s had a few goes actually and he should be gone.
As you say the stakes are very high and that’s why Kim’s mediocrity and ineffectual performance have to come to an end.
A change of leadership is not as problematic as an insipid, yawn-inducing leader.
Think about your workplace. If you have an incompetent CEO and you know she is detrimental to the company and you hear rumours recruiting has short listed for a new CEO you are instantly excited. If you care enough to assess ineptitude in your CEO you care enough to make the workplace better. You are therefore more likely to respond with optimism and glee at the thought of anyone, but the incumbent.
Whilst Latham did not deliver, I cannot forget the buzz that was generated when he was made leader. There was crackle of anticipation and expectation and people were poised and at times afraid to exhale. It’s not safe, but politics shouldn’t always be safe.
Let me have some optimism and a little glee. I’ve been a loyal foot soldier for a long, long time, but I sense that something brighter and shinier beckons…and it looks nothing like Beazley.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
… just to clarify the boy-sandwich fantasy
I have a thing for big brained boys.
May 13th, 2006 at 11:03 am
“Kim’s had a go. He’s had a few goes actually and he should be gone.”
Couldn’t agree more. He simply does not deserve the job. It is a simple as that.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:35 am
“It’s not safe, but politics shouldn’t always be safe.”
Oh, I agree, but the snap and crackle of Latham in 2004 only eventuated in an increased government majority. It’s no surprise, therefore, that I think Labor are keen for some sense of stability heading into 2007. Stability is the government’s strong card at the moment, and one that Labor can’t afford to strengthen any further.
As I said above, if he does poorly in 2007, he won’t be back – there are too many wolves at the door. But if Labor ditch him now, there is every possibility he could conceivably return as leader after the 2007 election if a debacle ensues.
“He’s had a few goes actually…”
He has faced only two federal elections, and actually managed to win one of them on two-party preferred basis. It’s an interesting stat given he is so colloquially known as a perennial loser of ballots.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:20 am
The electorate has by and large disengaged with Beazley.
To the younger voter is so last year.
To the older voter he is assessed as having reached his capacity.
To middle Australia he is “press the remote.”
It seems only very loyal Laborites are left supporting him.
Our attention span is short and our capacity for change is phenomenal. As a society we are conditioned to expect change. Be it in our employment, our mortgage repayments, and our civil liberties.
The electorate will accept change far more quickly than we give them credit for. Having said that, they will be unforgiving if the new person is a dud.
May 14th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Have you considered changing your vote to a 3rd party? Like the Greens?
May 14th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Yep, that’s the way I have voted since Beazley’s non-humanitarian-response to the MV TAMPA incident.
My big, long-term dream is that voting Green will be enough. However, voting Green still leaves the two party preferred situation and all those preferences to allocate. I take so long considering the hierarchy from best to worst that electoral officials begin to wonder what I’m doing in their booth.
I’m not confident that the Labor party is sufficiently clear of the Liberal/National coalition that it can market itself as an alternative. I want HoWARd out. In fact, I never wanted him in!
I want my opposition to offer something opposite to HoWARd et al. I want to be able to preference the ALP and know that it won’t be just a taller, fatter, younger, HoWARd called Kim.
Perhaps Australia has lurched so far to the right that this is not possible, but can we at least give 2007 everything we have got?
I’m used to being a peripheral person. But am I really in such a minority that to ask a government to be humane, honest, follow international legislation, not invade another country, and be a group of people that have integrity and can represent me on the world stage, that I am a crowd of one. I think not.
Well let’s give an electable alternative to HoWARd a bloody good try by dumping Beazley and trying someone new.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd are the three that I think can do the job much better than measly Beazley.
You are right Suki, the majority of Australians have lurched to the right. They have also become very self-obsessed, which is exactly what the Liberal Party is all about – me,me,me and not we.
May 15th, 2006 at 7:32 am
And it seems Bill Shorten as suggested by Barnaby Joyce. Mind he has to work his way up first.
Tony, sadly you are right and so is most of Australia. Even those that are ‘aspirational’ lean to the right as they aspire for more than just wealth and seek acceptance.
I notice it every time I’m with a group of people and discussions relating to community responsibility, voluntary work or care for the disadvantaged just do not occur.
It’s mostly talk about self and stuff for self.
May 15th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
“Tony, sadly you are right and so is most of Australia. ”
Classic. 🙂
May 16th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
“I take so long considering the hierarchy from best to worst that electoral officials begin to wonder what I’m doing in their booth.”
You should make those deliberations before you go to the both by checking the AEC website for candidates and parties standing. Then you should make your own how to vote card and walk proud when you pass the parties faithful handing out souless bits of paper.
I think that Lindsay Tanner is the best person for the job, anyone else?
May 16th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Benno thanks, I really like your idea of my own how to vote card!
I don’t know enough about Lindsay Tanner to comment. Is this part of the Sydney/Melbourne divide?
May 17th, 2006 at 9:00 am
It’s a sad state of affairs really. As long as the ALP is controlled by the right, there can be no integrity, compassion or alternative and hence, no Julia. If Labor was somewhat more democratic, and as you say Suki offered a true alternative to the government, then I’d vote for them. At the moment, I vote Green because at least they have the balls to stand up on issues and take the PM and his business overlords on – albeit from a minority platform.
All that being said, though, I think the problem is much deeper than simply politics – and you’ve touched on that already. The problem is the flip of Australian society over the last 20 years into a hyper-greedy, self-centered, fearing mass… John Howard and his big business government came along at a very crucial time and have been killing our country’s soul ever since. Collectively, we are no longer innocent and good-natured and sadly neither is the majority of Labor.
May 17th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
No doubt ’bout it, Suki. Beazley’s had his chance and is beginning to sink in grand Crean style. Give me Gillard as leader (or Tanner or Rudd if I must) any day. Who knows — one day I may be voting for the ALP rather than against the coalition.
May 17th, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Nah no divide, Tanner is just obscure at the moment, depsite regular ABC TV gigs, about as obscure as Mark latham was before he became shadow treasurer under Simon Crean. Rudd and Gillard are the front runners having got heaps of publicity, Tanner is next in the race a long way down but ahead of Stephen Smith and Wayne Swan. Ultimately though the goal is Peter Garrett of course, don’t get me worng, Gillard is great and Rudd would win an election being from the big State with a small State mentality, but they both pale into insignificance compared to Peter Flaming Garrett. Who in turn pales into insignificance compared to PAUL KEATING. Man that guy was good, the little I remember of him, we need someone who is a heavy hitter, who can kick the shit of John Howard, Latham showed promise but Keating is so good I am wetting my pants just thinking about him now.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Oh, and if the king maker who rules the country – Rupert Murdoch – has his influence felt soon… May I suggest in all it’s glory… COSTello, the bracket creep.
May 17th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Disclosure: I enjoyed the Latham diaries so much that I wet my pants, so maybe that provides some perspective on my bladder control.
May 18th, 2006 at 7:31 am
I met Peter Garrett at a UTS seminar I went to a while ago. I waited in line afterwards to talk to him about ALP policy (such as it is dribbling out…).
Man, he has such intensity, such a focused gaze, is SO tall, is SO shiny headed and SO wide, that I found myself totally intimidated. I would rather face the Head Mistress in Form 2 than face him again. I believe I mumbled something about no to net nannying…eek, egads and all that.
Benno, if you want kick-ass presence and kick-ass intimidation, then Peter’s your guy.
May 22nd, 2006 at 9:06 pm
PRESENCE. yep. and why do I think ‘preference’ voting is ridiculous?
May 27th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Preferential is ok, but it’s not as good as Condorcet, particuarly CSSD.
May 27th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Had to look it and it up Benno. We could have a word to Antony Green– he would be able to set it up in an afternnon 🙂
June 11th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Suki, you said == “voting Green still leaves the two party preferred situation and all those preferences to allocate. I take so long considering the hierarchy from best to worst that electoral officials begin to wonder what I’m doing in their booth”.
How right you are!
The Two-Party-Preferred racket is the thing that makes our version of democracy look so ridiculous. When you add Labor votes to Liberal-National votes you are looking at something approaching a one-party state …… alright, a one-party-two-factions state then.
But since we’re stuck with it ….. Gillard for PM, Tanner for Treasurer, Rudd for DFAT, Garrett for AG, Edwards for Defence …… and Beazley as Senior Minister (Why not? Singapore’s got one so why can’t we?) then Downer as Ambassador to EU. And then ….Howard, Ruddock and a certain ex-parliamentarian to The Hague ….. no, no, not our Embassy there….that other institution in The Hague ….
June 11th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Please, please, please Graham, can’t we just pension Beazley off?
Now!
June 12th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Suki:
Yeah, alright …… Chancellor of Murdoch University? Ambassador to Canada? National President of the Returned and $ervices League (he used to be Defence Minister)? Statesman-In-Residence at A.N.U.?
June 12th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
Ok, I have to agree that Beazley does deserve something.
He is suited to a position that involves military history. I know, let’s make him Ambassador to Turkey. He could sincerely and vociferously advocate for what remains of ANZAC Cove.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Suki:
Don’t know if WarToy (aka Bomber) would like the air in Ankara but given its modestly increasing importance to Australia and to EU, why not?
June 12th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
Suki:
oops …. grammar-smash. I meant Turkey’s importance …. not Ankara’s polluted air!